[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27484-28121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X02-120503]
MTC-00024449
From: Keith B. Bassett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case
Hello,
I am writing to address the possible settlement of the US vs
Microsoft case. Simply put, the current remedy worries me. If we
subscribe to a strictly behavioral punishment for a company which
has been proven a monopoly, then how can we design it so that the
changing face of technology doesn't allow Microsoft to sidestep it?
Because of the volatile nature of the field of technology, and
because of Microsoft's proven habit of undermining or purchasing
competitors, how can any behavioral punishment forsee the direction
that the company will move? Microsoft has shown great ingenuity in
getting around this sort of punishment in the past, and the current
remedy doesn't appear to be properly drawn to prevent Microsoft from
doing so again.
I still subscribe to the idea that a structural remedy would be
the best course of action. A dissolution of the company into parts
that could compete with each other would seem to produce the
greatest economic good for the largest number of consumers and
companies. Microsoft would produce better products without the
stranglehold on the oem market that they currently hold. Oems would
have the option of going with several varieties or flavors of the
current Microsoft offerings, which would cause serious competition
and improvement in the OS offerings. Bugs would be fixed quickly,
and the basic solidity of the OS offerings would increase at a
similar rate, as the companies struggled for position. File formats
might still be a weapon against competitors, but without one clear
leader, the level of interoperability would be a serious selling
point. Currently the Office offerings import all documents
perfectly, but cannot export to other formats without major
problems, even ostensibly ``open'' formats. However, it
appears that the structural remedies have been discarded in favor of
action which will be perceived as less drastic. Perhaps some
appropriate remedies include the dissolution of the current OEM
preload aggrements, with a prohibition of future ones. The Microsoft
office suite data file formats could be placed into the public
domain, with future format changes coming under review from an
independent open standards body. The .NET formats, interconnects and
standards could be placed under the overview of an independent open
standards body, as could the Microsoft networking protocols.
A drastic, but effective solution would be the seizure and
relicensing of the core source code for the range of Microsoft's
OSes. If they were relicensed under an open source license they
would remain available regardless of the changes made to them. This,
while extreme, would allow for the use of the code by the entire
marketplace and increase competition in other areas, forcing
Microsoft to compete elsewhere. These solutions may seem extreme,
but they depend upon the fact that Microsoft has a proven monopoly
which was obtained by illegal means. If they did not have a monopoly
or if it was retained legally these rules would not apply.
If an effective long term remedy is not obtained, then Microsoft
will have been given implicit permission to continue their current
and former business practices. In fact it will be an endorsement of
them and will endanger what little remaining commercial competition
they have. I don't know what this will mean for other big companies
in the information business, but it certainly gives them a
frightening level of control of the American public's access to
those companies and to information in general.
Thanks for your time, I know that this was a simple and general
letter, but I wanted to let you know what the general public was
feeling.
Keith B. Bassett
MTC-00024450
From: James M. Moe
To: Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/25/02 12:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not agree.
Microsoft is a monopoly as found in the original judgment. While
not a bad thing in itself, Microsoft has persistently abused its
position to the detriment of the computer and software industries.
Further it is contemptuous of the prevailing laws and openly
continues its abusive practices.
MTC-00024451
From: Dankovits, Kris
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 12:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I disagree with the Microsoft settlement. It is a foolish move,
designed to help only Microsoft.
Kris Dankovits
MTC-00024452
From: Ryan Lucier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think Microsoft develops O.K products, but getting rid of
competition is not a good practice.
MTC-00024453
From: Don Ramier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam:
I would like to have my comment entered into the Federal
Register as required by the provisions of the Tunney Act (Antitrust
Procedures and Penalties Act) with respect to the proposed
``settlement'' of the Microsoft Corporation anti-trust
case.
Since Microsoft has shown absolutely no remorse or change in
business attitudes following the 1995 anti-trust decision rendered
against it, and has been found to be in contempt of court regarding
subsequent violations, business activities, business strategies, and
programs, I hope and pray that the Federal Government will deny the
validity of this settlement on many grounds, including and not
limited to the one mentioned above.
This provisions of this settlement are unenforceable. The
penalties cannot be enforced, monitored, or even imposed upon the
Microsoft Corporation.
I never wanted to have a browser supplied by Microsoft
Corporation with their operating system forcibly imposed on my
property, my Personal Computer, called Internet Explorer. I use
Netscape, a competitor of Microsoft's. My computer fails to operate
properly due to malicious engineering by the operating system
(Windows) when I respond that I don't want to use Internet Explorer
as my default browser. How can I be sure that the I.E. code is to
blame? How can the provisions of this settlement be enforced?
Computer programming can be ``transparent to the user''
and can cause lingering damage, and even crippling effects on the
property of people like myself, if I don't answer the questions the
way the code interprets I should. How can situations like this be
monitored by the U.S. Government, or by anybody else, for that
matter? This is just one of many examples I could use to describe
the performance (or lack thereof) of my property, my Personal
Computer, when maimed by any number of versions of the Windows
operating system. I am a technical writer by trade, and it is my job
to document highly technical programming code of sophisticated
software applications. Over the last twenty years, I have been
employed by the International Business Machines Corporation (IBM),
the Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) and three smaller software
development corporations. I have been very well trained to know what
the code is supposed to do, and what the code is NOT supposed to do
(the actions and mistaken actions of programming code).
In these twenty years of computer related technical writing
experience, I have seen the emergence of the operating system named
DOS (short for Disk Operating System) that Microsoft created for
delivery on the IBM PC, the evolution of DOS to Windows, and, over
time, the gradual, yet perceivable, encroachment of the Windows
operating environment on my ability to perform my specified tasks
within the framework needed. Jumps from versions of operating
systems affected the performance of other applications that should
not have been affected and this caused much delay in the delivering
of my services to my employers in a timely manner.
How can the U.S. Government hope to understand, much less
enforce, the terms of this proposed settlement on the intricacies of
the Windows operating environment and the thousands upon thousands
of lines of code? It is inconceivable to me that the U.S.
Government, in all it's might and glory, cannot see that this
settlement is just a cop out and is not justice, but an appeasement
to the monolithic Microsoft Corporation.
For these and other reasons, I hereby voice my concern over the
terms of the proposed settlement and ask that remedial steps be
taken to truly and justly dismantle the monopolistic Microsoft
Corporation by force of law.
Sincerely,
Don A. Ramier, III
Documentation Specialist
Geobot, Inc.
Memphis, Tennessee
[[Page 27485]]
MTC-00024454
From: Jonathan Kamens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I have been developing computer software for Windows, Linux and
other operating systems for over fifteen years.
I have reviewed the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) in United
States v. Microsoft. In my opinion, the remedies outlined in that
judgment are inconsistent with the Finding of Facts in the case and
will not achieve the required goals of eliminating Microsoft's
anticompetitive conduct and making it possible for other software
vendors to compete with Microsoft on an even playing field in the
future.
To mention just one of the many problems with the PFJ, it
stipulates that Microsoft must document Windows API's so that
competitors can write software which uses those API's to
interoperate with Windows, but (a) the definition of what
constitutes ``API's'' and therefore must be documented is
just plain wrong, (b) there are no requirements on when API's must
be documented, and hence Microsoft may be so slow in documenting
them as to make it impossible for other software vendors to take
advantage of the documentation in time to compete effectively.
Furthermore, the terms of the PFJ and of Microsoft's own end-user
license agreements would seem to imply that Microsoft can continue
to prohibit other software vendors from implementing and/or using
emulations of Windows API's on non-Windows operating systems. For
example, even under the PFJ the legality of the ``WINE''
Windows emulator for linux would still be questionable, despite the
fact that ``WINE'' is clearly one of the largest and most
effective tools for leveling the playing field between Windows and
Linux.
I sincerely hope that the Court rejects the Proposed Final
Judgment and instructs the Justice Department to come up with a new
one which addresses the many problems which I'm sure have been
brought to your attention.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Kamens
Curl Corporation
MTC-00024455
From: Ernie DeVries
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am not a lawyer. I cannot speak to the legal points of the
proposed settlement of DOJ's anti-trust action against Microsoft.
Although I am a computer professional, in many ways I am just a
consumer who is directly affected by the actions of Microsoft
because I use personal computers. I can speak to the impact of a
settlement on consumers.
The largest personal impact of Microsoft's conduct has been the
lack of choice by consumers. Microsoft has a long history of actions
such as pre-announcements, feature add-ons and exclusive agreements
which have been done not to improve the use of MS products, but
simply as preemptive strikes to keep competitors from continued
development on products. For me, this kind of behavior is the core
issue in MS using it's existing monopoly to enter new markets.
Although it was not specifically addressed in the trial, events
at Gateway computer illustrate this problem. There was a time when
Gateway included ``Office'' software with each new
computer at no additional charge. Gateway customers were given the
choice between Microsoft Office and WordPerfect Office, with no push
or coercion toward either product. This practice did not last long,
but was replaced by Gateway offering no choice--only MS Office.
Anyone who believes that Gateway took this action on its own,
without behind-the-scenes ``encouragement'' from MS, is a
fool.
The connection to this case is that even if MS never actually
leaned on Gateway to exclude competing products, MS was able to
create an environment wherein vendors had to live with the constant
threat that they would be cut off by MS or have prices increased by
MS so that the manufacturer could not compete. This environment lead
directly to reduced choice for consumers with resulting higher
prices and lower productivity because the ``better
mousetrap'' never had a chance in the marketplace.
Certainly there were errors in judgment by the original trial
judge regarding the sharing of his thoughts about the trial, but as
I watched the trial unfold I was repeatedly struck with the thought
that Judge Jackson seemed to be the only one involved in the case
who was making any sense at all. If the actual judgment of Judge
Jackson cannot be implemented, then certainly his intent needs to be
preserved.
To accomplish this, I see the following as being critical pieces
of the conclusion of this case:
(1) Consumer choice will only be restored when MS is forced to
open its files to share information on API calls and file formats so
that all competitors have the same advantage as the internal
developers at Microsoft. This is not sharing source code, but
interfaces.
(2) Exclusive contracts must be prohibited between MS and its
OEM customers as well as with VARs (Value Added Resellers).
(3) MS must be prohibited from giving away products. I know this
is very difficult to define, but we must never again have a
situation like Internet Explorer which was created and given away
for the exclusive purpose of undercutting a competitor that did not
have the same financial resources as MS. Consumers are not benefited
by ``free'' products when the result is the lack of real
alternatives in the marketplace.
(4) Financial penalties. The financial penalties from
Microsoft's past behavior must be so severe that MS will never again
consider repeating its behavior.
The bottom line is that we need a sentence that restores choice
and innovation to the marketplace. MS must become one player among
equals instead of being the only player that counts.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Ernie DeVries
Flagstaff, AZ
MTC-00024456
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice:
Please accept the settlement with Microsoft.
Bringing this matter to a conclusion will help the economy and
boost confidence in the stock market.
Thank you,
Kevin Greenhaw
MTC-00024457
From: Tony H
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
All I can say its a BIG JOKE.
Users Lose
Microsoft Wins
Thank You
Tony Hromadka
MTC-00024458
From: Paul Dupuy, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past,
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly
position in the operating system market. This is especially
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past
transgressions.
Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the
American people in general.
While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
Sincerely,
Paul Dupuy
Software Engineer
Vancouver, WA
MTC-00024459
From: Lori Dupuy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft
antitrust trial. I feel that the
[[Page 27486]]
current proposed settlement does not fully redress the actions
committed by Microsoft in the past, nor inhibit their ability to
commit similar actions in the future.
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly
position in the operating system market. This is especially
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past
transgressions.
Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the
American people in general.
While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
Sincerely,
Lori Dupuy
Mother
Vancouver, WA
MTC-00024461
From: Scott Tietjen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Commentary due to the Tunney Act requirements:
I am a Consultant Computer Programmer/Analyst and Data Security
Analyst. I have reviewed the proposed settlement with Microsoft, and
have read many commentaries on it, and I am shocked that our
government and nine states have given in to Microsoft in such an
outrageous way. There is no possible chance that Microsoft will
change its behavior in any noticeable way with the application of
this settlement--they will in fact be left alone to do what
they want, to whomever they want, any time they want, with no
controls whatsoever, despite this ``review committee''
will do or say. This settlement does nothing to stem Microsoft's
anti-competitive behavior--in fact, it provides so many large
loopholes that you can drive a truck through them (and, Microsoft
will drive many trucks through those loopholes). I will not go into
any significant detail--my other collegues that have provided
commentary that more than do justice to the topic.
In closing, I support the other nine states and their attorneys-
general who disagree with the proposed settlement. Their proposals
come a lot closer to actually restoring almost reasonable
competition to the marketplace, although they are not perfect
requirements either. I am of the camp that believes that Microsoft
properly needs to be broken up into several smaller companies, that
the industry and economy will not be harmed by such a breakup (just
like AT&T, the industry will thrive after such a breakup), and
that anyone that claims that harm will result from such a breakup is
merely parroting Microsoft spin doctors.
--Scott Tietjen, West Haven, Connecticut
MTC-00024462
From: Christopher Fitch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Under the Tunney Act, I would like to comment on the proposed
Microsoft Settlement. In the Antitrust trial, a number of findings
were made. Further, upon appeal a number of facts were affirmed
including that Microsoft has a monopoly on Intel-compatible PC
operating systems, and that the company's market position is
protected by a substantial barrier to entry. ``Furthermore, the
Court of Appeals affirmed that Microsoft is liable under Sherman Act
? 2 for illegally maintaining its monopoly by imposing licensing
restrictions on OEMs, IAPs (Internet Access Providers), ISVs
(Independent Software Vendors), and Apple Computer, by requiring
ISVs to switch to Microsoft's JVM (Java Virtual Machine), by
deceiving Java developers, and by forcing Intel to drop support for
cross-platform Java tools.'' (from Dan Kegel: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html )
Since Microsoft illegally maintained its monopoly, Microsoft
enjoys a strengthened Barrier of Entry and little or no competition
in the Intel-compatible operating system market. As such, the Final
Judgement must remedy the situation by significantly reducing the
Application Barrier of Entry and by greatly increasing competition
in the market. The proposed settlement does not remedy either
situation, and it actually strengthens their current monopoly and
allows for new monopolies to be created. There are a number of areas
that are flawed in the Proposed Settlement. A list of them is
located here: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
Some other problems:
* There is no provision for preventing an extension of
Microsoft's monopoly into other areas. Any Microsoft products must
be provided as additional-cost options with a new computer which
allows for a user to not be forced into buying them if they do not
wish to.
* There is no provision for opening Microsoft's current and
future file formats so that any competitors'' applications can
properly read/write/modify documents created using Microsoft
applications.
* There is no provision for requiring Microsoft to publish, in
entirety, the specifications for any networking protocols used in
Microsoft's products.
One other critical flaw is the lack of any enforcement in the
settlement and the lack of any serious punishment if Microsoft
violates the terms of the settlement. In the Proposed Settlement,
only investigative issues are covered. There are no mechanisms for
punishing Microsoft if they violate any terms. This is akin to a
convicted criminal (which Microsoft is) being told at a sentencing
hearing that his only punishment is to agree to not commit the crime
again, and if the criminal does commit the same crime, he will just
be ``watched'' some more. Without any mechanism for
punishment, Microsoft can easily violate the settlement terms with
no fear of costs or consequences. The current Antitrust proceedings
resulted from Microsoft's violation of a Consent Decree from 1995,
and indicate a willingness by Microsoft to break the law to maintain
their market share.
For years, it has been stated that computing is critical to the
United States'' economic future, and as such, to the entire
world. If we allow Microsoft to continue to impede competition and
destroy innovation by accepting the Proposed Settlement, the
country's future and perhaps the whole world's future are in danger
of suffering significant damage from which it may take years to
recover. Competition is vital to any important market and provides
benefits to customers and to the economy. A great example of
competition's benefits is in the area of Intel-compatible processors
or CPUs. Intel and AMD are the two main competitors in this area,
and their competition has had a large positive effect. Their
products are better, cheaper, and easily available.
Finally, Microsoft has eliminated customers'' choices by
restricting changes to applications bundled with their operating
system and by forcing computer manufacturers to install their
operating system through the use of restrictive contracts. One of
the cornerstones of our country is freedom of choice. Microsoft has
violated that right and must be prevented from violating freedom of
choice any further.
In summary, Microsoft has been found guilty of violating the
law. These violations and their damage to the market must be
remedied, and future damage must be prevented. The Proposed
Settlement does neither and MUST be rejected since it does not serve
the public interest.
Thanks for your time,
Christopher Fitch
Senior Software Engineer
Memphis, TN
MTC-00024463
From: Marc Grubb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
I would like to call to your attention what I feel are glaring
omissions in the PFJ, which allow Microsoft to continue to dominate
and monopolize in almost every market, allow exclusionary practices
to continue, and fail to adequately punish Microsoft for its anti-
competitive behavior. As a Macintosh user, I feel the effects
Microsoft's strangle hold on the consumer software market every day.
By using the Macintosh Operating System, I can avoid using Windows,
though it is a constant struggle to avoid having to use Microsoft's
Explorer for Web Browsing or Word and
[[Page 27487]]
Excel for Word Processing and Spreadsheets, which are just a few
examples. Through their domination, they have virtually eliminated
competition for consumer and small business software applications
even within the Mac OS.
The PFJ is so vague that it only STRENGTHENS Microsoft's
barriers to entry and WEAKENS competition. This hurts consumers and
limits innovation and is contrary to the free market principles of
our nation's economy. Please strengthen the PFJ to satisfy the Court
of Appeal's mandate ruling ``a remedies decree in an antitrust
case must seek to ``unfetter a market from anticompetitive
conduct'', to ``terminate the illegal monopoly, deny to
the defendant the fruits of its statutory violation, and ensure that
there remain no practices likely to result in monopolization in the
future'' (section V.D., p. 99).
The PFJ, in its current form, does none of these things, thereby
violating the public trust.
Thank you for your consideration.
Marc Grubb
Roslindale, MA
MTC-00024464
From: Mark Stevenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
The proposed settlement is a poor one because the
``remedies'' imposed are so unrestrictive and narrowly-
defined as to let Microsoft continue with anitcompetitive actions
with almost no change in corporate behavior. There is no sting, and
there is no remedy in the proposed settlement.
Mark Stevenson
Fishers, IN
Personal computer consumer/enthusiast
MTC-00024465
From: William Buchanan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:25pm
Subject: Comment on Microsoft-DOJ settlement
I am outraged at the proposed ``settlement'' of this
conflict. It makes as much sense to me as the first court conclusion
in the OJ Simpson case. Gates has simply conned his way out of being
found clearly guilty by the very expensive but well executed
investigation of Microsoft's actions by the Clinton DOJ.
Gates'' entire career is based on lying, cheating, stealing and
bullying his way around in the consumer community. He has no
scruples, other than continually doing anything he can to get the
public's money in exchange for their purchases of Microsoft's so-
called ``innovative'' products. These sub par products
only appear to be innovative because he has used his wealth and
maligned cunning to squash any legitimate competitors. Jackson's
characterization of him as a ``little Napoleon'' is right
on. And now for the corrupt tie between G.W. Bush and W. Gates
(following White House meetings between the two) to surface as a
``just settlement'' thrown quickly before a war-distracted
US public and its Congress, is really rubbing salt into a big wound.
Hooray for the valor of the states who are holding out and
continuing to gun for a real ``just settlement'', in this
case. The only reason the other states that originally were involved
had to drop out is that the Gates machine is so well endowed,
financially and legally, it is able to intimidate even a relatively
large collective of public/legal representatives in its obsessive
path of destruction. I'm glad to be a citizen of California, and
able to watch my attorney general, Bill Locklyer, lead the charge
against prematurely settling with Microsoft.
I would hope that the Federal DOJ could follow the same path in
this case, but think that the eagerness of the current
administration to satisfy Gates'' dreams of walking away
unscathed from this situation are so far handing him his wishes,
just as though it was a ``pardon''. If there is still such
a value as ``justice'' in our US, then let it reign
supreme. Require Microsoft to be held accountable for what it has
already been found guilty of, and make it pay the full and
responsible cost of having deliberately committed its heinous
actions. And see to it that the Bush administration be held just as
responsible and accountable for exercising its Constitutional
requirement to uphold justice in this case. Anything less only
brings to light that the Bush administration and Microsoft are
colluding to dupe the taxpayer into believing that both are worthy
of honor, a conclusion that is just not acceptable and well should
not be.
CC:abraham fred,Jacobsen Dianne,Lips Rolf,Marasco Joe
MTC-00024466
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kim Pickens
1901 W Imhoff Rd
Norman, OK 73072
MTC-00024467
From: Chris Mayhall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--AOL Private Suit
The last thing our country and economy needs right now is yet
another frivolous lawsuit that will surely do further damage to
nearly everyone's retirement portfolio (particularly in light of
recent events with Enron Corporation). Please dismiss the recent
lawsuit file by AOL Time Warner against Microsoft Corporation, and
ask that AOL Time Warner compete with technology instead of
litigation.
Three important points should be noted regarding AOL Time
Warner:
1. AOL purchased Netscape for $10 billion dollars in the midst
of the DoJ trial, even after hearing concrete evidence that IE's
success in the market was based on merit, not market share.
2. Microsoft has tried to with AOL in a variety of areas,
including improvement of instant messaging interoperability and
getting fair and open access to AOL's dominant cable assets.
3. AOL has repeatedly rebuffed Microsoft's efforts, to the
detriment of consumers and the technology industry, and has turned
to politics and litigation instead.
As a small-business entrepreneur, I view the relationship
between Microsoft's Internet Browser (IE) and AOL's browser
(Netscape Navigator) as a straight-forward, very tough, competition
between two companies operating in a free-market arena. Nothing
more.
AOL Time Warner needs to step up to the plate, quit whining (or
rather, attempting to derail Microsoft and as a side-effect derail
our economy via litigation), and come out with a superior browser
and method for interacting with the internet. AOL Time Warner
certainly has the financial assets to compete, and no doubt has
technology and personnel to compete, AND has massive leverage in the
form of its cable rights and media content (via Time Warner assets).
Do I file a lawsuit when my competition across town comes up
with a better service? Hell no, I work longer hours, invest in newer
technology, and get my &%$ in gear or else I'm out of a job and
the vision that is my company goes down the tubes.
Sincerely,
Chris Mayhall
Applied Digital Photography, LLC
MTC-00024468
From: Michele Midofer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed
Microsoft settlement. The conclusions reached in the Revised
Proposed Final Judgment is NOT in the public interest.
It encourages Microsoft's monopolitic ways to continue, and this
is wrong.
Sincerely,
Michele Midofer
MTC-00024469
From: Ev Plant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
July 22, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
[[Page 27488]]
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
It is time to stop fiddling with the Microsoft antitrust
lawsuit, while the American technology industry burns. I strongly
support your leadership in directing your Department of Justice to
settle this embarrassment. After three years of lawyering and three
months of negotiations, I am glad that the parties, including my
home state of Illinois, have agreed to what agreed to what may be
the least flawed settlement possible.
Microsoft agreed to give up a great deal in the settlement. Were
I in charge of Microsoft, I fantasize that I would have led out to
maintain the principles of American free enterprise. However, I
respect what Microsoft went through, and Microsoft's choice. Under
the settlement, Microsoft sets a precedent as the first company to
disclose to its competitors the code for its internal interfaces of
an operating system, its popular Windows programs. Further,
Microsoft will release its server interoperability protocols, and on
a non-discriminatory basis license its copyrights and patents to
other companies who might otherwise infringe. Microsoft will modify
Windows XP and later to make it easy for others, including
competitors, to add their own programs or remove Microsoft's
programs integral to Windows. A three-person oversight committee
will monitor compliance and field complaints from any party. I think
at all of this is too much, but support Microsoft's decision to
accept the settlement.
America has always been at the forefront of computer software
development. Let's maintain America's leadership position. Your
leadership was essential to reaching the settlement. Now your
leadership can help convince the Federal Judge to accept the
settlement. I appreciate your strong leadership.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Everett Plant
20 Grand Circle
Danville, IL 61832
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00024470
From: Al Yee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ever school child in America has been taught about fairness and
justice and yet the American political system continues allow
Microsoft to crush its rival. The legal system has proven Microsoft
guilty so enforce the law and for once prove that the justice system
is above politics.
MTC-00024471
From: Josh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I just want to say that I disagree with the proposed settlement.
I don't think I need to go into great detail as to why I disagree
with it, I'm sure many others have already. My feeling is basically
this: This settlement is equivalent to sentencing a serial killer to
100 hours of community service instead of the life sentence (or
worse) that they deserve.
Joshua Fluty
Independent Programmer
Greenville, SC
MTC-00024472
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Donald Grempler
611 West drive
Glen Burnie, MD 21061-2034
MTC-00024473
From: Shilpa Tilwalli
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 12:33pm
To Whom It May Concern:
In accordance with the Tunney Act I am submitting my opinions on
the proposed government settlement with Microsoft in regards to the
pending anti-trust case.
I am firmly opposed to the current proposed settlement term in
the Microsoft case. The terms do no fully redress the actions
committed by Microsoft in the past, nor their ability to commit
similar or anti-competitive actions in the future.
Many of the provisions in the current settlement will not
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly
position in the operating system market. In view of Microsoft
history of anti-comptetitive practices correcting this is vitally
important.
A few issues that have been brought to my attention are:
1) The settlement does not take into account Windows-compatible
competing operating systems. Microsoft increases the Applications
Barrier to Entry by using restrictive license terms and intentional
incompatibilities. Yet the settlement fails to prohibit this, and
even contributes to this part of the Applications Barrier to Entry.
2) The settlement Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License
Terms currently used by Microsoft. Microsoft currently uses
restrictive licensing terms to keep Open Source applications from
running on Windows.
3) The settlement Fails to Prohibit Intentional
Incompatibilities Historically Used by Microsoft. Microsoft has in
the past inserted intentional incompatibilities in its applications
to keep them from running on competing operating systems.
4) The settlement Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices
Towards OEMs. The current settlement allows Microsoft to retaliate
against any OEM that ships Personal Computers containing a competing
Operating System but no Microsoft operating system.
Please refer to http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html for
other issues that must be addressed for the settlement to be fair
and equitable to all interested parties.
While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for
settlement's sake. I implore you to look into these and the other
issues before before pursuing closure on this matter.
Thank you.
Shilpa Tilwalli
MTC-00024474
From: dave robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I believe that the proposed settlement is a bad idea. It will
not prevent Microsoft from breaking antitrust laws in the future, or
punish them for the illegal damage they have already done to
companies in my area.
Thankyou very much for your consideration,
David Robinson
MTC-00024475
From: David Sullivan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is inadequate as it stands. There are a
number of glaring flaws--for instance, the PFJ prohibits
certain behaviors by Microsoft towards OEMs but allows Microsoft to
retaliate against any OEM that ships Personal Computers containing a
competing Operating System but no Microsoft operating system. But
this means that the proposed remedy is little remedy at all for it
allows Microsoft to continue to dominate the Intel based OEM market
with abandon.
Please reconsider the proposed settlement.
David Sullivan
Associate Professor, MSCD
MTC-00024476
From: Christal Phillips
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
the proposed settlement is bad idea !!!!
MTC-00024477
From: Caroline Lambert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am sending this email because I am concerned that the Proposed
Final Judgement does not go anywhere near far enough to stop
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. There are too many loopholes
which others have
[[Page 27489]]
adequately described. Microsoft's only concern at the end of the day
is how many dollars they can suck out of their customers. If the
remedies are not made more severe, there will be no limit to the
damage they will cause to consumers and the high tech industry in
the future.
Caroline Lambert
IT Infrastructure Manager
Agilent Labs
MTC-00024478
From: Mike Zyphur
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
My name is:
Mike Zyphur
New Orleans, LA 70118
I am a Ph.D. student in Industrial and Organizational Psychology
at Tulane University, a US citizen, and I do not agree with the
proposed ruling. This settlement is a bad idea. If this settlement
is the outcome of what was a very telling antitrust trial and fact-
finding process by the DOJ then I am going to lose even more faith
in the ability of the DOJ to be an island in a sea of corporate-
sponsored governmental policy-making than has already been erroded
by past DOJ actions. If the currently proposed ruling is allowed to
stand, Microsoft will continue its subtle and publicly covert
operation of stifling competition and innovation, and (for those who
know a fair amount about technology and programming) blatantly
produce some of the worst products on the market with virtually no
competition that is adequately Windows compatable. Please, please,
please, reconsider your proposed decision and be true to the name of
your organization. The name that is, in this country, supposed to
mean something: The Department of Justice. For how can we, as a
nation, attempt to bring and preach justice throughout the world (as
we are currently attempting to do) if we cannot even remain unbiased
and just in our homeland?
Thank you for your time,
Mike Zyphur
The immature man desires to die for a cause. The mature man
desires to live for a cause, humbly.
J.D. Salinger
MTC-00024479
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Betty Norman
326 N. Evans
Pierre, SD 57501
MTC-00024480
From: Anne Dirkse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to express my sincere dismay at the injustice of
the proposed settlement terms of DOJ vs. Microsoft. Such a
settlement does nothing to remedy the stifiling impact that
Microsoft has had on the industry. Quite the opposite, in fact It
opens up a new audience for Microsoft in a market that they would
very much like to permeate. Tecnology can and will do great things
for this country, but the essence of its sucess should be the same
essence that made this country great: freedom. By allowing Microsoft
to continue their non-competetive practices you all but ensure that
they will not only have increasing control over the operating system
market but also that they will continue their attempts to obfuscate
and disable other viable technologies, protocols and revolutionary
ideas.
You must act now to make sure the Internet, and communications
standards remain open to everyone. The following are critical to any
agreement terms:
1. Any application or web service distributed by Microsoft which
communicates over a network must first have its protocol approved
and published by a fair committee. (The idea is not to hinder
Microsoft's ability to create their own protocols, only to insure
that other applications will compete on their relative merits.)
2. The committee will also provide a protocol compatibility
suite (PCS) for the protocol.
3. No Microsoft product, patch, or web service may be
distributed without first passing the protocol compatibility suite
(PCS).
4. The latest Java Runtime Environment must be installed and
configured on all future Microsoft products for the next ten
years--including Java WebStart.
Sincerely,
Anne L. Dirkse
[email protected]
MTC-00024481
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Settlement does not go nearly far enough in punishing
Microsoft for it's business practices. The Justice Dept, for
political reasons only, completly caved on the settlement.
Bryce Barrie
MTC-00024482
From: Helen Traaen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Please settle with Microsoft and quit spending tax payers money
on this long drawn out process, thank,,,,,
Helen Traaen
MTC-00024483
From: (q)Charles Hethcoat(q) (060)Charles Hethcoat
To:RFC-822=verify@*fxsp0;-
[email protected]@i...
Date: 1/25/02 12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Name: Charles L. Hethcoat III
City: Houston
State: Texas
Title: Concerned citizen; Senior Engineer/Stress Analysis
Organization: Currently unemployed
To Whom It May Concern:
I have signed Dan Kegel's Open Letter to the DOJ because I fully
agree with it. Microsoft is being rewarded, not punished. Now, as a
part of this goofy ``settlement,'' the Pied Piper of
Redmond is geing given the next generation of school children to do
with as he wishes.
I say it's spinach and I say to Hell with it.
Cheers.
Charles Hethcoat
MTC-00024484
From: Matthew Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the current Microsoft settlement is not a good idea.
Please review the settlement and make sure it meets requirements and
standards of existing laws and regulations. When a corporation such
as microsoft defies federal anti-trust laws and calls it aggressive
business practices, something must be done about it. now is the time
to hold microsoft accountable for their actions and see that the
company does not continue in its illegal courses of action.
Thank you for your time
Matt Jones
MTC-00024485
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:12pm
Subject: Microsoft is a monopoly.
Microsoft has been found guilty of monopolistic practices, but
my government is set to reward its behavior.
The DOJ/Microsoft settlement is a disproportionately weak
response to the harmful, predatory practices of that business
entity. Most of the time I believe it is not in our best interests
for the government to micromanage free market activities. But in
this case, the actions of Microsoft have proven to be harmful to the
marketplace community, and by extension the larger economy.
If my government fails to protect the interests of its citizens
on such a hugely influential matter, that failure will corrode the
trust its citizens place in it. Furthermore,
[[Page 27490]]
letting the monopolist off so lightly essentially codifies into law
its monopolistic practices, and paves the way for further and more
egregious activities.
It is my view that a structural response, such as breaking the
company into operating system and application entities is not an
unfair nor an uncalled for response. I believe Microsoft has proven
in the past it is well capable of circumventing the rules other
business entities follow in its predatory campaign to stamp out
competition. Thus, I believe more conservative behavioral remedies
will, in the end, prove no barrier to further illegal and egregious
behaviors on the part of this entity.
Dennis Daupert
MTC-00024486
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
F N Ingram
POB 12446
Odessa, TX 79768
MTC-00024487
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Herbert Rowland
7565 Keating Dr.
Indianapolis, IN 46260-3300
MTC-00024488
From: Christopher Plummer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings,
I would like to submit the following as a Tunney Act comment
regarding my opposition to the proposed final judgement against
Microsoft:
As an information technologies professional for twenty years I
have observed the rise of Microsoft and noted with concern many of
its anti-competitive and monopolistic practices, only some of which
have been addressed by the DOJ case.
In general I am convinced that the remedy proposed will not
prevent Microsoft from unfairly maintaining its monopoly, not stop
it from thwarting competition and innovation in the computer and
every other industry it touches, and will not in the end prevent
Microsoft from harming consumers by hindering their choices in the
marketplace. The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow
Definitions and Provisions, Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive
License Terms currently used by Microsoft, Fails to Prohibit
Intentional Incompatibilities Historically Used by Microsoft, Fails
to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs, and as currently
written appears to lack an effective enforcement mechanism.
Please go back to the drawing board and come up with a remedy
that will actually protect and benefit consumers!
Thank you,
Christopher Plummer
Lotus Notes Administrator
Independent Contractor
Flemington, NJ USA
MTC-00024489
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bill Steinhour
220 Malibu Street
Castle Rock, CO 80104
MTC-00024490
From: Tazanator
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
sir;
I believe that the original proposal of splitting up microsoft
into several smaller independant companies is truely what is needed
in the intrest of fair play. The court records show they have run a
monopoly and violated anti-trust laws and have continued to bully
the computer market even during the trial. To belive they won't
continue to do the practices that made them the largest in the
business is a travisty to justice. In fact to belive they will
change and be open to compition is to belive that the windows XP
isn't them tring to fix the lemons in Windows 95. If they built cars
you know they would have been pushed out of business by now for
inferior support and a product that is very unstable. They have kept
the markets closed thru their legal department and arm wrangling to
the point that there has never been a chance for the american people
to stand up and voice what we belive is a better product let alone a
company to try to make a better product available to the people.
Please in the interest of the american idea of free competiton
bust the microsoft monopoly into several smaller corporations. It
would give the computers back to the people that created them
allowing the programs to improve instead of repair what microsoft
has crippled. --
MTC-00024491
From: Sam Mills
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Do not settle with microsoft. People who abuse the system must
be held accountable.
Sam Mills
MTC-00024492
From: Cesar Rebellon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:41pm
Subject: comments
Just a quick comment on Microsoft-- My feeling, for
whatever it may be worth, is that Microsoft, intentionally or not,
has so much market share that they inhibit the very competition that
our country prides itself in promoting. Just my two cents worth...
Cesar J. Rebellon, M.A.
Applied Research Services
MTC-00024493
From: IVAN BOTVIN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Gentlemen, I understand that you are now in the process of
reviewing the governments settlement with Microsoft. It is my
opinion that the settlement is fair and should not be touched.
Microsoft is a very important player in the growth of the computer
industry. It has been the leader in developing the technology
[[Page 27491]]
that has brought the computer into the homes of a large percentage
of our people. It also is an important source of foreign sales which
helps us in our balance of payments problem. It has helped make
American business more competitive with it's applications for them.
In short, we need Microsoft and we need it with the ability to keep
innovating. I support the settlement as it now stands.
Sincerely,
Ivan J. Botvin
5300 E. Weaver Dr
Centennial, CO
MTC-00024494
From: Andy Rosen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:40pm
Subject: Proposed settlement--unacceptable
To whom it may concern,
I have worked in the computer industry as a software engineer
and systems administrator for over 15 years. I am writing to express
my concerns about the proposed settlement by the Dept. of Justice
and Microsoft. There are two primary goals in any anti-trust remedy:
gains achieved through illegal means should be recovered and
competition should be restored to the relevant market.
It is my strong belief that, if approved, the settlement would
not penalize Microsoft in any way, nor would it restore competition
to the relevant market. In fact, it would further entrench
Microsoft's monopoly position and allow them, legally, to extend
that position to new markets. The proposed settlement includes no
penalties for Microsoft. They would simply be allowed to keep the
countless billions of dollars they have acquired as a result of
their illegal practices.
While the relevant market was defined as Personal Computer
Operating Systems, the proposed settlement does nothing to restore
competition to that market. Instead, it tries to ensure that third
parties will have continued access to the information necessary to
write application software for future Windows platforms.
It was shown in the trial that there is a significant
``applications'' barrier to entry. By helping companies
write *more* applications for Windows we would be helping Microsoft
to strengthen their position. Additionally, there are loopholes that
even a casual observer can recognize. For example, Microsoft would
be allowed to determine who will have access to new and existing
system interfaces. In other words, they would be allowed to pick and
choose who their competition will be in any application software
market.
Microsoft would also be allowed to block all access to major
portions of their interfaces by claiming they are part of system
security, or virus protection, or content management, etc. As they
have shown in the past, Microsoft is quite capable, and willing, to
tie unrelated products together not for technical reasons, but to
eliminate competition. Instead we should be taking steps to bring
existing applications to platforms that attempt to compete directly
with Windows, such as OS/2, Linux, BeOS, FreeBSD and UnixWare.
Microsoft had their year in court and were found guilty. The
trial is over. The appeals process is over. Now is not the time for
settlements. Now is not the time for judgment. Now is the time for
remedy.
Andy Rosen Senior Software Architect
and Systems Administrator
http://www.ajr.cx/pubring.asc
MTC-00024495
From: Carl Stewart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:41pm
Subject: The Microsoft Case
Hi there,
While I may not be a US citizen, I'm in Canada by the way.
Microsoft has abused its monopoly and it should have a remedy put at
it. And here's my proposed remedy for it.
1. Split it up into 3 companies. One for operating system
products. One for Internet software. And the third for any other
kind of software.
2. Make it open up the API for all of its operating systems, and
future operating systems. So that programmers have the same chance
to make great products as it does itself.
3. Any proprietary feature in its Browser that it has, it must
open up so that competitors that make other internet browsers can
have that same set of features. In other words, it has to submit it
to W3C first, then if its approved, it can then add it to its
browser. So then its competitors can have the same features as well.
4. When it gives out licenses to OEM's, it cannot limit the OEM
to just having its operating system on the computer. This way if the
OEM wants to put 2 operating systems on the computer to give its
customer's a choice of which operating system to use, or to explore
another operating system like linux, while still using windows.
5. Give the OEM's a choice of which browser to ship with the
operating system. So if an OEM wants to ship Netscape instead of
Internet Explorer, it can. And if the consumer wants to use Internet
Explorer, then it can download it from Microsoft. Or at the very
least, a stripped down browser, with basic download capabilities and
html reading so that the consumer can choose which browser to use.
6. Open up the samba sharing system, so that competitors can
have full access on how to implement it in their operating systems.
Including how to access it from their operating system.
7. Microsoft cannot limit OEM's as to which software to include
and not to include, for example Microsoft cannot give them a lower
price or some other deal by only including Microsoft Office and not
a competitors Office Suite.
Well there's my ideas on the type of remedy Microsoft should be
given. Thanks for listening.
Regards,
Carl Stewart
MTC-00024496
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Charles Middlebrooks
5005 Casa Grande Dr.
Dickinoson, TX 77539
MTC-00024497
From: Ed Boutros
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a user of Apple computer products it should be noted
Microsoft has not produced a version of their database called Access
for the Macintosh. To many people this may seem insignificant, but
what it does is eliminate the full integration of apple computers in
business environments. The other point is that in the windows
version of Outlook, the mail client, Microsoft created a networked
calendar system, which again was not provided for the Macintosh mail
client called Entourage. People may say so what, what I say these
omissions were done on purpose to maintain Apple's niche status in
the computer industry, since when an Apple computer is sold
Microsoft generates no money from the transaction, but may my
benefit from the purchase of their limited office suite. In order to
level the playing field, the company needs to be split in 3 ways,
one for operating systems, one for add on software and another for
services like web tv and .net. The company has vast influence and
must be monitored more closely, since now Microsoft now has the
ability to shut off software that is purchased but not registered.
There is always the possibility that at some point there could be
massive computer shut downs if someone hacked into the activation
system, or if a bug occurred in the activation system. This would
represent a serious nation security risk to the national and world
economy. The implications are serious.
Ed Boutros
24 Oak Brook Dr.
Ithaca, NY 14850
607-272-8902
MTC-00024498
From: Nall, Clinton (SCH)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlment
I would like to register my disappointment with the current
proposed final judgement in this case. The terms API and middleware
are
[[Page 27492]]
so narrowly defined as to make the impact of this judgement minimal
to Microsoft. If anything, it will be licensed to continue it's
anti-competetive practices with impugnity. Any settlement that does
not toss out Microsofts preload agreements and open their office
suite formats and networking protocols to the light of day will be a
travesty and will pave the way for many more years of the Microsoft
non-benevolent monopoly.
Go back and get it right!
Clint Nall
250 Fairfax Drive
Alpharetta, GA 30004
MTC-00024499
From: Kevin Carter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the current proposal. Two facts lead to
one conclusion my recommendation:
FACT 1: Microsoft Corporation has proven itself to be a powerful
and dangerous force because of the many ways it has leveraged its
monopoly in Windows OS-dependent markets.
FACT 2: The current potential settlement between Microsoft Corp.
and the U.S. Department of Justice proposes to maintain that dynamic
in the long term and impose short-term restraints based on
regulatory oversight. CONCLUSION: The current proposed settlement
between DOJ and Microsoft Corp. will fail to put an end to the
illegal monopoly; fail to prevent a return to anticompetitive
behavior; fail to deny the violator the benefits of its illegal
actions; and fail to ensure competition going forward.
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the current proposal.
Thank you.
--Kevin Carter
--18 Longfellow Road
--Arlington, MA 02476
MTC-00024500
From: Travis Morgan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 12:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement for the Microsoft Anti-Trust case is
outrageous and should not be allowed!
Travis Morgan
CIO, Inc.
Main Line: 913.962.6222
New Direct Dial: 913.562.5645
Turning Systems into Solutions
www.cioinc.com
To: ``David Farber -bs(by way of
Bernard A. Galler-bs)''
The boot license doesn't actually say that you can't install a
second OS.
What is says is:
1. You can't deliver a preinstalled machine in which Microsoft's
code bootstraps someone else's OS. It is technical possible to
[[Page 27511]]
do this with NT/2000/XP/etc., because the NT bootloader is
specifically designed to respect the preexistence of another OS and
incorporate that into the boot sequence; any MCSE knows this. It's
how NT systems allow you to preserve your previous boot option when
you upgrade from DOS, OS/2, or Windows 9x/ME. However ...
2. OEM's must use Microsoft's preinstallation tools to deploy
the OS on the machine. Since those tools (usually) start by blasting
away the contents of the disk and laying down Windows in a fresh
partition, any preexisting OS would be destroyed in the process.
Hence the trap: deploy the other OS first, and the OEM tools wipe it
away;
Deploy it after Windows, and you've used Microsoft's boot code
to launch a different OS.
It is trivially easy for end users and VAR's to set up dual-boot
systems. But--as the article points out--this would
require some interest on the part of customers for post-purchase
installation, and there is none. http://www.theregister.co.uk/
content/archive/21410.html Between 1997, when the DoJ began taking
the browser issue seriously, and when the final arguments were made
late in 1999, Be was the only competitor whose business solely
depended on providing competition to Microsoft on the consumer
desktop. It's strange then that it should ignore such compelling
evidence of anti-competitive behaviour. But the Antitrust staff
aren't the only people who are reluctant to grasp the nettle.
There's a widespread view in the Linux community that offering head-
on competition to Windows on the desktop isn't how Linux will
eventually win. The argument has some sound reasoning--it
points to historical changes in the economics of the infrastructure,
of the sort which saw midrange system replaced client/server
PCs--but ducks the difficult question. If you are going to
offer consumers an alternative to Windows, you're going to need
distribution, and overwhelmingly the least troublesome and most
convenient distribution point is a preloaded, pre-configured
installation. That means access to the PC's boot sequence.
At the LinuxWorldExpo panel discussion Jeremy Allison made few
people comfortable with his point that unless you break the client
monopoly, ``your alternative infrastructure is
irrelevant,'' Very few OEMs can afford not to offer Windows,
and while their freedom to offer alternatives is dictated to by the
Beast, the alternatives will languish. http://www.theregister.co.uk/
content/4/22670.html One possible concession by Microsoft in the
proposed AntiTrust settlement has come too late to save the company
which pressed hardest for its inclusion: Be, Inc. Section C/4 of the
remedy states that Microsoft may not forbid OEMs ``offering
users the option of launching other Operating Systems from the Basic
Input/ Output System or a non-Microsoft boot-loader or similar
program that launches prior to the start of the Windows Operating
System Product''. OEM agreements preventing PC manufacturers
from advertising the fact that an alternative was in fact, right in
front of the user, pre-installed.
In the case of Hitachi, the most significant OEM to offer BeOS
preinstalled, the user had to manually install a boot manager to
activate the BeOS partition, a process which involved creating their
own floppy boot disk. The package could not include a boot floppy,
and the Windows desktop had no icons enabling the automation of the
process, or even giving any indication that an alternative existed
on the PC. I can't grab everything from this article, but it's a
good read: http://www.netaction.org/msoft/world/ I found this
document via http://www.nyx.net/-lmulcahy/microsoft-bad- faith.html
There a whole host of articles out there explaingin why the DOJ
missed the boat and why Microsoft is going to get away scot free
from this mess if some sever changes don't take place. I can't even
begin to explain how bad this is going to be for the US and world
economy if Microsoft isn't stopped.
Thank you for yout time,
Mitch Anderson
MTC-00024610
From: Tom Denman
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft
AVTEX
Thomas J. Denman
5775 West Old Shakopee Road
Suite 160
Bloomington, Mn 55437
(952) 831-3710
January 9, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing this letter to simply state my support of the DOJ
antitrust settlement involving Microsoft. The settlement reached
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice is fair and
reasonable. The design of the settlement is to be beneficial to both
the IT industry and the consumer alike, without unfairly attacking
Microsoft.
It is essential that the DOJ resolve this issue swiftly. An
exorbitant amount of American tax dollars have been spent just so
that Microsoft's competitors could attack their opposition. This
country is based on free enterprise, and it seems that the
settlement already goes against the grain of that idea. To continue
litigation would just mean a slow suffocation of laissez-faire
principles.
As it is, Microsoft will have to give up software codes and
intellectual property just to appease the DO J, yet some jealous and
selfish special interests would prefer to move on, even though this
is clearly not in the public interest. I strongly recommend that all
action at the federal level be stopped.
Sincerely,
Thomas Denman
Executive Vice President
MTC-00024611
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen. Please put a stop to this
travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Edward Luther
94 Henry Clay Rd
Newport News, VA 23601
MTC-00024612
From: Jonathan Leinwand
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am concerned that the Microsoft settlement is letting
Microsoft do something that would otherwise be illegal. By letting
Microsoft provide free software to a market it has not yet
dominated, the Justice Department is letting them do exactly what
was done to Netscape. Free Windows software will tilt decisions
towards Intel based computers running Windows, thus hurting
competition in the education market place. The settlement needs to
correct the behavior of the offender and not try to punish it or try
to do a good deed. Giving out free software from Microsoft will not
benefit educators, students or competition.
Jonathan D. Leinwand, Esq.
MTC-00024613
From: Charles Borner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Pardon me if I seem naive about this. I simply do not understand
why, if Microsoft is guilty of monopolistic practices, the
government isn't stepping in and demanding real measures to
dismantle this monopoly. Simply allowing Microsoft to give away
product and old, refurbished computers isn't an effective remedy to
this. It simply mirrors what happened when they began giving their
Internet Explorer browser away for free.
Because they have huge, effectively bottomless cash reserves,
they can easily weather this settlement. Note: The settlement's cash
value is roughly equal to Microsoft's MONTLY profit margin. It
doesn't even begin to touch the billions Microsoft has socked away
in the bank. Additionally, this damages the competition even
further. Because now the government is effectively distributing
software for Microsoft. For free. How are competitors supposed to
compete with products being GIVEN away? The answer? They CAN'T. So
the settlement isn't even a slap on the wrists for Microsoft. It has
the effect of giving a government sanction to an illegal monopoly.
[[Page 27512]]
And more, government assistance in furthering that monopoly. The DOJ
needs to stop trying to take the easy, feel-good way out of this,
admittedly, painful situation. The DOJ needs to begin seeking hard,
truly workable soloutions that REALLY penalize Microsoft for their
illegal activities. Stop doing what's easy, and do what's RIGHT for
a change.
Charles Borner: [email protected]
5550 Abbey Dr.
Suite 4M
Lisle, IL 60532
MTC-00024614
From: P T Withington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In my opinion, the Proposed Final Judgement in United States vs.
Microsoft is insufficient to prevent Microsoft's continuance of
anti-competetive practices to the detriment of computer users
everywhere.
P. T. Withington
MTC-00024615
From: David Halonen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I oppose ``fining'' Microsoft by allowing them to have
a free hand to donate MS software to schools--its tanamount to
letting the fox in the henhouse! The fact that MS writes bad code,
has a lousy user interface, and can't spell security to save Bill's
fortune is beyond refute. And should not be a part of this
settlement process. The fact is that MS has been found in violation
of the law. The fact that they look at the law in disdain (ignoring
prior rulings) calls out for a stiff punishment. I strongly
encourage the gov't to punish MS to the fullest extent of the law.
MS has clearly demonstrated time and time again, it only respects
pure, unadulterated force. Hit them between the eyes! Its the only
language they understand.
Regards,
David Halonen
The Halonen Company
10131 Fairlane, Suite 1215
South Lyon, MI 48178
(734) 449-2956
(810) 923-0780 cell
MTC-00024616
From: Aaron Sherman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:55pm
Subject: Propose Microsoft settlement
I'll keep this short, since I'm sure many who submit will not.
The basic problem that Microsoft's business practices present to the
rest of the industry is incompatibility of interfaces. The rest of
the industry works very hard in standards organizations,
documentation and in other ways to unify interfaces between software
applications. Microsoft has done just the opposite. If the only
change that results from this investigation is that Microsft is
forced to publish details of their interfaces between, e.g.,
Internet Explorer and the Windows NT/2000/XP operating systems or
between Office and the Win32 subsystem in full (not in general
detail), then the industry would be able to compete on those
platforms with the existing Microsoft products. Generally, this is
not required of software companies because they do not straddle the
operating system and application software markets. Where Microsoft
does, they present a barrier to market for non-Microsoft
applications simply by hiding the interfaces that their application
products use.
So, in short: publish interfaces well in advance of major
revisions; maintain and support published interface implementations
accross minor revisions; restrain Microsoft from applying for any
patents which could prevent application software competitors from
using said interfaces without paying royalties (note: this does not
prevent Microsoft from acquiring patents, so long as they do not
touch on application/platform interfaces). Interfaces should
include: save file formats; application embedding protocols and
controls; network protocols; extension languages; system libraries;
operating system interfaces to application such as the browser.
MTC-00024617
From: Florence Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust settlement agreement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I support the Microsoft antitrust settlement agreement. While I
have been opposed to this lawsuit from its inception, I believe
settling the case now is in everyone's best interests. The
settlement agreement provides for a variety of concessions on
Microsoft's part. They have agreed to increase server
interoperability. They have also agreed to make a great deal of
changes in the way they handle their relationships with software
developers. Once the settlement agreement is finalized, Microsoft
will not retaliate against software or hardware developers who
develop or promote software that competes with Windows. Nothing more
should be expected or required of Microsoft beyond the scope of the
current settlement agreement. I urge your continued support of
resolving this case. Thank you for your efforts in this regard.
Sincerely,
Florence Jones
PO Box 281/451 Coul Ave.
Buckley, WA 98321
phone 360-829-9293
MTC-00024618
From: Phil Parker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:06pm
Subject: proposed settlement
I support the Kansas AG and *do not* support the pending
settlement.
Phillip E. Parker
Math. Dept. #33
Wichita St. Univ.
1845 N. Fairmount
Wichita KS 67260-0033
USA
MTC-00024619
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist and I do not trust them with
my data. I will vote with my conscience next time you guys are up
for re-election or anything. ``What's good for General Motors
is what's good for the country'' is and was WRONG.
Haven't we learned enough about the Enron scandal, for instance?
What are you guys thinking?
Patrick McGraw
Network Analyst
Cejka & Company
800.678.7858
fax 314 863 1705
MTC-00024620
From: Getz, Steve (SM)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 1:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This settlement is a bad idea. You need to break up the
company--split off the operating system group from the rest.
First they claim the browser is now part of the operating system.
What keeps them from next saying Microsoft Office is now part of the
operating system thus killing off the competition for word
processing, spreadsheets, etc. Then they can add virus utilities to
the operating system.
Steve Getz
Sarnia
519-339-6412
MTC-00024621
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen. Please put a stop to this
travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
MONROE STRAWN
P. O. BOX 1001
NORTH HIGHLANDS, CA 95660
MTC-00024623
From: Tim Van Riper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In order for this settlement to be fair, Microsoft should not be
allowed to pay
[[Page 27513]]
damages by providing ``free'' software and/or hardware.
The penalty must be monetary so schools can have the freedom to
choose which platform they wish. By giving Microsoft the option of
paying their penalty in kind, they not only settle the lawsuit, but
grab and even larger marketshare by dumping their garbage software
and tired old clone hardware off on unsuspecting students and
teachers. That surely wouldn't be fair. Make Microsoft pay with REAL
money.
Timothy Van Riper
Salem, Virginia
MTC-00024625
From: David Diplock
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
As a software engineer with over 10 years of experience
developing for various platforms, I wish to comment on the proposed
Microsoft settlement (PFJ) under the Tunney Act. I agree with the
problems identified in Dan Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html ), and have asked to be included as a co-signer to
his letter. In addition, I would like to summarize my personal views
on the PFJ. The PFJ as currently written simply does not go far
enough. There is no doubt, given Microsoft's past behavior, that it
will attempt to circumvent and evade the terms of this agreement.
The PFJ is so narrowly defined that it allows plenty of maneuvering
room, especially considering that it will be applied in an industry
as fluid as the software industry. Therefore, the PFJ will fail in
its intended purpose--to prevent Microsoft from continuing its
illegal and anticompetitive practices. Such failure would clearly
not be in the public interest. Strengthening the settlement
agreement, as proposed by Dan Kegel and by certain plaintiff states,
is necessary for the remedy to be effective.
Sincerely,
David Diplock
San Diego, California
Software Engineer,
Peregrine Systems
MTC-00024626
From: Michael Dragone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
I'll keep my comments regarding the proposed Microsoft
Settlement brief. The settlement in its current form essentially
gives Microsoft the legal right to continue to do as they please.
Furthermore, I've noticed that it seems to be relatively easy for
Microsoft to circumvent any restrictions that are in place that they
find to be a hindrance. Microsoft has been found to be a monopoly.
This has been affirmed by a Court of Appeals. When AT&T was
found to be a monopoly, they were broken up into Baby Bells. I'm not
entirely certain that a breakup of Microsoft is the best solution (a
slew of Baby Microsofts might not help the matter). Regardless, a
harsher penatly must be imposed on this company. They literally have
their collective hands in almost every facet of the Information
Technology industry. Their use of disgusting business practices to
enhance their own net worth causes nothing but disdain. If they are
not stopped now, our entire IT infrastructure may one day be
entirely Microsoft-driven. This is highly undesirable.
Thank you for your time.
MTC-00024627
From: LUC,BIEN (HP-Cupertino,exl)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 2:03pm
Hi Mr Attorney General,
Attached please find my opinion about the Microsoft litigation.
Thanks,
Bien Luc
19420 Homestead Road
Cupertino, CA 95014-0606
January25,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Attorney General:
The economically damaging and unfair litigation against
Microsoft must come to an end. The current settlement with Microsoft
is in the best interests of California, the IT industry, and the
economy. The settlement has placed a number of restrictions on
Microsoft. For example, Microsoft has agreed to a ``Technical
Committee'' that will monitor the company's compliance with the
settlement. In addition, Microsoft agreed to design future versions
of Windows to make it easy for consumers and computer makers to
promote non-Microsoft products within Windows. Also, Microsoft has
agreed not to retaliate against computer makers who ship software
that competes with anything in its Windows operating system. These
changes in Microsoft's behavior will result in more options for
consumers as well as expanded competition in technology sector. More
importantly, the settlement will end three years of unnecessary
litigation and will let us move forward. I urge you to support it.
Sincerely,
Bien Luc
MTC-00024628
From: Ann Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the proposed settlement that has been offered,
Microsoft giving approx. $1 billion in refurbished computers and
software to schools to settle their lawsuits, is not only
acceptable, but possibly illegal. Nor does it do anything to address
the actual people and businesses that have been harmed by it's
monopolic behavior. As John Kheit pointed out in his article in The
Mac Observer, http://www.macobserver.com/, ``. . . Such
predatory pricing and/or dumping tactics are normally illegal for a
convicted monopolist. U.S. v. Columbia Steel Co., 334 U.S. 495, 530
(1948); Western Concrete Structures Co., Inc. v. Mitsui & Co.
U.S.A.), Inc., 760 F.2d 1013, 1018 (9th Cir. 1985). Thus, it is
currently illegal for Microsoft to give its software to the
educational market for free or at a price below its costs because
they have been found to be a monopoly. However, if the government
agrees to Microsoft's proposed settlement with the states, then the
government will at the very least be providing Microsoft with an
exception to this rule, or at worst be a collaborator in illegal
predatory pricing and dumping.''
Microsoft should be punished for their anti-competitive
behaviour, not rewarded with another market to monopolize. Also, any
settlement should be focused towards the consumer and business
community, not an irrelevant third party.
E. Ann Lee
2520 W 32nd Avd
Denver, CO 80211
303-455-6728
MTC-00024629
From: Chris McGrew
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
It is my opinion that the proposed settlement is flawed. If
Microsoft is guilty of monopolistic practices, as they have been
found to be, then the proposed remedy of solution amounts to nothing
more than a wrist slap. Microsoft will be little inconvenienced by
these measures. I don't believe that breaking up Microsoft into
different companies will help and that is not what I believe is
fair. I do believe that MS is guilty of monopolistic practices,
though I also believe that virtually any company that was able to
maneuver themselves into the same position, would have employed
almost identical tactics. These need to be curbed to allow industry
to flourish.
Microsoft is not a very innovator company, but they do update
their products from customer input. They should not be allowed to
kill off the smaller fish in the pond before these fish can become
real competition by giving away a competing product for free. This
practice doesn1t allow for fair competition.
I am not sure how to fix this, but as I have stated earlier, the
proposed settlement is nothing more than an ineffectual wrist slap.
Chris McGrew
2605 Oaks Ave
Everett, WA 98201
MTC-00024630
From: Mike Everett-Lane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the Microsoft
settlement's inadequacy in improving the competitive environment in
the software industry. Specifically, I would like to address the
veto against open source programming.
[[Page 27514]]
Open source programming is one of the most important revolutions
in computer science. The Internet has enabled programmers from
across the globe to create software collaboratively. Examples
include Apache, GNU/Linux, Samba, etc. Under section J.2.c.,
Microsoft does not need to make ANY API available to groups that
fail to meet ``reasonable, objective standards established by
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its
business.'' This effectively gives Microsoft a veto over
sharing any information with open source development projects,
because Open Source projects are usually performed by volunteers,
and therefore would not be considered authentic, or viable
businesses. This will have a chilling effect on Open Source
development--which in turn will reduce competition and halt the
creation of new software. I cannot see how this would benefit
consumers. The DOJ should revise its settlement, so that Microsoft
cannot discriminate between for-profit and nonprofit groups in API
disclosure.
Sincerely,
Michael Everett-Lane
155 Seventh Avenue
Brooklyn NY 11215
MTC-00024631
From: Ron Robertson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wish to comment that I don1t think the proposed settlement
against Microsoft goes far enough. Nothing will change or be
improved with your current proposal. I also think it1s wrong the way
Microsoft breaks every standard and uses their market share to force
everyone to use their products, particularly web browsers.
Sincerely,
Ron Robertson
Fresno, CA
MTC-00024632
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen,
A few brief words stating how upset I am that you are letting
Microsoft get away with anti-competitive practices with nothing more
than a slap on the wrist. No fine could be enough, given the
company's huge resources, and the whole idea to give schools their
inferior software was just another obvious grab for market share.
The only way to force MS to cooperate is to force them to open their
operating system's code for all to see. Barring that, they must make
all API files open source, so that other software companies might be
able to write programs without the handicap of not having access to
the internal system dynamics. If this is the best that the
Department of Justice can do for the people of America, you may as
well turn in your resignations.
disrespectfully yours
Steve Gattuso
MTC-00024633
From: Larry Melillo
To: Microsoft
ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/25/02 2:04pm
Subject: Comments on the Microsoft Proposed Final Judgment
TWIMC: Having read the Proposed Final Judgment, I believe
harsher remedies are needed to prevent Microsoft from extending its
monopoly in the future. In particular, Microsoft can not be allowed
to self-regulate itself regarding the classification of new
technologies as part of the Windows OS. Unless emerging companies
are allowed to have a fair opportunity to develop and exploit
breakthrough technologies, this proposed PFJ may allow future
technology development to be delayed/ignored based on the whims of a
single company's strategic intent. As technology will likely
continue to be a major driver of the world's economy, this simply is
not an acceptable alternative. At the very least, harsher regulatory
controls should be implemented as part of the PFJ.
Regards,
Larry Melillo
San Francisco, CA 94109
MTC-00024634
From: Spunk S. Spunk III
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I would like to voice my opinion of the Microsoft Settlement and
ask you to PLEASE continue the trial. The current settlement does
nothing to Microsoft and worse yet, many of the
``penalties'' actually strengthen Microsoft's monopoly. I
think it allows them to continue bullying everyone who gets in their
way as they always have done and, in fact, are continuing to do.
Thank you,
Brian Ray
MTC-00024635
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen. Please put a stop to this
travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
andrew russell 2414 state street erie, PA 16503
MTC-00024636
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement reached between the Department of Justice and
Microsoft is a disgrace. Microsoft committed crimes and their
punishment is no punishment at all! How can I be proud to be an
American under these conditions? I take an active part in the
education of my children. How do I explain to them that our country
is based on law but that law does not apply to the
wealthy--that our leaders are corrupt. You're destroying MY
country and it's heritage. I'm ashamed of the whole lot of you. You
disgust me.
Ed Sawicki
MTC-00024637
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
The constant litigations brought against Microsoft, simply
because the company is a success, need to stop, and those already
brought against Microsoft need to be dismissed, or at least,
diminished. The original case brought against Microsoft was a case
of ``sour grapes'', fueled by the liberal, and nonsensical
idea that ``it's not fair'' that one company succeeds more
than another. That same nonsensical idea extends to the individual,
and therefor those indivduals who succeed are excoriated and
punished by an increasingly dictatorial and intrusive government.
The idea that the success of one individual helps the success of the
next individual is no longer paramount in this country, because that
is a capitalistic concept, and the country is becoming more and more
socialistic. if not out-right communistic. However, Communism and
Socialism are not what made this country great, nor will they keep
it great.
Richard L. Bushman
165 Fruit Street
Hopkinton, MA 01748
508-435-4003
MTC-00024638
From: Rod Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement for Microsoft is a very bad idea and
completely insufficient.
MTC-00024639
From: George Heller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a bad idea. All it will allow for is
big companies with deep pockets to tie up cases in court long enough
that when the time comes for judgement the whole case seems
irrelevant. At that point, they're unaffected because they've
already accomplished what they've wanted to do: completely destroy
all competition.
MTC-00024640
From: E. Tomchin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
[[Page 27515]]
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Hesse,
After reviewing the Microsoft settlement documents it is my
considered opinion that the proposed settlement not only does not
prevent Microsoft from continuing in their heavy-handed and
competition-strangling behavior, but it completely fails to address
one of the worst offenses Microsoft has committed to date: to wit,
the inauguration of Microsoft's new XP operating system with its
Windows Product Activation (WPA) function. WPA appears fraudulent
and monopolizing in that if a consumer fails to get Microsoft's
permission to activate the operating system, which arguably is their
right, it prevents that consumer from accessing their own personal
and private files on that computer and permanently locks that
consumer out of their own computer. This simple fact seems prima
facie evidence that Microsoft has not only failed to adhere to the
spirit of the settlement agreement, but has taken their heavy-handed
monopoly to new heights.
Further, Microsoft has announced that it soon will cease all
support of earlier operating systems, including Windows 95, Windows
98, Windows ME and Windows 2000. This appears to be a monopolizing
move that is designed to force people to abandon any earlier
operating system they may own and choose to keep and force them to
purchase XP. This cessation of support for earlier Microsoft
operating systems would not be that heavy-handed and monopolizing if
Microsoft would allow the downloading of all necessary security
patches and Service Packs so that a user may bring those operating
systems up to secure functionality when the operating system needs
reinstalling, which it quite frequently does due to numerous bugs
and defects in the original product. Overall, it appears that
Microsoft is being allowed to continue to control and interfere with
a consumer's right to maintain an operating system they have
purchased from Microsoft. The settlement does not address any of the
issues I have put forth above.
Thank you for the opportunity to address these issues.
Sincerely,
Edward A. Tomchin
P. O. Box 10009
Golden Valley, AZ 86413
MTC-00024641
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen. Please put a stop to this
travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Betty Launius
3827 Verner Dr.
Peoria, IL 61615
MTC-00024642
From: Drew Dean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
(I'm not sure this got through the first time; it's the same
text)
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Hesse and Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
I wish to express my belief that the Revised Proposed Final
Judgment (RPFJ) in US v. Microsoft is not in the public interest,
and respectfully urge the Court not to approve it. While the RPFJ is
a substantial improvement over the original PFJ, it remains the case
that the exclusions swallow the rule. The following three examples
are illustrative, but by no means the only problematic areas in the
RPFJ.
(1) Section III.J.2. The exclusions in subpart (b), ``has a
reasonable business need for the API, Documentation, or
Communications Protocol for a planned or shipping product,''
(c) ``meets reasonable, objective standards established by
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its
business,'' and (d) ``agrees to submit, at its own
expense, any computer programs using such APIs, Documentation, or
Communication Protocols to third-party verification, approved by
Microsoft, to test for and ensure verification and compliance with
Microsoft specifications for use of the API or interface, which
specifications shall be related to proper operation and integrity of
the systems and mechanisms identified in this paragraph.''
serve to exclude the people that most need this documentation,
namely, the Samba team (see http://www.samba.org). The Samba team
has produced an open-source implementation of the Microsoft SMB/CIFS
protocols for file and printer sharing. Being an open source
project, their code is freely available, and they are not a
business. A reasonable interpretation of subparagraphs (b) and (c)
would make them ineligible to benefit from the remedies prescribed
in Sections III.D and III.E. Furthermore, the cost of the testing
required by Section II.J.2.(d) is likely to be prohibitive for
individuals, and non-profit open source projects, further limiting
competition. While the Samba team is the most immediately relevant
example, these concerns also apply to the developers of the Linux
operating system and the Apache Web server.
All three of these programs are used by large numbers of people,
and represent direct competition to Microsoft.
(2) The definitions in Sections VI.J, VI.K, and VI.T
(``Microsoft Middleware'', ``Microsoft Middleware
Product'', and ``Trademarked'', respectively) appear
to exclude Microsoft's Reader (see http://www.microsoft.com/reader).
Microsoft Reader is the company's software for the display of
electronic books. I reach the conclusion that Reader is not covered
by the RPFJ as follows: (1) Sections VI.J.2, and VI.K.2.b.iii both
require that the software ``is Trademarked.'' (2) Section
VI.T defines ``Trademarked''. Sub-paragraph (iii) says
``asserting the name as a trademark in the United States in a
demand letter or lawsuit. Any product distributed under descriptive
or generic terms or a name comprised of the Microsoft(r) or
Windows(r) trademarks together with descriptive or generic terms
shall not be Trademarked as that term is used in this Final
Judgment.''
(3) Microsoft Reader certainly is a name comprised of
``Microsoft'' and a generic term, ``Reader,''
and by the plain meaning of Section VI.T.(iii) is not Trademarked.
Hence, it is neither Microsoft Middleware nor a Microsoft Middleware
Product, and appears to fall entirely outside the scope of the RPFJ.
While the electronic book market is highly immature at present, many
believe that it will come to dominate traditional, paper-based,
publishing. The potential economies of digital storage and
transmission are enormous. Publishing is a multi-billion dollar per
year market and so the status of Microsoft Reader and competing
products will be of great competitive significance. I believe that
the public interest is best served by letting this potential market
evolve in a free, competitive manner. Leaving Microsoft
unconstrained is not consistent with this goal. I also note that
Microsoft can avoid having any new product designated as a Microsoft
Middleware Product under the RPFJ by the simple expedient of naming
it so that it falls outside the definition of Trademarked (Section
VI.T). (3) I quote Section VI.U in its entirety: ``Windows
Operating System Product'' means the software code (as opposed
to source code) distributed commercially by Microsoft for use with
Personal Computers as Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home,
Windows XP Professional, and successors to the foregoing, including
the Personal Computer versions of the products currently code named
``Longhorn'' and ``Blackcomb'' and their
successors, including upgrades, bug fixes, service packs, etc. The
software code that comprises a Windows Operating System Product
shall be determined by Microsoft in its sole discretion.
This definition has two problems. First, it is internally
inconsistent. It begins by defining the code comprising a
``Windows Operating System Product.'' It then follows that
definition by contradicting itself, ``The software code that
comprises a Windows Operating System Product shall be determined by
Microsoft in its sole discretion.'' Which definition is meant
to prevail? Neither is clearly subordinate to the other. Second, in
numerous places in the RPFJ, language of the form ``not
inconsistent with this Final Judgment'', ``consistent with
this Final Judgment'', or ``exercising any of
[[Page 27516]]
the options or alternatives provided for under this Final
Judgment'' appears. It is, however, notably missing in Section
VI.U. Given the numerous other appearances of this language, its
lack here appears to be significant. While one might assume that any
such determinations by Microsoft would have to be consistent with
the RPFJ, plain reading of this definition does not require it. As
there is no indication that this definition is subordinate to the
rest of the RFPJ, this could be interpreted as undermining the
intent of the RFPJ, particularly in regard to middleware products. I
believe the settlement would be substantially strengthened by
replacing the final sentence with: ``The software code that
comprises a Windows Operating System Product shall be determined by
Microsoft in its sole discretion, consistent with this Final
Judgment.''
The above examples are illustrative of the flawed approach taken
in the Revised Proposed Final Judgment. I believe that the Revised
Proposed Final Judgment is not in the public interest, and
respectfully urge the Court not to approve it.
Sincerely,
Drew Dean
21070 White Fir Ct.
Cupertino, CA 95014
MTC-00024643
From: Terryk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft
I am adamantly opposed to the proposed DOJ settlement. I have
been in the computer business since the early ``60's. I watched
for years as Microsoft ran business after business, out of business.
Netscape, a fine browser, was one of the most visible, but by far,
not the only one. Stac, a disk compression company is one that comes
to mind, when Microsoft ``added'' a near copy of it to
Windows, in the form of ``Double disk''. The original
proposed settlement, breakup of Microsoft, and a Windows product
without Internet Explorer was by far the best proposal. I believe
the remaining nine states, and now AOL, are absolutely right to
demand a much better solution to a major monopolistic company that
Microsoft is. Not to mention the arrogance of Mr. Bill Gates.
I. L. Koelling email = [email protected]
MTC-00024644
From: Russell Tilton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:11pm
Subject: microsoft
We hope that Microsoft stays strong in the marketplace.
Personally, we like their products and have no complaints about
their service. I would hate to see another negative impact on the NW
at this point in time. As long as there are checks and balances, I
don't even mind if they control the market place because
decentralization may be cumbersome and difficult to work with given
the technical expertise needed to work with different systems. They
would all need to be integrated. A big order, wouldn't you say?
MTC-00024645
From: Jerome
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Federal Anti-trust settlement in this case was a travesty.
It did little to a company that violated past agreements on anti-
competative behavior of microsoft. The American public deserves a
Judicial system that will look out for them, and this settlements do
not do this. The Government has proven their case agenst Microsoft,
and the Federal Courts have a duty to the people of the United
States to ensure that it does not happen again, and the only way
that they can do this is to apply a penelty which will discourage,
or make it impossable for Microsoft to practice this behavior in the
future. Given some of Microsoft's latest aquisitions (intelectual
property which includes a rival 3-D graphics technology, Open GL),
and software technologies in thier latest OS, I feel that they have
continued these pracices even while litigation in the current Anti-
trust case is pending. I would like to see harsher penelties applied
to Microsoft for these reasons.
Jerome Gantner
MTC-00024646
From: Nick Snyder
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the only thing Microsoft should be able to do, is
pay the money. They should not donate software, computers and what
not. They should put the money into a ``fund'' for each
school and have the school buy what computer software, hardware and
whatever other computer stuff they need.
Thought I would share.
Nick Snyder
MTC-00024647
From: L.C. Mathison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:16pm
Subject: Stop Microsoft's Monolopy
The proposed DOJ vs Microsoft settlement is bad for everyone
except Microsoft. Please do not accept and make legal the monolopy
Microsoft now holds. Please take any appropriate measures to
completely stop Microsoft's monolopy by breaking them into
competitive companies or stop the pre loading of Microsoft Operating
systems and add-on programs such as Internet Explorer which caused
the first public outcry.
Please!
Please!
Listen to the people!
Leslie C. Mathison
1128 West Collinwood Circle
Opelika, AL 36801
Phone 334-749-5891
MTC-00024648
From: Son, Seha (S.)
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 2:14pm
Subject: Current AOL litigation
I believe that the both companies time and resources should be
spent toward ultimate end-consumers, not in the courtroom. Both
companies should be engaged in fair and mutual competition and
perhaps cooperation for the benefit of ,again, consumers. I'd like
to see AOL's litigation to end immediately so that the consumers
win.
MTC-00024649
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen. Please put a stop to this
travesty of justice now.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Glenn Koons
5314 4th
Long Beach, CA 90814
MTC-00024650
From: Tom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is not sufficient punishment to
Microsoft. Microsoft uses their control of the operating system harm
other companies who were trying to compete. A proper settlement
would lessen the power that Microsoft wields over the industry.
Tom Solnok
706 Sumac Rd
Derby, KS 67037
MTC-00024651
From: Scott Layman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to see Microsoft broken up. If not broken up, then
the governmnt needs to keep a very close watch on them. Microsoft
shouldn't decide on thier punishment. The courts should, and the
punishment should not be in Microsoft's favor. The giving 1 billion
$ of microsoft products to schools is just feeding the monoploy
fire! Microsoft's business practices are down right EVIL. It amazes
me at how they could get away with most of the stuff they do.
Microsoft's punishment needs to be harsh.
MTC-00024652
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:18pro
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
RICHARD LAMB
[[Page 27517]]
1357 43rd Avenue Unit 35
Greeley, Colorado 80634
January 25,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
The reason I am writing to you is to ask that you make certain
the settlement that was reached recently between the Justice
Department and Microsoft is concluded. I am concerned that anti-
Microsoft groups may try to harm the settlement process. The Justice
Department and Microsoft want to settle this case. Antagonists of
the settlement contend that this agreement is hard enough on
Microsoft. However, considering this settlement makes Microsoft
share more information with competing software firms than ever
before proves these contentions are wrong. This settlement discloses
Microsoft/Es internal interfaces, which is a major concession and
unprecedented. Also, Microsoft has agreed to share its secrets of
server interoperability. With these two disclosures, Microsoft will
be creating more competitiveness in the IT industry. Opponents of
the settlement don't seem to be concerned with this; they appear to
have more concern with punishing Microsoft.
I appreciate you taking time to consider my views on this issue.
I urge you to settle this case as has been planned.
Sincerely,
Richard Lamb
MTC-00024655
From: Sonia Arrison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Re: Settlement of US v. Microsoft
Dear Ms. Hesse:
The Pacific Research Institute is a non-profit, San Francisco-
based public policy think tank dedicated to promoting individual
freedom and personal responsibility. This letter is being submitted
to the courts as part of the Tunney Act proceedings as it relates to
the Final Judgment Stipulation and Competitive Impact Statement in
US v. Microsoft. On behalf of Pacific Research Institute, I have
written on and researched the Microsoft issue extensively. It is the
position of our organization that approving the settlement in this
case is in the best interest of consumers and the technology
industry.
As the director for the Pacific Research Institutes Center for
Technology Studies, I have worked on this issue from very early on
in its history. I reviewed the position of the federal government
and state attorneys general as well as the position taken by
MicrosoftA competitors. The antitrust case brought against Microsoft
was neither justified nor in the best interest of American
consumers. Now, four years later, the courts have an opportunity to
mitigate the mistakes made by the Justice Department and previous
courts by supporting the settlement. The settlement being proposed
is the right course of action to take. By forcing Microsoft to open
their operating system, prevent unfair bundling, and create various
forms of oversight, the settlement will address the concerns of
those who called for this trial in the beginning. As an added
benefit, accepting the settlement will provide a greatly needed lift
for the national economy. The damaging effect of this case on our
economy is obvious. In the two weeks when the first round of
settlement talks between Microsoft and Justice Department collapsed,
the value of Microsoft stock in the California Public Employees
Retirement System fell by over $700 million. Our current economic
climate is not one that can easily withstand another setback of that
severity. I am including with this letter an article I wrote in July
2001 and a white paper written by our policy fellow, Helen Chaney. I
hope this information is helpful to the court.
Sincerely,
Sonia Arrison
Director, Center for Technology Studies
Pacific Research Institute
755 Sansome Street, suite 450
San Francisco, CA 94111
451-989-0833 x107
MTC-00024656
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen. Please put a stop to this
travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Clyde Reynolds
2012 17th Ave
Forest Grove, OR 97116
MTC-00024659
From: Phil Russell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I respectfully ask that you carefully avoid being swayed by a
massive Microsoft-led write-in campaign. I do not favor the
``billion dollars in computers and software to schools''
settlement for many reasons. It is difficult to trust Microsoft,
given the lies Bill Gates is prone to telling. Would Microsoft claim
the $429 cost for every copy of Microsoft Office it would give to
schools? Or would they claim their actual cost of somewhere less
than $2? I suspect the latter. When that copy of Microsoft Office
has to be upgraded, doesn't this lock the schools into Microsoft
products far beyond the initial copy of the application? Apple
Computer is much admired and used in schools. This is one area where
Microsoft does not have a 90 to 10 advantage over Apple. The
proposed settlement would tear into Apple's share. Given the extreme
wealth of Microsoft, gained while unlawfully running roughshod over
other companies, one billion dollars in restitution is a huge joke.
Perhaps 10 or 15 billion might be more rational. Microsoft is one
huge predatory company, intent on taking over EVERYTHING in the
computer and internet world and MORE. Strong penalties are
necessary.
Thanks for listening to an every-day computer user.
Phil Russell
1420 SW Crest Circle
Waldport, OR 97394
541-563-2501
Explaining the proposed Microsoft punishment:
``...someone is caught breaking into your house, offers to
repair the damage instead of going to jail, if they can put up a
massive billboard for their house maintenance business in your front
yard for six months...''--MacOpinion
MTC-00024660
From: Joel T. Osburn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:21pm
Subject: Please reject the proposed settlement
A quick review of pertinent Facts: * Microsoft had (and
maintains) a monopoly on desktop computer operating systems. *
Microsoft used (and still uses) this monopoly to extend it's reach
into other markets. * Microsoft developed monopolies in other
markets using this general tactic, including but not limited to:
internet browsing software, office suites, entry level database
software. * Microsoft violated a Consent Decree issued 15 July, 1994
(Civil Action # 94-1564, US vs. Microsoft (http://
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f0000/0047.htm), also as a result of abusing
it's monopoly to stifle competition, and extend into new markets. *
In court, Microsoft, including it's Chairman and it's CEO,
repeatedly lied under oath. * By extending it's monopoly via these
illegal means, Microsoft has grown at unprecedented rates for twenty
years, and is one of the richest corporations in the world, with no
debt, and a vast amount of cash. Observations regarding the impact
of the above facts on consumers: * The price of software in those
markets which Microsoft dominates has remained steady while in other
markets average prices have dropped. * There have been no new
innovations in general internet browsing software from Microsoft
since they released version 5 of Internet Explorer over four years
ago. The pace of innovation previously observed was a direct result
of competition that no longer exists. Microsoft's Internet Explorer
has yet to conform to published, accepted standards;
[[Page 27518]]
instead, web developers conform to Internet Explorer's peculiarities
rather than the accepted standards. This leads to: By dominating
markets, Microsoft has positioned itself and it's products as a
defacto standard by extending it's monopoly. This prevents
competition; potential competitors cannot meet an unpublished
defacto standard, and therefore cannot compete; products developed
in this manner appear substandard to the public, which expects
behavior as per the ``standard'' set by the monopoly. Thus
competition is stifled and innovation outside of Microsoft limited
to those areas in which Microsoft either cannot or has yet to
leverage it's existing monopolies to enter.
The proposed settlement fails to: * Compensate any of those
affected, either directly or indirectly, by Microsoft's pattern of
illegal behavior. * Require Microsoft to either adhere to published
standards, or publish those features and behaviors that it has
established as defacto standards. * Prevent Microsoft from tying any
given new product to it's existing monopolies unbeknownst to the
general public, through the common practice of requiring Non
Disclosure Agreements before any information is exchanged or
contract negotiated. Therefore a company must risk it's very
existence under threat of lawsuits, in order to accuse Microsoft of
repeating it's illegal behavior. * Provide expedient, impartial
resolution of future examples of the same illegal behavior. A
``three strikes'' type clause may be appropriate, and I'll
note that this particular case is actually a second strike, having
been brought about by Microsoft's failing to abide by the Consent
Decree it agreed to over seven years ago. * Provide any current or
future competitors any assurance that they will be able to compete
on equal footing, thus raising the requirement to even begin to
compete. * Prevent Microsoft from holding equity in or substantial
contracts with any direct competitors. They currently hold equity in
Apple Computer, which is currently the only legitimate competitor
for desktop operating systems, and have a major development
agreement with Corel, makers of WordPerfect. This creates a
potential conflict of interest for those ``competitors'':
Apple Computer stopped shipping Netscape Navigator with it's
personal computers, instead shipping Microsoft's Internet Explorer
(which defeats Microsoft's argument that Internet Explorer is a part
of the Windows Operating System, and, since this was in exchange for
$150 million) constitutes illegal dumping); immediately upon
receiving from Microsoft a major influx of capital along with a
development contract, Corel stopped development of it's version of
the Linux Operating System, and the version of the WordPerfect suite
of ``office'' applications for the Linux Operating system.
This would appear to be anti-competitive.
Please reject the proposed settlement; many more appropriate
suggestions have been fielded for how to remedy the illegal behavior
exhibited by Microsoft.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Joel T. Osburn
MTC-00024665
From: Peter C Lott
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 2:21pm
Subject: USAGLott_Peter_1016--0115.doc
2700 S Sunland Drive
Tempe, AZ 85282-3387
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
As I read more about the recent developments in the Microsoft
settlement, I become more frustrated in the fact that it may be even
further delayed. By delaying the enforcement of this agreement, we
directly delay the advancement of our American technology industry.
As the rest of the global market moves on, America's technology
industry is forced to focus on litigation rather than innovation.
Not only has Microsoft agreed to make changes in licensing and
marketing, but has agreed to design future versions of Windows for
easier installation of non-Microsoft software. Beyond this,
Microsoft has agreed to be monitored by a committee in order to
ensure that they follow proper procedure. All of these concessions
are clearly a step toward a more unified technology industry. By
working together, we help our American technology industry maintain
its position of leadership in this highly competitive global market.
As we face this competitive market, we must be prepared for the many
changes involved in this industry. By being able to focus on
innovation, we can be prepared for these changes and stay on top of
the market. By enforcing this agreement, we will be able to utilize
it as a guideline for advancement within the market.
Sincerely,
Peter Lott
MTC-00024686
From: John Coble
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:23pm
Subject: Public Comment
This is a Public Comment on the proposed settlement among the
Justice Department, the Nine States and Microsoft Corporation. I am
also including comments about AOL in its recent filing: I have been
a user of Microsoft Windows and many other Microsoft Products for
many years. Definitively not because they are the only ones
available, but solely because they are the best. (And indeed I have
tried many others). No one using Microsoft Windows (any version) is
forced to use MSN Internet Browsers as every computer manufacturer
lists a wide range of other providers. As for many others including
the worst AOL you can go to any computing store and many other
stores and get a free CD to load in to your PC in a matter of
minutes and use their service. Just because Microsoft has started
including Internet Explorer as an integral part of Windows does not
force you into something that you do not want. You can indeed delete
their ICONS and use any other provider that you desire without any
degrade to the general functioning of Windows. I was with AOL and
used Netscape and found them to be rife with problems and forced
spam of every thing from porno to advertising of anything you could
name. I finally got off of AOL and went with QWest because they
offered a high speed connection (DSL). I continued to use Netscape
until I could no longer stand the errors and finally switched to MSN
Internet Explorer and could not be happier. Every Microsoft product
that I use is the best and at the best price.
Finally, I do believe that every one that appeared before the
courts against Microsoft have in some way been connected to other
manufactures or states. (Probably paid off). This case can be
settled quickly if the U.S. District Judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
would issue an order that with any settlement there will be no money
involved. Each party will handle their own legal expenses and once
the Judge rules on the case, that is it. No further charges or
appeals will be accepted. And for any person or group testifying
against Microsoft they must be investigated to determine their ties
to other manufactures, states and now AOL. As a final step in the
settlement the Judge should ask that the nine states involved should
report back to the court within one year on their actions to stop
using Microsoft Products. This is a long dissertation; however, I am
fed up with my tax dollars being spent on this insurrection against
one of the best companies in the world by a bunch of money hungry
companies/states that could not succeed on their own.
John T. Coble
2647 98th Ave. NE
Clyde Hill, WA 98004
425 454-4632
MTC-00024688
From: Frank de Lange
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:22pm
Subject: On the Microsoft settlement
Dear sir/madam,
Even though I may not be a US citizen, I still want to add some
comments to the proposed settlement in the case Microsoft vs. DoJ. I
am a self-employed IT service architect, who has been employed by
several Dutch and international companies. Others have commented on
many aspects of the settlement. Much of the text seems reasonable. I
see two minor points which might need some improvement.
Point 1:
Under I.1. ``All terms, including royalties [...]
reasonable and non-discriminatory.'' I would like to refer you
to a discussion on RAND (Reasonable and non-Discriminatory)
licensing as has been proposed for the world wide web consortium
(The organization which sets standards for the world wide web).
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/
WD_patent_policy_20010816/ Note especially
objections made by some of the w3c contributors. To wit: rand is not
non-discriminatory. It discriminates directly against Open Source
and Free Software projects. These projects simply cannot use or pay
for such RAND licensing due to their legal structure. The arguments
that could be made here are very similar to those stated in the w3c
discussion. Here are some arguments
[[Page 27519]]
of my own: Royalty Free (RF) Licensing has been proposed as an
alternative, and overcomes this weakness. Why are Free Software and
Open Source Software important? There are two arguments based on
reason, and one is based on simple demonstration: (1) The free
software operating system GNU/Linux is considered by many to be a
somewhat important competitor to Microsoft. It is distributed under
the GNU general public licence (GPL) which is a distribution
license. Allowing Microsoft to discriminate against such competitor
would not be fair. It could also hardly be called non-
discriminatory, of course.
(2) As far as I know, original implementations of RFC 791
(Internet Protocol) and RFC 793 (Transmission Control Protocol) were
released under the university of California's' ``Berkeley
Software Distribution'' License. This is a free software
license. These 2 protocols form the heart of the current day
Internet. The implementation was left Royalty Free, and hence all
parties adopted it. Also, since the original source was open, all
parties could learn from it, and the TCP/IP system was quickly
adopted worldwide. This is very important. references: IETF RFCs can
be obtained from many sources. Here is one on the world wide web.:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/rfc/rfc791.txt http://
www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/rfc/rfc793.txt
(3) Quite simply put: The Simple Mail Transfer Protocol(RFC821)
is royalty free, to the best of my knowledge. This protocol is used
to transmit E-mail across the Internet. If it were not for SMTP, and
if it were not for its royalty free status, I would not have been
able to send this message. A possible solution to the shortcoming in
I.1. (and similar problems with related points under I) would be to
allow for Royalty Free licensing of at very least the data
interchange formats used by Microsoft.
As an aside: Requiring Microsoft to submit their data formats
(such as word and excel) to the International Standards Organization
(ISO) might improve the situation further. Such standards
organizations argue that good standardization has demonstrably
improved economic gain, and stimulated competition between all
parties concerned. I think that even Microsoft might actually gain
from such an action in the long run. I see nothing wrong with this,
because such gain would result from fair competition. Reference:
www.iso.org
Point 2:
Under J it is said that Microsoft may not disclose information
about security systems, and may set almost any requirement when
sharing security information with a security vendor.
I am a hacker, not a `certified computing security
professional'. I do not feel the need to be certified by any
vendor, as these certifications usually are no more than a guarantee
of sbujectivity. Open knowledge of algorithms and methods is a
requirement for truly strong security. This seems reasonable to me.
After all, if one knows of a certain weakness, one can compensate
for it and prevent people from exploiting it.
If a hostile element was to be the only person to know a
weakness in a security system, then that person would certainly be
able to exploit that weakness. Further, security systems which are
put up for public review can quickly be assessed for potential
weaknesses, and these weaknesses can be repaired. No such process
can be used for systems which are kept secret. A second slight
problem which some people have brought up is that there might be a
weakness here. People might state ``security concerns'' as
an excuse to sidestep what they are required to do under I in some
situations. In fact this does not seem very hard to do from a
technical perspective.
In short, section J on the whole might have some weaknesses. It
might be a good idea to gain advice from one or more security
experts (such as perhaps a professor teaching about data encryption,
or people employed by a government security agency) to determine if
this is indeed the case.
Kind regards,
Frank de Lange
Moldau 27
8226MV Lelystad
The Netherlands
MTC-00024689
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't feel that the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-
trust action adequately addresses the issue of monopoly. It lets the
monopoly remain. I feel that the best solution would be to break
Microsoft into at least 3 pieces, each with rights to the full
intellectual property of the existing company. The new companies
would then have to compete against each other. The disruption during
the breakup would also provide some time for alternative competition
to join the market or gain market share. I personally am an Apple
MacIntosh user, and I am continually frustrated by the lack of
``shelf space'' that retailers provide for non-Microsoft
products. I am also worried about the gradual creep of Microsoft
software becoming the only supported software on Apple systems. My
ISP, AT&T broadband, does not support Netscape as a browser or
email client. They only support Internet Explorer and Outlook
Express from Microsoft.
Thank you for your consideration,
Peter C. Damron
MTC-00024690
From: Lawrence F Povirk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:24pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
8127 Brown Road
Richmond, VA 23235
January 25, 2002
To the United States Department of Justice:
Like many investors, I own, through various mutual funds,
thousands of dollars worth of Microsoft (MS) stock. Yet, lately I
find myself wishing MS would simply close down and vanish. Why?
Because I am also a computer user. I spend at least half my working
hours at the computer, and like most users, I have dealt with MS
products for years. The quality of those products has been variable,
but that has been true of most software, so I could not complain too
loudly. If I found one of their products genuinely dysfunctional, I
could dump it and choose a competing product, as I did several
times. Lately, however, I feel I am being increasingly coerced into
using MS products, as the alternatives have gradually disappeared.
As anyone familiar with the industry knows, this is not because MS
has come up with more innovative or more reliable software. Rather,
it is because they have been able to target any popular piece of
software they choose, use the cash flow from Windows to build a
functional duplicate of it from the ground up, bundle their copycat
version with Windows or sell it below cost, and drive their
competitor out of business. This is classic, textbook monopolist
behavior, and it is beginning to stifle the whole computer industry.
We need not belabor whether MS acted improperly. Their culpability
has already been established. What is at is issue is coming up with
an effective remedy, that will restore some degree of consumer
choice. It is not only companies harmed by MS's behavior, or
consumers frustrated by their lack of choice, but disinterested
industry analysts as well, who all agree that the settlement now
proposed will do almost nothing to alter MS's mode of business or to
bring competition back to the software market. There are, however,
remedies that might actually make some progress toward that end.
First and foremost, no one should have to pay for a MS product
that they do not want. I recently began shopping for a notebook
computer, and found it was virtually impossible to buy one from a
major manufacturer that was not preloaded with Windows. IBM and Dell
both used to offer models with Linux instead, but no longer.
Tellingly, both manufacturers took them off the market just when the
Justice Department gave up its only real leverage in the antitrust
case by removing the threat of a MS breakup.
This coercion of consumers to buy a product they do not want
(Windows) in order to get one that they do want (a computer) is
precisely what the antitrust laws were intended to prevent. Hence,
at a bare minimum, a simple mechanism should be set up such that
anyone can get a full refund for any piece of MS software that was
bundled with any piece of hardware that they purchased. To
circumvent MS's considerable skills in price manipulation, amount of
the refund should be set at the greater of the amount the
manufacturer paid MS for the software, or a fixed fraction, say 70%,
of the retail price of the software. Moreover, the price charged by
MS to manufacturers for preloaded software should be required to be
published and uniform, so that MS cannot reward manufacturers for
promoting MS's interests, or, more importantly, punish them for not
doing so. If a consumer wants to return only part of an
``integrated'' piece of software say, keep Windows but get
rid of Internet Explorer, they also should be able to do so, and get
a partial refund based on the approximate size of that part of the
software (i.e., number of lines of computer code) relative to the
whole. Obviously, MS itself cannot be trusted to handle the refund
[[Page 27520]]
process itself; that will have to be done by an independent entity
set up specifically for that purpose, and under court oversight. In
the past, MS has argued that, were this to be allowed, users would
return the software, and keep using it anyway, or use an illegal
copy. But with MS's new authentication/registration requirements,
this practice will become impossible, and their argument will become
moot--the one small benefit of an otherwise reprehensible
policy that may soon widen the ``digital divide'' into a
chasm.
Second, to help level the field in application software, MS
should be required to publish the specifications of its main file
formats such as .doc, .ppt and .xls. Currently, I am often forced to
use MS Word, a program I passionately hate, because coworkers send
me documents in MS Word (.doc) format. While competing word
processors have devoted considerable effort to creating filters to
import and export .doc files, those filters not very reliable,
partly if not primarily because the .doc format is secret and ever-
changing. Publishing the specifications would probably not solve all
interconversion problems, but it certainly would help. Furthermore,
MS should be required to maintain input filters of their own for the
next three competing applications (e.g., WordPerfect, StarOffice and
Applixware word processors), so that documents created on those
applications will open in Word, Powerpoint and Excel. Again, and
unfortunately, an independent entity will have to be set up to
monitor compliance. Even so, none of this even begins to address
what may be a much greater means of coercion in the future: MS's
apparent plans to make it more and more inconvenient for any Windows
user to use any internet services that compete with their own MSN
and Passport services. We are now getting only the first hints to
what those tactics will be, but they are clearly going to be
inextricably built into Windows, and virtually impossible for any
Windows user to avoid. Given their control of so much of the basic
operation of home and office computers, they really should be barred
from providing network services at all. Given that such a
restriction is unlikely, their behavior in this area will have to be
closely monitored as well, to ensure that they do not shut out
competitors entirely.
Of course, I realize that there are those who are perfectly
satisfied with the closed, controlled world of computing provided to
them by Microsoft. But 20 years ago, there were those who were
equally satisfied with AT&T's monopoly phone service, and were
dumbfounded at the government's effort to break it up. There were
even those who were satisfied with the state-controlled monopolies
of the Communist era. That doesn't mean they should have been
preserved. History has taught us over and over again that monopolies
are a stagnating, corrosive influence on any industry they control,
whether it's oil or software. In every case where they were broken
up, the result was a wave of innovation and expansion, often going
beyond the dreams of even the most enthusiastic trust-busters. I
would challenge you to name a single case where the forced
restoration of competition in an industry, resulted in worse
products being available to consumers. Despite their stability and
economies of scale, monopolies are, invariably, a bad deal for
consumers, entrepreneurs and society at large; a bad deal for
everyone but the monopolists themselves. Microsoft is no different.
A copy of this comment in PDF format with facsimile signature, is
attached.
Sincerely,
Lawrence F. Povirk
MTC-00024691
From: Robin Downie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
The enclosed letter is for your consideration.
Thank you,
Robin Downic
2684 Elm Drive
Brier, WA 98036-8940
January21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Deparment of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing today to urge you and the Department of Justice to
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. The issue has been
dragged out for over three years and it is time to put it to rest.
Microsoft and the industry need to move on.
Some critics say that Microsoft has gotten off easy. In fact,
the settlement is quite strict. Microsoft agreed to give computer
makers the freedom to install and promote any software that they see
fit. Microsoft has also agreed not to enter into any contract with
any computer maker that obligates the computer maker to exclusively
promote Microsoft software. In fact, Microsoft has agreed to terms
that extend well beyond the products and procedures that were
actually at issue in the suit. In order to move forward, Microsoft
has The settlement is fair and should be accepted. forward is to put
the case in the past. made many concessions. The only way to move
Sincerely,
Robin Downie 00024691--0002
MTC-00024691
From: Tony Magnuson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:25pm
Subject: anti-trust case
The settlement was presented in a way that showed Microsoft's
cost in settlement as inflated. The perception is one of Justice
serving special interests. This is in the face of the large cache of
capital Microsoft maintains which constitutes a tax break for the
company and its investors and inflates the value of its stock. A
decision by Justice should foster competition, increase shareholder
value overall, increase transparency, and send a message that
dissembling tactics are not acceptable, even by powerful
corporations. I believe the original proposal to break Microsoft
into discrete units would have accomplished this. Microsoft is not
the only company in the tech arena to be guilty of such tactics, but
it represents a clear starting point. This action should not finish
with a settlement like this that shows the federal government
partnering with Microsoft in wrongdoing. This action should be a
beginning of scrutiny of the standards of behavior for industry and
the nation as a whole. You will remember Enron.
I am a small business owner and investor in Northern California
and user of Microsoft products. I do not want a refund from the
company nor anything that would benefit the company nor even the
sector specifically. Such a settlement would validate legal bullying
and squabbling as a method of reducing competition. I would like to
see any settlement invested in the establishment of fairness and
transparency in industry as a whole.
sincerely,
David Magnuson
Moss Beach, California
MTC-00024693
From: John (038) Sandee Walker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:27pm
Subject: Gates lawsuit
This is not about forcing people to buy browsers other than
Microsoft. This is about inferior products being pawned off on
unsuspecting consumers. The average computer owner has little or no
knowledge of how their computer operates--they shouldn't have
to it should be designed to work for them. Bill Gates puts out
inferior products before they are perfected. He has the money to
hipe his products. Unsuspecting consumers have to go through hell
using his inferior products. Hard working quality minded smaller
companies interested in coming out with superior products don't have
the funds or connections to get their products included in the sale
of a computer. The general public will benefit because small
businesses with superior products are benefiting because Bill Gates
has been called on the carpet for unscrupulous tactics. Please
realize Bill Gates is not interested in quality product. His ONLY
interest is quantity profits at any expense.
MTC-00024694
From: Rick Peterson
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your Honor,
I have worked in Silicon Valley for 15 years and have personal
contact with many high-tech companies. There is a very common theme
and that is ``fear of Microsoft''. Microsoft has clearly
abused their monopoly. There are companies that never get funded
because they predict that Microsoft will not allow the competition.
This is unhealthy for our economy! We need the best technology and
the best software to have a chance to make it to the marketplace and
to compete fairly there. This won't happen if Microsoft is somehow
threatened by it. Microsoft has demonstrated its
[[Page 27521]]
complete disregard for the law. They do not operate with honor or
fairness in the marketplace. Please do what is right and needs to
happen. Please break up this ruthless monopoly and force Microsoft
to play by the rules of commerce, that govern our great country.
Sincerely,
Rick Peterson, IDSA
Vice President
Studio RED
Tel:650.324.2244 x231
Cel:650.722.2782
MTC-00024695
From: Shulamit
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Under the Tunney Act, the court must consider public comments
prior to deciding on the Microsoft proposed settlement. I am writing
to urge you to reject the proposed settlement offer. It does nothing
to solve the problem of Microsoft's monopoly and in fact will
increase Microsoft's stranglehold in the education market, further
adding to the problem.
MTC-00024696
From: JT Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In the words of Robert X. Cringely (from pbs.org): Section
III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against not-for-
profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not describe
nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don't
meet Microsoft's criteria as a business: ``...(c) meets
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business,
...'' This loophole (as well as others, but I find this the
most offensive) are unacceptable. Please reconsider the settlement
decision.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
MTC-00024697
From: jeff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello Renata--
As a resident of Washington you would think I would be favoring
Microsoft in this action. That is not the case. The current
settlement actually has the effect of further strengthening
Microsoft's monopoly. Make them give the school cash and let the
schools decide on what equipment and software to purchase.
Apple Computer has traditionally been very strong in the
education market and this is simply a backdoor play for Microsoft to
gain market share.
Thank you for letting me voice my opinion.
Jeff Chin
MTC-00024698
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jamie Pence
PO Box 752
Clinton, MO 64735-0752
MTC-00024699
From: Landrus, Kurt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think this settlement is an extremely bad solution. This is
not a punishment form Microsoft monoplistic prcatices, it merely
enables them to expand into another niche market (education) they do
not yet already own.
They have plenty of cash, the settlement should require them to
put up cash not donations of MS software.
Please stop this insaity from being approved.
Kurt Landrus
MTC-00024700
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
The settlement with Microsoft seems fair and equitable and
should be settled. It would seem that at this point in history the
people would be better served utilizing government resources in more
productive ways.
Sincerely yours,
Claudia Pletter
MTC-00024701
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
J. NINER
149 Topaz
Kissee Mills, MO 65680
MTC-00024702
From: Connie Wickland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
9928 181st Avenue NE
Redmond, WA 98052
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing to express my opinions regarding the Microsoft
antitrust case. I believe that your office reached a fair and
reasonable settlement that should allow the industry to return its
focus to innovation, rather than litigation.
Microsoft has already agreed to concessions that have set new
antitrust precedent. The competition will be allowed to use Windows
as a springboard to launch their products that compete directly to
those programs already included within Windows. Also, Microsoft will
disclose, for the competition, various interfaces in its Windows
operating system. Most importantly, Microsoft has agreed not to
retaliate against any software or hardware developers that develop
or promote software that competes with Windows or that runs on
software that competes with Windows.
Microsoft has made these concessions because it realizes that
settling the case sooner is better than later. If these concessions
were asked from more traditional and understandable industries, I
think they would be denounced as going against the principles of
competition and free enterprise. Imagine if every Coke can had to
have a sample of Pepsi inside, or if McDonalds had to offer Burger
King's Whopper to those that wanted it. Would that be reasonable?
This settlement will allow the consumers, the industry, and the
economy to move forward. I hope when reviewing this case it will be
judged it by its merits, and not by the everlasting chain of
competitors'' demands.
Sincerely,
Connie WicklandGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download
:
http://explorer.msn.com
MTC-00024703
From: Jay W. Luther
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 27522]]
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
United States v. Microsoft has been a long and complicated case,
and a detailed critique of the proposed settlement it has spawned is
best left to those who have considered the implications of every
line. As one who has represented software concerns, and has some
sense of the industry, I would simply offer my conclusion: It is
highly likely that the proposed settlement will be completely
ineffectual. Put another way, it appears to me that it will have no
impact on the industry as the industry currently exists, though some
of its provisions might have been modestly helpful in preserving
browser completion during the Netscape-Explorer fight.
Particularly egregious here is the carve-out of the free
software movement from essentially all of the proposed judgment's
benefit. In operating systems, this is the only competition to MS
that is significant today, and if there is to be any benefit to
consumers from the judgment, open source representatives must have
full, complete, and prompt access to all significant
interoperability data for Windows, MS middleware and MS Office, with
access being controlled by disinterested third parties. This is also
true for all competitive office applications. After all these years,
it's time to bring to a close the famous axiom, ``DOS's
[Windows's] not done ``til Lotus [WordPerfect, Netscape, etc.]
won't run.''
Jay W. Luther
Law Offices of Jay W. Luther
Voice: 415-456-6197
Fax: 415-456-8597 00024703--0002 01/29/2002
10:08
MTC-00024705
From: Thomas M. Ferlauto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I oppose the settlement. Microsoft has proven to be a
monopolistic predator. From Netscape to Java to countless other
examples, Microsoft has used its dominate position in the PC desktop
OS market to bully competitors or even drive them out of business.
The justice department, at the tax payer's great expense, prevailed
and demonstrated Microsoft to have violated the law. This settlement
renders all of that effort futile and teaches Microsoft the valuable
lesson that you can violate the law, but if you fight like hell in
the courts you can get away with it. This will only encourage
Microsoft to continue its illegal behavior (to this day, Microsoft
contends they did nothing wrong). To teach Microsoft a lesson, to
deter future criminal conduct, to make Microsoft a good corporate
citizen, to foster free competition, and to benefit the consumers,
it is imperative that the settlement be rejected and more drastic
remedies be sought.
The problem is Microsoft's dominance in the OS market. This
gives Microsoft the power, which they are too at ease with using, to
dominate every other aspect of computing. Control over the OS leads
to control over office suites, which leads to control over web
browsers, which leads to control over internet access and content.
This domino effect will never end until Microsoft's OS division is
made a separate company from its software and internet divisions.
That is the remedy that I suggest.
MTC-00024706
From: C.D. Larson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ Team:
First, thank you for all you've been busy doing on the terrorism
front. I deeply appreciate and support what your team has been
doing--both publicly and behind the scenes--to keep all of
us safe. I'm writing regarding the Microsoft Settlement. I've been
in the computer industry for some number of years and have seen how
Microsoft operates, and I'm disappointed by the proposed settlement.
It stifles competition and the economy, and is a real disaster for
our industry. Once upon a time, there were many companies who made
workable word-processing programs. Innovation and competition
flourished. How many such firms can you name today? Not many, I'll
bet. That's because of Microsoft's aggressive tactics with Microsoft
Word. Is it the best word processing program out there? Hard to say,
because nobody compares any more. And there's almost nobody around
to compare TO. And that's what I'm talking about. There should be
dozens of companies, writing great products and competing on price.
And they should be around the world, not just in Seattle.
What our industry is objecting to is Microsoft's continued
rampage against area after area of computing. First it was operating
systems, then spreadsheets, then word processing, then browsers.
Databases are next, followed by imaging. My company's offerings are
next; MS is copying our technology to use in their product so they
can tell us to go fly a kite. I am not arguing against competition;
I'm suggesting we should HAVE some.
My objection is not to Microsoft's ``ability to
innovate'', it's their ability to keep others from innovating.
By crushing other firms, they force everyone to use their product
regardless of what it costs or how good it really is. That's bad for
competition, bad for products, and bad for our country.
I think the settlement--especially in the face of the
judge's findings in the case--is a weak slap on the wrist and
will not address any of the grievances made. What should be done? I
don't think it's necessary for the company to be broken up IF they
could be successfully kept out of the applications world.
Charles D. Larson, Jr.
Senior Manager, Technical Marketing
Writing as a Private Citizen
MTC-00024707
From: Johnny Hsu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DO NOT SETTLE
Settling with Microsoft will only allow them to substantially
increase the market share in core industries where their only
competition have an edge. To do so will only hinder the efforts of
other companies to operate in a competitive society. To do so will
allow Microsoft a backdoor into business areas they've always had
trouble breaking into. Microsoft has billions of dollars behind its
name, and plenty of this available in cash. A settlement with their
goods would cost them a minute fraction of the entire settlement
value. A settlement by definition implies some kind of wrongdoing.
When a kid does something wrong, you don't just let them go. Good
parents will punish them so that they do not make the same mistake
again. Allowing them to settle with their products is barely a slap
in the wrist. If a settlement is deemed necessary, then the
government should punish them realistically, by forcing them to
donate cash, not goods or services, on demand. Too many companies
have been bullied out of competition through vaporware, through
bullish and threatening tactics, through unfair business practice.
Any other settlement besides a billion dollar cash settlement would
be unjust.
MTC-00024708
From: Frank
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past,
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly
position in the operating system market. This is especially
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past
transgressions.
Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future
repetition of those abuses.
This, in my opinion, goes against the very foundation of law. If
a person or organization is able to commit illegal acts, benefit
from those acts and then receive as a ``punishment''
instructions that they cannot commit those acts again, they have
still benefited from their illegal acts. That is not justice, not
for the victims of their abuses and not for the American people in
general.
While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
Sincerely,
Frank Partipilo
234 W Main St
Waukesha WI 53186
MTC-00024709
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 27523]]
Date: 1/25/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I think the proposed settlement between the Department of
Justice and Microsoft is not in the interests of consumers. Please
reject this settlement and adopt the one proposed by the nine
states.
Sincerely,
E. Matthew Schulz
117 South Scott Blvd.
Iowa City, IA 52245
MTC-00024710
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:34pm
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,
Robert Lewis
5675 Brynwood Lane
Ash Grove, MO 65604
MTC-00024711
From: sev
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
MTC-00024712
From: Dale Caughey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:40pm
Subject: Dear Sirs:
Dear Sirs:
Further llitigation is a wste of taxpayers'' funds. Every
end user had the opportunity to pick Netscape of Microsoft's
Browser. I, like most users picked the better browser.
For the unpicked Netscape to seek the protection of a court is
absurd;
Judge Jackson should have recused himself, or resign his
position, as he didn't, nor does understantthe American system of
fair play.
Dale Caughey, JR
MTC-00024713
From: Matt Bingham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:43pm
Subject: MS Antitrust case.
How to put it succinctly...? You let em go with a warning.
(Rhetorical:) Anyone at DoJ actually believe you won't have to do
this again in 5 years and do it right?
MTC-00024714
From: Scott Bergstrom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your Honor,
Those businesses behind the antitrust action against Microsoft
are simply second-rate. That they failed to win my allegiance and
that of the consuming public is not a product of Microsoft's
``vicious business practices'' made their products hard to
get, but a result of the inferiority of their products. As a former
Macintosh user, I switched to Windows when I realized that it was,
in my opinion, a better program. The same applies to Microsoft
Explorer vs. Netscape Navigator; the former is simply a better
product.
I resent immensely the implication that somehow, as a member of
the public, I have in any way been duped by Microsoft's practices.
To the contrary, they have given me products of tremendous utility
at little or no cost.
In short, they're guilty of nothing more than doing business
well and providing services to the public cheaply.
I'm writing this to you not as a political activist but as
someone who believes--strongly--that the courts should not
be suckered by second-rate businesses who are not adept enough in
their industry to take on honest and fair competition.
Sincerely,
Scott Bergstrom
Scott Bergstrom
Sr. Copywriter
J. Walter Thompson Specialized Communications
466 Lexington Ave., New York, NY 10017
T: 212-210-1162
F: 212-210-1097
scott.bergstrom @jwtworks.com
MTC-00024715
From: Joseph Roni
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice:
We read with dismay the recent news that AOL-Time Warner has
brought suit against Microsoft on behalf of Netscape. We feel this
is a political attempt to influence your decision against Microsoft.
Again a few special interest groups are attempting to use this
review period to derail the settlement of the Microsoft case and to
prolong the litigation even in the midst of these uncertain economic
times. As a private citizen my wife and I object to continuing this
litigation. The last thing the American economy needs is more
litigation which benefits only a few wealthy competitors who cannot
compete with their own innovation.
Please don't let these special interest groups defeat the public
interest. My wife and I are retired and our invested retirement
worth has declined significantly since this litigation was initiated
and it seemed to us that it was one of the leading causes for the
rapid decline of the NASDAQ stocks and the stock market in general.
Let's settle this thing now for the good of the consumer, the
industry and the American economy.
Regards,
Joseph and Virginia Roni
Federal Way, Washington
MTC-00024716
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Section III,2,b clearly allows Microsoft to retaliate against an
OEM that is or is contemplating shipping a PC without a Microsoft
operating system. This is unacceptable. Microsoft should not be
allowed to realiate against an OEM that ships a PC which does not
include a Microsoft operating system. ``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;'' (US vs MS PFJ)
I propose an amendment: (c) does not include a Microsoft
Operating System
Thank You for your consideration,
Andrew Leonczyk
MTC-00024717
From: Stephen Fountain
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/25/02 2:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stephen Fountain
374 West Daffodil Rd
Ruckersville, VA 22968
January 25, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars,
was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall
Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more
entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive
products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
[[Page 27524]]
Stephen Fountain
MTC-00024718
From: Paul Hayes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft
I am appalled that so little has been done to deter Microsoft
from continuing their business practices. They have clearly and
repeatedly operated in a way counter to fairness, they are
unquestionably a monopoly, and they constantly squelch competition.
These certainly seem to me to fall within the purview of the US
Justice department, and yet you do nothing. It removes my faith in
our system of jurisprudence to see these maladies go without remedy.
Thank you for your time.
Paul Hayes --
Why waste time learning when ignorance is
instantaneous?--Hobbes
MTC-00024719
From: Bert Rivera
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge,
Please do not let justice become a victim in the Microsoft
monopoly case. This 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. Please make sure Microsoft doesn't get
their hand slapped. They are a MONOPOLY!
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bert Rivera
5444 West 138th Place
Hawthorne, CA. 90250
MTC-00024720
From: Zachary J. Paradis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
i just wanted to voice my opinion that i believe that Microsoft
had been bullying companies for years. they have caused the demise
of more than a few tech companies with bright futures. these
companies could have continued to thrive and employ people today.
microsoft's products are generally less robust and less secure than
their competitors, yet their monopoly in the OS/intel market has
continually allowed them to win out. the Graphical User Interface,
the Media Player, Chat Software, etc., are all examples of software
which MSFT has essentially stolen, reproduced crappy versions of and
then tied to their OS.
i believe settlement should NOT include the donation of any
microsoft products to schools, non-profits, etc. instead, it should
be a significant(more than the 1 Billion dollars offered) fine,
reparations to the likes of Apple, Netscape, Yahoo, etc., as well as
a break up of the company. i also believe it is imperative that the
government does NOT use microsoft software. not only is it not
secure, but it contributes considerably to the problem.
it is possible to create and open standard with which unix,
macOS, linux AND windows could work...
microsoft is just not interested in doing it. for the sake of
the country's technological future, it is imperative that the
government forces microsoft to open up.
zachary j. paradis
chicago, il
MTC-00024721
From: Steven Marx
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am completely opposed to this so-called settlement which
imposes no penalties for Microsoft's monopolistic actions and has so
many pro-Microsoft loopholes that it would allow the company to
continue with any behavior it chooses. The DOJ is acting as if it
lost the case and must accept Microsoft's term. Instead, it of
course won the case in court and on appeal in every respect.
Microsoft should be actually punished for their past behavior and
put under severe and enforceable oversite in the future. Any
restriction must be quickly enforceable rather than what has
happened in the past such as this case, where they tie things up in
court for years as they further expand their illegal monopoly as
they have with Windows XP and their new software licensing scheme.
The current agreement does nothing of any significance, it is
actually worse than nothing as it fails to punish and allows
Microsoft to continue business as usual. Remember, YOU WON.
Steven Marx, Ph.D. --
MTC-00024722
From: Ben Kuryk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea!
MTC-00024723
From: Kansas Legislative Education (038) Research
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms Hesse:
On behalf of KLEAR, Inc., an association of Kansas state
legislators representing nearly a third of this state's current
House and Senate office holders, I write today with their explicit
authorization in strong support of the proposed Final Judgment to
the Microsoft antitrust case offered by the U.S. Department of
Justice and endorsed by nine state attorneys general. Regrettably,
Kansas is not yet among the states agreeing to end their pursuit of
this ill-conceived litigation. However, we will continue to press
the free-market rationale for an end to this counter-productive
legal course. With the direct means at our disposal, we have already
severely restricted the state resources that may be devoted to its
prosecution. The rationale for ending the litigation is squarely in
line with our KLEAR philosophy. We stand for the Constitutional
principles of limited government, individual liberty, free
enterprise and traditional family values. From its initiation
forward, the antitrust action against Microsoft has been an affront
to these principles that hold real hope in achieving the greatest
good for the greatest number of people.
In harmony with a glut of esteemed economists and legal scholars
from around the country, we consider the justification for the
lawsuit to be baseless. New competitors have emerged to challenge
Microsoft's well-earned dominance. Consumer have benefited greatly
from reduced prices and improved products. In fact, conspicuously
absent at trial and in endless media accounts of the controversy is
any evidence that consumers have been harmed. To the contrary,
Kansans have lost hundreds of millions of dollars as a result of the
antitrust litigation. Our own pension program for government
employees in this state has seen its unfunded liability mushroom as
a direct product of the legal attack on Microsoft.
When we take into account such tangible negative effects, the
fragile case theory, the inappropriate and counter-productive
remedies imposed by Judge Jackson, and the threat to this country's
core principles of liberty, our decision to support the proposed
Final Judgment to this lawsuit is
KLEAR-cut.
Sincerely,
Bob L. Corkins
Executive Director
Kansas Legislative Education & Research, Inc.
827 SW Topeka Blvd., Topeka, KS 66612
785.233.8765 phone
928.244.3262 fax
[email protected]
MTC-00024724
From: iain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam:
I am writing to express my concern over the Microsoft
settlement. This settlement is extremely limited, and absolutely
unacceptable and ineffective in limiting Microsoft's predatory,
anti-competitive behaviors that have resulted in its massive wealth
and monopoly. Sorry I don't have time to write more,
Best Regards,
Iain Huxley.
MTC-00024725
From: Eric C. Forat
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your Honor: this Settlement offered by the DoJ is a disgrace to
Justice in the US, and it will besmirch whatever was left of the
image of impartial justice after the arrival of ``barely
President'' G.W. Bush. In most their endeavours until now, his
administration has consistently betrayed their oath to protect the
Constitution, and has certainly been the the
[[Page 27525]]
worst administration since the good bad days of Nixon's. I dare hope
that the independent Judiciary will not buckle under their
relentless pressure. Please be true to the ideals of Justice that
certainly you held once, and do not unleash a rogue Monopolist to
continue its depredations on the American future.
Sincerely yours,
Eric C. Forat
MTC-00024726
From: Bonnie Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Letter attached.
Bonnie Williams
Have a nice day!
[email protected]
MTC-00024726-0001
7562 Highway 21 W
Madisonville, TX 77864
January 24,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The intent of this letter is to urge the Justice Department to
enact the settlement reached with Microsoft last November. The
settlement that was reached is extremely fair and represents an end
to this attack against Microsoft. I would hope that after three
years of extensive mediation, the Justice Department would finally
be satisfied with its pursuit of this antitrust dispute.
Further, the settlement that was reached will benefit consumers
of the technology industry. With the interim release of Windows XP,
Microsoft will enact a mechanism into the Windows system that will
enable users to add and delete programs into their operating system.
Thus, users will have increased power to configure their operating
systems to their own accords. IF MERGEFIELD PARA2 1/2PARA2+<>
These terms are obviously beneficial to consumers. In addition,
enacting this settlement will increase confidence in the technology
industries once again. I would hope that the Justice Department
recognizes the benefits in enacting this settlement at the end of
January. IF MERGEFIELD PA RA4 1/2PARA4+<> IF MERGEFIELD PARA5
1/2PARA5+<>
Sincerely,
Bonnie Williams 00024726----0002
MTC-00024727
From: Kodi Wright
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/25/02 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kodi Wright
PO BOX 118
Oakton, VA 22124
January 25, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice ,
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall
Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more
entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive
products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Kodi Wright
MTC-00024728
From: Mark Smith
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/25/02 2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mark Smith
123 Easy Street
Springfield, NJ 08831
January 25, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice ,
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
To Whom it May Concern;
Wazzzzzup?
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.
Your truly
Mark Smith
MTC-00024729
From: wt.catch1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:46pm
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 most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Barbara Mecham
916 Heather Drive
San Carlos, CA 94070
MTC-00024730
From: David Grantham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a person that has been using computers since the early
eighties, I personally welcome the changes that Microsoft has
developed. People tend to forget that before Windows 3.11 and then
Windows 95 was released computers were fairly difficult for average
users to deal with. The ease of use of these operating systems
helped substantially with the boom in computer sales and usage to
the everyday consumer.
Even with these advances however many manufacturers of computer
systems insisted on adding their own software to systems to make
them even *easier*. From a purely technical standpoint many of these
added features made useing the system much more difficult due to
incompatibilities and poorly written software that made the
operating system unstable. Microsoft in order to protect itself did
the right thing by dictating what should be on the desktop and how
the user should see the system. It is their operating system and it
should be work as they see fit.
The inclusion of Internet Explorer with Windows has only
improved the useage of the internet. When I first ventured into the
world that is the internet I was only provided with a copy of
Netscape Navigator...version 1. IE did not even exist yet. For years
I used Netscape only, even after IE came out because Netscape
offered a superior product, and it was free. However with version 4
of IE that changed.
I was able to download another free browser that offered a
faster cleaner web experience. In comparison Netscapes offering was
slow and clunky. Therefore I quit useing Netscape and have stuck
with IE ever since.
[[Page 27526]]
Once IE was melded with Windows 98 it only improved the operating
system, makeing navigation in Windows easier. Netscape as a free
download still worked under Windows though and in no way did Windows
98 + Internet Explorer keep me from useing Netscape
Navigator...instead it was the slowness and instability of Netscapes
browser that let IE change my opinion of it. Some argue that
Microsoft cripples the Netscape browser when installed on Windows
systems. I have never personally experienced this as Netscape on
Linux is just as slow and problematic as it is on Windows.
To me without Microsofts efforts we would still be useing many
diffrent incompatible systems and the computer boom never would have
happend. As it stands today we have three desktop platforms,
Microsoft, Apple, and the many diffrent Linux Distributions.
Microsofts monopoly of the desktop has offered us the ability to
finally have a compatible platform without the worries of
transferring files between numerous types of computers and operating
systems. Apple gives us a similar platform offering just as much as
Microsoft albeit at prices most people reject. Which leaves Linux as
an upstart that may one day work out its usability issues but today
still offers more incompatibilities than anything else.
Microsoft should be allowed to dictate how its operating system
is distributed on computer systems and what software can and cannot
be bundled with it. Without this we will be thrown back to the years
where there was more time spent with the headaches of
incompatibility and instability than with productivity. Microsoft
has done nothing but improve the lives of computer users and should
not be punished for this. Instead they should be thanked for pulling
all of us out of the dark ages of computers and continuing to
provide us with more software features.
MTC-00024731
From: Eric Tooley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft settelement in my opinion does not stop Microsoft
from unfairly using it's market dominance in it's operating systems
to control software markets. Microsoft should be split into two
companies, software and operating systems.
Thank you for your time.
Eric Tooley
Fireball
MTC-00024732
From: clif
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I feel there are maney problems with the proposed Microsoft
Settlement. One is that you have not realy addressed the
applications barrier to entry.
Another 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.
Thankyou for your attention,
Clif Cox; system administrator
MTC-00024734
From: Max
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Penelties
I think the government should do more in regards to the
antitrust case against Microsoft. Microsoft continues to use it's
monopolistic market position to gain unfair competitive advantages
with it's Windows XP product. The settlement should include more
specific measures to restrict this type of behavior. I understand
that the government is attempt to expedite the process and bring to
a close the case which has dragged on for far too long. But unless
the government comes up with a settlement that addresses future
products and behaviors more completely, I fear that we will witness
the same actions that caused the need for this trial in the first
place. We will be in the same place and spend even more of the tax
payers money to bring to trial Microsoft again. Isn't the legal
process suppose to keep wrongful actions from occurring again,
rather than just punish for what has happened in the past? Indeed,
we are already witnessing this (Microsoft) corporate repeat offender
in action again with Windows XP. enough is enough!
MTC-00024735
From: Alison N. Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that the proposed settlement with MIcrosoft is a bad
idea.
alison smith
MTC-00024736
From: Mike Su
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:53pm
Subject: MS/States settlement
Dear Sir or Madam:
This is a matter of ANTITRUST. The proposed settlement only
further encourages more monopolistic activities by Microsoft. This
is not a punishment in any sense. The settlement is but a tool for
MS marketing.
Ying Fu Su
47 Ceadr Street
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
MTC-00024737
From: Jeff Disher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I do hope that you will not allow Microsoft to settle under the
current terms. First of all, it is a very small penalty ($1 billion)
in comparison to the amount of money they have made by committing
these crimes. This would not properly ensure a deterrent to stop
them from doing it again. Also, the distribution of this money as
their own products is purely ridiculous. Note that, since Microsoft
would be primarily donating their own software to parties that would
not otherwise be buying it, they aren't actually spending any money
to provide these reparations. Most important is the long-term effect
of this settlement on the receiving markets. Since these markets
were going to continue using products made by the competitors of
Microsoft, they would now be in a position where it was in their
best interests to continue using the software they had acquired for
free rather than paying to update what they were using. This will
have a terribly detrimental effect on the computer software industry
since none of their competitors would be making sales to these
markets. In effect, this settlement would be perpetuating and aiding
the problem that it was meant to solve. This is simply ridiculous
since it leaves the software industry in a worse condition than it
was before this began.
I can see a few reasonable solutions: 1) Uphold the earlier
decision of the court to break-up the company and proceed with that
(bad side effects: short-term disruption in the computer industry on
a theoretical level. Since the application and operating system
devisions of the company would still exist, albeit as different
parts, they could still service all of their customers. The only
difference the end-user would notice would be a change in the
company name and logo but that shouldn't effect their productivity.
Good side-effects: potential to open new markets that were formerly
unreachable by competing companies as well as potentially stronger
long-term revenues of technology companies currently under financial
pressure. Primary benefits would be to companies distributing
alternative operating systems, competing office suite products and
platform-independence tools such as Java).
2) Insist that Microsoft pay a greater settlement fee than $1
billion and insist that it is in cash, not their own products (bad
side effects: this would not actually solve any problem relating to
this case. Good side effects: the markets receiving this money would
immediately benefit from it. All companies in the market would
benefit from the spending of this money in more ``fair''
measures).
I hope that my ideas and your experience can help resolve this
issue in a method that could benefit all parties involved to their
owed degrees.
Sincerely,
Jeff Disher
President and Lead Developer of Spectral Class
Spectral Class: Shedding Light on Innovation
http://www.spectralclass.com/
MTC-00024738
From: Eric Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it concerns:
I understand you're soliciting feedback on the proposed
``Microsoft Settlement''. I have
[[Page 27527]]
not read the settlement. What I know about it has come from
television, radio and print media. From what I know of the proposed
settlement, I share the concern expressed by those who believe that
if Microsoft is allowed to provide that quantity of hardware and
software to schools, this may unfairly expand Microsoft's market
share in an area they are not presently dominating.
I believe there is a simple answer to this concern. Take the
dollar value of the hardware and software that Microsoft will
donate, and allow the recipients to choose what hardware and/or
software they prefer to work with. This suggestion likely tacks on
some administrative cost, but if Microsoft really wants to be fair,
they should not be opposed to it, and should be willing to re-
negotiate the deal to reflect this approach. Even if it costs them
more money.
That's my opinion.
God bless America.
Eric D. Anderson
653 4th St. N.
Hudson, WI 54016-1051
MTC-00024739
From: Ross Kinzler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I oppose the proposed settlement for the following reasons: a)
The proposed settlement provides for no monetary payments by
Microsoft. b) The term of the agreement is limited to 5 years and it
should provide for a permanent injunction.
Ross Kinzler
Executive Director
Wisconsin Manufactured Housing Association
MTC-00024740
From: mpreul
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft needs to be broken up--come on government get
with it. Making the operating system and the software to run on it
is just plain not fair. I read somewhere that this is akin to a
situation wherein the post office would be the only one selling the
letters and boxes, and then sells the stamps to send them. But this
is not right-- what Microsoft has is the not just the letters
and boxes, they're the only ones with the secret to making paper and
cardboard and the right to sell the letters and boxes, and the
stamps to run on them. This is more like if GM were the only ones to
build cars, and that in order to run at over 30 mph, you had to buy
gasoline produced by GM--this just is not fair. Our computer
wrold will not fall because of Microsoft's break up--this will
allow entrepreneurs to step into the gap.
Take Microsoft apart!!
Mark Preul
8628 E. Davenport Dr.
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
MTC-00024741
From: Richard Gorton
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (it is a joke)
Sirs,
The proposed anti-trust settlement with microsoft is, as far as
I can ascertain, a joke. The terms are so vague as to be completely
ineffective. The harshest penalty possible appears (to my reading)
to be: ``You were bad. Since you were bad, we're going to watch
you longer to see if you are bad some more''. As for the terms,
I was able to come up ways to completely nullify/circumvent a couple
of them with only a few minutes of thought. And that's without being
an attorney. Personally, I believe a much more effective way to halt
Microsoft's continued traditional predatory behavior is to break
them up, into a minimum of three groups, and to put chinese walls
between them.
Regards,
Richard Gorton (for myself)
161 Temple St.
Framingham, MA 01701
MTC-00024743
From: Steve Steele
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please DO NOT allow Microsoft to ``give away''
software licenses to schools. Please make them instead give money to
an independent third party institution that will act as a fund for
school systems to purchase the computer systems of their own choice.
Allowing them to give away or donate the Windows OS will just allow
them to become a bigger monopoly.
Sincerely,
Steve Steele
Systems Admin.
Rice University
MTC-00024744
From: Ben Hall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:58pm
Subject: Re: Public comments ending soon in MS/States settlement
Please do something to make sure that Microsof cannot just walk
away from this with their stock two dollars off the mark for a
couple of months. I have been in the technology sector for more than
seven years and everytime they have encroached on a technology it
has turned out to completely stagnate the said area of development.
If there was one instance of Microsoft not trying to completely
control whatever they touched it would be one thing but I have yet
to see a technology that they have not stolen and changed 10% only
to then call their own. Thier OS, Web browser, Office Suite, Email
products, Hotmail, MSN, and most especialy their media player have
all been from reverse engineering of other company products. Because
of the nature of the business they have the advantage of throwing
quaduple the amount of people onto a product to meet the release
date of any other company. Although this may not be entirely illegal
it does say something about their ethics when it comes to how they
interact with others. Never have they released or created an open
sourced standard or given people access to products without tying
three more of their services into it. If this is not using a
Monopoly to encroach into existing markets, I don't know what is.
And when I speak of this I do not mean Windows 95 but of thier
Operating System released after they were found guilty of
Monopolistic practices.
Thank you for taking the time to recieve this letter of concern
and I hope a just resolution is found.
Sincerely,
Ben Hall
Media Developer, Fallon Inc.
612.758.2131
MTC-00024745
From: Walt Asher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am writing to comment on the
proposed settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust
case. I am just an ordinary user. I am not a computer guru even
though I did build my first computer from a Heathkit. I generally
like the Microsoft Windows operating system, however, I did not like
the way they have forced people to use their other products.
Microsoft had seems to have pushed computer manufactures to include
a wide range of their products. As a result so many people use
Microsoft Office only because it was included as a free program with
the computer when they purchased it. That is ceratinly unfair. I
have been useing Corel WordPerfect for several years and found it
far better than Microsoft Word, yet few people use it and even fewer
computer manufactures include it.
Another complaint I have is that I am forced to accept Microsoft
products that I don't need because Microsoft includes them as part
of the operating system. Intenet Explorer is a perfect example. I do
not like and do not use Internet Explorer, yet it has to be
installed on my system. I am not computer literate enough to remove
it without causing problems to the operating system. Microsoft could
sell a version without Internet Explorer very easily. I am of the
strong opinion that Microsoft should be forced to sell the striped
down version ONLY. Anyone wanting Internet Explorer, or any other
Microsoft product, should be be required to make an effort to obtain
that product just is they must do now for Netscape, WordPerfect,
etc. When that happens, the market will decide which products are
used by businesses and individuals.
One final remedy which I strongly believe should be implemented
is that Microsoft should be required to reveal how its other
programs are integrated with the operating system. This would allow
other software manufactures to make the use of their products
interface with and convient to use as Microsoft now does with their
products. These things would make Microsoft windows and stand alone
product for the benefit of everyone. It will open the doors to fair
competition and allows the markey to decide what it wants rather
than having Microsoft decide so they can increase the profits and
shut out everyone else. I have not problem with Micrsoft making tons
of money. I object to being forced to give them my money for
products I don't like and don't use just because they have to power
to do so.
[[Page 27528]]
Thank you,
Walter W. Asher
766 West Key Rd
Troy, TN 38260-4442
(731) 536-5146
MTC-00024746
From: aaron matthew croyle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel the proposed settlement gives Microsoft too much room to
violate the proposal's intention.
--Aaron Croyle
MTC-00024747
From: Lupe Anguiano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:00pm
Subject: Consumer Protection
Dear Renata Hesse:
I a Latina Technology and Fundraising Consultant. I advice and
recommend use of Technology products to education, non-profit
organizations and small start-up Latino Businesses in Southern
California-- mostly in the Los Angeles and Ventura County area.
When I add (via basic math) and compare the cost of Microsoft
products with AOL, Oracle and others--my adding machine shows
great savings purchasing Microsoft products vs. other products. The
time for TRUTH has arrived--Why is the Government using tax
payers money (my check shows I contribute 40% of my earnings to my
Government--Federal and California) to market the products of
Technology Companies whom buyers do not purchase from? Why is
Government interfering with our FREE MARKET--WHY IS GOVERNMENT
INFLUENCING THE CHOICE OF CONSUMERS. WHY IS GOVERNMENT MARKETING
HIGHER PRICES. Government has failed to produce an honest consumer
related argument against Microsoft. I am so tired of this entire
false word game played by lawyers especially from States who refuse
to settle with Microsoft. Has Government asked the
question--``Is what we are doing hindering the growth and
development of the Technology Industry?'' We are living in
difficult economic times--our Technology Industry needs to be
free to grow and innovate in both our Country and in the
World--If free to be creative Technology can be a tool to
improve peoples lives--not only in the USA but in the World.
I hope what I have written is taken seriously, it comes from a
struggling consumer--who is barely making ends meet.
Respectfully,
Lupe Anguiano
Lupe Anguiano & Associates, Inc.
14420 Kittridge St. #220
Van Nuys, CA 91405-5109
Phone: 818.787.8807
Fax: 818.787.8911
[email protected]
MTC-00024748
From: Susie Koester
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:00pm
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. I agree with the problems identified in Dan
Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html), namely:
* The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing
operating systems
* Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using
restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the
PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the
Applications Barrier to Entry.
* The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and
Provisions
* The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs,
but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important
APIs are not covered.
* The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft
Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines
``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version
of Windows might not be covered at all.
* The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a
competitor's product--but Microsoft is replacing Java with
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET
with competing middleware.
* The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it
defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-
Box--operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are
advertised as being ``Windows Powered''.
* The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and
not informing ISVs.
* The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to
ISVs so they can create compatible middleware--but only after
the deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is
compatible.
* The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API
documentation--but prohibits competitors from using this
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with
Windows.
* The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
* The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away
potential users.
* The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms
currently used by Microsoft
* Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep
Open Source apps from running on Windows.
* Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
* Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system--even
for computers running competing operating systems such as Linux!
(Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 consent
decree.)
* The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities
Historically Used by Microsoft
* Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on
competing operating systems.
* The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards
OEMs
* The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that
ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but
no Microsoft operating system.
* The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small
OEMs-- including regional ``white box'' OEMs which
are historically the most willing to install competing operating
systems--who ship competing software.
* The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs)
to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket
PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other
areas.
* The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective
enforcement mechanism.
I also agree with the conclusion reached by 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,
Susan Koester
MTC-00024749
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:57pm
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
[[Page 27529]]
seen. Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
RUBIE C. CARTER
1464 KEELER.DR.
IRVING, TX 75060-2640
MTC-00024750
From: Jack, Jeremy C
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 3:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is a sad, sad thing to see a government organization being
purchased wholesale. The fact that the justice department is part of
the American government makes me profoundly embarassed. In an
environment which actually supports the DMCA, however, I suppose
this is inevitable. Since Microsoft has made it very clear it does
not intend to stop exploiting consumers, the channel, or
manufacturers and was willing to boldly and obviously lie in court,
and yet has received what amounts to substantially less than a slap
on the wrists is truly truly tragic. There is little justice to be
found here. Money has spoken far louder.
--Jeremy C. Jack // The thoughts, opinions, and facts stated
here are mine alone and not related to Intel or its affiliates.
neutiquam erro
MTC-00024751
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to add my voice in opposition to the federal
government's givaway to the Microsoft Corporation. While the
provision that stops Microsoft from forcing OEMs from producing
systems that run alternative operating systems is a step forward,
the rest of the agreement will more than likely prove to be
unenforceable. You are essentially rewarding Microsoft for abusing
its monopoly and encouraging it to engage in more anti-competitive
behavior. We can see that the company has wasted no time in using
its monopoly power to drive more competitors from the market by the
latest version of Windows.
Owning Soldier Field does not give the Chicago Bears the right
to build retractable concrete posts in the endzone to prevent the
other team from scoring.
MTC-00024752
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Ed Teller
Microsoft ATR
1/25/02 3:02pm
Microsoft Suit
Please see attached letter!
THANKS,
Ed Teller
EMAIL: [email protected]
MTC-00024752-0001
Wilson E. Teller
3148 Pine Road
Orange Park, FL 32065
January, 25,2002
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
As an active member of my community and an avid supporter and
user of Microsoft products, I feel I must take a moment of my time
in order to voice what I feel is in the best interest of the
American people.
Microsoft has done more for the IT world than any other company
in history, and as a firm believer in the American ethic of everyone
having the opportunity to prosper, I believe Microsoft, under the
stated settlement plan, has the right to rid itself of any further
legal action. The use of the valuable time and money of the American
people has been spent for three long years in this case, long enough
for a settlement to be reached.
The settlement would require Microsoft to undergo various
changes that further open the gates of competition to new and
struggling IT companies. The thrust of the Justice Department's
case, that Microsoft used unfair business practices, has now been
addressed. The American people deserve to benefit from new
innovations in computer software, not just for the sake of the
economy, but also to keep American businesses at the head of the
pack in the global market.
In your capacity as attorney general, I hope you will speak on
behalf of the consumer and tax payer, who want to see Microsoft get
back to what it does best: serving the people with manageable,
affordable, and innovative computer software.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this crucial
matter.
Sincerely,
Wilson E. Teller
MTC-00024753
From: Gina Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a really bad idea, Microsoft is a
bunch of crooks, they need to pay for what they have done!!
Gina L. Erickson
137 Fir Street
Camarillo, CA 93010
MTC-00024754
From: Andy McKee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement is fair and just; however there are concerns that
arise from this action.
(1) If agreed upon, what safeguards would be in place to prevent
a repeat of this case under another administration or even a
different market.
(2) Would could be the long term solution not to just Microsoft,
but others in the information industry?
(3) Would this stop the process or would it just keep on going
every time a judge feels differently.
MTC-00024755
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:00pm
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,
vincent laconis
1006 22nd ave
vero beach, FL 32960
MTC-00024756
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is a bad
idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Vernon Guilford
MTC-00024757
From: todd ferguson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam:
I feel that the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust
case will not be effective in combating the illegal practices of the
company. Furthermore, I feel that the real issues of Microsoft's
illegal activities have yet to be addressed. I mainly object on
these three points:
(1) They have used their monopoly to push around computer
manufacturers, thus forcing competing operating system (OS) makers
out of business, and keeping other operating systems to an extremely
marginal market share.
(2) They keep their file formats (especially
``Office'' formats) closed, making it harder for other
applications to gain a foothold in the market.
(3) They keep their application programming interface (API) for
Windows secret, making it more difficult to compete against them.
I am a user of several alternative operating systems. Thus far,
no other OS's have been able to gain market penetration to a
substantial degree.
This is largely due to Microsoft's restrictions upon, and
threats against computer manufacturers. In one publicly disclosed
incident, the company Hitachi was ready to ship computers that could
boot into either Microsoft Windows or the Be Operating System. When
Microsoft heard
[[Page 27530]]
about this, they threatened Hitachi by saying they would revoke
their license to sell Windows on their computer systems. Faced with
losing the ability to pre-install the most widely used OS on their
computers, Hitachi chose to remove the ability to boot into the BeOS
from their computers. People are much more likely to use an OS if it
come with their computer. Because people have not been able to get
computers with both Windows and other alternative OS's installed,
Microsoft has managed to maintain its grip on the OS market.
My second grievance I think becomes clearer when we look some
other areas of computer technology. There are numerous choices in
the fields of computer graphics design, viewing, and editing,
computer audio design, recording, playback, and editing, and
computer video design, playback, and editing. These are also all
markets where Microsoft has failed to gain the substantial market
share that is has in other computer markets (e.g. OS's and Office
software). I think the most important reason is that open file
formats (e.g jpeg, mpeg, .wav, etc.) became the standard in these
areas of media production, before the closed file formats of
Microsoft had a chance to take hold. In the area of Office suites,
however, Microsoft was able to get an appreciable market share early
on, and the world now has, literally, billions of documents,
spreadsheets, etc. in MS Office format. People will not try out
another Office suite, because none of them will open up these files
correctly, because Microsoft has not disseminated the necessary
information about these file formats.
Third is the API. The only people that have full access to the
Microsoft API is Microsoft. How can another company expect to
publish competing software on the Windows platform, if they do not
have access to all the tools necessary for writing software for that
platform. Many companies have to write their own API's for Windows,
because they cannot get the needed information from Microsoft. This
is yet another clear abuse of Microsoft's monopoly.
The current settlement addresses these issues little, if at all.
I would lease ask you to reconsider the proverbial slap to the
wrists that you are about to give Microsoft, and come up with a
solution that will actually bring about change, and return fair play
and competition to the computing industry. Any settlement needs to
prevent Microsoft from bullying computer manufacturers, needs to
force them to open their file formats, and needs to force them to
publish their API's. Anything less than that, I feel, will be to
little to do any good.
Sincerely,
Todd Louis Ferguson ``We are the music makers, we are the
dreamers of dreams.''
Gene Wilder, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
MTC-00024758
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Roger Allen
Microsoft ATR
1/25/02 3:03pm
Microsoft Settlement
Okeechobee, FL 34974<>
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 support of the recent antitrust case
settlement between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice. While
I think that the lawsuits have dragged on too long I am happy to see
a possible ending and that Microsoft will not be broken up. Under
the terms of the settlement Microsoft will be increasing it
relations with computer makers and software developers, not
retaliating against competitors who develop or promote non-Microsoft
products, licensing its Windows operating system to the 20 largest
computer makers on identical terms and conditions, and forming a
three-person team to monitor compliance with the settlement. The
terms are fair and should appease all parties involved in the
dispute. 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.<> ......
Please implement the settlement as soon as possible and
reprimand the 9 states that are holding out. Thank you for your
time. IF MERGEFIELD PARA5 But is suspense, as Hitchcock states, in
the box. No, there isn't room, the ambiguity's put on
weight.<>
Sincerely,
Roger Allen
15 Montica Drive
Pueblo, CO 81005
00024758--0002
MTC-00024759
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please get this settlement finalized! Microsoft is NOT the
consumers s enemy.
MTC-00024760
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement January 25, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
RE: U.S. v. Microsoft
OVERVIEW
For more than three years Microsoft has been defending itself in
antitrust litigation brought by the U.S. Justice Department and
eighteen states, including Ohio. The proposed consent decree between
Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice reflects a settlement,
which adequately protects the interests of the Department of
Justice, the states and Microsoft, while achieving the desired goal
of consumer protection. UNCLEAR BASIS FOR ANTITRUST ACTION AGAINST
MICROSOFT Many critics, including the Buckeye Institute (Ohio's free
market think tank) questioned the Justice Department's use of
antitrust laws against Microsoft to punish the company's innovative
use of technology, which provided useful products to businesses and
individuals at low prices. The involvement of the state attorneys
general was even more puzzling. It has never been clear how Ohio's
citizens have been in any way harmed by Microsoft's business
practices. The only clear beneficiaries to this antitrust case are
Microsoft's competitors who prefer to have Microsoft mired in
litigation instead of competing in the marketplace.
IMPLICATIONS FOR ANTITRUST LAW IN THE DYNAMIC TECHNOLOGY
MARKETPLACE
This case calls into question the relevancy of antitrust laws in
the fast-changing technology marketplace of today. One of the main
reasons for the government's case was to ensure competition in
Internet browsers. However, within several months of commencement of
the case, the marketplace changed dramatically.
Microsoft's core business--writing the operating systems of
personal computers--is under serious challenge from Linux and
Apple. The center of gravity for computing is shifting away from the
personal computer, where Microsoft has a significant presence, onto
the Internet where the conglomerate AOL-Time Warner is the major
player. As technology progresses, the focus will likely move to
personal digital assistants, web-enabled telephones, satellite-based
communication devices, and other tools.
The litigation against Microsoft sent a message to the rest of
the technology economy that the use of innovation to meet consumer
demands in an efficient manner will be punished by government
agencies in the courts. This message sent shock waves throughout the
American economy and hurt development in the technology sector.
EFFECT ON OHIOANS
The value of Microsoft stock tumbled by nearly 40% as the case
dragged on. The more than 100,000 Microsoft shareholders that reside
in Ohio collectively lost millions. And that does not include those
investors who hold Microsoft stock in their mutual or pension funds.
Other smaller technology company stocks fared even worse.
BREAK-UP OF MICROSOFT WOULD WEAKEN ECONOMY AND HURT CONSUMERS
The Buckeye Institute has publicly commended Ohio Attorney
General Betty Montgomery, who has been involved with the case from a
very early stage, for her support of the settlement and resistance
to pursuing the break-up of Microsoft. She recognized that breaking
up Microsoft would weaken our already slow economy, hurt consumers,
and set a bad precedent effectively discouraging other high tech
firms from investing in innovation and creativity.
SETTLEMENT MEETS GOALS OF CONSUMER PROTECTION WHILE PERMITTING
CONTINUED INNOVATION IN THE MARKETPLACE
For those who have concerns about Microsoft's business
practices, the settlement contains significant rules and regulations
on how Microsoft designs, develops, and
[[Page 27531]]
licenses its software. For example, all new Microsoft operating
systems would have to include a mechanism that allows easier removal
of the Microsoft Internet browser to switch to a different browser.
Importantly, however, this settlement will still allow
Microsoft, which has been a lead engine of the American economy over
the last decade, to focus on innovation and productivity instead of
on defending itself from government attacks in the courts.
The proposed settlement satisfies the Justice Department and
nine of the states that joined in the antitrust action. It adds
consumer protections while permitting Microsoft to a responsible
industry leader. In the long run, Microsoft's continued ability to
innovate and create products that meet marketplace demands is the
real benefit to consumers.
Sincerely,
David J. Owsiany, J.D.
President
The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions
4100 North High Street
Suite 200
Columbus, Ohio 43214
Phone: (614) 262-1593
Fax: (614) 262-1927
E-mail: [email protected]
MTC-00024761
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly endorse the current settlement.
MTC-00024762
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Giving away software as a freebie to a purchaser is hardly
creating a monopoly. This sales tactic is used all the time by
thousands of vendors cash rebates Hawaii vacations etc. are all used
to vendor advantage. This should force the competitor to build a
better product--not to sue the givers of incentives to
consumers. In a country where we have three corporations controlling
80% of all cereal grains 80% of all red meats 90% of poultry with NO
freebies to consumers and only an occasional price discount why do
you pick Microsoft to prosecute? Coca Cola and Pepsi actually
conspire to keep smaller brands OFF vendor shelves. We have some
really bad monopolies in the U.S. that are gouging consumers
horribly on a necessity of life [food] yet you choose to ignore
their greed and go after a company that has enabled consumers to
take part in the communications boom. Why?
MTC-00024763
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has a monopoly on personnel and business software that
is costing this Country and economy excessively and more open
competitiveness is required.
MTC-00024764
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This settlement is fair and will finally end this lengthy and
costly suit. Both the national economy and the local economy here in
the Northwest will benefit from this settlement. The bottom line is
that this is in the best interests of the consumer and is vital to
the health of the tech industry and the economy as a whole.
MTC-00024765
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It s a sad day when innovation and success have to be hobbled by
the government just because some some people just can't keep up with
the needs of the consumer.
MTC-00024766
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
First off I want to congratulate Bill Gates and Microsoft for
all they have accomplished what he has done with his company is
truely the american dream. I also want whomever this concerns to
know I am tired of my tax dollars paying for a lawsuit that simply
put was initiated by a bunch of sore losers. I do realize that our
great countries laws protect against market monopolies but when it
happens do we have to treat them as though they are being punished?
The fact is Microsoft has accomplished what every company wishes
they can complete domination with a quality product. If any other
company (Apple AOL & Netscape etc. . .) had the chance they
would have done the same. The point is they could not and cannot
achieve this so they start pointing fingers and by pointing fingers
they openly admit to an inferior product. I am more than capable of
installing different products on my Windows systems but I choose not
to because I prefer Microsofts products. If the government splits
Microsoft or makes them exclude some of the components of the
operating system it will actually make Microsoft s market larger
because people like me will still buy the seperated components which
will probably cost more and hurt the consumer that the government
was trying to protect in the first place.
MTC-00024767
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:01pm
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,
William Bicknell
35-17 Ditmars Blvd
#113
Astoria, NY 11105
MTC-00024768
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Any corrective measures must be weighed against the well-being
of consumers. In fact the very monopolistic practices for which
Microsoft has been criticized were BENEFICIAL to consumers because
they provided a standard platform that all application developers
can depend on. The result? More reliable application software (=less
frustration for consumers). The proposed settlement seems to me to
prevent future abuses while protecting consumer rights. We should go
forward with it.
MTC-00024769
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I've been using Microsoft products for almost 20 years. Never
any problems. Never been pressured to use their products did it by
CHOICE as it should be. Govt. should stay out of this and let the
public decide what products they prefer to use. McNeely and Ellison
are simply unable to compete so they are crying to the Govt. for
help. Let the users decide what products they want to use ! ! ! !
MTC-00024770
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
leave ms alone
MTC-00024771
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft was found guilty of monopolistic practices. Enron was
on the edge of accounting rules Microsoft went over the edge in
dealing with competitors and PC manufacturerers. They are delaying a
just penalty. They offer to give $1 Billion in software to schools.
In 1969 one of the issues in the antitrust case against IBM was that
they were selling or giving away computers to Universities.
Microsoft has the chutzpah to say this is a good deed when it is
nothing more than a marketing ploy to get into k-12
[[Page 27532]]
schools. The bundling of Internet Explorer into Windows without
permitting PC manufacturers from deleting it was a predatory action
against Netscape. When a powerful company offers something free that
competes with a product or service of a small company that is
predatory. When it looks like a skunk and smells like a skunk it s a
skunk.
MTC-00024772
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The government s (at the behest of Netscape and others)
continued pursuit of the case against Microsoft is an outrage. I use
Microsoft s products every single day. Not because I am forced to by
a monopoly or other pressures but because they make quality
software. Given the choice between a Microsoft product and another
company s I'll almost always choose Microsoft s. Building a browser
(or any other functionality) into their operating system is
convenient for consumers. And I can load Netscape s browser (or any
other software) onto my computer any time I like. I just choose not
to. Microsoft should be allowed to incorporate any additional
features they choose.
MTC-00024773
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel very strongly that the settlement is fair and just. I
also feel that those that do not think so are driven by competative
motives that are not in the interest of those that use technology on
a daily basis. I use MS products but do not feel that I have to use
them and do use other products that compete with MS products. In no
way do I feel that I am hindered as a consumer due to MS s business
practices if there is a better product out there I will purchase it
to run my business.
MTC-00024774
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am in support of this settlement just because I want the
matter to go away. Let s close the book on this issue and let the
market decide who the winners and loosers not the government or
states. This is a free market society and governments and states
have no business or knowledge about technology.
We spend too much time in litigation and not much time left for
innovation and progress. All this cost tax payers millions of
dollars for nothing only politicians and lawers got rich from it. I
WANT MY TAX DOLLARS TO BE USED FOR SOMETHING MORE USEFULL (AND THIS
LITIGATION IS CERTAINLY NOT USEFULL) OR GIVE ME MY TAX MONEY BACK.
MTC-00024775
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have purchased and used Microsoft software for over 15 years.
I have tried others and always came back to Microsoft. I do not
believe that other companies should be given the technology that
Microsfot designed. Let these other companies come up with their
own. Too much money has been spent punishing a company that was only
carrying out the idea of free enterprise. I suggest that more time
be spent on matters that will protect us as individuals from
something serious.
Respectfully submitted
D. Carroll Brackett
MTC-00024776
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
At this time in the United States it would seem that going back
to business as usual would be the obvious choice. I agree. I think
that this settlement although at times unfair to microsoft is better
than prolonged litigation. As a consumer I have to say that I was
happy to get a free web-browser from microsoft so have no sympathy
for netscape s old practices. This settlement should stand and as
American corporations the competitors of Microsoft who are really
the interested parties should strive to win in the marketplace not
the courtroom.
MTC-00024777
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a senior citizen and great grandmother I m appalled that this
Microsoft case was ever accepted by the courts in the first place. I
will NEVER do business with those companies who filed against
Microsoft and have personally deleted AOL and any product of the
complaintives out of my computer. Please accept the settlement on
behalf of all the consumers who were never injured in the first
place with the browser.
Best wishes and thank you
June M. Allen
MTC-00024778
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The expansion of OS services beginning with the inclusion of
TCP/IP to Win95 has been a significant boon to consumers. The
Internet explosion occurred with the release of free browsers to the
public which financed their invention at the University of Illinois.
The concept that the public was harmed by MSFT giving away the
browser it originally purchased from the copyright holders mocks any
standard of fairness.
MTC-00024779
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough is enough!!!!!!!! The first suit was ridiculous now with
the AOL suit it is getting out of control. Find another golden
goose. Microsoft and the US economy as a whole have suffered
enough!!! The justice department netscape and AOL should have to
reimburse everybody hurt through this.
MTC-00024780
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I find the proposed Final Judgement to be deficient in several
areas, especially when compared to how like behavior would be
treated if the defendent were an actual person.
Section III.C.4 does not prohibit Microsoft from requiring a
Microsoft Operating System be installed or sold on/with any system
containing an alternative Operating System. Nor is this behavior
prohibited by section III.G.1.
Section III.D is a closed forum. An open forum modeled perhaps
after that of the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) should be
used to ensure everyone has access. The purpose of this section is
to enhance competition. Anyone who is for competition should not be
against a little more. Section III.E is also a closed forum.
Communication Protocols should be published and should be
standardized outside of Microsoft. Internet protocols MUST be
standardized via the RFC processes within the IETF.
Section III.G.1 is too weak to keep Microsoft from returning to
prior practices. The words `except that Microsoft may enter
into agreements in which such an entity agrees to distribute,
promote, use or support Microsoft Platform Software in a fixed
percentage whenever Microsoft 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 Microsoft Platform Software'' should be struck.
Section III.J.2 should include more than just commercial
products. APIs should be available without cost to anyone who has an
interest, whether as a hobby or as a business. This is a market
economy. If someone wants to do something for free, they should be
able to. By limiting access to crucial APIs and protocols to only
people and entities which can demonstrate that they will profit from
the knowledge, the market has not been significantly opened up. Many
innovations, to borrow a term that has been bastardized by
Microsoft, come from people toying around with ideas and not trying
to make a profit.
By not punishing Microsoft in any significant way, Microsoft,
and indeed the world, has learned that to be a success means to
break the law big and quick, make a lot of money, and contribute to
political parties when you get caught so no one will steal the lunch
money from the bully. Enron is making good on this at the moment as
well.
In most drug-related cases, the defendent's money is seized
before being found to have commited a crime because the money is
from illegal behavior, as defined by the prosecution and the police.
If that can be done before the case has ever seen a court room, then
how much easier must it be to
[[Page 27533]]
remove money from Microsoft who has already been proven to have
broken the law. Microsoft should pay damages in some multiple of $10
billion. Money is all that companies care about--their bottom
line--their reason de etre. Everything else in any judgement is
just window dressing and will be lived with.
The Justice Department has an opportunity to help the consumer,
but the President has an opportunity to help his constituency. I
pray the Justice Department will prevail.
James [email protected]/
http://www.jamesmith.com/
[email protected] http://cis.tamu.edu/systems/
opensystems/
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00024781
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Keep settlement as it is
MTC-00024782
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The remaining State CIO s have a political agenda to help prop
up Microsoft s competitors. Microsoft has done a great service by
building a huge industry in the United States. Microsoft has helped
consumers by bringing low cost computing to all of them. The very
competitors who are complaining about Microsoft have done nothing to
lower their prices to bring more power to consumers except in
response to Microsoft s low prices.
Bob Jones
MTC-00024783
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We are very much in favor for the goverment and Microsoft to
settle. Microsoft has done more for the world in PC computer use
than any other company. The continous lawsuits by the 12 states and
others is nothing more than to extract money for both the lawyers
and the states. Go after the types of Enron and accounting firms
that would do a lot more good for the public.
Sinserely
Josef Ressel
MTC-00024784
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a Microsoft product consumer would someone please tell me
where I have been harmed?????? There are 75 people DEAD as the
result of Firestone tires and not near the attention or dollars have
been spent on investigating that issue. Yet taxpayers dollars at the
prodding of Microsoft competitors continue to be misspent!!!!!
MTC-00024785
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please do not punish Microsoft for being forsighted and
innovative. They are wonderful. They have made my job so much
easier. I can troubleshoot so easily with their products and they
integrate seamlessly. This is a waste of taxpayer money and of
Microsoft s funds. We the consumer are the ones that will ulimately
pay the price. Stop the insanity.
MTC-00024786
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a taxpayer and consumer I believe that the recent law suit
filed by AOL/Time Warner against Microsoft is an indication that AOL
and other Microsoft competitors are using antitrust law as part of
their business strategy to compete against Microsoft s products. I
do not believe that sanctions against Microsoft will benefit
consumers in any way.
MTC-00024787
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern It is my opinion that the antirust suit
brought against the Microsoft Corporation is unfair. I fear it is
motivated by business interestes rather than the interests of the
consumer--which is why antitrust laws were created. I ve worked
for 2 years in the Internet industry where I ve learned firsthand
why Microsoft dominates the various markets it competes
in--their products are superior to the competition. In our
society a superior product is rewarded with profit. Please do not
penalize a company that makes quality products because of anti-big
business propaganda born in the Public Relations departments of
Microsoft s jealous competitors.
Thank you.
Scott
MTC-00024788
From: Andrew Frank
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
Like most other companies involved in the IT industry, I have
not experienced any particular problem directly attributable to the
rather inflammatory litigation involving Microsoft and our
government. Our concerns, like most other businesses, center more
around concerns of our country's softening economic picture than
anything else. That having been said, however, is not to suggest
that had this lawsuit continued to its anticipated bitter end, its
result would not have complicated the business picture for most IT
companies one way or another. It is better for our country and the
IT business that this lawsuit has been removed from the contentious
battlefield of the courts and has instead been relegated to a
settlement. This settlement addresses the issues raised by the court
action and serves as a quieter, less factious way to conclude this
matter to everyone's satisfaction. It quietly shifts the onus of
licensing Windows from individual OEMs to a collective of the top
twenty hardware manufacturers. It also subtly forces changes in the
way Microsoft designs Windows to accommodate software companies.
I am very much supportive of the settlement, and am hoping that
with its acceptance, we can all benefit from being able to move
forward.
Sincerely,
Andy Frank
Andrew K. Frank, PhD
Vice President & General Manager
The Training Camp
1812 Marsh Road, Suite 200
Wilmington, DE 19810
1.302.475.0283--phone
1.302.475.1571--fax
[email protected]
Visit our website at http://www.trainingcamp.net/
``Because you are only as good as what you know''
MTC-00024789
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft must be stopped from using its vast predatory powers.
There must be NO settlement until this out of control corporation is
held accountable for its monopolositic practices. Instead of giving
its vastly inferior operating systems to schools it should be made
to supply Linux. To do otherwise only allows this monopoly to grow.
MTC-00024790
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
What mankind really needs is a break from people like Orin Hatch
and Sun Microsystems CEO Scott G. Mc-Nealy who complain about
Microsoft. None has bothered to offer a superior product. Instead
they have used the government as a strategic weapon to cover their
own inability to develop something better.
The time has long since past for people like Orin Hatch and the
government to leave Microsoft alone!!!
Douglas Shortridge
117 Cameron Dr.
Battle Creek Mi. 49015
MTC-00024793
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time for companies to quit using the federal government
and the judicial process because they can t compete. The computer
industry is one of the strongest most profitiable industries in the
world. Government interfernce at this point in its
[[Page 27534]]
history is premature and damaging. Please focus your efforts on
problems with the telecom industry and leave the computer industry
alone. We don t need your help.
MTC-00024794
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel the settlement reached by the govt is fair and
equittable.In my opinion Microsoft has been picked on for being an
sucessful co.I dont see any monopolistic behaviour.Its time to move
on and stop wasting tax payer money.
MTC-00024795
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It time tell the friends of Sen. Hatch and the other parties to
beat Microsoft in the marketplace and quit trying to use the
Goverment and the courts. It is my place as a consumer to pick and
chose the best products not the courts. Let us pick the winner not
the Goverment !!!!!!!
MTC-00024796
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
THE ONLY REASON RENO (CLINTON) BROUGHT CHARGES WAS BECAUSE BILL
GATES DIDN T GIVE MONEY TO EITHER PARTY. I FEEL THAT ALL CHARGES
SHOULD BE DROPPED.
MTC-00024797
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough of this attack on one of our most respected companies
Microsoft. We expected as much from the previous administration but
did not expect the witch hunt to continue in the Bush
Administration. Our portfolio has been negatively affected by the
Clinton Justice Department s attack on MS. Stop it now and get back
to catching real crooks.
MTC-00024798
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It s time to get off Microsoft s back. This garbage revolves
around a FREE software bundle and a lot of us can see right through
the whining about it. THis is really a message that the government
will enable anyone to go after successful capitalists and it s a
lousy grab for power. Get over it.
MTC-00024799
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bill Gates is just a man in business like anybody else and he
came up with a product that s been aggressively marketed and perhaps
better than anything else like it. Why should someone or a company
be faulted for being better and more successfull than anyone else
provided that they are being ethical about it.
MTC-00024800
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Can you imagine what life would be like without the computer?
How advanced do you think the world would be in computer usage if
Bill Gates and Microsoft never existed. Bill Gates should be
recognized at the man of the 20th century that has done so much for
not only the USA bu the whole world. Other companies are already
benefitting from Microsoft s taking risks in the 80s and its pool of
ingenuity and software dominance. Don t punish people for being
successful except in the income taxes they pay. All branches of
government city county state and federal have benefitted from the
taxes Microsoft and its employees have paid. Don t stifle new
inventions and software.
MTC-00024801
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We founded this country on the belief of free enterprize and
freedom to compete in open markets. When a company like Microsoft
does this too well everyone jumps in and forces the government to
save them. The truth is that if other software manufacturers could
put a product that worked as well as Windows we would be using it.
Microsoft should have the right to do what it wants with a product
that it created. The government nor the other software companys own
windows Microsoft does. To tell them what they can and can t do with
it is appalling to me.
MTC-00024802
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am fully supportive of the settlement negotiated between
Microsoft and the various Attorneys General referenced here. The
uncertainty this case has caused the technology sector has had a
strongly deleterious affect on the sector and the stock market and
cosumers desperately need security that a final conclusive
settlement will provide. Please effectuate the terms of the
settlement with all due haste.
Cordially C.
Dodd Harris IV
MTC-00024803
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please stop this none-sence! It all started with Netscape and it
was not a working system than nor is it much better now! It still
works like the writer of that program(Netscape) has less than a year
of experience. Also every PC that I have bought has always had
Netscape loaded on it!!!!!!! They do not have a leg to stand on.
MTC-00024804
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the sttlement was unfair to Microsoft and is being
inconsistently applied to computer vendors. There is nothing that MS
did that companies complaining about MS have not also done.
Indepenent of the question of fairness/rightness there is a blatent
inconsistency being applied here. THIS IS CALL FREE ENTERPRISE! Not
monopoly. The competitors are taking advantage of the justice system
and polictical favortisum to make up for what they lack in their own
product line and abilities. This inconsistency would be laughable if
it were not for the serious ramification were MS forced to stopped
providing the public with the best products it can. Please consider
all factors in the light of free enterprise and consistent business
practices of all competitors.
Thank you.
Mr. Kernaghan
MTC-00024805
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
For too long the government has assisted Microsoft s
competitors. It s time for them to compete in the marketplace not in
the court room. The settlement proposed by DOJ is more than fair for
all the parties involved and paves the way for a return to normalcy
in the technology sector.
MTC-00024806
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please accept the current settlement and avoid additional
litigation. Thank you
MTC-00024807
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has provided great convenience for my life and our
company s operation. Their products are so good and in the meantime
I don t have problem to switch to their competitor s product if
needed.
However I will still prefer the Microsoft products. I don t see
the monopoly. And I can only see the inconvenience by restriction of
a pre-loaded Windows. I totally support the settlement. And I
strongly suggest you that not let a few special interests person and
not so great competitive competitor to ruin such a great company and
their products.
MTC-00024808
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 27535]]
Please accept this settlement and put this to bed. I believe
this settlement is a fair (though tough) compromise that is in the
best interest of everyone--the technology industry the economy
and especially consumers. For the sake of the economy please use
your influence to accept this settlement and allow Microsoft do what
they do best develop and distribute integrated software.
Sincerely Karen Hanshaw
MTC-00024809
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The current settlement with Microsoft is sufficient. Do not
allow those companies who have an agenda other than innovation in
the free market sway a fair decision.
MTC-00024810
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel the seetlement reached on the Microsoft Case is more than
fair and adequate and should be finalized.
MTC-00024811
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please do the patriotic thing let Microsoft produce without
further interference.
MTC-00024812
From: Todd Azzara
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I believe that the proposed settlement agreement is a bad idea,
m'kay? No, really. There are no provisions for Microsoft documenting
the API's they DO release, and there is very restricted third-party
developer access to any API's, among many other items. Microsoft
must be taken to task for its constant anti-competitive practices
and this settlement WILL NOT accomplish anything.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Todd Azzara, Senior Real-Time Adaptor Developer
EP1 Core Adaptor Team
S1 Community and Regional eFinance Solutions Group
12401 Research Blvd. Bldg. 1, Suite 400, Austin, TX 78759
512.336.3000 x3032 / 512.336.3250 Fax
Email: [email protected]
MTC-00024813
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Darn it get on with this assinine case and accept the settlement
completely NOW. Don t let the courts do to a successful and forward
thinking company what they did to AT&T. If competing companies
want a greater share of the market let them BUILD A BETTER MOUSE
TRAP IF THEY CAN.
MTC-00024814
From: Patricia Abbott
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/25/02 3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Patricia Abbott
177 Hobble Creek Canyon
Springville, UT 84663
January 25, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers dollars, was a nuisance
to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech
industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations,
consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to
create new and competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Patricia Abbott
MTC-00024815
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a user of both Microsoft and other products forcing Microsoft
to submit to this sort of scrutiny is a waste of my tax dollars.
Unlike the Baby Bells that seem to avoid all scrutiny like this
Microsoft continues to provide BETTER products and BETTER service.
Perhaps DOJ should focus on the real crooks like Enron.
MTC-00024816
From: Jera Darklighter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I believe that the proposed final judgment for the Microsoft
settlement will not effectively eradicate the monopoly that
Microsoft has on both middleware and PC operating systems.
Firstly, there are several loopholes in the judgment that will
easily allow Microsoft to keep on bundling middleware like Internet
Explorer with Windows and thus keeping out competitors like Opera
and Netscape. All they have to do is change the product number, and
the judgment won't consider it ``middleware'' anymore.
That is just asanine.
Microsoft makes a lot of software that is the industry standard.
However, it only runs on Windows (for PC platforms--of course
they make it for the Mac too). This makes it really difficult for
people who prefer other operating systems, like Linux, to run the
programs they really need. These individuals, including myself, are
``stuck'' using a product that they may feel is inferior
to others available. This should not happen in an open market, where
competition forces companies to make better products so they can
have the largest market share.
Furthermore, although the judgment does take some positive steps
toward lessening Microsoft's monopoly, it does not adequately
provide for enforcement of the judgment. Please give this judgment
some teeth so the average Joe out here has a little choice when it
comes to operating systems.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jordana Kocher
Senior Web Designer
@MOTION, Inc.
MTC-00024817
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please accept this settlement. It is fair and in the best
interest of everyone.
Sincerely
Crystal Shuey
MTC-00024818
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have been opposed to the federal government s lawsuit against
Microsft from the day it was filed. I have always thought it was a
bad idea to punish a company for being successful in the
marketplace. Worse it seemed as if the Justice Department was doing
the work of Microsoft s competitors-- AOL Sun Oracle to name a
few--for them primarily because they were losing in the
marketplace. For that reason I support the proposed settlement with
the government. The suit never should have been brought in the first
place. If there s an opportunity to settle it we should do so
ASAP--no more money time or energy invested in persecuting this
successful company. I support the DoJ s efforts to settle and hope
the Department will focus on prosecuting real criminals instead of
manufacturing trumped-up cases against good corporate citizens. No
more regulation via litigation please.
Sincerely
Douglas Goodyear
MTC-00024819
From: Mac.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I am stockholder in Apple Computers. I am also an instructor of
computer sciences at the college level in Tulsa, Oklahoma. As you
[[Page 27536]]
might expect the outcome of this trial is for most on my mind. I
have been reviewing all related materials I can regarding this case
since it's inception, and I am a firm believer that our computer
experiences would be much better off if Microsoft where a better
corporate and consumer partner.
I have read the proposed settlement between MS, the DOJ, and
nine states, and agree with many analysts who have said this
settlement would do little to inhibit MS from continuing there
previous behaviors.
I feel that in order to allow free competition in the operating
system market, Microsoft should not be allowed to bundle new
software with there OS. To do so allows the company an unfair
marketing advantage over competitors. Further, staple applications
such as Microsoft Office should be available for all competing OS's
with significant market share to warrant a profitable product. That
would include the continuation of MS Office for Macintosh and the
developing of MS Office for Linux.
Lastly, MS should set specific prices for there products based
upon volume and not based on the specific customer. In other words,
if Compaq and Dell purchase an equal number of licenses then they
should each pay the same price. This would prevent MS from bulling
PC venders around based on the business practice of the particular
vender.
Joel Sutton
Tulsa Community College
(918) 595-7000 ext 7146
MTC-00024820
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft must be stopped--they are now spamming folks with
requests for favorable comments on the settlement. Break Microsoft
up stop them from making things even worse.
MTC-00024821
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This settlment forces Microsoft to license any intellectual
property rights that others might need to compete with Microsoft. I
disagree with this penalty placed on Microsoft which has been placed
on Microsoft not for the reason this case initially brought to trial
but to penalize Microsoft for being the only company to successfully
create an operating system for X86 platform. If the court is going
to offer this appeal the appeal needs to be such that in ALL
software developers will be forced to license their intellectual
property rights. For example Sun Microsystems would have to license
their intellectual property to Microsoft. Only in this sense will
settlment truly offer something fair and justified.
MTC-00024822
From: Phil Tomson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:26pm
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's provision for public comment I would like
to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement.
I have been involved in the computing industry as an engineer
since 1984. For the last eight years I have been a software
engineer. During this time I witnessed firsthand how the rise of
Microsoft's monopoly in the operating system market adversly
affected the software industry by limiting choices. Microsoft has
been found guilty of anitcompetitive practices and illegally
maintaining a monopoly. The proposed settlement effectively does
nothing to stop Microsoft's anticompetitive practices and in fact I
fear that it will actually give Microsoft the cover of legal
authority to continue such practices in even greater amounts. If the
proposed settlement is approved unchanged it will have grave
negative consequences for the computing and software industries as
well as for access to the Internet. These industries are key to the
US economy and this settlement effectively hands them over to
Microsoft.
The proposed settlement could be fixed with the following
requirements:
* Require Microsoft to make it's office suite data file formats
public. This would allow competing companies and organizations to
create products which can interoperate with Microsoft's office
suite, thus allowing competing operating systems to have
applications which can read and write these formats which are now
ubiquitous due to Microsotf's monopoly.
* Require Microsoft to submit present and future (perhaps for a
period of ten years) networking protocols to an independent open
standards body. This would prevent Microsoft from creating
incompatible netoworking protocols that would shut out competitor's
access to the Internet.
Require Microsoft's preload agreements to be vacated and
prohibit the creation of new preload agreements.
Require the Windows OS API (Application Programmer's Interface)
to be publicly documented. This would allow the development of
competing products that could interoperate with Windows. It would
also expose certain portions of the API which Microsoft has kept
secret up to this point. And this provision should apply to ALL
versions of Windows, including Windows XP and WinCE (which are not
covered in the current agreement).
Require Microsoft to list which software patents protect the
Windows API so that developers of Windows-compatible operating
systems can determine what is patented and avoid infringing.
Require that Microsoft change their EULAs to not discriminate
against ISVs that distribute Open Source software. Many of Microsoft
SDK (Software Development Kit) EULAs prohibit their use with Open
Source (freely available under certain licenses like the GPL (GNU
General Public License)). This type of discrimination should be
eliminated.
And finally, the current agreement 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. The agreement needs to
be ammended so that it has an effective enforcement mechanism that
is invoked when Microsoft breaks the agreement. This is a matter of
utmost importance. If the current agreement is not changed, it will
effectively hand over large portions of the computing industry and
the Internet over to Microsoft's control--this would be a very
tragic outcome and it is avoidable.
Phil Tomson
Software Engineer
19310 SW Oak St.
Aloha, OR 97007
[email protected]
MTC-00024823
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Federal Government has been much too harsh on Microsoft. In
the first place there never was a monopoly on Microsofts part.
Everyone knows that anyone can and does write software. Nobody has
or ever will have a monopoly on writing software. So there was no
monopoly and the case should have been dismissed at that point. We
who have invested our life savings in a very fine company like
Microsoft now see the government destroying everything that we have
worked so hard for. Every time lawyers and judges destroy investor
confidence by actions such as this our economy our nation our
investor spirit is weakened. It is small wonder that our economy is
in such bad shape. Every time we consider investing in a particular
company we become fearful of what the government may do to a fine
company. We are supposed to be a free country. Microsoft certainly
followed all the laws. So why punish them? Which companies are we to
invest in if not fine companies like Microsoft? It sounds so much
like the Democrats. Wait for someone to do well. Then become jealous
and ask the government to destroy the company that you are jealous
of.
MTC-00024824
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This judgement is a farce. Complete idiocy. Bad Microsoft! We
order you to establish yourself in a market you do not already own
and in fact one of your most dreaded compettiors DOES own as a
PUNISHMENT. Oh yeah I m sure MS is cryin in their beer here. APPLE
is the WELL KNOWN dominant educational platform and the judgement
all but hands it to them on a silverplatter by REQUIRING THEM to
become active in it s makeup. PUNISHMENT would be the m having to
SUPPORT the ecucational systme by BUYING APPLES to put in schools.
Is this justice? Hell no. It says long live monoploies becasue you
ve just insured to get more of the same. More MS dominating every
market and NOW the educational market as well wow some punishment.
Good job buckwheat.
[[Page 27537]]
Hope you can salvage your soul from hell. Yay america. I sure hope
the same jdges don t decide the terorrist s fates because they ll be
sent to Club Med with explosives.
MTC-00024826
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support the settlement of US Government s case with Microsoft.
I think it is the best interest of consumers to let Microsoft get on
with the business of making great software products. The state
Attorney Generals are holding out for political reasons that are not
in the consumer s best interest. Here in California the state AG is
playing to the leaders in high-tech such as Larry Ellison of Oracle
and Scott McNealy of Sun Microsystems. What these men have been
unable to achieve by consumer choice in the marketplace they wish to
force on people using the strong-arm of the government. Sounds likes
the mafia to me. Settle the case now.
Shamus Brown
MTC-00024827
From: Stephen Nosal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:08pm
Subject: the microsoft settlement Folks--
I would just like to express my displeasure with the proposed
settlement with microsoft. I oppose it because it does not
specifically address the issue of ``free'' software and
volunteer development. If there is no specific language validating
volunteer software developers I believe Microsoft will use a
``viable business'' requirement to exclude these people
from developing useful software. As a small business owner, I am
unable to afford many of the products that microsoft sells--it
comes directly off of my bottom line. Please modify this settlement
to insure the rights of volunteer developers to create and release
compatible software.
Thank you for your time.
Stephen Nosal
mybrewpub.com
New York, NY
MTC-00024828
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has done more than any other high technology company
to build products for the people. Please bring this trial to an end
as quickly as possible so that the industry can focus on serving the
best interests of the American public and not a few of Microsoft s
competitors. Settle now and move on.
Thank you.
MTC-00024829
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I applaude the DOJ for willing to finally settle this ridiculous
lawsuit with Microsoft. I believe that the market takes care through
competition and hard work and this is what the American system is
all about. Let the company do its business and keep the US as the
most advanced country in the world and let the whiny competitors of
Microsoft work to satisfy their customers by producing better
products. It is after all customers who decide which products are
the best.
MTC-00024830
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough is enough stop wasteing money and settle case
MTC-00024831
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please put the Microsoft case to rest and approve the pending
settlement. As a technology professional I have a great appreciation
for the innovation and quality represented by Microsoft s software
and don t want to see them impaired by intrusive government
action-- action pushed by competitors who seek unfair advantage
for their inferior products. I don t work for Microsoft nor have any
ties to them I simply want the best tools to allow me to do my job
and I believe that Microsoft provides them.
MTC-00024832
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The ruling between Microsoft and the States is extremely fair
and should be allowed to stand. The economy can not take all this
tearing down of American companies. Don t we still have something
called capitalism?
MTC-00024833
From: Jon Bell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:07pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Hello, I strongly agree with the government's stance on this
case against Microsoft. In the mid-90s, before this case was brought
against MS, I read up on the subject quite a bit.
I went from most people's opinion (``they found the
american dream and now they're being punished'') to a more
informed one. It's obvious that they've abused monopoly power, and
it's obvious that it's hurt the market. They haven't necessarily
harmed consumers, but abusing the monopoly power they have is bad
enough to bring a case against them.
I hope this case results in serious, measurable consequences for
Microsoft. You have my support.
Thanks,
Jon
MTC-00024834
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Frank Roche
393 West 49th St 5NN
New York, NY 10019-7900
MTC-00024835
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
ETHEL PARKES
1737 TIMSON LAME
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48302
MTC-00024836
From: Brian Morton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a Macintosh and Linux user, with the exception of using
Internet Explorer for OSX, I have read and listened to much of the
commentary about the DOJ's settlement with Microsoft and it looks
like you guys are selling out. We have seen Microsoft use it's
monopoly status and greed to invade every market they enter, let us
do the ``right thing'' and put a hurt on them. I think
breaking them up as originally proposed would be a great solution
and would then offer some real competition into the computing space.
[[Page 27538]]
Brian Morton
MTC-00024837
From: FixIt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
bad idea guys
MTC-00024838
From: Jim Hassinger
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This disgraceful defanging of the court's decision will go down
in history as a missed opportunity, brought about by the Bush
administration's toadying to all sources of capital, from Microsoft
to Enron.
The original decision should have been executed, as a bare
minimum. My views on the matter are neatly stated by Prof. Lawrence
Lessig's recent work on related matter, ``The Future of
Ideas.'' The Internet, in particular, must be saved as a truly
neutral platform for development. If the government, and its
eminently qualified scientists, were to continue actively supporting
that rule, Microsoft would be forced to break up by the
``free'' market created.
Yours truly
James Hassinger
1149 Coronado Ter
Los Angeles, CA 90026
MTC-00024839
From: Randy Ajax
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
I believe the terms proposed under the Microsoft settlement to
be just and fair for all parties.
Thank you
Randy Ajax
President, Vending World
Please visit our web site at:
http://www.vendingworld.com
MTC-00024840
From: Michael R. Brumm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have reviewed the revised proposed final judgment for the USA
and individual states against Microsoft.
As an ISV who develops software for Windows, I feel that the
proposal is more than fair.
MTC-00024841
From: Art
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement...
Didn't Netscape give away it's browser in order to insure there
would be no competition arise to compete with its'' product? If
that's not anti-competetive, what is? If Microsoft with its''
deep pockets hadn't come along there'd have been no incentive for
improvements to Netscape and no Microsoft browser alternative. And
Netscape has no damage because its'' browser product was being
given away free. Microsoft should demand a set-off from Netscape
because the growing popularity of IE reduced the financial damage
Netscape was inflicting on itself by giving its'loser browser
product away.
Art Krannawitter
135 Camino del Sol
Vallejo, Ca 94591
707-557-5909
MTC-00024842
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:07pm
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,
Bryan Moody
124 Wilson Court
Jacksonville, NC 28546
MTC-00024843
From: Gary Curtis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This final settlement does nothing to punish Microsoft for its
past behavior or to address that damage that has been done as a
result. The effect of this settlement is to bar Microsoft from
certain behaviors that have been found to be anti-competitive and
illegal. As a result the settlement looks more like a clarification
of the law, as it applies to Microsoft business practices. I am
certain that Microsoft will find ``innovative'' new ways
to use its monopoly power to hinder competitors even if this
particular settlement is rigorously enforced. I am very disappointed
that more will not be done to address the damage that Microsoft has
done to the advancement of the state of the art in computing.
Gary Curtis (Ph.D Computer Science) --
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00024844
From: Atlas Int'l
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
hello--
i do not have the time in my busy schedule to pen my objections
to every single point of the microsoft settlement. suffice to say
that this farce of a settlement proposal would be nothing short of
comical if it were not for the fact that you (the DOJ) are actually
considering it. the whole point of the original lawsuit centered
around the ``lockin'' principle, whereby an entity in
essence infects a host (computer user) so profoundly with its
product (windows and other microsoft software) that migration to a
to a more effective, cheaper, more efficient, or otherwise better
system becomes economically and/or logistically unfeasible.
any proposal by microsoft to not only perpetuate its
``lockin'' practices, but to further press them into areas
(education) where it has not been fully implemented is laughable.
the core of the ``lockin'' problem lies in the fact
that microsoft will not divulge information (software APIs) needed
by competitors to produce products capable of nominal performance on
the same hardware. there is a similar scenario in the microprocessor
production industry between AMD, Intel, Cyrix and other chip makers.
through intensive and carefully scrutinized licensing agreements,
this area has remained free from the strong-armed tactics we see
microsoft employ (which Intel would be quite happy to implement ala
microsoft--were it not for these agreements). this relationship
between microprocessor producers did not happen by accident. it has
been the result of the annual multi $million legal efforts put out
by the standards boards and involved companies. this is the sort of
action that needs to be taken with microsoft. simply allowing
microsoft to pass out software which will further their dominance in
established markets (and incidently doesnt cost them a thing---
what's a cd cost $.02?) and improve dominance in other markets will
not solve a thing.
please, for the love of America FORCE this bully of a
corporation to play by the same rules as the rest of us.
bob holkan
8109 otium way
antelope, ca 95843
(916) 454-3447
MTC-00024845
From: Michael Favor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:10pm
Subject: Tunney comments from one software developer
I appreciate the opportunity to comment. I will be as brief as
possible, and I hope my comments will be taken seriously.
The proposed remedy recognizes that if Microsoft can keep part
of the API secret, it has an unfair advantage over competitive
Windows applications, but the proposed remedy seems to limit the use
of the
API information by devleopers of competitive operating systems.
If Microsoft is required to compete for the operating system market
as well as the applications software market, information about the
API must be available for use by developers of other operating
systems as well as developers of application software. The limiting
language in the proposed remedy may seem harmless, but this is a
very important point.
Next, if Microsoft is allowed to develop proprietary protocols
for network applications like email or web pages,
[[Page 27539]]
Windows would be required in order to use those applications. In
order to allow other application and operating system devlopers to
compete fairly against the monopoly, these network protocols must
also be published, similar to the API information.
Lastly, the file formats used by Microsoft applications such as
the Office software are the logical ``interface'' between
those programs, similar to the Windows API and network protocols. To
the extent that these file formats are kept secret, they direcectly
hinder the development of competitive and compatible software for
Windows and competitive operating systems. I believe that each of
these points is critical to the effectiveness of the proposed
remedy, and that each one must be addressed in order to prevent
Microsoft from directly impeeding the development of competitive and
compatible software, and extending a monopoly that has been built
based on unfair competition. Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Michael Favor
[email protected]
MTC-00024846
From: hanturner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement ATTENTION: JUDGE COLLEEN KOLLAR-
KOTELLY
Please settle the lawsuit between Microsoft Corp and the
government now. I believe it would benefit the consumer and the
economy. As a tax payor, I feel that the government has wasted a lot
of money on a lawsuit that should of been settled long ago. Let's do
something productive with our tax money. I'm self-employed and been
using computers since the early 80's. Computer programs in the 80's
were very diificult to learn to use. Microsoft created software that
was user friendly and easy for the average person to use. It has
improved my productivity and my life.
I URGE YOU TO HELP SETTLE AND THE LAWSUIT NOW. THANK YOU FOR
LISTENING TO ME.
Sincerely.
Hanneli Turner
7118 174 St SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
MTC-00024847
From: John Booher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I have two brief suggestions on modifications to the DOJ/
Microsoft settlement that would be beneficial to consumers and to
the software industry. File Formats
All windows file formats should published so that competing
developers can make compatible applications available to the public.
This would make it more difficult for Microsoft to maintain its
monopoly because competitors could make applications that are
compatible with Microsoft Office. API
All Windows Application Programming interfaces should be made
available to all developers. This would allow developers to produce
competing applications in a more equal environment. Also, this
information should be freely usable by competitors such as Sun
Microsystems and Lindows. This would allow developers to produce
competing operating systems in a more equal environment.
Thank you for you time,
John Booher
MTC-00024848
From: Jarod Belshaw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to register my objection to the proposed Microsoft
settlement. I do not believe the current proposal serves the
interests of promoting competition or remedying the impact on the
Amercian consumer. Specifically, I believe the current proposal will
stifle competition by giving Microsoft a leg-up on competitors under
the guise of a settlement. Permitting Microsoft to settle the matter
by delivering Microsoft products to school systems, which
traditionally tend to favor other vendors (e.g., Apple), would be
tantamount to state-sponsorship of the extension of Mcirosoft's
monopoly.
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely
Jarod Belshaw
[email protected]
``Whom the gods have chosen to destroy they will teach IBM
JCL programming.''
MTC-00024849
From: EUROSIGN METALWERKE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:15pm
Subject: ATTN: US DEPT OF JUSTICE ATTN: US DEPT OF JUSTICE RE:
MICROSOFT
Microsoft has made it possible for small businesses like us to
afford computers and increase efficiency. Anti-Microsoft companies
like Sun, Oracle, Apple et al offer software which is too expensive
for the small business/home owner/student. If Sun, Oracle, Apple,
Netscape-AOL had competitive products, the market would have
rewarded them accordingly. The negative attitude by Microsoft's
competitors is truly un-American -where the market rewards companies
with the best values in service and products.
It is time to let Microsoft innovate freely!!
Very truly yours,
Jerome R. Bulkan
senior Vice President
Eurosign Metalwerke, Inc.
Margate, Fl
MTC-00024850
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:12pm
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,
Sheila Renee Crouch
1603 West Varner Road
Hixson, TN 37343
MTC-00024851
From: William Tsun-Yuk Hsu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:16pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To whom it may concern,
I would like to voice my disapproval of the proposed settlement
between Microsoft and the Dept of Justice. I don't think it will be
at all effective in reducing Microsoft's monopolistic and predatory
practices.
Bill Hsu
Associate Professor
Department of Computer Science
San Francisco State University
MTC-00024852
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
As a consumer, I want the Microsoft case settled. Microsoft has
contributed more to the economy of this country (and the world) then
any other entity in history. Let Microsoft get on with the business
of innovating.
Irwin P. Garfinkle, Patent Attorney (Retired)
366 River Road Carlisle, MA 01741
MTC-00024853
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
44 Elsie Lane
Grand Island, NY 14072-2704 IF
MERGEFIELD LCSZ
Okeechobee, FL 34974<>
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 the Microsoft have ended their
three-year antitrust battle. I think this settlement was long
overdue but I welcome an end to this litigation. I do not think the
initial lawsuit was merited; but I want to give my support to this
present agreement and ask that you do so also. It is time to put
this behind us and get back to business.
[[Page 27540]]
Microsoft has more than acceded to the Department of Justice's
demands. Microsoft has agreed to grant computer makers the rights to
configure Windows to promote non-Microsoft software programs;
Microsoft has also agreed to a monitoring committee to oversee
future compliance. The company is even agreeing to reveal internal
information about Windows to enable rivals to write more competitive
software. Enough is enough.
We need to move forward. Give your support to the settlement
that your department negotiated.
Thank you. IF MERGEFIELD PARA5 But is suspense, as Hitchcock
states, in the box. ambiguity's put on weight.<>
Sincerely,
No, there isn't room, the
Patricia Vampotic
0024853--0002
MTC-00024854
From: Pete Rourke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Enough!
I think that the terms of the settlement are sufficient and
tough enough on Microsoft, and they are fair.
I think that we are circling the vultures that are trying to
profit from this. The ingrown toenails of the legal battlers should
receive another salve besides continuing to fan the flames of media
controversy. I think not putting an end to this, will stifle the
productive output of Microsoft, which makes products that keep a
huge number of other companies generating income and employing
millions of workers because of this.
If the legal wranglers of this case are latched on to gaining
personal wealth for themselves, or are grandstanding for the benefit
of keeping their elected positions, don't recognize that we are
tired of this and should go on to other endeavors that produce a
more positive output, then our country will continue to be
victimized by vultures.
Pete Rourke
480-782-7744 W
480-225-8943 C
MTC-00024855
From: Kelley, David
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 3:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To Whom it May Concern;
I really think this has gone on to far. I think AOL is using
this to much to there advantage. Doing anything to Microsoft will
hurt the economy especially in the US. Microsoft is the ultimate
example of Capitalism and allowed to continue to contributed to our
overall success in the market place and as a country. Can we just
even settle on the agreed upon terms and move on?
Further this suite filed by AOL is a cold vicious attack on its
competitors over an issue that had already been settled.
David J Kelley
IT--Web Development Lead
Mutual of Enumclaw
800.366.5551 x 3448
253.639.6349
[email protected]
[email protected]
MTC-00024856
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To Whom It May Concern:
As your decision is under consideration in this matter, please
remember that it is important to all US citizens to retain freedom
in the computing world. To preserve our rights, please make a
decision that promotes freedom of choice of operating systems,
software and hardware in digital creation and communication.
Thank you.
David Nicksay
MTC-00024857
From: Denny McClarren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:18pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
How long are we going to allow this giant to crush any company
that come up with brilliant ideas? The proposed settlement is
definitely a BAD idea!
Judy McClarren
Holmes Beach, Florida
MTC-00024858
From: Paul C. Dain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
[email protected]
US Justice Dept.,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I am writing to express my support for this settlement reached
between your Department of Justice and Microsoft. While the specific
terms of the settlement encompassed more than did the lawsuit
itself, the settlement at least brings this entire unfortunate
chapter to a close. While I do not necessarily agree with everything
that Microsoft has done, I do feel that there could have been any
number of preliminary steps that could have been taken before
plunging our government into a costly, protracted federal lawsuit.
There is an erroneous assumption that Microsoft's products should
somehow be in the public domain, as if they, too, are a government
entity. Clearly they are not. Microsoft, like any other private
American business, should be free to dictate the terms under which
it will grant license to use its product.
Sincerely,
Paul Dain
Director, Application Development
Wirestone Chicago
[email protected]
MTC-00024859
From: Dorothy Lutey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:21pm
Subject: Microsoft
Netscape, AOL, looking for the deep pockets. Go out and earn
your own money. Hard work, ingenuity doesn't always pay off.
Kudos to Bill Gates.
MTC-00024860
From: Matthew Motley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dear Sir,
I feel that it is imperative that microsoft terminate its
monopolistic practices. That is the only result of the settlement
that I will consider acceptable. I do not pretend I have any idea
about the best way to accomplish this; I leave such judgments to
you. However, that Microsoft might continue to parlay its dominant
position in computer software into dominance in other markets is
unacceptable. Moreover, microsoft clearly has acted in an anti-
competitive manner on numerous occasions, without remorse or any
sign of a willingness to modify this behavior, and as such should
suffer consequences. The penalty must be damagingly stiff, or the
damages that microsoft has caused others must be reversed. Perhaps
packaging Netscape, not internet explorer with their next 10 million
windows sales might help mitigate one of the many anti-trust
infractions. But do not back down from justice.
Yours,
Matthew Motley
351A Clinton St.
Brooklyn, NY 11231
MTC-00024861
From: David Huntsman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dear Sir:
I have been listening to all this talk and arguments concerning
Microsoft. About how all these other companies are jealous of
Microsoft and Bill Gates. Here are a few things to remember before
passing judgement on this case.
*It was Bill Gates who said, ``I will put a computer in
every household.'' All the computer manufacturers laughed at
him.
*It was Bill Gates who took the Federal Governments lack of
forsight on the internet, and turned it into a trillion dollar
business for the world.
*It was Bill Gates who came up with operating systems that a
novice computer person could work.
MacIntosh and Apple did nothing but try to get the business
community to buy systems that were very difficult to work, extremely
slow, very inefficient, and extremely expensive. But now they are
angry with Microsoft because Bill Gates did what he set out to do,
and every year he is constantly comming up with better ideas for the
working class people. Just remember that its the working class
people that pay for most everything in this country. Now I grant you
that Bill Gates is not being nominated for Sainthood, but think
about it, he has accomplished the american dream, and those who
couldn't make their dreams come true, are trying to steal his.
In my opinion, which may or may not be relevant, this anti-trust
suit is nothing more than another way to waste tax dollars, and the
courts time.
Both of which could be used more usefully.
David Huntsman
[[Page 27541]]
Harrah, Oklahoma...
MTC-00024863
From: Jimmy Combs
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 3:18pm
Subject: If it weren't for Microsoft . . .
. . . the Department of Justice
probably wouldn't even have
computers!
If there is just one personal computer, anywhere at the DOJ,
that holds Microsoft hardware or software, then the DOJ should be
hung out to dry! As bad as you think they are, Microsoft is still
the best at what they do. If the competition can't keep up with them
and their developments, then tuff luck.
I read today that Wal-Mart is now the largest company in the
world. I suppose next week, the Department of Justice will want to
shut them down as well.
Thanks.
CC:'webmaster(a)microsoft.com''
MTC-00024864
From: David Witt
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 3:25pm
Subject: ms penalties deal DOJ-
as a technical computer user and graphic/interactive designer, i
have been on the front lines of the pc wars for 10+
years--although i use multiple OS's, i most definitely prefer
Macintosh, and as such, it has been painful for me to witness the
numerous ``dirty tricks'' that Microsoft has pulled over
the years in effort to lock users into their platform and programs.
i won't go into details, but will make a few comments, and then make
a proposal for penalties:
first off, it is ridiculous to claim that Microsoft is an
``innovator'--it is well known that Microsoft's
``innovation'' is to either buy a smaller company's
technology or create copycat programs, which they then leverage into
the marketplace using their installed base. secondly, Microsoft
hinders computer users worldwide by not adhering to standards
developed by industry consortiums--they want consumers to think
that a ``standard'' is something like Microsoft
Word--their ``extend and embrace'' model means that
they create a largely compliant product, but then alter crucial code
so as to induce confusion, uncertainty and doubt into the
marketplace, hopefully locking customers into their platform
``for their own good''.
i am not optimistic that this judgement will change Microsoft's
behavior, unless there is substantial remedy, and i don't mean
money--here is my proposal:
***Force Microsoft to publish ALL APIs for their Windows
operating systems--including the so-called ``hidden
APIs'--this would allow developers for Windows software to be
on a level playing field w. Microsoft's own engineers, as well as
allow outside scrutiny of their code. it has been long speculated
that Microsoft maintains a huge advantage in developing for Windows
because it alone has access to many APIs that outside developers
never see***
I would like to see additional penalties/remedies, but have no
further suggestions--my opinion is that Microsoft has and
continues to leverage it's monopoly position for its own gain, and
to the extreme detriment of its competitors and its own customers,
and without considerable remedy, and lasting monitoring, they will
continue unabated, as their recent XP expansion suggests...
sincerely,
-David Witt
Interactive Designer
MTC-00024865
From: Derek Schatz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
Dear DOJ-
I wish to express my extreme disappointment in the structure of
the settlement with Microsoft. The agreement does not impose any
real hardship on Microsoft, and instead lets them capture positive
PR by donating money and software to schools. This part of the
agreement, by the way, further strengthens Microsoft's market
position by encouraging assault on Apple's traditional strong place
in education. Overall, there are insufficient penalties and controls
on further anti-competitive behavior. Microsoft in their arrogance
clearly regards this whole antitrust episode as merely another
business issue to deal with, rather than an impetus to fundamentally
change the way they do business. The software industry is somewhat
unusual in that the nature of platform standardization enables the
market leader to erect strong barriers to entry against new
competitors. This is why Microsoft must be limited in a greater
fashion than would a market leader in a more traditional type of
industry.
Sincerely,
Derek Schatz
Information Security Consultant
Irvine, California
714-508-9344
[email protected]
MTC-00024866
From: Ron LaMange
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
it's time to setttle this case and move on. The economy is in
rough shape and any signs of recovery remain distant. Does delay in
settling and moving on help anyone, is it a make work project for
the government lawyers
Signed , a concerned taxpayer
Ron LaMange
MTC-00024867
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:26pm
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,
Dotti Livengood
512 Portola Street
San Dimas, CA 91773
MTC-00024868
From: Alex Morcos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to share with you that I am in total support of the
Department of Justice and Microsoft on te proposed settlement that
was reached recently. The US economy depends on firms like Microsoft
for the innovation necessary to keep the US ahead of the rest of the
world. As we realized after September 11, America has bigger fish to
fry and the DOJ needs to pursue more emminent targets that
Microsoft. Microsoft is a good company that produces great products
that people love and cannot live without. Let them keep their
innovation and creativity and encourage their competitors to do the
same rather than use the justice system to weaken Microsoft.
I sincerely hope that you will resolve the issues with Microsoft
and that you will finalize the settlement sooner than later. The new
administration is already doing some great things that I believe
will be remembered in history as the one of the best administrations
to govern America. Keep it up and get on with more important issues.
Thanks for reading this. Alex Morcos.
MTC-00024869
From: V
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that Microsoft has provided great values all along in
their products and services, and that the Justice dept and all the
competitors that are against Microsoft should settle this case once
and for all and quit wasting tax payers money on this bogus filing
against Microsoft now and any others in the future.
MTC-00024870
From: Scott Hemmert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have reviewed the DOJ-Microsoft settlement and believe that
the settlement could have a detrimental on consumers. The settlement
does nothing to jump-start innovation which has been stifled by the
Microsoft monopoly. In fact, the many loopholes will in effect
legitimize the business practices which the courts have found to be
illegal. I feel that this settlement should not be allowed to stand.
[[Page 27542]]
Karl Hemmert
Orem, Utah
MTC-00024871
From: Caleb Basinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stop letting Microsoft leverage their System Software (Windows)
Monopoly to drown out all of their Application Software competition.
It's absolutely anti-competitive!
The ONLY remedy is to break up the company, so that they won't
have the ability to use their Windows market share to boost their
application software sales.
It's that simple!!!
Caleb Basinger
[email protected]
MTC-00024872
From: David Roberts (MCS)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a citizen, a business person, and more importantly a parent;
I feel the settlement is fair, just, timely, and makes a difference
in the lives of children who are in desperate need o f the fruits of
this settlement.
I just came back from Puerto Rico, where they were very
supportive of receiving the benefits to the k-12 education system.
Please stop this clearly biased lawsuit protocol and move on.
Respectfully,
David Roberts
Father, Husband, and concerned citizen
MTC-00024873
From: Sira Webmaster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may concern,
This is a letter from a concerned citizen. I am actually a
college student, which puts me in greater contact with computers, as
they are in constant use throughout campus. I also work with
computers as I am a freelance web design specialist. I felt it
necessary to add my thoughts to the pool of doubts and grievances
being thrown at microsoft. From my personal experience, Microsoft
products continue to meet low quality standards. I feel, as a
consumer, that I am being marketed Microsoft products like Hershey's
markets candy bars, by throwing new colors and useless features on
the outside, while still producing a defunct, mercilessly
frustrating product.
Compared to all other operating systems in the world today, I
would rate Microsoft Windows lowest on the list. It is badly made,
doesn't serve consumer needs, and is a blatant copy of apple's
operating system. I feel that Apple never should have lost the
lawsuit against Microsoft because the operating system is an obvious
mirror image. That issue aside, the quality of Microsoft's products
is due to their emphasis and orientation towards producing more,
selling more. It is an example of capitalism gone awry, and so I
urge you to take matters into your own hands and amend the
situation.
Thank you for your time, and I urge you to make a speedy and
just decision.
Michael Jergins
The Stein Institute for Research on Aging
http://medschool.ucsd.edu/SIRA/
[email protected]
(858) 534-6299
MTC-00024874
From: Khouri Giordano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:31pm
Subject: Settlement
I am a programmer with 15 years professional application writing
experience.
About ten years ago, I came to the decision that Microsoft
Windows 3.0 was a way to get the graphical interface of the Apple
Macintosh on my cheaper Intel based hardware. I went to the
Microsoft sponsored developer conferences and came home thinking of
how I was going to use the great new stuff coming out of Redmond.
Since that time, I've seen Microsoft move into more areas and push
out other software vendors, most notably Netscape. Having to write
and support software that runs on Windows, I've seen that platform
become more complex and more prone to problems. Instead of being
able to discover the real cause of a few problems, I've had to work
around them. If I were able to fix a problem in Windows and there
was a place to submit a change, I would have.
There came a point where I uninstalled Netscape and became a
dedicated Internet Explorer user because it had more features and
was more stable.
These days, I refuse to buy anything with Microsoft connections.
I've switched from Internet Explorer to Mozilla which is the open
source project on which the current Netscape is based.
I've come to loathe the company, their practices and their top
decision making executives. I and the other Windows programmers
where I work all laugh along with the Macintosh programmers at the
Microsoft jokes. No one defends them any more. What intelligent
person would defend a company that stymies any effort of hard
working and innovative people.
I've seen DR-DOS (MS-DOS compatible), GEM (Windows alternative)
and even OS/2 (Windows alternative from *IBM* of all companies) come
and go. Other efforts to provide compatible software are rendered
completely incompatible with every new release from Microsoft. That
applies to Windows and their other applications.
I realize now that Microsoft was able to outlast the Clinton
administration and now the winds have changed. Microsoft stopped
putting up a fight because they knew that the consequences of losing
have disintegrated.
My opinion is aligned with that of a wide range of professionals
in my field. The current settlement proposal does nothing to inhibit
Microsoft. It leaves them free to infiltrate other facets of peoples
lives and there is no evidence to make us believe that will not use
their hefty presence to squeeze out other players and buy out or
crush anyone in their way.
More of the code I've been writing is now for both Windows and
Macintosh versions of our products. Both at work and at home, I've
come to favor FreeBSD (UNIX operating system) for my Intel hardware.
Whenever given the choice to help Microsoft or help someone else, I
have to go with the company that plays fair in the marketplace and
provides the best products for the best price. That always ends up
being NOT Microsoft.
Khouri Giordano
Software Technology Researcher
Nikon Electronic Imaging http://www.nikonusa.com/
[email protected] 631-547-4335
631-547-0361 Fax
MTC-00024875
From: Ken Graham
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 3:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
Regarding section III H 3, a copy of which is pasted here:
Microsoft Shall:
3.Ensure that a Windows Operating System Product does not (a)
automatically alter an OEM's configuration of icons, shortcuts or
menu entries installed or displayed by the OEM pursuant to Section
III.C of this Final Judgment without first seeking confirmation from
the user and (b) seek such confirmation from the end user for an
automatic (as opposed to user-initiated) alteration of the OEM's
configuration until 14 days after the initial boot up of a new
Personal Computer. Microsoft shall not alter the manner in which a
Windows Operating System Product automatically alters an OEM's
configuration of icons, shortcuts or menu entries other than in a
new version of a Windows Operating System Product.
Please be advised that the above language, specifically:
Microsoft shall ``Ensure that a Windows Operating System
Product does not ... (b) seek such confirmation from the end user
for an automatic ... alteration of the OEM's configuration until 14
days after the initial boot up of a new Personal Computer.'',
does not constrain the length of time for such a reminder, thus
allowing Microsoft to indefinitely issue such a dialog until such
time as the user caves in, and selects such Microsoft Product or
offering.
Is it not the job of the DOJ to redress the harm done by
Microsoft? This agreement clearly does not do so. All this language
does is delay their existing behavior. It does not fundamentally
alter any of the existing Microsoft practices which fall within the
scope of the aforementioned section, and fail to fundamentally
redress the egregious behavior for which Microsoft has been
repeatedly found guilty.
Please be advised that under no circumstances, should any
installation of any product from any vendor ever modify any
configuration of any component without user confirmation when said
component is not directly and obviously under the pervue and user
control of said product. Please consider the consequences of
allowing any action to the contrary.
That the statement, ``the manner in which a Windows
Operating System Product automatically alters an OEM's configuration
of icons, shortcuts or menu entries'' even exists in this
agreement is evidence of the DOJ blessing existing Microsoft
behavior. It is one thing for AOL to behave like this within
[[Page 27543]]
their own product. This is an annoying and arrogant behavior on the
part of AOL. Since AOL does not allow any third party to interfere
with their dysfunctionality, they are perfectly permitted to commit
this cardinal sin without fear of judicial review. Additionally,
were language like the above employed, they could still behave in
such an egregious manner, for what they change is still under their
control. However, when Microsoft does this same behavior it is
different. This is an uncontested fact(except by Microsoft) who only
wants complete free reign. Microsoft has blatantly set out to thwart
and circumvent all attempts to prevent it from controlling all
aspects, like AOL, and unfortunately, it looks like the DOJ is
beFUDdled.(FUD=Fear Uncertainty Doubt/See Sun vs Microsoft). When I
install a new version of any product, on any platform, there should
never, ever, be an automatic reconfiguration of any product not
clearly and obviously ``owned'' and affected, by the
vendor and application, being installed. Seeing as installing a
``new version of a Windows Operating System Product'', is
clearly unavoidable, they should not be allowed to infect the data
and configuration space of vendors and products, not clearly under
user control within the application(s) being installed.
A clear case of this, is the look and feel of MS Windows
Explorer and MS Outlook(client).
Their behavior is controlled and configured within Internet
Explorer. The poor computer user who is not well acquainted with the
insidious behavior of Microsoft would be at a total loss to explain
this seemingly terrible design and implementation, much less
discover how to correct the problem. Upon investigation inside the
Microsoft Knowledge Base, one will encounter the phrase ``As
Designed'', which literally means, that this behavior is
intended. It is not a bug. They intended to show that Internet
Explorer is required, when clearly(to those who are informed and of
sound mind and body) it is not.
A cursory examination of the UI's used by Outlook will clearly
show that not only is Internet Explorer not fundamental to the OS,
but that it was adhoc'ed onto existing applications, in a poorly
implemented retrofit, so as to show to the uninformed exactly how
required IE really was, when to any sane individual it was clearly
not the case.
Regarding:
``Notwithstanding the foregoing Section III.H.2, the
Windows Operating System Product may invoke a
Microsoft Middleware Product in any instance in which: ``,
subsections 1, and 2, of same.
With the issues of securing an operating system, from the point
of view of the Microsoft Mindset, as blessed within the guidelines
of this agreement, it seems that to abrogate all provisions,
requires only the creation of an ``OS''(quotes added for
emphasis/humor) which has ``security'', (read as attempt
to provide illusion of security). Please refer to the patent granted
to Microsoft, by the uspto, called ``Digital Rights Management
Operating System''(application 227561). Under the guise of
security, and NDA(non disclosure agreement), the ability of the
public to know what Microsoft is doing will be non-existent. As a
primary consequence, no complaint can be filed. Given that
congress(lower case to show proper respect) has caved in to
corporate conglomerates with the DMCA, then any attempt to discover
how Microsoft has broken this agreement will also be illegal. Since
this agreement relies on complaint driven inquiry to assess
Microsoft compliance, the result will be again for Microsoft to have
outwitted and clearly trivialized the DOJ and this court. You need
to understand. Microsoft has no intention of keeping this agreement,
any more than they have kept prior agreements.
This is not an inappropriate attribution. There exists mountains
of evidence to support such an opinion and to act without regard to
this evidence is tantamount to negligence and Dereliction of Duty.
This agreement is naive, and shortsighted. It is consistent with a
desire by the FBI to abridge the rights of citizens to privacy,
without judicial review or constraint. This can only be truly
accomplished in a closed system, like Windows, and not via the Open
Source community. That this opinion is warranted can easily be
attested by such things as ``carnivore'', and ``magic
lantern'', as reported by Reuters, and confirmed by the FBI.
It is the opinion of this citizen, that the DOJ wants Microsoft
in place, with its monopoly intact, so as to place their
``carnivore''/``magic lantern'' on every PC.
Everybody knows(that is to say, that both vendors and consumers
recognize the need for protection from what Microsoft allows, which
is not allowed by default, if not impossible, everywhere else) that
Microsoft products are the worlds worst culprits for replicating
virii(multiple of virus), and without the possibility of user
intervention, thus behaving ``as designed''(common phrase
Microsoft uses to describe what would normally be called an
egregious break of security or serious design/implementation flaw).
The protections stated in this agreement do not include the Open
Source community. The level of attention and the number of
individuals of common intelligence involved in this case suggest
that this cannot be an oversite. How is this possible given that
Microsoft only considers the Open Source Community and Linux to be a
threat? This evidence supports opinions already expressed above
regarding the intentions of the DOJ. The DOJ, in order to create the
appearance of Justice, allows for: V B, ``In any enforcement
proceeding in which the Court has found that Microsoft has engaged
in a pattern of willful and systematic violations, ...'', which
is made moot by provision: IV 4 D 4 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.'' A provision, which by declaration, prohibits
testimony relevant to the former by those who are most in a position
to testify to ``a pattern of willful and systematic
violations''. I was under the impression that it was the intent
of the DOJ to effect a change in behavior at Microsoft, and not just
the appearance of doing so. I see no method outlined to address
situations where legitimate differences of opinion occur. It is not
difficult to foresee Microsoft testing the boundaries of this
agreement, and getting, via ``case law'', precedents that
result in another 1995 pointless agreement. Especially as it is
nothing but SOP(standard operating procedure).
Were I asked to categorize what would be observed in this
agreement by any person of sound mind and body, it would be a
persistent attempt to appear to constrain Microsoft, without
actually doing so. With rare exception, Microsoft is not
substantively constrained. In fact, with recent announcements, and
the desire of the FBI in concert with the Administration to abridge
constitutional rights(``carnivore'' and ``magic
lantern''), it would seem inevitable that justice will in this
instance, again, not prevail. What I do humbly suggest to this
court, which is within the scope and timbre of the existing
agreement, is that all complaints be made public via a non DOJ and
non Microsoft website(evidence suggests the DOJ is not
``clean'', and Microsoft we already know cannot be
trusted). As each complaint is addressed and resolved, the
originating complaint should be annotated as to status and
resolution, so that the marketplace, by being fully informed, may
execute justice.
Sincerely,
Ken Graham
MTC-00024876
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
(corrected)
January 25, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
RE: U.S. v. Microsoft
OVERVIEW
For more than three years Microsoft has been defending itself in
antitrust litigation brought by the U.S. Justice Department and
eighteen states, including Ohio. The proposed consent decree between
Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice reflects a settlement,
which adequately protects the interests of the Department of
Justice, the states and Microsoft, while achieving the desired goal
of consumer protection.
UNCLEAR BASIS FOR ANTITRUST ACTION AGAINST MICROSOFT
Many critics, including the Buckeye Institute (Ohio's free
market think tank) questioned the Justice Department's use of
antitrust laws against Microsoft to punish the company's innovative
use of technology, which provided useful products to businesses and
individuals at low prices. The
[[Page 27544]]
involvement of the state attorneys general was even more puzzling.
It has never been clear how Ohio's citizens have been in any way
harmed by Microsoft's business practices. The only clear
beneficiaries to this antitrust case are Microsoft's competitors who
prefer to have Microsoft mired in litigation instead of competing in
the marketplace.
IMPLICATIONS FOR ANTITRUST LAW IN THE DYNAMIC TECHNOLOGY
MARKETPLACE
This case calls into question the relevancy of antitrust laws in
the fast- changing technology marketplace of today. One of the main
reasons for the government's case was to ensure competition in
Internet browsers.
However, within several months of commencement of the case, the
marketplace changed dramatically.
Microsoft's core business--writing the operating systems of
personal computers--is under serious challenge from Linux and
Apple. The center of gravity for computing is shifting away from the
personal computer, where Microsoft has a significant presence, onto
the Internet where the conglomerate AOL-Time Warner is the major
player. As technology progresses, the focus will likely move to
personal digital assistants, web-enabled telephones, satellite-based
communication devices, and other tools.
The litigation against Microsoft sent a message to the rest of
the technology economy that the use of innovation to meet consumer
demands in an efficient manner will be punished by government
agencies in the courts. This message sent shock waves throughout the
American economy and hurt development in the technology sector.
EFFECT ON OHIOANS
The value of Microsoft stock tumbled by nearly 40% as the case
dragged on. The more than 100,000 Microsoft shareholders that reside
in Ohio collectively lost millions. And that does not include those
investors who hold Microsoft stock in their mutual or pension funds.
Other smaller technology company stocks fared even worse.
BREAK-UP OF MICROSOFT WOULD WEAKEN ECONOMY AND HURT CONSUMERS
The Buckeye Institute has publicly commended Ohio Attorney
General Betty Montgomery, who has been involved with the case from a
very early stage, for her support of the settlement and resistance
to pursuing the break-up of Microsoft. She recognized that breaking
up Microsoft would weaken our already slow economy, hurt consumers
by limiting product development, and set a bad precedent effectively
discouraging other high tech firms from investing in innovation and
creativity.
SETTLEMENT MEETS GOALS OF CONSUMER PROTECTION WHILE PERMITTING
CONTINUED INNOVATION IN THE MARKETPLACE
For those who have concerns about Microsoft's business
practices, the settlement contains significant rules and regulations
on how Microsoft designs, develops, and licenses its software. For
example, all new Microsoft operating systems would have to include a
mechanism that allows easier removal of the Microsoft Internet
browser to switch to a different browser. Importantly, however, this
settlement will still allow Microsoft, which has been a lead engine
of the American economy over the last decade, to focus on innovation
and productivity instead of on defending itself from government
attacks in the courts.
The proposed settlement satisfied the Justice Department and
nine of the states that joined in the antitrust action. It adds
consumer protections while permitting Microsoft to continue as a
responsible industry leader. In the long run, Microsoft's continued
ability to innovate and create products that meet marketplace
demands is the real benefit to consumers.
Sincerely,
David J. Owsiany, J.D.
President
The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions
4100 North High Street
Suite 200
Columbus, Ohio 43214
Phone: (614) 262-1593
Fax: (614) 262-1927
E-mail: [email protected]
MTC-00024877
From: jackie hill
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/25/02 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
jackie hill
367 springdale
bradenton, fl 34210
January 25, 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,
MTC-00024878
From: Tom Minchin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your Honor,
As a private consumer of Microsoft products, I would like to put
on record my firm belief that Microsoft has been the victim of a
terrible injustice and if anything is owed an apology.
Microsoft has conferred great economic benefits on me, by making
my business far more efficient through use of its software. I can
only applaud its policy of upgrading its products. If this makes it
hard for competitors, instead of trying to shackle Microsoft, these
competitors should re-double their efforts to come up with a better
mousetrap.
The US is a great country that is supposed to champion
capitalism. This means that it should repeal the non-objective Anti-
trust laws and let a great company like Microsoft lead the world.
Yours,
Tom Minchin,
1 Robinson Court,
Bayswater North,
Melbourne,
Victoria, Australia 3153
MTC-00024879
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:34pm
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,
John O'Neill
2797 Calle Alegre
CA 94566-5878
MTC-00024880
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:33pm
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
[[Page 27545]]
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,
Alfred Roeckel
150 N. Crescent St.
tremont, PA 17981
MTC-00024881
From: Dirk Van Dongen--NAW
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov .''
Date: 1/25/02 3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The National Association of Wholesaler--Distributors
strongly endorses the bipartisan settlement negotiated between the
U.S. Department of Justice, several states and Microsoft . The
settlement represents good news for the economy and for consumers of
technology.
High technology is not a single industry, but various types of
businesses linked together: chip makers, software developers,
equipment manufacturers and marketers, service providers, and more,
all working to the ultimate benefit of consumers. When government
negatively impacts a pillar of the industry such as Microsoft, the
entire sector suffers, as do consumers and the economy.
The terms of this settlement address the aspects of the case
that were upheld by the Appeals Court, and do so without damaging
Microsoft's ability to compete. Microsoft is constrained from
harmful competition, but can continue to compete to improve upon and
offer Windows, which is used throughout our industry, at a
reasonable price.
That is precisely what our members, who are highly dependent
upon networked computer systems, need: technology which is easy to
use which is available at a good value.
The Microsoft settlement is the best way to achieve these ends ,
to the benefit of all. Prolonged litigation will only further damage
our economy.
Thank you for the opportunity to allow our organization to voice
our endorsement for the settlement. We urge its adoption with all
due speed.
Dirk Van Dongen
President
National Association of Wholesaler--Distributors
1725 K St., NW
Washington, DC 20006
MTC-00024882
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys'' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Michael & Sally Pickett
963 Morello Ave.
Martinez, CA 94553-4749
MTC-00024883
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
LOUIS SPEZZANO
19 WILD HORSE ROAD
STAMFORD, CT 06905
MTC-00024884
From: Christopher J. Carroll
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has clearly demonstrated an utter contempt for for the
law of this nation. Time and time again, this corporation has
exerted monopoly power to strangle competing technologies. This has
resulted in the consumer being forced to purchase and use deeply-
flawed Microsoft products due to an effective unavailability of
other options. This court should demand fundamental structural
changes to ensure that Microsoft can never again use its market
power to harm our economy.
MTC-00024885
From: Ogg Robert G
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 3:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
I believe now is the time to settle. After so many years this
ongoing case has had a bad ongoing affect in the IT industry, I
believe the terms of the deal to be acceptable to both party's and a
settlement can and will also help to turn the slowing down of the IT
industry as people/company's and concentrate on creating new and
improved products
MTC-00024886
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To Whom it mat concern,
I understand that a few liberally politically comtrolled states
comtinue to hold out for a big payday. I consider their actions to
be using their constituants as a veil for extortion. No one really
believes that these politicians/lawyers concern is for those
individual citizens wronged through Microsoft's alleged anti-trust.
On the contrary, if anything at all, most individuals across
America, and the world benefited greatly through Microsofts
inovative development of components for third party development of
Windows and Internet explorer applications.
Microsoft held no one back, rather if anyone was held back in
the highly competative software industry, it was of their own
undoing.
I remember well in the early 90's, how publicly owned computers
at various public libraries across the State of Illinois, refused to
install Internet Explorer on their public Internet access enabled
computers. Only Netscape was allowed on--public computers then.
How do these States now argue that Microsoft manipulated
government agencies into accepting IE on their computers. I see a
very deeply seaded attempt by these state governments to dip into
Microsoft's deep pockets for no other reason then a source with easy
access. You government types really need to be a bit more covert
when taking money from a baby.
Sincerly,
Carson E. White, Lawyer/Software developer.
MTC-00024887
From: Charles Myers
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/25/02 3:35pm
[[Page 27546]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Myers
4326 Mariner Lane
Fairfax, VA 22033
January 25, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice ,
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
I have closely followed the progress of the Microsoft case. I am
greatly saddened at the amount of tax payer's dollars used in this
case. While I feel that the Federal government is correct in using
legislation and the courts to ensure fair competition and open
markes, the time has come to cleanly and clearly make an end to this
case. With the United States in a state of economic recession, now
is not the time for a prolonged court battle. The technology sector
is one of our greatest assets as a nation, and we need to allow them
to go back to work on innovating products for this new millenium.
As such, I feel strongly that the breakup of Microsoft is not
needed.
What is needed is:
Clear guidance on what is allowable for ``bundling''
of software;
Release of the source code for present and future Microsoft and
non-Microsoft operating systems, and;
Limits on current modes of software licensing.
On this last point, I feel the most strongly. At the turn of the
last century, book sellers would put a notice in their books that
the book could not be ``resold'', as the book was
considered the intellectual property of the publisher. In another
similar case, recording companies in the 1930s tried to expand their
rights under copyright protestion by using licenses (or contracts)
that were implied to be consented to when the consumer opened the
package. This was found to be illegal under RCA v. Whiteman by the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
Yet, in this new century, we are allowing software manufacturers
to force consumers to constantly pay for features they do not want
or need because of licensing. A simple return to copyright law to
apply to all media, i.e. books, recording, and software, would be
more beneficial, less costly, and more timely than the current
situation. Product innovation should spurn consumer
spending--not the fine print on unread licenses! Return
software to the protection (and ONLY the protection) offered by
copyright law and the doctrine of first sale.
Sincerely,
C. Daniel Myers
MTC-00024888
From: Bill Davies
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am appalled by the Government's desire to brush a huge
monopoly under the rug in the interests of ``saving the
econonmy.''
A federal judge has ruled that Microsoft engaged in monopoly
practices, and they should be dealt with accordingly. Your office
should not cave.
They continue to drag this out and get their hooks into more and
more markets while the parties dicker over a settlement. Can't you
see that? Pretty soon people will not be able to access the internet
unless they have a Microsoft product or Microsoft operating system.
This is sheer madness. I can't believe your office is so toothless.
I hope your office will wake up and put some honest effort into
antitrust enforcement against Microsoft, which has been adjudged a
monopolist, and which ruling has not been overturned.
Bill Davies
Member, California and Alaska Bar
MTC-00024889
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:41pm
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,
Dwight Bolton
630 ALFORD RD.
ELLENSBURG, WA 98926
MTC-00024890
From: Brandon Harvey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
I would like to point out briefly that my e-business,
Artsonia.com, runs largely on the Windows platform. We do a great
deal of scripting and automation in the course of running an online
museum and custom production workshop. We would benefit greatly if
Microsoft software interoperated better with software from other
developers.
We believe that the proposed settlement does not do enough to
ensure this.
Sincerely,
Brandon Harvey
Program Director
Artsonia
http://www.artsonia.com
MTC-00024891
From: Rajen J. Shah
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to you with my comments on the proposed settlement
between the DOJ and Microsoft on this long-running case.
(1) I am very relieved that a settlement has been reached. In
particular, I think a lot of time and money was spent on this case
by both sides, and it also caused a lot of distraction in the
industry. I am happy to see an end where money is used for more
productive activities.
(2) I am concerned that Microsoft be kept from its earlier rough
handed practices. There is no need for such behavior in this
industry. I believe that the settlement adheres to the findings of
the court and will hold Microsoft accountable for conducting legal
business practices.
(3) I totally disagree with the ``holdout'' states
stand on increasing the scope of any settlement. What they have
proposed smells very much like what Microsoft's competitors have
been trying to do to Microsoft--particularly Sun Microsystems,
Oracle and AOL. I don't want taxpayer dollars going to fighting on
behalf of companies that cannot compete in the marketplace.
(4) I am a software engineer and spend a lot of time on building
web sites for customers. My platform of choice is Windows (2000). I
had spent an untold number of hours, which I consider wasted, trying
to make my software work on multiple platforms. In particular, at
least 40% of any project is spent making my applications work on
both IE and Netscape. Netscape has fallen way behind in terms of
features and should be killed. Also, there is no need to have
another browser available to the public, especially if it is
something that is developed out of the source of IE that the holdout
states are proposing. That will confuse the public and will also
cause real problems for people like me.
(5) Also, proposals to provide software such as Office on
multiple platforms does not make sense. An untold number of hours
would be wasted by Microsoft to do this, and it does not even make
sense from a business perspective. If some other company wishes to
develop such software for operating systems such as Solaris or
Linux, they should do it with their own money. Microsoft already
supports Windows and the Apple.
Overall, I strongly support the settlement and wish to move on
to solving user problems.
Thank you.
Rajen J. Shah
MTC-00024892
From: j. wesimeyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Madam/Sir: (Jan 25, 2002)
The spelling at the top of this page is slightly in error. The
correct spelling is:
John Wiesenmeyer
Caulfield, Mo. 65626
And yes, Im a taxpayer, homeowner, voter. You will find the
above person in the Howell County Missouri archives.
I consider myself a Microsoft user, customer, and might I say,
VICTIM!!!!!!!!!!!!
Effective e-mails should be short, especially at this time, so I
cannot elaborate at length as to my complaints with Microsoft, but
Ill list a few:
I had 4+ years experience with Microsofts old OS, DOS 6.22/
Windows 3.1 before trying
[[Page 27547]]
Windows 98 this past November. So Im not a newbie, as they say.
Nevertheless, it took me several days to figure out how to get
Netscape 4.7.8 to run in Win 98. Little obscure dialog boxes all
over the place that have to be set so Netscape can work clean and
free without Internet Explorer barging in and taking over.
You folks should know all this. Why do you ignore it? And look
at the way the Internet Explorer files are WOVEN IN AND THROUGH the
Windows Directory. The Windows directory is the heart and soul of
the OS.
If I.E. is thickly embedded therein, than how can we conclude
I.E. is some kind of separate entity?
Oh well, aside from what is obvious, another gripe I have is
that the bar associations, and you at DOJ, have allowed all software
producers, not just Microsoft, to run free and clear of any legal
retaliation for their defective products. Companies like MS and
hundreds of others, have their lawyers write out those clever USER
ACCEPTS SOFTWARE [ AS IS ]] licensing agreements (so-called), which
is an insult to consumers.
HOW FAR WOULD YOU HAVE ALLOWED FIRESTONE AND/OR FORD MOTOR
COMPANY TO SLITHER AWAY FROM LIABILITY WITH LEGALESE OF THAT
SORT????
But you let the software companies do it day in and day out.
Why??????????????
Defective software, from Microsoft and others, has cost me
hundreds of hours of wasted time, and in a business setting, costs
companies millions of dollars each year in pure waste, because of
sloppy program code, and you let them get away with it.
YOU ARE NOT LETTING THE AIRLINES GET AWAY WHEN THEIR PLANES
CRASH.
YOU ARE NOT LETTING FIRESTONE GET AWAY FROM LIABILITY.
Your standards stink. Your justice is far from blind; it is
prejudicial, to the extreme.
Thank you.
John Wiesenmeyer, voter, taxpayer and veteran of U.S. Army 51st
Infantry Division, Charlie Co., 3rd Btn. 1970
417-284-3951
call me, and Ill give you an earful of testimony why all these
software bandits should be tar and feathered.
Thank you.
MTC-00024893
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings,
I am writing in regards to the impending settlement issues with
the US government and Microsoft.
I am deeply concerned of the tone set by the Justice Department
and it's willingness to accept the settlement of computers and
services for poor schools. This has been well stated in broad terms
and I concur with the facts that this sanction against Microsoft is
unacceptable.
Furthermore, I am concerned that this settlement is a political
move. The issue is that Microsoft has broken the law and been found
guilty of monopolistic practices. The only way to control further
problems is to break the company up. They won. Now it is time to
dismember the company into components and let them as well as other
companies continue to compete for business.
This is not a serious problem since the cash the company has can
be used to allow each segment of the company to flourish for the
short term.
Let each division compete against each other. This is the
American way!
Let us look 20 years from now. Microsoft will control your tv,
internet, and your online transactions. They potentially have the
opportunity to control communication as well as a major player in
the banking market. How did they get there, with the resources
obtained through a monopoly. Having one company controlling greater
than 94% of the computers in this country is a pretty scary.
I will say that again Having one company controlling greater
than 94% of the computers in this country is a pretty scary.
This is not a question of innovation. This is a question of
control and power.
Would the justice department be concerned if any one country
controlled(and Microsoft does) 94% of a market
What if Citibank controlled 94% of all banking in the country
What if Kemper Insurance controlled 94% of all insurance
policies commercial and residential?
What is Exxon sold 94% of all oil in the country?
What is Johnson and Johnson manufactured 94% of all drugs in the
country?
The list can go on and on. . . . . .
America is about competition and capitalism.
Taking the software and making code open to others is just plain
wrong. The amount of resources required to redevelop new products
would take too long for a company to catch up to Microsoft. By
breaking the company into parts allows for capitalism to breed a
new...........the basis for what this country stands for.
How could the company be broken up.....3 parts.......each
company gets all rights to all parts of Microsoft. (intellectual,
monetary, as well as assets) Basically this is what happened to ATT
but in that instance, there were location issues.....hence the
actual dividing was done in territories.... The nature of software
is portability....hence let all parts take ownership.
This would allow each part to decide which way the new companies
can go forward.
What did the government do with ATT.......ATT had to give up
control of the local wires.......
If you break Microsoft up, you will get cheaper products and a
race to make a better product.
Microsoft is too big to contend with in any other way. Monetary
damages are not enough for it will be the American public that
pays......not Microsoft.
Let's look at this a some foresight, courage as well as wisdom.
It is the obligation of the justice department to correct a problem
that is going to get much worse. I hate Vanilla, let's put some more
flavors on the menu.
Sincerely
Jim Mooney
3 Lamb Lane
Boston, Ma 02021
MTC-00024894
From: Janice Kramer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I understand that you will be deciding shortly on finalizing the
terms of settlement reached in November with Microsoft. I want the
Department of Justice to leave Microsoft alone. This antitrust
lawsuit has been the biggest waste of time, has cost the taxpayers
millions of dollars, and has negatively impacted the computer
industry and the economy. Microsoft has been forced, at the vise of
the competition, to defend their business practices, and battle to
keep their innovative products and business intact.
With no foreseeable end to the litigation, Microsoft has agreed
to satisfy demands made by the competition. The settlement is far
more than fair to the competition. I don't feel Microsoft should
have to give anything away, and certainly not forced to. I know
Microsoft is sharing parts of its Windows programming to allow the
computer manufactures to offer software programs other than
Microsoft's and users to make the operating system more changeable
to their own preferences. I feel that these changes will produce
even more superior products from Microsoft and give Microsoft more
dominance in the software industry.
Whatever has to be done to return Microsoft back to business
immediately is the right thing to do.
Microsoft feels that settling this is the proper thing, and I
entirely support this position.
Microsoft has been treated terribly for giving the world
Windows. There should be no further legal action taken against
Microsoft. Accepting the terms of the Microsoft settlement is the
only justifiable course of action.
Sincerely,
Janice Kramer
120 Horton Hwy.
Mineola, NY 11501
MTC-00024895
From: Jansa Hobbs
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/25/02 3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jansa Hobbs
Route 1, Box 142
Mauk, Ga 31058
January 25, 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
[[Page 27548]]
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,
Jansa HObbs, Taylor Co. Ga.
MTC-00024896
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:48pm
Subject: (no subject)
I get the impression that the United States Government is
allowing itself to be used to stop Microsoft, by competitors. They
want the government to do for them what they have not been able to
do for themselves.
Let Microsoft continue to do the wonderful job they are doing.
Where would we be without them. At least Microsoft is keeping the
cost of software reasonable.
Phil Azzolina
[email protected]
MTC-00024897
From: Rob Lingelbach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed Microsoft Settlement is
a very bad idea.
sincerely,
Rob Lingelbach
Sysadm, Computer Animation Lab
California Institute of the Arts
[email protected]
http://www.alegria.com
[email protected]
MTC-00024898
From: Jeff Dean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the terms of the settlement agreement between
Microsoft, the DOJ, and the 9 participating states are reasonable
and fair. I encourage final adoption of this agreement.
Thank you,
Jeff Dean
MTC-00024899
From: Nayfield, Rod
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that this proposed settlement will only lead to
extension of the monopoly position of Microsoft. I believe that you
should reject this settlement.
MTC-00024900
From: McJ
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't agree with the Microsoft Settlement. I have been dogged
and obstructed from doing my job as a process instrumentation and
control engineer since 1994 by Microsoft's strangle hold on the
computer industry. I have struggled with OEM e.g. Dell, Gateway,
Micron, Compaq, and IBM to get computers pre-loaded with other
operating systems other than Microsoft, and have repeatedly been
told we can't supply anything else. I have asked for OEMs to provide
systems without Microsoft Windows e.g. no operating system at all,
and have been told I must purchase the systems with Microsoft
Windows whether I wanted it or not. So I end up paying for something
I didn't want, need, and couldn't use to do the job I was assigned
to do. To get around this situation I had to build my own computers
and load the desired operating system to do the job. However, there
was still an issue with finding software to run on other operating
systems other than Microsoft Windows, everybody is writing software
for Microsoft Windows. I DON'T AGREE WITH THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT!
What should be done is to take the money from Microsoft that they
obtained illegally through their monopoly power and use it for
consumer education about computer operating systems choices, foster
development of software for other operating systems, make OEMs
provide choices of operating systems to the consumer and disclose to
them their capabilities.
MTC-00024901
From: Dean Daniels
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/25/02 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dean Daniels
6128 Elliot Ave So
Minneapolis, Me 55417
January 25, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars,
was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in
the high-tech industry.
It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Upwards of
60% of Americans thought the federal government should not have
broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, companies like
Microsoft can get back into the business of innovating and creating
better products for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on
litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations,
consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to
create new and competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Dean Daniels
MTC-00024902
From: Jeff Wright
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/25/02 3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jeff Wright
4616 Village Drive
Fairfax, VA 22030
January 25, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry.
It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations,
consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to
create new and competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Jeff Wright
MTC-00024903
From: Darrick Brown
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 3:53pm
Subject: Against Microsoft Settlement
From:
Darrick Brown
[[Page 27549]]
80 Mariani Ct
Redwood City CA 94062
(650) 365-5413
Dear Sir/Ma'am:
I work in the computer software industry and I strongly oppose
the proposed settlement against Microsoft. The settlement is a step
in the right direction, but it is severely inadequate in its reach
and scope. I feel that it will insufficiently prohibit Microsoft
from committing similar acts in the future, and the proposed
settlement also does little to punish them for the acts of which
they have been found guilty.
I urge you to find a comprehensive solution that will actually
benefit individuals, restore competition to the computer software
industry, punish Microsoft for their illegal past actions, and
prohibit Microsoft from committing such actions in the future. The
health and future of the computer and software industry depends
heavily on this decision.
Sincerely,
Darrick Brown
80 Mariani Ct
Redwood City CA 94062
(650) 365-5413
PS--I have included my specific thoughts below in the case
where they may be helpful.
In Section III.A, the end of the second paragraph reads:
``Microsoft shall have no obligation to provide such a
termination notice and opportunity to cure to any Covered OEM that
has received two or more such notices during the term of its Windows
Operating System Product license.''
OEM licenses terms could stretch years, if not decades. This
gives Microsoft too much room to exploit this. Section III.A does
not give specific situations when Microsoft could issue termination
notices. Microsoft could just issue notices for minor problems to
get past this ``two notice'' minimum, at which point they
could resume their practice of threatening OEM's with unnannounced
license terminations. This part of the proposal should be
eliminated.
Section III.J reads: ``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...''
You may have noticed that Microsoft has recently changed their
entire corporate focus to ``security and trustworthy
computing''. Section III.J would allow Microsoft to easily
circumvent the provisions in Section III.D (API disclosure) by
claiming that it contains sensitive security related information.
The API disclosure should be open accross the board, including
security and digital rights management functionality. If their
security models were good, it shouldn't matter if other individuals/
corporations see them. The security would work as apart of its
design rather than its obscurity.
These are the largest flaws of the proposed settlement. These
two flaws would cause little change to how Microsoft operates as it
provides them ample opportunity to circumvent the major provisions
within the proposal. Eliminating these two flaws would make the
proposal much better, but it would still fail to properly punish
them for the actions they have been found guilty and the proposal is
still extremely weak in its enforcement of the provisions going
forward.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Darrick Brown
MTC-00024904
From: avery bartlett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:51pm
Subject: lay off microsoft
all the government should lay off microsoft because nobody in
the government know's anything about running of a business.
MTC-00024905
From: Tim R. Broering
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:49pm
Subject:
Timothy R. Broering
President
Programming And Micros, Inc.
[email protected]
(937)437-1113
MTC-00024905--0001
PROGRAMMING AND MICROS
146 N. Washington SL
New Paris, Ohio 45347
Phone: [937] 437-1113
Toll free: 888-5-FOR-PAM
Fax: [937] 437-1117
E-mail: [email protected]
URL: http://www.pamcc.com
January 10,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft, US DOJ
950 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I really think that our government went to extremes filing this
lawsuit against Microsoft several years ago. Of course, Microsoft
had a virtual lock on the operating systems software market. But
this wasn't necessarily due to Microsoft's refusal to be fair;
rather, this was due to the fact that they had the best, most
reliable software of its kind that fostered an entire generation of
computer users. This is not a monopoly. This is good business.
Microsoft prevented no one from competing with its software, as
the U.S. Post Office does by preventing local mail delivery.
However, since its software has been so flexible and intuitively
easy to use, more and more consumers voluntarily chose it, and are
now avid computer users.
All this having been said, I am pleased that there is a
settlement in place. Even though this settlement goes beyond the
scope of the lawsuit, even obligating Microsoft to divulge
interoperability protocols and monitoring Microsoft with a new
three-person committee, it has the advantage of ending the
litigation. I am hopeful that this settlement will prevail and we
can all put this episode behind us.
Sincerely,
Timothy Broering
MTC-00024906
From: Brad Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern;
I am fully opposed to the settlement regarding the Microsoft
case. I regard the settlement as another opportunity to allow an
already very powerful company excessive inroads into the educational
market which remains one of the strongholds of Apple computers
market share. Though my interest isn't so much in their gain, I fear
that any settlement reached with Microsoft that could bias the
platform determination of a school, may lead to Apple computers
overturn, thereby leaving my, and millions of other users,
investments without continued support.
A more fair solution may be to continue with the same monetary
settlement, which would have to be spent on competitor's products,
i.e. non-wintel systems. This would still provide schools with much
needed equipment, while not allowing the corporation to benefit from
legislative active which is intended to be a punitive.
Thank You
Brad Anderson
37 Earl Street #3
Malden, MA 02148
781.605.0153
[email protected]
MTC-00024907
From: Paton J. Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel that the proposed settlement with Microsoft is not good
for America, and will not prevent Microsoft from continuing its long
history of anti-competitive practices.
I am writing as an individual, and not as a representative of
Adobe.
Thank you for your attention,
Paton Lewis
Engineering Manager
Adobe Systems
206.675.7399
MTC-00024908
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:55pm
Subject: Mcrosoft settlement
To whom it may concern....
I am in agreement with any settlement that Microsoft has agreed
to.
Robert W. Moore
MTC-00024909
From: Robert Button
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I completely DISAGREE with the U.S. v. Microsoft proposed
settlement. Microsoft has been found GUILTY of operating a monopoly
to the harm of consumers. The proposed settlement does NOTHING to
protect consumers from further damage Microsoft could inflict.
Something SUBSTANTIAL
[[Page 27550]]
must be done to ensure that consumers have viable alternatives to
Microsoft products in order to maintain competition in the
marketplace.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Button
28344 Stonegate Circle
Westlake, OH 44145
MTC-00024910
From: Catfish
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The original idea that MS should be broken up is the only one
that will work--basically they are now getting off scott free
because nobody has the balls to challenge them. How a bunch of
overpaid government employees and lawyers can argue for years over
the bloody obvious is a scandal. It is a self evident truth that
they abuse their OS monopoly to strangle everyone else out of the
market.
What is there to discuss, break them up.
MTC-00024911
From: Valeri Liborski
To: Microsoft
ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/25/02 3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to express my concerns about direction where
Microsoft Settlement is going.
Bunch of the companies that not capable to win market place in
fair competition with Microsoft are trying to ruin the company by:
Sponsoring Non-profit organizations ( and influencing them to
take actions that harm MS): American Antitrust Institute (AAI) which
finances partially by Oracle;
Failing ridiculous law suites ( AOL/Netscape);
Trying to build negative PR about MS by publishing unverified/
incorrect or out of context info ( CNET)--every day http://
news.com has from one to 4 articles about MS, none of which
describes how much company does for customers ( more than any other
Software company in the world);
Lobbying for Standards bodies to use their technology vs new
innovative from MS using muscles of anti-MS coalition and longer
market presence: SUN with Java, backed up by Oracle, AOL;
Having double standards for MS and other companies--Java
licensing belongs to SUN and MS was sued for using it in its
products; and complains about MS not including Virtual Java Machine
in XP ( perhaps MS doesn't want to have one extra law suite?);
We, people, who are paying both Federal Taxes and California
Taxes are concern that these funds are being used to damage economy
of country; economy of state; jepardize jobs and wellfare of
hundreds of thousands (millions) of people who do have job thanks to
Microsoft Technologies-- including people who work in thousands
of Silicon Valley companies which wouldn't exist otherwise since
they are making products on top of MS technologies; decrease quality
of life of hundreds of millions of people around the globe who are
using Microsoft Products that have best quality and design.
I would recommend settle the outstanding cases and let people in
Microsoft do the job and their customers enjoy outstanding products,
instead of supporting competitors and allowing endless law suites
(seems like anyone who is not lazy is submitting law suite against
MS). We all should support US economy and don't kill it.
Market should prove who is best, not regulations on how many
titles of Software each company is allowed to produce.
MTC-00024912
From: Ernie Fisch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I sent an email yesterday but it was quite brief. I want to
expand a bit. As a user of a minority operating system I feel the
bite of Microsoft's illegal tactics every day. I can't get drivers
for new equipment because of Microsoft's exclusionary agreements
with equipment manufacturers. I have more and more trouble using
what are supposed to be open media because of Microsoft's subversion
of open standards. Too many instances of this stuff occur for it to
be an accident. Microsoft wants to destroy minority operating
systems.
I find it quite incredible that having proven that Microsoft is
monopolistic and uses their position to destroy competition that the
government would propose such a feeble and essentially useless
remedy. Microsoft monopolistic practices must not only be stopped,
they must be reversed.
Ernie Fisch ernfischMicrosoftcox.net
MTC-00024913
From: David Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support the agreement of the Department of Justice and the
antitrust settlement between Microsoft and DOJ and nine states.
I do not think any further actions are needed and feel that in
these times of more important issues we should move on. As a tax
payer I think my money could be better spent on other issues.
I hope that the settlement between Microsoft and DOJ will be
final in this long issue.
David D Brown
309 Gandy Court
West Columbia, SC 29169
803-951-3789
MTC-00024914
From: Edward Goodrich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:58pm
Subject: letter to Mr.Ashcroft
Dear Microsoft.
Something happened to the letter I attempted to send to Mr.
Ashcroft. Please send it to me again.
I feel that i will need help to forward it. Please call me by
phone at 828 287 3434 so that I may comply.
Edward E. Goodrich
MTC-00024915
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Dave Beers
Microsoft ATR
1/25/02 3:58pm
Pro-Microsoft
MTC-00024915 0001
It is a tragedy that Microsoft, perhaps the most important and
uniformly ethical company in the history of the US, continues to be
targeted by incompetent competitors, lawyers, and other parasites
who are effectively killing the industry and world economy.
Every industry in every sector has benefitted from Microsoft's
unrelenting focus on doing what's fight for the customer, regarless
of cost to itself. All arguments within the company about what to do
revolve not around how to eradicate competition, but how to do
what's right for the customer--get them more features, more
capacity for less money.
As a corporation, and as a group of individual employees, no
company can claim a more serious and more tangible dedication to
education, the arts and sciences, promotion of diversity, and other
charitable and laudatory social causes.
As I am primarily an Apple-user, I have personally benefitted
from extensive innovation on all three major platfoms (windows,
apple, and unix). My bias remains in favor of relatively blue-
collar-behavior of IBM/Microsoft/Apple/Dell entities who keep their
nose to the grindstone, continually investing in R&D in an
endless pursuit of more benefits and better value for their
customers, and to whom litigation is at the bottom of their
priorities
It is unfathomable to me that any goverment or judicial entity
would prefer to hear a story from entities like AOL/Sun/Oracle who
have gone years without making any improvements in either the
quality or the value of their own products, in favor of disparaging
and litigating against Microsoft, and who spurn investments in
R&D, preferring instead to invest in lobbyists, lawyers, and
anti-MSFT marketing. AOL with it's cross-media empire that includes
controlling interest in cable companies and access to broadband
distribution is by far the scariest entity--more so than
Microsoft ever was, or could be--to those of us consumers who
continue to get billed without recourse, months and years after
trying to terminate a relationship with them.
Steve Case and Larry Ellison are the shady and unethical
parasitic salesmen.
Bill Gates, Steve Balmer, Michael Dell, and Steve Jobs are
creative geniuses and heroes.
.02 cents from: Dave Beers, Seattle WA
MTC-00024916
From: iand and wei
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Dear Department of Justice:
Under the Tunney Act, I would like to comment on the proposed
final judgement in the United States v. Microsoft case.
As a concerned citizen who has some experience using computers
running
[[Page 27551]]
operating systems from Microsoft and other organizations I am
concerned that the proposed final judgement does not protect
consumers and companies competing with Microsoft. I use Microsoft
operating systems where I work. A few weeks ago my computer suddenly
started shutting down improperly, and I called our help desk to ask
if they could fix the problem. I was told that the problem was a
well known defect in Windows 98, and that Microsoft had no intention
of fixing it. This is just a small illustration of the way
Microsofts monopoly affects consumers. If there was a true
marketplace with competition, Microsoft would have had to fix the
problem long ago.
Unfortunately the proposed settlement does precious little to
try to develop a competitive marketplace. It proposes to open
Microsofts APIs, but the language is so weak as to make it useless
in promoting competition. In fact, the only competition for
Microsofts APIs, the open source WINE project, is excluded from the
API disclosure in Section III.J.2 of the proposed final judgement,
because the WINE project is not a business (all business competition
having been extinguished long ago by Microsofts business practices).
The major reason people and businesses run Microsoft operating
systems is because they need to run the applications that run on
those systems. A successful reimplementation of Microsofts APIs,
could go a long way to restoring competition in the marketplace. I
hope that any final judgement in this case will restore competition.
I fear if this proposed settlement is made final it will cause
irreparable harm to the U.S. consumer, to the U.S. software
industry, and possibly to the country as a whole.
Sincerely,
Ian Kennedy
1900 S. Eads St., Apt. 512
Arlington, VA 22202
MTC-00024917
From: Gibbs.Ivan.J
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
If Microsoft doesn't get punished for what they have done, you
will hurt the American entraepreneurial spirit. I have degrees in
Engineering Physics and Electrical Engineering. If I know that a big
company can just squash my dreams, I lose motivation to innovate. No
matter how much people may like to have one leading monopolistic
company to provide everything, it hurts individuals. And this
country is made up of individuals, not monopolistic companies.
MTC-00024918
From: Weathers, Norman R.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am writing in reference to the recent settlement talks between
the US DOJ and Microsoft. I am saying on record that I strongly
oppose the actions that are currently being taken by the DOJ against
Microsoft because they are too lenient. My reasoning for this is as
follows:
(1) Microsoft has been found guilty of harboring an illegal
monopoly. They have been found guilty of destructive business
practices, and because of this, they need to have a penalty that
once again levels the playing field between the software producers.
Opening up some API's to some companies does not allow for
competition within the market, especially when a viable alternative
to Microsoft is completely overlooked in the settlement, any Open
Source Project. For example, a competitor to Microsoft's own network
drive capabilities is the SAMBA project, yet, under the current
settlement, no API's can or ever will be made available to them.
This must be remedied.
(2) Microsoft has levereged parts of its foundations to further
its monopolies. For instance, Windows is Microsoft's OS, and through
its OS, levereged its own Office Suite to a monopoly of the desktop
publishing/word processing/ information market. Now, many
individuals would love to be able to interchange information and
data with other individuals who may or may not use a Microsoft
Office component, but the sad truth is that the format has never
been documented, and has changed with each release of the Office
Suite. For example, during a recent job search, I was required to
send my resume in Word 98 format. Not just Word, but specifically
Word 98. I was fortunate to have a copy of Office 98 installed, but,
why couldn't I have used an open format such as RTF, HTML, PDF, XML,
etc, etc.... This is because the Office format is the central
strangle hold that has held competition out of the market. Open the
document formats to the public, and watch competition surge, and
with it, better applications.
(3) Microsoft has further entrenched itself into other areas,
and will soon become a monopoly due to its strong tactics and user
base. For instance, Internet Explorer and Microsoft Network.
Microsoft has for all intents and purposes ``won the browser
wars'', or so it thought. They have created several
enhancements to the original HTML code (as well as Netscape and some
others), but now, due to the fact that Microsoft has a larger user
base, they can now dictate ``standards'' that become very
Microsoft centric. This can lead to web sites that don't just say
``Best when viewed by MSIE'', but web sites that say
``Can ONLY be viewed by MSIE''. This effectively can shut
out a large group, such as Linux, BSD, Apple, Sun, that do not have
easy access to IE (I know there are ports available for some of
these OS's, but they tend to be troublesome, unstable, and useless).
Now, you can dictate another standard that effectively kills off any
competiting product because you create the standard. This can be
disastourous.
(4) Microsoft continues to further move into markets that are no
longer vertical. For instance, the new game console, the XBox. This
is now an attempt to move into home game consoles, gaming networks,
online gaming, and possibly 2 or 3 other markets. Now, if they move
in and follow all the rules and procedures, than they can compete
with Sony and Netscape, and create a thriving market. However, if
Microsoft handles this market as they have others, by settling easy
during this time, do we allow them to legally manuever into this new
market and take it over as well?
I am beseaching any and all to please, read this, look back at
Microsoft's history, its doings and non doings. Look at the
litigations and court cases that have happened, that are pending,
and that should have happened. B
y now, we have broken apart AT&T, and Standard Oil. While
breakup may not be the answer (but then again, it may be), neither
is this slap on the wrist that is basically allowing Microsoft to
continue its practices. Remember, not only are they continuing them,
but now, with the way we have settled with them, we are getting
ready to say, ``It's OK, Microsoft. Go ahead and be a monopoly.
You are doing nothing wrong.''
Let's not send that signal to this convicted illegal monopoly.
Let's not take the short road to justice, and thereby ignore
justice. Let's not end it for ``the country's sake''.
Let's do the right thing and finally penalize Microsoft for doing
what it has done for a long time, breaking the law. Further open
API's including document formats and interfaces, open up parts/all
of the OS source code, allow other non-profit organizations to be
included within the scope of the judgement and ruling, and above
all, let's do something to once again promote competition within the
world of software development so that we can have a lower cost of
software, higher quality, and a higher standard of living through
that better software.
Thank you for your time in this matter.
Norman Weathers
System Administrator
Ponca City, OK
74604
MTC-00024919
From: Martin Runyan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I am writing to express my strong belief that the Microsoft
antitrust matter must be brought to a close quickly and fairly. I
believe the Justice Department has found a fair formula for the
settlement. I am concerned however that the continued litigation by
the states and by Microsoft's competitors is unwarranted and will
only hurt our economy.
As a consumer, I feel that Microsoft's products are well
designed and fairly priced. I also believe there is more than
adequate competition in the emerging Internet services marketplace
to ensure that Microsoft's future success will be based on the merit
of their new products and not on their past dominance in the
operating system arena.
There is no need for further litigation. The only segment of our
economy to benefit from that will be the legal profession.
Sincerely,
Martin E. Runyan
MTC-00024920
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:00pm
Subject: Department of Justice and Microsoft
[[Page 27552]]
Corporation settlement.
January 25, 2002
Department of Justice
Re: Antitrust settlement between the Department of Justice and
Microsoft
Corporation.
Dear Sirs:
I want to take the time to voice my personal opinion about the
antitrust settlement agreement. I believe that the provisions of the
agreement are tough, reasonable and fair to all parties, and go far
beyond the findings of the Court of Appeals. I must also say that I
did not agree with the lawsuit itself when it was first filed.
The Microsoft Corporation is the pioneer in our history of
technology. They started with little more than ideas and have become
a pillar of capitalism, as we know it in this world today. Don't
sacrifice what our great nation has been built on.
I therefore urge the District Court to rule that the terms of
the settlement are in the public's best interest.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Raymond Merritt
Tucson, Arizona
MTC-00024921
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:59pm
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,
Eugene Peplowski
P.O. Box 3071
Show Low, AZ 85902-3071
MTC-00024922
From: Chadbourne, Seth
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 4:01pm
I write to give you my opinion on the Microsoft settlement.
First, let me tell you that I don't have a horse in this race. I
don't own any securities of Microsoft or any of its competitors, nor
do I do business directly with Microsoft or its competitors. In
short, I have no monetary relationship in any way with Microsoft or
any of it's competitors. What I do have, is seven years experience
as an analyst and portfolio manager for one of the largest and most
respected high yield bond asset management companies in the world.
As a patriot, and fierce defender of free markets and the
American capitalist system, the entire Microsoft case sickened me
from the outset. The genesis of this case was the vitriolic hatred
the extreme left wing of the Democratic party has for successful
U.S. companies. This was a political case brought by a politicized
Justice Department. Now that the scoundrels that ruled the Clinton
Justice Department have left their offices, the Bush Justice
Department should allow justice to prevail by dropping the case
entirely. While Microsoft may have used some aggressive business
practices, they did nothing to flagrantly violate the US antitrust
laws. Furthermore, U.S. businesses must be allowed a certain amount
of leeway if they are to successfully compete in the global economy.
Most intelligent professionals on Wall Street agree that even the
settlement to which Microsoft agreed is unfair to Microsoft. Please
do not punish Microsoft for being a successful American company, as
the socialists would have you do.
CC:Hendon, Travis
MTC-00024923
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Karen Hoffman
27633 SE 400th Way
Enumclaw, WA 98022
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The reason for this letter is to request that you make a good
effort to ensure the settlement reached in the Microsoft antitrust
case becomes a reality.
Challengers and foes of Microsoft may pressure officials to
delay this settlement in favor of continued litigation in this case.
They are working under the premise that the courts should punish
Microsoft. I do not believe the courts should be used in this way.
Furthermore the settlement that is being offered is a good
agreement. The settlement will allow easier placement of non-
Microsoft products on Microsoft operating systems; including easier
removal of Microsoft components. Additionally the settlement will
permit computer makers to place non-Microsoft operating systems on
computers with fewer restrictions, even if they also use Microsoft
systems. Moreover the settlement creates a technical review
committee that includes a full time government monitor to ensure all
elements of the settlement are enforced. It is clear that this
settlement should be implemented and this settlement is good.
Sincerely,
Karen Hoffman
MTC-00024924
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:59pm
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,
Norman Coley
266 Vance Dr NE Apt C
Concord, NC 28025-3369
MTC-00024925
From: Doug
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:03pm
Subject: Make Microsoft give out code needed for compatiblity
Regarding the current settlement between Microsoft and the
D.O.J. needs to be addressed. I do not know a great deal about it,
but I read the Microsoft is NOT required to give software
competitors the information needed for compatibility with their
operating system.
Software programmers need specific information in order to
ensure that their product will work on any Windows based PC. There
are also many other issues that need to be addressed with the
settlement. I am voicing my disagreement with the proposed
settlement.
It gives Microsoft too many advantages.
Douglas Strick
Basehor, KS
MTC-00024926
From: novaman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am so sick of these suits. They were garbage to begin with and
the costs to the governments, investors, state pension funds, the
economy and Microsoft have been enormous. For God's sake let it die.
The settlement is far better than Microsoft's opponents deserve.
The whiners have won and the consumers and investors have lost.
Thomas P Noonan
--4600 S Four Mile Run Dr #219
--Arlington, VA 22204
MTC-00024927
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:51pm
Subject: Comments
Move forward with the settlement and end the petty persecution
of Bill Gates and
[[Page 27553]]
Microsoft for having the courage to set standards in the software
industry. The sour grapes contention that Microsoft is damaging
competition is simply a series of self interest whining promoted by
weak unimaginative firms who would rather get even than ahead.
CC:barbbenn@exchange.
microsoft.com@inetgw
MTC-00024928
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Randy Hoffman
27633 SE 400th Way
Enumclaw, WA 98022
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The reason for this letter is to request that you make a good
effort to ensure the settlement reached in the Microsoft antitrust
case becomes a reality.
Challengers and foes of Microsoft may pressure officials to
delay this settlement in favor of continued litigation in this case.
They are working under the premise that the courts should punish
Microsoft. I do not believe the courts should be used in this way.
Furthermore the settlement that is being offered is a good
agreement. The settlement will allow easier placement of non-
Microsoft products on Microsoft operating systems; including easier
removal of Microsoft components. Additionally the settlement will
permit computer makers to place non-Microsoft operating systems on
computers with fewer restrictions, even if they also use Microsoft
systems. Moreover the settlement creates a technical review
committee that includes a full time government monitor to ensure all
elements of the settlement are enforced. It is clear that this
settlement should be implemented and this settlement is good.
Sincerely,
Randy Hoffman
MTC-00024929
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:00pm
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,
Gerald Cook
2840 Albert Reid R.
Sautee Nacoochee, GA 30571
MTC-00024930
From: Marshall, Cheshana
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 4:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Proposed settlement is a bad idea
MTC-00024931
From: John Torrence
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John A. Torrence
2906 Coolidge Drive
Bellingham, WA. 98225
January 25,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Re: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I am writing in response to the antitrust settlement between
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. In my opinion, the
settlement is more than fair, considering Microsoft has agreed to
terms that extend well beyond the products and procedures that were
actually at issue in the original suit.
As I understand it, among dozens of other things, Microsoft has
agreed to server interoperability, meaning that Microsoft gives its
competitors the protocols implemented in Windows that are used to
interoperate natively with any Microsoft server operating system.
They also have agreed to submit to the authority of a three-person
technical committee, which will monitor Microsoft's compliance with
the settlement and assist with dispute resolution. It is obvious
that Microsoft is willing to do what is necessary to bring closure
to this matter. The Department of Justice should in return bring all
further litigations to a halt.
Sincerely,
John Torrence
MTC-00024932
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I am writing this hoping that many others who have been in a
similar position on Microsoft throughout the years will do the same.
I am relatively new to the computer industry, having bought my first
computer in 1995, and as thus have little to no input for the times
preceding this.
I have always been a curious and technically intuitive person
and computers proved to follow the same pattern for me. I quickly
learned to upgrade and eventually build new computers from their
various components. I was oblivious to a great many things early
on...... and am still oblivious to many this very day. There is one
thing, above most others, I am grateful for becoming aware of during
the last 2 years, And that is the behavior of a particular
company.... Microsoft. I have been frustrated at the lack of
stability, security in their products for many years.... but still
find myself having to use them... Simply because there is no viable
alternative.... They have preached time and again about how their
next Operating System will be stable, or secure but still each
subsequent operating system had it's major stability issues and
security breeches. But I'm losing my train of thought..... I
recently (Nov-Dev 2001) read through the entire findings of fact in
the Anti-trust Vs. Microsoft and was just absolutely astonished at
the atrocious, and very harmful things they have done. I'm sure you
have read through the findings of fact in the case so won't run
through all the harm they have done Acting against those who either
or indirectly went against their wishes. I am far from an expert on
market dynamics and antitrust laws, but there is one thing which I
know.
I know it just as I know my name, where I live, or my social
security number. I know that the settlement in the antitrust case is
not even close to nearing a punishment that will discourage further
misdeeds. The establishment of the 3 person Technical Reviewer Board
from what I have read has little to no power to actually enforce
anything... And what most consider one of the more severe
punishments.... The donation of 5 Billion in Computers and Software
to the schools.... You know they are going to be donating Microsoft
software whenever possible. Their Windows operating systems, MS
Office products, and whatever else they can get in. So Let me get
this straight..... their punishment is to expand their market share
in an area that has traditionally been dominated by Apple? What kind
of punishment is that? I can definitely understand why Apple is so
distraught over the settlement.
The bottom line is that I feel Microsoft has been taking
advantage of their monopoly position to overcharge the consumers for
a very long time. Now they have been using it to maintain their
dominance and the, ever so important, barrier to entry for any would
be competitve technologies. The end result being for them to
increase their market share in an area traditionally dominated by
one of their only competitors as punishment...
I know I am only one person..... One consumer..... One
citizen.......
But I for one am not pleased at this settlement.....
And I for one don't feel the best interests of the consumer were
taken into consideration in this settlement.... Since this
settlement will in no way hinder or discourage Microsoft from taking
advantage of the consumers.
Thank you for your time,
Don Leger
MTC-00024933
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
[[Page 27554]]
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,
Kathryn Brophy
111 Wall St.
Kalamazoo, MI 49001
MTC-00024934
From: Howard Peterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:14pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
IF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT SPENT AS MUCH MONEY PURSUING ``OSAMA
BIN LADEN'' AS THEY HAVE IN ``HOUNDING BILL GATES AND
MICROSOFT'', WE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THE SEPTEMBER 11TH TRAGEDY.
HOWARD PETERSON
907 VANCE ST N
WILSON, NC 27893
MTC-00024935
From: wendy willson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Esteemed Justices;
I would like to voice my opinion that it is far beyond time to
put a close to this matter and further litigation. The remedies to
be imposed are fair and just, and pave the way for competition on a
level playing field.
I beseech you to do your best to put an end to what has become
an expensive (and now irrelevant, given the more open XP platform
and other technological innovations recently) battle. I have
confidence that Microsoft has learned its ``lesson'', and
I hope you see the logic in closing this chapter for the sake of our
economy, for I do believe, if a settlement is made, stockholders and
retailers all over the country will sigh a sigh of relief that will
resonate ``round the world. I think this single event would
make more of a difference than any rate cut by Mr. Greenspan ever
could.
Sincerely,
Wendy Willson
MTC-00024936
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:03pm
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,
Robert Bennett
2400 Southlea Dr.
Dayton, OH 45459-3645
MTC-00024937
From: Michael Keating
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is forcing users to use their second rate products.
They are forcing open source programs and applications out of the
way, by making sure they do not run on windows. Microsoft inserts
code into their applications for the sole reason of stopping it from
running on other Operating systems.
I am not going to bother with the technical and legal mumbo
jumbo which I am sure that many other people have both complained
about before, and I am sure that the lawyers have brought to your
attention, that is of the unfairness of the Final Judgment in United
States v. Microsoft. Microsoft is forcing the computer hardware
industry into a wall. It is immpossible to buy a personal computer,
either from Gateway, Dell, Compact, or Hewllet Packard, that does
not contain Microsofts XP.
Microsoft XP is a horrible product. You are punished if you dont
use it, because of lack of newer software on the other operating
systems. They release products before they are ready, and then 2
years later release another one that fixes half of the problems.
More should be done to stop this company. They are downright
EVIL and that is an understatement. They dont care about their
consumer base, just about getting their money.
Please help the american people, by making their lives a little
bit less hassled by eliminating their computer woes by taking this
company and forcing them to actually ACT upon their mistakes to fix
these problems in America's Time of Need.
Anyone that doesn't see how the Microsoft Trail makes a big
impact on people's lives ( and more so in the future when more
products and PCs are a bigger part of our lives), doesn't really
deserve to be called an American unless they are CONCERNED about how
this hurts the American people, and they feel their pain but dont
act upon it.
Thank you,
God Bless the US
The Keating Family
MTC-00024938
From: Harold Morgan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 3:44pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
For Pete's sake, enough already. I believe it is time to end the
Microsoft madness and drop these court findings that are damaging
our economy. I suggest that the time will come in several decades
when the public will look back on the Microsoft debacle as a time of
governmental stupidity.
Further, the Gates team and his current software developers will
be seen in the same light as Bell, Edison and other progressive
inventors. I believe I would not have the wonderful and cheap
computer software if it were not for
Bill Gates.
For Pete's sake just stop it.
Harold Bishop Morgan
[email protected]
MTC-00024939
From: Theo Gantos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft needs to have checks and balances
Thanks for the opportunity to put these remarks on the record. I
have written several articles on the issue of Microsoft in the IT
industry and think that allowing them to operate as they have is a
great impediment to the industry. Since the IT industry is dominated
by the US, this also represents a threat to our GDP. Previous
remedies are as insufficient as 2 man police car patrols were
against street gang activity in Chicago. Only
``proactive'' checks and balances will protect our
industry. These must that assume that this company will continue to
do what it has in the past, abuse its monopoly power. Waiting
several years and spending millions of dollars to bring them to
trial over violations is like trying to lock the house after it has
burnt to the ground.
The government established emissions and safety regulations when
it became apparent that the auto industry was inherently unable to
self-regulate. I think that Microsoft has the burden to prove that
it can prevent future transgressions, which it cannot. I remember a
computer industry dominated by IBM in the 1970's which was devoid of
serious innovation.
Microsofts hold on the industry is even more pronounced and
dangerous.
Here are the links to my publications about Microsoft. I'd like
these entered into the record as well.
http://www.teka.com/publications/paper19971030.html
http://www.teka.com/publications/paper19971106.html
http://www.teka.com/publications/paper19980115.html
http://www.teka.com/publications/paper19980304.html
Regards,
Theo Gantos
[email protected]
TEKA
1321
Ashland Ave
Evanston, IL 60201-4039
[[Page 27555]]
Ph: (847) 864-7390
http://www.teka.com
CC:David M. Deaver,Wendy Crespo work
MTC-00024940
From: j. wesimeyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Madam/Sir: (Jan 25, 2002)
As part of DOJs (and the States) suit against Microsoft, I
propose the following as part of the settlement:
1. That Microsoft be handed a court order to change their
official company name from: Microsoft--to --- THE BUG
FACTORY--. And if it should happen that said name is already in
use by some well-meaning firm, then just modify same to: THE
SOFTWARE BUG FACTORY, or anything so similar. Dont need to be too
particular, eh?
2. The courts should also order Microsoft to change their
official company logo to that of a spider, mosquito, cockroach, or
whatever creepy-crawling critter the justices think most
appropriate. Just so it presents the unsuspecting consumer with a
general idea that the product inside is BUG INFESTED...
Ladies and gentlemen, what is wrong with this idea? Stevie
Balmer, King Willhelms (aka Gates) number one mouthpiece, admitted
in the summer of 2000, that Windows 98 had 25,000 known bugs (that
is, known to Microsoft). What? Oh sure, Mr. Balmer was speaking at
the festivities kicking off the launch of Windows 2000, at that
fancy-dan hotel there in San Francisco. Yes, here we have the
highest officials of Microsoft admitting before a packed audience,
that they know, they admit, that Win 98 had no less than TWENTY FIVE
THOUSAND KNOWN DEFICIENCIES, and they got away with that. Consumers
had to accept this level of garbage.
Please include the above suggestions in your settlement decree.
I would not mind purchasing King Wilhelms next OS, if it was packed
inside a box with little bugs printed all round the carton. It would
be a form of embarrassment that MS soundly deserves.
Thank you
J.Wiesenmeyer
417-284-3951
veteran
taxpayer
voter
homeowner
law-abiding citizen
MTC-00024941
From: Ted Roby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In regards to the proposed settlement for the Microsoft
Antitrust Trial, to be submitted by January 28th, 2002:
In reviewing the details of the proposed settlement, I find many
loopholes and variations in it's definition. I would like to express
simply, and clearly what makes sense to me in regards to the
operation of Microsoft.
First, definitions of both Windows OS and Middleware should not
be so limited. Microsoft, like any other forward moving business
will within the year have new services and applications available
that will not be covered by these definitions. To put it plainly, I
offer the following statements:
1. Any developer should be able to write software that will run
on Microsoft Operating System platforms, in use now or in the
future.
2. Any developer should be able to create their own OS that
would allow Microsoft and Windows-based applications to run on their
OS.
3. Microsoft should not be able to in any way, coerce or use
leverage over any computer hardware manufacturer to prevent them
from developing for non-Microsoft developers and companies.
In my opinion, this would create an environment where
Microsoft's applications and operating systems would stand on their
own merit. There is no reason for Microsoft to release any of it's
source code if it does not wish to. So long as source code and tools
are made available for the use of creating applications that can run
on Microsoft operating systems, and operating systems that can run
Microsoft applications.
Any punishment taken against Microsoft should be with respect to
keeping Microsoft from bullying any developer, service provider, or
manufacturer who wishes to use something besides Microsoft products.
Under normal circumstances I would agree with letting a company
reward those who use it's products, but since Microsoft has already
gained it's monopoly, and has been found to hold far more power than
should be allowed, I believe no such benefits shoud be given.
Microsoft needs to let it's applications and services stand on
their own merit for a while. It should be encouraged to focus it's
efforts on making a product that stands out on it's own without the
bullying and coercion that Microsoft has been famous for.
Ted Roby
Systems Engineer
SRA NetWorks
1787 Lencar Way
San Jose, CA 95124
http://www.sranetworks.com
Office: (408)436-6048
Pager: (800)710-5228
MTC-00024942
From: Ruth Millward
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/25/02 4:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ruth Millward
9716 Bighorn
Pocatello, ID 83204
January 25, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall
Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more
entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive
products and technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share
my views.
Sincerely,
Ruth Millward
MTC-00024943
From: Eileen T Bender
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:12pm
Subject: To whom it may concern:
To whom it may concern:
While I am aware and appreciative of the contributions, both
technological and philanthropical, of Microsoft and the Gates
Foundation, I am concerned that the proposed settlement with this
company will do nothing to curtail its monopolistic and exclusionary
business practices--practices which seem to fly in the face of
their social and ethical commitments. The ethos of exclusion is
built in to every product they sell, in effect thwarting the
entrepreneurial and creative energies of a free market. This lesson
was brought home to me forcibly over the holidays, when I received a
gift of a new computer equipped with ab NS XP platform. THe MS
software is not only a dominant presence on the desktop, but must be
overridden in many cases in order to install the non-MS software
which I find necessary to do my work. Sad to say, it is what I as a
consumer have come to expect of Microsoft, and I see nothing in the
proposed settlement that would restore a consumer's right to choose.
Thus, I must boice my disappointment of the proposed settlement, and
my hope that it will not be made final until these egregious
practices have been curtailed.
Eileen T. Bender
Department of English
Indiana University South Bend
1700 Mishawaka yAve. Box 7111
South Bend, IN 46634
[email protected]
574-237-4221
MTC-00024944
From: Jeanne Sarfaty Glazer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Just a quick note to let you know I think the proposaed
Microsoft settlement is a BAD IDEA!
Sincerely,
Jeanne Sarfaty Glazer Silver Spring, MD
MTC-00024945
From: gail austin
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 27556]]
Date: 1/25/02 4:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I belive the settlement that has been worked out is fair. And
now you need to go look at some body like ENRON how realy needed
looking at.
MTC-00024946
From: Jeff Knapp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi, I just wanted to voice my personal opinion on the Microsoft
Settlement. First off, I am a Macintosh user only. I do not use
Microsoft Windows or Intel based hardware. This is as much a
philosophical and ethical stance as much as it is also a practical
one. The ethical stance is simply one of being very opposed to
Microsoft's predatory and unethical business practices. Their whole
stance is one of conquer and destroy the competition.
The practical reasons are primarily rooted in that Macintosh
systems and OS are simply superior products that are more ideally
suited for my kind of work (animation and visual effects for video).
Over the years, MS has engaged in finding ways to buy out or
quash out any competition including attempts at stamping out Apple
Computer (though, not before stealing ideas and innovations Apple
comes up with). They did so with Netscape by choking off an
important source of revenue to Netscape by giving away for free what
Netscape had been charging for--the web browser.
Another tactic Microsoft is currently, actively engaging in now
to choke off competition is to build their OS in such a way that it
is almost impossible to create competing products for
``features'' built into Windows. Windows XP has a set of
built-in media handlers such as video players (Windows Media
Player), music and web browsing. MS has written Windows XP in such a
way that it is very difficult for a user to get any competing
products such as RealMedia and Apple's QuickTime running well. The
same goes with web browsers, Netscape and Opera both are cumbersome
to get to run adequately in Windows XP. If you want to play an MP3
file, Microsoft has made it nearly impossible to do so in order to
quell the MP3 format as competition to it's own music streaming
initiative.
On the internet, Microsoft is making many attempts to impose
standards and technologies that run only on the Windows platform. A
very good example of this is NBC. Any MSNBC, NBC network or NBC
affiliate web site that has any sort of streaming media content will
not play on the Macintosh platform even though there is no technical
reason for such a limitation, Windows Media Player does work on the
Mac after all--and that is what is being used on these web
sites. It is apparently, strictly a marketing decision to limit the
streaming media to Windows only.
My fear is that unless there is a real resolution that has real
teeth In it that Microsoft cannot slither its way around, their
conduct will continue to be unchecked, they will continue to do
business as they always have. I fear an internet that is closed off
to everybody who isn't using Windows. I fear any other platform
being forced to either conform to Microsoft or be put out of
business.
Right now, Microsoft has far too much power and control over the
computing environment. I find myself having to dig through the
morass of Windows only products and services in search of the few
Macintosh products out there. Go into any major computer retailer
and it is all Windows. The Macintosh retailers are few and far
between. Many of the services out on the internet are Windows only
primarily because the developer has chosen to use a Microsoft
development product that, of course, only supports Windows users.
These developers make these choices often out of fear of Microsoft.
No one entity should ever have so much control that they can
dictate the market thus, dictate our range of choices. As it is
right now, it is getting very close to the point where it is
Microsoft's way or no way. This is ethically and morally wrong.
During the whole Anti-trust trial against Microsoft and the very
strong judgment against them, I had counted on the Justice
Department to do its job and put a stop to Microsoft's predatory and
illegal business practices. Then Bush got elected and I knew all of
that was over. Microsoft will, at best, get a light slap on the
wrist in the form of some consent decree that was so full of loop
holes that they would be able to just move on unimpeded.
The so-called proposal Microsoft has put forward is not only the
very piece of swiss cheese I feared but, actually has the audacity
to include a mechanism that actually increases their stronghold on
the computing world by making schools dependent on Microsoft
products and services. It's the old marketing strategy of giving
away the razor handle for free and making all the money on the
blades.
I implore my government to do its job and put a stop--for
real--to Microsoft's predatory and opportunistic business
practices and to re-level the playing field so real competition can
once again exist in the computer platform market.
Thank you for your time,
Jeffrey J. Knapp
[email protected]
Www.jkdigital.com
MTC-00024947
From: Stan Liebowitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to state that I believe the current proposed remedy
is reasonable in that it prevents Microsoft from using exclusionary
contracts while not harming consumers by fragmenting a market that
they prefer to remain intact, as did some other proposed remedies
including that of Judge Jackson. Nor does the current remedy reward
Microsoft's competitors by hobbling Microsoft's pro-competitive
behavior, as other proposed remedies would do.
Although Microsoft may have stepped over the bounds with its
contracts, those contracts had little to do with its success, or
more importantly, with the failure of its competitors, including
Netscape. As my co-author, Stephen Margolis, and myself demonstrate
at length in our book: ``Winners, Losers & Microsoft''
Internet Explorer was a better browser (Microsoft's economist
witness misspoke on this issue when he stated that there was little
difference between the two-our work was more thorough than his) and
as we also demonstrated, large shifts in market share routinely
occurred when a new product was acknowledged to be of higher
quality, whether it was Microsoft's or someone else's.
Additionally, Microsoft's overall market behavior has been
beneficial to consumers. Microsoft is largely responsible for the
large decrease in software prices that occurred throughout the
1990s, and is also demonstrated in our book. For an examination of
software markets that went well beyond the scope of the trial, in
order to see the forest through the trees, I suggest that you read
our book. Lest you think that we are merely apologists for
Microsoft, I note that we have been propounding the ideas put
forward in the book for over a decade in leading academic journals,
well before the Microsoft case arose or could even be imagined.
Since Microsoft's illegal behavior had little to do with its
success, the remedy should be to prevent that behavior but not to
reward its competitors who failed to succeed in the marketplace due
to their own missteps. The current remedy does just that. It would
be wrong to punish Microsoft merely because Microsoft's competitors
wished to weaken competition in the market, as they clearly do. Why
else would companies like Sun, which does not have any products in
the Windows universe, be so intent on a more ``punishing''
remedy. Sun has no interest in seeing the Windows/Intel market do
well, or for more vibrant competition to occur in that market. It
merely wants less competition in the market for workstations and
servers, a market that did not play a role in the case since
Microsoft is not the dominant player there. Antitrust should not be
allowed to be the handmaiden of attempts to subvert competition.
Stan Liebowitz
Professor of Managerial Economics
University of Texas at Dallas
972-883-2807, fax 972-883-2818
MTC-00024948
From: Kevin Ahern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi:
I'm writing to indicate my displeasure with the proposed
Microsoft settlement. It will allow the Microsoft monopoly to not
only continue, but to flourish. The Department of Justice needs to
rethink its policy and put real teeth in the settlement--not
what has been done to date.
Kevin Ahern
Dr. Kevin Ahern, Contributing Editor, Science Magazine
Senior Instructor
Department of Biochemistry & Biophysics
[[Page 27557]]
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331
Voice--541-737-2305
***Note New [email protected]
Web--http://www.davincipress.com
MTC-00024949
From: Doreen Stokes
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CC: ``tormist(a)ag.state.ia.us''
January 25, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
To Whom It May Concern:
I hope that you will reconsider the decision to settle the
United States Department of Justice antitrust lawsuit against
Microsoft Corporation. American consumers may have been overcharged
$20 billion by the Microsoft monopoly. Your agreement with Bill
Gates'' company does nothing to rectify past sins by this
company or protect against future gauging.
As you know, at least ten consumer groups disagree with your
agreement to settle. Microsoft has little incentive to change any of
its practices. Their concessions are insignificant. I am proud that
my state's Attorney General, Tom Miller, rejected this Microsoft
agreement. I believe that Mr. Miller and the other eight state
attorneys general see the many loopholes and problems with
enforcement that does little to affect change in the computer
software industry. Splitting Microsoft into two or three companies
may not be the proper response, but neither is this.
Your decision to prematurely end litigation against Microsoft is
a mistake. The agreement offers no real incentive to stop
monopolistic, anti-trust efforts. It won't help much smaller
companies compete and it doesn't serve the American consumer. I ask
that you continue to go after Microsoft. It is a duty of the Justice
Department to protect the average citizen from companies that have
grown too large and too powerful by questionable business practices.
Sincerely,
Doreen Stokes
3609 Wolcott Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50321
CC: Iowa Attorney General
US Dept of Justice
[email protected]
Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller
[email protected]
Barb Hildebrandt
[email protected]
MTC-00024950
From: Joseph Ingraffia
To: Microsoft ATR,Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Netw...
Date: 1/25/02 4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft
Microsoft can only harm themselves by not innovating and
overcharging customers.
MTC-00024951
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
It is my humble opinion that the terms of the settlement are
fair and reasonable to all parties, and exceed the ruling of the
Court of Appeals. It is important to our economy that this matter be
settled promptly and the industry and Microsoft to move forward.
Sincerely,
George Whitbeck
MTC-00024952
From: Nathaniel Pendleton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I must agree with the finding of fact from US v. Microsoft 2001,
and Messers Litan, Noll and Nordhaus, http://
www.antitrustinstitute.org/recent/162.pdf that Microsoft has
violated Section 2 of the Sherman antitrust act, to illegally crush,
and will continue to illegally crush, commercial competitors.
Microsoft anti-competitive activity damages the pace of growth,
by closing and poisoning standards, to maximize Microsoft's return.
Even poising previous Microsoft product standards with
incompatibility forces many consumers to upgrade or loose access to
a large install base of current users/applications.
Microsoft is very effective at bridling growth of choice with
its install base.
Ironically, Open Standards fueled the growth of the internet and
information age by creating larger install base for network
economies, quietly handling email, and webpages across the net. We
must return to, or in some cases reinforce, Open Standards, to fuel
choice and price wars.
Microsoft's one way street for importing open standard data, but
rarely providing adequate export formats other than proprietary save
formats, is preventing users from having alternative choices. Even
upgrade of Microsoft products is complicated by incompatible closed
and obscure file formats from previous versions of Microsoft
products.
But Microsoft's denial of OS and office tools choice, further
perpetuates network economy dominance/install base, spurring yet
more opportunity for Microsoft to maintain its control of core
technologies and add outlying technologies, avoiding price wars,
with competitors through tying ensuring license fees, and furthering
its control and its dominant role.
Open Standards could again fuel growth by distributing
opportunity and control with OS development, application
development, and portable data formats. This is not a new trend.
Take for example, TV footage from the 1968 and 1972 Presidential
Campaigns, which was closed format and hardware. Most of footage is
inaccessible or gone, lost from the historical record, due to
technological change.
But in Microsoft's case, we are not loosing access via obscure
hardware, because open hardware standards have created compatibility
and affordability. We are loosing data access due to arbitrary
format changes each software generation by Microsoft.
Computer data can and should be like my boxes of college text
books, that I still open and read from for references or pleasure.
But Microsoft's closed or poisoned standards will block access to
our nations historical record.
Much like NPR's ``Lost and Found Sound'' only highly
paid experts will be able to access historical information by
carefully maintained old hardware and old software, will we be able
to open obscure Microsoft's data formats such as MS Word's data
buffer dump called ``quick saves.''
This is a yet higher invisible price to pay for Microsoft
dominance. Breaking up Microsoft would force a rebirth of Open
Standards and spurring real growth and competition in the proposed
Baby-Microsoft's, Linux/GNU, MacOS, PalmOS, and even Java.
Open Standards built the internet. Fueling explosive growth in
sharing of information and services. Let open standards out of the
corner that Microsoft is trying to push them.
Let portable middleware, APIs and exchange formats flourish, and
truly see the fabled convergence that we promised actually come
rushing in.
Reject the settlement for one with real teeth, break up the
company. Separate Windows OS from applications such as Office and
Internet Explorer.
Nathaniel Pendleton
5012 45th St. NW
Washington DC 20016
MTC-00024953
From: James Duncan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
RE: Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement
Microsoft has been and is out of control. Their plans for the
next few years, including the .NET initiative, blatantly leverage
their ongoing monopoly status.
I'm voting with my feet.: I'm a contract systems administrator
who has used mostly Microsoft applications and operating systems
since that's what most businesses are in effect forced to use. I've
grown concerned with Microsoft's attitude and policy initiatives. My
New Year's resolution was to absolutely reduce my dependence and
that of my clients on Microsoft products. Such migrations can be
extremely difficult since most overall development has had to be
focused on Microsoft compatible applications.
I urge more careful consideration of all Microsoft settlements.
Thank you,
James Duncan
[email protected]
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
MTC-00024954
From: Helchie Charles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:22pm
Subject:
After the horrible attacks of September 11th I believe that this
country needs to start
[[Page 27558]]
uniting and supporting American based companies. We need to return
honor to this nation not litigation. Our success is necessary on all
fronts especially technology.
Hopefully, the court and the DOJ will back Microsoft in settling
this political case once and for all. It would be nice to see the
competitors all unite to start working on great technology instead
of trying to create legal smoke screens to fog great visions for our
future. Long live the American freedom to work hard and succeed not
hire a lawyer. Please settle this mess and let Microsoft get on with
it.
Thank you for your time.
Helen Charles
MTC-00024955
From: Karen Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Karen Thompson
2520 Oakes Avenue
Anacortes, WA 98221
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 you today to voice my opinion on Microsoft. I am a
Microsoft supporter, and I support the settlement that was reached
in November. This settlement is fair, and I am anxious to see this
three-year-long dispute resolved. There are bigger fish to fry at
the present time.
The settlement that was reached in November is sufficient to
deal with the issues of this lawsuit. Microsoft has agreed to carry
out all provisions in this agreement. Under this agreement,
Microsoft must grant computer makers the right to configure Windows
in promote non-Microsoft software programs that compete with
programs included within Windows. Microsoft also agreed to license
its Windows operating system to the 20 major computer makers for an
identical price. This settlement will benefit the entire technology
industry.
I urge you to support this settlement. This settlement will
serve in the best public interest. Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Karen Thompson
MTC-00024956
From: Gary L. Vandenberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To Whom It Concerns,
Please finish the Microsoft settlement as it has been proposed.
Microsoft is one of America's competitive assets in the world
economy. It needs to be able to focus on business without more
delays and legal proceedings.
Thank you.
Gary L. Vandenberg
Real Estate Solutions/1031 INC
1031 Lake Drive, SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49506
Ph 616-774-1031
MTC-00024957
From: Marlene Morley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This Email is to let you know that I agree with the statements
made regarding the proposed Microsoft settlement at http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html as well as the content on http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/ --
Marlene Morley
Linux Administrator
Hypernet Communications
Website: http://www.hyperusa.com/
Email: [email protected]
hyperusa.com
MTC-00024959
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
2903 116th Avenue, NE
Lake Stevens, Washington 98258
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I would like to start off by saying that I am not a strong
supporter of Microsoft. I don't really have any stong ties to them,
but I don't agree with the antitrust suit against them. The
settlement that was made between Microsoft and the Department of
Justice is more than fair, and it is time this matter was over with.
Millions of state and federal dollars have been wasted on this suit.
The United States is based upon a free enterprise system; while we
may not always agree with the tactics employed by big business, our
interference in business undermines the very foundation this nation
has been built upon.
Microsoft has agreed to terms that will enable other companies
to compete. They have to license the internal codes of Windows to
the top twenty companies so they can produce software that is
compatible with Windows.
Because of the competition that will arise from this settlement
a wider variety of products will emerge. So now, not only will the
consumer have a better product, but the prices will be more
reasonable. Also, Microsoft will be forced to produce a better
product in order to stay competitive.
I would like to reiterate that I am not writing this letter
because the issue is personal to me. I am not a huge stockholder and
I know no one who works for Microsoft. I do know what is right
though, and ending this ridiculous suit against Microsoft is the
right thing to do. Thank-you.
Sincerely,
Carl Carlsen
MTC-00024960
From: Calia, Maryann
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 4:23pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January25,2002
RE: Comments on the Microsoft Proposed Settlement Agreement
Dear Ms. Hesse:
The case of United States v. Microsoft has been a challenge and
an opportunity for both the high tech industry and the American
consumer. New and innovative solutions for resolving such a dispute
were paramount in coming to a settlement. The continuation of
sanctions on Microsoft to foster greater competition in the software
industry, as well as allowing Microsoft to remain a viable company
has resulted in a benefit for the consumer as well as for the
industry. Protecting the consumer and encouraging the creation of
new and effective products is always essential in a healthy free
economy.
The settlement that the United States has negotiated with
Microsoft is in our nation's best interest. It comes at a critical
time in our economic recovery when our nation needs more
reconciliation than confrontation. I am encouraged by the action of
the Department of Justice and support the efforts to settle this
case.
Very truly yours,
SALVATORE F. DIMASI
Majority Leader
Massachusetts House of Representatives
MTC-00024961
From: Myroslaw Ryndyk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your Honor:
Myroslaw Ryndyk
250 Velarde Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
As a citizen of this country, a customer and user of high tech
products and as a career member of the high tech industry(over 30
years as a software engineer), I want to register my concern about
the Proposed Final Judgement(PFJ) in the Microsoft case.
This case has been tried at the Federal District Court level and
reviewed at Federal District Court of Appeals. It has been stated by
the Appeals Court that Microsoft had aggressively and repeatedly
violated United States antitrust laws. Further, the Appeals Court
has stated that any settlement between the Government and Microsoft
must protect members of the technology industry and the general
public by ensuring that any such settlement contain the following
three elements: (1) it must terminate Microsoft's illegal monopoly,
(2) it must deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past violations and
(3) it must prevent any future anticompetitive activity.
From what I have been reading in the press and other sources, it
appears that the PFJ falls woefully short on providing those
protections:
1. It does not end Microsoft's monopoly and even allows
Microsoft to expand its monopoly into other technology markets.
2. It does not adequately address anticompetitive behavior
identified by the Appeals Court.
[[Page 27559]]
3. It incorporates such large loopholes to its enforcement
provisions as to render enforcement meaningless.
4. It does not provide an effective enforcement mechanism for
the weak restrictions it does implement.
5. It does not deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past
statutory violations. I have watched Microsoft use its predatory
monopolistic position to stifle any new product development by
potential competitors that might challenge its preeminent position.
That activity deprived me, and thousands, if not millions, of other
potential users of access to new and innovative products and forced
us to, either do without those products, or to rely on less adequate
Microsoft substitutes.
It was my fervent hope that the antitrust action by the
Department of Justice(DOJ) would reel in this predatory behemoth.
The PFJ does NOT meet the standards enumerated by the Appeals Court.
I strongly, and respectfully, ask that the Court rule against the
PFJ, and, since it's unlikely that further negotiations between the
DOJ and Microsoft will produce an agreement that provides the type
of protection that the Appeals Court stipulated, I respectfully
suggest that Court render a decision based on the trial evidence and
the decisions of both the original Federal District Court and the
Court of Appeals.
Thank you.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00024962
From: Marc Tramonte
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has worked for 25 years to secure a strong but hardly
invulnerable position in the computer industry. As long as Apple,
Linux, Solaris X86, FreeBSD, dedicated computing devices, and other
options exist--by free choice and to anyone as it is
today--the very notion of ``monopoly'' here is
fundamentally flawed.
Even if we accept the spectacularly narrow market definition
crafted for this case, and accept that Microsoft dominates it, the
range of substitute platforms and products and the lightning-fast
pace of change in the industry render it meaningless. Windows is a
proprietary product, by one company, that took 10 years of hard work
to perfect--not an essential service or raw material of finite
supply that can be monopolized.
The subtext of the entire case seemed to be ``new entrants
deserve to win.'' I disagree. Let them work for 25 years and
suffer the slings and arrows if need be, and accomplish their own
success the old-fashioned way: Please millions of customers. Fight
for it. Earn it. Like Microsoft did. It's hard, but there is
precedent.
With all that said, the settlement is a fair compromise given
the harsh realities of the situation, and I fully support its
acceptance. I hope the judge does okay it and finally puts this case
to rest.
MTC-00024963
From: Beth Epperson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft
Hello,
As you can see from my email address, I work for Netscape. Even
though I am a Netscape employee, I believe that I have an open and
objective attitude about fair business practices, ethical conduct
and the need to move ones business into new directions.
When the web began to excel and expand beyond government and
academia, I do not believe anyone had the vision that it would be as
widespread as it has become. The web has provided more exposure and
access to so many people around the world, it has indeed been one of
the most influential tools of the century. From a business
perspective, the exposure is overwhelming, you can reach literally
thousands of households with minimal expense. It has truly changed
the way we do business.
The most difficult aspect of the web is how to generate revenue.
Looking at the culture of business on the web, it is in direct
opposition to how we have traditionally done business. In the past,
if you wanted or needed a service, you paid for it. The service
provider set the price and you were at their mercy. Advertisement
was not a true revenue generator, companies spent thousands of
dollars per year in getting their brand out to the public. Instead,
advertisement was an evil necessity, necessary to the survival of
any company. Today, on the web, services are for free, software is
free, and many other services that were traditionally revenue
generators. Advertisement is a revenue generator, however,
advertisements are not for your company, but for other companies on
your web site, that is a very dramatic change. Could you imagine
25-30 years ago, getting a brochure in the mail from company
XYZ, only to see advertisements in that brochure for companies ABC
and DEF? That would just not have happened.
I think in the beginning, Microsoft didn't see the advantages of
this new web thing. I think they saw it, analyzed it and walked
away. Then the web began to evolve. Numerous companies sprang up
based solely on the activities and services--browsing, email,
data exchange, etc. AOL, Compuserve, Netscape are just a few of the
companies that began to grow and expand. I think that is about the
time Microsoft figured out that there was money to be had, but
didn't quite know how to get that to happen. The traditional
business methodology was not there. Advertising was different,
software applications were different, the audience was different,
just about everything was different. Netscape at that time had a
firm hold on the browser market, and that was our sole source of
revenue--the browser, the web server software and advertisement
revenue on our site. Microsoft threw hundreds of people into
building a browser that would compete--not necessarily to
promote competition, but rather to keep people in their market
place. But, Netscape continued to dominate the market. At that point
in time is where I think Microsoft pursued the path of poor business
ethics, they lowered themselves to a level of dirty deeds and
actions. If they could not gain market share by creating a superior
product, then they would do whatever they had to to run Netscape out
of business. And with that task in hand, they did an excellent job.
What I really don't understand, is how do the people who made
that conscious decision sleep at night. To lower oneself to perform
in such a manner is beyond my comprehension. Should Microsoft be
sanctioned for their business practices, yes I believe they should.
Would I fine them, no. Would I make them remove applications from
their desktop, no. Would I force them to provide alternative
software in their bundles, no. What I would do, however, is force
them to make their operating system open, accessible and free. Allow
all software companies access to the operating system, allowing for
greater flexibility and freedom for all users of windows. This would
allow companies such as Dell, Compac, Apple to provide software
bundles of varying content. It would allow companies such as
Netscape to finely integrate with the operating system. This would
prevent Microsoft from hiding worms and performance bugs into their
operating system that is only triggered via non-Microsoft products.
This would allow users to pick and modify the desired software found
on each persons desktop. Let the operating system be open and let
the specific application software be revenue driven.
Thank you for letting me air my concerns.
Regards,
Beth Epperson
MTC-00024964
From: Anne DeBlois
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi,
I am glad that the DOJ and Microsoft reached an out-of-court
settlement. However, as a consumer, I would like you to know that I
have never ever approved of such an antitrust trial against
Microsoft from the very beginning. Netscape's failure was somehow my
own fault, as I did elect to give it up and install Internet
Explorer on my own computer. I wish there had been no trial at all,
actually. I feel that nobody ever listened to me. Rivals talked,
antitrust experts talked, lawyers talked, but what about consumers?
What about me? What about MY own choice of software? What about my
desire for an unedited Windows XP, because I love it like it is?
What about those who won't even think of buying a version of Windows
that doesn't include all the stuff they want (Media Player, Internet
Explorer and so forth)?
I never felt harmed in any way by Microsoft. On the contrary, I
could learn to use a computer very easily thanks to Windows 95.
Because of my interest in computers, I then chose to make it a
profession, and I found absolutely nothing wrong in Microsoft
software, otherwise I would not be using anything from Microsoft
today.
I still believe that Microsoft is innocent, and I don't want any
ruling to hurt the company, as it would also hurt hundreds of
businesses that rely on Microsoft's great technology, it would also
cause even more job layoffs in the high-tech field.
[[Page 27560]]
I still believe that the marketplace and consumer choice, not
Microsoft, sank Netscape and other companies, and I still believe
Microsoft has nothing to do with some rivals'' failure. For
instance, while the trial was underway, I could download a few
updates of Microsoft Internet Explorer, but Netscape Navigator,
although it was acquired by AOL, did not improve as well as I wanted
it to. THAT is why I gave up Navigator. I don't want Microsoft to
pay for Navigator's lack of features.
Please don't forget us consumers! Please keep in mind that we
might be hurt by anything you may want to impose on Microsoft. It is
not only a matter of triple damages or something, it is a matter of
consumer choice and public interest. I don't want corporate greed to
win over software quality. I don't want companies like AOL and Sun
to be paid millions of dollars while the high-tech industry suffers
from that cash flow. Please let Microsoft alone, they are one of
your best corporate citizens, no courtroom must kill America's best.
Best regards,
Anne DeBlois, from Canada
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00024965
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:24pm
Subject: opposing the proposed Microsoft settlement
I would like to express my disapproval of the proposed
settlement of the Microsoft antitrust suit.
As I see it, Microsoft was found guilty of using its monopoly of
the desktop to create a near monopoly of the browser. This was done
in spite of the earlier consent agreement where Microsoft agreed to
end ``tying'' other products to the desktop. Microsofts
actions have shown that it is not trustworthy.
The proposed settlement essentially has Microsoft agreeing not
to repeat their illeagal behavior, not to use their desktop monopoly
to leverage browsers. This is closing the door after the horse has
escaped. Micorsoft has won the browser war by their illegal
activities. Microsoft is now turning its attention to the internet
through the .NET venture and to entertainment through its Windows
Media Player venture. In both of these Microsoft appears to be using
its Monopoly on the desktop to impost a standard on the industry.
History has shown that a Microsoft de facto standard soon morphs
into a Microsoft only standard. The Monopoly extends. The proposed
settlement does require Microsoft to share some of their programers
interfaces, or API's. However, the ``sharing'' is done
strictly under Microsofts terms. A better solution is for Microsoft
to be required to publish, in open literature, these APIs without
use restrictions and agree not to change them before giving ample
notice to competitors. The proposed settlement also ignores
Microsofts other monopoly, the Office applications (Word, Excel,
Powerpoint, Access). Microsoft uses the office upgrade cycle to lock
out competition by changing file specifications each upgrade. This
prevents competing products from being compatible with Office. Any
settlement that intends to prevent future exploitation of Microsofts
monopoly needs to address this. At a minimum, Microsoft should be
required to do with Office what they are required to do with
Windows, release the programers interfaces. Better would be to
require that Microsoft publish the API's and file specifications in
the open literature so that competitors can create innovative but
compatible products.
I urge the government and the court to reject the proposed
settlement and rejoin negotiation with Microsoft and the states
involved in the suit to propose a meaningful consequence to
Microsofts illegal activities.
George Wolter
565 Gibbs St.
Whitehall, MI 49461
MTC-00024966
From: nanikin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings:
The proposed settlement, if allowed to stand, will give
Microsoft unprecedented access to the minds and pocketbooks of our
children for decades to come. Do NOT allow this multi-headed snake
of a corporation to slither its way out of a just and fair outcome,
by letting it ``contribute'' Microsoft products and
services to educational institutions. Any in-kind settlement MUST
include free choice of software platforms, or even a mandated mix of
non-Microsoft products, by the intended beneficiaries.
It's bad enough that some of the most interesting sites on the
Internet are rapidly becoming inaccessible unless you are using
MSIE. I've maintained a Microsoft-free home for many years and
intend to keep it that way as long as I possibly can.
Thank you.
Nancy Hoffarth
MTC-00024967
From: John Dowd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
Below is an article excerpted from the ZDNet News a magazine
that has been continually anti-MSFT in its editorial bias. Even they
see the frivolousness and pointlessness of AOL's latest foray into
this matter. This suit is not about consumers as their has been no
harm to consumers demonstrated rather there is only the speculation
of possible future harm. If that is the rule to which a company is
to be held who would stand up under this benchmark? This whole thing
is an effort on the part of MSFT's competitors to win in the halls
of government what they couldn't win in the market place. They want
to use the government to enrich themselves without bringing better
products to the market place. It is really disgusting to find my
government not being smart enough to see that it is being
manipulated by losers.
Sincerely,
John F. Dowd
Commentary
Advice to AOL: Sit down, shut up
By David Coursey
AnchorDesk
January 24, 2002, 5:20 AM PT
COMMENTARY--AOL Time Warner's decision to sue
Microsoft--essentially repeating the federal antitrust case all
over again--is hardly surprising. Yet I had hoped that instead
of wallowing in the past, Chairman Steve Case and his East Coasters
would realize that Netscape lost the browser war because it deserved
to lose. And Netscape has continued losing, because AOL Time Warner
hasn't done very much to make it a winner--perhaps in a cynical
attempt to maintain a cause of action against Microsoft.
Did Microsoft play hardball with Netscape? Of course it did. Did
Microsoft go over the line of legality in certain business
practices? That's what a federal court has ruled, and the Justice
Department has agreed to settle. Is that settlement enough? I don't
think so and have already called for stiffer sanctions. But should
AOL Time Warner sit down and shut up? Damn straight.
THE NEW LAWSUIT seems to have been filed for the valid reason
that the proposed settlement doesn't go far enough. But another
decade of legal battles--kept alive by East Coast corporate
types dueling people from Washington state--won't improve the
situation. AOL Time Warner should push for a better settlement, but
opting for endless court actions to settle issues long in the past
doesn't seem right.
Indeed, Netscape should have sued years ago, and its
case--like the federal one--should be winding its way down
rather than just getting started.
I am sure it must be galling for Steve Case and whatever part of
Netscape's soul that survived assimilation into AOL (and again into
Time Warner) to see Microsoft enjoying a resurgence.
BUT THE FACT REMAINS that since AOL has owned Netscape, it has
used its own mighty resources--more subscribers than
Microsoft's MSN--and its ability to swing deals with hardware
OEMs to very little effect.
Netscape went off into its ill-advised Mozilla open-source
effort and has released new versions of its browser that failed to
ignite the market. As I remember, the Netscape 6 reviews pretty much
said that Microsoft had the better browser.
So if it seems like AOL Time Warner has been swimming upstream,
it's not all Microsoft's fault. Again stipulating--I love
getting into this Perry Mason stuff--that Microsoft violated
antitrust laws and should be punished, the real reason Netscape
failed is very simple: customers.
I AM AMAZED that people still debate this, though I think it's
mostly from an unwillingness to concede any point to the hated
Microsoft, but the browser really does belong as part of an
operating system. Indeed, browser technology (along with look and
feel) has provided a common user interface and way of doing things.
Tying the browser to the operating system, as Microsoft has done,
has made computing easier for all of us.
Microsoft was right to bring browsing into the OS, just as it is
right to better support multimedia and photography, home video,
[[Page 27561]]
and soon, broadcast television. Does doing this compete with
companies that build stand-alone applications? Of course it does.
But what those companies are supposed to do is create better
products that extend and enhance what Microsoft builds into Windows.
What Netscape did--actually what AOL did to Netscape--was
throw in the towel. That, or the battle just wasn't winnable, not so
much because of Microsoft, but because Netscape/AOL Time Warner
didn't offer customers anything they really wanted--other than
an alternative to Microsoft, and that argument seemed to fall on
deaf ears.
If AOL had run the Netscape business to compete, things might be
different today. Instead, AOL turned the shell of Netscape into a
media company with just enough development around to maintain the
fa?ade of being a software company. AOL is many things, after all,
but one of the things it's not is a software company.
Suppose AOL had invested heavily in the Netscape server
businesses or had sold it to someone who would? Maybe things would
be different today, as Netscape browsers used cool features
available only from Netscape servers and Microsoft was left in the
dust.
MAYBE NETSCAPE AND SUN could have done something more important
with Java. Or perhaps the Novell/Sun/Netscape alliance could have
gone somewhere. Perhaps if Netscape had been given the resources to
fight on, things would be very different today.
I doubt it. Which is why I think Netscape has gone the way it
has. Customers voted, and they voted for Microsoft. Were they pushed
a bit by Microsoft's illegal practices? Surely, though not as much
as I think Microsoft's critics want to believe.
AOL Time Warner has every right to sue, and the case is not
without merit. But I hope this new lawsuit is more a ploy to get a
better settlement in the federal case--which is
warranted--than a means to prolong this battle indefinitely.
But if AOL Time Warner wants to battle over what Microsoft did
to Netscape, then the case ought to at least figure in what AOL
itself did to the once high-flying browser pioneer.
MTC-00024968
From: Alexander Wallace
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This is a terrible setlement, you are letting MS buy this one!
MTC-00024969
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:25pm
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,
Nancy Wheeler
2176 Morgans Mill Rd.
Goodview, VA 24095-2767
MTC-00024970
From: bert hunsicker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to have the DOJ accept the settlement with
Microsoft and put this whole thing to rest.
In the first place, I think it is wrong to prosecute MS as a
monopoly. I am old enough to know that the original reason for
creating laws to protect the public against monopolies was because
of the harm they could do to the public. I truly believe that MS has
done more for the public than any other company in the US. They have
kept the price of software down to where it is affordable by
millions of people instead of just the wealthy. An examination of
the primary complainers against MS, namely Sun, AOL/Time Warner, and
Apple are all who stand to gain a great deal if the government
continues to attack MS. Take a look at Sun and see if they would
sell their operating system for $100. and the same goes for Apple.
The reason they don't compete well with MS is that they want to ROB
the masses with much higher prices for their product.
I find it ridiculous to think that MS has no competition. Unix
has been around a very long time as well as Sun and they are
competitors. Now there is Red Hat or Linux and AOL/Time Warner is
attempting to buy them so they can compete with Windows as an
operating system. They paid several Billion dollars for Netscape so
I don't think they truly believe they are unable to compete against
MS. I put my money where it will do me the most good and that is
with Windows by MS. If these others would come up with a good
product and keep the price competitive with Windows and other
programs by MS, I would certainly consider purchasing from them, but
I won't hold my breath as I don't think they are capable of doing
anything but bitching about how they are being treated so poorly
now.
This whole case has done nothing good for anyone except the
Lawyers who live for these cases to come along and the Justice
Department is wasting the taxpayers money to continue the case.
Penfield Jackson should be disbarred for his so obvious prejudice in
his mishandling of the case to start with. Why should he be trusted
with any other cases?
I could go on at great length, but suffice it to say that I
think this should be ended now and let the courts get on with some
real business instead of being used by the complainants. As far as
the states who don't want to settle, all they want is a free ride
and a bucket full of money.
Bert Hunsicker
8933 East 62nd Court
Tulsa, OK 74133-6362 (
918)459-9533
[email protected]
MTC-00024971
From: Noel Holshouser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a citizen of the United States of America, a former teacher
and an independent computer consultant, I find the proposed
settlement objectionable. We who have had to attempt to work in
environments containing Microsoft Windows have long suffered from
their reliance on hidden, undocumented ``hooks'' into
their operating system. The proposed settlement will do very little
if anything to alleviate this. Rather than decreasing the
monopolistic position, this settlement will strengthen Microsoft's
dominance in one of the few areas where it doesn't already have such
position.
Noel Holshouser--Independent Consultant
Plain Dealing, LA
MTC-00024972
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I have multiple concerns regarding MS and any settlement. I have
yet to hear any plausible, sincere expression of *contrition* from
MS, despite the judgement against them. I believe any punishment
should fit the crime. Since the judgement will not be reversed, any
punishment or ``settlement'' needs to address past,
present, and potential future transgressions. I don't think it
plausible that MS would be ``punished'' by any attempt at
a (even a well-intentioned) ``behavior-modification-
based'' remedy, certainly not by one that actually EXTENDS
their (monopolistically gained) marketshare.
Although it is unlikely given the current political climate,
(and not precluded by the Appeals Court), I still wish and believe
that a split-up MS would be an appropriate punishment because I
believe that would create actual (both OS and application)
competition amongst the industry players (Apple, Oracle, Netscape,
OSF, etc.).
Isn't that what an anti-trust punishment SHOULD do? Souldn't any
punishment/settlement be meet (at least) this test? Unless the
punishment is --actually-- painfull MS will be emboldened
to continue to propagate software that makes it easy for some
disgruntled teenager (or terrorist) from even a ``third-
world'' location to infect/damage/commandeer-for-unsavory-
purpose thousands of (private and public) machines world-wide (some
owners of which could (still) be ignorant/unable/apathetic). --
Dave Bradley
MTC-00024973
From: Donahue, Christopher
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
[[Page 27562]]
Date: 1/25/02 4:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom This May Concern:
I believe that the terms of the settlement are tough on
Microsoft and may hurt it's revenues. This company has been an
innovator in the technology field and has played a key part in the
technology revolution. The settlements are fair and reasonable to
all parties, and meet--or go beyond--the ruling by the
Court of Appeals, and represent the best opportunity for Microsoft,
the industry and the economy to move forward.
Thanks for your time in this matter,
Christopher J. Donahue
Pfizer Global Research and Development
Discovery Technologies
Assay Development
2800 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
734-622-1473 phone
734-622-3244fax
[email protected]
MTC-00024974
From: James Voorhees
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement should be rejected. I suggest four
grounds for doing so. First, the settlement does nothing to undo the
damange done by Microsoft in the course of gaining iand then
maintaining ts monopoly. It gained that monopoly in part through
practices that were uncompetitive.
Second, the provisions for enforcement are inadequate. Should
Microsoft be found in violation of the settlement, recourse seems to
be, in essence, a continuation of the lengthy legal procedure that
has characterized the case thus far. The sanctions Microsoft would
face if it violated the judgement should be made more explicit. At
the least, a finite procedure should be made explicit.
Third, the Internal Compliance Officer, as an employee of
Microsoft, is more than likely to serve, not as a good faith
proponent of the settlement, but as Microsoft's apologist to the
Plaintiffs, the technical Committee, and the court, explaining why
Microsoft followed the letter of the judgement while violating its
spirit. This, I believe, follows from Microsoft's corporate culture.
It is a central principle of software quality assurance that the
person who determines whether a project or program is following the
processes and procedures it needs to cannot be paid by or otherwise
beholden to that project or program. The Internal Compliance
Officer, in essence, serves to assure the quality of the final
judgement. The same principle should apply.
Fourth, the selection of the technical committee is biased in
Microsoft's favor. In the first place, the criteria for excluding
people from consideration are too broad. Given Microsoft's broad
reach across the information technology industries, how many
qualified technical experts are there who have not worked for a
competitor, given a broad definition of the term
``competitor,'' and giventhat Microsoft, having the right
to object, can use the broadest of definitions if it chooses to? Is
it in the public's interest that this possibility be open? Is it in
the public interest that Microsoft have the right to select one
member, the right to object to another, and an indirect veto
(through its chosen member) of the appiointment of the third?
Please understand that I am not inherently against Microsoft.
Indeed, I make my career largely through Microsoft products. But, as
I have explained, I dod not believe the proposed judgement serves
the public's interest.
James Voorhees MCSE, MCP+I, MCP
MTC-00024991
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:30pm
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,
Barb Crow
1144 N Kokomo
Derby, KS 67037
MTC-00024992
From: James E Jurach Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. I would like to
echo the comments made by Jeremy P. White at http://
www.codeweavers.com/jwhite/tunneywine.html and those of Dan Kegel at
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
Sincerely,
James Jurach, Texas; Developer, Online Banking Services company
MTC-00024994
From: kate.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Settling is a horrible idea, prosecute their monopolistic selves
until they allow free market competition.
While I believe strongly that their products are unreliable and
shoddy enough to drive them out of business on merit alone, their
market share forbids this and they strive to maintain this with
every move they make and every condescending idea they throw at the
government to let them off with a mere telling off when they deserve
to be broken in to tiny pieces on the floor.
Catherine Jenkins
State College, Pennsylvania.
MTC-00024995
From: David A. Milligan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Attorney General John Ashcroft: I support of the recent
settlement between the US Department of Justice and Microsoft. This
settlement comes after two generations of software have occurred and
it is time to settle. I am glad that Microsoft is not being broken
up, but I think the terms of the settlement will correct some of the
concerns that I have had with Microsoft's marketing tactics.
Essentially, I think Microsoft has shown heavy-handed methods in
their marketing tactics. I think competition is necessary to grow an
industry and Microsoft is doing no one any good by wiping out their
competitors. The terms of the settlement force them to disclose
interfaces that are internal to Windows operating system products
and not retaliate against computer makers or software developers
that promote non-Microsoft products. I believer that these
concessions by Microsoft are fair and represent a step in the right
direction. I think that any settlement should include terms that
improve competition which is very important to improving our
standard of living and productivity.
I hope your office finalizes the settlement and encourages the
states to ensure that any further litigation on their part be
justified.
Thank you.
David A. Milligan, Principal Engineer, Matches, 2005 N.
Mistletoe Lane,
Edmond, OK 73034-6054, (405) 340-2673, Fax (405)
340-7884,
[email protected]
MTC-00024997
From: Tim Kulogo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Any anti-trust settlement that helps Microsoft replace Macintosh
in the School System will make Microsoft more powerful in the
marketplace, which isn't much of a punishment. For this case to been
anything but a waste of time and money, it must result in the
creation of an operating system that is available at a lower price
than windows, and can efficiently run the software that is available
for the windows environment.
Tim Kulogo
Werner Electric Supply
920-969-2132
MTC-00024998
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We, Mr. and Mrs. John Hilgendorf, believe the settlement is in
the best interest of the consuming public and believe it should be
approved. Continuing legal action can hurt the public rather than
help it. Please let the open competition between companies continue
without hindering a company
[[Page 27563]]
which has done so much for the general public.
Thank You for your attention!
MTC-00024999
From: Harry vanderBurg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:35pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust case
I would suggest to leave the software competition in the market
place and spend the millions of legal fees (tax money) on better
subjects such as education and healthcare. I personally believe
Microsoft did a great job for our society and it was made possible
by dedicated hard working developers. I still have to see the so-
called negative impact for consumers. Software has never been so
cheap and avalaible for a wide range of people throughout the world.
Its rivals have to beat this company by making better products
instead of going the easy way and try to fight in court.
H.W. van der Burg MBA
Business Consultant
The Netherlands
MTC-00025000
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:35pm
Subject: Has your opinion been counted
I FAXED my letter back to you yesterday.
Sincerely,
George A. Glenday
MTC-00025001
From: Ray Casper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 25, 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. The
settlement is in the best interest of the state, the IT industry,
and the economy because it will allow us to direct those millions of
dollars into other more important cases and programs.
There are many restrictions on Microsoft as a result of this
settlement. for instance, Microsoft has 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. In addition, Microsoft
has agreed to license its Windows operating system products to the
20 largest computer makers on identical terms, including price.
Plus, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against computer makers
who ship software that competes with anything in its Windows
operating system.
Not only is the settlement fair and seems reasonable, but it
also will prevent any future anticompetitive behavior. This project
has gone on long enough and the general public wants to end the case
and return to business as usual.
Thank you for your attention to this matter as well as the other
pressing day to day problems you have handled well during your time
as Attorney General.
Sincerely,
H. R. Casper
102 Concord Drive
Watkinsville, GA 30677
MTC-00025005
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:35pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
DOJ:
I am writing to register my objection to the proposed Microsoft
settlement. I do not believe the current proposal serves the
interests of promoting competition or remedying the impact on the
Amercian consumer.
The current proposal is merely an agreement by Microsoft to soft
pedal its competition-stifling practices in return for the use of
built-in loopholes that give it a leg-up on competitors. For
example, permitting Microsoft to settle the matter by delivering
Microsoft products to school systems, which traditionally tend to
favor other vendors (e.g., Apple), is tantamount to state-
sponsorship of the extension of Mcirosoft's monopoly. Microsoft
should be required to make payment in cash, and then permit the
school systems to direct the use of these funds in the (hopefully
technical) areas of its choosing.
Futhermore, I believe the amount of the settlement is grossly
inadequate to remove the incentive for Microsoft to continue its
practices. I believe Microsoft will treat the settlement as a
``cost of doing business'', much as any other
``administrative overhead''.
Finally, I believe the settlement should include requirements
for Microsoft to provide open access to interfaces between its
products, and to provide an unbundled version of Windows (no
Internet Explorer, no Windows Media Player, etc.). These actions are
needed to afford competitive products, including open source
alternatives, with an environment in which they can compete on a
level playing field with a competitor which controls the incumbent
desktop operating system technology. Without true, timely and open
access to interoperability information, the barriers of entry for
alternative commercial and open source products will be too high to
overcome the leverage held through its desktop operating system
monopoly.
Finally, to permit realistic options for enforcement and to
avoid a recurrence of past practices, an oversight committee of some
sort is truly needed.
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Alyssa Canann
MTC-00025018
From: Randall Hale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I would like to submit to you my opinion briefly.
I believe that Microsoft has used and will continue to use delay
tactics to lessen any hardship that may be required of the company
and it officers. This has been effectively practiced in this case
and other recent legal cases to the point that they have made a
mockery of our justices. I know that the appeal process is part of
the system and they have the right to do so. But the justices they
should not be blind to the intention and the craftiness of this
organization.
The Justice was right to not accept Microsoft's last offer it
only would have served to reward their bad behavior.
I think that Microsoft should be penalized to the point that it
will conform to fair and legal business practices. Microsoft is so
powerful that it can change the direction of the wind, with power
like this a we need to treat it very respectfully and with sterness.
Randy Hale
MTC-00025019
From: Oliver Barnes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to it to be known that I think the Microsoft
Settlement to be a farse.
I believe the only way to end Microsoft's monopoly would have
been to break it up into two separate companies, one in the
Operating System businees and the other in the Application Software
business. This settlement was a direct product of this
Administration's ties to Microsoft.
I subscribe to the views expressed in Dan Kegel's petition, and
have signed it myself.
Oliver Barnes, US Citizen
Web Developer, self-employed
Brooklyn, NY
MTC-00025020
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:34pm
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,
Grant Belgard
9566 East Van Pl
Baton Rouge, LA 70815
MTC-00025021
From: Mat Caughron
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 27564]]
Date: 1/25/02 5:02pm
Subject: proposed settlement is not in the public interest
To Whom it May Concern:
I have nearly a decade of experience in the retail software
industry.
The proposed settlement is a bad idea.
Please consider Dan Kegel's suggested revisions.
Thank you,
Mathew Caughron
co-founder
Proteron LLC
11649 Westwood Lane
Omaha NE 68144
MTC-00025022
From: Burt Pittman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern
It is clear from court documents and other public information
that Microsoft has acted illegally and from all indications will
continue to do so in spite of any penalties imposed or agreed to. It
is becoming increasing clear that the power that Microsoft holds is
not only greater that the other participants in it's market, but it
greater even than the Department of Justice itself. The performance
of the Dept. of Justice and the political and legal system as a
whole does not speak well for Democracy in this country.
MTC-00025023
From: Betty Rae
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Holders of the Public Trust!
I truly believe that it is in the best interests of the public
at large to settle the case between the Department of Justice, the 9
states, and Microsoft.
We and our beloved country need to continue to benefit from the
development of the resources and knowledge that Microsoft
continually works toward providing, for the good of all, even for
their competitors!
Diverting of their finances and energy toward lawsuits on every
side is wasting the funds that could much better be utilized for
such development. I realize that lawyers involved in this field need
to make a living, also, but, indirectly, it seems that it is being
done excessively, at the expense of the good of many of our people.
I feel this way, because many improvements in medicine, business and
daily life are waiting, unfunded, to be developed by Microsoft, and
yes, even by those States and Competitors who filed against
Microsoft.
The costs, of what I think are lawsuits that benefit few people,
place these developments on a back burner, where they should not be.
Let us settle this antitrust case now, without further ado. From
here on, please let Microsoft and the States, Competitors, as well
as the Department of Justice, go out and do the GOOD that you can
do. Please quit wrangling with one another.
Thank you for allowing me to communicate with you. I wish you
all the very best.
Sincerely,
(Mrs.) Betty R. Hartwick
MTC-00025024
From: David Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:41pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
A company such as Microsoft should be rewarded for what it has
done not penalized.
Sincerly,
David S. Williams
MTC-00025026
From: Kevin Moore
To: Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Network
Date: 1/25/02 4:42pm
Subject: Re: Has Your Opinion Been Counted?
Let me be honest with you. I think that what the Federal
government engaged in during the Clinton administration was
political grandstanding, perhaps even some sort of vendetta, but
certainly not in the national interest.
I also believe that Microsoft engages in predatory marketing and
sales practices. You dominate the computer industry because you are
good, but also because you have and continue to throw your weight
around. I don't like it any more than I like our huge Federal
beaurocracy and it's results.
I agree that it is time to move on. Stop trying to put your
competition out of business. And, I strongly suggest that the
government--DOJ especially--worry about national security,
immigration, and misinterpretation of our Constitution.
Kevin Moore
Erie, PA
----- Original Message -----
From: Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Network
To: ``[email protected]'' Sent: Friday,
January 25, 2002 1:59 PM
Subject: Has Your Opinion Been Counted?
Has Your Opinion Been Counted?
Earlier this month, you took part in a letter-writing campaign
to express your opinion of the antitrust settlement between the
Department of Justice and Microsoft. We would like to thank you for
your efforts and make sure that when we assisted you in organizing
your thoughts on paper, you were completely satisfied that the draft
letter fully expressed your own views in the matter. If you would
like any changes, we would be happy to make them now.
The public comment period on this settlement ends on January 28.
The provisions of the agreement are tough, reasonable, fair to all
parties involved, and go beyond the findings of the Court of Appeals
ruling; however, the settlement is not guaranteed until after the
review ends and the District Court determines whether the terms are
indeed in the public interest.
If you would like your opinion to count, now is the time to send
in your letter! Please send your comments directly to the Department
of Justice via email or fax no later than January 28. If you have
already done so, or will do so in the near future, please be sure to
send a signed copy to the FIN Mobilization Office, OR SIMPLY REPLY
TO THIS EMAIL WITH A SHORT NOTE INDICATING THAT YOU HAVE SENT YOUR
LETTER.
Please take action today, to ensure your voice is heard.
Once again, the Attorney General's contact information is:
Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or
1-202-616-9937
Email: [email protected]
FIN Mobilization Office contact information:
Fax: 1-800-641-2255
Email: [email protected]
Your support is greatly appreciated!
FIN Mobilization Office
CC:Microsoft ATR
MTC-00025027
From: Ronald R. Cooke
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 4:44pm
Subject: Tunney Act Comments: Microsoft Settlement
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''.l 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
[[Page 27565]]
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 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.
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
[[Page 27566]]
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
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 States4, 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 architec tures
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
[[Page 27567]]
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.
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-00025028
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attn.: Renata B. Hesse.
The subject settlement is one of the most disappointing things
that government has done in a long time. It has no really bases in
my opinion. If there is any monopoly it is government.
[[Page 27568]]
It appears to me that Netscape and other like companies are
pursuing this issue to feather their own nest. It is of no benefit
to the American citizens as far as I can see. In fact it is
diverting many resources from one of the most creative companies to
keep over zealous regulators and litigators from destroying it's
ability to compete in the old fashion American way. In my opinion
what you, that is the justice department, are doing is about as un-
American as it gets.
Spear Lancaster
MTC-00025029
From: Jeff Chirico
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am amazed that the DOJ continues this special interest and
corporate biased trend of regulating competition in the courtroom.
At various times in history different companies have excelled in
specific business areas, but as is usual in a market driven economy
the balancing of business is achieved through vigorous competition
in industry, not through litigation. IBM looked unstoppable when I
was growing up, and went through the same defining moments as
Microsoft. Years later after IBM's strength was weakened the DOJ
then dropped the anti-trust case. What did this endeavor actually
resolve, but the weakening of an American enterprise.
Thankfully Microsoft products are American and represent a
market segment that the United States still has a significant lead
and growth in. Yet, only in America do we thwart such innovative
products from growth using the courtroom to pad folks'' resumes
in the DOJ.
I hope the Republicans in office will recognize a more laissez-
faire approach to the economy, and will now halt this trend by
pushing this case out the door with a limited remedy. The current
remedy proposed that benefits education seems more than reasonable
and honorable to me. The states that do not agree at this point have
their own special interests, and are purchased lobbyists for AOL,
Sun, and Oracle.
Sincerely,
Jeff Chirico
MTC-00025030
From: Jesse Wheeler
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement with Microsoft is bogus. Please
reconsider.
MTC-00025031
From: Darrell McKigney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Comment from the Small Business Survival Committee on the
Proposed Settlement in United States v. Microsoft
January 25, 2002
Darrell McKigney
President
&
Raymond J. Keating
Chief Economist
Small Business Survival Committee
Small Business Survival Committee
1920 L Street, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-785-0238
Fax: 202-822-8118
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
The Small Business Survival Committee (SBSC) believes that the
proposed settlement between Microsoft Corp., the federal government
and nine U.S. states in the case of United States v. Microsoft Corp.
generally serves the ?public interest? and the nation's economic
well being.
In its settlement, Microsoft has agreed to a variety of
restrictions on its business practices for at least five years.
Microsoft also would be subject to (and have to pay for) a full-
time, on-site monitoring panel of three computer experts, who would
have complete access to Microsoft's software code, systems, books,
records, personnel, etc.
Considering that the antitrust case against Microsoft had
absolutely no basis in economic reality, and that the government
brought its case at the behest of competitors?not
consumers--who could not keep up in the marketplace, we view
any findings against Microsoft, and related restrictions placed on
the firm, as unwarranted. However, given the costs, looming
uncertainties, the current economic climate, and penchant for bad
law and convoluted economics to dominate in the antitrust realm,
Microsoft certainly made the correct business decision in reaching
this settlement. Investor's Business Daily hit the nail on the head
when it recently (January 22) editorialized:
Late Thursday, Microsoft reported its earnings for the fourth
quarter. They included a hefty charge of $660 million, or 8 cents a
share, for expenses linked to antitrust lawsuits and ongoing legal
action by some states.
Think about it: that's two-thirds of a billion dollars. It could
fund a lot of research, give a lot of raises to workers, even fund
more Microsoft charity around the country.?
So, the costs of this case for the company, the taxpayers and
the economy in general have been formidable.
And make no mistake, these costs are felt by many small
businesses. Small enterprises certainly can be affected by the costs
of this antitrust case (and others) in their roles as consumers of
Microsoft products, and as suppliers to Microsoft. In addition,
entrepreneurship and business can be impacted by the message sent by
government in a case such as this, i.e., that if a business works
and competes hard to succeed and gain market share, the government
may move against it through regulation and litigation. That is not a
positive economic message for government to be broadcasting into the
marketplace.
Microsoft, the many businesses which serve as its suppliers and
consumers, and the software industry have been placed at risk due to
the government's long antitrust inquisition against Microsoft, and
real costs have been incurred. The government's antitrust case
against Microsoft has boosted costs, increased uncertainty in the
high-tech community, and thereby, hurt the entire U.S. economy.
Looking ahead, it is quite disturbing that government
officials--including regulators, lawyers, and judges--have
the ability to impose their own anachronistic views of how markets
should work on the rest of us, including the high-tech industries of
today and tomorrow. Antitrust regulation remains a dangerous wild
card in the marketplace. Depending how the latest political breezes
happen to be blowing, our nation's most successful companies are in
a position to be punished for their success via antitrust actions.
Antitrust law is regularly presented as a bulwark of competition
and free markets. In reality, however, antitrust law, for the most
part, is distinctly anti-market and anti-competition because it
allows government bureaucrats or judges to overrule decisions made
by consumers in the marketplace. In the end, government antitrust
actions in this case have amounted to nothing more than an effort to
protect some of Microsoft's current rivals from the rigors of
competition, and/or an effort to expand the reach and control of
government.
It needs to be understood that in the free market, businesses
compete against current and future competitors. The rapid pace of
innovation in the computer industry makes this abundantly clear.
Therefore, many antitrust actions exhibit an inability on the part
of regulators, government lawyers and some judges to understand the
dynamic nature of the marketplace. Markets are not static. The
classroom lesson about ``perfect competition'' does not
exist in the real world. Instead, the economy involves a rough-and-
tumble competitive process whereby entrepreneurs and businesses
create new products and services, innovations, and efficiencies,
often generating temporary monopolies that are then obliterated by
competitors. Prices and profits act as signals in the marketplace to
other businesses and entrepreneurs. An activist antitrust regime, as
was exhibited over the past several years in the Microsoft case,
disrupts this beneficial economic process.
The fact that antitrust law looms unchanged--to be
erratically used as a club by government--will continue to cast
a shadow over the U.S. economy, particularly dynamic high-tech
industries in which temporary monopolies are the clear rule.
Ideally, the Microsoft case should have been dropped altogether,
and looking ahead, dramatic antitrust reform needs to be undertaken
to reflect economic reality.
Short of such action though, a settlement in this case, which
obviously steps far back from a proposed break up of Microsoft,
makes sense. Hopefully, since much of the government's case has been
thrown out or overturned, perhaps this Microsoft settlement will
serve as a warning that antitrust restraint on the part of the
government far better serves consumers, entrepreneurship and
innovation, than does antitrust activism.
Darrell McKigney is the president of the Small Business Survival
Committee.
Raymond J. Keating serves as chief economist for the Small
Business Survival Committee (SBSC).
SBSC is a nonpartisan, nonprofit small business advocacy group
headquartered in Washington, DC
[[Page 27569]]
MTC-00025032
From: Kevin Mounts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a long-time professional software engineer living in Seattle,
I have been privy to a great deal of information about Microsoft's
behavior in the software industry, through careful attention to
various news media, discussions with other software engineers,
including those working at Microsoft, and personal experience. What
I know of Microsoft's business practices leads me to the unavoidable
conclusion that the company is severely anti-competitive, has been a
constant hindrance to progress and innovation in the field of
software development, and will not be deterred in the least in some
of its more egregious, if less public, practices by the proposed
settlement.
Settling with Microsoft on these terms is the business
equivalent of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's 1938 statement
that he had ensured ``peace in our time'' through his
settlement with Hitler over the Sudetenland.
Personally, I don't feel that anything short of liquidation
would provide adequate remedy for the harm Microsoft has done to the
industry, but as that is unlikely to happen, a break-up along lines
similar to Judge Jackson's proposal would be the minimum that would
have a noticeable effect.
Kevin Mounts
Mahana Enterprises
[email protected]
MTC-00025033
From: Will Francis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement does very little to limit the scope of
Microsoft's anti-competative and anti-consumer acts. Microsoft's
``embrace and extend'' policy attempts to have solely them
control any standard into their own defacto standard therefore not
allowing anyone to compete in any meaningful way. Whenever another
company invents something novel which may compete meaningfully with
a Microsoft product, those companies are either bought outright, or
Microsoft ``innovates'' those same services into their
Operating System such that it's pointless to purchase the original
competitors products. Java is such a perfect example where Microsoft
licensed Java and then ``extended'' it in such a way that
broke compatibility with the original version. This allow Microsoft
with it's massive installed base to become the defacto controller of
Java. Thankfully, Microsoft lost in court against Sun, but to
counter that, they simply stopped shipping Java with their products
and invented their own Java-like language. Obviously the same
pattern can be said about their browser, their media client, Office
products, games, email clients and many more.
In my opinion, Microsoft should be broken up into two companies:
1. An OS company
2. Everything else
Allow other companies to provide services for the OS on a level
playing field as Microsoft itself. As long as Microsoft can grow
their OS to include whatever industry they which to dominate next,
few will dare to compete with them.
Thank you.
Will Francis
US citizen
San Jose, CA
(408) 297-5988
MTC-00025034
From: Patrick Elliott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I believe that the terms of the settlement against Microsoft
Corporation are reasonable and fair to all parties involved, and
meet--or go beyond--the ruling by the Court of Appeals,
and represent the best opportunity for the industry to move forward.
While I personally do not see any wrongdoing on the part of
Microsoft, I am glad to see their willingness to work with the DOJ
and the industry to continue to promote fair, competative business
practices.
Sincerely,
Patrick M. Elliott, Petersburg, VA
MTC-00025035
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:43pm
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,
James Papa
66 Camille Dr
Rochester, NY 14612
MTC-00025036
From: Francesco Gallo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: Francesco P. Gallo
216 Hitching Post Dr.
Wilmington, DE 19803
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
These my few lines are a follow up of the short comments I
addressed to the Assistant Attorney General Mr. Charles A James at
the beginning of January. As one of the consumers we hope that
finally the case of Microsoft will be settled, in order to
continuing enjoy the improvements in the technology that we are
witnessing in our daily life. We fill it is vital that the company,
together with the others in the sector, dedicate more time and
resources to increase the value added that our Country so badly
needed, especially during this period of slow down.
We hope that the conclusion of this case will also avoid other
futile actions, as the one we just read in the newspapers about a
new legal suit advanced by Aol Time Warner, through Netscape. This
settlement that is in the public interest should discourage any
future actions that attempt to solve in the courtroom their
problems. We thank you for your attention.
Respectfully,
Francesco P. Gallo
CC:Francesco Gallo
MTC-00025037
From: J. Warner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'm hoping the right decision is made and future unlawful
practices are deterred. But it appears that Microsoft has been able
to side step their unlawful practices, in the past, and continue
work as normal. They continue to try and control all computer
operating systems and to deter any alternative systems. The proposed
Educational solution was just another example of their controlling
their destiny. This would have been no punishment for them. It was
their way to dominate the Educational market, besides their
continued domination of the business and home computer markets.
(Also their continued efforts to control the internet.) I'm writing
to let you know I appreciate you letting me express my opinions, on
the matter, and hope all factors are taken in to consideration. I
believe Microsoft has a choke hold on the computer world. If they
are not made to let go of that grip, one day it may be to late and
we will all pay dearly. Thank you again for your attention.
J.P. Warner
MTC-00025038
From: Robert Calhoun
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This is in response to the request for Public Comment regarding
Civil Action 98-1232 (CKK), United States of America vs.
Microsoft Corporation. I do not agree with the proposed settlement.
I do not think that the remedies it provides will prevent Microsoft
from continuing to abuse its monopoly power in the field of computer
operating systems.
About me: I am a professional software developer. I develop
custom software primarily for users of Microsoft operating systems.
I use development tools sold by the Microsoft Corporation and by
National Instruments. I also use and write software for the Apple
Macintosh, primarily using development tools provided by Apple
Computer.
[[Page 27570]]
I have used and programmed microcomputers since 1983. I have
used and written web pages for the World Wide Web since 1993. My use
of this technology predates Microsoft's interest in it, and this has
an influence on my comments. I have a strong belief that the World
Wide Web should be based on open standards which allow any software
developer to write a browser which allows the user to experience the
World Wide Web fully. My specific suggests on the remedies follow my
comments on the complaint.
On the complaint: The Government's 1998 complaint is focused on
web browsers, specifically on Internet Explorer 4. At this point,
Microsoft has released improved versions of their browser, known as
Internet Explorer 5 (``IE5'') and Internet Explorer 6
(``IE6''). The so-called ``browser war'' is
essentially over, with Microsoft Internet Explorer substantially
obliterating the competition from a market-share point of view.
(Recent browser usage statistics from TheCounter.com show IE5 has
the largest share, at 64%; combined statistics for IE4, IE5, and IE6
top 90%.)
If anything, the Government's complaint underestimates the
efforts that Microsoft has taken to reach this outcome. A large part
of the problem is the significant amount of time that has elapsed
since the complaint was filed. Much of this delay is due to requests
for stay and appeals that Microsoft has made. I believe that
Microsoft has attempted to delay resolution of this complaint until
the political winds changed in Washington, or until the issue became
irrelevant. Both have occurred.
Microsoft is clearly capable of writing a best-in-class browser.
Microsoft's browser for the Macintosh, IE5 for Macintosh OS 9, is
arguably the best browser on any platform. It combines reasonably
good standards adherence with significant user-interface
enhancements. Apple now ships this browser with every Macintosh.
While the browser is certainly very good on its own merits, it has
been suggested that Microsoft required Apple to make IE5 the default
browser in order for the development of Microsoft Office for the
Macintosh to continue. I do not know if such allegations are true,
but they are worrisome.
IE5 on the Windows platform also impressive features. One of the
most impressive, especially compared with Netscape's offerings, is
its rapid launch speed. IE5 simply demolishes the later versions of
Netscape Communicator in launch speed and memory footprint.
This rapid launch speed is partially the result of the fact that
many parts of IE5 are now built in to the Windows operating system.
Not only does IE5 make great use of these specialized operating
system components, several software components which are essential
for operation of non-browser software are installed as part of the
Internet Explorer 5 installation process. Nowhere is this more clear
than in the nature of the ``file browser'' used in Window
2000. This browser is essentially the same software as IE5.
One is called ``Explorer.exe'' and one is called
``IEXPLORE.EXE'', but these two applications have so much
in common that it is possible to surf the Web with Explorer, or
investigate files on a disk drive with Internet Explorer.
It is a well-known fact to software developers that many strange
and inexplicable problems with deploying projects that make use of
Microsoft's ActiveX technology are solved by the installation of
IE5. I do believe that Microsoft is correct when they declare that
Internet Explorer is fundamental to the functioning of the Windows
operating system. I also believe that they deliberately created this
situation. Microsoft has made IE5 an integral part of the Windows
operating system, to the point that it Internet Explorer now has its
own section under ``Internet Explorer: Platform SDK [Software
Development Kit]''. IE5 is Microsoft's recommended
``container'' for testing component software using
Microsoft's ActiveX interface, and it is at this point 100%
necessary when developing certain (non-browser) software on the
platform. A World Wide Web full of web pages designed to be viewed
with Internet Explorer is a difficult place for the users of other
browswers.
I feel I need to make it clear that I don't have a problem with
Microsoft adding web capabilities to the core of the Windows
operating system. I am not against Microsoft innovating in this area
nor in any other area of software development. Certain features
(accessing Web pages, parsing the HTML language used to write them,
etc.) are relatively low-level functions that arguably belong in a
modern operating system. Microsoft has added many, many other
operating system technologies (DirectX, NetShow, Windows Media)
which also give the end user a richer experience and make it easier
for developers to write software for the Microsoft Windows platform.
Where I disagree with Microsoft's approach is that they tend to
view any software which has a significant, or potentially
significant, market as an area in which they should seek a dominant
market position, and they use their monopoly power in operating
systems to achieve this.
The principal approach used is a) add components to the
operating system which give the operating system new power and
flexibility, b) allowing Microsoft's internal software developers
superior access to these technologies and c) giving away
technologies for free in order to obtain a dominant market position.
With respect to (a) and (b), Microsoft has at different times
claimed on one hand that a ``brick wall'' exists between
its operating system groups and its end-user groups, and on the
other that customers would suffer harm if the closely coupled
operating system groups and end-user groups were broken up into two
separate companies. These two statements are mutually exclusive.
With respect to (c), Microsoft has argued that free software is in
the consumer's best interest. Free software is unquestionably in the
consumer's best short-term interest. Sometimes, however, the process
is in Microsoft's best long-term interest. As an example, take
Microsoft's proposed settlement of the present case with those
States which have not signed on to the Justice Department's proposed
settlement. Microsoft offered to give refurbished computers and
Microsoft software worth a total of approximately $1 billion to the
nation's poorest 14,000 school districts. Schools are one of the few
markets where one of Microsoft's few remaining competitors in the
operating system market, Apple Computer, has a significant market
share. The purpose of these free computers and free software appears
to be twofold: first, to help students in these poor districts, and
second, to ensure these districts make a decisive switch to
Microsoft operating systems.
Were it not for Microsoft's monopoly power, I would not be
concerned by any of their business practices. The close working
relationship between operating system engineers and end-user product
engineers is, for example, carried on at Apple Computer and has
resulted in the release of highly respected products such as Final
Cut Pro (video editing software), to the detriment of the former
market leader in this area, Avid. But since Apple Computer does not
have monopoly power, it cannot be argued that Apple's
00025038--0003 actions are in violation of the Sherman Anti-
Trust Act. It is only because of Microsoft's monopoly power that we
must view their business actions in a different, and more critical,
light.
In this light, the original 1998 complaint of the Government
should be properly viewed as an *example* of Microsoft's
anticompetitive practices, rather than a *summary* of Microsoft's
anticompetitive practices. The example in the original complaint is
no longer relevant, as Microsoft has obtained the market supremacy
with Internet Explorer that it desired.
It is too late to correct this: nothing can be done about
Internet Explorer's dominance at this point. Rather, the goal of any
settlement should be to ensure that Microsoft does not continue to
exploit its monopoly power in an illegal and noncompetitive manner.
Areas which Microsoft does not yet have market dominance, but which
it is currently seeking market dominance comprise the following:
1) The market for streaming audio and video. Currently there are
three dominant players: Real Networks's RealMedia, Microsoft's
Windows Media, and Apple's Quicktime Streaming. It is generally
agreed that the Real Networks product yields the best user
experience over unpredictable public networks. Microsoft is
currently seeking market dominance in this area by bundling the
Windows Media Player with its operating system. This is not always
the best experience for consumers; I have found the Windows Media
Player to be slow and ungainly for listening to simple .WAV audio
files compared with Microsoft's older and less sophisticated audio
player, which is no longer available.
2) On-line services: AOL is still the dominant on-line service
despite Microsoft's investment in MSN. Microsoft still attempts to
increase the use of MSN via a) in-store promotions for new PC owners
b) desktop icons for MSN and c) MSN as the default start-up screen
for Internet Explorer. If not for these constant promotions and
heavy subsidy from Microsoft, it's unlikely that an unprofitable
enterprise like MSN would still
[[Page 27571]]
exist. AOL allegedly bought Netscape more for the Netscape
``portal'' than for Netscape's software. This is supported
by the fact that the AOL browser is based on Internet Explorer
rather than the Netscape browser. AOL failed to realize that as the
use of the Netscape browser fell to single digit percentages, the
value of the Netscape portal (which was the default home page for
that browser) would fall accordingly, which it has. Microsoft has
argued that AOL's purchase of Netscape suggests that Netscape was
actually a successful, viable company despite Microsoft's
anticompetitive efforts. Microsoft has also argued that AOL has
squandered this asset, and now seeks legal redress for AOL's failure
to use the Netscape resources in an effective manner. I cannot
really argue this latter point. AOL was unwise to buy Netscape,
which was clearly headed for bankruptcy and, whether or not AOL
acquired it, a complete exodus of key personnel. AOL tremendously
overvalued Netscape as an asset. It overpaid for it, and it has
completely failed to use what remained of Netscape's technological
assets in a remotely effective way. Just because AOL is dumb does
not mean that Microsoft does not have monopoly power, that they did
not abuse that monopoly power in the Netscape case, or that they
will not continue to abuse their monopoly power in the future. AOL's
purchase of Netscape should be viewed in light of the whole Internet
bubble economy, which allowed marginally profitable companies like
AOL to buy other companies with overvalued stock. In the case of
Netscape, AOL got little for its overvalued AOL shares. In the case
of Time-Warner, AOL got a lot. The $4.2 billion dollar Netscape
acquisition does not imply that Netscape had a fair-market value of
$4.2 billion dollars, because no one in their right mind would pay
$4 billion dollars in cash for Netscape. 00025038--0004
Microsoft has stated that AOL spent $10 billion for Netscape, but
this is incorrect.
3) Database Technology: Microsoft current makes an excellent
database server, known as MSDE, available to developers who own
Microsoft's development suite, known as Visual Studio. This product
is of very high quality, and developers may deploy it free of
charge. The goal appears to be to encourage the use of database
routines which are compatible with Microsoft's enterprise-class
database product, SQL Server. Microsoft also has developed a
blizzard of database-interface technologies (ODBC, OLE-DB, DAO, RDO,
ADO, and now parts of the new .NET) which the most diligent database
provider would have a hard time keeping up with.
I speak as a developer here. I need to use database technologies
in my Microsoft Windows-based applications, and I use MSDE. It's
free, it's fast, and it works well with Microsoft's ADO layer, since
Microsoft wrote ADO, the OLE-DB layer that ADO calls, and the SQL-
Server layer at the bottom.
I doubt that Oracle, IBM, Sybase, and MySQL have the same
ability to keep up with Microsoft's changing interface layers that
Microsoft's own engineers have.
There are many other examples of areas where Microsoft is
currently seeking market dominance. The settlement should be
designed to allow Microsoft and other software venders to compete in
an unfettered manner without giving Microsoft the unfair advantage
of having written the operating system.
Regarding the Settlement:
Sections A-C:
These remedies are focused on preventing Microsoft from
retaliating against hardware venders (OEMs) for installing non-
Microsoft middleware. The remedies do not prevent Microsoft from
installing Microsoft middleware along with the operating system, or
at a later time via an automatic download.
In the past, installation of Microsoft software components has
often broken competing products that offer similar services. It is
not clear whether the behavior is intentional or a result of the
relative fragility of the Windows operating system. Usually the end-
user's best option is to stop using the non-Microsoft product.
Merely preventing Microsoft from retaliating against OEMs is
insufficient.
Section D:
This remedy is not enforceable. The Windows API is very
complicated. Portions of it could be left undocumented, or provided
with documentation which is vague or difficult to understand, and it
would be very difficult to prove otherwise. Because the API is so
large, it is unlikely that third parties could verify that
Microsoft's own engineers used only publicly documented routines in
publicly documented ways without a very large engineering effort.
Section J:
Cryptography experts agree that secure cryptographic systems are
best built on published algorithms which have a strong mathematical
basis for their robustness. This section allows Microsoft to modify
cryptography systems, such as the Kerberos system developed at MIT,
while keeping the changes 00025038,0005 private. This makes it hard
for ISVs to develop products (such as VPNs) which are compatible
with Microsoft's offerings.
In General:
The settlement affects only ``Middleware'' This does
not address Microsoft's end-user applications such as Microsoft
Office, a widely used program with a proprietary file format. This
program has been used to influence the actions of Apple Computer and
the lack of it on the Linux operating system makes it difficult to
use Linux in an office environment.
Microsoft's approach to software development makes heavy use of
shared code (``DLLs'') and shared user interface features
``ActiveX controls''. It is possible for Microsoft to
write applications which make use of these DLLs and ActiveX controls
to create end-user applications that launch very fast and use little
non-shared memory. With these objects built in to the operating
system, ISVs have a hard time creating software that can match the
small installation size of Microsoft applications. While 3rd parties
can add DLLs and ActiveX controls to Windows, they clearly can never
remove a pre-existing Microsoft component, which might cause the OS
to break. This provides Microsoft with a significant advantage.
The settlement does not address publication of the proprietary
networking protocol SMB/CIFS, which any competing operating system
must support in order to network with Windows computers. Although
Microsoft calls this the ``Common Internet File System'',
it is undocumented. The settlement will be difficult to enforce.
Microsoft violated the previous consent decree which was supposed to
prevented it from charging OEMs for Windows on a per-machine (rather
than per copy of Windows) basis. Nothing was done to Microsoft for
violating this consent decree. A simpler solution would be to break
Microsoft into two or more companies, one of which would own the
Windows operating system and its successors, and one of which would
own end-user applications. This approach worked well with Standard
Oil and with AT&T. AT&T's situation was vastly more
complicated than a Microsoft split would be because of the physical
infrastructure involved and the overly specific way the settlement
was written. In contrast, IBM was never split up. The IBM consent
decree dragged on and on, providing a restraint on IBM's activities
and hurting its international competitiveness. I do not want
Microsoft's international competitiveness to be damaged. But I do
not want them to become the only viable vender of software for large
markets.
Microsoft could be split into two companies fairly easily. Both
companies could compete, both companies could be successful, and
both could have high stock prices. This is the easiest way to ensure
that Microsoft provides a level playing field for non-Microsoft
software developers.
Sincerely yours,
Robert B Calhoun
Qwerta Corporation
249 Elm St
Oberlin, OH 44074 00025038--0006
MTC-00025039
From: Nathan Myers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Following are my comments on the court's settlement with the
convicted offender, Microsoft, Inc.
Nathan Myers
Placerville, California.
1. It appears to me that all the proposed settlements treat the
company as if it had not yet been convicted. Worse, they ignore the
company's prior history of consciously circumventing the spirit and
letter of court orders. This is a company whose officers have
frequently denied the authority of the government to control its
abuses. For the outcome of this case to be useful, it must not only
prevent the company from harming the nation further, it must
demonstrate to Microsoft and others that the law does have teeth
even where a large and wealthy corporation is involved.
2. The main public reason for limiting the severity of a
sentence has been to avoid driving the offender entirely out of
business, harming its employees, existing customers, and
stockholders. With Microsoft's monopoly profiteering unchecked lo
these many years, it is equipped with tens of billions of dollars to
help it ride out any temporary inconvenience, regardless of
severity. I see no
[[Page 27572]]
practical need to mute the terms in order to allow the company to
continue operating. It can afford almost anything, for years.
3. All the proposed settlements I have read were complicated and
hard to administer, which probably would result in both successful
circumvention and further litigation. Simplicity is essential.
Furthermore, the burden of proof that the company is faithfully
abiding by the terms must be on the company, not on the
government(s) or the company's victims.
4. The primary means by which the company has been able to
cement its monopoly has been through enforcement of exclusionary
contracts. One effective means of limiting its power would be to
specify broad conditions under which courts are directed to rule
against the company in disputes, despite contract terms or court
precedents. (The company's monopoly and deep pockets inevitably tilt
the scales, despite any settlement terms; the court should
artificially tilt them back.)
5. Another means by which the company has excluded competition
has been to limit access to preferential prices to those who obey it
(contract or no). This mechanism should be made unavailable by
requiring that all products be available to anyone at a fixed price,
regardless of circumstances, with no permission to tailor a product
for a particular customer. Even volume discounts tilt the field
against smaller competitors; the company has no immediate need to
charge smaller customers more.
6. The company has used its control of details of its
products'' implementations to exclude competitors. It does this
both by changing existing products in undocumented ways to make them
incompatible with competitors'' products, and by keeping
details of new products secret. Forcing the company to publish
freely all details of the external behavior of their
products--their ``APIs'', ``protocols'',
and ``file formats''--would reduce this threat. (Note
that exceptions for ``security details'' have already been
proven unnecessary and actually harmful to security; given such an
exception, critical competitive details could easily be concealed.)
The company should be prevented from releasing products until the
completeness and correctness of the documentation has been
established, so it has incentive to document well.
7. The company has eliminated competition by purchasing control
of smaller companies that threatened to develop market share in
areas it hoped to dominate. The company should be prevented from
acquiring control of other companies, and should be forced to sell
off subsidiaries and divisions that would place it in new markets.
8. The company has acquired a large portfolio of patents which
could be used as an alternative means to exclude (at least smaller)
competitors. While they appear not to have used this mechanism much
yet, once other avenues of exclusion are forbidden the company will
be tempted to exercise exclusionary patent rights. These patents
should be released into the public domain immediately.
9. Much of the company's ability to attack markets comes from
its cash reserve. This should be placed in escrow, and cash metered
out for individual expenses once it is determined that they do not
contribute to monopoly dominance.
10. The penalty for failure to perform up to the terms of the
final settlement should be the wholesale loss of trade secret and
copyright status for the affected product(s).
11. Those company officers who lied under oath and falsified
evidence should immediately be prosecuted for perjury and
obstruction of justice.
MTC-00025040
From: Dave Howe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/25 4:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello:
If you want to fine them a billion dollars then fine them a
billion dollars not equipment in kind or refurbished computers.
Software CD's cost less than $ 1.00 with overheads fully accounted
for. Add a $2.00 book and it's sold by M/S for between
$100--$500....``Give'' it away and take a tax write
off for half...what kind of penalty is this. Refurbished computers
are worthless, my old computers won't run squat and no one wants
them. Plus the ``free'' runs out and then you let them
start charging for service??? If I could get the Government to help
me gain a huge hunk of market share with a positive payout in 3
years I'd do it also regardless of what you called it..
Take the cash and get a penalty with teeth NOT dentures.
MTC-00025041
From: Patricia Riendeau
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My commnets:
I believe that the terms of the settlement are reasonable and
fair to all parties, and meet--or go beyond--the ruling by
the Court of Appeals, and represent the best opportunity for
Microsoft and the industry to move forward.
Patricia A. Riendeau
Shareholder
MTC-00025042
From: Robert Crull
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
Robert John Crull
400 Breckenridge Dr. #4
Huntsville, Al 35802
Attn: Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Suite 1200, Antitrust Div.
Dept. of Justice
601 D St. NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Sirs:
As a US citizen I am going on record as being opposed to the
proposed anti-trust settlement with the Microsoft Corp. It is
inadequate to punish them for past monopolistic practices and will
not prevent them from engaging in future anti-competitive
activities. Any fair settlement that protects the rights of the
consumer and a strong competitive US economy must do two things:
Microsoft must be forbidden from entering into exclusive
agreements with computer hardware vendors that forbids those vendors
from selling computers with non-Microsoft-based computer operating
systems. They must also be forbidden from entering into agreements
that, while allowing computer vendors to place alternative operating
systems on their hardware, require that the Microsoft OS always be
the primary boot-up operating system.
Microsoft must be forced to publish all the data required to
allow non-Microsoft programmers to write applications that interact
with the Microsoft computer operating systems. There can be no
secret or hidden access to the Microsoft operating system that only
Microsoft applications writers are aware. Such hidden code gives the
applications division at Microsoft an unfair advantage in writing
their software.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Robert John Crull
MTC-00025043
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:48pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Dear Sir:
As a daily computer user, both at home and in my medical office,
I have benefitted greatly from the software produced by Microsoft.
It is inexpensive, easy to use and makes work and play easier on
many different fronts. I strongly urge you to terminate the ongoing
legal harassment of Microsoft and settle the case based on the
agreement already negotiated by the DOJ and Microsoft. This will
benefit consumers like me who want new and better software from
Microsoft and do not want to see the Company spending its money and
time defending itself from frivolous suits initiated by its
competitors who now have the 9 remaining states as their hired
goons. Thank you.
Harvey W. Topilow, MD
MTC-00025044
From: Chris Holt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Take the settlement with Microsoft.
Chris Holt
1450 North 1st St. #80
Salinas, CA 93906
831-444-6396
MTC-00025045
From: Gene Coussens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I volunteer at a high school where I am trying to keep 30
computers running for the students. My experience with MicroSoft
(MS) has been extremely difficult and at times I could not run the
required software.
Security of software: MS has no protection against students
changing the operating system and application programs unless you
[[Page 27573]]
purchase the professional version which is extremely hard to
maintain. Using another operating system (Linux) the task would be
trivial and the software would be secure. Since MS has a monopoly,
the application software is only available to run under the MS
operating system.
Cost: MS requires licenses for each machine, for a connection to
a server, a server license, and licenses for each application that
is contained in a computer. The system is designed to maximize the
number of licenses because you cannot run an application on the
server (central computer) and get the results on the client (the
users computer). Each machine must be a full system, on other
operating systems one can run applications on the server and view
the results on a stripped down machine in front of the user. All of
the software for the other system is FREE. Each computer in our
school has more than $150 worth of licenses again because MS has a
monopoly and prevents software vendors from offering the same
material on other operating systems. Because MS updates their
software every two years we spend about $75 per machine each year,
we call this the MS tax. If vendors try to offer their software on
other operating systems MS will not license their application on the
MS system.
Ease of Maintenance: MS has been patching together an operating
system based on a poorly designed core of software which has been
updated every two years. Some application software will run only on
some versions of the operating system and not on others. This makes
a tangle of application software and different versions of the
operating system on different machines. Keeping track of which
program is where is very time consuming. On other operating systems
there is a slow evolutionary migration of the software which does
not require frequent updates and the system appears almost seamless
and it is quite stable.
XP Version of Office: MS has changed the licensing method and
cost for the new version of Windows. Instead of bulk licensing for
schools they now require that we keep track of each license
separately. A machine description and the individual license
assigned to that machine is registered with MS and we are not
allowed to change parts of the computer without contacting MS for a
reactivation of the license. This is method of forcing us to get
permission to change configuration on our own computers is draconian
in nature and we will do without rather than submit to these
conditions.
The settlement that is proposed does nothing to prevent the
company from proceeding with these practices. Far from preventing
abuse this settlement says that the company is correct and is free
to find even more ways to fleece the public.
The settlement that the remaining litigants are proposing is a
far better agreement for protecting the public. In essence the MS
operating system is now a standard imposed upon the industry and
should be treated as such rather then the private domain of one
company. The settlement proposed by the remaining states creates
fair and open standards that will allow the application software
companies to write software for the other operating systems, we can
then give the end customer some choice in which system is best for
their application.
Respectively,
Eugene Coussens
retired Engineer, Hewlett Packard.
MTC-00025046
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Please settle this case now. My recommendation is that everyone
should just walk away from it all.
Jim Landfield
Tel 703-734-0840
FAX 703-790-9049
MTC-00025047
From: lowilliams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:54pm
Subject: Litigation
Sirs
I have used computers since the sixties. I have worked with IBM
operating systems, UNIX, DOS, and today use MICROSOFT Products. In
the early days IBM tried to keep everything proprietary to their
systems. For a number of years they were successful. For a while in
the seventies the DOJ talked about breaking them up, fortunately
nothing came of it. Then IBM became arrogant and figured that no one
could ever compete with them. Their positions aided in the demise of
Control Data and Univac. Then DEC came along with their smaller VAX
but more capable systems using UNIX for technical computing. DEC
greatly reduced IBM scientific computing business. Their place in
the sun lasted until the mid eighties and then they in turn faced
effective competition from HP. HP now holds a major part of the
technical computing market. There were dozens of other companies
that competed unsuccessfully for this market. IBM created MICROSOFT
when they decided the IBM Personal Computer was never going to
become big business. They let Bill Gates write the operating system.
There were other small computers based on the INTEL, ZLOG and
MOTOROLA single chip processors that used several other operating
systems. In the early PC days I used a Radio Shack Model 4 (Z-80
processor) with an operating system the name of which I can no
longer recall. All this is just to show that companies come and
companies go.
With free trade, MICROSOFT will probably be strongly challenged
by an Indian or Chinese software firm some time in the next 20
years. The challenge will not come from AOL unless they spend their
time and brain power in trying to make a better operating system,
browser or what ever and beat MICROSOFT in the market place.
MICROSOFT has created and enforced order out of chaos to the
benefit of all humanity. Take word processing as an example. Since
the early eighties I have used: ``Run Off'' a Digital
Equipment product, ``Scripsit'' a Radio Shack Product,
``Wolkswriter'' a ? product, ``Word Star'' a ?
product, ``Word Perfect'' a ? product, and ``MS
WORD''.
With most of these other programs digital files were not
compatible between computer systems or word processing programs.
Today with MS WORD I wrote a book, with text and significant art,
and sent it to my publisher in England in WORD format. The publisher
can use it for the book without any conversion.
From a users standpoint MICROSOFT products should be ubiquitous.
One of the advantages the United states has over Europe and many
parts of the world is the fact that 280 million of us speak about
the same language. The world of personal computers should also speak
one language and until the Indians or Chinese invent a better one,
let it be MICROSOFT.
The current agreement reached by the DOJ and MICROSOFT is a good
one and should be implemented. Further suits by AOL and the other
states should be ignored as frivolous. the Judge should tell AOL to
compete on with better products rather than trying to get the
government to restrain their competition.
Laurence O. Williams
1059 Oakwood Drive
Alliance, Ohio 44601
330 829 2963
MTC-00025048
From: Joe Parrette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam:
The settlement should be vacated and rewritten because of
Microsoft's recent billing practices. They have become so onerous
that only a monopoly could hope to survive. You have not done enough
to disassemble this giant of business. Just look around at their
liscensing practices for businesses.
I am sorry I did not have more information to give you but this
is just a quick note and reflects a recent change in my stance on
this settlement. Up until a few weeks ago I really thought you
should stop bothering MSFT but no more.
Thank you for your time.
Joseph Parrette
MTC-00025049
From: Charles Myers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think it would be beneficial for the entire country to settle
this case as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Charles L. Myers, D.V.M.
MTC-00025050
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is my opinion as a citizen of the United States of America
that the proposed settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust suit is a
bad idea, and that it does not prevent further monopolistic abuses
by the company. The best way (in my opinion) to resolve Microsoft's
monopoly status is to break the company into several pieces.
[[Page 27574]]
History has shown that dividing monopolies brings greater value
than allowing them to remain intact. As examples, look at Standard
Oil and AT&T--in the long term, these resulting multiple-
company systems resulting from each breakup were worth more, paid
more taxes, and employed more people than either company ever would
have on their own.
Shareholders in these enterprises benefited as well from this
growth--the value of their shares soaring as the individual
companies competed against each other.
Finally, because of the increased competition that was possible
against AT&T and Standard Oil, even more economic growth could
be experienced by the nation as outside competitors were able to
grow as well.
Thank you,
Patrick Campbell
MTC-00025051
From: John Tanzillo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please complete this action as quickly as possible. The whole
process has taken too long. Whichever way it goes is fine with me,
just end this legal mess quickly.
Thanks.
MTC-00025052
From: John Carothers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement: split the company
Greetings-
I am writing to ask that you deal severely with Microsoft in the
settlement process, as they clearly are a monopoly. Their market
share of operating systems must be well over 90%. If that isn't a
monopoly what is? This has been the case for over a decade. If that
isn't a monopoly what is? They have unfairly come to dominate the
web browser market as well with hard-ball tactics, yet many who have
suffered dare not criticize them lest they suffer further. If that
isn't a monopoly what is?
Please bring competition to the market--don't let them
``pay'' by giving away their software free and thus
further establishing their monopoly. Split the company up!
SIncerely,
john carothers
Dr. John H. Carothers
Biology Instructor
Cabrillo College
Aptos, CA
MTC-00025053
From: Wayne Minor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wish you would stop harrassing Microsoft. I use their products
because they are the best value for the money. If you ask me, Apple
is a monopoly-- you can only use their software on their
hardware. But if apple was so good, everyone would use it. Anyway, I
think my Justice department has better things to do than try to
bring down microsoft. God bless america, you can build a company
from nothing to something, and then your enemies can whine to the
government to bring you down. Netscape lost out by having a poor
product. Oh well......
Wayne Minor
Alcoa, TN 37701
MTC-00025054
From: Donna Aldinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:00pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
4074 N Gelding Drive
Prescott Valley, AZ 86314
January 18, 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 opinion about the recent settlement
in the antitrust case between the US Department of Justice and
Microsoft. First, I do not think my rights as a consumer have been
infringed upon. Second, I think that Microsoft has not acted as a
monopoly. They have consistently delivered quality products and have
not taken unfair advantage of pricing.
Microsoft has agreed to terms that go beyond the issues in the
lawsuit. Microsoft must disclose internal interfaces and protocols
within Windows, as well as grant computer makers broad new rights to
configure Windows to actively promote non-Microsoft products.
Microsoft has agreed to the terms in the settlement to bring a close
to the litigation. The settlement is in the best interests of the IT
sector, the economy, and the public. The alternative is further
litigation that is costly to our nation.
Please finalize the agreement and close the case as soon as
possible.
Sincerely,
Donna Aldinger
MTC-00025055
From: Julian Dwyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to voice my thoughts on the Microsoft antitrust
case. It seems amazing to me that the punishment for Microsoft, who
has acknowledged monopolizing the marketplace with their operating
systems and their browser, is for them to supply schools with grants
and more computers with their OS and browsers on them. What has
become of the Judicial Branch of the United States ?!?! How is this
compromise acceptable? Why is it the AT&T has to split up based
on government and Federal Court rulings, when they as far as the
public knows were not as manipulative in their business practices as
Microsoft?
As I write this email, I am using Microsoft software--
because it is what Microsoft dictated to Apple that it made the
default software. It is good software, but there are several other
software vendors that make great email clients that will never be
popular because they don't have the muscle of a giant like
Microsoft, and can't get a foothold into the market because of that
lack of power. I am an avid user of the Apple Macintosh. My entire
office uses Apple products. Most of my friends do. We use it because
it is a better computer, a better operating system. We use Office
for Mac because EVERYONE else uses it-- and we need to share
files with our clients. If it were up to me, I would probably still
use Word-- although there is scant competition on the Mac
platform, because it is a good product. At least I would have made
that choice based on myself and not what I was forced into, as we
are now. That it the difference.
The Court has a major role to play in it's rule in delivering a
verdict that is amenable to the American people. We have already
been disappointed in the Court's deciding of the Presidential
Elections. Bear in mind, that I am neither Liberal nor Conservative,
Democrat nor Republican. I am, like many Americans a believer in the
``American Way'' and always searching for Truth and
Justice-- in its purest form.
Microsoft will never change its business practices unless the
Government of the United States, in particular the Department of
Justice, does something that ensures that the American people have a
choice, a real choice. Do what's right, stop the monopoly. Punish
them justly and accordingly.
Thank you,
Julian Dwyer,
Senior Art Director
AD-TECH Communications, Inc.
215 S. 21 Avenue
Hollywood, FL 33020
Tel: 954.923.1600
Fax: 954.923.9005
http://www.medadtech.com
MTC-00025056
From: Stewart Jenkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:01pm
Subject: Comments for Federal Register
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:
Punishment
-bsPun'ish*ment-bs
, n. Severe, rough, or disastrous treatment. [Colloq. or Slang] 2.
Any pain, suffering, or loss inflicted on a person because of a
crime or offense. 3. (Law) A penalty inflicted by a court of justice
on a convicted offender as a just retribution, and incidentally for
the purposes of reformation and prevention.
As defined, Microsoft has not been punished as a result of being
found guilty. Microsoft was found guilty of violating both sections
1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. It is unfathomable that the winner in a
case, the United States government, would attempt to promote a
compromise for the punishment. There is no compromise in punishment.
Microsoft lost. They are to be punished.
Justice will not be served by hastening a decision that will
affect the people of this country or the security of this country
and the world. Microsoft should not be allowed to use the events of
September 11 to maintain their illegal monopoly under the guise of
``national security''. Expediting a settlement will have
no effect on defeating Al Qaeda. Allowing Microsoft to maintain its
illegal monopoly, as has been suggested by the proposed settlement,
will be to the detriment of our nation's security. In late December
[[Page 27575]]
2001, the FBI's National Infrastructure Protection Center warned the
American public that using the Universal Plug and Play feature of
Windows XP would allow an attacker to execute any commands and take
any actions they choose on the victim's computer. Other
vulnerabilities exist and are listed on the FBI's web site. Using
Microsoft products actually pose a national security risk. A
thoughtful, deliberate punishment should be delivered to Microsoft,
expediency be damned. Microsoft's monopoly must not be allowed to
continue. The only acceptable punishments should include forcing
Microsoft to publish their file format standards. Microsoft Word is
the most common word processor used. Once you have a grammar
checker, a spell checker, multiple fonts, a graphics processor/
importer, tables, frames, collaboration features and colored text,
then what else is there to exploit? Yet, Microsoft introduces a new
version of Word every year or so, its sole purpose being to make the
previous version obsolete by changing the file format, or the way
the text is stored on a computer. If I write a book using Microsoft
Word 2000 and save it to a recordable CD, then I carry the CD to my
publisher for publication of my book, I must be sure he can read it
on his computer. If he only has a license for Word ``97, he
can't open the file my book is stored in. The file format changed
from 1997 to 2000, even from 1999 to 2000. Text is text, yet at
Microsoft's discretion, I cannot use my own creation unless I
maintain a Microsoft licensed product. Pretty powerful company, in
that they can control how I might access my own intellectual
property. Yet a common, or published file format can always be
accessed. Others can program competing products to make it possible
for me to access my intellectual property on Microsoft operating
systems or other operating systems. Microsoft has all the control
now.
If anyone thinks Microsoft doesn't want to control the majority
of the internet, they haven't been keeping up with the computer
industry over the last ten years. Microsoft should be required to
publish all current and future internet and networking protocols. If
Microsoft does to networking protocols what it has done to document
file protocols, we are only a few years away from their being able
to control all internet access via their own protocols. They will
have a hand in every transaction that takes place over the internet.
No money will change hands, no commerce will exist unless Microsoft
says so, via their control of the protocols used for internet
commerce.
The ability to buy an off the shelf computer system without
Microsoft Windows for a lower cost than with Windows should be
possible. It currently is not possible. Microsoft operating systems
are installed on all consumer grade IBM PC compatible computers. I
pay for Microsoft Windows whether I plan to use it or not. If the
operating system was sold as off the shelf software, just as all
other off the shelf computer software, the customer could then make
an informed decision about which operating system would best suit
their needs. This would also prevent Microsoft from creating pre-
load deals with manufacturers. The customer would commit to the cost
of the operating system as a conscious act. Those that don't wish to
use Windows could choose an open source or other commercial
operating system and would not be forced to pay a Microsoft tax by
buying a pre-installed version of Windows that they never planned to
use. I currently have licenses for several Microsoft products that I
have never used because I could not buy the computer without them.
Why do I have to pay this cost? Because Microsoft says I do. --
Stewart Jenkins
Rt.2 Box 147G
Gladewater, TX 74647
MTC-00025057
From: Erick (038) Vielka(a)Home noSpam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the DOJ
As a concerned citizen and a person who makes a living with
computers I feel an obligation to send you a comment on the
Microsoft settlement. To the point, It is unjust. Microsoft was
found to be a predatory monopoly. They still will admit no wrong.
Their track record shows that they will not abide by the letter or
spirit of this settlement. You seek to place certain people as
``watchdogs'' over Microsoft yet you cripple them with
non-disclosure. Personally I am not a big fan of breaking up
Microsoft. However letting them retain all of their code as secret
and sacred without prohibiting them fro adding additional
``functionality'' is a free ticket for more them to
continue as they always have. At the very least you must force them
to document and disclose their api's this one action will allow
others to start to compete on a fairer playing field. What your
about to do is sentence everyone to continue to be unable to start
to provide an alternative and build a business on it. Microsoft
claims that Linux is competition. In many ways this is almost true.
However because of Microsoft's history of co-opting creative peoples
work changing it just enough and then adding a feature to their os
the Linux community has been forced to adopt the GNU license. This
means that most development is done for love and not money. This
issue frightens many companies that would like to develop and market
software to stay away. Microsoft will either steal their idea and
put them out of business change their API's to not work with your
software and cause you millions in bad press and development. Thanks
for listening, please stop this embarrassment of a settlement from
going forward. It is anti-competitive, it allows Microsoft to
continue all of it's illegal practices, and it is plain unjust.
Sincerely
Erick Jones
I am a registered voter, I do vote, And I have a long memory
MTC-00025058
From: Stacey Barrett
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 4:56pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
It seems obvious that this settlement is not going to solve the
problem of Microsoft's monopolizing ways. If anything, it just seems
that justice can be bought. THIS SETTLEMENT IS A BAD IDEA!
MTC-00025059
From: arthurguay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I spent the majority of my professional career in the nuclear
industry (feed materials, plutonium and tritium production) working
for AEC prime contractors. As the PC made its debut, we all had the
opportunity to test the software developed by Microsoft. Did we like
it? You had better believe it! The early word processing and data
base programs were a delight. As we moved into retirement, the
Microsoft software was even better and we are all in unamimous
accord that we wish Microsoft had come to us sooner.
Don't stifle progress. Support Microsoft for what they have
contributed to our society ; for what they have done for our kids
and grandchildren and others'' parents and grandparents.
It seems the major opponents to Microsoft's success are its
competitors who can't compete with Microsofts'' capability and
ingenuity.
Arthur E. Guay
Reno, NV.
(775) 852 1074
MTC-00025060
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As an IT profession and technologist I strongly object to the
government's persecution of an industry leader. Our industry
naturally determines a dominant player in a partcular area.
Nonetheless, it is very competitive without the overbearing hand of
government because of the rate at which technology moves and new
dominant players are selected.
Leave Microsoft alone. The case is wrongly motivated (unfairly
protecting competitors and hurting consumers) and will only hurt the
industry and the American economy.
MTC-00025062
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/25/02 5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a programmer for 30 years, a University professor for 20
years, and now as a faculty member in a department of Medical
Informatics, I would like to comment on the Proposed Final Judgment
(PFJ) in United States v. Microsoft. I know that many of my
collegues have written to you with detailed explanations about how
the PFJ will allow Microsoft to continue to exercise effective
anticompetitive conduct that continues its monopoly. I have read
some of them. They are accurate and well argued. I urge you to read
the message sent to you by Dan Kegel.
I strongly support his view. Much of the PFJ has been crafted in
such a way that it allows Microsoft to get around most restrictions,
and many important restrictions are missing altogether.
[[Page 27576]]
A software engineer can see this where perhaps a lawyer cannot.
For one small but potent example, nothing in the PFJ requires
Microsoft to release information about file formats. Note that
undocumented Microsoft file formats form part of the Applications
Barrier to Entry (``Findings of Fact'' paragraphs 20 and
39). Why was this omitted?
There are more agreggious problems with Microsoft's behavior
that are not addressed by the PFJ. For example, Microsoft
``encourages'' rumors that WINE, a program that runs under
the Linux operating system and allows Windows programs to run under
Linux, violates Microsoft Patents. Just what patents those may be
has never been revealed, but this rumor has cut off funds and
development that would have gone to the support of the WINE project.
Microsoft does not promote the best technology.
It innovates by buying up it's competition when it can, and by
overwhelming it's competition with inferior substitutes packaged
with Windows.
The Proposed Final Judgement is not in the public interest and
should not be approved without substantial repair.
Dr. Robert Williams
The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and are
not to be construed as representing the USU, the DoD, or the U.S.
Government in any way.
MTC-00025063
From: Rob LaRiviere
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:04pm
Subject: My Opinion,
My Opinion,
MFST is still allowed to create new interfaces or modify
existing interfaces in thier operating system before release without
publication. This allows all internal applications, like Office
apps, to utiltize these interfaces before anyone else has access...
Giving the applications done by MFST a head-start.
Rob
MTC-00025064
From: David Cole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is a veeeeeeeeery bad idea
It makes Microsoft's bad biz practices profitable.
It doesn't prevent bad behavior, anymore than another promise
from a fox to not eat any more chickens.
David Cole
Concerned U.S. citizen
CC:0 David Cole
MTC-00025065
From: Sandy W
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sandra Walker
229 Lee Street
Rock Hill, SC 29730
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The reason for this correspondence is to express my support of
the settlement reached in the Microsoft antitrust case and to state
I believe you should do likewise. For far too long Microsoft has
been coerced into court, spending millions that it could be using to
build better products and create jobs.
The settlement reached will give computer makers broad new
abilities to offer non-Microsoft products, either as separate
operating systems or as components on Microsoft operating systems.
This settlement will actually give competitors new advantages
against Microsoft. Unbelievably, competitors still are condemning
this settlement because they want something that is much more
detrimental and unfair for Microsoft.
I strongly urge you to support the settlement that is available
in this case and to repel those interests that want to derail it.
Sincerely,
Sandra Walker
He who ignores discipline comes to poverty and shame, but
whoever heeds correction is honored.Proverbs 13:18, NIV
MTC-00025066
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wish to strongly defend Microsoft's actions in the marketplace
and encourage those involved to minimize if not eliminate the
penalties being assigned to Microsoft in the current settlement
being proposed. Thank you for your time and attention.
Adam Schmidt
WebTone Technologies
Atlanta, GA
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025067
From: david shaner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing regarding the Microsoft Settlement.
Before getting some things off my chest I want to say that the
Settlement penalizes Microsoft far more than either is necessary or
deserved. If in the end you decided that Microsoft has to much say
in contracts then your Settlement is more than enough to correct the
situation and so just get the thing done. It is enough. The truth is
that the case was never about Microsoft having too much power or
even a monopoly; this case was never about truth or justice or even
law. This case was always about a few competitors (for the most part
competitors who were largely unaffected by Microsoft's contracts
with OEMs) abusing the power of the state to protect markets, their
overinflated prices and generally prevent Microsoft from competing
with them. The law and the American legal system were used as a tool
to attack and attempt to destroy a competitor. I cannot tell you how
disgusted I was to witness what occurred in this case. What was
evidenced is that law in this country is handmaiden to powerful
politicians and popular culture. I hope to God I never get dragged
into a court of law in this country because the truth is that if the
judge doesn't like me the truth won't matter; the truth is that if
there is political gain to be made by hanging me, the truth won't
matter and I will be hung. Nine states have not agreed to the
settlement because Scott McNealy and Larry Ellison and their ilk
don't want the states to settle. Nine states have not agreed to the
settlement because a few self-serving politicians think they can
gain more power by not settling. There is absolutely nothing in
their decisionmaking about an adequate settlement or a settlement
that best serves consumers. Please salvage some respect for American
Law and our justice system. Please show that antitrust law is at
heart for consumers not for the few corporate creeps to hide behind
when their ineptitude leaves their companies in danger of failing.
Please just get the current settlement signed.
Sincerely,
David J. Shaner
MTC-00025068
From: Dan Rose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to express my dismay--or more accurately,
utter disbelief--at the Justice Department's proposed
settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case. I urge you to
reconsider.
The essential problem with the settlement is that it offers no
punishment for the years of antitrust violations found by three
federal judges. It offers only some weak guidelines for future
behavior. This is equivalent to having a trial for a bank robber,
finding him guilty, and then sentencing him to being nicer next time
he robs a bank.
I have been working with computers and as part of the computer
industry for over twenty years. I have been a programmer, a student,
a researcher, a manager, and the Chief Technical Officer of a
company. I have worked for Fortune 500 companies and 3-person
startups. I have a Ph.D. in Computer Science. I have used all sorts
of computer operating systems dating back before Windows even
existed. I have used the Internet for years, long before the World
Wide Web was created. So I think I have a pretty good perspective on
how the industry has changed, and what role Microsoft has played in
those changes.
Microsoft has portrayed itself, through advertising (as well as
a fake letter-writing campaign) as an innovator flourishing in the
free market. This simply flies in the face of the facts. Nearly
every one of Microsoft's so-called innovations was either purchased
from someone else or simply copied. In the latter case, the true
innovators were then put out of business through Microsoft's illegal
monopolistic practices.
Here are just a few examples, known to even the most casual
student of computer history. Which of these innovations came from
Microsoft? MS-DOS, the operating system Microsoft provided for the
original
[[Page 27577]]
IBM PC? No, that was created by Seattle Computer Products. It was
originally called QDOS (for ``Quick and Dirty Operating
System'') and was hurriedly bought by Microsoft after Bill
Gates learned that IBM needed an operating system for its new PC.
Gates told IBM that he had an operating system, then quickly went
and bought one. The spreadsheet? No, that was VisiCalc, invented by
Software Arts and later perfected by Lotus's 1-2-3.
The modern word processor? No, there were many others, such as
WordPerfect, before Microsoft Word.
The ability to network PCs? No, Novell and Apple did that long
before Microsoft.
The graphical user interface? Hardly; SRI, Xerox PARC, and Apple
all developed the ideas that Microsoft used in Windows. The Internet
Explorer web browser? No, that was licensed from Spyglass, the
company that commercialized the original version of an earlier
browser called Mosaic, which was itself developed at a government-
funded research center.
In fact, every one of those innovations was invented by another
company and was available to consumers before Microsoft was
involved. Microsoft's primary contribution to the computer industry
has been in putting the true innovators out of business. It's gotten
to the point where entrepreneurs avoid certain markets entirely
because they fear the wrath of Microsoft.
I am a capitalist, and I believe in the free market. Yet I also
believe that when a company tilts the playing field by ignoring the
laws that others are following, it must be held accountable. No one
can bring back the many companies Microsoft put out of business. But
if Microsoft were held financially responsible for the damage it has
done, and made to give back its ill-gotten gains, then there would
be an explosion of new innovations that would benefit all of us.
Sincerely yours,
Daniel E. Rose
MTC-00025069
From: Paschke, Kellie
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 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: Comments Submitted in Support of the Proposed Microsoft
Settlement Agreement
Dear Ms. Hesse:
As Chair of the Iowa House of Representatives Judiciary
Committee, I can appreciate how difficult it was to reach a proposed
settlement in the Microsoft antitrust litigation. I am pleased to
add my voice in support of that settlement, not because I agree with
the entirety of the case or every single aspect of the agreement,
but because it is time to move on. If accepted by the Court, this
settlement will allow Microsoft and its competitors to continue the
amazing innovation that has defined the past twenty-plus years while
also defining the direction of the government's role in the high-
tech industry.
Please continue to urge the Court to accept this settlement,
because to do so will bring more certainty to an area of the law
that can ill afford to be without it.
Sincerely,
Chuck Larson
MTC-00025070
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: American Atr,Microsoft ATR,ASKDOJ,president@whiteh...
Date: 1/25/02 5:08pm
Subject: A washingtonpost.com article from
[email protected]
You have been sent this message from [email protected]
as a courtesy of the Washington Post
(http://www.washingtonpost.com).
SO, WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THESE BACKHANDED DEALINGS! THE
PEOPLE DESERVE AN ANSWER TO THIS!!!!
To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-dyn/articles/A34746-2002Jan24.html Group Faults Disclosure
of Microsoft's Lobbying
By Jonathan Krim
Microsoft Corp. and the Justice Department failed to make key
public disclosures in connection with their proposed settlement in
the company's antitrust case, an organization of antitrust lawyers
and academics has charged. In a complaint filed yesterday with the
federal judge handling the case, the American Antitrust Institute
said Microsoft did not adequately report its lobbying activities
about the agreement, as required by the federal law that governs
antitrust settlements. Microsoft reported no conversations or
contacts with members of the Bush administration about the
agreement, except between lawyers who negotiated the deal, which are
permitted. The disclosure law is designed to reveal any improper
political pressure that might be exerted on the Justice Department
on behalf of a company involved in legal action. Microsoft's report
surprised many consumer groups and Microsoft opponents, who have
watched the software giant spend upwards of $5 million a year on
lobbying in Washington. In particular, Microsoft did not disclose
any congressional lobbying in connection with the agreement. The
company has said it is following precedent in other cases, in which
only contacts with the executive branch have been reported under the
law, known as the Tunney Act. The antitrust institute, which opposes
the settlement, believes this interpretation violates the law, and
hopes the judge will enforce it now. ``The Tunney Act is
supposed to be a meaningful statute, providing meaningful
disclosures that will inform the public so that it can fully
evaluate an antitrust settlement,'' said Albert A. Foer,
president of the organization. ``In this, the most important
antitrust case of our generation, it is essential that the process
be adhered to with care and commitment.''
Microsoft spokesman Vivek Varma said the company's lobbying
disclosure complies with the law and ``we are looking forward
to court review of the settlement.'' But late yesterday the
author of the law, former senator John V. Tunney (D-Calif.), filed
an affidavit with the Justice Department saying Microsoft's
disclosure violates the intent and letter of the act.
``Congress meant members of the Executive, Legislative, and
Judicial branches of government,'' wrote Tunney, now a lawyer
in Los Angeles. ``Congress specifically intended to cover
communications by officers of a defendant corporation, lawyers of
such corporation, lobbyists of such corporation, or anyone else
acting on behalf of such corporate defendant. If I had not been
satisfied this was the plain meaning of the statute, I, as the
principal author of the legislation, would not have pressed the
legislation through to final passage.'' In addition to its
concerns over the lobbying disclosure, the antitrust institute
argues that the Justice Department failed to adequately explain why
it limited the agreement to certain sanctions and rejected others
that had been pursued by prosecutors in the Clinton administration.
Foer said the judge should not rule on whether the agreement is in
the public interest until Microsoft and the Justice Department
comply with the disclosure provisions. He also said the judge should
extend the period for public comment. Microsoft questioned the
motives of the institute, saying it has received contributions from
Oracle Corp., a Microsoft rival. Foer said Oracle does not influence
policy at the institute and is merely one of many companies and
organizations that have contributed small sums to it pay its bills.
The Justice Department declined to comment on the institute's
complaint, which was part of a flurry of activity as the long-
running Microsoft case enters a new and more complex phase. The 60-
day period for public comment on the proposed settlement is
scheduled to end Monday, and both Microsoft and its rivals have been
feverishly preparing their views for submission to the court. Trade
groups supported by each side have been attempting to generate
grass-roots support. In one incident, a telemarketing firm
representing pro-Microsoft forces accidentally called one of the
leaders of an anti-Microsoft coalition. Gauging public sentiment is
difficult, however, because the Justice Deartment so far has
declined to make the comments public. A department spokeswoman said
past procedures dictate that all the comments must first be
collected, and department responses drafted, before the material is
submitted to the court and made public. The Justice Department has
until the end of February to respond to the comments. After that, it
will be up to District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to rule on
the settlement. Meanwhile, however, she is scheduled to begin
separate hearings on March 11 into whether tougher sanctions should
be imposed on the company for violations of antitrust laws. Nine
states and the District of Columbia balked at signing on to the
federal settlement deal, and are pursuing the case on their own. And
this week, AOL Time Warner sued Microsoft directly, seeking damages
for its Netscape subsidiary, which was found by courts to have been
hurt by anti-competitive acts by Microsoft.
MTC-00025071
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 27578]]
Date: 1/25/02 5:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am pleased that this is finally coming to an end. We have
better things to spend our time AND money on.
Unfortunately, AOL has decided to continue this pursuit. My
honest opinion is that Netscape lost its market share because they
would not create a browser that complied with standards and ended up
frustrating users.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025072
From: Jason Bailey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that the Microsoft settlement is a bad idea. As a
computer user, software developer, and American citizen, I am very
unhappy with the terms of the settlement--they are easily met
with little financial impact or effect on the way Microsoft
operates.
--Jason Bailey
MTC-00025073
From: Lewis Kopp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:09pm
Subject: Comments on the Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I have been involved with computers since the late 70's, having
built a MITS Altair 8800 computer, bought an Apple ][ in `79,
and used everything from: a Kaypro ``portable'' computer
that weighed around 25 pounds; DEC PDP-11/23's & 11/73's;
DEC Vax and Alpha computers, Apple Macintosh computers, various
brands of PCs (I was the micro-computer specialist for the Cleveland
VA at one time); and so on. Up to the current PC's with Intel
Pentium 4 processors and Macintosh G4s. I even have a paper tape
backup of MITS Basic that, I believe, was the first product that
Bill Gates wrote and sold.
That paper tape also represents probably the last thing the Bill
Gates wrote and originated. Since that point he has made use of his
true genius as a marketing person and knowing what products to buy
or copy to take Microsoft to the point where it virtually totally
dominates the market. The courts have finally admitted what most
people in the industry with an ounce of common sense have known for
years--that Microsoft was, is, and with the current, proposed
settlement will always be--a monopoly.
Better products that Microsoft couldn't buy have been
slaughtered in the market place by Microsoft's overwhelming
advantage of writing both the operating system AND the primary
business applications used under that operating system. Microsoft
has NEVER had the best operating system, they have simply have one
that is generally adequate along with a set of applications that are
pretty good. But this combination and their marketing muscle have
led to them dictating terms to businesses around the world. Due to
the need for data compatibility between computers, people have been
forced to use Microsoft products--whether they wanted to or
not.
The proposed settlement largely ignores reality and the way
people and companies actually work. When a manager's salary depends
on how many employees he manages, it is not likely that he will ever
pick a product that would reduce the need for his employees.
Consequently, Microsoft products are picked and Information Systems
departments (especially the support departments) continue to grow.
Along the same lines, consultants will rarely recommend a product
that would not require them to come back and help train and maintain
it. These realities mean that the proposed settlement is largely a
farce and will not in any way curb Microsoft's anti-competitive
practices. This is evident in the release of the latest version of
their operating systems, Windows XP. Now users will basically be
required to have an internet connection so that they can register
their copy of XP. And this isn't just the first time they use it!
No, they have to do this if they make too extensive of a
modification to their computer--whether due to upgrading it or
replacement of defective components as well as on a yearly basis.
And the yearly registration isn't free! Sure, they get upgrades
installed automatically during the year, but the upgrades get
installed whether or not they want them! As a software engineer, I
know that this is likely to be a nightmare for anyone who uses XP.
User: ``The computer was working fine yesterday, but now it
won't work. I didn't change anything so what happened?'' Tech:
``Well, there's a problem with the latest update of XP for your
particular model of computer. That update was installed
automatically when you logged onto the internet this morning.''
Microsoft's new initiatives for copy protection of music and movies
is yet another example of them using their dominance to dictate
terms to the public and businesses. In this case, they may have some
assistance from shortsighted Hollywood executives who will do
anything they can to make it impossible for the average person to
make fair use of music or videos that they buy, even though it
doesn't prevent a determined professional from making copies that
they can then bootleg and who represent the vast majority of illegal
copies.
Personally, I believe that Microsoft should be split into at
least two companies--one systems software and one application
software. The two companies should not be allowed to deal with each
other anymore closely than either would with a third party company.
This sort of solution would bring competition back into the
marketplace instead of letting Microsoft continue on as they have in
the past--which is what they did after the previous settlement
and is what they will do if the proposed settlement is put into
place. As a secondary issue, the monitoring process proposed would
be a waste of taxpayer money as well as being totally ineffective. I
urge that the proposed settlement be rejected and one put in place
that will prevent the abuses that Microsoft has been perpetuating
for so long! The courts have ruled that Microsoft is a monopoly.
They should be treated as such and broken up.
Sincerely,
Lewis Kopp
MTC-00025074
From: Rusty Carruth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement falls far short of the minimum needed to
address the violations of law, while it is a good start. One concern
I have is related to the following story: http://www.linuxworld.com/
site-stories/2001/0820.austin.html which, among other things, says:
``There is an insidious aspect to a citywide, multi-year
plan. It locks users into Microsoft products only. While the
Enterprise Agreement doesn't specifically prohibit the use of other
products, effectively it does. It's logical to assume that if you're
paying for MS Exchange for three years why allow a department to
consider an alternative. (Microsoft makes hay of this point in a
Word-formatted white paper extolling the Enterprise
Agreement.)''
Motorola has apparently entered into one of these Enterprise
Agreements with Microsoft, and from the way they (Motorola) are
acting, it appears that the no-non-Microsoft-software effect may be
more than just a side-effect, as Motorola is on a massive effort to
REPLACE perfectly working non-windows (and free) mail (and other)
tools with Microsoft's versions. Against the strong objections of
those whose tools are being replaced. This indicates to me that
Microsoft has made little, if any, change to its behavior. This
behavior has resulted in the practices which were found to be in
violation of the Sherman Act.
Also, since Microsoft has used ``middleware'' to keep
its operating systems monopoly, especially Internet Explorer, it
seems that any kind of just settlement must include at least one,
and possibly more, of the following remedies:
(1) disallow Microsoft from developing, selling, or buying
companies which develop or sell middleware (for a period of, say 7
years from the date of the settlement, after which the limitation
will be reduced) (note that this includes .net);
(2) place Internet Explorer in the public domain or otherwise
remove it from the suite of Microsoft tools;
(3) place Windows in the public domain or otherwise separate it
from the non-OS offerings of Microsoft;
(4) require Microsoft to establish a fund, from which half of
the cost of developing/porting software to non-Microsoft operating
system(s) would be paid, to a maximum of $500,000 payment. This fund
should have some amount of cash up front, with some percentage of
Microsoft OS sales price being placed into the fund for some period
of years (for example, 10% of the customer sales price would be put
into the fund, paid by Microsoft on a quarterly basis, for the next
7 years).
(5) require Microsoft to become more than one company. In any
case, the proposed remedy does not adequately address the misdeeds
of Microsoft, nor does it even begin to redress the wrongs
promulgated against the computer-using public.
I am a computer professional. I write software on Unix systems,
and I have been
[[Page 27579]]
directly (and very negatively) affected by Microsoft's predatory
practices.
Please note that I also support and strongly agree with Dan
Kegel's Open Letter, which I will be a cosigner of.
Thank you very much
Rusty Carruth
Rusty E. Carruth Email: [email protected] or
[email protected]
Voice: (480) 345-3621 SnailMail: Schlumberger ATE
------
FAX: (480) 345-8793 7855 S. River Parkway, Suite 116
-bse/
Ham: N7IKQ @ 146.82+,pl 162.2 Tempe, AZ 85284-1825
V
ICBM: 33 20' 44''N 111 53' 47''W http://
tuxedo.org/�7Eesr/ecsl/index.html
``Why would anyone choose a tool that is the primary virus
vector of the known universe?''--me
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025075
From: GP
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:09pm
Subject: An open letter concerning the Microsoft Anti-trust
settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am categorically and diametrically opposed to any settlement
with Microsoft corporation that:
1. Fails to severely punish Microsoft for its crimes, and
2. Does not apply the strongest remedies available to prevent
those crimes from reoccurring
You must make absolutely certain that Microsoft is forever
prevented from ever again using its ill gotten market dominance and
vast cash reserves to stifle fair competition and innovation in the
U.S. computer industry. The damage already done has been great, but
make no mistake--this company continues to use the same methods
today that initiated this case. From all indications, it will
continue to do so until strong legal action is taken to stop it.
History will look back on this critical case and harshly judge
whether our judicial system succeeded or failed when faced with such
incomprehensible wealth and corrupting power. If you do not stop
Microsoft at this time--and the hour is very late
indeed--it will soon complete its stranglehold on all areas of
the U.S. computer industry including the Internet and beyond and
thus destroy the last great competitive advantage our country
retains in the world market. History has clearly proven such rogue
monopolies to be intrinsically the enemies of our democracy and free
market system. Let this duly convicted criminal monopoly know you
recognize it for what it truly is.
Highest regards,
Gary Piland
CTO, VP Interactive
Callahan Creek, Inc.
CC:Gary
Piland,[email protected]@inetgw,tjohns...
MTC-00025076
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft sttlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania,NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing to you today to voice my opinion in regard to the
settlement that was reached between Microsoft and the government in
November of last year. I feel that this issue has drawn on long
enough and that it is time to end this dispute permanently. I
support this settlement.
Microsoft has pledged to disclose more information with other
companies, such as certain internal interfaces in Windows. Microsoft
has agreed to make available any protocols used in Windows operating
system that are used to interface with any Microsoft server. These
provisions will make it easier for companies to compete.
Additionally, Microsoft will agree to be supervised by technical
oversight committee created by the settlement.
This settlement will enable Microsoft to get back to the
business of technology. I support the settlement, and believe it
should be implemented as soon as possible.
Sincerely
Fred Jimeian
MTC-00025077
From: Bud Graham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen,
Why doesn't AOL wake up and smell the roses and try cooperation
once instead of running to the courts.
The consumer would certainly benifit in the long run.
MTC-00025079
From: arthurguay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge you to look in your own offices and see the proliferation
of the ``BEST BUYS FOR YOUR MONEY'' on your desks and the
desks of your interns, aids, and secretaries. What do you see?
INTEL-PROCESSOR- POWERED-PERSONAL COMPUTERS WITH MICROSOFT SOFTWARE
Why do you see this combination? You see it because you bought the
best. YOU MADE THE BEST BUY! If you need further substantiation of
your SMART BUYS, go to the Senate and House offices and you will
find the same best-of-breed buys.
MTC-00025080
From: Helen Froyd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:15pm
Subject: Antitrust settlement between Dept of Justice and Microft
Sirs: This lawsuit has continued long beyond any reasonable time
period. Probably because it should have been thrown out before it
began. However at the present time the provisions for settlement go
far beyond what you deserve and I urge you to accept the settlement
without further delay.
Sincerely
Helen Froyd.
MTC-00025081
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly feel that the government should settle this suit and
get on with cleaning up the laws controling all industries and
standardize regulation on all government department and their
personal to assure that they enforce the laws to the benefit of the
public not industry self interest.
John Bendokaitis
17182 Eastview Dr
Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44023
MTC-00025082
From: Terry Egan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed
Microsoft settlement. I agree with the problems identified in Dan
Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html), namely:
The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing
operating systems:
Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using
restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the
PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the
Applications Barrier to Entry.
The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and
Provisions:
The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, but
it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important APIs
are not covered. The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace
Microsoft Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines
``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version
of Windows might not be covered at all. The PFJ allows users to
replace Microsoft Java with a competitor's product--but
Microsoft is replacing Java with .NET. The PFJ should therefore
allow users to replace Microsoft.NET with competing middleware. The
PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it defines that
term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP Tablet PC Edition,
Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-Box--operating systems that all
use the Win32 API and are advertised as being ``Windows
Powered''.
The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and
not informing ISVs. The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API
documentation to ISVs so they can create compatible
middleware--but only after the deadline for the ISVs to
demonstrate that their middleware is compatible.
[[Page 27580]]
The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API
documentation--but prohibits competitors from using this
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with
Windows.
The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away
potential users.
The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms
currently used by Microsoft:
Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep
Open Source apps from running on Windows. Microsoft currently uses
restrictive licensing terms to keep Windows apps from running on
competing operating systems. Microsoft's enterprise license
agreements (used by large companies, state governments, and
universities) charge by the number of computers which could run a
Microsoft operating system--even for computers running
competing operating systems such as Linux! (Similar licenses to OEMs
were once banned by the 1994 consent decree.)
The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities
Historically Used by Microsoft:
Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional incompatibilities
in its applications to keep them from running on competing operating
systems.
The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs
The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that ships
Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but no
Microsoft operating system.
The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small
OEMs--including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are
historically the most willing to install competing operating
systems--who ship competing software.
The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) to
OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC
systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other
areas.
The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective
enforcement mechanism.
I also agree with the conclusion reached by 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,
Terrence M. Egan
[email protected]
Geodesic Tripoint
Cupertino,CA
MTC-00025083
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Why is the government wasting their time and our tax dollars by
letting AOL get away with this. As anyone wonder why AOL has to sue
in order to compete? Could it be that Microsoft has a better
product? I think so. I use IE because it is far better than
Netscape.
AOL spends its time and money to gobble up all the smaller ISPs
such as CompuServe. They want the competition to go away so they
don?t have to compete in a free market. I know they are not using
the money to improve AOL's infrastructure. I can tell you some
horror stories about AOL and their poor service from my own
experience and others.
I have always wonder why is Microsoft being accused of being a
monopoly while a company such as AOL Time Warner is not considered a
monopoly. IF AOL can not survive on it's own without help from the
DOJ, then it should be allowed to fold due to it's own poor product
and service.
Thank you for reading my views.
Lawrence Ohnheiser
Aiea, Hawaii
MTC-00025084
From: Joseph Kitchenman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
Mr. Attorney General:
Please advise the competition of Microsoft to stop crying and
build a better product! The market place will go with the winner and
we all will enjoy their new and wonderful products, as we have done
with Microsoft.
This is the American way of business.
When you rip off Microsoft we all lose.
Thank you.
Joseph Kitchenman
MTC-00025085
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
End this now.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025086
From: Karl Klein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Ms. Hesse:
It would be a sad miscarriage of justice if the proposed remedy
results in the elimination of the one market (education) where MS
does not wield complete monopoly power.
The terms of this settlement are completely puzzling to me. How
do the terms of this settlement compel Microsoft to change it
practice(s)? Please revisit the terms of this settlement and be sure
that it does not ``reward'' Microsoft with a complete
monopoly in every aspect of computing-- including education.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl W. Klein
Instructional Technology
Education Department
PO Box 2000
State University of New York College at Cortland
Cortland, NY 13045
[email protected]
607.753.2444 (voice)
607.753.5976 (fax)
MTC-00025087
From: Paul Mugar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
2 Inez Street
Camarillo, CA 93012
January 24, 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 a final decision at the end of
this month on whether the proposed Microsoft settlement will benefit
the public. I believe it's fine as long as Microsoft is left
standing, when it's all said and done. If the nine states are
allowed to overturn the agreement and move ahead with additional
litigation, it could take another three years and billions in legal
expenses all incurred by the consumers and the taxpayers. How is
that a benefit? Microsoft has agreed to not enter into any
agreements obligating any third party to distribute or promote any
Windows technology exclusively or in a fixed percentage, subject to
certain narrow exceptions where no competitive concern is present.
The Company has also agreed not to enter into agreements relating to
Windows that obligate any software developer to refrain from
developing or promoting software that competes with Windows. From
this one could see that Microsoft is more than willing to cooperate
in order to resolve this issue.
I urge you to end this now. No more action should be taken at
the Federal level.
Sincerely,
H. Mugar
cc: Representative Elton Gallegly
MTC-00025088
From: rbf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Ms Hesse,
I would like to comment on the Proposed Final Judgement pursuant
to the Tunney Act. The settlement does not deal with software
incompatibilities introduced by Microsoft to impair competing
products, or with their corruption of open standards to the same
end. This has been a favorite anti-competitive tactic of theirs,
which they have the temerity to call `innovation'.
The definitions of ``middleware'' &
``API'' are excessively narrow, permitting Microsoft to
evade them with semantic manoeuvres
[[Page 27581]]
such as calling a communication protocol an administrative protocol.
It does not deal with Microsoft's continuing anti-competetive
behavior since the original judgment, such as tying windows XP with
.NET. It allows Microsoft to continue milking the public &
frustrating competition by introducing undocumented changes in
Office formats. It allows Microsoft to continue licensing practices
intended to prevent competing products from being installed under
their operating system. It relies on behavioral remedies which have
in the past been quite ineffective with Microsoft, who simply
disregard any agreements to cease their deprecated practices .
I have been a software practitioner for over 25 years. In my
experience, Microsoft are without peer in the shoddiness of their
products. If they were required to compete on the merits, they would
not enjoy their present monopoly, consumers would have reliable
computing facilities, & the business world would not be spending
$10 billion a year remedying Microsoft's cavalier disregard for
quality.
While time is on the monopolist's side, & it would benefit
the public to settle the case before Microsoft can extend its
monopoly further, the proposed settlement is not in the public
interest & should be rejected.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
--Rich Fuchs [email protected]
Richard B. Fuchs
1117 Hamilton Ln.
Burlingame, CA 94010-3346
(650) 697 7214
MTC-00025089
From: S T
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whoever reads this
My Opinion on this is that you are letting Microsoft off the
hook. I completely disagree with letting them off because as both a
user and a technical support person, I am sick and tired of dealing
with their mess of overly integrated software. I feel that I have
been forced to use Microsoft Operating systems, and product, do to
Microsoft's Monopoly Why can't I run office on Linux?, Why do I have
to spend hours pulling my hair out trying to fix a damaged system
that could be easily fixed if I could remove unwanted pieces of the
bundled software the installs with a Microsoft OS? I am getting more
and more tied of them limiting how I can control my computer. If I
was given a chose to run a Microsoft OS or a version of Unix/Linux I
would run Unix, because it is stabler, more configurable, and I have
the ability to replace any part of the system I want. Plus I can
find what any part of the operating system does, because of how
available information is on the subject. This isn't the case with
Microsoft. I have purchased their technical manuals which for the
most part are a joke, and have been getting worse as the years go
by. This is a very short list of things that cause me problems, and
I don't want to force who ever read this to go on and on. So to sum
things up please force Microsoft to change currently they have
control and the ability to kill off any one who gets in their way
please stop this from continuing.
Thank you
Sam Taxis
MTC-00025090
From: Stanley A. Klein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In my view, Microsoft has used a large number of approaches in
maintaining its monopoly. The proposed settlement essentially gives
Microsoft a government-endorsed license to continue using many of
these approaches. Two issues that I will address are the business
model apparently assumed by the proposed settlement and Microsoft's
use of its office application proprietary data formats as a means of
maintaining its monopoly. Implicitly Assumed Business Model
The proposed settlement appears to implicitly assume that the
basic business model of the software industry is the closed source
model. Under this model, which is used by Microsoft and many other
companies, the intellectual property in the software is kept as the
proprietary property of the provider. Source code and much of the
documentation are disclosed only under limited circumstances,
generally involving payment of fees and execution of non-disclosure
agreements.
Continued dominance of this business model in the marketplace is
very much in the interest of Microsoft, and is especially reflected
in the requirement of Clause (ii) of Definition N that defines a
Non-Microsoft Middleware Product as one distributing at least one
million copies a year. There is another business model, known as the
free software or open source business model. (The term
``free'' in ``free software'' is in the sense of
libre, not necessarily in the sense of gratis.) In this business
model, the intellectual property in the software is dedicated to
what Lawrence Lessig calls an ``innovation commons.''
There is no fee, royalty, or permission required for the right to
obtain the source code, or to copy, modify, or distribute the
software. The details, history, implications, and important public
benefits of this business model are best explained (in terms
understandable by legal professionals) in Lessig's book ``The
Future of Ideas.''
According to numerous press reports, many public statements of
its executives, and (in at least one case) an explicit provision
included in a non-negotiable end user license agreement, Microsoft
regards the free/open-source business model as a major potential
competitive threat. The inclusion of clause N (ii) of the settlement
allows Microsoft to refuse to provide rights under the settlement to
products of ISV's who adopt the free/open-source business model.
For example, it may be almost impossible to determine how many
copies of a free/open-source middleware product or software
application are distributed in any given year. The software is
freely copyable and redistributable by anyone. There is no license
registration required under the free/open-source business model, and
no other indication that a copy has been distributed unless the user
has contracted for value-added services (such as warranty or
support) from a particular distributor of the software. As a
minimum, Clause N (ii) should be deleted. In addition, the entire
settlement should be reviewed to ensure that none of its provisions
allow Microsoft to withhold rights under the settlement from ISV's
who are part of the community surrounding the free/open-source
business model. In that community, a relevant ISV could be a single,
technically-qualified individual who makes significant contributions
of software to the innovation commons on a spare-time basis. This is
reasonable, because software produced by such individuals is often
used by millions of users. Office Applications
In my experience, one of the major approaches used by Microsoft
in maintaining their monopoly is through their office applications,
including Word (word processing), Excel (spreadsheet), Powerpoint
(presentation slides), and Access (database). This approach would
have been blocked had Microsoft been broken up as provided in the
original decision of Judge Jackson. The break-up having been
disallowed by the Appeals Court, there need to be provisions added
to the settlement that block this approach. Microsoft maintains its
monopoly through its office applications by using proprietary file
formats that can only be properly interpreted or produced by
Microsoft products that run only on Microsoft operating systems. I
am an independent consultant in computers, communications, and
management science. I have long preferred office applications
produced by competitors to Microsoft. My preference is based on what
I regard as the superior functionality of those products. However,
when I wish to exchange documents with clients or with other
participants in professional committees, I am often forced to use
formats compatible with Microsoft office applications or to use the
Microsoft office applications themselves. Attempting to use third
party software with Microsoft proprietary formats often leads to
difficulty, because Microsoft uses a variety of technical and legal
measures to make it difficult for competing applications to
interpret or produce documents in their proprietary file formats. As
a result, it is very difficult for a user to avoid using Microsoft
applications and Microsoft operating systems if the user desires to
exchange office documents with other users. Examples of the measures
used by Microsoft include making the formats for new versions of an
office application incompatible with the formats of previous
versions and prohibiting reverse engineering in their non-negotiable
(``click-wrap'') end user license agreements.
To prevent Microsoft from using such measures, I believe that
the settlement be amended to:
1.Require Microsoft to openly disclose all details of its
proprietary file formats, and
2.Require review by the Court of all Microsoft non-negotiable
end user license agreements to ensure that the terms and conditions
of such agreements do not support maintenance of Microsoft's
monopoly. To remedy the Microsoft monopoly will require an extensive
period of transition during which users can be expected to use both
Microsoft and competing office applications. The period of
transition (and therefore the
[[Page 27582]]
duration of the settlement requirements) should run at least ten
years.
Stanley A. Klein
Principal Consultant
Stan Klein Associates, LLC
P.O. Box 2523
Rockville, MD 20847-2523
301-881-4087
MTC-00025091
From: ESS Computers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
ESS Computers, Inc
1807 HWY 31 SW
Hartselle, AL 35640
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I would like to inform you that I believe that the settlement
reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice regarding
the antitrust suit will be a benefit to the IT industry as a whole.
The suit has delayed the progress of the technology sector, while
along also slowing down the economy. The politicians that carry on
litigation against Microsoft have continued to dig further and
further into taxpayers'' pockets to fund their personal
crusade. This must be stopped. Microsoft has agreed to not retaliate
against any OEMs that may ship software that competes with the
Windows OS. Microsoft has also agreed to the establishment of a
three person ``Technical Committee'' that will monitor its
compliance to the agreement.
It is time to put this suit behind us. We cannot go on depleting
public resources for an issue that has come to a conclusion. All
that remains now is that you make certain that the settlement is
finalized, and Microsoft is allowed to return to doing what it does
best: innovate.
Dinah Horner
President
MTC-00025092
From: Dennis F. Kahlbaum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I will make this brief.
I am in total disagreement with this so-called
``settlement''. Microsoft has been rightfully convicted as
being a monopoly, and therefore should be severely punished. This
``settlement'' is simply a slap on the wrist and will NOT
change this company's predatory and dominating behavior. The DOJ has
wasted years of effort, and money, if this ``settlement''
is adopted. I strongly urge the DOJ to reconsider its position and
do whatever it takes to allow FAIR competition to return to not only
the computer operating system market, but to whatever Microsoft
decides to conquer next (PDAs, Gaming Consoles, etc.)
Thank you.
Dennis F. Kahlbaum
MTC-00025093
From: Harry Binswanger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:24pm
Subject: Comment on MSFT settlement
To whom it may concern:
I think any attack on Microsoft is unjustifiable. They have done
nothing other than create and market software--which anyone is
free to use or not, regardless. There's been no coercion and no
charge of coercion against Microsoft.
It looks like they are being prosecuted for the
``sin'' of being ``too successful``--i.e.,
providing ``too much'' value.
No, I am not a Microsoft employee or stockholder--and I
don't even like a lot of Microsoft's software. E.g., I use Netscape
as my browser. And I use XyWrite instead of Word. Supposedly, I'm
not ``free'' to do that--but I am. I am able to
decide for myself.
Microsoft should be lauded for its success, not hobbled by
government's coercive powers.
Regards,
Harry Binswanger, Ph.D.
President,
TOF Publications, Inc.
Harry Binswanger
[email protected]
MTC-00025094
From: Jerry Clabaugh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
``None of the people who run divisions are going to change
what they do or think or forecast. Nothing.''
-Bill Gates, interview in The Washington Post on the 1995
consent decree, August 1995
``The practices Microsoft agreed to forgo had already
served their purpose. Gates was right when he summed up the effect
of the [1995] consent decree in one word: ``Nothing.''
-James Gleick, ``Making Microsoft Safe for
Capitalism''
The present Consent Decree has many shortcomings which render it
ineffective in ``unfettering the market from Microsoft's
anticompetive conduct''. In particular, the Technical
Committee, which has been characterized as a major concession by
Microsoft, gives the proposed Decree the appearance of meaningful
enforcement while moving the reality of enforcement beyond reach.
These are some of the difficulties with the Technical Committee:
(1) The Committee has wide powers to look at documents and
interview individuals, but has no power to cause Microsoft to behave
differently.
(2) The information gathered by the Committee will be
confidential, unlike information gathered in the past by the Justice
Department, further complicating enforcement (B9).
(3) Since Microsoft appoints one of the first two members, and
the third member will be appointed by the first two, Microsoft is
permitted to establish a committee with a majority of members who
have no interest in enforcing the consent decree, even if thay had
the power to do so.
(4) The members are supposed to be individuals who are experts
in software design and programming (B2), while they will also
require expertise in antitrust law and history.
Even though the terms of the proposed Decree are very relaxed,
Microsoft, if it remains under the same management and philosophy of
the 1990's, will pay no heed to the proposed Decree. If the Decree
is accepted, we will be in the same position as in 1996, with a
decree in place, but no enforcement options beyond bringing yet
another antitrust action.
It is my belief that breaking up Microsoft would be a bitter
experience, full of dislocations for all those with an equity in
Microsoft; managers, employees, stockholders, and customers. Yet
when the antitrust action is brought yet again, the only reasonable
remedy then will be a breakup. The only measure we can take now to
prevent this outcome is to provide meaningful, effective enforcement
in the current case.
The Committee only impedes the job of enforcement. The
dissenting States'' proposal does include real enforcement
terms, and is a preferable alternative to the proposed Consent
Decree.
I have focussed on the Technical Committee, but the present
Decree gives Microsoft the imprimatur of the Department of Justice
to pursue many anticompetitive strategies. Reading the proposed
Decree without context gives one the impression that it was the
government that was found guilty of interfering with Microsoft's
right to abuse its monopoly. If I have read the news accounts
correctly, then it is instead the case that every federal judge who
has had to evaluate the Microsoft's behavior (nine, to date) has
found Microsoft guilty of abusing its monopoly. Why then, are there
so many limitations and exceptions? Is Microsoft in such danger of
being unfairly treated by law enforcement, when that enforcement has
been vindicated again and again by the courts?
The proposed Decree unfairly limits the ability of the public to
seek enforcement of antitrust law against Microsoft, and should
therefore be discarded. Even a simple fine would motivate management
at Microsoft to learn about the meaning of antitrust law, without
limiting the rights of the public.
In addition, the proposed Decree does nothing to ``deny
Microsoft the fruits of its violations of the Sherman Act'', as
instructed by the Appeals Court.
The importance of implementing an effective remedy looms larger
than ever before, since computer security is now an issue that needs
very serious attention in the United States:
``In a report released this month titled ``Cyber
Threats and Information Security: Meeting the 21st Century
Challenge,'' the Center for Strategic and International Studies
(CSIS) concluded that the government and the private sector should
be concerned about the ``trustworthiness'' of future
Microsoft products''
-cnn.com, December 29, 2000
``Gartner recommends that enterprises hit by both Code Red
and Nimda immediately investigate alternatives to IIS, including
moving Web applications to Web server software from other vendors,
such as iPlanet
[[Page 27583]]
and Apache. Although these Web servers have required some security
patches, they have much better security records than [Microsoft's
web server software] IIS''
-Gartner Group, September 19, 2001
The fact that Microsoft's attitude toward security remains so
casual, despite many high-profile security failures is an indication
of the unhealthy effect of their monopoly power. In a competitive
market, competitive pressure should have caused Microsoft to
``clean up its act'' with respect to security. Today, the
United States cannot afford an unrestrained predatory monopoly in
computer software.
Besides security, the other important reason to reject to
proposed Decree and instead insist on real enforcement is economic:
Microsoft's policy of extinguishing innovation that it cannot co-opt
certainly has benefitted Microsoft and its investors, but threatens
the larger United States economy.
The Microsoft monopoly and the consumer software market emerged
simultaneously, so no one can say what the economic benefits of
antitrust enforcement would be. I can only hope that the Court will
give prosperity a chance.
I am in no way a competitor of Microsoft. Thank you for the
opportunity to be heard,
Jerry Clabaugh
20 Magoun Street
Cambridge, MA 02140
MTC-00025095
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This anti-trust suits against Microsoft are awful for our
economy and for the consumer's. The only people that benefit are
lawyers & Microsoft competitors that want to overcharge for
their inferior products. I think the government is punishing
Microsoft for being successful.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025096
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
I am writing to express my support for Microsoft in its attempts
to reach a settlement on the antitrust action.
It pains me to see valuable resources in the government and at
Microsoft wasted on litigation that ultimately has backfired and
ceased innovation. As a computer consultant, I am not an agent of
Microsoft, but like many others I use their products and development
tools in my work. For years people have had a choice concerning
which operating system and browser to use on their office and home
computer. Did Microsoft strong-arm dealers into selling its
operating system with the hardware? How can this be? Consumers in
the real world demand and need an operating system for these
machines at purchase time. ``OEM'' licenses grow out of
CONSUMER DEMAND, not the demands of a software giant. Does Microsoft
benefit? Of course they do. How does this hurt innovation? It is in
Microsoft's perpetual interest to innovate because the demands of
consumers grow each year; new peripheral and hardware technology
demands new operating systems and browsers as well as new
applications to handle the merging of these technologies. In fact,
Microsoft depends on the new revenues from new versions of its
operating system. A well-known criticism of Microsoft is that they
charge for upgrades and new OS versions. However, people buy these
updates despite the fact that it is still possible to perform all
personal and business work running Windows 95 on older machines. Why
do people buy the new systems? It usually to take advantage of new
hardware or third party technology. Does SUN or AOL Netscape suffer?
Simply put, there is no AOL without Windows. There is no Netscape
browser without Windows. It is utterly ridiculous for these
companies to claim injury while they ride on the backs of the
Microsoft operating system themselves. Could operating systems be
better? Of course they can, but creating an OS for machines made by
a myriad of manufacturers and sold in an infinite number of
configurations by various retailers is a large task. I do not see
SUN or AOL creating operating systems that are better. I do not see
the R&D dollars going towards creating a better mousetrap. This
is because litigation has replaced innovation at these companies.
Would it be difficult to create an operating system that individuals
and businesses would flock to? Yes, of course; unless this OS could
run existing business applications and handle existing hardware.
This is a tall order and until someone else comes along, Microsoft
is filling the need. Not only that, Microsoft helps developers use
its technology in offering free seminars and classes. Bookshelves
are filled with ``How To'' manuals on MS development
because it is easier to build on Windows than to create an OS from
scratch. This is just smart business practice on the part of
Microsoft, not unfair.
A case in point to illustrate the Microsoft scenario: Coca Cola
and Pepsi have demanded exclusive contracts with supermarkets and
fast food chains for years with a minimal amount of antitrust action
against them. When Royal Crown was pushed out of these markets, they
claimed that Coca Cola and Pepsi engaged in unfair business
practices. How often do you see RC in these markets now? Litigation
cannot change consumer demand. For all intent and purpose, two cola
manufacturers held a monopoly. Do you think supermarkets and
McDonalds complained that they had to stock Coke? Of course not. As
far as the packaging of the Internet Explorer browser with the
Operating System goes, it is unbelievable that this simple concept
of integrating the browser with the OS has escaped the Justice
Department and the judicial system. An Operating System IS A BROWSER
for your hard drive. With technology tending towards Wide Area
Networks and Internet services, it is naturally the next step to
integrate and combine the browser with the OS. This innovation and
simplification has been destroyed by the government and judging from
the recent action taken by AOL Netscape, it will be even further
delayed if not killed altogether.
I hope you understand that I do not work for Microsoft. I
regularly use IBM technologies with many clients including Lotus
Notes, AS400 and DB2 databases. These products and services have
their place in the market too. In fact, I believe XML technology
stems from IBM, if I am not mistaken. How has Microsoft reacted to
this? Well, rather than sue IBM or other creators of XML, Microsoft
has INTEGRATED and ADOPTED this technology and INCORPORATED it in
its new products. Sounds like a smart business practice to me.
So, if AOL wants to make a browser, let them. If SUN wants to
recapture some portion of a market they never had, let them create
their own OS. That is what Apple has been doing for years. Do they
have the large part of the market? No, but they are innovative and
successful in their market. In this time of recession and economic
recovery, please do us all a favor and help redirect the resources
being wasted in this antitrust action.
Craig Shaynak
CRS Consulting
(323) 661-6927
(213) 499-0972 pager
CC:Kurt Eric Schenk (E-mail)
MTC-00025097
From: Greg Smethells
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is a monopoly. This has come about because Microsoft
does not play fair when it comes to interfaces that allow
interaction with their software or by-products of their software. A
major component of this, in the simplest form, is file formats. The
major problem different operating system have when interacting with
Microsoft's OS is that their competing applications do not properly
handle the file formats that are prevalent everywhere due to the
Microsoft monopoly.
A remedy would be to enforce all Microsoft file formats to have
open specifications that must be correct for periods of time (no
lying in the specification). Any changes to the specification would
need to be broadcast so that others had time to react. No hurt to
Microsoft can come from that aside from better competition. A better
solution would be to open-source the code that implements
utilization of the file formats in all manner of ways. It would also
be wise to enforce that writing programs to these specifications
work in almost all cases before assuming that indeed the code and
specifications for important protocols is truly opened up. The best
solution would be to enforce the openness through a standards
committee run by third-party individuals from academia who have no
ties to Microsoft, Sun, or Linux companies (Red Hat, etc).
Only when the Microsoft monopoly file format's, protocol's, and
interface's specifications are open-sourced, correct, and
unchangeable for extended periods, can we assume that others will be
able to compete.
Greg
Gregory J. Smethells
Computer Science Graduate Student
University of Wisconsin--Madison
[[Page 27584]]
MTC-00025099
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:25pm
Subject: Settlement is bad for me...
The settlement does nothing to stop MicroSoft from destroying
Real Audio the same way that it destroyed Netscape. The settlement
does nothing to prevent MicroSoft from making it's online service
incompatible with other operating systems and browsers, which it has
already done for a short period, to maintain it's monopoly in
desktop operating systems and browsers, or devising other novel
methods to illegally protect it's monopoly. The settlement does
nothing to prevent MicroSoft from making it impossible for free
software developers to adapt their software to operate in conjuntion
with software on platforms running MicroSoft operating systems,
again to illegally protect it's monopoly.
Obviously what would be best for all would be for MicroSoft to
come to its senses and accept the responsibilities of being a law-
abiding corporate citizen. What is gained for the public by
punishing MicroSoft?
Unfortunately, MicroSoft is unwilling to do this, as it has
shown by the ambiguous, legalistic language that it has used to
describe it's future conduct and it's continuing defence of past
conduct that both a District Court judge and a unanimous Appeals
Court have found to be illegal. Unfortunately, by not
``punishing'' MicroSoft, not only will MicroSoft be
encouraged to continue its predatory, illegal, anti-competive
practices, but others will also. Please spare us.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025100
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is absolutely fair in my opinion. Why do
less successful, talented and innovative companies feel that the
only path to success is through litigation. They should concentrate
on building better products.
The settlement should be accepted.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025102
From: Jorge Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to add my name to those who think the proposed
settlement with Microsoft is not good.
Jorge Martin
Addison, VT
MTC-00025103
From: Robert N. Brauer
To: Microsoft Comment
Date: 1/25/02 5:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
The following proposal is intended as a public comment on the
Proposed Final Judgement under the Tunney Act. Executive summary
The Justice Department's proposed antitrust settlement with
Microsoft seems to demand that Microsoft do more to open up its
application programming interfaces (APIs) to commercial competitors.
A more effective remedy would be one that required Microsoft to
standardize and publicize the entire set of Windows APIs and the
file formats of its Office applications with the express goal of
allowing all competitors, including non-commercial developers, to
build Windows software applications and operating systems that
compete with Microsoft on a level field. Proposal
The Justice Department's proposed antitrust settlement with
Microsoft seems to demand that Microsoft do more to open up its APIs
to competitors. This addresses the main technical advantage that
Microsoft weilds as a monopoly; that many of the Windows APIs and
Office applications file formats are hidden, undocumented, or
changed at will. This leaves consumers locked into Microsoft's
control because their applications cannot be run in a competing
environment, and their information cannot be accessed with competing
applications. But the fine print makes it clear that Microsoft could
pretty much continue with business as usual. No requirement is given
for complete disclosure of the Windows APIs and Office file formats.
If Microsoft is given the means to withhold portions of these
interfaces from competition, then it's monopoly position remains
unaltered.
A more effective remedy would be one that required Microsoft to
standardize and publicize the entire set of Windows APIs and the
file formats of its Office applications with the express goal of
allowing competitors to build Windows software applications, and
operating systems, that compete with Microsoft on a level field.
This should be a public disclosure and not limited to a few
Microsoft selected developers. It needs to include all developers so
that true competition may be revived.
The remedies in the Proposed Final Judgement specifically
protect companies in commerce, organizations in business for profit.
On the surface, that makes sense because Microsoft was found guilty
of monopolistic activities against ``competing''
commercial software vendors like Netscape, and other commercial
vendors like computer vendor Compaq, for example. The Department of
Justice is used to working in this kind of economic world, and has
attempted to craft a remedy that will rein in Microsoft without
causing undue harm to the rest of the commercial portion of the
industry. But Microsoft's greatest competition on the operating
system front comes from Linux--a non-commercial
product--and it faces increasing competition on the
applications front from Open Source and freeware applications.
The biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet Information Server
is Apache, which comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-profit.
Apache supports a significant portion of the World-Wide-Web, along
with Sendmail and Perl, both of which also come from non-profits.
Yet not-for-profit organizations have no rights at all under the
proposed settlement. Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong
language against not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says
that it need not describe nor license API, Documentation, or
Communications Protocols affecting authentication and authorization
to companies that don't meet Microsoft's criteria as a business:
``...(c) meets reasonable, objective standards established by
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its
business, ...''
The settlement gives Microsoft the right to select it's
competition and effectively kill other products, like Open Source
projects that use Microsoft calls.
Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It
deals with disclosure of information regarding the APIs for
incorporating non-Microsoft ``middleware.'' In this
section, Microsoft discloses to Independent Software Vendors (ISVs),
Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs), Internet Access Providers
(IAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs), and Original Equipment
Manufacturers (OEMs) the information needed to inter-operate with
Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in the footnotes at the
legal definitions for these outfits, we find the definitions specify
commercial concerns only.
Under this deal, the government is shut out, too. NASA, the
national laboratories, the military, the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, even the Department of Justice itself,
have no rights. Clearly the disclosure of APIs and file formats must
be public and available to the entire software industry. Such a plan
would require careful oversight and enforcement, since Microsoft
could easily engage in all manner of foot-dragging. If Microsoft set
out to be uncooperative, it could release the API information
slowly, in deliberately confusing ways, or assiduously following the
letter of the court's order while flagrantly violating its spirit.
(There's precedent here: This is precisely how Microsoft behaved
during the trial when it told the court that it would supply a
version of Windows with Internet Explorer removed from its guts, but
gee, sorry, then Windows wouldn't work.)
Remember that Microsoft is in court as a repeat offender; the
current antitrust suit, in which a federal district court and an
appeals court have both affirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly and
that it has abused its monopoly powers, arose out of the failure of
a previous consent-decree settlement of an earlier antitrust case.
At some point, having repeatedly violated the law, Microsoft needs
to pay a price, or it will continue with its profitably
anticompetitive ways.
There's no reason to think the Justice Department's proposed
settlement will work any better than the consent decree of last
decade did. And financial penalties can hardly wound a company that
has a cash reserve of billions of dollars. But intellectual
property--that's something Bill Gates and his team really care
about. Requiring them to divulge some of it in order to restore
[[Page 27585]]
competition in the software market might actually get them to change
the way they operate.
With Microsoft's APIs and file formats fully standardized,
documented and published, other software vendors could compete
fairly--which, after all, is what antitrust laws are supposed
to promote. We might then be faced with a welcome but long
unfamiliar sight: a healthy software market, driven, as today's
hardware market is, by genuine competition.
Portions of this proposal contain text authored by columnists
Scott Rosenberg and Robert X. Cringely.
Regards,
Robert N. Brauer
MTC-00025104
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
I would like to express my complete support for the settlement
reached between the Department of Justice and Microsoft in the
recent anti-trust trial. The settlement addresses all significant
issues raised during the trial while at the same time avoiding
excessive regulatory measures. I believe that the terms of the
settlement will give the parties who opposed Microsoft during the
trial important new rights and abilities which will significantly
enhance their competitive position. At the same time, the settlement
preserves the right for Microsoft to continue to enhance its product
based on customer feedback, which has been the fundamental reason
for its enormous success.
My sincere congratulations go to both Microsoft and the
Department of Justice for their continued commitment to come to a
settlement that benefits American consumers and business.
Sincerely,
Mike Sax
President,
Sax Software Corp.
Eugene, Oregon
541) 344-2235
2852 Willamette St. #359
Eugene OR 97405
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025106
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My name is Paul H. Parry. I am the Chief Technology Officer of
Rocketworks LLC, an Internet integration firm with experience with
web server platforms from companies including Microsoft, IBM, Sun,
and AOL(Netscape). I am writing to SUPPORT the proposed settlement
as the best and fastest way to restore competition to the affected
markets, preserve existing competition in related markets, and
quickly stabilize to the technology economy at a time when stability
is badly needed.
As has been shown in recent analyses (http://www.actonline.org/
press--room/ releases/ACTNov5.pdf), this settlement addresses
every concern and infraction upheld by the Courtof Appeals, and
provides many additional consumer benefits that are not required by
the court's ruling.
The previous, overturned, ruling would have affected other
markets, including web server platforms, handheld device operating
systems, web content and e-commerce activities, that were not
affected by Microsoft's behavior. All of these are thriving,
competivive markets in which Microsoft is one of several innovative
players. This settlement preserves that competition.
As many have said, Antitrust laws exist to protect consumers,
not competitors. This settlement protects consumers more than
adequately. The overturned order, as well as the newer request of
the non-settling states, are aimed at providing benefits to
Microsoft's competitors, without any judgement of whether their
failings were due to Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior or their
own lack of innovation. The matter of providing remedies to
competitors is best left to private actions, such as the one being
brought this week by AOL.
Consumers'' views of Microsoft and its competitors are
clear. In the latest Harris Interactive survey of corporate
reputations (http://www.harrisinteractive. com/pop-- up/rq/
gold.asp), Microsoft was judged to have the 2nd best reputation
among the US's 60 most visible corporations. This is up from 9th
place in 2000 and 15th in 1999. Meanwhile, America Online placed
50th, down from 39th in 2000 and 26th in 1999. This is just one of
many indications over the last four years that consumers like
Microsoft's products, services, and corporate reputation.
Thank you for your attention,
Paul H Parry
Chief Technology Officer
Rocketworks LLC
211 Perry Parkway
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025107
From: Gruber, Brad
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 5:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The first resolution of splitting Micro$oft, was by far the best
and should have been executed. The only people who didn't want that
to happen is Micro$oft and their preferred partners.
I blame the current technology recession on Micro$oft. Sure!
They scared every computerized company on the planet into upgrading
their systems because of Y2K, draining their budgets, forcing them
to spend money they didn't even have. Well guess what... who wrote
the software in the first place that was so susceptible to the year
2000 bug?
One topic I have yet to see, is FALSE ADVERTISING! Micro$oft has
continually lied about how secure their products are. I shouldn't
have to explain this one to anyone that can read. Lied about how
much easy it is to use when it is progressively getting more
difficult. Selling products that don't work as they are advertised
is simply wrong.
There are lemon laws for cars, recalls for everything under the
sun. Why doesn't Micro$oft (and every other software company) have
to stand by the products they make? If it doesn't work the way it is
advertised, why are they the only industry that can get away with
it?
There is quite a bit of speculation about the DOJ's decision to
``Wimp out''. There are also quite a few people that have
formed the conclusion that Micro$oft paid for the DOJ's decision and
now some of you have summer homes, fancy cars, and trust funds for
your kids that you never had before.
Do your job and protect us!
If you don't... who will?
MTC-00025108
From: Derick Siddoway
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:28pm
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 comment on the Proposed Final Judgement is simple. Microsoft
has been found guilty in a court of law of not only being a monopoly
but of improperly using its position as a monopoly to harm
consumers. Any settlement must therefore address this simple
statement of fact.
The Proposed Final Judgement does many things, but what it does
most effectively is present the appearance of doing something. It
may or may not be appropriate to punish Microsoft for past misdeeds,
but it is certainly relevant and appropriate to prevent Microsoft
from future misdeeds.
The Proposed Final Judgement does none of that. I should
probably go further into specifics on this, but others have already
done so and have done so much better than I can. Please direct your
attention to the comments on this URL: //http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/letter.html
Sincerely,
Derick Siddoway, Salt Lake City, Utah
Derick Siddoway II. Impact Non-privileged primitive users can
[email protected] cause the total destruction of your
entire invasion fleet and gain unauthorized access to files.
--CERT Advisory CA-96.13
MTC-00025109
From: parx@theshearers. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I, Parx Shearer, believe that Microsoft's actions have been a
disgrace to the computing industry and worthy of harsh retribution.
Microsoft unashamedly sought to bring down competitors in any manner
possible, legal or otherwise. Now Microsoft believes that it can not
only get away with this behavior, but continue this behavior in the
future. I find this unacceptable and send this comment to you in
hopes that justice will be served against Microsoft so that all
software vendors may have equal opportunity to offer their products
for the betterment of the American society.
Thank you, Parx Shearer
[[Page 27586]]
MTC-00025110
From: John S. Hartley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CC:MSFIN@Microsoft.
com@inetgw,[email protected]...
MTC-00025110 0001
??
Dear DO J,
As I have said and believe with all my heart many times; you
people can and do screw up more things than you can possible
correct. Enron is something you should focus on. Leave people alone,
Microsoft does more good that we benefit from directly as consumers
than any other company, when it comes to computers. I dislike the
government enough without you people messing around with my computer
and software at home. Ask yourself, what could you tell me that
might possibly change my mind? 9-11 ? Not hardly! I have since
9-11, come to feel that this government is solely responsible
for what happen to us. Now we have given up some more freedom for
security. We are a nation of sheep!
Our leadership have been greedy, corrupt, self-serving, too
ambitious and many more weaknesses. Sin really can kill! I start at
Kennedy (and lets not forget Clit-tongue), (even Westmoreland and
Johnson should have been put on trial as war criminals) because that
is when I started looking and experiencing the world. I was stupid
and young, wanting to do as Kennedy suggested, ``Ask not what
your government can do for you but what you can do for your
country''. Idealistic and stupid! The government use to belong
to the common American, now it is the hands of... The little guys
like me sit out here in the real world, dealing with your realities
created by weeping hearts. I have to live your screw-ups and watch
the true values of America being flushed down our commodes. How
unintelligent our country's leaders have become, not to mention the
people that constitute it (me to). I served my country for 10 years
and put my life on the line. Now as I look back, I would not do
that, I am older and wiser. Would you like to tell me to my face
that I am not patriotic? I don't think so, not to my face anyway. I
realize you are only a department of this government and I can't
expect you to do much more than what you are doing. Individuals that
make up our government are fine people, still I wonder how many are
too ambitious and self-righteous. Would I welcome any of you into my
home? I seriously doubt it with all my heart, just as I know in my
heart that our leaders are responsible for letting 9-11
happen. Sorry I have no faith in our government and most of the
people in it. Still, I was born and reared in the hills of Virginia.
The most I can do is to teach my children that, ``this country
is only as great as its people and they with many more generations
have much to do to make it great again''. Because we the people
have let stupid leaders both democrat and republican take us astray
from the true values. God's values! And yes I write my government
representatives and they are in the same boat with you. We don't
have the America I grew up and fought for. It was great then but not
now. How's that for a prelude to a hate crime?
God Bless America, George Bush
And John Ashcroft
John Hartley
1154 Londonberry Lane
Glen Ellyn, Illinois
([email protected])
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
Click Here
MTC-00025110--0002
01/29/2002 3:50 P
MTC-00025111
From: Rick Lazansky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'd like to voice my objection to the proposed settlement for
Microsoft.
I've been involved in the development of software for 25 years,
starting with the software development for operating systems and
software tools with Intel Corporation. Over this period, it has
become virtually impossible to develop independent software. Most
alarmingly the nature of the difficulty has grown exponentially over
the past decade.
Competitive software requires modular, independent software
application interfaces, open standards, and the free exchange of
ideas, techniques, and algorithms. The availability of this
information has decreased abruptly in each area in which Microsoft
has launch an initiative. Even where Microsoft has participated in
an open standard, subsequent events have either a) revealed that
their real resources were directed to a proprietary standard, b)
that their actual participation in the standard development served
to delay the standard in practice, c) they hid or blocked progress
towards resolving critical areas or d) that they later sought to
``make proprietary'' later versions of the standard.
Computer users deserve a choice of solutions, whether general
software for the consumer, or specific tools for business,
engineers, or even software development. Microsoft has increasingly
kept this from occurring. The subtlety by which it is possible to
preclude effective outside development frightens me. It has become
less obvious to even long term practioners perhaps, but using
internet interfaces, Java, and even the C programming language has
become nearly impossible without incurring delay as well as
proprietary platform dependence.
Regards,
Rick Lazansky
Rick Lazansky
VP Product Development
408 987 0603 x314
http://www.xpedion.com
mailto:[email protected]
MTC-00025112
From: Ron Bolin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Business Practices and Preception
RE: Microsoft vs. 9 States
Hi,
Just my 2 cents.
I truly think that Microsoft has excellent products. However, I
also believe that they will bury anyone who gets in their way.
Something akin to ``it's my way or the highway''. I'd like
to see a binding ruling that makes them more co-operative with
others. I guess some of that power comes with their wealth. I don't
envy anyone that has to make the ruling. Good luck and do you best
job.
Ron
MTC-00025113
From: Jason Thomas
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please consider the attached comments authored by C. Boyden
Gray, Chairman of Citizens for a Sound Economy and partner at
Wilmer, Cutler, and Pickering.
Jason M. Thomas
Citizens for a Sound Economy
1250 H Street NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005-3908
phone: (202)942-7621, fax: (202) 783-4687
www.cse.org
Citizens for a Sound Economy...organized Americans committed to
preserving our economic freedoms.
CC: Erick R. Gustafson,Paul Hilliar
MTC-00025113--0001
January 23, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
To Whom It May Concern:
I write to endorse resolutely the proposed settlement between
Microsoft Corporation and the United States Department of Justice.
The consent decree agreed to in U.S.v. Microsoft enjoins all
Microsoft actions that were found to be illegal and imposes severe
restrictions on the company and its business practices. The decree
is the most forceful and the most regulatory ever negotiated by the
U.S. Justice Department, wherein Microsoft agreed to provisions that
were substantially more punitive than what plaintiffs could have
expected to achieve through litigation. For instance:
The company is prohibited from exclusive dealing arrangements or
any preferential treatment from manufacturers, access providers,
suppliers and vendors. Manufacturers will retain greater freedom to
display non-Microsoft software, and will no longer face the risk of
retaliation from Microsoft should they choose to promote products
made by Microsoft competitors. Should Microsoft fail to abide by any
of these restrictions, a committee of experts is to be created that
will receive all complaints pertaining to Microsoft's business
practices.
The consent decree runs for five years, with an additional two
years if Microsoft is found to be in violation of any of its
terms--a lengthy period of time in any industry; more so in an
industry as volatile and dynamic as computer software.
Despite all of this, opponents of the decree--which
include, not surprisingly,
[[Page 27587]]
many of Microsoft's industry rivals and their
supporters--continue to belabor two points: First, that the
Court of Appeals decision that led to this settlement upheld the
core argument of the government's case, that Microsoft held a
monopoly in operating systems; and second, that the settlement
between the company and the government is not only inadequate but
unenforceable.
First of all, yes, the Court of Appeals did find Microsoft's
exclusive dealings to be monopolistic, which is exactly and
specifically what the company has been prohibited from doing in the
future, according to the terms of the decree. The current District
Court judge in the case even made the point that ``the scope of
any proposed remedy must be carefully crafted so as to ensure that
the enjoining conduct falls within the [penumbra] of behavior which
was found to be anticompetitive.'' (transcript of Scheduling
Conference before the Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, September
28, 2001, at 8.) It would seem that specifically prohibiting the
company from engaging in the activities that were found to be
monopolistic would meet this criterion.
MTC-00025113--0002
As for enforceability, included in the unprecedented provisions
of the decree is the creation of an independent three-person
technical committee to monitor Microsoft's compliance with the
agreement. The committee will reside at Microsoft headquarters and
that will have complete access to all Microsoft facilities, records,
employees and proprietary technical data. This includes the source
code for Windows, which some have pointed out is the equivalent of
having access to the ``secret formula'' for Coca Cola.
In addition to the Technical Committee, the Department of
Justice and each of the nine states that have so far settled with
the company, will all have the power to monitor Microsoft's
compliance and to seek remedy if the company fails to meet the terms
of the decree. Microsoft has also agreed to create and implement an
internal compliance program to educate their managers and employees
about the different restrictions and obligations the decree imposes
on them. All of this goes far beyond what the Court of Appeals
originally required.
It seems none of this is good enough for those who are
determined to pursue this case until the bitter end--an end
that could mean bitter consequences for this nation's high-tech
industry, not to mention the economy as a whole. The claims that
survived the Court of Appeals decision were, and remain, very
narrow. The idea of splitting the company apart had been dismissed.
The company's ``tying'' practices were found to be legal.
All that was left were proposed measures such as forcing Microsoft
to sell Windows software without including its Web browser, instant
messaging or media player applications--an indication of just
how trivial this case has become in terms of ``harm to
consumers'' when measures such as these become the bargaining
chips.
One Microsoft opponent has said that you assume consumer harm
results from monopolization. But it is difficult to see how
consumers might benefit from having the Media Player or Instant
Messaging applications deleted from their software. Microsoft did in
fact offer a browserless version of Windows at one point during
litigation. Nobody wanted it.
It is important to remember that decrees in civil antitrust
cases like this are designed to remedy, not to punish. Microsoft was
found to be engaged in illegal business practices, it has been
prohibited from those practices in the future, and faces severe
repercussions should it fail to meet these prohibitions. And yet,
opponents continue to complain that the decree is useless because it
will have no ``material'' impact on Microsoft's business.
Microsoft's opponents like to say there are loopholes in the
loopholes, and speak forebodingly of the years of additional
litigation that will result. The irony here is that they are the
ones refusing to settle the case, they are the ones prolonging the
litigation, and they are the ones finding fault with enforcement
provisions that are unprecedented in a conduct decree such as this.
MTC-00025113--0003
The Department of Justice, which represents the public and is
the principal interpreter of the federal antitrust laws to the
Judiciary, has achieved a powerful settlement and wants to move on.
There are a few attorneys general with questionable expertise who
want to prolong the uncertainty clouding the marketplace. They
should recede from the federal action, and let the private sector
litigants get back to creating jobs instead of enriching lawyers.
If this case is truly about protecting consumers from illegal
and monopolistic business practices, then that has been accomplished
in a reasonable, enforceable and unprecedented manner through the
consent decree negotiated between Microsoft and the Justice
Department and supported by nine States. If, on the other hand, this
case has turned into an opportunity to prolong litigation and wring
additional dollars out of Microsoft, it is in the best interest of
the public, the economy, and indeed the judiciary to bring this case
to an end as precipitously as is possible.
Sincerely,
C. Boyden Gray
MTC-00025113--0004
MTC-00025114
From: arthurguay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please recognize three key facts:
1.) Those who are suing Microsoft are second-best companies who
can not compete with Microsoft on the quality of software needed by
the masses.
2.) I have never met an individual who has said he/she were not
satisfied with Microsoft's software. People are NOT saying they have
been cheated and or overcharged.
3.) These people, who are purported to have been cheated and or
overcharged, do NOT exist. These people are imaginary people who
have been created by the second-best software companies.
MTC-00025115
From: Storm North
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Reader:
Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am writing to comment on the
proposed settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust
case. The following is just one instance why I think the proposed is
problematic. 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
M-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.
To whoever is reading this, I realize that you have had to wade
through a lot of material. I very much appreciate your time and
effort.
Sincerely,
Storm North
Plover, Wi. 54467
715.345.2806
MTC-00025116
From: Izzy Blacklock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't know how much weight my words will have seeing as I'm a
Canadian citizen, but I've decided to write anyway. If for nothing
else, to show that Microsoft's influence and behavior in the
industry is far reaching, effecting people around the world, not
just in the US. I've been following this case with great interest
since the beginning. There is no doubt in my mind that Microsoft has
a monopoly and has used its influence to maintain it's strangle hold
on the industry and to leverage it's interests in other areas. This
case has clearly shown that Microsoft's behaviour is illegal under
your laws and that punitive action is necessary to restore balance
to the industry. I've read significant criticism of the proposed
settlement from several industry leaders as well as legal experts
and the general consensus seems to be that this settlement will do
little to stop Microsoft from continuing it's Monopolistic
behaviour. This is of great concern to me, as it should be to
everyone. Microsoft has shown time and time again that they will
take advantage of any loopholes it can, and this settlement seems to
be filled with them!
I urge you to seriously consider all the opposition to this
settlement when making
[[Page 27588]]
your decision. The monopolistic behaviour of Microsoft has done more
harm then good to the industry in the past. Giving them a simple
slap on the wrist now will encourage them to continue this
behaviour.
...Izzy
MTC-00025117
From: Tony Cizerle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The heck with everyone worried about losing their ``comfort
zone'' that Microshaft HAS illegally woven then into--so
they therefor don't want the beast bothered--MicroShaft broke
(breaks) the law and NOTHING is done to them.
C'mon--All computers should be able to be PURCHASED WITHOUT
any company's software on them--We should not be FORCED by
MicroShaft and the DOJ to continue putting up with this illegal
garbage...
Dell and all the other mfgrs were BLACKMAILED by MS!!!
Tony Cizerle
http://www.computerbay.com
[email protected]
Phone: 602-265-1529
Fax: 602.532.7286
MTC-00025118
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Antitrust Division,
I am writing to contribute my comments to the public comments
being accepted regarding hte Microsoft Antitrust matter. It appears
as if Microsoft is barely being punished for its monopolistic
practices. I recommend stiffer penalities including the decoupling
of products from their operating system. Is the Internet browser
necessarily an integral part of the operating system? Is MSN part of
their operating system? Is Windows Media Player part of their
operating system? Should Microsoft be allowed to continue bundling
these products with their OS to the exclusion of competing products?
This bundling creates a barrier to other software developers. If
there is something that comes in Windows on your computer and is
presented to you, you will be apt to click the defaults and end up
using Microsoft products and subscribing to Microsoft services. This
all happens without people knowing there are choices. My father in
law and grandmother are not computer experts. They can be hearded
around dialog boxes and windows to fulfill Microsoft business plans.
Creating an environment for competitive products to have a
chance would help individual developers and small startups achieve
economic success. Thanks you for the opportunity to comment.
Mike Aaron
MTC-00025119
From: Frank Devlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
As a very satisfied user of Microsoft products for many years I
believe that the Justice Department suit against the firm was
misguided at best. I don't believe the firm has done any wrong to
consumers. Consequently, no DOJ actions should be taken against the
firm.
Sincerely,
Frank Choltco-Devlin
7175 Horton Road
Hamilton, NY 13346
MTC-00025120
From: Jeremiah C.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly support the government in the anti-trust trial.
Companies in the past were broken and yet Microsoft wants to get
away with a mere billion dollars. Hit Microsoft hard where it really
counts: in the bank. Force Microsoft to pay 50 billion dollars
(their quarterly revenue) over a year for schools to buy any
technologies and forbid any agreements between Microsoft and PC
manufacturers to bundle an OS with a computer. I scoff at any
settlement that will not change Microsoft deposition towards
consumers and competition.
Warm regards,
Jeremiah Cohick
MTC-00025121
From: JEROME TEEVENS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
There is not much more to add except that it would truely be sad
if Microsoft were allowed to continue the practices that limit
consumer's choices. The settlement seems to do very little to
improve the situation.
PeoplePC: It's for people. And it's just smart.
http://www.peoplepc.com
MTC-00025122
From: Chad Redman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MTC-00025122--0001
Dear Sirs,
I would like to add my voice to those who are against the
lenient terms of this settlement. For a reasonable non-sociopathic
business, one would expect that once they had agreed to the terms,
they would follow its intent. But it is clear from past behavior
that Microsoft will find any feasible loophole, and barring that,
will violate the terms outright. It has shown this not only by
**violating a previous consent decree**, but by bundling even more
software with its latest operating system, and rushing it out to
vendors before the DoJ could restrain it. Most of the specific
arguments against the proposal have been expressed more elegantly by
Dan Kegel (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html). Although the
potential loopholes I point out below may sound absurd, Microsoft
has demonstrated that it does not shy from ``creative''
legal interpretations.
From: III. Prohibited Conduct
(sec. A)
...Microsoft shall not terminate a Covered OEM's license for a
Windows Operating System Product without having first given the
Covered OEM written notice of the reasons for the proposed
termination and not less than thirty days'' opportunity to cure
....
Nothing requires that Microsoft's reason be valid. A trumped up
complaint could be issued, possibly one which the OEM cannot comply
with. After 30 days, the OEM is not licensed. (sec. D)
...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 APIs and related
Documentation...
The groups listed are a subset of all possible users. Can MS
exclude anyone from joining MSDN? And what is the cost of joining.
For programmers creating cost-free software, is the subscription
price prohibitive? Is someone with access constrained from sharing
it with others who are not members? Are users constrained in any way
in the use of the APIs, such as in creating software under the Free
Software Foundations GPL, or in an open source project, such as
Linux or Wine, both MS competitors.
... the disclosures required by this Section III.D shall occur
no later than the last major beta test release of that Microsoft
Middleware. In the case of a new version of a Windows Operating
System Product, the obligations imposed by this Section III.D shall
occur in a Timely Manner. Meanwhile, all MS project teams can access
the APIs at any time earlier than this, which it can use to get
ahead of competing products. This is why the term ``Chinese
wall'' gets invoked a lot, and why the proposed remedy was to
split the company into OS and software companies. (III.J.2)
c. meets reasonable, objective standards established by
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its
business Microsoft may argue that cost-free or open source software
creators are not viable businesses. In fact, they have publicly
stated as much already. IV.B.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. I don't know
why MS needs to be involved in this. The TC members are to assist
the plaintiffs in the enforcement that the judgment grants them. The
Plaintiffs should be able to choose whomever they feel would do the
best job at assisting them, hostile to MS or not, as long as their
oversight does not violate privacy protections this document grants
to MS. How would an MS-chosen TC be helpful to the Plaintiffs? (v)
1. Unless this Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment
will expire on the fifth anniversary of the date it is entered by
the Court. 5 years is not enough.
2. In any enforcement proceeding in which the Court has found
that Microsoft has engaged in a pattern of willful and systematic
violations, the Plaintiffs may apply to the Court for a one-time
extension of this Final
[[Page 27589]]
Judgment of up to two years, together with such other relief as the
Court may deem appropriate 7 years is not enough. (VI)
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. It should also include MS
server products; i.e., tasks between a Microsoft Product and a
*client* operating system product. This would include the
hypothetical case where an MS online service ``embraces and
extends'' existing internet protocols. Really, this definition
should just define it as information exchange between two machines
or applications, independent of where the machines are or whose OS
is on them.
I. ``ISV'' means an entity other than Microsoft that
is engaged in the development or marketing of software products. I
presume the V in ISV stands for vendor. If someone creates a product
that he gives away for free instead of sell, is he still an ISV J.
``Microsoft Middleware'' means software code that ... 2.
is Trademarked;
Software code may be copyrighted, not trademarked. I would think
this means software product, not code. Oddly, definition (K) does
defines ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' separately, but
as a rather narrow set of products. P. ``Operating
System'' means the software code that, inter alia, (i) controls
the allocation and usage of hardware resources (such as the
microprocessor and various peripheral devices) of a Personal
Computer, (ii) provides a platform for developing applications by
exposing functionality to ISVs through APIs, and (iii) supplies a
user interface that enables users to access functionality of the
operating system and in which they can run applications.
Does this mean that MS does not consider a web browser, MSN
services, links to MS's preferred online photo developers, or
Minesweeper part of the operating system? Q. ``Personal
Computer'' means any computer configured so that its primary
purpose is for use by one person at a time, that uses a video
display and keyboard (whether or not that video display and keyboard
is included) and that contains an Intel x86 compatible (or
successor) microprocessor.
Servers, television set top boxes, handheld computers, game
consoles, telephones, pagers, and personal digital assistants are
examples of products that are not Personal Computers within the
meaning of this definition.
MTC-00025122-0003
It is significant that this does not cover server computers such
as web servers, and excludes handheld computers or PDAs. And what's
the difference between these last two? 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.
Why is it important that MS be allowed to withhold information
until that point? Surely, anyone can benefit from the information,
even if it is subject to change.
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.
The acts this judgment remedies were taken by Microsoft the
Corporation. Therefore, all MS products should be covered, not just
this very limited group. In addition to the above specific
criticisms, I would like to see protections for freely available
operating systems (e.g., Linux) and open source software at least
mentioned in the judgment. MS has targeted Linux and open source
software as its current primary threats, and will use any tactic
within its disposable to extinguish these competitors. For example,
a new MS practice is to construct licenses (whether or not for a
product covered by the judgment) that specify that the user cannot
use a product to create ``viral'' software, which is
specifically targeted at open source software covered by the Free
Software Foundation's GPL (MS does or did have such a license for
one of its handheld product developer kits).
Thank you for your consideration,
Chad Redman [email protected]
ITS/Admin. Sys., Yale University
00025122--0004
MTC-00025124
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please approve the proposed settlement so this entire issue is
put to rest. While no settlement is perfect, this one seems to be
quite fair. I think Microsoft should be left alone to produce world
class software and that their competitors should do the same instead
of dragging this whole thing out.
I think it is in the public interest to approve this settlement
so we can all move ahead without further tax dollars spent on this
case.
Eric Busby
Foothill Ranch, CA
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025125
From: Michael Detlefsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I think the proposed settlement with Microsoft is a bad idea.
Microsoft has shown by their behavior over a number of years that
they will ignore any government orders that they do not want to
obey.
I was appalled when I read that Microsoft said they wouldn't
agree to proposed remedies. This is just another example or the
continuing arrogance of the top people of the company. Defendants
don't have to agree with remedies ordered by a court, they just have
to follow them. Or it was this way last time I checked. If I were in
court, I certainly wouldn't get to pick and choose my punishment,
why should they?
If they are not handed a remedy that will change their behavior,
then they will finally know for certain that they can get away with
anything. They should be punished for not only their current
behavior, but for not following previous remedies.
It's not very hard to see that their behavior has resulted in
severely restricted choices in available software packages over the
last ten years. It's hard to see how this situation is of any
benefit to consumers.
Mike Detlefsen
MTC-00025126
From: Mike Prettyman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may concern,
Where to begin? There are so many pages of documentation
regarding this case I honestly have only had time to briefly glance
over some of it since I have work to do. However, given the
information that I have obtained, and based on my own experience in
multiple areas of the computer industry over the past years (I was a
tech for a small OEM for a few years, then I went on to work for a
prominent ISP,Earthlink , as a technician, and currently I am
working for a midrange/mainframe broker) I certainly feel that
Microsoft is clearly getting the short end of the stick so to speak.
I have no affiliation with Microsoft, nor am I receiving
compensation of any sort for voicing my opinion in their favor. What
other product on the market is so open that the vast majority of
competitors products will function on said product(s). Can you walk
into a Ford dealer and ask for a Chevy motor in your new ranger
pickup truck? Ok, how about all the onboard computers that control
features such as fuel injection systems, traction control, etc? If
you believe that Honda has superior electronics can you ask for them
in your Dodge? I think you'd get laughed out of the dealership plain
and simple.
Now lets take a look at other computer products on the market as
a comparison shall we? If I purchase an SGI and want to run down to
Best Buy to purchase the latest accounting software to do my taxes
will it run on my machine? No. Ok how about if I go get a new video
card and more RAM, will it just drop right in and will I be up and
running in minutes? No. I would be forced into buying proprietary
applications AND hardware if I wanted to add more functionality to
my base machine... But I really like the IRIX operating system, wont
it run on my PC? No. The same can be said about Sun Microsystems,
IBM, and even Macintosh (apple) to an extent. All of the
aforementioned systems are closed, proprietary systems that offer an
enduser little flexibility and very little in the way of an upgrade
path. I don see anyone screaming foul where the other company's are
concerned.
[[Page 27590]]
Now an ``industry standard'' has been established.
Obviously the bar has been set in terms of performance, flexibility,
and a user friendly interface. Is it Microsoft's fault that no other
company has even come close to creating a product that can compete
on even ground? Do they owe a competitor anything? Should they be
forced to fully reveal their API so that other's can steal it, and
tap into their bread and butter product? I personally, as well as
many of my associates, would answer a resounding NO! That's like
forcing coke to disclose what their secret formula is and to go a
step further, include a can of Pepsi in every six-pack in the name
of ``what's good for the consumer''. Please let products
stand on their merit instead of trying to make everyone ``play
nice and friendly''. The world of big business isn't for the
weak, and if a company cannot stand the heat, they should look to
get out of software development since its a very cut throat
industry.
Surely you will get many email's from people with something at
stake (IE: Financial gain if they can force their way into the
market by riding Microsofts coat tails into an industry instead of
innovating new ``must have'' products) but you must see
them for what they truly are.
Sincerely,
Mike Prettyman
MTC-00025127
From: Les Clark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:17pm
Subject: Microsoft
I do not agree with the proposed settlement of the Microsoft
case. The company has exceeded every limit of decency, pushed
legalities to the edge, expressed contempt for the prior settlement
against them, and continues in its monopolistic and exploitative
ways. It expresses the worst of commerce and the ways in which it
operates are most definitely not in the interest of consumers.
MTC-00025128
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My name is Pete Vieites and I am an avid consumer of somputer
software from various companies. I agree with the settlement actions
and feel it's in the publics best interest. It's time for all
companies involved to move on and concentrate their efforts on
building better products that we demand. For the record, Microsoft's
products, have never harmed the consumer. However, this ongoing
bickering between Microsoft, the states (as well as the competitors
companies they represent) and the Justice department are doing more
harm than good.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025131
From: CMS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel the current proposed settlement is a very bad idea. It
will only reinforce Microsoft's monopoly in the long term. This will
only make it more difficult for competition to exist and it will
leave the country and the world in a worse position than it is now
with regard to Microsoft.
It is my hope that the settlement will be reevaluated and
changed into something that solves the monopoly problem, instead of
being something that essentially ignores the issue.
Thank you,
CS
MTC-00025132
From: Sandy W
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sandra Walker
229 Lee Street Rock Hill, SC 29730
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The reason for this correspondence is to express my support of
the settlement reached in the Microsoft antitrust case and to state
I believe you should do likewise. For far too long Microsoft has
been coerced into court, spending millions that it could be using to
build better products and create jobs.
The settlement reached will give computer makers broad new
abilities to offer non-Microsoft products, either as separate
operating systems or as components on Microsoft operating systems.
This settlement will actually give competitors new advantages
against Microsoft. Unbelievably, competitors still are condemning
this settlement because they want something that is much more
detrimental and unfair for Microsoft.
I strongly urge you to support the settlement that is available
in this case and to repel those interests that want to derail it.
Sincerely,
Sandra Walker
MTC-00025133
From: Paul Mugar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:44pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement Letter ----Original
Message -----
From: Paul Mugar
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 2:17 PM
Subject: Microsoft Settlement 2 Inez Street Camarillo, CA 93012
January 24, 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 a final decision at the end of
this month on whether the proposed Microsoft settlement will benefit
the public. I believe it's fine as long as Microsoft is left
standing, when it's all said and done. If the nine states are
allowed to overturn the agreement and move ahead with additional
litigation, it could take another three years and billions in legal
expenses all incurred by the consumers and the taxpayers. How is
that a benefit?
Microsoft has agreed to not enter into any agreements obligating
any third party to distribute or promote any Windows technology
exclusively or in a fixed percentage, subject to certain narrow
exceptions where no competitive concern is present. The Company has
also agreed not to enter into agreements relating to Windows that
obligate any software developer to refrain from developing or
promoting software that competes with Windows. From this one could
see that Microsoft is more than willing to cooperate in order to
resolve this issue. I urge you to end this now. No more action
should be taken at the Federal level.
Sincerely,
H. Mugar
cc: Representative Elton Gallegly
CC:Gallegly Elton
MTC-00025134
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
Any settlement with Microsoft, short of breaking the corporation
into smaller business units, is a mistake. As much as Bill Gates
would like to contend that Microsoft has advanced personal
computing, his company has done immeasurable damage to the PC
industry. Microsoft has stifled innovation with its practice of
buying the competition. For years, if Microsoft could not
successfully compete with a company, they bought the company and
shut it down. This practice is easily demonstrated by Microsoft's
inferior implementation of data compression and memory management.
Microsoft first incorporated data compression into its Windows
operating system, which put Stacker Electronics out of business.
Microsoft offered its version of disk compression for free. The
Quarterdeck Company had superior memory management utilities (QEMM)
and multi-tasking software. Microsoft incorporated inferior memory
management capabilities into its OS which led to the downfall of
Quarterdeck and forever stifled further innovations in each of these
areas. In the same way, Microsoft has unfairly crippled Netscape by
incorporating its inferior web browser into its OS. Giving away an
inferior product that will get a user by is a sure way to stifle
further innovation. Stifling innovation at the expense of limiting
competition is wrong.
Unfortunately, with the current state of computing, most users
will never know what innovations and advancements would have been
possible had Microsoft not had a free hand to kill the competition
with the power of its monopoly. It is for this very reason that
monopolies are illegal.
The government should not give in to Microsoft and Microsoft
should be forced to pay for the damage that has been done to the PC
industry.
Sincerely,
Mark Varsel
MTC-00025135
From: Frances Burmeister
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:46pm
[[Page 27591]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am absolutely convinced that the settlement recently arrived
at between the Microsoft, DOJ, and nine states is more than
sufficiently harsh to cover any improper competetive practices they
may have used.
It is also critical to consider the enormous good that Microsoft
has achieved for not only millions of consumers but also thousands
and thousands of business. Microsoft provides top quality
applications which have provided benefit to many many users over the
years. In addition, by providing a solid, widely accepted
development environment, it has made it possible for thousands of
small businesses to grow, flourish, and prosper.
I work for one such company and am far more concerned about the
serious damage to our business and those thousands of others if
Microsoft is restrained from innovating or is so harshly punished
that they cannot afford to continue their top quality development
efforts.
Frances A. Burmeister
1120 East Madison
Fairfield, Iowa
52556
MTC-00025136
From: G. Del Merritt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Renata B. Hesse or To Whom It May Concern--
I offer the following comments on the ``Stipulation and
Revised Proposed Final Judgment (11/06/2001)'': http://
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm
Specifically:
--Under the ``Prohibited Conduct'' section,
III.J, concerning the requirements of when Microsoft can/must
disclose APIs or Documentation, too much latitude is given to
Microsoft by both paragraphs 1 and 2. They can ``spin'' or
re-implement almost any documentation or API such that it could be
labeled as potentially able to compromise the overall security of
the system. The explanation of this section in http://www.usdoj.gov/
atr/cases/f9500/9549.htm is of some use here, but I do not feel
comfortable with the wording of the Final Judgement itself.
--I fear that section IV.B, ``Appointment of a
Technical Committee'', is destined to failure. Because of the
breadth of Microsoft's presence in the software technology sector,
just about any non-academic who has technical knowledge can be
considered either a competitor of Microsoft or a likely employee/
contractor of them. This makes item # 2 difficult to resolve.
--Also in section IV.B, I feel that items 9 and 10 are
counterproductive to reigning in Microsoft's practices; without
being able to report to the public further transgressions, there are
no teeth to the committee. This, I presume, is exactly what
Microsoft wants.
--Under section V.B, ``Termination'', I feel that
should Microsoft be found to willfully engage in a pattern of
further abuse, the clock should be reset: there should be no
``one-time extension'' of the remedies. Instead, each
infraction can set up a brand new 5-year plan for monitoring
Microsoft; there should be no limit to the number of extensions
requested.
Throughout this case, and in general, Microsoft's practices have
been clearly documented as irresponsible and anti-competitive. There
are times when you have to make up for the harm you have done to
others; this is one of those times for Microsoft.
--Del Merritt
10 Belknap Point Road
Damariscotta, ME 04543
MTC-00025137
From: Jason Paul Kazarian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:47pm
Subject: Tunney Act Comment
Microsoft used its monopoly power in one market, namely that for
personal computer operating systems, to boost its market share in
another market, namely personal computer application software. This
practice is illegal. The finding of fact that the preceeding is true
was also upheld on appeal.
The court must break the tie. Microsoft has a right to its
operating system monopoly but not its application software business:
Microsoft engaged in an illegal practice to build and nurture that
business.
Any remedy that does not include breaking this tie allows
Microsoft to continue operating in violation of the Sherman Anti-
Trust act. Such a settlement must not be considered. =====
Jason Paul Kazarian
Email: [email protected]
Web: http://leftbrainedgeeks.com/
MTC-00025138
From: John G. Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
The antitrust suit against Microsoft has not had an adverse
affect upon my technology-based company as of yet, but if this suit
were to continue, it would surely affect it. In a worst-case
scenario, if Microsoft were broken up, I could go out of business,
even though I am not employed by Microsoft.
There are probably thousands of businesses like mine that would
face the same problem. The settlement that was reached between
Microsoft and Department of Justice promises to prevent any adverse
effects if litigation is stopped.
Under the settlement, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate
against any computer makers if they ship software that would compete
with its Windows operating system. Microsoft has also agreed to make
all future versions of Windows to be compatible with non-Microsoft
products. The settlement also establishes a three-person
``Technical Committee'' that will monitor Microsoft's
compliance to it.
I also do not want to see Microsoft forced to open the code for
Windows* to the world. I would not want to be forced to buy my
software from India, Germany, Japan or China. If you think that
opening the source code to Windows* will help Microsoft's
competitors, what do you think it will do to those same competitors
when they have to compete with companies in other countries.
To continue litigation is to squander all the time and money
spent formulating this settlement. The government must not waste
such scarce resources amid recession. I urge you confirm this
settlement and allow the industry to move ahead.
Sincerely,
John G Miller
President
MTC-00025139
From: Amy Ayer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I was disturbed to learn that the proposed settlement does not
include strong requirements that Microsoft document exactly how its
operating system works, releasing the information immediately after
each change, so that other software companies can design software to
run reliably under Microsoft operating systems.
As a professional software instructor, I have observed that many
fine programs such as Adobe Photoshop and the Corel office suite run
unreliably under Windows, even though Photoshop runs beautifully on
Macintoshes and the Microsoft office suite displays far fewer
problems.
I believe Microsoft has a history of keeping specifications
secret and writing non-standard code (e.g. the scandal a few months
ago when they designed www.msn.com to run badly on the Opera
browser) as a way of forcing people to use their products rather
than superior products by other companies. This is an abuse of power
gained by their monopoly on operating systems.
Please alter the judgement to include
1) Clear and full documentation of Windows
2) Clear and full documentation of Microsoft applications, so
they can be run on other operatings systems.
Sincerely yours,
Amelia Ayer
Norwich, CT MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print
your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
MTC-00025140
From: MARK GHALY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
MTC-00025140 0001
Mark Ghaly
4452 141st Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98006-2310
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC
20530-0001
January 23, 2002
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
In ancient Greece, a good Athenian is the one that would leave
Athens better than he found it. This is precisely why I am writing
you this letter. Microsoft can only be accused of democratizing the
personal computer. The operating system Windows has enhanced
[[Page 27592]]
productivity of the PC and made computing available to any one who
cared to use it with minimal required skills.
Prior to Windows OS. One was a captive hostage to Apple PC with
its planned obsolescence, unless one was willing to invest
innumerable hours to learn DOS. I feel that Windows was a gift to us
[non-computer literate] and has made computing to the average person
easy, intuitive and painless. If we did not have Windows probably we
would have had various competing software with a mass confusion in
the market.
I am writing you to urge you and the federal government to
endorse and implement the proposed settlement plan in the anti-trust
case against Microsoft.
The settlement will, I think justly, allow the company to remain
a single corporate entity. In view of the enormous contributions
Microsoft has made to the IT industry, this a proper response to
deeds done and hopefully a harbinger of future good works. Right now
the industry needs a stimulant badly.
The government's plan asks a steep price for the company's
continued existence. Microsoft will have to open itself up to its
competitors in many ways. Windows will no longer be its sole
province, nor its marketplace Trojan horse. Windows will now be
configured so as to not just accept but promote others software. A
government oversight committee will ensure that the company no
longer engages in anti-competitive practices.
In short, I believe that the settlement is a proper workable
compromise. Please support this plan. I trust and I hope that the
motto of the classical Athenian would prevail 00025140--0002
I of 2 01/29/2002 3:59 [
Sincerely,
Mark Ghaly
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://
explorer.msn.com.
00025140----0003
01/29/2002 3:59 I
MTC-00025141
From: Joan Baskett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice,
My husband and I want you to know that, as taxpayers and
consumers, we strongly support the Microsoft settlement. Please
approve the settlement today!
Thank you for your consideration of our views.
Sincerely,
Ferol & Joan Baskett
7338 S.E. Berryton Rd.
Berryton, KS 66409
MTC-00025142
From: Stephen Quinn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the government has dragged Microsoft through the mud
long enough. Let America get back to business and start by finishing
this case with Microsoft.
Thank you for your consideration. S. Quinn
MTC-00025143
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
John Hartley
1154 Londonberry Lane
Glrn Ellyn, IL 60137-6110
MTC-00025144
From: Thomas Crook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
In accordance with the Tunney act I would like to comment on the
Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/
9495.htm) in the United States of America vs. Microsoft case. I am
concerned that so many loopholes are left open in the language of
the PFJ that it will be largely ineffective for its stated purpose.
My name is Thomas Crook. I am a US citizen currently living in
Sydney Australia and working for a small computer software company
with US, UK and Australian offices. I have been involved in the
computer industry in some form since the late 1970's and have
followed the rise of Microsoft almost since its inception. I have
many years experience working as a software engineer and computer
scientist. In addition, I have an MBA and studied marketing and
economics at the doctoral level for several years.
I have taught university undergraduate and masters classes in
business and economics faculties at the University of Utah and the
University of Sydney.
An Instance of Consumer Harm and a PFJ Loophole
I start by relating a personal example of a specific harm to
consumers arising from the Microsoft monopoly: A few years ago my
University department decided that we wanted to move all our
computers from Windows 95 and 98 to Windows NT. We also planned to
buy some new computers.
Under our University agreement with Microsoft, we purchased
Windows NT licenses to cover our existing departmental computers.
The agreement required us to buy licenses in multiples of five and
we ended up with surplus licenses that we anticipated would be used
on newly acquired machines. When the time came to purchase the new
computers, we were disappointed to find that well known vendors such
as Dell computer would not sell us small quantities of computers
without Microsoft Windows licenses. We were forced to purchase
software licenses that we would never use. From published press
accounts, I subsequently understood that this was required under OEM
contracts with Microsoft.
Section III G of the PFJ initially addresses the harm we
suffered in this instance, but then immediately offers a gaping
loophole!
G. Microsoft shall not enter into any agreement with: 1. any
IAP, ICP, ISV, IHV or OEM that grants Consideration on the condition
that such entity distributes, promotes, uses, or supports,
exclusively or in a fixed percentage, any Microsoft Platform
Software, except that Microsoft may enter into agreements in which
such an entity agrees to distribute, promote, use or support
Microsoft Platform Software in a fixed percentage whenever Microsoft
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 Microsoft
Platform Software
Based on Microsoft's past actions, I anticipate that this
loophole will be used to ensure that in practice nothing will change
and that ordinary consumers will not be able to purchase computers
without a Microsoft operating system. (Indeed, I just did a quick
online survey of major mail-order hardware vendors and could find
none selling a computer without a Microsoft operating system). This
loophole should be removed. A Second Instance of Consumer Harm not
Addressed by the PFJ
Going back to my personal anecdote: the least expensive way we
could purchase our new computers was to buy them with Windows 98. As
soon as the new machines arrived, I installed Windows NT on them. We
never used the Windows 98 license on the new machines. Further
compounding our injury, I noted that the End User License Agreement
that came with the Windows 98 prohibited us from using it on a
different computer than the one we purchased it with. Contrast this
with the case of computer hardware. If I purchased a new computer
which came with a modem, and I already had a modem, no one would
even think of objecting if I used the new modem on a different
machine or turned around and resold it to someone else. Economic
theory would argue that such restrictive licensing could only be
viably exist in a very imperfect market (e.g. a monopolistic one).
Indeed, at the time, given a choice, I would have gladly purchased a
functionally-equivalent non-Microsoft product that had no such
onerous licensing stipulations--had one existed. I note that
the PFJ does not address the type of consumer harm we suffered in
this
[[Page 27593]]
instance. Consumers should not be forced to purchase software they
don't need and should be free to resell software they cannot use.
Exclusion of Not-For-Profit Organizations from the Terms of the
PFJ PBS columnist Robert X. Cringely noted that ``not-for-
profit organizations have no rights at all under the proposed
settlement.'' (See http://www.pbs.org/cringely/ pulpit/
pulpit20011206.html.) This is an egregious failing. Microsoft has
through means fair and foul managed to eliminate the bulk of its
for-profit competitors over the years. It has had a harder time
dealing with not-for-profit entities. This is not for lack of
trying. In the past two years Microsoft has begun to move against
the open source movement, as evidenced by its spokespersons using
perjoritive terms such as ``viral'' when referring to
certain open source licenses. The PFJ must be altered such that
these true competitors are not shut out.
My Agreement with Others'' Comments
(1) Codeweavers CEO Jeremy P. White (http://www.codeweavers.com/
jwhite/tunneywine.html) noted weaknesses in the PFJ that would allow
Microsoft to undermine the Wine project, an important initiative in
restoring competition to the personal computer operating system
market.
(2) Dan Kegel noted a number of problems with the PFJ in its
current form (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html) I agree with
the points he makes.
It is my strong belief that the PFJ in its current form will be
largely ineffectual and should not go forward.
Sincerely
Thomas Crook
Engineering Manager
MTC-00025145
From: David Dehghan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle this case. Don't waste more time and money.
---------- MSN Photos is the easiest way to
share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/
worldwide.aspx
MTC-00025146
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement IS in the public interest! I am an AOL subscriber
(I don't know about much longer) but I use MS Internet Explorer
consistently & don't like to be told (by AOL or Netscape) that I
have to use an operating system without Internet Explorer! Richard
K. Haynes
MTC-00025148
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:50pm
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,
Christina Greywitt
1914 Coe's Post Run Westlake, OH 44145-2021
MTC-00025149
From: Kris Klindworth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
As a professional in the information technology industry, I must
respectfully protest the proposed settlement in the Microsoft anti-
trust case. This is a company that has been convicted of violating
the anti-trust laws at the very time it was under an anti-trust
related consent decree. They are a monopoly, they have ignored the
law, and I absolutely believe that they have purposefully presented
false and misleading testimony under oath. They will continue to do
so under this settlement. The difference is that they won't be
breaking the law any more because this settlement will give them
permission to do these things.
I have read many commentaries which explore the huge and
empowering holes this settlement opens for Microsoft, but I will
point you to only two that state the case so much better than I
could. http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html http://www.pbs.org/
cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
You will no doubt have received many emails in support of this
settlement from people who have a financial interest in the success
of Microsoft. They have no doubt argued that it is in our counties
best interest to accept this settlement and put this thing behind
us. The problem is that it is neither in our best interest nor will
it put this behind us. Our nations interest is best served by a free
and open market.
This agreement would only pave the way for Microsoft to
consolidate the monopolies it currently holds and use them to move
into other areas that they currently have a presence in, but do not
yet control. This agreement is not about the past, but about the
future and that is what scares me most.
By the way, I should mention that I am speaking here as an
individual and a professional, but not on behalf of my employer.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Kristopher K. Klindworth
Database Administrator
Carle Clinic Association
Urbana, Illinois.
MTC-00025150
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It's my opinion that Microsoft fulfilled the demands of it's
customers. I personally am appalled at the actions of the states
that were involved in the suit.
Microsoft has allowed other high tech companies to flourish and
has pushed the technology to where it is today. If it were not for
Microsoft I feel that we would be putting with substandard software,
hardware and interfaces.
The government in this case is ``shooting'' itself in
the foot by punishing a company that has done nothing but answer the
requests of its customers. Having worked within the computer
industry for the past 10 years, I have seen Microsoft make decision
and implement marketing strategies, that those that complain only
wish they would/could have made. Shame on all of you for damaging
this company and trying make Microsoft ``suffer''.
I will make Microsoft my prime software vendor, and I will STOP
purchasing products from the companies that have done nothing but
whine and complain like children about this suit.
My voting and financial donations this year will also reflect my
opinion.
--Dale Meredith
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025151
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:51pm
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,
Christina Greywitt
1914 Coe's Post Run
Westlake, OH 44145-2021
MTC-00025152
From: Sandy W
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 27594]]
David Walker
229 Lee Street
Rock Hill, SC 29730
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The reason for this correspondence is to express my support of
the settlement reached in the Microsoft antitrust case and to state
I believe you should do likewise. For far too long Microsoft has
been coerced into court, spending millions that it could be using to
build better products and create jobs.
The settlement reached will give computer makers broad new
abilities to offer non-Microsoft products, either as separate
operating systems or as components on Microsoft operating systems.
This settlement will actually give competitors new advantages
against Microsoft. Unbelievably, competitors still are condemning
this settlement because they want something that is much more
detrimental and unfair for Microsoft.
I strongly urge you to support the settlement that is available
in this case and to repel those interests that want to derail it.
Sincerely,
David Walker
MTC-00025153
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen. Please put a stop to this travesty
of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Burt
17 Bel Aire Ave.
Merrimack, NH 03054-3712
MTC-00025154
From: Todd Henderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft
CC: tormist@ag. state.ia.us@inetgw
MTC-00025154 0001
January 22, 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, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
As a small businessman that has been active in the Iowa
political process for years, I write to you today because I have
come to feel strongly about the Microsoft antitrust case. I feel
that the U.S. Department of Justice is trying to settle this case in
a manner that does not adequately represent the citizens of this
country, let alone the international community.
If my information is correct, Microsoft has already been found
to engage in practices that violate antitrust laws, and they should
not be exempt, just as I am not exempt. If Microsoft does not like
the present scope of antitrust laws, they need to work to have
Congress change them, not arbitrarily do as they please. The Justice
Department's attempt to settle this case only reinforces their
monopoly.
I do not intend to ramble on about all the issues of this broad
reaching case that disturbs me, but feel that the very fact that I
have this opportunity to be heard, and to have Iowa Attorney General
Tom Miller and his staff take an active role in challenging the U.S.
Justice Department, is reassuring.
I was taught as a child that a punishment must fit the crime. It
appears the U.S. Department of Justice does not hold this belief.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely
Todd Henderson
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Cc: Attorney General Tom Miller
MTC-00025154--0002
MTC-00025155
From: Bill Beyer
To: ``Microsoft.atr (a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing as a concerned citizen regarding the Microsoft
Antitrust Case.
Over the past several years the Microsoft Antitrust Case has
been litigated on both the State and Federal level. Recently the
Federal government and 9 states have reached an agreement with
Microsoft. I believe coming to settlement with Microsoft is good for
consumers, the industry and most importantly the American economy.
Now is NOT the time to continue litigation on this case. Doing so
only benefits the lawyers and a handful of wealthy competitors. More
importantly prolonged litigation on this case negatively affects
consumers, the industry and the American economy.
Please settle this case now as I believe it is in the people's
best interests.
Bill Beyer,
707 West 4th St. #25,
Long Beach, CA 90802
MTC-00025156
From: David Gilman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'm not sure if I've sent you email before or not but in either
case... Please settle this lawsuit as quickly as possible. It has
been a total waste from the beginning. Microsoft never harmed
consumers. The case was a brilliant move but their competitors who
were, and continue to be, unable to compete in the open market.
Microsoft is being punished for being successful. The case has
damaged the economy and the entrepreneurial spirit in the hi-tech
industry. The CASE and not Microsoft has damaged consumers.
Thanks,
djg
MTC-00025157
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--Please Do Not Delay Settlement
Hello:
I would like to voice my opinion of the Microsoft Settlement. I
feel that this settlement is just and very fair for all parties in
this matter. You have more important matters to take care of rather
than to delay this settlement. Let Microsoft complete this
settlement as stated so that they can get on with business. I bet if
this settlement is granted the economy will begin to pick up pace
shortly thereafter.
So, please grant the settlement because it is fair for all
concerned.
Sincerely,
Russell Spruill and Family
MTC-00025158
From: railbender 30378304863059430702 @msn.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
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,
Richard Willett
534 West Cheyenne Road
Colorado Springs, CO 80906-2468
MTC-00025159
From: Claude Bravmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
I feel that instead of constantly harassing Microsoft that the
company should be
[[Page 27595]]
allowed to do business with as little outside/governmental
interference as possible. We don't need more government
interference, we need more and better products developed and
marketed by companies that have the ability and desire to produce
those products.
Claude S. Bravmann
MTC-00025160
From: Gordon Bane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement will be good for consumers and software
manufactures and competitors
Gordon Bane
MTC-00025161
From: Shannon Vest
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is the kind of company that Anti-trust laws were made
for. Microsoft has a long history of making money from resources
that were once traded freely among computer programmers.
Microsoft has hurt the computer industry through abusing their
monopoly on operating systems. In a hundred years, history will bear
this out I believe, as people start to examine the differences
between the advances that were made against the advancements that
COULD have been made in a more level market.
Look at the features in the first or second version of Word?,
and look at the features in the current version. Are the tiny
differences in productivity worth the thousands ($10,000+) that
keeping your application up to speed with the ``new''
operating system will cost a single user?
NO!
But WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE! Because of the nature of operating
systems these days, a person HAS to upgrade, because inevitably, the
simple updates to the system you've purchased will over time render
your machine useless without the aforementioned ``new''
operating system that is always around the corner.
Microsoft has already done all the damage it can do. The
settlement will reflect whether or not the Government can admit that
damage. Please don't let them off the hook by giving them huge
inroads to the education market.
Please show some common sense with dealing with this company.
The government certainly have the people to understand what's going
on. All that's left is to stand up for what is fair.
Sincerely,
Shannon Vest
Computer Programmer
Edmond, Oklahoma
MTC-00025162
From: Claudia Lively :)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:00pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Please get this behind us BY SETTLING.
Our country has much more important issues than interfering with
the successful business because of complaints by complainers. If we
don't keep plunging ahead, we may belong to England again.
Thanks
MTC-00025163
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:02pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
In the interest of the U.S. economy, please do not let
disgruntled competitors use the courts instead of competing in the
marketplace. This so-called ``browser war'' is ancient
history. It is hurting the stock market recovery and the u.s.
taxpayer as well.
Microsoft is an engine of economic growth...which we are in
desperate need of now...as we try to recover from not only the
effects of the recession, but the tragedy of 9/11.
ENOUGH LITIGATION. LET'S MOVE ON!
Jeanne Drury
MTC-00025164
From: arthurguay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In 1992, the General Electric Company was in the process of
upgrading their local and wide area networks.
Key to the upgrade were ``best-of-breed'' software
programs. The nuclear energy division (GENE) had hundreds of
proprietary programs for design of nuclear systems and components
and also had access to the UCLA statistical programs (Statpacks).
What else was needed by mighty GE? We needed an email program!
Did we write the code ourselves? NO !!! We wanted the best and so we
all had Microsft's email installed on our PCs. Thousands of us got
the best, quickly; at a bargain price, and it worked right off the
bat. NO DEBUGGING NECESSARY. Microsoft talks about the need for
companies to have ``freedom to innovate''. They have
demonstrated their technological expertise many times over and this
nation is better off because they have used that freedom.
Curtailing that freedom would result in a serious loss by our
nation
MTC-00025165
From: Tad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Who it May Concern:
Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am writing to advise that the
proposed settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust
case allows and even encourages anticompetitive practices to
continue. The proposed settlement should not be adopted without
substantial revision, and is not in the public interest. Of primary
concern to me are the following issues which are not addressed in
the proposed settlement (From Dan Kegel's analysis on the web at
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html):
1. 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.
2. 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 News
Alert, 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.'' would still
allow use of non-microsoft (yet compatible) operating systems.
What is the use in allowing the development of Microsoft-
compatible operating systems when Microsoft practices anti-
competitive tactics to restrict the use of all other software? There
are many other issues we should be concerned with. A more
comprehensive list can be found in Dan Kegel's analysis at http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html.
Again, I would like to re-iterate that I am commenting on this
proposed settlement as provided by the Tunney Act, and I do not feel
that the proposed Microsoft settlement is in the best public
interest, nor does it effectively prevent Microsoft from continuing
anti-competitive practices.
Sincerely,
Tad L. Goetz
[email protected]
303.596.2105
Aurora, Colorado, USA
MTC-00025166
From: J. Joseph Loehr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:03pm
Subject: worn out and sold out...
I write to express my absolute dismay and disgust with the
proposed settlement.
It is unfathomable how our government could consider allowing
Microsoft to escape basically intact, with what amounts to not much
more than a ``slap on the hand, and please don't do it
again''. If I were Bill Gates,
[[Page 27596]]
based on how much his company is convicted of doing, and how little
he is being punished, after such a long, long delay, I don't think
I'd hesitate to aggressively pursue the next opportunity to dominate
and monopolize any market. If you think he will, you are sadly
naive. As it is, I'm CEO of a small software company, and I and
every single CEO of software companies I personally know is well
aware of the fact that Microsoft is essentially escaping real and
corrective penalties. They have literally decimated and intimidated
100's of software companies into irrelevance, and they do the same
with customers, essentially controlling all the choices that are
truly available to the typical business. Only the most advanced and
astute businesses are able to function without absolute dependence
on the Microsoft monopoly. And it will apparently continue. Nothing
in this settlement brings significant recompense to the companies
and customers who have injured by over 15 years of Microsoft
predatory practices.
To have won the conviction against Microsoft was a great step
forward. Unbelievably, you've chosen, on behalf of the American
Public, to give back that advance in the current settlement. I thank
God that there are still some state governments intelligent enough
to recognize your capitulation, and who are refusing to settle. I
can only imagine that politics have played into this significantly.
Essentially, Microsoft's money and influence has resulted in a
change of priority regarding pursuit of a Microsoft breakup. I want
you to know that as a voting Republican, and small business owner, I
am seething about the Justice department's cowardice and compromise
in this matter. With unlimited resources and a guilty verdict
already in your hand, you should be ashamed. You are supposed to
protect the public and business community. In this, you have
managed, tragically, to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Joseph Loehr
CEO
PSO Profit Technologies
MTC-00025167
From: P. McDermott-Wells
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
RE: Microsoft Settlement
I have been most disturbed by the Federal government's continued
proceedings against Microsoft Corporation. In my opinion, the entire
suit brought by the Federal government and several states was
extremely ill-founded, and strikes a negative blow at the very heart
of the free enterprise system through which this country has
prospered.
I bought my first ?personal? computer in 1978. It was an Ohio
Scientific brand, and it contained 3 separate CPUs and 3 separate
operating systems. One of the operating systems was CP/M, which was
the front-runner at that time. The second operating system was DOS
(by Microsoft). I no longer remember the name of the third operating
system, as it never became widely used. There was no ?standard? in
PC operating systems at that time, but it was presumed at that time
that CP/M would become the prevailing operating system.
Obviously, that did not happen. Microsoft's DOS and later its
Windows operating system because the prevailing product in the
market.
There are many reasons for this, including:
1. Superior feature content which was readily accepted by users
2. Wide selection of compatible application software, due to a
programmer-friendly development interface
3. Availability of information to enable developers to write
applications to run on this operating system
4. Affiliate and partnership programs with developers, software
and hardware vendors
In short, Microsoft came to the forefront of the industry by
offering ?a better mousetrap? than the competition. The Federal
government itself has affirmed this fact by making Microsoft
products its own desktop standards. (Our company had the privilege
of delivering training on Microsoft products to all of the regional
offices of the General Services Administration several years ago.)
Microsoft has contributed immensely to the prosperity of this
country. And there are thousands of small businesses like ours that
would probably not even exist today if we had not had the benefit of
Microsoft's partner programs.
It is an extremely dangerous precedent to allow a competitor in
the open market to bring suit when it fails to ?win? in the market
place. Forcing a company to share its proprietary and confidential
research and development information in order to allow its
competitors to better compete squelches the free market initiative
to invest in R&D. It also has a decidedly malodorous aura of
Socialism.
In my opinion, this continued legal action is motivated as much
by the anticipated revenues of the legal firms involved as by the
competitors? wishes to gain marketplace by any means possible ? an
obvious instance of the ?deep pockets? syndrome. Even though the
settlement goes further than original complaints in the suit,
Microsoft has chosen to settle so that it and the market can move
forward. The settlement requires Microsoft to disclose information
regarding how it develops it software. Microsoft has also agreed not
retaliate against computer-makers that may ship software that would
compete with its Windows operating system. Just these two remedies
by themselves will have an enormous impact on Microsoft, but there
are even more stipulations than that, as you are well aware.
Although I firmly believe that Microsoft should not even be
subject to these settlement requirements because I believe it won
the prevailing market position by offering superior products, it
would be beneficial to the entire industry and to this country to
confirm the current settlement agreement and move on to other
issues. Therefore, we are urging you to confirm the current
settlement agreement as soon as possible, and let the IT industry be
free to develop products in an unfettered free enterprise
environment.
Yours truly,
Pat McDermott-Wells, President
Mega-Data Services, Inc.
Tel. 561-798-3940
www.mega-data.com
MTC-00025168
From: Alexander Kalymon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
I believe that the terms of the terms of the antitrust
settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft are
reasonable and fair to all parties. It it critical for a speedy
economic recovery of this great nation of ours that a companies such
as Microsoft be permitted to continue to innovate and enhance their
products in order to maintain their position of providing the
favored software used by more computer users than any other around
the world.
We need to put this behind us and move forward.
Respectfully,
Alexander Kalymon
MTC-00025169
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Renata Hesse
Thank you for reviewing my comments on the proposed Microsoft
settlement. I have viewed the proposed Microsoft settlement and
believe that largely serves consumers well. I believe that the
settlement will prevent Microsoft from abusing its monopoly position
but will still leave Microsoft room to continue innovating.
Microsoft has brought some order to the chaos that ruled in the old
days. I don t think that Microsoft should be penalized for that.
Please respond so that I will know that you received my mail.
Sincerely
Charlie Holloway
MTC-00025170
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I suppport this settlement. Let's get on with it. Enough time
and money has been spent already.
MTC-00025171
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The government can be helpful in many areas, international trade
and diplomacy to name a few. But I believe in the new economy it has
bitten off more then it should chew. The software industry is a
grotesque anomaly of companies of yesterday and today, enemies,
allies, and then enemies once again all merged into one. They are
fighting together against a force which is unstoppable
[[Page 27597]]
by any government force this is time and progress. Every minute that
passes the highly perishable goods of software become rotten. The
wares must succeed or be trampled by big business, world political
powers, or even little children on a PC.
This market is too dynamic to be understood and acted upon by
any government, even one as progressive as ours. It is a valiant
effort, however inhumane, to control such an animal in the way that
has been done. Billions of dollars of progress have been misspent to
defend against the possibility of massive controls.
Disservice has already been done to the United States and the
rest of the world. Is more punishment necessary?
Jonathan Tolson
Tulsa, OK 74105
MTC-00025172
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The government s suggested settlement is both fair and
equitable. Please let it stand as is with finality.
MTC-00025173
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I fully support the DOJ settlement on 11-3-01.
Microsoft has led the PC revolution and should be congratulated for
their significant achievements rather than sued. This entire
antitrust action has been a blatant attempt by Microsoft s
frustrated competitors to get the results in the courtroom that they
have been unable to get in the marketplace.
MTC-00025174
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am appalled that a settlement cannot be reached. This is
supposed to be America the home of capitalism and free enterprise. I
vote for the settlement!
MTC-00025175
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am in favor of Microsoft being able to produce new tools .
However this requires listening to the customers as to what they
want. Currently it appears that Microsoft is not listening. There
are several points that Microsoft needs to consider: 1) Do not be
afraid of competition welcome it. Stop being afraid of Browsers
currently if I had a choice I would choose IE. This one is a no
brainer! 2)Licensing --A salmon swims upstream against the
prevailing battle--yes they usually make it but then they die.
You can force your invasive licensing and .NET on the world and
you may upset everyone doing it--then your company
dies--think about it. 3) Cost of product vs pirating--a)
let's face it there are some people out there that will steal no
matter what b) there are those who want to comply but the cost is
out of reach-- consider $100 for FULL version of any OS except
high end servers $100--$150 for FULL version of
Office--offer larger discounts of multiple license (Home School
and Business) c) Multiple computer families--either create a
Home license (affordable) for multiple computers or lower the prices
per CPU
Remember APPLE essentially built their customer base on students
having MAC computers/software in the classroom. Personally Microsoft
falls way short--steeper discounts for school. If Microsoft
does not upset the customer with their attitude they won t care
about competition--the majority of the customers will buy
Microsoft products. I would hate to see that go away--What
about you!
MTC-00025176
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Support Microsoft and the settlement
MTC-00025177
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lets leave MSN alone.
MTC-00025178
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a long time IT professional with 36 years experience. I
have participated in the evolution of information technology over a
long period of time. I was there at the start of the personal
computer revolution and have seen Microsoft become the world s
largest software company--starting from that point--by
making good decisions good products and competing effectively. From
the beginning I was amazed by the antitrust action against
Microsoft. End users and IT organizations have only benefitted from
Microsoft's products. It's clear that the only entities that benefit
from continued litigation are Micrsoft s competitors. It s time to
bring this sorry chapter to an end by putting this settlement into
effect and moving on. I'll always be amazed that my government chose
to hold back a high growth business segment where we lead the world.
A lot of damage has been done--let s cut our losses and move
on. Thank you for your consideration.
MTC-00025179
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that Microsoft s innovations have played a very
positive role in our develop as a technology leader and hope they
are able to continue to innovate without undue restraints. I urge a
settlement so that Microsoft and the Department of Justice can both
focus on more pressing issues.
MTC-00025180
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I agree with the settlement
MTC-00025181
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
It is a pleasure to add my voice to those of millions of other
Americans who are appalled at some of the steps being taken to
harass a company that demonstrated to the entire world the
advantages of our capitalistic system. Because of our system which
rewards those who are innovative hard working and display leadership
Microsoft Corporation has emerged as one of the leading companies
not only in the United States but in the entire world. They have
attained their position by innovative merchandising and superior
products which they continue to update and improve while keeping
their prices on a downward course. In addition Microsoft has created
features which have facilitated the use of technical products
especially among those who find it difficult to integrate these
features when offered separately.
What more can our system ask of a company than to provide
continually improving products that are on the cutting edge of
technology at lower and lower prices and thereby increasing
productivity and the well being of all our citizens. Those companies
that were unable to compete in the market place because their
products were less suitable and their merchandising less
satisfactory were unsuccessful and companies such as Borland Novell
Netscape and Word Perfect were in fact voted out by the American
consumer. Why then at taxpayer expense are actions taken on behalf
of other private companies such as those noted above and such
companies as Sun Oracle and AOL to divert Microsoft from its mission
of providing the best and most advanced technology to American
business and consumers at ever lower prices? If these companies
would devote their energie
MTC-00025182
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let s get over with this lawsuit and leave Microsoft alone. Our
country is built on competition. I love Microsoft and there
products.
Mary Ann Bullamore
MTC-00025183
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel this is a more than fair settlement. If it is the
consumer you are concerned about and not the competitions best
interests then this should be done and over with and this settlement
accepted.
MTC-00025184
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 27598]]
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I approve of this settlement only because it brings to an end an
ill advised and wrongful intrusion of the Department of Justice and
the courts into the legitimate competitive ecomomic processes of
industry.
MTC-00025185
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My comments on U.S. vs. Microsoft. It is in the public s best
interest to bring this settlement agreement with Microsoft to an
end.
MTC-00025186
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has suffered enough under the government s Anti-Trust
lawsuits. A company marketing low-price and high-quality wares is
being sued by the government for driving its competitors into the
ground with lower prices and free extra applications. Isn t this
what capitalism is all about???
This madness needs to stop we are punishing people if they are
successful in life! I hope you consider that by making this
settlement happen you are also helping to solidify the stock market
also. Since the crusade against Microsoft began 4 years ago its
stock has been tumbling bringing along with it the Dow Jones.
MTC-00025187
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I was once in business and I couldn t compete. I had to take it
on the chin and start over. No one rescued me. Why are the
plaintiffs against Microsoft any different?
MTC-00025188
From: Marc Turkel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Perhaps, as a Microsoft Employee, my input wouldn't be
considered objective. However, as someone who lived and breathed the
Mac OS platform for 10 years before becoming a Microsoft full time
employee 5.5 years ago, I can tell you this company lives to improve
the lives of consumers in every way, every day.
Respectfully stated, the DOJ anti-trust suit seems out of step
with most of the American public or, more germane to the case, what
consumers perceive about the value Microsoft delivers in today's
marketplace. In my travels, talking to relatives and friends, many
of whom are still running the Mac OS, there is the overwhelming
sense that this lawsuit doesn't represent the best interests of
consumers but rather, represents the special interests of smaller
less successful companies. This then, would be an anti-trust case
motivated by commercial interests; the DOJ is being leveraged as a
competitive tool by those seeking an advantage in the marketplace.
This is a cynical message for the public and the world from the
architects of a free market economy.
Since we have a dominant operating system or platform, every
electronic interaction consumers receive is compatible with the
system you're running, Linux, Mac or Windows. The incentive for
software developers to write interoperability in to their
applications is not altruistic but economic. If there were no
central operating system, we would live in a world of fragmented
communication; indeed the very foundation of today's electronic
infrastructure would be truncated and shriveled by comparison. In
such a scenario, the ability for the average consumer to own,
operate and enjoy a computer, would be practically non existent.
Computers would still be niche item, enjoyed by a few, the value to
society and unfulfilled promise.
The vision Bill Gates had was, ``A computer on every desk
and in every home''. Although this vision is no longer
operative at Microsoft, it is plausible that as a society we've
arrived as close to this reality as is possible. Due to an economy
of scale, prices of hardware and software have dropped while the
power and functionality of these products has increased
substantially.
Is Microsoft perfect? No. The best I could hope for is a
pragmatic and systematic review of the value delivered by Microsoft
to the public and the contribution Microsoft has made (directly and
indirectly) to the experience of computing overall. Then, as duly
elected officials, make decisions in the best interests of consumers
and the American public. Reject the sour grapes of competitors who
would gladly trade places with Microsoft if they could.
Sincerely Yours,
Marc A. Turkel
American Citizen
11221 75th Ave. NE
Kirkland, WA. 98034
MTC-00025189
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has done a great job and I think it should be treated
fairly and justly. I am proud to be a user of this great company and
trust it will not be bothered by further litigation.
Doris & Winnie Jacobson
MTC-00025190
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am FOR the settlement
MTC-00025191
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I AM VERY SATISFIED WITH MICROSOFT AS MY SUPPLIER OF MY NEEDS TO
OPERATE.
THEY ARE SUPERIOR TO ANY OTHERS THAT I HAVE USED. LEAVE THEM
ALONE.
MTC-00025192
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The government decision about Microsoft should be left alone
MTC-00025193
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I beleive the action being taken by the DoJ is a proper one.
Microsoft should allow OEM s to offer whatever packages they deem
best for their customers. If Microsoft Middleware is as greate as MS
believes it is then natural Free-market should determine that not
the locking down of an OS level access.
I also content that Microsoft does have a great product for some
uses and UNIX is good for other uses but that should be the
determination of the end-user not the manufactorer of a product.
MTC-00025194
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a FARCE ! Microsoft should be
PUNISHED not scolded !
MTC-00025195
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It seems we have become a society of legal nit pickers. We need
more latitude in business for inovation without looking over your
shoulder for a potential law suit. Once a legal action is
filed(which is a relatively trivial effort) it can generate millions
in expenses and lost time for the defendant. There should be a
better process to pre screen anti trust legal activity to prevent
the non meritorious actions from causing the market place disruption
that occur with examples such as the many Microsoft actions. I am
sure a general public pole at this point would have very few
supporters of continuing the Microsoft suits.
We are undisputed leaders in the world in a few areas software
is one why screw it up.
JHH
MTC-00025197
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that the Microsoft settlement is O.K. Microsoft has done
a lot for the computer and probably does it more economically than a
bunch of little companies could do.
MTC-00025198
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN I WISH TO EXPRESS TO YOU THAT THIS
[[Page 27599]]
SETTLEMENT BE DONE AND OVER WITH..WE HAVE SPENT ENOUGH TIME ON THIS.
I CAN ONLY SAY THAT I HAVE NO LOVE FOR BILL GATES OR MICROSOFT BUT
FEEL WE SHOULD SETTLE AND BE DONE WITH THIS...
THANK YOU
MTC-00025199
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
SETTLE IT AND LET THE COMPANY GET ON WITH RESEARCH AND BUSINESS
MTC-00025200
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please let Microsft alone.This is a country of inovation.
MTC-00025202
From: Ryan Dewalt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past,
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly
position in the operating system market. This is especially
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past
transgressions.
Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the
American people in general.
While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
Sincerely,
Ryan Dewalt
Ryan Dewalt [email protected]
[email protected]
MTC-00025203
From: Lura and Dave Ratts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:05pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I want to express my concern that the Microsoft settlement is so
long in coming. I feel strongly that we need to stop harassing
Microsoft. Microsoft has already agreed to hide its internet
explorer icon from the desktop.
Any further action serves only as a gift to the competitors of
Microsoft. No money will go to the consumers, supposedly the ones
who have been hurt by Microsoft's icon's being on the desktop when
the software is purchased and installed.
I know that I made a conscious decision as to which browser I
wanted to use, even though the Microsoft icon showed up on my
desktop. Surely that is not too difficult to do for the average
consumer. We need to allow the competition that exists between
companies to do its thing. It is not right to artificially
``set'' the competition in order that one company or
another has an advantage over the others. It would be the same as
making Safeway change some of their ways of doing business just
because other grocers are not able to do as well.
This sets a terrible precedent for the future. One of the things
that makes America great is the free enterprise system!
Thank you for your interest in my opinion.
Lura Ratts
Vancouver, WA
MTC-00025204
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please lets end the fight against microsoft so that they can put
the money they spend on lawyers into new and better software. My
personal opinion is that a lot of the productivity that is being
experienced now is the direct result of computer technology of which
microsoft is the leading company in the software industry.
Thanks
Ronald Don
MTC-00025205
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support the settlement with Microsoft. I believe Microsoft is
a great company. They have greatly benefited my business with their
software. I think our government should put its resources to better
use rather than continuing to harrass a fine company like Microsoft.
MTC-00025206
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe in free business. If you invent an idea it shouldn t
be taken from you. Jealousy is the usual reason.
MTC-00025207
From: Roy Weeks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: DOJ:
It seems to me that today in this country the government is out
to take as much money from every legitimate business it can; tobacco
whose product was, and still is a legitimate product for those over
21 years of age. In fact it was legal for years for those 18 and
over in many states. What compounds your hypocrisy is the fact that
you enjoy millions of dollars for pet programs on the backs of those
who choose of their own free will to purchase tobacco profits; ref.
federal tax on tobacco products.
Additionally, the federal government subsidized the tobacco
farmers for many years probably still does. Now you have sued one of
the most successful high tech corporations in the history of this
nation because they provided the ``best'' product to the
American public. It's time to get off your pedestal and rethink what
your greed for these successful company's profits....you already
take too much from ``john q. public.'' You've lost this
citizen's respect based on your past and present actions.
Roy L. Weeks
Roy L. Weeks
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025208
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
hands off Microsoft. government s role is to protect me under
the constitution supply me with water roads and control the
enviroment though limited taxation. other than that let the free
market control itself.
MTC-00025209
From: john licht III
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Licht
331 Harbor Place SW
Fort Walton Beach, FL 32548-6503
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 today to encourage the Department of Justice to
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. The government has been
harassing Microsoft for over three years now and it is time to put
the issue to rest. A settlement has been reached and the terms are
fair, the government should accept it and move on.
Some people believe that Microsoft has gotten off easy; in fact
they have not. The main issues have been settled. Microsoft has
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 obligates computer makers to
use only Microsoft software. Microsoft has also agreed to provide
their competitors with part of the Window's base code in order for
them to develop more compatible software.
Microsoft has given up much in order to settle. It is time to
allow them and the US economy to move forward. Please accept the
Microsoft antitrust settlement. I am really tired of hearing Oracle,
Sun, and Aol whine?
Sincerely,
John Licht
[[Page 27600]]
cc: Representative Jefferson Miller
MTC-00025210
From: John Crean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:07pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
If Netscape was a superior product I would be using it.
It is not and never will be.
This is a ridiculous action by an inferior company to gain an
advantage.
The only thing Microsoft is guilty of is supplying the public
with a quality product. The free market is the judge not Netscape
John Crean
Oneonta NY
MTC-00025211
From: Mohammad Shakeri
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Although AOL has been lobbying against the settlement through
it's media power Time Warner, I believe that the settlement terms
are reasonable and fair to all parties. The terms of the settlement
are tough, but it represents the best opportunity for Industry and
Microsoft to move technology forward and offer the best solutions to
customers.
Thank you,
Mohammad Shakeri
MTC-00025212
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
When the whole world is crashing around our ears and the DOJ
continues to work with companies such as AOL, Sun, and Oracle to
destroy a company who?
s makes better products then they do is flat out wrong. To allow
people that are filled with hate (and yes, the word is not even
close to strong enough), let me repeat, HATE Microsoft, they are not
out for the welfare of the American people, they have only one
addenda in mind and that is to destroy Microsoft. Please do not let
this happen. If nothing else, a class action law suite needs to be
brought against companies like AOL, Sun, and Oracle for the harm
they have done to Microsoft and the American people by using the
courts instead of producing a better and affordable product in the
market place.
Please stop the madness. Please quit hurting the American people
and kick these cases out of the court.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025213
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:05pm
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 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,
Thomas Karaus
1057 So. 28 St.
Omaha, NE 68105
MTC-00025214
From: Jeff Zheng
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 6:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am for the Microsoft settlement.
It's time for the companies to drop the lawsuits and get on with
the business of competition.
MTC-00025215
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Clint Perry
797 W Walden Hills Dr
Murray, UT 84123-5407
MTC-00025216
From: cvinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 25, 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 encourage the swift enactment
of the settlement reached between Microsoft and the Justice
Department. Over the past few years, I have followed the litigation
process with great interest.
In this time I have been increasingly upset with the amount of
time and money that have been wasted over this dispute. I believe
that the terms of the settlement are fair and that the agreement
should be enacted.
Microsoft has made many concessions throughout this mediation
process. Microsoft has agreed to license Windows at the same rate to
the larger PC manufacturers. In addition, Microsoft will also agree
to disclose information regarding the internal interface design of
Windows. Microsoft has also provided for the creation of the
technical board that will review the stipulations of this case.
Microsoft has made many compromises in an attempt to resolve
this issue. I trust that the Justice Department would concur and
enact the settlement with haste.
Sincerely,
Clay Vinson
1602 Syracuse Drive
Richardson, TX 75081
MTC-00025217
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:07pm
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,
Ron Baker
20444 S. Sweetwood Lane
Oregon City, OR 97045
MTC-00025218
From: Paul Tomori
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--remove the chains that bind
Microsoft... show some respect for our capitalistic ways
To Department of Justice,
With regards to the current legal issues concerning Microsoft, I
would like to stand behind Microsoft.
It is apparent that the practices undertaken by Microsoft, if
they had been taken by a smaller company on the rise, would have
been rewarded. They would have been congratulated on their
competitive strategizing and their superior products. It is
[[Page 27601]]
only because Microsoft is a big company and that its competitors
whiners that this has come to a legal battle. Had Microsoft been
small and relatively unknown, there would not be this case. It is
because they are big that the issue is at hand. They are being
punished for being good at what they do... This is symptomatic of
our ``age of resentment'' and a culture who asserts its
``entitlement'' to the unearned.
My entire company used to use Netscape. We put up with the bugs
in their software and the inconsistencies of layout in trying to
design websites. When Microsoft came out with their superior
browser, we dumped Netscape BY CHOICE and now eagerly await any new
innovations Microsoft is able to introduce. If it weren't for the
innovations presented by Microsoft and of their commitment to
produce cutting edge consumer products, I would not have my
business; I would not have my career.
With regard to this over pricing issue... how utterly absurd! I
don't think they charge enough !! Show some respect for the core
values of America. Let Microsoft be free to design its products as
it sees fit and to attach whatever price they so desire. If people
don't like the price, they can do without!! If Microsoft tries to
price their products too high, the competition will move in. I
thought this was the beauty of capitalism. I thought this was the
differentiating aspect of America. I thought this was the seat of
our example to the world that democracy coupled with capitalism is
the only truly ethical system. The funny thing is... I believe
Microsoft is only just getting started. There is so much left to do
in the world of computing... from Business services to Health
services to Artificial Intelligence to communications... etc...
etc... Microsoft will rise to these challenges. That is if you let
them continue unhindered.
Thank you,
Paul Tomori
Paul Tomori, President
ACTION Corporation
Website Management Excellence
http://www.ActionCorporation.com
[email protected]
ph. 1-905-734-1780
fx. 1-905-734-7093
cp. 1-905-933-8616
tf. 1-866-848-7778
CC:[email protected]
MTC-00025219
From: Richard Power
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
LeavesFolks, it's time to put all this nonsense behind us. We,
as consumers, were never hurt by Microsoft. We were helped. Legal
action against Microsoft is and always was totally unwarranted. Just
settle it and let's get our economy back rolling again.
Richard Power
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 476
Shingle Springs, CA 95682
(530) 677-6344
www.appealsunlimited.com
MTC-00025220
From: Phillip Cripps
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the proposed Microsoft/DOJ settlement is not in
the public interest for the following reasons:
1. Microsoft has been found guilty of crimes but the proposed
settlement does not punish them--it only modifies certain
future behavior.
2. Proposed limitations on their future behavior are not
adequate since Windows XP already extends the Microsoft monopoly.
3. The proposed settlement fails to remedy the findings of fact.
4. Microsoft does not admit guilt.
5. Microsoft violated the Tunney Act by lobbying the Vice
President and members of Congress and failed to appropriately
disclose it.
I urge you to do the right thing and reject the settlement and
impose remedies that will properly reflect the seriousness of
Microsoft's illegal monopolistic activities.
Phillip Cripps
6945 De Celis Place
Van Nuys, CA 91406
818-994-8055
[email protected]
MTC-00025221
From: Shelley Way
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have worked at Microsoft for over ten years. It has been an
incredible experience to be part of this company. I started here
supporting customers on Microsoft products. This companies success
has been in listening to what customers want and delivering it.
I have seen this company grow from approximately 10,000
employees to over 50,000 employees. I have seen the tremendous
growth of high tech jobs in the Puget Sound region and throughout
the United States. It amazes me that the Clinton administration can
take credit for our unprecedented economic growth and yet attack the
company that significantly contributed to that growth over the past
decade. I can assure you that Microsoft employees in general are
hard working, smart, and driven to change the world through
technology. We are also people of integrity. We compete aggressively
with other software companies, but isn't that the nature of a
capitalist society? Microsoft employees are also very generous.
Hundreds of employees quietly donated hundreds of hours and hundreds
of thousands of dollars to charity as well as contributing time and
resources to disaster relief efforts such as the recent tragedy in
New York on September 11th. I have also seen millions of dollars
donated to charities since I started. Libraries and schools around
the world have benefited from Bill and Melinda Gates and Microsoft's
prosperity.
The Windows product has created tens of thousands of jobs across
the United States, and provided great opportunities for even our
competitors. I don?t think it is in the US consumers, our economy,
or the high tech industry's best interest to bring down this
company.
In the short sidedness and self-serving attitude of the DOJ and
our competitors, they have brought this suit against Microsoft.
Judge Jackson has sent a dangerous precedent. Based on his
interpretation of the anti-trust law, AOL, Cisco, Sun Microsystems,
Intel, and Apple are all ``monopolists'' as well. Waging
an attack on these companies as well would decimate our economy and
jeopardize the United States preeminent position as the World
Technology leader.
I would ask, as a one of the 50,000 employees at Microsoft, to
settle this matter fairly and equitably.
Sincerely,
Shelley Way
Seattle, Washington
MTC-00025222
From: filledwiththespirit@
hotmail.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:07pm
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,
Elizabeth Jacobs
1308 1/2 Douglas
Wayne, NE 68787
MTC-00025223
From: Dale Hample
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:09pm
Subject: Tunney Act comment re: Microsoft
I am a professor of Communication at Western Illinois
University. I have been using computers since 1967, and desktop
computers since 1984. I write from the viewpoint of an informed user
and concerned citizen. I have no connection with any part of the
computer industry, except as a consumer.
As I understand the legal status of the case to this point,
Microsoft has been found guilty of establishing its monopoly through
illegal means. As a citizen, I am primarily concerned that no
individuals or corporation be permitted to retain
``profits'' obtained illegally.
Convicted kidnappers don't get to keep the ransom, after all.
The growth of Microsoft has occurred in good part because of the
various
[[Page 27602]]
predatory business practices they follow, and I hope that the court
will take action to undo the profit. It is unreasonable to expect
the court to be able to compensate the companies that went out of
business, their employees who lost jobs (or who failed in their
hopes for entreprenuerial success), or the users who found
themselves trying to use software that wasn't supported because the
manufacturer was bankrupt.
If you can find a remedy to undo the damage, I hope you will.
But even if you cannot, you must destroy the profit. Part of your
responsibility is to ensure that no one can enrich themselves by
breaking the law, and then just waiting out the length of time that
it takes to move a substantial anti-trust case through the court
system.
The proposed remedy will not work, in my view. The finding of
fact clearly establishes a presumption that Microsoft will certainly
try to exploit the inevitable ambiguities in your
ruling--inevitable because the computer industry, its products,
its services, its very vocabulary, change at a very rapid rate.
More, the previous court findings justify the assumption that
Microsoft will acatually try to break the law. I am certain that the
court is not so naive as to suppose that Microsoft lacked high
quality legal advice throughout its monopolistic ascent.
The same lawyers who told them that they could break the law for
years before anyone could successfully press a case will tell them
the same thing again, within hours of your ruling.
I believe that Microsoft should be broken up, and each of the
resulting parts should be placed in such financial straits that they
will have difficulty competing. To permit even parts of the present
Microsoft to inherit the illegal advantages of monopoly would
justify the arrogant contempt for law displayed in Microsoft's
actions to date.
Dr. Dale Hample
Dept. Communication
Western Illinois University
Macomb IL 61455
MTC-00025224
From: David Muller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the proposed settlement with Microsoft actually
entrenches their operating system further in our culture by placing
it deeper in the educational system.
I have been affected by their practice of promoting non-
compliant standards native to the windows operating system that
limit the functionality of my operating system on websites authored
with their software. This default ``standard'', acheived
only by the monopoly of their operating system, attempts to cripple
the viability of other platforms.
The company demonstrates no concern over it unfair practices,
and can surely be expected to continue unless it is appropriately
restricted. The current settlement is much too favorable to
Microsoft and does not go far enough in establishing effective
controls.
David Muller
Ransomville, NY 14131
MTC-00025225
From: Torgeir Kateraas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support Microsoft Torgeir Kateraas
MTC-00025226
From: SCS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:19pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Sir/Madam:
I strongly support the present agreement, between the DOJ and
Microsoft, to end the anti-trust litigation.
To impose further restrictions on Microsoft goes beyond reason
and gives its competitors advantages--by way of legal
remedies--that they cannot get in the market.
Truly yours,
Sergio C. Stone
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025227
From: shell.net.nz admin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is bad idea, enough said.
- Mr Blair Absalom
- Westport, BULLER
- New Zealand
- Network Administrator--Team SNZ
- [email protected]
- www.shell.net.nz
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025228
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:15pm
Subject: Microsft Settlement
To Whom it may concern,
It is obvious to all that this is a misguided political vendeta
against Microsoft. Everysence this case has started the market and
then the economy has suffered.
It is time to let free enterprise work and get the economy going
again.
It is a shame the companys that are backing this suit against
Microsft connot see that they are cutting their own throats by
destroying the market and the economy.
Sincerly,
George G. Ghosn DDS MAGD FICD FPFA
MTC-00025229
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please accept my comments suggesting that the settlement
proposed by Microsoft, the DOJ, and 9 states, be accepted without
modification.
This case has gone on now for several years. During those years
consumers have enjoyed lower and lower pricing, increased
performance and capabilities of both hardware and software, and what
can only be described as the fruits of competition on every front.
To suggest that there isn't competition in the OS market is
silly: just walk down the isles of any computer store and look at
the dozens of variants of Linux for sale. In Fry's, which is a
massive computer store in the Bay Area, you will find more books on
Linux than on Windows. The Mac section is also overflowing.
Please don't let this case drag on forever. We consumers are in
favor of the settlement and want it to be resolved.
Mark Wagner
2150 E. Interlaken Blvd
Seattle WA 98112
MTC-00025230
From: Sherene Kershner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the settlement that is being proposed for the
Microsoft Anti-trust case is reasonable and fair. I believe it
should be adopted.
I believe it is time to resolve this issue and move on.
Thank you,
Sherene Kershner
14445 NE 40th #D-102
Bellevue, WA 98007
(425) 556-9346
MTC-00025231
From: Robert Dale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:14pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Gentlepersons
I believe the proposed settlement is as wrong as if you were
handing out a stern look to the guys at Enron. Microsoft's
predatory, piratic monopolistic practices have been egregious and
harmful to every computer user in the world, and they must not be
allowed to continue in this vein.
Robert C Dale
MTC-00025232
From: Jim (038) Marian Buss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Honor the settlement! Get the courts and Politicians out of
Technology. In the end Technology and consumers lose! Help get the
economy moving with Microsoft innovation. Put taxpayers money to
better use!
AOL is the biggest conglomerate the world has ever seen!!!
MTC-00025233
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel
[[Page 27603]]
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 Hilmers
7915 Shady Grove
Houston, TX 77040-4416
MTC-00025234
From: Nathaniel Gray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern,
I write this letter to state my opposition to the proposed
settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. It does nothing to
punish Microsoft for their destructive anticompetetive past behavior
or restore competition to the operating systems market and makes
only superficial gestures at preventing additional anticompetetive
activity in the future. In particular, the open source software
community, which in many areas is offering the only viable
competition to Microsoft products, appears to be left out in the
cold. For example, the proposed settlement gives Microsoft too much
leeway in deciding what projects to cooperate with on matters of
interoperability.
Section III.J.2.b of the proposed settlement allows Microsoft to
veto the licensing of certain APIs, documentation, and
communications protocols to any person or entity which does not meet
``reasonable, objective standards ESTABLISHED BY MICROSOFT for
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business.''
(emphasis mine) Open source projects are often not-for-profit
enterprises, and thus there is no business to judge in this manner.
In addition, given Microsoft's past conduct it is outrageous that
they should establish the standards by which interoperability
decisions will be made. Another baffling oversight of the proposed
settlement is its failure to compel Microsoft to make public its
many unpublished file formats. One of the most significant barriers
to success that any new office software project faces is achieving
the ability to load and save documents in Word, Excel, or Powerpoint
file formats. Forcing the publication of these formats would finally
allow viable alternatives to Microsoft Office, reintroducing
competition to a market that Microsoft has monopolized almost as
effectively as the operating systems market.
These are but two examples among many complaints I have against
the proposed settlement. Rather than repeat the arguments of others
I will simply refer you to Dan Kegel's thorough and insightful
analysis of the proposed settlement at:
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html and Zimran Ahmed's open
letter at: http://www.winterspeak.com/columns/121001.html which
analyzes the effect of the proposed settlement on several well-
established and legitimate open source projects. In addition, please
read the GNU organization's proposals for remedies that would have a
real and significant effect on competition in the operating system
and application markets:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-antitrust.html
Microsoft's criminal actions have led to an impoverished
computing landscape of closed de-facto standards and no competition.
Any settlement which fails to punish Microsoft in a real way for
these actions and enable effective interoperability with Microsoft
products for commercial AND non-commercial competitors is not just.
Any settlement that does not include strong measures to ensure its
own enforcement is not just. The current proposed settlement is such
a settlement. Please do justice for the American consumer by
rejecting it.
Thank you for your attention,
Nathaniel Gray
Graduate Student
California Institute of Technology
Computer Science Department
MTC-00025235
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:19pm
Subject: Comment on the Microsoft Settlement
Dear Justice people:
I started working with microcomputers in 1985. Back then home
and business users had choices of several different kinds of
computers. There were Ataris, Commodore 64's, Apples and Apple
Macintoshes, and IBM compatible computers, to name a few. There were
several different hardware and software platforms. Things weren't
compatible with other things, but people shopping for computers had
several good choices that provided different features and different
price points.
You'll notice today that people have only a few choices when
they want a computer. If you go to the store, you can buy a PC
running Microsoft Windows, or a Macintosh. The Mac software shelf is
much smaller than the PC shelf.
And you know what? If you buy a PC, you take it home and
instantly get attacked by viruses and identity thieves. Then you
have to pay Microsoft even more money for an ``upgrade''
that fixes some bug that makes it impossible to get any work done.
You'd think in the last fifteen years that computers would have
gotten easier to use, but they haven't. Microsoft keeps saying that
their stuff is winning because of better quality, not because they
are a monopoly. I don't believe it for a second. I've been here a
bit, and computers were easier to use in ``85 before Microsoft
owned everything.
Lauren P. Burka
305 Walden Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
(617) 876-3574
MTC-00025236
From: Charles Graham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:17pm
Subject: Letter to the Justice Department regarding Microsoft
Settlement
Dear John Ashcroft,
Attached please find my response to your request for input on
the Microsoft settlement. Good Luck.
Sincerely,
Chuck Graham
Salem Automation Inc.
4500 Indiana Ave, Suite 40
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
[email protected]
Phone 336-661-0890xl 06
Copied to Sue Myrick- US House Rep.
CC: Jesse Helms
MTC-00025236--0001
Falem Automation Inc.
Systems Integration Specialists
4500 Indiana Ave. Suite 40
Winston-Salem, N.C. 27106
Phone 336 661-0890 ext 106
[email protected]
January 25,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
As a member of the software industry since graduation with a
BSClS and BSBA from Ohio State University since 1984, a Microsoft
stockholder and a Microsoft business partner, I find it refreshing
to see this ugly chapter of government interference in the fast
moving high tech industry coming to a close. Microsoft should be
held to the same laws as every other corporation in the land.
However, the actual damages to anyone in this case is highly
suspect. It appears that this case was brought by a number of
companies unable to succeed in the industry without resorting to the
courts, and some sympathetic government lawyers eager to hang the
Microsoft hide on their wall as a trophy. The issue between Netscape
and Microsoft as long since been settled as evidenced by Netscape
becoming a Microsoft business partner. Microsoft came up with their
own browser, a fairly simple piece of software, rather than buy
Netscape licenses for it's thousands of employees. Since the
development of the browser was already paid for, they offered the
browser as part of their operating system to enhance their Internet
presence. I see nothing wrong with this. The general market has
flourished well due to the standardization Microsoft provided in
operating systems and office suites (Word, Excel, etc.). This
country's government should be treating Microsoft as a national
treasure. The US government should be approaching Microsoft and
asking how we can enhance the development of Microsoft and grow the
software industry in the USA as it is one of the few industries with
any future in the USA. We are lucky that Bill Gates didn't pack up
his company and move it across the border into Canada. Other
countries would nurture a wonderful success such as Microsoft, not
try to tear it down.
This lawsuit caused the technology bubble to burst and caused
more loss in shareholder value for millions of Americans than any
other single event in history. If I was a government lawyer, this is
not the legacy I would want to leave behind. A legacy in
[[Page 27604]]
which millions of Americans were robbed of their retirement savings,
a legacy of millions of layoffs and company closures. And for what?
What did this lawsuit actually accomplish? Even if Microsoft had
been broken up, was this a good thing for America? Once again, what
could the motives behind this lawsuit be other than a bunch of
``has been'' sour grapes from companies like Sun
Microsystems who got together with a bunch of underpaid government
lawyers who want to make a name for themselves and fostered by the
Clinton administration who may have been angry with Microsoft for
not contributing enough to the Clinton campaign. Isn't there a
better use of the justice department's time than this? Isn't there
any ``real'' criminals that you should be focusing on? The
settlement, three years and three months in the making, is an
agreement that fosters competition, increases innovation and ensures
that all parties involved will be held accountable. Microsoft has
agreed to a series of provisions that go above and beyond the
government's original list of grievances. Windows operating system
internal computer interface and native server interoperability
protocols will be released by Microsoft to it's very own
competitors--that is uncalled for, but true -and a first.
Microsoft will help its competitors compete with it by making it
easy for them add and remove software in Windows. This settlement
should be the end of this judicial debacle and the final chapter in
this unfortunate saga. I strongly urge your office to take no
further federal action against Microsoft and encourage the states to
follow suit. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Charles Graham
Vice-President Salem Automation Inc.
C: Jesse Helms-
Sue Myrick
NC Senator
NC House Representative
MTC-00025237
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The government can be helpful in many areas,international trade
and diplomacy to name a few. But I believe in the new economy it has
bitten off more then it should chew. The software industry is a
grotesque anomoly of companies of yesterday and today, enemies,
allies, and then ememies once again all merged into one. They are
fighting together against a force which is unstoppable by any
government force this is time and progress. Every minute that passes
the highly perishable goods of software become rotten. The wares
must succeed or be trumpled by big business, world political powers,
or even little children on a PC. This market is too dynamic to be
understood and acted upon by any government. Even one as progressive
as ours. It is a valiant effort, however inhumane, to control such
an animal in the way that has been done. Billions of dollars of
progress have been miss spent to defend against the possibility of
massive controls.
Disservice has already been done to the United States and the
rest of the world. Is more punishment necessary?
Jonathan Tolson
Tulsa, OK 74105
MTC-00025238
From: Nelson Burrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:20pm
Subject: miocrtosoft. suit
DEAR SIR :
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU ACCEPT THE SETTLEMENT AS PRESENTED BY
MICROSOFT AND LET THE MARKET PLACE DECIDE WHO CAN DELIVER THE BEST
SERVICE.
SINCERELY;
NELSON
MTC-00025239
From: Ray D'Andrade
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have been using Microsoft products for many years now. I am a
computer consultant and I work in many different systems. Their
products far exceed the quality of their competitors on the market.
In addition, their products are well marketed. They made it easy for
anyone to develop software for their platform, and that is why there
is more third party support for their platform than any other. These
are the reasons that they have the market share of desktop PCs. Now
they are starting to dominate the server and backoffice market for
the same reasons. I have used competitors products for desktop
software and backoffice, and no other competitor comes close to the
low cost, high functionality, and high user-friendliness, and
customization of Microsoft's products.
The people that I know that work there say that it is an
excellent company to work for and it's well managed. They are model
for other technology companies to follow. The bottom line is that
Microsoft is a well managed company that develops some of the best
software that is available on the market. This is why they dominate
the market, NOT because of unfair business practices. The initial
settlement was unfair to Microsoft because they did not do anything
wrong. Any further pursuit of action against Microsoft is even more
unfair. You are punishing a company for creating excellent products
at affordable prices.
I look forward to the day when these hearings are over and we
can all get back to business as usual. No further action is required
against Microsoft. The punishment Microsoft received far exceeds
what it deserves.
A concerned citizen and technology business owner,
Ray D'Andrade
Bright Network Solutions, Inc.
Princeton, NJ
MTC-00025240
From: Gayle Green
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
4119 North Simpson Road
Otis Orchards, WA 99027-8721
January 12, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I support the settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust Case. I am
outraged about the amount of money and time that has been devoted
it. This case should not have been brought in the first place. I am
even more outraged by the handling of the case by the judiciary. I
believe firmly that the government should simply drop the case
against Microsoft, however, as the likelihood of this happening is
slim, I support Microsoft's agreement to comply with the terms of
the settlement agreement in the interest of ending this costly,
wasteful, unwarranted, and needless litigation.
The terms of the settlement are more, considerably more, than
fair, just, and reasonable. Microsoft has gone far above and well
beyond what should be expected of it. Microsoft has agreed to
disclose to its very competitors the interfaces that are internal to
its proprietary Windows Operating System. Similarly, Microsoft
agreed to not enter into contracts with third parties that would
require that third party to exclusively promote or distribute
Microsoft products. There should be no hesitation in accepting these
terms; no hesitation on the part of the Department of Justice; and,
no hesitation on the part of the Court. A nation that hesitates in
times of crisis is lost.
And our nation is facing a crisis. I believe firmly that this
case was brought as a result of the government's ongoing pattern of
interfering with successful American businesses.
Innovative companies, like Microsoft, should be free to further
their businesses. When innovative American companies are allowed to
freely innovate, American businesses, American consumers, and the
American economy in general, will benefit.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter and,
please, let our nation move forward.
Sincerely yours,
Gayle E. Green
MTC-00025241
From: Peter Ollodart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs/Madams:
I wanted to provide comment on the settlement proposal between
Microsoft and the Department of Justice Antitrust Suit. I strongly
believe we need to finalize this settlement and put this case behind
us. It's been going on too long and not settling it at this point
does nothing but drag down the economy and helps a few other non-
competitive companies whose real motive has nothing to do with the
case. This is particularly important at a time when our justice
system needs to focus on eliminating terrorism and making our
country a safe place to live and work. I have always thought this
suit was counter-productive. This suit has been a drag on the high
tech economy brought on by our own government. It has been blown way
out of proportion and has
[[Page 27605]]
done a lot of harm to Microsoft, the PC industry and the cottage
industry that depends on Microsoft for their livelihood. Quite
frankly, it hasn't helped our competitors either. The collapse of
the .coms has clearly shown that Microsoft competitors chose a path
that relies on over-inflated business plans that are not competitive
in the marketplace. It was never clear to me that consumers were
ever harmed by Microsoft. In fact, the opposite seems true, where
more and more people are able to enjoy computing because of
Microsoft. I believe this is a fair settlement that allows enough
control while not choking the life out our company. I for one would
like it just to be over.
Regards,
Peter Ollodart
MTC-00025242
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:20pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I think it's outrageous that MS has been allowed to bully their
way to the top for all these many years. Their requirements to place
their browser on the desktop at the expense of Netscape, earlier
requirements to bundle Office with machines or not get the latest OS
on time, the original complaints that third party developers
wouldn't get info about the latest OS until MS had the market
wrapped up with their own offerings are all textbook examples of MS
promoting and protecting their monopoly in the OS and now the
browser market.
As much as I dislike the government sticking their noses where
it doesn't belong, it is the only way to protect the public when the
free market has been manipulated and subverted as it has by
Microsoft. At the very least they should have their business highly
regulated and possibly broken up into competing branches. I
recommend separate companies for OS and applications. Gates, Balmer,
et al should not be able to sit on both boards. The government
should constantly monitor the business decisions by both companies
(a nonvoting member on each board perhaps) and report back monthly
to the Justice Department. As for MS offering to donate used
machines and their software to poor schools . . . what a crock! It
makes absolutely no sense to let them use a punishment to move into
the education market and make even more schools dependent upon their
software.
Please help to repair the free market place and slow down the MS
juggernaut!!
Lane Hoback
MTC-00025243
From: Peter du Fosse''
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Any settlement that goes through should be eyed critically and
not in ANY way offer any benefits to MS in terms of their barely
slowed monopoly. Enforcing a choice for all PC-makers as well as
encouraging compensation for companies hurt in the past by their
monopolistic behavior would also be a good start (Netscape, IBM,
Apple, etc.)
This will determine the future of computing and if you want it
to be as lackluster as it has been, with only the interesting things
coming from companies *OTHER* than MS, you need to do open the
market(s) to *REAL* competition again. (remember the days of
5-7 different ``mainstream'' computer OSes? I barely
do either!)
Thank you for your time.
-Peter du Fosse''
Pete du Fosse''
Photoshop QA
Adobe Systems, Inc.
345 Park Ave. W10-306
San Jose, CA 95110
408.536.3296
MTC-00025244
From: William Liu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:29pm
Subject: Dear Judge,
Dear Judge,
Microsoft is an organization that has abused it's position as a
leader in operating systems software. I have used their products for
over eight years and I feel that the upgrades and bugs have cost me
and my family hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. Not only are
the upgrades flawed themselves, most users know that they will be
needing a newer version in only a couple of months. Something needs
to be done to strictly monitor and regulate this problem because the
consumers are suffering without reason. Thank you for your time
Will Liu
7143365923
Orange, CA
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025246
From: Dan Dittenhafer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
While the terms of the settlement are tough, I believe they are
reasonable and fair to all parties, and meet--or go
beyond--the ruling by the Court of Appeals. I support the
settlement of this case based on the current terms.
Thank you,
Daniel Dittenhafer
1203 White Oak Cir.
Melbourne, FL
MTC-00025247
From: Smith Kevin
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 6:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Re: Comments on the Proposed Microsoft Settlement Agreement
To: Renata B. Hesse, Anti-trust Division, USDOJ
Fr: Kevin A. Smith, Chairman, Arkansas Senate Technology Committee
I just want to add my comments in favor of the Microsoft
Settlement. I think it is the right balance between Microsoft's
market strenght through the use of its O.S. while allowing continued
innovation in software development. Thank you for striking a good
and fair balance for the people of the United States, and for
innovation in the marketplace (which also helps the US).
Kevin A. Smith
MTC-00025248
From: den geil
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen; I am strongly in favor of a settlement now of the
Microsoft fiasco the Clinton engineered. Lets get this settled as
currently proposed.
Denis W. Geil, Reno, Nv
MTC-00025249
From: Justin Merkovich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
I want to voice my displeasure with the apparent ``kid
gloves'' approach to the recent Microsoft case. As a user who
primarily employs a Macintosh I have to say that I have been on the
receiving end of Microsoft's deplorable business practices for quite
some time. I wish it to be known that I will be very disappointed in
what I will view as acquiescence on the part of the Department of
Justice should the DoJ decide not to press Microsoft on its business
practices. How long will the government stand for the monopolistic
position of Microsoft and the abuses that it enjoys as a result? Are
you really afraid that the economy will collapse if you rein in this
behemoth? Did communication in the U.S cease to exist when ``Ma
Bell'' was split up? Now is the chance to give competitors a
level playing field and let Microsoft stand on the merits of its
products rather than on the free rein that the U.S. government has
given it to destroy its competition. I don't expect that Microsoft
will be sanctioned in any way as a result of this letter or the many
other thousands like it that you have surely received. The
Department of Justice has given me no reason to believe that it will
do ANYTHING to curb Microsoft's DOCUMENTED abuses in light of the
fact that it has had chances in the past which were not taken
advantage of and that it appears that this opportunity has been
squandered as well.
In short, if Microsoft's practices are not a clear cut case of
abuse from which the Department of ``JUSTICE'' is designed
to protect the citizens of the United States from, then I don't know
what constitutes abuse or what the Department of Justice is doing to
protect me. I hope my voice can add to the din of outrage at the
apparent bowing to the whims of Microsoft.
Thank you for your time,
Justin Merkovich
MTC-00025250
From: Rick Rousseau
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I've been a computer professional for the last decade working
both in systems administration as well as software engineering. I
find the proposed Microsoft Anti-trust settlement inadequate and
unacceptable. Nothing short of dividing Microsoft's business into
seperate operating
[[Page 27606]]
systems and applications business units makes sense. That's not even
taking into consideration any punitive measures that should be
imposed on Microsoft for it's unlawful practices.
Please consider your actions carefully.
Rick Rousseau--computer troll
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a
man's character, give him power.
--Abraham Lincoln
MTC-00025251
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:30pm
Subject: Re: Has Your Opinion Been Counted?
We feel that Microsoft has been un fairly picked on and now is
the time to cease and decist any further charges. We have been very
happy with Microsoft and thank them for all their help in the
computer industry. So lets get off their back.
Sincerely DAHUD80
MTC-00025252
From: colette bottinelli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to voice my support for Microsoft in the DOJ case.
I have grown tired and impatient with this matter, as it is clearly
a case funded and formed by Microsoft's competitors, NOT its
customers (as its competition has been positioning the case).
Microsoft has been accused of overcharging its customers for
software. I encourage you to take an audit of what the competitors
are charging for their software (and what you get for that price). I
believe you will find that Microsoft products are competitively
priced, and often offer many more features/benefits to the customers
than many other products that are on the market today.
I would also like someone to explain to me how Microsoft can be
tagged as a ``Monopoly''--while a huge media
conglomerate such as Time/Warner, and AOL/Netscape (who is now known
for ``owning'' the internet) can be allowed to join forces
without anyone batting an eye?! It has reached the point of being
ridiculous.
It is a sad state of affairs this country has found itself in,
when lawsuits become the first call to action instead of a last
resort. Companies like AOL believe that by suing, they can keep
competitors on the defensive and stop them from creating an offering
that is better than their own product. AOL has market share
dominance, and they have decided that in order to protect that
market share they must sue a competitor rather than improve their
product to retain/attract more customers. This is a lazy, unethical
business practice. I think they have truly embarrassed themselves
with this action.
If the government allows these absurd law suits to continue, it
will soon have on its hand a crippled industry that has not moved
forward in innovation due to forced stagnation. What we will see is
more American jobs lost, and foreign competitors soon owning the
high-tech sector. It's time to put a stop to this and send a clear
message to companies that truly do not have the customers interest
at heart, but are using this guise to further their own selfish and
uninspired agendas.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
MTC-00025253
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs/Madams,
I write regarding the ongoing question of remedies in the DoJ
vs. Microsoft trial. I am not entirely aware of your policies on
considering input from those outside your borders, but given that
profound repercussions are likely to be felt from this outcome by
industry members and citizens around the globe, I felt that it was
imperative that I at least voice my concerns.
It is my opinion, as an IT professional and engineer with
computing background, that to ratify the current settlement proposal
between Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice would be
extremely imprudent. Whatever the rationale the Department had in
coming to this proposal, I believe it to be erroneous in that it is
not only completely wanting in remedy for consumers, but in fact
shackles them to further Microsoft monopoly by enshrining many of
their monopolistic strategies in legal precedent. Specifically, the
lack of requirement to bring the file format of Word into the public
domain, the allowance that Microsoft verify entities as
``legitimate businesses'' (a term as loosely and
ambiguously interpretable as they like) and the pencil-thin
definitions which will allow Microsoft to continue, and indeed
expand, it's unfair monopolistic practices.
I can only hope that this is read, and perhaps, considered.
Very truly yours,
Anthony Auer
CTO, MediaShell Corporation
Toronto, Ontario
MTC-00025254
From: Andrew Lenharth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed
Microsoft Settlement. I beleave the preposed settlement is
ineffective in it's attemps to curb Microsoft's anti-competitve
behavior.
One of the most effective tools used by microsoft to maintain
it's monopoly are propritary file formats used by their application.
Without clearly, correctly, and thoughly document file formats, it
is extremely difficult for a competitor to create a competing
application. This is due to Microsofts monopoly in the office
application market. Any competing product that cannot read a
microsoft generated file or document has an extremely hard time
establishing a foothold, since it cannot deal with the majority of
the douments its user receives.
There are many additional problems with Proposed Final Judgement
that make it an ineffective tool to combat the finding of fact that
Microsoft has anti-competitive behaviors.
Andrew Lenharth
Network Administrator, State of Washington
Debian GNU/Linux Maintainer
Everett, Washington
MTC-00025255
From: Amy Rogers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like voice my concern regarding the government's actions
taken against Microsoft. I appreciate the role of the government in
acting as a ?guardian? to protect businesses from unfair practices.
However, I do NOT support the continued use of taxpayer dollars to
appease those competing with Microsoft. For the most part, those
complaining about Microsoft are also huge profitable corporations.
They are not small to mid-size businesses that are struggling to get
by while Microsoft seeks to destroy them. I believe that if AOL or
any of the other big complainers were forced to go through the same
scrutiny Microsoft has had to endure for many years they would have
failed the test. In fact, many would not remain in business. On the
contrary, Microsoft continues to lead the way in technological
advances and has also weathered our poor economy well. Despite
others efforts to cause the downfall of one of our nations finest
corporations it has risen above the controversy and moved forward.
It is time for the federal government and remaining states involved
in the law suits against Microsoft to move on as well.
As a taxpayer and a voting and concerned citizen I say, ?enough
is enough?. Microsoft has agreed to change their business practices.
While the standards are tough they have agreed to do what has been
declared fair and right by the courts. The law suits need to stop
and the government needs to send the message that while protecting
fair competition it will not discourage business and technology that
gives our nation an edge in the world market.
Microsoft has done far more good than bad. We need more
companies like Microsoft to innovate. The freedom to innovate is an
important part of our culture and one that allows individuals and
corporations to excel domestically and abroad.
Let Freedom Ring!
Amy Rogers
Amy F. Rogers
425-451-1187 Home
425-451-1185 Fax
mailto:[email protected]
CC:Jeff Rogers
MTC-00025256
From: Melanie C. Alexander
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 27607]]
Date: 1/25/02 6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
I protest the laxity of the DoJ settlement in the Microsoft
antitrust suit. I am not a software developer, but have been
involved in applications development since 1986. I am also a student
of history. Microsoft does not make the best operating system or
software, but over the years, its unfair practices have beaten down
the competition using unfair competitive practices.
The arrogance in Microsoft's response to this suit is too
reminiscent of the coal industry, the oil and gas industry, and
other ?dirty? industries the trustbusters took on in the past. In
these days of business consolidation, and multinational
corporations, the Department of Justice should be more
representative of the American public, rather than an
internationally based corporation looking primarily at the corporate
profit picture. I expect the US Department of Justice to take a
firmer stand in protection of the rights of American consumers, and
the free enterprise system.
MTC-00025257
From: Jolie Maki
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I agree with the terms of the settlement that the DoJ, Microsoft
and the 9 states have painstakingly worked together on. We
desperately need to move on to the next set of pressing government
issues and leave the business matters of software where they belong,
in the hands of the companies that create it, not the courtrooms.
I am truly concerned and disappointed that the ``special
interests groups'' are taking the continued ``petty''
litigation approach in addressing their shortcomings, to the point
of adnauseam. I have always felt privileged to live in a country
that supports innovation and forward thinking for the consumers who
choose to purchase (or not) such products. However, I believe if we
continue this litigation path my faith in the legal process will
diminish greatly and our countries economy will continue to suffer
as a result.
Please let's get on with it!
Jolie M. Maki
Snohomish, WA
Registered voter- 44th Legislative District
MTC-00025258
From: Scot Ballard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Make Microsoft document every file format, and every network
protocol so that other software vendors don't have and automatic
disadvantage. You should also make sure that they couldn???t
dissuade other vendors from actually using these standards.
Do this and you will give Microsoft the right to truly innovate.
Scot Ballard
[email protected]
408-974-0575
G.C.S.S.E.
MTC-00025259
From: Bill Durham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Honorables,
Under the Tunney Act, I wish to add my voice to those commenting
on the proposed Microsoft settlement.
I have perused the Court's findings of fact, and the terms of
the proposed settlement. While I do not pretend to be a lawyer, I am
a software engineer who has been studying the High Technology
industries for well over twenty years. I thus speak as a
professional versed in technologic matters.
To put it simply, the court not only has recognized that
Microsoft is indeed a monopoly, but they have also found that
Microsoft is guilty of actions illegal for such a monopoly--and
I find the notion of allowing the convicted to dictate the very
terms of its own punishment to be wholly illogical. In examining the
proposed remedy, it not only represents a tiny pittance of punitive
damage against such a massive entity, but it actually rewards the
defendant by giving it the means to extend that monopoly further
into a market where they previously held no such status. How, if
such a settlement were to be upheld, could it be considered fair and
just if the convicted really profits from the so-called
``punishment'', while their (innocent) competitors are
harmed?
Furthermore, it has come to my attention that at the same time
that Microsoft was found guilty of violating Sherman, and while
proposed remedies have been whittled down to where they actually
benefit the convicted, Microsoft has been continuing to thumb its
nose, if you will, in the face of justice--and that they are
indeed carrying out further predatory attacks against their
competitors. The chief complaint I have of late, effecting my own
business and career, is the acquisition, last year, of key patents
from Silicon Graphics Inc. that could threaten the viability of the
only real competitor to Microsoft's Direct3D Software API
(Application Programming Interface), namely, OpenGL. If this were to
go unchallenged, then Microsoft would be allowed to actually gain
control of their competition in this area, and have serious
repercussions on the entire 3D Computer Graphics industry including
3rd party software vendors and hardware vendors and even the video
game console market.
This is very serious. Microsoft has already been cited for
wantonly using the licensing of its own API's, in many areas of
Software Development, not just 3D Graphics, as a means to control
developers. And allowing this monopoly to now control the licensing
of the --competing-- API's in 3D Computer Graphics means
they now control both sides of that equation--shattering any
hope for true competition.
This one example of Microsoft flaunting its might--even in
the face of having been found guilty by the Court--is an
affront to the very ideals of justice, and would put a dire,
oppressive strangle-hold on this industry. If Microsoft prevails in
their own sentencing, then
I fear they will continue to proceed unabated in their
anticompetitive actions.
I know that, given the current sour state of the economy,
political ``realities'' have been suggested as an
argument--that in this assumption we must prevent Microsoft's
fate from impinging on the economy--nevertheless, for the good
of our progeny and for the Rule of Law to be sustained, something
extremely --serious-- needs to be done to drive home to
the convicted party that their actions are to no longer be tolerated
in a free and open market. It may still be too much to hope that a
serious break-up would be upheld, since--as presumed by
many--that such a remedy might actually contribute to the
weakening of the economy--but then if that were true, then the
very fact that the welfare of just one such corporation could have
such an impact on the --whole-- economy means that the
situation with that obvious monopoly should be rectified to
--reduce-- its impact, not increase it (as Microsoft's own
suggested remedy would cause to occur). If any one company is
considered so vital to the whole economy, then, logically, measures
must be taken such that we do not have ``all our eggs in that
one basket.''
Please, we beg you, give this considerably more thought.
--Bill Durham,
Independent software engineer
MTC-00025260
From: William Parradee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the Microsoft settlement is a bad idea.
It will give Microsoft an even more complete monopoly than
Microsoft has now.
Some families now use other operation systems and programs. This
settlement will cause those families to buy Microsoft products in
order to help their children in school. It may keep some children
from using other operating systems and programs such as Mac, Linux,
FreeBSD, Unix and others. Or any of the other lines of browsers.
If you must order Microsoft to provide computers to schools,
order them to install an operating system other than their
own--and in good working order. Or perhaps install two
operating systems so arranged that either of the two may be accessed
and used easily. In that case, perhaps, one of the systems may be
their own.
William A. Parradee
MTC-00025261
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:39pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Pleas end this costly argument as soon as you can. Douglas
Stevens
MTC-00025262
From: Tom Watson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft settlement is BAD.
Why why why do you let the offender get away and further his
monopoly by making
[[Page 27608]]
schools forced to use the very product that is the subject of the
anti-trust action. It makes as much sense as letting a drug pusher
give away crack at a school.
NO NO NO!!
Tom Watson I'm at home now!!
[email protected]
MTC-00025263
From: Ronald G Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Justice Department should accept the settlement offered by
Microsoft and rule to put an end of all lawsuits. Microsoft has used
smart business to be at the top of the technical business. Consumers
will not be served by continued harassment.
Ronald G. Davis, Portland, Texas
MTC-00025264
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam:
Having followed the Department of Justice v. Microsoft
proceedings from the beginning, I believe it is now time to put this
matter behind us.
Microsoft is undoubtedly a great American success story; any
country would be honored and proud to have them, to reap the vast
benefits they have showered on so many for so long, and to take
pride in the significant contributions they have made, all over the
world. If in fact they did wrong, they have paid the price; we, as a
nation, have your pound of flesh, we do not need to draw blood?
Let's get on with business now and focus our attention on much
more important matters, such as Enron.
Michael F. Merrick
MTC-00025265
From: Noble Eden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please allow the proposed settlement with Microsoft become
final.
Noble Eden, Jr.
5710 Indian Springs
Livingston, TX 77351
MTC-00025266
From: C F Beaver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I just wanted to add my voice to the many who say that the
agreement reached between Microsoft, the DoJ and several of the
states is a reasonable and fair solution to the issues raised by the
anti-trust suit.
I believe that the suit was ill-advised from the beginning. In
my view, the self-serving actions of Microsoft's competitors
initiated a serious and expensive misdirection of industry and
national resources, under the false pretense of consumer protection.
The negative consequences of that mistaken chain of events are still
troubling the nation's economy. Moving on now is in the nation's
best economic interest.
Catheirne Beaver
325 Omni Drive
Sparks, NV 89436
MTC-00025267
From: Shirley Adams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please drop this rediculas, ongoing for months & tend to
businesses much more important. Ex: Social Security Medical
Insurance & % of yearly increases to at least meet cost of
living Or % given government empoyees---Feed the HUNGRY
Americans---& stop borrowing from S.S. so you can stay in
black!
Microsoft has offered a generous settlement to the school
children of the U.S .A by setting up computers for them to
broadening their capabilities.
Your time spent on M/S could have been spent to solve these
problems in less time, than this has taken.
Shirley J. Adams
7800 Mockingbird Ln.
Lot 189
N. Richland Hills, Tx.76180
P.S. Thank you for reading this.
MTC-00025268
From: Andrew Wolff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
AOL had it all and lostr it all. That's American free
enterprise! Don't intefere with regulations and penalties.
MTC-00025269
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a computer programmer and computer systems administrator. I
have been doing this work for nearly twenty years, and I remember
the first Microsoft anti-trust case and the earlier IBM anti-trust
case.
Having established my old-codgerdom, please allow me to comment
on the ``Proposed Final Judgement in United States v.
Microsoft''.
The proposed remedy has many flaws in the details, but more
importantly, some basic shortcomings:
1) Inadequate allowance is made for the fact that Microsoft is a
serial, unrepentant lawbreaker. Far too much is given over to
Microsoft's discretion. For instance, they may withold critical
interoperability information if that 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''. (III.J.1)
Microsoft is not only technically able to engineer gratuituous
dependencies on such exempted APIs, but apparently is the party that
decides whether such a dependency exists in the first place.
Microsoft should never be in the position of interpreting any part
of the final judgement. A special master or other external agency
should make any interpretation.
Microsoft has earned a presumption of bad faith.
2) No explicit provision is made for competitors to Microsoft
that are not, strictly speaking, businesses. The Wine project
(http://www.winehq.com) and the Samba project (http://www.samba.org/
samba/samba.html) are volunteer efforts that produce software that
serves some people, for some purposes as an alternative to
Microsoft. The volunteers on these projects do this by reading the
documented API, performing experiments and determining the real API.
Then they implement as much of that API as they can.
It is true that such an organization often has some corporate
assistance, but the project itself is not structured as a business
and so would fail to ``meet[s] reasonable, objective standards
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and
viability of its business''. (III.J.2.c)
3) No provision is made for lowering the user's barrier to
migration. Users may well have significant time and effort invested
in documents in proprietary Microsoft formats. Microsoft should be
forced to open up these formats, so that other vendors may produce
fully compatible (at the file level) products, allowing users to
move their own work product to other platforms, should they so
desire.
--- Sincerely,
Rodger Hendricks
Sr. Systems Programmer,
AT/CIRCA, Univ of Florida
E520 CSE
P.O. Box 116140
Gainesville, FL 32611-6140
(352) 392-2007
MTC-00025270
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:41pm
Subject: proposed settlement
Any non substantive penalty against Microsoft is a strong
reinforcement for corporate malfeasance. By substantive I mean a
fine of around 50% of Microsoft's net worth or breaking the company
into small enough units that it no longer has the power to rent
congress. Richard Frank
MTC-00025271
From: Brian Schack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Don't let Microsoft get away with everything they have done to
put other companies out of business unfairly and strengthen their
monopoly.
MTC-00025272
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I have a strong feeling that the Sherman Act, proposed long
before the software industry was established, and tailored for the
traditional business is a wrong vehicle for delivering justice in
this particular case. Certain software industry specific merits
[[Page 27609]]
were completely disregarded by the case originators:
1. Software industry in the US and the entire world is driven by
de-facto standards. Large number of leaders (or standard
establishing companies) creates obstacles for the industry
advancement and in effect harms the consumer. I still remember times
when there where dozens of operating systems at the market and mere
moving data from one computer to another was therefore a hard
problem to solve. This situation simply had to evolve into just a
few standard-establishing companies. I personally welcome MS as a
leader in software standards since it is employing the most
brilliant minds in the software industry today.
2. With all due respect, the software industry can not be ruled
by today's judiciary system. They just live in different dimensions.
The modern software development is moving in much faster pace, thus
making most judiciary rulings obsolete by the time they gets
accepted. See for yourself: software industry in general and
Microsoft as a company today are very different from what they where
back in 1998 when this all started. That's why it is so hard to
propose remedies in this case. The final remedies are for the wrong
cause and for the wrong times.
3. The product bundling term is very different in today's
software that is constantly moving to the component-based
architecture. All known operating systems have certain basic
components (like Web browser). Sun Solaris, Mac OS and Unix are not
exceptions. It's like blaming a car maker for bundling the engine
with a car.
4. In this particular case the complaint came not from consumers
and/or consumer advocates, but rather from the losing competition. I
don?t think the industry should create the precedent when a less
successful company can sue the more successful one for loosing the
battle. My personal impression is that Netscape Communications has
to blame itself for loosing the browsers war. They were enjoying
their easy success for too long while their product quality and
feature set was deteriorating compared to the competition.
I am sure that the common interest today is finishing this
process and all copycats resulting from it. More than enough
taxpayer's dollars have been already wasted without any sensible
effect.
Sincerely,
Victor L. Havin
Software Specialist.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025273
From: Glenn Sebolt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
I believe the terms outlined by the current agreement between
Microsoft and the Department of Justice are adequate to address the
Anti-Trust concerns by all parties.
As an end user, and as an Information Technology professional I
have used and will continue to use, support and recommend Microsoft
products to my clients. This includes Operating Systems as well as
Windows, Apple Office Applications and Internet Browsers. I do
believe that Microsoft has the best product, support and pricing on
the market and in that I see tremendous value to me and my clients
as consumers. I do view the continued pursuit of additional
sanctions against Microsoft as productive in any way, and I don't
see how additional value would be derived from the additional
penalties.
I would hope all parties can bring this matter to a final
resolution in a expedient manner.
Thank You,
Glenn Sebolt
1234 28th Street SE
Cedar Rapids, IA 52403
[email protected]
MTC-00025274
From: Jon Doe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I consider my computer ``my tool''. I paid for it, and
I should be able to use it in any way I like provied that I do not
use it to break any laws. If I were to buy a hammer, nobody would
tell me that I could only hit nails with it. No one would say,
``You can't use YOUR hammer as a nutcracker.''
Unfortunately, my computer is useless without an Operationg
System. I have to run Windows because some of my programs are not
available for other OSes(Thanks to the monopoly). Frankly, Windows
is a flawed operation system, and I would rather not use it because
it occationaly restricts my productivity. For this reason, I am
strongly opposed to any practice(Both technical sabotage and
monopoly like practices) that discourages the development of
software that works with or in place of Windows.
In its current form, I believe the Proposed Final Judgement is
full of loopholes that will continue to let Microsoft exercise a
monopoly on the computer industry. The Windows OS must not be
allowed to impair the abilities of other software or operating
systems. Furthermore, Microsoft should be forced to take further
steps to make it easier for developers to create products designed
for Windows in order to insure a free market economy.
In addition, I strongly recommend an addition to the settlement
which prohibits Microsoft from requiring any sort on internet access
or logging onto any Microsoft network to gain full use of Windows.
In other words, Windows should be a stand alone product that
does not need to connect to the net to gain functionality. Some
people do not have internet connections to make this possible and
some would prefer not to get such a connection. I believe that this
part should be a temporary stipulation to be reviewed in about five
years. At which point a non-biases committee should decide whether
to lift the sanction in order to accomodate new technology.
MTC-00025276
From: Brian Freeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
this is a bad idea!!!!!!!!
MTC-00025277
From: Holden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:47pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Please settle this thing and let it go. It is already costing
the consumer too much money.
Much more than we can afford. I truly beleive that this started
the economic downturn. If you want to go after a monopoly, why don't
you get rid of the post office? It will break us all.
Mr. and Mrs. Robert s. Holden
Let go and let God
MTC-00025278
From: Chad Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is terrible. In particular,
III(J)(2) should not restrict distributions to
``businesses''.
The only real potential for competition to Microsoft comes from
organizations that are too informal (and not-for-profit!) to be
called businesses. Other non-business orgs (like the Government)
should not be excluded, either. Require MSFT to publish (on an
unrestricted website!) the same API documen- tation that their
internal application developers have.
Chad Miller
MTC-00025279
From: Woynarowski, Jan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
January 24, 2002
I would like to express my concern regarding the obstacles to
the final settlement in the Microsoft case. It is my deepest belief,
that the general public and the economy of our country will benefit
from the expedite finalization of this case. Microsoft is a
successful company that in not insignificant way has contributed to
the computer revolution. I feel that attempts to restrict the
further growth of Microsoft serve primarily a very narrow segment of
our society that comprises those of Microsoft competitors who are
not innovative enough but still would like to impose their un-
competitive products on the public and collect un-deserved profits.
Being a cancer research scientist, I need efficient software and
powerful computers for all aspects of my professional activities. I
see very acutely, that it was Microsoft, who has brought us the
badly needed software tools at reasonable prices. This in turn has
precipitated the never-ending progression in computer hardware power
and the development of new scientific instruments that enormously
increased our capacity and accelerated biomedically-oriented
research. Microsoft has become pseudo-``monopolist'' only
because its customers voted for its products with their wallets,
like I did. Having restricted funds for research, coming in part
[[Page 27610]]
from taxpayers, it was always my concern to stretch my research
dollars by buying quality software, both operating systems and
applications. With my purchases, I have voted for innovation and
efficiency. Microsoft has responded to my needs over the years in
terms of both quality and affordability.
My cancer research laboratory is not an exception. In thousands
of laboratories, Microsoft products contribute to the ongoing
biological revolution that is already benefiting our lives. Let
Microsoft continue to innovate in their specialty, software, because
their today's innovations will give us scientist tomorrow new
cutting edge tools. Let them continue to develop comprehensive
operating systems that will work as smoothly as possible with their
application software, because this will save us all money and will
increase our efficiency and productivity. Let them donate computers
to schools. It will not strengthen Microsoft ``monopoly''
. To the contrary--some of these kids will get a chance to
become Microsoft competitors--and this will benefit all of us.
I feel that it is in the best interest of American science and
American society that the infamous Microsoft case is finally closed
according to the terms of the agreed settlement. I urge you to
accelerate your efforts in that direction.
With regards,
Jan M. Woynarowski, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Molecular Pharmacology
Cancer Therapy and Research Center
Institute for Drug Development
and
University of Texas Health Science Center
Department of Radiation Oncology
14960 Omicron Dr.
San Antonio, TX 78245
Phone 210-677-3832 Fax 210-677-0058
E-mail: [email protected]
Jan M. Woynarowski, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Molecular Pharmacology
Cancer Therapy and Research Center
Institute for Drug Development
and
University of Texas Health Science Center
Department of Radiation Oncology
14960 Omicron Dr.
San Antonio, TX 78245
Phone 210-677-3832 Fax 210-677-0058
E-mail: [email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025280
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
I believe the proposed settlement with Microsoft is fair and
appropriate. The status has been in limbo long enough and the
industry has been damaged enough by the uncertainty of the outcome.
President Bush has advocated a quick resolve to this in the interest
of the U.S. economy as a whole, and I personally agree with him
since I, along with all the other stockholders of tech stocks, have
lost a lot of my retirement savings during the time it has taken to
stabilize the market with a just resolution. Please do not delay any
further to accept the agreement reached by Microsoft, the Department
of Justice, and nine states, which in my opinion is tough but fair
to all parties. I need to regain confidence in the American economy
and in my investment portfolio.
Sincerely, Marie Allen Smith, Ed. D. Retired Educator
MTC-00025281
From: Margaret Ho
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'd like to give my opinion of the Microsoft settlement with the
government: let the settlement stand and and get the other nine
states in on the settlement. Haven't we had enough litigation
already? Where is the free market? If Microsoft make inferior
products, it would have been left behind. If Microsoft's competitors
can't keep up, they need to think of other products or more
innovations, not run to big government to pull back Microsoft. We
certainly do not need Congress to tell people what to buy or what
services to use. Why should Microsoft be punished for success??? The
marketplace should level the playing field, not politicans who know
little of the details of the workings of business. Microsoft is not
the Standard Oil of New Jersey; Microsoft grew big and strong on its
own without buying and cobbling together its parts. Does the
government want to distract Microsoft with lawsuit after lawsuit so
it will fall back with products and innovation (like with IBM years
ago), thereby leveling the playing field for its competitors? Let
the settlement put an end to this unfair hounding of Microsoft, and
the marketplace will take care of business. I really like and use my
Microsoft programs and other products every day--I don't want
my computer life interrupted! Thanks for listening.
MTC-00025282
From: rhad@rhad-linux@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:50pm
Subject: comment on MS settlement
FROM: Hanskarl Borck
2802 W. Bay Area #1704
Webster, TX, 77598
TO: 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:
I am writing in response to the proposed settlement to the
Microsoft Antitrust Case. This matter has become quite important to
me in the past several years as a student at the University of
Houston, and an active computer user and enthusiast. Within this
letter I will first explain why Microsoft must be punished more
severely than the settlement proposes. Then I will outline what I
consider to be a more fitting settlement.
The Problem with Microsoft
The primary reason that I believe in punishing Microsoft more
severely revolves round their blatantly unfair actions in an
extremely competitive market. For instance, I can easily cite their
purely anti-competitive deals with OEM computer manufacturers, or
the obvious bundling of Internet Explorer with the OS purely to
dominate the browser market.-- However, my primary concern
tends to lie not with these problems as much as their unwillingness
to adapt to current computer standards and open up their most common
APIs and document formats.-- It is obvious that Microsoft
totally dominates the computer industry.-- Through this
dominance, its document formats (.doc, .xls, .ppt etc.) have become
increasingly used throughout the corporate and personal
world.-- However, Microsoft won?t let anyone else play. The
formats utilized by these programs are unreleased and a closely
guarded trade secret.-- More importantly, Microsoft has
released more and more of their communications protocols to the
Internet world without supplying sufficient data to let other
systems communicate with them.-- They blatantly ignore current
standards and introduce intentional bastardizations solely to
leverage their monopoly further.-- For instance, Internet
Explorer contains intentional problems with properly reading and
displaying normal HTML as defined in various standards
papers.-- However, rather than being held responsible for this
?bug?, Microsoft implied that the web sites were responsible
instead.-- As the public became further and further entrenched
in Internet Explorer (via the OEM deals and bundling aforementioned)
web designers were forced to ?correct? their good code to display
properly on Internet Explorer, leaving people not using Internet
Explorer wondering why all of the sudden their standards-conforming
browsers no longer worked.
There are hundreds of other examples like that one, many of them
much more important. Specifically, with the possible emergence of
Microsoft's .NET plan, normal operation under the web, already
heavily drugged by Microsoft, would become almost inherently
Microsoft based.-- The way I read it, .NET creates a one-time
access point for all web communication.-- You login a .NET
server, and then grab the appropriate information to complete online
transactions, downloads, password completion, maybe even web-site
access.-- Does anyone honestly think such unbelievable control
would be used fairly by Microsoft?-- Does anyone even think
that a different operating system would be allowed to login without
deliberate loss of functionality, if it could login at all?
MTC--00025282--0002
In summary, Microsoft has abused its monopoly and stifled
competition via three prime methods:
1) OEM deals which lock out the competition.
2) Increased bundling of their products with the Windows OS.
3) Releasing file formats, APIs, and communication protocols in
proprietary formats.
The Ideal Solution
Contrary to a large majority of people like me, I do not believe
that breaking up the company would result in any productive fix
[[Page 27611]]
for the Microsoft monopoly.-- Rather, I would stress that there
are two things that must happen.
1) Microsoft must stop making deals with OEM vendors that
disallow competition, or punishing those vendors that refuse to
capitulate via increased fees or withholdings.
2) Microsoft must release its most common formats, communication
protocols and APIs to the public.
With regards to 1), the DOJ settlement has outlined a good set
of regulations except the restriction that non-MS middleware must
either not display a user interface or should display a user
interface similar to the corresponding MS product. This forces
competing software vendors to imitate Microsoft's lead in these
product lines. To the user then, it seems that Microsoft is the only
innovator and the other vendors are merely copying. There should be
no restrictions on competing middleware products. The desktop
configuration should be entirely up to the OEM.
However, objective 2) is addressed by the settlement but fails
in a huge way. Ideally I hope to see after the settlement this type
of scenario:
Jon Doe is not a rich man, but he is not poor either.-- He
desires to buy a computer for his family, and so he heads to the
store.-- His first option is a computer with the Microsoft
Windows OS.-- Jon is familiar with it, as he has used it before
at his workplace, but he was unaware of the cost, which is much more
than he can afford. Upon a closer examination, he realizes that the
Windows computer forces you to buy many other bundled pieces of
software as well; an office suite, a firewall, a CD-burning program,
a paint program, and more.-- Reading a little more, J0n als0
discovers that he cannot install any of the programs on another
machine in his house because he is only ?renting? the software, and
must pay Microsoft again in order to use it again.--
Uncomfortable with such limited control over what he pays for, Jon
moves further down the aisle to the Linux computer section, which
has lower prices. You can buy either a stripped down low cost
version, or an intensely modified and software heavy version. Better
yet, the cost for the software is next to free, and it can be
reinstalled as much as you want. Here is the kicker for Jon:--
And it will fully support standard Windows formats and protocols to
ensure proper communication in a Windows network. Jon could also
look at the Apple section; it too states full computability with the
common Windows machines found on the Internet.
MTC-00025282--0003
What I wrote above cannot happen today since the computer and
Internet world has been enveloped in Microsoft products. No
competition can truly occur until it does happen. Obviously, if
these formats and protocols were opened, Microsoft would be forced
to lower their prices (finally), and perhaps even offer computer
manufacturers a less-bundled operating system. This is the
key.-- Microsoft in my mind can bundle as much as they want. It
drives the price up, and increases complexity.-- However, if
the competition can compete in a Microsoft dominated Internet and
computer world, the lower costs and increased options will force
Microsoft to adapt in ways that benefit the consumer.-- In
other words, Microsoft can certainly attempt to sell as much as they
want.-- No one can deny that their products are useful and,
while lacking stability and security, are fairly user-
friendly.-- At the moment though, Microsoft has managed to
become the only option. They no longer have to price competitively,
or market their products based on performance.-- They have
managed to make alternatives intentionally less functional from a
Windows perspective. It is the car equivalent of Microsoft supplying
cars that run best on their own proprietary gasoline.-- Once
they achieve some market dominance, carmakers and gasoline
manufactures are suddenly in deep trouble when it comes to breaking
into the market.-- I believe that it is these proprietary
formats and protocols that are really to blame in Microsoft's
monopoly abuse.-- In order to promote fair competition, these
must be made open, and not just to some select groups as the
settlement foolishly states.-- Open to the General
Public.-- The people forced to maintain Microsoft products, and
use their software are not just these select vendors and groups.
More importantly, these binary formats and protocols cannot be seen
as intellectual property since Microsoft has managed to become such
a dominant player.-- They are now the de facto standard.
There are many other things about the settlement I think could
be made more friendly to the computer industry and software
professionals Microsoft has continually abused.-- However, I
truly feel that the majority of these discrepancies are unimportant
when compared to the necessity of opening the Microsoft APIs, file
formats, and communication protocols.-- This freedom to expand
on the now (albeit unlawfully) standard Microsoft product-line will
allow the industry as a whole to slowly catch-up to Microsoft in the
computing sector.-- This competition and increased innovation
will naturally spur Microsoft to better products as well, all
benefiting the consumer.-- And that is the goal right?
To benefit the consumer.
Sincerely,
Hanskarl Borck
MTC-00025282--0004
E-Mail: rhad
Date: 25-Jan-02 Time: 17:54:36 This message was sent by XFMail
MTC-00025282--0005
MTC-00025283
From: mike
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern,
I must strenuously object to the proposed settlement with
Microsoft. It is clear that Microsoft is not phased by your actions
as they continue, even now the very activities of which they have
been convicted. In the past several weeks they have filed a
frivolous lawsuit against Lindows Inc. in an attempt to use their
vast wealth to bankrupt a competitor. Further, even with action
hanging over their heads, they released an operating system with yet
more forced hooks in it, and are branching out into the internet
infrastructure (.net) and the game box (xbox) arenas. Earlier this
week they announced they would extend the capabilities of the xbox
to include web browsing, e-mail and other computer related
functions. This is clearly a first step (well not really a first
step, remember the PC99 standard) to break into the computer
manufacturing business. Microsoft producing computers would place
the final nail into the coffin of choice for PC owners.
On the issue of a breakup, I don't think this is a good idea. I
believe leaving Microsoft intact and compelling them to abide by the
additional constraints of being a monopoly would be more effective.
A much better solution would be to restrict their exercise of their
software patents, and prohibit further patent action. Along with
this a true opening of their file formats and apis would be in
order. A breakup would leave 2 or more companies, unencumbered with
the stigma of monopoly, but with the same majority stockholders and
management team. This would almost incurs in the realm of a reward
for wrong doing. If a breakup were to be effective it would need to
completely disassociate the resulting companies. More importantly
the development tools division would have to be spun off. With the
development tools being created by an autonomous company, the
stranglehold that Microsoft holds on the industry may be broken. No
more would there be apis visible only to the developers that create
Microsoft operating systems and applications. And perhaps the steady
decline of useful documentation for the development tools would come
to an end.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Michael G. Grello
Principal Programmer
MaranaTha Software
MTC-00025284
From: GTEmail
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
GlacierDear Sir:
I support the settlement agreed to by both parties and I believe
efforts to modify the settlement terms are miss-guided.
Please proceed with the settlement on the terms now proffered
and accepted. I believe this action will benefit all interested
parties.
Sincerely,
Mark K. Young
MTC-00025285
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:48pm
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
[[Page 27612]]
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,
T.H. Pendle
119 Phyllis Ct.
Vallejo, CA 94590-8118
MTC-00025286
From: Frederick A Farley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:52pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
We think this is gone far enough! To do further litigation would
only cost more money to the taxpayers and muddy the waters more yet
to no avail. We think that Microsoft has paid enough. Lets let them
get on with their business of producing quality equipment and
programs to better serve the public. Thank You
Loralee & Frederick Farley
MTC-00025287
From: Ron Smith MD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:51pm
Subject: My Comments
I don't have a clue how the government can prosecute and win the
antitrust suit against Microsoft, and then give them back every
monopolizing area they already had.
I'm an Apple Macintosh user, so I'm very familiar with
Microsoft's attitude toward competition.
The agreement stinks and smacks of someone in the government
being paid off.
This settlement is corrupt!
Ron Smith, MD
MTC-00025288
From: VISHNU A GOKHALE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:52pm
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement.''
The Justice Department
Washington D C
Dear Sirs,
Please accept the settlement with Microsoft.
I want to let you know that consumer interests have been well
served, and the time to end this costly and damaging litigation has
come. Dragging out this legal battle further will only benefit a few
wealthy competitors, lawyers, and special interest bigwigs. Not one
new product that helps consumers will be brought to the marketplace.
Sincerely,
Vin Gokhale
1/25/02
MTC-00025289
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Honorable Judge,
It is my view that the proposed final judgment in the U.S. vs.
Microsoft antitrust suit is seriously flawed.
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist who has run afoul of this
country's antitrust laws, making many billions of dollars in the
process. This proposed settlement would allow the company to keep
almost all of these illegal profits.
I am also concerned that there are no provisions in this
proposed settlement to prohibit this monopolist from continuing to
engage in anticompetitive activities. Allowing Microsoft to police
itself is no solution, and we certainly don't need a government-
mandated monopoly.
I urge you to reject the proposed final judgment.
Sincerely,
Anita Brubaker
1502 Esbenshade Road
Lancaster, PA 17601
(717) 295-7374
MTC-00025290
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:52pm
Subject: I am against these bureacratic lobbyiests and let's get on
with the best
I am against these bureacratic lobbyiests and let's get on with
the best for all people involved. This has gone on far enough and it
is time to do what is right and ethical. I am tired of this
political Wrangeling. Where are the people who were sent to
Washington for the good of the voters? Get off of your fat duffs and
let's be truthful for once. For shame!!!!!
Sincerely,
Douglas Sargeant
MTC-00025291
From: Michael Musty
To: DOJ vs. Microsoft
Date: 1/25/02 6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to state my opinion of this settlement issue.
Firstly, I am a computer consultant and programmer and I use a
variety of software languages and platforms. My feeling is that
Microsoft has succeeded in the market place because the quality of
their software products is far superior to any of the other software
vendors. They know how to build software very well. And they deserve
their position in the market. I buy their products because I know
they will treat me right. You can't say that about Netscape or alot
of the other software vendors.
However I do not know much about the inner business strategies
and behaviors of the MBAs on their non-technical staffs, so I can't
speak about them. I do know, from a technical point of view, they
put out a far superior product than netscape and the other software
vendors. Please don't restrict their ability to continue producing
software the way they do!
Michael Musty
Datapattern Inc
Minneapolis, MN
MTC-00025292
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do NOT feel comfortable with this settlement. Please do not
make it easier for Microsoft to tighten its strangle hold on the
American people. Every day I try to convince someone else to try an
operating system besides windows. Linux, BeOS, or MacOS are all good
choices. They tell me ``Why switch when I know that Microsoft
will bully any other competitor out of the way?''
I don't have an answer for them right now. When I see the
direction this case is going, I cant argue with them on that point.
Why try to evangelize when Microsoft is above the law?
Jason Lamb
Hardware Engineer
MTC-00025293
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I approve the proposed settlement in the case between Microsoft,
the federal government, and nine states.
-Ravi
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025294
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Microsoft
settlement. Microsoft has made it abundantly clear over the years
that it will willingly cross the line into monopolistic behavior
whenever it pleases.
The only feasible remedy to this situation is to break the
company into multiple new companies that compete directly. It is not
enough to break Microsoft into one operating system company and one
applications company, as this would apparently have the effect of
spawning two new monopolists in separate markets.
By the way, I am a Microsoft stockholder and have been for many
years. As I stockholder, I can and should ordinarily expect the
officers of a company to maximize profits. Given the virtual
monopoly Microsoft enjoys in the operating system market, however,
we can conclude from basic economic theory that Microsoft will not
be maximizing profit unless it restricts output below the
(competitive market) equilibrium price, thus restricting sales below
the welfare-maximizing level. As this is harmful to the public
welfare, I hereby sincerely ask that you limit the returns of
stockholders such as myself by ending the monopolistic practices of
Microsoft once and for all. I have no wish to profit from harm to
the public.
Respectfully,
Richard Bradford
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
MTC-00025295
From: Whitney Tracy
[[Page 27613]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
It is my opinion that the currently proposed settlement with
Microsoft is INADEQUATE and IRRATIONAL. I believe that a fair
settlement should include a hefty amount of cash ($1 billion+) and
legal restrictions on Microsoft's future business developments.
Sincerely,
Whitney A. Tracy
Austin, TX
A concerned US citizen.
MTC-00025296
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
I believe that the proposed Microsoft 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.
I strongly urge the Justice Department to adopt this settlement
and end the prolonged litigation and high costs to the government of
this procedure.
I am offering these comments under current law (known as the
Tunney Act) which allows public comment on the proposed settlement
up until January 28th.
Thank you for your consideration.
Elmer F. Baron
24670 S.W. Old Hwy 99 W.
Sherwood, OR. 97140
[email protected]
MTC-00025297
From: Jeff Jackowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Proposed Final Judgement in the case United States v.
Microsoft will not prevent Microsoft from continuing anit-
competetive practices. The PFJ has a number of loopholes that will
allow Microsoft the latitude for monopolistic actions, and Microsoft
has already proven that it can find and exploit such loopholes.
The loopholes include:
* Narrow definition for API
* Narrow definition for Middleware
* New Windows operating systems are not covered by restrictions
* Per-processor licensing allowed to continue for enterprises
* Allows restrictions against the creation of Windows compatible
systems
* Allows discrimination against Open Source software
These loopholes must be corrected if the anti-trust case against
Microsoft is to have its intended effect of restoring competition to
the market.
Jeff Jackowski
110A Northington Place
Cary, NC 27513
MTC-00025298
From: Brian Beattie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Proposed Settlement in this case, is severly flawed,
propable fataly so.
Microsoft has arguably held a monoply in the PC OS market since
1990 and has used this fact to disadvatage and destroy competitors.
This has clearly harmed consumers, by limiting there options. It is
difficult to guess as to what developments never say the light of
day due the chilling effect of Microsoft actions. That a number of
products were not allowed to compete fairly in the marketplace is
clear.
Microsofts actions since the inital verdict nakes it clear that
Microsoft is unlikely to act lawfully in the future, nor to allow
competition to return to the marketplace.
MTC-00025299
From: Maia, Joe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph P. Maia
15 Brook Drive
Burlington, NJ 08016
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney, Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
The following comments pertain to the Revised Proposed Final
Judgement, 6 Nov 2001 (``Revised Judgement'') for the
antitrust case against Microsoft (``MS'').
I will also refer to the Plaintiff Litigating States''
Remedial Proposals, 7 Dec 2001 (``Alternate Judgement'').
I am a senior software engineer with over 23 years experience in
the software development industry. I have worked as both an employee
and as a consultant. I currently work for a major software systems
development firm in the defense industry.
Over the course of my career I have worked on development
projects for both the defense and commercial industries, designing
and developing both system and application software. And as one
would expect, over the years I have used a variety of operating
systems and programming languages. Most recently I have been
developing applications using the Java programming language and
runtime system.
The depth and breadth of my experience in the software
development industry puts me in a position where my comments may
provide additional insight into evaluating the merits of the Revised
Judgement. A judgement which I characterize as woefully inadequate.
First and foremost, I am deeply disappointed at the decision of the
Department of Justice (DOJ) not to pursue any breakup of MS. I was
also disappointed when Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's remedy was
announced. I feel that MS should be split into at least four
companies: operating systems, office products, enterprise/server
products, and consumer products. However, upon reading the details
of that remedy, I felt it was the absolute minimum which must be
done if there is to be any hope of a successful remedy which will
not require continued litigation further down the road. Baring a
structural remedy, many of the conduct-only remedies should be
designed as if MS were being broken up, as this in many ways is the
heart of the problem--MS controls both the operating system
(``OS'') and many important applications, and has not
hesitated to pursue illegal means to use this to their advantage.
Since the possibility of a breakup appears moot, the remaining
comments deal specifically with the Revised Judgement.
Since my expertise is in the area of software development and
not marketing, my comments will deal primarily with the needs of the
software development community and the impact that might have on
consumers.
A FEW DEFINITIONS
There are a couple of terms which the press seem to always get
wrong, or to use interchangeably, when only one term is correct.
These terms are used when discussing how a product or application
may be included in a supporting OS. ``Bundled Product'' A
bundled product is one which is simply ``dropped into'' an
OS. Its files are completely separate from any OS files. If the
product is removed from the OS, it does not affect the continued
operation of the OS or of any other application (barring the
possibility of unintentional file naming conflicts where certain
definition files may have to go into common locations).
``Integrated Product'' An integrated product on the
other hand is tied into OS files in one way or another (also called
``co- mingling of code'') so that you cannot remove the
product without adversely affecting the operation of the OS and
possibly other applications. An ``Integrated Product'' is
quite different from functionality which appears
``integrated''--the latter referring to how seamless
the interface feels to the user. ``Plug-in''. A plug-in
architecture or API allows for the addition of added functionality
to an application or OS through a standardized interface. This may
or may not include additional top-level windows, or any new user
interface at all. For example: this might allow third-party
additions to a graphics editing program which would include
additional windows, or it could also define a way for an OS to allow
the OS developer or any third party developer to provide
``integrated'' functionality without undue benefit to the
OS developer and without undue bias against any third parties (such
as HTML interpreters, or digital video format interpreters).
THE HOUSE THAT MICROSOFT BUILT
I have found that comparing the software development industry to
the housing construction industry helps to clarify the issues at
hand and will help to point out the problems I see with the Revised
Judgement.
The computer OS is very similar to a newly constructed house
when you consider what should or should not be included with it.
Both provide a framework and a collection of basic services for you
to use with all the personal belongings you own. In the new home you
have standardized outlets, pre-wired phone lines, a central air/heat
unit, built in kitchen appliances, possibly pre-wired cable TV
lines, built-in connections for laundry washer and dryer, a water
tap for refrigerators which make their own ice cubes, and possibly
other items as well.
[[Page 27614]]
The computer OS also provides a number of services and built-in
applications for basic operations.
The big difference between the two industries is that in the
housing construction industry all your built-in appliances,
electrical service, etc, are all standardized and publicly known
(any built-in appliance can be replaced with another appliance from
any manufacturer)--but in the software development industry,
the primary OS, the one with a 95% share of the desktop market, has
a stranglehold on the industry because of proprietary built-in
products (integrated products) and hidden APIs.
The final remedy should address this inequity so the OS is more
like an empty new house. This is not to suggest that the OS must be
laid bare, but due consideration should be given to the effect on
the software development industry as well as consumer choice, if
certain products are allowed to be included in an OS without some
sort of limitations on how the product or capability is added.
The only equitable way to guarantee an even playing field is to
simply not allow any integrated products in a monopoly OS.
Bundled products and plug-ins should be allowed, but only if
they can be completely removed and/or replaced with competing third-
party products, without restraint, by either hardware manufacturers/
resellers or consumers.
If MS were in the housing construction industry, they would want
to sell you a furnished house filled with MS-branded appliances and
furniture--and so constructed that you would not be able to
replace any built-in product with a non-MS product. What is even
worse, MS's new licensing policy would be the equivalent of only
renting new houses to its customers!
The next few sections detail specific changes and additions to
the Revised Judgement which are necessary if there is any hope at
all of providing equity to third-party software developers, a
Technical Committee with the ability to actually be effective, and
true choice for consumers.
THE NEEDS OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS
For software developers, the OS is a commodity which drives all
product development. Without all-inclusive and detailed information
about the services available in the OS, developers cannot develop
viable products for that OS. And if one group of developers is given
more complete information than other groups, then the more informed
developers will produce the more compatible, the more
``integrated'' (i.e.: more seamless interface), and the
more full- functioned product. In a monopoly environment, it is even
more important than ever to guarantee the equal distribution of
detailed documentation about the controlling OS as well as included
Middleware products.
First and foremost, there can be no time limits on requirements
that MS divulge full documentation on all existing and new APIs, or
upcoming changes to existing APIs, to non-MS developers. Otherwise,
the day after the Judgement expires, MS could very easily make a few
minor changes to their APIs and not publicize them--and we
would be right back where we are today. In fact, all of these
comments pertaining to software developers-- as well as the
comments below discussing consumer choice-- should have no time
limits!
The Revised Judgement is unfair to non-MS developers in allowing
MS to not divulge changes to their APIs until the ``last major
beta''. MS should be required to announce all proposed changes
to APIs in the form of a ``White Paper'' at the time the
change is proposed. As each new version of an API is defined or
necessary changes to an API are decided upon, MS should be required
to announce the new API description. And MS should be required to
announce, as accurately as possible, the timeline MS plans for
formal release of the modified API. Any ``early-release''
versions of API libraries made available to MS developers must also
be made available to non-MS developers. Any delay in informing non-
MS developers of upcoming changes to APIs is an unfair advantage to
MS developers. There can be no limitation on who can see this
documentation-- this information must be available to any
interested party without restriction, either via published books at
reasonable prices and/or via freely available web pages on the
Internet.
The wording of the Revised Judgement pertaining to the
definition of ``documentation'' leaves much to be desired.
I believe MS can interpret this to mean they can keep the same level
of documentation they current have--which is to say the
omission of certain API details as to give MS developers the
advantage over non-MS developers. The wording in the Alternate
Judgement does a better job of describing what is needed. There can
be no question that a full and complete detailed description of all
APIs necessary for an developer to develop any kind of software to
run on any MS OS or Middleware product be available (preferably on
the web) for any developer to reference. I emphasize that ANY MS OS
or Middleware product be included in this requirement--this
should include handheld devices, new devices (such as the X-Box),
and server-side OSs and Middleware.
The level of detail and completeness should be sufficient so
that any competent developer can use the API without the need to
examine the source code to resolve questions the documentation
should answer. This level of detail is well recognized within the
software development industry.
Not mentioned in the Revised Judgement are file formats. In a
monopoly position, it is important to require the monopolist to
divulge file formats which controlling OSs, Middleware, or
applications use. These full disclosures allow non-MS developers to
develop competing products which can read and/or modify these files.
These competing products might run on any OS, not just MS's OS. When
MS plans changes to these file formats, they should be required to
follow the same procedures detailed above for APIs.
When an OS enjoys a monopoly position, it is very important for
the health of the software development industry, the benefit of
consumers, as well as the continued operation of standards-
development and approval bodies, that the controlling OS supports
such standards and does so faithfully. MS should be required to
faithfully support all recognized standards which the software
development industry and other OSs support now and in the future. MS
must be required to implement these standards so that any MS or non-
MS product which follows the ``standard'' can inter-
operate with the OS and other MS products without any degradation of
function. If MS wants to add ``enhancements'' to a
standard, it must do so in such a way that any product which
strictly follows the standard does not see any degradation of
function. Failure to require MS to faithfully support standards will
ultimately result in important ``standards'' becoming
``Microsoft-ized'' which will force users of the
``standard'' to use MSs OS and applications.
Integration of applications into the OS simply should not be
allowed! MS should be required to un-integrate its Internet Explorer
product, as well as other products it has integrated into its newest
Windows XP OS. Only bundled products and plug-ins, as I described
above, should be allowed to be added to an OS. If any
``default'' applications can be specified in the OS, then
any application with the same basic functionality, whether MS or
non-MS, should be able to be set as the default. The location in the
OS where a default application can be set should be intuitively
obvious and not hidden away in a hard to find menu somewhere.
With the above exclusion of integrated products in the OS, any
bundled or plug-in product, MS or non-MS, should be allowed to be
completely deleted from the OS. In the case where a product must be
specified as a default for proper operation of the OS, the user
should still be allowed to delete any vendor's product, MS or non-
MS, and be given a choice to specify a different default. The only
time a deletion would not be allowed is if the product were the 0nly
product installed on the OS which could be specified as that
default. To ``delete'' a product should never mean
``hide its icon from view''--which is what the
Revised Judgement allows. This supports the continued integration of
application code into the OS. The code of the hidden product, even
though the user no longer sees its icon, can still affect the
operation of the OS and potentially disturb the operation of
competing non-MS products. Developers need to know that an OS
version is stable and unchanging and that installing a new
application is not going to change some OS files (i.e. API
libraries) and potentially break their applications.
The developing MS .NET initiative should also be mentioned in
the final Judgement. A core idea of .NET is the ``Common
Language Runtime'' (CLR). This is a Middleware product just as
Java's Runtime System is a Middleware product. It should be clearly
stated in the final Judgement that MS cannot develop an OS version
where every product is forced to run on the CLR (in other words, MS
cannot integrate the CLR into their OS such that other products
would not be able to run properly without it). This requirement goes
hand-in-hand with requirements stated above to disallow integration
of products and
[[Page 27615]]
to require MS to support existing and future standards as the
industry needs. As a monopoly OS, MS must be required to continue to
support the widest range of applications and services to guarantee a
healthful and innovative climate for software developers.
Specific mention of ``intentional incompatibilities''
should also be made in the final Judgement. MS was found guilty of
adding intentional incompatibilities in an earlier court case
involving Windows 3.1 and DR DOS. MS should be warned not to
continue this practice in any form. Hopefully the Technical
Committee to be set up will be independent and strong enough to be
able to guard against this.
THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
The proposed Technical Committee must not have undue influence
from MS. To this end, no member of the committee should be appointed
by MS and MS should not have any veto power or any other kind of
oversight power over the committee. There should be no limitation on
who can be selected for the committee. MS should provide all
necessary money to pay for the committee, but an independent
organization should manage the administration of the money.
Technical Committee members should be totally free to divulge to
the public any problems or questionable practices it discovers,
though source code should not be allowed to be divulged without
proper peer review. When questions arise concerning source code,
they should first be put through a formal review--if the code
is indeed found to contain ``illegal'' code, then the
source code should be allowed to be divulged and MS forced to fix
the problem.
The Technical Committee should have full access to not only the
source code but all tools, compilers, and pre-processors which might
be used by MS so that the committee can verify
independently--by generating its own executables from the
source code and verifying their equivalence to the released
executables--that they have a complete copy of the source code
which actually produced the released product. This will protect
against the possibility that MS might be hiding bad code by
introducing last-minute patches to their source files as they
generate their executables.
If the Technical Committee finds repeated infractions of the
Judgement, or gross negligence, it should be stipulated that the
Court can reconvene at any time to ponder splitting up MS if the
conduct remedies are not effective or are simply being ignored.
EQUITY IN CONSUMER CHOICE
The final Judgement should stipulate the following principles
which MS must follow to maximize consumer choice:
1. The setting of default applications, and the installation or
deletion of applications, should always be user driven. Never should
the code decide on its own to do these things.
2. MS should be required to provide only an ``empty
house'' OS with additional CDs which contain all the MS
products MS wishes to bundle and/or plug-in to the OS. These
additional products are optional. Each product can be individually
installed or deleted from the OS. MS cannot scare the consumer into
installing its optional products over non-MS products by any
comments in documentation or installation windows. Hardware
manufacturers and resellers are free to install either MSs optional
products or non-MS products. To keep MS from killing other market
categories, and to potentially reinvigorate market categories it has
already hampered or decimated, MS should not be allowed to include
any products on these additional CDs where other non-NS products
already exist in the marketplace unless these other products are
also offered for free. When competing products for sale exist, MS
must compete for market share with separate products at reasonable
prices.
3. MS can publish a separately available OS for purchase by
consumers which includes all its allowable bundled and plug-in MS
products, but it must still include the additional CDs mentioned
above so users have full access to installation and deletion
options.
4. MS must compete with all other software developers to provide
quality products for bundling and plugging in. MS must publish price
lists for these products, including volume discounts, just as
described for OS price lists, so MS cannot force its add-ons on its
vendors.
5. No MS OS, Middleware, application, or plug-in can
periodically pop up a dialog or some other message asking the user
if they wish to do this or do that or purchase this service or
purchase that service. Windows XP is an example of this horrendous
behavior. At the very least, the user must be able to turn this
``feature'' off at any time.
6. When MS releases new versions of software which support
modified file formats, MS should be required to provide separately
available, reasonably priced or free, software which will convert
not only the older format to the new format, but also convert the
new format to the older format. This will negate the benefit MS
gains by purposely changing file formats for no other reason than to
force customers to purchase the latest version of their software.
THE BOTTOM LINE Most of the above suggested remedies would come
naturally if the court simply split MS into at least two companies
as was originally decreed.
Joseph P. Maia
MTC-00025300
From: Weston Cann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wish to write to express my dissatisfaction with the proposed
final judgment (PFJ) in the Microsoft case. I am not a legal
professional, but I am a software developer with 10 years of
experience developing across the Windows/DOS, Macintosh, and Unix
platforms. As an observer of and worker within the software
industry, it is my conclusion that while the intent of some
provisions in the judgement are worthy, overall, the judgement as
written allows and even encourages significant anticompetitive
practices to continue. As both a remedy and a punitive action
discouraging future misbehavior, it seems likely to fail unless
areas of concern are addressed:
(1) The PFJ as I read it in section III requires Microsoft to
open up its networking protocols and APIs to certain businesses
deemed viable and safe by Microsoft itself, under terms it
determines. The release of such protocols and APIs is an essential
part of any good remedy, and it is heartening to see it in the
proposal.
However, having Microsoft make the decisions about what
constitutes a viable business is a formula for failure. It is not
difficult to imagine a scenario whereby the processes/criteria for
obtaining API and protocol information become a barrier to entry,
especially for those organizations not in Microsoft's favor.
Furthermore, a whole host of legitimate organizations are left
out under the language of the agreement: academic institutions,
governments, public interest groups, and open source developers. Not
the least of these are foundations and cooperatives such as the
Apache Group, makers of the market leading webserver Apache, and the
SAMBA team, makers of software which enables networking
interoperability between Windows and other operating systems. Each
of these organizations provide valuable and widely used software,
but do not qualify as businesses. Microsoft has publicly stated that
it considers open source software among the biggest threats to its
business, and so Microsoft has incentive to avoid disclosing
information to these organizations. A fully effective PFJ absolutely
must contain reasonable provisions enabling academic institutions,
government organizations, public interest groups, open source
developers, and others to easily obtain required information.
It is not lost on me that security concerns are referenced as
reasons for the apparent concessions that let Microsoft determine
recipients of documentation. Security is not an unreasonable
consideration, especially as computing is increasingly associated
with connectivity and communications. However, the argument that
security must be maintained by secrecy regarding protocols and
mechanisms is weak. Modern accepted professional security practices,
much like modern academic practices, rely on extensive and open peer
review of a security mechanism or protocol, and a system is
considered truly trustworthy only after being widely tested with its
inner workings exposed. While no system is without security flaws,
the recent plague of security problems in Microsoft's email,
webserver, and office productivity products highlight the relative
ineffectiveness of Microsoft's current ``closed''
approach.
Thus, a high degree of openness--even regarding things
related to security--is unlikely to hurt Microsoft, and might
in fact make their products more secure. Additionally, if Microsoft
is allowed to avoid disclosing things related to security, is not
difficult to imagine a scenario where it would intermingle security
protocols and standard communication protocols, thereby relieving
itself of any obligation to provide information about those
protocols to an outside party. Because the ``security''
provision outlined in section J provides only weak legitimate
benefits at best for Microsoft, and has great
[[Page 27616]]
potential for abuse, it will need to either be struck from the
agreement, or carefully modified with these concerns in mind.
Additionally, the disclosure agreement leaves out file formats,
which lag only slightly behind communications/networking protocols
and APIs in terms of essential importance to interoperability.
Addition of these to the list of things disclosed under the
agreement frees consumer data from lock-in by Microsoft, and removes
a significant barrier to competing products.
(2) In section III of the PFJ, there is some effort against
prohibiting Microsoft from drafting agreements with OEMs that are
likely to be harmful to the consumer and competitors. The intent of
each agreement seems worthy, but I question the overall
effectiveness of the agreements, especially in light of the
resourcefulness Microsoft has displayed in skirting the intent of
earlier prohibitions on their activities with OEMs. The provisions
in the PFJ must be tightened. A complete solution would impose
several requirements on Microsoft agreements with OEMs:
(a) Microsoft may only differentiate the prices for any of its
products (and associated support services) based on the volume
purchased by the buyer. This price may never be greater than the
published retail price for the product, or the average of the lowest
retail prices found at three retailers, whichever is lower. The list
of prices must be publicly available to any individual.
(b) Microsoft must sell (and deliver in a timely manner) to any
buyer at the prices established, and may not make any stipulation of
OEMs or resellers as a requirement of such a sale, nor make any such
stipulations of them as requirement to resell licenses.
Combined with a sufficiently severe penalty for violation, these
requirements would effectively immobilize Microsoft efforts to
manipulate OEMs. It would also be easy to police: any organization
which Microsoft refused to sell a product to or charged a higher-
than-published price could simply report to the appropriate
enforcement body.
(There is some flaw to these requirements alone--concerns
about other incentives would still be present. Microsoft could, for
example, say to an important OEM ``we'll pay for your marketing
budget for the whole year if you will not include Competitor X's
software on your machine''. This highlights the difficulty of
any general solution. Perhaps a mixture of the general language of
the PFJ --which discourages Microsoft retaliation --and
this section in my document could address the problem.)
(3) Definitions within the PFJ provide loopholes big enough to
drive a truck through. The language of the document suffers from
lack of technical precision, which, in the end, will degrade legal
precision and in turn prevent firm and timely enforcement. I
advocate definition changes similar to those recommended by Dan
Kegel in his online document at http://www.kegel.com/ remedy/
remedy2.html
(4) I am concerned that the proposed Technical Oversight
Committee will have limited power to report their findings and
activities publicly. Especially considering the potential for
different attitudes regarding enforcement at the DOJ (dependent on
prevailing political winds), it would seem important for the
industry and the public at large to know how effective the proposed
remedies are. The actions and reports of the committee should be a
matter of public record.
It is my hope that the court will carefully consider these
points and include them in the final judgement.
regards,
Weston Cann
1089 N 250 E
Orem UT 84057
801.225.0304
[email protected]
MTC-00025301
From: Kromholz Seth-p53201
To: `microsoft.atr (a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 7:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir Or Madam:
I am a software engineer who writes code for a living. In
addition, I have been following the computer industry intently for
twenty years.
Last night I was flipping through an old catalog of software
titles for early ``mid-eighties'' computer systems. Each
product in the catalog was sold by a software maker that no longer
exists today. Many of these companies were acquired by Microsoft.
Others were put out of business by Microsoft.
The software industry today is a repressive environment, mostly
due to the lack of ability to compete in so many markets. Every time
a new product or innovation is introduced, a department at Microsoft
is formed to counteract the threat by introducing a similar product,
usually given away for free. There has been no real market force to
stop them from using their natural monopoly in software operating
systems to dominate nearly every other field of computing. It's as
if the maker of the foundation of your house got to dictate
everything that gets built on top, from your walls to your window
draperies.
I would very much like to see Justice done in this case. The
attempt that Microsoft and Bill Gates made to settle the antitrust
suit was reprehensible (donating software to schools which cost them
next-to-nothing to make but which would entrench them even more
heavily in that market at the expense of would-be competitors).
Please make sure that this sort of insulting arrogance does not go
unpunished.
Sincerely,
Seth D. Kromholz
Software Engineer
General Dynamics Decision Systems
seth.kromholz@ gd-decisionsystems.com
MTC-00025302
From: Alessandro Simonini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This settlement is now the only way to keep peace in this
complicated market, please leave Microsoft the right to innovate!
The Information Technology Market is a Trillion Dorrar Market every
year in the world, Microsoft count only for 30 billion, even if you
think Microsoft is a Monopoly let this happen, you must to interven
only when this monopoly don't innovate more, you may see innovation
walking from monopoly to monopoly, from a company to another one...
when the innovation is done and the market steady, and only when and
if you will see monopoly you will have my consenus to fight the
monopoly!
Thanks to read me,
Alessandro Simonini,
Ferrara, Italy.
MTC-00025303
From: Bridget Pitt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:00pm
Subject: Microsoft monopoly
You need to seriously reconsider the remedies you are taking
against Microsoft. If you fail to reduce their total domination of
computing, via the leveraging of their operating systems, you have
failed the American People. It stifles competetion and innovation
and if you dont believe that Microsoft will stop with computing you
are truly blind. Revisit the thought processes of the 20th Century's
greatest President Theodore Roosevelt. The man who took on the
Robber Barrons and won. Bill Gates and Microsoft are even more
powerful than J.P. Morgan and John Rockefeller-use the Sherman Anti
Trust Act the way Teddy Roosevelt did, do whats best for the United
States of America, not the economy in it's current state or the
Presidents approval rating; but what is best for the Country long
term. Severe measures will allow new start ups with fresh ideas to
prosper-as it is now they are forced to play by Microsoft's rules
until Microsoft can swallow them whole.
Please consider harsher penaltiesfor the Ghengis Khan of
American Business.
Thanks for listening
Ken Pitt
MTC-00025304
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:59pm
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 27617]]
Sincerely,
Sue Whitehorn
2021 Gunn Road
Carmichael, CA 95608
MTC-00025305
From: Peter Cohen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:01pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To whom it may concern:
I have been following the Microsoft case from the very beginning
and I have enjoyed a front row view having been an employee of Sun
Microsystems for the last four years. In short, I am completely in
favor of the settlement that has been reached. And I would insist
that all further actions by the states attorney generals end
immediately. I never thought the government should have entered this
case. It is a totally political action brought about by Microsoft's
competitors who have not been able to win in the marketplace based
on their own business skills or rather the lack of them. Scott
McNealy, the CEO of Sun desperately wants to be Bill Gates, in the
worst way. And he is going about it in the worst way. He is
extremely envious of his success, wealth, position, etc. and because
he can not out market Microsoft he plans to out sue them, and use
the government to help. And he is not the only one.
Basically, the government has become a pawn of
overzealous,greedy, envious Silicon Valley tycoons who want more.
That is a disgusting position for the government to be in and
history will show the folly and the mistake it's been. It sets an
extremely poor example to the rest of the world that our own
government would take sides to bring down one of the most successful
companies ever created on these shores.
I and many others are completely shocked that the politicians
pontificating about Microsoft's menace can be so fooled and so
stupid.
If the other companies complaining had used the same energy they
``ve put into this case to create new technologies and
innovations they would have already been way ahead of the game by
now.
I want to be clear. I don't write this as a disgruntled
employee, as I am still heavily invested in Sun as a company. I
write this as a person interested only in the truth, which sadly has
been missing from this entire case.
MTC-00025306
From: andy fuertes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:03pm
Subject: microsoft ruling
To whom it may concern,
As a consumer, US citizen, and hi-tech analyst, i am deeply
concerned by the lack of measures to punish and/or change
microsoft's conduct. The current proposal, which nine states have
signed off on, does little to stop Microsoft's illegal conduct. I am
apalled. I believe that we need stricter penalites on Microsoft as
well as immediate and sustained action to actually stop their abuse
of their monopoly position.
Regards
Andrew Albert Fuertes
MTC-00025307
From: David J. Ourisman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
the microsoft settlement doesn't go far enough
MTC-00025308
From: Arsenio Calle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:03pm
Subject: Settlement
As an American sufffering for the current state of the economy,
in need of a job and work opportunities, I ask that you kindly
settle the dispute with Micrtosoft. I don't believe we are going to
see the economy bouncing back unless these outstanding legal
problems with our major corporations are put behind us, and the
companies are allowed to go back to work and invest in new research
and development.: and their products start selling and they start
hiring more people.
Respectfully yours,
Arsenio Calle
MTC-00025309
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:04pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I APPRECIATE WHAT MICROSOFT HAS DONE TO ENHANCE SENIOR CONSUMER
EFFORT TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF ENRICHING OUR LIVES, KEEPING IN TOUCH
WITH FAMILY AND OVERALL TO KEEP IN TOUCH WITH THE ``REST OF THE
WORLD'' IN OBTAINING INFORMATION TO BETTER OUR LIVES; AND ALSO
TO BECOME AWARE OF SENIOR ISSUES THAT MIGHT IMPACT US...BOTH
FAVORABLY...AND UNFAVORABLY.
STOP THE GRIEVING PROCESS AGAINST MICROSOFT.
Angell
MTC-00025310
From: Sybil A. SKAKLE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time this case is set to rest. It has gone on too long.
From all I know, Microsoft has not done anything wrong. Don't mess
up this company and the lives of those who are employed by the
company.
Best wishes,
Sybil A. Skakle
MTC-00025311
From: Galen Panger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:05pm
Subject: Antitrust case
Hello,
I strongly urge the courts to seriously curb Microsoft's power.
The market needs to be reopened to competition. Take a look at
Microsoft's record with the security of its products--it's full
of holes. More competition would force Microsoft to be serious about
protecting its users.
Also, Microsoft has so much influence with its Windows operating
system, it could practically take over any market--take a look
at how it killed Netscape, how it's trying to kill the MP3 format
with Windows Media. Look at how it decided now to not include Java
in Windows XP. Microsoft is advancing its strategy using every force
necessary--and unfortunately for the competition, it's power is
too strong, it's pockets too deep. Do people want Software as a
Service? Do people want Microsoft's Software Assurance? Not me. But
I will probably be forced to use it.
I thought that splitting Microsoft's Windows from its
Applications software was a brilliant idea--and exactly the way
to make Microsoft stop using the influence it has to serve its
applications'' interests (i.e. Internet Explorer). But, please
do not force Microsoft to open its source code--that will only
help the Company better its products with improved source code.
Nonetheless, Microsoft thinks that what it says goes in the market.
I really don't like knowing that if Microsoft is introducing a new
product, it must make sure it stiffles the competition--aka
.Net and Java. Very sad. I hope that somehow Microsoft's power to
eliminate competition is severely curbed.
Sincerely,
Galen Panger
Zion, IL
MTC-00025312
From: Rudolf Forster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:06pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
My comments regarding the proposed settlement:
I strongly feel that there has already been too much time and
money spent on this sham legal attack by the sworn enemy's of
Microsoft and the company's leader. I have followed the controversy
closely and I find very little merit in the position that has been
taken against this company. The action was promulgated by
competitors that advocate the destruction of this company as a means
to enrich themselves by ridding the marketplace of a strong
competitor. The average user of personal computers have benefited
immensely by the products and leadership of Microsoft. Because of
this company the world has been able to adopt and unite behind the
Microsoft standards, and therefore avail themselves of what amounts
to a virtual universal language. MS is number 1 for a very good
reason. They have produced a product that works quite well. That
they got to the market first with the most should be no crime in
America. The government should get out of the way and allow the
capitalist market to work its magic. Companies that cannot compete
successfully should be allowed to fall by the wayside, and not be
propped up artificially by government fiat.
Sincerely,
Rudolf Forster
[email protected]
MTC-00025313
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
[[Page 27618]]
I agree with the terms of the settlement, and believe it's fair,
and reasonable. I also believe it's in the best interest of America,
and will help the struggling economy.
Please approve this settlement.
Wendell Parrish
488 W. Plumb Lane
Reno, NV 89509
MTC-00025314
From: Ammie Nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I have used the internet for a decade. When AOL first came out I
joined not realizing I was not on the world wide web, but stuck in
the AOL space where information outside was not made available. (Or
at least not that a newbie could understand.) It's that way today!!
Ask anyone if they prefer AOL (limited access) to any other company
like MSN or Juno or Yahoo and ``hands down'' the
experienced user says NO!! You are trapped inside AOL! Business's
advertising in aol must use a different address for access outside
AOL. Does that mean all other companies have a monopoly because AOL
chooses to remain separate from the rest? AOL is alone and is not
compatible with all other companies so they are screaming for a
court system to make a judgment on ``free'' enterprise and
innovation that excels the AOL application!! The software made by
Microsoft is duplicatable and sets an example of interacting
programming that makes the public users life easier. So let AOL get
off the pot and developed their own!! WE (john doe public) can chose
between them!! The courts really should see the big picture and tell
AOL to stop bothering them and wasting my hard earned tax paid
dollars!! I will not use AOL EVER AGAIN!! I will use any other
application but not theirs!! I have only had bad experiences with
that company and the public service policy holds the key to the
companies future. Just step back and look at what AOL has done to
improve it's position in the technology is uses to exist! Nada!
Zilch! Zip!! ``I wish I could cry ``monopoly'' every
time my life isn't as successful as any corporation! Just because
they have all the brains and money I don't have doesn't mean they
should develop above me.'' Get my point???
MSN has done nothing but excel in this country and it has
allowed every home to own a computer!! Free Enterprise!! Free
Innovative, Interactive Software technology! Doesn't AOL have this
too??? Let them develop something bigger and better and see how much
they complain. MSN has never stopped them or any other company from
doing just that!
Ammie Nelson
715 Greenbriar Townhouse Way
Las Vegas, NV. 89121
1-702-451-5313
MTC-00025315
From: d minix
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please do not allow the Microsoft corporation to settle the case
with their offer of software to schools. They must be punished for
their anti competitive stance and allowing them to dump their
software on public schools only entrenches their monopoly. Let them
give cash and let the schools decide how to use it.
Thank you.
David Minix
MTC-00025316
From: Philip Haddad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Association of Concerned Taxpayers (www.aoctp.org) reports
that negotiations over the Microsoft antitrust suit are at a
critical pass. The Dept. of Justice is asking for public comment.
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,'' states the AOCTP, ``not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen.''
This economically-draining witch-hunt has gone on long enough.
We need to let the Department of Justice know how we feel about the
Microsoft Settlement.
Sincerely,
Philip Haddad
MTC-00025317
From: Michael Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In my opinion, all lawsuits against Microsoft should be dropped
or settled. Let's focus on getting the economy back on track.
-Michael Allen
MTC-00025318
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
Although I have co-signed the open letter provided by Dan Kegel
at his website, I feel it necessary to provide my own comments on
the matter of the Microsoft Settlement. It was not until very
recently that I was made aware that I could contribute comment in
regards to the settlement, and although it is likely that I will not
have time to complete my review of the settlement before the
deadline for commenting, here are the comments that I have
determined to date:
Section III.D.
I agree that the covered items are insufficient to provide
equitable development capabilities to Microsoft and non-Microsoft
developers. As well, it provides no means to insure promptness of
publication (the definition of ``timely manner'' can
easily be worked around) nor remedies for internal communications
about the future plans of APIs to which Microsoft programmers may be
privy and for which they may accordingly provide for in their
programming.
Section III.I.
This section does not provide sufficient requirements to define
the patent scope and licensure for intellectual property of
Microsoft. A major inhibitor to development by non-Microsoft
software developers is the potential of having to defend against the
giant that is Microsoft. Legal fees alone may put all but the
largest companies out of business long before the suit could be
completed even should it result in a favorable decision for the
other party. This section has merely provided some access to these
patents and intellectual property without providing for their
application.
In general, I have been very disappointed with this judgement
and do not feel that it is a sufficient remedy. I do not believe
that Microsoft has, or will, behave in any better good faith than
they have shown in the past and that this settlement does not
provide the means to unfetter the market for the long term, if
possibly not even for the short term.
Sincerely,
Karen Holland, PE
Sr. Instrumentation & Controls Engineer
Northborough, MA
MTC-00025319
From: Jim Copeland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:12pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Dragging out this legal battle further will only benefit a few
wealthy competitors, lawyers, and special interest big-wigs. Not one
new product that helps consumers will be brought to the marketplace.
James R. Copeland
5763 St. George Ave.
Crozet, VA, 22932
434-823-4293
MTC-00025320
From: Ron MacKinnon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern;
I'd like to add my concern to the many others who have already
made their feelings known on this matter.
I am very practical and pragmatic as to the tools I use, and I
don't care much where a quality product comes from. If Microsoft
software was the best available and Microsoft had become the
dominant player simply due to the fact that they had the best tool
for the job at hand and had risen to the top on true merit, I would
really have no problem with their being the dominant player in the
computing world. I don't want to turn this into a diatribe on the
quality of Microsoft's products, but the above is simply not the
case.
Microsoft has become the dominant player on the computing
desktop through the use of anti-competitive tactics, force,
bullying, and the use of a tremendous amount of money and other
influence, irrespective of the quality of their products. I believe
that the proposed settlement between the Government and Microsoft is
a disservice to the tax-paying public. I cannot feel that my
[[Page 27619]]
wishes have been served by this inadequate solution.
Microsoft must be forced to compete on a level playing field
along with all other companies with similar products to offer. If
the proposed settlement is allowed, they will simply continue as
they have been in the past.
An inadequately subdued Microsoft will continue to attempt to
disallow my choice in computing software and hardware. They will
continue in their attempt to force me to do my work (and play!) the
way they think I should, according to their ``vision'' for
my computing future. They will continue to limit my choices and my
options. They have leveraged themselves into a position where they
can decide for me how I will use my computer, and almost completely
choose what kind that computer will be and what system and
application software will be on it.
I have great hope that my voice, and those of the many others
who have taken the time to respond to this issue, will be heard and
that our wishes will be served.
Thank you very much;
Ron MacKinnon
45840 Hopactong St.
Temecula, CA 92592
MTC-00025321
From: mmn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:12pm
Subject: ``icrosoft Settlement''
Honorable Justice Department, Sir:
The consumer interests have been well served. Please end this
damaging litigation.
Respectfully,
Cecil Nickelson
175 Monumental Circle
Sparks, Nevada 89436.
MTC-00025322
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:10pm
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,
Laura Brown
304 Alvera
Winters, TX 79567
MTC-00025323
From: Roberta Skibba
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the proposed settlement stinks. Microsoft needs to be
punished enough so that it hurts and they won't err again.
Otherwise, it is meaningless.
MTC-00025324
From: Jane Montague Scott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:14pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I would like to recommend that the agreement between Microsoft,
the DoJ and nine states be accepted.
It is so foolish, especially at this time of a national economic
slump to continue to disable Microsoft.
Sure, lots of unemployed Microsoft technicians might be called
back in to resolve the mess if this agreement is rejected, but this
is a poor way to resolve the unemployment crisis in the tech world.
It appears that the ones wanting to reject it, have crossed the
line, from trying to make it fare to all tech companies to get a
piece of the action, and have moved into the realm of ``lets
get microsoft'', lets try to make them die.
I'm a home user who just wants all my stuff to work correctly
and microsoft does a better job of doing that, as well as constantly
creating more solutions to running businesses. In disabling
Microsoft, you are disabling users like myself.
Mac computers seem to dominate the market in elementary schools,
why don't we site them for unfair practices?
Thanks for listening.
MTC-00025325
From: Michele Acerra
To: Microsoft settlement
Date: 1/25/02 7:15pm
Subject: Antitrust settlement between Microsoft, the DoJ and nine
states.
Gentlemen!
I understand that Monday Jan.28 is the last day for public
comments on thesubject of this e-mail.
Respectfully, as a shareholder, as a Microsoft software user
since day one, as a citizen, believe that all this matter has to
stop and that the proposed settlement should be accepted by all
parties. The terms of the settlement are tough, but are reasonable
and fair to all parties, and meet, and perhaps go beyond, the ruling
by the Court of Appeals, and represent the best opportunity for the
industry and everybody to move the hell forward!
It is incredible to me that ``these pain in the ass''
of the AOL subsidiary ``Netscape Communications Co.'' have
the balls to still screw around with this matter, now with a private
lawsuit! I believe that you guys at the DoJ have to read of the most
important industry analysts, including James K. Glassman, (http://
www.techcentralstation.com/ 1051/techwrapper.jsp?PID=1051-
250&CID=105 1-012302E) who specifically says:
``Instead of straightening out its business problems, AOL has
decided to spend its time and effort filing lawsuits against tough
competitors--a petty, distracting pursuit that won't help AOL
or, for that matter, the U.S. economy, which depends on firms like
Microsoft for the innovation necessary to bring about a technology
revival.''
As an AOL shareholder I could not be more in agreement!
Please stop all this nonsense for the Industry and the Country
by starting to inforce the subject settlement.
Thanks for your time and attention
Michele (Mike) Acerra
10, Summer Lane
Califon, NJ 07830
MTC-00025326
From: Steven Paul, CPA
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
RE: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
I would like to see the proposed settlement with Dept of Justice
and the various States Attorneys General concluded. I believe that
Microsoft competitors were behind the instigation of the
government's lawsuit in the beginning and no value exists in
continuing this effort. An effort, I might add that seems to have at
its heart the goal of propping up products which may not truly be
competition to Microsoft products.
Standardization of various software platforms and aggressive
software development guardianship was in my opinion at the root of
and will continue (if allowed to continue by conclusion of this
case) to keep America at the forefront of this industry. The
software products, platforms and hardware development that the
government believes were harmed by Microsoft's alleged anti-
competitive behaviors were probably not the best platforms, software
and hardware protocols in the marketplace. This Darwinian Natural
Selection should not be artificially derailed simply to appease
Microsoft's competitors.
I found it interesting that Netscape Navigator filed suit
against Microsoft in the waning days of the public comment period on
the Anti-trust settlement. The timing and stated-motivation were
intended to draw attention to another allegation by a competitor of
unfair competition by Microsoft. Don't buy it.
This is all part of the show intended to change the proposed
settlement terms and protract the government's litigation for the
benefit of Microsoft competitors. I'd guess that AOL...the biggest
fish in the Internet Service Provider pond...probably knew what it
was doing when it purchased Netscape for $10Billion during the Dept
of Justice litigation. I don't really think it was gambling on a
court judgment that would result in Microsoft's breakup when AOL
decided on the purchase. It only indicates how tenuous the leader's
real role is in this rapidly evolving industry. And look at AOL/Time
Warner itself. It probably controls the largest content for
potential future internet traffic. I believe AOL's proclaimed
motivations in guiding Netscapes lawsuit against Microsoft are
disingenuous.
I do not feel I have been harmed economically from Microsoft's
business
[[Page 27620]]
practices and don't believe you could find any consumers who have
been. In fact, I believe that the large drop in prices of computer
hardware and peripherals while at the same time having ever more
powerful, faster and easier to utilize hardware and software
applications has been, at least in part, the fruit of those business
practices.
I would like to see the proposed Settlement accepted by all
parties. It's time to move on and halt the flow of government
resources into this current misguided effort.
Sincerely,
Steven Paul, CPA
4201 Roosevelt Way NE, Suite 206
Seattle, WA 98105
(206) 322-6040
MTC-00025327
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Emilia Neudorff
7806 Jason Ave.
West Hillsq, CA 91304-4434
MTC-00025328
From: alan tsuda
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the settlement does not go far enough.
Alan Tsuda
MTC-00025329
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attached is a memo to John Ashcroft, Attorney General, regarding
the Microsoft settlement.
Roger Cramer
CC: [email protected]@inetgw
January 26,2002
John Ashcroft, Attorney General
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Sir:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of my support for
the recent settlement reached between the Justice Department and the
Microsoft Corporation. America is currently in a period of
recession. Americans are faced with increasing layoffs and a slowing
stock market. Further litigation against Microsoft at this time is
unwise policy. In contrast, resolution of this case will spur
consumer confidence in the economy and benefit American industry
significantly.
The details of the settlement include many concessions made by
Microsoft benefiting its competition. Microsoft has agreed to the
formation of a supervisory board whose job it is to assure
compliance with this settlement. Anyone wary of Microsoft's
compliance then should be reassured given the objective nature of
this board.
The time has come to finally put this antitrust dispute behind
us. The American economy deserves it.
Sincerely,
Roger Cramer
MTC-00025330
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
1601 3rd Street Southwest
Cedar Rapids, IA 52404-2814
(319) 362-0013
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
When I was informed about my rights under the Tunney Act to
express my opinion on the Microsoft case, I could not help but
utilize this opportunity. For the past three years I have watched in
frustration as this case as dragged on and on and now some states
want to push for further litigation. This is unreal! This lawsuit
has already cost the taxpayers, Microsoft and the IT industry
unspeakable amounts of money.
I am in agreement with this settlement and believe the terms
more than allow for competitor's access to Microsoft's
infrastructure. For instance, Mircosoft has agreed to allow computer
makers to configure Windows in a way that will accomadate non-
Microsoft software . They have also agreed to design future versions
of Windows that will all for interoperation with non-Microsoft
programs. In an addition to all of this Microsoft has made an
unprecedented agreement to share internal Windows interfaces with
their competitors.
If the aforementioned terms are acceptable to the competitors,
what are the states finding fault with. I hope that you will make
the decision necessary to bring formalization to this settlement as
soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Verlyn Davis
MTC-00025333
From: Jim and Carol McClure
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
In reviewing Mr. Gate's performance with the Microsoft Company I
urge you to pass the proposal as it is presented by Microsoft
without editing.
Sincerely,
Carol A. McClure
MTC-00025334
From: Lou Lopez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen;
I know of no single contribution in my 35 plus years in business
that has enhanced productivity more than the work product of the
Microsoft Corporation. Were they guilty of predatory and/or
monopolistic practices....you have the facts and you have ruled on
them. That is past and there is not one shred of evidence that any
of that type of behavior has been expressed in any way by the
Microsoft Corporation in the last several years. Indeed, they
probably are one of the most ethical firms in the country if not
only for the fact that they know that there are numerous parties
with virtually unlimited resources that are forever looking for such
evidence to create another drain on the public's coffers via your
good offices and to drain as much as they can from Microsoft in the
naive belief that if they (i.e. Sun, Oracle, AOL) succeed, the loss
in market position that Microsoft would suffer would be gained by
them.
That ``Zero sum'' logic is so patently obvious that it
is offensive. Is it fair for AOL to dominate both the content and
delivery channels of so much of what is available via the internet
and television? Is it fair for AOL to now impose increases on the
rates of those intermediate ISPs that serve remote areas that suffer
from being victims of the digital divide by connecting those folks
to AOL? Didn't Netscape really nail its customers in clever ways
when it was in its heyday.....look carefully and you will see what I
saw.
The ``Scott and Larry'' show that attempts to provide
a ``One-two'' punch to Microsoft to anyone that will give
them an audience is as offensive as their obvious ``Zero
sum'' strategy. If anyone that ever worked for Oracle ever gave
honest testimony you would learn from them that the daily demand on
every employee from Larry Ellison himself was for them to do what it
took to displace any competitor so that Oracle would not only be the
dominant database engine provider....but would in time be the only
database engine provider. If he had succeeded in his goal he would
have had a monopoly ....he just was not good enough to get there and
continues to lose market share as I craft this letter to you. Don't
think for a minute that if Scott and his Sun team could have locked
up the engineering workstation or the Java Script language market
potentials for themselves that they would have said
``No''. Scott, like Larry failed to succeed in
monopolizing their chosen market sectors as Bill did....and so their
egos and envy and very deep pockets turned them into fools with too
much money and too much free time on their hands so they set out to
use those resources against Microsoft and in so doing effectively
cost the American taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars to
accomplish what a much less aggressive approach might well have
accomplished.
[[Page 27621]]
There are a number of firms that effectively monopolize their
market niches and perhaps without meaning to they effectively employ
predatory practices by making it clear that if their customers don't
do what they want they will not have access to that firm's goods and
or services. Senator Sam Ervin said something in the Watergate
hearings that seems to fit, it was the old ``Two wrongs don't
make a right''.
On the other hand it seems unfair that just because Microsoft
was the largest of those firms that monopolize their market niches
that they alone should be singled out as they have been.
It is time that we redirect our limited DOJ resources to more
urgent issues and stop wasting the publics time and money to
accommodate the interests of these three enterprises. Microsoft has
agreed to the settlement terms and you can be sure that they will
not want to go down this path again so this type of behavior will
not likely be seen in Microsoft again for years to come. I most
sincerely request that we move on to more important issues.
MTC-00025335
From: clancy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:18pm
Subject: Microsoft brake up
I think this is an attempt to socialize all businesses and
against Capitalism. The other companies are only complaining because
they did not think of doing what Microsoft is doing. Otherwise they
would be doing the same thing.
Stop all the law suits an get back to defending our nation.
Clarence Kahler
MTC-00025336
From: Jorge Barrera
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
15824 168th Avenue NE
Woodinville, WA 98072
January 2, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I work in television production. The future of digital
technology in the television industry will again revolutionize our
society. For the best benefit to our American society, Microsoft
must be free to join in the innovations that will empower our still-
unfolding and expanding digital future. I believe that there was
never a need to tear Microsoft into pieces, as actually happened
with AT&T.
I thank you for your support of the Microsoft settlement. It is
the best solution available to us now. The settlement will allow
Microsoft to stay together, while also opening up its Windows
operating system to the computer industry. Microsoft has agreed to
reveal the crown jewels, the internal interfaces and server
protocols of Windows. It will license its copyrights and patents on
non-discriminatory terms, rather than refuse infringing companies
access to its brainpower. The settlement makes sense for the
betterment of the industry. I appreciate your efforts to reach this
settlement and have the federal court approve it.
Sincerely,
Jorge Barrera
MagicHour Films, Inc.
phone:206 443 9818
fax:206 443 1453
visit our website at:http://www.magichour.com
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025337
From: Clark N. Quinn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to register my dissatisfaction with the proposed
settlement with Microsoft. I understand that the requirements are
insufficient to prevent further abuse, and it appears that there are
no consequences attached to the anti-competitive actions that have
hampered an industry.
Please do review and strengthen the conditions, and consider the
justice system remedies for illegal behavior, before settling.
Thanks,--
Clark --
Clark N. Quinn
OtterSurf Labs
[email protected]
925-200-0881
http://www.ottersurf.com/
MTC-00025338
From: Mark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement has many flaws and is not in the public
interest. More needs to be done, as many DoJ people apparently
believe; I will pick one key issue.
Creation of an environment where viable alternatives to
Microsoft's dominance in desktop operating systems flourish, and
where competition in the variety of related monopolies that have
arisen and will arise from that dominance is allowed and feasible,
requires, in a fast-paced technology environment, both speed and
pragmatism.
Speed requires that the eventual actions required of Microsoft
should be carried out fully and in a timely manner--the
definition of timely to be decided, and compliance to it to be
monitored, by the court or the DoJ or other appropriate body,
advised by industry.
Pragmatism requires recognising the critical relief that should
be provided to non-Microsoft innovators to ``level the playing
field''--that is, to publish fully all the APIs and file
formats used by Microsoft itself, past, present, and, where
relevant, future--relevance, to be determined, again, by the
court or the DoJ or other appropriate body. It is ingenuous to
suppose that Microsoft can be trusted to act fully and completely in
accordance with whatever final settlement is reached, and in
particular with these two aspects--hence the need for active
and appropriate compliance monitoring.
Lindows, Codeweavers WINE, and numerous other innovations
will--given these actions--produce in the relatively short
term a non-Microsoft desktop operating system that will run
Microsoft and other applications software. There will then, and only
then, be an environment in which real competition exists.
MTC-00025339
From: Campbell Marquette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
G'day,
As a long time user of Microsoft products I wish to make a few
comments about the proposed settlement.
Microsoft has done more than any other company in making
computers a major part of people's lives. They have made software
that has enabled anyone to sit down and use a computer, any
computer. This would not have possible without the great work
Microsoft has done.
The proposed settlement is more than fair, in fact I believe
that Microsoft is completely in the right and should be left to
continue the great work they have started. Microsoft has done
nothing wrong. It is the companies such as AOL that hide behind the
courts instead of living in the real world where true competition
occurs.
The proposed settlement will force Microsoft to make several
major concessions to its operating systems and its business
practices. The proposal will make computers more difficult to use,
less user friendly and less innovative, unfortunately this may be
the best solution we can come up with.
Microsoft is a great company and any harm that is done to
Microsoft will cause only harm to the users of computers in the
world.
I ask of you to accept the proposed remedies and let Microsoft
continue being an innovative company.
Cheers,
Campbell.
MTC-00025340
From: Lloyd Smiley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft hit Microsoft and the
economy in March 2000; contributed significantly to the slide of the
stock market and poor performance of most companies throughout the
country for the past 23 months. We cannot justify the continuation
of damaging Microsoft for the benefit of Apple, Oracle, AOL Time
Warner and the remaining nine envious detracting states.
Linux has become the primary operating system in IBM's most
advanced servers, just introduced, a substantial switch from
Microsoft Windows and NT to a highly competitive alternative OS.
Innovation and the market is working without Federal and State
Government intervention. AOL Netscape with 33,000,000 has three
times more subscribers than Microsoft Explorer, yet AOL files a
lawsuit that Netscape has been disadvantaged. AOL also withholds
documents from the litigation process and encourages the nine
intransigent states to prosecute with no ending, What gall! What
runaway greed!
[[Page 27622]]
The Appeals Court and Department of Justice Antitrust Division
have an opportunity to put this costly litigation with Microsoft to
rest and somehow placate the nine foot-dragging states so we can
move on to a more productive period for the entire economy. For
God's sake, please put this legal morass in back of us so we can
breathe normally again.
As Microsoft customers for the past 20 years we have never
experienced any wrongdoing in overcharges in fees or software; in
fact, we hope and pray we can do as well over the next 20 years in
relying on Microsoft in their outstanding innovations and service to
customers, the industry and the economy.
Lloyd Smiley, President
Performa Company
4830 East Coventry Drive
Vero Beach, FL 32967-7301
[email protected]
Telephone: 561-564-9825
MTC-00025341
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
June Cascio
654 Jordan St
Shreveport, LA 71101
MTC-00025342
From: Brian Cebull
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
The Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I strongly support the settlement terms that the Department of
Justice and nine states reached with Microsoft in November 2001, and
I urge you to adopt the terms of the agreement as soon as possible.
The settlement contains tough yet reasonable provisions that
will make it easier for companies to compete with Microsoft.
Competing companies will receive more information than ever from
Microsoft regarding software codes and books. Microsoft must also
design future versions of Windows, starting with Windows XP, to make
it easier to install non- Microsoft software.
This settlement will not only benefit competing companies but
will benefit the technology industry as a whole by allowing
Microsoft to devote its resources to innovative software design,
rather than litigation. Again, I strongly support this settlement
and feel it will serve in the best interest of the public.
Sincerely,
Brian R. Cebull
Nance Petroleum Corporation
PO Box 7168
Billings, MT 59103
(406)245-6248
MTC-00025343
From: Sandra Wright
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/25/02 7:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sandra Wright
1104 Old Lynchburg Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
January 25, 2002
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,
sandra f. wright
MTC-00025344
From: Stephen Baber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
It is a great risk to my career as a software engineer that I
write to you for the public record as permitted by the Tunney Act.
Given Microsoft's vengeful corporate culture, this very document
will surely be used to bar me (and the many other's writing in
opposition to Microsoft's illegal leveraging of it's monopoly power)
from working, if left unregulated and in our lifetimes, by the only
remaining technology company in America.
My primary concern is that the settlement being prepared by Mr.
Charles James (1) would not prevent the central ways Microsoft was
found to have illegally maintained its Windows monopoly, (2) does
nothing to restore competition in the OS market, an express Court of
Appeals requirement for a Microsoft remedy, and (3) has no
provisions directed to Windows XP and other new endeavors of
Microsoft to extend and protect its monopoly to new markets in the
future, another express Court of Appeals requirement for a Microsoft
remedy. The proposal is so far outside the mainstream of antitrust
law, and so completely contradicts the DC Circuit's unanimous
opinion affirming Microsoft's guilt, that the only explanation must
be political.
My suggestions for restoring fair competition are to (1) spin-
off every Microsoft product which has market dominance into it's own
separate corporate entity, and (2) require that Microsoft publish
the file formats and communications protocols used by those products
so that competitors may create compatible software and hardware.
My suggestions for punishing this repeat offender are (3) any
fines required by the 1995 Consent-Decree should be paid as well as
all court costs, and (4) Company president William Harold Gates III
and CEO Steven Ballmer should admit their wrong doing on national
television, also (5) Microsoft should be barred from spinning their
loss into a case of government interference.
Our citizens have given their lives for the principles on which
this nation was built, a nation of laws and not a nation of men, I
urge you to perform your duty as guardians of justice and protect us
from a corporation which has committed flagrantly illegal acts for
the maintenance of their monopoly powers. Posterity will remember if
we acted when there was still time to stop the disappearance of
consumer choice and the free market system.
Sincerely,
Stephen Baber
Software Engineer
2904 24th Ave W
Seattle WA 98199
MTC-00025345
From: Merv R Heebner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Issues
I am writing to let you know that I think that Microsoft is
being given the shaft. It is certainly within their rights to market
their products as they have done. This country has been built on
entrepreneur ship. Actions against Microsoft is a slap in the face
of what has made America great.
Thank you.
Merv Heebner
MTC-00025346
From: Nicholas Esposito
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 27623]]
Date: 1/25/02 7:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please read attachment below.
Nicholas T. Esposito
24 Juniper Creek Boulevard
Pinehurst, NC 28374
January 23, 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 inform you of my support of the
Microsoft settlement. Over the past three years, the federal
government has launched a legal attack on Microsoft. The result of
this attack has served only to curb productivity in our technology
sectors. Given the current economic recession, I believe that
settling this issue will facilitate growth in the industry once
more.
Compromises have been made throughout the process. Microsoft has
agreed to license Windows at the same rate to the largest producers
of PCs. This will ensure that computer makers have a level playing
field. Further, PC makers will have the option to market computers
that have non-Microsoft software enabled onto the Windows system
upon sale. Microsoft agreed all of these changes to in the interests
of resolving the issue. I would hope that you see the importance in
enacting this settlement at your earliest convenience. Thank you for
your time regarding this issue.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Esposito
cc: Representative Howard Coble
MTC-00025347
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your Honor,
I believe the recommendations made here: http://
www.securityfocus.com/news/315 would be of very substantive benefit
in helping prevent future abuses of monopoly by MS.
Thank You
Andrew Price
C.O.O.
HealthSpace Integrated Solutions Ltd.
HealthSpace USA Inc.
Tel. (604) 860-4224
http://www.healthspace.ca
MTC-00025348
From: John
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
15 Broadway
Ocean Grove, NJ 07756
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I urge you as strongly as possible to settle the Microsoft
antitrust case and to end the extensive and costly legal proceedings
against them. I find the amount of money spent fighting the case an
irresponsible use of resources, and the case should be wrapped up as
quickly as possible at this point.
As an everyday computer user, I find a uniform operating system
to be beneficial in my ability to smoothly operate my PC. Though
some of Microsoft's tactics have been heavy-handed, there is no
denying the success they have had in making programs work seamlessly
with each other and creating a standard other companies have yet to
match. Though they will lose some of their entrepreneurial freedom
in disclosing Windows coding to competitors, it will allow Microsoft
to get back to business, and to continue paving the way for
innovations that benefit millions of people.
Therefore, I am in favor of settling the case as soon as
possible. If our past President, Mr. Clinton had spent as much time,
energy and money pursuing Bin Laden and company as he had pursuing
Bill Gates and company (Microsoft), we as a nation would be in
better shape. One of the main reasons I voted for President Bush was
in the belief that he would do the right thing.
Sincerely,
John Sosenko
MTC-00025349
From: John
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:25pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
15 Broadway
Ocean Grove, NJ 07756
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I urge you as strongly as possible to settle the Microsoft
antitrust case and to end the extensive and costly legal proceedings
against them. I find the amount of money spent fighting the case an
irresponsible use of resources, and the case should be wrapped up as
quickly as possible at this point.
As an everyday computer user, I find a uniform operating system
to be beneficial in my ability to smoothly operate my PC. Though
some of Microsoft's tactics have been heavy-handed, there is no
denying the success they have had in making programs work seamlessly
with each other and creating a standard other companies have yet to
match. Though they will lose some of their entrepreneurial freedom
in disclosing Windows coding to competitors, it will allow Microsoft
to get back to business, and to continue paving the way for
innovations that benefit millions of people.
Therefore, I am in favor of settling the case as soon as
possible. If our past President, Mr. Clinton had spent as much time,
energy and money pursuing Bin Laden and company as he had pursuing
Bill Gates and company (Microsoft), we as a nation would be in
better shape. One of the main reasons I voted for President Bush was
in the belief that he would do the right thing.
Sincerely,
John Sosenko
MTC-00025350
From: bekki
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please do not accept the proposed settlement as an adequate
solution to the Microsoft monopoly. Speaking as a consumer, I am
very concerned that this is inadequate protection and in fact only
encourages them to continue their illegal actions.
Thank you,
Rebecca Andrews
18 Lansing Street #402
San Francisco, California 94105
MTC-00025351
From: David Kidd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am opposed to the tentative settlement of the United States
vs. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit.
David B. Kidd
Mableton, GA
MTC-00025352
From: David Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:28pm
Subject: [email protected] . DON'T DO IT......
Please note that as a consumer who has suffered under
Microsoft's strangle hold on the technology that I hope and pray you
will not allow the current settlement proposal to be approved.
Thank you,
David Jones
MTC-00025353
From: Steve Hilditch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Please find enclosed my comments regarding the pending
settlement between the United States Government, several individual
states and Microsoft Corp.
First, let me state that I am neither in the employ nor have any
dealings with of any of the parties directly affected by this
action, but am a consumer whose past and future access to technology
and the advancement to society that a diverse and thriving
technology sector offers has been diminished by Microsoft's
anticompetitive corporate behavior.
It is my view that the proposed remedies are a grossly
disproportionate to the violations of which Microsoft has been
proven guilty. The proposed settlement verges on being meaningless
in enforcing upon Microsoft any degree of compliance with the
principles of justice that are required to curb Microsoft's ongoing
anticompetitive behavior .
It is my firm belief that nothing short of the partitioning of
Microsoft into separate corporations, each prohibited from engaging
with the other to any extent beyond that
[[Page 27624]]
afforded to a third party, will suffice. In order to avoid the
continuance of the damage that has been inflicted within the
marketplace to formerly able bodied competitors requires substantial
and meaningful action.
I urge you to step above narrow partisan politics and enforce to
the fullest degree possible under the law strong measures to deal
with the past and future actions of Microsoft Corp.
Sincerely,
Steve Hilditch
MTC-00025354
From: Anil Godbole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the settlement with DOJ is very very fair. We should
let Microsoft innovate & introduce new products as long as they
abide by non-monopolistic business practices.
-Anil Godbole
Cupertino, CA 95014
MTC-00025355
From: Dale Phurrough
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I agree and support the proposed settlement.
Sincerely,
Dale Phurrough
1723 25th Ave #C
Seattle WA 98122
MTC-00025356
From: Edward Liu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am writing to you under the auspices of the Tunney Act to
express my great disappointment in the Proposed Final Judgement in
the case of the US vs. Microsoft. In my opinion, the proposed
settlement does not adequately punish the acts detailed in the
findings of fact, which stated rather unequivocally that Microsoft
used its monopoly power to damage its competitors unfairly.
The current settlement is little more than a slap on the wrist,
and is disturbingly similar to the consent decree of 1995, where
Microsoft promised to amend its behavior in the marketplace.
Clearly, as Microsoft's legally defined anti-trust violations
demonstrate, the consent decree was completely ineffective in
correcting Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior.
I am a computer programmer by profession. In my opinion, the
actions of Microsoft do far more harm than good in the industry,
stifling creativity and alternatives, while foisting second-rate
software on the population through their operating system monopoly.
I beg you to reconsider the settlement terms in the anti-trust case.
Thank you for your attention.
Edward Liu
MTC-00025357
From: Darcy James Argue
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
As a concerned computer user, I would like to object to the
proposed final judgment in United States v. Microsoft. In my
opinion, Microsoft has reaped the rewards of years of abusive,
illegal, monopolistic practices, and is being let off with a light
tap on the wrist. This proposed settlement will not end Microsoft's
anti-competitive conduct and does nothing to effectively penalize
the company for damage already done.
Only penalties commensurate with the extraordinary scale
Microsoft's abuses-- including, possibly, the breakup of the
company--coupled with strong regulation to prevent further
monopolistic practices will restore fairness and competitiveness to
the Intel-compatible OS market.
Sincerely,
Darcy James Argue
[email protected]
Boston MA
MTC-00025358
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Donna Gast
511 Lamp Post Lane
Camp Hill, PA 17011
MTC-00025359
From: W. B. Hackett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
PLEASE SETTLE. END THE MATTER.
My beloved Uncle Sam appears to me (and to many others both in
the United States and abroad) to be caught up in time-consuming,
very expensive, arguing back and forth. That sort of involvement is
counter-productive for all of us.
Microsoft has made enormous contribution to the economy of the
United States. Please consider and be as fair and just as possible,
but please settle. Please end the whole matter. Please try to do it
now.
Godspeed!
Bill Hackett
MTC-00025360
From: Dan Dougherty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I have been following the Microsoft litigation for some time
now. And now I see some states want to continue this litigation. How
long does the public have to put up with this?
A company like Microsoft, that has done so much for this
country, has been punished enough.
They have agreed to many concessions and have gone out of their
way to correct what others have acussed them of doing.
Please do everything you can to bring this matter to a close and
allow Microsoft to get back to what they do best and that is to help
keep this country in the forefront of technology. They are very good
at that.
Sincerely,
Dan Dougherty, Ret SgtMaj USMC
207 Pineview Rd Jacksonville, NC 28546
Home of Camp Lejeune
MTC-00025361
From: Belcou
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
P.O. Box13148
Burton, WA 98013
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Now that an agreement has been reached, I ask you to approve the
settlement in the Microsoft case. The previous break-up attempt
seemed to arise from a personality clash during the early stages of
this case; however, companies should not be dismantled for such
reasons. This recent, more balanced solution should stand.
Microsoft may have been involved in very aggressive marketing
techniques, but the company really deserves more appreciation for
all the great things it has accomplished for the new economy. The
bottom line is that the competition has been weak, and controversial
issues--such as bundling features--are actually very
convenient. Upon reflection, the deal that has been worked out with
the help of a court mediator seems quite reasonable.
If this plan can proceed, industry rivals will have plenty of
chances to gain market share. For instance, competitors will benefit
from increased flexibility in adding or removing Microsoft software
from the Windows operating system, and they will have access to its
internal code. Please accept the proposed terms and let the free
market decide the rest.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
James Pappin
[[Page 27625]]
MTC-00025361--0002
MTC-00025362
From: Justin Aichele
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I am submitting my comments for the Microsoft Anti-trust case.
During this case, the evidence that I saw clearly demonstrated that
Microsoft tried to destroy competitors like Sun and Apple and
Netscape and increase their market share underhandedly rather than
by trying to make the better product and win customers by their own
choices. This evidence is crystal clear according to what I saw on
the internet that was posted by major news organizations who were
covering the case.
Personally, I don't necessarily have a problem with a company
dominating a particular market or industry. In conversations with
friends, I compare Microsoft to Cisco. Cisco has almost as much
market share for networking equipment as Microsoft does for
operating systems. In fact, 3Com gave up their core switch market
because they could not compete with Cisco. I've personally dealt
with both Microsoft and Cisco as a customer and as a technician. The
difference is this: Cisco listens to their customers and doesn't try
to force them into making decisions they don't want to make. They
got to number 1 because they built a better product. It is usually
priced higher, but the quality matches the price. As a whole, Cisco
cares about their customers and doesn't try to dictate to them how
things are gonna be done. It doesn't try to exert too much control
and take away free choice. Based on Microsoft's recent licensing
schemes, it sure seems like Microsoft would love to take away choice
from people. They want a revenue stream when they want it and if it
doesn't happen that way, then they will penalize people by not
allowing them to upgrade for reasonable prices. Microsoft to me
displays intense arrogance that has basically gone unchecked. They
have something to leverage, though, otherwise people would have left
a long time ago. I think that for the health of computing in
general, they should be split up. I think a ton of new products
would emerge if it was split up. Microsoft wants total control of
things and they mask that as services. Services are great to offer,
but they become chains when there's no other option. Microsoft wants
to eliminate options from people and they have not done a darn thing
to earn my trust. I would never trust them with my financial
information on one of their servers. It's my info and it'll stay
that way.
The bottom line is that this company has grown to be huge in
both legitimate ways and in illegitimate ways. Their recent behavior
shows that they would love to continue to leverage their control in
unethical ways. Split them up and then let's see what happens. The
world will recover, and will probably thrive if you guys would stand
up to this mega-company and show them that US laws are put into
place for a reason.
Hope this helps.
Justin Aichele
``He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain
what he cannot lose``--Jim Eliot, missionary to Ecuador.
MTC-00025363
From: Reg Diodati
To: Microsoft ATR Date 1/25/02 7:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen and Ladies,
I believe Microsoft should be allowed to abide by the terms of
the settlement, and any further action would be designed to destroy
the company, doing great harm not only to the US economy but perhaps
the world's. The only organizations to be satisfied would be those
opposing the existence of Microsoft. They, of course, were no better
at wanting to do what Microsoft has accomplished, but simply were
not as successful.
Reginald R. Diodati
Troy, PA
MTC-00025364
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I join with many friends who welcome settlement of this
extremely complex and very costly case. Just about when we average
folks are sighing, ``At last!'' , along comes AOL with
another suit! I hope the highly skilled people at Microsoft , AOL,
and other high-Tech companies will focus on innovation and service,
rather than entangling everyone in litigation.
I've continued to be an AOL subscriber, because of relatively
simple access to information & communication--& I can
simply NOT choose chat, celebs, movie ratings, ``instant
savings'' offers, etc. I would expect a top-rated provider to
be bright enough to invest in ongoing service improvements, rather
than assuring wealth for attorneys--at tax-payers''
expense. I'll probably continue to use AOL, hoping they lighten
up--and brighten up. Users of the remarkable and innovative
technology now available do have the privilege of choosing products
and services suited to their needs. I believe most of us do not feel
trapped by one company or another. We appreciate the Department of
Justice efforts to get this monstrous distraction settled!
Grace Allen
MTC-00025365
From: Clyde w. Butler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement !
Hi ! I hope this settlement achieved between Microsoft the
Deptartment of Justice and abipartisan group of State Attorneys
General is indeed settled in the public interest !
Thank You !
Clyde W. Butler
14701 Dohoney Rd .
Defiance , Ohio 43512-8709
cwmjb@ defnet.com
MTC-00025366
From: Bonnie (038) Cleve Svetlik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the DOJ is knuckling under to big business and that
the proposed settlement is nothing more than selling out the
Citizens of the USA to Microsoft.
I strongly urge continued litigation such as the States who have
a spine have done.
Mr.. Cleve Svetlik
2545 Brainard Road
Pepper Pike, Ohio 44124
MTC-00025367
From: Norman Chapman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:34pm
Subject: Justice Dept. Agreement
Gentlemen:
It is very distressing to see the continued efforts of
competitors of Microsoft trying to destroy efforts of the Justice
Dept. and Microsoft in having reached an agreement that is fair and
workable.
This latest move on the part of AOL is no more than another
attempt to influence both public thinking and the legal system in
continuing efforts to punish Microsoft until it is reduced to a
company unable to provide the quality of software and services which
have served this country so well. It is abhorrent to think that
companies such as AOL, Sun, Oracle and others have continued to
resort to attempts to defeat competition by litigation instead of
the much needed innovation to provide to the American public as well
as the rest of the world continued improvements in the quality of
computer software and other related components. Our family is
pleased with the possibilities that your efforts along with those of
Microsoft will result in the removal of further litigation and allow
both Microsoft and its competitors to re-engage in the job of
developing and delivering the world's finest technology.
Sincerely,
Norman & Isabella Chapman
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025368
From: Don M. Weber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:21pm
Subject: Proposed settlement
I am infavor of the compromised settlement agreement with
Microsoft.
Thank you
Don M. Weber,Retired in Missouri
MTC-00025369
From: Jerry Spencer Mings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust
From what I've read, the judgment against MS is more of a reward
than a punishment.
My first home computer was handbuilt 6800 from a kit (SwTP) and
used an ASR33 teletype with punched paper tape as the sole offline
storage. Eventually the system was maxed out at 32 kilobytes of
pseudo-static RAM.
I remember vacationing in Silicon Valley and lunching with the
author of Tiny BASIC. Bill Gates became a hero for releasing 4K (and
later 8K) BASIC. Later the original IBM PC was released under a
disingenuous marketing plan claiming the 8-bit 8088 microprocessor
as being a 16-bit system and hijacking the acronym PC. The home
[[Page 27626]]
computing comunity was in large part outraged, but business lived
and died by the aphorism ``Nobody ever got fired for buying
IBM.'' At the time there were several 6800 based home computer
systems running UNIX variant operating systems that failed against
the tidal wave of EYE-BEE-EM.
Then, somehow, the IBM PC design opened up to independent
manufacturers and the hardware market exploded once they discovered
to their amazement that the public wanted clones and not
compatibles.
Now we reach the point where I gave in and bought a compatible
because: 1) It's what they were using at work. 2) There was a LOT of
free or cheap software out there.
Then--
I had to upgrade to DOS 3.1 because it was more reliable and
fixed the bugs from the previous release.
I had to upgrade to DOS 3.2 because it was more reliable and
fixed the bugs from the previous release.
I had to upgrade to Windows 3.2 because it was more reliable and
fixed the bugs from the previous release.
I had to upgrade to Windows 95 because it was intergrated and
more reliable and fixed the bugs from the previous release and the
cheap printers required it and it came with my new faster computer
because the new programs were untollerably slow.
I had to upgrade to Windows 98 because it was more reliable and
fixed the bugs from the previous release and the cheap scanners
required it. IBM was no friend--I bought OS/2 and OS/2 warp 3.
Apple was no friend with their proprietary (overpriced) hardware
and software - I had an Apple IIe and the joke was ``After you
had to buy the entire library of documentation (each manual referred
you to another manual) for another $50 you got Steve Job's home
number.''
I don't have a reasonable solution (I favor breaking MS into a
thousand pieces and refunding all Windows [another hijacked name]
upgrade fees), but suggest you contact Richard M. Stallman at http:/
/www.fsf.org as his is the loudest sanest voice in the wilderness.
Richard Balding
MTC-00025370
From: Loren Shirk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:37pm
Subject: Settlement
I agree with the settlement.
Loren Shirk
188 Las Lomas Rd.
Duarte, CA 91010
MTC-00025371
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:38pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
The case was not justified in the first place.
Why is it the roll of Big Government to punish success because
competetion complains?
This Country and all Americans can be proud and thankful for the
inovation of Mirosoft and Bill Gates.
Sincerely,
Ken Keller
MTC-00025372
From: Steven Ohmert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to express my opinion that the proposed settlement
in the Microsoft antitrust case be accepted. I believe the remedies
are sufficient. It is time for this issue to be done with. The
uncertainty and disruption this case has caused in the industry is a
prime contributor and belweather for the downturn of the high tech
industry in the stock market. The resolution of this matter will be
a significant step in the recovery of initiative and innovation that
has fallen away as a result of the uncertainties.
I am not necessarily a cheerleader for Microsoft. Clearly, they
have agressively and sometimes inappropriately used their market
position as a bullying tactic. I believe there are lessons to be
learned from this on all sides. I believe this is addressed in the
settlement. Punitive actions proposed by opponents to the settlement
are drastic, vengeful, and superficial. Acceptance of the settlement
sends the clear message that the US government can be a fair and
final arbitrator of such situations without being a blind
executioner, and cuts short the use of the system as a forum for
marketing public opinion and corporate images (by both sides).
Thank you
Steven Ohmert
25731 78th Ave SW
Vashon, WA 98070
MTC-00025373
From: Kevin Jerbi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I am writing to express my dissatisfaction with the proposed
antitrust settlement with Microsoft.
I believe that this settlement does nothing to prohibit
Microsoft from continuing its predatory practices in information
technology. This settlement has little provision to prevent
Microsoft from asserting that any other applications are now part of
their Windows operating systems, or from using their strong position
in that market to thwart other innovations in different
applications.
I fully support the right of Microsoft to continue to develop
its products and innovate as they see fit. However, as a confirmed
monopoly, they have a specific responsibility to ensure that their
monopoly does not illegally extend into emerging markets.
I also fear the enforcement of this agreement. It should be
recalled that Microsoft's brazen indifference to their 1995 consent
decree began this particular case.
Thank you for your consideration,
Kevin Jerbi
Sr. Technical Support Specialist
Targeted Genetics Corp.
Seattle, Washington.
I am a US citizen, and my address is 1125 NW 56th Street,
Seattle, WA 98101.
MTC-00025374
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user. This is just another method for states
to get free money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only
in terms of computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the
most dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Anne Reiser
47 Meritoria Drive
East Williston, NY 11596-2004
MTC-00025375
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now.
Sincerely,
Joyce Foss
731 S. Bluff St.
South Beloit, IL 61080-2165
MTC-00025376
From: AVCS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:38pm
Subject: Miscrosoft Settlement
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Are we not living in America? Land of free enterprise,
supposedly a capitalistic economic structure. It is time to leave
Microsoft alone. Move on. Do something more constructive with your
time. This is nothing more than a witch-hunt on this company.
[[Page 27627]]
Rhonda Hubler
949 Enders Road
Halifax Pa 17032
MTC-00025377
From: Joe Cotey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice,
I am strongly opposed to the proposed settlement. The three top
reasons are:
1) It allows Microsoft to keep the financial and business
advantages it gained by operating an illegal monopoly,
2) It allows Microsoft to keep the distortions, such as Internet
Explorer, Media Player, and others, it added to Windows in defiance
of a court settlement,
3) There is no provision to enforce any provisions of this
settlement and Microsoft has a long history of doing as they please.
It appears to me that it would be a shame if an industry
standard operating system weren't a result of this action. Since
Windows is the de-facto O. S., it seems reasonable to me to require
Microsoft to release Windows to a standards organization such as
IEEE, ANSI, or others. They have certainly recouped and profited
adequately for their investment, and the loss of Intellectual
Property to the public good seems to me a proper punishment.
Oliver J. Cotey
580 Ahwanee Ave., No. 58
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
tel: (408) 245-3487
e-mail: [email protected]
MTC-00025378
From: billo123 Owens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please get off Microsofts ass.
William E. Owens
MTC-00025379
From: David Bacher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Judge Kollar-Kotelly and the United States Department of
Justice,
I would like to comment on the proposed Microsoft Settlement as
allowed under the Tunney Act.
As background, I am a software engineer with 6 years of
professional experience developing on Unix and Macintosh platforms.
I have read the Findings of Fact and the Revised Proposed Final
Judgement as posted on www.usdoj.gov and I have come to the
conclusion that the Proposed Final Judgement does very little to
limit Microsoft's acknowledged monopoly power. Impact on Open Source
Software
As a proponent of (and contributor to) open source software, I
am concerned by the language that allows Microsoft to conceal APIs
selectively from competitors simply because it does not agree with
their business model.
To quote Ralph Nader's open letter (http://www.cptech.org/at/ms/
rnjl2kollarkotellynov501.html) ``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.''
As the most powerful corporation in the software industry today,
Microsoft should be forced to provide equal access to information to
anyone, regardless of whether their business model meets Microsoft's
approval.
Failure to Punish Illegal Actions
In addition, the proposed settlement does nothing to punish
Microsoft's illegal monopolistic tactics. Microsoft has willingly
abused its position in the marketplace and it should be punished. At
the very least, it would be appropriate to fine Microsoft for their
actions. In addition, Microsoft should be forced to divest itself of
those technologies in which it has used its monopoly power to gain a
controlling presence. Microsoft should not be allowed to reap the
benefits of its illegal actions.
Please consider my comments as a vote against the proposed
settlement. Thank you.
Sincerely,
David Bacher
1511 Addison St.
Berkeley CA 94703
[email protected]
MTC-00025380
From: john fruttero
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a very concerned citizen who vehemently disagrees with the
Proposed Final Settlement.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my view,
John Fruttero; (626)391-8282; 1611 Brockton Avenue,
#1, Los Angeles, CA 90025
MTC-00025381
From: Jumana Scoggins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I want to use this opportunity to express my support for the
settlement reached last November between Microsoft and the
Department of Justice. I believe it is time to move forward and
allow both sides to concentrate on more important matters.
The settlement is comprehensive and requires many changes on the
part of Microsoft. For example, Microsoft has 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. Consumers will have the
freedom to easily add or remove access features built in to Windows
or to non-Microsoft software. And to assure this and other
provisions are met, Microsoft agreed to the formation of a technical
committee that will monitor the company's business practices going
forward.
This case has been going on long enough. It is time for
Microsoft to get back to competing and designing new software. And
it is time for the government to use taxpayer money on more urgent
matters like stimulating the economy.
Sincerely,
Jumana Scoggins
MTC-00025382
From: Frank J Gombos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am very disturb that you want to punish successful companies
like Microsoft.
They delive superb product and at superb prices.
This is a communist method, to punish successful people.
Sicerely,
Frank Gombos
MTC-00025383
From: Carlin H Freeberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:48pm
Subject: Settlement
Go get ``em! M'Soft is as guilty as sin and their proposed
settlement is nothing more than another devious scheme to leverage
themselves into the schools/public agencies, thereby increasing
users'' dependency on M'Soft products. Hang in there, don't let
M'Soft's endless appeals wear down the quest for justice.
MTC-00025384
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is doing anticompetitive things to keep applications
on its platforms. One example is OpenGL and DirectX. OpenGL and
DirectX are two APIs that compete with each other. These API's are
heavily used in 3D games a market aimed at young people. As of now
Microsoft suports OpenGL in it's operating systems, but Microsoft
could at its own discretion decide to no longer support OpenGL this
would force companies to abandon OpenGL to go in favor of DirectX.
Because Microsoft owns DirectX they can keep other platforms from
using it.
MTC-00025385
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:48pm
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
[[Page 27628]]
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 DeFoy
HCR 76 Box 229U
Camdenton, MO 65020
MTC-00025388
From: wt.catch1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:48pm
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,
Eric Rasmussen
97 Bartlett Place
Brooklyn, NY 11229-6361
MTC-00025389
From: Chuck and Deanna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:50pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Sirs: Why you want to continue to badger a entrepreneurial
company is beyond me! They have made continuous efforts to settle
this yet you continue. Our nation could stand to have it's time and
funds spent on people and things that are trying to destroy our
country instead of a company that has been helping education,
economy, and free enterprise. Wake up.
MTC-00025390
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:51pm
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,
Richard Stoeker
Ridge Road
Rt 15 Box 3078
Lake City, FL 32024-8907
MTC-00025391
From: Paul Adams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:43pm
Subject: my thoghts on this whole ridicuous thing
Follow the money is a good rule to follow and when I saw the AG
of I think Mass. answer a question about the legal costs I knew I
had it pegged. He said we don't worry about legal costs as Microsoft
has to pay all of them because of the original finding. So they are
going to work this forevermore. What a shame. We all know who is
going to pay.
It also seems to me that the real imploding of the tech sector
happenened just after the Clinton folks filled their legal actions.
I liked Microsoft Windows and bought some stock years ago and it
went right up over $100 and the attack by Clinton put my stock right
in the tank and then the others started going with it. I honestly
think it was the ``trigger''. Let the statisticians prove
me right or wrong.
All along I kept wondering what it was all about. I liked
Netscape and had it on my computer and used it. I liked Real Player
for a while and used it also. Then I tried Media Player and
switched. Whose fault?
When I went on cable access they started me on Internet Explorer
and I found I liked it better then Netscape and now use it. Netscape
is still on my computer in case I ever want to use it. Whose fault
is this?
So all these setlements are doing absolutely nothing for me
except trash my stock value. Pleas cease and desist and do something
constructive.
Paul Adams
466 W San Ramon #101 Fresno, Ca 93704
MTC-00025392
From: henrywpark
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/25/02 7:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that the Microsoft Settlement is a bad idea because it
does not address truly preventing Microsoft from leveraging its
operating system into other markets.
Henry Park
[email protected]
MTC-00025393
From: JA Stephens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:54pm
Subject:
Please let Microsoft continue to serve with easier programs to
use for those of us that are computers users- but not compute
brains. Their programs make it easier-and if it wasn't for their
programs, we'd have never purchased a computers. Windows is great.
Thank you.
J.A. Stephens
MTC-00025394
From: John Swanson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Department of Justice should settle the Microsoft case as
previously agreed by the parties. The States that continue to fight
should be barred from using all Microsoft products and be required
to use the inferior products. John Swanson Renton, WA
MTC-00025395
From: Daly Patrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:55pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
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.
Patrick Daly
1020 Louise Street
Menlo Park, CA 94025
MTC-00025396
From: WARREN POMPEI
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:55pm
Subject: ANTITRUST SETTLEMENT
Now is the time to finalize the settlement between the Justice
Department and Microsoft. As the President of the United States has
stated.....``we want to encourage innovation, not
regulation''. The country has been in a steady economic decline
for nearly two years since the first verdict was issued by Judge
Jackson. Since then it has been an enormous drain on all parties
involved.....especially this country. I for one, believe that this
issue was ill conceived since the beginning. With the September
11th, 2001 terrorist attack, we, the voting public, are quickly
learning that there are far more serious issues for us to be
focusing on. I was never one to be very ``politically
interested'', but after watching how some of our elected
officials have been handling themselves during this process, from
this day forward I intend to take my vote far more seriously when it
comes to casting it for political candidates seeking election to
public office.
Warren R. Pompei
[email protected]
MTC-00025397
From: [email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 27629]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that it is in the best interest of the US consumer
that the Department of Justice proposed antitrust settlement with 9
states and Microsoft be accepted.
Richard M. Rheinhardt
1001 Sierra Blanca Ct.
Lady Lake, FL 32159
MTC-00025398
From: Jeff Breitner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 24, 2002
8732 Sumpter Road
Maybee, MI 48159
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Renata Hesse:
I am writing to express my displeasure with the proposed
settlement between Microsoft and the USDOJ for Microsoft's proven
illegal activities. In the name of brevity, I'll keep my letter to
three main points. First, how the proposed ``opening'' of
API's, hooks and other areas of Microsoft products will not benefit
other companies. I'll also note how Microsoft's acquiescence to
allow computer manufacturers to modify the default installation of
Windows on their computers isn't the alleged bargain. And finally,
the main sticking point in the whole settlement is the federal
government's seemingly blind-eye to the billions of dollars of
revenue realized through Microsoft's crimes.
The proposed settlement would allow others access to inside
information to Microsoft's API's. While this may seem a fitting way
to re-introduce competition in the software industry, the language
used in the settlement makes it clear that Microsoft still has a
significant amount of control over what is actually divulged. The
language states that Microsoft will have the ability to determine
the suitability of the recipient of this type of information. Within
the proposed settlement, there is little detail of who would be
qualified and therefore it appears that those able to receive
information on API's, hooks and software information is totally
arbitrary and subject to the final review of Microsoft.
Further disturbing is the ability of Microsoft to have a
unilateral veto of all requests of this type of information under
the guise of software security. Simply put, Microsoft could say that
the information could not be provided because it would constitute a
security compromise of their products.
Open-source operating systems such as Linux or FreeBSD have
lived with this situation for over 10 years and have used it to
their benefit. Consequently, the ability to control API information
as a security precaution seems to be nothing more than one way to
slow or stop the dissemination of this information.
Armed with the ability to ``lock-down'' the API's and
the Windows system itself, Microsoft could conceivably use this
settlement as a way to thwart interoperability between Windows
products and competing operating systems. Through crafty use of
frequent Windows updates and patches, Microsoft could simply change
its operating code to eliminate products such as Samba, and then
point to this settlement as the permission to do so. Since it would
be termed a ``security'' issue, the changes would remain
within Microsoft's confidence, and the proposed settlement itself is
used as a tool to continue Microsoft's monopoly.
Computer manufacturers and OEMs have complained bitterly over
Microsoft's insistence that the appearance of Windows not be
modified on personal computers. The settlement gives OEMs
significant abilities to bundle products with the sale of the
computer and operating system. While this certainly appears to be
for the benefit of the consumer, it is blanket authorization for
Microsoft to continue to use the monopoly on the desktop operating
system to extend into other areas. Already with WindowsXP, Microsoft
is demonstrating what would happen with this new-found freedom.
Preferential treatment (if not outright advertising) for Microsoft
properties exists for Internet connectivity, chat, instant messaging
and other services whenever the consumer accesses these services
through WindowsXP. This settlement is the government's authorization
that Microsoft can use the desktop to continue to promote or even
force consumers to use Microsoft services (e.g. Microsoft Passport),
ostensibly because the OEMs are allowed to bundle their own
services. Language in the settlement is absent that states how this
bundling and presentation is to occur, which gives Microsoft
incredible leverage over its competition.
The major point I have against this proposed settlement is the
ill-gotten gains from Microsoft's abuse of their operating system
monopoly. Simply put, I find it reprehensible that anyone associated
with the justice department would consider letting Microsoft keep
one penny of the billions of dollars raised through these abuses.
The message the settlement sends is one of ``crime doesn't pay
unless you happen to be a large politically active corporation, then
it pays handsomely''. This is a terribly disturbing message
considering the recent Enron debacle. Microsoft acted unfairly,
engaged in illegal business activities, economically harmed the
consumer and made billions of dollars doing it. They should be
penalized and the penalty should commensurate with their earnings
and worth.
As a personal note, when the DOJ started their lawsuit against
Microsoft, I was vehemently against it. It was Microsoft's own
behavior within the trial and it's business practices during and
subsequent to the trial that has changed my opinion of the company.
They are a predatory company that would not hesitate to use any
method for their profit. Their practices are deeply rooted within
the company culture, and it is my belief that the only way to make
this company ``fly-right'' is to bring them back to
reality with the penalties that would be exacted upon me if I had
stolen billions of dollars.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Breitner
MTC-00025399
From: Ross, Jason
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/25/02 7:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
i am opposed to the proposed antitrust settlement against
microsoft. the penalties for manhanling the entire industry are far
from sufficient. If the USA is at all concerned about the security
of it's digital communication, they have a vested interest in
diversifying the computing landscape. The proposed settlement does
little to accomplish this, or keep microsoft from continuing in its
business practises which led to the monopoly verdice in the first
place.
thanks for your time.
Jason ``olo'' Ross
MTC-00025400
From: pogo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 7:59pm
Subject: microsoft puiblic comments
There are too many things on the economic plate and the
Microsoft decision should be made immediately.
Walter Robinson
pogo@gnt,net
MTC-00025401
From: David McDonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please accept the Microsoft settlement as proposed. I believe
that it is fair and just. Microsoft delivers a fine product at a
very attractive price. I worked in the computer business for 30
years prior to retirement (not with Microsoft) and Operating systems
were never so powerful and, imagine, available at only $ 99.
Ever since the action against Microsoft, the entire Technical
stock market has been in the tank.
Let's accept this and do what is right for America.
Yes, we do vote.
David McDonald (303) 818-4999
MENU Corp www.menucorp.com
6525 Gunpark Dr., Ste 370-299
Boulder, CO 80301
(303) 530-4986 Fax (303) 530-0983
MTC-00025402
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
3919 Fait Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21224
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
We are writing you today to express our opinion in regards to
the Microsoft settlement that was reached in November. We feel that
this settlement is fair and reasonable, and we are anxious to see
this
[[Page 27630]]
dispute resolved. We feel this settlement will serve in the best
public interest.
This settlement was reached after extensive negotiations.
Microsoft has agreed to all terms and conditions of this agreement,
including disclosing information about certain internal interfaces
in Windows and any protocols implemented in Windows. Microsoft has
also agreed to license its Windows operating system products to the
20 largest computer makers on identical terms and conditions.
This settlement will benefit the economy, the industry, and
consumers. Please support this settlement so our precious resources
can be devoted to more productive causes. Thank you for your
support.
Sincerely,
Emily & Elmer Hennigan
MTC-00025403
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ:
I am an independent critic of the Microsoft Settlement. As a
resident of Massachusetts, and a Computer Scientist, I support MA
Attorney General O'Reilly's objection to the settlement.
My objection centers around the ``unavailability'' of
other browsers because of the ``interweavability'' of
Microsoft's Internet Explorer, which comes packaged with Microsoft's
Operating Systems, that is, Windows 95,98, ME and now XP.
The built-in compatibility inherent in the Microsoft browser is
conspicuously, by design, missing in all the browsers and cause
many, many problems and inconvenience when you want to use Netscape
or AOL or any other browser.
My real PET PEEVE--AOL is not completely free of its own
set of problems and exclusionary practices that warrant your
scrutiny.
Bill Roache, CAGS
Computer Scientist
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025404
From: Lawrence Neumann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.''
Enough is enough, stop any further action against Microsoft. The
continuation of this vendetta by some competitors must stop.
Lawrence A Neumann
33 Blue Ridge Drive
Trumbull CT 06611-4001
(203) 377 1329
[email protected]
MTC-00025405
From: Gerald Vidal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Aloha from the island of Oahu!
The case against Microsoft should be dismissed all together:
Look who is complaining, is it the consumers or special interest who
uses the law to get ahead in market share (the earning of money).
Look who owns Netscape browser(not Microsoft,) look who owns AOL
browser (not Microsoft,) and now look what is happening to Netscape
and where it is going as a browser and why (not because of Micosoft,
but because one owner with two browsers, Netscape and AOL. Microsoft
should move as fast as possible to bring the American people
software that will better our lives, and not be held back because of
mis-use of the Justice in our government.
``The law (officially called the Tunney Act) requires a
public comment period between now and January 28th after which the
District Court will determine whether the settlement is in the
?public interest.?
Unfortunately, a few special interests are attempting to use
this review period to derail the settlement and prolong this
litigation even in the midst of uncertain economic times. The last
thing the American economy needs is more litigation that benefits
only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.''
Mahalo,
Gerald Vidal
PO Box 208-MS
Pearl City, HI 96782-0208
MTC-00025406
From: tim jennings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is an unrepentant felon. Who can doubt that they will
continue their illegal, destructive practices, unless they are dealt
with very severely indeed. Everything they have said, everything
they have done, reinforces this conclusion.
Let's see some law and order where it counts!
Tim Jennings
Jennings and Ponder * World Tales
Sheefra * Celtic Music
Vermont Storytelling Festival
Eastern Coyote Productions
PO Box 1601 Burlington VT 05402
http://www.folktale.net
[email protected]
MTC-00025407
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Enough is enough! The Dept of Justice has a fair and tough
settlement with Microsoft which will allow the country to go forward
with more important things.
It is not necessary to make the lawyers wealthy by carrying on
this suit unnecessarily.
Blanche Johnson
MTC-00025408
From: Gus Galeano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed
Microsoft settlement. I agree with the problems identified in Dan
Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html), namely:
* The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing
operating systems
* Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using
restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the
PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the
Applications Barrier to Entry.
* The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and
Provisions
* The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs,
but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important
APIs are not covered.
* The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft
Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines
``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version
of Windows might not be covered at all.
* The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a
competitor's product--but Microsoft is replacing Java with
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET
with competing middleware.
* The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it
defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-
Box--operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are
advertised as being ``Windows Powered''.
* The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and
not informing ISVs.
* The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to
ISVs so they can create compatible middleware--but only after
the deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is
compatible.
* The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API
documentation--but prohibits competitors from using this
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with
Windows.
* The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
* The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away
potential users.
* The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms
currently used by Microsoft
* Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep
Open Source apps from running on Windows.
* Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
* Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number
of computers which could run a Microsoft
[[Page 27631]]
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,
Gus Galeano, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Graphic Designer
MTC-00025409
From: Jason Cook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:06pm
Subject: Comments for the Federal Register
Renata Hesse,
Is it a crime to maintain a monopoly? Yes it is. Microsoft has
already been found in violation. The question now is a question of
just punishment. How does the United States of America take
appropriate actions to end the Microsoft monopolies and prevent them
from recurring?
The proposed settlement does not begin to remedy the antitrust
violations for which Microsoft has been found culpable. This is the
penalty phase of the case and yet there are no penalties outlined in
the settlement. In fact, the proposed settlement arguably would
advance the capabilities of Microsoft's monopolies by allowing the
corporation to maintain them. Furthermore, that precedent could
weaken antitrust law. What other corporations would take advantage
of Microsoft's clean break in future cases?
A just penalty would somehow prevent Microsoft from extending
its monopoly. For example Microsoft products should be optional when
purchasing new computers. That way consumers who do not wish to
purchase those products are not forced to do so. This also means
that for the price differential between a new computer with
Microsoft software and one without, the computer seller must offer
the software without the computer. Then and only then can
competition come to exist in a meaningful way.
The specifications of Microsoft's present and future file
formats must be made public, so that files created with Microsoft
applications, whether they be documents or audio-visual media, may
be read by programs from other makers, on Microsoft's and other
operating systems. This is in addition to opening the Windows API
(application program interface).
Any and all Microsoft networking protocols must be published in
full and approved by an independent network protocol body (ISO,
International Standards Organization). This would prevent Microsoft
from seizing de facto control of the Internet.
This is indeed an issue of national interest. Strength in
diversity is a biological reality that translates well to this
scenario. It has been suggested by the Center for Strategic and
International Studies that the use of Microsoft software actually
poses a risk to national security. Consider how that risk could
increase if there is not a careful and deliberate penalty imposed
upon Microsoft for its transgressions. By creating a monopoly
Microsoft has strengthened itself and weakened its competitors. But
but the bigger it grows, the greater the risk to national interest.
-J
MTC-00025410
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:06pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
CC: [email protected]@inetgw
Leo G. Kivell
48060 Brewster Court
Plymouth, MI 48170
January16,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Attorney General:
I am asking that you settle your ongoing case against Microsoft.
My faith in antitrust programs has been reduced as a result of this
and past trials.
I worked for Ford at the dawn of the technology age, and we had
a different computer system for practically each division. The
ability to interact was limited by a lack of common standard, which
ends up costing consumers more. Microsoft should not be punished for
offering consumers the opportunity to embrace and build on such a
standard. The concessions Microsoft is making in the settlement it
reached with your office go further than the ones other companies in
similar situations have made, and they even encompass issues never
addressed in the original lawsuit.
I urge you to end all litigation against Microsoft and to settle
the antitrust case as quickly as possible. Thank you.
Sincerely
Leo Kivell
MTC-00025411
From: Dr. Homer L. Ontman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
It is my opinion that the settlement made by Microsoft is a fair
one and additional litigation would ill-serve the public and
therefore should not continue.
MTC-00025412
From: Jack Blalock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Who It May Concern,
When will this all end? When will stop spending the taxpayer's
money with all of these ridiculous court proceedings against the one
company that seems to make a difference in this country?
The jobs, service, and donations that Microsoft and its
employees give to this country are second to none. How can we
continue to beat the dead horse about what should be allowed into an
operating system for consumers? The product's ease-of-use and
integration of products only benefits the users of software users
around the world.
Let's get on with life! Enough of all this!
Jack Blalock
Charlotte, NC
MTC-00025413
From: Paul Guppy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
January 25, 2002
To: Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
c/o Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 ?D? Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC, 20530
Attn: Renata B. Hesse
Subject: Comment on Proposed Final Judgment in the Microsoft
Case.
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly
We respectfully encourage you to accept the proposed settlement
in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft. We are an association of
independent, state-based, non-partisan policy research groups
dedicated to promoting free markets and open competition.
This settlement reflects a triumph of the rule of law. It is a
perfect map of remedies laid alongside the areas where the Appeals
Court found against Microsoft. Certain Microsoft competitors and
other critics of the proposed settlement make the core of their
objections a call for more stringent restrictions, ranging from
prohibition on what they call ?product tying? to a breakup of the
company. More extreme critics complain that the remedies do not
address products that were not even part of the case.
These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court which
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented
monopoly abuse. The court went further to
[[Page 27632]]
state that any new burden of proof for ``tying'' would be
immense. The court also rejected the breakup order and made it clear
such an order moving forward would be difficult to sustain given the
court ``drastically altered [i.e., reduced] the scope of
Microsoft's liability.''
One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim
that sent the parties into litigation ? the Department of Justice
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree.
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court,
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of
violation addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible
access to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence,
to preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
In our view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and
prevents the behavior in question.
Acceptance of the proposed settlement will send a signal
throughout American industry and the country as a whole that in the
United States rule of law is alive and well--that defendants
face remedies only for those findings against them. Anything beyond
this settlement would represent a victory for those who do not seek
remedy but rather also unwarranted punishment, and this would be a
serious blow to the smooth functioning of free markets and the law
that protects them. Participants in the American economy would
forever be forced to fear whether the laws they rely upon to safely
conduct business will be applied fairly.
As leaders in advancing free market competition in our
respective states we believe this settlement serves the best
interests of the American public. It fairly resolves a complex and
burdensome anti-trust case that is having severe impacts far beyond
one company, a case that is acting as a drag on one of the most
vibrant sectors of our economy. Settlement of this case will free
the high-technology industry to put its fullest efforts into
innovation and creativity, and will spur competition in a way that
will directly benefit consumers.
Thank you for your consideration.
Signed,*
Daniel Mead Smith ? President
Washington Policy Center
4025 Delridge Way, S.W.
Suite 210
Seattle, WA 98106
Steve Buckstein ? President
Cascade Policy Institute
813 SW Alder
Suite 450
Portland, Oregon 97205
John McClaughry ? President
Ethan Allen Institute
4836 Kirby Mountain Road
Concord, VT 05824
Bob Williams
President
Evergreen Freedom Foundation
P.O. Box 552
Olympia, WA 98507
T. Rogers Wade ? President and CEO
Georgia Public Policy Foundation
6100 Lake Forrest Drive
Suite 110
Atlanta, GA 30328
David Kopel ? Director
Center on the Digital Economy
The Heartland Institute
19 South LaSalle
Suite 903
Chicago, IL 60603
Jon Caldara ? President
Independence Institute
14142 Denver West Parkway
Suite 185
Golden, CO 80401
Forest Thigpen
Mississippi Policy Institute
Don Racheter ? President
Public Interest Institute
600 North Jackson Street
Mount Pleasant, IA 52641
Gerry Dickinson ? Vice President for Policy
South Carolina Policy Council Education Foundation
1323 Pendleton Street
Columbia, S.C. 29201
Jeff Judson ? President and CEO
Texas Public Policy Foundation
8122 Datapoint
Suite 326
San Antonio, TX 78229
*State Policy Network group affiliations are listed for
identification purposes only.
Founded in 1992, the State Policy Network (SPN) is an
association of independent, non-profit, state-based policy research
groups dedicated to promoting free markets and open competition.
MTC-00025414
From: Adrian Gill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:10pm
Subject: Microsoft and the downfall of BeOS
Dear Sir, One of the reasons for the failure of BeOS, was the
inability to induce OEMs to provide true dual-boot machines. Be Inc
adopted a non-confrontational approach, seeking to provide a Windows
alternative rather than a replacement. It later produced a version
that boots from inside Windows, and it even offered OEMs BeOS for
free.
However, Microsoft OEM contracts forbid a visible dual-boot
option, and although OEMs were keen to differentiate themselves by
offering Be's ``Media OS'' as an alternative, they risked
breaching the OEM agreements.
When Hitachi took up the challenge, it was obliged to ship a
machine that could --only-- boot Windows. It couldn't
provide one-click access to activate the sleeper OS that was also
included on the machine, and couldn't provide similar easy access to
install the BeOS bootloader.
Thank you for your time.
Yours faithfully,
A. Gill
MTC-00025415
From: sidesoft
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ,
Why are we losing jobs across this country? Why are the stocks
of technologies companies free-falling?
The answer is rooted in this litigation. This crusade to
increase the stature of a few Attorney General's has gone on to
long. This delay has discouraged investors small and large from
investing in the technology sector and brought the NASDAQ to
historical lows. This effect is real and was predicted by leading
economists at the onset of this litigation.
The atmosphere around this and other corporate litigation has a
discouraging effect and has created a capital shortage for growing
companies resulting in a major decline in economic growth, earnings
and most importantly jobs. Please send the Attorney Generals''
home to their states, stop wasting our tax dollars and stop the
corporate litigation that robs capital needed for growth. As
taxpayers, investors and consumers, we can ill afford this
protection of our pocketbooks. This litigation has affected
retirement funds, college funds and government income. And now our
daily jobs are disappearing!
We have recently witnessed the major corporate collapse of ENRON
and the major losses to shareholders of this company. These
shareholders have placed the deserving blame on the corporate
officers of this company. We MSFT investors feel we have been
wronged, but have little recourse since the major blame is with our
government and specifically our state Attorney Generals.
End your litigation crusade on corporate America and
specifically ``end the Microsoft case'' so our stock
markets can flourish and our economy can return to normal.
A small investor from Iowa,
Warren McKenna
Kalona, IA
MTC-00025416
From: walter bogaardt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:1 lpm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a software engineer and user of various computer operating
systems, Unix, Windows, and Linux. I'd like to make my comments
known about the Proposed final Judgment in United States v.
Microsoft.
The following is my observations and complaints about the DOJ's
proposed settlement.
If the proposed settlement is left as is consumers and
developers will be held within the continual push of Microsoft
propaganda and ideals. Some of these can be
[[Page 27633]]
detrimental to our scientific and academic communities.
Even one of Microsoft execs have stated that Linux could stiffle
innovation. If innovation is being stiffled it is by Microsoft. The
scientific communitity as well as the United States government
research centers have used linux to create ``cheaper''
alternative clusters of computers using Linux to create processing
power as powerful as some super computers. Higher costs are not
inovative. Doing more with less is inovating and cost saving.
Microsoft would lead you to believe that innovation was created
only by commercial business. Most of the technology we see today was
created in schools by the academic community and by computer
enthusiasts. The basic fundamental elements of the internet were
designed to share information and not to horde the information for
sale.
We must not allow our schools education be dicated by one
monopolistic entity. In so far as that our children are forced to
learn only of Microsoft Windows OS and there by go into the
workforce expousing and reenforceing microsoft os in the workplace
and continuing the momentum of monopoly.
Microsoft now has established product lifecycle for license
availability and assisted support limits on their software. Now
older versions of their software may no longer be supported by them.
This thereby forces the users to purchase a newer version and
because of the higher hardware demands of the software requires a
user to buy a new PC when their current pc may work just fine.
Software that is for sale should be continually serviced by the
selling entity if the software continues to work for the user. This
should be the cost of doing software business as a software company.
Software and specifically Microsoft software has completely avoid
all standards of product liability. If a car were to crash or break
down as much as their ``inovative'' products do where
would we all be now?
The proposed final judgment by the DOJ is not sufficient in not
only the intrest of the consumer, but those entities that must
support computer technology in general. Software developers and IT
technicians are constantly having to find solutions to problems that
Microsoft technology constantly hides. From Application Programing
Interface(API) changes to new network protocals and file formats.
Take for instance Microsoft File formats for their word
documents. In order to allow other software to read and successfully
print or display the contents of this document the programer must
``reverse'' engineer the information so that it can make
sense in another program. This same policy by microsoft of hidding
details from other companie's programers lead to the demis of
Netscape. Does this mean the demise of WordPerfect, StarOffice, and
other wordprocessing programs too? It must be stated that the API's
that Microsoft uses to interface to its Windows OS and its
Middleware (Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer) should be made more
available to public developers.
Microsoft is currently operating in a capacity in it has gone
beyond the desktop OS environment and is assimilating B2B services
with their .NET and Passport services. They continue to attack
companies that they percieve as competitive such as Lindows, which
is building a system on top of Linux that allows windows
applications to install and run seemlessly. They have almost
succeded in eliminating Java from the desktop and with .NET will try
to eliminate Java from the server space as well.
Microsoft should do business either as an OS vendor, or a break
up of its middleware and server groups into separate entities. In
this outside developers should be allowed free access to well
document public API's in the windows OS so that they can perform
their jobs, and provide consumers with alternative innovative
products. This in turn reinvigorates the economy by establishing
competition within business.
As a software engineer and user of various computer operating
systems, Unix,Windows, and Linux. I'd like to make my comments known
about the Proposed final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft.
The following is my observations and complaints about the DOJ's
proposed settlement.
If the proposed settlement is left as is consumers and
developers will be held within the continual push of Microsoft
propaganda and ideals. Some of these can be detrimental to our
scientific and academic communities.
Even one of Microsoft execs have stated that Linux could stiffle
innovation. If innovation is being stiffled it is by Microsoft. The
scientific communitity as well as the United States goverment
research centers have used linux to create ``cheaper''
alternative clusters of computers using Linux to create processing
power as powerful as some super computers. Higher costs are not
inovative. Doing more with less is inovating and cost saving.
Microsoft would lead you to believe that innovation was created
only by commercial business. Most of the technology we see today was
created in schools by the academic community and by computer
enthusiasts. The basic fundamental elements of the internet were
designed to share information and not to horde the information for
sale.
We must not allow our schools education be dicated by one
monopolistic entity. In so far as that our children are forced to
learn only of Microsoft Windows OS and there by go into the
workforce expousing and reenforceing microsoft os in the workplace
and continuing the momentum of monopoly.
Microsoft now has established product lifecycle for license
availability and assisted support limits on their software. Now
older versions of their software may no longer be supported by them.
This thereby forces the users to purchase a newer version and
because of the higher hardware demands of the software requires a
user to buy a new PC when their current pc may work just fine.
Software that is for sale should be continually serviced by the
selling entity if the software continues to work for the user. This
should be the cost of doing software business as a software company.
Software and specifically Microsoft software has completely avoid
all standards of product liability. If a car were to crash or break
down as much as their ``inovative'' products do where
would we all be now? The proposed final judgment by the DOJ is not
sufficient in not only the intrest of the consumer, but those
entities that must support computer technology in general. Software
developers and IT technicians are constantly having to find
solutions to problems that Microsoft technology constantly hides.
From Application Programing Interface(API) changes to new network
protocals and file formats.
Take for instance Microsoft File formats for their word
documents. In order to allow other software to read and successfully
print or display the contents of this document the programer must
``reverse'' engineer the information so that it can make
sense in another program. This same policy by microsoft of hidding
details from other companie's programers lead to the demis of
Netscape. Does this mean the demise of WordPerfect, StarOffice, and
other wordprocessing programs too? It must be stated that the API's
that Microsoft uses to interface to its Windows OS and its
Middleware (Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer) should be made more
available to public developers.
Microsoft is currently operating in a capacity in it has gone
beyond the desktop OS environment and is assimilating B2B services
with their .NET and Passport services. They continue to attack
companies that they percieve as competitive such as Lindows, which
is building a system on top of Linux that allows windows
applications to install and run seemlessly. They have almost
succeded in eliminating Java from the desktop and with .NET will try
to eliminate Java from the server space as well.
Microsoft should do business either as an OS vendor, or a break
up of its middleware and server groups into separate entities. In
this outside developers should be allowed free access to well
document public API's in the windows OS so that they can perform
their jobs, and provide consumers with alternative innovative
products. This in turn reinvigorates the economy by establishing
competition within business.
MTC-00025417
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
[[Page 27634]]
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,
Lawrence Clark
171 Ravenwood Blvd.
Barnegat, NJ 08005-2205
MTC-00025418
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I've followed this anti-trust case closely, and have read the
proposed settlement. The only thing I have to say is this: Shame On
You, DoJ, for selling out the trust of the taxpayers.
MTC-00025419
From: Warren F Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
There they go again! Here's what one writer, James K. Glassman,
said: ``Instead of straightening out its business problems, AOL
has decided to spend its time and effort filing lawsuits against
tough competitors--a petty, distracting pursuit that won't help
AOL or, for that matter, the U.S. economy, which depends on firms
like Microsoft for the innovation necessary to bring about a
technology revival.'' (http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/
techwrapper.jsp?PID=1051-250&CID=1051-012302E)
He also said about consumers that he ``can't understand how
they're hurt by a business strategy that offers browsers for
free.'' I have written several times to make the point that the
only entities being hurt throughout this ridiculous fiasco are those
incompetetent businesses--like Netscape-- which can't
compete. And talk about the pot calling the kettle black! AOL,
having bought Netscape for an obscene amount of money, is part of
one of the largest communication trusts the world has ever known.
This makes what Theodore Roosevelt faced a century ago seem like
a walk in the park.
I still say that the courts and politics should keep out of
technological innovation. I know of no better way to guarantee this
nation a mediocre future than to destroy the ability of companies to
innovate.
Settle this case and let's get on with the business of solving
human problems through technological ingenuity and innovation.
Sincerely yours,
Warren F Taylor
Porterville, CA
MTC-00025420
From: John Fodor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I am completely opposed to the lawsuit against Microsoft that
has been filed by AOL. I trully believe that AOL should focus on
solving their own problems rather than filing frivolous lawsuits.
I urge that the lawsuit be rejected.
sincerely,
John Fodor
MTC-00025421
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:14pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I think the proposed settlement on the microsoft antitrust act
is a bad idea
MTC-00025422
From: Russell Gordon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Get off of Microsofts back and let the consumers settle the
dispute by what they buy.. Government has no business involving
itself in private business....
MTC-00025423
From: Bud B. Kern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is long since time to get off the back of Microsoft and agree
to the settlement as it stands. Microsoft has been good for our
country by providing a means for many people to enjoy the
technology. Those competitors who joined in this suit have not
proven that they were damaged in any way. Please put an end to this
suit and let Microsoft and the rest of the industry get on with the
process and progress of doing business for the betterment of all of
us.
Harry B. and Dona Kern, Sierra Village, CA.
MTC-00025424
From: John Putnam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Without Microsoft...I wouldn't get paid...
I want Microsoft to have the ability to continue down the path
of innovation without interference from the government.
John H Putnam
MTC-00025425
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough is enough.
Let everyone know that Clinton did wrong by trying to bring
Microsoft down to their friends level. That did not help the
economy. Lets move on and let the people choose Microsoft or if they
are not happy with them they can start their own.
Lydia Winkler
MTC-00025426
From: Bob Kerstetter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Summary: Diversity in OS's would end the plague of viruses, as
diversity is difficult to attack. In the nation's security interest
MS should be busted.
At first I thought the lawsuit was a crock. I am not an MS
product user or a detractor, but always thought Mr. Gates earned his
bucks fair and square. But I really don't think so anymore. He
basically copies and intimidates to do well. He is really afraid of
face to face or shoulder to shoulder competition. He has copied the
Apple OS time and again. He has spread lies about Open Source, as
witnessed by the Halloween Papers. When Apple innovates something
for an MS OS he makes it difficult to operate in Windows. When Apple
comes up with an iMovie he makes a cheap copy. He has even copied
the name of Mac OS X by calling his own cheap look alike XP,
exploiting the confusion factor. He has also copied Apple Digital
Hub concept. Finally, IE is too integrated into the MS OSes.
MS is too big and monopolistic for the good of the community.
Diversity in OS's would end the plague of viruses also, as diversity
is difficult to attack. In the nation's security interest MS should
be busted. Get it over. Just do it. Like this:
Division One: Office Products.
Division Two: OS
Division Three: IE
Division Four: Consumer Products
Division Five: Games
Division Six: Hardware as in X Box and Mouse.
Six Divisions would be good.
Also, make them pay Apple $2 Billion for stealing ideas: the
look, the feel, the packaging of products.
MTC-00025427
From: JL Kottal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Hello,
I am sadly disappointed in the provisions of the Microsoft
Settlement. It would appear that the DOJ proposal abrogated
completely any responsibility to recommend punishment of a company
that was found guilty, not once but twice. In doing so, the DOJ has
wasted a lot of the taxpayer's money on a court case and settlement
that will do no justice to those who looked to the DOJ for it.
There seems in the proposed settlement to be no punishment at
all, and certainly nothing that would encourage Microsoft to change
its business practices. In fact, since then, Microsoft has continued
even more so its predatory practices: they have integrated Internet
Explorer more tightly into their Windows operating system; their
operating system plans for the future named .Net push much more
dependency upon using their products; and their latest offering,
Windows XP, misleads its users into thinking that they must register
with their Internet provider company MSN to use the Internet.
If the DOJ thinks that their proposed settlement has stopped the
Microsoft monopoly, then I urge their lead lawyer to call Dell,
Gateway or almost any national-level computer manufacturer and ask
to buy a computer without a Microsoft operating system on it. Almost
without exception, the answer will be that this is not possible:
that one must pay for some version of Windows, and that even to buy
without an operating system at all and install an alternate system
such as Linux is not possible. Until this changes, as far as I am
concerned, then the Microsoft monopoly continues to be alive and
stronger than ever.
[[Page 27635]]
This is only part of the problem with the settlement. As it is,
the proposed settlement
* does not take into account Windows compatible competing
operating systems
* contains many misleading, or far too narrowly defined
provisions, especially in regard to Microsoft's programming
application interfaces, in as much as it does not require release or
forbids their use, or make clear which patents they use
* does not require release of Microsoft Office documentation,
allowing continued use proprietary formats, which are arbitrarily
changed with each new version
* fails to address the extremely restrictive license terms
Microsoft uses that prevents any of their products from running on
other operating systems
* fails to stop Microsoft's retaliation against OEMs who ship
personal computers without a Microsoft operating system or with a
competing operating system
* lacks an effective enforcement provision
I would like to see a new settlement that takes into account the
above. Furthermore, I would like to see a substantial fine imposed
upon Microsoft: the only thing that Microsoft seems to understand is
the making of money at all costs. Why not punish them in a way that
they would understand by imposing a $15 billion fine (about 1/2 of
their current operating reserve)?
As it is, the current proposed final judgment will simply allow,
if not encourage, significant continuation of Microsoft's
anticompetitive practices. As currently written, it is not at all in
the public interest and should not be adopted without substantial
revision.
J. L. Kottal II
MTC-00025428
From: Barbara Hastings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:19pm
Subject: Settlement
To whom this may concern:
I believe it would be in the best interests of our country to
quietly and quickly settle the case with Microsoft. I say this not
because I know anyone who works for Microsoft, but because this
dubious case against Microsoft has drug on for way too long. The
persons this benefits most are the lawyers who love this all the way
to the bank. This situation is counterproductive to the ordinary
citizens of the US who stand to lose the most in the long run. The
government should not be getting involved in free enterprise.
Sincerely,
Barbara Hastings
[email protected]
MTC-00025429
From: Jeff Shuey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern;
Please stop wasting our taxpayer dollars supporting the efforts
to prosecute Microsoft. The proposed terms of the agreement are
going to be difficult for Microsoft to implement and ultimately will
harm the consumer in all areas of business. Microsoft is being
persecuted for being successful. The United States of America is a
capitalist society and should always reward capitalistic behaviour.
The claims by the plaintiffs are rife with competitor bashing. If
Microsoft competitors cannot win on business level they should not
be allowed to win via the courts.
The consumer has NOT been harmed by Microsoft's continuous
innovation. In fact, just the opposite is true. Personal computers
have become a required tool for in modern society for the home,
education and business consumers. Microsoft and the thousands of
software developers that have innovated upon the Microsoft platform
should be thanked. Microsoft helped create an industry and hundreds
of thousands of jobs. The tax revenue alone from these jobs should
be considered as great windfalls for some parts of the
country--computers being built in North Dakota and in Idaho.
Software developers being able to innovate from
anywhere--assured that their work will be able to operate on an
industry standard platform. Based on the feedback and constant
attention to detail the Microsoft Corporation has continued to
evolve and innovate the platform by which hardware and software
vendors create their livelihood. The personal computer industry is
an industry surrounded and founded upon innovation. Microsoft and
the thousands of software and hardware developers that have been
able to build upon a secure, stable, and innovative platform should
be thanked. Microsoft should not be penalized for helping companies
succeed. Microsoft should not be forced to become anti-capitalistic.
Please stop wasting my taxpayer dollars to support the frivolous
and groundless claims against Microsoft. Please help the economy
return to normal by fostering competition--not squashing it
with legal rhetoric.
Thank you for your time,
Jeff Shuey
A Concerned Citizen
22914 NE 17th Place
Sammamish, WA 98074
MTC-00025430
From: nat ward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:21pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
I would like to posit at this juncture that I believe that
Microsoft, and in turn, Bill Gates, have acted towards both the
courts and the American public with a unfathomable disregard for the
law.
It saddens me to see the courts capitulating once again to a
corporate interest so obviously full of contempt towards the legal
system because of their own wealth and power.
I just want it noted that once you , the justice department, bow
before the Microsoft giant and give in with little more than a slap
on the wrist for Mr. Gates and his corporate cronies, you should
hang your heads in shame for you have done a disservice to the
American People, and the law which you are supposed to enforce.
Thank You,
Nathaniel Ward
MTC-00025431
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Luther Aull
1711 Ninety Six Hwy
Ninety Six, SC 29666
MTC-00025432
From: RAYMOND A MATHISEN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
As a senior citizen ,and as a active Internet user I strongly
support the Microsoft settlement.
Raymond A Mathisen
Date: Friday, January 25, 2002 8:52 PM
Subject: Fw: Attorney General John Ashcroft Letter
-----Original Message-----
From: Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Network
To: ``[email protected]''
Date: Monday, January 21, 2002 2:04 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
MTC-00025475
From: WIN B ENDERS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I think both, the DOJ and Microsoft should accept the terms of
the settlement and stop this endless litigation and get on with
being productive.
win enders
MTC-00025476
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:51pm
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,
Gene Kitzmann
1818 East Five Poiny Lake Dr NW
Hackensack, MN 56452
MTC-00025477
From: Michael T. Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
The settlement offer should be accepted and this matter should
be brought to a close.; Microsoft built a better mousetrap and the
[[Page 27640]]
public bought it. The individuals attempting to undermine the
settlement are business entities who want the law to be used as a
bludgeon to beat Microsoft out of a portion of the marketplace for
them.
Let's end this matter and get on with living. Should anyone have
any questions regarding my position on this case please feel free to
use the contact information in this email to reach me.
Thank you.
Michael T. Wilson
Attorney and Counselor at Law
631 Crestridge Court
Wichita, KS 67230-1621
Telephone: (316) 218-9998
Facsimile: (316) 218-9998
Website: www.mwilsonlaw.com
Email: [email protected]
(316) 218-9998.
MTC-00025478
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:56pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
do not penalize success which is now in short supply. don
moriarty, nokomis fl.
MTC-00025479
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The case against MS has stalled the IT industry long enough. We
are in a recession. The case is old news anyway.
MTC-00025480
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The case against MS has stalled the IT industry long enough. We
are in a recession. The case is old news anyway.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025481
From: Dan Matulich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Legal Battle
Dear US Government,
Let me clarify: I am a retired engineering manager who uses
computer daily and who has learned over the years how to communicate
better thanks to Microsoft's ingenuity.
I admire this company as much as I admire Edison. In our market
driven economy innovation is the key and competition is the means
that customers use to get the best deal. Microsoft was innovative
and competitive and daring to take risks. Competitors lost and are
trying now through the back door to get some of the lost market
share.
Further government intervention will only further exacerbate the
economic conditions we presently are experiencing by slowing down
further the innovation which was key to a bit prosperity we have
had. I do not see any Microsoft competitor coming up with some new
ideas other than hiring lawyers to get money by other means. How
sad. Don't encourage this kind of effort.
Respectfully,
Dan Matulich
5017 Range Horse Lane
Rolling Hills Estates
CA 90274
Tel 310-373-2940
[email protected]
MTC-00025482
From: Gary P Greenland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may concern,
I would like to submit my thoughts on the Microsoft case. I
believe it is time to place this matter behind us and move forward.
I think that further litigation will only serve to hurt the American
consumer. I do not believe Microsoft has committed any antitrust
violations. Please rule on this promptly. Thank You.
Gary P. Greenland
MTC-00025483
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:01pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Surely the government-suggested settlement with Microsoft has
been patiently arrived-at and seems eminently fair. After all the
time and money spent by both sides, isn't now the time to conclude
this business and let the government and the company make better use
of its energies? I believe so.
Gerald Miller, New York City
MTC-00025484
From: Mike Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think it's time for the Government to close this case against
Microsoft and give up the Witch hunt the Clintons started . I see no
reason to keep dragging this case out .
MTC-00025485
From: bear
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:02pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
It's no secret that Steve Case, Scott Mc Nealy and Larry Ellison
are not friends of Microsoft. Competitors often disagree but usually
settle their differences by letting the players, in this case the
consumer to choose the winner.
What did Microsoft do wrong? Not charging individuals for
Internet Explorer was brilliant. I was not hurt as a consumer it was
free. As a result I recently downloaded the Netscape Browser for
free. Would this be possible if Internet Explorer didn't exist? No
matter how you look at it the consumer benefits. Yahoo adopted a
similar business plan by giving consumers free access. As a user of
all the listed products I think it's great.
In the end the DoJ will decide how big an impact on our economy
this settlement will have. A speedy decision will help the economy
by providing clarity by Quantifying risk. Investors in 401k, IRA's,
mutual funds, state and federal pension plans, and individual
investors nervously await the out come. Anything less will leave a
cloud of uncertainty, which will keep MSFT and the rest of the
market from focusing on their businesses. In this case all investors
and the economy will be hurt.
I know the DoJ believes they are smarter and think I'm a
simpleton. But my response is to protect my interests not that of
MSFT. As a small business owner I believe in free market competition
not protectionism. My view is Microsoft gave the end user the best
deal. They gave us more for less with seem-less integration. Any
claim to the effect things would be better if Microsoft innovation
is impeded is pure speculation. How many innovations have
competitors given to consumers at no charge? People and companies
don't always make good on their claims and tend to exaggerate when
``if and buts'' are added in the mix.
Larry Oshita
MTC-00025486
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:58pm
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,
Dennis Cox
315 Ashebrook Rd Apt 60
Salisbury, NC 28147
MTC-00025487
From: Mac User
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
I am strongly opposed to the settlement offered in the Microsoft
antitrust trial. Microsoft has repeatedly used anti-competitive
practices to undermine other companies to maintain their monopoly.
They also continually use their monopoly power to leverage other
markets. This has severely hampered innovation in the computer
industry. The penalty for their actions must allow for the re-
introduction of true competition into the marketplace. The
settlement does absolutely nothing to address these serious issues.
Indeed, only a true break-up of the company along with opening up of
the source code and data file formats can help. Further a ban is
required on their
[[Page 27641]]
ability to contract with computer manufacturers which prevent them
from selling competing software.
As a developer in the computer industry, I personally feel the
negative effects of the Microsoft monopoly every day. Something
better needs to be done to rectify the situation, and Microsoft will
never willingly agree to what is needed. I implore you do the right
thing and forget about settlement and enact a fitting penalty that
will be effective.
Do not forget that they willfully fabricated false testimony in
the original case. How can they be trusted to develop a fair
settlement?
Sincerely,
Frank Schima
Gaithersburg, MD USA
MTC-00025488
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:01pm
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,
Tracy Dorgan
1 Birch Hil Drive
Nashua, NH 03063-2502
MTC-00025489
From: Evan J Hale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
I firmly believe that it is time to end this very expensive
court case that is costing taxpayers millions just because one
company (Microsoft) makes a better product than it's competitors,
thus sells more. It is lining the pockets of competitor big wigs and
lawyers. Of course they would like to drag it on. I have urged
Utah's Attorney General to go along with other states in bringing
this to a halt and hope that the Justice Department can mitigate
this before any more money is spent.
Evan J. Hale
[email protected]
MTC-00025490
From: Earl H Barton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:04pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Sirs:,
I think the time has come to put this to an end. The settlement
as is, is fair to all and should be ended now. No other company has
helped the public as much as Microsoft. They are the only one's I
know of that's gives so much to Charity. I dont see any of the
others doing this. Just because Microsoft has the best product, as I
have used, Is no reason to try to break up the company... Thats just
not the American way.
You may use this in any way you see fit. Thank you for letting
me put in my two cents worth..
Earl H. Barton, age-70
68 Pine Rd. POB-182
Norris, Tn 37828
[email protected]
MTC-00025491
From: Mason Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MTC-00025491 0001
As a professional working in the technology sector, I often have
occasion to use Microsoft software and competing products. I am
therefore concerned that the Revised Proposed Final Judgment in the
Microsoft antitrust case has a number of deficiencies that prevent
the Judgment from providing certain and effective relief for
Microsoft's violations of the Sherman Act. Unless these flaws are
corrected, the Revised Proposed Final Judgment is clearly against
the public interest and will positively harm third parties.
This Comment addresses five serious deficiencies of the Revised
Proposed Final Judgment. The deficiencies are discussed in the order
they appear in the Judgment, not necessarily in their relative order
of impact on injunctive relief. The deficiencies are:
1. The Judgment provides no remedies for past unlawful conduct.
2. Allowing volume discounts anticompetitively maintains
Microsoft's monopoly (Section III.A. and III.B.).
3. Restrictions on disclosure of communications protocols
maintains a barrier to competition (Section III.E.) .
4. Arbitrary five year term of Judgment harms the public
interest (Section V.).
5. The definition of ``Non-Microsoft Middleware
Product'' maintains a barrier to competition (Section VI.N.).
Although it is unreasonable to expect a truly optimal Judgment
that best serves the public interest, the existence of any one of
the above deficiencies--and certainly the coexistence of
several of them--will not end Microsoft's unlawful conduct nor
avoid a recurrence of violations of the Sherman Act, and is thus
outside the reaches of the public interest.
1. Judgment provides no remedies for past unlawful conduct
Although the Revised Proposed Final Judgment provides limited
remedies ``to halt continuance and prevent recurrence of the
violations of the Sherman Act by Microsoft'' (Competitive
Impact Statement, Section I.), it does not in any way ``undo
its anticompetitive consequences'' (Competitive Impact
Statement Section IV.B.). There is no provision in the Judgment to
remedy any past anticompetitive actions by Microsoft: all provisions
in the Judgment attempt to alter the current and future behavior of
Microsoft. As such, the Judgment does not effectively restore the
competitive conditions experienced by Microsoft prior to its
violations of the Sherman Act.
An effective remedy for Microsoft's past illegal actions
requires a careful balance to empower injured competitors while not
unduly damaging Microsoft. A simple but fair remedy would create a
pool of Microsoft's money based on a percentage of sales of
Microsoft Operating System Products since the filing of the
antitrust complaint till the time of the Final Judgment entered by
the Court. The parties damaged by Microsoft's anticompetitive
behavior (e.g., Sun Microsystems, Netscape Communications Corp.,
etc.) would be payed from this pool. The size of the pool and the
relative payment terms to competitors are details that require
careful consideration.
2. Allowing volume discounts anticompetitively maintains
Microsoft's monopoly
Allowing volume discounts serves no procompetitive interest and
is in fact very much against the public interest as it serves to
illegally maintain Microsoft's monopoly. Section III.A. of the
revised proposed final judgment stipulates that ``Nothing in
this provision shall prohibit Microsoft from providing
Consideration...commensurate with the absolute level or amount of
that OEM's development, distribution, promotion, or licensing of
that Microsoft product or service.'' Section III.B.2 provides
for a licensing fee schedule that ``may specify reasonable
volume discounts based upon the actual volume of licenses of any
Windows Operating System Product...'' These provisions allow
Microsoft to continue to leverage its monopoly position to illegally
maintain that monopoly. The Competitive Impact Statement entirely
ignores the anticompetitive ramifications of these terms.
Unlike traditional manufacturing, where the production or
distribution of a large quantity of a product can generate
``economies of scale'' and thereby procompetitively
justify non-uniform pricing (e.g., volume discounts), the licensing
of software has no significant economies of scale. A comparison with
traditional manufacturing is useful. For a car dealership selling
hundreds of cars per month, there is economic justification for the
car manufacturer to provide a volume discount to the dealership: the
distribution costs (shipping) per car are lower than for a
dealership selling only ten cars per month. With software however,
the only economy of scale obtained is slightly cheaper production
materials: compact disks for distribution and paper for
documentation and product boxes. OEMs typically only include a
compact disk with a new computer purchase, for which the volume
production cost is under one dollar (USS1.00) . Hence the economies
of scale afforded by large scale OEMs to Microsoft are less than one
percent (1%) of the retail value of typical Windows Operating System
Products. Hence there is no significant procompetitive reason to
allow volume discounts to large OEMs.
[[Page 27642]]
Allowing Microsoft to offer volume discounts will further
entrench its monopoly position. With volume discounts, Microsoft
would retain the ability to price its Windows Operating System
Product licenses at an artificially low cost to the largest OEM
vendors. These vendors would thus have a strong incentive to
continue to offer exclusively or predominantly the Microsoft
Operating System Product on new Personal Computers. The largest OEM
Personal Computer suppliers would have a free market incentive to
choose alternate Operating System Products if Microsoft's Operating
System Product were instead priced at an open market value. Avoiding
volume discounts increases competition while preventing Microsoft
from leveraging its monopoly to stifle competition.
This deficiency of the revised proposed final judgment is
remedied by deleting the words ``distribution'' and
``licensing'' from the last paragraph of Section III.A.
and by modifying Section III.B.2 to read ``the schedule may not
specify volume discounts based upon the actual volume of licenses of
any Windows Operating System Product or any group of such
products.'' These modifications will still allow Microsoft to
compete in the marketplace based on the merits of the Windows
Operating System Products, but prevent Microsoft from
anticompetitively erecting barriers to competitive products.
3. Restrictions on disclosure of communications protocols
maintains barrier to competition
The Revised Proposed Final Judgment maintains a significant
barrier to competing Non-Microsoft Middleware Products by
restricting the disclosure of Communications Protocols. Section
III.E. of the Judgment provides that Microsoft shall disclose
Communications Protocols ``on reasonable and non-discriminatory
terms.'' Such terms, however, prevent a large number of
established and nascent competitors from obtaining the Communication
Protocols. ``Reasonable and non-discriminatory'' license
terms act as an anticompetitive barrier to potential Microsoft
competitors, while providing no procompetitive advantage for
Microsoft.
``Shareware'' software developers typically provide
software products (including middleware) free of charge for end
users to evaluate, and only demand payment if the end user decides
to continue using the software product. Such developers would be
unable to comply with ``reasonable and non-
discriminatory'' licensing terms unless a very large percentage
of end users payed for the software product. Similarly, the entire
``open source'' class of software would be unable to meet
``reasonable and non-discriminatory'' terms as the
``open source'' licenses allow virtually unlimited
duplication and derivation rights. Several important Non-Microsoft
Middleware Products are ``open source'', notably the Samba
program (http://www.samba.org), that provides file transfer and
print services through the Microsoft SMB Communications Protocol.
The Samba program is a well-established and widely used alternative
to Microsoft Middleware Products, but it would be effectively
prevented from competing with Microsoft through the adoption of
``reasonable and non-discriminatory'' licensing terms for
future changes in the SMB protocol.
This deficiency of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment can be
remedied by a simple wording change. The phrase ``reasonable
and non-discriminatory'' in Section III.E. of the Judgment
should be changed to ``royalty free''. Since Microsoft's
ability to hide Communication Protocols serves only to prevent
competitors from effectively interoperating with Microsoft products
and does not in any way increase competition, a mandatory royalty
free license would serve to allow both large and small competitors
to interoperate with Microsoft products.
4. Arbitrary five year term of Judgment harms the public
interest
The Competitive Impact Statement in Section IV.C. claims that a
five year time frame for the Judgment ``provides sufficient
time for the conduct remedies contained in the Proposed Final
Judgment to take effect...and to restore competitive conditions to
the greatest extent possible.'' The Competitive Impact
Statement provides neither evidence, nor precedence, nor logic to
support this claim.
In fact, a five year term may well be too long. The provisions
of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment may turn out to be so
effective at restoring competition that Microsoft loses its
dominance in less than two years in the Operating System market for
Personal Computers and becomes unnecessarily hobbled by the
restrictions of the Judgment. In such a case, Microsoft would be
unfairly restricted from competing in the market for another three
years, possibly causing great economic damage to Microsoft and
depriving consumers of the fruits of a vibrant competition in the
Operating System market.
Alternatively, the provisions of the Revised Proposed Final
Judgment might not be sufficient to hinder Microsoft's
anticompetitive actions, and Microsoft could continue to violate the
Sherman Act through an extended seven-year Judgment period. Clearly
such a situation would severely harm the public interest, again
depriving consumers of the benefits of a competitive market and
stifling the entire Operating System and Middleware market. The
arbitrary five year Judgment term length would only be beneficial in
the most serendipitous of circumstances, and the arbitrary two-year
extension does not mitigate this fault.
The overriding concern of this Judgment is to prevent
Microsoft's anticompetitive actions and to restore competitive
conditions to the market, and it is that principle that should guide
the term length of the Judgment. The most straightforward
application of this principle would be to terminate the Judgment
when Microsoft no longer enjoys monopoly status. This could be
achieved with the following replacement for Section V. (Termination)
of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment:
``This Final Judgment will expire when Microsoft's Windows
Operating System Product has less than fifty percent share of the
Personal Computer Operating System market (as determined by a market
study provided by a mutually agreed upon third party).''
With this revised termination clause, the Judgment will stand
exactly as long as necessary for the public interest. An alternate
definition of monopoly status (i.e., instead of ``fifty percent
market share'') may also be acceptable, provided it is
logically and legally defensible, and maintains the intent of the
Judgment.
This new termination clause will ensure the return of healthy
competition to the Operating System market without unduly
burdening--or harming--Microsoft. At the point that
Microsoft's Windows Operating System Products have less than fifty
percent share of the Personal Computer Operating System market,
there is clearly healthy competition in that market, with at least
one other dominant competitor to Microsoft. There is then no further
reason to impose the conditions of the Judgment. However, Microsoft
is not prevented from maintaining its monopoly on the technical
merits of its products. The ongoing terms of the Judgment would not
be onerous to Microsoft should it maintain a monopoly position
without resorting to anticompetitive actions.
5. Definition of ``Non-Microsoft Middleware Product''
maintains barrier to competition
Although the Revised Proposed Final Judgment seeks to
``restore the competitive threat that middleware products posed
prior to Microsoft's unlawful conduct'' (Competitive Impact
Statement, Section IV), the proposed definition of ``Non-
Microsoft Middleware Product'' serves instead to maintain
barriers to competition. Section VI.N. of the Revised Proposed Final
Judgment stipulates that a software product, among other
requirements, can only be considered a ``Non-Microsoft
Middleware Product'' if ``at least one million copies were
distributed in the United States within the previous year.''
This requirement is explained in the Competitive Impact Statement,
Section IV.A. as being ``intended to avoid Microsoft's
affirmative obligations...being triggered by minor, or even
nonexistent, products that have not established a competitive
potential in the market...'' As the Competitive Impact
Statement makes clear, the definition of ``Non-Microsoft
Middleware Product'' intentionally limits the possible
competitive impact of nascent middleware products. Such a limitation
is antithetical to the desired goals of the Judgment.
This deficiency of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment can be
easily remedied by deleting Section VI.N. (ii) and thus removing the
restriction on number of copies distributed. The Competitive Impact
Statement in Section IV.A. states that the restriction on number of
copies distributed ``is intended to avoid Microsoft's
affirmative obligations--including the API disclosure required
by Section III.D. and the creation of the mechanisms required by
Section III.H.--being triggered by minor, or even nonexistent,
products...'' In other words, Microsoft should not endure an
onerous burden in its obligations. However, deleting Section VI.N.
(ii) would not create such a
[[Page 27643]]
burden. Since Section III.D. already specifies that APIs and related
Documentation shall be disclosed via the Microsoft Developer Network
or similar mechanisms, Microsoft will not require any further effort
to make the APIs and Documentation available to ISVs or other
middleware developers that have not established a competitive
potential in the market--but that nevertheless have the
potential to become competitors with Microsoft. Furthermore, the
mechanisms required in Section III.H. (such as the creation of Add/
Remove icons) are sufficiently generic that they will only need to
be created once--and likely already exist--to accommodate
all Microsoft and Non-Microsoft Middleware, and hence the expansion
of the number and kind of possible middleware competitors to
Microsoft again does not create an undue burden on the company.
This Comment has been submitted through both e-mail and
facsimile copy.
Respectfully submitted,
Mason Thomas
4333 Wildwest Circle
Moorpark, CA 93021
(805) 530-1502
January 25, 2002
Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
00025491 0005
MTC-00025492
From: LARRY HAYDEN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:07pm
Subject: WHAT DID I FIGHT FOR
WHY DID I FIGHT TO KEEP AMERICANS FREE ?WHEN OUR OWN GOVERMENT
AND OTHERS LIKE THEM WON'T LEAVE OTHERS ALONE TO PURSURE THE DREAM .
IF OTHERS DON'T HAVE A DREAM OF THERE ON THEN DON'T GET INTO OTHERS.
BILL GATES AND OTHERS LIKE HIM HAD A DREAM BUT THE GOVERMENT PUT
THERE TWO CENTS WORTH IN. THE OTHERS LIKE THE OTHER 9 STATES AND NOW
AOL? WELL I GUESS ALL THE THINGS I WENT THROUGH AND OTHERS LIKE ME
WELL, I GUESS IT WAS ALL IN VAIN. WE ARE NOT A FREE COUNTRY WHEN THE
GOV CAN TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN INVENT FOR THE BENNIFIT OF OTHERS. I
GUESS IT WAS JUST A DREAM.
LARRY HAYDEN
MTC-00025493
From: Dan Liscinsky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
MTC-00025494
From: Joe King
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
As a consumer of computer software and hardware items, I urge
that the Microsoft Case be settled as soon as possible and let this
industry resolve the issues through competition rather than through
politics and unjust justice.
Thanks, Joe King
MTC-00025495
From: piyush gupta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
I am a first generation immigrant, having arrived here from
India 23 years ago. I remember the two things that had most
impressed me a short time after I landed. One was the highway
system--so cleverly built that one could go from one end of the
country to another without encountering any barriers like traffic
lights! And the second was the anti-trust system underlying our free
market economy that has made ours the most powerful nation on Earth.
It was an immense eye-opener for me to find out how the anti-trust
sytem had successfully decoupled the film sales market from the film
development market and enabled two thriving, competitive markets to
develop and benefit consumers nationwide.
Well, I feel that our anti-trust system is letting us down in
the MicroSoft case. At least two Federal courts have now determined
that MicroSoft is an illegal monopoly--a fact that has been
evident for years to professionals in the computing field like
myself. I have had some first hand experience in seeing how
MicroSoft deals with potential ``partners.'' MicroSoft has
yet to deliver any original piece of technology to the marketplace.
Their operating system monopoly has been based on getting the DOS
software from someone else, partnering then driving IBM away. Their
database was stolen from Sybase. Netscape created the browser
market, and MicroSoft illegally used their Windows monopoly to
virtually drive them out of business.
I work in the computer industry in Silicon Valley. Any
enterpreneur who tries to start a company and raise venture capital
is now asked how they will prevent MicroSoft from crushing them if
they are successful! You can imagine the chilling effect this is
having on innovation. If MicroSoft is allowed to continue unchecked,
it will be disaster for the American IT industry. Why would you
bother to create another innovation like the web browser when you
know MicroSoft will copy it, bundle it with Windows, and drive you
out of business!
I'm glad the civil suit settlement was rejected-- can you
imagine, the civil settlement would have provided MicroSoft with a
toehold in the education market, the only one where Apple has been
able to hold the off!! I hope you will see fit to reject the
proposed DOJ settlement as well. It does not punish MicroSoft for
its past anti-competitive practices, nor prevents it from continuing
to do so in the future. Approving the current settlement will spell
disaster for the future economic well being. Thank you.
MTC-00025496
From:[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date:1/25/02 9:08pm
Subject: Fwd: Microsoft Settlement
MTC-00025496 0001
Dear DOJ:
I want to say so much, perhaps too much! Instead I shall offer a
number of sentences, keeping them as brief as possible:
(1) As a consumer, I want all manufacturers of the products I
purchase to enjoy the freedom to make those products better for me,
without the jeopardy of Big Brother Interference!
(2) AS a reader of multiple articles on this endless government
harassment of Microsoft, I have concluded simply that a number of
companies [all of whom share some specific monopolistic piece of the
pie] turned to Government Officials to hamper and hammer Microsoft
when this cadre of companies decided they could not defeat Microsoft
in a marketplace controlled by the long-standing principles of the
American Economic System! Like a child who decides not to slug it
out with his nasty classmate; but to go home to summon his
``big'' brother to do the fighting for him!
(3) As a past student of some psychology courses, I think that
Jealousy has had too much to do with this legal pursuit of a premier
company. The multibillionaires in control of the ``offended
corporations'' are envious of the astounding success of the
richest! Even the Federal and State Governments fall prey to the
venom of jealousy seeing what a well-organized and truly innovative
Corporation can achieve; while these governmental entities prove
largely feckless to their tasks and reckless with taxpayers''
money in the process!
(4) In view of Judge Jackson's relentless pursuit of Microsoft
and his self-declared antagonism for its officers, it bedazzles me
that the Court of Appeals would uphold his Findings as unprejudiced
and valid! The fact that he may have declared his belligerence
toward Microsoft only subsequent to Court Proceedings cannot
distract a thoughtful individual from the fact that those
belligerent statements revealed his mindset and opinion throughout
the entire course of this legal saga!
(5) By upholding the Jackson Findings, the Court of Appeals
covered the ``behind'' of the Judiciary System; but, in
its attempt to protect the Honor of that System, it failed to do
true Justice! Could the Judges not see -or did they see but pretend
not to see- that hostile statements made by Judges against
Principals in their Courts display for the world not a ``new
prejudice'' against a defendant just now judged to be guilty?
Simple chronology cannot be invoked to defend a long-standing,
vindictive attitude and mindset that dishonor the very Judiciary
System the Court of Appeals tried so hard to protect. Despite
obvious partiality on the part of the Trial Judge -obvious at least
to ordinary laypeople- virtually all his condemnatory Findings were
upheld!
(6) The slap on Judge Jackson's hand did not achieve Justice!
The Jackson Findings were mortally flawed through and through by the
prejudices of a judge who is paid to be unprejudiced! The rejection
of a split-up of Microsoft as a remedy was too obvious, really, even
to have taken up the Appeal Court's time! Judge Jackson had wrongly
escalated his proceedings far beyond the
[[Page 27644]]
scope of the suit itself. As a matter of fact, the essence of the
case against Microsoft, ie. the bundling, was found by the Court of
Appeals in Microsoft's favor! How can a man accused of murder be
declared guilty of murder if he is shown to be an adulterer? How can
a company accused of illegal bundling -and the finding of illegal
bundling is subsequently overruled- be required to pay damages
because it had bad business manners?
(7) We are faced now with a New World of Commerce! Competition
is no longer valued as the arbiter of corporate success or failure.
Now Government and the Judiciary are to be given carte-blanche to
police and to punish those corporations that have the temerity to be
TOO SUCCESSFUL FOR THEIR COMPETITORS'' LIKING!
Thank you.
MTC-00025497
From: Donald W. Hurta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:09pm
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Settlement ----Original
Message----
From: Donald W. Hurta
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 6:19 PM
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern, Enough is enough!!! Let's get on with
the economy. leave Microsoft alone!!!
What were you people thinking to start with ? They no more a
monopoly than General Motors or Ford. Quit wasting public money on
this ridiculous boondoggle.
Sincerely,
Donald W. Hurta
MTC-00025498
From: Carll Frye
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing this letter in regards to the antitrust settlement
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. My opinion is that
the litigations against Microsoft need to come to an end and the
settlement that has been reached is more than fair and reasonable.
Microsoft has agreed to terms that extend well beyond the products
and procedures that were actually at issue in the suit. This
litigation shows that a normal hardworking person can only get so
far. You take a company and put your whole life into it, build it up
from the ground up and then the government comes in and tells you
that you have to tear it down.
Furthermore, Microsoft gives thousands of people jobs, donates
millions to charity, and has developed software that has enabled
people to run their own businesses more efficiently. The terms that
Microsoft has agreed to have shown that they are willing to do what
it takes to end this matter, enabling themselves and the courts to
concentrate on more pressing issues. Microsoft has consented not to
retaliate against software and hardware developers and promoters
that compete with Microsoft. Also, Microsoft will make it easier for
non-Windows programs to run within Windows.
It is obvious this issue needs closure. Litigations will
continue to waste millions in tax dollars not to mention the effect
that it has had on the IT industry and the economy. Microsoft has
worked hard to become the company it is and should not be torn down
or hassled any further.
Sincerely,
Robyn Frye
15903 SE 58th Street
Bellevue, WA 98006
MTC-00025499
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:06pm
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,
E Strange
35223 Cielo Vista
Cathedral City, CA 92234
MTC-00025500
From: Darlene Wallach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a very bad idea. It is NO punishment
for Microsoft rather it furthers their products being used and
precludes the use of other products.
Darlene Wallach
47 Boston Avenue
San Jose, CA 95128-1902
[email protected]
MTC-00025501
From: Rosemary Scanlon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please see the attached letter urging that this settlement be
completed.
Enough is enough.
Rosemary Scanlon
10 Clinton Street # 9T
Brooklyn, NY 11201
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I have been following the ongoing antitrust lawsuit between the
U.S. government and Microsoft, and I would like to see it settled
according to the terms both sides agreed to in November. Microsoft
is making several important concessions to end the case, and I feel
that your office should comply with the settlement.
Microsoft has agreed to significant changes to end the suit,
changes that will benefit both its competitors and consumers as a
whole. Designing new means for computer makers and users to
customize their use of Windows and its affiliated programs, as well
as to integrate programs by competing developers, enhances the
public's freedom of choice, while protecting Microsoft's right to
continue developing some of the most innovative technologies in the
marketplace.
I believe that the case has been active long enough, and the
potential settlement is the only likely way to end it any time soon.
I urge you to finalize the settlement and move on to more important
matters.
Sincerely,
Rosemary Scanlon
MTC-00025502
From: Matt Covey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'm a software engineer with more than 20 years''
experience developing for numerous platforms. I'd like to comment on
the Proposed Final Judgment (PJF).
Specifically, I believe the PFJ has 3 serious flaws:
a) it allows many exclusionary practices to continue
b) it does not take any direct measures to reduce the
``applications barrier to entry'' faced by new entrants to
the market
c) it does not deny to the defendant the fruits of its statutory
violation
I won't go into details--there are other public comments
describing these points*. Instead, I would say that after reading
the proposed settlement and it's technical remedies, I see nothing
that stops Microsoft from continuing it's current style of business.
These remedies will have very little real-world effect. And if
Microsoft is allowed to retain the benefits of it's past misconduct
and more importantly continue it's anti-competitive behavior, how is
this a settlement that benefits anyone except Microsoft?
Certainly it doesn't benefit the consumer.
Sincerely,
Matt Covey
President, Classical Software
* Two examples: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/recent/162.cfm
MTC-00025503
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:12pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
[[Page 27645]]
i believe the microsoft case has gone on long enough. with all
the problems the country has now we should get on with the future
and not have att gen's of the various drag the case on longer.
considering the anti cigarette debacle with the states missusing
huge amounts of funds, it makes little sense to allow them to
attempt hurting a company that has been so innovating and successful
in expanding the tech world. they have been an asset to the country
and their pricing has kept the cost of computing reasonable for all
of us. Frank Friedland 6945 Fountains Circle
Lake Worth, F e-MAIL ADRESS [email protected]
MTC-00025504
From: Juan Rodriguez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:13pm
Subject: US vs. Microsoft
Dear Sirs,
I am a network administrator for a small CPA firm in Southern
Indiana, and I am also a CPA. As someone who works with computers
every day, I will be affected by the outcome of US vs. Microsoft.
However, I believe the proposed settlement is not appropriate given
the facts of the case or the fact that Microsoft, Inc. has already
been found guilty of illegally maintaining its monopoly.
The proposed settlement does not address several issues that I
believe are extremely important.
The settlement does not keep Microsoft from preventing computer
manufacturers and/or resellers from bundling competing products with
the computers and Microsoft operating systems.
The proposed settlement allows Microsoft to keep its illegally
obtained profits. Microsoft's monopoly profits are the direct result
of its anti-competitive practices. Consumers have overpaid for
Microsoft products, specifically the Windows 95 operating system,
but this issue is not addressed. Consumers are being harmed because
they have overpaid for Microsoft products but that money is not
being repaid. Such repayment might have a positive side-effect on
the economy because consumers will probably spend at least some of
that money if it is repaid. Also, criminals should not be allowed to
keep their ill-gotten gains. Criminals should also not be allowed to
use their ill-gotten gains to pay for their legal defense.
The settlement makes no attempt to punish Microsoft for their
wrongdoings. While the settlement establishes some mechanisms to
prevent future wrongdoing, it does not address punishment for past
wrongdoings. This is not consistent with the American Justice
System.
A more fair settlement should address the following:
1. In order to prevent an extension of Microsoft's monopoly, its
products, particularly its operating systems, should be placed as
extra-cost options in the purchase of new computers, so that
consumers who do not wish to purchase them are not forced to do so.
This would help consumers see what they are actually paying for
Microsoft products and might cause consumers to consider
alternatives. A more informed public should be a desired outcome of
the trial for the US Government.
2. The specifications of Microsoft's present and future document
file formats must be made public. This will allow documents created
with Microsoft applications to be read by applications from other
software makers or developers.
3. Any present and future Microsoft networking and
authentication protocols must be published and approved by an
independent body. This would help prevent Microsoft from seizing
control of the Internet and data centers.
4. The money that consumers have overpaid for Microsoft products
should be repaid, in order to rectify some of the harm consumers
have endured.
Please reject the proposed settlement and work towards stiffer
penalties for Microsoft.
Regards,
Juan R. Rodriguez, CPA
New Albany, Indiana
MTC-00025505
From: Paul Slagle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:17pm
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
settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust case.
I agree and support several well-written and detailed arguments
against the settlement. These include:
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-antitrust.html
http://www.codeweavers.com/jwhite/tunneywine.html
Personally, I have been a software engineer for over 20 years,
working with mainframes, PCs, and Unix boxes. I've worked w/
operating systems from IBM, DEC, Microsoft, SUN, and HP among
others. By far the most enjoyable and enriching years have been
those working w/Unix and its variants, including Linux. The openness
of the Unix community, including commercial companies, is far more
in the public interest than Microsoft could ever dream to be.
Microsoft is a monopoly, interested in serving the interests of
Microsoft, not the interests of the public. If Microsoft was truly
and sincerely concerned about the public interest, full
specifications of their APIs would be published. Source code would
be freely available. Cooperative efforts on products would be
encouraged and would flourish. But that is not how a monopoly such
as Microsoft operates, and the proposed settlement does little to
change the actions of said monopoly.
Thank you for your time and efforts.
Sincerely,
Paul Slagle
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025506
From: res0s8pt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:14pm
Subject: Stop Punishilng Success
We urge you not to give in to Microsoft's competitors''
unreasonable demands. Our country's increasing harshness towards
corporations will not help anyone. Wouldn't we be much better off if
families like the Kennedys had used their millions to go into
business, thereby employing thousands of people, rather than going
into government on the backs of the working class and impeding those
who are employing us?
We are retired now, but feel we were much better served by those
willing to create business than by politicians claiming to have the
interests of the worker at heart while getting paid by our taxes.
Three cheers for Bill Gates, his vision and his courage.
Agnes and Roland Peterson
Malibu, CA 90265
MTC-00025507
From: robert p cp calnan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:13pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
HEY YOU GUYS, STOP THAT CRAP NOW...............SETTLE IT!!!!!!!!
THE WORLD NEEDS MICROSOFT AND YOU GUYS NEED TO GET BUSY ON OUR
MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES LIKE HEALTH AND RETIREMENT STUFF.
LISTEN TO THE GRAY HAIRED PEOPLE WHO HAVE LOTS OF EXPERIENCE AND
HAVE SPENT TOO MUCH TIME OBSERVING LITTLE FORWARD MOVEMENT IN
WASHINGTON.
DO SOMETHING FOR THE PEOPLE INSTEAD OF THE BIG BUSINESSES
MICROSOFT HAS SERVED ALL OF US WELL AND DRAGGED US TO WHERE WE ARE
TODAY. LEAVE THEM ALONE, GO AFTER THE MORE PRESSING
ISSUES..........HOW ABOUT THE HOMELESS, GET THEM ARRESTED SO THEY
CAN GET 3 SQUARES........PLEASE STOP THIS MADNESS. WE ARE AT WAR,
LEAVE THIS CRAP ALONE.
BOB CALNAN LAKE ELSINORE, CA.
MTC-00025508
From: William James Hart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:15pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
THANK YOU FOR REACHING A REASONABLE AND FAIR SETTLELENT IN THE
MICROSOFT CASE.
I USE MICROSOFT PRODUCTS BECAUSE OF THEIR EXCELLENCE AND THE
PRODUCTIVE RESULTS I GET.
PLEASE DO NOT LET OTHERS SEEK TO ADVANCE THEIR BUSINESSES BY
FALSE CLAIMS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY DO THE SAME COMPETITIVE THINGS.
LET COMPETITON SORT OUT BUSINESS, PLEASE. SUN MICRSOSYTEMS ARE
GIVING AWAY STAR OFFICE AND IT IS A FINE PROGRAM. MICROSOFT ARE NOT
CHARGING THEM WITH ANYTHING. THE TRUTH IS THAT SUN AND OTHERS CANNOT
GIVE AWAY THINGS BECAUSE MICRSOFT ARE SO MUCH BETTER.
CC:William James Hart
[[Page 27646]]
MTC-00025509
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Lawsuit
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 United States
Department of Justice's recent efforts to settle the Microsoft
antitrust lawsuit.
This case really should not have been brought against Microsoft.
Microsoft's innovations have and continue to contribute immensly to
the productivity and economy of the United States . Microsoft
single-handedly through ``Window's Operating System'' made
computers accessible to the world. Computers are now in virtually
every household and bussness in the country. Microsoft may have been
aggressive in their business dealings, but that is the way of the
business world in a free-market society. Aggressive business tactics
are not necessarily the same as antitrust violations. Despite my
feeling that this case should not have been filed, at this stage of
the game I think the wise course of action is to settle the case.
The settlement agreement the parties negotiated is fairly
reasonable. It will require Microsoft to refrain from retaliating
against computer manufacturers that install software other than
Windows on their computers. Along those same lines, it will require
Microsoft to not retaliate against software developers who develop
programs that compete with Windows. These concessions should help
the competition operate on a more level playing field.
I appreciate your efforts to settle this case.
Sincerely,
Howard w.Cox
MTC-00025510
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
Under the Tunney Act, below are comments on the proposed
settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust case.
The United States Government and the DOJ are doing a great
disservice to all Americans by allowing Microsoft to continue to run
roughshod over the entire computer industry. The proposed settlement
is far too weak and vague and will allow Microsoft to continue in a
business-as-usual mode. Microsoft business tactics squelch
innovation and keep prices for software high by not allowing other
competitors in the market.
Of many, here are two specific areas of the proposed settlement
that are lacking power:
1. The proposed settlement does not prohibit anticompetitive
license terms. Microsoft uses these restrictive licensing schemes to
keep Open Source apps from running on Windows and keeps Windows apps
from running on competing operating systems. (In a truly competitive
arena, Microsoft Office would run on Linux.)
2. The proposed settlement does not stop Microsoft from using
intentional incompatibilities. Microsoft continually inserts
intentional incompatibilities to prevent its applications from
running on other operating systems.
Thank you,
David Parker
Graphic Designer/3D Artist/ Teacher
Lawton Paul Design
[email protected]
MTC-00025511
From: Ken LLewellyn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I believe very strongly that the proposed settlement is an
extremely BAD IDEA! All you have to do is look at all the loopholes
that Microsoft will, of course, take advantage of. The overall
effect of the proposal will curb Microsoft's behavior only to a
small degree. Once again, the proposed settlement is an extremely
BAD IDEA!
Thank you.
MTC-00025512
From: Andrew Hon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Settle with Microsoft and you're being had!
MTC-00025513
From: AK Khattab
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs and Madams''
I believe that the settlement is hard but fair. --
AK Khattab
Lecturer
Aerospace Engineering,
California State University, Long Beach
Tel: 562 985 4339
E-mail: [email protected]
MTC-00025514
From: Cebert Shrum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is our opinion that the Microsoft offer should be accepted.
We think that it is a shame what is being done to this company
because of their success.
It is another example of meddling like the case of AT&T. We
had the best telephone company in the world and now we have a mish-
mash and we get less service and it costs more because of one judge.
The public is the ones that suffer.
In this case the public has already suffered because the stock
is less valuable and if the company is punished more their products
will suffer and cost more and cause more jobs to go overseas and
increase unemployment.
We think it is time to let Microsoft alone.
Mr. and Mrs. Cebert W. Shrum
3733 Southern Manor Drive
St. Louis, Missouri 63125-4478
MTC-00025515
From: DONALD SCHUMAN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:19pm
Subject: Microsoft
To Whom it may Concern: Enough is enough. The government, states
that continue the lawsuit against Microsoft, and the companies that
are unwilling to compete on product capability alone (AOL, Sun Micro
Systems, etc) should be stopped. Let's get on with upgrading
technology and continuing the capability of company's that are
willing to develop products that effect positively the rising
productivity gains caused by technology. Let Microsoft and other
independents go and produce gains in technology by positive
development of products rather then hiding behind the court system
and continuing to file unjustified lawsuits. Let freedom ring!!!!!
Don Schuman
[email protected]
May the best product win. A taxpayer and pro freedom of
technology person.
MTC-00025516
From: Paul Slagle--WOH email master
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed
Microsoft settlement.
I feel the settlement does not go far enough in penalizing
Microsoft for their monopolistic actions. It also leaves too many
specifics out of the document in the area of APIs, middleware,
``Windows'', and others.
It is certainly not in the best interests of the public.
Sincerely,
Paul Slagle
MTC-00025517
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:21pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I am very much for the antitrust settlement between Microsoft,
the Dept. of Justice etc. This is a very equitable settlement for
all parties.
Kathleen Zipperer
MTC-00025518
From: Arnett Doug
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:21pm
Subject: Comment on the proposed microsoft settlement
I think the proposed microsoft antitrust settlement is a joke. I
don't see any effective remedy in it. Microsoft disregarded the
spirit of the earlier DOJ agreement, they showed their disregard for
the Court in the antitrust trial, and with this proposed agreement
they will be able to escape being held accountable for continuing to
kill developing technology and competitive companies. You can still
see their fundamental behavior in their approach to Windows XP and
Passport in spite of their loss in Court.
[[Page 27647]]
It is a shame for the Justice Department to have won the battle
but now under a new administration throw away that victory.
Sincerely,
Douglas B. Arnett
4405 4th Ave NE
Seattle, WA 98105
MTC-00025519
From: Justin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not agree with this settlement, and do not believe it to be
a good idea.
MTC-00025520
From: Elly Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:23pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Dept of Justice PLEASE agree with the settlement with Microsoft,
thank you, Elenora Davis, 7652 ``C''
Plantz Rd Marysville, Calif. 95901.
MTC-00025521
From: Garrett Slagle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
TO: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
I do not think the proposed settlement is in the best interest
of the public.
Sincerely,
Garrett Slagle
MTC-00025522
From: David Horrocks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi there,
I'm From New Zealand. In a place that is a green beautiful
country, competitive amongst the best of the world for its tourist
dollar. Yet in the computer industry our computers here are amongst
some of the cheapest in the world!! Yet Companies here are dying
over that competitiveness.
What is happening to Microsoft I feel is totally wrong? Instead
of embracing the spirit of what Microsoft has done and inspire
others to do the same it is being torn down and destroyed so another
can take its place? I thought the American dream was to prosper and
be an asset to society and your community. If that is a crime the
yes Microsoft is wrong. Just because others are late and missed the
boat and cant get their act together. Instead have to fight and
proclaim war against others that succeed.
Are you going to war against Apple now because they are a
monopoly with their own system? On the other hand, slam Linux users
because it's free? Please I support what Moorcroft is doing, it's a
pioneer in the PC and Internet industry, Microsoft have brought it
into our homes into our lives and as to they help enormously in the
community, world wide.
Regards
A DR Dos user first, now Microsoft user by choice
David Horrocks
Desktop Applications Trainer
with Microsoft, Adobe and Corel software products note: copies
of this email have been sent to other parties for archival purposes
MTC-00025523
From: Brian Korver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is lousy for everyone but Microsoft!
-brian
MTC-00025524
From: Gator
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Micrsoft must pay for its sin against the people that want
choices in there life. It is a human right and must be protected.
They have skirted the truth and have done everything in there power
to suppress technological vision unless it is there own. May God
direct you in your decision.
MTC-00025525
From: Grant Slagle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
TO: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
I do not think the proposed settlement is in the best interest
of the public.
Sincerely,
Grant Slagle
MTC-00025526
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:26pm
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
I feel that Microsoft's monopoly in the software market is
anticompetitive and anti-consumer and should be corrected by
requiring them to pub information on their APIs and other portions
of the Windoze operating system. This would allow other software
companies to write code that is unimpeded by the interface
machinations currently being foisted on us by this company. It would
also make changing from one operating system to another relatively
painless if the file formats were standardized.
Thank you for the work you have done on this matter.
Sincerely,
Adrian D. Carey
[email protected]
MTC-00025527
From: Samrod Shenassa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:32pm
Subject: Microsoft's Plea Bargain
To whom it may concern:
Plea bargains are to take place before trials, when the defense
enters a guilty plea. Why is Microsoft, after being found guilty of
multiple anti-trust violations, given a voice in its own punishment?
The primary goals of any remedial action should be to 1) prevent
Microsoft from using its marketshare as a tool to succeed over its
competitors, and 2) seek punitive damages for the success it has
already enjoyed using those tactics.
If Microsoft is only prevented from further leveraging Windows
to destroy future competitors, then it has already won for its past
actions. Windows has achieved its dominance, Internet Explorer has
already destroyed Netscape, and Office already beat Lotus and
WordPerfect. The relative significance to halting future anti-
competitive growth is miniscule compared to what has already been
achieved.
Microsoft's competitors should be allowed to again compete on
equal terms. The trial's initial focal point was the issue of
Microsoft handcuffing the browser to operating system to destroy
Netscape. As a remedy, Microsoft should be forced to do exactly what
it forced Apple to do: bundle both browsers with the OS. It should
also be forced to unroot Internet Explorer from Windows, giving
users the freedom to safely uninstall it entirely from the system.
By shipping Windows with the latest versions of both Netscape and
Internet Explorer, users have the choice of completely removing
either, both, or neither browser from their system. If Internet
Explorer continues to dominate, it will have done so through fair
competition. To be fair Microsoft should have the choice of either
bundling both or neither browser with Windows-- but never one..
The key is to make acquiring and uninstalling equally easy for both
browsers. While IE is pre-installed and impossible to uninstall,
users need to find and download Netscape from the Internet.
This same requirment can be applied to Windows Media Player,
RealPlayer, and QuickTime as well. Either bundle all three, or none
at all. Microsoft should also be forced to adopt the ``Play
Fair'' policy currently practiced by Real Networks and Apple:
inform users what media types the player supports; recommend
alternatives for unsupported media types; give users the option of
which supported media types to associate with the player; and don't
adversly affect the functionality of other installed media players.
Then there's the issue of fair compensation to its competitors,
which seems to have been completely overlooked in this settlement.
But that issue may be better settled in Netscape's recent civil case
against Microsoft. And finally, what was the reason for not breaking
up Microsoft? In other words, why will the government allow the
dominant operating sytsem and the dominant Office suite to be in
control of a single entity? Does the government truly expect
Microsoft's behavior to change, despite highly questionable actions
it continues to take to this day, throughout the trial? Has there be
any thought given to Microsoft's .NET strategy of market domination?
Will Microsoft ever convert Internet Explorer to a fee-based,
distributed software model, forcing users to pay a browser fee to
surf the net? If so, will
[[Page 27648]]
users have the option of chosing Netscape or Opera without losing
core Windows functionality? Will Microsoft migrate any of the
operating system's core functionality to a fee-based, distributed
model, forcing users to pay fees even if they chose
competitors'' products? With the direction the company is
already taking with Windows XP and .NET, the answer to those
questions is clear. Thank you for your time.
MTC-00025528
From: Richard Madril
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mr. Ashcroft:
Attached are my comments on the Microsoft case. Before you make
a decision on this case, please remember all the good things this
company has done for our country. It is indirectly responsible for
the success of many other companies. Mr. Gates is very generous with
his money by helping others as well. Microsoft is responsible for
the technological revolution that we have had in the past few years.
The government needs to leave them alone.
Sara Smith
993 Athens Road
Crawford, GA 30630
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I think it is irresponsible of the government to make such a
tremendous fuss about Microsoft. I do not believe the government has
any right to interfere in business. Microsoft has been the means by
which a great portion of the country has benefited. Bill Gates has
done about as much for the country as anyone else. Microsoft is not
an oppressive corporation. Because of the advances Microsoft has
made, you do not have to be an expert to use a computer. Now, not
only has suit been brought against Microsoft, but also there are
those who are not satisfied with the settlement that has been
reached and are seeking not to serve justice in the matter, but to
cripple Microsoft.
Microsoft does not need to be crippled. The settlement that was
reached last November is perfectly reasonable. It prevents future
antitrust violations and allows competition within the technology
industry to return to normal. Microsoft has agreed, for example, to
refrain from taking retaliatory action against anyone who introduces
a product into the market that directly competes with Microsoft
software. Microsoft has also agreed to reformat future versions on
Windows so that non-Microsoft software will be supported by the
Windows operating system. This will not only allow its competitors
the ability to introduce their own software into Windows, it will
also enable computer makers to use Windows as a platform to market
their own product.
I do not believe it is in the best interest of the public to
continue litigation against the Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft has
done nothing that would harm the consumer. I urge you to support the
settlement and allow Microsoft to move on.
Sincerely,
Sara Smith
MTC-00025529
From: Jon Grizzle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a Senior Electrical Engineer who thank that Microsoft has
developed a better product than AOL's Netscape browser. I have used
the MSN browser and find it very friendly and comprehensive. When I
complain to Microsoft Support at
mailto:[email protected] they respond to try and help or
fix their browser. I pay Verizon $19.95 per month for providing my
dial up service. However, I use the MSN browser and Microsoft's
Outlook Express. Also, Microsoft Word, Excel, Access, Visual Basic,
Power Point, Photo Draw, and other Microsoft applications. I like
them all because they have been designed to work together and are
reasonably priced. My son and Mom & Dad like that MSN Messenger
allows us to save long distance cost to talk daily free. I thank it
is a shame having to pay for monthly utility bills when some are for
duplicate services. We pay for Internet across the telephone lines,
talking over those same lines and talking on a cell phone uses those
same lines again. Consequently, we get three different bills every
month for those same phone line coming to our home. Soon those same
lines will provide TV and many other signals. Homeowners get so many
different bills, I'm thinking about a total disconnect.
Back to Microsoft. I like Microsoft and have always thought Bill
Gates is an angle when compared to Ken Lay of Enron. If the US
Government has nothing better to do and more money than brains spend
government time and money bring to court the real crooks like the
Lays & Andersons of the world. Clean up our elections, and
outlaw soft money. Tell AOL to quit spending money on lawyers and
spend their money on R & D. Even if Microsoft lost I would still
use their products. I would become a stronger believer in Microsoft.
Regards,
Jon Grizzle
MTC-00025530
From: garyshade
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
The settlement offered by the Bush administration and some
states was not in the public interest. The antitrust case involved
abuse of monopoly power by releasing the Windows operating system
with the Internet Explorer browser embedded into the operating
system.
The remedies offered by the Bush administration do not address
the nature of the case, and would only serve to further reduce
competition in the schools, one of the last remaining venues where
competing software can still be found.
Any sound remedy should separate the Internet Explorer browser
from the operating system. The remaining states that refuse to
settle stress this point.
Each time the government allows Microsoft to release another
version of Windows with the Internet Explorer browser embedded into
the operating system, the monopoly path is entrenched further.
Make the remedy be an actual remedy to the facts of the case.
Sincerely,
Gary Shade
US Citizen and software consumer
MTC-00025531
From: Gregg Christman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ:
The settlement is extremely fair allowing over a billion dollars
of computers and free software to low income schools.
Secondly, I would like to make a very important point to the DOJ
that seems to exist in LALA land. Microsoft is a business that
creates products that must be sold to generate profits that in turn
pays taxes to the Government. No company that exists today or in the
future is guaranteed success it is not automatic and it is earned,
so the notion by the by the Federal Government and Microsoft
competitors (that want to hide behind the courts rather than compete
in the markets) that Microsoft is a monopoly are wrong. Microsoft
must go out and compete everyday to win customers by the features
and benefits of their products. Microsoft is not forcing anyone to
purchase their software consumers have a choice.
Finally, I would like to make one more point regarding the Civil
lawsuit by AOL against Microsoft this week. AOL doesn't have a leg
to stand on regarding their Netscape and Microsoft's Explorer
browser. AOL acquired Netscape during the intial law suit and
bundled Netscape with AOL just as Microsoft had already done and
they are creating a law suit over a mute point. It is called
competition and they copied Microsoft's business model and because
Microsoft had already bundled their browser before AOL'a acquisition
of Netscape AOL is suing Microsoft. The AOL lawsuit is absolutely
ridiculous and completely unfounded.
Gregg Christman [email protected]
MTC-00025532
From: Milorad Golubovich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:33pm
Subject: opinion
By being design, project and engineering manager for over forty
years, I knew that creativity and innovation in the work was always
rewarded.
If competitors of Microsoft are incapable to be creative and
develop new product, we should not penalize the Microsoft engineers
but on the contrary encourage them in their efforts for innovation.
Only trough the progress in technology we can expect the progress in
everyday life and preserve our nation technical leadership in the
world.
--Milotad Golubovich
[email protected]
--EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
[[Page 27649]]
MTC-00025533
From: John Roth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
No to Microsoft!!!!
John Roth
[email protected]
MTC-00025534
From: Gordon McKay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:35pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I'm taking this time to urge you to accept this agreement with
Microsoft as my wife and I both consider it to be the most equitable
and fairest way to setttle this Antitrust suit.
Sincerely Yours
Gordon C. McKay
MTC-00025535
From: J lowe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Judge Kollar-Kotally,
I'm a concerned citizen who believes Microsoft is being let off
easy after amassing billions of dollars of illegal profits. Every
court has ruled that Microsoft violated anti-trust laws, but the
proposed final judgment falls far short of punishing Microsoft
adequately. Not only does Microsoft retain its ill-gotten profits,
but there's no protection in the settlement from future anti-trust
violations. Microsoft's distribution of its products to schools is
nothing more than an expansion of the company's monopoly. I urge you
to rule against the proposed settlement.
Respectfully submitted,
Jhana Lowe
1040 Edgebrook Lane
Glencoe, IL 60022
MTC-00025536
From: JR
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft, through it's monopolistic policies has stifled
innovation leaving consumers with technology that is years behind
where it would otherwise be. While I applaud the governments efforts
to correct this situation the proposed settlement will do little to
correct the situation.
The terms of the agreement are too specific and will do nothing
more than slightly change the manner in which Microsoft bullies the
industry. Any settlement agreed on by the government should be more
than a slap on the wrist. Microsoft has been found guilty of
engaging in monopolistic practices and should be punished
accordingly. More importantly they should be stopped from
restricting innovation. Microsoft is becoming the only software
company in America. This will ultimately hurt this country as other
nations seek alternatives to Microsoft products and ultimately
become the ones innovating new technologies.
Thank you,
John Rodriguez
Software Engineer
MTC-00025537
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:38pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust case
January 25, 2002
To Whom it may concern:
I don't agree.
I don't agree with the DOJ's proposed settlement with Microsoft.
As a physician and consumer of computer hardware/software solutions,
I have found numerous situations in which the behavior of Microsoft
impaired my ability to build cost effective solutions to the need
for computerization of my medical practice. While part of the
government wants HIPAA compliance miracles, the DOJ apparently
believes that criminal behavior in Bellvue, Washington is exempt
from punishment. Yes, criminal behavior, as there appears to be no
dispute that the antitrust laws were violated. How will the proposed
settlement repair that damage i.e. ``make me whole''. The
trivial interventions will not bring back the competitors that would
have provided me with a wide range of tools. Nor will it provide the
kind of level playing field that would allow new competitors to
flourish. Shame upon the lawyers who tout this as good work. If I
were to lower my standards of practice to that degree, the DEA would
not renew my narcotic license, I would be barred from Medicare and
Medicaid practice and the state Board of Medical Examiners would
start proceedings to pule my license to practice. Yes, I am angry. I
am mad as (deleted).
Sincerely,
David P. Telasha, MD
10330 SE 32ND AVE
SUITE 320
MILWAUKIE, OR 97222-6519
Voice: (503) 659-3960
Fax: (503) 659-6607
Web: NWOBGYN.COM
MTC-00025538
From: Edwin S Oxner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen,
It's time to stop this foolishness. Why punish successful
businesses? If a competitor isn't competing, let him die. What
you're doing to Microsoft is ridiculous. Why not punish WalMart and
target for putting K-Mart into bankruptcy? What's the difference? Or
is it that K-Mart management hasn't asked you? Why is it that you
love capital but hate capitalism?
Regards,
Edwin S. Oxner
Manchaca TX 78652
MTC-00025540
From: Bill Barney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a very bad idea. This settlement
practically rewards Microsoft instead of punishing them for
committing the acts they did and does nothing to make sure they they
cannot and will not commit these acts in the future. The fact that
such a proposal is even being considered by the DOJ only further
erodes my belief that the DOJ is actually interested in justice and
not just political maneuvering.
Thank you,
Bill Barney
MTC-00025541
From: Todd Warner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My comments will be brief:
Microsoft is guilty of abuse of monopolistic power. Central to
this abuse, as with all anti-trust cases, is the practice of
building unreasonable competitive barriers for entry into the
market. The proposed settlement being fought by ``the nine
states'' is fraught with bad judgement and simply extends
Microsofts monopology, and more importantly, raises, ever higher,
that barrier for entry by Micosofts competitors.
My solution? Good question. I don't have the answer. Probably
something along the lines of Microsoft being forced to disclose all
API's of all its software. That is not unreasonable and will allow
other to compete on, at least somewhat competitive footing. Another
possible, or additional, solution: open-source all Micosoft code.
(a) the world would know for sure, how secure Microsofts code truly
is, (b) competitors would be able to fully harness Microsofts APIs,
and (c) a lot of intellectual property openly visible would
stimulate inovation across the industry. Closed-source leads to less
innovation.
/odd Warner--
Tank Commander--NC Army National Guard Software Engineer
MTC-00025542
From: floyd fisher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is nothing more than a chance for
Microsoft to get a good PR spin out of their predicament. It totally
goes against the idea of paying for your crimes you have committed.
Intel was forced to liscense out their chip technology, why can't
Microsoft be forced to allow other companies to publish and sell
their own versions of Windows? That would make better sense.
IMHO.
MTC-00025543
From: Fred E Bird
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
We believe the proposed Microsoft settlement offers a reasonable
compromise. Please do not litigate it further!!
Two interested Seniors,
Fred and Edna Lee Bird
4270-B Lewis Ave.
Penney Farms, Florida 32079
MTC-00025544
From: Richard W Carr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:46pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
[[Page 27650]]
Isn't it about time that these 9 states folded their tents, and
stop doling out tax payers money to support a ``few
whiners'' who can't stand up to any competition
.-.-. That includes Netscape.-.-.-
Again, if they want a bigger piece of the market, let them get out
and do something radically different to improve over Microsoft's
software.-.-.-. Also, maybe they just don't have a
dynamic marketing organization.-.-.- Let's end it
now.
Dick Carr
MTC-00025545
From: charles e chapman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle this case and allow microsoft to continue making
my life better. I have been retired for over 20 years and am very
appreciative of Microsoft and what they have done to make computers
more friendly.
Charles Chapman
MTC-00025546
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: DOJ re Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
I am deeply distressed that the DOJ, in its proposed antitrust
settlement with Microsoft, has abandoned any pretense of ending or
controlling Microsoft's abusive monopoly. In particular:
BUNDLING--NOT ADDRESSED--PART I.
I recently purchased a new computer with Windows. I was forced
by Microsoft's monopoly to purchase Windows bundled with many other
programs I did not need, as I already had these programs (including
Web browser, CD writing program, multimedia playing program, etc.).
Microsoft's spectacular monopoly-controlled profit margins on
Windows make it abundantly clear that the cost of including such
extra functions is covered by the charges that I and others pay for
Windows. Yet, despite ample legal precedent for controlling such
bundling, DOJ makes no attempt to do so. Please note that I also own
a Macintosh computer, allowing me to avoid some such charges, but I
use computers for my consulting business and I am totally forced by
the monopoly to also own a Windows computer. Hence I am forced by
the monopoly to pay for whatever bundled extras Microsoft chooses to
include.
BUNDLING and ANTICOMPETITIVE PRICING--NOT
ADDRESSED--PART II.
By placing no restrictions on bundling, DOJ acknowledges
Microsoft's right to destroy any competitor at all. As DOJ knows, a
competitor that is perceived as threatening can be wiped out by
Microsoft's inclusion of its own competitive software in Windows and
Microsoft's forcing of the customers to buy Microsofts version, and/
or by Microsoft's use of its monopoly driven wealth to underprice
competing products. It is an insult to the public that DOJ has
essentially decided to overturn anti-monopoly laws by allowing such
business behavior.
ANTICOMPETITIVE BUSINESS STRUCTURE
Microsoft's monopoly includes office software as well as
Windows. Microsoft clearly plans its office software strategy to
enforce its overall monopoly, even if the office strategy does not
otherwise make business sense. It is obvious that a separate office
software business plan would by now include a version of Office for
Linux, but since Microsoft sees Linux as a competitor to Windows it
is happy to otherwise damage its office software potential in order
to protect its monopoly. DOJ, by making no attempt to control this
behavior (which would probably require splitting Microsoft), is
allowing illegal anticompetitive behavior.
SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN THE TOO-LIMITED PROPOSED REMEDY
In section III.C.1 and elsewhere the remedy states:
``.-.-. except that Microsoft may restrict an OEM
from displaying icons, shortcuts and menu entries for any product in
any list of such icons, shortcuts, or menu entries specified in the
Windows documentation as being limited to products that provide
particular types of functionality .-.-.''
This exclusion says that Microsoft, at its own discretion, may
take monopoly ownership of any software functionality it chooses. It
can do this trivially and without restriction by including all
reasonable access methods to the functionality in its Windows
documentation. Any Windows user knows there are often many methods
to reach the same functionality. Microsoft can list, and hence
reserve to itself, all reasonable access methods and make it too
confusing or complex to users to reach the functionality provided by
a different vendor. Microsoft is making a complete fool of DOJ by
slipping in this exception.
Section III.H.2 is greviously, egregioiusly, outrageously (I
could go on .-.-.) defective. This section turns the
Internet over to Microsoft. It says that Microsoft can implement its
own non-standard Internet protocols, accessible only by Microsoft's
Windows software, and make the non-standard protocols look
``standard'' to the Windows (only) user by having
Microsoft's software jump in if the customer has been so independent
as to dare to use software, even on Windows, from another vendor.
Again Microsoft is making a fool of DOJ with this exception. Without
this exception, Microsoft's non-standard protocols would be awkward
and have difficulty in the marketplace, but this allows them to
leverage their monopoly without restriction to force these on the
public. If this holds, then 10 years from now as the pundits ask,
``How did Microsoft gain control of the Internet?'' they
will look to DOJ's approval of this exception as the cause! With
great disappointment in your anti-public, contrary-to-law,
settlement proposal.
Richard Scarlet
[email protected]
Massachusetts
(Small business owner, not in the computer or software business
except as an end user.)
MTC-00025547
From: Harvey Lange
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hash: SHA1
The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards
OEMs. 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.
Have you looked to see what operating systems choices are
offered from DELL or Gateway? It does not matter if you are
purchasing a new or a refurbished PC, your selection for an
operating system is limited to Microsoft Windows 2000/ME/XP. You
cannot even order one of these systems without an Operating System.
If you buy a system from one of these two vendors, then you must
also purchase a Microsoft Operating System to go with it. Even if
your old system is crashed and you just want to replace it and
install the software (with license) you already have, you can't.
Why, because they have to and can only ship Windows.
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.
I cannot purchase a ``Home Brew'' PC from most local
computer stores with a Windows Operating System installed even if I
have an original license and CD. When asked why, I get various
reasons like ``we don't think your license is real'', or
``we can only install Windows if we sell you the
license'', and in one case they admitted ``we don't want
to risk being sued by Microsoft''. It is much safer to sell PCs
without operating systems and avoid legal hassles because they
cannot afford the legal fees. The government appears to be
protecting the big corporations and not the small businesses.
Thank you.
Harvey Lange
Toney, AL
MTC-00025548
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern,
In light of the recent events concerning Enron, can the DOJ move
beyond this rediculous anti-trust suit against Microsoft? Enough is
enough. It seems Americans are penalized no matter what they do in
an effort to save money for their futures. Not only do we have to
struggle to make ends meet with exorbitant medical costs for health
coverage, but we also must be penalized by watching our investments
deteriorate because the government has decided to spend years trying
to prove something--what exactly, no one is sure, not even the
DOJ. One judge thinks Microsoft and Bill Gates are the Hitlers of
the business world; the other judge tells the two sides the thing
can be resolved out of court.
Meanwhile, dishonesty commited by a behemoth energy company on a
scale seldom seen in recent times, has gone on, unnoticed
[[Page 27651]]
by the DOJ, because? ? ? ? ? ? ? Why ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Please, end this fruitless pursuit and let Americans enjoy their
computers, their investments, and regain a sense of confidence in
``just for all.''
Linette Widen
MTC-00025549
From: Beth DeHaven
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have worked in this industry for 25 years. Anyone that
believes Microsoft has harmed the consumer has got to be kidding.
Microsoft has driven the cost of computing down to the point that
those of us trying to sell technology solutions can barely make a
living. It has been GREAT for the consumer. I only wish Microsoft
would enter the furniture or clothing markets. Maybe then those
goods would operate on a more reasonable profit model. I believe
that the DOJ case in great part is the result of a bunch of
competitors that can't figure out a better way to try to improve
their market position. Consumers will decide if they don't want to
do business with a particular company. Get it out of the courts.
This case needs to be behind us. Settle it in a fair manner and then
maybe my technology stock portfolio will start to improve. This case
is like a dark cloud over the entire tech industry.
MTC-00025550
From: Ken Howells
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs,
Allowing Microsoft to put more of their systems into schools,
where students will only get more used to Microsoft systems and less
exposure to alternatives, such as Linux, which I use extensively, is
not a punishment for their monopolistic practices at all--it is
a reward.
Please find a way to actually disciplin Microsoft for their
breach of ethics, and also find ways to force them to allow
realistic competition. The fact that computer viruses which only
affect Microsoft systems sweep through the internet more and more
often, crippling many businesses for hours or days, shows undeniably
the folly of having too much of the economic infrastructure relying
on one system. Genetic diversity is a powerful defensive weapon in
the biological world. Operating system diversity would serve as a
similar defense in the digital world.
Best Regards,
Ken Howells
Crestline, CA
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025551
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:55pm
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,
chris weiss
pobox 142
sandia park, NM 87047
MTC-00025552
From: Samuel S. Lung
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:58pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To Whom It May Concern
I am writing to state my point of view on the Microsoft
settlement case. When technology is developing at such a speedy
pace, holding back a leader for years will hurt the competitive edge
of US companies in the world market place.
The other countries subsidize their companies to compete
internationally while the US suppress their own. Foreign countries
will not hold back but join in the kill of America's best. To
improve our sick economy we need to help US companies to compete in
the world marketplace. Some European countries are joining in the
lawsuit against Microsoft and this really hurts to hear this kind of
news.
The lawsuit has been dragged on long enough, for the sake of the
US economy and the unemployed, I recommend the Department of Justice
to settle the case with Microsoft.
This will have a bigger effect on the economy than the numerous
rate reductions by the Federal Reserve.
Best regards,
Samuel Lung
MTC-00025553
From: ELLIOTT F CHARD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:58pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I urge that the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT to accept without further
litigation, the proposed compromise settlement being considered.
Further litigation would only feather the nests of Microsofts
competitors, the Attorneys involved, Lobbyists, and those who would
further punish Microsoft. I feel any further action would be
detrimental to Seniors like myself in the use of our home computers.
Sincerely
Elliott F. Chard
CC:[email protected]@ inetgw,cristina_
[email protected]@...
MTC-00025554
From: Francis Ketner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft case
We recommend that the proposed compromised settlement of the
microsoft case be approved. This will provide many opportunities for
seniors to have the privilege of using the internet. We have
webtv.net and are able to communicate with our family and friends
across North America as well as any place in the world. Also, many
helps for health and life information are very helpful. We can be
connected with the whole new world.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
F,D.Ketner
MTC-00025555
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is wrong for Microsoft or any other company infringe on laws
with they have broken many many time. please send a message to
Microsoft that breaking the law
MTC-00025556
From: Stephen Granadosin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stephen Granadosin
16230 NE 99th Street
Redmond, WA 98052
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing you to encourage the Department of Justice to
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. The issue has been
dragged out for too long now, and it is time to put an end to it.
Now that a settlement is available, I think the government should
accept it. Competitors think that Microsoft has gotten off easy, but
this is simply not true. The settlement was reached after extensive
negotiation with a court-appointed mediator, and Microsoft actually
agreed to terms that extend to products and procedures that were not
even mentioned in the suit. To assure Microsoft's compliance with
the terms of the settlement, a technical committee will be set up to
monitor Microsoft. The terms of the settlement are fair, and a
structure has been created to assure that Microsoft follows the new
rules.
Microsoft and the technology industry need to move forward, but
in order to move forward this issue needs to be put in the past.
Please support the Microsoft antitrust settlement. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Stephen Granadosin
MTC-00025557
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 27652]]
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,
Greg Sundt
4201 Hedgewood Dr.
Bloomington, IN 47403
MTC-00025558
From: Jim Bond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From Washington State. I say that the government is not doing
anything near what they should be doing to stop Microsoft's terrible
``business'' practices.
MTC-00025560
From: Lundebrek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a student and a developer of website targeted design and
content creations. I feel that Microsoft Corporation has
consistently proven itself to be a cruel and anti-competitive
corporation, and that the proposed settlement will not substantially
prevent them from continuing their current business practices.
Dustin Lundebrek
Morris, Minnesota
MTC-00025561
From: Dane Jackson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Do we really need another toothless consent decree? In fact that
would be bad enough, but the current settlement is actively harmful.
It basically legitimizes many harmful practices of Microsoft. One of
my personal favorites would have to be the part of the settlement
that allows Microsoft to exclude documentation of anything relating
to security (which any security expert will tell you is the exact
wrong way to go about security [1]). With Microsofts recent
announcement that they are now (after 20 years) finally really
focusing on security, they can now exclude anything they want by
claiming ``it's for security''. Am I mistaken? I thought
Microsoft was found to be a monopoly that has abused it's power. The
punishment for actions has nothing to do with how much time has
passed, or whether the market is the same or different. The remedy
needs to contain effective measures that will allow competition to
re-emerge in the computer software market. [2] I think there are
many things that could be done to help re-establish competition and
innovation.
Quoting from Dennis Powell ( [email protected] )
in his article ``Speak Now or Ever After . . . Regret Your
Silence''
A just penalty, I continue, would at barest minimum include
three additional features:
* Any remedy seeking to prevent an extension of Microsoft's
monopoly must place Microsoft products as extra-cost options in the
purchase of new computers, so that the user who does not wish to
purchase them is not forced to do so. This means that for the price
differential between a new computer with Microsoft software and one
without, a computer seller must offer the software without the
computer (which would prevent computer makers from saying that the
difference in price is only a few dollars). Only then could
competition come to exist in a meaningful way.
* The specifications of Microsoft's present and future document
file formats must be made public, so that documents created in
Microsoft applications may be read by programs from other makers, on
Microsoft's or other operating systems. This is in addition to
opening the Windows application program interface (API, the set of
``hooks'' that allow other parties to write applications
for Windows operating systems), which is already part of the
proposed settlement.
* Any Microsoft networking protocols must be published in full
and approved by an independent network protocol body. This would
prevent Microsoft from seizing de facto control of the Internet. I
then point out that if the national interest is at issue, as I
believe it is and as the judge has suggested it is, it is crucial
that Microsoft's operating system monopoly not be extended, and in
this I quote the study released a year ago by the highly respected
Center for Strategic and International Studies, which pointed out
that the use of Microsoft software actually poses a national
security risk. In closing, I say that all are surely in agreement
that the resolution of this case is of great importance, not just
now but for many years to come. This suggests a careful and
deliberate penalty is far more important to the health of the nation
than is a hasty one.
In addition to these I feel that Microsoft should not be allowed
to buy other companies or technologies from other companies.
Microsoft very loudly proclaims to have to innovated extensively,
and yet when you look, nearly every successful recent product has
been bought from somewhere else. Let them compete against other
companies on a fair level. Microsoft should be fined their cash
reserves. No other company keeps such a large cash reserve. It would
seem this is partly a tax advoidance mechanism[3], and partly to
have a lot of cash on hand to facilitate take-over of other
industries of companies. [4] Why should a criminal be allowed to
keep their ill gotten gains?
[1] It is called ``security through obscurity''. Most
security experts refer to it as this with derision.
[2] I remember a time when I had a choice in office suites. A
time when I could buy an x86 computer without a Microsoft OS on it.
[3] The income from dividends is taxed differently than income
from stock gains. http://www.cptech.org/ms/
rn2bg20020104dividend.html
[4] For an example of this, see Microsoft's selling of the X-Box
at a loss to break into the game console market. Why can they do
this? Because they have huge cash reserves from their illegal
actions.
Dane Jackson--B.Sc. Computer Engineering
Profanity is the one language all programmers know best.
MTC-00025562
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bobby L. Whitehurst
2803 Creek Bend Court
McKinney, Texas 75070
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylnania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I want to give my support to the settlement that was reached in
November between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. After
three years of litigation, it is time to wrap this up and move
forward in the interest of our economy.
The settlement's provisions clearly show that Microsoft did not
get off easy, and in fact, made many concessions. Microsoft has
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. This
gives consumers the freedom to easily add or remove access to
features built in to Windows or to non-Microsoft software. In
addition, Microsoft's compliance will be monitored by a three-member
Technical Committee to be created by the settlement.
Our economy is hurting right now and continuing this litigation
will only add roadblocks to a future recovery. Microsoft is too
critical to the business community and the economy to hamper their
technological innovation any longer. So I urge you to take no
further action on the federal level.
Sincerely,
Bobby Whitehurst
cc:Representative Dick Armey
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025563
From: James Wood
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/25/02 10:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Wood
240 Oak Tree Ave
Salem, IL 62881-3550
January 25, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 27653]]
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 R. Wood
MTC-00025564
From: Andrew Shafer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wish to state to you my comments on the current Microsoft
court settlement.
Punishing corporations for being too successful is counter-
productive and discourages individuals from innovating and creating.
It casts a long, dubious shadow on the software industry that says,
``Succeed, but don't work too hard, that will cause
trouble.'' I urge you to pass the anti-trust settlement in an
effort to help all parties involved. A quick, fair ending will
ensure continued innovation in the software industry and stimulate
economic growth through sales in new markets.
Sincerely,
Andrew Shafer
46867 265th St.
Sioux Falls, SD 57106-7040
[email protected]
MTC-00025565
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Suit
I have written to you before on this issue and I support the
proposed settlement that has been reached with the DOJ and half of
the states. You should close this case out by supporting this
settlement. AOL has now muddied the water. The term ``cry
baby'' comes to mind when I look at what they are trying to do.
AOL needs to receive two messages. ``Do good in the market
place and you will be rewarded'' and ``The courts should
not bail you out if you fail in the market place.'' AOL needs
to receive both of these messages loud and clear. I am thinking of
changing from AOL as my ISP. Please, let Microsoft get on with the
business of providing quality products at ever decreasing prices to
the consuming public. I have no strong relationship with either MS
or AOL. I probably own some of each stock in index funds.
Very truly yours,
Bob Andrews
1864 Castle Oaks Court
Walnut Creek, CA 94595-2358
925-933-6569
925-933-8991 (Fax)
MTC-00025566
From: Pat Ivie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:11pm
Subject: suit/antitrust
Enough if enough. It is time to stop hounding Microsoft because
they are successful in marketing their products. Why should we
subsidize those who cannot compete? Patricia S. Ivie
MTC-00025567
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:07pm
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,
Timothy Alvaro
902 E Sixth St
Royal Oak, MI 48067-2818
MTC-00025568
From: Nancy S. Goroff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to express my concern at the proposed settlement of
the Microsoft vs. U.S. antitrust case. The court has found that
Microsoft illegally used its monopoly power, yet the settlement as
it stands provides litte assurance that Microsoft will end this
behavior. In fact, predatory monopoly bullying is the norm for
Microsoft. The settlement needs to have significant muscle behind it
to get Microsoft to change its corporate strategy and culture. As
written, the settlement lacks an effective enforcement mechanism.
In addition, the wording of the settlement is overly narrow,
making it easy for Microsoft to claim that next year's products are
outside the scope of the agreement. Terms such as ``API''
and ``middleware'' are defined in limited ways that do not
apply to all current Microsoft products. Also, Microsoft is
supposedly required to provide information to possible competitors,
but only in limited form, and at times late in the product
development cycle.
In short, the settlement is full of loopholes, and even then it
is not easily enforced. Consumers like me need more protection from
anticompetitive behaviour. The settlement should be rejected in
favor of something better.
Sincerely yours,
Nancy Goroff Whitney
Setauket, NY 11733
MTC-00025569
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:09pm
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,
Brian Feeney
12611 Rose Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90066-1519
MTC-00025570
From: Christa Kocher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:13pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
To whom it may concern,
Please do not settle with Microsoft. The current settlement is
unacceptable becuase a majority of schools use Macintosh computers,
for which the current settlement would be worthless.
Microsoft is a trust to the true definition of the word. You
cannot buy a PC computer that does not have windows and the inherent
internet explorer already installed on it. Please. We must put a
stop to these deplorable business practices.
Sincerely,
Christa M. Gruber
[[Page 27654]]
MTC-00025571
From: Jeff Mao
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to say that allowing MS to give money and/or
equipment to the educational system without restrictions simply
furthers their dominance in the market. In addition, as a
professional educator who is in charge of integrating technology
into education, MS products are rarely my first choice. Everyone
knows that the total cost of ownership for a windows PC is far
higher than for a Macintosh computer. If computers are thrust upon a
school without prior planning and an installed support structure
will only waste time and money. The computers wil probably collect
dust as the schools in greatest need will not have the funds to
support the computers or train their faculty.
I think MS should pay out, but perhaps placing that money into a
fund similar to the E-rate funds. Those fund then can be given out
to schools that need it after they have shown both need and a plan
to use it. Allow them to spend it on anything technological in the
same way E-rate is used for anything related to telecommunications.
Further, 1 Billion dollars seems to be too small an amount for a
company like Microsoft. If my company made as much money as
Microsoft, then having to pay out 1 Billion dollars wouldn't bother
me. It would just be part of the cost of doing business, but it
would not change my practices. Bill Gates and his wife alone gave
over 20 Billion dollars away last year in charity,...so what do you
think 1 Billion dollars for the entire corporation is going to do?
Nothing! Increase the fine to something significant so that the
company will think again about how they do business. A mere slap on
the hand will change nothing. And put the money into a fund that is
managed by an outside group, perhaps the government,...perhaps, to
ease the cost of administration, simply make them put Billions of
dollars into the E-Rate fund. There is already an established
structure so it wouldn't add any work or labor or cost,...but it
would allow those schools that really need the funding to get it.
Perhaps it would allow more schools in need to be able to pay for
internal wiring and connectivity. It would allow them to reallocate
their own funds to purchase the computers and software, the training
and support,...and leave the wires, connectivity etc to the E-Rate.
Thanks for listening,
Jeff Mao
Technology Coordinator
Allendale Columbia School
519 Allens Creek Road
Rochester, NY 14618
585-381-4560 x262
585-383-1191 FAX
[email protected]
MTC-00025572
From: Andrew Anchev
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:14pm
Subject: Microsoft DOJ settlement
I would like to voice my support for the DOJs settlement with
Microsoft. I would like to state for the record that I am no nor
never have been employed by Microsoft or any of it's contractors,
nor do I hold stock in the company or have any other vested
financial interest. I have been in the technology industry as a
consumer for the last 12 years, and I believe that Microsoft should
not be hindered in their attempts to constantly improve and add new
abilities to their products. If we begin to apply limitations on
what Microsoft can add into their operating system, then we should
place the same restrictions on all other operating system vendors.
Sincerely,
Andrew Anchev
San Jose, Ca.
MTC-00025573
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have read the text of the proposed settlement, as well as
various opinions and analyses appearing in the on-line press, and I
believe the proposal as it exists is very, very weak. Weak to the
point of irrelevance, even. Where is the penalty? What price must
Microsoft pay for having broken the law? There is nothing here that
is going to prevent or even discourage MS from continuing to bully
their own customers. There is nothing here that is going to
substantially alter the relationship between MS and their
competitors. History has shown that once MS decides to integrate a
piece of software into Windows, the competition quickly vanishes.
How can anybody compete against something that is being given away?
If there is to be a thriving, innovative, competitive software
industry MS must be prevented from stealing their competitors
customers in this way. The only real, effective, long-term solution
I can see is to break the company up. To attempt to police MS in the
long term is simply not practical. The bureaucracy that would have
to be created to do this effectively would be enormous.
I am extremely dissapointed in the DoJ. I feel they have sold us
out, and I hope the Judge sees it too.
M Hale
average computer user
MTC-00025574
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
David Beasley
Rt 1 Box 29a
Beaver, OK 73932
MTC-00025575
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:12pm
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,
Helen Lydic
264 Haskell Rd.
Coudersport, PA 16915-7945
MTC-00025576
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Charles Obermeyer
611 The Cape Blvd.
Wilmington, NC 28412-3422
[[Page 27655]]
MTC-00025577
From: Allen Austin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:07pm
Subject: microsft settlement
Sir,
The attached letter best states my view on the recent events in
the courts concerning the operating practices of Microsoft.
MTC-00025577--0001
Allen Austin
5301 Plomondon Street, Apt. E20
Vancouver, WA 98661-8501
January22,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I support the Microsoft antitrust settlement reached by your
Department, nine states, and Microsoft with the help of a court-
appointed mediator. I agree with the 32 states that decided that
this suit should never have been brought in the first place. More
than anything else, the suit seems driven by of envy and jealousy of
Bill Gates, his success, his widely used innovations, his billions
of dollars, and his millions of happy customers.
I am one of those happy customers. I have freely chosen
Microsoft products because I really like the ease of use and
increased functionality I have seen from using them. I use Microsoft
Windows, Microsoft Internet Explorer, and Microsoft Works. With
Works I have made templates for my repetitive tasks, and designed my
own checkbook program, which, thanks to the Microsoft software, has
perfect arithmetic.
The settlement will make easier for Microsoft's competitors to
integrate their products into Windows, by giving them information
about Windows interfaces and server protocols, and making it easier
to add or delete the programs and features Microsoft includes in
Windows, such as Internet Explorer--which is my browser of
choice. Everyone should have freedom--freedom of choice and
freedom to innovate.
Your support for the settlement is crucial. America will benefit
from the resulting increased cooperation and innovation within the
American computer industry. Thank you for your support. And as a
member of the public, thank you for your consideration of my
comments.
Sincerely,
Allen Austin
MTC-00025577--0002
MTC-00025578
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
ROSE MARIE TAFLIN
2525 IROQUOIS CIR.
WPB, FL 33409-7216
MTC-00025579
From: efduhr1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam:
Is the Proposed Final Judgment in the public interest? There is
one problem I see in the III. A. 2. provision barring retaliation
toward OEMs ``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''. The instance of selling Intel-compatible PCs with
only one, non-Microsoft, operating system is not considered; it
appears Microsoft could retaliate against OEMs who sold PCs equipped
this way. For a settlement in the public interest, let the public
buy its PCs equipped with whatever operating system they desire, and
without consequence to the vendors, from Microsoft, for providing
them.
Now going to III. J. 2. (c), where is the consideration for
entities that do not happen to be profit-oriented businesses?
Striking internet examples are Apache and Perl, both widely used,
both developed by non-profit organizations. Since such an
organization would have to meet ``standards established by
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its
business,'' Microsoft can deny licenses or access to APIs,
communications protocols and documentation, as the Proposed Final
Judgment is now written. I don't see that it is in the public
interest to exclude the non-profits from the remedies of the PFJ.
Thank you for accepting my comments, under the provision of the
Tunney Act.
Edward Duhr 25 Jan 2002
2553 Larkin Road 45
Lexington, KY 40503
MTC-00025580
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:17pm
Subject: Concerns regarding Microsoft Settlement
I believe it is time to move on with the business of business
and stop listening to the complaints of Microsoft competitors who
have failed in the marketplace. Please end this tremendous waste of
money by both Federal and State Governments, as well as wasting the
time, money and energy of one of the few very successful American
companies that make a positive impact on the overall economy.
Thanks,
Michael Vandellos
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025581
From: Milton Karafilis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:14pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
It's time to accept the settlement and get the economy going
again.
Milt Karafilis
MTC-00025582
From: Hanneli Turner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
ATTENTION: JUDGE COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
Please settle the lawsuit between Microsoft Corp and the
government as soon as possible. I believe it would benefit the
consumer and the economy. As a tax payor, I feel that the government
has wasted a lot of money on a lawsuit that should of been settled
long ago. Let's do something productive with our tax money.
I'm self-employed and have been using computers since the early
80's. Computer programs were very difficult to master. Microsoft
created software that has improved my productivity and my life.
I urge you to help settle the lawsuit. Thank you for listening.
Sincerely,
Bill & Hanneli Turner
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025583
From: King Wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
In my opinion Microsoft is doing a great service in creating a
uniform platform with many convinces. Let them do what the need to
do. Go Microsoft!!!
Nancy Wright
MTC-00025584
From: King Wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
To Whom It May Concern,
Leave Microsoft alone. They are doing a great Job!
King Wright
MTC-00025585
From: Mark Farley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to register my discontent at the light punishment
proposed to be shown to Microsoft after their having been found to
abuse their monopoly position. While it is not illegal to be a
monopoly, it is critical to the health of the US and world economies
that companies in a monopoly position are not allowed to use their
unusual position anti-competitively to disrupt the invention process
and ruin the possible success of competitors. Maintenance of a
monopoly
[[Page 27656]]
position in the marketplace should only be legally held by
continuing to offer superior products and services, and not through
the undermining of potential competition.
I soundly reject Microsoft's argument that their behavior has
been good for consumers. If you kill my neighbor, take his home, and
give a dollar of what you have stolen from him to me, you cannot
argue that I am better off. (This is particularly true if I needed
him to help jump-start my car tomorrow.) We will never know how well
Netscape and a number of other companies that have been assassinated
by Microsoft may have fared on a level playing field.
Proposed settlements at the state level have ludicrously seemed
to actually reward and extend the monopolistic abuse rather than
give it cause to reconsider its behavior. Thank God for the wisdom
of the judge who saw the proposal for what it was.
I can only hope that Microsoft is punished fairly, but very
firmly, in a manner that stops cold the abuses of the past. If only
a trivial price need be paid for destroying a competitor through
illegal action, then no lesson is learned; Only a fair market value
of extinguishing competition will have been determined. Microsoft
needs to learn that the price is more than they can afford to pay
next time. A cost of only a few hundred million dollars is easily
passed on to customers at the next program update and the abuses
will continue.
I think an amount equal to a year or two of earnings is not too
little, nor too much. They will survive.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Mark Farley
1819 Alta Vista Avenue
Austin, Texas 78704
MTC-00025586
From: (060)Bradley A. Singletary(062)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement in the U.S. versus Microsoft case falls short of
the mark. Microsoft must allow other companies to compete in their
market. Microsoft must take responsibility for it's actions in the
computer industry.
As an informed computer user/developer/researcher, I would
hesitate to suggest that the U.S. government back a corporation that
generates revenue by encouraging stagnation in the american software
community. The settlement fails to inhibit or accurately classify
Microsoft's behaviour. Therefore, do not accept the settlement as it
stands.
Bradley A. Singletary
Ph.D. Student in Computer Science
Atlanta, GA
MTC-00025587
From: David and Shara Danziger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
Please grant approval to the settlement of the Microsoft suit.
This is the most straightforward and fairest settlement likely to
emerge from this. It is time to put this sorry episode in the past
and let Microsoft and its competitors settle things in the
marketplace rather than having to focus on fighting lawsuits.
Sincerely,
David Danziger; [email protected]
MTC-00025588
From: Eric Rounds
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello;
I want to place my public opinion with the others against
Microsoft.
I believe Microsoft has monopolized the computing industry both
on the personal/consumer and professional levels. I do not feel that
all of their products are ``popular'' as they advertise.
They buy or crush all competition, and offer poor products with
unattractive and faulty interfaces. But many of use do not have
another choice, because Microsoft has dominated 95% of the industry.
I feel that my choices have been increasingly limited to Microsoft,
or Microsoft. Not because they have a good product, they don't. It's
because they are everywhere. There are other alternatives. But not
as ``supported'' as Microsoft. I say
``supported'' because, again, who else has the strength in
the market? I would personally like to see Microsoft broken up so
that XBox, Windows, Expedia, and all the other crappy things they
chuck out can compete fairly. If they each have to support there own
marketing, then other competitors might have a better chance. This
will give use consumers more choice, it will increase higher quality
of products, and make me happy.
Thank You,
Eric Rounds
MTC-00025589
From: MORRIS KAY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:24pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
To Whom It May Concern:
Enough is enough.... The proposed settlement by Microsoft, in my
opinion, is not only fair, but generous....
Lets stop the bleeding by all, and accept the settlement offer.
[email protected]
MTC-00025590
From: Michael C. Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:23pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
to Whom it may concern:
I am personally very concerned over the Microsoft settlement. It
appears that the judgement allows Microsoft to continue their
predatory business practices without penalty. I am concerned a
verdict without significant consequences for Microsoft will allow
the company to continue extinguishing innovation, and competition
over a broadening swath of our culture.
-Michael Thomas
MTC-00025591
From: Jerome J Donaldson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the proposed settlement with Microsoft is reasonable
and proper and this litigation should be drawn to a close now. I
also believe that any further delay will continue to have a negative
effect on the economy.
I am a retired senior and much of my enjoyment is in using my
computer.
Thank you,
Jerome J. Donaldson
6212 Hobart Avenue
Las Vegas, NV 89107-1326
(702) 878-9295
[email protected]
MTC-00025592
From: Arthur J Sather
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Dear Sirs;
It looks to me that Microsoft was singled out by its jealous
competitors and sympathetic government bureaucrats because of it's
success.
I concur with the Senior's Coalition 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.
God with the settlement agreed with the Government and nine
state and end this costly and damaging litigation.
This settlement will have a positive impact on the American
economy and help pull us out of the recession.
Dragging out this legal battle further will only benefit a few
wealthy competitors's attorneys and special interest bigwigs!
Sincerely,
Arthur J. Sather
11296 So. Clara Anita DR.
Yuma, Az. 85367
MTC-00025593
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Donna Rott
1000 Co. Rd. 1400 N
[[Page 27657]]
Henry, IL 61537-9438
MTC-00025594
From: gary lin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:27pm
Subject: Fwd: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the agreement reached between Microsoft and DOJ
and the nine States is good enough to close the case. We have more
important things to do than trying to do a ``perfect'' job
that everybody likes. The subject of safety of our society against
terrorists far outweight the last penny of the settlement. We should
divert this energy to better protect our freedom.
God bless America.
Gary Lin
MTC-00025595
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:25pm
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,
Carl Rott
1000 Co. Rd. 1400 N
Henry, IL 61537-9438
MTC-00025596
From: James R. Van Zandt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I oppose the proposed Microsoft Settlement.
The proposed disclosure of APIs is not enough to allow free and
open competition in the development of applications and middleware.
Here are four significant defects:
The disclosure is too late. If API documentation is only
released at the ``last major beta test'' of a new product,
then any competing product would start with a handicap of several
months, which in the software industry amounts to most of a
generation. There is also no assurance that Microsoft would continue
to use historical patterns of beta testing. It could, for example,
use a series of test versions each released to only 140,000 beta
testers. None of these releases would then trigger the disclosure of
the APIs.
Potentially significant exclusions. Excluded are ``anti-
piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management,
encryption or authentication systems''. Without question,
Microsoft has legitimate needs in these areas. However, it is well
known in the computer security field that ``security by
obscurity'' can work only temporarily. True security is based
instead on open protocols and implementations that can be studied,
criticized, and improved by many developers. On the other hand,
Microsoft can claim that almost any API or protocol has some
relevance to piracy, virus protection, authentication, etc. If
necessary some authentication measures could be added to ensure
this. This would give Microsoft an excuse not to disclose those
APIs.
Implementation roadblocks. If someone does implement a protocol
or API which Microsoft claims has anti-piracy etc. relevance, then
Microsoft can require them to pay a third party to test it.
Microsoft could easily use this requirement to delay and financially
burden the small companies and independent programmers that have
provided so many innovations in the software industry.
Excluded business areas. The agreement addresses only software
for ``personal computers'', apparently permitting
Microsoft to set up new monopolies in software for ``servers,
television set top boxes, handheld computers, game consoles,
telephones, pagers, and personal digital assistants'', which
``are examples of products that are not Personal Computers
within the meaning of this definition''.
For these reasons among others, I believe the proposed agreement
would not effectively prevent Microsoft from maintaining its
monopoly in personal computer operating system software, or from
setting up new monopolies in other business areas.
--James R. Van Zandt
MTC-00025597
From: John Royo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Ms. Hesse:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Since 1986 I have used the Apple Macintosh platform to perform
my work.
I find that Microsoft not only stifles competition, but also
limits functionality for the consumer. It's operating system, and
software are flawed in code and performance. The fact of Microsoft's
shear wealth only is the entity able to stop encroachment to its
market share by startup's and lesser size companies who do not
possess the financial resources to fight this monopoly and it's sub-
prime products.
Thank you again.
Sincerely,
John Royo
John J. Royo, III
Financial Resources, Inc. / S.A. Funding Group, Ltd.
[email protected]
www.safunding.com
Providing capital to commercial and medical businesses.
Member: BNI (Business Network International) Bethesda Friday
Breakfast
Chapter
7476 Merrymaker Way, PMB 118A
Elkridge, MD 21075-6887
voice 410-379-6900
Toll Free: 877-311-6736
efax 928-447-9800 (preferred fax)
fax 410-579-4750
I reward for referrals!
MTC-00025598
From: Michael Phillips
To'' Microsoft ATR
Date'' 1/25/02 10:42pm
Subject'' Microsoft Settlement
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I work in the financial services industry. I see first-hand the
economic consequences of ``world events''. One of the
events that negatively affected this country's economy was the
antitrust suit brought against
Microsoft. This suit was very unfair. It was a pure political
decision; based on the fact Microsoft has deep pockets and failed to
have a lobbying group in Washington. I think it is unfortunate that
the world works this way, but Microsoft and the Department of
Justice did settle. Now it is time to move on. The reason I urge you
to approve this settlement is the importance of Microsoft to this
country's economy. The ``economic slowdown'' we are
experiencing can be partially traced to the indictment against
Microsoft.
The day of the indictment, the stock markets plummeted. Sir our
economy will improve, but if we can remove the dark cloud of
uncertainty regarding this settlement from the picture, things will
improve much faster.
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.<> ......
I urge you, as someone who is very knowledgeable about our
economy to give your approval to the Department of Justice and
Microsoft settlement. Thank you.
IF MERGEFIELD PARA4 Ecce homo ergo elk. La Fontaine knew his
sister, and knew her bloody well.<>
Sincerely,
Michael Phillips
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I work in the financial services industry. I see first-hand the
economic consequences of ``world events''. One of the
events that negatively affected this country's economy was the
antitrust suit brought against Microsoft. This suit was very unfair.
It was a pure political decision; based on the fact Microsoft has
deep pockets and failed to have a lobbying group in Washington. I
think it is unfortunate that the world works this way, but Microsoft
and the Department of Justice did settle. Now it is time to move on.
The
[[Page 27658]]
reason I urge you to approve this settlement is the importance of
Microsoft to this country's economy. The ``economic
slowdown'' we are experiencing can be partially traced to the
indictment against Microsoft. The day of the indictment, the stock
markets plummeted.
Sir our economy will improve, but if we can remove the dark
cloud of uncertainty regarding this settlement from the picture,
things will improve much faster. I urge you, as someone who is very
knowledgeable about our economy to give your approval to the
Department of Justice and Microsoft settlement. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michael Phillips
MTC-00025599
From: Alexandra Radbil
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02-emsp;10:30pm
Subject: Comments on Proposed Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to express my views on the proposed Microsoft
Settlement. My concerns stem from the fact that the settlement
favors Microsoft and does not recognize the problems inherent in the
settlement for the consumer and for the computer industry. There
seems to be no recognition that the ``remedies'' do not
allow for open competition and innovation, but allow Microsoft to
continue to dominate the playing field.
Are there any protections for existing open source programs and
operating systems such as Linux? I don't think so. Without these
protections the consumers lose because there is little opportunity
for healthy and innovative competition.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my thoughts on this
important issue.
Alexandra Radbil
Project Director
Princeton Strategy Consultants, Inc.
103 Carnegie Center Suite 113
Princeton, NJ 08540
(609) 452--8669--Voice
(609) 452--1017--Fax
MTC-00025600
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
Isn't it time we moved forward? Let's settle and figure out what
happened at Enron please...
Tony Marraro
MTC-00025601
From: Joyce C Allenton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This is of special public interest to end and settle this costly
and damaging litigation as quickly as possible.
There is no reason to drag this situation on any longer and
destroy a good thing.
JA
MTC-00025602
From: Virginia Yager
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may concern:
I agree with the Microsoft settlement. Enough money has been
spent on this law suit.
Virginia Yager
MTC-00025603
From: Beatrice Sutton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let's get this settled and move on. Consumer interests have been
well served. It is time to end this costly and damaging litigation .
Dragging out this legal battle further will benefit a few wealthy
competitors, lawyers, and special interest big-wigs. Not one new
product that helps consumers will be brought to the marketplace.
Beatrice Sutton; Webster, Florida
[email protected]
MTC-00025604
From: Neil Schneider
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed
Microsoft settlement. I agree with the problems identified in Dan
Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html), namely: The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-
compatible competing operating systems
Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using
restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the
PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the
Applications Barrier to Entry. The PFJ Contains Misleading and
Overly Narrow Definitions and Provisions The PFJ supposedly makes
Microsoft publish its secret APIs, but it defines ``API''
so narrowly that many important APIs are not covered. The PFJ
supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft Middleware with
competing middleware, but it defines ``Microsoft
Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version of Windows might
not be covered at all.
The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a
competitor's product -- but Microsoft is replacing Java with
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET
with competing middleware.
The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it
defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-
Box--operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are
advertised as being ``Windows Powered''.
The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and
not informing ISVs. The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API
documentation to ISVs so they can create compatible
middleware--but only after the deadline for the ISVs to
demonstrate that their middleware is compatible. The PFJ requires
Microsoft to release API documentation--but prohibits
competitors from using this documentation to help make their
operating systems compatible with Windows.
The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away
potential users. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License
Terms currently used by Microsoft. Microsoft currently uses
restrictive licensing terms to keep Open Source apps from running on
Windows. Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to
keep Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large companies,
state governments, and universities) charge by the number of
computers which could run a Microsoft operating system--even
for computers running competing operating systems such as Linux!
(Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 consent
decree.)
The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities
Historically Used by Microsoft. Microsoft has in the past inserted
intentional incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from
running on competing operating systems. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit
Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs. The PFJ allows Microsoft to
retaliate against any OEM that ships Personal Computers containing a
competing Operating System but no Microsoft operating system. The
PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small
OEMs--including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are
historically the most willing to install competing operating
systems--who ship competing software. The PFJ allows Microsoft
to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) to OEMs based on criteria like
sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems. This allows
Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-compatible operating
systems to increase its market share in other areas. The PFJ as
currently written appears to lack an effective enforcement
mechanism.
I also agree with the conclusion reached by 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.
Neil Schneider [email protected]
http://www.paccomp.com
Key fingerprint = 67F0 E493 FCC0 0A8C 769B 8209 32D7 1DB1 8460
C47D
.. Windows XP... ``most reliable Windows ever.'' To
me, this is like saying that asparagus is ``the most articulate
vegetable ever.''
-- Dave Barry
MTC-00025605
From: Beatrice Sutton
[[Page 27659]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
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.
Betty Lands
[email protected]
MTC-00025606
From: John Goodnough
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am completely opposed to the governments settlement in the
civil antitrust case with Microsoft. Microsoft has been a predator
in the technology sector for years and has grown fat by getting away
with it. When this case was filed I thought there might actually be
justice in the world. But know you're just going to let them
continue to abuse the systems and safeguards we put in place in this
country to prevent companies like Microsoft from gaining too much
control.
I can only encourage you in the strongest terms to reverse this
decision and take Microsoft to task for the abuses of our capitalist
system. We are not a strong country because of companies like
Microsoft. On the contrary, we are strong because of the companies
that Microsoft has gutted and destroyed over the years. I can only
imagine where we would be if Microsoft had been prevented from
stifling development by companies that dared to compete with them.
We might not be struggling with a recession today if Microsoft had
been stopped 10 years ago. Please take the necessary action now to
prevent further damage to the system that build America in the first
place. Punish Microsoft for their self serving actions.
John Goodnough
32 Hosmer Street
Acton, MA 01720
978-263-5457
MTC-00025607
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'm in favor of excepting the present terms on the Microsoft
& DoJ settlement & droping all this appealing. What a waste
of funds & time. Lela Omta
MTC-00025608
From: Leon Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:44pm
Subject: Re: Public comments on the settlement between the DOJ and
Microsoft
I would like to add a comment for your consideration in the
settlement of the Microsoft case. I can say it no better than
Russell Pavlicek did in his column The Open Source from
InfoWorld.com, Wednesday, January 23, 2002. Let me quote that and
ask only that the settlement you configure with Microsoft not reward
the company for it's actions that have been deemed in Federal Court
as monopolistic.
Personally, I like the counterproposal put forward by Red Hat:
Let Microsoft donate money for computing resources for underfunded
schools, but let those donations go toward hardware only; then
populate those machines with open-source software.
Why open source? Consider the future: What will the schools do
when they need to upgrade? If you give schools Microsoft software,
they will be caught in the endless upgrade cycle that has
characterized life in the Microsoft world. Those upgrades will cost
money, money that these targeted school districts, by definition,
cannot spare.
Instead, arming schools with open-source software will have two
benefits. First, it will set schools down a long-term path that they
can afford. The cost of obtaining open-source upgrades is trivial.
Without low-cost software upgrades, all those nice shiny computers
run the risk of becoming boat anchors in short order. I'm sure
someone is saying, ``But open source is too difficult to
administer!'' Such does not have to be the case, but I'll deal
with that issue in a future column.
Also, the Red Hat proposal does not reward Microsoft in the long
term. If a company is convicted of overpowering markets, why would
you reward them by putting one of the few markets they don't lead
under their control? This sounds a lot like a seed-unit program for
education, not the penalty imposed from losing a trial.
Corporate misdeeds are supposed to earn punishment, not long-
term investment opportunities. I believe we would all be better off
if the courts acknowledged the difference between the two. --
leon moore USUHS/BID 4301 jones bridge road bethesda md 20814
[email protected] 301-295-3669 (ph)
301-295-3585 (fax)
MTC-00025609
From: Eric (038) Emmi Lappoehn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern. I, Eric B. Lappoehn, at 8916 Signal
Terrace Dr. Las Vegas, NV. 89134 - e-mail: [email protected]
sincerely and urgently request that you stop persecuting Microsoft.
In all the litigation that has been going on for the last year or
so, no one and I mean no one has asked the millions of computer
users what they thought about this persecution of Microsoft.
Microsoft's competitors are upset that Microsoft is giving away, for
free, programs to millions of computer users that THEY want us to
pay for. I am very happy to use all the programs Microsoft offers
and I DO NOT need THEIR competition. If THEY produce a product that
is superior to Microsoft's I will consider it. Up to this point in
time I have not seen anything better offered by anyone else.
Sincerely, Eric B. Lappoehn
MTC-00025610
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a registered voter in the state of Maryland and a computer
professional with 18 years of experience, I would like to take
advantage of the opportunity to comment on the proposed settlement
between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. While I am not
qualified to comment on the legal aspects of the case, I am quite
qualified to comment on the technical aspects. However, it is from
my perspective as a parent that I have taken a position on this
issue.
I volunteered my services in thePTA Technology committee of my
daughter's elementary school for 3 years. During that time, the
school was provided a computer lab which used Microsoft operating
systems and networking software. In planning sessions with the
county's IT representatives, we discussed how teachers would be able
to use the lab for classwork. I asked how they planned to provide
students with user IDs and private work space and discovered that
this would not be possible because of the expense and support
requirements. When I asked how the students were to maintain their
work, I found that the other schools with labs provided floppy disks
for each student.
I was astounded. I cannot imagine teachers having time to insert
and eject 20 to 30 floppy disks on a regular basis, and so I was
sure that the computer lab's effectiveness would be reduced
tremendously. In fact, when my daughter began using it, she told me
that all she ever did in it was to play some semi-educational games.
The Microsoft and Apple personal computer operating systems were
originally designed to be used exclusively by individuals, and
therefore do not have multi-user controls built into them. There
have been additions to provide some features of a multi-user system,
but these are minimal, and in many cases, ineffective. Other
operating systems, in particular those based on UNIX, were designed
from the beginning for multiple users.
If it were not for the illegal monopolistic practices of
Microsoft, school computer labs could be provided with systems that
would support many users, each with their own private environment,
which would be easily accessible by teachers. This would enable
teachers to take advantage of the power of computers to assist in
teaching, as opposed to the computer labs being so difficult to use
that they become little more than a recreational break.
I hope that the court will weigh heavily the evidence of
negative consequences such as these, which have occurred mostly due
to Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly. I support a judgement that
will prevent Microsoft from continuing to use its monopoly in ways
that have been determined by the appeals court to have been illegal.
Thank you.
James J. Sansing
1465 Maryland Ave.
Severn, MD 21144
MTC-00025611
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 27660]]
U.S. Justice Department
Washington, DC
Please be advised that we support the present proposed
settlement for Microsoft , and oppose further litigation. This case
has gone on long enough in our opinion and has already probably cost
millions in litigation fees. Let Free Enterprise now take over.Do
competitors desire fiurther litigation ? Enough is enough!
Carl R. and Lisa Scheuplein 468 Dempsey Drive
Cocoa Beach, Fl 32931
MTC-00025613
From: Burrows Family
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has continued its abusive anti-competitive practices
by incorporating into Windows/XP a streaming audio-visual display
product. This streaming product is intended to compete with
RealNetworks product which had been rapidly gaining marketshare
before the advent of WindowsXP.
Having been proved a monopolist (which abused its market
position to force the Netscape Navigator web-browser out of the
market by including its own Windows Explorer into the Windows
operating system) which distorted the market in its packaging of
Windows 98, Microsoft has yet to change its behavior--in spite
of the court's findings. The solution suggested by the Department of
Justice as a settlement provides for no change to this behavior, and
provides no punishment for repetitions of past behavior. It requires
no change to Windows/XP. It treats the retail cost of software
distributed by Microsoft as if it were the real cost incurred by
Microsoft in manufacture and distribution.
The Court must set substantive and enforceable limits on
Microsoft's behavior. The Court must order Microsoft to make whole
its damage to Netscape and to Real Networks; and to cease its
packaging abuses in Windows 98 and Windows/XP by unbundling its
browser and streaming software as separate installable (or
uninstallable) products, purchased separately.
Ben Burrows
406 Shoemaker Road
Elkins Park, PA 19027
MTC-00025614
From: ednellz@ juno.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Justice Department
I understand that you are in the final stages of the
deliberation on whether to accept the settlement or to litigate it
further. Why continue to spend money just because some of the
companies were not able to keep up with the progress Microsoft was
making. The settlement offers a reasonable compromise and I ask that
you accept it and get on with other business.
Thank you for the work that you have done.
H. Edgar Roye
MTC-00025615
From: Stephen Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:50pm
Subject: Keep innovation alive
Microsoft is feared by Fortune 500 CEOs. Businesses, many of
which have been hurt by Microsoft, refuse to bring up a case against
the Redmond giant for fear of reprisal. Software companies stay out
of Microsoft's path because they know that if they sell a competing
product, they will compete against a ``free'' version that
comes bundled on Windows.
The Dept. of Justice should have Microsoft sell a
``stripped'' down version of it's operating system.
MTC-00025616
From: mljjj@flash. net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mike Herrington
1340 Riverwood
Algonquin, IL 60102-3813
MTC-00025617
From: wrflynt@ yahoo.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:52pm
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,
Rob Flynt
P.O.Box 1251
Georgetown, TX 78627-1911
MTC-00025618
From: Jason Broccardo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
I am 25 years old. I am part of the first generation of adults
who have been using a computer for most of their lives. From the age
of ten, there has been a computer in my house. For the past 5 years,
in the various jobs I have held, my work could not have been done
without a computer. Based on my experience, it is conceivable that
when my two year old daughter is my age, the idea of living or
working without a computer would be unimaginable to her. Computers,
for better or worse, are central to how we interact socially and how
we conduct business. Taking this into consideration, I respectfully
ask that the government and the courts please reject the proposed
Microsoft settlement. Microsoft, having been found guilty of
violating the law and being the largest manufacturer of computer
operating systems and software in the world, should not be allowed
to ``get off so easy''.
The courts have found Microsoft guilty. The lower courts
proposed punishments have been rejected by the Appeals court.
Regardless, that does not mean that Microsoft should now have its
way. Microsoft should not benefit in anyway from a settlement. If
there is to be a settlement, then Microsoft should be held
accountable for its actions and punished in such a way that it will
not repeat past offenses. I'm afraid that the proposed settlement
would encourage Microsoft to do just that.
Please reject the proposed settlement.
Thank you for your time.
Jason Broccardo
Westmont,IL
[email protected] or [email protected]
Jason Broccardo
[email protected]
http://www.splendidezine.com
MTC-00025619
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:57pm
Subject: (no subject)
2-25-2002
To The Office of the U. S. Attorney General; During this public
comment period I wish to voice my opinion on the MICROSOFT suit.
The conditions of the present and concluding decision on the
Microsoft case are fair and reasonable, so the Government's review
should end swiftly. The court should proceed forthwith to agree that
the terms are in the public interest. Had the suit been reasonably
and rapidly negotiated to begin with, the nation's economy would
have been untold billions of dollars better off in 2000 and 2001.
For the welfare of the U. S. we sorely need no further interference
in private enterprise in this case.
[[Page 27661]]
Sincerely yours,
Richard N. Whittier
3991 Briarcliff Rd. N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30345-2647
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025620
From: Kyle Crawford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
By not providing some aid for independent software vendors
engaged in making Windows-compatible operating systems, the Proposed
Final Judgement is missing a key opportunity to encourage
competition in the operating system market. The statement in
sections III.D. and III.E that the information released is to be
used ``for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows
Operating System Product'' is too restrictive. It does not
promote competition.
Also, the definitions of ``Middleware'' are too
narrow. Middleware should include .NET, Office, Outlook and other
Microsoft products. All Middleware APIs need to be documented and
available to independent software vendors prior to release. There
must be no confusion over which APIs are covered by patents.
The discrimination against Open Source applications is
unacceptable. Many of the competing applications are open source.
MTC-00025621
From: E. Glenn Brooks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a thinly-veiled attempt to extend the
Microsoft monopoly to the schools of the US and to pay about 5i on
the dollar in settlement fees. I completely object to the current
settlement.
-Glenn
MTC-00025622
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:56pm
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,
jack jack
1218 El Rey Ave
El Cajon, CA 92021
MTC-00025623
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10:56pm
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,
jack jack
1218 El Rey Ave
El Cajon, CA 92021
MTC-00025626
From: Randall Krause
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 10'59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MTC-00025626--0001
P.O. Box 116
Port Gamble, WA 98364
January 23, 2002
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
I am writing to express my disapproval of three years of lengthy
and costly litigation brought against Microsoft. The lawsuit was
flawed form the start and represents the political self-interest of
a few that have no concern for the American public.
The terms of the settlement are flawed and biased. Microsoft
should not be forced to grant computer makers broad new rights to
configure Windows'' so that competitors can more easily promote
their own products, nor should they have to disclose interfaces that
are internal to their Windows'' products.
While unjustified, I must support the settlement being
implemented because our economy needs Microsoft back at business and
not worrying about political disputes. Please make sure this
settlement comes to a quick end and that no further litigation is
taken against one of our nation's greatest assets.
Sincerely,
Randall Krause
MTC-00025626--0002
MTC-00025627
From: Mark H. Bickford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Ms. Hesse and associates,
I would like to object to the Proposed Final Judgment in the
case of United States vs. Microsoft, for the following reasons:
1. The Settlement as proposed only protects the interests of the
20 largest OEMs, and does nothing for small-business PC
manufacturers who may wish to make alternative operating systems
available to their customers, or provide a link to a local ISP;
2. The Settlement only protects large OEMs who wish to install
multiple operating systems on one machine alongside Windows; it does
not say that Microsoft cannot retaliate against an OEM who wishes to
sell a PC with only an alternative operating system installed. This
would have the effect of continuing to force OEMs to install a copy
of Windows with every PC they ship.
3. Similar to item 1 above, the Settlement only protects OEMs
who wish to install Middleware which already ships at least 1
million copies / year. It does not protect those who wish to install
programs which are too new to have that size an installed base, or
which may compete with Microsoft products in their intended usage
but do not meet the definition of ``Middleware'' because
they do not currently expose APIs (for instance, a simple Email
client). In closing, I feel that Microsoft has repeatedly abused
their operating system monopoly by using it to create new monopolies
(both the current ``Middleware'' issue and the current
state of the office sute category come to mind), and that a judgment
that is both more restrictive of Microsoft and more considerate of
the needs of small business is called for.
Best regards,
Mark H. Bickford
Portland, ME
MTC-00025628
From: Beryl N Northrup
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We desire that the Justice Department accept the proposed
Microsoft settlement. This has gone on long enough and is
jeopardizing the ability of seniors and all Americans to access the
Internet and use innovative software products.
Norman N. Northrup and Beryl F. Northrup
MTC-00025629
From: Patrick Insko
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 25, 2002
Insko Computer Consulting Group
7922 Burr Oak Road
Roscoe, IL 61073
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
To whom it may concern:
In researching the proposed final agreement in the case against
Microsoft, I am
[[Page 27662]]
troubled by the lack of substance regarding the punishment of
Microsoft for abusive and illegal monopoly conduct. I add my voice
to those who have already gone to great lengths to illustrate
concerns over the proposed final agreement. In addition to that,
however, I would like to enumerate a few points, from the
perspective of a Macintosh user, which I hope will serve to
illustrate predatory behavior on the part of Microsoft and offer
alternative remedies and penalties:
1. Although Apple lost its copyright infringement lawsuit
against Microsoft alleging that it had copied the Macintosh OS too
closely in Windows, Microsoft has effectively isolated Apple from
the marketplace since having obtained a monopoly with Windows.
Microsoft has since entered into contracts with OEM's (original
equipment manufacturers) that preclude them from shipping another
manufacturer's operating system, which is a barrier to entry for
Apple to pursue OEM's to which it could license its operating
system. Any proposed final agreement should preclude Microsoft from
contractually prohibiting OEM's from licensing, shipping, and/or
supporting a competing operating system. Furthermore, the settlement
should contain measures that would prevent Microsoft from
retaliating against OEM's that choose to license, ship, and/or
support a competing operating system.
2. Microsoft further damages Apple's potential by withholding
software, sometimes indefinitely, for the Macintosh. Considering the
incredible pace at which the technology industry moves, customers
cannot afford to wait many months for software to become available
on the operating system of their choice. As such, customers are
often forced to purchase personal computers running Windows in order
to be technologically current. Consider that Microsoft's agreement
with Apple in which Microsoft agreed to provide upgrades to Office
for a period of five years expires this year. If Office were not
available for the Macintosh platform, it is widely accepted that
Apple would have no chance for survival. Were Microsoft to
discontinue Office for Macintosh, it would effectively destroy
Apple's viability, and as such would constitute a violation of its
monopoly power. Any proposed final agreement should offer protection
to competitors such as Apple by requiring Microsoft to continue
support for critical applications like Office, in order to preclude
those companies from going out of business. It should be recognized
that a company that is run out of business as the result of another
company abusing its monopoly power no longer has the means to pursue
a remedy or recourse.
3. Measures must be put in place that would prevent Microsoft
from further abusing its monopoly power through its efforts to
``embrace, extend, and extinguish.'' Microsoft has long
made it a practice to embrace technologies and standards it regards
as potentially lucrative. It then extends the technologies and
standards to include proprietary, Microsoft-only additions. Since it
has such a vast market share with its operating system, Microsoft is
able to force the Microsoft-only technology or standard on millions
of customers, which effectively makes the Microsoft version of the
technology or standard the one that is overwhelmingly adopted. The
inevitable result is that Microsoft's competitors, which in many
cases were responsible for the new technologies and standards, are
extinguished from the very market they had created. One such example
of this abusive and predatory tactic can be found by examining
Microsoft's attempts to redefine the standards of Sun Microsystem's
Java programming language.
4. Perhaps the most notorious and egregious violation of
Microsoft's monopoly power was its decision to freely license
Internet Explorer once it recognized that Netscape threatened to
dominate the new Internet market. The end result, to date, has been
to render Netscape unable to profit from its Internet browser in
order to compete with Internet Explorer. Microsoft utilized its
massive cash reserves to fund the development and free distribution
of software in order to decimate a competitor. Any proposed final
agreement must prevent Microsoft from using its massive cash
reserves to wage a war of attrition against smaller, less
advantaged, companies.
5. The proposed settlement agreement penalizes Microsoft about
one billion dollars, which is a fraction of the amount of cash
reserves Microsoft maintains. This dollar amount, examined in the
perspective of Microsoft's market capitalization, is roughly the
equivalent to the amount of money it would lose if its share price
were to drop approximately 0.1%. Any proposed settlement agreement
must represent a realistic penalty to Microsoft's bottom line as a
means to deter future abuses of its monopoly power. A more realistic
penalty would be twenty billion dollars.
I hope the Department of Justice takes its role seriously in
providing adequate and meaningful penalties and remedies in this
case. Microsoft has decimated competition in the software industry,
and it is the highest imperative that competition be restored for
the good of the consumer.
Sincerely,
Patrick Insko
Principal
Insko Computer Consulting Group
MTC-00025630
From: Ruth (038) Rusty Warner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settllement
I think this gone on too long. This does nothing but make some
lawyers rich. The public as a whole receives no benifits.
CC:William Russell Warner
MTC-00025631
From: Robert P. Fickenwirth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To those responsible for litigation in this case. Enough
already--please expedite the settlement of this case. More
litigation is the last thing I, as a consumer, or the industry
needs. Please settle so we all can move forward.
MTC-00025632
From: dh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:11pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I'm a self-employed IT professional working primarily with
personal computers; I use, and support users of, various operating
systems, including Macintosh and several flavors of Windows.
Although I've not read all the documents relating to the current
proposed settlement in U.S. v. Microsoft (Civil Action No.
98-1232), I have been avidly following the case since it
began. Based on my understanding of the industry, Microsoft's role
in it, and the courts'' findings relative to same, I am
flabbergasted and appalled at the terms of the proposed settlement.
Microsoft enjoys a virtual monopoly over large segments of the
market, and has engaged in illegal practices in furtherance of this
position. Remedies, by definition, should seek to undo the damage
inflicted by these practices. The proposed settlement doesn't simply
fail in this regard; it will actually exacerbate the damage.
It's long been understood that seeding schools with proprietary
technology results in increased sales of that technology to those
who've been exposed to it thereby. The reason for this is pretty
obvious: people tend to buy those products with which they are
familiar, and therefor comfortable. Education being one of the few
PC markets that Microsoft doesn't currently dominate, any steps that
increase the company's presence in that market will thus have a
magnified effect.
So, donating equipment and software to schools is simply good
business practice from Microsoft's perspective. This is so even if
the real cost of those donations to the company is high, which may
or may not be true in this instance, and even if the value to the
schools is also high--again, an open question. I am baffled as
to how anyone could fail to see the granting by Microsoft of large
quantities of its products to the public school system, as being
anything other than a boon to the company.
In short, I believe that any meaningful settlement to this case
would simultaneously benefit the public, mitigate some of the
competitive damage which has resulted from Microsoft's illegal
behavior, and discourage the company from behaving in such a fashion
in the future. The proposed settlement fails miserably to meet these
criteria, and should be scrapped.
Sincerely,
David Hauer
1818 10th Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
david hauer
MTC-00025633
From: snive
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
Let's settle this case and move on. All the government's case
has done so far, is to hurt the public, which it was suppose to
protect. It would be nice if the government would
[[Page 27663]]
explain, just how all of us will be better off as a result of their
case. Are they going to send us a check for dollars lost in stock
value because of their actions?
It appears that the Justice Department should have been focused
on Enron, which has hurt the American public much more than
Microsoft ever could. Maybe microsoft should have contributed more.
Just do It.
Sincerely,
John M. Snively, Jr.
MTC-00025634
From: Loren Chang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
As a citizen of the United States and an avid computer user I
feel the need to speak up regarding the settlement proposed by
Microsoft Corporation for the antitrust lawsuit being filed against
it.
The settlement as proposed by Microsoft is nothing more then a
sham and a brazen attack upon the law, the government, and the
American people, and shows Microsoft's utter disregard and contempt
of the law and the intelligence of the people of this nation. It is
also evidence of the laxness and complacency among the highest
levels of our government, and the willingness of some of these
individuals to sell out all principle in exchange for personal gain.
Microsoft has been nothing short of arrogant and uncooperative since
the beginning of the antitrust case against it, as demonstrated by
it's recent thinly veiled attempt at inundating the lucrative
educational market with it's products, even after the guilty verdict
was levied.
I urge you to not let this challenge on the freedom, and the law
by Microsoft go unpunished. Through it's recent actions, Microsoft
has shown that it is a true threat to both innovation, and a fair
and free marketplace. I urge you to levy the strictest penalties
possible on Microsoft, so that it may never again be the threat to
freedom and innovation that it has shown itself to be in the past,
and indeed, to this very day. Nothing short of the freedom of our
nation, and perhaps the world, rests upon this decision.
Sincerely yours,
Loren Chang
MTC-00025635
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs: I am thankful for the Microsoft Windows softward
standard, enabling me to correspond without difficulty, use
computers at other locations without difficulty and connect to my
own computer from other locations. The wide use of Windows also
means that it is much easier for programmers to come up with
something new, not having to deal with multiple types of software.
We all know the nightmare of dealing with multiple phone
companies and their systems. I have never felt that I was
overcharged for Microsoft products and feel that bundling has made
using the computer easier and cheaper, down-loading only one program
rather than several. I am aware of the contents of the settlement
and feel it is fair. I believe that competition should take place in
the marketplace rather than the courts.
Edna Hauser
MTC-00025636
From: Marc (038) Jeanne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
Honor, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,
Please I urge you, your Honor, to review ``The Proposed
Final Judgment'' with the DOJ and Microsoft. I have been in the
IT business for many years and have seen countless times that
Microsoft has been less then fair in their business practices,
ethical competition, and consumer choice. The IT industry needs
protection from Microsoft and Microsoft needs to cease their
monopolistic practices.
Thank You,
Marc R. McCamey BST, Tech+
Network Administrator
Interstate Specialties Inc.
1807 Pittsburgh Ave.
Erie, PA 16507
1.800.533.6847
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025637
From: Rudy Stefenel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: U.S. Department of Justice
From: Rudy Stefenel
3138 Drywood Lane
San Jose, CA 95132
408-263-5332
1/25/02
It is essential that you incorporate the solution proposed by
California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Utah, West Virginia and the District of Columbia into the
final Microsoft antitrust settlement. The current settlement has too
many loop-holes. Here are are the three points proposed by these
states along with the reasons to incorporate them.
Require Microsoft to give computer makers more freedom to
feature rival software on their machines. This is absolutely
essential and obvious. Computer makers must have this freedom or
Microsoft clearly has a monopoly.
Order Microsoft to sell a cheaper, stripped-down version of its
Windows operating system. This is a superb requirement because it
gives freedom of choice to everyone who uses Windows without
stopping Microsoft from innovating. Otherwise Microsoft is forcing
everyone to pay for Microsoft's application software programs when
purchasing Windows, even if some people prefer non-Microsoft
applications software programs.
Order Microsoft to do more to reveal the workings of Windows to
competitors. This is absolutely essential. At present, Microsoft's
application software programs can run better than their competitors
software because Microsoft is not not telling their competitors
about all the ways to hitch their software up to Windows.
As an example, part of Microsoft's defense is that their Web
Browser, Internet Explorer, is merged with Windows and it cannot be
separated out. Actually only part of Internet Explorer is integral
with Windows and Windows would function fine with other parts
removed.
Microsoft must disclose how to utilize the parts that could not
be removed to competitors so that their Web Browsers can use them
too or the competitor's web browsers don't have a chance of working
as well as Microsoft's.
How does this make Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser
work better? Think about how long it takes to load a web browser. A
competitor's web browsers can't possibly load as fast as Microsoft's
because the whole browser must be loaded. Only part of Microsoft's
browser needs to be loaded because the other part is integral to
Windows. People get irritated if they have to wait too long for a
browser to load and will end up using Microsoft't browser, even if
the prefer other browsers for other reasons. Can't you see how
Microsoft is using their Windows operating system, in this case, to
leverage unfair competition?
These three requirements, proposed by a few states, are not
vindictive and they address Microsoft's antitrust violations head
on. They don't stop Microsoft from selling a version of Windows with
integral applications software. People who prefer other applications
software are not stuck with paying for Microsoft's. Microsoft has
full freedom on innovate and so does their competitors. Computer
makers have freedom of choice and so does every everyone who uses
Windows.
Sincerely,
Rudy Stefenel
MTC-00025638
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Department of Justice,
Let us move on with what would help our country and economy the
most.
Let us PLEASE move forward. Half the states have agreed with the
decision. The Microsoft case has no justifiable reason to continue.
The truth is that most consumers appreciate how MICROSOFT HAS MADE
COMPUTERS REALLY USER FRIENDLY.
I am also a very typical American public who agrees with most
Americans to ``MOVE ON!''
Thank You
For Taking The Time
To Read This,
Tamara Fine
MTC-00025639
From: dube
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:28pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
People are sick about AOL .It not the first time that AOL suit
some companies .Every time they want to block the expansion to some
companies just because them bought the small companies for almost
nothing and after that, need some time to get a chance to
[[Page 27664]]
come first with their technology. They do not have any interest for
the customers.
The only thing is important for them to be number ONE. No matter
what painful for the old and young peoples who did not have chance
to learn the computer at school to use it.I thank you very much
micrsoft for what they do for the world; our life change ,I learn to
use the computer by myself 15 years ago.It was hard to use all
commands and I spent very much time to catch up everything to
understand how this will work and be able to fellow the conversation
with my children and the employes. The window come and it was the
happy time for all to use the computer faster and more efficienty. I
use both ten years ago NESCAPE and msn explorer .Always I come back
with msn explorer because it was easier.
sincerely [email protected]
MTC-00025640
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:23pm
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,
emmett Gloyna
5947 County Road 284
Edna, TX 77957
MTC-00025641
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:23pm
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,
emmett Gloyna
5947 County Road 284
Edna, TX 77957
MTC-00025642
From: John S. Howell, Jr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attn: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 25, 2002
RE: MICROSOFT ANTITRUST CASE--PUBLIC COMMENT for the DISTRIC
COURT TO CONSIDER
I am an avid computer hobbyist and software entrepreneur that
started in the 1970's, years before Microsoft's name was well known.
I have carefully watched, and dealt with Microsoft since they were a
tiny company, and I believe this gives me a somewhat unique
perspective on Microsoft and their competitors.
The products I have licensed from Microsoft include programming
languages like BASIC, Visual Basic, and ``C'', operating
systems like MS-DOS and Windows, and productivity tools like Word,
Excel, Outlook e-mail and PowerPoint. I have also licensed software
products from Novell, Apple, IBM and others.
More than all of the others combined, the Microsoft products
have benefited my business and my personal life in many, many
positive ways. From the very first purchase I have found Microsoft
products to be of unusually high quality, often innovative,
extremely useful, and perhaps above all, a tremendous value for the
money. The company is usually very easy and straightforward to deal
with.
My company started with IBM, Novell and Microsoft as suppliers.
Although we initially favored IBM and Novell products, over the
years, we valued Microsoft's more than the others--I believe
mainly because Microsoft seemed to understand the technologies and
tradeoffs better than their competitors, and were able to
consistently produce superior products at a very low price, which
made them a lower risk, and a better supplier to us.
One of my concerns with this case is that the complaint against
Microsoft originated not with individual consumers, or with
Microsoft's partners, but with Microsoft's unsuccessful competitors.
These failed businesses must not be allowed to set the rules for the
markets in which they failed.
I purchased Microsoft products for my business over their
competitors because they were able to consistently provide the best
balance features, ease of use, and performance, AND make their
products available at extremely attractive prices. Over the years, I
have witnessed many hundreds of other business people make their own
independent evaluations that resulted in the same conclusion--
Microsoft's products were overall better than the
competitions--and so they purchased them.
I resent any characterization by the government that Microsoft's
customers are ``helpless victims'' who cannot choose
software. Nothing could be further from the truth. More than almost
any other type of product I have found that buyers of computer
products seek the advice and comment of others before making a
purchase.
I also do not believe the government should have any say in what
software I should run on my computer, and I resent the idea that a
successful business and a successful product should be a threat to
anyone.
I believe it is a dangerous policy for politicians to protect
some businesses from others. Continued application of the antitrust
laws against successful businessmen can only lead to corruption and
economic disaster.
And lastly, I believe Microsoft should have the right to its own
property, and that it is the government's job is to protect this
right, not to take it away.
Sincerely,
John S. Howell, Jr
Naples, FL
MTC-00025643
From: Dino Rachiele
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:27pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I am outraged by the attack against Microsoft. Microsoft is
constantly being punished for being the first and the best at what
they do. This is discouraging to many of us who have hopes of
attaining the American Dream. Leave those folks alone... please. I
have stock in AOL and Microsoft. I am ashamed that AOL has taken
this stance. They have better things to do!
Thank you,
Dino Rachiele
President,
Luxury Home Products, Inc.
The Rachiele Group, Inc., Custom Sinks by Rachiele
Oxitech, Inc.
www.luxuryhomeproducts.com
www.rachiele.com
www.oxitech.org
MTC-00025644
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:25pm
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.
[[Page 27665]]
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,
Michael Merrick
1605 Baker Dr.
Kalamazoo , MI 49048-1215
MTC-00025645
From: Jeff Donner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi,
I think the MS settlement should include prohibiting them from
putting restrictions on where you can run MS application software.
Right now they are beginning to put clauses into their End User
License Agreements forcing you to agree to use it only on MS
operating systems; this is very anti-competitive, as it is otherwise
slowly becoming possible to run MS apps on other OSes, like Linux
(using Wine). The only point of such restrictions is to suppress
competition with MS'' operating systems, the Windows. It does
not protect MS intellectual property in any way; users still have
bought the MS software, after all.
Thanks,
Jeff
MTC-00025646
From: J.C. Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Judge Kollar-Kotelly and whom it may concern,
My name is J. C. Allen. I reside in Hampton, Virginia. I am a
citizen by birth of the United States.
It should not be necessary to relate this information via email.
However, Microsoft Corporation (``Microsoft'') has, in the
past, falsified support for its position as market leader and its
monopolistic, predatory practices. It is imperative that the U. S.
Department of Justice (USDOJ) carefully scrutinize the responses it
receives regarding the antitrust complaint filed against Microsoft
and the proposed Final Judgment, because of these past actions on
the part of Microsoft. Some of the email the USDOJ receives may in
fact have been manufactured by Microsoft to intentionally deceive
the USDOJ. Microsoft has resorted to such impromptu
``lobbying'' in the past in order to create the perception
that the public supports Microsoft's actions in the nation's
marketplace. I have no desire to read, in a few months, about a
similar deception with regard to the proposed Final Judgment
(``Proposed Final Judgment''). It is my opinion that
Microsoft will use every tactic possible to convince the USDOJ that
the public believes the Proposed Final Judgment is fair. I am the
public, and I do not believe it is fair. I can assure you that I am
not alone.
The following URL details the efforts of Microsoft to influence
Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff using these tactics: http://
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/
134332634--microlob23.html
A portion of the above article (which was originally published
by the Los Angeles Times) is quoted below: ``Letters
purportedly written by at least two dead people landed on the desk
of Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff earlier this year, imploring
him to go easy on Microsoft for its conduct as a monopoly. The
pleas, along with more than 100 others from Utah residents, are part
of a carefully orchestrated nationwide campaign by the software
giant... Microsoft sought to create the impression of a surging
grass-roots movement, aimed largely at the attorneys general of some
of the 18 states that have joined the Justice Department in suing
Microsoft.
The Microsoft campaign goes to great lengths to create an
impression that the letters are spontaneous expressions from
ordinary people. Letters sent in the last month are on personalized
stationery using different wording, color and typefaces, details
that distinguish Microsoft's efforts from lobbying tactics that go
on in politics every day.''
I would like to begin with a quote by former Judge, Stanley
Sporkin: ``Simply telling a defendant to go forth and sin no
more does little or nothing to address the unfair advantage it has
already gained...'' I would also like to list some of those
companies that have unfairly suffered because of Microsoft's illegal
monopoly and predatory marketing practices. Following the company
name and separated by a colon is the name of the product that
Microsoft intentionally sabotaged, copied, or stolen outright.
Following the product name and separated from the competing
company's name by a semicolon is the name of the product Microsoft
developed to integrate the functions of these competing applications
into Microsoft operating systems. Note that many of these competing
applications are no longer being actively developed because these
companies, which depended on revenues from sales, are no longer in
business. A few others continue to market new releases, but their
user base has dramatically declined:
1. Digital Research, Inc. (then Novell, now Caldera): DR DOS;
MS-DOS 5.0 and Windows 3.1, which were intentionally designed by
Microsoft to alter the base upon which applications were written for
Microsoft operating systems, so that applications written for
Microsoft operating systems would be incompatible with DR DOS. The
announcement that Windows 3.1 would not be compatible with DR DOS
resulted in sales of that product dwindling to practically nothing
in months.
2. Real Networks: Real Player; Microsoft Windows Media Player,
which has almost completely supplanted Real Player as the de facto
internet standard streaming media application. Windows Media Player
is bundled with Microsoft operating systems, and is available as a
free download for Microsoft operating system users.
3. Netscape Corp. (now America Online/Time Warner): Netscape
Navigator; Internet Explorer, which has effectively supplanted
Netscape Navigator as the browser of choice among most internet
users. In 1995 the vast majority of internet users used Netscape
Navigator to access the internet. Internet Explorer is bundled with
Microsoft operating systems.
4. Apple Computers: Apple's Graphical User Interface
(``GUI''); although Apple borrowed heavily from XWindows
for UNIX, Microsoft's first attempt to produce a true GUI operating
system featured an almost exact replica of Apple's desktop, right
down to the trash can, which Microsoft renamed ``Recycle
Bin''. Apple's GUI became the basis for the present look and
feel of Microsoft operating systems.
5. Corel: WordPerfect; Microsoft Office (Microsoft Word). Also:
Quattro Pro; Microsoft Office (Microsoft Excel). Both Microsoft
Office and Microsoft Word, separately, are frequently bundled with
new installations of Microsoft operating systems.
6. Quarterdeck Corp. (now owned by Symantec): QEMM; EMM386.*, a
memory manager that enabled DOS-based programs to access more than
640K of memory. EMM386.* (et al.) are necessary components of
Microsoft operating systems that run in real and protected mode.
7. STAC Electronics: hard drive compression scheme; Microsoft
DoubleSpace. DoubleSpace is a disk utility that is included with
Microsoft operating systems.
8. Go Corp.: pen-based computing; Microsoft incorporated the
code into its operating systems so that they would be able to
recognize the device.
9. IBM: Lotus 1-2-3; Microsoft Office (Microsoft
Excel). Also: OS/2; Windows 95. Microsoft refused to provide
technical details necessary for third-party developers to develop
applications for both Windows 95 and OS/2 to IBM, resulting in a net
migration of users away from that operating system as the number of
available applications fell. Microsoft office is frequently bundled
with new installations of Microsoft operating systems.
10. Sun Corp.: Java, Sun Java Virtual Machine
(``JIM''); Microsoft J++, J#, C#,
``.NET''. Microsoft's non-standard implementation of Java
(J++, J#) forced Sun to sue to prevent Microsoft from designing
proprietary extensions to the language that were only functional on
Microsoft operating systems. Microsoft lost and in retribution
announced it would no longer support Sun's JVM in order to force a
migration away from the use of Java and to force implementation of
Microsoft's ``.NET'' initiative. In addition, Microsoft
has incorporated new features into its newest operating system to
further extend its monopoly and sabotage applications in markets
which it intends to dominate, for example: Roxio EasyCD Creator
(Microsoft bundled the software required to ``burn'' CDs
into its newest operating system, Windows XP); Adobe Photoshop, et
al. (Microsoft
[[Page 27666]]
PictureIt! is marketed to directly compete with these applications,
using a proprietary file format which non-Microsoft middleware
cannot support because PictureIt!, by default, stores images in the
proprietary file format, and Microsoft has not released details of
the file format to third-party developers]; Norton Personal
Firewall, et al. (Microsoft bundled a limited firewall into Windows
XP).
MTC-00025646-0003
In short, Microsoft has demonstrated time and time again that it
is not an innovator, but that it is a ruthless
integrator--buying, copying or stealing other companies''
innovations and intellectual property outright, and bundling
applications which utilize these innovations with its operating
system in order to drive its competitors out of business. Fear of
the pending Final Judgment has not caused Microsoft to cease this
abusive practice. In fact, the newest components of Microsoft
Windows XP (e.g., CD burning software) were developed well after the
anti-trust action against Microsoft was initiated.
It is my contention that the Proposed Final Judgment will not
``provide a prompt, certain and effective remedy for consumers
by imposing injunctive relief to halt continuance and prevent
recurrence of the violations of the Sherman Act by Microsoft that
were upheld by the Court of Appeals and restore competitive
conditions to the market.'' I believe that the Proposed Final
Judgment does ``little or nothing to address the unfair
advantage [Microsoft] has already gained''.
I have no special skills or training which qualify me to comment
in detail on the Proposed Final Judgment against Microsoft. I am
neither a lawyer, nor an employee of any of the companies which
directly compete with, or depend on, Microsoft software. However, I
use Microsoft software daily in my work and at home, and it is my
belief that the opinions of those who actually use Microsoft
products in their daily lives should weigh heavily in any
deliberation. We are, after all, the ones who stand to gain or lose
the most by any Final Judgment, and we stand to lose a great deal if
the Proposed Final Judgment is adopted. My objections to the
settlement offered by the United States Federal Government are as
follows:
1. A. The internet was developed using open, non-proprietary
standards.
B. Microsoft has extended, and is extending, its monopoly by
developing proprietary standards which unfairly exclude rivals from
developing applications which are fully functional on computers
running Microsoft operating systems. C. Microsoft will profit from
this exclusion. D. Microsoft should not be allowed to profit in the
future from unfairly excluding competitors in the past.
Repeatedly, the court has stated that Microsoft integrated its
Web browser into Windows in a non-removable way. However, at the
time this claim was made, very early in the anti-trust action
against Microsoft, it was a deception. It is possible to remove
Internet Explorer (``IE'') from Windows 98. This has been
demonstrably proven: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9903/O9/
removeie.idg/
MTC-00025646-0004
In fact, an application was developed to remove IE from Windows
98 called ``981ire'': http://www.981ite.net/
I am not ignorant of the fact that this would eliminate some of
the features offered by the integration of Windows 98 and Internet
Explorer. However, it would eliminate many of the vulnerabilities
which have plagued Microsoft software from the time Microsoft
incorporated IE as a component of the Windows operating system and
offer enhanced security to the user. Yet requiring Microsoft to
enable the end user of Windows to completely remove IE, and
therefore eliminate direct access to the operating system (which IE,
as a component of the operating system, was designed to allow), is
not a condition of the Proposed Final Settlement.
At the time the integration of IE into Windows 98 was first
undertaken by Microsoft, the anti-trust action against Microsoft had
not yet begun. However, shortly thereafter Microsoft desperately
needed a legal defense against the argument that it illegally
bundled its Web browser with its operating system to crush rival
Netscape. The bundling of IE with Windows 98 allowed Microsoft to
establish market dominance and become the de facto standard Web
browser. By demonstrating that Windows 98, with IE removed, was
incapable of functioning as designed, Microsoft ``proved''
that IE was a ``necessary'' component of Windows 98.
However, this claim is clearly ludicrous, and has not been
completely remedied by the Proposed Final Settlement.
My principle objection is that the USDOJ appears, by way of the
language of the Proposed Final Settlement and Competitive Impact
Statement, to have accepted Microsoft's claim that IE
``cannot'' be removed from Windows. I simply refuse to
believe that the company that integrated its Web browser with its
operating system cannot un-integrate it.
It is my contention that Microsoft's future corporate strategy
revolves around the development of a method of delivering digital
content and services (``DCS'') securely to a computer
user, and that, as a business, it is aware of how profitable this
will be. Part of this effort is the integration of Digital Rights
Management (``DRM'') and other schema (encryption,
licensing, authentication, etc.) into daily use of the computer
through the Windows Explorer shell, and therefore through IE. Any
DRM scheme (et al.) proposed by Microsoft will therefore be very
lucrative for Microsoft, and for Microsoft's partners, by requiring
any user of Microsoft's software to pay a per-use Microsoft
``tax'' to access DCS via the internet, and by requiring
any developer to license this technology from Microsoft.
It is also my contention that the integration of IE with Windows
was purposefully undertaken by Microsoft to crush Netscape and
establish market dominance before the internet had grown to the
point that the technologies for the secure delivery of DCS were
necessary, i.e., before there was a market for such technologies. I
tip my hat to Microsoft's business acumen. However the internet has
grown to the point that no one company can be allowed to stand
between the public and the information it offers, freely, to all.
With the vast majority of computer users using Microsoft operating
systems, this guarantees that internet access is contingent on
satisfying whatever conditions Microsoft chooses to impose.
It is my contention that DRM or other schema involved in the
delivery of DCS over the internet cannot be proprietary, and that
the seeming acceptance, on the part of the USDOJ, of the integration
of IE with Windows has given Microsoft an unfair advantage by
allowing Microsoft to utilize the leverage gained by establishing
its web browser as the dominant web browser to secure future
profits, which will allow Microsoft to unfairly extend its monopoly
into new computer technologies.
The Proposed Final Judgment does nothing to remedy this, but
instead allows Microsoft to profit from actions which would be
prohibited under the terms of the Proposed Final Judgment. I propose
that the Proposed Final Judgment ``level the playing
field'' by requiring, for example, that language or provisions
such as Section III.E of the Proposed Final Judgment be stricken in
toto: ``Section III.E ... exempts from these licensing
requirements certain very limited and specific portions or layers of
Communications Protocols which would, if disclosed, compromise the
system security provided by Microsoft anti-piracy, anti-virus,
software licensing, digital rights management, encryption and
authentication features.''
It is my contention that the only relief for Microsoft's past
abuse is to force Microsoft to openly and publicly disclose all
features exempted by the Proposed Final Judgment, to allow no
exceptions to the rule of public disclosure, and to require that
this occur immediately, i.e., before the one year deadline for
disclosure of Microsoft's application programming interfaces
(``APIs''). This would allow the development of competing
applications immediately. Companies which have unfairly suffered
because of Microsoft's status as a monopoly will be able to offer
competing applications much sooner than they would have under the
proposed schedule. It would have the added benefit of allowing
interested third parties to examine Microsoft's proposed DRM,
licensing, authentication, et al. to ensure that security is not
sacrificed for ``features''.
2. A. Microsoft's has repeatedly demonstrated that, as a
corporation, it does not place a great emphasis on security. B. This
has placed an unfair burden on American businesses and individual
consumers to secure Microsoft software. C. Microsoft's corporate
values are a direct result of the integration of Microsoft
``operating systems'' and ``applications''
development under one corporate umbrella. D. The ease with which
Microsoft application developers utilize features exclusive to
Microsoft operating systems contributes to a corporate climate which
is organizationally incapable of responding to security
vulnerabilities which exploit those features. E. The only remedy for
this situation is to divide the corporation into two separate
halves--one to develop the operating system
[[Page 27667]]
and the other to develop applications to be run by the operating
system--and to require that any APIs necessary to properly
integrate an application with the operating system be disclosed to
competitors in accordance with the provisions of the Proposed Final
Judgment.
I am aware that Microsoft's founder, Bill Gates, recently made a
pronouncement concerning computer and information security, in which
he stated that security must become Microsoft's top priority. As for
me, this is too little, too late. I believe the recent memorandum
from Bill Gates is part of Microsoft's strategy to create a safe
harbor and shelter large portions of its code base from the
disclosure terms of the Proposed Final Judgment--if every API
has something to do with ``security'', none of them are
required to be disclosed. This must not be allowed to occur, and if
the language of the Proposed Final Judgment is allowed to stand,
Microsoft's status as a monopoly will not even be challenged.
The results of Microsoft's ``lip service'' to security
have been widely publicized. Computer worms and viruses written to
exploit known weaknesses in Microsoft software have, in the past
year, cost American businesses that depend on that software billions
of dollars, and been a terrible inconvenience for thousands of
computer users who lost data, personal or professional, to malicious
code. I have personally invested in anti-virus software and a
firewall to prevent worms and viruses that exploit known weaknesses
in Microsoft software from affecting me. This may be Microsoft's
idea of ``driving software development'' or the
``upgrade cycle'', but it is not mine.
MTC-00025646--0006
The ubiquity of Microsoft software is, in large part,
responsible for the cost of cleaning up after such outbreaks and
patching vulnerabilities caused by ``features'' that would
have been exposed by a thorough code audit, if security had ever
been Microsoft's priority. For example, Outlook Express
(``OE''), by default, previews a message it receives if
the ``preview pane'' is turned on, and parses any
executable script it encounters. This allows a received message,
without any further interaction from the user, simply on the basis
of being received by that user via OE, to execute malicious code on
that user's computer.
Who, at Microsoft, was responsible for making the decision to
incorporate this ``feature'' into OE? Why was it not
reviewed and why was it not decided that its inclusion would make OE
too vulnerable to attack?
Microsoft, as a corporation, is not capable of developing a
truly secure application. The current code base is simply too large
for even forty thousand employees to accurately and completely
review. It is therefore my contention that Microsoft should be
broken into two (or more) separate companies, one to develop
Microsoft operating systems, and one to develop applications for
Microsoft operating systems. Under the disclosure terms of the
Proposed Final Judgment and 1. above, any Final Judgment should
require Microsoft to disclose the APIs necessary to properly
integrate an application with the operating system in accordance
with the provisions of the Proposed Final Judgment. Requiring
Microsoft to disclose any APIs necessary for its applications
developers to write applications that seamlessly integrate with
Microsoft operating systems would guarantee that although Microsoft
might gain market share from new APIs which take advantage of
integration with the operating system, any competing application
developer would be free to use those APIs to enhance their own
software in a unique way. Though Microsoft might profit temporarily
from the use of exclusive Microsoft APIs, it would not be able to
retain a monopoly through obscurity; Microsoft would be forced to
truly compete by developing applications which best serve the needs
of their users.
3. A. Microsoft has undertaken the development of tools (J++,
J#, C# and ``.NET'') which seek to supplant
established programming languages or internet protocols (C++, Java,
etc.), and which offer limited, or non-existent, functionality on
computers not running Microsoft operating systems or IE. B. These
tools directly subvert the open, non-proprietary standards which the
internet was developed around. C. Allowing Microsoft to further
dilute these standards will increase the cost America's consumers
must pay to access DCS via the internet.
It is my contention that Microsoft has undertaken this action to
further extend its illegal monopoly, and dominate future internet
technologies. The Proposed Final Judgment does not completely remedy
this. What has already been proposed, ensuring that Microsoft is no
longer allowed to punish Original Equipment Manufacturers
(``OEMs'') who choose to include competing technologies in
their hardware or software products, does limit Microsoft's monopoly
somewhat. However, it does not completely address the issue because
software developers will always be at Microsoft's mercy when
developing applications for Microsoft platforms via the applications
barrier to entry. This issue is also addressed, in part, by
requiring the disclosure of Microsoft's APIs, which I have already
commented on above.
I again assert that Microsoft should not profit from behavior
that would have been illegal if the terms of the Proposed Final
Judgment had been in force. By requiring the immediate disclosure of
all APIs, DRM and other schema, immediately and without exception,
competing applications may be developed using established
programming languages or internet protocols which provide as much
functionality as applications developed using proprietary Microsoft
programming languages or internet protocols. This would deny
Microsoft the opportunity to further entrench itself as a DCS
provider by excluding its rivals with proprietary technologies which
only provide full functionality on computers running Microsoft's
operating systems or IE, with which Microsoft's proprietary
programming languages or internet protocols can be fully integrated.
The loss of revenue due to sales of J#, C# and .NET
development tools, instruction manuals, books, peripherals, etc.
will be a punishment that truly fits the crime. By trying to
encompass and control access to the internet, Microsoft will ensure
that future internet technologies offer truly universal access. This
will benefit consumers by offering more choices, not less, and by
keeping the internet free of the control of pervasive corporate
interests which threaten it. DCS will remain inexpensive, in that
consumers will not have to pay a hefty ``tax'' to
Microsoft (or any of its partners) simply to access DCS via the
internet. The internet was built with the tax dollars of America's
consumers, and should be managed by the government in concert with
the global community, corporations, and citizens the world over, on
behalf of all humanity. Microsoft must not be allowed to control
access to the internet, or relegate consumers to a ``second-
class internet'' simply because they are not Microsoft
customers.
This concludes my comments. Thank you for your consideration.
J. C. Allen
MTC-00025647
From: Joe Marasco
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/25/02 11:32pm
Subject: RE: Comment on Microsoft-DOJ settlement
I do not agree with you.
Thanks.
Joe
Original Message
From: William Buchanan [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 9:26 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: abraham, fred; Jacobsen, Dianne; Lips, Rolf; Marasco, Joe
Subject: Comment on Microsoft-DOJ settlement
I am outraged at the proposed ``settlement'' of this
conflict. It makes as much sense to me as the first court conclusion
in the OJ Simpson case. Gates has simply conned his way out of being
found clearly guilty by the very expensive but well executed
investigation of Microsoft's actions by the Clinton DOJ.
Gates'' entire career is based on lying, cheating, stealing and
bullying his way around in the consumer community. He has no
scruples, other than continually doing anything he can to get the
public's money in exchange for their purchases of Microsoft's so-
called ``innovative'' products. These sub par products
only appear to be innovative because he has used his wealth and
maligned cunning to squash any legitimate competitors. Jackson's
characterization of him as a ``little Napoleon'' is right
on. And now for the corrupt tie between G.W. Bush and W. Gates
(following White House meetings between the two) to surface as a
``just settlement'' thrown quickly before a war-distracted
US public and its Congress, is really rubbing salt into a big wound.
Hooray for the valor of the states who are holding out and
continuing to gun for a real ``just settlement'', in this
case. The only reason the other states that originally were involved
had to drop out is that the Gates machine is so well endowed,
financially and legally, it is able to intimidate even a
[[Page 27668]]
relatively large collective of public/legal representatives in its
obsessive path of destruction. I'm glad to be a citizen of
California, and able to watch my attorney general, Bill Locklyer,
lead the charge against prematurely settling with Microsoft. I would
hope that the Federal DOJ could follow the same path in this case,
but think that the eagerness of the current administration to
satisfy Gates'' dreams of walking away unscathed from this
situation are so far handing him his wishes, just as though it was a
``pardon''.
If there is still such a value as ``justice'' in our
US, then let it reign supreme. Require Microsoft to be held
accountable for what it has already been found guilty of, and make
it pay the full and responsible cost of having deliberately
committed its heinous actions. And see to it that the Bush
administration be held just as responsible and accountable for
exercising its Constitutional requirement to uphold justice in this
case. Anything less only brings to light that the Bush
administration and Microsoft are colluding to dupe the taxpayer into
believing that both are worthy of honor, a conclusion that is just
not acceptable and well should not be.
CC:abraham fred,Jacobsen Dianne,Lips Rolf
MTC-00025648
From: Bob E
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
NOT FAR ENOUGH
MTC-00025649
From: [email protected]
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov.
Date: 1/25/02 11:34pm
Subject: Settlement With Microsoft
Let's move forward and complete the more than fair settlement
reached among DOJ, Microsoft and the nine states. To do otherwise is
very unsettling to the economy and delays Microsoft's continuing
record of helping improve the productivity of companies thoughout
the United States of America.
Thank you,
William & Stephanie Necoechea
6509 Caminito Catalan
La Jolla, CA 92037
MTC-00025650
From: Alex Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Proposed Settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case is
inadequate. There are many problems with the settlement, far more
than I can go into. Therefore, I will mention only a few of the
inadequacies.
1. Microsoft must allow all third party programmers free access
to all APIs and communications protocols used to interoperate with
Windows or any other Microsoft products. Section III.J.2b allows
Microsoft to release APIs only to a third party that ``has a
reasonable business need for the API, Documentation or
Communications Protocol for a planned or shipping product.''
This access cannot be limited to commercial programmers.
Specifically, programmers who do not seek to make a profit or who
are working on open source projects must have the same access to
APIs and communications protocol documentation that commercial, for-
profit programmers have.
2. Section III.J.1a is a glaring weakness to the stipulation
that Microsoft reveal its APIs. Microsoft has repeatedly hidden
behind claims that it cannot reveal key elements of its software for
``security reasons.'' This is often called ``security
through obscurity'', and its merit is highly questionable on
security grounds; many security experts agree that the only way a
security measure can be considered adequate is by allowing the
security measure to pass rigorous inspection by security experts.
Any good security measure should be strong enough so that even a
person who has access to the entire source code of the security
protocol cannot break the security.
I do not propose that Microsoft be forced to open its source
code for review by outside security experts; such a provision would
unfairly limit Microsoft's ability to compete. However, security is
not an acceptable reason for Microsoft to refuse to document APIs or
communications protocols that, by the Final Judgment, they would
otherwise be required to disclose.
3. In productivity software, the most important factor for a
potential competitor to Microsoft is the ability to read and write
files that are fully compatible with Word and Excel files. The Final
Judgment does not adequately require Microsoft to fully document
their file formats, so any consumer who does not use Microsoft
Office will continue to be at a disadvantage whenever he needs to
share a file with an Office using person. Current Microsoft file
formats can be read by competing office suites such as Sun's
StarOffice or Apple's AppleWorks as long as the files are quite
simple. However, any Microsoft Office file that contains more
complicated elements such as tables does not display well in other
office suites. Therefore, the Final Judgment must be amended to
force
Microsoft to fully document its file formats, without including
any features in the file format that only Microsoft products can
effectively use.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely yours,
Alex Hill
email: [email protected]
OCMR 1201
Oberlin College
Oberlin, OH 44074
MTC-00025651
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 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,
Vicki Faas
7021 E Townsend Dr
Highlands Ranch, CO 80126
MTC-00025652
From: Lisa Downing
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed Microsoft settlement is a pathetic slap on the
wrist, which will do nothing to restrain a company that has proven
again and again that it will do anything to dominate the market,
including threatening to strangle its competitors (e.g. Apple,
Netscape).
MTC-00025653
From: lorraine snyder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:39pm
Subject: Mic
Please end the case against Microsoft, now! Microsoft is the
gage to the economy in this country! As a country, we cannot afford
to have Microsoft attacked! When Microsoft is attacked, the
consumers back off from investing! If you want the economy to go
under, just keep Microsoft being attacked by yourselves and
MONOPOLY'S like AOL WARNER!!! Their Netscape HAS THE MARKET, and
they have NEVER BEEN HURT BY THE LITTLE SHARE OF the internet market
Microsoft has!
I WANT AOL TAKEN TO TASK FOR BEING AN AGGRESSIVE MONOPOLY!!!!
The whole country loves and respects Microsoft except a few of their
competitors! All companies have competitors so WHY should this
company be discriminated against and allowed to be attacked by their
competitors as well as their own country who happily take the tax
generated from their products!
Sincerely,
Lorraine M. Snyder
15018 SE Fairwood Blvd.
Renton, Wa 98058
MTC-00025654
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please accept this settlement. The charges levied against
Microsoft are brought on behalf of competitors and not consumers.
Microsoft is a stabilizing force that allows me to know which
programs will work with my computer and allows less technical people
to have a ``breed'' of software that they are familiar
with. Without that, the industry is likely to fragment and become
less secure, predictable, and valueble to businesses and consumers.
Microsoft has already attempted
[[Page 27669]]
to rectify many of the behaviors that have been at issue in the case
and this settlement will ensure that they continue to do so. The
states that are agains the settlement have no real stake in this
case. They're simply attourneys general trying to make a political
name for themselves. The DOJ knows that its time to put this issue
to bed, as do half the states. Given the economic and social
conditions today, it's in everyone's best interest to move on to
more pressing issues.
MTC-00025655
From: Steve Pissocra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I find the current settlement proposition extremely weak and
would like to see harsher penalties levied on Microsoft for the
crimes they were found guilty of committing.
Thank you,
Steve Pissocra
MTC-00025656
From: Frank Echanique
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement the proposed settlement is bad idea if
they win this Microsoft will only continue to rape the computer
community for every penny it can get
MTC-00025657
From: Edward J. Dalton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think it is well past time to close the case on Microsoft and
allow the settlement to remain as it is. The nine states that are
holding out should be required to accept the DOJ's settlement or
receive nothing. It's idiotic to claim that Microsoft charged too
much for their software and that consumers are entitled to a refund.
I have found Microsoft software to be an excellent product at a
reasonable price. How would the states refund any money to the
consumers after the state and the weasel lawyers take their share
off the top: Pennies, perhaps. They're wasting the government's time
and money and they should be stopped. As far as the AOL suit goes,
they are far worse then any other computer related company when it
comes to shady dealings and overcharging customers. In additon, the
program disks they mail to potential customers are the worse form of
junk mail and are a nuisance. That suit should be thrown out.
Edward J. Dalton
MTC-00025658
From: Don D Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:46pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I strongly believe that the settlement agreed to between the DOJ
and Microsoft was very fair to we the American people. I urge you to
not waver from that settlement.
Don Thompson
POBox 5358
Kent, WA 98064
MTC-00025659
From: Jason Pierce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly believe that the proposed settlement is a bad idea,
and lets Microsoft off with nothing but a wrist slap.
Jason Pierce
www.musmis.com
MTC-00025660
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:47pm
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,
Tommy Worrell
18725 Bandera Rd.
Helotes, TX 78023-2801
MTC-00025661
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly oppose the DOJ recommended settlement in the
Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. Microsoft has been adjudicated as an
illegal ``Monopoly in restraint of trade'' and the Court's
remedy should address that illegal Monopoly by adopting the
proposals of the ``9 States'' who have courageously
refused to join the DOJ's settlement proposal.
David White
computer user
MTC-00025662
From: Len Frazier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the proposed settlement is poorly considered. MS,
while in some ways has advanced computing in general, has taken its
success and used it to stifle competition and innovation.
I believe that the MS settlement requires much more from both MS
and continuing, serious, regulation of the company's behavior. Len
Frazier
MTC-00025663
From: Gary Liebe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Having read through the ``Microsoft Settlement'' I
think that this proposal is a BAD idea , in my job I have the
Displeasure of Working on a Windoze Machine running proprietary
software. The proprietary software works great and is well written
nd intuitive, upon switching back to the Microsoft partition it
invariably hangs and / or Freezes. Where I work they have been
Dealing with this problem for 10 years. I feel it is only fair to
tell you I Am an Ardent APPLE user and from the perspective of
standing on the outside looking on as Microshaft slips it to the
working public in a most unsatiable condition . Allowing the
``Microsoft Settlement'' to be implemented would be GRAVE
ERROR in my Humble opinion.
[email protected]
MTC-00025664
From: Walt Jackson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settelment
Hello
Dof J This case has gone on way to long,lets conclude it,every
thing I have read about thee settlement sounds fair.
Lets move on ,if the other soft companies would focus on
development we all win.
MTC-00025665
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:51pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing to have my voice heard during the 60-day public
comment, granted to the settlement of US vs. Microsoft and the
ongoing lawsuit.
Microsoft has done nothing but prove that the American dream is
alive a well, make a better product and the people will buy it. They
have supplied our country with affordable and easy to use software.
I for one had never had or used a computer, before March of 2000. I
purchased a new Gateway w/ windows 98 2nd edition, and I was up and
running in just one day. No classes, just learned from what was
supplied to me. I AS A CONSUMER WAS NOT HARMED IN ANY WAY!!
Microsoft has contributed greatly to our national gross product,
and kept American software standards in constant motion. They have
provided thousands of American with jobs. Not to mention the great
generosity of the Gates Foundation.
I believe that the lawsuit should be dismissed, if that is not
possible, then the closure is absolutely necessary in order to
continue the prosperity of our country and implore Senators and
local legislators to stand up for the American people and the
American principle. Let Microsoft keep doing what they do best,
especially considering they've already accepted the proposed
settlement forced on them. Keep the Federal Court from having to
deal with this nonsense issue any longer.
[[Page 27670]]
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter and I hope you,
along with other government heads are really considering the
American consumer. WE HAVE NOT BEEN HARMED.
Sincerely,
Ed Biever
Sandwich, IL.
CC:[email protected]. gov@inetgw,dick@
durbin.senate.g...
MTC-00025666
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MTC-00025666--0001
114 Greenwood Drive
Hagerstown, MD 21740
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 support of the settlement reached
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. This case has been
going on for years and I don't see how this issue really represents
the consumer interest. Microsoft has hurt no one and it certainly
isn't their fault that their competitors aren't as intelligent and
innovative. There is already far too much politics in our business
and this lawsuit certainly does not provide a good example for
future behavior. Money-hungry politicians gave into the complaints
of Microsoft's competitors and now taxpayers are footing the bill
for a lawsuit that is in no way benefiting them. This settlement,
although unfair to Microsoft, fairly addresses the issues of the
lawsuit and will indeed restore competition to the computer
industry. Microsoft has agreed to share more information with their
competitors regarding technology. They will also be making it easier
for consumers to configure Windows to access non-Microsoft products.
If this does not satisfy Microsoft's competitors, then they are only
looking for a break-up and are obviously not willing to compromise.
I hope that you make the right decision and accept this settlement
to prevent any further tax money being used for selfish and
pointless lawsuits. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Hugh Everline
MTC-00025667
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:53pm
Subject: Micro Soft Law suite
I feel that any more wasted time investigating Micro Soft will
not benefit the General Population, The only ones that will benefit
will be a few High Paid Lawyers and Micro Soft Competitors. STOPP
THIS NONSENSE NOW!!!
Sincerely T.W. Axtell
MTC-00025668
From: Richard & Sondra Andersen
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/25/02 11:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard & Sondra Andersen
221 Mary Place
Muscatine, IA 52761-5503
January 25, 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 & Sondra Andersen
MTC-00025669
From: Erik Friedlander
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement with Microsoft in insufficient, and
currently a bad idea. It needs to be more restrictive on Microsoft
for it to be effective
Erik Friedlander
[email protected]
Admit Nothing.
Deny Everything.
Make Counter-Accusations.
MTC-00025670
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:52pm
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,
Thaddeus Wronkiewicz
143 Dolores Drive
Bensenville, IL 60106-3419
MTC-00025671
From: Steve Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to state my opinion that I think the proposed
Microsoft settlement would be completely ineffective with regards to
curbing anti-competitive behavior from Microsoft.
I have read Dan Kegel's letter at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html and I agree with the statements made in this document.
Please consider this email a vote against the proposed
settlement.
Thank you.
Steve Fox
4215 2nd St NW
Rochester MN 55901
MTC-00025672
From: George Haeh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a software developer for the past three decades, I have been
following developments in this case with considerable professional
interest. Well before the advent of Windows, I was deeply versed in
IBM mainframe operating system technology and able when necessary as
a customer to examine source code in IBM operating systems and
program products to diagnose programs or produce modifications.
Microsoft however has a different way of doing business that has
been thoroughly documented in depositions and direct evidence.
As proposed, the settlement between Microsoft and the Federal
Department of Justice will effectively legalise Bill Gates as the
Don Corleone of desktop software. No software firm with any
aspiration to profitability will dare compete with any application
MS chooses to bundle with its operating system.
Worse still is the prospect that once a new desktop application
gains a significant market, the proposed settlement does absolutely
nothing to prevent Microsoft with its billions from deciding to
write a competing application and bundle it with the operating
system, just as they have done to Netscape and Real Networks. If the
original developer of the new application is lucky, it will get an
offer it can't refuse from Microsoft.
The ultimate economic result will be that Microsoft will become
the sole source of new desktop applications. This proposed
settlement utterly smothers competition in desktop applications.
Yes--Microsoft sells operating systems (and office
software) that just about
[[Page 27671]]
everybody is forced to use to communicate with others--but why
does that monopoly entitle Microsoft to create all sorts of new
application monopolies in browsers, instant messaging, media players
ad infinitum simply by including new applications with its operating
systems for ``free''?
For consumer convenience, I could find it perfectly acceptable
that Microsoft could include an application bundle with their
operating system that would be separately priced, just like their
Plus! pack.
To prevent propagation of new monopolies, Microsoft should be
required to charge a non-predatory price for each separate
application (each application could be unlocked through an internet-
accessible registration procedure or with license keys separately
available at time of purchase). Other software vendors would then be
able to compete with their own application bundles made available
the same way on a considerably more level playing field. And just as
important, every MS-supplied application including MS Office would
be built to published operating system interfaces as verified by a
master appointed by the court. These interfaces should be made
available to outside software developers at the same time they are
made available to internal Microsoft application developers (with
the proviso that pre-release interfaces are subject to change which
will be published externally at the same time as internal
publication).
Given Microsoft's key position in the software marketplace, file
formats used by its applications and operating systems need to have
the same status as programming interfaces to enable the marketplace
to compete with equivalent and enhanced products. Do that and you
will have real competition and something to show for all the
litigation. The previous comments were written before the remedy
proposal from the Plaintiff Litigating States was filed. Having read
this proposal, I am struck by its simple common sense.
The Plaintiff Litigating States'' proposal is the sensible
and straightforward set of remedies that directly addresses the
findings upheld unanimously by the Appeals Court and puts
competitors on a level playing field that should have come from the
DOJ if the Federal Attorney-general was faithfully doing his duty as
counsel to his client's best interests, the American public.
George Haeh
643 Logan Ave.
Toronto, ON
M4K 3C4
416-465-2292
[email protected]
CC:Nini Redway
MTC-00025673
From: Dave Karnecki
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
Enough already! A settlement has been reached, Microsoft has
been slapped ``in the manner that is appropriate''.
What Sun, Netscape, Oracle, AOL, et al need to do is produce a
superior product and THEN and ONLY THEN will they gain the increased
market share they desire. The courts ARE NOT the place for
determining what's best for the consumer and business, the
marketplace is. Let's stop the drag and keep those people working!
All a prolonged court battle will produce are increased layoffs and
job losses.
Respectfully,
Dave Karnecki
Gainesville, Virginia
[email protected]
MTC-00025674
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let me begin by saying that I completely support the settlement
and want this entire case brough to completion. Below are some
thoughts that came to mind while reading the case against Microsoft.
First of all, the whole browser issue is a complete waste of
time for every party involved, and it makes me sick to my stomach to
think of how much money my government has wasted chasing this
irrelevant case. As a technology consultant who has vast experience
in many software platforms, the issue of the browser is ridiculous
because any programmer worth their weight in beans could easily
program their own browser to any operating system. Netscape had a
commanding lead in browser share, which was wasted away by their own
business policies and made even worse when Sun acquired Netscape. I
used to have a lot of respect for Sun when I was consulting on their
platform, but then I saw how their pricing and arrogance stifled
innovation in the functionality and integration capabilities of the
Netscape browser.
This was also true with Java. It was great when it first came
out, as the promise of the technology was the sweetest thing to hit
the industry in a long time. By keeping such a tight hold on java,
Sun has not only missed opportunity to advance the language, but
they have kept many companies from innovating the language to
provide a feature set that meets the needs of enterprise customers.
When Microsoft added to java, they were only meeting the needs of
their customers by filling the void in functionality that Sun
refused to provide. Other companies have done the same, IBM, BEA,
and others to the point that it takes a ``port'' of the
code from one operating system to the next. This is completely
opposite of what the early promise of java was ``write once,
run anywhere''. To meet the needs of my business customers, we
always have to find a vendor specific java such as IBM so that we
can get the features out of the language that make it usable. If the
language was submitted as a standard, these enhancement s would have
been made to the language. Instead, Sun has kept the royaltees on
all java licensing and has caused the rest of the industry to
innovate around their stubbornness. Needless to say, I can better
meet the needs of my customers by using another vendors
``flavor'' of java versus the straight Sun implementation.
The thing that bothers me the most about this case is that most
of the ``facts'' (using the term loosely since I
completely disagree with the previous findings of ``fact''
by the biased judge Jackson) brought to the government's legal team
have come from Microsoft competitors, the ones who have the most to
gain by hurting Microsoft. I have explained my thoughts on Sun, java
and Netscape, and they are just a sampling of why this case should
have never made it to the courts in the first place. To blanket this
whole case and say that Microsoft is not allowing the industry to
innovate is completely ridiculous. Microsoft should be punished for
specific actions that have violated the law, and only for those
specific actions. Given the amount of venture capital money that was
fed into the economy over the last 10 years, there was plenty of
opportunity for any company to come to market with new and
compelling products. In regards to the settlement, it appears that
both sides have made significant concessions to see this to an end.
Ever since the DOJ brought this case against Microsoft, the economy
has been in a tailspin. It appears that as long as this case is
active in the courts, the chains of ``waiting to see what
happens to Microsoft'' will remain, and the economy will remain
stale. This tailspin has rippled into other industries and if we are
ever to start recovering from this recession, this case needs to be
completely settled and resolved.
Please bring this case to an end and let our industry regulate
itself. If people are seeing unethical or extremely competitive
behavior, they can make their own decisions on who to support with
their IT dollars. If companies are explicitly breaking the law,
punish them for those specific acts and do not bring the rest of the
industry down (and in this case, the whole economy) with them.
Thank you,
Michael Beatty
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025675
From: Myles MacVane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:58pm
Subject: Microsft Monopoly
Dear Sirs:
If owning the rights to copies of an operating system used by
98% of the computers in the country does not, prima facie,
constitute a monopoly, I don't know what does. Imagine that
Microsoft owned the rights to the internal combustion engine. Much
as with their Windows operating system, they could control most of
the peripherals: radios, CD players, tape players, and GPS systems,
for example, that General Motors, Chrysler, Ford, Honda, etc. could
put into their vehicles. A better analogy might be...suppose
Microsoft, owning the rights to the internal combustion engine,
decide to engineer their engine so that only the gasoline refined by
their own oil company worked well in that engine. What would happen
to the other oil companies? They'd be kaput! That's just about what
Microsoft is doing. Microsoft is basically anti-competitive, and it
is the public who suffers.
Myles MacVane
13 Lyons Plain Rd.
Weston, CT 06881-0816
[email protected]
[[Page 27672]]
MTC-00025676
From: Rich Wendling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Finally! I wanted to let it be known that it's a good thing you
are finally settling this case. The DOJ has more important things to
do than to pursue this matter. Thank you.
MTC-00025677
From: Gerard Jeronowitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am ashamed that the U.S. Government is actually considering
this settlement with Microsoft. The settlement as proposed will not
accomplish the goal of alleviating Microsoft's strangle hold on the
computer retailers and industry at large. Remedy by agreement has
not worked with Microsoft in the past, and no-one has gone back to
actually follow up with, or enforce previous settlements with the
company allowing those agreements to be ignored at will.
Microsoft is a predatory monopoly that stifles any real
competition by either purchasing the competition, or eliminating a
market by providing a free product and bundling it with their
operating system, then forcing retailers to install that software as
a default. Microsoft has repeatedly attempted to stall any legal
proceedings by any means necessary, attempted to mis-lead the courts
with falsified or manufactured testimony, and shows nothing but
contempt for the process of law.
I do hope that the court will see through this travesty of a
settlement and provide substantive, meaningful, and long term
remedy. My suggestion is to break the company in to four smaller
entities: Internet (MSN, Explorer, IIS), Media and Entertainment
(games, XBox, Windows Media Player), Applications and Operating
systems (MS Office, Windows) and lastly, Hardware (keyboards, mice,
PocketPC). This mix, though likely seen as drastic by many, would
minimize the ability of one company to gain advantage from the work
of another and provide for an environment of open, honest
competition in the spirit of Capitalism and the open market system.
Action such as this is necessary if TRUE innovation and
competition is to continue in the future. Thank you for your time.
Gerard Jeronowitz
3041 N Sawyer
Mesa, AZ 85201
MTC-00025678
From: Luke Lin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the Microsoft Settlement is a horrible plan. It allows
Microsoft to overtake the only area they currently do not
dominate--education.
Luke Lin
MTC-00025679
From: Donald Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:03am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I feel very strongly that Microsoft has been unjustly accused
and persecuted in the matter of their alleged monoply of computer
operating and applications systems. I think it is time to put a halt
to this action and proceed with what seems to me to be a very fair
settlement.
I don't believe that tough competition should be discouraged in
order to protect others from their inability to compete. I believe
to do so deprives everyone from using the fruits of that
competition. If Microsoft is the one that survives, then so be it. I
agree that they should not use predatory and unfair means to achieve
their position but as I followed the court actions, it seemed to me
that it was not proved that they followed illegal practices.
I strongly urge you to accept the proposed settlement forwith.
Donald Fox
105 Via Eldorado
Warner Robins, GA 31088
MTC-00025680
From: Avi Rappoport
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
I object to the proposed Microsoft Settlement, the Proposed
Final Judgement. I have been personally injured by Microsoft's
monopoly practices, both when I worked for a Macintosh OS software
developer, and when I worked for a web server developer. In the
latter case, Microsoft included a free web server in Windows NT,
which made our cross-platform server software entirely uneconomic.
There was simply no longer a market for server software, which
destroyed the server division of of my employer, Quarterdeck.
As a consumer and small businessperson, I have been hurt by a
lack of choice in operating systems and office automation
applications. I had to buy a Windows machine to run certain
programs, although I prefer to use the Macintosh OS. I know
Microsoft Word, Excel and PowerPoint very well, and would not use
them if I had a choice. However, to share files with my consulting
clients, I am required to pay for these applications.
I believe that any settlement with Microsoft should have the
following characteristics:
--It should reduce barriers to development of applications,
especially those which compete with Microsoft products.
--It should require Microsoft to publish all secret APIs used
by Microsoft inhouse and close partner developers.
--It should require Microsoft to disclose all patents
protecting Windows APIs to avoid inadvertent infringements.
--It should allow users to replace Microsoft.NET with competing
middleware.
--It should apply to all flavors of Windows which use the Win32
and associated APIs.
--It should require advance notice and documentation of
technical requirements and changes to the middleware.
--It should require complete and current documentation of
Microsoft Office file formats, and infrequent changes to these
formats.
--It should remove any restrictions on Open Source software.
--It should remove any restrictions on Microsoft software on
competing Operating Systems.
--It should punish intentional incompatibilities, as Microsoft
has used in the past to keep software from running on other
Operating systems.
--It should restrict Microsoft from punishing any OEM,
especially smaller companies, that do not want to license Windows
for all their systems.
--It should disallow discounts based on sales of other
products.
--It should have a strong and automatic enforcement mechanism,
with some kind of heavy fines or damages for each infringement.
The Proposed Final Judgement fails in all these aspects,
allowing Microsoft to leverage its monopoly in operating systems to
other aspects of technology and reducing the free market of ideas. I
urge you to consider the issues above in creating a fair settlement
that is in the public interest.
Thank you,
Avi Rappoport
MTC-00025681
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:00am
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,
Lois Pearson
E. 11114 48th Ave. Spokane, WA 99206
MTC-00025682
From: howard(a)tayler.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the proposed settlement is a bad idea. It will not
prevent illegal monopolistic
[[Page 27673]]
behavior in the future, and will actually strengthen Microsoft's
desktop monopoly, giving them MORE power to illegally exploit that
desktop to soak consumers.
Howard Tayler
Orem, UT
MTC-00025683
From: Steve Corwin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Throughout this case there's been a lot of talk about
Microsoft's freedom to innovate, but what about my freedom to
innovate? I'm a profesional software developer with over 10 years
experience. Suppose I come up with an idea for a new piece of
software, something that most anyone can use. Suppose I start a
company to sell it. Under the terms of this agreement, Microsoft is
free to release a competing product for free & put me out of
business, just like they did to Netscape. Microsoft has almost $38
billion in the bank to fund their efforts. I need venture capital.
What venture capitalist will fund me? They know what happened to
Netscape. They know what happened to IBM's OS/2. They figure they
know what will happen to me. What about my freedom to innovate?
Steve Corwin
[email protected]
MTC-00025684
From: Maryln Pedgrift
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:05am
Subject: Litigation
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I wish to express my opinion regarding the Microsoft settlement
that I thought was resolved in November. I wish to support this
settlement in supporting Microsoft. Otherwise, no one will really
benefit if this suit continues. Microsoft is a fair company and has
agreed to respect other companies in which is fair and lawful. This
company has benefited so many people and consumers will be hurt by a
continuing litigation. It has agreed to comply with disclosure for
use by its competitors and internal interfaces for the windows
operating systems.
Please support the settlement. Thank you so much.
Very truly yours,
Maryln Pedgrift
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025685
From: Edward W Goodwin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
It is high time that the legal actions taken against Microsoft
come to a final conclusion. I strongly support the Justice
Department in determining a quick and final solution to this law
suit. To continue the delay of a final settlement only enriches the
pockets of attorneys and a few special interest groups. This case
has gone on long enough. The Justice Department now has more
pressing issues to face in light of 9/11.
Sincerely,
Edward W. Goodwin
Greenville, SC
MTC-00025686
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I want to give my support to settlement of the antitrust
settlement between Microsoft, the DOJ, and nine states. To let the
greedy states and Microsoft competitors seek to persist in their
efforts to prolong this case is plain wrong.
In December of last year I bought a new Dell Computer. WindowsXP
and Office 2000 are marvelous. Microsoft is a great company with
great products. If competitors developed new products and managed as
well as Microsoft they could earn money through their product sales
insted of suing Microsoft.
Stanley D. Fuqua
5708 92nd Ave. S. E.
Mercer Island, Wa
98040
MTC-00025687
From: Elaine C. Martinez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
Please accept the settlement so that Microsoft can get on with
the business of serving the people of this country. It is my opinion
that Microsoft should never have been singled out and persecuted as
it has been in recent times. I love Microsoft products, and I think
Mr. Gates is wonderful for giving people such great software at
affordable prices.
The ideas put forth by Microsoft are always geared toward
increasing productivity, and everyone should support them so we can
all have a better life.
I'm retired now, but I really enjoyed working with some of the
computers I used in my jobs as a secretary. I consistently found
that the computers I liked were all ``loaded'' with
Microsoft products! I hope the courts get finished with Microsoft so
that Mr. Gates and his company can get back to business.
Sincerely,
Elaine C. Martinez
Seattle, Washington
MTC-00025688
From: patrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:14am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Hello
Please expedite this extravagant attorney parade to its
inevitable conclusion ASAP.
Do you guys think for one moment our real competitors, the
Japanese, the Chinese, the Europeans, would waste any time trying to
destroy one of their most successful companies the way we let the
parasitic lawyers trash American firms like Microsoft?
Please stop wasting our time and money with this show. Microsoft
has helped the world become standardized and productiive.
Please go chase real criminals, like the international drug
syndicates ruining our childrens opportunities to even use
Microsoft's products. Go chase the importers who are slowly
destroying American productive manufacturing jobs. Do somthing that
really helps the country, not just the attorneys. The
``Justice'' department just makes me angry.
Yours Truly,
Patrick J. Driscoll P.E.
MTC-00025689
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:13am
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,
Kathleen smith
9617 S. Bell
Chicago, IL 60643-1626
MTC-00025690
From: Harry Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Attorney General,
One of the most productive companies in the United States is
Microsoft. Due to its innovations in software, Microsoft has
contributed a good share in the growth of the U.S. and the world
economy. However, instead of rewarding for its contributions, it is
punished for being too big and monopolistic. In its quest for
growth, it may have hurt its competitors, but isn't that the way
business operates? In competition, there is always one winner and
many losers. But losers may improve and win the next time.
Microsoft has done its part to rectify the complaints against
it. It has proposed a solution that will be beneficial to schools
and the disadvantaged. It is a cost-effective solution, and it is
time to move on. Any additional litigation will only raise the cost
of software for everyone. In the end, who really pays? It is the
consumer. That is not the way to bring us out of recession.
Thank you for reading this e-mail.
Harry P. Lee
HI-IQ Products, Peizen Industries
P.O. Box 1198
Camarillo, CA 93011-1198
Ph: (805) 484-2454
Fax: (805) 383-5909
MTC-00025691
From: John Battick
[[Page 27674]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing to address the matter of the settlement in the
Microsoft Antitrust suit. I am in agreement with the current
settlement insofar as to say that no further action should be taken
against Microsoft. Although I am in favor of accepting the antitrust
settlement I believe that it was wrong from the start for Microsoft
to have been sued. I do not think that Microsoft should have been
penalized; rather, they should be rewarded for their innovation and
creativity in the IT field. As I see it, the entire antitrust
proceedings were unfounded and unfair to the concept of free
enterprise.
Now is definitely not the time to be handicapping an industry
leader such as Microsoft with costly and time-consuming litigation.
The current downturn in our economy needs the stimulation which the
IT field can generate. By tying up both corporate and taxpayer
dollars in the courtroom we are depriving the economy of valuable
resources, which could be used to help get our country back on
track. For these reasons I believe that accepting the current
settlement is not only in the best interest of Microsoft, but it
also in the greater interest of the economy as a whole.
Sincerely,
Nancy C. Battick
MTC-00025692
From: Daniel P. Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 25, 2002
Dear Ms. Hesse,
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. Well, adjudicated
monopolist, anyway.
This case should not end without a remedy that restores
competition. Any remedy should have four concurrent goals: to put an
end to the illegal monopoly; to prevent a return to anticompetitive
behavior; to deny the violator the benefits of its illegal actions;
and to ensure competition going forward.
Microsoft must be forced to offer a version of Windows
unburdened by Microsoft's monopolistic add-ons. The free market, and
not Microsoft, must be the mechanism by which emergent technologies
are judged. Microsoft must be permanently banned from forcing
independent software vendors and internet service providers into
exclusive contracts with Microsoft. Allowing a monopolist to
withhold platform support from nascent and independent entrepreneurs
is antithetical to the functioning of a free market, and strangles,
rather than supports, real competition. The appointment of a Special
Master overseeing Microsoft compliance must be a part of any
settlement. The seed which became the ``second''
multimillion dollar effort to bring Microsoft into compliance with
the law was planted with Microsoft's blatant and arrogant disregard
of an earlier toothless compliance decree from the government. This
remedy will meet the same expensive end if it is not accompanied by
adequate enforcement.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minn.
MTC-00025693
From: ewaldfernbach@ compuserve.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotally , my name is Ewald Fernbach,
I am working as IT manager for Vector Labs, 30 Ingold Rd.,
Burlingame, CA, 94087.
Regarding the proposed settlement for the antitrust lawsuit
against Microsoft I have the following concerns: The settlement
fails to terminate the Microsoft monopoly, and instead guarantees
Microsoft's monopoly will survive and be allowed to expand into new
markets. All monopolies must be carefully watched to make sure they
don't abuse their monopoly position. Indeed, many monopolies are
either broken up or carefully regulated in order to protect the
public interest. Why is Microsoft allowed a waiver to this general
rule? Does the Justice Department think that Microsoft is going to
suddenly change its operating methodology? The proposed deal with
the justice department does not address the fact that Microsoft has
abused its monopoly and is likely to do so again, and again, and
again in the future to the detriment of others.
The proposed settlement does not address Microsoft's proven
ability to retaliate against would-be competitors and to, in effect,
appropriate the intellectual property of its competitors--and
even its partners--in fact all who do business with Microsoft.
The Appeals court found such past conduct by Microsoft highly
egregious yet the Agreement does not address these issues. Again,
many of us have been on the receiving end of these types of
Microsoft bullying tactics. Bolting. The proposed settlement, as far
as I understand it, does not address the issue 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 in future versions to bolt financial services,
cable television, or the Internet itself into Windows.
Non MS standards. The Court of Appeals affirmed that Microsoft
had unlawfully and intentionally deceived Java developers and
``polluted'' the Java standard in order to protect its
monopoly and defeat competition. Yet, the proposed settlement does
not restrict Microsoft's ability to modify, alter or refuse to
support computer industry standards, including Java, or to engage in
campaigns to deceive developers of rival platforms, middleware or
applications software. Indeed, Microsoft's decision not to
distribute Java technologies with Windows XP, which hurts developers
and consumers alike, will be the shape of things to come under the
proposed deal unless the Court requires Microsoft to continue to
support accepted industry standards such as Java technologies, even
if they do not originate from Microsoft.
Middleware. As part of the proposed settlement, Microsoft is
required to allow the PC manufacturers to hide Microsoft middleware
programs and allow them to install icons or links to competing
middleware programs. The only problem is that the PC manufacturers
are not allowed to remove the code that could be used to reactivate
Microsoft's middleware programs. In other words, two weeks into
owning the machine, a consumer could be asked if they want to
reconfigure their desktop, install all the Microsoft middleware and
delete all the competitor's middleware, which many users would
undoubtedly do, without really knowing what they are doing. If they
then would find out that the reinstalled Microsoft product is
inferior to the competitors product, they would not have an easy way
to fall back to the previous settings.
Communication Protocols. The settlement states that Microsoft
must now share information on how its middleware and server software
work together with Windows. However, Microsoft does not have to
disclose this information for middleware it does not distribute
separate from Windows, or for middleware it has not trademarked.
This leaves the door open for ``bolting'' discussed above.
If Microsoft wants to drive a competitor out of business, they just
attach the specific type of software the competitor is involved with
to their Windows platform. Once they do that, they do not have to
share the API's and other basic information that is needed by the
competitor to ensure its software works with Windows. And without
reliable access to 90% of the PC's in the world--no competitor
can survive. Once the competitor is out of business, Microsoft can
separate the software from the Windows package, sell it separately
and derive huge margins. In addition, Microsoft does not have to
disclose their information to companies that in ``their
view'' do not have a ``viable business'' (defined as
selling at least 1 million units in the previous year).
This loophole will allow Microsoft to hamper new software start-
ups from becoming true competitors simply if in Microsoft's
``view'' they are not a ``viable business''. Who
can really say which new start-up is a ``viable
business''? Certainly this should not be left to the judgment
of a voracious monopolist. Lastly, Microsoft does not have to
disclose this coding information if Microsoft deems such disclosure
would harm the company's security or software licensing. There is no
provision to say who is to make this determination, leaving it on a
defacto basis up to Microsoft Enforcement of Settlement Compliance.
The proposed settlement requires a three-man compliance team to
oversee Microsoft's compliance with
[[Page 27675]]
the Agreement. Microsoft will appoint one person, the Justice
Department another, and the third will be chosen by the two people
already appointed. In essence, Microsoft will control half the team.
This new team will not be allowed to inform the public of their
work, and cannot impose fines. In addition, the work of the
committee cannot be admitted into court in any enforcement
proceeding. The committee's sole remedy for infractions is for them
to inform the Justice Department of the infraction and then the
Justice Department will have to conduct their own research and
commence litigation to stop the infraction. The Justice Department
does not need a compliance group to tell them when Microsoft is
doing something wrong, so in reality this group is just a smoke
screen and will waste taxpayers money.
In conclusion I think that the proposed settlement has nothing
to do with justice but represents the capitulation of the judicial
system of the USA. The message this settlement sends is: ``you
can get away with anything if you have enough money in your
corner''. This is a very dangerous and discouraging message for
corporations as well as for individuals and will definitely add to
the already significant corrosion of the publics trust in their
country's judicial system.
To me it looks like with the proposed settlement the Justice
Department is trying to pretend that justice has been served,
whereas in reality Microsoft was able to put itself above the law.
As citizen of this country and as computer user I urge you to do
everything to prevent Microsoft from continuing its detrimental
business practices. I strongly oppose to accepting the proposed
settlement in the form discussed above and I suggest a thorough
revision of the whole case.
Best Regards
Ewald Fernbach
MTC-00025694
From: Jack Sperry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
15706 SE 173rd Street
Renton, WA 98058-9106
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing to address the recent settlement between Microsoft
and the Department of Justice. I am more than happy with this
agreement and think it should stand. Any further litigation will be
counter-productive and hamper any chance of revitalizing our
economy. I did not support the initial lawsuit. There was no
consumer abuse. I use Microsoft products because they are quality
products at a reasonable price. What's the problem? If there were
other products out there of equal quality and equal price, I would
use those, but there aren't. Microsoft's competitors have had the
same chances as Microsoft. They just have not been able to perform
as well. Hence, they run to the government for a leg up.
I am also concerned with the intervention of government in what
is supposedly our free market system. Government is taking the
intellectual property of a company, and forcing same to disburse it
among its competitors. Why should anyone bother to invent something
any more if they know it will be subject to delineation among their
competitors if they are ``too successful''? Would you?
Microsoft has agreed to this principle in that it has agreed to
disclose for use by its competitors various interfaces that are
internal to Windows'' operating system products; Microsoft has
also agreed to help companies write software that networks well with
their own. Enough is enough. I urge you to give your support to this
agreement and allow Microsoft, and this country, to get back to
business.
Sincerely,
Jack C. Sperry
MTC-00025696
From: Brent Pickert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I would like to make my voice heard in the Microsoft Antitrust
settlement.
I do not believe that the current settlement will discourage
Microsoft in any way from continuing the practices that have led to
the trial. I believe that whatever settlement is finally approved
needs to make certain that not only is Microsoft punished for their
years of law breaking, but also that the settlement puts into place
avenues for competitors to make inroads that will add competition to
the market. Thank you for your time, Brent Pickert
MTC-00025697
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:26am
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,
JOYCE GOETZ
32128 CANYON CREST CT.
WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91361
MTC-00025698
From: Florian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:28am
MTC-00025699
From: Harry P Gallagher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:28am
Subject: leave Microsoft alone.
without them there would be no computer industry. I started out
twelve years ago with an apple 2C and progressed to a PC. Microsoft
made it possible for the unsophisticated operator to learn to
operate a computer. Without windows there would have been no
computer industry like it is today. They built a better mousetrap
and the world beat a path to their door. It created a huge industry
which benefited the federal government with more tax income due to
the many companies that sold computers. Stay off their back and be
glad they are in business.
H.P. Gallagher
4738 Collinos Way,
Oceanside, CA 92056
MTC-00025700
From: AL OIEN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:29am
Subject: DESTRUCTION OF LIBERTY IN AMERICA
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO COMPETE IN THE MARKETPLACE THESE DAYS,
WHINE TO THE GOVERNMENT AND THEY WILL REWARD YOU BY FORCING YOUR
COMPETITION OUT OF BUSINESS. ANOTHER TRIUMPH OF THE MOTHERS OF
AMERICA.
al
MTC-00025701
From: grouch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The ``Proposed Final Judgement'' in the case of
``Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)'' appears to be
another recipe for failure in a long line of such failures by the
Department of Justice with regards to Microsoft. It appears to have
no strength with which to interrupt the predatory practices of which
Microsoft has been found guilty. It appears to have no ability to
restore competition in a market which has been devastated by the
illegal leveraging of monopoly power for which Microsoft has been
found guilty. It appears completely inadequate to anticipate the
future moves Microsoft may make to continue illegally leveraging
their existing and expanding monopoly powers.
The provisions of the Proposed Final Judgement appear on the
surface to be adequate. However, there are so many exceptions and
phrases of ``nothing ... shall prohibit'' that the
settlement is rendered little more than a catalog of past behaviors
that the Department of Justice meekly requests that Microsoft not
repeat, if it's not too inconvenient for Microsoft. One provision
goes so far as to give Microsoft an easy way to circumvent all of
the provisions regarding APIs; they only have to tie those APIs
somehow to security measures and claim revealing those APIs would
compromise security. It should be remembered how
[[Page 27676]]
Microsoft claimed their browser was a necessary and integral part of
the operating system. Even the definitions are inadequate for they
allow much leeway for Microsoft to continue expanding their monopoly
into other marketing areas.
The Proposed Final Judgement does little to address the
applications barrier to entry. Every provision that prohibits
retaliation by Microsoft against OEMs, ISVs, or IHVs, includes
loopholes concerning security or intellectual property rights which
allow Microsoft an easy side-stepping of the prohibitions.
Additionally, nothing is done about the network effects of Microsoft
products in creating the barriers to competitors. The data formats
of all Microsoft software will continue to be a fearsome weapon
preventing the use of any competing product. So long as Microsoft is
allowed to hold data hostage to its file formats, the monopoly power
is assured and can be leveraged to extend that monopoly in other
areas. No competitor may make inroads on a network on which
Microsoft has established its lock on the customers data. Once
again, while the Department of Justice picks nits with the past,
Microsoft has moved on to other ways of ensuring monopolistic power
over computer users. The findings of fact showed how Microsoft
effectively eliminated the threat to its monopoly from middleware
products. The proposed final judgement does nothing to remedy this,
and in fact section III.H. has two exceptions that handily provide
the means for Microsoft to extend its monopoly into the server
market with ActiveX ties between Microsoft middleware and Microsoft
servers. As for Sun's Java, Microsoft is well underway to using its
current monopoly powers to supplant Java with .NET and C#, again
outpacing the Department of Justice as it has repeatedly in the
past.
I do not pretend to know the protocols and fine points of the
legal profession, but it looks like the criminal in this case gets
off without paying for the crime and gets to define much of the
contraints, or lack thereof, placed on the criminal's future
actions. I see no punishment, no restitution, no barrier to
Microsoft continuing to harm customers, competitors, and the
computing industry in general in this proposed final judgement.
Terry Vessels
MTC-00025702
From: Larry Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:33am
Subject: Microsoft case comments
I don't believe the current penalties against Microsoft do
justice to them for their wrongdoings or for us, as consumers who
are seeing as they settle this case they are manipulating the
hardware/software industry on other fronts which most likely will
lead to more cases against their practices.
The breakup of Microsoft was in my opinion more just as it would
unleverage the company from multiple in-house assaults on various
markets from its serveral fronts (operating systems, applications,
internet, and development tools). The Education idea as mentioned is
only a benefit to microsoft in the long run rather than a
punishment. I don't think it is fair to tell a compnay to do create
something for or support a platform it does not have
interest--but if one holds a monopoly, they should be
responsible for keeping the playing field stable and open for
competition--Microsoft needs to offer inroads for new
technologies (publish standard interfacing detail to key operating
system and performance features) to make a product that can work
with others (and that will still work with others for a significant
period of time) or that others can be data compatible with
microsoft's without the threat of them just changing the rules and
dargging all the hapless comsumers along with them thus leaving
everyone else incompatible again. When you have an 80%+ stake in a
broad but key technology (the OS) and with the right marketing you
know you can get that 80% to purchase any upgrade in two years (i.e.
offer corporate/government/educational discounts on newer but
slightly incompatible technology, which forces the need for lower
level businesses, local government and consumners to upgrade to also
be compatible with the higher levels,) whether they really needed to
or not.
I think Microsoft has a need to innovate but also live up to its
(and its competitor's) promise of ``standard'' so others
can use microsoft's ``standard'' to build from without
having it turn into the ``old standard'' my MS too soon.
If Microsoft continues to ``business as usual'' it will
keep costing the conumers: corporate, government, public and private
in upgrades and constant re-invention of our technologies and while
we keep paying MS for their un-fair practices.
Larry Anderson
San Andreas, CA
(209) 754-1262
MTC-00025703
From: crb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case is
deeply flawed and will only allow Microsoft to continue its
predatory tactics in one form or another. I've spent years trying to
circumvent Microsoft's control over my personal computer--for
instance, I had to spend many hours figuring out why Netscape
Navigator wasn't downloaded when I installed my Mac OS. Finally
figured out that Netscape Navigator WAS on the disk, but that I had
to install it manually (it was obvious that NN was meant to be
hidden from the average user).
Microsoft has harmed personal computer users like me who want
alternatives to Microsoft products. I am a fervent user of Apple
computers, and I want real choice in the marketplace. If Microsoft
is allowed to evade any meaningful sanctions, it will just extend
its monopoly power indefinitely. Please punish and constrain
Microsoft in some real fashion.
Thank you.
Colette Brooks
MTC-00025704
From: Andrew Stewart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:35am
Subject: I do not agree
This just a light slap on the wrists to Microsoft. Regardless of
the alleged importance to the computer industry. Microsoft should be
made to understand that you can not just break the law and bully
competitors.
>>>>>Andrew Stewart<<<<<<
MTC-00025705
From: Bob McKenna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please see my attached letter requesting an end to the
government prosecution of Microsoft in the interest of American
consumers and investors.
Bob McKenna
email address: [email protected]
Phone: (713) 690-6996
2734 Bernadette Ln.
Houston, TX 77043-1801
MTC-00025705-0001
Robert G. McKenna
2734 Berrnadette Lane
Houston, TX 77043-1801
Januarry 25, 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 request that the government
conclude and settle the case against Microsoft. After three years of
litigation, too much time and money has been spent in negotiating
this case. The investing public has suffered significant losses, as
the government has drug Microsoft through the legal system.
Continuing this litigation process would serve only to decrease
important federal resources and further impact consumers and
investors. Microsoft has not gotten off easy in this settlement
agreement. The settlement that was reached may not satisfy everyone,
but it is in the best interest of all to enact it quickly.
The terms of the settlement agreement are very fair in that they
provide for many compromises on behalf of Microsoft. Microsoft has
agreed to license Windows at the same rate to the largest PC
manufacturers. In addition to this, Microsoft will also disclose all
of the information regarding the internal interface and protocols of
the Windows system. This allows developers to develop new software
and hardware that is increasingly compatible with the Windows
system. Moreover the formation of a technical review board will
provide for the oversight of Microsoft's further action. This
technical board will prevent Microsoft from entering into any
anticompetitive behavior. Hence, I believe that the terms of the
settlement are fair, further enacting the settlement will benefit
the technology industries. Enacting this settlement will help
restore confidence in the suffering technology industry. Given the
current state of the economy, this is the best course for the
Department of Justice.
Sincerely,
Robert G. McKenna
Robert McKenna
[[Page 27677]]
MTC-00025705-0002
MTC-00025706
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
David Taylor
3120 E. Westcott
Visalia, CA 93292
MTC-00025707
From: TMM
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern,
Please make sure that Microsoft pays the the highest penalty
possible for the damage they have done to people by trying to
monopolize the computer software industry. Also don't let them make
unfair inroads against Apple computer in the education market by
``dumping'' PCs on schools, let Microsoft make cash
donations instead!
Thank you,
Tom McGrath
1323 Princeton St.
Santa Monica, CA 90404
MTC-00025708
From: JC
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As an American citizen and an avid computer user I'd like to
send my voice in regards to the Microsoft Vs DOJ Settlement.
We all know that Microsoft has abused its monopoly power to harm
competitiors and consumers. Judge Jackson & The Appeals Court
have told us that. That's not in dispute here. It's what we need to
do to prevent further abuse of power by Microsoft that we need to
resolve.
What Mr. James and DOJ agreed to in the settlement is nothing
but a ``slap in the wrist''. It does not open up
competition, it leaves OEMs handcuffed and does not affect
Microsoft's behavior in any way. What it does do is legalizes some
of the business practices that Microsoft has been thought to be
doing illegally.
Microsoft attacks competitors on several fronts. To kill off
Netscape and RealPlayer they simply bundle their own competing
products in Windows and stops OEM from bundling competing products.
They refuse to offer a version of Windows without their own
``middleware'' programs. They use a different method to
kill of competing Operating Systems. First they prevent OEMs from
setting up dual-boot systems. Thus that effectively eliminated OS/2
and BeOs out of the market. Those two products were far superior to
Windows but Microsoft flexed its antitrust muscle to knock them out.
What does Mr. James offer as a solution to this problem? He
forces Microsoft to normalize Windows license prices. But the
loophole is that Microsoft can punish OEMs by inflating the cost of
Microsoft Office licenses or can simply refust to licese Windows. So
that remedy has no effect. Next he opened up OEMs to bundling
competing middleware applications. But Microsoft will not have offer
a version of Windows without the apps bundled. I guess that's enough
of all this explanation, I'm sure you've heard everything already.
As a computer user who has followed this case very carefully from
the start and know all the ins and outs, I know this
``deal'' is a raw-deal for the consumers and competitors.
Remember the DOJ has won this case in trial, there is really no
reason to settle for a slap in the writst now. You could've done
that years ago.
Why waste the effort that was put into the case? Just my 10
cents.
MTC-00025709
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I believe 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.
This 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. Consumer interests have been well
served, and the time to end this costly and damaging litigation has
come.
Dragging out this legal battle further will only benefit a few
wealthy competitors, lawyers, and special interest bigwigs. Not one
new product that helps consumers will be brought to the marketplace.
Sincerely,
Bohdan (Don) Tuziw
3108 Coffey Ave
Bellevue NE 68123-1331
PH: 402-291-7177
e-mail: [email protected]
MTC-00025710
From: Olivia Stalter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:39am
Subject: microsoft settlement Letter sent. Olivia Stalter
[email protected]
MTC-00025711
From: Clifford R. Earle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear US Department of Justice and States Attorneys General: I
must say, after following Microsoft in the press for the last few
years, and the antitrust action specifically, that the proposed
settlement in this case seems to do be a poor solution. The reasons
are various, ranging from the settlement's poor definition of
``covered OEM''; to the too-limited 14-day protection of
an OEM's desktop configuration; to the exceptions for invocation of
Microsoft Middleware; to impossible conditions for membership in the
Technical Committee; to the appointment of an *internal* (?!)
Microsoft compliance officer; to the impractical limitation of a
one-time only extension of the final judgement; to a confusing and
contradictory definitions of Microsoft Middleware, Platform
Software, and Windows Operating System Product; to a limiting and
back-looking definition of personal computer; to the lack of any
language whatsoever that prevents the whole agreement from being
rendered null and void if only part of it is--all of which are
avoidable or even exploitable by a company which seems to know
little, if any, shame.
Please do not allow such a flawed resolution to a solid case.
Best regards,
Clifford R. Earle
Sunland, CA
(California, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia were
excluded from the cc line only due to their regretable use of on-
line feedback forms rather than e-mail addresses.)
CC:[email protected].
us@inetgw,[email protected]...
MTC-00025712
From: cgmccurdy@aol. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:39am
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,
Cynthia McCurdy
[[Page 27678]]
920 Brookwood Dr.
New Albanyh, IN 47150
MTC-00025713
From: Robin Harding
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:42am
Subject: Fw: MSFT Settelment.
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 2:38 PM
To: [email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: MSFT Settelment.
Following is a letter I am sending to the attorney general in
support of MSFT case settlement. If you agree in settlement and
would like to forward, following is the Email address etc.
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 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 United States
Department of Justice's recent efforts to settle the Microsoft
antitrust lawsuit. This case really should not have been brought
against Microsoft. Microsoft's innovations have and continue to
contribute immensly to the productivity and economy of the United
States . Microsoft single-handedly through ``Window's Operating
System'' made computers accessible to the world.
Computers are now in virtually every household and bussness in
the country. Microsoft may have been aggressive in their business
dealings, but that is the way of the business world in a free-market
society. Aggressive business tactics are not necessarily the same as
antitrust violations. Despite my feeling that this case should not
have been filed, at this stage of the game I think the wise course
of action is to settle the case. The settlement agreement the
parties negotiated is fairly reasonable.
It will require Microsoft to refrain from retaliating against
computer manufacturers that install software other than Windows on
their computers. Along those same lines, it will require Microsoft
to not retaliate against software developers who develop programs
that compete with Windows. These concessions should help the
competition operate on a more level playing field.
I appreciate your efforts to settle this case.
Sincerely,
Roger CoxGet more from the Web.
MTC-00025714
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
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. Many have argued, and I believe,
that Microsoft was singled out by its jealous competitors and
sympathetic government bureaucrats because of its success and a
desire to see it punished.
I am aware 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. I strongly
believe 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. In my opinion it
appears that a few of Microsoft's competitors have continued their
aggressive lobbying campaign to undermine the settlement negotiated
with the federal government and nine states. 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. Consumer interests have been well served, and the
time to end this costly and damaging litigation has come. Dragging
out this legal battle further will only benefit a few wealthy
competitors, lawyers, and special interest big-wigs. Not one new
product that helps consumers will be brought to the marketplace.
Respectfully,
Perry L Phipps
1418 Virginia Ave
Severn, MD 21144-2632
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025715
From: Lois Cope
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:43am
Subject: AOL has surprised many of its former
``constituents''
Sirs:
I am very disappointed to learn that AOL has just filed another
lawsuit against Microsoft. It has gotten to the level of
``silly'', jealous behavior. As it happens, I was one of
AOL's first customers I think in the early eighties, when I was
using an Apple II in business. Steve Case is a native of Hawaii and
I've been very proud of him as a former classmate of one of my
daughters.
When the company needed money and offered ``deals'' if
people would advance them funding, I personally did so. Eventually,
however, I dumped the Apples and went to the Microsoft equipment
because it was more reliable as well as for many other reasons. I
eventually have ``dumped'' aol but use another of their
products, Roadrunner, the broadband part of the business as do all
the power users I know. To see them turn on Microsoft, which lent
them I think $150,000,000 a few years ago when they needed it is
really shocking. There is no reason all the software equipment
cannot be used together if desired.
I see no reason to give into them now, when the very reasonable
settlement has been reached. It is a frivolous lawsuit which appears
to have been brought by losers.
Thank you for listening and good luck in your endeavors.
Aloha,
Lois P. Cope
808 488-9413
MTC-00025716
From: Marjoroie Dale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:44am
Subject: letter to Ashcroft
Letter has been sent on Microsoft's behalf. Hope it helps!
Marjorie Dale
MTC-00025717
From: mom2000
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen,
In my humble opinion, it seems Microsoft's competitors are doing
everything they can to leverage the Justice Department to do what
they could not do in a free market (increase their market share on
their on merits). If we the consumers (the market place) did not
prefer Microsoft's products over its competitors; and it does have
competitors, they would not be the market leader they are today.
With that said, I admonish, that the penalties not penalize
Microsoft for its market share, but, only for those areas of
liability it should bear for any illegal or proven unfair business
practices.
Thank you for all consideration.
MKTG. OPTY=$$$
Marketing Opportunities=Money!
Michael Larkin, IT Executive
1331b Crique Way
Roswell, Ga. 30076-5232
770 641-6591
MTC-00025718
From: Glen Richardson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I fully support the proposed settlement between Microsoft and
the DOJ. Let's end this now.
Glen Richardson
Fort Worth, Texas
MTC-00025719
From: Myroslawa Tuziw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I believe that the proposed settlement offers a reasonable
compromise that will enhance the ability of seniors and all
[[Page 27679]]
Americans to access the Internet and use innovative software
products to make their computer experience easier and more
enjoyable.
This 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. Consumer interests have been well
served, and the time to end this costly and damaging litigation has
come.
Dragging out this legal battle further will only benefit a few
wealthy competitors, lawyers, and special interest bigwigs. Not one
new product that helps consumers will be brought to the marketplace.
Sincerely,
Myroslawa (Myra) Tuziw
3108 Coffey Ave
Bellevue NE 68123-1331
PH: 402-291-7177
e-mail: [email protected]
MTC-00025720
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam
I find it absurd that Microsoft should be permitted to provide
to public institutions their operating system and other software as
well as hardware that is specific to running their operating system
in lieu of a pure cash settlement. Accepting this settlement offer
only strengthens Microsoft's monopolistic position and paves the way
for further abuses within an environment in which they are not
historically strong (i.e. schools). In the long run this will stifle
innovation and contribute to a lack of diversity of computer
operating systems and hardware. This in turn will make the computing
infrastructure more vulnerable to cyber attack and the damage such
an attack would produce would be more severe. I urge you to resist
the proposed settlement and make the settlement for their illegal
activities a true and just settlement which will undo some of the
harm Microsoft has inflicted on the computer industry and on
consumers. Do not be taken in by this transparent attempt by
Microsoft to turn their defeat into their victory.
Sincerely
Robert Price
Research Scientist
MTC-00025721
From: Mike Ryan
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/26/02 1:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ
I urge you to settle the case with Microsoft. The consumer was
not hurt by their market dominance. I was actually helped.
As an engineer at a company of 850, when computers first came to
the office only the lucky few who had bosses that liked computers
could get all of the software they wanted since each item was sold
separately and you had to justify each one. And what a mess it was.
Some were using non-compatible programs and not all of us had that
great boss and could only get minimal software. Then Microsoft
started bundling all of the great programs together and the price
came way down. Not only that, we all were given ``Office''
and everyone had compatible programs and everyone had all of the
great applications not just the privileged few. So please tell me
how did that hurt me. And this browser question, what a bunch of BS.
I used Netscape for a long time. Everybody had that option. Anybody
with a computer could down load it from their web site. But after a
while it just did not have as many features as MS offered. So I
switched to the better program. So how did I get hurt? I didn't.
Look at Apple, they have a great computer but they always built it
themselves and charged too much for both hardware and software. They
did not allow clones, which by the way produced the great computer
revolution we know today. So I bought a lower cost computer with
lower cost software. So how did I as a consumer get hurt? I didn't.
Please settle the case with Microsoft and let them continue to
produce great software for the consumer at a great value.
Mike Ryan
Bellevue WA
425 641-6920
MTC-00025722
From: Clay C.Landis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Any company with this much contempt for the laws of our nation
should been taught a lesson. Microsoft's monopoly has hurt the
development of computing and created an atmosphere where smaller
developers simply give up on projects instead of trying to compete
with a company willing to do whatever it takes to beat them for no
other reason than to beat them. Microsoft produces products that are
full of programming errors and poor security that has cost many
companies, schools and government offices millions if not billions
of dollars. They are not an asset to this country, they are a
cancer. And no settlement that adds to Microsoft's monopoly should
be considered.
Clay C. Landis
MTC-00025723
From: Tim Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am vehemently opposed to the current proposed Microsoft
settlement. I believe it is nothing more than a slap on the wrists,
and that it does nothing to curb or even dissuade Microsoft from
future abuses of its monopoly powers. Microsoft has already
repositioned itself so that if the current proposal is left
unaltered, they will have already slipped themselves through its
monstrous loopholes!
Anything short of a breakup of the type ATT experienced will not
bring sufficient competition back to the market. As long as
Microsoft has the dominant share of the market, they will continue
their illegal abuse of monopolistic power.
Thank you for listening.
Sincerely,
Timothy W. Lewis
MTC-00025724
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:56am
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,
Joy. Holt
2210 S. 50th St.
Kansas City, KS 66106
MTC-00025725
From: Marcia M Clarke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:00am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I would like to express my view point regarding Microsoft. I
feel consumer interest has been well served and it is time to end
this damaging and costly litigation against Microsoft. Please accept
the proposed settlement as fair and in consumer's best interest.
Feel the settlement will have a very positive impact on the American
Economy which is so greatly needed at this time.
Thank you.
Marcia Clarke
MTC-00025726
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing in order to express my opinion regarding the three-
year-long antitrust suit involving the Department of Justice and
Microsoft. I do not feel that the suit should have been brought in
the first place, but since it was I now feel that it is time for it
to come to a close. Microsoft has done their part to bring this
matter to a close. They have agreed to terms and conditions that
were not even in the original suit.
Every company has a right to explore opportunities and every
company's goal is to
[[Page 27680]]
dominate their marketplace. Microsoft did that. Their competition is
angry that they have been left behind. Yes, Windows is the dominant
operating system. Due to many factors, including the fact that
Microsoft developed relationships and contracts with hardware
manufactures and other companies to bundle products. This is common
practice in a competitive market. There are other products on the
market from which consumers may choose. Consumers choose not to
alter the operating system that came with their computer, but they
may if they wish.
Microsoft dominates the market because they have the best
product for the money. If it were not for Microsoft, I do not
believe I would be writing this to you on a computer smaller than
the size of my father's first adding machine.
In my mind this suit was unnecessary and unwarranted in the
first place. Now I feel the Department of Justice needs to support
the settlement and bring a close to all further litigations.
Microsoft has done more than what was necessary in this situation.
Sincerely,
Lyn Hiatt
8714 13th Ave. NW
Seattle, Wa 98117
MTC-00025727
From: noel vaneynde
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
Please note my dissatisfaction with the Proposed Microsoft
Settlement. I have been an active Macintosh user for over 10 years
and the actions that Microsoft has taken to limit access to their
systems and their barrier to entry into competitive operating
systems has caused me and my business great trouble over the years.
The settlement in it's current form will only succeed in
strengthening Microsoft's hold on the educational markets and make
the current problems worse.
I would be willing to discuss these matters further with you at
your request.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Noel VanEynde
Afterimages Film & Video
W: 312-661-1122
MTC-00025728
From: Alice Schafer(MITRE)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement-Not tightly drawn!
I think that the Microsoft Settlement leave too many loopholes
for MS to use. Do not go through with it!
Sincerely,
Alice Schafer
11 Flagg Rd.
Acton, Mass 01720
MTC-00025729
From: Guy Groner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
I am a Certified Internal Auditor (CIA), Certified Information
Systems (CISA) and CISSP, a member of the Institute of Internal
Auditors, the Information System Audit and Control Association and
Information Systems Security Association. I have 18 years''
experience is managing and auditing computer systems from
microcomputers to mainframe computer. I would like to comment on the
Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft. Under the
Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement.
I agree with the problems identified in Dan Kegel's analysis (on the
Web at HTTP://WWW.KEGEL.COM/REMEDY/REMEDY2.HTML), namely:
THE PFJ DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WINDOWS-COMPATIBLE COMPETING
OPERATING SYSTEMS
--Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by
using restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities.
Yet the PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this
part of the Applications Barrier to Entry.
THE PFJ CONTAINS MISLEADING AND OVERLY NARROW DEFINITIONS AND
PROVISIONS
--The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs,
but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important
APIs are not covered.
--The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft
Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines
``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version
of Windows might not be covered at all.
--The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a
competitor's product--but Microsoft is replacing Java with
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET
with competing middleware.
--The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it
defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-
Box--operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are
advertised as being ``Windows Powered''.
--The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and
not informing ISVs.
--The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to
ISVs so they can create compatible middleware--but only after
the deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is
compatible.
--The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API
documentation--but prohibits competitors from using this
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with
Windows.
--The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
--The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away
potential users.
THE PFJ FAILS TO PROHIBIT ANTICOMPETITIVE LICENSE TERMS
CURRENTLY USED BY MICROSOFT
--Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep
Open Source apps from running on Windows.
--Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
--Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system--even
for computers running competing operating systems such as Linux!
(Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 consent
decree.)
--The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities
Historically Used by Microsoft
--Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on
competing operating systems.
--The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards
OEMs
--The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that
ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but
no Microsoft operating system.
--The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small
OEMs--including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are
historically the most willing to install competing operating
systems--who ship competing software.
The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) to
OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC
systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on
Intel--compatible operating systems to increase its market
share in other areas.
THE PFJ AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN APPEARS TO LACK AN EFFECTIVE
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM.
I also agree with the conclusion reached by 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.
Additionally, in the the computer security field already have to
deal with the heightened risks associated with the numerous viruses
and ``hacks'' of Microsoft software due to their dominance
in the market. The risks of a monopoly are greater than merely the
loss of competition.
Sincerely,
Guy Groner, CIA, CISA, CISSP, Wheaton, Illinois
[[Page 27681]]
MTC-00025730
From: Daniel Voran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
I am sending this email to comment on the Microsoft Settlement
about the pending settlement between the United States Government,
several individual states and Microsoft Corp.
I find the settlement to be too lenient for Microsoft. The
settlement does not do nearly enough to control Microsoft's
monopoly. Microsoft is now trying to take control of the internet
through its .net initiatives. A more appropriate settlement would
have been to split Microsoft into three or four companies. The
proposed settlement is just a slap on the wrist for the company and
if it is approved, Microsoft will continue its monopolistic
practices to the detriment of the computer industry.
Daniel Voran
[email protected]
Avenue Services, Inc.
PO Box 23219
Seattle, WA 98102-4105
206-325-4250
MTC-00025731
From: ROBERT WARREN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:11am
Subject: DOJ--Microsoft
Dear DOJ,
Over the past 20 yrs one cannot help but see the Lawyer
Organization may mean well, but the road to hell is always paved
with half-truths. It's sad to see this stand-off has nothing to do
with the well being of the people. In a comical way, it appears our
States are employing a reverse Enron run. Please think of America's
future in your decision, we have enough economic stress.
Sincerily,
Bob Warren
Towaco NJ.
MTC-00025733
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:14am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Please finish negotiations and make a settlement soon. It is not
beneficial to the public or to seniors to drag this litigation on
any longer. The proposed settlement seems fair.
Thank you,
Megan Duffy
Breckenridge, CO 80424
MTC-00025734
From: Ray W Daugherty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Honorable Judges:
It is high time that this subject is laid to rest. In my opinion
it never should have been started in the first place and accepted by
the courts. I believe that the patent rights laws should have given
protection to Microsoft for what they developed in their own
laboratories. The drug companies have protection, why not Microsoft
too? Ford and or Chrysler cannot sue General Motors to have them
release the specific plans used to develop and produce the very
efficient Cadillac 32V Northstar engine, can they? So, how come a
competitor of Microsoft can do what they are trying to do?
The sniveling competitors that did not have the expertise to
develop the programs on their own should have not even been listened
to. They should even be charged for all the expense that Microsoft
has been shackled with to defend themselves.
If someone develops a better mousetrap, he is entitled to any
and all net proceeds that he can derive from it to compensate him
for his time, efforts and ingenuity in developing it. The same
principle should also protect Microsoft from undermining by unhappy
competitors. They are entitled to any and all profits for their
efforts! Enough said! I will be eagerly observing what happens with
this matter!
Ray W. Daugherty
[email protected]
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:21:20-0500
Subject: SENIORS COALTION URGENT ACTION ALERT Microsoft and big
government
Message-ID: <200201252221
[email protected]>
URGENT ACTION ALERT
Your immediate response is needed!
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. Many have argued that Microsoft
was singled out by its jealous competitors and sympathetic
government bureaucrats because of its success and a desire to see it
punished.
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. The Seniors Coalition 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.
Unfortunately, a few of Microsoft's competitors have continued
their aggressive lobbying campaign to undermine the settlement
negotiated with the federal government and nine states. 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.
You can offer your opinion to the Justice Department to counter
the self-serving and punitive lobbying effort of Microsoft's
competitors. Current law (known as the Tunney Act) allows public
comment on the proposed settlement up until January 28th. The U.S.
District Court will then decide whether the settlement is in the
``public interest.'' Please send your strong message to
the Justice Department that consumer interests have been well
served, and the time to end this costly and damaging litigation has
come.
Dragging out this legal battle further will only benefit a few
wealthy competitors, lawyers, and special interest big-wigs. Not one
new product that helps consumers will be brought to the marketplace.
YOUR VOICE IS VERY IMPORTANT AND TIME IS VERY SHORT.
Only comments received by January 28th will be included in the
public record and submitted to the Court for its consideration.
Consumers need to win this battle, so please send your comments
immediately to the Justice Department--either by email or by
fax--and do it before January 28th.
Don't let these special interests defeat the public interest.
Email: [email protected] . In the Subject line of the
e-mdash;mail,type ``Microsoft Settlement.''
Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or
1-202-616-9937
To find out more about the settlement and the Tunney Act comment
period, go to the Department of Justice Website at: http://
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms
--settle.htm
Raising your voice now on this issue really will have an impact.
Thank you for your time.
Mary M. Martin
Chairman and Executive Director
The Seniors Coalition
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025735
From: William Glover
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I disagree with the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ).
The judgement 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.
MTC-00025736
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement..
This is THE most obtrusive, ridiculous and annoying.. I do
subscribe to AOL, but that is short lived I am sure.........I am a
72 year old widow, and have owned a pc for 3 years....prior to that
I had never even sat in front of one... Clicked in to AOL, and I am
still there....It is easier because I know it......Well, guess
what.....not for long. I have the ability (and did) download the XP
from the ME, so I am not a real dummy. Our Mr. Gates is the why we
are here from the beginning......hats off to him...We owe him SO
much. For God's sake.....how about a little credit where a lot is
due. I cannot imagine that anyone has read, or will read this e
[[Page 27682]]
--mail, BUT....again, thanks that things ARE finally beginning
to ``Open UP''...i.e........ENRON/Anderson, etal.
I truly hope that this is just the beginning......Bill Gates/
Microsoft....NO problem...
(Yes, I am a shareholder--50 shares!!!). Barbara Ann
Wilcoxson
MTC-00025737
From: Charlotte
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your Honor,
I do not know how a company that has been found to be a
monopoly, and a vicious one at that, can be dismissed with a
settlement. I believe the behavior was criminal, and yet no criminal
remedies have been pursued. I do not see how monetary punishments
would bother this company, nor provide incentive to change.
Perhaps they could be required to use the money to buy and
distribute their competitors products well into the future. I
believe that would bother them far more, and maybe enough to change.
Sincerely,
Charlotte Davis
MTC-00025738
From: Ilya Sandler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:21 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It
has been converted to attachment.]
MTC-00025738-0001
Dear Sirs:
I am respectfully submitting the comments below in hope that the
settlement conditions would be strengthened to more efficiently
prevent Microsoft illegal behavior and encourage competition in
software industry.
I am a professional software engineer with a PhD degree in
Physics. I have worked with both Microsoft and non Microsoft
products. I am deeply concerned about destructive effect of
Microsoft on competition in software industry. (The company I am
working for is not in software industry and is not competing with
Microsoft)
Sincerely yours,
Ilya Sandler
[email protected]
III.A. Microsoft shall not retaliate against an OEM ... because
it is known to Microsoft that the OEM is or is contemplating:
1. 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;
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;
The requirement should be expanded to cover any Microsoft
business partners (not just OEMs). OEMs are not the only channel
through which Microsoft can illegally protect and expand its
monopoly. An example of non OEM partner would be America Online and
Apple: by threatening to withhold some critical services from these
companies Microsoft forced them to replace Netscape Navigator with
Internet Explorer as a default browser. In ``item 1'' the
phrase ``any Non Microsoft Middleware'' should be replaced
with ``Any Non Microsoft Software'' and ``competes
with Microsoft platform software'' should be replaced with
``competes with any Microsoft software''.
Microsoft should not be allowed to use its monopoly power to
interfere with Non-middleware non-platform competition. Item 2
should be expanded to include (c) will have no Microsoft operating
system installed (either will have an alternative operating system
or have no operating system at all, many computer users would prefer
to do installation themselves)
Obviously, without this addition Microsoft is free to retaliate
against anyone who ships a Linux only PC (or a PC without Operating
System).
III B. Microsoft's provision of Windows Operating System
Products to Covered OEMs shall be pursuant to uniform license
agreements with uniform terms and conditions
MTC-00025738-0002
There are two kinds of monopolistic behavior which this measure
could prevent (a) using existing monopoly in one market to gain a
monopoly in another market (b) use its monopolistic position to
maintain artificially high retail prices (in particular, forcing
unnecessary upgrades) (a typical scenario for (b) works like this: a
few key partners are given the latest MSOffice product for a very
low price, this latest product uses file formats different from
formats of the previous product. So soon there are documents flying
around in this latest format and the only way to read them is to
upgrade existing MSOffice with upgrade costs in hundred of dollars
per seat) Behavior (b) is possible only when there is no
competition. In competitive market such a behavior is impossible
(e.g. repair/service/most of spare part business of Toyota cars is
not controlled by Toyota: Toyota has almost no pricing power over
``post-sale'' service market) suggested modification 1:
The proposed measure prevents behavior (a) but only partially.
Operating Systems are not the only product where Microsoft can use
threats of existing license termination as a way to push another
product. For example, very few companies may afford to lose MsOffice
licensing. Thus Microsoft should be required to uniformly license
any product where Microsoft holds a dominant market position (the
list of such software should be reviewed regularly and at present it
definitely should include all of MS Office components (Word, Access,
Excel, PowerPoint). suggested modification 2:
The proposed measure does not address behavior (b) at all. So I
propose that the uniform/non-discriminatory licensing covers ALL
sales/licensing of specified products (not just sales to
``Covered OEMs''). For example, if a covered OEM can buy 1
million of Windows licenses for $5 millions then anyone (including
resellers) should be able to buy 1 million licenses for the same
price.
This also means that Microsoft should not be able to require a
buyer of its software to ship it with a new PC--software can be
sold separately. (this should apply to the end user too) This
modification greatly reduces Microsoft monopolistic pricing power.
An important consequence of these modification (non-discriminatory
licensing of specified Microsoft products to all with an explicit
permission to resell) is that this would make sections III.A and
III.F mostly redundant, as Microsoft will not be able to retaliate
against anyone if everyone has non-discriminatory access to all
critical Microsoft products.
III.C. Microsoft shall not restrict by agreement any OEM
licensee from exercising any of the following options or
alternatives:''
The words ``any OEM licensee'' should be replaced with
``any licensee'' (including the ``end users'',
see comments to III.A for rationale). The list of activities which
any Microsoft licensee should be free to do, should be expanded to
include (1) use any Microsoft product in the manner customer sees
fit (e.g. run MsOffice under Wine Emulator on Linux operating
system, Microsoft however should not have any obligation to support
any non-standard environment)
MTC-00025738-0003
(2) resell (with destruction of original copy if applicable/ any
Microsoft product at any price
(3) License, use, distribute, promote, develop, sell, support
any non-Microsoft products in any lawful manner customer sees fit.
Similar comments apply to sections III.F, III.G and III.H In
general, my suggestion would be to avoid differentiating Microsoft
users into many categories (IHV, ISV, OEM, ``Covered
OEM'', ``end user'') and granting every category
specific rights and instead grant uniform rights to all users. This
would simplify both the judgment and its enforcement (as there would
be fewer conflicts) >>>
III.E.Starting nine months after the submission of this proposed
Final Judgment to the Court, 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 that is, on or after the date this Final
Judgment is submitted to the Court,
(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 product) with a
Microsoft server operating system product. <<<
While this is a good measure, it is made nearly meaningless by
the III.I section and III.J.2 exception. (See below for III.I and
III.J.2 comments) Instead of subjecting disclosure to III.I section,
disclosure of protocols information should be subject to
``Interoperability Information disclosure'' suggestion
below.
Furthermore, the waiting period should be eliminated (the
disclosure should begin immediately after the Final Judgment is
accepted by the court).
Suggested Interoperability information disclosure. (mostly
supersedes III.I and III.J.2)
[[Page 27683]]
No competition is possible in software unless a would-be
competitor has enough information to interoperate with existing
software and especially with Microsoft's. Thus conditions on which
the interoperability information is disclosed are extremely
important.
The proposed final judgment essentially requires (in section
III.I) a would be competitor to negotiate with Microsoft to gain
access to interoperability information. This--allows Microsoft
to greatly complicate a would be competitor's life--gives
Microsoft an ample advance warning of a potential competitor and
section III.F.2 gives Microsoft explicit power to allow/disallow
competition in many (potentially, all) cases.
Using the car analogy: to manufacture cars which can compete
with and provide a drop-in replacement for Ford cars, one does not
have to negotiate/enter into any kind of agreement with Ford.
Similarly , software developers developing products competing with
Microsoft's ones should not have to negotiate/enter into any kind of
agreement with Microsoft, even more so, given Microsoft's history of
antitrust law violations.
So I suggest that all the information necessary to interoperate
with (thus allowing development of viable alternatives for)
Microsoft products should be as easily and widely accessible as
possible.
The only feasible way to ensure wide and easy access to this
information would be to publish it on the web with the following
conditions: (approximately in the order of importance)
(1) it definitely should not require *any* kind of agreement (in
particular, no mandatory registration) between the reader/
implementor and Microsoft (basically, anyone should be able to read
it and implement a competing product it without ever talking to
Microsoft)
(2) access to it should be free.
(3) Microsoft should also allow
(a) mirror the documentation verbatim (clearly separated
comments should be allowed)
(b) translate it into other computer readable formats (e.g. from
MSWord to HTML or to pdf)
(c) translate it into other human languages (and publish the
translation)
This disclosure requirement should definitely apply to
information mentioned in section III.D (API disclosure) and III.F
(network protocol disclosure). It should further apply to File
Format disclosure discussed below.. This disclosure requirement does
not apply to any information which is not related to
interoperability.(for instance if a MSWord utilizes a unique Spell
Checker, Microsoft does not have to disclose how the Checker works)
This requirement of free access to disclosed information has some
obvious consequences:
--Microsoft would not be able to enforce any patents if may
have on interoperability information (file formats, network
protocols, APIs) (it still may hold and enforce patents on specific
implementations of those interfaces)
--if disclosure of interoperability information requires
disclosure some 3-rd party information, then Microsoft will have to
either drop the product or change it so that 3rd party information
is not needed or renegotiate with the 3rd party to allow information
disclosure.
The information disclosure procedure suggested above eliminates
many potential conflicts between Microsoft and an information
request or.
I want to emphasize that having to enter into any kind of
negotiation with Microsoft to even start developing a competing
product is a major entrance barrier (and this barrier does not exist
in most other industries!) and the only way to remove it is to grant
a free and easy access to interoperability information as outlined
above. >>>
III.J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license of any API,
Documentation or Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy
systems, anti-virus technologies, license enforcement mechanisms,
authentication/authorization security, or third party intellectual
property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any
person or entity on the requirement that the licensee:
(a) has no history of software counterfeiting or piracy..
(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, to test for and ensure
verification and compliance with Microsoft specifications ....
<<<
While an obvious intention of this clause is to prevent piracy/
security breaches, such a prevention is not in any way related to
this antitrust case. For instance, if a Windows Media Player can
play certain content, Microsoft should provide enough information to
implement a competing player with exactly same functionality.
If the competing player provides some extra functionality, then
whether or not such an extra functionality violates some other law
(such as DMCA) should be a separate (and independent of Microsoft
antitrust case) issue.
Furthermore, ``authentication/authorization security''
is an extremely broad concept. For instance, Windows file sharing
protocol includes some authentification as do many other protocols
(including such wide spread ones as ftp and http which are used on
the Internet), so these protocols seem to fall under III.J.2. Which
makes section III.F (Network protocol disclosure) dependent on
meeting III.J.2 requirements.
Then it should be obvious that III.J.2(b, c, d) requirements
give Microsoft enough freedom to never disclose anything (or
disclose with a significant delay which is almost the same):
consider these scenarios
(1) a startup company will not meet (b) and (c)(business might
not seem reasonable or viable)
(2) R&D department of a large company may want to prototype
something without specific plans for a specific product (if the
prototype succeeds, then the product will go into planning) this
will fail test (b)
(3) Microsoft gets a convenient advance warning of any potential
competition
(4) requirement (d) allows to delay introduction of any
competing product.
(5) open source competition (such as Linux which Microsoft cites
as THE threat both in and out of court) would not meet (b) and (c)
requirements
(6) Nearly any software feature can be recast as having
something to do with security, anti-piracy, or authentification.
In short, I believe, that section III.J.2 is not needed and in
its current form it essentially negates any information disclosure
requirements which exist in this judgment. Section III.J.2 should be
dropped Disclosure of file formats.
Microsoft should disclose its file formats: first and foremost
for Microsoft Office applications (where Microsoft already has a
dominant position and possibly *all* file formats used by any
software sold by Microsoft. I want to emphasize that file format
information is needed for competitors both to MSOffice products AND
to Windows Operating System (such as Linux or Solaris)--no
competing Operating system stands a chance on a desktop if there is
no application for it which can read already existing documents in
MSOffice format (and provider of a competing Operating System can
not (and should not!) rely on Microsoft to port MSOffice to a
competing operating system). Disclosure of file formats would
significantly reduce artificial barriers for competitor entrance for
both office and operating system markets.
I worked as Director of Windows Products Engineering for Borland
International (later to be known as Inprise) in 1997 and 199%.
During that period, I was responsible for ``the Microsoft
relationship'' and worked with Borland's attorneys on contracts
and other matters with Microsoft. I was asked to contribute my
thoughts about Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior during this
time, and I wrote the following memo in April of 1998. Its primary
message is that Microsoft has never been a proponent of innovation,
nor a particularly keen innovator. The same can also be said of the
other monopoly force in the PC industry, Intel. However, a big
difference between the two has been Intel's strict observance of the
law and Microsoft's attempts to circumvent the law. While I was at
Borland, several times Microsoft proposed that we sign agreements
that forced us to recommend and distribute Microsoft's Internet
Explorer to our customers--we ALWAYS red-lined these parts of
the agreements.
The bottom line is that this probe could have gone further.
Prior to Borland, I spent 11 years with Digital Equipment, now a
part of Compaq. During that period, I was exposed to Microsoft's
tactics in negotiating licensing of their operating system software
to PC manufacturers. You've seen testimony of some PC vendors about
this. Microsoft has been able to deliver flawed software to these
manufacturers while dictating terms that
[[Page 27684]]
force the manufacturers to assume most of the technical support
burden.
The current remedy being proposed does not go far enough,
particularly with a company that has made an art of working around
the law. I was very disappointed that a structural remedy was not
part of the solution, and I hope that the oversight of the proposed
remedy is strict and vigilant.
Thank you,
Joe Falcone
Half Moon Bay, California
A few things that have gone wrong in the PC industry... PC's
have never been high tech.
The operating systems are years behind the times in features,
scalability and robustness. As Microsoft tries to prove the
enterprise-quality of their software, this has become obvious. No
Microsoft software is ready for 7x24 operation. When Microsoft made
their big pitch for the Enterprise, they committed themselves to run
Microsoft on their own products--Windows NT Server, SQL Server,
Back Office, etc. Word on the street is that Microsoft is too big to
run themselves on their own products. The obvious solution is to go
with the flow and put Oracle's DBMS in--but Oracle won't sell
to Microsoft for competitive reasons. So this is one of the reasons
why the rumor circulated that Microsoft was going to buy Informix
(it still could happen). Although this would allegedly buy Microsoft
an enterprise-class database engine, the classic Informix relational
database product is old (it's been compared to Oracle 6--two
generations behind Oracle's current product). Microsoft is between a
rock and a hard place.
Some number of Microsoft products are not Y2K safe (Year 2000).
And any strong mention of this in public is suppressed--an
academic who was collecting Y2K software problem reports on a web
site was sent a ``cease and desist'' letter by Microsoft's
legal department. Only Microsoft knows what is good for Microsoft.
PC hardware is crude and primitive. I/O buses are slow, difficult to
expand, and tricky to design for. For example, some first generation
PCI option cards will not work with recent PCI motherboards. This is
because the PCI spec was driven largely by Intel to fulfill their
agenda. Alternative views are co-opted-- Digital's PCI bus
committee rep was hired away by Intel early in the program.
The only time Intel had the world's fastest microprocessor was
when they had the world's first and only microprocessor. Once other
vendors entered the game, the mediocrity of Intel's architectures
came to the forefront. The fact is that Intel is a relative newcomer
to the computer architecture field. IBM, UNISYS, Digital and others
have been designing computers since the 50s. With that experience
comes a level of maturity and a portfolio of patents that make it
difficult for others to achieve ``best-in-class''
performance. Today, nearly every RISC architecture in production
(Alpha, HP-PA, PowerPC, MIPS, SPARC), is faster than the
fastest Pentium-II. Now that AMD, National Semiconductor, and IDT
have foundry agreements with IBM, all of them may get access to the
high-speed copper interconnect chip process which IBM innovated and
may have a substantial lead in due to its own intellectual property.
In other words, within a year or so, Intel may not be making the
fastest x86 processor.
Microsoft and Intel have tried to restrict what the PC
manufacturers can build thru acquisitions, intellectual property
(patents), and their PC 9x initiatives. However, these are
principally driven by Microsoft and Intel to fulfill their agenda.
The original reason to have these initiatives was to try to
guarantee for Microsoft that the manufacturers were sticking to a
single spec of base PC functionality for their products, rather than
have them go off and implementing new buses, graphics, etc. Of
course, the result is an industry with no innovation and no variety.
All the products are the same. The original objective was to enforce
PC 9x compliance by withholding logo branding (Intel Inside or
Designed for Windows xx) if the product did not meet PC 9x. It's not
clear to what degree they've been able to do that.
The latest incarnation of the initiative is PC 99. Adaptec is a
participant in PC 99. Aparently Microsoft in one of their playing
god moods decided to remove SCSI hard disks as a supported
technology in PC 99. The idea was to replace it with IEEE 1394. The
Adaptec folks had to point out that there are virtually no disk
drive products available using 1394 as an interface.
Earlier versions of PC 9x made no mention of mobile systems.
Even the current mobile systems spec of PC 99 is considered grossly
inadequate to the point that a consortium of notebook manufacturers
(as reported recently) is banding together to form their own
standards group.
Now Intel is using their intellectual property (primarily
patents on the Pentium-II interface bus) to restrict who can build
chipsets for PCs. Right now, you can really only buy Pentium-II
chipsets from Intel. Intel has threatened to sue other companies who
enter this field. Traditionally, the pinout of a non- military-
classified chip sold on the open market has been a public spec. If
you think about it, where would the computer industry be today if
you could BUY a chip on the open market, but you couldn't INTERFACE
it to anything without a LICENSE from the chip manufacturer. This,
in fact, was the problem with the IBM MicroChannel bus. You could
build MicroChannel option cards, but you needed to register them
with IBM and get an ID for your card (for autoconfiguration) before
you sold it. MicroChannel failed as a result, even though it had
PCI-class technology years ago (the PCI connector is in fact a
MicroChannel-style connector).
Intel's argument is that they are no longer selling
``chips'' as such, but computer system modules for a
patented, proprietary bus (Slot 1 et al). For this there is
precedent of course. All of the big computer manufacturers used
proprietary buses, for which you generally had to get licenses to
build peripherals for. The problem is the tradition and vitality of
the PC industry was built around technology that was not under
intellectual property restrictions. Now you can only buy chipsets
from Intel. The chipsets effectively determine the basic features of
the PC, including power management in the case of notebooks. As
noted earlier, the notebook manufacturers are already blanching at
the thought of having their features, such as power management,
determined solely by what Intel's Pentium-II mobile chipsets
deliver.
As Intel's standards (Slot 1, PCI, AGP, I20) become established,
it becomes easy for Intel to dominate each segment, either solely or
collusively with another vendor, such as the case with the
intelligent I20 I/O bus and Wind River Systems. When you purchase
the i960 RP processor (the heart of the I20 spec), you get the
IxWorks I20-compatible Real Time Operating System by Wind River
Systems (License included with processor). This event sent
shockwaves thru the Real-Time Operating System industry as it would
guarantee a stream of revenue for Wind River once I20-enabled
systems began shipping in volume.
As Microsoft's initiatives have spread into other areas, such as
palmtop computing, we see the same control. In the Windows CE area,
the hardware specification is controlled by Microsoft. Manufacturers
build to the Microsoft spec and Microsoft delivers executable code
to the manufacturers. No source is available and Microsoft develops
all the drivers. Is it any wonder that all CE products look the
same? The only concession that Microsoft has granted has been the
support of different microprocessors, insisted upon by the
aggressively competitive Japanese contenders in the high-MIPS-per-
milliwatt category. Everyone in the CE space is losing money,
everyone except for Microsoft who is apparently charging more for CE
than for Windows 95, basing this on the fact that they've
architected the entire product, etc, etc. In fact, what Microsoft
has done is architect the innovation OUT of the product by
controlling it too strictly and not allowing their partners to
innovate.
Their goal is to be the mobile communication and computing
platform of choice when we get to the point of convergence between
palmtops, notebooks, wireless networks, and cell phones--a sort
of Pilot on steroids. The most interesting competition going on
right now is that between CE and the Pilot, especially now that IBM
is backing and reselling the Pilot. Unlike the past, it is clear
that anti-competitive actions by Microsoft in that market will not
go unnoticed. All of this information is publicly verifiable by
hitting the right web sites with the right search keywords. Even the
rumors have been reported in one place or another. Just haven't seen
anyone put the whole picture together. Enjoy!
MTC-00025739
From: Steve(u)Lieberman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
Please do not allow the AOL lawsuit to derail the important and
appropriate settlement between Microsoft and the Department of
Justice. For the good of this country and the economy, I urge you to
ratify the present settlement between MS, the DOJ and the nine
attorneys general.
Steve Lieberman
[[Page 27685]]
Oceanside, CA
MTC-00025740
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:23am
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,
Tamela Forbes
12812 Sierra Creek Rd.
Victorville, CA 92392
MTC-00025741
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:28am
Subject: (no subject)
Although I am not entirely on one specific topic that has been
directly addressed by the battles against Microsoft I feel that I
should point out some major problems I have been experiencing with
the company's policies and software lately.
To start off, I should point out that I do use Microsoft windows
ME as an operating system so I can't say that I am unwilling to use
some of their products but I do find some problems with them. I
enjoy using opera as my web browser rather than Internet explorer
because it has more features and runs faster and therefore I have
chosen to use it. This may seem like an arbitrary statement but it
is not because I do not wish to use Internet explorer at all. This
is simply not a possibility when using windows as an operating
system and I feel that this ``feature'' of windows not
only hurts smaller software companies such as opera or Netscape,
which I have also used in the past, but it also detracts from what I
as a user and consumer want to experience. If a product does not
function to par then the consumer or user, whatever the case may be,
should be allowed to choose an alternate source. It is true that
internet explorer is a free product and some may even argue that it
is part of the operating system, but so is windows media player and
I am not forced to use that program when I find another program to
take it's place. Every time I open a window I must use Internet
explorer. Another problem I have encountered while using opera is
that sites that use a MSN passport do not fully support this
browser. This would seem opera's fault if it were not that these are
the only sites that I have encountered that have this problem.
Microsoft is purposefully designing web pages that adhere only to
their software. I for one do not find this fair business at all.
MTC-00025742
From: Joe Falcone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I worked as Director of Windows Products Engineering for Borland
International (later to be known as Inprise) in 1997 and 1998.
During that period, I was responsible for ``the Microsoft
relationship'' and worked with Borland's attorneys on contracts
and other matters with Microsoft. I was asked to contribute my
thoughts about Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior during this
time, and I wrote the following memo in April of 1998. Its primary
message is that Microsoft has never been a proponent of innovation,
nor a particularly keen innovator. The same can also be said of the
other monopoly force in the PC industry, Intel. However, a big
difference between the two has been Intel's strict observance of the
law and Microsoft's attempts to circumvent the law. While I was at
Borland, several times Microsoft proposed that we sign agreements
that forced us to recommend and distribute Microsoft's Internet
Explorer to our customers--we ALWAYS red-lined these parts of
the agreements.
The bottom line is that this probe could have gone further.
Prior to Borland, I spent 11 years with Digital Equipment, now a
part of Compaq. During that period, I was exposed to Microsoft's
tactics in negotiating licensing of their operating system software
to PC manufacturers. You've seen testimony of some PC vendors about
this. Microsoft has been able to deliver flawed software to these
manufacturers while dictating terms that force the manufacturers to
assume most of the technical support burden.
The current remedy being proposed does not go far enough,
particularly with a company that has made an art of working around
the law. I was very disappointed that a structural remedy was not
part of the solution, and I hope that the oversight of the proposed
remedy is strict and vigilant.
Thank you,
Joe Falcone
Half Moon Bay, California
A few things that have gone wrong in the PC industry... PC's
have never been high tech.
The operating systems are years behind the times in features,
scalability and robustness. As Microsoft tries to prove the
enterprise-quality of their software, this has become obvious. No
Microsoft software is ready for 7x24 operation. When Microsoft made
their big pitch for the Enterprise, they committed themselves to run
Microsoft on their own products--Windows NT Server, SQL Server,
Back Office, etc. Word on the street is that Microsoft is too big to
run themselves on their own products. The obvious solution is to go
with the flow and put Oracle's DBMS in--but Oracle won't sell
to Microsoft for competitive reasons. So this is one of the reasons
why the rumor circulated that Microsoft was going to buy Informix
(it still could happen). Although this would allegedly buy Microsoft
an enterprise-class database engine, the classic Informix relational
database product is old (it's been compared to Oracle 6--two
generations behind Oracle's current product). Microsoft is between a
rock and a hard place.
Some number of Microsoft products are not Y2K safe (Year 2000).
And any strong mention of this in public is suppressed--an
academic who was collecting Y2K software problem reports on a web
site was sent a ``cease and desist'' letter by Microsoft's
legal department. Only Microsoft knows what is good for Microsoft.
PC hardware is crude and primitive. I/O buses are slow, difficult to
expand, and tricky to design for. For example, some first generation
PCI option cards will not work with recent PCI motherboards. This is
because the PCI spec was driven largely by Intel to fulfill their
agenda. Alternative views are co-opted-- Digitat's PCI bus
committee rep was hired away by Intel early in the program. The only
time Intel had the world's fastest microprocessor was when they had
the world's first and only microprocessor. Once other vendors
entered the game, the mediocrity of Intel's architectures came to
the forefront. The fact is that Intel is a relative newcomer to the
computer architecture field. IBM, UNISYS, Digital and others have
been designing computers since the 50s. With that experience comes a
level of maturity and a portfolio of patents that make it difficult
for others to achieve ``best-in-class'' performance.
Today, nearly every RISC architecture in production (Alpha, HP-PA,
PowerPC, MIPS, SPARC), is faster than the fastest Pentium-II. Now
that AMD, National Semiconductor, and IDT have foundry agreements
with IBM, all of them may get access to the high-speed copper
interconnect chip process which IBM innovated and may have a
substantial lead in due to its own intellectual property. In other
words, within a year or so, Intel may not be making the fastest x86
processor.
Microsoft and Intel have tried to restrict what the PC
manufacturers can build thru acquisitions, intellectual property
(patents), and their PC 9x initiatives. However, these are
principally driven by Microsoft and Intel to fulfill their agenda.
The original reason to have these initiatives was to try to
guarantee for Microsoft that the manufacturers were sticking to a
single spec of base PC functionality for their products, rather than
have them go off and implementing new buses, graphics, etc. Of
course, the result is an industry with no innovation and no variety.
All the products are the same. The original objective was to enforce
PC 9x compliance by withholding logo branding (Intel Inside or
Designed for Windows xx) if the product did not meet PC 9x. It's not
clear to what degree they've been able to do that.
The latest incarnation of the initiative is PC 99. Adaptec is a
participant in PC 99. Aparently Microsoft in one of their playing
god moods decided to remove SCSI hard disks as a supported
technology in PC 99. The idea was to replace it with IEEE 1394. The
Adaptec folks had to point out that there
[[Page 27686]]
are virtually no disk drive products available using 1394 as an
interface. Earlier versions of PC 9x made no mention of mobile
systems. Even the current mobile systems spec of PC 99 is considered
grossly inadequate to the point that a consortium of notebook
manufacturers (as reported recently) is banding together to form
their own standards group.
Now Intel is using their intellectual property (primarily
patents on the Pentium- II interface bus) to restrict who can build
chipsets for PCs. Right now, you can really only buy Pentium-II
chipsets from Intel. Intel has threatened to sue other companies who
enter this field. Traditionally, the pinout of a non- military-
classified chip sold on the open market has been a public spec. If
you think about it, where would the computer industry be today if
you could BUY a chip on the open market, but you couldn't INTERFACE
it to anything without a LICENSE from the chip manufacturer. This,
in fact, was the problem with the IBM MicroChannel bus. You could
build MicroChannel option cards, but you needed to register them
with IBM and get an ID for your card (for autoconfiguration) before
you sold it. MicroChannel failed as a result, even though it had
PCI-class technology years ago (the PCI connector is in fact a
MicroChannel-style connector).
Intel's argument is that they are no longer selling
``chips'' as such, but computer system modules for a
patented, proprietary bus (Slot 1 et al). For this there is
precedent of course. All of the big computer manufacturers used
proprietary buses, for which you generally had to get licenses to
build peripherals for. The problem is the tradition and vitality of
the PC industry was built around technology that was not under
intellectual property restrictions. Now you can only buy chipsets
from Intel. The chipsets effectively determine the basic features of
the PC, including power management in the case of notebooks. As
noted earlier, the notebook manufacturers are already blanching at
the thought of having their features, such as power management,
determined solely by what Intel's Pentium-II mobile chipsets
deliver.
As Intel's standards (Slot 1, PCI, AGP, I20) become established,
it becomes easy for Intel to dominate each segment, either solely or
collusively with another vendor, such as the case with the
intelligent I20 I/O bus and Wind River Systems. When you purchase
the i960 RP processor (the heart of the I20 spec), you get the
IxWorks I20-compatible Real Time Operating System by Wind River
Systems (License included with processor). This event sent
shockwaves thru the Real-Time Operating System industry as it would
guarantee a stream of revenue for Wind River once I20-enabled
systems began shipping in volume.
As Microsoft's initiatives have spread into other areas, such as
palmtop computing, we see the same control. In the Windows CE area,
the hardware specification is controlled by Microsoft. Manufacturers
build to the Microsoft spec and Microsoft delivers executable code
to the manufacturers. No source is available and Microsoft develops
all the drivers. Is it any wonder that all CE products look the
same? The only concession that Microsoft has granted has been the
support of different microprocessors, insisted upon by the
aggressively competitive Japanese contenders in the high-MIPS-per-
milliwatt category. Everyone in the CE space is losing money,
everyone except for Microsoft who is apparently charging more for CE
than for Windows 95, basing this on the fact that they've
architected the entire product, etc, etc. In fact, what Microsoft
has done is architect the innovation OUT of the product by
controlling it too strictly and not allowing their partners to
innovate.
Their goal is to be the mobile communication and computing
platform of choice when we get to the point of convergence between
palmtops, notebooks, wireless networks, and cell phones--a sort
of Pilot on steroids. The most interesting competition going on
right now is that between CE and the Pilot, especially now that IBM
is backing and reselling the Pilot. Unlike the past, it is clear
that anti-competitive actions by Microsoft in that market will not
go unnoticed. All of this information is publicly verifiable by
hitting the right web sites with the right search keywords. Even the
rumors have been reported in one place or another. Just haven't seen
anyone put the whole picture together. Enjoy!
MTC-00025743
From: Duane Diesing
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/26/02 1:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Duane Diesing
PSC Box 6098
Goodfellow AFB, TX 76908
January 26, 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,
Duane Diesing
MTC-00025744
From: taojones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:31am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Letting them use equipment or software to increase market share
in education would be a big mistake let them cough up the cash and
let the beneficiary of the settlement decide where it is best spent.
Unfortunately being second rate on quality is not a crime but is
against the American sprit. Teach them a real lesson and make them
reveal source code so that people can undo what they want to tweak
themselves if you want to put a holly carburetor on your ford
minivan ford has no right to stop you... once you pay for it its
your car.Once you fork over your fee you deserve to see what you
have bought. Developers have a right to information so they can
improve things rather than catching the (security hole) horse out
the gate
William Pellegrini
48 Oakcrest Drive
South Huntington
Ny 11746
MTC-00025745
From: steve
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has not risen to where it is today by innovation or
product quality, but by purloining others technologies into their
fundamentally faulty suite of products.
By virtue of simply being in the right place at the right time
some 20 years ago, they aquired a toe hold that then became a foot
hold in a new and burgeoning industry.
As this foot hold grew, it came to be able to at first just kick
its way around, but then learned it could walk all over anyone it
chose at anytime it choose. Just because it could didn't mean it had
to, but it did. At almost every opportunity. Thus they in effect
became the sole arbiter of what products would survive and what ones
languished in this new industry. Were the ``Standard''
they purport to represent a legitimate one based on performance that
would be one thing, but it isn't. When MS released Windows-XP
recently they touted it as the ``Most mature and secure OS
they'd ever made!''. While that may be true, in terms of the
rest of the world it was anything but secure.
Within a few weeks of its release, severe security issues were
found by several independent parties. Severe enough that for the
first time in its history, the FBI called its own news-conference to
announce the dangers they conveyed.
Furthermore, when Microsoft tried to post the fixes XP required
to their own site recently, they crashed it, taking it offline for
over 5 days. While the irony of the ``Most advanced and secure
OS!'' requiring a ``fix'' just 2-3 weeks post-
release that when applied created a new, bigger and and even more
obvious problem is not to be missed. It is a demonstration of the
low level of fundamental quality inherit in their software.
This not a unique example, only the most recent (and perhaps
most telling). The
[[Page 27687]]
U.S.Army, Navy, and FBI have, along with many other .gov sites,
dispensed with their Windows based servers as they tired of being
hacked so readily.
MICROSOFT IS/HAS/BEEN/ALWAYS WILL BE: Pervasively aggressive in
all areas of its endeavors. It has copied even its core functional
approach and appearence from outside sources (while stifiling most
competing efforts regardless of their actual merit). No amount of
money can compensate for the loss of the dynamic society could have
had if innovation in a broad field of players had been allowed. If
free-market values and innovation had been at play instead of a
singularly self-centered corporate one, this issue would represent
less today than it does. Any judgment or penalty against MS should
go to developing other sources/venues of hardware/software
innovation etc. that DON'T depend on Microsoft products to function.
Otherwise, the penalty actually create's more need for the already
intrusive offender.
Thanks for your time.
This is important, please do the right thing.
MTC-00025746
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
With all the problems this country is having it should be top
priority for our government to settle all the Microsoft law suits.
The future must have technology working at its best or the terrorist
could over come. We must protect free enterprise which is the root
of our system. PLEASE vote to settle the Microsoft Law Suits.
Thank you Jerry Robinson
MTC-00025747
From: Alfie Costa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Proposed Microsoft Settlement should not allow what it does
allow. It is like a muzzle that hasn't been fastened.
Some say that Microsoft has, by various direct and indirect
means, purchased this ominously favorable outcome. Supposing this
cynical opinion were true, then those who have done the selling
should reconsider, if only out of delayed self-interest. The reason
being that if they ``look the other way'' today, (in so
manifest an instance of duty), their reputation as guardians of the
public interest will diminish tomorrow, so that their services would
very probably be seen as hardly necessary. Any office whose duty
evaporates, and devolves into a meek sinecure, can't expect much in
the way of future emoluments.
MTC-00025748
From: BobNordan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is guilty of the worst case on monopoly in history.
The company should be punished harsely and should be broken up into
two companies, one for operating systems and the other applications.
Fines should be high enough to make sure Microsoft can't afford to
break the law again. If they are not stopped now, there will be no
stopping them in the future.
Robert Nordan Jr
MTC-00025749
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement pI believe the Microsoft Settlement is
not going to solve any problems or antitrust issues.
I feel stiffer penalties need to be enforced on this company.
Microsoft should not be allowed to make there browser the default
browser for the OS.
They abused their position dealing with Netscape and therefore
should lose their privilege of forcing manufacturers to except IE as
the default browser. I also feel they should compensate ex-Netscape
employees for ruining their business model. Microsoft does stand in
the way of free market enterprise and actions need to be taken.
Brian
CA, USA
MTC-00025750
From: Dr. Giorgio G. A. Miceli, Sr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement pHello:
Something has to be done about these crybabies... a.k.a. AOL and
Netscape. Microsoft is making their product better and better... AOL
and Netscape are way behind.
Don't let these crybabies ruin a company that doing their best
in innovation.
MTC-00025751
From: Jim Miranto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough with this already. Stop wasting my tax dollars on this
trivial stuff.
Spend it on getting our county back on it's feet and safe from
terrorists.
James A. Miranto, MCSE
Information Technology Consultant
Email: [email protected]
MTC-00025752
From: Matthew Reed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The United States Government has an excellent opportunity to
encourage competition and help the consumer. The proposed settlement
does not fulfill this end. Microsoft should be punished to the
degree of their crime.
MTC-00025753
From: Bob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice.
Reference: Microsoft Settlement.
Consumer interests have been well served, and the time to end
this costly and damaging litigation has come. Dragging this legal
battle further will only benefit a few wealthy competitors, lawyers,
and special interest Big-Wigs. This is ridicules to continue any
kind of litigation unless you are anti consumer. Not one new product
will be brought to the marketplace, so what's the point???
Respectfully
A Senior Consumer
Robert E Hahn
POBox 899
Buena Vista, CO. 81211
MTC-00025754
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:50am
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,
Martin Barcelona
6642 Lamb Road
New Orleans, LA 70126
MTC-00025755
From: D.Carrico
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is a monopoly. You do not need 100% of the market to
be a monopoly.
1. Open source *ALL* of the ``Internet Explorer'' web
browser program code.
2. Make them develope a version of ``Internet
Explorer'' and MS Office for Linux.
3. Tell them under *NO* circumstances, can they collect *private
information* from there customers using there operating system or
applications.
4. All of there current and future protocols must be *approved*
by a open standards organizations.
5. Fine them 25 to 50 percent of there *NET* profit. That will
help the national debt.
Thank you for your time and help in this matter.
Donald Carrico Jr.
MTC-00025756
From: Ian Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
I am not involved in the computer industry. I am an ordinary
cititzen and end-user of computer software and just wanted to
[[Page 27688]]
take a moment to voice my strong objection to the proposed Microsoft
settlement.
It takes only a very basic understanding of Microsoft's history
to understand that they have succeeded not through innovation but
through aggressive and anti-competitive business practices. From the
very beginning, in the mid 70s when Bill Gates purchased MS-DOS from
a small software company in Seattle and made billions reselling
something that cost him about $50,000, to the open aping of Apple's
Macintosh operating system in Windows and all subsequent OS
releases, Bill Gates has been a copycat, a thief maybe, but not an
innovator. Every single product they have ever released has been
``inspired'' by something that came before.
The operating system monopoly that Microsoft enjoys has given
them the leverage to thwart upstart competitors. We all know and
acknowledge this. The proposed slap on the wrist makes it apparent
that antitrust laws have no teeth. Without a punishment that fits
the crime, there is no disincentive for other companies now and in
the future to avoid running afoul of antitrust laws.
I resent the millions of taxpayer dollars spent over many years
in an effort that apparently will result in a conclusion that
antitrust laws were violated but that it's OK to let Microsoft off
easy, once again. Those who believe in the free market as an
absolute have no understanding of American history and no
appreciation for the need for antitrust laws in our highly
successful form of capitalism.
sincerely,
Ian Russell Johnson
Corvallis, Oregon
MTC-00025757
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:00am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I feel it's time the government take a stand against the bilking
of Microsoft. Please get involved and end this persecution of a
company because others can't get their stuff together.
Darlene Dwyer
Everett, WA 98208
MTC-00025758
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has used their monopoly powers time and time again to
strangle innovation, it is time for that to be put to a stop.
MTC-00025759
From: Laura Stephenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:08am
Subject: Re: Microsoft settlement
Dear Sir,
I greatly appreciate Microsoft ability to innovatively create
sofware projects which assists the consumer in not only their word
processing needs, but also in the area of the internet. Yes, there
are links between Microsoft and other companies. And true, Microsoft
in the largest computer company and the other have not been
competing as well. My personal opinion is that the man behind the
company is the key. If it weren't for Bill Gates innovative approach
to life as well as business, consumers would not buy his company's
products. Because Microsoft is simply the best in their area of
expertise, they are being punished. Why punish such a terrific
company who has simply figured out the key to good business?---
working with other to make the best and the most efficient products
and services on the market. As a teacher, I want to be the best
teacher for my students every day all of the time. Other teachers
may become jealous because I am rewarded for my diligence and
excellence in the service I provide to our children.
Therefore, I get punished because they can't stand to see
someone else half their age do a better and more efficient job than
them. In theory, this analogy paints the true picture of what has
happend to Microsoft. Other companies are simply jealous of the
tremendous network that Microsoft has created and wish that they had
done it themselves. They are in it for the money like any other
business here on earth!!! What a great ability to meet the needs of
their consumer while also doing what they feel called to do!!!
Creation of new ideas is often rejected in our society, especially
if it goes against the grain of our pocketbook. Another example
would be the change from fuel-run vehicles to electric car which are
more efficient and more environment friendly.
Anyone who can say that what Microsoft has done is wrong is a
hypocrite because no one can truly say that working with others in
the business world to create the most efficient and effective
products and services is bad. Microsoft simply and intelligently
thought of it first!!!
Thank You for keeping Microsoft a leading company in this game
that we call computer life!!! May the Lord be with you are you make
this historical decision that could positively or negatively affect
millions of consumers nationwide!!!
In His Name,
Laura Stephenson
2412 Pleasant Rose Cr.
Bryan, Texas 77808
(979)731-1217
MTC-00025760
From: Colin Kinlund
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to express my dismay at the inadequacy of the
current proposed settlement against Microsoft. It provides neither
concise so-called ``punishments'' nor methods of
enforcement and control; Microsoft has repeatedly shown itself to be
incapable of independently conducting fair and legal business.
This distinct lack of self-control is exemplified by their
continued and blatant monopolistic practices even in recent months,
such as their intentionally poor encoding of MP3 files in Windows
XP, making their included Windows Media Audio the better choice in
quality by default, and leaving the average consumer with no choice
but to use Microsoft's new ``standard.''
Microsoft has shown no change in its approach to business since
it was found to be a monopoly 6 years ago, and the current Final
Settlement allows Microsoft to continue its illegal practices with
virtually the same degree of anti-competitive behavior as before. It
is a poorly worded document riddled with loopholes and incomplete
statements, and it does nothing to truly address the nature of
Microsoft.
I do not support this settlement in its current form. I also
urge you to read Mr. Dan Kegel's proposed revisions to the
settlement at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Colin Kinlund
Bristol, Vermont
MTC-00025761
From: Tim Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs;
The proposed Microsoft settlement is a farce. These people are
guilty of arrogant and willful acts of disregard for the law, and
they should be punished, not rewarded.
I am ashamed of our legal system for their lack of integrity in
even considering this settlement.
Sincerely,
Tim J. Thomas
Editor, Mouse Droppings and The Communiqui
Board member, The Alaska Apple User Group
MTC-00025762
From: Eddie Fourie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough is enough!
No-one asked me as a consumer whether I was hurt or not by
Microsoft's innovation. As a programmer and a technologist myself, I
have given up some of their competitor's tools and decided to use
Microsoft's platforms, operating systems and products as choice.
Our company makes a living from products Microsoft creates and
sells, and it's absurd for people who are non-technical to make
decisions of this magnitude.
I therefore urge you stop this crazy lawsuit and get to
settlement as soon as possible, as your actions and or lack of
affects our business, but not only ours, but hundreds of thousands
of other small business out there.
Regards
Eduard Fourie
MTC-00025763
From: Marc S Weintraub
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MTC-00025763-0001
Dear Sir,
In accord with the Tunney Act, I am submitting my comments on
the Proposed Final Judgement in the Microsoft proceedings
[[Page 27689]]
(commonly known by the somewhat inaccurate description: ``DOJ
vs Microsoft'').
There are many reasons why I find fault with the proposed
settlement. In order to keep this comment brief, I will focus my
comments on one specific are that I believe has not received a great
deal of commentary from the public. I am very concerned about the
faulty definitions and their implications, there are numerous
examples of alterations to definitions found in the Findings of Fact
as they have been ``reproduced'' in the PFJ. For example:
Definition A--``API''
The FOF defines ``API'' as ``the interfaced
between application programs and the operating system.'' The
PFJ has altered it to mean only ``the interfaces between
Microsoft Middleware and Microsoft Window, excluding Windows APIs
used by other application programs.'' The PFJ's definition of
API permits Microsoft to omit important APIs that are crucial to
Independent Software Vendors'' ability to write software that
integrates with Windows to the same extent to which competing
Microsoft products are able to do so.
Definition J--``Microsoft Middleware'' The FOF
defines ``middleware'' as ``application software that
itself presents a set of APIs which allow users to write new
applications without reference to the underlying operating
system.'' The PFJ destroys the intent and spirit of that
definition by making it possible for Microsoft to avoid compliance
simply by altering the form of version enumeration or the method of
distribution of the products it miserly lists as
``middleware.'' The PFJ leaves so many holes open to
Microsoft as to make the concept of ``middleware'' a moot
point in terms of measuring Microsoft's adherence to the PFJ's
rememdies. That is simply wrong and must not be permitted.
Definition K--``Microsoft Middleware Product''
The PFJ restricts the list of products to Internet Explorer,
Microsoft Java, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger and Outlook
Express. It deliberately omits the obvious selections of Microsoft
.NET, C#, Outlook and Office. There are, no doubt, other
products that fit the proper definition of ``middleware''
and should be included as well. In fact, ideally, there should not
be a list of what DOES apply, rather there should be a list of what
DOES NOT. The fact is that no one at Microsoft is going to willingly
include every product that should be a member of the list unless
forced to do so. By changing the rules of defining the term
``middleware'' such that everything is included except
that which is explicitly excluded, Microsoft will be forced to
realistically explain the VALID reasons why any product should be
added to the exclusion list. Only then can there be a reasonable
expectation that essential APIs MIGHT become available to ISVs.
Definition U--``Windows Operating System
Product''
The PFJ makes unreasonable assumptions about what constitutes a
Windows Operating System product. It specifically restricts the
definition to ``only Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP
Home, Windows XP Professional and their successors.'' What
about existing Windows products such as Windows CE? What about the
XBox which Microsoft clearly states runs an embedded version of
Windows XP? Does ``embedded'' mean it is not
``Home'' and it is not ``Professional'' and
therefore it ``does not count?'' What about the Tablet PC
featuring Windows XP Tabled PC Edition? I do not see the words
``Home'' or ``Professional'' in that name, does
it count? I am certain that my and the ISV industry's answer to each
``does it count'' question is a resounding YES, however I
am equally certain that Microsoft's is a resounding NO.
As the PFJ definition currently reads, 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 Fdition.
MTC-00025763-0002
01/31/2002 6:37 PM
Windows CE, Pocket PC, X-Box or some other Microsoft Operating
System that can execute Windows applications. That is simply wrong
and must not be permitted. True competition cannot be ensured due to
the faulty definitions included in the PFJ. The unwarranted
restrictions and syntactic gymnastics employed ensure that Microsoft
can evade the purpose behind the action taken by the DOJ and several
State's AGs. The purpose should be clear to everyone, it is to
ensure that Microsoft ceases and desists from i anti-competitive
practic
How should the Final Judgment erode the Applications Barrier to
Entry?
The PFJ tries to erode the Applications Barrier to Entry in two
ways:
By forbidding retaliation against OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs who
support or develop alternatives to Windows. By taking various
measures to ensure that Windows allows the use of non-Microsoft
middleware. A third option not provided by the PFJ would be to make
sure that Microsoft raises no artificial barriers against non-
Microsoft operating systems which implement the APIs needed to run
application programs written for Windows. The Findings of Fact (52)
considered the possibility that competing operating systems could
implement the Windows APIs and thereby directly run software written
for Windows as a way of circumventing the Applications Barrier to
Entry. This is in fact the route being taken by the Linux operating
system, which includes middleware (named WINE) that can run many
Windows programs.
By not providing some aid for ISVs engaged in making Windows-
compatible operating systems, the PFJ is missing a key opportunity
to encourage competition in the Intel-compatible operating system
market. Worse yet, the PFJ itself, in sections III.D. and III.E.,
restricts information released by those sections to be used
``for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows
Operating System Product''. This prohibits ISVs from using the
information for the purpose of writing operating systems that
interoperate with Windows programs.
MTC-00025764
From: Del Ivey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:13am
Subject: Microsoft law suit
Dear Mr. Attorney General,
I am writing you to urge you to put an end to the seemingly
endless litigation and appeals and new suits brought by the less-
than-tenuous attorneys under your jurisdiction. I have been a stock
holder and user of Microsoft products for more than fifteen years
and find the products more than adequate and very reasonably priced
in the market place. I believe what has been accomplished to date in
the litigation is more than adequate to restrain Microsoft and allow
all the oversight necessary.
Please end this senseless wrangling and get on to more important
matters ; such as off shore partnerships of off-balance sheet SPE of
you know who.
Yours truly,
Delbert G. Ivey
[email protected]
MTC-00025765
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This ``settlement'' does nothing to stop Microsoft
from continuing to abuse its monopoly power, nor does it provide any
remedies for past abuses.
MTC-00025766
From: Walter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Mr. James,
The ``settlement'' you folks have worked out with
Microsoft does not address any of the core monopolization violations
affirmed by the Court of Appeals (unanimously) in June of last year.
Your settlement is so far outside the mainstream of antitrust
law and so completely contradicts the Court of Appeals decision that
the only explanation is that you are getting political pressure from
Microsoft beneficiaries in the government to cave in.
Microsoft will now go breezily back to its heavy handed
practices of pushing out competition. Don't you realize that it is
small business that fuels the economy? With your settlement, we
might as well give the entire country to Microsoft.
Disgustedly,
Diane Walter
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025767
From: kang xu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:22am
Subject: Re: My comment on Microsoft case
Dear Sir:
Attached please find a letter which expresses my opinion on the
antitrust case with Microsoft.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Kang
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://
mobile.msn.com
CC:
[email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 27690]]
MTC-00025767-0001
Kang Xu and Ying Zhang
10521 Polk Square Court
North Potomac, MD 20878
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I would like to give you my thoughts on the Microsoft antitrust
case. I support the reasonable settlement that was reached and
oppose further litigation. It can only benefit consumers if this
case were to come to an end, allowing Microsoft to focus on their
business of creating superior, innovative products. I am a
government contract researcher and use Microsoft both in my office
and at home. Microsoft has standardized computer software, creating
increased efficiency for businesses. It is unfortunate that a
company is being punished for being successful.
I urge you to please accept the proposed settlement, as it is
more than reasonable and will surely promote healthy competition in
the computer industry. For example, under the settlement terms,
Microsoft will not only share its source codes with their
competitors, but also allow extensive flexibility to computer makers
in way they configure Microsoft software, and that of its
competitors on new computers. This, along with other stringent
restrictions in the settlement will surely limit Microsoft's own
competitiveness, but they are willing to concede to these terms in
order to get back to the business of what they do best: providing
innovative IT solutions that not only benefit American consumers,
but the economy as a whole.
Sincerely,
Kang Xu
K. Xu, 10521 Polk Square Court, North Potomac, MD 20878
Tel.: (301)-394-0043(o);(301)-279-5952(h); e-mall:
[email protected]
MTC-00025768
From: bud kuenzli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Recently I ``signed'' (electronically) a letter found
at http://www.kegel.com/remedy and this is to be sure you understand
it was not done hastily or without consideration. The points made by
Dan Kegel were better expressed than had I written my own simple
paragraph. I believe it will be a travesty of Justice if the
Microsoft case is not brought to a stricter settlement and
accounting. I urge you to hold Microsoft to a much stricter standard
than that which has been proposed, so as to meet the concerns
expressed by Mr. Kegel directly and by me, through his well done web
site and commentary.
Thank you.
Bud Kuenzli
Technology Manager,
Austin E. Lathrop High
School, Fairbanks Alaska
wk email: [email protected]
personal email: [email protected]
Ab Kuenzli
2025 Persinger Dr.
North Pole AK 99705
MTC-00025769
From: Marc S Weintraub
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
In accord with the Tunney Act, I am submitting my comments on
the Proposed Final Judgement in the Microsoft proceedings (commonly
known by the somewhat inaccurate description: ``DOJ vs
Microsoft''). There are many reasons why I find fault with the
proposed settlement. In order to keep this comment brief, I will
focus my comments on one specific area that I believe has not
received a great deal of commentary from the public.
I am very concerned about the faulty definitions contained
within the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) and their implications.
There are numerous examples of alterations to definitions found in
the Findings of Fact (FOF) as they have been
``reproduced'' in the PFJ. For example:
Definition A--``API''
The FOF defines ``API'' as ``the interfaced
between application programs and the operating system.''
The PFJ has altered it to mean only ``the interfaces
between Microsoft ``Middleware'' and Microsoft Windows,
excluding Windows APIs used by other application programs.''
The PFJ's definition of API permits Microsoft to omit important APIs
that are crucial to Independent Software Vendors'' (ISV's)
ability to develop software that integrates with Windows to the same
extent to which competing Microsoft products are able to do so.
Definition J--``Microsoft Middleware''
The FOF defines ``middleware'' as ``application
software that itself presents a set of APIs which allow users to
write new applications without reference to the underlying operating
system.''
The PFJ destroys the intent and spirit of that definition by
making it possible for Microsoft to avoid compliance simply by
altering the form of version enumeration or the method of
distribution of the products it miserly lists as
``middleware.'' The PFJ leaves so many holes open to
Microsoft as to make the concept of ``middleware'' a moot
point in terms of measuring Microsoft's adherence to the PFJ's
rememdies. That is simply wrong and must not be permitted.
Definition K--``Microsoft Middleware Product''
The PFJ restricts the list of products to Internet Explorer,
Microsoft Java, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger and Outlook
Express. It deliberately omits the obvious selections of Microsoft
.NET, C#, Outlook and Office. There are, no doubt, other
products that fit the proper definition of ``middleware''
and should be included as well. In fact, ideally, there should not
be a list of what DOES apply, rather there should be a list of what
DOES NOT. The fact is that no one at Microsoft is going to willingly
include every product that should be a member of the list unless
forced to do so. By changing the rules of defining the term
``middleware'' such that everything is included except
that which is explicitly excluded, Microsoft will be forced to
realistically explain the VALID reasons why any product should be
added to the exclusion list. Only then can there be a reasonable
expectation that essential APIs MIGHT become available to ISVs.
Definition U--``Windows Operating System
Product''
The PFJ makes unreasonable assumptions about what constitutes a
Windows Operating System product. It specifically restricts the
definition to ``only Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP
Home, Windows XP Professional and their successors.'' What
about existing Windows products such as Windows CE? What about the
XBox which Microsoft clearly states runs an embedded version of
Windows XP? Does ``embedded'' mean it is not
``Home'' and it is not ``Professional'' and
therefore it ``does not count?'' What about the Tablet PC
featuring Windows XP Tabled PC Edition? I do not see the words
``Home'' or ``Professional'' in that name, does
it count? I am certain that my and the ISV industry's answer to each
``does it count'' question is a resounding YES, however I
am equally certain that Microsoft's is a resounding NO.
As the PFJ definition currently reads, 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 execute Windows applications. That is
simply wrong and must not be permitted.
True competition cannot be ensured due to the faulty definitions
included in the PFJ. The unwarranted restrictions and syntactic
gymnastics employed ensure that Microsoft can evade the purpose
behind the action taken by the DOJ and several State's AGs. The
purpose should be clear to everyone, it includes (but is not limited
to):
*erasing the barriers to entry onto the competitive field by
ISVs
*promoting positive and unfettered competition
*ensuring that Microsoft ceases and desists from its anti-
competitive practices
*preventing Microsoft from obtaining and abusing future
monopolistic powers
The proceedings surrounding this case have far reaching
implications to the future of Microsoft and the Computer Information
Industry. If the barriers to true competition are not eliminated
now, they probably never will be. This is a momentous time given the
indisputable fact that a US Court has judged (for the first time
ever) Microsoft to have used and abused Monopolistic powers and to
have actively engaged in a systematic process of preventing and
obliterating competition in key sectors of the Computer Information
Industry.
If the DOJ permits Microsoft to escape with a slight slap on the
wrist and a Settlement that is, for all intents and purposes,
unenforceable by virtue of the highway-sized loopholes it gives
Microsoft then I must ask you ``why do we have a DOJ? What
service does it provide to the people of the United
[[Page 27691]]
States of America that cannot be better served by the Private Sector
and the States'' AGs?''
I believe the DOJ serves the people of our nation well, with
dignity and honor 99% of the time. I am gravely concerned that the
Microsoft Settlement falls under the 1%.
Thank you for you time and attention to this very important
matter. Some say this case will make history. I say it already has
and will continue to do so for decades to come. We are at a
crossroads. We will either have a 900 pound Monopoly Gorilla or we
will have the competition that has been the ideal and hallmark of
the American Free Trade system. We, the American people, are relying
upon you to do what is right and we have faith in your ability and
determination to do so.
/s/ Marc S. Weintraub
Springfield, VA
MTC-00025770
From: Charles Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I understand you have been bombarded by emails and letters
during the public comment period, so I will keep this brief for the
benefit of those having to read all those comments.
Point One
Microsoft as a corporation has broken the law repeatedly, even
when ordered to stop doing so. They will seemingly use any tactic
short of felony murder to maintain their anti-competitive monopoly.
This does NOT benefit consumers, it harms them in exactly the same
way the US economy would be harmed if GM suddenly made it impossible
for any other car maker to work with standard parts. The proposed
settlement does little or nothing to PUNISH Microsoft for previous
bad acts and bad faith, and in doing so REWARDS the company for this
behaviour and thereby guarantees further such lawbreaking, deception
and anti-competitive practices.
I suggest that a very, very large fine--in the billions of
dollars
--is the only remedy coercive enough to actually foster a
behavioural change in the ``corporate culture'' of
Microsoft. Much of the money from this fine should be used to
redress wrongs done to MS competitors including AOL/Time Warner,
Apple Computer and many PC hardware manufacturers and hundreds of
smaller former companies who were bullied right out of the market.
The rest of the money should be used to fund efforts to encourage
the development of alternate, specialised OSes (for example, an
ultra-secure OS for government servers). The precedent for this is
already present in the government's own settlement with the tobacco
companies.
Point Two
Microsoft has harmed consumers in myriad ways, but they have
also harmed--in a considerable way--the security of the
United States government, and the US economy through their admitted
lapses in security and their drive to become sole-supplier and
controller of all microcomputer operating systems and
infrastructure. Billions upon billions have been lost in real
revenue and productivity thanks to viruses based on weaknesses in
Microsoft code. Top secret material and other sensitive data by the
truckload has been stolen and criminal behaviour facilitated by
security blunders and loopholes deliberately built into Microsoft's
OS for either marketing purposes or to enhance the convenience of
possible future Microsoft plans for intrusive monitoring. The right
to privacy, once the centerpiece of our democracy and the original
cornerstone of the Internet, is now but a dim memory that is rapidly
eroding thanks to our deep dependence on buggy, vulnerable software
and a company who's interests are often in conflict with the best
interests of the United States. If a foreign company were doing this
to us, we'd likely have charged them with treason via sabotage by
now. At the very very least, the government and its contractors
should punish Microsoft by doing a thorough audit of government
computer usage and replace Windows systems with alternatives
wherever possible for at least a period of five years.
Point Three
Microsoft's continued flouting of the law and fair business
practices, combined with their documented (by MS itself) threats to
competitors by high-level executives in the company (up to and
including Chairman William H. Gates III) pose a danger to both
society and capitalism itself. Despite it's propaganda efforts,
Microsoft is in fact the *least* innovative software manufacturer on
the scene and actively crushes innovation it cannot control or buy.
The proposed settlement offers no incentive for Microsoft to cease
this behaviour, and in fact reaffirms their monopoly and reinforces
their right to bully competitors and squash innovation.
My suggestion would be to set vigourous, firmly-enforced limits
on Microsoft's ability to interfere with competitors in any arena,
and the best way in my honest opinion to do this would be to inflict
jail time and other ``real punishments'' on the top
executives of the company, up to and including Bill Gates. A clear
message must be sent to both Microsoft *and* future companies that
would emulate them, and jail time for white-collar executives would
definitely send the right message. The MS executives can share a
cell with the Enron executives if you prefer, that's up to you. :)
But it is long past time that Corporate Criminals got treated
more like the real criminals they are--they do REAL harm, they
hurt REAL people and companies, and they should get REAL punishment.
Otherwise, the widening gap between justice for the rich/powerful
and justice for the poor/weak will widen into a yawning chasm, and
to be blunt I expect that at some point we'll foster civil unrest
and a further weakening of our democracy if we as a society continue
down that path.
Sincerely,
Charles Martin
Maitland, Florida
MTC-00025771
From: Todd Colburn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to protest the pending settlement with Microsoft. I
do not feel that the proposed punishments will do any good in
preventing the continued monopoly practices of Microsoft.
Thank you.
Michael Todd Colburn
Clovis, CA
MTC-00025772
From: James Simons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:37am
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed
Microsoft settlement.
I strongly disagree with the proposed settlement with Microsoft.
Thank You.
James Edward Simons.
MTC-00025773
From: Donald G. Ebner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
As a concerned citizen interested in justice, I am writing to
encourage you to do your part to get the Department of Justice to
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. This issue, which has
dragged on for an inordinate amount of time (over three years!), is
taking an adverse toll on our fragile economy and needs to be
settled with dispatch. From my reading of the proposed settlement,
Microsoft has indicated a willingness to accept a long list of
concessions, which I consider more than fair. In my considered
opinion, the Government needs to accept the firm's offer and move
on. You'd be doing a service to our country and the technology
industry if you would accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement.
I know you occupy a demanding position, one that forces you to
put long hours in your work. But please know that there are a great
number of people, yours truly included, who are indebted to you for
your tireless efforts and contributions to our nation.
Thank you for your noble service and also for considering this
request.
Sincerely,
Donald G. Ebner, Ph.D.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025774
From: Adam Lippiatt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam
Microsoft should not be allowed to settle on the basis of
software, or hardware running their software, being given to
schools. This ``dumping'' of software should be considered
anti-competitive and be proscribed. A more appropriate settlement
would be cash donated for computers with no strings attached in
relation to the software or hardware purchased.
Microsoft should also suffer other penalties which appropriately
punish it for its anti-competitive behaviour. Further, limits should
be placed on the way it behaves in the future and its ability to use
its market power to
[[Page 27692]]
negatively affect the industry. The Department of Justice should not
settle the matter before appropriate sanctions are placed on
Microsoft.
Regards
Adam Lippiatt
MTC-00025775
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Roee Grigg
11266 N 95 E
Idaho Falls, ID 83401
MTC-00025776
From: THOMAS P Mc GUIRE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:49am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
MTC-00025777
From: David Groom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Good People,
Microsoft has been a champion of ensuring consumers benefit from
low cost and high volume economics of the PC market. In college, I
remember that Apple computers were nearly double the cost of a PC
and of course systems from the likes of Sun Microsystems have only
been accessible to pocket books of big corporations. Microsoft's
success in building popular products at reasonable prices is the
obvious reasons for the size of its market share. On the other hand,
it is disconcerting that the antitrust trial has drug on so long
only to favor the likes of big corporations like AOL, Sun, and
Oracle. It is sad to see an American company which has brought such
consumer benefit, held back for the welfare of corporations like AOL
and Sun.
Let Microsoft compete freely. Let the market place decide which
products should win.
Regards,
David Groom
MTC-00025778
From: dave
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bad form letting Microsoft get away with such a sweatheart deal.
dave di re
MTC-00025779
From: Hans Huang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:12am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Let's settle it and move on....good for consumers, good for USA,
good for the whole world...................
Hans
Hans Huang,
Executive QA Pgm Mgr, APQA
MTC-00025780
From: Edith Ang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:13am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
We should thank Microsoft for its operating system and internet
web and email programs. There is nothing wrong to offer their
programs all bundled together with a discount price. Companies do it
all the time. Loss leaders are done at grocery stores. Restaurants
offer either Coke or Pepsi products but never both.
If rivals spend more time on offering better programs, public
will buy it. Why act like cry babies and ask government to interfere
by punishing the hard working and smarter kids. Let the competitors
know they must grow up on their own
Just like the auto industry. Each one of them has to come up
with something different to compete for the public. Apple Computer
has its followers because they keep on develop new things for their
customers. Crest toothpaste for a long time out sells Colgate, now
the trend is reversing because of new innovation.
Please stop spending tax money to interfere and fatten the
lawyers'' pockets.
MTC-00025781
From: David C
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the settlement is a really bad idea, Microsoft deserves
far more strict penalties, they need to remember to be good in the
future. They wield too much power for a slap on the wrist.
David Christensen
UC Berkeley Student
Berkeley, CA
MTC-00025782
From: David Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam,
Microsoft should be left alone to make as much money as it can
make, and to dominate it's competitors as well as it can. In a free
society, the most competent company will dominate, so instead of
despising Microsoft for their success, I love and admire the
company, and look up to Bill Gates. I don't care about other
computer/software companies. I choose Microsoft because they make
great products at cheap prices. Even if they raise their prices
later, they have a right to do it. I believe Microsoft has the right
to sell in a way that pushes it's competitors out of the market. I
do the same for the business I work for, to make more money. I
respect the opposition companies that do better than ours. These
better companies don't owe us their lives. If our business fails, we
will take it and respect the opposition more.
I don't believe in self-sacrifice. I believe that if a company
fails to compete against Microsoft, how dare that company improve
it's market share by the musket of a gun; that is, through the
government. Let men live, not by permission, but by right.
David Lee
MTC-00025783
From: james paraiso
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/26/02 3:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
james paraiso
411 dorothy st #20
el cajon, ca 92019
January 26, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayersO 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,
jim & Carrie Paraiso
MTC-00025784
From: Jay Blackman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge the Department of Justice and all other parties to accept
the Microsoft settlement agreement. I believe it is a settlement
that conforms to the criteria
[[Page 27693]]
imposed by the Court and is a valuable opportunity for the
government and the industry to move forward. Thank you.
MTC-00025785
From: Michael R James
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe history will look back on this age in America as the
one that did the most damage by abandoning the ideals that made this
country so great. This country was founded on the idea that we, as
individuals, can achieve what we set out to achieve. We have only
the right to try, not to succeed. The clam sits at the bottom of the
ocean waiting for food to happen by as it filters the water waiting
for nutrition, never experiencing anything other than it's simple
existence. The eagle, on the other hand, flies up to a hundred miles
searching for food, souring over the landscape and seeing an ever-
changing world. The Eagle, not the clam is the symbol of America.
What will be our symbol tomorrow? We are surrounded by instances of
individuals and corporations pointing fingers at the success of
their competitors and whining about how they should be in that seat.
How, if everything were more fair, they would be the leaders. It
strikes me as more than a little hypocritical for the world's
largest communications company (that absolutely refuses to open such
a critical tool to today's communication as instant messaging to
free competition) to be pointing at Microsoft and whining that
they're (recently) acquired Netscape would have been more successful
if Microsoft didn't embed IE into windows. Come on, AOL-TW !! You
yourselves opted for the superior performance and features of IE
over Netscape for your own AOL browsers not too long ago!!!!!!!!
Look at the real market facts.. Netscape did fine against IE, even
though IE was embedded in windows, Netscape was the preferred
browser by most, and was rated as a better product in the media for
several versions. Then, starting with version 4.0, IE started to
offer more competition as it improved it's performance and feature
set. Eventually the media started touting IE as the winner in the
``Browser Wars''. It was then, and only then, that
Netscape started losing market share. Not because IE was embedded
into windows (it always had been), but because it became a better
product. Simple, huh? As I said we will be looked upon as the age
that destroyed competition by punishing those that succeed. Making
the right judgment in the Microsoft case will not change this, but
at least it will not contribute to it. Who has really been pushing
for judgments against Microsoft? The consumers? No. No, I mean the
ones REALLY behind all of this. Our government has been wielded like
a puppet by those who stand to gain financially. It is so, blatantly
obvious to almost everyone I talk to what is really going on. It is
embarrassing to watch our own government be played like this.
Michael R James Galileo BAS, Inc.
Office 623-551-4296 Mobile 602-549-3903 Fax
623-551-4297 Email
[email protected]
MTC-00025786
From: James Plante
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:56am
Subject: Axe to grind--7 to 9
Microsoft [email protected] Thank you for this
opportunity for me to post an incident that was caused by the
Microsoft Internet Explorer software package permanently linked to
the Windows 98 OS package. Prior to the install/upgrade to Windows
98, my system operated on Windows 95. While working with the 95 OS I
choose to upgrade my Wordperfect 5.x to the newer Wordperfect Suite
7.0 (WP7). It is important to realize the sequence in which this
occurred. With these two packages installed on the 95 operating
software there were no incidents that occurred that would have
indicated a compatibility problem. However, after several months of
what appeared to be an acceptable operating environment I choose to
upgrade the OS to the newer Windows 98, with it's promise of
stability and FAT32 capabilities, which I required for expanding my
memory storage in support for working with graphics. For
approximately 6 to 9 months I worked with the Suite 7.0 with no
apparent problems except for a few incidents of an occasional error
message indicating a problem reading a bad WP7 operating file. As
this time period progressed the error message increased in frequency
to eventually delivering the message the file could not be read and
a reinstallation of the missing file would be necessary. The problem
begins. Several attempts to reinstall the file resulted in
permission denied to complete the install. Working on this for
several days I finally resorted to calling the WP help desk. After
describing the problem to the phone technician, he responded with
the question ``Do you have Microsoft Internet Explorer (IE)
installed on your system? I acknowledged that I did have it
installed since it was linked to the current OS, but noted that I
choose to use the Netscape internet browser as a preference, so the
IE browser was not active. He informed me that regardless, with the
IE browser tied to the OS, the affect the IE package has on your
system is inevitable. The problem with trying to install WP7 files
after the Microsoft IE package is installed is to block the
installation of WP7. The phone technician said he would send me a
patch, that may or may not work, to work around the effect of the
Microsoft IE browser blocking the reinstall of WP7. If it did not
work, allowing me to complete the install, then I would have to
upgrade to the Wordperfect Suite 9 application software. I did not
bargain for The IE Browser's affect on my applications. My
intentions were to upgrade, for improved performance, to a better
Operating System. With the browser tied into the OS, the browser
literally destroyed the reliability of my other applications. This
NEVER should have happened. I would like to see this outfit
(Microsoft) broken up. Thank you Jim Plante
MTC-00025787
From: Sean Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement HTC-00025787--0001 file:///C/win/
temp/tmp.htm
Dear DO J,
No settlement in this case against Microsoft can bring back the
justice, if the settlement is in any way beneficial to Microsoft.
The current proposed settlement by Microsoft is totally ludicrous in
that it gives Microsoft even more market share in the educational
market which is traditionally dominated by Apple, Inc. The raw cost
to Microsoft is very minimal. Each copy of Microsoft OS is probably
less than $1 (each CD cost about 20 cents in a retail store).
However, Microsoft is selling them for probably $100. A billion
dollar in software may be just $10 million dollar raw cost in CDs.
And obviously, if they choose to distribute the bulk of the software
via internet distribution, the raw cost is close to zero, except the
occupied download bandwidth.
Dear Judge, the pervasive existence of Microsoft software has
become a danger to the public. No email softwares in the brief
computer history have been susceptible to virus attack. But
Microsoft came up with their ``ingenious'' Microsoft
Outlook email software which has opened SO MANY holes to virus &
warms, such as the famous Melissa virus, etc. The monopoly of
Microsoft has paralyzed the software industry and consumer public.
Without substantial competing choices, we are left with buggy and
unsecure products, and the lack of competition fostered an
environment where blatant problems are ignored or accepted. So why
is Microsoft not liable for the virus problem, when indeed it is
Microsoft Outlook that opens the big door to the virus itself?. And
it was just simply a total stupidity on Microsoft part that cost the
whole United States to spend billions of dollars to fix a Y2K
problem. If in 1995, at the time Microsoft publish their Window95
OS, or in earlier 90s, when they publish their MSDOS 6.0, the
``ingenious'' Microsoft programmers can count their year
from 1995 to 2000 or 2001, and then they would have realized that
their stored dates in the files are not sufficient. And these MS
guys didn't even need to pay for 1 cent for Y2K cost. Instead, they
could pitch their new softwares Win98, or Win2000, that those don't
have Y2K file:///Cwin/temp/tmp.htm problems. I just don't know what
kind of justice is there, if Microsoft is not punished for their
mistakes and business practices which have suffocated software
innovations.
Sincerely,
Sean
P.S. I'm a software programmer for 20 years, and a hardware chip
designer for 5 year. I am sorry to say that software programmers at
Microsoft have one of the lower IQs on this planet. They just cannot
count from 1995 to 2000, nor they don't know that attached files in
the email can be malicious, nor do they know anything about 30 years
of speech recognition research at IBM, and ends up buying a speech
recognition company, and was unable to develop their own.
MTC-00025788
From: Tims
[[Page 27694]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement for the Microsoft case is a bad
idea. It will cost Microsoft a fraction of the estimated cost to
donate software and the like. Also, it would reward Microsoft by
allowing them to expand their market share in the area of education.
There needs to be a ``cash'' pay out to schools with no
incentive to purchase Microsoft related equipment.
Tims Johnson
Winter Springs, FL 32708
Blacklist Productions
http://www.blacklistfilm.com
MTC-00025789
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:07am
Subject: Microsoft settlement (against)
Hello:
I am against the Justice Department's proposed Microsoft
settlement as it now stands because I believe it does nothing to
restore competition in the software industry.
First, Microsoft was found to use its monopoly power to stop
competition in areas that it felt threatened it's Window's monopoly.
These two areas specifically were the internet browser market and
where the Java programming language was concerned. This was because
both technologies threatened to undermine the Window's Operating
System, the source of Microsoft's power. I am against the proposal
because it does nothing to restore competiton to the internet
browser market, and it does nothing to prevent Microsoft from not
supporting Java. I will further explain these two assertions. First,
Microsoft already owns the internet browser market due to its
anticompetitve efforts. Even if the proposed settlement was to take
effect, Microsoft would be under no threat from competition in this
market because it has already tied its Internet Explorer browser to
Windows. In fact users of Windows have to go out of their way to use
alternative products such as Netscape's Navigator Browser and from
my experience many people do not even know that alternative products
exist (in some cases better products). The proposed settlement does
not recitify this situation, as it merely is an effort to stop
Microsoft from using its power in this manner again in the future.
This really is little concern for Microsoft because it does not need
to do this again as it has already killed the competition in this
area, and the lack of competion threatens to destroy competition in
even other areas, as I will explain further later.
I want to first say that any effort to undue the wrong done by
Microsoft must force it to untie its browser from Windows so that
other browsers have a chance to compete with Microsoft's browser.
Furthermore, Microsoft's browser must be forced to conform to open
internet standards and not be allowed to use it's monoploy power to
exclude alternate technologies, as it is doing now. For example,
many websites now will only work correctly with Microsoft's Internet
Explorer. Furthermore, some of these sites will only work correctly
if you are using the version of Internet Explorer for Windows, which
encourages people to use Windows out of necessity not choice. To
illustrate this point I can be using the same version of Internet
Explorer on a competing platform, such as a Macintosh computer, as
on a Windows machine and some websites will not work properly
because Microsoft has made both browsers work differently to the
benefit of the Windows version. If a person needs to access some of
these internet sites, or encounters this type of problem enough,
that person might buy a Windows based computer the next time around
just because Microsoft has made it impossible for that person to use
another platform. With Netscape's browser I never had this problem.
Internet sites viewed on any platform worked the same when using
Netscape Navigator. Netscape made the Internet open, Microsoft
attempts to make the internet only open to users of its products,
which kills competition.
Another thing the settlement should force Microsoft to do is
include Java support in any version of Windows that it ships.
Windows XP does not do this even though other versions of Windows
did. This is a devastating blow to competition. By doing so
Microsoft is making it harder for developers to write software for
multiple platforms because developers have to write software
individually for multiple platforms without Java, whereas with Java
they can write software once and it will work on various platforms.
As a Macintosh user I can attest to the fact that developers will
often neglect the Mac platform because they will have to spend a
majority of their time writing software for Windows, which is a
larger market. This kills competiton in the operating system market
because people will often not buy a Mac because of a lack of
software. If a developer can use Java, this problem is greatly
alleviated, and Microsoft accordingly should be forced to support
it. The current settlement does not do this.
Additionally Microsoft has often held an axe of sorts over the
closest consumer based competitor in the operating system market. I
am referring to Apple. Apple needs Microsoft Office to survive as
most people who want to use Macs still want to communicate with
people using Windows. Microsoft in the past has threatened to stop
making Office for the Mac if Apple did not bend to its wishes, even
though making Office is profitable for Microsoft . Some of these
demands have been for Apple to replace Netscape Navigator for
Internet Explorer as the default browser on Macintoshes(this dmaged
Mac users as Netscape was equal on multiple platforms), for Apple to
share some of its proprietary technology with Microsoft so it could
make Windows better (taking away Apple's Operating System's
superiority), and trying to get Apple to stop making Quicktime, its
competing software, for Windows. A deal that guarenteed that
Microsoft would produce Office for the Mac is about to expire.
Microsoft should not be able to hold the Office knife to Apple's
throat any longer. As long as Office is profitable on the Mac
platform, Microsoft should be forced to make a version of it for the
Mac that is compatible with the Window's version. Even if it is not
profitable Microsoft should still be required to make the software
for a while, as Microsoft's anticompetive efforts have hurt Apple's
market share, and Apple should be given a chance to recover some of
this. Microsoft Office started on the Mac, it should be kept there.
Doing so allows Apple to compete with Microsoft without the fear of
retribution. If this issue is not address, Microsoft will continue
to control Apple, which might result in Apple unfairly going out of
business. If this happened people like me, who prefer alternate
technologies to Microsoft's offerings, will eventually be forced to
use only Microsoft products. This not only is anticompetive, but
anti-American, as America is about the freedom to choose. Microsoft
exterted a great effort to prevent people from doing this, a
stricter settlement is in order reverse the damage that Microsoft
has done.
Sincerely,
Thomas Paluchniak
414 Kellogg Street #50 Ann Arbor, MI 48105 (734)
665-6381
MTC-00025790
From: donald mead
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The DOJ argument in the Microsoft, MS, antitrust case were
excellent. Please carry that excellence through to the end of the
process and revise the settlement to reflect the findings in the
case. An example of one condition that would bring the settlement
more inline with addressing the findings and be cleanly enforceable
would be to require MS to make freely and publicly accessible -
without any restrictions prohibiting outside usage- all
specifications and related information for Application Programmer
Interfaces (APIs,) protocols and other interconnections between all
software and hardware components at least six months to one year
before MS can release a second software component that utilizes that
specification. Also when MS implements any standard established by
an outside organization that MS be restricted to full compliance
with the standard without any additions or modifications other than
approved and incorporated into the standard through procedures
established by the standard setting organization. Any violation
would require MS to remove from the market -with a buy back plan-
all products which contain a component which is in violation of this
condition with the prohibition from engaging in any activity
whatsoever with regard to the product -other than offering to repay
any and all purchasers- for a term of six months to one year plus
the time which the initial release fell short of compliance. Any
further non-compliance would result in MS relinquishing to the
public domain the source code for the violating software.
This specific part of a reasonable remedy would allow MS to
continue innovating while allowing other vendors to fairly compete
within the operating system or application area and restricting MS
from using its monopolistic advantages from subverting standards
designed to benefit a competitive community and the public.
[[Page 27695]]
Thank you for your considerable efforts and diligence,
donald mead
Tucson, AZ
[I am an independent computer consultant whose only connection
with this case is that of a concerned citizen and computer user.]
MTC-00025791
From: ruth.annd@ verizon.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:18am
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,
Ruth Ann Danielson
5411 144th Pl. SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
MTC-00025792
From: Leonard Cecil--Music of Note
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:46am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust case
Hello!
If you've got enough money you can buy anything--including
your competition. microsoft has proved this time and time again.
With the current proposed settlement, Microsoft is proposing to
``buy'' the school market with it's $1-billion penalty.
Donate used hardware and software of it's own kind to schools
(btw--is that $1-billion market value or production value. I
doubt seriously that a CD with MS-Office cost MS more than $1 to
produce, but if donated at market value will be ``worth''
many hundreds of dollars!) and thereby force the schools to tow the
Microsoft line because they will not be able to afford other
possible solution in the future without totally new money outputs.
In this case MS sets itself up--as it's own punishment--a
school monopoly by giving away Microsoft compatable hard- and
software.
Now if Microsoft were to donate $1-billion worth of it's
competitors'' hardware and software, that's more like a
punishment, than the above reward they are being sentenced to for
monopolistic practices. And furthermore, since when does the
convicted get to suggest his/her punishment? The bank robber? The
rapist? certainly not. Not even other white-collar criminals like
embezzelors and tax evaders. But if you are big enough and rich
enough, you can even buy your own punishment.
Phooey!
greetings
Leonard Cecil
MTC-00025793
From: shahid ali
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
they filed lawsuit only for a full marketing purpose. They are
doing nothing but marketing their own name, everyone knows that
microsoft is devoted for the betterment of computer industry. If
microsoft favouring the people of the world then who are they to
stop microsoft, favouring mankind.
shahid
MTC-00025794
From: A1 Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:56am
Subject: Proposed anti-trust settlement
[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It
has been converted to attachment.]
CC: [email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025794 0001
Albert R. Davis, MD
438 May Street
Elmhurst, IL 60126
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Washington, DC 20530
January 25, 2002
Dear Ms. Hesse,
I would like to take this opportunity to forward my comments to
you regarding the proposed anti-trust settlement in the case of
USDOJ v Microsoft. I am an anesthesiologist by profession, but have
used personal computers since purchasing my first in 1982, and have
an undergraduate degree in Accounting and Business Data Systems. I
have maintained a strong interest in computers since 1982 and have
business experience both as a programmer and as the owner of a
computer sales firm.
I want to make it clear at the outset that I am completely
opposed to the settlement as proposed. Microsoft's reasons for their
position are specious, at best, and the proposal offers neither
remedy for Microsoft's past transgressions nor protection from
further abuse of both competing interests and the public at large.
As you know, Microsoft was essentially born with a silver spoon
in its mouth. The company was intially granted a contract to provide
IBM with an operating system for their then-new PC, which at the
time immediately overran the PC world and rapidly eliminated
virtually all of IBM's hardware competition in terms of non-IBM
based architecture. While IBM developed an open architecture for
their hardware, Microsoft immediately and aggressively pursued
supplier contracts with IBM's competitors, thus very rapidly
achieving a monopoly position in terms of operating system market
share. By the time IBM introduced the PC-XT, Microsoft held well
over 50% of the OS market, including the PC-DOS product sold by IBM
under license from Microsoft. In the mid-1980s the limitations of
MS-DOS were becoming apparent and IBM and Microsoft started work on
what eventually became IBM's 0S/2 and Microsoft's Windows NT.
Meanwhile, Microsoft initiated sales of their DOS-based Windows
product. While early Windows products languished, Microsoft made
enormous profits from sales of DOS which they used not only to
improve Windows but, more importantly, to buy influence in the PC
press and among manufacturers. At a time when PC Magazine often
contained more than 400 pages per issue Micorosft bought enormous
quantities of ad space, and the largesse of their parties at trade
shows and media events was legendary. Microsoft was certainly a
major force in the industry and until this point the company was an
all-American success story of luck combined with high energy and
intelligent business manuevers.
MS-DOS was essentially unchanged from its initial versions until
the release of version 4, at which point Microsoft began to write
code designed to take advantage of improvements in PC architecture.
Its early experience was dismal however, and not only did Microsoft
receive its first substantial criticism in the press, it also left
itself open for the first time to competition from competing
software firms. It was Microsoft's response to this
competition--Quarterdeck's desqView and it's associated memory
management software, QEMM--that led to my first personal
encounter with their detrimental and predatory practices. To make a
long story short, I found that Microsoft's Windows 3.0 installation
routine searched for a memory manager product from Quarterdeck
called QEMM. If it found QEMM, Windows would refuse to install. QEMM
released patches, and Microsoft promptly came up with new ways to
seek out QEMM and refuse to install. The issues were not related to
incompatability or instability--QEMM was a clearly superior
product. The entire situation was due to Microsoft's intentional and
deliberate willingness to sacrifice the user's time and money in
order to defeat Quarterdeck in the memory manager application space.
Quarterdeck ultimately declared bankruptcy in the early ``90s.
This was about the same time period that Microsoft first became
noticed within the industry for possible antitrust violations
because of a series of alleged patent infrigements and copywrite
violations against various companies writing software utilities
designed to enhance the performance of Windows. In every case,
however, Microsoft succeeded in either appropriating technology or
simply driving companies out of business because they had such
enormous cash flows that no single small competitor stood a chance
against them in court. This was also the time period when Microsoft
began to impose what is now called the ``Microsoft tax''
on PC buyers. Microsoft began to write exclusive, ``per-
processor'' royalty agreements with computer sellers, which
meant that anyone who bought a PC was forced to buy the current
version of Windows whether they intended to use it or not. The
exclusive nature of those contracts prevented
[[Page 27696]]
PC retailers from offering any OS other than Microsoft's, and the
per-processor tactic forced PC buyers to pay for an MS OS even if
they wanted a computer with no OS on which they would subsequently
install a non-MS OS. While the ``per-processor'' clauses
may have been eliminated by Microsoft's 1995 consent decree, the
fact remains that it is nearly impossible today for an individual to
purchase a PC which does not have Microsoft's OS de jour installed
on it. In 1995, however, when I went shopping for a PC with IBM's
OS/2 OS installed on it, I was unable to find one, despite
contacting each of the top 10 PC manufacturers in business at the
time. In every case, I was told that I would have to purchase a PC
with Windows on it; buying a PC with no OS was not an option. That
was the year I began to build my own computers, which is a practice
I continue today for essentially the same reasons.
MTC-00025794-0002
Microsoft's business practices from the early 1990s to today
are, I'm sure, well known to you. While Microsoft's legal strategy
throughout the antitrust struggle has focused on
``innovation'', the fact is that their business strategy
has been much more focused on acquisition. Today 0S/2 is not
available on any retail PC that I am aware of, and Linux is
supported only as a grudging concession to user demands by companies
which are afraid to anger Microsoft.
Microsoft's monopoly has indeed been bad for the
industry--witness the decrease in the size and number of both
popular and trade journals and magazines, despite the ever present
growth of the PC industry (until this year.) Consider that OS/2,
which has had practically zero support from IBM since 1988, is still
in use in banks and insurance companies across the county. Imagine
the growth and innovation which might have arisen from this
radically different OS had they had the benefit of a fair sales
environment for the past decade. Linux, which is certainly the most
innovative business model of the past 50 years, and which offers
direct competition to Microsoft, has been stifled much more by
Microsoft's strong-arm techniques than by the shortcomings of its
sales approach. Even when one considers what is called the
``network effect'' of an OS which tends to generate
pressure towards a monopolistic economic model, the network effect
alone cannot begin to account for the inability of either of these
equivalent (if not superior) operating systems to affect Microsoft's
market share.
Microsoft's monopoly has been equally bad for consumers. The
vast majority of computer users simply are not equipped by either
propensity or training to become software experts any more than the
average driver is equipped to become a mechanic. In the automobile
industry reliability has become a given precisely because of that
fact. In the Microsoft dominated OS industry, however, unreliability
has become a fact of life, to the extent that having a friend or
neighbor with computer experience is often listed as an important
factor in the computer purchase decision. Microsoft's monopoly
position has allowed them to abrogate their support responsibility
towards their customers almost completely; since the vast majority
of OS sales occur in tandem with new computer sales, and since
Microsoft now requires many OEMs to support Windows for them,
Microsoft has lost practically all incentive to design reliable
products. They are pouring their time and expertise into the
acquisition and development of new technology, while caring little
for the reliability of their current products. The time and expense
costs to both individuals and businesses is enormous; it is common
to hear stories of upgrades that never happen because ``We
finally got it working right, and we don't want to mess with
it.''
MTC-00025794-0003
The current proposed anti-trust agreement is completley unsuited
to solving the problems which exist today because of Microsoft's
monopoly, but there is a simple, fair solution. Rather than writing
a detailed, convoluted agreement which attempts to address a myriad
of problems in a very specific way, each of which can easily be
circumvented, the DOJ can achieve the goals of fair business
practices, customer service improvement and the elimination of an
illegally maintained monopoly thrugh two simple actions.
First, the DOJ should prohibit Microsoft from selling any of its
software as part of a hardware ``bundle'' for a period of
at least five years. Microsoft should be allowed to sell directly,
through retail, as a contracted supplier to busines or by any other
means possible, as long as their products are not bundled with,
contingent upon or in any other way linked to the sale of computing
hardware unless the hardware is manufactured by Microsoft (such as
their mouse, but even including a complete PC should they choose to
manufacture one.)
Second, Microsoft should be forbidden from purchasing any
company outright, obtaining a majority share in any company or
exclusively licensing any company's technology for an equally long
time period.
The application of these two constraints will meet all of the
DOJ's requirements while not placing unfair, irresponsible or
destructive mechanisms in place against the company. Forcing
Microsoft to sell its products to the public rather than to OEMs
will finally allow the general public to become aware of Microsoft's
competition simply because they will see it in the store when they
shop; business users, meanwhile, will be able to negotiate with
Microsoft for the products they need without the necessity of
factoring the ``Microsoft tax'' into their purchasing
decisions. Placing responsibility for the sale back into Microsoft's
hands will also require them to once again consider the reliability
and stability of their products--performance issues will no
longer be ``someone else's problem.'' Installation,
maintenance and comparability will all benefit from Microsoft's
assumption of this responsibility.
By forbidding Microsoft from gaining exclusive control of
computing technology, the restriction against purchasing/exclusive
licensing will ensure that Microsoft will not be able to use their
80 billion dollar cash hoard to simply shut out the competition from
innovation. Microsoft may obtain new technology as it evolves in the
industry, but they must be restrained from preventing their
competitors from accessing that same technology.
These two constraints are simple, difficult to circumvent,
easily enforceable and reasonably achievable. While economic shifts
are anticipated from any effective remedial measures, these
restrictions will ensure that the market changes will be relatively
gradual and non-disruptive to the company. Assuming that the market
responds to the public's need for simple installation and operation
of computer OSs the impact on the public will be minor. The
additional expense of purchasing an OS will be offset by the decline
in hardware prices. While these remedies would not prevent a
Microsoft competitor from attempting to obtain exclusive licensing
agreements with OEMs, the practical residual effects of Microsoft's
current monopoly would make it unlikely for any OEM to sign such
agreements. Microsoft has transformed over the years from a lucky,
plucky company in the right place at the right time into a malicious
behemoth interested only in the domination of its competition
without regard to the best interests of its own customers. The
currently proposed remedies do not substantially alleviate this
transformation, and some other means must be found to re-introduce
real innovation and competition into a vital sector of the American
economy.
MTC-00025794-0004
I hope you will give serious consideration to these comments,
and I appreciate your attention.
Sincerely,
Albert R. Davis, MD
MTC-00025795
From: PAUL HENRY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:57am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I CAN'T UNDERSTAND THE ABSURDITY OF THIS CASE AGAINST MICROSOFT
WHO IS NOT A MONOPOLY I DON'T CARE HOW THE JUDGE SEES IT WHAT A
MANIPULATION OF THE COURT SYSTEM . CHECK IT OUT TODAY LINUX IS
STEALING BUSINESS FROM MICROSOFT IBM HAS A LINUX ONLY SERVER
AVAILABLE , AOL HAS FORTY MILLION USERS AND WITH TIME WARNER HAS AN
ENORMOUS EDGE OVER MICROSOFT ON THE INTERNET AN UPSTART CALLED
LINDOWS IS CHALLANGING MICROSOFT BEA OPERATING SYSTEM IS READY TO
CHALANGE ON THE .NET STRATAGY . THE ORIGINAL CASE WAS FOR BUNDLING
INTERNET EXPLORER WHERE IT WAS RULED BY THE COURT THAT MICROSOFT WAS
WITHIN THE LAW TO DO SO , AT THAT TIME THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN
DROPPED , BUT JUDGE JACKSONS VENDETA AGAINST MICROSOFT KEPT HIM
GOING TO BRING CHARGES THAT WERE NOT IN THE ORIGINAL CASE CAN
SOMEBODY EXPLAIN TO ME HOW WHEN YOU HAVE ALL OF THESE BILLIONARES
[[Page 27697]]
SCOTT MCNEALY, LARRY ELLISON,ECT ... THAT THE COURT ALLOW'S THEM TO
COMPETE TO DESTROY MICROSOFT WITH LAWYERS INSTEAD OF MAKING THIER
OWN COMPETING PRODUCT , THEY HAVE THE RESOURCES ,IBM WAS A
JUGGERNAUGHT WITH OS2 WHEN BILL GATES WAS A NOBODY . EVERYBODY HAS A
CHOICE TO BUY AN APPLE COMPUTER WHICH IS A PERSONAL COMPUTER JUST
THE SAME AS A WINDOWS PC IT ``S OPERATING SYSTEM IS BASED ON
UNIX THE SAME AS SUNS SOLAIRIS AND THE MANY OTHER FLAVORS OF UNIX
WHICH IS WHAT MOST COMPANY'S AND THE GOVERNMENT USE ON THEIR
SERVERS. OTHER OS'S ARE BEA, CALDERA ,DOS, COBALT, DR. DOS, ECT...
PEOPLE USE MICROSOFT BECAUSE THEY ARE THE BEST, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE
ONLY ONES WHO HAVE SPENT BILLIONS IN RESEARCH TO DEVELOP THE ONLY
NEW OPERATING SYSTEM BUILT FROM SCRATCH IN FIFTY YEARS , AND BECAUSE
THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO HAVE BUILT SOFTWARE THAT WILL WORK WITH
THE MILLIONS OF PROGRAMS THAT ARE WRITTEN OUT THEIR .CONSUMERS HAVE
A CHOICE SO MICROSOFT IS NOT A MONOPALY JUST THE BEST . SYMANTEC ,
MCAFEE , AND GAME MANUFACTURERS MAKE FAR MORE MONEY THAN MICROSOFT
WITH LITTLE EFFORT COMPARED TO THE MAKING OF WINDOWS XP FOR NINTY
NINE DOLLARS , LESS THAN A GOOD MEAL AT A RESTARAUNT I GET FREE
UPDATES FOR YEARS , AND IN THE PAST MOST USERS SHARED OR PIRATED A
COPY FOR THEIR FRIEND'' S TO BOOT AT MICROSOFTS EXPENSE .
SYMANTEC AFTER PAYING SEVENTY DOLLARS FOR THIER VIRUS PROGRAM WARNS
ME ON A DAILY BASIS AFTER TEN MONTHS TO ANTY UP FIFTY MORE DOLLARS
FOR AN UPRADE I HAVE TO PUT UP WITH THIS DAILY AND IF I CAN'T STAND
IT ANY MORE, LOSE TWO MONTHS BY PAYING UP . MICROSOFT IS WITHIN
THEIR RIGHTS TO DO THE SAME THING MAKE YOU PAY EVERY YEAR TO USE THE
OS , AND THEY ARE WITHIN THIER RIGHT TO CHARGE FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS
A COPY AS IT IS MY WRITE NOT TO PAY IT . HOW DARE THE GOVERNMENT AND
AOL , SUN , ECT...USE TNE COURT SYSTEM TO EXTORT MONEY FROM
MICROSOFT JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE SUCCSESFUL WHY DON'T THEY COMPETE IN
THE MARKET PLACE , AND TO THE GOVERNMENT TAX EACH OPERATING SYSTEM
IF YOU WANT MONEY, CALL IT WHAT IT IS BECAUSE THE PRICE WILL HAVE TO
GO UP TO GIVE YOU YOUR SHARE, BUT REMEMBER YOU ARE NOT ONLY STEALING
FROM MICROSOFT , YOU ARE ALSO STEALING FROM THE STOCKHOLDERS , 401K
RETIREMENT ACCTS. , TEACHERS ,FIREMEN, POLICE , MOTHERS, CHILDREN
,ECT ... LET THE MARKET DICTATE WHAT HAPPENS , LET BILL INOVATE AND
LET US ENJOY WHAT WE HAVE BECAUSE OF HIM . HE SPEND S BILLIONS ON
CHARITABLE CAUSES BESIDES WHAT HE HAS DONE FOR MODERN TECHNOLAGY
DON'T CAUSE THIS COMPANY TO FOLD LIKE ENRON BECAUSE OF FRIVILOUS
LAWSUITS
MTC-00025796
From: valuelink1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:00am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
240 N Michigan Avenue
Villa Park, IL 60181-2073
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Attorney General:
I had been hopeful that the Justice Department would settle its
anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft for the last year and a half,
and I am glad to see the two sides were finally able to reach a
reasonable compromise in November of last year. This case has
dragged on for much too long, and it is time for the government to
spend its time and energy on more important issues than trying to
hinder the success of an innovative company such as Microsoft.
Our nation's economy is struggling at the moment, and settling
this case will do much to stimulate it. Once competition increases
in the technology industry it will get a real boost, and this will
affect the whole economy. This will be made possible by Microsoft's
willingness to grant rights to computer-makers that will allow them
to promote non-Microsoft products within Windows. There is no reason
to extend this lawsuit past this point. I appreciate your settling
this case and stopping litigation at the federal level. I am looking
forward to seeing the government focus on improving the economy in
the future.
Sincerely,
Dennis Chesney
[email protected]
cc: Representative Henry Hyde
MTC-00025797
From: ROBERT E LAMBDIN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement..
Dear Sir.. Think that the agreement with Bill Bates of Microsoft
is fair, and I don't think that you need to drag your feet any
longer on this matte settle and lets get on with life and turn your
time into helping us X Service men with our dire needs. help is
needed today..Robert Eugene Lambdin.. Retired USN..
MTC-00025798
From: Luc Pardon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
Although a citizen of a European Community country, and not a
U.S. citizen, I'd like to have my objections on the proposed
Microsoft settlement on record.
The proposed settlement will not reverse the harm done by
Microsoft as a result of its unlawful actions. Instead, it attempts
to prevent them from continuing these actions. To most every
prohibition listed, however, there is an ``except''
clause, listing in vague terms the conditions under which Microsoft
would be excempt from the restriction.
It is clear that this will make enforcement impossible, since
costly lawsuits will be needed to stop any percieved infringement.
This is out of reach for most competitors. It certainly is for
companies like mine.
Therefore it is clear that the proposed settlement is
ineffective and insufficient. In fact, it will freeze the current
situation, which has been established as a consequence of
Microsoft's unlawful actions.
Finally, I'd like to point out the harm done to the U.S.
international reputation. The sudden reversal of position by the DOJ
upon the instatement of Mr. Bush's government has not gone
unnoticed, and was in fact expected. Western civilisation is based
on separation of powers. The current situation is percieved as a
vaudeville. It severely undermines the credibility of the United
States as a Western civilized nation.
Thank you for your attention, Luc Pardon
Chief Executive Officer
Skopos Consulting
Middeveldweg 1
Hombeek
Belgium
MTC-00025799
From: Anders Stankiewicz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In order to restore competition in the software business,
Microsoft must be broken into 3 separate companies. One for windows,
one for office applications and a third for internet related
software. The windows company must be restricted to only building
APIs that othercompanies may use.
The Office company must be restricted in the same way from
adding direct internet functionality. Rather they must build links
to standardised functions such as mail and viewing web contens from
inside the office applications. These links must allways be generic
and open and allow any other vendor to sell such a software.
If a product is the best, it must have a chance to win... that
is not the case currently when Microsoft sets its sights on
something.
Sincerely
Anders
MTC-00025800
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/26/02 5:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am merely a layperson and perhaps I misunderstand. I thought
that the purpose of an antitrust settlement after the misbehavior of
the defendant was determined, was to ensure that the defendant would
go forth and sin no more. I must say that Microsoft does not seem to
me to be a very repentent miscreant, and that--given that
Microsoft probably has no intention of giving up its monopolistic
ways without a fight, the DOJ negotiated agreement appears to be
utterly inadequate.
It appears to me that the agreement constitues a summary of
Microsoft's past anticompetitive practices and a collection of
[[Page 27698]]
niggling legalisms that might -- on very good
days--prevent some of them from being repeated.
I would suggest that what is needed instead is a blanket
prohibition on ANY practices that allow Microsoft to use its
monopoly in the operating system market to further ANY non-OS
Microsoft corporate activity of any sort. This should be coupled
with effective enforcement mechanisms and draconian financial
penalties for transgressions.
I would suggest that any settlement that falls short of that
level will merely lead to another trial, another conviction and
another settlement a few years downstream.
Why not do the job properly now?
Donald Kenney
MTC-00025801
From: Megan Deon Cross
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:43am
Subject: Rationals
MTC-00025802
From: Philippe Verdy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
About the James K. Glassman's quote: ``Instead of
straightening out its business problems, AOL has decided to spend
its time and effort filing lawsuits against tough
competitors--a petty, distracting pursuit that won't help AOL
or, for that matter, the U.S. economy, which depends on firms like
Microsoft for the innovation necessary to bring about a technology
revival.'' How can such an argument come to the legal field ?
There is absolutely no reason why a company can do all it wants,
simply because it has a dominating position in the market place.
Microsoft has a dominating position, but this CANNOT be an argument
that authorizes it to ignore legal constraints that apply to it and
all its competitors. If it was the case, then the laws that prevent
a company or person to abuse its dominating position in a given area
would be senseless.
Fair competition requires that even dominating actors respect
the same constraints than its competitors, even when this dominating
actor is important or vital for a given economy: the economy is
based on the fair competition between actors, whatever their size,
nature, or importance. This allows for renewal of the marketplace.
And this is also required for the constitutional rights in most
democracies that gives the freedom of establishing businesses to
every people or company.
The laws that protect consumers or competitors, and allow them
to make business in a free but regulated market, act for the long-
term safety of the economy: a dominating actor is exposed to the
general business-place risks, and may not survive a possible future
business-crash, and it is vital for the overall economy that
competitors can offer the service previously offered by the
dominating actor. And allowing competitors to make business also
acts in favor of innovation, by allowing a richer range of
alternative products, services and technologies: this is a benefit
for the consumer which can determine what he really needs, and which
can buy something else that the expensive package what the
dominating actor proposes. All this means that Microsoft, as well as
its competitors, must respect all fair business rules, including
equilibrated business contracts between it and its consumers,
providers or co-branding partners. When an actor has a dominating
position, the terms of such business contracts tend to become mostly
unequilibrated in favor of the dominating actor, which adds
constraints and rules that prevent it from its fair obligation
without giving any counterpiece to its co-contractants. This is
caused by the fact that these contractants have in fact no real
possible choice when signing a business contract with this
dominating actor.
In that case, the legal intitution must control the terms of all
business contracts proposed by the dominating actor, and compare it
with terms proposed by other competitors, so that unequilibrated
terms of such contracts can be declared void by the justice. When a
practice becomes too common, the authorities can regulate nationaly
or internationaly to fix a common direction for the justice
authorities, and give them legal arguments that can prevent unfair
practices.
Philippe Verdy.
France.
MTC-00025803
From: Glenn Holmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
I am writing in reference to the proposed settlement in the
Microsoft antitrust case. I am a professional programmer with 15
years experience, covering numerous operating systems, computer
architectures, and programming languages.
I do not feel that the proposed remedies are adequate in the
area of documentation. In order to remedy Microsoft's past behavior
and prevent it from occurring in the future, the government needs to
require that *all* programming interfaces be made public. This
includes not only operating system APIs, but networking protocols
and file formats as well. (I do not think Microsoft should be
required to make its source code public; the implementation details
of these interfaces are what make one company stand out with a
superior product, and should be protected if the company wishes them
to remain proprietary.)
Section III.E of the proposed judgement does not go far enough.
All networking protocols must be made public (not just licensed) in
order to make sure that server products designed to work with
Windows (especially Open Source projects like the Samba project,
http://samba.org) do not face a barrier to entry. It is crucial that
the Justice Department take a stand in this area now, before
Microsoft is allowed to gain an illegal advantage in the emerging
area of web services with its .NET technology.
The proposed judgement does not mention disclosure of the
formats for data files created by Microsoft applications. As the
Findings of Fact notes in section III.B.1.39, ``the size of
Windows'' installed base impels ISVs to write applications
first and foremost to Windows''. File formats must be made
public in order to reduce barriers to entry in the area of
productivity applications, specifically word processors,
spreadsheets, etc. designed to be compatible with Microsoft Office
(for example, Star Office: http://www.sun.com/software/star/
staroffice). I can cite personal experience in this area, as job
recruiters in my field nearly always require resumes in Microsoft
Word format.
Unless stronger measures than those proposed are taken in these
areas, I feel that the government's considerable efforts in
addressing these issues will have been wasted. Microsoft will still
be able to compete on the basis of the quality of its products
compared to those of other companies, but if the remedies are not
stronger, that competition will never get a chance to exist.
(Note: the address I am mailing from is my home e-mail; my
business e-mail is listed in the reply-to header and below.)
Glenn Holmer
[email protected]
Programmer/Analyst
phone: 414.908.1809
Weyco Group, Inc.
fax: 414.908.1601
MTC-00025804
From: jin choung
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
hello,
please don't let microsoft off the hook with a mere slap on the
hand. you cannot count on any corporation to ``throttle
back'' of its own accord. every corporation deserves freedom
and has its rights but when a corporation oversteps its bounds, it
needs to be FORCED into its place. not coaxed. not persuaded. not
asked.
jin choung
glendale, ca.
MTC-00025806
From: Ron arky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:08am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I feel the start of the dot com crash was the microsoft suit,
the sooner it is settled and put behind us the sooner the market can
return to normal.
Respectfully
Ron Keller
MTC-00025807
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whomever It May Concern,
I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past,
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will
[[Page 27699]]
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly
position in the operating system market. This is especially
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past
transgressions.
Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the
American people in general.
While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
Yours Sincerely,
Adam Myers.
MTC-00025808
From: Steve Waldman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The attached Tunney Act comments have been submitted by fax (26-
January-2002), as an e-mailed PDF document (26-January-2002), and by
a commercial overnight carrier (delivery a.m., 28-January-2002). I
apologize for the multiple modes of submission, but it is important
that these comments be verifiably received by the morning of January
28. I would be very grateful if the Department could provide an
acknowledgement of on-deadline receipt of these comments, perhaps by
e-mail. Many thanks for your attention and assistance.
Steven Waldman
MTC-00025808-0001
Steven Waldman
44 Stridesham Ct
Baltimore, MD 21209
(410) 336-1408
[email protected]
January 26, 2002
US Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
Attn: Renata Hesse
Re: Comments regarding Proposed Final Judgement
United States v. Microsoft Corporation
Civil Action No. 98-1232
Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the US v.
Microsoft Proposed Final Judgement, published in the Federal
Register on November 28, 2001.
The Proposed Final Judgement as written is not in the public
interest. I urge the Department to pursue remedies substantially
different from those proposed, whether via further negotiations with
Microsoft, or through adversarial proceedings. If the settlement is
presented to the District Court without substantial modification, I
would urge Judge Kollar-Kotelly make a determination under the
Tunney Act that the Proposed Final Judgement would not serve the
public interest.
The Proposed Final Judgement Would Do Positive Harm It may seem
odd to suggest that an antitrust remedy could be positively harmful.
After all, regardless of the remedy, a convicted monopolist cannot
leave an antitrust proceeding with more rights than it had when it
arrived, and usually leaves with fewer. However, a poor remedy can
indeed leave the public in a situation worse than the status quo
ante. The current Proposed Final Judgement does so, in two ways.
First, the PFJ describes, permits, and envisions specific future
conduct on the part of Microsoft that would itself be
anticompetitive. By providing implicit government endorsement for
this conduct, the PFJ would make it difficult for the Department,
the States, or private third parties to bring proceedings against
Microsoft to curb it at a later date. Second, the PFJ contains
enforcement provisions whose primary practical effect would be to
delay and reduce the likelihood of further action should the company
continue to behave unlawfully. In other words, while the Proposed
Final Judgement does place Microsoft under some new constraints, it
places the DOJ and other potential litigants under even greater
constraint. The net effect would be a diminishment rather than an
increase in deterrence of Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior.
PFJ Explicitly Permits Continued Anticompetitive Practices The
purpose of the Proposed Final Judgement is to remedy Microsoft's
unlawful conduct, specifically its unlawful maintenance of a
monopoly in Intel-compatible PC operating systems. The reasoning
behind the Court of Appeals upholding of the monopoly maintenance
claim centered on the idea that there is an ``applications
barrier to entry'' to operating system markets, but that this
barrier to entry could plausibly be chipped away at by a class of
applications referred to as ``middleware''. The Court held
that Microsoft engaged in various practices to ``protect[]
Microsoft's monopoly from the competition that middleware might
otherwise present'', in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman
Act. It is these practices that must be remedied. In particular, the
Court held that by virtue of restrictive contracts with computer
manufacturers (``OEMs''), internet providers
(``IAPs''), software companies (``ISVs'') and by
other means, Microsoft impeded the widespread distribution of
middleware that might have threatened its monopoly.
Section III.C.3 of the Proposed Final Judgement forces Microsoft
to allow OEMs to automatically launch non-Microsoft middleware at
the end of a PCs boot sequence, but only ``if a Microsoft
Middleware Product that provides similar functionality would
otherwise be launched automatically at that time''. By this
caveat, the PFJ endorses a restriction in an OEM licensing agreement
that would otherwise constitute a violation of Section 2 of the
Sherman Act under the Court of Appeals'' reasoning. The caveat
is anticompetitive on two counts. First, it permits Microsoft to
``choose its battles'': Microsoft need only face
challenges from automatically launched middleware where the company
feels its own offerings have an advantage. Should a competitor
create an innovative middleware product that would threaten
Microsoft's applications barrier to entry, Microsoft can prevent its
distribution as a default running service indefinitely, by simply
not fielding an offering of its own or by quietly integrating but
not trademarking its offering (see the definition of a
``Microsoft Middleware Product'', PFJ, Section
VI.K.2.b.iii). Secondly, the caveat necessarily permits competing
middleware only if OEMs include Microsoft's offering as well, since
by definition (again, PFJ, Section VI.K.2) a Microsoft Middleware
Product is a part of a Windows Operating System Product. The Appeals
Court noted several reasons why OEMs are reluctant to include two
products of the similar functionality in a default installation,
including customer confusion; increased support and testing costs;
and that it is a ``questionable use of the scarce and valuable
space on a PCs hard drive.'' (the Appeals Court quoting the
District Court's Findings of Fact) These considerations are cited by
the Court in holding unlawful and exclusionary OEM contracts that
forced a choice of including Microsoft middleware alone or Microsoft
middleware plus a similar competitor. Additionally, even when
competitive middleware is preinstalled alongside Microsoft's
offering, ``network effects'' would put any one of several
non-ubiquitous occasionally installed competitors at a serious
disadvantage with respect to offering by Microsoft, even if
inferior, that is guaranteed to be present on all installations.
Should Microsoft force an ``ours or both'' decision with
respect to competing middleware as a condition of OEM Windows
licensing, it would most certainly be anticompetitive. However, it
would also be explicitly sanctioned by the Proposed Final Judgement,
and therefore difficult for the government or a third party to
oppose. [1]
To the degree that Section III.C might have any effect in
allowing OEMs to integrate third party middleware with a Microsoft
OS, Section III.H.3 largely eviscerates the hazard to the monopolist
by foreseeing a mechanism by which the company's operating systems
could ask end-users to confirm an alteration or undoing of OEM
additions to the OS fourteen days after the consumer first turns on
a PC. For example, under this section, an operating system would be
permitted to present a dialog box stating, ``Windows has
detected that this configuration has been modified from Microsoft-
recommended defaults. This may lead to incompatibilities or system
faults. [Correct Now?] [Cancel]'' Clicking ``Correct
Now?'' would replace OEM-installed non-Microsoft middleware
with Microsoft's offering. If faced with the question, a court might
determine that such a presentation (which Microsoft's competitors
would be unable to make) would constitute unlawful monopoly
maintenance by Microsoft. But it would be difficult for the
government or for a private litigator to make that case in the face
of a Final Judgement that clearly endorses the conduct. The problems
thus far mentioned are not unique. The
[[Page 27700]]
Proposed Final Judgement is riddled with ``loopholes''
that not only make it a weak remedy, but that foresee and allow
specific behavior by Microsoft that in the absence the Final
Judgement would be actionable. By complicating potential future
public or private antitrust enforcement against Microsoft, the
Proposed Final Judgement would encourage misconduct and do positive
harm to competition in the software industry.
PFJ Specifically Discriminates Against ``Open Source''
Competition Over the past several years, a novel approach to
software development known as ``open source'' has risen to
prominence. Under the ``open source'' development model,
many widely dispersed individuals, businesses, and other entities
collaborate in the production of complex software products,
contributing to what over time has become a rich commons of
collectively authored software. ``Open source'' software
is made available free of charge, under licenses that permit
widespread redistribution and modification by users, sometimes with
the restriction that any derived works must be made available to the
public under the same terms.
The business model that supports the continued development of
open source software remains to be fully understood. The licensing
terms of open source software prevent the exploitation by authors of
any limited monopoly that would enable them to profitably
``sell'' software as traditional software vendors, such as
Microsoft, have done.
Nevertheless, a wide variety of actors including individual
hobbyists, multinational companies, public and private universities,
governments, and nongovernmental organizations have found sufficient
incentive to invest substantial amounts of time and money into the
production of open source software. In the face of Microsoft's
successful and unlawful monopoly maintenance, very few traditional
software vendors still stand as competitors in the company's core
market of Intel-compatible PC operating systems. Behemoths like IBM
and scrappy upstarts like Be, Inc. have battled to gain a
fingerhold, but failed to make any headway at all, and their
products (IBM's OS/2, Be's BeOS) have all but faded from the
computing landscape. The only non-Microsoft operating system that
has managed to grow its share dramatically despite Microsoft's well-
established pattern of anticompetitive behavior is the open source
operating system Linux. Other open source projects that have
competed effectively with Microsoft include Samba (which provides
Windows interoperable file and print services to computer networks)
and Apache (the most popular web server on the Internet).
It appears that the open source development model is somewhat
resistant to the sort of anticompetitive behavior that has been
effective for Microsoft in the past. One might even argue that the
explosion of open source software over the past few years is a
response by businesses, developers, and users to an artificially
straitened ``traditional'' software landscape, and is
perhaps attributable at least in part to Microsoft's anticompetitive
behavior. As traditional vendors have receded from whole categories
of software under the self-fulfilling truism that competing with
Microsoft is akin to suicide, many entities have for one reason or
another decided that the cost of contributing a small portion to the
development of alternatives is less than the direct costs (continual
licensing fees) and indirect costs (the failings of software not
adequately tailored to their needs; uncertainty and future costs
created by vendor lock-in) associated with relying on Microsoft
products.
Regardless of the whys, open source software now stands as one
of the few sources of effective competition against Microsoft.
Indeed, while many of the battles that prompted the Justice
Department's action against Microsoft are now past and prologue
(e.g. the ``browser wars'' between Netscape and
Microsoft), the struggles between open source Linux and Windows in
the server space and between open source Apache and Microsoft's IlS
remains, among many others, remain active and fierce. [2] Any remedy
to Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior that diminishes the
likelihood that open source projects can effectively interoperate
with and compete against Microsoft's offerings would harm
competition in the software industry. Unfortunately, the Proposed
Final Judgement in several places explicitly permits Microsoft to
discriminate against open source competitors.
Importantly for open source developers, Sections III.D and III.E
of the Proposed Final Judgement would obligate Microsoft to disclose
APIs, communication protocols, and documentation that might be
required to interoperate with a Windows Operating System product.
However, the caveats of Sections III.I and III.J restrict these
earlier sections, and would allow Microsoft to essentially exclude
open source competitors from access to or the use of this
information.
For the disclosure requirements of Sections III.D and III.E to
have any effect, competitors must be able to use the information
disclosed to develop and distribute competing and/or interoperating
products.
However, Section III.I foresees a regime under which the
disclosed information must be licensed, as it continues to be the
proprietary, intellectual property of Microsoft. Section III.I
guarantees ``reasonable and non-discriminatory terms'' for
such licensing, based on the payment of ``royalties or other
payment of monetary consideration''. However, ``reasonable
and non-discriminatory'' commercial terms inherently
discriminate against open source software, which by virtue of its
licensing must be freely distributable and modifiable. Under
ordinary circumstances, a company certainly should have the right to
offer use of its proprietary technology only under commercial
license, and this would legitimately prevent those who might wish to
distribute open source applications based on that technology from
doing so. But in the case of a company that has a monopoly over a
substantial portion of the computing world and that has maintained
that monopoly through unlawful anticompetitive conduct, allowing it
to require competitors to pay even ``reasonable''
licensing fees in order to interoperate with its monopoly product
provides the monopolist with unjustifiable reward for its
misbehavior. In Microsoft's case, permitting such licensing is
particularly insidious, because even if it were to provide licensing
of its putative IP on absurdly generous terms, for example if it
were to levy a royalty of 1 cent per thousand copies, it would
immediately exclude what in the present real world are currently its
most tenacious competitors from any possibility of interoperating
with its software. By permitting ``reasonable and non-
discriminatory'' commercial licensing of technologies the use
of which is required in order to compete against and interoperate
with Microsoft technologies, the Proposed Final Judgement condones
and foresees a practice that would exclude and discriminate against
important open source competitors.
Section III.J restricts the scope of the PFJ disclosure
requirements where security technologies (``anti-piracy, anti-
virus, software licensing, digital rights management, [and]
encryption or authentication systems'') are concerned.
Unfortunately, in today's networked world, no software is untouched
by security concerns, and any non-trivial internet application must
make use of and interoperate With encryption and authentication
systems. Further, non-disclosure of security-critical techniques and
protocols is unnecessary: the professional computer security
community is nearly unanimous in its disavowal of the notion of
``security through obscurity''. A well-designed system
should be secure even in the face of an attacker who fully
understands the algorithms and protocols used to enforce the
security. This is not as difficult as it sounds: the academic
literature is filled with encryption algorithms and protocols that
have never been broken despite massive peer-review, and even some
that are ``provably secure''. Historically, non-disclosure
of security techniques in software has more often served to provide
cover for shoddy work than to even arguably enhance security.
``Security by trade secret'' is invariably broken,
because, invariably, secret techniques are not subjected to
sufficient peer review, and weak secret techniques can be reverse-
engineered and then compromised. (See the recent history of CSS, a
once-secret, easily broken, scheme for protecting DVDs, for a
topical case-in-point.) Microsoft has a particularly poor security
record, with respect to both the inadequate security of its
products, and its attempts to restrict disclosure in hopes of
covering up embarrassing lapses.
Open source software, in general, has a much better reputation
for security, owing in large part to the fact that security
algorithms in open source software are necessarily published, and
are therefore subject to widespread review. Thus it is ironic that
Section III.J.2 of the Proposed Final Judgement explicitly allows
Microsoft to condition disclosure of security-sensitive technologies
to those who ``meet[] reasonable, objective standards
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and
viability of its business''. Since most
[[Page 27701]]
open source software projects are not developed or
``owned'' by any one business, and since the terms of open
source licensing often require disclosure of source code, III.J.2
effectively excludes open source software from any access to
protocols, APIs, and other information that might be required to
interoperate with or compete against Microsoft products that include
a security component. Any significant application now must have
security designed into it, so Section III.J.2 could be used to
effectively lock open source competitors out of the disclosure
requirements of the Proposed Final Judgement. It would be difficult
to oppose Microsoft in court for discriminating against its
troublesome open source competitors when the discrimination is based
on the language of a court-sanctioned Final Judgement.
PFJ ``Enforcement Mechanisms'' Would Hinder Effective
Enforcement The following portions of the Proposed Final Judgement
would hinder effective enforcement of the agreement: �
Section IV.B provides for the appointment of a Technical Committee
to ``assist in enforcement and compliance'' with the PFJ.
The constitution and role of the ``TC'' is described in
detail. The Technical Committee would oversee Microsoft's compliance
with the agreement in an ongoing way, and would respond to
complaints from the plaintiffs or third parties. However, the
Technical Committee has no power other than to assist in Voluntary
Dispute Resolution, and, according to Section IV.D.4.d, ``No
work product, findings, or recommendation 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
Judgement.'' � Section IV.A. I requires that ``the
plaintiff States shall form a committee to coordinate their
enforcement of this Final Judgement. A plaintiff State shall take no
action to enforce this Final Judgement without first consulting with
the United States and the plaintiff States'' enforcement
committee.'' � Section VIII explicitly excludes third
parties from taking any role in the enforcement of the Proposed
Final Judgement.
Let us be perfectly clear: At the end of the day, the Proposed
Final Judgement provides the United States and each of the plaintiff
States with a right to sue to enforce its terms. But let's also be
honest: the choice by a State of whether or when to enter into
complex antitrust litigation against a well-known and well-heeled
opponent is politically fraught under the best of circumstances.
Under the terms of the PFJ, an unsatisfied plaintiff would be faced
with two bad options: 1) the plaintiff can expend resources on a
dispute resolution mechanism (the ``TC'') that the PFJ
endorses, but that has no power, cannot be used at all as a basis
for further proceedings, and will have no effect unless an amicable
resolution is reached; or 2) eschew the dispute resolution mechanism
endorsed by the settlement, thereby facing accusations of burdening
Court resources unnecessarily, as well as a politically treacherous
``consulting'' process that would predictably lead to
accusations of judicial over zealousness by reluctant former co-
plaintiffs. A reasonable non-judicial enforcement mechanism would
serve as a basis for judicial enforcement if required. Instead, the
PFJ creates a ``middle path to nowhere'', that increases
the political difficulty of undertaking any binding action against
the company.
Under the PFJ, the real-world probability that misbehavior on
Microsoft's part would bring legal consequences would be less than
without the proposed enforcement mechanisms. Thus, the Proposed
Final Judgement does positive harm to the public. Complex, Vague,
and Contradictory Language Hides New Anticompetitive Tools For
Microsoft The ostensible purpose of Section II1.1 of the Proposed
Final Judgement is to require that Microsoft license under
``reasonable and non-discriminatory terms'' intellectual
property that software vendors and other parties might require in
order to offer middleware products interoperable with Windows. If
the wording were less vague (and if ``reasonable and non-
discriminatory'' were changed to ``royalty free'' to
include open source developers), this would be a serious and
legitimate remedy: Having unlawfully restricted the development of
competing middleware, it is fair that Microsoft be compelled to
license, under generous terms, whatever intellectual property
nascent competitors would find necessary to interoperate with
Windows.
However, the wording of this section is astonishingly vague.
Microsoft may be compelled to license its IP to ``ISVs, IHVs,
IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs'' only as required to ``exercise
options and alternatives expressly provided to them under this Final
Judgement''. Exactly what ``options and
alternatives'' are provided to these parties by the Proposed
Final Judgement is not a matter of scientific clarity, even to the
avid reader of the document. What is crystal clear, however, is that
those to whom the PFJ purports to offer this relief-- the
alphabet soup of third parties--have absolutely no standing to
enforce (and therefore to enlist a Court's aid in interpreting and
clarifying) this or any other section of the Proposed Final
Judgement (Section VIII of the PFJ, see above).
Further, in an astonishing twist, Section 111.1.5 exacts the
remedy of compulsory licensing not only of the convicted monopolist,
but of innocent competitors seeking relief. Section 111.1.5 insists
that a software vendor who wishes to provide a middleware product
for a Microsoft operating system, if they require access to
Microsoft IP to interoperate, must license to Microsoft its own
intellectual property. The following language is no doubt intended
to soothe competitors: ``[T]he scope of such license shall be
no broader than is necessary to insure that Microsoft can provide
such options or alternatives'' (Sec 111.1.5). However, nowhere
in the PFJ have I been able to discern any ``options and
alternatives'' that Microsoft must provide to any third parties
that would require a license on its part. Microsoft must merely
permit practices that it has heretofore managed to prevent, in part
by refusing to license its own IP, and it must disclose some of what
it has heretofore kept secret. The requirements of Section 111.1.5
unnecessarily and specifically envision a situation where a
competitor, attempting to interoperate with Windows in ways that
arguably would require some license of IP from Microsoft, could be
asked to license its own IP to Microsoft, or else to cease and
desist. If Microsoft and the putative competitor were to disagree
about what ``no broader than necessary'' means, a
competitor could not enlist any court to resolve the dispute and
compel licensing under the PFJ. Thus, the PFJ sets up a situation
where Microsoft could ``leverage'' an interoperability
requirement by a competitor or ISV in order to acquire access to the
attractive IP of its competitors. In the absence of the PFJ, a court
might look at a ``we'll show you ours only if you show us
yours'' requirement as anticompetitive, given that Windows
Operating Systems are a de jure monopoly with which many third
parties must interoperate or die. However, the Proposed Final
Judgement gives cover to the practice by explicitly foreseeing and
sanctioning a cross-licensing requirement, diminishing the
likelihood of a successful outcome and increasing the burden in
litigation for companies that may find themselves in the crosshairs
of Microsoft's IP lawyers. Again, the public is positively harmed by
the PFJ, because it diminishes the likelihood of legal consequences
should Microsoft engage in foreseeable anticompetitive behavior.
Conclusion
A District Court found, and a Federal Court of Appeals,
affirmed, that Microsoft engaged over a period of years in multiple
unlawful and sometimes deceptive practices in order to maintain its
monopoly on PC-compatable operating systems. The fruits of this
illegally maintained monopoly have been and continue to be huge for
the company and its principals. The Proposed Final Judgement fails
to provide any strong remedy for this conduct, and instead shelters
the monopolist from potential consequences of past and future
misconduct.
The Proposed Final Judgment, by providing court sanction to
practices a court might well find to be anticompetitive absent the
proposed settlement, leaves consumers, competitors, open source
software developers, and other interested parties in a worse
position than they would be in if Microsoft were simply left to face
private litigation as a de jure monopolist without any specific
remedy being imposed in the present case. The Proposed Final
Judgement would therefore be harmful to the public interest, and,
unless it is very substantially modified, it should be rejected.
Notes
[1] Section III.C.1 suffers from the same flaw. It permits OEMs
to install ``icons, shortcuts, and menu entries'' for pre-
installed, competing middleware, but ``Microsoft may restrict
an OEM from displaying icons, shortcuts, and menu entries for any
product in any list of such icons, shortcuts, or menu entries
specified in the Windows documentation as being limited to products
that provide particular types of functionality, provided that the
restrictions are non-discriminatory with respect to non-Microsoft
and Microsoft products.'' Microsoft
[[Page 27702]]
would be freed again to create an ``ours or both''
situation, justified by language it could graft into contracts
directly from the Proposed Final Judgement.
[2] For an informal measure of the perceived threat that open
source software presents to Microsoft's monopoly, we might examine
the lengths to which Microsoft has gone in disparaging such software
recently. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballruer has called Linux ``a
cancer'' [Chicago Sun-Times, June 1, 2001 ] that has ``the
characteristics of communism.'' [The Register, August 2, 2000]
Ballmet has explicitly described Linux as ``threat number
1.'' [upside.com, January 20, 2001] According to the public
comments of Microsoft exec Jim Allchin, ``Open source is an
intellectual property destroyer... I'm an American, I believe in the
American Way. I worry if government encourages open source, and I
don't think we've done enough education of policy makers to
understand the threat.'' [CNet news.com, February 15, 2001]
[URLs: http://www.suntimes.com/output /tech/cst-fin-micro-01.html;
http://www.theregister.co.uk /content/1/12266.html; http://
www.upside.com/texis/mvm/news/ story?id = 3a5e392ca3; http://
news.com.com/2100- 1001-252681.html?legacy=cnet]
[signed Steven Waldman]
MTC-00025809
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft
Good grief, how much longer is this charade going to go on!
Leave one the most productive, efficient and innovative company in
the world alone. Microsoft should be given thanks and awards for
single handedly standardizing the PC world and increasing this
country--and the world's--productivity. Let the cry babies
who couldn't compete and would have balkanized the PC world, to the
detriment of all, get on with business today.
Gene Dinovo
MTC-00025810
From: Rob Short
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a person in the technology field, I believe a remedy should
be obtained for Microsoft's illegal practices with all due haste.
These illegal practices were well established in the last court case
involving Judge Jackson and we have only to find an appropriate
remedy. Microsoft's behavior has consistently smothered innovation
in many areas by establishing themselves as the de facto standard
through the leveraging of their Windows OS rather than product
quality. Further, they have leveraged their position by not allowing
3rd party software to run properly on the Windows OS and thorugh
intimidation tactics towards rival companies.
America depends upon the free market and innovation to be
competitive. Please act quickly and decisively in this matter. The
remedy may determine how well America leads technology in the
decades to come.
Sincerely,
Robert Short
MTC-00025811
From: Nan F Posnick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:28am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Please accept the settlement as is:
[email protected]
MTC-00025812
From: Lane Schwartz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My name is Lane Schwartz. I am a United States citizen, resident
of 207 W. Iowa St, Greenfield, Iowa; I am currently pursuing a
Master's degree in Computer Speech, Text, and Internet Technology at
the University of Cambridge in Cambridge, England. I have a B.A. in
Computer Science from Luther College, Decorah, Iowa. This email is
directed to the U.S. Department of Justice as my public commentary
on the United States vs. Microsoft, as per the Tunney Act.
**************
I believe the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) in United States
vs. Microsoft to be fundamentally and fatally flawed. The Judgement,
as it stands, will not prevent Microsoft from enjoying the fruits of
their illegal and anti-competitive policies. Nor will it stiffle
future anti-competitive behavior from Microsoft. **************
I have followed the above case with keen interest for the past
several years. I am a programmer and computer researcher, and as
such the anti-competitive actions that Microsoft has engaged in have
affected me personally even more than the average computer user. I
have had to deal with the effects of Microsoft creating their own
proprietary version of Java. I have been unable to fully reap the
fruits of Sun's competitve, cross-platform technology because of the
many web designers who (knowingly or not) wrote applets for
distribution via the web that will only run on Microsoft Windows.
I wish to state that the PFJ as it stands is unacceptable. I
have read many of the relevant documents in this case, and I believe
that the current PFJ will be a mere slap on the wrist of a convicted
monopolist. I agree with the issues put forth by Dan Kegel of
Codeweavers.com (http://crossover.codeweavers.com/mirror/
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html).
I also wish to put my support behind the alternate judgements
proposed by the several states in this case.
Please do not sell out to Microsoft in this case. They have
committed a serious crime. Do not let them get away with a light
remedy. Do not ignore the thousands of developers who wish
desparately to create competitive products, but are prevented by the
fear of unknown and undisclosed Microsoft software patents. Do not
ignore the would-be competors.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Lane Schwartz
email: [email protected]
permanent address:
207 W. Iowa St.
Greenfield, IA 50849
MTC-00025813
From: Robin Hall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I can't believe that more hasn't been done to resolve this
issue. You let this company get away with stealing from the American
people. People who shoplift a candybar get more of a handslap than
Microsoft has recieved. They have made it virtually impossible to
for any good company to compete by not allowing companies that sell
computers sell anything but windows on their machines and on top of
that if you purchase a machine from a company like this you need to
take what it has you don't even have the option of getting it
without an OS. Please review what a catastophic lack of justice this
is.
Robin E. Hall
MTC-00025814
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please allow Microsoft to continue their business and allow them
to bring us new technology. If they developed the operating system,
software, and Windows, they should be allowed to market it and make
a profit. I believe the other companies could not do the same so
they sued in order to bring Microsoft down. I use Windows and all
the software and I am very happy with it and would not buy anything
else.
[email protected]
MTC-00025815
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,
[email protected]@inetgw.Ralph@essen...
Date: 1/26/02 6:49am
Subject: Microsoft Jihad: Congrats New Profit Dubya CC:
[email protected]@
inetgw,[email protected]@i...
MTC-00025815-0002
``The Microsoft PR machine told me it's time stop joking
for minute and do something to token earn my $ billions of annual
net profit. My belief is that Clinton administration were infidels
and I'm happy to declare NEW profit Dubya to take up preaching where
old profit Ronnie Reagan left off, peace be with him. And mother
Barbara get free Windows upgrade for well handled silver spoon, and
Kenny Boy too for teaching me the DC shuffle, ha ha ha... Dallah be
thanked.''
MTC-00025816
From: Darrell Simon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a U.S. citizen and resident of Texas. The proposed
settlement with microsoft fails on the following points:
1) Restoration of a competitive operating systems environment.
The remedy seems to perpetuate Microsoft's monopoly power, not
nullify it. This settlement isn't going to breathe new life into the
desktop OS market.
2) Protection of the consumer. A monopoly can be legitimately
maintained in a free
[[Page 27703]]
market by a combination of the lowest price and the best features. I
can buy a ``professional'' distribution of Linux for $75
that includes 6 cds of software--development tools, databases,
an office suite, two different desktop environments. For Windows XP
Home edition, I have to pay $99 [to upgrade--$150 to purchase
new] and I get an applications environment, a web browser and some
media tools (on 1 cd).
If I want to run Windows XP Pro, I have to pay between $200-$300
depending on whether I am upgrading or purchasing it new. XP Pro
adds some server-capability software. If I want office applications,
I have to pay $200-$500 for Office XP (depending upon which
applications I need to use) For development tools, I would pay $250
for a C++ compiler, $1000 for the entire ``Visual Studio''
line from microsoft.
Let's re-iterate: Linux Professional Environment--$75,
Microsoft Professional Environment--$1800, Oh, and with Linux,
I can run it on as many machines as I own. With windows, I need to
pay again for each machine I have in my house. This is not free-
market pricing; this is monopoly pricing. The final settlement
doesn't redress the monopoly situation, the final settlement
preserves the monopoly.
If the final settlement is going to preserve the monopoly, can't
it at least soften the blow to my pocketbook somehow?
Here are some alternate remedies: 1. Set a price ceiling for
Microsoft Software: Tie the price for Microsoft Software to 2 times
the price for Linux. Make sure that their software distribution
contains what Linux does. I'd gladly pay $150 to get all the
Microsoft Suite of software (i.e. Windows XP, Office XP, Visual
Studio ). So would a lot of people. At that rate, Microsoft might
get people to upgrade more often, rather than waiting as long as
possible to avoid paying their monopolistic gouge price. It's not a
free market solution, but, hey, they're the ones who abused the
market system and contracts to preserve their monopoly position.
2. Free upgrade for all (U.S) users. Windows XP only sold 17
million copies in its first quarter (source:Microsoft 2Q FY2002
earnings release). What's wrong with the other 200 million of us
that haven't upgraded yet? We get an upgrade, they get to stop
supporting Windows 95, 98, NT, 2000 and ME. No, this doesn't really
redress the problems of their competitors, but at least everybody
gets a good software upgrade, right? What will this cost them? I can
buy a writable CD for $.09. I'm sure they get theirs for cheaper.
For 200 million copies, their material outlay is only $20 million.
The Microsoft Second quarter FY2002 earnings release indicates that
they spent $660 million dollars in the quarter on lawyers. This is
like a drop in the bucket for them. Spare me the boxed
packaging-- just give me the CD.
3. Different Licensing Model One person, one license for
microsoft software, one fee for all of it. I have two computers at
home (two different Windows vintages). At work I have two different
work areas, each with a different desktop machine (One Windows NT,
one Windows 2000). I sometimes use a laptop (Win 98). I work with
people who use PDAs (Windows CE). In a given day, I might have
contact with 4-6 different copies of Microsoft windows
software, not to mention other applications. Between me and my
company, we pay Microsoft 4-6 times for one person. We should
set up a different licensing model so that between me and my
company, we aren't paying for microsoft on 6 different copies of the
same software because we are running multiple machines that I happen
to touch every day.
This solution doesn't break the monopoly, either. But it might
protect the Microsoft customers against multiple license payments
for the same user to use the same tools on different machines. This
probably still lets Bill & Co make fists full of dollars.
Ok. So, I don't know if any of my suggestions are the holy
grail, and of course lawyers would have to pound on all of these to
make them work. But... The current settlement doesn't do a damn
thing for the consumer/end user, doesn't end Microsoft's monopoly
power, doesn't dilute that power much and probably won't solve
anything.
Thanks for listening
-Darrell Simon
I know this is a simplistic suggestion, but, look, anyone who
can afford to spend $660 million in a single quarter on lawsuits is
going to find some type of loophole in any ``fair''
settlement (or rather, build in a loophole and get you to sign).
MTC-00025817
From: raidergr8
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Netscape is not stuggling because Internet Explorer is bundled
with the Windows OS. Netscape is struggling because they suck. You
don't sue your neighbor because he hired a better architect than you
and built a better house. The government needs to start levying some
heavy fines on these companies that want to sue other companies for
``building a better mouse trap''. AOL has 32 million
subscribers and they have merged with Time Warner Cable, they are
closer to being a Monopoly than Microsoft ever thought of being.
Ray Hedger
MTC-00025818
From: Keith Velleux
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Public Comment on Proposed Final Judgment for United States v.
Microsoft Corp., Civil No. 98-1232
I. Table of Contents
I. TABLE OF CONTENTS
II. PERCEIVED PROBLEMS IN THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT
A. DOES NOT ?RESTORE COMPETITIVE THREAT? IN THE OS MARKET
B. NO SPECIFICATION OF FAIR & REASONABLE PUNISHMENT
C. HIGHLY DEPENDANT ON DEFINITION
D. SUSCEPTIBLE TO SUBVERSION BY MICROSOFT ?INNOVATION?
E. NEEDED INFORMATION FOR MIDDLEWARE DEVELOPMENT NOT GUARANTEED
F. MSDN FOR DOCUMENTATION DISTRIBUTION
G. PLAINTIFF?S DESIRE FOR TIMELY RESOLUTION
III. POSSIBLE ADDITIONS TO THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT
A. SYSTEM FOR WINDOWS APPLICATION INTEROPERABILITY IN NON-
WINDOWS
OSES
B. QUALITY STANDARD FOR APIS BUNDLED WITH WINDOWS OS
C. FAIR & REASONABLE PUNISHMENT (FINES, ETC.)
IV. GENERAL COMMENTS
A. COURT OF APPEALS DECISION & QUALITY STANDARDS FOR
SUBSTITUTES OF TIED GOODS
B. DOJ PLAINTIFF NOT BEING AGGRESSIVE
II. Perceived Problems in the Proposed Final Judgment
A. Does not ?restore competitive threat? in the OS market
The Competitive Impact Statement claims to restore the
competitive threat that middleware products posed to Microsoft.
Nowhere does it try to restore the competitive threat of an OS
competitor.
B. No specification of fair & reasonable punishment The
Proposed Final Judgment does not call for any fines, imprisonment,
or recovery of court costs. At the minimum, court costs should be
recovered.
C. Highly dependant on definition Microsoft has demonstrated an
ability to position itself so to take advantage of loopholes in
terminology of contracts.
D. Susceptible to subversion by Microsoft ?innovation? The
evolution of the consent decree case (1995?) into the contempt case
(1998) and finally into the Appeals Court ruling on Tying
demonstrates that Microsoft can use ?innovation? to ?re-shuffle the
deck? on previously defined arraignments.
E. MSDN for documentation distribution Is MSDN a zero cost
source available to the public at large? Linux developers would
express a need to maintain cost free access.
III. Possible Additions to the Proposed Final Judgment
A. System for Windows Application Interoperability in Non-
Windows OSes This addition is similar to the WINE project for Linux.
The court should order Microsoft to develop for commercial use a
system that would: Allow ISVs to compile unmodified source code of a
Windows API program for a different OS using native OS APIs while
maintaining the look & feel of that OS. Allow end users to
execute (run) ?shrink-wrapped? Windows API programs on a different
OS while maintaining, if possible, the look & feel of that OS.
Include all API sub-sets [Direct-X, MFC (Microsoft Foundation
Classes), etc.] necessary to compile or execute commercially
available products. Allow an ISV to use standard Microsoft
development tools or the development tools of the native OS.
[Microsoft would need to create both.]
Be supported and maintained by Microsoft for compatibility with
new versions of Windows for a 5 year period. [An escape clause based
on market share is needed.] The OSes to be supported by this system
would be Mac OS (an injured party referenced in the case), Linux (an
OS for Intel PCs), Solaris X86 (another OS for Intel PCs), and the
top
[[Page 27704]]
2 other OSes determined yearly. The source code for this system and
the system itself is the property of the OS owner, Apple Computer
for Mac OS, Linus Torvalds for Linux, Sun Microsystems for Solaris,
etc. In addition, the OS owners determine the minimum performance
level the system must demonstrate. The cost to develop and maintain
this system would count against any fines the court may order.
The justification of this addition is clearly to lessen the
?Applications Barrier to Entry? in the OS market and hopefully
prevent abuse of Microsoft's monopoly.
B. Quality Standard for APIs bundled with Windows OS This
addition would order Microsoft to release documentation for all APIs
(exceptions below) that are used by Windows or any Microsoft
Middleware or Applications bundled with Windows, four weeks before
product availability (includes changed and new APIs). This would be
the basis of a Quality Standard that competitors could use to make
substitute products. The Quality Standard must be available to the
public at no cost. The API exception is the same security exception
as noted in Proposed Final Judgment, but excepted APIs must not
prevent a competitor from making a substitute product. The
justification of this addition is clearly to lessen the ?Barrier to
Entry? in the OS & Middleware markets and hopefully prevent
abuse of Microsoft's monopoly.
C. Fair & reasonable punishment (fines, etc.) The Sherman
Act calls for fines, imprisonment, or both. Also, the Clayton Act
allows the government to recover the cost of suit. As added
justification, the court should consider Microsoft's failure to
supply ?Pro?Competitive Justification? for its actions and
Microsoft's previous convictions.
IV. General Comments
A. Court of Appeals Decision & Quality Standards for
Substitutes of Tied Goods The modern definition of Quality is
compliance with requirements. On page 79 of the PDF file of the
Court of Appeals decision, the court states as part of its decision
on Tying, ?It is unclear how the benefits from IE APIs could be
achieved by quality standards for different browser manufacturers.?
The free software community is full of substitutes for other
commercial products. Here is an example to add some clarity: There
exists a commercial graphics manager (manages the windows on a UNIX
X?Window server) called ?Motif? and a free equivalent (minor
differences and some bugs) called ?Lesstif?. An application compiled
with Motif can be executed on a system with only Lesstif installed,
a clear example of a substitute. In addition, an API is a Quality
Standard (at least a partial one). American National Standards
Institute has many standards that specify APIs and computer
programming languages. Example: ANSI/ISO/IEC 9899-1999
specifies the C Programming Language that includes functions (APIs).
B. Plaintiff's desire for timely resolution possibly interfering
with desire for justice Plaintiff's desire for timely resolution has
prevented possible determination of further defendant liability, the
?tying? portion of the case being dropped, etc. This added to the
difficulty of securing a more server remedy because of less
liability.
MTC-00025819
From: Ned Fleming
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I very much believe the settlement allows Microsoft to run
roughshod over smaller OEMs--and thus perpetuating their
monopoly. I'm also concerned that Microsoft will continues its
practice of maintaining a secret list of APIs, which only they know
about.
Ned Fleming
1715 SW Crest Dr
Topeka KS 66604
Phone--785-273-8435
MTC-00025820
From: PAUL CAP
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement,
It is our belief, that a fair and just settlement has been
reached and further pursuit of this matter is not needed and will
not be in the best interest of our Great Country and it's people!
Sincerely,
Paul & Carolyn Cap
612 Pinehurst Ave.
Placentia CA 92870
MTC-00025822
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:18am
Subject: microsoft settlement
It is past time to end he costly Microsoft litigation and let
the negotiated settlement stand. The public will not be served by
continuing these lawsuits. Only a few greedy companies and lawyers
stand to benefit from dragging this on.
Thank you.
MTC-00025823
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dept. of Justice:
As a citizen and stockholder of both Micrsoft and AOL, I am
greatly concerned that the lawsuit recently filed by AOL will hinder
the settlement of the Micrsoft case. It is time for the government
to put this case to rest! It should never have been started to begin
with. What a waste of taxpayers money!!!!
In addition, the timing of the purchase of Netscape by AOL would
indicate to me that AOL is simply jumping on the litigation
bandwagon, rather than putting their time and resource into duking
it out in the competitive arena....where they should be.
It is time to get this mess settled and move forward.
Thank you for your consideration!
Beryl J. Packer, Ph.D.
9421 NW 74th Place
Grimes IA 50111
MTC-00025824
From: Matthew Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I will keep this very brief because I'm sure you have more than
enough correspondence detailing what I am going to say and I don't
think I could put it any better than the rest of them. So the bottom
line is that I (as well as the rest of my immediate family, 3
registered voters all together) feel that the Microsoft Corp. should
suffer harsher penalties than the ones proposed by the Justice
Department. That is all I wanted to convey. Thank you.
Matthew Taylor
MTC-00025825
From: Igor Alexeff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My personal opinion is that Microsoft has been attacked because
it is too successful. The whole concept of punishing a company
because it does its job well is repugnant to me.
Igor Alexeff
MTC-00025826
From: Ed Hammond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a member of the public, I would just like to add my opinion
that Microsoft is a horrible monopoly that seeks to control all
areas of our computing lives, and that strong measures are required
to break it up and allow for more competition.
Thanks,
-Ed Hammond
MTC-00025827
From: isa kocher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear [email protected]:
The settlement proposed by the Department of Justice leaves
Microsoft ready willing and able to continue without abatement its
predatory practices which have seriously undermined any of our most
creative entrepenuers'' ability to bring new and creative
products to the market.
Considering the degree to which Microsoft dominates the retail
software market, this has had a depressing and inhibiting effect on
the productivity of our most creative businesses whther of not they
engage in computer related business. Business and personal software
is crucial to our nations economy and Microsoft has deliberately and
illegally interfered with the normal economic growth of our nation.
Justice must bring the settlementback in line with the seriousness
of the offense and the predatory instincts of the offender.
sincerely
Mr. Isa Kocher
9513 Buck haven Trail
Tallahassee FL 32312
MTC-00025828
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 27705]]
We've been fortunate to have a mind such as Bill Gates in our
country. Please drop this suit. Competition keeps us on our toes.
MIcrosoft is known for innovation.
Enable them to keep going!
MTC-00025829
From: ANDY TURNER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settelment
1/26/02
This situation withe Microsoft should have never occured !!
(Thank you Janet Reno / Bill Clinton) It remindes me of the Tobbaco
Co.'s who are legal tax paying companies with large pockets that the
Federal Government and many State Governments looked at as CASH
COW'S to help fill their cash straped coffers. ``If there was a
real problem with them, then they should be outlawed...but no, they
want the TAXES.'' In Microsoft's case, it's competitors who
couldn't keep up or wanted to sell items to the COMPUTING PUBLIC,
couldn't because Microsoft was giveing / including them in it's
packages.
Do the Federal or State Governments want to kill Microsoft ? No.
They just want to legaly pick it's pockets to cover their shortages
in their treasuries from poor management!
What's next??....MacDonalds and Fast Foods for fat content, Beer
& Soft drink companies. Does the Government think that everyone
is stupid and incapable of being responsible for their own actions?
Adults are not children, but they are greedy and some will do or
say anything if they think they can get money from a large company,
i.e. hot coffee at McDondalds.
Let's get our hand out of Microsofts pockets !!!!!
Sincerely,
Andrew A. Turner
MTC-00025830
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Stanley Janasiewicz, MD
Rt 2 Box 238A
Wellborn, FL 32094
MTC-00025831
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:40am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Dept. of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, D. C. 20530
I would like to see the Dept. of Justice settle it's long
standing antitrust laswsuit against Microsoft. This has been going
on far too long and it seems the only thing the government and
states, that have not committed to settle, seem to be holding out
for is blood.
The settlement agreed upon in November is fair and the changes
Microsoft is willing to agree to will ensure a more competitive
marketplace. I do not know what more the government can ask for.
I am a Microsoft shareholder and Microsoft's financial success
affects my financial success. Therefore, with a reasonable
settlement drafted, I urge you to finalize it without additional
delay. I've already lost plenty in the enron scandal.
Sincerely,
Collette Dobmeier
MTC-00025832
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sir:
I want to register my public comment regarding the proposed
antitrust settlement. In my opinion it is time to settle this in any
manner available. Although I think it is excessive, if Microsoft
agrees to the terms please accept them.
I believe that the finding of Judge Jackson was one of the
reasons for the current escalation of the recession. Besides- where
would we be without Microsoft? Not nearly as advanced technology-
wise as we are.
When I go to purchase software, I do not see a deficiency of
other than Microsoft publishers.
Enough is enough. Too much valuable time and money have been
wasted on the whole situation.
Thank you for taking the time to review these comments
Albert C Ellet
36 Pond View Drive
Richboro, PA 18954
MTC-00025833
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lelia P Crandall
540 S Ranch View Circle 62
Anaheim Hills, CA 92807-4328
MTC-00025834
From: andy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is bad idea.
Andy Bezella
4305 N DAMEN AVE APT 3W
CHICAGO, IL 60618-1732
MTC-00025835
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't think the proposed settlement with Microsoft is fair, it
is far to lenient.
MTC-00025836
From: Kayle Clements
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:35am
Subject: Re: U.S. v. Microsoft: Settlement Information
I am writing to disagree with the proposed settlement with
Microsoft. I believe this company has gone out of its way to
monopolize the marketplace and keep other computer based businesses
from competing on a fair level. And the settlement does not impose
enough restrictions and punishment for their past actions.
The effects of this monopoly may not be seen for some time to
come, but it is clear to me that Microsoft has done an extremely
poor job of self policing in the past. I believe the government
should step up to the task and regulate Microsoft to be sure that
these types of practices will no longer be tolerated.
I believe the best way to accomplish this is to break up
Microsoft into no less than 2 separate entities. This is the only
way, in my opinion, to be sure that the company can no longer
practice the policies that gave Microsoft the monopoly in the first
place. Please do the right thing.
Kayle Clements
3201 12 Mile Road
Rockford MI 49341
MTC-00025837
From: Mark Lavi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:55am
Subject: My comments on the DOJ-MSFT remedy
I have a long standing background as a consumer of personal
computers and online services since the early 80's. Since the early
90's I have developed a career based on
[[Page 27706]]
Internet media and Internet technology development working for the
first commercial national ISP, News Corporation, and Netscape
Communications.
I feel my comments have a historical and technical perspective
with an understanding of the issues and business ramifications to
the technology markets which Microsoft asserts terrible influence
over already. Firstly: the DOJ case never properly defined terms as
any computer scientist would do so to separate the ``Operating
System'' market from the ``Application Software''
market. Since an operating system's purpose is merely to provide
access to the hardware of the computer, it is a low level layer
which is required for software applications to work--but
clearly separate, independent, and crucial to all software.
Because Windows, in all of it's varieties, is an operating
system and it's market is for anyone with computer
hardware--it's primary distribution is with computer
manufacturers (OEM's like Dell, Compaq, HP, Gateway, Apple, etc.) It
has been proven that Microsoft's aggressive business contracts have
stamped out the competition many years ago, but today prevents any
competition for operating systems.
Since Internet Explorere is a software application, it cannot be
an operating system. If this were not the case, then Internet
Explorer's primary competition, Netscape Navigator software, would
logically also be called an operating system. This most certainly is
not the case. Therefore Internet Explorer is not an operating
system, Windows distributes Internet Explorer, and this is tying two
markets together.
The woeful part is that by bundling Internet Explorer into
Windows, and now many other software packages: NetMeeting (video
conferencing software), Backup (media replication), Defragment and
Compression (disk utility), Windows Media Player (video and audio
media player), Outlook Express (email software), and Internet
Explorer (web browser) would name a few of the bundled software
packages and industries threatened by Microsoft's self-serving
distribution. Online Services and Fax and Modem software also are
industries bundled into Windows.
Microsoft advances it's own technical agendas with these
products: making them standards by sheer distribution alone. And
Microsoft wields many of these standards in a proprietary manner,
preventing competiton for these software packages.
Worse still: the Internet media (web sites) that these software
packages promote also are Microsoft owned properties. Internet
Explorere promotes the MicroSoft Network (msn), Outlook Express
promotes HotMail (a web email system). The new Windows XP promotes
photo processing services! How can an operating system imply
software and web sites? Windows is not Hotmail, but many people will
likely use Hotmail because they got it with Windows and they may not
even know that there IS competition on the Internet because
Microsoft doesn't provide a choice.
The remedy should be the break up of Microsoft into three
business units: Operating System, Applications, and Internet/network
services. Microsoft will negotiate with anyone to bundle all three
of these business units when they should only promote one at a time.
They promote all three when they have no business to do so, and they
prevent competition by doing so. They bully companies and partners
with threats that they will compete if they do not concede to
whatever Microsoft wants (equity, technology licensing,
distribution, etc). This behavior happens today, still. Every
business contract and deal should be broken apart into three
separate business units to prevent tying these separate areas.
Microsoft tries to blend the three technologies (operating
system, software application, Internet service) together in every
product offering now. Windows XP is the premier demonstration of
this. Furthermore, it has left out a key Internet technology by Sun
Microsystems called Java--which threatens the Windows operating
system. Java is a key feature of Internet Explorer: it allowed it to
compete with Netscape Navigator over the past years. Now that
Netscape Navigator doesn't control much of the market, Microsoft
will not carry Java because they promote their own proprietary
technologies and prevent competition for Internet software
development.
The technology delivery of this blend of three separate markets
(OS, software, Internet) is now one business proposition to the
entire market, no choices allowed or even acknowledged by Microsoft.
This monopoly is killing the diversity of the economy and technology
sector. Lastly: Microsoft must not donate software or old computer
hardware as part of the remedy because this is also self-serving to
the benefit of Microsoft. The remedy should provide damages and
money to the states so that they may CHOOSE the best use of the
settlement (perhaps non-Microsoft solutions!)
By allowing Microsoft to provide it's own software (which costs
Microsoft almost nothing to produce and distribute) as value for the
settlement, the government is distributing Microsoft's monopoly
further without choice. By allowing Microsoft to provide old
hardware computers, it distributes obsolete hardware and represents
a very poor value when compared to the monetary investment that
should be made in today's current hardware which represents the most
performance and value in the history of the computer industry.
I am sorry I have not organized my thoughts better, but I do not
approve of the horrible outcome that is being granted to Microsoft's
benefit and the detriment of the computer industry. It will darken
the entire future of our world and I must speak out.
Feel free to contact me for clarification or help, --
--Mark
Public key attachment for secure e-mail enclosed.
/-bs/ My opinions are my own, but you
may share them.
// mailto:[email protected] http://www.atarex.com
MTC-00025838
From: rod lyman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Consumer interests have been well served by the settlement and
the time to end this costly and damaging litigation has come. I
believe 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.
MTC-00025839
From: Jim Vickers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:12am
Subject: SIR I belive that the government should look at all the
good that microsoft has done for the world,
SIR I belive that the government should look at all the good
that microsoft has done for the world,
THEREFOR THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT SHOULD COME TO A END AND BE
DROP .AND PUT A STOP WASTING THE TAX PAYER MONEY.
THANK YOU MR. JAMES C. VICKERS
MTC-00025840
From: Carlos Guevara
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it might concern:
Through this note I would like to express my concern that many
special interests are trying their best to derail this settlement,
in detriment of the economy, the private enterprise and innovation
in general.
It is my humble opinion that these same parties are involved in
a double standard, pushing for a company to be punished for the same
things that they do on a daily basis.
For example, NETSCAPE started the process of bundling things
that had nothing to do with each other when they started bundling a
WEB BROWSER, with an e-mail client (ever wondered what ever happened
to clients like pegasus and eudora??) with their 90% market share
browser. Or including a WEB PAGE EDITOR with the browser.
SUN on the other hand has been bundling stuff with their
operating system for years. Now, don't misunderstand me, I think
bundling things for free is a great practice. In the mid 90s, when
SUN started bundling a WEB SERVER with their operating system, and a
web browser called HOT JAVA (yes, very much like what they complain
that MSFT did), it was a way for small development companies, like
the one I work at to get access to this resources without having to
shell out a large amount of money, which small companies cannot
afford in the early stages of their life.
If it wasn't for bundling software, the way MSFT DOES, the cost
of using many of the ``commodity'' software that we take
for granted now would be much more expensive, and that would not be
good for the consumer or for the large industry that is software
development. In fact, there are LAWSUITS against MSFT about how much
they charged for operating systems, when people like NOVELL, SUN and
IBM have charged for
[[Page 27707]]
years thousands of dollars for their different operating systems
(that by the way could be available for free like BSD ad LINUX have
demonstrated). But it is NOT ok to charge 299 dollars for an
operating system from MSFT, that also includes a web browser
(Netscape wanted to charge $49 for the most basic browser), and a
web server (Nestacape wanted to charge 1000 for their most basic
server), mail client, media player (Real Networks charges $19 for
their most basic client).
As a software developer I CAN ASSURE YOU, that even though MSFT
started bundlling their browser since version 2 (IE 2.0) on Windows
95, it wasn't until version 4.01 that I started to consider it as an
alternative to Netscape. Even though I had to pay 49, 69 and up to
79 dollars for the NETSCAPE browser, I (and most other people, since
it wasn't until version 4 that the market share for IE started to
close the gap with Netscape) because it was better. I didn't stop
using Netscape because it cost money, I stopped using it when it
didn't become the best web platform.
I know for a fact that the software company that I work for, as
many more in the industry, would not have survived if we had to do
business in an environment where we had to let people like SUN,
ORACLE and NETSCAPE to dictate the way of doing things. As a
developer, I have seen an industry of products that work around the
MSFT platform thrive. Just look at the number of companies that work
with MSFTs platform and compare it to the number of companies that
work with ORACLE and SUN. You will see that in that last
environment, only BIG players can get in the door. In fact look at
some of the products that MSFT has bundled in their operating system
for years, and because those products are not as good as the
competition, there is still a huge market for those tools, like
Anti-virus protection, disk defragmenters and the such. MSFT has
bundled a disk defragmenter with every version of Windows since Win
95, but still companies like symantec, DiskKeeper and others have
products that are far better and are still in business. So to
conclude, let those companies that want to fight MICROSOFT do it on
the business field, like Symantec and DiskKeeper, RealNetworks and
many others are doing, and not on the JUDICIAL field where NO ONE
WILL COME OUT THE WINNER.
MTC-00025841
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:14am
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,
William Mikulski
3223 Chancellor Drive
Fort Wayne, IN 46815
MTC-00025843
From: DON K WILLAIMS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir:
I have watched the long drawn out action and believe that
settlement should be completed at this point as defined by the
court. I feel that the dammage done to all parties should be
finalized and everyone move on.
A tremendous amount of time and money has been expended, however
I don't see that anyone is better off especially the consummer.
Closure should be now.
Sincerely,
Don K Williams
MTC-00025844
From: gkern
To: microsoft
Date: 1/26/02 8:17am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Microsofts only crime since the beginning of this whole so
called LEGAL and I use the term loosely, circus, has been to create
a great company that is good for america and everyone who uses thier
products.
Not only are other companies wanting what microsoft has created,
but so does our gov. microsoft has done no wrong to me or anyone
else that i know or have talked to. MY GOV. can only find microsoft
not guilty of wrong doings and let the world of FREE trade go on
like it should. MY VOTE IS FOR MICROSOFT AND A GREAT
AMERICAN--BILL GATES
THANK YOU
[email protected]
MTC-00025845
From: William Shotts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed
Microsoft settlement.
I have worked in the computer software industry for over 20
years and I have deep concerns regarding the effectiveness of the
proposed settlement. In my view and in the view of many others, the
proposed settlement does little to address the issues raised in the
findings of facts in this case. I urge you to seek stronger
sanctions against Microsoft (up to and including structural
remedies) to insure the future this industry and America's
technological leadership.
Thank you.
William E. Shotts, Jr.
500 Twinbrook Parkway
Rockville, Maryland 20851 --
William Shotts, Jr. (bshotts AT panix DOT com)
MTC-00025846
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Vallie Cosper
3905 Valrico Grove Dr.
FL 33594
MTC-00025847
From: jean proudfit
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The states that wish harsher penalties for Microsoft should be
told to get lost. Enough already.
Most of our industry has been driven overseas, should be try to
drive the rest out. Where has Microsoft harmed the consumer? No
where.
Jean Proudfit
Tampa, Fl.
MTC-00025848
From: Dave Garvie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle the Microsoft suit, and let them get back to
business.
Thank you,
Dave Garvie.
MTC-00025849
From: c
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
As a software developer who has written for Windows and UNIX
operating systems, I
[[Page 27708]]
would like to comment on the Proposed Final Judgement in the United
States vs. Microsoft.
I understand that the intent of the agreement is to prevent
microsoft from illegally stifling competition. The current
settlement will not achieve that goal. Here is one of the many of
the reasons:
Many of the definitios are too narrow to be of any effect. For
example, the definitions of Microsoft Middleware Product and Windows
Operating System Product are seriously flawed. They explicitly
include products that Microsoft does not expect to be critical to
their future and exclude important new products.
The whole tenor of the document is that of a firm outward
appearance with a very soft and mushy core. If the document is
approved as written, I have no doubt that Microsoft will be able to
continue it's anti-competitive practices virtually undiminished.
There are so many problems that approval is clearly not in the
public interest.
Sincerely,
Chris Buoy
MTC-00025850
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:38am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I strongly support the DOJ Microsoft settlement.
Robert M. Horner
2804 Sailors Way
Naples, FL
MTC-00025851
From: Terry Jendersee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
6148 E Campo Bello Drive
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
January 25, 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
Microsoft and the U. S. Department of Justice. The lawsuits have
been going on for too long now and there could be no benefit for the
public for them to continue.
I think the terms of the settlement are fair and reasonable.
They will also serve to alleviate competitors'' complaints as
Microsoft has agreed to grant computer makers broad new rights to
configure Windows'' so that non-Microsoft products can be more
easily promoted. They have also agreed to disclose for use by
competitors interfaces that are internal to Windows operating system
products.
I hope your office see what I believe and that is that our
economy can afford no further litigation. Please implement the
settlement. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Terry Jendersee
MTC-00025853
From: Daniel W. Solcher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:46am
Subject: Microsoft Lawsuit
To Whom It May Concern:
I want to express my opinion about Microsoft antitrust
settlement. I really want to get this lawsuit to over with, so my
business can start focusing on Microsoft products and its future
developments. I understand that Microsoft has done some mistakes,
but that is in the past. I work at Fortune 10 company, and I rely on
``future technologies'' to develop today's software for
the company. It's the future of government that I am concerned about
that affects Microsoft and my company's position on the computer
software technologies.
I ask you to resolve it quickly, accept the settlement, and get
it out of the Microsoft's way. That will save taxpayer's money, too.
Also if the settlement is over with, then the sales at Microsoft
will increase, therefore more tax money to the government.
Thanks,
Dan
Daniel W. Solcher
[email protected]
11439 Baltic
San Antonio, Texas 78213
Vmail:210-308-9651
Fax: 210-308-9302 Web: www.solcher.net
MTC-00025854
From: Richard Carlson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:47am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I oppose Florida not joining in the settlement with Microsoft.
As a consumer I experience firsthand the ``expense'' of
the breakup for purpose of creating ``competition thereby lower
costs to consumer'' by the telephone company! That has not
happened. I now pay $15-$20 more a month to a local phone company
who charges me long-distance fees within my local area. I live in
the Tampa area and to call friends, transact normal, everyday
business, or call restaurants for reservations I pay long distance
fees.
My geographic area is similar to the Washington D.C area where
you live in Virginia but call friends and businesses in Maryland and
Washington DC The breakup of the ``phone monopoly'' did me
no favors.
Also while traveling it is impossible, from some phone
companies, to reach your long-distance carrier and you end up paying
$3.00-$6.00 per minute for a call. Every home computer owner
struggles with keeping their system up--to-date with software
and making ``compatibility'' even more dispersed and
conflicted will certainly not be helpful and will cost more in the
long run. I can only imagine what a breakup of Microsoft will do to
the business community! Please encourage those involved in this
decision to leave well enough alone.
Barbara Carlson,
Plant City,
Florida
MTC-00025855
From: Jem Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern,
I would like to voice my opinion that the proposed Microsoft
settlement be rejected. I have been reading up on various details of
the settlement, and I believe that as proposed the settlement can
only hurt consumers like myself, which I understand would be counter
to the purpose of the antitrust laws.
I do not believe that true competition can be attained so long
as Microsoft is allowed to own standards, whether programming
standards in the form of APIs, or in file formats such as .doc or
.avi. If one looks at the history of Microsoft's ascendance, it
seems to me a large part of their success has derived from their
tendency to change API and file formats at will, forcing would-be
competitors to play an endless game of catch up. Microsoft Word is
the de facto word processor, not because of its technical merits,
but because it is the only program that can reliably read and write
.doc documents. Can it truly be good for consumers to be forced to
buy the latest Microsoft product so they can simply communicate?
For there to be competition, Microsoft needs to freely publish
changes to their file formats and APIs several months in advance of
any Microsoft product actually using them, thus giving potential
competitors the opportunity to compete on features that are
important to consumers.
In my reading of the settlement proposal, I find it to be
entirely inadequate. Microsoft is very good at squirming through the
holes in the fine print, and I see some large holes indeed. Plus,
there seem to be no measures to prevent Microsoft from realizing the
gain from their illegal behavior, and I believe that was one of the
directives of the Appeals Court's findings.
It is my hope that the proposed settlement will be rejected.
Consumer choice is the engine that drives innovation, and the single
choice of Microsoft or nothing is almost no choice at all.
Thank you for your attention,
Jem Lewis
800 5th Av #101-447
Seattle WA 98104
[email protected]
MTC-00025856
From: Jim Murphy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement fails to Enforce Use of Public
Standards
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Hesse:
I have serious concerns about the proposed settlement for the
Microsoft case.
My prime concern is that has no effective provisions against
Microsoft's practice of deliberately introducing incompatibilities
in its products that prevent them from interoperating with non-
Microsoft products that conform to public standards. These have the
effect of driving out use of the non-MIcrosoft products. The
settlement needs to have effective provisions that force Microsoft
to comply with standards.
[[Page 27709]]
Truly yours.
Jim Murphy
Wall Township, New Jersey USA
MTC-00025857
From: Orlene McCarthy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
You guys want to help the economy all you have to do is settle
this and put a stop to all these law suits. It is so simple the
economy was really good until the Clinton guys decided to go after
Msft. just look at the facts it is simple spending millions to get
the economy going is not the answer you need to settle this.
Msft is the best company and employs millions what is wrong with
everyone. Please Please listen to people and do something.
Live,Love,Laugh
MTC-00025858
From: allen n budge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:04am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
The current agreed settlement is fair and further litigation is
not required.
Allen Budge
MTC-00025859
From: Mark Christiansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:06am
Subject: Microsoft should be punished
I hope you make Microsoft pay for it's abuse of it's monopoly.
They are a monopoly and they are anti-competitive. This is obvious
to everyone.
Don't let them get away with their over-pricing and abuse on
American businesses and the American public.
Thank You,
Mark Christiansen
25 Wiggin St.
Concord, NH 03301
MTC-00025860
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:09am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Please stop the nonsense about breaking up
microsoft.....microsoft computer applications have been an
incredible boom for business productivity...
MTC-00025861
From: Michael.Ronayne@ PearsonTC.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Re: Microsoft Settlement
From: Michael E. Ronayne
88 Satterthwaite Avenue
Nutley, New Jersey, 07110
Date: January 26, 2002
I wish to go on record as supporting Microsoft in the current
Microsoft Settlement case. While I believe that the original
antitrust case should never have been brought against Microsoft and
the judicial decisions in the case were seriously flawed, in the
interests of both the national defense and the economy of the United
States, this case must be brought so a swift and just conclusion. If
the national condition were other than it is, I would have urged
Microsoft too pursue every avenue of legal redress, to fight the
decisions in this case. However, if Microsoft and the Department of
Justice have reached an agreement to settle this case, then the
terms of the agreement should be implemented quickly, in the
national interest.
One of the key arguments against Microsoft in this case involves
the struggle between Microsoft and Netscape for market share in the
Internet Web Browser market. In this struggle, Netscape is portrayed
as the victim who was unjustly deprived of market share by
Microsoft. I believe a careful examination of the historical record
will show that Netscape's rights to the software they claimed to
have developed are not supported by the facts. The reality is that
both Netscape's and Microsoft's web browsers are totally based on a
web browser development project funded by the National Science
Foundation, a branch of the Government of the United States. By
distributing Internet Explorer at no cost, Microsoft was enabling
software which had been funded by the American people.
History Of Internet Explorer
Every copy of Microsoft Internet Explorer contains the following
statement in the ``Help``/''About Internet
Explorer'' pull-down window:
``Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at
the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Distributed under a
licensing agreement with Spyglass, Inc. Contains security software
licensed from RSA Data Security Inc. Portions of this software are
based in part on the work of the Independent JPEG Group. Multimedia
software components, including Indeo(R); video, Indeo(R) audio, and
Web Design Effects are provided by Intel Corp. Unix version contains
software licensed from Mainsoft Corporation. Copyright (c)
1998-1999 Mainsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Mainsoft
is a trademark of Mainsoft Corporation. Warning: This computer
program is protected by copyright law and international treaties.
Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this program, or any
portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties,
and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the
law.''
The above statement is in my opinion, is one the best defenses
Microsoft can put forward to show that their business practices with
regards the marketing of Internet Explorer was completely justified
and in fact quite honorable.
The first successful web browser was Mosaic (1,2 & 3), which
was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications
(NCSA), a unit of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
The Time Line for Mosaic (4, 5 & 6) is as follows:
Mosaic Timeline
Phase 1 (1987-1992/12): Work leading up to the idea to do
Mosaic.
Phase 2 (1992/12-1993/11): Implementation and early
adoption of mosaic and NCSA HTTPd by brave souls.
Phase 3 (1993/12-1994/5): Killer-app phase, when the world
recognized that this was the next big thing in IT.
Phase 4 (1994/5-1997): Commercialization phase. NCSA
continued to develop and improve Mosaic, but the big news was that
Netscape was formed and Microsoft transformed itself to make the Web
integral to its long-term strategy. It was during this phase that
the world's economic and communications structures were changed
forever.
In mid-1994 Marc Andreessen, a principle Mosaic developer and
recent UIUC graduate, and Jim Clark, the Silicon Graphics founder,
founded Mosaic Communications, which was later renamed Netscape
Communications (5 & 6). On October 13, 1994 Marc Andreessen
announced the availability (8 & 9) of the Mosaic Netscape Beta
v0.9. The most interesting item in the announcement was the
following:
``Mosaic Netscape is a built-from-scratch Internet
navigator featuring performance optimized for 14.4 modems, native J
PEG support, and more.''
In short, Marc Andreessen developed an entirely new browser in
four months, an effort which had previously taken two years, while
he was a student at UIUC. As UIUC still had a product named Mosaic,
with an installed base of several of several million users world
wide (7), Netscape had to drop the word Mosaic from their product
and company names.
Other then the issue pertaining to of the use of the word
Mosaic, there apparently was no other interaction between Netscape
and UIUC. The two questions which beg to be asked are, what are the
similarities between early versions of Mosaic and Netscape and was
Netscape development initiated while Marc Andreessen was in the
employ of UIUC?
With the launch the first commercial version of Netscape in
December 1994, Microsoft licensed Mosaic (7) from Spyglass, Inc, a
licensing company created by UIUC to facilitate to commercial
distribution of Mosaic to over 100 companies (6). Evidently,
Netscape was not a Spyglass licensee. In August of 1995, Microsoft
launched Internet Explorer v1.0 and the rest is history. From the
release of the first version of IE, Microsoft stated that is was its
intention to bundle the browser as an integrated component its
operating systems.
The reality is that both Netscape and Internet Explorer are
directly derived from NCSA Mosaic, Netscape through a re-engineered
version of the source code and Internet Explored directly from the
original source code. While NCSA Mosaic is owned by UIUC, the
critical question is who paid for the research and development costs
of Mosaic? The answer is that Mosaic's development was funded by the
National Science Foundation's (NSF) Supercomputer Centers program, a
branch of the Government of the United States.
It was not Microsoft who harmed Netscape, but Netscape who
harmed UIUC and Spyglass. It was Microsoft who rescued the
[[Page 27710]]
intellectual property rights entrusted to UIUC by the National
Science Foundation. For the reasons which I have sighted, Netscape's
allegations against Microsoft should be inadmissible. Without
Netscape as a plaintive there is no case against Microsoft.
Citations
1. ``NCSA Mosaic Home Page'' http://
archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/SDG/Software/Mosaic/
2. ``NCSA Mosaic History'' http://
archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/General/CommGroup/MosaicHistory/timeline.html
3. ``NCSA Mosaic History'' http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/
Divisions/Communications/MosaicHistory/
4. ``NCSA Mosaic Timeline'' http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/
Divisions/Communications/MosaicHistory/timeline.html
5, ``Browser History Timelines'' http://
www,blooberry.com/indexdot/history/browsers.htm
6. ``NSF Initiative Leads to NCSA Mosaic and E-
Commerce'' http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Divisions/Communications/
MosaicHistory/impact.html
7. ``Netscape: A history'' http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/
english/in--depth/business/2000/microsoft/newsid_635000/
635689.stm
8. ``Here it is world!'' http://groups.google.com/
groups'selm=MARCA. 94Oct13005712%40neon.mcom.com
9. ``Mosaic Netscape is out the door...'' http://
www.w3.org/Style/History/www.eit.com/www.lists/www-talk.1994q4/
0187.html
MTC-00025862
From: Or Botton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:12am
Subject: Not a good idea.
Ever since we switched to Microsoft products, our high school
computers crash, freeze, require a reboot and etc'' more then
ever.
This generaly cause tremendous trouble simply because we keep
loosing our documents and works. Unless you save religiously every
minute, that is.
Not to mention that all those security holes we keep having to
patch are a major pain in the neck. Trojan here, E-Mail virus
there... it reached the level where you dont even have the OPEN the
letter to get infected. Its enough that you're online!
I'd rather have my school receive alternative products then
Microsoft products. Not to mention that having them ``giving
away'' Microsoft products will only increase their allready
highly influencive monopoly. Alternative programs are designed to be
able accept Microsoft files, but Microsoft programs are NOT designed
to accept files from alternative programs properly.
So, for a better future--No thanks. We dont want Microsoft
here.
MTC-00025863
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:13am
Subject: comment on msft
Just Recently...Five Billion...was offered by Microsoft to
ATT...Then paid...to keep a competitor from getting access to
Broadband.
Microsoft's Monopoly of the PC operating system allows it to cut
off any competitor by the knee's. And frankly I think that, they
think...any Judge can stop them.
Consider...NETSCAPE! Thank You for allowing me to Comment.
W.M
MTC-00025864
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:13am
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,
Kathryn Cornwell
Rt 2, Box C-16
Killeen, TX 76542
MTC-00025865
From: Doug Yerby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:17am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Sirs,
I have personnally used browsers and programs by other
manfactures. These products are very inferior to the Microsft
products.To make a judgement againts Microsoft seems completely
inane.If other companys made a superior or even equal product user
would go to it.To punish Microsoft for producing hands down the best
product is lunancy.
Sincerly,
Doug Yerby
Valrico, Fl
MTC-00025866
From: Rottet, Kevin J
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:19am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To Whom it May Concern,
I am personally dissatisfied with the proposed settlement in the
Microsoft antitrust case. I feel that competition is essential to
the future of the computing industry, and the settlement does not
adequately address the clearly illegal past activities of Microsoft
that have inhibited or even prevented competition. I am appalled
that Microsoft would escape clear punishment for its misdeeds.
Furthermore, there are areas of the settlement which do not go far
enough in curbing Microsoft's potential to inhibit competition in
the future. For instance, there needs to be broader disclosure of
file formats for popular office and multimedia applications than
what the settlement foresees. It is my hope that the proposed
settlement will not take place and the matter will be revisited in a
more appropriate fashion.
Sincerely,
Kevin J. Rottet
Assistant Professor
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
CC:Rottet Kevin J
MTC-00025867
From: mary vensel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MARY W. VENSEL
4358 TIMUQUANA ROAD, APT. 176
JACKSONVILLE, FL 32210-8561
January 26, 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 a moment to express some of my views
regarding the Microsoft antitrust case. I feel that the settlement
that your office reached was fair and reasonable. I do not see a
need for further action at the federal level, especially while
Microsoft is involved in negotiations with the remaining states to
reach a conclusion.
I believe that this case has hurt not just Microsoft, but the IT
industry as a whole, in the sense that it has forced the focus to
shift from innovation to litigation. We must restore economic
confidence by ensuring that success with consumers will not cause
government retaliation, and that standardization and
interoperability can win out in the marketplace.
By placing Microsoft under the supervision of an oversight
committee to monitor its practices and giving competitors access to
Windows code, your settlement will force Microsoft to become a more
responsible industry leader, while allowing the competition to share
some of its success. Consumers will have more choices, competitors
will have more chances, and Microsoft will retain some of the
benefits of its innovation.
We must ensure that our country maintains its position as the
world's technology leader. I believe that your settlement will allow
that to happen. I hope your office will see fit to end this debacle
at the federal level and allow the industry and the economy to move
forward.
Sincerely,
Mary W. Vensel
MTC-00025868
From: Lane Hartle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:22am
Subject: Netscape vs Microsoft
I wish everyone would quit picking on Microsoft. This latest
proposal to have Microsoft remove the Internet Explorer from the
desktop is ridiculous. Why does Netscape
[[Page 27711]]
feel threatened? If Netscape had an operating system that was
installed on nearly every computer in the world, don't you think
THEY would have a link to Netscape Communicator on THEIR desktop?
And what IS the big deal, anyway?
Both browsers are free, so Netscape isn't losing any money to a
competitor.
Recently, I purchased several new computer systems with Windows
XP preloaded. I installed Netscape Communicator 6.2, and it promptly
crashed every time I ran it. Several MONTHS after the release of XP,
Netscape announced version 6.2.1, which fixed many of the bugs for
XP users. It was a good thing Microsoft Internet Explorer was
already tested and installed under XP, or I would have had no
internet access.
If Netscape feels threatened and wants to complain, then
Netscape needs to make sure future versions of Communicator function
properly when newer operating systems become available. Or, they
need to develop their own operating system that supports their own
products.
Lane T. Hartle
[email protected]
MTC-00025869
From: John Donaldson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am very concerned that the proposed settlement does not fit
the act.
Please rethink the process and require Microsoft to make amends
that, at the very least, equal the crime.
MTC-00025870
From: James Bralski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft, I support the Microsoft
Settlement. It was criminal for the United States Government to
attack success in the first place. Repressive government actions are
not in my country's best interest.
Settle now. James Bralski Hermitage, PA
MTC-00025871
From: TomG
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the subject settlement is more than fair. The
obligations accepted by Microsoft go far beyond what is reasonable
and fair. It appears that a number of vested interests want even
more concessions, but they are not in the public interest, nor in
the interest of the long term health of the industry. thank you
Make a Great Day TomG (Tom Gerhart) Tampa, Fl
MTC-00025872
From: ColinRamsay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:29am
Subject: MICROSOFT
I am not a Microsoft employee nor do I have any financial
interest in Microsoft. I am a retired business executive, but I am
keenly interested in the Microsoft case as a citizen. The additional
penalties which the states opposing the DOJ settlement proposal are
demanding would be injurious to both our individual citizens who use
the Internet and to our nation's world-wide competitive position. If
these states, including Florida, get their demands, our nation's
digital innovation will suffer, costs will increase and operating
codes compatibility will become more complex. Additionally, the
attorneys general of individual states will be encouraged to further
feed their egos and political ambitions by meddling in future DOJ
cases.
Colin N. Ramsay 8303 Royal Sand Circle #102 Tampa, FL 33615
MTC-00025873
From: Herbert Gonzalez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:34am
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
Enough is enough! Settle the case!
MTC-00025874
From: Ray Buckles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:45am
Subject: USAGBuckles--Ray--1040--0124
MTC-00025874-0001
4226 Montgomery Place Mount Vernon, WA 98274-8702 January
25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft US Department of Justice, 950
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The Microsoft antitrust suit has lingered in the federal courts
for nearly four years now. Last June, settlement negotiations began,
and it was not until November that a settlement was finally reached.
The settlement is pending approval, and next week, the courts will
determine whether or not it should be finalized. Unfortunately,
Microsoft's opponents would like to see Microsoft more harshly
punished, and are seeking to undermine the settlement and bring
additional litigation against Microsoft. I do not believe that this
is at all necessary. I believe that it is in the best interest of
the economy to halt litigation now and to settle the case on the
terms proposed last November. Microsoft and the Department of
Justice have agreed on a broad range of terms under the settlement
that restrict monopolistic actions on the part of Microsoft and
require the corporation to effect a number of changes in product and
procedure. For example, Microsoft will no longer be permitted to
enter into contracts that would require a third party to promote or
distribute Microsoft products at a fixed percentage. Microsoft also
plans to revise future versions of Windows so that non-Microsoft
software will be compatible with the Windows operating system. I do
not believe the claims that Microsoft has been dealt with too
leniently. Several conditions of the settlement actually extend to
technologies and procedures that were not found to be unlawful by
the Court of Appeals. The antitrust case has dragged on long enough.
I believe it is in the best interest of the public, the economy, and
the technology industry to settle the case, and give Microsoft a
chance to prove itself in the settlement before dismissing it out of
hand. I urge you to allow the settlement to stand.
Sincerely,
Ray Buckles
MTC-00025874-0002
MTC-00025875
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:36am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Gentlemen: Don't let the computer geeks fool you into thinking
we would all be better off selecting and assembling various software
components to run on our PCs. That simply is not the case. As a
nation we would not have come to the point in computing and
information technology without the simplicity Microsoft has brought
us. I have been using computers for Civil Engineering and Surveying
for thirty years. I remember when this thing would not communicate
with that thing because of a lack of a common operating system. Let
me also remind you that the anti-trust laws were enacted to protect
me, not AOL, Sun and Netscape. If they really had a better idea we
would really be using it. Then there is of course the mind boggling
question ``should we the people be comforted by the fact that a
bunch of government lawyers and a judge now have a strangle hold on
the computer industry''.
If you need a cause to occupy your time do something about the
credit card industry and the twenty nine dollar late fees they all
have begun charging us in addition to interset. Keep in mind here
this is hurting me, not Chase or Citibank. To sum up i believe your
efforts are misdirected. Patrick A. Gialloernzo, PE, LS
MTC-00025876
From: Shawn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:38am
Subject: AOL in Negotiations to
Buy Red Hat:
http://www.washtech.com/news/
media/14759-1.html
AOL in Negotiations to Buy Red Hat:
http://www.washtech.com/news/
media/14759-1.html
Let's see, AOL already owns ICQ, Winamp, Compuserve, Netscape,
and Time Warner. Yet Microsoft is the one accused of causing a
monopoly. Ironic, eh? I can also imagine this imagine this: aol and
microsoft go into direct competition, and they have a ``who can
buy the most companies'' contest. aol buys red hat, microsoft
buys macromedia, aol buys apple, microsoft buys adobe, aol buys
dell, microsoft buys compaq, aol buys prodigy, microsoft buys
earthlink, aol buys ibm, microsoft buys intel, aol buys amd, and
then they continue to buy other smaller software companies and
computer manufacturers until there are none left. Then one day, they
stop arguing, and merge. it's going to hapen, just wait and see.
MTC-00025877
From: Edwin Meyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:39am
[[Page 27712]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--Count this one against Microsoft
Dear People,
As both a producer and consumer of microcomputer software, I am
concerned that a vigorous and open market be maintained for software
development.
I understand from independent sources that Microsoft has been
attempting to influence the responses during the Tunney Act comment
period by a concerted effort to solicit favorable comments. To me,
this is a typical Microsoft tactic aimed at bolstering its quasi-
monopoly position in the desktop software business and extending it
to enterprise computing and networking.
I urge the DOJ to support the most stringent provisions possible
to limit Micosoft's ability to control and throttle independent
software development in these areas.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Edwin W. Meyer
Edwin Meyer Software Engineering P.O. Box 390070; Cambridge, MA
02139
617-876-1350 Fax 605-238-1795
http://www.edwinmeyer.com/
MTC-00025878
From: Wes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:39am
Subject: Microsoft hearing
MTC-00025878--0001
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-00001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Pursuant to the Justice Department's requst for public ocmment
on the proposed settlement of the Microsoft case, I am writing in
support of the settlement.
It is difficult for the average person to understand all of the
charges and counter-charges thrown about in a case such as this.
Terms such as ``restraint of trade'' and ``predatory
pricing practices'' have very little meaning to the man on the
street. Out concern is whether, after the litigation is over, the
public interest was actually served by the lawsuit and its
settlement.
The public interest will be well served by this settlement if
for no other reason than expanded choice. Microsoft has agreed to
allow make it easiser for consumers to use non-Microsoft products
and programs when using Windows as their operating system. There
will now be greater choice for consumers in selecting Internet
providers, media players and other programs.
I hope that this settlement will remain intact after the public
comment period. Our economy needs these companies out of the
courtrooms and back to work as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Wesley T. Charpie
Charpie,
3970 Waycross Drive,
Columbus, IN 47203-3526
MTC-00025879
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
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 anf Harriet Lay
1405 Hickory Hollow Dr.
Flint, MI 48507
MTC-00025880
From: Jack Beglinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
The current settlement plan between Microsoft and the US
Department of Justice, fails to stop the ``Monopoly
Tending'' of Microsoft. In actually, it helps strengthen
Microsoft's Monopoly to the point of helping Microsoft try to
destroy the only competitor to they reign of power--LINUX. The
agreement's greatest flaw is the definition of a class of companies
that Microsoft ``needs'' to talk to ISVs and OEMs and the
like.
I am and have been both types of ``companies''. I
build my own machines-- like a DELL or Gateway. I write code
and create Integrated Systems akin to a Symantec or a CSA. But I am
also a single person, to small for Microsoft to talk to, to small to
afford the cost to go their meetings about their technology. I have
for years be forced to buy Operating Systems at full retail prices,
though I build me own machines. I was blocked for years of getting
Windows 95 OSR2--an OEM only version of the OS containing the
newest hardware interfaces.
By allowing this agreement to contain clauses that
``anoint'' companies that Microsoft must
``talk'' to you have caused Microsoft greater monopoly
power by being the ``glue'' in a cartel of large companies
all protecting they own pocketbooks.
A case in point is IBM. Microsoft was at one time offering
PowerPC Windows NT System. PowerPC is used in IBM's Midrange
Machines and Apples Macintoch. Microsoft pulled the support of that
processor. Which give Intel more years to keep pricing inflated on
its processors--both the x86 line and the Alpha that Intel was
building for DEC. Compaq Computers now own DEC. Instance Microsoft
strengthen two of its best business partners and itself while trying
to hurt IBM.
With NDA and limited information that Microsoft is required to
release. LINUX will be hurt by not having access to information for
compatibility. LINUX is a competing operating system that Microsoft
can not buy or sue i nto non-existence. Companies, like RedHat, make
money is selling services or easy to install copies of the OS,
without having to pay a licensing fee. But LINUX licensee places a
burden on a developer that code made avai lable via under it
licensee is free of other licensing restricting and the full source
is available at no extra charge. In this way the next developer can
improve the code and again pass it on. Allows for thousands of
people to give a little of themselves for the greater good. Signing
a NDA or paying for trips to meetings, places a unfair burden in
small ``guys'' like myself to compete, or share what I
have learned. Even to share code, since licensing restrictions may
get in the way. Instances,
I am ``un-clean'' to work on open source projects. I
may use some else IP by accident. In the end, the agreement should
be blocked and better settlement be reached. IF the agreement is
kept, then change it so the following happens:
1) All API's are published, documented, and examples made
available 6 months prior to first general release containing the
API's. Release of API's is made by any method of Microsoft's choice
as long it is also placed on microsoft.com website, easily found
(example: Search: ``API WinXP'') and limited to HTML
version 3 display standards. Further not having to register with or
agree to a NDA with Microsoft or any other company to gain access to
this information.
Further to state... an API is not Intellectual Property, but
ways to ``talk'' to a program that is.
2) A Beta version is released and in the hands of all whom asks
for it, no later than 3 months prior the general release or an
product. Any changes to that Beta must in the hands of all who
received the original shipping, to later than 2 weeks after the
change were made or 2 weeks prior to general release, which ever is
earlier. An exception is a emergency release because a virus
exploit.
3) Remove any clause that defines who Microsoft has to talk to.
Instead place ``Any person who wishes know''.
Change 1, insures that if I wish to create a product that
interacts with a Microsoft product, that I have full and complete
information. AND will not be blocked or restricted by Microsoft.
Change 2, Allows me to make compatibility tests and modification to
my code prior to Microsoft releasing their product. This way my
customers are protected from changes that may break code they are
running. Change 3, Allows anyone
[[Page 27713]]
who wishes to go a technology meeting will be allowed IT IS NOT
LONGER A ``PRIVATE CLUB''.
If in way I can help, please let me know.
Jack Beglinger
8900 Keeler Ave
Skokie, IL
847-677-2427
MTC-00025881
From: Richard Zelade
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:41am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It
has been converted to attachment.]
I strongly object to the presently configured, proposed settle
of the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit for the following reasons, and
offer some suggestions on changing it to something that will truly
benefit the American people and the rest of the computing world.
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 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 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
[[Page 27714]]
later become a standard part of Windows. Microsoft often provides
those SDKs under End User License Agreements (EULAs) prohibiting
their use with Open Source applications. This harms ISVs who choose
to distribute their applications under Open Source 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 applications tend to also run on
non-Microsoft operating systems, any resulting loss of market share
by Open Source 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.
MTC-00025881-0004
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 systemsMicrosoft 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 ProvisionsThe 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 MicrosoftMicrosoft currently uses
restrictive licensing terms to keep Open Source apps from running on
Windows. Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to
keep Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large companies,
state governments, and universities) charge by the number of
computers which could run a Microsoft operating system--even
for computers running Linux. (Similar licenses to OEMs were once
banned by the 1994 consent decree.)The PFJ Fails to Prohibit
Intentional Incompatibilities Historically Used by
MicrosoftMicrosoft 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
[[Page 27715]]
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.
MTC-00025881-0005
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.
II suggest amendments to the PFJ that attempt to resolve some of
the demonstrated problems (time pressure has prevented a more
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
Definition U should be amended to read U. ``Windows
Operating System Product'' means [the software code (as opposed
to source code) distributed commercially by Microsoft for use with
Personal Computers as Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home,
Windows XP Professional, and successors to the foregoing, including
the Personal Computer versions of the products currently code named
``Longhorn'' and ``Blackcomb'' and their
successors, including upgrades, bug fixes, service packs, etc. The
software code that comprises a Windows Operating System Product
shall be determined by Microsoft in its sole discretion.] any
software or firmware code distributed commercially by Microsoft that
is capable of executing any 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.
Sincerely,
Richard zelade
2821 East 22nd St.
Austin, TX 78722
512-477-1044
MTC-00025881-0006
MTC-00025882
From: John McQuillan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:40am
Subject: Mr. Ashcroft,
Mr. Ashcroft,
I have attached a letter outlining my strong feelings that the
government of the United States move forward with the Microsoft
settlement.
Sincerely,
John McQuillan
CC:
[email protected]@inetgw
12 Bruce Lane
Northport, NY 11768
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Please accept the following comments made pursuant to the Tunney
Act's public comment requirement in the Microsoft antitrust
settlement.
I support the parties'' decision to settle this case. The
terms of the settlement agreement are reasonable, and will
accomplish the goal of preventing anticompetitive business practices
by Microsoft. For instance, design obligations will also be imposed
on Microsoft. These obligations will have the net effect of making
it easier for consumers to remove and replace features of Windows
with software made by Microsoft's competitors, thereby making it
easier for consumers to choose other software over Windows, if they
so desire. Additionally, a technical committee will be created to
monitor Microsoft's compliance with the terms of the agreement.
I am hopeful that, in its review of the settlement agreement,
the Court will appreciate the concessions made by Microsoft, the
monumental contribution that Microsoft made to productivity of the
American economy, and will realize that it will not be in the best
interest of the American economy or the American consumer to
continue litigating this case.
Sincerely,
John McQuillan
631-757-4522
[email protected]
MTC-00025883
From: Lee D. Ibsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a professional computer user and a patriotic US citizen, I
think we owe a debt of gratitude to Microsoft for providing the
long-range planning for PC software packages which work seamlessly
together. I know that many of the current players did not go through
the confusing early years of PCs when users had to resort to writing
their own software to get one application to transfer data to
another. I did, and as an engineer who used computers as a tool I
was very grateful when Microsoft established those interface
standards to make the PC so much more valuable as a tool to help me
solve my problems. And as new ideas came along I could count on
Microsoft to rapidly incorporate them into its growing suite of
tools.
I think this whole lawsuit is ``Sour Grapes'' by
jealous competitors. And somewhat politically motivated. What if the
government had not allowed Ford to innovate as new features for the
automobile were developed? Would you have sued Sears for
incorperating the Crescent Wrench in its suite of tools? If it
hadn't been for Microsoft, the computer age would probably not have
occurred. Instead of a lawsuit--they should be getting awards!
Lee Ibsen
Systems Analyst
USAF
MTC-00025884
From: heinos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The DOJ anti-trust settlement recently concluded is fair for all
parties concerned. Further litigation should be avoided since any
outcome will in most probability make it more difficult and costly
for the consumer, the computer industry and the economy as a whole.
The market should determine who the economic winners and losers are
and not determined by the never ending litigation in the courts.
From my viewpoint this anti-trust action was driven more by
Microsoft's competitors rather than by the consumer who should
always be the real beneficiary of any anti-trust action. It would be
interesting to know how many of the 150+ million computer users,
excluding those employed by competing firms, voiced a complaint in
regards to this lawsuit.
If it wasn't for the low cost bundled standardized operating
system packages produced by Microsoft, the computer industry and
it's technical offshoots would not be as widespread and orderly as
they are today.
In fact, many of Microsoft's competitors would not be in
existence today if it were not for the success of Microsoft in
developing this mass market. Should a company be penalized for
producing a high quality, low cost product purchased by consumers
who own 90% of all personal computers? A 90% penetration of the
personal computer market sounds like a howling consumer endorsement
of Microsoft products! In the area of consumer costs, the cost of an
installed Microsoft PC operating system package in a new computer
probably wouldn't be enough to pay for an hour spent at dinner for
two at most medium priced restaurants; whereas, the consumer gets
thousands of hours of enjoyment from the same investment.
Finally, all companies should be free to add (bundle) any
features into their products as they see fit to make the product
more versatile to the mass of consumers. It's true that some
consumers may not want a particular feature in a product, but
consumers have always been buying mass
[[Page 27716]]
produced products with features that they may, or may not use.
Should software be sold any differently than other product lines, or
do software packages have to be expensively tailored for each of the
150+ million personal computer users? Where would personal
transportation be today if the evolution of the automobile was
stopped at the invention of the wheel thousands of years ago?
Frank Heino
762 Bison Drive
Houston, TX 77070-4401
MTC-00025885
From: Rick Kennett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attention Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice
The proposed settlement does little to nothing to end
Microsoft's growing domination of in the computer industry and, more
importantly, much more importantly, the Internet. Microsoft
continues to leverage their dominance of the Windows OS in areas
that that will jepordize not only fair competition but ultimately
the freedom of information in general. Somone must ensure that the
proposed settlement is scrapped or modified in a way that not only
provides justice, but protects our freedom.
Thank You and Regards
Rick Kennett
Guildweb Information and Technology Services
MTC-00025886
From: Gary Wright
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/26/02 9:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gary Wright
32269 Cour Pomerol
Temecula, CA 92591
January 26, 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 Wright
MTC-00025887
From: Ivo Jossart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
i cannot agree with this court decision.
It's not weakening Microsoft, it's no real punishment for a
company that's convicted for unfair practices... (practices that
continue going on--have a look at Windows2000 & Windows
XP--i cannot remove Outlook Express, Internet Explorer, MSN
Messenger).
I also would like to see that the court tells Microsoft that
every software inside Windows2000 that was removable in Window98 and
earlier, should remain removable. e.g. Internet Explorer, Media
Player, MSN Messenger, defragmentation software, windows scripting
host...
Due to the connection between the operating system and the
internet browser, millions and millions of dollars have been
lost--due to virus-spreading activities. No real changes have
been made to make the systems safer--by making the Internet
Browser a normal application instead of putting it inside the
operating system, as Microsoft want is to be. I believe an operating
system should server the applications--and there should be a
difference between the operating system and the
internetapplications--just to keep everything a bit more
secure. A lot of software-packages are no real part of an operating
system, should be removable and we should have the right to protect
our privacy and freedom of choise.
That right is never been more neglected that during the last few
years--it started with the apprearance of Windows2000 and it's
getting worse every time there's a new operating system on the
market.
At this moment we're in no position of asking Microsoft to do
so--now at the point that there is an overwhelming majority of
IE users, it seems that the company is loosening their grip a bit on
the Internet browser-theme. I also want to point out that this
company is spreading lies about an open source initiative called
linux. It's just a game for them--and there's no way to defend
us consumers against these practices.
But right now they're playing the same game as with Internet-
explorer vs. netscape on the multi-media streaming market & the
instant messaging market. Of course the software is free--but
the development costs are hidden into the operating system cost.
(look at the higher prices of Windows XP home & Windows XP
Profession--vs. Windows98 & windowsNT 4). Normally i don't
have the right to interfere, but due to the worldwide effect of this
case, I believe it's my moral duty to say something about this
important theme. And i believe i have the right to
interfere--when an american company hurts a world-citizen, that
man or woman should be able to say what he has to say. There's more
in this play than just unfair business practices it's the freedom of
speach that's endangered.
Kind regards.
MTC-00025888
From: Dan Johnston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think think that the proposed settlement with microsoft is a
bad idea. I have witnessed and experienced the microsoft monopoly
for many years. I believe that the only way to break their monopoly,
and to bring not only competition but innovation into the
marketplace, is to split microsoft into several (at least 3)
different companies, in a similar way as was done to the oil
monopolies of many years ago.
Sincerely,
Dan Johnston
Division of Neuroscience
Baylor College of Medicine
1 Baylor Plaza
Houston, TX 77030
713 798-5984 (voice) 713 799-8544 (fax)
MTC-00025889
From: jhministry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Once again another competitor is attemtping to sue Microsoft for
the same thing that the DOJ has tried then for. Microsoft has been
tried and a decision has been made by the DOJ. When is the DOJ going
to stop allowing any competitors who so desires to continue to
harass Microsoft? Let's put an end to this!
Rev Johnie Hinson
Hampton, VA
Jesus Is Lord!
MTC-00025890
From: Scott Swain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please leave Microsoft alone! They have done more good by far
for this country (and the world) than harm. We have come along way
from the American businessman being a hero and that is sad to me.
Spend your time (and my tax money) attacking real criminals.
Scott Swain
http://OceanWebs.com
Austin, TX
MTC-00025891
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other
[[Page 27717]]
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,
Richard W. Higginbotham
84 Cherokee Trail Medford Lakes, NJ 08055-1602
MTC-00025892
From: The Fallons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I have been a computer user for a number of years now. I have
used both Microsoft's and America Online's products and services. I
have also sat quietly and watched the developments of the lawsuit
against Microsoft, with no comment other than to shake my head in
dismay. Upon seeing that AOL intends to reopen the case with a
private action against Microsoft, I felt I had to at least say
something on Microsoft's behalf.
To anyone who has watched the development of the technology over
the last several decades, it is quite apparent that the charges
against Microsoft are baseless. They have been the pioneers in
developing operating systems and applications software for consumer
use for years. Their actions in the market have been driven, in
addition to the obvious motive of market share, largely by consumer
feedback and consumer demand. Each one of their developments
incorporated new (sometimes even third-party) software, to enhance
the users'' experience, without the added cost of having to
actually purchase the third-party software at additional cost to the
user. At the time, each one of these separate tools incorporated by
Microsoft were individually welcomed and even applauded by the
consumers who had demanded such incorporation. The industry was
being driven by an unusual combination of competition and
cooperation, which has contributed to one of the fastest-growing
segments of our economy. Concurrently, AOL was developed in an
interesting time of technological flux, able to make an industry out
of utilizing existing telephone lines (constructed, coincidentally,
by another company which fell prey to an anti-trust suit) to conduct
a business in which they collected receipts for the use of these
existing lines. They created nothing substantial, and they made no
contribution to the software or hardware industry other than on
their own behalf.
Now the market is suffering, because AOL chose to utilize the
court system to accomplish what they were unwilling or unable to do
in the competitive marketplace. And we, the people, are not only
going to suffer the consequences, we are being asked to pay for the
litigation which will yield the end which AOL is seeking. And
finally, to add insult to injury, AOL is claiming to be doing all of
this ``on our behalf'' as consumers.
It's time all of this hogwash stopped. Enough time, money, and
effort have been misdirected already. AOL will not back away or stop
the fight until someone tells them to. That someone has to be the
Department of Justice, and the time to do it is now. I urge you to
do just that.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey S. Fallon
MTC-00025893
From: Diana Carsey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:53am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
This message offers a comment on the settlement between DOJ and
Microsoft.
I support the settlement already agreed upon that requires
Microsoft to make it easier for users to load other programs and
that allows programmers to interface with Windows. That's cool. As a
new user of an XP, I appreciate the inter-relationships I have found
pre-loaded on my machine; and I am glad that XP seems to have
adopted this more-open approach.
I do not support harsher penalties sought that would split out
Windows from all of its programs. Computers are an essential part of
our lives, they should be increasingly sophisticated, not made to be
difficult and awkward for us to use. Keep Windows together the way
it was invented; and let the competition among creative minds
continue in all the other ways that we use these technologies.
Diana Carsey
MTC-00025894
From: Mal Morley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
After perusing the proposed settlement, it appears to me that
consumer interests have been well served, and the time to end this
costly and damaging litigation has come. Please close this suit
without further ado.
Thank you,
M. A. Morley
Pasadena, TX
MTC-00025895
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have been using a PC since 1982. I am retired now and living
in a large retirement community. I am pleased to see so many senior
citizens age 70 and over getting new computers and learning how to
make use of them. Our computer club now has over 2000 members! This
growth can only be attributed to the simplicity of use that
Microsoft has built into its Windows operating system.
I vividly recall the state of affairs in the early days of the
PC. The odds were that if you bought a software package it would be
so complicated to use (assuming it was possible to install it
correctly) and so poorly integrated with other software, that much
time, effort and money was wasted. I doubt that the computer
industry would be as strong as it is today, and still growing, if
Microsoft had not been able to innovate to build in features that
make the software simple to use. If they did go a bit too far, the
PC User has been the benificiary.
I don't have any sympathy for those who complain that they
cannot compete with Microsoft. Build a better product and it will
sell! By continuing to pick on Microsoft, the government is, in
effect, subsidizing incompetence because only rivals who have
nothing to offer will benefit..... Not the PC User or the American
people!
If Microsoft overstepped some bounds, government settlements
have already been achieved. Enough is enough! Get off Microsoft's
back and let them get back to innovating and growing the industry.
The American people deserve it.
MTC-00025896
From: Stuart Powell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam,
Having been found guilty of abusing its monopoly position in the
IT market place, it seems odd to me that the proposed settlement
amounts to nothing more than a light slap on the wrist for
Microsoft, and then offers measures that will potentially further
their stronghold in this market. This case should not end with a
settlement. Microsoft has been found guilty of a crime and should be
punished. By acting to find a settlement in this case that involves
input from Microsoft themselves, the message is put across that
corporations of this size and power base are above the law. Having
been found guilty, they should be punished; it is that simple.
As a global player, Microsoft has abused its position the world
over. As such, would it not be prudent to seek advice from the
governments of other countries as to a suitable punishment, instead
of the perpetrator ?
Microsoft must pay the price for its past misdeeds. Does the US
government really want to seem to be less powerful than Microsoft in
the eyes of the world ?
Yours faithfully,
Stuart Powell.
MTC-00025897
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the
[[Page 27718]]
future, not only in terms of computer technology, but all sorts of
innovations in the most dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
John Klempel
PO box 392
Hazelton, ND 58544-0392
MTC-00025898
From: Cody Fyler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your settlement of this case is too lenient on Microsoft. They
stifle innovation, charge too much for their products, and produce
software that is full of bugs and security holes, and we have no
choice but to buy it, as they have eliminated all competition with
predatory business practices. Even when they buy a good software
product and add it to their line, they manage to screw it up. Please
reconsider, and throw the book at them.
Cody Fyler
Web Developer
Wells Fargo Financial
MTC-00025899
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
The enclosed file is my letter expressing my approval of the
settlement agreed to by Microsoft and the department of justice in
November of 2001. I think it is a sound and fair agreement. It is
high time that the books are closed on this matter so that
competition and innovation can resume. Dragging this litigation will
cause additional coast and delay competition.
Sincerely,
George Hilal
CC:
[email protected]@inetgw
160 Pearlcroft Road
Cherry Hill, N J, 08034
Email: [email protected]
Jan. 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 you to indicate my support for settling the
antitrust suit against Microsoft. I believe that the agreement
reached in November is fair for everyone involved, and that it
provides a reasonable solution to the government's wishes to expand
competition in the technology market.
Offering consumers new options to remove Windows programs from
their computers in favor of those by competitors is only one of the
ways that Microsoft would change the way it conducts business with
the public and other corporations. The change affects the entire
spectrum, from rival companies in the technology sector, down to the
individual consumer. The government cannot ask for more sweeping
changes than that.
I urge you to settle the antitrust case because its merits were
never fully proven, and enough time and money has been spent trying
to do so.
Sincerely,
George Hilal
MTC-00025900
From: Hugh Solaas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
I would like to go on record to support a rapid execution of the
existing Microsoft settlement. I believe it is fair and would like
to see Microsoft getting back to putting all their energy into
creating products and jobs, not lining the pockets of lawyers.
Thank you for your consideration,
Hugh O. Solaas
7302 NE Twin Spits Rd.
Hansville, WA 98340
MTC-00025901
From: Hemant C. Patel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Regarding such ongoing attacks on Microsoft / Bill Gates,
I am seriously concerned, as a very active user / supporter, of
Microsoft products and a strong believer in how well established the
company has been all these years investing huge sums of monies
accompanied with vast resources of human efforts to achieve such
high standards in new directions of technology in all the superb
products / services they provide, I believe the United States
Government should put an end to people who try to unfairly accuse /
sue the company for its business success / policies. Instead of
encouraging such actions they should put an end to this process that
is a total waste of money and time, and concentrate in supporting
future research / development of new directions in the Information
Technology / related fields. The same resources that are being
wasted in these negative fruitless efforts if employed positively
would benefit the United States of America as a leading force in
this vast field of Information Technology and benefit the worlds
people. Why is it that the Government even allows these false
groundless accusations to reach such stages and attack individuals
like Mr. Bill Gates who has achieved monumental goals successfully
to provide such beautiful innovative technology for use by all? I
just hope that there is some serious effort to put an end to such
waste of resources as this is the very time we should hope for a
United and strong effort to support the best we have for the future
as it will only get better with such support.
Hemant Patel
MTC-00025902
From: Marie Taney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:08am
Subject: comment period
Microsoft has shown disdian for the american judicial system,
ignored a ruling in the early 90's has crushed or absorbed many
companys to keep its monoply position.
The only real sulition is for Microsoft to be forced to reviel
all the API's in thier opperating systems in an effort to level the
playing field. Microsoft has caused great harm in the computing area
and has overcharged for its opperating systems causing harm in
American economics
Marie Taney
Monterey California
MTC-00025903
From: Camille Mahant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:07am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I am an admirer and stockholder of Microsoft Corporation, whose
products have let me produce high performance work and are better
than those of their competitors, some of whose tools I've tried.
Respectfully, I request that the U.S. Department of Justice
accept a settlement with Microsoft, and recommend that the
individual states who have chosen not to accept it re-consider.
I also have a personal opinion on the recent AOL lawsuit against
Microsoft over Netscape--this is an old story and, you know,
AOL has sour grapes in an area where Microsoft has superior service
and coverage. I think AOL deserves to be countersued for harassment
of Microsoft and should not be allowed to use the legal system to
attack its competitor which it is unable to surpass in any real
business or technical area.
Thank you.
Camille Mahant
42299 Wild Mustang Rd
Murrieta, CA 92562
909-600-8904
MTC-00025904
From: Ron Munier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement is fair.
Indecision is hurting the economy and the consumer.
Ron Munier
Houston, TX
MTC-00025905
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:14am
Subject: January 26, 2002
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The purpose of this correspondence is to congratulate you on
your decision to settle the Microsoft antitrust case. This conflict
has cost you and Microsoft time and resources that can now be used
for other priorities. Outside special interests with an extreme
anti-Microsoft bias are seeking to undermine this settlement. This
is regrettable because the settlement will create a more fair and
open technology sector of our economy. Microsoft has agreed to offer
more information to competitors so they will be able to create more
competitive software. Microsoft will also make it easier for
competitors to place software on MS systems
[[Page 27719]]
in the future. A technical committee that includes a permanent
government monitor will enforce all provisions of the settlement.
If the settlement goes through Microsoft and the Justice
Department will be relieved of the burdens of this case. I feel it
is necessary for you to resolutely support this settlement to ward
off elements that have no interest in seeing this case settled.
Sincerely,
Louie Gracey
MTC-00025906
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:13am
Subject: Microsoft vs. DofJ Settlement
January 26, 2002
To Whom It May Concern;
As a citizen and, most importantly, a veteran, voter and
taxpayer I cannot understand why the DoJ is still wasting the
taxpayers money and its valuable time. The Microsoft settlement is
the face-saving end to a wholly unconstitutional, politically
corrupt attack on this successful business. The depths of corruption
displayed by the previous Administration in falsely bringing on this
suit are, forever, a blight on this nation's integrity.
The present Administration and its DoJ representatives bring
nothing but disgrace and contempt on themselves for pursuing this
frivolous action even to the extent to which you have brought it
today.
Settle the damned suit and get on with real problems such as the
WAR!!
A less than impressed citizen, veteran, voter and taxpayer,
Jim Bronson, KC8RBI
Frankenmuth, Michigan
MTC-00025907
From: Allen Threatte
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:14am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To who it may concern:
As a senior who uses the internet and computer software, I urge
the government to accept and comply with the negotiated settlement
with Microsoft. The breakup of the software company will lessen the
ability to work through the internet and will be more complicated.
It seems that the competitors of Microsoft are only thinking of
monotary results and not the expertise and ease of operation of a
computer by elderly people and a learning public.
Yours in Christ:
Allen Threatte
323 Tattnall St
Claxton, Ga. 30417
912-739-1850
[email protected]
MTC-00025908
From: Robert J Goad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs:
I believe that the settlement of the Microsoft case had dragged
on far to long. It is time to initate the settlement and get on to
far more important things. To allow Microsoft competitors to
continue to insist on larger penalties is not in the best interest
of the general public, as far as I am concerned. I am not a
Microsoft fan, but enough is enough.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Goad
8441 Flagstone Drive
Tampa, Florida 33615-4915
email address: [email protected]
MTC-00025909
From: phoebe--f
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:15am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I will be brief... At this time our country needs this strong
company to be free from these sorts of litigation... they need to
continue on creating and providing products that are easily
accessed... as a senior citizen nothing has made my life more
productive then the constant support from the folks at Microsoft. I
understand that they are a stiff competitor lets just let them
resolve this grievances .
To all the very difficult work you all are doing our hats are
off. sincerely,
PHoebe Fensterman,
Richmond, Va.
MTC-00025910
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the whole lawsuit was financially, politically
motivated and outright unfair right from the start. It was brought
into court by people who just could not compete with their own
talent with Microsoft's PC operating systems. We still use Microsoft
exclusively in all our PC's end user applications and probably
always will.
However, if Microsoft is willing to live with the final decision
they should be given the opportunity. They believe it is the best
place to start over and so do I.
The only reason the opposistion is not satisfied is they were
hoping the courts would hand them the keys to the PC operating
market.
Hal Roberts
Cisco Constellation TE
Solectron Texas LTD
708-6285 Pager
425-4039 Phone
MTC-00025911
From: Terrence Kearns
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:17am
Subject: MS Antitrust Settlement
The proposed MS settlement not only fails to punish MS for its
clear monopolistic and anti-competitve practices, it does nothing to
promote a fair market place, and actually solidifies Microsoft's
monopoly. The idea of MS ``giving'' equipment and software
to needy schools is like the dope peddler ``giving'' free
samples to the uninitiated. Once MS gets the new schools hooked on
their operating system, the schools will soon need the next upgrade,
and that one will not be free. Of course the schools will get
government grant money to give to Microsoft for the next
``needed'' upgrade, and the one after that. MS has
cleverly furthered its monopoly while giving a public appearance of
being generous and charitable. It seems as though the DOJ is taking
the position that, ``in this time of economic crisis, we dare
not do anything to harm Microsoft because Microsoft is the only game
in town.'' Well, that's the whole point, isn't it.
The proposed settlement, by continuing to stiffle alternative
operating systems, results in vulneratility to info-terrorism.
Terrorists interested in bringing down the economy by introducing
computer virus have a perfect opportunity when there is essentially
only one operating system to deal with, and that one full of
security holes.
MTC-00025912
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The antitrust settlement between Microsoft, the Department of
Justice and the nine states presents a very excellent conclusion to
what has been a prolonged matter. Microsoft is being harshly
punished but has, nonetheless, accepted these punishments. The
litigates should declare victory in this suit and continue on in
their jobs by prosecuting terrorists, drug dealers, money launders,
and other direct threats to the security of the populace. The
settlement is, in fact, an excellent opportunity for the industry
and the consumer. The industry can now return to competition in the
marketplace where the consumer will be offered all products and have
the decision to decide the fate of Microsoft. With this real and
evident competition, Microsoft and the industry will be in a
position to innovate and improve their product offerings. America
and its economy stand at a critical point in our progression. At no
other time in this generation have the threats from abroad
endangered us as much. We, as a country, must progress and not
stagnate through continued gerrymandering. The best way to do this
is for Microsoft to return back to its mission of creation,
innovation, and manufacturing (creating jobs in America during a
recession when stimulus is needed). The Microsoft settlement ought
be ratified and this litigation must stop, for the good of the
children and the future.
Sincerely,
James P. Hohmann
St. Paul, MN
MTC-00025913
From: Chris Hruska (Grad)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
-Chris Hruska
MTC-00025914
From: L. Frank Turovich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft (MS) should not be allowed to walk away from the
damage they have done to both competitors, like Netscape and Sun,
[[Page 27720]]
and subsequently, consumers of desktop computer products. Allowing
Microsoft to continue as they have will lead to them having even
more of a monopoly over our life, in more areas, then ever before.
To bring an analogy into the picture, it's not totally accurate,
but hints at what I am trying to say. When the Ford Motor Company
first starting producing Model-Ts, it was said you could buy them in
any color, as long as it was black. To bring this into our day and
time, you can buy any x86-based computer from any major PC company,
as long as it runs MS Windows.
Now, due to the demands from the customer, and competition from
other car manufacturers, Ford eventually was forced to offer cars in
other colors simply to remain competitive. This in turn led the
other car manufacturers to compete in other ways, to differentiate
their product, and remain competitive. This competition has improved
the cars themselves, drove innovation, and created several dominant
car manufacturers, each one competing on a level playing field.
Along the way it built up a huge billion dollar industry that
continues to drive our economy.
Microsoft is in the same superior position that Ford once held,
but unlike Ford, MS has such a stranglehold over their product line,
their buyers, their software producers, their customers, that
competition is not encouraged but stifled. Ford was unable to block
other manufacturers from creating new products simply because he
didn't own the paint companies other companies bought from, didn't
own the steel mills that sold steel to competitors, nor owned the
roads upon which competitor's cars could drive. MS does own these
things, and they use them to monopolize the marketplace, control
access to the market, stifle innovation, and as a base to expand
their control into more areas of our life.
I for one, do not wish to live in a world where the only choice
I have in auto color is black, nor one where my only OS and related
software is produced by Microsoft. Not only would it be incredibly
boring, but it takes away my fundamental right to choose. If their
is only one option to buy, there is no choice. Having a MS-only
world is a sure sign of the stagnation of ideas and competition and
the decay of our technological infrastructure, and while it may look
good in the short term for our economy, the long term will surely
suffer enormously from this restriction.
Please make the correct decision to by reject the current
settlement as written, go back to the bargaining table, and reach a
solid, strong agreement that encourages competition in our
marketplace, encourage innovation, and discourage any monopoly from
using their vast power to extend their reach into other areas,.
Thank you,
L. Frank Turovich
MTC-00025915
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Noel Harris
Rt.3, Box55
Cuthbert, GA 31740
MTC-00025916
From: mike foland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice:
It's time to move on! As a ``Top 5% of Americans''
taxpayers to the U.S. Treasury, I feel the government has reached a
FAIR settlement with Microsoft. Let's move on! The DOJ has other
things to worry about(Sept. 11th terrorists) to pursue this matter
which only benefits Microsoft's competitors. The measures presented
in the settlement are fair and both sides can live with that
agreement. It's time for the Federal government to move on the other
pressing problems. Let's spend those tax dollars fighting foreign
enemies.
An American Taxpayer
MTC-00025917
From: Paul Grabowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:25am
To Whom it may concern,
I have been a small businessman for over 20 years, and in the
beginning we had a staff of 8 or so people, doing about $250,000 of
sales a year. Now am selling over a million dollars of goods a year
with a staff of 3 people.
At that time, I saw the need for computerization in order to run
my business more efficiently and accurately with less overhead. At
that time there weren't any personal computers, and I was forced to
spend over ten thousand dollars in equipment and programming ( this
was in the early 80's) to have someone design a simple program that
merely did job cost estimating. This was an outrageous amount of
money to spend to acquire such a simple task. To learn about DOS was
beyond my comprehension and desire.
I have learned that the simple solution to success in business
is to ``find a void and fill it''. By this I mean to find
out what people's needs are and to service those needs with
simplicity and as little discomfort to the consumer as possible.
I know that Bill Gates did this very thing buy of course on a
much larger scale.
Competition is a wonderful and needed thing in America, as the
consumer is the one benefiting the most from businesses forcing
themselves to be more professional and offering services and
products that are better and less expensive than they would be
otherwise.
However, just because someone is smart and has foresight and
energy to extremely simplify and market a product does not create a
monopoly.
UNDERSTAND THIS STATEMENT:
I DO NOT FEEL FORCED TO BUY OR USE MICROSOFT PRODUCTS.... I
CHOOSE TO BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANOTHER PRODUCT THAT DOES THE SAME OR
MORE AT AN EQUAL OR LESS PRICE.
Tell the losers that do not have the smarts or know-how to
accomplish this task to quit crying in their beer and blaming
Microsoft for their own failures. I am a Veteran of the Armed Forces
and sacrificed much for this country of ours so that folks can be
successful here and hopefully to create a better place for us and
everyone else in the world.
So back off Attorney General..... you should salute Bill Gates
and his Microsoft staff, not castrate them
Paul M. Grabowski
President of Tallahassee Kitchen Center Inc.
MTC-00025918
From: willie northway
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:28am
Subject: atrocious
Please don't allow the biggest threat to competition in any
market to walk away unpunished. Microsoft was found guilty of
monopolistic practices, even while their lawyer is in court, the
company is busy pulling off further scams to extend their
stranglehold over the computing market and our future.
Punish Microsoft, not consumers.
- Willie
MTC-00025919
From: mike
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may concern,
The Microsoft settlement is NOT a just punishment, it allows
them more market penetration. Please see that Microsoft is punished
such that they do not continue as a monopoly. thanks,
Mike Landrus
Austin Tx
MTC-00025920 FROM: Carol A Ghenic TO: MS ATR DATE: 1/26/02
10:27am SUBJECT: Microsoft Settlement
George Ghenic
1760 Culver Avenue
Dearborn, MI 48124
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
[[Page 27721]]
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am contacting you because I would like to request that you
strongly support the settlement reached in the Microsoft antitrust
case. We must conclude this case.
Microsoft has been held in court by the government for too long.
This settlement will allow Microsoft to return to business and get
out of the federal courts. Microsoft has compromised much in this
settlement, including agreeing to disclose the proprietary code to
competitors. Nevertheless, some opponents of Microsoft may try to
undermine the settlement. They would like to see Microsoft damaged
in court, and that is wrong.
I thank you for taking the time to consider my views on this
issue.
Sincerely,
George Ghenic
MTC-00025921
From: Ed Greenfield
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to let the Department of Justice know that Margaret
and Ed Greenfield are in agreement with the Settlement with
Microsoft and would like to see this Long and Costly Mess be settled
soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Ed Greenfield
618 Emilie St.
Green Bay, WI 54301
MTC-00025922
From: Christian Provenzo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Parties,
I do not believe that it is right for the United States
Government to punish successful entrepreneurs such as Bill Gate and
his Microsoft Company simply because they beat the competition in a
fair market. Microsoft is simply more successful because it makes
better products, and integrates them effortlessly for the user. If
Netscape wanted to compete with Microsoft, they should have created
their own operating system. Nothing prevented them from doing so. To
punish Microsoft simply because they created a successful operating
system is wrong, and to impose a sanction that limits the programs
that Microsoft can develop as a conglomerate is unconstitutional. If
Microsoft wants to give Internet Explorer away with its operating
system, it has every right to do so. If another Software company
wants to do the same, then may the best products prevail. The bottom
line is it is not the U.S. Government's place to determine what is
in the best interest of the consumer, that right belongs to the
consumer. Microsoft has not forced anyone to use their products;
people buy them because they like them. Consumers are the ultimate
deciding factor which determines the success or failure of a
business. Microsoft's success is a direct result of consumer
support. Any action taken against Microsoft is an assault on the
freedoms and rights of individuals to be successful and pursue their
right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Such an action
can only be seen as insult to what America has always stood for,
freedom.
Sincerely,
Christian A. Provenzo
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025923
From: Jack (038) Dixie Leslie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN,
ALL OF US GET TO WORK........IT'S TIME TO STOP THIS PERSECUTION
OF BILL GATES AND MICROSOFT..............
JACK AND DIXIE LESLIE
MTC-00025924
From: Rickey Dockins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past,
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly
position in the operating system market. This is especially
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past
transgressions.
Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the
American people in general.
While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
Sincerely,
Rickey A. Dockins
San Angelo, Texas
MTC-00025925
From: Howard W Granoff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may concern:
In my opinion this Microsoft thing should be settled as quickly
as possible. I say damn the selfish interests who stand in the way
of progress and what is good for our wonderful country. Get on with
doing whatever is necessary to complete the job and the hell with
those selfich rats that stand in the way.
Sincerely,
Howard w. Granoff
Senior Citizen
MTC-00025926
From: Margaret Anderson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/26/02 10:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Margaret Anderson
12861 Telfair Ave
Sylmar, CA 91342
January 26, 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,
Margaret Anderson
MTC-00025927
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
[[Page 27722]]
William Cook
1303--14th St
Monroe, WI 53566
MTC-00025928
From: Tedd Potts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
US Department of Justice:
What specifically did Microsoft do that was illegal? When one
looks closely it becomes obvious that Microsoft's
``crimes'' were: choosing whom to do business with,
setting the terms of those business relationships, pricing some
products ``too low'', and pricing other products
``too high''.
It is important to remember that we are all producers: at a
minimum, we produce manual labor and the thought required to make it
valuable. Microsoft did not defraud anyone, so if one argues that
government should restrict Microsoft's choices, then it would follow
that they would wish government to restrict any producer's choices,
once the government decides that that producer is too successful.
Note that Microsoft is a target only because they are
successful. If they were the size of Apple Computer they would be
left free to make their own choices. So, under present American
anti-trust regulations, a producer is left relatively free until the
government decides he is too successful, at which time the
government begins to limit his success and reward his lesser
competitors.
This not the proper use of government power in a free society,
otherwise all producers, all individuals, would be at the mercy of
arbitrary government decisions regarding the ``proper''
level of success.
That environment would more akin to Communist China's than
``the land of the free and the home of the brave''.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw,Don
Potts,Dwight ...
MTC-00025929
From: Patricia Schlinkmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:31am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
AS AN ADVOCATE OF FREE ENTERPRISE AND PROUD OF OUR AMERICAN
SYSTEM, I URGE THE DOJ TO ALLOW MICROSOFT TO RUN THEIR BUSINESS FREE
OF GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.
FREE ENTERPRISE IS THE BASIS OF OUR AMERICAN WAY. DON'T GET INTO
THE OVER-REGULATING. ALLOW MICROSOFT THE FREEDOM TO BE THE BEST.
GIVE THE COMPETITORS THE RIGHT TO CONTINUE COMPETING BUT DON'T DO IT
AT THE EXPENSE OF THIS GREAT COMPANY.
PATRICIA H. SCHLINKMAN,
3401 HIGHWAY 90 EAST,
SCHULENBURG, TX. 78956
MTC-00025930
From: Al O'Brien
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:40am
Subject: microsoft settlement
37 Buckingham Drive
Dix Hills, NY 11746
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 express support for the anti-trust settlement
that was reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice in
November of last year. I would like nothing more than to see this
matter put to rest, and settling is the right thing to do for all
parties involved.
Microsoft's business operations will be watched over by a
technical committee that will ensure Microsoft's full compliance
with all of the agreed upon terms. If any independent company has a
complaint against Microsoft that company may immediately have its
case heard by this committee.
Microsoft will share information with its competitors on
Windows, and it will design the operating system so that non-
Microsoft software can be built into the operating system. I believe
this is sufficient to end this case at this time.
When this settlement becomes final, the strong competition in
the industry will benefit consumers by providing more to choose from
in the marketplace. The industry will receive a real boost, and this
will in turn stimulate America's dwindling economy. I am looking
forward to the positive effects this settlement will have on our
country.
Sincerely,
Al O'Brien
MTC-00025931
From: kenneth nolde
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:44am
Subject: MICROSOFT Settlement
To Whom it may Concern: I am against continued harrassment of
the Microsoft corporation. I believe that the suits brought by the
U.S. government is frivilous and not in the best interests of the
United States, U.S. consumers, and competition in general. I believe
that the USG and the various states should cease-and-desist action
against Microsoft, it now is overt extortion.
Dr. Kenneth Nolde
MTC-00025932
From: MIKE SEIKEL
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am in favor of the agreed upon settlement with Microsoft.
Let's end this and move on.
Mike Seikel
2604 Echo Trail
Edmond, OK 73013-6732
e-mail: [email protected]
MTC-00025933
From: Donald F Fix
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs: Being a Senior the Internet is an important daily
occupation. The recent legal settlement with Microsoft and it's
competitors seems to be adequate. I feel it is a waste of TAXPAYER
money to penalize the AMERICAN way of competition in business,and
should end with this settlement. I think there are many other
problems affecting we AMERICANS that need to be tended to. Please,
help us older AMERICANS, allow us to have our affordable INTERNET!!
Donald Fix
[email protected]
MTC-00025936
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:53am
Subject: Fwd: Fw: MSFT Settelment.
In a message dated 1/25/02 9:43:56 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
[email protected]
----- Original Message -----
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 2:38 PM
To: [email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]; Neil--
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: MSFF Settelment.
Following is a letter I am sending to the attorney general in
support of MSFT case settlement. If you agree in settlement and
would like to forward, following is the Email address etc.
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 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 United States
Department of Justice's recent efforts to settle the Microsoft
antitrust lawsuit.
This case really should not have been brought against Microsoft.
Microsoft's innovations have and continue to contribute immensly to
the productivity and economy of the United States.
Microsoft single-handedly through ``Window's Operating
System'' made computers accessible to the world. Computers are
now in virtually every household and bussness in the country.
Microsoft may have been aggressive in their business dealings,
but that is the way of the business world in a free-market society.
Aggressive business tactics are not necessarily the same as
antitrust violations.
Despite my feeling that this case should not have been filed, at
this stage of the game I think the wise course of action is to
settle
[[Page 27723]]
the case. The settlement agreement the parties negotiated is fairly
reasonable.
It will require Microsoft to refrain from retaliating against
computer manufacturers that install software other than Windows on
their computers. Along those same lines, it will require Microsoft
to not retaliate against software developers who develop programs
that compete with Windows. These concessions should help the
competition operate on a more level playing field.
I appreciate your efforts to settle this case.
Sincerely,
Roger Cox
MTC-00025937
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
The United States is the most free country in the world. We can
build a better mouse trap, market it, and make lots of money in the
process. In the case of Microsoft it did just that; it made better,
easier to use computer software, and sold it at a fair price. If
Microsoft is made to share its secrets, the public ends up with
software that is harder to use and more expensive. This will only
hurt the consumer, business and private. The message you are sending
to everyone is ``yes, go ahead. Invent something new and
improved. Market it and make lots of money--BUT do not get too
big, do not make too much money, or the government will force you to
go out of business or share your secrets and pay fines. This sounds
like a two-year old saying ``I want your toy and I want it now
and you have to give it to me because I said so.'' Jealousy? It
seems when something works great, is cheap, and the public benefits,
the government steps in and forces the issue to break it up. Who
loses? I do, along with the rest of the public.
Marianne Ippoliti
e-mail: [email protected]
MTC-00025938
From: Fred Burk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:55am
Subject: LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE.
To whom it may concern:
Over the last few months I have asked several of my friends,
``when do you think this present economic turn-down started
?'' They all respond, my stock investments started their big
declines when the last administration started the lawsuites.
Microsoft has done not one thing to hurt the ever day P.C. USER
,ONLY MAKE THE P.C. EASY TO USE. YES, there are few FAT cat
companies that found it hard to compete with Microsoft. FREE
ENTERPRISE AT WORK. IF I am wrong about this, please show me.
Thank you, Fred
MTC-00025939
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that the proposed Microsoft settlement should be
approved for this reason:
The Microsoft Settlement is a fair plan that will help the U.S.
economy, which depends on firms like Microsoft for the innovation
necessary to bring about growth in technology.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Rhinehart
MTC-00025940
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
While you're busy persecuting a well run honest productive
company (Microsoft) the ``foxes are raiding the hen
houses'' Enron. Enron have too many political ties to attack
them?
Carl Radtke
MTC-00025941
From: Jason Nash
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to voice my concerns regarding the Microsoft and
USDOJ settlement:
1. I believe the settlement is fair to all parties involved,
possibly too harsh on Microsoft. I am OPPOSED to any additional
restrictions or sanctions that may be added to the settlement.
2. I am extremely disappointed with the nine hold out states and
I hope every Attorney General in those states lose their re-election
bids.
3. The USDOJ should stop pressing companies like Microsoft that
innovate and help our economy and go after companies who are true
monopolies and damage our economy and consumers. Target No. 1 should
be
AOL Time Warner.
Regards,
Jason L. Nash
Toni S. Nash
9472 E Valley Ranch Pkwy
Apt 1057
Irving, TX 75063
MTC-00025942
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary Moseley
P.O. Box 451
7685 Rose Lane
Keystone Heights, FL 32656
MTC-00025943
From: Larry R. Staton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:58am
Subject: RE: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs:
Just to add my two cents worth as a private citizen. I am
concerned that the proposed settlement is insufficient in its depth
to address all concerns as to monopoly practices. While I believe
that Microsoft produces a number of very fine products, I have
concerns that this settlement does not go far enough towards
eliminating monopolistic marketing practices within the commercial
computer/software/operating systems environment.
Larry Staton
Eastlake, Ohio
MTC-00025944
From: Gail Bradbury
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I beleive the proposed settlement, will in the end, do little to
dissuade Microsoft from continuing to abuse its current market
position. It absoulutely has been shown they will stifle any
technology that is of any potential threat to them.
Netscape was effectively killed off as just one example. Please
send a clear message and impose strict enforceable standards on
Microsoft so REAL innovation is not stepped on in the future.
Thanks for your consideration.
Scott Clark
609 W. 35th St.
Austin, Tx 78705
MTC-00025946
From: Eugene D Gray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:03am
Subject: [email protected] .
To The Justice Department;
I am sending my strong opinion to the Justice Department to
counter the self-serving and punitive lobbying effort of Microsoft's
competitors. Under the current law the U.S. District Court is to
decide whether the settlement is in the ``public
interest.'' The consumer interests have been well served, and
the time to end this costly and damaging litigation has come.
Dragging out this legal battle further will only benefit a few
wealthy competitors, lawyers, and special interest big-wigs. Not one
new product that helps consumers will be brought to the marketplace.
A loyal American Citizen,
Eugene D. Gray
P. O. Box 154
Fairmount, IN 46928
MTC-00025947
From: [email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 27724]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Randy Beem
PO Box 491956
Redding, CA 96049-1956
MTC-00025948
From: Bob Ketcham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement with Microsoft represents a failing of
the DOJ to do its job. The settlement should be much more than the
weak, inconsequential, easy to subvert items proposed.
Microsoft has done much, many times to damage companies and
innovation though its monopoly tactics. The current case represents
prosecution of only a fraction of the many cases that could have
been brought. This was a significant instance of those many cases.
They have been found guilty. They are a Monopoly. Because of the
cost of bringing this case to trial and conclusion and the
likelihood that the cost of further cases will be prohibitive, the
punishment for this case should be the maximum allowable. Like
stopping Al Capone on Income Tax evasion, this case represents a one
time chance to stop major criminal activity.
The current settlement will do little to stop Microsoft's
inappropriate approach to business. They will be allowed to continue
to ruthlessly damage anyone who dares attempt to compete with them.
They will be allowed to continue to do much damage to the industry
as a whole. The settlement must be rejected and a more appropriate
remedy found. Please stop this travesty and find remedies that
aren't a joke. Please remember that the anti-trust laws are designed
to protect the many simple citizens like me from the damage done by
predatory businesses like Microsoft. I will remember how this
administration chooses to balance that scale of justice when I next
visit the ballot box.
Thanks for this opportunity to comment.
Robert S. Ketcham
2021 Sandy Coast Circle
League City, TX 77573
[email protected]
MTC-00025949
From: WILBERT E LENNICK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:04am
Subject: STOP LITIGATING AGAINST MICROSOFT!
STOP THE CONTINUOUS LITIGATING AGAINST MICROSOFT WHICH COMPANY
IS HELPING THE SENIORS.
[email protected]
MTC-00025950
From: Chad P
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
It has been my experience that politicians and bureaucrats
frequently need issues illustrated in a political, economic or legal
perspective context rather than appealing to a sense of common good
or other such idealisms.
Dealing with Microsoft harshly is your chance to show that
regulators are not swayed or pressured by well-financed lobbying and
shady spin doctoring. This is your chance to punish an arrogant
company that uses Enron-like strategies to keep its position.
Right now, the Enron campaign contributions and political
efforts reflect poorly on government.
Microsoft is also a very politically active and influential
corporation. In light of the public's perception that Enron bought
political favor, it would be a great step to re-instill faith in the
institutions charged with overseeing our free market if those in
power acted effectively and decisively against Microsoft.
I am in favor of either a breakup of Microsoft and/or the
release of some of their key source code to the public at large. The
latter remedy will no doubt positively effect the Windows Operating
System and result in some true innovations.
Regards,
Chad Prukha
an IT Operations
MTC-00025951
From: Scott Newell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing in response to the proposed MS Monopoly settlement.
It does nothing to prevent future bundling of software, as they have
already begun with their media player.
Microsoft has already shown contempt for previous judgments, and
unless this one has a little more teeth, they will continue to
illegally crush their competition and rob their customers (i.e. Most
people and businesses.)
Scott Newell
MTC-00025952
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
HERBERT BRUNWIN
266 ENCANTO AVE
PISMO BEACH, CA 93449
MTC-00025953
From: Fred Thorn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
First, it was Hillary redesigning our health care according to
Marx;
Then, it was Janet Reno selecting our browser for us (even tho
she didn't know beans about the subject)
Now, it's various politicians redesigning our autos to make them
more ``politically correct''.
Beans again!
I have used both browsers for five years without any difficulty
in selecting one over the other....despite not being a computer
``nerd'' but rather a 75-year old layman, with just enough
knowledge to know which hole to punch on a ballot: (R)
Our computer industry has brought us better and faster service
at a less and less cost; unlike the states'' track record of
more and more taxes.
It is just a money grab not unlike the tobacco wars.....only
this time our whole economy is at risk.
Fred & Joyce Thorn
2731 St. Cloud Oaks Dr.
Valrico, FL 33594
(813) 689-8989
MTC-00025954
From: joebash
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:14am
Subject: Dear Sir:
Dear Sir:
Why on earth would the clinton Administration & Justice
department find it necessary to destroy one of the most productive
employer in the United States. All because of some whiney
competitors who can't make it without the help of the most corrupt
group of politicians in our long history. Leave Microsoft alone and
maybe it will give the country a good boost out of the clinton
inspired recession. There are plenty
[[Page 27725]]
of real problems for Washington to deal with. Why not get on with
the building process.
Joe & Betty Bannan
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00025955
From: Dan Barthel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:14am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
Sirs,
I believe that the proposed settlement agreement between
Microsoft and the DOJ is woefully inadequate. Having been found
guilty of major antitrust violations, concrete sanctions and
proactive remedies need to be applied. My suggestions are those of a
technologist, not a lawyer. These views have evolved over years of
frustration trying to build cross platform applications for Windows
and the Macintosh. After years of working with Microsoft, I am
certain that they will never willingly comply with the following
suggestions. Thus, these sorts of concrete remedies must be imposed
by the court.
1. The ruling specifically mentioned Microsoft's predatory
behavior regarding Java, Netscape Navigator, and Apple Quicktime,
and for that matter the Real Player. An appropriate remedy would be
to have Microsoft ship each of those products as supplied by the
originator of the package with every copy of the Windows operating
system. An example of Microsoft arrogance was the unilateral
decision to stop shipping Java with Windows XP. There was no
technical reason to do this, but the business reason was to again
cause disruption and frustration at the consumer level for easy
access to non-Microsoft technologies. The rational for this
suggestion is having caused harm, repair the harm.
2. Microsoft must supply all current and past file formats for
their layered applications to anyone who requests them. These
formats should be documented fully so that independent developers
can access the binary data for Microsoft Office and all other
applications which use a proprietary file format. Microsoft should
be specifically prohibited from removing backward file compatibility
to existing file formats as a means of insuring interoperability.
Any proposed changes must be made publicly available at least six
months prior to release of products incorporating these changes.
3. Microsoft must supply documentation to all wire protocols for
access to system functions, including, but not limited to: SQL
Server, Message Queue, Transaction Server, Directory Services, and
File Sharing. These protocols must be made freely available to
anyone. Any proposed changes must be made publicly available at
least six months prior to release of products incorporating these
changes.
4. Microsoft must be ordered to comply with, and not extend, W3C
standards. Browser features not part of the W3C XML, XSL, HTML and
DHTML specifications must be removed from current products. This
point is extremely important, as abuse of standards in this area was
used effectively by Microsoft to win the browser war with Netscape.
Microsoft has also demonstrated the ability to inhibit
interoperability with the changes made to the open Kerbros standard,
and with ``creative'' changes to the SQL-99 standard. This
is one of Microsoft's favorite tactics to close doors of
interoperability.
5. Microsoft must be ordered to implement comparable and
compatible feature sets for cross platform products. In particular,
the IE browser for the Macintosh must be improved to the full
feature set of Windows-XP.
6. Access to source code must be granted to all, particularly
the open source community, not a select few as is the case in the
proposed settlement. As written, the current agreement will allow
Microsoft to remain a king maker with selected partners.
7. Microsoft should be forced to drop all partnerships and
alliances with other companies. All companies must have equal access
to Microsoft technologies. Early access of information, if
available, must be made available to all interested parties. Non-
disclosure information to 3rd parties should be prohibited, and made
freely available to all.
8. Volume discounting should be prohibited. One price to all.
Period, the end.
9. Bundled pricing should be prohibited. Office should cost the
same, with or without a computer or operating license purchase.
10. Competitive upgrade pricing should be prohibited for all
Microsoft products, even those that do not enjoy a monopoly
position, as simple branding of any Microsoft product implies the
monopoly.
11. Beta testing of new products must be made available to
anyone who requests participation.
While these suggestions may seem highly technical, they are the
kinds of things that can enable competition in the computer
community. They are a) concrete, b)open access to all, particularly
the open source community, c)encourage and enable the cross-platform
interchange of information, d) enable the community at large free
access to the data they own, now locked up inside proprietary file
formats.
The current settlement relies on Microsoft's willing compliance
with the proposed terms. In the past, Microsoft has proven itself
adept at stepping through loopholes with great ease. What we need
are concrete actions to open access to the technical information
required to interoperate successfully with Microsoft products so
that innovation and completion can take place. It is easy to judge
compliance with the suggestions above. Microsoft should be found in
violation if any of the above suggestions are not complied with in a
very tight time period, as delay of information is effectively
denial of information in this industry.
Microsoft will argue that no other company has to comply with
these terms. But no other company has been found guilty of serious
antitrust violations. And, as an interesting aside, many companies,
Sun, Macromedia, Adobe, Apple, and others, already offer the kinds
of access to technical information proposed above. These are not
wild haired suggestions, but suggestions that already work.
Hopefully, you lawyers will get some solid technical input
before letting Microsoft sneak out the door unfettered to develop in
secret, change standards at will, and continue to frustrate
interoperability. As to the pricing remedies, it is hard not to see
the benefit of one price to all, one relationship with everyone.
Regards,
Dan Barthel
[email protected]
941-389-5610
MTC-00025956
From: Judy Sawyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:19am
Subject: microsoft settlement
I believe Microsoft and the D.O.J. has reached a settlement and
Time Warner, Napster, and the 9 states left in suits do not have the
consumers in mind at all while continuing these frivolous law suits.
They have a angry desire to'' tear the heart out of
Microsoft'' as one Red Hat supporter wrote. This will all cost
the consumer in the latest soft ware that could be developed. and
higher prices. Time Warner and AOL just went up on our cable bill
last month from $54.00 to $64.00. Please bring us closure on these
ridiculous law suits Judge.
Thank you,
Jennifer Brunson
E-mail [email protected]
MTC-00025957
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:15am
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,
Jane Brasovan
38 Quiet Peace Place
The Woodlands,, TX 77381
MTC-00025958
From: Preston Sanders
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am in favor of it because it will help us seniors.
MTC-00025959
From: John Cowan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:18am
[[Page 27726]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
613 Navarra Drive
Scotts Valley
CA 95066
Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,
U. S. District Court
Washington DC
Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
I am very disappointed with the settlement agreement the Justice
Department has negotiated with Microsoft Corporation. It does
practically nothing to constrain Microsoft's anti-competitive
practices. I am particularly concerned about the provisions that
require Microsoft to make public its Application Program Interface
(API) and the one that prohibits Microsoft from penalizing customers
who resell software from other vendors. This excerpt from an article
by James Mathewson in the January 2002 Bay Area Computer User
Magazine describes the problem better than I could: ``Actually,
the settlement codifies the legality of Microsoft's predatory
practices. What it takes away with one hand, it gives back with the
other, and then some. For example, it does force Microsoft to share
its Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) with the competition.
But it also forces those who use the APIs to share their finished
code with Microsoft. The result is that Microsoft would see all of
its competition's trade secrets and easily replicate them. Or,
though the ruling ensures that Microsoft competitors be allowed to
get their icons on PC desktops, the clause only applies to companies
who have sold more than a million copies of their software in the
United States. The very companies who need a competitive advantage
in this case can't get it.
``And these two qualifiers are indicative of the whole
agreement. The clincher: Microsoft would be barred from terminating
a PC vendor's license agreements because the vendor cooperated with
one of Microsoft's competitors. But it could still terminate the
agreements, because if it did, the vendor would have to take it to
court for violating the antitrust provision. How many small clone
shops can afford to fight Microsoft in court? If the government ran
out of money trying, not even Dell would fight Microsoft for the
ability to put a Quicken icon on a Dell desktop.''
I ask that you please require Microsoft to publish its APIs on a
public web site so it is available to all, that you require
Microsoft to allow all its customers to put whatever icons they wish
on the desktop and that you require Microsoft to sell its operating
system products to all buyers without penalty, regardless of
whatever other business arrangements they make, and without the need
to bring suit.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
John F. Cowan
[email protected]
MTC-00025960
From: charles varano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:19am
Subject: John Aschroft
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.
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.
Carbon Copy:
Rep. Spencer Bachus
Fax: 202-225-2082
For more information, please visit these websites:
www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/ www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-
settle.htm
The letter follows:
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I write you as a Microsoft supporter to urge you to help support
the recent settlement in its current form. The many concessions that
have been made by Microsoft include changes in licensing changes,
marketing requirements, and even design restrictions. It is obvious
that Microsoft is working toward bettering the entire IT sector. Let
us help them do so by helping this settlement move forward. As our
economy goes under some strain, it is important for us to support
all of our technologies in order to maintain our position in the
global market. By delaying an agreement such as the Microsoft
settlement, we slow down the advancement of our IT sector and tie up
their time in litigation. This is not what we need in the technology
industry during a time of recession. Let us make sure that there is
no more actions taken against this well thought out settlement. Let
the terms speak for themselves and allow us to better help the
consumer, the technology industry and our economy as a whole.
Sincerely,
Charles Varano
195 Calumet Drive
Birmingham, Alabama 35242
cc: Representative Spencer Bachus
MTC-00025961
From: Christian Skeem
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:15am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To Whom It May Concern
As a layman, I find it absurd that such an obvious case of
``dumping'' and anticompetitive behavior has not met with
the severest form of punishment. If there is to be any lesson drawn
from this expensive and exhaustive process, at this point the
government seems content with letting it be ``if you're rich
enough and powerful enough, just let us slap your wrists and be on
your way''! And please, just because a judge used poor judgment
(pun intended), is no reason the U.S., nay the WORLD consumer should
be punished and left without choice.
I admit to not knowing the fine points of the laws regarding
monopolies and anticompetitive behavior, but it doesn't take an
expert or a genius to figure out that if you use your leverage and
your money to give an expensive piece of software away
``free'' (i.e. Internet Explorer), you are going to drive
your competition (i.e. Netscape) out of business without much of a
fight.
The internet is too important an arena to allow someone so
blatantly anti-democratic and opportunistic as Bill Gates become
(remain?) the dominant force.
ACT NOW! Appeasement of tyrants is rightly a concept consigned
to infamy.
WAKE UP! When it's so obvious to a layman that the EMPEROR (the
government) HAS NO CLOTHES! you may be able to sleep through this
round, but this will come back to roundly bite us all in our
collective naked ASSES!
DO SOMETHING!
Christian Skeem
1919 West Bradley Place
Chicago, IL 60613
773-832-4696
[email protected]
MTC-00025962
From: Warren Bryld
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Mr. Ashcroft: I am writing to express my support for the
settlement your office reached with Microsoft in November in regard
to its ongoing antitrust litigation. I feel that enough government
and taxpayer money has already been spent, and Microsoft should be
able to get back to business.
I am familiar with the terms of the settlement, and they are a
reasonable way to bring the case to a close. Disclosing unique
Microsoft programming codes will better equip competitors to develop
programs that operate smoothly within the Windows system, and
providing users with new options to remove different programs and
replace them with competitors'' versions will leave everyone
with more freedom of choice.
The settlement was reached in November, so I urge you to end the
case with no further delay. The government should comply with the
terms it agreed on with Microsoft. Not doing so would fly in the
face of being honorable and upfront--two things that the
government claims were reasons for bringing a suit against Microsoft
in the first place.
Sincerely,
Judy Bryld
MTC-00025963
From: Ardith Brown
[[Page 27727]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:20am
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
It is time to end this stupid law suit. Lets settle this now.
The only people that are interested in not settleing this is the
attorneys who are making all the money. Let Microsoft get on with
its business.
Ardith Brown
17106 E. LaPasada
Fountain Hills, AZ 85268
MTC-00025964
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Joella Cramblit
2 Regent Wood road
Northfield, IL 60093
MTC-00025965
From: r-a-l
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The terms of the antitrust settlement between Microsoft, the
Department of Justice and the nine states is fair and equitable to
all parties.
It is now time to move forward.
Sincerely,
Robert Laczko
1234 Naranca Avenue
El Cajon, CA 92021
MTC-00025966
From: DenverD
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/26/02 11:24am
Subject: hurting in Denmark
I'm just a little user that is STILL hurt every single day in
Denmark because of Microsoft's aggressive and illegal practices
since 1987..
for example:
--in 1994 i bought OS/2 Warp version 3 and was one click to
the internet a year before MS got there (with the release of
Win95)..
--that version 4 (which was cheaper than Win95 or 98)
remains stable, usable and just fine for almost everything i need,
EXCEPT when i try to go to almost ANY web site inside Denmark with
my Netscape Explorer browser.....it just will NOT work with (for
example) my bank the bank has a
full service, on-line facility written entirely for MS Internet
Explorer ONLY....I asked about that problem to my friendly bank man
and the OFFICIAL company policy is: 99% of our customers use
Internet Explorer and we will NOT support any other..
how did it get that way? MS sold ``Front Page'' at
give away prices...an HTML authoring software pack deliberately
crafted to produce web sites which will not work with Netscape AS
SHIPPED..
find a Dane in the DC area and ask them to check out Denmark's
web sites with ANY non-Microsoft browser except Opera (which was
designed from the ground up to TRY to keep up with MS's constantly
changing tricks)..
DenverD
A Texan in Denmark
www.Texan.dk
MTC-00025967
From: Johan Lotter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft
MTC-00025967-0001
In the spirit of full disclosure, I own Microsoft Stock. The
Justice Department action against Microsoft, started by the corrupt
Clinton administration, has cost me a great deal of money in my
retirement funds. I shall remember the great and wasteful injustice
done against this wonderful company forever and I shall vote against
any politician who did not actively come out in support of Microsoft
on the day your suit was first filed. I use Microsoft products
whenever they are available, because they are, in a word, superior.
Most of the other stuff simply does not work as well. I have
actually purchased some of the Microsoft competitors'' products
and ``thrown them away in disgust'' because they did not
work as well as they should. I was opposed to the entire law suit
against Microsoft. I felt it was brought by a bunch of
``whiners'' who were unable to compete on design,
execution and service. I think Microsoft should never have been
prosecuted, however, if Microsoft finds the settlement
``acceptable'', that should be the end of the story. I
want you to cease and desist in your persecution of Microsoft. I
believe my attitude is typical of vast numbers of US voters.
Put an end to this nonsense!
--Johan Lotter
[email protected]
--EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
MTC-00025967-0002
MTC-00025968
From: Paula Tyndale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case is a
really bad idea.
Paula Tyndale
718 CR 2415
Eureka Springs, AR 72632
MTC-00025969
From: peter dunn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:27am
Subject: Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
The Government's settlement with Microsoft must be approved to
bring this case to a close. It is in the best interests of everyone
involved. This settlement is opposed by certain interests that I
believe are for self-serving reasons. After 3 \1/2\ years it is time
to end this.
Peter A. Dunn
MTC-00025970
From: Ben Larsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:26am
Subject: antitrust
Please break up the Microsoft monopoly to ensure a productive
future in computing.
Thanks.
Ben Larsen
Salt Lake City, Utah
MTC-00025971
From: David D'Souza
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft & DOJ Settlement needs to go through. A
compromise has been reached by a majority of the stakeholders and I
encourage the DoJ to support it. There is no need for the government
to preserve the uncertainty on this matter. As we all know,
solutions are never appealing to everyone but this one sets a fair
balance for both sides.
Thanks
David D'Souza
MTC-00025972
From: Howard D. Watkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:31am
Subject: settlement
THEY CAN NEVER REPAIR THE DAMAGE TO GEOS WORKS . I WANT MY GEOS
WORKS BACK! I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BEG FOR A SIMPLE SOLUTION TO MY
NEEDS.----H E L P------!!!!!?????
HOWARD D. WATKINS
[email protected]
MTC-00025973
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method
[[Page 27728]]
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,
Ray Miller
4111 W. Arrowhead Rd.
Duluth, MN 55811
MTC-00025974
From: Bob Blackburn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
We find it very hard that you have not been able to do the right
thing and allow Microsoft to get on with it's business of making
America the top of the world in technology.
You realize that our whole economy started down the tube when
the justice department started the witch hunt started by Senators
who had tech companies in their states and those companies could not
stand the fact that another company was better at their business
than they were. We do not believe that Microsoft should be broken up
nor should it have any kind of a harsh ruling as that again would
severly affect the economy and hurt many of us who have been hurt
already from the downturn of the economy. We felt that the agreement
that Microsoft and the DOJ came to earlier was a fair one for all
concerned.
Pat and Bob Blackburn
MTC-00025975
From: Steven J Spain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
For years, Microsoft developers have pushed harder and harder to
create new and better experiences for end users. As an independent
software developer and student of Management Information Systems, my
current station depends on Microsoft; if not for the advances
brought by Microsoft, I would not be pursuing a career path I find
so satisfying. Microsoft corporation has done so much to bring
computing to the masses and to improve the lives of so many people
that I, as a consumer, cannot find any way in which they have harmed
me. I do not see where any violations of antitrust law were actually
damaging to me. Please accept the proposed settlement in the
interest of putting this lawsuit behind us and ending the expense of
taxpayer dollars on it. Thank you.
Steven J. Spain
[email protected]
MTC-00025976
From: Brian Peterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:42am
Subject: Comments on US vs MS
It's my opinion that the govt should get this thing over with
and goes with the terms of the settlement.
I still do not believe the Govt understands the new playing
ground in the world of Technology and is applying OLD and ARCHAIC
practices to an area so dramatically different than anything we've
ever seen as related to business in the past. This is a typical case
of force fitting just because this is the way we did things in the
past. A lot what has happened here is due to the fact the Good Old
Boys in Washington are so obviously out of touch and are unable to
grasp new concepts and realities.
I am especially UPSET with AOL/Time-Warner's ``SOUR
GRAPES'' attitude being taken seriously in the first place.
They are upset that they AREN'T GETTING THEIR WAY ---THAT IS
HAVING IT ALL FOR THEMSELVES. They only have themselves to blame
because they didn't listen to their customers and therefore produced
products such as AOL and NETSCAPE that are just INFERIOR PERIOD. In
my mind the US govt should start action against AOL/Time-Warner for
trying to do what they claimed Microsoft was doing. I believe AOL/
Time -Warner are truly trying to monopolize the internet and data
streaming (music sites in particular) and force people to use their
inferior and inadequate products systems like AOL and NETSCAPE. I
personally never chose AOL because it was obvious to me what they
were doing early on and I selected local ISPs for my internet access
as my own statement. This is a good example of a megaforce like AOL/
Timer-Warner using their MEGABUCKS to get influence and power in
govt to get their way --- and when money gets involved its
amazing how our govt reps cave in and do their bidding. I personally
do not buy anything connected with AOL/Time-Warner because I believe
they are corrupt. I own no Microsoft stock or Aol stock so I HAVE NO
VESTED INTEREST IN EITHER. I call it the way it looks.
RECOMMENDATION: INVESTIGATE AND START LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST AOL/
TIME-WARNER ASAP!!!!!!!!
I FOR ONE WILL CONTINUE TO BUY MICROSOFT'S PRODUCT AS A SHOW OF
SUPPORT FOR THE WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN THE PAST AND FOR WHAT THEY
ARE TRYING TO DO WITH TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS IN THE FUTURE.
MTC-00025977
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:37am
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,
Pete Carnagey
18283 Highway DD
Everton, MO 65646
MTC-00025978
From: Joe Carroll
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Though I'm not a big fan of Microsoft practices, I am a fairly
content business user of microsoft products. I cannot fault
Microsoft for trying to make money as I do the same 6 days a week.
If a company is forced to make their product serviceable or
standardized or even priced by what the court orders, we have
diminished the basic American freedom and right to pursue happiness.
Though I don't care for some of the Microsoft policies, I don't run
the company and don't have to pay their bills. No one put a gun to
my head when I bought the products.
I am a mechanic by trade. I own an auto repair facility. Will I
soon be forced into a pricing structure and way of doing business
that is determined by court order? Will all the incompetent
shadetree mechanics of the world unite and try to control my right
to pursue happiness?
Though it's not a popular opinion, I fully support The Microsoft
position. Bill Gates my be the richest man in the world but that
does not obligate him in any way to share with me any more than I
would feel obliged to hand over my account records or earnings to a
hobo who's jealous of my position. If I don't like the Microsoft
products or their policies, I don't have to buy the product. I can
and did actually survive for many years without a computer. There
are alternatives out there. Windows is not the only OS out there.
I've tried them all; UNIX, Linux, Free BSD, Solaris, PC-DOS, and the
list goes on. In the end I still chose windows because overall, It
is a superior product. There are choices out there but they just
don't measure up. Why should Microsoft be punished for
``building a better moustrap''?
Joe Carroll
[email protected]
MTC-00025979
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:40am
Subject: A Microsoft Public Opinion
Dear Lawmakers,
Please allow Microsoft to go on with building the nations
economy. Microsoft has done the public a GREAT SERVICE by
standardizing the method in which we use software. Through the
Windows format we are able to add numerous software programs without
the added cost and memory space of having multiple foundation
systems for the software to run on. This has simplified the process
for the software developers as well by enabling them to build onto
windows rather than including bulky basis data with every program.
Some reform may be deemed necessary, but let's work it out and
get the forward progress of this great nation back on it's feet
again...ASAP.
[[Page 27729]]
Thank You for your consideration,
J Pellegrini and C Pellegrini
MTC-00025980
From: Leta Hawn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing in support of the settlement reached in the
Microsoft antitrust case. It is time to put this matter behind us
and get back to business. I, personally, did not support the initial
lawsuit. I think Microsoft's competitors were using the legal arena
to try and cripple their most innovative rival. We complain about
the economic slowdown but hamstring the one company that is most
responsible for much of our economic vitality over the past decade.
Further, I understand that Microsoft has been more than
accommodating with regard to the demands from the Department of
Justice. Microsoft has agreed to allow computer makers to ship non
Microsoft product to a customer; Microsoft has agreed to a uniform
price list; Microsoft has agreed to disclose their internal source
codes. This is way more than I believe any other firm would be
willing to do.
I urge you to give your approval to this agreement.
Sincerely,
John Hawn
211 Windemere Point Drive
Mount Gilead, NC 27306
MTC-00025981
From: Barbara MacArthur
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:45am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
It is time for this ridiculous attack of Microsoft by our own
government to end. Microsoft Corporation has created and helped
create a huge industry that has benefitted millions of Americans. I
consider it senseless to attack a successful AMERICAN company that
has greatly increased the prosperity of Americans and the American
economy. As a consumer and an American, I am in full support of
competition in the market place without government deciding who
shall compete. This action brought by Clinton's Justice Department
has wasted public funds in order to take sides in something that
should be left to the market place. It's time to end it!
Barbara MacArthur
Vacaville, CA
[email protected]
MTC-00025982
From: Marilyn Braiger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:46am
Subject: Settlement
I have sent my letter to the fax number given in your memo. Good
luck!
Marilyn Braiger
MTC-00025983
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is inadequate. Microsoft is not
sufficently punished for its misdeeds or sufficiently restrained
from future anticompetitive action.
Yours truly,
Eric Roush
[email protected]
MTC-00025984
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:43am
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,
Roy McClure
1069 Broad Ave North
Naples, FL 34102-8104
MTC-00025985
From: Mike May, S.J.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:43am
Subject: Comments on proposed Microsoft Settlement
Having reviewed the relevant documents, it is my opinion that
the proposed settlement in the case of the United States of America
v. Microsoft Corporation is not in the public interest. I base my
opinion on a number of considerations:
1) The settlement gives the impression that the rich and
powerful, even when found guilty, can avoid paying the fair
consequences of their guilt, simply because they have the resources
to appeal. I note that the federal court found that Microsoft
systematically violated the anti-trust laws of the United States and
of several individual states. This violation came even though
Microsoft had previously entered into a consent decree on anti-trust
issues. The appeals court upheld that finding. Given that
background, the public interest requires that any final disposition
of the case include the legal verdict that Microsoft is guilty, and
that Microsoft either acknowledge its guilt, or agree that it will
not contest its guilt on these matters in any legal forum.
2) The settlement can only achieve its stated goals if either
the government intricately involve itself in technical business
decisions, or if Microsoft can be trusted to make routinely make
subtle interpretations against its strategic interests to promote
competition.
The settlement has a myriad of provisions that are open to wide
interpretation in implementation. To mention two specifics, deciding
if an API is related to security and deciding if a business decision
constitutes retribution are both decisions that routinely need to be
made for the settlement to be effective.
It is to be noted that the main reason the government gives for
entering into the consent decree is that Microsoft will take all
possible appeals to decisions it views as contrary to its interests.
Past behavior indicates that this is true. It is unreasonable to
expect such deeply ingrained behavior to change with the filing of a
decree in which Microsoft still contends it has done nothing wrong.
The length of the current legal proceedings show that government
oversight of whether Microsoft's business decisions are anti-
competitive will be inefficient at best. Furthermore, as a matter of
policy, the government should try to avoid remedies where it needs
to involve itself in day to day business decisions. Thus it should
avoid relying on behavioral remedies unless it has reason to expect
questions of compliance or non-compliance will routinely be settled
in a non-contentious manner. Given the history of this case,
structural remedies are clearly called for.
3) The settlement does not address the issue of substantial
advantages Microsoft acquired through a an extensive pattern of
illegal activity.
The Federal Court found, and the Appellate Court upheld, that
Microsoft has illegally extended and protected its monopoly through
anti-competitive practices. In doing this it has harmed consumers
and competitors and has gained profit and an even more dominant
competitive position. The public interest requires that at least
some of the illegally gained advantage be relinquished.
To give a context for my remarks, I am a private citizen, not
employed by Microsoft, any of its competitors, or any government. I
do not have stock or other financial interests in any party to the
case.
Sincerely,
Mike May, [email protected]
CC:Mike May S. J.
MTC-00025986
From: Henry W. Tyler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:47am
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Settlement
Competitors have no right to property owned and created by
another Company. The Government has no right to take this property
and give it to another Company. I founded and own a software systems
company, we have customer and competitors, I don't expect the
Government to steal my assets.....I hope the States forget their
political agenda and drop any further action.
Henry W. Tyler
13 Bellevue Dr.
[[Page 27730]]
Treasure Island, Fl. 33706
[email protected]
727-367-7809
MTC-00025987
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:44am
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 campaign against Microsoft. Microsoft's
success is based on its marvelous work ethic. Netscape used to be a
much better product than Internet Explorer, but after long hard
work, Microsoft has improved its product. It is now the best, and
fully deserves a place on the desktop. The attack on Microsoft is an
attack on hard work and success. It devalues entrepreneurship and
depresses the stock market. It is an attack on our economy. Please
stop.
Sincerely,
Mark Steinberger
29 Woodstead Rd.
Ballston Lake, NY 12019-1624
MTC-00025988
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:52am
Subject: Microsoft
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
Though I did not receive the draft letter from Microsoft
(probably deleted it not recognizing what it was) I will attempt to
put into my own words what I think about the case.
I am a small stock holder, a retired illustrator, 74 years old.
I own an equal number of shares of Microsoft and Sun Microsystems,
but am glad to see that Sun's shares have suffered even more than
Microsoft's, because I believe Scott McNeely set out to organize all
the other less successful companies to try to destroy Microsoft
because of his own exteme envy of Bill Gates.
I believe Bill gates has benefited the entire world more than
any other person in history, including Andrew Carnegie. Of course,
he has been competitive. That is the way of a Capitalist country. I
doubt if any of the critics would have done less if they could have.
As I understand it, the anti-trust laws were created to protect the
public from monopolists being able to raise prices to the public.
Microsoft has not done this. Nobody in the public has been forced to
buy a Microsoft product. They have done so, because of the creative
innovation of Microsoft's products.
The Judge who ordered the breakup of Microsoft was obviously
prejudiced, so it went to the Appellate court which has handed down
a less severe punishment, which Microsoft has agreed to.
Why all the states are suing, I don't understand, unless it's
simply greed, and now Europe is trying to cash in on it, too.
At this point we certainly shouldn't be trying to destroy
argueably the best company in the country. Will competitors next go
after Dell, because Michael Dell built a better mousetrap?
I read that China's economy did better this past year than any
other country's, and bought more computers than any other country.
We have far more to fear from China's becoming the next greatest
superpower in the world, than our most successful companies.
Thank you for your consideration of my opinion,
Respectfully,
Elaine Gignilliat
MTC-00025989
From: Mary (038) Steve
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:52am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I believe the settlement reached with microsoft is fair and
should not be further pursued.
Mary Satterwhite
MTC-00025990
From: J. Jentink
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is BAD, BAD idea!!!
I have been in the US computer industry since the late sixties
and there exists no threat to the long term American economy that
approaches where Microsoft is headed. Allowing them to continue
their shady practices and underhanded tactics based on monopoly and
monetary power must stop. We must come down on them hard and
immediately. The proposed settlement is less than a hand slap. We
need some real teeth in terms of immediate penalties to aid those
harmed, a prohibition of Microsoft expanding their tentacles into
new areas and a totally independent mechanism for makes certain
their practices are brought back into the norm of honest and fair
business practices.
1) The quality and reliability of Microsoft products are at a
level that would be unacceptable in any field without monopoly
control.
2) Any company that choices to partner with Microsoft has
brought about their own death. Some are bought but for most, their
intellectual property is usurped by Microsoft.
3) Almost no innovation is happening within the areas of
Microsoft control. Companies know that every innovation they
introduce will eventually be taken by the evil monopoly. For
example, it is almost impossible to get venture capital for software
development today. The people with the money know that Microsoft
will use its power to take it for their own and then they will have
to pay the costs of fighting a legal battle with the big money
machine. They know historically that there is not winning,
eventually Microsoft will prevail. NOTE: The drying up of venture
capital money and the greed of the investment bankers lead to the
unsustainable tech market and crash.
4) The only things that Microsoft seems to be afraid of today
are truly open standards that they can not ``embrace and
extend'' and the Linux ``free and open'' operating
system. One should note that Linux is a essentially a product of
Europe and often associated with their institutions of higher
learning. There is little input from US institutions since our
universities take our public money but instead of giving new
technologies and software developed using this money back to the
public, they sell or license them for additional income.
If these trends continue, the world will eventually need a
solution to the high cost and low quality of Microsoft products. By
that time, only countries like India and China or the EU will have
the ability to produce systems and products independent of
Microsoft's control. Such a turn of events will dramatically reduce
our now dominant position in computing, networking and information
engineering to that of a third rate contributor, with a heavy toll
on our economy and quality of life.
Thank you for your attention, orignal email sent with wrong
Subject line.
J. Jentink
MTC-00025991
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge you to settle the suit in favor of Microsoft so that we
can move forward, not backward. Microsoft's contributions to
communication and technology and the world need to be recognized so
that this country can go forward.
Diane Wender
MTC-00025992
From: Jeffrey C. Graber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:55am
Subject: DOJ: It is my opinion that the DOJ should end this anti-
trust action
DOJ: It is my opinion that the DOJ should end this anti-trust
action against Microsoft and settle this case now in the interest of
fairness and the U.S. economy.
Jeff Graber
MTC-00025993
From: Elliot Scott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In relation with the current matter:
I have a number of questions and comments about the proposed
Technical Committee (TC) and the Internal Compliance Officer that is
mentioned in the proposed final judgment for the United States v.
Microsoft Corporation case. These questions concern the
qualifications and responsibilities of the TC as mentioned in
Section VI dealing with the compliance and enforcement procedures.
The requirement of not allowing the any member having worked
with Microsoft or its competitors no longer than a year ago does not
appear to be logical for the first members of the TC. This is
because the complaints occurred during 1998 concerning activities of
the Defendant in 1996. While I do not expect the requirements to
force the TC members to not have any history with Microsoft and/ or
its competitors for the last 5 years, I would believe that a
revision to the judgment to consider a background check to more
[[Page 27731]]
carefully choose candidates that are not involved with Microsoft
and/or its competitors for a minimum of two to three years. Such a
revision to the final judgment would allow the members of the TC to
provide a more unbiased perspective of the Plaintiff during his/her
term of stay.
The TC should also be required to take notice of all activities
and provide a report of findings and information to be stored in a
secure location of the member1s discretion. While this can be
assumed as part of the judgment, it was not stated in the proposal.
By adding a responsibility to loosely monitor the Compliance Officer
and its staff, if any exist, and write a history report of
complaints filed by logs of the website the Compliance Officer is to
create. This log history report should also include a monthly to
yearly review of the compliance officer that is appointed by the
Plaintiff who monitors all complaints filed either by the website or
through other sources. This would provide a balance of power between
the responsibilities of the TC and those of the Compliance Officer.
This would provide a greater margin of safety from possible
mismanagement of the Compliance Officer.
Under Section V.B concerning extension of the final judgment due
to systematic violations, the extension should not be limited to
one-time extension of two years with possible relief. If it is
proven that the Plaintiff has digressed from the judgment, the
Plaintiff should be required to continue for an extension of up to
three years with necessary relief, with the possibility of a
following two year extension with possible relief afterwards if
digression continues. This suggestion reflects the fact the
Plaintiff practiced anti-trust activities for a period of several
years against a number of competitors. Modifications of the final
judgment may be necessary in order to stay up to date with the
times.
Sincerely,
Elliot Scott
MTC-00025994
From: Bill R Bartz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:55am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Hi, I just want to add my few cents on this matter. The MS
operating system SHOULD be a ``stand alone'' system. There
should not be any other programs that ``come up'' with the
operating system. When other applications are imbedded in the OS, it
is extremely difficult for others to write good programs that are
reallly fully compatible. It only takes a fraction of a second,
given todays CPU speeds, to bring in another application. Please
make the OS a stand alone system. Thank you. PS I'm retired, and
have no ``skin'' in this, other than being a frustrated
user.
Wm. R. (Bill) Bartz
977 Arnold Way
San Jose, CA 95128
408 971 8928 fax 408 971 8267
[email protected]
MTC-00025995
From: John K. Hillman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
I want to express my support for the proposed settlement. In my
opinion it is best for Senior Citizens and the consumer. It is time
to end all the litigation that has been costly and going on far too
long.
John K. Hillman
[email protected]
MTC-00025996
From: Zdenek Becka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to register my concern over the proposed Microsoft
settlement. I am concerned that this settlement does not ensure that
Microsoft will in fact document its operating system APIs to
Independent Software Vendors in the same manner as it does to its
own Application Developers. Microsofts ability to include
significant application components as part of the operating system
makes me wonder how ISVs will be able to compete. Lets face it. MS
makes good applications. I use them everyday. But much of the code
is included in the operating system. When ISV applications are
compared to MSs they appear to consume significantly more resources
and so on. If ISVs are allowed to use those same OS/Application
APIs, then we will all benefit.
Thank you for listening to my concerns.
Zdenek Becka
5238 Sherrier Place NW
Washington, DC 20016
MTC-00025997
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:56am
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,
Angela Millage
4022 W. Mesa Street
Battlefield, MO 65619
MTC-00025998
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It has been long enough, no, too long, in the courts. The terms
and conditions are fair for all concerned. SETTLE IT! NOW!
W.C. Gawlikowski
14107 Forestvale Dr.
Chesterfield, MO 63017
1.314.453.9196
MTC-00025999
From: Felicity Marsh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
AOL bought Netscape while the anti trust case was on
going,assuming the government would slow Microsoft up with the court
case and possibly hand Netscape a victory which would allow AOL to
capitalize on that with little effort to itself. There never was any
concern for the public in this case.
The public benefits from affordable products.--Microsoft
produces those. Netscape itself saw the benefit to the consumer of
combining the server with the operating system and tried to do that
before Microsoft ever did, even though it had a monopoly on servers
at the time. That in itself demonstrates that in the world of
technology a monopoly lasts only until a better product comes along,
had Netscape been able to do a better operating system there would
be no Microsoft to speak of.It was there product which did not win
in the market.
The public benefits from a system that is easy to operate.-
Microsoft produces that,Netscape tried and failed, and can still try
again. AOL is big enough to push that forward if it chooses.
The public benefits from a stable product.- Microsoft was
working on and has now produced that.
The latter was what Sun Microsystems and AOL feared most and had
to stop , one way or another, as that was the biggest threat to
their businesses.
The public has watched the economy sabotaged by hiked up values
on the stock exchange as other companies thought they would make a
fortune in Microsoft's demise, that never happened because a many
faceted system is doomed to failure. Speaking with a single tongue
is the only way forward for technology.
Instead of straightening out its business problems, AOL has
decided to spend its time and effort filing lawsuits against tough
competitors--a petty, distracting pursuit that won't help AOL
or, for that matter, the U.S. economy, which depends on firms like
Microsoft for the innovation necessary to bring about a technology
revival.
It will hurt AOL most in the end as Microsoft has the will and
ability to close its eyes to the distractions leave them to the
lawyers and keep working on its products.
My biggest concern in all of this is that while Microsoft is
using its own money to fight this case and others, AOL and Sun are
using tax payers money to fight their battles. The tax payers are
not in unison about their tax dollars being spent that way -that
money is needed elsewhere, particularly now.
Tax payer with a different fiscal agenda,
Felicity Marsh.
[[Page 27732]]
MTC-00026000
From: Joan Nims Cook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:03pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I think it is time to close the Microsoft Anti trust suits and
get back to the economy and what is best for the consumers. I do not
see how further legal action against Microsoft will benefit any one
except her competitors. How is that the responsibility of the Dept
of Justice or the US Government
Joan Cook.
MTC-00026001
From: Les
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to respectfully request that the government accept
the settlement, that has already been arrived at with Microsoft. It
is high time that the competitors of Microsoft and the government
recognize that the American system is built on capitalism. In the
capitalistic system, only the most agressive and creative come out
on top. AOL/Time Warner did not get to where they are by being fair
to all of their competitors. They are no less guilty of being
agressive to the point of beating their competitors than Microsoft.
The bottom line is that Microsoft's browser is superior in every way
to Netscape and therefore is used by more people. If AOL/Netscape
feel that Microsoft has used its unfair advantage by integrating
more closely to its operating system, let them write an operating
system. That's the American way.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Lester L. Smith
MTC-00026002
From: Don
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Department of Justice
From: Don Phillips, Consumer, Engineer, Voter
I believe the US Government should settle its antitrust suit
against Microsoft immediately. The current proposed settlement
should be approved and implemented as soon as possible. This lawsuit
never, in any way, represented the interests of consumers. Microsoft
has had a long track record of developing and selling software
products that consumer like and use. The company's growth and
profits are evidence of this. On the other hand, no credible
evidence was ever presented during the trial (or after) to show that
Microsoft ever did anything that was against consumer interests.
Clearly this lawsuit never had any basis in fact and never should
have been undertaken. In fact, the lawsuit, itself, has caused major
harm to consumers and to the entire US economy.
Also, the government's reputation as being objective and fair
has been seriously eroded. In short, the whole process has been a
disgrace to justice and an insult to American consumers.
I have worked in the semiconductor industry for 30 years and
have had many dealings with Microsoft as well as many of Microsoft's
competitors. Also, I have personally used many products from
Microsoft and from its competitors. Based on my long experience with
technical products it is very clear to me why Microsoft's
competitors have not prevailed in the marketplace.
This lawsuit has clearly been shown to be nothing more than a
thinly veiled attempt by weak competitors to do serious harm to a
more successful company. This is very disgraceful behavior! For the
government to continue to perpetuate this case would be a major
miscarriage of justice.
Respectfully,
Don Phillips,
Palo Alto, CA
MTC-00026003
From: Bryan Tighe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel that the proposed settlement does not provide enough
regulations, rules, and other needed stipulations against Microsoft
in order for the consumers of America to fully benefit.
Because Microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems, and
maintains that monopoly through distribution of their own software
with their operating systems, no other operating system can
successfully enter into the consumer market. The consumers do not
have a choice, and this is not in the best interest for American
consumers. Instead, they are required to use one and only one
operating system, and another of potential better quality is
disregarded before even given its chance. Furthermore, Microsoft has
a monopoly on many of its software products. It obtained these
monopolies mainly through selling the software along with the
operating system. If a consumer buys the operating system, they must
buy the software with it. In addition to this, the software cannnot
run on any other operating system. Likewise, Microsoft will not
release all of the technical specifications nessasary to allow other
software companies to create products of similar quality. If these
other software companies do create software which competes with
Microsoft's software, Microsoft has shown a history of giving their
products away with their operating system. Then, consumers will not
purchase the rival company's software, because Microsoft has used
its operating system monopoly to choose the software for them. Of
course, that ``free'' software is not truely free: somehow
the cost must be justified, and the prices of other Microsoft
products and operating systems will rise to cover the costs.
Let's imagine that company A makes screwdrivers. That same
company A makes screws. By a turn of events, the company becomes the
dominant provider of screwdrivers, although many other companies
still make screws. Also, the screwdrivers which company A sells are
often questioned for their poor quality at performing their job and
inability to resist breaking under pressure. Now, in this situaiton,
if another rival company, company B, made a better screwdriver and
sold it at a reasonable price, they would soon easily compete with
company A. This is because consumers have a choice, and can choose
which screwdriver to purchase. But, before company B comes to the
market with the better screwdriver, company A decides that it will
manufacture screws which can only be used with company A's
screwdrivers. In addition, they give away these new screws with
their screwdrivers. Since they have the monopoly on screwdrivers,
this effectively hurts the other screw manufacturers''
businesses. Soon, the only company making screwdrivers and screws is
company A. Also, since they will not release the specifications for
their products, no other company can create the same type of
screwdriver which uses company A's screws. Similarly, no consumer
would purchase screws from another company because they are already
``given'' screws from company A. Consumers do have the
choice to buy screws from another company, but these other companies
are already at a disadvantage, because they compete with a product
that is free and ``readily available'' to any consumer
which purchased a screwdriver from company A.
The remedy for this problem is to somehow force Microsoft to not
distribute any software with its operating systems. Then consumers
would have the true choice over which software products to buy.
Also, the second part of the solution is to force Microsoft to
release all of the needed technical specifications so that other
companies can create operating systems capable of running
Microsoft's software. This would also allow other companies to
create software which effortlessly runs on Microsoft's own operating
systems.
Breaking the company into two companies (one for the operating
systems, and one for the software) would be an effective method of
forcing the above requirements. But this might not be needed if the
above requirements could be maintained by some type of watchful
technical committee.
The most important issue is choice for the consumer. Once every
company has access to the needed technological information, then
true choice can be given to the consumers of America. If one company
creates a superior technology, and keeps it secret in order to make
a profit, then more power to them. But once a company uses that
advantage to force their products to be purchased over other
companies'' products, then the consumer is no longer able to
choose, and the proper steps should be taken to rectify the
situation.
Bryan Tighe
Software Developer
Arlington, VA
Duke University Computer Science, class of 2000
MTC-00026004
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:06pm
Subject: Reply about Microsoft
Dear Sir,
Please see attachment that has my letter. It is called Microsoft
litigation.
Sincerely,
Mario Turra
CC: [email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 27733]]
1755 Tommy Lee Cook Rd. Palmetto, Georgia 30268
January 26, 2002
PERSONAL
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
This is to express my opinion on the Microsoft litigation. The
matter against Microsoft, in my opinion, should never have taken
place. I think the settlement is appropriate and should take place
as soon as possible.
Respectfully,
Mario Turra 1/26/02
MTC-00026005
From: Felicity Marsh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft
Settle now.--Just do it, for the publics sake. We are fed
up, and spent out, and annoyed with you spending our money without
consulting us.
MTC-00026006
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:07pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Notice that I am a long time AOL subscriber, and have been for
many years. Right now, I can access lots of Microsoft stuff, like
Internet explorer, whenever I want to because it came with Windows
98. All of the computer users that I know agree that we, as a group,
would gain nothing, and lose much, if we could only have a stripped-
down version of Windows. Please do NOT make a decision that only
benefits Microsoft's competitors, and adversely impacts average
computer users.
John Lawrence
MTC-00026007
From: Carol Leiby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is important to the computer industry and to the US economy
that this trial be brought to a close. The settlement is fair and
any more deliberations would be a waste of people's time and money
that could be better spent.
Carol Leiby
MTC-00026008
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:09pm
Subject: Re: SENIORS COALTION URGENT ACTION ALERT- Microsoft and big
government
This sounds like a fair settlement of Microsoft for all
involved. I am a senior citizen and very active with computers. Many
wealthy parties may not like that settlement.
I will close this now.
Eugene Bunt
1409 S LUNA ST
LAS CRUCES, NM 88001
MTC-00026009
From: Joyce Hlava
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear sirs,
I just want to register my objections to the proposed
settlement. Living in Silicon Valley and working in the industry, I
appreciate the fact that Microsoft does indeed establish a standard
for most consumer PC products. The way they have done it though is
unbelievably coercive. I remember being at a banking trade show
about 5 years ago and talking to a Microsoft employee who was
working the booth. It was really interesting because he had been VP
of sales for a small company which was bought by MS. He said that
this start-up had a great technology and had the ``normal
problems'' (which means total stone wall trying to get
information) from MS in order to make their product compatible with
Windows. When MS realized what their technology did, it came to them
with ``an offer they couldn't refuse''. They had to either
sell or MS would develop the technology themselves and incorporate
it for free. Having seen what happened to Netscape, a bigger and
better financed company, the partners felt they had no choice. This
is a story that I have heard over and over.
The proposed settlement is only a slap on the wrist. It allows
MS to saturate the education market in a big way. Since this is the
only market with a serious operating system competitor (Apple), this
isn't punishment, it's a reward.
Joyce Hlava Ogden
MTC-00026010
From: Christopher R. Hertel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 25, 2002
Renata B. Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Suite 1200
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Regarding: The Microsoft Settlement
Dear Ms. Hesse,
I am a member of the Samba Team, an international group of
computer programmers who develop Samba, a free software product.
Samba implements Microsoft protocols to allow non-Microsoft systems
to interoperate with, and compete against, Microsoft's Windows
products. Samba is ``Open Source'', which means that the
source code is available for download via the Internet, free of
charge, to anyone.
Though Samba is a volunteer effort, our software has been
adopted by many major computer vendors including Hewlett-Packard,
IBM, and SGI. Several smaller companies have based their entire
businesses on our code, and many organizations (including offices
within the Federal Government) rely on Samba. We are, most likely,
one of Microsoft's biggest competitors in the file-server market.
Because Samba is critical to so many companies, some members of
the Samba Team are employed to help maintain the code. This is
unusual in the Open Source community. Most of us, myself included,
are not paid for our work but participate because we enjoy
programming and want to contribute. Other examples of community-
driven software include the Linux operating system and the Apache
web server, both of which also compete against Microsoft products.
It is difficult to estimate the number of Open Source projects under
development, but the SourceForge service alone lists over 32,000
registered projects and more than 340,000 participants.
Clearly, Open Source represents viable competition against
Microsoft. Unfortunately, the proposed settlement contains wording
which would grant Microsoft the right to specifically exclude Open
Source projects such as Samba from accessing information required
for interoperability. In particular:
* In section III.I, the settlement document discusses the
payment of royalties and other ``monetary consideration''.
Open Source developers generally do not keep track of
``customers'' or collect any money for their products. It
is, therefore, impossible to calculate or pay royalties or other
fees. Further, the requirement that protocol and API information be
licensed from Microsoft would make any such information unusable in
an Open Source project. The term ``Open Source'' means
that we make the source code available to anyone who wishes to see
it, copy it, or modify it. That would certainly violate Microsoft's
licensing terms.
* In section III.J, Microsoft is granted the right to judge the
``business need'' of a potential licensee, as well as
their ``authenticity and viability''. Open Source projects
such as Samba and Linux are not businesses. They are community
projects, and would certainly be rejected under these criteria.
Thus, Open Source developers are prevented from obtaining
information about ``anti-piracy, anti-virus, software
licensing, digital rights management, encryption or authentication
systems'', exactly the kind of information that is needed to
ensure interoperability with Microsoft products.
There are several more examples in the document, but they all
amount to the same thing: Open Source developers are being excluded.
There are many arguments to be made against the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the Microsoft case. To me, the most striking is
that Microsoft would be allowed to continue control access to this
critical information. I urge the Department of Justice to withdraw
its consent to the revised proposed Final Judgment.
Sincerely,
Christopher R. Hertel
885 Hague Avenue
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55104
MTC-00026011
From: Patricia R. Prendergast
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:14pm
Subject: mocrosoft settlement
I agree with the settlement for the Microsoft case vs. AOL and
DoJ and nine states.
Sincerely,
Patricia R. Prendergast
MTC-00026012
From: [email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 27734]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:15pm
Subject: litigation
It is time to stop the litigation against Microsoft and move on.
MTC-00026013
From: Kurt Zadina
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Not good for the United States.
MTC-00026014
From: Robert Berg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:16pm
Subject: Tunney Bill
Settlement of this costly litigation will allow all Americans
freedom of the Internet and of such software as is needed.
Robert Berg
2435 Ocean Ave.
Bklyn,N,Y.
MTC-00026015
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:17pm
Subject: Microsoftsettlement
Please leave the settlement as it now stands. Everyone in our
computer club agrees that we do not want a stripped down version of
the Windows operating system. We gain nothing and lose a lot!
Arline Lawrence
MTC-00026016
From: Nathan Alderman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
If I committed some significant white-collar crime, say,
embezzlement; if, during the course of my subsequent trial, I made
misleading (if not false) statements and instructed my attorneys to
provide falsified evidence meant to bolster my case; if I was in
fact, found guilty of my crime upon preponderance of the
overwhelming evidence, yet continued to insist that I had done
absolutely nothing wrong... ... would it then be just for me to
dictate the terms of my own punishment? And would it be just for
that ``punishment'' to officially absolve me of guilt,
and, in exchange for spending the merest portion of the wealth I had
accrued through my illegal and harmful practices, place me in a
position to reap enormous future benefits and continue the illegal
practices that I had been tried for in the first place?
In my opinion, this is the situation at hand in the Microsoft
case. The resolution to their crime may be uncertain at this time,
but they have been found indisputably guilty in a court of
law-- a court for whom they showed nothing but contempt,
through repeated and clumsy attempts to mislead the court with badly
doctored evidence and vague testimony.
It runs counter to the fundamental nature of the American
Justice System that Microsoft, through its vast wealth and political
and public influence, should be allowed to escape justice, much less
to profit from its crime with a newly established stranglehold on
the education market. I salute the Department Of Justice's desire to
save taxpayer money by seeking a quick resolution to this case. But
I would argue that the eventual financial and economic cost to the
average American citizen will ultimately be much greater if
Microsoft's proposed remedy is put into effect.
I hereby plead with the court and the Department of Justice not
to allow Microsoft to profit from its crimes. For the callous
disrespect they have shown to our justice system, and for the
vicious and predatory business practices of which they have been
found guilty, they deserve the harshest and most humbling of
penalties. And they do not, I believe, have any right to decide what
that penalty should be.
Sincerely,
Nathan Alderman
San Antonio, Texas
MTC-00026017
From: Andrew Syka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As one who owns no stock in any of the companies objecting to
the government's settlement, but am a user of Microfsoft's Windows
95 operating system, I submit that the currently proposed settlement
has to many loopholes which will permit Microsoft to continue many
of its practices alleged to have prevented competition in the
industry.
Andy Syka
MTC-00026018
From: Thomas Corriher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Contact information:
Thomas Corriher
142 Redwood Drive
Mocksville, N.C.--27028
Phone: 336-391-2713, 336-936-0018 email:
[email protected], [email protected]
Summary
This letter is to plead with the court that it use its wisdom to
insure that the abusive monopoly of Microsoft is punished for its
arrogant and reckless disregard for law. The proposed settlement
does not place adequate restrictions upon Microsoft to prevent it
from future abuses. The settlement actually gives Microsoft legal
justification to continue its business as usual. The settlement was
not a victory for the Department of Justice, it was a surrender.
Microsoft has become a disgrace to our nation. They have associated
their unique brand of predatory behavior which is driven by perverse
extremes of greed to our entire information technology industry,
while manipulating the justice system to comply with its agenda. It
has earned itself the nickname, ``The Evil Empire''. I beg
you, do something before it is too late. I am terrified of a future
in which all information is controlled and monitored by Microsoft.
You have a chance to save the world.
Your Honor;
You bear an enormous burden, for you will make history. I am
certain that you have read enough technology arguments in recent
times to satisfy you for your lifetime.Your valuable time is already
unduly limited.
Making A Mockery of U.S. Law
There are seemingly countless examples of Microsoft's disregard
toward the ethics of its own industry, and its brazen contempt
toward the laws of the United States. Microsoft altered evidence
during the trial in question, and was caught using altered video
evidence. As we of the public have come to expect, Microsoft was
unpunished. Microsoft funded two separate organizations which
pretended to be independent organizations during its trial. These
groups filed briefs to support the company, and attempted to rally
public support for Microsoft. These facts were made known only after
a suspicious person at the Oracle corporation hired a private
investigator to rummage through the trash of those
``independent'' consumer groups. In further disregard for
ethics, Microsoft secretly lobbied to have the funding for the
Department of Justice substantially lowered after the trial began.
One can only speculate if their motive was to prevent their
prosecution, or if it was to enact revenge on our nations core law
enforcement agency. During the trial, Microsoft claimed that
competition existed, while it financially rescued Corel and used
that company as evidence that competition indeed survived in the
``free market''. Both companies then attempted to suppress
Corel's benefactor, as it would appear incriminating; and this was
in itself an instance of perjury. Thereafter, Corel immediately
discontinued work on Linux since it is a potential operating systems
competitor for Microsoft. There have been numerous instances in
which agents of Microsoft have written letters to various
organizations in support of Microsoft. These letters typically
dishonestly attack any thing considered to be a threat to Microsoft.
The troubling aspect of this behavior is the letters are written to
appear as spontaneous testimonials from independent sources.
Microsoft's organized campaign of misinformation is so common that
there is a name for it. It is called
``astroturf''--meaning a fake grass roots movement.
You should expect to see many astroturf letters, and I have read
that some of the state attorney generals have already been receiving
correspondence from people who died years ago. Recently during
another trial, Microsoft boldly proposed our government replace
Apple's software in the schools with donated Microsoft software,
thereby extending its monopoly to education as a remedy to abusive
monopoly practices. In further insult to our collective
intelligence, the plan would require Microsoft to give its software
to schools at its inflated market value and use that as a tax write-
off. Under Microsoft's proposed ``punishment'' for itself,
the tax payers would be forced to pay Microsoft to create another
monopoly for itself among children.
Time Is Running Out
To Microsoft winning is everything, and in its twisted corporate
mind-set it means everyone else must lose. The losers include you
and me. Their appetite is unquenchable. The best analogy to
Microsoft is to describe
[[Page 27735]]
it as a cancer. This company has already consumed every other
company in the low-end (PC) software market, and is now moving to
hijack the free and open Internet with its .Net initiative.
Microsoft has even turned its attacks upon free software which is
the foundation of all industry standards and the Internet. Even
software produced by volunteers is not acceptable to Microsoft,
since such software weakens the publics complete dependence on them.
Microsoft is in many ways like an illegal drug dealer, because it
does everything in its power to kill all competitors while
stimulating a complete dependence on its own products. Microsoft is
powerful enough to make unquestionable demands against the providers
of Internet services, and computer hardware manufacturers. It alone
defines the rules and twists standards for desktop computer systems
to meet its agenda. Software companies which do not threaten
Microsoft's agenda are allowed to live. Microsoft commonly makes its
own software function poorly with non-Microsoft software, while
adding operating system features to cripple the software of others.
To make my case: the mighty IBM is afraid of Microsoft. Everyone is
afraid. They are a menace, and they are a significant threat to our
liberties.
MTC-00026019
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user. This is just another method for states
to get free money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only
in terms of computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the
most dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Cher Brence
5828 Havencrest Drive
Klamath Falls, OR 97603
MTC-00026021
From: john e viano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed Microsoft settlement is reasonable and fair to all
concerned. I reccommend prompt action to resolve this matter as
currently structured. John E. Viano [email protected]
MTC-00026023
From: Charles Kuske
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the settlement is a bad idea. I have been programming
since 1978 and have seen a lot of changes, and change is good. This
settlement is business as usual, makes no changes, and is bad.
Sincerely,
Charles Kuske
MTC-00026024
From: Chris Jessee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
As an information technology specialist, I'm writing to express
my concern over the inadequacy of the proposed remedies in the
Microsoft settlement.
Any remedy short of breaking-up Microsoft will not be adequate
in stopping their aggressive monopolistic business practices.
Without break-up, Microsoft will continue to destroy their
competitors and foist poor quality products on businesses and
consumers. An important fact that has been largely overlooked in
this case is that Microsoft's stranglehold on the computer industry
is national security threat. Many of our government agencies, much
of our military and the vast majority of our business and
educational institutions operate on and are heavily dependant on
Microsoft software. Hardly a week goes by that we don't hear news of
the latest computer virus or hacker breakin crippling thousands of
servers and desktop computers by taking advantage of the security
holes in Microsoft's poorly designed and implemented products. A
hacker terrorist could shutdown much of the government, military and
business community with a well-written virus that exploits the holes
in Microsoft's sloppy code. Hacker attacks cost companies and
taxpayers millions of dollars a year because of Microsoft's
negligence and our dependence on them. Microsoft should be held
criminally liable for the losses caused by their software. Just as
Firestone and Ford are held accountable for safety failures,
Microsoft and all other software vendors should be held accountable
for security failures. Breaking-up Microsoft and fining them to a
degree as to cripple them and using the revenue to fund competitors
and ``Baby Bills'' is the only way to ensure national
security and consumer choice. Don't allow Microsoft's lobbyists
lining the pockets of politicians to threaten the security of our
country.
Thank you,
Chris Jessee
[email protected]
203 Camellia Dr.
Charlottesville, VA 22903
804-979-7279
MTC-00026025
From: edie smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
I believe America would not be in the lead of Computer
intelligence had it not been for Microsoft. When you are a leader,
you encounter jealousy & hate. Americans might be respected
around the world but never loved by the world. Such is the case with
Microsoft as was the 12 year case against IBM.
Quit biting the hand that feeds you. I am against any breaking
apart the Firm of Microsoft. And I am against any party receiving
their software codes.
I am going to start a campaign to end Porn spam, the majority
coming from AOL member sites, which seems that this would be the
interest of the integrity of the internet and software legalities.
Porn sites can't think of enough ways to make money, be dishonest in
undeliverable return email addresses, leaving the angry recipient no
choice but to track down the headers, and source code of the web
sites in order to put a stop to them flooding, I said flooding,
vulgar, unrequested email to email addresses that they randomly
solicit to. This should be against the law. So why don't you put
your legal efforts where they protect the public interest. Or are
many of you partners with these porn sites and receiving monies on
affiliations. Do something about it before I have to, and then your
legal teams will be sited & sued for not upholding the internet
laws. (TITLE 18, CHAPTER 47). Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of
the law. I'm tired of drawing a line for your flimsy morals. I have
a choice to use Microsoft or any other software I want. Microsoft
isn't infringing on my freedom, my private email address, my choice.
Get a real job. [email protected]
depth seeker
MTC-00026026
From: Wesley Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
I am writing to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement as
specified under the Tunney Act. In short I agree with the problems
identified in Dan Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html). I specifically want to emphasize
problems with the PFJ which affect me as a programmer.
No operating system has any use whatsoever without applications.
Thus I am especially concerned about several aspects of the PFJ.
First, I believe that the requirement that Microsoft publish its
secret API's is not broad enough to require it to publish enough of
the API's to enable third party software developers to write
programs that compete at any level. This is a problem both for third
party application developers, and third party operating system
developers such as Sun, Apple or Linux who are trying to write their
systems to enable Windows applications to run on their systems. I
urge you to seek a broader definition of API from third party
software developers which they feel would be sufficient to develop
commercially viable software that could interoperate with Windows
operating systems or applications.
Second, I disagree with the section of the PFJ which requires
the release of API
[[Page 27736]]
documentation but prohibits competitors from using this
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with
Windows.
This goes hand in hand with my first point. A big part of a
programmer's software development is checking the documentation of
the API's (s)he is using to ensure that his/her own application will
interface properly. Prohibiting the use of documentation by
competitors is nearly equivalent to not publishing the API's. This
prohibition neatly undoes the requirement that the API's be
published in the first place.
Third, I urge you to require that Microsoft release
documentation which completely describes the format of Microsoft
Office documents. A major concern of people who go to purchase a
computer is whether they will be able to read documents from others.
This means in nearly all cases being able to read Microsoft
documents. The usual answer is ``no, this program (or this
computer) only reads some Microsoft documents.'' In order to
enable third party developers, especially application developers, to
compete, they must be able show that their customers have real
compatibility. Third party software must be able to read and write
Microsoft documents formats, and to do this Microsoft must publish
it's Office Document formats.
Finally, I am pessimistic about the enforcement of the PFJ as a
whole. I believe that Microsoft has consistently, and with full
understanding of what they were doing, broken previously imposed
restraints on their monopolistic practices. I urge you to develop a
strong system of restraints on Microsoft to enforce whatever PFJ is
finally imposed.
Sincerely,
Wesley P. Taylor
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026027
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
This is in support of Microsoft's position re: AOL lawsuit. IA's
success in the market has been proven to be based upon morit, not
market share.
Stop all the frivolous lawsuits. Let people get back to work
developing improvements to their software instead of spending money
on lawyers.
MTC-00026028
From: Teruel de Campo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
do NOT agree
-=terry(Denver)=-
[email protected]
AIM: terryXela *** ICQ: 6387625
Date: US: 01/26/02 / Euro: 26.01.02, Time: 10:31:05
MTC-00026029
From: Jonathan Van Doren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to express my opinion about microsoft-THEY ARE A
MONOPOLY! If I had another option besides windows I would definitely
have taken advantage of it. Their product is poor and their support
is terrible-I have never encountered such rude and arrogant behavior
from a ``service'' entity in my life. When I purchased my
computer it came preloaded with windows XP, an untested and
microsoft-slanted product that has further entrenched their
monopolistic powers.
The government's proposed ``settlement'' is a travesty
of justice, and makes me wonder how much compensation the anti-trust
division received for it's condoning of anti-competitive behavior.
Microsoft will never change on it's own, and therefore real
action MUST be taken-or the justice department will simply be
another competitor that bows it's head in defeat. Get more from the
Web. FREE MSN
Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
MTC-00026030
From: Richard Lambert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:30pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
As a citizen of USA, it is my firm opinion the terms of the
settlement agreement between 9 states and DOJ are fair and good for
the nation.
Do no delay in instituting this agreement.
Dick Lambert
461 Dellbrook AVe
San Francisco, CA 94131
MTC-00026031
From: Jim Fritz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft is Good
Dear DOJ,
Thank you for settling the antitrust case against Microsoft
(MS). The 9 states which are asking for further remedies don't
realize that MS has added incredible value to our world by making
information technology ubiquitous at an affordable price. The case
should be settled as is without further remedies as this is what is
best for the consumer and the industry.
Regards, Jim
MTC-00026032
From: r(u)hodg Hodgson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MTC-00026033
From: Sam Hummel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This sure sounds like he has more than I do and now I don't
think it is fair. Why can't we be glad Microsoft made it so easy for
the average person to own a computer. If it wasn't for their
innovated ideas and boxing things all together, some of us would
never have learned to use the internet. If anybody tries to wrap
everything together, it is AOL. Once they install their software on
your computer, it somehow connects itself to everything....But that
is okay because I chose to use that program to access the web. I
have free choice to pick and chose what is offered to me. Let me
make that decision and not some other company that is just a spoiled
sport.
Sharilyn Hummel, Dover, DE
MTC-00026034
From: Walt Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From all information available, I find the proposed settlement
with Microsoft to be sorely lacking in real hard punitive punishment
for the practices of the past, nor has Microsoft shown any remorse
for its prior activities. it continues to bundle software with the
intent of pushing aside any competition it might face. The proposed
settlement does little if anything to level the playing field for
competitive software to be given a fair evaluation on the market
place. Microsoft has been, and in this citizens opinion, still is in
the business of monopolizing the Operating System and Browser
software industry. We as citizens should be given a choice as to
what we use, but the efforts of Microsoft prevent that from being a
viable alternative as all new equipment manufacturers are still
forced to load the Microsoft package of OS and Browser of face being
shut out of Microsoft's good graces
Walter L. Wilson
132 Rolling Park Drive
Lexington, NC 27295-6810
MTC-00026035
From: Dow McKeever
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft settlement as currently proposed is unfair.
Dow McKeever
MTC-00026036
From: Lesley D. McDowell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is bad idea.
-Lesley D. McDowell
MTC-00026037
From: JOHN N GEHL
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:43pm
Subject: Sirs:
Sirs:
I would like to lend my support to the anti trust settlement
between the Department of Justice and Microsoft Corp. It seems to me
that the provisions of the agreement , while tough, are reasonable,
fair to all parties involved, and go beyond the findings of the
Court of Appeals ruling. Hopefully, my feelings and support will be
given considera-tion during the review and a determination made that
the terms are indeed in the public interest.
Thank you for allowing me to express my feelings on this matter.
John N. Gehl
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 27737]]
MTC-00026038
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:44pm
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,
Delores Daugherty
P.O. Box 22
26263 Lake Forest Drive
Twin Peaks, CA 92391
MTC-00026039
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:44pm
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,
Steve Duenkel
1762 233rd Place N.E.
Sammamish, WA 98074-4452
MTC-00026040
From: bob vinci
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:48pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To whom it may concern,
It is time to resolve the Microsoft suit. The settlement is fair
in all regards. Only a need to gain the upper hand in the
marketplace keep opponents of the settlement motivated. The best
interests of the consumer are served by this settlement. There is no
need to further strip away Microsoft's ability to compete. It must
be noted that the initiation of the DOJ suit coincided with the
``bursting of the technology bubble''. It is time for the
DOJ to help put the economy and free trade back on track.
MTC-00026041
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michael Daugherty
P.O. Box 22
26263 Lake Forest Drive
Twin Peaks, CA 92391
MTC-00026042
From: Richard Kosvanec
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing as a concerned citizen who is both shocked and
dismayed that a convicted monopolist seem to be getting even more
monopoly power handed to them via the justice system.
Microsoft continues to ignore consent decrees, release insecure
products, bury, buy or steal from their competition (they call it a
``strategic alliance ``) and these practices must be
stopped.
The biggest insult to the Justice system, Democracy and the
American People is that Microsoft actually has a say in what their
punishment will be. Since when do convicted felons have a say in
their punishment?
My opinion is this should be done:
1) Microsoft should pay back no less than 10% of their highest
net worth back to those that have been harmed by the leveraging
their monopoly.
2) Pay all of the court costs so taxpayers such as myself are
not footing the bill.
3) No more ``secret and exclusive contracts'' with
OEM's. If I do not want a computer with Windows on it, I should not
have to PAY for it anyway!
4) All of their ``Office'' file formats should be
opened up. This should not be an option. They can keep their
program's source code a secret, however, any data created with those
programs should not be subject to the whim of a monopolist.
Microsoft seems to forget too quickly that it is my data and my
computer, not theirs.
5) Any and all versions of their operating systems that they
discontinue support for should have its source code released. Just
because they do not support it, does not mean that it is no longer
used, and would decrease the ``upgrade treadmill''
Microsoft is so famous for creating.
6) Along the same lines as #4 --and I can not emphasize
this enough--- strict adherence to network/Internet/web
protocols. No proprietary extensions (Microsoft's version of Java
that was Windows only), no co-opting standards (Kerbos) and no
drastic changes to break others products (SMB and others).
7) Look at the suggestions submitted to slashdot.org that echo
my sentiments and expound even more my suggestions: http://
slashdot.org/comments.pl' sid=26726&cid=0&pid=0&
startat=&threshold=3&m
ode=flat&commentsort=0&op=Change
Thank you for your time.
Richard Kosvanec
Athens, Ga.
MTC-00026043
From: The Provident Search Group, Inc.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Please stop further litigation against Microsoft. Since they
have agreed to a settlement which is in everyones'' interest,
it makes no sense to harass them further. To do so will be to
negatively affect our economy (which US Government actions have
already done due to their involvement in this entire matter).
Furthermore, the US Justice Department has largely been
responsible for a dramatic decrease in our portfolio value due to
the drop in Microsoft stock precipitated by Government actions.
Thank you,
Frederick & Coleen Walther
PO Box 30
West Poland, ME 04291
MTC-00026044
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a retired Federal Employer and Citizen of the US, I feel it
is time that the revised Settlement be accepted and move on to more
important issues such as in continuing to make the US a strong
competitive force in the world economy. This delay is only
benefiting our foreign competition. The competition is trying to tie
the hands of an innovative company like Microsoft.
Thank You for allowing me to express my opinion on this
important issue.
Lawrence R. Wydock
[[Page 27738]]
MTC-00026045
From: Faye Patrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has supported our Computer Users Group from the time
that we started until and including NOW. We appreciate their support
and feel that most other companies quit helping groups such as ours.
We are ICON Users Group, located in Springfield Missouri. Microsoft
comes to our group and demonstrates their newest software and
generally helps our group and other groups similar to ours. I feel
that they have made using computers much more user friendly than
they were in the beginning. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!! QUIT THE PERSECUTION
OF MICROSOFT!
Sincerely,
Faye Patrick Newsletter Editor ICON Users Group Springfield
Missouri
MTC-00026046
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:52pm
Subject: (no subject)
Dear Judge,
Although I am a supporter for free markets and free competition,
I do not agree that the Proposed Financial Judgement has been
effective in circumventing the monopoly that Microsoft has
established. Microsoft has clearly violated anti-trust laws and the
PFJ has not been sufficient action taken to curb these activities.
I would hope that more can be done in terms of overturning this
settlement.
Sincerely,
Sarah Butler
248 Lincoln Street Lexington, MA
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026047
From: Craig Reisinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please accept the Microsoft settlement offer.
I believe that this entire matter qualifies as government
sanctioned extortion. Microsoft is a business. A business is started
to make a product and a profit. No one was forced to choose any
Microsoft product.
Like many millions of other consumers I CHOSE to do
so--REPEATEDLY. Microsoft made a profit and I have a product I
WANTED. Is there even ONE individual who did not have a choice about
which product they would use? NO! To argue that they couldn't figure
out the technology and use a competing product has no merit. A
Cessna pilot has no right to complain that he cannot fly a 767. An
automobile driver has no right to complain that he cannot fly a
Cessna.
Computers are not toys. They are very complex tools that have
become easier to use and more beneficial because companies like
Microsoft work very hard to make that happen. Efforts like this suit
are counter-productive, immoral, unconstitutional (in my opinion),
and wrong!
Craig M. Reisinger
2500 Deer Valley Rd. #421
San Rafael, CA 94903
MTC-00026048
From: chappell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John and Susan Chappell
20630 NE 92nd Place
Redmond, WA 98053
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
The settlement reached between the Department of Justice and
Microsoft should be enacted at the earliest convenience of the
Justice Department. Three years have now passed since the inception
of this litigation. Since this time, enormous amounts of money have
been spent in pursuing this litigation.
Given the recent recession and decline in budgetary resources,
to pursue this issue any further would be a sad waste of funds.
Therefore, I urge you to enact the settlement reached back in
November.
The settlement works as a barrier against Microsoft's more
cutthroat business practices, while maintaining the company's
ability to deliver efficient, integrated software to consumers
worldwide.
The settlement agreement contains many compromises on
Microsoft's behalf. Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against
manufacturers that ship software that competes with Microsoft. In
addition, Microsoft has agreed to license Windows at the same rate
to the larger PC manufacturers. Finally, Microsoft will also
disclose many of the protocols within the Windows system.
In the end, the enactment of this settlement will be beneficial
to everyone involved.
Please enact the settlement.
Sincerely,
John and Susan Chappell
MTC-00026049
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please accept the proposed Microsoft Settlement. Further
litigation will only benefit the trial lawyers and a few greedy
states attorneys general.
Dale Nelsen
Nampa, Idaho
MTC-00026050
From: Simon Beaver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12'55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to submit my comments on the proposed settlement
between Microsoft and the U.S. Department Of Justice. For nearly
twelve years now, I have worked in the computing industry. For nine
of those years I have been a freelance consultant, and have thus
been able to observe the activities of a wide range of companies. I
have no affiliation either with Microsoft or any of its competitors.
For the reasons I shall set out below, I am strongly opposed to the
settlement in its existing form. Whenever someone is found to have
broken the law, they are subject to sanctions. Those sanctions vary
according to the nature of the offence, but in all cases they have
three main components. They provide for an appropriate punishment,
they attempt where possible to compensate those who suffered as a
result of the offence, and they endeavour to ensure that there is no
likelihood that the convicted person will re-offend.
Although different weight will be given to different aspects
depending on the nature of the offence--criminal or civil,
major crime or petty misdemeanour, etc--some aspect of these
three elements is always present. What makes the proposed settlement
in the Microsoft case unique, is that none of those elements are
present.
To take these three elements in order, let us first look at
punishment. Clearly, there is no element of punishment whatsoever
contained in the proposed settlement. Microsoft have been found to
have been operating an illegal monopoly for the best part of a
decade, making excessive profits as a result, and yet no punitive
sanctions are being imposed. Yet it has long been a golden rule in
the law that a criminal must not be allowed to profit from his
crimes. Where someone is convicted of drug-dealing or fraud or gun-
running, the courts quite rightly seize their assets. If a murderer
seeks to profit by writing a book about his crimes, the law steps in
to ensure he cannot make money from his notoriety. Yet in this case,
the law seems perfectly happy for Microsoft to profit from their
illegal activity. Despite the clear fact that this money was
obtained, at least in part, by unlawful means, no action is to be
taken. This seems to me wholly incompatible with the basic
principles of natural justice. Microsoft have made money illegally,
and they should not be allowed to retain it.
The proposed settlement is equally silent on the subject of
compensation of victims. Now clearly in this case, the facts make it
hard to ascertain exactly the extent of the loss suffered by any
given party. Yet it is clear that there have been victims of the
Microsoft monopoly. Companies like Digital Research and Netscape
have been demonstrated to have suffered directly as a result of
Microsoft's actions. Yet the proposed settlement is completely
silent with regards to any form of redress.
On the face of it, the settlement seems primarily directed at
the third element described, that of preventing the possibility of
re-offending. Yet even here, despite that focus, the settlement is
sadly lacking. Indeed, far from demolishing Microsoft's illegal
monopoly, it seems rather to entrench it in place. Furthermore, the
vagueness of the language makes it almost certain that confusion and
further litigation will arise. I have a law degree myself, and I can
recognise potentially litigious drafting when I see it. The proposed
settlement is riddled with such language.
To take just one example, section III C 2 states that Microsoft
shall not restrict an OEM from : ``Distributing or promoting
Non-Microsoft Middleware by installing and displaying on the desktop
shortcuts of any size or shape so long as such shortcuts do not
impair the functionality of the user interface.''
[[Page 27739]]
How does the court propose to define impairment of functionality
? Does replacing Microsoft functionality with equivalent non-
Microsoft functionality count ? Does changing the look and feel of
the desktop constitute impairment ? Would modifying permission
levels or unhiding hidden files or directories count ? This kind of
language permeates the proposed settlement, and is wide open to
abuse and distortion. Furthermore, no part of the settlement
actually addresses the problem of how to dismantle the Microsoft
monopoly. The proposed settlement might be fine had it been enacted
ten years ago, before Microsoft's monopoly had been established. Yet
the monopoly is here, it is well-established, and different remedies
are required, ones which actually encourage competition and actively
seek to break up the existing distorted marketplace.
It seems to me that there are two key elements to this.. The
first is to ensure that competing companies cannot be shut out of
the marketplace, and the second is to ensure that consumers are able
easily to migrate between Microsoft and non-Microsoft products as
easily as possible. The proposed settlement goes some way towards
this with its sections on OEM licensing, but this on its own is by
no means enough.
To take a prime example, one of the major ways in which
Microsoft locks in customers and excludes competitors is through the
use of proprietary file formats. The .doc files of Microsoft Word,
the .xls files of Microsoft Excel, and so on. Although there are
some competing products which do a reasonable job of handling these
formats, none are able to do so perfectly. A consumer, especially a
large business, which has a large body of information stored in
files of this type is therefore deterred from moving to a rival by
the costs involved in converting from one format to another.
If the proposed settlement required Microsoft to disclose the
specification for these file formats, in addition to the disclosure
requirements contained in the existing proposals, then companies
would be able to produce products which handled these files
correctly, and consumers would be able to switch between Microsoft
and non-Microsoft products at will, and could mix and match as it
suited them. Possibly they might retain the Microsoft product to
handle spreadsheets, but use a competing company's word processor.
The important thing is that consumers would have a genuine choice,
since all products would be able to handle their data.
Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the current proposed
settlement is the large number of exemptions it provides for
Microsoft. Microsoft gets a number of exemptions from the proposed
provisions on grounds of security, anti-piracy, remote
administration and various other headings. Taken together, they
provide the means for Microsoft to exempt practically everything it
does from the provisions of the proposed settlement. It is surely no
coincidence that Bill Gates has started making speeches about how
security comes first, and how security will be built into everything
the company does from now on. If security is an integral part of
everything Microsoft does, then everything Microsoft does can be
exempted from the terms of the settlement.
Whilst it is clear that the motive behind these exemptions is a
noble one, in practice they are so wide as to render the settlement
worthless. In my opinion, Microsoft has forfeited the right to this
kind of consideration by dint of its long history of unlawful
activity. The most important thing now must surely be to ensure that
competition is introduced into the marketplace, and that Microsoft
has no way to continue its illegal monopoly.
In a related matter, it seems clear to me that the access
provisions specified by the proposed settlement need to be radically
expanded. In particular, the definitions need to be adjusted to
include those companies and individuals producing products for non-
Microsoft operating systems which might need to interact with
Microsoft products. Provision III J 2 which allows Microsoft to
determine the authenticity and viability of a business, is
particularly dangerous in this respect.
Microsoft's hostility to open source and free software
developers is well known. One Microsoft executive even went so far
as to describe them as un-American. By allowing Microsoft to exclude
developers simply because they operate on a different business
model, the settlement does much to restrict one of the most vibrant
and expanding areas of computing, and guarantees that a large number
of legitimate users and developers are excluded from benefitting
from the settlement provisions.
In summary, then, let me say this. I have neither the time nor
the expertise to fully draft a proposed settlement of my own, but it
seems to me that there are certain key elements that are essential
if the proposed settlement is to effectively dismantle the Microsoft
monopoly and introduce genuine competition.
1. Tighter drafting, with far fewer loopholes and potentially
litigious language.
2. Actively seeking to promote competition and encourage
consumers to exercise choice.
3. Reducing the costs inherent in converting between Microsoft
and non-Microsoft products.
4. Removing the exemptions which would allow Microsoft to
preserve its monopoly.
5. Ensuring that all business, whatever their nature, have
access to the information they require to compete effectively.
There is one final matter which I would like to touch on. In the
discussions that have occurred since the proposed settlement was
published, a new word has been invented. That word is
``Seattlement''. As is doubtless obvious, it has arisen
because the proposed settlement is seen as having been drafted by
Microsoft for their own benefit, without any regard to the actual
merits of the case. If the court imposes this settlement unmodified,
it will be seen around the world as having capitulated utterly to
Microsoft, and to have failed completely to regulate its behaviour
or dismantle its monopoly. The Department of Justice will be seen as
either completely ignorant of the realities of the case, or more
likely as having been bought and paid for by Microsoft and its
lobbyists.
The law is the law, and if it is to mean anything, it must apply
equally to everyone. Justice must be done, and must be seen to be
done. Rich and poor, large or small, all need to have equal
protection under the law, or the law becomes meaningless. If this
settlement is approved un-amended, it will send the signal that
justice in the United States is a commodity. The more you can
afford, the more you get. No money, no justice. Surely this is not
the message that the court wishes to send to the American public,
the American business community, or the world. So in conclusion, it
is my belief that this settlement is fundamentally flawed and needs
almost complete re-drafting. Not only does it do nothing to damage
Microsoft's unlawful monopoly, it actively enshrines that monopoly
in law. It doesn't serve the consumer, it doesn't serve the software
industry, and it doesn't serve justice; it benefits only Microsoft.
For the first time, the law will create a situation in which the
criminal is not only allowed to benefit from his crime, but to keep
on benefitting from it with the full protection of the courts.
Simon Beaver
Managing Director,
Sternmetal Horizons Ltd.
MTC-00026051
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I think it is a shame that the settlement in the Microsoft case
was not reached years ago. If the suit had to be brought at all.
Microsoft is a successful company, which has led the world into a
new era, improved the balance of trade, improved efficiency, and
increased the ease with which ordinary people use technology. There
have always been choices for people who prefer to use non-Microsoft
products. Apple has made its own products-both hardware and
software-for anyone who wants to get locked into that single,
closely guarded system. Or someone could have tried to use a Unix
system at home. But people wanted to use Windows. Microsoft has
always been honest and conservative in its financial dealings. Why
should we tear Microsoft apart, when it has been so beneficial?
To bring a close to this very distracting and expensive suit,
Microsoft has compromised a great deal of its rights. Internal
interfaces and server protocols of Windows will be divulged
publicly. Exclusive marketing agreements will be allowed to lapse.
The Windows desktop will be made fully re-configurable by non-
Microsoft companies. Software experts in a technical committee will
observe Microsoft's conduct, software and practices with an eagle-
eye. This is heavy stuff. Microsoft has not gotten off lightly at
all. Only by returning its focus back to accelerated innovation, as
directed by its founder, Bill Gates, can Microsoft continue to
survive and lead as it has done so well in the past.
[[Page 27740]]
The best interests of the American computer sector and the
American economy as a whole will be served by the Federal Court's
approval of the settlement. Please support this settlement, Mr.
Attorney General.
Sincerely,
Betty Harrell
8215 S.W. 82 Place
Miami, Florida 33143
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026052
From: Jurrinus ten Brinke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The question is will we be better off?
I am an avid Microsoft developer for many years. There is a
reason for choosing Microsoft and that is they are the best game in
town and always have been. They make it possible for me to develop
products for my clients that make their computers usable. Their
products put us in the lead. If I had to develop the same products
using Sun the cost to my client's would be much higher.
This battle between Microsoft, Netscape, Sun, Oracle is nothing
but a bunch of overgrown kids wanting to be the best. You cannot
tell me that this antitrust will be over once we punish Microsoft.
Downgrading Microsoft at this time will create a vacuum were these
other companies can move into. That's what they want. They can't do
it in the market place so they are letting the government do their
work for them. Don't put your antitrust arguments away cause you
will need them again. The end result will be a software industry in
ruins. Want examples just look at the airline industry and the
telephone industry and tell me we have done well. Have they made it
easier for me to fly and make phone calls. What a mess.
Lets stop this now cause your wasting my tax dollars and lets
move on. As long as Microsoft returns their profits back into our
society through better products and charity, keep their prices and
license cost within reason then let it be.
Jerry
MTC-00026053
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stop trying to destroy Microsoft. It is good that here is a
standard type system so programs are compatible.
MTC-00026054
From: GEORGE D FRENCH
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:02pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Enough is enough. The trial has cost the public enough of our
taxes. To further spend taxes because some companies have not been
smart enough to compete is to further their lack of competition in a
highly competitive field. I feel that the states are suing only to
try to get some of Microsofts funds, not because the states have
been harmed.
Thank you. George French.
MTC-00026055
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear D. O. J. Representative:
I find it maddening that in this time of recession and war, the
United States Justice Department has nothing better to do then to
waste our money on pursuing a frivolous law suit that was brought on
by politics and soft money! How foolish we must look to the rest of
the world!
Nick Kozimor
Mansfield, Ohio
MTC-00026056
From: Lynn and Nancy Trowbridge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir: Attached please find a letter in relating to a case
currently under review in your office. I appreciate your careful
consideration of my opinion regarding this case. The letter is in
Microsoft Office97 Word format.
Very truly yours,
Lynn M. Trowbridge, Ph.D.
1211 Ames Hill Road
Brattleboro, Vermont 05301-4254
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 address the recent decision reached by Microsoft
and the Department of Justice. As everyone is aware, the Department
of Justice brought an antitrust suit against the company. I am now
retired, but my professional life was spent as a software
programmer/manager contracting services to the Federal government in
Washington, DC I am well aware of the quality of computer products
and believe my comments to be relevant.
Microsoft produces the best commercially available operating
system in the country. There are other companies that offer, in my
opinion, better software products in other categories, and I am free
to use them as I see fit. Microsoft, while it dominates part of the
market, dominates that part because it produces a number of
excellent products. It does not dominate the entire software market.
To punish a company because they make quality products is uncalled
for and unwise. Microsoft has contributed mightily to this country's
understanding of computers, making them accessible to the average
layperson, and, in return, the company has profited. This is
entirely in keeping with the American free-market system.
I am happy to see that Microsoft will not be broken up under
terms of the settlement. In my opinion, however, Microsoft is being
suitably punished for alleged unfair practices. The company is
disclosing internal interfaces and protocols to competitors,
agreeing not to retaliate against software developers who develop or
promote software that competes with Windows, and forming a three-
person team to monitor compliance with the settlement.
Although the court decisions are perhaps flawed and the
punishments may not be fully justified, immediate settlement of
these suits is definitely in the best interests of the public. I
take a strong stand against further litigation and hope the
government will bring the recently reached settlement to fruition
and move on to the solution of other more important national
problems.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lynn M. Trowbridge, Ph.D.
MTC-00026057
From: Demetrious(u)Harrington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:04pm
Subject: Anti Trust Case
Hello,
I do believe that the proposed settlement is nothing but a slap
on the rists to Microsoft. There is nothing that really limits the
stregth of the monopoly. The charges that brought Microsoft to court
will not be resolved at all I believe.
demetri
MTC-00026058
From: jan smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I agree with the settlement agreement made between DoJ, 9 States
and Microsoft. Please settle it and get on with life.
Thanks for considering my opinion.
[email protected]
MTC-00026059
From: Ray Petrone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft and Ladies and Gentlemen:
Let me start by quoting verbatim from Section 3. of the
Complaint against Microsoft as posted: ``There are high
barriers to entry in the market for PC operating systems. One of the
most important barriers to entry is the barrier created by the
number of software applications that must run on an operating system
in order to make the operating system attractive to end users.
Because end users want a large number of applications available,
because most applications today are written to run on Windows, and
because it would be prohibitively difficult, time-consuming, and
expensive to create an alternative operating system that would run
the programs that run on Windows, a potential new operating system
entrant faces a high barrier to successful entry.''
Yes, there are high barriers to entry in the market for PC
operating systems just as there are barriers in the auto
manufacturing industry and others. Yes, I understand that there are
several major competitors there but General Motors was the dominant
player until GM's lack of vigilance and natural free market forces
changed that situation over the last one or two decades.
Oracle has enjoyed a somewhat different but similar position in
the market for corporate databases. The issue of applications was
similar but the advancement of middleware and market
[[Page 27741]]
demand for an abstraction layer for access has leveled that playing
field. UNIX and its variants were supposedly going to be the only
viable operating system of the future. Linux still thinks it is
viable and even superior but the public by and large doesn't seem to
agree despite the protestations by Linux authors and advocates
claiming plenty of applications. Finally, many feel that AOL
(including the Netscape merger entity) may have a similar market
position which may be the ultimate irony since their Netscape
subunit was a prime influence in this suit being brought against
Microsoft. I have heard AOL customers say they feel trapped by
simple things like their email address on AOL known to their
friends. Recall that AOL doesn't providing a forwarding service like
phone companies and the US Mail Service (shouldn't they by law?).
I feel you give far too little credit to natural market forces
in your evaluation of evidence and make far too much of what little
evidence I have seen or read. Have you no faith in our free market
society as prescribed by law? And you give far too much credit to a
few snippets of emails out of tens of millions of words calling them
a pattern of abuse and misconduct. Have you considered that it is
our free market system that has created the giant software company
known as Microsoft through natural selection of the vast majority of
commercial and home customers? It is yet another irony that the DOJ
was able to create a successful case in part because it uses
Microsoft products that enhance productivity and collaboration. And
is it not evident that application developers prefer to write
applications to a single platform or interface. Indeed, there are
still many companies fairing quite well by writing non-portable
applications to COBOL on IBM's former MVS platform. Please recall
the near revolt in the 70s when IBM switched its commercial
customers (were no home customers then because there was no
Microsoft DOS or Windows) from IBM DOS to MVS as the new Mainframe
standard? Some customers switched to competing vendors. Some swore
to get revenge no matter how long it took while others made the move
kicking and fighting because of the mountain of work needed to port
applications and JCL.
Moving on to Section 5. of the Complaint--verbatim text is
here for reference: ``5. To protect its valuable Windows
monopoly against such potential competitive threats, and to extend
its operating system monopoly into other software markets, Microsoft
has engaged in a series of anticompetitive activities. Microsoft's
conduct includes agreements tying other Microsoft software products
to Microsoft's Windows operating system; exclusionary agreements
precluding companies from distributing, promoting, buying, or using
products of Microsoft's software competitors or potential
competitors; and exclusionary agreements restricting the right of
companies to provide services or resources to Microsoft's software
competitors or potential competitors.''
Your case for tying seems weak at best, I think the Appeals
Court said that before me. There were times when Microsoft had to
work hard to disengage agreements involving ``BUNDLING ``,
at the OEM's request, (not tying) Windows and Office. Competitors
like Compaq and HP cried foul and I have seen the email and such
complaints personally. I fail to see where you proved the rest of
the allegations in this section but let's assume that you did since
the courts would seem to agree and that is the way our system works.
Let's set aside the lower court Judge's misconduct as well.
Moving on to Section 10. of the complaint and I quote again
verbatim: ``10. To respond to the competitive threat posed by
Netscape's browser, Microsoft embarked on an extensive campaign to
market and distribute Microsoft's own Internet browser, which it
named ``Internet Explorer'' or ``IE.'' Microsoft
executives have described this campaign as a ``jihad'' to
win the ``browser war.''
Yes, they did, didn't they. I heard it personally. And John
Young at HP and Larry Ellison at Oracle and Scott McNealy at
SunMicrosystems Steve Jobs of Apple and countless others have used
equally eyebrow-raising ``battle cries'' that incorporate
words such as ``crush, kill, demolish, life-and-death
struggle'' and so on. Perhaps it isn't in good taste,
particularly after events of this past year. That could be debated
endlessly. This is done so routinely at American Corporate Sales
Meetings that it makes this citation almost laughable. Such
invocations are meant to be motivational and that is obvious to even
the most casual observer. Occasionally, some poor soul might take to
levels only expected from a cult member. Microsoft's employee
handbook specifically warns employees not to engage in unethical or
illegal acts when competing with termination as the consequence.
The difference between corporate euphemisms like these and
statements by governments is this. When governments speak of killing
that is precisely what they mean. If you wish to represent the
American people fairly then please refrain from such citations in
the future. I believe the DOJ should tone down the rhetoric and make
better use of its time and our money. One could dissect each section
of the complaint, findings and judgment of the Appeals Court but
then that individual would be guilty of over-pursuing this matter in
the same way that has been done by the DOJ in my humble opinion.
Ladies and gentlemen, the ``foul'' that has alleged just
isn't felt by the majority of the public, or if it were, individuals
would rush in droves to Linux and its followers who claim
application compatibility without any significant reservation.
I cannot finish without commenting on one section of the
Competitive Impact Statement (from the Overview of Relief)
.-.-. (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. Here is a point-
by-point response:
1) Maybe. So far, this is a so-what since Contracts are
restrictive by definition from my recollection of Business Law.
2) Integrated its browser in non-removable way? Similar to the
radio in my car? No. It's easier to add a browser than a new radio
and much cheaper as in ``free'' thanks to free enterprise,
Microsoft and the former Netscape now part of AOL.
3) In the matter of Microsoft's dealings with Apple, let the
record reflect how Microsoft kept Apple financially viable with
loans ($350M?) and the last version of Microsoft Office for the Mac.
The latter charitable act made, at best, only modest economic
sense for Microsoft from what I can.
4) Our IRS in very simple matters involving small sums probably
routinely usurps its power far more than the instances I have seen
the DOJ cite. As for subverting Java middleware, you give too much
credit to Microsoft and too little to SunMicrosystems from what I
hear from dozens of developers I know. At long last in conclusion, I
urge you to take the settlement as it stands and move on. Yes, it
would have been nice to have another billion in software, services
and so on for our poorest schools but we've lost that chance,
haven't we. We will have to count on the oft-demonstrated
philanthropy of Mr. Gates and Microsoft employees and Alumni to make
up for that loss and, to an extent, they will although the
concentrated consulting assistance will be hard to replace with a
volunteer effort. (Are there plans to investigate the illegality of
all corporate donations to schools where a smaller competitor is a
vendor?) Again, please just move on and count this one in the win
column at your press conference.
Sincerely,
Raymond Petrone, P.E.
Concerned Citizen
Diligent Taxpayer
Honorably Discharged Member of the Armed Forces
Vietnam-era Veteran
Donator of Time to Georgia's Universities (partly from the
knowledge gained at Microsoft)
Former Microsoft Employee
MTC-00026060
From: BIlly J. Fite
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement,
To who it may concern,
The suite, against Microsoft should not have happened,at all.
The suite was not in the best interest,of the general public,
and the government, businesses, of all kinds, earthier.
It is not Microsofts fault, that they are way ahead of there
competitors,and get there product on the market, before the others
do.
If it had not been for all of the smart people,at Microsoft, in
getting there technology,in the soft wear world, where would we all
be today,with our computers etc., if we had to wait on the other
soft wear people, to get the products on the market to us?We would
be years behind,in getting this soft wear, for our computers.
The suite, against Microsoft was just a way for a lot of people
to get there hands on
[[Page 27742]]
money,that they DID NOT EARN,because they were so far behind in
there planning and thinking, that they could not keep up, with the
smarter people, that Microsoft had the smart to hire, that was
superior people in laying out the programs, for Microsoft.
So get off of your DUFFS, and throw out this OUTRAGEOUS SUITE,
for it has cost everyone a price,in some way, and it is stupid.
I do not think, that you should punish anyone, for there
progress, just because the others, are not SMART ENOUGH to keep up.
The faster that we can get, the kind of products,that Microsoft
brings to the market place, the more it helps all of us, to advance,
faster in the growth of our businesses, so we can get our products
to the market place faster and cheaper, and that saves us all money,
and can have a larger turn over, and maybe put more people to
work,which puts more money in the hands of more people to have more
buying power, for there families,and that is what keeps our economy
turning, at a safer, and easier pace.
For the betterment of our Country, and all the people,Throw the
thing out, and DROP All Charges,and get back to Business, for this
thing has not only cost Microsoft a lot of money,but also all of the
people, that use and need there kind of products,and will just drive
the price of the products up, to the people because of the cost, of
all of the special interest people,trying to make a fast buck,off of
some one elses progress,because it is just like all of the BULL,that
was brought on the Tobacco Industry,and has cost us all dearly, in
higher prices and TAXES and the money made on that deal, never ends
up in the hands of the hospitals, etc., to treat sickness so called
cause of some of the peoples sicknesses.
What kind of Bull are we going to come up with NEXT,that will
cost the people, while it makes all of the Lawyers and others RICH.
So DROP It.
Sincerely,
Billy J. Fite
MTC-00026061
From: Lee Murdoch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:05pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I am very much in favor of completing the Microsoft settlement.
I am an Apple computer user and Apple has been injured in the
past--but that has been settled and both have moved on. Sun,
Oracle, and AOL need to move on--create some value for their
customers. Poor AOL with 30 million subscribers!
Meanwhile Microsoft continues to bring useful affordable
software to market despite all of the sideshow.
Our economy is struggling, we have apparent outlaws running an
energy company in Texas and and an auditing profession in serious
need of repair and reform. Seems like the Microsoft situation pales
in comparison. They make good products, they take care of their
employees and sponsor philanthropic endeavors around the world.
Maybe just not enough in Washington DC!
Seems like the DOJ needs to re-focus--and perhaps help the
courts to do the same.
Lee Murdoch
205 Mariposa
Medford, OR 97504
CC:Diana Murdoch
MTC-00026062
From: Tomlinson David C4C CS14
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a bad idea.
MTC-00026063
From: Gordon Haverland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 12:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I suspect you are getting a lot of feedback from non-US
citizens, as this proposed settlement does effect people outside the
United States. I am a Canadian.
I've read a lot about various peoples opinions of the proposed
settlement, both learned and popular. I tend to agree that the
proposed settlement will be ineffective. I can also see the point
where structural remedies may not work either.
I believe that Microsoft has amply demonstrated over the years,
that it is never happy having a partial share of any market. It has
run roughshod over numerous businesses and industries, all in a
quest to ``own'' the market. At present it has 90+% of the
PC operating system market and probably 90+% of the ``office
suite'' market. It has a major portion of the business
networking market (services offered by NT to business LANs). It has
entered the information market by forming a partnership with NBC,
the Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) market, the home consumer game
market. It seeks to enter the music market and the Internet services
(.NET) market. And those are just the markets that come to my mind,
there may be more. Even with``just'' those markets, if
Microsoft follows past practice and grows to effectively
``own'' all of those markets; are there any governments
strong enough to control their actions any more? I don't think so. I
think the effort has to be made here and now to effectively rein in
this behavior of Microsoft.
I think there are two things that need to be done. Microsoft has
made a LOT of money by bullying companies. Someone has proposed
numbers, but I think if we said something on the order of $100
billion (10-11) US dollars, we would be close. I think Microsoft
should be fined that much money; to demonstrate to all that it
should not be allowed to keep the proceeds acquired by abusing a
fair market. Also, I think a definite limit should be placed on
Microsoft (and others) as to just how large a market share they are
allowed to acquire in a market which has (or had) competitors. Being
an engineer/scientist at heart, I'll pick exp(-1) (approximately 37
percent) as a limiting fraction, but I can even see arguments for
allowing more than 50%, where I would suggest exp(-0.5)
(approximately 61%) as an appropriate limit.
Thank you for your time.
Gordon Haverland, B.Sc., M.Eng., P.Eng.
MTC-00026064
From: Cam Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:08pm
Subject: RE: Microsoft Settlement
Deadline Looms for Public Comment
Next Monday, January 28, 2002 is the deadline for submitting my
opinion to the Department of Justice on the antitrust settlement
between Microsoft, the DoJ, and nine states.
While the terms of the settlement are tough, Microsoft and I
believe they are reasonable and fair to all parties, and meet ? or
go beyond--the ruling by the Court of Appeals, and represent
the best opportunity for Microsoft, the country and the industry to
move forward.
Even though the DoJ, 9 states, and Microsoft have agreed on the
terms of the settlement, I realize final adoption is not guaranteed.
Many of Microsoft's competitors, as well as some of the Attorneys
General who did not join the settlement, oppose the agreement and
have worked during this period to generate public comment urging
that it be rejected.
I urge that the DoJ approve the settlement and this matter be
put behind us. Thank you for your consideration.
Cam Taylor, 6577 Upper Lake Circle, Westerville, OH
43082-8126.
[email protected]
MTC-00026065
From: RICK MARCINIAK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft
Let's get on in life. Settle the damn thing. No company has done
more for America the past 10 years. The vote was 41 states for and 9
against. That speaks for itself. There is never a deal that all
sides agree on.
I'M FOR MICROSOFT !
MTC-00026066
From: Robert Winterhalter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a member of the IT industry, I can only say that I am
concerned with the proposed settlement in the Microsoft Antitrust
case. It disturbs me greatly because it doesn't seem like it does
anything to either a) actually curb Microsoft of their illegal
activities, or b) make any effort to correct what their abuse of
monopoly power has done to the computing industry. In fact, the
proposed settlement seems more like an affirmation that their abuse
of monopoly power is okay. What disturbed me most during the whole
trial was Microsoft's unwavering assertion that they never did
anything wrong. Further, the proposed settlement seems like it would
only aid Microsoft in its continued abuse of monopoly power.
Thank you for taking this into consideration.
Robert Winterhalter
Microcomputer Support Specialist II
Eastern Michigan University
MTC-00026067
From: Lawrence Day
[[Page 27743]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: United States Department of Justice
From: Lawrence Day, 1539 W. George St. Chicago, IL 60657
As a concerned citizen, I strongly recommend everyone involved
in the Microsoft case, to put an end to the lawsuit by accepting the
proposed settlement. It will do so much for all communities,
especially those who need it most. I do not understand why these
nine states, where other main software companies are located,
continue their pursuit of Microsoft. The longer this goes on, the
longer it will take to help the children the settlement is suppose
to help. It will also save American tax dollars.
Litigation is expensive!
Microsoft has done a lot for me personally. It has given me the
ability to spend more time with my family by making it easier and
faster to do the paperwork required at my job. It used to be so
burdensome. Now by using Microsoft Office, I can automate some of
it. I can't understand how myself and other consumers have been hurt
by this company.
Please relay this information to the Judge and any other parties
that can help.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Lawrence Day
MTC-00026068
From: Betty H meng
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let's get the real meaning in ALL anti-Trust cases--The
market place is where these companies must and should
compete--NOT IN THE COURTS-- Microsoft wins with
consumers--making a farce out of these anti-competitive
lawsuits !!!!!!!! the Wall Street Journal said the biggest asset AOL
has is what AOL hopes to get from suing Microsoft--I hope our
legal system will throw this case and any others OUT and bring
status back to our legal system.
Thank you--Brig Gen William J Meng,
(USAF Ret)
MTC-00026069
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I totally disagreed with the Government's unnecessary and
unwarranted prosecution of Microsoft in this case. Microsoft was
just being competitive and the other companies couldn't compete and
were sore losers. It is a perfect example of the Government run
amok.
However, since Microsoft and the Government have agreed to
settle, it is probably the best possible deal for all concerned.
Further litigation would only prove to be counterproductive and will
only drag the issue out for innumerable years to come. Therefore, I
support the settlement, not because it is the right thing for
Microsoft to do, but it will get this absolutely silly prosecution
behind them.
Anthony Addonizio
[email protected]
MTC-00026070
From: TL
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov.''
Date: 1/26/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ,
Microsoft has owned up to its end of the bargain and shown in
good faith to come to an acceptable bargain. I think what bothers me
most is the fact that our great nation was built on the prospect of
business and the freedom to conduct that business in a free nation.
We've come a long way in industry from seeking mere quantities to
focused quality. Microsoft products are used in just about every
aspect of business and government today. It's not because it's the
only game in town, but rather the quality it offers to customers.
Would be fair to say that any corporation in competition with each
other are obligated to have its competitors products included? The
consumer has choices, choices built on the principles of freedom.
The settlement is fair and for all parties involved.
MTC-00026071
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
David Dace
72 Sobrante Rd
Belton, TX 76513-6566
MTC-00026072
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user. This is just another method for states
to get free money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only
in terms of computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the
most dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
David Moseley
667 Sunrise Dr.
Phillipsburg, KS 67661
MTC-00026073
From: Dan Mayer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
`While the terms of the settlement are tough, they are
reasonable and fair to all parties, and meet -or go beyond--the
ruling by the Court of Appeals, and represent the best opportunity
for Microsoft and the industry to move forward.'
Thank you!
Dan Mayer
MTC-00026074
From: Jennifer Bergens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:17pm
Subject: Dear Sir or Madam,
Dear Sir or Madam,
I wish to express my disapproval of the proposed settlement with
Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Oquist
MTC-00026075
From: Ruth Swern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1'18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
856 KILMER LANE
NORTH WOODMERE, NEW YORK 1158 1
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear My. Ashcroft:
I think the recent antitrust settlement between the US
Department of Justice and Microsoft is fair and just. I also think
it is in the best interest of the states, the IT sector, and the
economy to have this issue settled and allow the government to focus
on more important issues such as education and security.
Under he terms of the settlement them are a couple points I
strongly agree with. One forming a three-person team to monitor
compliance with the settlement, and two, disclosing internal
interfaces to competitors of Microsoft; these the aspects of the
settlement will punish Microsoft sufficiently and ensure that
competition is increased in the marketplace.
I sincerely hope that opposition subdues quickly because I look
forward to seeing new products and service from Microsoft, a company
that has led the technology industry and grown at rapid mtc over the
last decade. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
[[Page 27744]]
MTC-00026076
From: Andrew Morrisey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am very concerned that this settlement has gone on for nearly
four years and may still be at risk of not being resolved in a
timely manner.
I have been involved in the Information Technology industry
since 1981 and have seen significant advances and innovations over
the years from all major vendors such as SUN, Oracle and Microsoft.
I have also seen technology help advance large enterprises,
governments, health and industries in such fashion to enable them to
increase productivity, decrease operating expenses, increase partner
interactions and improve corporate America. More importantly
Information Technology has made a very positive impact on the
economy in North America and abroad.
However; this legal case has severely impacted many businesses
and people around the world by diverting our attention to brace for
major un-necessary changes to one of the key players in the industry
(Microsoft). This case needs to be resolved quickly and fairly so we
can ``Get on with business'' and begin to focus our
attentions on stimulating the economy back to normal in a very
different America.
I have read the latest settlement and I believe it is fair and
reasonable to all parties involved and I am looking forward to a
final settlement in a timely manner.
Andrew Morrisey, I.S.P.
Vice President, Atlantic Region
Qunara Inc. (formerly The EXOCOM Group Inc.) & Microsoft
Developer Network (MSDN) Regional Director, Atlantic Canada
* Voice: 902-491-4480 * Fax:
902-422-8901
www.Qunara.com --> e-Business solutions with high iQ
The best enterprise e-business solutions are those born of
intelligence.
They intuitively understand-and deliver on-the diverse needs of
the systems, culture and business vision they must integrate with
and perform for. Qunara delivers solutions with the highest IQ. We
have the proven capability and experience to consistently execute on
our clients'' e-business vision.
MTC-00026077
From: Ric Denton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
--A consumer view
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
The following are my own personal views as a regular user of
Microsoft application software (Microsoft Outlook, Word, PowerPoint,
Excel). The details provided below lead me to make the plea that
Microsoft should not be able to use its Operating System Monopoly to
freeze out competing application software packages. This means that
any settlement needs adequate legal enforcement teeth to ensure the
viability of competing application software packages. To accomplish
this, there likely needs to be a true ``wall'' between the
Operating System group and the Microsoft applications groups, or
even a company breakup to ensure needed competition in applications
software.
My view is based on some very simple and obvious considerations.
Specifically, I am constantly dismayed at the poor quality of key
features in Word, PowerPoint, and Excel. Their drawing packages in
these applications are definitely not WYSIWYG (What you see is what
you get.) This leads to countless wasted hours to do draw and paste,
and redraw and repaste, to arrive at acceptable results. The
documentation (Help functions) on these packages is also deplorable.
If Microsoft chooses to publish such deficient software, that is of
course their choice, but it dismays me that viable alternatives are
not available. In the real world no application software developer
is able to fairly compete with the Microsoft juggernaut, given the
operating system monopoly that Microsoft enjoys.
It is my opinion, based on both the above reality and on my
following of the news, that Microsoft will continue to exploit its
operating system monopoly as it launches into new applications
areas. I gather that these problems fall under the category of
``bolting'' of operating system/application software.
I have also read that there are related issues in Microsoft's
use of hidden controls in their middleware. Further, I have read
that Microsoft has communication protocols embedded in their
operating software or middleware that would freeze out competition.
I do not have the expertise to evaluate this, but these are the kind
of practices that would give Microsoft an unfair competitive
advantage.
Any application software developer would need the same access to
operating software, at the same time, as Microsoft-internal
developers if there is to be a level playing field. It strikes me
that this is the minimum requirement that should be expected.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my views as part of
your deliberation process.
Sincerely,
Richard V. Denton [email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026078
From: David Turover
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1'19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To all whom it may concern,
I wish to express my displeasure with the weakness of the
proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case.
I am a 22 year old student majoring in Computer Information
Science at junior college. I have been a computer user since the age
of 6, and have been aware of the computer industry since 1995. I
have used Microsoft products and consider them generally well
developed, and I have also used alternatives to Microsoft's products
including BeOS and Linux. I currently use a variant of the
University of California's BSD Unix operating system and maintain my
parents'' Windows 98 based computers. I have had no employment
by nor relations with Microsoft or its competitors other than having
been a user of their products.
Microsoft has committed certain crimes for which Microsoft
should be punished. These crimes have harmed competitors of
Microsoft, and consumers have been harmed by the lack of innovation
due to the unnatural downfall of Microsoft's competitors. Although
some or many of Microsoft's competitors would have failed in the
free market without any illegal actions needing to be be taken by
Microsoft, the eventual natural failure of any of these companies
should not relieve Microsoft of punishment for using illegal methods
to hasten their downfall.
Microsoft has a long history of using illegal, immoral, and
disreputable acts to deprive its competitors of the right to compete
in a free market. When the government has attempted to enforce its
laws by binding Microsoft to agreements to not break the law in
certain ways that Microsoft had broken the law, Microsoft has then
broken the law in other ways and claimed innocence because the
contracts did not explicitly forbid breaking the law in this
particular new way. Without any reasonable threat of serious
punishment, all further such contracts are certain to be flouted in
the same manner, and the failure of the government to seek
additional punishment against Microsoft for failing to abide by the
earlier consent decrees, especially after the government has already
pressed and won its case, shows a lack of willpower to enforce the
terms of the existing agreements. By their previous conduct, it
stands to reason that Microsoft will exploit this lack of will to
enforce the law.
Following are descriptions of a few of Microsoft's better known
acts as examples of the company's general behaviour: When there were
equivalent alternatives to Microsoft's Disk Operating System and
Microsoft Windows was not an operating system but a separate
application product, Microsoft introduced a programming routine into
a version of Windows that would detect whether it was running on one
of these alternate operating systems and if so print a message
stating that an error had occurred.
Microsoft distributed this version to technology writers and
enthusiasts who took the message to mean and reported it as meaning
that Windows might not run well under any operating systems other
than Microsoft's, a notion that Microsoft had been actively
spreading at the time. (Examining the Windows AARD Detection Code,
Dr Dobbs Journal, 1993) Microsoft has paid employees and outside
agencies to write letters to the editors of newspapers and
magazines, and more recently to the States'' attorneys general
pursuing cases against Microsoft, pushing a pro-Microsoft viewpoint
while claiming to be independent; and Microsoft employees have
posted pro-Microsoft messages to Internet newsgroups and message
boards while claiming to be independent. (Microsoft Plans Stealth
Blitz to Mend Its Image, Los Angeles Times, April 10, 1998; Also the
Phil Bucking and Steve Barkto incidents, and the recent letter
writing campaign from the grave to state attorneys general) Given
this history, it should be
[[Page 27745]]
expected that some of the public comments on this issue are from
people and organizations paid by Microsoft to write or from people
directly influenced by public relations companies paid by Microsoft.
During the time of the ``Browser Wars'', the
installation routine for most Microsoft products would also install
Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser without asking for the
user's permission and regardless of whether Internet Explorer was a
requirement for whatever product was being installed. Microsoft also
threatened computer makers with the revoking of their license to
sell Windows unless the computer makers stopped installing products
that competed with Internet Explorer. Microsoft's famous investment
in Apple came with the condition that Apple would drop Netscape's
Navigator web browser and instead make Microsoft's Internet Explorer
the only browser offered on systems it shipped.
Microsoft has begun patenting routines needed for programmers to
write software that is compatible with Microsoft's software, and has
forced programmers to remove such compatibility. (Microsoft Patents
ASF File Format, http://www.advogato.org/article/101.html) While
this is their right, it makes compatibility with Microsoft software
impossible.
Microsoft and its representatives perjured themselves repeatedly
during the trial under Judge Jackson, and Microsoft produced and
presented as evidence a doctored video demonstration purporting to
illustrate the effects of certain changes to Windows 98.
Microsoft in its actions has shown itself to be a criminal
organization with little respect or regard for the laws of the
United States of America, little respect or regard for the truth,
and with little respect or regard for the freedom of the
marketplace.
To decide upon a punishment, the main end must be to prevent and
discourage Microsoft from continuing to carry out further criminal
acts. It is less important to make reparations towards consumers and
competitors harmed or to consider the economic impact of the
punishment. The result must also treat noncommercial computer users
and programmers, such as hobbyists and universities, as fairly as
businesses are treated.
A fine is the most obvious method of punishment against a
business. However, a fine absent of other punishment will do nothing
to prevent Microsoft from continuing to carry out criminal acts as
Microsoft has enough liquid assets on hand to painlessly pay any but
the most extreme fine.
Another consent decree may be necessary to state specific
violations of the law that Microsoft has committed. This would come
with two caveats: It must not leave open the possibility of allowing
Microsoft to violate the law in ways which other companies are not
permitted without government favour, as many contracts between
government and businesses do; and a consent decree absent of
additional punishment will not dissuade Microsoft from continuing to
carry out criminal acts, as earlier consent decrees have not.
The removal of Microsoft's government granted trade protection,
in the form of copyrights and patents, on certain of their products
is another option that could be considered. A similar option to be
considered is the seizure of certain of Microsoft's trade secrets
and their release to the public domain. A severe form of punishment
along these lines, which has not been used against a major business
in recent history, would be the revocation of Microsoft's corporate
charter and right to do business within the United States.
Some have suggested that Microsoft's source code be released
under the GNU public license used by the Free Software Foundation. I
do not agree that this is appropriate, as the benefits would nearly
exclusively be towards hobbyists. It has also been suggested by the
States that Microsoft be made to make its Office suite of products
capable of running on operating systems that compete with Windows.
Again, I do not agree with this proposal as, while Office has a
monopoly sized user base and is a major source of Microsoft's
revenue, it is not the focus of the case against Microsoft and
several able competitors exist.
Microsoft has offered, as a settlement to one of the cases
against it, to present computers running its software to the
nation's public schools at its cost. As schools contain a large
number of computers running Apple hardware and software, and these
computers would be replaced by the Microsoft computers, such an
offer in fact benefits Microsoft rather than punishes and as such
should not be considered.
Since the core of the case is about Microsoft embedding products
into their Windows operating system, and a major complaint in the
industry is of the difficulty of attaining compatibility with
Microsoft's operating system, I suggest that the punishment include
the seizure and placement in the public domain of all the source
files within the development branch of the Windows operating system
current to the date of the new decision, including the source code
to all programs and libraries that Microsoft considers a part of
their OS and is included with Windows in sales to consumers and
OEMs. In addition, Microsoft should be stripped of ability to use
their patent protections to prevent others from developing products
derived from the publicly released source code.
This would punish Microsoft by allowing others to immediately
build and distribute operating systems equal to Microsoft's and in
doing so threaten Microsoft's market position. With OEMs able to
build their own Windows-like systems, most of the points in the
proposed consent decree become moot. The process of making products
compatible with Windows and its associated programs would be greatly
eased with the metaphorical blueprints to Windows publicly
available.
Whatever solution is decided upon, it must hold to these points:
Microsoft must be given a punishment, not simply a warning, as they
continue to ignore prior warnings given them; the punishment must
take into account Microsoft's positions of monopoly power and where
they have abused this power to muscle into other industries as
relevant to the court case; the punishment should favour consumers
and the marketplace over Microsoft or a few of its competitors,
while not discouraging innovation or competition against Microsoft.
Fairness towards Microsoft is unimportant as fairness is more than
Microsoft has given others.
With respect and regards,
David M. Turover
Petaluma, CA
MTC-00026079
From: William G. Robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:22pm
Subject: I have reviewed the settlement and
I have reviewed the settlement and urge the DOJ to accept it. I
feel that the carping by a number of other manufacturers is just
``whistling in the wind,'' including those states who
reject the offer and mine is one of them. I am a former aircraft
company executive who is now retired.
William G. Robinson
Topeka, Kansas
MTC-00026080
From: Mary Bertogli
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/26/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 26, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this letter to ask that you reconsider the decision
to settle the United States Department of Justice antitrust lawsuit
against Microsoft Corporation. American consumers may have been
overcharged $20 billion by the Microsoft monopoly. My concern is
that your agreement with Bill Gates'' company does nothing to
neither rectify past sins by this company nor protect against future
gauging.
As you know, at least ten consumer groups disagree with your
agreement to settle. Microsoft has little incentive to change any of
its practices. Their concessions of handing over some operating
systems code and offering manufacturers some sovereignty over Media
Player amounts to little more than a light slap on the wrists for a
multi-billion dollar company.
I strongly agree with my state's Attorney General, Tom Miller,
and the action taken to reject this Microsoft agreement. I believe
that Mr. Miller and the other eight state attorneys general see the
many loopholes and problems with enforcement that does little to
affect change in the computer software industry. Splitting Microsoft
into two or three companies may not be the proper response, but
neither is this.
Your decision to prematurely end litigation against Microsoft is
a mistake. The agreement offers no real incentive to stop
monopolistic, anti-trust efforts. It won't help much smaller
companies compete and it doesn't serve the American consumer. Please
continue to go after Microsoft. It is a duty of the Justice
Department to protect the average citizen from companies that have
grown too large and too powerful by questionable business practices.
[[Page 27746]]
Sincerely,
Mary E. Bertogli
3507 Southern Woods Dr.
Des Moines, Iowa 50321
CC: Iowa Attorney General
MTC-00026081
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
416 Maren Street
West Hempstead, NY 11552
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I want to have my opinion entered in the public record in full
support of Microsoft. I understand the terms of the settlement
Microsoft has agreed to, and feel that the Justice Department has no
other choice but to make the settlement final, for the good of the
people. The settlement is extremely fair to all of Microsoft's
rivals and gives them a more level playing field to compete within
the ever-changing computing and software industry. Microsoft's
competitors will be able to give computer users the choice of using
Microsoft or non-Microsoft software features within the Windows
operating system.
I have followed this case for some time, watching and waiting
for something to happen to resolve this issue. The Justice
Department has slapped Microsoft in the face for the past three
years for being more successful than any corporation. This is not
the first time a company has been legally stopped by the government,
and I am sad to say, it won't be the last. So much money and
government, public and private resources have been squandered trying
to prove Microsoft has operated unfairly as a monopoly. What
Microsoft has done is give the world incredible software technology
that has helped ever day lives and businesses run more efficiently
and increasing productivity. The competition has to date, not been
able to produce anything close in comparison to Windows.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Seery ??. Mary P. Seery
MTC-00026082
From: O Trapp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:28pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Greetings,
I am writing in response to the opportunity that the interested
public has in the Microsoft Settlement. There are several issues
that have bothered me thoughout this case. Many times in the past,
Microsoft has blantently ignored ethics in their interaction with
competitors.
I was very sorry to hear that Microsoft had done whatever they
had done to get the Dept of Justice to cancel the court planned
split-up of Microsoft. Now I have read that once again Microsoft has
acted as though they are above the law, perhaps because they have
the money to attempt to buy what they want. I request that the
courts require full disclosure from Microsoft of all contacts with
the government under the Tunney Act .
For the record, I own substantial shares of Microsoft. I truely
wish they were more ethical in their pursuit of business and would
not repeatedly act as if they were above the law.
Sincerely,
Orlin D. Trapp
501 Portola Road, #8143
Portola Valley, CA 94028-7604
MTC-00026083
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Justice Department,
Consumers interest have been well served and it is time to end
this costly and damaging litigation. Continuing this legal battle
will only benefit a few wealthy competitors, lawyers, and a few
special interests.
Sincerely,
George and Mary Osborn
MTC-00026084
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Urge you to expedite and approve proposed antitrust settlement
between DoJ, 9 states and Microsoft in the interests of the the
consuming public. Lawsuits of this type hinder competition, and the
innovation that the U.S. economy so badly needs now. Do not put the
U. S. government in the position of standing in the way of the
advancement of the economy.
J. Kahn
[email protected]
MTC-00026085
From: Melinda Stimpson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am actually Mike Stimpson, not Melinda, despite what the E-
mail header says. I'm writing from home, which is why the header
says Melinda.
I have worked as a computer programmer for 15 years, and have
tried to keep up on what is going on in the industry. I have used
(and written programs for) Microsoft and non-Microsoft operating
systems.
I consider the proposed Microsoft settlement to be very
inadequate. It does not address the following issues:
Microsoft is not actually punished for its'' illegal acts.
That is, they are placed under restraint for ongoing conduct, but
Microsoft has already profited from their anticompetitive acts, and
that is not addressed at all. It seems to me that the amount of
Microsoft's profit arising from the acts should be determined
(that's hard, I know). Then Microsoft should be fined triple the
amount of their unjust gains.
Microsoft is still at a huge competitive advantage in
applications due to their monopoly in operating systems. This needs
to be addressed by requiring that the programmers writing
applications for Microsoft use only publicly available information
about the operating system. Otherwise, they may be able to use
features--typically function calls--that are not available
to others. This lets Microsoft leverage their operating system
monopoly to an advantage in applications. Even as Microsoft's
applications programmers should not have an advantage in the
available operating system features that they can use, they also
should not have an advantage in when they can use them. That is, if
the Microsoft programmers learn about the new operating system
features six months before their competitors, then, all other things
being equal, their applications will incorporate the new features
six months earlier. Again, this lets Microsoft leverage the
operating systems monopoly to an advantage in applications.
It seems to me that, given the previous history of Microsoft
anti-trust consent decrees, that this consent decree needs to have
some concrete penalties for violation that are stronger than merely
extending the same consent decree for two more years. If Microsoft
violates the consent decree, what prevents them from violating it
for the additional two years? There must be a more severe
consequence for violation than merely extending the consent decree.
In light of the above points, I urge that the proposed consent
decree be either rejected or considerably strengthened. We need a
consent decree that actually addresses the issues of Microsoft's
anti-competitive behavior, not merely one that brings an end to the
case.
MTC-00026086
From: Virginia Clifton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I'm writing to urge you to support the settlement recently
reached between the United States Department of Justice and
Microsoft. I feel this is a lawsuit that should have never been
launched against Microsoft and believe that it is now time to end it
so Microsoft can return to the business of software development.
Indeed, Microsoft must feel the same way because it agreed to terms
in the settlement that went far beyond the scope of the original
lawsuit.
Microsoft has, for example, agreed to license Windows to the 20
largest computer makers on virtually identical terms and condition.
Microsoft has also agreed to grant computer makers and software
developers broad rights to configure Windows to remove Microsoft
products and substitute competing, non-Microsoft products in their
places. For example, Netscape Navigator can be installed in place of
Internet Explorer; RealPlayer in place of Windows Media Player; and
AOL Instant Messenger in place of Windows Messenger. Microsoft has
agreed to not retaliate against computer makers and software
developers who choose to do this. Further, Microsoft has agreed to
not enter into any agreements with other companies that would
obligate them to exclusively distribute or promote Windows
technology.
Based on the facts of the settlement, I encourage you to accept
the terms of the
[[Page 27747]]
settlement so that Microsoft can carry on the business of developing
innovative software.
Sincerely,
Virginia Clifton
1125 Olympia Avenue NE
Olympia, WA 98506
MTC-00026087
From: Sharon Corboy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:32pm
Subject: aol suit
aol lost in the market place. bardsdale could not compete on the
merits of his product.because microsoft makes a better product
thomas a corboy
tccorbor@earthlink .net
MTC-00026088
From: Charles E Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time for the Microsoft settlement to be implemented and
let business run its natural course. Too much time and money has
been spent to try and satisfy Microsoft's competitors.
Thank you
MTC-00026089
From: Theo Armour
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the settlement terms proposed by the Court of
Appeals are reasonable.
I hope that the company that brought the Internet to the great
majority of desktops in this world will be be permitted to continue
giving users affordable, usable and new technologies.
Theo Armour
[email protected]
MTC-00026090
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:34pm
Subject: (no subject)
I think the antitrust settlement between the Dept. of Justice
and Microsoft is a fair settlement and should be takeing for the
good of all parties.
Paul schouest 25345 Fenner
Street Plaquemine, la. 70764
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026091
From: Zelie, Elizabeth A.
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/26/02 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
I am writing in regard to the settlement between Microsoft (PFJ)
and the Justice Department. As a student who has taken many computer
classes, I have benefited from the products produced by Microsoft,
and I am excited to see what they will come out with next.
However, having said that, I do believe that they should not be
allowed to continue their monopolistic practices. They violated
anti-trust laws and should be punished for that. I am a Business Law
student and if I have learned anything in my studies, it is that
laws are made to be enforced and not to be broken. If Microsoft is
not punished for violating a law, but is instead given a pat on the
back and taken care of by PFJ, then why should we enforce the law
when anyone else violates it?
We are blessed to live in a country with a free market economy,
but what good does that do if companies are allowed to become
monopolies? That seems to go against the very principles on which
this country was founded. Please reexamine this case and do your
best to change this settlement. I will be praying that God guides
you in making this decision.
Sincerely,
Liz Zelie
Elizabeth Zelie
200 Campus Drive, Grove City College Box #2515, Grove City,
PA 16127-2197
[email protected]
CC:'stopmicrosoft(a)yahoo.com''
MTC-00026093
From: Gemfield Association
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear sirs,
We don't need any more special interests trying to defeat
consumers. So why drag out this battle any more? Only a few special
interests could benefit from that. The Tunney Act seems to me to
well serve the interests of the consumers, and the time to end the
litigation has arrived.
Sincerely,
David B. Robinson, J.D. (Hon.), M.Sc.
MTC-00026094
From: Scott Tillema
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs--
I do not support your actions against Microsoft, and I believe
that a great injustice is being committed.
To uphold ``justice'' is to ensure that a person (or
persons) get exactly what they deserve. As a citizen of the United
States, I expect my government to serve this principle of justice
when protecting the most essential value that we all cherish:
freedom.
By freedom, I am refering to our constitutional right to
determine, pursue, create, and protect our own values. The opposite
of freedom is slavery; it is the act of initiating force against
others as a means of acquiring values. The only *moral* use of force
is as a means of protection or retaliation against those who would
initiate it. Thus, force should only be used as a means of
protecting freedom from slavery.
Microsoft has not committed any injustice. They have *earned*
their market share by giving the market what it wants. When faced
with a challenge, their focus their power and resources on making a
better product. If necessary, they have put restrictions on how
*their* product may be purchased. They do anything that is *within
their power* to advance and protect their products--their
values. Yet they have never initiated *force* against any other
person. Every man is free to accept Microsoft's terms or part
company--unlike a law of the government that imposes its terms
by threat of imprisonment. (In fact, as a consumer and computer
user, I freely choose to use many non-Microsoft owned
products--including a non-Microsoft internet browser (called
Opera)!)
I ask you to look at Microsoft and ask yourself: would you
classify this corporation in the same category as bank robbers, con-
men, rapists, murderers, or terrorists? Do they even share *one
degree* of the essence that makes these men criminal? Because, this
is what you have done.
The prosecution of Microsoft is a grave *injustice*, committed
on behalf of those who would use the government to impose their
values by *force*. By pursuing this case against Microsoft, the
government has *unfairly* given my fellow citizens the priveledge of
using the state sanctioned use of force to achieve their desires. I
recognize this as an act of slavery.
Your justification of this injustice is the Sherman Act; a law
that restricts the freedom of businesses to determine how their
products are traded. The purpose of this act is to impose some ill-
conceived economic theory as a matter of law. As it is written it
makes every business subject to the whim of a judge's interpretation
rather than the facts of reality.
Justice in the world of economics is not served by a judge's
whim--it is served by reality. Microsoft, as does any business,
recognizes this reality. Regardless of any attempt Microsoft has
taken to protect its current products, it cannot escape the need to
innovate or create new products. In fact, this is the reason that
Netscape lost its own market dominance: regardless of price,
eventually Microsoft had to produce a better product. Unless
Microsoft continues to innovate and improve, it too will lose its
market dominance.
You can see that justice is done: see to it that Microsoft, all
businessmen, and all Americans are set free from the tyranny of such
laws as the Sherman Act that impose slavery on our lives.
MTC-00026095
From: Jonathan Holbert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't believe the proposed settlement is sufficient to stop
future monopolistic behaviour from Microsoft Corp.
Thank you,
Jonathan Holbert
MTC-00026096
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
[[Page 27748]]
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,
Gayle McGarry
7607 Weeping Willow Circle
Sarasota, FL 34241
MTC-00026097
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:40pm
Subject: (no subject)
I am addressing myself to this subject once again in view of the
recent events wherein AOL has instituted suit against Microsoft. As
we hold stock in the technology companies hoping that one day our
grandchildren will benefit through the absorbtion of college costs
by said investments. Now I find that the situation has progressed
from the sublime to the ridiculous. The
Microsoft competition obviously disregards the effect their
actions has created in the marketplace. The officials of these
corporations need not worry about the diminishment of their present
financial values as they will eventually find retention bonuses or
future stock options that will regain present day losses, but the
individual investors will not be so fortunate.
The states still involved in the case are more likely supporting
the tech companies within their geographical areas and the heck with
everyone else. It appears that they will not be satisfied untill
they establish what the competition desires It is time to get this
situation behind us- It is time to remove the shadows of uncertainty
from the market.AND it is time to remove the shackles from the
economy that has, in my opinion, sufferred as a result of the added
pressures. n closing I can only state that the uncertainty and the
actions of the remaining states in opposition to the Microsoft
decision of the government has, in my opinion, caused greater
financial loss to the investors than the damage the competition and/
or Attorney Generals of the respective States claim that Microsoft
has caused the public.
Very truly yours..
dmiller
MTC-00026098
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please get this case settled. We NEED Microsoft! It's technology
has been very important to me and to everyone I know. Without it's
contributions, we couldn't have made the major progress we have
made. It's time for this whole mess to be over!
Please adopt the terms of the settlement as they are now and get
this thing finished.
THANK YOU!
Nancy Jarrard
15807 Gooseberry Way
Apple Valley, MN 55124
MTC-00026099
From: G Eisenberger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
As a retired person who uses Microsoft software, I urge you to
settle the DOJ lawsuit.
Years ago when I started working with computers, you had to do
most of your own programming. It was time consuming, frequently
inaccurate, and totally frustrating. With the Ms windows operating
system, I can get up-to-the-minute news, check on my investments,
communicate with family and friends, send photos, play games, etc.
Last year I was able to get in touch with my buddies from my Navy
days and we had a reunion after 47 years.
When you consider the cost of Ms software, compared to cable TV
or phone service, it is a real bargain.
Let them keep adding features and improving this wonderful
product.
Sincerely,
Gary Eisenberger, Age 67
MTC-00026100
From: Quin Blackburn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am writing as a citizen concerned about the proposed final
judgement between the United States and the Microsoft Corporation. I
am a Design Engineer in California, with a significant background in
computers and programming. I am also a user of Unix, Linux, and
other competing operating systems, and therefore I have been exposed
to how Microsoft has maintained and extended its monopoly, and I
feel that I have been negatively effected by their activities.
While the judgement seems to address a number of the activities
that Microsoft has used to hold and extend their monopoly, I think
it has a number of weaknesses that will prevent it from
accomplishing its purpose. The most likely result I see of approving
this agreement is that Microsoft will continue their anticompetitive
practices for several more years, followed by another lengthy
antitrust trial. The irony is see is that in some cases they may use
the proposed judgement as justification for their anticompetitive
actions, as it specifically allows some of them to continue.
In section III parts A and B, the intent seems to be to allow
OEMs to use Microsoft and competing products freely, without
allowing Microsoft to take action to prevent them from doing so.
However, it leaves Microsoft ample opportunity to continue to engage
in anticompetitive practices. III.A.2 says that Microsoft cannot
retaliate against an OEM for shipping computers that have a
competing operating system on them, in addition to Microsoft's
operating system. However, if the OEM ships any computers that have
only the competing operating system, then retaliation is allowed. In
effect, this can be read as requiring the OEM to put a Microsoft
operating system on all the machines they ship.
Section III.B also specifies Covered OEMs for many of the
protections. There are a great many computer manufacturers in this
country and abroad, but it seems that only 20 will be protected.
Another thing I notice is that there is no mention of bundled
products. This strikes me as allowing them to give discounts on
seperate packages, like Microsoft Office, to vendors that behave the
way Microsoft wants them to with regard to their operating systems
products. These provisions have been used in previous OEM
agreements. Since a large percentage of personal computers ship with
an office package, this seems to give them a significant loophole to
favor certain vendors without changing their cost schedule for their
operating system products.
It strikes me as odd that there was no mention of Microsoft's
applications, specifically Microsoft Office, in the proposed
judgement.
While the trial was based on their operating system monopoly,
they have a significant monopoly in the standard office application
market that they use synergistically with their operating system
monopoly to prevent competition in both areas. I believe that the
findings of fact mentioned that they used the threat of withholding
Microsoft Office for Macintosh as a lever against the Apple
Corporation. The applications are used to support the operating
system monopoly, because the lack of a version of Microsoft Office,
as the most common office suite of applications, for competing
operating systems is a large part of the ``Applications barrier
to entry'' for those systems. The operating system monopoly is
used to support the applications monopoly largely by bundling.
Microsoft can afford to charge less for their Office suite because
they are sellling it with another product, the operating system.
The proposed final judgement makes no attempt to address the
applications monopoly, which, while unfortunate, is understandable
since the trial concerned their operating systems only. However, it
should address how they use their applications to the support of
their operating system monopoly. The disclosure provisions should
include the APIs and file formats for Microsoft Office, so that
competing operating systems can have a fully compatible office
suite. The Operating System licensing sections need to mention
associated licenses, so that Microsoft doesn't use discounts on one
product in lieu of the other.
The disclosure of the APIs, under section III.D, is done via the
Microsoft Developer Network. While greater disclosure would aid
competition, the choice of MSDN is questionable. In order to use
MSDN, a developer needs to accept a ``Click Through''
agreement drafted by Microsoft. Having wanted to support a Microsoft
file format in a competing operating system, I ran afoul of that
agreement, which disallowed me from
[[Page 27749]]
doing so. Indeed, the proposed final judgement only requires the
disclosure ``for the sole purpose of interoperating with a
Windows Operating System Product''. Since the entire intent of
the judgement is to encourage competition to the Microsoft Windows
monopoly, allowing the disclosure only to users of Windows, and for
products that only run on Windows seems to completely defeat the
purpose. This disclosure will only strengthen the Windows monopoly.
One significant thing I see lacking in the proposed judgement is
any sort of penalty. The Microsoft Corporation has been ruled to
have broken the law, but the judgement does nothing to ``deny
to the defendant the fruits of its statutory violation''. At
best, the judgement simply tells them not to do it again. There
seems to be no reason for Microsoft not to continue its
anticompetitive activities, since past transgressions of the law
have not been penalized, they have no reason to believe that future
ones will be. The judgement gives no means of enforcing even its own
requirements, save returning to the courtroom and starting this
process over from the beginning.
At the risk of destroying my credibility, I have to say that
Microsoft works in its own interests alone. They have no interest in
competition, and no interest in or respect for the law. They will
not follow the intent of an agreement, only the strict letter of it
in their most favorable interpretation. If the judgement is not
airtight, Microsoft will willfully continue their practices, citing
any weakenesses in the agreement as allowing them to do so. The
Microsoft Corporation has been convicted of having undue power and
an agreement that has any less power will simply be pushed aside
like any other competitor to their business.
Also, at greater risk, I would like to note that Microsoft has
in the past hired marketing/PR firms which would write a large
number of letters from ``concerned citizens'' in favor of
Microsoft. I would hazard a guess that you have a significant number
of these letters that have been commissioned in the interests of
interfering with the legal process in their own favor.
Thank you for your time,
Quin Blackburn
Valencia, CA
MTC-00026101
From: Rob Cowart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My mother is a teacher in an elementary school in North Texas,
with about 20 children per grade. They have one computer in each
classroom, and it's a Macintosh. If Microsoft gives the school new
computers, the children will learn to use those, maybe they will
dispose of the older Macs, and then Microsoft will have taken a
market away from Apple.
The children will feel comfortable with Windows, and may
continue to use it all of their lives. The settlement gives
Microsoft the chance to get customers for 80 years or so. If the
point of the settlement is to increase Microsoft's market share in
the schools, then the Settlement is perfect. But it's not, the
reverse needs to happen. Only by competing against itself can
Microsoft lose market share. The government split up AT&T, and
competition increased and consumers benefited, eventually; this is
no different and I don't understand why the government is treating
it like it is.
Thanks for reading this,
Robert
MTC-00026102
From: Elizabeth Allison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:45pm
Subject: settlement misguided
Elizabeth Allison of New York and New Jersey weighing in here to
say that the proposed settlement in no way addresses Microsoft's
gross abuse of its consumers and, in fact, opens the door to
further, albeit different, abuse. Will send longer and hopefully
more eloquent words to same effect within 24 hours, time allowing,
but wanted to get at least this much said now.
EA
MTC-00026103
From: Carolyn Cooper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Renata B. Hesse:
I am emailing about the Microsoft Settlement. It is important
that we protect the rights of individuals against corporations in
America, and Microsoft is not going to concede unless we make them.
I'd like to focus on just one of these issues which needs to be
remedied. Protocols and file formats need to be openly available.
For one, it is a widely accepted fact in theoretical research that
the only way a protocal can be really secure, is if it is based on
the theory in its algorithms, not on the secretness of its methods.
When Microsoft hides its protocols, it may leave security holes that
we cannot discover until they are broken. Secondly, and most
importantly, Microsoft uses its monopoly in the Operating Systems
market to create a monopoly in the software market.
If I create a file using Microsoft Office, I should have the
right to use that information with another operating system.
Microsoft needs to be required to make their file formats available
to other programs so that I own my own files. At this point in time,
my creations in Microsoft are very difficult to export, and in a
certain way, Microsoft owns them. I request you to protect my work,
and my rights as an individual.
Thank you,
Carolyn Cooper
Princeton, NJ
MTC-00026104
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern!
I am sending this e-mail to voice my opinion on the antitrust
settlement between Microsoft, the Dept. of Justice and nine states.
Microsoft maybe a bully with their competitors and customers; large
companies flex their muscles all the time. I am a small
manufacturer, and you should see how the big retailers bully me
around! They are creative and built the company from scratch, unlike
Standard Oil, for example, who purchases other companies to create a
monopoly and for whom the antitrust laws were written. US companies
compete around the global. Would you rather a Japanese company have
the monopoly on Window? No, I rather it be a US company.
Accordingly, I think the settlement is fair, and you should take up
Microsoft's offer to supply the poor schools with the latest
technology as part of their penalty.
Best Regards,
Ed Esposito
Professional Folding Carts to make life EASIER!
www.FoldingCart.com
Tel. 718-693-9700
MTC-00026105
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please accept the Microsoft Settlement and finish this case.
Quit spending taxpayer money on this matter. And please don't accept
any more lawsuits about this. Microsoft should not have to be tried
again on the same or a related matter.
The United States government should never have been involved in
a lawsuit against Microsoft in the first place. I disagree with the
current anti-trust laws. The government has no business fighting
against corporations of our fellow citizens, unless they are doing
something actually criminal (such as covering up drug operations or
terrorist activities, etc.)
AT&T should never have been broken up, either. Large size
and creativity are not criminal. Making a product widely available
is not criminal. Competitors have the burden of competing, that is,
of finding their own innovative ways to make a place for themselves
in the market. Competitors should not have the government's and
taxpayers'' help to become bullies. Competitors could ask the
taxpayers to help fund better education for future employees for the
workforce, in general.
The companies that could not hire the brains to figure out ways
to effectively compete with Microsoft had no right to take their
competitor to court. Rather than wasting taxpayer's time and money
on a lawsuit, they and the government should have spent the money
encouraging the education of potential scientists, engineers,
computer programmers, etc. They should have screened potential
applicants and sent them to appropriate schools, keeping a close eye
on the quality of training they were receiving. What a difference
this would have made!
This country's level of science training has fallen behind what
it was in the 1960's under President Kennedy. We should not hinder
good thinking and the resulting sensible business practices. We
should encourage scientific and technological education, research,
and progress.
This is relevant to the present case, because, as I mentioned
above, the lack of good potential employees for competing
[[Page 27750]]
companies is one of the reasons that a case like this ever came to
be.
Thank you.
MaryAnn Stuart
MTC-00026106
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:46pm
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 most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen. Please put a stop to this
travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jim Haughton
600 Green St.
Kingstree, SC 29556
MTC-00026107
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I am a student at Stony Brook University and is currently
seeking acceptance into the Computer Science Major. I have been
reading about the ``final judgment'' in the Microsoft
Case, and I feel that Microsoft is a monopoly. Almost every PC on
the planet has Microsoft as their operating system, and I feel that
other smaller companies with better software and new ideas should
get the chance to promote their company. Therefore, I feel that the
Supreme Court's decision to control the promotion and use of
Microsoft programs and putting strict conditions on the licensing
rights of Microsoft to other companies was the right thing to do.
Even though just like many other people around the world, I also use
a Windows operating system and will have to get to know the new
operating systems that will be coming out after this decision is
made final.
P.S. Thank you for letting our voices be heard in this decision.
MTC-00026108
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed MS settlement is AWFUL. Don't accept it.
Craig Hein
MTC-00026109
From: adam freeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I really disagree with the proposed settlement. Make Microsoft
buy however much its willing to donate of its own products from
someone else. Like Apple and Corel and Adobe. Don't let Redmond
extend their monopoly into the schools. Punish them instead.
MTC-00026110
From: Cyrus Walker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:53pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
As currently structured the proposed settled as defined by the
DOJ does not actually curtail microsoft's practices. The settlement
definitely does not benefit the consumer, small software developer
or large software developer. Microsoft does not encourage innovation
but actually eliminates and crushes innovative products if the are
perceived to be any type of threat to their operating system. The
penalties should be more restrictive and actually enforceable if
there is to be any benefit for the consumer, competition and
innovation from other consumers. No one should be forced to accept
something because there are no viable choices. That is what
microsoft and this lackluster settlement propose to do, remove the
ability to make a choice, just accept what is given to you.
I want to make my own choice!!!!
v/r
cyrus walker
MTC-00026111
From: Alison Randall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I wanted to submit my comments on the antitrust settlement
between Microsoft, the Department of Justice and nine states before
Monday's deadline. I believe the terms of the settlement are
reasonable and fair to all parties involved and go beyond the ruling
by the Court of Appeals. This settlement represent the best
opportunity for Microsoft and the industry to move forward. Adopt
the settlement and let's move on to more pressing issues.
Thank you,
Alison H. Randall
Dublin, Ohio
MTC-00026113
From: Scott Cassill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Would you please discount the specifics and get to the
generalities of acknowledging almost instant obsolescence and the
need to develope newer, faster and more efficient programs.
Consumers are greatly benefitted by Microsoft's software. Let the
consuming public decide at the cash register. Let Microsoft continue
to help materially in our losing balance of trade
``battle.'' Let all the titans of tech get to work. They
create a great deal of wealth, which is taxable and consumable. This
is what made America great.
Let's roll !
Scott and Joyce Cassill
Nordland, WA 98358
MTC-00026114
From: Chad Hasselius
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. Under the
proposed settlement Microsoft will surely continue their anti-
competitive practices and ultimately hurt not only consumers, but
the future in computing as well. With computers increasingly being
integral to society this proposed settlement will ultimately hurt
all of society for years to come in many ways. If you go ahead with
this settlement and concede to the political reasons for it, this
will definately be a dark spot in history. Please do not go ahead
with it if you care at all about the ramifications of it, stay
strong and fight for the people.
Chad Hasselius
9163 Kirkwood Ln.
Maple Grove, MN 55369
MTC-00026115
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:59pm
Subject: Hi
I wouls say that both United States and Microsoft are right at
their own sides. I say this because Microsoft wants to be popular
llike any other company's goal would be so it sells its software
almost in all pc's. They want people to use their internet browser
too so they made their OS's like that the people has to accept the
agreement to install Their bowser too in order to get their OS
installed. It's kind of enforcement that they're doing but I think
that any company who would like o be popular and rich will
definately do that. Now on the other hand, United States is right
that Microsoft shouldn't do like that to sell their internet
browsers like that because like that it'll be a monopoly. No other
company can sell their product, for example Netscape. They want to
sell their software too. So I think that the case is good in my
opinion because If you put yourself in either Microsoft side or
United States side you would do the same thing that they're doing.
Thanks
MTC-00026116
From: Jean-Pierre Mouilleseaux
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
i truly am disappointed with the proposed microsoft settlement.
i would have expected more from a country that was so determined to
shatter telecommunications and oil monopolies of the past. the
current settlement allows microsoft to further extend it poisonous
reach, which seems rather paradoxical. it is difficult to see if
microsoft is being punished or rewarded for their perpetually anti-
competitive behavior. please reconsider the settlement.
regards,
://jean-pierre
MTC-00026117
From: [email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 27751]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:01pm
Subject: Settlement
Please except the microsoft settlement and move on. we all love
microsoft and so do most of the manufacturers...................
MTC-00026118
From: Fortunato Velasquez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:01pm
Subject: settlement
U.S District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly: January 26, 2002 It
is my opinion that the proposed settlement with the Microsoft
company is NOT ``in the public interest.'' The company
should be prosecuted as predators who have defrauded the public and
pursued monopolistic business policies.
Thank You,
Fortunato Vel'squez
Seattle, WA
MTC-00026119
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From my reading of the settlement, I do not see justice at all.
It sounds to me as if Microsoft is being rewarded rather than
punished and nothing is being done to prevent their unscrupulous
business practices. As a software developer myself for over 20
years, I have found Microsoft to be nothing but an impediment by
purposely destroying existing standards and thereby slowing new
innovation.
Please consider a punishment more suiting than a simple slap on
the wrist as is currently proposed.
MTC-00026120
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:00pm
Subject: Settlement
Please except the microsoft settlement and move on. we all love
microsoft and so do most of the manufacturers...................
MTC-00026121
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern: I believe the Microsoft settlement is
fair. It should be completed now.
Thank you, Dorothy Horstman
MTC-00026122
From: Brad Markham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2'02pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
I am a software developer. I use many of Microsoft's products
everyday. I believe Microsoft holds a monopoly in the software
industry. I am including the text of a column from Byte.com. The
column, ``The Be View'', was written by Scot Hacker in
August of 2001. His discussion of why Be, a computer operating
system, failed, trying to compete with Microsoft, is a glaring
example of why Microsoft is a monopoly. The settlement, as it
stands, is a joke to most industry observers. Microsoft was found
guilty of monopolistic practices. This settlement is a mere slap on
the wrist. It does nothing to change the fundamental problem with
Microsoft. This will only be achieved with a much more severe
punishment. The only way software development companies will have a
chance of surviving in direct competition with Microsoft is if they
can compete on a level playing field with Microsoft. This will only
happen if Microsoft is broken up. Microsoft can not be allowed to
continue it's current business practices in the future. Breaking up
Microsoft is the only way that real change will occur in the
software industry. In a competitive market, companies survive by
creating a good product at a reasonable price. If the product is
inferior or too expensive the consumer will buy a competitors
product, if the competitors product can be easily substituted for
the original. Microsoft has built it's monopoly by making it very
difficult to switch to a competitors product. i ask you to consider
the merits of this article in your decision. You have the power to
drastically change the software industry for the better.
Thank you for your time,
Brad Markham
Peaceful Coexistence? Right.
It is statistically unlikely that a person purchasing a new
computer is ever going to change its operating system the OS that
comes with the computer you buy at the local computer mega-store is
probably going to be the OS you use for years, if not forever. And
while it is technically trivial for a hardware vendor to set up hard
drives to dual- or triple-boot multiple operating systems, very few
people have the interest or the huevos to repartition their hard
drives and install additional OSs after the original point of
purchase. Therefore, few things could be more financially critical
to an operating-system vendor than to have one's product
preinstalled on consumer computers. There is no technical reason why
CompUSA customers shouldn't be able to walk out of the shop with a
machine that asks ``Which OS do you want to use today?''
upon boot. And yet, even today, after several years of relentless
news about how Linux is ready for the general desktop and business
customer, one does not find dual-boot Win/Linux machines from large
commercial OEMs at any consumer outlet or web shop I know of. Yes,
you can get dual-boot machines at some of the smaller shops, but
these are the ones that slip under Microsoft's radar, and there's no
guarantee that Microsoft won't decide to take action against these
vendors at some point. And yes, you can buy Linux-only machines from
vendors such as IBM. But think about it: Why would IBM sell Windows
machines and Linux machines, but no dual-boot Win/Linux machines?
The absence is conspicuous. A few years ago, Be's CEO Jean-Louis
Gass,e used the phrase ``peaceful coexistence with
Windows'' to describe his company's intended relationship with
Microsoft on the consumer's hard drive. Later, when it became clear
that Microsoft had no intention of coexisting with a rival OS vendor
peacefully, Gass,e recanted, saying, ``I once preached peaceful
coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense I deserve
it.'' With so little profit margin in the computer retail
business, and with so little to set one brand of computer apart from
another, it would seem that out-of-the-box dual-boot capabilities
would be a tremendous differentiating factor for hardware vendors.
It would seem that there would be financial incentives for computer
vendors to be asking Be for 10,000-license deals. These bundling
arrangements would be good for Be, good for OEMs, and good for
consumers. In his own column, Gass,e has written several times about
Microsoft's Windows OEM License and the ways in which it limits the
freedoms of PC OEMs. In July 2001, I spoke with Gass,e to find out
why no dual-boot computers with BeOS or Linux installed alongside
Windows can be purchased today. In the 1998-1999 timeframe,
ready to prime the pump with its desktop offering, Be offered BeOS
for free to any major computer manufacturer willing to preinstall
BeOS on machines alongside Windows. Although few in the Be community
ever knew about the discussions, Gass,e says that Be was engaged in
enthusiastic discussions with Dell, Compaq, Micron, and Hitachi.
Taken together, preinstallation arrangements with vendors of this
magnitude could have had a major impact on the future of Be and
BeOS. But of the four, only Hitachi actually shipped a machine with
BeOS pre-installed. The rest apparently backed off after a closer
reading of the fine print in their Microsoft Windows License
agreements. Hitachi did ship a line of machines (the Flora Prius)
with BeOS preinstalled, but made changes to the bootloader rendering
BeOS invisible to the consumer before shipping. Apparently, Hitachi
received a little visit from Microsoft just before shipping the
Flora Prius, and were reminded of the terms of the license. Be was
forced to post detailed instructions on their web site explaining to
customers how to unhide their hidden BeOS partitions. It is likely
that most Flora Prius owners never even saw the BeOS installations
to which they were entitled.
Bootloader as Trade Secret
So why aren't there any dual-boot computers for sale? The answer
lies in the nature of the relationship Microsoft maintains with
hardware vendors. More specifically, in the ``Windows
License'' agreed to by hardware vendors who want to include
Windows on the computers they sell. This is not the license you
pretend to read and click ``I Accept'' when installing
Windows. This license is not available online. This is a
confidential license, seen only by Microsoft and computer vendors.
You and I can't read the license because Microsoft classifies it as
a ``trade secret.'' The license specifies that any machine
which includes a Microsoft operating system must not also offer a
nonMicrosoft operating system as a boot option. In other words, a
computer that offers to boot into Windows upon startup cannot also
offer to boot into BeOS or Linux. The hardware vendor does not get
to choose which OSes to install on the machines they sell Microsoft
does. ``Must not?'' What, does Microsoft hold a gun to the
vendor's head? Not quite, but that wouldn't be a hyperbolic
metaphor. Instead, Microsoft
[[Page 27752]]
threatens to revoke the vendor's license to include Windows on the
machine if the bootloader license is violated. Because the world
runs on Windows, no hardware vendor can afford to ship machines that
don't include Windows alongside whatever alternative they might want
to offer. The essence of the government's antitrust beef with
Microsoft is that the company limits competition by leveraging its
dominant position in the marketplace (it's important to remember
that monopolies are not illegal abusing them is). To prove its case,
the government focused on the browser wars and the harm done to
Netscape by Microsoft's inclusion of a free web browser in the
operating system. In my opinion, the browser issue pales in
comparison to the egregiousness of the bootloader situation. The
browser is arguably an essential component of modern computing a
commodity product as worthy of inclusion in the OS as a text editor
or calculator. Be, too, bundles a web browser with its OS, and I'm
glad they do. Questions of how the browser is integrated are much
more interesting, since they connect to the point of whether
Microsoft's browser bundling intent was anticompetitive or not. In
BeOS, for example, it's always been possible to remove the browser
from the OS simply by dragging it to the Trash, which is very
different from the situation under Windows. But I digress. The point
is that the browser situation is easily debatable, while the
bootloader situation is far more cut-and-dried. I would wager that
few lawyers could come up with a cogent argument to describe how
Microsoft's bootloader policy is not anticompetitive in the
strictest sense of the term. After all, Microsoft is first and
foremost an operating-system vendor. Be and Microsoft were competing
on much more similar territory than were Netscape and Microsoft. But
when it came to the DOJ vs. Microsoft antitrust trial, things got
even more interesting.
DOJ Misses the Point
On request of the DOJ, Gass,e had several pre-trial
conversations with prosecuting attorney David Boies* and Assistant
Attorney General Joel Klein. Gass,e explained the bootloader
situation to them. They listened and heard. But they did not ask
Gass,e to testify on the bootloader issue. Instead, they asked
Gass,e to testify on the matter of browser integration. Gass,e
warned them that he would be a ``dangerous witness,''
since his feelings on browser integration were actually sympathetic
with Microsoft's. Gass,e wanted to testify on the bootloader issue,
where he felt the core of the case really rested. Klein and Boies
told Gass,e he could testify with focus on the ``malicious
intent'' aspect of the browser integration question, but not on
the bootloader matter. Needless to say, Gass,e declined to
participate in the rest of the case. The bootloader issue was raised
during the trial, however. Raised, but not actually addressed,
because Microsoft claimed (in a court session closed to the public
and the media) that the Windows License was a ``trade
secret.'' However, Microsoft never denied that the license
exists, and never denied that it works as I've described here. In
November of 1999, Judge Jackson released his Findings of Fact, which
legally established that Microsoft had been engaging in
anticompetitive practices. The Findings mentioned Be and BeOS in
several places. However, the only reference to the bootloader
situation was found tucked in the middle of paragraph 49, and merely
obfuscated the significance of the issue: Although the BeOS could
run an Intel-compatible PC system without Windows, it is almost
always loaded on a system along with Windows. What is more, when
these dual- loaded PC systems are turned on, Windows automatically
boots; the user must then take affirmative steps to invoke the BeOS.
While this scheme allows the BeOS to occupy a niche in the market,
it does not place the product on a trajectory to replace Windows on
a significant number of PCs. Despite the convoluted summary, Be's
stock price skyrocketed over the next few days as a result of the
BeOS mentions in Jackson's findings, eclipsing even RHAT and APPL in
trading volume. But that blip on the radar did nothing to mitigate
the real issue the greatest opportunity Be had ever had to inform
the government and the public of this stunningly obnoxious example
of anticompetitive behavior one that, in my opinion, eclipses the
browser integration issue had come and gone, leaving Be no closer to
securing those all-important bundling deals with the world's largest
PC hardware vendors. The burning question, of course, is why Boies
and Klein didn't want Gass,e to testify on the bootloader issue,
especially when it could have substantially helped their case? The
answer provided to Gass,e was that the case was by then already too
well established. Including the bootloader issue would have meant
rewriting many of the arguments and calling in a new collection of
witnesses. In other words, it wasn't convenient for the U.S.
government to get to the meat of the matter. It would have been too
much of a hassle to address Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior in
its purest form. In addition, no PC OEM was willing to testify on
bootloader issues. And why would they? The threat of losing favor
with Microsoft easily would have outweighed any potential benefit
from being able to preload the unproven Be operating system
alongside Windows on their machines. Finally, Be didn't have the
brand recognition that Netscape did; Netscape made for a much better
poster child. *Boies, by the way, did not even have e-mail as of
August 2000 the highest technology case in the land was prosecuted
by a man who could fairly be described as technologically
illiterate.
Controlling the Hardware Landscape
One might wonder, as I did, why Be did not file separate suit on
this issue. It would seem that Be's case would be extremely strong,
especially with the precedent and backing of the Findings of Fact.
In winning such a suit, Be would stand to make a pile of quick cash
and to greatly extend their public visibility. Oh, and they might
just win the opportunity to ship alongside Windows on consumer
computer hardware. But Be did not sue Microsoft, and as far as I can
tell, is not currently in the process of suing Microsoft. Why not?
First of all, a lawsuit against Microsoft would be incredibly
expensive and time consuming. Unfortunately, Be cannot currently
afford either the time or the money, not to mention the distraction
of a major lawsuit. But couldn't Be have filed suit in early 2000,
in the window that opened immediately after the Findings of Fact
were released? Yes, answers Gass,e, but Be was waiting to see what
the court's recommended remedy would be. After all, it seemed likely
at the time that Microsoft would be forced to change many of its
business practices. Why should Be have sued to accomplish what it
looked like the government was going to do anyway? So here we are in
2001, and guess what? It's still not possible to purchase a dual-
boot Win/Linux machine. Doesn't that seem kind of odd? With all of
the hype Linux has gotten, and with the technical simplicity of
shipping dual-boot machines, not a single PC OEM is shipping such a
beast. The technology marketplace is glutted with options. Vendors
use even the smallest opportunities to trumpet their differentiating
factors. Linux is free. And yet there are no commercially available
dual-boot machines on the market. Not one. The silence of the
marketplace speaks volumes. There is no other way to explain this
phenomenon other than as a repercussion of the confidential Windows
License under which every hardware vendor must do business. Last
time I checked, x86 computer hardware is supposed to be operating
system agnostic. My System Commander operator's manual tells me
there are more than 80 known operating systems capable of being
booted on x86 hardware (most of them obscure, of course). And yet,
Microsoft has managed to massively influence the course of the
supposedly OS-neutral hardware marketplace. Compaq, Dell, Hitachi,
and all the rest of them work under Microsoft's terms and
conditions. Microsoft has shaped and controlled the hardware
landscape as much as they have shaped and controlled the software
landscape. They're getting away with it. They slipped through the
DOJ trial without the bootloader issue becoming the thorn it should
have. As far as I know, the terms of the Windows OEM License have
not changed. The recommended legal remedies against Microsoft have
largely been stricken, and Microsoft is currently deflecting
attention from the real issues by agreeing to remove some icons from
the XP desktop (as if that mattered in contrast to the larger issues
at stake). Klein and Boies helped to prevent the bootloader issue
from becoming a central component of the DOJ's case. And we were
never the wiser. As a result of all this, Be's business may have
suffered in ways that will never be possible to measure. I'd go as
far as to suggest that successful bundling arrangements with large
PC vendors could easily have made the difference between the obscure
BeOS of today and what could have been a popular, user-friendly and
profitable alternative to Windows for the masses. On the other hand,
Be may have failed to gain mass acceptance even with major vendor
bundling deals. But we would have had the opportunity to
``experience what a truly competitive situation might be
like.'' In any case, the miscarriage of justice was absolute.
What we know for sure is that Microsoft treated the PC hardware
platform as if it
[[Page 27753]]
owned it, and thus hurt consumers, software developers, PC OEMs, OS
competitors, and the industry in general. That's a layman's
definition of abusing a monopoly. Jean Louis Gass,e, July 2000
Postscript:
My copy of the San Francisco Chronicle for August 17 contains an
article on the Palm purchase and includes the following extremely
interesting paragraph: Although it will cease operations, Be said
that it will retain certain rights and assets, including its cash
and cash equivalents $4.9 million as of June 30 and ``rights
to...bring certain causes of action, including under antitrust
laws.'' In other words, Be may yet opt to sue Microsoft, which
could be a very interesting case to watch. Let's just hope the media
figures out where the real antitrust issues are this time.
MTC-00026123
From: Margaret Sanchez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:03pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division, US Dept of Justice
Re: Microsoft settlement
I am writing regarding the persecution of Microsoft to let you
know how I think and feel about this dastardly affair. I resent the
government's implication that I am a helpless victim because I
choose to buy a computer with Microsoft software already loaded. I
resent the arrogance on the government's part thinking that it can
decide what is to be on my computer. This is ridiculous. That is not
the government's job. Your job is to protect the citizenry from
events such as September 11. Why aren't you persecuting that whole
affair more vigorously? Why aren't you going after Iran, Iraq? This
is how you choose to spend taxpayer money by persecuting an American
company? I cannot remember having instigated a complaint against
Microsoft, nor do I recall any other individual doing so. This whole
affair has been instigated by competitors who are unable to compete
in the free market! Failed business should not be the ones to set
the rules for the very markets in which they failed. The
government's application of the corrupt and dangerous antitrust laws
against successful businessmen is anti-American and can only result
in greater corruption in our society as businessmen find it ever
more necessary to kowtow to politicians. Microsoft and its owners
have a right to the fruits of their labor--their
property--and it is the government's job to protect this right
not take it away. The government's actions are on principle anti-
American and unconstitutional. America is a land open to all who
want to dream and work hard to see their dreams come true. If the
government throttles success based on the envy and dishonesty of the
few then there is no hope left in the world. The antitrust laws are
fraudulent and should be repealed. And by the way I love Microsoft
products and not having to load software and not having to pay for a
browser!
Sincerely,
Margaret and Evencio Sanchez
CC:Margaret Sanchez,Richard Winkler
MTC-00026124
From: Lemon, Michael A
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/26/02 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Please don't trust AOL,s word ! Aol is the evil one not
Microsoft.AOL destructive software has personally caused me $700.00
damage to my computer and software.
I loaded a game and later found that AOL's software loaded with
it.When i tried tried to remove it corrupted my software and locked
up my computer.Like a worm virus it interlocked in my programs,when
i tried to remove it it ripped parts of my programs
apart. My harddrive,memory,audio card,modem had to be replaced.I
had to upgrade to the new operating system and scrap the old one all
because of AOL.Two other people at work have had the exact same
thing happen.
Microsoft provides an excellent product with extra features that
help the customer.The computer tech told me to NEVER load anything
with AOL on it.He said it innertwines itself like a virus into your
computer. I believe that the Government should sue AOL for all the
damage they have done.I am out $700.00. Michael
MTC-00026125
From: lherman
To: ``[email protected]''
Date: 1/26/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lawrence Herman
7 Seneca Drive ??Chappaqua, NY 10514 ? (914) 238-8565
Saturday, 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 to express my hope that you will see your way
clear to expediting the settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case.
This case has seen more than three years of litigation, appeal,
mediation and controversy. A fair and functional settlement plan has
been reached by the parties and accepted by the court. It's time to
end this matter and let Microsoft get back to work. The plan itself
would force Microsoft to alter its business practices in a manner
that will encourage competition in the IT field. Its Windows systems
will be made accessible to other software manufacturers''
software. New Windows systems will be developed specifically so as
to open them up to exploitation by the company's competitors. An
oversight committee will be established to make sure Microsoft no
longer engages in anti-competitive practices. In brief the
``old'' so-called predatory Microsoft will no longer
exist. There is no present need to divide up this great and
inventive company. And, there is no logical need to delay the
implementation of this plan.
Sincerely,
Lawrence Herman
MTC-00026126
From: Paganini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
11340 Saddlewood Lane
Concord Township, OH 44077-8937
January 26, 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 an
agreement ending the three-year long antitrust case brought against
Microsoft. I think this settlement is fair and should stand. The two
parties fought it out, worked out an agreement, and it is not for
people outside to second-guess these decisions. In my view,
Microsoft has been chastened and has agreed to open up their company
to competition. Microsoft has agreed to allow third party developers
more of its copyrighted material to aid in development of third
party programs; Microsoft has agreed to a three person technical
committee to monitor future actions; Microsoft has agreed to
document and disclose for use by its competitors various interfaces
that are internal to Windows'' operating system
products--a first in an antitrust settlement. It seems to me
that all this is more than fair to the competition and it is time we
put this matter to rest.
I urge you to give your support to this agreement.
Sincerely, John Paganini
MTC-00026127
From: Richard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:06pm
Subject: Justice for MicroSoft
MicroSoft is a cancer on the technological innovation machine. I
am a Silicon Valley entrepeneur and have watched other companies
develop new technologies only to see MicroSoft absorb it into its
OS. Sure the consumer doesn't care, just like the citizen that buys
stolen goods from murky sources doesn't care. The giant hairball
from Redmond must be stopped before they kill the innovative spirit
of the technology sector.
MTC-00026128
From: Marc (038) Karen Jacobson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:06pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft settlement
I am opposed to the current settlement as outlined currently.
Microsoft is not a benign monopoly. They use their clout to drive
out competition. The control of the source code for their operating
system, and the rules and regulations in place to developers, gives
Microsoft prior knowledge of cutting edge technology whic they can
and do use to curtail competition. I strongly belive Microsoft must
be punished along the outline originally set forth by Judge Jackson.
Sincerely,
Marc S Jacobson
Whittier, California
MTC-00026129
From: Rodney M. Jokerst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 27754]]
I truly fear the day when I will have to pay MICROSOFT a monthly
subscription just to use the internet. The way things are going now,
all internet providers will soon require you to use microsoft
products just to log in. Once they own the internet it will be
practically impossible for anyone to take it back. I use microsoft
products only when I absolutely have to. The primary reason that
this is required is because they have closed standards so noone can
create a word processor that reads word file correctly for example.
If they were made to publish in FULL the specs for applications such
as Microsoft Office I would have no reason to complain. I have no
problem with the whole world standardizing on one document format. I
do have a problem with the company not allowing anyone to compete
with them by creating a competing product that uses this document
format. The internet was created with open standars so that business
with different interests could create compatible products yet still
compete with eachother. It is painfully obvious that Microsoft has a
stanglehold monopoly in the operating systems business. Please do
SOMETHING about it...please? I belive that forcing them to open up
their API's would be the best solution to this problem...allowing
competitors to at least have a fair chance to create a competent
product.
thanks
rod
MTC-00026130
From: Colin Pritchard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement against Microsoft is a bad idea. It is
nowhere near enough of a penalty for the wrongs they have committed
against their competitors. A stiffer series of penalties must be
implemented to insure a healthy, competitive environment for all.
MTC-00026131
From: Craig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge,
Though I am a huge believer in free markets, I do not believe
the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) is a the best solution. Microsoft
is a wonderful company staffed by wonderful people, but they are
guilty of some very grave anti-competitive violations. Moreover, the
PFJ does not provide an effective enforcement mechanism for its
remedies
MTC-00026132
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This has gone on long enough. The lawyers are the only people
who stand to benefit from continuance of this suit. There will be no
consumer benefit and possible consumer and economic harm to letting
this continue.
Stop the insanity! Let's get on with our lives.
MTC-00026133
From: Barbara L Black
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:10pm
Subject: RE: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Atty. General Ashcroft: I am writing to protest any further
litigation against Microsoft. The settlement offered is more than
fair and the time and moneys of the AGO's office is better spent on
REAL problems that affect the lives of the American peoples.
Barbara Black--14515 Granite Valley, #332C-Sun CIty
West, AZ 85375
MTC-00026134
From: Shelly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Senators Specter and Santorum,
I am writing today to voice my opinion on the Microsoft
antitrust case. This case has been going on far too long and further
litigation will only stall our economy and the IT industry, which is
clearly the last thing we need. The Federal Government should focus
their efforts to more pertinent matters. My husband worked in the
steel industry for 37 years, expecting to still be working. His
company closed , he was forced into retirement and now is in
jeopardy of losing his pension. We don't know what we are going to
do. We were looking to the government for help. Shouldn't the
government try to help companies instead of trying to destroy them?
Microsoft has done more for this economy in the last decade than
anyone or anything else. I urge you to please do your best to put a
stop to any further litigation and advance the current settlement
that is in place. Don't let happen to Microsoft what happened to the
steel industry. This settlement will benefit the economy and the
technology industry. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Michelle Salem Petroci
MTC-00026135
From: Arthur Laube
To: Microsoft ATR,Paul
Date: 1/26/02 2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a user of MS Windows and with no other vested interest I
believe Microsoft did us--the users- a great service in the way
they offered their products from their inception until present. We
needed a turnkey computer. Press the button and go--and we came
very close to getting that only because of the way MS bundled their
products with the major supplier of computer hardware. The industry
would be many years back if the Justice Department could have
prevented MS from their initial marketing efforts. Now that MS is
successful their competitors, managed by cry-babies, are screaming
foul. Pfooie on them. I bought Netscape, but after several versions
I gave up on them and went to MS Explorer and Outlook Express. As
for AOL--I was online early with them--they are such a
farce. I left them years ago. This is a very huge, immature
market--let the market determine the winner and losers. No one
is going to monopolize this market. Not ever. Look at the grand old
man--Big Blue. At one time such a threat that the Justice
Department took them on--but eventually dropped the suit. Their
customers took care of their arrogance. They almost went belly-
up--but they brought in a marketing man--and he asked
their customers a question that Big Blue had never thought of,
``What can we do for you? What is it you want from us?''
The Justice Department would never have resolved the IBM problem of
size. But their own customers chastised them until they reformed.
The Justice Department started this MS mess--they should step
in and settle it--and make sure that the states settle.
Arthur H. Laube 23 Clover Drive Chapel Hill, NC. 27514
919-967-5484
MTC-00026136
From: wt.catch1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:10pm
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,
Robert Lemert
5154 Merrill
Riverside, CA 92504
MTC-00026137
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:12pm
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 27755]]
Sincerely,
Lawrence D. Meshkin
950 N. Balsam Circle
Wasilla, AK 99654-5552
MTC-00026138
From: Ruth Vanderpool
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am sure that you have read many e-mails complaining about the
unethical behavior of Microsoft and while I believe that is true I
thought it might scare you into thinking correcting Microsoft's
behavior might in fact just be the revenge of a few. Granted the
government is allowed to charge for past wrongs and thereby provide
a financial incentive to correct the behavior, but I believe
Microsoft is guilty of something much more concrete that is not in
need of retribution but correction. This being monopolistic
behavior. Having heard a mixture of these ideas the courts have come
up with a settlement, but this settlement does little to correct the
negative behavior that Microsoft is able to do in our economy.
If you recall from basic economic, monopolies operating in a
free market are both inefficient and wasteful. It has been shown
that while Microsoft is not a pure monopoly it does control a large
enough percentage of the market to act that way. The only way of
changing this is to allow entry into the market by other
competitors, this settlement does not encourage that. In fact the
language seems to do little more then provide Microsoft with
loopholes in which to escape from. I don't have the time to point
out each of these cases but a lot of my views have been reflected in
the group letter on-line at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html.
Thank you for listening and I hope this will encourage you to create
a stronger settlement that will be more effective.
Ruth Vanderpool
14220 Pacific Ave S Apt L
Tacoma Wa. 98444
MTC-00026139
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:14pm
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,
Marie H. Meshkin
950 N. Balsam Circle
Wasilla, AK 99654-5552
MTC-00026140
From: MichaelRobinett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:16pm
Subject: MICROSOFT CASE
1. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THE REASON FOR THE GOVERNMENT'S
ORIGINAL ACTIONS AGAINST MICROSOFT WERE PRIMARILY FOR THE INTERESTS
OF ``CONSUMER PROTECTION'' AND I CAN APPRECIATE THE INTENT
OF THE ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING THE VARIOUS STATES AND THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IN THAT RESPECT.
2. THE GOVERNMENT RESTRICTIONS ON PROHIBITED CONDUCT IN SECTION
111. APPEAR TO BE FAIR MINDED AND CERTAINLY IN THE SPIRIT OF THE
ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE SHERMAN ACT, NOTING THAT NOTHING IN THE
PROVISIONS PROHIBIT MICROSOFT FROM PROTECTING ITS OWN INTELLECTUAL
AND BUSINES PROPERTIES.
3. FAIR PRICING STRUCTURES SEEM TO BE A LEGITIMATE AREA OF
CONCERN UNDER ANY SHERMAN ACT PROCEEDING.
4. IT SEEMS HOWEVER THAT MICROSOFT HAS CONSISTENTLY ALLOWED END
USER ACCESS TO BOTH MICROSOFT AND NON-MICROSOFT MIDDLEWARE AND
PROGRAMS FOR BOTH SIMPLE MODIFICATIONS OR REMOVAL SINCE THE 3.1
WINDOWS OPERATING SYSTEM TO THE PRESENT. SO IT SEEMS THE
REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION H STARTING WITH THE WINDOWS XP RELEASE ARE A
SOMEWHAT MOOT POINT. WHY REQUIRE MICROSOFT TO DO SOMETHING THEY'VE
BEEN DOING SINCE WINDOWS 3.1 THROUGH MILLENIUM?
5. UNDER SECTION H.3., MICROSOFT HAS CONSISTENLY ALLOWED NON-
MICROSOFT PRODUCTS TO DETERMINE THEIR OWN CONFIGURATION OF WINDOW
& ICON DISPLAY, SOMETIMES MUCH TO MY CHAGRIN WHEN THE NON-
MICROSOFT PRODUCTS INSISTED ON JUMPING ON TOP OF THE NORMAL
OPERATING SYSTEM DISPLAYS, OR ALLOWING OUTSIDE INTRUDER ACCESS TO
THE PROGRAMS THEMSELVES IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO OBSTRUCT THE CONTENT
OF WHAT THE END USER WAS ATTEMPTING TO PRODUCE, OR BLOCK PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS ALTOGETHER. IN SUCH CASES I PERSONALLY SWITCHED BACK TO
THE MIDDLEWARE NATIVE TO THE MICROSOFT OPERATING SYSTEM. IN MY OWN
OPINION, MOST MICROSOFT PRODUCTS ARE ENGINEERED OR CRAFTED IN SUCH A
MANNER TO PROTECT BOTH THE OPERATING SYSTEM ITSELF, AND THE END
USER'S ACTIVITIES, WITH THE INTENTION OF CREATING A LOYAL CUSTOMER
BASE, AND ULTIMATELY SELLING MORE PRODUCTS. IT SEEMS THE BASIC
UNDERLYING ECONOMIC MOTIVE IS BOTH NON-MONOPOLISTIC IN NATURE, AND
TO THE BENEFIT OF THE END USER AS CONSUMER.
6. IF MY MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECTLY, THE ORIGINAL ANTI-TRUST
FILINGS COINCIDED WITH THE FREE RELEASE OF THE INTERNET EXPLORER
BROWSER, WHICH WAS INTERPRETED BY THE ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING THE
VARIOUS STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS BEING MONOPOLISTIC IN
NATURE AND UNDERCUTTING COMPETITORS. FROM THE END USER OR CONSUMER
STANDPOINT HOWEVER, IT HAD THE OPPOSITE EFFECT. IT WAS THE FIRST
SIMPLE AND ACCESSILBE RELEASE OF HTML SOURCE CODE IN MY EXPERIENCE
AND WAS THE MODERN EQUIVALENT OF THE FIRST RELEASE OF THE GUTENBERG
PRINTING PRESS. WHILE COMPETITORS PRODUCTS ALLOWED VIEWING OF HTML
SOURCE CODE, THEY WERE NOT AS EASILY USED IN PRODUCTION OF WEBPAGES,
OR HTML FORMAT DOCUMENTS AS THE MICROSOFT PRODUCT WAS. WHILE THIS
CERTAINLY IS NOT THE SAME AS RELEASING SOURCE CODE FOR COMMERCIALLY
LICENSED PRODUCTS, WHICH THE GOVERMENT IS NOT REQUIRING, IT HAD THE
EFFECT OF INCREASING THE FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION OF ALL KINDS IN
THE MODERN SOCIETY OF THE INFORMATION AGE. FROM A PERSONAL
PERSPECTIVE, THE MAIN EFFECT, IF NOT THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S CASE AGAINST MICROSOFT, WAS TO BASICALLY BLOCK THIS
FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION ITSELF. MICROSOFT HAD ALLOWED WIDESPREAD
ACCESS TO BOTH PRIVATE AND PUBLIC INFORMATION SOURCES THROUGH ITS
PRODUCTS, AND HAD ``DEMOCRATIZED'' THE PRODUCTION OF
INFORMATION ITSELF, ALLOWING MULTIPLE VIEWPOINTS TO EASILY BE
PUBLISHED VIA THE INTERNET. THE COURSE OF EVENTS SINCE THE
GOVERNMENT'S ORIGINAL ANTI-TRUST ACT FILINGS HAS SEEN A SERIOUS
REDUCTION IN THE FLOW OF INFORMATION OF ALL TYPES, AND SERIOUS
IMPEDIMENTS TO BOTH THE PRODUCTION AND PUBLICATION OF THE SAME.
INSTEAD OF INCREASING THE FLOW OF INFORMATION IN A FREE SOCIETY, THE
SAME TIME PERIOD HAS SEEN DEVELOPMENTS OF NEW GOVERNMENT
TECHNOLOGIES MEANT TO DO EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. IN FACT IT'S GETTING
TO THE POINT WHERE ONE IS NOT SURE THEY'RE ACTUALLY GETTING A
MICROSOFT PRODUCT SOMETIMES, OR SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN ENGINEERED
BY ANOTHER BRANCH OF THE PLAINTIFF'S IN THE SUIT, TO DISGUISE ITSELF
AS ONE, WHILE PLACING ANOTHER VERSION OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
FROM SECTION 7 ON THE HOME OR OFFICE COMPUTERS OF THE END USERS OR
CONSUMERS.
(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
[[Page 27756]]
access to available office space, telephone, and other office
support facilities at any other Microsoft facility identified by the
TC.)
IN A SENSE, THE END USER OR CONSUMER IS BEING SUBJECTED TO THE
SAME TYPE OF TECHNICAL OVERSIGHT BY ``COUNTERFEIT''
PROGRAMS WHICH HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN CLEVERLY ALTERED BY THE
``PLAINTIFF'S'' THEMSELVES IN THE SENSE THAT OTHER
BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT HAVE REQUIRED BOTH THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
INDUSTRY AND ISP PROVIDERS TO PROVIDE INCREASED SURVEILLANCE
CAPACITY. IN A TWO PARTY POLITICAL SYSTEM, THAT CAN SOMETIMES HAVE
THE UNUSUAL EFFECT OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS IN CONTROL OF SEVERAL
TRILLION DOLLARS IN GOVERMENT FUNDS AND RESOURCES, ACTUALLY ACTING
IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT THEMSELVES FOR FOUR YEAR PERIODS. IN
CONCLUSION, IT DOESN'T SEEM THAT MICROSOFT HAS ACTED IN A MANNER
DETRIMENTAL TO THE END USERS OR CONSUMERS THEMSELVES. IF ANYTHING,
IT ACTED IN A MANNER WHICH ALLOWED END USERS INCREASED ACCESS TO
POLITICAL INFORMATION, BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES, AND PERSONAL
EXPRESSION.
RESPECTFULLY,
MICHAEL ROBINETT
MTC-00026141
From: David Ragaini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:18pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
To Whom It May Concern;
I find it tragically ironic that, at the same time the American
government is waging war against an unspeakable evil--radical
Islamic terrorists, it is seeking to undermine one of the great
forces for good the world has ever seen: the Microsoft Corporation.
Microsoft has benefited millions upon millions of people in its 27
years of existence. It has brought the world and knowledge of it to
their doorstep. And it has done this without resorting to force;
indeed, any privately owned company must accede to the demands of
the marketplace (Only government-owned monopolies have the power to
force their product upon the populace).
I strongly urge that the government's anti-trust case against
Microsoft be dropped. It would be a monstrous miscarriage of justice
for such a phenomenal agent for good to be punished solely BECAUSE
it is good. Microsoft's products have fairly and honestly beaten
those of its competitors. The force of our government must be used
to fight evil, as it is now doing in Afghanistan; it must never be
used to shackle honest, beneficial companies like Microsoft.
Sincerely,
David Ragaini
264 Eagleton Estates Blvd.
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418
MTC-00026142
From: PC (pcsbs)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly support the acceptance of the current settlement
between the DOJ and Microsoft. The DOJ and many states''
Attorney General have, in my opinion, been unfair and extreme in
their targeting of Microsoft in pursuit of political goals. I work
in the technology industry. I use products of Microsoft's
competitors as well as Microsoft. I will use the product that I feel
is the best for what I want to accomplish. Microsoft has been
innovative with it's products and has marketed them with business
savvy. It is unfair to allow it's whining competitors to use the
government to stymie competition and artificially alter the effects
of the free market. The settlement currently being considered is FAR
MORE than fair in righting any technical errors made on the part of
Microsoft. For the sake of the US economy and the welfare of
innovation and our economic viability and sovereignty in the world,
this harassment must stop.
Regards,
PC
Phil Cagle
Irvine, California
MTC-00026143
From: Dennis Austin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam:
This email is to express my approval for the proposed settlement
of the Microsoft anti-trust action. The settlement has been agreed
to by Microsoft, the Department of Justice, and nine of the states
pursuing a case. It is important that this settlement be approved
and the energies of all involved moved on to new challenges.
--Dennis Austin (private citizen)
MTC-00026144
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen. Please put a stop to this
travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bailey Norfleet
3825 Old Dover Road N
Woodlawn, TN 37191-9046
MTC-00026145
From: J. Haugh
To: microsoft settlement
Date: 1/26/02 2:30pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
This caving into the several states involved in the microsoft
dispute will only discourage new entrepreneures. Leave microsoft
alone, I can only commend him, Bill Gates, for his genius.
J.M.S.Haugh
MTC-00026146
From: Rick Wong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom who may concern,
I would like to express my opposition of the proposed Microsoft
Antitrust Settlement in its current form. Based on previous court
rulings, it clear that Microsoft had violated antitrust laws and has
been continuing to do so. The current proposed settlement not only
fails to punish Microsoft's wrongdoing, but also provides Microsoft
further its monopoly and antitrust practice. I wish the court would
carefully review the case and place put a penalty that is fair for
the consumers and industry suffered by the Microsoft monopoly
practice.
Sincerely,
Rick K. Wong
California
MTC-00026147
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: The Honourable Renata B. Hesse:
Judge of the Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
[email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Madam Justice Hesse,
I am not pleased with the settlement proposed between the DOJ
and Microsoft. Microsoft claims that the consumer was not harmed by
their actions. I disagree. At one time I had a choice about the
Operating System that came with my computer. I also could choose the
Word Processor, Spreadsheet and Database applications. I chose to
use IBM's OS/2 operating system and Lotus SmartSuite for OS/2.
Because of Microsoft's monopolistic practices, my choices have been,
for all practical purposes, been reduced to Microsoft OS's and
Microsoft applications (Microsoft Office). Most major OEM's preload
these on any new computer that I buy. I will have to pay extra to
get something else. Because of Microsoft's monopolistic practices,
my investments of time and money in OS/2 based products have been
rendered to zero value---a loss that has been unfairly placed
upon me.
As shown in the ``Findings of Fact'', Sections 115
thru 132, ``In sum, from 1994 to 1997 Microsoft consistently
pressured IBM to reduce its support for software products that
competed with Microsoft's offerings, and it used its monopoly power
in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems to punish
IBM for its refusal to cooperate. Whereas, in the case of Netscape,
Microsoft tried to induce a company to move its business away from
offering software that
[[Page 27757]]
could weaken the applications barrier to entry, Microsoft's primary
concern with IBM was to reduce the firm's support for software
products that competed directly with Microsoft's most profitable
products, namely Windows and Office''. I and many others had
chosen to use OS/2 and Lotus SmartSuite for OS/2. We did this for
very good reasons, especially OS/2's technically superior design.
(See Note at end of letter). Not only did Microsoft cause IBM to
cease marketing these products, Microsoft caused IBM to cease using
these products in their own offices. How can you sell a product that
you don't use yourself? (See ``Findings of Fact'', Sec.
118: ``Specifically, the PC Company would receive an $8
reduction in the per-copy royalty for Windows 95 if it mentioned no
other operating systems in advertisements for IBM PCs, adopted
Windows 95 as the standard operating system for its employees, and
ensured that it was shipping Windows 95 pre-installed on at least
fifty percent of its PCs two months after the release of Windows
95''. The ``Findings of Facts'', Sec. 116 tells us
``When IBM refused to abate the promotion of those of its own
products that competed with Windows and Office, Microsoft punished
the IBM PC Company with higher prices, a late license for Windows
95, and the withholding of technical and marketing support''.
I do not think a fair settlement can be reached until Microsoft
makes right the harm done to me and many others. Today, we have to
accept Microsoft's poor quality products. Where is Word Perfect and
Lotus SmartSuite today? Microsoft has caused to exist an environment
in which they control the profitability of competing products. If a
company can't get their product pre-installed on a new computer, it
can't afford to develop it. And Microsoft makes sure that it's
products run better on it's operating systems by denying competitors
information (API's) necessary to build competitive products.
Recently there has come forth increased concern that the proposed
settlement contained many loopholes and exceptions. Serious
questions have been raised about the scope, enforceability and
effectiveness of the proposed settlement. Please reconsider the
current settlement terms so that competitors have a more even
playing field in which to compete with Microsoft. This is the only
way that I, as a consumer, can choose what software and operating
systems are best for me without having to be, at the very least,
penalized by much higher costs and being worried abnormally about
the survivability of products that compete with Microsoft.
Note concerning the design of OS/2 versus Windows: From an
article entitled ``The Big Blue-Redmond Connection'' by
Diane Gartner in IQ Newsletter--Issue #7, January 2000
found at: http://209.0.210.17/IQN/7-2000jan/iqn7-Blue-
Redmond--Connexion.html ``Big Blue's OS/2 team had
discovered that the Microsoft approach of placing the Graphic Device
Interface (GDI) plus the Graphic User Interface (GUI) into the
kernal was a disastrous mistake that led to instability: any little
application ``bug'' or glitch that would affect the
interface also could affect the underlying OS and bring it down to a
crash. Microsoft was informed of this danger by IBM, but insisted
that their approach gave an important benefit of speed by allowing
applications to access the kernal directly--yes, even if it
were at the cost of stability. The IBM programmers maintained that
such instability was needless, and the crash could be easily
prevented; their solution was to separate and protect the OS/2
kernal, without having to sacrifice any speed whatsoever. In fact,
IBM independently made that very simple but crucial design
improvement, among other innovations, which together have lent
stability as well as power to OS/2 ever since the days of version
1.30''. ``But how did Microsoft react? For reasons we may
never be able to fathom, they balked at the very notion of
correcting the design error. Whether it was due to obstinacy, vanity
or perhaps envy toward IBM's OS/2 programmers, Microsoft's decision
was to leave the programming flaw where it was, and ultimately, to
leave the team''. ``Version numbering aside, the changes
made by Microsoft to NT did not include the architectural
improvements made by IBM to OS/2. Instead of removing the GDI and
GUI from the kernal to keep it clean ``n'' lean like OS/
2's, Microsoft actually added more code to the kernal of NT. The
ever-increasing bloat has not done NT a bit of good. Instability
still occurs today in NT versions 3.5x and 4.x and presumably in
Windows 2000. The design flaw is now often referred to as a Ring 0
crash, because that spot is where the GDI and GUI are intertwined in
NT. Many application programming errors are made in that area
because Microsoft neglects to provide third-party developers with
essential information on how to avoid the problem''.
Sincerely,
James P. Stein
324 Mt. Royal Blvd.
Pittsburgh, PA 15223-1220
Phone: 412-781-3467
MTC-00026148
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:33pm
Subject: settlement Enough already.
Where have you been while Enron was running amuck? But then they
made major political contributions while Microsoft was just
inventing a better mousetrap.
MTC-00026149
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please stop this case from going further there is nothing to be
gained, the Government on behalf of the Public made fair and
equitable settlement. And should be accepted by all States. The Nine
States holding should not supersede the will of the 41 States that
have accepted the settlement. The majority deserves to be served. IF
THIS GOES FURTHER THE BATTLE MAY BE WON BUT THE WAR WILL BE LOST!
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO READ THIS! Joseph Paoletti
MTC-00026151
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The sooner this is settled the better. Let all those DOJ lawyers
work on something more important: Enron & Arthur Anderson.
MTC-00026152
From: Joe Hartmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:38pm
Subject: Microsoft case comments
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
I am a retired aerospace engineer with a 27 year old daughter
and a 20 year old son living at home. Both of my children are heavy
computer users and we have 4 computers in our home. We use Microsoft
and other programs and we have never felt being cheated or
overpriced by any Microsoft products. I feel that Oracle, Sun
Microsystems and AOL (who are monopolists themselves in certain
areas) are jealous of Microsoft and their products that are better
than theirs and are trying to hurt Microsoft any way they can. I
also believe that Microsoft, more than any other company, helped the
U.S. economy become the world leader and do not understand why our
government and especially the remaining 9 states want to cripple
Microsoft and hurt our economy more. They are not protecting us
consumers. I am very happy with all the free bundled programs from
Microsoft that I, as a consumer, would have to pay a lot of money
for. In my opinion, they are hurting us. Please settle this case
favorably for us consumers and Microsoft.
MTC-00026153
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The time has come for the Justice Department to end it's
expensive and damaging legal action against Microsoft which is not
against just one company, but rather an entire industry. The action
taken earlier was justified but it has served it's purpose. Further
delay is not justified and will serve only to injure those many
medium and smaller companies who depend upon Microsoft products.
Please complete this legal action for the benefit of all.
Lewis B. Stuart
MTC-00026154
From: Judah Phillips
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ,
Bad iDEA!
MTC-00026155
From: Bill Bondurant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:40pm
Subject: No subject was specified.
I am an 82 year old graduate from Northeast Missouri State
University(1940)Now Truman State University located in Kirksville,
Missouri. My major was Economics and I remember well studying about
Anti-Trust laws. I cannot believe what the current administration is
trying to do in the case of Microsofts
[[Page 27758]]
violation of the Anti-Trust laws. It is very apparent to most
everyone I talk to that people realize what Microsoft is trying to
do and that the Judge who determined that they are in violation of
Anti-Trust laws of the United States was right. And the offer of
Microsoft to furnish millions of refurbished computers loaded with
Microsoft software is just a contiuance of their attempt to
monopolize the computer software market. I have been using a
computer for about six years, starting on an Apple II that my son
gave me, but 6 months later purchased an Apple Peforma and a year
ago moved up to an Apple iMac. I realize that 95 percent of
computers use Microsoft programs but that is no reason to allow them
monopolize the market in violation of the law.
Sincerely, Bill Bondurant, 1709 South Lewis, Kirksville, MO
63501
MTC-00026156
From: Shelly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Senator Santorum,
I am writing to let you know my views on the Microsoft
settlement. First and foremost, this case has been in litigation for
far too many years now. Secondly, this lawsuit should not have
concerned the federal government, since no laws have been broken.
Settlements have been reached in various states, all of which have
involved appropriate concessions, including more information sharing
and changes in Microsoft's business practices. I have firsthand
experience with big business. I previously worked in the steel
industry, and due to government intervention and regulation, I
permanently lost the only job I knew. I wish the lawmakers would try
to understand what that is like. Pennsylvania's steel industry will
never be the same and it's too late to change that. I urge you to
please do your best to see that this does not happen to Microsoft.
Our nation's IT industry depends on companies such as Microsoft and
our economy also depends on the IT industry. I strongly suggest that
it is in the best interest of everyone to discontinue these lawsuits
so our economy can return to a sense of normalcy. Thank you for your
consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
John J. Petroci Jr.
MTC-00026157
From: Geoffrey Feldman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
If this settlement forces Microsoft to change their business
practice further than they have, then the consumer will suffer and I
will suffer. This case should never have been tried, never admitted
to court and never gone as far as it has. It has harmed a company
and by extension has harmed my software development business. I am
not paid by Microsoft but my customers purchase products from them.
I have already been harmed by the absurd and groundless pursuit by
the Clinton Justice department of this important American asset. I
do not believe that it is possible for any software company to be a
monopoly since their product, computer software, is simply ideas in
a form of speech logical enough to work in a computer. This pursuit
of a software company, alleging monopoly, violates my freedom of
speech as a computer programmer and harms me in the practice of my
consulting business. Please, do not supress the honest and
aggressive competition to make life easier for Microsofts
competitors who arguably fail through lack of competence and not
lack of opportunity. Impose the most minimal penalty possible on
Microsoft and get this farce over with.
Geoffrey Feldman
1541 Middlesex St. #8
Lowell, MA 01851
617-429-8966
MTC-00026158
From: Benjamin Dixon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think Dan Kegel's petition says it best so I won't reiterate
all that here. However I will say the Microsoft Settlement is
ineffective and will ultimately allow Microsoft to run its business
as it always has. Benjamin Dixon
MTC-00026159
From: Dan Derby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel I've been victimized by Microsoft's monopolistic
practices, not only in paying more than a product is worth, but also
in seeing the entire computer OS platform I use become ineffective.
I purchased MS Office when it was only offered for the Mac (version
3) and was satisfied with the product. However, after MS launched
Windows, the next upgrade to Office (Version 4) didn't work as
advertised, and interfered with Mac operating system--causing
countless crashes (I believe MS Office Manager never worked and was
never fixed). This sudden ``breaking'' of a product
originally designed for the Mac but continued to work well on their
new Windows OS, implies the company did it damage Apple. Beside
defrauding me out of $600, the failure of this program suite to work
properly on the Mac, I believe, drove the Mac out of the business
and government environments. This loss of market caused my
investment in Apple products to become less effective as well. I
also believe Apple was unable to protest for fear of further losing
MS productivity suite support. While I sincerely feel this is an
obvious example of MS's unethical and probably illegal practices.
I'm also convinced the proposed settlement gives MS a boost in the
education market, again at Apples expense. I have a much simpler
settlement: Enforce the government's policy of not allowing sole
source purchases. Simply limit MS's total share of any one type of
software suite (OS, Web browser, productivity apps, etc) to less
than 50% of US government purchases. In fact the US government
should never allow any company to control more than 50% of any
commonly used software genre owned by the government. WHY AREN'T
SOLE SOURCE RULES APPLIED TO MICROSOFT? CAN THE GOVERNMENT DEFEND IT
PURCHASING PATTERNS in light of the court ruling?
Dan Derby
MTC-00026160
From: Joyce Clarke
To: microsoft.atr
Date: 1/26/02 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I disagree with the terms of the proposed Microsoft settlement.
As far as I can tell it will change nothing. Microsoft will continue
to have the monopoly's stranglehold on operating system, software
and in many cases, hardware. Microsoft should be treated exactly as
were ATT and IBM-- split into separate companies with none
having control over or connection with the other.
Joyce
Joyce Clarke
http://jc-clarke.usana.com
MTC-00026161
From: Bob Dunlap
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This settlement is ridiculous. Microsoft has done untold damage
to many competitors with their predatory business practices. This
has been proved in court. Their punishment should be more than a
wrist slap. It should put them in a position where they can no
longer conduct business in this unfair manner.
Microsoft also has disregard for their customers. Since they
have the only viable operating system, Windows, they can set the
price where they want and provide little or no support after the
product is in the marketplace. Look at how the prices of other
elements of the PC have dropped drastically, while the price of
Windows has stayed the same or increased. And if you have a computer
of your own with Windows, you must be aware of the instability of
the product. When you call Microsoft for help, they charge
exhorbitant fees to resolve problems in their product. There is no
warranty!
Periodically, on their own schedule, and with no regard for the
needs of their customers, Microsoft will provide an update for
Windows via download from their website. This is fine for those of
us who have internet access, but the quality of these updates is
poor. I have tried installing them and seen my system stability go
from bad to worse.
In my view, Microsoft is an arrogant, greedy corporation. Their
goal is to squash all competition so they don't have to provide
their customers with excellent service. They have no regard for the
law or for the courts. They need to receive a strong message that we
won't tolerate this type of business conduct!
Sincerely,
Robert A Dunlap
MTC-00026162
From: Dan Derby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 27759]]
I feel I've been victimized by Microsoft's monopolistic
practices, not only in paying more than a product is worth, but also
in seeing the entire computer OS platform I use become ineffective.
I purchased MS Office when it was only offered for the Mac (version
3) and was satisfied with the product. However, after MS launched
Windows, the next upgrade to Office (Version 4) didn't work as
advertised, and interfered with Mac operating system--causing
countless crashes (I believe MS Office Manager never worked and was
never fixed). This sudden ``breaking'' of a product
originally designed for the Mac but continued to work well on their
new Windows OS, implies the company did it damage Apple.
Beside defrauding me out of $600, the failure of this program
suite to work properly on the Mac, I believe, drove the Mac out of
the business and government environments. This loss of market caused
my investment in Apple products to become less effective as well. I
also believe Apple was unable to protest for fear of further losing
MS productivity suite support.
While I sincerely feel this is an obvious example of MS's
unethical and probably illegal practices. I'm also convinced the
proposed settlement gives MS a boost in the education market, again
at Apples expense. I have a much simpler settlement: Enforce the
government's policy of not allowing sole source purchases. Simply
limit MS's total share of any one type of software suite (OS, Web
browser, productivity apps, etc) to less than 50% of US government
purchases. In fact the US government should never allow any company
to control more than 50% of any commonly used software genre owned
by the government. WHY AREN'T SOLE SOURCE RULES APPLIED TO
MICROSOFT? CAN THE GOVERNMENT DEFEND IT PURCHASING PATTERNS in light
of the court ruling?
Dan Derby
MTC-00026164
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly support the antitrust settlement between Microsoft,
the DoJ and nine states. I believe that the terms of the settlement
are reasonable and fair to all parties. It is time to move forward.
Thank you.
Tom Lohman
4011 Winchester Loop
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
(907) 349-3229
[email protected]
MTC-00026165
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please stop any more persecution of Microsoft. Enough is enough!
Microsoft should not be disbanded. They product they provide is
fantastic value for the price. They are not endangering the end user
by bundling their software. If the consumer wants other products,
they are free to buy them. Just because Microsoft is successful at
what they do, they should not be penalized anymore than they already
have. Let the competitors improve their products, that is the fair
and American way to compete in today's world.
Joanmarie Hofmann
Wesley Chapel, Florida
MTC-00026166
From: Peter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs
The proposed settlement SUCKS!!!
Pete Matuszewski
New Orleans University Student
MTC-00026167
From: W. D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Hey Do-dos!
Your job is to break up Microsoft!
It is obvious that they only care about making piles of money
for themselves. They care nothing about the LAW or fair competition.
This proposed settlement does nothing to keep MicroSuck from
anti-competitive behavior.
The only thing Gates, Ballmer, etc. understand is a big fat
stick.
Break them up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MTC-00026168
From: Benjamin Stanley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
B.
MTC-00026169
From: Roger Zimmerman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:56pm
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am a computer professional who has used the products of many
parties surrounding the Microsoft lawsuit (Sun, Netscape, IBM, and,
of course Microsoft, among others) throughout my 20 year career. I
believe the best conclusion to this matter would be for the federal
and state governments to stop interfering in what is a perhaps
America's greatest success story--our computer industry. At the
very least, the U.S. government should honor the settlement it has
offerred thus far, and should compel all of the states to do the
same. Microsoft should be allowed to get on with its business of
making good products which serve a dire need in the marketplace.
I speak from a great deal of experience. I use computers in all
aspects of my life, from my profession as a scientific programmer,
in email communications with my friends and colleagues, and with my
three daughters, whom I guide through the use of the internet and in
a vast array of educational software. My wife has her own business
for which the our home computer is her primary means of
communication and research. In all of these pursuits, I have been
exposed to a small slice of perhaps the richest and most empowering
array of technologies the world has ever seen, or at least that have
been made available to the masses.
Many of these products are from Microsoft. By and large, I have
found their software to be accessible, understandable, and stable.
They get the job done, and their consistency of interfaces, relative
ease of use, and inter-operability are a great boon to the novice
computer users among my family and friends. But, many of the
products my family and I use are not from Microsoft. Indeed, at
eScription, I work in a small group of engineers which employs a
network of 25 Linux-based (purchased from Red Hat) computers to do
enormous amounts of computation and database management. We also
communicate with our customers and adminstrative colleages on
networks of primarily Microsoft-driven machines. These machines
interact seemlessly thanks to software and hardware from countless
American and international companies. From a consumer's perspective
it is impossible to reconcile this panoply of offerrings with any
characterization of ``monopoly''. There is virtually no
barrier to obtaining software products from absolutely anyone who
produces them. It insults my intelligence to have the government
name me as a ``victim'' of this situation.
The more important point, however, is not the impact of the case
against Microsoft on consumers. It is its impact on producers. What
kind of a country do we want to live in? Do we want success to be
punished or rewarded? Do we want property rights to be protected or
infringed? Do we want our corporations to run to the government if
they see a better competitor achieving success by providing what
consumers want? I submit that the answer to these questions is: we
want freedom. The freedom to innovate, to succeed (and sometimes
even fail), and yes, the freedom to make our own decisions about
what we want to buy. The government can best do its job by
protecting these freedoms.
Let Microsoft be Microsoft!
Sincerely,
Roger S. Zimmerman 32 Hastings Street Wellesley, MA 02481
[email protected] [email protected]
(781)235-1939
MTC-00026170
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 2:56pm
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
[[Page 27760]]
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,
William Bracken
1006 East 11th St.
Lehigh Acres, FL 33972
MTC-00026171
From: Steve Parker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:06pm
Subject: sign it already
Dear DOJ:
Please put this to rest so we can all get back to business
without any more damage being inflicted upon the US public and the
US Economy! Not to mention the fact that this has had world-wide
impact!
Thanks.
A Concerned Citizen & Computer Consultant
(who does not necessarily care for Microsoft and its products)
Steve Parker
[email protected]
MTC-00026172
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:00pm
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,
Gerald Kleppinger
4219 N Elm
Spokane, WA 99205-1459
MTC-00026173
From: Jason A. Tripp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
I am an independent software developer in Northeastern North
Carolina, and I just wish to comment on the upcoming settlement
proposed in the Microsoft vs. US DOJ antitrust case. I believe there
are very many key points which your proposed settlement did not
address, but I believe one of the MAIN points to be that your
settlement does not prohibit Microsoft from unfairly modifying (or
prohibiting via licensing restrictions) programs based on the
Windows API so that they will not run on non-Microsoft operating
systems. This type of restrictive programming would force companies
to do multiple ports of their software, a costly and time-consuming
process, in order to get their software to run on multiple (and
Microsoft-competitive) operating systems. The wording of the
settlement should be changed to prohibit Microsoft from stopping
programs based on the Windows API from running on operating systems
other than Windows. After all, in my opinion most people use Windows
just because there's so much software written for it; and that
software, because of Microsoft's unfair business practices and
licensing restrictions, will not run on other OS's. Microsoft would
find itself faced with much stiffer (and more successful)
competition if it could not unfairly restrict companies which are
designing Windows API-based software in this way.
Sincerely,
Mr. Jason A. Tripp
Independent Software Developer
Edenton, NC
[email protected]
MTC-00026174
From: jovitoIII
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We feel it is past time to resolve this issue. We believe the
settlement if reasonable and fair to all parties involved. The
country needs to get past this and it time to be settled.
Thank you
Joe & Vickie Bellotti
MTC-00026175
From: Herman Kling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3'07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Herman Kling_
9 Jolly Roger
WayWaretown, New Jersey 08758
Fax:
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I write you concerning the recent Microsoft settlement, and the
fact that it may be delayed even further than it already has been.
After three years of negotiations, it seems ridiculous to hold back
this agreement. Not only was this a well thought out procedure, but
it was also well monitored.
Why waste our precious resources fighting a battle that has
already been won. The more we delay the process the more we hold
back our technology industry. This agreement was made in the
interest of all parties involved. Microsoft will share information
about the internal workings of Windows, and will be monitored by a
government oversight committee. Let us allow the terms to work for
themselves, and let our IT sector get back to work.
I urge you to support that no more action be taken against this
settlement. We need to get our technology industry back on track,
and not hold them up any longer.
Sincerely,
Herman Kling_
Fax:
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I write you concerning the recent Microsoft settlement, and the
fact that it may be delayed even further than it already has been.
After three years of negotiations, it seems ridiculous to hold back
this agreement. Not only was this a well thought out procedure, but
it was also well monitored.
Why waste our precious resources fighting a battle that has
already been won. The more we delay the process the more we hold
back our technology industry. This agreement was made in the
interest of all parties involved. Microsoft will share information
about the internal workings of Windows, and will be monitored by a
government oversight committee. Let us allow the terms to work for
themselves, and let our IT sector get back to work.
I urge you to support that no more action be taken against this
settlement. We need to get our technology industry back on track,
and not hold them up any longer.
Sincerely,
Herman Kling_
9 Jolly Roger Way
Waretown, New Jersey 08758
Fax:
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I write you concerning the recent Microsoft settlement, and the
fact that it may be delayed even further than it already has been.
After three years of negotiations, it seems ridiculous to hold back
this agreement. Not only was this a well thought out procedure, but
it was also well monitored.
Why waste our precious resources fighting a battle that has
already been won. The more we delay the process the more we hold
back our technology industry. This agreement was made in the
interest of all parties involved. Microsoft will share information
about the internal workings of Windows, and will be monitored by a
government oversight committee. Let us allow the terms to work for
themselves, and let our IT sector get back to work. I urge you to
support that no more action be taken against this settlement. We
need to get our technology industry back on track, and not hold them
up any longer.
Sincerely,
Herman Kling_
9 Jolly Roger WayWaretown, New Jersey 08758
Fax:
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John AshcroftUS Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
[[Page 27761]]
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I write you concerning the recent Microsoft settlement, and the
fact that it may be delayed even further than it already has been.
After three years of negotiations, it seems ridiculous to hold back
this agreement. Not only was this a well thought out procedure, but
it was also well monitored.
Why waste our precious resources fighting a battle that has
already been won. The more we delay the process the more we hold
back our technology industry. This agreement was made in the
interest of all parties involved. Microsoft will share information
about the internal workings of Windows, and will be monitored by a
government oversight committee. Let us allow the terms to work for
themselves, and let our IT sector get back to work.
I urge you to support that no more action be taken against this
settlement. We need to get our technology industry back on track,
and not hold them up any longer.
Sincerely,
Herman Kling
MTC-00026176
From: Mary E. Daudelin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: United States Department of Justice
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Comments
Date: Friday, January 25, 2002
To paraphrase Mr. Glassman's comments pertaining to the
Microsoft settlement, I feel that AOL could better spend its time in
further analysis of its own product (especially with regard to its
deployment overseas) rather than in continuing to pursue this case.
My own personal experience with AOL has led me to believe that full
utilization of the Internet is, in fact, restricted, when using
their application.
As a developer of WEB applications for research, business and
educational purposes, I have utilized a variety of browsers,
development tools and operating systems while producing and testing
my applications. Although I use their NT servers and take advantage
of their many development tools, such as FrontPage 2002, I have not
found that the public cannot access my applications, regardless of
their operating system and/or browser type (with the exception of an
occasional prototype). In fact, until recently, Netscape has always
been my personal choice of browser as it was the one that originally
introduced me to the Internet. And SUN's StarOffice product has
produced many graduate-school presentations for me.
Because Internet Explorer is so forgiving of my JavaScript
scripting errors, I find that I often HAVE to make myself utilize
other browsers/systems in my testing to ensure that users who do not
utilize their products/systems are not inundated with JavaScript
errors that I have overlooked in my own code. My personal belief is
that Microsoft has some damn good programmers that pay attention to
detail, and, as such, should not be penalized for their technical
excellence.
Yes, my job would be even easier if I could convince everyone on
this planet to use Microsoft OS's and browsers, IBM laptop
computers, the same size monitor and to access the Internet via
cable, however, since this attitude smacks of the old telecom
mentality (a black rotary phone for everyone, by God!), and because
we all have our different comfort levels, I will remain silent on
that subject and continue to jump back and forth between computers/
systems/browsers in my testing.
In closing, I feel that Microsoft should be used as an example
of what works in our economy (little, if any, debt and innovative,
easily accessible business solutions at a reasonable cost) and that
this case should come to immediate closure.
Sincerely,
M. E. Daudelin
iN21, Incorporated
MTC-00026177
From: Teri Bray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing this email in support of the antitrust settlement
between Microsoft, the Department of Justice and the nine states. I
feel that each of these parties has gone through extraordinary steps
to reach a settlement that meets the issues of the original claim
and corrects the issues that are addressed in this action. It would
be my hope that the court would accept this settlement and, in so
doing, help to move these parties toward being a more productive
member of the industry and society.
I am very disappointed with the continued negative stance by the
remaining states and other organizations that have continued to
press for more drastic actions against Microsoft. I do not feel that
these steps are reasonable, nor are they in the best interest for
the most important people--the consumer. I do not feel that any
of these parties have correct motives for their actions.
I feel that Microsoft has taken every step possible to meet the
needs of the consumer worldwide through its innovation and market
forecasting. I do not feel that Microsoft should be punished purely
for better forecasting and having the ability to provide a product
that meets consumer needs, while other organizations have failed in
this attempt.
While Microsoft has made mistakes in some areas, I feel that the
settlement between Microsoft, the Department of Justice and the nine
states has taken sufficient steps to correct those areas and helped
to ensure that such actions will not be repeated. I feel Microsoft
has been a leader in the technological industry and has helped to
bring the society to where it is today. Continuing these legal
actions not only stifles these organizations, but the technological
industry and society as a whole. Accepting this settlement is in the
best interest for all parties and will help to move this industry
back to one of cooperation, innovation and advancement toward the
future.
Respectfully,
Teresa J. Bray
MTC-00026178
From: Michael Drone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
26 January, 2002
Attorney General Ashcroft,
It is my fervent belief that that Microsoft should no longer be
subject to the vagaries of this antitrust suit. The U.S. system of
justice, while one of the finest in the world, has in this case been
usurped by a group of tech sector companies who are behaving no
better than a band of brigands prowling the medieval roadside. To
wit, they will gladly plunder a wealthy target to line their own
larcenous pockets.
Mercifully, Microsoft and the DOJ have reached a settlement that
can put the American people out of this case's misery. In an ideal
world, this suit whould never have been brought at all. However, in
an ideal world, I'd be romantically involved with Liv Tyler. Suffice
it to say, neither of those options are feasible at this time.
Some opponents say that the settlement lets Microsoft off the
hook with only a slap on the wrist. I have perused the settlement,
however, and can only conclude that those who deride the settlement
must be smoking some sort of powerful hallucinogenic substance.
Under this settlement, Microsoft will have to accept provisions that
would be the WWF equivalent of being on the recieving end of the
Undertaker's devastating Last Ride, Stone Cold Steve Austin's
patented Stone Cold Stunner, and the most electrifying move in
sports entertaintment--the People's Elbow, consecutively. This
is the exact antithesis of getting off easy.
This antitrust suit has been more taxing on America's patience
than the recent spate of reality-based television. I don't forsee
NBC, ABC, CBS, or FOX changing their scheduling plans anytime soon,
so the least that the country could do is end this lawsuit and
accept the settlement. Thanks to the intern of staff assistant who's
reading this for taking the time out of your day. I hope it's been
both informative and, in some small part, entertaining.
Sincerely,
Mike Drone
MTC-00026179
From: Doby Fleeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Writing both as an individual citizen, and as a businessman, I
find it particularly sad that our system of justice is being
utilized to penalize the company that more than any other has been
so much responsible for the success of the PC market and for the
dominance of the United States in the area of software applications
and to .
Tough, maybe, but Microsoft has made Windows DOS the universal
language of personal computing. That, alone, brings jobs and
prosperity to the US economy.
While the lawsuits have now succeeded in distracting Microsoft
and in allowing other operating systems such as Linux to make
inroads, it is not obvious that this is a great benefit to the
United States or our economy.
While AOL/Time Warner (is that the same Time/Warner who
dominates so much of our
[[Page 27762]]
media markets?) is now trying desperately to push other blockades in
the path of Microsoft, hopefully it will not find a willing
accomplice in the form of the United States Government.
Please stay the course and provide the impartial justice for
which your office is known.
Signed,
Grateful to be an American!
William Fleeman
44513 So. El Macero Drive
El Macero, CA 95618
MTC-00026180
From: Steve Carr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Please resolve this suit against Microsoft quickly and fairly.
Due to Microsoft's success and competitive nature, companies who
have less superior products and no marketing power are upset and
trying to make their fortunes via unfair lawsuits. Local governments
that support these companies are of course supporting them (it's
their duty) and looking for a piece of the pie.
The browser integration into Windows was not illegal and has not
hurt consumers. It's required functionality for today's technology
level just as Terminal programs were in the past. In the past when
modem dialup was becoming popular, people were required to download
modem connection programs from a dialup BBS. Since the OS didn't
initially supply this functionality, consumers were left in a
frustrating catch-22 situation. They needed dialup access to
download a terminal program, but since they didn't have a terminal
program, they didn't have dial-up access to do so. Microsoft
integrated a terminal program that was good enough for some, while
others used it to download their application of choice. If there was
not a web browser included with Windows, we'd be in the same
position. It's a required feature for today's online access. Users
are still free to download other browser software if they choose to
do so. There is choice.
The browser functionality was further integrated into the
operating system, not to kill off competitors but to gain
functionality. Why develop several technologies when one could be
used for multiple purposes. Browser software is after all just a
language interpreter. It was initially required to support HTML used
by web servers. The language became more powerful over time and
became used for more than just web server interpretation. Help files
for the OS and other applications for example could now be created
in HTML instead of using proprietary help file formats. The OS needs
functionality built in to read these help files. Non-OS help files
(applications) could only be distributed if each application was
bundled with interpretation software (browser) unless it could
assume that an interpreter was already installed on the computer.
For this to be guaranteed, it has to be built in. Browser technology
has moved beyond even web server and help file interpretation. Now
it's used to browse files and folders on the computer as well.
That's a good thing. People can customize how different directories
look and have more information available that a flat file list.
Again, good for the consumer.
There are other points brought up such as price breaks to OEMs
for bulk deals or contracts requiring exclusive application
placement to get price cuts. Is that illegal? Not to my knowledge.
Many businesses do this. If you buy a product in bulk at the grocery
store, it's cheaper. Buy two, get one free. Coupons supplied in the
newspaper each Sunday advertise purchase these two products from a
company and get a discount on this other product. It's done all the
time, it always has been, and it's not illegal.
I'm sorry to babble here, I'm just frustrated that so much time
and money is continually wasted to satisfy people that cry fowl when
they fail at something. I spilled coffee, I'm going to sue. I can't
control myself, punish everyone else and make this illegal. My
business didn't pan out because someone wrote better software than
me, I'm going to sue. Put a rest to this garbage and stop punishing
a company for their success. If you feel you need to protect others
from individual success, then propose and create new laws based on
the voters opinion; but please don't destroy a company to satisfy
sore losers.
These personal opinions are my own and should be treated as
such.
Sincerely,
Steve Carr
MTC-00026181
From: Justin Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
With Microsoft strongarming the DVD industry into using Windows
Media and already holding the patent on the ``Digital Rights
Management Operating System'', they are poised to leverage
absurd control over the standards and formats for digital media in
the near future. Given that the legal system cannot move as quickly
as the software industry, this is a very important opportunity to
prevent Microsoft's anticompetitive strategies from spreading into
new markets by producing a ruling that will firmly prevent future
monopoly and encourage competition in both established and emerging
markets.
I support stronger action than the currently proposed
settlement, and add my voice to the comments posted at http://
www.codeweavers.com/jwhite/tunneywine.html and http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html.
Thank you,
Justin D. Jones
MTC-00026183
From: Jerry (038) Annette Prioste
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please approve the antitrust settlement between Microsoft and
the Dept. of Justice and nine states. This settlement is needed to
heal the economy. My wife and I believe that the terms are more than
fair to all parties involved. The terms will greatly help the
consumer have the best products through competition while achieving
lower prices. The antitrust laws were intended to keep consumers
from paying higher prices due to monopolist practices. The antitrust
settlement should not be about helping a few competitors like AOL
and Sun Microsystems. AOL already has a lawsuit against Microsoft
for a price greater than the value of Netscape.
Let Microsoft and the industry move forward. Microsoft is the
best US company ever to promote technological advances and economic
growth in this country. Let competition and the consumer determine
what is best for technological advances, not government regulation
and greedy lobbyist (ENRON as example). The economy and the stock
market will improve if this settlement is approve. If the settlement
is not approved, consumers and technological innovation will be
harmed. Please do the right thing for the consumer, APPROVE THE
SETTLEMENT.
Thank you,
Jerry Prioste and
Annette Prioste
11614 North 68th Place
Scottsdale, AZ 85254-5142
MTC-00026184
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
harsher punishments need to be done
MTC-00026185
From: Robert H. Schmidt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
We think it's time the government settled its case against
Microsoft. It may be coincidental but the antitrust announcement
against Microsoft may have caused the economic downturn and the
downward spiral of the stock market--especially the NASDAQ.
The persecution of this corporation was generated by such giants
as AOL/Time Warner, who were jealous of its success. It's now time
to stop this unnecessary and wasteful expense and get the country
and economy moving forward in a positive manner.
Sincerely,
Robert H. Schmidt
Norma M. Schmidt
1313 Franklin Ave.
Cinnaminson, NJ
08077-2711
MTC-00026186
From: Brian Wendell Morton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:21pm
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
To whomever this concerns,
I understand that I have the ability to comment on the proposed
settlement between the Justice Department and Microsoft.
[[Page 27763]]
I am a dedicated purchaser and user of Apple Computer products.
Almost from the beginning, Microsoft has done whatever it felt
necessary to undermine the Macintosh platform, starting with the
outright ``theft'' of the Graphic User Interface that
Apple used to revolutionize the computer for the average user. Until
Microsoft realized that the platform was going not to be driven into
the ground, MS did its best to co-op and/or drive under any
developers who saw fit to produce for the Mac. Now Bill Gates has
hedged his bets by owning several hundred thousand dollars of Apple
stock.
It is widely believed by those familiar with the case that the
proposed settlement is completely inadequate. It will do little to
punish Microsoft for its plainly illegal conduct in the past, and
virtually nothing whatsoever to prevent future violations of
antitrust law. As a consumer, it infuriates me to be forced to pay
for increasingly expensive software that diminishes in quality with
each release. I applauded the Clinton administration's investigation
of Microsoft. Their case was an effort to protect consumers and
promote economic growth by restoring fairness and competition to the
computer industry. At the start of this administration, it all but
announced publicly that it was going to let Microsoft off scot-free,
by Attorney General Ashcroft stating that he didn't think the
government had a case, thereby, in poker terms, flagrantly showing
the other side his cards.
As the nation's legal advocate for citizens against the
unchecked abuses of a corporate entity, this act was unconscionable.
The United States is a successful nation because its free markets
encourage firms to compete for customers by producing high-quality,
low-cost goods. This system needs to be protected from monopolists
who gain so much power that they can destroy the competitive nature
of the markets in which they participate.
I urge all parties involved to reconsider the proposed
settlement. Microsoft deserves more than a slap on the wrist for its
destructive abuse of its monopoly power. More importantly, American
consumers need to be protected against future abuses from a company
that sees the political establishment as one to be bought,
competitors as enemies to be crushed and where the word
``marketing'' can be freely substituted for
``lying.'' Sort of like the management at Enron. We know
what kind of oversight they got, don't we?
Brian Morton
1602 Hollins St.
Baltimore, MD 21223-2429
MTC-00026187
From: svspire(a)nmia.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I oppose the proposed Microsoft settlement.
There are a number of problems with the proposed settlement, but
I will focus on just one here: the lack of a requirement to force
Microsoft to make their file formats available.
Today it is virtually impossible to find a word processor or
presentation package other than Microsoft Word or Powerpoint. They
do exist, but they are niche products and their vendors are barely
able to survive. It is also virtually impossible to obtain venture
capital to start a new business competing with Microsoft in these
areas. This is bad news for consumers. More competition is sorely
needed in these markets.
There is one major barrier to entry in these markets: the
Microsoft file formats. In order to compete with Microsoft Office
products, vendors must make their products ``compatible''
with Word, Powerpoint, Excel and the rest of the Microsoft Office
suite. And making products ``compatible'' requires
expensive reverse-engineering of Microsoft's proprietary file
formats. It can be done, but it rarely succeeds 100%, which steers
consumers and venture capitalists away from alternative products.
If Microsoft made their file formats publicly available, other
vendors would be able to write word processors and other office
products that were 100% compatible and thus competitive with those
from Microsoft. This would be good for other vendors, good for
Microsoft, and especially good for consumers, since there is
virtually no competition in this marketplace now.
I do not advocate that Microsoft make their office suite
``open source``--they can still maintain their
proprietary advantage in the products themselves, but the
particulars of the files that their products create should be made
known. This will in no way hamper Microsoft's ability to compete in
these markets, but it will encourage competition which does not
exist today.
I would not advocate that a company release proprietary
information of this nature were it not a monopoly and thus a de
facto standard in the industry. If healthy competition existed,
there would be no need to release the file formats. But Microsoft
clearly has a monopoly in this market which will persist unless
these file formats are made public, and other remedies beyond those
in the proposed settlement are put into place.
Thank you,
Shannon Spires
Computer Scientist
[email protected]
MTC-00026188
From: Ron Dong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:26pm
Subject: Miscrosoft Settlement
Dear Sir:
I am a happy Apple customer. I work in the public schools using
IMac's. Over the years I have seen the increasing domination of the
computer industry by Miscrosoft. When I read the proposed
settlement, I was outraged that such a settlement was even being
considered. Miscrosoft is monopolistic. If it can get away with
``giving'' schools old computers that only run Windows, it
will be the death of the only competitor left out there, Apple.
Miscrosoft needs to be punished for it past practices and not be
allowed to continue any of its past predatory practices.
Janice Dong
MTC-00026189
From: Jim/KJ7S
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please Open the Attached File This is NOT a Virus
thank You!
Jim Anderson
CC:
Congressman Chris Cannon,[email protected]...
MTC-00026189 0001
JIM ANDERSON
95 N, CENTER, P.O. BOX 1. 4
CASTLE DALE. UTAH 84513
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
95(t Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington. DC 20530
Dear Nr. Ashcroft,
I am outraged that Microsoft was brought to trial three years
ago. The case has progressed infuriatingly slowly, and has had a
negative impact not only on the technology industry, but on the
economy, and ultimarely the consumer as well. Now, as if to add
insult to injury, Microsoft's competitors and the nine states m
which they have influence arc seeking to undermine the settlement
and bring additional litigation against the Microsoft Corporation.
This is preposterous. America was built on the principles of free
enterprise and innovation, and this settlement allows the government
to suffocate the very values upon which the country was founded If
Microsoft's competitors want the playing field evened, they need to
market a product that is capable of competing on the same level as
Microft's.
The settlement is generous on Microsoft's part. and is more than
fair to its competitors. In the interest of wrapping up the case,
Microsoft has agreed to terms and conditions that extend to various
facets of the Microsoft Corporation that were not deemed unlawful by
the Court of Appeals. The settlement requires Microsoft to make a
number of changes, the most reasonable of which, I believe, mandates
open sourcing. Microsoft plans to reveal source code to its
competitors for use in producing Microsoft- compatible software and
operating within the Microsoft framework, Microsoft has also agreed
to provide third parties with a license to pertinent intellectual
properly rights, also with the intern of facilitating interaction
between various software producers and Microsoft
Absolutely no additional action needs to be taken in the Federal
courts, Free enterprise is legal, and Microsoft is guilty of nothing
more than success in a free market economy, 1 urge you to support
the settlement and allow the industry to recover,
Jim Anderson
CC: Rco. Chris Cantata
MTC-00026190
From: David Brownell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attached, please find my comments in opposition to the proposed
settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. These are in HTML
format.
[[Page 27764]]
I will be sending these separately in hard-copy, since you
appear to have no mechanism to acknowledge receipt of comments
submitted by e-mail.
- David Brownell
Proposed Microsoft Settlement: Not In the Public Interest
As a software engineer, with over twenty years in the industry,
I feel compelled to comment on the proposed Antitrust settlement
with Microsoft. These comments are provided in HTML format. I am
sending these directly via electronic mail, and also by ``snail
mail'' because it appears that the DOJ does not have any
mechanism to acknowledge receipt of comments delivered
electronically.
In brief, I feel this is disappointingly weak and ambiguous with
respect to basic requirements for redress and prevention. It fails
to unfetter markets, and in many key respects it is amenable to
further abuse by Microsoft rather than preventing such abuse. In
several respects it seems to reward Microsoft by institutionalizing,
rather than destroying or nullifying, its illegally obtained
monopoly, even blocking further prosecution for similar future
abuses. The public interest is not served by such a settlement. The
proposed revision (from California and other states) is a clear
improvement, but these comments do not apply to that. Consumers and
competitors have both waited far too many years already; it's time
for US antitrust law to finally do something significant to deter
this particular corporate criminal.
25 January, 2002
David Brownell
2569 Park Blvd #T-201
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Comments on the Revised Proposed Final Judgement
My detailed comments are presented in two broad groups. First
are general comments. Then, comments on the proposed settlement are
organized according to the sections to which they apply. Note that
since the true extent of lobbying by Microsoft has not been
disclosed, I am one of many citizens who are concerned about the
process that led to this extremely weak proposed remedy. While it
has long been clear that Microsoft has not wanted to act in the
Public Interest, it now appears that the company has been in contact
with groups within the US Government who are likewise not acting in
the Public Interest (despite the requirements placed on office
holders). Based on the lack of information in the Competitive Impact
Statement, it appears likely that at least the US Department of
Justice may have some sort of hidden agenda or agreement to promote
a weak agreement. This is exactly the sort of behavior that the
Tunney Act review process was designed to expose, to help ensure
that antitrust settlements are clearly in the public interest.
General Comments
At the beginning, I will mention my disappointment that the
Department of Justice has chosen not to consider structural
remedies, which could be the most effective and least invasive
solution to these antitrust problems.
Microsoft has repeatedly shown its intent to nullify or evade
any legal constraints placed on its conduct. Based on that and the
previous consent decree, I can not expect further conduct remedies
to be particularly effective. Moreover, I would expect the costs of
any truly effective conduct remedy to be substantial, since they
would need to work against institutional structures which were set
up to promote those unlawful anti-competitive behaviors.
Proposed Microsoft Settlement: Not In the Public Interest file:/
//c/win/temp/response.
In contrast, structural remedies would apportion more of the
costs onto the guilty party (Microsoft), which is where they belong.
Done well, they would prevent further monopoly abuses in both
current and emerging markets, and would help provide redress to the
customers by restoring product choice in ways that could not readily
be reversed. Alternatively, it could provide a better model for
dealing with the core OS monopoly of Microsoft: like other
infrastructure providers, it could be a common career. (Other parts
might then compete to provide value-added services. However, I note
that ``Microsoft Office'' is also an effective monopoly in
one application area.)
The terms of the proposed settlement also discriminate against
software in the public commons, which includes Free Software (as
well as Open Source Software). Disclosures of technical information
are made to companies, but the monopoly harms were also committed
against customers that are not companies, and against non-customers.
The settlement needs to address all victims of Microsoft's crimes,
and it can't effectively do that while assuming that the only
victims are Microsoft's customers and market partners (including
direct competitors). Moreover, it should not focus (as it does) so
exclusively on OEM product distribution channels that other channels
are barely recognized.
I would also like to highlight the degradation in security that
Microsoft has fostered. Despite some recent initiatives to improve
its public relations with respect to such issues, the fact remains
that for the last decade or more Microsoft has actively worked to
forestall security for computers and the Internet, by encouraging
engineering techniques and solutions that were well known at the
time to be insecure. (Also, by lack of prompt bug fixes.)
Microsoft's monopoly powers were used to prevent better solutions
from becoming widely available. Costs of such problems in the year
2001 alone are widely estimated to exceed $2billion to businesses
alone. (The best known examples were viruses enabled by Microsoft's
executable code technologies, which are by design excluded from
technologies such as Java.) These abuses of monopoly power, policies
of investing against the public interest, deserve more appropriate
consideration in the remedy proceedings than giving Microsoft an
effectively unlimited safe harbor provision in this particular area.
Although, as the saying goes, ``I am not a lawyer'', I
found the text here substantially more ambiguous than most legal
documents I have had cause to examine. These ambiguities do not
arise from the usual causes, such as specific legal terms and
idioms, or usages specific to legal contexts. The document just does
not seem to be cleanly drafted. Since I know that I'm not alone in
finding ambiguities here, I believe this reflects significant
underlying problems in this proposed settlement, such as lack of
true agreement on the intent of the language. Repeating the fiasco
of the earlier Consent Decree is clearly not in the Public Interest.
III: Prohibited Conduct
The conduct that is prohibited does not go far enough to prevent
certain notable abuses. And in terms of drafting, the fact that so
many of the behaviors described here list required behaviors, rather
than prohibited ones, makes me believe that I'm only noticing a
handful of the ``thought problems'' with this proposed
settlement.
A
Section III.A.2 supports Microsoft's anti-competitive ``no
naked PCs'' program by allowing Microsoft to retaliate against
OEMs with products that do not ship with any Microsoft platform
software. An example would be a vendor shipping PCs that offers a
base configuration with no operating system at all, or equivalently
a Linux distribution (since that could have the same cost of zero
dollars). If it only offered a Microsoft OS as an extra cost option
(just like any other system component), Microsoft would be allowed
to retaliate against such an OEM. Such a vendor would clearly be in
the best interest of consumers, since it would support fully
informed choice of OS, vendor, and version.
By permitting cross-subsidy, this section effectively permits
what it claims to prohibit: retaliation. OEMs that don't promote or
license Microsoft products to the satisfaction of Microsoft are
effectively retaliated against because they would not receive the
``consideration'' received by other OEMs. Note that of all
this industry's players, only Microsoft has enough power in enough
different segments to be able to cross-subsidize in that way.
B
The licensing constraints in III.B that apply to the
``Covered OEMs'' would only address hardware that has
already reached the level of significant mainstream distribution. It
also applies only to operating systems products; Microsoft has been
shown to have abused its powers in several other product areas.
Microsoft's monopoly power remains unconstrained with respect to
companies offering choices within smaller markets, which are
fundamental sources of innovation (and hence the source of the
strongest latent threats to the Microsoft monopoly). Such
constraints appear to best serve those Covered OEMs, rather than
customers. Customers would be better served by seeing uniformity of
pricing even if they use other OEMs. One effect I see is to deliver
more equitable pricing to those OEMs, while not constraining
Microsoft's behavior in the rest of the market. Moreover, even those
OEMs are not protected against Microsoft efforts to churn newer
(less well proven, less trustworthy) software by jacking up prices
for more mature releases.
In addition to smaller (non-Covered) OEMs and distributors of
boxed software (such as Fry's or CompUSA), examples of concern to
[[Page 27765]]
me include VARs (often working closely with ISVs and IHVs to sell
semicustom systems) and corporate buyers. All of those effectively
do the later stages of system manufacturing themselves. They would
often by preference acquire ``naked PCs'', perhaps adding
specialized hardware, and then install custom packages of OS and
application software. It appears that none of these channels are to
receive the benefits of the more equitable pricing. Their customers
are still fully subject to prices manipulated and inflated by the
monopoly powers of Microsoft.
C
III.C seems to allow all such restrictions so long as they are
not by ``agreement''. If that's intended to mean
something, it's clearly bad: a loop-hole. If it's not, it should
just be removed so that Microsoft is always forbidden such
restrictions. Similarly, Microsoft seems to be allowed to restrict
all non-OEM customers in these undesirable ways.
III.C.3 could be amusing if I were so inclined. It disallows
substitution of non-Microsoft products if they provide a user
interface ``of similar size and shape''. That clearly
means that if Microsoft uses a rectangular window sized large enough
to desribe what's going on, any other product must either use a non-
rectangular window (looking ``bad'' and hence
undesirable), or else must be too large or too small (likewise
undesirable). It also appears to mean that if Microsoft bundles a
new product that uses some window similar in size and shape to a
pre-existing product from some other vendor, the other vendor must
change its product. Giving such preferences to Microsoft is
ludicrous.
D, E
These sections, in conjunction with bad or weak definitions,
comprise one of the weakest parts of this proposed settlement. That
is because preferential disclosure of interface information has been
a major weapon used by Microsoft to protect its internal developers
from competition by other software development organizations. That
practice is not substantially reduced by this language.
Insufficient/Selective Disclosure ``For the sole purpose of
interoperating with a Windows OS Product'' is a worrisome
constrai Proposed Microsoft Settlement: Not In the Public Interest
file:///c/win/temp/response. it's not clear that this includes
middleware network protocols (including security issues) and file
formats. Since the disclosure requirements seems to apply only to
``lower'' interfaces involved in middleware (to the OS)
and network protocols used from a Windows OS product to Microsoft
servers, it excludes the key ``upper'' middleware APIs (to
applications) that are the reason for middleware to exist, and all
other network protocols (including peer-to-peer, server-to-server).
It also does not include interfaces used to boot the operating
system. In short, the required disclosures have significant and
fundamental technical omissions that will serve to nullify essential
goals of having such disclosure requirements.
Restricting the III.D disclosure to ``Microsoft
Middleware'' as used by ``Microsoft Middleware
Products'', as opposed to a more generally useful definition of
``Middleware'' (see later) provides an unnatural
limitation to the level of disclosure that should be required. For
example, a specific trademark registration needs to be involved.
Moreover, it permits Microsoft to cease disclosures merely by
shifting to an exclusively ``bundled with the OS''
distribution model. While that is a good mechanism to strengthen a
monopoly, it is very bad mechanism for the goal of preventing
Microsoft from illegal monopolistic behaviors in the future, as
required by such a settlement.
Re III.E, I am concerned about the RAND licensing. This is
explicitly permitting Microsoft to exclude Free Software (and Open
Source) Software development from the requirements. Related text in
III.J.2 carves out even broader exceptions from the basic
requirement that interoperability specifications be disclosed. In
terms of anti-competitive behavior, and in conjunction with some of
Microsoft's existing licensing prohibitions related to that
significant segment of the software world, this is a really
significant issue. Freely licensed specifications should be the
rule, and Microsoft should not be encouraged to use its monopoly
power to force use of encumbered specifications. In particular, the
sort of ``embrace and extend'' behavior Microsoft has
adopted with the Kerberos authentication standard should be
disallowed. (Microsoft requires use of extensions to Kerberos, which
it has published while still calling them ``trade
secrets''. A network using only standard, non-Microsoft,
servers will not work with the latest Windows OS.)
Late Disclosures
The timings of these disclosures are problematic. They grant
applications and middleware developers within Microsoft preferential
access up to the point where design biases in their favor can no
longer in practice be removed or ameliorated: a particularly huge
beta test. The industry practice with which I am familar involves
full API disclosure at the first beta test, and involves
substantially complete disclosure at earlier test stages (alpha
tests) where the APIs are still expected to change in significant
ways. Such alpha testing is in part to get API feedback, so that key
issues that were not recognized or prioritized internally can be
addressed before final product decisions are made. (Of course, such
feedback benefits from a certain amount of good will towards other
companies that Microsoft has not demonstrated.)
In this proposed settlement, external developers are presented
with something which is largely a fait accompli, which preserves and
strengthens the barriers to entry which favor Microsoft. (It also
gives Microsoft developers at least a year's head start.) This sort
of disclosure bias could be addressed by a structural remedy that
places Microsoft developers for Applications, Middleware, and
Operating Systems into separate organizations. The disclosures they
make to each other would be the same as those made to other
organizations, and would be made at the same time.
Low Quality of Disclosure
There need to be effective mechanisms to expose and fix bugs
affecting operation of Microsoft products according to their
disclosed interface specifications. If the actual behavior is always
going to need to be modified according to a secret buglist that is
less available than the base specification, such interface
disclosures become ineffective. This implies updating Microsoft
product development processes, which have often paid only lip
service to the specifications to which they claim conformance, and
conform??
For example, the latest versions of Microsoft's Internet
Explorer put its XML parser in a non-conformant mode, rather than
just fixing the bugs in previous versions. The lack of penalty for
false or incorrect disclosures suggests that those will continue to
be strategically abused.
Full technical specifications are basic parts of product
interface specifications, and should be made available to all
customers not just ``to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and
OEMs''. This should include file format specifications (such as
the MS-Word formats), which are directly analagous to the
communications protocols that are partially addressed in the
proposed settlement (particularly when those files are shared over
networks).
Lack of such disclosure prevents customers from accessing their
own data, essentially institutionalizing the requirement of a
``Microsoft tax'' that must be paid by large portions of
the computing community. The true test of interoperability
specifications is whether they support the development of multiple
independent implementations. For middleware this is essential, and
Microsoft must not be allowed to pass off shoddy or incomplete
documentation as meeting the intent of this proposed settlement. The
rule of thumb I have always used is that until it's been corrected
by experience from for three independant implementations, a
specification must be assumed to have substantive bugs. Since those
often include design (including security) bugs, the initial
implementation (such as perhaps a test version from Microsoft) must
not be given undue deference.
G
III.G.1 says it's OK for Microsoft to have such ``fixed
percentages'' in agreements so long as it's even marginally an
underdog with respect to some targetted vendor. (That reading
assumes vendors ship only one product of a given type. Other
readings are possible, which are even more anti-competitive.) That
amounts to saying it's OK selectively pick off competitors until the
market is reduced to a duopoly; it's a formula for reducing
competition. A goal of this settlement was supposed to be increasing
competition rather than blessing more ways for Microsoft to abuse
its monopoly power.
H
I'd sure feel better about these allowances (why are they in a
section on ``prohibitions''?) if they required the
Microsoft Middleware Product to actually get removed. Better yet,
they should not be installed in the first place. After all, those
Microsoft Middleware Products are taking up my disk space, and
frequently create security holes by their very existence. (One
current
[[Page 27766]]
example relates to Microsoft's media player providing a way to track
users who, for security reasons, choose to disable the ability for
sites to track them.)
It's not clear why Microsoft is being given up to a year's more
lead time on its competition, since key parts of this clause were
announced (with significant fanfare) by Microsoft to take effect in
2001. In the interim, other vendors are being harmed, and consumers
are being harmed by the disappearance of such vendors. I'm sure that
the III.H.3(b) waiver for automatic updates to my configuration
makes Microsoft happy, knowing that two weeks after installation or
any upgrade they are free to annoy users at any time because they
prefer to use non-Microsoft technologies. I can't see how it would
make any competitor happy, since it ensures that at least some
customers will switch from that competitive product just to get rid
of such ``nag boxes''. And when I wear my end user hat, I
can say that it's clearly not in my own interest to have even more
cases where a Microsoft product nags me to do what it wants me to
do, rather than what I want it to do. Any more than a single
appearance of such nag boxes should be explicitly forbidden.
The second III.H.1 point (more bad/confusing drafting) should be
deleted. If there's a technical reason, it would be covered by the
second III.H.2 point, and if there is none then I don't want this to
be a mechanism whereby Microsoft avoids full disclosure (III.E) of
its middleware APIs/protocols. For example, portions of the
``dot-NET'' infrastructure might be packaged in this
loophole, as coud any number of proprietary protocols and file
formats.
The example in the second III.H.2 point is bothersome: it
considers hosting ``a particular ActiveX component'' to be
a reasonable requirement. On the contrary, security-aware users
recognize ActiveX as a fundamental risk to their systems''
security, and disable it everywhere possible. Wearing an ISV (or
VAR) hat, seeing that ``technical reasons are described''
is insufficient. That wording allows Microsoft to provide the most
vague reasons, including ones that are flagrantly wrong or which
embed substantial cost penalties for middleware competitors.
When the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) recently proposed
allowing RAND licensing for standards, on terms not dissimilar to
these, that was roundly shot down. The point was made that such
terms are fundamentally discriminatory: they preclude Free (and Open
Source) Software, which is available without royalty or other
consideration. Other text in 111.1.3 allows additional
discrimination. It seems that III.I.5 allows Microsoft to extract
reverse licences for (effectively) any technologies that are
available to someone who needs a RAND licence from Microsoft. Such a
reverse licensing constraint discriminates against those which have
such licences to be extracted, so that clause is clearly contrary to
the ``non-discriminatory'' requirement. In effect it
legalizes a kind of extortion by Microsoft, and can also make the
cost of getting such a license no longer be ``reasonable''
for organizations which become subject to such extraction.
J
I am deeply concerned about the carve-out created for
``security'' issues. It is far too broad, and among other
things institutionalizes the long-discredited notion of
``security through obscurity''. That policy places
individuals (and corporations) at risk because they will not be able
to discover (and address) flaws. It does not increase security,
since the bad actors will of course not be shy about sharing such
information with each other; only people who play by these rules
would be placed at risk. The almost unlimited scope of that carve-
out also means that Microsoft is being given a incentive to call
things security issues when they aren't. For example, Bill Gates
recently announced he wants to focus the company on its significant
security problems. This has been described as an obvious attempt to
focus on ways to fit more work into this carve-out.
This mechanism will be used to create ``secret
buglists'' that undermine the already flawed disclosure rules
exactly where they need the most public scrutiny, not the least.
Trust is earned, not dictated; so far the record for Microsoft's
handling of security problems (beginning at the design stage and
also post-shipment) is far below the standard used by most of the
industry, notably including the Free (and Open Source) Software
segments as well as most commercial UNIX vendors.
In conjunction with flawed legislation such as the DMCA, this is
deeply threatening to the individual liberties on which this nation
was founded. Under the proposed settlement, if a user stored his (or
her) own data in a file, Microsoft is allowed to use
``security'' allegations to prevent that individual (or
his co-workers) from using anything except Microsoft software, and
paying the ``Microsoft tax'', to access that data. I feel
that it is essential that the US Department of Justice not undermine
fundamental liberties by helping Microsoft to prevent users from
accessing their own data using non-Microsoft operating systems,
middleware, or applications.
Also III.J.2 seems to give Microsoft far too much control over
who gets to see what kind of information. While admittedly there are
some tricky policy issues here, the fundamental issue is that a
``trusted computer system'' is meant to be trusted by its
owner, not by someone that happens to be friendly with its
manufacturer (perhaps because they both expect to extract more money
from owners that way). Clauses (b) and (c) give Microsoft the
ability to veto efforts that are not hosted by businesses, such as
Free (and Open Source) Software activities or academic research, and
hence which clearly do not have incentives to support commercially-
motivated security flaws.
IV: Compliance and Enforcement
This proposal is particuarly weak, even for what it tries to do.
I believe this mechanism was either designed to fail (in favor of
Microsoft), or was designed to be a straw man that would be replaced
with something that might actually stand a chance of working. For
example, something that gives an ISV that has been victimized by a
Microsoft action some legal recourse would seem to be desirable.
(Except of course to Microsoft.) The rule in IV.D.4.d (preventing
this TC or its work from participating in court proceedings) makes
me believe the former option may be the most realistic view: this
procedure was not intended to succeed at the goals of providing
rememedy or preventing further abuses.
Only three people are not enough to keep an eye on such a huge
monopoly. That's particularly true since the anti-competitive
constraints in IV.B.2 ensure they can't be particularly focussed on
(or aware of) the most current tactics used by Microsoft to evade
constraints as described in other parts of this proposed settlement.
I could almost imagine an office led by three such people, except
that each one would surely need a significant staff (IV.B.8.h) that
are more actively aware of the issues that need attention (that is,
less subject to the IV.B.2 constraints).
Fundamentally, the requirement that the three TC members be
``experts in software design and programming'' is in some
conflict with the requirement that they be effective compliance
officers. Surely it is most important that the TC staff hold many
such experts than that the nation be combed for true experts that
can also be effective compliance officers--which is a rare
combination. Most of this section defines a bureaucracy, and any
``expert'' I've ever known would be deeply stifled by what
I read there. The job description is not fundamentally one of
software design and programming. And only (IV.A.2.a) during
``normal office hours''? Software developers rarely keep
banker's hours, and the parts of businesses that work with them also
adapt. Of necessity, so would the parts of those offices that work
with those parts of Microsoft.
V: Termination
The settlement does not offer stong and effective mechanisms for
enforcement: there are no real ``sticks''. It expires
automatically whether or not Microsoft's behavior has been improved.
If Microsoft doesn't want to behave, it can stall until the lifespan
of the agreement expires. I am deeply concerned by the requirement
in IV.D.4.d that prevents any failures of the compliance procedures
from being used in court. Rather, they should be key efforts
determining whether it is appropriate to terminate this proposed
settlement.
The only incentives appear to be within the scope of the current
distorted software markets. But until the market structure becomes
competitive, rather than monopolistic, today's market incentives
only further the Microsoft monopoly. Minimally, no settlement should
terminate until those marketplaces are restored to technical and
structural diversity, and are healthy in that state. Just knowing
that ``running out the clock'' can't work would be a
minimal incentive (``carrots'') to encourage that change.
VI: Definitions
A number of these definitions embed strong anti-competitive
biases, which work in Microsoft's favor against the competition this
settlement is intended to restore. Such definitions nullify the
useful effect of what need to be broad constraints on Microsoft's
conduct.
[[Page 27767]]
A: API
As noted above (III.D, III.E), there are several programming
interfaces related to an ``Middleware Product'', and this
specifies ``API'' as the ``lower'' level of such
interfaces, which are typically operating system interfaces.
However, the goal of middleware is explicitly to ensure that
applications only need to use the ``upper'' level, hiding
those lower level calls. In particular, when using a middleware API
the classic goal is to be independent of the particular OS in use.
That is, the goal is to NOT use the APIs covered by this definition.
Defining APIs in this un-useful way substantially reduces the scope
of the products that this document addresses as competition, and in
ways that are strongly counter to normal usage.
This definition reflects a fundamental misunderstanding in that
it defines the middleware API at the wrong level. These lower
interfaces certainly need to be documented, because they are often
currently hidden as operating system ``back doors'' by
Microsoft. In some cases, APIs have been deployed that were not
immediately used by Microsoft products, but which were used in
upcoming versions. This definition should include all such
interfaces that are part of shipping operating systems, regardless
of whether they are currently in use.
Such hiding needs to be prevented, since it protects Microsoft's
applications barrier to entry, and prevents emergence of competing
middleware. Such hidden interfaces have also been known to provide
security holes that are intended to facilitate Microsoft
(mis)features. They would not normally be called
``Application'' interfaces in the context of a middleware
discussion, and good systems architecture would not even enable the
interfaces which bypass security mechanisms. This point is
strengthened by the fact that Microsoft does not currently document
these APIs, as it would for APIs which it encourages applications to
use.
H, I: ``Vendor''
This appears to bias the entire settlement against certain kinds
of hardware and software development process, such as
``Free'' and ``Open Source'' Software. Microsoft
should not be given the right to discriminate this systematically
against one of its most effective competitors. (And perhaps its last
one, given that its monopoly powers to create new barriers to entry
are barely affected by this proposed settlement.) Minimally, it
should be explicit that such ``Free'' and ``Open
Source'' Software developers are included among those who
should have full access to interface disclosures addressed by this
agreement. One simple solution might be to include them as ISVs.
J, K: ``Middleware''
Classically ``middleware'' includes API components
that are part of neither the operating system nor the application.
The constraints in section VI.J (such as being trademarked) are
technically irrelevant, except perhaps towards a goal of minimizing
the number of Microsoft APIs which are subject to disclosure. (Such
a goal would not be in the Public Interest.)
Middleware is typically intended to insulate applications from
operating system issues, such as dependency on any one OS version or
vendor. Microsoft has numerous such API components, many of which
are licensed as ``Redistributable Components'', but the
proposed settlement excludes almost all such middleware from its
inappropriately limited scope. The settlement should apply to all
such middleware, not this handful of all such programming
interfaces.
Microsoft has used constraints on such components to keep
products competing with its own platforms and development tools out
of the market. For example, a number of years ago Borland was not
allowed to include even the APIs to such components with its
development tools because it also offered a technically superior
alternative to Microsoft's ``MFC''. Today, related
constraints apply to software that is developed using Visual C++:
the ``Redistributable Components'' middleware may only be
used on operating systems from Microsoft. That needlessly ties many
applications to a Microsoft OS, and prevents their use with
compatible alternatives. Such constraints should be forbidden.
U.''
Code for a ``Windows Operating System Product'' shall
be determined by Microsoft at its sole discretion ... this is huge
hole. This discretion allows Microsoft to arbitrarily bundle new
software which would in ordinary usage be ``middleware'',
and be the subject of competitive markets. To my understanding, this
degree of discretion substantially exceeds that allowed by US
Supreme Court precedent, as well as that permitted by the Appeals
court in this case. Such language is demonstrably counter to the
Public Interest.
It has been shown that abuse of such discretion has been one of
the core anti-competitive weapons used by Microsoft. For example, it
expressly permits the illegal commingling of browser code with the
operating system. No settlement can be in the public interest which
does not provide redress for those previous actions, and which does
not prevent future repeats of such actions.
MTC-00026191
From: Theodore Nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Over the past three years, the IT industry has held its breath
in anticipation for an imminent end to the US vs. Microsoft lawsuit.
Now that a proposed settlement has been reached, consumers and the
IT industry have an opportunity to return to business as usual. This
is critical for the industry as well as our economy in general.
Under the settlement agreement, Microsoft will not return to
business as usual. The settlement will penalize Microsoft and may
require it to modify its products. Microsoft will be forever
scrutinized by a three-person committee that will also control how
Microsoft does business in the future.
I sincerely believe that it is critical for American
competitiveness, the IT industry and the US consumer that the
proposed settlement be formalized as soon as possible. I urge the
Department of Justice to do all within its power to formalize the
proposed settlement as soon as legally possible.
Sincerely,
Theodore Nelson, Jr.
2812 Shamrock Drive
Allison Park, PA 15101
cc: Senator Rick Santorum
MTC-00026192
From: Ammon Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This is a bad settlement!!
MTC-00026193
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stuart David Gathman
13145 Pavilion Lane
Fairfax, VA 22033
(703)378-9641
[email protected]
Dear Sirs,
Based on my best effort to understand the lawyer talk, the
proposed Microsoft Settlement does not seem to address some
important injustices.
1) SOFTWARE DONATIONS
Since when should Microsoft ``pay'' their fine with
free software? Their competitors would jump at the chance to
contribute free software to schools. Let Microsoft contribute just
the hardware. Let the schools pick Intel vs. PPC and Windows vs
Linux vs Mac.
2) OPEN SPECIFICATIONS
It is good that the settlement attempts to enforce open APIs for
Windows. This is good for Windows customers as it allows fair access
for non-MS software. However, it is even more important to enforce
open public specifications for Microsoft file formats. It should be
possible for competing products to import/export Microsoft documents
without reverse engineering them. It is critically important for
Windows users that external security software be able to reliably
strip executable code (e.g. macros, embedded objects) from Microsoft
documents. Furthermore, a complex public specification requires a
reference implementation. The Windows API will never be properly
documented without an open source reference implementation. The
reference implementation would not be as efficient as Microsoft
Windows, but it would make up for inadequate documentation. If an
application runs on Microsoft, but not the reference platform,
either the reference platform needs fixing, or Microsoft is pulling
another fast one. Microsoft should not be able to prevent
alternative implementation by claiming patents for API interface
features. (Like Apple did with using compressed images in the
QuickDraw API.) If they claim any such patents, they should be
waived for non-commercial open-source implementations, and
reasonable licensing or cross licensing should be available to a
commercial implementor.
[[Page 27768]]
3) THE MICROSOFT TAX
I hate paying for Windows when I buy a computer and don't use
it. It is not clear to me that the settlement prohibits this. A
computer without Windows should be cheaper than a computer with
Windows by at least 1/2 the retail cost of Windows. There should be
no disincentives for the manufacturer to offer alternative OSes
preinstalled. (E.g. increased Microsoft OEM pricing for allowing
competitors. I think the settlement prohibits this, but I'm just
making sure.) In summary, I think we all agree that Microsoft should
be allowed to make money, but not to rule the world.
Stuart D. Gathman
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax:
703 591-6154
``Confutatis maledictis, flamis acribus
addictis''--background song for a Microsoft sponsored
``Where do you want to go from here?'' commercial.
MTC-00026194
From: Jim _
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice,
I believe the antitrust settlement against Microsoft to be fair,
and I am hoping it will be final.
Thank you,
Jim Kay (a concerned, voting citizen)
1312 N. Parker Rd.
Greenville, SC 29609
MTC-00026195
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen;
I just want to voice my opinion on the case against Microsoft, I
believe that the proposed settlement is overall very generous by
Microsoft and should be accepted. In fact I do not believe the case
ever had any merit, and am disappointed that it ever got this far.
Thank You,
Raymond F Frattini
MTC-00026196
From: Mike Klein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please reject the current proposed Microsoft Settlement.
Microsoft has shown unabated behavior to strengthen, using
whatever means it can get away with for as long as it can, its
monopoly position in operating systems and other areas. It is
broadly defining strategies, many likely illegal, to apply its
enormous resources to dominate future areas: Internet access,
Internet commerce, personal information management, media content
and distribution, and more.
While most of Microsoft's products and services are, at best,
mediocre quality with few limited innovations and fundamental
advances, they are the only standard by which most people know
computers today. Most people do not have any idea of ``what
could or should have been''. This is terribly unfortunate, as
many excellent ideas and technologies have been snuffed out by
Microsoft's illegal practices and will continue suffer that fate.
Microsoft's continuing illegal actions since it was convicted of
illegally using its monopoly position make it obvious that nothing
but drastic legal action against Microsoft with massive penalties
for future violations will open competition in the computer
industry. Please reject the proposed Microsoft settlement, and work
on developing a way to open the industry back up to good ideas. Too
much is at stake.
Thank you,
-Michael F. Klein, Ph.D.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026197
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:35pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft settlement
Let's go on and settle this matter. I think Microsoft has been
unfairly dealt with in this matter. No one forces a person or
company to purchase and use Microsoft products. They furnish a
needed product and need to be let alone.
Ray Cantrell
4083 Isom Cove
Millington, Tn 38053
MTC-00026198
From: Leland Scott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:36pm
Subject: Don't Let Microsoft Off the Hook
Dear Judge,
The facts against Microsoft are clear. Judge Jackson was
correct, as was the appeals court, in determining Microsoft to have
violated antitrust law. They will continue to do so unless a severe
punishment is enacted. Please don't let them off the hook once
again.
Windows XP and their .NET initiative are both flagrant examples
of their continued search for ways to maintain their illegal
monopoly of the computer marketplace, and both of these initiatives
came AFTER they had been found guilty of violating antitrust laws by
earlier actions. Clearly, they have not learned their lesson, and
the Government's proposed settlement is not sufficient to reign them
in.
Regards,
A concerned citizen
MTC-00026199
From: Donna Duggan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I heard about the opportunity for the public to comment on the
proposed settlement, so I figured I would at least give it another
try. We believe that the settlement as agreed is just and fair, and
we also believe that the time is long past to get this over with.
Innovation and progress can not flourish in this type of
continuously litigious environment (I am not a lawyer, so I don1t
know how that word is spelled, but basically I am sick and tires of
all the lawyers filing law suits!). Neither can the U.S. economy,
which desperately needs help. Basically, we are sick and tired of
some of these companies and their CEOs, who seem to be thriving on
the publicity that their constant negativity is bringing them. I
never hear them talk about their products and how good they are. I
only hear them talk about how bad Microsoft is. Could there be a
reason for this? I have said it before, and I will say it again.
Neither one of us works for Microsoft, and we also do not know a
great deal about computers, so I don1t think we are terribly biased
in all of this. But I do know how to find and download a product
that I want, and I know how to get rid of one I don1t want. I was
not surprised to find Internet Explorer on my PC, and I was also not
surprised to find Netscape Navigator on my iMac. I was surprised at
how terrible Netscape was, and how many times it caused my computer
to crash. When I had finally had enough, I switched to Internet
Explorer, and have had no problems. It seems to me that many of
these companies would be better served by recruiting and hiring
talented programmers who are capable of putting out a reasonable
stable quality product, than by suing their competitors. This is the
reason that we are currently using Microsoft products; not because
of their monopoly, which as far as I am concerned is the natural
monopoly of a better product.
I also fail to see how antitrust laws do anything to help the
consumer. My perception in the past is that they rend to make my
busy life even more busy and difficult. Witness our telephone bill,
which is now beyond the comprehension of most non-accountants or
Rhodes Scholars. Is this making my life better? I don1t think so. I
want my computer(s), and their related software, on which I have
become dependent, to function as a seamless, single entity. I like
not having to connect to the internet, and having my computer do it
for me. If some people don1t, give them that option, but let me keep
mine also. But most of all, I would like these companies to work
together for the betterment of the industry, and get over their
destructive sour grapes. I know--fat chance. But can1t they at
least try?
Thank you.
Jim and Donna Duggan
MTC-00026200
From: B Nitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3'39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
u.s. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
[email protected]
Honorable Judge Hesse:
Our nation currently faces far greater challenges than the
market abuses of which Microsoft has been found guilty. It is
tempting to quietly end this anti-trust case with a minimal or
symbolic remedy. I strongly believe that this would be a mistake. A
fair remedy will revive the strength and competitiveness of our
computer industry. It would also greatly improve the security of our
information infrastructure. The proposed remedy has many obvious
legal and technical defects which make it unlikely to be any more
effective than the remedies levied in
[[Page 27769]]
previous cases. Section III.J is a loophole which allows Microsoft
to continue exposing some internal functions (APIs) and data
structures to it's own middleware products without publishing them
to potential competitors. The unnecessarily narrow definition of
``Personal Computer'' allows Microsoft to punish Apple and
Sun because neither use Intel X86 compatible microprocessors. I'm
also concerned that the complexity of this remedy might cause
Microsoft to unintentionally violate some of the terms, which would
lead to further expensive court cases.
Others may have already brought these problems to your
attention. As a software engineer I would like to address a
different aspect of the settlement. I intend to address the national
readiness and security implications of anti-competitive behavior and
present a possible solution. THE LOST DECADE (THE TECHNOLOGICAL DARK
AGES)
I began working in the computer industry shortly before
Microsoft released Windows 3.0. By 1985, Amiga, Apple, DEC and
others had developed computer operating systems with many features
which we take for granted today but which did not exist on
Microsoft's dominant OS of that time: Mouse-driven graphical
interface with overlapping windows, long filenames, multitasking,
color, full screen multimedia video, speech synthesis. These were
not fast computers but the operating systems made efficient use of
the hardware and provided a level of usability and perceived
performance that Microsoft would not attain for another 10 years.
By 1995 Microsoft had captured much of the PC operating system
market through practices which have since been repeated in other
markets. Competitors were driven into obscurity. When Windows 95 was
released, it had many of the features that existed on competing
operating systems of the mid 1980s. A common argument for a weak
settlement is that without Microsoft, we would not have reached
today's level of sophistication . On the contrary, it appears that
Microsoft actually retarded the development of efficient desktop
operating systems by eliminating viable competition. WHILE WE WERE
EDITING AUTOEXEC.BAT FILES...
When I first accessed the internet in the early 1990s, I was
surprised to see such an active software development community
outside of the United States. People from eastern europe, Germany,
Finland, and elsewhere were writing high quality software for
computers which were no longer in the U.S. mainstream. We didn't
know it, but our concentration on Microsoft Windows was causing us
to fall behind other parts of the world. Microsoft Visual Basic and
Microsoft Certifications became more important than a college degree
in maintaining a software career in the U.S. When Microsoft retires
a certification such as MSCE, the student must upgrade their
certification lest it becomes as obsolete as Windows 95. It is much
like a mechanic who learns how to fix a Model-T Ford without
learning how cars work. When presented with a VW Beetle, the overly-
specialized mechanic is lost.
When the Microsoft monopoly finally penetrated these parts of
the world, many users already knew too much. They refused to regress
to the 1980s. A Finnish youth went so far as to create a new
operating system. His experiment grew to become Linux, one of the
most common webserver operating systems on the internet. Linux is
becoming popular on desktops in europe and according to some
sources, has a 15% market share in Asia.
It may be no accident that U.S. companies are now exporting jobs
to and importing software developers from countries which had active
communities of software development outside of Microsoft's sphere of
influence. What is known as ``Open source'' is currently
one of the most fertile areas of software development and much of
this is taking place outside of our borders. A lack of competition
in the U.S. auto industry of the 1970s allowed it to grow
inefficient and vulnerable to foreign competition. It appears that
we are making the same mistake. Our computer industry is now so
dependent on this single vendor that any failure of Microsoft could
be more damaging than the collapse of Enron. USING DIVERSITY AS A
DEFENSE
It can be easily demonstrated mathematically and with
computational simulations that an infrastructure based on diversity
is less likely to experience a total failure from a single cause. So
when we base our information infrastructure on a single operating
system, we are making the same mistake as those who chose a single
variety of chestnut tree to shade the streets of American cities. We
become vulnerable as those who depended on potatoes for their sole
source of food in the 1850s. We needn't repeat this mistake, but if
things don't change I fear that we will. Nimbda, Code Red and
variants caused an estimated $15 Billion worth of damage. My logs
showed that infected Microsoft Windows computers tried to install
one of these worms on my computer about 100 times per hour. These
attacks were unsuccessful only because my computer was not
compatible.
I was fortunate to have developed software under multiple
operating systems. My most recent project under Microsoft Windows
was the development of software to install security patches, Y2k
patches and anti-virus software while removing unnecessary
vulnerable features which Microsoft installs by default. I began to
see that much of our software industry is dedicated to overcoming
limitations in Microsoft Windows.
Here are some examples:
1) Viruses, worms and other vulnerabilities can access all data
on a computer and possibly the entire local network.
2) A single application failure can cause a computer to crash.
3) Network configuration changes, security patches or software
install usually require a reboot. Dozens of reboots may be necessary
to install software for a typical business.
4) The last 3 characters of a filename determine which
application is used open the file, but they are often hidden from
the user. Creators of simple-minded worms such as
``Melissa'' and ``I Love You'' can fool a user
into invoking powerful system tools simply by naming the worm
something like ``hello.doc.vbs'' or
``hello.pps.reg''
5) Large businesses must work with thousands of computers which
may have subtle differences in DLL version numbers, installed
patches, hardware interrupts. There is no significant barrier
between user data and system data which would allow a corporation to
deploy a common environment to its entire workforce. Each computer
becomes as unique as a snowflake and the number of potential
configuration problems can equal or exceed the number of computers.
Users of Microsoft Windows demand ever faster processors and
more memory, but give little thought to the above limitations. They
are taken almost as laws of nature to be ignored or worked around.
But most of these problems are unique to Microsoft Windows. They
were solved long ago by companies such as Sun, Apple, IBM, HP and
Digital. The inertia of a non-competitive industry has locked us in
the technological dark ages. ALLOWING CONSUMERS TO USE THE RIGHT
TOOL FOR THE JOB
When Microsoft captures the market for a product such as a web
browser word processor or media player, it has a choice. It can
integrate all of these products into Windows or it can pare them
down to something marketable to the widest audience. In either case,
it is Microsoft, not the consumer, who makes this decision. We are
forced to use a tool that is not optimal for our needs. Most people
do not need the IIS webserver that came with certain versions of
Windows. As we've seen, these unecessary features can open up
significant security vulnerabilities. One argument against a strong
remedy is that ``Microsoft makes good products.'' This
implies that their market position was attained through honest
competition and . This is simply not true. Microsoft employs some
very talented developers and packages software that meets some
consumer needs. Perhaps they could have attained their current
market share without illegal anti-competitive practices, but it is
now impossible to know.
A careful examination does show that there are very few unique
ideas in Microsoft's middleware or operating system products.
Microsoft's strength comes not from superior technology, but from
the exclusive control of most aspects of an integrated environment.
It is only when Microsoft forces the consumer to take it's products
``all or nothing'' that it can wedge all potential
competitors out of a market. The default Microsoft configurations
may be appropriate for many small business and home users but they
are not the optimal for artists, writers, teachers, scientists,
doctors or software engineers. They are a ``least common
denominator.'' REENABLING THE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION
It is in the public interest that files and documents maintain
compatibility between different types of computers and between
different versions of an application. It is in Microsoft's interest
to break compatibility with versions of it's own applications and
with competing middleware products. When I receive an email
containing an attachment written in the latest version of Microsoft
Word, I am forced to upgrade to the sender's
[[Page 27770]]
version of Word, or hope that my favorite competing product is
somehow able to read it, or I can ignore the email. Competitors must
devote significant resources in decoding Microsoft's undocumented
formats so that their applications can share information. Because of
it's marketshare, Microsoft has the luxury of remaining incompatible
with competitor's formats.
Shortly after the September 11th attack, the U.S. Government
announced a Broad Agency Announcement calling for proposals on anti-
terrorism technology. Requirement 3.2.2 of this document states:
3.2.2 File Format and Content
The White Paper shall be prepared in color or black and white in
Microsoft (Office-98) Word or Adobe PDF (Version 4 or higher)
electronic file format.
The document must be print-capable and without password, using
text font and graphic file formats that will cause the document to
be NO LARGER THAN 500KB IN FILE SIZE.
Numerous other examples can be found by searching http://
www.google.com with the keywords: ``white paper'' rfp
format ``microsoft word'' shall This default sole-sourcing
of Microsoft products is very common on .gov, .us and .mil sites.
Why are we storing important government documents in an undocumented
proprietary format which is likely to become obsolete next year? Why
not use an industry standard such as HTML, RTF, UNICODE or ASCII?
Why would the U.S. government accept a format that is known to host
hundreds of viruses that already caused billions of dollars worth of
damage? It is because few are aware of an alternative. At one time
it seemed that the popularity of HTML would solve this compatibility
problem. I could view the same webpage on a Sun workstation, a
Windows PC, and the text-based ``lynx'' browser which is
useful for the blind or those with slow network connections. By 1998
many websites began using Microsoft proprietary technology in such a
way that the lynx browser no longer worked. This problem continues
to worsen. Today many web pages are no longer work properly on
computers which don't run Microsoft Windows. Information access is
increasingly being tied to the products of a single company.
PROPOSED REMEDY
A truly competitive market should lead to a system where the
consumer and producer's needs are balanced. Microsoft's monopoly
status allowed it to shift this balance away from the consumer and
at the same time prevented competitors from filling the void in the
market. My proposed remedies would address specific problems in the
computer industry which were caused by this imbalance:
(1.) PROBLEM: It is in Microsoft's interest to change data
formats often so that users are forced to upgrade. It is also in
their interest to make their format incompatible with competitors
and other industry standards. It is in the public interest that
these formats remain stable.
REMEDY: Microsoft data formats must not change for 5 years
unless the following conditions are met:
a) The proposed change to the format is published one year prior
to its release.
b) The source code for converting between old and new formats is
published.
c) The proposed change must be agreed to by a consortium of at
least 10 competitors.
d) The proposed change must be voted on by a majority of
consumers that is greater than Microsoft's market share for the
specific type of product.
(2.) PROBLEM: Microsoft continues to extend its influence into
other areas and is on track for making the internet a Microsoft
proprietary medium.
REMEDY: Any new API or Protocol that Microsoft deploys on the
public internet must meet the criteria for data formats which is
described in section (1.)
(3.) PROBLEM: Microsoft packages software in such a way that
users must pay for content which they don't need and which degrades
the security and performance of their computer.
REMEDY: All documented APIs shall be called ``The Operating
System.'' All undocumented API's shall be called
``Middleware.''
a) Microsoft shall provide the capability to remove all
undocumented APIs without degrading the performance or functionality
of documented APIs.
b) Microsoft must reduce the cost of this stripped
``Operating System'' by an amount proportional to the
development cost of the the software that was removed.
(4.) PROBLEM: Microsoft's dominance on the desktop leaves our
information infrastructure vulnerable to attack.
SOLUTION: Microsoft shall remit a fine of $10 Billion which is
to be placed in a fund which will be used to purchase computers for
schools, charities, government and non-profit agencies and foreign
aid. These computers shall be configured to be incompatible with all
existing Microsoft products.
(5.) PROBLEM: It is in Microsoft's interest to obsolete
certifications as often as possible. It is in the public interest
that this knowledge be general and usable in the future.
SOLUTION: Microsoft shall reimburse students for the cost of any
certification which becomes obsolete within 5 years of its creation.
SUMMARY
Our free market system is by far the most efficient economic
system, but it becomes unstable and dangerously inefficient when an
industry is so dominated by a single vendor even in the case where
the vendor acts in what it believes is the most benevolent manor.
The Sherman anti-trust act is a safety valve which must be used to
re-level the playing field when such an imbalance occurs. If fair
remedies are not implemented in this case, our important computer
technology sector will fall behind and damaging monopolies may soon
encompass other industries.
Respectfully Yours,
Brian Nitz
U.S. Citizen Working in Ireland
I The Priory,
Malahide
County Dublin
MTC-00026201
From: Michael A. Endsley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am against the Microsoft settlement. I honestly hate buying a
new computer and having Windows on it when I don't want it.
Michael A. Endsley
MTC-00026202
From: Jason Grochowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jason Grochowski
970 Jefferson Square
Unit E
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007
January 25, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
RE: US v. Microsoft proposed final order
As stated in the Federal Register:
``Following a 7-day trial in late 1998 and early 1999, the
United States District Court found that Microsoft had violated both
sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. On appeal, the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously affirmed
portions of the district court's finding and conclusion that
Microsoft illegally maintained its operating system monopoly in
violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act, but reversed and remanded
other portions of the district court's determinations. Specifically,
the court of appeals reversed the district court's determination
that Microsoft violated section 2 by illegally attempting to
monopolize the Internet browser market and remanded the district
court's determination that Microsoft violated section 1 of the
Sherman Act by unlawfully tying its browser to its operating
system.'' As Microsoft's guilt has been maintained (at least
partially) and we are now in the penalty phase of the trial, I find
it greatly disturbing that the current settlement does nothing to
punish Microsoft for its illegal activities. It also does nothing to
create an environment where competing products are given a fair
chance against the colossal momentum Microsoft possesses in the
software industry. After reviewing the thoughts of several others
who have commented on this, particularly the letter published by
Ralph Nader and James Love and the comments of Dennis E. Powell of
LinuxPlanet, I would like to reiterate the following thoughts on
what should be included in Microsoft's punishment:
First, in the purchase of new computers: the purchase of the
operating system and the computer hardware itself should no longer
be bound together. Users who do not wish to purchase Microsoft
Windows would no longer be forced to. Buyers would have the
opportunity to evaluate Microsoft's product at its true cost and
compare it to alternatives. This step is crucial to give competing
products a foothold in the Microsoft dominated world.
Second, Microsoft must make all current and future file format
specifications open to the public. This way documents created in any
Microsoft application can be read by
[[Page 27771]]
applications from competing manufacturers. Only then can the true
value of their software be determined by the public. Rather than be
locked into a particular application simply because of file format
issues, buyers can judge the product's features, design, and
usefulness on its own merits. The current settlement calls for the
opening of the Windows API so third parties can better develop
software that works with Windows. This is a good step forward, but
this is a world that is increasingly connected
electronically--that means exchanging data. We need to be able
exchange data that is compatible with Microsoft and non-Microsoft
applications. Also disturbing is the clause in the current
settlement stating that Microsoft can withhold technical information
from third parties on the grounds that they do not certify the
``authenticity and viability of its business.'' This is an
obvious attack on the Free Software movement, a key competitor for
Microsoft in high-end applications and servers.
Third, any network protocols created by Microsoft need to be
published in full and approved by an independent council. This way,
Microsoft could not seize control of the the Internet by effectively
walling off Windows users from the Linux, UNIX, Mac, etc. users of
the world.
Fourth, the committee that oversees Microsoft's future conduct
must have real authority. Microsoft itself should have no say in who
is appointed to this committee and it should be required to make
regular, public reports on Microsoft's conduct. Instead, the current
agreement calls for a committee that is sworn to total secrecy,
works within Microsoft's headquarters, has two-thirds of its members
selected by Microsoft itself, and has limited freedom to interview
employees. What possible deterrent to future violations can this
provide? The five to seven years of review also seem quite brief
considering the current case stems from violations of Microsoft's
last agreement to mend its ways back in 1994.
By setting any time limit at all, Microsoft is simply encouraged
to continue its habitual stalling and legal maneuvering until the
reigns are completely let loose.
Finally, the current settlement has no provisions for any
penalty whatsoever. The previous points I've outlined can help
prevent future abuses of power, but what of taking away some of
their ill gotten gains? Possibilities include, as Nader suggests,
divesting them of their browser technology or media player or
providing support for companies they have illegally tried to
sabotage.
Personal computing technology has already become a cornerstone
of our economy, business practices, and daily lifestyle and it will
only continue to become more important and more pervasive in our
lives. Now is the time to set a clear path ahead that will allow
free competition in this market. A dip in the stock market today,
that would certainly come following Microsoft's punishment, is
trivial compared to future decades dominated by this belligerent,
unremorseful corporation.
Sincerely,
Jason Grochowski
MTC-00026203
From: Gerry Kerbyson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly believe that the settlement proposed by the Justice
Dept. is intolerably unfair to the consumer public and to
Microsoft's competitors in the PC software applications field. At a
minimum, the settlement must be modified to rectify Microsoft's
anti-competitive practice of bundling user applications into its
acknowledged monopolistic Windows operating system.
I believe that Microsoft cannot be allowed to combine any
application features into its OS, either by constraint by the court,
or by severing Microsoft's OS organization from its application
organization.
Gerald M Kerbyson
MTC-00026204
From: David A. Young
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:45pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Hi
I've scanned with some interest the various documents available
regarding the legality of Microsoft's business practices. I hope
that Goverments at both State and Federal level will act together to
insure that those predatory business practices are discontinued.
I especially hope that the Courts do no accept in any way
Microsoft's offer of providing free/reduced cost software and PC's
to schools as part of any ``penalty''. I am given to
understand that Apple Computer software runs on a very small amount
of computers worlwide, saving only that Apple appears to enjoy some
larger sucess in schools.
In my opinion, allowing Microsoft to ``force out''
Apple computers from schools by offering different computers will
inevitably lead to an even smaller market share for Apple Computer,
thereby increasing Microsoft's already overpowering Monopoly power.
Thank you for your time
David A. Young
MTC-00026205
From: Edwin R. Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft
12105 Hilltop Drive
Los Altos Hill, CA 94024
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing because I feel that the agreement Microsoft has
reached with your office warrants settling the government's
antitrust lawsuit against them. The settlement seems reasonable, and
the involved parties should have the freedom to move on to more
pressing matters. I strongly feel that lawyers should not be trying
to determine what features can be implement in software. Software is
complex enough without the people who designed the tax code putting
their hand in.
Allowing computer manufacturers a greater ability to configure
Windows to include programs in direct competition with Microsoft's
is a necessary step and making it it easier for consumers to
integrate competitor's software into the Windows system is a long
overdue action. Bet the government should not be what features a in
a product.
I urge you to resolve the lawsuit and get on to more important
cases.
Sincerely,
Edwin R. Jones
01/29/2002 12:18
MTC-00026206
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Some points that I feel are important (I am not a lawyer. I am
speaking based on what I have read of other peoples''
interpretations of the proposed final judgement):
``Windows Operating System'' should be defined to be
any Microsoft product implementing any subset of the Win32 APIs.
This is important as Microsoft is diversifying their operating
system product lines beyond their traditional desktop and server
markets. Therefore, the definition of ``Windows Operating
System'' should include any and all platforms that the Win32
APIs are available on now and in the future. The complete Win32 API
must be made available. This should include alternate entry points
to functions (if they exist). An independent team should review the
Windows source code to verify correspondence between the published
API documentation and the implementation.
Microsoft should not be allowed to add APIs until this process
is complete. It would additionally be desireable, although likely
unimplementable, to have a 3rd party responsible for defining the
Win32 API. This would be akin to the POSIX and SUS (Single Unix
Standard) definitions, where a committee defines the API, and
developers are free to implement it themselves. Developers may
propose extensions to these APIs, but they are not standards unless
the committees accept them. Additionally, the final judgment should
cover any APIs that Microsoft adds after acceptance of said
judgment. Otherwise, third party developers may find themselves at a
competitive disadvantage again. No APIs should be withheld from
public documentation under any circumstances. No conditions should
be placed on the release of any of this API documentation. All
intellectual property issues related to any part of any API should
be made public as part of that API's documentation.
Microsoft's applications developers (Internet Explorer, Office,
etc.) should receive the same information as third party software
developers. Additionally, they should receive it at the same time as
third party software developers. Should they receive this
information early, or receive more detailed information, they then
hold an unfair
[[Page 27772]]
competitive advantage in the software market. Additionally, they
should be required to go through the same support channels as third
party software developers, lest they potentially receive
preferential treatment.
Justin Wojdacki
[email protected] (408) 350-5032
Communications Processors Group--Analog Devices
MTC-00026207
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:50pm
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,
Joan Schnute
140 Cedar Lake Trail
Winston-Salem, NC 27104
MTC-00026208
From: Geoffrey Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In regards to the proposed Ms Settlement and appointment of a
TC: It is my professional opinion that there is no one that can
qualify these terms. Any person qualified is by definition a
``competitor'' or has a ``conflict of
interest'', due to the nature of the computer/technology
industry and the reach and control that MS competes in. There is no
way that a technically proficient ``programming and
design'' expert can NOT BE in competition with MS at some
level. This, coupled with the weak oversights proposed amount to
little more than a slap on the hand for Microsoft. There should be
NO settlement, that MS was found guilty in the first finding, should
then proceed to an appropriate punishment. I am in favor of the
original proposal of breaking up MS, a company this large and with
obvious disregard for the law, should be broken up. 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
Geoffrey Scott Miller
Propeller Head
Mad Cow Studios
4758 Forman Avenue, Suite 9
Toluca Lake, CA 91602
(818) 623-9626
(818) 475-1602 fax
[email protected]
www.madcowstudios.com
``We're outstanding in the field''
MTC-00026209
From: Jerry J OShea
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
I strongly believe that the proposed Microsoft settlement is a
reasonable compromise and fair to all parties. Please act to end
this costgly and damaging litigation.
Respectfully,
Jeremiah J. O'Shea
E-Mail address: [email protected]
MTC-00026210
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:55pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I am a computing professional with 25 years experience. I have
worked as both a computer hardware designer and software engineer,
specializing in operating systems. I have worked at many different
companies in the last 25 years. I have watched Microsoft grow from a
vendor of PC Basic to its current monopoly position in the industry.
I feel that absent some basic changes your current remedy will leave
the US software industry in a very weakened state. In this letter I
will focus only on the issue of making the cost of Microsoft
software transparent to the user, as well as making its purchase
optional. I am asking that you require that the cost of Microsoft
software be a separate line item on ALL computer systems sold with
Microsoft software pre-loaded. Currently users do not see the price
of the Microsoft software they buy, as the Microsoft software is
bundled in. Still worse, they have no option but to buy the
software. I am further asking that you ensure that Microsoft not
outsmart the US Gov't again in this matter; the FTC has tried (and
failed) several times to resolve this problem. If there is to be a
competitive software business in the US, these two conditions are a
minimum requirement. Currently, if I buy a computer system from any
major vendor, I am forced to pay several hundred dollars for
Microsoft OS and applications software. I have no choice in this
purchase. I do not use Microsoft software; I do not want this
Microsoft software; I have to erase this Microsoft software every
time I get a new computer. In one case I have spoken with IBM about
getting a refund on the cost of the Microsoft software. Their
response: my only option is to not buy an IBM computer. In other
words, Microsoft has left IBM (and many other companies) with no
choice but to force customers to pay for Microsoft software, whether
the customers want it or not. This behaviour has almost killed
competition in the PC software industry. Years ago, one could buy a
computer with a choice of pre-loaded software. No longer. The only
option offered by most vendors is Microsoft. The US gov't has tried,
and failed, several times to change this situation. In 1995 the US
Gov't thought it had worked out an agreement with Microsoft to force
unbundling. The US Gov't was wrong. In fact, the US Gov't has been
consistently outmaneuvered by Microsoft. The outcome of the current
trial is one of the last chances we have to save Microsoft
competition from complete extinction. There is a precedent for this
type of unbundling. You are not doubt familiar with the unbundling
of IBM Operating System software from the IBM 360/370 computer
systems. That forced unbundling resulted in the creation of credible
competition for IBM, and forced the mainframe industry to move
forward much faster than would otherwise have happened. Unbundling
was tough on IBM, but very good for IBM's customers and US
technological innovation. Please consider my request for unbundling.
A strong, competitive US software industry is vital to the Nation's
security. Your current plans will leave us with a monopoly provider
with almost no competition.
At the very least, transparency should be the rule when a
computer system is purchased with software pre-loaded.
Sincerely
Ronald G. Minnich
48 Sumac Lane
Los Alamos, NM 87544
505 663 0784
MTC-00026211
From: Arthur E Mari
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:56pm
Subject: Microsft Settlement
Gentlemen:
Please let us get this case behind us and move forward
Our country has more important things to focus on than the
continuous litigation costing much with no rewards except to
lawyers.
I implore you to stop this now!
We need more Microsofts to develop the millions of jobs as it
has in the past.
Competition is using litigation to help themselves and no one
else.
Thank you.
Arthur E. Mari
[[Page 27773]]
P. O. Box 484
West Dennis, MA 02670-0484
CC:MSFIN@mic@inetgw
MTC-00026212
From: james williamson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern.
I have been in the computer industry for forty years and I
believe the turnaround in the Microsoft case is a gross injustice
and will hurt the market for both hardware and software. I believe
that Microsoft lobbying just adds to the selling out of America to
the highest bidder please reconsider. There is a great amount of
real anger among my associates leading to pledges not to buy another
Microsoft product. this anger could hurt an industry that is already
scraping bottom.
Sincerely Jim Williamson
MTC-00026213
From: Jon Cochran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'd just like to weigh in with my comment on the proposed
Microsoft settlement. I seem to recall that an attempt to curb
Microsoft's anti-competitive practices was attempted a few years
ago, and they (microsoft) did nothing to keep their end of the
agreement.
Please make sure it's done right this time.
Thank you,
Jon Cochran
MTC-00026214
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:55pm
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,
Ben and Jane Balzer
PMB 111, 1750 Highway 126
Florence, OR 97439
MTC-00026215
From: Kevin Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
Under the Tunney Act, I am writing to provide my comments on the
proposed antitrust settlement with Microsoft. I am asking that you
not agree to the proposed antitrust settlement and instead seek
either a structural remedy or more stringent and open-ended
behavioral remedies. I am in charge of Information Technology at a
small aerospace business located in Southern California, and I feel
that we have suffered due to Microsoft's illegal behavior in
preventing competition to its products. Their past behavior,
especially in flaunting the provisions of the 1995 consent decree
and in refusing to admit any wrongdoing in the current case, gives
me little hope that the weak provisions I have seen in the proposed
consent decree will have any material effect on their behavior. We
run Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office on all of our desktop
computers. The use of Microsoft's proprietary Word, Excel, and
PowerPoint formats as de-facto standards for information exchange
(even by our U.S. Government clients) ensures their continued
importance for the foreseeable future. However, I understand that no
part of the settlement requires Microsoft to release any information
about file formats, implying that there will be no competition to
Microsoft on our desktops in the years to come. I would prefer to
see either a structural remedy separating Microsoft's operating
system and application businesses, or a strong behavioral
requirement to release all file formats for interoperability
purposes.
The possible extension of Microsoft's desktop monopoly onto our
server computers is of even greater concern to me. Our servers
currently use the Linux operating system and Samba file serving
software. These programs have worked well for us and are a credible
alternative to Microsoft's server software. However, the proposed
settlement gives no standing to the general public and non-profit
organizations which are an important part of the development and
support of these programs. The settlement also has too many
loopholes in defining what interoperability information Microsoft
must release. If Microsoft is allowed to withhold interoperability
information from any interested party then they can effectively use
their desktop monopoly to prevent an interoperable server program
from being produced; their proprietary extensions to the
standardized Kerberos authentication protocol are a good example of
their willingness to use their desktop monopoly to their advantage
in the realm of server software.
Please do not allow a repetition of what occurred in 1995. Small
businesses like ours cannot afford to have Microsoft expand its
monopoly further and limit our ability to purchase and use software
and services in a competitive environment.
Sincerely,
Kevin Moore
Kevin C. Moore, Ph.D. (V) 909 392 3158
Advanced Projects Research, Inc. (F) 909 392 3156
1925 McKinley Avenue, Suite B
[email protected]
La Verne, CA 91750
MTC-00026216
From: lew berish
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
10213 Napa Valley Drive
Frisco, Texas 75035
January 26, 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. The terms of the
settlement are fair and a safeguard is in place to make sure that
they are followed. All that is needed is for the government to
accept the agreement. The terms of the settlement are more than
fair, Microsoft has actually agreed to terms that extend well beyond
the products and procedures there were actually at issue in the
suit. As a term of the settlement a technical committee will be
created to monitor Microsoft's compliance with the settlement. I
feel that the terms are fair and a safeguard is in place to make
sure they are followed.
The only thing left before putting this three-year-old issue to
rest is for the Department of Justice to accept the agreement. I
urge you to accept the settlement and let the technology industry
move forward.
Sincerely,
Lew Berish
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026217
From: Terry Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Go with the settlement.
This has gone on long enough and done little but cost money.
Let's get back to business and the marketplace and out of the
courts. There are seemingly two groups fighting MS. Its competitors
(who might have a biased position) and the computing community who
have an irrational hatred of MS (I know having been in the business
for 25 years and a dedicated Mac user (but not an MS hater since I
could never see the point)).
The consumer hasn't been helped by this at all. MS has
traditionally been the low price leader (I remember well when OS/2
cost 600$ and Windows $79 and when Apple charged 2x the PC rate for
everything it produced).
It is way past time for this to stop.
Terry
MTC-00026218
From: benson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:04pm
Subject: USAGBenson--Peter--1071--0124
Attorney General John Ashcroft
January 25,2002
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I would lie to briefly explain some of my feeling about the
Microsoft antitrust case. I
[[Page 27774]]
am a user and supporter of Microsoft's products. I cannot say that I
agree with every decision Microsoft has made in the past, but
business does not equal benevolence. I do agree that there was merit
behind the issues that brought about the case, but that was three
years and countless taxpayers'' dollars ago. It is time to put
this matter to rest. If the settlement agreement will allow that
happen, then I support it. Under the terms of the settlement,
Microsoft has agreed to stop retaliating against those that design
or promote non-Microsoft programs. Also, Microsoft will allow
computer makers to configure Windows so as to promote those
programs. A technical oversight committee will ensure that Microsoft
complies with the terms of the settlement. I do not see the need for
further federal action. Nine states have already approved the
agreement, and Microsoft is negotiating with the remaining states
reach an agreement. I fear that some of the states are using
consumer protection as a veil for return on investment, and the case
may never end. I hope that your office is watching the states''
motives as actively as you are watching Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Peter Benson
PO Box 10
San Patricio, NM 88348
MTC-00026219
From: Ryan C. Stehr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:06pm
Subject: what to do
I think, that to punish microsoft, the ruling of the court
should require that only software by the computer manufacturer shold
be allowed to be pre-installed on a computer. In other words: if you
don't make the software, you have to sell your computer naked.
MTC-00026220
From: David Joerg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:08pm
Subject: proposed Microsoft Settlement has serious problems
I find I must agree especially with the comments in a letter
dated November 5, 2001 from Ralph Nader to Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly:
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.
Also:
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.
And:
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.
Thank you for your attention! Please do the right thing for
America, and live up to the American tradition of breaking
monopolies and enforcing the law.
Sincerely,
--David Joerg
New York, NY
[email protected]
MTC-00026221
From: cookie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It's time to be finished with all of the frivolous lawsuits
against Microsoft--one of America's finest companies. The most
recent filing by AOL/Time Warner--through its subsidiary,
Netscape Communications Corporation--is absurd. Enough is
enough. These lawsuits are blatant attempts by the parties filing
suit to ``share'' in Microsoft's financial success because
they are greedy and incapable of honorable competition.
As a consumer, I have both IE and Netscape browsers. I use them
both--depending on my mood. I have never been forced to use one
or the other. If one cannot follow instructions for choosing the
primary browser, perhaps one should amuse oneself with activities
that don't require a computer.
As a taxpayer, I am outraged at the ``legal''
shenanigans--or circus, if you prefer--and the expenses
that will be passed to the citizens of our great country. I believe
there are far more pressing issues for the DOJ to handle at this
most crucial time in our history.
Sincerely,
A. C. Poh
MTC-00026222
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:09pm
Subject: Re settlement.
To whom it may condern. The settlement for Microsoft is really
necessary at this time. We have many problems in our country but
Microsoft is not one of them. The spirit of this country is kindled
by people who have ideas that bring better methods and ease to all
of us. Microsoft has done that and others can do the same ina free
country.The country needsMicrosoft in full stride to help overcome
our recession and put people back to work. With due respect to all,
Karen Small [email protected]
MTC-00026223
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This should come to a halt! For the good of the country and for
all of us, let's call a stop to the harassing of Microsoft.
MTC-00026224
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen, Breaking up Micrrosoft is no help to those of us who
only became PC users because of the ease of Microsofts Versions 3.1
and 95 and 98. The features of Microsoft 98, which I use, work
smothly. Incompatibility will certainly result if you force others
to provide the microsoft features which we find so easy to use. I am
not to worried about the other PC providers not enjoying a so called
fair market. This should be a free market and those with the best
product ought not to be hamstrung by lawyers and the courts.
Microsoft developed their code. Why should they give it away as some
seem to desire. I am a user and I want to continue to purchase my
PCs with all the Microsoft features. Warren Piper, Sun City Center,
Fl.
MTC-00026225
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:14pm
Subject: (no subject)
Get off Microsoft's case. If it was'nt for them we would not be
as far as we are technology-wise. LEAVE THEM ALONE. ENOUGH ALREADY.
Sandra Hare Goldbeck
MTC-00026226
From: Zach Kaplan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:21pm
Renata B. Hesse--
I am writing to voice my comments about the settlement between
the United States and Microsoft. Microsoft should be praised instead
of punished for its business practices. They're fierce competition
has brought me amazing innovations in the field of information
technology. I use Microsoft products every single day. As I
graduated from College I started a company that build custom
software. We were able to utilize tools Microsoft provides for
developers in our products. With a very small development team we
were able to create software used by small businesses and fortune
500 companies.
[[Page 27775]]
We were recently bought out and plan to start a new company. Each
day I use Microsoft Word, Internet Explorer, Windows, and other
Microsoft tools I am reminded of the thousands of people that
devoted countless hours of their lives to create this value that has
changed the world for the better. I resent the government's
characterization of me as a helpless victim who cannot choose
software that is useful to you. I do choose to use different
software vendors. Macromedia's web development tools are better than
Microsoft's so our company chose to purchase them instead. I do not
think that the government has any right to decide what software I
use in my computer. I also resent the idea that a successful
business and its products are a threat to anyone. We worked very
hard on our business to create value we could trade with others.
Although our company was much smaller our customers still chose to
purchase our products. Also I have read that this whole issue with
Microsoft originated with one of Microsoft's unsuccessful
competitors. If our competitors were allowed to set the rules for
the markets in which we provided more value than them it would be an
injustice.
I studied abroad a few years ago and expereinced first hand that
in other countries when politicians protect some businesses from
others is a dangerous policy, leading to corruption and economic
disaster. I felt proud to be an American when I witnessed this
activity. I hope you will protect our liberties from this kind of
activity. Looking foward I wish to see an America where success is
not throttled but embraced. I want a free America where anyone that
chooses to think rationally and work hard can create and trade value
with others. This is truly the American dream. I feel very strongly
that Microsoft has a right to the intellectual property it created
with its employees hard work. It is our great government's job is to
protect this right, not to take it away.
Thank you for reading my comments,
Zach Kaplan
MTC-00026227
From: Lenore Horner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed Microsoft settlement doesn't make sense to me for a
number of reasons. It proposes ``punishing'' Microsoft by
letting it get its foot in the door through donated software. It
doesn't seem to properly regulate the problematic behaviors.
Consider for example the summary points below. per http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#abe
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.
One of Microsoft's more reprehensible modes of operation is that
of bully: sell my stuff, my way and only my way or I'll put you out
of business. The settlement fails to fully and uniformly protect
companies from Microsoft's tactics. Why is it acceptable for
Microsoft to use pressure tactics on little guys just because
they're not top 20? The permission of Microsoft to continue its
current licensing practice of charging on the basis of potential
machines using the software rather than actual machines using the
software is permission to charge for non-existent services. This is
something that should be explicitly prohibited for all companies.
One does not after all go to the store and buy as much juice as
biologists have determined the people in your household could
conceivably drink in some set period of time, rather one buys the
amount one expects to use and buys more if more is needed. The
argument that software can be pirated won't wash since one is
presumed innocent until proven guilty. The present Microsoft
practice not only presumes guilt but does not even admit of a
procedure for proving innocence.
Lastly, given Microsoft's past history, it is imperative that
the settlement have clear and potent means of enforcement embodied
in the agreement as opposed to mere investigative powers. Thanks for
``listening''
Lenore Horner
MTC-00026228
From: Kathleen Turner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Jan. 26, 2002
The proposed settlement with Microsoft does nothing to lessen
the stranglehold this company has on the software industry of this
country much as the ancient medieval guilds in past history. The
settlement is a bad idea as it does little to allow real innovations
to occur in the industry be comletely scrapped and overhauled.
Kathleen Turner
[email protected]
MTC-00026229
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi, I support the judgement already made against Microsoft.
Please do not impose any more penalty upon them. Merton L. Thornton
MTC-00026231
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Mr.Ashcroft:
As an independent computer consultant, I am writing to express
my support of Microsoft. Much of my daily work is done with
Microsoft's software, including Windows NT, Office, FrontPage and
Visual Basic.
I have had much success using Microsoft products in working on
large projects for my clients. I was never forced to use Microsoft's
products, as I had other options. However, Microsoft just happened
to offer the best product on the market. I never considered
Microsoft exercised any anticompetitive monopolistic influence on
me, and I feel this lawsuit was a waste of time and money.
Now that Microsoft and the government have reached agreement, I
think all litigation regarding these cases??? issues need to end.
Microsoft agreed to the establishment of a technical committee to
monitor Microsoft's compliance with the settlement and to assist
with resolving any disputes. Hasn???t the court ruled that is
enough? Aren't the states pursuing further litigation because of
influences from special interest groups? Let's put this antitrust
case to bed. There are far more pressing issues that the Government
needs to focus on, such as reviving the economy and stimulating the
creation of more jobs.
Sincerely,
Gary Lansman
MTC-00026232
From: GARABED HOVHANESIAN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir :
The Microsoft settlement is a good settlement and is for
everyone.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Nancy Hovhanesian
MTC-00026233
From: Daniel Lee
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/26/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam:
My Name is Daniel Lee of San Mateo, CA, I am a professional
computer programmer. I feel very strongly that the current Proposed
Final Judgement (PFJ) is insufficient to prevent further abuses by
Microsoft and fails to punish Microsoft for past misdeeds.
Many have pointed out problems with the PFJ's sections
concerning the API's with regard to their definition, distribution
and documentation. I wish to point out the main tool through which
Microsoft has illegally maintained their monopoly.
One of the most fundamental tenets of U.S. Anti-trust (Clayton
Act, 1914) law is that the holder of an essential resource (a
railroad trunk or other monopoly) cannot use this hold to restrain
trade. The Clayton Act of 1914 specifically prohibits exclusive
dealing and similar anticompetitive acts. Microsoft, by virtue of
its posession of the Microsoft Windows operating system, through
restrictive licensing has specifically prohibited the purchase and
installation of potential competitors by OEM's. In Feburary of 1999,
the CEO of Be, Inc., a potential
[[Page 27776]]
competitor to Microsoft Windows in the OS arena, offerred PC makers
their BeOS operating system for free. Many PC manufacturers
expressed interest, after all, they could then offer their computers
with a added value for very little expense themselves. But only one
(Hitachi) eventually installed the OS on their computers, and then
so thoroughly hidden that it required more than 10 steps to start up
the BeOS. The current PFJ fails to prohibit these and other
anticompetitive practices by Microsoft towards OEMs. Specifically,
the PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that ships
personal comptuers containing a competing OS but no Microsoft
operating system. In view of this deficiency and the others pointed
out in Dan Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/remedy2.html) I have reached the conclusion that the Proposed
Final judgement, as written, would allow Microsoft to continue its
significant anticompetitive practices. The Proposed Final Judgement
is not in the public interest.
Sincerely,
Daniel Lee
San Mateo, CA
Senior Software Engineer
MTC-00026234
From: Larry Barone
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/26/02 4:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Department of Justice
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am an owner of a small engineering services business which has
been operating now for the past 25 years. I am writing this letter
from this perspective and in particular to comment on the events of
the past few years regarding Microsoft, and to also offer my
thoughts as a consumer on my opinion of Microsoft as a company,
their business practices, and how I view them as a consumer of their
products.
I have been watching with much interest, the progress of the
lawsuits againsed Microsoft over the past few years. Initially, I
was of the opinion that it seemed to be an unusual alliance between
government, and Microsoft's competitors. I could understand the
desire of their competitors to gain leverage againsed Microsoft
whatever way they could, but was surprised that they were able to
enlist the aid of the government in their effort. However, as the
case progressed, I was persuaded that some of Microsoft's practices
were probably subject to criticism with some remediation being in
order.
However, I have another way of looking at all of this since I am
a committed consumer of their products, which is to attempt to
measure what the net benefit has been to the consumer of the all the
activities of Microsoft for the past two decades. If the experience
of my small company is any measure of the true value that Microsoft
products have brought to the small businesses of this country, the
net value to the economy of this country has been enhanced beyond
measure. For the first five years of operating this business, large
investments in computers in excess of $60,000 resulted in only the
marginal ability to do word processing. However, in the early
1980's, with the advent of the personal computer, powered by
Microsoft operating systems and applications software by Microsoft
and other suppliers, our business model was completely automated and
revolutionized. In the intervening years, we have witnessed and
benefited from an increasing level of integration of applications
which have been offered at a cost which goes beyond affordable. In
most cases, the price of the current Microsoft small business office
automation offerings is under priced when we measure the value it
brings to our enterprise. Today that same $60,000 will purchase
capabilities which have been conservatively estimated to be worth
100 times the original value. Another perspective about Microsoft
which seems to be overlooked at least by the media in their
reporting, is that unquestionably, Microsoft understands who their
primary customer is--the consumer and small business. Their
competitors pay lip service to us but typically have their primary
focus on the big corporate and institutional accounts. And
regardless of what can be said about their business practices, one
of the major reasons for their success is the fact that they are
very focused on the needs of their primary customer. I believe that
the current settlement which has been agreed to needs to be ratified
for the reason, that I believe that the recent legal struggle will
have a chilling effect on Microsoft, regardless of the eventual
details of the settlement. They will be restrained from behavior
which will be in any way interpreted as stifling competition.
However, going forward with a settlement is also important, as a
signal and precedent to other greedy self interested competitors who
would be motivated to get in court what they cannot achieve in the
open market. I urge you to ratify the current settlement agreement.
Thank you for considering my comments and opinions.
Larry Barone
President
South Coast Systems, Inc.
2110 E. 1st St.
Santa Ana, CA 92705
MTC-00026235
From: Paul Hubert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement not merely exceedingly bad, but a
unique GIFT to a huge corporation .-.-. just wonderful
.-.-.
I can only assume that the Federal government and its attorneys
are either blind, deaf, and completely moronic .-.-. or
have been paid off handsomly under the table.
Congratulations on becoming one with the Living Dead!
MTC-00026236
From: Nigel Gamble
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the proposed settlement is a very bad idea. I do not
see how it will restore competition and effective consumer choice in
the personal computer operating system market.
In particular, it excludes the open source development community
from consideration completely. Freely available operating systems
such as Linux or FreeBSD which are able to run Windows applications
would provide very real competitors to the Windows monopoly, but
Microsoft does not disclose information about its application
programming interfaces, file formats and communication protocols
which would allow these operating systems to run Windows
applications. A settlement which enforced this would go a long way
to opening the personal computer operating system market to real
competition, giving consumers a real choice at last.
Nigel Gamble
Operating System Software Engineer & Linux kernel
contributor.
Mountain View, CA, USA.
MTC-00026237
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert McCroskey
2004 Prestancia Lane
Sun City Center, FL 33573-6915
MTC-00026238
From: JnJRanch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice:
I feel it is time to settle the Microsoft case and move on. I
feel it is a detrement to the country and our economy to continue to
drag this suit out.
Jeanne Jacobs ([email protected])
MTC-00026239
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:26pm
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
[[Page 27777]]
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,
Sue Sullivan
4389 L. Fayetevl. Rd.
Sharpsburg, GA 30277
MTC-00026240
From: Martin Joseph
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:29pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement comment.
Sirs and Madame's,
I would like to add my voice to those who feel MS is once again
trying to thumb there nose at DOJ and the rest of the computer
industry while using the so called ``settlement'' as a
tool for further destroying the competitions business and extending
there monopoly power into new markets.
Obviously the ``feel good'' concept of donating to
education is destroyed by the fact that:
1) They are trying to damage Apple Computers business in this
market.
2) The 1 Billion figure is a joke with regards to Microsoft's
actual costs/benefits.
3) They are continuing to behave in the same illegal fashion (ie
.NET, Windows XP, Xbox, etc.).
Microsoft was bred on a tradition of paranoia and dirty
dealings, the stories in the industry abound. They gained an
overnight monopoly based on the market clout of the IBM brand in
1981, when IBM entered the market and (foolishly) allowed MS to
license the same software's (dos/basic etc.) that they were
licensing to others(compaq, dell, hp, emachines, gateway, etc). This
created the current condition of hundreds of vendors competing with
products that all use the identical Microsoft OS as there critical
element.
I feel that any equitable settlement would involve two parts.
1) a large CASH payment (on the order of 10 billion). Lord knows
this is still a drop in the bucket for them.
2) Oversight of there day to day operations by independent
persons.
They need to be PUNISHED in way that makes them feel it, and
forces them to change there attitude and operations.
Thank you,
Martin Joseph
10553 Alton Ave. NE
Seattle WA, 98125
206 363 1183
MTC-00026241
From: Paul Gabriel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
Just adding my disapproval to the proposed settlement. I'd like
to see more source disclosure. Give this thing some real teeth
instead of barely a slap on the wrist. Get rid of all the loopholes
where Microsoft gets to decide what they will and more importantly
will not disclose.
Paul Gabriel
85 Lowell Place
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
MTC-00026242
From: Bill(038)Kim Worden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge,
I am a concerned citizen voicing my negative feelings about the
proposed settlement with Microsoft. Our nation's sense of fair play
and honest competition have been the fuel that propelled us to the
status of world leader during the industrial, space, and now
technology dependent age. Microsoft has played a large part in
advancing technology and deserves all the credit for this. However,
it does not give them the right to violate the rules set in place to
advance new innovations and ensure a healthy economy that relies on
competition. Please, do your part in protecting the rights of fair
play.
Thank you for your time,
God bless,
William J. Worden, DDS
551 Napa Valley Lane
Crestview Hills, KY 41017
(859)426-1068
MTC-00026243
From: drbeto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:27pm
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
Enough is enough, let them go on providing just what the public
wants. For me and my household, we are completely satisfied with
Microsoft just as they are, let the government better spend their
time chasing after illegal aliens and terrorists, and stop trying to
bring down the best thing that has ever happened to John Q. Public.
Robert Thomas,
A satisfied User
MTC-00026244
From: P W Mueller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Microsoft settlement.
I am a computer owner, user and curser. More importantly I am a
Microsoft product user. The reason I use Microsoft products,
windows, office and word and other support conveniences is because
these programs work! The reason I do not use other programs is
simply ``they do not work'' I know that because I have a
box full of them and I spent far more in money and frustration for
each of them than I paid or endure for Microsoft soft ware .
I know the difference between good tools and bad because 1938
was not a good year for computing tools or an open minds to wacky
ideas that employed the use of the wind to transport, record and
store data.-.-.-. Yes I believed in the telephone
but just barely. Like magic we were told we could instantly retrieve
and manipulation documents stored somewhere on a main frame and
paper would be a eliminated or possibly eviscerated to quote the
State department. To say I was opposed is an understatement but in
the late 1980's I was wired with the state of the art Rainbow
computing system. My office was now efficient! My people could now
do in days what previously took hours by hand. I was now part of the
future supervising people that hated me and their job. With a single
key stroke or blip in the power or a lightening strike days of work
was lost for ever. Since those days I have used many generations of
bad programing and worse programs bought by the ``DOD'' If
I forced myself to remember bad memories of my youth I could
probably list a number of them but the one I remember most was a $4
million dollar system that was brought into our department The
company unloaded the system and left, we sent people to off to a
school in the south that arrived at a empty ware house we never
heard another word from the company. God alone knows how many
Millions of dollars was picked from the pockets of the Government
but not a single word was ever uttered by the ``DOJ''
pursuing this theft of public money.
The point of that boring dissertation is that somewhere
Microsoft came along and some bright young man installed an
unauthorized copy and wonders of wonders the promise of the future
became a reality. We could do all those things that failed with all
those other systems.
Now my question to the ``DOJ'' is why is the
``DOJ'' so hot on the trail of Microsoft? A company that
produces a good product, that supports the community, the State, and
the Nation as well as poor countries around the world? Yet by
admission the ``DOJ'' does not have time to prosecute,
arraign or even pursue companies and corporations that are absolute
frauds. Janet Reno was proud to announce to the world that she had
13 ``DOJ'' lawyers in Washington DC working full time
going after Microsoft and a complete office of the ``DOJ''
some where in the west working on this one case FULL TIME yet she
and ``DOJ'' were so under staffed and undermanned that it
was not possible to even arrest known criminals, the telemarketer's
simply stealing from people, the travelers that move about the
country that go as far as forcing the elderly to pay for unwanted
and worthless construction and repairs, drug dealers, gang's, to
hardly say anything about the ENRONS! Or what we know now as the
true cost of porous borders This list can go on for a very long
time. Sadly the ``DOJ'' knows all this, none of this is
news or even new to them or any one else. So again I ask why is the
``DOJ'' wasting my tax dollars to come to the aid of a
number of ``Johnny come lately's `` that can not produce a
quality product who's motives are clearly to cash in on what
Microsoft started from the ground up with a few bucks and guts and
neglecting the real problems that are a plague to our society. When
Microsoft supports a communities it does so with a dollar at full
value unlike the
[[Page 27778]]
.010 cents on the dollar a community might get form a government
program, when Microsoft gives money, property and training to the
community it does so with money it earned unlike the government.
The existence of Microsoft is a United States success story that
should be supported not vilified! .-.-. Bill Gates has
not run to a foreign country to produce his wares. He started here
and so far has stayed here and it baffles me as to why the
``DOJ'' is so intent on destroying an American success
story. It certainly is not for the reasons stated by the
``DOJ'' ``consumer protection'' I paid
``$398 plus for Corel's word perfect'' (a good program) I
paid $98 for Microsoft windows and another $89 for Microsoft word (
combined far more useful than Corel's program) So who do I need
protection from? Microsoft! I don't believe so! So.. to the
department of justice once again I say what is going on? I see this
pursuit of Microsoft as a vendetta that was clearly stated to the
nation and media by Judge Jackson, Janet Reno, and Klien
.-.-. and that is a fleecing of the tax payers forcing
us to pay for the destruction of a good company and the gifting of
funds and rewards to companies that produce inferior products.
Companies that want Bill Gates and Microsoft to give them the keys
to success as directed by the DOJ'' and this is wrong!
Sincerely Paul W. Mueller
MTC-00026245
From: Stephen Estes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
I do hope the DOJ does what ever is possible to get the
Microsoft settlement closed and done with. I am a software developer
and am amazed at the array of law suits maligned against Microsoft
by companies with vastly inferior products. The government in
alliance with these jackals have encouraged this deluge. The latest:
AOL, seeking damages for Netscape, a horrible product. Just get a
competent software engineer to compare the public APIs of the two
products. Netscape's is a mess and only a fool would choose to
target it for development over Internet Explorer. And AOL squawking
about closed monopolies? Ask them why it is not possible to
interface with their messenger. Compare this policy to Microsoft's
.NET W3C sanctioned architecture where all interfaces are
discoverable with a simple invocation of a URL.
Please, end the travesty and let the industry once again freely
evolve. Allow us to develop and integrate our products into freely
emerging standards without the fear of federal impediment. And if
you must meddle, force AOL to open their products, specifically
messaging, to the newly standardized interfaces.
Sincerely,
Stephen Estes
Software Engineer
225 Moody
Lufkin, TX 75901
MTC-00026246
From: Carl Youngdahl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice,
I, a US citizen, believe that the Proposed Final Judgment in the
Microsoft Settlement fails to prevent detrimental anticompetitive
practices, hinders constructive competition from compatible
operating systems, and is not in the public interest. The settlement
should be reworked to effectively address these problems in an
enforceable way, taking into account Microsoft's position, power,
history, and tendencies.
Most sincerely,
Dr. Carl J. Youngdahl
[email protected]
CC:Carl Youngdahl
MTC-00026247
From: Don Stephens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ;
I urge you to impose severe restrictions on Microsoft to prevent
them from taking advantage of their ill-gotten market share to the
detriment of the general public. They should not be allowed to
``bully'' their competitors as they have in the past. As a
Java programmer and a Macintosh user, I have suffered doubly from
their past anti-competitive practices. I urge you to restore
competition to the computer industry by imposing comprehensive
restrictions and then following through with close monitoring.
Sincerely,
Don Stephens
908 SE Cora
Portland, OR 97202
[email protected]
MTC-00026248
From: M.X. Rees
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:38pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Ms. Hesse-
While nonchalantly frittering away my day at work surfing the
internet looking for news about the Enron debacle, I somehow
stumbled onto a business news site, and ultimately, after a strange
series of twists and turns on the Al Gore Soopahighway, ended up on
the US vs. Microsoft site. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-
settle.htm I hadn't realized I was so timely with my search, since
the Tunney Act stipulations expire here in a couple of days. Since
this is a very democratic republic (viz. Tocqueville), the public
actually gets to give its input on the ``Public
Interest.'' Excellent.
I want to come out and say that Microsoft has frankly been on
the receiving end of the proverbial shaft. This settlement is
insane. It scavenges over the intellectual property of Microsoft
like vultures in the desert. At the same time, we tell our comrades
in China about our committment to private
property--particularly intellectual property--and how it
is necessary to respect those fundamental rights if they wish to
join the WTO. I am sure that there are others who gloat at the irony
of how we begin to promote software piracy (and hacking) just as we
warn other countries that we value the rule of law to promote
success.
Next, changing the power of licensing from the licenser (a
software trust) to the licensees (an OEM trust)is a great idea that
won't change a darn thing for consumers. Saying that this has
anything to do with the public is disingenuous at best. The OEMs, so
oppressed by that demon Microsoft, include the poverty-stricken
firms of Dell, IBM, and Compaq. The same vow of poverty holds true
for Sun Microsystems, AOL, and Oracle, who also are prime litigants
in the trial of how Microsoft is a sole corporate tyrant. Sun in
particular is the most amusing, since on its website it complains
about Microsoft having ``monopoly power,'' while at the
same time putting this ironic tagline at the end: ``[Sun is] a
leading provider of industrial-strength hardware, software and
services that power the Internet and allow companies worldwide to
``.com'' their businesses. With $13 billion [yes, Billion]
in annual revenues, Sun can be found in more than 170 countries.
-.-.'' http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/
2000-04/sunflash.20000403.4.html
It doesn't really seem to me that Microsoft is pushing these
guys out of the market.
I realize that the good AG was put in a bad position politically
and had to compromise--dropping the case like bricks would have
been rather hard to justify to a great deal of loud and important
people like the Senate Judiciary Committee and the AOL/Sun/Oracle
cartel. Due to the way Washington works, it's very difficult to
avoid that. Still, if there was any justice in the world, we'd drop
this suit altogether, and have President Bush use some peculiar
anachronistic executive pardoning power to vindicate Microsoft. Of
course, if there was justice in the world, we'd also hang John
Walker Lindh at high noon.
Thank you for hearing my thoughts on this important matter. Keep
up the good work at the DOJ, and tell Mr. Ashcroft to hang in
there--AG has to be one of the most difficult jobs on Earth
these days.
Yours,
Matthew Ch. Rees
4509 Brandywine St. NW
Washington DC 20016
26 January 2001
MTC-00026249
From: Bose, Landric A.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement with Microsoft is wholly unsatisfactory,
and as a taxpayer I would be highly displeased with a
``punishment'' of allowing Microsoft to increase it's
market share, which is what this suit was concerned with in the
first place. If the United States is truly comitted to promoting a
fair marketplace, this is the occasion in which to do it.
Thank you for your time.
-Landric A. Bose
Houston, TX
MTC-00026250
From: Paul Luczka
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 27779]]
Date: 1/26/02 4:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please don't allow onerous regulation and endless litigation to
gum up private enterprise and customer choice.
Thank you.
Paul Luczka
MTC-00026251
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:39pm
Subject: DOJ Letters
Letters sent to doj and Senator Santorm
MTC-00026251 0001
Letters sent to doj and Senator Santorm
MTC-00026251--0002
01/29/2002 12:21 !
MTC-00026252
From: Bob Bressler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft
Re: Microsoft settlement.
Oak Hill South 302
Penn Valley PA 19072
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20530 Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
We are writing about the Microsoft case. This issue has been
going on far too long. Microsoft is a good innovative company which
is being hurt because of, among other things, the amount of company
resources required in this seemingly endless effort. Please do your
best to uphold the settlement and ensure the end of this mess.
The settlement is fair, calling for more sharing of technology
secrets among competitors and easier access to non-Microsoft
programs in the Windows operating system. These will ensure that
there is fair competition in the technology industry, which was the
main issue of this lawsuit. Please respect the proposed settlement;
it is in the best interest of everyone involved.
Sincerely,
Robert A. & Elayne B. Bressler
MTC-00026253
From: Evelyn Cote
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/26/02 4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Evelyn Cote
13 Creigmont Lane
Fairfield Glade, TN 38558
January 26, 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,
Evelyn Cote
MTC-00026254
From: Ian Filson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/26/02 4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ian Filson
31161 RPO Way, Rutgers, the
State University of New Jersey
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
January 26, 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,
Ian Filson
MTC-00026255
From: SatGuru
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To whom it may concern,
Proposed settlement is too lenient.
I feel that the proposed settlement does not impose enough
sanctions and restrictions on Microsoft. The settlement falls far
short of penalizing Microsoft for their unfair use of monopoly power
in the past and does little to restrain their future use of their
monopoly position. Further, their proposal to ``pay back''
to the community by ``giving'' Microsoft products to
schools and other public institutions (but not give support) is
ridiculous. It would only extend their monopoly further without
costing them a single red-cent. On the other hand .. if they
refunded all payments made to Microsoft from public institutions for
past product purchases and support .. now THAT would be meaningful.
Microsoft is clearly a monopoly and clearly uses monopoly power to
bully its way around the marketplace to push viable competitors into
closing their doors.
Microsoft should be forced to choose to be either a platform
vendor or an application vendor. It was wrong for them to assume
both roles. By 1995 at least, and probably earlier, they should have
spun off the applications business (Office products, primarily) into
a separate independent business. By keeping both, they effectively
shutdown (or shutout) most business application vendors, by
competing unfairly. For other vendors to make their own operating
systems is like suggesting that other phone companies run duplicate
wires and telephone poles in every neighborhood. When an operating
system becomes that pervasive it should be treated like a public
utility, like part of the national infrastructure, not owned by
anyone, but supported by the public, for the public good.
Sincerely,
Sat Guru S Khalsa
21 Baltimore St
Millis, MA 02054
MTC-00026256
From: RUTHANN SUDMAN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:51pm
Dear Renata B. Hesse
I wish to file a complaint about the proposed Microsoft
settlement as allowed by the Tunney Act. Although there are many
points to argue in this settlement, I have selected Section III.A.2.
I am concerned because the PFJ prohibits certain behaviors by
Microsoft towards OEMs, however 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. I do
not find this to be an acceptable solution. I am TIRED of purchasing
computers and paying for an Operating System that I will NEVER use.
In the past, Microsoft has made legal arrangements with most major
OEMs that act to cause financial distress upon said OEMs if
alternate Operating Systems are offered on their stock machines. As
a result, in the current market the option to purchase a stock
machine without the Microsoft Operating System has become
nonexistant at
[[Page 27780]]
mainstream retailers such as Best Buy and Office Depot.
I want it to be made very clear to Microsoft that OEM's may
purchase copies of the Microsoft OS/licence at a volume discount
even if they choose to offer more than one OS as the stock Operating
System install. The volume discount pricing should be the same,
whether or not the OEM chooses to offer more than one stock
Operating System. An OEM should not be punished for offering their
customers a choice.
As an example: If Microsoft can force an OEM to offer ONLY the
Microsoft operating system on its personal computers, will all
pickup truck owners one day be forced to buy their trucks with
snowplows automatically installed because a major snowplow
manufacter makes financially advantageous deals with truck
manufacturers? I am certain everyone who lives in a more temperate
part of the country would be very pleased... just as pleased as I am
when I purchase a work machine that has a buggy, security faulted,
diseased Operating System installed that impairs my work?
Thank you for your time,
Sincerely,
Ruthann Sudman
2015 41st Street NW # F40
Rochester, MN 55901
(507) 358-7658
[email protected]
MTC-00026257
From: golf4dude
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Dear Sir,
I would like to comment on the lawsuits that Microsoft has been
faced with. I feel that these suits are based on inaccurate charges.
These suits have also reduced the nations'' wealth and effected
personal IRA's far more than the Enron failure ever could. As a
matter of fact, I feel that the start of the recent economic
downturn can be directly related to the Clinton/Reno court actions
against Microsoft I feel that the government is acting to protect
companies such as Netscape from unfair practices that are non-
existent. Over the years I have purchased several computers, many
had Netscape available and needed only to be activated for use. I
have used Netscape but chose to use Internet Explorer because I like
it. If Netscape develops a better product, I might use it, but
that's my choice. I have used AOL, but now I have a local ISP. Is
AOL going to bitch and file suit because I am not using their
product? The ISP that I am with has 5000 customers and AOL has 9
million, is this unfair practices? As I see it the government's job
is to protect me from a monopolistic company not Netscape or AOL
from having to compete. The government should focus on protecting
the consumer and get out of the business of hampering competition
and development.
Ken Dell
MTC-00026258
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:50pm
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,
Maureen Gilbert
1810 Shardell Dr.
St. Louis, MO 63138-1143
MTC-00026259
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Having revieved the tentative Final Judgement of the Microsoft
Antitrust case, I urge you to give final approval t the judgement as
is stands. It appears that Microsoft has made concessions in good
faith and I feel that further interference with Microsoft's ability
to conduct business would adversely effect many aspects of the
American economy.
Very truly,
Susan Roesler
MTC-00026260
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:58pm
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: I am a visual effects designer for film. I work
at Industrial Light and Magic in San Rafael California using Silicon
Graphics and Linux operating systems. Our company uses Windows and
Macintosh operating systems as well. Each operating system used here
has an important place in our production workflow. I'll try and keep
this breif and to the point...
Essentially, I'm totally against the weak settlement proposals
and would like the Department of Justice to consider harsher
punishment for Microsoft's crimes. I can't imagine that anybody
believes the current ``toothless'' settlement proposals
will have any effect on Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Even
in light of the negative publicity from the trial, and the damning
``findings of fact'', Microsoft boldly continues to take
over everything that's up for grabs (and some things that aren't!).
In the several years since the trial began, we've seen Microsoft
branching out into new markets and unfairly using their monopoly
position to promote Xboxes, the PocketPC, MSNBC, Hotmail, WindowsXP,
Windows Media Player, their ``.net'' strategy... the list
goes on and on. I read the news that the US Navy is switching
everything over to Microsoft Windows--something I find quite
frightening! I also read last week that they just bought all of
Silicon Graphics patents in 3D technology--This concerns me
immensely, because of the industry that I'm in. They could use these
to leverage power unfairly to squash competition in the film and
television industry as well as the huge games industry.
It begs the question, why, when Microsoft is in the middle of an
antitrust/monopoly trial, is Microsoft even allowed to buy up
intellectual property and agressively expand into new markets?
Please, reconsider the settlement proposal. They were found guilty
of anticompetitve practices in 1995. They got a slap on the wrist
and that didn't stop them continuing their illegal business
practices that are the subject of the current trial. What makes you
think that they'll pay the slightest bit of notice to the current
proposals? What should be done? I think they should be hit up with
an enormous fine that is in proportion to their huge market cap and
value of assets. I think that this fine should not be trivial, it
should hurt the company and make them afraid to transgress the law
again. I also think that Microsoft should be split up. Clearly they
have far too much influence and power for a company that has
demonstrated again and again that they are unable to wield this
power responsibly.
Essentially, I ask the Department of Justice for Justice.
Thank you,
Joe Pavlo
Joe Pavlo
Industrial Light and Magic
San Rafael, CA, 94901
MTC-00026262
From: William J Crowe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that the proposed settlement is tough on Microsoft but a
fair compromise for all parties concerned. Do not allow this to drag
on longer at the interest of some special groups. Yours Truly,
MTC-00026263
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:56pm
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.
[[Page 27781]]
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,
Marilyn Eisenback
3510 Indian Meadow Dr.
Blacksburg, VA 24060
MTC-00026264
From: William R. Hahn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
I, for one, I hope that ``reluctant parties'' allow
the settlement to proceed without further complications.
Microsoft can be ``accused'' of *Bringing the best
software to market that money can buy *Providing excellent customer
service and follow-up *Never abusing its extraordinary success by
gouging consumers *Coming up from behind in a new field . and ending
on top. (i.e. Internet Explorer).
No wonder that AOL and others try to get relief in the courts,
when they realize that they are losing in the marketplace!
William R. Hahn
Los Angeles, CA 90049
MTC-00026265
From: Richard Borczak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I understand that a settlement had been reached with Microsoft
as a result of the long trail, but that competitors are still
wanting to go further. I cannot see it. I switched recently from
Netscape Navigator to Internet Explorer because I found that IE is
BETTER.
I received Netscape navigator years ago, FREE, to use. I see no
difference for Microsoft to give IE free than Netscape giving it
away.
This foolishness has cost everybody a lot of money already.
Don't prolong it.
Richard L Borczak
MTC-00026266
From: John Davis
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/26/02 4:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Davis
29 Birch Ct.
Oakley, Ca 94561
January 26, 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 A. Davis
MTC-00026267
From: Mark Spacher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:05pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
This is to ask that you give your approval to the agreement
between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. It is time to put
this matter to rest. The two parties have worked for three years to
settle it and we should abide by their efforts. Any further action
will only be a waste of taxpayers'' money. The fact there was a
lawsuit at all is annoying to me. Bill Gates worked long and hard to
make his company successful. Now, he is being punished for it. This
lawsuit was more a political ploy than any shady business dealings
on the part of a company. Microsoft has also acceded to many of the
requests of the Department of Justice. Microsoft will have an
oversight committee to monitor future actions; Microsoft has agreed
to help companies better achieve a degree of reliability with regard
to their networking software. Microsoft will give computer makers
broad new rights to configure Windows to promote non-Microsoft
software programs. This is more than fair
Give your approval to this agreement. It is time to go forward.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mark Spacher
40 North Avenue
Rochester, NY 14626
MTC-00026268
From: jack engel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The settlement made between Microsoft and the Department of
Justice is more than just. I feel that this situation has dragged on
for far too long. I would like to see it brought to a close as soon
as possible. Microsoft has agreed to more than they should have, and
asking them to do more is absurd.
Microsoft is willing to license some of the internal codes of
Windows so that its competitors will be able to develop software
that is compatible with Windows. This will allow for more
competition within the IT industry, which will in turn help the
economy. Furthermore, once this issue is decided at the Federal
level, it should be over. The states should not have the option of
pursuing further litigation. Thank you for considering our views on
this issue. I hope that this matter is soon brought to a close. Our
courts should be pursuing more important matters.
Sincerely,
John & Susan Engel
Jack Engel
82 South Avenue
New Canaan, CT 06840
203 966-7576
MTC-00026269
From: M. Schultz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice
Dear Folks:
When pondering settlement penalties and costs as compensation
for monopoly practices, it is appropriate to consider where the
electronic industry would be today had Microsoft (MSFT) not been
allowed to ride roughshod over the hardware and software industries
over the last 9 years. Is it conjecture to work to try to determine
where the industry would be or can one forecast with relative
accuracy? Forecasting the future is highly problematic but we have
many employed in that field, including within the government, so
even forward looking is considered a legitimate exercise. This
effort, however, is more akin to ``Monday morning
quarterbacking,'' and I believe it can be done rather
precisely. Determination of the paths available in retrospect can be
made highly accurate. There are much better pundits and experts that
I to accomplish this but I can tell you from my nearly 30 years of
experience in the electronics industry that had MSFT been reigned in
by Justice when they began this illegal and unethical activity, the
face of the software and hardware world and the high technology
industry would be very much different. Netscape might be the largest
software company and we could all very well be using Apple
computers. There would be much different corporate use globally, and
the many flavors of Linux utilized by enterprise would not have
appropriated the hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy
that MSFT pulled. How many new firms would this money have spawned?
How many jobs would it have created? What new technologies could
have been driven that without the world of Windows to crush and
destroy them, would now be thriving enterprises?
The reason that the high tech industry is in such a shambles and
depression right now
[[Page 27782]]
is as a direct result of one player dominating the market and the
industry for far too long. Nine years without much innovation on the
desktop and the resulting spawn of computer viruses are one the best
testimonies on the one player who controls everything.
I believe the huge tech industry in the United States would be
MORE THAN DOUBLE it's current size today, employing hundreds of
thousands of additional workers, had Justice not been asleep at the
wheel and MSFT not been allowed to dominate and obliterate virtually
everyone in their path.
To make things right, I believe MSFT must be forced to
contribute $100 billion dollars to an electronics industry
investment fund, so that enterprising companies and individuals can
receive funding to bring their ideas and products to market. MSFT
must also open all closed standards on their browser and their
operating system; their applications, such as Office, etc., should
remain their sole IP. This penalty should be paid over 5 years, to
give the economy a boost.
This penalty will return some of the money MSFT appropriated
from the electronics industry, and although we can never get these
nine years back to re-live, at least we can re-establish a level
playing field and an atmosphere of innovation once again. This money
will create jobs, and these jobs will create a greater tax base.
Hopefully, we can re-capture some of the jobs MSFT eliminated from
the economy.
Additionally, an oversight committee must be established to make
certain MSFT is properly regulated and does not commit further
damage to the American economy. Because of MSFT's power and wealth,
the individuals on the committee should be rotated every six months.
Again, I firmly believe the computer and electronics industry
would be more than double it's current size if one company had not
sucked so much capital and resources out of the economy. Imaging
spreading all of that capital around hundreds of companies over the
last nine years, and I think you would be able to envision where the
US electronics industry would be right now. Good luck, keep up the
good work and thank you very much for not allowing MSFT to escape
and profit from the earlier absurd settlement. Push this win to
conclusion.
Best,
Matt Schultz
7985 S. Bemis Street
Littleton CO 80120
CC:Tam Ormiston
MTC-00026271
From: Matt Matthews
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to you as a concerned United States citizen to
express my opposition to the Proposed Final Judgment put forth by
the Department of Justice to settle the current antitrust case
against Microsoft. This PFJ does not address adequately the issues
raised during that case, especially considering that Microsoft was
found guilty of monopoly maintenance. As a user of an alternative,
non-Microsoft operating system, I am constantly aware of the
difficulties that the Microsoft monopoly imposes on the computing
world. I work as a mathematician in the Duke University Mathematics
Department, and I routinely run into problems associated with
proprietary Microsoft document formats and other proprietary
Microsoft technologies. Since much our department relies on non-
Microsoft operating systems on faculty desktops, communication with
my colleagues or department staff is hindered each time someone with
Microsoft Word sends a document by email. Furthermore, my research
often requires me to find documents on the web, and occasionally web
sites that have information I need use Microsoft technologies that
restrict or completely block my access to that information. These
technologies are kept secret by Microsoft as part of their monopoly
maintenance; the formats change often and are not officially
documented, making the creation of interoperable or competing
products needlessly difficult. Any proposed final judgment should
address this artificial barrier to communication and
interoperability that Microsoft has used, and continues to use, to
maintain their positions in various markets. Furthermore, any
interoperability information should not be restricted to creating
products that run on Microsoft operating systems, as the current PFJ
does not encourage this cooperation.
Furthermore, Microsoft has a history of intentionally
introducing incompatibilities to discourage the use of non-Microsoft
operating systems. See the following link for more information:
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#caldera Any acceptable
remedy should prevent Microsoft from creating such artificial
incompatibilities with future products. The current PFJ does not do
this, and for that reason it is unacceptable.
While the current PFJ does create an oversight committee with
the technical background to judge Microsoft's conduct, it does not
spell out effective methods of enforcement when Microsoft breaks the
terms of the settlement, and the prevailing opinion is that the
legal system would be the only recourse for dealing with violations.
However, in a market as fluid and swift as that of computers and
software, any acceptable remedy should include a streamlined
procedure for judging alleged violations and imposing penalties.
While these are not the only weaknesses of the current PFJ, they are
some of the most important. I am hopeful that the Department of
Justice will work to formulate a new settlement that has stronger
penalties for the actions for which Microsoft has already been found
guilty as well as stronger measures to prevent Microsoft from taking
future anticompetitive actions. If you have questions or require
clarification of any statements I've made in this letter, please
contact me via phone or email. My contact information can be found
at the bottom of this letter.
Regards,
John V. Matthews, III
Matt Matthews -bs ph: 919.660.2811
-bs Use GNU/Linux --o) w00t
Duke Univ., Postdoc-bs
[email protected]
-bs----------------------------- /
-bs-bs
Dept. of Mathematics-bs http://
www.math.duke.edu/jvmatthe/ -bs
---bs--V
MTC-00026272
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Brad Borland
Microsoft ATR
1/26/02 5:09pm
Microsoft Settlement
Please see attachment
10831 Valmay Avenue NW
Seattle, WA 98177-5336
January 26, 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.
It disappoints me that the government has in the past chosen to
harass a company like Microsoft. Microsoft has added such a great
economic contribution to this country. The contribution extends from
Washington State all the way to Washington, DC Microsoft is a core
holding of most company retirement plans, 401Ks, IRAs and mutual
funds throughout America. Therefore it is in the best interests of
almost every American to get this case settled. In order to settle
this issue Microsoft has agreed to many terms. It has agreed to
design future versions of Windows to be more compatible with non-
Microsoft software. It has also agreed to change several aspects of
the way it does business with computer makers. Microsoft did not get
off easy, there are pages of terms agreed to in addition to these
two. Microsoft needs to be able to get back to business. This suit
has bogged down the company for over three years now. For the good
of American's everywhere I urge you to accept the Microsoft
antitrust settlement.
Respectfully
J.Bradford Borland
MTC-00026272--0002
MTC-00026273
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the
[[Page 27783]]
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,
RYAN VANDERHEIDE
3369 DANIEL ST
NEWBURY PARK, CA 91320-5015
MTC-00026274
From: Liza Gabriel Ravenheart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:15pm
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;
This settlement is not in the best interests of consumers here
in the US or anywhere. It is not in the interest of our personal
autonomies and freedoms. Microsoft must have platforms that are
compatible with unix and others that may develop. Diversity and
democracy are inseparable. If Microsoft Corporation cannot cooperate
with its competitors, then it is not a good corporate citizen of the
United States or of the Global community.
Please reconsider this settlement which I feel will
substantially destroy the autonomy of people world wide.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Braude
10266 Old Redwood Hwy
Penngrove, CA 94951
MTC-00026275
From: Jeanne C Delaney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let's get this Microsoft ordeal over with as soon as possible.
It is to blame for much of the economic distress in the USA. The
only ones profiting from it are the lawyers. Let's get the USA back
to business now!
J. C. Delaney
MTC-00026276
From: Benjamin Grossmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to take this opportunity to state that I feel
Microsoft should NOT be let off lightly in this antitrust case. They
have demonstrated repeatedly that they are capable of abusing their
power as a monopoly by stifling competition and crushing the very
innovation that created this entire technology revolution.
Thank you.
Ben Grossmann
MTC-00026277
From: Denniston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Susan Denniston
4731 117th Place NE
Kirkland, WA 98033
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
It greatly disturbs me that Microsoft's opponents are currently
seeking to overturn the settlement that has been proposed and bring
further litigation against Microsoft. I do not believe that this is
either necessary or wise. Not only would additional federal action
be painfully redundant, it would also negatively impact the economy,
the computer industry, and ultimately the consumer.
The settlement seems fair enough to both Microsoft and its
competitors. For one thing, Microsoft is allowed to remain intact,
but its competitors have had the playing field leveled for them. So
operations at Microsoft will continue with several restrictions and
changes, but the normalcy that will remain in Microsoft's operations
will not hinder or harm the progress of competitors. For example,
Microsoft will refrain from entering into any contract that would
require a third party to distribute Microsoft products either
exclusively or at a fixed percentage. Microsoft has also agreed to
document and disclose source code from its Windows operating system
for use by its competitors and to facilitate their ability to
operate within the Microsoft framework. I believe this part of the
agreement is extremely generous on Microsoft's part!
It is in everyone's best interest to drop the idea of continued
litigation--especially in light of the ridiculous new lawsuit
announced by AOL this week against Microsoft. No one will benefit in
the long run from an extended suit. I urge you and your office to
support the finalization of the settlement.
Sincerely,
Susan Denniston
[email protected]
MTC-00026278
From: robin mccoy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Under the Tunney Act, i wish to comment on the recent proposed
remedy for the anti-trust case against Microsoft as found here:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm I feel that this
proposed judgment fails to fully address the issues disclosed in the
DOJ's finding of fact: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/
msjudgex.htm
This judgment will not impede Microsoft from leveraging it's
established monopoly in the operating system marketplace against
it's competitors, and I wish to voice my dissatisfaction with this
proposed settlement.
Thank You,
Michael R. McCoy
MTC-00026279
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:25pm
Subject: microsoft case
it is time to end that waste of time. the industry needs to get
out of the courts, and do software. there should be no support for
those who cannot settle.
MTC-00026280
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough is enough. Stop harassing Microsoft.
MTC-00026281
From: Linas Muliolis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:26pm
Subject: The Proposed Final Judgement
Your Honor,
Please review your final judgement for Microsoft with the
results being fair business practices, ethical competition, consumer
choice being proctected and Microsoft ceasing monopolistic
practices. I do not believe Microsoft is being fair and honest.
Linas Muliolis
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026282
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:27pm
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,
LaDonna McCant-Dickey
4539 Derrick Drive
San Diego, CA 92117
MTC-00026283
From: John Hyland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft's absurd narrow interpretation of the Tunney Act
should be reason enough for punishment, but it is just another
display of the arrogance with which they treat the law of this
country. Make them pay mightily from their illegal profits and treat
them as other monopolies have been, break them up.
We need some real competition so that consumers can have some
choices.
Thank you,
John J. Hyland
Gilroy, CA
[[Page 27784]]
MTC-00026285
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
From: Tedd Koren,DC
PO Box 665
Gwynedd Valley, PA 19437-0665
215-699-7906
Dear Ms. Hesse,
I would like to see true justice served in the Microsoft case
that is a win-win for everyone. Too often a solution can make
matters worse. I feel the following should be considered:
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,
Tedd Koren, DC
MTC-00026286
From: Sean Turner
To: Microsoft ATR,billg@microsoft.
com@inetgw,cyrusm@ha...
Date: 1/26/02 5:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
While Microsoft can be considered a monopoly, should they be
punished for this? I used to be a Netscape User; then, when Internet
Explorer 3 was released, I tried using it and found it to be
substandard and buggy. As a result, I continued to use Netscape.
Then, with Microsoft's release of IE 4, I found it to be much
faster, more stable, and more feature complete then Netscape, and
decided to switch browsers, not because it came bundled with my
operating system, but because it was a superior program Microsoft
ultimately developed a technologically superior product, is it not
logical that people would then use it instead of Netscape? Should
they be punished for this? Can you legally punish a company because
they are successful? Microsoft integrated its browser to provide a
better product for the consumer. They are in no way inhibiting
Netscape's ability to accept. They in no way impede a user's ability
to download Netscape and use it. Even AOL Time Warner believes IE is
a superior browser. In their own AOL browser, they use the IE
browser instead of Netscape. Success is not a crime.
Should they be punished for bundling their browser with Windows?
Now, the browser is tightly integrated with almost all features of
Windows. It is virtually impossible to separate the two. Every time
you open ``My Computer,'' view a help file, open Word,
boot, or even view your desktop, you are using Internet Explorer.
Back when Windows 3.1 was popular, IE didn't exist, and, users used
a much more cumbersome and buggy interface to navigate files. Now,
instead of using 2 different applications for folder browsing and
web viewing, Microsoft integrated the two programs, in effect
speeding up overall system performance and reliability. Furthermore,
it also helps new computer users to ``get online'' without
having to go through complex processes to install a browser. Now,
all someone has to do is boot their computer, and they have all the
software they need to connect to the internet. Should Microsoft be
punished for enabling people such as my mother to effectively use a
computer? If yes, then why not punish Apple? They have much the same
approach. Apple controls the all the hardware used on their
computers, and install Apple's own programs by default in an attempt
to simplify setup for users, thus allowing the computer illiterate
to use a computer without having to have a tech-savvy friend set it
up for them. This strategy of simplification is used throughout the
industry, why should only Microsoft be punished for it? You cannot
separate Microsoft because everything is so tightly integrated,
Microsoft is nothing without this integration, much like Apple is
nothing without their tight integration of software and hardware.
This is the direction the entire industry has taken, should we thus
turn the clock back on the computer industry?
It is not the government's job to police the computer industry.
Before the government tries to break up private monopolies, they
should abolish their own. For example the US Postal Service was, for
a long time, the only way to send mail, and thus, it had to reason
to improve its services and was notoriously slow. With the advent of
FedEx and UPS, the postal service has improved its service, but
still is loosing market share because other carriers offer a better
product. And now the government is trying to make taxpayers pay for
its failure by trying to tax email. It is not the government's job
to police private industry and punish companies for their success. I
ask that the federal government and states drop all charges against
Microsoft.
Sean Turner
Sales Representative
Rowena's Designs
15232 Stratford Court
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
Phone: (408) 395-7907
Fax: (408) 395-6923
Email:
[email protected]
Web:
www.sensability.inc.new.net
MTC-00026287
From: roelof ``t Hooft
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
Regarding the DOJ against Microsoft case I would like to ask you
: What is going on with the settlement ? As I understand the
settlement will give Microsoft more power and ways to do everything
that this case was suppose to stop them from doing. Microsoft is too
large and powerfull and does and still will harm the customer (in
the long run) with their monopolistic practises. Stop Microsoft
instead of giving them more power !!
MTC-00026288
From: Marjorie and Victor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:37pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
We are very much in favor of the microsoft settlement and think
it will be a significant boost to the economy.
Sincerely,
Victor and Marjorie Carmody
MTC-00026290
From: Robert D. Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[email protected]@inetgw
Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
Hello, my name is Robert D. Smith and I am a student at Boston
University. I am very much emotionally shaken by the recent
settlement between the Justice Department and Microsoft (PFJ). I'd
like to present my first argument. The PFJ does nothing to inhibit
the activities of Microsoft as a working, fully functional monopoly
through the use of its operating system (OS). My second argument is
that the settlement is too ambiguous. It does not clearly and
directly reprimand Microsoft for the violation of clearly defined
anti-trust laws (present and past). It would be a horrid, useless
example to set by allowing MS to get away with such an atrocity.
Microsoft has many tactics, which are just so very sinister. The
corporation is continually escaping proper justice its retaliation
schemes, conniving tactics, bolting- domineering schemes, and
attacks on Java. All these actions result in a lower ability of
competition to reach the same marketing and commercial status as MS.
This market is supposedly a ``free'' market but software
standards are being monopolized even as this email is being sent.
And to conclude, the PFJ provides an ineffective enforcement
mechanism (balance and check) for the weak restrictions implemented
on its bodies of influence.
Simply in short, I am deeply perturbed over the recent
settlement. This settlement does not regulate Microsoft enough. In
this
[[Page 27785]]
very fashion of advancement, Microsoft will simply continue its
monopolistic ways of commerce. And to further clarify my argument,
Microsoft is not even being reprimanded for past aggressions, which
are clearly evident. The present situation is that an unfeasibly
weak standard is in place. I know this simply my opinion, but I
would sincerely request that you would do whatever might be suitable
to overturn the settlement in review.
Sincerely,
Robert D. Smith
My Address is:
Robert D. Smith
Box 1775, 277 Babcock Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02215
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: Click Here
01/29/2002 1:20 [
MTC-00026291
From: Clay Haapala
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to state my opinions as being against the proposed
Microsoft settlement.
The settlement does little to punish Microsoft for its actions.
Worse, it does nothing to provide remedy, or to ``undo''
the results of those monopolistic actions.
My career has been affected negatively by these actions,
primarily by the way that Microsoft's product positions have
affected the plans of the companies that have employed me. While it
is always the case that the actions of a dominant market player will
affect all others in that market space, it has now been established
that Microsoft has partially obtained that position through illegal
practices.
Since many of these practices involved illegal influences on
Microsoft's part to prevent competition to its proprietary products,
protocols, and interfaces, appropriate remedies would be a mandatory
publishing of these protocols and interfaces.
Jackson's ``split the company'' remedy would have
accomplished this by forcing the separated parts of the company to
formally communicate with each other in public ways. Yes,
competitors would certainly also be part of those communications,
but then, the market winner becomes the one with the best product,
sales, and service.
Such publication would also be a great step forward in security.
Please see Bruce Schneier's and Adam Shostack's recent article at
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/315.
I'm not demanding that Microsoft be broken up, but a publication
remedy is appropriate.
Thank you.
Clay Haapala ``A
generation of CS and Quake Players
GPG key 8DB9110D being drafted is a scary thought.''
2309 Archers Lane--comment seen on
Minnetonka MN 55305 Drippy's 2-Fort TFC server
952-542-9873
MTC-00026292
From: Peter Nicklin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:40pm
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, The Proposed Final Judgment in the case of United
States vs. Microsoft does NOT remedy Microsoft's monopolistic
behavior. The settlement still allows Microsoft to continue its
monopoly, destroying competing products by selling equivalent
Microsoft products below cost, i.e. by bundling them in the Windows
Operating System at no extra charge. For example, Microsoft now
distributes Windows Media Player in Windows XP for free, thus
stealing market from RealNetworks'' Real Player and Apple
Computer's QuickTime by using its exclusive Windows Operating System
distribution channel.
The only cure for this behavior is to prevent Microsoft from:
a) Selling products below cost.
b) Using the Windows Operating System to distribute new products
that compete with non-Microsoft products already established in the
marketplace.
I recommend that if a non-Microsoft product has more than 20%
market share, then it should be considered an ``established
product'' in the marketplace, and Microsoft should not be
allowed to bundle a competing product with the Windows Operating
System. I also recommend that new Microsoft products that compete
with established non-Microsoft products should be developed and sold
by a completely independent wholly-owned Microsoft subsidiary. The
subsidiary would have no more access to Microsoft APIs and other
proprietary information than other companies. Further, the
subsidiary would not be allowed to enter into exclusive deals with
Microsoft. My recommendation for new products to be developed by a
Microsoft subsidiary is a structural remedy but is much easier to
implement than breaking the company up.
It would be easier to discover collusion between Microsoft and a
subsidiary than by asking a 3-person technical committee to try and
baby-sit Microsoft by monitoring compliance with the proposed final
judgment.
Sincerely,
Peter Nicklin
SoftFrame, Inc.
P.O. Box 10067,
San Jose, CA 95157-0067.
Ph: (408)379-0171
MTC-00026294
From: Joseph D Krug
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I would like to see the Microsoft case settled. I believe the
government was dead wrong to sue Microsoft.
The company is not a monoply and never was. The government has
wasted time and the taxpayers money on this case. It is now time for
your office to correct the stupidity of the past Justice Dept. which
started this case. I due believe since 9-11-01 the
entire federal government has more important issuses to deal with. I
have complete confidence your office will resolve this case quickly.
Sincerely,
Joseph D Krug
MTC-00026295
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:41pm
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,
Thomas Vreeland
126 Calumet Ct
Crestview Hills, KY 41017
MTC-00026296
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:45pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Dear Sir:
I keep reading about all these lawsuits against Microsoft. It
appears to me that we have reached the stage in this country that we
punish success. We seem to be doing all in our power to promote
mediocrity. If AOL or anyone else has a problem with the way
Microsoft operates, let them develop a better system. Thus the
market place will automatically trend to the better system. This is
what has happened with Microsoft. They have single handily opened up
the world of computers to the lay person (and there are so many of
us).
With all the mergers that the government has allowed, it appears
almost on the trend of hypocrisy to keep attacking Microsoft. What
other companies'' R& Ds could not accomplish, they are
requesting the courts to do for them. We are a capitalistic country
and thus the most wealthy country in the world. Let us not squash
our aggressiveness and the desire to excel and succeed, which is
what has made us great! With all these lawsuits, Microsoft has had
to spend millions of dollars defending itself rather than spending
these millions on furthering their R&D.
What may we all have lost?
[[Page 27786]]
In addition, how many millions has the government spent to
prosecute Microsoft. These monies would have been better spent
fighting drug trafficking, etc.
Don't we have anything better to do than to attack one of this
world's most creative company?
I humbly submit the above for your consideration.
Sherman A. Rothberg
Bellmore, NY
CC:msfin@microsoft. com@inetgw,Meus1@
aol.com@inetgw
MTC-00026297
From: Don Kitchen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern
I am a senior systems engineer with a Fortune 500 consulting
firm. I have a bachelors degree in computer science and am nearing
completion in a master's degree in CS with an emphasis on operating
systems. I am writing to voice my opinion on the proposed Microsoft
settlement.
I am appalled at the degree to which the Justice department is
neglecting the interests of consumers. Microsoft is a powerful
company that has been found guilty of illegally extending and
maintaining monopoly power. But proposed is basically no penalty to
punish for ill-gotten gains. Does no one remember this is the second
time around, and that Microsoft previously obtained a consent
decree? It was so generous that Microsoft's stock immediately rose.
In fact, I would say that the only reason that the case this time
around awkwardly centered on browsers is that in the previous
agreement, nobody thought to grant Microsoft a loophole to stifle
competition in that area.
Those who suppose there has been little harm to the consumer
ignore the realities of the computer industry. While costs in every
other area go down, the software costs rise, especially when taken
as a percentage of the whole system. Also, harm occurs in other
ways; witness the recent Microsoft scheme to punish those who do not
upgrade immediately to each new product, by eliminating
``discounts''. Microsoft's very profitability is evidence
of their monopoly power. One might say that their investments and
spare cash provide a good measure of how large to make the penalty.
Microsoft attributes their success to innovation. However, this
neglects that the innovators were all with companies taken over by
Microsoft's might. This also neglects the innovators stifled by
Microsoft, whose monopoly position allows them great leverage
against any competing technology. The way they have bundled the
browser is just an obvious occurrence of standard practice. There is
a joke that if someone made a new chair, Microsoft would innovate
Microsoft Chair, and out of desire to provide their customers with
everything they need, ship it with their operating system, with
mysterious incompatibilities if anyone tried to sit in another brand
chair while at their computer.
If allowed to continue leveraging one product to solidify the
position of the next, the future of competition looks bleak.
Microsoft has promoted its Office suite, web browser, and web server
products to prominence based on the strength of its operating
system. Since these products are available only for Microsoft's
operating system, they in turn reinforce the original monopoly. In
the office suite area, it's difficult for competitors to be fully
compatible because of changes in the file formats. As a part of the
penalties against Microsoft, it should be mandated that all file
formats and API's used be fully documented publicly. And unlike the
errors in Section III(J)(2) there should be no loopholes to prevent
disclosure to not-for-profit groups. Microsoft has abused its own
discretion too many times to suppose they will not do it again.
Additionally, in recent years Microsoft has formulated its
strategy for internet monopolies beyond the browser, which they will
fortify with their existing monopolies. Chief among them are the
Windows Media player and .NET. These should be addressed in the
settlement, preferably by splitting them to individual companies
forbidden to sign exclusive contracts, or Microsoft should be
mandated to maintain full functionality on their top two competing
operating systems (namely MacOS and Linux). In the area of streaming
media, already Microsoft is pushing the innovators out of the field
in favor of their own Windows Media player, which limits consumer
choice because of course it is available only for Microsoft
platforms. The .NET scheme is especially designed to place a single
entity as an essential element of any transaction that occurs. This
transition is not one that occurs as a result of natural market
forces, but rather one that can only be leveraged in by an existing
monopoly, for the sole purpose of extending the monopoly. Yet the
Department of Justice appears more interested in retreating with
honor at the expense of consumer choice. Another ignored consumer
harm that has occurred is that Microsoft's products have gaping
security holes. Yet they appear to be immune from product liability
concerns. In fact, previous shortcomings only serve as inducement
for consumers to purchase the next ``new and improved''
product. In other markets, product liability enforcement would force
the vendor to reimburse consumers. Not so in this market. Recall the
billions of dollars lost in such occurrences as ``I love
you'', ``code red'', ``nimda'', and other
embarrassments. Instead, consumers bear the cost. No doubt consumers
will continue to bear the cost in the newest product cycle, with
``Universal Plug & Play'' starting off the new list of
security problems; even the ``solution'' of continual
updating only serves to bind consumers more tightly to the monopoly
provider.
There are some who say that Microsoft should be rewarded because
as a highly successful company they do much good for the economy.
While it is true that as a monopoly they have been very successful
at maintaining their monopoly, this theory ignores the fact that
their income is someone else's expenses. By the same standards, we
might laud Ponzi and Enron for the success of their efforts to
extract monies from others, if large incomes are so good for a
strong economy.
I plead for the current ``surrender to Microsoft'' to
be rejected.
Thank you
Don Kitchen
MTC-00026298
From: virtual
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am against allowing Microsoft to continue to wield it's
virtual monopoly to stifle competing software innovation. The DOJ/
Microsoft settlement is, in my opinion, an insufficient remedy.
Sincerely,
Al Dorsa
Box 223761
Christiansted, VI 00822
MTC-00026299
From: billmueller@pobox. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Madam/Sir,
While I do believe that Microsoft often abuses it's position as
industry leader in software operating systems to reduce competition,
I am not convinced that a harsh penalty is in the best interest of
justice or the software industry. Certainly, all of the companies
that are urging harsh penalties are or have been, to some extent,
guilty of similar practices. Remember that this ruling will set an
important precedent which will shape the future of the software
industry.
I ask only that you deliver a judgement that causes Microsft
some financial pain while at the same time clearly putting this
whole thing behind us so that the software industry and the economy
can recover.
Regards,
Bill Mueller
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026300
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
I would like to state that it is my belief that the proposed
settlement will not achieve its objective of restoring competition
back into the software market, nor I fear will it stem the illegal
practices of Microsoft.
Although I have many concerns about the proposed settlement, it
is sections III.D, III.J.1,2 that concern me the most. Microsoft has
publicly stated that their strongest competition is from the Linux
operating system, yet these sections would actually protect
Microsoft from competition from such non-profit, volunteer
organizations. It is my belief at this point that the only hope of
real competition will be from these groups. For a settlement to be
acceptable, Microsoft cannot be allowed to discriminate against such
groups by not disclosing its APIs to them. I therefore kindly ask
you to reject this proposal.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Blake
[[Page 27787]]
Sunnyvale, CA
My background: Software developer working since receiving M.S.
in 1982.
Currently employed at PTC, one of the larger software companies,
which sells its products on both unix and Windows platforms.
MTC-00026301
From: Dave Quick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The terms of the settlement are tough, and I believe they are
reasonable and fair to all parties, and meet-- or go
beyond--the ruling by the Court of Appeals, and represent the
best opportunity for Microsoft and the industry to move forward.
Dave Quick
New Albany, OH
MTC-00026302
From: Phillip Bivens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please reconsider the current settlement as defined between
Microsoft and the U.S. DOJ. The DOJ gave up way to much to Microsoft
in an effort to spur the economy. The current settlement gives
Microsoft complete control of the PC industry and now makes it legal
for them to squash the competition. This makes no sense to me as a
consumer! If this settlement is approved as stated, what will stop
GM or Ford from trying to do the same thing as Microsoft? What will
stop General Electric from extending its domain? The government of
the U.S.A. is supposed to be for the people and by the people as
defined in the Preamble of the Constitution. When did this change to
for the ``corporations'' and by the
``corporations''? As defined the settlement is a disgrace
on the judicial system.
Regards,
Phillip Bivens
Naperville, IL USA
MTC-00026303
From: Steven Young
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:52pm
Subject: Opinion on Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
Why did you give up on this case? The ``settlement''
is more like a surrender. With all due respect, one is forced to ask
whether someone in Washington is afraid, or was bought off, or
simply became conviced of the futility of fighting these people's
criminally amassed wealth. We'll all suffer for it.
Why am I bothering to write?
Steven G. Young
Menlo Park, CA
MTC-00026304
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:50pm
Subject: I support any action possible against Microsoft. My first
computer was an Imac and I wanted to use N
I support any action possible against Microsoft. My first
computer was an Imac and I wanted to use Netscape as my browser, but
the computer was set up for Explorer. It took hours of work to get
things set up for Netscape. A less tenacious person would have given
up and settled for Explorer. Microsoft had an unfair advantage in my
opinion. Thank you for your efforts.
Sincerely,
Marilyn Wolf
MTC-00026305
From: Ed Detmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am a long term personal user of Microsoft products, as well as
the decision maker for a $200,000,000 dollar business concerning
software and operating systems. After exhaustive totally unbiased
research we have chosen Microsoft over other companies for our
business needs and of our own free will. We do not need or want the
federal or state governments playing any role, which would interfere
with the free market and our free choice. Take the settlement as
proposed and agreed by the US Dept of Justice and the 9 states.
Government meddling in free enterprise is very seldom beneficial to
the consumer or to the economy. Get the federal and state
governments out of this litigation as quickly as possible.
Thank you for taking the time to consider the opinion of a non-
government person, with absolutely no bias due to political
contributions.
Ed Detmer
V P Corporate Dev
Reeb Millwork Corporation
MTC-00026306
From: Paul Caprioli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge the judge to reject the Microsoft settlement. Real,
substantial, enforceable penalties are needed to curb the Microsoft
monopoly's unethical and anticompetitive business practices. As a
consumer, the lack of acceptable alternatives to Microsoft's shoddy
software is causing me significant trouble and inconvenience.
Regards,
Paul Caprioli
Mountain View, CA
MTC-00026307
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
john ohare
64 second st
waterford, NY 12188-2419
MTC-00026308
From: Andrew S. Gardner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern, Pursuant to the Tunney Act I am writing
you to comment on the proposed settlement in the Microsoft anti-
trust litigation. The proposed settlement is inadequate. The
settlement creates the appearance of regulatory action to curtail
Microsoft's behavior, but it is only the appearance.
Consider the example of AT&T. At the time that AT&T was
first laying the copper cable to permit long distance phone service
in the US, the cost of doing so was extraordinary. If AT&T had
been forced to split the then small market for interstate and
intrastate long distance, the cost of providing the service would
have been far greater than any potential revenue. Seeking to first
serve the interests of American citizens, government on all levels
sanctioned AT&T's monopolistic position in the market, and
permitted AT&T to use its monopoly position to maintain market
stability.
At the time the AT&T anti-trust action began, the market
conditions that necesitated permitting monopolistic behavior and its
mandatory side effects had disappeared. Seeking again to protect the
interests of American citizens, the federal government began the
process of permitting competition in the local, interlata, and
interstate call markets. The fruits of that action, while certainly
detrimental to AT&T at the time, can be seen in the plethora of
long distance service providers and the dramatic reduction in the
prices of those services.
It could be argued that at the time of the birth of the computer
industry that it was in the best interests of the industry for its
resources to be concentrated. Without regulation or other federal
action, Microsoft concentrated and then abused its power, which is,
of course, a question of law answered in this case's judgment.
I believe that the current settlement demonstrates the belief
that Microsoft's case is fundamentally different from the case of
AT&T. I would argue that they are identical. AT&T provided a
service that most Americans consider nearly fundamental. The case
against AT&T demonstrated that as much as we might admire or
appreciate the products or people of a particular company, the
remedies we seek in anti-trust actions must actually remedy the
situation. First, the proposed remedy sets a dangerous precedent
about the regulation of the software industry.
Because no case exists in a vacuum, we must consider the fact
that the
[[Page 27788]]
implementation of behavioral remedies on Microsoft necessitates the
construction of governmental oversight of the software industry as a
whole, which has grown incredibly without government interference.
We must also consider the precedent we set in beginning the
regulation of the software industry. Second, the proposed remedy
does not actually remedy the situation. At its most fundamental
level, the case against Microsoft as brought by the Justice
Department alleged that Microsoft leveraged its position in adjacent
but not coincident fields of computing to systematically destroy its
competition. Behavioral requirements on Microsoft do no remedy
Microsoft's ability to control the industry. Consider the
``behavior modification'' approach in the AT&T case.
Had AT&T not be forced to divest itself of its local carriers
and been forced to permit competition in long distance, we would not
have competitive local or long distance service. While AT&T
might have been a cuddly 800 pound gorilla, it still would be an 800
pound gorilla. To assume that any remedy that does not seperate
distinct business units within Microsoft into seperate corporate
entities with requirments about lowering the barriers to entry of
competitors is foolish.
Thank you for your time,
Andrew Gardner
Andrew S. Gardner
[email protected]
520-990-5953--Tucson, AZ
MTC-00026309
From: list(u)7531 at Hotmail
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi,
Microsoft Media Player--
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/download/
default.asp This product is a clear example of Microsoft abusing its
monopoly in the software market. In order to access the ``MSN
Music Radio player'' on http://music.msn.com, you need to have
version 7 of the Media Player program. However, as you can see from
the web page above, they offer the following:
version 6.4 for Windows 95 and NT4
version 6.3 for Solaris nothing for Linux
Considering that Microsoft are expanding into the on-line media
business, they clearly abuse their monopoly of Windows OS's against
vendors of other Operating System software, and users of older
Microsoft products. In order to resolve this, please try to ensure
that Microsoft are required to provide identical versions of their
software for other systems. On a similar basis, should Microsoft be
required to ``port'' their various programs such as SQL
server and the ``.NET'' server software to other platforms
to allow fair competition?
I hope you are able to ensure that these issues are covered by
the
Anti-trust settlement.
Thanks,
Adrian
MTC-00026310
From: Mark Beumeler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs
The proposed settlement is bad idea.
It does not address the findings of fact. Microsoft is a
criminal monopolist. Please consider that the innovation that has
been inhibited by Microsoft dwarfs by several thousand fold the puny
cost of punishing and restricting Microsoft from all their predatory
practices. Your job is to definitively restrict Microsoft from the
possibility of monopolistic practices, and punish them in excess of
their rewards.
Regards,
Wayne Beumeler
MTC-00026311
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:58pm
Subject: (no subject)
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I would like to see the settlement reached between your office
and Microsoft in their lengthy antitrust case approved as quickly as
possible. To me, the suit is a case of sour grapes, propelled by
competitors envious of Microsoft's ability to produce and sell
``better mousetraps''.
The terms of the settlement will allow the case to end on
amicable terms. Microsoft is making significant concessions in the
way it distributes its products to manufacturers and the public, and
it is taking unprecedented steps in allowing rival companies to
learn internal Windows program codes. Microsoft is being more than
generous in its efforts to resolve the case. Right now, the Justice
Department has more important things to tackle. To free your
office's resources to properly prosecute Johnny ben Walker and
investigate the Enron fiasco, I urge you to settle the antitrust
case without additional delay.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Sweyd
3441 Colorado Avenue
Turlock, CA 95382-8111
(209) 669-0415
MTC-00026312
From: TERESA GOODRUM
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Parties, If the break up of Microsoft would do for the
computer industry what the break up of the Bell System has done for
the telephony industry I say leave it intact. I understand that the
reason that the Department of Justice becoming so deeply involved is
to protect the American consumer and all the businesses that are
involved with computer software and hardware but why do you not
believe that we are capable of making our own choices. AT&T was
once an industry giant and had a vast well of designers, engineers,
infrastructure, research and development as well as technicians,
representatives and operators. Now they are so minor of a player in
their original core industry that they have become pitiful. And as
more of their offshoots combine back into larger players than they
were to be allowed and the ``regional'' competitors are
falling by the wayside through mergers and bancruptcy procedures how
can you not see that the same thing may befall the improved version
of Microsoft that you think we need to have. All consumers and
investors would once again see tremendous potential again elude them
and be left buying part A from one division and compatible part B
from another division.
Let the public decide and leave Microsoft intact.
Thank you for your time.
Teresa R Goodrum
14979 W Vera Cruz Ct
New Berlin, WI 53151
MTC-00026313
From: Rick Roehrig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wish to add my objection to the proposed settlement of US v
Microsoft. The terms of the settlement would neither punish
Microsoft for its illegal actions as a monopoly, nor prevent
Microsoft from continuing these illegal actions in the future.
Richard Roehrig
Pensacola, FL
MTC-00026314
From: Bill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have followed the issues surrounding the MicroSoft anti-trust
suit and related information since the early 90's. I feel that this
company, MicroSoft, has long been allowed to terrorize the entire
computer/electronic industry. This has to be stopped! There has to
be limits on what one powerful company can do to bend the will of
independent manufacturers and citizens. MS seems to use every legal
trick in the book to prevent competition with their software.
Classifying the license agreements, as to how OEM's can install
boot-loaders on systems that they manufacture and sell, as
intellectual property is absurd. Altering commodity protocols for
the benefit of locking users to their software is absurd!
Restricting an OEM as to how and when they can sell a naked PC is
absurd. I do not use Windows! When I purchased my most recent PC,
that was destined to run Linux exclusively, I was forced to also
purchase Windows 98SE. I did not even receive a usable version of
Win98, if I was to ever choose to use that software. I instead
received a recovery disk which is mostly worthless. People call it
the MicroSoft tax. I can not think of a more appropriate term!
MicroSoft, in my opinion, is the worst kind of monopolizing
threat to global Internet stability. They repeatedly use market
share to crush competition and options, forcing their average
quality and usually flawed software on the masses. If Microsoft is
allowed to
[[Page 27789]]
continue unrestrained, I think this will have a long term,
devastating effect on both the global economy and security of the
Internet. An electric power provider would never be allowed to
manipulate, with embrace and extend tactics, secret/proprietary
electricity that only worked with their devices. Nor would they be
allowed to slowly corrupt that moving standard to eliminate all
competition. MicroSoft should not be allowed to do the exact same
thing with computers, electronic technology and the Internet.
MicroSoft must be restrained and controlled as they have proven
time and time again that they cannot act responsibly! They do not
innovate, they destroy and rename the lack of options innovation!!!!
Best Regards,
Bill
MTC-00026315
From: Sharlene Shannon
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/26/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sharlene Shannon
32056 Pacific Coast Hwy.
Malibu, CA 90265
January 26, 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,
Sharlene Shannon
MTC-00026316
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
76TH STREET
LUBBOCK, TX 79424
January 26, 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. The government has
unfairly targeted Microsoft and punishing them for rising to the top
of their industry. Simply because Microsoft built a better mousetrap
and reaped the rewards does not mean that they have broken any laws.
This is a case of government over regulation, not hurt consumers.
A settlement has been reached and the terms are fair. Microsoft
has agreed to design future versions of Windows to be more
compatible with non-Microsoft products. Microsoft has also agreed to
several changes in the way they do business with computer makers.
Microsoft has agreed to many concessions. It is time that the
government accepts the settlement and moves on. Microsoft and the
technology industry need to move forward, the only way to move
forward is to put this issue in the past. Please allow Microsoft to
get back to business as usual, accept the Microsoft antitrust
settlement Why punish Microsoft for achieving the American dream by
starting from scratch and building such a State of the Art product?
Everyone has the same opportunity.
Sincerely,
Lavada Burdett
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026317
From: douglasross
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:12pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
16 Fort Street
Springfield, MA 01103-1208
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am in favor of the Department of Justice's decision to settle
the Microsoft antitrust case. The case has dragged on for long
enough. Obviously, Microsoft has the resources to continue the
litigation for an extended period of time. I would rather see the
taxpayers'' money spent on other endeavors.
I do not believe the government fully understood the
technological issues involved in this suit. The Department of
Justice's position was comprised by this lack of understanding.
Given this disparity, the best course of action is settlement. The
terms of the settlement agreement appear reasonable enough. For
example, Microsoft has agreed to allow computer makers and consumers
to replace features of Microsoft software with that of Microsoft's
competitors. This will result in opening up the competition. The
reality of the situation is that we live in a Microsoft world. The
settlement provides mechanisms for Microsoft's competitors to
compete in this world. Microsoft's agreement to disclose interfaces
that are internal to the Windows operating system products will also
achieve this end.
I support the DOJ's efforts toward resolving this litigation.
Sincerely,
Douglas Ross
MTC-00026318
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I inadvertently omitted the subject line in a previous message
so am resending this to be sure it is received. I support any action
possible against Microsoft. My first computer was an Imac and I
wanted to use Netscape as my browser, but the computer was set up
for Explorer. It took hours of work to get things set up for
Netscape. A less tenacious person would have given up and settled
for Explorer. Microsoft had an unfair advantage in my opinion. Thank
you for your efforts.
Sincerely,
Marilyn Wolf
MTC-00026319
From: Simon Lemond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 3:10pm
Subject: MIcrosoft Settlement
I disagree with the proposed settlement with Microsoft. I think
they broke the law and the remedy should be that they are forced to
open their system to the applications of others. They should provide
full and open disclosure of the interfaces needed to optimize
applications with all of the various windows operating systems. They
should have to pay back the DOJ for the costs of the lawsuit. They
shouls have to put money into a fund to nurture outside development
of applications, either by individuals or other corporations.
Microsoft has repeatedly engaged in illegal, unfair, and shady
practices. They will continue to run roughshod over any competition
unless they are restricted from doing so. I want to se Bill Gates
removed from the company entirely, and their plans and strategy
should be published at least six months before any new products are
released.
They should be forced to deal with the security holes they have
left in Windows, InternetExplorer, and Outlook. They need to close
these holes or pay damages to victims. They should have to fund a
group to improve security and prevent malicious hacking.
Simon Checkner
MTC-00026320
From: Casey Fleming
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Gentlemen:
Comments on the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement:
I have owned two small businesses. In both cases the software
required to run the business was simply not built for the Apple or
Unix-based platforms. Thus, due to the particular nature of our
industry, we found the Microsoft platform the only reasonable
alternative. It was expensive to buy, and expensive to maintain
because of it's instability. I have bought Microsoft for years
[[Page 27790]]
not because I think highly of the product, but because I never had
any real choice.
The extra expense reduced our ability to add staffing when it
would have been very helpful, and it cut deeply into profits which
could have gone to further expand the business.
In a very real way, Microsoft's predatory monopoly practices
cost jobs in our community and drained investment capital away re-
investment that would have benefitted both our community and our
industry.
They suck resources (money and time) away from true productive
labor, and harm small businesses in very tangible ways. Forget
anecdotal evidence; I have no doubt that a disinterested study of
small businesses would yield significant data suggesting that
Microsoft's practices are costing hundreds of thousands of jobs and
billions of dollars in losses every year, particularly in the small
business community.
The settlement with Microsoft must guarantee that they can never
again target and destroy other businesses to stifle competition. A
breakup of the company seems the only reasonable alternative to
those of us in the small business community that have directly
suffered from their actions.
Sincerely,
Casey Fleming
Former president, Independent Property Services, Inc.
Former CEO, Loanguide.com,. Inc.
MTC-00026321
From: Jennifer Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
I feel the Microsoft settlement before you has serious flaws,
and I urge you to reject it. There is no provision to ensure that
their anti-competitive activity won't continue. Every court has
agreed that Microsoft has used its monopoly powers to reap unjust
profits, yet the company is now being allowed to keep those profits.
Please strike down the proposed final judgement as it fails to
benefit those Microsoft has wronged--consumers like myself.
Respectfully,
Jennifer L. Smith
401 Eden Road
Apt.L-3
Lancaster, Pa. 17602
717-581-5893
MTC-00026323
From: Thelma Stevens
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/26/02 6:16pm
Subject: No subject was specified.
Microsoft Settlement:
Dear Sirs: We have studied the terms of the Microsoft settlement
and believe it is fair and just.and good for our economy and our
country.
We hope that you and your committee will back it fully.
Sincerely,
Thelma and Nelson Stevens
Barrington, IL 60010
MTC-00026324
From: Tom Hemmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:18pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
As a computer professional, i have seen the effects of the anti-
competitive behavior caused by microsoft. numerous companies with
useful and innovative products have been swallowed or ground down by
the ruthless, and by the courts definition, illegal practices of
microsoft. The current settlement does not go far enough in ensuring
that the monopolistic practices do not continue. This settlement has
led me to conclude that that the DOJ and Ashcroft are lapdogs for
big business, the proposed settlement is for political purposes and
that the DOJ does not care about curbing monopolies for the benefit
of the consumer.
MTC-00026325
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Senior settlement
Don't you think it is about time to settle this law suit and get
on with business? I do. So lets get going.
William H. Adams
MTC-00026326
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:15pm
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,
John Gaynor
8100 Ridgefield Road
Pensacola, FL 32514-6849
MTC-00026327
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mathew Saari
33114 Village 33
Camarillo, CA 93012-7212
MTC-00026328
From: Lee Lamb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your Honor,
I would like to register my position regarding any proposed anti
trust settlement with Microsoft.
I will be brief. Microsoft thinks it is above the law. The rules
of law are for the little people, not for them. They have
consistently used their position to ruin competitors. When they
began bundling Internet Explorer with Windows 95. It really didn't
work, but because it was part of the system people who didn't know
any better used it anyway. So Netscape went from being the major
player to a minor player in a very short period of time. Microsoft
has always used this method of attack. Bundle a product that isn't
ready with windows, overwhelm a proven product, subject the user to
security holes, make small improvements to the product over several
years, force the competition to accept a minor role in the market,
and call this innovation. This system would be tolerable if the
software didn't have so many security flaws that it subjects the
individual, the family, the company, the government to having it's
most sensitive information at risk.
If the law is the law. Microsoft needs to be made an example of
because it has flaunted its'' disregard law, the consumer, and
humanity.
Thank you,
Lee Lamb
16252 Vintage Dr
Plainfield, IL 60544
MTC-00026329
From: Byles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge you to accept the antitrust settlement agreed to. I feel
this is a fair proposal and we need to move on!
Nancy Byles
770 Briercliff Lane
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
MTC-00026330
From: Gregory Ritts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:31pm
[[Page 27791]]
Subject: consent decree
The settlement seems like a fair, negotiated settlement. It
seems that each side made some compromises, and that MS will be
prevented from overreaching conduct. This settlement ought to be
adopted, and the additional remedies proposed by the states and DC
rejected.
Gregory Ritts
MTC-00026331
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that it is in the interest of the American public to
complete the Microsoft settlement. This company has done more for
our economy than we can even comprehend, and has helped innumerable
children in its various benevolent programs. It has helped me
personally to enhance my computer skills to help children I have
tutored.
Nadalyn M. Cotten
MTC-00026332
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
01/26/2002
Honorable U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly; I am
writing you to ``throw out'' the proposed Microsoft
Settlement. This settlement is not in the best interest of the
people of the United States. It, surely, is not in the best interest
of our free market system. Thank you for allowing me to make this
comment.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Hemus
MTC-00026333
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:32pm
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,
Suzanne Winkler
3404 Zircon Ln
Rockford, IL 61102
MTC-00026334
From: Tim Rain
To: Microsoft ATR, Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Netw...
Date: 1/26/02 6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Original Message
From: Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Network
To: `[email protected]''
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 17:12
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.usoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-
settle.htm
5208 Hwy, 441 N.
Okeechobee, FL 34972
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 opinion about the recent antitrust
case settlement between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice.
I think the lawsuit has dragged on too long and it is time for the
government to stop interfering in big business. We live in a
capitalist society where free enterprise reigns.
Microsoft's competitors could not have delivered products and
services at the same level as Microsoft and suffered so. Now, they
are whining and spending huge amounts of money to lobby politicians
and lawmakers to even the playing field. This simply is not right.
Why isn't the Government getting involved with the big corporate
takeovers and buy out's and especially Wal-Mart. What about the Oil
company's they can do whatever they want and get the price's they
want. Is this the case of Kitty in the woodpile?
The terms of the settlement will force Microsoft to give up
technological secrets they have spent valuable time and money
developing. It also prohibits them from entering into agreements
obligating third parties to exclusively distribute Microsoft's
products. This is a violation of free market principles.
Although I feel the terms of the settlement are flawed, I think
implementation is the best way of serving the interests of the
public. The alternative to further litigation would cost our nation
too much. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Tim Rain
MTC-00026335
From: Dianne Lane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Having a Mac allows me to avoid the Windows OS. My operating
system came with both Explorer and Netscape. However, when clicking
a link or attachment the default goes to Explorer. This is, of
course, only a tiny example of Microsoft domination. Since I try to
avoid any Microsoft product and do not wish to be forced to use one,
I trashed it. Unfortunately, it is impossible for most PC users to
find software other than that made by Microsoft. Please make it
possible to improve our computer technology by giving competition a
chance.
Sincerely,
Dianne Lane
San Jose, California
MTC-00026336
From: Dan Jacobs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I urge you to make the terms of the Microsoft antitrust
settlement broader than the proposed settlement, which I believe
doesn't serve the public interest in its current form. The currently
proposed settlement uses language which leaves gaping holes where
predatory practices could continue to be used against competitors,
simply because they compete against products that weren't specified
in the settlement. The public interest would best be served by
Microsoft agreeing to abandon all of its predatory practices, not
just those mentioned in the proposed settlement, as well as
abandoning its predatory practices against all competitors, not just
those who compete with the Microsoft products mentioned in the
proposed settlement.
Thank you,
Daniel E. Jacobs
3322 Cavan Dr.
St. Ann, MO 63074
MTC-00026337
From: Edward McClanahan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have seen many arguments arguing for and against the idea that
Microsoft is a monopoly. My argument is that it acts like a
monopoly, uses its market power like a monopoly, its competitors and
customers fear it like a monopoly, and therefore for all
[[Page 27792]]
practical purposes is a monopoly. Thank you for your time.
From the outer realms of Cyberspace,
Edward McClanahan
[email protected]
MTC-00026338
From: Kurt Freund
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
It is incomprehensible that the Justice Department caved in to
Microsoft with a toothless settlement that will do nothing for the
consumer. I can only assume that Microsoft's political contributions
and lobbying had much to do with it. The company has again and again
shown that it has no respect for the law, the courts, its
competitors, or its customers. Judge Jackson might have made
inappropriate comments based on his (quite understandable) annoyance
at Microsoft, but his findings of fact are clearly correct, which
was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals.
I would like to comment on something that has been mentioned
less often than other aspects of the case ? Microsoft's domination
of productivity software with its Office suite, which contains Word
(word processor), Excel (spreadsheet), Outlook (email client),
PowerPoint (business presentations), Publisher (publishing),
Internet Explorer (of course), and a few other tidbits. Suppose you
like one of those products, such as Word. YOU CANNOT BUY IT! The
only way to get any of the programs (except IE) is to buy the entire
suite. And if you buy the suite to get Word, you also have the other
programs, whether you like them or not. Considering the price of
Office (much higher than the cost of just the word processor would
be), you are unlikely to buy another spreadsheet or database
program. Faced with that, how many companies are willing to invest
in creating a quality competing version of any one of the suite
products? Not many, as you would quickly find by doing some
shopping.
Microsoft can indulge in that kind of extortion because of its
monopoly of operating systems and its predatory business practices.
If another company did produce a decent word processor that
challenged Word, it is not hard to imagine that Word would soon be
available as a separate product and at a price that no other company
could match. Microsoft has stifled innovation and produced mediocre,
bug-ridden, defective software for many years, and people continue
to buy it because there are no reasonable alternatives. I strongly
appeal to the court to reject the Justice Department's proposed
settlement and impose restrictions and penalties on Microsoft that
are commensurate with their offenses and that will help to create
true competition in the software market.
Thank you.
Kurt Freund
8240 Rhoda Avenue
Dublin, CA 94568-1004
Phone: 925-829-6284
Email: [email protected]
MTC-00026339
From: Ellen Vande Kieft
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft
I have grown to really enjoy my computer and the ability to get
all sorts of information about the whole wide world. But the reason
I could do so was due to Microsoft and their fantastic software. If
I had to install each feature by myself, I could never do so as I am
not a ``techie''. What are all the competitors of
Microsoft screaming about, they are complaining because they have
failed to come up with a better product and are looking to the
government to fight their battle for them. Please allow Microsoft to
continue to innovate so that the consumers like me can continue to
benefit.
AOL is seeing green at Microsoft's cash and wants the DOL to
help them get a share.
Ellen Vandekieft
San Mateo, Ca 94403
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026340
From: Roger Stewart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement comments
I write to complain regarding the DoJ's dangerously cynical
sellout of the American people.
The DoJ's toothless settlement snatches defeat from the jaws of
victory by shortselling the merits on many counts. Among the many
sad weaknesses is API sharing, which is a great idea, but is badly
designed. Gaining access to the APIs is made far too difficult and
is then rendered nearly worthless by requiring sharing of the
finished code with Microsoft. The anti-non-profit language in
Section III(J)(2) wipes out Linux and many other OSes competing with
Windows. The anti-government language there is also unforgivable.
The settlement does not begin to account for the damage done to
competitors like Apple.
There are countless more fatal errors with the settlement.
Please withdraw it.
Roger Stewart
2403 Greenlee Dr
Austin TX 78703
MTC-00026341
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
I am a subscriber of AOL but do not agree with them or anyone
else that is inclined to make Microsoft the scapegoat for all the
problems that face the industry in regard to competition. Where
would the industry be now if Microsoft never existed? While AOL
charges Microsoft with ``anticompetitive conduct,'' it has
fought the efforts of Microsoft in the improvement of instant
messaging. Which is a big inconvenience to anyone using the Internet
for correspondence. This is only a way that AOL uses its
anticompetitive conduct.
I am asking for your help in throwing out AOL's recent
litigation against Microsoft.
Joyce O. Thedy
MTC-00026342
From: Helen McKay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:52pm
Subject: Unfair to Microsoft
I do not like what is happening with Microsoft by our governent.
It seems that when young people use their brains to invest something
for the good of the nation, those in charge do all they can to
destroy the Young people.
Here in Memphis, Tenn. we have a level of people with their
hands out to the government and it has to supply them with homes,
food on their tables, their kids in child care and teenagers in
College all the government expense.
Here are a couple of young people contributing to the good of
everyone and the govenment comes down on them and takes away the
money they have made. Doesn't the government spend enough money to
care for those who will not use their brains, or work. Why does the
government go after the Microsoft people. Microsoft will listen and
has done what is right, but because others want on Microsoft
bandwagen it is split up.
The government did that with the Telephone company, now we can't
get the operator when we need service, or want to have a phone bill
correct. The phone service is rotten and we have to listen to all of
the mess on those automated phone. The govenment did not have the
right to split up the phone company, it was a good one and people
got serve. Now, we have junk pay phones that will not return the
money you drop into the phone. We can't get the parties we want
because of something wrong. No operators will help us because we
can't get them. And the rates are high to even get long distance
numbers. Why doesn't the government leave those who have the
intelligence to create something good along. No, the government has
to support those in Memphis who are too lazy to work. Or the city
waste money on arena for basketball teams or some other white
elephant us taxpayers have to buy. So not the government has gone
after Microsoft to destroy them and bring into the market some more
junk, like the junky phones.
Sincerely,
Ms. McKay
583 No. Merton Street
Memphis, Tenn. 38112
MTC-00026343
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Short but sweet: Do NOT break up Windows.
It would make the computer environment a lot less user friendly,
especially for all of the Seniors in my computer beginners class.
J. C. Lawrence
MTC-00026344
From: David Sallak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello, I am writing to voice my concern regarding the settlement
of the lawsuit by the Federal Government of the United States and
nine individual States against Microsoft
[[Page 27793]]
Corp. Among the many flaws contained in the settlement, I will focus
on one ? the creation of an oversight group to ensure that Microsoft
no longer violates procedures for which it has been found guilty.
This oversight group has no enforcement capability. All they are
empowered to do is to point out that if Microsoft has violated one
or more of the conditions of the settlement, then this will be
brought to the attention of the U.S. Justice Department for review.
And what, file ANOTHER lawsuit? This one has already taken more than
three years, so Microsoft has incentive to violate conditions of
this settlement ? competition can be eliminated via Microsoft1s
predatory approach to the consumer and business markets, well before
any future litigation has an opportunity to stop Microsoft1s actions
in time to save consumers any monetary losses due to lack of
competition, or save business competitors from extinction due to
Microsoft1s chokehold on their Windows platform.
Microsoft should be bound to terms of an agreement that enables
the oversight group to enforce monetary penalties upon Microsoft,
payable to the Federal Government and participating States, if
Microsoft breaks any terms of this agreement. No other form of
penalty is understood by Microsoft ? they are too big to appreciate
any penalty other than financial.
You are spending my tax dollars to prevent future anti-
competitive behavior by Microsoft, a company found GUILTY of
breaking the laws of the Sherman AntiTrust Act by the Federal
Government of the United States. Enforce this law to its limits.
Thank you,
David Sallak
President, SNS Corporation
Villa Park, IL
630-567-0984
[email protected]
MTC-00026345
From: J. Harrison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
My name is Jeffrey Harrison and I run a company called 23
Skidoo, Inc. Up until recently my company focused entirely on web
development. Recently we have changed into other markets but as a
web developer I have had to deal with the constant borage of crap
from Microsoft and the biddings of Bill Gates. Their products rarely
ever work right. Their web browser rarely ever plays by the rules
and I am constantly loosing time and money because of them. As a
result of their poor operating system I have abandoned their
platform all together in my office. I now use Apple computers and
here's something really surprising......THEY ACTUALLY WORK, DON'T
CRASH, AND I HAVE YET TO GET A VIRUS! I would constantly miss
deadlines because of something Microsoft machines would decide to do
at the last second. Thereby costing me a lot of money. And because
of what they do I have to charge more to my customers. If they would
have been playing by the rules instead of whatever they decided was
in their interest development costs for thousands of companies would
be much less. And I am greatly disappointed in our own justice
system as of late.
Microsoft has been getting away with murder for years now. It's
not fair to the public and it's not fair to small business.... which
employs the majority of the United States last time I checked. You
need to set an example with Microsoft. You still need to break them
up. And you need to throw out Bill Gates if at all possible. He
doesn't care about you.... he doesn't care about me.... and he sure
as hell doesn't give a crap about the fact that he sells such a
crappy product to so many people. If you let him go on he is just
going to do the same things he has been doing for years now. And
that is to stiffel innovation. He doesn't innovate. He steals ideas.
And he crushes other companies that offer something superior before
they get a chance to even come to life. They do not do anything to
help the market place. If anything they have helped to destroy it.
Hell..... if you take a look around you can go to hacker sites that
give you a little string of code that can take down major servers
around the globe that use Microsoft software. What kind of company
sells such a bad product for so long w/o being penalized?. I
mean.... if your car's wheels fell off once a day.... would you
still drive that car? This is ridiculous. I can only wonder if you
have been paid off like so many other politicians and judges that
have let so much of what they do to people just slide.
I am really disappointed in what this country has become. It is
a joke.... it is a travesty..... and it is just plain sad that
Microsoft has been able to slip through the system of supposed
checks and balances for so long without getting so much as a slap on
the wrist.
BREAK MICROSOFT APART.....MAKE THEIR CODE OPEN.... WATCH THEM
LIKE A HAWK....FINE THE HELL OUT OF THEM.... AND DON'T LET MICROSOFT
AND BILL GATES KEEP SCREWING US ALL.
Thank you,
Jeffrey Harrison
Jeffrey Harrison
President & CEO
23 Skidoo, Inc.
http://www.23skidoo.com
445 Round Rock West Dr.
Round Rock, TX 78681
USA
Phone:512-733-2322
Fax:512-733-2321
MTC-00026346
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Sirs/MS:
As a taxpayer, Microsoft user, and as a stock holder I would
like to submit my opinion that the settlement agreed to with the
justice Department should be fair enough for all states. Please end
the litigation.
Sincerely,
Alden G.
Cockburn, MD
MTC-00026347
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:54pm
Subject: Support For the 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-00026348
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 6:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
We support Microsoft and hope the DOJ does the same.
MTC-00026349
From: neil sullivan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
P.O.Box 925
Allyn, WA 98524
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I was pleased to see the Department of Justice has made the wise
decision to settle the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. In my opinion,
the DOJ was way off base in its decision to file this case.
Notwithstanding this belief, I am supportive of the terms of the
settlement agreement, and I looking forward to a resolution of this
case. Microsoft has agreed to a variety of concessions in the
interest of moving forward. They have agreed to change their
business practices to quell concerns of anticompetitive behavior.
They agreed to not retaliate against those who promote, distribute,
or sell software that competes with Windows. They also agreed not to
enforce many of their intellectual property rights.
Through the settlement agreement, Microsoft has answered the
concerns about predatory business practices. Nothing more
[[Page 27794]]
should be done beyond the terms of the settlement agreement.
I would suggest that in the future the Government not base their
lawsuits on the word of competitors and give some thought to the
facts such as the user public was being well served and this
special-interest litigation is sure to cost the users more in the
long run.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Sullivan
MTC-00026350
From: Constance La Lena
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft anti-trust settlement should NOT include anything
that would give Microsoft more unfair advantage than they already
have. The current proposal to have Microsoft provide computers and
software to schools would do just that. Microsoft now does not have
a big presence in schools--Apple does. What the proposed
settlement would do is extend Microsoft's monopoly into the one area
where it does not presently monopolize the market.
Bad decision!
Constance La Lena
[email protected]
MTC-00026351
From: Harvey G. Spencer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please do the reasonable thing and settle the Microsoft suits as
Microsoft has proposed.
MTC-00026352
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough is Enough
I am a subscriber of AOL but do not agree with them or anyone
else that is inclined to make Microsoft the scapegoat for all the
problems that face the industry in regards to competition. Where
would the industry be now if microsoft never exited?
While AOL charges Microsoft with ``anticompetitive
conduct,'' it has fought the efforts of Microsoft to the
improvement of instant messaging, which is a big inconvience to
anyone using the internet for correspondence . This is only a way
that AOL uses ITS anticompetitive conduct.
I am asking for your help in throwing out AOL's recent
litigation against Microsoft.
Respectfully,
Hermon L. Thedy
MTC-00026353
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
I have purchased Microsoft products for many years, their
roducts are far superior than any other products on the market. I do
not feel that they have done any wrong in this situation. They
attempt to innovate and improve the PC and software industry.
Its only the those that are unable to keep pace with Microsoft
that want to alter the ``playing field''. So can you tell
me what the difference is that microsoft has internet explorer on
some PC's and other PC's have AOL as the default. When I purchased
this PC I was forced into using AOL, and I did not like it so I
removed it. PS. My next upgrade will be microsoft XP.
MTC-00026354
From: Elinor Bickley
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/26/02 7:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Elinor Bickley
Rt/ 11. Box 210
Santa Fe, NM 97501
January 26, 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,
Elinor M. Bickley
MTC-00026355
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have been a user of Windows and the IE Browser for the past
three years having used Netscape prior to that.
As much as I have understood of the settlement proposed between
the Department of Justice and Microsoft it seems fair and
reasonable. I am satisfied that if I over paid for Windows according
to the allegations of antitrust and competitor arguments it was
probably a small amount, besides I have had stability of my system
and automatic recovery (Win 95, 98) that give me peace of mind.
If Microsoft has been a monopoly it has been a beneficient one
to me as the consumer.
Stan Rubenstein
White Plains, NY
MTC-00026356
From: Nathan Z
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please do not allow the Microsoft settlement. It will just give
Microsoft more leverage and not allow companies like Apple Computer
or the Open source movement headed by the Linux Operating System to
ever take a respectable part of the market. Microsoft is bad for
consumers and America. I, and many others believe this and hope that
you take our pleads seriously. Thank you for your time.
Nathan Zamecnik
MTC-00026357
From: Keith Nasman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust/Settlement
Microsoft's predatory actions aside, additional focus needs to
be on how its monopoly can stifle communication. If the dominant
format for document communication is a Microsoft Word document, then
so be it. The more important issue is Microsoft's control of the
format. I believe all public communications formats should be open.
Microsoft should be forced to open their formats to the world so
that other companies or groups can write software to interact with
those formats. It is an unfair use of their market dominance to
allow them to stifle communications to their own advantage.
Microsoft needs more than just a pat on the hand.
Sincerely,
Keith Nasman
MTC-00026358
From: Phillip Bashor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:13pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
7 Highland Avenue
Darien, CT 06820-4707
January 26, 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 antitrust dispute. I support Microsoft in this dispute and
would like to see this three-year litigation battle come to an end.
I support the settlement that was reached in November as a means to
end this dispute. Microsoft has agreed to all terms 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. Computer makers will now be free to remove the means
by which consumers access various features of Windows, such as
Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser, Windows Media Player and
Windows Messenger. Microsoft has also agreed to disclose information
about certain internal interfaces in Windows. A technical oversight
[[Page 27795]]
committee has been created to monitor Microsoft compliance. This
settlement will serve in the best public interest. I am a believer
of free enterprise and do not want to see this company punished for
being successful. Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Phillip Bashor
MTC-00026359
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:13pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement.......
Judge..... anyone who give's MSFT settlement a clean bill of
health and that it follows the intent of the John V. Tunney act,
after reading John V. Tunney say that MSFT's actions are
``inadequate'', would be the greatest miscarriage of
justice of all time...... THIS SETTLEMENT IS POLITICALLY
MOTIVATED... there is no other case that this is more clear
on....... please do not mistake this settlement for any thing other
than what it is....... a miscarriage of justice....... Former
California Senator Accuses Microsoft By Kristi Heim, San Jose
Mercury News, Calif.
Jan. 26--Microsoft's failure to disclose all its contacts
with the government directly contradicts the intention of a federal
law designed to prevent the influence of lobbying on antitrust
settlements, the former California senator who wrote the law said
Friday.
John V. Tunney, who wrote the antitrust legislation known as the
Tunney Act in 1972 and is now a business executive, called
Microsoft's brief disclosure of its lobbying activities
``inadequate'' in an affidavit filed with the Justice
Department this week.
jon.
MTC-00026360
From: Yaakov Nemoy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I, Yaakov Nemoy, of Fairfield CT, believe that the proposed
settlement is in extreme error. You cannot deny the specific
practices that Microsoft has taken, though they do not do this
anymore, such as forcing computer manufacturers to install only
Windows. Microsoft needs to pay for this massive amount of damage
done to the computer market, and this settlement will not fully
compensate for it.
MTC-00026361
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:17pm
Subject: Tunney act is Fair and reasonable
Please vote to quash the ongoing lswsuits and attempts at
lawsuit which interfere with the governments ability to end this
expensive litigation
Yours John C. Allen
MTC-00026362
From: Sherry Hamilton
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/26/02 7:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sherry Hamilton
3195 Dayton-Xenia Rd. #900-114
Dayton, OH 45434
January 26, 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,
Sherry Hamilton
MTC-00026363
From: Tom Hamilton
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/26/02 7:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tom Hamilton
3195 Dayton-Xenia Rd. #900-114
Dayton, OH 45434
January 26, 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,
Tom Hamilton
MTC-00026364
From: Arthur J. Saulsberry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
MTC-00026365
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Judy Joki
16222 29th Dr. SE
Mill Creek, WA 98012-7824
MTC-00026366
From: Edward Bauer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I feel the proposed settlement with Microsoft is fair and
fulfills the finding of the court. I'm upset by the political nature
of the lawsuit and the uneven application of monopoly standards to
many of the parties that testified against Microsoft in this suit. I
recognize these comments mean little with the judgment and
settlement at hand, but I would like to record strong criticism of
the people in the anti-trust group that have given many unhappy
computer companies that couldn't compete a free pass. Everyone seems
to forget that IBM with its OS2 operating system was the goliath
trying to slay David in the original go round, and I didn't see the
government screaming to level the playing field against IBM when
they owned all the computer markets. Again, I hope that the DOJ
begins a more reasoned and responsible approach to litigation in the
future, and I hope that a judge with a modicum of commercial and
technical capability hears
[[Page 27796]]
the case. A judge that can discern the difference between a bunch of
whiners and a person with a real complaint.
Edward Bauer
MTC-00026367
From: Dick and Candy James
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 26,2002
Attorney General Ashcroft, Justice Dept.
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of my support for
the settlement reached between the Dept. of Justice and the
Microsoft Corporation. As a retired economic development consultant,
I am aware of the importance of a prompt resolution of this
antitrust dispute. Since the inception of this lawsuit, comfidence
in the technology industry has decreased. The enactment of the
settlement, then, will increase confidence in the industry once
more. In the current period of recession, I believe that the focus
of the Justice Dept. should be to focus on the rebuilding of our
economy, rather than the continued waste of federal resources that
further litigation would necessitate.
Microsoft has been more than willing to make the concessions in
an attempt to resolve this issue. Microsoft has agreed to disclose
the protocols and internal interface design of the Windows system.
The result of this will be that developers will now be able to
develop hardware and software that is more compatible with the
Windows system.
Finally, I believe that the settlement is in the best interests
of our economy. Please enact the settlement with haste.
Sincerely,
Lloyd Repman
724 Walnut St.
Edmonds, Wa. 98020
MTC-00026368
From: Flash Sheridan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Re: A FINFLASH FROM THE FREEDOM TO
INNOVATE
NETWORK
I'm on one of Microsoft's mailing lists, but I believe that
their behavior has been both illegal and unconscionable, and that
any solution short of a breakup will be, in practice, unenforceable.
MTC-00026369
From: Betty P Fischer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:21pm
Subject: Microsoft
My opinion is that Microsoft should not be harassed any more.
Let the litigation cease. Stop the legal battle.
B. Fischer, Yuma, AZ
MTC-00026370
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:21pm
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,
E. Lois Minnoe
220 Channel Run Drive
New Bern, NC 28562-8915
MTC-00026371
From: Green, Ira
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We strongly believe that the settlement of the suits against
Microsoft be accepted by all parties NOW!!! We felt, that in the
first place, the suit was improper. Further suits against Microsoft
by the states are an improper use of taxpayers money. Users of
software will be adversely affected. Microsoft puts out an
outstanding product. Executives of Microsoft do not take exorbitant
salaries as is happening in many other corporations. Our economy can
not stand this continued the abuse of frivolous lawsuits.
Thanks
Ira & Wilma Green
* (310)813-3278
*
MTC-00026372
From: Pedro O'Chonagaile
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:26pm Subject'' Microsoft Settlement.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://
explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
MTC-00026372--0001
Peter Connelly
2519 Dexter Avenue N Apt. C
Seattle, WA 98109
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The Microsoft antitrust case, which is currently awaiting
resolution in the federal courts, is verging on the ridiculous. I
find it hard to believe that the Department of Justice had nothing
better to do with its time and money than to pursue Microsoft for
three years straight. This has gone on for long enough.
I ask you to support the proposed resolution, not because it is
ideal, but because it represents the lesser of two evils. I would
rather see a settlement reached now than face another extended
period of useless, unwarranted litigation. Perhaps I would not be
opposed to the suit continuing if there were an apparent purpose
behind it; but I do not believe Microsoft has done anything to harm
computer users.
The proposed settlement is, I think, sufficient response to all
claims of antitrust violation. Microsoft has agreed to a wide
variety of terms and conditions in the settlement, some of which
extend to products and procedures that were not found to be unlawful
by the Court of Appeals. Such actions demonstrate a high degree of
compliance on Microsoft's part. They have made sacrifices in the
interest of wrapping up the case, and I do not believe that more
sacrifice should be, or can be, required under the law. Both
Microsoft and its competitors are dealt with fairly and justly in
the proposed settlement. Microsoft has, for example, agreed not to
enter into any contracts that would require a third party to
distribute Microsoft products at a fixed percentage. Microsoft has
also agreed to disclose internal interfaces from the Windows
operating system for use by its competitors. The Windows operating
system in future versions will support non- Microsoft software, and
this interface disclosure will allow Microsoft competitors to
maneuver within Microsoft's operating system and to introduce their
own software into Windows.
Absolutely no further action against Microsoft is necessary on
the federal level. Again, I ask you and your office to support the
agreement and address other issues.
Sincerely,
Peter Connelly
MTC-00026372--0002
MTC-00026373
From: Ann Randall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am appalled at the settlement proposed to settle the Justice
Department's suit against Microsoft. It seems to me all the
difficult, pricey work has already been done by the Department, and
all that's left is for just about any objective judge to impose a
monopoly-breaking penalty. Instead, it seems the department is ready
to say: ``OK guys, we won. Just say ``nuff, and promise to
do better next time.'' Meanwhile, Microsoft's arrogance
continues, proving the point that they will not stop their anti-
competitive practices unless forced to do so. (Examples: increased
integration on XP that forces ever more use of Microsoft products;
the amazing attempt to settle their dispute by further extending
Microsoft influence in schools, one stronghold of Apple computers).
I worked for government many years, and we found that the only
preventive measures that worked were penalties that took the profit
out of noncompliance. Any penalty short of a profit-breaking penalty
is simply a cost of doing business.
Ann Randall
2008 Pine St
Billings MT
[[Page 27797]]
MTC-00026374
From: mllawler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:27pm
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Settlement >
> 2008 W Falls Avenue
> Kennewick, WA 99336-3042
> (509) 735-7932 > > >
> January 23, 2002
> Attorney General John Ashcroft
> US Department of Justice,
> 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
> Washington, DC 20530-0001 > >
> Dear Mr. Ashcroft: >
> I support the Department of Justice's efforts to settle the
Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. Enough time and money has been spent on
this case, and nothing more will be gained by continued litigation.
>
> The terms of the settlement agreement are quite reasonable.
Microsoft has agreed to change its business practices so it will be
easier for the competition to compete with Microsoft's products.
Microsoft also agreed > to document and disclose internal
interfaces to its competitors. In addition Microsoft agreed not to
enter into contracts, which would require third parties to
exclusively sell Windows products. There is little danger that
Microsoft will violate antitrust laws once the settlement is
approved.
A technical review committee will be created to ensure
Microsoft's compliance with the terms of the agreement. In the event
concerns arise that Microsoft is not complying with the law,
complaints may be lodged with the review committee for
investigation. Nothing more should be required of Microsoft beyond
the provisions of the settlement agreement. >
> What our economy needs now is stimulation. Allowing
Microsoft to get back to business will certainly help stimulate the
economy. Thank you for your efforts to bring this case to a
conclusion. >
> Sincerely, >
> Marie Lawler
> 2008 W. Falls Ave
Kennewick, Wa.
509-735-7932
MTC-00026375
From: David A Leidig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please bring this matter to the speediest conclusion and as soon
as possible. The proposed remedy should be satisfactory. Further
litigation is not likely to improve what has already been worked
out.
Thank you for your consideration.
MTC-00026376
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:26pm
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,
ROBERT LANKFORD
11901 SANTA MONICA BLVD #427
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
MTC-00026377
From: William Maryott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I just want to go on record as being extremely upset with
Microsofts behavior and with the lack of integrity by the legal
profession to put any restraints on this dishonest and powerful
Corporation. I am a retired IBM Engineer and I've been involved with
every version of Windows back to Version 1.0.
My computer crashes regularly and I have no alternatives but to
continue using this poorly written and poorly supported code. If the
operating system were separated from the applications, there would
be a good chance this might get resolved. Otherwise I expect to just
continue to suffer.
William R. Maryott
PO Box 1177
Freedom, CA 95019
MTC-00026378
From: Forrest L Fuller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Nothing further is to be gained by dragging out the long
Microsoft dispute any further. Accept the settlement and allow all
parties to get back to work and get the economy going again. This
costly battle benefits no one except the lawyers and lobbyists who
are opposing a successful giant. We gain nothing by destroying what
we have. accept the settlement. Forrest L. Fuller
MTC-00026379
From: Scott Ellsworth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
My name is Scott Ellsworth. First of all I have spoken to many
people about this Microsoft case. I have read literally hundreds of
posts in chat forums and also spoke to many coworkers, friends and
family members and they all are pretty much thinking the same thing
Including my self.
This is what we are thinking:
1. Many people are puzzled about why Microsoft is allowed to
give themselves their own punishment and think this is very unfair
and suspicious.
2. Most of these people know that Microsoft have purposely used
illegal tactics to force companies out of business to take over
businesses forced people to use their operating system and their
other software and have stollen Apple computers operating system and
other companies software. (The latest example of all this is
Microsoft saying that for their own punishment that they would
donate a couple of million dollars in used Wintel based PC's and
software to needy Schools. Which in actuality this would cost barely
nothing for Microsoft. This clearly shows that Microsoft was trying
to make inroads into Education were other companies dominate such as
Apple Computer).
3. Most people DESPISE Bill Gates and Microsoft because of all
this!
4. Most people believe that Microsoft controls the world and is
a modern day dictator and that this is a sad reality that no one is
doing anything about. ( Which if you think about it is very true.
Their operating system runs most of the worlds computers and most of
the worlds every day businesses and home software such as Microsoft
Office and Internet Explorer. All of this because of illegal
tactics.
5. Most people think that Microsoft should have been split up.
6. Most people think that it is a mystery that
Microsoft weaseled it's way out of being split up and they don't
know how the court system could have possibly let this happen after
they were found guilty other than that Microsoft had something to do
with it (This is very suspicious).
Punishment:
Microsoft should give much more BILLIONS OF DOLLARS specified by
the court system to schools that need computers but let the schools
decide what NEW computers and software they want which does not
necessarily have to be Wintel based computers running the Microsoft
Windows operating system and Microsoft software programs. (This
would greatly help our school systems).
Microsoft should give Billions of dollars to help the companies
that they caused to lose money, market share and other damages to.
The court system should demand that Microsoft let Apple Computer
own 50--60% of Microsoft. Since this is who they stollen and
continue to steal till today, their operating system and innovation
from. Microsoft is one of the worlds biggest if not the biggest and
richest companies in the World they should be able to afford all of
this. I think this is a fair Punishment.
MTC-00026380
From: Chris Sifnotis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:38pm
Subject: I despise micosoft and they are just trying to horn in
I despise micosoft and they are just trying to horn in on a market
that it is not dominant in. I wish they were destroyed because they
are ripping people off. when they charge $99/199 for an upgrade or
$199/299 full software and linux viriants cost aproximately $69 and
full versions of the mac os cost $129 or $69 for education something
is wrong. I think the best
[[Page 27798]]
settlement is to take windows away from them. Make it public domain
and every computer company should ship their own operating system.
This would spur inovation and compitition to have the best os out
there. Then each company would own the hole widget like Apple
Computers. Or a smaller kick in microsofts teeth would be to donate
10 billion (they do have 35 billion in cash) in all machintosh
machines and software. provide training for schools that dont
currently have machines. also microsoft should pay support and
upgrade for the next 10 years and to prove it has abondoned its
anticompitition practices. If microsoft has not satisfactorily
complied they lose the rights to windows and if they do comply
another 1 billion gets spred over all of the 50 states into their
education programs.
Dont let them play you for the fools. They are not friends of
the people.
Chris Sifnotis
Student
MTC-00026381
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice; Attorney General Ashcroft,
I am upset and dismayed at the cave in by the Justice Department
in the Microsoft Antitrust Settlement.
Microsoft is clearly monopolistic and using this power, has hurt
competing businesses and consumers. Including Internet Explorer in
its Operating System, Windows, Microsoft damaged Netscape and it
intended to damage Netscape. Internet Explorer is application
software, not operating system software. Microsoft has done this
with quite a few programs and has, as a result, harmed the software
companies with which it competes. This is unfair business practice
and must be stopped. Your settlement won't stop this behavior.
Consumers have been hurt because companies that would offer
better products, won't do so if a similar product is offered by
Microsoft in Windows.
When Bill Gates says he wants to compete and add value to his
Windows operating system, what he is really saying and what he
really means is ``Microsoft wants to restrict to market by
driving competing firms out of business, thereby driving the price
of Microsoft software up or at least not reducing the inflated price
of the Windows system.''
The Windows XP operating system is the latest attempt to gain
market share and restrict competition. The use of the Passport
system and other tracking software invades the privacy of consumers
and allows Microsoft to monitor the habits of consumers so that
Microsoft can sell more products and direct consumers to Microsoft
``partners'' at the expense of other companies.
Microsoft's restriction of the opening interface screen is an
example of this behavior.
Microsoft should be fined, prohibited from adding products like
Internet Explorer to the operating system and Microsoft should be
broken up into 2 companies--an operating system software
company and an application software company. Anything less will
allow Microsoft to dominate and restrict the software and hardware
market to the point where development and innovation will be slowed
down and may be even stopped. This is not in the interest of the
computer industry or the computing public. This will only serve
Microsoft's interest of complete domination of the computer and
entertainment marketplace.
Sincerely, Richard Farnham
MTC-00026382
From: Juan C Read
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/26/02 7:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs of The Justice Department:
I would like to add my support for the Microsoft company fight
against those who are trying to drag Microsoft down. I have used
Microsoft products for years and, as a senior, have found them to be
the best. If Microsoft's competitors had been as diligent as
Microsoft has been in trying to help the consumer, with good
products, I feel they would not have to go crying to the government
to be bailed out. If a company puts out a good product and gives
real consumer service then those companies would not have to worry
about competitors.
Please, accept the Microsoft settlement, and stop further
litigation. That useless waste of the courtroom money could be put
to a much better use elsewhere.
Thank you for reading this E-mail --- I?m a strong user and
supporter of Microsoft products and private enterprise.
Juan C. Read
MTC-00026383
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settelment
I am offering my opinion to the Justice Department to counter
the self-serving and punitive lobbying effort of Microsoft's
competitors. Current law (known as the Tunney Act) allows public
comment on the proposed settlement up until January 28th. The U.S.
District Court will then decide whether the settlement is in the
``public interest.'' I am sending my strong message to the
Justice Department that consumer interests have been well served,
and the time to end this costly and damaging litigation has come.
Dragging out this legal battle further will only benefit a few
wealthy competitors, lawyers, and special interest big-wigs. Not one
new product that helps consumers will be brought to the marketplace.
MTC-00026384
From: Diane Engles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:49pm
Subject: Comment on Proposed Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I welcome the opportunity to comment on the proposed settlement
between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. I am a software
developer with over 17 years of industry experience. Over these
years I have watched my choices of software development platforms
and products decline in number and in quality, due almost entirely
to the monopolistic practices of the Microsoft Corporation.
I watch daily and suffer myself as the poor quality of
Micosoft's products cause American Industry to lose significant
productivity due to system hangups virus infections. The current
security flaws revealed in Windows XP are another example of a
corporation who produces low quality products because there is no
real competition. More secure and robust software exists today, but
there is no real marketplace due to Microsoft's years of
monopolistic practices.
In my opinion, the proposed settlement will do little to
effectively curb
Microsoft and allow a true marketplace and real innovation to
develop. I fully support the Kegel letter's (http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/letter.html) proposed remedies to effectively remedy
Microsoft's years of illegal monopolistic control of the marketplace
and the resulting stifling of true innovation. I will mention two of
them briefly here:
1) Microsoft's APIs, file formats, and protocols. The complete
documentation for these must be made public. Any future changes must
also be made public in a timely manner. This should allow other
companies to produce products that can compete with Microsoft's
products by removing a major barrier to entry, namely that no
company can afford to convert all of its existing documents into a
new format in order to take advantage of a non-Microsoft office
suite or other applications.
2) Microsoft's business practices. Microsoft must not be allowed
to enter into deals with OEMs, ISPs, or other businesses that would
create disincentives or prohibit those companies from offering non-
Microsoft products or services to their customers. Since the vast
majority of the desktop computing world currently uses Microsoft
products, OEMs, ISPs, and others must be able to offer those
products to consumers. To allow Microsoft to continue to take
advantage of that situation by prohibiting those companies from
offering alternatives, either by outright prohibition, or by
economic disincentive, is to allow Microsoft to continue to hold the
industry hostage.
Sincerely,
Diane F. Engles
MTC-00026385
From: Jim Day
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As an MSN user for years I would like to make the following
comments regarding the Settlement. I've had numerous opportunities
to subscribe to AOl and other internet providers. My choice has been
MSN because I belive I get more value from remaining with the
Windows environment. Before retiring I worked on many Large
mainframes, midsize and small systems utilizing proprietary
operating systems (IBM, Honeywell, Burroughs, Tandem, H.P.). I was
aware of the costs associated with obtaining and utilizing the
associated software and when Windows came along I felt like for the
first time I obtained great flexibility at a minimum cost.
If I could purchase a better operating system at a lower cost I
would do it. If
[[Page 27799]]
someone can come up with a greater value I will purchase it. I
believe that Microsoft so far has the best operating system at the
lowest cost to me.
I hope the settlement is concluded as soon as possible. Those
seeking monetary rewards in hope of enrichment would be better off
utilizing their time and money creating a better and cheeper
operating system for all users.
Hopeful user,
James M. Day
4535 Motorway Dr.
Waterford, Mi. 48328
MTC-00026386
From: Scott Blomquist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Having been an avid complainer about Microsoft in the not so
distant past, I have begun to truly value the amazing innovation
that Microsoft has been bringing to the world for more than 25
years. The currently proposed Final Judgment seems to strike a fair
and reasonable balance between allowing Microsoft to continue to
drive innovation, and giving its competitors a fair shake at similar
innovation on existing and future Microsoft platforms. Under the
proposed Final Judgment, consumers will continue to benefit from the
great advances by all of the brilliant minds in the software
industry. I strongly support the adoption of the proposed Final
Judgment in its current form.
MTC-00026387
From: Linda
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:52pm
Subject: U.S. v. Microsoft
To Whom It May Concern:
This email responds to the request for public comments by the
Court hearing the case of the US versus Microsoft as part of the
penalty phase of that litigation.
Two factors ensure Microsoft's de facto monopoly of the
Operating System market:
1. Most people, businesses and government entities use Microsoft
operating systems and associated office products. I must communicate
with them. If I cannot communicate, I will suffer economic loss.
This is commonly referred to as a network effect and Microsoft has
brilliantly exploited it.
2. Microsoft has kept its software file formats and interfaces
secret. As a result, competing software developers cannot create
programs that interact with Microsoft products in a fully functional
way. Thus, an overwhelming majority of computer users have no choice
but to use the Microsoft OS and associated office products.
It is my belief, based on observation of Microsoft's past
actions, that they now wish to extend their reach beyond the PC
desktop to control networking protocols for the Internet and act as
its gate keeper. This is their ``.NET'' initiative. This
would have devastating consequences for the US economy and security.
Microsoft has stifled innovation by its monopolistic practices.
Microsoft products are notorious for their lack of security and
vulnerability to attack by the technically incompetent.
I propose these remedies:
1) All specifications for present and future Microsoft file
formats and Operating System Application Programming Interfaces
(API) should be made public. This will help ensure that any data or
documentation I create will still be available to me in the future.
It will also allow others to create programs that can meaningfully
compete with Microsoft products. These specifications must be
publicly available and made part of the public domain. Restriction
to ``commercial'' entities is simply wrong. Open Source
software initiatives should also be allowed to make use of this
information. I believe this is essential to ensure the long-term
availability and security of my data.
2) Any Microsoft networking protocols must be published in the
public domain and approved by an independent standards organization;
I suggest the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
(IEEE). Already I see Microsoft limiting access to web sites for
users not using Internet Explorer. This remedy would help prevent
Microsoft from partitioning the Internet into Microsoft and non-
Microsoft spheres.
3) Microsoft products should not be bundled as a hidden cost of
buying a computer. The choice of buying a computer without any
Microsoft products must be present. The real cost of Microsoft
products should be presented to the consumer. Without this, there
will not be meaningful competition in the OS marketplace.
4) Microsoft should be prevented from entering into exclusive
arrangements with computer vendors. These arrangements have been
used as rewards and punishments of computer vendors in the past and
serve only to maintain monopoly status for Microsoft.
Sincerely yours,
Linda Nusser
[email protected]
Trinidad, CO
MTC-00026388
From: Katrina Illari
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:55pm
Subject: Comments on the Microsoft settlement
Dear Renata Hesse:
I am a concerned computer programmer and user. I use Microsoft
Windows as well as Linux at home. For the past few years I have been
disgusted to see the increasing number of anticompetitive actions
that Microsoft has been able to get away with. The court case seemed
to provide a possibility for restoring a competitive market in the
computer software business. Microsoft was convicted with
anticompetitive behavior. However, the settlement that was agreed
upon does not seem to be in the best interests of the consumers.
Some points of concern are:
1) the punishment if further anticompetitive actions are taken
by Microsoft. That is that 2 years will be added to the period that
they are to be closely watched. I did not see any actual enforcement
of the restrictions placed on Microsoft. Just that a board of people
would be assigned to watch if they break any of the restrictions and
if so, then they will be restricted for another 2 years. Does this
provide an automatic solution to any court case filed against
Microsoft in the next 5 years? That is will the solution will be
that the restrictions will just be extended for another 2 years?
This almost seems to be in Microsoft's favor... No enforcement and
if they break the rules then the rules will be imposed (with out
enforcement) for another two years.
2) The security exemption: Will this provide a hole for
Microsoft? For example, will Microsoft just add access control to
many of its API and then not publish them, using the security
exemption as cover?
3) Will Microsoft simply patent a lot of its interfaces/
protocols and then charge companies licensing fees in order to get
the information about the API/protocol. I do not see anything in
this settlement that would stop them from doing so. As evidence,
they already patented the next version of the SMB protocol. This is
a protocol which allows you to share drives/files between computers.
SAMBA, a popular file server software uses this protocol to share
drives between Unix and Windows machines. Once Windows only supports
the new protocol, it will once again be impossible to share drives
between Windows and Unix systems. As I see it this is simply an
extension to the older protocol not something that it would be
strategic to have a patent on except if one wanted to eliminate the
ability for a Unix machine to share drives with a Windows machine.
Surely this is an anticompetitive action against SAMBA.
4) The fact that Microsoft is allowed to include non operating
system applications as part of the operating system is not
beneficial to consumers. This gives an advantage to Microsoft in
marketing of the applications that they include in the operating
system. They have a strangle hold on the browser market because of
this and in Windows XP, they are trying this with multimedia
applications.
Katrina Illari
521 Del Medio Ave #201
Mountain View, CA 94040
MTC-00026389
From: john oakes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CC: [email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026389--0001
60 Sterling Street
Beacon, NY 12508
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft: My business partner Jack Harrison and I are
delighted to see a settlement between Microsoft and the Department
of Justice. This settlement is in the best interest of free
enterprise and competition.
The attack on Microsoft should never have happened. It
demonstrates why the government should keep its hands out of the
affairs of free enterprise. It has been another
[[Page 27800]]
huge waste of taxpayers'' money and government and private
resources. As business partners in the direct-mail industry, we know
that waste must be minimized; budgeting, purchasing, sales, all
contribute to business growth and weigh heavily on success or
failure.
Resolving to give Microsoft its business back will end the three
years of government intervention into Microsoft. This has disrupted
the computer and technical industries, where recession and the loss
of business have been of paramount concern. Microsoft has continued
in its role as the industry leader in providing innovative software
(the public and business world have been shouting this for years).
The new obligations Microsoft has agreed to will drive competition
and collaboration among industries to develop better and more
innovative products for consumers, while also providing computer
users software options and computer configurations never before
seen.
The Department of Justice is at a historical moment in time:
preventing more waste while also encouraging economic recovery. The
achievement of this will occur when the government precludes any
further litigation against Microsoft and accepts these very fair
settlement terms.
Sincerely,
John Oakes
MTC-00026390
From: Brandon A. Seltenrich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft should be
allowed to go through. Microsoft's competitors, mainly led by Sun,
Oracle and AOL Time-Warner cloaking themselves behind various so-
called non-profit groups, are in fact manipulating the American
justice system for their own business desires. These companies were
not able to compete against Microsoft in the business arena, so they
instead hope to punish them into submission with our legal system.
The suits against Microsoft are not intended to protect and
defend the average American; instead, they are designed to make
wealthy a few self-interested businesses.
-B
MTC-00026391
From: addison pace
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Further litigation would be a shameless waste. Those filing
against Microsoft are getting their'' pound of flesh''.
Enough!
Addison Pace
MTC-00026392
From: Chris Dobbins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello my name is Chris Dobbins, I'm a 17 year old living in the
California Bay Area. I'm mailing you my thoughts on the proposed
Microsoft Settlement.
In my view the proposed settlement is much too weak to do any
good against the illegal monopoly that is Microsoft. What is needed
is a strong punishment that will enable competition to flourish
immediately, creating much needed diversity in the operating system
market. Anything else would be down right dangerous.
Diversity is needed to protect the very infrastructure of the
internet and computers in general. At this moment thousands of kids
younger then me have the ability to write a simple viral program
that can create havoc on the internet, spreading through well know
holes in Microsoft Outlook and other Microsoft programs which are
bundled with the OS. During the many e-mail virus attacks last year
I had little to worry about because I use a Macintosh. My computer
cannot run programs written for Windows. There are very few viruses
for the Mac OS because the relatively low market share means that
the cracker will not receive the attention they would get from
creating a Windows virus and spreading it world wide.
If the Operating System market were more competitive then
computers in general would be safer. Added diversity would not get
in the way of communication either. Even though my computer is fully
able to network with and talk to a computer running Windows, the
differences between the two operating systems mean that it is much
harder to infect both computers with the same program.
Microsoft says they are devoted to security, but only now that
they are experiencing negative press because of the large amount of
security holes in their software. I say it's about time we stopped
trusting them with the security of computers everywhere. The
Department of Justice has the means to impose strict sanctions and
punishments on Microsoft, I say use that power to the fullest,
before it's too late.
Thank you for taking my views into consideration,
Chris Dobbins
MTC-00026393
From: Patrick Mahaney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:57pm
Subject: Comments
To Whom it may concern;
I am a college student studying in the field of Computer
Information Systems. The outcome of this settlement will most likely
affect the industry I am headed into.
I'd like to express my feelings on a few of the shortcomings of
the proposed settlement.
Firstly, the definitions of ``Middleware'' products
are not very clear. From what I understand, there are a lot of
loopholes in the section that would allow Microsoft to continue
exercising the same business practices in the past. To be more
specific, Microsoft could easily change a version number and the
software would no longer be considered ``Middleware'' by
the DOJ.
Secondly, another understanding that I have is that a lot of the
new regulations and demands do not include Microsoft Windows XP. If
this isn't included in the settlement, I don't see how beneficial it
would be towards prohibiting antitrust practices.
I would like to see an outcome that will make a difference. Not
one that will just temporarily prevent a monopoly.
Thank you for your time.
-Patrick Mahaney
MTC-00026394
From: John Carey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:57pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft antitrust settlement
Dear Renata Hesse:
I am writing to comment on the Microsoft antitrust case
settlement proposed by the U.S. Department of Justice and others.
Both as a consumer and as a software engineer, it is my view that
this settlement will fail to protect the public interest from
Microsoft's ongoing abuse of monopoly power.
First, let me introduce myself. My name is John Corning Carey. I
am a U.S. citizen and resident of Mountain View, California. I have
used computers since grade school. My training is in mathematics,
but after completing my PhD analytic number theory I entered the
workforce as a software engineer. Professionally, I have developed
software for Microsoft Windows, Unix, and Linux operating systems.
At home I use both Microsoft Windows 98 and Linux 2.4 for a variety
of tasks. Let me be the first to say that no operating system is
perfect. Each has its strengths and its weaknesses. But can I choose
the one that is best for the task? Sometimes I can, but all too
often the answer is no, because Microsoft maintains its monopoly.
At work, I have been frustrated by Microsoft's poor
documentation, especially for error messages and database connection
APIs. Also, Microsoft keeps changing its APIs, rather than fixing
them, making it difficult to keep up. My friends tell me about how
they can't inter-operate with Microsoft products because the
security protocols are secret. And when we consider switching away
from Microsoft? The answer is always: no, we can't, because
everyone's using Microsoft, and even if they aren't, they soon they
will be. And then there are the system crashes...
At home I suffer the same crashes, and much of the software I
want to run is available only for Microsoft Windows. What will I do
when Windows 98 is no longer supported, and I am forced to use
Windows XP? I will have to rent my software, despite the trouble and
expense that entails.
So I have a strong interest in aggressive competition in the
operating system market. But will the proposed settlement restore
competition? I think not, because it has weak enforcement
provisions, includes many loopholes, and tends to exclude small/free
developers. For example, Microsoft may be required to disclose APIs,
but only to businesses that can afford its third-party tests and
perhaps non-disclosure agreements. What about open-source
developers? And if Microsoft claims that it must keep secret its
file formats or file-sharing protocols out of security concerns,
will we have to return to court to decide if it is within the law?
That would take too long, and defeat one purpose of a
settlement--to escape court. In my view,
[[Page 27801]]
some expedited enforcement and legal review provisions are required.
Past experience indicates that there is no ``good faith''
when it comes to Microsoft, and software's complexity makes it hard
to pre-script legal solutions.
And finally, what is to stop Microsoft from maintaining its
monopoly through patented protocols and formats? They can be
disclosed to the world, but nobody else can use them--unless
they please Microsoft. Recently I heard that Microsoft has patented
a revised version of SMB file sharing. That is death to open-source
file servers.
In closing, let me say that I have benefited from some of
Microsoft's software, and a competitive Microsoft could be a great
help to the software industry. But a Microsoft that can do as it
pleases is a great threat.
I was hoping that this case would lead to some real competition,
and a flowering of alternatives. But this settlement seems to give
in to Microsoft just when the government has won its case. Please
consider more effective sanctions and enforcement mechanisms.
Sincerely,
John Corning Carey
2280 Latham St, Apt 6
Mountain View, CA 94040
(650)988-1827
MTC-00026395
From: Mike(038)barbara Gibbs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:59pm
Michael Gibbs
P.O. Box 601
Myrtle Point, OR 97458-0601
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The judge should approve the settlement of the Microsoft
antitrust case. It would be the best thing that could happen for
America to end this court action. It is time to take the bull by the
horns and throw it out of the ring. The lawsuit should not have been
brought by the Justice Department and the eighteen states. Remember,
thirty-two states would not join it three years ago when all they
had to do was sign on. Now, though, the settlement provides a way to
end the lawsuit that everyone should be able to live with. After
all, the judge appointed a mediator who negotiated with the parties
for three months to reach an agreement that everyone could live
with, everyone except nine states with less successful competitors
to Microsoft who think they would o better if Microsoft was forcibly
split into pieces. Microsoft should be allowed to get back to the
good work they have always done. They are no fly-by-night instant
wonder without morals. They have always kept honest books and
maintained their legal rights, as they expected others to do. Under
the settlement, Microsoft will allowed to go back to work in return
for giving up its legal rights to some of its software and business
practices. Microsoft will give away to other companies its internal
interface code for its various Windows programs, and the protocols
that allow its server computers to work with other computers. When a
company needs to use Microsoft's other software code, Microsoft has
given up its right to say no. Instead Microsoft will license its
codes to any company on reasonable, non-discriminatory terms. So,
Microsoft will really be surrendering its legal rights to other
companies, even those that it would not want to help if it had a
choice. This will be good for the computer industry as a whole. It
is disturbing, though, to see a great, honest, company like
Microsoft forced to give up its legal rights for no good reason. If
Microsoft is not safe, who is?
Your support for the settlement is crucial to letting Microsoft
and the American computer industry get back to work. Thank you for
your consideration and support.
Sincerely,
Michael Gibbs
MTC-00026396
From: karl sebastian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings,
I write as a former user of Microsoft software products, and now
a user of Apple hardware and software, to protest the apparent lack
of will on the part of the American legal system to apply its laws
equally and in fair measure to its citizens.
This is a situation reached because of my perceptions of
Microsoft as a major obstacle to competitive software innovation,
through improper use of its financial strength, and now seemingly to
be excused by the American legal system of any significant penalty
although found guilty of these practices by that same legal system.
Also I write because of my perception of Microsoft as being less of
an innovator and more of an imitator. In the process providing
software systems that have had defects that have resulted in
enormous costs to business worldwide, both through vulnerability to
viruses and through faulty operation, and because of the harmful
effects they have had on true innovation.
In fact producing products with so many defects that, if
experienced in similar measure in any other field of production
,would have long ago resulted in costly litigation by dissatisfied
consumers. The other competitive software operating system, Apple,
while certainly not a perfect example, would seem to offer some
pointers as to a preferred way of doing business in the field of
computer operating systems, with their inclination to a more co-
operative approach to other software producers, even to the extent
of ensuring great compatibility with the Microsoft software through
the proper use of generally accepted codes, such as pertain to the
Internet. A field where once more Microsoft have a dubious record.
As a resident of Australia, and an admirer of much that is
American, the present attitudes and actions of the Microsoft
corporation reflect in the microcosm much that is deplored in the
macrocosm that is called the United States of America, and if
justice is not seen to be done will only be harmful to your
reputation in the longer term.
A severe and applied penalty to this arrogant corporation is
long overdue and thoroughly deserved.
Yours sincerely,
Karl Sebastian.
[email protected]
MTC-00026397
From: Brad Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hash: SHA1
26 Jan 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Ms Hesse
I am taking the opportunity to comment on the proposed
settlement between the federal U.S. government and Microsoft. I have
following this case closely since it's inception. I will first
provide a brief background of myself and then provide some
commentary on the settlement.
I have been a user of microcomputers, what used to be known as
IBM clones, since the early 1980s. Before that I used a variety of
mainframe and minicomputers. I have been a software developer since
1978 writing database software and analytical software to help me in
my profession as a quantitative ecologist. Much of this software
development occurred on clones of IBM PCs starting in the mid-1980s.
I currently work for the federal government as a manager leading a
small software development team. These comments reflect my personal
opinions and experiences. I will be 50 in October 2002.
The proposed settlement does not go far enough in providing
suitable remedies. What are needed now in the market place are real
and viable alternatives to products and solutions offered by
Microsoft. This settlement fails, in my opinion, to create a climate
that allows for viable products to emerge and flourish. Microsoft
through legal and illegal practices has created a multi-faceted
monopoly that covers operating systems, office productivity suites
(MS Office), and access to the internet through MS Internet
Explorer.
Viable competition existed at one time across this spectrum of
products. One could argue that in many cases, the alternative
technology was superior in design and/or implementation. Most
alternatives have failed or been marginalized reducing choice to
consumers and effectively eliminating competition.
I recommend that the proposal by the dissenting States be used
as the starting point as minimum remedies. Negotiations between the
federal government and the participating States can be used to set
additional penalties and remedies.
Thank you,
Bradley G. Smith
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026399
From: Del Teel
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 27802]]
Date: 1/26/02 8:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the Microsoft settlement falls FAR SHORT of punishment
consistent with their CRIME.
THEY ARE GUILTY. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DEMAND
JUSTICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOW!!!!!!!!!
Del Teel
8125 Bush Mill Ln.
Charlotte, NC 28270
800 900 7056
MTC-00026400
From: Laurence Schorsch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Renata B. Hesse,
I have signed and endorsed the open letter of Dan Kegel. The
Proposed Final Judgement will allow many of Microsoft's
anticompetitive practices to continue. Their lack of good faith has
been demonstrated enough, even after the PFJ was set out.
Microsoft's ruthless and predatory practices are hurting the rest of
the computer/software industry, and a toothless final judegment is
not in the public interest.
Sincerely,
Laurence Schorsch
Graduate Student, Computer Science
University of Chicago
MTC-00026401
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Anthony Campbell
523 Martin Neese Rd
Swansea, SC 29160
MTC-00026402
From: Danae Cann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
file:///C/win/temp/tmp.
The proposed settlement is just not tough enough! It cannot be
effective to the degree necessary for a company like Microsoft.
MTC-00026403
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:08pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
1345 17th Street SE, Apt. B
Auburn, WA 98002
January 26, 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 Microsoft settlement agreement. The terms
of the agreement are reasonable, and this case should be finalized
for once and for all.
By entering into this agreement, Microsoft has essentially
agreed to assist its competitors in their quest to compete at the
same level as Microsoft. Microsoft has agreed to disclose portions
of its code to the other software companies. They have also agreed
to design future editions of Windows in such a way that it will be
easier to remove features of Windows and replace those features with
software designed by Microsoft's competitors. I am satisfied that
these types of concessions will achieve the underlying goal of
ensuring fair competition is restored.
I feel that The Department of Justice has acted prudently in
deciding to settle this case.
The Microsoft Corporation has made extraordinary achievements
since it's inception, helping to provide the world with a tool
second to none and should not be further penalized for their
achievements. Further, I speak from a computer owner's standpoint
and not as a stock holder.
Sincerely,
/s/John M Howe
John M Howe
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026404
From: Joel C. Sercel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To:
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
As a concerned citizen and business owner I am sending you this
correspondence to register my concerns regarding the pending
Microsoft Settlement. I urge the court to consider the strongest
possible settlement against Microsoft which does not damage U.S.
industrial competitiveness in global markets.
Press reports of related Microsoft offers to donate software and
hardware to schools as part of a settlement offer are particularly
concerning to me as such a move would:
1) not alleviate the financial and market share related pain
suffered by Microsoft's victims,
2) not cost Microsoft nearly what Microsoft claims it would
cost, and
3) would tend to extend Microsoft's monopoly into yet another
market.
Any settlement which does not provide some remedy to alleviate
market share and financial loss for Netscape and Apple computer is
of particularly concern as those two companies, both of which are
widely recognized as far more innovative than Microsoft, have been
particularly hurt by unfair Microsoft practices. Please ensure that
any financial remedies levied on Microsoft are used in such a way as
to ensure the increase in Netscape and Apple market shares and the
market shares of the other companies hurt my Microsoft practices.
Sincerely
Joel Sercel
MTC-00026405
From: J. Scott Kasten
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
TO:
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
FROM:
Scott Kasten
2120 Manor Dr. Apt 116
Lexington, KY 40502
To the Honorable Court:
As a citizen of the United States and 15 year veteran of the
high-tech industry it is both my right, and duty to file comments
with the court in the case of U.S. vs Microsoft anti-trust action as
described under the provisions of the Tunney Act. I have chosen to
write the court because activities of the Microsoft Monopoly have so
seriously harmed my industry, that not only have they harmed the end
consumer, but they have seriously impaired my ability to work in
this industry.
I will begin with a brief summary of my main points before
expounding upon them in greater detail with specific facts.
Basically, the proposed settlement is unacceptable when viewed in
the interest of the public and industry for the following reasons:
[1] The settlement was not written with a proper perspective of
the industry as a whole in mind.
[2] The way the settlement is written, it only provides remedy
in regards to the current Microsoft platform. Microsoft is already
putting their exit strategy to a new platform in place which will
have the effect of making the settlement obsolete before it even
goes into effect.
[3] There are language inaccuracies that leave the efficacy of
the settlement in doubt.
[4] The settlement has very few provisions to remedy Microsoft's
most publicly damaging weapon which is their End User License
Agreement (hereafter known as the EULA).
Now I will explore each item in greater depth so the court can
better understand what actions need to be taken to fix the proposed
remedy.
[1] I will start with a brief industry perspective since that
forms the root of objections 2 through 4.
In the industry, it has been recognized that operating systems
in general have moved
[[Page 27803]]
from the status of a high-end, high-value product offering to a mere
commodity in the same fashion as the use of electricity or
telephones did in the early part of the 20th century, or even the
computer hardware itself in the latter part of the 20th century.
There has not been anything truly new or totally innovative in
operating system technology in about the last 15 years or so.
Indeed, modern operating systems are based on ideas spawned in
universities over 30 years ago, most of which was perfected at least
20 years ago.
Most operating system vendors in the industry have already
recognized this and adapted their business models to account for
that. Although one would think of IBM, Sun Microsystems, HP, and
Silicon Graphics Inc. (now known simply as SGI), as operating system
vendors, that view would be somewhat incorrect. Their business
models evolved to become hardware and consulting/service vendors
that sell packages. Each workstation purchased from SGI comes with
an entitlement to run certain releases of SGI's IRIX operating
system based on its serial number; operating system upgrades are a
rather miniscule portion of their revenue stream. They are even
offering a Free operating system (Linux) on some of their offerings.
Sun Microsystems gives their operating system away free of charge
for personal or non-commercial use, and even makes the source code
available without charge to developers that need to inspect it to
improve their software offerings that run on Solaris.
Both HP and IBM, most notably IBM as of late, have been making
steps to move away from their proprietary operating system offerings
to Open Source alternatives such as Linux and various flavors of
BSD; both companies have moved to the sale of hardware or software
applications and consulting services maintain the cash volume of
their revenue streams. And of course, with the decline in market
value of proprietary operating systems, we have seen the rise in
interest and importance of Open Source, or Free operating systems
such as Linux, and BSD to take the place of the proprietary ones.
Companies that have failed to recognize this have perished.
Witness the dismantling of Digital Equipment Corporation by Compaq,
a commodity equipment and services vendor, The acquisition of Santa
Cruz Operation (SCO Unix) by Caldera, a company that is known as a
Linux specialist. Novell nearly perished trying to maintain their
business model around Netware, but finally appears to have turned
things around when they refocused on applications and services the
past couple of years.
The real focus in the computer industry is not on operating
systems or platforms so much as it is in cross-platform
applications, hardware support, and user interfacing. Basically,
John Doe with a new digital camera wants to snap some pictures,
retouch them on the computer, and make some nice glossy prints for
the relatives. He doesn't even want to know anything about the
operating system his computer runs, he wants the camera to function
with his IBM PC running a PC operating system as well as it does
with his friend's Macintosh running MacOS.
In the history of this industry, Microsoft is truly unique. They
have maintained and increased their market share and position not
through real product innovation, but through predatory practices
that resulted in them becoming a monopoly. The maintenance of that
monopoly is what has allowed them to keep an artificial floor on the
value of the operating system products they offer. Notice the use of
the term value here instead of price. Price is what a consumer pays,
value is a reflection of the consumer's need. Naturally, the need
affects the price one is willing to pay, so there is an
interrelationship at work that implies the consumer is paying too
much, which I'll explore further in item 4.
[2] Although Microsoft has managed to keep an artificial floor
on the value of their operating system products through monopolistic
practices, even they realized that the inevitable pressures to
marginalize the operating system would become too great for even
them to bear. Thus they planned its obsolescence. The new target
development platform of choice is going to be the .NET
infrastructure. Ancient PC's had a BIOS containing the BASIC
programming language/operating system that was permanently embedded
in their ROM memory. As full fledged disk based operating systems
came about, they marginalized the BIOS. None of the BIOS products
these days has a built in programming language. It's only roll is to
pull the disk based operating system in off disk now. It has no real
apparent value to the end user of the system that rarely even
notices the brief BIOS messages that flash by as the system boots
up. No one programs to that interface anymore. Microsoft is trying
to do the same thing to their own Windows operating system and
replace it with .NET. Windows will become little more than a fancy
video display driver. No one will program to it anymore. The .NET
infrastructure will be the actual target for most future software
development.
This is also where I begin to find specific faults in the
settlement as written. In section III. Prohibited Conduct, please
reference paragraph D. The terse form of which basically says,
``Microsoft must publish in full their programming APIs for the
Windows operating system.'' The .NET framework is not
specifically mentioned anywhere in the document, but presumably fits
in under the definition of ``Middleware'' as described in
sections VI.--J and VI.--K. There is no section or
language which indicates that they must fully disclose the
middleware APIs. This is a fatal flaw as Microsoft has publicly
acknowledged the corporate strategy shift from software publication
on the Windows operating system to the .NET infrastructure running
on top of it. Thus they can repeat the vendor lockout cycle again on
a ``whole new'' platform, unhindered by the terms of this
settlement.
Further, section III.-J, paragraphs 1 and 2 cause me grave
concern, particularly in light of the .NET strategy. Section J in
summary provides government granted exclusions. Paragraph 1
basically states that Microsoft may keep any programming APIs,
methodologies, and information about network protocol layers that
relate to anti-virus protection, authentication, or encryption
secret. Paragraph 2 allows Microsoft carte blanch to determine to
whom they wish to share that information for purposes of
interfacing. This goes against what is generally accepted as
``best practices'' in the industry.
It is accepted practice that network protocols and interfacing
standards are proposed and peer reviewed in standards committees
such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) or the World Wide
Web Consortium (W3C) to provide for better design, functionality,
robustness, and security. Items related to authentication, and
encryption in particular need the critical attention of peer review
due both to the complexity of such systems, and the importance of
the data protected by such systems. It is also accepted practice
that the architecture is open so that anyone may produce their own
implementation of the standard so that products from different
vendors can interoperate freely. After all, that is the end goal, to
connect one user with another.
Microsoft has in the past proven their incompetence in the
implementation of cryptographic systems and security in general.
Witness the introduction of L0pht Crack (pronounced
``loft'') which could pull encrypted passwords from the
Windows NT registry thanks to its flawed cryptographic
implementation. The numerous viruses such as Sircam, Love Letter,
Nimbda, etc. that have exploited weaknesses in Microsoft's security
interfaces. My point here is not to bring new evidence to the court,
but more to make the point that sensitive systems related to
security, authentication, and encryption need to be designed under
the intelligence of multiple parties. Hence the peer review and
refereeing process that is so widely used in the industry. It also
helps prevent one party from subverting the standards for their own
ends.
Micrsoft intends for the .NET platform to help provide a new
infrastructure for information storage, security, and
identification/authentication, that will help drive a future
Internet based economy. With the help of standards committees,
implementations from multiple vendors, and so forth, this could be a
good thing for society. However, it is far from the public's best
interest for one company to own the whole thing. If there's only one
implementation, then any security flaws discovered, and experience
shows there will be many, can bring down everything. Furthermore,
independent companies need to have access to interfacing standards
for something as important as this to provide consumers choice in
the products and services space connected with this platform.
[3] I have already voiced some concern over where .NET fits into
the settlement agreement. However, there are other specific
inaccuracies in language and specificity that could render the
agreement unenforceable.
In this matter, I would like to refer the court to a very
thorough analysis compiled by one Dan Kegel and other parties
available on the web here: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
Mr. Kegel has also submitted, or is in the process of
submitting, this document to the
[[Page 27804]]
court for inspection as part of an open letter with many co-signers
as his contribution under the Tunney Act. I will not waste the
court's time re-iterating what he has already so carefully
documented except to state that I AGREE IN FULL with the assessment
provided in that document.
[4] Towards the end, of the document, Mr. Kegel begins to
address some issues regarding the EULA agreements that Microsoft
imposes on their product users. The settlement makes no requirements
for change to potentially predatory practices in Microsoft's EULAs.
Unfortunately, that is one of Miscrosoft's tools for manipulating
and harming the consumer, and other parts of the industry.
Mr. Kegel points out that the Windows Media Encoder EULA
prohibits distribution of certain redistributable components when
accompanied with application components that were licensed under a
Free or Open Source license. And that the Microsoft Platform SDK and
Visual C++ development environment have in their EULA a clause that
can make it illegal for you to distribute and run your own created
application on a Windows compatible platform such as a Windows
emulator on a Sun, SGI, or Macintosh computer, or a PC running Wine,
IBM OS/2, or Trumpet Petros, all of which are Windows alternatives.
He also points out that some Microsoft utilities such as NewsAlert
state in the EULA that they are forbidden to be run on non-Microsoft
operating systems.
To those examples, I wish to add a few more.
Microsoft uses the EULA to tie their Windows operating system to
the PC on which it was purchased. This means that when a user
trashes a PC, he cannot use the same copy of Windows on the new PC,
but must instead purchase a new and redundant copy of Windows to be
fully in compliance with the licensing agreement. As PC technology
dates quickly, users who must update frequently are legally bound to
purchase redundant copies of an operating system that they already
have, thus helping Microsoft to maintain its revenue stream on what
should have already been a commodity item. In the present, Microsoft
with the advent of Windows XP has already implemented software EULA
enforcement that prevents users from upgrading too many components
of their system before they have to go back to Microsoft and re-
license the same operating system install on the same PC.
Indeed, Microsoft used to offer a refund for unwanted copies of
their Windows software product with this language in the EULA,
``If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, PC
manufacturer and Microsoft are unwilling to license the software
product to you. In such an event ... you should promptly contact PC
manufacturer for instructions on a return of the unused product(s)
for a refund. ``However, after an unsuccessful campaign on by
many users to claim such refunds on an organized ``Windows
Refund Day'' on Feb 15th, 1999, people discovered that
Microsoft and its vendors had no intentions of honoring that clause
and had no effective refund channel in place., and it appears to
have since been removed from the licensing agreement.
Microsoft attempts to limit the constitutionally provided right
to free speech in the EULA contained with the Microsoft FrontPage
2002 product for web publishing. It sates, ``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.'' So if I publish an article on the web using MS
FrontPage such as a product performance benchmark that Microsoft
finds unfavorable, have I indeed violated the EULA?
Whether or not these agreements are actually enforceable if a
matter of legal opinion that I am not qualified to evaluate.
However, what is clear is that Microsoft has cleverly left itself
some channels through which it can attempt to tie individuals or
businesses up in court when it finds their actions displeasurable.
The potential legal costs alone have a chilling an dampening effect
in the industry.
In closing, I beg the court to find the proposed settlement as
lacking in enforceability and effective remedy. This settlement
needs to be rejected and reworked keeping the points that I have
outlined above in mind. Thank you for your time and consideration in
this matter.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Scott Kasten
MTC-00026406
From: Grayshadow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:10pm Subject'' Microsoft
Robert Izzo
50 Kipp Lane, Lot 44
Hudson, NY 12534
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The stilt against Microsoft should never have been happened in
the first plac?? therefore I feel that the settlement they have made
with the Department of Justice should stand the way it is and all
litigations need to come to a halt. t am now retire but in my spare
time, l rebuild and upgrade computers and have always used Microsoft
products. Microsoft is being harassed for bring the best at what
they do. Bill Gates is an excellent businessman who built this
company from the ground up. and now other companies want to take
advantage of all his hard work.
We have home computers that are easily used and understood
because of Microsoft. They have changed the way the IT industry does
business. Now the other companies are going to get the internal
codes of Microsoft so that they can design their software to be
compatible. I don't necessarily think this b a bad thing but the
courts should not be able to tell them they have to do this.
Even though I feel as though the suit should never have happened
m the firs place, I think the settlement is better than continuing
litigations, Enough damage h been done to the IT industry and the
economy already. I hope the Department of Justice decides to rule in
favor of the settlement so tiffs whole ordeal can be over.
Sincerely.
MTC-00026407
From: Mike Doherty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't like the terms of the Microsoft settlement. For one
thing, a penalty to Microsoft that allows them to donate computers
to schools is inherently wrong. This will undercut the competition
even more.
Mike Doherty
Cleveland, OH
Self
MTC-00026408
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:12pm
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,
Michael Johnson
45 Whitebush Way
Astoria, OR 97103
MTC-00026409
From: Andrew Salamon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:16pm
Subject: MicrosoftSettlement
To Whom it May Concern:
My name is Andrew Salamon, I live in La Mesa California and I am
a citizen of the United States of America. I have been a
professional computer programmer since 1995 and for the first five
of those years I was writing what most people call ``mission
critical'' software for very large organizations: financial,
accounting and personnel applications. Eight months ago I left the
financial industry and took the Chief Software Engineer position at
Nisus Software Inc., whose main product is a Macintosh word
processor called Nisus Writer.
Nisus Software has been around for over fourteen years. I don't
know too much about the company's history, but I do know that in the
past they were much larger than they are
[[Page 27805]]
today. I can't honestly claim that their smaller size is entirely
due to ``unfair competition'' from Microsoft, but that
would certainly seem like a good bet.
I would like to bring up one problem that falls within my area
of expertise. Nisus Software gets a lot of complaints along the
lines of: ``I need to send a file to a co-worker (or colleague,
or friend), but they can'' t read it because they use MS
Word!'' or ``Someone sent me this .doc (MS Word) file, and
when I try to open it in Nisus Writer, it just looks like
garbage!''. A fair number of these complaints end with,
``Well, I'd love to use Nisus Writer but I can't because I need
to work with people using MS Word.''
Ever since I've started working for Nisus, one of my co-workers
has been working on that problem. Specifically, there is a file
format called RTF (Rich Text Format) that many different word
processors can use. Unfortunately, RTF is not an open standard, it
was created by Microsoft. The documentation is difficult to find and
even harder to understand. What'' s more, it is a moving target
and Microsoft's own products rarely adhere to the publicly available
information. Documents saved as RTF files by Nisus Writer often show
up as garbage text in MS Word, or sometimes even crash it, despite
our best efforts to make the document adhere to the
``published'' standard.
Even if RTF were an open standard, however, it would not
completely solve the problem of interoperability because it is an
intermediate format that is not ``native'' to either Nisus
Writer or MS Word (or many other other word processors). This means
that there will always be a chance of losing data or formatting
information when transferring files.
I am not a lawyer but based on my reading of the currently
proposed penalty in the Microsoft anti-trust case as well as the
commentary of others (including the Electronic Frontier Foundation's
legal staff) I would say that there will be no substantial change in
the way Microsoft does business given the current settlement.
Andrew M. Salamon
Chief Software Engineer, Nisus Software, Inc.
MTC-00026410
From: Kurt Fleschner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I'm writing this e-mail to voice my opinion that the current
settlement in the Microsoft trial is insufficient. It's been stated
before and found that Microsoft is a monopoly, and that it has
participated in unlawful use of that monopoly. I feel that the
settlement with Microsoft does not significantly punish the company
for its practices, nor keep the company from abusing it's position
in the future. I hope the the courts will come to the same
conclusion.
Kurt Fleschner
MTC-00026411
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
henry robinson
PO Box 808
Newberry, SC 29108
MTC-00026412
From: Raphael Fleishman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I have written earlier to express my concern that the current
Microsoft settlement does little in the way of protecting
competition, VAR, OEMs, and resellers from retaliatory actions by
Microsoft in the event these groups choose to implement non-
Microsoft solutions.
I would like to add that I strongly urge the DOJ to pursue
further investigation and prosecution of the anticompetitive actions
Microsoft used to leverage the web to further its monopoly in
Windows operating systems.
Much has been made of Microsoft's right to add features to
Windows. It is important to note that the dominant markeshare of
Internet Explorer came to pass, besides through the obvious
distributional advantage, because Microsoft used the tactics of
embrace and extend of the HTML standard in order to pollute standard
HTML and make web pages in Internet Explorer render differently than
web pages in Netscape. Instead of following the standards of the W3C
body Microsoft made up its own.
The network effect of Microsoft's Windows distributional
monopoly took part in this because webmasters decided that rendering
for Internet Explorer was more important and more stable, from a
marketshare perspective, than rendering for Netscape. After all,
only some Windows users had access to Netscape or the significant
ability and know-how to install it, but all of them had Internet
Explorer.
As the proprietization increased and the market of Internet
Explorer-enabled web pages increased so did its use. I don't use
Internet Explorer as my primary browser, but if I go to certain web
pages I'm forced to switch to Internet Explorer instead of using an
alternative browser because these web pages have tags that tell me
they were optimized for some other browser and won't render
correctly in any other.
It is significantly more difficult for competitors to follow the
closed proprietary standards of web rendering specified by Internet
Explorer than to follow those of the World Wide Web Consortium. It
takes significantly more effort on the part of content providers and
webmasters to provide two types of web pages, one for Microsoft's
proprietary methods, and one for W3C-standarized ones. It's unfair
that Microsoft could so easily use an existing monopoly to supplant
competitors'' products and I fear that with 90% marketshare and
the phenomena of institutional resistance to change, combined with a
general lack of knowledge of real computing standards (vs.
Microsoft's forced-upon-the-consumer proprietary ones), consumers
will be artificially burdened in their attempts to adopt alternative
communication-enabling products like browsers.
It is important to watch the progress of Microsoft's Windows
Media Player, a newly bundled product to allow the visualization of
proprietized (non standard, incompatible with competitors) movie
media files on client computers across the web, and to determine if
the marketshare of exclusive Windows Media Player-compatible content
is increasing significantly faster than that of competitors who do
not bundle their product with their computers or struggle with
decreased distributional advantages like Real Network's Real Player.
The inability for consumers using alternative operating systems to
browse web content is a significant deterrent to adoption of
competitors'' Operating Systems and is consequently a clear
example of Monopoly Maintenance.
The greatest damage Microsoft caused to consumers is the result
of the way in which Microsoft changed the web from a non-
proprietized platform- and browser- agnotistic information exchange
system to a Microsoft-favored one. That's not only illegal in light
of the Court's finding that Microsoft holds a monopoly in the
product market to which Internet Explorer was tied, it's unethical,
it's immoral, and it violates the rights of consumers to enabled
alternative choices.
I am concerned that as long as Microsoft can continue to
leverage bundling with Windows Operating Systems in order to set
proprietary standards of information exchange--be they text
documents, movie files, sound files, or others--competitors are
faced with an uphill battle to provide competing proprietary
protocols or even to design products compatible with Microsoft's.
With Best Regards,
Raphael Fleishman
Stanford University
Beckman Center B403
Stanford, CA, 94305-5307
mailto:[email protected]
650-723-4025
CC:[email protected]@inetgw,[email protected].
MTC-00026413
From: Larry Ross
[[Page 27806]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:22pm
Subject: Lawrence-Howard: Ross
Lawrence-Howard: Ross
3109 Alaska Road
Brier Wshington 98036-8452
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
The settlement that has been reached in the Microsoft antitrust
case is fair and should be accepted on no uncertain terms. I believe
that this suit has only served to waste millions of dollars and
innumerable hours of wasted manpower. I feel that this suit has done
undeniable damage to the U.S. economy especially within the
technology sector itself.
This is a sound settlement. The terms will ensure that Microsoft
no longer commits antitrust violations. In exchange for the
concessions that Microsoft has made in this case, it will be allowed
to continue, conducting business as a whole company rather than
being split up in to smaller separate entities. The terms of the
settlement require that Microsoft design all future versions of
Windows to be compatible with the products of its competitors. It
has also agreed not to commit any action that could be construed as
retaliatory. I believe that these terms are fair, as is the entire
settlement; we need not delay its implementation any longer. Please
continue to support American business as you have with the
orchestration of this settlement. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Larry Ross
MTC-00026414
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Debbie Tio
6907 Cummens Court
Hartford, WI 53027
MTC-00026415
From: Bill Pryor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:27pm
Subject: microsoft case
Dear Sirs:
I couldn't be more convinced that Microsoft, though it has done
a lot to get more people on line, has nonetheless engaged in very
clearly monopolistic practices and should be prosecuted just as
Standard Oil was about a century ago.
William C Pryor, 2011 W. Katella Ave., # 51, Anaheim, CA
92804.
MTC-00026416
From: Pamela Greaves
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a person that relies on technology for my livelihood, I feel
I must comment on the Microsoft Settlement issue as a IT
professional and a consumer and user of technology.
I have always felt that Microsoft has provided consumers with
what they want. Their products are made for ease of use and require
little training to get started using them. There are no other
operating systems available that offer the ease of use that
Microsoft Windows provides.
In reality, if a consumer wants to use an operating system other
than Microsoft, it is available. But the fact of the matter is that
the consumer would have to be highly technically knowledgeable for
that operating system to work properly.
The role that AOL/Time-Warner has played in this is something I
have a hard time understanding at all. AOL has itself been
practicing in a monopolistic fashion for many years. It is
impossible to have an ISP account with AOL without them loading
components of little or no value on your computer. The AOL software
completely takes over all dial up and internet functions and has
been known to completely destroy peoples operating systems. How can
this company have any credibility in this matter?
Microsoft has a support and feedback system in place and has
been asking consumers what they want to see in a product and
provided them with that product. While their business practices may
not be ethical, what they provide to consumers is technically
unsurpassed by any other software manufacturer.
Business consumers may find more useable products on the market.
But home users of computers and software need the ease of use and
flexibility that Microsoft offers in their products.
Other companies are lacking in market share only because they
choose to not market their products. If we don't know they are
available, how can we seek them out?
Pamela Greaves
6116 Vanden Road
Vacaville, Ca
95687
707-446-7347
MTC-00026417
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a bad idea.
Microsoft will still be as bad as it is before the settlement.
Kuo A. Chen
MTC-00026418
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Attorney General Ashcroft:
I am in favor of the settlement in the Microsoft antitrust suit
and I think the Department of Justice should make their final
decision and close the case based on the terms of the settlement.
Microsoft has agreed to conditions in the settlement that extend
beyond the scope of the original issues at stake in the suit.
In the interest of getting on with business, Microsoft agreed to
document and disclose information that will make it easier for
computer manufacturers and software developers to have greater
freedom of choice. Essentially, Microsoft will agree to give its
software code to other companies, with no regard for its own
intellectual property rights. Microsoft has also greed not to take
action against software designs that compete with the Windows
operating system.
It is time to settle this suit and stop spending taxpayer
dollars. Microsoft is a capitalist corporation, and as such, should
be allowed to pursue its business without being subject to legal
action.
Sincerely,
Jasmin Williams
492 Henry Street 6B
Brooklyn, New York 11231
MTC-00026419
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:30pm
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,
Harmon Byne
121 Shoal creek Rd
[[Page 27807]]
Griffin, GA 30223
MTC-00026420
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Claudette Riley
8310 E McDonald Dr #3106
Scottsdale, AZ 85250-6276
MTC-00026421
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:33pm
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,
PAT LAMMERT
3458 NANDALE DRIVE
CINCINNATI, OH 45239
MTC-00026422
From: rufus laggren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:36pm
Subject: Break up Microsoft
In a word, do it. Separate the operating system company from the
software applications development. Separate the major software
applications into different companies.
And also, require the remaining (still monopolistic) companies
to fully disclose:
1) Their application file formats when the product's market
share rises above 30%. At about this level, it becomes a practical
business necessity to utilize their formats because they become a de
facto standard of exchange. Secret formats which competing
applications cannot support fully, reliably, nor in a timely manner,
effectively kill off all other competition in that application
niche--creating a monopoly which completely stops competitive
innovation.
2) The --complete-- operating system API, that is, the
feature set available for use by programs running under MS operating
systems. Application programmers (eg, those who write spreadsheet
software) must use these features whenever their programs display,
print, communicate or use any of the hundreds of other facilities
the operating system (supposedly) provides. Microsoft has
historically programmed their software (like their spreadsheet)
using ``unsupported'' ``secret'' features of
their own operating system (Windows) which competing developers were
unable to discover in a timely manner. Hence Microsoft application
software had a huge advantage in relation to it's competitors. Make
it a crime with large penalties if, during any period when either
the MS operating system --or-- the MS software has a
greater than 30% market share, Microsoft application software is
found to use ``undocumented'' features of a Microsoft
operating system. Software tools can easily locate and document all
features used by a program, so this would be almost trivial to
verify.
I worked as a programmer and systems analyst from 1975 to 1985
and as a PC consultant since then. From personal experience, I can
say the any software product --must-- provide full
compatibility with existing standards in it's market (eg. MS Excel
spreadsheet format). And the developer without full access to the
API of an operating system which his product will run on ... is a
complete non-starter. By concealing certain features of both its
operating systems'' API (claiming them as
``undocumented'' or ``unsupported''--which
means that MS will change the code at any time convenient to itself
to cause that feature to disappear), and its major document formats,
Microsoft has completely stifled competition in the areas of word
processors, spreadsheets, and to some extent, webpage development.
The claim that systems would suddenly become unreliable without
dominant standards provided by MS... does not seem credible. On the
contrary, with the clear exception of its spreadsheet, Microsoft
software has proven buggy and difficult to use. Their product
development cycle does not seem to respond to basic low-level user
complaint in the way a company eager to please its customers would.
As a private consumer and as a professional who must try to find
good products for clients, I ask you to please stop the monopolizing
of our largest industry. If our software economy is not to suffer
the melt down that Detroit went through in the 70's when it faced
real competition for the first time, we must nurture and promote
effective competition, and actively discourage the cumbersome
stifling business practices that MS seems to favor.
Rufus Laggren
Pacifica, Ca.
MTC-00026423
From: Arek Dreyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I object to the Proposed Final Order.
Arek Dreyer
Network Consultant
5512 N Glenwood Ave #3
Chicago, IL 60640
773-251-8931
MTC-00026424
From: GD Peterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:39pm
Subject: MICROSOFT PENALTY TOO SEVERE
MY COMMENTS ON THE MICROSOFT CASE ARE.THE PENALTY WAS TO SEVERE
AND THE OTHER COMPANYS ARE OUT TO HELP THEM SELVES.I HAVE BEEN HURT
MUCH MORE DOLLAR WISE FROM THE CASE THEN ANYTHING MICEOSOFT DID.IM A
X-RAY TECH MAKING 22000 DOLLARS A YEAR.WE NEED TO GET THIS CASE
RESOLVED SOON.BILLIONS HAVE BEEN LOST BECAUSE OF THIS CASE.
FOREST PETERSON
320 POLK 121
MENA,AR
71953
1-26-02
MTC-00026425
From: Valden Longhurst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:43pm
Subject: MS settlement
Regarding the Civil Action No. 98-1232 between the UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA and MICROSOFT CORPORATION, I would like to
exercise my right and voice my frustration. Microsoft is further
extending their monopoly by showing no regard to either the court
orders or the public sector.
I am an Operations Manager for Kiwi Publishing, located in
Spokane, WA, and was recently effected by the Microsoft and Qwest
``sell off/buyout'' deal. We did not choose to have our
Internet Service Provider changed, but without our concent and
knowledge Qwest and Microsoft changed hundreds of consumer's
telephone service without permission, which is illegal under Section
258 of the Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. ?258.
As a direct result of this action, our business has suffered.
This act forcefully prohibited us from contacting hundreds of our
customers via e-mail because we were not using the more expensive
and less functional Microsoft e-mail software. Our only option was
to either individually write each customer or change ISP--both
of which hurt us. Because of the time-limited circumstance the VERY
time consumming task of manually contacting our hundreds of
customers was our only real option.
[[Page 27808]]
In our efforts to remedy the situation, three times we called
Microsoft and requested they help us use our old automated system of
contacting our customers and were thrice told we could only use
Microsoft products to send out any e-mails with no
exception--which could only happen if we purchased their
software.
Furthermore, since we were taken from Qwest's internet service
and placed on the Microsoft Network our business internet service
has been from terribly slow to completely stopping at times. Again,
in our efforts to remedy the situation we were told in order to
change to a new ISP, we would have call Qwest and Microsoft to
CANCEL the internet service circuit and sign up anew for a different
internet service circuit--again provided by Qwest! Now as an
engineer in electronics engineering technology and a network
administrator, I know a circuit cancellation and renewal is NOT
required if you want to change an ISP. What is their motive? What
agreement was signed to force that pretended requirement?
Clearly, Microsoft is still making monopolistic agreements with
other companies (whether OEMs or not) and tramples the stipulations
imposed by the courts under their feet. If anything has changed,
Microsoft seems to be more willing to use its monopoly to harm our
business and limit our choices than before the courts imposed
sanctions upon them! What a gross disregard for our laws and lack of
respect for their customers!
I add my voice that the proposed settlement (as is) will do
nothing to stop Microsoft from turning their monopoly into a choke
yoke for anyone--regardless of law and ethics. Obviously the
proposed settlement is not forcing Microsoft to change. This country
can not survive upon a total disregard of ethics. This is
particularly so with such a large unethical company as Microsoft.
Will you hold our country to ethical standards by requiring our
companies to live by ethical standards?
Valden Longhurst
101 East Graves Road #11
Spokane, WA 99218
MTC-00026426
From: Gary Duerksen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 4:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
I am a high-technology professional for whom computer usage is a
daily necessity for survival. Over the course of my 30-year career I
have used mainframes, workstations and PC's running JCL, VMS, UNIX,
DOS, Windows, Mac OS, etc.; my opinions do not represent a parochial
bias derived from group-identification with one computing platform.
I also use Microsoft software regularly and have first-hand
experience with some of Microsoft's questionable tactics, such as
planting traps in Windows to inform a user of non-existent software
problems when attempting to run Netscape Navigator.
The pattern in developing technologies has always shown a
migration from myriad proprietary standards to a uniform codified
set of standards, typically overseen by an independent professional
organization. The development of computer operating systems has also
moved in this direction, through promotion of operating systems such
as open-source UNIX and Linux, and through the development of
platform-independent programming languages such as Java. I am
convinced that this progression is both beneficial and essential for
the health of the industry.
I believe that the Final Judgement proposal agreed to in
November, 2001 will do little or nothing to ameliorate the very real
harm that Microsoft's monopolistic abuses continue to do to those
businesses dependent on the computer industry. Microsoft has used
its overwhelming market-share of computer operating systems to
guarantee proprietorship over the application software used on
virtually all computers. Not only has this practice effectively
eliminated all competing internet browsers and seriously impeded the
adoption of Java, it also has the potential to limit the burgeoning
market for consumer devices that interface with a computer to those
that incorporate proprietary Microsoft software.
There is only one remedy that ensures Microsoft will discontinue
its anticompetitive practices: mandate the breakup of Microsoft into
separate businesses for operating systems and for application
software. Not only will this benefit the entire community of
computer users, it arguably might improve Microsoft's profitability.
Gary L. Duerksen, Ph.D.
Director of Optics
Seneca Networks
Rockville, MD
MTC-00026427
From: Leslie Crawford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:43pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft settlement
Please accept the settlement already made, which was reasonable,
and avoid further expensive unnecessary litigation.
Leslie Crawford
MTC-00026428
From: Bruce Cartwright
To: MS ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing to voice my beliefs about the November 2001
proposed settlement reached between Microsoft and the government.
First, the Department of Justice should never have sued Microsoft.
It was completely wrong. Microsoft should not be forced to litigate
its business practices beyond what has already transpired. As a
Christian, I believe that the government was strictly motivated by
greed.
The settlement constitutes a great opportunity for this country,
putting disputes to rest, and allowing Microsoft to progress through
continued innovation. Microsoft has agreed to have a government
appointed watchdog monitor their business practices. If Microsoft
breaks any term of their settlement, they will be held responsible
for their actions. This is good enough for me to see Microsoft
agreeing to be monitored.
The government has moved away from these values as I see it,
becoming much bigger than itself, not by the people, or for the
people, but by those who run the people, who own the people. As a
person who lives by the good word, the people are speaking, I am one
voice crying out in the wilderness, ``Let Microsoft continue
onward, support this settlement without any further punishment or
actions against them.'' This is in the best interest of
Microsoft, the government, and the economy and for this nation.
Sincerely,
Bruce Cartwright
MTC-00026429
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
709 Buckwood Drive
Orlando, FL 32806
January 26, 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 express my support of the
settlement reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice.
Since the inception of this lawsuit, enormous amounts of federal
resources have been spent in court negotiations. During this time
the technology industry has seen a significant decline in its
markets. Given the current state of the economy, I believe that
continuation of this lawsuit would serve only to waste more federal
dollars. The settlement that was reached benefits consumers and the
technology industry. I urge you to enact the settlement reached in
November.
To expand, the settlement agreement most definitely supports the
consumers of the tech industry. With the release of Windows XP,
users will now be able to add and delete programs easily into the
Microsoft system. In addition to this, Microsoft has agreed to
disclose some of the protocols in the Windows system so that
developers will design more compatible software. Microsoft has made
many concessions in order to resolve this issue.
I would hope that the Justice Department recognizes the
importance of enacting this settlement. Thank you for your time
regarding this issue.
Sincerely,
William Underwood
cc: Representative Ric Keller
MTC-00026430
From: todd chatman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I'm writing to denounce the proposed settlement of U.S. v
Microsoft.
I join a deafening chorus of both experts and laymen who all
agree: this settlement will do virtually nothing to create a better
environment for competition in the PC
[[Page 27809]]
software industry or to improve the social good derived from that
industry. Didn't you, the DOJ, learn your lesson in 1995 when you
slapped Microsoft's wrist and then had to listen to Bill Gates
publicly ridicule the consent decree as essentially meaningless? He
was right; that decision did nothing to limit Microsoft's anti-
competitive practices, largely becuase the technological map it
responded to had been completely redrawn by the time it was written.
The same is true in this case--it has lasted just long enough
for Microsoft to have moved beyond the terms of this settlement into
new realms of market monopolization. The American people cannot
afford to sue Microsoft every 3-5 years while its
technological future continues to be held hostage to Microsoft's
whims. I beg you: Discard this settlement, rewrite it with real
teeth, and pursue its enforcement until we see real innovation and
competition in the market again.
Sincerely,
Todd Chatman
Urbana, IL University of Illinois --
MTC-00026431
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:50pm
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,
Rosemarie Knorr
2470 Tapestry Court
Livermore, CA 94550
MTC-00026433
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,FIN@mobilization office.com@inetgw
Date: 1/26/02 8:56pm
Subject: (no subject)
I am shocked that the U>S> Government went after Microsoft
when Time Warner should have been first. The letter that was e
mailed to me never arrived. What the Government did does not make
sense. If they want to break up a company why wasn't Time-Warner the
one???????????????????????????????
MTC-00026434
From: Clint Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am one of the many US citizens concerned by this settlement
and the ways in which it will affect Microsoft's monopolistic
practices. In particular, I would like to point out problems with
the following sections:
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.
Thank you for your time.
Clint Allen
MTC-00026435
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:59pm
Subject: Mcrosoft ettlement
i think that the Microsoft settlement is good because it give
people choices which are bound by the sherman anit-trust act.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026436
From: juanito
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:59pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
From what I've heard of the Microsoft anti-trust settlement, I
believe it to be not only unfair, but highly counter-productive if
its goal is to weaken Microsoft's monopoly on the computing
industry.
Juanito Moore
MTC-00026437
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:55pm
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,
Pedro Sanchez
4765 sw 6 st.
Miami, FL 33134-1407
MTC-00026438
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:58pm
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,
John Kraemer
3349 Blue Rock Rd.
Cincinnati, OH 45239
MTC-00026440
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Darlene Brown
205 John Allen Rd.
Roxboro, NC 27573
[[Page 27810]]
MTC-00026441
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Ewing
116 West 28th Avenue
Kennewick, WA 99337-5010
MTC-00026442
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:07pm
Subject: (no subject)
Dear Sirs at the Department of Justice,
I object to the amount of money and time that the Department of
Justice has chosen to dedicate to the Microsoft Case. It occurs to
me that Microsoft has spent large sums of money to provide products
to the American consumer at competitive prices that the American
public have chosen to expend. Not only are the products innovative
but the selection of products make us the consumer more productive
assisting us to be more efficient as well.
My understanding of the proposed agreement judge it to fair,
reasonable, but also hard-line. It also as reported by the press far
exceeds the findings of the Court of Appeals. I contend that the
American public would rather see American spirit and innovation be
spent in the form of and on American products that are developed by
Microsoft through research and development versus the contrary, the
waste of taxpayer dollars and revenue on litigation.
Other priorities are obvious and relevant.
Thank you for your time in reading this letter.
Alan Roman
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026443
From: Jason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is worse than a slap on the wrist for
Microsoft.
Microsoft has used many tactics to leverage it's monopoly in the
computer market. The proposed settlement does not address these
tactics or effectively provide recourse.
The proposal does nothing to stop Microsoft to keep using
Windows licenses as leverage to increase market share.
It still allows Microsoft to use punitive measures against OEMs
that ship computers without Microsoft's operating system. (Even if
the end user has no intention of using a Microsoft operating
system).
It does not prohibit license terms used by Microsoft to prohibit
open source apps from running properly in Windows and fails to
prohibt intentional incompatibilites that Microsoft engineers place
in Microsoft apps to keep them from running on other operating
systems.
The suggestion that Microsoft should ``donate''
software to schools is a laughably transparent coup de grace for
Microsoft. It's not a punishment to be given a billion dollar
competitve advantage in one of the few areas where your company
doesn't completely dominate the market.
Since Microsoft more or less copied the Macintosh interface, a
good start for a recourse would be to require Microsoft to pay a
small royalty to Apple Computer for every copy of Windows 95 and
Windows 98 sold. (under the provision that Apple be required to use
a percentage of this money to subsidize low cost computer equipment
to schools.) .net is the next mechanism that Microsoft is trying to
use as a control lever. If .net technologies only work on IE running
on Windows, Microsoft can use .net to further leverage it's position
while forcing users to interact with the internet on Microsoft's
terms. This needs to be addressed, possibly by making .net an open
source project under the auspices of Netscape and/or Apple. Netscape
might be able to monetize .net and ensure that .net technologies
work on all browsers and operating systems.
I don't pretend to know the feasibility of such solutions and
they may well be ridiculous but I do know this, Microsoft should not
be rewarded for it's behavior.
MTC-00026444
From: Dave C
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I want to open this with a preface. I am not an anti-Microsoft
proponent and am a regular user of their products. However, I also
believe that the American laws, although not perfect, need to be
obeyed. I have been following the Microsoft trial with some interest
for awhile now and here are my conclusions.
1. Microsoft was originally found guilty of being a predatory
monopoly and ordered to be split into two pieces.
2. A panel of appellate judges found that although none of the
previous judge's findings were incorrect in any way there was a bias
against Microsoft and that the breaking of the company was not
necessary. What struck me here was that NONE of the findings of
facts against Microsoft were overturned.
3. Microsoft became a very large financial backer (for the first
time ever) in the last presidential election.
4. After the election all charges were summarily dropped. As a
law-abiding and voting member of this great country I find it
disturbing that our judicial system can be so easily (apparently)
bought out. Our fore-fathers instituted a system of checks and
balances to keep one branch of government from gaining too much
power over the other branches of government, and yet this seems to
be the case. In a situation in which the defendant is undeniably
guilty (the guilt of Microsoft was upheld by the appellate panel of
judges) a campaign contribution was enough to have all charges
dropped. To allow this mockery of our judicial system would be a
crime unto itself and reduce the authority and respect that it has
engendered over the past two-and-a-quarter centuries. This must not
be allowed. I do not think that the punishment should be more than
the crime permits, but clearly Microsoft has repeated broken the
laws of the United States without any regard or shame. This must not
be allowed. Thank you.
Dave Cowen
[email protected]
``Teach us to number our days aright, that we may gain a
heart of wisdom.''--
Psalm 90:12
MTC-00026445
From: Peter Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Hegemony
Despite the restrictions placed upon the Microsoft Hegemony by
the Settlement I doubt the Microsoft trust will be effected.
Althought the settlement has limited Microsoft's ability to control
its competition it has not hit the root of the problem. Just by
giving Microsoft competition room to grow will not be able to over
turn the vast hold Microsoft has on the software industry. Microsoft
is to large almost all of the worlds computers already contain
Microsoft operating systems that are stacked full of Microsoft's
programs. To the average consumer Microsoft is synonymous with the
word computer most people only know how to interact with a computer
using Windows. Allowing the Microsoft corporation to survive will do
nothing to create companies capable of serious competition. The only
true solution to the Microsoft Hegemony is by breaking the company
up to create competition within the remnants of Microsoft allowing
smaller outside companies to compete directly.
Carl Johnson
MTC-00026446
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to end this ``POLITICALLY BASED'' farce. I
believe Microsoft has comported themselves in a professional and
forthright manner throughout this politically motivated ``WITCH
HUNT'' at the TAX PAYERS expense. If the well connected
companies represented by the states
[[Page 27811]]
attorneys cannot compete in the marketplace then good riddance.
MTC-00026447
From: David M. Weatherell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I oppose the application of antitrust laws against Microsoft. I
have developed software for 20+ years and have used several software
development tools and environments. Microsoft has made my job far
easier than it otherwise would have been. In fact, it has probably
made possible the very existence of my job.
The integration of the operating system and user applications is
crucial to my productivity, and using applications developed by the
same company radically reduces the learning curve for new products.
In addition, the number of software errors in these products is
reduced because the same company produces all of the software. In
short, Microsoft should not be punished for improving the lives of
software developers and end users.
Under a system of objective law, the above information would be
irrelevant. The application of justice is not contingent on public
opinion. Nor is it contingent on contradictory laws that violate
basic property rights and guarantees against involuntary servitude.
The Federal Government has neither the moral right nor the legal
authority to punish Microsoft under the antitrust laws.
David M. Weatherell
Sr. Software Engineer
(585) 217-9445
1080 Floribunda Way, Apt. G
Webster, NY 14580
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026448
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Marjorie LaCour
838 Tomlinson Terrace
Lake Mary, FL 32746-6310
MTC-00026449
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ann Blackburn
725 Port Malabar Blvd., NE
#203
Palm Bay, FL 32905
MTC-00026450
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
ENOUGH!!! End this witch hunt now. I am tired of the government
spending my money on lawsuits to give advantages to big-money
software companies under the guise of fair trade. If netscape and
Sun can't use their own resourses to compete, don't use my pitiful
tax contributions to increase their wealth. Let the market place
dictate terms of cooperation, not the government. This lawsuit has
contributed to the recession enough. Don't let it go any further.
Settle!!
Thank you.
Jim Malneritch, taxpayer and voter.
MTC-00026451
From: Jason Bergstrom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attention: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
I would like to register my dissatisfaction with the proposed
judgment in the U.S. DoJ vs. Microsoft antitrust suit. The lack of
any meaningful punishment of Microsoft or any hint of reparations to
a once competitive software industry tells me that my tax dollars
have not been well spent.
Please revisit the judgment.
Thank you for your time,
Jason Bergstrom
[email protected]
MTC-00026452
From: Gregory Liban
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please leave Microsoft alone. I constantly sense that people are
seeking revenge against Microsoft in a mistaken way. Microsoft is
not a Tobacco company whose products have caused cancer. Microsoft
is also not a company whom has thrived because it squeezes out
competition just for the sake of market share.
Microsoft wants to give a Billion dollars worth of Computer
equipment to those who need it, and whose side does the government
take. Gee, not with those whom might need the computers, but with
Microsoft's competitors! So where is the cancer here? Now, because
its competitors aren't happy, they want to question the very
decision of the court and the precepts of the decision in the
Microsoft case. Come on; let's get our thinking hats on straight.
What is deciding the decision of all the Microsoft issues? Is it
poor competition, or poor politics? What is the cancer here? Has
government killed the cancer, or is it feeding the cancer? Perhaps
the government needs to take a couple of steps back and really
figure out what is going on.
Why can't half the automation equipment purchased by Microsoft
come from its competitors like Linux, Sun or BeOS. I can answer
that! It's because it doesn't meet the need of the common user. Duh?
Apple is a niche product--or at least its in many of the
schools. Gee, why can't Apple be called a monopoly? Perhaps the
government needs to spur across-the-board automation industry growth
in non-legal means.
I enjoy Microsoft products and they provide jobs to millions of
people in the computer industry. Moreover, Microsoft leads the
industry in innovation and meeting the consumer's needs. Don't
disrupt a company that helps all of us in so many needs. Moreover, I
ask that you don't listen to all the voices that shout Microsoft
hatred!
Being a politician or someone in political office isn't always
popular. I know because I work in the Federal Government. But, we
are always entitled to make good decisions based upon the best
available information. Good or bad, easy or hard.
Thanks!
Gregory Liban
Gregory A. Liban
[email protected]
254-699-3460
MTC-00026453
From: Jean and Warren Doremus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please see attached letter.
JEAN & WARREN DOREMUS
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U S Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Permit us to offer some of our views about the Microsoft
antitrust case. In our judgment,
[[Page 27812]]
the settlement agreement reached between Microsoft and your
department is fair, reasonable, sensible and in the best interests
of all parties concerned. We believe it addresses the issues that
brought about the case and which nine states have approved. We see
no need for further federal action, particularly while Microsoft is
negotiating with the remaining states to reach an agreement.
Although the settlement may reach further than Microsoft may
have desired, it recognizes that settling this case sooner is better
than later. It requires Microsoft to change the way it develops,
licenses and markets its software, as well as the way it deals with
independent vendors.
Not only does the agreement handle past and present problems, it
establishes provisions on how to deal with possible future problems.
A technical oversight committee will ensure that Microsoft complies
with terms of the settlement, and competitors will be allowed to sue
Microsoft directly if they feel they've been treated unfairly.
There comes a time when this litigation must be put behind us,
and that time is now. Certainty and stability should be
reestablished in the IT sector. The cloud that has been hanging over
it for all the years this case has been before the courts ought to
be lifted so that the sun can once again have the chance to shine on
our economy.
Sincerely,
Jean s. Doremus Warren S. Doremus
66 CAMBERLEY PLACE, PENFIELD, NEW YORK, 14526-2707
E-MAIL: [email protected]
MTC-00026454
From: KALMAN V ILLYEFALVI
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:27pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust case
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am in favor of the agreement reached in the Microsoft
antitrust case. I would like to see the remaining states that are
not party to the agreement, settle the case as well. I think their
position is ridiculous. It is a shame they have not made the wise
decision that the Department of Justice has made to put the case to
rest.
The terms of the settlement agreement are fair and reasonable.
Upon approval of the agreement, Microsoft will change the way they
handle their relationships with computer manufacturers who install
software that compete with Windows. They have also agreed to grant
manufacturers new rights so they may configure Windows to run with
other features of the competition's software programs.
Nothing more should be expected or required of Microsoft than
what is contained in the settlement agreement. Thank you for your
time and your efforts to settle this lawsuit.
Sincerely,
Kalman V. Illyefalvi and Phyllis S. Illyefalvi
MTC-00026455
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:29pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
We favor settlement. Delmar & Jean Pittman e-mail address
[email protected]
MTC-00026456
From: raphael(u)jones Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs,
It is with great consternation, that I see this issue continuing
to take up so much of the time in our courts at taxpayers expense.
Microsoft may have made some errors of judgment, but AOL, and
Netscape in particular, was attempting to corner the market
themselves. They just finished last. This whole matter is about a
competitive, capitalist market, and fairness for the most part is
not the issue. I request that the USDOJ disallow this suit and let
the market determine what it wants, and may the best, or most
aggressive win.
Regards,
Raphael L. Jones
MTC-00026457
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement between the US Department of Justice and
Microsoft is insufficient to remedy the anticompetitive practices of
Microsoft.
My main concern is regarding the finding upheld by the appeals
court that Microsoft ``attempted to mislead and threaten
software developers in order to contain and subvert Java middleware
technologies''. Microsoft should now be required to include a
certified compatible Java virtual machine. In the time since
Microsoft engaged in illegal conduct against Java, it has developed
competing middleware which it is bundling in the operating system as
part of it's so-called .NET environment. Microsoft, having engaged
in illegal conduct to delay the industry acceptance of Java, now
feels safe to exclude Java. This damage needs to be remedied but is
not addressed in the proposed settlement. Microsoft should be
compelled to include Java for a period that will compensate for the
damage inflicted by Microsoft's illegal conduct.
The preceding is a minimal addition that I believe should be
imposed on Microsoft. The ultimate solution is to separate
Microsoft's platform development (the Window's operating system and
.NET services) and the application divisions (the browser, Office,
etc.). This is the only way to be certain that other software
application companies can compete fairly with Microsoft
applications. Until this separation is made, Microsoft applications
will continue to unfairly influence extensions in the Microsoft
platform and to unfairly gain advance knowledge of features
available in the Microsoft platform. Furthermore, the operating
system source code should be made open to other computer companies
so that they may develop and market operating-system enhancements.
This will allow competition in the PC operating system, which has
stagnated as Microsoft merely extends their monopoly by tightly
coupling applications to the operating system. New versions of the
operating system have added integrated web browser functionality,
collaboration applications, and other applications but, meanwhile,
the operating system core has remained largely unchanged since the
release of Windows 95 and Windows NT more than 6 years ago. The
operating system should be made open to give others the opportunity
to extend platform functionality.
Let me close by saying that it is my belief that the current
stagnation in the computing industry is largely due to Microsoft's
uncompetitive practices. They have not only actively thwarted
competition, as found by the appeals court, but have created
disincentives to competition by expanding their definition of
``operating system'' to include emerging applications and
``middleware''. Microsoft should be forced to include
Java, separate the company's platform and application divisions and
open the operating system to competition as a minimal remedy for
their uncompetitive behavior. This will also allow other companies
to compete fairly and innovate without fear that years of investment
and innovation will show up as a mere feature of the next release of
Windows.
Effective measures to counter Microsoft's illegal conduct must
be taken to ensure the health of the US Technology industry.
Sincerely,
James M. A. Begole, Ph.D.
Computer Scientist
MTC-00026458
From: Russ Aaronson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Russell Aaronson
5300 SW 11th St.
Margate, FL 33068
January 26, 2002
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
RE: US v. Microsoft proposed final order
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
I teach English and SAT Prep to students at an inner city high
school in South Florida. I have reviewed the documents relating to
the Microsoft Settlement, and I have found several elements
contained within to be highly alarming. I'm certain you have
received a considerable number of responses that specifically relate
to the language of the settlement, but I would like to appeal to you
with a different technique. This letter will provide a few
``real world'' examples of how Microsoft's policies have
hampered students'' potential for using new technologies.
On a daily basis, students enter my room to print out documents
they created outside the school. They take the documents created
with Microsoft Works and try to edit and
[[Page 27813]]
print them at school, but this never works because Works documents
are incompatible with Microsoft's own Office programs that we use at
school. Stunned, student after student will ask me how the same
company can make two virtually indistinguishable programs on the
same platform (again, created by the same company), but neglect to
make them work with each other. It never occurs to them that the
Works program that comes ``free'' with the computers their
parents purchased is useless for the majority of their schoolwork.
Unable to explain the logic or fairness behind this situation, I
send them on a scavenger hunt for a working computer with Works
installed so they may complete their work.
This is also a situation that the proposed settlement will not
remedy. It is difficult enough to help students with programs
created on other platforms (though every other platform offers some
free, simple method for translating documents back and forth), let
alone help them with works created with deliberately handicapped
software they were forced to purchase with their computers.
The cost issue also inhibits our ability to make wise software
purchases at school. Microsoft's Office suite has always been pricey
for education customers, but the new ``XP'' marketing
strategy could make the situation untenable. In a school where it is
important to keep every available computer running for as long as
possible, the prospects of purchasing productivity software that
``expires'' when a newer version arrives (or even the
prospect of ``leasing'' software for the same price that
used to be required to own it indefinitely) are horrifying. Of
course, an educational institution has the responsibility to prepare
students for the business world, so we must consider the
``industry standard'' software, regardless of cost. Put
bluntly, this technique places Microsoft's software distribution
strategy as the one used by drug dealers who frequent the
neighborhood surrounding our school. Again, the proposed remedy does
nothing to prevent this situaiton, and as such, the settlement will
prove to be as practically useless as an Office XP install disc will
be a year from now.
Furthermore, I cordially invite you to a comprehensive tour of
our school and it's technological backbone. At Boyd Anderson High
School, we take pride in our ability to overcome adversity. I simply
wish I could tell my students that their government's concerns about
the technological barriers to their success are more important than
protecting one of the corporations that creates the barrieres.
Hopefully, your judgement will help me change this situation.
SIncerely,
Russell Aaronson
Teacher
Boyd Anderson High School
(Home of the Fighting Cobras)
3050 NW 41st ST
Lauderdale Lakes, FL 33319
(954) 497-3800, x350
Fax (954) 497-3819
MTC-00026459
From: Wilfred W Foreman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle theMicrosoft litigation now. It will not help
consumers to drag out the settlement. We would be most benefitted by
a timely settlement.
The proposed settlement seems reasonable and could be a help to
our stumbling economy. Dragging it out further will only enrich
lawyers and special interests. Please help us.
Wilfred & Imogene Foreman
MTC-00026460
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely, Shirley Shirley 9043 Letha Lane Shreveport, LA 71118
MTC-00026461
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My name is Ellie Drew. I am president of the Institute for
Conscious Change in Tucson, AZ. I wish to thank all of the public
servants in the DOJ for their excellent work in pursuing the Anti-
trust case against MS. However the currently proposed remedy fails
to even address its own stated intents. Please consider all of the
findings in the case against MS in modifying the Revised Proposed
Final Judgment and come up with a new remedy which addresses these
findings and the current RPFJ's stated intents.
I include here considerations for bringing the RPFJ into accord
with the case findings, the RPFJ's stated intents and reasonable
remedy given the nature of the situation. My views are substantially
the same as those in the comment filed by Robert E. Litan, Roger D.
Noll, and William D. Nordhaus. Where I differ in view is in the
number and degree of separations. In number: I urge you to require
all non-Operating Systems code (using the traditional definition
from Computer Science and overseen by an independent panel of
university professors doing Operating Systems research) be removed
from the ownership of and access by the Divested OS companies. The
resulting removed assets would be passed ``over the wall''
to one of three independent Application companies. These Application
companies would be delineated into ``client
applications'', ``server applications'', and
``development tools.'' Failure to comply with this
divestiture within a one year time frame would result in the code
for all products found not to have been appropriately apportioned be
placed in the public domain. In degree: I urge a new Final Judgment
that requires all of the resulting divested companies to make freely
available for use all APIs, component/application interfaces,
protocols, and other interconnections at the time of the decree and
in perpetuity. Where any existing outside standards exist for any of
these interfaces all divested companies would be required to
implement -without extension or modification- these standards while
removing interfaces which overlap any standards within a two year
time frame. Failure to comply would result in the code used to
implement any non-conforming interfaces be placed in the public
domain. In addition all applications produced by the divested
companies must be marketed and sold separately for a period of seven
years. Failure to comply (such as bundling or tying in software
components of different companies or components of the same company)
would result in the code of the affected software component being
placed in the public domain.
These remedies and penalties for non-compliance are just and due
given the egregious nature of the defendants crime and behavior.
Sincerely,
Ellie Drew
MTC-00026462
From: Kathy J Hering
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:45pm
Subject: Please settle this!!
Dear Friends-
As a senior citizen I believe it would be great idea to settle
with microsoft. During the time this plan was in place under our
last president, he could have been working on the terrorists and may
have prevented the incident of last Sedember. I think it's about
time that this country get its priorities in order.
Thanks for listening,
Bob Hering
MTC-00026463
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:43pm
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
[[Page 27814]]
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,
Nick Fletcher
P.O. Box 3374
Scottsdale, AZ 85271-3374
MTC-00026464
From: Lawrence (038) Sarah Ballew
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings,
I am writing to encourage you in the case against Microsoft.
While this company has certainly done a great job of generating jobs
and profits, it has done so in a manner which is short sighted and
costly to the future of computing in the USA. Please do not simply
slap them on the wrist. This company needs to know that it's
predatory pricing practices and it's monopolistic methodologies are
inconsistent with a free and fair market.
I think one of the clearest signs of Microsoft's negative
approach to the whole business of computing is their offer to flood
America's schools with old, used, inefficient hardware and software
as a way of making amends. That they would be allowed to push their
monopolistic practices down the throats of schools is almost
laughable if it weren't so typical of Microsoft's thinking. Don't
let that happen.
Thank you for your patient and persistent work on this matter. I
am sure that you will proceed in this matter with a long term view
and with a desire to see the USA public have at their fingertips the
very best software applications American companies can produce.
Sincerely,
Lawrence Ballew
MTC-00026465
From: Tom Galvin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is bad idea. The remedy does not correct
the abusive behavior of the monopolistic situation.
MTC-00026466
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:55pm
Subject: RE: MICROSSOFT JUDGEMENT--SETTLEMENT
GENTLEMEN:
CONSUMER INTERESTS HAVE BEEN WELL SERVED. IT IS TIME TO END THIS
COSTLY AND DAMAGING LITIGATION. PLEASE SETTLE WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY.
THANK YOU!
SINCERELY,
ROGER W. BRYSON
5401 SHADOW LAWN DR.
SARASOTA, FL. 34242
MTC-00026467
From: Fred C Hinds
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
I think the time has come that you go with the current proposed
settlement with Microsoft. These people have helped provide computer
equipment and other software products that we as senior citizens can
afford . With their help we will have more new electronic equipment
to help us and YOU with our daily efforts. In my opinion the time
has come to to end this costly and damaging litigation.
Thank you for your time.
F.C. Hinds Jr.
1410 Lorrie Dr.
Richardson, Texas 75080
MTC-00026468
From: James Russell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I was a user of Windows 98 from 1998 until just last year. I
witnessed first-hand how hard Microsoft made it for me to choose
Netscape. Indeed, at one point I did give up Netscape for IE just
because it was simpler.
I know use Windows XP, and have been nearly forced into using
Microsoft's Passport service, which I don't think is secure, forced
into having IE, MSN Explorer, Windows Media Player, Windows
Messenger, you name it, I've been forced to install it. What angers
me most, though, is that Microsoft has made Windows more bloated and
less secure by making me install the IE code (Go to www.news.com and
search for ``IE'' and ``security'' and you'll
see what I mean.), and it makes me angry that I must suffer these
security holes because Microsoft wants IE on my computer whether I
like it or not.
Forcing Microsoft to ship a fully clean version of Windows is
absolutely necessary to restore competition where there now is none,
on the Microsoft desktop. Moreover, OEMs need to be assured that
Microsoft cannot penalize them for choosing this version of Windows.
Microsoft should market this version equally as aggressively as
Windows 2000 Home, Professional, or their descendants for a period
of no less than 10 years. The price of this ``Windows
Lite'' should be lower than the standard version of Windows
enough to compensate for (A) the amount of code removed and (B) the
percentage of features removed from the interface.
Further, Microsoft should no longer be able to dictate to any
OEM whether a dual-boot operating system can be released on that
OEM's systems in any way, nor can they be penalized, threatened, or
coerced into dropping deals with Microsoft's competitors. This
moratorium should be in effect for 10 years with an option for an
additional 5-10 years at the court's discretion.
James Russell
MTC-00026469
From: Kenneth W Wegener
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the settlement that has been reached with
Microsoft is fair and will benefit consumers. Therefore I urge that
you accept that settlement and bring to an end this long trial. It
will help our economy much more than continued litigation.
Kenneth Wegener
MTC-00026470
From: Geoff Murray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
When I joined Intel in 1997, they had a well defined roadmap for
releases of faster new processors. But when AMD caught up to and
surpassed Intel's performance in 2000, Intel aggressively pulled in
its release schedules to be more competitive. That's the kind of
competitive pressure that benefits consumers.
Microsoft does not have that kind of competitive pressure. This
vacuum allows Microsoft to manage its roadmap as it sees fit, and
consumers just have to accept it. The question is not whether
Microsoft's products are getting better (they are), it's how much
better would they be if they had competition. The gap between what
Microsoft is delivering now and what Microsoft would be delivering
if it had competition is the measure of society's loss from
Microsoft's monopoly.
As a consumer, I was appalled by the Justice Department's
actions in settling this law suit. After Microsoft had been found
guilty of illegally maintaining its monopoly, the Justice Department
unilaterally disarmed themselves by announcing they would not seek a
breakup of Microsoft. Then they announced a settlement that had no
penalties, no admission of guilt, and a series of restrictions
riddled with loopholes and escape clauses.
This settlement does very little to protect consumers from
Microsoft's monopoly power. It creates a situation where future
illegal Microsoft actions require further negotiations or further
expensive, time consuming court actions to be stopped. By taking a
hard line on every upcoming issue, Microsoft can delay and negotiate
concessions to actions that are harming consumers. Thus, this
settlement provides inadequate consumer protection.
After reading about the Enron bankruptcy scandal, it is clear
that the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch have serious
conflicts of interest that limit their ability to control large
businesses. Only the Judicial Branch, which does not need re-
election funding, has the independence needed to protect consumers
from over zealous corporations. Microsoft has shown contempt for
this anti-trust trial since it began. The newly appointed Justice
Department leadership has shown very questionable judgment. It is
now up to the Judicial Branch to assert its authority in protecting
the rights of consumers by rejecting this proposed settlement.
Sincerely,
Geoff Murray
MTC-00026471
From: H Davis
[[Page 27815]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:00pm
Subject: be fair with Microsoft
To whom this concern:
I have been following this case since it all started. I know
what this is all about. Companies like Oracle, Sun, and Netscape,
are after the demise of Microsoft. I hate to think what will happen
to the computer industry, it will be too costly for the most of us
with nothing standard. Where was these companies when the PC
industry was getting started. These come lately companies are only
after the free for all, after Microsoft is defeated.
Thanks for reading this.
Harvey Davis
[email protected]
MTC-00026472
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Consumer interests have been well served, and the time to end
this costly and damaging litigation has come.
Rheboris & Lloyd Reichen
Memphis, TN
MTC-00026473
From: john spaur
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft should be broken up.
I have been using computers since 1985 and started with the DOS
operating system, before windows. Since the window operating system
came into being I have seen a multitude of good software programs
and the companies that wrote them go out of business. There is no
reason to embed web browsers, movie and video programs, and word
processing programs in the operating system. Independent software
programs, designed by firms other than microsoft, can be linked with
the operating system. microsoft is a terrible monopoly if it is not
broken up and severely punished, one day the world will regret this
tremendously. However, no one will really believe that until it is
too late, and it will be too late when all of the computer operating
systems are microsoft and running only microsoft programs.
MTC-00026474
From: Darlene Keefer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/26/02 10:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Darlene Keefer
114 Valley Road
Roundup, MT 59072
January 26, 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,
Darlene Keefer
MTC-00026476
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Nancy Crotty
10124 S. Hangman Valley Road
Spokane, WA 99224
MTC-00026477
From: Stan Strick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:08pm
Subject: Letter in support of Microsoft to Attorney General John
Ashcroft
MTC-00026477--0001
1033 Kerria Lane
Camano Island, WA 98282
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am familiar with the settlement that was reached in November.
I feel that it is a fair settlement. Further litigation would only
prolong the process. I believe that the decision was reached with a
great deal of effort. The time was right to settle.
If further litigation is pursued, more of my money as a taxpayer
will be spent. Stop spending the taxpayers'' money as well as
Microsoft's money and resolve the settlement. I think what is
important are the benefits we will receive from the settlement that
has already been reached. I especially feel that the computers and
software in the schools are essential for our children in this age
of technology.
Microsoft is making a good faith effort to appease its critics
with this settlement. The provisions requiring information sharing
and non-retaliation agreements will increase competition in the
technology market. I support the settlement and look forward to the
end of this case.
Sincerely,
MTC-00026478
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MTC-00026479
From: Jeff Hannon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement 01/25/02
John J. Hannon
13423 S. 46th Way
Phoenix, AZ 85044
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
RE: US v. Microsoft proposed final order (Microsoft Settlement)
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
I wish to respectfully express my personal opinion to you
regarding the current Microsoft Settlement as provided for under the
Tunney Act.
I work for a company in Arizona which produces software utilized
by infrastructure contractors (highways, dams, power plants,
airports, etc.) in the United States and Canada to bid and build
projects. Since the mid 1980's, this software has run atop Microsoft
operating systems. We compete against several other products in the
marketplace, and win clients by having a superior product and
services. This firm I work for (to pay my mortgage) is attempting
now to build its future software ``platform independent'',
so as not to be beholden to Microsoft operating systems and
applications (MS Office). Attempts such as these, to have the option
of using Microsoft products, but not to have to RELY on them, is one
aspect that should be considered in the Settlement.
I disagree with the settlement for two reasons:
1.The language in the Settlement gives Microsoft MORE power to
stifle Free Software and Open-Source Software development.
If this is the Court's (and the Administration's) political
intent, then so be
[[Page 27816]]
it, but constituents should be made aware of the implications, and
why their government deems it so. I'm sure by now you know that the
``free'' in Free Software refers to freedom and not price.
Since our nation was built upon these principles, any settlement
which infringes upon freedom is detrimental to our way of life.
Regardless of Microsoft's rhetoric to the contrary, Free and Open-
Source software gains customers and users because of having superior
quality. This is truly the Open Market at work. Microsoft does not
seem to embrace the ``open market'' concept (where
inferior products can be discarded by consumers), nor the concept of
freedom (freedom of choice). The settlement appears to empower
Microsoft more than before they were convicted of breaking the law.
2.The Settlement is detrimental to our nation's multi-billion
dollar Construction Industry.
Since the Settlement has virtually no penalty for Microsoft, and
even subtly gives them added powers (J.1 and J.2), the construction
industry will continue to spend billions of dollars for non-
productive and non-needed operating system upgrades and hardware.
This money would be better spent on investments in new jobs and
capital equipment (or as profits invested in the stock market). Just
at the point in time when the industry is being offered more
sensible CHOICES for alternative platforms and superior
applications, the Settlement appears to make attempts at beating
those choices backward.
I was under the impression that the the Settlement was all about
``consumers'', not about protecting the position of a
convicted monopolist. The Internet and the World Wide Web as we know
it today, which was made possible by open-source software, requires
little more than internet access as the cost of entry. This
settlement will make it cost much more.
Thank You''
John J. Hannon
[email protected]
MTC-00026480
From: Scott Dier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
The Settlement with Microsoft is lacking to give Open Source
software an equivilant ground in the world of embedded products.
Let's say I wanted to make a device that hooked into a network with
Windows machines and I just wanted it to work. In this endevour, I
decided to contribute code to the samba project and was just making
this device for no profit.
Now, since J,2,c says that I need to have a ``business
need'' for the informations, I can't just call Microsoft up for
a full API specification for a paticular communications protocol
that they have.
Worse yet, if I were to be able to get that API, I have to ask
permission to use the application I wrote because of the verfication
requirements.
This is very counterintutive to most IETF (Internet Engineering
Task Force) protocols that are used on the Internet and freely
developed and distributed for the cause of interoperability.
Microsoft wants to contain its communications protocols from Open
Source third parties so we can't create an alternative
communications platform that can walk-the-walk with Windows
platforms. They could easily argue that the Open Source program
using their API is going to destroy the vialibility of their
business and that the open disclosure in code will allow others to
develop possibly ``incorrect'' implementations of their
protocols. Sometimes they might worry that a bug in their protocol
design could be massaged by a incorrect implementation and that it
would be the *implementors* fault for this, not theirs for designing
protcols to be robust. Therfore, I worry that they will just deny
anything with a Open Source license to pass their verification even
if it has a compliant implementation of the protocol.
The fight isn't about destroying Microsoft, but for forcing
interoperability and alternative means from the single vendor that
many have been ``locked in'' to for years. This could
extend the market for Microsoft, ISVs, and Open Source users and
developers to work together and not have a rift in communications
between platforms.
I also believe that some of the arguments that will be recieved
detailing the plight of this settlement and how it helps alternative
platforms for running windows applications are very important and I
would like the Court to please take Jeremy P. White's comments
seriously and carefully.
Lastly, I also echo the comments by Dan Kegel and his Open
Letter, found at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html .
Scott M. Dier
1624 Chatham Ave.
Arden Hills, MN 55112
651-631-1827
Employer, but not speaking on their behalf:
University Of Minnesota, Computer Science and Engineering
Systems Administrator
Scott Dier http://
www.ringworld.org/
MTC-00026481
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:07pm
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,
Mark Lento
P.O. Box 6419
Hillsborough, NJ 08844-6419
MTC-00026482
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:11pm
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,
Robert Hoebel
416 Madison Dr
San Jose, CA 95123-5025
MTC-00026483
From: Doug Mason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From what I read on the proposed statement, it is only barely
lifting a finger to fix the damage to the industry caused by them.
This really only gives the OEMs the ability to sell a computer with
a non-MS operating system, and could also dual boot. But the
developers aren't helped much at all, there are no damages that
Microsoft have to pay for how they hurt the companies in competition
or the consumer. And as for opening up the APIs it is only going to
be distributed by the MSDN, that isn't enough because they could
just stash the code to the 3/4 or so of the network that is by
subscription only, which in turn helps Microsoft more than it hurts
it, because they will have access first, and if the competition
wants to build applications that will integrate with Windows at the
level that the MS products do, then it would mean paying them for
it. As for the Technical Committee, it is too small for one, how
much of Microsoft's source code, memos, ect.. could actually be read
through with the attention that they deserve? It should be at least
ten people, because Microsoft is a very large corporation and I
would think produce an very large amount of documentation. And with
the language that weeds out just about every ``expert in
software design and programming'' that are out there. I think
that
[[Page 27817]]
this should be changed at least to have microsoft to be forced to
open their apis with no strings attached, to the entire world to
view, if not the source code for the windows operating systems
themselves, so that at least the competition will actually stand a
chance against them, because with the present situation, and even if
this settlement goes through, Microsoft will be too large to contend
with by any single company, most of the competitors either become a
part of Microsoft, or the companies die as a result of the microsoft
product being forced upon the consumer. I hope that this settlement
becomes what the Information Technology industry needs in order to
regain the momentum that it had lost over the past year, and that
everyone realizes that most of what is good for microsoft is bad for
the industry in terms of competition.
Sincerely,
Douglas J. Mason
University Student
60456 Hamilton @ University of Oregon
Eugene, Oregon 97403
MTC-00026484
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
7314 Clearmeadow Drive
Spring Hill, FL 34606
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I think the settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case should be
approved and implemented as soon as possible. That would be the best
thing available now for America's computer technology industry,
America's economy, and the American public.
Personally, I think America should not penalize successful
companies like Microsoft for doing a good business, with good
products, with tremendously beneficial innovations, with good,
honest accounting and accountability.
The settlement will require Microsoft to give up its legal
rights to its software and business practice in return for not being
subjected to further costly, disconcerting litigation and the
possibility of being split up, as AT&T was. For two examples,
Microsoft will give away to its industry the software codes for the
internal interfaces to its Windows operating system programs, and it
will end its legitimate practice of requiring computer manufacturers
that want to put its Windows operating system on the computer they
build to put it on all or none, and as an integrated package of
program or not at all. These changes, and others, will help the
other companies in the computer industry.
I appreciate your leadership in settling this case, and ending
the litigation against Microsoft. Let's get America back to work.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Clara J. Jones
MTC-00026485
From: JasonY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'll make this short and sweet.
I disagree with the current form of the MS/JD settlement. I
believe it amounts to nothing more than a slap on the wrist for MS
and an insult to consumers. I believe Microsoft's past behavior
(even under legal restraint) clearly demonstrates that they will
disregard any but the strongest measures designed to modify their
behavior. Consumers suffer when an unrepentant and unfair monopolist
like Microsoft is allowed to continue behavoir that is damaging to
the marketplace and competition.
Thank you for your time.
Jason Young
MTC-00026486
From: Herbert Dyke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:16pm
Subject: Re:``Microsoft settlement''
Sirs:
It has been brought to my attention that there is great conflict
regarding the Tunny Act soon to be before you.
I strongly believe 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.
Yours Sincerely,
Senior Citizen,
C. Herbert Dyke, Jr.
MTC-00026487
From: Avonia Sullivan
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/26/02 10:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Avonia Sullivan
416 Construction Drive
Mayfield, KY 42066
January 26, 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,
Avounia Sullivan
MTC-00026488
From: [email protected]
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/26/02 10:18pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To the Court:
As an end user (consumer) of computers for the past 20 years, I
find the proposed settlement by the Justice Department to be
woefully inadequate. My objections concern both the remedies and the
lack of consequences if the stipulations of the settlement are
violated by Microsoft.
Consumers like myself are slowly but surely being forced to use
Microsoft products if we want to get ahead at work or use computers
to make our lives more enjoyable at home. The tactics that Microsoft
used to put itself in this position were found to be illegal,
meaning that consumers would likely have had alternatives if
Microsoft had been an ethical, law abiding corporation. I don't see
any of the remedies addressing the dearth of consumer choice in PC
operating system components or PC office productivity software.
As a consumer, the rise of Netscape in the mid 1990s signified
an era where the computer desktop became a richer environment to
work in.
No longer were computer users relegated to a mediocre Microsoft
Windows environment as there was a nascent, competitive environment
whose centerpiece was not the operating system, but rather the web
browser. As Microsoft illegally choked off Netscape's ability to
generate revenue, the internet became a stifled environment that now
requires Microsoft products to function properly. This is serious as
Microsoft has become the gatekeeper for every activity of every user
of the internet. Microsoft has not demonstrated the ability to be
ethical, trustworthy, or law-abiding in this critical role.
As such, I believe that any remedy of this antitrust suit should
contain severe enforcement penalties if Microsoft violates any of
the remedy provisions. Severe entails any penalties that would
jeopardize Microsoft's future business prospects. This includes
divestiture of the Windows operating system from other parts of
Microsoft and/or publishing the source code of the Windows operating
system. Microsoft has violated court orders in the past (i.e. the
1995 consent decree) so the inclusion of severe penalties is the
only way to guarantee the effectiveness of a remedy ordered by your
court.
To address the lack of consumer choice that has resulted from
Microsoft's illegal behavior, I would prefer a remedy that forces
Microsoft to publicly disclose the file formats of Microsoft Office
productivity software for a period of several years. Since Microsoft
file formats have become a de facto standard in
[[Page 27818]]
the business world, this is the only way to allow competitors an
opportunity to provide alternatives in the workplace, which
represents Microsoft's most important market.
It is vital that the court recognizes the need to reintroduce
competition into the computer software industry.
Finally, I hope you recognize the stranglehold that Microsoft
has over the computer industry. Given Microsoft's unrepentant
behavior of late for wrongdoings it has committed, a weak remedy
today as signified by the proposed settlement will lead to more
antitrust violations by Microsoft and yet another Microsoft
antitrust trial a few years from now. This would be disastrous for
the consumers of computers in this country.
Sincerely,
Michael Richman
3 Hawthorne Ln
Bedford, MA 01730
[email protected]
MTC-00026489
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Charles Jones Jr
3406 Greenhill Dr
High Point, NC 27265-1817
MTC-00026490
From: Jason Baietto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As an American and a strong believer in Capitalism and free
markets I have been outraged countless times by the ferociously
anti-competitive practices of Microsoft. I am deeply saddened that
the crystal clear analysis of the U.S. government's investigators
has been clouded over this past year by the sheer financial and
political influence of this immense mega-corporation.
No settlement that has been discussed thus far has adequately
addressed the fundamental issues that continue to allow Microsoft to
keep a lock-hold on their current monopoly. The issues are their
proprietary networking protocols and their proprietary file formats.
The past cannot be undone, and splitting up Microsoft or forcing
them restructure their main product offerings will result in little
or no benefit to users and provide little or no assistance to
competitors.
However, forcing Microsoft to openly document all of their
networking protocols and file formats will give competitors the keys
they need to produce software that can properly integrate and
compete with the many products offered by Microsoft itself. Only by
enabling true competition can the process of recovery from the
damage Microsoft has caused begin.
Microsoft must not only be required to document their protocols
and file formats, but they must also be tested for adherence to
their published standards regularly by a third party. Microsoft must
incur severe financial penalties for breaking adherence to any
published standard in order to subvert the ruling and continue their
aggressive non-competitive practices.
Please do not let the ending to this chapter of American history
be written by the corporation that has done the most damage to the
system of competition that has fueled the industrial and information
revolutions of our great nation.
Sincerely,
Jason Baietto
[email protected]
9701 Parkview Avenue
Boca Raton, Florida 33428
MTC-00026491
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
to the DOJ;
The settlement with Microsoft is yet another breach of the
responsibility of the government to apply laws consistently across
all parties across the United States. How can the DOJ settle a case
with almost no penalties when nine judges determined that Microsoft
broke the law. It is not the Justice department's job to decide
which laws it wants to enforce. You have to enforce them all without
exception. It's a serious breach of trust when a company can
knowingly break the law and continue to break the law, because it
knows there will be no significant penalty. I am 100% in favor of
competition and free markets, but the boundaries are clearly drawn
and Microsoft has crossed the line. Please consider meaningful
remedies. The future of many things depends on this case. Don't
screw it up.
respectfully
donald guarnieri
MTC-00026492
FROM: E. Jerry Bailey TO: MS ATR DATE: 1/26/02 SUBJECT: Settle with
Microsoft
1900 53rd Street N
Saint Petersburg, FL 33710
January 19, 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 show my support for
the recent settlement reached between the Department of Justice and
Microsoft. Bill Gates has been an integral part of the building of
this nation and for that matter the world's computing abilities. He
has been ingenious in the running of his company. I do not believe
that the federal government has the right to persecute Microsoft.
Given these sentiments, I am pleased that there may finally be
some closure with this issue. Microsoft has been making many
concessions to ensure that this occurs. For example, Microsoft will
share information about the internal workings of Windows with its
competitors, and thus allow them to place their own programs on the
operating system. Microsoft has even agreed to the formation of a
technical review board whose sole job will be to ensure compliance
with the terms of the settlement.
The settlement offers an opportunity to end this lawsuit and
returns the country's focus back on business, where it belongs. the
federal government must end its pursuit of Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Edward Bailey
MTC-00026493
From: LARRY BALOK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:24pm
Subject: Settle for Microsoft.
Settle for Microsoft.
MTC-00026494
From: [email protected]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
I don't think the proposed microsoft settlement is good for the
consumers. Microsoft uses the same tactics that the railroads used
one hundred or more years ago to form monopolies. This company is
bad for the US. It should be broken up into a systems company and
separate application companies. The ``Dos isn't done until
Lotus won't run'' philosophy is still alive in microsoft. They
purposely put in bugs to prevent the competator's products from
working right.
Thank you for your attention to this request.
Larry Nestor
email address [email protected]
snail mail address: 17692 Beach Blvd. Ste 309
Huntington Beach CA 92647-6811
MTC-00026495
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a terrible idea that does nothing to
correct the root of the problem. More strict action needs to be
taken against Microsoft to ensure that their monopolistic practices
do not continue. I trust in our government to prevent this from
occurring. Thank you for your time.
Cory Rieth
MTC-00026496
From: Joe E Jay
[[Page 27819]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement;
If settlement would end litigation and prevent any split-ups of
Microsoft, go for it. The taxpayers and computer consumers are tired
of this, just as we were when Bell Telephone was keel-hauled and
summarily split. Please resolve this situation. Just remember that
we consumers are in the middle of it all, and whatever is executed
in court, the final cost is eventually passed on to us.
Best Regards,
Joe E. Jay
MTC-00026497
From: Tim Spannaus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:27pm
Subject: comment
I have carefully considered the proposed settlement between
Microsoft and the Justice Department. reading the full text of the
proposed settlement and much commentary about it.
Given that the Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judgment that
Microsoft violated antitrust law, it is not at all clear how the
proposed settlement provides a remedy proportionate to the
violation.
Microsoft has already demonstrated its willingness to ignore
remedies based on conduct. The only remedy that adequately addresses
the violation is one that requires a restructuring of Microsoft.
Then we can let market forces do their work. Enforcing conduct
remedies is costly, slow and inefficient compared to structural
remedies that, once done, manage themselves through market forces.
Of these, the clearest path to a competitive market lies in
separating the operating system business from the application
business. The OS business would find it in their interest to publish
all the APIs (application program interfaces) to make it easier for
all to work well in the Windows OS environment. The application
company would find it in their interest to build programs for a
variety of platforms to increase (or maintain) market share.
It is critically important that the OS company not be permitted
to layer on application software, like media players, photo suites,
browsers and the like or it will grow into another anti-competitive
monopoly, driving others from the market. Microsoft continues to add
application programs to the OS, reducing competition.
This is not simply a competitive issue. The monoculture of
Windows computers, running too-tightly integrated mail and
productivity suites has already proven to be an attractive and hard
to defend environment for viruses and other malicious computer
programs. The problem is not just that Microsoft has chsen to ignore
many security problems, but that the objectives of ease of use and
security are at odds when the solution is barrier-free passing of
documents from one program to another. I would be pleased to expand
on these ideas if necessary.
Best regards,
Timothy W Spannaus
Timothy W. Spannaus, Ph.D.
Research Fellow, Institute for Learning and Performance
Improvement
Senior Lecturer, Instructional Technology
Wayne State University
MTC-00026498
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Antitrust Division:
I am a U.S. citizen writing in regard to the Antitrust
settlement proposal with Microsoft.
My number one problem with the proposed settlement is that it
does not sufficiently force Microsoft to open their proprietary file
formats for competitors to use. Many of these file standards are now
industry standards only because of Microsoft's anti-competitive
practices.
To allow them to remain secret would be to (1) reward Microsoft
for its illegal activity and (2) allow the company to maintain their
monopoly.
Thank you,
Ron Friedman
Burbank, CA
MTC-00026499
From: wt.catch1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:30pm
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,
Cecil Pulley
1126 St. Julien Dr.
Eutawville, SC 29048
MTC-00026500
From: ASA D TUCKER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in Without
casting stones, it is a legitimate question. There are two men, both
extremely wealthy. One develops relatively cheap software and gives
billions of dollars to charity. The other sponsors terrorism. That
being the case, why is it that the Clinton Administration spent more
money chasing down Bill Gates over the past eight years than Osama
bin Laden?
Let's get bin Laden. Dragging out this legal battle against
Microsoft further will only benefit a few wealthy competitors,
lawyers, and special interest big-wigs.
Not one new product that helps consumers will be brought to the
marketplace.
MTC-00026501
From: Stephen Berman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:38pm
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
This proposed settlement is utter travesty.
Sincerely,
Stephen Berman
MTC-00026502
From: Brian Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may concern,
I'm writing this letter to state that I am not in favor of the
Microsoft settlement. It is no where near harsh enough and doesn't
go far enough to prevent future abuses by Microsoft.
Microsoft wants everyone to believe that they aren't the big
bullies anymore, but their actions speak louder than their words. A
few months ago (the day Windows XP was released to the public) you
couldn't access MS NBC with a browser other than Windows Explorer.
You got a message that stated they wanted to ensure that you got the
right user experience so you need Windows Explorer to ensure that.
The next day there was an apology from Microsoft stating that it was
done in error.
We all know how Microsoft really feels and they haven't changed
a bit. Why isn't Java included with Windows XP? Could it be in
retaliation to Sun Microsystems? You don't have to look to hard to
see Microsoft's true intentions. Microsoft proposed to donate a
billion dollars worth of computer equipment, software and services.
Do you really think they're concerned about the schools or out to
better the market share where they don't have an overwhelming
monopoly. I was insulted that they think we are that dumb to not see
what they are up to. Have they really changed? These are only a
couple of their actions, but what makes it extremely insulting is
that they happened while they are in court over the past actions.
Wouldn't you think they'd be on their best behavior instead of
flaunting their supreme arrogance and belief that they are above the
law? From what I've seen so far from the settlement, they have every
reason to believe that they are above the law and can get away with
anything they please. We barely gave them a slap on the wrist. I
know it, they know it and the Department of Justice knows it. For
some reason we just want this to go away.
I'm currently living in St. Joseph, Michigan and I very
disappointed that the State of Michigan is one of the nine states
that
[[Page 27820]]
settled. I intend to send my Senators and Congressman a letter
stating my feelings about this.
For a company that was found guilty to have made many billions
of dollars illegally, is this really much of a penalty? I will be
outraged if this ends up being their so called penalty. This only
attempts to level the playing field from this point forward. I don't
think it even goes far enough on that account, but no where do I see
anything to penalize them on the past behavior. You'd think the
penalty for illegally making billions and billions of dollars and
forcing many software companies out of business would be equal to
the crime, or more. Wouldn't you? Do I have an unusual since of
justice?
Brian Wood
1378 Ventnor Ave
St. Joseph, MI 49085
[email protected]
MTC-00026503
From: G (038) K Snyder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:42pm
Subject: Judge Motz decision DOJ,
I favor Mr. Motz's decision and rationale. If Microsoft is to
place computers in poor schools they should be ordered to place the
competitor1s product (Apple).
A real-world punishment of this nature would very likely teach a
lesson not soon forgotten.
Gary Snyder
MTC-00026504
From: Jay Palmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice:
I wish to comment on the proposed settlement of United States vs
Microsoft.
I believe Microsoft should be left free to produce and sell
whatever software they want to. I do not believe they should be
punished or restricted in any way, for they have done nothing wrong.
Microsoft has produced many good products that have greatly
helped its customers. I, along with millions of other Americans, use
this company's products, such as operating systems, web browsers and
electronic-mail programs, every day. I am very happy with my
purchases, and I very much want Microsoft to be free to offer me its
best efforts for sale in the future.
Successful companies do not deserve to be throttled by the
government; rather, they deserve to have their property, which they
have earned through voluntary trade, protected. The complaints
against Microsoft have been made by various unsuccessful
competitors. These companies, along with the government, have no
right to tell me what software I can buy to run on my computer, nor
do they have any right to stop Microsoft from selling software that
consumers everywhere are eager to buy. Microsoft has initiated force
against nobody. Microsoft, and the people who want to buy their
products should be left to peacefully pursue their business. Their
success is not a threat to anybody.
Jay Palmer
Bothell, Washington
MTC-00026505
From: Frankie Thomas Robertson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/26/02 10:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frankie Thomas Robertson
1110 Usher Street
Mayfield, KY 42066
January 26, 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.
Thank you
F. Thomas Robertson
MTC-00026506
From: Howard L Olivers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:46pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
It is time to put this issue to rest. Greed on the part of state
governments and trial attorneys are the only reason for continuance.
Microsoft has made a fair & just settlement. Howard Olivers
MTC-00026509
From: Shirley Nall
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/26/02 10:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Shirley Nall
Box 442
Salem, IL 62881
January 26, 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.
Thank you
Shirley Nall
MTC-00026510
From: Rob Pixley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may concern:
I am writing you to comment on the proposed settlement in the
anti-trust case against Microsoft Corp as directed by the Tunney
Act.
My name is Robert Pixley. I am and have been employed as a
software developer since 1993. Microsoft's behavior in the
marketplace has lead us to this juncture. Unfortunately, each time
the legal system has been involved the results have been either a
slap on the wrist or outright travesties of justice allowing
Microsoft to completely continue it's behavior.
The only sliver of common sense related to this issue was recent
judge's denial of Microsoft's ``offer'' to supply schools
with free computers and software as part of a settlement. This
behavior crystalizes Microsoft's intentions; at each and every turn
attempt to pervert the process and turn it to it's benefit. The
offer by RedHat (a Linux distributor) to supply the software for
computers purchased by Microsoft was a step forward in fixing the
problems of the current marketplace. Microsoft predictably didn't
take this offer up as it wouldn't have done them any good.
Punishment is not meant to help the convicted. Yet Microsoft
attempts this time and time again.
Microsoft has argued that the bundling of Internet Explorer (IE)
into the Windows Operation System cannot be undone. For starters,
this is completely false. Each and every company makes backups; so
they could simply ``go back in time'' to a point when the
code was separate and just ``not'' integrate it. Would
this be difficult, time consuming, and expensive? Of course, but
it's not Microsoft well being that should be of concern.
[[Page 27821]]
Next, Microsoft has said users asked for the bundling. Is there
proof of this? If so, it has not been disclosed in any forum of
which I am aware. From knowing many average computer users who use
myself as a knowledge source of computers, I have yet to have been
asked to bundle IE into Windows. Let us say for a moment that
``bundling'' the browser does increase usability and is
generally a good thing. Then there should be a clear way to include
``any'' browser to do this work. If it is Microsoft saying
that only IE can do the work, then that is clearly a reason they
chose to integrate. And that decision specifically wounded Netscape
Navigator.
If a ``browser'' is better at doing certain
``OS'' functions, than any browser should be able to do
the job; not just Microsoft's browser.
Part of the proposed settlement allows OEMs to remove icons to
access to IE, but IE itself still remains fully functional in the
system. This doesn't stop Microsoft from in the future using the
fact that their software still has it's ``illegal''
functionality. The functionality needs to be removed by whatever
means necessary. Microsoft's arguement that Windows needs IE to
function should be followed up by asking WHAT specifically the IE
component does. If this can't be detailed then it's clear the
bundling was done for harmful business reasons, not technical ones.
If it can be explained what IE does better than Windows, then
release this list. This way, Netscape or another company could
create a browser to replace IE completely.
This nicely dovetails into documentation of the Windows API.
Having done various programming projects that have entailed this
area I can speak from experience it requires very thick volumes
purchased 3rd party to understand what is going on. Nowhere from
Microsoft is there a list of ``all'' the APIs and their
specifications and usage. How can any company hope to compete when
the ``rules'' of the game are held in secrecy by the
opponent? Microsoft cannot be trusted to do this documentation and
publication. History has shown they will not disclose anything until
it is worse for them to not say anything. Just look to the recent
Hotmail vulnerability; until the disoverer of the ``bug''
publically detailed his findings, Microsoft was willing to allow all
it users of the Hotmail service to be vulnerable. Microsoft's
response to this was to belittle the finder and say he was wrong for
bringing up the problem. Microsoft does not like to have it's
problems exposed; that I don't blame them for. However, when you
provide the basic tool of modern economics you have different
standards applied.
I suppose I could go on at length on any number of other issues
but I shall close with this. Microsoft has not yet come to see that
they are at fault here and need to change. This settlement does
NOTHING to stop them from continuing on their current practices. The
terms are so archaic and contain so much convoluted
``legalese'' that enforcing it will only require even more
expensive litigation to determine whether or not it's been
accurately followed. Stop this now and find a real settlement that
brings Microsoft into understanding they are wrong. That will not be
easy nor pleasant. But the consequences of allowing Microsoft to
continue it's stranglehold on the computer marketplace are almost
immeasurable. To understand just how much power Microsoft holds;
attempt ONE day of work WITHOUT using Windows or any Microsoft
product.
I wish you luck,
Sincerely,
Robert Pixley
12322 Oak Creek Lane, Apt 605
Fairfax, VA 22033
MTC-00026511
From: Scott Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly disagree with the proposed settlement. The proposed
settlement seems to do little to repair past damages or to prevent
on-going damage to open and free competition in the computer
software industry.
1. MS has eliminated virtually all competition in Operating
Systems.
2. Many applications providers have been eliminated.
I feel this is due to three primary factors.
1. The size and early popularity of Windows OS.
2. The HIGHLY anti-competitive nature of previous preloading
agreements.
3. The relationship of the operating system software and the
applications software divisions of MS.
So long as the MS operating system division and the applications
software division are under one company, the MS OS division will
always (continue) to block the efforts of independent application
software companies to compete against the MS application software
division.
Currently the most competitive non-linix based competitor to MS
Windows is IBM's OS/2 and the related eCS packaging of OS/2. Even
this OS system is made uncompetitive due to MS's license
requirements and royalties for software code included in the OS
abandoned by MS years ago.
What needs to be done.....
1. Cut all royalties to MS that would make other products non-
competitive. Perhaps cut the royalties period, since they were put
in place during the period when MS was practicing it's anti-
competitive policies.
2. Split the MS OS division from the MS Applications division.
3. Prohibit the inclusion of most application software with the
operation system.
4. Put in place some form of incentive to utilize a non-MS
operating system such as IBM OS/2, eCS Comm Station or a Linix based
OS for pre-loaded computers sold.
5. Force the MS OS division to release ALL information regarding
the use of all of the OS API's. There must be EQUAL access for all
vendors including the MS Application division, Independent Software
providers and other operating system providers.
Since the damage has already been done to the competition in the
PC software business and critical mass has already been lost for
alternatives to the non-MS software solutions, the remedies to the
damage must be more than just to make the playing field level. There
must be some form of support to the non-MS business community to
bring the competition back to the table. The current remedy does not
make for equal and open competition much less any form of punitive
punishment for MS past anti-competitive practices. --
Scott
MTC-00026512
From: william fongeallaz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I suggest that we accept the settlement that was worked out and
stop trying to spend more money for something that has been taken
care fo . It is hurting the PUBIC in many ways which includes, stock
price and value dropping and loosing various mutual funds and
individuals,costing more to buy software , and destroying the belief
that you or anyone can start a business and make it grow. We
arehelping those companies that cannot do it without the unfair help
of government.
Thanking you in advance for your consideration.
Yourstruly,
William Fongeallaz
[email protected]
MTC-00026513
From: Linda Kluthe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:58pm
Subject: Microsoft case!
Your Honorable Justice,
I was most concerned to read that AOL has filed another lawsuit,
and that the Microsoft lawsuits might go on for a longer period of
time. I realize Netscape wishes to complain of competition problems,
but in truth, as a consumer, God help me if I have to use Netscape
software. I believe it is inferior to Microsoft products, and I want
the freedom to chose the best product from the best company, and I
do not want Microsoft to have to spend their profits on lawsuits. I
want them to continue with research and development, so they can
continue to provide the consumer with good quality products.
Developing superior products seems to be their only
``crime.'' This has gone on long enough.
Sincerely,
Linda Kluthe
351 4th St.
Scotland, SD 57059
MTC-00026514
From: Lucy Day
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:51pm
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 a third year undergraduate student at the University of
Chicago and an American
[[Page 27822]]
citizen. I am writing because I am outraged at the mistreatment of a
truly great producer: Microsoft.
I love Microsoft's products. I have used Microsoft's operating
system (Windows), browser (IE), office software (Word, Outlook,
Excel), business software (Access), and programming software (Visual
Studio, FrontPage). This is an extremely powerful and useful set of
tools, and a set of products which far surpasses anything marketed
by Microsoft's competitors.
Microsoft is part of my life: my schoolwork, my job, and my
recreation. I want to be able to choose to keep buying and using
such products. No one in the computer industry or the government
should make them have to change what they sell, or share it, or
charge less for what they produce.
A successful business like Microsoft is an enormous benefit to
the consumer, not a threat. Microsoft offers consumers a trade:
their products for our dollars. No one is required to choose
Microsoft: each consumer makes his own decision. I do not ask that
everyone agree with my choice, only that everyone be allowed to
choose. When people do choose Microsoft, as they have done in
enormous numbers, Microsoft should be lauded, not blamed.
The people who blame Microsoft for its success are the ones who
can't succeed. Microsoft's competitors dragged Microsoft to the
courts, not Microsoft's customers. To let the worst producers chain
and persecute the best ones is not only unjust, but disastrous for
the industry and its consumers. I truly hate to think what the world
would be like if Microsoft were picked apart by its jealous,
inferior competitors. Not only would industry standards fail,
entrepreneurs in any field will lose hope and forsake ambition.
Penalizing Bill Gates for his innovation and effort is no way to
encourage future generations of businessmen and inventors. His
customers have given him his hard-earned rewards--and in a free
society, he would be allowed to keep them. America is home of the
self-made man; it is home of the right to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness; it is the home of the right to the property
one has earned; it is the home of a government designed to protect
that property.
The government should leave Microsoft free to do business with
its customers and partners.
Sincerely,
Lucy Day Werts
MTC-00026515
From: Barbara Wilke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Letting a power such as Microsoft get away time and time again
will RUIN this industry. Give other corperations (such as Apple,
Sun, And Linux Boxes) some chance, because MICROSOFT DESTROYED EACH
ONE. If you alow Microsoft to continue it's practices you can kiss
Internet freedom and your Credit card numbers goodbye.
MTC-00026516
From: Harold Sullivan
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/26/02 10:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harold Sullivan
416 Construction Drive
Mayfield, KY 42066
January 26, 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.
Thank you
Harold D. Sullivan
MTC-00026517
From: Bob S.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 10:52pm
Subject: DOJ and others
Its like Beta and VHS one wins the other is second and if people
wanted other operating systems they will get and use them. AOL is
looking for free money to cover their screw-up as well as those
lawyers looking to profit from a few that just don't like Microsoft.
We all have choices that we can make without those blood sucking
lawyers and money loosing .coms looking for a free ride. Thank You
from 98%
BobSnow, Aberdeen WA.
MTC-00026518
From: Solomon Akhimienmhona
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Department of Justice,
I must comment that all allegations made against the Microsoft
Organization are uncalled for,
They were the first to start making reasonable operation systems
and friendly Graphics User interfaces and then they made what I
would call the best web browsers. Due to the nature of Microsoft's
versatility it has been able to get through the nooses of many
Computer hardware, software and networking products and companies,
as such, creates very little competioin for similar younger
companies who create programs that can't withstand Microsoft's in
the Market.
Furthermore, taking note of the market situation, the public
buys more Microsoft products than others- remember, the choice of
purchase still remains in their will, that simple facts demonstrates
the relative efficacy of microsoft products.
In addition, logic has it that the longer you stay, the wiser
and better you become, Microsoft has been around for a long time, as
long as when the major public started becoming computer freindly as
such they have had chances to improve thier products and
services(e.g MSDOS 3.0 to Windows XP amongst others).
Finally, I feel that microsoft has been one of the best things
that have happened to the computer industry and they should be let
alone to produce better products and services along with other IT
industries in a healthy competitive manner.
Solomon
MTC-00026519
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
250 Kimbary Drive
Centerville, OH 45458
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I feel that the Microsoft antitrust case has gone on long enough
and that it is time to resolve this issue permanently. I understand
that this can happen in the near future.
This settlement will benefit the economy, the industry, and
consumers. Under this agreement, Microsoft must share more
information with other companies, such as: disclosing information
about certain internal interfaces in Windows and certain software
codes and books for review by a technical oversight committee
created by the government. Competing companies can opt to sue
Microsoft if they feel the company is not complying with this
agreement.
Allowing Microsoft to devote its resources to innovative
practices, rather than litigation, will benefit all of us. I am
eager to see the settlement, it its current, fair form, implemented
and enforced. I sincerely hope that the Department of Justice can
focus on that issue rather than allowing more valuable time to be
wasted on continued negotiation. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Russell Spruill & Family
MTC-00026520
From: Christopher Hoess
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings,
Having reviewed the Revised Proposed Final Judgement against
Microsoft Corporation at , I feel as a consumer and developer of
software products, and a producer of electronic documents, in the
areas affected by the anticompetitive practices of the Microsoft
Corporation, that the Revised Proposed Final Judgement does not
offer an adequate remedy for the effects of those practices.
Specificially, the original complaint against the Microsoft
Corporation was made with regard to their attempts to eliminate
competition in the web browser market. I feel that the current
judgement has not sufficiently redressed the damage done to the
World Wide Web, and furthermore, is not necessarily sufficient to
prevent the Microsoft Corporation from continuing to monompolize
that market. My reasons are as follows:
1) Many guidelines exist for the creation of electronic
documents to be distributed over the World Wide Web, such as W3C
Recommendations and
``Requests for Comment'' issued by the IETF . In practice, different web browsers tend
to implement these standards and recommendations in a
``quirky'' fashion, so that certain parts of these
standards will be better implemented than others. In a robust
browser market, content created for the World Wide Web will tend to
incorporate only the parts of the standards which are supported by
the majority of browsers. However, with the increasing dominance of
Internet Explorer in the browser market, the content appearing there
has shifted towards documents which are ``optimized'' for
viewing by Internet Explorer. Furthermore, the appareance of some of
these documents takes advantage of bugs in Internet Explorer, so
that a correct implementation of the standards and recommendations
will result in a degraded browsing experience. Because of the
``poisoning'' of web content created by this near-
monoculture, alternative browsers will find it difficult to gain
acceptance in the market even if Microsoft is barred from
retaliating against OEMs shipping them, because current web content
is essentially written to the undocumented behavior of Internet
Explorer rather than current standards. I believe that Microsoft
should be made to provide restitution for its takeover of the
browser market, one component of which might be directed at this
issue. To help redress the imbalance between Internet Explorer and
other browsers due to the state of web content, an additional
behavioral remedy should be to require Microsoft Middleware to
respect standard protocols. To wit: Middleware such as Internet
Explorer, which purports to implement ``standard
protocols'' (that is, those defined by recognized consortia or
standards bodies, such as the ISO, ECMA, the IETF, the W3C, and so
forth), should be forbidden to retain known and corrigible breaches
of those standards (known in Internet Explorer, for instance, as
``doctype switching'') in new releases of these products.
This would simultaneously diminish the unlawfully obtained ability
of Internet Explorer to render current content on the web in a
manner superior to current browsers, and increase the relevance of
the publically available standards for web content.
2) More importantly, there appears to me to be a loophole in the
current settlement which Microsoft could attempt to use to avoid
losing its dominance through Internet Explorer. The Revised Proposed
Final Judgement specifies that Microsoft is not required to divulge
information which might ``compromise the security of a
particular installation''. Currently, one important use of
Internet Explorer on Windows operating systems is to obtain
authenticated security patches from the Windows Update website
and install them.
Microsoft could potentially argue that the authentication of patches
and their automatic installation is protected information under that
clause of the Revised Proposed Final Judgement, and thus require the
installation of Internet Explorer to obtain such patches from the
Internet. Since the timely installation of patches is essential for
Internet-connected users, this would essentially require OEMs to
ship Internet Explorer with the operating system. However, such
security updates make use of a very small portion of the Internet
Explorer functionality; contrast with the small utility programs
``apt-get'', ``dselect'', and
``dpkg'', used by the Debian distribution of the Linux
operating system. Any Proposed Final Judgement should make
provisions to avoid Microsoft bundling unnecessary Middleware by
adding security-related functions to it, much as Internet Explorer
was bundled into the Windows operating system.
In conclusion, I feel that the Revised Proposed Final Judgement
would neither adequately make reparation for the damage inflicted by
Microsoft's illicit acts, nor would it prevent Microsoft from
continuing to maintain its current monopoly of the browser market in
the face of reasonable competition.
Christopher Hoess
MTC-00026521
From: kenboyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:07pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I am in favor of the proposed microsoft settlement. I think the
proposed settlement is fair for all sides, and most importantly
gives microsoft a chance to concentrate on software and not legal
issues that do not affect the end user.
ken boyer
MTC-00026522
From: Johnny L Haynes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please end this farce and let consumers be in charge again.
MTC-00026523
From: George W McCarthy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:24pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
PLEASE BRING THIS CASE TO A CLOSE AND LET US GET ON WITH THE
FUTURE IMPROVEMENT OF OUR ECONOMY. THANKS.
MTC-00026524
From: Helgi Heidar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:15pm
Subject: Microsoft vs.DOJ litigation
I wish to encourage early and prompt settlement of this
litigation, which in my opinion is only slowing progress in
technology as well as having adverse effect on the US economy. Let
us move forward. Helgi
Heidar MD, Chehalis WA
MTC-00026525
From: Lainie Howard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please don't let Microsoft get away with this feeble settlement.
Sure, lots of school children would benefit under their proposed
terms, but where is the penalty Microsoft should also pay to
directly benefit the many companies they've smashed with their
unfair practices??
Lainie Howard
Quicksilver Communications
[email protected]
V: (541) 738-8464
F: (541) 757-7445
http://www.quicksilvercomm.com/
MTC-00026526
From: George Bethel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As per the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 16, aka: the ``Tunny Act'', I would like to render
a thought in the matter of the United States v. Microsoft.
Being in this business most of my life, starting at age 11, I
can say that Judge Jackson's ``Findings of Fact'', dated 5
November 1999, was a highly accurate document, and I hope that his
conduct with the press does not taint the validity and accuracy of
the document. Microsoft has unabashedly bullied, badgered and
demolished an industry that was ready to exceed years ago.
Anecdotically, I offer the following as proof. In the time
following Judge Jackson's ``Conclusions of Law'' based on
the ``99 Findings of Fact, the entire industry has undergone a
revival. Sun Microsystems has released the Java2 specification and
Oracle has made two major releases of its database software.
Further, IBM, which has long since abandoned its desktop development
efforts, released a long awaited patch to OS/2, an advanced
Operating System that could have won out against Windows in fair
market situation. IBM has also started a sweeping change in adapting
Linux to run on their entire product line; a change that could not
have been thought of had IBM feared Microsoft retaliating for
setting a non-Windows standard.
Apple Computer Inc., who has seen it's market decimated by a
product that borrowed liberally from Apple's own research, has
released no less then 5 major revisions of its MacOS, a company that
before then, released revisions every 18 months. Apple Computer
[[Page 27824]]
Inc. then stopped its releases when Windows 95 was released. While
some of the releases were stopped up by its very public internal
problems, most of Apple's releases were allowed out because
``it was safe to do so''. Microsoft will continue to copy
the MacOS, but with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law over
its head, Microsoft could no longer stop companies from developing
for MacOS, fearing the ``Oppressive Thumb'', as Judge
Jackson called it.
The above listed were the lucky companies; others have not fared
so well. As I write this note (with apologies in advance for it's
length), Be Inc., had its last assets auctioned off. In retrospect,
Be never had a chance; it is not possible to create a new Operating
System in a computing world dominated by a company and product, as
opposed to being dominated by technology, as it was before Microsoft
came into the monopoly position it currently enjoys. Another
casualty was Silicon Graphics Inc., which just signed over the bulk
of its technology patents covering three dimensional rendering to
Microsoft. The cost to Microsoft was $62.5 million; the cost to SGI
was the very reason for its existence in the computer business.
Unless SGI has something up it's sleeve, this company will go away.
The postmortem of SGI will have Microsoft's marks all over it. The
list can go on, and include some unlikely ``allies'' of
Windows products such as Compaq, Acer and Hewlett Packard, but in
the interest of brevity, I will leave this be.
In Microsoft's defense, it is impossible to assign a direct
``cause and effect'' method to most of the company's
actions and the resulting damage to the computer industry. They were
more ``enablers'' that triggered a chain of events that
stopped the industry in its tracks for four years and counting. The
industry theoretically could have embraced ``thin client''
computing, pushed by Sun and Netscape Communications (see Finding of
Fact, page 10, page 34), and embraced by Apple and IBM; but it
didn't. Apple could have competed differently and slowed, or even
stopped, Microsoft in the marketplace; or even in the courtroom, had
they argued things differently.
But things that can be proved in a courtroom as ``Cause and
Effect'' should be enforced to the full extent of the law, in
the same manner that a known murderer and bootlegger can be
convicted of Income Tax Evasion.
Microsoft, in no uncertain terms, demolished an industry for its
own purposes. However, this brings up our, and your, largest
problem: the damage is done. Nothing the court imposes can bring
back the companies that died in the process of moving the industry
forward. Nothing the court does can uproot the millions of people
who have tied their future to Windows, and will resist anything
other than their familiar product. Nothing, including the complete
and utter destruction of the Microsoft Operating System and
supporting company, can repair the damage done to the industry. The
court can't even ensure that Microsoft won't find a new way to harm
the industry.
At most, all the court can do is unlock the shackles imposed on
it by Microsoft. And hope that is enough.
Respectfully,
George S. Bethel
CC:Bill Douthett,Alex Nguyen,Arthur Wu
MTC-00026527
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--Correction
Please forgive the inaccuracies of my previous email that was
sent last night. This is a corrected version of my position on the
settlement.
Let me begin by saying that I completely support the settlement
and want this entire case brough to completion. Below are some
thoughts that came to mind while reading the case against Microsoft.
First of all, the whole browser issue is a complete waste of
time for every party involved, and it makes me sick to my stomach to
think of how much money my government has wasted chasing this
irrelevant case. As a technology consultant who has vast experience
in many software platforms, the issue of the browser is ridiculous
because any programmer worth their weight in beans could easily
program their own browser to any operating system. Netscape had a
commanding lead in browser share, which was wasted away by their own
business policies.
I used to have a lot of respect for Netscape when I was
consulting and building applications on their on their platform, but
then I saw how their pricing and arrogance stifled innovation in the
functionality and integration capabilities of their version of the
browser. Microsoft made it much easier to incorporate more
functionality and extend the web experience for their users.
This was also true with Java. It was great when it first came
out, as the promise of the technology was the sweetest thing to hit
the industry in a long time. By keeping such a tight hold on java,
Sun has not only missed opportunity to advance the language, but
they have kept many companies from innovating the language to
provide a feature set that meets the needs of enterprise customers.
When Microsoft added to java, they were only meeting the needs of
their customers by filling the void in functionality that Sun
refused to provide. Other companies have done the same, IBM, BEA,
and others to the point that it takes a ``port'' of the
code from one operating system to the next. This is completely
opposite of what the early promise of java was ``write once,
run anywhere''. To meet the needs of my business customers, we
always have to find a vendor specific java such as IBM so that we
can get the features out of the language that make it usable. If the
language was submitted as a standard, these enhancement's would have
been made to the language. Instead, Sun has kept the royaltees on
all java licensing and has caused the rest of the industry to
innovate around their stubbornness. Needless to say, I can better
meet the needs of my customers by using another vendors
``flavor'' of java versus the straight Sun implementation.
The thing that bothers me the most about this case is that most
of the ``facts'' (using the term loosely since I
completely disagree with the previous findings of ``fact''
by the biased judge Jackson) brought to the government's legal team
have come from Microsoft competitors, the ones who have the most to
gain by hurting Microsoft. I have explained my thoughts on Sun, java
and Netscape, and they are just a sampling of why this case should
have never made it to the courts in the first place. To blanket this
whole case and say that Microsoft is not allowing the industry to
innovate is completely ridiculous. Microsoft should be punished for
specific actions that have violated the law, and only for those
specific actions. Given the amount of venture capital money that was
fed into the economy over the last 10 years, there was plenty of
opportunity for any company to come to market with new and
compelling products. In regards to the settlement, it appears that
both sides have made significant concessions to see this to an end.
Ever since the DOJ brought this case against Microsoft, the economy
has been in a tailspin. It appears that as long as this case is
active in the courts, the chains of ``waiting to see what
happens to Microsoft'' will remain, and the economy will remain
stale. This tailspin has rippled into other industries and if we are
ever to start recovering from this recession, this case needs to be
completely settled and resolved.
Please bring this case to an end and let our industry regulate
itself. If people are seeing unethical or extremely competitive
behavior, they can make their own decisions on who to support with
their IT dollars. If companies are explicitly breaking the law,
punish them for those specific acts and do not bring the rest of the
industry down (and in this case, the whole economy) with them.
Thank you,
Michael Beatty
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026528
From: Joon Hong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I'd like to borrow this moment to voice my comments on the
Microsoft antitrust settlement.
It is my belief and assessment that the settlement which is
currently being proposed is totally against of the American Public's
interest, as Microsoft is clearly found to be monopoly in the
findings of fact in the trial. Using a series of questionable
business/engineering practices to gain software market share has put
Microsoft at such unreachable place that the current proposed
settlement is not going to be effective at all to bring it down to
fair competing level.
It is ironic that this email is being written in hotmail which
was ``purchased'' by Microsoft..
thank you,
J. Hong
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
[[Page 27825]]
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing to voice my beliefs about the November 2001
proposed settlement reached between Microsoft and the government.
First, the Department of Justice never should have sued Microsoft.
It was completely wrong. Microsoft should not be forced to litigate
its business practices beyond what has already transpired. As a
Christian, I believe that the government was strictly motivated by
greed.
The settlement constitutes a great opportunity for this country,
putting disputes to rest, and allowing Microsoft to progress through
continued innovation. Microsoft has agreed to have a government
appointed watchdog monitor their business practices. If Microsoft
breaks any term of their settlement, they will be held responsible
for their actions. This is good enough for me to see Microsoft
agreeing to be monitored.
The government has moved away from these values as I see it,
becoming much bigger than itself, not by the people, or for the
people, but by those who run the people, who own the people. As a
person who lives by the good word, the people are speaking, I am one
voice crying out in the wilderness, ``Let Microsoft continue
onward, support this settlement without any further punishment or
actions against them.'' This is in the best interest of
Microsoft, the government, and the economy and for this nation.
Sincerely,
Bruce Cartwright
MTC-00026428--0002
MTC-00026529
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 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,
andy w. lindon
3238 moyer dr.
franklin, OH 45005-4837
MTC-00026530
From: J. Eric Humphreys
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen and Ladies,
I have read the revised proposed Final Settlement for the
antitrust case between the U. S. Government and Microsoft. I agree
that Microsoft is guilty of monopolistic practices but I doubt that
the Settlement will do anything to punish Microsoft for its past
practices or prevent Microsoft from employing similar practices in
the future.
I wish to draw your attention to the the criteria listed for
membership on the Technical Committee which is supposed to monitor
and enforce this agreement. I believe that, as worded, it will be
extremely difficult to obtain qualified people to serve on this
Committee. Specifically: The requirement that the members must
forego employment by either Microsoft or its competitors for two
years after such service (IV.B.2.c) is likely to discourage many
qualified people from membership on the Committee. People who are
experts in software design and development (IV.b.2) know that
employment in this field can change suddenly. A limit of six months
after service would be more reasonable.
There appears to be no definition of ``competitor''
anywhere in the document. This would make it easy for Microsoft to
object to any proposed member for the Committee that Microsoft
deemed detrimental to its business. Some clear definition of the
term, or at least a set of guidelines which can be used to determine
whether a given business is or is not a competitor, needs to be
established.
The requirement that the members of the Committee by proposed
within seven days of entry of the final Judgement (IV.B.3) requires
that the plaintiffs and Microsoft already be in discussions with
prospective members. It is unrealistic to expect qualified people to
receive and accept membership on such a Committee when the pay scale
has yet to be established (IV.B.6.b). When a case has dragged on
this long why quibble over a few days? One or two months might be a
more reasonable period for selection.
I hope that you find these comments useful. As background
information: I am a Senior Consultant for Sybase, Inc. I have been a
software developer for twenty years, mostly as a contractor to the
Department of Defense. Most of my work for the past four years has
been under the Windows NT operating system. At home I use Macintosh
computers, and have for over sixteen years.
I may be reached at:
6625 Windsor Ct.
Columbia, MD 21044
410-730-8533
E-mail:
[email protected] (will be
[email protected] after 28 February 2002)
[email protected]
Sincerely,
J. Eric Humphreys
MTC-00026531
From: Trance Kuja
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case
Dear US Department of Justice,
On the Microsoft Antitrust case, many issues concern us. As part
of the public, we have views which we wish to be expressed during
Microsoft's trial. The two main issues are Microsoft's bundling deal
and the settlement with the states.
Microsoft should be able to have the states receive the money
and forget the case. It is fair only if the money given is able to
compensate for any damages/losses due to Microsoft. As John D.
Rockefeller said during the Preliminary Report on Trusts and
Industrial Combinations there are many advantages to trusts and
other forms of ?industrial combinations.? He lists a few of the most
significant advantages as ?extension of limits of business, increase
of number of persons interested in the business, and power to give
the public improved products at less prices and still make profit
for stockholders.? Additionally, he also stated that ?combination is
necessary and its abuses can be minimized,? meaning that there are
minimal disadvantages which, in fact, are so trivial that they
should not be any concern.
The major cause of the trial is Microsoft's action of ?bundling?
software. Bundling software is a result of combining products
together and having them sold without separation. Thus, people would
not spend the money to buy an additional program when they already
have a substitute. This has caused the Netscape/Microsoft Trial.
This trial has been caused after a complete reversal in Internet
Browser Usage. Around 1995 when Netscape launched its first browser,
about 80% of the ?web surfers? used their software. Additionally,
Microsoft had virtually none. Now, there is a complete reversal in
which only about 10% of the Internet browsers used are not
Microsoft's Internet Explorer. Netscape is part of that 10%, and
bundling causes this whole dilemma. In addition, Microsoft's
bundling its web browser with its operating system is absolutely
fine. This is because if Netscape had an OS, it could also bundle,
but it chooses not to. Thus, the representatives of the public
should allow Microsoft to pay the states. In the case with Netscape,
the courts should not punish Microsoft since Netscape could do
everything Microsoft has done.
MTC-00026532
From: Catherine Hanneken
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:41pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
It is time to end this costly damaging litagation at Taxpayers
expense It only benefits a few wealthy competitors, LAWYERS always
there to spend our money for their business and special interests.
Lets get on with the situations that are more important within
our higher offices.
Catherine Hanneken
4 Spencer Lane
Watchung, NJ 07069
MTC-00026533
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:45pm
Subject: Sir;
Sir;
I FIND IT INCONCEIVABLE THAT A CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY'S GOVERNMENT
AGENCY WOULD INTERFERE WITH A
[[Page 27826]]
COMPANY THAT GENERATED A INDUSTRIAL BOOM, AND ALLOW THE PUBLIC
SCHOOL SYSTEM, A FAILURE, TO REMAIN A MONOPOLY WITH INCREASED
FUNDING WITH TAXPAYERS MONEY.
SINCERLY,
Eva s. ates
MTC-00026534
From: David M. Reed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
For the past two years I have compared Microsoft to someone who
appears in court for breaking the speed limit--doing 75 MPH in
a 65 MPH zone. One of their primary arguments is that things have
changed--that stretch of road now has signs posted for 75
MPH-- and therefore they can not be guilty of breaking the law.
In fact, they believe the limit may soon be 85 MPH in that area, so
their actions were well within the law!
In other words, they don't believe the law applies to them. And
if it did, things are changing ``so fast'' that it is
irrelevant--for the ``natural order of things'' is
such that they should not be found guilty of violating a 65 MPH law
since whatever they might have done wrong then doesn't apply today
or tomorrow. I have been involved with support of Microsoft products
for over 15 years now. When Microsoft Windows 3.1 was appearing, I
learned of Microsoft practices which I considered unethical. That
behaviour continued (and to a great extent, got much worse over the
years), but I did not know that much of it was actually illegal
until I read the Department of Justice document against Microsoft in
1999. In particular, I quickly and clearly understood that what
might be unethical for a new or small company could become illegal
when done by a company which has a monopoly.
Having a job which involves supporting various operating systems
and applications, I understood very clearly a number of facts which
Microsoft, in their arrogance, felt that a judge could never
understand and rule on. I was shocked by Microsoft childish attempts
to claim they did not have a monopoly with their Operating Systems!
I understood very clearly that a browser is an application
(something the user directly interacts with) that was NOT a part of
the OS, no matter what Microsoft did to ``integrate''
it--for if it were really a ``part of the OS'', then
you could NOT run it on other operating systems, such as the
MacIntosh or various Unix systems. Thus, to have included a major
application ``for free'' (or ``bundled'') with
the OS for which they have a monopoly is clearly using one monopoly
to achieve another--at the clear expense of competitive
products (and thus to the detriment of consumer choice, usability,
etc.).
I was thrilled the court found Microsoft clearly guilty of these
violations of law. But then, to my great dismay, they were to
negotiate a ``settlement''. When was a murder, a car
thief, or anyone else guilty of violating a serious crime against
the community, ever allowed to ``negotiate'' or given any
opportunity to propose how they should be punished!
I am angered by the extremely weak ``settlement'' the
DOJ has proposed. I find it only slightly might limit some part of
Microsoft's future actions. (But I doubt that, as Microsoft's
brilliant minds have already demonstrated they will come up with
some way to circumvent the law and rulings, such as their
``integrating'' the browser into the OS so that it could
not be considered a separate application, and thus could not be
``bundled''. In other words, they moved to make it appear
they could not be guilty of using one monopoly --the OS--
to obtain another monopoly --with browsers-- for they
could then claim the browser was not ``separate'', and
being ``part of the OS'', they could not have violated any
law!) And there is nothing I can find that actually might be
considered a --punishment-- of Microsoft for having broken
the law! They continue to flagrantly break the very same laws even
now! (After all, if there is seemingly no punishment, and they can
earn billions of dollars per month doing so, then they can certainly
afford millions of dollars per month to tell the U.S. government
that the laws do not apply to them.)
What they did to Netscape and the browser market was NOT the
first time they have utilized their monopoly position to extinguish
a competitor--they had done it many times before. Their recent
Windows XP release clearly shows they are continuing to do that.
With that, the cost of the OS continues to stay the same (or
increase), in comparison to the PC hardware market, where choice
abounds and every couple of years you can buy more than twice the
system for less.
Name virtually any computer hardware component, and you will
find a multitude of competitors, offering increased performance and
features, and continually declining prices. That is NOT happening in
the OS market.
The browser competition made it hopeful that the choice of OS
would become very unimportant. Microsoft has worked hard to make it
so that there are almost no other viable browser competitors. (And
since one comes free with the OS which is sufficiently capable, why
would anyone consider getting an alternative--whether it cost
money or was free.) Worse, Microsoft continues to do things to make
it so that users will only want to use their browser, by
implementing ``non-standard'' features, or by NOT
implementing standard features. Or even when they set the defaults
for web page creation using their FrontPage program which are set to
function best (or even only) on a PC (preferably with their Internet
Explorer).
Again, their tactics are more than simple ``free market
competition''. And there are laws against it (even if they or
others don't think those laws should apply). And they have been
found guilty of violating those laws. Now it is up to the court to
do two very crucial things:
1) Assure Microsoft is SEVERELY PUNISHED for having flagrantly
violated the law (including ``thumbing their noses at the
court'', plus their continuing violation, which they don't
believe is ``wrong'').
2) Structure a ``remedy'' that will help prevent (or
at least seriously discourage) Microsoft from doing more of the same
--and similar-- violations.
In the early 1990's, not knowing they were actually violating
laws, I strongly proposed to many people that a kind of
``Chinese wall'' be created in Microsoft so that the OS
groups are nearly fully isolated from the application groups. I have
been convinced for years that Microsoft should be literally broken
up into separate companies.
The only change in my belief is that now instead of two
companies, they should now be broken up into at least three: OS,
applications, and media/internet.
I firmly believe that is best for the consumers, and for the
court system. (Overseeing Microsoft is neither good for the company
nor the courts nor the consumers. So long as Microsoft remains one
company with so many parts, and such a background of behaviour, they
will continue trying to circumvent the law, ending back in court a
lot.) If Microsoft were a ``person'', the only way to
prevent them from their habitual criminal activity would be to
``lock them in prison'', where they would be less capable
of harming the consumer! (And as punishment for their crimes,
together with payment of fines and possibly confiscating the
property they used in, and for, committing their crimes.) It seems
rather harsh, and may even jeopardize some of my career (that has
been spent so extensively in supporting Microsoft products). But I
know that consumers have been hurt, I know that Microsoft has broken
the law, I know that Microsoft does not want to obey the law (they
truly believe it does not apply to them!), and that for justice to
be done, Microsoft must be punished, and prevented from further
crimes against consumers and the market. In advance I thank those
involved who will NOT consider these issues politically, nor simply
approach it as allowing Microsoft to ``buy their freedom to
violate the law''. Please see that justice is done. (And since
they show not even a semblance of guilt or repentance, mercy does
not need to be considered!)
David M. Reed [email protected]
Hm 360-653-8673 Wk 425-335-2460
MTC-00026536
From: Andrew McKenzie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Respectfully, I see a few problems with the Proposed Final
Judgement in the Microsoft Antitrust Case:
The Proposed Final Judgement doesn't take into account
Windows-compatible competing operating systems;
The Proposed Final Judgement Contains Misleading and Overly
Narrow Definitions and Provisions;
The Proposed Final Judgement Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive
License Terms currently used by Microsoft;
The Proposed Final Judgement Fails to Prohibit Intentional
Incompatibilities Historically Used by Microsoft;
The Proposed Final Judgement Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive
Practices Towards OEMs;
The Proposed Final Judgement as currently written appears to
lack an effective enforcement mechanism.
[[Page 27827]]
Thank you,
Andrew J. McKenzie
MTC-00026537
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:44pm
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,
Myrna M Barrett
P O Box 660
Linden, TX 75563-0660
MTC-00026538
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:49pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
To Whom It May Concern:
I strongly recommend that the litigation against Microsoft be
dropped it has been well served and the time to end this costly and
damaging litigation has come.
The Settlement will certainly be in the ``publics best
interests.'' Consumer interests has been well served and it is
time to STOP. So please settle it NOW.
Thank you.
Sincerely
Orvella Batchelder
MTC-00026539
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:46pm
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 most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ron Pillar
2001 Ruffs Mill Rd.
Belair, MD 21015
MTC-00026540
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
David Wallace
Box 22
Springdale, WA 99173-0022
MTC-00026541
From: lmath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough is enough, this is a just and more than fair settlement
for a company that gave us software and charged us nothing for it!
Let the whiner's shut up and take the profits they didn't deserve!
Please we as a country are at war. Enron and thousands of its
employee's are bankrupt. Why continue a suit against a company that
hurt no one instead of dealing with real issues like war and
bankruptcy?
Settle this suit!
Lynette Matheson
MTC-00026542
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:52pm
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,
James Hohn
PO Box 237
Jefferson City, MT 59638
MTC-00026542--0001
MTC-00026543
From: Christopher A. Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:55pm
Subject: Microsoft vs U.S.
The only way to stop Microsoft from abusing its monopoly power
is to take its monopoly away. The company needs to be split into
several entities with their own Operating Systems divisions so that
they would have to compete against each other for market share. The
operating system should not be allowed to bundle software such as
Internet Explorer or Windows Media Player. This should be left up to
the computer manufacturers to add value to their systems.
This would further benefit consumers in allowing more
competition and bringing down prices even lower than they are now.
In addition to splitting up the company, Microsoft needs to pay
damages to companies that were harmed by Microsoft's illegal
practices. Netscape, Corel and Apple Computer are just a few of that
were severely harmed.
Sincerely,
Christopher A. Smith
Docs4Macs
Doctor of MacIntology
Phone: (804) 839-5422
e-mail: [email protected]
MTC-00026544
From: J J Simas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have been following Microsoft's business methods for some
time. And as a graduate of both Computer Science and Philosophy, I
have excellent qualifications for opining on this settlement. I'll
leave the arguments and details up to someone who is more
knowledgeable of law but what needs to happen is the following.
First let me state what is true:
Software and hardware exist at certain levels.
The lowest level is hardware.
Above that are hardware drivers.
Above that is the operating system.
Above that are the applications.
Above the applications are more applications...
That is, each higher level, makes use the lower level.
Then what needs to happen:
What needs to happen is to require any company that makes
products at more than
[[Page 27828]]
one adjacent level to publicly document their application
programming interface. This isn't a drain on resources for them
because if they are developing at both levels, then they have
already produced the documentation. This ensures that competition
can exist even in the presence of a monopoly.
File formats must also be open not only to ensure competition
(which will ensure the best products survive which helps ensure that
we survive) but also so that our data isn't taken away from us. If
our data is in a file with a proprietary format, and if the software
publisher isn't the only person knowledgeable of that format, then
that person can demand whatever price so that we can access our data
and that publisher being the only person who knows the format can
disallow us from transferring our data to any other format.
Jason
J J Simas
BS in CSci and Philo (Sep 2001)
http://chart2d.sourceforge.net/jjsimas
MTC-00026545
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:03am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Recommend further litigation against Microsoft in the interests
of fair competition and true capitalistic economics :
1. Microsoft should be fined severely for attempting to develop
a monopoly in software, as proven in court and so adjudged.
2. Microsoft should have the Operating System development
separate from the applications development, by fair application of
anti-trust law. Two separate entities, in other words.
3. Microsoft's OS code should be made available to all software
developers to allow competitive applications development.
Glen L. Keener
14027 Spring Lake Road
Minnetonka, MN
MTC-00026546
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jim Mundy
307 Westwood Lane
Madison, IN 47250-2973
MTC-00026547
From: Michael Deming
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This settlement will do nothing more than give Microsoft inroads
to one of the few markets that it does not yet monopolize. If the
DOJ wants to help education with settlement thats fine and good, but
do it by making Microsoft pay into a fund that allows schools to
purchase the software and hardware of its choice. The education
market is one of the few markets that competitors have had some
success competing with Microsoft. If this settlement is not modified
the education market could see the same competition squashing
Microsoft that other markets have seen, and this time with the
Governments help.
In general, I do not think that this settlement is harsh enough.
Even if the settlement is revised as I mentioned above it is only a
small slap on the hand, and will not make Microsoft change its
competition squashing ways. Microsoft will only work harder to
better disguise it. It is unfortunate that some originally very good
software programs have been almost completely eliminated by
Microsoft. Programs like Netscape and WordPerfect were once good
competitors to Microsoft but due to Microsoft's ways they have
become minor players in their areas with the only major player being
Microsoft. This is very unfortunate, because if these programs,
among others, were the competitors they once were, we would see more
innovation and better products. This can also be said when it comes
to operating systems.
In closing, I know that in the computer industry, history has
proven that the best product usually doesn't gain market share. The
program that is the most ``compatible'' (or marketed as
such, which is usually the case) wins the market share points. I
know that this is unlikely to change in the near future if ever, but
it would be nice to see the better product have enough market share
to be able to stay competitive and stimulate innovation and better
products. For the most part, Microsoft has not allowed this to
happen if they have a competing product.
Thank you.
MTC-00026548
From: Thomas Cook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The stipulations against non-profit organizations that are
included in Section III (J) and (D) are appalling. Microsoft's main
competition is from open sourced, free software that is produced by
non-profits. These articles strengthen the monopoly that Microsoft
holds. Please don1t strengthen Microsoft.
Thomas Cook aka EEvil Tom
[email protected]
MTC-00026549
From: Beverly Lincoln
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This e-mail is sent in support of the proposed settlement
agreement wherein Microsoft will donate more than $l. billion in
cash, training and software to help make computer technology and
software more accessible to public schools serving nearly 7 million
of America's most disadvantaged children. I believe this is a fair
and reasonable solution that will benefit consumers, the high-tech
industry and the overall U.S. economy.
As a business manager, I have gone through many years of
utiliztion of computer hardware and software, as well as purchased
computer systems for personal use. I have used both browsers and
judge them on their own merits. I admire Microsoft for their
innovation to develop usable, practical, software systems. I believe
that in the current situation of the economy, and our need for the
best in high technologies, time and money spent should be in the
areas of innovation, development, and production by all companies,
rather than spending time and money for continuing court expenses
and politics. Microsoft's competitors should spend their time and
money on innovation in producing software products that stand on
their own merit.
Thank you for this opportunity to submit my comments on this
very important issue.
MTC-00026550
From: B. Forster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 8:14pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
I think the terms of the settlement are more than adequate and
the Microsoft competitors and the nine dissenting Attorney Generals
should back off. We need to get the economy moving again. The
Country is in dire need of stimulation, innovation and not
LITIGATION. Dragging this out is costly and counter productive.
A concerned fellow American
MTC-00026551
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge the acceptance of the Microsoft antitrust settlement that
is awaiting final adoption. From what I read in the press it meets
the intent of the court of appeals. In my opinion, dragging this out
any longer at the insistence of Microsoft's competitors and the
renegade states is good for lawyers, but not good for the high tech
industry, or the states, as a whole. I believe the faster this case
is settled the better.
I am not a Microsoft employee or investor so my opinion is not
based on financial gain.
Thank you for considering my opinion.
Sincerely,
Peter Jones
MTC-00026552
From: Rebecca E Frankel
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 27829]]
Date: 1/27/02 12:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It
has been converted to attachment.]
CC:
[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026552--0001
Rebecca Frankel
MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
Room 435, 200 Technology Square
Cambridge, MA
[email protected]
Response to the Proposed Settlement of the Microsoft Case:
I am writing because I am unhappy about the proposed settlement
of the Microsoft antitrust trial.
I do not wish to try to enumerate the flaws of the settlement. I
think other people have done a good job of that; for instance, I
approved of Daniel Kegel's petition and signed it. In addition, I
feel uncomfortable saying anything that might imply that I know
better than the judge how to decide issues of law or apply them to a
remedy. I am a software engineer; I don't know anything about law.
The only special understanding I have is of technology.
However, the problem of the ``understanding of
technology'' is an issue in this case. There has been much
griping in technology circles that this settlement shows how
thoroughly the legal system doesn't ``get'' technological
issues. But most of this griping is just that griping. You legal
people must wonder about us: if there really is something you don't
``get,'' why can't we explain to you what it is? For
instance, recently an engineer complained to Lawrence Lessig:
``Members of the judiciary are largely unqualified to
comment or judge upon issues of a technical nature, simply because
their careers do not incorporate a great deal of technical
knowledge, and also because they have not sought it ... My concern
is that...we won't have a lot of judges with a high awareness of the
intricacies involved for several years. However, the judges
presently sitting are essentially creating a body of law to govern
what they do not understand.''
In reply, Lessig shot back a challenge to us:
``There was a time when I thought that lawyers wouldn't do
too much damage... All that has changed now ... This is, in part,
because courts don't understand the technology. But I don't think
it's because courts don't know how to code. I think the problem is
that courts don't see the connection between certain kinds of
technology and legal values. And this is because we've not done a
good job in demonstrating the values built into the original
architecture of cyberspace: That the Internet embraced a set of
values of freedom...that those values produced a world of innovation
that otherwise would not have existed. If courts could be made to
see this, then we could connect this struggle to ideals they
understand. Sometimes when I read Slashdot debates, I wonder whether
you guys get this connection either... And this leads me to the
greatest pessimism: If you guys don't get the importance of neutral
and open platforms to innovation and creativity; if you get bogged
down in 20th century debates about libertarianism and property
rights; if you can't see how the .commons was critical to the .com
revolution, then what do [you] expect from judges?
You guys ... built an architecture of value. Until you can begin
to talk about those values, and translate them for others, courts
and policy makers generally will never get it. Lessig is basically
telling us we are being a bunch of inarticulate crybabies. He is
right. If we want to claim the right to complain that courts do not
understand us, we need to provide a ``translation of our
values'' in terms that a layman can understand.
My goal in this letter is to attempt to provide such a
translation, and then use it to make an analysis of the nature of
the public interest in the settlement of the Microsoft trial. I am
deeply involved with the society that created the values to which
Lessig refers. I have spent a large part of the last eight years at
the MIT Lab for Computer Science--a place whose extraordinary
qualities were better characterized by another student from my
floor:
[I]t is tough for most people to imagine a building where a
young nerd can walk out of his office on the 4th floor, argue with
the founder of the free software movement (Richard Stallman), annoy
the authors of the best computer science book ever written (Abelson
and Sussman), walk up one floor to run a few ideas past Dave Clark,
Chief Protocol Architect for the Internet from 1981-1989, and
walk down two floors to talk to Tim Berners-Lee, developer of the
World Wide Web.
I know all these people; many of them feel like family to me. I
know what they care about, what they hope for, what they dream
about, what they fight for, and what they fear. I never imagined
that, as an MIT engineer, so much of what I would struggle with
would not be the ``intricacies involved'' in the practice
of engineering, but instead the problems of defining and
communicating the value that technology can and can't provide to
society. The engineers here are in a constant battle to prevent
society from destroying the value they try to build for it: this
struggle takes up so much of their energy that it is hard to think
of what they do as just engineering anymore. I do not like this: I
want to simply be an engineer. I wish that you, the court, could
take from us the job of defining and communicating values, so we
could go back to being ordinary engineers. It is much more natural
for you to take on this role, than it is for us to have it. But in
order for you to do that, first we would have to explain these
values to you.
I am unhappy with the proposed settlement because it shows how
deeply the courts do not understand the value that engineers here
are trying to build. I could pick on the specifics of the settlement
terms ad infinitum, but I feel it would be a pointless exercise,
because only a basic failure of understanding of the nature of the
public interest could make such a flawed settlement seem acceptable
in the first place. But if I claim that there is a basic failure of
understanding, that raises a question: ``What exactly is it
that I think government officials don't understand?'' It is
rather shocking that we have failed to effectively answer this
question. We have told you many things: long stories of power
struggles in the browser market, mind-bendingly technical analysis
of the proper design of network protocols, plenty of satirical
accounts of Microsoft's shady shenanigans, and many other similar
things. But we never have given a simple answer to the simple
question ``What is the nature of the public interest in all
these matters?'' It is the goal of this letter to try to fill
this gap. I will make my argument in a context so ordinary that it
may well seem childish, but please bear with me: in my silly
example, I think I can capture the essential issues at stake and
then tie them back to our complex and confusing real situation.
So here is my simple picture--instead of talking vaguely
about the ``old economy'' and the ``new
economy,'' and about the mysterious difference between them, I
want instead to talk about two ordinary household tasks: mowing the
lawn and cleaning the basement. In my picture ``mowing the
lawn'' will represent the old economy, and ``cleaning the
basement'' will represent the new. (I warned you this would
sound silly; but please hang on--it is not as dumb as it
sounds). Why did I choose these particular examples? Because I think
the fundamental change that we are calling ``the appearance of
a new economy'' is a shift from an economy that strives to
increase productivity by automating manufacturing, to one that
strives to increase productivity by automating organizational tasks.
The new frontier is the reorganization of supply chains and business
processes to take advantage of ``information
technology''--the ability of machines to do the
organizational tasks that used to be handled by armies of clerks and
middle managers. But this shift is so huge, complex, and hard to
picture, that I want to pull it down to earth and discuss its
central principles in the context of the kind of organizational task
we all are familiar with: the problem of how to bring some order to
a messy basement. By way of contrast, I want to compare this task to
another one we all know and love: the problem of how to tame an
unruly lawn. (You might ask, how is mowing the lawn manufacturing?
Well, it is manufacturing shorter grass.)
Now that I have identified my representative
``industries'', I want to talk about how we can think
about the nature of the ``public interest'' in the context
of these tasks. As I continue this description, I hope you will see
the advantages of translating our discussion to such a down-to-earth
context. In this setting, it is easy to use one's ordinary intuition
to understand the public interest in a conflict. Maybe it is hard to
interpret the public's interest in the ``future of an online
architecture for e-business,'' but how hard is it to think
about what you want for the future state of your basement? I want
you to see what our conflict with Microsoft would look like if it
occurred in this ordinary context.
So, to start my story, let me describe a conflict which
illustrates a threat to the public interest in the context of the
``old economy.'' Suppose I need my lawn mowed, and the kid
who I usually hire to push my clunky old gas mower around the yard,
instead shows up to work with a shiny, spiffy
[[Page 27830]]
new lawnmower of his very own. He has broken his piggy bank to buy
it: he is very proud of himself and shows it off to everyone on the
block. His beautiful new lawnmower mows the lawn twice as fast as
the old one did. As a result, he can mow twice as many lawns in the
same time. Pretty soon he is raking in the cash. He is making so
much money, he can afford to lower his lawn-mowing rates, so he
begins to steal business from the other lawn-mowing kids on the
block. The other kids get upset. ``He's cheating!'' they
cry. They gang up on him, beat him up, and smash his new lawnmower.
The original kid, recovering in the hospital, appeals to the adults
on the block for justice. ``The other kids were jealous of my
success!'' he cries. ``They had no right to hurt me or my
lawnmower. You should protect me so that nothing like this ever can
happen again!''
Should the adults listen to him? Absolutely. Not only was what
happened to the kid unfair, it also damaged the public interest.
When a kid can mow lawns twice as fast for less money, everyone on
the block benefits. He put considerable investment and risk into
obtaining his lawnmower, and it provided a benefit for everyone.
Yes, he also made a lot of money from his new lawnmower, and maybe
he was a little obnoxious about showing it off, but his good fortune
was good fortune for everyone. Therefore, his investment deserved to
be protected from the destructive jealousy of the other kids. The
rich kid should be protected, and the jealous kids should be
punished.
Now, to continue, let me introduce another story of a situation
which causes harm to the public interest, this time in the context
of the ``new economy.'' Suppose I decide to hire a kid to
help me clean my basement. This kid works very hard, sorting all the
stuff in the basement, building appropriate-sized boxes for various
categories of stuff, and carefully labelling all the boxes so it is
easy to find things later. His hard work is useful to me: it helps
me find things more easily. But there is trouble in my little
paradise. One day, my little helper cannot come, so I hire another
kid to help out. But this kid is different. He is careless: he puts
things in the wrong boxes, and mislabels the boxes. Worse, he is
devious: he discovers that if he puts things in the wrong boxes
deliberately, and labels the boxes in a scrawl only he can
understand, then he can make extra money off me, because I will need
his help to be able to find things again. Worse still, he is
ambitious: he realizes that if he puts the potting soil in a place
where only he can find it, then pretty soon I will be forced to ask
him to take charge of organizing the gardening shed as well. Thus he
can double the amount of money he can make off me, and there is
nothing I can do about it.
So how do we think about the ``nature of the public
interest'' in this situation? Well, in order to answer that
question, it is important to ask first ``what is the result I
am trying to achieve?'' If I hire someone to clean my basement,
the result I want is a well-organized basement, a basement in which
it is easy to find things. The kid who worked hard to sort things
accurately and label the boxes clearly helped me achieve my goal.
The kid who deliberately mislabeled the boxes and misplaced the
potting soil did not help me achieve my goal. He hurt my interests,
not merely because he over-charged me, took over my basement, and
hatched devious designs on my gardening shed, but much more simply,
because he failed to deliver to me the basic effect I wanted and
needed. I needed a basement where I can find things easily: he
didn't give it to me. By contrast, the first kid, the one who built
me a good system of well-organized, well-labelled boxes, did give me
the effect I needed. The first kid's actions served the public
interest; the second kid's did not.
This observation is the whole secret to understanding the
``architecture of value'' of which Lessig spoke. What is
an ``architecture of value?'' It is nothing fancy: one can
think of it as an information architecture that would remind one of
a well-organized basement. This architecture is valuable because the
careful sorting and clear labels make it easier to find things.
There is nothing terribly subtle or difficult about this idea. The
only really deep concept here is the observation that it is useful
to ask the question: ``what is the fundamental goal we are
trying to achieve?'' We are entering into an
``organization economy,'' and in such an economy, we want
to achieve the goal of being well-organized. These central value of
such an economy is no more complicated than the admonition we have
all heard a thousand times from our mothers: ``it is nice to
put things away where they belong so it will be easier to find them
again later.''
But if it is all so simple, why does it seem so hard? It seems
hard because it IS hard, but it is not hard because anything about
the situation is complicated. It is hard for quite another reason,
which I want to illustrate using a third story. This, my final
story, is a classic tragedy.
Let us suppose that the first kid I hired to clean my basement
returns from his vacation and ventures downstairs to view the state
of his handiwork. When he sees what the second kid has done, words
cannot describe what he feels at the sight of the ruin of all his
hard work. He grabs the second kid by his shirt collar and drags him
to me to face judgment. ``He's cheating!'' he cries. (He
doesn't say much else: unfortunately this first kid--though a
good, honest worker-- is not exactly the articulate type.) The
second kid replies: ``He is just complaining because he is
jealous of my success! He has no right to handle me this way or
damage the valuable ``intellectual property'' I have
created. You should protect me so that nobody can ever treat me like
this again!'' Now when I hear these words, I remember my
earlier trauma when I witnessed the kid with the new lawnmower get
beaten up by a jealous gang. I remember how I pledged to the kid on
his hospital bed that nothing like that would ever be allowed to
happen again. This recollection plunges me into a state of fear and
confusion. The first kid comes to me and begs for the right to re-
label the boxes correctly: it is hard to deny such a heartfelt
request. On the other hand, I made a solemn pledge to the kid in the
hospital that I would never, ever allow anything like the disaster
that happened to him to happen to anyone else. I am riven in two: I
do not know what to do.
So I propose a compromise. I propose that certain of the boxes
in the basement are to be declared ``Middleware'', and I
will require of the kid who now owns the organization system of my
basement that he reveal the meaning of the labels on those boxes. To
protect his ``intellectual property,'' I only require that
he reveal these labels to another party when they agree to sign a
non-disclosure agreement. The second kid is happy enough to agree to
that, especially since he alone knows exactly where he has hidden
the potting soil, and he has carefully made sure that the box where
it is hidden is not declared ``Middleware.'' In this way,
his designs for the takeover of my gardening shed are unaffected.
Since summer is coming, the control of the gardening shed is the
only thing that really matters anyway, so he loses nothing by
signing on to my ``compromise''.
Now, what can we say about this compromise? Should I say that it
is a bad compromise because I was not careful enough to locate the
hidden potting soil before I settled on my definition of
``Middleware''? Should I say that it is unfair to require
people to sign a non-disclosure agreement whenever they want to get
a hammer from the basement? I could say all these things, and more,
but they seem to skim over the surface of the problem. Much more
fundamentally, this compromise represents a failure to think clearly
about what we are trying to accomplish. It is in our statement of
the nature of the values which we are ``compromising''
that we have failed. We have failed to understand the essential
values that we are pledged to protect.
To appreciate the tragedy of this failure, imagine how this
situation would appear to the first kid, the one who cares more than
anything about properly organizing the basement. He worked hard and
honestly to do the very best job he could, but to no avail: all his
hard work was ruined. It wasn't even accidentally ruined--it
was ruined on purpose. But when he tries to protest about this
betrayal of his values, not only is he not listened to, he is also
treated like a jealous, violent gang leader. Since he is not a
sophisticated kid, he cannot figure out why any of this is happening
to him. It simply feels to him like all the adults around him have
gone mad.
I might ask: what exactly were the essential values I failed to
understand when I devised my compromise? One might say that my
compromise shows how little I understand the values associated with
the ``new economy.'' It is true that I have failed to
understand how overwhelmingly important it is to have clearly
labeled boxes in my basement. But this concept of
``value'' in the new economy is so very simple and easy to
understand, that one might also maintain that I understood it
perfectly clearly. When I insisted that the ``Middleware''
boxes should be clearly labelled, I showed that I DO understand what
constitutes value in the new economy.
Nonetheless, my judgment was confused, but it was not a lack of
understanding of the new economy that caused this confusion.
[[Page 27831]]
Instead, my judgment was clouded by the pain and confusion that the
reminder of an old-economy conflict invoked in me. I ran into
difficulties because I was led to apply ``old economy thinking
to a new economy problem.'' In particular--this is the key
point--my real failure came not from a failure to understand
the values of the ``new economy,'' but from a failure to
understand the values of the old one. When I promised to the kid in
the hospital that nothing like what happened to him would ever be
allowed to happen again, I did not define very clearly in my head
what exactly it was I was pledging myself to protect. What exactly
did I promise? Did I promise that in every circumstance where a rich
and successful kid was challenged by a poorer, less successful kid,
I would always side with the rich kid?
NO, that is not what I promised. I made the promise to the kid
in the hospital because I saw that his good fortune was good fortune
for everyone, and therefore I pledged myself to protect it. But when
I later found myself in a situation when a rich and successful kid
demanded that I protect his good fortune, I forgot the rationale
behind my original promise. If I had remembered it, I might have
thought to ask myself ``in this new situation, is this rich
kid's good fortune good fortune for everyone?'' Hopefully it is
clear that this question receives a rather different answer in this
situation. So, does my old promise bind me anymore? Am I required to
devise a compromise between the interests of the two children in my
charge? No, such a compromise doesn't make sense. I could make
things much easier on myself if I just worried about protecting my
own interests. My interest is to be able to easily find things in my
own basement. The first kid fought for my interests, the second kid
did not. It is that simple: there is no need for the terrible pain
and confusion this case evokes, or the strange and convoluted
compromises that are the result.
So, to wrap up my story, I want to summarize the four conceptual
errors I made which drove me to devise Such a thoroughly flawed
compromise.
First, I made two mistakes in my understanding of the ``new
economy'':
1. I did not understand how much value the first kid provided
for me when he carefully sorted and labeled all my stuff.
2. I did not understand how badly the second kid hurt me when he
destroyed this careful labeling system. I did not understand how
dangerous it is that I have become dependent on his aid to find
anything in his system of artfully mislabeled boxes. Second, I made
two mistakes in my application of principles that came from the
``old economy'':
3. When the second kid claimed to me that I had an obligation to
protect his incentive to invest, I forgot that the statement of this
obligation is that we must protect the ``incentive to invest in
machinery to make a manufacturing job more productive.'' I need
to protect a kid's incentive to break his piggy bank and buy a
lawnmower, or I will have to put up with the fumes and noise from my
old gas mower forever. But this obligation does not apply to the
conflict between the kids who are cleaning my basement, because
there is no machinery that will aid the task of
``manufacturing'' a cleaner basement. So there is no need
to protect the incentive to invest in such machinery.
4. More generally, I made a mistake when I failed to notice how
the second kid manipulated and abused my commitment to the values of
the old economy with his carefully chosen words. Earlier I said that
this kid was careless, and worse, devious, and worse still,
ambitious. But worst of all, he is manipulative. He is perfectly
willing to take our most central, sacred values and twist them into
a empty caricature of themselves to serve his own interests. It is
our mistake and our shame that we cannot see what is being done to
us.
So now I have completed my story. I have explained the essential
failures of understanding that caused me to make a dreadful mistake.
I promised earlier that when I was done I would take the lessons I
have explained and tie them back to our complex and confusing real
situation. So I will describe again the four mistakes I have just
identified, this time as they appear in the real world. I contend
that this settlement reveals that public officials fail to
understand four important concepts that are crucial to understanding
the nature of the public interest in the conflict with Microsoft.
First, it reveals that there are two ways that public officials
basically misunderstand the ``new economy.''
1. They do not understand the tremendous value to society
provided by the creators of the open standards of the Internet, the
World Wide Web, the associated free software that supports the
Internet (Apache, Bind, Perl, etc) and the free operating systems
Linux and BSD. They do not understand the tremendous value to
society of open, well-specified APIs on every level of the
information architecture we are trying to build to support the
future productivity of our society.
2. They do not understand how badly society is hurt by
Microsoft's manipulation of its APIs and file formats. They do not
understand how much the constantly changing proprietary file formats
hurt ordinary people's ability to get work done, nor do they
understand the loss of potential productivity that occurs when a API
is obscured or destroyed. They do not understand how Microsoft's
control of the platform hurts the prospect for real competition and
progress in the computer industry.
Second, more seriously, it reveals two ways that public
officials are confused about how to apply the values of the
``old economy'' in this new situation.
3. They haven't noticed that, just as you don't need a lawnmower
to clean a basement, you don't need a lawnmower to write an
operating system. All the effort to preserve a delicate balance
between the need for open APIs, and the need to preserve the
incentive to invest, have missed the point that we are protecting
the incentive to invest in a purely imaginary lawnmower. There is no
machinery that will make the job of writing an operating system any
easier, so there is no need to protect the incentive to invest in
imaginary machinery.
4. Finally, they haven't noticed that Microsoft is lying to
them. Microsoft is lying in a horrible way: they are invoking the
values that honorable public officials have spent their whole lives
protecting, and they are manipulating them, using them, twisting
them around so they come to mean something entirely different. The
government does not detect this duplicity--that is their
greatest mistake. We engineers have a name for these kinds of lies:
we call them FUD, which stands for ``fear, uncertainty and
doubt.'' We watch Microsoft deliberately spread fear,
uncertainty and doubt in the government, the courts and the general
population, and we view with amazement and horror the enormous power
that these lies have over the world. We are lost: we do not know
what to do to combat lies which have such terrible power. We are
like children who live in a world where all the adults have gone
mad. Yours sincerely,
Rebecca Frankel
Has Your Opinion Been Counted?
Earlier this month, you took part in a letter-writing campaign
to express your opinion of the antitrust settlement between the
Department of Justice and Microsoft. We would like to thank you for
your efforts and make sure that when we assisted you in organizing
your thoughts on paper, you were completely satisfied that the draft
letter fully expressed your own views in the matter.
If you would like any changes, we would be happy to make them
now. The public comment period on this settlement ends on January
28. The provisions of the agreement are tough, reasonable, fair to
all parties involved, and go beyond the findings of the Court of
Appeals ruling; however, the settlement is not guaranteed until
after the review ends and the District Court determines whether the
terms are indeed in the public interest. If you would like your
opinion to count, now is the time to send in your letter!
Please send your comments directly to the Department of Justice
via email or fax no later than January 28. If you have already done
so, or will do so in the near future, please be sure to send a
signed copy to the FIN Mobilization Office, or simply reply to this
email with a short note indicating that you have sent your letter.
Please take action today, to ensure your voice is heard. Once
again, the Attorney General's contact information is:
Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or
1-202-616-9937
Email: [email protected]
FIN Mobilization Office contact information:
Fax: 1-800-641-2255
Email: [email protected]
Your support is greatly appreciated
FIN Mobilization Office
MTC-00026553
From: Neil Prestemon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:19am
Subject: Mircosoft Settlement
To whom it may concern;
I would like to voice my opinion on the proposed Microsoft
settlement to the antitrust lawsuit. I have to say that the proposed
settlement on the table today does
[[Page 27832]]
nothing to address the real issues in this case. The issues that
have made Microsoft the monopoly it is, and the danger to existing
competition, and any potential future competition.
There certainly is not a level playing field in many areas.
Though I do not believe that it's the government's job to provide a
level playing field, I do believe that the government should do
something when we're presented with a situation where the playing
field has been rotated 90 degrees, and has become an impenetrable
wall to the founding of new businesses and innovation.
The areas of danger are as follows:
Programming API's--Microsoft has a monopoly on programming
frameworks for it's Windows platform. Any company that wants to
write Windows software almost certainly has no real choice other
than to use Microsoft's Visual Studio product, and Microsoft
Foundation Classes framework. This is due to actions microsoft has
taken against former competitors like Borland, and other OS Vendors.
When a competitor is forced to use MFC to write third-party software
for Windows, and software in the same market is also written by
Microsoft, Microsoft then has a huge and unfair advantage, as
undocumented features or programming flaws or misleading
documentation within MFC itself can cause a third-party developer to
spend far more man-hours acheiving the same degree of quality in
their product as Microsoft can achieve, because Microsoft
programmers also have access to the Microsoft programmers who wrote
MFC, and the documentation. This is not merely a competitive
advantage. This kind of advantage could be illustrated by analogy if
General Motors sold the ONLY set of components by which any other
company could build a car. You'd know that necessarily, GM's cars
built with those components would be better than other company's
cars built by those components. It's through their Visual Studio
monopoly that Microsoft leverages an unfair advantage to keep third-
party companies writing software less efficiently than they do. I
believe that Microsoft's API business needs to be spun off into a
separate company.
OEM Licensing--Microsoft should be prohibited from having
secret agreements with OEMs. It has been proven in court that
Microsoft, as the vendor of the Windows platform, uses such
agreements to force OEMs into exclusive deals so that computer
manufacturers cannot sell their computers pre-loaded with any other
operating system.
File Formats--Microsoft should also be forced to fully
document formats of their products, and changes in these formats
should not be allowed. As it stands today, if a company does it's
work in Microsoft Office file-formats, they are literally
``held captive'' by Microsoft, because if they choose to
switch to a competing product, they will be forced into a costly
migration of the data from the Microsoft format to the third-party
format. It is not in Microsoft's interest to write translation
tools, at least not translation tools that preserve fully, the
features of their products in the translation--and though it
would be in the interest of a competing software company to provide
compatability or document translation, there is no way for them
presently to do this with any degree of reliability, because some
aspects of the file format are poorly documented, and Microsoft
often changes these formats in ways that make it impossible for
third-party companies to stay on top of them. Included in
``file formats''--should also be Microsoft's
protocols, their Kerberos security protocol, (so that consumers can
choose third-party LDAP solutions for their Windows networks,
instead of being forced to use Microsoft Active Directory), and SMB,
their network file-sharing protocol. There currently exists a free-
software solution which allows computers of other operating systems
to connect with Windows computers, and share files with them.
However, Microsoft has changed their SMB protocol several times
in an attempt to cause this other solution to no longer be
compatible, and to cause the developers to spend time and effort
trying to reverse-engineer SMB so they can fix the problems
Microsoft creates. Without this solution (called Samba) it would
otherwise be impossible for other operating systems to share files
with WIndows computers. The lack of a solution compels many IT
managers to simply avoid other operating systems and platforms, and
go with a pure Windows-only solution. The most frightening aspects
of a Microsoft monopoly lie not in the commercial sector, but in the
computing field itself. Never mind the economic damage Microsoft's
monopoly has created in crushing many competing software
companies--never mind the amount of over charging Microsoft
does because they CAN, because there is no other company that can
compete with them--never mind the huge labor and hardware costs
incurred by Microsoft's customer base due to effort required to work
around product defects and poor architectural decisions Microsoft
has made-- because they CAN, because competing products of
higher quality, and lower hardware overhead have all been crushed by
Microsoft's monopoly.
The greatest danger is that the US Government relies heavily on
Microsoft products, and as such is DEPENDENT on Microsoft to
continue providing solutions, and access to data, locked in a
proprietary format that cannot be easily or cheaply extracted. The
next greatest danger is that of monoculture. In a global computer
network, where all computers are Microsoft Windows, they ALL share
the same vulnerabilities to viruses and hacker exploits. A monopoly
and resulting monoculture in computing is a horrible danger to the
security and economic stability of our nation, and even the entire
world.
And that is why the government MUST act. Swiftly, and
forcefully, to protect it's citizens, and the entire world from this
threat. It is the first duty of government to protect. Now that the
Department of Justice, and then the US Courts have identified and
recognized the threat, it would be folly, and a huge waste of the
effort already invested to not act decisively against this threat,
before it is too late to stop. Before it encompases other markets,
like home electronics, media, and banking.
If you have any need for me to clarify any of my statements, or
if you require further comments, I would be happy to provide them.
Please feel free to contact me at this email address at any point.
Regards,
Neil Prestemon
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
[email protected]
MTC-00026554
From: Mary T Harvey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:24am
Subject: This costly and damaging litigation must come to an end.
Mary
This costly and damaging litigation must come to an end.
Mary
MTC-00026555
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:22am
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,
James Lucey
1217 E. LaPalma Ave.
Anaheim, CA 92805-1450
MTC-00026556
From: Kathleen L Carey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is my recommendation that you accept the proposed microsoft
settlement as a reasonable compromise. It's time to move forward and
on to other things.
Sincerely,
[email protected]
MTC-00026557
From: Karsten Wade
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. Please count my
vote as completely against this settlement.
Karsten Wade
[email protected]
http://phig.org/gpg/
MTC-00026558
From: Carol M. Watts
[[Page 27833]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Punishing Microsoft's monopoly practices by awarding them
a monopoly in the school system is just plain criminal. What a
sellout! We must have laws and practices which encourage innovation
and competition. Do not reward arrogance and unethical
behavior--not to mention, illegal actions. Support the public
interest.
Carol Watts
448 Knoll Dr.
Los Altos, CA 94024
MTC-00026559
From: Bruce Rogovin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please punish Microsoft for it's total disregard for US law and
a general lack of any morals. The proposed settlement would do
NOTHING to stop Microsoft from continuing in it's illegal ways and
gaining even more power and advantage.
Dr. Bruce Rogovin
8686 Winton Rd.
Cincinnati, Ohio 45231
MTC-00026560
From: Jeremy Walton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has clearly broken several laws in its attempt to
eliminate competing software corporations. They have carried out
actions to do so and have made it clear of their intent to create a
monopoly. Microsoft has a dominating role in the industry because
most programs must be run using a microsoft operating system such as
Windows 95, 98, etc. They realized the threat of a new competitor
through the Internet, being web browsers, Netscape navigator, being
the main one. They pursued plans to eliminate Netscape navigator and
others, as options for internet browsers. Microsoft has tied its
windows programs with internet applications, has required that
persons distribute its internet software along with other software
in exchange for access to their operating system, and has required
that they not distribute any non-Microsoft software. The Microsoft
corporation should be broken up because of their illegal actions and
to help boost the economy via competition.
MTC-00026561
From: Marie Murray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marie Murray
P.O. Box 97563
Raleigh, NC 27624-7563
January 26,2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
As a rule I hate to see money wasted; there is so much need for
funds both here in American and abroad that to squander it is a
travesty. One such is the case against Microsoft. Millions of
dollars have been wasted on both sides of this dispute. We must stop
this misappropriation of American tax dollars. The settlement that
was reached in early November is fair. It will halt any further
anti-trust violations, alleged or substantiated, with the
establishment of a three person technical committee, which will
oversee any further practices of Microsoft. Microsoft has also
agreed not to retaliate against any company that tries to create
software that competes against theirs.
I feel that the sooner this unfortunate litigation is put behind
us the better. I hope that we can continue as the leader of the
technological field throughout the world, despite the setbacks that
we have experienced since the commencement of this suit. Thank you
for your time and diligence with this issue.
Sincerely,
Marie Murray
MTC-00026562
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let this settlement go through. There never should have been any
investigation into Microsoft (MS) in the first place.
The lawyer that took the case to trial was only looking to make
a name for himself. I'm a democrat but this is the one (and only)
time I will agree with GOP.
Leave MS alone and never, never, bother them again!
Sincerely,
ME Durke
MTC-00026563
From: Justin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would have to say that the settlement proposed is rather weak.
It has already been proven that Microsoft Corperation is a monopoly.
This is a company that has repeatedly and blatently abused its
monoply power. It has obstructed viable competition, ruthlessly
destroying or relegating to obscurity any company or product that
attempts to compete within its established markets. The continued
exsistence of Microsoft Corp. in its current form is anti-
competition, anti-American. The computer industry as a whole will
fare better with competition and this can only be acheived with the
breakup of this monopoly as called for by U.S. law.
MTC-00026564
From: Pryor Garnett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I oppose the proposed final judgment between the Justice Dept.
and Microsoft. Of the many problems I see with the PFJ, I believe
the one of greatest concern is that under the PFJ Microsoft retains
and will continue to exercise the power to use its dominant control
over the operating system for the desktop to maintain existing
barriers to the entry by ISVs of application software, and raise new
barriers to ISVs of application software against which Microsoft
choses to compete. For that, and other reasons, I oppose the PFJ.
Pryor Garnett
Portland, Oregon
[email protected]
503-646-2188
Watch the remodel at http://pws.prserv.net/pryor_garnett
!
MTC-00026565
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Neldon Jensen
7151 Towncrest Dr.
Salt Lake City, UT 84121-3822
MTC-00026566
From: munafo@ews3@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse Scituate, MA
Antitrust Division Jan 26, 2002
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 believe that the Proposed Final Judgment fails to remedy the
illegal practices that were found by the Court of Appeals for a
number of reasons, including the following:
Section III.A.2 of the Proposed Final Judgment allows Microsoft
to retaliate against an OEM that ships computers containing a
Competing operating system that is not a Microsoft operating system.
For example, it allows Microsoft to retaliate against IBM and Apple
because both of those companies ship Personal Computers that contain
a compating operating system (Linux and MacOS respectively) and no
copy of Windows.
The definition of ``Microsoft Middleware'' (Proposed
Final Judgment section VI definition J, and Findings of Fact
paragraph 28) is too narrow. Microsoft could avoid the remedy by
changing product version numbers (``Internet Explorer
7.0.0'') or by distributing Middleware exclusively through
[[Page 27834]]
a different distribution method (like the Internet-based Windows
Update service)
The definition of ``Microsoft Middleware Product''
(Proposed Final Judgment section VI definition K) is too narrow.
Microsoft could avoid the remedy by replacing the products covered
by definition K with new products. For example, they are already
replacing Microsoft Java with Microsoft.NET and C#.
Therefore, I believe that the Proposed Final Judgment is not in
the public interest, and must not be adopted without substantial
revision.
Sincerely,
Robert Munafo, Scituate, Massachusetts, Software Engineer
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026567
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Edward Gerlach
17609 Alexson St.
Springhill, FL 34610-7307
MTC-00026568
From: Steve Paris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:58am
Subject: Microsoft Serrlement
Please log my displeasure with the Department of Justice(DOJ)
settlement with the Microsoft Corporation. This wasn't a settlement,
it was a full surrender by the victor. I can not believe that the
DOJ actually negotiated with this corporate thug. It should be
apparent by now with this second major offense that Microsoft isn't
interested in changing its ways. What is needed is a serious penalty
that will actually harm the company. The original punishment as
imposed by Judge Jackson did not go far enough. Given all of the
companies that Microsoft has destroyed and all of the associated
employees that lost their jobs, Microsoft as an entity should be
dissolved, its corporate officers fined and put into jail.
Stephen Paris
12211 SE 219th Place
Kent, WA 98031
(253) 630-1593
[email protected]
MTC-00026569
From: Adam Bezark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice:
Here for your consideration is a hypothetical Legal Scenario. An
organized crime kingpin is charged with racketeering. This criminal
runs the ``mobs'' all across America. Whenever someone
else has attempted to encroach on his territory, the mobster has
resorted to ruthless, brutal, illegal tactics to crush his
opponents.
During the trial, his well-paid lawyers repeatedly mock the
judicial process. They stall for time so the mobster can continue to
collect his racketeering fees. They present shamelessly doctored
evidence (easily detected by the prosecution). They point out a
``grassroots'' letter writing campaign which proves that
the public supports the mobster... but it soon turns out that the
letters were all written by the kingpin's henchmen and lawyers.
Meanwhile, the prosecution presents overwhelming evidence of the
mobster's guilt.
And so, despite the kingpin's most expensive efforts, the court
finds him guilty of racketeering. Based on his egregious behavior,
the court recommends an unusually stiff penalty. And yet, the
appellate court sets that penalty aside, based on relatively minor
elements of the trial judge's behavior.
Encouraged by his reprieve, the mobster unleashes a brand-new
racketeering scheme designed to ensnare even more victims. Next: In
a curious turn of events, the Department of Justice--which has
spent years prosecuting this confirmed criminal--quietly
announces that it is scaling back or abandoning its efforts to
prosecute the mobster. Appalled by these events, the news media and
the general public wonder publicly whether the appellate court's
soft stance is related to the fact that the mobster donated large
sums of campaign funding to the new Administration. Is it possible
to buy justice?
Finally, in a grand gesture, the mobster offers a settlement.
Instead of going to jail or paying a fine, he generously proposes to
construct and operate sparkling new gambling casinos in every state.
(At his own expense, of course.)
Now then. In this fictional scenario, what would happen next?
Wouldn't the public be outraged by the Department of Justice's
apparent conflict of interest? Would the court hesitate to impose
the maximum penalty on this unrepentant scofflaw? Without any
meaningful penalty, would the criminal be remotely likely to improve
his future behavior? So... please tell me. How is the Microsoft case
any different?
Respectfully submitted,
Adam J. Bezark
MTC-00026570
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sharon Bontrager
PO Box 761
Jacksonville, OR 97530-0761
MTC-00026571
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:04am
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,
CHUCK SAWYER
516 ORANGE DR., APT. 13
ALTAMONTE SPRINGS, FL 32701-5304
MTC-00026572
From: Edgar Patrick Venzon-Landas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:09am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT.
[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It
has been converted to attachment.]
MTC-00026572--0001
January 26, 2002
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
United States District Court for the
[[Page 27835]]
District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Re: Proposed Microsoft settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
In this age of technological innovation, Microsoft's hegemony in
the realm of software threatens the future of computers and
software. The danger of settling with Microsoft, thereby allowing
the company to operate in its current form, is that it will stifle
not only competition, innovation, and technology, but also, the
emergence of future platforms that run computers, and in the future,
computer-based information services. With its somewhat unchallenged
monopoly in the operating system market and its development of .NET
web services, Microsoft, in the absence of any forced structural
remedies, has the power and resources to further any grip it has on
the platforms that will run and drive our programs and information.
To illustrate how Microsoft's dominance in operating systems
threatens the future, I came up with a simple and comparable
example. For a moment, let us pretend that Microsoft manufactured
the door locks to our homes. Door locks are common, somewhat easy to
install, and are a necessity because of the fact it serves as the
average family's protection against burglars and intrusions. Now,
let us assume that one day, Microsoft door locks were installed in
your neighborhood. Because of its low price, everyone switched to
Microsoft door locks and those who did not had the choice to stay
with their current locks made by Doorlock X.
Now, after a few months, Microsoft sent a letter to your
neighborhood detailing an upcoming product launch stating that
Microsoft just created a new door lock that is smaller and easier to
install. As a result, almost all of your neighbors planned to
purchase and install the new door locks until they received another
notice.
Doorlock X, the other big door lock maker available at the
hardware store, rushed to the market with door lock x20, which is
just as light and even stronger than Microsoft's door lock.
Therefore, in order to compete with the Doorlock X, Microsoft priced
its door lock products way below market price and started to package
a new bolt lock with its door lock. Doorlock X, to the best of its
ability, tried to compete with Microsoft in terms of price, but it
failed. While the company and its door locks have not disappeared
completely, Doorlock X's newest lock was installed in just one house
in your neighborhood. After a year, to further stifle competition,
Microsoft created another door lock, which not only required the
homeowner to install a new door lock on a brand new door, but also,
required the homeowner to install the bolt lock bundled with the
door lock. For most of your neighbors, they did not mind the upgrade
until they found out that after they installed the new door locks,
they could not be removed easily. Not only were they not difficult
to remove, Doorlock X could not be installed in your door in the
future. Three months later, Microsoft sent yet another notice asking
people to upgrade their sets of locks and if they were interested in
purchasing home security services. Most of the neighbors, seeing the
convenience in not needing to search for another company to provide
these services, signed up with Microsoft to provide their doors,
door locks, and home security. Three months later, after yet another
upgrade and solicitation of new services by Microsoft came along,
some of the neighbors refused to upgrade to Microsoft and saw value
in Doorlock X's stronger door locks. However, the neighbors were
shocked to find that no matter whom they hired, no one could
uninstall the locks on their door.
When they called Microsoft, the customer support people at
Microsoft told them that it was possible to rip the lock off the
door, and then and only then can one install a non-Microsoft lock.
After being able to install their new door locks, Microsoft security
Services approached your neighbors one day and told them that they
could not use their home security services with their new locks. As
a result, the Microsoft people disassembled their home security
services, sloppily and hurriedly.
After eventually finding new locks and a new home security
service provider, your neighbors arrive from work the next day to
find out that the entire neighborhood (including yours) behind a
electrified gate and manned by Microsoft security guards. Of course,
when the non-Microsoft people were denied entry through the new
gate, Microsoft told them that they since they do not use their
locks nor their security system, they cannot use this gate into
their homes. Instead, they must first travel to the other side of
the neighborhood and then drive behind the fence until they reach
their homes from the backyard. Coupled with this inconvenience, the
other neighbors who refused to use Microsoft security services were
angry with this and complained again. The people at Microsoft
defended their practices by telling them,'' We have not done
anything illegal. We are making this neighborhood safer and you are
still able to enter your homes.''
A couple of months later, one of your neighbors, John Doe, gave
a speech at a neighborhood meeting. In his speech, John Doe told
everyone that nowadays, Microsoft Security Services protected most,
if not all, of all the buildings and homes in their town. Because of
this, all non-Microsoft customers must now carry different guest
passes-one for Microsoft secured buildings/businesses, one for
Microsoft secured homes, and of course, one for using Microsoft
electronic security services. When it could not get any worse, at
the end of the month, your whole neighborhood received yet another
notice on your bill from Microsoft Home Security Services.
It seems that Microsoft's new electronic motion detection and
crime prevention services requires homeowners to not only upgrade
your whole home security system, but also, requires every member of
your family to identify him or herself with the Microsoft electronic
patch (to distinguish between friend and foe), and non-Microsoft
secured homeowners or guests who need to enter the secured
neighborhood must either register with Microsoft (but not
necessarily buy their systems), or risk tripping off the alarms in
the neighborhood. Moreover, the system will auto-upgrade itself
automatically and start billing each home electronically every
month. Failure to pay and/or continue Microsoft security services
might result in a two or three-day power outage since Microsoft and
your electricity company have struck a deal in wiring your home for
Microsoft Home Security. In the end, you and your neighbors have no
other choice but to subscribe to Microsoft and every future security
upgrade.
Of course, in my allegorical example, the whole progression from
the Microsoft door locks to Microsoft Home Security Services
reflects the way Microsoft does business. Mainly, Microsoft sells
its products and bundles similar, competing products to stifle
competition, keeps the competition away by making it difficult for
Microsoft customers from switching, requires constant, expensive,
and restrictive upgrades that lock the consumer into the Microsoft
``way'', and finally, it, as seen in the .NET and its
recent foray into different services, tries to blackmail the
consumer by making it almost impossible to escape their services and
products. In short, Microsoft utilizes monopolistic tactics to
expand its hold on the various platforms by simply making it
difficult and expensive for others to use other alternatives in the
market. Because of these reasons, as seen in my example, it is
important that you, in your capacity as a judge overseeing this
monopoly trial, formally reject the proposed settlement between the
Justice Department and Microsoft and impose harsh punishments
(preferably structural) to prevent this situation I narrated from
being realized in the computer/software/service industries.
Thank you.
Sincerely Yours,
Edgar Patrick Landas.
EMAIL: [email protected]
MTC-00026573
From: Pat Mahoney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To begin my comments on the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) to the
Microsoft case, I assert that I am a US Citizen and resident of the
state of Illinois.
I have read through several parts of the PFJ. Clearly it imposes
restrictions on Microsoft. However upon reflection, and after
reading several online critiques of the PFJ, I have come to the
conclusion that these restrictions are insufficient.
One item in particular stood out from the others. The PFJ
requires Microsoft to disclose certain ``APIs'' under
reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing terms to competing
software companies wishing to interoperate with Microsoft products.
The problem with this is that ``reasonable and non-
discriminatory'' terms seem to inherently discriminate against
one specific Microsoft competitor know as Free software or open
source software.
It can be argued that Free or open source software is the chief
competitor to the Microsoft monopoly. The Linux operating system,
widely seen as a Microsoft competitor, falls under the category of
Free
[[Page 27836]]
software. Free and open source software are unique in that unlike
the products of Microsoft they may be obtained at little to no cost
and redistributed indefinitely. Free software products defy the
concept of ``ownership'' as everyone has the right to
copy, change, or redistribute the software (unlike Microsoft
software).
With this in mind, it should become clear that ``reasonable
and non-discriminatory'' license terms discriminate against
Free and open source software. Any sort of royalty fee Microsoft may
wish to impose when it licenses its APIs to competitors would render
Free and open source competition impossible. Because it can be
redistributed freely, and because it is difficult to define an
``owner'', any piece of Free software wishing to use a
Microsoft API to compete with an existing Microsoft product cannot
possibly hope to satisfy the terms of the license under which
Microsoft divulged its API.
For example, consider a Free software product which uses a
Microsoft API and must pay a royalty of one cent ($0.01) per copy of
the software. Since the software is Free, a user obtaining a copy is
free to make copies of his own with no limit. Obviously the product
cannot pay the royalty to Microsoft because anyone is possession of
a copy is free to make more copies and give these to others who can
then make more copies ad nauseum.
So it seems that the PFJ gives Microsoft a ``license to
discriminate'' against what many consider to be its chief
competition. In my opinion this does not server the public and must
be remedied.
Pat Mahoney
MTC-00026574
From: Kurt Buecheler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
2304 41st Avenue E
Seattle, WA 98112-2732
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing this letter to express my opinion on the settlement
reached between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. For three
years I have followed the case against Microsoft with avid interest.
I have become increasingly annoyed with the length of the litigation
process. The terms of the federal settlement are extremely fair and
I believe that it should be enacted without hesitation. Any
continued mediation in this case would be poor judgment by the
Justice Department.
Further, the terms of the settlement include many concessions on
behalf of Microsoft. The terms of the agreement call for the
disclosure of protocols and internal interface designs of the
Windows system. This will result in the ability for competing
developers to produce software that may be more compatible with the
Windows system. In addition to this Microsoft has allowed for the
formation of a technical review board that is composed of outside
members. This panel will ensure Microsoft's compliance with the
terms of the settlement.
It becomes increasingly clear that the enactment of this
settlement is important. Resolution in this case will benefit the
technology industries and the economy. Please enact the settlement.
Sincerely,
Kurt Buecheler
MTC-00026575
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your Honor,
I urge you to reject the proposed final judgment in the U.S. vs.
Microsoft antitrust case before your court.
Every court has ruled that Microsoft violated antitrust laws,
reaping billions of dollars of profit in the process. The proposed
settlement allows the company to keep almost all of these illegal
profits. Furthermore, there is no provision to guarantee us that
this monopolist won't wield its market power to crush competition in
the future. Microsoft is left to police itself, and its power is in
no way diminished.
The proposed settlement has Microsoft ``giving''
software and hardware to schools. Sounds good politically, but in
practice this only increases the monopoly presence of Microsoft.
Perhaps the only market they don't completely dominate (education
market) will now be owned by this convicted monopolist.
Please reject the proposed final judgment for all these serious
flaws.
Sincerely,
Cyrus Salehi
CC:[email protected]@inet
gw
MTC-00026576
From: Jeanette R Laris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to end this costly and damaging litigation. Please
settle this ASAP.
Jeanette R. Laris
Concerned senior
MTC-00026577
From: Joseph A. Sonnier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:13am
Subject: microsoft settlement
MTC-00026579
From: Lori Buecheler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
2304 41st Avenue East
Seattle, WA 98112
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Today I write to voice my support of the Microsoft settlement.
It is true that the Microsoft Corporation has been at the forefront
of the technology industries in recent years. Their leadership,
however, is the result of a dedication to excellence that is not
matched within the industry. The result is the continual production
of quality products that out perform any substitutes. This is in by
no means a crime. I therefore take issue with the federal pursuit of
a case based upon outdated statutes.
Regardless of this opinion, I believe that the settlement
agreement is in the best interests of the public. Too much time has
already been spent in the litigation process and the entire
technology industry has suffered for it. Further, anyone wary of
Microsoft's compliance with the terms of the agreement should be
eased as the agreement calls for the formation of a watchdog group.
I adamantly believe that enacting the settlement will encourage
confidence and growth within the tech industry. The Justice
Department should suppress any opposition to the enactment of this
settlement.
Sincerely,
Lori Buecheler
MTC-00026580
From: The Chin Family
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To U.S. Department of Justice:
I have been following the Microsoft antitrust case through
articles in the San Jose Mercury News. The most recent article from
today's paper confirms a disturbing pattern that has plagued the
business world...that many have lost their conscience in order to
reap larger profits...that competition is no longer the catalyst for
developing new products in certain markets...that monopolies
continue to exist and operate with impunity.
Former U.S. Senator John Tunney criticized Microsoft's
disclosure of its contacts with our government throughout the
antitrust case as ``inadequate''. Microsoft interpreted
his legislation, The Tunney Act, with tunnel vision; and ultimately,
to their benefit, as the case was settled with the U.S. government
and 9 of 18 states. Why have large corporations with their
Congressional lobbying groups become so influential in determining
the fate of the general public?
This is a company that produces a ubiquitous operating system
and now a ubiquitous internet browser; only because it has bullied
and squeezed out much of the competition over the years. I am an
Apple computer enthusiast, but I have to work in a Windows NT world.
Yes, I use some of Microsoft's products on both platforms. Yes, they
do make some good software. But is it good because they've lured or
snatched up many of the talented people that worked for their
competition at one time? Is it good because most consumers do not
know or care what else is available because Microsoft applications
were pre-loaded with their computer?
Yes, I do not agree with the appeals panel overturning Judge
Thomas Penfield Jackson's verdict to split the company in two, which
resulted in the Microsoft-U.S. settlement. It's been reported that
the settlement is ?riddled with loopholes and ineffective in curbing
Microsoft's monopoly practices.? Please do not make an already
powerful company more powerful. I will be watching what develops
with the European regulators, with the 9
[[Page 27837]]
remaining holdout states, as well as with the Netscape browser case.
Thank you for providing a feedback mechanism to the public on
this important case.
Regards,
Bobby Chin
Sunnyvale, CA
MTC-00026581
From: Delbert Franz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement with Microsoft has various weaknesses
that if not corrected in some way will render the settlement
ineffective in providing a remedy to the past business practices and
in the opinion of many, the current business practices of Microsoft.
Previous settlements with Microsoft have proved ineffective and it
would be unfortunate if this one suffers the same fate.
My comments are restricted to the effect that the proposed
settlement appears to have on the rapidly growing segment of
computer software known as Open Source. One of the more credible
alternatives to a Microsoft operating system is GNU Linux or just
Linux for short. This software has been developed by a network of
individuals donating their time and expertise over a period of
years. Section III of the proposed settlement does not provide any
protection for non-profit groups. The lack of such protection then
allows Microsoft to move ahead without fear of restraint to
undermine if not destroy its most credible source of competition.
Linux excels in its ability to interoperate with other operating
systems. This has been accomplished by the dint of hard labor
deciphering various data and communication formats, with no help
from Microsoft. If the settlement goes through as is, it is highly
likely that Microsoft will move to change some aspects of the data
formats needed for Linux's interoperation with Microsoft software
with a concomitant move to enjoin any further interoperation on the
grounds that the settlement does not offer protection to non-profit
entities.
Clearly the protection offered to for-profit groups by this
settlement should be extended to non-profit groups. If it is not,
Microsoft will be enabled to severely hamper or even quash the Open
Source movement in its effort to create an alternative to Microsoft
software. Any business that wishes to use Open Source software must
be able to interoperate with Microsoft software in order to survive,
solely because of the effective monopoly position that Microsoft
currently holds, and clearly wishes to maintain. Destroying or
hampering interoperation with Linux and its related software would
be the most effective way for Microsoft to disable this competition.
Delbert D. Franz
Linsley, Kraeger Associates, Ltd.
MTC-00026582
From: Paul Searing
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to briefly state my beliefs related to the
Microsoft Settlement.
I believe that this settlement is drastically unsatisfactory.
From my readings of the materials I see no reason to believe
that this settlement will prevent Microsoft from continuing to
participate in illegal, anti competitive practices--the same,
similar, and dissimilar to those cited in the original complaint.
Some of the proposed remedies, in my understanding, will
actually improve Microsoft's footing in what have been its
traditionally weak areas.
I only today learned of the opportunity to voice my opinions on
this matter and thus do not have any long or rigorous analyses of
problems and/or solutions. However, I do feel strongly about this
matter and sincerely hope that just and effective measures can, and
will, be taken against Microsoft.
Thank you,
Paul Searing
MTC-00026583
From: Amit Shah
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think Microsoft should be broken in to three different
companies.
1) Operating Software only.
2) Internet browser and Internet services.
3) Application software's only.
The reason why it should be broken in to three different
companies is that it uses its operating software platform to destroy
the competitors. For example, Windows, at first, distributed its
Internet Explorer browser for free. Then they bundled it with
Windows ``95 and onwards killing Netscape's business.
Lotus was the first in the market to come with the new concept
of Spread Sheet and Wordperfect; but they were systematically killed
using the same operating software platform.
Now Microsoft's next target is to destroy Utility softwares like
Photo Suites and CD burning software's by incorporating its version
of these softwares into Windows XP. On top of this, Windows XP will
constantly give conflict messages stating that either Windows or the
competitors product will not work properly. These messages are not
only irritating but can be threatening for those who are not
computer experts; eventually forcing them to convert to Microsoft
products.
Bill Gates claims that he and his company have come out with
many new and better products. Of these new products, how many are
truly his (his company's) ideas? Ever since he has entered the
computer industry, he has always ``borrowed'' ideas from
others.
1) He sold off the shelf QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System)
He never developed it.
2) He stole the idea of using GUI and Windows icons from Apple
computers. He never developed it.
3) Re-wrote Spread-Sheet as Excel and Wordperfect as Word,
stealing ideas from Lotus. Never developed it.
4) Re-wrote Netscape's Internet Browser as Internet Explorer.
Never developed it.
5) Photo Suite, Internet security, CD burning software, disk
cleaning etc. were separate softwares, which are now incorporated
into Windows XP; none of which were his creations.
Bill Gates has not created any of these but as stolen them. This
was ought right theft, done in a legal manner.
Even after practically monopolizing utility softwares,
productivity softwares and operating softwares, Bill Gates is out to
control the Internet Service area as well. By providing internet
services like MSN and Hot mail, he will be able to do this.
Microsoft should be split into three different areas instead of
only two or nothing at all because all three areas are keys in
monopolizing the business; therefore, the must be kept separate to
avoid for a monopoly like Microsoft. Not only has Bill Gates taken
over PC relating businesses but he has already started capturing
Video-Games as well (Xbox). Microsoft must be split before its
monopoly gets out of hand.
MTC-00026584
From: Lil'nMark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It's time for a settlement
Mark & Lilly White
MTC-00026585
From: Ruth A Distin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:35am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I strongly urge you to finalize the settlement with Microsoft!!
Please don't let this thing drag out any longer just because of a
few sore people. It seems to be a fair settlement.
Sincerely,
Ruth A. Distin
MTC-00026586
From: Steve Cain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
My opinion, for what it is worth, is that our economy began to
suffer when you, the DoJ, commenced you attacks on a legitimate and
viable company, a company employing thousands and providing a
product used by many.
Your suit seems to be based on the premise that we, the
consumer, are being ripped off; a puzzling position in that I
received my copy of the Windows operating system free and can access
the internet with software I received free. I might add that I
continue to receive free AOL disks and have never paid for the
browser I use, Netscape. I have heard no complaints about those
companies giving away free software.
My feeling now is that those who would continue to pursue the
suits against Microsoft are looking either for glory or market
advantage when they can get neither any other way.
Sincerely,
Steve Cain
Gig Harbor, Washington
MTC-00026587
From: Richard Winkler
[[Page 27838]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:37am
Subject: RE: microsoft settlement
The excellent e-mail below was sent to you by my sister, and I
am writing to you to second everything she says and to ask you to
stop being so dishonest and to Laissez-Nous Faire (Let us alone).
Richard Winkler
[email protected]
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division, US Dept of Justice Re: Microsoft settlement
I am writing regarding the persecution of Microsoft to let you
know how I think and feel about this dastardly affair. I resent the
government's implication that I am a helpless victim because I
choose to buy a computer with Microsoft software already loaded. I
resent the arrogance on the government's part thinking that it can
decide what is to be on my computer. This is ridiculous. That is not
the government's job. Your job is to protect the citizenry from
events such as September 11. Why aren't you persecuting that whole
affair more vigorously? Why aren't you going after Iran, Iraq? This
is how you choose to spend taxpayer money by persecuting an American
company?
I cannot remember having instigated a complaint against
Microsoft, nor do I recall any other individual doing so. This whole
affair has been instigated by competitors who are unable to compete
in the free market! Failed business should not be the ones to set
the rules for the very markets in which they failed.
The government's application of the corrupt and dangerous
antitrust laws against successful businessmen is anti-American and
can only result in greater corruption in our society as businessmen
find it ever more necessary to kowtow to politicians.
Microsoft and its owners have a right to the fruits of their
labor-- their property--and it is the government's job to
protect this right not take it away. The government's actions are on
principle anti-American and unconstitutional.
America is a land open to all who want to dream and work hard to
see their dreams come true. If the government throttles success
based on the envy and dishonesty of the few then there is no hope
left in the world.
The antitrust laws are fraudulent and should be repealed. And by
the way I love Microsoft products and not having to load software
and not having to pay for a browser!
Sincerely,
Margaret and Evencio Sanchez
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026588
From: Abe Gindi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To US Department of Justice:
There is only one way to prevent Microsoft from using Windows
Operating System to its own advantage over its competitors. When
Microsoft incorporates its own application software into Windows, it
does it by means of an unconventional interface that it calls
``seamless'' while forbidding others from doing the same
thing through the licensing agreement which all users must sign. The
solution is to force Microsoft to use the same Windows interface
that all others must use and to redefine the interface such that it
can be more efficient and generally usable by all potential users.
Microsoft intentionally made the interface clumsy and inefficient to
the disadvantage of its competitors.
History shows us that this is the best way to solve the problem.
IBM had two major interfaces that it was forced to standardize by
the anti-trust consent decrees. These are the Disk drive or
peripheral component interface, and the channel interface. When disk
drive manufacturers succeeded in making plug compatible drives in
competition with IBM, IBM made a change to the interface that would
have forced manufacturers to make an expensive change to their
inventories in order to be plug compatible. IBM was forced through
anti-trust action to reverse the change and to make the interface
standard. A similar case was made with the channel interface that
connects the drive control unit to the CPU channel.
Although IBM complained that standardizing the interface would
not allow for improvements and future innovations, the standard
channel interface allowed plug compatible competitors to build their
own control units to connect to IBM computers. The conditions were
that any improvements that IBM made in the future had to be such
that the interface continued to be backward compatible. That is old
hardware was able to connect to the new improved interface without
any changes.
I recently had a similar problem with Windows software. A few
years ago, I had some very important software that worked with
Windows 3.1. An important improvement was made in a new release of
this software but the new release was only compatible with Windows
98. I had to upgrade to Windows 98 in order to use the new release
of the software. If the rule of backward compatibility were in
force, I could have stayed with my Windows 3.1.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) committee has
been active and successful in standardizing interfaces in the
computer field. The committee is made up of representatives of
industry that are interested in each interface. The committee can
modify and define the Windows interface to the satisfaction of all
major users and make it more efficient and general so that future
applications will not be handicapped by an obsolete interface.
Each corporate member of the committee gets one vote in decision
making although they may have more than one representative. If
Microsoft is forced to use the standard interface defined by the
ANSI committee for all its application soft ware, it will not have
any advantage over its competitors.
I propose this solution to the Microsoft anti-trust remedy. With
all application software having to use a standard interface to
Windows, all comers can have an equal chance of selling their
software without being bullied by the owner of the Windows Operating
System.
Abe M. Gindi
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026589
From: F. Nourbakhsh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To:
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Microsoft has tried many legal maneuvers, political influences,
lies and money power to cause delays in this case and make people
believe they have done nothing wrong. But the truth is out and
everyone I talk to knows that Microsoft will even have a tighter
grip on our daily lives if we don't do something drastic about it.
We can not sit still and let the gorilla go about it's business
practices as in the past. A hefty fine in itself is not an adequate
remedy either. Microsoft has to be forced to change the way it does
business and has to be monitored to ensure we have fair competition
in the marketplace.
I hope that our legal system sees through the smoke Microsoft is
hiding behind and does what is Right instead of what may be
politically correct or good for the stock market.
I urge the department of justice to give the little guys a
chance to compete so that consumers like myself have a real choice.
Punish Microsoft to the full extend of the law and force them to
change their unfair business practices.
Cordially,
Fred Nourbakhsh
Minneapolis, MN
MTC-00026590
From: Niranjan Pardasani
TO: Microsoft ATR DATE: 1/27/02 1:48am
Subject: Re: Microsoft Antitrust case
Please see attached letter.
Nick Pardasani
3861 Toland Avenue
Los Alamitos, CA 907020
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
I am writing to support Microsoft in the antitrust case they are
entrenched in. I am in favor of Microsoft because of America's free
market system. I strongly believe that government try to avoid
restrictions on free enterprise, and that in this case, Microsoft
should be left alone.
In regard to this case, Microsoft has assented to terms that
were originally non-factors in this case, such as terms concerning
disclosure of intellectual property. Microsoft also will undertake
changes in its relationships with other IT companies. Under the
settlement, Microsoft promised not to strike back at those
developers or makers who attempt to manufacture, ship, or advertise
competing companies'' software.
I have grown tired of hearing about the Microsoft case. Again, I
believe that Microsoft as a corporation should be free to conduct
business as it see fit. However, it is my hope that you, as the
justice keeper of this great country, will bring this case to a
quick and fair end.
[[Page 27839]]
Sincerely,
Nick Pardasani
MTC-00026591
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 27, 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 express my opinion of the recent settlement
between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice. I am happy to
see that Microsoft will not be broken up. But a number of the
concessions that Microsoft is being forced to make are unfair.
My son works for Xerox. Ever since Xerox's patents expired and
they were forced to share their information with other companies,
Xerox has not been the same. When a company spends incredible
amounts of time, money, and resources to create a technology that
other companies were not able to create, the company should not be
punished for its innovation. It is the company's right to bask in
the fruits of its labor. Compromise is always a difficult thing. I
hope Microsoft is making concessions that will be in the best
interest of the company, as well as the computer industry.
I also hope the Department of Justice and the nine states in
opposition will discontinue any further litigation because it is in
the best interest of the American public. I look forward to the IT
sector getting back to normal and continuing the growth rate that
propelled the economy before the lawsuits began.
Sincerely,
Janet E. Malatesta
1009 Stoneham Circle
Hatfield, PA 19440-4124
MTC-00026592
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a 43 year-old scientist and engineer. I switched from DOS
to Linux in 1993, a change that helps me work more effectively. Even
with my nearly exclusive use of Linux, I daily have to deal with
unpleasant side effects of Microsoft's monopoly.
I have read the Proposed Final Judgment cover to cover. I concur
with the assessment of others, such as Dan Kegel and Robert Bork,
that it is a toothless sham which will do nothing to restore choice
and competition to the personal computer software marketplace. In
it, Microsoft makes minor concessions to its already vanquished foes
of the past decade, while entrenching and solidifying its ability to
resist its foes of the coming decade.
Microsoft has a long history of buying and/or ``cutting off
the oxygen'' of its potential for-profit competitors. With its
enormous stockpile of cash, it's hard to see how any conduct remedy
will reverse this trend. These methods of maintaining its monopoly
(now shown to be illegal) don't work against free-as-in-speech
software, like Linux, Samba, and Wine. For this reason, many people
in and out of Microsoft consider such software to have the best long
term chances of breaking the Microsoft Windows monopoly. Microsoft's
nascent strategies for sidelining these potential competitors will
be legitimized and strengthened by the proposed settlement.
I can only find two ways to explain the Justice Department's
support of this agreement: either they are totally oblivious to the
open source movement and its threat to Microsoft, or they, like
Microsoft, want control of computers concentrated in the hands of a
plutocracy, and kept away from America's unpredictable and
unfettered citizens. Since court decisions have repeatedly confirmed
that source code is speech, this second explanation is equivalent to
government opposition to citizen ownership of printing presses. Ben
Franklin would roll over in his grave. Here are the aspects of the
proposed settlement that I find particularly egregious:
*It carefully excludes open source projects, such as Wine and
Samba, from the third parties to whom they must release
documentation etc. (III.J.2).
*While Microsoft is required to license patents on a non-
discriminatory basis (III.I.1), the cash-for-ideas concept itself
discriminates against free software, that has no revenue stream or
control over its ``customers'', the free citizenry.
*Microsoft does not have to disclose which patents might apply
to its software's functionality, protocols, and interfaces. This
leaves its sales force enormous room to inject FUD (fear,
uncertainty and doubt) into its discussions with customers
considering alternatives to Microsoft. Such behavior is already
documented.
*Technical information that Microsoft discloses about its
products can not be used to design or implement products that either
compete with Windows, or run on operating systems other than Windows
(VI.I).
*No requirement is placed on documenting, or even stabilizing,
the file formats used to interchange word processing documents.
Without such disclosure, attempts by competitors to read or write
these documents will be (and have been) unreliable at best. Since
many entities, including the U.S. government, often require
documents to be submitted in this file format, the lack of
compatible software institutionalizes a requirement that everybody
buy Windows.
I believe that ending the prolonged anti-trust case with this
settlement would send a loud pro-big-business, anti-consumer, and
anti-competitive message to the computer industry. While free
speech, free ideas, and free software will ultimately survive and
flourish without the cooperation of government, this settlement
would be seen for years as a win for big money, and a loss for the
people. Please join the Attorneys General for California,
Connecticut, et al., and reject this settlement as bad for the
computer industry, the worldwide Internet, and the nation.
Lawrence R. Doolittle
836 Meander Dr.
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
P.S. Like about 2000 others, I also signed Dan Kegel's open
letter, http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html, which goes into
more technical detail than this one.
MTC-00026593
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your Honorable Kollar-Kotally,
I was dismayed when I learned of the proposed judgment that the
Department of Justice is considering to accept.
The proposed Judgment does not address the anticompetitive
practices that Microsoft was proved to be doing by the appeals
court.
I was glad to hear that a Judge threw out Microsoft's proposal
that they donate one billion dollars to schools. Imagine a
punishment that would enable Microsoft to dramatically weaken Apple
Computer's presence in the school systems!
America looks to your wisdom in determining a just punishment
and more importantly, ensuring our free market remains truly free
from intimidation of monopolistic organizations. Thank you for your
consideration,
Joyce Ferguson
San Jose, CA 95134
MTC-00026594
From: Kelley Terry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement proposed is a nightmare. I look at going into
programming and/or servicing linux based machines. According to the
settlement the private non-profit organizations that need access to
windows api's to make compatible code aren't even considered a
business and are therefore denied access to windows code!! Absurd!!
My understanding (perhaps limited) of patent or copyright law
was that it was set up to provide protection against others using
ideas that took time and effort to produce. That protection is good
and it's primary purpose was to promote innovation and invention by
giving financial security to the inventor so he could recoup his
investment. Microsoft has taken the extreme position (and always has
and always will if allowed) of using this copyright protection to
promote a monopoly and thereby strangling rather than promoting
innovation and invention. I'm no legal expert but that's obviously
against the original, basic principles of copyrights.
It said use windows 95 or better so I loaded linux!
In a world without walls and fences who needs windows and gates?
Kelley Terry
MTC-00026595
From: Edward Mills
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
An Independent User Voice--not lobbied by anyone speaks.
My opinion is that the previous decision to split Microsoft was
TOO LENIENT and the current proposed settlement is an insult to
[[Page 27840]]
any and all who do not own Microsoft stock. I have been a PC user
since the early days and have watched Microsoft manipulate the
previous settlement on DOS into a joke. They killed Netscape, and
before that Wordperfect, and Lotus123, and Quattro Pro which was
clearly technically superior to Excel, and before that DR DOS. They
have almost delayed this decision till it is moot as the release of
Windows XP has already occurred. The proposal to distribute FREE or
discounted software is no remedy but rather a well thought out anti-
competitive ploy in itself. The best way to secure future use is to
get the kids hooked--the tobacco industry and alcohol industry
know this and software is even more perverse in that it is legal to
promote your product to schools in hope that users will not want to
migrate to a different system. Apple knows this and their last hold
was that many educational entities still use Mac systems. The
proposal would take this one hold away from the only real competitor
Microsoft has not completely killed. As a minimum, Microsoft must be
made to pay back users who were harmed and not in discount
certificates; also they should be broken up into 2 or 3 companies
representing Operating Systems, Applications, and Internet. Further
their ownership of distribution of information networks should be
curbed and they should be restricted to current business
applications with proposals for expansion subject to oversight by a
court master. I am sure that this is in the minority as Microsoft
lobbies effectively by many means including mass e-mail campaigns.
MTC-00026597
From: John Johnston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
The only actions that I have seen that are harming the consumer
is the government attempt to create alternatives for the consumer. A
computer operating system is not like our highway system. Our cars
operate just fine regardless of the road construction, asphalt,
cement, gravel, dirt and so on. There was more diversity in rail
lines, the spacing of the tracks was different at times. The rail
cars and equipment designed for one gauge of road did not work on
others.
The comparison between rail lines is much more akin to attempts
to engineer compatible software operating systems or features by
different companies. IBM attempted to make their OS2 compatible with
programs wrote to run on MS Windows. It didn't work, if they
couldn't do it, who is going to? Sun Microsystems JAVA is likewise
not doing what Sun said it would. According to SUN a software
designer could write it once and it would run anywhere. Maybe the
ridiculously simple things will, but any meaningful productivity
applet still needs to be ``tweaked'' and then it might not
achieve cross platform ability.
Our country will be better off, and our consumers will be better
off with one basic operating system vendor than with the market
being split between three.
The biggest cry of foul comes from Microsoft's competitors who
have had the privilege of over charging business users but are now
seeing their revenues crash since they have to compete with equally
or more capable software from Microsoft.
This kaleidoscope of lawsuits from the DOJ and nineteen states
and now other companies and foreign countries is only going to hurt
the consumer and probably the United States.
Sincerely,
John Johnston
MTC-00026599
From: E.S.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:58am
Subject: I OPPOSE the current Microsoft settlement proposal
I am OPPOSED to the current Microsoft settlement, and I SUPPORT
HARSHER PENALTIES against Microsoft.
Microsoft have been convicted of violating the Sherman antitrust
law on several counts, and have been found guilty of illegally using
their monopoly power in order to maintain their monopoly power, thus
destroying competitors such as Netscape and preventing consumer
choice by forcing OEM suppliers to use only Microsoft software (or
else face unreasonably harsh and anti-competitive penalties by
Microsoft).
The current proposal does nothing to penalize Microsoft; without
penalties, the nation (and indeed the world) as a whole is not
served justice. Allowing Microsoft to escape this long-lived battle
relatively unscathed-- *especially* after being found guilty on
several counts--would make a mockery of our judicial system,
and whatever respect for the system that still exists in the minds
of the public will be further diminished or destroyed.
Microsoft employees and supporters are viewing these trials
collectively as a battle they have fought hard to win. Like Jay Leno
said one night in reference to a decision made during the trial
(paraphrased): ``Finally the little guy comes out on top,
right?!'' It should be noted that Leno was hired several years
ago by Microsoft to help introduce Windows 95 (by using a popular
and well-known television personality)...
If the Department of Justice wishes to be viewed as weak-kneed
and perhaps even serving of mostly corporate interests, then
accepting the current proposal is the path to this public view.
If, however, the Dept. of Justice wishes to be viewed as a
respectable entity, unafraid of a challenge, and willing to stand up
for that which is legally, morally, and ethically-correct, without
regards for whether the criminal is an individual, a company, or a
non-profit organization--in essence following the
``justice is blind'' philosophy that law is thought to
abide by--then I once again encourage harsher penalties for
Microsoft. Thank you for your time.
MTC-00026600
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 00:44:04 -0800
To: [email protected]
From: mcvarish
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the U.S. Department of Justice:
In reference to the to the antitrust settlement between
Microsoft Corporation, the Department of Justice, and nine states, I
urge you to adopt the settlement. The terms of the settlement are
very strict and provide more than enough punishment for Microsoft.
To further punish Microsoft would be to further punish consumers,
stockholders, Microsoft employees, and companies that provide
material and services to Microsoft. Many thousands of people depend
on Microsoft's functioning at maximum potential.
Please, in all fairness, adopt the settlement.
Sincerely,
Mary Alice McVarish
MTC-00026601
From: Bridgewater Family
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I was visiting at Netscape, as a customer, the day after they
first met with Microsoft. There was no doubt that they had been
surprised and somewhat taken aback with Microsoft's tone.
Based on what we were told, Microsoft offered to partner with
them and divide the world into PCs and non-PCs with Microsoft
getting the PC world and Netscape getting what was left. Netscape
says they turned them down and Microsoft left them with the
impression that they would be put out of business. At that time and
subsequently I believe that Netscape had a much clearer vision and
was as interested in driving the Internet as they were in growing
and making money. Microsoft, clearly, has no other interest than
market domination and maximizing profits in any way they can.
Microsoft has no interest in advancing the Internet or, indeed, any
aspect of computer science, utilization, security or performance.
Microsoft is not an engine of advancement or change. There is
not one product or service they can point to and say they invented
or developed it. There history has been to purchase or drive out of
business any competitor and then blanket the market segment with
proprietary code to prevent anyone else trying to enter that market.
This is not a forward looking strategy--it is the road to
stagnation. Established product lines do not move in new ways, they
fester under an ever increasing load of new, largely useless,
features: all the components of Microsoft Office fall in this
category; Internet Explorer is well on the way; XP is not only
enormous and slow, it comes with one of the most repressive
licensing scheme since indentured servitude.
But, it is Microsoft's arrogance and complete lack of ethics
that has prompted me to write. The Justice Department, et. al.
settlement left me speechless. No mention that Microsoft has been
convicted of breaking the law (which was upheld on appeal). No
mention of their bad faith in answering subpoenas or goading a
Federal Judge into making non-judicial statements in a fit of pique.
Indeed, someone from another planet who read this would wonder what
the fuss was about.
The idea of three people living and working at the Microsoft
campus and keeping an eye on them is ludicrous on the face of it.
How can they ever know what is going on?
[[Page 27841]]
Where is the restructuring that is clearly indicated from their
actions? Where is any notion of making their former competitors
whole? Where, for pity sakes, is any discouraging word?
I think breaking the company up, opening up at least their
interfaces so there can be some real possibility of competition and
imposing some real punishments-- community service at a
minimum-- will ever convince them that perhaps they have erred.
Otherwise, they will simply have a giant celebration on the day this
becomes final and laugh off the rest of the industry forever.
Sincerely,
Gary Bridgewater
[email protected]
IT Manager
MTC-00026602
From: Dream Fountain Support
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/27/02 2:32am
Subject: Netscape / Microsoft
Gentlemen:
I have been a professional web developer for 5 years. During
this time I have used both Netscape and Internet Explorer. Netscape
contends that Internet Explorer has gained the advantage by bundling
their browser with their operating system.
However, as a developer I must disagree. Netscape is simply an
inferior product. Designers world-wide are constantly having to re-
write good code simply to accommodate the unusual characteristics
encountered with the way Netscape displays. New technologies such as
layers are not recognized by Netscape. As such, a perfectly
acceptable design looks great in IE, but is not nearly as robust in
Netscape. Some developers have simply given up on Netscape and now
generate code designed only for IE, with a note on the page reading
``best viewed with IE'' or ``not compatible with
Netscape''. Trying to accomodate Netscape's shortcomings is
costing companies large sums of money in wasted time and effort to
support a poorly designed pro duct.
It is not my intent to comment on the balance of the lawsuit as
a whole, rather my opinion that Netscape was an inferior product
several years ago, and their newest version is even worse. The
browser war was simply won by the company with the best product.
Sincerely,
Robert Adelfson
Dream Fountain Data Solutions
Internet Solutions for Small Business
947 E. Park Ave.
Gilbert, AZ 85234
www.dreamfountain.com
(480) 813-7711
MTC-00026603
From: Bob Wieman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Let me make clear at the first that I do not agree with the
proposed final judgement as it stands.
I would point out two issues:
The definition of future Microsoft middleware products, outside
those that have the same functions as the current Microsoft
middleware products, requires that Microsoft has distributed the
product separate from the operating system. If Microsoft developed a
product to replace a non-Microsoft middleware product, and released
it only with the operating system (potentially, the new OS release
could just be inclusion of the product), this product would not
qualify as a Microsoft Middleware Product, and therefore would not
be subject to the access requirements of Section III.H.1, or the
substitution of automatically launched middleware of Section
III.H.2.
Effectively, the commercial viability of a non-Microsoft
Middleware Product is given a time horizon, determined by Microsoft,
of the next OS release. At that point, Microsoft can implement a
competing API, not bound by these subsections and therefore not
necessarily removable or replaceable. A non-Microsoft Middleware
Product in this situation will not pose the threat to the OS
monopoly that it would have, absent this behavior by Microsoft to
illegally maintain its monopoly.
To repeat, the definition of Microsoft middleware products in
the proposed final judgement is overly narrow, and therefore the
proposed final judgment does not prevent the recurrence of one of
Microsoft's exclusionary acts: the integration of a product
competing with non-Microsoft middleware into Windows in a non-
removable way. The result would be an ever-expanding operating
system, taking unto itself any functionality provided by competing
middleware, to ensure that no competing middleware could claim usage
share wide enough to erode the operating system monopoly.
Secondarily, the question of whether ``tying'' a (non-
monopoly) product to a monopoly is itself anticompetitive under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act is a question that I think strikes at
the core of people's intuition regarding antitrust law, and a
resolution of the question is in the public interest. Not only might
the resolution modify the appropriate remedy in this case, but a
precedent would be set to measure the behavior of this and other
monopoly-holding corporations by.
To sum up: I do not believe that this proposed final judgment
prevents a recurrence of the illegal behavior it seeks to remedy.
Further, I feel that disregarding the most interesting question of
law does not serve the public interest. The people need to know if
legislation is required to conform the law to our intent, and
monopoly-holding corporations need to know what they may or may not
do.
Thank you for your consideration.
Bob Wieman
[email protected]
Office: Harrelson 381
MTC-00026604
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your Honorable Kollar-Kotally,
I thank you for your time in reviewing my comments concerning
the proposed final judgment against Microsoft.
I have worked in the heart of Silicon Valley for over twenty
years and have seen first-hand Microsofts spectacular growth and
remarkable contributions to the computing world.
I have also experienced firsthand how a monopolistic
corporations anticompetitive behavior has caused inflated software
pricing.
I encourage you to find at a proper ruling that would accomplish
the following:
Prevent future intimidation in our free market not only by
Microsoft but any other company by providing some type of
enforcement policy that would truly work. I realize that this would
be an extremely difficult task, but I have confidence in our
American system.
Design a proper punitive award that would reimburse everyone who
has paid inflated pricing. Proof of purchase of products and
licensing should be required in order to receive payment for the
portion of the purchase price that is determined to be over and
beyond what the competitive costs should have been. I strongly urge
you to prevent a cash grab by the State governments and deny all
such awards. If a state has purchased software, they should receive
the same reimbursement of costs as any individual or corporation.
Such a move would allow the monies returned to be put back into the
economy by investments and additional jobs.
Best Regards,
Fred Hoot
San Jose, CA
[email protected]
www.fredhoot.com
MTC-00026605
From: Rex Foy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I would like to express my opinion that the proposed settlement
between Microsoft, and the DOJ is unacceptable! The measures
proposed are not sufficient a stand against Large monopolies like
Microsoft. The only acceptable solution is to divide said monopolies
into smaller, competing companies!
Sincerely, Rex A. Foy
401 W. Desert Ave.
Gilbert AZ 85233
MTC-00026607
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I consider the proposed settlement, a reasonable compromise
enhancing Sr. citizens (and all Americans) an easy access to the NET
and innovative software programs......and thereby make their
computer experience easier and enjoyable. Also, acceptance of the
proposed settlement, should be a positive influence on the economy
and diffuse our recession!!! Unless you're a lawyer...(the only ones
to win from hereout) shut this off and lets get it on!!!
D. J. Bodner
[[Page 27842]]
MTC-00026608
From: Bruce Gee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
I am writing this email because I oppose the proposed final
judgment between Microsoft and the Department of Justice.
Like most people using computers, I am a user of many Microsoft
products. I have great appreciation for their products--they
are generally very good. And I admire much of what Microsoft has
done in advancing personal computing.
But the end does not justify the means. That is why I oppose the
proposed judgment. Microsoft got to their current dominant position
with tactics that I believe (and I think the courts have found) are
illegal. I think you have heard many of the examples, so I'll not
re-hash them to you.
Looking to the future, my overall concern is that Microsoft
will, and has shown by its previous behavior, follow the law only in
the most narrow definition to their favor. If given any loophole,
they will find it, and will abuse the intent of the law. From what I
can tell, the proposed judgment, while clearing stating an intent,
leaves plenty of room that Microsoft will abuse.
They will use their position in the desktop operating system to
try to dominate other areas. This includes servers (Linux and
Solaris), web services and content (.NET initiative), entertainment
devices (games and TV), handheld computers (Palm), and countless
other markets. That is not to say that these product/services will
ultimately be bad--it will just eliminate other possible
choices from developing fully. I believe that a competitive market
benefits consumers by giving broader choices, better products and
lower prices. The technology sector outside of the current Microsoft
eco-system will gradually disappear if Microsoft is allowed to
expand un-checked.
In a large sense, we are already dependent on Microsoft on being
a ``benevolent dictator'' in the desktop operating system
and office productivity space. That is why it is critical to
structure the proposed settlement so it does not let Microsoft make
unlawful use their current dominant position to expand into other
markets. We need innovation to come from lots of different sources,
including Microsoft. Please make changes to the proposed judgment so
it provides a level playing field for all players in a competitive
marketplace.
Best Regards,
Bruce Gee
[email protected]
1305 Greenwood Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301
650-328-8091
PS--I also own a small number of shares of Microsoft.
MTC-00026609
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
Greetings. As an American I am concerned that the Microsoft case
has gone on and on. It needs to be settled now and stop dragging it
out and spending (wasting) tax payers money. The present agreement
in the case does what needs to be done so let's finalize it and get
on with the other jobs.
Sincerely,
Cash Godbold
MTC-00026610
From: Jon Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:55am
Subject: Microsoft Suit
To Whom It May Concern,
Although I am a long-time user of Microsoft products, I find I
am alarmed at the stories I've heard of under-handed competitive
practices, and the trend towards fee-based services one can see in
the new XP line of products. At this pace consumers can expect to be
subject to the same kind of abuse in the use of our computers as we
now experience with local and long-distance telephone service where
de-regulation has provided us with no real benefit.
I offer one personal example of a company grown to large and too
greedy to care about individual consumers: When I purchased
Microsoft's PowerPoint 2000 software, it scrambled my installation
of MS-Office 97. When I called Microsoft's technical support, I was
told that the issue did not reside with the PowerPoint 2000 product,
but with Microsoft Office 97...which they no longer supported. I
protested that the Office 97 product was fine until the PowerPoint
2000 installation, but was told if I wanted further help, it would
cost me $35. I believe that a product costing roughly $250-500
(depending on upgrade versus full version) should be supported when
it misbehaves--certainly for more than 4 years. And--as a
consumer and writer--I resent the special status accorded
software ``engineers'' who are pushing us towards a system
of hourly fees: no one has offered to pay writers every time their
articles are read. Furthermore, I have become resentful of
continually buying so-called ``upgrades'' to software
which are more aptly called ``bug fixes''.
I encourage you to take a hard look at this company and do your
duty--provide a bulwark for the consumer against corporate
greed and abuse. I grow tired of being nickel & dimed to death
by companies grown too large to care about customer service. While
Microsoft products are generally good--and certainly we need
standards for PC operation--the consumer currently finds him/
herself with fewer choices than were available even a few years ago.
In a market where consumers have no choice, it's up to the
government to step in and make sure that choice and a free-market
dynamic are restored.
Thank you,
Jon Anderson
University of MN--CALA
612.961.7440
CC:Fred Newman
MTC-00026611
From: JobLeads
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam:
I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past,
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly
position in the operating system market. This is especially
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past
transgressions.
Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those
acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That
is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the
American people in general. While the Court's desire that a
settlement be reached is well-intentioned, it is wrong to reach an
unjust settlement just for settlement's sake. A wrong that is not
corrected is compounded.
Sincerely,
Daniel Maddy
Tigard, Oregon
MTC-00026612
From: GYoung
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:43am
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
Microsoft has gotten away with too much and is out of control,
please do not let Microsoft get away with just a mild slap on the
hand. They have hurt too many companies and individuals. I know as I
am one who they have relentlessly attack. We use to average $2.5
million in annual sales with net profit of less than $30,000 after
Microsoft's continued attack and negative campaign against us we
sold less than $650,000 last year and had a net lost $664,000 which
forced me into personal bankruptcy. As if that is not enough they
are now demanding $1,000,000 from me and my company plus they want
my company name and my web site to do what they wish, all because we
do not follow their ``desires/demands''. I am too small to
be able to afford to fight them in court. Is it not clear they are
out to destroy who they perceive as a competitor? If you let them
off too easily they will continue their evil ways. It is the small
business man who is the real victim. If you would like more details
of my case I will be happy to provide you with whatever you desire.
Sincerely,
Glenn Young 903-626-5317
MTC-00026613
From: Tony Silva
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:03am
[[Page 27843]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings.
I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed
settlement of the Microsoft case. Not only does the proposed
settlement allow Microsoft to defraud the government by making
reparation in software (for which the real cost is close to zero),
but it compounds the problem that led to legal action, specifically,
the unfair practices that led to the monopolization of the browser
and software markets. ``Punishing'' Microsoft by allowing
it to flood the schools with its software is a farce.
Please, exercise reason and a sense of fairness in proposing a
settlement that both punishes the corporation for its misdeeds and
helps solve the problems its misdeeds have created.
Tony Silva
MTC-00026615
From: Bryan Lamos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'm pro-Microsoft, and I'll be happy when this is over with and
Microsoft is allowed to continue to innovate and compete fairly. We
need a law to stop competitors from filing frivolous lawsuits
against each other!
The following article does a succinct and accurate job of
capturing exactly what is wrong with the high-tech industry today,
specifically the ability of Microsoft's competitor's to attempt to
thwart Microsoft's success by relying on our taxpayer-funded legal
system: ``Netscape turned out to be a poor investment (its
market share has plummeted to about 10 percent, compared with nearly
90 percent for Microsoft's Internet Explorer, which, by the way, AOL
chose as its online service's own browser). ...
Speaking of consumers, I can't understand how they're hurt by a
business strategy that offers browsers for free. Would
consumers--who, after all, are the people who are supposed to
be protected by antitrust laws--be happier if they had to pay
$100 or $200 for a browser? Free software is hardly a new Internet
idea; AOL continually offers ``upgrades'' to its own
service for free. Is it unfairly competing?
It's no coincidence that AOL's dramatic lawsuit comes just as a
federal judge is deciding whether to bless a hard-won settlement,
reached by nearly all the parties in the massive anti-trust suit
against Microsoft. Nine attorneys general, among them America's top
publicity-seekers, remain holdouts. They have asked, among other
things, that Microsoft be forced to give away the Explorer source
code. ...
Instead of straightening out its business problems, AOL has
decided to spend its time and effort filing lawsuits against tough
competitors--a petty, distracting pursuit that won't help AOL
or, for that matter, the U.S. economy, which depends on firms like
Microsoft for the innovation necessary to bring about a technology
revival.''
Please read more at : http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/
techwrapper.jsp?PID=1051-250&CID=1051-012302E,
apparently the author feels the same way as the majority of America,
the consumers, the real players in this contest. This is crazy!! AOL
chooses Microsoft's browser as the browser technology for it's
client viewer, basically giving an implicit admission that it is
superior than Netscape, then goes on to buy the Netscape browser,
then SUE Microsoft because their browser took market share from
Netscape??!?!
Bryan Lamos
MTC-00026616
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am exercising my Tunney Act right to comment on the proposed
settlement. I do NOT believe this settlement accomplishes the goal
of returning competition to the computer software markets now
dominated by Microsoft. At a minimum, it must extend protection and
rights to non-profit organizations as well as commercial for-profit
companies.
I support the appointment of Steve Satchell as one of the
members of the enforcement committee.
Larry Rosenblum
Sunnyvale, California
MTC-00026617
From: Vasant Ramasubramanian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
As a tax paying citizen of the US, I find the DOJ's proposed
agreements in the Antitrust case again Microsoft to be both
inadequate and ineffective. The US government has expended a
tremendous amount of tax payers'' money in this particular
case. The findings of the Court of Appeals enumerates the crimes of
Microsoft, yet the proposed action is equivalent to a ``slap on
the wrist''. The proposed settlement is simply preposterous.
It's quite sad that US government will ignore both it's own findings
and clearly stated Antitrust laws. One has to wonder who the
government is working for, the tax paying citizens who elect the
officials, or the businesses that bribe the government? Given the
current settlement, I think the answer is clear.
Sincerely,
Vasant Ramasubramanian.
MTC-00026618
From: Ron Hilton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
COMMENTARY ON PROPOSED MICROSOFT ANTITRUST SETTLEMENT:
I have studied the various documents pertaining to the Microsoft
antitrust case, including the complaint, the proposed settlement,
and the competitive impact statement. In general, I believe that the
settlement is a step in the right direction, but is far too ridden
with loopholes to be effective as a practical remedy.
To the extent that the settlement requires full disclosure of
APIs and protocols, it represents a very satisfactory remedy. The
Windows APIs and protocols have become a de-facto standard in the
computing industry. Such standards are vital to the
interchangeability of software components that must exist in order
to enable consumer choice and true competition. However, when one
company exercises complete hegemony over such a standard, and can
unilaterally shape it to their advantage, with undisclosed
interfaces that they alone are able to exploit, anticompetitive harm
to the consumer is the inevitable result. Unfortunately, the
settlement in its present form is too limited in scope with too many
escape clauses to have any real remedial effect. In particular:
1. Section III. D. allows Microsoft to evade full disclosure by
requiring membership in the Microsoft Developer Network (MSDN) in
order to receive the information. There is nothing to prevent
Microsoft from imposing unreasonable fees or other restrictions on
MSDN membership so as to deter a potential competitor from obtaining
the information.
2. Section III. J. 1. allows Microsoft to evade full disclosure
in the name of ``security.'' Security that relies upon
obscurity is no security at all. There is much greater security in
having an open standard that can be scrutinized and critiqued by
all, thereby identifying and eliminating whatever vulnerabilities
may exist. Microsoft's dismal record on security speaks for itself
on this point.
3. Section III. J. 2. b) allows Microsoft to evade full
disclosure by maintaining that a competitor has no ``reasonable
business need'' for the information.
4. Section III. J. 2. c) allows Microsoft to evade full
disclosure by refusing to certify the ``authenticity and
viability'' of a potential competitor. Microsoft cannot
possibly be objective in making such a determination. The conflict
of interest is simply too great.
5. Section III. J. 2. d) allows Microsoft to evade full
disclosure by imposing an arbitrarily onerous and expensive burden
of proof of compatibility on a potential competitor.
6. Section VI. J. and K. allow Microsoft to evade full
disclosure by simply electing not to separately trademark a
middleware product that utilizes the API or protocol in question.
They can still use the trademarks ``Microsoft'' and
``Windows'' in connection with the product without having
to disclose the APIs or protocols in question.
7. Section VI. N. allows Microsoft to evade full disclosure to
competitors who have not already sold at least one million copies of
a competitive product. This is a catch-22 which effectively prevents
any small start-up from ever gaining a foothold in the Windows-
compatible marketplace in the first place.
The bottom line is that under the proposed settlement, there are
any number of ways in which Microsoft can easily evade full
disclosure of the de facto standard Windows APIs and protocols which
the industry as a whole needs in order to provide true consumer
choice among competitive, fully compatible software products.
Here is the remedy that I would propose instead:
1. Microsoft must fully disclose all Windows APIs and protocols
by making them freely accessible to the public via the Internet as
of the date of the beta release of any software product that employs
such APIs or protocols.
[[Page 27844]]
2. Any competitor who extends or otherwise modifies the Windows
APIs or protocols for their own product must likewise fully disclose
such extensions or modifications by making them freely accessible to
the public via the Internet as of the date of the beta release of
any such software product.
The second requirement above is an important one. It is designed
to prevent the proliferation of multiple proprietary, incompatible
variations of the Windows standard. That is what caused the
fragmentation of the original Unix standard, as Unix competitors
sought to ``lock in'' their customers in much the same way
that Microsoft has done with the Windows standard. Only an open
standard which is required to remain an open standard can provide a
reliable foundation for innovation based on true merit that provides
real choice to consumers in a fair and level competitive
environment. Unix started out open but became proprietary. Windows
started out proprietary, but must become open.
Please note that I am not advocating that Windows become open
source. The source code is Microsoft's intellectual property and
should not be confiscated. Only the external interfaces (i.e. APIs
and protocols) need to be fully opened up to the public.
Thank you,
Ron Hilton
President, Platform Solutions, Inc.
1250 Oakmead Parkway, Suite 210
Sunnyvale, CA 94086-4027
(408)730-6826
MTC-00026619
From: Richard Culbertson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has every right to give away their browser, on the
other hand the Netscape browser is a poor piece of programming and
should perhaps PAY us to use it.
What this is amounting to is Bill Gates and Microsoft didn't pay
enough ``shake-down and protection money'' to the
politicians in Washington DC
Get away from Microsoft.
MTC-00026621
From: Cynder Gray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:30am
Subject: 1984
In 1984 Apple computer introduced the world to a new way of
working with the computer with a now famous commercial.
The commercial aired showing thousands of people dressed in gray
clothing in a drab, industrial environment are taking instruction
from a man on a TV screen. An athletic woman with a sledge hammer is
chased by military police into a main viewing room where she throws
the hammer into the screen effectively destroying it. Apple could
not have come closer to telling the future. The images are not the
same but the message is clear--Microsoft has taken over!
Microsoft controls all components of technology. It will soon
control access to the internet and eventually will hold information
about all users with their new ``.net'' initiative. One
company with so much control over how I work, what I view and how I
use and store collateral material is beyond comprehension. Please,
stop the monopoly. Break Microsoft up, force them to divest,
possibly even make their file standards open source. Cynder Gray
MTC-00026622
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Philip Duckham
11610 Waterman Rd
Brooklyn, MI 49230
MTC-00026623
From: Peter Au
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
All the law suits including DOJ's and state attorneys''
anti-trust suit and civil suits are full of contradiction, irony and
hyprocrisy. On one hand Microsoft is accused of anti-trust violation
monopolysing and overcharging consumers, and on the other hand was
accused of lower pricing than competitors as a form of predatory
pricing. Microsoft achieved 95% of the market through good and
renovating products and competetive pricing, was accused of
monopolyzing. Then no company should try to suceed because if you
do, you are a monopoly. The objective of the Anti-trust Law is to
prevent any company from dominating the market and gouging prices
and thus do harm to consumers. However, Microsoft was accused of
bundle products, selling them at lower prices or component such as
browser free. I can't see how consumers could be harmed to have some
free products or get a good deal in buying bundle of programs. DOJ
do have the intention of vaguely protecting the consumers in the
long run, but never directly place consumer immediate interest in
the equation; is also presuming too much in assuming Microsoft will
gouge prices in the future. Every body is innocent before proven
guilty. The fact that Microsoft selling the browser program free
greatly benefit consumers, and have greatly advance the popular use
of internet that renovate this country and the world intellectually,
culturally and economically. And now AOL who is charging consumer
for using her service is suing Microsoft for harming Netscape. I
wonder whether ``competition'' or ``benefit
consumer'' has any meaning in this society. Any party loses a
competition will feel unfair and wants a rematch in a so called
``leveling field''.
Parties who feel unfair may not be limited to Netscape. There
are parties in this country and in history that were, unlike
Netscape, arguably really being wronged. Slavery of the blacks,
killings of American Indians, slaaughtering of south and central
Americans by Spaniards, just to name a few. It would be great to
have an equalizer so as to provide fairness to ALL companies,
nations and people. Maybe we should all go back to Stone Age, which
will be the ultimate equalizer. Of course we know that that is
impossible, because the world moves on and keeps going forward. This
``leveling the field'' idea is kike for us to go backward
to the stone age. It is not progress, not advancement, not
innovations; it is not an idea of civilization. The consumers will
be harmed, the economy willbe harm, and our nation and people will
be harmed. Then on the other end of the spectrum, civil suits are
accusing Microsoft of overcharging their products. Of course we know
that if microsoft lost this suit, each consumer user will get about
$10, and millions of dollars will go the lawyers. The settlement of
Microsoft to provide millions of dollars of computers and softwares
to school was again hampered by selfish and self-serving objections.
Certainly any companies are free to provide programs to our schools.
One reality the nay-sayers, DOJ and state attorneys keep forgeting
but really have to face is: Microsoft have achieve enough critical
mass in competition and is been used by say 95% of software users.
It has become a defacto standard. If we want our kids to learn
softwares, they better learn microsoft's programs first, because
they are the most popular ones. This is the system mostly sschools,
offices and society. How are we going to stop the engine of progress
and moving forward and level the field by pulling back Microsoft ?
This is against consumers, against progress, against innovations and
against the economy. I think the economy has been harmed enough by
all these follies.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026624
From: Jarvis Cochrane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Ms Hesse,
I have read with interest the documents related to the proposed
settlement with Microsoft, and wish to submit the following
comments: As an Australian IT professional I believe this case, and
the proposed settlement, to have international significance; and
that in this matter, as in many others, the United States will be
setting a precedent or a standard that will be referred to by other
nations.
It is my understanding that the proposed settlement only has
legal force within the
[[Page 27845]]
United States, and that nothing in the settlement prevents Microsoft
from continuing its anti-competitive practices in other
jurisdictions, or moving ``non-compliant'' operations
offshore. I strongly approve of the provisions that require
Microsoft to make the APIs and communications protocols of its
software products available to other software developers. Microsoft
have used proprietary APIs and communications protocols to prevent
the interoperability of their software with other products. Apart
from the anti-competitive nature of the practice, it has
significantly increased the complexity and cost of multi-platform
environments.
I believe, however, that the provisions requiring Microsoft to
make its APIs and communications protocols available to software
developers do not go far enough to effectively ``level the
playing field.'' My understanding of the proposed settlement is
that some API or protocol specifications may be made available only
to selected developers, or may not be made available at all where
Microsoft can demonstrate that making such information available
would present a risk to system security or intellectual property
rights.
As an IT support professional and software developer, I can see
no justification other than commercial advantage,for not making the
details of all APIs and communications protocols publically
available at no cost. I strongly encourage you to consider such a
measure as part of a revised settlement.
I am concerned that appears to be no fine or other punitive
measure imposed upon Microsoft, even though the company has been
found guilty of breaching competition law, and has used its market
and position and illegal business practices to generate unreasonable
profits. There is also the matter of the ``hidden'' or
``follow on'' costs borne by consumers, business and the
IT industry as a consequence of Microsoft preventing the correct
interoperability.
As I have followed this case in the media, I have regularly
noted that Microsoft has shown a lack of respect, perhaps even a
contempt, for the legal and judicial process.
For these reasons, I would respectfully suggest that it is
appropriate and just for a large fine to be imposed upon Microsoft,
such monies to be used for international charitable works. To be
effective as a punitive measure, such a fine would obviously need to
be in the order of some billions of dollars.
In general terms, and in conclusion, I believe the proposed
settlement addresses the relevant issues, but does not sufficiently
restrict Microsoft, prevent Microsoft from pursuing alternative
means to maintain monopoly power, or impose appropriate punitive
damages on Microsoft.
I would like to express my appreciation to the Department of
Justice for pursuing this matter, and the hope that my comments will
be of interest to you.
Regards,
Jarvis Cochrane
[email protected]
MTC-00026625
From: bpsems
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:46am
Subject: Microsoft Lawsuit
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I believe that the Lawsuit against Microsoft by the Clinton
Administration has been a complete waste of time and taxpayers
money. Microsoft made computing possible for the individual and
small businesess. The consumer has benefited from Microsoft
products. Attached is my letter requesting that this lawsuit be
settled under the terms agreed between the Dept. of Justice and
Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Seguin
Professional Land Surveyor
Professional Engineer
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-00026626
From: Scott Brylow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi folks,
I'm a computer professional who started a web development
company in 1994. I have run engineering organizations with multi-
million dollar budgets. I consult for companies with software
problems and help them select vendors and solutions to address their
business needs. And I'm disappointed with the current PFJ in the
Microsoft antitrust trial.
I have been doing a fair amount of reading and thinking on the
problem, but not as much as many folks out there, so what I have to
say will be compiled from a number of chats with friends. What I can
tell you is that in my professional experience, Microsoft has not
provided winning technology solutions--they have provided
winning business solutions that can sometimes hold their own in a
technological arena. By virtue of the results of the trial, it is
clear that at least some of those successes were due to clear
antitrust law violations. Poor technology choice presents a great
risk to the large number of businesses out there who are more
dependent on information technology (IT) than ever before. It's a
huge economic risk in the field that is arguably a significant
economic engine for our country.
In that case, it is critical for the economic security of this
country that Microsoft --not-- be left in a position to
continue their anti-competitive behavior.
One strikingly visible difficulty with the proposed remedy is
the lack of provision for free software vendors to gain relief from
the monopolistic behavior of Microsoft. In my experience as a
technology professional, I know that these products, whatever their
source, have now earned a place in the IT platform of many large
companies. Ask IBM and HP, users of Linux. As the many WWW sites
using Apache as a web server or Perl to run scripts. And there are
many more similar open source products used throughout the
enterprise--sendmail, samba, jakarta, etc.
Please, please reconsider the sections of the proposed remedy
(esp. sections III D and III J 2) and strengthen them to ensure that
the open source community--providers of some extremely
competitive software available for many specific tasks that either
competes directly with Microsoft (Apache is the strongest competitor
to their IIS webserver) or acts as an ISV working off Microsoft
interfaces and at risk under the proposed remedy for that reason
(e.g. samba).
Thank you for your hard and positive work to date. I urge you to
complete the difficult task of crafting a remedy with the same
thoroughness you brought to the prosecution of the case to date.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Scott M. Brylow
Independent Technology Management Consultant
MTC-00026627
From: Larry Israel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:50am
Subject: Microsoft case
U.S. Dept. of Justice:
I hope the DOJ breaks Microsoft into smithereens. They certainly
deserve it. In fashioning the remedy, I very much hope the DOJ will
look toward the open source software movement for guidance with this
case. As society will increasingly depend on computers and the
Internet as the primary information infrastucture, operating systems
[[Page 27846]]
are very important public resources. Non-proprietary, standards-
compliant systems are very much in the public interest, allowing
interoperability amongst the various hardware and software
components of this infrastucture. Rather than the dominant profit-
making company working to bring as much business as possible to
their own proprietary implementations, everyone is better served by
free, open source software, right down to the operating system. For
many years, open source software has given us some of the most
important innovations, developed by professionals who are abundantly
donating their hard work in the public interest. At minimum,
Microsoft must have the operating system software split from the
rest of the company. Similarly, Microsoft ownership and broadcast of
content should be split from all of their software products. Without
that, in the future they threaten to control the entire broadcast
infrastructure, from media content creation, to broadcast, to the
delivery system in our homes. Certainly Prince William makes no
secret of his plans for domination of everything he's able to get
his hands on. Make them pay for their unethical, heavy-handed and
illegal business practices. Stop Microsoft now, while you can.
Larry Israel
Santa Cruz, CA
MTC-00026628
From: Bill Wodarczyk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Wodarczyk
62 N. Shaddle Avenue
Mundelein, IL 60060
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr.. Ashcroft:
With 40 years experience in the world-leading American computer
software industry, mostly in ``big iron'' IBM mainframes,
I feel I am qualified to comment on the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit.
I am reminded of the eighteen-year-long antitrust case against IBM,
which at some points, severely damaged that company and held back
progress in American industry. Bill Gates has earned his success in
a highly competitive industry. When IBM's original personal
computer, the ``PC'' was released the MS-DOS of
Gates'' Microsoft became the dominant among several operating
systems because of a lower price, attention to customers''
desires and a dogged search for useful innovations. Since
Microsoft's Windows was introduced, it has competed with the Apple
Macintosh for ease of use. However, Windows has been a part of a
vibrant, diverse, and experimental PC community, while Apple has
held its intellectual cards very close to the vest, both for
software and for hardware. In this competition, Microsoft's
software, combined with hardware from many, many manufacturers got
the nod of more consumers. That is simply American free enterprise.
In the fast changing software industry Microsoft will only maintain
its position against erstwhile competitors, like Apple, the Unix's,
Linux, BeOS, Palm, and emerging companies by attention to business
fundamental and relentless innovation. The lawsuit is like ankle
weights to handicap the best ballerinas, to stifle a determined
spirit. Still, I prefer my free enterprise ---- free.
The ability of computers to work together is crucial to the
effectiveness and efficiency of an enterprise, and, now with the
Internet, the whole computing world. Interoperability through
compatibility is much more efficient and reliable than translations,
emulations, work-arounds, and patch-up-jobs.
By opening up both Microsoft's Windows programs and its business
practices, the settlement should provide the technical and corporate
interoperability to furnish a much-needed boost for the American
computer industry. Internal interfaces and native server
interoperability protocols for Microsoft'' s Windows programs
will be revealed, contracts made non-exclusive, retaliation for
promoting non-Microsoft products prohibited, uniform price and terms
lists to large computer makers become non-negotiable, addition and
removal of programs integral to Windows made easy. Competitors will
benefit. Microsoft will be able to hold on if it can work with the
industry and continue to innovate. The settlement is about as good
as could be expected.
I appreciate your work to see the settlement reached. I would
appreciate your continued leadership to see that the settlement is
approved by the federal judge and implemented. Thank you.
Sincerely,
William Wodarczyk
MTC-00026629
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user. This is just another method for states
to get free money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only
in terms of computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the
most dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bernice Kleiman
4077-72 Porte de Palmas
San Diego, CA 92122-5142
MTC-00026630
From: joe skerik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-00
Dear Ms. Hesse,
The following is my commentary on the proposed settlement
between the United States Department of Justice and Microsoft
solicited under the Tunney Act.
I believe that the settlement proposal is lacking in substance,
and cannot effectively address the items which it is claimed to
provide relief for. I am in complete agreement with everything which
I have read published by Dan Kegel on this topic at this web
address: www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html.
In summary, I would like to register my disagreement with the
proposal. Thank you for reviewing this and all comments.
Joe Skerik
P.O. Box 1741
Round Mountain, Nevada 89045
[email protected]
MTC-00026631
From: Haden E Rogers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Seniors Coalition strongly believes that the proposed
settlement offers a reasonable compromise.
Respectfully,
Haden E. Rogers
9804 Kernville Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89134
MTC-00026632
From: Claudio Friederich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The United States Department of Justice and eighteen state
attorneys general have joined in suing Microsoft Corporation for
violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Recently, the Department of
Justice and nine state attorneys general have reached a settlement
agreement with Microsoft. Under the Tunney Act, the Department of
Justice is seeking public comment on the settlement.
For many reasons, I am convinced that this entire lawsuit has
been, from the beginning, unfair, unjust, and enormously damaging,
not just to Microsoft, but to countless people, both in the United
States and abroad, and to our economy. The settlement terms would
allow the corporate structure of Microsoft to remain intact, and
permit Microsoft to remain in control of its intellectual property,
and the source code for the products it depends on. The terms of the
settlement focus on Microsoft's business relationships with OEMs,
and the terms of Microsoft's licensing agreements with them, rather
than on its organizational structure and the nature of the
technology itself. Therefore, its impact on Microsoft's products and
technologies, and the many who depend on them, will be minimized. As
such, it is an excellent opportunity to end this ruinous litigation,
and the harm that it is doing to the American
[[Page 27847]]
people, and to our economy. The reasons that this litigation is so
harmful are many.
As a consumer, I feel this lawsuit is misguided. The lawsuit
alleges that Microsoft Corporation has harmed consumers by illegal
use of monopoly power. By my own choice, I spend about a thousand
dollars a year on Microsoft software. I could just as easily have
bought software from other vendors. Often software from competing
vendors is significantly more expensive than software from
Microsoft. Often Microsoft's software is significantly easier to use
than competitors'' products, or offers more capabilities, and
versatility. I therefore fail to see how I have been harmed.
As a citizen, I understand and realize that everyone, including
corporations, must abide by the laws, whatever the consequences.
However, there is nothing that Microsoft Corporation has done that
other large companies in the United States do not routinely do.
Large mergers and large, high-stakes investments take place so
routinely that they go unnoticed by most people. Corporate rivals
cut deals with each other all the time for licensing of technology,
advertising space, and endorsements. Companies make deals with
others all the time to get favorable pricing and market exposure
from each other and effectively handicap rivals. But only Microsoft
Corporation is being sued for such activities.
As an employee of a software producer, I understand the hurt
companies feel when their products, developed at great expense in
time and capital, are shouldered out of the marketplace. I
understand that companies such as Netscape and Apple, whose products
lost to Microsoft Corporation, feel very bitter about it. However,
losing in such a manner is the risk all players in a free market
economy must accept. Rivals in the marketplace always try to best
one another, in the quest to succeed, and survive. Some will win,
but some will lose. Going into business means you must, right from
the beginning, face up to your rivals. Nobody is given a
``grace period'' in the marketplace. As a professional
software developer of Windows software, my success is directly tied
to the success of the Windows platform. Every new feature added to
the operating system is one new feature available to developers of
Windows software. It is precisely such additions that have enabled
independent developers to create more powerful software with greater
ease. Microsoft Corporation has been accused of
``bundling'' its Web browser into the operating system to
squash competition. However, it has been this ``bundling''
that has allowed developers of Windows software, without any
additional costly tools, without any additional software the end
user had to buy, to add rich Internet capability to their software.
With one stroke, all the capabilities of the Internet were opened up
to all Windows developers, not just those investing in costly
additional tools or those developing the functionality on their own,
at a great expense in time. This has significantly contributed to
Windows'' success, both for end users and developers: enabling
everyone to do more with less. It has often been pointed out that
Microsoft Windows runs ninety percent of all personal computers.
Many developers of software are developing for the Windows Platform.
In addition, a great many system integrators, technical support
workers, Web site designers, and countless other technology workers
our economy is increasingly depending on are involved with the
Windows platform. If the Windows platform is harmed, all of these
people, both in the United States and abroad, will be similarly
harmed. All of the remedies that have been proposed as alternatives
to the settlement would hurt the Windows platform and all those
involved with it.
Some are seeking to break up Microsoft into separate companies,
one for operating system products, one for desktop applications, and
one for Internet products and services. As mentioned previously, the
ability both to integrate products, and allow them to seamlessly
interoperate, is precisely what has helped to make Windows and its
software both powerful and easier to use for increasingly
sophisticated tasks. Such a proposed ``remedy'' would, by
definition, destroy many possibilities for such integration.
Others have proposed breaking Microsoft into several equal
parts, each with the rights to all products. This would be a
catastrophe. Instead of one, there would be multiple versions of
each Microsoft product. They would evolve separately, and inevitably
develop differing feature sets, and requirements, and
incompatibilities would emerge. How is the consumer supposed to
choose which version to buy? Developers would have to worry about
not one, but several, Windows, and so development and technical
support and system administrative costs would skyrocket.
Incompatibility issues would multiply, and computer use would
needlessly become much more complicated. It has been suggested that
the source code for Windows should be freely available to the
public, allowing any company to develop its own versions of Windows.
This would lead to an unlimited number of Windows, which would
ultimately evolve differing feature sets, leading to the same
disaster as described previously. The Unix operating system, whose
source code is freely available, is a case in point. There are many
``flavors'' of Unix, each of which is supposed to be
compatible. But in practice none of them are fully compatible.
Regulations defining what features Microsoft Corporation may and
may not add to which products have been proposed. However, as
previously mentioned, the integration of features into the operating
system is one of the key aspects of Windows that have made it
successful, and increased the abilities of its users with lower
costs. The lawsuit against Microsoft threatens to harm much more
than Microsoft Corporation. It threatens to harm the many people who
use, depend on, and have succeeded because of the Windows platform.
It threatens the consumer, the very group the lawsuit purports to
protect. It already has done harm through large amounts of taxpayer
money spent on it, technological stock market losses that arose
directly and indirectly from it, and delays in the release of
critically needed software. Therefore, as a consumer, as a software
developer, and as a Windows user, I implore all those involved to
take the opportunity the settlement offer presents to end this
lawsuit, before it does any more harm.
Sincerely yours,
Claudio
Friederich
[email protected]
MTC-00026633
From: James E Huninghake
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 27, 2002
To Whom It May Concern:
I have been deeply distressed by the Department of Justice's
legal attacks on Microsoft, a private company that has set the
standard for quality products at reasonable prices. I am convinced
Microsoft has played a large part in the productivity increases in
the United States the last 5 years that have raised our standard of
living to a level that makes us the envy of the entire world. I can
think of nothing but jealousy and greed being behind the legal
attacks that I am convinced was started with the encouragement of
Microsoft competitors. Don?t we have better things to do in this
country than attack one of the most successful and innovative
companies in American history? Lets get back to fighting our real
enemies, both at home and abroad ?poverty, poor public education,
crime, the Taliban, etc. . I shutter to think of what would come of
these if we directed the time and resources used in this frivolous
case towards these true threats to the American way of life.
If the DOJ can do this to Microsoft, who is next? Get over the
success of Microsoft and get on to other real issues that challenge
this country.
James E. Huninghake
4012 Fordham Drive NE
Minneapolis, MN. 55421
MTC-00026634
From: Janice Holder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the terms of the proposed antritrust settlement
between DOJ, 9 states and Microsoft are reasonable and fair to all
concerned. Too much time and money have already been utilized by the
parties fighting this.
I trust the Court will adopt the agreement and end the conflict.
C.Janice Holder
MTC-00026635
From: Pamela Rosengren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
A weak stance regarding the crimes committed by Microsoft will
not help America's standing internationally. With this proposed
settlement America appears to be saying to the international
community ``crime is OK if it is done by rich white
Americans''. At the same time by its actions elsewhere America
apears to be clearly saying ``crime is not OK if it is done by
the
[[Page 27848]]
poor, by non-whites, by non-Americans''. Think carefully before
ratifying this extremely weak settlement. America needs all the
credibility it can get and this is not the way to achieve it.
The consequences of this settlement will be felt worldwide. The
Microsoft monopoly is dangerously close to being totalitarian, and
it appears to edge closer all the time for example its strategies to
control the internet. It is difficult to understand how a nation
which champions democracy and capitalism will escape the
consequences of turning a blind eye to the predatory activities of
this corporation. America will lose its technological edge, lose its
lead in the international software market, lose the confidence of
other governments (this is happening now), and lose much of the
freedom its people enjoy. I am basing these comments on statements
by experts in technology and economics, not people who are
politically biased.
Pam Rosengren
MTC-00026636
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Jacobs
10333 NW 43
Coral Springs, FL 33065-2364
MTC-00026637
From: Helmut Kurt Burri
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
I write to you on the subject of the the United States''
civil anti-trust case against the Microsoft Corporation. As you
know, on November 6 2001, the United States Department of Justice
and Microsoft filed a proposed settlement.
This settlement was not aimed to find remedies for Microsoft
infringements of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Rather it is a
short term political and economical decision made by number of U.S.
states. The decision to settle was not based on having found
suitable remedies, that would stimulate innovation and competition
in the computer industry nor to deprive Microsoft of its illegal
gains. It was sadly driven by a conservative administration in the
White House, with strong ties to corporate lobby groups. Microsoft
was the second largest campaign donor the last election, giving $4.3
million to both parties, the largest share of this amount going to
the Republicans. It now seems that Microsoft's stratagem has
successfully divided the coalition of states and may have even
bought the submission of the U.S. president to its will. The
decision to settle well short of suitable remedies was also taken by
states seeing that in slower economic times, their constituents may
not look favorably upon a continued and expensive legal battle. Even
if the possible long term economic benefits would out-weigh the cost
of continued litigation in the immediate future.
The facts have been laid down by District Judge Thomas Penfield
Jackson in his final judgment. That Microsoft violated the Sherman
Act, the nation's anti-trust law, through the use of its monopoly on
the Windows personal computer operating system to stifle
competition. Microsoft in so doing extended its reach into new areas
as in the case of the Netscape Browser.
This is a practice Microsoft continues to engage in with its
latest update to its monopoly product called WindowsXP, by
``bundling'' Windows Media Player with it. This tactic is
aimed at Windows Media Player's competitors; Real Player by Real
Networks and QuickTime by Apple Computers. These two products are
the current leaders in digital movie streaming.
MSN Messenger is another product which is now also bundled on
all WindowsXP operating systems and all copies of Microsoft OfficeX
for Apple Mac OSX operating system. This results in MSN Messenger
unfairly competing with AOL's instant messenger application. The
detrimental effect on consumer choice by such actions is something I
am sure you are aware of.
Microsoft continues to engage in practices which have been the
focus of the anti-trust action brought upon them and subsequently
found guilty of. It has shown that it has no intent at regulating
its own actions, let alone ever admitting any form of guilt.
Microsoft at times displays an arrogant annoyance that any one ever
challenges their might and its innate right to do as it sees fit.
This is regardless of good moral and ethical business practices and
the law under which it must perform it's business.
Microsoft has often been described as an amoral organization,
that will not seek to rectify the error of its ways. It will not
heed unless you utilize the power invested in you, given to you by
the citizens of the United States. I thus ask that you carefully
consider the objections of the nine outstanding states and find
stronger remedies that will accomplish the goals, as they were set
out in the U.S. Court of Appeals:
(1) to prohibit the illegal conduct and similar conduct in the
future,
(2) to spark competition in the computer industry.
(3) to deprive Microsoft of its illegal gains.
All of this should be resolved as quickly as possible in the
public's best interest as well as to prevent Microsoft further
crippling of the computer hardware and software industry.
I sympathize with your position You are faced with decisions
that will have momentous consequence for decades to come. You will
define the world that you and I will live in and that our grand
children will seek, to enjoy the same freedoms that we should never
take for granted, for fear of losing these very freedoms.
Yours Truly
Helmut Kurt Burri
Mook Media--Director
Sydney Australia
MTC-00026638
From: Daniel Dreier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern,
I am a network administrator and software developer at
Verinform, a medical database software company. As we use both
Microsoft Windows and Linux operating system based computers, I have
a number of concerns about the proposed United States vs. Microsoft
settlement.
My primary concern is that the proposed settlement does not
address the very significant issue of file format documentation and
compatibility. The problem we face at Verinform is that Microsoft
uses a proprietary and undocumented format for the popular Outlook
email program, a component of the Microsoft Office application
suite.
Our work requires that we maintain a task list of to-do items,
and that multiple employees be able to share these lists.
Microsoft's Outlook provides an excellent method of doing this.
Since Microsoft does not make public the format in which
``Task'' list items are transmitted via email, we are
forced to use Outlook on all of the desktop computers in the company
which need to use the to-do list.
Microsoft does not produce Outlook for the Linux operating
system platform. We must therefor use Microsoft Windows, a seperate
and unrelated product, in order to use the to-do list.
If the settlement forced Microsoft to release to the public, to
competitors, and to the Linux community the format in which Outlook
transmits this information, then a competing product could be
created for the Linux operating system. Without a competing product,
Microsoft has no incentive to release Outlook for the Linux
platform; to do so would weaken their stronghold on the Windows
operating system monopoly.
I am also concerned about the issue of enforcement. Although the
settlement provides for a committee with investivative powers, this
committee has no enforcement powers. Microsoft has demonstrated in
the past that they are willing to use a lawsuit as a delay during
which to exploit a monopoly. For example, Microsoft was taken to
court on the issue of having used monopolistic powers to unlawfully
give their Internet Explorer product an advantage over Netscape's
web browser. By the time that the lawsuit had finished, Microsoft's
Internet Explorer had become the defacto standard on the
[[Page 27849]]
consumer desktop. Regardless of the outcome of settlement, Internet
Explorer will continue to be the leading web browser. There are no
serious competitors.
Microsoft cannot be allowed to simply ignore decisions of the
court, counting on the slow pace of the legal system and the appeals
process to protect them. Although I would favor a breakup to force
compliance, I understand that this is not generally considered to be
a realistic measure to take. I feel that the currently proposed
settlement will allow Microsoft to use loopholes to evade the intent
of the settlement and simply ignore any elements of the settlements
that cannot be otherwise evaded.
Sincerely,
Daniel Dreier
Director of Network Operations
Verinform, LLC.
[email protected]
(503)246-2934
7037 SW 54th Ave
Portland, OR. 97219-1340
MTC-00026639
From: Chuck Pliske
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:16am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear folks,
I am writing to indicate my disapproval of the PFJ against
Microsoft. As a 30 year computing professional, I have observed
firsthand the effects of Microsoft's monopoly on the world of
computing, and I believe that the proposed Judgement will do little
or nothing to prevent future abuses by Microsoft.
Thanks,
Chuck Pliske
Seawell Microsystems
Seattle, WA 98166
MTC-00026640
From: Helmut Kurt Burri
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
``The price of freedom is eternal vigilance'' against
those who see our will and our innate rights as a hindrance that
must be overcome. So that thee may subjugate us under their
domination. We must always make it clear to all that we will not
tolerate those who try to decrease our freedom, and take away our
choices. We must fight those who corrupt and circumvent the process
of law. And do so with impunity, as if thee are beyond the reach of
the justice. And the eyes of the people, that the law proclaims to
serve. The threat that Microsoft poses, is not confined to within a
single nations border. Rather Microsoft is aiming to control, the
links that cross these borders, and the very connections that binds
one human being with another.
It is thus vital to push forward with, vigorous prosecution of
Microsoft. Regardless off the weakness of some in the challenge
posed in the defense of democracy.
Helmut Kurt Burri
Mook Media--Director
Sydney Australia
``The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to
hold in higher regard those who think alike than those who think
differently.'' (Nietzsche)
MTC-00026641
From: Shawn Lahr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:22am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Dear Sirs:
One example of Microsoft's detrimental business
practices--for consumers--is what they have done to Web
TV. What started out as a promising advancement for web access in
the mid ``90s--especially for those who didn't want to buy
a computer in order to explore the world wide web--was snuffed
out when Microsoft bought WebTv and then did not develop it in any
way. It is years behind in its non ability to incorporate Java and
Shockwave technologies. A promising technology that could have
challenged Microsoft Window's utility--or Apple, or IBM for
that matter--was bought by Microsoft in order that it could be
controlled and not allowed to develop into something would have put
the web at the finger tips of millions of people. Microsoft saw a
threat and eliminated it. This is just one of many examples of what
Microsoft has done to STIFLE competition. Technology suffers. And
access for many is still out of reach. The penalty for monopolizing
a market should be stiff. It should not further benefit the
criminal--by establishing a more powerful position in the
education market, for example. thank you for your time,
sincerely,
Shawn L. Lahr
MTC-00026642
From: Gareth Paxton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 11:29pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Dear Sir/Madam
As a BeOS user in the UK I am all too aware of the microsoft
stranglehold on the IT industry as a whole.
The most worrying part of the problem was the OEM bootloader
licence and its clasification as a trade secret. OEMs were obliged
to refuse complimentary operating systems but were unable to offer
reasons. This situation is resonant of certain device manufacturers
who are ``unable'' to release the information needed for
support on non MS platforms, for no apparent reason.
This is most applicable to ``winmodems'' which cut
Linux and BeOS off from the net--where all the tech support is.
MS would have to licence the Windows API to manufacturers, and could
include a non disclosure clause to prevent support on other
platforms. With ``trade secrets'' as they are we may never
know.
The Legal situation is prohibitive and has held the IT industry
back for years, where the richest corps with the best lawyers can
cripple the competition. Advanced, faster, more reliable and free
operating systems. Bear that in mind next time your PC
crashes--how would you feel if your windows box was in control
of a life support machine? I would sleep easy if it was my BeOS box.
Dear Sir/Madam
As a BeOS user in the UK I am all too aware of the microsoft
stranglehold on the IT industry as a whole. The most worrying part
of the problem was the OEM bootloader licence and its clasification
as a trade secret. OEMs were obliged to refuse complimentary
operating systems but were unable to offer reasons. This situation
is resonant of certain device manufacturers who are
``unable'' to release the information needed for support
on non MS platforms, for no apparent reason.
This is most applicable to ``winmodems'' which cut
Linux and BeOS off from the net--where all the tech support is.
MS would have to licence the Windows API to manufacturers, and could
include a non disclosure clause to prevent support on other
platforms. With ``trade secrets'' as they are we may never
know.
The Legal situation is prohibitive and has held the IT industry
back for years, where the richest corps with the best lawyers can
cripple the competition. Advanced, faster, more reliable and free
operating systems. Bear that in mind next time your PC
crashes--how would you feel if your windows box was in control
of a life support machine? I would sleep easy if it was my BeOS box.
Thanks
Gareth
MTC-00026643
From: O (only) W WILSON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:27am
Subject: RE: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
JANUARY 27, 2002
4:25 AM
I AM CONCERNED THAT THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT BE COMPLETED AS PER
AGREED. CONTINUED CHANGING AND COURT DECREE WILL ONLY LENGTHEN THE
PROCESS AND CAUSE FURTHER PROBLEMS WITH OUR NATION'S ECONOMY, THE
SUCCESS OF A COMPANY, AND THE AVAILABILITY OF SOFTWARE/HARDWARE FOR
THE COMPUTING PUBLIC.
SINCERELY,
O W WILSON, ([email protected]).
MTC-00026644
From: Robert L. Barnhart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stop spending taxpayers money on this lawsuit which will only
hurt consumers in the end.
MTC-00026645
From: Allene R Wahl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
You must leave the amazing Microsoft alone. Don't let those
special interests defeat the public interest.
Allene R. Wahl, Ph.D., C.N.C.
9746 W. Reeves Ct.
Franklin Park, IL 60131
Ph. (847) 678-5934 e-mail: [email protected]
True cause of immune epidemic:
[[Page 27850]]
http://members.tripod.com/immune--disorders/
index.html
MTC-00026646
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
gail blissitt
324 merkle norman, OK 73069-6430
MTC-00026647
From: Rick Schaller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:49am
Subject: microsft settlement
Time to settle this matter in the manner proposed by Microsoft
and the DOJ. More delay will continue to be a drag on the economy
and further innovation in the industry. Anything more is just
political and to siphon out money to the lawyers inthe case.
MTC-00026648
From: Dave Cook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: US Dept. of Justice
Attn: Antitrust Division
Re: Proposed Final Judgement in Microsoft case
Let me first take a moment to introduce myself. I have been a
professional software developer for over 20 years and am currently
Vice President of Software Development at a local startup company in
San Diego. I have never been employed, either directly or
indirectly, by Microsoft, by any company closely affiliated with
Microsoft, any of its competitors involved in this case, by the U.S.
or state governments, nor by any group tending to take a strident
view of the case (e.g. Linux vendors). In the course of my career I
have developed software for both Microsoft OSes and other non-
Microsoft platforms ranging from DEC VAX and PDP-11 to very small
embedded systems. Furthermore, I have no personal relationship with
any party involved in the case.
I have followed the course of this case (and indeed the previous
case involving Windows 95) with somewhat detached interest, until
recently when the proposed final judgement was published. Even
though a principal finding of the trial court--that Microsoft
has used illegal means to sustain its monopoly in operating
systems--has been upheld on appeal, I can find nothing in the
proposed Final Judgement that imposes an actual penalty for this
violation of law. In addition, I do not believe that the proposed
conduct remedies are useful, given that the Consent Decree in the
previous case appears to have had no effect in deterring the
offenses that are now the subject of the present case. The proposed
Final Judgement contains only a section entitled ``Prohibited
Conduct'', and the remainder of the document is concerned with
enforcement procedures, termination, and the like. There is nothing
resembling a penalty. In effect, the settlement amounts to the
command, ``don't do it again'', despite the fact that
consumers have suffered massive tangible economic harm, and that the
market has suffered more intangibly from the presence of an illegal
monopolist.
Attempting to make some kind of estimate of harm to consumers,
suppose that the monopoly has been illegally maintained for 5 years.
In that time, roughly 100 million licenses of various releases of
Windows have been sold. Let us further estimate that the average
effective price to consumers through OEM PC sales has been
(conservatively) around $50, and that the absence of competitors has
caused that price to be $10 higher than it would have been had there
been no violation of the Sherman Act.
On this estimate, the approximate direct economic harm to
consumers is in the vicinity of $1 billion. Of course there is a
considerable error bar on this estimate as the impact of the illegal
behavior is somewhat difficult to quantify, but the essential point
is that the harm is certainly enormous and that Microsoft has
profited directly from illegal practices.
Given the nature of the case and the existence of ill-gotten
profits, an appropriate penalty would be a substantial economic one.
I believe that a large cash fine is in order, and if calculated
properly would cause sufficient discomfort at Microsoft to provide a
real disincentive to continuing the behaviors it has been found to
have committed.
That the proposed Final Judgement contains no actual penalty
whatsoever in light of this level of harm is, in my opinion,
patently contrary to the public interest, and I therefore urge the
court to reject it as not being in the public interest, as the court
is empowered to do. The government has proven its case, and the
public is entitled to something better than a glorified restraining
order.
Regards,
David B. Cook
7866 Hemphill Drive
San Diego, CA 92126
MTC-00026649
From: Info 4 SYNass.NET
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:57am
Subject: Crack M$'s monopoly
Hello,
I believe ``American Law & Justice'' must be blind
and deaf ... ... or there is a big corruption by its political elite
in the case of Microsoft ;-((
In my eyes: M$ plays a very tricky game ... ... not paying
respect to their customers nor the law. Not only this: As a
monopolist it cheats and maltreats its customers.
They do not fulfil their obligations to customers needs ... ...
they are caring their own cashcow and hide bugs and errors. They are
placing ``Roadblockers'' to get their case running into
hell ... ... if this happens: we'll have hell on earth: M$ = the
biggest IT dictator affecting the every business around the whole
earth !
A product having a market share more than 51% needs special
observation including its companies practices ! A company having a
product with a market share more than 66 % needs a mandatory break
into independent (NO management buyouts) smaller units !! America
and the world is fighting against terrorism ...
... M$'s monopoly is a kind of terrorism too: a FATAL economic
terror: They have killed so many small but very good companies and
products ... ... not only but also its working places and many human
existencies. Blue eyes are beautiful ...
... but being blue-eyed to M$ is fatal for us all !! Mister B.
G. may be a brave boy and son of his parents ... ... together with
his company's gang he is a wolve in sheep fur ;-( FINE it PAINFULL
with a sensitive very big money by CASH ! CRACK it into minimum 3
companies like:
1) Operating Systems
2) Application Software
3) Services (ASP, ISP and Joints like Telecom, and others) ...
... these could / should be cracked in perhaps more than only
one unit ! DO it ASAP ... ... stop the M$ GAME ... ... before
justice and law become inbelievable and looses its power against M$
in its worldwide cheaty, tricky monopoly game !!!
Kind regards and good luck
Albert M. Svoboda
Senior Consultant
IS Management & Organization
MTC-00026650
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please accept the settlement. It seems fair and continued
litigation seems foolish.
MTC-00026651
From: Shawn Wing
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 7:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the Microsoft settlement is a bad idea. I think it is
contrary to capitalism and is bad for the industry.
Shawn Wing
MTC-00026652
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 7:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My view of a computer operating system is that of an automobile;
How the car works--engine, brakes, etc., is up to the
manufacturer. But the accelerator is always
[[Page 27851]]
expected to be operated by the right foot and found to the right of
the brake pedal. In other words, the consumer is not obliged to hire
a chauffeur provided by the manufacturer who knows where all the
operating lever are secretly located.
J. David Riley
Ph: 941-747-8125 Bradenton FL 34212-2783
MTC-00026653
From: Russ Tuck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 7:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I remember happily paying Netscape a $30-40/year
subscription fee for the use of their latest
``Communicator'' software. Netscape made several regular
releases of their software each year, with major new features and
improvements in each one. Then Microsoft decided to ``cut off
their air supply'' by developing (at great expense) and giving
away similar ``knock-off'' software.
Netscape was eventually forced to give their end-user software
away, and as a result could no longer afford to invest in improving
and extending it. Releases became infrequent, and significant new
features quite rare. Once Netscape quit innovating in this area,
Microsoft mostly quit, too. So several years later, I still prefer
Netscape's software. I use it throughout each day for email and web
browsing. But I miss the innovative new features and improved
reliability Netscape would have added in the intervening years if
they had been able to continue selling their software.
I used Netscape Calendar to keep track of my schedule and
meetings. But now I'm forced to use Outlook for my calendar, because
Netscape didn't have the resources to continue supporting and
enhancing their calendar program. So I have to manually manage the
sharing of my email between Netscape and Outlook (because the
Outlook calendar requires Outlook email).
I had hoped that Netscape's Composer for editing HTML would
become my regular text editor. By storing files in HTML, they would
have been exchangable with people using all different kinds of
software. But development stalled, and Composer never became the
alternative to MS Word (and its proprietary file format) that I'd
hoped for. Microsoft's illegal behavior has cost me 100s of hours
(worth many $1000s) in lost productivity by depriving me of
continued software improvements from Netscape.
Russ Tuck, Ph.D.
1136 S. Blaney Ave., San Jose, CA 95129
[email protected]
Systems Architect
Pluris, Inc.
10455 Bandley Dr., Cupertino, CA 95014
MTC-00026654
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 7:24am
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,
Mike Rodgers
P.O. Box 924532
Houston, TX 77292-4532
MTC-00026655
From: Dan Burgin
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/27/02 7:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
While no lover of Microsoft and their tactics--I feel that
any marketshare gained by competitive browsers causes more harm to
companies than most people realize. Being an entrepreneur of a
venture-backed startup--I, like most of my colleagues, work
hard to develop business plans that won't be too attractive for
Microsoft to emulate and then destroy any competitors in the space
by giving the technology away for free. While this sometimes make
finding good Internet technology businesses more difficult--it
is capitalism at it's best.
However, many people fail to recognize the incredible waste in
development dollars spent by companies who develop Internet products
with the browser as the primary client-side interface. I don't
really care who wins the browser war, just as long as their is a
default standard--right now that standard exists because of the
dominance of Internet Explorer. Companies like Microsoft (and AOL/
Netscape included) will never be required to build browsers that
adhere to standards...quite the contrary, they ignore the standard
as a way to compete. This means that if there is no clear winner in
the browser war, there are now competing standards with signficant
marketshare. This means that products built to work on both the
browsers, as they now must, are required to a) either spend vast
amounts of capital developing work-arounds for the competing
standards, or b) lower the bar with the functionality of their
solutions to meet the lowest common denominator of what works in
both browsers. Each vendor who gains market share increases this
complexity exponentially.
While I was just fine developing for Netscape when it was the
dominant browser, I was actually happy when Microsoft came along
with a browser that, because it was bundled into the OS, was easier
for people to adopt. This gave it massive marketshare (well over 80%
today). With minimal effort we now support all versions of Internet
Explorer and only the most popular versions of Netscape and achieve
96% market coverage. Just to make matters worse, the open source
efforts at Netscape mean that the 6.0 version of the browser works
completely different from it's predecessors and the vicious support
cycle continues. Most people couldn't care less which browser they
use, but to small companies trying to build the next generation of
browser-based applications--life is hell when more than one
browser has significant marketshare. Browsers are simple interface
devices that should be bundled, should be free, and should either
follow the standard, or set it.
I am asking you to please consider trying to support a position
that does not make market conditions worse, dramatically worse, for
small technology business--and to let Netscape die the death it
deserves--and that the market has dictated.
Dan Burgin, CTO
Finali Corporation
Westminster, CO
MTC-00026656
From: Barry's--Shurhold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 7:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is bad idea.
Barry Berhoff
Palm City, FL
MTC-00026657
From: Don
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 7:34am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Gentlemen,
I believe that the settlement agreed to by the DOJ and 9 states
was a fair and equitable solution. Microsoft was a strong competitor
in a new rapidly growing industry in which no one new for sure what
form the internet would take, and all were looking for an advantage
in developing the system which would be chosen as the standard for
the industry. Microsoft developed the best system and made it
available at low prices. This in turn has led to making the internet
affordable to almost anyone. Systems much simpler sold for thousands
of dollars just a few years ago. Microsoft surely hasn't hurt the
consumer, as he is getting more bang for his buck than ever before.
I think AOL and some of the so called class actions appear to be
more aimed at getting a piece of the pie, or more harrassment than
any thing else. I think it is time to settle this as the other 9
states accepted, and let Microsoft get back to business. We, the
consumers have certainly benefited greatly from their innovation and
expertise.
Thank you,
Donald L. Bintliff
Pea Ridge, AR
MTC-00026658
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 7:33am
Subject: ``My fellings and concerns. ``
I have read and have been following reports of the Microsoft
case in news papers and am concerned that this is turning into a
witch hunt agains't Microsoft, the settlement was by far more than
fair, this looks like to me to be another ATT case which broke up
[[Page 27852]]
a great company and no one was the better for it. Mircrosoft has
done a great deal of good and I believe that this suit should end
for the good of the whole country, I could go on but I believe you
now know my feelings and concerns. thank you for allowing me to
share thoses concerns.
Donald E. Matson, Erie,Pa.
MTC-00026659
From: Gordon W grigor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 7:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
If you please, Sirs and Madams,
The arrogance displayed by Microsoft in its responses to the DoJ
REQUIRE a serious punitive reaction. A serious breaking down of its
software divisions, contempt citings for management and financial
penalties are the only suitable responses.
yours
Gordon Grigor
MTC-00026661
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 7:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice;
The proposed settlement with Microsoft (MS) is much too weak to
be an effective punishment. I believe this company thinks it can get
away with just about anything if it uses words to disguise its true
intentions. They are guilty of misleading
In specific, the Educational aspect of the settlement, which
would allow MS to give away products and to ``sign up''
people to use their products for bargain basement prices, is
appalling. MS believes they're being fair and generous with their
offer, but if they really want to make amends, I second Apple CEO
Steve Jobs'' idea that MS give only cash for the face value of
the settlement rather than product that is actually worth much less.
If you look at the true cost to MS, the real cost of the
products they want to give away will not even come close to the
retail value. This seems like a typical MS strategy of subterfuge.
The equipment, software and support proposed by MS to be given to
schools and the alleged price of such a giveaway is not in any way
causing MS to ``pay''. Rather, it's a recruitment move by
MS and it will hurt competitors. This would only encourage their
monopolistic behavior to continue in the future. What a bargain for
MS. No wonder they are excited about their idea!. Please don't let
MS get off scott-free with some gentle hand-slapping. They have very
deep pockets. Their actions deserve serious consequences. Why would
you go lenient on them yet go full tilt on smaller fish? It'd be a
slap in the face of all that the United States of America stands for
in terms of justice.
You've got MS where you want them, and you can do the general
public a huge favor, help to foster fair business practices in the
future, and serve justice by punishing these people where it hurts
the most; in their wallet and in their reputation. Make them pay
royally and do not allow them to create another monopoly in
education with their phony giveaway idea.
Thanks.
Mark Winter
MTC-00026662
From: John Stevenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 7:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I thought that Microsoft had been found in court to have engaged
in anti competitive practices. These practices damaged some smaller
companies and left them weaker and/or unable to compete except in
niche markets. I see NO signs in this proposed judgement that any
attempt is being made to manufacture large strong competitors in a
manner that would balance the playing field.
Where is justice in this?
Companies ``killed off'' or seriously damaged by
Microsoft's illegal actions have--what redress?
Even for the future what serious levelling of the playing field
has been done? I support the suggestion that Microsoft be forced to
give cash rather than Microsoft's own products (advertising/training
of the next generation of potential purchasers into the Microsoft
world) to the disadvantaged schools. Even better might be to force
them to make at least part ( say--third cash/third competing/
third their own--all by retail price) of the
``donation'' in open source competing products so that the
new generation of schoolchildren are exposed to more than Microsoft
based computing systems. How big will the total real value of the
``donation'' have to be to really punish them--the
figures I have seen do not look like a punishment--just a slap
on the wrist for this giant predatory monopoly who used illegal
methods to advance their position. I suggest that since Microsoft
have used their illegally obtained virtual monopoly on software to
take control world-wide--the schools ``donation
fine'' (as modified above) should be applicable world-wide and
should be massively increased.
The USofA so often sets itself up as the maintainer of Justice
and Righteousness for the world--the setter of the
standards--let us see it publicly discipline ``one of its
own'' which has been found guilty of illegal practices that
have damaged many people and companies world-wide.
Yours
John Stevenson
MTC-00026663
From: Shirley A Hackenberger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 7:59am
Subject: Others are Jealous
It's time to end this costly battle over Microsoft, others are
just jealous. No sense in dragging out this battle, please put a end
to this now.
Shirley Hackenberger
MTC-00026664
From: Jo Gimse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:11am
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement.''
PLEASE END THIS FIGHT AND MAKE A SETTLEMENT SO WE SENIORS CAN
GET ON WITH LEARNING THIS COMPUTER AND ENJOY IT. WE ARE SO VERY
SORRY SOME RICH WANT TO GET RICHER BUT YOUR COMPANY HAS
SHOWN TO US THAT YOU CARE ABOUT THE PEOPLE, BY GIVING OF YOUR
SELF AND YOUR PRODUCTS TO THE SCHOOLS, WHICH THEY NEED AND REALLY
APPRECIATE.
WE SEE NO WRONG IN ANY ONE GETTING AHEAD BY THEIR BRAINS AND WE
SAY, HIP HIP HURRAH FOR YOU.
WE HOPE THEY GET OFF YOUR BACK SOON, AND LET THE WORLD GET ON
WITH THEIR LIFE WITH YOUR MICROSOFT. IF THE COMPETITORS WANT TO GET
BETTER LET THEM BUT DO THEY HAVE TO DOWN GRADE YOU TO DO IT, NO NO
NO !! GOOD LUCK AND WE PRAY YOU GET THIS OUT OF THE WAY SO YOU CAN
GET ON WITH ALL THE WONDERFUL THINGS YOUR COMPANY DOES, AND DOES SO
WELL.
SINCERELY,
JO & JAMES GIMSE
4829 SOUTH 7TH STREET
TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98405-1206
MTC-00026665
From: Susan M Hansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement: No Good!
The proposed settlement is a bad idea.
I agree with the problems identified in Dan Kegel's analysis (on
the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html). I believe that
thecourt should reject the proposed USDOJ vs Microsoft final
judgment and instead adopt the remedies in the proposed final
judgment of the nine states as the final judgment.
Sincerely,
Susan M Hansen
100 Rosewood Rd.
Rocky Pt., NY 11778
MTC-00026666
From: Patricia Riendeau
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
1670 SE Chello Lane
Port Saint Lucie, FL 34983
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Our country is based on our desire to succeed. We cherish the
ideals that have made this a great nation. Why punishment when
success is ``too'' great? Finally, after three long years,
this whole matter seems on the verge of being over and done with.
Microsoft was wrongfully prosecuted for being a monopoly and it is
high time that this whole matter is resolved so that they can get
back to business as usual.
They have such a desire to see this case over and done with that
they have made extreme concessions that would normally never be
expected of any other business. No other company would be expected
to give over its trade secrets so that its competitors could get a
leg up. But that is precisely what Microsoft is called upon to do
and expected
[[Page 27853]]
not to retaliate when their products are squeezed out of the market.
I hope that such extreme measures will satisfy everyone, but I'm
sure that there are some people who won't give up until they get a
personal check from Microsoft. I hope that these people see just how
much that this lawsuit is hurting the average American who depends
on Microsoft products.
Sincerely,
Patricia Riendeau
MTC-00026667
From: Art Sullivan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a corporate developer and what I see in the settlement does
not addrress the major problem I have .
Microsoft with every release appears to exclude more and more
software competitors. They are doing this by making middle ware none
functional or none addressable.
I suggest the actions outlined below be address.
Thank you for your conmsideration
Art Sullivan
3 Haymount Terrace
Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510
Action
Establishment of a Windows API Standards Expert Group To clearly
and unambiguously establish what is required, technically and
legally, for an Intel-compatible operating system to install and run
Windows applications properly, the Court shall take the following
actions with the goal of creating and maintaining an Essential
Windows APIs Standard Definition and corresponding Essential Windows
APIs Standard Compliance Test Suite:
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 an Essential
Windows APIs Standard Definition, and to guide it through the
process of being adopted by a standards body such as ECMA or the
IEEE.
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 she or he 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:
1. 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.
2. 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 ISV's. The WASEG shall not enter into any non-
disclosure agreements with Microsoft or third parties. No
implementations of any Windows APIs shall be written or published by
the WASEG.
9. The WASEG shall have the following powers and duties:
1. The WASEG may require Microsoft to provide comprehensive
answers to questions about Microsoft intellectual property claims.
2. 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 hitherto undocumented or poorly-
documented Windows APIs.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The WASEG shall compile a complete list of Windows APIs,
including for each API the DLL name, entry point name, entry point
ordinal number, return value type, and parameter types. Within 90
days after the WASEG is convened, and on the 1st of each month
thereafter until complete, the WASEG shall make the currently
completed portion of this list available via its web site. The WASEG
shall use tools such as Apius from Sarion Systems Research to verify
that the list of Windows APIs is indeed complete, and that
installing or running any Popular Windows Application does not cause
any unlisted Windows API to be invoked.
6. The WASEG shall compile a complete list of Essential Windows
API patents and patents pending, and which Windows APIs each patent
covers. The WASEG shall compile this list by asking Microsoft for a
complete list of Essential Windows API patents and patents pending,
and then determining which Windows APIs are likely to be covered by
each patent or patent pending; the WASEG shall use the World Wide
Web Consortium's document www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-patent-practice-
20020124 as guidance. Within 180 days after the WASEG is convened,
and on the 1st of every month thereafter until complete, the WASEG
shall make the completed portion of this list available via its web
site.
7. The WASEG shall compile documentation for the above list of
Windows APIs, 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.
8. When the three documents described above--the list of
Windows APIs, the list of Essential Windows Patents, and the
documentation for the listed Windows APIs--is complete, the
WASEG shall undertake to submit them to a standards body such as
ECMA or the IEEE as a Public Windows APIs Standard Document, and to
make such enhancements and revisions as needed to gain the
acceptance of that document as a standard.
[[Page 27854]]
9. The WASEG shall create an Essential Windows APIs Standard
Compliance Test Suite, and publish it on the WASEG web site subject
to the GNU General Public License, according to the following
schedule: Within 180 days after the WASEG is convened, the WASEG
shall publish test cases for at least fifty Windows APIs. On the 1st
of each month thereafter, the WASEG shall publish test cases for at
least another fifty Windows APIs; this shall continue until a
complete Essential Windows APIs Standard Compliance Test Suite is
available on the web site.
10. In the event that a planned update to Windows or any other
Microsoft product is expected to result in the creation of new
Windows APIs, the WASEG shall create addenda to the above documents
and test suite covering the new APIs, make them available via its
web site, and undertake to submit them to the same standards body as
above as an addendum to the standard.
MTC-00026668
From: John Bork
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:38am
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. Background:
I am resident of the State of Ohio and a professional computer
programmer who works in both Microsoft and non-Microsoft
environments. I have been using microcomputers for over 20 years,
and have witnessed Microsoft monopolize the PC world. Lately,
however, there seems to be a glimmer of hope in the proliferation of
the Linux operating system, which indeed Microsoft has recognized as
its greatest potential threat.
Specific Failing in the Proposed Settlement:
The Proposed Settlement does not recognize the unique
contribution of the Linux operating system and the so-called
``open source movement'' to regenerating a competitive
market in the PC software business. I executed a search on the
Revised Proposed Final Judgment and found no mention of Linux. As
for details, I defer to more competent analysts such as Jeremy P.
White, CEO of Codeweavers, Inc., and Dan Kegel, who have already
submitted comments.
Closing Comments
It is obvious that in the years that this case has progressed,
Microsoft has taken steps to further integrate the functionality of
its Internet browser into the underlying operating system. The
``.NET Framework'' Microsoft is now promoting will further
extend the reach of their monopoly. Without an immanent settlement
or other legal relief, the advance of Microsoft as the default
software provider in the PC world only grows stronger. Eventually,
there will be no relief possible. As an American and a professional
computer programmer, I fear the loss of this freedom.
Sincerely,
John Robert Bork
Findlay, Ohio
MTC-00026669
From: Steve Weller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't like the settlement terms because it will make it
difficult for companies like CodeWeavers to put such fine products
as Wine.
Steve Weller
Steve Weller
P.O. Box 3528
Newport Beach, Ca 92659
MTC-00026670
From: Mac
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a professional marketing and advertising person using an
Apple platform computer.
I hope the the DOJ breaks up Microsoft into smaller companies
that allow more competition in software and hardware development.
The Windows OS should be a separate and non-linked program. Having
Internet Explorer as a web browser on an Apple OS computer is a real
problem. When installed, it will set itself as the default web
browser, even though it is installed NOT AS A DEFAULT in it's own
set up process.
It sets too many default preferences for Microsoft products. If
Internet Explorer is installed, it will set Outlook Express as a
default email program, even when it is not installed on the
computer. It also installs preferences for components in the Office
suite ( iE: Excel, PowerPoint, Word,etc) even though these ARE NOT
INSTALLED on the computer. This forces me to have to go through
several ``preferences'' control panels to reset the email
program back to either Eudora or Netscape as the default email
program. When installing Internet Explorer, there are NO OPTIONS to
prevent this. One must install the entire program with other
computer preferences being changed without my approval.
There is also, no provision in Internet Explorer to UNINSTALL it
from any computer. One must search the hard drives for any and all
components that are part of the program. If these are not removed,
the computer will crash and other browsers, like Netscape cannot run
until they are gone.
Microsoft does make some good products, but when their products
reset my preferences, without my approval, this shows how
inconsiderate they are of other platforms and software
manufacturers. Please break up the company into two.
(1) One for the operating system and one for the other
softwares.
(2) Require all Microsoft installers to have specific and
individual options for what is or IS NOT installed on any computer.
Microsoft has no right to decide what softwares I want or need and
should not be allowed to atuomatically install prefences, programs,
links or any other component that is not vital to the web browsers
operation. I should be able to choose what is installed.
Joe Maltby
[email protected]
MTC-00026671
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please end this litigation NOW!!!
MTC-00026672
From: Jeff Bonar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am writing to comment on the
proposed Department of Justice (DOJ) settlement of the United States
vs. Microsoft antitrust case.
Background:
I am the founder and CEO of JumpStart Wireless Corporation. We
develop wireless software applications available for 1/10th the cost
of wireless software using convention techniques. As the leader of a
small software company, I read the proposed Microsoft settlement
with dismay. Microsoft has used it's monopoly position in desktop
operating systems (OS) to effectively kill off all competition in
the desktop software and small network space. Their business actions
over recent months, with the release of the Windows XP operating
system, indicate that they have their eyes in similarly killing off
competition for multimedia applications and network
services--their ``.Net'' initiatives.
Similar business behavior for Wireless software is only a matter
of time. Already Windows CE, Pocket PC, and the code-named
``Stinger'' phones are marketed using techniques that
leverage Microsoft's desktop monopoly.
Software and information technology is a critical part of the
evolving ``Information Age''. To allow one company to
dominate leverage their monopoly to dominate major segments of
information technology costs all of us--the market cannot
function to produce innovation.
I feel strongly that the settlement of Microsoft's monopoly case
should provide real, strong, and effective remedies that force
Microsoft to compete on a level playing field.
Specific Failing in the Proposed Settlement: 1. The DOJ
settlement should restrict the core way in which Microsoft
unlawfully maintains its Windows operating system (OS) monopoly,
namely bundling and tying competing platform software (known as
?middleware?) like Web browsers and Java, to the OS. While
technically obscure, these components are the engine of innovation
in the emerging world of networked and wireless applications.
Particularly offensive, for example, is the Windows XP decision to
treat all Java applications as security threats.The Court of Appeals
specifically rejected Microsoft's petition for rehearing on the
bundling issue, yet the proposed settlement does nothing about it
2. The DOJ settlement has no provisions to create competition in
the OS market that Microsoft unlawfully monopolized. The DC Circuit
ruled that a remedy must ?unfetter [the] market from anticompetitive
conduct? and . . . ?terminate the illegal monopoly,? but
[[Page 27855]]
the DOJ deal does nothing to restore competition with Windows. Most
critical, the new settlement should put complete documentation of
the detailed Windows information (known as ?APIs?) in the public
domain. Because this is technically quite difficult without the
release of information that Microsoft withholds from most
developers, Microsoft must be compelled for fully cooperate in this
activity. As currently formulated, the DOJ settlement only
reinforces the Windows monopoly.
3. The DOJ settlement has no provisions directed to new markets
where Microsoft is using the same bundling and restrictive practices
to preserve and extend its Windows monopoly. Microsoft continues to
demolish potential competition in new markets just as it did in
1995-98 to Netscape. The Court of Appeals ruled that a remedy
must ?ensure that there remain no practices likely to result in
monopolization in the future,? but the DOJ deal does not even try to
restrict ways in which Microsoft could (and already has) leverage
its Windows monopoly in the future.
Closing Comments:
I have focused my comments here on how the proposed settlement
would affect JumpStart Wireless Corporation. I have been
particularly helped by the analysis published by the Computer and
Communication Industry Association at http://www.ccianet.org/papers/
ms/sellout.php3.
I feel that the proposed settlement has other serious flaws. To
that end, I would like to echo the comments made by Dan Kegel, whose
comments can be viewed at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html. I
strongly support his overall comments on the proposed settlement and
would like to add my voice to his.
To whoever is reading this, I realize that you have had to wade
through a lot of material. I very much appreciate your time and
effort.
Sincerely,
Jeff Bonar
CEO JumpStart Wireless Corporation
Jeffrey Bonar, Ph.D
JumpStart Wireless Corporation
398 West Camino Gardens Blvd #204
Boca Raton, FL 33432
561-347-6710
[email protected]
MTC-00026673
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:04am
Subject: As a 20 year computer user, I want to voice my disapproval
As a 20 year computer user, I want to voice my disapproval of
all the attacks on Microsoft. The state of our economy is in part do
the the JHAD the Justice Department has made on Microsoft. Consider,
if not for Mircosoft you would not likly be able to run your
computer. If you think not just try using DOS, or UNIX or the 20
other operating sustem's on the market. Windows made it so any idiot
can run a computer which caused millions of people to buy a
computer. A few jealous competitors and sympathetic government
bureaucrats is not a good reason to wrack havoc on a America dream
company.
Gilbert J Smith
MTC-00026675
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:17am
Subject: microsoft settlement
I support settlement of microsoft issue as best for the citizens
of this country.
Lois M Carter
MTC-00026676
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel very strongly that the Justice Department should accept
the Microsoft settlement and do NO further litigation on this
matter. I believe accepting the settlement will be good for the
economy and all parties concerned.
Orbin M. Sexson
105 Patterson Dr.
Au8burndale, FL 33823-2323
MTC-00026677
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear DOJ,
As an avid computer user, I have been following the Microsoft
Antitrust case with interest for several years now. In light of the
recently proposed settlement, I am very disappointed in the proposed
remedies and I would like to focus on two points:
1. The remedies do nothing to protect the interests of open-
source software, such as the Linux operating system and Apache
server software. These open-source projects represent some of the
few remaining alternative to Microsoft products and must be
protected.
2. The proposal does nothing to address the Microsoft .NET
project, which is aimed to replace the wonderfully platform-
independent Java programming language with yet another Microsoft
product. This will allow Microsoft to even further leverage their
stranglehold on the Windows operating system by eventually dropping
support for Java.
I know that a great many individuals have expressed their own
disappointments with the Microsoft Settlement--thank you for
taking the time to read mine.
Sincerely,
Christpher Holley
Durham, NC
Medical Student
Duke University
Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology
phone: 919-613-8625
fax: 919-681-1005
MTC-00026678
From: Ron E Tecklenburg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir
I am a senior citizen and would like you to know that if it
wasn't for Microsoft Windows I would not even be using a
computer.Thanks to Microsoft me and thousands like me are doing very
well with computers. I hope you will drop the charges against
Microsoft Corp.
Thank You
Ronald E. Tecklenburg
2839 Elk Peak Ct.
St. Louis MO. 63129-5706
MTC-00026679
From: Otto C Grummt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am just an ordinary citizen who has been following the actions
against Microsoft. As such, I have been concerned about the apparent
government actions as a plan to ``get Microsoft''. The
actions of Judge Penfield Jackson were particularly inappropriate,
in my opinion.
I want to be counted among those who oppose further action
against Microsoft. I strongly believe 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.
Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion.
Otto Grummt
11104 Flora Lee Dr.
Fairfax Station, VA 22039
MTC-00026680
From: Andy Pasulka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not believe that Microsoft's proposal for a settlement to
their antitrust suit is satisfactory in the least. They have
proposed their settlement
1. to effectively take squatter's rights on a slice of the
educational market they can't win by ordinary measures and
2. to put those users and organizations on the Microsoft upgrade
treadmill.
Their proposal does nothing to address the original DOJ
complaints, and in fact, reasserts their predatory nature on the
marketplace. Please do not accept their proposal.
ANP
MTC-00026681
From: Brian Gockley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:32am
Subject: Microsoft and Monopolys
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. Thank you
also for you persistent efforts to review this large and important
case. I have very little to say that has not already been said, but
would like to take this opportunity for public input to do so. I
have small business experience with several Operating Systems
including Windows, Macintosh, Atari and Amiga. I was a
[[Page 27856]]
computer store manager that sold these products, a trade publication
journalist and a trade show promoter who ran computer shows in CT.
In all of these positions, we were always pushed as much by
individual buyers as by Microsoft into selling Windows. Even though
most people recognized it as an inferior product, the fact that they
used it at work was the determining factor in what they purchased
for home use. In theory, this is how the free market is supposed to
work: unfettered competition bringing out the best product as the
market winner, with a great deal of innovation.
It is hard to argue that there has not been innovation in the
computer industry, however, the question is whether it was
encouraged or restricted by Microsoft's Windows OS. I think the
challenge for the judge is discerning how the mechanics of the
industry mean that the OS that sits on top of the hardware
controlled instead of opened the market. Because the OS and the
hardware have been linked, software developers and programmers have
had to write separate versions of all their program. If any one of
the companies could have written software that ran on anyone's
hardware, then we would have had a very different market, Instead,
great innovations like the Atari OS, the Amiga OS, the NeXT OS, GeOS
and others would still be around. Other innovations like the Unix/
Linux development would not have had to duplicate simple programs
like word processors, etc. to run on their own OS. The loss of the
code and development time that these innovators wasted is directly
because of the unbreakable link between the Intel hardware and the
Microsoft software.
The field is far from level, thank you for addressing the manner
in which this situation has developed. I hope that your solution
encourages innovation and open standards.
Thank You,
Brian Gockley
MTC-00026682
From: Harold L. Burnsed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think it would be in the best interet of all concerned to
accept this settlement and put it to bed. The cost is getting out of
control and no reasonable excuse for it. Let's get on with economy
and other issues that face this nation.
Thanks for your consideration to accept the settlement and move
forward
Harold L. Burnsed
8612 Rancho Drive
Ooltewah, TN 37363
[email protected]
MTC-00026683
From: GERHARD (038) ERIKA DIESENER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:42am
Subject: Letter to the GENERAL ATTORNEY MR. ASHCROFT.
Dear Microsoft.
My letter was send a couple of days ago to the attorney general
Ashcroft. I was very pleased with your draft it realy expressed my
thought.
Gerhard Diesener
E-mail. gerderika@ isni.net
MTC-00026684
From: jackchro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:43am
Subject: free to innovate
Microsoft has inhibited the growth of a very wide range of
companies for many years. ONLY the government has the power to
protect all of our other software and hardware providers. Clear and
accurate evidence was presented, and Microsoft was found guilty.
Since when and where do those found guilty get to decide their own
punishment? The states that have held out from the settlement are
acting on behalf of the citizen and consumer. They need to be
respected and heeded. Break the monopoly and let those who truly
innovate be free from unfair business practices.
MTC-00026685
From: Dorothy G Munoz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
In the best interest of the public in general, especially Senior
Citizens, please complete the compromise settlement with Microsoft
now.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dorothy G. Munoz
[email protected]
190 SW 3 St.
Dania Beach, FL 33004-3927
MTC-00026686
From: John Steiner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice:
We are in complete agreement with the following from Computers
for Computing Choice regarding the Microsoft case:
Sincerely,
John Steiner and Margo King
Boulder, Colorado
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.
The Court of Appeals ordered the District Court to hold
proceedings to fashion remedies that restore competition and deprive
Microsoft of the fruits of its illegal conduct.
The Department of Justice is attempting to prevent these
proceeding by entering into a settlement with Microsoft that
preserves its monopoly power, does virtually nothing to restore
competition, and leaves Microsoft with all of the ill-gotten gains
from illegally maintaining its monopoly.
The settlement will still allow Microsoft to extend its triple
monopoly in operating systems, office applications, and Internet
applications. This triple monopoly leaves Microsoft in a position to
capture control of the Internet in the same way it gained control of
the desktop.
Microsoft is already planning a future in which you will rent
its software as a set of services over the Internet. Microsoft will
then monitor your computing activities and charge you for them.
Essential services will be dependent on databases that store much of
your private information at Microsoft data centers and run your
transactions through them. The only way to stop this is to restore
competition in operating systems, office applications, and Internet
applications now.
Consumers for Computing Choice believes that any settlement or
Final Judgment must include remedies that provide:
(1) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to run the 70,000
existing Windows applications without modification on all other
operating systems.
(2) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to have native
versions of Microsoft Office applications on all other operating
systems.
(3) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace one or
more of the four Office applications with competing applications,
while retaining the ability to exchange files, data, and services
with any Microsoft application.
(4) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to have native
versions of Explorer, Media Player and other Microsoft Internet
applications on all other operating systems.
(5) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace one or
more Microsoft Internet applications with competing applications,
while retaining the ability to exchange files, data, and services
with any Microsoft application.
(6) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace any
component or feature in any Microsoft software product with superior
or special purpose components or features.
(7) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to run any Microsoft
software on computers that do not have Intel-compatible
microprocessors.
(8) A simple, affordable, and reliable way for software
developers to access all the information they need to create
products that offer consumers these choices.
(9) A way to ensure that original equipment manufacturers
provide consumers with equal access to computers with alternative
operating systems, productivity applications, and Internet
applications.
(10) A ``crown jewel'' provision establishing such
serious consequences for non-compliance that Microsoft will not
attempt to evade the necessary disclosure requirements and other
mandates.
MTC-00026687
From: Marvin E Petersen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:54am
Subject: settleing of Microsoft suit.
I feel that the settlement offered is in the public interest and
I want you to settle with M. S. now . they are helpful and not a
threat to the selfish competetors. Do it Now.
[[Page 27857]]
Marvin Petersen.
MTC-00026689
From: Shawn Cooper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Renata B. Hesse:
I am very disappointed in the way the Department of Justice
settled the Microsoft anti-trust case. What disappointed me most
about the settling of this case was the the Department of Justice
(DOJ) did not work to seek a remedy that all the suing States
accepted. It's my opinion that since the DOJ partnered with the
State's to sue Microsoft for anti-competitive practices, then the
DOJ should have followed though by creating a settlement that all
participants could back.
Sincerely,
Shawn Cooper
4509 Broadway #305
Kansas City, MO 64111
MTC-00026690
From: Timothy Huenke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:01am
Subject: Please don't settle this!!
Bill Gates and his croneys are criminals. Period. He and his
crew have done nothing more than lie, cheat and steal their way to
the top. If you don't believe me research the history of the
company. So many technological advances have fallen into obscurity
because of their business practices it's not even funny. Have you
ever seen the BE Operating System? What happened to Word Perfect?
Why won't some official admit publicly that Microsoft's entire
operating system is nothing more than a cheapened knock-off of the
Macintosh Operating System. Letting MS ``get away with
it'' one more time just proves that money will get you
anything.This does nothing more than make honest citizens and
business both equally jaded and despondent.
Here's an idea for a settlement: Tell Microsoft to put it's
money where it's mouth is, and let's see how
``innovative'' Billy and his team really are. Sequester
off the entire design staff of Microsoft for six months letting them
have no contact with the outside world. During that time order them
to come up with something entirely new and ``innovative''
for the computer industry. What do you think they would come up with
without having other companies ideas to steal? I'll tell you what,
you'd get zip out of them. That's because the heads of Microsoft are
not creative, innovative folks.
I wouldn't even take into consideration the economic effects of
any punitive damages on MS. Even if the company was utterly
destroyed, (which in my opinion is the best answer) the technology
sector would still thrive. It would simply clear the way for a more
competitive tech sector that would rise to new heights unimagined by
stock analysts today. I'm sure that there are companies afraid to
produce software innovations today because of the fear and loathing
imposed by the ``Bullies of Redmond''.
Do the public a favor for once and properly punish these
criminals and treat them for what they are: Technological Cosa
Nostra.
Tim Huenke
MTC-00026691
From: Kevin O'Neill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings,
I say don't let up on them. A large past of their success is
based on unfair practices. As a consultant, they have made my like
difficult over the years by making it harder or even impossible to
install competitor's software.
They have been devious at the cost to the user. Favoritism is
unfair to the little guy.
Regards,
Kevin O'Neill
Paso Robles, CA
MTC-00026693
From: Holly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a private citizen writing to register my complaints against
Microsoft, and my hope that the Department of Justice might actually
look at the issue of Microsoft's essential monopoloy of the software
marketplace from the point of view of an ordinary user. MS has
developed a wide variety of nice software. However, it's also
infamous for bugs and security risks.
Why? Because they care only about controlling the market so they
can make the most money possible. Their goal is not to make a
reasonable amount of money while serving people well, but to
maximise their profit while minimising their investment of money and
time. Quality is always the first sacrificial victim of such a
mindset. This is the same kind of reasoning that has gotten our
planet into such trouble, environmentally, socially,
politically....you name it.
As long as the primary goal is making money, and that goal is
not at least marginally balanced by a willingness to look down the
road at the future, we will have software that crashes computers and
doesn't deliver what the hype promised. I wonder just how much
wasted time there is in business alone, brought about by MS's buggy
programs? How many problems due to viruses, thanks to MS's
sloppiness about program security? I'm no expert on these subjects.
But I am a Microsoft program user, because there's NO EFFECTIVE
competition, due to MS's stridently irresponsible marketing. As a
user, I have to constantly back up things, I have to be constantly
wary about viruses, I have to assume that new releases will be less
stable than old. Surely it's obvious that these mindsets don't
advance business, or research, or anything other than MS's income?
I sincerely hope you will look at these issues with the big
picture in mind. What will tomorrow's computing future look like
with MS in the driver's seat?
Thank you,
Holly Shaltz
http://www.hjsstudio.com
http://www.shaltzfarm.com
MTC-00026694
From: Jim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
821 Cross Street
Destin, FL 32541
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 disgust at the lengthy and costly
lawsuit brought against Microsoft over the last three years.
Microsoft has been a pillar of our Technology industry creating
jobs, generating wealth, and making technological breakthroughs. As
a proponent of free enterprise, I think the government needs to stop
sticking their noses into private business matters.
The terms of the settlement are very harsh and will inhibit
Microsoft's ability to be competitive especially the stipulation
forcing then not to enter into third party agreement that obligates
exclusive distribution of Microsoft products. Also, forcing them to
disclose interfaces that are internal to Windows operating system
products seems to be a violation of their intellectual property
rights.
Nevertheless, it is in the bets interests of the American public
for the litigation to end, so I urge your office to implement the
settlement and suppress the opposition from bringing future
lawsuits.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jim Lundstrom
cc: Representative Jefferson Miller
MTC-00026696
From: DeP's
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the
BeOS or equivalent back into the market place. This new OS will have
unique & specifics features a part of the classic general
computer characteristics. but there is no hope of success if the
following issues aren't addressed :
*MS Office and Windows are too close to let consumers choose
between several OSs. Working on medias on BeOS (because of its
unique features and low cost applications), I has sometimes letters
to send and because MS Office monopoly, I have no choice than boot
on Windows and work on MS Word. MS Office needs to be opened, so
that developers interested in porting it or understanding the
document formats can do so either in form of a source code licence
or an allowance to see it, check it and ``clone
libraries'', so that applications on non- Windows OSs can read
and write MS Office formats for flawless interaction with Windows
users.
*All the OEM Microsoft should be able to propose a ``dual
boo'' for an alternative operating system if the consumer wants
it. With dual booting, consumers will be able to compare closely the
characteristics of teh OS and chose. The pressure of Micorsoft on
the
[[Page 27858]]
OEM leave the alternative OSs as ``geek toys''.
``TuneTracker'' application let you build a fully
automatic radio with half the price comparing to Windows
applicatiosn.
*The Win32 API needs to be made available (incl. undocumented
APIs) so that WINE can be successfully ported not only to BeOS but
other OS too.
*The file system needs to be opened, so that BeOS users can
continue to access files on non-BFS partitions. This should restore
and improve competitiveness in the computer market and improve
consumers benefits. This should certainly let me choose between all
the products available in the market.
Best Regards
Damien-Pierre LESOT
12, Rue Blomet
75015 PARSI
FRANCE
MTC-00026697
From: Russ Britton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:07am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
We are in favor of the agreement. It's time for the Justice
Department to spend more time on going after terrorists and less
time going after Microsoft on behalf of AOL Time Warner.
Russ & Donna Britton
MTC-00026698
From: Tim Harper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This settlement is bad. Microsoft has made a habit of providing
badly designed and poorly conceived software while doing everything
it can to thwart any competition whatsoever. There has never been a
release of a Microsift product that does not have some major
functionality flaw or security hole. It is time to take this
corporation to task and force them to behave responsibily as a
United States corporation acting in the interest of the US at large.
Tim Harper
MTC-00026699
From: Stuart Wyatt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear sir(s),
Microsoft is getting away scot free. They are a huge monopoly,
and if they are not stopped now, then I fear that it will be too
late in the not too distant future.
MTC-00026700
From: Tim Harper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am against the Microsoft court settlement. I think the
settlement is not punishing Mcrosoft for their obvious infractions
and does not have the interest of the United States citizenry at
heart.
MTC-00026701
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
FYLYPOWYCZ
36 SCOTLAND DRIVE
READING, PA 19606
January 22, 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 recent settlement
between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice. I am a huge
proponent of the capitalist system, and I thoroughly believe
Microsoft is one of our country's biggest assets, both through job
creation and through technological advances.
I have never felt that my rights as a consumer have been
infringed upon. Nor do I feel that Microsoft represents a monopoly,
since it consistently delivers quality products at prices that are
reasonable relative to the market. Nevertheless, the terms of the
settlement will serve to temper Microsoft heavy-handed marketing
tactics. Fostering improved relations with software developers and
computer makers by changing such business practices as licensing and
marketing will help to reach this objective. Moreover, relations
will improve if Microsoft eliminates anti-retaliation agreements,
which it is also pledged to do.
Although I think the lawsuit was flawed from the start, it is
now in the public's best interests for this dispute to go away, and
therefore I support the settlement and your office making it become
a reality. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Joseph Fylypowycz
CC: Sen. Rick Santorum
MTC-00026702
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:20am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
In my option I think the Microsoft settlement is fair, lets not
let the lobbies take control. Get on with it.. End it now.
Fred Gedney
New Smyrna beach Fl.
MTC-00026703
From: Richard Mundwiller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing to express my support of the settlement agreement
between the Department of Justice and Microsoft in their ongoing
antitrust case. As a consumer, I find the terms of the settlement
and Microsofts concessions to be fair, and I am in favor of ending
the case in the quickest manner possible.
The government's antitrust case has been ongoing for three
years, but the changes Microsoft has agreed to will allow them to
operate legally and promote a competitive marketplace. Ending the
case will better allow Microsoft to develope new technology and
promote its existing products. Under the settlement, Microsoft will
now, for example, be required to adhere to a uniform pricing list
when licensing Windows out to the twenty largest computer makers in
the nation. With the current slump in the economy, Microsoft's
continued financial success is important on a national scale. I
would like to see the matter resolved according to the terms of the
agreement.
Cordially yours,
Richard C. Mundwiller
HCR 70 Box 1147
Camdenton, Mo. 65020
MTC-00026704
From: PRISCILLA H MORRIN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Do not let these special interests defeat the public interest.
This suit has been ridiculous from the start! What a waist of money
and time in the courts.
P. H. Morrin
MTC-00026705
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly believe that this investigation has gone on long
enough. I also believe that it is in the best interest of all
parties involved to bring all charges to a close. Money has been
spent on this investigation that could be used in a much more useful
way to benefit all Americans. Mr. Gates and Co. have been successful
due to hard work and presenting products that have been useful to
the American public.
My strong recommendation is that time has come to bring this to
an end.
Sylvia Bailey Butler
North Carolina
MTC-00026706
From: Harold Hutchison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I support this settlement only because it does not appear that
this frivolous case will be completely tossed.
I have serious concerns about the fairness of the Findings of
Fact in this case issued by Judge Jackson, who had been giving media
interviews during the case.
I also question the fact that AOL/Netscape has filed its own
suit using these Findings of Fact. This leads me to believe that
their complaints were motivated solely to send the DOJ on a fishing
expedition that could be used against Microsoft later. There are
still alternatives to Windows as an operating system: There is
Linux, and there is a competing line of computers in the Macintosh.
My brother was able to find copies of Linux and install them.
Macintosh is also an alternative for those who do not wish to use
Windows. To say Microsoft has a monopoly is a pretty big stretch in
my opinion.
From my understanding the browser wars involved some fierce
competition, and there were probably a few too many elbows thrown by
Microsoft. However, this settlement should address the situation
while ending a
[[Page 27859]]
case that should not have gone as far as it has.
Personally, I'd have felt better had the Findings of Fact and
the Conclusions of Law been thrown out altogether, and Microsoft had
been granted a new trial. However, a settlement that keeps things at
the status quo is one that I can live with. Given the war on
terrorism, this case needs to be resolved quickly, even if the
settlement is less than perfect. Every dollar spent on this case is
money that does not go to protecting us from a threat that is
clearly worse than any theoretical threat posed by Microsoft.
This settlement is, on balance, in the best interest of the
public, and I support it.
Sincerely,
Harold C. Hutchison
MTC-00026707
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:26am
Subject: Settlement
Although I don't believe the justice department or any others
should have filed suit against Microsoft, primarily because it seems
to me to be an illegal lawsuit, I suggest you approve the Microsoft
settlement and get on with life
Gene Cunningham, 15645 130th St, Wellsburg, Iowa 50680
MTC-00026708
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:30am
Subject: microsoft settlement
I think the settlement is fair and just.
There is no need to destroy them any further.
yours truly
Jerome Seward
MTC-00026709
From: rshelton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Whom it may concern...
I support the antitrust settlement between Microsoft, the DoJ
and nine states.
I believe this settlement to be in the best interest of our
nation and struggling economy only because it is the ``best
deal'' that can be struck. This ill-conceived action (the
antitrust suit) was a major contributor to our present
``line'' of the stock market and our economy as a whole. I
am appalled that various levels of government are engaged in such an
apparent money-grab.
How could I hold such an opinion? By closely observing the
progress and aftermath of the tobacco fiasco.
Signed,
Robert and Linda Shelton
(Non-smokers)
MTC-00026710
From: Don Maddux
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/27/02 10:32am
Subject: Microsoft
I think the government should get off Microsoft's back. This
could have been one of the major contributors to the economy slow
down. The only thing they are guilty of is running an outstanding
company. They shouldn't be penalized for being good at what they do.
The government should spend this time routing out waste in
government spending, if it's looking for a real crime. Perhaps with
a comprehensive look at the crime of government employee
malingering, extravagant retirements, wages, benefits programs and
job protections policies, you would better spend your time.
Don Maddux
Prudential Commercial Resources Realty, Inc.
Phone (816) 931-3101 Fax (816) 531-1760
mailto:[email protected]
3101 Broadway, Suite 300
Kansas City, Missouri 64111
MTC-00026711
From: Ann Clodfelter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:40am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Please note the attached letter in support of a settlement in
the Microsoft suit.
Thank you.
Ann Clodfelter
Charlotte, NC
3166 Heathstead Place
Charlotte, NC 28210
January 23, 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. Too much Government intervention into business,
big or small, hinders the free enterprise system, research, and
innovation.
Microsoft has agreed to all terms of this settlement, including
terms that extend beyond the original issues of this lawsuit and has
agreed to disclose more information about certain internal
interfaces and protocols implemented in Windows.
To continue dragging on the lawsuit is wasting resources, both
private and public. I hope that you will support this settlement so
Microsoft and American business can move forward. Thank you for your
time.
Sincerely,
Ann Clodfelter
MTC-00026712
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear U.S. Department of Justice Representative:
I write this letter to encourage rapid closure on the Microsoft
settlement. As a technology professional and businessman, I have
chosen Microsoft products and services when they meet my
requirements, and have chosen competitive products in many other
cases.
Microsoft does dominate the industry, but that has made it
easier for developers to focus on our projects at hand. One example
is the ability to focus on a single browser under which our web
applications can operate. The Windows operating systems and web
server software like IIS have given us access to systems that are
easy to use and understand so that we can finish our development
projects on time.
I, for one, chose to do most of my development in Macromedia's
Cold Fusion--a competitor to one of Microsoft's product. CF
allows me to do the things I need to quickly. I am free to chose a
Microsoft competitive product and that works for me.
It is time to move beyond this case. Microsoft will always face
competitors and some of them will effectively compete to get their
products and services to market. At the point that Microsoft uses it
monopoly powers to stifle competition in the future, those companies
are free to approach the U.S. government to have their case heard.
It is time to close this book and allow Microsoft to continue its
focus on bringing additional products and services to the
marketplace.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Paul Carney
President
Ishtot, Inc.
[email protected]
703.869.1088
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026713
From: David E. Colbert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough is enough. Quit persecuting companies, specifically
Microsoft, who make a superior product and DON'T GOUGE the public.
No one is stopping their competitors from producing a better
product, but the government(s) sure as hell will stop Microsoft from
making a better product by removing all incentive to improve. Wise
up you bureaucratic bumbling idiots!
David E. Colbert
Sarasota, FL 34241
MTC-00026714
From: Will von Reis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:40am
Subject: MSFT is monopoly
As a software developer who uses Microsoft products, I am
grateful that they often give away development resources in order to
promote the use of their technology. For example, they announced
that in the next quarter they will be giving away their .NET
development environment for free (it is currently priced $600-$800).
This is great, but it also tells me that Microsoft sees a threat to
their business coming from this area of technology. As a developer I
have witnessed them taking aggressive steps against many other
technologies that they must have seen as threats to their core
desktop business. It is difficult to evaluate the real threats posed
because most of these other initiatives floundered soon after
Microsoft introduced their own. Some examples off the top of my
head.
MS Win CE -> 3COM Palm
MS Direct Draw -> OpenGL
[[Page 27860]]
MS Internet Explorer -> Mozilla/Netscape
MS OCX Web Objects -> Java Applets
From my perspective, MS clearly uses their dominance in one
arena to squash innovation in others.
SOLUTION: prevent MS from selling to OEMs. Consumers must
install windows themselves. IE you can't buy a machine with windows
pre-installed.
This forces them to be vulnerable to the same market forces as
everyone else- CONSUMER CHOICE!
Will von Reis
1737 West Arbor Dr.
San Diego, CA 92103
MTC-00026715
From: Paul (038) Elda Reichard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please ratify the Microsoft agreement and end this costly and
wasteful law suite. Let those who are jealous of the success of
Microsoft, produce their own useful products rather than tear down
the innovative products of their competitor.
Paul Reichard
Senior Citizen
MTC-00026716
From: Jean Hanamoto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Good morning;
I must comment on the blind and frustrating way that the court
has handled the Microsoft settlement. Bill Gates''
megalomaniacal outlook on the computer world is frightening!
Microsoft's need to overpower and ruin other businesses is a slap in
the face to our system of justice, fairness, and competition. The
most hideous part is that they're still being allowed to make
exactly the same moves, and are still taking full advantage of their
power over the internet to try to crush any and all that might
challenge them. The arrogance and willfulness will not stop until
the courts do something drastic.
Please don't let Microsoft bully their way into being the only
choice we have.
Sincerely;
Jean Hanamoto
Jean's Artworks
16632 Lone Hill Dr.
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
(408) 776-8664
[email protected]
MTC-00026717
From: Andrew Zanevsky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam:
In this e-mail I submit my opinion on the antitrust settlement
between Microsoft, the Department of Justice and nine states.
I think that the terms of the settlement are fair to all parties
and should be approved. I believe that further litigation against
Microsoft would be detrimental to the health of the industry and the
U.S. economy as a whole. It could only benefit some of the Microsoft
competitors and not the consumers.
I am a professional computer database administrator, consultant,
speaker, author, and business owner. My opinion is based on 15 years
of industry experience, direct involvement in associations of
computer professionals, my expertise in the field, and contacts with
colleagues.
I clearly see that if Microsoft is prevented from adding new
features to their products, the industry will stagnate. It will lead
to increased costs of software for consumers, because we will be
forced to buy and integrate numerous products in order to conduct
our business. Introduction of new features in the operating system
is a natural process of software systems evolution. I believe that
any continuation of the legal process against Microsoft will only
suffocate progress in computer systems, not invigorate it.
Technology in our industry changes so fast, that Microsoft's
lead in operating systems does not guarantee it's dominant position
in related markets. We have seen numerous software companies
successfully grow from nimble startups to multi-billion dollars
corporations. This happens when they have a truly innovative and
useful products. But Microsoft often comes up with a better solution
and then consumers make their choice. As an industry expert and as a
consumer, I urge you to approve the proposed settlement terms and
allow Microsoft to continue its research, development, and
innovation.
Sincerely,
Andrew Zanevsky
President
AZ Databases, Inc.
[email protected]
tel. 847-919-7002
MTC-00026718
From: Tobin Fricke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
I am writing to express my comments on the Proposed Final
Judgment (PFJ) in the anti-trust case United States versus Microsoft
under the provisions of the Tunney Act. I am a citizen of the United
States, a resident of the State of California, and a student of
Computer Science at the University of California.
I believe that the proposed final judgment is insufficient to
end Microsoft's illegal monopoly. The PFJ would do little to improve
the competition in the markets dominated by Microsoft.
One of the main provisions of the PFJ intended to facilitate
competition in the markets currently controlled by Microsoft's
monopoly is provision D in section III which requires that Microsoft
disclose to all interested parties the programming interfaces (APIs)
used by ``Microsoft Middleware'' to communicate with the
``Windows Operating System,'' and then only when new major
versions of ``Microsoft Middleware'' are released.
I believe that this requirement must be strengthened. In its
current form, provision III-D gives Microsoft an advantage
over possible competitors, because Microsoft would only be required
to release API information after Microsoft itself has released a
product relying on these APIs. Thus, Microsoft will always have a
``head start'' over possible competitors.
Microsoft will necessarily have better knowledge of the APIs,
and hence a significant advantage over any possible competitors in
software development, so long as it is Microsoft itself who
implements the APIs in the operating system product.
Moreover, the release of API specifications is limited to those
used by ``Middleware.'' This is an unnecessary limitation;
Microsoft should be required to release all API information used by
any product, not just ``middleware.''
The only possible remedy to this situation that will result in
fair competition of software that runs with Windows Operating System
Products is complete separation between Operating System and
Application Software divisions within Microsoft.
Clear demarkation between OS and application software is not
just good for competition, but it is a fundamental engineering
principle of computer science. Better specified interfaces will
improve security and possibly reduce the thread of worms such as
NIMDA, which have caused billions of dollars of damages to
organizations dependent upon Microsoft software. Third party
application software developers should communicate with the
Microsoft Operating System (OS) division exactly in the same manner
as the Microsoft Application Software division communicates with the
Operating System division. For example, the OS division would
publish API specifications, and only after this publication would
the application developers (both Microsoft and third-party) be able
to use this information. This will result in fair competition in the
market of software running on the Windows platform.
This separation would result in a cleanly specified set of
interfaces used by non-operating system software to communicate with
the Windows Operating System. Not only would this result in fair
competition amongst application software developers, but it would
also make it possible for a third party to implement a product to
compete with the Windows Operating System itself that would be able
to run all of the software that can be run by the Windows Operating
System itself.
The WINE project is one such effort of a third-party
implementation of the Windows Operating System API. However, the
WINE project's progress has been chronically plagued by the poor
documentation and secret nature of some aspects of the Windows API.
A fully documented Windows API would eliminate this hurdle, and
allow projects such as WINE to compete with Microsoft's operating
system products.
The logical means of implementing this separation is to split
Microsoft into multiple entities: one corporation to produce the
Windows Operating System, one corporation to produce other
application software, and possibly other corporations to handle
other Microsoft projects, such as Windows Media Player and
Microsoft's media interests.
[[Page 27861]]
In the past, corporations have been broken up as a means towards
eliminating monopolies. The breakup of AT&T into long-distance
and research divisions and the regional bell operating companies,
for example, benefited consumers in numerous ways, bringing
competition, innovation, diversity, and prosperity to the
telecommunications industry. The breakup of Microsoft would have
similarly beneficial effects.
Tobin Fricke
25001 El Cortijo Lane; Mission Viejo, CA 92691-5236
MTC-00026719
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please attached document detailing my position on the Microsoft
settlement.
Thank-you,
pat
803 Knight Court
Salisbury, MD 21804
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I would like to take this time and give you my thoughts on the
Microsoft Anti Trust case.
I feel that this case has gone on far too long without making
any real progress. Whether or not Microsoft was responsible for any
wrongdoing, the proposed settlement will certainly restore fair
competition to the computer industry.
I work daily with Microsoft products as a Computer Analyst.
Their products and systems integration have my job a great deal
easier. They've contributed so much to our economy and have changed
the technology industry forever. The settlement calls for Microsoft
to share a lot of their interface design and server protocol with
their competitors. Additionally, OEM's will be allowed to pre-
install competing products within Windows. If there are any
problems, there is a Technical Oversight Committee to deal with any
future violations or problems.
The proposed settlement is a fair solution to the problematic
Anti-Trust case. Our country needs to concentrate their efforts on
other issues and ending this lawsuit is certainly a good way to do
that. Please accept the settlement and allow our country to flourish
again.
Sincerely,
Patrick Shaner
MTC-00026720
From: Owen Cooper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is the leader in supporting a defined interface as a
way to allow different groups to work on different components
without interfering with each other. Applying this to IE, it would
be great if they unbundled IE and published their interface.
Microsoft is great but too monolithic. Having them publish their
interfaces and/or source code would not break them up, but would
increase competition. Seems a suitable response to the judgement
against them.
Owen Cooper
MTC-00026721
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
DONAL MILLER
2762 TONY DRIVE
LAWERNCEVILLE, GA 30044-5775
MTC-00026722
From: Vern Alway
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The United States DOJ is acting destructively toward an American
corporation not on any principle, but because of the size and
success of the victim. If Microsoft had done anything wrong,
conventional laws of fraud would have been invoked.
It appears that we have a national policy of attacking the best
in our system.
Vern Alway
Victoria, Texas
MTC-00026723
From: Nick Ferone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
Please accept this as a Public Comment by Dominic Ferone, of
Columbia SC, regarding the Microsoft Settlement.
``The Microsoft Case has hurt investors to the tune of more
than 50 million dollars, and even though I am not one of those
unfortunate souls, I am a user of Microsoft products and have been
since 1991. In my opinion, this case is about envy, and a
competitors ``rights'' to smash his better with the use of
a government club if he is unable to adequately compete in the free
market. Settle this squabble and let Mr. Gates continue to own 100%
of the company he and his partners created. Microsoft innovation in
programming languages alone has allowed me to venture into a new
career path, and has directly affected my own life positively. The
competitors who filed this suit against Microsoft should know that
if this case is not settled amicably, then I will NEVER use THEIR
products in the future, and will not recommend them to clients of
mine.''
MTC-00026724
From: Nathan Lineback
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I recently became aware that I have the opportunity to comment
on the Microsoft settlement and I felt that I had to say something.
After reading the settlement it seems to boil down to
``Microsoft, behave yourself''. This is what they should
have been forced to do from day one while the trial was going on.
Much of this is what any sufficiently large well behaved company
should do voluntarily.
As a consumer I have been personally harmed by Microsoft's
actions, and I believe Microsoft needs to be punished for it's past
actions. I also believe that this settlement will not prevent
Microsoft from finding ways to continue to abuse their monopoly.
The part about not having to release documentation regarding
security APIs and protocols is just plain dumb. If someone can crack
the security just because it is documented, then the software is bad
and needs to be fixed. Additionally the availability of information
about security APIs and protocols are absolutely critical for inter
operability with non-Microsoft products.
The settlement implies to me that Microsoft could license the
API documentation however they want. It is imperative that such
documentation be public domain, otherwise Microsoft could use their
license to exclude certain types of developers.
As for how to properly punish them and make sure they never
again do what they did, I am afraid I don't have the answers. I only
know this settlement won't do the trick for the long run.
Thank you for your time.
Nathan Lineback
416 Walker St.
Villa Rica, GA 30180
MTC-00026725
From: Merlin Grue
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My name is Merlin Grue and I reside in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. I
am sending this message to express my concern about the efforts of
some individuals, corporations, and government agencies to inhibit
Microsoft's right to compete in the market place and provide quality
products at a fair price to me, the consumer.
If I wished to purchase products from one of Microsoft's
competitors, I am free to do so, without any intervention from
local, state, or federal government.
The only ones who profit from litigation of this sort are the
attorneys.
[[Page 27862]]
Merlin Grue
MTC-00026726
From: Anthony Mullen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:13am
Subject: (DOJ Microsoft)
Dear DOJ
I would like to say that the proposed settlement with the
government and Microsoft will do little to stop this companies
dominant position of the market and the industry.The measures need
to be much more substantial to promote innovation and choice to the
customers.We need greater competition which will lead to more and
better products at more affordable costs.
MTC-00026727
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:17am
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,
edwin potter
hc 4 box 184e
brightwood, VA 22715
MTC-00026728
From: Evolving old
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/27/02 11:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
As a computer professional and an American citizen I believe the
the antitrust action against Microsoft is unwarranted and unjust.
For the record, I have chosen to use other operating systems (Linux,
various flavors of Unix, Mac, and the OS400) instead of Microsoft's
wherever possible. The consumers who have bought the Windows
operating systems have done so of their own free will. To say that
Microsoft has a monopoly is an opinion born out of ignorance and
laziness.
I do not like their products but I think it is unfair that the
government helps their competitors by bringing this suit. It is
anti-democratic, anti-freedom, and born of and supported by jealousy
of companies who cannot run a business as well as the management of
Microsoft.
Please bring this episode to a close by terminating the
antitrust action against Microsoft immediately. Please stop wasting
the taxpayers money. Please stop enriching trial lawyers at the
expense of productive individuals and organizations. Please stop
granting government favors to jealous business competitors. Please
stop government actions which hamper the creative endeavors and job
creating abilities of businesses everywhere.
Sincerely,
Greg Puetz (native born U.S. Citizen)
Programmer/Analyst
25162 Southport Street
Laguna Hills, CA 92653-4923
MTC-00026729
From: Jack Sheehan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General Ashcroft:
Attached is a letter summarizing my opinions on the Microsoft
Settlement. I believe that Microsoft provides products of superior
quality at fair prices. I do not believe that their business tactics
are greatly different from others in the business. With regard to
monopoly, there is competition, and there are other choices.
I personally would like to see this matter resolved as
expeditiously as possible.
Thank you,
Jack Sheehan
45 Lenor Drive
Harwinton, CT 06791
860-485-1260
[email protected]
John J. Sheehan
45 Lenor Drive
Harwinton, CT 06791
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
settlement that was reached in November between Microsoft and the
government. I support this settlement and feel that it will serve in
the best public interest. I believe this litigation battle is costly
and a waste of resources. I urge you to support this settlement.
I also believe that Microsoft provides excellent products at
acceptable prices. With regard to the monopoly argument, other
products are available to those who wish to use them. Microsoft
should not be penalized because their products are clearly superior
to products offered by their competition.
The settlement was reached after extensive negotiations.
Microsoft has agreed to all terms and conditions of this agreement,
including: designing future versions of Windows to make it easier to
install non- Microsoft software and licensing its Windows operating
system products to the 20 largest computer makers on identical terms
and conditions. A technical oversight committee has been created to
monitor Microsoft compliance to this agreement.
During these difficult times, one of our highest priorities
should be to boost our economy and aide our businesses. Microsoft
should not be stifled or hindered; this will not benefit anyone.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Jack Sheehan
MTC-00026730
From: lucy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lucy McClusky
5 Brian Road
Edison, NJ 08817
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 offer my support for the
settlement that was reached in the anti- trust lawsuit between
Microsoft and the Department of Justice last November. Microsoft has
been wonderful in making the technology industry what it is today.
Yet the industry is hurting as a result of this litigation, and I
would like to see an end to it as soon as possible.
Other companies have had the ability to compete with Microsoft,
and yet they simply have not been able to do so. Microsoft should
not be punished for this, although the company made certain
concessions that have allowed this case to be settled so that this
whole matter can be put to rest. Microsoft will share information
with its competitors on the Windows operating system, and allow
computer makers to ship non-Microsoft products for use within
Windows without any retaliation. The three person technical
committee that will be established will ensure Microsoft's full
compliance with these and all other terms of the settlement.
Thank for reaching this compromise with Microsoft. The economy
will be revitalized once this case is over, and the technology
industry can get back to the success it had before this lawsuit
began over three years ago. I look forward to the finalization of
this settlement.
Sincerely,
Lucy McClusky
MTC-00026731
From: Dan Harper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Whatever happened to crime and PUNISHMENT????
A criminal is suppose to be punished, not rewarded.... What
next, free condoms to rapists, a free case of scotch and a tank of
gas for anyone who kills someone DWI ??
The proposed settlement, is a payoff... Pure and simple... We
all knew President Shrub was going to sell out the American citizens
to play nice with his big business buddies who got him elected...
But this is bad news for everyone but Microsoft.... And I thought
they were the bad guys???
If indeed the Department of Justice has anything to do with
justice... Then a solution that involves punishment for the
monopolistic practices must be brought forward... Otherwise, we
might as well
[[Page 27863]]
rename your little club to the Department of Just Us... (* The rich
and shameless)
Sincerely,
Dan Harper
MTC-00026732
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:26am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Please stop all action against Microsoft. This only hurts us
all. The proposed settlement is more than enough punishment.
Manny Alegria4513 S. 14th Ave.
Tucson, Az. 85714
(520) 294-8995
MTC-00026733
From: Ben Schilke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to ask that you reject the settlement proposal
between Micorsoft and Department of Justice that is before your
court. Microsoft (``MS'') is a company that practices
unfairly and illegally in the software and operating system markets.
Time and again MS has used it's monopoly power or any other
advantage to wrongfully gain market share and greater control of
these markets. Since being charged with anti-competitive behavior,
MS has shown in its defense of these charges the complete disrespect
for the idea of fair competition that matches their behavior. To
claim responsibility for the innovation in software of the last
decade or so is rediculous--those familiar with the software
industry knows that MS is not an innovator, but rather borrows or
steals so much of what has been considered innovative. The idea that
there needs to be a consistent platform so that there is
compatitibilty across computers is also bogus: look at how
seemlessly MacOS and Windows files are now translated from one to
the other. And consider it's proposal a few weeks ago that it donate
supposed millions of dollars of software to under-privelege school
systems. What kind of company has the arrogance to suggest that
``dumping'' a product into the one market they have not
yet concord (the education market) is a fitting punishment!?!
MicroSoft must not be allowed to enter into this proposed
settlement with the Department of Justice if current and potential
competitors are to be allowed a chance to compete and provide
consumers with real choices in the software market.
Ben Schilke
MTC-00026734
From: Tom Voorheis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am sending this e-mail in regard to the proposed settlement in
the US vs. Microsoft Antitrust case. The proposed settlement leaves
to many open doors to Microsoft to simply work around them, and
becomes simply a road bump in Microsoft's domination of the market,
rather then its intended purpose to allow for competitors to do what
competitors are actually meant to do. compete. I very much urge you
to reconsider many of the definition of what Microsoft must do,
particularly in regards to the distribution of information regarding
all the of the APIs which power all Microsoft windows devices, that
is all devices which are run by the Win32 APIs. I strongly urge you
to reconsider this settlement, for i disagree with it strongly for
it does not fulfill the purpose that it was meant for. my opinion is
stated.
Tom Voorheis, Ann Arbor, MI
MTC-00026735
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:26am
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,
Jane Ricketts
1907 Ferndale
Ames, IA 50010
MTC-00026736
From: Paul W. Kleinknecht
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge
I would like to express my concern about the proposed Microsoft
settlement. I use many Microsoft products and have enjoyed using
them.
I am concerned that if they have broken the law and are not
punished, it could have a negative affect on future computer
products. I think that Microsoft should be held accountable for
their actions. Thank you for your consideration.
Paul Kleinknecht
Paul Kleinknecht
4500 Mid. Mt. Vernon Rd.
Evansville, IN 47712
812-421-0043 phone/fax
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026737
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:33am
Subject: Attorney General John Ashcroft Letter
Attached is the file that I have sent to Representative Ric
Keller.
Sincerely,
Charles Bradley
1229 Foxden Road
Apopka, FL 32712
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am taking this time to write you regarding the Anti-Trust
lawsuit that continues to plague the Microsoft Corporation because I
feel your actions on this issue will make a dramatic impact on the
American consumer. In spite of the broad range of restrictions
imposed, Microsoft's competitors are actively trying to undermine
the settlement during this review period. Therefore, it is even more
urgent that the government hears directly from the consumers who
will be directly impacted by this on-going lawsuit.
Microsoft has undergone three arduous years of scrutiny under
the American government and I believe the settlement plan is fair
and just. The fact that Microsoft has agreed to not retaliate
against other computer competitors, allow competitors to develop
software that matches their own, as well as disclose for use by its
competitors various interfaces that are internal to Window's
operating system products, tells the public and the government that
Microsoft is dedicated to supporting a pro-competitive market.
Please take note of my opinions and consider the consumers first
when making a decision that will continue to affect the American
people. I thank you greatly for your time and consideration in this
crucial matter that plagues the ethics of the American tradition.
Sincerely,
Charles Bradley
cc: Representative Ric Keller
MTC-00026738
From: Joseph A. Sandova
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:32am
Subject: Microsoft
Consumer interests have been well served. It's time to end this
costly litigation, NOW!
Thank You,
J. A. Sandova
3028 N. 3rd. Street
Whitehall, PA 18052
MTC-00026739
From: Mark Gisleson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
After reading extensively on the proposed MS-DOJ settlement, I
am flabbergasted by Microsoft's continued and aggressive disregard
for laws they find to be ``inconvenient'' to the
maintenance of their illegally obtained monopoly. The current
proposed DOJ settlement prompts me to wonder if there is anything
short of murder that will get a billionaire arrested?
This is not a settlement, it's a cave in to a thuggish company
run by Enron-like monsters who refuse to understand that the law
applies to them as well. I would rather see every purse snatcher and
petty thief
[[Page 27864]]
released from jail than to see one more white collar criminal go
free.
Microsoft is overwhelmingly guilty of grossly abusing the law
and the markets. Failure to punish them will result in a grievous
weakening of our national defense, but the DOJ seems to understand
security flaws about as well as you seem to understand the laws
regarding full disclosure, ethics, and the binding nature of
regulations and laws.
Mark Gisleson
GISLESON WRITING SERVICES
P.O. Box 14264 St. Paul MN 55114
651 644-6408 phone
651 645-3530 fax
[email protected]
www.gisleson.com
MTC-00026740
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I support the present settlement of the Microsoft case and think
further litigation is inappropriate
Jerry
MTC-00026741
From: Walter Marlow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I wish to note my full support for the proposed Microsoft
Settlement currently undergoing public comment.
Innovation, improvement, and enhanced functionality are
essential for all products offered to consumers, whether
automobiles, electronics, software or other. Microsoft provides
these in all of their software products and consumers benefit
greatly as a result.
Microsoft (and consumers) must be able to move on and continue
to improve and to benefit. Finalizing the proposed settlement is key
to this, and one significant step towards improving the economy.
Allowing a small but extremely vocal group of failed
competitors, Microsoft ``bashers'' and their political
cronies to interfere with this settlement with yet more political
and litigious obstructionism will only further stagnate the industry
and economy, when we could instead be moving forward.
Rigorous competition is key to our economy and to consumers
getting the most ``bang for the buck''. But when some
competitors retreat to the courtroom rather than the drawing board
in the face of rigorous competition, everyone loses. It's time to
put the courtroom behind us and move forward, focusing on market
competition and technical cooperation that will advance and improve
the industry, the economy and consumers'' interests.
Respectfully,
Walter E. Marlow III
Electronics Engineer
16372 Passing Road
Milford, VA 22514
MTC-00026742
From: reneehudon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge the DoJ to accept the antitrust settlement currently
pending. It has met the standards by the Court of Appeals and it is
time to move forward. Microsoft is an integral part of our nation's
economy and now more than ever we need to reinforce our economic
strength. As one brave American recently said--``Let's
roll''.
Thank you
MTC-00026743
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May concern,
A Citizens Opinion:
Lighten up on Microsoft. They are to the future what Steel was
to the Industrial Revolution. This is not an issue for a slighted
individual judges anger, nor emotional ploys used by competitors to
gain public sympathy (even if in some part meritorious) to let
important little tug boats run the great liner onto the rocks.
Microsoft is led by people who have absolutely no need for
Money. This fact should help in evaluating motive. I believe these
people simply enjoy exercising their agile brains, and have basic
decency, and hope for a better world. They are reasonable scientist/
businessmen, and have no more interest in simply playing life away
in the pastures of pleasure, than Einstein, Newton, or DaVinci.
These maligned Microsoft executives are in fact society's, in the
flesh, Santa Claus, and will be remembered thousands of years from
now for bring us out of the dark ages.
Lets not mistake these great people of our era, for the Robber
Barrons of yester-year. Help them help us all have a better, and
better world. They have proven themselves a brilliant diamond
passing light with all but a magical ability to heal in every walk
of life. Look at the innovation, direct and indirect that we have
seen in the last ten years. Get sick, go into a hospital, and just
try to imagine how much of your stay is somehow touched by software.
That's just one field. What about metalurgy? Factory automation?
Engineering design. Government resourses. Military implimentation.
Education. The stock market. Scientific research. And we're just at
the beginning.
Miracle Microsoft.. because from small beginnings we have
witnessed the human seed that will continue to Spawn a new world,
long, long.. long, after we are all gone. So we'd better be right in
how we cradle this gifted child, and design the structure in which
we allow it to grow, healthly. History will look back and say these
where the Geniuses that got it right, just as we look back on the
lightbulb and the facilities brought to every site to be able to use
them, and all things electric. By the simple logical growth set
about by the good deeds of these great people, we may someday have
``The one BEST Physics teacher in the world.. in every
highschool classroom, with teachers of today serving as tutors,
while the fundamentals are established by world class expertise
aided by personality, graphics, and professional production aids.
Most of us had mediocre to TERRIBLE teachers in ALL the sciences in
highschool, didn't we? This is wasting our mental resourses and
creating pain and a sense of inferiority, in otherwise smart kids
who don't realize what happend to them.
With innovators such as these, we may someday accomplish
communication with the public to the point that State Governments,
holy grail that they currently are, may come to look like expensive
redundancy. We may see a world where false boundaries on a map do
not provide motive to kill off people on the other side. With
communication.. the world becomes more homoginized, less dangerous,
and one people. That's what we really are, here on ``spaceship
ea rth''. It's hard to imagine waring with Japan or Germany..
now. What has changed? We are now interdependent. How did that
happen. How do we implement it? Could it even exist
without...software? Could we keep track of it all?
Ask yourself what YOU are personally doing to accomplish these
wonderful spin-Offs. If you're like me, the answer is.. well
personally.. NOTHING. Please help educate those you influence to the
beauty of the greater picture of our lifetimes. To the extent rules
are needed for competitions health, make them with input from both
sides, but don't introduce a welfare state for business, that gives
a false handicap at the expense of our strongest warrior. This is
not a game. Nicey-nice has no more place here than on a battlefield,
and most of us have little if any hands on experience in the mud,
like the guys who role up their sleeves at Microsoft every day to
take on the hardest intellectual challenges we can't even imagine,
for the fun of it. Strange people. Strange love. I'll take it.
Thanks for your time,
Paul Larisey
MTC-00026744
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a Microsoft supporter.
What ever Microsoft has agreed to is OK with me.
I believe, Microsoft has been attacked by others who could not
stand good stiff competition and were a lot of crybabies. They could
have done the same thing to forward their businesses if they had the
gumption.
Now please let Microsoft get on with their work.
Etta Dell Olson
Elmer A Olson
MTC-00026745
From: Rose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:41am
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
This Settlement is unjust because it still gives Microsoft The
ultimate control over the market.It still allows Microsoft to sell
its products at an outrageous amount, because it is needed to run
any programs in today's market. For example Microsoft is selling a 4
year old operating System at $200.00, along with all the other
programs at a ridiculous
[[Page 27865]]
amount. Any Programs out there say you need Windows to run it.
There are other Operating Systems that are Free but you can use
a very limited amount of today's programs.. This settlement still
allows Microsoft to be a monopoly. Which is against the Law.
Sincerly
Rosemary Formanek, Florida
MTC-00026746
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:41am
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
I work as a systems administrator in the hospitality industry in
my country Nigeria. Microsoft products have become for us a great
blessing due to the fact that it has provided an easy to learn, easy
to support, and easy to use interface and technology.This has also
led to gainfull employment for youths who otherwise would have
wasting away under the heat of the African sun admist a constant
reminder of porverty and underdevelopment.More importantly though is
that microsft has brought joy to our homes and given a businesses a
chance to compete and a sense belonging in a global village that is
our world today.
The settlement is good and fair. Let the others who are against
the settlement look for ways to be innovative in their product
development instead of seeking to tear apart a good thing. Besides a
good product always sells itself.
Thank you
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026747
From: Jackie Allison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:41am
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
Re: ``Tunney Act'' It is time to end this costly &
damaging ligitiation.
Consumer interests have been well served.
MTC-00026749
From: Tuggle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:42am
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
It's time we all understand that there is a pervasive
``corporate culture'' regarding operating in ethical ways:
``Make me''. So, your honor, this is as good a place as
any to start. Let the punishment, for bad faith and anti-competitive
actions backed by corporate officers from the top-down, reflect the
public interest more accurately than the settlement deemed
acceptable by the President and the other states.
This management style has seriously damaged our country. It has
and continues to demoralize and victimize honest workers all over
the nation; farmers, factory workers, imported engineers,
physicians, nursing home aides, etc
. . . . . . . . .
Help restore confidence in the American system of justice. Start
with this decision. Carol Tuggle 117 Charter Oak Rd. Southbury, CT
06488
MTC-00026750
From: chris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:40am
Subject: FW: on the Microsoft case
Mr. Blumenthal, State Attorney General of CT suggested I forward
this.
``Oakleaf, Christopher'' wrote:
Dear Mr. Blumenthal,
While I presume you have some technically astute people
providing you information, I've not seen anything in the news that
suggests any one is aware of the current intertwining of the MS
Operating System and the IE browser. At this point in time, anyone
updating the browser, say from 5 to 6, is also updating key
operating system components. MS has also made it very difficult to
back off an update. Today, if you upgrade from ME to XP, for
instance, it is not possible to revert to the previous version. The
upgrade is one way, which was not true when you went from 98 to ME.
Microsoft never has and never will have any interest in playing
nice in the sand box. The comment that follows is a perfect example:
Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said the company had not reviewed
the Netscape lawsuit and could not comment on specific allegations
but added:
``AOL purchased Netscape for $10 billion, now AOL wants to
blame Microsoft for Netscape and AOL's own mismanagement.''
A viewing of ``Triumph of the Nerds'', broadcast on
PBS from time to time, makes Bill Gates stance towards the rest of
the industry, and by extension the rest of the country, quite clear:
Microsoft plays to win and doesn't take prisoners.
I have been very gratified that your office has continued to
pursue this issue, as there's nothing that Bill would like more than
for the pressure to go away.
An anecdote: Some years ago, when GE was working out the MSNBC
deal with Microsoft, Netscape was the browser of choice within the
organization.
Bill Gates was clearly aware of this. The next release of office
had not been made available to the company as a site license. Word
was that the contract negotiations were stalled. There was no
question in anyone's mind that
Bill wanted Netscape off the desktop at GE. While I have no
direct evidence, I would not be particularly surprised if Jack Welch
didn't tell Bill to take a hike, as the next release of office was
available immediately after the closing of the MSNBC deal and
Netscape was not removed from the desktop.
Regards,
Chris Oakleaf
An occasional correspondent
As a private contractor, the views expressed here are my own and
do not represent those of any entity I may be working for. Dear Mr.
Oakleaf:
Thank you for your recent thoughtful correspondence concerning
the Microsoft antitrust case.
As you know, on November 6, 2001, the United States Department
of Justice and Microsoft filed a proposed settlement. I did not join
that settlement because I do not believe it would accomplish the
goals we set when we filed the case. Nor would it accomplish the
remedial goals set by the U.S. Court of Appeals: (1) to prohibit the
illegal conduct and similar conduct in the future, (2) to spark
competition in this industry; and (3) to deprive Microsoft of its
illegal gains.
You may also express your opinion to the judge of the federal
trial court considering this settlement by filing written comments
with the United States Department of Justice by January 28, 2002, as
follows:
Mail: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
[NOTE: Given recent mail delivery interruptions in Washington,
DC, and current uncertainties involving the resumption of timely
mail service, the Department of Justice strongly encourages that
comments be submitted via e-mail or fax.]
E-mail: [email protected]
In the Subject line of the e-mail, type ``Microsoft
Settlement.''
Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or
1-202-616-9937
Please keep me informed of your opinions on the case.
Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerly,
Richard Blumenthal
Attorney General
MTC-00026751
From: Terry Frederick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:47am
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
Terry M Frederick
President
Custom Business Solutions
10308 Metcalf, #151
Overland Park, KS 66212
913-384-3373
[email protected]
I own a small computer consulting firm in Kansas, and most of my
business is derived from developing software that runs on Microsoft
operating systems. I have developed software for over 30 years, and
from my experience, Microsoft's programming environment for third
party development on their operating system is the most flexible and
has the most features of any operating system ever built.
Microsoft is also one of the least expensive environments for
developing third party software. The cost of development tools and
libraries is well within the reach of any small business that
desires to create new software that will run on Microsoft's
operating systems. The main reason I chose to specialize in
Microsoft development was due to the great depth of resources and
capabilities that are available for software development at a
reasonable price.
My business has suffered recently, but not from actions by
Microsoft. I am constantly competing with an attitude from potential
customers that believe that Microsoft is a bad or criminal company
and that they should not develop software on Microsoft's operating
system and support a bad company. My customers look at this case,
and read the negative comments about Microsoft in the news, and
often select non-Microsoft environments for their software
development. This courts actions, and the
[[Page 27866]]
length of time that these proceedings are taking are creating fodder
for damage to Microsoft's reputation. The Microsoft competitors that
are supporting these court actions against Microsoft are generating
propaganda that takes advantage of the fact that Microsoft is being
tried for illegal activities.
I have spent years training to become proficient in Microsoft
development, and I do not have the resources to train and support
programmers in all of the other areas of software development.
The longer this case goes on, the more damage will be done to
Microsoft's reputation, and to my businesses ability to get new
work.
Please end this case. Microsoft's competitors created this case
to use the resources of the Federal court system to damage
Microsoft. In fact that is what is happening, and will continue to
happen as long as this case continues. As you damage Microsoft, and
Microsoft's reputation, you are damaging thousands of other
companies that have built their business around Microsoft products.
Please end this, now.
MTC-00026752
From: Rex A Kofford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:48am
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
The settlement as it now stands is fair to all concerned. To
pursue the matter further will hamper the introduction of new
products and enrich attorneys.
Sincerly,
Rex & Alene Kofford
MTC-00026753
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:48am
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
All AOL wants to do is to eliminate competition.
If Microsoft wants to give their products away, I say great for
the consumer.
I love it.
I am and have been a customer of AOL now for about 5 years and I
am considering dumping them because I believe they have a monopoly.
I believe they presently control the Internet and don't want any
competition.
Every Microsoft product I purchased, I believe has been a great
bargain.
AOL are big cry babies.
Bob Eddy
Grand Rapids, Michigan
MTC-00026754
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:52am
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement of the Microsoft case is a bad thing. I
find it to be threatening in that it essentially hands the desktop
computer industry over to Microsoft. I find it offensive that our
U.S. legal system could contemplate it as a remidy for the injuries
Microsoft has caused.
Regards,
Todd Olson
MTC-00026755
From: Alan Shackelford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:56am
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
I consider anything which threatens the open source and free
software movements to be a threat against me. I have chosen (as a
free, voting American) not to use Microsoft products. I don't
believe in the philosophy they adopted, and will not support them by
using their software, either operating system or application. Please
be so careful while representing my interests in this settlement.
Any action which might interfere with the open source and free
software movements is in direct conflict with my interests, and
those of millions of other users around the world.
Thank you for your time, and please resist the temptation to
cave in and go with Microsoft.
Alan V. Shackelford
ShakNet Mail and News
MTC-00026756
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:55am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Fed up with the weight lobbyists play in wrecking havoc in this
country!
Stop this nonsense NOW before we put more people out of work
leaving MORE families without income and children barefoot. There is
more than enough of this going on in this USA already.
Stop spending THE PEOPLES MONEY ON THINGS THAT BENEFIT
WASHINGTON BIG SHOTS RATHER THAN THE MASSES!
WISE UP!!!
WISSFIRE
MTC-00026757
From: Chuck (038) Jean Trom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:57am
Subject: Microsoft Stttlement.
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft is unconscionable. I
cannot understand why the government would want to tear down
American business. This suit attacks the very foundation of what we
have built this nation upon: free enterprise. The perpetuation of
this litigation cannot and will not aid this country in any way;
indeed, it will only hinder the future of America. If we continue to
attack the best and brightest of this nation, we will end up with
nothing more than mediocrity.
The settlement that has been reached in this case must be
accepted; it is fair, and those who think that it ``does not go
far enough'' are clearly not searching for a solution to a
problem, but rather their own gain. Under the terms of the
settlement, Microsoft will design future versions of Windows to be
even more compatible with the products of other companies. The
company will also cease all retaliatory behavior against its
competitors. The terms of the settlement will be ensured by a three
person technical committee, which will monitor the future business
tactics of the company.
This settlement must be accepted. We cannot allow political
avarice destroy one of the finest companies ever produced by this
nation. Thank you for your continued support of American business,
and for hearing my opinion.
Sincerly,
Charles Trom
3033 Madeira Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026758
From: Dick (038) Shirley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:56am
Subject: Current Proposed Settlement
It is time the Government got off the back of Microsoft and got
beck to work on the current real problems. It appears that since
Microsoft has not become the giveaway program such as ENRON that has
participated in that the our Senators and Representatives are trying
to punish Microsoft.
The actions in the past of breaking up Hughes Aircraft and
Hughes Medical Research should have been taken as a lesson.
Because a person makes a Billion Bucks is no reason to try to
put him or the Company out of business simply because he/they don't
buy into enriching elected officials in Government.
Richard B. Lackie
MTC-00026759
From: Kate Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:56am
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Hesse:
Please do not accept the proposed settlement with Microsoft. It
is not in the public interest. It leaves Microsoft's monopoly
intact, is imprecise, unenforceable, and allows the company plenty
of opportunities to exempt itself from important provisions.
The applications barrier to entry which must be reduced or
eliminated. Any settlement or order needs to ensure that consumers
can run any of the 70,000 existing Windows applications on any other
operating system.
The settlement must provide ways for any combination of non-
Microsoft operating systems, applications, and software components
to operate properly with Microsoft products. Consumers must have a
la carte competition and choice so that they and not Microsoft
choose the products on their computers.
The remedies proposed by the Plaintiff Litigating States are in
the public interest and completely necessary, but they are not
sufficient without the additional ones mentioned above.
[[Page 27867]]
The court is required to hold public proceedings, under the
Tunney Act, giving citizens and consumer groups an equal opportunity
to participate, along with Microsoft's competitors.
Sincerly yours,
Kate Thompson
PO Box 48
South Tamworth
NH 03883
603-323-7762
MTC-00026760
From: Brian Allemana
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:59am
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
As is the right of every U.S. citizen during the period of
public commentary that is specified by the Tunney Act, I hereby
submit my thoughts and opinions regarding the outcome of the anti-
trust trial against Microsoft.
I am against the current settlement being offered between the
U.S. Department of Justice and Microsoft Corporation. Based on
professional study and experience, I believe Microsoft can and will
find methods to circumvent this settlement for their own good
without considering the impact on the general public. The settlement
must be strengthened before I can accept it as a solution to
Microsoft's illegal behavior.
The primordial soup of the personal computer industry began with
technological hobbyists sharing each other's ideas for the purposes
of enhancing that technology as well as purely satisfying their
human curiosities. The Internet, once it became public, took off
like no other technological development before it, and it is based
upon open, non-proprietary technologies that are both robust and
exist solely to serve the public good. Likewise, the PC revolution
could not have taken off as it did without IBM opening its hardware
specifications for the world to understand and enhance. Clearly,
technology thrives in an open, competitive marketplace, not a
marketplace dominated by a single company.
Microsoft has strived, more aggressively than anyone else, to
stifle the competitive nature of the software technology world for
their own benefit. Judge Penfield Jackson's Findings of Fact make
this point perfectly clear. Companies such as Apple, Compaq,
Netscape, Sun, even IBM and Intel, are all cited as having suffered
business losses due to Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. It is
clear that Microsoft can no longer be trusted to run their business,
particularly a monopoly business, in a responsible manner.
It would be irresponsible of us, as a democratic nation, to
allow Microsoft to continue striving for complete market dominance
without any substantial checks and balances in place. The current
settlement being offered does not provide the fulcrum needed to
support such balances. It barely takes a step in the right
direction, and that step will prove meaningless once Microsoft
begins taking advantage of the enormous loopholes within the
settlement.
While the settlement, in spirit, attempts to remedy the
complaints originally filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, it
does not, on any realistic level, restrict Microsoft from continuing
anti-competitive practices. For example, the settlement only
specifies a few products that Microsoft must open to competition,
and these are not their most important products nor the products
most likely to be wielded in their continuation of market control
(e.g., it specifies Outlook Express and Microsoft Java, but not
Outlook or Microsoft C#). The settlement also fails to encourage
competition in the operating system marketplace by not fully
specifying that Microsoft must not artificially raise the barriers
to entry to their operating system protocols, or requiring Microsoft
to publish the specifications when the barriers are raised. This
allows Microsoft to grossly inhibit developers of competitive
operating systems and/or applications from having the same access to
system protocols as Microsoft developed applications (one of the
major points of contention within the original DoJ complaint).
Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact outline anti-competitive
behavior that the proposed settlement barely begins to address.
There is no requirement for Microsoft to open their file formats,
minimal requirements to open their networking protocols, and
licensing fees are not properly regulated. There is actually room
within the settlement for Microsoft to hinder competition by giving
unrealistic requirements to competing bodies that try to implement
available Microsoft protocols (such as requiring a competitor to
meet unspecified technical requirements seven months prior to a
``beta test version of [the] new Windows Operating System
Product'' [section III H.], which, at Microsoft's discretion,
may be too soon for a competing developer to implement these
protocols).
Overall, it is clear that this settlement falls short of serving
the public interest. There are too many loopholes and freedoms given
to Microsoft, who, by the course of their own actions, and as
determined by a federal court and upheld on appeal, has lost their
right to these freedoms by violating federal law.
I hope you will take my thoughts and opinions, as well as the
thousands of other concerned citizens who have voiced their points
of view, into careful consideration prior to rendering a settlement
decision.
Thank you for reading. This message will be duplicated via fax.
Sincerly,
Brian Allemana
Web Developer/Consultant
773.478.9211
[email protected]
http://www.brianallemana.com
MTC-00026761
From: David Yoo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:00pm
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a uniformly bad idea.
MTC-00026762
From: George Toft
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--Proposed Final Judgement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed
Microsoft settlement. I agree with the problems identified in Dan
Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html). So as to not waste your time by reproducing the
analysis here (see above web site), there are a substantial number
of problems with the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) that render it
ineffective, making the entire DOJ vs. Microsoft case a waste of
taxpayer money.
Regardless of the errors discovered in the original trial, the
Findings of Fact remain undisputed, and Microsoft must be punished,
just like AT&T and IBM were for similar transgressions of law.
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.
TYhank you for considering my opinion.
Sincerly,
George Toft
3455 West Twain Court
Anthem AZ 85086
MTC-00026763
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:01pm
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
My second email.
AOL is complaining about Microsoft giving their product away.
In reviewing the Sunday morning paper, I notice so many adds in
which retailers are giving products away, such as:
1) Buy one, get one free.
2) Buy one, get two free
There are all kinds of ads like the above.
This includes companies as McDonald's, Meijer, D&W, HP and
many other companies.
Are we about to eliminate competition?
I hope not.
Bob Eddy
Grand Rapids, Michigan
MTC-00026764
From: Laura Troth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I am just writing to add my voice to this injustice that is
being done to Microsoft. I always thought that America stood for
being a ``free'' country, where one could rise to the top
if smart enough and good enough. Why then is this suddenly being
punished. Microsoft employees very intelligent people to develop
computer programs, etc. If the people that they employ are the
smartest in the field and the products that they develop are way
ahead of other companies, is that not
[[Page 27868]]
part of what it is to be American. It is not their fault that people
prefer their products over Apple, etc. I know that I personally used
a Mac computer before I ever touched anything with Microsoft in it.
I was amazed at the difference. I actually liked to use the computer
with the Microsoft products in it. Speaking of monopolies, how is it
that Microsoft's offer to provide much needed computers in school
was argued against by Mac--who by the way has the monopoly on
computers in schools. How is this fair and just to Microsoft. This
is ridiculous. I guess what makes me even madder is the fact that
Clinton spent more money chasing down Microsoft for some made up
propoganda than he did to chase down an known terrorist and
murder--yes, we know who that is... Bin Laden. Has it occurred
to anyone that if they had not been persecuting Microsoft, there
might not have been a Sept. 11??
Also, it is my believe that competition in business is good. It
is what drives companies to do better for customers, to develop
better products, better service, etc. If you take away this right,
you will find people not satisfied with what is left and they will
stop buying. How will this help our economy. The bottom like is not
that Microsoft had a monopoly, but that they had a better product.
This whole thing needs to end now.
Sincerely,
Laura Troth
MTC-00026765
From: Paavo Parkkinen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:10pm
Subject: The Microsoft settlement
I don't know if non-US citizens are allowed to comment, but I'll
do it anyway since I feel that the decision affects me also.
I have never felt the Microsoft monopoly in my life. I learnt to
use a computer on a MSDOS. At the time, though, there were other
DOS's and I never felt that MSDOS--even though it was the most
popular--had a monopoly in the market. At the time Windows 3.1
came out I was already starting to learn other operating systems.
And while ``the Microsoft empire'' grew, I started to grow
away from it. Nowadays I use a Microsoft OS only very rarely. I
don't have one installed on my home computer and at my school we
have ample opportunity to use other operating systems. Needless to
say, I have never felt boxed in by Microsoft or their products.
But now, with the Internet, I may very well one day find myself
being boxed out. I do have internet connection at home, and use one
at school. I use it for school work and for recreation. Especially
for my school assignments, the Internet is invaluable. Recently I
have been hearing about Microsofts attempts at changing their
Internet protocols to be closed to users of other operating systems.
I fear that this will close me (and countless others) from a large
portion of the Internet. So I wish the settlement between Microsoft
and the DoJ to force Microsoft to open their network protocols so
the Internet can remain the open and free network of information I
have grown accustomed to it being.
paavo.
The human mind ordinarily operates at only ten percent of its
capacity--the rest is overhead for the operating system.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026766
From: Julio Marquez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
As a satisifed consumer of Microsoft products and as a proponent
of economic freedom, I have supported Microsoft's legal position in
full from the beginning. Please take this into account when
determining the DOJ's position in this matter.
Thank you.
Julio Marquez
Managing Director
GEM North America, Inc.
712 Fifth Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10019
212 582 3400 general
212 582 1517 direct
212 265 4035 fax
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026767
From: kin-yip Mok
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
According to the Information on the United States v. Microsoft
Settlement, I think that it really take action to control the threat
of Microsoft monopoly power. Since Windows 95 came into the computer
OS market, all the people change to their traditional OS interface
to GUI. Because of this OS popular, Microsoft tries to extend their
empire of Software.
Remember few years ago, the competition between Netscape and
Internet Explorer, which Netscape was very popular. Internet
Explorer was just very weak online browser. And also, IE was only
covered 20% on the market. Nowadays, its already covered over 80%.
One thing, I think Microsoft is very bad OS. They always got the
security problem. Many hackers can easy to hack in your computer
which is windows OS system. Because of this, the windows OS is
prohibited in the department of China. On the other hands I really
dont like Microsoft which is they always buy some very powerful
software, and then merge into their software system. After that,
they dont give any support for some old customer which is very
embarrassing. And then many Microsofts software is extremely
expensive. Nobody can like it, especially for student.
We want to use more good and powerful software, and we dont want
to use only Microsofts software. We have to take very strong action
to control the threat of empire of Microsoft.
MTC-00026768
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:21pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
1/17
It is my strong recommendation that this case be disposed of
based on the current recommended settlement. We don't need to keep
funding lawyers at the expense of the public.
Leonard Walstad
[email protected]
MTC-00026769
From: Frederick E. Von Burg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:21pm
Subject: settlement
Ladies or Gentlemen:
Please be aware that as a senior citizen I am all for the
economy-enhancing settlement of the suit against microsoft. Please
use my views in any way to urge the holdouts to get on the
bandwagon.
Sincerely yours,
Fred Von Burg,
8 Warren Drive
Syosset, NY 11791-6328
MTC-00026770
From: lt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge you to get this case settled now! I am a senior citizen
who uses Microsoft products and services a great deal of the time
and have paid close attention to this controversy. The only ones
opposing Microsoft are self interested parties who want to
illegitamely wish to profit from this. It's about time to play fair
and stop the piling on that has been going on far too long.
Thanks,
Louis Torraca
Kailua, Hawaii
MTC-00026771
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge you to end this matter--it has drug on way too long.
The public always loses in these cases. Please don't become a
platform where big crybaby companies attack one another. Microsoft
is far from perfect and perhaps needed to have their knuckles rapped
a little, but they are far better than their current attackers.
MTC-00026772
From: Jonathan Lemon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:22pm
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
Under the Tunney act, I would like to voice my displeasure with
the proposed Microsoft settlement. I strongly believe that the
proposed remedies do not adequately address the issues, and are not
in the best interests of the public.
As a particular example, there is nothing in the judgement that
would require Microsoft to document network protocol of WMT
streaming media; without this, there is no chance for any competing
company to write an application that could work on an alternative
platform.
I would also like to add my support to the comments made by Dan
Kegel at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html .
Sincerly,
Jonathan Lemon
Software Engineer, cisco Systems
[[Page 27869]]
Stoughton, WI
MTC-00026773
From: Larry Crocker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:28pm
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
As a consumer I feel that the proposed Microsoft settlement is
more than fair, more so for consumers than Microsoft. I just hope
that this settlement does not eventually cost us, the consumer, more
money!
Larry Crocker
MTC-00026774
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I am a microsoft software consumer. I have never been hurt by
their policies. To the contrary, If you want your software to
seemless work, then buy microsoft. If you are inclined to want your
system to crash, spend hours trying to fix it, and constrantly try
to get your software to work, then by all means by their competitors
bloatware. I believe the Dept of Justice is way out of line here,
resorting to blackmail to assist Microsofts competitors, as they is
the only way they are real competition. Why don't you ask those
lousy policitical attourney generals whos software they use?
If I was Bill Gates, I would make them return all of mine, and
not allow them to use it, then they would get a taste of their
competitors junk.
Making software interoperable has been Microsofts strong suit.
If their competitors were smart they would have done the same, but
elected to try and screw the consumer, albet Lotus 123, Work
perfect.. Just standalone junk software. Give it to the State
Attourney Generals. Personally I would add a donation to Microsoft
if they would develop a fund to defeat all these people in the next
elections.
David Jessen
MTC-00026775
From: Herbert W Schriever
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement--Approve
MTC-00026776
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:32pm
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
Enough is enough. This is supposed to be a free enterprise
system. If this keeps up, the incentive to create on the part of our
society in general will be, if not already, seriously deterred. The
question now is, who is the Federal Justice Department working for,
the public or the plaintiff?
J. T. Jordan
MTC-00026777
From: Joe McCutchen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft
It is a tragedy and a travesty that the U.S. Government has
attacked a company because it has been ``too'' successful.
This is yet another example of government engaging in
unconstitutional activities and another reason to distrust much of
what it does.
The only true monopoly is one with the might of government
behind it forcing consumers to deal with it, that does not describe
Microsoft. Let the market decide and stop punishing achievement!!
Joe & Barbara McCutchen
2916 Heather Oaks
Fort Smith, AR 72908
MTC-00026778
From: Rocky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:34pm
Subject: micorsoft
11473 Verna Lane
Woodruff, WI 54568
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am a retired member of the tech industry who is fed up with
the Microsoft antitrust case. The federal government needs to leave
Bill Gates and his company alone. Government intervention in this
matter is no longer necessary.
With regard to the settlement, Bill Gates has conceded more than
he had to. One example is the three person technical committee that
will consist of three software engineering experts. Now, at any
time, a third entity can dispute any portion of the settlement if it
feels like Microsoft is not cooperating.
Bill Gates was being more than fair with this settlement. Now,
it is the government's job to stay out of it. The country needs, now
more than ever, to produce new and different types of technology,
for the sake of our falling economy.
Sincerly,
Rocco Caffarella
cc: Representative Mark Green
MTC-00026779
From: Krish Krothapalli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:38pm
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
The proposed settlement is BAD.
It fails to mandate anything to curb Microsoft's anti-
competitive practices. This monopoly has allowed the actual cost of
using Microsoft products to have an estimated ten-fold (or higher)
increase over projected costs a decade ago, for certain customers.
Without alternatives, customers'' hands are tied. Microsoft has
leveraged a position that is favorable only to itself, and not to
it's customers. Please do not allow this to continue.
Thank you,
Krish Krothapalli, Ph.D.
Redondo Beach, CA
MTC-00026780
From: Rocky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:37pm
Subject: USAGCaffarella--Rocco--1002--0125
11473 Verna Lane
Woodruff, WI 54568
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am a retired member of the tech industry who is fed up with
the Microsoft antitrust case. The federal government needs to leave
Bill Gates and his company alone. Government intervention in this
matter is no longer necessary.
With regard to the settlement, Bill Gates has conceded more than
he had to. One example is the three person technical committee that
will consist of three software engineering experts. Now, at any
time, a third entity can dispute any portion of the settlement if it
feels like Microsoft is not cooperating.
Bill Gates was being more than fair with this settlement. Now,
it is the government's job to stay out of it.
The country needs, now more than ever, to produce new and
different types of technology, for the sake of our falling economy.
Sincerly,
Rocco Caffarella
cc: Representative Mark Green
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026781
From: Aleatha Carlson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:39pm
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
The Microsoft proposed settlement is fair for Senior citizens in
fact, all citizens.. A counter one is not fair to Seniors. I think
this has drug out too long. Why drag it out any longer, especially
when the proposed settlement is good.
I have felt all along that the bickering by some is nothing more
than jealous on how Microsoft has been so successful. I use
Microsoft and appreciate all they have done to help us Seniors to
use the computer.
Aleatha Carlson
116 Hahn Rd.
Westminster, MD 21157-4611
MTC-00026782
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft case
Dear Justice Department,
I think that Microsoft should not be able to settle and should
not be able to accept money. I think that settling the case and just
forgetting about it with the other states is a little like bribery.
I am glad that some states did not accept Microsoft's settlement
plan because then Microsoft would have gotten away with monopoly.
Microsoft already has tons of money so money would not be a big
problem.
I was reading the latest cases and noticed that Microsoft was
trying to request for a 4-month extension on time to challenge the
dissenting states about remedy proposals. This obviously will give
Microsoft the advantage they need to win the case.
[[Page 27870]]
Microsoft's bundling needs to stop because when people buy their
software, they automatically get Internet Explorer. They don't have
a choice but to use Internet Explorer. Even though Microsoft's
bundling effort is very unique and smart, it is causing other
Internet companies to lose money. Soon, Microsoft will own most of
the Internet companies if this keeps on going. It will just be like
John D. Rockefeller's monopoly ideas. He owned oil companies and
controlled a lot of the oil refineries. Then, in 1879, he owned over
90% of all oil refineries. Slowly, he took over almost the whole
process of oil companies. John D. Rockefeller once said, ``It
is too late to argue about advantages of industrial combinations.
They are a necessity of Americans to have the privilege of extending
their business in all the starts of the Union, and into foreign
countries as well.'' This shows that even back then, people
thought that monopoly was a necessity in business life. I don't
think that Americans really need them.
The recent saying about how Microsoft should stop their
bundling, is too soft. It won't really do anything because Microsoft
already has so much software out there that they could stop their
bundling, but there would already be a lot of Microsoft software out
their with the Internet service.
These are just some of my ideas. Thanks for reading it. :)
From,
Michelle Liu--Harker School
8th grade-Mr. Merrill's History 2nd period class
MTC-00026783
From: tom wible
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
An o/s is to applications as the legal system is to individuals
& businesses: both provide the rules and infrastructure that we
live under. for 1 company to own both the o/s & apps, where the
api is analogous to the rules of evidence, is equivalent to enron
owning the court system, with the laws & procedures
secret...this is totally unsatisfactory, both as a legal system and
as a computing platform. the only meaningful solution is splitting
microsoft into an o/s company & an applications company, and
requiring the o/s api to be made public.
Tom Wible
203 Cardinal Glen Cir
Sterling, Va 20164
MTC-00026784
From: Wylie Harris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:43pm
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 settlement fails to serve the public interest by
leaving the Microsoft monopoly on operating systems essentially
intact. This failure further erodes consumer protection by
preserving the platform by which Microsoft can unfairly and
illegally arrogate to itself an increased market share of other
domains, such as internet and office applications.
In its current state, the proposed settlement is unacceptable. A
revised settlement should be drafted which curtails Microsoft's
monopolistic practices.
Thank you for your attention.
Wylie Harris
2126 TAMU
Rangeland Ecology and Management, Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas 77843-2126
979 845 1388
MTC-00026785
From: Rolf Brakvatne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
I believe that the only reasonable solution in the Microsoft
civil suit is to determine total monetary damages (determined by the
court), who can draw on the funds and how much, and a length of time
these moneys will be distributed. The money damages should be placed
in a private fund and administered by an oversight board selected by
the courts with one person selected by Microsoft.
Entities drawing on this fund can use the funds for computer
related purchases only (as determined by the oversight board) and
are allowed the choose ANY vendor, Microsoft and and non-Microsoft
products.
Thank you
Rolf Brakvatne
MTC-00026786
From: Wynn Wacker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:47pm
Subject: Comments regarding the Microsoft settlement
Sunday, Jan. 27th, 2002
This morning at about 8:30 AM, my phone rang with recorded
message from Americans for Technology Leadership, an organization
which is quite evidently a front for the interests of Microsoft in
the anti-trust litigation which it is currently engaged in. The
requested my comments regarding the settlement and I have decided to
response.
I have watched the developments in Microsoft ever since the
introduction of the first PC. The company has a long history of
foisting its application software on the public by leveraging its
near-monopoly in operating systems (MS-DOS, Windows) through the use
of unethical and illegal trade practices.
This has been thoroughly documented by Federal prosecutors. I
can say from personal experience that early Microsoft applications
software was generally clearly inferior to that of its competitors
when it was introduced, and it is unlikely that it would have
penetrated the market to the extent it has in the absence of the
aforementioned trade practices. I personally resisted using MS
application software for as long as I could. I was forced to switch
when so many people in the business I worked were familiar only with
MS applications because they were the default on shipped computers
(due to monopoly practices) that I would have to go along. Some of
my coworkers held out on certain packages, such as spreadsheets,
until this year. The only individuals I have ever encountered which
prefer Microsoft applications are those who have never extensively
used the competitions software.
I'm a scientist in the R&D department of a medical equipment
firm, so I make extensive use of the Excel & Word software
packages as part of Microsoft Office. It is virtually a daily event
that people come to me asking how to perform simple operations in
this software. These are people with advanced degrees in engineering
and science, highly computer literate, and with experience with MS
software. They are unable to locate the instructions they need in
the notoriously unhelpful Help instructions included with the
software, something which has been one of its long-standing
features. It's also virtually a daily event that some of the
applications software will crash in the middle of use, accompanied
by an informative message such as ``This program has performed
an illegal operation and will be shut down''. It is more in the
purview of the IT department than mine, but I should also like to
remind the Court of the incredibly poor track record of MS software
when it comet to security. Even their security patches sometimes
need security patches!
The greatest joke of all is that Microsoft is trying to defend
itself as a technology leader. It has almost always been a follower,
coming out with mediocre me-too products and using its monopoly
power to crush the real innovators. The latest round of litigation
was set-off by just such an event. Netscape pioneered the
development of easy-to-use internet browsers and Microsoft came back
to crush them by giving away its browser through the ruse of
incorporating it in its monopoly operating system. I know just how
un-innovative Microsoft is, because, over the years, many of the
software engineers I have worked with have gone to lengths to escape
the Windows OS by going to Unix, Linux, etc. They can only due this
for their personal computers since the business world is trapped in
the Microsoft monopoly. As were many others, I was heartened when it
looked like it was possible that the courts might due the right
thing and split apart the OS and applications portions of Microsoft.
The company, of course, complained that there was no way to restore
the competitive environment to the state it was in when it engaged
in its illegal activities. Of course, under such a doctrine no
murderer should ever be punished because it is impossible to restore
the victim to life. Evidently political influence of the variety
evident in the recent Enron debacle has prevented this wisest of
settlements. Microsoft now wishes to foist a settlement on those
litigating on behalf of Microsoft's many victims. I wish to remind
the Court that a free market can only exist if the rules of honest
competition are enforced. Microsoft has repeatedly disregarded its
agreements to abide by fair practices.
I ask the Court not to interfere with the further pursuit of
restitution from Microsoft by litigants in this case and wish the
Court to take cognizance of the arrogant attempt by Americans for
Technology Leadership to artificially generate support for
Microsoft.
Wynn Wacker
2109 McKenna Blvd.
[[Page 27871]]
Madison, WI 53711
(608) 274-1829
[email protected]
MTC-00026788
From: John & BJ Cochran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
114 Luckie Street
Cartersville, GA 30120
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
It is a crying shame that the lawsuit against Microsoft and the
ensuing three years of litigation have occurred in our country.
Microsoft was more innovative than any of their competitors and
therefore became successful. Microsoft really served our country
beautifully by standardizing the IT sector, creating jobs,
generating wealth, and making technological breakthroughs.
This success does not warrant government interference, and if I
did not know any better, I would say it was this lawsuit that
contributed to our economy's downfall. The terms of the settlement
only reflect the intense lobbying efforts of the competition and the
lack of concern from lawmakers and politicians. Microsoft has to
disclose interfaces that are internal to Windows operating system
products and grant computer makers broad new fights to configure
Windows so that non-Microsoft software programs can more easily
promoted. These concessions and more are all aimed at helping the
competition gain an edge they did not have beforehand. None of the
concessions really protect consumer fights.
But, I do request that you implement the settlement because
further litigation would only benefit the lawyers'' pockets and
would do harm to our nation's public. Please take the fight steps.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
John Cochran
cc: Representative Bob Bart
MTC-00026789
From: Herbert S. Zischkau
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft
Gentlemen:
It is time to get off the back of Microsoft and let the economy
readjust itself. There is too much government interference.
Sincerely,
Herbert S. Zischkau, Jr.
Winter Springs, FL
MTC-00026790
From: Paul W. Kleinknecht
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge,
I do not believe the PFJ is the best solution for the case
against Microsoft. I do not understand all the ``ins and
out'' of the case, but I do know that Microsoft has a monopoly
on operating systems on computers that needs to be dealt with. As
the break up of ATT has given us better systems and more
competition, Microsoft also needs to be ``broken up'' to
bring in more competition and thus better products. The PFJ will
allow Microsoft to continue as is--this is not right!
Please do what is right for the American people and American
businesses!
Respectfully,
Sarah (nickname Sally) Kleinknecht
Sarah (Sally) Kleinknecht
4500 Mid. Mt. Vernon Rd.
Evansville, IN 47712
812-421-0043 phone/fax
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026791
From: Evan D Ravitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 12:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Evan Ravitz
1130 11th St. #3
Boulder CO 80302
(303) 440-6838
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Hesse et al,
The proposed settlement with Microsoft leaves MS in the position
of controlling the inner workings of most of our computers, which
position the judges have found MS abused to the detriment of the
people.
I believe the best solution is to ``nationalize''
their windows operating systems so that a single standard can be
agreed among competitors, instead of MS continually manipulating
things to keep others'' software hobbled or buggy.
The precedent is the US establishing a single standard for
telephony decades ago so we can all call each other on the phone.
And the parallel catastrophe is the Babylon of cell phone standards
which have made cell phones far more prevalent overseas where
standards exist. Personally, MS was a catastrophe for me because in
1998 their Outlook program lost my entire address
book--hundreds of email addresses--as well as thousands of
emails. It took years to recover.
As a programmer since 1968, I assure you there is no reason for
buggy software which wastes so many people-years of time, except
that MS has eliminated the competition and dominates with their
inferior, rushed-to-distribution, insecure stuff.
Sincerely,
Evan Ravitz
MTC-00026792
From: Mario M. Butter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am opposed to the provisions of the Justice Department
settlement with Microsoft due to my understanding that under the
proposed final order, Microsoft can withhold technical information
from third parties. This release of technical information is
required for the development of third party software (escpecially
public domain software) that will interact with Microsoft products.
The withholding of this information will serve only to stifle the
development and implementation of free and commercial software over
which Microsoft has no control.
Under this agreement, Microsoft has a number of strategies to
undermine development of software by other entities, which requires
a sharing of information. These actions can allow Microsoft to
continue it's monopoly power and to expand that power further into
the marketplace. These practices will harm development of
alternative software, stifle the development of alternative
platforms and lead to more consumer harm as Microsoft continues to
increase it's fees for it's monopoly products.
Mario
Mario M. Butter
[email protected]
[email protected]
MTC-00026793
From: Michael J. Durkin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Judge Kollar-Kotally:
Please do not allow Microsoft the easy way out. The proposed
final judgement should ``terminate'' microsofts illegal
monopoly, not allow them to thumb their noses at the law because. It
should also penalize them the amount of any profits made because of
their past behavior. Finally, it should prevent future
anticompetitive practices.
This judgement as it stands will not definitively accomplish the
above goals.
Michael J. Durkin
509 East Colliery Avenue
Tower City, Pa. 17980
Phone: 717-647-2502
MTC-00026794
From: Robert Gardner
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/27/02 1:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Gardner
3 Splitrock Road
The Woodlands, TX 77381
January 27, 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 27872]]
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 A. Gardner
MTC-00026795
From: Joel D Talcott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:12pm
Subject: Every time the government gets involved the consumer pays
dearly.
Every time the government gets involved the consumer pays
dearly. Case in point Gas deregulation. It has cost more poor people
tom be without heat ,and the cost of gas twice as much as prior.
Let the companies fight it our! if they cannot compete get out
of the business or do more to get up to speed.
KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT.
MTC-00026798
From: Bob Buscaglia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think any settlement that requires Microsoft to have to pay
anything is totally ridiculous and I cannot believe you are wasting
your time with this. This suit was initiated by Microsoft's
competitors-- some of the largest and most successful
technology companies in this country.
Recently in Omaha, Barnes & Noble moved into a mall. part of
their stipulations was the mall had to close down all other
booksellers. You mean to tell me that is legal and what Microsoft
does is not?
So they bundle other products with Windows? Anyone is free to
swap out any software for other products. We don't tell carmakers
what type of parts to put into cars, why should we do the same with
PC makers? And it is much easier to change an Internet browser than
an automobile engine.
Robert Buscaglia
Omaha, NE
MTC-00026799
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to say that the current proposed settlement is no
good as written. It will not stop the anti-competative tactics of
this company, and does nothing about all the harm allready done.
Andrew James Alan Welty
MTC-00026800
From: Hana
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think this settlement is bad. It is just a slap on the wrist
for Microsofts obvious attempt to use its monopoly to prevent fair
business practices. Please do not allow this settlement to go forth.
Yozo Horiuchi
Bayside, New York
MTC-00026801
From: Grant Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that the proposed Microsoft settlement will be
ineffective in preventing future abuse of their monopoly.
MTC-00026802
From: Howard Classen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As an end-user of Microsoft products, I disagree with the
proposed settlement between the Justice Department and Microsoft.
There should be NO company in the United States which, through
various means, has been enabled to monopolize a critical market.
There really is no meaningful competition remaining in PC operating
systems, office integrated software or internet browsers.
Any settlement needs to promote the ability of others to compete
in these critical software applications and assure proper monitoring
with timelines to accomplish remedies. This might mean opening
codes, spin off of segments of Microsoft, large financial penalties
for non-compliance, etc.
The proposed settlement is too little too late. Users will not
have choice and competition will not be created to produce the
needed innovations important for businesses and individuals.
Howard Classen
1075 Elkhorn Road
Royal Oaks, CA 95076-9200
831.728.4248
[email protected]
MTC-00026803
From: N. W. Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Please bring an end to this litigation for economy's sake.
[email protected]
N. W. Davis
1102 Mayberry Drive
Tahlequah OK 74464
MTC-00026804
From: Geri Zahner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a normal consumer who has no choice but to use Microsoft's
operating systems as a result of the de facto monopoly held by
Microsoft, I strongly urge that Microsoft be prohibited from
requiring the use of its Internet Explorer browser as a required
part of its operating system. This requirement has the very
transparent goal of driving all other browser developers out of
business and making the access to programs by users of non-Windows
platforms impossible. (Microsoft realizes that both Windows based
and non-Windows based programs can be operated on multiple platforms
through the use of Java--If Microsoft succeeds in monopolizing
the browser market, it will be in a position to effectively kill the
use of Java as a means of developing software that functions on any
but the Windows platform.) Microsoft itself recognizes that the
browser capabilities and the operating system are totally distinct:
they have always marketed and continue to market and supply their
browser as a completely separate software to be used either on its
own Windows platform or on other non-Windows platforms. By
continuing to allow Microsoft to use tacitly illegal sales and
coercive agreements with PC manufacturers and the various Internet
Service Providers, etc., the Justice Department will be supporting
and furthering the illegal existence and growth of a monopoly to the
great detriment of public at large, not just in the U.S., but the
world at large.
Please put a stop to Microsoft NOW, so the freedom of choice is
not removed from the market place! If Microsoft is not prohibited
from continuing on its present course during the resolution of the
lawsuits and appeals, all competitors will have been destroyed
during this process and, regardless of the legal results, Microsoft
will have succeeded in its goal of being the ``only game in
town''!
Thank You!
Geri Zahner
8825 Jellison Court
Westminster, CO 80021
303-440-7726
Fax 303-939-8353
MTC-00026805
From: Jeanne Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft anittrust settlement
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 encourage you and the Department of
Justice to accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. This case has
been dragged out for three long years; it is time to put an end to
it. A settlement is available and I personally do not believe that
the terms are even fair, yet,
I would like to see the government accept it.
In order to put this issue behind them, Microsoft has agreed to
many concessions, some of which I feel are uncalled for. Amongst
other terms, Microsoft has agreed to release part of the Windows
base code to its competitors. Give me a break! Requiring such action
is hogwash and makes me question how much the Department of Justice
values things like patents. Why bother to innovate if your invention
will be forcibly stolen from you if it's successful? Thank goodness
for Microsoft's success! WHEN WILL THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
RECOGNIZE THAT THE DOMINANCE OF THE WINDOWS OPERATING SYSTEM IS A
[[Page 27873]]
GOOD THING!!! Stop punishing the company that brought it to us!!
This idea that we consumers have been somehow shorted because of a
monopoly is ridiculous. There are times when it is BEST to have a
monopoly for the sake of consistency, ease of use, ease of
communication, etc.
Microsoft has been a benevolent leader during the technology
explosion that we have been experiencing. Let them continue to lead!
I'm sick and tired of all the squabbling. Microsoft and the
technology industry (not to mention the rest of the economy, which
is greatly influenced by technological innovations) need to move
forward, and in order to move forward this issue needs to be put in
the past. Please accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement.
Sincerely,
Jeanne A. Miller
4315 Highline Drive SE
Olympia, WA 98501
MTC-00026806
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:31pm
Subject: Current Microsoft settlement
Sirs:
I believe the current settlement in the Microsoft case is a
reasonable compromise and fair to all parties.
Please do NOT litigate this matter any further!
Janet Trewhitt
MTC-00026807
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice;
I am very much AGAINST the DOJ's proposed settlement in the
Microsoft antitrust case.
It will essentially give Microsoft a green light to extend its
monopoly into new areas, i.e., digital media.
Please come up with a more just solution!
Sincerely,
Linda Lawson
US citizen and taxpayer
[email protected]
MTC-00026808
From: Virginia Metze
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge that you stop the persecution of Microsoft and end any
further punishment of this company which has succeeded through its
own merits and not because of tough business practices.
When I try to do business with any other company, I am again
amazed how well Microsoft does in its support to customers, and how
badly other companies are doing.
I believe that Microsoft is a monopoly not because it has been
``evil'' but because it has done well and has won the
support of its customers. I will not buy another operating system,
and I have resented the efforts which have tried to keep me from
enjoying the operating system of my choice.
I would also like to point out that if Microsoft attempts to
lower prices, there are actually complaints that it is taking
advantage of its monopoly position to drive others out of business!
Yet, its very modest prices cause others to complain that they are
overcharging consumers. This is so very ludicrous, I can't believe
it. I for one felt that the 1995 consent decree was wrong; the
justice department should not have pursued it against Microsoft.
Everyone I knew got Netscape free at the time and it was their
intention to only charge for server software. I could probably dig
up email from Marc Andreessen to that effect even still. Yet because
Microsoft, which paid for the license for Mosaic, tried to put the
browser in the operating system, we all had to pay for Microsoft
Plus!
I believe that it was an erroneous finding that Microsoft was an
``illegal monopoly.'' I am shocked that the court found
against Microsoft on this basis. Furthermore as I understand it,
Judge Penrose Jackson found it was an illegal monopoly as a matter
of ``fact'' rather than of ``law'', which I
would have thought such a finding would be. This of course would be
because it is traditionally the case that an appeals court will not
overturn findings of fact. In this case they should have done so.
I am also gravely concerned about the ``open source''
movement. I have seen good products driven out of the market by
inferior ``free'' products which are difficult to use and
maintain. Yet because they are free they take just enough of the
market that people will not buy the better product. I think that it
is wrong to encourage ``open source.'' The punishment of
Microsoft and any efforts to increase their cost of doing business
by endless lawsuits and other harassment will give impetus to the
free source movement.
I have worked with computers since 1961, and I can assure you
that open source will not work.
I am very concerned to see huge markets abandoning Microsoft
products and going to the ``free'' operating system Linux,
which came out of the Scandinavian countries and was supported by
the Free Software Foundation, which is a TAX-EXEMPT CHARITABLE
institution. I also urge that you end the tax-exempt status of the
Free Software Foundation. There is no reason that I should be
supporting them by paying more taxes in order that they do something
that helps to destroy the American economy. I even heard that the
FSF got donations from Russian communists, but I do not know if this
is true.
More and more servers in countries such as China, Korea and
other places are going to using Linux because it can be freely
copied. I do not want my tax dollars used to put more Americans out
of work and put more pressure on the American economy.
Many segments of the American technology economy will not
improve until the suit against Microsoft is ended. I am particularly
ticked off at the states who pretend to be representing their people
but are probably only representing a few companies in their state. I
believe it is unconscionable that these states are being allowed to
continue to spend millions of tax paper money in an effort to
destroy the best software engineering company that we have.
I understand that Microsoft has agreed to go along with the
settlement. I feel that the settlement is too tough and actually
Microsoft should not even have agreed to go along. I am sure it did
so just to end uncertainty in the financial markets and the consumer
marketplace. That was very noble of them.
I speak, though they do not know it, for the millions of
Microsoft customers around the country who do not even know that
their favorite company is ``in trouble'' or they would be
supporting them. So, please give this letter a little more weight
than you otherwise might, because they have very few people speaking
for them; in some cases, not even their own state's attorney
general.
Thank you for your patience, in the event that you have made it
to the end.
Virginia Metze
101 Windy Willows Drive
Oakwood, IL 61858
MTC-00026809
From: Carol Sands
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge,
I have been following news reports about the Justice
Department's efforts to stop Microsoft from destroying every
software company that dares to compete with it. I have just found
out that you have been appointed to make the final decision
regarding the Proposed Final Judgement worked out between Microsoft
and the Justice Department. I urge you to rule against it. I work
for a non-profit organzation which constantly struggles to meet its
sparse budget. If Microsoft becomes the monopoly it wants to become
so desperately, consumers, both individual and corporate, will have
no protection against price gouging and the superior products that
naturally arise out of free market competition. What Microsoft is
trying to accomplish is not only legally wrong, it is morally wrong.
I again ask you to rule against the PFJ and establish justice for
ALL, not justice for the rich and powerful.
Thank you very much.
Carolyn Sands
235 Adams St., Apt 15I
Brooklyn, New York 11201
LAN Administrator, Here's Life Inner City
MTC-00026810
From: Jeff Hecker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
With regard to the revised proposed final judgement (PFJ) in the
U.S. v. Microsoft case, I would like to submit these comments for
consideration in further proceedings.
I am opposed to the agreement for several reasons. Specific
examples follow, but generally, the agreement allows Microsoft to
[[Page 27874]]
ignore or evade or delay any provision therin by proclamation. I
remind the court, that Microsoft lost this case; that decision was
upheld by the Court of Appeals; and the Supreme Court of the United
States saw no reason to further review the case.
I am disappointed that structural remedies are no longer
included in the PFJ. If we learn one thing from history, it would be
that Microsoft is undeterred by the law, by the courts, and by any
proposed penalty. In previous cases, Microsoft has been found guilty
of similar monopolistic practices (See DR-DOS, Stacker). Microsoft
may have lost these specific legal battles, but only after they had
already won the war. Both competitors were illegally driven out of
business before any court could offer relief.
This practice continues today. In other monopoly cases,
monopolists are fined for ignoring regulations, the law, and
judicial orders. In these cases, the fines are less burdensome than
to comply. Ignoring the law, ignoring the courts, is simply an entry
on the monopolist's balance sheet. It is simply part of the cost of
doing business. An additional cost for the monopolist's customers,
the public, to bear.
The effect is that if a monopolist becomes large enough,
resourceful enough, then it can effectively ignore the court. This
seems likely to happen in this case. Even if the provisions of the
PFJ were effective-- which, in my opinion, they are
not--Microsoft could simply ignore them, prolong the inevitable
legal formalities, and then simply pay whatever fines are imposed by
the court. The behavior intended by the PFJ will have long since
evaporated, if it ever existed at all.
With respect to the PFJ, there are several imperfections which
should be addressed before any agreement is considered.
First, throughout the document, many definitions, examples, and
conditions are specifically enumerated. This renders them
ineffective. Microsoft, by proclamation, can ignore any such
definition or condition by simply changing the name of the affected
entity. If an ``API'' (Application Programming Interface)
is renamed as an ``APS'' (Application Programming
Specification), then a majority of the PFJ will be rendered useless
with one stroke of Microsoft's pen.
``API'' is used here simply as an example. Other
enumerations, other acronyms, and other phrases are equally
vulnerable to redefinition or obsolescence by Microsoft.
Too many of the provisions in the PFJ are conditioned upon
agreement by Microsoft. Why? I remind the court that Microsoft lost
this case. Their business practices were found to be illegal. I see
no reason that the guilty party should hold a trump card when
behavioral remedies are imposed. Correcting Microsoft's behavior is
the goal of this PFJ. The most serious flaw in the PFJ is Section
III.J. Section III.J nullifies the entire PFJ by allowing Microsoft
to use it as an excuse to reject or refuse any other element by
proclaiming a ``security compromise.'' Microsoft has a
long and clear record with respect to security, viruses, trojans,
and all manner of compromising software. As nearly every Microsoft
product has a woeful security reputation, Microsoft can proclaim
that every feature of every product has security implications, and
reject every PFJ behavior mandate.
Not to mention the enumerated list of exception which Section
III.J provides. For example, this e-mail message, if it had been
sent using MSN (the Microsoft Network) would have become copyrighted
by MSN! A Microsoft product would be allowed, by Section III.J, to
do whatever it wanted with that copyrighted material, including
witholding its delivery to the court. And no one would ever know.
That's a rather far fetched example, but it illustrates the
latitude granted by Section III.J. A future court would never even
hear a case against Microsoft because a pre-trial hearing would
invoke Section III.J of the agreement and the case would be
summarily dismissed.
Again, I remind the court that Microsoft lost this case in
court; the decision was upheld upon appeal, and the Supreme Court of
the United States found no reason to hear the case. I believe that
history shows that Microsoft evades, obfuscates, or simply ignores
the law, the courts, and orders from the bench. I believe that this
PFJ lacks any incentive for Microsoft to adhere to it, and indeed,
offers a mechanism for total ignorance.
I suggest that the court reject the proposed final judgement in
its current form, and that a more robust remedy be found. One that
will be less likely to be manipulated and/or ignored by losing
defendant Microsoft.
Thank you for your attention,
Jeff Hecker
2121 Shorefield Rd.
Wheaton, MD 20902
MTC-00026811
From: Paul Harold Barsic
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Ms. Hesse,
I will soon finish a Master's degree in engineering, and I am
concerned that the existence of an ever expanding monopoly will make
it difficult for me to support my family. I do not believe that the
proposed settlement will curb the Microsoft monopoly. I am pleading
with you to reject the proposed settlement. It was an agreement that
was reached quickly in consideration of our economy, but this
settlement is a severe threat to that very economy.
I have a long list of complaints. I will summarize a few of them
here. My first complaint is the term of agreement is far too short.
Since 1995, there have been four major releases of Microsoft
operating systems: Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows XP.
The length of time suggested in the agreement would be only one or
two more product release cycles. This is much too short to create a
sustained effect on our economy. The provision should be one not of
time, but of desktop market share. When it is demonstrated that
Microsoft is no longer an illegal monopoly, the restrictions should
be lifted.
My second complaint involves the technical committee. It is
stated (section IV, subsection B, item 7) that, ``Microsoft
shall provide the TC with a permanent office, telephone, and other
office support facilities at Microsoft's corporate campus in
Redmond, Washington.'' Furthermore, (section IV, subsection B,
item 6a) this committee will serve, ``at the cost and expense
of Microsoft.'' This makes them indistinguishable from
Microsoft employees. It puts Microsoft in a position to place
pressure on these three people to settle compliance issues in favor
of Microsoft.
My third complaint involves section III, subsection J, item 2.
The freedoms given to Microsoft in the name of anti-piracy are
absurd. Every API could be manipulated to create a security exploit.
The anti-piracy stipulation will allow Microsoft to justify any
anti-competitive agreement as necessary to prevent piracy. This
supports a model known popularly as ``security through
obscurity.'' This model is not valid. The most secure servers
on the web are built upon code that is freely available to the
public (Apache, NetBSD, OpenBSD, GNU/Linux). The easiest servers to
exploit are built upon proprietary code (Microsoft IIS, Microsoft
Exchange, Microsoft Windows 2000, Microsoft Windows XP). The number
of exploits for web servers running IIS on top of Windows 2000 is
astonishingly high (more than 70 new ones discovered in 2001), while
the number of exploits for Apache web servers is low (less than 10).
It is not a question of market share;
Apache servers power approximately 60% of all websites. I
realize that we are talking about desktop systems, not servers, but
the key point here is that security through obscurity is not
effective. The security clause is entirely unnecessary, and it
creates a hole big enough to fit all of Microsoft's operations. In
the words of Assistant Attorney General Charles A. James, it's
``one of those ``duh'' issues.''
Finally, I would like to see the Microsoft APIs and document
formats (especially Microsoft Office) made public. This would level
the playing field for any company that wants to create programs to
interoperate with Windows. It will facilitate the introduction of
new software manufacturers. It will introduce competition. It will
create jobs.
Please, protect our country from an unlawful concentration of
power in the hands of a small group of men in Washington.
Sincerely,
Paul H. Barsic
3000 S Chautauqua #145
Norman OK, 73072
MTC-00026812
From: Mark Hoffman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Say what you will about its monopolistic behavior, Microsoft at
least never lied to its investors and employees about its business
prospects. In fact, Microsoft is notorious among stock analysts for
its conservative business projections. In this day of hot-air stock
valuations, hype-filled IPOs, and blue-sky projections, Microsoft's
scrupulous honesty in its communications with employees and the
investment community is commendable. It's useful to compare that to
[[Page 27875]]
the shenanigans of a formerly high-flying business that's currently
splattered across the headlines. Enron apparently did nothing BUT
lie to investors, employees, and the government. And on a more
personal note, Bill Gates didn't cash in his chips and flee to the
suburbs like so many Enron execs. Instead, he's taken a huge chunk
of his money and put it to good use for society. See the story
below, for example.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/694130.asp
I'll take Bill Gates's morality any day.
MTC-00026813
From: Gordon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
May it please the Court,
I find nothing in the Proposed Settlement that could be
considered punitive of Microsoft. This is unconscionable.
Microsoft's illegally obtained and maintained monopoly of the
business desktop has cost American businesses (and also government)
billions of Dollars in lost productivity and time wasted by their
employees wrestling with Microsoft products when more usable and
reliable alternatives exist.
Being forced to use Microsoft tools in place of those I would
use by choice has reduced my personal productivity by an average of
at least two hours per week, or five percent. The percentage would
be larger for someone less knowledgeable about computers.
Microsoft should be fined an amount equivalent to five percent
of the salaries of all the office workers that have been given
Windows and Office by their employers, times six years since the
first settlement, times three.
Gordon MacGinitie
5435 Claybourne St. Apt 704
Pittsburgh, PA 15232
MTC-00026814
From: Rima Karam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
I am a student at Boston University, and am writing to you in
regards to the Microsoft settlement between the Justice Department
and Microsoft.
I am concerned that that settlement does not prevent Microsoft
from continuing to be a monopoly.
Monopolies hurt our society and don't allow the people to use
the best possible product they can.
It also discourages possible start-ups to come out with a new
product against those Microsoft offers.
I'm just writing to ask you to reconsider and turn over the
settlement in order to prevent Microsoft to continue with its
monopoly. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rima Karam
Boston University, 2003
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026815
From: Gene Risoldi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Some quick points about this issue:
1. Microsoft's Windows OS is the only US made product I have
seen in every country in my travels throughout Europe, S. America
and Asia. As a business man, I find it incredible that the only
worldwide challenger that could hurt this company in the long run is
our own government.
2. I have been involved in companies who have been charged with
illegal activities with regard to Sherman's anti-trust laws. I
believe that if someone has done something illegally, they should be
charged, prosecuted by our laws and pay the claim. I also believe
that that same law suggests that we as consumers must have been
financially damaged in some way for the law to be invoked. I build
computers and have owned Apple products, worked with WARP and used
Netscape as my browser. When Microsoft added thier browser to their
OS, I couldn't have been happier, and it didn't cost me a cent. In
fact, it saved me $49.99 in upgrades everytime Netscape needed some
new revenue. Bottom line, Microsoft, because of their mass, their
rseearch and their marketing prowess kicked over their competition
in favor of the ultimate consumer. I call that smart business and
instead of congratulating them, our government, whose members have
proven they can't run a damn thing effeciently or well, claims they
know how to fix it. How, by breaking the company into little pieces.
These are the same people whose number one responsibility is to
provide for the common defense...last time I looked, 3,000 people
died and the damages were in the $90 billion dollar range? And they
want to tell anyone how to operate? I find it difficult to not
vomit.
3. Now we have the states suing Microsoft. How in merciful
heaven were they damaged? Oh, I know their constituents were
damaged. Well, what about the local county and city governments?
Don't they have ``constituents'' and why aren't they
involved?
4. Let's talk about the real damage this government has caused
those of us who not only are happy with Microsofts activities but
bought their stock when we saw that we finally had a dominating
worldwide company in the US who could kick some foreign butt. I have
just a 1,000 shares, which were once at $120 and after the
governent's action, now hovering around $65. Do you in government
know how many browsers I can buy for the $55,000 loss your actions
cost me personally?
5. Finally, if I were Bill Gates, I say piss on the American
justice system and everything it stands for and move my company, the
whole kit and caboodle to let's see, how about China? I think they
would welcome them. And take how many?, 80,000 directly employed
jobs with them plus another what ?, 150,000 supplier jobs. If they
made that announcement, I'd buy more stock!
6. However, don't you misunderstand me. I love America, and I
know that capitalism and the free enterprise system is unequaled
when it comes to producing wealth and creating jobs. I retired at
55, not because I won Dick Gepharts life's lottery, which really
upsets the hell out of me everytime I think about his comment, but
because I worked my rearend off; spent 65% of my life away from my
wife, our kids and our families, so we could take full advantage of
the opportunities we were presented within our system. And I have
traveled and worked within other countries enough to know how
fortunate we all are in America.
7. Finally, I will turn 60 next week and I wish you to know that
those of us who are a little older and a little wiser understand
that there are those who create wealth and those who wish to take it
away and give it to themselves or to those who will give them the
power to get it and pass it around. But there is one constant that I
have learned and I hope my fellow countrymen pick up on someday
soon. Simply, There is only so much money in the system. There are
those among us who for whatever reason, will do what it takes to
amass as much a share as we can and for most of us, to do so in
legal and moral ways. The idea that governement is going to save us
money or make us money is smoke and mirrors because it begins and
ends as OUR money. If there is a cost, we will pay for it. I think
about the tobacco settlement and when I think about how much of it
went to ``government beaurocrats'' to pay the health
expenses or to educate kids not to smoke, and I read about what
programs it really funded, I can only hope that the rest of the
citizens of this country wake up and comprehend how corrupt we have
allowed our system to become.
8. And finally, how can it be that when we have a company who
truly was responsible for the universal application and use of
computers and the prolific results of that use, (which history will
soon realize was equal to if not more remarkable than the
``industrial age'') that we want to tear them apart
because they are the best at what they do.
I leave you with what I started this memo about. In our
governing system, if someone can be proven to have done something
illegally, throw the book at them. But as a governing body, stay the
hell out of decisions about running businesses. America can only
handle so much incompetence before we really get into trouble.
Given sincerely as an opinion, but with plenty enough historical
fact to make my case.
Gene Risoldi
10139 Big Canoe
Big Canoe, GA 30143
MTC-00026816
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The case against Microsoft needs to come to a close. We should
not penalize a company for proving excellent products and creating
hundreds of thousands of jobs for developers like myself who use
Micrsosft products to develop applications. This is how I earn my
living.
MTC-00026817
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 27876]]
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,
nancy caverly
11 linda rd.
andover, MA 01810
MTC-00026818
From: The Husons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
My husband and I urge the acceptance of the agreement reached
between Microsoft and the DOJ and some of the states.
We are tired of companies like Sun Microsystems resorting to
lawsuits to gain market share instead of good old R and D and
marketing efforts on their part.
We also feel that the agreement is fair to all parties involved.
We need to stop wasting resources on lawsuits and let the
companies ge back to work and get our economy going.
We feel that the lawsuit was without merit and should be settled
as soon as possible.
Very Truly Yours,
Margaret and John Huson
801 N.E. Old Belfair Hwy
Belfair, Wa. 98528
MTC-00026819
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:45pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
It's in the interest of all concerned parties that this
settlement be put to rest finalizing this suit.
Robert Kline
[email protected]
MTC-00026820
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe it is time to end all of the legal bantering and go
with the agreed upon settlement. If it is continued further it is
only costing the average citizen through our tax money. Use the
taxes for more important things.
Warren Williams
9408 E.... 25th Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46229
317-897-0286
[email protected]
MTC-00026821
From: Sandra G. Owen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:48pm
Subject: AOL
It is about time that the settlement previous to AOL is
finalized.
AOL is seeking to line its own pockets by adverse action; as
stated by one of the Attorneys General who oppose
settlement--paraphrased ``we will sue and sue because we
do not have to pay fees, Microsoft has to do that.'' AOL itself
is wanting something for nothing; riding shirttails to get business
without innovation of its own.
I can only hope that the Tunney Review stops all attempts,
underhanded ones at that, as the public has had enough of this
bickering and most importantly jealously by those not capable of
doing there own research and development.
Sandy Owen
MTC-00026822
From: Ron Hitchens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ,
I wish to comment on the proposed settlement in the Microsoft
Antitrust Settlement.
I have been a computer professional for over 25 years and in
that time have observed the behavior of many computer companies. It
is well known in the computer industry that Microsoft doesn't play
fair. They routinely thwart and/or crush competition in any way they
can. Microsoft is predatory, plain and simple.
Microsoft was found guilty of anti-competitive practices. This
is good, because it proves out what has been widely known by the
entire industry for many years. But the proposed settlement is
woefully inadequate.
Microsoft, though clearly found guilty of anti-competitive
behavior, is not being punished for that behavior. They are in fact
benefiting by the so-called punishment--contributing Microsoft
software to schools is hardly a punishment. It is basically low-cost
advertising for Microsoft and further helps to squeeze out
alternatives. A better punishment would be for Microsoft to donate
the cash equivalent of the retail cost of the software, to be spent
as the schools please, but that still would not address the real
problem.
It's painfully clear the proposed settlement is politically
influenced and greased by that best of political lubricants: money.
Microsoft has mountains of cash and knows how to wield it as an
effective weapon. They are also masters of the FUD attack.
I urge you, the Department of Justice, to not be blinded by
Microsoft's propaganda campaign or to be influenced by the political
pressures I'm sure are exerted upon you. In this day and age, it
seems ethics are a quaint anachronism. Lawyers it seems can twist
anything with enough money and PR. Microsoft has the best attorneys
money can buy, still were found guilty. Please don't ignore that
screaming fact.
You have a chance to do the right thing here, don't blow it.
--
Ron Hitchens
MTC-00026823
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern;
It is time to bring the Microsoft lawsuit to a halt and stop
trying to make a bunch of greedy lawyers rich in the process. The
seniors of this country need all the breaks we can get because to
date, they are few and far between. We, on social security, cannot
even afford our life saving drugs, and the internet is completely
out of the question. Most of the Government programs only benefit
Minorities and bums except Medicare. Let us get on with this
business and stop listening to special interest groups interested in
lining their own pockets at the expense of seniors.
Joe S. Price
Crosby, Texas
MTC-00026824
From: Urbie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
I am opposed to the proposed Microsoft settlement because it
directly increases Microsoft's share of the educational market.
Sincerely,
Urbano Delgado
[email protected]
323-365-1350
MTC-00026825
From: vanharvey2 HARVEY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Over the last eight years, I have, by accident, become a
software developer. I came into PC's as a sales manager during the
time before Microsoft dominated the business software suite's. I
began working with Lotus & Borland's products, and then found
Microsoft's. I checked them all out, and found that Microsoft's had
more of the features and support that I wanted & needed. They
enabled me to help my salespeople to make more effective and
productive us of their time, in more ways, than any other product
available. I became so hooked on being able to unlock people's
productivity by fiddling with software code, that I became an
Instructor and then fulltime developer.
Through the years, I've found that Microsoft's products
consistently give me more of what I need, than any other product out
there, and as a result, my professional standing, my income, and my
families security, has increased dramatically as well.
That professional and financial security was rocked when the DOJ
won it's initial case against Microsoft. My entire industry was
affected immediately, and as we in the software industry know, the
DotCom bust followed as a direct result.
I resent that my government precipitated this calamity, from an
effort to prop up those software companies that I and most of those
I work with, try our best not to have to use;
[[Page 27877]]
because their products are inferior, and their policies are
restrictive and ``thuggish'' in dealing with developers.
We, the software Developers and users, didn't ask Government to
step in and ``protect us'' by crippling Microsoft--a
bunch of 2nd rate companies did, and it was for their betterment,
not ours. We use Microsoft because we have decided that their
products make our lives and professions, more successful.
Please get out of their way.
If Microsoft stumbles and begins to crank out inferior products,
you can be sure that we'll jump ship quickly, (and one of us will
create the software that the rest jump to), and we won't need the
Government to tell us there's a problem. We don't need the
Government forcing us to use inferior products made by inferior
companies with inferior bully management, when Microsoft has what we
want in the way we need it--now.
Microsoft has a right to design it's software, the way they
choose, and we have a right to choose it, if we choose. As an
American company, Microsoft has a Right to its property, and it is
the government's job is to protect that right, not to take it away.
Please let Microsoft alone, and settle this case quickly.
Sincerely,
Van Harvey
4 Rustic Meadow Ct.
St. Peters, MO 63376
636-939-3411
[email protected]
MTC-00026826
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing to urge you and the Department of Justice to accept
the Microsoft antitrust settlement. It's time to end this case,
which has been dragged out for over three years.
The suit has hurt not only Microsoft and its stockholders but
also the technology industry and the economy as a whole. Any
settlelment agreement that ends this situation should be seriously
considered, and this settlelment, with tough restrictions on
Microsoft, should be enacted. It can't reasonably be claimd that
Microsoft is getting off easily. The settlement forces them to give
up propietary information about and certain controls on their
operating system so that others can more easily make and promote
products that directly compete with Microsoft products. If Microsoft
breaks this agreement they can be punished for contempt of court.
The first step in getting the technology industry back to
business is settling the antitrust suit with Microsoft. A
settlelment has been drafted and I would like to see it accepted.
Only once the antitrust suit is in the past can the technology
industry focusd on the future.
Sincerely,
Charles Wright
Charles Wright
6704 Klein Street NW
Olympia WA 98502
MTC-00026827
From: wt.catch1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:52pm
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,
Dustin Cross
IN 47303
MTC-00026828
From: Erv (038) Nancy Otte
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:57pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
Close this case. This case is simply another mistake by the
William Jefferson Clinton term. Let Microsoft continue to help the
world develop.
Microsoft has done more to help improve the world than almost
all other businesses in the world. Let the free enterprise system
continue. More Government will only hold back growth and
development.
Sincerely,
Ervin G. Otte
Bedford, Indiana USA
MTC-00026829
From: Alex Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your Honors,
I have suffered greatly from the actions of microsoft over the
past years. My work with video has been sabotaged by Microsoft's
efforts to break QuickTime and make it look like Apple's fault. At
times it has hurt my credibility and many many times has hurt my
productivity. My choice of everything in the computer world has
diminished as Microsoft has risen. I lost quality alternative word
processors, web browsers, and alternate operating systems.
Furthermore, I am outraged that Microsoft has never taken the legal
system seriously. From all it's falsified demonstrations in the
early phases of the trial through it's insulting proposed remedy,
it's clear that Microsoft does not respect our court.
The proposed remedy is a joke, and the implementation is an
insult. The idea that Microsoft would be able to self-police is not
valid. And installing court officers inside of Microsoft who wold be
subject to the corporate culture and exposed only to what Microsoft
lets them see would certainly do nothing than placate the court, but
not offer any real solutions to consumer's problems.
As Microsoft prepares to make another move into homes with the
X-box and Ultimate TV, and before they can hurt consumers any more,
I recommend you punish Microsoft in a way that will compensate it's
customers, who have certainly suffered as a result of the unfair
practices of a company with more money than ethics.
Al Johnson
Cincinnati, Ohio
MTC-00026830
From: jay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
For shame,
Anti-trust was put into place to protect Joe public.... As I see
it, it has not been enforced in 20 years. How about going after
Microsoft and every other company pre-selling product with no
product ready to ship or a responsible shipment date. Or any company
that sells beta ware waiting for the public to test it and than
usually charges for the upgrade. If they sold a car with non-
functioning brakes you would be all over them due to the deaths
involved.
How bout doing the right thing for a change and find for the
public and not with corporate America who can not be held
responsible for anything.... or so it seems
Jay Farber
JFMConsulting
Los Angeles --
MTC-00026831
From: Ted Beel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 27, 2002
Dear Sirs:
I am writing to express my support for the settlement of the
antitrust case against Microsoft. As a former Microsoft employee, I
think that the employees and executives of Microsoft are looking
forward to the opportunity to move past the legal problems. I have
no doubt that Microsoft employees will work fairly and honestly,
according to the terms of the settlement.
During the past month, many of Microsoft's competitors have
reported financial results and made predictions regarding future
financial results. I am guardedly optimistic that financial
conditions will improve for many high-tech companies as customers
see the benefits of open access to Microsoft source code. Reduced
support costs may well provide an impetus to growth necessary to
lift the industry from its current economic slump.
Thank you for considering my opinions in this matter.
[[Page 27878]]
Regards,
Ted Beel
1627 164th Place SE
Mill Creek, WA 98012
MTC-00026832
From: Jerome Borden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
Please get this case settled as quickly as possible. In case you
haven't noticed, the current economic downturn started about the
time that court decision against Microsoft was handed down. There is
nothing ``the Market'' abhors more than uncertainty. Next
on that list is the prospect of hard work being punished. This is
why the market goes down when the ``economic news'' is
good. It is afraid of what the Federal Reserve will do. The same is
true of the Tax Code and Ecology Regulations causing otherwise
willing people to not engage in certain activities. The threat of
Legal Plundering is in this list of economic stiflers. Ask any
smoker about that. Many businesses go out of their way and threaten
legal action to prevent their products from having any contact with
aviation because of Fear of Lawyers. A similar cloud fell over the
high tech industry starting in mid-2000 and that had a lot to do
with Microsoft litigation.
Yours Truly,
Jerome C. Borden (a current Netscape user)
1571 E. Beechwood Drive
Layton, UT 84040-2226
801-586-3616 (days, else 801-593-0078)
MTC-00026833
From: Sameer Chopra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Setttlement
To whom it may concern:
Recently, Microsoft was accused by AOL/Time Warner on behalf of
Netscape to have violated antitrust laws. They say that since
Microsoft is bundling Internet Explorer with the Windows operating
system, they are monopolizing the business. I agree with this
statement because by putting their web browser on the computer, most
users will use it because it comes installed on the computer. This
has the potential to drive Netscape out of business because only
people who specifically want Netscape will use it. Those who do not
care will use Internet Explorer because it comes installed on the
computer.
This event is similar to the time around the industrial
revolution, when larger companies would drive smaller companies out
of business, then buy them for almost nothing. Similarly, Microsoft
is trying to destroy Netscape, but not to buy it out. Instead, it
wants to disable AOL/Time Warner's hold in the web browser business.
In conclusion, Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer with
Windows is a clear attempt at a monopoly and must be stopped.
MTC-00026834
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I respectfully suggest that the Proposed Final Judgement be
rejected, based on the following facts:
A. There is no provision preventing Microsoft from restricting
the use of non- Microsoft middleware as a means by which competing
operating systems might make use of software designed for Windows.
Such an option would greatly enhance the competitive environment,
serve the public interest, and lower the barrier of entry for new
operating systems. Microsoft has a history of preventing competing
products from working with it's operatng systems, as was the case
with Corel's ``DR.DOS'' product and Windows 3.1. It is
certain that they will resume this anti- competitive practice,
unless prevented.
B. The provision, in Section III/I, Subsection 5, that a
licensee be required to license it's products back to Microsoft, is
to Microsoft's advantage. The monopoliust already has an advantage,
acquired thought illegal means. any judgement needs to deny
Microsoft the ability to preserve and extend it's illegal monopoly.
C. Section III/J, Subsection 2(c), requires that a licensee meet
standards `` . . . established by Microsoft for
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business''.
This provision is so broad that it effectively makes the final
judgement invalid. This provision limits the licensee to
``businesses'' but, by Microsoft's own admission, some of
it's chief competitors are non-business entities like Apache, Samba,
and Linux.
D. Nowhere in the PFJ is Microsoft required to disclose
information about its file formats ( Microsoft Word, Excel, WMP, and
so on). It is clear that Microsoft will continue largely unpunished
should the Proposed Final Judgement be accepted. Microsoft has been
found guilty of maintaining an illegal monopoly. A resolution is
needed that is far more effective at delivering a suitable remedy.
Thomas Dow
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026835
From: Mark Roberts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thank you for presenting me with the opportunity to share my
views on the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) on the Microsoft case.
I firmly believe that the PFJ will fail to curb Microsofts
illegal, anticompetitive behaviors (or as John Ashcroft simply
called it, Microsoft's unlawful conduct) due to its failure to
either address at all, or in sufficient detail, three main
behaviors. 1) Most Windows APIs are shipped by Microsoft as add-on
SDKs with associated redistributable components under a very
restrictive End User License Agreements (EULA) barring use with Open
Source or Free Software applications. 2) Microsoft discriminates
against independent software vendors who want to develop Windows-
compatible, competing operating systems. 3) The PFJ narrowly defines
Windows Operating System Product in definition U to mean only
Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional,
and their successors ignoring Windows Pocket PC, X-Box, Tablet PC
and other OSs which Microsoft is developing.
As I mentioned, most Windows APIs are currently shipped by
Microsoft as add-on SDKs with other associated redistributable
components. Applications which wish to use the Windows APIs are
forced to also use the add-on SDK components even though those same
add-ons. The catch, of course, is that the SDK components almost
always have very restrictive EULAs prohibiting their use with Open
Source or Free Software applications. This directly harms companies
wishing to develop software as they are forced to either hope that
the people using their product already have up-to-date APIs (which
is always possible, but is a poor practice for a company to rely on
as their product will quickly become thought of as unstable or
unreliable since there is bound to be a group of users who suffer
problems due to API problems) or they must shun Open Source and Free
Software licenses for their product. Two applications which are
harmed by this restrictive EULA include the competing middleware
product Netscape 6 (competing against Internet Explorer 6) and the
competing office suite StarOffice (a competitor with Microsoft
Office XP). The restrictive 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.
The PFJ will fail to curb Microsofts discrimination against
independent software vendors who want to develop Windows-compatible,
competing operating systems. Today, the Microsoft Platform SDK
coupled with Microsoft Visual C++, is the primary toolkit used by
ISVs to create Windows-compatible applications. However, the EULA
for the Microsoft Platform SDK reads in part:
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 programs built with Visual C++ on
Windows-compatible competing operating systems. The PFJ failure to
address these exclusionary behaviors will contribute to the
Applications Barrier to Entry faced by competing operating systems.
Perhaps the biggest flaw of the PFJ is that it uses an overly
narrow definition of Windows Operating System Product in definition
dd. Restricting the definition of Windows Operating System Product
to only Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, Windows XP
Professional, and their successors ignores many major avenues of
growth that Microsoft itself sees in the future of computing.
Microsoft's monopoly is on Intel-compatible operating systems not
just the three current OSs listed in the PFJ and their successors.
Nearly all applications
[[Page 27879]]
written to the Win32 APIs can run unchanged on Windows 2000, Windows
XP Tablet PC Edition, and Windows CE, and with a simple
recompilation, can also be run on Pocket PC. Microsoft even proudly
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. Bill Gates, in his address at the recent COMDEX
convention (available at: http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/
speeches/2001/11-11comdex.asp) with Jeff Raikes assisting him
agreed with the statement that the Tablet PC operating system is
already able to run all existing Windows programs along with a suite
of its own applications. And yet it is highly debatable that the
Tablet PC operating system is a successor to any of the three OSs
listed in the PFJ. Even clearer is that Windows Pocket PC is not
covered in the PFJ as it existed before any of the three OSs listed
again, Windows Pocket PC can run versions of many Windows programs.
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 (which in its next generation, currently named
Homestation will attempt to dominate the Personal Video Recorder
market currently led by TiVO and SonicBlue while becoming the
central piece of entertainment in homes or as ABC News said,
Microsoft's big black box is but a cog in a more ambitious machine,
one designed to tie the software giant to every area of home
entertainment. The whole story is available at: abcnews.go.com/
sections/scitech/TechTV/techtv--Xbox020123.html) or some other
Microsoft Operating System that can run Windows applications.
So what we are left with is a potential shift in Microsofts
business away from Windows XP and towards new OSs like Windows
Tablet Edition or X-Box or Pocket PC none of which are clearly
successors to Windows XP. Instead, they are Windows-compatible
operating systems the exact same type of product that Microsoft bars
other companies from making as I addressed in my second point.
Therefore, the PFJ will allow Microsoft to extend its monopoly as it
can (and certainly will) develop distinct new Operating Systems
which are Windows compatible while not addressing Microsofts refusal
to grant that right to other companies.
Finally, I need to say that the opinions I expressed here are
solely my own and are in no way influenced by the fact that one of
the paralegals at the Department of Justice is cute!
Sincerely,
Mark Roberts
Washington, DC
MTC-00026836
From: BERNARD FLEISCHMAN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Network
To: ```[email protected]'''
Subject: Attorney General John Ashcroft Letter
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 14:01:18 -0500
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:
Rep. Robert Wexler
Fax: 202-225-5974
For more information, please visit these websites:
www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm
8867 Brittany Lakes Drive
Boynton Beach, Florida 33437
January 19, 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 concern for the Microsoft Antitrust
settlement. I believe that the Department of Justice and Microsoft
have come to reasonable terms and that the duration of this case
should be ended. The settlement enforces a number of restrictions
and obligations that Microsoft must follow in order rectify this
antitrust violation, which should promote more competition in the
software market. Microsoft has even agreed to make available to the
competition various interfaces that are internal to Windows''
operating system products. In addition to that, Microsoft has also
consented to promote competitor's programs within Windows software.
Microsoft has agreed to make drastic changes in order to fulfill
their obligations and I think that this settlement should put an end
to this lengthy case.
Sincerely,
Arline Fleichman
cc: Representative Robert Wexler
MTC-00026841
From: Timothy o'shea
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice
Timothy o'Shea, International Communications Executive,
620 Euclid Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94118
RE : Final Microsoft Settlement/Judgement
It seems clear that anything that defines a ``final''
settlement for the Microsoft case must focus on this opportunity to
halt monopolistic practices that further define a more limited
access to freedom into the future.
After all the resources and expense of the Federal Government in
pursuing the formidable position of Microsoft in the market, the
initial intention must be paramount: protect future domestic
security, rights and economy. Only with a focus on protecting future
commerce and individual rights can the government honor its original
intention to protect the consumer, the public and the still evolving
opportunities of the Information Age and the economies that will
emerge within it.
The following are some of the required points that must be
included in the spirit and letter of the settlement.
(1) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to run the 70,000
existing Windows applications without modification on all other
operating systems.
(2) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to have native
versions of Microsoft Office applications on all other operating
systems.
(3) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace one or
more of the four Office applications with competing applications,
while retaining the ability to exchange files, data, and services
with any Microsoft application.
(4) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to have native
versions of Explorer, Media Player and other Microsoft Internet
applications on all other operating systems.
(5) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace one or
more Microsoft Internet applications with competing applications,
while retaining the ability to exchange files, data, and services
with any Microsoft application.
(6) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace any
component or feature in any Microsoft software product with superior
or special purpose components or features.
(7) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to run any Microsoft
software on computers that do not have Intel-compatible
microprocessors.
(8) A simple, affordable, and reliable way for software
developers to access all the information they need to create
products that offer consumers these choices.
(9) A way to ensure that original equipment manufacturers
provide consumers with equal access to computers with
[[Page 27880]]
alternative operating systems, productivity applications, and
Internet applications.
(10) A ``crown jewel'' provision establishing such
serious consequences for non-compliance that Microsoft will not
attempt to evade the necessary disclosure requirements and other
mandates
The overall question is to ask is if there could be so much
smoke around the practices of Microsoft, without the fires of
monopolistic strategy being at the source of a strong and growing
fire. Such an informational juggernaut position, if unchecked, could
unleash a slow burning fire that becomes too much to quell later on.
I hope you will keep these points above in mind. They are,
indeed, what is necessary to keep the digital divide from keeping
out too many from having access to the future in any meaningful way.
Sincerely,
Timothy o'Shea
MTC-00026842
From: Anant K Saraswat
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust Decision
As a student in the Master of Engineering Program at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, I would like to comment on
the Proposed Final Judgement.
While the spirit of the ruling, which is to prevent anti-
competitive practices by Microsoft, is admirable, the letter of the
ruling leaves many loopholes that Microsoft will be able to exploit
that will allow it to continue to stifle competition. Specifically:
The definition of the term ``API'' used in the ruling
is extremely narrow--it only refers to the interfaces between
Microsoft Middleware products and the OS. This would allow Microsoft
to refuse to disclose many interfaces that developers will need to
write applications that use Windows. The definition of API used in
the ruling should be altered to say, ``Application Programming
Interfaces (APIs)'' means the interfaces, including any
associated callback interfaces, that Popular Windows Applications
running or being installed on a Windows Operating System Product use
to call upon that Windows Operating System Products in order to
obtain services from that Windows Operating System Product.''
The term ``Windows Operating System Product'' is also
too narrowly defined. It does not include any of the Microsoft
Operating sytems that are targetted towards use on laptop computers
or PDA's, such as Microsoft Windows CE. These operating systems
should also be included in the settlement.
The ruling does not contain language that prevents Microsoft
from intentionally designing its products to be incompatible with
other operating systems.
The ruling allows Microsoft to retalliate against OEMs that ship
PCs which use an OS other than Windows. Given the current popularity
of Windows and other Microsoft products, no OEM can afford to risk a
cutoff of Microsoft products in retalliation for using competing
products. This is a barrier to competition.
The ruling requirs Microsoft to license Windows at uniform terms
and published prices to the top 20 OEMs, but does not put any
restrictions on its licensing to smaller OEMs. These smaller OEMs
are the companies most likely to experiment with other operating
systems. Section III.B. allows Microsoft to offer unspecified Market
Development Allowances 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.
MTC-00026847
From: Dale Lillie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sir or Madam,
I strongly urge the US Department of Justice to settle the
Microsoft case now and enter the revised proposed Final Judgment.
The case brought against Microsoft was motivated primarily by
competitive malice. Settling this case is certainly in the public
interest.
Microsoft has been a boon to me by bringing lower PC prices,
faster and better computing, and better software development tools.
In addition, this lawsuit has cost investors, literally hundreds of
billions of dollars.
I have gladly purchased and used Microsoft products for over 20
years. Professionally, I have developed many systems based on
Microsoft software products. During this time I have interacted with
Microsoft personnel at many levels. At no time did I think that the
relationship with Microsoft was not fair or beneficial to me as well
as to other parties involved. To the contrary, I believe that
Microsoft to a large degree is responsible for the current economic
good health of the USA, as well as many other countries of the
world.
It is time to end this antitrust action begun in 1997.
Sincerely,
Dale G Lillie
Dale G Lillie
River Forecast Group
http://
www.RiverForecast.com
MTC-00026849
From: Mary/Harold Shelby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement:
Please, PLEASE, let's take the proposed settlement in stride and
get on with life. Most of the lawyers already have enough money, and
there is really no other reason to have dragged this thing out this
long.
A normal business would have long since declared bankruptcy if
it were operated in the manner in which this case has been handled.
If there is no reason to punish the public further, then settle this
case NOW!
Any punishment or fine or any other punitive action taken
against a business of nearly any kind is eventually suffered or paid
for by the public. Look at the fiasco of the Clinton mess: The jerk
was not, nor will he EVER be worth what he cost the American
taxpayer, no matter HOW much he and his partner/wife (or whatever)
steal. Is that enough said about that IT? A MAN would not have done
what that thirteen-year-old punk (at the REAL age of 50) did!!
Thanx for lending me your ear so I might let off some steam!
SINCERELY,
Harold Shelby
MTC-00026850
From: Thurston C Tooker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: US Justice Dept.
Please stop this pending ( damaging ) litigation against
Microsoft Corporation. Only self-serving competitors really want
this proposed settlement to drag on. It is, without any doubt,
against Public Interest.
T, C, Tooker
5308 Terrace Oak Circle
Fair Oaks, Calif. 95628-3634
MTC-00026851
From: Joyce Cheze
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:27pm
Subject: LEAVE WINDOWS ALONE
Separating Windows would complicate computer use greatly. Also,
it would increase the chances of incompatibility.
I teach computers to high school students in Florida. Windows is
a wonderful for student use. Separating it would create major
learning blocks.
Also, we have limited dollars to spend for our budget.
Compatibility is vital. Separation would create serious budgetary
concerns for technology in Florida high schools.
Please show common sense. Leave Windows working as it is.
Thank you,
Joyce Cheze
Computer Teacher
MTC-00026852
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the proposed settlement is not in the best
interest of the United States and represents a complete sellout of
the American consumer by the Department of Justice. The settlement
must be rejected. The long, expensive trial proved beyond any doubt,
as evidenced by the unanimous opinion of the District Appeals Court,
that Microsoft is an abusive monopolist that doesn't hesitate to use
any tactic, no matter how ethical or illegal, to crush any person or
company in its way. The settlement at issue does nothing, repeat
nothing, to punish Microsoft for its prior and ongoing illegal
activities and puts no, repeat no, real constraints on future
illegal and/or abusive activities. The proposed settlement is so
full of loopholes that it might as well not be in place.
In fact, the details of this proposed settlement are so
completely skewed in Microsoft's favor as to allow them to do
[[Page 27881]]
--anything-- they so choose in the future and it will be
allowed.
The proposed settlement stinks to high heaven and must be
rejected as completely inadequate.
I'm ashamed that the so-called Department of Justice would even
be associated with a settlement this biased against the citizens
they're supposedly representing.
Sincerely,
A. Allan Dauer
United States Citizen
MTC-00026853
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
URGENT ACTION ALERT
Microsoft should not be punished any further and the litigation
against them should be truncated NOW.
We believe that the proposed Microsoft settlement be accepted.
We believe this settlement offers a reasonable compromise that will
enhance access to the internet and initiate innovative software
products in the immediate future and have a very positive impact on
the American economy and this recession.
Thank you for listening.
Niketas J. Haldoupis and
Laura F. Haldoupis
MTC-00026854
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jake Morphonios
137 Dovick Dr
Banner Elk, NC 28604
MTC-00026855
From: Barbara Bryant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Having been in the business world for many years and exposed to
the onset of the cyberage, I have never understood how anyone could
say that Microsoft has been guilty of violating the anti-trust laws.
Bill Gates took an EXPENSIVE product and made it available to the
general public and to small business at a reasonable cost!
The suit against Microsoft originated with its unsuccessful
competitors NOT with its consumers! Are we going to now see an era
where one will be unable to go into competition across the street,
sell a better product at a less expensive cost and be successful
without some lawyer taking away that right? Thank God this could not
happen during Henry Ford's day!
We Americans have seen many rights taken away from us in the
past 25 years. It seems the only time we have a ``right''
is when it appeases the liberal ideology and I, for one, am sick and
tired of it. It is NOT the government's place to protect any
business from another in a so-called ``free country''!
AND, it is NOT the government's place (or any money-hungry lawyer)
to see that I am protected from myself!
Men and women with the intelligence, foresight and GUTS to do
what Bill Gates did should never have HIS PROPERTY taken away by a
government-- especially the AMERICAN government. HIS rights
should be protected. And he should be shown as an example to ALL
young Americans to encourage them to reach for the same stars rather
than some rock star or athlete that manages to have 5--7
children out of wedlock before reaching the age of 25!
If the government really wanted to do something FOR THE PEOPLE
of this country, why do we not see any investigations into the
``non-profit'' organizations that seem to have to account
to NO ONE! It seems one can set up a ``non-profit''
organization, collect millions, show a very small percentage going
to something or some organization that fits the ``help a
person'' category, write off HUGE salaries and contributions to
mistresses as ``Consulting Fees'', extort millions more
from other businesses and the IRS ``doesn't have the resources
to investigate''. Forget to include a 1099 from a measly oil
royalty of $136.00, as I did a couple of years ago (with a total
income of less than $40,000.00) and the IRS seems to have plenty of
resources to conduct an audit.
Something dreadfully evil has crept into the American Government
ideology and I predict as long as we hard-working, tax-paying
Americans sit on our duffs without any outcry, our rights are going
to continue to be whittled away in the name of ``protecting
us'' and this country will fall into economic, social and moral
disaster. Unfortunately, we have a very good foundation to that end
today.
Yours truly,
Barbara Bryant
Levelland, Texas
MTC-00026856
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To The Justice Department :RE--The Proposed Microsoft
Settlement;
The following statement, in part, was sent to me by the Seniors
Coaltion.
``The Seniors Coalition 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. Unfortunately, a few of Microsoft's
competitors have continued their aggressive lobbying campaign to
undermine the settlement negotiated with the federal government and
nine states. 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. Consumer interests have been
well served, and the time to end this costly and damaging litigation
has come.
Dragging out this legal battle further will only benefit a few
wealthy competitors, lawyers, and special interest big-wigs. Not one
new product that helps consumers will be brought to the
marketplace.''
I agree with this completely,and think it is time to put an end
to this.
Respectfully,
William S.Palmer
MTC-00026857
From: Frances Ward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:34pm
Subject: Response to any changes to draft
I do not wish to make any changes in the letter drafted--I
wish to stand up for Microsoft--Please be aware this is my
notice to ask you to accept my letter in favor of Microsoft.
FranWard41 @hotmail.com
MTC-00026858
From: William Pence
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
OK, I have waited almost too late to submit my comments:
The DOJ and judicial system in place MUST place conditions
against MS in place with teeth, that will cause a fundamental change
to MS business practice. As the courts have already found, MS
routinely uses illegal monopoly power to protect and advance its
market. This is a competitive stranglehold on the industry that will
only hurt the consumer long term. From previous judgements in cases
like this, MS will interpret these rulings to their advantage at
every opportunity. This means an oversight team NOT SPECIFIED OR
APPOINTED BY MS is required. Note that they have already tried this
game. Their people must be removed from the oversight team. This
oversight team must have authority to REQUIRE MS compliance.
Please, Please, Please do not allow MS to continue to extend
their monopoly via illegal tactics. The proposed settlement to
provide schools with technology is a JOKE.
1. they do not have a monopoly there, so this will help them
alter the balance in their favor.
2. the accounting in use will claim that Windows costs 199.99,
and office costs 499.95, when they are basically ``free''
since MS is just giving copies of existing software.
3. Allowing MS to specify the settlement is like allowing the
fox the KEY to the
[[Page 27882]]
henhouse, and providing extra place settings for the fox to invite
friends.
Several engineer friends of mine and I have watched this trial
from the beginning. we all have the collective ``duhhh''
when the court findings of illegal monopoly practices were
published. we have also had the collective ``what a
waste'' watching the current handling of the case. David Boise
laid a perfect design to really solve this. Let's no give away the
ending. Let's make a real difference to STOP MS from continuing
their illegal practices, and allowing real competition from AOL/
Netscape, Apple, Real Networks, and others. thanks,
[email protected]
MTC-00026859
From: George Papp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi I'm a college student at The Ohio State University and the
Microsoft Settlement is not fair to a successful company who has
done more for the public good than any-other tech company in the
business.
Why penalize a company because they are successful. Its not
Microsoft's fault that consumers do not buy their competitor's junk
product. Also, if Microsoft is paying my education. I was fortunate
to have been able to trade shares of Microsoft to pay for my college
education instead of taking college loans to pay for it. If
Microsoft tanks I highly feel that I would not be able to sell
shares and make enough money off the transactions to pay for school.
Our Country is having tough economic times and penalizing Microsoft
for its success would further send our country down the economic
toilet.
Thank You,
George M. Papp
Student
MTC-00026860
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:37pm
Subject: Views on Microsoft and Bill Gates
If I Were Bill Gates
Published in USA TODAY 1/24/00
by Michael J. Hurd Ph.D.
Poor Bill Gates. He doesn't know how to defend himself.
If I were Bill Gates, here is what I would say to defend myself:
I created a company. Millions upon millions of people want to
buy my company's products. They do so freely and
willingly--often enthusiastically. I never lied to my
customers. I never held a gun to their heads. They bought from me of
their own free will. My products have transformed the world. The
billions I've made are small potatoes compared to the benefit the
world has gained from my innovations.
It is true that I package together some of my products. But I
created these products. It is my right to package and sell them any
way I see fit. It is the equal right of individual consumers to shop
elsewhere if they see fit. Many of them do. It's a competitive
business, and I have no guarantee of always staying on top. In a
free market, there are no guarantees.
Government is supposed to protect its citizens from the
initiation of force and fraud. I am guilty of neither. Nobody even
accuses me of it. It's not the government's place to decide when one
particular company has made ``too much'' or
``cornered the market.'' This is the consumer's job, not
Janet Reno's or Bill Clinton's job.
There is no monopoly, so long as other companies are free to
compete with me; and they are free to compete with me. Government
should stop telling the public it's only ``protecting''
them. No such thing is true. If the truth be told, the government is
protecting my competitors--not the consumers.
That's what this antitrust case is really all about.
MTC-00026861
From: George J, JUngermann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:40pm
Subject: Microssoft Settlement
I write this e-mail to let you know I support the proposed
settlement as a fair agreement. Any attempt to continue with the
court case can only be described as an attempt to benefit the few
and not the many affected by this case.
It's time to end this law suit! The settlement is fair to all!
Thanks,
George Jungermann
[email protected]
MTC-00026862
From: D (038) P Cochell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
SETTLE THIS LAWSUIT and let microsoft get back to their work of
innovating and marketing tech products that the consumers want and
need. The tech industry, the country's economy, and consumers
information base needs the growth that an innovative company like
Microsoft provides.
Let them do it!
Darrell Cochell
Lakin, Kansas
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026863
From: Peter Mogensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft trials,
Hello,
I must say, I'm baffled by the development of the various
Microsoft Anti Trust trials in the US. In most of Europe the US
legal system has a reputation of being mostly about expensive
lawyers and politics. Of course, people regards this as satire,
. . . until it affects them self. Allow me to introduce
myself: My name is Peter Mogensen and I'm a Danish citizen. I write
to you since as a daily user of non-Microsoft products, I'm very
concerned about the future of the computer industry with the
prospects of Microsoft getting out of the current lawsuits the way
the settlements are laid out. My daily work is software development,
which you might think disqualifies me of representing the average
consumers and users of computers and operating systems. I would
argue that I am indeed a user of operating systems and other
software products (both professionally and as a hobbyist) and my
technical knowledge enables me to see parts of the problem that the
average user (or lawyer) doesn't see.
I see every day how computer users find it more and more
difficult to live without Microsoft products. This would be
understandable if Microsoft actually produced innovative, good
quality products. But I don't see computers becoming easier to use
for the average user. What I see is a lot of users being led into
believe that their computer is easier to use than it is. Often at
expense of security. Lack of security in Microsoft products (like
Outlook/IE/IIS) has cost the users around the world over $10 billion
per year the last 3 years. (http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/news/
reuters--wire/1453344l.htm) There's lots of other reasons to
not choose Microsoft software. They are not as important here as the
fact, that a lot of people actually want to use something else, but
often can't.
Why is that? Because Microsoft is enforcing a (almost worldwide)
monopoly on operating systems, office applications, web browsers and
a few other products.
You might ask, why Microsoft can maintain such a monopoly if
there's appealing reasons to choose other products? The answer lies
in the way Microsoft conducts business. I would like to highlight
two problems which have influenced my life in a negative direction:
1) In the computer world and on the Internet, compatibility is
everything.
If over 80% of the users on the Internet are using a system
incompatible with that of the remaining 20%, users are not migrating
TO the minority but rather FROM. Microsoft knows this and does
everything in its power to make the life of the minority as hard as
possible bye making it difficult to communicate with the majority.
This is done by heavy use of proprietary protocols and data
formats and often by bending or extending their implementations of
open standards to only work with Microsoft products. Examples are
the ever changing file formats of MS Word, the J++ Java
implementation (http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/111798ruling.html) and
the modifications to the Kerberos protocol in Windows 2000 (http://
www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/05/15/000515oplivingston.xml).
Of proprietary communication protocols, which Microsoft actively
prevents others from implementing, SMB/CIFS is an example. Without
the ability for other systems to talk this protocol, Microsoft are
keeping other products out of the local network marked, since this
is the official way for Windows computers to do file sharing among
computers on a local area network.
Please read: (http://linuxtoday.com/
news--story.php3?ltsn=2001-11-06-005-20-OP-MS) or here: (http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba/
2001-November/060505.html) http://perens.com/Articles/
StandTogether.html
Most obvious for the average user is the tendency for the WWW to
become ``best viewed with Internet Explorer''.
More and more infrastructure in the western world are placed on
the Internet and
[[Page 27883]]
it is becoming more and more important for citizens to be able to
access this information. The problem is that Microsoft encourages
people to implement web sites using technology only available on the
Windows operating system and in Internet Explorer. Many web sites
are specificly designed only to be viewed with Internet Explorer.
Many home banking systems are like that. The World Wide Web was
never meant to be viewed with only one client. The WWW was meant to
be based on open standards to enhance interoperability. That's
innovation. Microsoft does not encourage innovation!
If this development is allowed to continue, we risk having a
world were mere participation in the society requires you to run a
Microsoft product, effectively paying taxes to Microsoft. I do not
want that, and I do not believe you or your citizens want that
either.
2) The way Microsoft has controlled the OEM hardware
manufactures during the 90's:
Microsoft had the majority of the market share for operating
systems.
Knowing that most users doesn't make changes to the computer
system they buy and that most users are reluctant to put too much
effort into actively searching for alternatives once they have
bought a computer it is easy to use your existing market share (and
the need for compatibility) to increase your market share. I've
personally been using the BeOS (former http://www.be.com) operating
system with much satisfaction. This was an very innovative product
fulfilling many of my needs as a ordinary user and as a developer.
Including things MS Windows didn't supply. The efficiency and
elegance of the system made it a breeze to use compared to the many
problems Windows users often experience. Unfortunately the BeOS
operating system is no more. Be inc was forced out of business by
Microsoft. (http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1115/byt20010824s0001/)
The product (BeOS) has been bought by Palm inc, who officially has
declared that it will not be continued.
Now . . . the result of Microsofts monopoly and
``innovative'' behavior is that over 10 years of
development on a cutting edge operating system will not be available
for consumers.
I can not see how the current market situation in any way is
good for the consumer. Microsofts competition has an almost
impossible task in just being allowed into the market, since the
market is more than often defined by Microsoft products and
proprietary protocols.
In the current market, the commercial model fails to work to the
benefit of the consumer. Which products actually reach the consumer
are dictated by commercial interests, not by innovation. BeOS is an
sad example of this.
Now, what should be done to ensure that the competition of an
open market will benefit consumers?
Simple: Require the use of open standards. And enforce it.
Microsoft should be prohibited from using proprietary protocols and
file formats in communication between computer systems and in
interfaces between products. Public digital communication should
require use of open standards.
Restricting all protocols and file formats in public use to be
based on open standards will guaranty every citizen equal rights to
participate in the digital society which are becoming more and more
important in the western world.
regards,
Peter Mogensen
PS: Though not directly related to the trial, I was very
appalled to hear the about the proposed settlement in the private
antitrust case. (http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/news/svfront/
ms121101.htm) It's chocking to hear that anyone can think you can
limit a monopoly by allowing it to increase its market share. Sorry
to address this subject in this letter. I'll just appeal to this
court to make an objective and thoroughly considered ruling in this
important matter.
MTC-00026864
From: Dan Atkinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust Lawsuit
Stop punishing Microsoft for being a leader in its''
industry, and conversely rewarding those competitors who fail to
measure up or would like to succeed at Microsoft's expense. This has
potentially disasterous consequences for the future of American
business. Regards, Daniel J. Atkinson, D.D.S.
MTC-00026865
From: Bob Karr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft
antitrust trial. I think it does not fully redress the actions
committed by Microsoft in the past, nor inhibit their ability to
commit similar actions in the future. I think it does nothing to
correct or redress their previous abuses. I think some of the
definitions in Section VI could be better defined . For example:
I think that Definition K: Microsoft Middleware Product could
specifically include Microsoft's .NET initiative, Microsoft Outlook
and possibly Microsoft Office as Microsoft Middleware.
I think that Definition U: Windows Operating System Product
could include the Microsoft Tablet PC and Windows CE.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Karr Spring Grove, IL
MTC-00026866
From: Cris Naugle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:48pm
Subject: don't drop the ball!
I spend ten hours a day working on computers and have done so
for at least 15 years. I started working as a researcher in biotech
and for the last 6 years I have been running a graphic design
company and now we mainly design web sites.
I can honestly say the biggest disasters I have encountered
resulted from a MicroSoft product. They release software with major
problems, their applications leave gaps in security that have cost
corporations billions, and they have done some very sneaky thing to
discredit or sabotage another company's product:
1. When I was running an Animal Care and Use Committee at a
Boston Cancer Institute, I was streamlining document handling. I
used a document template included on Word for Windows. The document
wouldn't print out correctly, I was almost fired because we almost
missed our federal regulatory deadline -we had to call in outside
contractors and consultants -the cause? MicroSoft Word required the
use of a Mac font in their template... we used PC's and postscript
printers, the Mac font caused a system crash. The fact they were
using a Mac font in one of their templates may cause one to wonder
where and how they got the template?
2. It was always a joke that there was a flight simulator inside
MS Excel, rumor was that the MS programmers placed it there as a
joke. But those of use using the software were seriously effected in
those days of low RAM, committed by force to not use any other
software if using Excel.
3. When the internet was young, it was a given that designers
and programmers would create website that were cross-platform and
cross-browser compatible -it was our lively-hod that our client's
web sites could be viewed by everyone -then MS stepped in and tried
to rewrite javascript if you opened a page in Explorer that
contained this scripting -you crashed.
4. I was consulting at a dot com when the I LOVE YOU virus hit,
we were designing a web site for NYU and running close to being over
deadline. Then one morning every image file on every computer was
erased. This cost the company millions of dollars and all the
consultants were let go. This hurt real people and I can only
extrapulate this over all the companies hit.
5. And what about the fund B Gates set up to provide
scholarships for minorities and then said he couldn't find any who
qualified!
I could go on for days here but seriously, a lot of good
companies, Apple, Sun, IBM etc have been seriously hurt -good
software destroyed and good companies gone only because an
megomaniac wants to be the biggest not the best just the biggest.
This is not the American Way.
Don't drop the ball here
Christine J Naugle
SpiralXdesing, Inc
5949-8 Carolina Beach Road
Wilmington, NC 28412
910-452-3304 (local)
866-774-7299 (toll free)
910-793-1137 (fax)
http://www.spiralxdesign.com
We Build Web-Esteem
MTC-00026867
From: HAL TUCK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:46pm
Subject: MICROSOFT ANTI-TRUST CASE
3213 Oakwood Boulevard S
Sarasota, FL 34237-6412
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
[[Page 27884]]
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I think it's high time that this whole Microsoft antitrust
matter was over and done with. The government has no place
interfering in private business. This is why I'm pleased that the
settlement that you reached with Microsoft will mean and end in
sight for this mess.
I know that everyone will respect what Microsoft had put on the
table in order to end this whole matter. I can only hope, as a
Microsoft supporter, that elements of the agreement, like giving
over its code and intellectual property rights to its competitors,
will not prove too damaging to the company.
I, along with every other American who depends on Microsoft
products in his daily life, want to see an end to this whole affair.
Three years is far too long to wait for a final settlement and both
sides have far more important issues to worry about.
Sincerely,
Harold Tuck
MTC-00026868
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Howard Callies 123 Spencer Rd N Onalaska, WA 98570
MTC-00026869
From: Suzanne Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ten Essential Consumer-Oriented Remedies
Any settlement or final judgment must include remedies that
provide:
(1) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to run the 70,000
existing Windows applications without modification on all other
operating systems.
(2) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to have native
versions of Microsoft Office applications on all other operating
systems.
(3) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace one or
more of the four Office applications with competing applications,
while retaining the ability to exchange files, data, and services
with any Microsoft application.
(4) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to have native
versions of Explorer, Media Player and other Microsoft Internet
applications on all other operating systems.
(5) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace one or
more Microsoft Internet applications with competing applications,
while retaining the ability to exchange files, data, and services
with any Microsoft application.
(6) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace any
component or feature in any Microsoft software product with superior
or special purpose components or features.
(7) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to run any Microsoft
software on computers that do not have Intel-compatible
microprocessors.
(8) A simple, affordable, and reliable way for software
developers to access all the information they need to create
products that offer consumers these choices.
(9) A way to ensure that original equipment manufacturers
provide consumers with equal access to computers with alternative
operating systems, productivity applications, and Internet
applications.
(10) A ?crown jewel? provision establishing such serious
consequences for non-compliance that Microsoft will not attempt to
evade the necessary disclosure requirements and other mandates.
Suzanne Taylor
Los Angeles, CA
MTC-00026870
From: FigWax
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft's competitors can't compete in the marketplace so they
have to resort to barratry. The public doesn't suffer from
Microsoft's savvy business practices.
The public actually benefits by having only one operating
system.
MTC-00026871
From: Eric B Venet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed
settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case. Before I begin, I would
like to echo the ideas suggested at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html and http://www.codeweavers.com/jwhite/tunneywine.html.
My name is Eric B Venet, I am a second-semester junior at the
University of Rhode Island, studying Computer Science. I am also an
apprentice computer consultant for a small firm in Rockland, MA. In
my academic, professional, and even private life I have certainly
been somewhat of a victim of Microsoft's monopolistic tactics.
I feel that this settlement is not strong enough for three main
reasons:
1. It does not protect the consumer from non-code-based
monopolistic tactics.
2. It does not provide adequate access to the Windows APIs.
3. It does not allow for true competition.
1. One of the most hotly debated items of the past year was the
rumor of the draconian licensing requirements in the then-upcoming
Windows XP. While what eventually came to be was quite tame compared
to what was being discussed, licenses are an issue that the
settlement doesn't quite pinpoint and solve. Microsoft needs to be
prevented from trapping the consumer in an unfair license that may
force him or her to keep using Windows, and keep paying for it. For
example, even with this settlement in place, Microsoft could update
Windows so that all data is encrypted, and cannot be viewed without
a licensed, up-to-date version of Windows. This would be a situation
where a consumer would have to pay money just to get access to his
or her files. While this is an extreme example, it is also one that
I believe is unpreventable under the terms of the settlement.
2. As stated in the above-linked documents, a volunteer group
could be barred from gaining access to API documentation, thus
betraying the very nature of the antitrust findings. The importance
of free and easy access to Windows APIs cannot be stressed, enough.
Bugs or problems in the Windows code, itself, have caused many
errors in the computers of clients that my firm deals with. The time
spent repairing the damage done by Windows'' problems is time
that is billed to the clients, costing them thousands of dollars
each year. If the Windows APIs were more open, applications could be
written to repair such damage automatically, or even avoid it in the
first place. To be more clear, a monopoly is a bad thing, but a
monopoly that deals in problematic products can be a fiscal and an
emotional nightmare.
3. Drawing on what I've said in number 2, what is to prevent
Microsoft from putting code into Windows to keep competitor's
applications from running? There is a nigh-infamous rumor that there
exists code in Windows to make Netscape Navigator, a competing
product to Microsoft Internet Explorer, crash or perform improperly.
While this has never been ``proven'', using Netscape on a
PC with Windows is an exercise in futility and frustration, while
Internet Explorer serves up the same web pages with little or no
problems. To speak of things of more truth than rumor, Microsoft
recently removed support for ``Plug Ins'' from its latest
versions of Internet Explorer. This sent many developers scrambling
to rewrite their software so it would still function. With Microsoft
freely-able to do such things, there is harm to consumers, and also
unjust harm to ``competing'' firms. As far as I
understand, there is nothing in the proposed settlement that will
truly be able to prevent Microsoft from these tactics, again. The
source code to Windows must be monitored or known in such a way as
to prevent malicious code from interfering with third party
software.
To close, Microsoft is poised to extend its monopoly across many
other facets of computerdom with its XBox video game console and its
plans for .NET, a Framework for internet applications. Without a
stronger settlement, the company's strangle-hold on software
developers and consumers will grow even tighter. Computers are
becoming integral in nearly all aspects of our everyday lives, and
having one company with sole
[[Page 27885]]
control of software is a very dangerous prospect. The brashness of
Microsoft's illegal and immoral tactics are becoming an unfortunate
trend in the world of business, and frighteningly, this goes hand-
in-hand with a trend of government looking the other way and
sticking it to the citizenry while these modern-day robber barons
grow richer and more powerful. I realize that the job of government
is a daunting one, but it is one that entails maintaining a balance
of equality between all people, and at the moment, the balance is
visibly shifted towards big business. There is a chance, here to
make a true difference and return the realm of computers to one of
general advancement of the technology, not just the advancement
plans of one close-minded corporation. I hope the right decisions
are made. Thank you for your time, and thank you for doing a job
that I'm sure many others lack the fortitude to do.
Sincerely,
Eric B Venet
[email protected]
3 Lambert St
Narragansett, RI 02882
401-782-0259
MTC-00026872
From: Johnny Chidiac
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
I wish to express my extreme displeasure with the proposed
settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft over the
antitrust violations of Microsoft. As a matter of court record,
Microsoft has proven itself, throughout the proceedings of the case,
to be exceptionally opportunistic and absurdly unethical on a number
of levels. It should be obvious that Microsoft will stop at nothing
in order to prevail in this case (or anywhere else, for that matter)
and therefore, that any remedy short of splitting the company would
do little to curtail their predatory and unethical business
practices. Microsoft is the big bully on the block--the kid
that grew up bigger and faster than the other kids--and it will
keep on bullying until someone bigger and stronger puts a stop to
it. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
John N. Chidiac
MTC-00026873
From: Marlin N Bracken
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:49pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I truly believe the settlement is fair and adequate. Let
Microsoft get on with their business so they can further the
computer skills of us seniors at a price that is affordable.
MTC-00026874
From: Jewel H White
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:53pm
Subject:
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel that the settlement offered recently is sufficient and
this case should be closed. Otherwise, all the citizens of the U.S.
are going to be deprived of future equipment that could make our
lives easier and much more pleasant.
Please don't let this continue--the ones that benefit will
be the ones that are only trying to take a good company down.
Mrs. J.H. White
MTC-00026875
From: Bob Sprenger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a result of their monopoly, Microsoft is able to deliver a
very poor quality product. For example in my own case the following
have occurred.
1. About 5 years ago I installed Internet Explorer (a Microsoft
program) and immediately my Netscape web browser stopped working. It
was necessary to remove both Internet Explorer and Netscape browser
and reinstall Netscape to get the browser to work. Microsoft would
probably suggest User error or some such, however; a search of the
internet indicated mine was not an isolated incident.
2. Installed Windows 3.1 and found there was no compression
software in the program as advertised. It turns out Microsoft was
forced to remove the compression software because they
``borrowed'' it from another company.
3. Recently installed Microsoft Windows 98 second edition.
Unfortunately, more quality problems, Microsoft included an invalid
code to activate the the Operating System. Three days later the
vendor supplied me with the proper code. In this case the code was
one digit short. Since this code obviously uses a complex algorithm
I can understand generating the wrong code, but missing one entire
digit is just plain sloppy and displays once again a don't give a
damn attitude.
4. My current copy of win98 is painfully slow when performing
line printing. Slower than DOS, WIN 3.1, WIN 95, or Linux. Suspect
another quality problem, but not defined as yet.
5. Last week I installed Quicken Turbo Tax. My first
unrecoverable error in that program pointed at Internet Explorer. (a
Microsoft Program)
I would like to dump Microsoft, but they have forced virtually
all the application vendors to use their OS to the exclusion of
other Systems. The susceptibility of Microsoft software to rogue
virus programs is well known. This is scary, particularly when Mr.
Gates says he will make security his main emphasis. Frankly its,
way, way late for this ``action''. I put these statements
in the same category as his highly publicized charitable
contributions--Public Relations WINDOW dressing. My
understanding of the penalties assessed Microsoft because of the
antitrust suit, were minuscule and will not inhibit their
monopolistic operation. I believe the chances for real originality
and creativity in the home computer industry has been greatly
weakened. Sadly it looks like our Judiciary caved in and lost this
one to Micro$oft. Sadly so did the people.
Robert C. Sprenger
1184 Via Mateo
San Jose, Ca 95120
MTC-00026876
From: Bill Mundy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
204 Southwest 24th Street
Blue Springs, MO 64015
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
My name is Bill Mundy. I am a resident of Blue Springs,
Missouri. I am writing to register my support for the settlement
agreement reached in the Microsoft case.
Microsoft has provided great products. If people don't like
them, they have other choices. Apple, Linux and others. I remember
pre-windows computers with everyone creating non compatible
software. Think of the jobs Microsoft has created. Think of the
changes Microsoft has brought to our world. The government didn't
create these changes, private industry did. Don't stand in the way
of progress.
Microsoft has agreed to alter a number of its present business
practices so as to create additional opportunities for software
developers, distributors and consumers. Under this settlement,
consumers will be afforded immediate relief as a result of
Microsoft's agreement to open the Windows operating systems to
competition from non-Microsoft software providers.
I hope that the public sees the wisdom in implementing this
agreement rather than continuing the case in Court. I hope your
department does as well.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours truly,
Bill Mundy
MTC-00026877
From: HAROLD TUCK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:54pm
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust case
3213 Oakwood Boulevard S
Sarasota, FL 34237-6412
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I think it's high time that this whole Microsoft antitrust
matter was over and done with. The government has no place
interfering in private business. This is why I'm pleased that the
settlement that you reached with Microsoft will mean an end in sight
for this mess.
I know that everyone will respect what Microsoft had put on the
table in order to end this whole matter. I can only hope, as a
Microsoft supporter, that elements of the agreement, like giving
over its code and intellectual property rights to its competitors,
will not prove too damaging to the company.
I, along with every other American who depends on Microsoft
products in his daily life, want to see an end to this whole affair.
[[Page 27886]]
Three years is far too long to wait for a final settlement and both
sides have far more important issues to worry about.
Sincerely,
Harold Tuck
MTC-00026878
From: ted zaehringer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
forcing microsoft to gain marketshare is not much of a penalty
no matter how you look at it.
***this settlement sucks!***
thanks.
ted.
MTC-00026879
From: Mark Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft must be severely punished for it's arrogant
monopolistic business tactics. In addition, Microsoft (practically)
forces end-users to use most, if not all, of their applications by
tying them (at times without choice) to their operating system.
Break them up into three separate businesses:
Operating System
Desktop Applications
Internet Applications
Punish Microsoft in such a way as this which will encourage fair
competition and innovation.
Regards,
Mark Miller
[email protected]
MTC-00026880
From: Jan-Erik L(00E4)rka
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/27/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi!
I am a user of the OS/2 operating system from IBM. I have found
this to be a technologically superior product over the operating
systems offered by Microsoft, including their latest version,
Windows XP. 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 the Federal Government's proposed
settlement with Microsoft, in its current form, is adequate and that
stricter measures be imposed on the company to prohibit such tactics
from being used in the future. In other words, I applaud the efforts
to seek stricter measures and encourage the efforts to broaden the
market for the interest of the consumer. In my opinion a settlement
at this point wouldn't benefit the consumers interests.
Sincerely,
Jan-Erik L?rka
Bergsj?
Sweden
MTC-00026881
From: Daniel Herbst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:59pm
Subject: microsoft settellment
January 27 2002
Public Comment: Civil Action No. 98-1232
As mentioned in the competitive impact statement. Appropriate
injunctive relief in an antitrust case should: (1) end the unlawful
conduct; (2) avoid recurrence; and (3) undo its anticompetitive
consequences. I believe that justice would not be served unless all
three of these conditions are met in full.
How can the consequences of Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct
be reversed without being forced to pay heavy fines? If Microsoft
itself felt that even with its financial strengths and market
position that it could not win the browser war without resorting to
desperate tactics as stated by Christian Wildfeuer in February 1997
(MS7 004346) and by James Allchin on January 2 (MS7 005526) and by
Paul Maritz on June 20 1996 (MS6 6010346), (MS6 6010347), then how
could any competitor hope to breech the high berriers to entry into
the same market with a fraction of Microsoft's resources? Unless
Microsoft is forced to forfeit the riches it inappropriately
acquired through unlawful business practice, the balance of a
competitive market will not be achieved.
Microsoft has unjustly diminished and or destroyed economic
growth of its competitors while at the same time reaping the
benefits of this destruction. It is now publicly apparent that the
vast and rapid growth of Microsoft was at the expense of both its
corporate rivals and the paying public. A large part of any fines to
be paid should be made payable to the Microsoft competitors that
were most compromised to avoid creating inroads that would only
serve to increase Microsoft market share. Take the market share that
Apple computer enjoyed in the education sector before July 1994
compared to today as an example of compensation due.
An important point not mentioned in the Civil Action is the
large financial ruin that the consumer himself/herself has had to
absorb. Using myself as an example, I was forced to replace
prematurely a sizable investment in computer hardware due to limited
support and incompatibility issues. It is now apparent that
Microsoft was at the forefront of these obstacles and responsible
not only for the monetary loss, but also the personal ridicule and
persecution I received for wanting to use an operating system other
than Microsoft Windows. When Paul Maritz was quoted as saying we are
going to cut off their air supply he should have realized that it
would affect more than just his corporate rivals.
Daniel P. Herbst
MTC-00026882
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is my opinion that the time has come to end this costly and
damaging litigation.
MTC-00026883
From: William R. Fautch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:01pm
Subject: Fw: Microsoft settlement
-Original Message -----
From: William R.Fautch
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 11:47 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft settlement
17304 N. Shady Lane
Newman Lake, WA 99025
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
e-mail [email protected]
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
There has recently been a settlement to the antitrust lawsuit
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. While I do not
agree with the relentless pursuit of the Microsoft Corporation, I am
happy to see that a settlement has been reached. The United States
government needs to move on and worry about more important issues.
Microsoft will now be working much closer and communicating much
more with their competitors. They will be giving their competitors
code and other information that makes up the Windows operating
system.
They will also be allowing their competitors to remove
Microsoft-made software from Windows, and replace it with non-
Microsoft software. Enough is enough.
Microsoft agreed to terms that extend well beyond what was issue
in the initial suit, just for the sake of ending this senselessness.
I support this settlement and would like to see it implemented as
soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Margaret L. Fautch
MTC-00026884
From: H P
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is bad idea
Hetal Parikh
MTC-00026885
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:02pm
Subject: comment on the case
I totally disagree with the government's position regarding
Microsoft. A close look at the history of this ``case''
indicates that this is nothing more than a group of unhappy
competitors---unable to develop a product as good as or as
marketable as Windows and related programs---whining to an
administration that is all too happy to punish success in business
(though, interestingly enough, they have no problem collecting
Microsoft and other business'' taxes to redistribute to those
who are less productive!).
Bill Gates should be congratulated, not persecuted, for
contributing to our Country's immeasurable advances in technology
and business brought about partly because of Microsoft's universally
compatible and user-friendly platform.
I dare anyone who disagrees to stand by their position and
immediately remove all
[[Page 27887]]
Microsoft products (including Windows!) from their PCs.
Thank You
Bob Yesbek
Director of Education
Omega Studios School
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026886
From: Tami Krebs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I resent that the government feels a need to defend me as if I
am unable to choose software that is most useful for me. I do not
think that the government has any right to choose what software
should or should not be installed on my computer. I use Microsoft's
products and I choose to use their products not because they are
installed on my computer but because they are beneficial products.
These products enable me to easily transfer information from one
program (i.e Word, Excel) to another (i.e. PowerPoint, Access)
without having to convert information, which makes me more efficient
both at home and at work. Microsoft's programs are also compatible
with my Palm, which is easy for me to take information from my
calendar at work and my calendar at home to sync them up. Please
note, I have decided to use the Palm operating system, not Microsoft
CE. In no way has Microsoft ever made me use their products. I
cannot believe that Microsoft, a successful business, and its
products (Microsoft Office Suite among others) are a threat to
anyone.
Please remember that this complaint stems from Microsoft's
unsuccessful competitors not the the individuals who use the
products. Unsuccessful 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 like Microsoft
Chairman Bill Gates can only lead to corruption and economic
disaster as shown in many other countries.
I believe the United States should embrace success not throttle
it. The United States should also be a place where anyone who works
hard and exhibits intelligent decision making has the freedom to
become a self-made person, just like Bill Gates is. This is the
United States that would make me proud to be an American. Lastly,
and most importantly, Microsoft has a fundamental right to its
property. It is the government's job is to protect this right, not
to take it away. With this in mind, please consider all of these
points in your decision regarding Microsoft.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tami Krebs
15 Mallard Court
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
[email protected]
MTC-00026887
From: Jeffrey Y. Sue
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust lawsuit does
not go nearly far enough to curb the predatory anti-trust activities
of Microsoft. When ATT and Standard Oil were brought to justice for
anti-trust activities, both companies were broken apart with
considerable restrictions on their actions. Microsoft should be
broken apart into at least 4 companies: two competing operating
system companies and at least two competing application companies.
The competing operating system companies should truly compete by
price, reliability and features, and should not be allowed to
cooperate with each other. Similarly, the application companies
should compete and not be allowed to cooperate. Microsoft has many
tentacles, just as Standard Oil did, and some of these other
products should be broken off into other companies, e.g., the
internet provider MSN, hardware products such as mice, keyboards,
and joysticks, the Microsoft television internet hardware, and the
consumer game hardware, XBox. Unless Microsoft is broken up into
competing companies, the American consumer, and competing American
companies will all be losers, and ultimately, so will all Americans.
Jeffrey Y. Sue, MD
PO Box 25763
Honolulu HI 96825
MTC-00026889
From: Sean and Charlene McGrew
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
I am writing to you regarding Microsoft's Proposed Final
Judgment as a concerned citizen. I urge you to critically examine
the politics involved in this proposal, which sounds suspiciously
and alarmingly lenient for a company that has been proven to be in
violation of Antitrust laws. On numerous occasions Microsoft has
abused its position as an illegal monopoly, adversely affecting
several growing companies and thousands of Americans working to find
their place in a competitive free-market. Antitrust laws were put in
place to foster an environment of healthy competitiveness which
would in turn further technology and stimulate the ecomomy. However,
I do not believe that the PJF satisfactorily addresses Microsoft's
violations in a way that this antitrust activity will be punished or
come to an end. In fact, the PJF seems to be doing just the
contrary, by conveying the message that their illegal activities are
condoned, perhaps even encouraged. I am afraid of what might happen
next to this freedom we have tried so hard to preserve if such an
injustice is carried out and such a precedent set.
I trust that you will deal with this issue with wisdom and
integrity so that justice will be served. Respectfully, Charlene
Chen McGrew Sean and Charlene McGrew 4111 Walnut Street #608
Philadelphia, PA 19104 (215)349-6392
MTC-00026890
From: lesrose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:06pm
Subject: Micro Soft Settlement
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I have been following this Micro Soft case since the government
originally went after them and for the life of me can't see us
continuing to spend tax dollars pursuing something that in my
opinion should never have gone as far as it has. The other
complaining Companies are doing well in the market place and I
believer Micro Soft is being penalized unfairly for being too
successful. Let's put an end to this and settle it the way it has
been proposed and get along with other business that has some real
meaning to our country like Terrorism, our Economy and a hundred
other things that would make better use of our resources as a
nation. I think you personally have done a great job since taking
over your present position and I'' just urge you to concentrate
on those things that have meaning for the majority of American and
get this Micro Soft business behind us.
Thank your,
Les Bouzek
133 Highway D
Kaiser, Mo 650476
MTC-00026891
From: Darin O.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
I am opposed to the proposed Microsoft Antitrust settlement. The
focus of the remedies should be to disgorge any and all additional
monopolies created by Microsoft as a result of its illegal use of
its OS monopoly, and prevent Microsoft from forming new monopolies
(from the illegal use of its OS monopoly). The current settlement
allows Microsoft to keep these new monopolies (especially the
browser monopoly, a PIVOTAL Internet technology) and does not
adequately protect the United States from the illegal use of the OS
monopoly in the future.
Special attention must be given to this defendant. It has shown
great contempt for all parties opposed to its monopolistic
domination of the software market, this includes the judicial
system. Microsoft has ignored past judicial orders from previous
cases (i.e. the 1994 consent decree), lobbies the Legislative and
Executive branches to step on the Judicial branch (and then
misrepresents its lobbying efforts), and continues to develop
products that extend its monopoly into other product categories.
The proposed Microsoft Antitrust settlement must be thrown out,
and re-worked. The nation puts its trust in you to guide this
process.
Yours Very Truly,
Darin H. Okuyama
MTC-00026892
From: Donald Kleyensteuber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement does nothing to resolve the main monopoly issue:
Microsoft's unfair use of its monopoly to take over the market for
browsers by including their browser in their operating system. Most
computer users do not have the skills needed to make the browser
they prefer work properly without interference from Microsoft's.
Microsoft
[[Page 27888]]
should be required to remove their browser from the operating system
and clean it up so that any browser may be used.
So far the government and the courts have done little or nothing
to require meaningful corrective actions by Microsoft.
Donald Kleyensteuber
CC:Dan Gillmor
MTC-00026894
From: DJMaytag
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would to state that as a result of Microsoft's monopolistic
actions on the computer industry, one of the choices I had as a
consumer for what I would like to have on the desktop of my
computer, has effectively been removed by Microsoft's actions,
namely in limiting access of any other operating system to be
installed alongside any Windows operating system.
This limiting of choice to consumers has resulted in two areas
which has hurt me as a consumer:
(1) I cannot go to any computer retailer and choose which
operating system I would like in my computer. If I want to use
another operating system on my desktop, I have to purchase either a
computer with no operating system AT A HIGHER COST or assemble a
computer from the various components which make a computer, also AT
A HIGHER COST to me as a consumer.
(2) The restrictions have forced other companies out of
business, ones which I could choose to use their products on my
desktop. This is narrowing the options of operating systems
available to me as a consumer, as more and more companies go out of
business due to Microsoft putting up barriers to enty to anyone
wishing to have an operating system product placed on a desktop
computer.
I urge you to take action which will reverse the situation this
I face as a consumer that is paying the price for Microsoft's
monopolistic actions.
Mitch Anderson
MTC-00026896
From: Bj(00F6)rn S(00F6)derstr(00F6)m
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/27/02 9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Attorney General,
I am a user of the OS/2 operating system from IBM. I have found
this to be a technologically superior product over the operating
systems offered by Microsoft, including their latest version,
Windows XP. 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 the Federal Government's proposed
settlement with Microsoft, in its current form, is adequate and that
stricter measures be imposed on the company to prohibit such tactics
from being used in the future. In other words, I applaud your
efforts to seek stricter measures and encourage you to stand your
ground.
Sincerely,
Bj?rn S?derstr?m
?sterbybruk
Sweden
MTC-00026897
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
Consumer interests has been well served and it is time to settle
this costly and damaging litigation now. Please do not keep this
going. It is the average person who is to be served and not big
business. As an individual I think it is time to stop now.
Thank You,
Sincerly,
Richard Beard
MTC-00026899
From: Betsy Lehrfeld
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
Dear Ms. Hesse:
I write to object to the proposed settlement as not being 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.
A solution to the Microsoft monopoly problem should be market
based and self-enforcing. Any solution that requires constant
policing and is perceived as punitive will only contribute to
Microsoft's sense that it has been wronged and encourages a culture
of evasion ? already evident in various recent Microsoft actions.
The answer is to take away Microsoft's ability to exercise
monopoly power. To do this, the applications barrier to entry 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.
Consumers need a la carte competition and choice so that 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.
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.
The court should 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.
Thank you for your attention.
Betsy E. Lehrfeld
7214 Blair Road, NW
Washington, DC 20012
(202) 882-6664
MTC-00026900
From: S. Gallagher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 27, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trail Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Email: [email protected]
Re: Microsoft Proposed Final Judgement Comment
Dear Sir or Madam,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed
Microsoft Final Judgement. My comments center around minor
modifications to subsections III.A.2 and III.C.4 concerning original
equipment manufactures (OEM) installation of alternative operating
systems. Given the central importance of restoring competition for
antitrust relief I believe that clarification of subsection III.A.2
and III.C.4 and an additional aspect of the extant OEM operating
system license arrangement merit consideration. I hope that you will
concur that these adjustments will enhance the possibility that
competition may one day return to the present monopoly in the
personal computer market.
A. Subsections III.A.2 and III.C.4 both refer to OEM's shipping
personal computers with products in addition to Microsoft products
or multiple operating systems. The language in these provisions
would not prohibit Microsoft from retaliating if an OEM offered
consumers a single alternative operating system. Given that a
monopoly was found to exist and that the purpose of antitrust
enforcement is the restoration of competition, shouldn't OEM's be
able to offer consumers alternatives without fear of retaliation
from the monopolist?
B. At present the OEM Windows Operating System license requires
recourse to the OEM by a consumer if the consumer does not accept
the terms of the licensing agreement. If consumers remove an OEM
installed Windows Operating System product before using it they
should be insured of recompense from either the OEM or Microsoft.
Given that Section III.B requires the publishing of the royalty
schedule for Windows Operating System Products it should be possible
for consumers to know the exact cost of the OEM installed Windows
Operating System and, as a result, their corresponding recompense if
they chose not to accept the license. Given this information a
consumer could make a rational choice between the OEM installed
Windows Operating System and some other alternative operating
system. Given that a monopoly was found to exist in the Personal
Computer operating system market, it seems the Proposed Final
Judgement should insure that customers are not needlessly charged
for the
[[Page 27889]]
monopolist's product if they do not use it. As a customer, I should
not have to buy a product I don't want. If I do not agree to
Microsoft's licensing agreement language, my recourse should include
them, not only the OEM.
Microsoft can make very good products, this comment is being
created and transmitted using them. I applaud the efforts towards
reaching an appropriate settlement.
Thank you for your time and the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Scott Gallagher
3229 Taylor Spring Lane
Harrisonburg VA 22801
MTC-00026901
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:22pm
Subject: settlement
Please settle this dispute and let's get on with life. Hasn't
the economy suffered enough?
MTC-00026902
From: Lloyd E Wiles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe in American Free Enterprise. If we out preform our
competitors we should be able to reap the benefits of our hard work.
I feel the break up of the telephone company was a disservice to
the American public as would be the breaking up Microsoft.
I think to further penalize Microsoft would a blow to free
enterprise in America.
Please drop any further action.
Lloyd Wiles
34 Peavey Ave.
Windham Maine 04062
MTC-00026903
From: Andrew Pizzello
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
Microsoft has unlawfully used its monopoly power to greatly
subdue the competition, causing damages to many companies including
Apple Computer, Inc. and consumers worldwide. It is to my knowledge
that Microsoft Corporation holds approximately 90% of the computer
operating system market.
Naturally, consumers have a minuscule selection of products and
services from Microsoft's competition when 90% of the personal
computers purchased are sold preinstalled with Microsoft Windows and
other Microsoft technologies such as Internet Explorer, MSN Internet
Service, and MSN Messenger. Many beginners and new computer buyers
will be unaware of other products and services available with the
vast array of Microsoft products already installed on the computer
for their `convenience'.
Microsoft's acts are in violation of the Sherman Act. These anti
competitive actions have caused great damages to innovative
companies accepting the challenge to legally compete and base their
successes on customer loyalty and quality. Many companies have
incurred staggering losses due to Microsoft's negligent business
practices. For example, Apple Computer, Inc. was financially
handicapped by Microsoft's operating system monopolization between
the years 1995-1998. After being criticized by industry
veterans, Microsoft invested capital into Apple Computer in order to
keep operations functional for the sake of hiding future
allegations.
The fall of Apple Computer would have provided Microsoft, Inc.
with 95% of the world's personal computer operating system market.
The overwhelming market share percentage is a strong indication
of unfair business practices and violation of United States law. I
am fully in support of any consequences Microsoft, Inc. should incur
during the court proceedings. For the future of fair business
practices, I ask that the U.S. Department of Justice prosecute
Microsoft, Inc. within full accordance of the United States
Constitution.
Sincerely,
Andrew Pizzello
MTC-00026904
From: Gabrielle Comfoltey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:27pm
Subject: Settle the Microsoft Case Please!!
Please settle the case against Microsoft for once and for all
and let this company get back to doing what it does
best--contribute to the world economy and its people.
The extent of damage that the DOJ's actions have had and will
continue to have on technology innovation and American enterprise is
totally out of proportion to the ``crime'' that Microsoft
has been deemed to have committed.
Yes, Microsoft used aggressive tactics to secure its business.
So to do a multitude of other large corporations.
Microsoft is one of the most successful companies to be built
EVER! It has provided thousands and thousands of jobs and created
untold wealth not only for its owners and employees but also for the
millions of shareholders.
Thanks to the continuing vendetta against the company by the DOJ
and the nine states and their lawsuits, millions of dollars in
pension funds and senior's investment accounts have been lost.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
I believe that the DOJ is taking too much control into its own
hands. The government should not be trying to control business to
the extent that is.
After Microsoft, who will be next? In many respects I think that
the various government lawyers need to continually justify their
existence. As I stated in a previous email, fighting a battle in the
courtrooms and boardrooms against successful companies is not what I
consider to be the primary role of our judicial system. Microsoft,
and its founders Bill Gates and Paul Allen, through their phenomenal
success have been able to give incredibly generous public gifts to
the schools, the arts, health organizations, etc. Why is the
government so intent on destroying the creative initiative of our
most brilliant entrepreneurs. Surely Scott McNeely and Larry Ellison
when they spearheaded this rout of Microsoft didn't have in mind
that the entire industry should be turned on its head.
This government, and indeed the nation, has its priorities
wrong. There are a multitude of SERIOUS issues facing our nation and
what do we have taking up huge amounts of time and money?
I am sure it is easier and more lucrative for the lawyers and
politicians to spend countless hours and taxpayer dollars on
meetings, high priced hotel and board rooms, expensive retainers and
offices, etc etc than on the real but not so ``tidy''
issues that plague America. If the governments and their agencies
would spend half the time and energy on the less glamorous issues
just think what could be accomplished. Where do I think government
dollars should be directed: Here are a few suggestions:
Housing for the ill, homeless and future boomers who will not be
able to find accommodation as they approach the next decade.
Adequate health care for everyone.
Repair and replacement of the infrastructure in our cities and
towns. Neglect of the basic infrastructure--the roads,
freeways, sewer, water and power conduits--will result in a
breakdown of many systems if these are not dealt with on a proactive
basis.
Repair of our schools and school systems. Our children and
teachers are being shortchanged. We do not need government
intervention in the education curriculum as much as we need
government support to provide healthy, safe, properly equipped
classrooms and support for better teachers.
Fix the unequitable system of justice wherein we have first time
offenders and youthful offenders incarcerated with hardened
criminals.
And, of course, use the government's resources to continue the
fight against terrorism, both external and domestic, and work with
our nation's largest companies rather than against them.
I could go on, but you get the picture.
--SHOULD HAVE THE COURAGE TO MAKE SOME SENSE OF THIS
MICROSOFT CASE. DO NOT THROW OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATHWATER. LEAVE
MICROSOFT ALONE AND GET ON WITH TAKING CARE OF THE REAL NEEDS OF THE
NATION!
MTC-00026905
From: Bobbie Bamford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:28pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. . . . .
DO YOU KNOW WHAT JUSTICE MEANS??? DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE YOU ARE
BEING FAIR TO MICROSOFT REGARDING THIS SETTLEMENT? THIS IS
``SUPPOSED'' TO BE A ``FREE'' COUNTRY--THE
LAND OF OPPORTUNITY??!! MICROSOFT HAS DONE WONDERS FOR OUR ECONOMY,
WHICH NEEDS ANOTHER ``BOOST'' RIGHT NOW. YOU ``BIG-
WIGS'' AND OUR GOVERNMENT HAVE NO IDEA WHAT A TOUGH TIME THE
MIDDLE CLASS AMERICAN IS HAVING RIGHT NOW
[[Page 27890]]
NOR DO I THINK ANY OF YOU CARE! YOU HAVE THE COUNTRY BY A TAIL WHILE
YOUNG COUPLES WITH FAMILIES CANNOT MAKE ENDS MEET BECAUSE WE ARE
TAXED TO DEATH.
I THINK WASHINGTON DC HAS ENOUGH TO DO WITH OUR TERRORIST
SITUATION AND THE THEIVES OF ENRON WITHOUT WORRYING ABOUT MICROSOFT.
SINCERELY,
BOBBIE BAMFORD
ARIZONA
MTC-00026907
From: Frank Zepf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wish to express my opinion on the Microsoft Settlement,I feel
that it is fair to all parties concerned.
Many of Microsoft's competitors oppose the agreement for their
own good and are trying to generate public comment urging that it be
rejected.
Microsoft has a good product and if someone does not like it let
them buy something else.
If some does not like the Internet Explorer you can download
Netscape for free.
Thank you,
Frank V. Zepf
52 Pennsylvania Ave.
Massapequa,NY 11758-4838
Phone 516-798 0353
MTC-00026908
From: Grubert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
We are opposed to the Micosoft Settlement because it has
insufficient guarantees that Microsoft will not continue to use it's
desktop monopoly to damage competition.
Please consider that Microsofts programming API's are the
computing equivalent of legal contracts, and must be consistant and
stable in order for competition to be meaningful. It would be wise
to find some way to ensure that Microsoft does not use changes in
it's API only to trip up competitors products by changing behaviours
in the undefined areas of this technical contract.
A contract must be clear, sufficiently complete and retain it's
meaning over time. So should a published API spec by a monopolist.
Given that the API is now the playing field of software product
competition, the API is an area that needs to be regulated.
In addition, OEM licences for MS products should be the same,
i.e., MS should not be able to favor one OEM vendor over another as
this allows them to punish OEMs for offering competing products.
Thank You
G.R. Svenddal
Gromit Consulting
Minneapolis MN.
MTC-00026909
From: Allen Tien
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The problems with MS reflect larger and very important issues on
a national and international scale. What is the role of government
in regulating huge multinational corDorati0ns? Why is there a
growing pattern of manipulation and a widening gap between what
corporations say and what they do? The recent emergence of unethical
and probably illegal behavior at Enron and Anderson is only the
latest of a number of known cases. There are certainly many more
questionable but not publicly questioned situations. In the case of
Microsoft, their pattern of disingenuous statements, distortions,
and outright lies appears to be based upon their assumption that the
average user does not understand information technology and the
market dynamics of information technology, and that lawmakers and
judges also don't understand. That pattern has been present since
early in Microsoft's history. Most recently, they have added more
``standard'' American business practice, making large cash
contributions to politicians, and hiring teams of lobbyists.
One of their main themes is that they are always doing whatever
they do for the ``benefit of the customer.'' They
repeatedly make statements about innovation and competition and
serving the interests of customers, but these statements fly in the
face of their own history. They imply that customers are those who
accept Microsoft big brother version of reality, and label others as
frustrated competitors who resort to legal attacks rather than
innovation, or the ``cancer'' of open source software such
as Linux (which they cannot control or co-opt). Depending upon the
specific context, at times the degree of hypocrisy seems to approach
delusion. Microsoft has not been averse to using legal tactics,
threats, and lawsuits to try to achieve their goal of complete
domination.
Meanwhile, they continue to design their products and product
strategies to create dependencies, using their control of the
desktop operating system to undermine competing applications such as
WordPerfect. For most users, there is not much difference between
Word, Wordperfect, Ami Pro, or other word processing packages,
spreadsheets, or presentation slide system. Why is then is Microsoft
Office's market share so large?
In the same way Microsoft crushed Netscape they crushed
WordPerfect, which at one time had similar market share as Netscape.
Microsoft Office was pushed onto users using the same or similar
tactics that were used to push IE onto users. Now that Microsoft has
a monopoly not only with the operating system but with Office, they
continue to manipulate users through technical issues such as file
formats. For example, the default installation of Microsoft Office
does not include the import filters for WordPerfect files. It is not
unusual for Word users who receive a WP file to think that the file
is damaged or incompatible because when they try to open a WP file,
Word will generate a message that suggests something is wrong. Even
if the user understands that it is easy for Word to import a WP file
if the import filter is installed, they may not have convenient
access to the Office CD to install the filter. These relatively
small maneuvers nevertheless add up to continued pressure on users
to use Office, further cementing this application stranglehold,
while Microsoft might still claim that they ``fully
support'' interoperability with other applications.
As person who bought his first PC in 1986 and has used different
version of DOS, Windows, Mac, and Unix-based operating systems, and
who has been involved with software development for many years, I
have observed Microsoft's business practices from a technically
intimate perspective. I have seen first hand phenomena such as
Windows 3.1 generating an error with Digital Research DOS (DR-DOC).
It seemed like sabotage then, and subsequent evidence indicates that
it was in fact deliberate. I used disk compression utilities from a
company that was subsequently put out of business by Microsoft's
continuing ``integration.'' I recall the out-of-court
settlement where Microsoft paid over $100 million to Stac, a disk
compression vendor that had first worked with Microsoft and was then
dumped by Microsoft. After dumping Stac, Microsoft released their
own disk compression bundled with DOS, essentially taking away the
market from Stac. It was technologically clear that Microsoft had
stolen Stac's intellectual property, but because the settlement was
out-of-court, they never admitted any wrong-doing. One wonders if
Bill Gates or Steve Allen or other at Microsoft really think they
did anything wrong or not.
After Windows version 1 and 2, Windows 3.11 was finally usable,
and did offer useful functionality. At that time Word Perfect was,
arguably, the best word processing application available. Why then
did every computer come with Microsoft Word? It was an inferior
product for many years. It seems that it was because of Microsoft's
bundling and pricing manipulations of PC manufacturers and
distributers. It was not due to market demand, at that time.
Microsoft understands very well the dynamics of market choice, and
the pressures placed on customers when an increasing number of
people use their products. Why did they change file formats with
each new version of Word? They claim it was for technical reasons,
but in typical Microsoft fashion, that claim is misleading. There
may have some minor technical reasons, but the larger and obvious
reason is to shift the dynamics in their favor. Why do they
currently not provide conversion filters for Wordperfect as the
default installation? As a person who continues to use Wordperfect,
when I send files to colleagues, many of them are unable to import
the files into Word, and because they do not understand the inner
workings of Word and Microsoft's compulsion for market dominance,
they tell me things like ``Your file was bad,'' or
``Word cannot import the file.'' Of course it is easy to
install the import filter (if one can find the Windows CD). But for
many people, this creates a significant barrier. This is one of the
many ways that Microsoft uses their illegal monopoly to leverage
even greater market share and to create false impressions that other
software is inferior or incompatible.
Using revenue from their monopoly to give away products to
destroy competing
[[Page 27891]]
companies, such as Netscape, is an obvious example. Outright
sabotage is perhaps a thing of the past. However, even recently they
have been found by Kodak to have configured Windows XP in a manner
to undermine Kodak and foster Microsoft products. Again, this is
behavior that emerges in numerous ways, relentlessly using their
monopoly in every possible way to expand their market range and
control. Their fervent claims to be doing all this entirely for the
customer border upon delusion. Surely all companies are trying their
best to provide customers with great products. It just happens that
one of them controls the core technology, the operating system, that
other applications all depend upon. Their use of this was found to
be illegal, and the appeals court affirmed this. Unfortunately, the
decision to split the operating system and application parts of
Microsoft into two companies, which is the only full remedy, has
been reversed. It needs to be reinstated. Why is this the only
remedy that will be effective? Why should be government and the
courts undertake this draconian step? Why shouldn't we just
``let the market decide?'' There are many complex legal
arguments, but I believe the main issue is simple. The antitrust law
that is currently in place was based upon consideration of the role
of government with respect to unfettered growth in the late 1800's
and early 1900's of large corporations such as Standard Oil. This
was a period that could be characterized as robber capitalism, where
anything goes. It resulted in the establishment of industrial
systems that provided consumers with good things. But it also
concentrated power into the hands of a relatively small group. The
relentless nature of power was recognized by our founding father,
hence the checks and balances that are a fundamental part of our
society. It is important that the balance of power be maintained. It
is a serious issue for our future. If the distribution of power is
no longer balanced, we risk adverse and even destructive
consequences. Microsoft has been successful in lowering costs
relative to early monopolies such as IBM, and being part of the
rapid growth of personal computers (they claim they are responsible
for this, but it is not hard to imagine that the demand was there
and they rode the wave, rather than creating it). But the thinking
and tactics they used to gain dominance were destructive to other
companies and to customer choice all along, and now that they have
even more power, all the evidence suggests that they will continue
to use it in the same manner.
As another example of their thinking, it is now apparent that
Microsoft considers open source software such as Linux, Apache, and
other software to be a threat to their market control. They have
called open source software a ``cancer.'' At they same
time they make statements about the importance of being allowed to
compete without restrictions. It would be fine and wonderful if
Microsoft was to use their huge resources to compete on the basis of
really improving their products. It is not fine and wonderful that
they be allowed to continue using their monopoly to manipulate and
force customers to use their products.
We use Microsoft Windows as our development and implementation
platform. With Windows 2000 and XP, it has finally become a
reasonably stable and effective operating system. However, I do not
use Microsoft Office, Explorer, Microsoft development tools,
Outlook, or other Microsoft products and tools. There are alternate
products and tools that are not only equal but superior to Microsoft
products and tools. However, each incremental step the Microsoft
takes appears to be designed to increase the pressure to use
Microsoft products and tools. We do not want to be forced to do so.
To provide some personal background, I am a licensed physician
and Board Certified psychiatrist who also has a Master's degree in
biostatstics. I was a tenure track faculty member at the Johns
Hopkins School of Public Health with a joint appointment in the
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine from 1988 to 1997. Since then I
have been engaged as the President of Medical Decision Logic, Inc.,
a small medical and public health software company. Hence I consider
the Microsoft situation from several perspectives, as an experienced
user, a software designer and developer, from broader social and
cultural perspectives, and from a psychiatric understanding.
Based upon Microsoft's long-standing pattern of behavior and
relentless drive to greater market power, heedless of ethical and
most recently legal rules, I conclude that the only remedy that can
prevent continuation of the same behavior is a structural remedy
that separates and frees Microsoft divisions to compete fairly in
their markets. Simply put, the operating system group will be free
to support all applications without engaging in discouragements and
subtle sabotage for competing applications, and the application
group will be free to create applications for all platforms,
including Linux platforms. This would result in even greater
contributions to the market and better choices for customers.
Any remedy or settlement that is not structural is unlikely to
be effective, because otherwise Microsoft will continue to be
Microsoft, a highly aggressive, unethical, and illegal monopoly that
does not respect the government, the courts, or anyone who disagrees
with them.
Allen Y. Tien, MD, MHS
President and Research Director
Medical Decision Logic, Inc.
724 Dulaney Valley Road
Towson, MD 21204
&
Clinical Associate Professor
West Virginia University School of Medicine
Department of Behavioral Medicine and Psychiatry
West Virginia University
Morgantown, WV
web site address: www.md-logic.com or www.mdlogix.com
tel: 410-828-8948, 410-821-5618
fax: 410-828-8948
MTC-00026910
From: Colin Chicoine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:32pm
Subject: Re: Applelinks--The MACINTOSH Portal!
I will excuse my self for my english witting skills.
I would like to take this moment to ask the US justice
department to break apart MICROSOFT as much as you legally can so no
one software company can ever regain control of the market. I as a
consumer do not like to be told what to buy. but for the last 10
years the only operation system available to the home market was
Microsoft windows.
Just recently are we seeing other operating systems more
available to the public thanks to the publicised Microsoft anti
trust case. New applications for the ``other'' operating
systems are making there way to the market but still Microsoft buys
off bright ideas and keeps them excluesif for the Microsoft
Operating system. Take for example Halo from Bungie Software. This
was and is a revolutionary action game that was developed for Apple
Macintosh computers. This was going to give a tremendous boost to
the Macintosh operating system. But not to long ago Microsoft bought
off Bungie. Now with no guarantees for a Macintosh release I just
pray! I also would like to mention that Microsoft should be forced
to follow the internet, video, mp3 standards and ban Microsoft the
development of such new standards without the aprouval of the
software developping community.
Make Microsoft pay for there abusive practices because if you
don't they will be stronger.
Colin Chicoine
Canada, Quebec
MTC-00026911
From: Donald Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:33pm
Subject: January 27, 2002
January 27, 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 support for the settlement of the
Microsoft case. It is high time that this case comes to an end. This
case is an embarrassment to American business, as Microsoft has
merely adopted an aggressive business strategy and created products
that gave them an edge in the market. This is what business is all
about, but now Microsoft is forced to defend their success and
change their entire way of doing things.
As part of the settlement, Microsoft is going to give away their
source codes and server protocol, even though it should be protected
as part of their own intellectual property.
But they are willing to give up a lot so that this lawsuit can
be ended as soon as possible.
Please do your part and see that Microsoft is not further
punished for transforming our computer industry into an
international model of success. Please accept this settlement, it is
the right thing for our struggling economy.
Sincerely,
Donald H. Lee
Ann R. Lee
[[Page 27892]]
MTC-00026912
From: cjbells
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
12134 SE 13th Street
Bellevue, WA 98005
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
As someone who has not supported the harsh direction of the
government's anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation, I
would like to add my approval of the pending legal settlement. This
is a realistic compromise that should please all parties involved
and halts the ongoing waste of taxpayer dollars that would be better
spent on our terrorism effort.
With this fairly negotiated agreement, both sides have pledged
to several significant steps that will encourage competition in the
software market. Software developers will receive access to
Microsoft technologies and be able to license its intellectual
property, while enjoying the increased flexibility of computer
makers to select the software programs of their choice. The
continuing verification provided by a technical committee of
software experts should make this plan quite productive when
implemented.
As our economy struggles to rebound from a weak stock market and
ongoing recession, it seems like a measured solution would be the
best one to this dispute at this point. Please accept these very
balanced terms and allow the new economy to stabilize and grow
without further disruption.
Sincerely,
Clyde Bell
MTC-00026913
From: Aedis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to voice my dissatisfaction with the following
elements of the proposed final settlement (PFJ) reached with
Microsoft:
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 defines ``API'' in a way that allows for
exploitation by Microsoft.
The PFJ defines ``Microsoft Middleware'' in a way that
allows for exploitation by Microsoft.
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 defines ``Windows'' in a way that excludes
many applicable Windows-based products.
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, which is unacceptable for many reasons
including:
1. Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep
Open Source or Free Software apps from running on Windows.
2. Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
3. 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, which is unacceptable for many
reasons including the following:
1. Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on
competing operating systems.
The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs
The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that ships
Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but no
Microsoft operating system.
The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small
OEMs--including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are
historically the most willing to install competing operating
systems--who ship competing software.
The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) to
OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC
systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other
areas.
The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective
enforcement mechanism.
I respectfully insist that this settlement be rewritten to
correct these issues. The corrective measures I support can be found
at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Brian Schallhammer
MTC-00026914
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case
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 deeply disturbed that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has
moved to settle with Microsoft (MS) in a manner that leaves
consumers and professionals subjugated to dictatorial business
practices. I have a quarter century of experience in logistics and
as a marketing/communications consultant. In these roles, I've
observed how monopolistic MS information technology (IT) inhibits
productivity. As a proposal developer working on numerous bids with
IT companies for commercial and government contracts, I hear
frequent complaints from clients and co-workers about the
limitations of MS systems and software and their lack of
compatibility and interoperability.
The well-documented MS shortcomings are costly and prevent
hardware and software competition that could speed innovations and
IT accessibility to more consumers around the world.
During my career on active duty and in the reserves with the U.
S. Air Force our government passed competition legislation to
resolve problem problems such as the $600 hammer and $1000 aircraft
toilet seat that gained such media notoriety in the 1980s.
Similarly, any resolution of the MS case that does not maximize
competition and consumer choice is not in the best public interest.
At it's most basic level, any resolution of the MS anti-trust
case must provide complete information needed for software
developers to:
1. Write an affordable and complete Windows Application
Environment so Windows applications run on other operating systems
without modification;
2. Create products that exhange files, data, and services with
any MS product;
3. Replace components in Windows, Office, and Internet Explorer
with superior or special purpose components; and
4. Modify MS software to run properly on computers wtih
different microprocessors.
Without these settlement provisions, consumers working with the
70,000 MS Windows applications will continue to face unnecessary
costs, limited choices, operational complexity, and reliability
problems.
Enforcement provisions in the proposed settlement are also
inadequate and virtually assure the monopolistic MS grip will
continue to stifle competition, creativity, and cost-effectiveness.
Since the Tunney Act allows for public proceedings, the DOJ should
annouce such sessions at the earliest opportunity to allow consumers
to show that an adequate settlement must encompass much more than
the current proposition.
[[Page 27893]]
Sincerely,
Redmond H. Handy
President, Government and Business Consulting
1400 16th St NW
Suite 330
Washington, D. C. 20036
202-462-8800
MTC-00026915
From: jrshears
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
We believe that the litigation against Microsoft has gone on too
long. It is time to settle without further litigation. We believe
the consumer's interest has been well served, and Microsoft is being
penalized plenty with the current settlement proposal. Please ...
settle and let Microsoft get on with its business!!!
Sincerely yours,
Jacquelline Z. and Leslie R. Shears
1676 Pinecrest Drive
Orange Park, FL 32003
MTC-00026916
From: Peter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:39pm
Subject: Settlement
Sirs,
The settlement needs to be as strong as possible to control the
monopoly's practices that inhibit the growth of competition in many
technology fields.
Peter J. McMenamin
MTC-00026917
From: Benjamin Hays
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
To whom it may concern;
I have been a user of Microsoft products for the last 8 years. I
have used their products by my own choice, not by coerison or force.
And if Microsoft gets broken up, I will lose that choice.
By puting any restrains on Microsoft's business, the quailty of
their products (i.e. Windows, Office, Internet Explorer) will
decrease. That quailty will not decrease due to a faulty busines
idea, or marketplace competition, but because of the involment of
the government.
We, the people, will make our own choices. And we, the people,
will choose, though our own pocketbooks, to keep Microsoft in
business, or if they should go bankrupt.
Sincerly,
Benjamin Hays
MTC-00026918
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Department of Justice:
I am 51 year old nanny housekeeper contacting you to support the
Microsoft settlement now under review. Enough litigation! It serves
none of us in a positive way. It seems that the settlement reached
is in everyone's best interest.
AOL has had, and continues to have, other avenues to use in
pursuit of solving their disagreements with Microsoft. Litigation
costs the taxpayers.
Enough!
Sincerely,
Gina Ryken
MTC-00026919
From: john anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The three-year-long process of filing suit against Microsoft is
about to come to a close. I am concerned about the impact on the USA
economy and the industry in particular considering the time and
money wasted in litigation. In my opinion, any further litigation is
sponsored by competition of Microsoft. The holdouts clearly hope to
prolong settlement as a weapon against innovation and of little cost
to them.
Microsoft has agreed to a long list of terms, some of which were
not even issues in the original lawsuit.
Microsoft agreed to computer-making flexibility, meaning that
Microsoft agreed to grant computer makers new rights to configure
Windows as they see most fit for their customers, even if they end
up including non-Microsoft software. Computer makers will also be
free to remove the pathways by which consumers get to various
features of Windows (like Explorer), and replace them with different
paths for different programs. Having used Microsoft products at home
and at work some of the products being demanded by competition
through litigation are totally stupid wasted efforts as the market
is nil.
Obviously, Microsoft was and is willing to do what was necessary
to bring this matter to a close, and the Department of Justice
should follow suit, so to speak. The settlement should stand as it
is and there should be no more litigation.
Sincerely,
John Anderson
13526-118 Ave NE
Kirkland, Washington 98034
MTC-00026921
From: Peter DeVries
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is my opinion that the proposed Microsoft Settlement is not
severe enough to adequately punish Microsoft for it's previous
actions, nor does the recommended oversight prevent the company from
continuing to abuse it's monopoly power to the detriment of US
consumers.
Sincerely,
Peter DeVries
Network Operations Manager
UW-Madison Medical School
Email: [email protected]
MTC-00026922
From: Terry Stuart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a small business owner/operator and I have long been
concerned about the Microsoft monopoly. I use their products daily,
they work well and I am happy to pay for them, but I am afraid that
they are getting a stronger and stronger stranglehold on the
software market. They are a slippery bunch! I don't want to live
with the consequences of their monopoly. I just learned about the
work of Consumers for Computing Choice and support it 100%. Please
incorporate these remedies in your final judgment regarding the
company:
(1) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to run the 70,000
existing Windows applications without modification on all other
operating systems.
(2) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to have native
versions of Microsoft Office applications on all other operating
systems.
(3) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace one or
more of the four Office applications with competing applications,
while retaining the ability to exchange files, data, and services
with any Microsoft application.
(4) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to have native
versions of Explorer, Media Player and other Microsoft Internet
applications on all other operating systems.
(5) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace one or
more Microsoft Internet applications with competing applications,
while retaining the ability to exchange files, data, and services
with any Microsoft application.
(6) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace any
component or feature in any Microsoft software product with superior
or special purpose components or features.
(7) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to run any Microsoft
software on computers that do not have Intel-compatible
microprocessors.
(8) A simple, affordable, and reliable way for software
developers to access all the information they need to create
products that offer consumers these choices.
(9) A way to ensure that original equipment manufacturers
provide consumers with equal access to computers with alternative
operating systems, productivity applications, and Internet
applications.
(10) A ``crown jewel'' provision establishing such
serious consequences for non-compliance that Microsoft will not
attempt to evade the necessary disclosure requirements and other
mandates.
Sincerely,
Terry Stuart
MTC-00026923
From: iTypical Male
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement is a slap on the wrist joke. One of the few
things Microsoft doesn't monopolize in is education. And weith the
[[Page 27894]]
proposed education settlement, it opens the door for them to. Isn't
that just what you don't want to do?
The settlement is a joke. Had it been a less powerful company,
something more drastic would have occured. But it didn't. Do
something real punish them.
-William Done
MTC-00026924
From: Pantelic, Milan MD
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/27/02 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I will not recapitulate the arguments your have (no doubt)
received to date on the inadequacy of the proposed Antitrust
settlement with Microsoft--I would simply like to add my voice
to the chorus.That Microsoft has indulged in anti-competitive
business practices is of no doubt--shamelessly and
unapologetically, at that.None of what has transpired has changed
the corporate culture in which this behavior is ingrained. The
illegal practices of which Microsoft has been deemed guilty are the
merely the tip of the technological iceberg, as this company
attempts to make every open standard its own by leveraging its
monopolistic power and enormous financial resources.The current
settlement proposal adequately addresses neither remediation nor
punishment. Please do not allow Microsoft to evade the spirit of
Justice by providing software and computers in lieu of a direct
monetary penalty-- this has the effect of more firmly seating
the hook in the mouth of their prey, not to mention giving them
greater access into the educational market, one of the few arenas
that they do not already dominate!I frankly doubt the adequacy of
the settlement amount (even if paid in cash) to punish a company of
Microsoft's size. To do it in the fashion proposed is simply to
punish the fox by giving him the key to another henhouse.As a
medical and computer professional who is interested in maintaining
and fostering innovation, wide access and open standards, I deplore
the conduct of this company and fear for the industry's future if
this kind of behavior is not controlled.
Milan V. Pantelic, MD
Henry Ford Hospital
2799 W Grand Blvd
Detroit, MI 48202
(313) 916-2825
MTC-00026926
From: Tom Peck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am opposed to the settlement reached between the Dept. of
Justice and Microsoft for the anti-trust case against Microsoft.
This settlement allows Microsoft to continue its anti-
competitive practices. As shown in the trial, and upheld by several
appeals, Microsoft has abused its monopoly to damage third party
software developers. This abuse has affected not only those
developers, but consumers as well, by limiting choice in the
software market and allowing Microsoft to charge artificially
inflated prices for their software.
Specifically, the wording of the settlement allows Microsoft to
continue its anti-competitive behavior against free, or open source,
software. The careful wording of the settlement only requires
Microsoft to disclose APIs to other businesses. A developer of a
free or shareware application is excluded from this information.
Microsoft should be required to divulge ALL information about
their APIs to anyone who asks for it. This documentation could
easily be put on Microsoft's web site at very little cost to
Microsoft. An independent review panel would insure that information
is updated in a timely fashion and that the information is correct.
Thank you.
MTC-00026927
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am against the proposal.The proposed settlement is not in my
interest. Deborah Hollings
Columbia, South Carolina
MTC-00026928
From: Ken Kennedy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to comment on the proposed settlement of the US vs.
Microsoft antitrust case.
I believe that there are many significant failures in the
proposed settlement.
In general, I believe that it fails to
--significantly-- punish Microsoft in any way. The
Findings of Fact are clear, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that
Microsoft is liable under Sherman Act 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.
I do not believe the the proposed settlement makes sense in a
such a situation. Microsoft was WRONG; Microsoft BROKE THE LAW, and
therefore...Microsoft gets to negotiate terms they find acceptable?
This flies in the face of justice.
More specifically, I object to portions of section III, as they
relate to API disclosure. Microsoft has already removed all business
competitors (in some cases, using the aforementioned illegal
tactics), leaving only volunteer projects and open-source software
as viable alternatives. However Section III.J.2 would allow
Microsoft to refuse to provide information due to failure to meet
``reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business''.
Open Source and Free Software is precisely NOT a business in and
of itself, and could therefore easily be prevented by Microsoft from
obtaining this information. However, these same Open Source and Free
Software projects and volunteer groups are providing the best and
most aggressive competition for Microsoft that exists presently.
It would be tragic for the government to allow Microsoft to use
this proposed ``remedy'' as a weapon against the sort of
competition that it is supposed to enable.
I appreciate your time in reviewing my comments.
Sincerely,
Ken Kennedy
425 Lindbergh Dr NE, Unit D-2
Atlanta, GA 30305
404-262-6439
MTC-00026929
From: Kenneth Townsend
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft through out the years has provided software and
support for the business world. The competitors do not provide a
product of equal value to the computing world. Please do not punnish
a company for producing a superior product.
Kenneth Townsend
[email protected]
MTC-00026930
From: Carlton Thiele
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
10148 Reagan Dairy Trail
Bradenton, FL 34212
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I would like to take this opportunity to express my opinion
about the antitrust settlement that has recently been made between
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. Microsoft has agreed to
terms that extend well beyond the products and procedures that were
at issue in the suit, for the sake of wrapping up the issue. It is
obvious that Microsoft has clone more than what was necessary on
their part and the DOJ should follow suit. Not only has Microsoft
provided businesses and homes with excellent products and service
over the years they have also donated millions to charity and
provided thousands of jobs. They should be allowed to continue on
with business as usual.
The terms that Microsoft has agreed to are more than fair, and
all litigation against Microsoft should be put to a stop. Microsoft
has agreed to design future versions of Windows, beginning with an
interim release of Windows XP, to provide a mechanism to make it
easy for computer makers, consumers and software developers to
promote non-Microsoft software within Windows. In relation to this,
Microsoft has also agreed not to retaliate against any designers and
producers of software and hardware that competes with Windows.
It is clear that this issue needs to come to a close. Not only
are the litigations wasting millions in tax dollars, but also it is
affecting the IT industry and the economy.
[[Page 27895]]
Sincerely,
Carlton Thiele
MTC-00026931
From: Howell, William (MD)
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/27/02 3:53pm
Subject: Microsft Judgement
Allowing Microsoft to link the IE browser to their OS and to
enforce this with business practice pressure has undermined
alternative browser development and stunted the growth of Java as a
cross-platform language.
Educational grants as the punishment for such behavour merely
helps establish the monopoly more.
I have just been informed by my ISP that my internet access by
default will be via MSN.com.
MTC-00026932
From: Jerald Mara
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/27/02 3:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jerald Mara
847 N. Jerico Dr.
Casselberry, FL 32707
January 27, 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,
Jerry Mara
MTC-00026933
From: John Gibson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Sirs and Madames,
I am writing to express my opposition to the Proposed Final
Judgment (PFJ) for the Microsoft antitrust case. Not only is the PFJ
far too weak, but it has no effective enforcement mechanism to
assure Microsoft follows even its weak restrictions. Moreover,
Microsoft has a well-documented history of creatively exploiting
loopholes and prolonging litigation in order to continue its
anticompetitive and illegal business practices. These practices have
substantially harmed businesses and consumers. Unless a stronger and
more strongly enforced settlement is reached, we can expect further
harm and more litigation.
The PFJ is too weak in too many ways to list here. Here are a
few weaknesses that particularly concern me, as a independent
software developer and a supporter of free or open-source software.
(1) The PFJ defines terms such as ``API'',
``Microsoft Middleware'', and ``Windows Operating
System Product'' so narrowly that restrictions can be
circumvented by changing distribution methods or product names (see
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html).
(2) The PFJ allows Microsoft to continue anti-competitive
practices against free and open-source software. Section III.J.2
allows Microsoft to condition disclosure of documentation and APIs
to third parties on its own interpretation of the
``authenticity and viability'' of the third party's
business. Microsoft's greatest current competitor is the Linux
operating system, which is written by a loose coalition of
independent software developers and owned by no single company.
Microsoft would be free to determine that Linux is not a viable
business and withhold technical information.
(3) It does nothing to prevent Microsoft from using artificial
incompatibilities and restrictive licensing to increase the barrier
to entry for third-party operating systems that attempt API-
compatibility with Microsoft's operating systems.
(4) It allows Microsoft to continue to withhold information
about its file formats, although undocumented file formats form an
important part of the Applications Barrier to Entry (Findings of
Fact paragraphs 20 and 39).
The PFJ's enforcement mechanism is also too weak. Only one of
three members of the Technical Committee will be selected without
Microsoft's influence. This is a absolutely shocking concession.
A company with Microsoft's long history of ruthlessly illegal
and anticompetitive behavior cannot be allowed to choose the
policemen who watch over it. Further, the PFJ gives the Technical
Committee no enforcement powers of its own. All disputes are passed
on to the courts. But as this and other lawsuits have shown, the
courts act far too slowly to deter Microsoft from illegal action.
Consumers and business have suffered considerable harm through
Microsoft's illegal maintenance of its monopoly. Microsoft has
accumulated billions of dollars of consumers'' and business's
money by hundreds of dollars for software whose marginal cost is
tens of dollars, and whose development cost is negligible in
comparison to those billions. Consider also, that open-source
software companies offer similar, even superior software free of
charge. Microsoft's software is widely viewed in the open-source
community as buggy, unstable, and generally inferior. Microsoft's
operating systems crash far more frequently than their alternatives.
Microsoft's insecure programming methods are the basis for the
majority of Internet viruses. Microsoft's unpublished file formats
and the subsequent difficulty of transferring files to non-Microsoft
software have caused countless people countless hours of
frustration. Yet consumers and businesses are locked into
Microsoft's software, due to a combination of economic
``network effects'' and artificial barriers to entry
supported by Microsoft's illegal, anticompetitive business
practices.
Microsoft has a stranglehold on both the computer operating
system market and the office productivity software market. It has
demonstrated repeatedly that it will do anything it takes, legal or
illegal, to maintain its monopoly. Consumers and businesses have
been harmed, substantially. The Court and the Justice Department
simply must impose broader and more strongly enforceable
restrictions on Microsoft, or the harm will continue and another
lengthy suit will follow.
John F. Gibson
Researcher in fluid dynamics
Independent developer of scientific software
Tutor, St. John's College
Santa Fe, NM 87505
(505) 992-2935
MTC-00026934
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear sir:
I would like to see that the Microsoft case finally comes to a
conclusion which will preserve the foundations of a free society in
its preservation of respect for property rights.
Microsoft has always been of positive benefit to the consumer in
enabling everyone to have access to his own PC, packaged with
virtually all the needed software at a reasonable price. To find
that Microsoft is undercutting the costs of its competitors is the
problem of its competitors, it is not Microsoft's problem, and it is
not a problem for the consumer. It is because of Microsoft that the
PC has become an indispensable addition to my home; I do not owe any
thanks to it's competitors for Microsoft's accomplishments.
I do not want the government interfering in my ability to choose
what software I run on my PC. If other companies have a beneficial
product, let them compete for my business in the marketplace, and
not seek special privileges from government by trying to invoke the
gross ambiguities inherent in the antitrust laws. When politicians
protect some businesses from others they engage in a dangerous
policy. 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 a free America
where anyone with enough intelligence and hard work can be a self-
made man like Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates. This is the only way
everyone can benefit, including the
[[Page 27896]]
competitors of Microsoft, who now are able to compete in a market
that did not exist before. The only way that this country can remain
free is to fully recognize and protect the principle of property
rights inherent in constitutionally guaranteed individual rights.
Sincerely,
Henry Solomon
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026935
From: Diane Swan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lawrence Swan
17517 Osprey Road
Arlington, WA 98223
January 23, 2002
Attorney Generai John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I would like to write and express my support of the recent
settlement that has been reached between Microsoft ant the
Department of Justice. This lawsuit has occupied the attention of
the courts and the IT industry for far too long. If the federal
government intended to produce consumer benefit with this suit, the
matter should have been resolved long ago.
Due to the proposed settlement, Microsoft will be forced to
renounce intellectual property rights to parties who feel they need
access to Microsoft's products in order to produce their own. Along
with that, Microsoft will be forced to use a uniform pricelist that
will certainly decrease Microsoft's profitability for years to come.
These and many other terms of the settlement more than compensate
all the plaintiffs in the suit.
Since the current settlement provides compensation, deserved or
no, to all the parties in the suit, the proposed settlement must be
made formal. Those who would see the suit reopened for litigation
only want to strip Microsoft of more money and market power for
their own selfish gain. The Justice Department must see that the
proposed settlement becomes formal as soon as legally possible.
Sincerely,
Larry Swan
MTC-00026936
From: Jeff Chapin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 3:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am an average home consumer of Microsoft products, and I do
not believe that I have been victimized by Microsoft in any way. I
like Microsoft products and they have only been a positive and
useful tool for me and my computing needs. I have found Microsoft to
be very innovative and progressive in the last decade. They have
been at the leading edge of technology and bringing this technology
to consumers at very reasonable prices. Furthermore, I feel that I
have the ability to choose what software I like and companies are
always willing to listen to their customers. I feel that this
antitrust case is completely bogus. It has been propagated by
Microsoft competitors and power-hungry politicians.
Microsoft has been unfairly and wrongly taken over by the
government at the request of its competitors.
The antitrust case and in fact the antitrust laws in general are
statist and immoral. Microsoft has a right to its property, which
the government should not be able to take away at its whim.
Microsoft has become the leader in the software industry through
superior products and fair capitalism. This case has put our country
on a dangerous course of more government control over our economy
and our individual lives.
The shareholders of Microsoft have a right to their company and
antitrust is nothing short of theft.
Jeff Chapin
Hutchinson, KS
MTC-00026937
From: Kathy Morgan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Re: Revised proposed Final Judgment, United States v. Microsoft
Sirs:
I have reviewed the proposed Final Judgment referenced above and
I beg the court not to accept it. This proposed settlement is so
severely flawed that it would be contrary to the public interest.
Microsoft has been found by the Court to be a monopoly that has
abused its monopoly powers by engaging in anticompetitive practices.
This has had several effects on end users such as myself: (1)
Many of Microsoft's products are priced out of reach of many users;
they have a long history of buying out competitors and discontinuing
the competing products, so they can charge any amount they like. (2)
When they are unable to buy out a competitor, Microsoft provides a
competing product free with the Windows operating system until the
competitor is forced out of business or relegated to marginal
status.
Examples include Outlook Express, which is a seriously inferior
product and violates many Internet standards--but it is used by
more people than any other mail or news client because it is
preinstalled when a computer is purchased, and Internet
Explorer--integrated into the Windows operating system. (3)
Because of Microsoft's devious and unfair practices making it
impossible for competitors to access and use Windows API's, authors
of other middleware products are unable to compete with Microsoft
and so their products may never become available for for people like
me to purchase. (4) OEM licenses have forced providers of hardware
to discourage competing operating systems or prevented hardware
providers entirely from offering bundles which include competing
products or hardware which has no operating system preinstalled. (5)
Large users with ``site'' licences are forced to pay
licensing fees for every piece of hardware capable of running
Windows, whether or not the hardware actually does have Windows
installed. (6) Microsoft software which has been distributed in
furtherance of their abusive monopoly is notoriously insecure and
susceptible to malicious worms, viruses, and trojans which directly
adversely affect those whose systems become infected and indirectly
adversely affects all of us who have Internet connections when we
receive dozens or hundreds of copies of virii propagated by MS
software or our Internet Service Provider's mail servers or routers
crash under the impact of the thousands of copies passing through
them.
It appears to me that because of the unreasonably restrictive
terms of the agreement and definitions in the proposed Final
Judgment, Microsoft's monopoly position and ability to use the
monopoly to unfairly discourage competition will actually be
strengthened rather than remedied. Additionally, the wording in
Section III.B will still allow Microsoft to ``punish''
some OEM's who fail to ``play ball'' with Microsoft by
offering special prices and discounts to all others.
My interest in the Microsoft Settlement: I am a United States
Citizen, 54 years of age, residing in Tok, Alaska. I am an end user
who is affected by the outcome of this case purely as a person who
buys and uses computers. I am not employed by any computer hardware
or software company or individual and as far as I know I am not
related to any hardware or software companies or individuals.
Sincerely yours,
Kathy I. Morgan
Box 342
Tok, AK 99780-0342
MTC-00026938
From: Wayne Turner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not think the Microsoft monopoly or the purposed settlement
are in the consumer's best interest.
MTC-00026939
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:05pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust case
2142Blake Boulevard SE
Cedar Rapids, IA 52403-2824
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 toexpress my views regarding the Microsoft
antitrust case.? I have always felt that this entire suit haswasted
far too much taxpayer funds.? Ialso believe that the company has
been treated unfairly in this case, as theyare only guilty of acting
in the true spirit of free enterprise.? As far as I am concerned,
Microsoft has done what all ambitious companies should strive to
do--create a well-needed product,use unsurpassed marketing
strategies to sell the product, and make aprofit.? No one can argue
thatMicrosoft's extraordinary strides haven???t changed the IT
industry forever.
[[Page 27897]]
In their efforts tocome to agreement with an aggressive
government and get on with steadyproduction, Microsoft has conceded
far beyond obligations that fairness requiredof them.? They have
compromised theircompetitiveness by agreeing to grant their
competitors access to internalWindows code, protocols and codes.?
Theyhave even agreed to have their compliance monitored by an
external oversightcommittee. All these attempts onMicrosoft's part
are sure to prevent future antitrust violations.? I believe it is a
very well organizedagreement and everything should be done to
formalize it as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Thom Lusardi
MTC-00026940
From: Webmaster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice:
I am writing to you as someone who has been involved in
computers for the past 25 years, grew up near Microsoft, and have
been on both sides of the love ``em or hate ``em Microsoft
fence. I would like to give you my observations and comments about
the computer industry as it relates to the Microsoft case.
A Brief History of the Personal Computer (circa 1980 to 1995)
Circa 1980, the personal computer was born, and within a few years,
the PC's killer applications (namely spreadsheets, word processors,
and presentation graphics programs) made the PC an indispensable
business tool. Innovation and competition were strong and consumers
benefited from new products such as Lotus 123, Word Perfect, and
Harvard Graphics.
Over the years, Microsoft also innovated and introduced refined
versions of its DOS and Windows operating systems. By the mid- to
late 1980s, IBM had finally lost its dominance of the open hardware
platform it created. The failure of the more-closed PS/2 and the
further advances of PC ``clones'' drove prices down while
driving hardware innovation and performance. The proliferation of
low cost personal computers drove the further adoption of Microsoft
operating systems.
During the early 1990s, Microsoft, funded by its operating
systems success, also delivered innovative and superior products
such as Excel and Word. These products rightfully claimed market
dominance over their competitors. These products also became strong
revenue producers for Microsoft. Through widespread adoption of
Microsoft operating systems, consumers benefited, and developers
were overjoyed.
Microsoft further created excellent developers'' tools and
wooed developers to create applications for Windows.
The Personal Computer Matures (circa 1995) Unfortunately,
towards the mid-1990s, the PC market was becoming mature. The
personal computer had run its course, and networked, not personal,
computers were the new frontier. Microsoft and other personal
computer software vendors turned to competing in feature wars by
adding features that were largely useless to the majority of users
and by driving a new software business model: the upgrade cycle.
Prior to this time, innovation in the personal computer industry
was high and product quality was excellent. I remember when a bug in
software made headlines and was truly an embarrassment to the
company that wrote the software. Prior to this time, new major
releases were truly valuable and, because of attention to quality,
customers quickly adopted the latest technology.
Subsequent releases of personal computer software generally
offered only minor functional improvements while adding substantial
incompatibilities and instability through buggy software. Often
upgrades were mostly bug fixes. Software incompatibilities with
hardware, however, drove hardware sales that had now become
dependent on software upgrade cycles. Many in these industries
became staunch supporters of Microsoft because their livelihood
depended on it.
It is considered by some that post Windows 95 OSR2, the Windows
98, Windows 98 SE, and Windows Me operating systems were
progressively worse releases. Certainly corporate America began to
shy away from these frequent and ``problem-full'' upgrade
cycles. Software manufacturers, Microsoft in particular, faced with
spiraling support costs resulting from product deficiencies and poor
quality, began charging customers for support. This further
alienated customers who had become dependent on the technology.
In the mid-1990s, while working with software developers, I
learned Microsoft had a new trick in addition to upgrade cycles.
Because of Microsoft's dominance of the personal computer operating
system, it began dangling new over-hyped technologies to developers
but withholding adequate information to get the programming done. To
that end, Microsoft would supply expensive consultants. Through the
use of consultants, Microsoft could control who had access to what
technology. Microsoft seemed to provide consultants to companies
developing products that further enhanced the appeal of the
``Microsoft platform''. Unfortunately, I learned first-
hand that once Microsoft deemed your software was no longer
strategic or was competitive, the support vanished. The same
strategy also applied to hardware.
Originally, Windows NT ran on Intel, DEC Alpha, MIPS, and
PowerPC platforms. Once Microsoft pulled the plug on support for the
non-Intel platforms, these other platforms vanished almost
overnight.
Around this time, it was also widely known that Microsoft
employed an ``embrace and extend'' philosophy. The
implementation goes something like this: Once a new non-Microsoft
technology emerges, Microsoft discredits the technology and
withholds operating system support.
This minimizes the revenue that a potential competitor could
derive in the early stages of a product's life that could be used to
fund additional development. Meanwhile, Microsoft had a chance to
study and subsequently implement competing and typically inferior
technology into its operating system. At times, by only announcing
that Microsoft will develop a competing technology, Microsoft could
convince its customers to abandon the new non-Microsoft technology
or, at least, sit-and-wait until it was built-in for
``free''. The pattern generally continued by starving the
original innovating companies while developing its own technology.
Typically, by a 3.x release, Microsoft had monopolized the
technology while the original innovators had gone out of business.
What was happening to hardware and software developers was that
they were learning a message from Microsoft that was loud and clear.
The message was that if you were not strategic to Microsoft, you
were ``history''.
The Networked Computer Industry (circa 1995 to Present)
Fortunately, for consumers and developers, the need to transcend the
``personal'' in PC and become networked exploded with the
adoption of the Internet. There was incredible excitement and
innovation as numerous companies worked around the clock to develop
new products, services, and applications. HTTP, HTML, and Java were
the tools to break the industry free. There was a big problem with
the Internet to Microsoft because it didn't use Microsoft technology
and, further, it could minimize the importance of the Microsoft
Windows operating system.
Once again, Microsoft attempted to discredit the technology
while buying itself time to determine how to best ``embrace and
extend'' the technology. I do admire Microsoft in its ability
to turn its entire company around in ``Internet time'' to
address this great threat.
Unfortunately, this has been to the detriment of consumers and
the Internet as Microsoft is trying and succeeding at crafting its
own version of the Internet.
There are numerous examples of this strategy. As far back as
Stacker vs. DoubleSpace, to QuickTime vs. AVI, MP3 vs. WMA,
RealPlayer vs. WMA, Java vs. MSJava vs. C#, JavaScript vs.
JScript, and more.
Microsoft has sought to pollute every interoperable and de facto
standard with it's own ``embrace and extend'' but
incompatible version.
In the ease of Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer,
Microsoft claims its dominance is due to Internet Explorer being a
better browser. It, in fact, is a better browser--on Microsoft
Windows.
However, this is clearly because any company is unable to
compete with a Goliath company that gives the product away for free
(far below its cost).
I remember sitting in Microsoft briefings while they insisted
that they were ``browser agnostic''. The audience
snickered as surely they were browser agnostic as long as the
browser was a Microsoft browser.
Microsoft even feigned cross-platform support by offering a Unix
version of Internet Explorer that never worked and which has been
subsequently dropped. Now that Microsoft owns the browser, there is
no need to support other platforms. It is quite a disconcerting that
the fate of Apple rests upon Microsoft's willingness to supply it
Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer. Without these core
applications, no desktop operating system could survive.
[[Page 27898]]
My Views on What Needs to Change
What has happened is that the technologies Microsoft has added
to its operating systems have not been for ``free'', as
Microsoft would like us to believe. They have come at a high price
of stamping out non-Microsoft developer innovations. They have come
at a price of security and reliability, as there is really no other
choice for corporate America. They have come at a price of
Microsoft-ifying the Internet and attempting to replace every open
and interoperable standard that the rest of the world has tried to
create. Microsoft continues by trying to force its dominance into
product areas of hand-held computers, video games, entertainment,
and Internet service.
A recent example is the announcement of MSN as the number one
search engine. It is actually not surprising, as MSN is the default
search tool in Internet Explorer.
The sad reality is that Microsoft already owns the desktop, the
corporate office suite, and the web browser. It has purposely
integrated the browser into the operating system so that it loads
faster and is more difficult to remove. Microsoft has also tied its
desktop and server operating systems together with almost identical
code-bases. I think it is quite dangerous that Microsoft is trying
to tie its Windows desktops to its Windows servers to displace other
more reliable, open, and secure server operating systems from
competitors. Microsoft is trying to unfairly force itself into the
server market by way of the desktop. At the same time, Microsoft is
trying to create its own version of the Internet as well as force
users to use its Passport service.
In the early 1990s, I was an adamant Microsoft fan.
Unfortunately, their patterns of behavior towards outside innovators
and of tying numerous Microsoft products together have changed the
way I make choices. More and more, I choose open solutions whenever
possible even though I know there is a threat that Microsoft may
eventually kill them. A prime driver of the current downturn in the
computer industry, I believe, is the lack of innovation. I am quite
confident that a plethora of reliable and secure multimedia (audio,
video, photography, speech), networking (collaboration,
communication, interactive, wireless), and business applications are
possible and awaiting development. The unfortunate reality is that
Microsoft holds the keys to the client operating systems that these
applications need. At this late point, I'm not sure what type of
settlement/remedy would be appropriate. Microsoft has already cost
the technology industry (including Netscape) irreparable harm and
continues to further cripple it to serve its own agenda. At the
beginning of the antitrust cases, I thought it might be reasonable
to break Microsoft into 3 separate companies: Desktop OS,
Applications, and Server OS. The reason for splitting out the Server
OS would be to prevent Microsoft from unfairly tying Windows clients
to Windows servers. Unfortunately, the code-base is the same, so
perhaps only strict conduct remedies might work. Internet Explorer
must be considered an application and stripped from the operating
system. Further, it must be made available in fully functioning form
across major operating systems (Windows, Mac, Unix, Linux). To do
this, it must be stripped of its Windows-specific technologies and
implemented in a truly cross-platform manner such as the Mozilla/
Gecko/Netscape product. It must conform to open and not proprietary
standards. The same exact requirement also needs to be made of
Microsoft Office. These applications are critical to the functioning
of American businesses and should be regulated like a utility.
Another sad reality is that Microsoft developers and personnel
are ``soMicrosoft'', in general, they do not understand
other and outside open technologies. Assuming Microsoft was split,
it would take years for personnel to retrain themselves to
understand non-Microsoft technologies and to begin developing
products that conform to open standards. Because there is such a
closed--almost incestuous--Microsoft culture, the separate
companies should be geographically dispersed to prevent inevitable
commingling. Although such as break-up would cause tremendous
anxiety in the industry, I think it is necessary in order to give
other operating systems a fighting chance and to convince the non-
Microsoft development community that it is safe to innovate once
again.
I would estimate the disruption could last 2 to 4 years. The
current prospects, however, are continued stagnation, meaningless
upgrade cycles, poor reliability and security, and less choices as
Microsoft continues to take over all aspects of computing,
networking, entertainment, and identity/payment systems. Considering
I originally wrote this on a Windows NT (1995) machine with Word 97,
I would be willing to use Windows2000 and other current software
versions for a few years in the hopes of gaining truly open
computing platforms and radically new and innovative products in the
future.
Finally, please compare the personal computer software and
hardware industries over the past 5 to 10 years. Despite a dominant,
but somewhat less adversarial, Intel, the hardware industry has
delivered products that are many, many times over faster, more
reliable, and more functional at fractions of the price of what they
used to cost. A modern PC can be bought for $500 that includes a
monitor and printer and is better than most corporate desktops. On
the other hand, new non-upgrade versions of Microsoft's latest
Windows XP Professional and Office XP will cost you more than the
hardware. This is truly ironic considering there are no real
manufacturing costs to the software and considering the marginal
benefits provided to consumers by the marginal softare upgrades
during the same period.
Best of luck. We are counting on you,
Brett Duke
MTC-00026941
From: Art Holland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Ms. Hesse,
Microsoft was the first to exploit if not realize that the PC
business was like any other modern business that depends on
interoperability--he who can establish and control the
standards will become a very profitable monopoly. Just like roads,
telephones and many others--the business of computers is about
having them interoperate--whether on networks or through
packaged software.
Microsoft has gained this leverage through control of the API's
and file formats combined with some very unsavory business tactics.
The result is that people need Windows and they need Office. To
choose anything else is to make significant compromises in one's
ability to interact with others.
MS has exploited this, protected it and been convicted of
illegally maintaining it and lost on appeal. This monopoly is
stifling progress. Why would investors attack a monopoly? It's
financial suicide.
Remedy:
Fine them billions for breaking the law
Openly publish API's and file formats subject to the satisfaction
of an independent board.
Make available a version of Windows that contains no applications
(the things people actually buy computers for) at 1/2 the price of
any other version.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Art Holland
MTC-00026942
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:07pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
1900 53rd Street N
Saint Petersburg, FL 33710
January 19, 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 show my support for the recent
settlement reached between the Department of Justice and Microsoft.
Bill Gates has been an integral part of the building of this nation
and for that matter the world's computing abilities. He has been
ingenious in the running of his company. I do not believe that the
federal government should punish this ingenuity. I do not believe
that the federal government has the right to persecute Microsoft.
Given these sentiments, I am pleased that there may finally be some
closure with this issue. Microsoft has been making many concessions
to ensure that this occurs. For example, Microsoft will share
information about the internal workings of Windows with its
competitors, and thus allow them to place their own programs on the
operating system. Microsoft has even agreed to the formation of a
technical review board whose sole job will be to ensure compliance
with the terms of the settlement.
[[Page 27899]]
The settlement offers an opportunity to end this lawsuit and
returns the country's focus back on business, where it belongs. The
federal government must end its pursuit of Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Edward Bailey
MTC--00026942--0003
MTC-00026943
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft
Why don't you leave Microsoft alone for everything you become
involved in you Screw it up. Attorneys are screwing this country to
Hell and back and Greed is all They care about.
Ken Stewart
MTC-00026944
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dorothy Sanford
Assembly Drive
Cartersville, GA 30120
MTC-00026945
From: Matthew
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
The proposed settlement is unacceptable and gives Microsoft even
further headway into a market where Apple Computer, Inc. was
previously the leader.
Please do not let this pass.
Matthew
MTC-00026946
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel that the Microsoft Settlement is not in my interest for
countless reasons.
Rebecca Bell
Jekyll Island, GA 31527
MTC-00026947
From: Ken
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have read the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust
case and I believe that it does not adequately prevent Microsoft
from abusing its monopoly power as a lever to gain new monopolies,
destroy U.S. businesses, and ultimately to milk consumers for
unnecessary, insecure, and unwanted ``features''. The
settlement must be toughened and made bulletproof, but with the same
speed that this one was cooked up.
There are bigger loopholes in this proposal than in previous
agreements with Microsoft, which they subsequently defied with
impunity. Redefining words like ``browser'' and renaming
products like ``Windows 95'' instead of ``DOS 7 +
Windows 4.0'' is the level of deceipt that they would use to
break this agreement as well. They are on the verge of relabeling MS
Office as a ``subscription service''.
Ken Conrad
Dayton, Ohio
MTC-00026948
From: Oscar A. White
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft hearings
To whom it may concern,
I believe that the proposed settlement with Microsoft should go
forward as agreed upon. The competition should leave them alone, if
they, the competition can do a better job of developing software
then they should get on with it. Leave the people alone who have
proven they have the smarts and resourses to do the job!
Sincerely,
Oscar A. White
MTC-00026949
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lisa Luo
01-28-01
The only reason that the U.S. versus Microsoft case came about
is because of the word, ???success???. Because of Microsoft???s
great dominance in the computer world, many competitors are
expectedly intended to cripple the company. In some ways, Microsoft
is expected to be charged since they had ???destroyed competition in
the market for Internet browsers???, according to a federal trial
court. Microsoft actions??? such as ???delivering a web browser with
its Windows software packages??? undermines many companies such as
Netscape???s monopoly power. If two similar products are placed
before me and one of them was packaged with an extra item, I would
grab for that product. Who wouldn???t want free items?!
Microsoft???s fault of continuous prosper should be controlled to
prevent serious consequences.
In this technological advancing world, many competitors of the
economy strive to dominate all by having the best of the best. I
think the limits of Microsoft???s conduct from the revised proposed
final judgment is very suitable to prevent a single dominance and to
have a world of equal attempts to gain and profit. Microsoft should
be controlled so there wouldn???t be an ultimate consequence of
???misuse [in] its operating system monopoly to artificially exclude
browser competition and deprive customers of a free choice between
browsers???. Microsoft should also, ???allow applications to run in
multiple operating systems???, so competition would revive. Leaving
some space for other companies to strive in some way will provide
everyone with ???economic freedom???.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00026950
From: Steven L. Mading
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing as a concerned citizen employing my rights under
the Tunney Act, which state that the proposed Microsoft Settlement
with the Department Of Justice must allow for a period of public
comment. This message is my public comment.
In short, I think the proposed settlement is inadequete to
remedy the situation.
Rather than give a list of reasons, which would be repetative
with lists in other people's letters, I will simply expand on one
point I find partiularly important: Microsoft Office dominance:
The proposed remedy of forcing Microsoft to publish their
program calls (or ``API'') because they have become de-
facto standards doesn't address the other more important de-facto
standard over which they enjoy control--namely the file formats
they use for saving Office documents in programs such as Word and
Excel. Because compatability with Microsoft Office applications has
become a neccessity with their monopoly position, if Microsoft can
continue to hide the format of these files, they can continue to
deny competing products entry into the marketplace. Many aspects of
modern life, for good or bad, have come to depend on Word(tm)
documents as the standard form of business interchange. There are
even many Human Resources departments in large companies that will
only take electronic resumes in Microsoft Word format and no other.
It should be obvious that there are monopolistic influences at work
when to look for a job, you must own a product from one specific
company and no other. Certain government offices also dissemate
public information in Microsoft Word(tm) format.
Now, I feel the ideal remedy would be to educate people on how
they are helping prop up the monopoly situation every time they
choose to only accept input in Microsoft Word format and no
other--but such a remedy isn't ever going to occur. In a free
market, monopolies don't Steven L. Mading at BioMagResBank (BMRB).
UW-Madison Programmer/Analyst/(sometimes SysAdmin)
mailto:[email protected] B1108C, Biochem Addition / 433
Babcock Dr / Madison, WI 53706-1544
MTC-00026951
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:20pm
[[Page 27900]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am AGAINST the proposed settlement of the antitrust case
involving Microsoft Corporation. Companies that achieve great levels
of success as measured by revenues, profits, market share, etc. by
producing innovative products, better quality, lower price, etc. in
a totally legal and ethical manner should not be penalized just
because they are successful. Unfortunately, too many people and
government bureaucrats automatically regard success in the private
sector as indicators of illegality, and I am usually against the
Department of Justice pursuing antitrust cases.
However, Microsoft has clearly achieved its stature via deceit
and other illicit means, as demonstrated during the court
proceedings in this antitrust case as well as other litigation such
as Sun Microsystems vs. Microsoft regarding Java. Some of the issues
that stand out in my mind are:
Microsoft's ``embrace and extend'' approach in
developing its own versions of products: Notice that a possible tool
from another vendor has potentially significant popularity in the
market and would consequently enhance the overall market for PCs and
the Microsoft Windows operating system. Offer support to that vendor
to help their product be successful. Once Microsoft sees the
unexpectedly high success of the product, begin developing a similar
product, merge it in with the Windows operating system so that
people can easily transition, then extend the new product by adding
features incompatible with the original, more popular product.
Arrange with PC vendors restrictive licensing agreements that
prevent them from selling PCs with both Microsoft and non-Microsoft
products. The result is that the former supporter stabs the original
vendor in the back. Such has happened with Netscape and was in
progress with Java until Sun Microsystems successfully litigated.
There is a new browser available from the open-source/free-software
community (which Microsoft hates) called Opera; Opera could not
access many of the Microsoft web pages because they were designed
for Internet Explorer by using extensions to commercial standards
that only Internet Explorer recognizes, and yet Microsoft falsely
claimed that it was Opera that violated the standards (the Opera
developer is a member of the standards committee and pointed out
where Microsoft's web pages violated the prescribed standard).
Microsoft repeatedly gave self-contradictory testimony at the
trial. Much of their testimony was demonstrated totally fallacious
by experts for the Department of Justice. Microsoft cannot be
trusted to come close to telling the truth under oath. Microsoft
needs to be put in a position that it is impossible for them to
break the final settlement when they are not under oath.
Microsoft has the lion's share of the very large PC operating
system market, and they can change Windows whenever they wish, which
can end up deliberately creating incompatibilities with other
vendors'' application tools running in the Windows environment,
whereas the application tools departments in Microsoft are informed
of the changes in Windows and can accommodate. This results in
Microsoft having an unfair advantage in developing applications
tools when they control the dominant operating system. One can quite
reasonably ask why the other vendors do not get into the operating
systems business, competing head to head against Microsoft, and take
control of their own destiny. The problem is that most of the
companies producing applications tools are small and require all
their resources to go into the development of the specific tool.
Operating systems are far more complicated pieces of software taking
many years to develop. The only operating system offering Microsoft
Windows any substantive competition at all is Linux (which Microsoft
wishes to kill also), and Linux has been in development ten years
now with some significant work still left. This is why the industry
desperately needs Microsoft split between its Windows operation and
its application tools operation.
Microsoft shows its true colors by seeking legislation to outlaw
the use in government-funded activities of software developed under
the GNU Public License, including Linux. Such software might
actually succeed where no other has: provide meaningful competition
and take significant market share from Microsoft.
The findings of fact regarding Microsoft's adverse monopolistic
behavior have held firm in the courts--for good reason. The
proposed settlement does nothing to redress past wrongs nor does it
put adequate teeth into preventing future misdeeds of similar ilk. I
have been a professional software developer for a variety of
applications for almost 30 years and an adjunct professor in
electrical engineering and computer science for 15 years. I have
used both Microsoft and non-Microsoft products during that time, as
well as followed the actual technology involved.
Please take these issues into account and rule in a manner so
that vendors besides Microsoft have the opportunity to play a
significant, successful, innovative role in the software
marketplace. I regard the original ruling of splitting Microsoft
into an operating system company and a totally separate application
tools company to be very wise and appropriate. The proposed
settlement is not.
Howard W. LUDWIG, Ph.D.
11666 Darlington Drive
Orlando FL 32837
MTC-00026952
From: Herman Choper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
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.
The Senior Citizens are the ones that are suffering the most
from this recession.
Thank you for taking the time to hear from us.
Herman Choper
[email protected]
MTC-00026953
From: John Springer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I oppose any settlement with Microsoft that does not make these
provisions:
1. Penalize them for putting other companies out of business by
bundling ``good enough'' software with Windows and Office,
thereby destroying existing markets.
2. Prevent them from effectively forcing proprietary standards
onto the world by building them into Windows, ignoring standards
organizations, and not publishing specifications.
I think Microsoft is being allowed to dominate and control an
industry that is as essential today as the telephone is. It is as
though AT&T 50 years ago had been allowed to build phone systems
that wouldn't let customers talk to anyone using non AT&T
equipment.
John Springer
Portland, OR
Golly--I think it's raining out there.
MTC-00026954
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to take a moment to express my displeasure with the
currently proposed settlement in the Microsoft Anti-trust Lawsuit.
My understanding of the settlement is that Microsoft is to give
copies of it's Operating System and software to schools, etc. This
whole issue was brought about by Microsoft's manipulations to get
their software on as many computers as possible. The proposed
settlement would merely extend the current issue into schools
without rectifying the original issue.
While I don't like punitive actions, I believe that a solution
that is more inline with solving the original issue is warranted
here. Personally, I think a settlement that creates more competition
within the Operating System software industry would be the best
solution. Possibly a settlement that would require MS to supply
schools with computers with an alternative Operating System such as
Linux or the Macintosh Operating System.
Thanks for your kind attention.
Derek Tarvin
MTC-00026955
From: Dave Kopel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I am writing this letter to express my support for the proposed
Microsoft settlement. In contrast to the alternatives proposed by
the non-settling states and by the companies which have used this
lawsuit as a means of harassing Microsoft, the proposed settlement
is reasonably based on the decision of the Court of Appeals.
In my book ``Antitrust after Microsoft,'' I argue that
one of the central flaws of antitrust law is its erratic and
unpredictable application. Another flaw is how often companies are
targeted as a result of politics and lobbying. The Microsoft case
was an
[[Page 27901]]
egregious example of both. Settling the case would not only be good
for the American economy, it would be a constructive step forward
for the rule of law.
Sincerely,
David B. Kopel
Director, Center on the Digital Economy
Heartland Institute.
Research Director,
Independence Institute
MTC-00026956
From: Ken Arromdee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a computer professional and PhD in computer science, I'm
writing to express my concern about the revised proposed Final
Judgment in the US vs. Microsoft case.
I'm particularly concerned as a user of the Linux operating
system. Linux may be the most viable competitor to Windows right
now, and any settlement should prevent anticompetitive actions
towards Linux. I'm disturbed, however, by the loopholes in the
settlement, both with respect to competition with other operating
systems in general, and specifically in connection with Linux.
--In section III.a.2, Microsoft is prohibited from retaliating
against OEMs who include both Windows and another OS on their
computers. However, the prohibition doesn't include computers
shipped with *only* a competing OS. The prohibition should be
extended to include such computers.
--Section III.d requires that Microsoft disclose information to
ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs about middleware APIs. Section
III.e requires similar disclosure of communications protocol, and
section III.i requires that Microsoft licenses any associated
intellectual property. These seemingly reasonable clauses would
exclude Linux:
() The reference to ISVs (independent software vendors) would at
first seem to let the information be used with Linux. However, Linux
is written by volunteers; it's not clear whether the term
``ISV'' would include a typical Linux developer.
() According to section III.i.3, Microsoft can prohibit
sublicensing or transfer of intellectual property rights. The Linux
kernel and many other parts of Linux are written under a license
(GNU General Public License) which requires that the licensed
program be freely modifiable and distributable. Prohibitions on
sublicensing/transfer would violate the GPL, preventing Linux from
using the information.
() Royalties for licensing the information must be
``reasonable and non-discriminatory''. Since typical Linux
developers are volunteers who don't profit from their code, any
``reasonable and non- discriminatory'' fee greater than
zero would make it impractical to use the information with Linux.
Some types of ``reasonable and nondiscriminatory'' terms
may be even worse; for instance, since Linux may be freely copied, a
per-copy fee paid by the developer would impose a potentially
infinite cost.
() Section III.j.2 permits Microsoft to disclose the information
only if the user has a reasonable business need, which wouldn't
apply to a Linux developer writing code as a volunteer project. It
also lets Microsoft require a third-party compliance test at the
user's expense, which is inappropriate for a volunteer making no
profit.
() The information can only be used for interoperation with a
``Windows Operating System Product''. This prohibits many
reasonable uses, such as making a non-Windows operating system able
to run Windows programs. Also, if the use of the information is
restricted, it may be difficult or impossible for a programmer who
has seen the information to ever work on Linux, since he would never
be able to prove that he isn't using information in a prohibited
way.
This problem with the Judgment can only be fixed by not allowing
restrictions on distribution or use of the information.
--Microsoft is not required to release information about file
formats, such as in Microsoft Word, and Word is not included in the
definition of middleware.
--The definition of ``middleware'' is tied to the
specific version numbers used, allowing Microsoft to easily get
around the judgment simply by changing its numbering scheme.
--The exemption in III.j.1 for technology necessary for anti-
piracy, licensing, and authorization is a very big loophole. For
instance, Microsoft could create middleware that only runs
applications that have been digitally signed by Microsoft, and then
not tell third parties how to create signed applications, allowing
Microsoft to control which applications are run.
--The proposal should also prohibit anti-competitive licenses.
Many Microsoft products contain clauses that prohibit running them
on non-Windows operating systems. Some specificallyt mention open-
source software (which includes Linux). For instance, Microsoft's
Mobile Internet Toolkit's EULA contains a prohibition on not using
``Potentially Viral Software'' (defined as to include open
source) tools to develop software that uses the kit.
--The proposal should prohibit Microsoft from requiring that
licensees not publically discuss the product, the license, and/or
the license terms.
Kenneth Arromdee
January 27, 2002
MTC-00026957
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to settle. It will have a very positive impact on the
present economy and it will help in pulling us out of the recession
we have experienced over the past year.
Paul trepanier
Fairport, NY
MTC-00026958
From: Daniel Haun
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to express my dissatisfaction with the proposed
Microsoft settlement. The proposed final judgement, as written, is
vague and full of loopholes. It claims to address the serious issues
raised against Microsoft, but is worded in such a way that it would
have no significant effect. Please do not adopt the judgement in its
current form. Daniel Haun
Network Support Analyst
Adventist Health
2100 Douglas Blvd.
Roseville, CA 95661
MTC-00026959
From: Jack Rodgers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Has anyone consider the possiblity that Microsoft is forcing
peripheral manufactures such as recording devices, cell phone cards,
MPG3 players, etc. to ONLY SUPPORT MICROSOFT since most of these
devices do not include support for Macintosh or Unix computers. It
is almost impossible to buy one of these devices that download or
upload data from a computer and find support for anything but
Microsoft Windows.
Jack Rodgers
MTC-00026960
From: Stephen Degler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
The purpose of this mail is to comment on the proposed Microsoft
settlement as outlined in the Tunney Act. I have read over Dan
Kegel's comments http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html and I find
that I am in agreement with them. I have also mailed Mr. Kegel and
indicated my willingess to be to be a cosigner of his letter.
It is clear to me that the settlement represents a sudden and
drastic change in direction towards the resolution fot he Microsoft
case. It is cowardly and insincere to aggressively and successfully
pursue a (just) decision against Microsoft, and then suddenly back
off with a toothless settlement. This change in direction is clearly
due to the politics and policies of the Bush administration.
In my limited understanding of our political system, this seems
to indicate that the independence of the judical branch of the
goverment has been compromised in some way. This has much greater
impact on American society than the Microsoft case itself. I believe
that most Americans who understand the actual issues surrounding
this case are deeply troubled by the proposed settlement and would
like to see one which addresses Microsoft's practices with remedies
that will end their monopoly. The proposed settlement is a sellout
which will undermine the peoples'' faith in the ability of our
goverment to act in the interests of the American consumer.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Stephen Degler
PO Box 707
Philmont, NY 12565
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 27902]]
MTC-00026961
From: Ashley Grayson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ:
I understand that according to the Tunney rules I can comment on
the DOJ settlement with Microsoft.
As a long time Microsoft customer, who has used a wide variety
of their products, I can say that the settlement is a very bad idea.
Microsoft is a ruthless monopoly and predatory organization that has
set back the progress of American innovation by ten or more years.
Unchecked, Microsoft will continue to abuse consumers and think of
itself as outside the law.
The DOJ should rethink the settlement and act quickly to break
up Microsoft.
Regards,
Ashley Grayson
MTC-00026962
From: dgcj4
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Now we have another COMPETITOR wanting to use our tax money to
fight their market fight. How long is the government going to allow
this fiasco to continue? A reasonable settlement was at hand and it
seems those groups that are looking to wrench money for themselves
out of the whole affair are allowed to continue to drag this on.
Competitors continue to use litigation and the government to impede
competition and innovation for us , the consumer. AOL paid $10
billion for Netscape, they obviously saw current value but did
nothing to enhance or innovate its services and they wonder why it
could not compete. The government needs to end this Microsoft thing
and let the marketplace to resolve consumer choice between
competitors by itself. Some will survive and others who cannot
provide a service wanted by consumers, such as integration of
software capabilities, or who cannot offer sufficient support will
not.
MTC-00026963
From: ROY C HENDERSHOT
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This litigation against Microsoft is at the point of lunacy. It
is time to STOP, END IT, and keep the American public from having to
continue to pad the lawyer's wallets (through government channels)
of those trying to destroy Microsoft, ie, their competitors. Keep
the proposed settlement where it is.
R.J.HENDERSHOT
Arizona
MTC-00026964
From: Dan Copeland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Two federal courts have declared that Microsoft is an illegal
and anticompetitive trust and in violation of the Sherman Act.
Microsoft continues to extend its anticompetitive behavior with the
introduction of its .NET initiative, Passport and other information-
hoarding schemes, and the integration of such technologies with
Windows XP.
The currently proposed settlement is an insufficient remedy. I
urge the Department of Justice to abandon the settlement in favor of
one which addresses the problems outlined in the original Findings
of Fact.
Daniel P. Copeland
2 Vulcan Stairway
San Francisco, CA 94114
(415) 522-6676
MTC-00026965
From: Peter Sanders
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
I am writing to comment on the proposed settlement of the United
States vs. Microsoft antitrust case.
I am against the current proposed Microsoft settlement--It
does not provide any remedy to the continueing and systemic
antitrust violations that Microsoft has committed over the past 10
years, nor does it promise to prevent any future violations.
The proposed settlement does nothing to address the
``Microsoft tax'' present on the vast majority of PC
systems available for purchase on the market. It is impossible to
purchase a non-Windows system in any mainstream retail store in any
area that I have researched.
Sincerely,
Peter Sanders
MTC-00026966
From: Stan Novacki
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to state that I am opposed to the proposed
settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case. I believe that the
proposed settlement does not adequately ensure that Microsoft's
anti-competitive behavior will be curtailed, let alone eliminated.
By failing to restrain Microsoft's repressive actions, emerging
technologies which promise to promote technological progress and
foster consumer choice are still prey to Microsoft's systematic and
illegal elimination of threats--whether real or merely
perceived--to its monopoly in PC operating systems and
applications.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns.
Stanley M. Novacki, III
4640 5th Street South
Arlington VA 22204
[email protected]
MTC-00026967
From: Andrew Puplis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Dear. Ms Hesse: This comment is in response to proposed
Settlement between the US Department of Justice and participating
states, and Microsoft. For the following reasons, the settlement
should be rejected Section 3(b) only covers the top 20 OEM's. All
other OEM's are not subject to pricing protections. This appears to
create a high market entry barrier.
Section 3(c)(1): Allows Microsoft to prevent the display of
Middleware icons, menus, etc. by other manufacturers as long as they
similarly prohibit their own display of Middleware. This exception
essentially allow Microsoft to maintain the status quo by
disallowing other middleware manufacturers from displaying their
icons. Consumers not aware of another choice will choose Microsoft.
Section 3(c)(2) Allows Microsoft to prevent the display of non-
Microsoft middleware displays if they do not impair the
functionality of the user interface. However, the decision if the
user interface is impaired seems to be left up to Microsoft to
determine.
Section 3(c)(3) requires that non-Microsoft Middleware providers
make their icons of a similar size and shape as Microsoft's. This
restriction seems to rekindle Microsoft's attempt to obtain
copyright protection on utilitarian aspects of the windows
interface. This the exact opposite claim they made in Apple vs..
Microsoft. In addition, this requirement seems to expose middleware
manufactorers to potential claims for copyright and trade dress
violations.
Section 3(c)(5) requires that the OEM comply with reasonable
technical specifications established by Microsoft. Has Microsoft
published or otherwise released these technical specifications? What
is to prevent Microsoft from creating specifications that hinder the
operability of another operating system and defend those actions as
reasonable for the functionality as they have historically done to
prevent Non-Microsoft Middleware?
Section 3(e) requires the availability of a communications
protocol to allow interoperability with Windows. This won't be made
available for another nine months after the submission of the
proposed final judgment. Nine months in computer industry is an
eternity. Microsoft has already shown its aggressiveness in this
area. Allowing a nine month ``buffer'' before
communications protocol is made available will give Microsoft
additional time to shore up a monopoly over Middleware. In addition,
the settlement agreement fails to provide the conditions under which
the communications protocol. It is assumed that it will be provided
under a confidentiality agreement. However, Microsoft may institute
more restrictive terms under the guise of security that will render
the availability moot. Indeed, other portions of the Settlement
allow Microsoft to withhold information based on security concerns.
This leaves Microsoft with the ability to restrict communication
protocols to the point that they are useless.
Section 3(h)(3) Allows Microsoft to alter icons, start menus,
etc. of non-Microsoft Middleware providers 14 days after bootup of a
new PC. Most computer users are not technically proficient to
understand the impact of changing the Middleware applications that
lets them browse the
[[Page 27903]]
internet, view pictures, play music, etc. In addition, 14 days may
not be long enough for a new computer user to understand what
middleware is and how it interrelates with what they view, listen
to, etc.
Section 3(h) allows Microsoft to prevent non-Microsoft
Middleware from contacting Microsoft Servers.This section
essentially eliminates the force of the Settlement. Users who
normally use Non-Microsoft Middleware must use Microsoft Middleware
(including web browsers) in order to contact Microsoft for updates,
security patches, or other information from Microsoft. Because of
Microsoft's lackluster security, contacting Microsoft's servers is
almost a weekly event. Users will eventually choose the path of
least resistance because of the need to constantly contact Microsoft
servers. It seems that Microsoft's lack of security can be used to
their advantage. In addition, this section fails to address
Microsoft's .NET strategy (which will likely be defined as outside
the context of general web browsing by Microsoft). This Settlement
should act prospectively to prevent future harm, not retrospectively
to address issues that are already moot.
Section 3(h) Also allows Microsoft to prohibit Middleware that
fails to implement a reasonable technical requirement. This section
allows Microsoft to prohibit any Middleware that it doesn't like.
Meaning, that Microsoft can require the Middleware to use
proprietary Microsoft technology for which is may charge additional
(and perhaps cost prohibitive) fees. This also, has the side affect
of allowing Microsoft to further close competition in the computer
industry by imposing proprietary technology. Section 3(h) allows
Microsoft to refuse to disclose API's or Communications Protocols to
those may compromise the security, anti-virus, anti-piracy, etc.
This term allows Microsoft to refuse to provide API's or
Communications Protocols under the guise of security, functionality,
or rights protection. Again Microsoft could utilize this provision
to refuse to provide Communication Protocols to potential Middleware
competitors using these excuses. Section 3(h) also leaves it up to
Microsoft who may obtain the API's and Communication Protocols. In
addition, Microsoft may test the proposed Middleware for
compatibility. However, there seems to be no procedure and standard
for evaluating what Microsoft can choose to reject and on what
grounds. The vague term ``functionality'' has been used
throughout this Settlement without definition other than that
Microsoft gets to decide what it is. General Comments: Many terms of
the Settlement leave it up the reasonableness and discretion of
Microsoft. This seems foolhardy because the very reason this lawsuit
and proposed Settlement exist is because Microsoft has historically
acted unreasonably and in bad faith against potential competitors.
Therefore, leaving so many decisions to the discretion of Microsoft
with regard to what their competitors may or may not do is (for lack
of a better term) idiotic. In addition, their stall tactics and
unreasonableness in court proceeding indicate they will stretch the
Settlement terms to their logical extremes in order to continue to
operate ``business as usual.''
It seems that the Department of Justice's stance on the
Microsoft case has changed with the changing of Presidential
administrations. The Court of Appeals has ruled Microsoft a
Monopoly, yet the Settlement terms are surprisingly light on
Microsoft and don't address prospective behaviors. It leaves most
important decisions to Microsoft and limits who may enforce the
Settlement to the Department of Justice, whose it under scrutiny
from the industry and political organizations alike. Indeed, a non-
profit Antitrust group may be filing suit because Microsoft and the
Department of Justice failed to disclose all communications
regarding the proposed Settlement. In addition, private organization
are filing suit against Microsoft (e.g. Netscape) because they view
the settlement as ineffectual. While these allegations may or may
not be true, these facts raise suspicions that the term of the
Settlement was politically motivated or improperly obtained by
Microsoft.
Finally, the Settlement contains so many ambiguous terms and
loopholes that additional lawsuits will be inevitable. However, this
Settlement will limit those suits and who can bring them without
addressing the illegal conduct of Microsoft.
Respectfully Submitted,
A. Ryan Puplis, esq.
2246 West Armitage
Chicago, IL 60647
MTC-00026968
From: Jack Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:40 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have worked in the computer industry for many years including
several years where I worked directly with Microsoft software
developers. Microsoft executives have demonstrated multiple times
that nothing less than a breakup of the company will stop them from
breaking the antitrust laws.
Sincerely,
MTC-00026969
From: Ray (038) Roberta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:42pm
Subject: My opinion
Please consider my opinion in the Microsoft matter, attached.
Thank you.
10950 Fury Lane
La Mesa, CA 91941
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft, Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing in response to the outcome of the Microsoft
antitrust suit brought on by the Department of Justice. In my
opinion, the case was without merit. I do not believe Microsoft
infringed on any antitrust laws, either at the state or federal
level. Likewise, I am adamantly opposed to any further legal action
taken against Microsoft. I am, however, delighted to see the issue
laid to rest. In this sense, I am satisfied with the settlement
reached last November, and I hope that it will be enacted both
nationally and eventually in the State of California. As such, I
would appreciate it if you would press Attorney General Lockyer to
become a party to the settlement.
Despite the unwarranted nature of this case, Microsoft has been
willing to incur penalties in the interest of resolving this
dispute. Microsoft has agreed to share information about the
internal workings of the Windows operating system with its
competitors. This disclosure of information will enable competing
software designers to replace their own programs where Microsoft
programs have been. Licensing of Microsoft's Windows system has also
been guaranteed at a constant cost. Thus, computer makers will be
able to receive the popular OS at equal prices across the board.
Thus, the settlement is constructed to give Microsoft competitors
access to formerly protected information.
These compromises are enormous. Yet, I will begrudgingly accept
these terms as long as it ends this relentless persecution of
Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Roberta Wisniewski
MTC-00026970
From: Fern Egurin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am a retired schoolteacher who uses Netscape software, and I
fully support Microsoft in the antitrust case brought against it by
the U.S. Government. I have never been restricted in what type of
software I should use, nor have I been restricted in what type of
computer to use. This case will enhance growth for competitors in
several ways: Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against software
or hardware developers who develop or promote software that competes
with Windows. In addition, Microsoft has agreed to license its
Windows operating system products to the 20 largest computer makers
on identical terms and conditions, including price.
If a general consensus was taken regarding this case, I believe
most would agree that Microsoft's business practices were fair and
above board. People are concerned with two issues when comes to the
IT industry...service and price. Please accept the proposed
settlement so that Microsoft and consumers can put this issue behind
them.
Sincerely,
Fern Egurin
8970 South Hollybrook Boulevard
Pembroke Pines, Florida 33025
MTC-00026971
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
[[Page 27904]]
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Southwick
326 Wauwinet Rd
Barre, MA 01005
MTC-00026972
From: Edward A. Simmons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:45pm
Subject: Please consider this carefully!
Greetings!
I debated this for a long time, before finally deciding to say
something on this subject of Microsoft vs. DoJ. See, I am so
disappointed the DoJ has completely and utterly failed the public it
represents with this ``alleged'' settlement with
Microsoft. As sad as it appears to be, if you have money and a
monopoly you can do whatever you please, buy whomever you want. Here
we have a totally unrepentant Microsoft dictating what the terms of
settlement are. Microsoft needs to be stopped if there will ever be
any claims of justice in our judicial system. Will my letter make a
difference? Will my plea fall on deaf ears? Will my faith be
restored in our justice system? As important as justice is, it
should never be rushed for the sake of convenience of the court. I'm
appalled at the idea that the events of Sept. 11, will even suggest
that this case be expedited. What an absurd idea. I am stunned
speechless this attitude, or the appearance thereof exists in this
current court. Like any American, I am deeply saddened by the 9/11
events and my hearts goes to the families of those affected by it.
Here on the other hand, we have Microsoft enjoying the fruits of
it's monopoly prior to that event, and indeed long after. Think
carefully about what is at stake here.
What actions would I like to see in regard to making things
right again? Start with stopping Microsoft from forcing OEMs to pre
install it's OS on all new computers. If an OEM wants to sell a
Microsoft product, do it separately and fully disclose the costs. As
a consumer, I don't want to pay Microsoft for an OS I don't need or
want. There's something badly wrong in this country when a convicted
monopolist can force OEMs to pre load products, and our judicial
system turn it's head. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Do
not neglect your responsibility to the citizens of this great
nation.
Edward A. Simmons
(937) 321-8266
The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim
too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and
achieving our mark.
MTC-00026973
From: Elaine Kurlander
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:47pm
Subject: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I would like to give you my thoughts on the Microsoft Anti-Trust
case. I have been following the case and am very happy that this
settlement has been reached.
I use Microsoft on a regular basis and am very happy with their
products. I've never been prevented from using other products. I
just haven't wanted to. But as part of the settlement, Microsoft is
allowing other products on their Windows software. They have also
made it easier for other companies to compete with them by handing
over some of their technology secrets. When these companies come up
with products competing with Microsoft, Microsoft has even agreed to
not use ordinary normal business tactics to retaliate in the spirit
of free competition. I hope that the Federal Government can set a
positive example for the states still pursuing this mess.
Please maintain this settlement to help our economy in these
difficult times.
Sincerely,
Elaine Kurlander
3314 Midfield Road
MTC-00026974
From: jjpilger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:50pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
5035 Pine Bark Circle
Atlanta, GA 30338
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I favor the settling of the Microsoft antitrust case. I firmly
believe that this litigation is not in anyone's best interest and
would have not been brought except for the actions of the company's
principle competitors, Sun Microsystems and Oracle Corp.
Who has been harmed? Not the users of personal computers. My
life, for example, has been made much easier because of Microsoft's
products. As to the charges that Microsoft engaged in
anticompetitive behavior, government should expect ferocious fights
among major enemies, stand aside and let the best win. Sadly, when
the competition couldn't win in the marketplace, they took to the
political arena. And a search will reveal that Mr. Scott McNealy and
Mr. Larry Ellison are no strangers to practices that they condemn in
others. The pot calling the kettle black, if you will.
Both of the above men would better serve their respective
companies and the American public at large, were they to devote
their full time and energy into improving their products rather than
lying awake dreaming up new diatribes against their more successful
competitor, Microsoft.
In closing, please note that I am not a shareholder in any of
the above firms. I ask, please conclude this needless prosecution.
Sincerely,
(signed)
John J. Pilger
(770)391-0842
MTC-00026975
From: ??
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The original settlement between Microsoft and the government in
November of 2001 was one in which Microsoft decided to give the
government a certain amount of money, agreeing to change some of the
ways the company runs. Microsoft was convicted by the government of
breaking antitrust laws. Some states are still against Microsoft
being a monopoly. There is a question of whether or not Microsoft
really is a monopoly. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 prohibited
what Microsoft is said to be doing now, which is being a monopoly.
I believe that Microsoft really is abusing its power. They have
provided every Microsoft computer with Internet Explorer, which
really is being too competitive. I believe that the government
should not have allowed Microsoft to make a settlement because now
we see how competitive Microsoft really is. In November of 2001, the
government should have sued Netscape to the full extent. The
settlement offered by the government was wrong I believe because it
let Microsoft off the hook too easily.
Netscape was right to have sued Microsoft otherwise this case
with Microsoft would have never ended. Netscape was bought by AOL
Time Warner, another company that has been in controversy with
Microsoft, in 1999.
The Sherman Antitrust Act prohibited exactly what Microsoft is
doing now. It said that there should be no more monopolies. The
question is however: is Microsoft really a monopoly? Also,
monopolies began at the start of Industrial America after the Civil
War. John D. Rockefeller said that one of the disadvantages of
monopolies is that ``...the power conferred by combination may
be abused...'' (John D. Rockefeller on Industrial Combinations.
From U.S. Industrial Commission. From Preliminary Report on Trusts
and Industrial Combinations. 1st Session of 56th Congress. (Dec. 30,
1899). This was a quote from a commission-like interview.]
From:
Irine Tyutereva
8th Grade--The Harker School in San Jose, CA
MTC-00026976
From: David Pihl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
For years, I have observed Microsoft from the perspective of an
industry insider, and a
[[Page 27905]]
consumer. Mr. Gates is often credited with the very notion that
software should be a protected intellectual property. Yet Microsoft
has consistently violated the intellectual properties of others,
such as the developers of Stacker.
Whatever technicalities have allowed Microsoft to steal key
elements of the Macintosh operating system, Netscape, DOS, etc., it
is clear that they never intended for the rules to apply to them.
If it were up to me, I would order many of Microsoft's existing
intellectual properties (copyrights, patents, trademarks,
sourcecode, etc.) into the public domain. This would not prevent
them from developing new, innovative technologies which they can
patent, copyright, or protect in other ways.
This would also not dissalow Microsoft from selling the products
they presently manufacture, as in the case of Caldera, or of Red Hat
Linux. Anyway, it's something to think about.
MTC-00026977
From: Edward B. Riggio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: US DOJ
It is time to finalize the Microsoft Settlement.
Lets not prolong this expensive Microsoft settlement any
further. The actions agreed to by Microsoft, Justice Department and
nine states including New York where I live, are fair and good for
consumers.
AOL is trying to gain a competitive edge by delaying the
settlement. They have no case. We need to get on with strengthening
the economy and one way to do this is to finalize the Microsoft
Settlement by February 1, 2002.
Respectively,
Ed Riggio
Woodstock, NY 12498
MTC-00026978
From: Mary Brislawn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:52pm
Subject: Letter Please read attachment. Thank You
1108 Z Street
Vancouver, WA 98661
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 17, 2002
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
The intention of this letter is to give my support to the
settlement that was reached between Microsoft and the Department of
Justice last November. The antitrust suit went on for over three
years and cost the Microsoft Corporation and the government millions
upon millions of dollars.
Microsoft has been a major benefit to the economies of
Washington and the United States. It has created a huge number of
jobs, and has made our IT industry the world's gold standard. There
are terms in the settlement that go beyond what was at issue in the
lawsuit, especially the terms that makes Microsoft develop Windows
differently in the future. It will be designed to make it easier for
competitors and consumers to remove various facets of the operating
system.
At the conclusion of this comment period, I hope you will give
your approval to the settlement in the Microsoft case.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mary Brislawn
MTC-00026979
From: John Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My name is John Thomas, and I am an 18-year-old American citizen
residing in North Carolina. Having reached the milestone year, I
think I've finally earned the right to voice my opinion and have it
matter.
Regarding the antitrust situation with Microsoft corporation, I
think that the government is taking the wrong tack. To the average
American consumer (a category into which I place myself), it would
appear that our government is making him into a helpless victim, one
who cannot even choose correctly the software for his computer that
would be most beneficial to his work or pleasure. Perhaps I'm
completely wrong, but it just seems to me that the government
doesn't have the right to decide what can be in my computer or not.
After all, I built it. I paid for the components and screwed them
together. I paid Microsoft $99 for the upgrade to Windows 98 and I
use it for hours per day. At my job at a therapy clinic, I benefit
from Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and Microsoft Word's easy-to-use
word processing software.
This case would seem to be a gross miscalculation on the
government's part. If I could point your attentions to the fact that
the antitrust complaint originated with some of Microsoft's more
unsuccessful partners, realize that this wasn't a cry from the
people, or from the people Microsoft partners... this was an attempt
to lash back at the successful company by its competitors left in
the dust. It seems completely illogical and unjust to allow the men
whose businesses failed in this particular market to set the
regulations for those who have not, like Microsoft corporation. One
question weighing most heavily on my mind is, how can a successful
business AND its useful products be a threat to anyone? After all,
if one doesn't like Microsoft's products, one doesn't have to use
them. I am, after all, also an avid Linux user. If I so chose I
could stop using all Microsoft products permanently. However, I
choose not to because they are useful, easy to use, and most
efficiently get my daily tasks taken care of. I don't see a threat
here. I see a businessman, Bill Gates, helping the world to run more
smoothly and efficiently, as well as making himself quite a living
in the process.
Speaking of Bill Gates, I grew up as a teenager hearing about
his rise to one of the richest men in the world. This case would
seem to suggest that those who are successful are put on a leash,
with a choke chain attached. I've noticed this with the income tax
as well. Sitting as I am in the lowest tax bracket and thus paying
the least percentage of my income, I still find it unjust that those
who are more successful than I, must pay a greater percentage of
their income. Correct me if I'm wrong, but growing up I'd always
thought that America was supposed to be free. I want that free
America--an America where I, with my considerable intelligence
and a liberal dose of plain old hard work, could maybe BE the next
Bill Gates.
But why would I WANT a successful business? This case seems to
demonstrate the truth of the maxim that if my business fails, I can
bring down my successful competitors out of spite. How dare they
rise above me. How dare they be successful where I was not. How dare
they offer a superior product, and charge what it's worth. How dare
they take advantage of a free market.
A free market. Isn't that what we're supposed to have here in
America? At the very least, that's what they've been teaching me in
these public schools from which I so recently graduated. It would
seem to me that in a free market such as the one we have in this
wonderful country, that Microsoft corporation-- just the same
as myself--has a fundamental right to its property. Correct
this high-school graduate if I'm wrong, but I think the government
is supposed to protect the rights of all citizens to their life,
liberty, and property. It looks to me like we're robbing Bill Gates
of his life, because we're taking his business... and his liberty,
because we're shackling him and his freedom to run his business as
he sees fit... and his property, in the form of this unjust and
illogical antitrust case.
Thank you for your time in listening to my voice. It is, after
all, 1/270,000,000th of this country.
John J. Thomas
CC:[email protected]@inetgw,jkaxiom3
@aol.com@...
MTC-00026981
From: Anastas Pazevic
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I urge you to quickly ratify the Microsoft settlement. Further
lawsuits by various states will only benefit lawyers and foreign
competitors who would be the 0nly benefactors in the demise of our
wounded economy. We need strong, competitive and innovative
Microsoft Corporation. We, the retired, are most grateful to
Microsoft and its contributions to America and we wish this witch
hunt to stop. Thank you for considering.
Anastas J Pazevic
Anastas Pazevic
[email protected]
EarthLink: It's your Internet.
MTC-00026982
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:53pm
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.
[[Page 27906]]
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,
Linda Rivera
12270 SW Center St. #114
Beaverton, OR 97005
MTC-00026983
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:55pm
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,
Shirley Bates
1906 Leavenworth
San Francisco, CA 94133
MTC-00026984
From: Patrick Fleming
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice,
Regarding the proposed settlement of the current Microsoft
antitrust suit I believe that the penalties proposed are too light
and will force the government into further court cases with
Microsoft in the future. When choice is taken away from the
consumer, as in this case, we are harmed. As the past behavior of
Microsoft shows, they are not interested in the consumer, only in
increased or maintained market share. In 1994, Microsoft moved to
shut Netscape out of the browser market- not through increased
performance and enhanced abilities, but rather through restrictive
licensing practices forcing OEMs into installing only Internet
Explorer on Windows operating systems installed by the OEMs. Today,
on Microsoft's own website it is declared, ``Windows 2000
Professional is designed to make it easier for organizations to
embrace the Internet. The built-in Internet Explorer (IE), a tightly
integrated browser, provides users with a faster and richer Internet
experience. With support for Dynamic HTML (DHTML) and Extensible
Markup Language (XML), it offers a powerful platform for developers
to create highly scalable end-to-end e-commerce and line-of-business
web applications.'' This appears to be in clear violation of
past consent decrees regarding Windows and the Internet Explorer
software. They have expanded the hold on the browser market by
implemented unwritten, undocumented, protocols and extensions into
Front Page that did not, and still do not, display correctly using
any browser except Internet Explorer forcing web surfers to use IE
when viewing pages written using Front Page. The resulting
statistics gathered by web site owners and operators shows a decided
advantage to IE and leads to reduced standards coding and towards IE
specific coding- a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more IE specific
the coding the higher the percentage of users will use IE to view
the page driving the statistics higher still on IE causing
programmers to believe (if they only look at their own stats) that
IE is the predominate browser. MS account executives are able to
convince technology purchasers that the only web server viable is
the current offering of Windows 2000 running Internet Information
Server 5.0 since statistics show IE as the highest used browser and
W2k/IIS5 as the only server capable of using the proprietary
extensions of all those IE browser users. Eventually this circular
logic begins to lock in the browser and then the server market,
standards fall by the wayside, and users of other browsers find that
they are unable to view a larger and larger percentage of web sites
without using the operating systems and browsers provided by MS.
It is no great leap to imagine that Microsoft will not follow
the latest settlement as written (even though it is not very harmful
to Microsoft as written) and will continue to move forward
``embracing and extending'' until the operating system
encompasses every conceivable function driving out not only
potential competing operating systems, but all software
manufacturers as well.
Just as we would not want to have a single company supplying our
automobiles, computers (without the operating system installed),
gasoline, steel, electricity, telephone access, tires (suppose only
Firestone tires were available?) we should not want a single company
controlling our computers, which web sites we can view, and which
software we can use. Allowing Microsoft to maintain their monopoly
in the manner prescribed can only worsen the state of computer
security, preclude choice to the end user and reduce the overall
quality of available products. The originally penalties imposed by
Judge Jackson should be reinstated. Microsoft needs to be forced to
compete on an even level with Netscape. It should be forced to open
all of its APIs to the programing community at large so that all
products can inter operate equally with the operating system. Only
by having real solutions rather than a slap on the wrist as imposed
by this agreement can we be assured that Microsoft is competing
fairly, rather than shutting out competitors by hiding parts of its
functionality within the APIs. Already MS has integrated the browser
into its operating system. When a real threat of an office suite of
products emerges will they then integrate MS Office into the
operating system as well? The only real solution is to break MS up
into the three distinct companies that Judge Jackson proposed
forcing equal competition. Oversight of the settlement needs to
continue for longer than the five (or seven) years proposed as well.
Would the Justice Department have agreed that AT&T not be forced
to break up or that they would only be restricted to five years of
oversight? I believe not.
Microsoft has been charged with, and found guilty of, seriously
damaging customer choice, forcing artificially high prices,
suppression of competition and blatantly ignoring their previous
consent decree. The punishment should fit the crime.
Patrick Fleming,
Consumer
MTC-00026985
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 4:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel that the proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea.
This settlement is a mere slap on the wrist and will not prevent
Microsoft from continuing the break the law in the future.
MTC-00026986
From: Adrian P. Sinnott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to voice a complaint against the proposed Microsoft
settlement.
Microsoft has bullied there way through the computer market and
now truly has everyone by the short hairs. After reviewing the
current settlement, I find it woefully inadequate.
Regards,
Adrian P. Sinnott
MTC-00026987
From: Jack Lloyd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I belive the PFJ is insufficient to prevent future monopolistic
actions on the part of Microsoft. Of greatest concern for me is
Microsoft's use of frivoulous patents and/or abuse of the copyright
system to prevent reverse engineering to allow for interoperable
products. I feel this is a certral issue with the problem which
should be better dealt with.
Sincerely,
Jack Lloyd
Johns Hopkins University
MTC-00026988
From: Salzberg, Steven L.
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/27/02 5:05pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Dept of Justice:
I think the proposed settlement with Microsoft is bad for the
country, bad for the
[[Page 27907]]
computing industry, and bad for business worldwide.
I have been watching Microsoft grow since its founding when I
was a computer science Ph.D. student, and I can honestly say that I
do not know of a single major innovation they have introduced. Their
claim that they just want to be free to innovate is nonsense. Their
strategy is to copy what works and then use their monopoly to
destroy the competition. What we end up with is inferior products
with no choice. It's really unfortunate. Breaking up the company is
the obvious and best choice for solving the problem: the operating
system needs to be sold by a completely separate unit. Only then
might we have a hope of seeing some true competition.
I urge the DoJ to reject this settlement.
Steven Salzberg
Steven Salzberg, Ph.D. Email: [email protected]
Senior Director of Bioinformatics http://www.tigr.org/salzberg
The Institute for Genomic Research Ph: (301)315-2537 Fax:
(301)838-0208
9712 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20850
Research Professor, Dept. of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins
University,
Baltimore, MD 21218
MTC-00026989
From: Anthony Mirvish
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear sir,
I am writing in connection with the proposed settlement of the
Microsoft anti-trust case and to voice my support for the complete
vindication of Microsoft and its policies. In reaching your final
decision on the disposition of this case I would encourage you to
consider the following points.
a.. The anti-trust laws are based on a fundamentally false and
reasonable view of so-called ``perfect'' competition.
b.. Under this view, companies that actually attempt to change
market conditions i.e. to compete, can be charged with anti-
competitive measures.
c.. Competition is dynamic; no particular configuration in the
market at any one time is fixed. If some new product that made
personal computers obsolete were developed, Microsoft would not be
able to give its products away. If it anticipated such a
development, it would have every right to them.
d.. Companies can be prosecuted for raising prices, lowering
prices, holding prices firm, entering into agreements with other
companies, and for improving the efficiency and quality of their
products (as in US versus Alcoa).
e.. This creates arbitrary and essentially ex post facto laws,
preventing companies from knowing in advance when or if particular
measures will cause them to violate the anti-trust laws.
f.. It is unjust to attempt to apply laws whose basic concepts
are unreasonable, whose application is arbitrary, and which (if
viewed as ex post facto laws) unconstitutional.
g.. The historical basis for the anti-trust laws is false.
h.. Even the great so-called monopoly cases of the early 20th
century (esp Standard Oil) misrepresented the operations of the
market.
i.. In most cases, asymmetrical competition and the effect of
different products have been ignored.
j.. In Standard Oil, the enormous financial gains of entering
the oil market had already brought Standard's share down to 60% (and
dropping) at the time it was broken up.
k.. An industry consisting of a few companies, making marginal
changes in price and market share, is not an example of competition.
l.. True competition and innovation (which Microsoft is alleged
to have stifled), involve the development of different products, not
complaints about being unable to offer a similar but inferior
product (which is what Microsoft's competitors desire).
m.. Microsoft has made an enormous investment in developing good
quality products.
n.. There are several other operating systems and browsers on
the market. No one is prevented from using them. Bill Gates did not
stop Linux from developing.
o.. In areas where Microsoft's products are less than perfect
(for example, I prefer WordPerfect to Word), choosing competitor's
products produces no ill-effect. If I tried to not pay taxes for a
year, the effect would be different. This is the difference between
true coercion and having to make a choice in the market.
p.. More than 95% of all anti-trust cases are brought by
competitors of the company being sued.
q.. Anti-trust encourages political/judicial resolution of
market competition. PACS and donations to political from technology
companies have skyrocketed since this case was brought.
r.. One may disagree with Microsoft's concept of bundling its
products with its operating system, but it is a perfectly reasonable
and innovative concept of how software should operate. It is
distinct from that offered by Microsoft's competitors.
s.. None of Microsoft's competitors have behaved as if they
really want to compete i.e. by developing superior or fundamentally
different and innovative products and then marketting them.
t.. None of Microsoft's competitors have been willing to accept
the voluntary decision of millions of satisfied customers, all of
whom have accepted and seen merit in Microsoft's products (and in
its concept of bundling them with an operating system).
u.. It is wrong to force individuals to subsidize or support the
products of companies that they have already rejected.
v.. Individuals (and by extension companies) have a right to
their own property. This means that they have a right to determine
the terms on which those products are developed or sold.
w.. The right to own property means the right to use and dispose
of it--this involves the right to make contracts, and contracts
are inherently exclusionary in that they are between a finite number
of parties.
x.. If wealthy private individuals like Mr. Gates do not have a
right to their own property, which they have built-up and earned
lawfully, or to hold it only by political sufferance, then none of
us ultimately have a right to our own property.
y.. No one is supposed to lose their rights just because they
are rich and successful. No part of our constitution says otherwise.
It speaks of equal protection for all.
z.. No one has a right to another person's property, person,
time or good opinion. aa.. There is no such thing as a right to a
particular market share other than the one that one has earned.
ab.. There is no such thing as a right to immunity from failure
or from the effects of poor business decisions (or to the
consquences of superior decisions made by others).
ac.. There is no such thing as a right to a given product, at a
given price, at a given time. Consumers have only four honest
choices in a market: buy what is offered on the terms set by the
seller, do without the product, purchase another product (if
available), persuade the seller to change his terms (perhaps by
using less). There is also the option of developing a competing
product. Microsoft's ``competitors'' have been unwilling
to truly do the latter and refuse to accept the judgement of
millions of satisfied customers.
ad.. Microsoft's ``competitors'' should not be allowed
to profit through the courts when they have failed in the
marketplace.
Sincerely,
Anthony Mirvish
CC:[email protected]@inetgw,letters@capitalis..
MTC-00026990
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:07pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
Folks at DOJ
Please leave the proposed settlement as is. It's fair to all
concerned, including senior consumers. It's time to move on.
R. Waddington
5207 Acorn Drive
Camp Springs, MD 20748
MTC-00026991
From: Bill Dennis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lawmakers:
I hope that you will reject the Tunney Act settlement in the
United States vs. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. I believe that this
settlement will only cement Micosoft's stranglehold on PC
development by creating a new generation of children who are taught
to believe that a computer always runs Microsoft Windows. They will
just grow up believing in whatever their teachers show them on
Microsoft powered PC computers.
Thanks,
Bill Dennis
904-268-3359
[email protected]
www.jacksonville.net/billden
[[Page 27908]]
MTC-00026992
From: Stuart H Van Dyke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:11pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
This case has gone on long enough. A reasonable settlement has
been reached, and the action should not be prolonged to benefit some
of the competitors. Let's get on with our business.
MTC-00026993
From: John Fusek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlemen
Gentlemen;
I am against the proposed Settlement with Microsoft. As an
independent consultant in Linux I feel that the settlement would
have an adverse effect on the open source community.
I also support Steve Satchell as one of the members of the
comittee to enforce the terms.
John Fusek
[email protected]
MTC-00026994
From: Brad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wish to say my opinion about the settlement by claiming it's
not enough to stop the Microsoft monopoly which would continue for
many more years if this agreement is approved.
Brad Petrik
MTC-00026995
From: Mr David Sundqvist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice,
The damage that Microsoft has caused the computer industry is
immense. They have, time after time, showed that they will tolerate
no competition, and that they are willing to take any measures,
legal or not, to crush any apparent competition. Their definition of
competition is virtually anyone who makes any significant profit in
a segment where they are active.
The result of this is that today, it is virtually impossible to
create new consumer software for the PC market. You will not make
any profit from it, because if you make a successful product your
best bet is to get bought by Microsoft and maybe regain what you
spent on development. The alternative is that they copy the product
and ``integrate'' it in Windows (also known as dumping)
and kill off your buisness. An industry where your only place is to
be a risk taker for a monopoly is not a healthy industry. They are
on their way to do the same thing with the server market. This time
leveraging the desktop monopoly, making sure that the deals for the
desktop becomes painful if companies do not buy the server products.
The remedy in the settlement is not enough. It is not a
significant deterrent to prevent further illegal practices, nor does
it adress the structural damage to the industry that their practices
have resulted in. The courts and the department of justice must not
allow lawbreakers to profit from their illegal actions and sneer at
the legal system in the way that Microsoft has done.
Please make sure that crime does not pay. This settlement does
not do that, because the ``pay'' for this crime ranges in
the hundreds of billions of dollars, and unless stronger remedies
are used the illegal practices will continue.
Best regards,
David Sundqvist
Pia Roennqvist
MTC-00026996
From: Shawn MacDougall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
It is the belief of many in the education and technology fields
that the proposed antitrust settlement with Microsoft Corporation is
not in the best interests of the American people. It does not
protect against future abuses and in fact encourages the spread of
the Microsoft software monopoly by proliferating the use of their
operating system and attendant application programs to the exclusion
of very viable software alternatives. Students in American public
schools can only learn to use computers, an essential skill for the
coming generation, on the products provided to them.
The Northern Territories school district in Australia, with a
population of just over 200,000, finds that it saved $1,000,000 in
the first year alone by using Linux alongside Microsoft products to
provide computer education at all grade levels. This was enough to
allow the school district to purchase an additional 1,000 computers
for distribution in the schools and as loaner units for students
(and their parents) to use at home. In a few short years their
children will be competing, very effectively, on the worldwide
intellectual marketplace against American children whose access to
hardware was hampered by the prohibitive cost imposed by the
practice of using Microsoft products all but exclusively in the
public schools. The Australian experience could have been
dramatically more productive had they used Linux as the operating
system on all their computers but it was a good initial step.
The present savings represent its use in their servers only.
http://opensourceschools.org/article.php'story=20011207001012102 In
Brazil, Rio Grande do Sul's state university has saved about
$500,000 using a free alternative to software running with
Microsoft's proprietory database system. Using the free, open source
database called SAGU, the school and 5 branch campuses manage
matriculation, grading, scheduling and several other administrative
functions. The student computer labs have also saved thousands of
dollars using Linux as a replacement for Microsoft Windows.
Relicensing fees have dropped dramatically in the three years since
switching over to Linux totalling a savings of around $20 million.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2001/
tc20011025--8523.htm
Microsoft should pay its fine in hardware donations only. Red
Hat Software of Research Triangle Park, NC, (near Durham, NC) has
offered to provide pro-bono copies of the Linux operating system
corresponding to a Microsoft donation of hardware. Any donation of
software that Microsoft might choose to make would not be included
in the proposed settlement but must also be a pro-bono gesture
corresponding to the Red Hat Software offer. Moreover, any copies of
software Microsoft might donate should require no payment of any
sort by the schools at any forward point in time. It must be a true
donation of indefinite duration, just as the Red Hat offer is.
Otherwise, if required to pay, the schools would eventually have to
abandon their training programs for lack of funds to re-license /
upgrade their software. http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/011120/
202744--1.html
While Microsoft Corporation should not be excluded from
expressing generosity, such generosity, expressed as software gifts,
only furthers their ability to monopolize the marketplace and should
not be permitted as a part of the penalty for having followed
illegal practices in the establishment of their dominance in the
software market.
Microsoft has painted itself the champion of choice and freewill
while villifying open-source software as being un-American. It is
time for their actions, public and private, to match their very
public words.
Software donations should be no part of the proposed settlement.
Shawn MacDougall 1331 Terry Ave #705 Seattle, WA 98101
206.652.1492
MTC-00026997
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to add my voice to the thousands of others who are
ready to let Microsoft get back to work. The terms of the proposed
settlement seem fair to all parties and best of all, would put an
end to this destructive legal hassel. I am an average American
working for a living. I use Microsoft products every day and am
grateful to the company for all they have done to make our lives
better. As owner of a small amount of Microsoft stock, it is hard to
see that any good for anyone can come from further legal attacks on
Microsoft. Enough is enough.
Bonnie F. Wood
Provident Mutual Life Insurance Company
B3S
[email protected]
610-407-1462
fax 302-452-7264
MTC-00026998
From: John Fusek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 27909]]
To whom it may concern:
I am against the settlement as it currently stands.
John Fusek
MTC-00026999
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:19pm
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,
maria Belcea
11 Carter Brook Lane
Princeton, NJ 08540
MTC-00027000
From: Dylan Thurston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I urge you not to accept the proposed final judgement in United
States v. Microsoft Corp., Civil No. 98-1232. The proposal is
flawed in many ways, as detailed by Dan Kegel , who I largely agree with. Let
me focus on one particular issue which is not covered by his letter:
the terms under which Communications Protocols and other APIs are to
be released.
Section III.E of the PFJ provides for the release of
Communications Protocols under ``reasonable and non-
discriminatory terms''. Similar terms are described in other
sections. Such terms exclude an extremely important class of
software: free software. Users of free software have the liberty to
``run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the
software'' .
Documentation released under reasonable and non-discriminatory
(RAND) terms is not useful for free software producers: typical RAND
terms prohibit public disclosure of the information, but free
software is, by definition, distributed with its source.
Lest you think that free software is unimportant, let me note
that the protocols at the heart of the Internet and the
WWW--including the TCP/IP protocol for routing information, the
DNS protocol for distributing domain names, the SMTP protocol for
sending e-mail, and the HTTP protocol behind Web pages--were
produced using free software and are commonly implemented using free
software. For instance, in the domain of Web servers, Apache (a free
software project) is in active, direct competition with Microsoft's
Internet Information Server. More generally, the GNU/Linux operating
system, a free software system, figured promninently in the original
trial as an alternative to Microsoft Windows.
The PFJ does nothing to help a large class of competitors to
Microsoft: free software projects. Please do not accept it in its
current form.
Sincerely Yours,
Dr. Dylan Paul Thurston
Research Fellow
Harvard University
Chung-chieh Shan
Research Assistant
Harvard University
CC:Ken Shan
MTC-00027002
From: Dave Powers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
There is no good reason NOT to break up Microsoft.
Dave Powers
MTC-00027003
From: John Fusek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I am against the settlement as it does not provide adequate
protection for the Open Source movement.
John Fusek
MTC-00027004
From: Damien Barrett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:30pm
Subject: Microsoft
As pointed out by Dan Gillmore, Microsoft has clearly violated
parts of the Tunney Act.
Not to mention they've been openly and arrogantly abusing their
monopoly power in the desktop market for years.
It's time for the U.S. Government stepped in and forced
Microsoft to play fair. I'm getting tired of paying outrageous
prices for Microsoft's not-so-great software. Were competition
introduced back into the market (were MS to play fair), I'm certain
us IT admins wouldn't have to constantly deal with the almost daily
vulnerabilities in MS software.
Make Microsoft play fair. Break them up. I don't care as long as
the industry continues to improve. With MS in the lead and stifling
the innovation of hundreds of technology companies, it's doing
little but stagnating.
I wanted to go on record with my viewpoint. I'm hoping that the
USDJ gets enough emails to finally take notice of Microsoft's abuses
of power and does something to stop this juggernaut of
irresponsibility from extending into other markets.
Damien Barrett
MTC-00027005
From: Eloise Knapp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:32pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT:
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I would like to take this opportunity to discuss my feelings
regarding the antitrust settlement that has been reached between the
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I feel that the settlement
is more than fair and the matter needs to be wrapped up as soon as
possible. Microsoft has even agreed to terms that extend past what
was originally in the suit. The damage that has done to the IT
industry and the economy is not worth what will come out of
continuing ligations.
Microsoft generosity in our area alone (Washington State) is
greatly appreciated and much needed. Cut backs with Boeing and the
ENRON business--is cutting into small business--having
dealt with Enron. This is only the tip of the ice berg in our state.
It is now very important, people in this state ban together, to try
and keep our economy a-float.
Microsoft support--money and computer supplies--is
very important to the area's- areas that otherwise wouldn't have the
opportunity to experience the likes of, because lack of state money
to support education
- mainly due to the location and size of the county the schools are
located in. What I have read and heard
- these are the counties Microsoft seems to reach out to,
generously. Not to mention Microsof't generosity overseas.
From what I see--the terms of the settlement are fair; they
will benefit the consumer and other companies. Microsoft has agreed
to document and disclose for use by its competitors various
inerfaces that are internal Windows'' operation system
products-a first in an antitrust case. MICROSOFT HAS ALSO AGREED TO
LICENSE ITS WINDOWS OPERATING SYSTEM PRODUCTS TO THE TWENTY LARGEST
COMPUTER MAKERS ON IDENTICAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
Please encourage the Justice Department to put and end to all of
this. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to express my views.
Sincerely,
Eloise Knapp
13730 15th Ave NE
B201
Seattle, Washington 98125
MTC-00027007
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:30pm
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
[[Page 27910]]
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,
James Hall
POB 6733
Marietta, GA 30065
MTC-00027013
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:34pm
Subject: Competitors actions
Let's face it, the technology that we are enjoying today would
be so disorganized and costly that it would be impossible for the
majority to have it available. Microsoft has had the foresight and
the where with all to make it work. I can't imagine what it would be
like if we had even as few as 5 operating systems to choose from.
Every program company would have to develop 5 different programs
instead of just one.
We need standards that every vender can work with. Microsoft has
established those standards.
The competitors are just wasting the taxpayers money in their
pursuit of Microsoft.
If you want to go after monopolies, how about the security
industry? Just about every one of the manufacturers of mechanical
security devices is, at present owned by two foreign companies. They
have even absorbed the trade journals. Most of the manufacturers
that have been absorbed date back to the industrial revolution.
Roy W. Nicholas CML
2731 Lynn St.
Bellingham, WA 98225
MTC-00027014
From: Dr. Stephen J. Kennedy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
There is nothing that has done more harm to innovation in
computer software than Microsoft.
Microsoft is largely an ``anti-innovation'' company.
The development of the company is, is for the most part, based on
ruthless, unethical, and probably illegal business practices. The
result is that the computer software landscape is now largely the
``dead zone''. Would you like to use a word processor?
Sure, no problem, as long as it is MS Word. I still recall how
appalled I was the first time I noted the National Science
Foundation (the primary federal funding agency for basic research in
the physical sciences) was requiring grant applications in WORD! The
product of a private company. It was as if giving Microsoft money
was an unavoidable tax levied on anyone who wanted to be a citizen
of this country. There was a time, which I can well recall, when
there was a wide choice of word processing software, both on the DOS
(later Windows) and Macintosh side.
Is this because of the inherent superiority of Word? That is
laughable. Word has it's adherents but in my opinion is far down the
list of good design. After the monopoly was established we entered
into the endless cycle of useless upgrades, cleverly insinuated by
Microsofts purposeful file incompatibilities.
Another unavoidable tax levied by an entity that is now as
powerful (or apparently more powerful) than the federal government
elected to represent us all. Other areas, followed the same pattern.
The proposed settlement is an obscene joke and apparently we
will have to kill the smothering influence of Microsoft in some
other way. I am absolutely opposed to the settlement as described in
the press.
Regards,
Stephen J. Kennedy
MTC-00027015
From: Michael Wittman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a software engineer with 11 years experience developing
software for Microsoft Windows and other operating systems, I'd like
to comment on the Proposed Final Judgement in United States vs.
Microsoft. I belive that the proposed settlement is not in the
public interest. In fact, it is so seriously flawed and full of
loopholes that it would allow Microsoft to continue its
anticompetitive business practices virtually unchanged. Even worse,
these practices would then have the imprimatur of the United States
government, resulting in even less competition in the market for
operating systems. Many significant loopholes in the proposed
settlement are evident in the definitions of various terms. It is
troubling to note that several definitions adopted in the Findings
of Fact have been watered down to the benefit of Microsoft. For
example, ``API'' is defined in the proposed setttlement to
mean interfaces between Microsoft Middleware and Microsoft Windows.
However, the same term is defined in the Findings of Fact as the
interfaces between application programs and the operating system.
Curiously, the latter definition is the one actually used in
industry, while the former is the one proposed by the government and
Microsoft.
While this difference in definition may seem trivial to
layperson, its inclusion would have a very serious effect on the
ability to interoperate with software produced by Microsoft. It
could permit Microsoft to restrict the release of information needed
to use fundamental operating system functions such as application
installation, which would make it difficult for parties not favored
by Microsoft to compete with its operating system. Another troubling
aspect of the settlement also relates to APIs and is detailed in
section III. J. 1. It describes exceptions to the required release
of API information which would effectively give Microsoft carte
blanche to make any APIs it disclosed unusable to competitors. It
could do this by integrating encryption or security functionality
with any API, even if that functionality was purely superfluous to
the main purpose of the API. By integrating this functionality in
such a way that it had to be used in order to make use of the
remaining parts of the API, the entire API could be made unusable to
competitors.
For these reasons and many others, I strongly believe that the
proposed settlement is not in the public interest and should be
rejected by the court.
Sincererely,
Michael Wittman
MTC-00027016
From: Lord J.A.Cummings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
To spare you the time of reading again many of the same strong
opinions given by others outraged by Microsoft's End User License
Agreement, I shall be voicing my opinion by joining those masses in
number, in requesting that you please reconsider the leniency
against Microsoft in the proposed Antitrust settlement.
Thank you,
Lord J.A.Cummings
MTC-00027017
From: Chris Rotella
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. Why are they getting off
with a slap on the wrist? They deserve to be split, completely
separating the Applications and OS divisions. Internet Explorer must
be removed from the OS. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. The
cost of their monopoly grows each day. How much money has been lost
because of the security holes in their products? The number is in
the billions.
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. However, they still
continue to leverage their monopoly power so as to control other
areas. Witness the bundling of software with Windows XP. Out of the
box, Windows XP cannot rip CDs to MP3s. It can however, rip CDs to
Microsoft's propriety WMA format. Microsoft is a convicted
monopolist. They should be punished as one.
Thank you,
Chris Rotella
Math major
Carnegie Mellon University
MTC-00027018
From: Gary Lindgren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Judge Collen Kollar-Kotelly:
From my understanding, the Tunney Act requires full disclosure
of all government contacts. Most of the attention has been that
Microsoft has been not disclosed all of the lobbying that they have
done. But does the Tunney Act also require full disclosure by the
supporters of this suit against Microsoft. I am referring to Apple,
Sun Microsystems, and Oracle Corp. I believe that these
[[Page 27911]]
companies must also disclose all contacts they have had regarding
Microsoft. I know that several times, President Clinton stayed at
Steve Jobs home while visiting the Bay Area. I'm sure Microsoft came
came up as a topic at supper time. Please look into this.
Thank you,
Gary Lindgren
585 Lincoln Ave
Palo Alto CA 94301
650-594-3846
MTC-00027019
From: Shabana Insaf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:42pm
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 have been a highly satisfied customer of Microsoft products
for a decade. I prefer to use the microsoft internet explorer over
the Netscape browser, since it is linked to many programs and
therefore is very convinient to use. It is beyond my imagination
that offering such convinience to customers is unlawful in a country
such as America which stands for freedom. It is time we re-examined
the anti-trust law structure which allows unsuccessful businesses to
force the market down so they can compete. This is not in accordance
with the fundamental principles of capitalism. As a consumer, I am
appalled that a company that offers it's browser for free is being
harrassed because another company wishes to compete by charging for
their browser. As a taxpayer, I lose from both sides since my tax
money is being used to destroy a company that has served the people
of America with its ingenuity and courage. I hope that the
department of justice will not commit this act of injustice directed
towards microsoft and ultimately towards all the people of America.
Sincerely,
Shabana Insaf
Shabana Insaf
Senior Research Scientist I
Wyeth Ayerst Research
Department of Infectious Diseases Research
Building 222, Room 3149
401 N Middletown Road
Pearl River, NY 10965
Phone: 845-732-2241
Fax: 845-732-5561
E mail: [email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw,activism@mor...
MTC-00027020
From: Jack Benner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I believe the proposed settlement is bad idea because
Microsoft's domination of the current OS, applications and internet
browsers markets is dangerous. Only one microprocessor family is
supported. Our infrastructure in the USA is dependent on Microsoft
making the Windows OS secure which they have been unable to do even
with their latest Windows XP. Make Microsoft share information so
that all developers can compete on an equal footing. Make Microsoft
enable cross platform sharing of information. Apple, Unix, Linux and
any other OS should be able to be good clients and servers in a
Microsoft network or Intra/Internet. Finally a provision
establishing such serious consequences for non-compliance that
Microsoft will not attempt to evade the necessary disclosure
requirements and other mandates.
Thank you,
Jack S. Benner II, PhD
[email protected]
MTC-00027021
From: Pat Russell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to close this issue, accepting the settlement
proposed. Competitors should not be given the opportunity to force
the issue to remain in costly litigation.
Patricia Russell
MTC-00027022
From: mayer ilovitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It
has been converted to attachment.]
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
US Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Under The Tunney Act, I would like to add some comments on the
proposed Microsoft settlement.
By this point, you will have received many letters from those
who have presented the flaws of the proposed settlement in far more
detail and far more eloquently than I could at this late date.
However, I feel compelled to to reiterate some of their points. -
The very history of this proposed settlement is disconcerting.
It was created by a newly appointed head of the antitrust division
of the DOJ and Microsoft's lawyers. By all reports, all the other
DOJ lawyers, who had spent years on the case, all the other State's
lawyers and their technical support staff were excluded from these
proceedings. Though I am not a lawyer, what I have read of the
settlement itself and the many reviews about it, the document reads
like something that was dictated entirely by Microsoft's lawyers and
provides a ``settlement'' overwhelmingly to Microsoft's
benefit, and little to no long term benefit for anyone else.
The settlement specifies an enforcement mechanism that for all
practical purposes would be toothless. It specifies a three member
committee to oversee the judgment. However, Microsoft would have
influence over the selection of one ( if not two ) of the members.
This is like asking the fox to guard the hen house. Further their
authority would extend only to ``assisting in voluntary dispute
resolution''. Worse, according to the settlement, non of their
findings or recommendations could be used in court in enforcement
proceedings nor would they even be allowed to report any of their
findings or recommendations to the Courts or Congress.
While it makes some attempts to address the issues related to
the ``big 20'' OEMs, it does nothing for smaller OEMs,
corporations, universities or smaller end users. Contracts such as
MS's ``Enterprise Agreement'' are ignored. The Enterprise
Agreement can provide sizable discounts on MS software and upgrades.
However, the big catch to this agreement is that the company must
use MS products instead of alternatives. Even in a healthy economy,
the pressure to minimize expenses are great. In a less than ideal
market, it only gets much worse. So, to take advantage of discounts
in Windows & Office, one is forced to accept Outlook and
Internet Explorer and reject Netscape Navigator and other
alternative products. Potentially, the wording of the Enterprise
Agreement might even be interpreted to prohibiting the use of Linux,
BSD or some other non-MS PC desktop and server operating system. The
combination of things like the EA and the propensity for Windows
based applications to treat the presence of non-MS applications as a
``problem'' that needs to be fixed, leads many corporate
IT groups to give in and convert to ``pure MS'' desktops
that excludes non-MS components.
- The definitions of the terms ``Windows OS'',
``API'', and ``Middleware'' specified in the
settlement are so restrictive that future implementations and
trivial derivations of major middleware and API components would be
exempt from any restrictions. Further major current and imminent
applications, APIs, and middleware products are completely ignored.
.NET, the linchpin in Microsoft's effort to build an Internet
equivalent to its Desktop domination, is completely ignored by the
settlement. The .Net initiative has been public knowledge for a long
time now, but there is no reference to it in the settlement.
Likewise, the MS office suite is completely excluded. The single
strongest weapon in Microsoft's arsenal for protecting the Windows
Desktop monopoly has been, and continues to be, MS Office. Time and
again, the number one reason given for having to use Windows on the
Desktop is the need for compatibility with MS office documents and
applications. Thus, it could easily be argued that MS Office
constitutes a monopoly situation in its own right. Further, MS's
frequent changes in document formats between revisions of the
product forces all users to upgrade en masse to newer versions of
Office ( and usually newer versions of Windows). This both further
adds to MS's (prodigious) revenue stream and makes if very difficult
( if not impossible) for third parties to create compatible
products. The specifications for all MS Office documents and API
interfaces must be made open and available in a timely fashion for
this monopoly to be broken. Also, the many offshoots of Windows are
ignored by the settlement. No mention is made of WindowsCE, Pocket
PC, Tablet PC or X-BOX, which is really just a slightly stripped
down PC running a variant of Windows. Each represents Microsoft's
efforts to leverage its
[[Page 27912]]
Windows monopoly into other market areas. The Settlement displays
numerous anti-``Open Source'' biases. Many experts agree,
and the top executives at MS have essentially admitted, that Open
Source is the single greatest threat to Microsoft's monopoly. The
existence of operating systems like Linux and the BSD variants,
applications and middleware products like Apache webservers, SAMBA
file and print sharing have permitted many to reject Microsoft's
Windows Desktop and Server OS platforms in favor of alternatives.
Yet, the settlement threatens all of this. The settlement does
nothing to prevent MS from retaliating against an OEM that ships a
PC that is preloaded with only a non-MS operating system. Further,
alternate Operating System vendors such as BE were ultimately driven
out of business because OEMs refused to preload BeOS in addition to
Windows. Their reason: fear for their license agreements with
Microsoft. The way the settlement is worded, MS would be able to
deny Open Source developers access to APIs, communication protocols
and other documentation essential to maintaining compatibility with
their Windows counterparts. The restrictions on document disclosure
as they relate to ``encryption, authentication anti-
piracy'' and related issues as determined by Microsoft presents
many opportunities for mischief on Microsoft's part. The settlement
makes no references to restrictive licensing conditions such as:
preventing the distribution of otherwise redistributable components
when it is done ONLY for use by MS-based products and on MS-based
Operating Systems, and explicitly forbids its distribution for use
with open-source products and OSes.
--The settlement does nothing to address Microsoft's use of
its monopoly derived power and financial resources to push into new
areas with the intent to claim a dominant position. Their huge cash
horde ( by some recent reports in excess of 30 billion dollars )
puts them in a position to trivially crush a competitor in any new
ventures.
--With the the X-BOX, Microsoft is targeting the game
console market. This system is essentially a slightly stripped-down
PC running a variant of Windows. Reviewers of the system have said
that it has features significantly beyond those of its competitors
and is selling the units at a serious loss. This is in combination
with a reported 500 million dollar ad campaign. At the same time
Microsoft used its power to convince many musicians to provide their
music for use in MS XBOX games for little or no financial
compensation in exchange for mentioning of the band's name in the
game. In most cases, one would have to dig into the bowels of the
games to find out who provided the music. Normally, companies would
pay tens of thousands for such music per game. ( see New York Times
11/15/2001--THE POP LIFE; For Musicians, Microsoft's Xbox Is No
Jackpot ) Recently, Microsoft announced that its next target will be
the ``Gameboy'' handheld game market.
--Microsoft for several years has been pushing to get cable
and DSS providers to use MS-based set-top decoder boxes. In general,
the providers have refused, fearing a repeat of MS's takeover of the
PC. MS appears to now be using its financial muscle to buy its way
into the settop market. It provided large sums of cash to help
Comcast win its bid for AT&T's cable system. Recently, directly
and through his Foundation, Gates purchased 500 million dollars
worth of Cox Communication stocks. In both cases, it will be much
harder for these cable companies to reject the replacement of set
top boxes with those that are Microsoft-based.
--Microsoft continues its push to dominate the Internet.
.NET is Microsoft's latest attempt to redefine the Internet on its
terms. This would extend its monopoly from the desktop to the
Internet. Either by outright purchasing or dealmaking, Microsoft is
forcing more and more dialup and DSL/cable end users to use MSN. At
the same time, Warner Cable has complained that inherent
incompatibilities in Windows XP prevents their high-speed cable
systems from working with XP-based computers. This would not be the
first time that Microsoft implemented incompatibilities with the
express purpose of hindering a competitor ( the DR-DOS case ). By
the use of EULAs or the explicit design of websites owned by
Microsoft or its partners, non-MS browsers and Operating Systems are
blocked from accessing various websites and services. The EULA for
MSNBC's NewsAlert software only permits you to run the software on
systems running a non-competing operating systems. It has been
reported that Microsoft and its partners have, either intentionally
by design or unintentionally by using an MS product, built websites
that explicitly recognize connection attempts by Netscape/Mozilla
clients and reject the connection. When the users changed the client
identification to something else, the problem went away.
--Microsoft's involvement in things like E-Books and
Digital Rights Management also concern me. I am concerned that
Microsoft will use its dominant positions to make these things only
available on MS-compatible/approved products. For these and many
other reasons, the proposed settlement, as currently presented and
without major revisions, must be rejected. The alternative will lead
to an even greater monopoly extending far beyond the PC Desktop and
into many other aspects of our digitally-enabled world.
Mayer Ilovitz
New York, NY
MTC-00027023
From: Toby Austin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement with Microsoft is nothing more than a
convenient way for them to ``donate'' their own software
to schools, thus increasing their market share. Please reconsider.
Toby A S Austin
MTC-00027024
From: Carolyn Freeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:47pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
If the CEOs of the internet ``competitive'' companies
would quit crying and create instead, there would be sufficient for
everyone. I cannot understand how the government who is supposed to
represent all citizens can consider tying the hands of one company
and call it competition. So much for hard work and creative effort.
Hopefully I will still have the right to spend my money as I see fit
to buy the product(s) I choose at the market place. Make a good
product at a good price, the public will purchase it. The offer made
by Microsoft to supply schools, etc. is terrific - not only will the
children benefit, the government can get out of business
manipulation. Why is success always penalized!!!
MTC-00027025
From: Toni Savage
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/27/02 5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please also allow OEMs to configure MicroSoft software with any
defaults a user would be able to change, ONLY so long as they
specify to their customers exactly what it is that they changed. In
other words, if they want to change the default home page to be
their home page instead of MSN.com, they should be allowed to do so.
Toni Savage
196 Dean St.
Brooklyn, NY 11217
MTC-00027026
From: Tim/Mary Irvin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:51pm
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Message
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I'm writing to urge you to accept the terms of the settlement
recently reached between Microsoft and the United States Justice
Department. The settlement will result in a much more competitive
environment beneficial for all parties involved. Microsoft has, for
example, agreed to grant broad new rights to computer manufacturers
and software developers to configure Windows to promote non-
Microsoft software programs that compete with Microsoft programs
included within Windows. This means computer manufacturers can
replace Internet Explorer with Netscape Navigator; Microsoft Media
Player with RealPlayer; and Windows Messenger with AOL Instant
Messenger. Microsoft has further agreed to not retaliate against
computer makers and software developers who choose to take this
route, nor will Microsoft retaliate against computer makers who ship
competing operating systems. Overseeing the terms of the settlement
will be a Technical Committee comprised of three persons who are
software engineering experts. This Technical Committee will assist
in any dispute resolution, should a complaint be filed. Based on
these facts, I respectfully request you to accept the terms of the
settlement.
Sincerely,
[[Page 27913]]
Mary and Tim Irvin
722 Poplar Drive
Bellingham, WA.98226
MTC-00027027
From: JMyers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
Especially now more than ever should one corporation hold a
stranglehold on what is arguably the most important industry in the
world?Especially a company whose record of security and shady
business practices be allowed to run free to devour and destroy
other companies.Microsoft makes Standard Oil look like a bunch of
choir boys.The time is right for not a slap on the wrist-or worse
yet help in controlling the education sector-but a comprehensive and
severe crackdown on this company.It is time for Microsoft to be
punished for their morally,ethically and I believe in some regards
down-right criminal behavior.
Thank you for listening,
James F.Myers Jr.
MTC-00027028
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stop badgering Microsoft. Admit once and for all that Bill Gates
and his crew built a better mousetrap. Were it not for them, the
common man wouldn't be enjoying the delights of computer ownership.
I'm 78 and worked up from DOS 3.0 to Windows 98, and it didn't
cost me an an arm and a leg. My grandchildren were literally weaned
on my computors. Please exercise your authority on prosecuting the
ENRON thieves and their cohorts.
Andrew J. Herstel
9035--28th Street
Brookfield, IL 60513-1015
708-485-2129
e-mail [email protected]
MTC-00027031
From: Yaw Kordieh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My name is Yaw Kordieh. I feel that Microsoft's decision of
gaining monopoly power by preventing other software companies from
distributing their software worldwide was wrong. Microsoft has
always been successful promoting their software because most
computers are pre-installed with their software, Windows when
consumers first buy it. There hasn't been any competition from any
other software as well. So the Microsoft software, Windows has been
well known to people. I agree with the idea of a remedy because it
won't allow Microsoft to gain monopoly power illegally and any other
practices in the future. It also gives other software companies a
chance to expand their software to other places in the world, which
also creates competitiveness among the softwares. With the arrival
of Netscape and Java, Microsoft felt that they both created a threat
to their company because they had special applications that allowed
them to run on most programs. Microsoft's decision of creating the
Internet browser, Internet Explorer was a good idea because it gave
people the chance to decide which Internet browser they wanted,
instead of just accepting what they already had on their computer.
So the actions that Microsoft took was unfair to other companies and
to the consumers. I feel that if there were other companies that
made software, then consumers can choose which program they would
like to use.
MTC-00027032
From: -- --
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Comments Concerning the Microsoft Proposed Settlement,
01/27/02
Dear Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,
The anticompetitive and technically inaccurate settlement agreed
to by the U.S. Justice Department is tainted and should be set aside
as not in the public interest.
I have over ten years experience of dealing with Microsoft
closely and 20 years of experience developing software across
multiple platforms. I am an expert at understanding software design.
Microsoft has caused great harm to this country by limiting consumer
choice and retarding innovation. A narrow settlement with middleware
defined incorrectly will continue to harm consumers.
Windows XP continues the Microsoft tactic of limiting consumer
choice. How this is done is quite subtle. Microsoft bundles
applications with the operating system. The consumer by default uses
the Microsoft applications. This is because the consumer would have
to make extra tedious efforts to use applications from other
vendors. In contrast, the Microsoft applications like Passport and
Instant Messaging are rudely in your face. Microsoft uses its PC
operating system monopoly to leverage into unrelated businesses.
The consumer has been further harmed by Microsoft amassing
monopoly profits. In the final economic analysis, the consumer pays
for product from other computer industry vendors. When those vendors
have to pay Microsoft higher prices because of the monopoly, they
are passed on to the consumer.
Any settlement should restore consumer choice and competition to
the PC software industry. As presently drafted, the proposed
settlement is not much better than no settlement at all. Let's
review some of the loopholes in the settlement.
* III: Microsoft can still pay off cooperating OEM's that do
Microsoft's bidding.
* III.C.3: Too restrictive.
* III.F.2: Microsoft continues to control ISV's software
development.
* III.G.1: Microsoft can continue to pay vendors to promote its
software platform.
* III.H.1: Users should be allowed to remove any application.
Users should be able to remove any API's from the operating system
(that could pose security risks).
* III.I.5: In order for a vendor to obtain Microsoft's
technology, the vendor must surrender intellectual property rights.
* IV.B.10: This is an unconstitutional free speech restriction.
* IV.D.4.d: TC members should not be excluded from the legal
process. This is an attempt to silence witnesses.
* V. Any settlement should be permanent.
* VI.A: API's should include interfaces used by device drivers
and the interfaces used by real middleware to call operating system
services. API's are not just application programming interfaces.
* VI.D: All OEM's should be covered, not just the top 20.
* VI.K: Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Windows
Messenger, and Outlook Express are APPLICATIONS, not middleware!
* VI.Q: A personal computer can be a server. Server software
should not be excluded from illegal monopoly maintenance behavior. A
PC can be both a client and server at the same time and this is
integral to Microsoft's architecture. I want to draw special
attention to Section III.J.1.a.
This section puts the security of this country at risk. At a
minimum it need to be rewritten. Microsoft cannot be allowed to have
a monopoly with respect to security software. Microsoft must be
required to disclose security API's and documentation. This will
enable competitors to provide add-on security solutions to
Microsoft's historically insecure products.
The proposed settlement is complex and subject to interpretation
and will generate years of unending legal wrangling. This legal cost
will further burden the computer industry and ultimately harm the
consumer. In contrast, it would be very simple to create a clear cut
settlement that would be easy for everyone to understand and not
subject to interpretation. Such a settlement would even protect
Microsoft stock holders. Unfortunately, because I deal with
Microsoft as a software developer, I cannot reveal who I am, for
fear of souring my relations with Microsoft. The opinions expressed
are my own and do not represent the opinions of present or past
employers.
MTC-00027033
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:55pm
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.
[[Page 27914]]
Sincerely,
Jeri-Ann McCauley
4375 S. Atlanticv Ave #7
New Smyrna Beach, FL 32169
MTC-00027034
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Is there any question that the settlement offered by the Bush
administration and certain states was NOT in the public interest?
Respectfully submitted,
Charles I. Post
MTC-00027035
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:56pm
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,
Frank Ehrenford
39 Rolling Hills Drive
Cody, WY 82414
MTC-00027036
From: Rich Latour
To: MICROSOFT ANTITRUST
Date: 1/27/02 6:01pm
Subject: Prosecute Ballmer and Microsoft For Illegal Lobbying
I just read Kristi Heim's newpaper article in the San Jose
Mercury News detailing claims by former senator John Tunney that
Microsoft is once again acting illegally in inadequately disclosing
lobbying efforts to influence the antitrust case against it.
There are too many allegations of corruption at Microsoft. I
request that a tough prosecutor be put in charge to get to the
bottom of this issue and to prosecute those at Microsoft
responsible. It is clearly in the public interest to send a message
to Microsoft regarding lawful behavior. Put Mr. Ballmer and company
in jail if necessary.
Rich Latour
MTC-00027037
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:58pm
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,
Jack Satterfield
2902 S. Lea. Ave
Roswell, NM 88201
MTC-00027039
From: Marv Norman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The attached personal letter contains my request that the DOJ
conclude their efforts to settle the litigation with Microsoft.
Best regards,
Marvin G. Norman
Marvin G. Norman
7950 Winchester Circle
Goleta, Ca., 93117
Tel: (805) 685-6341
Fax: (805) 685-6371
January 26,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing because I am a steadfast supporter of free market
enterprise, and of Microsoft's freedom to dictate its own business
practices in the pursuit of success. Therefore, I am urging you to
finalize the settlement reached in November in your office's
antitrust case against the company.
The lawsuit was originated and continued by Microsoft
competitors who tried to win market share via the court system.
Those companies should have been more concerned with manufacturing
the best product possible; however, the terms of the settlement will
ensure that Microsoft gives them more of a shot to claim more of the
market. Disclosing parts of Windows'' internal interfaces and
no longer requiring computer makers to bundle other Microsoft
products will give everyone a fair chance to come out ahead.
I am not a Microsoft shareholder. I simply believe in their
right to control their destiny, and as such, I implore you to settle
the case at once.
Sincerely,
Marvin G. Norman
MTC-00027040
From: Ron and Me
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We fully support Microsoft in all of their endeavors. They are
an excellent company and should be fully supported by the U. S.
Government for what they have added to our economy.
Sincerely
Ron and Mary Ellen Harpster
MTC-00027041
From: Robert J Ball
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:07pm
Subject: Settlement
I believe it is in the best interest of the public to finalize
the settlement with Microsoft. Microsoft produces a product
unmatched in quality and nothing should be done to limit access to
such quality.
RJ BALL
MTC-00027042
From: Steve Pogge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice,
Our country and its economy has suffered enough. Please approve
this settlement and allow our country to move forward on those
issues that truly threaten our freedoms such as terrorism.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Steve Pogge
MTC-00027043
From: gamecuber13
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
Justice Department-
Regarding the decision on the Microsoft Case, I have some input
which I hope will be of use to you in your final verdict. In my
opinion, I believe that Microsoft should not be able to make a
settlement in the case, by creating a monopoly, Microsoft is not
only being an unfair business, but it is also, at the same time
hurting the economy. By driving other companies to bankruptcy, the
stock market is damaged overall since all the people who own the
stocks of these companies lose their money and only the individuals
who own Microsoft stocks benefit.
Microsoft's strategy for beating other businesses is unfair as
well. Microsoft has bundled their browser, Internet Explorer, with
the computers sold by companies such as Dell, Gateway, and IBM.
Therefore, the predominant operating system in use is Internet
Explorer, proving the bundling scheme as an unfair advantage.
Microsoft's strategy is similar to that of Industrial big
businesses from the past in American History. J. Piermont Morgan
owned one such of these monopolies. He was completely in Control of
the Railroad and Iron businesses and came to acquire the Shipping
industry as well. The main plan of companies owned by people like
Morgan, Rockefeller and Carnegie was unfair. They would offer
companies in other areas where there products were not the majority
a small amount of shares (worth less than their company's value) for
them to give over their business to the monopolies. If these
companies refused, the monopolistic companies would reduce their
prices in the
[[Page 27915]]
particular area where these products were sold and sell their
products there for cheaper than it costed to make them; this was not
a great loss because the monopolies were so rich that they could
afford to do so. Using this method, they would drive other smaller
and weaker companies out of business.
This strategy is similar to Microsoft's. Theodore Dressier wrote
an excellent novel, ``The Financier'', which describes
monopolies and big business over powering weaker and smaller
businesses. One excerpt from ``The Financier'' concerns a
short tale about a lobster and a squid. Both are placed in a tank.
The squid is placed in as prey for the more powerful and armed
lobster. The lobster, symbolic of the big businesses and monopolies,
well armed with its pincers, is perfectly capable of destroying the
squid, which represents smaller businesses which have no way to
survive against more powerful business. In the story, the author
tells of how the Lobster would daily try to capture the squid and
the squid would always escape, but part of it would get cut of by
the lobster. Then, finally, one day, the lobster catches the squids.
From this experience, the narrator tells us of a conclusion he
draws, ``Things lived on each other-that was it. Lobsters lived
on squids and other things. What lived on lobsters?''
Dressier describes how powerful big businesses are. This method
is nearly identical to Microsoft's ruthless actions toward other
companies.
To make Microsoft atone for its misdemeanors, I would suggest
breaking the company apart into to smaller companies. Another option
would be to force Microsoft to stop bundling their computer software
with computer hardware. I hope that my opinion has helped in your
arriving at a decision in this case.
A Student Citizen,
Vikram Srinivasan
MTC-00027044
From: josh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From the beginning of the era of the Personal Computer,
Microsoft has led a virtual monopoly in the market of Operating
Systems. They have used various nefarious business practices in
order to maintain their foothold in the market. Microsoft has a
tendency to embrace technologies, extend them, then subsequently
extinguish the competition. When Microsoft first released Windows
95, it came packaged with a program for Microsoft's new online
service, The Microsoft Network. The icon for this program was put on
a prime location on the desktop. Popular online services such as AOL
and Compuserve, which freely distribute their client software, were
nowhere to be found on the desktop, but were buried on the CD.
Another clearer example is the integration of Microsoft's web
browsing software Internet Explorer with the Windows 98 operating
system. When your browser appears in over 90% of the installed base
of computer systems around the world, there is little chance for any
sort of competition. This is what competitor Netscape argued, and
this is one of the issues that the Justice Department takes task
with.
Personally, I don't think the DOJ settlement will hurt Microsoft
much. Their foothold in the computer market is already too strong.
This is in part because ``the damage already done'',
people are very used to using Microsoft branded software and will
not want to take the time to learn something else. Computer makers
will still bundle Microsoft Windows with their machines because it
is what the customer demands. This case has effectively dealt a weak
blow to Microsoft in image, but not in strength. The software
juggernaut that is Microsoft will continue to dominate in the future
because its roots are too deep. And if left unchecked, they will
continue embracing, extending, and extinguishing.
MTC-00027045
From: Betty Holt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:13pm
Subject: hphphp1Microsoft Settlement
11 512 68th Ave Court NW
Gig Harbor, WA 98332
Attorney General John Ashcroft
The Justice Department
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 27, 2002
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I am taking this opportunity to express my concern about the
current situation in the US vs. Microsoft lawsuit and ] certainly
hope these public comments make a difference in the final outcome of
the litigation. For starters, Microsoft had no reason to be attacked
by the government in the first place, but unfortunately, lawyers and
lobbyists have done a good job of keeping the American people paying
millions of dollars on behalf of an accusation that should have no
basis in this country.
The proposed settlement by the District Court should be accepted
and implemented as soon as possible so that this country can see
Microsoft thrive again for the American people and the American
economy. The world is always looking for new, comprehensible and
affordable software to facilitate a faster, more efficient business
environment, and no other corporation has done this as well as
Microsoft has. Why should we criminalize them for their success and
their ingenuity that has put America on top of the IT industry?
[ cannot reiterate enough how much I, along with millions of
other Americans, want to see this litigation over with. It is the
consumers who will be further affected by this legal action.
Sincerely,
MTC-00027046
From: Adrienne (038) Steve Osborn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Recommend further litigation against Microsoft in the interests
of fair competition and true capitalistic economics :
1. Microsoft should be fined severely for attempting to develop
a monopoly in software, as proven in court and so adjudged.
2. Microsoft should have the Operating System development
separate from the applications development, by fair application of
anti-trust law. Two separate entities, in other words.
3. Microsoft's OS code should be made available to all software
developers to allow competitive applications development.
Stephen M. and Adrienne G. Osborn
26 N Sunset Drive
Camano island,
WA 98282-8607
e-mail: [email protected]
MTC-00027047
From: David Jaber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings,
I had a few concerns about the Microsoft Settlement I'd like to
register. Simply:
1. The proposed settlement is not in the public interest. It
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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 change the decision to reflect this. I appreciate the
opportunity to comment.
MTC-00027048
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs:
Please give consideration the my follow ing conclustions
concerning the settlement of the Microsoaft anti trust case:
1. This case was instigated by competitors of Microsoft, namely
Sun-microsystems, Oracle, and AOL. The pricipal owners, having made
their billions, proceeded to spend vast sums lobbying for the anti
trust case against Microsoft.
2. As the case began, the stock market began its decline,
cuminating in the present lower level. I believe the American public
lost confidence in the entrepeneuerial form of business that has led
to the success of Microsoft. The fact that the govenment has pursued
this case smacks dangerously of Socialism.
3. The American public has been forced to not only carry the
burden of the court costs for this case, but has endured loss of
personal
[[Page 27916]]
income, resulting in the loss of tax revenues to both state and
federal governments. Has anyone come up with the combined figure of
personal income loss and government tax revenue loss? It must be
staggering!
4.I personally have found no one agreeing with the Attorney
General's statement that Microsoft is not good for the consumer. On
the contrary, those I have polled have only favorable comments for
Microsoft products and pricing. Interestingly, when the Attorney
General of Connecticut was putting a spin on Microsoft, he was asked
if he used Microsoft software. He admitted to using same both in his
office and at home. Surely, if Microsoft is so bad for the consumer,
he, of all people, could have found other products to purchase and
use.
5. The timing of the new suit brought by AOL against Microsoft
seems a little suspect.
6. 41 out of 50 states have agreed to the settlement between
Microsoft and the government. How can 9 states dictate to 41?
Thankyou for your time and attention to my conclusions.
Yours truly,
Ken Apland
MTC-00027049
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To- The Courts,and those whom are Concerned-
I am an American citizen 82 yrs. young,that loves computers,I
have most of the lastest devices on my PC.while I dont pretend that
I know how,to use all of these,programs etc.I do know that without
companies such as Microsoft,we as a nation, would be hurting,in this
field of endeaver.
You are inthe process of finalizing a settlement ,for which I as
a Senior, believe is a reasonable compromise,that will enhance the
ability of all concerned,to access the internet and use innovative
products,for more enjoyment.
I know a little about techincal progress,having been a military
pilot for many years,and its a good thing that there is
competition,if there wasn't ,perhaps I would not be here today>
Competition in this situation,seems to want results,based on
what the Courts will decide,rather than their own efforts.Only in
America,it seems,that,one, or a Company ,is punished for their
success.
It would appear that this has dragged long enough,we have a
compromised settlement,please dont allow those who state,in the
public interest, to muddy up this settlement !
I'm one of the,public,and as a Tax Payer,I strongly believe this
should be settled,asap...
Thanks for(Tunney Act) for allowing me to comment.
Very Truly Yours,
Joseph Burkhardt ([email protected])
1590 E-11th No st.
Mountain Home ID 83647
MTC-00027050
From: Alan Campbell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Department of Justice
Washington, DC
Re: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
As a taxpayer and citizen of this country, I am appalled by the
impending settlement with Microsoft. The software giant has
repeatedly violated anti-trust laws in its merciless drive for not
just market dominanace, but for virtual monopoly status, and this
proposed settlement will do little to deter Microsoft's predatory
behavior. I am absolutely opposed on grounds of the public interest
and open competition in the marketplace.
Sincerely,
Alan Campbell
170 Crescent Road
Athens, Georgia 30607
706/208-0630
SS#258-74-7766
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00027051
From: Bruce Horn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I believe that the proposed antitrust settlement with Microsoft
is tremendously inadequate. Microsoft has been found guilty of
extremely serious violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and the
proposed settlement will just encourage further violations.
I have worked in the computer industry for 25 years, and have
held positions at Xerox PARC and Apple Computer, among other
companies. In my opinion Microsoft's behavior has held back
computing progress and has cost the entire country hundreds billions
of dollars in lost productivity. Personally I have witnessed
Microsoft's repeated theft of Apple's intellectual property, for
which they escaped punishment. The proposed settlement would
preserve Microsoft's monopoly, would not restore competition, and at
the same time would allow Microsoft to keep its ill-gotten gains
from the past decade of monopolistic behavior. In addition, it would
encourage and help Microsoft to establish yet another monopoly in
the Internet space.
Perhaps most chilling is Microsoft's plan to capture essential
personal and private information on their proprietary databases, and
force you to run all on-line transactions through them. They also
plan to monitor everyone's computing activities and charge for them
on a rental basis. This must not happen. There must be alternatives
available that allow people to use whatever operating system they
wish, and whatever applications they wish, on whatever platform they
wish. This includes running Microsoft applications on non-Windows
platforms. Any behavior by Microsoft to attempt to control the
Internet space must be prohibited. The proposed settlement is
seriously flawed and must not be enacted.
Sincerely,
Bruce Horn
Chief Technical Officer, Marketocracy, Inc.
Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546-1692
MTC-00027052
From: Matthew Tubbs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Honorable Court:
As a citizen of the United States and experienced computer
professional of several years, I have seen the damage that Microsoft
has inflicted on the computer industry and consumers with its
blatant violations of antitrust law. While I feel that the proposed
settlement is a step in the right direction, I think that there are
a few items that need to be addressed:
I. The proposed final judgment excludes open source competitors.
Open source operating systems such as Linux and open source projects
such as Wine, Apache, and Samba offer consumers real choice because
of their quality, stability, speed and security. For these reasons,
open source software and operating systems are a viable competitor
to Microsoft, and should be treated as such in the wording of the
proposed final judgment. Specifically, Microsoft should be required
to disclose the Windows API's to open source groups, as well as
documentation on communication protocols.
II. In addition to API's and communication protocols, Microsoft
should be required to fully disclose its Microsoft Office binary
file format specifications to competing organizations. Releasing
these file formats would remove the barrier for entry to the office
software market, greatly benefiting consumers.
Sincerely,
Matthew R Tubbs
MTC-00027053
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
DON FEDRIGON
PO BOX 962
ELK RAPIDS, MI 49629
MTC-00027054
From: Michael Blakeley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:22pm
[[Page 27917]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that the proposed DOJ-Microsoft settlement is a bad
idea. It doesn't do enough to penalize Microsoft for past anti-
competitive practices, and doesn't do enough to ensure against
future anti-competitive practices by Microsoft. Also, the proposed
settlement does nothing to redress damages suffered by consumers as
a result of Microsoft's monopolistic practices.
In my view, breaking up Microsoft into several smaller
corporations, would be a better solution, along with substantial
monetary awards to Sun and Netscape. Failing that, substantial
monetary awards should be accompanied by strict regulation of
Microsoft as a public-interest entity.
Thank you for your time.
Michael Blakeley
Foster City, CA
self-employed Internet consultant
MTC-00027055
From: CLIFFORD WOOLFOLK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:25pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement http://www.bidville.com/
myads.asp?id=cliffordii
190 Oakridge Drive
Berkey, OH 43504-
January12,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I am writing to express my opinion on the settlement reached
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice in November of last
year. As I understand it, Microsoft has agreed to a wide range of
restrictions and obligations that would allow other computer makers
more ease of competition. I believe Bill Gates has worked hard to
accomplish what he has, and if Microsoft has so much influence, then
more power to Mr. Gates. Unfortunately, there are those who
disagree.
It has come to my attention that there are nine states now that
are in opposition to the terms of the agreement reached in the
antitrust case. They are seeking to extend the suit and undermine
the terms of the settlement. This is ridiculous. Microsoft did not
get off with just a slap on the wrist. They have agreed not only to
license their Windows operating system to the 20 largest computer
makers, but they have also granted these computer makers rights to
configure Windows so that non-Microsoft programs can be promoted
within its operating system. Microsoft has agreed to terms that
exceeded even the bounds of the anti-trust case, and I am of the
opinion that they have been more than fair.
Mr. Ashcroft, I do not believe that this suit should continue.
The nine states that currently oppose the terms of settlement have
lost sight of justice and have become vengeful. The Department of
Justice has no right to mete out vengeance. I do not think the
matter should be further pursued.
Sincerely,
Margaret Woolfork
MTC-00027056
From: Bill Zaumen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:27pm
Subject: Comments on Proposed Settlement
While I have to wonder if a full breakup of Microsoft is not the
only effective remedy, the proposed settlement is inadequate even in
what it tries to do.
1. The settlement treats consumers as second-class citizens. For
example, on page 6, it prevents Microsoft's software from
automatically altering an OEM's configuration without first waiting
14 days and asking the user for permission. Nothing, however, tells
them to similarly respect a user's configuration---one set by
the user regardless of what the OEM did.
2. It is ineffective in some respects. For instance, while it
allows Microsoft to ask a user if he or she would like to change a
configuration and requires that all options be fairly presented to
the user, it does not prevent the obvious tactic: to badger the user
to change the settings to ones Microsoft desires and then say
nothing after a user does that. Since with enough repeated tries, a
user will eventually click an unintended option, the result will be
to move users to Microsoft products whether the users want to do
that or not.
3. Under ``III Prohibited Conduct,'' the settlement
prevents Microsoft from retaliating against an OEM that includes
both a Microsoft OS and some other OS. Other provisions deal with
dual booting. Nowhere does it say, however, that Microsoft cannot
retaliate against an OEM that provides customers the option of
obtaining a computer without any Microsoft OS at all. I really have
to wonder about this. A while ago, I read that Dell was again
selling Linux systems. When I checked Dell's web site, it contained
a page with links to Linux systems for the federal government,
businesses, and businesses and small offices. Of these three links,
two were broken. The only one that functioned was the one for the
U.S. government. When you found something about a system were you
could run Linux, and clicked on a link, you'd be taken to a windows-
only page. I think it is apparent that Dell is discouraging
customers from buying Linux systems. With the whole PC industry
having serious difficulties attracting customers, I've really got to
wonder why anyone would throw customers away. One explanation for
this behavior could be pressure from Microsoft. As a consumer, I
want protection against that (regardless of whether or not this is
what is going on in Dell's case).
4. The settlement has a loophole about disclosing APIs if that
would compromise security, digital rights management, anti-virus
technology, etc. It is well known that security through obscurity is
no security at all. This loophole will not protect computer systems,
but it will provide Microsoft an excuse for divulging nothing about
APIs or anything else.
I would strongly recommend starting from scratch and proposing a
settlement that would actually do something to protect the public
and other businesses.
Regards,
William T. Zaumen
912 Clara Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303
PS as a disclosure, I work for one of Microsoft's competitors. My
comments above are personal ones.
MTC-00027057
From: David Stansell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:28pm
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
Hi,
I would just like to complain about the proposed MS settlement.
The idea seems to be that Microsoft is legally entitled to bribe the
only market segment that to date it has not
dominated--education.
It makes no sense to me. I think it is very important that a
firm like MS should be treated as any other otherwise people will
continue to lose faith in the government and cynicism will prevail.
MS is not an evil company, but it does what it can get away
with. I would be grateful if you could play your part in refocusing
the efforts of this group of talented people towards competing by
producing better goods rather than doing so by throwing its
commercial and political weight around.
There is no doubt in my mind that this will enhance, rather than
reduce, the effectiveness of the US economy--read the recent
articles in the ``economist'' for one of the most unbiased
assessments to date.
Thanking you in advance,
David Stansell.
MTC-00027058
From: Thomas P Larson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:29pm
Subject: Microsoft
Dear Sirs:
I am a Senior Citizen and have followed and used Microsoft
products for many, many years. In many cases there were
alternatives, but Microsoft was the choice.
I urge you to accept the offered settlement. It appears to me
that continuation will benefit only a few with special interests and
will delay Microsoft in their efforts to make computers an even
better and more desirable product.
Respectfully,
Thomas P. Larson
Normal, IL 61761
McLean county
MTC-00027059
From: Dennis Moon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern.
More than enough time, energy, and tax dollars have been spent
on the Microsoft antitrust case. I have never believed Microsoft to
be guilty of anything other than being a superior competitor in what
I believe and hope is still a free market.
I am an information systems professional with over fifteen years
of experience integrating Microsoft products, operating systems, and
developing application with their tools. I have come to appreciate
how superior their products work together to create robust and
innovative applications used to facilitate the improvement of
corporate business processes.
[[Page 27918]]
As a consumer, I find the prices for their software and
operating systems to be very fair and much less costly to purchase
and implement than most of their competitors. In fact, over the
years Microsoft has had to substantially increase the cost of their
development tools and server projects simply to attain the
perception of the legitimacy for their products within the corporate
world. If it were not for the fact that Microsoft competitors sell
equivalent software products for many more times than the prices at
which Microsoft could sell them and still make a profit, Microsoft
products would cost even less than they do today.
I greatly appreciate the fact that Microsoft continually adds to
the value of their operating systems by integrating new technologies
into the code base, thus minimizing the need to spend additional
precious dollars to obtain the latest innovations and increased
capabilities.
I am appalled by their competitors attempts to beat them in the
court room when they can not do so in the open market. This
frivolous lawsuit has served only to increase the cost of Microsoft
products as well as the cost of their competitors products.
Microsoft has agreed on the terms of the settlement with the
Department of Justice. Please end this once and for all.
Dennis M. Moon
MTC-00027061
From: Willie Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please be advised that we support the settlement that has been
reached in the U.S. vs Microsoft as fair. We have also faxed a
letter to you to that effect.
James R. Smith
Willie Smith
MTC-00027062
From: Teri DeMatteo
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/27/02 6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Teri DeMatteo
9703 Benner Road
Johnstown, OH 43031-9106
January 27, 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,
Teri DeMatteo
MTC-00027063
From: Geoffrey Broadwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am a user of, and a software developer for, freely available
operating systems such as Linux and the BSD variants of Unix. I have
read and agree with Dan Kegel's analysis of the Proposed Final
Judgment at: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html.
However, I feel that Mr. Kegel's analysis, in its detail, loses
some of the overall flavor of how a free / open source software user
and developer would view the case.
As a free software user, a few issues are important to me:
* I must be able to read, write, and edit documents and other
data complying with all standards and de facto standards in use in
the corporate world or the Internet at large.
* I must have access to programs that interoperate with all
standard and de facto standard protocols (and all clients, servers,
and peers implementing those protocols) in use in the corporate
world or the Internet at large.
* I must be able to use entirely freely available software to
perform these functions. This requires both that barriers to the
development of such software be low, and that artificial
restrictions to their use, such as unfairly restrictive licensing
terms, unclear patent infringement issues, and the like, be removed.
As a free software developer, different but related issues are
important:
* The free software community must have unfettered access to
complete, accurate, and timely documentation for all data formats in
common use in the corporate world or the Internet at large.
* The free software community must have unfettered access to
complete, accurate, and timely documentation for all protocols in
common use in the corporate world or the Internet at large, along
with documentation for known variances of commonly used clients,
servers, and peers from the expected and / or standard protocol
behavior.
* For cases in which use of, implementation of, or
interoperability with an API is necessary (in the broadest sense),
similar access to complete, accurate, and timely documentation for
that API must also exist.
* Test suites that can be used to show compliance or
noncompliance of an implementation to these documents must exist,
suitable both to test that competitive implementations perform
properly, and possibly more importantly, to test that the
documentation is an accurate reflection of the true behavior of the
original implementation(s) that made use of, or provided, said data
formats, protocols, and / or APIs.
* Restrictions to development or use of compliant or
interoperable software for any data format, protocol, or API, must
be minimized. In particular, license restrictions that limit the use
of a program, data format, API, or protocol inclusively or
exclusively with regard to certain operating systems, license terms
for other software in the user's or developer's computing
environment, competing software implementations, etc., must be
disallowed.
In addition, any components or data files that all compliant or
interoperable software implementations must distribute to be deemed
compliant or interoperable, must allow such distribution by other
implementations, for installation in any software environment that a
user or developer sees fit.
* Hidden restrictions to development or use of competitive
software, such as the status of patents or pending patents whose
applicability to relevant data formats, protocols, and / or APIs is
unclear, must be dealt with in good faith. For example, no developer
or vendor of software should be allowed to threaten that use of
competing software ``might'' infringe
``certain'' patents held by the developer or vendor or any
of their partners.
For cases where a developer or vendor can definitively claim
that unlicensed use of a competing product making use of,
implementing, or interoperating with, any data format, protocol, or
API, would constitute infringement of a patent they own or control,
such patent must be licensable under terms that would not be onerous
to developers or users in the free software community. Per-seat
licensing, licensing that requires large payments, licensing that
involves non-disclosure agreements, and licensing that requires
specific action by any person or entity other than the initial
developers of the competing software, are all instances of onerous
terms that must not be allowed to stand.
All of these comments have been generic, without reference to
the specific case and judgment at hand, but I hope it is clear that
many of the concerns that I list above have not been adequately
addressed by the Proposed Final Judgment in United States v.
Microsoft Corp.
Other analysis and commentary, such as Mr. Kegel's work linked
above, offer specific possible improvements to the Proposed Final
Judgment that will address some of these concerns. When taking these
suggestions into account during revision of the proposal, please
also consider whether the various suggestions go far enough to
adequately address my concerns as a user and a developer from the
community at large. While I believe that all software developers and
vendors should be held accountable for how they address or fail to
address these concerns, it is especially important to require this
of Microsoft, since Microsoft maintains a monopoly position for
implementations of
[[Page 27919]]
a great many standards and de facto standards.
Thank you in advance for your consideration,
Geoffrey Broadwell
Free Software User and Developer
San Francisco Bay Area, California
MTC-00027064
From: John. Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Letter
Dear Mr. Ashcroft-
Attached is a letter urging your support for a speedy settlement
in the Microsoft case.
Thanks in advance for your action in this matter
Sincerely,
John Anderson, ceo
6 Sigma Leadership Corporation
4929 Canterwood Drive NW
Gig Harbor, WA 98332
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I 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.
Sincerely,
John Anderson
4929 Canterwood Drive NW
Gig Harbor, WA 98332
6 Sigma Leadership Corporation
Gig Harbor, WA 98332
John Anderson
President
MTC-00027065
From: Lawrence Person
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To all it may concern,
I believe that the proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad deal
for computer users, for the computer industry, and for the nation as
a whole. It does nothing to address Microsoft's predatory and
monopolistic tactics, nothing to address the fact that it's blithely
broken previous consent decrees and defied court orders, and nothing
to provide relief for companies and consumers who have been harmed
by these practices. It should be rejected and far more stringent
financial and structural penalties imposed.
Despite their slogan, Microsoft has achieved it's current
position not by ``innovation'' or hard work so much as by
imitation (Apple) or outright theft (Stack Technologies) of the
innovations of others. It used strong-arm tactics, sharp practice
and predatory pricing to establish it's monopoly in operating
systems, then illegally used that same monopoly to grab equally
compelling strangleholds on other areas of the software industry. At
best Microsoft is a sandlot bully, threatening others with its
monopoly power to get its own way. At worse it's a third world
dictator, knowing it's above the law (witness its boldfaced
violation of its first consent decree, and how it lied, repeatedly,
in court) with the firm knowledge that it's too powerful to be
punished.
A company truly dedicated to innovation would not wait two years
to address the myriad security vulnerabilities of Windows and
Outlook. If a different component on Ford trucks were to blow up and
be recalled every week, Ford would be out of business very quickly
indeed. If Microsoft did not wield such monopoly power, it would not
be able to get away with selling such defective products.
Microsoft has proven again and again that consent decrees are
entirely inadequate to stop its predatory practices. Only harsh,
structural and lasting penalties will be able break it's monopoly
power and return real competition to the markets it illegally
dominates.
For penalties which would truly address Microsoft's monopoly
power, punish it for past transgressions, and provide real relief to
the victims of it's illegal actions, I propose the following:
1. Microsoft should be levied a $10 billion fine. Half of this
money should be earmarked for the DOJ and state attorneys general to
pay for the cost of prosecuting Microsoft, and to pay the cost of
future oversight and enforcement, and half should be returned to the
consumers and companies harmed by Microsoft's predatory practices.
2. The source code for all Microsoft products released through
1999 should be released in their entirety and made available to the
public to be used by anyone to create their own versions of Windows,
Office, etc. without paying royalties to Microsoft. This would also
provide relief from Microsoft's monopolistic practice of using
``embrace and extend,'' i.e., making it's products
intentionally incompatible with established computing standards for
the sole purpose of using it's illegal monopoly to erect barriers to
competition. With the source code readily available, it would be a
simple matter both to engineer compatibility to Microsoft's
``enhancements,'' and to recompile Microsoft programs to
adhere to open computing standards.
3. All the Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) to all
shipping Microsoft products should be published and made freely
available. This would prevent Microsoft's anti-competitive tactic of
leveraging it's Windows monopoly through the use
``secret'' APIs in Windows that only Microsoft programmers
can use to enhance their other product lines.
4. Microsoft should be split into no less than four separate
companies: One responsible for Windows, a second for Office, a third
for Internet Explorer, Back Office, Outlook, and all it's other
Internet-related software, and a fourth for everything else (X-Box,
WebTV, etc.). However, source code for all of Microsoft's currently
shipping products should be distributed to each of these companies,
with each having the ability to reuse or sublicense such code. This
would create many competing products in segments of the market
previously dominated by Microsoft, to the great benefit of
consumers. These companies would also be barred from merging with
each other or sharing directors for at least ten years.
5. The above companies would have one year to plug all known
security holes in Windows and Outlook. After that period, they would
be made financially liable for any economic damage such
vulnerabilities in their software cost customers who had all current
security patches installed but were still victimized by hackers or
viruses.
6. The MS Office spinoff would be required to produce
simultaneous versions of Office for the most recent release of Mac
OS and Linux, at price parity with the Windows version, for a period
of five years.
7. A government oversight board would be created with the
authority to unilaterally impose fines, order remedies, change
contracts, and release source code in order to implement the
judgement.
This is a very radical remedy, and one I do not suggest lightly.
In fact, I consider myself to be a Libertarian, one who believe that
government should remain small and interfere in the free market only
under the direst circumstances. However, one fundamental
precondition for a free market is that those competing in it must
obey the rule of law. Microsoft has shown, again and again, that it
is willing to break and flout the law for it's own benefit, and to
maintain it's illegal monopoly power. If Microsoft's earlier
predatory practices had been curbed or punished when the first
occurred, the government would not be faced with these vexing
antitrust issues. But now that it has reached this point, serious
structural remedies are the only solution. Microsoft has proven time
and time again that it will not stop abusing it's monopoly power.
It's now up to the courts eliminate that monopoly.
Lawrence Person,
Austin, Texas,
Science Fiction Writer
[[Page 27920]]
Lawrence Person
[email protected]
Nova Express Web Site: http://www.sflit.com/novaexpress
MTC-00027066
From: Andrew Wildenberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CC: Andrew Wildenberg
To the Department of Justice, Antitrust division:
I would like to express my strong objection the Revised Proposed
Final Judgment (RPFJ) in US v. Microsoft. It is a settlement riddled
with loopholes and ambiguities. It offers nothing that will
`unfetter a market', `terminate the illegal
monopoly', or `ensure that there remain no practices
likely to result in monopolization in the future'' but will
instead afford Microsoft new, court-sanctioned, ways to extend its
monopoly and discourage competition and innovation in the industry.
I am an instructor of Computer Science at the State University
of New York at Stony Brook. I also have extensive experience as a
software developer in industry and a private contractor. I regularly
use Microsoft products professionally and privately. My main
operating system is Microsoft Windows 2000, although I regularly use
Mac OS, Solaris, FreeBSD, HP-UX and Linux in my work.
One area of particular concern is the section of definitions in
the RPFJ that relate to APIs and Middleware. The definition of API
is given as follows:
``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.
The important point is that this definition specifies only a
small portion of the interface as being relevant to the RPFJ.
Specifically, interfaces called internally by the operating system
itself are exempt, as are interfaces called by other Microsoft
software such as the Office suite.
In the past Microsoft has regularly changed common definitions
within the computer science literature to suit the whims of its
litigation. Most recently it argued that Internet Explorer was in
fact an inseparable part of the core operating system. While that
particular program has been addressed by this particular
decree's definition of middleware, there is no protection that
future applications programs won't be relabeled as either
`core OS'' or `applications'' In either case,
APIs used by these new components can lawfully be withheld from 3rd
party developers.
Middleware and Microsoft Middleware is defined in several parts,
but important ones include:
part K1: ``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''
While it is good to name specific products as middleware, for
the most part, the ones chosen are all technology that Microsoft has
already supplanted: Outlook Express will soon be replaced by
Outlook, Windows Messenger by .NET services, and the Microsoft JVM
by C#. Because those three products already exist at this time,
it can be argued that the decree has specifically excluded them from
its definition. The phrase `and their successors'' is a
troublesome one, given Microsoft culture and programming practices.
Microsoft is known for leading the industry in code re-use. A code
analysis comparing Windows 2000 software to its middleware would
show a large portion of it had been borrowed from the core OS. In
such a culture, source code can not be the basis for determining the
lineage of software: either everything will be related (too
generous) or nothing will be related (too restrictive). If, on the
other hand, `functionality'' is the basis for lineage,
then the picture is more complex: Is Windows 2000 a successor to
Windows 3.1 or a completely new and unrelated product? If new, when
did the new product become new? Under what definition will the
innovation be measured and what threshold will distinguish
`new'' from `extended'?
part J: 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.
This claim allows Microsoft to arbitrarily change APIs at any
time, and not disclose them to developers. The computer industry is
notorious for manipulating release numbers, and for those numbers
not adequately measuring when a release is `major'' or
not. Using this ability to change APIs, it would be possible for
Microsoft to sabotage competing products, as it did during the Dr-
DOS case, by manipulating the APIs in a way designed to break the
competing products. Since a competing product must be able to run on
all versions of Microsoft middleware, such a change in API would
mean a huge advantage to Microsoft's in-house development
teams.
Furthermore, restrictions on which APIs released provide other
methods for Microsoft to impede 3rd party development. Specifically,
by the RPFJ, Microsoft can not be required 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; ... Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any
license of any API, Documentation or Communications Protocol related
to anti-piracy systems, anti-virus technologies, license enforcement
mechanisms, authentication/authorization security, or third party
intellectual property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product
to any person or entity on the requirement that the 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, 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.
Microsoft has begun a push to become the most secure operating
system in the world. Indeed Bill Gates has said that security should
be the company's top priority and that it should be embedded at the
most basic levels of the operating system. If Microsoft follows
through on this, it could reasonably argue that it could not release
the majority of APIs because they were related to security.
In past statements Microsoft has emphasized future work
integrating digital rights management into its OS. A reasonable
implementation of this would be to have the OS automatically check
for digital rights every time that a file is opened. Again, by the
same logic, it could decline to release the API for opening a file,
arguably one of the most basic APIs in an operating system.
Furthermore, the restrictions on potential licensees require a
large amount of disclosure to Microsoft, including the disclosure of
company confidential information to a designated agent of Microsoft.
Microsoft is allowed to set arbitrary standards for using the
protocols without regard to what is reasonable. Microsoft is allowed
to set arbitrary standards for what constitutes a business. In the
non-Microsoft Middleware Product definition, one of the standards is
that a million copies of the product were shipped in the US in the
previous year (i.e. products less than a year old or those primarily
distributed outside the US do not quality). Similar restrictions for
a `reasonable business'' could include revenue or
distribution figures that would, as an example, exclude a large
portion of the free software products.
In summary, I feel there are serious defects in the Revised
Proposed Final Judgement. I have outlined my objections in three
specific areas: the definition of ``API'', the definitions
of the various kinds of ``Middleware'', and the various
exemptions and requirements related to API disclosure. While I feel
there are other problems with the decree, these are the areas I have
the most expertise in commenting on, and so I have chosen brevity
over completeness. If this RPFJ is accepted, it will strengthen
Microsoft's monopoly by providing court-sanctioned methods to
leverage its current market dominance in operating systems to new
and emerging markets.
[[Page 27921]]
Sincerely,
Andrew P Wildenberg
Department of Computer Science
SUNY Stony Brook
Stony Brook, NY 11794-4400
MTC-00027069
From: Bill Herman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Hesse,
I am writing this email in response to the public comment
request period of the Microsoft settlement case.
I have programmed personal computers since they became available
on the market and am deeply concerned with the legal attack on
Microsoft. I have used DOS since the product's inception. I have
used the Microsoft products ACCESS and EXCEL to hold and organize my
data. I have used all versions of Windows when Microsoft created
them. I have used Internet Explorer to view the web. At every phase
of my professional career, Microsoft has helped me reach my goals.
Microsoft has continually anticipated the market and expanded their
product line to capitalize on that market. At every turn, they
release new and more robust versions of their products. They have
continually run after the American dream!
What is their reward? They get slapped with a mammoth anti-trust
suit, not from the consumers they ``harmed'', not by some
public outcry, not by any of their partners, but from their
unsuccessful competitors! What these competitors could not win in a
free market, they hope to extort by using the law as a club. If the
same antitrust laws were applied to the auto industry, we would all
still be riding model T cars since the buggy whip manufacturers
could claim ``unfair competition'' and ``intent to
monopolize''. If constantly improving one's products to gain
market share is a crime, then you have to arrest everyone in any
successful business, including myself! Failed businesses must not be
allowed to set the rules for the markets in which they failed.
Just as the government protects my right what I read, what I
say, or whom I associate with, it must protect my right to choose
what software I have on my computer! The way to protect that right
is to allow Microsoft and its partners to license and bundle
software as they see fit, not as their competitors see as
``fair''. I am not a helpless victim. I make choices in
operating system and applications. I can choose the best package for
me. The court should not interfere with that choice. Everyone,
including Bill Gates, has a fundamental right to his own property.
By violating his rights, you violate mine. It is your responsibility
to protect that right, not take it away by interfering with how
Microsoft or its partners offer their products. A free society and a
free economy go hand in hand. History is littered with examples
where politicians meddled in a free market. The consistent long-term
result was economic stagnation and political tyranny. By becoming a
self made man, Bill Gates has not harmed me. In fact, he has helped
me greatly. Don't punish success. Rule in favor of Microsoft and
stop this travesty of justice!
Sincerely,
William R. Herman
308 108th Ave NW Apt A411
Bellevue, WA 98004
[email protected]
MTC-00027070
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:46pm
Subject: micro soft settlement
Attorney General of the United States:
I understand terms of agreement regarding suit between
Department of Justice, 9 states, and Microsoft have been agreed to
by parties involved. I would like to see these terms finally adopted
as agreed to.
Yours truly,
Lorraine Centofante, an interested citizen
CC:RFC-
[email protected]...
MTC-00027071
From: Paul Iadonisi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am opposed to the Proposed Final Judgment in the United States
v. Microsoft antitrust case.
I am a System Administrator who has been employed in the
computer industry for fifteen years. In those fifteen years, I have
seen the results of the illegal monopolistic practices of Microsoft
that the company was found to be guilty of by U.S. District Judge
Thomas Penfield Jackson on November 5, 1999.
I have seen products discontinued by companies who had
difficulty breaching the high barrier to entry that Microsoft has
consistently kept artificially high. In many cases, the
discontinuation of these products harmed the businesses I was
employed by.
I have seen companies who I was employed by place less and less
emphasis on quality and security in their products and instead focus
on become partners with Microsoft to the exclusion of competitive
technologies. This has occurred even in cases where the non-
Microsoft technologies were of significantly higher quality than
their Microsoft counterparts. In at least one case, I was personally
harmed by these decisions through a reduction-in-force that was
clearly aimed at those who did not agree with the decision to use
Microsoft technologies.
All of this could not have occurred were it not for Microsoft's
illegally obtained monopoly position. The current Proposed Final
Judgment does little to penalize Microsoft for its behavior and
little or nothing to prevent future abuses. The Proposed Final
Judgment in fact codifies Microsoft's behavior into law.
I strongly urge the court to reject the Proposed Final Judgment
currently in consideration and instead work with the nine states who
have refused to enter into the agreement for their alternate
settlement proposal.
Any proposed remedy should have little or no input from
Microsoft. The convicted criminal should never have a say in what
punishment he should endure. I am disappointed that the Department
of Justice has capitulated to so many of Microsoft's demands in the
current Proposed Final Judgment and I urge the court to refuse to
accept this agreement. --
Paul Iadonisi
Senior System Administrator
Red Hat Certified Engineer
MTC-00027072
From: Lisa A Cate
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a computer user,I don't think that it is right to punish
Microsoft excessively.In any industry there will be some companies
that are the leaders.Microsoft is a leader in the technology and
software industry.They should have the right to make any
improvements they feel are desirable to their products.If Microsoft
has been ``bullying'' OEMs or their competitors(I'm unsure
whether or not they've been doing this)then some behavior remedies
may be in order.Breaking Microsoft up would be excessive punishment
for anything they may possibly have been guilty of.Including
Internet Explorer with Windows is very beneficial for computer users
who enjoy internet activities.Even those who prefer Netscape can use
Internet Explorer to download Netscape.There isn't any problem
downloading competing products that I have found.That is hardly the
way I'd expect a company taking advantage of being a monopoly to be
doing.While I prefer to use Internet Explorer,I have downloaded
Netscape for people who prefer Netscape without any problems doing
it and using Internet Explorer to do the downloading.I started using
computers October of 1995 and have been learning about how to do
stuff with them mostly through reading about it on the internet.If
the DOJ is looking for a company that needs a good swatting way more
than Microsoft...AOL would be one that does.They bought Netscape and
let it stagnate.Now they try to make it look like it's all
Microsoft's fault that they have been steadily losing market share
with it.There was some news reported in a local newspaper (The
Durham Morning Herald) that AOL had plans to aquire RedHat Linux
which hasn't happened so far.That makes me think that the only
reason AOL bought Netscape was so they could use it to sue
Microsoft.AOL ruined my Gateway 133 pentium PC.I wasn't having
problems with it until making the mistake of putting in AOL
software.I later found that other people have had even worse
experiences with AOL than I had.Microsoft has been made to look like
the evil monopoly by the likes of AOL and others whose doings make
Microsoft look angelic by comparison.This covers most of the points
I thought needed to be made about this so I'll close.
Lisa A
Cate
[email protected]
MTC-00027073
From: Effie Robbins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:47pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
[[Page 27922]]
This suit must get over with as it is wasting the taxpayers and
shareholders money. Microsoft is a very reputable company and the
Department of Justice needs to finalize a decision as it makes our
JUSTICE SYSTEM what it appears to be--a money wasting,
ineffective system that does not work for the best interest
of--WE, THE PEOPLE who pay and use this system. It just opens
doors for lawsuits on any and all companies and has absolutely
destroyed our faith in the stock market.
When you are through then you can punish Judge Penfield Jackson
for discussing a case to the media and public before it was
finalized. At that point, this suit should have been dropped in its
entirety.
MTC-00027074
From: Brendan McCullough
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't agree.
MTC-00027075
From: Larry French
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft deserves our country's highest honor and praise for
accomplishing all it has done and absolutely DOES NOT deserve
anyone's scorn or to be punished for working hard and thinking
smart. Please show our country, please show my son, that that it
pays to work hard and think smart. No one has EVER been forced to
buy a product from Microsoft, not even once. In a free market,
customers always purchase the best products that they can find at
the lowest price. To punish Microsoft for its success will only
serve to limit the goods and services that are available to the
consumer. In essence, punishing Microsoft will be equivallent to
punishing the consumer.
Please show that hard work and smart thinking pay better than
political pull! Please show Americas children that it is OK to make
heros out of successful companies and people that do the right thing
instead of treating them like common criminals.
Please set Microsoft free and do not punish them!
Sincerely,
Larry A. French
MTC-00027076
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:52pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
i think the settlement reached between the DOJ and Microsoft
shold stand and the matter closed. Some may see Microsoft not as
anti -competative but as super-competative. They have established
cutting edge products priced to consumer satisfaction and are
maximizing their profits. This is a textbook economic business
model.
If competitors want to earn a bigger share of the market they
should come out with a better product or a cheaper one. Computer
users are sophicticated enough to recognize a better value and
generally well able to afford it if they choose. In every industry
if you want to capture more market share you should have to earn it.
As far as the dissident states, i think they are headline
seekers attempting to get some unrestricted funds from the
``cash cow'' much as was the case with the tobacco
industry.
I dont think anybody gains by continuing this legal
battle.Businesses who feel aggrieved can sped thie own time and
shareholders dollars fighting with Microsoft. They might be better
advised to spend the efforts in making a better product.
MTC-00027077
From: John Edstrom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings,
This note is to express my dissatisfaction with the agreement
reached in the Microsoft anti trust case. I have already co-signed a
letter from Dan Kegel which pretty thoroughly covers most of my
objections to the settlement. I personally believe that only a
breakup of MS into independent operating system and application/
services companies. But I guess that isn't even on the table
anymore.
I endorse Mr. Kegel's criticisms of the settlement and his
suggestions on better ways to deal with those issues. However, one
thing that I find especially irksome and unjust about MS's illegal
activities is absence of protection for the consumer. In the past 4
years I have purchased 3 computers. All of them had MS Windows ( NT
) pre installed. I don't like Windows. I don't use it. I resent
being forced to buy it just to get the hardware. More, I can't even
find out how much of the total unit price was devoted to the
unwanted software. I was told that the information could not be
divulged because of the OEM's contract with MS and it wouldn't do me
any good since there are no refunds for unrequested, unused
software.
In order to prevent this unjust situation from continuing I
therefore additionally suggest that something like the following be
included in final judgment.
1) The price of all MS software pre installed on a computer will
be clearly published on all invoices and in all advertising where
the price of the OEM product is displayed.
2) There will be a mechanism whereby a customer can obtain a
full refund by returning the software that they didn't ask for,
don't want and never use.
3) 1&2 above will be made retroactive to when the action
culminating in this settlement was initiated. People who were
charged for MS software without their permission during this period
will be informed how much they paid for it and will be given an
opportunity to return any unused software for a refund plus an
interest charge on the money while it was under MS's control.
I don't think that this will affect many people, most of whom
would buy and use MS Windows anyway. Still, there is no good reason
for not informing people what they are spending their money on and,
the notion that consumer choice can regulate markets is just a cruel
joke as long consumers are forced to buy Windows anyway even though
they choose to use something else.
John Edstrom
Apt. 1
845 SW 10th
Newport, OR 97365
MTC-00027078
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bernice Gray
105 Dawn Drive
Fayetteville, GA 30215
MTC-00027079
From: Jim Mitchell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:55pm
Subject: Unjust Justice
To whom it may concern:
I am completely outraged at the lawsuit against Microsoft. This
organization has done more for this country and its people than all
of the organizations that are obviously dead set on the financial
ruin of Microsoft and the USDOJ and some members of our government
is supporting it. This company has not harmed the people
(financially or otherwise) and has done nothing to hurt compitition
except compete in one of the most compititive markets in the world.
Their prices have been very fair and compititive and their products
are superior to all.
Just a few days ago I received updated browser software from my
internet provider and guess what, the browser provided was Netscape
with no other options and when I started to load it, it gave me no
choice except to install Netscape. It took several hours to remove
Netscape because it is an inferior product and difficult to use when
compared to similar products in the market place (including
Microsoft Internet Explorer). At least I have always had the option
of loading other supporting products when installing microsoft
products. There has always been several choices available or the
choice to install none.
My personal request; In the name of the majority of the people,
drop this litigation
[[Page 27923]]
and stop wasting our hard earned tax money because of a few very
greedy and less qualified compititors, states and some of their
legislators. Please challenge any compititor to provide a superior
product and they will gain market share immediately. What happened
to the old saying, ``Build a better mouse trap and the world
will be at your door''.
Sincerely,
J. R. Mitchell,
a very concerned Washington State Voter and Citizen.
MTC-00027080
From: Jack Lichten
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft must not be allowed to do this!
YOU MUST NEVER LET MICROSOFT GET AWAY WITH THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, it would help the schools, but in such a way as to give
monopolize the educational market as well in favor of Microsoft!!!
With this plan, Microsoft would give schools super-new Wintels or
super-old Macintoshes.
Because of the fact that the Wintels (backed by Microsoft) would
be much more souped up than the Macs, the entire school computer
buisness would fall to Microsoft (and I'm sure you can guess why).
Passing this new agreement would do just that. Remember Standard
Oil? This is just that, for the 20th century-ers.
Just my two cents.
MTC-00027081
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Greetings;
I feel the settlement agreement that is now in effect is fair to
both Microsoft and their competiors. I would like to see that
settlement approved and not allow anymore lawsuits against
microsoft.
Sincerly,
Darlene Hill
P.O. Box 410
Ridgetop, Tn
37152
[email protected]
MTC-00027082
From: Sean Roberts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
1/27/2002
To whom it may concern,
My name is Sean Roberts and I am writing to voice my opposition
to the current Microsoft settlement proposal. This proposal does
nothing to address the issue of Microsoft's dangerous lack of
software quality and its effect on national security, nor does it
address the ``iron fist'' policy Microsoft employs to
choke off the free exchange of information by limiting communication
to Microsoft platforms only. The Microsoft settlement proposal not
only fails to punish Microsoft for its behavior, but also fails to
address the real issue--Microsoft's unwillingness to play on a
level playing field.
In this letter I provide details to support my opposition. These
details include information about the use of the Internet to freely
exchange ideas and Microsoft's serious impact on that free exchange.
I will also give my own negative experiences with Microsoft
products and the impact of such poor quality software on national
defense.
Background
I work for a company that writes software for US missile
defense. Unlike the business world where Microsoft products often
provide the only software solutions, the science and defense
communities employ a variety of computing solutions--typically
various flavors of UNIX. The reasons for employing these alternate
platforms are multiple and include, but are not limited to,
security, reliability, and computational speed. Microsoft does not
offer a platform that can handle the types of computationally
complex problems many scientists are trying to solve.
Free Information Exchange vs. Proprietary Protocols
The Internet as we know it today grew from the seed of ARPANET,
a network of military computers built for communication between
defense installations, and communication between defense research
scientists. Later ARPANET was made public so researchers and
academics outside the defense industry could benefit from the open
sharing of ideas and information that the defense researchers found
so useful. At that time, because the protocols were free and open,
anybody could get involved in the sharing of information, regardless
of the platform they chose to use. Later the business world came to
benefit from this ability to share information, to manage their
finances, and to allow communication between departments that were
separated by large distances. Soon this network grew to allow
average citizens to access vast amounts of information that had
previously been unavailable to them.
Recently, Microsoft has begun to employ proprietary protocols
that prevent citizens using non-Microsoft platforms from being
involved in the sharing of information. If you wish to communicate
with someone who uses Microsoft products you must also use Microsoft
products. It now appears that the Internet, a publicly built and
maintained infrastructure designed to allow everyone to participate
in a climate of open exchange of ideas is becoming something else
indeed. It seems that the Internet is doomed to become yet another
strategic tool to maintain and further Microsoft's dominant position
in the desktop operating system market, and to allow Microsoft to
make further inroads into the server market.
The .NET initiative is taking Microsoft's
``domination'' strategy to new levels (in light of
Microsoft's past actions, to think otherwise would be na
MTC-00027132
From: Ryan Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:00pm
Subject: Unacceptable
I have read the settlement between the United States Government
and Microsoft, and I do not find it acceptable. The settlement does
not even begin to address the problem at hand: the illegal operating
system monopoly Microsoft holds. It appears instead to be an almost-
clever series of loopholes which may permit continued illegal
behavior.
Let me give some illustrations:
III.C.5 . ``Presenting in the initial boot sequence its own
IAP offer provided that the OEM complies with reasonable technical
specifications established by Microsoft, including a requirement
that the end user be returned to the initial boot sequence upon the
conclusion of any such offer.''
--This was written either by a novice, or by an individual
with Microsoft's interests at heart. Software does not exist but for
the cooperation of those who write it. Most ``technical
specifications'' exist as agreements between programmers (many
as RFCs). Consequently, if Microsoft chooses not to cooperate, it
has the ability to change its ``technical specifications''
so that other companies cannot comply and still assert that they are
within the bounds of ``reasonableness''. Consequently this
clause holds no water and appears to be cosmetic.
III.C.3 ``Launching automatically, at the conclusion of the
initial boot sequence or subsequent boot sequences, or upon
connections to or disconnections from the Internet, any Non-
Microsoft Middleware if Microsoft Middleware that provides similar
functionality would otherwise be launched automatically at that
time, provided that any such Non-Microsoft Middleware displays on
the desktop no user interface or a user interface of similar size
and shape to the user interface displayed by the corresponding
Microsoft Middleware.''
--This essentially allows OEMs to use non-Microsoft
middleware only if such middleware apes what Microsoft middleware
does already. I can think of no poorer excuse for
``competitiveness.'' III.J.1 ``Require Microsoft to
document, disclose or license to third parties: (a) portions of APIs
or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols
the disclosure of which would compromise the security of anti-
piracy...''
--1) It is well known in the security industry that open
documentation (indeed--revelation of source code) leads to a
more secure product, not less. The idea that revealing some layer of
a Microsoft protocol would compromise its security is perfectly
fraudulent. I could explicate this point further, but I feel that it
is unnecessary since this information is widely known (and must have
been ignored in the writing of this settlement).
2) On a more disturbing note, this allows Microsoft the ability
to refuse disclosure of any of its protocols for ``security
reasons'', real or not. Since other companies require these
protocols to interoperate with Microsoft's products, this is in
effect giving Microsoft the ability to guarantee that only Microsoft
may make middleware for its operating system. In a competitive
situation, this would be disadvantageous to Microsoft, since
middleware makers would simply switch to another operating system.
In this world where Microsoft's operating system overwhelms the
market, middleware producers will go out of business if they switch
to another operating system.
All these references to ``menus'' and
``icons'' are disturbing when it is certainly conceivable
that these visual aids will disappear and change over time as
Microsoft's product evolves (perhaps they will disappear precisely
to circumvent this settlement's stipulation. At this moment, there
are very few OEMs that can carry on business without a contract to
distribute Microsoft's operating system. As a consequence, none of
them will have an alternative but to sign any license that Microsoft
cares to write. Microsoft doesn't need to make their licenses
``reasonable'' nor ``non-discriminatory''
because it would be financially impossible for an OEM to contest
one. This situation is subject to change, but without real, visible
constraints, Microsoft will maintain a stranglehold on its Covered
OEMs.
The fundamental problem with Microsoft's situation--that it
has illegally maintained its monopoly and stifled competition, is
not given much consideration. Much more of the volume of the
settlement is devoted to appointing ``Compliance
Officers'' and ``TCs'' than was spent on the rights
of the OEMs to choose a non-Microsoft product. Nor does the
settlement hint at how non-Microsoft products are to gain a foothold
enough to compete at all. The fundamental problem here is that
Microsoft is eager and capable of leveraging its dominant share in
the Operating System market into an anticompetitive advantage for
its other products (and further extend its monopoly at the same
time). The settlement needs to address that, rather than grant
piddling ``exceptions'' for other software companies.
[[Page 27940]]
-RYaN
Ryan D. Williams, MIT Class of 2003
MTC-00027133
From: Rebecca Ryness
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
No company should be allowed to abuse antitrust laws, including
Microsoft. I understand that Microsoft is considered by some a
``good'' company, but they are guilty of some very serious
violations in regard to competition in their field. I do not think
that the Proposed Final Judgment is the answer.
Please reevaluate the rulings on this case with comments such as
mine in mind.
Thank you.
Rebecca Ryness
(323)663-3344
MTC-00027136
From: Kerwin Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To:
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
I do not see this settlement as being effective since.
1) It does not do anything to alleviate the problem of Microsoft
being a monopoly since it leaves the company intact.
2) It is to difficult to enforce the provisions and allows
Microsoft to exempt itself from key ones.
3) Microsoft still decides what products are in computers that
consumers buy.
4) The products they provide do not run well with non Microsoft
products so consumers either have to deal with conflicts, obtain and
install a whole new operating system or purchase Microsoft products
only.
5) Microsoft has a history of not holding to agreements when it
serves the companies purpose.
The remedies proposed by the Plaintiff Litigating States are
good and serve the public interest but do not go far enough without
addressing the above issues. Also citizens, consumer groups,
Microsoft customers and Microsoft's competitors must be give an
equal opportunity to participate in public proceeding held under the
Tunney Act by the court.
Thank You for your time
Kerwin Brown
604 W. Beardsley
Champaign. IL 61820
(217--) 352-3312
MTC-00027137
From: John ODell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:05pm
Subject: Suit
I think that everyone should leave Microsoft alone; every
company out there has the same opportunity to make the great impact
on the technology and business in today world. If not for alot of
time in development of there product Microsoft has taken, we would
be 10 to 15 years behind. Everyone user has the choice to use
whatever software out there. Like most of my friends use Netscape
not IE, or other e-mail suite then Outlook. As for the software that
Microsoft integrated in to there OS I personal do not use most of it
I buy software that I like and have been using for along time. So as
to say that by integrating of software in Microsoft OS people do
have a choice to use it or buy the ones they like (when you buy a
car there is a car stereo in made by the manufacturer, you have the
option to use it or buy one that you like.
AOL messenger is not the only one out there. Many can integrate
in to each other and are very much alike. There has been a messenger
of some type along time before AOL came along. And all things that
are invent has came from ideas of something else that is in use, so
to say AOL has to be the only one to have a messenger or the use of
one is about the same thing that everyone is up in arms that they
say Microsoft is doing.
Thank you and let Business grow and no Government control of it,
it unproductive.
John H. ODell
Bonehead a Shock
Wave Lab
MTC-00027138
From: Brad (038) Jo-Anne Jircitano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,
U.S. District Judge
Microsoft needs to be fairly punished for its anticompetitive
and monopolistic behavior. The current settlement proposed by the
U.S. Government and Microsoft is woefully inadequate. The abandoned
proposal to break-up Microsoft into two or more companies would have
advanced the goal of restoring innovation and competition in the
marketplace. When I buy a personal computer today, I can choose
between several manufacturers ( HP, Sony, IBM, Gateway, Compaq etc.)
and the internal chips are manufactured by either Intel or Amdahl.
[These choices exclude Apple Computer, Inc., which is at most, a
niche player in the personal computer business.] When it comes to
choosing a suite of applications (word processor, spreadsheet etc.)
the only viable choice for the rank and file user is Microsoft
Office. This automatically limits my operating system choice to one
manufacturer, Microsoft--Windows XP or Windows 2000. Why
couldn't I choose a Linux operating system and get Microsoft Office
as an application suite? Because that would create competition for
Microsoft's operating system. This competition would, in turn,
create innovation in the marketplace. We might find that Sun
Microsystems might offer it's operating system for personal
computers if Microsoft Office were ported to that operating system.
This is why Microsoft felt it had to illegally attack Netscape.
Netscape was becoming so powerful/popular that innovative companies
were beginning to write word processor and spreadsheet applications
that would work directly within the browser--Netscape
Navigator. If this trend were allowed to continue, American
consumers would have been able to actually choose the operating
system that would be installed on their personal computer. If
Microsoft allowed this trend to continue, consumers would have been
given the freedom to not choose Microsoft as the only viable vendor
for their personal computer operating system.
Microsoft Corp. has been found guilty of breaking the laws of
this country. Many consumers and potentially innovative companies
have been deeply harmed. Microsoft needs to be punished and the
punishment needs to attempt to restore a free marketplace,
innovation and competition in the personal computer industry. The
proposed settlement does not do this. As a citizen of the United
States of America, I look to you to see that justice prevails.
Regards,
Brad A. Jircitano
MTC-00027139
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:07pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft settlement
I sincerely hope that this self-serving, tax wasting lawsuit
brought about by so-called competitors will be quietly dumped on the
ash heap of thousands of other wasteful lawsuits of no merit.
Microsoft has allowed me, a senior citizen, to enjoy the benefits of
computerization and the Internet at a cost that has always been
affordable to everyone. If the competitors wish to compete, they can
stop whining and start spending what Microsoft has had to spend on
research and development to make their products attractive and
reasonably priced. All this lawsuit has done is hasten the slide
into recession and a battered stock market. It's time that everyone
realizes the damage this idiocy has created.
Richard J. Schuster
3835 Caughlin Parkway
Reno, Nevada 89509
MTC-00027140
From: Ken Casey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:09pm
Subject: Micrpsoft Settlement
It is difficult for me to understand why the Federal Government
would single out Microsoft for this type of legal action. Those of
us in the real world sincerely appreciate the opportunity afforded
us by the wonderful products produced by this company.
It appears that you are attempting to hold Microsoft back to
allow those other companies to catch up or even overtake them.
Where do you think this country would be if it were not for the
software development done by Microsoft?
I can't understand why you would want to penalize a company for
succeeding. Please listen to the common man for a change and leave
this company alone.
Ken Casey
Broker-Owner
Ken Casey Realty
13710 Hwy 441, Suite 200
Lady Lake, FL 32159 1-888-716-6709
MTC-00027141
From: Tom Will
[[Page 27941]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas E. Will
3660 Fawn Drive
Canfield, OH 44406
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I believe that the antitrust suit that was brought forward
against Microsoft has taken the eye off of innovation. The
settlement that was reached between Microsoft and the Justice
Department pledges to put the drive to innovate back into the IT
industry. The settlement is designed to give the consumer and
economy a much needed confidence boost.
Under the settlement, Microsoft has agreed to license its
Windows operating system to twenty of the largest computer makers on
equal terms and conditions, including price. The settlement
instructs Microsoft not to enter contracts that would restrain
software developers from developing or promoting software that would
compete with its Windows. Microsoft has also agreed to the
establishment of a three-person ``Technical Committee''
that would observe its conformity to the settlement.
I believe that the settlement addresses the demands of the suit
adequately, and it would be beneficial in providing assistance to
the revival of the economy. It's time to get on with business. I
strongly recommend that you maker certain to finalize this
settlement.
Sincerely,
Thomas Will
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00027142
From: Jack Lilygren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
622 Dundee Lane
Holmes Beach, FL 34217
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Three years is a very long time. With the economy in its current
shape and so many other important causes that tax payer dollars
could be used for, there could never be a better time to close this
case. Microsoft has contributed too much to society, the economy and
the IT industry to be punished the way they have been. Microsoft's
innovations have changed the computer technology forever and
enhanced the professional and personal lives of millions of users
around the world.
In addition to the soundness of Microsoft's innovations, the
past three years has proven that Microsoft is has fortitude and
strength. Though the lawsuit has, without a doubt, cost Microsoft
millions of dollars and unspeakable frustration, I believe that the
hardship they have had to endure throughout this litigation will
only help to make them a better company.
They have already displayed gracious compliance to the terms of
the settlement and have even agreed to issues that were not even at
issue in the lawsuit.
It should no longer be necessary for competitors to accuse
Microsoft of trying to corner the market. This is because Microsoft
has agreed to create future versions of Windows that would allow for
compatibility with non-Microsoft products. Additionally, competitors
will have access to internal Windows interfaces--an
unprecedented move in an antitrust case.
It is my hope and the hope of many observers that this matter
will come to a close as soon as possible. We are counting on your
vigilant efforts.
Sincerely,
John Lilygren
[email protected]
MTC-00027143
From: Jack T. Dwyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a taxpayer and citizen, I would like to add my name and that
of the other members of my family in requesting that the DOJ
finalize the proposed settlement agreement with Microsoft and move
on with more important work and pressing issues. In my opinion, this
whole issue and that of AOL's pending lawsuite is nothing more than
a continuing effort to stifle Microsoft's innovative efforts, and
subsidize other non competetive companies at taxpayers expense. I am
really tired of this issue, and would like to see some progress on
behalf of consumers, technology, and the government. These
companies, AOL Netscape and others are working to defeat Microsoft's
efforts to move on, and are using politics and the courts to futher
their ambitions.
Lets all move on and devote our time to more rewarding work. Let
the success or failure of private companies depend on their own
efforts, not on their abilities to manipulate the DOJ and the
courts.
Sincerely,
Jack Dwyer
[email protected]
MTC-00027144
From: Phil (038) Barbara Stone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
One of the fundamental functions of the United States government
is to protect its citizens from the initiation of force and fraud.
Microsoft is guilty of neither. Millions of people buy Microsoft
products of their own free will. No one forces them to do so. The
American people are not ``helpless victims'' who cannot
choose software that is most useful to them. The government does not
have a right to decide what can be on my or anybody's computer.
It's not the government's place to decide who has ``too
much'' of the market. It is the consumer's job to do that by
deciding what to purchase. The complaint against Microsoft
originated with its unsuccessful competitors, not with its customers
or partners. Failed businesses must not be allowed to set the rules
for the markets in which they have failed.
Microsoft has a fundamental right to its property. The
government's job is to protect that right, not to take it away. You
must vote in favor of Microsoft because to do otherwise would blunt
the entrepreneurial spirit if this great country.
Barbara Stone,
Strongsville, OH
MTC-00027145
From: MCCUE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:14pm
Subject: all done
I hope this will help
MTC-00027146
From: Margaret K. Herrin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:13pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Margaret Herrin
9 Pebble Lane
Signal Mountain, TN 37377-2142
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I am writing to express my support in the three-year antitrust
settlement between Microsoft and the federal government. I sincerely
hope that no further litigation is being sought at the federal
level.
Taking in to account the terms of the agreement, Microsoft did
not get off easily. In fact, Microsoft is left to make several
significant changes to the ways that they now handle their business.
For example, Microsoft has agreed to document and disclose for use
by its competitors various interfaces that are internal to
Windows'' operating system products. With the many terms of the
agreement, I see no reason to pursue further litigation on any level
against Microsoft. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Margaret Herrin
MTC-00027148
From: Jim Brauner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is simple. I expect the government and legal system to punish
predatory business practices when they are judged as such. Microsoft
should have little to no say so in what their penalty should be. It
should hurt them and cost them lest you send a message to them that
because they have billions to try to change the truth of their
conviction is not going to work.
Penalize them to the full extent of the law so that they
hopefully learn a lesson. If you don't do that then just take you
pathetic system and go home, you are not needed nor are you helpful.
MTC-00027149
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:25pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
[[Page 27942]]
WHEN ARE YOU PEOPLE GOING TO REALIZE THAT THE PEOPLE OPPOSED TO
MICROSOFT ONLY WANT TO DESTROY AN INOVATIVE AND SUCCESFULL BUSINESS
ENTRAPENEAUR,WHO HAS DONE MORE GOOD TO BRING COMPUTORS AND COMPUTING
OUT OF THE DARK AGES.LETS QUIT WASTING (MY ) TAXPAYERS MONEY ON THIS
WITCH HUNT AND GET ONTO SOMETHING USEFUL.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thomas J. Hankamp
318 Creek Rd.
Pleasant Valley,N.Y. 12569
MTC-00027150
From: Jared
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wish to state, for the record, that I am opposed to the
current Microsoft anti-trust settlement. It is not in my interest
and neither serves justice nor justifies the vast expense that
taxpayers have contributed to thwart yet another abuse of market
power by yet another behemoth corporation.
Jared C. Rypka-Hauer
Continuum Media Group LLC
Burnsville MN
MTC-00027151
From: Ann Gambrino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:26pm
Subject: re: Microsoft cases
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 State of Utah is
not one of them. I support his position and believe that the terms
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 anti-competitive 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 Gambrino, executive director
Utah Hotel & Lodging Association
CC: The Honorable Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General
Jonathon Jaffe, The MWW Group
MTC-00027152
From: J. Andrew Hoerner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a consumer of Microsoft software, in both my personal and
my professional capacity. I strongly oppose the current settlement,
which does little or nothing to prevent Microsoft from continuing to
extend its virtual monopoly on operating systems for desktops and
laptops to other forms of software, by either integrating them with
the OS, or requiring software developers to make various concessions
for the privilege of building complicated interfaces with the OS. I
believe that no solution can be adequate unless it either splits
Microsoft into an OS company and an applications company or makes
the OS source code available to all, including MS's own applications
developers, on a uniform basis.
Andrew Hoerner
J. Andrew Hoerner
Senior Research Scholar & Director of Research
Center for a Sustainable Economy
1731 Connecticut Ave, NW, #500
Washington DC 20009
phone: (202) 234-9665
fax: (202) 588-1297
[email protected]
http://www.sustainableeconomy.org/
MTC-00027153
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:23pm
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 Welter
515 Defoe Dr.
Columbia, MO 65203
MTC-00027154
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:26pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Leave them alone. They provide outstanding products and service.
Rusty Ashbaugh
MTC-00027155
From: Robert Walion
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:28pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
.This proposed ``settlement'' is a joke.Microsoft
essentially has offered nothing and is probably laughing at the
court for even considering the proposal.Microsoft needs to be dealt
with harshly.Instead,the Justice department wants to lightly slap
them on the wrist.
There should be a $10 billion fine at the very least.This still
wouldn't really hurt Microsoft since they currently have almost $40
billion in cash reserves.The company should still be broken up and
it's conduct in the marketplace closely monitored.After seeing
several states sign off on this travesty of a ``deal',I won't
hold my breath waiting for that to happen....
God help us all if this is how the Govt. deals with white collar
criminals.
Robert Walion
MTC-00027156
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 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,
Barbara Payne
10021 Cavalry Dr
Fairfax, VA 22030-1913
MTC-00027157
From: H. Peter Anvin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 27943]]
To:
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530-0001
[email protected]
From: H. Peter Anvin
4390 Albany Dr Apt 46
San Jose CA 95129-1621
[email protected]
To the Honorable Court:
As a resident of the United States and a professional software
developer, I would like to comment on the proposed settlement in
United States vs. Microsoft, as provided by the Tunney Act. I
believe the proposed settlement contains severe flaws in that it
seems to lack proper provisions for enforcement, and fails to
address some of the real consumer concerns going forward.
First of all, let me refer to you to a very thorough and
insightful analysis provided by Mr. Dan Kegel, available on the
World Wide Web as http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html. Mr.
Kegel carefully addresses many of the shortcomings in the proposed
settlement, and advises how to adjust it to make it more
appropriately fit the current situation.
Rather than reproducing the points of Mr. Kegel's analysis here,
I would like to explain why it is imperative that these elements
take into account. The goal of the settlement should be to rectify
the anomalous situation that has developed in the computer industry
through the unlawful anticompetitive conduct on the part of
Microsoft.
FOR THERE TO BE A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO MICROSOFT, THE INTIMATE
CONNECTION BETWEEN OPERATING SYSTEM VENDOR AND APPLICATION SOFTWARE
MUST BE BROKEN. At one time, it was commonplace for software vendors
to release their software for multiple platforms. Today, due to the
overwhelming dominance of the Microsoft platform, Windows is
generally the only platform for which software can be obtained,
regardless if the software is from Microsoft or not. Therefore, the
settlement must create conditions under which we can move from a
Microsoft- centric software market to a competitive software market,
and the only way to do so is by making it possible to create a
standard platform, an Application Programming Interface (API), and
enforce its use. This is addressed by Mr. Kegel in the proposal of
the creation of a Windows API Standards Expert Group and requiring
Microsoft to cooperate with it; a proposal which I fully support.
FOR THERE TO BE A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO MICROSOFT, FILE FORMATS
MUST BE DISCLOSED. Microsoft have, by leveraging their Windows
monopoly, established monopolies in other areas, such as
productivity applications. Today it is commonplace for people in
business situations to receive Microsoft Office documents as e-mail
attachments; it being assumed that the recipient has access to
Microsoft Office as a matter of course. The Findings of Fact ?20 and
?39 address the barrier to entry; this is an essential part of the
barrier that needs to be overcome.
FOR THERE TO BE A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO MICROSOFT, THE FINAL
JUDGEMENT NEEDS TO BE STRICTLY ENFORCED. Microsoft has in the past,
such as after the Consent Agreement of 1994, dealt with antitrust
settlements by making trivial changes that amount to little more
than relabelling to their business practices in order to avoid the
bite of the settlement. Due to the very rapid pace of the technology
industry, renewed court action is likely to delay until the renewed
monopoly situation is already a fait accompli. Therefore, the Final
Judgement needs to have independent oversight, capable of imposing
strong sanction without further court action.
FOR THERE TO BE A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO MICROSOFT, OPEN SOURCE
SOFTWARE NEEDS TO BE ALLOWED THE SAME ACCESS AND PROTECTION AS
COMPETING COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE. A number of items in the proposed
Final Judgement specifically excludes so-called Open Source
software. However, it has shown over the past several years that the
most likely candidates to challenge Microsoft as a monopoly are
exactly such Open Source operating systems and software, such as
Linux, an operating system developed by Linus Torvalds in
conjunction with a large number of volunteers and, more recently,
corporations. It is therefore imperative that the proposed Final
Judgement be revised to give Open Source software developers full
parity with commercial software developers.
As outlined above, I believe the Proposed Final Judgement is not
in the public interest as it will not perform its intended function
of restoring competition to the software marketplace. I refer to the
proposal of Mr. Kegel for the details on how it may be revised.
Sincerely,
H. Peter Anvin
San Jose, California
MTC-00027158
From: Julie Davidson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From the Competitive Impact Statement, section II, Overview of
Relief: ``The relief contained in the Proposed Final Judgment
provides prompt, certain and effective remedies for consumers. The
requirements and prohibitions 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.''
I think the Proposed Final Judgment does not begin to achieve
this. MS is nothing if not creative when it comes to ``business
methods''. Not to mention language interpretation...
And how does it happen that the definition of Microsoft
Middleware omits MS Office and Outlook (but includes Outlook Express
??? ) I mean, if we're going to ``restore
competitiveness'', why play favorites?
cc: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
CC:snail mail
MTC-00027159
From: Shane Chen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:30pm
Subject: On the Proposed Final Judgment.
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
I'd like to comment on the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) in
United States v. Microsoft (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-
settle.htm). My name is Shane Chen. I'm currently working as a web
master for the Institute for Creative Technologies
(www.ict.usc.edu). In the past five years, I also worked as a
network administrator, and technical support. I can easily attest to
Microsoft domination of the office applications, middleware, and
operating systems market.
If the PFJ ``must seek to ``unfetter a market from
anticompetitive conduct'', to ``terminate the illegal
monopoly, deny to the defendant the fruits of its statutory
violation, and ensure that there remain no practices likely to
result in monopolization in the future'' (section V.D., p. 99),
the current proposal is wholly inadequate. Not only are the terms
such as ``API'', ``middleware'', and
``Windows OS'' too narrowly defined, the current PFJ seems
to only be a veiled attempt at ``punishing Microsoft.''
In short, the current PFJ still leaves everyone at the mercy of
Microsoft. MS could rename a product, create a new product, fail to
provide sufficient documentation to competitors, etc., and even if
MS was caught violating the PFJ, they would spend months and years
in court to argue that they weren't in violation. Meanwhile,
business still has to go on. People still need operating systems to
drive their machines, MS word to do word processing, etc. And MS's
competitors would suffer because the easiest way to easier
compatibility and avoid problems would still be to use MS products.
Because of this, the current PFJ cannot possible restore competition
to the computer software market. The easiest and the most elegant
solution, is not by doing anything directly to Microsoft, but
putting Microsoft in the position where they actually have to
compete, instead doing anything they please knowing full well
there's not a thing anyone could do about it. This is NOT an
impossible task. However, to accomplish this, the U.S. government
would have to lead the way.
If the U.S. government would decree that all government software
be switched away from closed sourced proprietary solutions to open
source based solutions, then everyone could compete fairly. This
would give immediate incentive for all businesses wanting government
business to at least in part run open source software. Microsoft
would instantly cease to be the dominate player in the computer
software market. This is of course, not excluding Microsoft from
[[Page 27944]]
competition. Microsoft is welcome to compete in that space. They
could provide open source solutions or file formats, or at the very
least, have to also create products that can no longer exclude
competition by intentional proprietary design.
The simplicity of this solution would actually restore
competition to a market that is currently at the will and whimsy of
Microsoft. Of course, the appellate courts have no such legal power
to decree this, but the dominance of Microsoft in the computer
software market space will require a solution of this magnitude.
God save us all,
Shane Chen
MTC-00027160
From: Dick and Candy James
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
January 27, 2002
Attorney General Ashcroft, Justice Dept.
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I would like to urge you to support the settlement that has been
reached between the Dept, of Justice and the Microsoft Corp. It is
time to get back to rebuilding our economy, especially the
technology field which has been so badly hurt in this recession.
Sincerely,
Carlyn and Richard James
741 Walnut
Edmonds, Wa. 98020
MTC-00027161
From: Todd Grant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:35pm
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. As a Small business owner in the computer technology field, I
will keep this brief. Each day Microsoft goes with out checks in
place to monitor the tactics they use, the harder it is for me to
provide my customers with the best solution available.
In short, the proposed settlement is a bad idea
Sincerely,
Todd Grant--Consultant
NT Consultants
[email protected]
http://www.ntconsultants.net
MTC-00027162
From: Jud Meaders
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In the two months or so since I first wrote, nothing has
happened to change my mind re your caving in to the Microsoft
Corporation with your ``proposed settlement.'' Microsoft
continues its anti-competetive practices, seemingly with your
blessing. They continue to use their monopoly position to leverage
their way into other key areas of the economy. Again, with your
blessing.
Does the public know that the federal government is Microsoft's
largest customer? How is it, given the judgment against them,
unanimously upheld, that the government continues to purchase
products and services from them, and still keeps them on a preferred
supplier list? Pardon my cynicism, but could it be their money and
influence? What else could it be?
Does the public know that Microsoft has not paid ANY federal
income taxes for at least the past two years, maybe longer? Do they
know how Micorosft is doing that? Can you say non-expensed stock
option grants? Do they know that Microsoft's internal auditor was
fired several years ago because he wouldn't go along with what he
considered securities fraud? That he received a $4 million
settlement with the company that included a gag order?
Given the penchant of this administration for secrecy, it may
take us some time to find out just what the government's ties with
Microsoft really are (how else to explain such a capitulation to an
arrogant, unrepentant monopolist?). But I will do what I can to see
that those ties are exposed, by writing letters such as this one, by
staying informed, and by letting my elected Senators and
Representatives know of my opinion. I am forwarding a copy of this
e-mail to each of them.
Thank you for your time. I hope your future actions prove me
wrong.
Jud Meaders
MTC-00027163
From: John Stevenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:35pm
Subject: Comment for the Record Microsoft Antitrust Case
Dept. of Justice--Interested Parties
I believe that your prosecution of Microsoft is nothing less
than an attempt to tear down a company that has earned its way in
the marketplace. This country is about achievement and that means
winning and losing. Your job is to simply keep your hands off the
process.
Sincerely,
John Stevenson
1109 Don Gaspar Lane
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505
MTC-00027164
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
Currently the software development industry is at an inflection
point. The monolithic application architectures of the 1980's and
1990's are giving way to architectures based on Object-Oriented
design and XML-based interoperability.
With its .NET software initiative, Microsoft is providing the
leadership that PC developers are looking for. Microsoft's work in
the languages and tools area is critical work that enables thousands
of independent developers to add value around the PC platform. My
view is that Microsoft is stepping into a void caused by a failure
in leadership at Sun Microsystems. Sun has impeded the market with
legal tactics and government lobbying, to prevent desktop developers
from innovating with modern programming languages. Sun, as a server
vendor, has a vested economic interest in today's ``dumb
client,'' and has used legal and political tactics, as opposed
to technological innovation, to preserve today's outdated status
quo.
Technologists may look back at the 1998-2001 period as a
period of frozen innovation, as competitors choose to compete on the
basis of lawsuits and government budgets rather than deliver
products desired by the market. In my opinion, much of the
``dot.com'' meltdown has been caused by technological
stagnation around mid-1990's software architectures. The simplistic,
dumb-terminal model of the HTML browser did not create a platform
where programmers could create a distinct value proposition. The
bottom line is that this industry needs to get back to work.
Microsoft appears to be taking a leadership role in delivering to
the programming languages and tools necessary to allow 3rd parties
build the software systems of tomorrow. This is work that must go
forward without further delay. The alternative is continued economic
crisis in the Information Technology industry.
Sincerely,
Jason Michel
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00027167
From: Don
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:38pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Microsoft won the settlement a long time ago. Let us move on.
MTC-00027168
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:38pm
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,
Jerry Proud
Rt. 1 Box 67
Marsing,, ID 83639
MTC-00027169
From: Grady B Nichols
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 27945]]
Please accept the proposed Microsoft Settlement and move on to
more important business. I believe Microsoft is being punished for
being innovative and successful.
Grady B. Nichols
400 Kiowa St.
Montevallo, AL 35115-3671
MTC-00027170
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
After review of the Proposed Final Judgment in the United States
vs. Microsoft Corporation case, I find the proposed remedy to be
insufficient to serve the public interest. The remedy fails to
fulfill two of the three goals an appropriate solution should
provide. This Proposed Final Judgment fails to prevent future
antitrust violations by Microsoft, and fails to undo the
consequences suffered from Microsoft's violations. I also believe
the Proposed Final Judgment extends too much protection to
Microsoft's monopoly of operating systems. Relevant chapter,
section, subsection information will be enclosed in parenthesis
where it is believed appropriate and beneficial.
Instead of preventing future violations, the Proposed Final
Judgment seems to protect Microsoft from new threats. My main
concerns are the limitations as described below:
(III.C.3) Limiting automatic launching of middleware to only
``similar functionality'' that Microsoft already delivers
prevents new functionalities from being introduced. This section
seems to guarantee Microsoft the right to decide what types of
middleware may automatically run.
(III.D) By limiting the released APIs to only those Microsoft
has already used in middleware, Microsoft is protected from
middleware using new features Microsoft has not yet applied to
middleware products. Essentially this guarantees Microsoft the first
chance to use an API feature, and further the right to prevent some
API features from becoming available to middleware products that
might use those features in a way that could threaten Microsoft's
operating system monopoly.
(III.H exception 1) This exception states Microsoft may invoke
Microsoft middleware to interoperate with a server maintained by
Microsoft. Microsoft's .net initiative seems to plan for the
increased use of servers maintained by Microsoft for many
activities. By allowing this exception, it may serve to allow
Microsoft to invoke their middleware on an increasingly frequent
basis, at least in part eliminating the ability for non-Microsoft
middleware to effectively compete. Through this exception, Microsoft
could also illegally maintain the Windows operating system monopoly,
and even create new monopolies, by placing critical components of
Windows onto servers maintained by Microsoft.
(III.H exception 2) This exception provides Microsoft the
opportunity to override a non-Microsoft middleware product with a
Microsoft one should the non-Microsoft middleware fail to implement
a feature the Microsoft middleware implements. This seems to suggest
Microsoft may be given the right to make sure a Microsoft interest
will always function, which seems likely to allow further abuses of
the Microsoft Windows monopoly.
The Proposed Final Judgment fails to undo the consequences of
Microsoft's illegal anticompetitive behaviors. If Microsoft had not
illegally maintained the high application barrier to entry, many
things would certainly be available to a much broader range of
operating systems, yet I can find no actions taken to undo these
damages Microsoft inflicted. Further, Microsoft is actually rewarded
for the antitrust violations they have been found guilty of.
Due to Microsoft's maintenance of the applications barrier to
entry, a large amount of additional power and influence was gained
by Microsoft. This gained power likely led to many new proprietary
standards released by Microsoft having unnaturally high acceptance,
rather than alternative standards being created that would not be
under the control of Microsoft. Examples of standards released by
Microsoft (not necessarily affected by Microsoft's antitrust
violations) include, but are not limited to, Windows-Media Formats,
Active Server Pages, and DirectX. It is essential to ensure
functionality provided by Microsoft standards that would have been
fulfilled by non-Microsoft standards had Microsoft not broken
antitrust laws be available in a similar fashion to how the non-
Microsoft standards would. Further, Microsoft should not be allowed
to profit from such standards more than they would have had
Microsoft not violated antitrust laws.
In regards to the rewards Microsoft will receive under the
Proposed Final Judgment, (III.I) allows Microsoft to license (in
addition to their legal intellectual property) the intellectual
property that illegally gained value through Microsoft's
anticompetitive behaviors. This results in Microsoft being provided
with new revenue streams as a result of their illegal actions. This
sets a bad precedent by allowing a company to violate antitrust
laws, and then establish permanent revenue streams from those same
violations.
I have another fairly minor concern about the definition under
(VI.J) of ``Microsoft Middleware'', which states a major
version is described as one with either a new name or a new whole
number or number directly to the right of the decimal point. If
Microsoft were to change their versioning system, it seems this
could become ineffective. It also seems this may cause Microsoft to
change their view of when a new version is worth the trouble of
labeling with a new whole number or number directly to the right of
the decimal point.
Overall, the Proposed Final Judgment seems to be lacking on many
critical points, and provides no way to introduce future revisions
should they be necessary to correct the oversights of the Proposed
Final Judgment.
Richard Urich
[email protected]
1146 Pointe Newport terr 208
Casselberry, FL 32707
(407) 493--7906
MTC-00027171
From: Eddie Birmingham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement United States Department of Justice:
I am a Software Developer and have been watching the Microsoft
case from the beginning. I DO NOT support the US DOJ's position on
Microsoft for reasons I have outlined below:
1. The software I am developing is called TLMAXCAP
(tlmaxcap.com). It is a program designed to help smaller companies/
manufacturers, that ship product on semi trailers, manage their
shipments. It includes functionality for importing data from their
existing computer system, printing of important shipping documents
like Carrier Confirmation Reports and Bills of Lading, and it allows
an unskilled person to arrange the product on the trailer so that
weight is distributed evenly over the entire trailer. This product
was developed with Microsoft Access and Microsoft Visual Basic.
2. Furthermore, it is only because of products like MS Access
and MS VB that this new software can be developed by one person
(me), in a one bedroom apartment for under $7,000 and in only three
months. In fact, the cost of the software was less than $1,200. This
doesn't mean I couldn't have used another software alternative. It
does mean it would have cost ME more time and money and the software
would probably not have been as feature rich.
3. Furthermore, by using my software, companies will be able to
cut down on the number of errors and mis-calculations in the
shipping process. For example, one ``standard'' operating
procedure in the shipping industry is to have a semi-trailer weighed
before it actually ``hits the road''. If the load is not
arranged properly (e.g. over-weight), the driver returns to the
Shipper and has the problem resolved. Some of the benefits of
reducing the number of times this ``procedure'' occurs,
include: saving Driver time and money, less gas used (less
pollution), saving the Shipper time and money, and better efficiency
for everyone in the supply chain.
4. Furthermore, I believe these facts dispute the claim by the
US DOJ that I am a helpless consumer. I know what I want and I know
how to get it. I have molded Access and VB to fit my needs and have
exploited the features of those two products to offer an
exceptionally powerful product at an exceptionally attractive cost
to Customers. I would challenge the Court to come up with a better
solution to offer the same product, with the same features, as I
have developed--real OR imagined.
5. Like most American's, I want to become successful. This level
of success will be determined by me, but TLMAXCAP is a step in the
right direction. It just so happens there is free software out on
the Internet that does some of what my software does. Should I sue
them? What if other competitors decide to lower their prices in
response to my software? Should I sue them? Should they sue me for
having a lower price? What if a price war breaks out and pretty soon
my software is $1. I can't live off of $1 software,
[[Page 27946]]
so hopefully I would have a better business model that would allow
me to outlive (in a business sense) some competitors so I could
start charging something for my software again. Should they sue?
Should I sue? Okay, so I won't give my software away, but at what
price does it become anti-competitive?? It would be a race to the
courthouse! Should I even be having these concerns?? How much am I
going to have to raise the cost of my software by so I can have a
little war chest just for litigation? Who wins??
6. Finally, I am not a Microsoft fanatic. I am not offering this
information as a confession or a justification, but only so the
Court knows my real view: I want the best products and I don't care
who builds them; I believe the free markets and competitive nature
within, will afford me this. I am typing this e-mail using Netscape
and Netscape Navigator is my browser of choice. I hate IE and I have
expressed this distaste to Microsoft and my reasons for this
``hate''. I would not use IE simply because Microsoft
developed it (that would make me a fanatic). In fact, my *only*
complaint about Netscape is that whenever I hear about this DOJ vs.
Microsoft case I am reminded that one of the major players is
Netscape (AOL, now) and that leaves a bad taste in my
mouth--that I am actually supporting the very anti-competitive
vermin responsible for this whole mess. I would only like to point
out that Netscape was able to beat its previous competitor, Mosaic,
with a better product, Navigator (it was once just called Netscape).
Mosaic was Free, but Netscape was better. So if Netscape was able to
beat Mosaic in the free markets of the United States, why can't they
beat IE?? If Netscape was still trying to be competitive (which this
Court Case has assured is not happening) they would be out showing
the world how their browser is better because it doesn't crash as
often, it doesn't do a bunch of stuff on their PC they don't know
about, they are less prone to virus attacks, they are much easier to
configure, they aren't tied into a million other parts of the OS so
there are less parts to break, etc. etc. In any case, I think this
is a question for the market place to answer, and not the Courts.
Thank you for your time,
Eddie Birmingham
[email protected]
MTC-00027173
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Vavra
9897 SE 178th Place
Summerfield, FL 34491
MTC-00027174
From: Jeff Beverly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that it would be wise to settle for the terms that
Microsoft has agreed. The Microsoft Corporation has produced and
licensed high-quality software products to the World. Their software
is far superior to anything that I have tried using. They have, in
no way, stopped other companies from competing with them. If
Microsoft wants certain computer makers to bundle only Microsoft
products, that's there business. If I don't want to use Microsoft
products on my computer, I won't buy the computer that is only
bundled with Microsoft products. I'll buy something else. There are
plenty of computer manufacturers from which to choose. It is not
Microsoft's problem that no other computer software maker can make
an operating system as functional as Windows. The successes of
Microsoft have been remarkable, and companies like AOL, Netscape,
and Sun Microsystems are jealous of that success. It was wrong for
the United States government to take sides with the ``cry
baby'' companies and weaken, perhaps, the most successful and
technology-driven company in the world, The Microsoft Corporation.
Sincerely,
Jeff Beverly
MTC-00027175
From: J.B. Nicholson-Owens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Your Honor,
Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed
settlement of the Microsoft case. I feel that this settlement would
be contrary to the public interest, and I strongly oppose it. The
proposed settlement would cement Microsoft's market dominance (a
dominance largely realized through unsavory means) and, more
broadly, it would seriously harm competition and innovation in the
computer industry. Both of these outcomes are highly undesirable.
The cornerstone of this case involves competition. Historically,
rival firms and developers have found it very difficult to compete
with Microsoft for two main reasons; Microsoft's proprietary file
formats and proprietary Application Programming Interfaces (APIs).
APIs function as an interface that allows different software
programs to interact with one another; for example, APIs allow a
word processing program to work together with a computer's operating
system. The problem here is that Microsoft prevents competition by
using secret APIs; Microsoft's applications and operating systems
employ undocumented program instructions (that is, program
instructions that are not publicly released). Microsoft places
valuable functionality in secret APIs and thus prevents competition
from leveraging that functionality. For example, while many
developers can write a word processor to attempt to compete with
Microsoft Word, a non-Microsoft word processor will never offer
certain features available only through secret APIs--features
only a Microsoft word processor (such as Microsoft Word) is able to
provide.
Furthermore, Microsoft's management of its file formats also
stifles competition. In addition to being secretive with the details
of critical file formats, many Microsoft application file formats
change with successive versions of the program; for example, from
one version of Microsoft Word to the next. These shifting file
formats are primarily designed to prevent competition. By rendering
it impractical for potential competitors to develop compatible
substitutes which read and write Microsoft file formats--a
critical step in making a viable product--competitors are
unable to supply a fully compatible alternative to Word or other
Microsoft programs. It has been difficult to write a fully
compatible Microsoft Word alternative because determining the
Microsoft Word file format is both undocumented and changing. As a
result of secret APIs and secret changing file formats, rival
products are rarely developed.
Given the critical roles played by APIs and file formats, it is
crucial that any proposed settlement do three things:
1. Force Microsoft to disclose all of the file formats and APIs
available in all shipped products (including future enhancements).
This will end the secrecy around Microsoft's file formats and APIs
which will help remedy Microsoft's prior abuse of their monopoly.
2. Force Microsoft to use only disclosed file formats and APIs
in products it will ship from now on. This will prevent future
abuses by preventing Microsoft from using newly invented secret file
formats and secret APIs. Microsoft would remain free to innovate and
improve their software by changing their APIs and file formats as
needed, but they would be forced to distribute programs built solely
on disclosed file formats and APIs.
3. Allow anyone to develop software programs with the disclosed
file formats and APIs. This, taken with the previous two actions,
will allow viable competition with Microsoft. Just because
specifications are documented does not mean other developers are
free to develop software based on those specifications, hence the
need for this third settlement term.
The settlement in question does not do any of these things;
rather, Microsoft is free to continue its past practices. If one
clause requires publication of an API or file format, for example,
it is accompanied by another clause that prevents a competing
developer from actually using that information. The final judgement
leaves Microsoft free to continue shipping software that uses secret
APIs and secret file formats. Nothing in the final judgement allows
for or requires provision of Microsoft APIs and file formats
[[Page 27947]]
in a way that will encourage markets and competition.
Frankly, this situation is no different--and no
better--than the one that prevailed before the filing of this
Microsoft anti-trust case. Given this, it is obvious that an
alternative policy is required, one that will promote fair
competition, and, fortunately, the broad outlines of such a policy
are clear. Simply put, Microsoft must be compelled to compete. They
must be required to publish all their APIs and file formats
(including future enhancements) with the agreement that other firms
can write software that complies with these Microsoft
specifications. Microsoft must also be required to use only the
published file formats and published APIs in shipped products so
they cannot continue the anti-competitive practice of developing
secret functionality. Such an approach would have numerous benefits.
First, real competition would be a boon to consumers. Consistent
with the fundamental principles of markets, this would be likely to
provide lower software prices in many cases. Furthermore,
competition would also provide a wider product range. Given
Microsoft's general dominance, most users are afraid to use non-
Microsoft products because they are justifiably concerned that their
existing Microsoft-based files or documents will be incompatible
with non-Microsoft programs. Clearly this discourages development by
other firms, and it locks users into obtaining and using a single
product.
By shipping software using only published file formats and APIs,
however, competing firms would have an incentive to develop
competing products, some of which would undoubtedly provide greater
satisfaction and value for many consumers. Finally, competition
would spur innovation and development in the software industry. In
many cases, frankly, Microsoft products have prevailed because of
market dominance rather than quality. Microsoft products contain
many undesirable features--vulnerability to viruses, poor
privacy protection and so on--which have been allowed to arise
and persist because there is little or no pressure to fix them;
consumers disillusioned by poor Microsoft products typically have
nowhere else to go. Clearly, competition is the remedy for this.
To restate and conclude, the point here is simple: competition.
Competition is the cornerstone of the market, and, if allowed to
flourish, it usually works well. Microsoft knows this and Microsoft
has been working very hard to stifle viable competitive
alternatives. You have the power to limit their aggression against
competition by refusing the settlement on the grounds that it does
not adequately address Microsoft's actions in regard to their
handling of file formats and APIs. Please don't let Microsoft
continue to prevent consumers from enjoying better computer systems,
and please encourage a situation where people can pick products
based on their merits rather than on a Microsoft monopoly. Please
help contribute to an atmosphere which will foster innovation and
development in this vital sector of the economy. Please reject the
Microsoft settlement, because it will allow Microsoft to continue
making a mockery of consumers, competition, and the computer
industry.
Sincerely,
J.B. Nicholson-Owens
P.O. Box 2412
Station A
Champaign, IL 61825-2412
MTC-00027176
From:OldManFromSceneTwentyFive
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing with respect United States v. Microsoft proposed
settlement. As a student of technology, specifically Electrical and
Computer Engineering, and an Open Source (GNU General Public
License) advocate, I have a somewhat unique vantage point from which
to analyize Microsoft's reign over the PC industry. When Microsoft's
overpriced products are compared with open-source free products it
becomes clear that something is wrong. The software that Microsoft
offers, in terms of security, useability, and stability, is putrid.
The situation is somewhat akin to rope and rats being processed into
canned meats before regulations were passed. Unfortunately, simple
regulations are not possible in this quickly evolving field. The
only force capable of protecting the public is competition.
Microsoft's monopoly is like no other. The nature of the electronic
frontier allow many new ways for Microsoft to stifle competition,
and as a result they will always be one step ahead of the law. This
is why I believe much stronger action is required. I favor honorable
judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's suggestion, that Microsoft be
required to provide accurate disclosure of, and support for, their
programming interfaces (APIs, see Jackson's Finding of Facts),
enabling third parties to develop interoperable systems with
Microsoft's own offerings.
Eric Innis ([email protected])
Faux Pas III wrote:
Under the provisions of the Tunney act, American citizens have
the right to comment on federal antitrust settlements such as DoJ vs
Microsoft.
Information about the suit, including the text of the proposed
settlement, are here:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms--index.htm
To let the federal government know how you feel about the
settlement, send mail here, subject `Microsoft Settlement':
[email protected]
Inside sources say that responses received thus far have been
overwhelmingly in favor of Microsoft, and have mostly come from
Microsoft employees and others that the corporation has solicited to
submit their opinions.
In case anybody cares, here's what I said.
I am writing with respect to my concerns with the settlement
reached with Microsoft in the DoJ suit, regarding anticompetitive
practices and abuse of monopoly power. I am a professional working
in the field of computer network security, and I have witnessed
throughout the years a host of situations in which the American
public have been victimized by Microsoft's abuse of their
overwhelming monopoly. Based on my reading of the proposed
settlement, I feel obliged to comment that the remedies put forth
thereby will be greatly inadequate to reintroduce competition into
the numerous markets currently owned by Microsoft, or to mitigate
the tangible damage in terms of both direct financial loss and,
indirectly, through an absence of customer service, attention to
security and stability and the end-user's rights of fair use.
As an alternative remedy, I favor the suggestion put forth by
the honorable judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, that Microsoft be
required to provide accurate disclosure of, and support for, their
programming interfaces (APIs, see Jackson's Finding of Facts),
enabling third parties to develop interoperable systems with
Microsoft's own offerings. This would, in my opinion as a computing
professional, reintroduce customer choice into the marketplace and
encourage merit-based competition, ultimately benefiting consumers
through improved value offerings as well as a more rapid pace of
innovation, which has been largely stifled during the period of
Microsoft's unshakeable dominance.
In short, I wish to cast my voice into the pool of those who, as
registered voters and as active participants in the United States
economy, insist that Microsoft's transgressions be dealt with
fairly, decisively, effectively, and expeditiously.
Josh Litherland ([email protected])
``give me my shoes, and Ill give you your eye.''
MTC-00027177
From: PCJorgensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Department of Justice:
I am still trying to figure out how Microsoft has hurt consumers
by possibly costing us a few extra dollars for software. I have a
choice in buying software, I didn't have a choice when I got locked
into AOL's infamous 5.0. Three years ago, after going through
several months of abysmal service from AOL, I decided to change to
MSN. I found out the hard way that AOL 5.0 was set up so that I
could not change my ISP to MSN. I was locked into AOL without my
consent and AOL refused to do anything about the problems, except to
tell me to ``just reload AOL and IE''. After the fifth or
sixth run-through with AOL ``techs'', I gave up and bought
another computer to make the change to MSN. MSN was a huge upgrade
in service for half the price of AOL through my local Costco. That
is consumer injury, not allowing us to make our own choices. I have
heard of quite a few others who had the same problem when a family
member innocently downloaded a ``free'' AOL diskette or CD
and was locked into AOL. How many of AOL's millions of users are in
the same situation? Once it's loaded, you are locked into it without
some expensive tech work to change the mistake. AOL is still
advertising their version 5.0 on some internet sites. Whatever the
DOJ believes Microsoft overcharged me was peanuts compared to what
AOL cost me.
[[Page 27948]]
AOL was one of the original complainers in the MSFT suit, now
they are whining again that MSFT has damaged them in the
``browser wars''. In 1996 when I began on AOL, Netscape
was part of AOL, but if you had problems with Netscape, you were out
of luck. MSFT gave away IE and had good consumer help with any
problems. Consumers who got fed up with Netscape chose IE, and the
rest is history.
AOL is whining because they got stuck with a loser, but
consumers have the right to choose the best product for them.
My husband and I scrimped and saved to buy Microsoft and other
stocks over the last ten years as part of our retirement funds. We
watched helplessly as our retirement funds dropped by the day as the
Microsoft debacle went on, even crashing our employee IRAs.
Washington Mutual Bank pulled a scam on our family that cost us over
$65,000, then hid behind lawyers, legal jargon and a tiny loophole
in the law. I have spent two years battling them to correct the
problem with no success. Consumer protection by the DOJ? What a
joke.
Patricia Jorgensen
3503 Alaska Road
Brier, WA 98036
(425) 481-7186
[email protected]
MTC-00027178
From: David Nordgren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings,
I wish to voice my concern about the proposed settlement with
Microsoft: Section III.A.2 does not prevent Microsoft from
retaliating for personal computers shipped by OEMs with only a non-
Microsoft operating system installed. This is a traditional non-
competitive practice by Microsoft which unduly strengthens their
position in the marketplace.
The judgement is behavioral only and does not offer punitive
remedies.
As a citizen I am very concerned that corporations be subject to
punishment for wrongdoing. In my view the anti-competitive behavior
by Microsoft was quite significant and there should be proportionate
punitive remedies.
Regards,
David Nordgren
9174 West Branch Road
Duluth, MN 55803
MTC-00027179
From: David Bednarczyk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is only going to give Microsoft another
market to consume. The education market has been an Apple domain and
still is a viable solution for educators. Microsoft
``donating'' PC hardware and software will only further
their strong hold in the PC world. Microsoft should give money to
the schools to be used for whatever technology is needed.
Thank you,
David Bednarczyk
Senior IT Manager
[email protected]
MTC-00027180
From: Dale Pontius
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it my concern:
I am writing my comment on the proposed settlement of the United
States vs Microsoft antitrust case, under the Tunny Act.
I do not believe the proposed settlement provides for any
significant benefit to the consumer or improvement in the
competitive landscape of the software industry.
Microsoft's past and present actions in monopoly maintenance and
extension have two key bases: control of Standards such as
Programming Interfaces and file formats, and preload agreements to
have their Operating System installed on the vast majority of new
PCs sold. I will address inadequaces of the proposed settlement on
each point, in turn.
The issue of Interface Documentation should parallel cases of
ATT and IBM, but it falls far short. First, by
``Interface'' I mean more than just the ``Windows
API'' cited in the settlement. This should include not just
``Applications Program Interfaces'' (APIs), but
``Systems Programming Interfaces'' to enhance competition
in middleware development, ``Wire Protocols'' to preserve
competition in Internet, multimedia, and communications development,
and ``File Formats'' to restore competition in Office
software, as well as other areas.
To expand on the `File Formats' for a moment, my
neighbor was recently ``forced'' to purchase Microsoft
Office, even though he prefers Word Perfect. He needs to exchange
documents with colleagues, they use Microsoft Word. Word Perfect
offers import/export abilities for Microsoft Word documents, but
because the File Format changes subtly (and unnecessarily, for any
reason other than anti-competition, according to some) with every
release, it is impossible for any other company's product to
interoperate correctly.
Standards are supposed to be stable, and allow interoperation.
That was the effect of the antitrust actions against ATT and IBM.
Telephone and computer interfaces were properly opened and
documented, and certain amounts (6 months review) of stability
inserted to allow competition. To me, Microsoft's ``use''
of standards seems akin to either malfeasance or misfeasance. Either
they are wielding standards as a weapon, to hinder competitors, or
they are terribly inept at crafting stable standards. In either
case, it is dangerous and counterproductive to leave the situation
as-is.
The proposed settlement seems oriented more toward allowing
inspection of source code by corporate competitors, and makes
numerous allowances for exclusion. To begin, merely inspecting
source code can give insight, but is far from proper documentation.
Second, in the PC Operating System marketplace, the only competitor
Microsoft has is not a corporation at all, but a loose assortment of
volunteer individuals. That the /only /significant PC OS competitor
is based on volunteers and free software is telling, and the
proposed remedy does nothing to assist this effort, rather it may
well hinder it.
My second main basis of contention was preload agreements. If I
buy a PC from a large manufacture, I essentially have no choice but
to receive Windows. While a previous court decision outlawed per-CPU
licensing, Microsoft was free to set contracts that essentially
amounted to the same thing. They can also the discount rate (price
below retail) to enforce their terms, because the profit margin is
so small, and a good discount on Windows can make the difference
between profit and loss. The PC manufacturer cannot refund my money,
and nor will Microsoft. (because Microsoft's customer is the PC
maker, not me.) So essentially, Microsoft has guaranteed income
based on other companies'' production, also not based on their
performance. What other company enjoys substantial income
independent of their actions? How can /any company/ compete
effectively with them?
For this problem, I would suggest the additional remedies: The
cost of Windows must be itemized as part of the cost of the PC
visible to the customer, and Microsoft must refund that cost upon
request and suitable assurance that the Windows license has not been
used by the customer.
Perhaps the customer needs a `decline license'
option upon first boot.
A final item related to this OS license issue. Microsoft must
not force conditions upon PC manufacturers that will render PCs
unbootable by any OS other than Windows. Microsoft already puts
obstacles in the way of multi-booting Windows alongside other OSs,
I've lived with them for years. At the very least, those obstacles
cannot be allowed to become more onerous.
Thank you,
Dale Pontius
[email protected]
MTC-00027181
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
I am writing to comment on the proposed settlement of the United
States vs. Microsoft antitrust case.
One of the weaknesses I perceive in the proposed settlement is
that does little to force Microsoft to open up its APIs,
communications protocols, and file formats to allow interoperability
between Microsoft and non-Microsoft software products. Do the
complexity of the Microsoft interfaces whatever mechanisms used to
enforce their openness must be proactive and penalties swift and
sure in order to get the interfaces documented in a complete and
timely manner. Microsoft should also be prevented from using patents
on various aspects of its interfaces to limit their use by others.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Chaney
Fort Collins, Colorado
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00027182
From: PCJorgensen
[[Page 27949]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Department of Justice:
Re: Microsoft Settlement I am John D. Jorgensen, a 36-year
Boeing Aircraft Company employee, an Aeromachinist union steward and
have had perfect attendance for 25 years.
Antitrust laws were written for the consumer, not competitors of
companies! The only consideration the government has given is to
Microsoft's competitors, leaving the consumer out in the cold.
Microsoft has never done anything to damage me, AOL has damaged me
severely. AOL ruined my computer with their 5.0 virus software so
that I was unable to use any other service provider. AOL is a
predatory monopoly.
They give away free CDs and diskettes, you load it into a
computer and then you are locked into AOL.
Your system is ruined and in many cases the hard drive is also
ruined. AOL is more expensive than other ISP's but you cannot use
them. The government has sued the wrong company. They don't listen
to the consumer.
The Department of Justice is doing the bidding of AOL/Time
Warner, Oracle and Sun Microsystems in the name of saving the
consumer a few dollars on software. The government has crashed the
stock market, ruining working people's 401K's to the tune of six
trillion dollars. The Justice Department should be ashamed. Read the
case with an open mind, not through the eyes of Penfield Jackson.
Why did he rule this way with no evidence? The Justice System has to
protect the 18 states and their attorneys-general. I believe the
constitution (Article 1, Section 10) will prevail in this one and we
will have 18 bankrupt states, this is a very sad thought, when it
should come back against AOL, Oracle and Sun.
It's absolutely appalling that a company like AOL should be
allowed any input in this case. The government has let the AOL, Sun
Microsystems and Oracle foxes into the hen house. The Justice
Department also has an obligation under law to not damage Microsoft
stockholders, most of whom do not work for Microsoft. Just the
opposite has happened. The 18 states'' attorneys-general
sensationalized the trial and did talk shows. Eighteen states have
disgraced our monopoly justice system. They should have no say in
this as they are a ``minority of states''.
I am very unhappy with the Justice Department and have lost
confidence in the rule of law. I think the case against Microsoft
should be dropped. Period. I have read everything written on the
case, and this is a horrible miscarriage of justice.
Sincerely,
John D. Jorgensen
3503 Alaska Road
Brier, WA 98036
(425) 481-7186
[email protected]
MTC-00027183
From: michaeljanet.mcauliffe @verizon.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:54pm
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,
Janet McAuliffe
11407 17th Pl. NE
Lake Stevens, WA 98258
MTC-00027184
From: Curtis A. Ridgeway
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--Make Them Hurt
To Whom It May Concern,
Microsoft is unethical in its business practices and has shown
no remorse. Nothing can be done to made them ethical.
--Make them provide source code to competitors to allow for
for interoperation
--Make them provide internal software specifications to
competitors.
I recommend MicroSoft be broken up into 2 or 3 parts to allow
for competition just like what was done to the phone company.
A fine should be about $40 Billion real dollars (It must hurt):
Half for the companies they destroyed like Netscape and half as
a fine to be paid to the IRS to offset everyone else's tax burden.
It should not be software which is free to them and only increases
their monopoly.
Microsoft should be forced to make a reliable product and
provide free customer support.
Everyone suffers from their poor quality and system engineering
practices. IBM is known as big blue. Windows is known for the
``Blue Screen'' of the computer crash.
Just my opinion,
Curt Ridgeway CC:[email protected]@
inetgw,[email protected]@in...
MTC-00027185
From: Charles Aunger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
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-00027186
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wanted to let you know I think the proposed settlement of the
anti-trust action against Microsoft is entirely too lenient,
considering the fact that their anti-competitive actions have been
well documented and established in the courts.
I suggest the best action to take, for the benefit of the
computing public, would be to force Microsoft to publish their
source code. This would allow the numerous bugs in it, which
Microsoft has shown little interest in fixing to be cleaned up by
the many capable programmers. As an example of how effective this
process can be, take a look at the Open Source industry, and the
Linux operating system in particular.
--A. T. Young
([email protected])
MTC-00027187
From: Angela
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mrs. Angela M. Rasely
H.C. 1, Box 2055
Tannersville, PA 18372-9030
570-620-9508
[email protected]
January 27, 2002
[[Page 27950]]
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing to you to show my support of the proposed
settlement between the US Department of Justice and Microsoft. I
feel this agreement is fair and that it is in the best interest of
the people that this case comes to a final end. Budgets at the state
and federal levels have been exhausted and we need our government to
conserve resources.
Three years has been too long for this lawsuit to occur. I am
happy to see that the terms of the settlement do not break up
Microsoft. The concessions do not let Microsoft off easy as they
will be forced to disclose for use by their competitors internal
interfaces and protocols. They will also be forced to grant computer
makers broad new rights to configure Windows so as to make it easier
for competitors to promote their products.
So, although flawed, I support the settlement and ask your
office to suppress opposition and make the settlement and reality.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Angela Rasely
cc: Senator Rick Santorum
MTC-00027188
From: tom.crosby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please see attached.
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft, Apparently, the federal government defines
``success'' as meaning ``antitrust'' and seems
to derive great satisfaction from misapplying this incorrect
definition in order to destroy ``overly successful''
American companies such as Microsoft. It really is a shame, and I am
very glad a settlement was reached that keeps Microsoft intact.
This is the second time I have seen the federal government go
after a successful company. Unlike Microsoft Case, the company in
the second case was small, very successful and growing very quickly.
There was also a much larger company selling the same products, in
the same market. Yet, because a competitor complained, the
government argued that the company was a monopoly in the marketplace
(defined to be the users of its equipment). Since the larger company
was also very successful, growing rapidly, and could supply an
alternative system, it is hard to understand the thinking in this
case. In both cases, the real issue seems to be that there were
mistakes made by management in their strategy and tactics in dealing
with a competitor. Rather than admit they made these mistakes, they
have decided to blame someone else for their failures and try to
obtain additional rewards for their poor work.
Unfortunately, the litigation cost American taxpayers and the
Companies untold millions of dollars to prove one thing: the
government egregiously misapplied outdated antitrust law, written
for nineteenth century smokestack industries, to 21st century
technology innovation and business practices.
While the settlement may spare Microsoft from being broken up,
it still applies stringent requirements that will substantially
force it to change the way it conducts business. I will not list all
of them, as I am sure you are familiar with the settlement.
Microsoft agreeing to cede its source code for the Windows operating
system to its competitors is unprecedented in an antitrust
settlement, and ought to indicate the magnitude of this settlement
The High Technology Industry is an industry where prices go down
every year and product functionality improves. I do not understand
why the Government thinks this is harmful to consumers. If this
settlement is done incorrectly, I think the consumer will end up
paying more, especially for support. Support will become a disaster
as more vendors add their software and do no integration testing
with all the other vendors'' software. I hope you will close
this case quickly and with the least possible damage to the computer
end user.
Sincerely,
Thomas W. Crosby Jr.
MTC-00027189
From: Craig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has for years used illegal and unethical means to
secure a monopoly in the computing industry.
As I understand the workings of anti-trust law, this calls for (
among other things) divestiture of all profits made from the illegal
activities.
The proposed school settlement plan brought forth by MS and the
DOJ, would be a reward rather than a punishment. This settlement
would allow Microsoft to extend it's monopoly into one of the few
areas it has been unable to penetrate through it's normal, devious
devices.
The proposed settlement also, simply put, does little to insure
future compliance with the law, as it has far too many loopholes and
lacks harsh enough penalties, if they violate it or other anti-trust
laws in the future.
I would submit that this is the time to send a message to
industry that, crime doesn't pay. The only way to accomplish this is
through large fines, which would take away all the profits they have
made from their illegal activities.
The only way to insure against future infractions, would be to
include a ``Crown Jewel'' clause, such as disclosure of
their source code, or forcing them to re-license it under the GPL.
I further submit that the arrogance and contempt shown by MS
throughout the previous proceedings... the very thing that drove the
original judge to distraction, should be considered heavily in this
matter. Gates and Company have shown nothing but contempt, for our
legal system, for the free enterprise system, for the computer
field, for our government and for their customers.
I beg you to do something that will actually have an affect on
MS... not just give them a slap on the wrist.
MTC-00027190
From: Lois M. Russell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
It is my judgment that the proposed Microsoft compromise
settlement as worked out will be beneficial to all users and want to
add my support to the settlement. I understand some competitors are
fighting this settlement, but it seems to me this matter has dragged
on long enough and should be brought to a speedy conclusion now that
a settlement has been agreed upon.
I hope you are able to complete this matter swiftly.
Lois M. Russell
MTC-00027191
From: Alan E.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has forged the path to the future in the computer
industry, giving us quality products at an affordable price. Because
of Bill Gates, even those who would destroy Microsoft are able to
successfully operate computers. Microsoft's competition has faltered
for one reason: Microsoft is the best. The government's assault
against our nation's finest businessman is a travesty and an affront
to the concept of liberty.
Alan Edwards
MTC-00027192
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We are strongly against the state of Florida and other states
pursuing litigation against Microsoft.
The outcome of this action will only be incompatible with the
interests of consumers of Microsoft products. The main consequence,
we believe, will be in the development of inferior products that
cost more and do less.
Additionally, Microsoft needs to be remunerated for its
innovative product rather than being punished by giving away
information to competitors. An immediate settlement with Microsoft,
without further costly litigation, is in the consumers interest
rather than pumping up the CV's of the various Justice Department
members.
James P. Ahearn, M.D.
Carol M. Ahearn
MTC-00027193
From: Richard Forno
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CC: [email protected]@inetgw
I write to comment on the proposed settlement between the US
Department of Justice and Microsoft (the Proposal). I believe that
the Proposal makes progress in the right direction, but does not go
far enough.
[[Page 27951]]
For the record, I am the Chief Technology Officer for a Dulles,
VA information security firm that works closely with the US national
security community. I am the former Chief Security Officer for
Network Solutions, Inc. (acquired in June 2000 by VeriSign) and have
held other information security positions in the United States
government, including the US House of Representatives.
I am the co-author of ``The Art of Information Warfare
(1999) and ``Incident Response'' (2001) and pen a
recurring column on information security topics at
Securityfocus.Com. Further, several of my security-oriented
whitepapers are available at my personal website, Infowarrior.org. I
am also a frequent conference presenter and an adjunct lecturer at
the American University, and conduct recurring lectures at the
National Defense University in Washington, DC.
I wish to thank Paul Johnson for his invaluable assistance in
drafting many of the following paragraphs, which voice the comments
of many others in my profession.
I strongly urge an appropriate outcome that favors the computing
community and not the proprietary and profiteering needs of a proven
monopoly.
Is/
Richard F. Forno
Chief Technology Officer
Dulles, Virginia Security Firm
www.infowarrior.org (personal site)
[email protected]
Summary of Key Issues
Microsoft holds a dominant position throughout the software
industry. A remedy which deals exclusively with
``middleware'' is not sufficient. All Microsoft software
should be covered.
Microsoft's monopoly position is founded on its control of
proprietary interfaces. Microsoft products are linked through a
network of proprietary interfaces, making it difficult for
competitors to produce software that will inter-operate with
Microsoft software. If the proprietary interfaces were published
then competitors could produce software that competed directly with
Microsoft without the expensive and error-prone process of reverse
engineering.
These proprietary interfaces are in the form of file formats,
network protocols and APIs. All three need to be made available to
competing products.
Where two Microsoft products work together the interface between
them can best be made available by setting up a ``Chinese
wall'' between the development groups responsible for them, and
then requiring Microsoft to publish all the technical data that is
exchanged between these groups.
Where one copy of a product communicates with other copies of
the same product (such as when an MS Word document is sent to
another MS Word user) the file format or communication protocol
should be published in a form which allows independent verification
that the product conforms to the published description.
The ``security related'' exception to disclosure
should be narrowed to include only keys, passwords and similar
security tokens.
Microsoft's Position
Microsoft currently holds a dominant position in the computer
software industry, and as I shall show below it maintains this
position through control of proprietary interfaces.
Over the past decade Microsoft has repeatedly demonstrated a
willingness to evade or ignore regulations aimed at curbing its
monopoly power. There is no reason to expect this behaviour to
change. Therefore any effective remedy must be drafted to block not
only the past misdeeds of Microsoft but any it might devise in the
future. The rules under which Microsoft is to operate must be
unambiguous and, as far as possible, free from the need to make
value judgments as to whether Microsoft has fulfilled its
obligations sufficiently. Any such judgments will may be used as
delaying tactics by Microsoft.
Product Tying
The current case was originally concerned with the alleged tying
of Microsoft Internet Explorer with Windows 95, in violation of
anti-trust law. However the list of features which users expect to
find in an operating system has evolved over time, and continues to
do so. A previous example concerns ``disk defragmenters'',
which optimize the arrangement of data on a disk in order to speed
up access. Before Windows 95 these programs were sold separately by
competitors to Microsoft. When Windows 95 was released it included a
disk defragmenter. The competing companies could no longer sell
their existing products, but there was no public outcry because disk
defragmentation is generally considered to be a function of the
operating system.
Suppose that ten years ago Microsoft had been effectively
prevented from adding new features to Windows: today a modern PC
would have to include a dozen or more small packages of software
which would be more economically produced and sold as a single
product. Computer vendors would have to purchase and integrate all
of these small packages, and buyers would have to cope with a
bewildering checklist of small but important items that they would
have to ensure their computer included.
Thus a fair and effective remedy cannot enjoin Microsoft from
ever bundling new functionality in its products, even when a market
for that functionality already exists in third party products.
The Proposal also sets rules for the related issue of the
``Desktop''.
This properly prevents Microsoft from ensuring that its products
are more prominent on the desktop than those of its competitors.
Such user interface concerns are important, but are not the subject
of this note.
Interfaces
The Proposal concentrates on the ``Application Programmer
Interfaces'' (APIs) to Microsoft ``Middleware'' (a
vaguely defined term, roughly meaning software that sits between the
operating system and the applications employed by end users).
The Proposal is right to concentrate on interfaces. Microsoft
has always used proprietary interfaces to manipulate the market and
lock out competition. To illustrate how this works, suppose
Microsoft sells products Foo and Bar which communicate via a
proprietary interface. I purchase Foo, and subsequently want the
added functionality of Bar. There may be many competitors in the
market for Bar, but they are effectively excluded from my
consideration because their products cannot communicate with Foo.
Similarly if copies of Foo communicate with each other through a
proprietary interface then anyone wishing to work with me must also
purchase a copy of Foo. This creates a ``network
externality'' which ensures that, even in a competitive market,
the best option for an individual consumer is the product with the
largest market share, since this brings them into the largest
population of potential collaborators.
By creating a web of proprietary interfaces, both between
products and between its customers, Microsoft has ensured that it is
locked into its market in a way that has never before been possible.
It is this stranglehold on the market for software that must be
broken. Since Microsoft has used its control of proprietary
interfaces to achieve this, it is on interfaces that any effective
remedy must concentrate. The focus of the Proposal on
``middleware'' is misguided. It excludes applications and
operating systems, which are the two areas where the monopoly power
of Microsoft most needs to be restricted. Furthermore its vague
definition creates too much opportunity for Microsoft to redefine
critical interfaces as something other than
``middleware'', leading at best to argument and delay.
Examples
It is worth looking at two of these interfaces to see how they
lock Microsoft into the market.
Microsoft Office is the leading ``office productivity
suite''. There are competitors, but they are critically
hampered because their users cannot reliably exchange documents with
MS office users. Some degree of inter-operability does exist, but
this has been enabled by painstaking ``reverse
engineering'': the competitor can only learn about document
formats by inspecting the files created by Office and trying to
deduce how each part of the document is encoded in the file. This
process is expensive and error-prone, and Microsoft can always
introduce new features faster than they can be reverse engineered.
As a result no existing competitor to Office can reliably import a
complex document. Consumers know this, and therefore avoid these
competitors. This prevents the competitors from gaining market
share, no matter how good their products might otherwise be.
The Kerberos security protocol was developed by MIT and has now
become an important component of many systems. Microsoft included
Kerberos support in Windows 2000, but with a small change. Kerberos
is an ``authentication'' protocol: it guarantees that the
parties to a transaction are who they say they are. Microsoft added
authorization data to the protocol. This meant that Windows 2000
would only grant access to shared files and printers if the Kerberos
``ticket'' presented by the user had been issued by a
Windows 2000 server. This appears to have been an attempt to lock
competitors (including the freely available MIT server) out of the
market for Kerberos
[[Page 27952]]
authentication products. In response to a public outcry within the
computer industry Microsoft first insisted that the format of its
extra data was a trade secret, and then released the data on its web
site under a ``click-through'' license under which the
recipient promised to keep its contents a secret. I will return to
this strange license later in the section on Open Source Software.
The net effect of this web of proprietary interfaces is to make
any mix of Microsoft and competing products less functional than a
pure Microsoft solution. A pure non-Microsoft solution is not
usually possible, either because Microsoft has driven the
competition into the ground or because there is a need to
communicate with others who are using Microsoft. Hence the only
choice is between a pure Microsoft solution and a mix. In a world
which is dominated by Microsoft there can only be level competition
if the interfaces to Microsoft software are equally open to all
competitors.
Files, Protocols and APIs
There are three types of interface which an effective remedy
must address: files, network protocols, and APIs.
Files stored on disk are an important repository of value for
any computer user. The ability to read this data and exchange it
with others is the most important requirement for any new software.
Therefore Microsoft should be required to disclose the file
formats for all its software. This will enable competitors to create
software which reliably works with files created by Microsoft
software. The main immediate effect of this will be to enable
competitors of Microsoft Office to compete on a level playing field.
In the longer term it will prevent Microsoft from using the
proprietary file format of any popular application to Gain a
monopoly position through market lock-in.
Similarly, protocols used to communicate over networks should be
opened up. The Kerberos example above illustrates how even seemingly
minor proprietary extensions can create strong market lock-in. As
the Internet becomes increasingly important so the use of
proprietary protocols will become an important method for Microsoft
to maintain its monopoly position unless it is stopped.
APIs are a much more complicated issue than files and protocols.
For every file format or network protocol used by Microsoft there
are thousands of ``function calls'', the basic element of
APIs. Function calls are used both within a single product and
between products.
There is no simple way to distinguish the function calls which
are made within a product and those made between products unless the
products in question are designed to work separately as well as
together. Microsoft has already used this fact to obfuscate the
question of whether Internet Explorer is intrinsically integrated
with Windows 95. It can be expected to use this tactic again in the
future. Since it is not feasible to use product tying rules to
prevent this (see above), I suggest that Microsoft be required to
identify every API which is used to communicate between software in
two different products, and disclose that API in full. The smallest
unit of ``API'' to be disclosed should be the
``DLL'' (Dynamically Linked library). In Windows a DLL is
a single file which provides collection of functions to other
software. Making DLLs atomic for disclosure purposes will encourage
Microsoft to keep the APIs for communication between products
distinct from the APIs within products, thereby reducing the work
required by competitors who wish to offer competing products which
offer the same APIs.
Disclosure Mechanisms
Detail
The Proposal has nothing to say about what level of detail will
be included in the interface descriptions. This issue is not
trivial.
For programmers, the ultimate description of what a function
within an API does is the source code which implements that
function, which leads programmers to say ``use the Source,
Luke'' when when with a detailed technical query about a piece
of software.
However the inspection of source code is not always practical,
either because the code in question is proprietary (as in this
case), or just because it would take too long to understand. Hence
developers routinely produce documentation which describes the
functions in an API in a more readable form.
The Proposal seems to envisage this kind of documentation being
made publicly available. However there does not appear to be any
incentive to Microsoft to make this documentation complete or
accurate, other than enforcement by the courts. Since this kind of
document can never be 100% complete or accurate the question will
arise as to whether it is good enough. If Microsoft acts true to
form it will inevitably argue that its documentation is indeed good
enough, and will carry on arguing this until it becomes a moot
point.
To avoid this problem I suggest that Microsoft be required to
erect ``Chinese walls'' between the development groups
working on different products. Only published documentation may be
exchanged between these groups. Hence if Microsoft wishes to sell
two products which work together it can only do so if it also
informs its competitors how to make products which will can work
just as effectively.
The remaining problem on detail is the file formats and
protocols used when one copy of a product communicates with other
copies of the same product. The Chinese wall system will not work
here. However since this problem is restricted to file formats and
protocols the problem of ensuring the adequacy of documentation is
much smaller.
Established techniques (such as BNF grammars and state machines)
can completely describe file formats and protocols, and these can be
used as the basis of an unarguable technical finding that either the
software or the documentation is defective. This is not a complete
solution to the problem, but it should level the playing field
sufficiently to allow competition.
Publication and Open Source
Since this case started Open Source Software (OSS), such as the
Linux operating system, has become a significant competitor to
Microsoft. Therefore any effective remedy must take account of the
special requirements of OSS development over normal commercial
software development. The primary issues here are costs, trade
secrets, and patents.
Costs:
Whatever disclosure mechanism is chosen for interface
descriptions, it must be within the financial reach of open source
developers. A subscription of several hundred dollars a year, such
as is required for the Microsoft Developer Network, is trivial for a
competing software company but a major hurdle for a volunteer
developer working on OSS. Given that interface descriptions must be
prepared for competitors, there is no reason why they should not be
distributed for free over the web rather than only made available to
an exclusive club.
Trade Secrets:
Microsoft must not be allowed to pretend that these interface
descriptions are trade secrets, as it tried to do with its extension
to Kerberos. Because OSS packages include the full source code they
inevitably reveal the full details of their operation to any
programmer who downloads them. If Microsoft can claim trade secret
status on an interface it can effectively block any OSS package from
using that interface, since to do so would reveal the
``secret'' of its operation.
Patents:
Microsoft has not made much use of patents to protect its
market, preferring to rely on proprietary interfaces. However if it
is prevented from using proprietary interfaces it may decide to use
patented ones instead.
When Microsoft next introduces a new interface, especially a
network protocol, it would be a simple matter to obtain a patent
covering the operation of that interface. At that point any
competitor wishing to inter-operate with Microsoft products using
that interface would have to license it from Microsoft. The usual
solution in such situations is to require licenses on
``Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory'' (RAND) terms.
However even RAND terms require payment. OSS developers are unable
to offer payment.
Therefore the Remedy should require Microsoft to license its
patents on RAND terms to commercial software vendors and on Royalty
Free terms to Open Source projects.
Incidentally, Microsoft has described OSS as ``un-
American'' and ``an intellectual property
destroyer''. These descriptions try to tar OSS developers with
the same brush as software pirates. This is incorrect. Software
pirates selfishly take the work of others and use it without paying.
OSS developers take their own work and permit others to use it for
free. This is a wholly generous act, fully in keeping with the
American ideals of volunteerism and service to one's community.
Security Details
The Proposal includes a broad exception for ``security
related'' information. However Microsoft could argue that
almost any interface, especially APIs and communication protocols,
is ``security related'' if it is used to carry any kind of
authorization or authentication information. Indeed, it made exactly
this argument when it initially refused to reveal its extensions to
[[Page 27953]]
Kerberos. Therefore the exception for security related information
must be narrowly drawn.
Fortunately this is not a major problem. It is a basic principle
of computer security that would-be intruders will eventually learn
the operational details of your security mechanism, either by
reverse engineering or by other less legitimate means. Any security
which depends on the intruders remaining ignorant of these details
is known as ``security through obscurity'', and regarded
by security practitioners as inadequate at best. Therefore the only
items which should need to be kept secure are the keys or passwords
which operate the software. These can be easily changed if they are
compromised.
Hence if security interfaces are well designed then they will
not need to be kept secret. And if they are not well designed then
Microsoft should be required to remedy the fault rather than keep
this fact secret.
Conclusion
The proposed Settlement would have little effect upon the
business practices of Microsoft. If adopted in its current form them
the result will be no change to the behaviour of Microsoft, and yet
another prolonged court case in another five or ten years.
Any effective settlement must concentrate on opening up the
markets that Microsoft has effectively closed by its use of
proprietary interfaces, file formats and protocols.
As a final note, I would like to close with the same advice I
give to my clients in the United States government regarding
Microsoft products: Use at your own risk--if the technical
problems with these products (security and stability) don't give you
reason for concern, the inability to escape to an alternative is an
even harsher problem to contend with. Microsoft's products and
business strategies have, and continue to be, a clear and present
danger to the security of our national information infrastructures.
It is my hope that this legal action will be one that is not only
beneficial to the technology economy but our national information
security posture as well.
Richard F. Forno
Chief Technology officer
Dulles, Virginia Security Firm
www.infowarrior.org (personal site)
[email protected]
MTC-00027195
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:03pm
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,
Elizabeth Slaughter
1228 W. Lincoln Ave
Albany, GA 31707
MTC-00027196
From:
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I sure hope that our Government does not hinder Microsoft when
this case is finally settled. I resent the fact that a successful
business can be seen as a threat to anyone.
I use their products and enjoy them immensely.
I believe that the Government should leave Mocrosoft alone to
run their successful business without outside interference.
Thank you,
Pete O'Neill
3169 Trinity Street
Oceanside, New York 11572
e-mail [email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00027197
From: Hal Stone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:08pm
Subject:
CC:
[email protected]@
inetgw
7024 Augusta National
Fayetteville, PA 17222-9418
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
As a person who has been in the technology industry for some
time (I was first involved with Univac I Serial number 1) I was
disappointed to see the government bring suit against Microsoft. I
am however happy with the settlement that was reached and I hope it
is well accepted by all parties, including those states that still
refuse to settle.
The settlement, that has been fairly mediated over three years,
is equitable to all parties. It also answers many of the problems
brought forth by Microsoft's competitors and resolves them fairly.
For example, I think it is demonstrative of Microsoft's good
intentions that it agreed to be monitored by a three-person
Technical Committee, and open up its intellectual property in the
internal interfaces of its Windows operating system programs to its
competitors.
I have used numerous Microsoft products for about 20 years and
have found them innovative and productive for even casual users. The
cost of these products has dropped considerably during the years of
my use. To discourage this kind of innovation is detrimental to
users as well as others that would work hard to create other such
products. The harassment of this company has, in my opinion been bad
for our country, possibly even the world economy.
Responsible controls are important, of course. But extreme
control is detrimental to the best interests of an average computer
user.
I am grateful that you would take the time to consider my
thoughts on this matter. Please use them, as well as those from all
the other Microsoft supporters to work out what is in the public's
best interest.
Sincerely,
Hal Stone
cc: Senator Rick Santorum
MTC-00027198
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:13pm
Subject: Micro-soft Settlement
I strongly endorse Mary Martin's letter < SENIOR COALITATION
PRESIDENt it's time for all of us to Unite in this 6reat country o f
ours and quit acting like a bunch of ILLITERATES; we need to get
this country's economy back on track and get on with tihe order of
the day.
There will always be some want something for nothing, and will
do anything to get it. The Justice is needed Now''. Thank you
for giving me the opportunity to express myself.
JKOHN MILLER
e-mail addrress [email protected]
MTC-00027199
From: JOYCE E BLANKENSHIP
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:13pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like to urge the Justice Department to stop the
litigation against Microsoft. I think the settlement is fair to
everyone except of course, Microsoft itself. I personally use
Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Word and other programs. I am 79
years old and have found these programs easy to learn and to use. I
would not be interested at all in changing to other programs.
Please stop the litigation. Thank you.
Joyce E. Blankenship
1593 Manor Drive
Salem, Ohio 44460
MTC-00027200
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U. S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I wish to express my satisfaction and agreement with the
Attorney General's decision to end the Justice Department's
antitrust lawsuit againsy Microsoft.
It is my understanding the agreement to do so was arrived at
after extensive negotiations with a court-appointed mediator.
It is also my understanding Microsoft has agreed to license its
Windows operating system products to the twenty largest computer
makers on identical terms and
[[Page 27954]]
conditions including price, and to document and disclose for use by
its competitors, various interfaces that are internal to
Windows'' operating system products.
It doesn't seem there should be a need for any future lawsuits
against Microsoft. The company has already compromised considerably
in this suit and should not be distracted from innovation and
progress any longer.
Sincerely,
C. G. Horton
MTC-00027201
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As the Government nears the decision phase of the Microsoft
Settlement in the Anti-Trust case against Bill Gates, I would like
to add my comments as a United States Citizen and tax payer.
It is my firm conviction that the entire case against Microsoft
has been ill advised and a total waste of tax payer dollars. Bill
Gates and his company has revolutioned the world, in the footsteps
of Alexander G Bell nd Thomas Edison. Rather than punish him and his
employees, he deserves a monument in Washington DC. His innovations
and foresight have brought the computer age to to virtually every
American. His business practices have not broken rational laws. He
exercised his Freedom as a Capitalist. Has this nation forgotten the
principles upon which it was founded? Are we to forever continue to
apolgize for creating a society which the entire population of the
planet wishes it could emulate, with the minor excetion of some
religious fanatics bent upon destroying the very thing that
represents life as we know it?
Has not the horrific attack on the American way of life on Sept
11 not shown every thinking person that we must defend the
Capitalist sytem and not destroy ourselves?
Bill Gates deserves our gratitide, not a vindictive lawsuit and
punishment designed to gratify the sour grapes of those who could
achieve or even conceive of his accomplishments.
Please use your authority to dismiss all pending charges, and
allow Mr. Gates to continue to strengthen our economy and boost our
standing in the world arena. As the United States faces an ever
increasing rise of hostility from those who seek our destruction,
and those to evil to care, it is imperative to prove to the world
that Capitalism is the only valid and rational form of economics and
a desirable one to follow. By allowing Bill Gates and Microsoft to
continue as a viable enterprise, you will show the world we stand by
our convictions.
MTC-00027202
From: Nan Cummins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:14pm
Subject: Settlement
The settlement as stated is fair to all and should be excepted
as is. Jealous competitors, (who started this whole problem) and
others, are trying to undermine the settlement. This should not be
aloud to happen. I urge you not to let this happen. Settle this
NOW!!! Let Microsoft do what it does best.
Sincerely
Nan Cummins
MTC-00027203
From: Daniel Kruse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I, under no circumstances, call this ``settlement'' a
settlement. If anything, it'll make Microsoft an even more powerful
monopoly. This ``settlement'' is a joke and a sham. I do
not agree with this settlement!
Daniel Lee Kruse
MTC-00027204
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a computer user who regularly needs to communicate with
computers running a Microsoft operating system, the wording of this
judgement causes me great concern. Microsoft certainly should not be
allowed to use its predominant position in the operating system
market to close the lines of communication to other software.
The following is quoted from an article by Robert Cringely, Dec.
6, 2001, and it describes loopholes Microsoft could use to shut out
the free software community:
Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against
not-for-profits.
Specifically, the language says that it need not describe nor
license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols affecting
authentication and authorization to companies that don't meet
Microsoft's criteria as a business: ``...(c) meets reasonable,
objective standards established by M icrosoft for certifying the
authenticity and viability of its business, ...'' Section
III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It deals with
disclosure of information regarding the APIs for incorporating non-
Microsoft ``middleware.'' ...
Brian J. Casten
[email protected]
MTC-00027205
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
Please end the Microsoft lawsuit and settle the case. I firmly
beleive that Microsoft has been a tremendous boon to the economy and
I have benefitted greatly from their technology and products. I want
to see the case settled immediately in order for our economy to
begin a comeback.
Thank you.
James E. McMillen
3368 Corsica Way
Oceanside, CA 92056
760-435-9200
MTC-00027206
From: Matt B.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
As you have most likely already heard, the Microsoft settlement
is too lax against Microsoft. It cannot be properly enforced.
To remedy this, I would suggest breaking Microsoft up into three
companies: Windows Inc. (operating system), Microsoft (software),
and Web. This would prevent MS from taking over all three markets.
MTC-00027207
From: Dixon Teter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
1/27/02
Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Sirs:
I sincerely hope that the Department of Justice will not allow
AOL's recently filed suit against Microsoft to delay the ending of
that travesty.
As a consumer I greatly enjoy using the superior products that
Microsoft offers. The fact that they have had to waste hundreds of
millions of dollars fighting to retain their own property has cost
me personally.
By Microsoft not being able to use that money for growth and
product development I have been unfairly denied access to better and
less expensive products.
I have been denied that by this suit. This suit was brought
neither by the millions of satisfied Microsoft customers, nor by
their vendors. It was brought by failing competitors. AOL is not a
failing competitor of Microsoft's, quite the contrary, they have the
dominant market share to Microsoft's small minority slice.
But, AOL is failing. Their suit is only a ploy to distract from
their own failings. It is also a clear attempt to become another
parasite itching to feast off of Microsoft's success.
This is America. isn't it? Don't we stand for free trade and
freedom--not ``beat your ``competition with dirty
politics'', ? The United States government is there to protect
private property, isn't it? Where are Microsoft's private property
protections? Why am I being penalized because some other company has
run crying to ``Big Mother'' rather than standing up and
trying to win fairly?
AOL must not be allowed to do this. Please restore the full
faith and trust in the Department of Justice by dismissing not only
AOL's frivilous and groundless suit, but also and more importantly,
the one against Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Dixon Teter, Ph.D.
MTC-00027208
From: sysadmin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:21pm
Subject: Microsoft is a blackhole
I feel that any settlement the DOJ makes with Microsoft will
cause more harm than good. Microsoft should be forced to take full
responsibility for the monopolistic blackhole they have created.
Since Microsoft has embarked on a disinformation campaign, many
people feel
[[Page 27955]]
that Microsoft is the only software company. This is not true.
There are many alternatives that could fill the void if
Microsoft were to fail. More specifically, there is Sun
Microsystems, Apple, IBM, and and many Linux companies.
Bill Gates will argue that his company is helping create
standards of quality. This statement follows hundreds of security
holes, thousands of bugs, and the technical documents that label
Widows as the most unstable OS.
Microsoft sucks up everything in its wake. Currently, Microsoft
has been attacking the Open Source movement. According to Microsoft,
the Opensource movement (more specifically the GPL) is a cancer.
They call it a cancer because they can not control it. Normally,
Microsoft would purchase any competing idea and store it away. They
store every bit of creativity the software industry has. If anything
it is Microsoft, that is the cancer. It should be removed.
Your's truely,
Thedore Knab
Systems Engineer [UNIX]
Washington College
300 Washington College
Chestertown, MD 21620
Office: 410-810-7419
Fax: 410-778-7830
email: [email protected]
MTC-00027209
From: Einer Elhauge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:20pm
Subject: To Renata Hesse,
To Renata Hesse,
Please find my Tunney Act comments attached.
Sincerely,
Einer Elhauge
Professor of Law
Harvard Law School
1575 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 0213 8
TEL: 617-496-0860
FAX: 617-496-0861
EMAIL: [email protected]
UNITED STATES v. MICROSOFT, No. 98-1232 (CKK)
TUNNEY ACT COMMENTS OF PROFESSOR EINER ELHAUGE ON THE PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND MICROSOFT
I have been a strong supporter of the Bush Administration and
its Antitrust Division.
But I am also a strong supporter of the Court of Appeals
decision in this case,\1\ and even if I were not, the legal
conclusions and factual findings sustained in that opinion must be
treated as authoritative for this Tunney Act proceeding. In my view,
it would set a terrible precedent contrary to the public interest if
a unanimous en banc opinion that found the most important firm in
our economy committed repeated serious antitrust violations lacking
any procompetitive or technological justification, as the opinion
here did, received only the largely meaningless enforcement provided
by the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the United States?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Elhauge, ``Competition Wins in Court,''
New York Times, (June 30, 200I).
\2\ The points addressed in this memo apply both to the
initial proposed settlement, and the revised proposed settlement to
which nine states have agreed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I submit this Tunney Act comment as a professor of antitrust law
and because of my interest in the proper development of antitrust
law. I have not been paid by anyone else to work on the Microsoft
case, and do not submit this comment on behalf of any other party. I
am instead submitting this filing pro bono, on behalf of the public
interest. I am a Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where I
teach antitrust law, but submit these comments in my personal
capacity, and the views expressed here are not offered on behalf of,
nor intended to express the views of, Harvard University.
The key finding of the district court, which I think has not
received enough attention, is that, to foreclose its rivals,
Microsoft engaged in technological bundling of other software into
its operating system that not only had no procompetitive or
technological justification,\3\ but actually worsened the
technological performance of its own products. The district court
found Microsoft'' s technological integration made its product
work more slowly:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ United States v. Microsoft, 84 F.Supp.2d 9,
53-58 (D.DC 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``[A]ccording to several standard programs used by
Microsoft to measure system performance, the removal of Internet
Explorer by the prototype program slightly improves the overall
speed of Windows 98. Given Microsoft's special knowledge of its own
products, the company is readily able to produce an improved
implementation of the concept illustrated by Felten's prototype
removal program. In particular, Microsoft can easily identify
browsing-specific code that could be removed from shared files,
thereby reducing the operating system's memory and hard disk
requirements and obtaining performance improvements even beyond
those achieved by Felten.'' \4\ Nor was this reduction in
speed compensated for by increased stability or security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id. at 54 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the contrary, the district court found that Microsoft's
technological bundling made its operating system both more prone to
crashing and more susceptible to virus infections.
``Microsoft has harmed even those consumers who desire to
use Internet Explorer, and no other browser, with Windows 98. To the
extent that browsing-specific routines have been commingled with
operating system routines to a greater degree than is necessary to
provide any consumer benefit, Microsoft has unjustifiably
jeopardized the stability and security of the operating system.
Specifically, it has increased the likelihood that a browser crash
will cause the entire system to crash and made it easier for
malicious viruses that penetrate the system via Internet Explorer to
infect non-browsing parts of the system.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Id. at 53 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A fortiori, the district court found that those who did not want
Internet Explorer suffered worsened technological performance from
Microsoft's bundling because they were saddled with ``an
operating system that runs more slowly than if Microsoft had not
interspersed browsing-specific routines throughout various files
containing routines relied upon by the operating system'' and
that meant ``performance degradation, increased risk of
incompatibilities, and the introduction of bugs.`` \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id. (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The district court also found that, in addition to conferring no
technological benefit on its own products, Microsoft's bundling
degraded the technological performance of rival products. The court
concluded that Microsoft's:
``actions forced OEMs either to ignore consumer preferences
for Navigator or to give them a Hobson's choice of both browser
products at the cost of increased confusion, degraded system
performance, and restricted memory.
Microsoft forced those consumers who otherwise would have
elected Navigator as their browser to either pay a substantial price
(in the forms of downloading, installation, confusion, degraded
system performance, and diminished memory capacity) or content
themselves with Internet Explorer.
None of these actions had pro-competitive
justifications.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Id. at 111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft was further found guilty of other technological
manipulation that inflicted technological degradation on other
products.
``Microsoft went beyond encouraging ICPs [Internet Content
Providers] to take advantage of innovations in Microsoft's
technology, explicitly requiring them to ensure that their content
appeared degraded when viewed with Navigator rather than Internet
Explorer'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id. at 91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, the district court even found that Microsoft engaged in
efforts that resulted in technological degradation for software
users generally.
``Finally, by pressuring Intel to drop the development of
platform-level NSP software, and otherwise to cut back on its
software development efforts, Microsoft deprived consumers of
software innovation that they very well may have found valuable, had
the innovation been allowed to reach the marketplace. None of these
actions had pro-competitive justifications.`` \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The findings that, to foreclose rivals, Microsoft engaged in
technological integration that had no procompetitive or
technological justification were fully vindicated by the Court of
Appeals. That Court concluded:
``Microsoft proffers no justification for two of the three
challenged actions that it took in integrating IE into
Windows--excluding IE from the Add/Remove Programs utility and
commingling browser and operating system code.
Although Microsoft does make some general claims regarding the
benefits of integrating the browser and the operating system, it
neither specifies nor substantiates those claims. Nor does it argue
that either excluding IE from the Add/Remove Programs
[[Page 27956]]
utility or commingling code achieves any integrative benefit ....
Microsoft failed to meet its burden of showing that its conduct
serves a purpose other than protecting its operating system
monopoly.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ United States v. Microsoft, 253 F. 3d 34, 66-67
(DC Cir. 2001) (en banc) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the Court of Appeals also repeatedly found that
Microsoft engaged in a series of other anticompetitive acts that
foreclosed the freedom to choose the best technology and had no
procompetitive justification or technological benefit whatsoever.
The Court of Appeals found that Microsoft's primary justification
for its exclusive contracts with Original Equipment Manufacturers
``borders upon the frivolous,'' and that with one narrow
exception, ``all the OEM license restrictions at issue
represent uses of Microsoft's market power to protect its monopoly,
unredeemed by any legitimate justification.'' \11\ The
Court of Appeals similarly found that Microsoft'' s exclusive
contracts with Internet Access Providers had no procompetitive
justification, \12\ that ``Microsoft . . . offered no
procompetitive justification for its exclusive dealing arrangements
with the ISVs [Independent Software Vendors],`` \13\ that
``Microsoft offers no procompetitive justification for the
exclusive dealing arrangement'' with Apple,\14\ and that
``Microsoft offered no procompetitive justification for the
default clause that made the First Wave Agreements exclusive as a
practical matter.'' \15\ The Court of Appeals also found
that: ``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 . . . Microsoft offers no
procompetitive explanation for its campaign to deceive
developers.'' \16\ Finally, the Court of Appeals found:
``Microsoft does not ... offer any procompetitive justification
for pressuring Intel not to support cross-platform
Java.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Id. at 63-64 (emphasis aded).
\12\ Id. at71.
\13\ Id. at 72 (emphasis added). The Court of Appeals did
not reach the question whether Microsoft's dealings with Internet
Content Providers had a procompetitive justification because the
appellate court concluded the trial court had not found an
anticompetitive effect from this conduct. Id. at71.
\14\ Id. at 74 (emphasis added).
\15\ Id. at 76 (emphasis added).
\16\ Id. at 77 (emphasis added).
\17\ Id. at 77 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
True, the Court of Appeals did not specifically pass on the
district court's findings that in fact Microsoft's efforts at
technological and nontechnological foreclosure had adverse
technological effects on the performance of its own products. But
the Court of Appeals statements repeatedly sustaining the district
court findings that Microsoft'' s whatsoever imply approval of
those more specific findings as well. In any event, none of the
district court findings that Microsoft's efforts at technological
and nontechnological foreclosure had adverse technological effects
was reversed as clearly erroneous by the Court of Appeals, and thus
each of them remains the binding law of the case.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Id. at 117-118 (sustaining the district court
findings of facts except for those few that the court of appeals
held were clearly erroneous).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These prior findings cannot be second-guessed at this stage, and
frame the Tunney Act question. The Court of Appeals decision is
authoritative on lower courts, and all prior district court findings
of fact that were not reversed by the Court of Appeals are also
binding under the law of the case. Nor would a Tunney Act proceeding
be an appropriate forum for second-guessing the accuracy of the
findings in prior opinions since such a proceeding does not purport
to redo the fact finding process. To be sure, neither the Court of
Appeals nor the prior district court judge ever reviewed the
proposed settlement or made any Tunney Act ruling about whether it
was in the public interest. But my point is not that these prior
findings settle the Tunney Act question. My point is rather that any
Tunney Act ruling must assume the correctness of these findings.
Further, this is not a typical case of settlement proposed
before trial or appeal, where the court conducting a Tunney Act
proceeding has reason to defer to government authorities on the
uncertainties and costs of securing and defending a judgment of
liability. Here, the trial and appeal are already over, and the
findings and judgments have already been secured and successfully
defended. Nor is this anything like an earlier Microsoft Tunney Act
proceeding, where the judge that disapproved a proposed settlement
was reversed for relying on facts he read in a book but the
government's complaint never alleged and were never tested by the
adversary process and appeal.\19\ Here the relevant facts were
alleged by the Department of Justice, found true in an adversary
proceeding, and sustained by an en banc court of appeals. Thus the
Tunney Act question before this court should properly be framed as
follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448
(DCCir. 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given an antitrust defendant that has been found repeatedly
willing to engage in anticompetitive technological and
nontechnological conduct that had no procompetitive justification at
all, but indeed degraded technological performance, is it in the
public interest to approve a settlement that preserves the
discretion of that defendant to engage in technological bundling and
design that excludes rivals and lacks any demonstrable technological
benefit?
II
Bundling two products in a way that confers some positive
technological benefit but also anticompetitively forecloses rivals
raises very troubling issues about whether courts can really assess
and weigh the magnitude of the conflicting effects. Such a case
might pose serious concerns about whether efforts to remedy the
anticompetitive effects would have the adverse consequence of
deterring technological innovation. In prior writing with co-
authors, I have been so troubled that such an antitrust inquiry
might itself deter technological progress that I proposed that
product bundling that confers any technological benefit (that
consumers could not themselves equally achieve through their own
bundling) should be deemed a single product, and thus not
challengeable as illegal bundling even though any technological
benefit might possibly be outweighed by greater anticompetitive
effects.\20\ Similarly, my co-authors and I concluded that product
design decisions that advantage an associated defendant product over
rival products should not be deemed a technological tie unless the
product design lacks any technological benefit.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See X AREEDA, ELHAUGE & HOVENKAMP, ANTITRUST LAW
� 1746 (1996).
\21\ 21 See X AREEDA, ELHAUGE & HOVENKAMP, ANTITRUST
LAW � 1747 (1996) (offering analysis and collecting cases).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed test was repeatedly cited with approval and
largely adopted in an earlier Court of Appeals decision that
reviewed a claim that Microsoft's conduct violated a consent
decree.\22\ However, the en banc Court of Appeals decision in this
case has interpreted antitrust liability more expansively. It
decided that, for purposes of both monopolization and tying claims,
a positive technological benefit from technological integration or
design is not a sufficient defense, but rather must be balanced
against any anticompetitive effect.\23\ This test a fortiori
condemns the cases without any technological benefit that would be
condemned under my test, but also condemns some technological
integration or design that does confer a positive technological
benefit. Such a test, if adopted in a consent decree, might raise
serious questions as to whether in practice enforcement would be
either unfeasible or unduly deter technological progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ United States v. Microsoft, 147 F.3d 935,948-51
(DC Cir. 1998).
\23\ 253 F.3d at 59, 65-67, 95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was, however, of the view that the Court of Appeals misapplied
this test because it considered technological benefits that could
equally be obtained by consumer bundling. See Elhauge, ``The
Court Failed My Test,'' The Washington Times, A-19 (July
10, 1998). The Court of Appeals did so because it mistakenly thought
that otherwise the test could not distinguish the case of an
integrated operating system distributed on three diskettes, but the
test does in fact distinguish this case when properly combined with
the threshold test that consumers desire the unbundled product. Id.;
X AREEDA, ELHAUGE & HOVENKAMP, ANTITRUST LAW 1743 (1996). This
threshold test should be applied before a court.
But it is an entirely different matter where, as here, a firm
technologically bundles or designs its products in a way that
anticompetitively forecloses its rivals without any procompetitive
or technological justification whatsoever, and indeed retards
technological progress. Such behavior lacks any plausible
justification, or even the patina of one, and must be strongly
condemned and rooted out of a competitive economy. Thus, the minimum
requirement that any settlement must meet before it can be said to
[[Page 27957]]
have provided the remedies necessary to protect the public interest
from the continued threat of Microsoft's antitrust violations would
be to at least restrict Microsoft from continuing to technologically
bundle or design products in ways that foreclose its rivals but do
not improve technological performance at all. This proposed
settlement fails this test. The bottom line is that, while the
settlement provides some restrictions on various nontechnological
methods of foreclosing rival applications, it does nothing effective
about technological foreclosure. It does not even bar efforts to
foreclose rivals with technological manipulations that affirmatively
harm the performance of Microsoft products.
Nothing in the proposed settlement prevents Microsoft from
anticompetitively foreclosing rivals by simply selling its operating
system with other Microsoft software included, even if such bundling
confers no technological benefit whatsoever or even harms
performance. Nor does the proposed settlement even bar Microsoft
from purposefully designing its operating system in ways that confer
no technological benefit but make rival software work poorly. In
both respects, the settlement deletes reaches any of the five
grounds under which a defendant might prove that two items that meet
this threshold test nonetheless constitute a single product. Id. at
1744-50 (laying out the five grounds). restrictions the trial
judge had previously ordered as necessary remedies during any period
Microsoft was not broken up.\24\ Given the judicial findings of a
repeated past willingness to subordinate technological performance
to the goal of anticompetitively foreclosing rivals, it is hard to
see how it can be in the public interest to leave Microsoft
unrestricted in these ways.\25\ The proposed settlement leaves
Microsoft free to harm competition at the cost of technological
progress in precisely the ways it was found to have done so in the
past.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 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 unless: (i). 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.''); id. at 67 (``Microsoft shall not take any
action that it knows will interfere with or degrade the performance
of any non- Microsoft Middleware when interoperating with any
Windows Operating System Product without notifying the supplier of
such non-Microsoft Middleware in writing that Microsoft intends to
take such action, Microsoft's reasons for taking the action, and any
ways known to Microsoft for the supplier to avoid or reduce
interference with, or the degrading of, the performance of the
supplier's Middleware.'')
\25\ Indeed, the prior district court remedies would seem
to constitute the law of the case of what remedies are necessary to
remedy the antitrust violations that were inflicted through
technological bundling and design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, in both respects the proposed settlement actually
worsens this problem. First, the proposed settlement not only fails
to prohibit, but appears to sanctify bundling despite the lack of
any technological justification by providing that Microsoft has the
``sole discretion'' to decide what to include in its
operating system.\26\ Second, the proposed settlement not only fails
to prohibit, but gives Microsoft affirmative incentives to design
its operating system in ways that work poorly with rival products
because that would create a ``functionality'' problem that
justifies express exclusion of rival products under the proposed
settlement.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Revised Proposed Final Judgment VI.U.
\27\ Id. at III.C.1, III.H.1,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
True, the proposed settlement does impose some restrictions. It
would prohibit Microsoft from using agreements or threats to prevent
computer makers or software developers from dealing with Microsoft's
rivals. It would also prohibit Microsoft from making it impossible
for computer makers or buyers to customize their operating system to
add or substitute rival software. And it requires Microsoft to
disclose the interface codes or server protocols necessary to design
rival software to run on its operating system.
But none of these restrictions matter if Microsoft is free to
engage in technological foreclosure. If the computer makers and
consumers who buy the Microsoft operating system are forced to take
a technological bundle that (without any technological benefit)
includes other Microsoft software, those computer makers and
consumers will have little incentive to substitute rival software,
even if the rival software is technologically superior. For example,
suppose Microsoft and its rival both offer software that costs $10
to make, but consumers value the rival software at $15 and the
Microsoft software at $10. Without bundling, computer makers or
consumers would buy the rival's superior software. But with
bundling, the Microsoft software is already included in the price of
the operating system. Thus the computer makers or consumers would
not pay $10 to get the rival software when the improved performance
is only worth $5. Computer makers or consumers will have even less
incentive to use rival software that works worse because Microsoft
purposefully designed its operating system in ways that confer no
technological benefit but create interoperability problems for rival
software.
Antitrust law and settlements should not impede genuine product
innovation. If Microsoft bundled software to achieve technological
benefits that would not be available if buyers combined their own
software choices, then bundling should be permitted. But the appeals
court concluded that Microsoft failed to show any technological
benefit for its technological bundling, and the proposed settlement
leaves Microsoft free to repeat bundling that lacks any
technological merit. Likewise, if an operating system design
decision makes Microsoft software run better, Microsoft should be
free to adopt it even if it hampers rivals until they make
modifications to take similar advantage of the improvement. But the
proposed settlement leaves Microsoft free to make design decisions
that actually degrade operating system performance in order to
create problems for rival software.
In another binding ruling, the Court of Appeals held that:
``The Supreme Court has explained that 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.''\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ United States v. Microsoft., 253 F.3d 34, 102
(DCCir.2001) (en banc) (emphasis added) (citing Ford Motor v. United
States, 405 U.S. 562, 577 (1972), and United States v. United Shoe,
391 U.S. 244, 250 (1968)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement remedies fail this obligation because
they do not unfetter the market from the past anticompetitive
technological bundling and product design. The proposed remedies do
not terminate the illegal monopoly. The proposed remedies do not
deny Microsoft the fruits of its statutory violation since Netscape
and Java remain technologically foreclosed with their diminished
market shares. Nor do the proposed remedies do anything to prevent
Microsoft in the future from again inflicting the same
anticompetitive product bundling and design that forecloses rivals
but lacks any technological benefit.
III
Many have apparently been under the misimpression that the
government plaintiffs could no longer pursue remedies against
technological bundling because the government plaintiffs dropped
their tying claim. But this decision to drop the tying claim, which
I applauded,\29\ did not reduce the need or ability to restrict
technological foreclosure as a remedy for the antitrust violations
that the Court of Appeals found Microsoft committed. This is true
for two reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Elhauge, ``A Smart Move on Microsoft,''
Boston Globe (Sept. 11, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, dropping the 1 tying claim did not amount to
dropping all claims against technological bundling because the Court
of Appeals specifically found that Microsoft's technological
integration violated Sherman Act 2.\30\ Thus, at a
minimum, the prior findings require an effective remedy against
technological bundling that forecloses any rival software that could
pose a competitive threat to the operating system itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 253 F.3d at 64-67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, it is well-established law that antitrust remedies may
need to prohibit conduct beyond what would violate antitrust law in
order to be effective. Indeed, if all antitrust remedies did was
repeat the legal prohibitions contained in existing law, they would
hardly add anything. In particular, the Supreme Court decision in
Loew's held that, when a defendant has engaged in illegal
[[Page 27958]]
bundling, ``To ensure .. that relief is effectual, otherwise
permissible practices connected with the acts found to be illegal
must sometimes be enjoined.`` \31\ Thus, where a
defendant has been found guilty of illegal technological bundling
and design to protect its monopoly power, it would be appropriate to
make the remedy ban all forms of technological bundling and design
that foreclosed rival products but lacked any technological benefit,
without specifically requiring proof that the foreclosed products
posed a meaningful threat to the monopoly power. After all, when a
defendant engages in technological manipulation that has no
technological benefit at all, the only rational reason for its
conduct must be to anticompetitively foreclose rivals. Given the
absence of any procompetitive virtue, there is no reason to inflict
on the public the additional cost and uncertainty of proving that
the foreclosure had an anticompetitive effect. That is particularly
true where the tying claim was dropped for the strategic reason of
getting more quickly to the imposition of remedies, and not because
the tying claim was ever rejected on the merits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ United States v. Loew's, 371 U.S. 38, 53 (1962); X
AREEDA, ELHAUGE & HOVENKAMP, ANTITRUST LAW c111758, at 349
(1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In any event, even under the most narrow possible reading of the
prior holdings in this case, any proposed remedies must undo the
adverse effects of (and deprive Microsoft of the fruits of) the
prior technological and nontechnological misconduct that the
district court and Court of Appeals found specifically foreclosed
Netscape Navigator and Sun Java. This would at a minimum indicate
that an appropriate remedy would include an obligation that
Microsoft must carry Netscape Navigator and Sun's version of Java on
its operating system, so that those products would have the
opportunity to serve as a rival platform for applications, just as
they could have had without Microsoft's illegal conduct.
Unfortunately, such a remedy is probably now insufficient, since the
foreclosure of these products has prevented a series of
technological developments that otherwise might have occurred had
every computer had a rival applications platform that could access
the Internet. But, at least prospectively, such a remedy would offer
a nice market test of the proposition that consumers might prefer to
use these rival products as their applications platform, because the
remedy would afford consumers the market choice of doing so or not.
IV
Even if one got past the proposed settlement's failure to deal
with technological foreclosure, its efforts to deal with
nontechnological foreclosure have problems as well. In particular,
even the weak restrictions that the proposed settlement would impose
have various loopholes that undermine their effectiveness. One
troubling loophole delays Microsoft's obligations to make disclosure
and allow removal of Microsoft middleware for up to twelve
months.\32\ That is a lifetime in computer software development, and
one wonders whether rivals, with that kind of time lag, will ever
overcome it. Further, the proposed settlement permits Microsoft not
to disclose code that would compromise the security of ``anti-
piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management,
encryption or authentication systems.`` \33\ It is quite
possible that some of this code might be vital to the
interoperability of rival software. Further, excluding disclosure of
authentication codes may allow Microsoft to exclude rivals to
Passport, its Internet authentication system, and then tie E-
commerce to its authentication monopoly. The proposed settlement
also leaves Microsoft free to use financial inducements to encourage
computer makers to favor Microsoft applications as long as those
inducements are ``commensurate'' with their sales of the
Microsoft application or reflect ``market development
allowances.`` \34\ Microsoft can also enter into joint
ventures or contractual arrangements with software developers that
bar them from dealing with rival applications if that furthers some
bona fide contractual purpose,\35\ which probably will not be
difficult to find. Finally, the whole proposed settlement would only
last five years, leaving Microsoft free to engage in the full range
of its past anticompetitive conduct starting in 2007. The mere fact
that this threat will be looming in 2007 means that, even if the
proposed settlement restrictions were effective, this looming threat
would likely discourage any investments in long term software
development, which may take years before it results in a product and
require several years of profitability after introduction to recoup
the investment. Indeed, since some of the proposed settlement
obligations would not kick in for a year, the proposed settlement
would leave rivals with only a four year window to try to profitably
recoup investments in rival products that Microsoft could foreclose.
This is probably insufficient even if, contrary to fact, the
restrictions did meaningfully prevent foreclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Revised Proposed Final Judgment III.D, III.E, III.H.
\33\ Id. III.J.
\34\ Id. III.A, III.B.3.
\35\ Id. III.F.2, III.G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V
Given the above, I am reluctantly forced to conclude that
approving the proposed settlement as a final judgment would not be
``in the public interest,'' as the Tunney Act requires. 15
U.S.C. 16. It fails to ``terminat[e] alleged
violations,'' the ``duration'' and ``relief
sought'' are unsatisfactory, the ``anticipated effects of
alternative remedies'' that dealt with technological
foreclosure and dealt better with nontechnological foreclosure would
more effectively protect the public interest, the proposed remedies
are not ``adequa[te]'' to correct the violations found by
courts, and ``the impact of entry of such judgment upon the
public generally and individuals alleging specific injury, from the
violations set forth in the complaint'' would be negative. Id.
The proposed settlement should thus be modified to bar Microsoft
from engaging in technological integration or design that forecloses
rival products but lacks any technological benefit, and to provide
more effective remedies against nontechnological methods of
foreclosure by closing the various loopholes in the proposed
settlement that I have described above.
Respectfully Submitted,
Einer Elhauge
Professor of Law
Harvard Law School
t575 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02138
TEL: 617-496-0860
FAX: 617-496-0861
EMAIL: [email protected]
January 27, 2002
MTC-00027210
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs: I have read the proposed settlement. It thoroughly
addresses oversight of prohibited behavior on the part of Microsoft.
I feel it is a step in the right direction but it is short sighted
as it really does not say ?What you did was wrong, now pay a price
for having done so.?
Nothing addresses any penalties for having operated as a
monopoly. This to me ignores the harm done to the industry and
customers to date. I also feel there is a serious dilemma in setting
any penalties. One side me says ?this nation enjoys a leading role
in global information technology, we should not hurt our overall
standing?; the other side says ?a crime should never pay, there must
be an appropriate punishment?. The settlement as proposed never even
entertains an aspect of just punishment.
Microsoft is a monopoly and enjoys the leverage of being the
desktop operating system publisher for the world. It can spread into
almost any other market segment if only by virtue of having enough
money to buy into one. Their dominance today is built on their past
containment, absorption, and removal of other competing companies
and technologies. A lot of inspired innovation died along the way to
getting to the current market state. There is no commercially viable
x86 operating system in existence. Just weeks ago another company Be
OS failed. There is almost no way to make a business of a selling a
new operating system without selling it with a non-Intel based
computer system. Microsoft has a commanding lead and has locked out
competition for the desktop OS market, for both consumer and
business users.
The wealth of this corporation limits any meaningful financial
penalty. Monetarily, I do not feel a dollar figure can be set that
would really impact them because the cost would only be passed on to
the customers. In effect, we as its customers, would be billing
ourselves.
Here are three possible penalties:
1. Prohibit Microsoft and its major affiliates from merging or
spreading into any other diversifying business ventures for the next
three to five years. In effect freeze Microsoft's current expansion
for a fixed period of time giving competitors some opportunity to
survive and grow.
2. Set up a venture capital startup fund using $1 billion paid
by Microsoft to support
[[Page 27959]]
new alternative (competing) U.S. based operating system and software
developers. Prohibit Microsoft from ever acquiring or partnering
with these companies.
3. Encourage sectors of the U.S. government to procure fewer
Microsoft products by offering budgetary inducements through GSA for
using alternative sourced products for a period of three to five
years. This opportunity would encourage developers to bring new
products to market possibly spurring competition and better pricing.
Consumers would benefit in having more choices.
Sincerely,
Alvin Scott
MTC-00027211
From: David Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:24pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I hope you will consider a remedy with a little more teeth than
the one that has been proposed. I still use Netscape because I
prefer it, but even though one can download it free of charge, it is
still easier for most folks to use IE because it comes with their
OS. Netscape's improved the new versions to the point that reviewers
are praising it over IE, but it is still hard to use it because it
is not universally supported. Either through fear of Microsoft or
because of cost effectiveness, it is not always supported by website
developers or even internet providers. It is rather sad when one's
own ISP will not support one's use of Netscape because not enough
customers use it to justify training their tech support, when you
know that people aren't using Netscape because it was muscled aside.
I have even found web sites that won't display in Netscape. I don't
know if that is because the site has an agreement with Microsoft or
because they choose not to design the site for both browsers because
they don't think there will be enough traffic from Netscape
customers to be worth the cost. Please consider a remedy that will
change things enough to give a practical choice to those of us who
would like one. Requiring Microsoft to sell a version of Windows
without IE would be a good start.
MTC-00027212
From: sysadmin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel that any settlement the DOJ makes with Microsoft will
cause more harm than good. Microsoft should be forced to take full
responsibility for the monopolistic blackhole they have created.
Since Microsoft has embarked on a disinformation campaign, many
people feel that Microsoft is the only software company. This is not
true. There are many alternatives that could fill the void if
Microsoft were to fail. More specifically, there is Sun
Microsystems, Apple, IBM, and and many Linux companies.
Bill Gates will argue that his company is helping create
standards of quality. This statement follows hundreds of security
holes, thousands of bugs, and the technical documents that label
Widows as the most unstable OS.
Microsoft sucks up everything in its wake. Currently, Microsoft
has been attacking the Open Source movement. According to Microsoft,
the Opensource movement (more specifically the GPL) is a cancer.
They call it a cancer because they can not control it. Normally,
Microsoft would purchase any competing idea and store it away. They
store every bit of creativity the software industry has. If anything
it is Microsoft, that is the cancer. It should be removed.
Your's truely,
Thedore Knab
Systems Engineer [UNIX]
Washington College
300 Washington College
Chestertown, MD 21620
Office: 410-810-7419
Fax: 410-778-7830
email: [email protected]
MTC-00027213
From: Jimmy Tucker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jimmy W. Tucker
998 Damrosch Street
Largo, Florida 33771
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I support the settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. It is
time to put this lawsuit behind us and move on to better things like
developing better products. Microsoft and its competitors should all
be improving and innovating all the time, not focusing on
litigation. The people in the marketplace will choose the best
products for their needs. So far the people have chosen Microsoft.
The fact that Microsoft has been dominant does not mean it has been
harmful. Along with Intel on the hardware side, Microsoft has
dictated the standard that people have chosen to follow and build
upon. I do think the corporate world needs some oversight. The
settlement will open up Microsoft to its PC industry even further
than it is now. This is in stark contrast to the successful, but not
dominant strategy of Apple Computer, which has been to maintain
close, sole, proprietary control over all major facets of its
business, from design to manufacturing, and from hardware to
software. Microsoft has agreed, for example, to disclose the
copyrighted software of the internal interfaces to Windows. I am
pro-competitive. The settlement will be good for American consumers
and industry, in my opinion.
I thank you, Mr. Ashcroft, for your support of the Microsoft
settlement.
Sincerely,
Jimmy W. Tucker
MTC-00027214
From: Paul C Halstead
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Justice Department
In accordance with the Tunney Act I wish to comment as follows.
``Consumer interests have been well served and the time to end
this costly and damaging litigation has come. Dragging out this
legal battle further will only benefit a few wealthy competitors,
lawyers, and special interest big-wigs. Not one new product that
helps consumers will be brought to the marketplace.''
Very truly yours
Paul C Halstead
MTC-00027215
From: Glen Kleinknecht
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge,
I am a personal computer user as well as running an inner-city
non profit which uses 10 computers. I have found that Microsoft a
generous company for us. However, I do not believe it to be in the
benefit of users like me and my inner-city work to benefit from an
environment of one company controlling the computer operating system
market. Nor do I believe that it is beneficial to M.S. M.S. will
benefit from a truely competitive market Therefore, I want to
express my concern about the PFJ as a good solution. Please consider
this user as one who would not want this ``judgement''
enacted.
Thank you for your consideration. I am sure you will render the
fair conclusion on PFJ.
Glen Kleinknecht
Director, Here's Life Inner City
(NYC)
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00027216
From: wbusch
To: Microsoft ATR,Mary Fentress
Date: 1/27/02 9:27pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Microsoft needs to be broken up to allow fair competition to
other developers. Over the years they have stolen technology from
many companies. Most recently mouse technology that netted them
hundreds of millions of dollars. Even with the legal battles going
on they show NO intention in changing business as usual practices.
They had to pay Stac technologies $ 120 million in the past..they
didn't care they made much more. They said it wasn't possible to
separate the browser from Windows. It was another lie. A product
called 98 Lite did just that. Now they say it is possible but they
continue to work at making it impossible in future versions of th
OSes they build. They all but killed off Dr DOS which was superior
at the time. They destroy, buy off or steal technologies as needed
to control the marketplace. They can not be trusted to police
themselves and should be broken up into several separate entities
that would not be able to prevent development of alternative
operating systems,or new technologies by money and influence. Just
as they recently tried to ``settle'' with the government
by putting even more of their software into schools to further
expand Microsoft's presense. They continue to prey upon the public
as well developers. I am a user of Microsoft products and I am
currently enrolled in Microsoft classes in college which I pay for
myself without financial aid. Despite this I know that if we
[[Page 27960]]
do not stop the marketing of new OS every two years for the sake of
profit we will soon destroy all competition at an enormous expense
to all users.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak out.
MTC-00027217
From: Joe Barr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Joe Barr. I am a United States citizen residing at
1715 High Road, Kyle, TX, 78640. I have been using personal
computers since before the introduction of the IBM PC and the luck
of the draw which gave Microsoft its monopoly on the PC operating
system market on day one. I have worked in the computing industry
since 1974, either as a programmer, manager, consultant or
journalist.
I have seen Microsoft's dishonest, duplicitous, and illegal
business tactics destroy a healthy market and replace it with one
devoid of real innovation and competition. I have seen software
developers lose their life's savings as a result of the malignancy
of the Microsoft monopoly. I have been witness to the perjury of
Bill Gates in the STAC case, the rigged demos in federal courts, and
the false statements made under oath of the top Microsoft
executives. And I am not alone. Millions of others have seen the
same thing.
I am submitting these comments in hopes that they will reach the
judge who will rule on the proposed ``settlement'' between
Microsoft and the DOJ in the long-running antitrust case. I know
that many others will be writing to point out their views on the
legalities of the settlement. I am not qualified to do that. I am
certain that the judge needs no help from me in determining that on
her own. I merely wish to state the obvious: the settlement is all
about politics, not justice.
There are terrible shortcomings in the proposed settlement. The
most notable among them are:
1. The restraints it asserts are weak and inconsequential.
2. No penalties are prescribed for failure to abide by them.
3. The loopholes are larger and more numerous than the
restraints.
4. If this settlement is accepted by the court, it will not
hamper Microsoft's ability to llegally extend its monopolies one
iota. In fact, the settlement will strengthen its ability to do
exactly that.
Under the leadership of the Bush administration, the DOJ did not
even bother to assign a competent negotiator to the task of reaching
a settlement. Ashcroft personally took the United States biggest
threat to Microsoft off the table, and Charles White evidently could
do nothing but repeat ``Yowsa, Mister Gates, Yowsa'' at
every stage. No matter that the world knows Microsoft not to be
trustworthy, White and Ashcroft leave important matters completely
up to Microsoft's judgement in the settlement. Their greatest
accomplishment for the United States in the document seems to have
been to win the right for the DOJ to jointly (with Microsoft) decide
who would oversee the it.
Ashcroft and White have humiliated and shamed the entire
Department of Justice in their rush to deliver to Bill Gates and
Microsoft the ``Get Out Of Jail Free'' card promised by
President Bush. Their work is nothing short of an indictment of the
American legal process: justice for sale to the highest bidder. One
administration, one Enron, one Microsoft. Justice for all three.
No mere tinkering with the current settlement would be
sufficient to correct the wrongs resulting from Microsoft's past
behavior or even to insure they do not continue. A just settlement
must contain swift, sure, and painful punishment as a consequence
for failure to abide by its terms. Microsoft has proven itself
countless times not to trustworthy. They must be made to behave, or
else they won't. It is as simple as that.
Here's hoping that you will throw this outrageous political
settlement onto the scrapheap where it belongs. Unfortunately, you
face opposition to an equitable settlement not only from Microsoft,
but from their purchased political appointees as well.
/Signed/
Joe Barr
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00027218
From: Cebert Shrum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is our opinion that the Microsoft offer should be accepted.
We think that it is a shame what is being done to this company
because of their success. It is another example of meddling like the
case of AT&T. We had the best telephone company in the world and
now we have a mish-mash and we get less service and it costs more
just because of one judge. The public is the ones who suffer in
cases like this. In this case the public has already suffered
because the stock is less valuable and if the company is punished
more, their products will suffer and cost more and cause more jobs
to go overseas and increase unemployment.
We think it is time to let Microsoft alone.
Mr. and Mrs. Cebert W. Shrum
3733 Southern Manor Drive
St. Louis, Missouri 63125-4478
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00027219
From: Richard Dunn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel that the proposed settlement does not go far enough in
ensuring that Microsoft will cease it's predatory actions. The
company has repeatedly announced their plans to expand and dominate
other markets like they have the PC market.
Richard Dunn
5588 Tosca ct.
Placerville, Ca 95667
(530)677-8400
MTC-00027220
From: John H. Lindsay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
rway Hill Crescent,
Kingston, Ontario, K7M 2B4,
Canada,
2002 01 27.
Ms. Renata Hesse,
Trial Attorney,
Antitrust Division,
United States Department of Justice,
601 D Street, North West, Suite 1200,
Washington, DC 20530 U. S. A.
Dear Ms. Hesse:
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement: I wish to comment on the
proposed Microsoft Settlement. You will note form the above address
that I am a Canadian, and thus not directly concerned with the
Proposed Microsoft Settlement. However, I submit that considering
where I am writing from, what my background is and what sort of
things I do, I am uniquely placed to offer comment which may be
informative and useful to you in this matter.
I say that Microsoft's restrictive sales and software
development methods and practices have had a more devastating an
effect in Canada on software development than in the States. That,
however is a matter for the Canadian Departments of Justice and of
Trade and Commerce and our courts, and is not my point here.
It would be interesting to me for you to consider at some time
in the future whether Microsoft's actions taken in the U.S. both
directly and through Microsoft Canada, and having effect in Canada
to restrict competition among software manufacturers and
distributors, including U.S. manufacturers and distributors
marketing in Canada, is subject to your laws. Again, this is not my
point here.
My point is that Microsoft's restrictive practises have spilled
over the border and had such a huge effect and have been so
penetrating in Canada, affecting even little one-person near-
hobbyist operations like mine. Those practises must then have
affected every corner and every small computer user, software
creator and distributer in the U.S. Further, I have read the
document COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT, Civil Action No.
98-1233 (CKK), and in it, I find in it very little that I
could call sufficiently punitive, corrective, recompensatory,
effectively preventative, of deterrent to or controlling of
Microsoft restrictive practises, especially as it relates to little
people like me but in the U.S., little people who don't have the
money to hire a lawyer, and who look to you for protection from
predatory giants.
I am a retired professor of Computing Science; I taught 15.5
years at Queen's University here in Kingston, and 17.5 years at
Royal Military College (compare: West Point, U.S. Naval Academy,
U.S. Air Force Academy all rolled into one, made a degree-granting
university, and reduced to Canadian size) also here in Kingston. My
field of study is computer programming languages, particularly the
macro languages, macro language programming systems, and compilers.
I'm still studying in my ``retirement'' and working on a
computing project that in all my years at the two universities, I
never had the time or resources to do. In this project, I'm a one-
person
[[Page 27961]]
organization, a unique one-person programming organization among
many such unique one-person organizations everywhere in the world.
There are many such one-person organizations in the United States,
hobbyists, and many of the creators of shareware, freeware and open-
source software for instance. You may wish to browse the Hobbes
archive of OS/2 software from around the world at http://
hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/OS2 at New Mexico State University; the majority
of it is contributed by OS/2 programmers in the United States,
almost all little people like me.
My project is the Rosanna programming language and programming
system, a system to permit the creation and use of programming
languages peculiar to a problem or class of problems at hand. I plan
to release it not for profit, but under a type of licence which
expects the user to do something agreeable to him in thanks to the
good Lord or for his fellow man--I call it Samaritan
ware--in return for the right to use Rosanna. This puts my work
in much the same classes as freeware or shareware, or open-source
software (mine will be open-source too, but with a difference).
In my work, I use the OS/2 operating system for a number of
reasons: (1) the design of the system which helps in the
organization and creation of software, (2) the availability of ALL
the API documentation in open form, (3) the ready availability of
high quality software, especially compilers for a huge number of
programming languages and well-conceived and well-written
programmers'' utilities, (4) its invulnerability to almost all
the computer viri and worms, especially the ones introduced in the
last year or so, and (5) the stability of the system--I think I
have to reboot about once every five or six weeks or more, except
when I have to reboot to install a new piece of software. You have
heard the sorry tale of the failure of OS/2 in the market place
caused by Microsoft's actions. We OS/2 programmers are loosing our
favourite operating system bit by bit as a result.
Our loss, the loss of the little one and two-man programming
organizations, including those in the United States, is in very
large part, intangible. The rewards of the freeware programmer are
just those of knowing that he has done a good job (the quality of
work produced by OS/2 programmers seems to be a good level higher
than the quality of much on the market or available on the InterNet)
and the knowledge that there are people who will use his work. If
OS/2 falls into disuse, we will have few to use our work, and that
will be what Microsoft has done. The shareware programmer looks for
both those rewards and the fees paid by the users. They will be out-
of-pocket due to Microsoft's restrictive practises too.
I see no cause for relief in the present proposed Microsoft
Settlement for the little non-Microsoft programmer in the U.S. but
like me. We need our user base back, a user base that has been taken
from us by Microsoft's improper actions. There is nothing in the
proposed settlement that gives us that user base back, and there is
no effective way to compensate us all for that loss.
Please send the proposed settlement back to the drawing board
for the sake of my U.S. counterparts. In particular, I suggest that
every clause be examined for things which can be made ineffective by
Microsoft's evasive actions, and please, please, don't include a
clause like the gift of Microsoft software to schools and colleges.
That's a subtle form of Microsoft advertising; students learning to
use a piece of software at a school, college or university tend to
continue to use it afterwards in their work. If anything, I suggest
that you make Microsoft buy software from other non-related
suppliers equal in value to what they offered to give, including but
not limited to OS/2 from I.B.M., Linux, B.S.D. Unix, Corel software
including WordPerfect, and so on, and give that to schools, colleges
and universities.
Yours very truly,
John H. Lindsay.
John H. Lindsay 48 Fairway Hill Crescent,
Kingston, Ontario,
Canada, K7M 2B4.
Phone: (613) 546-6988 Fax: (613) 542-6987
[email protected]
MTC-00027221
From: jsterner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: ``Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Network''
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 6:22 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
CC: Jack Sterner
328 Thomas Barbour Drive
Melbourne, FL 32935
January 27,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I never thought that Microsoft should have been brought to
trial. If Microsoft had been doing something wrong, America would
have known about it long before, and the consumer would not have
stood by and shelled out cash for products that were shoddy or
overpriced. I am not an expert on antitrust law, and I do not know
everything that has gone on in the case, but I am a consumer of
Microsoft products, and I am affected by the recession America is
currently in, and I believe both the economy and computer industry
have suffered because of this case.
The proposed settlement is perfectly reasonable; unfortunately,
Microsoft's opponents do not agree. They are currently seeking to
undermine the settlement and continue to litigate against Microsoft.
I do not believe this is wise or needful. Microsoft has agreed to a
variety of terms aimed specifically at decreasing their dominance in
the market. Microsoft's competitors will be given a great deal of
advantages. For example, Microsoft will reformat the Windows
operating system so that future versions of the software will
support non-Microsoft programs. Competitors will be allowed to use
Windows to introduce their own software to consumers. Computer
makers will also be given the right to reconfigure Windows by
removing Microsoft applications and replacing them with competitive
alternatives.
The economy needs to get back on its feet, and this is the
perfect opportunity to give it the chance to do so. The settlement
that was reached last November needs no modification. I urge you to
support it and to move on.
Sincerely,
John Terner
MTC-00027222
From: Alex Wallace
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Dept. Of Justice:
I believe that Microsoft's proposed ``settlement'' is
the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. You cannot allow
Microsoft to sneak out of their dillimma by further pushing their
monopoly- which was what they were in trouble with in the first
place. Perhaps their punishment could be for them to pay fines to
all the companies they have pushed down with their monopoly? Apple
and Netscape come to mind...
Sincerely,
Alex Wallace
MTC-00027223
From: Philip Seal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
As a citizen of this wonderful country and a taxpayer, I wish to
object most strongly to
[[Page 27962]]
any changes that might be proposed or made to the settlement that
was legally reached after very much discussion and deliberation, by
the court in this matter concerning this great company. Please don't
allow this matter to be dragged on any further. There is no need to
waste our precious resources on useless wrangling just to satisfy
the greed of a few individuals, who are only looking for ways to
line their pockets at the expense of a successful Company, and of
the entire population of this great nation of ours. Let's get on
with more important items that might benefit and improve our
economy. ``Enough is Enough.''
Philip Seal
Sunrise FL
MTC-00027224
From: Mark (038) Pam Collier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
We would like to see the antitrust case against Microsoft
settled. We think it is ridiculous that this case was filed at all,
and we are pleased that efforts have been made to resolve the
lawsuit. The terms of the settlement agreement are reasonable.
Microsoft has made many concessions. Once the settlement agreement
is approved, there should no longer be any concern about
anticompetitive behavior on Microsoft's part. Microsoft has agreed
not to take retaliatory action against those who develop or promote
software that competes with Windows. Additionally, Microsoft has
agreed not to enter into contracts with third parties that would
require the third party to exclusively sell Microsoft's products.
Nothing more should be required of Microsoft.
We urge the court to approve the settlement agreement in its
present form. Thank you for reviewing these comments.
Respectfully,
Mark & Pam Collier
MTC-00027225
From: MERLE G WEAVER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
stop the delaying, move on to let Microsoft do its job.
merle weaver
MTC-00027226
From: Mike Letcher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My opinion on the above referenced settlement is that there
should have never been a suit or judgement against Microsoft in the
first place, therefore all charges and penalties should be dropped.
Microsoft should be allowed to do business as they choose (just as
anyone in a free country should) so long as they do not physically
initiate force or threaten physical harm. They got their economic
power through free trade and the fact that, besides myself, many,
many persons freely chose their software over other available
products. This suit is a travesty to freedom.
Sincerely,
Michael Letcher
United States Citizen,
State of Missouri
MTC-00027227
From: John Grauch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:26pm
Subject: RE: Microsoft Settlement
Judge:
As a soon-to-be graduating college student, I would just like to
voice my concern about the possible negative ramifications, should
the Microsoft be allowed to continue in its present monopolistic
trend. You have the fate of the free world in your hands, please
seriously consider how truly monopolistic Microsoft is. The proposed
final judgement does not adequately remedy the situation.
Thank you for your time,
John Grauch
USC college student
MTC-00027228
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 7:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear sirs,
Having watched the computer industry for about 20 years now, I
have witnessed the Microsoft corporation as it has grown from the
supplier of software for ``hobby'' computers to its
present day dominance in the software industry. And I have watched
as it has systematically destroyed any company that has attempted to
do business selling software, starting with Digital Research in the
1980's. As near as I can tell, Microsoft has never been the
innovator it claims to be, but rather exists by adopting the ideas
of others and marketing them as its own. Therefore, it is with great
disappointment that I learn that the punishment for abusing its
monopoly power will in essence be, that it must promise to be nice
and not do it any more. Note that Microsoft has never publicly
acknowledged its own wrongdoing! A more realistic judgement, in my
opinion, would be to completely revoke the IPRs that have allowed it
to become the monster it is. Not forever, not for every company.
Just for Microsoft and just for a period of say, 5 years as in the
current judgement. During that period, Microsoft could no longer
make wild claims of ``piracy'' nor force users to
``sign'' a ridiculous ``contract'' merely by
clicking their mouse. If someone wished to copy or reverse-engineer
Microsoft products during that period, he or she could do so with
impunity. It would serve as a reminder to Microsoft that it
--can-- be regulated, and that the foundation of its
business model is in fact government regulation.
James Robertson
MTC-00027229
From: Michael B. Parker
To:
``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov','verify(a)kegel.com''
Date: 1/27/02 9:43pm
Subject: RE: Verifying you as cosigner of Open Letter to DOJ
Name: Michael Parker
City: Los Angeles
State: CA
Title: Software Architect
Organization: n/a
I am signing www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html because I believe
Dan Kegel accurately points out that the proposed final judgment
with Microsoft considerably falls short of ending anti-competition
practices, such as (very offensively), preventing Publicly Available
Software from being redistributed with MS Windows (Media Encoder 7.1
SDK) (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#isv.oss). While
it might be easier to debug if it was just one make of software,
that is not even beginning to be sufficient technical reason to
insist on doing so universally, and the fact that a stipulation such
as this would exist in the settlement would suggest to me that the
settlement is still ill-spirited and Microsoft would may well still
put in anti-competitive practices anywhere they could.
CC: Paul Belvoir
Michael Scott Klein
MTC-00027230
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge--
I'm a college student and thus have been a big supporter of
Microsoft products (mainly Microsoft Word). However, I do not
believe it is right they were able to be granted a deal giving them
full leverage over the competition. We live in America under a
Democracy. Thus, a company based in the states should not rule as a
dictatorship. If our country is not run in this manner, what makes a
company believe they can do so?
Sincerely,
Robyn Freeman
814 W. 28th St.,
Los Angeles, CA 90007
CC:[email protected]@inetgw,dkleinkn@yahoo...
MTC-00027231
From: Daniel Speers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Very simply put, this Settlement is a bad idea. The reasons are
many and the following URL is merely a good start.
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
Dan Speers
15 Maxine Drive
Morristown, NJ 07960
973-898-0906
MTC-00027232
From: Rayson Ho
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Renata,
[[Page 27963]]
I am from Ontario, Canada. I just graduated from the computer
engineering program at the University of Toronto. I recently saw the
Open letter from Dan Kegel's web site about the Microsoft
settlement. As a member of this industry, I think I need to say
something. I strongly agree with the problems identified in Dan
Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html) 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,
Rayson Ho,
Toronto, Canada;
Recent Grad,
U of Toronto.
MTC-00027233
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge you to reject the proposed settlement in the Microsoft
antitrust case and to require that Microsoft adhere to a market
based approach that is self-sustaining, rather than to regulatory
remedies that require constant policing. I do not believe that
Microsoft, a company that has repeatedly been found to violate
antitrust laws, should be broken up. Rather, its 70,000 applications
should be able to run on all competing operating systems. This
solution will allow consumers to enjoy the advantages of current and
future competing products without denying them the use of any
Microsoft products. Such an approach is not designed to
``punish'' Microsoft, but to promote a level playing field
in which consumers can freely shop for the mix of products that best
meets their needs at competitive prices.
Jerald A. Breitman
15 Innisfree Drive
Durham, NC 27707-5069
MTC-00027234
From: Renhao Zhang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Justice Official,
I'm writing this letter to voice my opinion regarding the
Microsoft Anti-trust case as allowed by provisions of the Tunney
Act.
As a technology consumer and a computer user, it is virtually
impossible to conduct my affairs without some form of association to
the products of Microsoft, the defendant of the anti-trust trial. As
such, the decision and outcome of this trial is of great
significance to me.
I agree with the conclusions of the courts Finding of Facts as
published here: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
but I do not support the proposed final judgment as published here:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm
I object for the following reasons:
(1) Although the spirit of the remedial actions are a step in
the right direction, they are too loose and do not go far enough.
Too much of the language and the details of how relevant items are
defined are too vague. As it stands, the door is wide open for the
defendant to construct and exploit loopholes that defeat the
original purpose of the judgment rendered. Microsoft has a corporate
history of placing self-interest above the public good and can not
be trusted to abide by a weak judgment by the Department of Justice.
(2) The decision to remove the order to break up the company
along product lines is a critical mistake that will hurt the
ultimate goals of this trial. Microsoft has already been found
guilty of illegal monopolistic business practices. Keeping the
monopoly intact does nothing to punish the guilty. If allowed to
stay intact, Microsoft will continue it's history of bullying and
pressuring competitors with it's market dominance along multiple
fronts of the consumer electronics and computing industry. As of
today, Microsoft has well established holds in the general desktop
computing, PDA, and game console markets all under the banner of the
Windows operating system. Microsoft can not be allowed to use the
Windows to destroy the diversity of a healthy market.
(3) Though the guilty verdict establishes Microsoft as a
repeated transgressor of fair market practices, no action has been
taken to punish the company for past deeds. Over the years,
Microsoft has littered the corporate landscape with the remains of
corporate entities whose products and market objectives came into
conflict with Microsoft. Many surviving companies and computer
product producers have testified to the various forms of attack
Microsoft has engaged in to stifle competition. It isn't fair to
those market participants who have suffered on account of Microsoft
for the company to get off so lightly. In addition to the remedial
measures, Microsoft needs to be aggressively punished for it's
previous business practices as an example to future potential
corporate law breakers.
These comments I respectfully submit to the government in the
hope that it will aid the cause of justice.
sincerely,
Renhao Zhang
MTC-00027236
From: Thomas Parkhill
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/27/02 9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlepeople:
There is, in my opinion, little justice in the recent decision
regarding Microsoft and its business practices. I disagree with this
settlement most strenously!
Thom Parkhill
Department of
Religious Studies
St. Thomas Unversity
Fredericton, N.B.
Canada E3B 5G3
[email protected]
MTC-00027237
From: Dick Humphrey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is my understanding that Monday, January 28, is the deadline
for individuals to submit their opinions to the Department of
Justice on the antitrust settlement between Microsoft, the DoJ and
nine states. I respectfully ask that you consider the value of
competitive practices, not legal means, to attempt to capture
customer market share. Microsoft spent over $2.0 Billion in legal
fees last year. They have agreed to make some concessions to abide
by your original concerns and now we find lobbyists and competitors
are forging ahead with competitive issues to keep Microsoft from
carrying out their daily operations that have certainly meant a
great deal to the day to day operation of each American's life to
make it more productive and efficient. While the terms of the
settlement are tough, it is my understanding that Microsoft believes
they are reasonable and fair to all parties, and meet--or go
beyond--the ruling by the Court of Appeals, and represent the
best opportunity for Microsoft and the industry to move forward.
I respectfully ask that you not reject the settlement and get
this legal mess behind us. Thank you for your consideration.
Dick Humphrey
Littleton, CO
[email protected]
303-770-8881
MTC-00027238
From: Lawrence W Mahar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:46pm
Subject: Microsoft case
From: Lawrence W Mahar
945 Murray Road,
Middle Grove, NY 12850,
home & FAX 518-587-6781,
e-mail: [email protected].
I agree with The Senior Coalition in recommending an acceptance
of the Miscosoft offer.
URGENT ACTION ALERT
Your immediate response is needed!
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. Many have argued that Microsoft
was singled out by its jealous competitors and sympathetic
government bureaucrats because of its success and a desire to see it
punished.
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. The Seniors Coalition 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.
Unfortunately, a few of Microsoft's competitors have continued
their aggressive lobbying campaign to undermine the settlement
negotiated with the federal government and nine states. The
settlement
[[Page 27964]]
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.
You can offer your opinion to the Justice Department to counter
the self-serving and punitive lobbying effort of Microsoft's
competitors. Current law (known as the Tunney Act) allows public
comment on the proposed settlement up until January 28th. The U.S.
District Court will then decide whether the settlement is in the
``public interest.'' Please send your strong message to
the Justice Department that consumer interests have been well
served, and the time to end this costly and damaging litigation has
come.
Dragging out this legal battle further will only benefit a few
wealthy competitors, lawyers, and special interest big-wigs. Not one
new product that helps consumers will be brought to the marketplace.
YOUR VOICE IS VERY IMPORTANT AND TIME IS VERY SHORT.
Only comments received by January 28th will be included in the
public record and submitted to the Court for its consideration.
Consumers need to win this battle, so please send your comments
immediately to the Justice Department--either by email or by
fax--and do it before January 28th.
Don't let these special interests defeat the public interest.
Email: [email protected].
In the Subject line of the e-mail,type ``Microsoft
Settlement.''
Fax: 1-202-307-1454
or 1-202-616-9937
To find out more about the settlement and the Tunney Act comment
period, go to the Department of Justice Website at: http://
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm Raising your voice now on this
issue really will have an impact.
Thank you for your time.
Mary M. Martin
Chairman and Executive Director
The Seniors Coalition
MTC-00027239
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:48pm
Subject: Public Comments
I am writing this email to state that I am opposed to the terms
of the Microsoft Settlement as they are currently stated. One of the
biggest objections that I have is the proposal that Microsoft be
allowed to give away software to public schools as part of the terms
of the settlement. This does not penalize them for past behavior. In
fact it encourages them to continue this because this settlement
then greatly expands their market share and ties more school systems
into this operating system.
Thank you for listening to my comments.
Elliot Abramowitz
Glendale, Az
MTC-00027240
From: John Parmater
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:47pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Dear Judge,
I know the Bush administration wants to be friendly to business
by being friendly to Microsoft. However, as was establish during the
trial, Microsoft has been quite hostile to business and hostile to
the welfare of the United States of America. Please do whatever you
can to rein in this behemoth.
Thank you.
John Parmater
MTC-00027241
From: Jerome B. Bonat
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I admire the products that Microsoft has brought to the
marketplace --I do not think they should be punished for being
effective in the capitalistic system.
Jerome B Bonat
Boca Raton Fl
561 482 6779
MTC-00027242
From: Akkana
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to add my voice to those protesting the settlement
in the Microsoft case proposed by the Department of Justice. The
proposed settlement is too weak, and does nothing to punish
Microsoft for its past illegal behavior or to prevent it from
continuing the same patterns of behavior in the future. As a
temporary measure, it would be a welcome help which might help get
the industry moving again while stricter measures are being
considered; but by itself it will not change anything in the long
run.
There's no question about Microsoft's guilt: both the district
court and the appeals court found Microsoft guilty of violating
sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman antitrust act. So how can we allow a
settlement which levies no penalty whatsoever against the
lawbreaker--which allows Microsoft to keep the billions of
dollars of profits which have come out of the pockets of consumers
and of the many smaller companies which it has trampled in the
course of maintaining its illegal monopoly? The proposed settlement
would send a clear message that companies are free to break the law
with impunity.
We've already seen how effective a weak settlement will be on
modifying Microsoft's behavior. Did the agreement of July, 1994
(http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/Pre--96/July94/94387.txt.html)
help in ending the company's monopolistic and bullying practices?
Evidently not, or they wouldn't have been found guilty in the
present case. Nor has the current proposed settlement (which
Microsoft claims to support) prevented them from imposing licensing
and registration agreements in their most recent software products
which maintain their software monopoly and keep users from trying
software from other sources. Another weak settlement is an engraved
invitation for more monopolistic behavior and many more court cases
in the years to come.
III: Prohibited Conduct More important, though, is what the
settlement says about Microsoft's future behavior. The settlement
will place no significant restrictions on Microsoft's
anticompetitive behavior, and allows the company to continue to use
its monopoly to lock out other software products.
The spirit of the settlement is fine. Microsoft's most egregious
violations, which have had the worst effect on competition, have
been its restrictions on licensees, OEMs and other customers
restricting their ability to run other operating systems or software
from sources other than Microsoft, and the bulk of the settlement
attempts to address such issues. However, it is so specific and its
scope so limited that the current settlement by itself will not
cover the modern applications and the sorts of customers which
provide the bulk of Microsoft's income.
Microsoft has already shown itself willing and able to work
around loopholes in the proposed settlement. Consider its current
enterprise licensing scheme, announced after the publication of the
proposed remedy, which offers discounts to companies which sign an
agreement not to use non-Microsoft products. Does this behavior
become acceptable simply because most businesses do not fall under
the heading of ``IAP, ICP, ISV, IHV or OEM''?
The loopholes in III J don't specify who is to make the
determination as to what constitutes encryption, anti-piracy,
licensing, digital rights management, etc. What is to prevent
Microsoft from claiming that all of its APIs are critical to one or
more of these technologies? Who has the right to overrule them?
IV: Compliance and Enforcement Procedures: Who is to enforce
these rules and ensure that Microsoft doesn't continue to flout the
law as it has in the past? IV B 3: Microsoft itself has half the
responsibility (one of the first two members plus half a vote as to
the third member) for selecting members of the oversight committee?
Isn't it unusual for convicted criminals to be allowed to select the
guards who will oversee them? These committee members, moreover,
will be funded by Microsoft and will work at Microsoft's
headquarters? It's hard to imagine that any technical committee will
end up being a tough enforcer of the law under such conditions. And
why is the technical committee prohibited from disclosing the
details of any complaints or proceedings, by IV D 4(e)? Let's face
it: Microsoft isn't going to change its behavior willingly, and a
small number of people chosen by Microsoft, financially beholden to
the company and working side by side with company employees, in
secret and out of public view, is not going to change anything.
Conclusion: An immediate measure is needed. Since the
settlement, Microsoft has already shipped new software which is even
more flagrantly anticompetitive than their previous products, and
has announced new licensing policies which flout the spirit of all
of the proposed settlements. Further deliberation may be needed
regarding a strong remedy which will break Microsoft's stranglehold
on the market and restore competition to the software industry. If
that is the case, please consider imposing
[[Page 27965]]
temporary sanctions (perhaps akin to the proposed settlement) to
send a message that Microsoft must cease its illegal activities
immediately.
For the long term, though, I urge you to reject the proposed
settlement as too weak and too riddled with loopholes to do any
long-term good. Please consider imposing a much stronger settlement
that (1) imposes punishment for Microsoft's intentional and flagrant
violation of the law, and (2) imposes real and enforceable
guidelines (or structural remedies) which will offer real relief to
the millions of consumers and the hundreds of companies who are
suffering from Microsoft's current stranglehold on the software
market.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Akkana Peck
Software Engineer
549 Arleta Ave
San Jose, CA 95128
(408) 297-5257
[email protected]
MTC-00027243
From: Alexander Bogdashevsky
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/27/02 9:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Microsoft Settlement is a really bad
idea. But you know what, I am not surprized at all... Alexander
Bogdashevsky
MTC-00027244
From: Peter Traneus Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:53pm
Subject: suggestion
I suggest that Microsoft be required to make the .doc, .xls,
Media player, and other binary file formats public, so competitors
can write format-compatible programs. This eliminates the problem of
people being forced to use Microsoft products because someone sent
them a file in a Microsoft format.
Peter Traneus Anderson
42 River Street
Andover, MA 01810-5908
[email protected]
MTC-00027245
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
Please settle the microsoft case.We must end all litigation.
Let's focus on reviving the economy. Microsoft has agreed to do many
things to help everyone.Why not stop all of this now, and settle
their case?
We must settle, and settle now.
Sincerely,
Bill and Dorothy Herndon
MTC-00027246
From: Jake Robb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not feel the need to reiterate the complaints against
Microsoft which I am sure you have read or heard thousands of times
by now. I want to voice my opinion against Microsoft's proposed
settlement. The following web page references several arguments
against the settlement. I have read several and agree with an
alarming majority of the agruments. I encourage you to read them;
they provide excellent coverage of the many opinions against the
settlement.
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
I urge you not to approve the settlement.
Sincerely,
Jake Robb
Grand Rapids, MI
Software Engineer
MTC-00027247
From: Steve Wheeler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am opposed to the Microsoft settlement as it currently stands.
Microsoft has been convicted of using monopoly power in unlawful
fashion. The currently-proposed settlement has fewer teeth than the
consent decrees that Microsoft has already ignored. Besides there
being no significant penalties applied, the decree allows Microsoft
to use its desktop monopoly to leverage access to and control of
further markets. There is no recourse to this, because all Microsoft
has to do to remain compliant with the settlement is to state that
whatever feature they use to provide such access and control is
defined to be part of the Windows operating system.
Sincerely,
Steven R. Wheeler
4655 Perry Street
Denver, CO 80212
MTC-00027248
From: Janice Wolfe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
As a consumer of Microsoft products, I feel my opinion is
noteworthy. Microsoft has been unfairly scrutinized and penalized in
the past, present, and may be in the future; however, peer companies
who may have needed review seem to have gone unblemished.
WhY???????????????????????. Micosoft is ok for me.
MTC-00027249
From: Richard L Steiner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would urge the Justice Department to end the costly and
damaging litigation against Microsoft. I believe the proposed
settlement is in the public interest. I believe that this settlement
serves well consumer interests.
Thank you.
Richard L. Steiner
Consumer
MTC-00027250
From: Geoffrey Feldman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Geoffrey Feldman
iddlesex Street #8
Lowell, MA 01851
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I have thought from the beginning that the antitrust case
against Microsoft is wholly and completely wrong. There never should
have been a trial in the first place. Antitrust laws are outdated in
a global market. The consumer is not protected by legislation that
punishes success. Microsoft's opponents claim that Microsoft holds a
monopoly on the technology market. I submit that such a monopoly is
impossible. Computer technology is based on innovation, and
innovation is driven by ideas. Ideas cannot be monopolized.
Microsoft's supply of ideas comes from its programmers, and its
programmers are by no stretch of the imagination bound to Microsoft
for eternity. They are free to leave to work for other companies or
to start software businesses of their own, and often do so. This
hardly denotes monopolization of creativity. When Microsoft succeeds
in the computer industry, it does so because it is competent, not
because of some sinister conspiracy to barricade other
companies'' progression. Furthermore, Microsoft relies on other
companies to manufacture its hardware. This is also not indicative
of monopoly. Microsoft may enter into exclusive contracts (although
such will no longer be permitted under the settlement), but this
represents an agreement reached between two responsible parties, and
what they do is their own business, as far as I am concerned.
Indeed, there is nothing private or secret about Microsoft's
software. The settlement requires open sourcing, but that does not
mean that Microsoft code was entirely inaccessible before. Any
determined developer or programmer, given the time and the drive,
could have figured out what Microsoft was doing long before now.
Microsoft is not an icon of oppression; rather the corporation
stands for freedom. Apple is, in contrast, more monopolistic,
although less successful than Microsoft. Apple has control over
manufacture of hardware as well as software, and has no intention of
opening up the market. It has ceased to innovate because it hasn't
had the need do so. Apple works with Apple alone; it has neither
diversified nor made outside contracts, and yet it is not nearly as
successful as Microsoft is. Even quasi-monopolistic practices are
bad business. Monopoly does not mean success, nor is the inverse the
case. IBM was once dominant in the market, much as Microsoft is
today, and they lost a great deal of consumer support when Microsoft
began putting out their product. IBM may regroup and begin to
compete head-to-head with Microsoft again in the future, and I would
gladly welcome such an attempt. Tough competition breeds better
products and a greater degree of innovation.
The consumer benefits from competition between companies of
similar strength, and I say more power to anyone who wants to come
up against Microsoft.
I am appalled at the claims that have been made in order to
bring Microsoft to trial. They are clearly unfounded and irrational.
I believe in a kind of business Darwinism: the stronger the product,
the better chance there
[[Page 27966]]
is of survival. I do not think it is wise to protect businesses from
the harsh realities of tough competition. It does not benefit the
consumer to have weak companies thrust into the market and given
advantages they have not earned. This case has gone on long enough,
and the greatest harm it has done is to the technology industry and
the economy. Computer makers and users are scared to make a move
until this case gets resolved, and it is crippling production and
sales. Moreover, the case has had a tremendous financial drain on
the economy. You can track the litigation across the years by
looking at the NASDAQ. The longer the suit lasts, the lower the
numbers get. This is not rocket science, Sir. I do not believe
Microsoft is guilty of anything more than success in a fast-paced
industry. I agree that Microsoft is tough, and provides a higher
challenge for its competitors to meet. I would rather see the
challenge met and a stronger company to emerge than Microsoft's
creativity stultified and the incompetent companies given the chance
to invade the market. Again, I am outraged that the case was ever
brought in the first place, but I prefer settlement and a return to
business than painfully redundant litigation. I urge you to support
the settlement and allow Microsoft to get back to business. At this
time, the jusctice department pursuit of Microsoft is causing me
hardship through its disruption of the computer industry. This will
only be relieved by the justice department concluding this matter in
the most expeditious way and one most favorable to Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey Feldman
MTC-00027251
From: Todd Harrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:03pm
Subject: Consumer Concerns about MS Settlement...
Dear DOJ,
My name is Todd Harrell and I wish to submit my comments
regarding the MicroSoft case. Let me preface my comments by pointing
out that I have used personal computers since 1983. I have used
several platforms and today use a combination of both Windows and
Apple based systems. I do not wish to engage in a platform war, each
OS has its advantages and disadvantages. My concern is for the
future of software development as it relates to my home use, and
business use.
It is my belief that the intense competiton within the software
industry is the reason software has evolved at such a rapid pace. It
is my opinion that the business practices of Microsoft threaten the
entire industry. Let me point out that while Microsoft holds a
monopoly on Operating Systems, I do not feel that this in itself is
wrong. If a product gains dominant market share based on its own
merits, I support its position. What concerns me is the predatory
lengths that MS has gone through to protect its monopoly.
(1) Innovation: One way I believe MS threatens innovation is
with its selective targeting of competition.
Example 1: For several years, I used a presentation package
known as Aldus Persuasion. Compared with Poweroint, Persuasion
seemed to have a much more robust set of features. Best of all,
Aldus corporation aggressively developed this package and each new
release had a wealth of new tools and features. In my opinion,
Powerpoint was simply an inferior program. It appears that Microsoft
simply gave Powerpoint away, and by bundling it with its Office
suite, it gained a much higher distribution. While Persuasion was a
far superior program with a promising future, it could not compete
with MS's predatory practices. Persuasion was finally discontinued.
Not only did the loss of Persuasion limited my choice, it cost me
financially because I had to adopt Powerpoint as a presentation
package.
Since the death of Persuasion, Powerpoint has all but stopped
evolving. I use a lot of software (including Powerpoint) an I am
used to seeing new features as software is upgraded. Unfortunately,
without competition, Microsoft has no reason to develop Powerpoint
any further. While most other software continually grows, Powerpoint
it essentially unchanged from the versions I purchased 5-6
years ago. Powerpoint is a very crude package with limited
functionality. It has certainly not evolved at a rate consistant
with most professional software.
Example 2: Word vs. Word Perfect. While the focus of my work
doesn't require much word processing, I have used (I currently have
licenses of) both products. Simply put, I find WordPerfect easier to
use. WP also seems to have a reputation of simply being a better
package. As with Persuasion, WordPerfect has all but disappeared in
the wake if Microsoft's marketing practices.
(2) Choice: It is my belief that as a consumer and business
owner, Microsoft has unfairly limited my choices of software (beyond
issues as listed above)
Example 1: For years, I have used Netscape Navigator. Upon the
initial release of Explorer, I tried MS's browser for possible use
as my primary browser. I simply did not like Explorer, and continued
to use Netscape (NN). It seems that in recent years, as Explorer
gained market share, NN began having compatibility problems with
certain web sites. While I certainly have no proof, I am concerned
that perhaps MS's server software or marketing practices have
purposely sought to ensure that MS controlled sites or ISP's
intentionally ``break'' with browsers other than IE.
Example 2: Ease of use. While I use both Windows and Macintosh,
this past year I have used mostly the Windows OS (because of certain
software requirements). In my opinion, windows is a more difficult
OS to use and maintain. For many network administrators, windows
offers a deep, flexible perating system that gives them a lot of
technical control. For most of us users though, it is needlesly
complex, and arguably obsolete. The Macintosh is strong in the
educational community because of its ease of use. School systems
can't afford all the network personel required to maintain a PC
network. Under the current ``proposed'' settlement,
schools will be forced to accept old computers and a Windows
standard. Kids will be raised in an environment where only one OS
exists. I doubt most school systems will be able to maintain an
efficient network based soley on Windows with out spending lots more
for the additional support requirements.
I guess I can go on and on. If you recieve this email and wish
for me to contribute further, I will list more of the concerns I
have. Innovation is everything in this industry. If Microsoft is
allowed to continue its practices, otherwise progressive companies
will have no incentive to innovate and the entire industry will
stagnate. Consumers will be hurt as software stops evolving and MS
is allowed to raise prices, restrict use and control an industry and
technology founded on innovation. Microsoft is not ethical or
responsible with its monopoly. They have hurt the OS market, they
are hurting the handheld market and now they are moving into the
gaming industry. What's next?
Simply put, I am a consumer, I want choices, I expect
innovation. Microft's practice continues to threaten both.
Todd Harrell
Techna Design Studio
Charleston, WV
MTC-00027252
From: Daniel D. Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to accept the Settlement offered to Microsoft by the
Justice Department. It is reasonable, and pushing it any further
will only increase the cost to everyone and won't help anything.
Betty Allen, 520 Old Post Rd. Tolland, CT 06084. (A Senior)
MTC-00027253
From: Chris Oxenreider
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement. (NAY)
To whom it may concern:
I find that the proposed final judgment against Microsoft lacks
in a great number of areas. Specifically I wish to highlight these
important places where improvement, in my opinion, should be sought.
(1) The settlement is too full of specific industry jargon which
may become obsolete or rendered useless within a short span of time.
(2) Microsoft to pay the legal fees for the DOJ. Microsoft has
been proven in court to have been a monopoly. It is customary and
usual for the party who has been found against to also pay the legal
fees of the winning party, including, but not limited to the DOJ and
the states Attorney Generals offices involved.
(3) Divesting Microsoft of it's non-software business interests.
Microsoft is a monopoly. Allowing it to continue to own, hold or
have influence over it's competition (Apple) through direct
investment should be prohibited. Allowance for grants and gifts may
be allowed provided that they come unencumbered.
Microsoft should not be allowed to own any hardware or service
providing (Internet, travel, shopping, video games, print media,
[[Page 27967]]
etc) business that is not directly related to it's operating system
or applications. Microsoft should be limited to it's software
business and not allowed to own or have major holdings (25%) n
telecommunications, travel, banking, industrial, utility, or
commerce business where it's full weight and power may be used to
allow it to gain additional monopoly standing.
Microsoft's interest, in whole or in part, in Internet service
providing companies is akin to allowing Standard Oil to continue as
it was, but then allowing it to buy companies that make oil using
equipment and engineering them to become less oil efficient so as to
use more standard oil.
(4) Limitations on Microsoft for the purchase/acquisition of
other technologies and companies (world wide). Microsoft may no
longer purchase technology or software companies outright. It my
license on a non-exclusive basis from those companies.
(5) Inadequate penalties against Microsoft.
No monetary awards have been stated to help those companies that
have been hurt by Microsoft's monopoly status (Microware, Netscape,
SUN, etc).
(6) Microsoft will be fair and create a ``Chinese
wall'' between the Operating system division and the
Applications division and only the publicly published API interfaces
from the documentation of each may be used to develop software
within Microsoft. If the Applications developers can only use the
published ``API's from the Operating system developers and vice
versa. No unpublished ``faster'' Microsoft exclusive API's
will be created.
(7) Inadequate definitions. Examples include Compromised
security, and anti-privacy.
(8) Microsoft shall not overly encumber competitive analysis of
it's software by unduly restricting it's license agreements to
prohibit competitive analysis (for example as Oracle on NT vs
Solaris).
(9) No provisions for fostering competitive software creators.
There are no provisions for fostering (via monetary penalties) other
alternative software and operating systems. Unencumbered university
grants and gifts. Grants and gifts to independent software
developers, consultants and individuals. Microsoft may license the
technologies from the above mentioned, but may not have exclusive
right to those technologies.
(10) No provisions for fostering competitive operating systems.
Microsoft shall agree to make available the 20 (minimally) most
popular software applications for home and the 20 (minimally) most
popular software applications for business applications on the top
10 competing operating systems. Said software will be identical to
that released for it's own operating system in features. Software
for the top 5 competitive operating systems shall be available no
more than 90 days after the release for it's own operating system,
and no more than 180 days for the remaining operating systems.
(11) Inadequate oversight of Microsoft post settlement.
(1) The TC should be 7 people (1 Microsoft selected member, 3
plaintiff selected members, and 1 designated representative each
from the groups IEEE, IETF and NIST [or their successors/assigns]).
(2) Define ``any competitor to Microsoft'' (does that
mean any LINUX users)
(3) no provision for input from enlightened public members
(12) Stipulation that Microsoft must adhere no only to the
letter of the law but the spirit of the law as well.
(13) Termination should be no less than 15 years and no more
than 35 years.
(14) Inadequate stipulations that Microsoft must adhere to
international and Internet (IETF, RFC, et all), POSIX, etc [or their
successors and assigns] with out rendering them incompatible in the
Microsoft implementation.
(15) Inadequate stipulations for opening Microsoft's standards
to allow interoperability from competitive software creators with
out encumbering non-disclosure, or requisite partnerships or
strategic alliances. Example: Opening the standards for .doc and
presentation format so a competitive interface to an ``outlook
client'' might be created.
(16) Exclusive use of Microsoft owned and or operated
information distribution systems as the sole point for the
dissemination of data regarding interoperability. The use of a
wholly owned Microsoft network at the control of Microsoft to
disseminate information about how to create compatible software
seems counter intuitive. Minimally, this information should be
freely available from a Microsoft supported third party. Information
above and beyond what is required by the final judgment may be on
Microsoft network for a fee is not unreasonable.
(17) Inadequate allowance for ``open source''
developers to flourish.
MTC-00027254
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I am writing to respond to the Justice Department's request for
comments from the public on the proposed Microsoft settlement. While
I am sure this settlement agreement will have its detractors,it
seems a reasonable compromise. Hopefully it will bring stability and
progress in the software industry.
This settlement offers the opportunity to close the case with
certainty. Microsoft has offered a number of serious concessions,
including its agreement to open Windows operating systems so that
non-Microsoft software can be configured into the system. If
implemented, this provision, standing alone, will have an immediate,
positive effect on the software market. Please take advantage of
this opportunity and settle the case as soon as possible. The public
interest will not be served by the alternative.
Sincerely,
Milton Ross
108 Meadowbrook Country Club
Ballwin, MO 63011
MTC-00027255
From: hank henry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello, I have never sent a letter like this before.I would have
never thought it would be necessary.
I used to be a fan of Microsoft, I thought they represented the
American dream.i.e.
A group of young entrepreneurs changing the would for the better
and getting rich in the process.
Having watched there business practices over the years, and now
working in the computer industry, I have a completely different view
of Microsoft. They are predators that feel that they are above the
law. If any other industry behaved in such a fashion there would be
a public outcry. Computer operating systems are harder for most to
understand. (If one company owned 95% of the petroleum distribution
centers in our country, than started a car company and changed all
the fueling nozzles to only fit their car it would not be tolerated)
They do not even seemed to have learned by this latest litigation,
they seem even more arrogant then usual.
Fair competition is good for our economy and society, abusing a
monopoly to stifle competition is not.
Thank you for time
Hank Henry
MTC-00027256
From: Ralph Alberti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Agreement
I implore you to move beyond this settlement and let Microsoft
continue to go about its business of creating products that benefit
us all.
Ralph Alberti
MTC-00027257
From: Frank Disparted
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:08pm
Subject: Assalt on Microsoft
I Microsoft has been a great benefit to me as a user of their
products. They produce the best and have made a standard for the
industry, if you remember a few years ago when one could spend hours
trying to make a new program work. I thing the people bringing
charges against Microsoft are fishing for money. The other
competitors cannot keep-up and are leaning on the Government to help
them compete. It is shame an American Company leading the world get
stabbed in the back form it own government. Would everyone be happy
if we shipped Microsoft to China? Shame shame shame.
Frank L. Disparte
Kiwanis Club Huntington Beach
Ocean View Key Club Advisor
[email protected]
MTC-00027258
From: Mickey Roberson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Matter
[[Page 27968]]
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft
I am retired now, but in my working career I labored at a large
company for others and finally as the owner of my own company. I
understand how business works and there are occasions when the
Federal and State governments do have a stake in how a business
conducts its affairs. Unabashed polution of the environment,
negligent disregard for workers'' safety, underage and illegal
immigrant labor come to mind. However, this Microsoft prosecution
has been wrongheaded and bogus from the start.
Microsoft being charged as being monopolistic is ridiculous and
I am living proof of that. In my life with computers I have owned
SIX Apple laptop computers and ZERO computers that use any Microsoft
products at all. To the best of my knowledge I have never
contributed one cent to the revenues of Microsoft or the personal
fortune of Bill Gates. I have purchased Apple computers with ease as
well as the software to operate them and am perfectly happy with my
computing access, so how in the world can Microsoft be a monopoly if
I have nothing to do with them. If someone does not like Microsoft,
just buy an Apple like I have.
The only thing I know about Windows is that it is an operating
system I do not need, use or want. My understanding though is that
Microsoft has agreed to share some sort of protocols or proprietary
information that would help its competitors benefit from Microsoft
innovation and market penetration and that seems reasonable enough
to me to settle this prosecution that should never have taken place
to start with.
This Federal prosecution and the resulting original decision are
to me the seminal events that started the plunge of the NASDAQ and
the fall of the value in many technology stocks, which by the way
has cost me many thousands of dollars in the value of my retirement
savings. This plunge has also cost hundreds of thousands of people
their jobs, resulted in I am sure billions of dollars of loss to our
general economy and a tremendous reduction in the tax dollars
flowing into the federals coffers as revenue. It seems almost insane
for the U.S. government to attack one of its largest companies which
was the world leader in an area in which the only direction seemed
up. Some foreign governments give monetary support to their own
companies in an effort to compete with U.S. companies, but here with
Microsoft the Federal government is trying to destroy a U.S.
company. Since Microsoft was not, is not and cannot be a monopoly,
it would be interesting to know why Janet Reno and her associates
really prosecuted, but I will not hold my breath waiting for the
truth as that will never be known.
Please Mr. Ashcroft, halt this persecution and reach some sort a
settlement that will allow the technology sector of our economy to
begin to recover where common citizens can go back to work in this
sector and help bring us out of this recession. To continue this
prosection or end it with some draconian destruction of Microsoft
with only worsen the economy, cause more bankruptcies and cost more
thousands of workers their jobs. Bill Gates has been humbled. U.S
Senators and Representatives have had plenty of face time on TV.
Enough damage has already been done, please no more.
Sincerely yours,
Mickey Roberson
Atlanta, GA
MTC-00027259
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
PLEASE LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE. THEY HAVE BEEN HOUNDED
``ENUF. I HAD A COMUTERBACK WHEN I HAD TO HAVE SOMEONE PROGTAM
IT FOR ME ``TILL BILL AND HIS CREW CAME ALONG AND GAVE US A
PROGRAM THAT EVERYOND COULD USE. A REAL STANDARD.
MTC-00027260
From: Sudeep Gupta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern, I am an avid user of Microsoft products,
but I do not agree with the Department of Justice's settlement
agreement with them.
Microsoft engages in predatory pricing, locks out competition to
their products by leveraging their monopoly in other fields, and
even behaved appallingly during the trial-- faking video-taped
evidence, lying about statements (such as claiming they don't track
``market share''), and other issues. It surprises me that
the settlement is so favorable to them. I am concerned that the
settlement does nothing to address the fundamental problem that
Microsoft can leverage their monopoly in operating systems, business
software, and their growing influence with media and Internet
content to bolster their control in any of the other business
spaces.
Please reconsider the proposed settlement, and develop a plan
that will actually benefit consumers and prevent Microsoft from
engaging in illegal business practices.
Sincerely,
Sudeep Gupta
6209 Monticello Drive
Frisco, TX 75035
972-712-1020
MTC-00027261
From: John Eure
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please reject the proposed settlement in favor of one that will
actually prevent Microsoft from continuing to illegally exploit its
monopoly. At a minimum, this should require them to offer all of
their desktop programs (Office, for example) for MacOS and Linux
(the only other significant desktop OSes), and to offer all of their
server programs (IIS, for example) for Linux, Solaris, and several
other varieties of UNIX (the only other major server OSes). By
requiring them to provide applications support to their major OS
competitors, you will prevent them from leveraging their OS monopoly
into a number of applications monopolies, as seems to have already
happened with word processing, where MS Word is the default
standard. (By the way, all this could also be accomplished by
braking the company up into OS, applications/hardware, and
networking divisions.)
I urge you not to cave in to Microsoft's continuing whining. The
US economy cannot afford to support the dead weight of a monopoly
for any longer. Competition equals a healthy free market, and a
monopoly provides neither. If Microsoft's punishment is inadequate,
I fear that its straglehold on the stagnating US tech market will
drag our economy into a deep and long-lasting depression.
Thanks,
John Eure
(a US citizen, registered voter, and computer scientist)
MTC-00027262
From: David Walser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the proposed settlement in this very important trial
is not in the public interest.
First, the settlement doesn't go far enough in preventing
Microsoft's further abuse of its monopoly for continued monopoly
maintenance. Through its control of the technology and licensing,
Microsoft is able to make its software widely used. For software
such as Office and Media Player, Microsoft controlled file formats
become entrenched, and interoperability becomes crucial to users who
wish to use non-Microsoft software. Microsoft's ability to control
these file formats through control of the technology and licensing
allows them to hamper attempts by makers of alternative software to
interoperate with these file formats. An effective remedy, that
would reduce the barrier to entry for competing operating systems,
would require Microsoft to make full specifications to these file
formats openly available to the public, in advance of the release of
the Microsoft products the formats are to be used with. They should
also be prohibited from using Intellectual Property laws such as
Copyright and Patenting to get around this requirement. When
Microsoft argued their Copyright allowed them to completely control
the desktop shipped by OEMs, the Court already shot down this
argument. The file formats should be completely open with no
limitations, which brings me to my next complaint about the
settlement. It relies heavily on the use of ``Reasonable and
Non-Discriminatory'' (RAND) licensing of technologies for which
Microsoft is required to cooperate with the industry. Unfortunately,
as has been discussed recently at the World Wide Web Consortium
(W3C), RAND licensing can't avoid being discriminatory, as it's
incompatible with Open Source licensing (as defined by the Open
Source Initiative, http://www.opensource.org/). As Open Source
software is the only credible competition to Microsoft currently,
this is a very big problem. The remedy should rely on no provision
which lets Microsoft only cooperate with commercial entities, and
[[Page 27969]]
should be careful that Open Source software can benefit equally.
Another problem with the proposed settlement is it is very
vague, and gives Microsoft too much power over carrying out the
provisions of the settlement. A remedy should be very clear about
what Microsoft must do, and cannot do. It should be very clear where
authority lies in carrying out and enforcing it, and that authority
should not lay in the hands of Microsoft's directors. There are too
many places in the proposed settlement where exceptions are defined,
and Microsoft gets to decide when those come into play. As should be
obvious from the last settlement reached between Microsoft and the
DOJ, exceptions and loopholes should be kept to a minimum. The
exceptions in the current proposed settlement reduce it to almost
nothing.
Finally, the biggest problem with the proposed settlement is it
lacks an effective enforcement mechanism. Under its terms, Microsoft
could more or less ignore it, with no real penalty. An appropriate
remedy should be careful to address this.
MTC-00027263
From: Daniel Brewer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I object to the settlement with Microsoft as it is currently
proposed. The settlement is a step in the right direction, but it is
not sufficient to stop the harm that Microsoft's monopoly inflicts
on consumers and competitors. I believe that it would leave
Microsoft basically intact and with too much room to evade the
settlement's provisions. Also, it would do too little to end the
barrier to market entry that Windows'' existing applications
hold against all other operating systems. Further, the settlement
would not end the barrier to entry that Windows'' boot loader
enforces against other operating systems.
I believe that we must have public proceedings under the Tunney
Act to give consumers a voice in creating a fair settlement.
Thank you for your time in reading this message.
Daniel Brewer
503 SE 12th Ave Apt #11
Portland, OR 97207
(503)231-8977
MTC-00027264
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:19pm
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,
Terry Feazel
7195 Wyandot Lane
Middletown, OH 45044
MTC-00027265
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:23pm
Subject: Microsoftsettlement
To whom it may concern,
As a consumer of microsoft products I think they should be
lauded--not persecuted--for what they have done. Please
leave microsoft alone. They should not be punished for the good job
they have done.
Our country did not fight Communism in Europe and Asia only to
bring it here in this antitrust; read harassment, case against
Microsoft and its brilliant, humanitarian creator, Bill Gates.
Please praise microsoft instead of attacking them.
Bradley Sidman
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00027266
From: Paul Olofson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attn: Department of Justice
In response to the DOJ's unwarrented assault on Microsoft, I
would like to contribute the following points.
Item 1)
Price of Operating System
US Government--The US Government claims that Microsoft
should only charge $45 for their operating system. Their current
price gouges the consumer.
Reality--Out of the several of operating systems on the
market, Windows is priced competitively. Microsoft had 2,600 people
working on Windows 2000. They spend 6 billion a year on R&D.
They should be allowed to charge a price that consumers think the
product is worth and to run their own business. There is a free
operating system named Linux on the market. You can pick up a
popular version of this free software at CompUSA for about $80. The
judge in the Microsoft case seems to think that Microsoft should
charge less than the free operating system. Additionally, lowering
the price would improve market position, an idea the US Government
opposes.
Item 2)
Microsoft gave away Interned Explorer to try to put Netscape out
of business and dominate the internet browser market.
US Government--US Government claimed that Netscape was
severely damaged by MS because Netscape also had to give away its
browser to compete, thus depriving NetScape revenues and a chance to
compete in the marketplace.
Reality--This point is contrary to the first item of MS
overcharging consumers. What better deal for consumers than free?
During the trial, the value of Netscape went from 5 billion to 10
billion when it was finally acquired. How can a company be put out
of business if it was valued at 10 billion dollars? Using US
Government logic, the real culprit would be America Online. AOL, the
dominant internet service provider, has swallowed up two companies
that used to charge for their browsers (first CompuServe then
NetScape). Lastly, note that AOL has refused to endorse browser
standards. Without these standards companies are forced to spend
time and effort on cross-browser development. Since the Netscape
browser has refused to adopt these standards, the market share of
the Netscape has continued to decline.
Item 3)
Microsoft is a Monopoly
DOJ--Microsoft is a Monopoly due to their percent market
share in intel based computers.
Reality--I can remember when DOS 5 and Windows 95 came out.
At CompUSA, consumers put their names on waiting lists to buy the
new operating systems. Do people do this for OS2, Linux or Apple
operating systems? Consumers like Windows at the price offered or
they would buy other products. How much market share should MS give
up before they are not a considered a monopoly? Who would decide
what consumers would have to switch to other operating systems?
MS has 10% of worldwide software market while Cisco has an
estimate 75% of worldwide router market and currently is the highest
valued company in the world. I guess Cisco is next!
Item 4)
Microsoft stifles innovation
US Government--US Government claims that MS dominance
stifles innovation. I don?t think US Government offered any evidence
here.
Reality--When I started working as a government contractor
in 1989, everyone I know used Lotus and WordPerfect. Over the next
couple of years, MS introduced Office for Windows which included a
host of features other companies didn?t have. Drag and drop,
autofill, autocorrect, outlining and a standard programming language
across applications (VBA) to name a few. When my colleagues, in the
office of diehard Lotus and WordPerfect users, started using the new
releases of Microsoft Software, they as well as myself were happy to
have the new capabilities and switched to Microsoft products.
Microsoft consistently has top rated products at competitive prices.
Please review the following web sites as evidence of this.
www.tpc.org http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/news/default.asp
TPC.org shows that Microsoft is the leader in ecommerce software
(database and operating systems) in terms of overall speed and in
price/performance. The Microsoft site references the award Microsoft
SQL Server has recently won. Most notable is the industry survey of
5,000 businesses as the best business database software.
The list goes on for many Microsoft products.
[[Page 27970]]
Item 5)
Bill Gates has too much money.
Reality--I heard that one on CSPAN. ?No one person should
have that much money.? Bill Gates owns about 16% of a company he
helped start over 25 years ago. That's a crime? Microsoft pays a lot
in taxes and employs thousands of people who also pay a lot of taxes
and develops great products.
Item 7)
The other bigger question
US Government thinks the US Government should control private
companies.
Reality--I am sure everybody would disagree with this fact
idea, but the actions of the government prove otherwise. The private
sector is the better innovator. Why would anyone want the government
deciding what a private company could put in software?
Microsoft invests billions of dollars in R&D every year to
find out what people want and how things work best. They use this
data to implement these ideas in software consumers want to buy.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Paul Olofson
4524 Banff Street
Annandale, VA 22003
MTC-00027267
From: lady Bug
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice:
The Microsoft settlement was good, because it allows computer
manufacturers to provide competitive services along with Windows
without worrying about any negative reactions from Microsoft.
Competition is healthy for the economy (quality and price stability)
and consumers can actually choose from more choices.
Thank you.
MTC-00027268
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern I am a 19 year old student in New York. I
am currently studying in the field of Information Systems. This
United States vs Microsoft case affects not only those in the field
already, but those who plan to pursue a career in computers and
those who use the products on a day to day basis.
I think that the case against Microsoft should be left alone
because if more smaller companies are allowed to come in, it can
hurt the economy even more. I think they should be left alone
because they are a closed market space, if smaller companies came up
and made products and made it free or sell it cheaper, the stocks
would go down drastically. It wouldnt be an unhealthy competition
because Microsoft products are already settled and proven. We have
already seen disasters that have shaken the economy. We do not need
a technology disaster on top of all that has occured. Everyone is
used to the products that are being used currently; that a change
might not be appreciated greatly.
Thank you for allowing me to share my input.
Sincerely
Zohra Habib
MTC-00027269
From: Reed, Eric
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/27/02 10:23pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I do not believe that the ``Anti-Trust'' laws in this
country are in the ``public good''. I think they only prop
up companies that can not compete in the market, and, in so doing,
prop up prices which would otherwise be lowered by a more pure form
of competition.
I also think that asking the public what is in there own best
interests will yield you nothing but 250 million different best
interests.
Eric Reed
MTC-00027270
From: Robert Ripley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Please see letter attached.
Sincerely,
Robert Ripley
1O507 View High
Kansas City, No 64134-2448
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 express my support for Microsoft in its
antitrust case. In November 2001, Microsoft agreed to settle the
case. There are many provisions that Microsoft has accepted that
make a strong case for accepting the settlement.
Microsoft has approved the sale of its products, at an equal
price for all, to the leading 20 computer makers. Not only this, but
Microsoft has granted rival software developers open access to
Windows and other documents relating to Microsoft products. These
are only two of the many areas in which Microsoft has agreed to
compromise.
I believe that the terms of the settlement with Microsoft are
liberal towards their rivals, to-say-the-least. The Justice
Department should take this historic opportunity to end this
antitrust case and let all sides involved move on to bigger and
better endeavors.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Ripley
MTC-00027271
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:28pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I believe that the Microsoft organization should not be split up
or be subjected to any division such as AT&T. This will only
confusion prices of soft ware will increase and any service will be
subjected to fees.
MTC-00027272
From: James E. Swain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is outrageous that Microsoft should have to be involved in
any ``settlement!'' The executives and employees of
Microsoft should be praised for the tremendous wealth they have
created--not vilified for their success.
The Justice Department and law enforcement agencies should only
be concerned with Microsoft if there have been violations of the
rights of others. Since there weren't any, Microsoft should be left
alone to do business as they see fit and continue to create wealth.
James E. Swain, Ph.D.
MTC-00027273
From: Eileen J. Palumbo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please get this settlement done with now. Microsoft has already
agreed to the settlement terms and is trying to cooperate fully with
the Justice Department. No one wins by dragging this out and only
more money is being spent by a government that is pouring billions
into the economy and defense. We don't need to be spending money on
a case that should have been settled months ago.
Eileen Palumbo
MTC-00027274
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:26pm
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,
Anne Teixeira
1743 N Wintook Dr
Ivins, UT 84738
MTC-00027275
From: Bob W. Nix
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Don't drag this out any longer as it will only punish more
consumers. Settle with
[[Page 27971]]
Microsoft and get on with it! Let the free enterprise system work
Bob Nix
MTC-00027276
From: Greg Wojcik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CC: Gregory L. Wojcik Ph.D.
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
From: Gregory Wojcik
7145 Hihn Road
Ben Lomond, CA 95005
Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed
Microsoft settlement. I work for a company that produces software
which operates on multiple platforms including Windows, and am also
an end-user of several Microsoft Operating Systems, Middleware and
Applications both at work and at home.
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 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
[[Page 27972]]
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.
Dr. Greg L. Wojcik
7145 Hihn Road
Ben Lomond, CA 95005
Phone: (831) 335-4670
E-mail:[email protected]
MTC-00027277
From: Jason G. Fleming
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am AGAINST the proposed settlement. Microsoft cheats. They are
GUILTY, and a break-up is the only useful remedy.
Jason G. Fleming
North Carolina State University, USA
http://www4.ncsu.edu/jgflemin
MTC-00027278
From: Wilbur Goodwin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:32pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
In accordance with the review and comment provisions of the
Tunney Act, as noticed in the Federal Register, I am most
appreciative of the opportunity to provide my comments pertaining to
the proposed Microsoft Settlement. These comments are provided in
addition to those previously provided by me in my email to you dated
January 5, 2002. My comments are provided for your serious
consideration as follows:
I recently learned that AOL-Time Warner (AOL-TW), through its
subsidiary, Netscape Communications Corporation, filed suit against
Microsoft this past Tuesday for alleged anticompetitive conduct
regarding its browser, charging that Microsoft's Internet
Explorer (IE) browser illegally harmed Netscape Navigator's (NN)
browser. This is absurd! I find it most ironic that AOL-TW purchased
Netscape Navigator for $10 billion in the midst of the Department of
Justice trial, even after hearing concrete evidence that IE's
success in the market was based on merit, not market share !! I
fully concur with that evidence because I have both browsers
installed on my personal computer, which I use every day, and I can
assure you that I use IE almost exclusively because of its
comparative speed, efficiency and overall reliability. I seriously
question AOL-TW's motive for their ill-timed, ill advised decision.
In my humble opinion, this latest legal move by AOL-TW appears to be
an attempt to once again retreat from the rigors of competition to
the safer confines or the courtrooom, where the company is obviously
much more comfortable. I am most disappointed, though not surprised,
that AOL-TW has again chosen litigation over some other much more
constructive resolution to this matter. I firmly believe that
Microsoft has consistently tried to work more closely with AOL-TW in
a variety of areas, including improvement of instant messaging
interoperability, getting fair and open access to AOL-TW's dominant
cable assets and partnering in technology standards that are key to
developing future innovative technologies.
Based on my knowledge and belief, AOL-TW has repeatedly rebuffed
Microsoft's efforts, to the detriment of consumers, shareholders and
the technology industry, and has turned to politics and litigation
instead, a most cost-inefficient process for all
concerned!Furthermore, more litigation is the last thing that
consumers, shareholders and the industry need. AOL-TW and Microsoft
both need to focus on market competition and technical cooperation
that will make consumers'' computing experiences easier, more
efficient and more enjoyable, rather than spending more needless
time and resources in the nation's courtrooms. It is my firm
conviction that if AOL-TW would focus their efforts, energies and
R&D funding on innovation rather litigation by acquiring,
nurturing and maintaining a technical staff of highly skilled
manpower resources, as Microsoft has, they would not have to resort
to such needless litigation and the federal courtrooms! Moreover, it
is my opinion that If they (AOL-TW) can't compete on their own merit
in this arena (internet browsers), then they should reassess their
business strategy and pursue another course of potential
opportunity!
I am not only disturbed, but I am appalled, by the timing of the
AOL-TW lawsuit. I simply can't help but believe that AOL-TW's
lawsuit was calculated to undermine the proposed settlement achieved
among Microsoft, the US Department of Justice and a bipartisan group
of State Attorneys General in the original antitrust case! Let it be
known that I fully support the proposed settlement between Microsoft
and the US Government. I believe this proposed settlement is more
than fair to both Microsoft and its competition, and I sincerely
hope that there will be no further action taken against Microsoft at
the Federal level. This proposed settlement has been reached after
extensive negotiations, and allows Microsoft to continue designing
and marketing its innovative software, while benefitting the
technology industry as a whole.
Microsoft has pledged to carry out all provisions of this
proposed settlement, and the US Government has created a technical
oversight committee to ensure Microsoft's compliance therewith. I
sincerely believe that this proposed settlement will benefit
everyone--the economy, computer industry, consumers and
shareholders. Furthermore, I believe it will be most productive to
allow Microsoft to devote all of its available resources to
innovation, something it truly excells at, rather than further
needless litigation. By ending this needless and futile litigation,
in my opinion, AOL-TW can also cut its ``losses'' as well
and get back to the basics. Truly a win-win situation.
Accordingly, I strongly urge you to do everything in your power,
legally possible, to ensure that the proposed settlement is
finalized and executed in the most expeditious manner.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this
matter.
Wilbur L. Goodwin (Retired)
104 Emerald Lake Road
Columbia, SC 29209-4243
Email Address: [email protected]
MTC-00027279
From: David Zdanowicz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement needs adjusting
I am an (ISV) Independent Software Vendor, in the computer arena
since punched cards and paper tape days. I have used competing
products ( non Microsoft) for DOS and Windows desktop development
for
[[Page 27973]]
over 20 years. Borland's Turbo Basic totally ruled in quality,
speed, etc, over Microsoft's Quick Basic.
Result: Quick Basic had to be improved. I do remember the
incompatibilities Microsoft introduced in Windows 3.1: DR DOS ,
later Novell DOS 7. 1996 Caldera v. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. DOS
API ?s were used to call up the services of the operating system.
As for the Windows world, I do not use any Microsoft development
tool. I've found better ones. FREEDOM OF CHOICE IS WONDERFUL.
Microsoft still sells plenty of desktop OS's for which I will
continue to develop for. HOWEVER non-documented API calls (section
III. B.) DEFINITELY HINDERS COMPETITION by wasting time correcting
the behavior of the Windows API. Perhaps Microsoft could afford a
messily $10 million/yr to an INDEPENDENT organization to better
document THEIR UNDOCUMENTED API. III
Definition A--SHOULD define ``'' to mean the
interfaces between application programs and the operating system;
NOT just the interface between Middleware( definition J) and
Windows. 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). ADD: Office Products and Outlook, preferably
delete Middleware terminology altogether.
III.J.2 Exceptions
Microsoft seems to be able to cut off information given to
projects such as Wine (runs some of Microsoft's API calls). Projects
like Linux's WINE should also be supported with some donations ?
Supporting free enterprise. Microsoft should feel honored that their
interface (desktop) is so popular. Requiring ``Windows
software'' to be run on a ``Windows operating
system'' should be totally denied (from some of their C++
licensing).
David Zdanowicz
Windows and Web Developer
Florida
MTC-00027280
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ronald Ramasami
Suny Stony Brook Student
Elmony, NY
11003
1/27/02
Upon hearing the settlement in the United States v. Microsoft
case, as a concerned college student and computer science major
hopeful, I was personally dissapointed to hear that Microsoft
recieved such a lenient settelment. Although the the courts decision
allows for open competition among browsers, media tools and other
software applications the settlement does virtually nothing to
displace microsoft windows as the worlds leading OS. With Microsoft
now under the microscope of the federal government its underhanded
dealings against other OS competitors will be thwarted. However,
since millions are already comfortable with Windows, why should they
change? They wont. Microsoft windows will continue to be the
dominant OS and through this system Microsoft can continue to
manipulate and distribute any application they wish as was evident
with their internet explorer browser. In order for Microsoft to be
put in check one must go for the heart, and the heart of Microsoft
is windows.
MTC-00027281
From: Gruetzner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:33pm
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:
This comment is submitted in accordance with the provisions of
the Tunney Act concerning the proposed settlement of the prosecution
of Microsoft, Inc. (``Microsoft'') for violations of the
Sherman Antitrust Act.
I am a private consumer of computer hardware and software
products. I own no stock nor have financial interest in Microsoft or
in any of its competitors (exept as may or may not be held by mutual
funds I have invested in).
Microsoft has been found guilty of violating the Sherman
Antitrust Act. However, the proposed settlement does not end the
monopoly Microsoft has in operating systems, office applications,
and internet applications. In addition, it does not deprive
Microsoft of its gains achieved through its illegal practices.
Any reasonable settlement must provide for the establishment of
significant competition in operating systems, in office
applications, and in internet applications. It must separate these
three activities of Microsoft, and provide that any combination of
Microsoft and non-Microsoft software, internet applications,and
operating systems may be run at the consumer's discretion.
The Justice Department should ensure that the court hold public
proceedings under the Tunney Act which give citizens consumer
groups, as well as Microsoft's competitiors and customers, an equal
opportunity to participate.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
James K. Gruetzner
c/o 9407 Shoshone NE
Albuqueruqe, NM 87111
(505) 844-9508
MTC-00027282
From: ronsumner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case should be
approved by the Court. It is my opinion the agreement appropriately
safeguards against future antitrust violations. I believe the
continuing of this case through trial will not result in any better
of a result than what is provided for by the settlement. The
settlement will impose numerous obligations on Microsoft. Microsoft
will be required to disclose portions of its code to its
competitors. They will also grant computer manufactures the right to
configure Windows in such a way that it will be easier to run non-
Microsoft programs while running Windows.
These changes will result in restored competition. If steps are
taken to restore competition, there should be no further prosecution
of the antitrust case.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Ron & Joanne Hyland
15114 74th Street E.
Sumner, Washington 98390
MTC-00027283
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:34pm
Subject: MicroSoft proposed settlement
My opinion of this proposed settlement is that MicroSoft wins
again with very little or no punishment for the monopoly that they
have been convicted. I see no long lasting effect by instituting
this settlement and they will be free to continue the monopoly with
little interference from the government. I would strongly urge a
punishment with some real teeth in it that would limit their ability
to continue business in the same way they have gotten away with for
years.
Doyle Rogers
Terrebonne Or
MTC-00027284
From: --
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Microsoft Settlement.
My name is Dong hyub Cho. I would like to talk about my opinion
with Microsoft and U.S. Microsofts monopolized most of the world
market, thus many problem are generated. The big problem that we can
consider is that a right of consumers who want to choose their taste
of verity things was lost by Microsofts.
Second, as Microsofts sells their product with explore and media
player, products such as internet surfing and multimedia ones made
by other companies sustain a loss. By according to EU's opinion,
intentionally Microsofts is designed not to work software made by
other company in Window products well, so Microsofts limited
competition with others.
Last, by according to security professor who works at IT,
personal information in computer can be hacked easily. Whenever many
people surf internet, usually they use Explore program in windows.
If the cookies that contain personal information were stolen away,
cracker can steal someone's money from bank.
Even though, at the beginning time, when window 3.0 appeared in
the world, there are other O/S that people can use in their
[[Page 27974]]
computer, the reason Why Microsofts can monopolize their field is
simple. The answer, why Windows products are used by many people is
that those are good and easy for public.
But nowadays, we lost our right to choose O/S and there are some
problems which I mention above, so I think that huge dinosaur,
Microsofts must be divided, as if AT&T was divided. I understand
that in these days, U.S. economy is not good and if Microsofts is
divided, there are no advantages to help for economy to be active;
however viewed in long time, it will be good for both of the public
and economy. Through many competitions with companies, the public
can use their program with cheap and good quality.
I think that if O/S such as LINUX or P/S elevate their program
for the public to approach more easily and Microsofts is divided
with, naturally both of the public to use computer and government
can find solution and live with good computer communicate life.
MTC-00027285
From: John Gilmore
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/27/02 10:37pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I think the proposed settlement of the Microsoft antitrust
litigation is a travesty of justice.
Whether or not Congress defines ``being too
successful'' as a crime, it is clear that there are MANY, MANY
things that Microsoft did that were crimes--such as threatening
DEC with cancellation of their Windows license if they released a
competing product. Such as signing a contract with Sun that said
they'd only release compatible Java products, then deliberately
breaking the compatability in their release. Such as their current
nuisance suit against competing OS vendor Lindows, when there are
hundreds of products that even include the literal word
``Windows'', about which Microsoft hasn't complained. They
continue to use their OS monopoly as a way to leverage themselves
into other businesses, such as file sharing, credential storage, and
digital rights management.
Even the actions that they propose to take to
``remedy'' their past monopolistic acts are
monstrous--such as ``giving away'' millions of copies
of (zero marginal cost) software to schools, so that even more
students can be trapped into the Microsoft monopoly at even younger
ages.
The proposed settlement should be REJECTED. The honest
prosecutors, if there are any left on the case, should stall the
case until a non-corrupt Presidential administration is in office
and they can resume the case. ``The fix is in'' in this
Administration.
John Gilmore
MTC-00027286
From: Aaron Zinman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am horrified at the lack of judgement on the real methods of
pursuing a monopoly that the judgement does not address. While the
judgement does require middleware to be removable from Windows, it
does not take into account the fact that your average user will not
do that. The average user will use what is installed in their
computer, which is all proprietary software. Microsoft is attempting
to levy its relationship on all types of file formats, wether that
be using ActiveX instead of Java, which only works in Windows,
windows media formats, which barely work on the mac side and have no
other ports, or Microsoft Office documents that have file format
standards that can be quite difficult to import/export with 100%
accuracy. On the networking side, they force horrible/insecure
products with all non-documented proprietary protocols upon networks
creating a nightmare for network administrators to truly create a
cross-platform environment without having large amounts of
``Microsoft Solutions''. Now with .NET, they are going to
attempt to force everyone to pay yearly licenses for software, a
practice never heard of before, to access products over the web to
make it seem open; however, in the end the addition of Windows-only
based controls and support will force people to again use Windows.
I hope that the American justice system will actually withhold
its principle values and see the modern day Standard Oil to its
proper place.
Aaron Zinman
618 Sausalito Blvd
Sausalito, CA 94965
MTC-00027287
From: neal uhlich
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/27/02 10:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Neal Uhlich
120 Canterbury Dr
Carrollton, Ga 30117
January 27, 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,
Neal Uhlich
MTC-00027288
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please read the attached letter.
2626 E Broad Street
Bexley, OH 43209
January 27, 2002
AttorneyGeneral John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington,DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr.Ashcroft:
We are writing this letter to convey our outlook on the suit
against Microsoft. We believe that the suit has put a shroud over
the free-market. The settlement that was reached between Microsoft
and the Justice Department will provide the consumers with more
choices and let them decide what the best product is.
This settlement was arrived at after extensive negotiations.
Allowing further litigation will mean the waste of time and money
invested in drafting the agreement. The settlement guides Microsoft
to provide its competitors with information regarding the
development of its products. Microsoft has also agreed not to
retaliate against computer makers that may ship software that would
compete with its Window operating system. We urge you to put an end
to this costly litigation, as the taxpayer cannot continue to afford
such expenditures. It is strongly suggested that you move to
finalize the settlement.
Sincerely,
Edward & Marilynn Hilt
MTC-00027289
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Marie Barattucci
1756 Conifer Avenue
Kissimmee, FL 34758
[[Page 27975]]
MTC-00027290
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings
I feel the proposed settlement is tough but fair. I feel the
company is being penalized for being creative and successful, but I
certainly welcome competitive creativity when, where and if
available. As a computer user my world has been greatly expanded due
to programming available to me, a 59 year old.
Obviously this has made for geometric growth in our economy as
well. Let's hope this agreement does not send us backwards but opens
new doors for more users.
Thank You,
Jimmy Sober
366 S Edward St.
Decatur, IL 62522
MTC-00027291
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Keagy
320 Greenfield Drive
McMurray, PA 15317
MTC-00027292
From: Ted Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am concerned about the settlements being discussed in the
Microsoft Anti-trust case. Every settlement offer I've seen seems to
forget that every court ruling has agreed that Microsoft is a
monopoly and abused it's monopoly power. This letter is my attempt
to classify what I think the settlement agreement should contain. I
can't stress how lacking I find the current settlement plan. As a
computer professional, the current settlement will do nothing but
harm the current market and stifle any future innovation.
Relying upon conduct remedies without strict enforcement will
not work. This has been tried with Microsoft before and it didn't
work. Microsoft's statements and actions underscore that they do not
agree with the courts ruling and will subvert it by any means
necessary. The court must supervise Microsoft closely and have
strict penalties for non-compliance. Microsoft should have no
control over this oversight. The current settlement offer is filled
with loopholes that Microsoft will exploit at every available
opportunity.
Mostly I think the settlement should focus on defusing the power
the Microsoft abused, encouraging competition, and forcing Microsoft
to make amends for it's past deeds.
I propose that remedies should affect Microsoft in the main
ways: --divest non-core parts of Microsoft that are parts of
attempts to monopolize new markets. (Pocket PC, WinCE, XBox,
Microsoft Games). --adjust Microsoft's contracts with Original
Equipment Manufacturers (OEM). have Microsoft divulge information
needed for competition products to interoperate with Microsoft
Products. That is, bring competition into the market place. Fines
paid to a non-profit association to encourage open source
development. Divest non-core MS Assets
Formost, I believe that the rulings should not force a full
scale breakup of Microsoft. Divulging portions of Microsoft that
aren't core business but are attempts to gain further control and
penetration in new markets should be considered. I would consider
the X-Box gaming console, and Pocket PC (WinCE), and Microsoft Games
as prime targets for divesting. They are not part of the core
business so will not harm Microsoft. By removing these ventures from
direct Microsoft control, they can be left to sink or swim on their
own merits, as free markets are supposed to operate.
Even so, this is the least of the remedies I propose. If the
other remedies are enacted, the market might be able to correct for
Microsoft's deep pockets. OEM Remedies
The primary remedy must include freeing Original Equipment
Manufacturers (OEMs) from Microsoft's control. Everyone has heard of
the main OEM's, Dell, Gateway, IBM, Compaq, but this list includes
the multitude of small shops that build custom PCs.
The primary tool that Microsoft used to control OEMs was
altering the price of Windows. If an OEM didn't follow the Microsoft
line, Microsoft would raise it's price for Windows for that OEM.
Since OEMs can't complete without Windows, raising the price could
directly hurt their profits and marketshare. To couter this,
Microsoft should be forced to use unified pricing. The cost of
Windows should be based upon the volume sold and on nothing else.
Every OEM could see the price and it would be the same for any given
level of volume. If you sold 1 million copies of Windows the cost is
$x. If you sell 5 million the price might be less, but it's the same
for every OEM who sells 5 million copies. Furthermore, Microsoft
requires that it's 0EMs support the copies they sell. Since this is
the case, Microsoft's agrument that it needs to control ``first
boot'' (the users first experience with Windows when they boot
a new machine) is a fallacy. Especially since Microsoft no longer
allows full install disks to be distributed with new machines (users
can't reinstall Microsoft Widows from nothing, they can only restore
the factory default settings). If Microsoft does not support the
user, then it no longer needs to control first boot. The remedy
should allow the OEM to do anything to their installed copy of
Windows that an end user can do.
This power to ``do anything an end user could do''
must not be limited. It must specifically include the following
powers, so Microsoft can not try subvert the language of the ruling
as it did it's earlier consent decree. --OEMS can create
Multiple Boot machines, specicially allowing other 0S's to be
installed as the default. --OEMS can remove/add icons from the
desktop --OEMS can remove/install programs as well as
components of Windows. Simply put, an OEM should be able to
configure Microsoft Windows in any way open to an educated consumer.
``Multiple Boot'' should be expanded upon, since due
to Microsoft, few outside the computer profession have heard of it.
There are other Operating Systems (OS) for Intel compatible
machines. An experienced user can configure a machine so that it has
multiple operating systems and choose which one to run when the
machine starts up, with OS chosen as the default (the one that will
boot if no choice is made). The strongest OS competitor to Microsoft
is GNU/Linux, an open source operating system. The cost of GNU/Linux
is zero, it's produced by thousands of volunteers instead of a
corporation.
Installing Linux is easy for an educated user, harder for a
novice users. It's difficult to get Windows and Linux to co-exist on
machine, the process is daunting to normal users. For experienced
users (an OEM) it's easy. Once installed, it's easy to switch back
and forth from one Operating System to another by a simple reboot.
Right now no OEM sells a dual-boot Linux/Windows computer. No OEM
offers a dual boot Linux/Microsoft Windows computer because
Microsoft's contract with them specifically forbids this. A machine
that has Windows on it can not have any other visibile Operating
System, that is no way to choose the other operating system. This
clause must be removed as it's a primary method that Microsoft uses
to maintain its monopoly. If users will not buy machines w/o
Windows, but would buy machines that easily allowed them to switch
from Windows and another operating system, they should be allowed
this choice. Instead, Microsoft abuses it's position to ensure that
this option is never given to consumers.
Similarly, Microsoft uses it's doctrine of ``First
boot'' as part of it's plans to move into new markets. By
removing Microsoft's control of first boot, and giving it to
multiple OEMs to control, the market can begin to correct for
Microsoft's past abuse. The best thing about this is that control is
moved outside Microsoft into multiple hands and the government
doesn't have to dictate what can and can not go on the desktop.
Microsoft's scare tactics about fracturing the marketplace with non-
compliant versions of Windows is just that: a scare tactic.
Open Information
There should be enough open information for a programmer to
write programs which
[[Page 27976]]
read/write Microsoft file formats and communicate with Microsoft
products. That is, be able to ensure that they can create a product
that can compete and communicate with Microsoft's Products. I do not
mean, as has been suggested by some, that Microsoft should be forced
to move it's source code into the public domain. Instead, enough
information would be divulged for others to write programs which
compete with MS products.
To encourage competition, Microsoft should be forced to fully
and openly specify any protocol used to comunicate with Microsoft
products. The following should be fully specified:
--Any and All File Formats used by any Microsoft Product.
Specifically include Microsoft Office.
--Document all Application Programing Interfaces (API). Any API
used by a Microsoft product must be documented. Products can have
hidden internal APIs used only by that specific program. Microsoft
Windows XP can have hidden APIs, but they can only be used by
Microsoft Windows XP. If a separate product (Microsoft Office,
Microsoft IIS, etc) uses the API then it must be fully documented.
Care must be taken to describe product. A simple definition is if
it's available for sale individually it's a product, even if it's
offered in a bundle with other products. Microsoft Word is a product
even though it's part of Microsoft Office as well. If a something is
offered as an optional install, then it's a separate product. If
Microsoft currently has part of their website specifically targeted
towards it, then it's most likely a separate product.
--All communication protocols must be documented. This includes
protocols for networking (including security protocols for
authenticating with the network), interapplication communication,
and any other method that two individual Microsoft products
communicate with each other. (Any protocol that one licensed copy of
Microsoft Windows XP uses to communicate with another copy must be
fully documented.) Note, these remedies do not include Microsoft
having to release any source codes. They do enable other companies
to freely products that compete with Microsoft. Microsoft can still
compete on pricing, quality, and innovation. Microsoft even gets the
head start as they only have to release the specification when the
release a product, so Microsoft gets a head start (and has an
enormous head start with all it's current programs). Furthermore,
this specification is not an onerous burden. It should be part of
Microsoft's existing engineering discipline. Much of this data is
already available, but it's currently licensed so that you cannot
use the information to create products that compete with Microsoft.
After documenting, if a shipping Microsoft product does not
conform to the specification Microsoft will have a month to do one
of the following: --amend the specification so the given
product confroms to the new specification. --release an update
to the product so that it conforms. --remove the product from
sale until such time as it conforms to the specification.
Remember, Microsoft writes the specifications in the first
place, there should be no reason it's products won't comply with
their own specifications.
If Microsoft does not comply, then the court should take strict
actions for non-compliance. The first action should be a large fine.
But, for extreme cases, in the settlement should give the court the
option to take the complete source code of the given product and
release it into the public domain. If Microsoft claims that it
cannot factor out the code for the product for some reason, it
should be forced to open all codes until the given product is fully
specified. Again, this threat should only be used if Microsoft is
found non-compliant with their own specifications and fails to fix
them after initial fines. The heavy hand hiding behind the agreement
will ensure Microsoft's compliance.
Furthermore, any patent that Microsoft has that covers any part
of the released specification must be opened into the public domain.
Microsoft has stated that this is unacceptable, but anything less is
not an acceptable remedy from the court. Patents are not a major
factor in the computer industry, as Software patents weren't even
legal until past 1992. Some reading on ``patent abuse''
will show there is wide-spread support for banning computer patents
in the industry. This is a narrowly defined opening of specific
patents though, not of every Microsoft patent. Only those needed for
to implement a given specification would be opened. Otherwise, the
court risks having Microsoft open it's specification only to find
that it's useless as no one can implement them due to patent issues.
Security should not be a reason that Microsoft can not reveal a
specification, even in our current climate. Security that relies
upon hiding protocols does not work, it's referred in the security
community to as ``Security through Obscurity''. Simply
put, it relies upon others not figuring out how you did something as
an essential component of security. Someone eventually figures out
how the system works, and then breaks it. No matter how well done, a
bad design can be exploited. In an open process, focus is put on
making the security design sound. This is then implemented. Some
implementations even give out full source code so any implementation
mistakes can be corrected. A survey (avoiding Microsoft sources but
focusing on the security community) will find that OpenBSD, Linux,
and Apache have a much better security record than Microsoft
Products despite having all their source codes freely available.
But, most importantly in today's current world, multiple
implementations are stronger. That is, if everyone uses the same
security tools, it's much easier to exploit them. In biology, a
genetically diverse population is more resistant to disease. If
there are multiple instances of Microsoft's security design, some
will be resistant to exploitation. This makes all computers more
secure.
Fines
There is little doubt that Microsoft's current net worth is
largely due to it's monopoly. As such the fines should be of the
same order. This poses a sticky problem for the court to administer
a multi-billion dollar fine.
Formost, since Microsoft uses this ``warchest'' to
continue it's conquest of it's current markets and extend into new
ones, their bank account must be depleted. To avoid the Government
administering such a large fine, Microsoft should be ordered to pay
out a large percentage of it's case reserves to it's shareholders.
This is quite fair, the shareholders loose no value and suffer no
harm. At the same time, Microsoft looses the ability to buy it's way
into new markets and to buy out it's competition.
At the same time, by it's abusive tactics Microsoft did harm the
market. So it should be forced to pay some minor restitution to the
defendents listed in the case. This part is lacking in the current
agreement.
But, simple restitution is not enough due to the widespread
nature of Microsoft's abusive actions. It should be forced to by a
billion dollars into a fund which will promote open source
development. This will encourage development of software which
competes with Microsoft but doesn't support any one company
directly. By earmarking some of these funds to the development of
educational software it could also help address a national need at
the same time. Schools would get access to free high quality
software that could be modified as suits them. The fund should
stipulate that software written is released under a currently
approved open source license. While the fund should support software
written for Microsoft Windows, it should require that any software
written for Windows also support some other operating system. The
converse should not be true, if the software is written for Linux,
Mac OS X, Mac OS 9, or any other non-microsoft operating system, it
should not be required to support Microsoft Windows. This last fine
will encourage competition in the marketplace and help ensure that
Microsoft's hold on. the market diminishes.
MTC-00027293
From: Dorianne L Feign
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern;
I think that the government has been too easy on Microsoft,
especially since the new administration took over.
I have been in the computer business since 1949 and have never
seen such a devastating monopoly as Microsoft in this or any
business. They have stifled competition by more than one means.
Today, for example, I went to look for computers for some of my
clients and couldn't find ANY personal computers that were sold
WITHOUT Windows XP (which is insidious, invasive software) and
either Microsoft Office or Microsoft Works ``bundled''
with the computer. If these are forced on the purchaser, what normal
buyer would go out and buy any competitive software when the
Microsoft ``junque'' is included ``FREE!''. What
software developer could fight that? There are only a few specialty
applications that are sold by any company other than
[[Page 27977]]
Microsoft, and I can see Microsoft inching up on them also.
If we don't do something to encourage other software developers,
the only choice other than Microsoft will be with the Apple family
of computers. And even there, Microsoft is creeping in.
Please take care of Microsoft properly before we have only
Microsoft software in the whole world!!!
Dr. David Feign
Computer Systems Consultant
[email protected]
MTC-00027294
From: Jason Purdy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
I would like to add my voice to the hopefully growing dissent of
the upcoming Microsoft Settlement and how it would benefit Microsoft
more than the good of the public. Microsoft has historically
demonstrated monopolistic tendencies and the proposed settlement is
at best, a slap on the wrist and is not the lesson they need to open
the ``playing field'' for current and future competitors
in the technology arena.
Thank you for your attention.
Kind Regards,
Jason Purdy
Chief Technologist, Journalistic, Inc.
Cary, NC
MTC-00027295
From: Jay Llewellyn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jay Llewellyn
323 Highland Farm Road
West Chester, PA 19382
[email protected]
610-738-8476
January 31,2002
Dear sir or madam:
As a computer user I am an interested party to the current anti-
trust settlement, and I am submitting comments an proposed actions
against Microsoft, which I believe will correct the current
situation. My opinions, based on 16 years of industry experience,
which include being the former Global Technical Account manager for
such PC OEM's as IBM, Digital Equipment, now part of Compaq, Unisys,
and Gateway 2000 during my employment by Netscape from April 1996
through December 1998.
Currently I am employed by The Vanguard Group as the Chief
Architect for Advanced technology, I do not represent The Vanguard
Group for the purpose of this letter, but I .mention my employment
as a reference for my overall credibility. During my employment by
The Vanguard Group have created a partnership with Microsoft and
have worked closely on the development of products and I've been
quoted by Microsoft a number of times, http://www.microsoft.com/
presspass/press/2001/MarO1/03- 05SupportPR.asp. I mention my
relationship with Microsoft to demonstrate that as an former
Netscape employee I am not motivated by anything other than
achieving a fair and even playing field.
I not only bring an insider perspective on the inner-workings of
the PC OEM business, the software industry in general, and the
average consumer. I am also aware of the issues faced by a large
organization which spends a significant amount of money buying PC's
and associated software for PC's. I am confident that I bring a
unique and insightful position on the current situation. I have
spent a considerable amount of time over the last five years
analyzing the existing situation, and have arrived at what I
believe, are the most compact, understandable, balanced, and
enforceable set of restrictions possible. My goal is not to cripple
Microsoft or impose unreasonable restraint, but merely to level the
playing field. These restrictions are organized in three groups, the
first group address the issues of bundling products with the
operating system, the second group is focused on the bundling of
products with sale of personal computers, and the third group
concerns itself with the publishing of Windows API's.
Restrictions with the Operating Systems for bundling, un-
bundling and free The first restriction placed on Microsoft would
prevent them from simultaneously bundling products into any or all
of their operating systems, and un-bundling the same product by
allowing it to be downloaded, or distributed free of charge.
Microsoft is retroactively bundling products with all previous
versions of their operating system when they allow bundled products
to be distributed free of charge. The simultaneous act of both
bundling and un-bundling of products creates an unfair advantage
based on their monopoly position with operating systems for personal
computers. Unless this practice is prevented, it will be impossible,
to level the playing field for competitors. Any product from a
competitor that is deemed a threat to an existing Microsoft product,
or to the operating system itself, can easily be eliminated by the
simple action of bundling a similar Microsoft product into the
operating systems and allowing the product to be downloaded free of
charge for those people who don't have the latest version of the
operating system.
As an example, if Microsoft were to bundle Microsoft Money into
versions of the Windows operating system and then made the product
free to download for everyone who had an older version of Windows it
would overnight change the market share for Microsoft Money and it's
competing product Quicken from Intuit. How many people would be
inclined to purchase Quicken from Intuit at a list price of $49.99,
when Microsoft Money is available free? How long would Intuit be
able to compete with free, and how long after the demise of Intuit
would Microsoft stop aggressively updating the product, or worse
start charging for updated tax code information, something that
Microsoft was willing to give away when it had competition?
The second restriction placed on Microsoft would prevent the
distribution any product free of charge. Because of the Microsoft
monopoly for PC operating systems the free of charge distribution is
really an implied contract for the bundling of products with the
operating system both in the future and retroactively. The implied
bundling would drive competition out of the market, and once
competition is s driven from the market Microsoft is free to charge
anything they chose.
Microsoft has a choice for each and every new product they
develop; should they bundled it with the next version of an OS, or
should they sell it as a standalone product? Either way a Microsoft
product is never available as a free download, except as a trial
version or through an early access program, or a similar policy
which Microsoft consistently enforces for all products, regardless
of price. Retroactive bundling must be prevented.
As an example of how these restriction would be applied, I'll
demonstrate using a fictitious Microsoft product XYZ, and a
fictitious Microsoft OS version ??, Microsoft develops a new product
XYZ version 1.0. Microsoft must make a decision; do they bundle the
product with the next variant of their operating system, or do they
sell the product standalone now?
Microsoft could not to bundle XYZ 1.0 with a version of an
operating systems which had been available prior to the introduction
of XYZ 1.0, retroactive bundling is forbidden, in any way shape or
form. Microsoft has every right to bundle XYZ version 1.0 with OS
version ??, but once the product is bundled with the OS it is not
available separately as a freely available download, it is not
allowed to be included on CD-ROM's that are provided with computer
books. It is bundled with OS version ??, and the only way that XYZ
version 1.0 is available is for the consumer to buy OS version ??,
or an upgrade to version ??. Normal bug fixes, and minor updates
would be allowed to the product, via free download, or low cost CD
distribution., which is how it is accomplished today. If Microsoft
chose to upgrade XYZ to version 2.0 the only way that Microsoft
could distribute XYZ version 2.0 is with the next version of OS
version ??, and the only way that the consumer could receive version
2.0 of XYZ would be through the new purchase of new OS version ??
that has XYZ 2.0 bundled, or a purchased upgrade for OS version ??.
If Microsoft chose not to bundle XYZ version 1.0 with an
operating system, then Microsoft would sell XYZ as a standalone
product. Time limited, or feature restricted versions could be
available via download, or possibly included with CD-ROM's included
with books, but the full version must be purchased. If Microsoft
chose to upgrade XYZ to version 2.0 the consumer could only receive
XYZ version 2.0 one of three ways, either through a paid upgrade to
the product, purchasing the new version, or purchasing a
subscription to the product, but version 2.0, or the upgrade to
version 2.0 would never be available via free download. Since
Microsoft has many different operating system variants, they could
choose too bundle XYZ 1.0 with one or more of their operating
systems, but exclude XYZ 1.0 on other operating systems.
The only way that XYZ would be available for the excluded
operating systems would be via purchase of the standalone product.
The product would never be available free of charge for the excluded
operating systems.
[[Page 27978]]
Upgrades would behave has explained previously, for both the bundled
and standalone products.
This remedy would allow Microsoft to Innovate, but it would not
allow their products to gain dominant market share over time without
competing on either price, or features. The act of bundling and un-
bundling eliminates all distribution barriers for Microsoft, this is
an unfair advantage and must be eliminated. Microsoft exploited this
advantage with Internet Explorer, and they could exploit it again at
any time with any product. This remedy would level the playing field
for companies competing with Microsoft, it is simple to understand
and very easy to enforce, without the need for an oversight
committee. The net effect would prevent Microsoft from gaining an
unfair advantage for other product segments via their operating
system monopoly. Personal computer sales restrictions
The restrictions on the bundling of operating system or
standalone products with the purchase of a personal computer are
simple to understand and very easy to enforce, without the need for
an oversight ``committee, and the restrictions in no way limit
Microsoft's ability to innovate or sell any products. The
restrictions are outlined below:
No Microsoft product, that is operating system or standalone
product, can be automatically included with the purchase of a
personal computer, all Microsoft products are consumer optional
purchases. No Microsoft product can automatically be included with
the purchase of any other Microsoft product, free of charge or not.
All Microsoft products sold by PC OEM's cannot differ from retail
versions, including but not limited to: documentation, installation
methods, distribution medium, etc. Specifically the version of
operating systems purchased by the consumer is a limited copied for
a particular configuration, vendor, or situation. All prices for
Microsoft products, sold by PC OEM's will have a reasonable cost,
meaning not excessively cheap relative to list price. Microsoft
cannot finance the sale of Microsoft products through other means.
No Microsoft product can be offered with the purchase of
personal computer as a zero cost option, unless as a limited time
offer, as a rebate, or as a special deal.
All Microsoft products when selected for purchased by a consumer
with a new computer will have a individual line item, it will also
have a non-zero, and reasonable cost, unless as a limited time
offer, as a rebate, or as a special deal Microsoft cannot dictate
what version of their operating systems are available for sale with
a personal computer, the consumer will make that optional selection
from the versions offered by the PC OEM. Microsoft cannot restrict
the versions of their operating systems available to PC OEM's, if
the OS is available for sale, PC OEM's will have the option to sell
it with their computers. Microsoft cannot influence or incent PC
OEM's to favor the sale of a particular operating system version.
Once a consumer has selected a Microsoft product it can be
customized in any way by the PC OEM, via direction from the
consumer. The PC OEM will be acting as an agent of the consumer, not
as an agent of Microsoft. Which means that a customer can select the
default Microsoft installation, or choose a customized version
offered by the PC OEM, or create their own customized version, if
offered by the PC OEM, of course additional cost may be incurred by
the consumer for exercising this choice.
Microsoft shall publish ALL API's for all their Operating
Systems. Because Microsoft owns a monopoly in PC operating systems
they can create unfair advantages for their standalone products by
using features of the operating system known only to Microsoft.
Punishment
Punishment for violation of any restrictions will be a dollar
amount equal to the gross revenue generated by the sale of any and
all product that that fail to comply, from the time Microsoft is in
violation until the situation is remedied. The punishment is fair
considering Microsoft has profited unfairly at the expense of
others, and has accumulated an enormous amount of cash because of
this unfair profiteering. A severe penalty is also incentive for
compliance. Final Thoughts
Unless the distribution methods that Microsoft currently enjoys
are changed, and I'm confident that the changes I have outlined are
the most fair and succinct, Microsoft will be able to overrun any
product at any time simply by declaring a similar Microsoft product
bundled with the OS and allowing it to be downloaded free of charge.
Retroactive bundling, and the distribution of products free of
charge must be prevented. The restrictions outlined would not
require the appointment of an oversight committee.
Any solution that is more complicated would be unfair to
Microsoft, it would be impossible for Microsoft to conduct business
if they are scrutinized by an oversight committee.
The outlined changes would also help to strengthen the PC OEM's,
a business sector which is in a dire state. The dire state of the PC
OEM business has been created by Microsoft through their restrictive
license and contract agreements. When a PC OEM is forced by
Microsoft, under terms and conditions favorable to Microsoft, to
include Microsoft products, this forced inclusion is really a cost
for the PC OEM's, which they cannot pass on to the consumer. Under
the new restrictions the real actual cost of Microsoft products
would be reflected and the PC OEM's would have the chance to receive
a fair and reasonable profit from the sale of Microsoft products
with their computers. As an example the list price of Windows XP is
$199, because of the volume that PC OEM's buy they may be able to
achiever 60%, or greater, discount, some of which could be passed on
the consumer, but the PC OEM would still make money on the sale of
the Microsoft OS, and the consumer could pay less than list price.
The PC OEM could also charge for the customization of the OS, which
would have benefits for the OEM and the consumer.
Microsoft has created an artificially low price for Microsoft
products bundled with new computers through restrictive monopolistic
practices. Protecting prices for consumer good would be short
sighted in this case. It is true that there could be an increased
cost for the consumer when buying a new computer, when a consumer
chose to add Microsoft products, but the consumer would also have a
choice to not pay the increased cost. Currently Microsoft dictates
what is purchased and at what price.
The consumer should have the choice, even if it means the choice
might cost a little more.
The outlined changes would also benefit large organizations
which buy PC that have an OS bundled, but are then forced to buy
enterprise OS licenses from Microsoft. This double dipping by
Microsoft would be a welcome relief by large organizations, it would
also clear up an extremely complex licensing situation, which is un-
necessary and only beneficial to Microsoft.. The restrictions that
have been outlined would not impede Microsoft at all, in fact had
this model been in place since the last consent decree levied
against Microsoft, they would have made considerable more money on
their operating system, and there would still be competition in the
browser marketplace. For Internet Explorer alone, if Microsoft had
not bundled that product with the OS they would have sold at least
20 Million copies at $49.99 which means they would have made, an
additional $1 Billion in profits. Microsoft should be forced to
comply with these restriction immediately and for a period of not
less than 8 years, where the restrictions and market conditions
could be re-evaluated.
Sincerely,
Jay Llewellyn
MTC-00027296
From: Michael Pakovic
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
First, let me state that I am not currently, nor have I even
been, an employee of Microsoft, or any of its competitors. I have a
Bachelors degree in Electrical Engineering, and I am presently the
Lead Engineer on the S-3B Program for Computer Sciences Corp. My
expertise is in operating system and application design..
Listed below are a few of the major issues I have with the
settlement.
*Microsoft shouldn't have the right to appoint a representative
to the Technical Committee (``TC''). This committee's
responsibility is to ensure Microsoft's compliance with the
Settlement, which resulted from their anti competitive business
practices, and as such, should consist of three Plaintiff selected
members.
* Microsoft can continue to make OS API changes and provide them
internally to their application developers long before they provide
them to third party developers. As proposed in the settlement, the
API information must be made public before the last BETA release of
a new Windows Operating System Product. This conceivably might give
third party developers a very short period of time (a day?) to
analyze the API and develop software to take advantage of any new OS
enhancements. This will put third party developers at a distinct
disadvantage, and will continue the Application Barrier to Entry
(``ABE'').
[[Page 27979]]
* There are many loopholes in the settlement which will
inevitably lead to further court proceedings. Microsoft has
endeavored to stretch out the court proceedings as long as possible,
and this agreement will allow them to continue with that practice.
* Lastly, Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact found a large number
of anti competitive practices, and the proposed settlement, while
attempting to prevent future anti competitive behavior, does nothing
to correct the unjust gains Microsoft has accrued as a result of
their practices. Internet Explorer has almost totally displaced
Netscape. Microsoft Office has almost totally displaced Word Perfect
Office. Even with the publication of the Windows API's, no other
Office suite will be able to compete with Office-- the user
base is just to large. Only by giving Microsoft incentive to port
their current applications to competing operating systems, will the
ABE be removed.
In conclusion, the only effective way to remove the ABE, and
promote fair competition, is to separate Microsoft into two
companies. An operating system company which will continue to
produce the Windows
Operating System, and an application company which will produce
Office and Microsoft's other applications. This arrangement will
remove the advantage Microsoft application developers have over
their third party counterparts, and will give the application
company incentive to port Microsoft applications to other operating
systems. I recommend the proposed settlement be rejected, and that
Judge Jackson's judgment be enforced.
Sincerely,
Michael Pakovic
Lead Engineer, Computer Sciences Corp.
MTC-00027297
From: R. Kline
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The current settlement with Microsoft will largely leave it's
monopoly leverage intact, and therefore does not address the basic
problem of allowing Microsoft to control prices, stifle competition,
and drive or buy out any significant competition using the cash it
has accumulated with monopolistic pricing. In order to address these
problems Microsoft should be made to provide source code for its
operating system to competitors, and all interfaces to the operation
system should be made publicly available to prevent Microsoft from
thereby making it difficult to impossible for competitors to cleanly
access the operating system. Without these reforms, M$ will likely
continue to leverage its current monopoly, gain control over more
aspects of the Internet, and prevent the kind of innovation and
price reduction that only comes from real competition.
Robert Kline
299-3B Gemini Drive
Hillsborough, NJ 08844
MTC-00027298
From: Kenneth Arnold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to express comments on the proposed Microsoft
settlement, with expectations that it will be considered under the
Tunney Act.
As a user of many different operating systems, office
productivity applications, and web browsers, including those
distributed by Microsoft as well as those distributed with or
without cost and with or without freedom to examine and improve
internal workings (i.e. open source), I view Microsoft's current
monopoly status as severely limiting the freedom to innovate of all
other involved companies and independant developers.
The Department of Justice has recognized this, but the proposed
settlement does not, in my view, take sufficient action to alleviate
Microsoft's stranglehold on the software market, restore the
freedoms of competition and innovation to other developers, and
provide remedy for the deep-seated damages already done my
Microsoft's monopoly status.
Specifically, as a US citizen and a user of computing technology
in my daily work, I value freedom of choice. In the Microsoft case,
this choice is the choice of what software I use to perform various
tasks, what infrastructure software is used to allow other software
to run, and what entity is in control of data both on my personal
computer and on servers used to store and/or distribute content used
on my computer, to name a few significant concerns. It is currently
possible to operate a computer completely without Microsoft
products, as I have done at times, but it can be exceedingly
difficult, mainly due to Microsoft's monopoly on the rest of the
market comprised of people and organizations with whom I interact.
For example, a huge number of applications require the Win32 API in
order to run. The Win32 API is currently only implemented in
Microsoft Windows to a sufficient degree to run these programs
usefully; there is little freedom of choice in running these
applications in any operating system other than Windows. Essentially
I am forced to use Windows in order to run any of those large number
of programs which I may need, and the proposed settlement does
nothing to alleviate this requirement. In essence, Microsoft
currently dictates what products can and cannot be used on nearly
all personal computers that are currently running Microsoft
products. While this in itself is bad enough, what many analyists
believe Microsoft is planning to do with its monopoly is still more
disturbing. With its ``.NET'' initiative, it appears that
Microsoft is beginning in its plan it move software to service-type
use. The end result could be renting the ability to use software,
with little practical restrictions on the degree of control
Microsoft could exercise over the costs of such services and the
monitoring or even controlling of what consumers are doing with
these services. Though the proposed remedy is absolutely necessary,
they are not sufficient without amendment to address concerns that I
have only briefly and incompletely alluded to above.
Thank you for your careful consideration my comments as well as
those of many other citizens in this matter.
Kenneth C. Arnold
12652 Golden Oak Drive
Ellicott City, MD 21042
(410) 531-0856
MTC-00027299
From: Square Circle Consulting LLC
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am opposed to the Microsoft Settlement.
Thank you for taking my comments,
David Hanke, CEO
Square Circle Consulting, LLC
Solutions & Support for Macintosh
MTC-00027300
From: Nicki Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:43pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Please support the settlement recently
reached between the US Dept. of Justice and Microsoft. It is my
belief that this lawsuit should not have been launched against
Microsoft and think it is now time to settle it so that this country
and Microsoft can get back to business as usual. Microsoft
developing software and the US government taking action on the
economic situation we are in. Microsoft agreed to license Windows to
the 20 largest computer makers on virtually identical terms and
conditions. They have agreed to grant computer makers and software
developers broad rights to configure Windows to remove Microsoft
products and substitute competing, non-Microsoft products in their
places. Netscape Navigator can be installed in place of Internet
Explorer and AOL Instant Messenger in place of Windows Messenger.
Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against computer makers and
software developers who choose to do this. Microsoft also agreed not
to enter into any agreements with other companies that would
obligate them to exclusively distribute or promote Windows
technology. I encourage you to accept the terms of the settlement so
that Microsoft can continue developing innovative software.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Nicki Anderson,
318 N.E. 161st.,
Shoreline, WA 98155-5739.
MTC-00027301
From: Pat Dooley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs:
I've been appalled by the vendetta against Microsoft. This has
not been an action by dissatisfied consumers but rather an action
instigated and financed by AOL, Sun and Oracle, Microsoft's whining
competitors. The biggest losers so far have been the American
economy and consumers. Enough already. Call off the lawyers and
let's get back to business. If AOL and company really want to beat
Microsoft in the marketplace, now's their chance. Bill Gates has bet
the company on his .Net initiative and it will require the software
industry to rethink everything. It opens the door for Oracle, Sun
and AOL to offer cost-effective alternatives. Instead, it seems
they'd rather resort to the courts.
[[Page 27980]]
MTC-00027302
From: ray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:46pm
Subject: Microsoft opinion
Dear Sir's
I don't feel that it is in the best interest of all of the users
of Microsoft OS what the nine states have in mind is, that they are
not in this fiasco with the consumer in mind at all, and we all know
that there objective is the dollar bill. Who would benefit from all
of this? certainly not the consumer.
Microsoft is a great and innovative company and there products
are of the highest quality. As a consumer, leave Microsoft alone.
as ever
Ray Appleton
[email protected]
[email protected]
MTC-00027303
From: Terri Holsinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the US Dept of Justice.
Please approve the terms of the settlement. I believe the terms
are tough but they are reasonable and fair to all parties, and meet
the ruling by the Court of Appeals, and represent the best
opportunity for the industry to move forward. Thank you for allowing
my opinion to be heard.
Terri Holsinger,
317/846-4187,
Carmel, Indiana
MTC-00027304
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:45pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
The U.S. economy, which depends on firms like Microsoft for the
innovation necessary to bring about a technology revival.
It's time to accept the agreement and allow Microsolft to move
on the close this matter.
Audrey Holm
MTC-00027305
From: Merle S. Insinga
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not believe that the proposed settlement of the antitrust
case against Microsoft is adequate. Any penalty that is imposed on
Microsoft must punish it for the illegal actions of which they were
convicted, restore competition in the desktop operating system
market, and prevent Windows XP or other new Microsoft products from
using illegal means to continue to protect their monopoly and extend
that monopoly to new markets. I do not see how this weak settlement
will accomplish those requirements.
For example, while the settlement would force Microsoft to
describe and license it's APIs to competitors, it allows Microsoft
itself to define what organizations qualify as competitors. Most
importantly, it allows them to exclude non-profit or government
organizations from receiving this information. By their own
admission, they consider Linux and other open-source software to be
a threat, so they would surely use this loophole to prevent this
threat from getting this information and using it to make inroads
against their monopoly.
That is just one example of the many flaws in this proposed
settlement. This proposed settlement must be replaced with a far,
far stronger one that meets the requirements mentioned above and
will have some real effect in the marketplace.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Merle S. Insinga
New Hampshire
MTC-00027306
From: James Kilmartin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to let you know I support your efforts to settle
the Microsoft suit. I think the settlement is a good compromise and
is fair and equitable. I also think that the Nine state AGs pursuing
more penalties are nothing more than a front for Microsoft
competitors, and to allow them to prevail would be a grave error.
I hope common sense prevails when the Judge renders her opinion.
James Kilmartin
Bethel, CT
MTC-00027307
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Trial
To Whom It May Concern:
I was recently reading up on the Microsoft trial and I am very
happy with the way things went in the trial. When I first heard
about the trial I was actually mildly disturbed. I did not believe
the Microsoft Corporation to be a monopoly. To me they were just
simply the better of all the software making corporations. Also,
there aren?t many other companies that make software such as
Microsoft Windows or Microsoft Office. However, I can definitely see
why the lawsuit was filed in the first place. It seemed like
Microsoft had virtually taken over control of software production.
When you think about it, they basically are the only operating
system that most average people can think of. However, the more
knowledgeable person knows about other systems. UNIX, for example,
is another operating system that is used. Not only do they have the
more popular operating system, but Microsoft Office programs, such
as Excel and Word, are all over as well. The settlement that was
reached by the U.S. and Micro soft was both necessary and fair. I
personally am very happy that the corporation didn?t break up. Such
a breakup would probably set back the economy a couple of steps. I
am really pleased that it didn?t go as far as to breakup the
company.
MTC-00027308
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think it would be better for all concerned if all parties
would agree to the present proposels and not drag this lawsuit out
any longer.
Thank You,
Lester D. Carter
MTC-00027310
From: Thomas A Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir:
Speaking as a member of ``The Public'', as in
``The Public Interest'', it is my opinion that Microsoft
has done far more for the Public Interest than against it. For what
transgressions the may have had, I believe the presently agreed upon
settlement is more than just compensation, and that Microsoft has
been duly punished. Therefore, I strongly recommend that the case be
closed, now, without further hearings. Further hearings would become
harassment of Microsoft, and would not be in the Public Interest
Sincerely, (signed)
Thomas A Miller
12902 Wheatland Rd
Fairfax, VA 22033-5300
MTC-00027311
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a student of computer science, I have mixed feelings about
this issue. Microsoft's control of the software industry was not
obtained from doing anything illegal. If a company creates an
operating system, they should have full control of what software can
and cannot be functional in their own operating system. If it was
not for Microsoft developing their operating systems, the companies
which software is being hindered, would not have an OS to develop
for in the first place. If these companies feel that Microsoft is
not treating them fairly they can go and develop their own OS.
Microsoft is the perfect example of capitalism at its finest.
Microsoft's business is Microsoft's business. No one is forcing
millions to purchase any Microsoft products. There are several
alertnative operating system, many of which can be obtained free
from the internet. From my personal computing experience, I feel
that Microsoft's products are lacking. I currently use both
Microsoft and non-Microsoft operating systems and it suit es me
fine. If further development in computer software is truly being
hindered by Microsoft, the foundations of capitalism will lead to
the downfall of Microsoft.
MTC-00027312
From: J Marvin Klopstad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel that the U.S. Government is unfair In this case. The
whole thing should be dropped if Netscape wants to compete let them
build a better mouse trap.I think what Microsoft charges for its
software is fair. Does the C.E.O. of Netscape & A.O.L. give as
much money to schools and etc as Microsoft I dont think so. The
stockholders and the
[[Page 27981]]
consumers are the losers and have been severely damaged by this law
suite. I think that Netscape & A.O.L. are just jealous. The
Government lawyers are just trying to make a name for themselves.
Anybody that thinks the breakup of A.T.&T. Has benefited any one
is a Fruit Cake, my phone bill tripled, the service is poor at best
and the Co. is in shambles. The DoJ attorney Joel Kline stated on
T.V. that the breakup of A.T.&T. brought us the Touch Tone Phone
he does not know what he is talking about either, we had the Touch
Tone Phones before 1972 and at least a type of mechanical version of
Touch Tone was installed prior to 1950 only used by long distance
Operators. The DoJ should accept Microsoft's good faith settlement
and the government could get on with better and more important
things.
Thank You
J. Marvin Klopstad
MTC-00027313
From: Rodney M. Chun
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
FROM: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Rodney M. Chun
1663 Kentfield Avenue
Redwood City, CA 94061
To the Honorable Court and the U.S. Department of Justice:
As a concerned citizen, a professional economist, and a database
developer, I feel compelled to submit the following comment on the
Revised Proposed Final Judgment (RPFJ) issued November 6, 2001 in
the case of United States v. Microsoft Corp. I strongly believe that
the RPFJ as it now stands is not in the ``public
interest'' due to the gaping loopholes and imprecisions that
even an individual not trained in law, such as myself, can identify.
Let me begin with a simple statement of fact: A lower court has
found, and an appellate court has concurred that Microsoft has
violated antitrust laws by undertaking illegal actions which have
impeded effective competition against it. The purpose of the RPFJ is
to provide remedies for these transgressions, and most importantly,
to inhibit Microsoft from engaging in future activities which would
serve to preserve its monopoly in operating systems.
The RPFJ contains such imprecise language that one can only
wonder if it was purposely crafted to furnish Microsoft exploitable
loopholes. While the list that follows is far from exhaustive, I
feel it summarizes some of the shortcomings, omissions, and
definitional problems which render the RPFJ an inappropriate remedy
for the harm Microsoft has done to the public and an ineffective
deterrent to future Microsoft offenses. Specific references to
sections of the RPFJ are given in parenthesis.
1. The RPFJ does not include all of the conduct the court found
to be in violation of antitrust laws. In particular, it does not
address the issue of commingling of middleware code with the
underlying operating system.
2. The RPFJ gives Microsoft the sole discretion over the
definition of the ``Windows Operating System'' (VI.U).
This oversight combined with the previous point essentially gives
Microsoft every incentive to embed middleware code, such as the
Internet Explorer, into the ``operating system'' and
thereby evade all restrictions imposed on its middleware products.
3. The RPFJ's definition of ``application programming
interface'' (API) is unorthodox and restrictive. Typically an
API is the interface between an application program and the
operating system. Yet the RPFJ (VI.A) defines an API to be only
those interfaces used by Microsoft Middleware. There are over 13,000
API ``hooks'' into the Windows Operating System, of which
only a fraction is actually used by Microsoft Middleware. Hence, any
directives to make API's (as defined by the RPFJ) public,
potentially excludes the release of information regarding other
useful Windows OS APIs--the lack of which could essentially
make an ISV's product uncompetitive with a similar Microsoft
product. Microsoft has already used this informational asymmetry to
its advantage in the past (see Finding of Fact, 90, 91) and there is
no reason to believe that it would refrain from using this ploy to
illegally preserve its monopoly in the future.
4. The RPFJ's definition (VI.K) of ``Microsoft Middleware
Product'' essentially consists of Internet Explorer, Microsoft
Java, Window Media Player, Windows Messenger, and Outlook Express.
This list is grossly incomplete if one considers middleware to be
any application software that itself presents a set of APIs that
allow users the ability to write new applications without reference
to the underlying operating system. For instance, one can write
database applications using Microsoft Access and Visual Basic for
Applications (VBA) without ever using a native Windows OS API. This
applies to the entire Microsoft Office family of programs.
Furthermore, I find it peculiar that Outlook Express is listed while
Outlook (the full-featured version of Outlook Express) is omitted.
Furthermore, Microsoft's ``.NET'' system--seen by
most as a Microsoft version of Sun's Java--is also noticeably
omitted.
5. The RPFJ gives Microsoft the explicit right to continually
and automatically persuade end users to revert back to Microsoft
middleware, after 14 days, in the event that a 3rd party application
has been installed. As an end user of Microsoft Windows, I do not
welcome a daily barrage of dialog boxes begging me to favor
Microsoft products over my preferred alternative. I find it
objectionable that any software company should be encouraged to
engage in this type of marketing just as I am opposed to
telemarketing phone calls, Email spam, or unsolicited junk mail.
6. The RPFJ is deeply flawed with regard to enforcement. The
proposed remedy lasts five years with a minor sanction of a one-time
extension of two years in the event of non-compliance. It is
extremely naive to believe that Microsoft will cease to be a
monopoly in five years--and will thereby have insufficient
market power to engage in illegal behavior to preserve its
monopoly--particularly considering the large network effects
and complementarities that exist in software products. Microsoft has
been declared a monopoly. As long as it remains a monopoly, it
should be regulated as such until Microsoft can prove itself
otherwise. The inclusion of an expiration date for sanctions serves
to ameliorate most of the effect the remedy proposes to offer.
Furthermore, I see no concrete penalties whatsoever in terms of non-
compliance. While I am not an expert in contract law, even I know
that a contract must clearly specify the penalties for violations of
the agreement. In the absence of such sanctions, the document is
little more than a wish list.
My list of objections to the current RPFJ is not exhaustive, and
I have only focused on the problems I find most obvious. Further
comprehensive evaluation is available in the comments made by the
economists Robert E. Litan, Roger D. Noll, and William D. Nordhaus
(January 17, 2002; available from the American Antitrust Institute
web site). In addition, another excellent analysis done by Dan Kegel
is available at: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
I agree with the comments in both of these documents.
In closing, let me leave you with a parable that summarizes some
of the shortcomings in the RPFJ. In my parable a large 18-wheel
truck is speeding and weaving down an interstate highway. Do to its
recklessness, several car accidents have occurred in its wake, and a
state highway patrol car has pulled the truck over. The cop is
informed by his superior to apply the relevant traffic laws, which,
in my story, have been modeled on the RPFJ. Here is what the traffic
cop reads in his codebook:
-The traffic law allows the driver of the truck the right to
define what a ``truck'' is.
-The traffic law is not clear on which part of the truck is
actually defined to be speeding.
-The traffic law suggests a fine of $1 since the damage only
consisted of ``compact'' cars.
The traffic law only mandates that the driver obey the speed
limit for the next 5 miles. Any further transgressions will result
in this restriction applying for 2 more miles. After the maximum of
7 miles, the truck driver can do anything he wishes. Furthermore,
the traffic law is completely silent on what the penalty will be for
further violations.
-The traffic law allows the driver to demand back his $1 fine
after 14 days.
The US Department of Justice has won a historic ruling against
Microsoft, a victory which has been largely upheld by the appellate
Court; Microsoft has been found guilty of engaging in illegal
activities in its attempt to preserve a monopoly position in the
software industry. As a result of these activities, it has most
certainly increased its monopoly power and has done unfathomable
damage to the development of innovative technologies and new
products which may have existed, but for Microsoft's actions. I urge
the US Department of Justice to withdraw its consent from the
present RPFJ. Any new settlement should address the current RPFJ's
obvious shortcomings. As it
[[Page 27982]]
stands, it will not unfetter the market from Microsoft's
anticompetitive conduct, nor will it properly penalize Microsoft for
its past behavior.
Sincerely,
Rodney M. Chun, Ph.D.
Senior Research Analyst
Sphere Institute
Phone: (650) 558-3980, ext. 17
e-mail: [email protected]
MTC-00027314
From: Jason Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
The proposed Microsoft Settlement primarly addresses present and
future concerns of commercial entities. It seems that this will
promote a better relationship between OEMs and Microsoft. It,
however, does not fully address past behavior of Microsoft.
Microsoft's grievances have limited OEMs and others in what they
could do with their(the OEM's) products. The proposed settlement
does not fully address this past behavior. Microsoft through their
forceful agreements with OEMs and others has blocked other companies
and non-commercial entities from getting a fair chance to compete.
Unfortunately, these actions have already occurred. The future
restrictions that will be placed on Microsoft in this settlement
will not give competitors the ability to catch up with Microsoft.
I am opposed to the currently proposed settlement. I feel it
lacks significant punishment for past actions on behalf of
Microsoft. It also fails to the provisions necessary to allow for a
truly competitive operating systems market. There is also little to
no provision for non-commercial software and development, which also
is struggling to find its place in the market.
Sincerely,
Jason A. Wood
MTC-00027315
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
I do not support the proposed Microsoft settlement, and
recommend Judge Jackson's judgement be enforced.
Valerie Collins
Senior Software Engineer, Computer Sciences Corp.
MTC-00027317
From: Scott Swanson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am writing in response to the request for public comments on
the proposed settlement between the department of justice (DOJ) and
Microsoft Corp. (MS) referenced on the web site at http://
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm.
It is my opinion that the settlement against Microsoft is not
fair to American consumers and does nothing to limit the anti-
competitive actions of this monopoly. To call the current settlement
proposal fair belittles the intelligence of the American population
and does no credit to its government. If any settlement were to be
at all effective, it would have to limit the companies ability to
maintain, or extend, its monopoly. This is not currently the case.
If competition is to be encouraged, Microsoft will have to be
stopped from being able to ``bundle'' their software.
Bundling their software (or including multiple products in one
package at one price) gives them the opportunity to make it more
expensive to buy a product from a competitor and limit the ability
of that competitor from being able to compete on a level playing
field. Each piece of software distributed by Microsoft should be
sold separately with a separate price.
Microsoft should be limited from adapting standards to suit
their own purposes. Any file formats or communication formats should
be released to anyone interested long before it could be included in
any product. This would limit the ability of Microsoft to abuse
their position on the majority of desktops to extend it to another
area where they didn't yet have a stronghold.
The entire application programming interface (API) should be
made available to anyone that wishes to program against any
Microsoft application. This would allow programmers external to
Microsoft to compete on equal footing with those inside Microsoft.
Microsoft has been found to have illegally maintained its monopoly
position. Yet there has been no remedy for this situation proposed
that would hamper that illegal activity. I strongly oppose the
current proposal and hope that a much stronger ruling will take its
place.
Scott Swanson
3539 27th Place West, #314
Seattle, WA 98199
MTC-00027318
From: Charles A. Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:58pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
DEAR SIR/MADAM THE TIME HAS COME TO SETTLE THE MICROSOFT
SQUABBLE AS IT IS NO LONGER SERVING THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC
TO CONTINUE LEGAL ACTIONS WITH MORE COSTS TO THE PUBLIC AND
MICROSOFT. THE OFFER BY MICROSOFT TO SETTLE WITH THE GOVERNMENT WILL
BENEFIT MOST USERS AND THE PUBLIC.
CHARLES A. BROWN
MTC-00027319
From: Jason Westlake
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It's a bad idea to settle with Microsoft, mainly because it
won't teach them a lesson... a paltry fine or ``donation''
to education won't do anything to teach them; they have billions
upon billions of dollars in cash. The DOJ must act harshly! The only
way to prevent them from continuing to act in anticompetitive ways
is to BREAK UP MICROSOFT! PLEASE BREAK UP MICROSOFT!
Thanks,
Jason Westlake
Computer Technician
Newnan, GA
MTC-00027320
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:02pm
Subject: Mircrosoft Legal Problems
Lets resolve the microsoft issues. We need to warn microsoft
that they should not infringe on others or prevent competition. The
government should be reasonable regarding the fine and close all
Microsoft legal problems.
See attachmentr.
Vernon Dede
301 Woodland Trail
Keller, 17< 76248-2630
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
After three long years of antitrust lawsuit court battles,
Microsoft and the government have a settlement that has profound
implications for all software publishers, the rest of the computer
industry and consumers. By ending this case, the government is
freeing this innovative giant to create more jobs. That's good for
our lagging economy. Under the agreement, computer manufacturers
were granted new rights to configure systems with various Windows
features hidden or removed to make competing, non-Microsoft software
more prominent. Microsoft must also design future versions of
Windows to make it easier for users to install non-Microsoft
software. Finally, it is obliged to disclose information about
certain internal interfaces in Windows. The agreement goes far
beyond the original issues in the lawsuit, but Microsoft agreed to
it just to get the legal hassles over with. If we have solved
problems with the agreement that we never set out to solve in the
first place, there is clearly no need for further federal action
after the agreement's approval.
Sincerely,
Vernon Dede
MTC-00027321
From: Tim Ambrose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:03pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement!
To whom it may concern,
I guess this will never end. I just heard that AOL is going to
take Microsoft to coart over the same thing that it's been
compaining about for ever. It should be very obvious what their game
is, and tat is to hang their competetor up as long as possible while
they gain in market share and time. The same appleys to these state
law suits except all the attorney generals want is fame and
noteriety. I hate what our country and it's court system has become!
Anybody can take anybody to court without any real reason, except to
try and bring them down and all the while bringing our country and
the lives of the inocent doun with it.
PLEASE END THIS CANCER ON MICROSOFT .
[[Page 27983]]
MTC-00027322
From: Conniejo Squires
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:05pm
Subject: Freedom To Innovate-Microsoft
Renata B. Hesse
Anti-Trust Division
RE: Microsoft Settlement
It is important to all that this law suit end. Microsoft has by
their example taken the computer and software industry above and
beyond the industries expectations. Our country has always been one
that we have the freedom to inovate. Microsoft has made computer use
possible for many users by making a working software that all could
use easily. It is unfair to punish them for doing this. In the end
the consumer is the one that suffers. When A.T.& T. split to
meet the courts demands now we receive three different bills each
month rather than one. The consumers are the ones that have to deal
with the consequences. This doesn't seem fair.
Microsoft has free of charge given computers and software to
many schools in Washington State and a few to other states as well.
If they had not done this the schools would not have been able to
provide computers for the children to use and have this opportunity.
America has managed on Competition being healthy. It makes the
product better. It sounds to me that the complainers do not have the
intelligence or where with all to inovate something on their own, to
make a product that is competitive and make it better for all
consumers. So why should Microsoft have to be punished because they
were willing to inovate.
Sincerely,
Connie Jo Squires
Spokane, Washington 99208
MTC-00027323
From: Ed Pope
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:06pm
Subject: Comment on Proposed Settlement
I do not believe the settlement is in the best interests of the
free enterprise system.
Ed Pope
Atlanta, Georgia
MTC-00027325
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department Of Justice: It is my belief that your settlement
with Microsoft is more than fair. In fact I believe that being a
person that has followed the case detail by detail from the start
that this case against Microsoft should have never been brought in
the first place.
Further I believe it was the other large software companies that
by their own doings couldn't build a better product and spent their
energy and money instead in the government arena to try and delete
the only competition they had, Microsoft.
I have for the past 5 years used and owned stock in AOL. They
have a good product but it is just not right for them to use the
courts and our government to try and defeat Microsoft. They should
spend their (AOL) time and resources rather to build a better
product and service. The freedom to compete is what this country is
all about. You don't see Microsoft crying foul! The people of the
world are better served by allowing all companies to compete. Yes,
there will be a winner maybe and a looser but that doesn't mean we
don't let the winner win.
Let the consumer decide with their dollars who they want to do
business with. We don't need our government deciding for us.
I say the same thing I have from the start.. ``Leave
Microsoft Alone'' Our country will be a better place for it.
Beyond that I feel it is more than generous of Microsoft to give
computer support to our schools.
Regards,
Steve Riebe
4125 86th Ave SE
Mercer Island, WA 98040
MTC-00027326
From: Tom Simpson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:07pm
Subject: Microsoft as Monopoly
Dear Sirs:
This short note is to state my position that Microsoft has
consistently proven itself to be a company that is willing to run
roughshod over its competitors and has further used its monopoly
position in order to extort concessions from others in the industry
and to foist technically inferior products upon entrapped customers,
In other words, they generally do all of the ugly things that we
know monopolies did over 100 years ago, when the Carnegies,
Rockefellers and Morgans of the world abused and used the
marketplace to claw their way to the top. Now, Microsoft has set its
sights on the Internet itself. They simply must be stopped.
Tom Simpson
Graduate School
University of South Carolina--Columbia
3420 Heyward St,
Columbia, SC 29205
MTC-00027327
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to voice my disgust with the proposed settlement
for the Microsoft case. This settlement does not do anything to
quell Microsoft's power, and looking at the settlement I can see
legal holes the size of Alaska which Microsoft can use to all but
ignore this settlement.
Microsoft has unfairly gained a monopoly in the Intel Operating
System market, and is currently using illegal and immoral tactics to
become the only provider in the browser market, web services,
desktop recording software, and other fields.
This trial is based around the browser war between Internet
Explorer and Netscape, however the bigger picture is that Microsoft
has been abusing its power for years. Even when faced with
preliminary injunctions they have laughed in the face of the law and
put together a legal team that no company has the power to fight
against.
The courts have ruled a few times that Microsoft has a monopoly,
and is abusing that power. While I don't know what the answer is,
this settlement does nothing against this problem. Splitting
Microsoft into many smaller separate companies (IE, OS, Office, and
others) might be a place to start. Now that Microsoft has the market
share in web browsers (since the lawsuit was filed, Microsoft has
moved from a 50% share in browsers to over 80%), they are trying to
use that power to further remove Netscape from the playing field,
and Java at the same time. Their newer browsers are moving from the
Netscape plug-in applications to a new style, forcing new companies
to choose between Netscape and Microsoft, which will further the
gap. Microsoft is also steering their browsers away from Java and
towards their proprietary .NET platform.
Another downside to the proposed settlement is the time factor.
This settlement is only for 5-7 years, while it has already
taken over 3 years to come this far. If we are going to go to all
the time and expense, let us monitor the company for 15-25
years, and make penalties strong, clear and concise. We should not
have to go through another 3 years of trials when (not if) Microsoft
violates the settlement, just to give Microsoft a slap on the wrist.
Thank you for your time. Ben Greslick
Network Administrator
The Concord Consortium
``Integrating technology into the classroom''
www.concord.org
MTC-00027328
From: Edward Kiser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I am writing in order to comment publicly about the proposed
Microsoft settlement, as allowed by the Tunney Act. I fail to see
how Microsoft has done anything but set terms upon the use of its
own property. Those terms may be unpleasant for some people, I
admit, even as they become very pleasant for others, but such terms
do not infringe anyone's rights. They cannot. For who has the right
to meddle in a deal between two other people, a deal involving only
property which those two people own?
As a Microsoft operating system user, I fail to see how
Microsoft could set any terms that would be any worse for me than if
it had never created its property in the first place. What if
Microsoft charges a million dollars for a license for the next
version of Windows? I can refuse to buy it. What if Microsoft
creates a patch which disables my favorite software? I can refuse to
install that patch, or if I accidentally install it, I can reinstall
the operating system from the original CDs and thereby remove the
patch. Can Microsoft remotely disable my copy of Windows? No;
Microsoft and I have a contract, and I have not accepted, and will
not accept, one that gives them remote-disable capabilities. I fail
to see how Microsoft can infringe my rights through any licensing
scheme or any combination of features or any technical features or
any pricing strategy. (Fraud or an infringement of privacy would
hurt me, but Microsoft is not
[[Page 27984]]
accused of those things.) Even if I were an OEM, or a browser
writer, Microsoft could do nothing to me without my consent, except
offer my customers a better deal than I can, and take them all away.
But customers are not a right; customers choose what is best for
them. A business has to earn customers!
It is quite easy to see, on the other hand, how a government of
power-hungry politicians and judges could ultimately force me to
write software only to its specifications, or the specifications of
my competitors. It is easy to see how a government could make people
think that they could demand any product from me, merely because
they decided it was ``possible'' for me to make that
product--and how a government could back such demands by force,
without regard for whether I chose to make such a product. It is
easy to see that anything done to Microsoft sets a precedent that
could reach back to me, and any attempts to reassure me that these
kinds of punishments apply only to Microsoft, make me worry more,
because that means the principle of equality before the law has been
discarded. It's also easy to see how a corporation such as Netscape
might hope to get ahead by buddying up to local politicans and
attorneys general, when it fails to get ahead by superior products
and, more importantly, business strategies. Netscape's business
strategies were more responsible for its fate than Microsoft's
strategies. Rather than aggressively adding features to version 4.0,
Netscape decided to do a bottom-up rewrite of its browser, which it
ultimately had to make open source. Even then, development proceeded
so slowly that two key developers eventually resigned. Netscape's
bad decisions gave Microsoft time to get farther ahead. Politicians
welcome such a deal as the one they made with Netscape, and they
welcome the power that comes with it, while Netscape welcomes the
opportunity to vanquish its competition by dishonest means. That's
something Microsoft never did. Microsoft has not been dishonest,
although it may have aggressively made some predictions about what
other people would do and used them to frighten still other
people--who perhaps need not have been frightened. Furthermore,
Microsoft never lobbied politicians until it was forced to do so by
this very case. In self-defense.
It seems remarkable that OEMs feeling threatened by Microsoft
would not have banded together to produce an alternative to Windows.
Is it possible that they were prevented from doing so by the same
anti-trust laws that Microsoft is accused of breaking? This case has
been a travesty and a sham, and since it is already irreversible,
the best thing for America would be if Microsoft got a token
sentence and were let alone, and then if this law were found
unconstitutional, as it ought to be found.
Sincerely,
Edward Kiser
Jacksonville, FL
MTC-00027329
From: Lincoln Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement U. S. District Court Judge Colleen
Kollar-Kotelly:
As a systems engineer and software developer focused on the
success of the consumer, I ask you to consider the stronger remedies
against Microsoft proposed by the 9 non-settling states and the
District of Columbia. I will let their arguments stand on their own
merits. I have 12 years of experience in software development since
graduating from U. of Arizona with a B.S. in Systems Engineering. I
develop and lead development teams working on many platforms
including UNIX, Windows, and VMS, in many languages including C,
C++, and Java. Most of my projects involve large-scale cross-
platform software systems. The ability of technology to communicate
effectively across different platforms allows consumers to utilize
that technology in a simple and seamless manner. Microsoft's
monopoly position has allowed it to engage in illegal practices that
impede the ability of other companies to implement the interaction
of Windows and non-Windows systems effectively. Microsoft's behavior
has hurt the entire software technology industry and will continue
to slow its advancement, to the detriment of consumers in the long
run, unless the stronger remedies are imposed.
My opinions are my own and do not necessarily represent the
opinions of any of my past or current employers.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Lincoln P. Thomas
Software Engineer and Team Leader
Colorado Springs, Colorado
[email protected]
MTC-00027330
From: Linda Chia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The concerned parties in this frivolous lawsuit MUST SETTLE so
Microsoft (and the industry as a whole) can continue to move ahead
with the freedom to innovate and thus create jobs to bring this
country out of its recession.
I have been unemployed since June 2001 when my job was
eliminated. I would much rather see all the concerned use their
time, talent, and resources to help put U.S. citizens back to work!
Thank you.
Linda J. Chia
3032 N. Kenmore Ave.
Chicago, IL 60657-4365
773-281-6320 voice/fax
MTC-00027331
From: T.K.Egan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is at best lousy for the consumer, for
the United States, and for anyone who uses a computer. However my
comments are in line with Dan Kegel's open letter ( http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html ) to with I have asked my name be
added as a co signer. I hope the government will do the right thing
and act in the interest of America and her people.
MTC-00027332
From: Darrell Michaud
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
In accordance with the Tuney act I would like to offer my humble
opinion regarding the proposed Microsoft Settlement.
I believe that many parts of Section III, Prohibited Conduct,
are well-intended but contain enough technological loopholes for
Microsoft to render them ineffective. Prohibited Conduct A.1 and A.2
are meaningless as a remedy because Microsoft no longer needs to
retaliate against OEM distributors directly to maintain its
monopoly. Over the past few years Microsoft has introduced
deliberate technical devices to prevent its software from being used
in dual-boot environments. Even if a distributor wishes to create
dual-boot options for their customers and is protected from direct
retaliation, Microsoft still retains the technological means to
prevent dual-boot solutions from being competitive.
Prohibited Conduct C (all numbered items) suffers from the same
flaw. The proposed judgement states: ``Microsoft shall not
restrict BY AGREEMENT any OEM licensee..'' (emphasis added)
There is nothing said about technological restrictions that
accomplish the same ends as the prohibited conduct. Just as
Microsoft was able to circumvent the spirit of the Supreme Court's
judgement through technological means (ie, integrating their web
browser into the Windows(TM) Operating System), so too will they
circumvent the spirit of this proposed remedy.
Until Microsoft is restricted from both agreement/contract
retaliation and technological retaliation, they can continue to
leverage their monopoly illegally.
Thank You,
Darrell Michaud
MTC-00027333
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 1l:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 26,2002
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Hesse:
On behalf of myself, I respectfully submit the following public
comment on the Proposed Final Judgment in the case of United States
of America, et al. v. Microsoft Corporation, District of Columbia
Civil Action No. 98-1232. The District Court is entitled to
consider the ``impacta'' of the proposed judgment on
``the public generall'' Under that broad criterion, the
proposed judgment clearly fails to meet even a superficial test for
serving the public interest. Rather, the proposed judgment is based
on the Court's acceptance of an incorrect and fraudulent premise, as
initially set forth by the United States in its complaint, and
applies the antitrust laws of the United States in a manner
inconsistent with its intent and
[[Page 27985]]
practical scope. In addition, the proposed judgment assumes that the
public is incapable of asserting its self-interest in the absence of
government action, a presumption that is offensive on a personal
level and an expression of bad public policy. In reviewing the
proposed judgment and the accompanying Competitive Impact Statement
(``ClS''), the United States offers no verifiable claim
that any action taken by Microsoft harmed consumers or the public
interest. What they do offer is a narrative describing the failure
of Microsoft' competitors to provide a product that the public
supported, through the mechanism of the free market, to the extent
that the competitors could maintain a profitable enterprise. This
failure by Microsofta.TMs competitors does not, however, constitute
something that is detrimental to the consuming public.
The central thesis to the government's case is the belief that
Microsoft enjoys monopoly in the operating system market. This is an
incorrect belief, the prior findings of the District Court and the
United States Court of Appeals to the contrary notwithstanding.
Microsoft has never enjoyed a monopoly in the operating system
market, or any other market it has competed in for that matter. In
the most fundamental sense, a ``monopoly'' is an entity
which enjoys an exclusive license to trade in a particular market.
Such a license can only be granted by the affirmative act of a
government entity. Microsoft does not, and has never, enjoyed such a
government license to monopolize the operating system market.
The United States has confused Microsoft ``TMS''
position of relative dominance as constituting a monopoly. They
betray this logic at numerous points in the proposed judgment and
CIS. For example, on page 25 of the CIS the United States claims the
proposed judgment will allow computer manufacturers freedom from
coercion or retaliation by Microsoft'' This is an absurd claim.
Coercion is defined as employing a threat of force against an
individual to force them to act against their self-interest. There
is no evidence that Microsoft can use force against anyone. It does
not possess a police force, or an army, or a court system. Microsoft
has no means to exert its will to the extent that it violates the
rights of another. What the company has done is use legitimate and
legal tactics, including the retaliation the government improperly
condemns, to aggressively compete within the market.
The market within which Microsoft competes has, in fact, been
misidentified repeatedly by the government, the District Court, and
the Court of Appeals. According to the CIS, the market for
monopolization purposes is supposedly restricted to operating
systems used on Intel-compatible personal computers. The United
States deliberately excludes operating systems on non-Intel
compatible computers because, the CIS says, consumers are very
reluctant to substitute away from Intel-compatible personal
computers because to do so would entail incurring substantial costs
and would not result in a satisfactory substitute. Thus we have a
real gap in logic. If the consumer is not substituting a non-Intel
computer for an Intel computer based on considerations of price and
quality, is that not a consumer choice? The free market is defined
by the choices made by consumers. The government takes a
contradictory and irrational approach, defining the market in such a
limited way as to make the definition arbitrary and capricious.
I have been a computer user for more than a decade. In that time
I have often weighed the option of purchasing Intel-compatible
computers over non-Intel models. My choice has weighed a number of
factors, including price, availability of application software,
quality of the components used and even aesthetics. My ultimate
decision is not important; what is important is that I considered
models across the market without regard for the government's
arbitrary and exclusionary definition and made an informed and
voluntary choice. Millions of other consumers have done likewise,
and the government's claims here are an attempt to deny this fact.
Similarly, on the many Intel-compatible computers I have purchased
through the years, there have been times where I have declined to
use a Microsoft operating system. I did so irrespective of the fact
that a Microsoft OS was pre-installed and programmed to boot with
the computer. As an informed consumer I made the effort to consider
other operating systems and install one independently. The proposed
judgment here assumes I am incapable of that action, for it assumes
such an act would only be undertaken if multiple operating systems
were made available to me at the time of purchase. Similarly, the
proposed judgment presumes the presence of desktop will help non-
Microsoft middleware programs compete with Microsoft programs; in
fact millions of computer users already do so without such
manipulative prompting at the behest of the government. For the
government to state otherwise is illogical, offensive, and not in
the public interest.
Additionally, the proposed judgment is not in the public
interest because it would inflict a manifest injury against the
rights and liberties of the people of the United States,
specifically the right of private property. A key component of the
proposed judgment's 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 the United States would retain the right, under the proposed
judgment, to determine and enforce the scope to which these source
codes are to be made available, the final judgment constitutes a
seizure of private property the source codes and its subsequent
conversion to a public good. Such an act is wholly incompatible with
the Constitution of the United States and even the antitrust laws
that are supposedly being enforced in this case.
From a practical standpoint, the antitrust laws were designed to
impose static remedies upon static industries where the market and
its competitive components could be easily quantified and centrally
managed. The software industry is neither static nor easily
quantified. It is a dynamic marketplace of ideas and innovation, and
such an entity cannot be centrally managed or overseen in a rational
manner. Even the Court of Appeals admitted as much in its review of
this case last year, noting that the software industry would
continue to evolve many times before this case was concluded. This
evolution continues regardless of Microsoft's dominance of the
Intel-compatible OS market, but it will not continue if extensive
government oversight is introduced into the marketplace. This
proposed judgment unreasonably attempts to dictate the competitive
balance in an industry where such a concept has been rendered
virtually meaningless. Software is not like the railroads or
petroleum refining. Any individual can use their mind and
inexpensive equipment to write an operating system, develop a word
processing program, or even lay the foundation for a global
information network. The entire barriers to entry analysis employed
in the CIS for this case is thus completely without merit.
The proposed judgment seizes Microsoft's property for the
express purpose of enhancing Microsoft's competitors. Such an act
should offend every American who owns private property of any kind,
because if a large and successful corporation is not entitled to the
fruits of its own labor, than what hope is there for the ordinary
American citizen of less affluent means? The proposed judgment,
rather than serving the public interest, will only serve to
undermine public confidence in the government's role as the final
guarantor of private property rights.
As a concerned citizen, I urge the District Court to reject the
proposed judgment and dismiss the government's complaint without
further delay. Barring that unlikely action, I would encourage the
United States to reconsider its position on Microsoft, and its
enforcement of antitrust laws in general. This case has demonstrated
the futility and harm that can result from the application of
irrational and immoral public policy.
Sincerely,
Skip Oliva
2000 F Street, NW, #315
Washington, DC 20006-4217
[email protected]
MTC-00027334
From: Jonathan Kiang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a bad idea. It is a reckless
abdication of the Federal government's antitrust responsibilities.
The Court of Appeals affirmed that Microsoft violated Federal
and State antitrust laws. Any settlement or judgement needs to
supply both a remedy against future violations and a deterent to
potential violators. This one provides neither.
Considering that Microsoft performed many of its illegal
activities under the apparently mosty hypothetical onus of the
consent decree stemming from the government's 1994 antitrust case,
the proposed final judgement leaves Microsoft too leeway in its
actions. Microsoft has shown no indication that it would be inclined
to follow the spirit or intent of the
[[Page 27986]]
antitrust laws if left to its own devices, and the proposed final
judgement fails to account for this.
The proposed final judgement, if approved, would make the 1956
du Pont cellophane case look like a brilliant piece of antitrust
reasoning. If the goal of the antitrust laws is to promote consumer
welfare and the competitive process, then the proposed final
judgement fails to do either.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Kiang
MTC-00027335
From: Tom Dilligan (091)Tall Mini-God(093)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I have been a software developer and watcher of the computer
industry for the last 18 years. In that time I have developed
software for a large array of systems from home computers (with both
non-Microsoft and Microsoft operating systems) and for large
mainframe systems. I am currently employed as a Senior Systems
Developer for Industrial Light + Magic.
I would like to comment against the Microsoft Settlement of the
Anti-trust lawsuit against them, pursuant to the Tunney Act. I
oppose the settlement in the current form for the following reasons.
The proposed settlement largely consists of donations to schools.
This will do nothing to hinder Microsofts actions in the market
place. If anything, this will increase Microsoft's market share.
None of the reports that I have read state that Microsoft will
include support contracts for the software that they are donating
Software without support costs nearly nothing. The costs of
producing software falls primarily into two categories: development
and support. The costs of distributing (CD-ROMS, documentation,
packaging) are tiny in compared with the development costs and
support costs. In the case of Microsoft products, no part of the
purchase price goes to support costs, because Microsoft support is
done through a pay per incident. Calling Microsoft for any support
reason will cost $50.00 or more per call, unless a support contract
has been purchased.
If no support contracts are provided, and no support is provided
as part of the purchase price, then it can be argued that the entire
purchase price is going towards the development of new Microsoft
software. The development costs of the software have already been
recaptured, as evidenced by Microsoft's 36 billion dollar cash
reserves. This cash reserve is nearly twice that of General Motors,
a company that reports seven times the sales of Microsoft.
These cash reserves allow Microsoft to come into any marketplace
and give away (dump) software until they have forced any competitors
out of the market. Clear examples of this happening in the past
include the internet browser software Netscape. In the case of
Netscape, Microsoft was very successful in giving away their browser
software, and in fact forcing people to use it by making it an
integral part of the user experience. Microsoft included the server
software with the ``server'' versions of Microsoft's
operating systems (i.e. Windows NT, Windows 2000). Netscape only had
the revenue generated by their browser and server products to
generate income. With Microsoft effectively giving the software
away, it became increasingly difficuly for Netscape to function as a
business, eventually getting purchased by what is now America Online
/ Time Warner.
Microsoft's business practice of taking serious losses to
penetrate into the market place can be easily seen right now with
Microsoft's introduction of the X-Box gaming system. Microsoft has
never competed in the home videogame console market. The retail
price of an X-Box is approximately $350.00. Most analysts have
estimated the actual cost of production to be closer to $500.00. In
any sort of trade arrangement, this would be considered
``dumping''. Sony, Nintendo, and Sega (Microsoft's
competition) all sell their come consoles at close to cost, but do
not actually lose money.
Microsoft has engaged in highly restrictive licensing practices
that has made it ``unfeasable'' for OEM computer
manufactures (Dell, Gateway, IBM, ect...) to support non-Microsoft
operating systems. This has forced free and / or alternative
operating (i.e. Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, BeOS) into the domain of
the technical hobbyist, which is an extremely small portion of the
operating system market.
Microsoft delays or suppresses publication of interfaces,
protocols, and file formats that would be useful to third party
developers. These interfaces, protocols and file formats are all
available to Microsoft programmers, but are (in general) not
available to non-Microsoft programmers. This gives Microsoft an
insurmountable edge in that they can easily write software that
interacts with other Microsoft software, but non-Microsoft
developers are unable to write software with tight integration to
Microsoft products.
Microsoft is notorious for taking industry standard interfaces,
protocols, and file formats, changing or extending them slightly
before integrating them into Microsoft products. This allows them to
proclaim ``industry compliance'', but they will rarely
publish the extensions that they have made to the interfaces,
protocols, and file formats. This has two unfortunate effects. The
first is similar to the point raised above: only Microsoft can
effectively use the extended interfaces, protocols and file formats.
The second is that by not announcing or documenting extensions, they
have effectively made the interfaces (or protocol, or file format)
Microsoft's, as nobody can extend or change the interface without
potentially interfering with Microsoft's extensions (because nobody
outside of Microsoft knows what Microsoft is doing). In light of
this, clearly more punative actions must be applied to Microsoft to
force it into a position where it cannot simply walk into any market
and crush it by sheer financial clout. I would propose the following
as the sort of steps that must be taken to limit Microsoft's
monopoly power.
Microsoft's cash reserves must be drained. This would involve a
penalty (or stock dividend) in the range of 33 billion dollars, and
would bring
Microsoft's cash to gross income ratio into the same range as
other large companies (such as General Motors).
Microsoft should adopt a simplified, non-restrictive licensing
policy for OEM computer manufactors. Failing this, an outright ban
should be made on bundling non-free software with computers. While a
split of the Microsoft corporation is desireable. It is very
difficult to define a dividing line. I would propose a remedy of
modularizing of the software packages produced so that each
application would have a specific task (i.e. word-processing,
spreadsheet, illustration, painting, ect...) as opposed to massive
conglomerations of product (i.e. Microsoft Office). The only contact
that the teams would have would be via publicly published
documentation on interfaces, protocols and file formats. This would
allow for outside manufacturs to tightly integrate their software
with Microsoft's products.
These are a small sampling of the concerns that I have with the
proposed settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft.
Consider this my plea to reconsider the proposed settlement, and
work to make it sufficiently strong as to actually stop Microsoft in
their quest to completely dominate the computing industry.
Thomas A. Dilligan
San Rafael, CA.
MTC-00027336
From:
[email protected]@ine
tgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
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).
I find it particulary objectionable that the PFJ doesn't take
into account Windows-compatible competing operating systems.
MicroSoft should not be allowed to raise artificial barriers against
non-Microsoft operating systems which implement the APIs needed to
run application programs written for Windows.
This problem alone makes me 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. In addition to
the other problems expressed by Dan Kegel, I strongly believe that
the Proposed Final Judgment is not in the public interest, and
should not be adopted without addressing these issues.
David B. Belser
MTC-00027338
From: John Fulton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern,
I would like to comment under the Tunney Act on the proposed
settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust case. I
realize that you have to go through a lot of material,
[[Page 27987]]
so in order to be as brief as possible I would like to echo the
comments made by Dan Kegel, which can be viewed at: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
I support his overall comments on the proposed settlement and
would like to add my voice to his.
Thank you,
John Fulton
Webmaster, Rutgers University Computing Services
MTC-00027339
From: Young Jun Key
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Department of Justice
Hello, I'm a student who is interested in studying computer
science at State University of New York at Stony Brook. First of
all, I'm very disappointed at the outcome of the trial. I was in the
United States when the trial was on going, and I fully understand
the effect of the tragedy of September 11th on the trial. Although
I'm not a citizen of the United States of America, and I don't fully
understand the importance of Microsoft as an national financial
benefactor, I feel that trial was too much subdued due to the
national crisis. As far as my understanding goes, United States has
built it's economic strength upon technological basis. Computer
technology is the most outgoing technology of the age and the
Microsoft is the leader of the computer software. They are clearly
violating the anti-trust law. When there are less than 10
corporations competing in one specific field of business then the
business is being monopolized. I've used almost every version of
Microsoft Windows and it's clearly becoming more focused on the
Microsoft corporation itself. I believe this convenience is winning
the market. We need to provide more chance and equal opportunity to
other venture businesses that's being blocked by the Microsoft
giant. This trial may benefit American economy for the moment, but
we need to realize that it is only a temporary solution. I think
that the issue must be brought back into the court for more fair and
just solution.
Sincerely,
Young Jun Key
MTC-00027340
From: V.V.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wish to comment on the recent AOL ``Legal Strategy''
I believe this lawsuit has anything to do with consumers. AOL has
been using the political and legal systems for competing against
Microsoft for several years. This is just the next legal tactic in
their business plans.
AOL or anyone need not advise Microsoft that their marketing
strategy should be ``stripping down Windows'', and instead
of wasting time in courts try to build a Operating System like
Windows and see how it takes to do that and if ever it is possible
for anyone to make a world class OS like Windows.
The question to challenge browser integration with Windows is
itself invalid because
1. Microsoft does not charge for their browser
2. Any AOL patron can easily install their own browser if they
dont wish to use the MS browser
3. AOL itself follows the same strategy by acquiring Netscape
and bundling theor browsers everwhere (even in my laundry
underwears!!!) A spam of the highest degree.
Therefore please dont disturb Microsoft time with the non-sense
court matters, but rather challenge and compete them in the
Marketplace.
Sincerely,
Vivek Velso
MTC-00027341
From: Neale, Bennett
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/27/02 11:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam:
By way of the Tunney Act comment process, I am strongly urging
you to reconsider the settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft
antitrust lawsuit. Thank you for your time.
Bennett Neale
[email protected]
MTC-00027342
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user. This is just another method for states
to get free money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only
in terms of computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the
most dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Anne Canning
23431 Fosdick St.
Dowagiac, MI 49047-7433
MTC-00027343
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:19pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Gentlemen:
Please settle this lawsuit in favor of Microsoft and stop
wasting money and time constantly trying to breakup Microsoft.
Microsoft is a magnificant firm with brilliant ideas and has
helped America to be a pioneer in the field of internet and
software. Microsoft has helped students, business people, lay people
and people all over the world with their products.
All these lawsuits disrupting Microsoft is a waste of money and
time.
God bless America.
Sincerely, Elaine Hoo
MTC-00027344
From: Kathleen Dolan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Agreement
Dear Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney:
I wish to add my voice to the concerns over the proposed
settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust Case. I believe that Microsoft
has made it extremely difficult for anyone to purchase a computer
without using Microsoft operating systems and software. Because of
their marketing strength, they have been able to make almost all
computers sold in the US dependent on their operating systems and
software. This proposed settlement does not deal with the basic
issue of the case: the stifling of competition in the operating
system market. Please do not allow this to go through.
Thank you,
K.A. Dolan
Dolan and Taylor Associates
P.O.Box 531
Garrett Park, MD 20896
CC:[email protected],Steven C Johnson
MTC-00027345
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
27 Jan 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Hesse:
Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am writing to comment on the
proposed settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft Corporation
antitrust case. I wish to state how disappointed I am in US Atty.
Gen. John Ashcroft, Illinois Atty. Gen. Jim Ryan, and all the other
states'' attys. general in this extremely weak and poor
settlement with the Microsoft Corporation. With their track record
of poor products and their quashing of almost every possible threat
to their monopoly (such as the cases with Netscape and their pending
litigation against Lindows), Microsoft has acted against the
public's welfare and has cost the economy great quantities of
productivity. For example, assuming a user base of one million users
who must endure one crash of their Microsoft OS, a 240 day work-year
of 8 hour work-days and an average salary of $22,500, those
unscheduled coffee breaks cost a total of over $29,000,000 per annum
in lost productivity. This amount does not take into account the
time needed to recreate lost works in progress or delays to customer
inquiries because of the delays.
I also wish to add that I am in full agreement with the
statements of Dan Kegel, located online at http://www.kegel.com/
[[Page 27988]]
remedy/letter.html ; Jeremy P. White, CEO of CodeWeavers, Inc,
located online at http://www.codeweavers.com/jwhite/tunneywine.html
; and the Free Software Foundation, located online at http://
www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-antitrust.html.
Any settlement with Microsoft is unsatisfactory. This company,
and its management, need to be punished much more severely than this
settlement possibly would. Sincerely,
Andrew Valkanas
2523 W Farwell Ave
Chicago IL 60645
MTC-00027346
From: Grayson Aahr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:22pm
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,
The proposed settlement is not in the public interest. The
settlement leaves the Microsoft monopoly intact. So long as it is
intact the company and its leadership will do all in its power to
stop legitimate competition. This is not our free enterprise system.
Consumers need competition and choice so they, not Microsoft, decide
what products are on their computers. Microsoft must not be
permitted to decide what programs will run on MY computer. It must
not decide the direction of the entire marketplace. Let the
``invisible hand'' of the market work. The remedies
proposed by the several States are certainly necessary and in the
public interest, but they are not sufficient without removing the
proven illegal monopoly power from the hands of the malefactors.
I strongly urge that public proceedings under the Tunney Act be
held so that the entire public may be heard, not just a narrow group
of interests.
Clifford I. Nomberg, J.D.
Post Office Box 243055
Boynton Beach, FL 33424-3055
561-733-3069
MTC-00027347
From: William Law
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Department Of Justice:
Hi, my name is William Law, and I for one think it was a great
idea to file a lawsuit against Microsoft. Truthfully, I think it was
wrong for what Microsoft did, to do things illegally, and the theory
for them to take over the whole entire business. First of all
Microsoft had too much power, and had too much monoplies. Not only
that, but in order for Microsoft to gain such power, they had
illegal acts to help eliminate its rivals and made sure Microsoft
was the only operating system for PC's and OEM's. Not allowing other
internet companies, and had restrictions on OEM's. They broke the
first and second act of the Sherman Act. They tried to eliminate
Netscape by limiting it's resources, and as well as java. Trying to
delete Java, is trying to eliminate other programmers to in such
eliminating other possiblities for choice of Netscape. Microsoft did
not give other smaller companies a chance to grow in the market.
Which can result in overpower in the market. Which in that case,
Microsoft can raise it's prices on their products, and no one can do
anything about. Since they are the only operating and software out
there to support a PC, and other OEMS.
Breaking up microsoft can help consumers to have more options
and save more money when it comes to Pc's and programs for the
operating systems. I am glad that you gave freedom to the OEM's as
well as other small business's the right to choose alternative
operating systems for the consumer's PC. As well as not letting
Microsoft to corporate with Windows was also a good idea, so that
way Microsoft can't restrict certain software only to Windows. That
way Windows is open free for other software programmers to share
with. All these new rules will definetly help people save money, and
save the market from the might powerful Microsoft from conquering
all of it. What you have done was a great idea, and I for one am
glad that somebody has put a hold on Microsoft from taking all of
the computer business. I also wanted to say, letting people write
comments to the department of justice was a great idea. That way you
can hear from the people's point of view. Thank you for your time
and patience.
Sincerely,
William Law
MTC-00027348
From: Harold J Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern
AN IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT FOR MICROSOFT IS IMPERATIVE!!!
My feelings right now is that Microsoft is being shafted and
penalized for being a successful company by the Government (DOJ) as
well as bunch of competitors that are seemingly not smart enough to
be as good as Microsoft. They are trying to get some of Microsoft's
smarts by filing lawsuits.
All of those ridiculer suits should be thrown out and so
Microsoft can get on with it business of providing high tech
software and hardware to the public.
I do not believe Microsoft is over prised as I have a lot of
Microsoft software on my computer. My e-mail is not Microsoft but
sure is not AOL and never will be!!
Harold J. and Carole L. Williams
21104 33rd Drive SE
Bothell, WA 98021-3235
MTC-00027349
From: Stephen Horlander
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The fact that a convicted monopolist, who has deliberately hurt
competitors and suppressed innovation, can be let off with a slap on
the wrist truly makes me wonder about the state of our legal system.
This proposed settlement in no way will limit Microsoft from
continuing to abuse their illegal monopoly, and crushing potential
competition and further strangling their own customers, who will be
left with little or no choices.
Already Microsoft has laughed at the Department of Justice and
the community at large by further populating their operating system
with services such as Windows Messenger or Windows Media Player or
the dreaded Passport, which seeks to obtain a new monopoly on not
just operating systems but on a persons personal information. These
services are not even removable by the end user, they are stuck with
them just as they are stuck with Internet Explorer. Not only must
people suffer with un-needed programs but Microsoft quickly proceeds
to shove notices for these services in the users face with no way to
disable them.
Microsoft uses its monopoly on operating systems and browsers
and office software to keep a hold on its customers, customers who
have no way to escape because Microsoft will not release its file
formats or protocols to the public. I really hope that someone comes
to their senses before it is too late. Please show Microsoft that it
cannot do what ever it wants with no consequences just because it
has enough money and power to do so.
MTC-00027350
From: John McNair
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like to express my concern about the proposed settlement
in the case of United States of America vs. Microsoft Corporation. I
oppose the settlement on several grounds enumerated as follows:
I. The settlement fails to address the real damages inflicted on
Netscape Corporation, OEMs, and most importantly, consumers with
respect to the bundling and dumping associated with Internet
Explorer. The United States originally brought the case in question
against Microsoft because of harm it inflicted on consumers and
competitors in the course of attempting to destroy Netscape.
Microsoft spent over $100 million developing a product that it never
intended to sell. The sole stated purpose of developing Internet
Explorer was to destroy competition in the browser market. This is
according to thousands of internal emails entered into evidence
during the course of this trial.
Since the focus of this trial was illegal monopoly abuses
concerning internet browser software, any remedy should give some
attention to that particular market.
II. The settlement essentially provides that Microsoft must
intend to obey the law in the future (at least for the term of the
settlement). This settlement is no stronger than existing antitrust
legislation and hence is a waste of paper. At best one could argue
that this agreement delineates specific actions that are acceptable
and not acceptable so that Microsoft cannot claim ignorance of the
intent of antitrust laws in the future. However, ignorance is not
what lands
[[Page 27989]]
Microsoft in court. It is arrogance, a total disregard for the rules
that govern civilized people, that puts Microsoft on docket after
docket.
III. The settlement is ineffective to prevent future abuses
along the lines of Microsoft's well-documented modus operandi. Since
the agreement fails to address past grievances, the presumption is
that it should curtail future criminal activity at Microsoft. The
court would do well to remember who the defendant is. This is the
company that:
A. intentionally caused their own applications to fail
sporadically when running on top of DR DOS to make that operating
system seem unstable. They were ironically forced to resort to this
because DR DOS was actually a far superior product than MS DOS in
terms of stability and usability.
B. forced OEMs to pay license fees to Microsoft for each
computer shipped whether they shipped with IBM's PC DOS or with MS
DOS. This made PC DOS appear to be more expensive. This practice
continued until a court ordered them to stop--eight or nine
years later. And to my knowledge, Microsoft complied with that court
order. However, the order came shortly before Windows 95 shipped,
and where they left off with MS DOS, they picked up with Windows.
This practice is one of the major harms inflicted on consumers
by Microsoft. It is impossible for a consumer to buy a pre-assembled
computer from a major OEM without paying a license fee to the
Redmond monopolist. Forget illegal anti-competitive practices,
perjury, and extortion for a moment. Why should consumers be forced
to pay for something they don't even use? In some cases Microsoft is
paid for machines that ship with no operating system at all. This
practice has to stop.
C. intentionally forced Word Perfect to crash sporadically when
running on Windows so that it would appear to be even more unstable
than Microsoft Word. This practice continued until Microsoft
destroyed Word Perfect as a viable competitor. Many still consider
Word Perfect to be a superior product, but that consumer choice has
all but vanished.
D. dumped $100 million worth of development effort into a
product to destroy their competition.
E. repeatedly gave false testimony in this trial and even
submitted doctored evidence.
F. is run by a man that has told reporters that he is more
powerful than the President of the United States. Why then should he
have to obey US law?
G. is emulating their Internet Explorer chicanery in an attempt
to crush Real Networks. Microsoft is integrating Windows Media
Player into the OS and making Real Player a very difficult
alternative using the same tricks that worked on Netscape. If they
force OEMs to ship include Media Player and exclude Real Player, and
if they make Real Player extremely difficult to install, that
consumer choice will vanish as well.
These are not speculative claims. Every statement above, except
G, is either from William H. Gates, III, other Microsoft executives
or substantiated in a court of law. This is a very short list of
reasons not to trust this company to operate in good faith.
Repeatedly Microsoft has promised not to abuse its monopoly power,
and repeatedly they have reneged. Why should the court trust them
this time? This agreement requires far too much good faith on the
part of Microsoft to have any effect at all.
The loopholes are many and large. For one thing, the agreement
for all practical purposes concedes Microsoft's current operating
system monopoly is a fact of life. However, ``the software code
that comprises a Windows Operating System Product shall be
determined by Microsoft in its sole discretion.'' This is how
the Internet Explorer debacle was enabled for so long. Microsoft
simply declared that the browser was an integral part of the
operating system in order to circumvent a previous court order. One
could argue that this tends to push Microsoft into shoddier software
design practices than even they are wont to embrace, but that is
outside the scope of this complaint. Section III.6.D provides that
Microsoft shall disclose APIs in a timely manner while section
III.J.1.a provides the legal loophole by stating ``J. No
provision of this Final Judgment shall: 1. Require Microsoft to
document, disclose or license to third parties: (a) portions of APIs
or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols
the disclosure of which would compromise the security of ... anti-
piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management,
encryption or authentication systems ...'' Microsoft has
recently announced (1/15/02) that pervasive security is number one
priority. This is too convenient. This gives them the argument that
they do not have to release any APIs (or the ones they most want to
protect) because of security risks. Microsoft can arbitrarily choose
which APIs to expose, and still claim that they acted in good faith
as they understood this settlement. The line is sufficiently fuzzy
that any decent $500/hr lawyer should be able to drag out a case
based on failure to disclose APIs for years.
Section VI.D restricts the definition of Personal Computer to
x86-based platforms. Microsoft would not be in violation of this
agreement if they extended their predatory practices to say, a Power
PC-based platform. Microsoft has recently announced an initiative to
produce a virtual hardware layer to run the Windows operating system
that is similar in principle to the Java virtual machine. This would
mean that Windows could run on any platform. Again the timing of
such an announcement is far too convenient. This is yet another way
that Microsoft can circumvent the terms of this agreement. Microsoft
has demonstrated repeatedly that they have no respect for the law.
They will agree to anything that they deem to be a reasonably cost
effective means of getting out of court. The terms of the agreement
matter little to them for it will be business as usual within a
month. Anecdotally, I have known of former Microsoft employees
claiming that they know of no other company that spends more of its
resources on simply destroying its competition (using Fear,
Uncertainty, and Doubt). Hoping that Microsoft will suddenly change
its attitude is pure fantasy.
In short, this settlement is more of a pat on the back than the
slap on the wrist it was intended to be. Microsoft has successfully
waged a public relations campaign that has clouded the issues
involved. When Bill Gates is whining that he's not allowed to
innovate, it's easy for some to forget that he has been in court
almost continuously for fifteen years for theft of intellectual
property, bundling, dumping, coercion, and extortion. While not
everyone has agreed with Judge Jackson rulings, I still think it
must take some preponderance of evidence for a federal judge to
characterize publicly the nation's most prominent CEO as a
``common street thug.'' It's sick Orwellian humor that
Microsoft should complain that they have been denied the opportunity
to innovate when they have unashamedly destroyed anything that
threatened their tyrannical stranglehold on the PC industry.
John R. McNair, Jr.
[email protected]
MTC-00027351
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The United States should settle with Microsoft now. Impose
reasonable restrictions on the company and let everyone go back to
work doing what they do best. Monetary penalties should be kept to a
minimum. There is more important work to be done for the good of the
Country. Greed should not be rewarded. The States should join the
Federal settlement. Holding out to further appease the various
special interests is not warranted except to exploit the situation
and to extort money nefariously.
Richard Hadrick
Spring Hill, Florida
MTC-00027352
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I urge you to support competition in the computer world.
Microsoft must not be allowed to become so powerful that users come
to rely even more than they do now on a single entity. Any
settlement must open opportunities to alternate technologies,
allowing Americans a choice.
Thank you.
Lee Greenberg
MTC-00027353
From: Roger Sumey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
In accordance with provisions of the Tunney Act, I am sending
these comments on the Proposed Final Settlement of the United States
vs Microsoft antitrust case.
The proposed settlement is seriously flawed in numerous
respects. It does not redress the market gains Microsoft has
achieved though illegal, predatory manipulation of OEM's, ISP's, and
customers to eliminate or control any and all competition to it's
monopoly in operating systems or office products, and extension of
that monopoly to networking middleware. It does not restrict
Microsoft from using it's
[[Page 27990]]
monopoly position in the future to again prevent consumers from
having effective alternatives to Microsoft products. It has several
provisions that provide legally recognized grounds for it to conduct
anti competitive behavior in regard to the open software movement
that now is it's only competition, as stated by Microsoft itself.
Lastly, it provides a completely inadequate enforcement mechanism.
I find that the proposed settlement simply does not serve
justice in that it provides equal consideration to Microsoft with
the Government in consideration of issues of enforcement. The
mechanism for selection of overseers that provides parity to
Microsoft is offensive on it's face. Add to that the requirement for
secrecy on their part, prohibiting one of the bastions of America's
freedom, the press, from revealing any information to the public
concerning Microsoft's implementation of the settlement will prevent
that most effective check on Microsoft's often egregious business
practices. Microsoft has been found guilty of illegal actions. The
settlement should reflect that fact and in my opinion it does not.
There are many other aspects of the settlement that are
seriously flawed that I will not detail. It does not deal
realistically with Microsoft's long history of predatory behavior
that continues to this day. Just yesterday, January 26, I read a
report of Microsoft denying information on .Net technology to an
developer because they refused to develop exclusively with .Net,
intending to support Java networking solutions also.
My comments on the proposed settlement are most respectfully
tendered.
Roger Sumey
4309 Snowdrop Court
Ellicott City, Maryland
(410) 465-6690
MTC-00027354
From: Jonathan Sorger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To U.S. Department of Justice:
I have been following the Microsoft antitrust case and have
noticed a disturbing pattern that has plagued the business
world...that competition is no longer the catalyst for developing
new products in certain markets...that monopolies continue to exist
and operate with impunity.
Former U.S. Senator John Tunney criticized Microsoft's
disclosure of its contacts with our government throughout the
antitrust case as ``inadequate''. Microsoft interpreted
his legislation, The Tunney Act, with tunnel vision; and ultimately,
to their benefit, as the case was settled with the U.S. government
and 9 of 18 states. Why have large corporations with their
Congressional lobbying groups become so influential in determining
the fate of the general public?
This is a company that produces a ubiquitous operating system
and now a ubiquitous internet browser; only because it has bullied
and squeezed out much of the competition over the years. I am an
Apple computer enthusiast, but I have to work in a Windows NT world.
Yes, I use some of Microsoft's products on both platforms. They do
make some good software. But is it good because they've lured or
snatched up many of the talented people that worked for their
competition at one time? Is it good because most consumers do not
know or care what else is available because Microsoft applications
were pre-loaded with their computer? I'd love to become a full-time
Linux user, but am forced to use the ever-pervasive Microsoft Word
because no alternatives exist.
Please do not make an already powerful company more powerful. I
will bewatching what develops with the European regulators, with the
9 remaining holdout states, as well as with the Netscape browser
case.
Thank you for providing a feedback mechanism to the public on
this important case.
Jonathan Sorger
Washington, DC
CC:[email protected]@inet
gw,[email protected]@inetgw,d...
MTC-00027355
From: Glenn Larson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the proposed settlement with Microsoft is a bad
idea. By allowing them to pay their fine by donating used Pc
equipment (running Windows OS no doubt) to our nation's schools,
they are simply guaranteeing themselves future money in support
contracts and a large user base which will require
``upgrades'' when the license on their current operating
systems expire.
Sincerely,
Glenn Larson
[email protected]
MTC-00027356
From: Earl Jenness
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Thank you for reaching a settlement in the Microsoft case. Our
economy is not in a position to grow with Microsoft tied up in
Court.
This settlement was reached after lengthy deliberations between
your department and Microsoft. The deliberations were aided by a
court-appointed mediator. The concessions are hard fought on both
sides, and should not be discarded.
If the settlement is implemented, there is serious potential for
both strong short term growth and sustained long term growth in the
computer industry and the economy. In the short term, the effects of
the settlement will be immediate. Computer makers will be allowed to
reconfigure Windows operating systems to add existing software
programs from non-Microsoft companies. In the long term, Microsoft's
agreements to revise its pricing practices and distribution
agreements will allow for sustained growth by providing incentives
for research and development.
I hope that common sense prevails and this settlement is
approved.
Sincerely,
Earl Jenness
MTC-00027357
From: Sexy Nye
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
An entrepreneur is someone who should be highly respected and
commended for their accomplishments. Unfortunately there are times
when you reach the top; you will find there are people who want to
bring you down. I feel this is what is happening in this case. Why
should Microsoft be punished for their exceptional success? In my
opinion the accusations of monopoly are false due to the fact that
competitors are still in business selling their software. It just so
happens Microsoft sells more. I feel it is untrue that users are not
able to use whatever software they choose. A computer only does what
a user tells it to do. If you tell the computer to uninstall a piece
of software and install another, it will do just that. Computer
users have a choice of what software they want to use. Microsoft
shouldn?t be punished for being #1.
MTC-00027358
From: Dennis Catt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
US Department of Justice,
I just wanted to give my idea of a practical solution. Though I
do not believe that Microsoft should open its source code to its
different applications, I do believe that Microsoft, and all
software companies open the source to text, graphic, audio and video
formats that are used and affect the internet. What it boils down to
is that people want to have access to all content on the internet...
it if being a video clip on CNET or a graphic picture or just simple
text that might be proprietary to one application. I believe that
software companies should share file formats of all types that range
from anything that affects the internet and even Office Suites. They
can keep their source code to themselves, since that is the bread
and butter of their product. But file formats do not need to be
proprietary, I think this will open the software industry to new
opportunities and horizons and help out the computer industry as a
whole. This would then keep from startup companies and companies
already in the field from being discouraged by Microsoft's anti-
competitive practices. As for the operating system issues, I believe
that the OEMs should be held responsible for neglecting the
consumers freedom of choice. I don't believe that OEMs should be
required to have to sell choice operating systems to their
customers, but offer technical support to both the developers and
the consumers. What I mean by this is that if I a customer calls
into let's say Dell or Gateway computers for information about if
their computers are compatible with a particular operating system,
they should have that information, and the information should be
readily available. Not only is Microsoft guilty of anti-
[[Page 27991]]
competitive behaviour, but the OEMs have helped Microsoft force
products on consumers, that don't realize that other options are
available, which has made the consumer believe now that everyone be
compatible with Microsoft's products. Also the OEMs of computer
hardware must readily provide information to other Operating System
developers and be held accountable if they discriminate any
developer in the market, including Linux and other such developers.
The truth is that software developers and consumers lose to such
actions of anti-competitive behaviour that has damaged the computer
industry as a whole and placed it in the turmoil that it is in now.
I feel that you will do what is best for the computer industry and
for the rights of the consumer. The most important thing look out
for and to protect is our freedom of choice... something Microsoft
has all but taken from us, the consumer. Thank you for your time and
I wish you good luck.
Best Regards...
Dennis
MTC-00027359
From: Amish Shah
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
I do not agree with the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ). As I am a
big advocate of technology and its advancement, I feel that
Microsoft does nothing but hinder its process. As it has been
obviously concluded numerous times over, Microsoft has made it very
difficult for software companies to compete on the same level with
its anti-competitives tactics. For ANY software company to compete
with the Windows operating system or Office suite applications it
would take tremendous dollars (billions most likely) to reach a user
base of Microsofts level. As I write this email to you, I am using
Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Outlook Express, I read an article on
the Internet through Microsoft Internet Explorer, and later tonight
I will write a paper in Microsoft Word. I can choose not to use
these software products, but when I wish to work with the rest of
the world out there electronically, I am left at the moment with
only one choice of Microsoft. It is very unfortunate.
Sincerely,
Amish Shah
Box 6251
518 Park Drive
Boston, MA 02215
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00027360
From: Nikesh J. Morarji
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir/Madam,
Microsoft has not at all received the punishment that it is due.
It is a bully in the marketplace and I for one support any decision
involving breaking the company or curtailing it's growth into other
areas. i.e. push it's Xbox machine as a trojan horse into living
rooms and solidifying Microsoft's control over the end user and the
marketplace.
Sincerely,
Nikesh J. Morarji
[email protected]
MTC-00027361
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:3lpm
Subject: Fwd: Has Your Opinion Been Counted?
Has Your Opinion Been Counted?
Earlier this month, you took part in a letter-writing campaign
to express your opinion of the antitrust settlement between the
Department of Justice and Microsoft. We would like to thank you for
your efforts and make sure that when we assisted you in organizing
your thoughts on paper, you were completely satisfied that the draft
letter fully expressed your own views in the matter. If you would
like any changes, we would be happy to make them now. The public
comment period on this settlement ends on January 28. The provisions
of the agreement are tough, reasonable, fair to all parties
involved, and go beyond the findings of the Court of Appeals ruling;
however, the settlement is not guaranteed until after the review
ends and the District Court determines whether the terms are indeed
in the public interest. If you would like your opinion to count, now
is the time to send in your letter! Please send your comments
directly to the Department of Justice via email or fax no later than
January 28. If you have already done so, or will do so in the near
future, please be sure to send a signed copy to the FIN Mobilization
Office, or simply reply to this email with a short note indicating
that you have sent your letter.
Please take action today, to ensure your voice is heard.
Once again, the Attorney General's contact information is:
Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or
1-202-616-9937
Email: [email protected]
FIN Mobilization Office contact information:
Fax: 1-800-641-2255
Email: [email protected]
Your support is greatly appreciated!
FIN Mobilization Office
MTC-00027362
From: Nels Christian Hansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'd like to begin with a recommendation: have some techies find
out where each comment came from originally and throw out the 5
trillion or so that come from the microsoft domain. If you don't
think they'd try to pull something like that, I refer you to http://
news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2102244,00.html .
I believe that the corporate culture at Microsoft has been and
shall continue to be one which flaunts its monopoly power over the
world, and some slap on the wrist will do nothing important. I'm not
sure which particular alternative solution would be best, but the
damage they have done to the software industry as a while in the
past several years has been astonishing. As a result of their
anticompetitive business practices, an excellent company (Netscape)
and its product were brought to financial ruin, software prices have
risen at a rate far greater than inflation to the point where a
simple operating system and office suite, microsoft windows and
microsoft office, cost nearly as much as 2 entire computers.
Additionalliy, they continually ``upgrade'' their office
suite for no purpose other than to force everyone to pay them extra
money and they design their product to not be fully compatible with
previous versions so that as soon as one person purchases it,
everyone is forced to. I would praise microsoft for its development
and implementation of new technologies at a rapid rate into their
operating system, but at the same time they don't seem to have any
respect for the concerns of us consumers regarding security,
oftentimes implementing new technologies without sufficient testing,
leaving systems vulnerable to security exploits. And then, when you
download the patches (and they refuse sometimes to explain what the
patches fix), new problems are introduced to a system which was
perfectly fine. And they can get away with it because they have no
competition. They are price gouging and under-innovating. Some
competition needs to be introduced somehow. One interesting proposal
I heard was break Microsoft into 3 companies all of which have
rights to all of Microsofts products (windows, office, IE), and then
allow the free market to reduce prices to a reasonable level, and
then whichever is the most innovative for the least cost will
triumph, whereas under the current system every time microsoft
releases a new anything it triumphes, even if it is worse than the
prior product (for example, windows ME, which crashed my computer so
much more than windows 98 that I uninstalled it and put 98 back on).
Something drastic must be done--or else everyone will be forced
to learn some archaic operating system like linux simply because
they can't afford the 10 trillion dollars microsoft is charging per
copy of Windows.
Nels Hansen
Undergraduate at Stanford University, in Stanford, California
MTC-00027363
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:31pm
Subject: MICROSOFE SETTLEMENT
GENTLEMEN;
PLEASE LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE. THEY HAVE BEEN HOUNDED
``ENUF. I HAD TO HAVE SOMEONE PROGRAM MY FIRST COMPUTER AT
GREAT EXPENSE. NOW WITH WINDOWS, WE CAN ALL RELATE TO EACH OTHER.
BILL SHOULD HAVE MOVED TO CANADA OR SOMEWHERE. SO OUR GOVT.;
COULDN'T BOTHER HIM. HE RECOGNIZES THAT WE HAVE TO LET OTHERS DO
BUSINESS AND HAS MADE CHANGES.
FRED D. WINTER
4660 MONTICELLO
BEAUMONT, TEXAS 77706
[email protected]
[[Page 27992]]
MTC-00027364
From: Tavis Barr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:34pm
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. I urge you to not accept the settlement that the Justice
Department and
Microsoft have proposed.
Microsoft has continually abused its control of bottleneck
facilities-- resources that it currently monopolizes--to
gain monopolies in new markets. It has used its monopoly in the
productivity suite market to help perpetuate a monopoly in the
desktop operating systems market, and it is now attempting to use
its monopoly in the operating systems market to create a monopoly in
the web services market that has the potential to be even broader
than the one it now enjoys.
A key in opening up these bottleneck facilities is to allow
third parties--both commercial and non-commercial--to gain
the ability to create alternatives for Microsoft products and
thereby prevent Microsoft from stacking one monopoly on top of
another. This would principally require opening up Microsoft's APIs,
and providing a strong guarantee that third parties would not be
subject to patent enfringement lawsuits for writing programs that
emulate these APIs.
The proposed settlement allows far too many loopholes to be seen
as a serious remedy. First, because so many forms of communicatiion
between computers and their subsystems involve authentication, an
exemption for not sharing security-related APIs could be interpreted
broadly by Microsoft as a requirement to share very little. Second,
the requirement is largely backward-looking: It does very little to
require Microsoft to publish the APIs for the .NET middleware that
it is currently using to develop a new monopoly in web services.
Third, Microsoft can still use End-User License Agreements to
prevent its own software from running with other people's
implementations of its APIs. Finally, there is no protection from
patent-infringement lawsuits for parties that attempt to duplicate
implementations of these APIs, or even a requirement that Microsoft
state which API implementations may be subject to patent-protection.
The lack of such information means that Microsoft can threaten
patent-infringement lawsuits to clients of its potential competitors
without providing any specifics as to what the infringement is.
There are many more flaws in the proposed settlement, but I
believe the above are enough to generate serious reservations about
adopting it. I thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Tavis Barr
Assistant Professor of Economics
Long Island University
202 Hoxie Hall
C.W. Post Campus, 720 Northern Blvd.
Brookville, NY 11548
MTC-00027365
From: William Moss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
Under the provisions of the Tunney Act, I am writing to add my
voice strongly against the proposed settlement of the case of the
United States of America vs. Microsoft Corporation (Civil Action No.
98-1232) as is encouraged. From my perspective, Microsoft's
anti-competitive practices have almost destroyed innovation in the
computer field today. No punishment can undo this damage as it is
now impossible to bring back the competitors that have been forced
out of business or into other markets. Please consider requiring the
proprietary standards Microsoft uses to lock developers into their
technologies to be opened to the public domain (if not the actual
source code, at least a well documented specification). Though there
are other problems with the settlement, this omission is one of the
most glaring to my eyes.
In summary, the currently proposed settlement between the USA
and Microsoft is insufficient and should be changed.
Thank you for considering my comments. I hope this missive
reaches you in time.
Mr. William Lorenzo Moss IV
225 Moss Side Drive, Athens, GA 30607, (706) 548-7273
3801 West Hayward Court, Tucker GA 30084, (770) 270-9217
MTC-00027366
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs. Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
STATE OF NEW YORK ex. Rel.
Attorney General ELIOT
SPITZER, et al.
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK)
vs.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant.
May it please the Court: I am writing to the Court as a
concerned citizen and member of the Texas Bar who is also an Adjunct
Professor of Law (Computer Law) at South Texas College of Law in
Houston, Texas.
I have observed the proceedings of the Microsoft Antitrust case
and now, under the provisions of the Tunny Act, I come before the
Court and pray that the Court considers the following remarks
regarding the Settlement between the United States Department of
Justice and Microsoft Corporation (the ``Settlement''), to
wit:
1. Microsoft has achieved its monopoly through careful
manipulation of the network effect. The network effect has been
discussed in other documents now before the court. Put simply, the
network effect is present when software developers create software
for a particular platform which attracts users. More users attract
more developers who develop more programs which attract still more
users, and so on. The critical aspect of the network effect is
communication. The core function of a network, after all, is the
transfer of information from one entity to another. Communication on
a network is accomplished through various means, including protocols
(such as TCP/IP), formats (such as the .doc format for Microsoft
Word documents), and application programming interfaces
(``API's''). Microsoft has purposefully devised formats
and protocols that are difficult to decipher and thus difficult for
competitors to create software that is interoperable with
Microsoft's products, thereby encouraging users to avoid non-
Microsoft products.
Microsoft adroitly exploited the network effect to protect and
extend its monopoly, in an illegal manner, by careful selection,
protection, and imposition of proprietary communication formats,
protocols, and API's. Microsoft protects its formats and protocols
with abusive copyright and patent legal actions against competitors.
2. Because Microsoft illegally maintains its monopoly by
manipulation of the network effect, any remedy imposed on Microsoft
must address Microsoft's ability to manipulate the network effect.
Competition cannot be restored unless and until Microsoft is
precluded from manipulating the network effect in an illegal manner
that maintains or raises the barrier of entry for competitors.
The Settlement is completely silent as to formats, and is almost
completely silent as to protocols and API's. Moreover, where the
settlement is not silent, the loopholes that have been afforded to
Microsoft will render those portions of the remedy impotent. For
example, in Part III (Prohibited Conduct) of the Settlement,
Microsoft need only provide an API set for Windows XP, Service Pack
1, and only for the API's used by Microsoft middlware. What if
Microsoft declares, as they have in the past, that Internet Explorer
is a part of the operating system and not part of middleware, and
thus Microsoft's API's to Internet Explorer remain unpublished. This
tactic could be used for any program that Microsoft desires, and
gives Microsoft the ability to circumvent the remedies of the
Settlement.
3. Microsoft must not be allowed to use patents to circumvent
any settlement or court sanctions. The Court should include within
the remedy a provision that precludes Microsoft from asserting
intellectual property rights that attenuate or otherwise defeat any
provision of the remedy.
4. Eliminate the OEM restriction. This is considered in the
Settlement with the Department of Justice. However, the language
used in the Settlement Agreement leaves wide latitude for Microsoft
to punish OEMs for displeasing Microsoft, simply by saying that the
sanctions imposed on the particular OEM by Microsoft is for another
reason.
5. Portions of the Settlement prejudice Open Source software
development -- Microsoft's only real competition. For example,
in Part III(E), Microsoft is required to allow third parties to have
access to the Windows Operating System Product for the ``sole
purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product,
on
[[Page 27993]]
reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.'' However, those terms
struck by Microsoft would certainly include a monetary royalty,
which would be prohibitively expensive for any open source project
that would otherwise compete with a Windows Operating System
Product.
6. There must be a ``fast track'' procedure for
settling disputes arising from Microsoft's behavior after the Court
has issued its remedy. The Court should take a cue from the
dissenting nine states had appoint some type of Magistrate who can
make decisions and impose sanctions on Microsoft before the damage
is done. Microsoft has a well established history of delaying
implementation of remedies until a technological circumvention for
those remedies has taken hold in the market. In other words,
Microsoft has in the past made technological changes in their
products that defeat conduct remedies and used tactical legal
maneuvers to delay rescission of the remedy-defeating conduct until
it is too late for the market restore the previous level of
competition.
7. What about punishment for ill-got gains? Can we allow
Microsoft to break our laws over the course of many years and pay no
fine? Is Microsoft to be allowed to retain the enormous sum of money
($34 Billion USD in cash alone) that it has received through the
inordinately high prices of its famously poor quality products? Is
the Court going to let crime pay and provide an example to future
Microsofts that violating the Sherman Act does indeed pay?
Conclusion: As the Settlement does not address adequately
Microsoft's ability to affect the network effect, and thus cannot
force Microsoft to change its behavior. Moreover, there is no
punishment of Microsoft for past wrongdoing, and thus the remedy
does not serve as a deterrent to future wrongdoing by Microsoft or
those who would copy its behavior.
Consequently, the Settlement is not in the public interest and
should be struck down by the Court.
Respectfully submitted,
Ronald L. Chichester
MTC-00027367
From: Michael Marking
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hash: SHA1
Sunday, 2002.01.27
Renata B Hesse
Antitrust Division
U S Department of Justice
by e-mail to [email protected]
Dear Renata B Hesse:
I am opposed to the terms of the proposed settlement
(``Stipulation'') in United States of America vs Microsoft
Corporation. (Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)) There are many
faults in the terms of the Stipulation. I will briefly list some of
the most egregious:
(1) The penalties proposed to be paid Microsoft Corporation for
past actions are wholly inadequate when viewed against the scope and
severity of Defendant's past actions. Although it is impractical for
the most part to attempt to restore conditions to those existing
prior to the unlawful conduct of the Defendant, Microsoft will be
allowed to retain almost all its unlawfully-acquired profits, and no
attempt is being made to compensate past or existing customers and
competitors in any way for their injuries. One of the most
profitable violations of the law in history is not being redressed.
(2) The development of open-source and free software is one of
the most innovative, vital, and fastest-growing segments of the
information services industry. It is also (by Microsoft's own words)
the strongest threat to their monopoly. By the inclusion of terms
allowing Microsoft to avoid licensing APIs and other information to
non-business entities, the Stipulation actually strengthens
Microsoft's monopoly. As such it works to achieve the opposite of
what is ostensibly desired.
(3) The details of the terms allow Microsoft to delay releasing
important information (such as APIs) until their value has been
considerably reduced, while allowing its own middleware and
application developers to use them early. This permits Microsoft to
continue to to act in the very way which is contrary to the law, to
use its monopoly in one market to further its own dominance in
another.
Microsoft's own developers in middleware and applications areas
have a distinct advantage over those of competitors, allowing
Microsoft to continue to use its monopoly in one market to unfairly
compete in other markets. This Stipulation does almost nothing
practical to remedy that situation. APIs should be published as soon
as the middleware and applications developers have access, not after
they have made use of them.
(4) Some of the terms are vague. For example, their is no
specificity with regard to the level of detail required for
documentation of interfaces and other technical information.
Although such matters are sometimes difficult to specify, in other
agreements it has sometimes worked well to make comparisons. (The
Stipulation might specify documentation quality, detail, and
thoroughness equivalent to that found in some other specific
documents. The comparative documents might even be certain ones from
the Microsoft Press.) Similarly, there are no definitions of
releases or other critical business and engineering activities and
events. Is an ``evaluation copy'' or ``test
copy'' given in advance of a beta to be excluded from the
requirements of the Stipulation?
(5) The ability of Microsoft to enter without restriction into
joint venture or joint development agreements is an easy way for
them to circumvent some of the other restrictions.
(6) Microsoft is free to use combinations of the various
loopholes (such as the joint venture or development clause in
Paragraph G) to put development of critical sections of the code out
of the reach of the restrictions given in the stipulation, folding
those technologies back into Microsoft when convenient for them.
Through back-licensing and option agreements, the requirement to
publish APIs in a timely fashion will have been avoided.
(7) The Stipulation focuses on desktop computers. However,
Microsoft and most of the rest of the industry feel that future
growth will be more in areas of entertainment, networks, and
embedded systems. Since there is an apparent surrender on the part
of the United States regarding past unlawful actions and profits, a
forward- looking agreement should at least consider the way
Microsoft's business will operate in the future.
In summary, the Stipulation seeks to bypass the law,
legitimizing conduct which violates the anti-trust laws. It is
little more than a sell-out.
Normally, I would think that the short (five-year) term of the
Stipulation is too short to be effective. However, under the
circumstances, this agreement may make matters worse rather than
better, so--if it is permitted at all--perhaps it should
expire after only a year. At that time, the Court should review how
well the terms of the Stipulation have worked to further the
interests of the people of the United States.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Marking
Bionic Buffalo Corporation
2533 North Carson Street, Suite 1884
Carson City, Nevada 89706-0147
[email protected]
MTC-00027368
From: Bert (038) Vivian Goff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This e-mail is to express my strong concern with and disapproval
of the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the government. I
urge that much stronger constraints be placed upon Microsoft than
now proposed. I am especially concerned about the monopoly situation
with pre-loading Windows on virtually all Intel systems sold. There
should be substantial unbundling of the software from the hardware
so that both consumers and business have a meaningful choice.
The situation with Office software is not much better, but here
I think the problem has more to do with Microsoft's control and
frequent changing of the file formats. I recommend that the solution
include public, free documentation of all file formats BEFORE
release of any office product upgrades. In addition, there should be
clear public documentation of ALL operating system (Windows)
functions used by Office.
Hopefully a settlement will address these issues and ensure a
much more open marketplace in the future.
Sincerely,
Bert Goff
Stoneridge Systems Consulting
56 Linda Lane
Bethel, CT 06801
e-Mail: [email protected]
voice: (203) 205-0150
MTC-00027369
From: Daryl L. Biberdorf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
[[Page 27994]]
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: opposition to proposed Department of Justice settlement with
Microsoft
I am writing today to oppose the proposed Department of Justice
settlement with Microsoft. I have been a professional programmer and
database administrator for approximately twelve years. I am the lead
author of the book PowerBuilder 5 How-To, published in 1996 by the
Waite Group Press (ISBN 1571690557). I have two primary problems
with the settlement. The first problem is that the requirement to
publish Microsoft APIs (III.D in the proposed settlement) could be
interpreted to mean that the interfaces may be made available solely
to commercial entities. The list of recipients of the published APIs
includes ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs. None of the definitions
of these terms refers specifically to individuals. As a programmer
(possibly as a hobbyist with a new idea working in my spare time), I
do not believe any of these terms requires Microsoft to publish
their APIs to me as a specific individual.
Microsoft should be compelled to publish their APIs, period. I
should not be required to declare myself an ``entity''
(which usually implies a business entity such as a partnership or
corporation) in order to study Microsoft's APIs.
The second problem is more serious. The proposed settlement
requires Microsoft to publish details of their communication
protools (III.E). However, this requirement is completely negated in
III.J.1, which explicitly ALLOWS Microsoft to refuse to publish APIs
involving encryption in numerous forms (anti-piracy, network
security, operating system security, etc.)
There are scant few communication protocols in this wired age
that do NOT require security or encryption or both. Basic protocols
like SMTP (the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, used for transferring
Internet email) can require senders to provide a username and
password or to have an identifiable domain name. Can Microsoft avoid
publishing their email protocols (or entensions to standard
protocols like SMTP) simply by claiming ``security''? The
next generation network protocol in use on the Internet, IPv6,
offers encryption as a CORE component.
That is, you cannot use IPv6 without encrypting the connection.
Microsoft can use III.J.1 to restrict publication of a CORE network
API under the claim of ``security''.
Additionally, Microsoft has modified existing STANDARD protocols
in such a way as to prevent interoperability with other products.
Perhaps the best example is Kerberos, a system of authenticating
users securely. Originally developed at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, it has become a standard technology in security-
conscious implementations. All UNIX vendors, Linux, and several
database vendors offer Kerberos implementations that easily
integrate and work together. Microsoft's implementation of Kerberos
in Windows 2000 was an ``extension'' of Kerberos that did
NOT interoperate at all. Can Microsoft prevent the integration of
their product with other products in use at a site simply by
claiming ``security''?
Microsoft has repeatedly altered the Windows file- and print-
server protocol, SMB, in order to foil the freely available Samba
implementation. SMB networking authenticates users, thus involving
``security''. Samba is offered by a group of individuals
working together across the globe. They are not an easily-
recognizable ``entity''. Thus, the two problems I have
discussed come together and make it impossible for the Samba team to
deliver a product enabling non-Microsoft systems to interoperate
with Microsoft products. This product is popular and effective. No
wonder, since it is significantly cheaper to implement that
Microsoft's solution. Does anyone doubt that, based on their
previous history of monopolistic practices, Microsoft would seek to
withhold details of Windows networking APIs on these grounds?
To recap, I oppose this settlement because it fails to protect
individuals'' ability to learn and study Microsoft's APIs and
because Microsoft will almost certainly refuse to publish APIs that
involve ``security'' in the broadest sense possible. This
settlement should be re-worked to remedy these problems.
Finally, I agree with the points made by Dan Kegel, whose
comments can be viewed at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html. I
add my support to his words.
Sincerely,
Daryl L. Biberdorf
2117 Larkspur Drive
Carrollton, Texas 75010
972.543.7535 office
214.731.8496 home
[email protected]
MTC-00027371
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:33pm
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,
McLaughlin Vivienne
HC. 82 Box 49
Marlinton, WV 24954
MTC-00027372
From: Steve Golowich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Antitrust Division:
Under the Tunney Act, I would like to comment on the proposed
final judgment (PFJ) in United States v. Microsoft. The PFJ is not
in the public interest. Of the many reasons why this is so, I would
like to emphasize the fact that the PFJ does too little to erode the
Applications Barrier to Entry. In particular, the PFJ does nothing
to prevent Microsoft's use of undocumented proprietary file formats
as barriers to entry in various markets. In my own daily work, I
often find it impossible to avoid using Microsoft products to read
files created by Microsoft Office and sent to me by others. This
situation must be remedied by forcing Microsoft to publish all of
their proprietary file formats, and more generally, any proprietary
protocols necessary to inter-operate with Microsoft products. This
issue will grow in importance with Microsoft's attempt to dominate
the internet with their .NET initiative.
Sincerely,
Steven E. Golowich, Ph.D.
41 Havenwood Drive
Livingston, NJ 07039
973-758-9249
MTC-00027373
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:38pm
Subject: Support For Microsoft To the Department of Justice,
With much respect, I ask the court to rule in Microsoft's favor.
A free society means a free and unregulated economy. Microsoft is
morally justified in conducting business in any way it wants, as
long as no fraud is committed.
Success should be praised, not punished in a free society
Marc Diamante
Pembroke Pines, FL
MTC-00027374
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge,
I am upset about the recent settlement between the Justice
Department and Microsoft (PFJ). The PFJ does nothing to stop
Microsoft from operating as a monopoly. Second, the settlement does
not punish Microsoft for clearly violating anti-trust laws in the
past. By letting Microsoft get away with its retaliation tactics,
bolting schemes, and attacks on Java a terrible standard is being
set. All these tactics lower competition in a suppossedly free
market and also limit softward standards. Finally, the PFJ does not
provide an effective enforcement mechanism for the weak restrictions
it does implement.
I would request that you do your best to overturn this
settlement.
Sincerely,
Tania Butler
248 Lincoln Street,
Lexington MA
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 27995]]
MTC-00027375
From: Tom Gwozdz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am opposed to the proposed settlement against Microsoft. It is
my opinion that the settlement is inadequate in providing
reparations for Microsoft's actions, and in preventing Microsoft
from commiting such actions in the future.
The settlement does nothing to prevent Microsoft from continuing
in its abuse of its monopoly. Futher, it does nothing to help repair
the damage that Microsoft has done to the software and computer
industries. It is my opinion that a new settlement should be drafted
to address these issues.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Tom Gwozdz
MTC-00027376
From: Christopher Scott Archibald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
the way i see what the settlement, your just giveing Microsoft
more power than before. They get to stay the way they are, and now
as there punishment they have you donate computer using there
software and to school and give support. Isn't the whole case about
how Microsoft became a Monopoliy. And now your giving them a chance
to make it bigger. What i see happening is Microsoft getting bigger
with the help of the US goverment. And how can we turst are
goverment when they help Monopoliys.
Christopher Scott ``Sugarbear'' Archibald
MTC-00027377
From: DHAVAL PARIKH
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
TO the Court
My opinion about the case of U.S. vs. Microsoft anti-trust is
that the act of monopoly done by the Microsoft is a serious concern
to the industry, users and the overall growth of the system. Today
Microsoft is one of the largest industries producing almost all
verity of applications and operating systems.
My Points against Microsoft
The settlement will make only temporary difference, as it has no
firm and fundamental action to solve the case.
The harm is that it is preventing the new companies to rise by
its uncompetitive price and product, a reaction of one company as a
whole.
Microsoft providing unnecessary software's (like Internet
Explorer and other application programs) with its operation system
has result in loss of many small web-based software companies trying
to grow.
Splitting of the company is the best option and in best interest
of the people and new companies.
Microsoft releases test version of its operating system for free
or nominal cost and thereby capturing the market letting no other
operating system to spread in market.
Microsoft has a great name in the so defined .com Internet
Company and now .NET, which is considered to be controlling the
whole e-commerce. But it is not a wise act for one company to
control nor is it possible to do so. It will result in overall
disaster and prevail to Internet to flourish in all aspects.
By ending my viewpoint I request the court to consider all
aspects in the betterment of people and industry and reinforce the
facts for positive results in future. sincerely
MTC-00027378
From: Jason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division:
Leave Microsoft alone. They have never used force, the threat of
force, or fraud, against their customers or competitors. Government
prosecution of any person or group for any other reason constitutes
an act of despotism. And that is exactly what the Sherman and
Clayton Acts have institutionalized: despotism.
The government does not know what's best for Microsoft, it's
competitors, or me--the consumer of products in the markets
Microsoft has entered. Everyone has the fundamental right to keep
and dispose of the products of their labor. This means me, and this
means Microsoft. If Microsoft wants to ``bundle'' its web
browser on Windows, but not Netscape's browser, that is Microsoft's
right. If Microsoft wishes to provide Original Equipment
Manufacturers with Windows only when those OEMs agree to refrain
from including a competitor's software, that is Microsoft's right.
If other people or firms do not like Microsoft's manner of business
conduct, they are free to refrain from doing business with
Microsoft.
Government imposition on the non-coercive business policies of
private citizens and companies represents a violation of the
inalienable individual rights recognized and guaranteed by the
United States Constitution. Antitrust is an immoral, impractical
system. Leave Microsoft alone.
Sincerely,
Jason Matthew Lewis
MTC-00027379
From: Michael Jochimsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a former employee of Microsoft who was part of the
engineering effort behind IE, I have followed the United States vs.
Microsoft case with great interest. Now that a Proposed Final
Judgment has been filed, I would like to offer my comments as part
of the public commentary provided for by the Tunney Act.
In order for the Proposed Final Judgment to meet the standards
of a remedies decree in an antitrust case, it must free the market
from anticompetitive conduct by the defendant, terminate the
defendant's illegal monopoly, deny the defendant the fruits of their
illegal actions, and prevent the defendant from abusing their
monopoly in the future. I will briefly examine the how the Proposed
Final Judgment addresses each of these requirements. A variety of
anticompetitive conduct was found in the course of the trial. This
included restrictive OEM contracts and restrictive and exclusionary
dealings with internet access providers and software developers.
Microsoft also engaged in a campaign to mislead, confuse, and
threaten software developers in an attempt to constrain Java, and
illegally tied their Internet Explorer (IE) browser software to the
Windows Operating System. The Proposed Final Judgment attempts to
address the restrictive OEM contracts by constraining the terms
Microsoft can use in OEM contracts. However, it only addresses a
segment of the OEM market, that being the 20 largest OEMs. Smaller
OEMs, including local and regional OEMs, are not covered by the
terms of the agreement and remain subject to prejudicial pricing and
uncertain access to Microsoft's operating systems. This is thus at
best a partial remedy, and leaves a significant portion of the OEM
market vulnerable to strong arm tactics.
Attempts are also made by the Proposed Final Judgment to
eliminate exclusionary contracts with OEMs, internet access
providers and software developers. However, an exception states that
Microsoft may enter into fixed percentage contracts if it is
``commercially practicable for the entity to provide equal or
greater distribution, promotion, use or support for software that
competes with Microsoft Platform Software'' (III.G.1.) Given
that zero cost competitors exist today (many Linux distributions
come to mind), this clause renders the prohibition effectively void.
While some attempt is made by the Proposed Final Judgment to
prevent Microsoft from threatening software developers, no effort is
made to prevent a campaign of the sort used to confuse and mislead
developers considering Java. To this day we continue to see
publicity efforts to marginalize Java, and we are seeing another
such campaign underway to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD)
about the viability of Linux (an alternative operating system). The
Proposed Final Judgment does nothing to constrain this behavior. The
limitations of the Proposed Final Judgment can be seen quite clearly
when one considers the means used by Microsoft to marginalize Java
on the desktop. As described in the Competitive Impact Statement
filed with the court, Microsoft pressured third parties not to
support cross-platform Java, used technological means to maximize
the difficulty with which Java applications could be ported from
Windows to other platforms, and used other anticompetitive measures
to discourage developers from creating cross-platform Java
applications. While some of the more explicit means used (payoffs to
keep applications on a single platform) are prohibited, most of the
means used to stifle Java could still be used under the Proposed
Final Judgment. This is a clear failure to address the very methods
which were used to uphold Microsoft's monopoly.
In order to eliminate Microsoft's illegal monopoly, the Proposed
Final Judgment ensures OEMs of the ability to include alternate
operating systems on personal computers without fear of retaliation.
[[Page 27996]]
However, this merely opens one distribution channel which had been
illegally closed by exclusionary contracts. It does nothing to
address other ways in which Microsoft's monopoly has been
maintained.
Microsoft has also maintained its monopoly by maintaining a high
Applications Barrier to Entry, as described in the Competitive
Impact Statement. One way to reduce this barrier is to provide a
middleware solution which allows developers to write to an
intermediate layer rather than to the underlying operating system.
This is the approach taken by Java, and several other computer
languages have taken similar approaches (Perl, Tcl, Python, and Ruby
are examples). Another alternative is to duplicate the entire
Windows API (application programming interface), allowing programs
written for Windows to run elsewhere.
The Proposed Final Judgment attempts to require non-
discriminatory documentation of the Windows API, but it only covers
that portion of the API used to communicate with middleware by
Microsoft applications. There is no requirement to provide non-
discriminatory documentation for portions of the API which are used
by non-Microsoft middleware, but not by Microsoft middleware.
Further, no requirement is made that the complete API be documented,
which means that Microsoft is under no obligation to aid an attempt
to duplicate the API in its entirety. Furthermore, section III.J.
explicitly permits Microsoft to exclude portions of the API which
relate to systems concerned with authentication, encryption, digital
rights management, anti-piracy, anti-virus, and software licensing.
These shortcomings effectively cripple any attempt to duplicate the
Windows API, and also serve to constrain the effectiveness of non-
Microsoft middleware systems. Consequently, the Applications Barrier
to Entry will remain high.
The Proposed Final Judgment also attempts to force the non-
discriminatory documentation of all native communication protocols
used to communicate with the Windows operating system. Again,
though, we find the security exception of section III.J. crippling
the intent. By simply requiring the protocol to begin with an
authentication exchange, the protocol can be barred from non-
Microsoft use. An analogy would be the case of a locked room, where
the contents of the room are described in full, but the key is not
available. Microsoft has already begun moving in this direction with
the Passport service in the NET initiative.
An additional barrier which exists for competing operating
systems are the file formats used by Microsoft applications. If
these formats were publicly available, then non-Microsoft
applications could attempt to provide the application functionality
on alternate operating systems, thereby increasing the
attractiveness of alternate operating systems. Without a public file
format, however, users remain locked into their existing
applications, and the applications must move to alternate operating
systems. Given that Microsoft is the single largest application
software vendor in the world, we can expect no movement in this
field. This is not addressed at all by the Proposed Final Judgment.
Finally, nothing in the Proposed Final Judgment would prevent
Microsoft from making use of forward incompatibilities to frustrate
middleware competitors. This tactic was used against DR-DOS when
Microsoft moved from Windows 3.0 to Windows 3.1. At that time,
Windows itself was middleware of a sort, sitting on top of the MS-
DOS operating system. DR-DOS was a work-alike operating system which
implemented all the functionality of MS-DOS, and which also would
allow Windows 3.0 to run on top of it. When Windows 3.1 was
released, it continued to run on MS-DOS, but when run on DR-DOS it
mysteriously failed. Whether Windows 3.1 actually checked for the
existence of DR-DOS, or merely made use of undocumented APIs within
MS-DOS, the effect was the same. With the exploding popularity of
Windows, DR-DOS shortly exited the marketplace. This same technique
could be used to ``break'' popular middleware going
forward from one version of Windows to another.
The fruits of Microsoft's illegal conduct have been continued
dominance of the personal operating system market, as well as new
dominance in the web browser market and marginalization of Java as a
viable middleware solution. At the very least a denial of these
benefits should promote non-Microsoft browser and middleware
solutions and constrain further attempts by Microsoft to grow in
these new markets. However, the Proposed Final Judgment does no more
than make alternate browsers and middleware possible (and
significant flaws exist in that attempt, as described above). The
inertia of the marketplace will likely leave IE as the dominant
browser for the forseeable future, as the cost to merely compete
with it would be prohibitive for all but the largest software
companies, many of whom are fighting defensive battles elsewhere.
The Proposed Final Judgment also makes no attempt to restore
Java as a middleware alternative, nor does it promote any other non-
Microsoft middleware systems. Nor is Microsoft itself constrained
from further middleware development. The C# language and common
language runtime (CLR) specified in Microsoft's .NET initiative
match many of the middleware features of Java. It is expected that
Microsoft will use this to attempt to further marginalize Java as a
middleware solution. Yet no mention of .NET is made in the Proposed
Final Judgment, even in its definition of Microsoft middleware.
Several provisions are made within the Proposed Final Judgment
to prevent Microsoft from again abusing its monopoly position with
regards to middleware. However, absolutely no provisions are made to
prevent leveraging the monopoly to expand into other markets, such
as server operating systems, handheld computers, and game consoles.
Yet these are all markets that Microsoft is actively trying to
expand into, and they are already using their monopoly in desktop
operating systems to leverage the server market. Unless the proposed
remedy delimits the extent that Microsoft's monopoly can and cannot
be used when moving into new markets, we can expect to find another
antitrust suit wending its way through the courts within a few
years. The Proposed Final Judgment also delineates procedures for
enforcement. Key to enforcement is the appointment of a technical
committee of three individuals, one to be chosen by the plaintiffs,
one to be chosen by the defendant, and one to be chosen by these two
individuals after their selection. This seems contrary to common
sense, however. It is unusual for an organization convicted of
wrongdoing to be allowed an equal say in the choice of personnel to
enforce compliance. While Microsoft should be allowed to object on
reasonable grounds, it seems to me that the selection of the
individuals charged with ensuring compliance should remain strictly
with the Enforcement Authority, which under the Proposed Final
Judgment would be the Plaintiffs.
Furthermore, the technical committee and their staff are
strictly prohibited in their communications outside of Microsoft and
the Plaintiffs. Thus, they shall disappear from public sight for the
duration of their duties, and the only communications which they
will make will come through the Plaintiffs or Microsoft. As a member
of the public I can see no need for such a gag order to be placed
upon the technical committee. Certainly they will have access to
confidential documents and trade secrets, but this restriction of
all public communication strikes me as excessive.
Moreover, whether or not Microsoft still has a monopoly, or is
still abusing its monopoly, the Proposed Final Judgment will
terminate in seven years. This even if Microsoft engages in a
pattern of willful violation of the Proposed Final Judgment. A hard
limit of this sort begs to be abused as the end of the term nears,
and we may well find ourselves back in the courtroom once again. The
Proposed Final Judgment manages to check Microsoft on some fronts,
but does not get to the core of the problem. Some of the
anticompetitive conduct exercised by Microsoft is prohibited, but
some remains. Rather than removing the monopoly, it allows it to
continue, and may in fact allow new barriers to be raised preventing
erosion. Microsoft is not significantly penalized for their abuses
in the past, and in fact are allowed to retain their dominant
position in the web browser market. The means used to deflect Java
are not addressed, and .NET is ignored as an important new
middleware product. Microsoft is not prevented from leveraging their
monopoly to extend into other markets, as they are currently doing
in an attempt to dominate the server operating system market. In
conclusion, the Proposed Final Judgment fails to meet the standards
of an antitrust case remedies decree, and as a result fails to serve
the public interest.
Michael Jochimsen
MTC-00027380
From: Tom Bryan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am disappointed with the provisions outlined in the
``Stipulation and Revised Proposed Final Judgment'' in
United States v.
[[Page 27997]]
Microsoft Corp., Civil No. 98-1232. After reading Judge
Jackson's findings of fact in this case, I had expected a much
stricter remedy.
I am a professional software engineer and a computer hobbyist. I
use 4 different operating systems almost every day, and only one of
those is a Microsoft operating system. I program in several cross-
platform (i.e., the same program runs unmodified on different
operating systems) computer languages, including Java, Python, and
Perl. Because Microsoft has a monopoly on PC operating systems, I
must always consider how my programs will interoperate with
Microsoft's operating system and the applications that Microsoft
bundles with its operating system in an abuse of its operating
system monopoly. I am extremely concerned by the stifling of good,
innovative ideas by Microsoft's monopoly.
In its current form, the ``Stipulation and Revised Proposed
Final Judgment'' does not appear to directly address
Microsoft's business practices that lead to its conviction for
abusing its monopoly power in the PC operating system market.
Microsoft has been able to leverage its operating system to force
its applications as ``de facto'' standards. The only ways
to prevent Microsoft from continuing to abuse its monopoly in this
way are to force it to produce complete documentation of its file
formats and APIs or to forbid Microsoft from bundling any
application with its operating system. The first option would permit
competitors to create solutions that interoperate with Microsoft's
products and operating system. Users could choose these competing
products if they desired because they would still be able to
exchange documents and connect their systems to systems running
Microsoft's operating systems and applications. The second option
would force Microsoft's application developers to compete directly
with other application developers to sell products to run on
Microsoft's operating system. The second option would be difficult
to enforce without splitting Microsoft into multiple companies.
Although the proposed final judgment contains provisions
requiring the release of documentation, non-commercial entities seem
to be ignored in the list of parties who might request the
documentation. Since several of the most viable competitors to
Microsoft's operating system monopoly (e.g., GNU/Linux, GNU/HURD,
and FreeBSD) are developed by individuals in a volunteer or non-
commercial capacity, I fear that Microsoft will use the exclusions
in the proposed final judgment to stifle competition from these
developers.
Many businesses that do not directly use one of these operating
systems still use software and middleware developed for one of these
operating systems in their commercial products. For example, my
company's software requires a product developed by volunteers called
SAMBA to share files with Microsoft operating systems. If the SAMBA
developers were unable to access appropriate API documentation from
Microsoft, it would cripple of the functionality of my application.
I also program for a non-profit organization in my free time. I
am concerned that this organization will not be able to access the
documentation it needs from Microsoft in developing its software.
Excluding non-commercial entities from accessing documentation of
Microsoft file formats, communication protocols, etc. is an
unacceptable restriction that would place non-profit organizations
and volunteer programmers at an unfair disadvantage when attempting
to interact with Microsoft's operating system. It would also stifle
some of the products that are crucial in the current competition to
Microsoft's operating system.
As a user of the GNU/Linux PC operating system, I would like the
remedy to require Microsoft not to certify any hardware as working
with Microsoft software, unless the hardware's complete
specifications have been published, so that any programmer can
implement software to support the same hardware. Since Microsoft has
a monopoly on PC operating systems, many hardware vendors only
release their specifications to Microsoft. To further competition to
this operating system monopoly, others need hardware specifications
to develop competing solutions. Coupling Microsoft's hardware
certification with a requirement to make the hardware specifications
openly available would put pressure on hardware manufacturers to
foster competition in the PC operating system market.
I find the current proposed final judgment in this case to be
completely unacceptable. I feel that the Department of Justice is
permitting a company that was convicted of abusing its monopoly in
my industry to return to the same abusive business practices. I see
no provision to prevent Microsoft from bundling applications with
its operating system, which would seem to be the most logical remedy
since it was originally charged with unfairly bundling a browser
with its operating system. Although the remedy contains provisions
to require the release of documentation by Microsoft, those
provisions contain too many loop holes that permit Microsoft to
exclude the competitors it fears the most, such as the developers of
the GNU/Linux operating system and supporting software. I would like
to see these deficiencies in the proposed remedy corrected.
Tom Bryan
Senior Software Engineer
Itron, Inc.
MTC-00027381
From: Dea Biberdorf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:43pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: opposition to Microsoft settlement
I would like to write to oppose the Microsoft settlement with
the Department of Justice. I oppose this settlement because no part
of this document requires Microsoft to publish their proprietary
file formats. Without a complete knowledge of the format it
impossible for competing products to even IMPORT files from
Microsoft products properly. I cannot open a Word document in
OpenOffice and expect it to work. There are simply too many details
that Microsoft does not publish. The original findings of fact in
this case note that these proprietary formats are part of the
Applications Barrier to Entry. This settlement does not help in
addressing this problem.
Sincerely,
Dea L. Biberdorf
2117 Larkspur Drive
Carrollton, Texas 75010
214.731.8496
[email protected]
MTC-00027382
From: High Mobley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello. My name is High Mobley, and I am a systems and network
administrator in Athens, GA. I am writing to tell you that I find
the currently proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case to
be insufficient. I believe that it does little or nothing to
actually punish Microsoft for its illegal monopolistic abuses of
which it has been found guilty. In my mind, Microsoft should not
only be punished for its past monpolistic abuses, but should also be
prevented from the same and similar abuses in the future.
The currently proposed settlement attempts to restrain Microsoft
from committing future abuses of its monopoly power. However, it
seems that there are simply too many loopholes that, based on its
past actions, I feel certain Microsoft will be eager to take
advantage of.
In order to encourage Microsoft to truly change its abusive
behaviors, I think that there should be strong penalties levied
against it for the abuses that brought about the current legal suit.
Microsoft's offer to buy computers for underfunded schools is a bad
idea because it would allow Microsoft to gain a stronger foothold in
the minds of today's schoolkids, who will become tomorrow's business
managers and IT directors. Why let Microsoft reward themselves? I do
think that the company RedHat had a wonderful idea that Microsoft
would give money for computer hardware only, while Redhat will
donate operating system and application software, and provide free
software upgrades in the future as well.
In order to ensure that Microsoft not repeat its past mistakes,
I would like to see strong limits upon its ability to sell and
market its products in ways that allow it to exert control over
other businesses in the marketplace. Certainly requiring open API
documentation is an ideal method to accomplish this, except that it
could be rather difficult to enforce. This is a difficult situation
to create easily enforceable remedies for! Perhaps splitting the
company into three separate and wholly independent companies is not
such a bad idea after all. Each company would be an exact replica of
the current Microsoft, with Windows, Office, etc. in their stables.
Then let competition take over from there.
You have a very tough row to hoe! My best wishes to you all in
the DOJ who are working on this case. Keep up the good fight and
[[Page 27998]]
know that the American public appreciates your every effort to bring
about remedies which benefit the general marketplace.
High Mobley
Network Specialist
Advantage BHS
Athens, GA
MTC-00027383
From: David W
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/27/02 11:43pm
Subject: microsoft anti-trust case
CC: [email protected]@inetgw
Dear Mr President and U.S. Department of Justice,
I would like to express my opinion concerning the Microsoft
anti-trust case. Microsoft's use of its operating systems to gain
customers for its web browser, Internet Explorer, instead of
Netscape, violates the anti-trust act. When a buyer purchases a non-
Macintosh computer, a Windows operating system is included. Bundled
with this operating system is Windows web browser Internet Explorer.
Because Windows is the main operating system used in America, and
Internet Explorer is included with it, Netscape is not given a very
large available market. Microsoft should not be allowed to use its
almost complete monopoly of the operating system market to gain a
monopoly of the web browsing market. Although Microsoft has been
sued by many state justice departments, this issue has not been
resolved.
Microsoft's payoff of the state justice departments was not a
fair punishment for their actions.
The small amount of money Microsoft agreed to pay was nothing
compared to their large profits.
Their agreement to follow antitrust regulations without state
interference is ineffective because there is no way to monitor
whether or not they are following through with their agreement.
Examples of monopolies and trusts that were created illegally can
also be seen in history.
One example of a trust that was illegal was John D.
Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company. Rockefeller used his company's
resources to buy out his competition. As he reported to a
congressional committee investigating trusts, or industrial
combinations, he felt that industrial combinations were a good
thing. One main difference between Rockefeller and Bill Gates is
that Rockefeller realized that industrial combinations could have a
large amount of power which could be abused. He also realized that
there would need to be some amount of ``state supervision, not
of a character to hamper industries.''
AOL Time Warner's suit against Microsoft for Netscape's loss of
income should be allowed to continue in that Microsoft abused its
power by closing the web browser market. The state settlements that
Microsoft made should be reconsidered, and the government should
continue its investigation into Microsoft's operation system
monopoly.
Sincerely,
David Woolsey
8th Grade Student at The Harker School,
San Jose, California
MTC-00027384
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wanted to second this letter which was sent previously. I also
am in the high tech industry and see how Microsoft out maneuvers the
legal processes to dominate the market in any way possible. Any
resolution which provides more exposure for Microsoft products is
meaningless. A user spends significant amounts of effort becoming
familiar with their operating system of choice and the potential
expense of changing systems has never been adequately appreciated.
In addition to this, rather than repeat anothers eloquent
statements I will just voice my approval and copy Kasten's email
below.
Thank you for your time,
Douglas Rusch
TO: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
FROM: Scott Kasten
2120 Manor Dr. Apt 116
Lexington, KY 40502
To the Honorable Court:
As a citizen of the United States and 15 year veteran of the
high-tech industry it is both my right, and duty to file comments
with the court in the case of U.S. vs Microsoft anti-trust action as
described under the provisions of the Tunney Act. I have chosen to
write the court because activities of the Microsoft Monopoly have so
seriously harmed my industry, that not only have they harmed the end
consumer, but they have seriously impaired my ability to work in
this industry.
I will begin with a brief summary of my main points before
expounding upon them in greater detail with specific facts.
Basically, the proposed settlement is unacceptable when viewed in
the interest of the public and industry for the following reasons:
[1] The settlement was not written with a proper perspective of
the industry as a whole in mind.
[2] The way the settlement is written, it only provides remedy
in regards to the current Microsoft platform. Microsoft is already
putting their exit strategy to a new platform in place which will
have the effect of making the settlement obsolete before it even
goes into effect.
[3] There are language inaccuracies that leave the efficacy of
the settlement in doubt.
[4] The settlement has very few provisions to remedy Microsoft's
most publicly damaging weapon which is their End User License
Agreement (hereafter known as the EULA).
Now I will explore each item in greater depth so the court can
better understand what actions need to be taken to fix the proposed
remedy.
[1] I will start with a brief industry perspective since that
forms the root of objections 2 through 4. In the industry, it has
been recognized that operating systems in general have moved from
the status of a high-end, high-value product offering to a mere
commodity in the same fashion as the use of electricity or
telephones did in the early part of the 20th century, or even the
computer hardware itself in the latter part of the 20th century.
There has not been anything truly new or totally innovative in
operating system technology in about the last 15 years or so.
Indeed, modern operating systems are based on ideas spawned in
universities over 30 years ago, most of which was perfected at least
20 years ago.
Most operating system vendors in the industry have already
recognized this and adapted their business models to account for
that. Although one would think of IBM, Sun Microsystems, HP, and
Silicon Graphics Inc. (now known simply as SGI), as operating system
vendors, that view would be somewhat incorrect. Their business
models evolved to become hardware and consulting/service vendors
that sell packages. Each workstation purchased from SGI comes with
an entitlement to run certain releases of SGI's IRIX operating
system based on its serial number; operating system upgrades are a
rather miniscule portion of their revenue stream. They are even
offering a Free operating system (Linux) on some of their offerings.
Sun Microsystems gives their operating system away free of charge
for personal or non-commercial use, and even makes the source code
available without charge to developers that need to inspect it to
improve their software offerings that run on Solaris. Both HP and
IBM, most notably IBM as of late, have been making steps to move
away from their proprietary operating system offerings to Open
Source alternatives such as Linux and various flavors of BSD; both
companies have moved to the sale of hardware or software
applications and consulting services maintain the cash volume of
their revenue streams. And of course, with the decline in market
value of proprietary operating systems, we have seen the rise in
interest and importance of Open Source, or Free operating systems
such as Linux, and BSD to take the place of the proprietary ones.
Companies that have failed to recognize this have perished.
Witness the dismantling of Digital Equipment Corporation by Compaq,
a commodity equipment and services vendor, The acquisition of Santa
Cruz Operation (SCO Unix) by Caldera, a company that is known as a
Linux specialist. Novell nearly perished trying to maintain their
business model around Netware, but finally appears to have turned
things around when they refocused on applications and services the
past couple of years.
The real focus in the computer industry is not on operating
systems or platforms so much as it is in cross-platform
applications, hardware support, and user interfacing. Basically,
John Doe with a new digital camera wants to snap some pictures,
retouch them on the computer, and make some nice glossy prints for
the relatives. He doesn't even want to know anything about the
operating system his computer runs, he wants the camera to function
with his IBM PC running a PC operating system as well as it does
with his friend's Macintosh running MacOS.
In the history of this industry, Microsoft is truly unique. They
have maintained and
[[Page 27999]]
increased their market share and position not through real product
innovation, but through predatory practices that resulted in them
becoming a monopoly. The maintenance of that monopoly is what has
allowed them to keep an artificial floor on the value of the
operating system products they offer. Notice the use of the term
value here instead of price. Price is what a consumer pays, value is
a reflection of the consumer's need. Naturally, the need affects the
price one is willing to pay, so there is an interrelationship at
work that implies the consumer is paying too much, which I'll
explore further in item 4.
[2] Although Microsoft has managed to keep an artificial floor
on the value of their operating system products through monopolistic
practices, even they realized that the inevitable pressures to
marginalize the operating system would become too great for even
them to bear. Thus they planned its obsolescence. The new target
development platform of choice is going to be the .NET
infrastructure. Ancient PC's had a BIOS containing the BASIC
programming language/operating system that was permanently embedded
in their ROM memory. As full fledged disk based operating systems
came about, they marginalized the BIOS. None of the BIOS products
these days has a built in programming language. It's only roll is to
pull the disk based operating system in off disk now. It has no real
apparent value to the end user of the system that rarely even
notices the brief BIOS messages that flash by as the system boots
up. No one programs to that interface anymore. Microsoft is trying
to do the same thing to their own Windows operating system and
replace it with .NET. Windows will become little more than a fancy
video display driver. No one will program to it anymore. The .NET
infrastructure will be the actual target for most future software
development.
This is also where I begin to find specific faults in the
settlement as written. In section III. Prohibited Conduct, please
reference paragraph D. The terse form of which basically says,
``Microsoft must publish in full their programming APIs for the
Windows operating system.'' The .NET framework is not
specifically mentioned anywhere in the document, but presumably fits
in under the definition of ``Middleware'' as described in
sections VI.--J and VI. K. There is no section or language
which indicates that they must fully disclose the middleware APIs.
This is a fatal flaw as Microsoft has publicly acknowledged the
corporate strategy shift from software publication on the Windows
operating system to the .NET infrastructure running on top of it.
Thus they can repeat the vendor lockout cycle again on a
``whole new'' platform, unhindered by the terms of this
settlement.
Further, section III.-J, paragraphs 1 and 2 cause me grave
concern, particularly in light of the .NET strategy. Section J in
summary provides government granted exclusions. Paragraph 1
basically states that Microsoft may keep any programming APIs,
methodologies, and information about network protocol layers that
relate to anti-virus protection, authentication, or encryption
secret. Paragraph 2 allows Microsoft carte blanch to determine to
whom they wish to share that information for purposes of
interfacing. This goes against what is generally accepted as
``best practices'' in the industry.
It is accepted practice that network protocols and interfacing
standards are proposed and peer reviewed in standards committees
such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) or the World Wide
Web Consortium (W3C) to provide for better design, functionality,
robustness, and security. Items related to authentication, and
encryption in particular need the critical attention of peer review
due both to the complexity of such systems, and the importance of
the data protected by such systems. It is also accepted practice
that the architecture is open so that anyone may produce their own
implementation of the standard so that products from different
vendors can interoperate freely. After all, that is the end goal, to
connect one user with another.
Microsoft has in the past proven their incompetence in the
implementation of cryptographic systems and security in general.
Witness the introduction of L0pht Crack (pronounced
``loft'') which could pull encrypted passwords from the
Windows NT registry thanks to its flawed cryptographic
implementation. The numerous viruses such as Sircam, Love Letter,
Nimbda, etc. that have exploited weaknesses in Microsoft's security
interfaces. My point here is not to bring new evidence to the court,
but more to make the point that sensitive systems related to
security, authentication, and encryption need to be designed under
the intelligence of multiple parties. Hence the peer review and
refereeing process that is so widely used in the industry. It also
helps prevent one party from subverting the standards for their own
ends.
Micrsoft intends for the .NET platform to help provide a new
infrastructure for information storage, security, and
identification/authentication, that will help drive a future
Internet based economy. With the help of standards committees,
implementations from multiple vendors, and so forth, this could be a
good thing for society. However, it is far from the public's best
interest for one company to own the whole thing. If there's only one
implementation, then any security flaws discovered, and experience
shows there will be many, can bring down everything. Furthermore,
independent companies need to have access to interfacing standards
for something as important as this to provide consumers choice in
the products and services space connected with this platform.
[3] I have already voiced some concern over where .NET fits into
the settlement agreement. However, there are other specific
inaccuracies in language and specificity that could render the
agreement unenforceable.
In this matter, I would like to refer the court to a very
thorough analysis compiled by one Dan Kegel and other parties
available on the web here: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
Mr. Kegel has also submitted, or is in the process of submitting,
this document to the court for inspection as part of an open letter
with many co-signers as his contribution under the Tunney Act. I
will not waste the court's time re-iterating what he has already so
carefully documented except to state that I AGREE IN FULL with the
assessment provided in that document.
[4] Towards the end, of the document, Mr. Kegel begins to
address some issues regarding the EULA agreements that Microsoft
imposes on their product users. The settlement makes no requirements
for change to potentially predatory practices in Microsoft's EULAs.
Unfortunately, that is one of Miscrosoft's tools for manipulating
and harming the consumer, and other parts of the industry.
Mr. Kegel points out that the Windows Media Encoder EULA
prohibits distribution of certain redistributable components when
accompanied with application components that were licensed under a
Free or Open Source license. And that the Microsoft Platform SDK and
Visual C++ development environment have in their EULA a clause that
can make it illegal for you to distribute and run your own created
application on a Windows compatible platform such as a Windows
emulator on a Sun, SGI, or Macintosh computer, or a PC running Wine,
IBM 0S/2, or Trumpet Petros, all of which are Windows alternatives.
He also points out that some Microsoft utilities such as NewsAlert
state in the EULA that they are forbidden to be run on non-Microsoft
operating systems.
To those examples, I wish to add a few more.
Microsoft uses the EULA to tie their Windows operating system to
the PC on which it was purchased. This means that when a user
trashes a PC, he cannot use the same copy of Windows on the new PC,
but must instead purchase a new and redundant copy of Windows to be
fully in compliance with the licensing agreement. As PC technology
dates quickly, users who must update frequently are legally bound to
purchase redundant copies of an operating system that they already
have, thus helping Microsoft to maintain its revenue stream on what
should have already been a commodity item. In the present, Microsoft
with the advent of Windows XP has already implemented software EULA
enforcement that prevents users from upgrading too many components
of their system before they have to go back to Microsoft and re-
license the same operating system install on the same PC.
Indeed, Microsoft used to offer a refund for unwanted copies of
their Windows software product with this language in the EULA,
``If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, PC
manufacturer and Microsoft are unwilling to license the software
product to you. In such an event ... you should promptly contact PC
manufacturer for instructions on a return of the unused product(s)
for a refund. ``However, after an unsuccessful campaign on by
many users to claim such refunds on an organized ``Windows
Refund Day'' on Feb 15th, 1999, people discovered that
Microsoft and its vendors had no intentions of honoring that clause
and had no effective refund channel in place., and it appears to
have since been removed from the licensing agreement.
Microsoft attempts to limit the constitutionally provided right
to free speech
[[Page 28000]]
in the EULA contained with the Microsoft FrontPage 2002 product for
web publishing. It sates, ``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.'' So if I publish an article on the web using MS
FrontPage such as a product performance benchmark that Microsoft
finds unfavorable, have I indeed violated the EULA? Whether or not
these agreements are actually enforceable if a matter of legal
opinion that I am not qualified to evaluate. However, what is clear
is that Microsoft has cleverly left itself some channels through
which it can attempt to tie individuals or businesses up in court
when it finds their actions displeasurable. The potential legal
costs alone have a chilling an dampening effect in the industry.
In closing, I beg the court to find the proposed settlement as
lacking in enforceability and effective remedy. This settlement
needs to be rejected and reworked keeping the points that I have
outlined above in mind.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Scott Kasten
This message was sent using Us.Net Webmail.
MTC-00027385
From: Keith Schmidt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
In accordance with provisions in the Tunney Act, I am writing
this to comment on the proposed settlement in the anti-trust case
U.S. v Microsoft.
I am a software developer both professionally, and as a
hobbyist. I have written software for Microsoft operating systems
(DOS and Windows 95/NT) as well as for several variants of Unix.
I believe that the proposed settlement is very seriously flawed
and should be abandoned. Firstly, the proposed settlement does not
adequately punish Microsoft for the detrimental effect on consumers
caused by their abuse of their operating system monopoly. Secondly,
the behavioral remedies proposed are insufficient, and in several
cases, unworkable.
The Court should note that this is not the first time Microsoft
has used its monopoly on the Windows operating system to drive a
direct competitor (with a then-superior product) out of business
using illicit, if not illegal, means (see Caldera v Microsoft
regarding Digital Research's DR-DOS). Microsoft has also been
documented to provide extra functionality in some operating system
API's which are disclosed to Microsoft application developers, but
not to third party application developers (see Microsoft v Intuit
regarding undocumented system calls). Furthermore, this case is not
the first time Microsoft's anticompetitive marketing practices have
been brought before the Court (see the first U.S. v Microsoft case
and the resultant Consent Decree). Moreover, as their violation of
that same Consent Decree brought about this current case which
resulted in the judgment against Microsoft, I believe that forgoing
punitive damages and relying on Microsoft to police its own behavior
is unconscionable. I do not have the time to illustrate all of the
flaws which I find in the proposed settlement, I will choose a few
representative ones. Firstly, I will address the broad exemption
given to Microsoft to avoid disclosure of all API's and protocols as
they relate to security. If the Court has not been made aware,
during the course of this comment period, it was disclosed that the
integration of the Internet Explorer browser with the Windows
operating system carried with it a massive security flaw. This flaw
allowed a malicious person free reign to take over any Internet-
connected machine so configured.
As such, it could easily be argued that all API's relating to
Internet Explorer and its integration with Windows should be exempt
from disclosure due to security concerns. If this is the case, the
settlement will fail to address the core of the case which
culminated in Microsoft having been judged an illegal monopolist.
Secondly, as per the proposed settlement, Microsoft may elect
not to divulge its API's and protocols to any organization which is
deemed to not have a viable business plan. This exemption may be
used to exclude several key classes of application developers.
Primarily, this will affect Open Source and Free Software projects,
many of which are based on the efforts of hobbyists and are not
backed by companies with business plans (viable or otherwise). As
Microsoft faces much of its current competition form such projects,
it would be unconscionable to stifle these under the guise of
punishing Microsoft. Secondarily, entrepreneurs will be dissuaded
from competing against Microsoft. For example, Microsoft could
determine that any company seeking to write a better version of,
say, Internet Explorer does not have a viable business plan. More
importantly, such a company would have to announce its intent to
compete (via its business plan) before being allowed to examine
Microsoft's API's. This alone would give Microsoft a competitive
advantage unknown to any other company in any industry in the world.
Lastly, I wish to address the implementation of the three-person
technology committee proposed to oversee Microsoft's compliance with
the proposed settlement. The only parallel I can devise for the
utter absurdity of having two of the three members chosen or
approved by Microsoft is the Colombians allowing Escobar to build
and staff his own prison. Even ignoring the fact that they will be
provided benefits by Microsoft (such as office space) while serving
on the committee, the amount of oversight required to ensure
compliance is far greater than three people can reasonably be
expected to accomplish. For example, if they chose to audit Windows
XP to ensure that it contains no code designed solely to degrade the
performance of other vendors'' applications, It would take them
the rest of their natural lives merely to read through the hundreds
of millions of lines of source code involved, let alone to analyze
its effects.
In conclusion, I hope that I have successfully explained why I
feel that this proposed settlement is deficient, and that the ideas
within this comment will be considered when the proposed final
judgment is revisited. I believe that a structural remedy would be
preferable as it would require less continuing oversight. Barring
that, I would like to see at a minimum enforced public disclosure of
all API's, protocols and file formats, because, without the help of
large numbers of software developers who are not affiliated with
Microsoft, effective oversight will be impossible. Microsoft claims
that these are their exclusive intellectual property. Be that as it
may, they are also the core of the monopoly, and the strength behind
the documented abusive practices.
Sincerely,
Keith Schmidt
MTC-00027386
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is truly amazing that a company that has done so much for the
productivity of a nation should find it the subject of a lawsuit. If
the consumer does not want to buy it, they vote with their feet. The
only monopoly I know of that has ever existed was accomplished
through government legislation and collusion. The market has never
permitted one.
If everyone is so upset with Microsoft, let them use OS/2, Unix
or any of the other operating software on the market.
This is just plain wrong. The right would be for the judge to
say the people have spoken in the market place. No further comment
or abjudication is necessary.
Sincerely,
Captain Russell Cowles
A300 Captain at, but not speaking for, American Airlines
MTC-00027387
From: Jeffrey E. Harris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:39pm
Subject: Comments on the Proposed Microsoft Settlement
CC: Randy Steer,Allan Villabroza
My name is Jeffrey Harris. I currently work as a network
administrator and software developer for a company that provides
computer services to both government and industry. The company I
work for has established a number of partnerships, the most
significant ones being a Microsoft (MS) Solutions Partner and a
Lotus/IBM Business Partner. I hold Microsoft Certified System
Engineer and Microsoft Certified Systems Administrator
certifications on the Windows 2000 Operating System, and the Windows
NT operating systems, and I have worked with all versions of
Microsoft Windows (both server and desktop versions where
applicable) from Windows Version 2 to Windows XP in both a
professional and personal capacity. I also hold certifications from
Lotus Development on their Groupware Applications (Lotus Notes/
Domino). I believe that my qualifications, as well as over 10
[[Page 28001]]
years experience working with computers and computer networks,
including MS and non-MS products, make me well qualified to comment
on the proposed MS settlement. Please note that I speak as both a
computer professional, and as a consumer.
Also note that nothing in this message reflects the opinions or
position of the company I work for, and I am acting ONLY in my own
personal capacity in submitting these comments.
I ask that my comments be entered into the Federal Record, and
considered by the presiding judge in determining the Court's final
decision. I also ask that the Department of Justice acknowledge
receipt of my comments.
My comments are based on a review of the original government
complaint, the proposed settlement, and the Justice Department's
Competitive Impact Statement (CIS), as published on the US
Department of Justice's (USDOJ) website, and the Appeals Court's
ruling as published on the Appeal Court's website.
Executive Summary: I STRONGLY oppose the MS Settlement in its
current form. In my opinion, the agreed-to settlement will do
little, if anything, to restrict MS'' abusive and illegal
monopolist practices, and will mainly serve to prevent the
government from documenting and presenting any future abuses for
legal sanctions. I cannot see how the settlement that is proposed
even pretends to remedy the antitrust violations for which MS has
been found culpable, and how it will meet the required standard of
remedying anti-competitive practices that have harmed consumers. The
company has been found in violation of Federal Anti-Trust Law, and
this is the penalty phase of the case, but the settlement contains
no penalties and actually advances MS'' operating system
monopoly in a number of ways, as I discuss below. I recommend that
the Court either reject the proposed settlement outright, or modify
the settlement to close the numerous loopholes identified below. I
have provided some additional remedies for the Court's
consideration, which are not part of the proposed settlement, but
which, in my opinion, will further the public interest, if adopted
by the Court.
Background: The United States and several of the states filed
suit against MS claiming violation of various provisions of the
Sherman Anti-Trust Act. After a trial, and appeal, a ruling was made
and upheld that MS monopolized the PC Operating Systems market in
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The US Court of Appeals
remanded the case back to District Court, for, among other things, a
new determination of penalties for this violation. The Court asked
the plaintiffs and MS to attempt to reach a settlement acceptable to
both sides that would address the practices that MS was found guilty
of.
An agreement (which was subsequently revised) was reached by
both parties, and the revised agreement presented to the Court for
approval. The US Department of Justice, in accordance with Federal
Law, has solicited public comment on the proposed settlement.
Comments on the proposed agreement:
General Comments: This agreement focuses too much on middleware
and middleware products (as defined in the proposed agreement); for
my discussion in this section, I refer to them both as simply
``Middleware''. The original complaint against MS does not
mention Middleware at all (I did a word search for
``Middleware''). However, the provisions of the
settlement, with few exceptions, focus on Middleware. The USDOJ in
the CIS (page 2) states that the Appeals Court upheld the conclusion
that MS acted to protect its operating system monopoly from the
threat of Middleware. Yet, the Appeals Court's decision only
mentions Middleware 39 times in a 43304 word opinion, and while the
decision did address MS'' objections to the District Court's
decision, some of which were based on the exclusion of Middleware as
a mitigating factor in MS'' favor, the Appeals Court decision
looks beyond that. Both the original Trial Court, and the Court of
Appeals noted in their rulings that Middleware, in and of itself,
does not provide enough incentive for users that it would end
MS'' illegal monopolistic practices. Therefore, in my opinion,
the proposed agreement wrongly focuses on remedying MS''
illegal actions by trying to promote competition in Middleware.
Furthermore, the ultimate goal of any settlement from this anti-
trust action should be the promotion of competition that allows
users a choice in the selection of operating systems. USDOJ (on page
25 of the CIS) reminds us that ``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 anti-competitive consequences.'' The
Appeals Court Decision stated ``From a century of case law on
monopolization under (2) however, several principles do emerge.
First, to be condemned as exclusionary, a monopolist's act must have
an ``anti-competitive effect.'' That is, it must harm the
competitive process and thereby harm consumers. In contrast, harm to
one or more competitors will not suffice. ``The [Sherman Act]
directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even
severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy
competition itself.'' Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506
U.S. 447, 458 (1993); see also Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 225 (1993) ('Even an act of
pure malice by one business competitor against another does not,
without more, state a claim under the federal antitrust laws ....
``).''
I do not really see where the proposed agreement meets any of
the criteria the USDOJ lists, nor is there any substantiation by
USDOJ in the CIS of how the proposed agreement will definitively
benefit consumers. From my reading of the document, the proposed
agreement does not directly provide any benefits to the consumer;
the benefits accrue to OEMs, ISVs, IAPs, and ICPs, with the
expectation that the benefits may flow through to consumers. For
example, allowing OEMs to provide dual operating systems on PCs for
consumers does consumers no good if the OEMs choose not to provide a
choice of operating systems, and similarly for middleware. For this
reason alone, the Court should reject the proposed agreement as
being inadequate.
Specific comments:
Paragraph III A. purports to restrict any retaliatory behavior
against any OEM (i.e., computer manufacturer) for exercising its
rights under the proposed agreement, or for various activities
related to non-Microsoft software. However, nothing in this
paragraph discusses the right of an OEM to ship a computer system
without an operating system at all. Although most new computer
systems have a version of a Windows operating system installed, it
is virtually impossible to buy a PC from any major OEM without a MS
operating system, let alone a non-MS operating system, and the price
of that operating system is passed along as part of the cost of the
system, whether the consumer wants it or not.
USDOJ (on page 27 of the CIS) states that MS can only base
consideration on the absolute level or amount of the OEMs support
for the MS product or service, rather than on any relative level or
amount. What does ``absolute'' mean, and how can this be
enforced?
Also, the USDOJ discusses (on page 28 of the CIS) that OEMs are
protected against sudden loss of Windows licenses. However, MS can
still cancel licenses AFTER the 30 day opportunity to cure, which
could still result in continued anti-competitive behavior by MS.
This provision also does not prohibit MS from retaliating
against an OEM that makes a good-faith complaint against MS alleging
a violation of the proposed agreement, which is either not brought
forward to the Court for action, or is ruled as not being a
violation of the settlement. In essence, an OEM would have to
consider whether or not the harm it believes it may be suffering
from MS as a result of a purported violation of the proposed
agreement is worth additional penalties it may suffer from MS if the
Court does not agree with the purposed violation (or no action is
taken by the Plaintiffs), and does not redress them.
Paragraph III B addresses the requirement for MS to license its
software using uniform royalties, and to make available to the
covered OEMs and Plaintiffs information on the royalty schedule. The
proposed agreement does not provide for public access to this
information.
Paragraphs III B2 and B3 allows MS to specify
``reasonable'' volume discounts based upon the volume of
licenses. What is considered ``reasonable''? Who will
decide if MS is specifying ``reasonable'' discounts? The
lack of definition of ``reasonable'' is one reason to make
the royalty schedule public, so that if the public believes that MS
is not being reasonable, it can ask its government representatives
in the USDOJ and the various states to take action.
Furthermore, when discounts are based on volume of licenses, it
provides incentive for MS to continue to push for the installation
of a MS product on EVERY system that an OEM ships, since the more
that are installed, the bigger the discount for'' the OEM. This
flatly contradicts the purpose of the proposed agreement to curb
MS'' monopolistic practices.
USDOJ (on page 29 of the CIS) defends this provision, noting
that it is based on
[[Page 28002]]
``verifiable criteria'', which is ``uniformly
applied''. Yet, this ``verifiable criteria'' could
still be biased in favor of MS--for example, a requirement that
a browser provide an integrated Windows logon capability. Most
browsers, including Internet Explorer, provide a capability to allow
users to access remote servers that restrict access based on user
accounts.
Internet Explorer also has a capability to ``pass
through'' a user's credentials in a way that no other mass-
market browser has (unlike other browsers, there is no need for a
user to enter a username and password). Therefore, MS could include
this as a ``verifiable criteria'', which would be heavily
biased in favor of Internet Explorer.
Also the USDOJ (on the same page of the CIS) defends the
selection of the 20 largest OEM for protection. However, no data is
provided for what percentage of all Windows licenses those 20
largest distribute compared to the total universe of OEMs, and
compared to all Windows licenses distributed from all sources.
Furthermore, there is no protections for end users who buy retail
copies of MS products, instead of obtaining them through the
purchase of OEM systems. Since consumers MUST be the ultimate
beneficiaries of any anti-trust action, there needs to be relief for
these purchasers as well.
Paragraph III C4 prohibits MS from restricting ``dual
booting'', but again, if the OEM chooses not to provide this
option, or chooses not to provide an option to purchase a pre-
installed non-MS operating system, nothing will change for
consumers. Therefore, focusing this relief on OEMs is misplaced.
Clarification for Paragraph III C5: Does ``initial boot
sequence'' refer to setup of the program, or the initialization
of the operating system after the operating system is installed and
the user starts, or restarts, the computer? Please add this term to
the list of definitions in the proposed agreement.
Paragraph III D requires two different release dates for
operating system documentation and APIs; one is tied to the earlier
of the release of Windows XP Service Pack (SP) 1, or 12 months; the
other is tied to a ``Timely Manner'' as defined in the
proposed agreement, and purportedly applies to operating systems
released after Windows XP. Note that Windows XP is the client side
operating system for the latest release of a MS Windows Operating
System. The corresponding server version is now called ``.net
server'', and is still in Beta test. Therefore, if MS releases
the last beta of .net server prior to the release point based on
Windows XP SP1 or 12 months, which requirement applies?
Also, what is considered ``a new version''? For
example, MS released Windows 98 Second Edition (SE) as a
``new'' version of the Windows 98 operating system, yet
many people (myself included) feel that Windows 98 Second Edition
was really just an upgrade or SP release to Windows 98, and yet MS
implicitly recognized that by providing a special ``step
up'' installation version of Windows 98 SE that could only be
used by owners of the original Windows 98 version.
Paragraph III E requires disclosure of communications protocols.
However, MS could sidestep the requirement in this provision by not
including the protocol in the operating system distribution itself,
but instead require an add-on product to provide the capability; the
add-on would be distributed either by automatic download to clients,
or other means of distribution to client systems other than
including it in the operating system distribution. For example,
Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, and Windows NT 4.0 machines
require an ``add-in'' package (an ``Active Directory
Services Client'') to interoperate in certain ways with Windows
2000 servers. This software is not included with those operating
systems, but is available for download from MS, or from the
appropriate Windows 2000 server installation CDs. The USDOJ (on page
39 of the CIS) explicitly acknowledges this limitation of the
proposed agreement.
Paragraph III F discusses retaliation by MS against companies
that exercise options under this proposed agreement. However,
Paragraph III F1, similar to what was noted above for Paragraph III
A, does not prohibit MS from retaliating against an ISV or IHV that
makes a good-faith complaint against MS alleging a violation of the
settlement, which is either not brought forward to the Court for
action, or is ruled not a violation of the proposed agreement. In
essence, an ISV or IHV would have to consider whether or not the
harm it believes it may be suffering from MS as a result of a
purported violation of this agreement is worth additional penalties
it may suffer from MS if the Court does not agree with the purposed
violation (or no action is taken by the Plaintiffs), and does not
redress them.
Paragraph III F 2 grandfathers any current restrictions between
ISVs or IHVs and MS under the proposed agreement, but goes on to
allow MS to craft partnership agreements that would prohibit these
companies, such as the one I work for, from entering into other
partnership agreements with companies that compete with MS (i.e.,
Lotus/IBM since their e-mail system competes with MS'). This one
provision could nullify the entire benefit the USDOJ is trying to
achieve for the ISV/IHV community, and could actually serve to
STRENGTHEN MS' anti-monopolistic practices.
Paragraph III G discusses MS agreements with independent
companies such as ISVs and OEMs. MS could avoid the restrictions in
this paragraph by establishing joint development efforts that bind
the other party--in essence, by providing substantial
consideration to induce companies to establish such efforts. In
addition, MS could avoid the restrictions in this paragraph by
licensing intellectual property (IP) for its exclusive
use--thereby making such IP unavailable for non-MS products,
either for direct incorporation into those products, or for
indirectly use as middleware to achieve interoperability with
Windows operating systems. Again, this provision could nullify the
entire benefit the USDOJ is trying to achieve for the ISV/IHV etc.,
community, and could further serve to STRENGTHEN MS'' anti-
monopolistic practices. For example, in the CIS, USDOJ discusses
(bottom of Page 14) how MS coerced Apple to adopt Internet Explorer
in exchange for continued development of MS Office for Apple
systems. Such behavior would still be legal if it is part of a joint
development effort or investment in Apple by MS.
MS could also establish fixed percentages for distribution of MS
products. Using the example cited by USDOJ (on page 44 of the CIS),
an IAP could agree to ship Windows Media Player on 70% of its
software distribution if it can show it is commercially feasible for
it to ship 70% of its software distribution with a non-MS media
player. While it may be commercially feasible, that is not the same
as being competitively advantageous for it to ship the non-MS media
player, particularly if MS is paying it substantially more to ship
Windows Media Player. Such action could ultimately result in the
loss of competing products as a result of MS'' deep pockets and
marketing muscle with IAPs.
I note that III G 2 prohibits MS from offering IAPs placement on
the desktop in exchange for IAPs agreeing to refrain from using
competing non-MS Middleware Products, yet nothing prohibits MS from
offering a quid pro quo for an IAP--placement on the desktop
(which need not be a formal part of any agreement) and a percent
placement in the IAPs distribution packages (as discussed in my
previous paragraph) in exchange for significant payments by MS.
Paragraph III H discusses requirements for MS to allow removal of
Middleware and Middleware products by end users. MS could avoid the
requirements of III H 1 by separating Middleware Products (as
defined in the proposed agreement) from the operating system as add-
ons, and enabling automatic download to clients (or perhaps by
requiring OEMs to install them separately from the basic operating
system on their systems, but nevertheless pre-installing those
components as well). Such ``Middleware Products'' (in
quotes because software as discussed in this scenario does not meet
the definition in the proposed agreement) may be required for full
functionality of the operating system, yet, because they do not meet
the formal definition of Middleware Products in the proposed
agreement, would not require the uninstall capability.
Paragraph III H also could invoke a ``poison pill''
response by requiring the enablement of either all MS Middleware
Products or all Non-MS Middleware products as a group; for example,
a user may be forced to pick Windows Media Player and Internet
Explorer over a non-MS browser and media player because he dislikes
Internet Explorer, and would prefer a non-MS browser, but feels he
needs to have Windows Media Player. While there is still an element
of choice in this scenario, the available options are not
necessarily desirable to users, and implicitly may favor MS, because
users may stick to products they know, rather than ones they do not.
There are also a number of important additional exceptions to
the applicability of Paragraph III H. First, MS can avoid the
provisions of this paragraph by carefully crafting Middleware
Products to require the type of functionally which excludes it from
this provision.
Second, a significant number of systems with Windows operating
systems do not
[[Page 28003]]
connect to a server outside the Internet, yet those systems can be
bound by the restrictions that apply for systems that DO connect to
servers. Since most systems that do not connect to servers outside
the Internet are those purchased and used by consumers, this
exclusion will have the biggest impact on them. Third, the
provisions apply essentially to existing technology as of the
previous operating system. Therefore, when MS releases a new
operating system, it is not bound to the provisions of this
paragraph for any new Middleware products until and unless it
carries the product forward to the next succeeding Windows operating
system, or it releases that Middleware less than seven months prior
to the last beta test version of that new operating system.
Also, what is ``a server maintained by Microsoft''Is
that an Internet accessible server operated by MS or a subsidiary to
provide specialized services, such as Hotmail or Passport? Or is it
a computer running a Windows server operating system? Please
clarify. If it is the former, why should consumers be locked into
accepting a Microsoft Middleware Product, particularly if they do
not intend to ever use the MS servers?
Paragraph III I discusses requirements for MS to license its IP.
However the restrictions of this paragraph, particularly Paragraph
III I 3, may unduly restrict the development of non-Microsoft
middleware or other rights contemplated by this agreement. For
example, if Sun Microsystems wants to obtain MS IP for the purposes
of making its Java Virtual Machine interoperate with Windows XP, MS
could restrict the ability of Sun to distribute the Virtual Machine
to other ISVs for the purposes of building software applications
that run on that Virtual Machine, undermining the intent of this
provision.
Furthermore, Paragraph III I 5 requires that any company that
seeks to assert its rights under the proposed agreement may have to
license its IP to MS. The USDOJ's discussion in the CIS not
withstanding, I do not understand why a company would need to submit
to MS ITS IP to assert its rights under the proposed agreement; this
requirement could serve as a mechanism to restrict companies''
reliance on the proposed agreement, since companies may have to
consider whether it is in their best interest to license their IP to
MS, and they may decide that they should forgo protection under the
proposed agreement, rather than share sensitive IP information with
MS, which is NOT the intent behind the proposed agreement. Companies
should not have to make such an onerous choice.
Paragraph III J discusses restrictions and rights MS has in
licensing documentation and API information, and in my opinion, this
paragraph provides the best means for MS to avoid compliance with
many other provisions of the proposed agreement. First, in Paragraph
III J 1, MS is permitted to not disclose API and other information
related to anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital
rights management, encryption or authentication systems. The USDOJ's
description of this exclusion as ``narrow'', and comments
in the CIS (page 53) notwithstanding, such exclusions serve to only
undermine the intent of the proposed agreement, and limit the
benefits to anyone outside MS. For example, MS is developing a new
strategy (``Dot-NET'') that provides for distributed
application and transaction processing across a network of servers,
and is incorporating the capability for doing this in its soon-to-
be-released .NET server software. Any distributed application
processing MUST provide capabilities for securing transactions, and
yet, under this exclusion, MS would not be required to release
necessary APIs or documentation to allow non-MS Middleware and
applications to compete equally with MS software. Similarly, MS
would not have to release salient potions of APIs for Windows Media
Player (which incorporates Digital Rights Management APIs) or APIs
that non-MS anti-virus software manufacturers could use to improve
the performance of their products (for example, obtaining
information about how scripts that are run using MS'' native
Javascript or Visual Basic scripting engines, since this could touch
upon how MS incorporates anti-virus measures into the engines to
protect against certain types of virus-infected scripts).
USDOJ also states this provision is necessary for MS to comply
with ``lawful orders'' of federal agencies to not disclose
certain information on security grounds. To my knowledge, no such
``lawful orders'' currently exist, and even if they do, or
will so in the future, the wording of this paragraph could have been
tailored to say exactly that no more and no less. As the wording
stands, it goes well beyond being able to comply with such
``lawful orders'' Second, Paragraph III J 2 allows MS to
place restrictions on licensing APIs, communications protocol and
documentation relating to the functions discussed in my previous
paragraph. An API, or a communications protocol, and their
associated documentation generally provide the means for calling a
function from the operating system (for example, accessing a file on
a computer) without explaining all the details of how the underlying
mechanism operates (for example, the file format of a
``token'' necessary to verify that the user is authorized
to access that file).
In many cases, communication protocols themselves are publicly
defined and available on the Internet for review, particularly those
that relate to the Internet. Therefore, I do not understand how
restrictions on the release of such information harm MS; however, I
do see harm to consumers and independent software writers (i.e.,
individuals who author and market their own software, generally as
``freeware'' or ``shareware'' via the Internet)
since the necessary information that software writers need to write
software that competes with MS Middleware Products may be
unavailable, and therefore their products will be unavailable for
consumers to select in place of an equivalent MS product.
Paragraph IV A 3 restricts the ability of Plaintiffs to release
information provided by MS except as it may relate to an enforcement
action, and under certain other conditions. Such restrictions limit
the availability of information that may be useful in private
litigation against MS that relates to the proposed agreement, but
which the states and the USDOJ, for whatever reason, do not use to
bring enforcement actions against MS. In essence, short of an
enforcement action, this provision makes it difficult for the public
to know if MS has breached the proposed agreement, and more
difficult for others to prove that they did so. Paragraph IV B 2
discusses requirements for individuals to serve on the Technical
Committee (TC). The requirement for individuals to be ``experts
in software design and programming'' unduly disqualifies a
large class of individuals who are experts in administering
computers, but who do not write software. TC members also need to
know how to administer systems, since software design alone may not
reveal obvious restrictions (i.e., a vulnerability due to a specific
operating system configurations that falls outside the scope of the
software design itself or Middleware Products that require a
specific hardware configuration in operational systems that again is
outside the software design itself).
Paragraph IV B 2 a specifies that a TC member shall not have
been employed by a competitor, unless agreed to by both parties. How
is a competitor defined? Since MS makes a large range of software
and hardware products, and provides a range of services, including
Internet access, does this mean that any employee in any company
that makes software or hardware for systems that utilize MS software
or hardware or provides services in markets that MS competes, such
as Internet access, would be prohibited from serving on the TC
without approval from both sides? I believe that the term should be
defined explicitly and narrowly in the proposed agreement from its
possibly broad usage (i.e., competitors are the 20 largest ISVs, and
the 20 largest IHVs based on license revenue to MS, the 20 largest
IAPs, and the 20 largest service providers for support on MS
software and hardware, based on annual revenue).
Paragraphs IV B 9 and 10 place restrictions on members of the TC
and their staff, including requirements to treat all information as
confidential, and prohibitions on public statements. Such
restrictions limit the ability of the public--who are supposed
to be the ultimate beneficiaries of this agreement--from being
informed on substantial or even individual issues with regard to
MS'' compliance with this proposed agreement (the TC is allowed
to keep complainants informed on the status of complaints made to
the TC, but only to the extent it does not breach their restrictions
in this paragraph). Again, should the Plaintiffs not make an
enforcement action against MS as a result of TC action (an issue
that I will discuss further in my next paragraph), purported
violations of this agreement may never be made public.
Paragraph IV D 4 d prohibits any work product, finding, or
recommendation by the TC from being admitted in an enforcement
action against MS for violation of this proposed agreement. This
provision, in my opinion, will fatally cripple the ability of the
Plaintiffs to pursue an enforcement action. Even if this provision
only applies to
[[Page 28004]]
voluntary dispute resolution activity (and it is not clear to me
that such a limitation applies, even though it is in the section for
voluntary dispute resolution), it is highly likely that prior to an
enforcement action, the Plaintiffs would pursuit voluntary dispute
resolution with MS, thus prohibiting, in this scenario, the
admission of any TC work in a subsequent enforcement proceeding.
The Plaintiffs may also wait to see a pattern of behavior, and
then act. Many individuals or small company make use of the dispute
resolution process to seek redress against violations of this
agreement by MS. If the Plaintiffs then decided to seek an
enforcement action based on a compilation of those complaints, no
further use of information that the TC produced could be used in the
subsequent enforcement action.
I also believe that the restrictions of this paragraph may go
well beyond the literal bar on enforcement actions. Although USDOJ,
in the CIS (page 59), has stated that this restriction would not bar
subsequent enforcement actions based on derivative use, nowhere in
the proposed agreement is this explicitly stated. Therefore, MS may
have a viable argument--based on precedent for limited immunity
in criminal cases--that any evidence compiled by the Plaintiffs
that relies on, or is derived from, TC materials may be inadmissible
because it was only available as a result of, or knowledge of, TC
work, and therefore is indirectly admitting TC work. Whether or not
such a defense would succeed would not be known until, and unless,
the Plaintiffs bring an enforcement action, and the courts rule on
such a motion and any appeals. Therefore, I believe that this
provision should be stricken from the proposed agreement to prevent
any bars on future enforcement actions.
Section V discusses termination of the proposed agreement. While
I offer no opinion as to whether or not five years is an appropriate
and equitable period for the proposed agreement to last, I highly
question the benefits of possibly extending the proposed agreement
for another two years, should MS engage in a pattern of willful and
systematic violations (a charge that may be difficult, if
impossible, to prove, based on my previous comments). Why should the
same prohibitions for another two years cause any change in
MS'' behavior, if the previous five have not? I remind the
Court that this is the THIRD enforcement action against MS in the
last 10 years.
Definition J is for ``Middleware''. I see several
problems with this definition. First, Middleware must be
trademarked. Should MS want to evade the provisions of this proposed
agreement, it merely has to not trademark any Middleware. While MS
may lose some legal rights should it not trademark a given
Middleware, it may still hold ``branding'' rights with
regard to the Middleware (i.e., the name ``Topaz'' may not
be trademarked for a future version of an e-mail client, but
everyone associates Topaz as its relates to e-mail with MS), and it
may be to MS'' advantage in any given case to NOT trademark a
specific piece of Middleware.
Second, the definition requires that the Middleware in question
must update the appropriate Middleware Product to the next major
version number, as that term is defined in the paragraph. However,
MS can avoid the invocation of this definition by changing the way
it versions products. Instead of a release changing a Middle product
to version 6.1 from 6.0, for example, the Middleware changes the
version to 6.01 or 6.0, Service Pack 1. Both of these latter
nomenclatures are ones that MS uses today. With such nomenclature, a
``Middleware'' release may NEVER trigger the definition,
and the restrictions accorded such a release under the terms of the
proposed agreement.
Third, the Middleware in question must contain user interface
elements. Although USDOJ (on page 18) tries to defend this
requirement, I believe it only serves to undermine their intent.
User Interface can apply to either the Middleware Product itself, or
the interface of the Middleware installer (the redistributable file
which installs the Middleware for the user). If USDOJ is referring
to the Middleware installer, then I concur with this part of the
definition. If they are referring to the Middleware Product itself,
then any Middleware that provides updates without changing the user
interface is not covered. For example, MS releases service packs for
software, which fix bugs in the operation of the software (for
example, how a program utilities memory) but do not change the user
interface. Therefore it this interpretation applies, then Middleware
that does not include updates to the user interface would not meet
the definition. At a minimum, I recommend the definition of
``user interface'' be clarified'', and also that this
particular part of the definition of Middleware be revised, should
``user interface'' apply to the Middleware Product itself.
The forgoing discussion on Definition J concerning trademarking
also holds for Definition K. However, note that Middleware Products
must also be considered part of a ``Windows Operating System
Product''. As that term is defined in the proposed agreement
(see discussion of Definition U below), software that would
otherwise be considered Middleware Products may not be if 1) it was
NEVER distributed separately from the operating system or 2) MS
defines the operating system product as not including that software.
Definition N, and the requirement for distributing one million
copies of a software product in the last year for the definition to
apply, in my opinion, prevents smaller ISVs and individuals from
receiving the protections contemplated by the proposed agreement.
One of my primary concerns is that since individuals and companies
cannot seek protection or redress under the proposed agreement
unless their products meet the distribution requirement, MS can
suppress competition from these products by the same methods it has
in the past, and also prevent these products from reaching a
critical distribution where they could become a direct threat to MS.
For example, Opera is a web browser that competes with Internet
Explorer. Unless Opera meets the distribution requirements, MS could
prevent Opera developers from obtaining necessary information they
require to provide the same capabilities--or better--that
MS puts in Internet Explorer. Therefore, Opera could conceivably
disappear from use, restricting consumer choice and competition. The
USDOJ (on page 21 of the CIS) defends this provision, arguing that
products that have not been demonstrated as being competitive and
chat may be unknown to MS do not deserve protection under the
proposed agreement. However, as I stated, this provides incentive to
MS to crush any possible competition before it can grow''. to
be significant (which can occur very quickly), and I strongly doubt
that MS would be unaware of any software that is rapidly being
adopted by consumers. A much lower threshold, such as 1000 copies or
20,000 copies, make more sense to me, and would better achieve the
same intent without unduly burdening MS.
Definition U is for ``Windows Operating System
Product''. MS, and MS alone, defines what constitutes a Windows
Operating System Product. Therefore, as discussed above, MS has the
ability to control what is considered Middleware and Middleware
Products, and thus the overall scope of the proposed agreement, by
how it defines a Windows Operating System Product. There must be a
more restricted definition, for example, core services that required
for an application to function or everything that is included on an
installation CD (although as previously discussed, that particular
definition is subject to manipulation as well), rather than MS being
allowed to define the term to its best advantage.
Recommendations: I recommend that the Court reject the proposed
agreement as written. The proposed agreement fails to meet the basic
requirement, articulated by the Appeals Court, that any agreement
provide benefits and promote competition for consumers. Nothing in
this agreement directly benefits consumers, and all the of indirect
benefits depend on the willingness of independent companies to
innovate in a way that will benefit consumers. If the proposed
agreement is approved by the Court, the only beneficiaries of the
proposed agreement may be the 20 largest OEMs, various IAPs and
ICPs, and some ISVs and IHVs, but even that is not certain, based on
MS'' past practices, and the number of limitations in the
proposed agreement as discussed above.
Furthermore, a number of provisions will inhibit enforcement of
this proposed agreement, should MS violate it. Therefore, it is very
conceivable that the proposed agreement may only serve as a
toothless tiger--ignored by MS, and unenforceable by the
Plaintiffs. If the Court wishes to use the proposed agreement as a
framework for injunctive relief, I recommend any proposed agreement
or injunction include the following changes:
1. MS should be prohibited from retaliating against any company
that files a complaint alleging a violation of any proposed
agreement or injunction, whether or not the complaint is pursued or
upheld. However, MS would be allowed to seek restitution from a
company that filed a complaint only if it could show bad faith or
reckless disregard on the part of the company that filed the
complaint.
2. MS would be allowed to cancel licenses for Windows software
issued to any company
[[Page 28005]]
that would be protected under any proposed agreement or injunction,
but only after demonstrating to either a majority of the Plaintiffs
or the Court it had a legitimate business interest in doing so.
3. Provide public access to royalty and licensing information
for companies that would be covered under any agreement or
injunction. Specific company identification need not be disclosed.
Define what is reasonable in terms of volume licensing.
4. Specify that verifiable criteria, as used in the proposed
agreement, must be approved by a majority of the Plaintiffs or the
Court as being non-discriminatory; that is, MS must not be permitted
to use criteria that it knows gives it an unfair advantage over
other vendor's products.
5. Expand the coverage to protect more than just the 20 largest
OEMs, and provide benefits to end-users and businesses who purchase
Windows Operating System Products at the retail level, or through
distributors in bulk.
6. Define ``Initial Boot Sequence''.
7. Clarify that for operating systems releases prior to the
twelve month window or Windows XP Service Pack 1, the requirement
for releasing operating system documentation and APIs is the same,
and that the last beta requirement only applies to operating systems
released after that milestone.
8. Clarify what is considered a new version and what is
considered a major version. Any definition should not allow
manipulation by MS.
9. Eliminate the loopholes on disclosure of communication
protocols by eliminating the requirements that they be included in
an operating system distribution.
10. Allow MS to withhold information on APIs and other
information related to anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing,
digital rights management, encryption or authentication systems ONLY
when complying with a ``lawful order'' of a federal agency
or any court.
11. Overturn current agreements between an ISV or IHV and MS
that restrict the ability of independent companies to promote or
develop software that competes with MS, unless MS can demonstrate to
a majority of the Plaintiffs or the Court that any such agreement
does not unduly stifle competition.
12. Prohibit MS from structuring joint development efforts with
an ISV or OEM that prevent competition unless MS can demonstrate to
a majority of the Plaintiffs or the Court that such restrictions
serve a bona fide business purpose for a reasonable period of time.
13. Prohibit fixed percentage agreements with IAPs, regardless
of the commercial feasibility of distributing rival products.
14. Close loopholes in the definition ou Middleware and
Middleware Products as they relate to ``user interfaces''
(at a minimum define what is meant by ``user interface''),
whether they are trademarked or not, whether they are part of the
operating system product or not, and whether they are downloaded or
included with operating system distributions.
15. Require MS to allow removal of Middleware and Middleware
Products only on a product by product basis, not on an ``All
MS'' or ``All Non-MS'' basis. and
16. Eliminate the exceptions that allow MS to invoke MS
Middleware Products in the case of a server maintained by MS.
17. Eliminate the requirements that other companies must allow
licensing of their IP to MS, or agree to restrictions on
distribution of products that may be based on MS IP, unless MS can
demonstrate to either a majority of the Plaintiffs or the Court a
bona fide business purpose in imposing these requirements.
18. Eliminate restrictions on public release of information by
the Plaintiffs which might otherwise only be released as it may
relate to an enforcement action, and under certain other conditions.
MS would be notified in advance and given an opportunity to appeal
release of the information to the Court.
19. Include a requirement that at least one member of the TC
must be an expert in software design and development, and at least
one member an expert in computer system network operating system or
network application administration.
20. Clarify the definition of ``competitor'' as it
relates to TC employment.
21. Eliminate restrictions on public release of information or
statements by the TC, similar to that for the Plaintiffs. The TC
would still not be allowed to release information deemed
confidential by MS without MS'' approval, the approval of a
majority of the Plaintiffs, or the Court. In a situation where
release of such information is contemplated, MS would be afforded
adequate opportunity to appeal a decision of the Plaintiffs to the
Court. Note that the reason for allowing the release of confidential
information in this manner is to prevent MS from arbitrarily
considering all information confidential, and therefore not
releasable at all, while still affording MS some protection for
legitimately confidential information.
22. Eliminate provisions that prohibit admission of any work
product, finding, or recommendation by the TC in an enforcement
action against MS for violation of any proposed agreement or
injunction.
23. Provide for, in the event that MS engages in a pattern of
willful and systematic violations, a more meaningful set of
penalties. For example, MS may have to rebate to consumers, based
upon proper proof of purchase, a flat amount for any operating
system purchased over the period of the agreement, whether the
purchase was made at retail or via purchase of an OEM system with
the operating system pre-installed.
24. Reduce the distribution requirement in the definition of
Non-MS Middleware Product to 1,000 or 20,000 copies.
25. Change the definition of ``Windows Operating System
Product'', so MS cannot decide what constitutes a Windows
Operating System Product.
I also recommend consideration of possible some alternative
provisions, which were not part of the proposed agreement; however,
some of these are being pushed by the states that demurred on the
proposed agreement:
1. A requirement that MS bundle Non-MS Middleware Products with
its operating system products. This would primarily benefit those
consumers that purchase retail versions of MS operating systems, and
those who buy systems from OEMs who choose not to integrate non-MS
Middleware Products. MS would be allowed to charge a reasonable fee
to ISVs whose products they incorporate to defray the costs of
integrating such Middleware products into its operating system
distribution packages.
2. A requirement that MS structure volume licenses with OEMs in
such a way that OEMs must allow end-users to elect not to purchase a
Windows operating system with their PCs at all.
3. A requirement that MS provide a ``secure facility''
for inspection of code. This facility could be used to keep
producers of non-Microsoft middleware up to date on integration and
interoperability issues with MS operating systems.
4. A requirement that MS make Internet Explorer ``open
sourced''--that is, MS would be required to disclose and
license all source code for all Browser products and Browser
functionality.
5. A requirement that MS distribute with all of its operating
systems a version of the Java Virtual Machine (or runtime
environment) that conforms to Sun Microsystems'' Java
specification. MS distributed a non-compatible version with previous
operating systems, and stopped distributing it with Windows XP,
although it does have the same non-compatible Java Virtual Machine
available for download. The reason that MS cited for not including
it in Windows XP is that it was prohibited by Sun from doing so
(which is true), although Sun has long expressed willingness to
allow MS to distribute a Java Virtual Machine as long as it conforms
to the Java standard. Since MS has refused to do so, MS is
technically prohibited from distributing the Java Virtual Machine it
has.
6. A requirement that MS only incorporate standard
communications protocols in its products. A standard communications
protocol is one that has been ratified by either the International
Standards Organization, or the Internet Engineering Task Force. MS
would be required to adhere to the strict requirements of the
ratified standard, although it could at any time propose new
standards or modifications to existing standards for adoption by
either body.
7. A requirement that MS make its consumer operating systems
``open sourced''--that is, MS would be required to
disclose and license all source code for its consumer operating
systems. Of all the proposals, this is the one that would most
benefit consumers, because it is the only option that truly promotes
innovation and competition at the operating system level, and would
give users a real choice in operating systems, a choice, that most
likely, will not require them to give up applications they have
chosen to use, or lock them out of potential future applications.
Summary: I believe we are all in agreement that the resolution of
this case is of great importance, not just now, but for many years
to come. This suggests a careful and deliberate penalty is far more
important to the health of the nation than is a hasty one.
[[Page 28006]]
Any agreement, or any injunction, must ultimately answer the
question .... How do consumers benefit from this?'' The USDOJ
has not satisfactorily answered this question in their CIS; they
have focused on the benefits for companies. As written, the proposed
agreement only indirectly, at best, benefits consumers.
In addition, the proposed agreement focuses too much on
Middleware and Middleware Products and not enough on operating
systems. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals have noted
that a reliance on Middleware and Middleware Products is not a
substitute for remedying an illegal monopoly on operating systems.
I believe that the Court has made a well-intended effort to
speedily resolve this case by asking the parties to come to a
proposed agreement. However, as I hope I have demonstrated, the
proposed agreement falls far short of what is necessary to benefit
consumers, and redress illegal monopolistic behavior. Therefore, the
Court needs to look at alternatives and changes to the agreement
that will ultimately benefit consumers by changing MS'' illegal
monopolistic practices. For the Court's benefit, I have provided a
list of changes that I believe will benefit consumers.
Jeffrey Harris
MTC-00027388
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:46pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Sir:
As both a Microsoft stockholder and product consumer I find the
on going legal proceedings against the company unsettling.
At first thought I see it as an attempt by the legal community
to go after a ``Cash Cow'' gleaning as much of the
companies financial resources as possible in the name of protecting
the consumer. Cases brought against other companies in the past have
garnered very little for the consumer but have fattened the wallets
of legal community.
As an investor in Microsoft I have watched the value of my
holdings plummet, at times, by more than fifty percent. This loss in
wealth, due to the constant legal battles, has not settled very well
with me as, I am sure, it has with others who have portions of their
retirement savings tied to the companies fortune.
As a consumer of Microsoft products I don't really understand
the problem. I have had both MSN and AOL. installed in our machines
and have chosen to use AOL. I have Microsoft's Money program
installed on our new machine from the manufacturer but have chosed
to use another financial program without encountering any problems
from the company. When we first bought a computer I chose to use
another word processing program because I found it better than the
Microsoft product that was installed from the factory. I don't see
where Microsoft has caused me any damage as a consumer. All you have
to do is use your head a little bit and decide what works best for
you.
I have to comment on the business practices that the company has
been accused of using over the years. Having been in the business
community for over thirty years I can well understand why the
company might have acted on the defensive in its dealings with other
companies. It is a dog eat dog world and if you don't protect
yourself then another company will cut your throat. Ethics in the
business world are a facade used to get whatever you can for
yourself and screw everyone else. So I don't see where the company
acted any different than how any of its computitors would have under
the circumstances. Just look at what AOL is doing to small web site
providers and the Enron case.
In closing, I hope that there is a reasonable settlement to the
case that allows the company to spend its resources developing
product that will improve the productivity of the country and not on
defending itself against a continuing parade of legal battles.
Sincerely,
Anthony V. Ladd
MTC-00027389
From: Ben Levi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 27, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Hesse,
I concur with the Consumers for Computing Choice, who believe
that any settlement or Final Judgment must include remedies that
provide: (1) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to run the
70,000 existing Windows applications without modification on all
other operating systems.
(2) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to have native
versions of Microsoft Office applications on all other operating
systems.
(3) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace one or
more of the four Office applications with competing applications,
while retaining the ability to exchange files, data, and services
with any Microsoft application.
(4) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to have native
versions of Explorer, Media Player and other Microsoft Internet
applications on all other operating systems.
(5) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace one or
more Microsoft Internet applications with competing applications,
while retaining the ability to exchange files, data, and services
with any Microsoft application.
(6) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to replace any
component or feature in any Microsoft software product with superior
or special purpose components or features.
(7) A simple, affordable, and reliable way to run any Microsoft
software on computers that do not have Intel-compatible
microprocessors.
(8) A simple, affordable, and reliable way for software
developers to access all the information they need to create
products that offer consumers these choices.
(9) A way to ensure that original equipment manufacturers
provide consumers with equal access to computers with alternative
operating systems, productivity applications, and Internet
applications.
(10) A ``crown jewel'' provision establishing such
serious consequences for non-compliance that Microsoft will not
attempt to evade the necessary disclosure requirements and other
mandates.
Thank you for considering my views.
Robert Ben Levi
151 Wildcat Lane
Boulder, CO 80304
303-546-0679
MTC-00027390
From: Mitchell Baker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Proposed Settlement Fails to Remedy Antitrust Violations and
Fails to Protect the National Interest
The Proposed Settlement Should Be Rejected
1. Microsoft has maintained its operating system monopoly
through illegal means. The proposed Settlement suffers from two
critical flaws: it allows Microsoft to maintain all the benefits of
its illegal activities, and it will be ineffective in preventing
Microsoft from continuing its actions to maintain its monopoly
position.
2. The activities likely to maintain Microsoft's operating
system monopoly in the next few years are not the same activities
that illegally maintained it during the past. The proposed
Settlement may perhaps prohibit continuation of some of the
activities that benefited Microsoft in the 1990's, but it will do
little if anything to prohibit the activities useful in illegally
maintaining the operating system monopoly today.
3. The Microsoft operating system monopoly is bad for our
national interest. The Microsoft system is notoriously poor at
protecting data, and is far behind other available options.
Assisting Microsoft to maintain its monopoly position, as does this
proposed Settlement, makes it very, very difficult for citizens,
consumers and businesses to take steps to protect their sensitive
personal and business data.
4. The proposed Settlement threatens innovation. Innovation in
software development is critical to our national interest.
Significant innovation in software development comes through the
open source, free software and educational communities--this is
how the Internet was born. Similarly, the proposed Settlement harms
consumers by discrimination against non-profit software development
activities. For example, section III(J)(2) of the proposed
Settlement allows Microsoft to withhold information from those who
do not meet Microsoft's criteria for the ``viability of its
business.'' Section III(D) specifies that Microsoft disclose
information regarding APIs to /commercial/interests. This language
could be interpreted to allow Microsoft to withhold information from
open source and free software groups--groups which are at the
forefront of a great deal of software innovation. And also to
withhold information from those software development teams most
likely to provide a
[[Page 28007]]
choice to citizens and consumers. Many activities by non-profit
groups provide the foundation for commercial activities as well as
enormous benefit to consumers. Any suggestion that these groups
could be excluded from whatever protection the proposed Settlement
offers should be eliminated.
5. The specifications for Microsoft APIs and file formats must
be public. Providing subsets of this information to subsets of the
development community does not provide an effective remedy. Our
national interest and well-being as citizens depends on innovation
and choice, particularly in the way we handle digital data. The
illegal activities of Microsoft threaten this well-being, and the
proposed Settlement is a monumental failure on all fronts. I urge
the Court to resist the allure of a speedy answer, and to reject the
proposed Settlement.
W. Mitchell Baker
2704 All View Way
Belmont, CA 94002
MTC-00027391
From: Mariam Rangwala
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:5l pm
Subject: microsoft vs netscape public opinion, as follows:
January 27, 2002
To All Who This May Concern:
I think that the Microsoft Company should not settle because
they have already settled and agreed with the federal government and
several other states on a criminal suit. This civil suit against
Microsoft is for the financial compensation of Netscape. This claim
against Microsoft will be hard to prove because Microsoft is an
extremely prosperous and large company. Also, Netscape had taken
many missteps in the marketing and product development, which
enabled Microsoft to provide a continually better browser.
Technology changes very quickly and the importance of taking
advantage of solidifying and maintaining market positions is
essential for each company to succeed. Netscape was not able to do
these things. In addition, this matter is several years old and it
would be very difficult to prove civil liabilities and new
technologies that are constantly changing, since a great deal of the
matter is ``blurred.'' Finally, Netscape is not an
independent country. AOL Time Warner purchased it and this company
knew what they were buying since they bought Netscape less then two
years ago.
``In 1899, Rockefeller, founder of the powerful Standard
Oil Company, testified before a congressional commission that was
investigating industrial combinations.'' This case describes
the positive things about the combination of companies and the large
amount of money that monopolies bring in. Also, money helps the
economy grow and prosper; the idea of large businesses was that
anyone can rise up to become rich and therefore this was a great way
to have businesses.
This relates to the current because both companies were being
sued because they were guilty of being monopolists. This is a crime
because monopolies can take over the business world because they
have large amounts of power, and many smaller companies must abide
their rules. This makes monopolists rich companies who can set all
the rules and have every other company listen to them.
Sincerely,
Mariam Rangwala
MTC-00027392
From: Vince Fosterknows
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Drop the MS fiasco, which was started without merit. Get on with
the critical business at hand in putting terrorists behind bars!!!
MTC-00027393
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing this comment because I received a telephone
solicitation last evening, requesting that I visit a web site and
compose one from there in favor of the proposed settlement. I do not
favor the proposed settlement. I read, understood, and agreed with
the findings of fact and law reached by Judge Jackson, and favor the
remedies proposed by him. I offer the following suggestions for
improvement:
The prohibited conduct enumerated in section III.2 should
include discriminating against an OEM for selling a personal
computer with another operating system installed, regardless of
whether a Microsoft operating system is also bootable on that
computer. Microsoft should be prohibited from requiring the
installation of one of its operating systems on all PCs sold by an
OEM or licensee. Licensing fees should be based on volume alone, not
on percentage of sales. There should be provision for the
preservation of records for the term of the consent decree. It would
not be unreasonable to preserve daily backups of the corporate e-
mail systems, on DVD for example, to ensure that evidence of further
violations of antitrust law would be more easily documented.
Five years seems too short a period for supervision of the
company. I would think an eight year term, with the possibility for
two three-year extensions, more appropriate.
Francis E. Johnson
10 Alfred Drive
Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
MTC-00027394
From: SlashDevNull
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I am writing to protest the settlement of the Microsoft case.
Microsoft is has illegally leverage their illegally created monopoly
in Operating Systems to create a monopoly in browsers and office
productivity applications. I do not believe that the DOJ should
settle the case and should push for a breakup of microsoft. I
believe the breakup should be into three parts; Operating Systems,
Business applications, and internet related technologies. I also
believe that microsoft should be forced to sell off their
programming language division and be forced to use a third party1s
tools. This would ensure that microsoft could no longer put other
companies at a disadvantage by ?hiding1 APIs that only they have
access and knowledge.
Microsoft has hurt the consumer repeatedly by their predatory
practices and they should be reigned in. The decision should be more
than just a fine. No matter how large the fine is, if the decision
does not force microsoft to stop their illegal practices, then the
decision will be viewed by microsoft simply as the cost of doing
business. And no matter the amount of the fine, microsoft would view
a fine as a welcome and preferential decision.
This is the DOJ1s chance to level the playing field for all of
microsoft1s competitors and to establish choice as an option. Please
do not waste it.
Thank you,
David
MTC-00027395
From: Leslie Gialamas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:51 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CC:
[email protected]@inetgw
Judge:
I think that Microsoft has dominated almost all computer based
industries for long enough. They have been using these
``monopolistic practices'' to work against the government,
and for that they should be punished to the maximum extent of the
law. There are many other companies with the same technology as
microsoft, who want a chance to make it in the computer industry.
Microsoft should be broken down and not allowed to maintain their
position in this high tech industry. Competition is a crucial part
of any business, Microsoft needs to feel the pressures of having a
competitor. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Leslie Gialamas
Phone # (213) 741-1886
Los Angeles, CA
MTC-00027396
From: Mike Droney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
This is a letter regarding the nature of the settlement between
microsoft corp. and the US government concerning the anticompetitive
practices that the softweare company has practiced for years. I
believe the settlement does very little to open the way for other
companies to compete against microsoft. The language used in PFJ are
obscure and vague at best, allowing certain loopholes to be
exploited to the benefit of Microsoft in circumventing the various
agreements reached between the two sides. For instance, the
settlement does force microsoft to reveal its APIs to the
competition. However, the inverse of this is true also, with the
competition having to do the same with their software. This leaves
smaller companies at risk from the same
[[Page 28008]]
predatory practices that have been the trademark of microsoft, i.e.
microsoft, now having access to foreign ATIs, may
``plagiarise'' the products, thus. According to James
Mathewson's column at Computer User.com, this is ``indicative
of the whole agreement''. According to the same journalist, the
supposed $1.4 blillion dollar computer and software settlement
donation will help to enhance Microsoft's philantropic image.
Where is the justice or rationale for such a settlement, and who
is the real winner in this outcome. Not alternative software
companies, and certainly not the public.
Sincerely,
Michael Droney.
MTC-00027397
From: Joe Reed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
As an advocate of individual rights and capitalism, I am deeply
disturbed by the DOJ's attack on Microsoft in the name of consumer
protection. I do not believe the government has the right to dictate
how Microsoft builds and markets its products, nor do I believe the
government has the right to tell me what software I have on my
computer. Microsoft has committed no crime, and I as a consumer need
no such protection from the government.
Microsoft reached its current market position through years of
extensive research and development, innovation, and careful
marketing (not to mention a lot of hard work). Microsoft never
forced anyone to buy their products, and in fact has no legal power
to do so. Microsoft's sales were the result of voluntary agreements
that were reached by the mutual consent of both parties, into which
the government has no right to interve. Millions of customers,
myself included, have made a voluntary conscious decision to
purchase Microsoft products because of the values they provide
(e.g., features, compatibility, upgradeability, stability, etc.),
not because we were coerced or threatened.
Microsoft has the right to do whatever it wants with its
products, including adding features it determines will enhance the
value of its products, selling or licensing its products to whomever
it chooses on whatever terms are agreed to by both sides, and
revealing or concealing design details as it sees fit.
Microsoft's products are not public property to be designed or
dispensed at the whim of its competitors or the government. In
addition, this case is further flawed in that it was brought about
as a result of complaints by Microsoft's competitors, not by an
outcry from consumers. And the proposed ``solutions'' will
do nothing but prop up Microsoft's unsuccessful competitors who have
chosen to compete in the courtroom rather than in the market.
The government's number one job is to protect individual rights.
In this case, the government has not only miserably failed to do so,
but is in fact become the biggest threat to individual rights. This
case should be thrown out, and all anti-trust regulations should be
immediately repealed.
Sincerely,
Joe Reed Friendswood, Texas
MTC-00027398
From:[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:53pm
Subject: hi
I feel that what microsoft is doing is wrong. Why should that
company be able to have the power to avoid sharing their product
with other companies so they can also develop similar software. Just
because microsoft is a big and powerful company doesnt mean they
have the right to peform monopoly. If other companies can not then
why should microsoft have the right to. Also the fact that they are
denying that they have and its taking so long for the courts to
press charges on them is wrong. If it were another company that was
not as popular they would have been out of buisness. from, chrystal
torres
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00027399
From: Jim Snyder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is woefully inadequate.
I'm a long-time computer user (30 years), a computer programmer,
a part-time system administrator in my office, and the administrator
of a home network of Macintoshes, Unix machines, and a Windows
machine. The settlement does little or nothing to address key
Microsoft holdings which buttress Microsoft's monopoly and make it
well-nigh unassailable: Microsoft proprietary application
interfaces, protocols,and file formats. I wish to focus primarily on
file formats. In my workplace the use of products which compete with
Microsoft products--OS other than Windows, word processors
other than Microsoft Word, spreadsheets other than Micro- soft
Excel, and web browsers other than Microsoft Explorer--is
difficult and sometimes simply not possible because no competing
vendor has products which are fully compatible with the Microsoft
file formats.
These competing products are not fully compatible because
Microsoft does not release specifications for its file formats.
Competing vendors must reverse-engineer Microsoft file formats,
which change every time Microsoft releases new versions of its
applications, typically about every year or two, and this process of
reverse-engineering takes time.
Because any product which is less than fully compatible with the
monopoly product is at a competitive disadvantage, every product
which competes with a Microsoft monopoly product is automatically at
a competitive dis- advantage, not because of technical inferiority
or higher cost, but because Microsoft can (and does) act to prevent
compatibility, rather than competing on the basis of price,
performance, and other market-differentiating issues, eg security.
There is no benefit to society when Microsoft locks out
competition in this way. There is of course no guarantee that
competing products would eat into Microsoft's market share, but it
does seem reasonable to believe that Microsoft would be forced to
compete on price, performance, etc, if the playing field were
leveled. Microsoft is clearly not competing on price and performance
at this time.
Indeed, this behavior is reminiscent of Bell System behavior in
the 1950s and 1960s which led to the Carterfone case. Microsoft need
not threaten to disconnect customers who use non-monopoly products
as did AT&T): these customers are automatically at risk of
disconnection from the monopoly customer ``network''
because Microsoft denies the vendors of non-monopoly products the
information they must have if they are to produce products which are
compatible with monopoly products, and hence able to compete with
monopoly products. In effect, file formats are the
``interconnection specifications'' which the Bell System
was compelled to provide (as a monopoly) to vendors who wished to
compete for telephone business. Microsoft, as a monopoly, should
likewise be compelled to provide interconnection specifications to
their applications, so that other vendors can build applications
which compete on a level playing field with Microsoft's monopoly
applications.
Nothing in the settlement addresses file formats. Hence if this
settlement is approved, Microsoft will continue to enjoy a monopoly
in the applications space. And while their OS monopoly is not
seriously threatened at this time, the Microsoft applications
monopoly strengthens the Microsoft OS monopoly.
I suggest that Microsoft should be compelled to release
specifications for their file formats on a timely basis--and
that ``timely'' be explicitly defined so that competing
vendors can release compatible products at the same time that
Microsoft releases new versions of its monopoly products. I suggest
that access to these specifications should be open to everyone by
publication on an open web site. I suggest that any competitor
should be able to obtain a copy of the specifications either as a
printed manual or on a CDROM (eg in pdf format) at a nominal cost-
of-materials charge.
I suggest that updates and specification changes to these file
formats should be made available on a timely basis--and again,
that ``timely'' be defined explicitly, so that competing
vendors can retain compatibility with monopoly applications.
I suggest that stiff penalties should be put in place so that if
Micro- soft fails to release file format specifications in
accordance with the constraints put in place by the court--and
Microsoft's past behavior indicates that they will drive a truck
through any constraints if they believe they can get away with
it--then Microsoft should be penalized sufficiently severely
that the the cost of doing business in defiance of the court's
orders will not long be sustainable. Any constraints on Microsoft's
behavior must have teeth in them.
I suggest that there should be a watchdog group to which
competitors can bring complaints of non-compliance by Microsoft's
with these provisions. I further suggest that this watchdog group
have the author- ity to
[[Page 28009]]
direct Microsoft to release documents immediately, and to impose
monetary penalties on Microsoft for non-compliance. Because
Microsoft has always used time to its advantage, I suggest that
penalties accrue from the time Microsoft has failed to respond to
requests for information, and accrue during any appeals process.
I further suggest that the release of incomplete, incorrect,
misleading, or unusable information (for example, the release of
specifications on Hollerith cards) incur punitive fines above and
beyond any fines imposed for failing to comply with timelines
specified for release of specifications. Microsoft should be
compelled to release to competing vendors whatever specifications
are provided to its own programmers simply because Microsoft is a
monopoly. Other vendors cannot compete on a level playing field with
the Microsoft monopoly without this protection. Although I have
focussed on file formats (because those affect me most directly in
my work) much the same is true of application programming interfaces
(APIs) and protocols--these are the interconnection
specifications between applications and the Windows operating system
in the former case, and between services and clients in the latter.
I suggest that the same constraints I have proposed for
Microsoft file formats also be applied to APIs and protocols.
To go slightly further, Microsoft must be prohibited from
sabotaging open protocols such as http by what Microsoft officers
have called ``de-commodification'' of such
protocols--willful Microsoft changes to established protocols
which result in non-Microsoft products failing to produce expected
results (``being incompatible'') when dealing with
information produced by Microsoft products. Microsoft must be made
to play by the same rules as everyone else, lest they drive everyone
else out of the game.
Microsoft should not be permitted to use their monopoly control
of interconnection specifications as a barrier to competitors
entering the market, just as the Bell System was not permitted to
use its monopoly customer base and control of interconnection
specifications to exclude non-Bell vendors from the marketplace.
Respectfully,
J.H.Snyder
[email protected]
MTC-00027400
From: Akira Negi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
With respect to the current Microsoft anti-trust case, I urge
you to NOT settle for anything less than a split up of the company.
There are a number of incidents that lead me to believe this, but
the most of recent such event was when Windows 95 based computer had
a problem when adding a hardware. Specifically, Windows 95 OS would
crash every time it tried to find a new driver for the new hardware.
After some investigation, I concluded that the only chance was for
me to reinstall the Windows software. I then found out that it was
not possible to do that without going back to the DOS prompt,
because Internet Explorer 4.0 was loaded on the computer. I tried to
remove it, but Windows refused to let me do so.
This is a clear example of Microsoft forcing its OS and its
internet browser both onto the uses at the same time. Seeing that it
was not possible to fix a problem I had at hand without going back
to the DOS prompt (which defeats the whole purpose of using Windows
in the first place), it appears to me that Microsoft would benefit
from stopping its practice of using its market share in the OS to
force applications onto the users--at least the problems would
be solvable without taking a brute approach. Moreover, if forced to
consider products more independently, perhaps Microsoft would
consider builing more stable OS and more stable internet browsers,
which would have eliminated my problem to begin with.
It is my opinion that if Microsoft were two (or more) separate
corporations, it would be forced to create their programs in a more
modular way with clear interfaces, which would in turn open the
doors for other software companies to create a similar, competitive
products. I'm sure I'm not the only person who have experiecnced
problems with softwares crashing and hanging up the OS. No other
industry would accept a product that would have to be rebooted every
day or so to keep everything operating normally. Having a clear
interface between the OS and applications would make it easier to
build a more stable product. For the exact reasons stated above, I
do not deem a small penalty to be a sufficient outcome in this anti-
trust case. Microsoft's anti-competitive practices must be stopped
now, or we risk losing many of its great competitors, including
Netscape and Correll (maker of Word Perfect). Our society cannot
afford such a loss. We need those competitors to keep producing
their respective products in order to have improvements and
advancements in softwares. I would find any result that does not put
an end to Microsoft's current business practices utterly
unacceptable.
Thank you for your time, and good luck in the proceedings.
Sincerely,
Akira Negi
912 Cedar Fork Trail
Chapel Hill, NC 27514 USA
919-969-7720
[email protected]
MTC-00027401
From: Scott Currie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a programmer by profession; I have never had any legal
training or experience. As such, it makes understanding a settlement
such as the Microsoft Proposed Final Judgment difficult for me.
However, as the results of this landmark case will impact my chosen
profession for years to come, I have felt compelled to do what I can
to understand this judgment. While I do not grasp the entire scope
of the document, I have seen what I view as some problems with the
wording therein. These flaws very well may allow Microsoft to avoid
the intended punishment, and continue its monopolistic behavior.
One of the few real competitors to Microsoft's products are the
loosely organized people who contribute to various open source
projects, such as Linux, Apache, and Samba. This judgment does very
little to protect these projects. For example, the Samba project
develops networking products that interoperate seamlessly with
Microsoft products. By using the Samba product, one can create a
network server that runs any variety of operating systems, and yet
fully functions with Microsoft products as well. This type of
interoperability is very important to open competition, as the
server administrator can choose the superior products even if they
are from different vendors, and expect the network to work well
together.
I believe that the clause in the judgment requiring Microsoft to
publish their Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) is probably
the single best way to ensure competition. If the ground rules for
how programs communicate are public knowledge, then there will be
true competition, and the best product will be the one chosen by the
users. I believe there are gaping holes in the wording of this
clause. I understand the intent behind the security exceptions to
disclosure in Section III.J.
However, in this networked era in technology, nearly any
transactions carried out by computers are potentially security
risks. I am concerned that with Microsoft's reluctance to give up
their monopoly, they may claim that releasing key components of, for
instance, authentication schemes would compromise the security of
their products. However, the piece that was withheld was also a key
component that a competing project such as Samba would need to be
able to interoperate seamlessly.
Another concern is that the publication of these schemes will be
under a commercial model. The above open source projects are
distributed freely across the Internet, and do not have a per-user
charge. Yet the Proposed Final Judgment would allow Microsoft to
charge money for access to their APIs. When a project such as Samba
is mainly programmed as a hobby, and given away with no concern for
profit, the commercial licensing of these APIs will preclude the
open source project from benefiting from the settlement.
A final concern I have is that the enforcement committee does
not have legal authority to impose punishments should Microsoft
choose to violate the terms of this agreement. A According to
Section IV.D.4.d, ``No work product, findings, or
recommendation 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.''
It makes no sense to disallow the findings of an oversight
committee in a legal complaint. I believe when a company has proven
itself to be opposed to voluntary steps to avoid monopolistic
behavior, there should be a mechanism for the oversight committee to
enforce violations of the PFJ.
[[Page 28010]]
In light of these concerns with the settlements reached, I do
not believe that the Proposed Final Judgment will accomplish the re-
establishment of competition in the technology sector. I call upon
you to reject this settlement, or at least address these concerns
that will enable Microsoft to continue to engage in monopolistic
behavior, despite this Final Judgment. Thank you for the opportunity
to comment.
Sincerely,
Scott Currie, Programmer Analyst
PS I have also faxed these comments to the appropriate number.
MTC-00027402
From: Michelle Trostler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft settlement is not in the public interest because
consumers need freedom of choice to decide, without the
intereference of Microsoft, 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.
This is so basic. Please do not bend to the will of big business
while compromising the interest of common people.
Thank you,
Michelle Trostler
Sunnyvale, CA
MTC-00027403
From: Dave Michaelian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge,
Though I am a huge believer in free markets, I do not believe
the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) is a the best solution.
Microsoft is a wonderful company staffed by wonderful people,
but they are guilty of some very grave anti-competitive violations.
Moreover, the PFJ does not provide an effective enforcement
mechanism for its remedies.
Best,
Dave Michaelian
CEO, BridgePath Corporation
Campus Crusade for Christ @ USC
Campus Director
2643 Magnolia Ave.
LA, CA 90007
[email protected]
213-748-8141
CC:[email protected]@inetgw,dkleinkn@yahoo...
MTC-00027404
From: Steve Pietrowicz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello.
I'm writing to you concerning the proposed settlement between
the Justice Department and Microsoft.
I believe it is wholly inadequate, and offers no real remedy
against Microsoft's past and current business practices.
I've been working in the industry for the last 17 years, and
started working with personal computers in 1978. I've worked for a
number of different companies, and worked on a variety of computer
platforms, both large and small. Throughout that time, as a
consumer, I've seen a number of things that Microsoft has done to
maintain it's stranglehold on personal computers. I'm going to
address one of those, because I believe it goes to the heart of how
Microsoft treats what it views as competing platforms, and how it
will continue to behave unless this issue is addressed.
The Java programming platform allows programs to be written
which will run on multiple platforms, without needing a special
version of the program for each of those programs. This completely
eliminates the need for special versions of the same program for
different platforms. Instead of having a version for Microsoft
windows, another version for the Apple Macintosh, and yet a third
for a UNIX system, there is only one version that is needed. Many
many companies have licensed the Java programming language,
including Microsoft. However, instead of adhering to the license
agreements it made with Sun, Microsoft came out with it's own
incompatible version of the Java programming language, at first
without telling programmers that it was incompatible. I say,
``at first'', because it wasn't until there were a number
of news stories that pointed this out to programmers. Microsoft's
response was that there version was an improvement of Java, when in
fact, the sole purpose was to make versions that only worked on the
Microsoft platform. In the end, Microsoft has decided to drop Java
all together, and Java is no longer included in the Windows
operating systems it recently released (Windows XP).
What Microsoft did, at the very beginning of Java's popularity,
was to create a wedge that prevented people from writing programs
using Microsoft's Java for other platforms, just to keep it's
monopoly intact. I contend that the sole purpose of their licensing
the Java platform was use the incompatibilities Microsoft itself
created to prevent developers from creating software on other
platforms.
This has happened time and time again. Look at any of the more
popular programs that Microsoft viewed as ``threats'' to
it's existence. Here is a reference to an article of another
instance of this sort of behavior: http://eatthestate.org/
03-07/MicrosoftPlaysHardball.htm This article describes how
Microsoft successfully prevented a highly successful competing
product (vs MSDOS), DR-DOS, from running with Microsoft Windows 3.1.
From the article:
``The plan was to plant code into Windows which would
``put competitors on a treadmill'' and cause the system to
``surely crash at some point shortly later.'' In order
words, Windows would intentionally bomb if it detected DR
DOS.''
The article sites that the Department of Justice found this out
from a memo by Microsoft VP David Cole. The engineers at Microsoft
that created this code to prevent DR DOS from running even went so
far as to encrypt part of their work to avoid detection.
Additionally, in October of 1998, Microsoft was successfully
able to prevent Compaq computer from allowing Apple to include their
Quicktime viewer in products it shipped at that time, because of
``incompatibilities'' with Windows. Microsoft had a
competing technology, ActiveMovie, which shipped instead.
I urge you to read the rest of this article, which I've attached
below. Microsoft has shown time and time again that it will try and
introduce code or technology into it's products to prevent them from
becoming successful. It's very important this is addressed. And
there are several ways to do this.
First, require that Microsoft ship Sun Microsystem's Java with
all Windows platforms. This should be a version that passes all
tests that Sun requires of it's OEMs, and does not include anything
that would break Java programs if executed on other platforms. This
is very very important, because while Java was prominently brought
up in the trail, there is nothing in the DOJ settlement that
addresses it.
Second, require that Microsoft publish the complete operating
system source code to Windows, with (and this is important) the
tools necessary to build the operating system from source code to
binary executable. This will prevent Microsoft from creating
``special code'' that prevents what it views as a
competing technology, from running.
Microsoft has shown time and time again, that it can not be
trusted to ``do the right thing''. The court should set
into place a judgement that requires it to do so.
This is only one issue, and one aspect of how Microsoft conducts
itself. Consider how Microsoft has acted in the past on other
issues: It required computer manufacturers that sold systems that
ran Windows to pay royalties on Windows licenses, even though the
system shipped with another (or without) an operating system; It
threatened computer manufacturers by saying that it would withhold
the Windows operating system, unless they agreed with Microsoft's
terms, forcing computer makers to comply.
Please carefully consider all the e-mail you've received, and
draft a new, stronger judgement that the one that DOJ currently
proposes. Microsoft has already been found to be a monopoly. Please
take steps that are more than the slap on the wrist that the current
DOJ proposal is.
I look back over the years and think of all the companies that
Microsoft prevented from succeeding because of practices I
illustrated above. Worse, I think of the number of conference rooms
I've sat in, where people said things like ``We can't do this
project. If Microsoft ever decides to do this sort of thing, we'll
be crushed''. I don't think people that aren't in the computer
industry realize how often this takes place.
It's time it stopped.
Stephen R. Pietrowicz
January 27, 2001
Engineer
MTC-00027406
From: Jeremy Praissman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jeremy Praissman
7 Wainscott Lane
[[Page 28011]]
East Setauket, NY 11733
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
As a long time computer user, I waited the June 7th, 2000
verdict in the Microsoft antitrust case with great anticipation.
When the ruling was released, it seemed to be a much needed reining
in of an anticompetitive behemoth that had stifled growth and
innovation in the computer software industry for years. How far we
have come in the short year and seven months since then.
Despite the later unanimous 7-0 decision in the Court of
Appeals upholding the verdict that Microsoft is a monopoly that
engaged in anticompetitive practices and thus broke the law, the
proposed remedy has shrunk considerably in scope and reach, from the
initial drastic solution of splitting the company, to the current
consent decree--a mere slap on the wrists. This reversal in the
DOJ position and Microsoft's fortunes can hardly be seen as random,
apparently riding hard on the coattails of the recently installed
Bush administration. Further indication of potential (hidden)
political influence in this matter is the recent revelation that
Microsoft has included none of the details of its congressional
lobbying in information supplied to the court in direct violation of
the terms of the Tunney Act(http://www.washtech.com/news/regulation/
14834-1.html). Note that Microsoft spends more than $5 million
a year lobbying congress.
Regardless of how the current proposed consent decree came to
be, I believe that if anything, it is certainly --not-- in
the public interest.
Many of the issues that must be addressed under antitrust
legislation, such as ``redistribution of the ill-gotten
gains'' do not seem to be mentioned at all in the decree.
Further, the decree is ambiguous in many places and generally weak.
It seems to in fact condone some of the very behavior that resulted
in the current antitrust litigation. I will discuss two of the
problems extant in the proposed consent decree that I feel most
strongly about.
The court has acknowledged that one of the most significant
problems potential competitors to the Microsoft operating system
monopoly face is the ``Applications Barrier to Entry.'' As
Microsoft has been so successful in marginalizing non-Microsoft
operating systems, there are no --companies-- offering a
viable challenger to Microsoft Windows. Thus it is with
consternation that I note no clauses catering to the only current
reasonable challenger: open source software. I feel that the dcree
should mandate the release of all Windows Operating System Product
APIs, including those related to security, for the purpose of not
only building software to operate within a Windows Operating System
Product but also for the purpose of developing middleware to allow
other operating systems to run Windows software. This would be a
clear step toward opening the market to competition.
I also feel strongly about the fact that the Technical Committee
mentioned in the consent decree would have little actual enforcement
power. This leaves enforcement of the decree up to further
litigation. Microsoft has, through its considerable resources,
dragged even this trial on for a ridiculously long time. During the
period of litigation, Microsoft integrated the Internet Explorer
product further into the Windows operating system releasing Windows
98, an act clearly disrespectful to both the plaintiffs and the
judicial system. Windows Me, Windows 2000 and Windows XP have also
been released and are installed on millions of computers. These are
clear indicators that litigation is not fast enough to effectively
stem Microsoft bad behavior. This in addition to the fact that
Microsoft has enough money to continue litigation almost
indefinitely.
I am strongly against the currently proposed consent decree. I
am particularly concerned that if this decree were to become
binding, it would adversely effect future antitrust litigation
against Microsoft. For more lucid and thorough analysis of the
proposed decree, I direct your attention to the comments of Dan
Kegel, available at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html. I fully
support his comments and analysis.
Thank you for reading my comment. I appreciate your time and
attention.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Praissman
MTC-00027407
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:55pm
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,
Marilyn Riddle
5669 State Route 29 E
Sidney, OH 45365
MTC-00027408
From: Tony Sellers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am writing to comment on the
proposed settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust
case. I oppose the proposed Microsoft Settlement. I hope to send a
follow-up message in the morning detailing my opposition, but let
this statement suffice for now: I fear for the private ownership,
security, and confidence of data stored by or passed through
Microsoft software due to Microsoft's use of proprietary and closed
file formats, APIs, and network protocols, especially in light of
their publicly expressed intentions to shift their software to a
subscription sales model. Microsoft have been found guilty of abuse
of their monopoly position in this case, and are being offered a
pathetically weak settlement by the D.O.J. on behalf of the citizens
of the U.S. and the world. Please abandon this settlement and play
to win.
It would be better to warn Microsoft to behave and put them on a
sort of administrative probation than to settle so weakly. You have
the power to make this settlement on my behalf, but you do not have
my consent to do so.
C. Anthony Sellers
a private individual
Miami, Florida
MTC-00027409
From:[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
On November 5, 2001 I sent the following letter to Thomas
Reilly, Massachusetts Attorney General, stating that I supported him
in his decision not to join the settlement.
I am not, nor have I been, associated with the software industry
per se, but I have used computers as an engineer and physicist for
over 35 years. I have watched the industry develop and I'm pretty
well acquainted with the fortunes of the companies involved. I do
not have a financial interest in any software company, although I
did own some Apple stock for a few years.
I stand by the comments in my letter, with one exception: I have
been in communication with Starbucks, and they have now added the
ability to use credit cards on starbucks.com. I believe this is due,
at least in part, to comments by people like myself. It should be
noted, however, that using Passport is much more convenient, and
that is the way it usually goes.
As an aside, and with reference to the Enron debacle, I would
surely like to see all contributions by corporations to government
officials cease. I note that Microsoft is now making heavy
contributions.
Further, the Microsoft proposal to put computers and software
into schools as part of a settlement was laughable to those in the
know, because that is exactly how you extend the monopoly to the
detriment of the competition. As a Republican I voted for President
Bush, and I continue to support him vigorously. However, I cannot
agree with the administration's policy on the settlement of this
case. I would like to see Microsoft's business practices curtailed
before more damage is done.
Sincerely,
Kurt B. Kaiser
8 Bayview Road
Ipswich, MA 01938
978 356 5220
Letter
[[Page 28012]]
To
Massachusetts Attorney General
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108-1698
Dear Attorney General Reilly:
I am pleased that you have decided to proceed with your action
against Microsoft. Although the Appeals Court unanimously determined
that Microsoft's actions were monopolistic, the settlement does not
provide any remedy which would correct the situation or prevent its
further extension in the future. Part of the justification for the
settlement appears to be along the lines of, ``What is good for
Microsoft is good for the country.''
There are precious few vendors now which provide applications
for PCs. Adobe and Intuit come to mind. The rest have been crushed
(Netscape) or bought out by Microsoft (Visio). Real Player, I
understand, will no longer work with Windows XP as Microsoft extends
its domination into the multimedia applications. MS has a long
history of this kind of abuse, going back to the days of DOS when
incompatibilities were deliberately introduced to defeat DR DOS.
Microsoft does not have a superior product, just the dominant
one. Bill Gates has singlehandedly destroyed more creativity than
any person in history. There is a theory that if MS was stopped, the
consumer would suffer. I don't believe that to be the case. There
would be a relatively short period of stagnation, during which the
current OS and applications would be used, followed by a great
outpouring of superior products. Right now, few want to try to
compete, the risk is too great.
I notice that the New York Times is now offering an online
edition which is exactly the same as the print edition. To view it,
you must have Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Internet Explorer. If
the consumer wants to use his Macintosh, or Netscape, or Linux with
Netscape, well, he's just out of luck. It doesn't make sense
economically for the NYT to develop compatibility with those OS and
applications because of the dominance of Microsoft. Why are they
incompatible? Because of Microsoft's policy of ``embrace,
extend, and extinguish.'' Microsoft has introduced
incompatibilities (e.g. ActiveX) which make sure that competition is
shut out.
If you want to buy coffee on starbucks.com, you have to use
Microsoft Passport. No credit cards or PayPal are accepted. I expect
to see many more sites like that. Apparently a major reason
Starbucks chose MS Passport was that MS claimed it was much safer to
have a central repository than to have the consumer store credit
card numbers on his own machine. As you may have heard, Wired
recently had an article about a programmer who defeated Passport
Wallet in less than an hour, and that MS had to shut down Passport
to make ``corrections.'' I personally don't want my credit
card numbers in the hands of MS because I believe they are not
competent to safeguard them. I resent the lack of choice that is
developing.
These situations could not have occurred if Microsoft had not
been allowed by the government to establish the most pervasive
monopoly the world has known.
Sincerely,
MTC-00027410
From: Joseph R. Justice
To: Microsoft
ATR,[email protected]@inet
gw
Date: 1/27/02 11:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Whom It May Concern:
My name is Joseph R. Justice. I live in Alexandria, VA. I am a
computer programmer and software developer; currently I am an
independent programmer, but in the recent past I worked for several
business units of the Thomson Corporation including West Group and
Research Institute of America. (This message should be taken solely
as a reflection of my own personal views, and not as an indication
of the views of any current or past employer.) I am writing to
comment on the proposed final settlement between the United States
Government and several states to their current antitrust lawsuit
against Microsoft Corporation. (See the URL ``http://
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm''.)
I believe that the proposed final settlement does not adequately
punish Microsoft for its past anticompetitive and illegal behavior
performed in the marketplace and against consumers, end-users, and
competitors. I also believe that the proposed final settlement will
not prevent Microsoft from continuing and increasing its illegal
activities in the future. In fact, I believe that the proposed final
settlement as is will only be seen by Microsoft as encouragement and
a sanctioning by the government of its past and future illegal
activity. Therefore, I believe the proposed final settlement in its
current form should not be accepted, and that it should be
substantially or even entirely redrawn.
I further agree with and wish to co-sign the ``Open Letter
to DOJ Re: Microsoft Settlement'' by Dan Kegel. (See the URL
``http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html''.) To that end,
this message is also being sent to the e-mail address
``[email protected]'' as my request
to be a co-signer of this letter.
Thank you for your time. If you need to contact me concerning
this letter, I can be reached at the e-mail address
``[email protected]'', the street address
of ``2727 Duke Street # 1407, Alexandria, VA 22314'',
or the phone number 703-567-5057.
Sincerely,
Joseph R. Justice
Joseph R. Justice jrj, (at) radix.net == (AOL IM) JosRJust ==
anon-24205, (at) anon.twwells.com ==
(EFNet) IRC: jrj, jrjx, jrjxx
http://www.radix.net/jrj ``
CC:Joseph R. Justice
MTC-00027411
From: D S
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:00am
From my understanding of the case, the so called restrictions to
the company Microsoft was only a coverup done by both microsoft and
the government. The government needs to prove themselves by
``making things right''. Microsoft on the other hand need
to remain as ``monopoly'' and do the many evil things that
they do as a multi-national company.
The fact that remains abhorrent to me is that XP will be free of
any significant restictions. This made the case rediculous in terms
that it fails place restriction on the current company product. It
also shows a flawed in judgement by the judge. For a law is useless
unless it can and will place restictions on microsoft now and in the
future. Digging up old dirt and sueing them will not prevent new
ways to breaking the law. ``If approved, some analysts said the
agreement could greatly benefit computer manufacturers, which would
have the freedom to substitute non-Microsoft applications on
Windows, including Web browsers, e-mail clients, media players and
instant-messaging applications.''
The above statement clearly shows lack of judgement. If the
proposal is approved, the general public will not so earily accept
software other than microsoft. People who are used to doing things
the microsoft way will resist change, especially from companies they
have never heard of.
MTC-00027412
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/27/02 11:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ramiro Prado
January 27, 2002
2286 S. Blue Island
Chicago, IL 60608
Education Student at University of Illinois at Chicago
The Anti-trust case against Microsoft is not just a case against
anti-competitive practices; this case involves the control and
dissemination of knowledge. Like Gutenberg's printing press , the
World Wide Web (WWW) is the present day access point for knowledge.
No single company should have a monopoly on the interface to access
the WWW or on the standards to create WWW content.
The progress of the United States, as a technological power, is
directly linked to the technical ability of its population. A
monopoly on the WWW is a threat for the advancement and continued
technological leadership position that the United States has
enjoyed.
The bundling of Windows and Internet Explorer has forced
innovation to be dictated by a single company. It was the inherent
openness of the WWW that spurred the new digital revolution, and the
creation of new jobs for the U.S. economy. However, Internet
Explorer's domination has stifled innovation on the WWW, because a
single browser means strict adherence to a monolithic ideology of
WWW content creation and delayed development of the second
generation of the WWW.
Microsoft's new .NET initiative is the final stage of control
over the WWW. By creating proprietary standards Microsoft will also
be in control of the content of the WWW. This new standardization
will force all content on the web to be Microsoft approved. A single
company with so much power over intellectual as well as commercial
information has never been seen and should never be seen.
[[Page 28013]]
In spite no sign that Microsoft will change its monopolistic
ways. Microsoft's .NET initiative is the new threat to an open and
beneficial information highway. A just decision must be made to
protect the access and content of the WWW, without a commercial
company dictating what future technologies may bring.
MTC-00027413
From: Brian Albers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I'm writing to express my deep and sincere displeasure with the
terms of the final settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case. I
feel that the proposed conditions in no way restrict the company
from repeating the actions that caused the problems in the first
place; furthermore, the conditions include no significant penalty
and enforcement in them, implying that there was no reason to pursue
this case in the first place.
If Microsoft is allowed to continue its monopolistic behavior
without check, it will cause even more problems in the industry
beyond those already well documented in the trial. Please reconsider
the proposed conditions, which do more harm than good. Penalties and
enforcement.
Sincerely,
Brian Albers
San Jose, CA
MTC-00027414
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC
Dear Ms. Hesse:
I wish to oppose the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case.
I do not feel the decision is in the public interest. In my
experience with working with computers I have been annoyed by the
virtual Microsoft monopoly in many areas and I feel the decision is
both vague and I do not see how it can be enforced. I feel that once
the publicity has faded, the situation will return to
``start'' and Microsoft will go back to using illegal and
non competitive means to take over the software industry. I believe
that computer users must have a choice in their decisions about what
products to use on their computers. I believe that the settlement
must provide ways for competing non-Microsoft operating systems,
applications, and software components to run properly with Microsoft
products.
I hope that you will take my protest into consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Marianne J. Huber
4 E. 82nd St.
New York, NY 10028
MTC-00027415
From: Andy Tripp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Date: January 27, 2002
From: Andy Tripp
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Attached is my comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement:
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Date: January 27, 2002
From: Andyn Tripp
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Introduction
I wish to comment on the Microsoft Proposed Final Judgement[1]
(PFJ) settlement as provided for under the Tunney Act[2].
About Me
My name is Andy Tripp and I am a software developer in the
Telecommunications Industry. I've been developing, testing, and
supporting software in the industry for 17 years. I have no
attachment with either Microsoft or any of its competitors. While I
use the Java programming language (which Microsoft has been hostile
to), I would say that I am impacted by the Microsoft case in much
the same way that most people in the software business are. While I
am more openly critical of Microsoft than most, I would say I'm a
fairly typical software professional. Having worked for AT&T and
its offspring for 15 years, I also know a little more about
monopolies and divestiture than most. Being a member of the
``Slashdot crowd'' (a technical news site), I also tend to
follow Microsoft and it's legal cases more closely than most.
About This Document
This document has three parts. In Part 1, I highlight some of
the reasons why the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) does not serve
the public interest by noting where it falls short and by pointing
out potential loopholes.
Because most of the problems of the proposed settlement have
already been pointed out by others, I rely heavily on quotes from
others here.
In Part 2, I explain why I think that nothing short of splitting
Microsoft into three companies will restore competition to the OS
and Web Browser markets. While a forced divestiture may seem
extreme, I'll try to make the case that it's the only way to restore
competition.
In Part 3, I ask for a heavy fine against Microsoft as a
deterrent to future illegal conduct. I suggest some starting numbers
for calculating what would be an appropriate fine, emphasizing that
the fine must be large enough to be an effective deterrent.
Here is the outline of this document:
Introduction
About Me
About this document
Part 1: Problems With The Proposed Final Judgement
API Disclosure
OEM Provisions
Desktop Icons
Technical Committee
Conclusion: The many loopholes in the PFJ Need to Be Closed
Part 2: Microsoft Should Be Split into 3 Companies
Justification for a Split
Why Internet Explorer Should be A Separate Company
Why Windows Should be A Separate Company
How to Determine ``Operating System'' vs.
``Application''
How to Enforce Separation: A Technical Committee
How a Microsoft Split Would Restore Competition
Conclusion: Splitting Microsoft is the Only Way to Restore
Competition
Part 3: Deterence: Levy a Heavy Fine
Final Thoughts
References
Problems With The Proposed Final Judgement
API Disclosure
There are certainly many loopholes in the area of API
disclosure. Zimran Ahmed [3] points out these problems, among other
things:
The fact that the definition of ``middleware''
excludes ``outside the context of general Web browsing''
doesn't make much sense. And the phrase ``that designated Non-
Microsoft Middleware Product fails to implement a reasonable
technical requirement...'' gives Microsoft an easy
``out'' to determine for itself what's
``middleware'' and what's not.
The definition of ``Communications Protocol'' is too
narrow and seems to exclude SAMBA [4].
Microsoft would not have to disclose any API related to
security. It would be easy to label just about anything
``security-related''.
Microsoft would not have to disclose any API to any group that
meets ``reasonable, objective standards established by
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its
business.'' That would exclude open source as well as
government, educational institutions, standards bodies, etc.
There is no reason to exclude these groups.
Another major problem with the API disclosure is that it forces
those who use the APIs to share their finished code with Microsoft.
There is no reason to force companies to expose anything to
Microsoft.
OEM Provisions
The PFJ's treatment of Microsoft's relations with OEMs has a
fatal flaw: Even if Microsoft is prohibitted from relatiation, it
would be corporate suicide for an OEM to cross Microsoft. To quote
the Computer and Communications Industry Association[5]:
...even its limited provisions (API disclosure, icon removal,
etc.) rely exclusively on OEMs to provide a competitive alternative
to Windows...there is no likelihood that any OEM will use its small
freedoms under the settlement to choose to compete with Microsoft.
[[Page 28014]]
This trial has shown that OEMs have been bollyed by Microsoft so
badly that they have good reason to fear retaliation if they step
out of line.
Former Netscape CEO James Barksdale describes the Microsoft/OEM
relationship ``Finlandization''[6]:
During the Cold War, we used to refer to a concept known as
Finlandization. What this referred to was that Finland was nominally
free of the Soviet Union, but was so threatened by it, it could not
act unilaterally without tempering its actions so as not to offend
its giant neighbor which could crush it at will. The technology
industry now, and after the settlement with DOJ, is still
effectively, Finlandized by Microsoft. It is still dominated, and
will still cower in fear of the monopolist unbound.
Desktop Icons
The PFJ ensures that non-Microsoft companies may get their icons
on the Windows desktop, but the clause only applies to companies who
have sold more than a million copies of their software in the United
States.
There does not need to be any such limitation. Hardware vendors,
service providers, and all kinds of non-software companies might
want to pay OEMs to put their icon on the desktop.
Technical Comittee
The three-person technical committee (TC) that the PFJ proposes
has some serious problems. First, the fact that Microsoft would be
allowed to choose one member, who would in turn help to choose a
second, is troubling. No convicted criminal gets to choose his
guards, his judge, his jury, or even his parol officer, and Iraq
does not get to choose its weapons inspectors. Microsoft would
surely choose someone who is biased in favor of the company.
As the TC would work in secret, so there would be no public
pressure on Microsoft to simply ignore them.
The TC would have no specific enforcement power. All they could
do is report back to the DoJ on what's happening inside Microsoft.
The TC members would be payed by Microsoft. That creates a
conflict of interest. Conclusion: The many loopholes in the PFJ Need
to Be Closed
The PFJ has been widely critisized [7,8] and software industry
is virtually unanimous in it's characterization of the PFJ as being
full of loopholes and ineffective. The more generous critiques call
it a ``slap on the wrist''. I believe the most common view
of it was put simply by Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly,
when he said[9] that the deal was ``full of loopholes and does
little more than license Microsoft to crush its competition.''
Part 2: Microsoft Should Be Split Into Three Companies
In this section, I will explain why I think that the PFJ is not
sufficient to stop the unlawful conduct of Microsoft and restore
competition to the OS and Web Browser markets. I propose splitting
Microsoft into an Operating Systems (OS) company, a Web Browser
company, and an Applictions (and everything else) company.
Justification for a Microsoft Breakup
While most of the remedies in the PFJ attempt to
``terminate unlawful conduct'' and ``prevent
repetition in the future'', none even come close to attempting
to ``revive competition in the relevant markets''. In his
legal summary of the Microsoft case[7], Paul M. Kaplan states:
Finally, the Court highlighted its major concerns with its entry
of the Final Judgment--namely, ``to terminate the unlawful
conduct, to prevent its repetition in the future, and to revive
competition in the relevant markets''. Supra at 3. United
States v. United Shoe Machinery Corporation, 391 U.S. 244 (1968)
provides guidance as to the judicial relief that should be granted
where a defendant is found guilty of violating 2 of the Sherman Act.
In that case, the Court stated that the appropriate relief in a
``Sherman Act case should be to 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 this monopoly power found
to be in violation of the act. In short, the remedy should achieve
its principal objects, ``to extirpate practices that have
caused or may hereafter cause monopolization and restore workable
competition in the market'.'' Supra at 252 The remedy must be
strong enough that in the future, people look back and say
``there is now competition in both the PC Operating Systems
market and the Web Browser market because of the Microsoft
trial.''
The CCIA[5] also points out that the settlement does not address
the core monopoly problem:
the DOJ settlement would not restrict the core way in which
Microsoft unlawfully maintained its Windows operating system (OS)
monopoly, namely bundling and tying competing platform software
(known as ``middleware'') like Web browsers and Java, to
the OS the DOJ settlement has no provisions to create competition in
the OS market that Microsoft unlawfully monopolized.
The DOJ settlement has no provisions directed to new markets
where Microsoft is using the same bundling and restrictive practices
to preserve and extend its Windows monopoly. Typified by Windows XP,
which ties Internet services, digital media software and instant
messaging (among other features) to Windows, Microsoft is
demolishing potential competition in these new markets just as it
did in 1995-98 to Netscape. The Court of Appeals ruled that a
remedy must ``ensure that there remain no practices likely to
result in monopolization in the future,'' but the DOJ deal does
not even try to restrict ways in which Microsoft could (and already
has) leverage its Windows monopoly in the future.
In fact, as the CCIA mentions above, Microsoft is continuing its
illegal practice. Today, Microsoft not only enjoys an OS monopoly,
it now enjoys a Web Browser monopoly and an ``Office
Applications'' monopoly. It is using the same tactics that it's
been conviced of to extend its OS monopoly to a ``Media
Player'' monopoly and ``Instant Messanger'' monopoly.
Microsoft claims[10] that many of these ``applications''
are or should be integral parts of the operating system. But in
fact, viable markets already exist for these applications. The Web
Browser market was once very profitable for Netscape. Many non-
Microsoft ``Office Applications'' have done fine in the
past, and certainly there are many ``Media Player'' and
``Instant Messager'' providers today.
Why Internet Explorer Should be A Separate Company
In my opinion, there is simply no way to restore competition to
the Web Browser market other than to separate the IE application
from the rest of Microsoft. Anything short of that would allow
Microsoft to fund IE development from it's monopoly-generated funds.
If IE were forced to be self-sufficient, it would help to level
playing field with other web browsers--both existing and
potential new ones. Microsoft would argue that Netscape is funded by
AOL, and thus would have an unfair advantage. This is true, but some
advantage is now needed to restore competition now that IE has
around 85% market share. By analogy, AT&T had far more
restrictions place on it after its divestiture than its competitors.
This was necessary to attempt to create competition. It's true that
all else being equal, it would be unfair to only restrict Microsoft.
But all else is not equal: Microsoft has been convicted of illegally
maintaining and extending its OS monopoly to the browser market.
Microsoft would also argue that the consumer would be harmed
because IE today is free. IE in fact is not free.
Consumers are simply paying for it as part of the price of
Windows.
The separation of IE from the rest of Microsoft would be
necessary but not sufficient to re-establish competition in the web
browser market. There would need to be the regulations you might
expect to ensure that it's really separate: No cross-ownership, no
special agreements, no comingling of code, etc. between these two
companies. And just as local phone companies could not enter the
long distance market until they had competition in their local
market, The IE company would need to be restricted from the OS
market, and the OS company from the browser market, until
competition existed.
The CCIA and SIIA organizations filed a ``friend of the
court'' brief[12] in which they forcefully argue the need for
not just the OS be split from the rest of Microsoft, but for the Web
Browser part of Microsoft to be separated also. Judge Jackson seemed
to feel that this was the best solution, but as it was not the one
recommended by the prosecution, it would have been inappropriate to
impose it. But two things have changed since then. First, the
effects of Microsoft's illegal activity continues to give IE
increased market share and erode the competition in the Web Browser
market. With over 85% of browser market share, Microsoft now has (or
is close to having) a monopoly on the browser market, which it
didn't have just two years ago. Second, the DoJ, under a new
administration, has not only dropped it's efforts for a structural
remedy, it has agreed to this very weak PFJ. To some extent, the DoJ
has ``switched sides'', now siding with Microsoft on a
weak remedy. While there was little reason to second-guess the 2-way
split supported by the previous DoJ prosecutors, there seems to
[[Page 28015]]
be plenty of reason to question whether the current DoJ is doing
what's in the public interest.
As you might guess, others[13,14] have also recommended this 3-
way split.
Why Windows Should be A Separate Company
Separating IE from the rest of Microsoft would attempt to remove
the illegally established monopoly in web browsers, but there still
is the issue of Microsoft continuing to extend its OS market to
other markets, such as Media Players, Instant Messaging, Virus
software, etc. The court found that Microsoft attempted to maintain
its monopoly through restrictive OEM contracts, and illegally extend
it through web browser tying. But, of course, it did not find
Microsoft illegally extend their OS product to these other areas, as
Microsoft only started to bundle these recently. But the principle
is the same: to tie an application that is in a competitive market
into the monopoly OS. The remedy must take steps to stop this
activity. By analogy, when someone is convicted of stealing from a
bank, the remedy should also prevent or discourage him from stealing
from anywhere else. In fact, the remedy should discourage him from
breaking any law even remotely related to the original crime.
So how to prevent Microsoft from its ongoing practice of taking
over markets by extending Windows to include them? The only way to
do this is separate the OS into its own company. This remedy has
wide acceptance as the most effective solution, including several
thorough briefs[11] supplied to the court. I believe this remedy is
the only way to prevent Microsoft from continuing to illegally
maintain and extends its OS monopoly. A large fine may discourage
it, but only a structural remedy would prevent it.
The Windows product must be split into a completely separate
company from all other products in order to stop it from growing by
consuming other application areas, and thus illegally extending its
monopoly. The company would need to have the obvious restrictions:
No cross-ownership, no special deals with other companies, and no
extension into other markets. In addition, as was the case for
.AT&T, it would need to be profit-regulated to ensure that it
does not overcharge customers.
How to Determine ``Operating System'' vs.
``Application''
The difficult part of enforcing such a split would be on the
technical issue of not allowing the OS to grow into
``application'' areas. Bill Gates, in his disposition[10],
lists many ``gray areas'' which are not considered part of
the dictionary-definition of ``Operating System'', but
which recently have tended to be delivered as part of the operating
system:
Font management
Disk backup, optimization, compression
A shell (DOS/Unix command line)
A help system
Anti-virus software
Remote boot capability
Graphics support
A control panel
u email capability
demos to show off OS features.
This is just a rough list off the top of his head; there are
probably hundreds of such areas that some might consider ``part
of the OS'', and others would consider
``applications''. In this deposition, the DoJ presented
dictionary definitions of ``Operating System'' and
``application'', and then noted that the web browser was
always referred to, even by Microsoft, as an
``application''. But Microsoft has a valid point here:
many features are delivered with the OS these days, and the consumer
does benefit from their inclusion.
How do we determine whether these and other ``pre-packaged
applications'' may be included in the OS or not?
My proposal is to ask a simple question:
Has there been, is there, or could there be, a viable market for
the feature as an application that's separate from the OS ?
Certainly, there are many email applications for sale out there.
There is healthy competition in the anti-virus software market.
There are businesses who's products are disk management. And there
are alternative ``shell'' products such as MKS Toolkit.
Microsoft could argue that the Operating System would be better if
these where included, but that's not the point. The point is that
they did (or do, or might someday) also exist as
``applications'' within a viable market where competition
exists.
Another analogy: Certainly a car would be ``better''
if it included any number of built-in features: a car stereo, a map,
a compass, a thermostat, etc. And in a competitive market, no one
would restrict a car company from including such features. But if
one car company had a monopoly, inclusion of more and more of these
features would destroy the existing markets for these products and
would be illegal under the Sherman Act. Only features which are
absolutely critical for the car to function (such as tires and an
engine) should be allowed to be packaged by the convicted
monopolist.
How to Enforce Separation: A Technical Committee
If we had a separate Microsoft OS company, it would need to be
restricted from entering any area where a viable market already
exists. Further, we would need an enforcement mechanism by which
this company would be forced to remove or usable any feature that
has a viable market outside of the OS.
Certainly there are vibrant disk management and anti-virus
markets today, and Norton (the leading non-Microsoft player in this
market) and others should get the benefit of having these features
unbundled. In addition to an existing market being criterion for
unbundling, a past market should be grounds also. So Opera or
Netscape/AOL should not have to prove that the browser market is
still competative, just the fact that Netscape dominated a non-OS
web browsing market in the past should be justification for
unbundling it from the OS.
More recently, certainly AOL dominates an ``instant
messaging'' market and Real Networks is in a viable
``media player'' market. On the other hand, I don't know
if there is a viable market for ``font management'' or
``control panel'' or ``OS demo'' or
``remote administration'' markets outside of the OS
itself.
The determination of whether a product is (or could be) a
``viable application'' as opposed to only an ``OS
feature'' should not be left to the traditional court process
because it is too slow. In the fast-moving software industry, it's
just not practical have a trial and take years to make such a
determination. With Microsoft now bundling Media Player in Windows
XP, for example, Real Networks could easily be long gone two or
three years from now.
I propose an independant panel or ``Special Master''
appointed by the court to determine whether a particular feature
once had, does have, or could reasonable have, a viable market as an
application. This panel would analyze the feature from an economic
point of view, not a technical one. In this way, it would not be
enough for Microsoft to simply claim ``It would be cool to
browse your local disk using your web browser.'' or ``It
would be convenient for the user to have a disk compression utility
built in to the OS.'' Instead, Microsoft would be required to
show that disk compression software (for example) is not a viable
application, never was a viable application, and never could be a
viable application outside of the OS itself. Non-Microsoft companies
could petition the panel to have a feature considered to be an
application, and if the committee agreed, it would have the power to
force the Microsoft OS to unbundle it from the OS.
Such a ``technical committee'' should differ from the
TC proposed in the PFJ:
It should be independent of Microsoft
All it's activities should be public
It should have enforcement powers
Its members should be selected by the court
How a Microsoft Breakup Would Restore Competition
How would a three-way company split and a Technical Committee as
outlined above stop the ongoing extension of Windows? First, the
committee would certainly have one ruling already decided: there
certainly was once a viable web-browser application market, and
Microsoft should be immediatly forced to unbundle it.
Companies such as AOL, Real Networks and Norton could
immediately petition the TC to have instant messanging, media
player, Virus and Disk management be declared viable markets, and
Microsoft would be forced to unbundle these features from the OS.
Over time, more an more features would be unbundled from Windows,
until eventually all that would be left is what the dictionary says
is an Operating System: just the ``kernel'' and basic
device management. The Technical Committee's job would be to remove
the ``Application Barrier to Entry'' for each type of
application, one by one.
This is the only way I can envision returning competition to
what is today the almost all-encompassing area of an
``Operating System''. The only other suggestion I have
heard that even attempts to restore competition would be to split
Microsoft into several ``Baby Bills''--smaller
companies that all share the rights to Windows.
I doubt that that would work. For starters, all employees could
simply quit and all one
[[Page 28016]]
company-- perhaps on their first day, and perhaps all join the
company led by Bill Gates. Conclusion: Breaking Up Microsoft is the
Only Way to Restore Competition
In conclusion, I do not take proposing a breakup of what's
probably the worlds most successful company lightly. But I think the
situation now parallels the situation with AT&T before
divestiture. There was no real long-distance competition then, and
there is no real operating system competition now or in the
foreseeable future. While AT&T was prohibited then from entering
new markets (like local service), Microsoft is not restricted from
extending the OS into all sorts of other software markets. While
there was a fairly clear distinction between long-distance and local
phone service for AT&T, there is no such clear technical
boundary between an operating system and an application. We can be
sure that if left unchecked, Microsoft will continue to extend
Windows into all sorts of other areas. In fact, all the Microsoft
employees in all their testimony where careful never to rule out any
software as potentially being part of the OS. The best we can do is
basically to say ``If there was, is, or could be a market for
it outside of the operating system, then we must eliminate the
barrier to that market's existance: force its removal from the
Windows operating system.'' Part 3: Deterence: Levy a Heavy
Fine Aside from the structural remedy I propose here and the
contract and API-related remedies proposed in the PFJ, I don't
understand why there is no punishment proposal in the PFJ, such as a
heavy fine. I do understand (at a high level--I Am Not a
Lawyer) that this is a civil case in which the goal is to stop the
behavior and the criminal cases (such as the class action suit filed
by states and the recently filed suit by AOL/Netscape) are meant to
provide relief for the victims (consumers in the one case and a
company in the other). But it seems to me that the simplest, easiest
to implement, and least controversial way to stop Microsoft from
continued illegal activity would be to levy a heavy fine for its
previous illegal activity. How large of a fine?
Large enough that Microsoft executives would regret having done
the illegal activities and would not do them in the future, simply
on economic grounds. To this day, Microsoft executives say
``We've done nothing wrong'', and that may never change.
The court can't change that, but the court can levy a fine that will
cause them so say ``...but we won't do it any more because it
would be bad business.''
Of course, calculating an appropriate fine would be very
difficult, but here are some rough numbers to consider. Microsoft
has several tens of billions of dollars in cash, and I believe
roughly half is from the sale of Windows. Windows 95, 98, 2000, cost
around $90, a little less when preloaded by an OEM. Microsoft's own
trial testimony indicated that around $49 would have been a
reasonable price for these products. (Microsoft enjoyed an 88%
return on investment, compared to 13% for other industries). So
multiplying a $40 ``overcharge'' by the number of copies
of Windows 95, 98, and 2000 sold would give a ballpark figure of the
amount of damages to consumers. Perhaps other versions of Windows
(such as Windows XP) and their prices should be taken into account.
Certainly, upgrade prices (as opposed to ``complete
versions'') should also be considered.
I believe it would take a fine in the tens of billions of
dollars for Microsoft's past illegal activities to be considered as
having been a bad business decision. Such a fine would not be enough
to put Microsoft out of business, but enough to do serious damage
comparable to that suffered by Netscape. Final Thoughts
Thank you for reading this document. I think input from the
public, and from people in the software industry in particular,
should be given very serious consideration considering the huge
impact this ruling will have on the industry. I believe the Tunney
Act included this comment period for just such a situation as we
have today: when the Department Of Justice, for whatever reason,
wishes to settle an antitrust case in a way that does no serve the
public interest, the public should be heard.
References
[1] Proposed Final Judgement
[2] The Tunney Act
[3] Zimran Ahmed, Letter to the DoJ, 12/10/01
[4]SAMBA
[5] Computer & Communcations Industry Association, ``US
vs. Microsoft: A Trial Perspective''
[6] James Barksdale Letter to Chariman Leahy and Senator Hatch
[7] Epstein Becker & Green, The Unfolding Microsoft Drama:
Shattered Windows:
[8] On the Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft
[9] BBC News: Microsoft Settlement Search Continues
[10] Deposition of Bill Gates, December 15th, 1998
[11] United States vs. Microsoft Remedies Papers
[12] BRIEF ON REMEDY OF AMICI CURIAE COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION AND SOFTWARE AND INFORMATION INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION
[13] Is It Too Late To Split Microsoft In Three?
[14] Microsoft Remedy Redux
MTC-00027416
From: James Austin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a concerned citizen, I wish to offer comment concerning the
proposed settlement of United States v. Microsoft.
I am a civilian employee of an agency of the United States
Government, where my job function is the administration of a network
of personal computers and the technical support of the users of
those computers. However, I offer the following comments purely as a
private citizen, without the encouragement or even the knowledge of
my employer.
I have been an interested observer of the computer industry in
various capacities for more than twenty years, and have been
professionally involved in the industry for ten. In that time I have
seen the development of the industry from a perspective rather
different from that usually discussed. My experience is that of
someone who has directly used the technology and helped others to
use the technology, working alongside both the users of that
technology and others whose professional duties were similar to my
own. These experiences have taught me several things which I am
compelled to share.
First: The case of United States v. Microsoft is almost
certainly one of the most important cases of all time, for how this
is resolved will have repercussions certain to outlive anyone of
this generation now participating in the actual case.
What is at stake is not merely the future practices of one
corporation, or even the future structure of one industry. What is
at stake is nothing less than the nature of access to information,
from the individual citizen to the largest private and public
institutions.
Many years ago, I heard of a Jesuit philosopher who had written
about an idea he called the ``knowlosphere.'' He imagined
that as more and more information was transmitted via computer
technology, there would arise around the earth a sort of
``sphere of knowledge'' that would surround the earth the
same way the atmosphere does, and that there would come a point in
which the essential sum total of all human knowledge would exist
within this sphere. Furthermore, this would eventually become so
important to the lives of people that it would become impossible to
switch off once switched on. Though he imagined this in terms of
communications satellites (the highest technology available to him
at the time), I maintain that a world of personal computers all
connected via the worldwide Internet is the true realization of this
vision.
We must now ask ourselves this question: do we wish to allow,
indeed do we dare allow, the fundamental infrastructure of human
knowledge and thought to become in practice (if not directly in law)
the private commercial domain of one corporation?
Second: Microsoft already monopolizes several areas of computer
technology, and is working hard to monopolize others.
This point seems hardly worth discussing, because as I write
this, the courts have repeatedly ruled that Microsoft is indeed a
monopoly and is guilty of breaking the law. What is more interesting
is that to this very day, I am unaware of any admission Microsoft
has ever offered, to anyone at any time, that it has been found
guilty of breaking any law. Indeed, only within the last few months
has it acknowledged in any public statements that any court rulings
went against it, and vaguely at that.
Third: Microsoft has proven repeatedly that it cannot be trusted
even with the level of power it enjoys today.
Microsoft portrays all concern over its power and actions as
solely the product of disgruntled competitors. While even that would
justify intervention if the competitors were disgruntled because of
actions which broke the law (as the courts have repeatedly ruled was
in fact the case), what is more significant is Microsoft's actions
not against
[[Page 28017]]
its competition but against its own customers.
Consider that under the First Amendment, I have the legal right
to criticize my government, perhaps even harshly so, and I may even
do so in a forum sponsored by that same government. The courts have
interpreted this right to extend further; for instance, I may use a
telephone and still criticize whatever company provides my telephone
service. But I may NOT utilize Microsoft products to criticize
Microsoft. This is not a paranoid fantasy, it is a direct reading of
clauses in the licenses of several of their products, which
explicitly forbid one to ``criticize or disparage Microsoft
and/or its products and/or services.'' Indeed one license
actually forbids the ``parody'' of Microsoft products and
services.
Microsoft demands that companies engaged in any joint ventures
waive their rights to sue Microsoft for patent infringement
``even should evidence arise that such infringement has
occurred.'' And there are more additional examples than I have
time to list, of Microsoft using the courts to squelch criticism and
then thumbing its nose at the courts when they issue rulings
Microsoft does not wish.
We must now ask ourselves whether the interest of the people of
the United States is served when one company not only has the power
to behave in this manner, but actually does so, and thus far with
impunity. Fourth: Microsoft's already dangerous power is increasing.
It has been widely noted that when the Internet first began to
become a household word, Microsoft largely ignored the whole
phenomenon. Now that Microsoft has taken notice, their objective is
nothing less than the total control of the Internet. During the time
between the filing of United States v. Microsoft and today,
Microsoft's plans to destroy Netscape (publishers of what was at the
time overwhelmingly the most widely-used browser for the World Wide
Web) have come to fruition, and they now face essentially no
competition in that area.
One has to ask why Microsoft wanted to destroy Netscape so badly
that they would give away a competing product for free. One reason
is that control of the web browser gives one control of the choke
point for information and commerce on the Internet. The other reason
is that Netscape had ambitious plans to enhance their browser and
ultimately to ``grow the browser into an operating system of
its own'' which would have threatened Microsoft's monopoly.
Perhaps such a scheme would have proved beneficial to the public,
but it was a threat to Microsoft, and like all such threats before,
could not resist Microsoft's destructive power.
Today Microsoft controls the web browser, and much evidence
exists that its ultimate plan is to take control of the basic
protocols that servers use to communicate with each other across the
Internet itself. Once that happens they will essentially have the
level of power that a company would have if they controlled all bank
ATM machines, all telephones, all newspapers, and all radio and
television stations. All access to information in any form from
anywhere at any time would generate profit for Microsoft, and be
subject to their approval.
We must now ask whether this is a desirable future for a free
people. Fifth: People like me, in the trenches, have long considered
Microsoft dangerous.
I could tell you so many stories. Just the jokes we tell to each
other betray a deepening gloom about the future. Alas, I am facing a
strict deadline for public comment and this must leave them for
another time.
Sixth: The proposed settlement of United States v. Microsoft is
NOT sufficient. It contains insufficient punishment for past
transgressions of the law, insufficient guarantees against future
transgressions of law, NO compensation for victims of those
transgressions of law, and insufficient remedies for the
consequences of past transgressions of law. Much more needs to be
said, but as the period for public comment is ending I must draw to
a close. But I cannot urge strongly enough that this settlement NOT
be accepted as is.
Sincerely,
James R. Austin
(Should this be required by law, my full address is as follows:
155 Watkins Mill RD
Apt. C
Gaithersburg, MD 20879-3336)
MTC-00027417
From: Dennis Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:07am
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
I use Microsoft products, and I benefit from them and their
features. Microsoft did NOT force me to buy and use their products.
I chose them because they are superior to anything offered by their
competitors. I resent the government's characterization of me as a
helpless victim who cannot choose software that is useful to me. I
do not think that the government has any right to decide what can be
in my computer. I resent the idea that a successful business and its
products are a threat to anyone. I would like to remind the court
that the complaint against Microsoft originated NOT with individual
consumers, or with Microsoft's partners, but with Microsoft's
unsuccessful, jealous competitors. Failed businesses must not be
allowed to set the rules for the markets in which they failed. I
would also like to remind the court that for politicians to protect
some businesses from competition by others is a dangerous policy.
Continued application of the antitrust laws against successful
businessmen can only lead to corruption and economic disaster as
exists in many other countries. I want to see an America where
success is not throttled, but embraced. I want a free America where
anyone with enough intelligence and hard work can be a self-made man
like Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates. Microsoft has a fundamental
right to its property. It is the government's job is to PROTECT this
right, not to take it away.
Best regards,
Dennis Wilson
[email protected]
``Intellectual honesty [involves] knowing what one does
know, constantly expanding one's knowledge, and NEVER evading or
failing to correct a contradiction. This means: the development of
an ACTIVE mind as a permanent attribute.''
Ayn Rand
MTC-00027418
From: Kory Hamzeh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please give serious consideration to the contents of: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
Sincerely,
Kory Hamzeh
West Hills, CA
MTC-00027419
From: The Dream Factory
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
As I understand it, MS1 settlement offer would have them giving
away hardware/software to public institutions (school etc.) Now,
that1s the core sector of their direct competitor (Apple). I fear
the Mr. Gate1s business acumen sees in this an opportunity to give
away ``samples'' of his products to a new generation of
buyers, which would only lead into making Microsoft stronger and
bigger.
Thank you for your time.
JF Leduc,
Montreal Canada
MTC-00027420
From: Jeff Prus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:12am
Subject: Accept the Current Microsoft Case Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
I would like my opinion to be considered for the Microsoft case.
I believe the current settlement is fair and urge you to settle this
case now. I believe continuation of this litigation is harmful to
both the software industry and the economy.
By continuing to add features and functionality to Windows,
Microsoft has advanced the PC platform while reducing the costs to
the consumer. Furthermore, I believe that Microsoft's ability to add
features to the operating system only creates parity with other
firms that also incorporate new functionality within the operating
system itself, namely Apple's OS X and various versions of Linux. I
believe the states that continue to oppose the settlement are only
trying to achieve a settlement windfall for Microsoft competitors
within their states, however, at a significant cost to the high-tech
industry and overall economy.
That being said, I do believe that Microsoft's dominance in the
desktop PC operating system market creates a disadvantage for
competitors and thus warrants some restrictions in order for other
companies to be given a chance to compete.
[[Page 28018]]
These include the requirement for Microsoft to include some other
companies'' products within Windows as an alternative to
Microsoft products. This requirement is covered within the existing
settlement. This continued litigation is damaging one of our
countries great corporations and I believe a fair and equitable
settlement has been proposed. As such, I urge you to settle this
case now. The only winner in this continued litigation is the legal
profession.
Thanks,
Jeff Prus
[email protected]
(773) 525-1969
MTC-00027421
From: Mary E. Daudelin
To: Microsoft ATR,Mary E. Daudelin
Date: 1/28/02 12:11am
Subject: RE: Microsoft Settlement
Comments included in body of email, in case you don't have MS
Office 2000 to read the attachment of my earlier e-mail.
Sincerely,
M. E. Daudelin
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
To paraphrase Mr. Glassman's comments pertaining to the
Microsoft settlement, I also feel that AOL could better spend its
time in further analysis of its own product (especially with regard
to its deployment overseas) rather than in continuing to pursue this
case. My own personal experience with AOL has led me to believe that
full utilization of the Internet is, in fact, restricted, when using
their application. As a developer of WEB applications for research,
business and educational purposes, I have utilized a variety of
browsers, development tools and operating systems while producing
and testing my applications. Although I use Windows NT servers and
take advantage of their many development tools, such as FrontPage
2002, I have not found that the public cannot access my
applications, regardless of their operating system and/or browser
types (with the exception of an occasional prototype). In fact,
until recently, Netscape has always been my personal choice of
browser as it was the one that introduced me fully to the Internet.
And SUN's StarOffice product has produced many graduate-school
presentations for me.
Because Internet Explorer is so forgiving of my JavaScript
scripting errors, I find that I often HAVE to make myself utilize
other browsers/systems in my testing to ensure that users who do not
use MS products/systems are not inundated with JavaScript errors
that I have overlooked in my own code. My personal belief is that
Microsoft has some very good programmers that pay attention to
detail, and, as such, should not be penalized for their technical
excellence.
Yes, my job would be much easier if I could convince everyone on
this planet to use Microsoft Windows OS's and IE browsers, IBM
ThinkPad laptop computers, the same size/resolution monitor and to
access the Internet via cable or high-speed access, however, since
this attitude smacks of the old telecom mentality (a black rotary
phone for everyone, by God!), and because we all have our different
comfort levels, I will remain silent on that subject and continue to
jump back and forth between the plethora of computers/systems/
browsers that I access in my testing.
In closing, I feel that Microsoft should be used as an example
of what works in our economy (little, if any, debt and innovative,
easily accessible business solutions at a reasonable cost). Beyond
the concessions contained in the settlement agreement, nothing more
should be expected or required of Microsoft at this time. I
appreciate your efforts to quickly settle this case.
Sincerely,
M. E. Daudelin
-----Original Message-----
From: Mary E. Daudelin
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 12:06 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Comments on the MS Case:
See attachment.
Sincerely,
M. E. Daudelin
MTC-00027422
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ella B Lankford
P. O. Box 266
Seneca, MO 64865-0266
MTC-00027423
From: Rick Kennell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
I am writing to comment on the proposed settlement of the United
States vs. Microsoft antitrust case. I am a computer engineer with
several years of experience in industry as well as a university
instructor. I look forward to a future where I can work in my chosen
career of software engineering although, in light of the proposed
settlement, this future is fading. I am opposed to the proposed
settlement because it does not go far enough to remedy the damaging
market structure set up by Microsoft that almost completely
squelches other software environments as well as their developers. I
find that the terms of the proposed settlement will do nothing more
than prolong the status quo. In particular, I find the fact that the
settlement would allow Microsoft to continue its damaging
anticompetitive practices of economically barring OEMs from shipping
computers without Microsoft's OS to be the greatest problem. A
correction of this element alone-- simply to restore a free-
market economy to the PC industry--would be a welcome relief to
the industry.
I appreciate the sentiment that a settlement should be reached
quickly in order to avoid wasting taxpayer money. I would only hope
that if money is to be spent for this at all, that the job should be
completed in such a manner as to make it worth the effort of
starting the process in the first place. The settlement, as it
stands, DOES NO GOOD.
Sincerely,
Richard L. Kennell
Visiting Instructor of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN
MTC-00027424
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:17am
Subject: microsoft settlement January 27, 2002 Attorney General John
Ashcroft US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530 Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
A settlement to the antitrust suit against Microsoft has finally
been reached, and I hope that it is implemented as soon as the
public comment period is over with. This proposed settlement stands
to benefit everyone involved, and best of all, allows Microsoft to
get back to helping the economy instead of wasting valuable time and
money in court.
The economy started its downward spiral the day the suit against
Microsoft was announced, and three years later we find ourselves in
a recession. Did no one realize just how important Microsoft is to
the economy? They provided tens of thousands of jobs to Americans
across the country and to people around the globe. I hope this
settlement will pave the way for the economy to get back on its
feet, and with Microsoft agreeing to work more closely with its
competitors, the market has to improve. I know there are many who
worry weather Microsoft will adhere to the terms of the settlement,
but they have no choice. An oversight committee has been set up that
will monitor Microsoft's compliance with the settlement.
Everything needed to improve our economy is in place. The
settlement must now be approved in order to get the ball rolling.
cc; Representative Maxine Waters
Sincerely,
Mose Tyler
MTC-00027425
From:
[email protected]@inetg
w
[[Page 28019]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:18am
Subject: Microsoft vs Netscape Opinions Dear the Department of
Justice:
Hello, I am from California, and am in the eight grade, and I
have a few issues to discuss about the way Microsoft is handling
this current case. Right now, Microsoft has made many illegal moves
that are all punishable because they are against certain laws set
forth in the late 1800's and early 1900's. For example, the Sherman
Anti- trust act started a movement to protect the smaller companies.
Microsoft has disobeyed, and they monpolized, and are taking
advantage of Netscape, which is backed by and even bigger company,
AOL Time Warner. The first trial that Microsoft was tried on was
very similar to this one. Netscape is sueing, because Microsoft
Internet Exploer covers 90% of the Internet Market Share, and the
government wants to give an equal perentage of the Internet Market
Share to smaller companies like Netscape and AOL. Microsoft is also
tried for bundling software in PC'S, which is also illegal.
Microsoft should also pay heavy fines for violating anti-trust laws.
Therefore, Microsoft rightfully should get this punishment that will
come, because it does not give smaller companies a chance.
From:
David Yao
MTC-00027426
From: Delbert Hart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:19am
Subject: Tunney Act comment
I have been active in the computer field for over 10 years. I am
currently an assistant professor in the computer science department
at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. In brief I believe that
the proposed settlement will not be effective in curbing the
predatory practices used by Microsoft. The most significant
deficiencies is the ambiguity in the wording, which may make
enforcement difficult. I also have some concerns about the technical
committee, especially the technical committee's inability to make
public comments. It is reasonable for them not to be able to reveal
intellectual property, but they should be able to speak about
general issues related to Microsoft's compliance.
I hope that revisions can be made to the settlement to clarify
many points and to allow the public direct access to the technical
committee. Although I have kept these comments short, I would be
happy to provide more details about possible improvments. These are
my own opinions and not necessarily those of my employer. --
Del Hart Assistant Professor
[email protected] University of Alabama in
Huntsville
MTC-00027427
From: Doug Rothert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To whom it may concern,
I really intended to make this a longer, more thought out
letter, but as the time draws to a close to express my concerns you
will get the brief version:
(1) I don't think the existing settlement will restore
competition, and I believe it is too little too late. In fact its
hard to imagine competition returning to my field (Software
Engineering) within the next 5 years or so. I won't dare make a
guess of anything beyond that. But the offer on the table is wrong
and is a defeat for the consumer, the tax payer, and our nation as a
whole. A chilling fact: in some colleges they have ceased teaching
fundamental computer science classes such as compilers and operating
system in favor of essentially training sessions for integrating
things with Microsoft software. Their point being, which are you
most likely to use on your job? Only one large company works on
compilers or operating systems now . . .
(2) If in fact you do go forward with this proposal and you are
looking for someone to be on a team to oversee Microsoft technology,
I offer my resume for the job. You can find it online at: http://
www.oneheadcount.com:81 I have an interesting past that would
clearly disqualify me from being a candidate under the current
guidelines of being totally impartial to anything and everything.
I've spent most of the last 9 years working on products that
combated Microsoft indirectly through my job at IBM. I've worked on
OS/2, Netscape, and Java to name a few technologies . . .
I also have a fair background on alternative OSes such as Linux and
NetBSD. I tend to be drawn toward very large, complex systems of
software and I am good at digging into the details, yet keeping the
broader picture in mind. I am a technical philosopher of sorts, and
I feel I could add balance to a team of experts in favor of
competition.
Thank you for your time and effort,
Doug Rothert
MTC-00027428
From: Karelle Scharff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that Microsoft should be forced to contribute a
significant amount of money to the poorest schools. NOT software,
NOT hardware, particularly not software or hardware from which they
would stand to profit through updates or any other means. In this
case, significant means an amount that would get their attention, ie
would actually hurt them. Let the schools decide where they should
spend the money. I believe too that there should be some sort of
ongoing accountability--so the next time they use monopolistic
tactics (and they will) the fine is actually GREATER.
Karelle Scharff
p.o. box 203
Ward, CO 80481
--
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.--Ben
Franklin
MTC-00027429
From: RON BALDWIN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:18am
Subject: Subject line of the e-mail, type Microsoft Settlement. CC:
[email protected]@
inetgw Ronald W. Baldwin 509 Huntington Drive Greenwood, MO 64034
(816) 537-8323 E-Mail
[email protected] 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,
Ronald W. Baldwin
MTC-00027430
From: Tanuj T
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:20am
Subject: Microsoft 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.
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.
(Tanuj)
CC: [email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00027431
From: Dan Veditz
[[Page 28020]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I object to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust
case. Please listen to the Attorneys General of the nine dissenting
states and send this proposal back to the drawing board.
Even on the surface the settlement doesn't go far enough, but
worse it's full of the sorts of loopholes that Microsoft abused to
make the 1995 consent decree effectively meaningless.
-Daniel Veditz
MTC-00027432
From: Ray G Spangler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:21am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Please expedite the settlement with microsoft. This unnecessary
litigation has already cost us too much. Continuing the suit will
only further damage our economy and delay further development of new
technology for our future.
Ray [email protected]
MTC-00027433
From: Peter Hollings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I hold an advanced degree from the Sloan School of Management,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the areas of information
technology and finance. I have over 30 years experience in these
fields, during which I have developed a deep understanding of the
processes of competition and innovation in the computer software
industry. I first became aware of Microsoft around 1982 and have
been a constant observer of that company's business practices over
the succeeding years. My purpose in writing is to express my
opposition to the proposed settlement that has been reached by the
US Department of Justice and Microsoft concerning their antitrust
suit. Not being trained in the formalities of the legal profession,
I am writing nevertheless in the hopes that you will take notice of
my objections as an American citizen, affected by this settlement,
and despite their probable formal incorrectness. I make this
expression on my personal behalf, although I firmly believe it also
reflects the interests of the businesses that I have presently or
formerly been associated with in either employment or consulting
roles. I firmly believe and respectfully request that the Court
consider:
1. That as a past and potential future purchaser of Microsoft
products, and as user of computing systems generally, that no aspect
of the proposed settlement is in my interest.
2. That I firmly believe that approval by the Court of the
proposed settlement would be bad for consumers, bad for business,
bad for innovation, bad for the beneficial functioning of market
economics, bad for constitutional rights, such as privacy and
security, and it would materially and adversely impair the public's
perception of government integrity.
3. I state my belief that the proposed settlement is so
thoroughly flawed in every aspect that I respectfully request that
the Court reject it from further consideration.
4. I respectfully request that the court give full consideration
to the filing by the American Antitrust Institute captioned as
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. This complaint sets
forth numerous instances in which both the DOJ and Microsoft have
failed to comply with specific disclosure requirements of the
Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (``Tunney Act'').
Most importantly are the failure of the DOJ to provide an accounting
of how the settlement reached is in the public interest and the
failure of Microsoft to fully identify its contacts with the
government relative to the settlement. I will note here that the
public press includes numerous articles relative to Microsoft's
lobbying activities relevant to the antitrust settlement decision,
none of which were included as required in Microsoft's report in
compliance of the reporting requirement. This combination of
circumstances gives the appearance that the public institutions of
the American people are being manipulated against their interests
and in a concealed way.
5. I respectfully request that the Court give full consideration
to these circumstances identified above and fully investigate and
correct any improprieties in the functioning of our government in
the interest of preserving the American people's confidence in both
the Executive and Judicial branches of our government. The proposed
settlement is such an egregiously bad agreement and so contrary to
the public interest that I cannot conceive that it was honestly
arrived at.
Thank you,
Peter Hollings
Atlanta, GA 30342
[email protected]
MTC-00027434
From: Richard Frick
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 12:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement January 27, 2002 Dear Judge Kollar-
Kotelly,
It is my understanding that over the past three 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. Most
recently, a U.S. Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that Microsoft
had clearly violated antitrust laws and that any government
settlement with Microsoft, in order to protect other members of the
technology community and the larger public, must have three key
elements:
1. Terminate Microsoft's illegal monopoly,
2. Deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past violations, and
3. Prevent any future anticompetitive activity.
It is further my understanding that the Proposed Final Judgment
fails to meet any of the three standards established by the court.
My experience with Anti-Trust and Nintendo certainly influence
my feelings about this Microsoft's situation.
After four years of preparation for a trial, we settled out of
court with Nintendo on the advice of our Anti-Trust council (Joe
Alioto). He said that the current Anti-Trust climate let any
business do anything they wished including breaking Anti-Trust law
as long as it made ``business sense''. As a result my
company, which held a valid US patent for technology making our
products legal and compatible with Nintendo's game unit, died and
left over 300 employees without United States based cartridge
design, development and assembly work. The story of my company was
featured in the PBS series ``Losing the War with Japan''.
This story won an Emmy for investigative reporting.
By not enforcing Anti-Trust laws, Microsoft will continue to do
the same to other companies as happened to my employees and our
company. I am sure, however, that Sun, AOL, Oracle and many others,
in Microsoft's position would act in exactly the same manner. I
don't want Microsoft to be replace by Sun, AOL or Oracle as the
reigning monopoly. I simply believe Anti-Trust laws must uniformly
and vigorously enforced!!
I work with people who absolutely ``hate'' Microsoft.
They believe everone who works for Microsoft are losers. It is a
``religious'' thing similar to what Mac owners feel about
Apple. At another small software firm I worked for, we were always
panicked that Microsoft would eliminate the need for our software by
baking it's capabilities into the operating system. Our original
product was only available on the Mac. We were very cautious with
Microsoft ``evangelists'' who visited and encouraged the
development of a Windows version. They wanted to
``assist'' us in the development. We didn't trust
Microsoft and figured they wanted to understand our code for their
own purposes. I would like to see Microsoft punished more severely
than what seems to be happening but I do not want them destroyed. I
do not believe they need to be broken up. I would like to see most
of the $36 billion they have in cash taken away and spent enforcing
the court ordered three key element mentioned above. This would send
a strong message to companies similar to Microsoft that Anti-Trust
laws must be observed.
If Microsoft had to make the ``Windows'' operating
system public domain, be paid a royalty for each copy used ($20.00),
other innovative companies could flourish and Microsoft would
continue to be strong and powerful. I personally like Microsoft
products. They have brought stability to an otherwise fragmented
platform market.
Knowing that this document is of public record, causes me some
fear. This fear is based on the fact that I earn my living in the
software industry. Should I become the target of Microsoft rage for
writing this, I could be deprived of my ability to earn a living. It
is my strong belief that this is public disclosure is seriously
limiting other of my collegues writing to you.
Best Regards in a very difficult decision and thank you for
reading this e-mail.
Richard Frick
[email protected]
CC: Richard Frick,'microsoftcomments (a)doj.ca.gov''
MTC-00027435
From: Robert Chang
[[Page 28021]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:25am
Subject: Judge Kollar-Kotally, Judge Kollar-Kotally,
As a member of the high tech industry for a number of years, I
wish to voice my objection to the proposed final judgment in the
U.S. vs. Microsoft case. Microsoft has used its Windows operating
system monopoly to bully other software and hardware companies, and
every court has ruled that they have violated anti-trust laws.
However, the proposed settlement allows Microsoft to retain
virtually all the profits it made illegally. Microsoft would be the
winner if this case resulted in business as usual, yet that is
precisely what the proposed final judgment is considering. There
must be assurances that Microsoft's anti-competitive activities will
cease.
Respectfully,
Robert K. Chang
MTC-00027436
From: Keith E. Folsom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To whom it may concern,
My name is Keith Folsom. I am the Director of Systems and
Communications at Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma, Washington.
I have been a computer professional since my graduation from college
with a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science in 1981. I have had
many roles in the field, including Software Engineer, Programmer,
Systems Administrator, and manager. My desire to stay current in a
field I really enjoy convinced me to enter an evening Master's
program in Computer Science and Engineering at the University of
Washington in 1999. I completed this program last month, graduating
with a Master's degree.
I am writing this letter in order to urge you to consider more
far-reaching sanctions against Microsoft than those proposed, which
I feel is justified in light of the conclusion that the company is a
monopoly. It is my opinion that the sanctions as proposed will do
little or nothing to prevent Microsoft from continuing to use their
monopoly power to crush competition and true innovation in the
computing industry.
I do not believe in a government that unnecessarily interferes
in the matters of industry. Free enterprise and capitalism normally
self-regulate. But when a company grows too large and is no longer
subject to the normal laws of economics, a government has the duty
to reign this company in. As I've watched Microsoft gain a strangle-
hold on the computing industry, I've also seen my choice of products
and solutions dwindle. It frankly scares me. And Microsoft's latest
attempt to control the Internet with their .NET initiative convinces
me that they have not learned any lessons from the long battle
against the Justice Department in the anti-trust case. They are
determined to own it all.
Once again, I urge you to consider stronger measures against
Microsoft, up to and including splitting the company into smaller,
more fairly competitive units. I believe such measures are the only
way to prevent the computing industry from sinking into a mire of
mediocrity, with no true choice of solutions for computing problems.
This is what monopolies do unless they are stopped. Please stop
Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Keith Folsom
Director, Systems & Communications
[email protected]
Pacific Lutheran University WWW--http://
www.plu.edu/folsomke
Tacoma, Washington PGP--/pgp.txt
MTC-00027437
From: Alen Shapiro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed Microsoft settlement is a BAD idea. I'm a computer
professional. I am a partner and co-founder of Softek Partners Inc.
(http://www.softekpartners.com). I develop portable software that
runs on Windows, UNIX and Macintosh. Time and again I've seen
Microsoft produce software that adheres to standards, gain market
share and then subtly ``extend'' the standard to provide
``new facility''. Trouble is the ``new
facility'' will only run under Microsoft operating systems
which means that software developed using the ``new
facility'' is no longer portable.
This is a monopolistic tactic of the worst kind. Subtly locking
software development into the Microsoft supported platforms. The
initial software developers are seduced by the recommended
``new facility'' and can hit 95% of their market with the
product they develop thus perpetuating the monopoly and making it
harder to jump the hurdle that would allow software developer to
port their software to other operating system (i.e. non Microsoft
operating systems).
For examples of this behavior just look at the Microsoft Visual
C++ programming suite. Look at the extensions to the ANSI standard.
Other compiler producers (e.g. Metrowerks) have to support
Microsoft's non-portable extensions to sell their competing
products, and that's just on the Windows platform. What about UNIX
and Macintosh. These other platforms should be encouraged as an
alternative to the monopoly. The current settlement does nothing
significant in this regard. Microsoft need to be prevented from
extending standards without providing timely support for competing
products in the areas they dominate. Microsoft are just too big for
other industry participants to do anything other than roll over when
threatened.
Another example is the treatment of Sun's Java (dutifully
extended by Microsoft).
How about ``.net'' which is a ``new'' spin
on an old (portability) idea. Why do I need to be tied to Microsoft
services to take advantage of it. I do not trust Microsoft to allow
competition in this area. They must be required to release all API
specs. (including file formats) to all who request them with
sufficient time to take advantage of the specs. Microsoft should not
be allowed to own this resource. Once again, they are too big and
will stifle innovation and the general commerce that would have
resulted.
The Internet is a public resource, it should be protected. No
one company should be in a position to own it or it's resources. For
example, Microsoft is in a good position to implement
``extensions'' to the TCP-IP protocol to, say, ``save
the net'' from its security vulnerabilities. It is a logical
step for them to take. Perhaps not now but soon. Once those new TCP-
IP stacks are distributed (only on Microsoft platforms of course),
interoperability with other platforms would be denied at a
fundamental networking level. Currently Microsoft selectively target
competing technologies by adding them to exclusions in their
``terms of use'' license. They should be stopped from
doing this. Specifically, I should be able to run Microsoft products
in whatever emulators I choose, without Microsoft being allowed to
stipulate within which virtual environment they may run. This will
prevent Microsoft from limiting their software to only run in the
environments they sanction and should help limit Microsoft's
monopoly. Of course, the above preventive measure only works if
Microsoft actually publish their APIs and file formats and, if there
are any independent developers left to use these specs.
You have the chance to set a line in the sand. Don't back down
now, not after all the hard work you've done. Put enforceable
limitations on Microsoft's business practices in place now and then
enforce them when Microsoft test how far they can go and how far you
are prepared to go to stop them.
Your current (proposed) settlement has already been
marginalized. Do you really want to have to do this whole thing over
again in a year when Microsoft feel comfortable enough to pretend
your definitions are no longer applicable? What remedies will you be
able to enforce?
Alen Shapiro
CTO Softek Partners Inc.
----------
I was just trying to turn my SPARC into a FLAME and I Carbonised
it!!
MTC-00027438
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I respectfully submit you do not accept the Microsoft
settlement. While I have not been a Systems Admin. for over ten
years now, I can state with some certainty the tactics I have seen
used by Microsoft are not normally innovative, but rather
monopolistic. At one time Microsoft had competition in all areas
(Lotus comes to mind the quickest), but in any area Microsoft wanted
to own the market, the competition usually was squeezed out, often
by the use of vague, or changing standards within their operating
system. I saw this same technique brought out again with the idea of
placing ``free'' computers and software in schools. This
solution would basically have the US government assist Microsoft in
their attempt to force Apple out of the schools, allowing Microsoft
to monopolize even the educational system.
PLEASE don't take the easy way out of this one! I have the
opinion, as simplistic as it may sound, that Mr. Gates was so
arrogant on
[[Page 28022]]
the witness stand because he had little fear of even the United
States Government. His product was in most government offices and
all he had to do was threaten national security with the threat of
total economic and governmental collapse if Microsoft was broken up,
but I fear it may well be the other way around. It may well be
Microsoft's products which some day bring a collapse of the US
economy--or worse.
I am sorry I have no ``hard evidence'' to point to,
but to those who have watched, Microsoft's intent has been clear
nearly since the first contract with IBM: ``assimilate or
exterminate'' could well have been their battle cry as they
attempted to own a piece of every desktop in the world.
Please do not allow the US Government to assist Microsoft in
their growing monopoly... Please do not settle with Microsoft
according to the latest terms.
Respectfully,
David Roberts (Diagnostics Software Engineer)
47 King Street
Nashua, NH 03060
David Roberts @ Home
Email: [email protected]
MTC-00027439
From: Andrew Schaaf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To the Department of Justice:
The current proposal for the Microsoft settlement does not do
enough to prevent Microsoft from staying a monopoly in the computer
industry. Even after being found guilty of being an illegal
monopoly, Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their
behavior, with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure
to comply, is the only remedy that will stop them.
Microsoft should be forced to release the specification to their
file formats (Word, PowerPoint, etc). This would allow other
companies and people to create programs that could read and write to
formats that currently only Microsoft fully knows, thereby promoting
competition. As a user, I am annoyed when I receive a Word
attachment from someone, because I have to ask them to send it again
in some ``open'' format such as RTF, or open it in a
program that attempts to read Word files, but can't do it very well.
Please ensure that a settlement not only punishes Microsoft for
their anti-competitive behavior, but also prevents FUTURE anti-
competitive behavior. Microsoft will continually test their limits
with authorities, and if their acts go unpunished by those in
charge, they will continue to act the way the have, only this time
they will push their limits even more. Microsoft did not become
#1 because of their ``quality software.'' they became
#1 by intimidation and brute force.
I have read about the proposed settlement, and I am not in favor
of it in its current state. Please consider this a vote against the
current settlement, as well as a vote to seek a settlement that is
more favorable to Microsoft's competitors.
Andrew Schaaf
New York
MTC-00027440
From: Ranger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am extremely disappointed in the Department of Justice
settlement with Microsoft. This seems more a issue of the Government
having been asleep at the switch while Microsoft honed its skills in
predatory tactics and built a monopoly. Now the Government cannot
find an appropriate remedy in order to reintroduce constrictive
competition into the PC software industry.
It is not too late for the Government to stand up to Microsoft
and do the right thing. There is enough information from the
existing facts in evidence to force Microsoft the step back from
monopolistic practices.
As for the proposed settlement, it isn't just me and most of the
World (both free market and not), that consider the DOJ settlement
to be a bad joke, but it also of the view of your coplaintives who
have decided to continue the case on their own.
As a taxpayer, I find it miserable that my hard earned money
can't buy me better representation against the big guy. You are
cowards for not standing up to be counted. Hide your inferiority
behind a faceless bureaucracy.
Do the right thing, punish Microsoft so that this doesn't happen
again, and restore an innovative free market.
Stuart Simpson
MTC-00027441
From: James Tracy, Ph.D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle the Microsoft Case. It seems clear to me and many
of my friends that the settlement is in the public interest. Only
competitors can level the specious argument that Microsoft's
innovation is an antitrust violation. Let's compete in the market
place rather than litigate in the courts.
Dr. Jim Tracy
MTC-00027442
From: Kevin Bullock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To whom it may concern:
The proposed settlement with Microsoft is woefully inadequate.
It will not change their behavior as a corporation nor provide any
meaningful benefit to the public interest. Please refer to Dan
Kegel's comments at the following address:
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
Also please take into consideration Ralph Nader and James Love's
comments at: http://www.cptech.org/at/ms/
rnjl2kollarkotellynov501.html
Thank you.
--
Pacem in terris / Mir / Shanti / Salaam / Heiwa
Kevin R. Bullock
MTC-00027443
From: David Fetrow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have been a programmer for slightly longer than Microsoft has
been in existence. I have used many of their products from CP/M
Microsoft Basic onward through Office XP. I have a great deal of
respect for the company but believe they will absolutely take
advantgae of every legal, or remotely argueable legal, maneuver they
can think of to expand Microsoft beyond its current desktop monopoly
and they think very well.
They remind me of IBM in the early 80's that used its legal
limits as a weapon (e.g. The famous IBM confidentially agreement. I
may have signed one of these. I can't tell you. If we had a meeting,
the IBM rep could have recorded it on video and showed it on TV).
In the past Microsoft has defined words as they see fit: Make a
network browser part of the OS and they can bundle it (even if they
also make it available on other operating systems such as MacOS and
Solaris). This was a redefinition of what is usually called an
operating system (as an aside: Notice they didn't include the
profitable Office in that redefinition). In the early days of
Windows NT, Steve Ballmer claimed NT Workstation and NT Server were
different architectures. This is true only if you allow a couple
dll's and some settings to constitute a different architecture. Not
the usual definition.
My understanding is that Microsoft defines certain terms in the
current proposal and that they must make public certain API's
(defined by Microsoft) to competitors (also definited by Microsoft).
I believe allowing them to define what constitutes the Windows API
is a fundemental flaw. What is Windows? If the browser isn't part of
the WindowsOS after all but all the internet functionality is folded
into the browser code, can they keep the internet API's secret? What
if they rename Windows ``Doors''? How far can Windows morf
before it is no longer covered? Is .net fundementally different from
Windows?
I believe allowing them to define what a competitor is, is
worse. Was Netscape a competitor? They admitted it was a threat but
was it a competitor? Is Linux a competitor? Linux isn't even a
company but a loose federation of sometime warring tribes. The
public line is Linux is a niche OS, internally the infamous
Halloween Documents show some real worry and preperations for
battles: technical, legal and PR. Under this proposal Microsoft is
thus able to provide huge barries to entry.
As a monopoly Microsoft can smoother innovations it isn't ready
for by using these techniques to make the innovation unworkable in
Windows until Microsoft can ``innovate in'' something they
themselves own.... later on. Delaying rather speeding innovation.
This is not (in my opinion) in the public interest.
David Fetrow
[email protected]/
[email protected]
My opinions are my own and may not be those of my employer.
(206) 850-3381
MTC-00027444
From: Doug Mitchell
[[Page 28023]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In summary, I think this settlement is a bad one.
The longer version is that this settlement has one major
loophole that jumps out to anyone who understands the first thing
about the current state and near-term future of computing. Given the
success that Microsoft has had in the past in twisting consent
decrees, there are likely several other that are malleable to
Microsoft's long-term plans. The major loophole is the provision
which gives Microsoft control over information flow for the purposes
of ``security'' and ``authentication/
authorization'', among others. The next generation of Microsoft
technologies (known as .NET) are distributed technologies that are
totally reliant upon security and authentication. Any delay on
information flow will damage, possibly irreparably, any possible
competitive software. Without information from Microsoft, any work
to reverse-engineer protocols would be a violation of federal law
under the DMCA. Providing the legal cover for Microsoft to justify
delays will provide Microsoft a window of opportunity to provide a
competitive, bundled solution to undercut third-party software. It
is quite frankly astounding that a provision that is this damaging
to non-Microsoft software could even be considered minimally
effective by someone versed in the software industry.
There are, in fact, several ways to fix this flaw. The simplest
way would be to strike Section J in its entirety, but this would
merely leave the rest of the hidden flaws. Another option would be
for the federal government to simply drop the case, despite its
victory in both trial and appelate court. This would go back to the
status quo prior to the anti-trust action, but it would have the
benefit of not providing legal cover for Microsoft to delay
information. A far better solution would be to rewrite the entire
solution to incorporate three features. First, reasonable and non-
discriminatory licensing of the operating system to any and all
vendors at equivalent pricing. Second, all API's for the operating
system must be fully and openly documented, with no exceptions. This
would protect the underlying source code of Microsoft and would
encourage Microsoft to remove bundled features not essential to the
core operation and therefore open the door for realistic
competition. Third, full and open documentation of all data file
formats. With these three components, Microsoft would be able to
compete to the best of its ability, and third-party software would
be able to do the same.
Doug Mitchell
Madison, AL
MTC-00027445
From: Robert A. Lentz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To Whom it May Concern:
I am writing to exercise my right under the Tunney Act to
comment on the proposed settlement of the United States vs.
Microsoft antitrust case. I have been a using computers since the
age of fifteen, when my parents got one at home. Since then I have
been a continuous user of computers as a consumer, and based upon
this experience I am opposed to the proposed settlement.
Over the past eightteen years I have seen many innovative and
useful software programs be released by many different companies,
and have been a satisfied customer of several of these companies.
Unfortunately, the lifespan of these companies has not been
great. What I have seen repeatedly is that once their product
becomes popular, Microsoft will copy its functionality into its
products, Office and/or Windows, and the company will steadily lose
customers.
So, what I have repeatedly seen is that my choice as a consumer
has been diminished by the predatory practices of which Microsoft
has been found guilty. To me, the proposed settlement has far too
many conditions exempting Microsoft's behavior under certain
conditions. This does nothing to improve my choice as a consumer in
those areas. Nor do I see how this remedy allows for a climate in
which new companies have air to breathe. As has been reported in the
mainstream press, all venture capitalists ask potential software
startups about how Microsoft competes (currently) in their area and
what their plan is if Microsoft gets interested in the startup's
area.
We have seen, in the instance of the web browser wars, how
Microsoft will ruthlessly use any tactic to gain control of popular
markets. While we are a free capitalist society, we do believe in
fair competition, including anti-dumping statutes. Microsoft's size
and resources, plus their desktop and ``office
productivity'' monopoly allow them to unfairly tie and bundle,
often ``dumping'' the product on the market at a great
loss. As a consumer I feel this must be corrected.
Lastly, I must wonder about Microsoft's need to tie all this
software into Windows. I thought Windows was merely the operating
system. My understanding of a computer operating system is that it
is supposed to provide the fundamental management of and interaction
with the hardware that applications require. Thus, it seems to me
that when Microsoft ties a software application to Windows, it is
perverting what an operating system is supposed to be. I don't see
merely bundling applications as ``innovation'', but rather
as a marketing tactic in which Microsoft is abusing its monopolistic
position.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Lentz
2200 Columbia Pike #513
Arlington, VA 22204
703-892-4308
MTC-00027446
From: Steve Thom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:53am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust case
I respectfully ask that the proposed settlement be set aside,
and the entire case be re-thought in light of continuing, dare I say
increasing anti-competitive practices by the defendant.
History will regard this legal event as a watershed for
Microsoft's goal of global information technology domination. Your
decision in this matter will be either a textbook case for proper,
restrained government intervention, or a case for the largest pass
given in history. If the former is chosen, the climate will be
shifted in favor of balance. If the latter is decided, Microsoft
will be emboldened further. It may not be possible to have a case of
this nature again.
Thank You,
Steven G. Thom
32 North 12th Street
Saint Charles, IL 60174-1725
MTC-00027447
From: Margaret C Worsham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I, Margaret C. Worsham, strongly urge the Justice Department to
accept the Microsoft Settlement. The consumer interest has been well
served and the time has come to end this costly and damaging
litigation
MTC-00027448
From: Sean Turner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
While Microsoft can be considered a monopoly, should they be
punished for this? I used to be a Netscape User; then, when Internet
Explorer 3 was released, I tried using it and found it to be
substandard and buggy. As a result, I continued to use Netscape.
Then, with Microsoft's release of IE 4, I found it to be much
faster, more stable, and more feature complete then Netscape, and
decided to switch browsers, not because it came bundled with my
operating system, but because it was a superior program Microsoft
ultimately developed a technologically superior product, is it not
logical that people would then use it instead of Netscape? Should
they be punished for this? Can you legally punish a company because
they are successful? Microsoft integrated its browser to provide a
better product for the consumer. They are in no way inhibiting
Netscape's ability to accept. They in no way impede a user's ability
to download Netscape and use it. Even AOL Time Warner believes IE is
a superior browser. In their own AOL browser, they use the IE
browser instead of Netscape. Success is not a crime.
Should they be punished for bundling their browser with Windows?
Now, the browser is tightly integrated with almost all features of
Windows. It is virtually impossible to separate the two. Every time
you open ``My Computer,'' view a help file, open Word,
boot, or even view your desktop, you are using Internet Explorer.
Back when Windows 3.1 was popular, IE didn't exist, and, users used
a much more cumbersome and buggy interface to navigate files. Now,
instead of using 2 different applications for folder browsing and
web viewing, Microsoft integrated the two programs, in effect
speeding up overall system performance and reliability. Furthermore,
it also helps new computer users to ``get online'' without
having to go through complex processes to
[[Page 28024]]
install a browser. Now, all someone has to do is boot their
computer, and they have all the software they need to connect to the
internet. Should Microsoft be punished for enabling people such as
my mother to effectively use a computer? If yes, then why not punish
Apple? They have much the same approach. Apple controls the all the
hardware used on their computers, and install Apple's own programs
by default in an attempt to simplify setup for users, thus allowing
the computer illiterate to use a computer without having to have a
tech-savvy friend set it up for them. This strategy of
simplification is used throughout the industry, why should only
Microsoft be punished for it? You cannot separate Microsoft because
everything is so tightly integrated, Microsoft is nothing without
this integration, much like Apple is nothing without their tight
integration of software and hardware. This is the direction the
entire industry has taken, should we thus turn the clock back on the
computer industry?
It is not the government's job to police the computer industry.
Before the government tries to break up private monopolies, they
should abolish their own. For example the US Postal Service was, for
a long time, the only way to send mail, and thus, it had to reason
to improve its services and was notoriously slow. With the advent of
FedEx and UPS, the postal service has improved its service, but
still is loosing market share because other carriers offer a better
product. And now the government is trying to make taxpayers pay for
its failure by trying to tax email. It is not the government's job
to police private industry and punish companies for their success.
For example, the government split the Bell phone companies, and at
the time, many people reported even worse service then when they
were a single company, hardly a win for consumers. I ask that the
federal government and states drop all charges against Microsoft.
Sean Turner
Sales Representative
Rowena's Designs
15232 Stratford Court
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
Phone: (408) 395-7907
Fax: (408) 395-6923
Email:
[email protected]
Web:
www.sensability.inc.new.net
MTC-00027449
From: Oz Suguitan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please, please, please, do not let Microsoft get away with
beating up the market. Don't let them continue to bully us into
following their corporate strategy. I'd like to one day have a
choice for word processors, choose a non-Microsoft product, and be
assured that my documents and applications will work correctly. I'd
like for Apple to have a serious chance at putting out a secondary
OS, without fearing the loss of MS Office for Macintosh. I'd like to
know that Microsoft's products, if I choose them, have been well
tested by Microsoft, because of competitive pressures, instead of
the current system where I'm forced to buy the damn software whether
it's buggy or not, because ALL the applications I use (which are
probably owned by Microsoft) will require an upgrade. There's no
competition, because they were allowed to kill or brutalize their
competitors unfairly. YOU NEED TO MAKE THEM PAY FOR PAST MISTAKES
TOO. I know that this case only focuses on the Netscape stuff, but
don't forget what happened to Novell, Borland, and others. They need
to be broken up. This is the best way to get them to follow the
rules and play fair!
This settlement stinks. Donations of THEIR software and hardware
to charities only propagates use of their software and hardware. You
are just giving them what they want. I'm disgusted.
Oz Suguitan
MTC-00027450
From: J. Scott Edwards
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I wanted to submit my comments on the proposed Microsoft
settlement. I am very much opposed to the settlement. I don't feel
that it goes far enough to restore competition in the computer
industry. I am much more impressed by the 9 dissenting states
proposal, and I beg you to reject the current settlement and back
the remaining states.
First of all I feel that the settlement was prompted by the Bush
administration and therefore it was very much politically motivated.
In my mind there is no way that this settlement would ever have
happened under the Clinton administration. I also read that
Microsoft donated far more money to the Republican party, and there
is no doubt in my mind that they wanted to get Mr. Bush elected. I
feel that the settlement should be rejected on this basis alone.
Second of all, Microsoft's monopoly has not been a benifit to
the public. Since the trial began, a promising competitor to
Microsoft (Be Inc. makers of the excellent BeOS) has gone out of
business. This was no doubt due to Microsoft controlling the boot
loader. While the settlement addresses the boot loader issue, I
don't feel that it goes far enough to prevent future abuse. If I had
my way I would force Microsoft to make all of their systems dual
bootable by default. Linux is free, they should have to include it
with Windows to give the public an option. Or better yet: make
Microsoft pay to resurrect BeOS and include it on some computers
systems.
Third, I have just discovered in the last few days that
Microsoft has extended their monopoly in yet another way, right
under your noses. There are now audio CD's on the market which will
only play on computers with the Windows Operating Systems (for
example the CD More Fast and Furious). This is an OUTRAGE!! There is
no way that they should be allowed to sell CD's that are only
playable on machines with Windows.
Another recent example is Microsoft suing Lindows, saying people
will confuse Lindows OS with Windows XP. This is rediculous, it is
obviously another attempt my Microsoft to quash a competitor.
I could go on, but I will end it here with a request to PLEASE
reject the settlement. Thanks for your time.
James Scott Edwards
Salt Lake City, UT
Please note that I am not affiliated in any way with any of
Microsoft's competitors. I am a software engineer and I have worked
on and used many different computers systems in the last 25+ years.
I have seen many abuses by Microsoft and I hope that you can stop
them and restore competition in this industry.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00027451
From: Christopher N. Deckard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I am concerned about the settlement between the US Department of
Justice and Microsoft Corporation. After years of court battles,
depositions, shuffling of paper, it seems that we are no where near
a settlement which will punish Microsoft for their monopolistic
behavior, and we are no where near a settlement which will protect
not only the Open Source community, but closed source corporations
as well.
I am particularly concerned about the fact that there is nothing
in the settlement which prevents, or punishes, Microsoft in the
event that they ``sabotage'' Windows applications to not
run properly on competing operating environments. Within the next
few years, there will be many applications which have the ability to
run Windows software, but not on a Microsoft Windows operating
system. Particularly software from the Wine project. Microsoft is
known for sabotaging software to not function as intended on
competing products.
Take for instance Digital Research's DR-DOS operating system.
(Digital Research's successor is Caldera). Microsoft added code to
beta copies of Windows 3.1 so it would display spurious and
misleading error messages when run on DR-DOS. They are known for
these kinds of practices, and if there is nothing in place to
prevent them from doing it again, it will happen. In the case of the
Wine project, this would completely put an end to any kind of
functioning software which Microsoft didn't have under its
monopolistic grip.
I strongly urge the US Department of Justice to take a better
look at a proper settlement. One which will benefit not only the
Open Source development community, but competing corportations as
well. The DOJ has spent years trying to do the right thing... the
DOJ should end it the right way.
Thank you,
Chris
Christopher N. Deckard
Lead Web Systems Developer
[email protected]
Engineering Computer Network
http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/
Purdue University
MTC-00027452
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 28025]]
Date: 1/28/02 12:41am
Department Of Justice
Microsoft Case
Tunney Act comment
January 28, 2002
At the request of the DOJ, this Tunney Act comment is being
submitted by email.
The Revised Proposed Final Judgment in U.S. vs. Microsoft is not
in the publics best interest, because Microsoft's monopoly will
remain intact.
Some concerns are:
1. The court has determined that Microsoft maintained its
monopoly illegally, partly by overcharging consumers, worldwide. The
United States taxpayers should not shoulder the burden for the
expenses that Microsoft will incur to mitigate the illegal activity.
Microsoft management and/or shareholders should pay the expenses,
after taxes have been calculated. Will Microsoft be permitted to use
the expenses incurred as a result of this settlement, to reduce
taxable income?
2. Microsoft's illegal activities extend to most of its
products, however, the Revised Proposed Final Judgment generally
only addresses a type of product referred to as
``middleware''. Will there be further litigation that
addresses the Operating System and other products?
3. The proposed resolutions may provide some relief for ten or
twenty large companies, under licensing agreements, but Microsoft
remains in control. How will small companies and not-for-profit
organizations compete?
4. Most, if not all of Microsoft's ``inventions'',
have come from competitors, or academic institutions funded, in part
by the very consumers that Microsoft has exploited. Does the Revised
Proposed Final Judgment change what was illegal and unethical in the
past, into legal and accepted activities?
5. The damage done to consumers by this monopoly goes well
beyond monetary damages. The restrictive way in which Microsoft
constructs its products, makes it very difficult and expensive to
use the full potential of a computer. The lost opportunities to gain
new knowledge and abilities, are enormous to children and adults,
especially to those that are monetarily disadvantaged. Will the
Revised Proposed Final Judgment be a tool for widening the
information divide?
6. Microsoft's model encourages monopoly by default. To share
ideas with someone that uses Microsoft products it is easier and
sometimes necessary to use Microsoft products. This isn't a
technical requirement, it is deliberately enforced by Microsoft's
business practices. If the Revised Proposed Final Judgment is
adopted, will people still be obliged to purchase Microsoft products
to communicate with people that only have Microsoft products?
7. Competition is an essential component of the United States
economy. Without competition there is no way to set a fair value for
products and services. By allowing Microsoft to continue controlling
the computer software industry, it will not be possible to determine
a fair value for the products and services that the software
industry produces. If the Revised Proposed Final Judgment is
accepted, what will stop Microsoft from pursuing its monopoly?
8. It seems unnatural for one company to control the tools of
communication. Microsoft didn't invent; the computer, software,
email, or the Internet. Yet, Microsoft has control, or, is pursuing
control of all those and other communication tools. This control,
which has been obtain by illegal activities, would not be palatable
even if it had been obtained legally. If the Revised Proposed Final
Judgment is approved will Microsoft still be permitted to control
communication?
9. The Free Software (free as in free speech) and Open Source
communities have a healthy amount of competition in each type of
product that they produce. These communities are populated by
talented professionals and, also, by those that are learning. If the
environment that Microsoft participates in is healthy why is there
no competition?
10. The founder of Microsoft, William Gates, has publicly
referred to Free/Open Source software as a cancer. Some of the
groups and individuals in Free Software/Open Source communities,
feel that it is more important to help disadvantaged people, than to
be paid for their time and expertise. Will Microsoft be allowed to
destroy these communities?
Those are just a few of many concerns raised by the Revised
Proposed Final Judgment in, U.S. vs. Microsoft This settlement was
arrived at during a time of unprecedented grief and tragedy for the
United States and World, following the events of September 11, 2001.
Further pressure was put on those in the Judicial branch by
President Bush, when he asked that this case be settled quickly. The
terrorists should not be allowed to affect the good judgement of
those that uphold the law.
The following is an example of misinformation that is present in
this case:
Quoting from the Competitive Impact Statement, under, B. Factual
Background, 1. Microsoft's Operating System Monopoly
``Microsoft has monopoly power in the market for Intel-
compatible personal computer operating systems and undertook an
extensive campaign of exclusionary acts to maintain its operating
system monopoly. The relevant market for evaluating Microsoft's
monopoly power is the licensing of all Intel-compatible personal
computer operating systems worldwide. Intel-compatible personal
computers are designed to function with Intel's 80x86 and successor
families of microprocessors (or compatible microprocessors).
Operating systems designed for Intel-compatible personal computers
do not run on other personal computers, and operating systems
designed for other personal computers do not run on Intel-compatible
personal computers. Moreover, consumers are very reluctant to
substitute away from Intel- compatible personal computers (for any
reason, including an increase in operating system prices) because to
do so would entail incurring substantial costs and would not result
in a satisfactory substitute. Thus, a monopolist of operating
systems for Intel-compatible personal computers can set and maintain
the price of a license substantially above that which would be
charged in a competitive market without losing so many customers as
to make the action unprofitable.''
This statement comes to a correct conclusion, but the facts are
wrong. Operating systems can and are built to run on a variety of
microprocessors. Debian GNU/Linux supports several microprocessors.
Microsoft makes huge profits, but has ignored the other
microprocessor manufactures, probably because the profit margins
wouldn't be as high. This practice may be good for Intel, but isn't
good for Intel's competitors, and it isn't good for consumers. The
reason everyone uses Microsoft products, is that Microsoft products
will not communicate with other software. Microsoft and Intel don't
have technically superior products, they are locked in a monopoly,
that is driven by Microsoft's unwillingness to communicate.
The standards for formating documents, spreadsheets, etc., need
to be in the public domain. We need to be able to communicate
freely. The free market system needs to be dominated by healthy
competition, not by monopolies.
The states that did not agree to the Proposed Final Judgment,
have written a proposal that could break the monopoly that Microsoft
holds. It is not the only possible solution. Any workable solution
must remove control of the standards from Microsoft.
The Revised Proposed Final Judgment; is not in the publics best
interest, will not remove the monopolist powers from Microsoft, will
not provide justice for those that have been and are being harmed. I
ask that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly not accept the Revised
Proposed Final Judgment.
Thank you for your consideration.
Douglas Jensen
South Jordan, Utah USA
computer user
MTC-00027453
From: Paul Shryer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to express my disagreement with the proposed
settlement between US DOJ and Microsoft.
I am a Information Technology Professional who works on a daily
basis with Microsoft software and license agreements. There are many
problems I have noticed with the Final Judgement proposed by the
DOJ, I shall mention the two greatest issues I have with this
settlement.
1. A provision is included to ``prevent Microsoft from
using Anti-competitive practices against OEM who load competing
practices.'' There is a big loophole in this provision
unfortunately. It does not prevent Microsoft from charging a set
price to all OEMs and then providing discounts and rebates to OEMs
that sell only Microsoft products or that help Microsoft extend its
monopoly into additional markets. Several companies currently use
similar agreements and programs. It would take little effort for
Microsoft to adopt similar practices.
[[Page 28026]]
2. This proposed final judgement does not seem to have any sort
of enforcement. While it is true that the proposal calls for a three
person panel to review the activities of Microsoft I seen nothing
that empowers the panel to do anything more than recommend to
Microsoft management. They do not seem to have any real power to
overrule management and prevent
Microsoft from undertaking anti-competitive practices.
Paul Shryer
Network Technician
Duluth, MN
MTC-00027454
From: Stevens, Derek
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 12:43am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
DR SIRS,
I HAVE BEEN WATCHING THE UNFOLDING OF THE MICROSOFT CASE AND I
AM CONVINCED THEY HAVE BEEN RAILROADED. I THINK NOW IS THE TIME TO
GET THIS THING BEHIND US, AS OUR COUNTRY IS ABOUT TO HEAD OUT OF
RECESSION. AFTER WATCHING THE ENRON DEBACLE AND THE CS FIRST BOSTON
ESCAPADE I CAN'T REALLY SEE WHAT MICROSOFT IS BEING PUNISHED FOR? SO
I THINK THE SETTLEMENT IS A FAIR ONE AND LETS GET ON WITH OUR LIVES.
THANK YOU,
DEREK G. STEVENS
MTC-00027455
From: Brian Reed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I write to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement as a
software programmer/consultant for the Windows platform for over 5
years (and for MS-DOS 10 years before that) In summary I feel the
settlement is well intended but falls well short of appropriate
action.
I don't suggest or desire radical action like splitting up the
company or forcing release of their source code, and I'm not
confident either would help the computing consumer anyways. For me,
it's very much about fair marketing and advertising practicies. The
settlement must be more forward looking. The harm done in the past
by MS marketing, advertising, OEM deals, etc methods cannot be
undone ... the question is where do we go from here, today. For the
last couple years, the DOJ suit has forced them to tread lightly ...
that in itself has been halfway helpful, thank you! MS must be
relieved of power to regulate their OEM resellers and competition as
they have done in the past. It is the resellers that can best
customize systems for clients and move the state of the art of
computer use ahead, now that there are many qualified personal &
business OS options.
Attention must also be given to MS affiliations. Monopoly power
can be abused here especially, for example the advertising of
affiliates and 3rd parties embedded in every Windows install I've
seen since Win95. Or especially the old MSN ``deal'' with
new PCs... users committed to 3 years of MSN membership to get a
rebate on the PC, only to find out that the MSN ISP usage is a
horrible pain in the neck that they've contracted to for the full
term. The new MSN deal is that it's free for a limited term (I
believe 1 year), but what they don't tell us is that it's a
*LIMITED* MSN connection (not the typical Windows OS DialUp!), and
that it requires extra, custom MSN software which itself is
practically unusable. Also, I believe the proposed settlement has
many loopholes, with many due to insufficient definitions of terms
like ``API''.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit my comments,
Brian G. Reed
Warren, MI 48088
MTC-00027456
From: Mark Hinds
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement fails to restore or protect competition
in the PC OS market place. It seems to legitimize MS's monopoly and
places far to much discretion in MS's hands. One need only apply the
following simple test. If MS agrees to something then it must be
good for MS. MS has agreed to this settlement and therefore the
settlement must be good for MS. If the settlement did protect and
foster future competition then MS would not agree to it. It is
simply a fact that MS will have to be ordered to do anything of
substance to remedy its abuses. It is very disturbing that the DOJ
has opted for expedience in place of justice and public benefit.
With real competition the price of PC operating software would be 1/
10th of today's MS prices, and quality (i.e. robustness and
security) would be years ahead of MS's current quality.
MS used its PC OS dominance to extinguish Netscape. It has been
found that this was done deliberately to protect its PC OS monopoly.
MS must not be allowed to benefit from this illegal conduct and must
be prevented from repeating such conduct in the future. The proposed
settle makes no effort to deprive MS of any benefits it accrued as a
result of illegal conduct, does nothing to mitigate the effects of
the conduct, and makes only a sheepish effort to prevent it in the
future.
I strongly urge the court to reject this settlement and hold
proper public hearings to find an effective remedy. Further, I see
the only effective and workable remedy to be structural. It will not
be possible to enforce conduct remedies with MS. It has not worked
in the past and will not work in the future.
Mark Hinds
Concerned US Citizen
Senior SW Engineer
Edmonds WA 98020
MTC-00027457
From: Suen Kit Chau ( Jason )
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Dear U.S. Department of Justice
As I read from your website, the United States and Microsoft
tentatively agreed to the entry of a revised proposed final judgment
to resolve the United States'' civil antitrust case against
Microsoft on November 6, 2001. I believe Microsoft is not guilty
because of following points.
(1) In 1995 years, No one can believe computers can develop or
improve that fast. Microsoft Internet Explorer Web browser combine
with Windows operating system. However, it is just a part of system
in operating system. And unfortunately, other co-operate such as
Netscape also created same system. It will not be happened if US
government can make a law especially for computer system.
(2) I believe it is only a kind business method. If other
company can have that powerful to compete with Microsoft, Windows
will not longer be the popular operating system anymore. Strongest
company can earn more money than other. It is the rule in the
business world.
(3) However, I think Microsoft should have partnerships with
other company, such as Netscape, JAVA, Sun Microsystems. Seen that,
customer can get more benefits.
thanks for reading my email.
Suen Kit, Chau
MTC-00027458
From: john paulson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings,
I oppose the proposed settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust
case for the following reasons:
The Microsoft Office suite is one reason for the entrenchment of
the Windows operating system on personal computers. The lack of
viable non-Microsoft equivalents to MS Office is one source of that
entrenchment. Document formats are descriptions of the files
produced by the Microsoft Office suite of products (MS Word, MS
Excel, MS Powerpoint).
Document formats are distinct from APIs.
Nowhere is there a requirement that Microsoft document and
freely disclose the document formats used by their office products.
Because the document formats are not available, developers of
products wishing to inter-operate with or compete with those of
Microsoft Office must reverse engineer the document format. Besides
being time consuming, this is an error-prone process. The resulting
products fail to work as well with the documents. In addition,
changes made by Microsoft to those document formats when new
versions of Microsoft products are released require non-Microsoft to
once again perform reverse engineering. This delays the release of
competing products, further cementing Microsoft's entrenchment in
office productivity applications.
THEREFORE:
Microsoft must document the formats of files produced by their
office productivity applications.
Microsoft must make that documentation freely available, so that
non-Microsoft products can read and write documents produced by
Microsoft's office productivity applications.
[[Page 28027]]
And, Microsoft must release the document format concurrently, if
not prior to, the release of newer versions of Microsoft's office
productivity applications.
Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not
describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don't
meet Microsoft's criteria as a business: ``...(c) meets
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business,
...''
(The above quotation is from http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/
pulpit20011206.html) As that article states, Microsoft faces
competition from open source software, such as Linux, FreeBSD and
Samba. Microsoft should not be allowed to forbid disclosure to
asymmetric threats to its dominance.
THEREFORE:
Microsoft should release the API, Documentation and
Communications Protocols to all who ask, or make it freely available
(by placing on their website, www.microsoft.com). This will in no
way hinder Microsoft's ability to innovate and develop new products
and combinations of products, but it will allow non-Microsoft
developers to inter-operate with Microsoft products.
Microsoft has proposed deploying many millions of dollars worth
of computers and (Microsoft) software to (K-12) schools. This should
be rejected out of hand. Currently, the only meaningful competition
Microsoft has in the K-12 education marketplace is Apple Computer.
Were Microsoft to --sell-- computers running Microsoft
software to schools at discounts of 80 to 90%, it would be viewed as
an anti-competitive action by a monopolist: dumping. Giving it away
can only be worse, (mega-dumping?).
THEREFORE:
Microsoft should not be allowed to donate computers and
software. If Microsoft wishes to aid schools in this wise, it may
donate money and allow the educators to decide how to spend it on
computers and software.
Sincerely,
John Paulson
MTC-00027459
From: Brendel, Gregory J
To: Microsoft ATR
Date; 1/28/02 12:51 am
Subject; Microsoft Settlement (Please Support)
January 16, 2002
Gregory Brendel
4650 Cole Avenue #326
Dallas, TX 75205-5547
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I want to take a moment to express my support for the recent
settlement concluded between Microsoft and the Department of
Justice. I believe this agreement is good for the computer industry
and consumers in general. The settlement is comprehensive and
requires many concessions from Microsoft. For example, Microsoft has
agreed to document and disclose for use by its competitors various
interfaces that are internal to Windows'' operating system
products. Also, Microsoft will be monitored under the agreement by a
three-member Technical Committee to assure the company meets its
obligations. This committee will also take complaints from any third
party who feels Microsoft is not complying with any provision of the
settlement. As a worker in the computer industry, I understand the
importance of Microsoft to our industry and the entire economy. I
also believe the government has more important matters to handle
than to penalize a great American company such as Microsoft. Please
focus my tax dollars on Homeland security and also on protecting
U.S. Companies from illegal competition from foreign companies.
Please look into tactics of the Japanese companies who control the
fiat panel computer screen market.
In summary, I hope the federal government will continue to
support the settlement and not reopen litigation.
Sincerely,
Gregory Brendel
MTC-00027460
From: Thomas J. Valerio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My name is Thomas Valerio. I've been a professional programmer
for more than 20 years now, a large part of that spent as a systems
programmer working on an operating system used by the University of
Michigan. In the late 80's the University of Michigan made the
determination that it was no longer in the best interest of the
university to put a large amount of effort into operating system
development and made a determined effort to migrate off of the
operating system that it had helped develop. In the summer of 1996
that migration was substantially completed and the university ceased
all non-comercial operating system operation and development. As an
active developer of that operating system I was clearly at a
crossroads in my career, in retrospect I realized that my concern
for my future was not tied specifically to the operating system that
I had spent so much of my professional life working with, but that I
was unlikely to see the inside of another operating system unless I
went to work for a commercial operating system company. After 20
years in a university environment, I felt that that was clearly an
unlikely option. It was around this time that I discovered Linux. In
the 6 years that have passed since then the computing landscape has
changed dramatically. In particular Microsoft has developed from a
major player into a monopoly and we have arrived at the point where
it has no viable commercial competition. It does, however, have the
possibility of some very serious competition in the form of Linux,
and the support of the legions of individuals that quietly and
persistently move Linux and other open source projects forward. In
order for that competition to flourish however, it must have the
blessing of the court. While I certainly am aware of the genesis of
the current anti-trust case with respect to Netscape, the fact is
that that particular battle has been lost and like Humpty Dumpty and
the Kings Men, there is nothing that the court can do about it. So,
to get to the heart of my point, the most disappointing aspect of
the Proposed D.O.J. settlement is that when the possibility of
serious competition from Linux and Open Source looks the most
promising, the proposed settlement is silent with respect to non-
comercial solutions, which are clearly the only real, viable
competition in sight. There are clearly many other aspects of the
proposed judgment that argue for it's rejection by the court and I
would like to express my support for most of them as well. I accept
the fact that this has been an extremely difficult case and a very
drawn out process, however I think the court has an obligation to
reject this proposed settlement and failure to reject it will have a
serious, detrimental, and long lasting negative impact on the entire
software business. I apologize for a less than elegant presentation
of my argument, others have written far better on this subject than
I, and I want to thank the court for considering my opinion.
Thomas Valerio
MTC-00027461
From: Eli Arnold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:53am
Subject: Anti-trust
I have just cancelled my AOL subscription upon learning that
they had joined the attack on Microsoft. To create a product and
sell it with conditions is neither immoral, nor illegal, and the
Sherman anti-trust act is being once more used in a contradictory,
unfair, and unjust manner. AOL has in no way been wronged by
Microsoft and neither has Internet Explorer. I personally use
microsoft products everyday, and they are well designed and quality
products. Microsoft is the shining example of American productivity
and achievement and is personally inspiring to me. It seems that the
original American values, ingenuity, independence, economic and
social freedom, are quickly being destroyed by overregulation,
concern for the public good at the expense of the individual, and
``economic rights.'' Their is no right to a profit, nor to
success, and the states and corporations suing Microsoft should take
notice of the fact. Microsoft has never used physical coercion to
pursue it's ``interests.'' The same cannot be said for the
United States Government. I am an intelligent, competent and capable
young man, but watching what's being done to Bill Gates I feel a
hesitation to pursue achievements of my own in this nation. I could
not keep quiet, as he has, and watch, while people who could not
have written a single line of Explorer's code determine the future
of his lifes work, of his personal achievements, and prevent him
from being able to plan a single day ahead, as he cannot plan for
the arbitrary whims of society. Someday, a nation will inherit the
moral legacy which the founders of this nation reached nearest, and
the productive and intelligent members of this society will desert.
You read these letters, because the
[[Page 28028]]
opinions of the majority seem to be surpassing in importance the
notion of individual rights. Its Socrates execution all over again.
Eli Arnold (503) 254 8513
15811 E. Burnside St. Portland OR 97233
MTC-00027462
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir:
If public profits are considered, Microsoft Corp. should provide
ANSI with Windows 98, WindowsME, and Office2000, and it should
withdraw them from the client market.
Sincerely
ASKA Intelligence Systems, Inc.
TEL 81-722-80-0918 / FAX
81-722-80-0917
e-mail:[email protected]
MTC-00027463
From: Jeff Rehbein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 27, 2002
To Whom it May Concern:
In accordance with the Tunney Act, I am writing to comment on
the proposed settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust
case. I believe that there are many problems with the proposed
settlement. As shown by Dan Kegel's open letter (http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html), there are so many holes in the
settlement that it is essentially useless. However, I will focus my
comments on a specific group of actions by Microsoft that affect my
work directly.
I work as a Macintosh game developer. My work entails both
porting games originally written for the Microsoft Windows platform
to run on the Macintosh platform, and writing original games for the
Macintosh platform. In the following paragraphs, I will show how
Microsoft's anticompetitive actions have harmed (and are continuing
to harm) me, my company's customers, and the customers of virtually
all developers of games for the Macintosh.
In 1992, OpenGL was introduced as an open standard application
programming interface (API) for 2D and 3D graphics. Over the years,
it has gained wide adoption by operating system vendors (OSV) and
graphics sub-systems hardware vendors (GSHV). Seeing that adopting
OpenGL would increase the number of games available for the Windows
platform, Microsoft adopted it. However, Microsoft only adopted it
because it didn't have a competing product.
As Microsoft has done time and time again, it quickly turned out
it's own version of someone else's innovation. In this case (as in
most cases), it's version (Direct3D) was nowhere near as good as the
original. However, Microsoft tied it to Windows (still on the same
pattern) and to its development environment and some developers used
it. Recently, Direct3D has became good enough to compete with
OpenGL. So what did Microsoft do? It removed OpenGL support from
Windows XP before release--support that was already there.
OpenGL can still be used, but the support has to be added by each
GSHV, seriously complicating the situation.
Removal of OpenGL support from Windows harms several groups of
people:
1. Developers who know and wish to use OpenGL in a Windows
application.
2. Developers who want to write 3D (and 2D) applications that
can be compiled for Windows and other operating systems from one
codebase.
3. Developers who port applications originally written for
Windows to run on other operating system (the original application
may have been written with OpenGL under different circumstances,
making it far easier to port)
4. In the long run, other OSVs that depend on OpenGL will likely
be harmed. This is because usage of OpenGL will drop off, which will
lead to a stagnation in the OpenGL standard.
As if removing OpenGL support from Windows wasn't enough,
Microsoft recently purchased key patents from Silicon Graphics, Inc.
that may give it even more ammunition against the competing, open
standard. I can't say for sure what Microsoft will do with this new
power, but given its past history I think it's a sure bet that it
will be bad for OpenGL, and by extension, bad for developers and
consumers. One company should not be able to so negatively affect an
open standard. Unfortunately, the proposed settlement does nothing
to prevent this sort of activity. Microsoft also hurts all
developers who port Windows games to the Macintosh by keeping all
DirectX APIs usable on Windows alone. Microsof routinely changes the
API calls so that developers can't make a ``glue library''
(a glue library is used to easily convert calls to one API to calls
to different API) that can keep being used in each new project.
There is no need to so routinely change the actual interface calls
of APIs. Other OSVs do everything they can to keep those calls the
consistent. Doing otherwise would break compatibility and drive away
developers. Only a company with a monopoly could do this and
survive. One DirectX API in particular gives port developers
trouble-- DirectPlay. DirectPlay is an API that makes it
relatively easy to add networking features to a game. Because of the
lack of documentation of the internal message structure, any port of
a game originally written using DirectPlay cannot communicate with
the original version. This relegates users of the ported version to
a second-class status. Although technically possible to reverse-
engineer the protocol, Microsoft actively thwarts such attempts. The
one known instance where the protocol was reverse-engineered and
used in a product (which took 6 months), Microsoft promptly
overhauled the protocol and released a new version which completely
broke the compatibility. Microsoft's actions with the DirectX API
serve solely to strengthen the applications barrier-to-entry, even
at the expense of their own developers. Unfortunately, the proposed
settlement does absolutely nothing to alleviate this or any problems
concerning this barrier. The unfortunate truth of the matter is that
there is no remedy for the above problems short of separating the OS
business from the rest of Microsoft. As show in the previous
reference to Dan Kegel's open letter and in my own, the proposed
settlement will do little to limit Microsoft's anticompetitive
behavior. It would be a grievous waste of taxpayer money if this
settlement was the end result of the case. I implore you to
reconsider this course of action.
Thank you for your time in considering this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Rehbein
Macintosh Games Developer
MTC-00027464
From: paul podnar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:56am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I do not believe that the proposed remedies represent what is in
the best interest of the people or the computer industry. My company
has been damaged by the illegal workings of Microsoft and so have
many others in the world.
The entire Apple computer platform and Motorola has been damaged
by the monopolistic practices and pressure put on Apple to stop
certain developments. Netscape went from a majority player in the
browser field to a minority player and almost bankrupt. Java was
corrupted by the efforts of Microsofts J++ development and not
Microsoft is after the internet with their .Net strategy which was
really built upon Netscapes efforts.
Microsofts efforts also misrepresent the stability and security
of all their operating systems and application programs. Many
individuals and businesses have been damaged due to lost work and
downtime caused by the low quality standards of the Microsoft
software.
My remedies would include:
1. A payment to Netscape/AOL for the market stolen by Microsofts
free browser. This might be one half of current estimated Internet
explorer users times about 29 dollars for the people that would have
purchased a Netscape product.
2. A major free update of Windows 98 and the Office program
which would run on the computers purchased by businesses in the 1998
year which would work as advertised and be much more stabile.
3. A payment made to Sun for damages done to the JAVA platform
4. A payment made to Apple computer for the damage to the
internal development of software which is known in the industry
including Quicktime and Apple Works.
5. The inclusion of Quicktime as the default Windows Media
Player/ Authoring medium to generally further the multimedia
capabilities of millions of Windows users.
6. The inclusion of firewire support on all Windows desktops to
further the advance of this quality high speed Apple bus technology.
7. Finally, a public admission of guilt from Bill Gates as to
his involvement in the above matters and a media broadcast of the
trial findings and testimonies key industry and Microsoft personnel.
I would find the truth of this case much more interesting than the
[[Page 28029]]
OJ Simpson trial and much more valuable to the industry, the
populace and history.
Thank you for this forum to come forward and for a small part in
the process of Justice.
Paul j. Podnar
President
Accommodata Corporation
MTC-00027465
From: Andy Cristina
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I apoligize for submiting this email so late, but I with to
express my opinion that the proposed Microsoft Settlement is not
sufficient to allow other companies to produce viable competing
products. My main complaint is that Microsoft is not being asked to
release the Microsoft Office document formats. In order for a
competing product to have a chance, it must be able to let the user
read and write Office files.
Andrew Cristina,
University of New Orleans,
Association of Computing Machinery Chair
Software Intern at Penta Corporation
MTC-00027466
From: Kent Rosenkoetter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a graduate student in computer science (University of North
Carolina--Chapel Hill) I cannot help but be aware of the
Microsoft anti-trust case. And while I believe it to be one of the
most important cases for the computer industry in years, I tend to
avoid dwelling on it because all I can feel is frustration.
Microsoft has:
1. Used their OS monopoly and OEM agreements to prevent any
computer manufacturer from selling dual-boot systems, effectively
killing BeOS and incredibly slowing the spread of other OSes,
particularly Free Software and Open Source OSes.
2. Used their Windows OS to spread Internet Explorer and Outlook
Express, making the entire world suceptible to hundreds of viruses
that do not work on any other browser/email client. This costs
American business alone billions of dollars every year.
3. Many other similarly disgusting actions I do not need to list
because I know many of my colleagues have already done so in detail.
My frustration stems from the proposed settlement. First, that
the breakup of Microsoft did not take place. Though I do not believe
a mere two pieces would have been sufficient, it would at least have
shown the public that the government is willing to mete out some
serious punishment for such flagrantly illegal behavior. Second,
that such a puny settlement would be proposed and even endorsed by
members of the government. The settlement does not adequately
restrict MS's future behavior, it leaves huge loopholes for
exploitation, and it for the most part neglects the concept of
compensation. While I believe the settlement may have been
negotiated in good faith by the prosecutors, the final agreement
does not account for the severity of the crimes or for MS's habit of
exploitation and arrogance.
Actually, I do not believe that any settlement negotiated with
Microsoft will be in the public interest. Microsoft's lawyers will
not agree to anything that will seriously curtail MS's activities,
and MS's activities are entirely centered around control of all
aspects of computing. No, that is not an overzealous fanatical
statement. That is a direct extrapolation of the past trends that
led to MS's current monopolies in operating systems, office
software, and web browsers, extended to current plans like .NET and
subscription-based software licensing. Any final judgement capable
of effectively affecting Microsoft will never be agreed to by
Microsoft.
This email is meant to express extreme displeasure with the
proposed settlement. It is not meant to offer possible alterations
for the reason above. Though my original thought when I learned of
the breakup Judge Jackson ordered was ``Three companies.
Operating Systems, Applications, and Web Services.'' It seems
that won't happen now. If you truly want an effective solution,
force Microsoft to pay damages to every person and business that is
a victim of a Microsoft-only virus. That will not eliminate their
monopolies or promote competition for the future, but it will
certainly take away their financial gain from their illegally
acquired monopolies. It will also make the millions that have been
victims of the serious problems in Microsoft software feel a little
better.
Kent Rosenkoetter
Graduate Student
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
MTC-00027467
From: Eric Weeks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wanted to take some time and proactively tell you that I am
very disturbed at the proposed Microsoft settlement. Microsoft's
actions have been devastating to many companies and in the industry
and have significantly slowed innovation and progress. Their claims
to the contrary are ludicrous upon a review of their effect on the
industry.
I am particularly concerned about their Trojan horse of
``aid'' to schools by donation of hardware (compatible
with Windows of course) and software (surely their proprietary
software) which can be donated at a real cost which is a very, very
small fraction of the retail cost. The beauty of this arrangement
for Microsoft is that it also gives them a greater market share in
the one area they don't have a monopoly--schools. Apple is
reportedly running scared and they should be. It's a hidden coup for
Microsoft. Microsoft has broken the law and despite their benefit to
the American economy, there have been corresponding, huge, losses in
jobs, smaller, innovative companies, and value to customers. Look at
the price of Microsoft Office. Look at how inferior software
(Windows and countless other pedestrian Microsoft products) has
become the de facto standard when reasonably priced, superior
products (Macintosh OS, Oracle, Linux, Alternate DOS providers)
barely survive or are quashed, squeezed out, or bought out by
Microsoft. They are a monopoly that hurts the industry. These are
only a few of the issues.
Please don't let Microsoft slip away. They need a reasonable
punishment and organizational solution that will stop the abuses
they have perpetrated and continue to perpetrate.
Thanks for your time.
Eric Weeks
Salt Lake City, Utah
MTC-00027468
From:
[email protected]@
inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 12:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Renata Hesse,
I feel that the proposed settlement with Microsoft does not
prohibit Microsoft from continuing the anti-competative practices
that that have been described in the finding of fact, and does not
include sufficient remedies that are in consumer's best interest.
Computers are a mainsay in the home, business, and research
environments, and will only become more important in the future for
increasing the quality of life in the United States. Allowing
Microsoft to use its dominance in the these markets to maintain its
position and stifle or buy-out competition is harmful to consumers
and the economy by setting up large barriers for innovative software
products to enter the markets. A satisfactory settlement must
address these issues and have measures to monitor and significantly
penalize Microsoft in ways other than giving away software for
continuing the illegal practices that have been determined in the
finding of fact.
Respectfully,
Aaron Gruber
Research Assistant
Northwestern University
2022 Colfax St Apt 2
Evanston IL 60202
MTC-00027469
From: David Joham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:01am
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. I have been a software developer working with Microsoft and
its competitor's products for over ten years. During this time, I
have personally witnessed many overt acts of anti-competitiveness by
Microsoft that have directly harmed my clients. When Microsoft was
found guilty of being a monopoly, I was optimistic that at last,
this behavior would be ended.
Much to my disappointment, the proposed settlement will do
little to change the behavior of this monopolist in my situation.
[[Page 28030]]
Specifically, since my company is a small solution provider, section
III.B allows Microsoft to continue their threats of retaliation if
my company so much as hosts a training seminar with one of their
competitors. While my situation may be viewed as an issue with a
small group of Microsoft representatives, I believe that this small
group accurately reflects the culture of the company at large. This
culture has directly cost my clients many thousands of dollars and
will continue to do them harm well into the future if the proposed
remedy is allowed to stand. Specifically, the proposed remedy does
little to prevent Microsoft from bringing harm to my company if I
propose solutions to my clients that involve non-Microsoft software,
even when this software is cheaper, more suited to their task and
more appropriate to their situation. In addition to the above
concerns, I believe that the proposed settlement has other serious
flaws as well. However, I felt it best if I focused on how the
settlement impacted me directly and let others speak about the more
general aspects of the settlement.
To that end, I would like to echo the comments made by Dan
Kegel, whose comments can be viewed at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html . I strongly support his overall comments on the
proposed settlement and would like to add my voice to his.
Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. If there
is any more information that I may provide to you to help you in
your deliberations, please feel free to contact me.
Best regards,
David Joham
MTC-00027470
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
A single minded focus of a great company like Microsoft--to
simplify the computing experience, and making IT affordable to a
common man--has really been a path breaking achievement of the
20th century. Any adverse judgement will only harm the end-consumer,
who will be forced to cough up money for the most essential of
features & innovations. Growth & well-being of Microsoft is
essential to foster competition and health of IT industry not only
in the US, but of the economy world-wide.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00027471
From: George H. Darfus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:02am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Dear Sirs:
This E-mail is sent to urge you to hasten to a conclusion of the
action against Microsoft. From what I have read on this matter, the
tentative settlement which was reached some time ago seems like a
reasonable approach.
As a consumer, I can very strongly state that I have not been
hurt by Microsoft. Their products have been easy to use and are
certainly fairly priced. As I understand, this area of law is
supposed to protect consumers. The only way I have been hurt is that
way too many of my tax dollars have been used to prosecute a company
which, in my opinion, did not deserve prosecution.
Enough is enough. I thank you for taking the time to read my
input.
Very respectfully,
George H. Darfus
LCDR, USN (Ret.)
MTC-00027472
From: Barton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:03am
Subject:
From: Tina Barton--Dighton, KS
Attorney Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney Hesse,
While we appreciate all the work that has been put into the
Microsoft antitrust case, I think America certainly can benefit from
the settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. I understand that 30
million dollars have been spent thus far on this case. Let's not
spend any more.
Please thoughtfully consider accepting this final judgment and
end this antitrust case.
Sincerely,
Tina Barton
MTC-00027473
From: Aaron Nemetz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:08am
Subject: MIcrosoft Settlement
Hello, I'm Aaron Nemetz, a student in eight-grade attending The
Harker School. This as you presume is a letter about the recent
cases on Microsoft. First I would like to talk about Judge Jackson's
decision to split the company into many pieces. This for one is a
horrible idea because it could lead to many monopolies, where each
part will already have a huge user base, which seems to be very
loyal to Microsoft's product. The company is like a worm, when you
cut a worm in half trying to kill it the results are completely
different. Over time there are two worms!! This is the effect that
could possibly happen if this action was taken. Now for the recent
case, where Microsoft is being tried upon the idea that they are
breaking the Antitrust Laws by making a trust with Internet
Explorer. This case can be taken many ways. One thing comes to mind
is John D. Rockefeller, a businessman who monopolized the oil
industry by the late 1800?s. His strategies were quit different; he
would change prices in certain locations to run out the competition
in those sites. That strategy was only used if other small companies
didn?t agree to join him in monopolization by handing over all there
refineries for some price. Looking over the history Rockefeller's
Standard Oil Company one can conclude he used trusts, just like Bill
Gates has done. Yet while Rockefeller's company joined with other
companies in the industry, Bill Gates merged with software to only
improve his own OP's efficiency and user-friendliness. Looking over
the case I have a few more opinions. First as others believe this is
yet another case started by AOL/Time Warner to slow down and make
money off of Microsoft. One way I believe all Internet access
companies can compete would be through rebates. Both Apple and
Microsoft should come with a rebate, which would work on many of
qualified Internet applications. This way competition would be
restored once again. Even though the public does not seem to care
too much about this monopoly I have thought of a simple plan that
would replace interest in buying the best product.
THANX,
Aaron Nemetz
MTC-00027474
From: Tonitrus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not think the Microsoft settlement will help customers. Any
reasonable solution must have ways for Windows programs to work on
other Operating Systems, as Microsoft used its monopoly to get all
of those programs over to the Windows platform. Also, the solution
should allow users to choose what products they are purchasing, and
not Microsoft. I personally believe that Microsoft should release
the source code to Windows. This would allow the WINE (Wine Is Not
an Emulator) project to fully emulated Windows, and allow Windows
programs to run on anything that WINE itself will run on. This would
also aptly punish Microsoft for its actions. The Windows source code
should be put under the GNU Public License. This should be done for
several reasons:
If Microsoft released Windows source code, they would
immediately go back and start the same process over again, so that
their next version could be properly rigged. (Undocumented APIs, for
example). The GNU license would allow anyone to take any good points
that Windows might have (I don't really know of any), and
incorporate them into better things. Also, if the Windows code was
under the GPL, Microsoft would have to release the source code with
every release of Windows.
This would be the most effective way of shattering Microsoft's
control of the OS market, and it would severely weaken them against
their main competitor, Linux, which, due to the fact it lives off
the GPL, would be able to appropriately absorb any necessary
features that Windows could have. If the code were freely available,
users would be able to decide for themselves what to get, by
downloading the code, or getting it from a friend (legal under the
GPL).
This is the most effective way of breaking Microsoft's monopoly
on the OS market. Not only should the code be made available, but it
should be GPL'd. The effects of this are very useful, and beneficial
to everyone, except, of course, Microsoft. Also, the insult of
having their OS GPL'd would put the message across very clearly to
them. excelsior,
Dustan Bower
315 Ladd rd.
Fishersville, VA
22939
[[Page 28031]]
MTC-00027475
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division 601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ken Smith
1223 Merry Brook Dr.
Kalamazoo, MI 49048
MTC-00027476
From: Michael L. Mitchell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement ** Secret ** Hello,
I would like to provide my comment on the settlement that the
Justice Department has entered in with Microsoft. I believe that the
settlement is quite adequate. If anymore were to be done it has a
reverse effect of harming the consumer (me). I think it is time that
this matter be settle and the allow Microsoft and the Justice
Department move forward.
Thank you
Michael L. Mitchell
Brandon, FL
MTC-00027477
From: James Carter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ,
The proposed settlement is NOT in the publich interest... it is
ineffective and has large loopholes. My name is James Michael
Carter. I am a real person working in the computer industry
(programmer) who can tell story after story of microsoft abuses. I
have followed and complained about Microsoft abuses since the early
90's (before much of their behavior was successfully brought to the
attention of anti-trust enforcers). (real person in contrast to
Microsoft's fraudulant `astroturf'' fake citizen's
responses which have been at least several times caught!) I am very
much against the proposed settlement. It is not in the public
interest. As a start, I advocate the changes proposed at: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html With further resources at: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/
Also I echo Ralph Nader's criticisms: http://www.cptech.org/at/
ms/rnjl2kollarkoteltynov501.html
To highlight some general problems, there are not protections
for Non-MS operating systems to get hold of technical
interoperability details and API's in order to build compatible and/
or competing products and systems. Further, MS should not be allowed
to buy technology companies.., they absorb and kill off competition
and gain beach-heads ensuring the next big thing will be in their
controls--leveraged off their existing stranglehold and $36
billion bank account. Profits they did not mine from the ground, but
taken off the backs of consumers!! Microsoft yells how all they want
to do is innovate and compete .... yet their behaviour and snubbing
of the law and our courts show their words are as trustworthy as
their products'' security. Make MS publish any and ALL API's,
protocols, and file formats 3 months before any distribution so
others may compete with them (as they profess to want).
Prevent them from buying any other companies (to make them
compete and --innovate-- as they claim they want to do.
Make them publish all their source code.
Microsoft wants to innovate-- and --compete-- ??
Well then make them do exactly that .... Microsoft's history shows
they do all to NOT have to compete... So, let's finally make them do
what they --CLAIM-- is all they want to do .... The public
interest requires it.
I also think microsoft should be broken up by product lines.
Structural remedies are often only remedy to fix where company shows
in its history to ignore consent decrees and have a penchant for not
complying and for litigating (delaying until the damage is already
done) (years and years now...).
I am a modestly self-employed programmer, who has personally
suffered and seen the abuses at the hands of Microsoft. Please don't
let the average folks down.
I would help you with new remedies or evaluation of such in any
way I can. sincerely,
James Carter
221 Hosea Ave. Apt. 2
Cincinnati, Ohio 45220
(513) 559-9701
[email protected]
I attach for completeness the kegal analysis remedy fixes (which
I endorse and propose as well):
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
On the Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft
Contents
Introduction
Understanding the Proposed Final Judgment
How should terms like ``API'', ``Middleware'',
and ``Windows OS'' be defined?
How should the Final Judgment erode the Applications Barrier to
Entry?
How should the Final Judgment be enforced?
What information needs to be released to ISVs to encourage
competition, and under what terms?
Which practices towards OEMs should be prohibited?
Which practices towards ISVs should be prohibited?
Which practices towards large users should be prohibited?
Which practices towards end users should be prohibited?
Is the Proposed Final Judgment in the public interest?
Strengthening the PFJ
Correcting the PFJ's definitions
Release of Information
Prohibition of More Practices Toward OEMs
Summary
Introduction
As a software engineer with 20 years'' experience
developing software for Unix, Windows, Macintosh, and Linux, I'd
like to comment on the Proposed Final Judgment in United States v.
Microsoft.
According to the Court of Appeals ruling, ``a remedies
decree in an antitrust case must seek to `unfetter a market
from anticompetitive conduct', to ``terminate the illegal
monopoly, deny to the defendant the fruits of its statutory
violation, and ensure that there remain no practices likely to
result in monopolization in the future'' (section V.D., p. 99).
Attorney General John Ashcroft seems to agree; he called the
proposed settlement ``strong and historic'', said that it
would end ``Microsoft's unlawful conduct,'' and said
``With the proposed settlement being announced today, the
Department of Justice has fully and completely addressed the anti-
competitive conduct outlined by the Court of Appeals against
Microsoft.''
Yet the Proposed Final Judgment allows many exclusionary
practices to continue, and does not take any direct measures to
reduce the Applications Barrier to Entry faced by new entrants to
the market. The Court of Appeals affirmed that Microsoft has a
monopoly on Intel-compatible PC operating systems, and that the
company's market position is protected by a substantial barrier to
entry (p. 15). Furthermore, the Court of Appeals affirmed that
Microsoft is liable under Sherman Act ? 2 for illegally maintaining
its monopoly by imposing licensing restrictions on OEMs, IAPs
(Internet Access Providers), ISVs (Independent Software Vendors),
and Apple Computer, by requiring ISVs to switch to Microsoft's JVM
(Java Virtual Machine), by deceiving Java developers, and by forcing
Intel to drop support for cross-platform Java tools.
The fruits of Microsoft's statutory violation include a
strengthened Applications Barrier to Entry and weakened competition
in the Intel-compatible operating system market; thus the Final
Judgment must find a direct way of reducing the Applications Barrier
to Entry, and of increasing such competition.
In the following sections I outline the basic intent of the
proposed final judgment, point out areas where the intent and the
implementation appear to fall short, and propose amendments to the
Proposed Final Judgment (or PFJ) to address these concerns.
Please note that this document is still evolving. Feedback is
welcome; to comment on this document, please join the mailing list
at groups.yahoo.com/group/ms-remedy, or email me directly at dank-
[email protected].
Understanding the Proposed Final Judgment In crafting the Final
Judgment, the judge will face the following questions:
[[Page 28032]]
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
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). Microsoft will publish the wholesale prices it charges
the top 20 OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) for Windows.
Microsoft will allow OEMs to customize the Windows menus,
desktop, and boot sequence, and will allow the use of non-Microsoft
bootloaders.
Microsoft will publish on MSDN (the Microsoft Developer Network)
the APIs used by IE, MJ, WMP, WM, and OE, so that competing web
browsers, media players, and email clients can plug in properly to
Windows.
Microsoft will license on reasonable terms the network protocols
needed for non-Microsoft applications or operating systems to
connect to Windows servers.
Microsoft will not force business partners to refrain from
supporting competitors to Windows, IE, MJ, WMP, WM, or OE. (Roughly
same as F above.)
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.
Microsoft will license on reasonable terms any intellectual
property rights needed for other companies to take advantage of the
terms of this settlement.
This agreement lets Microsoft keep secret anything having to do
with security or copy protection.
PFJ Section VI: Definitions
``API'' (Application Programming Interface) is defined
as only the interfaces between Microsoft Middleware and Microsoft
Windows, excluding Windows APIs used by other application programs.
``Microsoft Middleware Product'' is defined as
Internet Explorer (IE), Microsoft Java (MJ), Windows Media Player
(WMP), Windows Messenger (WM), and Outlook Express (OE).
``Windows Operating System Product'' is defined as
Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, and Windows XP
Professional.
The agreement can be summed up in one breath as follows:
Microsoft agrees to compete somewhat less vigorously, and to let
competitors interoperate with Windows in exchange for royalty
payments.
Considering all of the above, one should read the detailed terms
of the Proposed Final Judgment, and ask one final question:
Is the Proposed Final Judgment in the public interest?
In the sections below, I'll look in more detail at how the PFJ
deals with the above questions.
How should terms like ``API'', ``Middleware, and
``Windows OS'' be defined?
The definitions of various terms in Part VI of the PFJ differ
from the definitions in the Findings of Fact and in common usage,
apparently to Microsoft's benefit. Here are some examples:
Definition A: ``API''
The Findings of Fact (? 2) define ``API'' to mean the
interfaces between application programs and the operating system.
However, the PFJ's Definition A defines it to mean only the
interfaces between Microsoft Middleware and Microsoft Windows,
excluding Windows APIs used by other application programs. For
instance, the PFJ's definition of API might omit important APIs such
as the Microsoft Installer APIs which are used by installer programs
to install software on Windows. Definition J: ``Microsoft
Middleware'' The Findings of Fact (? 28) define
``middleware'' to mean application software that itself
presents a set of APIs which allow users to write new applications
without reference to the underlying operating system.
Definition J defines it in a much more restrictive way, and
allows Microsoft to exclude any software from being covered by the
definition in two ways:
By changing product version numbers. For example, if the next
version of Internet Explorer were named ``7.0.0'' instead
of ``7'' or ``7.0'', it would not be deemed
Microsoft Middleware by the PFJ. By changing how Microsoft
distributes Windows or its middleware. For example, if Microsoft
introduced a version of Windows which was only available via the
Windows Update service, then nothing in that version of Windows
would be considered Microsoft Middleware, regardless of whether
Microsoft added it initially or in a later update. This is analogous
to the loophole in the 1995 consent decree that allowed Microsoft to
bundle its browser by integrating it into the operating system.
Definition K: ``Microsoft Middleware Product''
Definition K defines ``Microsoft Middleware Product''
to mean essentially Internet Explorer (IE), Microsoft Java (MJ),
Windows Media Player (WMP), Windows Messenger (WM), and Outlook
Express (OE).
The inclusion of Microsoft Java and not Microsoft.NET is
questionable; Microsoft has essentially designated Microsoft.NET and
C# as the successors to Java, so on that basis one would expect
Microsoft.NET to be included in the definition.
The inclusion of Outlook Express and not Outlook is
questionable, as Outlook (different and more powerful than Outlook
Express) is a more important product in business, and fits the
definition of middleware better than Outlook Express.
The exclusion of Microsoft Office is questionable, as many
components of Microsoft Office fit the Finding of Fact's definition
of middleware. For instance, there is an active market in software
written to run on top of Microsoft Outlook and Microsoft Word, and
many applications are developed for Microsoft Access by people who
have no knowledge of Windows APIs.
Definition U: ``Windows Operating System Product''
Microsoft's monopoly is on Intel-compatible operating systems.
Yet the PFJ in definition U defines a ``Windows Operating
System Product'' to mean only Windows 2000 Professional,
Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional, and their successors. This
purposely excludes the Intel-compatible operating systems Windows XP
Tablet PC Edition and windows CE; many applications written to the
Win32 APIs can run unchanged on Windows 2000, Windows XP Tablet PC
Edition, and Windows CE, and with minor recompilation, can also be
run on Pocket PC. Microsoft even proclaims at www.microsoft.com/
windowsxp/tabletpc/tabletpcqanda.asp: ``The Tablet PC is the
next-generation mobile business PC, and it will be available from
leading computer makers in the second half of 2002. The Tablet PC
runs the Microsoft Windows XP Tablet PC Edition and features the
capabilities of current business laptops, including attached or
detachable keyboards and the ability to run Windows-based
applications.''
and
Pocket PC: Powered by Windows
Microsoft is clearly pushing Windows XP Tablet PC Edition and
Pocket PC in places (e.g. portable computers used by businessmen)
currently served by Windows XP Home Edition, and thus appears to be
trying to evade the Final Judgment's provisions. This is but one
example of how Microsoft can evade the provisions of the Final
Judgment by shifting its efforts away from the Operating Systems
listed in Definition U and towards Windows XP Tablet Edition,
Windows CE, Pocket PC, X-Box, or some other Microsoft Operating
System that can run Windows applications. How should the Final
Judgment erode the Applications Barrier to Entry?
The PFJ tries to erode the Applications Barrier to Entry in two
ways:
By forbidding retaliation against OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs who
support or develop alternatives to Windows.
By taking various measures to ensure that Windows allows the use
of non-Microsoft middleware.
A third option not provided by the PFJ would be to make sure
that Microsoft raises no artificial barriers against non-Microsoft
operating systems which implement the APIs needed to run application
programs written for Windows. The Findings of Fact (?52) considered
the possibility that competing operating systems could implement the
Windows APIs and thereby directly run software written for Windows
as a way of circumventing the Applications Barrier to Entry. This is
in fact the route being taken by the Linux operating system, which
includes middleware (named WINE) that can run many Windows programs.
[[Page 28033]]
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 (?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.
MSNBC has a valid interest in prohibiting use of pirated copies
of operating systems, but much narrower language could achieve the
same protective effect with less anticompetitive impact. For
instance, ``MSNBC Interactive grants you the right to install
and use copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers running
validly licensed copies of Microsoft Windows or compatible operating
system.''
2. Microsoft created intentional incompatibilities in Windows
3.1 to discourage the use of non-Microsoft operating systems An
episode from the 1996 Caldera v. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit
illustrates how Microsoft has used technical means
anticompetitively. Microsoft's original operating system was called
MS-DOS. Programs used the DOS API to call up the services of the
operating system. Digital Research offered a competing operating
system, DR-DOS, that also implemented the DOS API, and could run
programs written for MS-DOS. Windows 3.1 and earlier were not
operating systems per se, but rather middleware that used the DOS
API to interoperate with the operating system. Microsoft was
concerned with the competitive threat posed by DR-DOS, and added
code to beta copies of Windows 3.1 so it would display spurious and
misleading error messages when run on DR-DOS. Digital Research's
successor company, Caldera, brought a private antitrust suit against
Microsoft in 1996. (See the original complaint, and Caldera's
consolidated response to Microsoft's motions for partial summary
judgment.) The judge in the case ruled that ``Caldera has
presented sufficient evidence that the incompatibilities alleged
were part of an anticompetitive scheme by Microsoft.'' That
case was settled out of court in 1999, and no court has fully
explored the alleged conduct.
The concern here is that, as competing operating systems emerge
which are able to run Windows applications, Microsoft might try to
sabotage Windows applications, middleware, and development tools so
that they cannot run on non-Microsoft operating systems, just as
they did earlier with Windows 3.1.
The PFJ as currently written does nothing to prohibit these
kinds of restrictive licenses and intentional incompatibilities, and
thus encourages Microsoft to use these techniques to enhance the
Applications Barrier to Entry, and harming those consumers who use
non-Microsoft operating systems and wish to use Microsoft
applications software. Is the Proposed Final Judgment in the public
interest? The problems identified above with the Proposed Final
Judgment can be summarized as follows:
The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing
operating 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
[[Page 28034]]
`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
Definition A should be amended to read
A. ``Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)'' means
the interfaces, including any associated callback interfaces, that
[Microsoft Middleware running] ,Popular Windows Applications running
or being installed on a Windows Operating System Product [uses] use
to call upon that Windows Operating System Product in order to
obtain any services from that Windows Operating System Product.
Definition U should be amended to read
U. ``Windows Operating System Product'' means [the
software code (as opposed to source code) distributed commercially
by Microsoft for use with Personal Computers as Windows 2000
Professional, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional, and
successors to the foregoing, including the Personal Computer
versions of the products currently code named ``Longhorn''
and ``Blackcomb'' and their successors, including
upgrades, bug fixes, service packs, etc. The software code that
comprises a Windows Operating System Product shall be determined by
Microsoft in its sole discretion. ] any software or firmware code
distributed commercially by Microsoft that is capable of executing
any nontrivial subset of the Win32 APIs, including without exclusion
Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional,
Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, PocketPC 2002, and
successors to the foregoing, including the products currently code
named ``Longhorn'' and ``Blackcomb'' and their
successors, including upgrades, bug fixes, service packs, etc. Four
new definitions should be added:
V. ``Popular Windows Applications'' shall be defined
as as the top 10 selling applications as reported by NPD Intelect
Market Tracking in each of the categories Business, Education,
Finance, Games, Personal Productivity, and Reference, plus all
Microsoft Middleware Products.
W. ``Essential Windows API Patents'' shall be defined
as those patents held by Microsoft which cover Essential Windows
APIs, such that those APIs cannot possibly be implemented without
infringing upon said patents.
X. ``Essential Windows APIs Standard Definition''
shall be defined as a document, suitable for approval by a standards
body such as ECMA or IEEE, which accurately defines the inputs,
outputs, and behavior of each Essential Windows API, and enumerates
any Essential Windows API Patents.
Y. ``Essential Windows APIs Standard Compliance Test
Suite'' shall be defined as software source code which, when
compiled and run, automatically tests an operating system for
compliance with the Essential Windows APIs Standard Definition, and
outputs a list of each API which fails to comply with the Essential
Windows APIs Standard Definition. The test suite should run
unattended; that is, it should be capable of running without human
interaction or supervision.
Release of Information
Section E should be amended to remove the restriction on the use
of the disclosed information:
... Microsoft shall disclose ... [for the sole purpose of
interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product,] for the
purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product or
with application software written for Windows,
Because any new competitor in the Intel-compatible operating
system must be able to run Windows applications to have a chance in
the market, and because Microsoft has traditionally used
undocumented Windows APIs as part of the Applications Barrier to
Entry, the Final Judgment should provide explicitly for a clear
definition of what APIs a competing operating system must provide to
run Windows applications. The best way to do this is by submitting
the API definitions to a standards body. This was done in 1994 for
the Windows 3.1 APIs (see Sun's 1994 press release about WABI 2.0
and the Public Windows Initiative). The result is Standard ECMA-234:
Application Programming Interface for Windows (APIW), which provides
standard definitions for an essential subset (four hundred and
fourty-four out of the roughly one thousand) of the Windows 3.1
APIs; it was rendered mostly obsolete by the switch to Windows 95.
The Final Judgment should provide for the creation of something like
ECMA-234 for the various modern versions of Windows. Because
Microsoft currently claims that it has intellectual property rights
that protect the Windows APIs, but has never spelled out exactly
which patents cover which APIs, the Final Judgment should force this
to be spelled out.
A new section IV.E should be created to achieve the above goals
by adding the following text:
E. Establishment of a Windows API Standards Expert Group Within
60 days of entry of this Final Judgment, the parties shall create
and recommend to the Court for its appointment a six person Windows
API Standards Expert Group (``WASEG'') to manage the
creation, publication, and maintenance of an Essential Windows APIs
Standard Definition, and to guide it through the process of being
adopted by a standards body such as ECMA or the IEEE.
Three of the WASEG members shall be experts in software design
and programming, and three of the WASEG members shall be experts in
intellectual property law. No WASEG member shall have a conflict of
interest that could prevent him or her from performing his or her
duties under this Final Judgment in a fair and unbiased manner. No
WASEG member shall have entered into any non-disclosure agreement
that is still in force with Microsoft or any competitor to
Microsoft, nor shall she or he enter into such an agreement during
her or his term on the WASEG. Without limitation to the foregoing,
no WASEG member shall have been employed in any capacity by
Microsoft or any competitor to Microsoft within the past year, nor
shall she or he be so employed during his or her term on the WASEG.
Within seven days of entry of this Final Judgment, the
Plaintiffs as a group shall select two software experts and two
intellectual property law experts to be members of the WASEG, and
Microsoft shall select one software expert and one intellectual
property law expert to be members of the WASEG; the Plaintiffs shall
then apply to the Court for appointment of the persons selected by
the Plaintiffs and Microsoft pursuant to this section.
Each WASEG member shall serve for an initial term of 30 months.
At the end of a WASEG member's initial 30-month term, the party that
originally selected him or her may, in its sole discretion, either
request re-appointment by the Court to a second 30-month term or
replace the WASEG member in the same manner as provided for above.
If the United States or a majority of the Plaintiffs determine
that a member of the WASEG has failed to act diligently and
consistently with the purposes of this Final Judgment, or if a
member of the WASEG resigns, or for any other reason ceases to serve
in his or her capacity as a member of the WASEG, the person or
persons that originally selected the WASEG member shall select a
replacement member in the same manner as provided for above.
Promptly after appointment of the WASEG by the Court, the United
States shall enter into a Windows API Expert Group services
agreement (''WASEG Services Agreement'') with each WASEG
member that grants the rights, powers and authorities necessary to
permit the WASEG to perform its duties under this Final Judgment.
Microsoft shall indemnify each WASEG member and hold him or her
harmless against any losses, claims, damages, liabilities or
expenses arising out of, or in connection with, the performance of
the WASEG's duties, except
[[Page 28035]]
to the extent that such liabilities, losses, damages, claims, or
expenses result from misfeasance, gross negligence, willful or
wanton acts, or bad faith by the WASEG member. The WASEG Services
Agreements shall include the following:
The WASEG members shall serve, without bond or other security,
at the cost and expense of Microsoft on such terms and conditions as
the Plaintiffs approve, including the payment of reasonable fees and
expenses. The WASEG Services Agreement shall provide that each
member of the WASEG shall comply with the limitations provided for
in section IV.E.2. above. Microsoft shall provide the WASEG with
funds needed to procure office space, telephone, other office
support facilities, consultants, or contractors required by the
WASEG.
The WASEG shall not have direct access to any part of
Microsoft's computer software source code that is not normally
available to all ISV's. The WASEG shall not enter into any non-
disclosure agreements with Microsoft or third parties. No
implementations of any Windows APIs shall be written or published by
the WASEG.
The WASEG shall have the following powers and duties:
The WASEG may require Microsoft to provide comprehensive answers
to questions about Microsoft intellectual property claims.
The WASEG may require Microsoft to provide comprehensive answers
to questions about the inputs, outputs, and functionality of any
Windows API; in particular, the WASEG may compel Microsoft to
provide complete documentation for Windows APIs, including hitherto
undocumented or poorly-documented Windows APIs.
The WASEG may engage, at the cost and expense of Microsoft, the
services of outside consultants and contractors as required to
fulfill the duties of the WASEG.
The WASEG shall establish a publicly available web site not
owned or otherwise controlled by Microsoft, and will publish status
reports and other information there at least as often as once per
month. Documentation on the web site shall be made available subject
to the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License; test suite
source code made available on the web site shall be made available
subject to the terms of the GNU General Public License.
The WASEG shall compile a complete list of Windows APIs,
including for each API the DLL name, entry point name, entry point
ordinal number, return value type, and parameter types, as well as
which versions of Windows it is supported by and what percentage of
Popular Windows Applications use it. The WASEG shall publish this
list on the WASEG web site subject to the GNU Free Documentation
License, according to the following schedule: Within 90 days after
the WASEG is convened, the WASEG shall publish this information for
at least three hundred Windows APIs. On the 1st of each month
thereafter, the WASEG shall publish this information for another
three hundred Windows APIs. This shall continue until a complete
list of Windows APIs is available on the web site. The WASEG shall
use tools such as Apius from Sarion Systems Research to verify that
the list of Windows APIs is indeed complete, and that installing or
running any Popular Windows Application does not cause any unlisted
Windows API to be invoked.
The WASEG shall compile a complete list of Essential Windows API
patents and patents pending, and an evaluation of which Windows APIs
each patent covers. The WASEG shall compile this information by
asking Microsoft for a complete list of Essential Windows API
patents and patents pending, and then determining which Windows APIs
are likely to be covered by each patent or patent pending; the WASEG
shall use the World Wide Web Consortium's document www.w3.org/TR/
2002/NOTE-patent-practice-20020124 as guidance. The WASEG shall
publish this information on the WASEG web site subject to the GNU
Free Documentation License, according to the following schedule:
Within 90 days after the WASEG is convened, the WASEG shall publish
an evaluation of 30 patents. On the 1st of each month thereafter,
the WASEG shall publish an evaluation of another 30 patents. This
shall continue until evaluations of all patents claimed by Microsoft
to cover the Windows APIs have been published on the WASEG web site.
The WASEG shall compile documentation for the list of Windows
APIs defined above in section IV.E.9.e, including a complete
description of the meanings of the return values and parameters, and
the effects of the API. The documentation should be composed in a
style similar to that used for the Single Unix Specification
documentation ( http://www. UNIX-systems.org/go/unix). Within 180
days after the WASEG is convened, and on the 1st of every month
thereafter until complete, the WASEG will make available the
currently completed portion of this documentation via its web site.
When the three documents described above--the list of
Windows APIs, the list of Essential Windows Patents, and the
documentation for the listed Windows APIs--is complete, the
WASEG shall undertake to submit them to a standards body such as
ECMA or the IEEE as a Public Windows APIs Standard Document, and to
make such enhancements and revisions as needed to gain the
acceptance of that document as a standard.
The WASEG shall create an Essential Windows APIs Standard
Compliance Test Suite, and publish it on the WASEG web site subject
to the GNU General Public License, according to the following
schedule: Within 180 days after the WASEG is convened, the WASEG
shall publish test cases for at least fifty Windows APIs. On the 1st
of each month thereafter, the WASEG shall publish test cases for at
least another fifty Windows APIs. This shall continue until a
complete Essential Windows APIs Standard Compliance Test Suite is
available on the web site. In the event that a planned update to
Windows or any other Microsoft product is expected to result in the
creation of new Windows APIs, the WASEG shall create addenda to the
above documents and test suite covering the new APIs, make them
available via its web site, and undertake to submit them to the same
standards body as above as an addendum to the standard.
Prohibition of More Practices Toward OEMs
III. A. 2. of the Proposed Final Judgment should be amended to
read 2. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a
Windows Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating
System, or (b) will boot with more than one Operating System, or (c)
includes a non-Microsoft Operating System but no Windows Operating
System Product; or ...
Summary
This document demonstrates that there are so many problems with
the PFJ that it is not in the public interest. It also illustrates
how one might try to fix some of these problems. Dan Kegel
MTC-00027479
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:08am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Hello,
While I am in agreement with your settlement of the Microsoft
debacle, please encourage other states to be involved with this
settlement.
At no time was this ever a consumer problem. The problem lies
solely with competitors who could not keep up with the innovations
of Microsoft. Everyone in the United States of America has the
opportunity to be creative and to build any type of business. When
the government decides to break apart companies because you listen
to the ear of the incompetent competitors, you weaken the creative
business spirit of our great country. It is time your issues with
Microsoft be over.
I am a shareholder of Microsoft and have great respect for this
company. Mr. Gates did not live off the banks as most companies seem
to do but built this company by his innovations and creativity. You
would do much better in the protection of the little people, like
me, by taking care of businesses like the cable companies, which we
have no choices, and Enron.
Thank you for listening to one of the ``little
people'' of this country.
SANDY
MTC-00027480
From: Stephanie Bricker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:09am
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
To whom this may concern:
The federal court has reviewed the Microsoft antitrust case and
found that Microsoft has repeatedly violated U.S. antitrust laws and
should be liable for its illegal conduct. Microsoft seeks to
heighten its power and control in the world, in an effort to squash
competitors, it seeks to merge with other companies and therefore
install Internet Explorer as the default operating system in
connection with Windows. This will lessen the use of netscape.
However, many people favor netscape and this step by Microsoft will
only inconvenience such users and create disfavor towards Microsoft.
I urge you to hold Microsoft accountable for its actions not allow
for such monopolies to take place. In addition, Microsoft should not
be
[[Page 28036]]
able to attach other products or services, especially items that do
not even have anything to do with operating a computer.
Furthermore, the economy needs competition. It is the
fundamental aspect in the economy. Please allow for the continuation
of technological competition because it is essential in economic
survival and the satisfaction of consumers.
Thank you for your time,
Stephanie Bricker
MTC-00027481
From: Michael Batchelder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:09am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I would like to register my dissatisfaction with the proposed
settlement in the case of US v. Microsoft. As an information
technology professional, I have personally witnessed Microsoft's
policies restricting consumer choice (my own, w/regard to purchasing
computers without Windows operating systems), failing to provide
quality service (for which increased competition should be the
solution), and limiting, rather than encouraging innovation.
Should the Department of Justice choose to move forward with the
proposed settlement, I will take it as compelling evidence that the
Bush administration is clearly a government ``for large
corporate interests, by large corporate interests, and of large
corporate interests'', at the expense of the peoples''
interest.
Thank you,
Michael Batchelder
Redwood City, CA
MTC-00027483
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:09am
Subject: my opinion
I'm writing to express my opinion on the antitrust case against
Microsoft. What must be taken into account is how much Microsoft has
given the world. Not only technology, but jobs, products, entire
industries. Microsoft revolutionized personal computers in a way
that has improved the lives of most everyone I know. The
simplification of personal computing has made it possible for any
one of any age and background to utilize technology. Why must
Microsoft be punished for success? There is no logic to that. Human
beings evolve and make improvements not because they are being
``fair'' ... technology and business are not polite
playground play. It benefits no one to punish Microsoft for success.
It benefits us all to encourage achievement. Microsoft would not be
seen as threatening if it had not earned the undeniable excellence
with the consumer, creating standards in the industry that were
challenging to stay abreast of. Competition is the healthiest
motivater; it keeps us all reaching higher and higher, improving and
strengthening and evolving. If we punish success, we endanger our
very evolution.
MTC-00027484
From: whij0@nodots-daemon@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
PURPOSE: This document is respectfully submitted as public
comment on the Proposed Final Judgement in United States v.
Microsoft pursuant to the Tunney Act.
QUALIFICATIONS: The author has technical and managerial
experience in Information Technology covering large mainframe to
Unix mid-range to PC systems extending over more than three decades.
This experience has been in private industry but also includes part-
time involvement in independent consulting and providing advice for
friends. The author holds the Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer
(MCSE) certification.
SUMMARY: In its current form, the Proposed Final Judgement fails
every remedy objective provided by The Supreme Court. Therefore, it
should be rejected and stringent interim conduct restrictions
applied.
DISCUSSION: Microsoft was tried and found guilty of violating
sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The findings were
upheld under appeal. The current task is to determine appropriate
remedies. In 391 U.S. 244, The Supreme Court provided criteria for
the remedies in antitrust cases: ``It is of course established
that, in a 2 case, upon appropriate findings of violation, it is the
duty of the court to prescribe relief which will 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. . . . The trial court is
charged with inescapable responsibility to achieve this objective .
. . .''
First, let me acknowledge my disappointment at the loss of
structural remedies. Microsoft has been extremely innovative with
interpreting conduct restrictions in the past (Civil Action No.
94-1564, http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f1300/1329.htm). Given
such past behavior, only an extremely tight and well designed (both
technically and legally) document only containing conduct
restrictions will be effective.
The structure of the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) is as
follows:
I. Jurisdiction
II. Applicability
III. Prohibited Conduct
IV. Compliance and Enforcement Procedures
V. Termination
VI. Definitions
VII. Further Elements
VIII. Third Party Rights
Nowhere does the PFJ address ``deny to the defendant the
fruits of its statutory violation.'' Although section III
discusses conduct restrictions, there is no language to
``terminate the illegal monopoly'' and ensure no
``monopolization in the future''. Rather, the current PFJ
serves to acknowledge, strengthen and continue the monopoly. Section
III, A deals with not retaliating against OEMS. Starting with III,
A, 2 ``shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a
Windows Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating
System, or (b) will boot with more than one Operating System;''
Conspicuous by its absence is considering the possibility of
shipping a Personal Computer with only one non-Microsoft Operating
System or no Operating System at all. Even more interesting to note
is the last paragraph: ``Nothing in this provision shall
prohibit Microsoft from providing Consideration to any OEM with
respect to any Microsoft product or service where that Consideration
is commensurate with the absolute level or amount of that OEM's
development, distribution, promotion, or licensing of that Microsoft
product or service.''
Although retaliation is prohibited, this paragraph provides the
necessary loophole by allowing selective Consideration. This appears
to be a variation on the theme of vendors providing a cash discount
when they were prohibited from applying a credit card surcharge. In
both cases the same result is achieved.
The open source initiative has been a nemesis to Microsoft.
Unlike, a traditional profit oriented business, the usual tactics
haven't worked to eradicate them. The design of the PFJ appears to
be geared to assist in this objective starting with the explicitly
named list of commercial type organizations in section III, D. An
explicitly named list inherently excludes anything not listed. This
is further emphasized in III, J, 2, b-d: ``(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 . . .''
Open source initiatives tend to be non-commercial projects whose
source code results are freely published on the Internet. They
clearly fail b) and c) since they do not have traditional business
plans. They could not afford d), which is unnecessary anyway, since
the source code is readily available. The references to RAND
(reasonable and non-discriminatory) licenses (the subject of serious
debate in the W3C standards approval process) fall in this same
category. The open source initiatives could all be rendered obsolete
merely by selectively changing the APIs to be incompatible with the
current ones and leveraging the PFJ and the DMCA to prevent access
to the information necessary to attain compatibility. In one easy
move, the open source problem is eliminated with a release change.
This could spell the end of projects such as WINE (a project to run
Windows applications on non-Windows Operating Systems) and Samba (a
project to provide Windows type file and print services on
non--Windows Operating Systems and to connect to Windows hosted
file and print services from non--Windows Operating Systems).
The PFJ is fraught with loopholes. This document discusses just
a few. CONCLUSION: The general tone of the PFJ merely acknowledges
that Microsoft is a monopolist rather than serving to
``terminate the illegal monopoly'' and ensure no
``monopolization in the future'' as well as not addressing
``deny to the defendant the fruits of its statutory
violation.'' The PFJ in its
[[Page 28037]]
current form is grossly inadequate. A major overhaul is required to
meet the stipulated criteria. The court should reject it.
Should the current PFJ be adopted, no business would attempt to
compete with Microsoft in any area Microsoft has an interest. Should
anyone be foolish enough to do so, there would be no external
funding available due to the enormous risk of failure. This document
will not serve to restore competition.
Given Microsoft's past behavior, significant interim conduct
restrictions should be applied to temper future damage pending the
probable lengthy resolution of this matter.
SIGNATURE:
James R Whitten
Overland Park, KS
[email protected]
MTC-00027485
From: jbarney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:10am
Subject: microsoft settlement
I am a small business owner. Ten years ago my business had to
cobble together a variety of software programs in order to operate
my business because one program would not talk to another program.
To do so was very expensive and time consuming.These are the very
companies that are suing Microsoft. Along came Microsoft and tied it
all together, and did so at a reasonable price. These other
companies are just whining because they still don't have the ability
to come up with a workable system. Their is no antitrust case
against Microsoft. Nobody has been hurt. Quite the contrary,
Microsoft has made life a lot easier for most of us. It is just a
political charade. Quit spending taxpayer money, throw the case out.
and get on with life.
Jack Barney
MTC-00027486
From: Bob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Below please find a copy of an original post I made to Slashdot
11/2/2001 about Microsoft and the nature of the problem their
behavior represents to the computing industry. You may read it
directly here http://slashdot.org/
comments.pl'sid=23317&cid=2513826 but I have chosen to reproduce
it here for you immediate use.
I feel that this analogy is very fair- operating systems ARE
essentially program utilities that handle the allocation of system
resources, and so competing against a company that is both your
competitor and the power company puts that company in a position
from whence a trust can arise ( and has in the case of Microsoft). A
breakup as envisioned by the original judge or a source code release
free of limitations other then not being able to use the code for OS
sales would be appropriate remedies.
I truly hope that you listen to myself and other computer
professionals, and stand ready to explain my position and
conclusions with anyone from the DOJ or any other government officer
in order to facilitate a return to a balanced, competitive and
useful software market environment. I can be reached via this email
address or at home, 972-437-6795.
Imagine if your local power company was a conglomerate that
could also compete with your toaster maker company.
Microsoft Power & Light decides to change the voltages to
everybody's home every three years, requiring a complete change to
all the appliances and home systems. This suits you fine as it
drives more toaster sales, so while you question the ethical
validity of these changes, the havoc it creates and the incredible
costs it imposes on the community, the business model is there- you
are on board.
MSP&L tries to enter into the toaster market, but they can't
make a toaster as good as you. You think all you have to do is
continue to make a better toaster- you poor deluded fool.
MSP&L approaches you and says hey we will force all the
homeowners to have a specific plug and voltage for toasters, sign up
with us and we can guarantee you your share of the toaster market
and we'll get our share. You don't dare refuse because the implied
threat is that the proprietary toaster plug can be used to lock you
out just as easily as lock you in. The consumers go along because
you set the quality standards and if you are on board it must be an
okay plug standard, and besides those malfunctioning MSP&L
toasters are mighty cheap. Now all of a sudden you are a
``strategic business partner'', desperately hoping that
MSP&L or an appliance giant will buy you out.
MSP&L has locked you into a standard under their control,
but now some MS VP genius decides that toasters are strategic (it's
not an appliance, it's ad-revenue!). They mess with the voltages
every year so your toasters malfunction and their toasters work
until you spend valuable design and retool time ``fixing''
your toaster. They create SmarToaster technology that sends email
recipes to their toasters to enhance the toaster experience and
incidentally deliver ads, actually their real revenue stream in the
toaster market. The convection/microwave people are destroying your
upper-end toaster market, so you are totally squeezed. Then to
finish you off, MSP&L gives toasters (which they finally have
kind of working) to everyone during the next voltage change.
You are done for.
But hey our government is here for you! The DoJ comes by and
says, gosh that's wrong, MSP&L cannot use their power monopoly
to squash the toaster market, MSP&L play nice. MSP&L agrees,
then builds the NeToaster standard that requires you to use a
certified bread or pastry and you can't remove the ads.
ActiveOvenLife cries out for justice because they can't impose
their own toaster standard on all the households. Now the DoJ says
okay MSP&L, play nicer. Don't you feel good ex-toaster guy?
Hmmmm, maybe you should have lobbied for standard electricity
settings instead of letting greed get to you, treated the power
company as a monopoly utility and allowed everyone to build the best
appliances that compete on their merits. Open source electricity
standards and government-regulated power? That's just wacky and
unAmerican!
The truly frightening thing is that if Microsoft continues to
get away with this, the rest of the corporate world will follow suit
and we will end up with crazy costs, financial and personal, in all
sorts of real life situations like the above.
The excellent railroads, electricity, roads and
telecommunications infrastructure that all Americans enjoy did not
happen by accident. It was a combination of visionaries, greedy
people and governmental community laws that gave us industries and
standards that work.
If the Microsoft culture is allowed to dominate computing, then
we will experience what our forefathers avoided by stopping railroad
magnates or Standard Oil from controlling the lifeblood of our
nation. God help us if we have failed to learn those lessons.
MTC-00027487
From: Keith Beavers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In my opinion Microsoft has demonstrated much good faith in
effort to finish this matter. The same doesn't seem to be true of
the competition.
Sincerely,
Keith Beavers
MTC-00027488
From: Dave Kennedy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:16am
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.
While there are good aspects of the Proposed Final Judgement
(PFJ), I will concentrate instead on the issues that need
correcting. In addition to these comments, I agree with Dan Kegel's
open letter and essay ``On the Proposed Final Judgment in
United States v. Microsoft''. He has invested a great deal of
effort into systematically identifying the flaws in the PFJ and in
designing suggested corrections. I was surprised to find that:
--The proposal does not even address the issue of Microsoft
intentionally designing into their operating system roadblocks to
Non-Microsoft operating system developers for the purpose of
maintaining their monopoly.
--The proposal provides definitions of Microsoft's current
and future products that are too narrow. Briefly, the definition of
``API'' is succeptible to version number modifications and
the definition of ``Middleware'' is succeptible to
distribution method modifications. For example, the PFJ would not
cover Microsoft's software that is distributed via Windows Update.
This is a serious loophole.
--The proposal neglects to address the release of file
formats for ``popular'' office
[[Page 28038]]
productivity software. This is a critical aspect of Microsoft's
monopoly power as it provides leverage for excluding Non-Microsoft
operating systems just as do its tactics regarding Internet
Explorer. Office productivity applications have become a very
important feature of operating systems, and non-disclosure of office
application file formats prevents other operating systems from
providing compatibility with Microsoft office applications, and, of
course, Microsoft's office applications are not capable of running
on any but a select few operating systems. This constructs a
prohibitive sacrafice that is necessary for switching to Non-
Microsoft operating systems because the end user's office
application documents cannot be converted to formats that are usable
by the Non-Microsoft operating system. All intellectual and time-
related investments in such documents would be lost if an end user
chose to switch to another operating system. As a result, Non-
Microsoft operating systems become less commercially viable.
Undocumented file formats have already been found to strengthen
Microsoft's Applications Barrier to Entry in the ``Findings of
Fact'' paragraphs 20 and 39. This issue should not be ignored
by the Final Judgement.
--Only forcing Microsoft to disclose its pricing schedule
to the top 20 customers is wholly inadequate, for it neglects
protection of all other customers, especially those who are not as
powerful as the top 20.
--Many people are confused and frustrated that the Free
Software Movement issues relating to Microsoft's abuses are not
addressed by this PFJ.
For example, forcing Microsoft to ``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 APIs and
related Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware to
interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product.'' (The
Proposed Final Judgement) does nothing to prevent witholding or
implementation of technical information from developers of efforts
toward operating systems that provide Microsoft operating system
functionality for non-Microsoft operating systems. An example of
such a project is WINE. In addition, it is rather alarming to find
that many aspects of the proposal do not explicitly allow private
developers who are creating products for Non-Microsoft operating
systems to implement the technical information mentioned. How is the
restriction to businesses and organizations justified? Why are the
secret patents held by Microsoft not addressed by this Proposed
Final Judgement? There are many other issues with the Proposed Final
Judgement that I have not discussed here. Please refer to Dan
Kegel's essay, ``On the Proposed Final Judgment in United
States v. Microsoft'', for a more thorough description of the
problems and their solutions. While some of these points may not be
an immediate concern to some, they must be covered in the judgement
because: ``... 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.'' (Ralph Nader and James Love, 2001) Is this
what the USDOJ intends to allow?
Please, let's have a geniune effort at disciplining Microsoft.
Thank-you.
David W. Kennedy
Student
Engineering, Computer-Science
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
References:
Dan Kegel's Open Letter to DOJ Re: The Microsoft Settlement
URL: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
Ralph Nader and James Love, November 5, 2001, ``RE: US v.
Microsoft proposed final order''
URL: http://www.cptech.org/at/ms/rnjl2kollarkotellynov501.html
MTC-00027489
From: jwjptw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
I would recommend that the DOJ stop any further action against
Microsoft and accept the settlement. I have been involved with
computers for 24 years and decided long ago it made sense to go with
Microsoft products beginning with MS-DOS. They have developed good
products with excellent support and training. They have empowered
the home computer user to expand his vision and utilize tools that
previously were beyond his expectations and without effort to learn
programming in order to achieve immediate success. Microsoft has
done more to advance human knowledge and productivity than any
single corporation has in the technical age. Many of the plaintiffs
exhibit greed and envy in their comments and actions while trying to
get the government to grievously impair a competitor when their
primary damage is to their egos.
The attorneys in the federal government, states, and some
individual corporations have used this venue to enhance their own
public images, which is such a waste of public money. You have a
settlement; take it and get on to matters that are more important.
Thank you,
Jack Jenkins
MTC-00027490
From: Michael Capehart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement is a bad idea, and will only serve to let
Microsoft off with a slap on the wrist for destroying any real
chance for competition in the computer software industry. Stop them
now, because you will not get another chance.
Mike Capehart
[email protected]
[email protected]
MTC-00027491
From: Rosemary Loven
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 1:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rosemary Loven
P.O. Box 385
Bishop, CA 93515-0385
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,
Rosemary Loven
MTC-00027492
From: Kevin P. Rice
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My name is Kevin Rice. I live in Bellevue, Washington, and work
as a business analyst. As part of my work, I use many of Microsoft's
products, including Microsoft Windows NT and Microsoft Office 97. I
consider myself to be a power user and build sophisticated documents
with Microsoft Excel and Access that include procedures written
using built in macro language for Office, Visual Basic for
Applications. At home, I use an Apple Macintosh and Microsoft Office
98, so I am familiar with multiple computer operating systems.
The Revised Proposed Final Judgement as currently structured
does not meet the public interest. The proposed penalties are
inadequate given Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior as outlined in
the Findings of Fact, and Microsoft has too much influence over
enforcement through the Technical Committee. The current competitive
situation in the computer industry and its impact on consumers
requires tougher, enforceable penalties.
According to the Findings of Fact, Microsoft has engaged in
anticompetitive business behavior. It is important that there be
punishment for this behavior; without adequate punishment, Microsoft
has no
[[Page 28039]]
incentive to discontinue and alter the behavior deemed
anticompetitive by the courts. Microsoft could easily defend itself
against complaints using the legal system, while small businesses
with innovative products beneficial to the consumer would have no
practical recourse, even in the courts, if they were the victims of
any anticompetitive practice by Microsoft. The Final Judgement in
Civil Action 94-1564 prohibits Microsoft from entering
``into any License Agreement that by its terms prohibits or
restricts the OEM's licensing, sale or distribution of any non-
Microsoft Operating System Software product.'' Also, Microsoft
cannot enter into an agreement with an OEM that prohibits the OEM
from ``licensing, purchasing, using or distributing any non-
Microsoft product.'' According to the Findings of Fact,
Microsoft has already violated the prohibitions in the Final
Judgement by not allowing OEMs to install their own tutorial
software to their computers'' boot sequence. This prevented
OEMs from offering a useful benefit to consumers. Microsoft also
violated the spirit of the Final Judgement by not allowing OEMs to
delete the Internet Explorer icon from the Windows desktop; this
discouraged OEMs from putting an alternative browser on the desktop
because it would be confusing to consumers. Given this behavior,
stricter remedies would be appropriate. However the Revised Proposed
Final Judgement does little more than restate the prohibited
behavior of the previous Final Judgement using more precise language
updated to reflect the current industry environment. This will not
prevent Microsoft from altering their behavior in ways that may (or
may not) be in compliance but would still be anticompetitive,
requiring more legal action and prolonging harm to consumers. The
language in the RPFJ also does nothing to penalize Microsoft for
illegal behavior. This will make the prohibitions in the RPFJ more
difficult to enforce, since violations of the prior Final Judgement
resulted in no significant penalty to Microsoft.
The RPFJ calls for the establishment of a Technical Committee,
with one member chosen by Microsoft and another member that the
Microsoft-chosen TC member must agree to. Given that Microsoft has
been ``found guilty'' of anticompetitive monopoly
maintenance, they have too much influence over the makeup of the TC.
The selection process for the Technical Committee is analogous to
giving an accused murderer the ability to choose some of the jurors
for his trial. A better alternative would be to give Microsoft
limited veto ability similar to a jury selection process, with
members randomly selected from a pool of candidates that meet the
qualifications outlined in the RPFJ.
The current Revised Proposed Final Judgement does not improve
the competitive environment in the computer industry and does not
benefit consumers or the public interest. Because of the lack of
serious alternatives to Microsoft products, consumers pay more for
those products in extra time spent resolving defects in Microsoft
software.
These defects range from bugs that interfere with the desired
use of computer software to vulnerabilities to viruses such as
Melissa, Code Red, and Nimda. In addition there may be an unknown
number of potential innovations in computer hardware or software
that will not be made available to consumers because of fear of
anticompetitive business practices by Microsoft. Netscape is but one
example of what can currently happen to a business with an
innovative product in conflict with Microsoft's business goals.
Therefore, it is critical that any settlement or other remedy of
this case effectively curbs Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior.
MTC-00027493
From: Brian Leair
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:19am
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.
I am a professional software developer. I develope commercial
software that runs on the Windows plaftorm in addition to several
unix platforms.
I believe that there are several significant failures of the
proposed settlement.
III.D. API Disclosure
It is completely unclear how this requirement differs from what
they do now voluntarily. The Windows API is incredibly complex and
very difficult to document. One competitive barrier Microsoft uses
is that they document most of their API, but omit certain key pieces
of information. However, an omission of information is nearly
impossible to prove. Further, there seems to be some belief that if
third parties have access to the source code, the documentation will
somehow magically improve. I do not see how this could
be--reviewing the source code and correcting the documentation
will be a monumental task, and no third party that I know has the
resources or ability to do this.
III.J.2 Exceptions
This section specifically excludes many software developers from
participating in the benefits of III. MS has so ruthlessly
exterminated all business competitors, that the only viable
competition comes from volunteer efforts. Yet III.J.2 easily allows
Microsoft the latitude to exclude independent developers from the
benefits of these remedies.
There are several specific damages that consumers may suffer if
a stronger settlement isn't reached
Microsoft can use it's API barriers to make it so costly for
competitors to enter a market space the consumer will be given only
ONE current viable option. Namely the option created by microsoft.
To whoever is reading this, I realize that you have had to wade
through a lot of material. I very much appreciate your time and
effort.
Sincerely,
Brian D. Leair of OPNET Technologies
MTC-00027494
From: Alice Kvasnak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:21am
Subject: Attorney Geneeral John Ashcroft:
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Recent events have led to a settlement in the Microsoft
antitrust case. I am pleased this settlement was reached because it
means Microsoft will be able to finally focus on software and not
the courts. I trust you will support this settlement.
Forces that hold an anti-Microsoft agenda are trying to derail
this agreement and have Microsoft dragged back to court. They desire
a harsher conclusion to this case, one that will be injurous to
Microsoft. They prefer to compete with Microsoft in the courts, and
not in the real world.
Ironically this settlement will be good for Microsoft's
competitors,yet most still oppose it. Because the settlement exposes
Microsoft's code, competitors will be able to create better software
and make it work better on Microsoft's operating systems. We must
not punish Microsoft for it's success;we should settle this conflict
now.
Sincerely''
Alice Kvasnak
4802 Ponte Vedra
Otter Creek Lane
Beach,Fl.32082
MTC-00027495
From: Bob Bainbridge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I worked for IBM Corporation for 40 years and during that time
saw many abuses by Microsoft Corporation. I saw the IBM PC Co., a
division of IBM, become so fearful of Microsoft's abusive power that
they refused to preload IBM's own operating system, OS/2, on
customer machines. Microsoft threatened to withhold Windows
shipments to IBM which would have virtually put the IBM PC Co. out
of business. This was back when Bill Gates saw OS/2 as a real threat
to his WIndows system. They also charged IBM higher prices for
Windows than other competitors. I saw them make a minor upgrade from
Windows 3.1 to 3.11 that suddenly caused all Windows programs to no
longer run under OS/2. IBM then had to patch OS/2 to allow the
Windows programs to run. They finally reached the point where IBM
knew they were chasing a moving target and froze the WIndows code at
that point. Because of this most newer WIndows programs will not run
under OS/2. I saw other companies, like Gateway, pressured by
Microsoft to the point that they would not preload OS/2 and would
not support it if a customer called with a problem. Only in Europe,
where Bill Gates didn't have as much clout, did OS/2 flourish. At
the time of my retirement in 2000, IBM was still using OS/2 to run
most of the mainframe consoles since IBM mainframe customers
wouldn't tolerate the flakiness of Windows. By gaining a monopoly
Microsoft has been able to push untested and unstable software
products onto their customers and then charge them for the upgrades
to fix the problems as in Windows Second Edition. The DOJ settlement
has let Microsoft off with a ``smack on the hand'' and is
much too light of a punishment. ONly after a large financial penalty
will they change their arrogant ways.
[[Page 28040]]
Robert P. Bainbridge
41867 Debra Dr.
Elyria, OH 44035-1131
[email protected]
MTC-00027496
From: Benson Chow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft has tried hard to squash all competition. And it has
succeeded. One specific example is how the company's product,
Internet Explorer, has quickly reached the top. Now with so many
users, and them putting in proprietary extensions that nobody knows
except Microsoft, it essentially makes Netscape and other browser
users crash or render pages incorrectly-- thus forcing us to
use their product if we wish to obtain their content. This is
totally unacceptable, we have a right to choose what product to use
to view content. This is like having only one brand of TV available.
Imagine having to watch news where you *must* buy a specific brand
of TV, else it won't work. The same thing has happened to Operating
Systems and Office Applications. I agree with the ruling that
Microsoft has violated the Sherman Antitrust Act.
I do however have a complaint about the proposed remedy.
Microsoft wants to donate millions of dollars worth of goods to
needy schools. This sounds very good on the surface, we are helping
our the most disadvantaged children.
Now the problem is, it does not solve the problem we have ruled
against. Those millions of dollars worth of ``goods'' they
want to be Microsoft goods. Now we are going to be feeding these
Microsoft goods to the children. They will grow up thinking
Microsoft is the only thing available, and will continue to buy
Microsoft software. Have we done anything? No--we have made the
problem WORSE. We need to bring different choices to our children in
order to guide them that there is more than Microsoft.
Many possible other solutions are possible. While it would be
nice to allow companies that were destroyed by Microsoft to be
rejuvinated, this is short of impossible. Or perhaps a rebate to all
purchasers of Microsoft software. No, this is not good either, it
does not help the problem. We need to do something that makes a
difference--A charitable donation is a good start. But it needs
to show choice. Perhaps they must purchase machines and software
from their remaining competitors for their settlement. Perhaps they
should open up their standards to allow competitors to once again
compete. It's a tough call, destroying a powerful company is never a
good thing, but a virtual, ``cyber monarchy'' could be
formed and Microsoft at its head, with the current settlement as it
stands today.
I am a Linux user. I would like to see things such as them
complete the following at an unspecified percentage and split:
-Open up Internet/application/operating standards they have created
to allow competitors to design competing products.
I would like to see projects like Netscape, Caldera Office, and
WINE to get big breaks from the settlement.
-Purchase computers for schools for the same amount, but use
competitor software or buy more computers and use open-source, or
free software.
I do not necessarily want to see a breakup of the company. They
will still hold a monopoly on their respective business units.
Thank you for reading this. I hope this will encourage you to
reconsider the settlement and let users and thousands like me to
enjoy content the way we want to, instead of how Microsoft wants to.
-bc
MTC-00027497
From: The L1 Ranger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
``Leave Microsoft Alone''/
-The L1 Ranger!
MTC-00027498
From: Javier L. Madrid
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your Honor,
Now is the time to preempt the further spread of Microsoft's
plans to expand their ill-gotten monoply. The company that started
by offering products to make computing easier for non-programmers
has reached a point of diminishing returns for those same people.
For a number of years now their efforts have been focussed more on
the protection of their revenue stream ( you and I) than on true
innovation. Not only have they been bereft of innovative products
but have hired away from academia and their rivals truly innovative
thinkers thus preventing the fruits of their scientific labor
benefiting their competitors. From my vantage point from within the
Tech Industry I feel that this unapologetic and arrogant company
that has grown so huge in its pervasiveness in every day life must
be dealt with in a truly historic harsh fashion. As they have dealt
brutally from a business perspective with those perceived as even
remotely competitive whether it be a single person or a company so
they too must now be taken to task.
These are my recommendations:
(1) They are not to be allowed to expand to ANY new technical
markets for 10 years either by partnership or funding or purchasing
of companies or rights to technology.
(2) Levy a 10 billion dollar penalty against the company and
only accept CASH, and not spread over 5 or 10 years of installments.
Use the money to help fix our educational system.
(3) They must open the entire set of Windows APIs and file
formats now and in the future to truly foster competition and
innovation. Your Honor, it is key that this company not be allowed
to ``embrace and extend'' their monoply.
Their true intentions are not so much about producing good
products as it is about preserving at all costs a regular tithing
from you and I.
Your Honor, it is time for you to ``think outside the
box''.
MTC-00027499
From: Douglas Gray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed
Microsoft settlement.
I am concerned that the proposed settlement does not adequately
address a number of issues in connection with the case (as outlined
in the open letter by Dan Kegel of kegel.com), and believe that
competition would be harmed by the adoption of the settlement, i.e.
that the settlement is NOT in the public interest.
Sincerely,
Douglas Gray
Postgraduate Researcher
University of California San Diego
San Diego CA
MTC-00027500
From: Brad Harvell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the proposed settlement is bad idea.
Thank you for counting me.
MTC-00027501
From: Michael J. Kennedy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Honorable Court:
I have read and cosigned the Open Letter to DOJ Re: Microsoft
Settlement written by Dan Kegal, and I am writing to further express
my opinion of the Proposed Final Judgement in the United States v.
Microso case. I believe that the Proposed Final Judgement should not
go through the way it is. I am aware that the Department of Justice
concluded that Microsoft has engaged in monopolistic behaviors and
that Microsoft has used its position of power to prevent
competition. However, this main problem still has not been addressed
fully. Under the settlement as it currenly is written, Microsoft
would essentially be able to continue its anti-competitive practices
merely by altering some of its company procedures.
I believe that Microsoft should be required to publish
documentation of its APIs for uninhibited use by developers of
alternative software systems. This will serve to reduce the
``appications barrier to entry,'' allowing developers of
competing products to add compatability for existing standards.
This, in turn, allows those developers to make a successful entry
into the software market, thus promoting competition.
I also contend that Microsoft should be disallowed to certify
hardware devices as ``designed for Windows,'' unless the
specifications of those devices are released to the public.
Consumers don't want to use an operating system that doesn't support
their hardware. Maintaining secret hardware specifications hinders
the development of free operating systems that run on a wide range
of hardware.
In conclusion, I believe that the Proposed Final Judgement is
not good enough and is in need of revision. The revisions should
ensure that Microsoft cannot resume actions
[[Page 28041]]
that are anti-competitive and that are not in the public interest.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Kennedy
Champaign, IL
Computer Science Student
University of Illinois
MTC-00027502
From:[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please consider the merits of the settlement for the good of the
U.S. economy and our technology industry. They are reasonable and
fair to all parties, and meet ? or go beyond-- the ruling by
the Court of Appeals, and represent the best opportunity for the
industry to move forward.
Jim Bishop
Marietta, GA
678.523.3912
MTC-00027503
From: Benson Chow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Appended contact information.
Microsoft has tried hard to squash all competition. And it has
succeeded. One specific example is how the company's product,
Internet Explorer, has quickly reached the top. Now with so many
users, and them putting in proprietary extensions that nobody knows
except Microsoft, it essentially makes Netscape and other browser
users crash or render pages incorrectly-- thus forcing us to
use their product if we wish to obtain their content.
This is totally unacceptable, we have a right to choose what
product to use to view content. This is like having only one brand
of TV available. Imagine having to watch news where you *must* buy a
specific brand of TV, else it won't work. The same thing has
happened to Operating Systems and Office Applications. I agree with
the ruling that Microsoft has violated the Sherman Antitrust Act.
I do however have a complaint about the proposed remedy.
Microsoft wants to donate millions of dollars worth of goods to
needy schools. This sounds very good on the surface, we are helping
our the most disadvantaged children.
Now the problem is, it does not solve the problem we have ruled
against. Those millions of dollars worth of ``goods'' they
want to be Microsoft goods. Now we are going to be feeding these
Microsoft goods to the children. They will grow up thinking
Microsoft is the only thing available, and will continue to buy
Microsoft software. Have we done anything? No--we have made the
problem WORSE. We need to bring different choices to our children in
order to guide them that there is more than Microsoft.
Many possible other solutions are possible. While it would be
nice to allow companies that were destroyed by Microsoft to be
rejuvinated, this is short of impossible. Or perhaps a rebate to all
purchasers of Microsoft software. No, this is not good either, it
does not help the problem. We need to do something that makes a
difference--A charitable donation is a good start. But it needs
to show choice. Perhaps they must purchase machines and software
from their remaining competitors for their settlement. Perhaps they
should open up their standards to allow competitors to once again
compete. It's a tough call, destroying a powerful company is never a
good thing, but a virtual, ``cyber monarchy'' could be
formed and Microsoft at its head, with the current settlement as it
stands today.
I am a Linux user. I would like to see things such as them
complete the following at an unspecified percentage and split:
--Open up Internet/application/operating standards they have
created to allow competitors to design competing products.
I would like to see projects like Netscape, Caldera Office, and
WINE to get big breaks from the settlement. --Purchase
computers for schools for the same amount, but use competitor
software or buy more computers and use open-source, or free
software. I do not necessarily want to see a breakup of the company.
They will still hold a monopoly on their respective business units.
Thank you for reading this. I hope this will encourage you to
reconsider the settlement and let users and thousands like me to
enjoy content the way we want to, instead of how Microsoft wants to.
--bc
Benson Chow, [email protected]
3500 Granada Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95051
408-569-2132
MTC-00027504
From: Jessica Kohagen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:38am
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
I am writing as both a concerned college student and as a
concerned consumer. I truly believe that open competition in every
market promotes better quality and utilizes all the available
resources. I fear that the demand for engineers in computer-related
fields will decrease significantly if Microsoft's competition is
restricted or eliminated. In addition, the development of computer-
related technology maybe be slowed if companies aren't trying to
``get an edge'' over one another. Keeping unrestricted
competition will ensure state-of-the-art technology and quality
products for the consumer as well as job openings and possible
entrepreneurships for those currently in the industry as well as
those who will be entering it within a few years.
Sincerely,
Jessica Kohagen
Pardee Tower #612
614 W. 35th Pl.
Los Angeles, CA 90089
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00027505
From: Cody Ashe-McNalley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear United States'' Department of Justice,
I am writing to urge the government not to seek any settlement
which allows Microsoft to continue the anti-competitive, anti-
consumer business practices that it has used, still uses today, and
openly plans to continue to use. I have spent my entire professional
life working in the fields of information technology and software
development. Microsoft has had an unfairly taxing effect on every
aspect of the industry I have experience in.
While certainly not all, I believe the following two issues are
the primary obstacles in dealing with the Microsoft monopoly: One,
their use of proprietary, undocumented, and ever-changing file
formats, application program interfaces (APIs), and security
authentication methods; two, the draconian and unlawful enforcement
of licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs).
The first issue, proprietary file formats, has hindered me
personally, and has undoubtedly affected every citizen of the United
States who has used Microsoft Office products. As consumers desire
more access to the Internet and multimedia files, this problem will
only increase. As it is, there is already a huge deficiency in the
basic functionality of Microsoft products on the Apple Macintosh
operating system.
The second issue, unlawful licensing agreements with OEMs, is
analogous to the system of rebates that allowed John D.
Rockefeller's Standard Oil to maintain a monopoly in the oil
industry. There is effectively no point of entry for competition in
the market for small business and consumer computing goods in the
United States. This has become an indirect tax on every consumer
purchasing a personal computer. However, this has probably hurt the
small businesses of America most of all. Business today depends on
computers, and they have no choice but to become Microsoft
customers. Their success depends on Microsoft from their very
inception.
The United States has had enough success controlling anti-
competitive monopolies to still offer an environment full of
opportunity for its citizens, both as consumers and business people.
I greatly hope that the United States Department of Justice can
persevere in restoring that environment for the twenty-first
century.
Sincerely,
Cody Ashe-McNalley
11700L National Blvd. #103
Los Angeles, CA 90064
MTC-00027506
From: Steve Black
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft's competitors would have you believe that they are
pure innocents that have been grossly wronged by the ``evil
empire''. In many ways, Microsoft competitors are no better
than Enron in their execution of modem business ethics. Much of the
anti-trust complaint reads as if the government and judicial were
brain dead. It's difficult to understand how highly educated
attorney's can be so ignorant of the principles of debate, however,
it's not fallacy of logic that's on
[[Page 28042]]
their minds, but how to get maximum mileage from legal loop-holes.
Here's my opinion on the entire anti-trust case:
The government's anti-trust suit has been no benefit to the
consumer. It has primarily provided fuel for ambulance chasers.
Anti-trust concepts, over 100 years old, are being used as a
loophole to accomplish political and business goals that were not
the original intention of anti-trust.
Software is neither a limited resource nor is it controlled by
any single individual or company. The government has ignored the
Apple, HP, Sun, et.al., which are monopolies in the computer
workstation industry. Their proprietary software will only work on
their proprietary hardware. As a result, huge promises have been
made, but innovation has been nil, and prices are exorbitant. This
has hurt businesses large and small. Consumers have been hurt by
high prices being passed through in the goods and products produced
by all American industries.
This is far worse than the telephone monopoly, which has not
been stricken with the greedy intentions of Sun and Netscape/AOL-
Time Warner. Cell phone makers have not sued traditional telephone
company monopolies, instead, they have created an original new
product that offers the consumer something new and that they are
willing to pay over twice the cost to own. Government tolerance of
airline fare and automotive gasoline price monopolies has also hurt
consumers significantly and shows a pattern of abuse that has the
look and feel of corruption. The government has relented to
political pressure from politicians and greedy CEO's that have
prevented the passage of many updated and revised laws that could
prevent them from being used with corrupt intentions.
The PC revolution has allowed anyone to own a high performance
computer. The monopolistic workstation vendors have lost billions
from their market that went from 860,000 professional workstations
to $10,000 PC systems. To say that these companies have a grudge
against Microsoft is a gross understatement. The consumer, the
American economy and the world in general can be thankful of
Microsoft's effort to innovate and advance PC technology. They are
by no means the only company to do so, but in no way should they be
destroyed by two greedy individuals and an industry that was getting
rich by stealing millions from consumers instead of competing in the
market place.
In contrast, Microsoft has made it possible for everyone to own
and operate a computer at extremely competitive prices. It is
blasphemy that Sun or other companies and state Attorney General's
suggest that Microsoft has over-charged consumers. It's also
interesting to note that if Microsoft had lower prices, they would
have been accused of trying to run their competition out of business
by flooding the market with cheap software. There simply is no safe
strategy to avoid the egregious actions of those who insist on
perverting anti-trust laws to their own financial and political
gain.
There are many reasons why Microsoft was the choice of consumers
and became dominate in the PC software market, but it is very likely
primarily due to their far superior product than the gross
incompetence of their competition. Consumers have been damaged and
angered so much by proprietary and incompetent software that it's no
wonder they have no tolerance for incompatible, proprietary systems.
The majority of consumers and their businesses have used a loud and
clear voice in the market place to tell Apple, Linux, BeOs, and
others that they dislike their business model of high prices and
proprietary design.
In drastic contrast, Microsoft's products are compatible with
thousands of other successful software products on the market today.
In fact, one company that claimed in a congressional hearing that
Microsoft disabled their software was totally embarrassed by private
independent testing labs that proved otherwise. In no way has
Microsoft's competitors played fair and their current abuse of anti-
trust law is a distortion of reality.
It is also interesting that the judge and companies that warned
that the proposed settlement involving distribution of Microsoft
software to many poor schools districts would put Apple's monopoly
at a disadvantage. They are certainly not unaware that schools are
under siege from American businesses that want PC's in the schools,
so they don't have to re-train all the students. It costs billions
of dollars that are passed through to consumers, to train, maintain
and update computer software in every business in this country
today. The waste would be monumental if each company had to maintain
multiple computer systems and they know this to be an irrefutable
fact from past experience. This is just one of the many forces that
has created the Microsoft monopoly. Microsoft's only part was to
provide the best possible software, but they were entrapped by anti-
trust terrorists while trying to keep people from stealing their
software, In contrast, Netscape has tried to bully their way into a
tiny segment of the operating system market by offering a product
that is a niche element of the basic operating system. One of the
primary functions of an operating system is to connect the central
processing unit (CPU) with the internal and external hardware
attached to the computer. The Internet is merely an extension of the
basic computer network and nothing more.
The need for a special browser to access the Internet is only a
viable marketing concept if it significantly improves that concept
or offers consumers significant value. Netscape has done neither. In
fact their market share is far larger than they want you to know,
since many users are still using old versions. This is because their
newer version 6.0 was very poorly written and there really isn't
much else that a browser can do other than be a simple path to the
Internet where content that neither Microsoft nor Netscape control
is the desirable goal of the consumer.
It is well documented in the press that Netscape version 6.0 was
such a failure and performed so poorly that is was soundly panned by
the experts and most advised against upgrading. Microsoft's
dominance again is shown to be due to superior competence and based
on merit, while their competition had abdicated their responsibility
to deliver a quality product to the consumer. Netscape's loss of
market share is primarily due to their lack of innovation and their
product simply does not provide any value to the consumer.
Claims that Microsoft wants to control the Internet are a good
example of fundamental misconceptions and the high level of miss-
information in the anti-trust suit. Web site owners are responsible
for the content on their sites and there are no technical, political
or legal barriers to web content other than federal and state
statutes, which apply equally to everyone.
Likewise, consumers have determined what browser they prefer.
The majority of consumers want nothing to do with Netscape and they
have good reasons for that decision since compatibility, reliability
and security are far more important than the marketing hype and
illusionary benefits and features of any browser. The alleged damage
and losses experienced by Netscape primarily exist in the minds of
their attorneys and nowhere else; certainly not in the minds of
consumers.
Whether Microsoft is a monopoly or not has nothing to do with
the success of Netscape. Consumers must have an operating system for
their computers and the CPU must communicate with internal, external
and network drives (servers). The Internet is simply the extension
of the basic computer system hardware. Netscape's loss of market is
due to their own incompetence and nothing else.
Steven M. Black
1916 Camas Court SE
Renton, WA 98055-4501
01/31/2002 7:20 F
MTC-00027507
From:
[email protected]@ine
tgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:39am
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,
Christian Kulczytzky
807 Rennard Street
Philadelphai, PA 19116
MTC-00027508
From: Ken Kundert
[[Page 28043]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is clear to me that the DOJ caved in to intense lobbying
pressure when it agreed to the current settlement. That is the only
way to explain it. Anybody that has paid any attention to
Microsoft's behavior of the last decade knows that this settlement
will have no significant impact on Microsoft. They will ignore it
like they ignored both the law and the restrictions that they agreed
to in the past. Furthermore, I do not believe that they would have
been offered this settlement had they not improperly influenced both
the Executive Branch and our law makers. Giving Microsoft this
settlement shows the people of the United States and the world that
justice in America does not apply to the very wealthy.
It is my sincere hope that the original spirit of the Tunney act
is followed. If so, I confident that it will come out that Microsoft
was able to buy a very favorable settlement. At the very least, I
hope that you reject the DOJ settlement and go with the settlement
proposal of the 9 dissident states. Better yet, I hope you return to
the idea of breaking up Microsoft. I have been involved in the
software industry for 20 years, though I have never been directly or
indirectly employed by either Microsoft or its competitors, and I
can say with great confidence that Microsoft, with its monopoly
position, has slowed the progress of the computer industry by at
least 10 years. The cost of not having competitors to its buggy and
insecure software has been vast. Breaking up Microsoft will be the
best thing for consumers.
Ken Kundert
MTC-00027509
From: Richard Probst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:45am
Subject: comments on proposed Microsoft settlement
I am writing to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement. I
believe the settlement is deeply inadequate, and should be rejected
by the Court, for the following five reasons:
(1) The settlement provides no protection for all but the
largest Microsoft competitors. It prevents Microsoft from blocking
what is referred to as ``middleware'', but only if the
provider of the middleware has sold a million copies of the
application and has been in business for over a year. Thus, AOL,
Kodak, and Real Networks are protected from Microsoft's monopoly
power, but not the smaller and younger firms that are the true
source of innovation. Instead, the settlement should prevent
Microsoft from blocking middleware from the desktop, no matter who
provides the middleware. Only with this provision will consumers
benefit from unchecked innovation.
(2) The settlement allows Microsoft to prevent its licensees
from placing non-Microsoft icons on the desktop, unless the icon
competes with a Microsoft product. Microsoft should have no control
over what icons its licensees can place on the desktop. As written,
the settlement could allow Microsoft to block the availability of an
innovative application until Microsoft had completed its own
competitive offering, thus eliminating any early-to-market benefit
to the application inventor.
(3) The settlement does not require Microsoft to publish its
APIs until the ``final beta'' release. This is much too
late to allow another firm to develop or modify an application to
use a new API before Microsoft officially launches the new release.
This means that Microsoft can control which applications work with a
new release of an operating system at the time of the release, which
gives Microsoft power to limit innovation by its competitors.
Instead, Microsoft should be required to publish APIs earlier in the
history of a release (6 months before commercial availability is a
reasonable requirement), and to publish timely updates if the APIs
change before the ``final beta'' release.
(4) The settlement requires firms that use the APIs published
under the terms of the settlement to give Microsoft the code which
they wrote to use the APIs. Under no circumstances should Microsoft
have the right to code developed by its competitors. This provision
of the settlement actually rewards Microsoft with a competitive
advantage, which is an ironic and inappropriate response to illegal
monopolistic behavior.
(5) The settlement does not prevent Microsoft from structuring
discounts to punish its licensees who work with Microsoft
competitors. It also allows Microsoft to terminate a licensing
agreement without prior notice--which could prevent a hardware
vendor from delivering a new computer model on schedule (for
example, in time for the Christmas selling season). If the
termination is determined not to have been legal under the terms of
the settlement, Microsoft will be forced to reinstate the license,
but the hardware vendor may already have been irreparably damaged.
Instead, the settlement should require Microsoft to get prior
approval for license terminations and changes in discounts.
These and other flaws in the proposed settlement have led me to
wonder if Microsoft's own lawyers drafted some of the terms. The
settlement is not a sufficient punishment and will not prevent
further monopolistic behavior.
The Court should reject the proposed settlement.
Sincerely,
Richard Probst
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00027510
From: Lindsay Ray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge,
I don't think that the PFJ is the correct solution to this
problem. Microsoft is a fabulous company, however, they are in
direct violation to the law. They are guilty of some very serious
anti-competitive violations. The PFJ does not provide an effective
enforcement mechanism. What microsoft has done to many companies is
very wrong and needs to be stopped. It is not fair. The world needs
competition.
Thanks
Lindsay Ray 213-764-3843
CC:[email protected]@i
netgw
MTC-00027511
From: Carnese, Dan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:47am
Subject: Re: comment on proposed Microsoft settlement
This is a correction to a comment submitted earlier this
evening.
From: Dan Carnese
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 8:36 PM
Subject: comment on proposed Microsoft settlement
Microsoft has repeatedly shown bad faith in dealing with
software companies.
I believe the only effective way to prevent it from future
violations is to prevent those violations from being in its
interest.
Dividing Microsoft into an operating systems company and an
applications company is the only way to have this happen without
onerous and unworkable review by an external entity of Microsoft's
business activities.
As a Microsoft stockholder, I believe this is the best way to
preserve and increase shareholder value, while having the company
behave in a lawful and ethical manner.
Dan Carnese
560 Lakeview Way
Redwood City, CA 94062
MTC-00027512
From: kevins@indepth-
tech.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I whole heartedly support the proposed settlement agreement in
U.S. v. Microsoft. While no settlement is likely to please all, this
settlement has well thought out, purposeful remedies that will
encourage technical innovation and market competition. It is time to
accept the fair remedies of the settlement and allow the industry to
concentrate on creating the new computing products that will create
jobs and stimulate the economy.
Kevin Schuler
President
InDepth Technology
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00027513
From: Jim White
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
This my public comment under the Tunney Act.
I am OPPOSED to the revised proposed Final Judgement to resolve
the United States'' civil antitrust case against Microsoft as
it currently is formulated (11/06/2001).
The proposed remedies are entirely inadequate to resolve ongoing
anti-competitive practices by Microsoft with regard to the
development and marketing of software competing with the Windows
Operating System. Of particular importance is that no provision is
made to prevent
[[Page 28044]]
Microsoft's efforts to subvert the development and distribution of
free and open software that competes with Windows. Microsoft is
using its many entangling End User License Agreements for both its
applications (such Internet Explorer, Microsoft Office, etc) and
SDKs (software development kits, necessary in many cases for
practical development of applications to be used with or to compete
with Windows) to REQUIRE that the End User to only use the
application software on a Microsoft licensed operating system. This
is blatant product tying to the monopoly Windows OS with the direct
consequence of preventing the distribution of legal competing
products.
Thank you for your consideration.
Signed,
James White
Software Consulant
Laguna Hills, CA
MTC-00027514
From: Deepak Shah
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:50am
Subject: 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 business 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 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 files produced by my Microsoft applications, switching to a
competing application means I lose compatibility with all of my old
work. At the
[[Page 28045]]
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 (vs. 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 7OS/27
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 AMP, 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 to innovate and cut prices
at the rate it is forced to 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. There 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-00027515
From: Roy S. Alba
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:51am
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir: I will attain the age of 75 this coming July 27th, and
I have been following the US Justice Department's case against
Microsoft since its inception, and I believe the proposed settlement
is in the best interest of all the parties.
To reject the settlement and to pursue it further can only lead
to killing the Goose That Lays the Golden Eggs. If not killed it
would be so frightened that it would stop laying Golden Eggs.
I pray the court will approve the Settlement.
Roy S. Alba
CC:[email protected]@inetg
w
MTC-00027516
From: Frank Perara
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:52am
Subject: FW: Microsoft Antitrust Litigation
From: Frank Perara
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 10:41 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Litigation
Dear sir's,
I am a completely satisfied customer of Microsoft products from
the DOS to the present Windows operating systems. I believe that
Microsoft has pioneered the computer industry and has given the
consumer high performance equipment in the marketplace where others
have competed fairly to provide freedom of choice at a fair price.
The consumer has benefited from Microsoft products and business
practices. I believe the case against Microsoft is without merit and
is sponsored by those who have not been as successful in the
marketplace as Microsoft. I believe the settlement that Microsoft
has proposed is fair and urge you to approve it.
Thank you
Frank Perara
MTC-00027517
From: ray spence
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
I am writing in response to the proposed settlement to Civil
Action No. 98-1233--the antitrust case against Microsoft.
I am not in favor of the settlement terms. It seems to me that
this set of requirements are solely concerned with either
[[Page 28046]]
1) allowing OEMs the right to alter the Windows OS desktop, boot
any Windows OS computer into another non-Microsoft OS or in general
work with non-Microsoft vendors to sell non-Microsoft
products--or--
2) allow non-Microsoft software developers, Internet providers
and content providers contractual access to the Windows OS.
I agree that what I've outlined above, and what is the entirety
of the proposed settlement is necessary. I do not believe this
settlement goes far enough.
Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust activities which has
allowed it to occupy a monopolistic control over the computer
industry. Here is a paradigm which just might provide a novel
problem for antitrust legislation; to wit, the monopoly exists now,
so any settlement must take steps to immediately restore fair
competition to the computer software industry. Yet unlike an entity
such as AT&T where simply breaking up the single company into
many different corporate entities allowed competition, Microsoft's
monopoly does not control from one service (phone service) but from
the myriad software applications that are available from ISVs which
are available *only* for Windows.
This marketplace condition creates the notion that the only
viable OS choice is Windows. I believe we have arrived at this
condition from the close relationship between Microsoft's Office
product and the fact that Office was and is written primarily for
Windows and still for only one other OS--the Macintosh OS. As
Microsoft used both legal and illegal paths to place both these
products at the forefront of all IHV concerns the business world
came use these two Microsoft products seemingly without exception.
If a company chose to use Office it commonly chose Windows as its
OS. At the present time it seems that Office and Windows are just
two more tools on any corporate desk alongside pens, scissors, paper
staples etc. But the difference from the other tools is that Windows
and Office come from just one single company whereas one can pick
and choose from many sources for their pens and paper. The most
salient fact in this case is that Microsoft is indeed a monopolist
yet the question as to just how to reduce this monopoly is still
unanswered in this proposed settlement. Clearly the DOJ needs to
address the current state of Microsoft's monopoly.
My assessment of the main two targets of this settlement above
do nothing to reduce Microsoft's monopoly. Furthermore I firmly
believe that unless the above corporate dependence on Microsoft
Office is reduced Microsoft's monopoly will continue. The only
meaningful solution is to somehow separate either Windows or Office
from Microsoft's control. I would guess that this approach was
intended in the first decision to break Microsoft into two or more
companies.
Although I support such a corporate division if that path isn't
available then I propose forcing Microsoft to divest itself at least
of the Office suite of applications. The second requirement would be
that the new Office owner must make Office available to other OS
products other than Windows on an equal update schedule. Then the
computer-using world should get closer to a real choice at least in
the OS market, which is the true kernel of this monopoly.
Sincerely,
Ray Spence
MTC-00027518
From: Robert Wohlfarth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft Settlement, in its current form, offers little
protection to consumers from monopolistic practices. Microsoft is
permitted to continue bundling unneccesary software with its
operating system. And it may continue to exclude competition through
license agreements. The license agreements are the greatest threat
to consumers. They prohibit computer makers from using any software
but Microsoft. The software license prohibits a user from
researching software problems, even if Microsoft refuses to
acknowledge those problems.
These license provisions allow Microsoft to run roughshod over
consumers. And only strengthen its monopoly position. The current
settlement does not appear to address these issues.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Robert Wohlfarth
[email protected]
Chesterfield, IN
``Is not life more important than food, and the body more
important than clothes?''--Matthew 6:25b
MTC-00027519
From: darrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--Destroying Credibility of
Justice System
Gentlemen:
The Microsoft settlement is legitimately destroying any
credibility the justice system might have had in administration and
regulation of antitrust laws. Yes, I know lawyers love to point out
it is a legal system rather than a justice system. However, in the
long run effective government must reflect some rough notion of
equal protection, government not for sale and some approximation of
morality and ethical conduct. The Microsoft case and settlement
dramatically illustrates the complete lack of those values being
reflected in the ``system's enforcement'' of legal rules
of behavior. By the way, it isn't the ``system'' simply
because you are a person reading this; please wake up and do your
job --''Judge''.
Over 30 years ago, I took a single MBA course on antitrust law.
It was very clear that predatory pricing policies were strictly
illegal, under both Sherman and Robinson-Pattman. When Microsoft
priced its competitive product at $0 it was obviously the ultimate
predatory pricing policy. It is amazing and embarrassing that it
took the government over three years to conclude what was common
knowledge on the streets of America as we watched Microsoft drive
Netscape out of the business with a $0 price.
Furthermore it was a lame excuse that because it was technology,
somehow the antitrust laws did not apply. If you recall people used
the same lame excuse to monopolize weaving looms earlier in the last
century. As incredibly slow and inept as it was, the court finally
concluded what was obvious when viewed cleanly. Without the
confounded web of minute bafflegab supported by the economic might
of Microsoft to bring any legal argument on antitrust from the last
100 years up for discussion, a reasonable man could have had the
case concluded in about a week, at least in my opinion. The result
for Microsoft has been to delay a court decision out of the realm of
timely relevance.
The current settlement does nothing to insure behavior will
change nor punish that behavior in any way that has effective
business force sufficient to curb it in the future. The simple fact
is that Microsoft is a monopoly. Furthermore, it has used and is
using that power to ever extend that monopoly to the net and beyond.
They are again doing it thinly veiled, openly in defiance of
national law.
As an MBA/MSEE/CEO with over 25 years in the electronics
industry, I can testify that the current settlement is a pathetic
travesty of justice and law. From my point of view, an appropriate
and practical remedy would be to break Microsoft into 6 Companies,
all with the same code sources to start out, no interlocking
ownership allowed and let each segment markets and compete like
everyone else. That solution or one like it would solve the problem
because each of those companies could choose to supply source or not
to customers, add special features for target markets, and each
would be forced to serve their markets aggressively or have it taken
away by someone willing to do a better job--Just like everyone
else! That solution or others that would really work are not hard to
come up with; however, Microsoft clearly will not like it; which in
turn is a good indication it would be a good solution. Any notion
that a team of lawyers and bureaucrats could control Microsoft's
behavior through administrative mechanisms independent of their
wealth, power and influence is an expensive exercise in futility.
As a practical matter, it simply won't work.
Currently reported massive lobbying efforts by Microsoft and
their failure to disclose contacts and/or who they have given money
to gain influence renders Government authority over the rich
laughable! Somewhere along the line the judicial system must
recognize that the appearance of impropriety does damage to it's
very credibility. In the public eye Microsoft has not only bought
off the US Government but the government has provided an overly
complex legal framework to allow obfuscation of the core elements of
antitrust laws. Yes, I know bought off implies direct gangsterism
but the effects of massive money are indirect and probably more
damaging to our society. Influence on the political system is
secured through massive lobbying and ``political
contributions'' which in turn influence the courts. The Tunney
Acts recognized the antitrust influence mechanisms. Those acts
required at least disclosure.
[[Page 28047]]
Somehow the Microsoft legal team continues to obfuscate even
those explicit laws while they continue to avoid effective remedies
against their monopoly.
I strongly urge the current court to reconsider a different
break up of Microsoft and secure a solution that is widely expected
to work. The high tech software industry does not inherently follow
large economies of scale that might justify a larger single company
being the supplier of all software on the planet. Instead the most
efficient economic production is achieved with smaller companies
focused squarely on specific needs. All the downsizing and
reorganizing of the last decade, even during strong economic times,
attest to the ``right sizing'' of high tech companies.
Even premier electronics companies such as Hewlett Packard have
historically kept profit centers and business units below 400 people
or so. At least until the original founders retired or passed on
that system has worked well for them. More recently, when that
company began operating in a monolithic mode, troubles began.
Incidentally, I am a republican.
Sincerely,
Darrell L. Wilburn
Saratoga, California
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00027520
From: Steve Sergeant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Comments regarding Proposed Final Judgement
United States v. Microsoft Corporation
Civil Action No. 98-1232
I am writing to express my disapproval with the Proposed Final
Judgement as it currently stands. I fully agree with the comments
filed by Ralph Nader on this matter . In Judge Jackson's findings of
fact, he identifies the key to Microsoft's ability to maintain their
monopoly power: The withholding of the technical details necessary
for potential competitors to develop interoperable products.
The Proposed Final Judgment specifically denies access by non-
commercial software developers to full documentation of Microsoft
interfaces and file formats. The most likely threat at this time to
Microsoft's monopoly position is from the non-commercial, volunteer
collaborative efforts of ``open source'' software
developers. A truly effective remedy would allow such developers to
access any information necessary to build operating systems that are
interoperable with Microsoft application programs, or to build
application programs which interoperate with application programs or
operating systems produced by Microsoft.
The final judgment must not permit Microsoft to discriminate who
can purchase technical information about their products. Allowing
Microsoft to discriminate only perpetuates their monopoly. This
technical information must not be licensed in any way that restricts
any other developer from creating a competing or interoperable
product, for clearly the purpose of the remedy is to encourage
competition.
This case is our best hope, as consumers of personal computer
products, that competition and a free market will return to the
software industry. When the average person can walk into any store
that carries computers, software, or related accessories and find a
wide range of options that are in no way dependent on Microsoft,
then this case will have succeeded. Otherwise, I feel this case will
have failed to enforce the anti-trust laws.
Steven E. Sergeant
1055 Summerwood Court
San Jose, CA 95132-2958
[email protected]
Voice & FAX: 408/937-8116
PCS/Cell: 408/829-7372
MTC-00027521
From: D. Mark Abrahams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a bad idea--it is not in the
public interest. There are numerous problems with it.
The problem I wish to emphasize is that it does not adequately
allow developers using competitive operating systems (for example,
Linux) to provide mechanisms so that duly-licensed copies of
Microsoft applications can be made to run on the competitive
operating systems. This helps continue Microsoft's monopoly on
operating systems (and, in turn applications).
Thank you for your consideration.
D. Mark Abrahams
President, Abrahams-Rizzardi Inc.
(a very small independent software consulting firm)
Berkeley, CA
ph (510)524-1294
MTC-00027522
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:56am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Sirs: Tomorrow the trial against Microsoft, which began months
ago, will continue on. I sense the citizens of The United States and
the world in general long for a resolution to put this trial behind
us.
Since September 11th, we need not dig more holes to hinder our
future, but let the amazing talent of all our technological
companies deliver superior products.
Thank you for your time,
Gordon Raisler
MTC-00027523
From: Betty Marler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe in Microsoft and want to support them but I am not
sure how to do that. I am so tired of reading about the lawsuits
against them and the judges who seem to be trying to destroy the
company with their decisions.
You would think that our government would be doing everything
they could to support a company like Microsoft! It has had such a
positive impact on our economy. Instead of being proud that our
country has a company that is a leader in technology, it seems the
government is trying to destroy Microsoft. Do whatever you have to
do to support them so they can spend their time, energy and money to
innovate instead of defending their success.
MTC-00027524
From: Mickey Aberman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Public Comment:
I have no dog in the Microsoft fight. Nevertheless, I have been
following the case since the trial started. Microsoft was proven to
have committed massive antitrust violations. During the trial it was
caught falsifying a demonstration, and its executives were caught
lying many times. The court of appeals en banc upheld the findings
of serious violations and monopolizing on a scale that is huge. This
was apparently the full court of appeals, comprised to a large
extent of conservative judges).
How can Microsoft have any hope of avoiding massive punishment?
A defendant one-tenth the size, whose violation had one-tenth
the scope, would be trying to keep its executives out of jail.
The Microsoft settlement is surreal (and unfairly favorable to
the Defendant). It looks like political connections or intimidation
have prevailed over justice.
Microsoft really needs to be broken up into three parts.
John M. Aberman
2145 Radcliffe Avenue
Charlotte, NC 28207
(704) 372-5646
MTC-00027525
From: Mark Johnson MD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:58am
Subject: Microsoft Penalty is Grossly Inadequate; I too have been
greatly harmed!
To whom it may concern:
I feel compelled by duty to communicate my dismay and
disappointment regarding the current terms of the Microsoft
settlement.
Frankly, the Justice Department sold out.
After essentially a decade of similar allegations and toothless
consent decrees, Microsoft has finally been conclusively proven in
our nation's courts to have illegally used its monopoly power to
dominate new markets. There is no question that a majority of
consumers have experienced harm by Microsoft's business practices,
even if most remain unaware of this harm.
Microsoft has been very successful in serially establishing its
own software offerings as industry standards, which admittedly has
some consumer merit. However, all along the way, better offerings
from other innovative and worthy companies were destroyed or
rendered utterly irrelevant in Microsoft's trademark fashion.
Microsoft's office suite and web browser were ``good
enough'', but would not have competed successfully with
products from other companies (ie WordPerfect, Informix, and
Netscape) had they not been so closely tied
[[Page 28048]]
to contractual distribution obligations with the Windows operating
system. In large measure, Microsoft has removed consumer choice and
often reduced discerning consumers to nothing but followers. Those
who venture away from Microsoft solutions know that they run the
risk of obsolescence or irrelevance. This is a very stifling
revelation. We should expect to base our software purchase decisions
on quality, reputation, and value. We should not be dissuaded from
purchasing from a given vendor simply because they conflict with
Microsoft's latest growth strategy. Look at WordPerfect, Netscape,
and Apple as prominent examples of reputable companies whose loyal
customers, in many cases, have been severely harmed or detracted by
the anticipated consequences of Microsoft's business practices.
Too many worthy companies with innovative, quality products have
been reduced to irrelevance for anyone to be justified in laying the
blame on them or their management. If they are in a market that
Microsoft wants, they will never win. Period. Look at Netscape's
travails for a prime example.
Finally, I have one profound example of personal harm. Long
before the Palm Pilot, or Microsoft's Windows CE machines were
available, I embarked on software development for Apple's Newton
handheld. Several years later, just as my small company was about to
release our first major solicited product, Apple showed signs that
it was going to discontinue the Newton platform. Even more
interesting was the fact that a business interest liked our product
so much that they considered purchasing the entire Newton division
from Apple, just to keep our product viable. We met with several key
people at Apple under non-disclosure and, prior to terminating our
discussions, were warned that we would feel intense pressure from
Microsoft. We would be in their ``cross-hairs'' even as
Netscape was at the time, and as Palm would be in the near-future.
We were advised that, consequently, this would become a non-
sustainable business. Three days later, Apple announced to the world
that it was indeed discontinuing the Newton, which business decision
likely cost me well over $1 million. And general consumers of the
Newton were left with expensive machines, but no future. In summary,
Microsoft's business tactics have greatly harmed me and have
certainly harmed most consumers in general.
Please, remedy the Microsoft problem in such a way that this
whole court proceeding is not similarly reduced to irrelevancy (or
worse, implied endorsement.) Sadly, I fear that the terribly
important points of this case were somehow lost in the change of
administration and the general economic downturn of Sept. 11.
Microsoft's punishment strategy was clearly to put forth delays in
settlement until a sympathetic administration (or judge or
settlement offer, or set of world events, etc) would surface, and
this is exactly what seems to have happened. Nevertheless, a
tempered (ie really punished), Microsoft would become a better
corporate citizen. Healthy competition based on merit, not coercion,
must be restored, in order to ultimately benefit all consumers.
Most sincerely,
Mark R. Johnson, MD
(801) 944-4950
1899 East Siesta Drive
Sandy, UT 84093
[email protected]
MTC-00027526
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello. I am writing to join the many people to comment on the
Microsoft settlement. I don't think that Microsoft is being punished
enough for the following reasons:
1. Microsoft uses its dominance in the market to elbow out
competition. This one is obvious, and the settlement doesn't do much
to help this. It might require that MS release their API, but it
only requires it to release the specs after they've implemented
them. That could take other companies months to keep up, letting
Microsoft still dominate the market.
2. Microsoft spreads FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) about Linux,
MacOS, and other competitors. Most of this FUD are lies, made simply
to keep people from using a superior product.
3. Microsoft is very obviously anti-competitive. Little shows
that more than their recent lawsuit against Lindows.com. Their
claim, that Lindows will be confused with Windows XP, is very
ridiculous if you look at the logos and the names. The lawsuit is
more likely an attempt to get Lindows.com out of the market before
they can threaten MS's power and further Linux in the real world.
For those reasons, I think that Microsoft's punishment should be
more severe. Please consider this in your decision.
Yan Shoshitaishvili
Tucson, AZ
MTC-00027527
From: Blake Couch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is, in a word, a joke. Where are the
financial penalties that might actually make Microsoft sit up and
take notice? Where is the divestiture that might actually remedy the
damage that they have caused? This citizen says ``thumbs
down'' to a settlement that does virtually nothing to punish
the greatest corporate felon of the last fifty years.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Couch
Englewood, Colorado
MTC-00027528
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wish to express my opposition to the Proposed Final Judgment
with Microsoft.
I do not believe the proposed remedies will do anything to curb
the behaviors of Microsoft which were found to be in violation of
antitrust laws when the company was found guilty.
For example, the proposal includes many opportunities or
loopholes for Microsoft to exclude itself from API disclosure
requirements. It can simply claim that there are security reasons
for not documenting an API. It can itself define who is a true
competitor. Why does this Proposed Final Judgment allow Microsoft
such leeway in deciding itself whether it con be excluded from a
requirement of the Proposed Final Judgment?
Allowing Microsoft to claim security as a reason to not disclose
an API is ridiculous. Unix and Unix-like operating systems describe
all their APIs clearly, some even give you all their source code
(Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, etc.) and do not consider this a security
problem at all.
Security through obscurity, as it is called, is most definitely
not better than security through open discussion, availability ond
peer review, and in my opinion (and that of many security experts)
is worse. I believe that this particular exception to disclosure
should never have made it into the Proposed Final Judgment.
My opinion that the Proposed Final Judgment lacks any true
corrective power goes beyond the comment above, but applies to it as
a whole. I believe that this Proposed Final Judgment heavily favors
the guilty in these proceedings and fails to adequately represent
the United States of America. We the people, represented by the
Department of Justice, received a verdict of guilty against
Microsoft, yet it now seems that we are backing down in the
sentencing phase. The fact alone that the guilty party in this
matter likes this Proposed Final Judgment makes it suspect beyond
specific problems with it.
In summary, I believe the Proposed Final Judgment is not in the
public interest. It does not seriously, nor effectively address the
illegal behavior of the convicted monopolist, Microsoft.
Respectfully submitted,
Olivier Calle
Senior Software Engineer, Citizen of the United States of
America
PO Box 752
Marysville WA 98270-0752
MTC-00027529
From: Pedro Celis (wrnha)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Republican National Hispanic Assembly of Washington State
Dear Sirs,
As Chairman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly of
Washington State we offer our endorsement of the agreement reached
by Microsoft, the U.S. Department of Justice and nine states. The
settlement should be accepted not only for its specifics, but also
for the principles that it represents. Whenever conflicts arise, our
government should strive to find common ground and reach compromises
with business. Negotiation and settlement is a better model for
government-business relations than litigation. It is unfortunate
that the dispute between Microsoft and the government has already
resulted in such a long and costly trial.
[[Page 28049]]
Better still, government should seek to minimize its
interference with the competitive market place; it should work as an
ally with, not an adversary to, business.
Litigation is never good for business or industry. Because
virtually all businesses rely on technology, the Microsoft case
affects us all. As the case proceeded, it appeared that government,
not the competitive marketplace, might establish the direction of
technology. Such an event would have proved disastrous for the
technology industry, for the greater business community, and for the
economy. We are happy to see that a comprise and agreement has been
reached between these parties and we encourage you to accept this
settlement.
This settlement would be fair and reasonable at any time, even
if our economy was growing at a rapid pace. However that is not
currently the case, and for that reason it is all the more important
that the settlement be finalized and the American technology
industry starts to benefit from a public policy that minimizes
costly regulation, ensures competition, and promotes fair trade and
intellectual property enforcement in international markets.
Sincerely Yours,
Pedro Celis, Ph. D.
Republican National Hispanic Assembly
Washington State Chairman
MTC-00027530
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to comment on the ``Proposed Final
Judgment'' (PFJ) to resolve the USDOJ's antitrust case against
Microsoft. First, it seems to me very likely that if this PFJ is
approved, Microsoft's leadership will proclaim themselves to have
been vindicated (despite conviction, which was upheld on appeal),
and that they will proceed to ridicule and demean this judgment much
like they did the previous consent decree, the abrogation of which
led directly to this antitrust case. The reason behind my assertion
is that the PFJ neither punishes Microsoft for any of their illegal
acts, nor remedies the effects of those acts, nor offers any
substantial protection against the likelihood of Microsoft
committing similar illegal acts in the future. The PFJ leaves
Microsoft's monopoly intact, leaves Microsoft with an extraordinary
amount of cash that they have obtained from their monopoly, and
allows them to continue leveraging their monopoly to compete
unfairly with other businesses.
It seem obvious that the only way to protect other businesses
from unfair competition based on Microsoft's monopoly is to isolate
the monopoly products and their profits from Microsoft's other
business concerns. A crude way to do this would be to split
Microsoft into two pieces: a monopoly platform software business,
and an independent non-monopoly business. This is what the DOJ
originally proposed and Judge Jackson ordered, so it is surprising
that such a remedy is no longer under consideration. I wonder why
that is?
There also exists an alternative approach to this problem that
is simpler, may be more effective, and almost certainly would be
much more beneficial to all sectors of the public: release
Microsoft's monopoly platform software products under a strong open
source license such as the GNU GPL.
This would satisfy Microsoft's OEMs by allowing them full access
to the source code and giving them the right to modify and reproduce
the software freely; it would also ensure Microsoft full access to
any further developments made to the code base; but the critical
effect would be to eliminate Windows as a monopoly, therefore
eliminating all prospect of Microsoft abusing that monopoly.
(Microsoft would also have to give up the Windows trademark, which
should be assigned to a standard group, such as has already been
done with the Unix trademark.) While this may seem a bit
unconventional, the basic fact is that open sourcing Windows would
put it on the same footing (except for its vast advantage in legacy
applications and hardware support) as its only remaining competition
(Linux and BSD Unix). We also know from experience with open source
software that it can continue to be developed and even become
significantly more robust even without business sponsors.
I don't see how anything less than such a solution begins to
solve the monopoly leverage problem. However, if you must limit
yourself to a ``behavioral'' solution, the PFJ needs to be
strengthened in several ways:
1) You should require that Microsoft publish and strictly adhere
to a price list for all Windows-related operating system platform
software, and all applications software that runs on Windows
platforms. The PFJ limits this to the ``top 20'' OEMs, but
the broader requirement would simpler and clearer to implement and
monitor, and would be less tempting to Microsoft to abuse.
It is important here to include applications software in order
to limit (at least make public) any suspicion of Microsoft using
their platform software monopoly to subsidize their applications
software busienss. Moreover, there should be no exclusions for
``market development'' consideration, since any such
exclusion would allow Microsoft to cut inequitable deals, and
because with a monopoly already in hand there's no need for market
development.
2) The prohibitions against Microsoft retaliation have too many
exceptions. Is there really any reason to permit Microsoft to
retaliate against an OEM other than non-payment or impropriety in
accounting?
3) All Microsoft interface specifications and documentation that
are made available to OEMs, IHVs, ISVs, etc., should be made
available to all parties on equal terms. In particular, there should
be no discrimination against noncorporate developers or users
(especially open source software developers). There should be no
restrictions in Microsoft licenses or contracts against reverse
engineering.
4) There should be a requirement that formats for all data that
is stored to disk by Microsoft platform software and/or operating
systems be documented and freely licensed; this is intended to
eliminate one significant method that can be used to lock current
customers in and unfairly perpetuate Microsoft's monopoly position
(although it would be a good rule to apply to software companies, as
it protects users'' investments in their data).
5) There should be some form of oversight to prevent Microsoft
from using lawsuits to hobble potential competition, including open
source software developers.
6) There should be severe restrictions against Microsoft buying
other companies. In general, it would be much more appropriate for
Microsoft to pay its monopoly profits out to shareholders as
dividends which would be reinvested diversely than to allow
Microsoft to extend its monopoly through acquisition.
7) The ``security'' loophole needs to be carefully
monitored to prevent abuse.
It's not clear what the enforcement mechanism in the PFJ is.
There needs to be a method to prevent Microsoft from acting in
violation of the agreement, rather than depending on decade-long
post facto litigation.
The Technical Committee proposal needs to be expanded to include
some degree of oversight and review from more sectors of the public.
The PFJ seems to be preoccupied with concerns of OEMs, but there are
many other recognizable groups which have distinct concerns,
including the open source community and several classes of end-
users.
An important thing to note in these nine points is that not only
do they fall short of a structural or open source remedy, they are
actually much milder than traditional monopoly regulation, which
often requires regulatory approval of prices and contract terms and
strictly prohibits non-monopoly business activities. (E.g., AT&T
before their breakup.)
Another thing to note is that while Microsoft has effectively
destroyed any possibility of another commercial software company
challenging them in the areas which they monopolize, it is still
possible that Microsoft's behavior can be mitigated by market
factors due to open source software. Open source already operates at
a considerable disadvantage vs. Microsoft (look at Microsoft's
balance sheet), so we need to be very careful that nothing we do
here further disadvantages the open source alternative.
I've also read the dissenting States'' counterproposal,
which is much clearer and preferable regarding OEM contracts and
retaliation, but contains several proposed remedies that are, I
think, counter- productive. These include:
1) Open sourcing Internet Explorer: While this has some poetic
justice, IE (assuming it is extractable from Windows, which
Microsoft contends it is not) has no value as open source itself,
especially without a strong commitment (which can hardly be
mandated) from Microsoft to the open source process.
2) Requiring Microsoft to distribute Java: This strikes me as
inappropriate direction to Microsoft (it is one thing to tell
Microsoft not to do something, but forcing them to do something they
do not want to do is not likely to be a happy solution for anyone);
it also strikes me as inappropriate to mandate Java as a standard,
especially given that it is controlled by a private company.
For whatever it's worth, I am a software engineer and writer.
I've used Microsoft
[[Page 28050]]
products extensively for over 20 years, as well as Unix for a
similar period, and have worked on software products for a similar
period--both applications and system software, including
operating systems and programming languages.
I feel that Microsoft did some remarkable work in their earlier
years, but I've noted that their products have deteriorated and
become markedly more ominous, especially since Windows 95 and the
advent of IE, although one might also dateline this against the
emergence of Bill Gates as the world's richest man. When I was
growing up it was often said that ``power corrupts, and
absolute power corrupts absolutely''--I think we've
started to see the fruits of that truism in Gates and Microsoft. At
the start of this antitrust case it was often opined that the case
would amount at best to ``too little, too late.'' If you
accept the PFJ, that opinion will be affirmed, and it will be left
to some future generation to stand up to the corruption of
Microsoft's power. I pray that this court can and will stand up for
us now.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Tom Hull
thull at kscable.com
http://www.tomhull.com/
MTC-00027531
From: Patrick Melody
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing in regard to the Microsoft Settlement. I am
troubled by the settlement as it does not appear to do anything to
remedy harm caused by Microsoft's actions nor do anything to promote
the public good. As background information on myself, I have a
master's degree in computer science and have worked as a
professional programmer since 1995. Previous to this I have used and
programmed computers as a hobby since high school in the early
1980s.
The operating system is the lowest level of software on a
computer, on which all other software running on the computer
depends. The value of a ubiquitous operating system to the public is
that it provides a unified platform on which to target applications.
Program developers need learn only this one system, and large
numbers of users may then enjoy the availability of numerous
application programs.
Furthermore, these users can easily interoperate with each other
since they all share the OS as a common infrastructure. The value of
a ubiquitous operating system to it's owner is the dependence of
millions of users on the owner. This dependence can be used to
leverage dependence in other areas besides the OS. The Internet
``works'' and has enjoyed great success because it was
built on open protocols that are independent of any particular
hardware or software program. Even though you and I may use
completely different hardware platforms, operating systems, and/or
email programs, we can still exchange email with no difficulties.
Even though our web pages may be produced with different authoring
programs and we may use different web browsers, we can still read
each others web pages. This is due to the open protocols and data
formats used on the internet. In the age of the disconnected desktop
computer, the operating system was the common substrate. In the age
of connected systems a new common substrate as appeared:
communications protocols and file/data formats. The benefit of the
public to these open protocols and formats is clear: the ability to
have software written by anyone interoperate seamlessly and
effectively with software written by anyone else.
First, any networking protocols used by Microsoft must be fully
published and approved by an independent network protocol body
before any Microsoft software using them is deployed. This
especially applies to the .NET and associated Hailstorm and Passport
technologies, which Microsoft is clearly positioning to be
tomorrow's ubiquitous software infrastructure. The purpose of this
is to ensure the ability of anyone's software to interoperate with
Microsoft software and prevent Microsoft from using their OS
monopoly to gain a monopoly over internet usage.
Second, any file formats used by Microsoft must be fully
published so that these files may be read and written by independent
developers, again to ensure interoperability with Microsoft's
software.
Finally, there must be effective provisions for the settlement
to be enforced since a settlement that can be ignored without severe
repercussions is no settlement at all.
Microsoft has repeatedly indicated it feels it has done nothing
wrong and that this entire case is an unjustified imposition on it,
even going so far as to fake video evidence in front of a federal
judge. Such a defendant cannot be trusted on its own recognizance.
The current settlement has no teeth.
Microsoft will undoubtedly cry that these measures are unfair.
However, the rules of business are different for monopolists than
for non-monopolists, and there must be a penalty for monopolists
found guilty of illegally maintaining a monopoly as Microsoft has
done. As such, these measures are not unfair and would greatly serve
the public interest by allowing nonmonopolist software to interact
on even ground with the monopolist's software, allowing more
competition and more options to the public in choosing their
products and services.
Sincerely,
Patrick J. Melody
3708 Acosta Rd
Fairfax VA 22031
[email protected]
[email protected]
MTC-00027532
From: B. Kosnik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:11am
Subject: against settlement as currently proposed
I am sending this as a concerned US citizen who works in the
information technologies field. I am saddened that this promising
lawsuit might end up doing so little.
The settlement will still allow Microsoft to extend and keep
private all of its office application API, as well as office
application file formats and intra-application communication
protocols. Allowing this, in my opinion, is giving Microsoft consent
to continue on as a monopolist in the desktop OS and desktop
application space.
It is imperative that all Microsoft file formats be released
publicaly, along with Microsoft-supplied validation suites to ensure
format fidelity. These formats should be freely licensed to all,
allowing even software that is not sold (ie free software) to make
use of these formats for data interchange.
Note that this allows all kinds of information tools, free and
non-free, but explicitly demands a level and competitive playing
field.
Thanks,
Benjamin Kosnik
CC:[email protected]@inet
gw
MTC-00027533
From: Rob Pegoraro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:17am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I oppose the proposed settlement for the reasons set out in the
article below, which I wrote for the Washington Post in early
November. Although I wrote it on my employer's time and money, it
does not necessarily represent the Post's views on this matter. I
can, however, attest that it accords with the opinions of a great
many readers, if my own e-mail is any evidence.
Sincerely,
Rob Pegoraro
By Rob Pegoraro
Friday, November 9, 2001; Page E01
What are we going to do about Microsoft?
The government has been fretting over this question for the past
decade. So far, it has compiled an impressive record of the things
Microsoft has done wrong in the past.
Unfortunately, it always seems to find out about these abuses
after the damage has been done. And it has yet to effectively
address what Microsoft might do in the future.
The proposed settlement between the Department of Justice and
Microsoft announced last week continues this embarrassing tradition.
It's not just that this slim document fails to mandate any
punishment for breaking the law (the next time I get a speeding
ticket, can I negotiate this kind of arrangement, too?), or that its
numerous ``nothing in this section shall prohibit''
clauses appear to vacate most of its provisions. The real problem is
that it focuses so much on the individual PC desktop, when Microsoft
is moving on to other battles.
This settlement spends much of its time trying to carve out
space for PC manufacturers to add non-Microsoft
``middleware'' to run a broader set of applications. This
would have been a laudable goal half a decade ago, when PC vendors
aggressively experimented with their own front ends for Windows.
As the court case thoroughly documented, Microsoft didn't like
this creativity one bit and quickly quashed the manufacturers''
dissent. In response, the proposed settlement's first prescription
begins with the phrase ``Microsoft shall not retaliate''
and goes on to stipulate how Microsoft must treat all its licensees
equally and fairly. The hope is that this government-mandated
liberty will
[[Page 28051]]
encourage PC builders to offer choices outside the Microsoft way.
``I think it's going to help,'' said Daniel Morales, a
vice president with MandrakeSoft, a Linux distributor in Pasadena,
Calif. But he warned: ``There's a lot of details that are very
slanted towards Microsoft.''
None of the manufacturers I contacted wanted to speak, on or off
the record, about any of their plans once the settlement goes into
effect. Most didn't want to comment about the settlement at all.
It's remarkable how many different reasons these companies offered
for not talking about the biggest issue in the industry in a decade.
But neither the manufacturers'' sudden case of laryngitis
nor any subsequent failure to offer new choices to consumers should
surprise anybody. In the bruised, battered PC business, there's
nothing to be gained by alienating your biggest supplier. The
agreement can't repeal this law of human relations.
``In the real world, there are ways to express displeasure
without violating that agreement,'' said Dan Kusnetzky, vice
president for systems software research at IDC, a leading industry
analysis firm. And Microsoft often doesn't appear to understand that
the phrase ``abuse of monopoly power'' isn't a compliment.
It continues to push its Passport user-ID system on customers in the
hope of turning this scheme into an Internet-age Social Security
number--I've had to enter my Passport login just to download a
software update. Windows XP relentlessly promotes Microsoft's own
software, services, formats and marketing partners. Just weeks ago,
the company locked non-Microsoft browsers out of its MSN.com site.
The proposed agreement's more promising terms apply not to
computer manufacturers but to independent software developers. The
deal would require Microsoft to document all its applications
programming interfaces, or APIs--the ways programs work with
Windows itself-- as well as some of its networking protocols.
That's a fine start. But the agreement fails to tackle
Microsoft's other big leverage point--its proprietary file
formats. ``The reason I can't walk into an organization and say
``I'm going to use my Linux box'' is that people will send
me Word documents that I can't read,'' said Jeremy Allison, co-
author of the Samba cross-platform networking program.
The Microsoft Office formats are the classic case of this lock-
in. Developers of competing word processors and spreadsheets have
little choice but to make sure their products can read and write
these proprietary formats.
``We don't get any help from Microsoft,'' said Iyer
Venkatesan, Sun Microsystems'' product manager for the
StarOffice productivity suite. Some documentation is available, but
it's ``incomplete and full of errors and
inconsistencies,'' e-mailed Shaheed Haque, a developer of the
KOffice suite for Linux.
Sun would like to see Microsoft's formats turned into open,
published standards. Allison would like to see the same thing done
for all of Microsoft's communications protocols, beyond the
settlement's limited requirements. With open access to the Windows
APIs as well, said Kusnetzky of IDC, ``it would make it much
easier to create an collaborative environment.''
There's a model for this sort of requirement--telephone and
electric utilities, which developed into monopolies and now are
required to open their facilities to competitors.
But the Microsoft agreement doesn't follow this particular
logic. It still could--should--be amended. But what if it
isn't?
Microsoft is an odd company to contemplate. It employs a lot of
smart people and can produce software of amazing quality. But it
also has repeatedly broken the law and shows few signs of having
learned its lesson.
If you don't want Microsoft's way to be the only way, there are
things to consider.
Does the need to work with the same files as your Windows-using
colleagues mean you need to use Microsoft applications, too? Does it
even require you to run Windows itself? Are there better choices in
Internet access than Microsoft's MSN? Even if Microsoft prods you
into signing up for a Passport account, do you actually need to use
it?
In other words: What are you going to do about Microsoft?
Living with technology, or trying to? E-mail Rob Pegoraro at
[email protected].
Rob Pegoraro
703/812-4862
2400 Clarendon Blvd., #214
[email protected]
Arlington, VA 22201
MTC-00027534
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 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,
Vince Bradley
5329 Summerlin Road
Fort Myers, FL 33919
MTC-00027535
From: David O'Brien
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement as it stands will not curtail
Microsoft's actions in the computer industry. It does not go far
enough to restrict Microsoft to legal and fair play. One can easily
see parts of it are vague and Microsoft will be able to drive an 18-
wheeler thru the loop polls in it.
Microsoft did not take the 1995 DOJ agreement seriously, nor
will it take this current agreement seriously.
Please do not accept and approve the proposed settlement as it
currently stands. Please send it back to the drawing board.
David ([email protected])
MTC-00027536
From: Ramon G. Pantin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:54am
Subject: type Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice representative,
Attached is an HTML document with my comments about the
settlement proposed. I have included my background and contact
information in that document. Please feel free to contact me at:
[email protected]
or at home at:
425-889-1043
if you have trouble with the attached documents.
Sincerily,
Ramon G. Pantin
CC:[email protected]@inet
gw,Argenis Tovar
MTC-00027537
From: Ed Dunphy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CC:
[email protected]@inetgw
Ed Dunphy
President and CEO
InstantSoft Inc.
476 East Campbell Ave,
Campbell CA 95008
(408) 871-3092
[email protected]
Suite 200
To: US DOJ
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Date: Jan. 27, 2002
Your Honor,
I run a small independent software company (ISV) located in
Campbell California which is next to San Jose. We have about 10
people and we work with programmers from all over the world. We have
chosen to be in the software industry and therefore I would like to
exercise my right to provide to you my opinions as a technical
professional executive. Please let me first tell you a little bit
about my background.
I was born in Washington DC in 1950. My father was a Colonel in
the US Army and was in the Judge Advocate Core. He also practised in
the U.S. Supreme Court and my mother worked for the Dept of
Commerce. My mother's father was the Governor of Montana and another
great relative was territorial Governor of Hawaii appointed by
Roselvelt and bumped out of office when marshal law was enacted
during the attack on Pearl Harbor.
In 1973 I received a Masters Degree in Computer Science
Mathematics and Statistics from the University of New Mexico where I
was raised. My professors were mostly from
[[Page 28052]]
Sandia and Livermore Labs. Immediately after college I worked at the
Air Force Weapons Laboratory with all appropriate clearances. It was
1972-3 when Microsoft started in Albuquerque working on
schemes to bundle their basic interpreter with memory upgrades to
the Altair (first PC).
My career took me to Massachusetts and Connecticut and back
working for in computer graphics software for mechanical engineering
for 15 years as a vendor, then a consumer in Combusion Engineering
MIS group (which was then a Fortune 42 company) and Prime Computer
Inc. a company which introduced the first LAN-intrinsic operating
system and multiproccessor based 32-bit computers.
In 1986 I moved to Europe to work as a Vice President at
International Computers Limited and returned to the US in 1987 to
work for Sun Microsystems Inc.
Four years ago I left Sun to found InstantSoft. Inc. I use
Microsoft products every day and have for decades. I use Netscape
products every day and have since they started. I have read dozens
of books, talked to dozens of people and written reports and books
about the software industry. I am a published author as well as an
software industry expert.
I followed every minute of testimony and even downloaded Judge
Jackson's opinion in the US DOJ vs. Microsoft Antitrust case. I read
hundreds of the thousands of depositions that were posted online
thanks to the T-1 I have to use.
It is with this near total immersion of personal and
professional interests that I feel compelled to write to express my
objection to the settlement proposed by the Bush Administration's US
DOJ. I will set out in this letter why I believe the proposed
settlement is not in the publics best interest.
I would like to share with you my strong concerns and
reservations to the proposed settlement for three reasons.
1. Microsoft's competitive position as a monopolist discourages
real innovation in the software industry.
The proposed settlement does not create a serious oversight
function to monitor Microsoft. A vendor of this size, in an industry
this dynamic; is extremely complex both technologically and
structurally. There ought to be a department of the government
involved in intellectual property the same way we have the Dept of
Agriculture. The proposed settlement is so weak as to be
disengenuous.
Microsoft can afford to match 1000 people for every one the US
DOJ might have involved in oversight and still get an ROI out of it.
Why not make Microsoft foot the bill out of penalties to fund 1000
people required to really be able to track this complex company in
this highly complex industry? Microsoft's success is so huge and
they have created such a mess that the US DOJ should make them fund
the governments oversite rather than it being funded by the tax
payers of the US.
No expense should be spared to enforce our antitrust laws. This
should stay in remain until Microsoft market share falls below 50%.
Microsoft's should no longer be allowed to conduct business that
extends their monopoly.
There isn't really a single remedy or set of ``point
remedies'' that will fix this. Its impossible to predict the
future, but rest assured Microsoft will be a player in the future no
matter what the US DOJ does. Judge Jackson's structural remedy for
breakup was a logical conclusion. When Microsoft announces a new
operating system, which ISVs and vendors are as ``in the
know'' as Microsoft's own application software product groups?
Applications will drive the operating system and due to its size and
breadth, Microsoft can leverage its unfair competitive advantage to
divisions within Microsoft giving them a completely unfair
competitive advantage in terms of inside information and time-to-
market.
No independent software company can compete with Microsoft
unless Microsoft chooses to let it be. Does the proposed settlement
do anything to curb or control or monitor the infamous chinese
firewall that doesn't really exist?
2. Microsoft's illegal and unethical business conduct has made
Bill Gates and 2 others from Microsoft among the 5 richest people in
the world. The wealth and power of this company and its founders and
senior management is simply staggering.
The proposed settlement is not even a tap on the wrist to
Microsoft. In fact, it will only solidify the fear that Microsoft
now has more power than the US Government and the Vatican combined.
The only thing Microsoft understands and seeks is money and power.
The proposed settlement does nothing to put substance behind the
``you are guilty of antitrust'' message.
Shouldn't they really have to now change their attitude?
Being a monopoly is not illegal, but once found a monopoly why
would the US DOJ not take commensurate and serious actions that are
more proprotionate to the consequence and economic impact of their
practises in the software industry. I do not see how any economist
would look at the facts here and conclude that Microsoft has not
profited enormously (and in my opinion largely as as a consequence
of unethical and illegal business practises over decades.)
The proposed settlement seems politically motivated. If this was
oil instead of software, or Bush was from the software industry,
maybe it would a different story. Is it possible that Microsoft is
so elite, and so smart, and so aggressive, that it blows the minds
of experts in our government as to how to deal with it in the
aftermath of finding it a monopoly? This reminds me of a CEO I heard
about who was shown a brand new computer that was a lot smaller and
more powerful than the existing computers who said ``cool, so
does this mean it will take fewer people to operate since its so
small?''
What indication does US DOJ have that Microsoft will really
change its attitude and behaviour? How many times will they have to
be found out before some sort of consequentiality cuts in? It should
be three strikes and you are out, not three strikes and we'll let
you walk anyway.
Should Microsoft have been allowed to fund Apple its long term
rival to the tune of $150 million just to prop it up so as not to
look like it killed Apple too?
I'm convinced that Microsoft and its founders are so highly
integrated that to take action against Microsoft and not its
founders misses the whole point of understand and curbing their
excessive power. Microsoft has a legal racket. You can shut down the
racket but it won't stop it. Isn't it like dealing with the mafia?
Don't you have to deal with the Godfathers and the Dons? The
proposed settlement does nothing to deal with the root issue. Whose
behaviour needs to be changed? How is the proposed settlement going
to put anybody in a position of power over the richest men in the
world? This is why we have a government, to represent ALL of our
interests.
A company that moves as much wealth out of the pockets of users
and into its treasury has to be admired. But when the company is
using an illegal recipe to stay there the US D0J can't just let it
slide. we are supposed to have and enforce the laws.
3. Finally the proposed settlement raises the price of software
for consumers and raises the barrier to entry for any company with
new and highly innovative software.
I am forced to pay a premium for often questionable value when I
purchase Microsoft software. When Microsoft entered the server
software market with a vengance with Windows NT. I remember
purchasing a license for $4000 so that my Microsoft SQL Server could
be accessed from the internet on the NT operating system. There was
no product delivered, there was no manual, there was just a license.
Don't hold me to the exact price, but this struck me as very odd and
basically deceptive.
Microsoft, following a best practise of IBM, simply waits it out
and targets any vendor who begins to acheive a level of mass market
penetration not only of the for software, but in virtually any and
every type of software one can imagine. If you look at the history
of acquisitions by Microsoft, it is hard to square this against the
claim that they are interested in innovation. The only innovation
they really care about is innovation that extends their market share
and dominance. Isn't this capitalism running unchecked?
Linux is an interesting threat to Microsoft. Why? Because a) its
open source, b) its basically free and d) they can't control it.
Should the government not promote open source and standards-based
technologies in the interests of companies competing on the basis of
excellence in implementation?
Microsoft's cash machine is fueled by upgrades and new releases.
Microsoft actually promotes how its old software was so buggy that
users will benefit by buying the new upgrade. Does this sound like a
good deal to you? Linux stands in stark contrast since it is
technology that does not have business dependence built into it.
Microsoft even capitalizes off of its own mistakes. I was amazed
to have a Microsoft employee at Comdex show me with pride how you
can search the 35 CDs of bug fix notes--and the CDs only cost
hundreds of dollars. Is this innovation or a damn clevor built-in
business scheme to embed unfair competitive advantage into Microsoft
every go-to-market scheme?
Does the proposed settlement provide any real incentive to
Microsoft to drop prices, to
[[Page 28053]]
ship high quality product or to lower the lockin of customers and
companies who have no choice but to use Microsoft products? A
monopoly can get away with things that other vendors can't. They,
not the customer, can dictate what options are available to the
customer.
One of the areas I have spent a great deal of time researching
involves best practise in business partnering.
Microsoft and many other leading software vendors have purchased
research reports and consulting from my company over the years. This
work and direct contacts with professionals in major corporations
has given me tremendous insight into how large companies work with
other companies to move their markets. The area of focus I have had
has been Software partnership programs. Microsoft spends well over a
billion a year on developer programs alone. A monopoly should not be
allowed to use its resources to coopt and literally buy business
allegiance from independent companies. I would therefore emphasize
the any proposed remedy that does not have a proper level of
investment behind it is not going to be able to recognize and
monitor Microsoft's approach to business. What is required is
comparable to the sophistication of a small department in an
intelligence agency.
Conclusions
The proposed settlement is not in the industry's or the
consumers best interest. It is not really in Microsoft's interest
either because the likelihood that Microsoft will be back on the hot
seat in the future is inevitable. Civil actions against Microsoft
will likely be impacted adversely should the proposed settlement
prevail.
While I have opinions about a fair settlement, what I really
expect and hope for from the US DOJ review of the proposed
settlement is that it will be rejected and sent back to the drawing
board as incomplete. Among the difficiencies in the proposal you
might want consider stressing the following in re-defining an
appropriate and fair settlement:
1. Microsoft's business, and the personal business of its
leadership, need to be systemically and deeply monitored. There
should be a whole series of fixes each aimed with laser precision on
specific elements of their conduct of business vis a vis their
competitors, their supply chain and their business partnership
agreements. What is needed are a sequence of precision hits not
carpet bombing. The proposed settlement should define a far more
robust process behind it that is auditable.
The audit results and conclusions should be presented to an
independent advisory council composed of good people that can
contribute value in the process. The record of Microsoft's
involvement in standards bodies should be monitored to ensure they
are participating in advancement of the industry and not just
themselves. The participation of members of these standards bodies
participation in such an independent advisory council might also be
recommended.
2. You can't aim a remedy let alone deliver it with 2 troops on
the ground. The US DOJ needs to put a small army to deal with this
form of sophistication in unfair corporate practise.
The government needs to provide safe harbor for competitors of
Microsoft. Microsoft should not be above the American legal system.
The proposed settlement needs to demonstrate to the American public
that the settlement gives the government sufficient resources to
deal with Microsoft everytime they stray out of their box and that
the box itself will need to be reexamined and adapted every quarter
as industry dynamics change.
There should be a proposed budget to support whatever the
watchdog group is that is setup. That budget has to be at least a
few orders of magnitude higher that it currently is to have an
credibility compared to what is at stake here.
3. Microsoft's monopoly should be viewed as putting them in the
category of a monitored utility. Since everybody needs what
Microsoft produces and especially since Microsoft has demonstrated
its ability to kill its competitors.
Their behaviour and history demands a serious regulatory
oversite. While DOJ stopped the Intuit acquisition there should be a
hundred times more scrutiny applied to their actions now that they
are a certified monopoly. Self-policing is a non-starter.
The proposed remedy might recognize that Microsoft has more
resources than the US DOJ. The proposed settlement should recognize
the unique technological stranglehold Microsoft has on the computer
and software industry. Perhaps limits can be placed on just how far
Microsoft should be allowed to tie the government itself up in knots
while maximizing their lobbying and soft money contributions to
politicians.
4. Since a structural remedy seems to drastic, surely Microsoft
should be made to give back some of their ill-gotten gains. Not only
should the Government fine them in an ongoing way to cover its costs
of oversite and regulation, but it should go further to ensure that
those responsible for future abuses will be face consequences and
that means those in charge at the top. The proposed remedy should
define clear consequences not just to the Microsoft corporation but
to key officers who continue to engage in illegal and unethical
conduct.
5. Microsoft should be made to defend every pricing action,
every new product introduction, every upgrade, every acquisition,
every ad campaign and so on. They have not only banked a fortune but
they seem to have created a possibly unstoppable franchise. The
government should realize that corrective actions will take time and
that its job has only started.
It strikes me as unusual that the US DOJ would not seriously
consider consulting with the appropriate ministries especially in
Europe where the jury is still out on how the governments will come
down on Microsoft antitrust. Would it not be better to coordinate
with them on matters of intellectual property? While Robinson Patman
might have no corallary in the rest of the world and while it might
be imperfect, would it not be prudent to demonstrate a more
coordinated response to Microsoft to get their attention?
In conclusion, it seems only reasonable to explain why I took
the time to write to you. I am an American entreprenuer in the
software industry. It strikes me that there is no logical
explanation why the US DOJ proposed settlement is in the best
interests of the general public. As a highly informed and concerned
professional it is great to have the opportunity to provide you with
these comments.
In the name of innovation, Bill Gates is allowed to effectively
create a tax on the Microsoft installed base by creating an
incompatibility or discontinuity in technology that virtually forces
me to have to get upgrades and screw with my computers not because I
want to but because there is no other choice. Microsoft should be
monitored in terms of its compliance with industry standards so they
can not go their way when the industry needs to go the way of open
source and standards based computing.
When multitasking preemptive kernel source code is available for
free off the web, why don't I use it? The answer is usually
applications.
Microsoft refuses or can't or won't put their applications on
any open source GPL or public domain operating system. The computer
industry will only be healthy and grow if open market forces are
allowed to function. The industry is out of balance and luckily,
finally, the government recognized it. Now the government should
take the lead to ensure that the richest man in the world and his
friends don't stifle commerce and extract excessive profits from the
general public as well as the American government because they can
as a monopoly.
I believe that Microsoft is far more calculated than parts of
the FBI or CIA. Don't let this monopoly dampen innovation and value
creation in such a critical industry. Computing is now as pervasive
as any utility. We do not want one utility vendor buying the market
out and killing competitors and then setting whatever price they
want. We need to restore competition which will create more
innovation, reduce prices through open market competition and
provide some relief from the imposition of a ongoing Microsoft tax
on all of us.
Your decision regarding the proposed settlement is really about
the fundamental right to no taxation without representation. As
agents of the public interest, please give this matter the serious
considersation it deserves despite its complexity.
Thanks for hearing me out.
MTC-00027538
From: Alexa Frazee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge,
I am responding to the news of the Proposed Final Judgement with
Microsoft. As a student at a private university, I am very concerned
about my government's recent actions, allowing for such a monopoly.
I have no problem with Microsoft as a company, but i do recognize
the need for competition in the marketplace. The Microsoft product
is all too often in need of improvement and to eliminate any and all
of its competitors will only cause the industry to progress slowly
and loose some of its quality.
[[Page 28054]]
As a consumer, I would appreciate being offered cutting edge,
top quality software. I feel that my government is obligated to
ensure a competitive, progressive industry. Please do what you can
to preserve the ideals of the American marketplace.
Thank You, Alexa Frazee
(213) 742-0128
CC:[email protected]@inetgw,dkleinkn@yahoo...
MTC-00027539
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am writing to comment on the
proposed settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust
case. There are several significant failures of the proposed
settlement. I will limit my comments to one specific problem.
I believe Microsoft should give $1 billion in cash to help
schools, instead of software and some money. This would seem to only
hurt Microsoft's competitors in the education market as it is
difficult to compete with free software. A far better settlement
might be for Microsoft to give their proposed $1 billion--in
cash--to an independent foundation, which will provide our most
needy schools with the computer technology of their choice.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my opinion about this
very important decision.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Zane
Network Administrator
University of Oregon School of Law
MTC-00027540
From: Bill Hattenhauer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:38am
Subject: Well WELL
NO SURPRISE! MICROSOFT IS GUILTY OF MAINTAINING A MONOPOLY- BUT
SUFFERS NO PENALTY!
NO JUSTICE TODAY! This company profits illegally from it's
thoughtful actions, robs the world of great competitive ideas by
it's business practices, and is found guilty in court and is
extended NO REAL PUNITIVE ACTION> NOT SMART.
Our only hope now is that Linus Trippolli develops a new secret
operating system that costs $40-50 US that runs all middleware
and user programs on every system and completely disregards who the
manufacturer of that software is. But in the mean time MS is busy
trying to get new proprietary ``standards'' adopted by
anyone stupid enough to accept the norm.
YOU GET AN F. Hope the DOJ doesn't get the chance to prosecute
the terrorists or we all will be in for it. My vote is Military
Tribunal after this.
MTC-00027541
From:
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Felmey
26445 SE Rugg Road
Gresham, OR 97080-8644
MTC-00027542
From: Marc Brenner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:43am
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Settlement revised letter with address and
phone
From: Marc Brenner
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 11:28 PM
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I and my family feel that the proposed settlement will not
benefit the public interest. Microsoft should be forced to open its
applications to other platforms, so that software and hardware from
other vendors will run without crashing with Microsoft products and
so that other platforms can develop and integrate with Microsoft
applications.
The court should hold public proceedings under the Tunney Act to
give all parties the abilities to participate in settlement.
Thank you for your consideration.
Marc Brenner
835 Topper Lane
Lafayette, CA 94549 Ph: 925 283 3408
MTC-00027543
From: Randolph Mitchell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:45am
Subject: Antitrust Remedy
Microsoft Corporation's consistent pattern of monopoly abuse and
intellectual theft is as damaging to American interests as Enron's
abuse of accounting practices.
The Department of Justice must sharply curb Microsoft
Corporation in order to preserve freedom of choice in the computer
market, and to encourage the entrepreneurial innovation necessary to
maintain America's lead in computer hardware and software.
Sincerely,
Randolph Mitchell
P.O. Box 9
Oakville, CA 94562-0009
707-944-8755
Randolph Mitchell
MTC-00027544
From: Michael A. Alderete
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Antitrust Division
U.S. Dept. of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC, 20530-001
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to exercise my right under the Tunney Act to voice
my strong disapproval of the current proposed settlement of the
Microsoft anti-trust trial. The proposed settlement is both weak and
lacking strong enforcement provisions, and is likely to have zero
(or worse) effect on competition within the computer industry, with
continued and increased harm to consumers in the form of fewer
options in the software market and continued increases in the price
of the Microsoft software consumers are forced to buy.
Microsoft was convicted of abuse of monopoly power by one
Federal judge, and the judgment was largely upheld by another seven
Federal justices. In evaluating any proposed settlement, keep
repeating one Important Phrase over and over: ``Microsoft is
guilty.''
The seven justices of the appeals court ruled that any actions
taken against Microsoft (a) must restore competition to the affected
market, (b) must deprive Microsoft of the ``fruits of its
illegal conduct,'' and (c) must prevent Microsoft from engaging
in similar tactics in the future. The proposed settlement fails on
every one of these.
(A) Restore Competition
Among the many flaws in the proposed settlement is the complete
disregard for the Open Source software movement, which poses the
single greatest competitive threat to Microsoft's monopoly. Most
organizations writing Open Source software are not-for-profit
groups, many without a formal organization status at all. Section
III(J)(2) contains strong language against non-for-profits, to say
nothing of the even less-formal groups of people working on
projects. Section III(D) also contains provisions which exclude all
but commercially-oriented concerns.
To restore competition the settlement must make allowances for
Open Source organizations--whether formal not-for-profit
organizations or informal, loosely associated groups of
developers--to gain access to the same information and
privileges afforded commercial concerns.
(B) Deprivation of Ill-Gotten Gains
Nowhere in the proposed settlement is there any provision to
deprive Microsoft of the gains deriving from their illegal conduct.
Go back to the Important Phrase: ``Microsoft is guilty.''
In most systems of justice, we punish the guilty. But the current
proposal offers nothing in the way of punishment, only changes in
future behavior.
Currently Microsoft has cash holdings in excess of US$40
billion, and increases that by more than US$1 billion each month. A
monetary fine large enough to have an impact on them would be a
minimum of US$5 billion. Even a fine that large would be a minimal
punishment. Microsoft's cash stockpile is used, frequently and
repeatedly, to bludgeon competitors, buy or force their way into new
markets, or simply purchase
[[Page 28055]]
customers, with the long-term intent to lock people and
organizations into proprietary software on which they can set the
price. Taking a ``mere'' US$5 billion from their stockpile
will have zero effect on this practice.
For that reason, Microsoft's cash stockpile must be further
reduced. In addition to the monetary fine, Microsoft should be
forced to pay shareholders a cash dividend in any quarter in which
they post a profit and hold cash reserves in excess of US$10
billion. The dividend should be substantial enough to lower
Microsoft's cash holdings by US$1 billion, or 10%, whichever is
greater.
(C) Prevention of Future Illegal Conduct
The current proposed settlement allows Microsoft to effectively
choose two of the three individuals who would provide oversight of
Microsoft's conduct and resolve disputes. The proposed settlement
also requires the committee to work in secret, and individuals
serving on the committee would be barred from making public or
testifying about anything they learn.
This structure virtually guarantees that Microsoft will be
``overseen'' by a do-nothing committee with virtually zero
desire or ability to either correct Microsoft abuses, or even call
attention to them.
Instead of the current proposal, a five-person committee should
be selected. Microsoft may appoint one person, but will have no
influence over any of the other four. For the four, two should be
appointed by the Federal court of jurisdiction, one should be
appointed by the U.S. Department of Justice, and one should be
appointed by the U.S. Senate. At least two of the appointees should
have technical experience and be competent to evaluate technical
proposals and arguments by themselves, without the filters which
assistants would bring.
These are hardly the only thoughtful and reasonable suggestions
you will no doubt receive regarding the proposed settlement of this
anti-trust case. And these are hardly the only suggestions which
should be adopted if the settlement is to prove effective. But all
of them are essential to that aim, and adopt them you must.
Thank you for your time and the opportunity to comment.
Respectfully,
Michael A. Alderete
569 Haight Street
San Francisco, CA 94117
(415) 861-5758
[email protected]
Latest News:
Michael A. Alderete
voice: (415) 861-5758
MTC-00027545
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
the proposed settlement is bad idea.
MTC-00027546
From: D. Hugh Redelmeier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I will keep my comments brief. I am a software developer and
consumer, not a lawyer. I will not repeat points that are well
presented, for example, by the submissions of the American Antitrust
Institute:
and Dan Kegel:
The proposed final judgment in the US v. Microsoft case is
inadequate.
Microsoft has been found to be a monopolist. It has been found
to have willfully and illegally exploited its monopolies. Microsoft
has delayed the day of reckoning, multiplying the damage.
The purpose of the proposed final judgment is to deny Microsoft
the benefits of its unlawful behavior, to remedy the damage, and to
prevent future misbehavior. I fail to see how it would substantially
accomplish any of these goals.
The fact that several attempts have been made to tame
Microsoft's illegal behavior suggests that any settlement must be
carefully crafted to be ``leak-proof''. Speed is of the
essence in response to future misbehavior--irreparable damage
can happen much more quickly than litigation can be resolved.
As far as preventing future misbehavior, it seems to me that
each monopoly must be eliminated or at least circumscribed to
prevent its expansion. Microsoft has continually grown its
monopolies and caused them to buttress one another. It has also used
its monopolies to advance its other interests.
I can think of many possible settlements. Perhaps the approach
most generous to Microsoft would be to break Microsoft up into
independent companies that each would be allowed to hold a single
monopoly, and no more. These companies would have to be constrained
to deal with each other in a way that did not favor them over third
parties.
It has been said that there is need for a quick settlement to
protect our security. Microsoft is the source of a
disproportionately large number of computer security problems. Most
believe that this is partly caused by their monopoly position. So if
security is to be considered in this case, it would be one more
reason to deal more effectively with the monopoly issues. Security
is a public interest.
D. Hugh Redelmeier, PhD.
[email protected]
MTC-00027547
From: Elizabeth Bonney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 2:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
I have endorsed Dan Kegel's letter concerning the proposed
Microsoft settlement. I feel that the letter provides a good
overview of the problems I see with the settlement, in particular
the inadequate provisions to limit Microsoft's anticompetitive
practices towards OEMs. These practices have already limited the
opportunities of other software vendors, such as Be, Inc., to gain a
share of the market, and allow Microsoft to avoid competition with
other vendors based on the merits of their products.
Elizabeth Bonney,
Cranford, NJ
MTC-00027549
From: Keith (038) Arlene Varnau
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:03am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
7612 140th Place NE
Redmond, WA 98052
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
We are sending this letter to express our support of the
Microsoft settlement. We have followed the lawsuit against Microsoft
with much interest. It is our opinion that the government was
unwarranted in its case against Microsoft in the first place. Yet,
we believe that resolving this issue will help to rebuild the
technology industries.
Microsoft has offered many concessions throughout the process.
Microsoft agrees to the formation of a review board whose purpose
would be to ensure Microsoft's compliance with the terms of the
agreement. The formation of this group should reassure those that
are wary of Microsoft compliance with the issue. The review board
will be composed of outside members who are objective to the
outcomes of the settlement.
We believe that Microsoft has been more than generous throughout
this process. We hope that the Attorney General agrees with the
importance of enacting the settlement.
Thank you for your time regarding this issue.
Sincerely,
Keith & Arlene Vernau
MTC-00027551
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing in support of the settlement the justice department
has reached with Microsoft. It is high time that this petty case,
brought about by the jealousy of Microsoft's hapless competitors, be
put behind the nation. Microsoft has consistently been one of the
greatest technological innovators in the world. Particularly at this
time of crisis, I believe we should put all our national resources
to use for the good of the nation. Our greatest national resource is
the entrepeneurship of men such as Bill Gates. I hope that this saga
will finaly end with this settlement so that Microsoft can continue
innovating and improve our lives with new technology.
Sincerely,
Elie Poltorak
MTC-00027552
From: Leonard F Morse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:08am
[[Page 28056]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am an IT professional (now retired) and have been in the
computer field for over 30 years. I urge you to end the DOJ/
Microsoft stand off as soon as possible. The terms already agreed to
by most parties to the suit are fair and just. Those wanting to
continue are doing so for their own ends--mostly dislike of the
Microsoft success, I choose to buy and run Microsoft software
because it is better, not because it is forced upon me. AOL et al
are attempting to win in court what they could not win in the market
place.In addition, the question appears to be moot. AOL purchased
Netscape yet didnot include it in their latest version of
AOL--version 7.0--choosing to bundle MS Internet Explorer
instead.
The entire affair is little more than a tempest in a teapot
Leonard F Morse
MTC-00027553
From: George M. Boyd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I disagree with the proposed settlement of Microsoft v DOJ.
George M. Boyd
9635 Penfield Ave.
Chatsworth, CA 91311-5516
818-349-3974
MTC-00027554
From: Fred Strauss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:14am
Subject: microsoft settlement
I am a consumer and I am appalled that the justice department
may be willing to end this lawsuit by helping Microsoft get richer.
The biggest problem with Microsoft is that Microsoft has a monopoly
on which operating system a computer comes with. I would suggest
that the government force Microsoft to make all of its programs
available for all other operating systems. Then it would be easy and
useful for consumers to try other operating systems. This would also
create some competition for Microsoft, which would help our entire
economy.
MTC-00027556
From: Brad Matter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern--
I strongly oppose the proposed terms of settlement in the case
of United States of America vs. Microsoft, and State of New York ex.
rel. vs. Microsoft.
The terms of the settlement are far too weak and do far too
little to prevent Microsoft from continuing in its pattern of
unlawful conduct, and do nothing, so far as I can tell, to remedy
the effects of its past unlawful conduct.
The terms of the settlement are written with such a degree of
specificity that they effectively amount to closing the gate after
the cows are out of the corral. For example, releasing APIs is
discussed, but there is no mention of file formats--leaving a
gaping loophole through which Microsoft can drive its monopolistic
efforts.
Another gaping loophole is in section III.H.2, which mentions
``Top-Level Windows''--which are defined as being
able to hold sub-windows. All Microsoft need do is create a window
that can't hold a sub-window, or create some
``innovative'' new windowless technology, and section
III.H.2 no longer applies.
In fact, since the settlement fails to address Microsoft's
future behavior in any meaningful way, it's entirely possible that
Microsoft may just have some such thing in store via its .NET
initiative. Given Microsoft's past behavior, I have no doubt that
future Microsoft ``innovations'' will be specifically
tailored toward evading the terms of the settlement and that it will
continue to illegally maintain and extend its monopoly.
The exclusion of all devices except for very narrowly defined
``personal computers'' is similarly disquieting.
Microsoft's conduct over the years has flouted both ethics and
the law. It gained its monopoly in part through a scheme called
``per-processor licensing'', in which computer
manufacturers paid Microsoft for every computer they sold, whether
it had a Microsoft operating system or not. Microsoft thus
effectively taxed the computer industry, and made money even when
someone else's products was sold.
Ironically, it is harder today to buy a computer with a non-
Microsoft OS than it was when Microsoft stopped the practice as part
of a consent decree (part of which, if I recall, Microsoft later
broke). Lately, I've been shopping for a computer for a work-related
project which requires Windows XP Professional. None of the
inexpensive computers in my price range come with Windows XP
Professional, but all come with some flavor of Microsoft operating
system. It seems absurd that I can't buy a computer without an OS
and add the OS of my choice to it. In this case, Microsoft gets paid
twice; once for a product which I can't use. I see nothing in the
settlement which addresses this problem.
I've heard some (weak) arguments that Microsoft must be
interfered with as little as possible because of its alleged
importance, to the national economy, national security, or both. It
seems ridiculous to me. An economy in which robust competition
flourishes is more important than one in which Microsoft flourishes
at the expense of the innovation and efficiency which are driven by
that competition.
The enormous number of ``internet'' worms and viruses
that make the news on such a regular basis are Microsoft worms,
written to exploit the weaknesses in Microsoft's software. If
Microsoft had to compete on the basis of security, those weaknesses
wouldn't exist. Instead, Microsoft spends its money on activities to
expand its market share, whether those activities are legal or not.
I do not see how these actions (and inactions) of Microsoft
contribute to national security or the economy in any positive
sense. Acceptance of the settlement as it currently stands will
simply allow Microsoft to continue to illegally maintain and extend
its monopoly by working around its weak provisions. Worse,
acceptance of the settlement will effectively protect Microsoft
while it does so, since the government is unlikely to take any
action against Microsoft for the duration of the 5-year period or
for some years afterward.
I urge that the settlement be rejected, and that any future
settlement or judgement against the company not merely bar it from
practices it no longer needs (Netscape's no longer a threat; after
the per-processor licensing practice was banned as part of the
earlier consent decree, a Microsoft executive said that it
``had achieved its purpose'' and was no longer necessary).
Any future action must at a minimum truly remedy the harm caused by
its past unlawful conduct, and effectively prevent it from engaging
in illegal behavior in the future.
Ideally, any such judgement or settlement would include
penalties stiff enough to ensure that the executives at Microsoft
would get the message any such future behavior would not be
tolerated. This is a company whose paid ``grass-roots''
efforts have included letters from dead people! They don't
understand ethics, but they do understand power.
Brad Matter
1217 NE 70th Street
Seattle WA 98115-5628
206.527.8334
MTC-00027557
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
I feel the Proposed Final Judgment in the United States v.
Microsoft case is fundamentally flawed and does little to
``unfetter [the] market from anticompetitive conduct'',
fails to terminate Microsoft's illegal monopoly, and preserves
intact countless practices which will maintain and extend the
Microsoft monopoly in the future. I would also like to add my voice
to sentiments expressed by Dan Kegel at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html . I strongly support the views Mr. Kegel expresses on
the proposed settlement.
This proposed judgment is definitely not in the public interest.
Sincerely,
Brett Miller
MTC-00027558
From: Mark Plimley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs, As a software engineer and computer professional for
over 25 years, I believe that I am fully qualified to comment in the
public interest regarding the proposed Microsoft Anti-trust
settlement. I have followed the proceedings against Microsoft
throughout the trial and post-trial period. It continues to amaze me
the audacity with which the Microsoft Corporation and its''
lawyers have flagrantly ignored anti-trust law.
I feel that one must judge a corporation as one would judge an
individual, by its actions, not by its words and promises.
[[Page 28057]]
Actions, not words, reflect the true nature of a group or
individual. Microsoft continues to display disrespect for the laws
of our nation. The most recent example of this is their extremely
narrow interpretation of the Tunney Act disclosure requirements,
violating the intent of the law.
To this day, Microsoft Corporation refuses to accept
responsibility for its anti-competitive actions. When an individual,
or in this case an organization, refuses to correct their anti-
social behavior despite repeated warnings, then society must act to
prevent such behavior from re-occurring in order to protect itself.
The DOJ must not back down, for the sake of the public and the
software industry. Microsoft's claims that severe repremands and
restrictions would hinder competition is completely absurd. The only
hope that the software industry has for any semblence of competition
is to establish stringent and enforceable restrictions on any and
all future anti-competitive practices by the Microsoft monopoly. The
settlement that allows Microsoft to donate software and (old)
computers to schools will only serve to increase their influence
over the marketplace. This is exactly what Microsoft intends, and
must be firmly rejected.
The only type of settlement that should be considered is one
that genuinely promotes competition in the marketplace. As Microsoft
has clearly shown that they cannot be trusted to act in the interest
of anyone except themselves, I believe that a valid settlement can
only come from those in the industry who have been harmed by
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior as a monopolist. If Microsoft
want to donate computers and software to schools, it must be in the
form of money without any restrictions whatsoever. The recipients of
the funds must have total control over what they purchase.
With ample evidence that their word cannot be trusted, it would
be irresponsible for the DOJ to consider any Miscrsoft claim of harm
to the industry if real sanctions were to be imposed upon its
illegal business practices. The DOJ must not back down on the demand
for real and effective reform of known monopolist business
practices. There is plenty of potential competition that will keep
the software industry healthy, despite any short-term setback by
Wall Street gamblers.
So I urge the DOJ, for the sake of the future of the software
industry and the people of the United States that you represent, to
insist on effective corrections to the long-standing anti-
competitive practices. And I do not believe Microsoft will respond
to the seriousness of their business practices with anything except
harsh punishment. With $65 billion in cash reserves, any reasonable
punishment will have little impact on their future. And any damage
to their stock will easily recover in short order. The DOJ must
maintain the long-term interests of the public ahead of any short-
term harm to investors of an irresponsible corporation.
Sincerely,
Mark Plimley, President
Plimley Consulting, Inc.
1454 Goldenlake Rd.
San Jose, CA 95131
email: [email protected]
MTC-00027559
From: Jay Dernovsek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:23am
Subject: Anti-Trust Remedy
I find the current remedies for the Microsoft anti-trust
conviction unacceptable. Please consider the following as
appropriate action for remedy: Microsoft produces an operating
system as well as applications that run on its operating system.
Having inside knowledge of the operating system is a tremendous
advantage when writing applications. Microsoft abused this advantage
by witholding key elements of the application program interfaces
(API's) from competing application writers. As remedy, the operating
system business should be separated from the application development
business. Once split, the operating system company should
furthermore be prohibited from providing information other than its
published API to any other company. This will insure fair
competition for all application developers.
Microsoft's discount policies have made it all but impossible to
purchase a computer without their operating system. As remedy,
Microsoft should be made to abolish its present multi-level discount
practices, and be made to use a single tier discount schedule based
solely on volume. This will allow hardware manufactures and system
integrators the option of offering competing products without
financial penalty.
Microsoft has used its operating system's dominance to capture
the office suite, web browser, and other application markets. A
separation of the operating system and application businesses will
remedy this abuse. Microsoft has established itself as a major
content provider (MSN) and has acquired other media holdings such as
MSNBC. Microsoft also offers a variety of web services, such as
Hotmail, Passport, etc. Microsoft is creating a dangerous situation
whereby one entity is attempting to control both information
(content) and the distribution channels used to convey information.
As remedy, Microsoft should be made to divest its media holdings and
Internet businesses, or to form a separate company for such
activities Microsoft obfuscates the file formats used by its
business applications.
These formats are constantly altered, creating a false need to
upgrade and preventing competing applications from exchanging data.
This abuse not only stifles competition, but also causes unnecessary
reduction in productivity. Through their dominance, these file
formats have become ubiquitous. Since this dominance was acquired
illegally, Microsoft's file formats should no longer be permitted to
remain proprietary, and should be turned over to an independent
standards body. This will allow efficient data exchange, and will
remedy the unfair advantage Microsoft has created for itself.
Microsoft abused its monopoly to gain control over commonly used
protocols and languages by adding proprietary extentions. Their
contamination of HTML and JAVA are two examples. As a remedy,
Microsoft must be forced to comply with existing protocol and
language standards. Furthermore, Microsoft should be prohibited from
having voting rights is any standards organization as punishment for
its prior abuse.
Microsoft has demonstrated a disregard for computer and network
security. Countless hours of lost productivity can be attributed to
the weaknesses of Microsoft products. As a remedy, Microsoft should
made to secure its products without the customary upgrade charges.
Microsoft should also be held criminally liable for the virus
propagating nature of Microsoft Outlook. Until their security issues
are resolved, Microsoft should be banned from providing products or
services to financial, medical, and government institutions.
Microsoft has demonstrated a lack of respect for personal
property and privacy. Their products consistently consume disk space
with unwanted, unnecessary, and often unused components. Software is
added without permission or control. System settings (many affecting
security) are altered without notice. Their operating system is used
as a billboard for unsolicited advertisement. Their products
communicate without asking permission. As a remedy, Microsoft must
be made to understand that computer resources, including disk space,
are personal property. Uninvited occupation is trespassing.
Furthermore, strong legislation needs to be passed concerning
software that makes unauthorized communication, especially for the
purpose of monitoring personal activity.
Microsoft has trademarked commonly used words for many of its
products. Examples include Word, Office, Outlook, Explorer,
Passport, Windows, etc. They bully other companies who use these
common words in association with competing products, while ignoring
other companies that do the same for complimentary products. Most
businesses cannot afford to gain justice when faced with Microsoft's
vast legal and financial resources. As remedy, Microsoft should be
made to replace their common-name trademarks with names that are
distinctly unique.
As further punishment for anti-trust, Microsoft should be banned
from political lobbying and should not be permitted to make
political contributions of any kind.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Jay Dernovsek
Madison, Alabama
CC:[email protected]@ine
tgw
MTC-00027560
From: Andrew Reitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the proposed settlement is a bad idea, because it
still allows Microsoft plenty of room to continue to operate their
monopoly. Even more hurtful, however, is that the PFJ (Proposed
Final Judgement) enhance the ability of other entities to compete
with Microsoft at the OS level, using Open Source tools such as
Linux and WINE.
Sincerely,
Andrew Reitz
[[Page 28058]]
Recent Graduate, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
[email protected]
MTC-00027561
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:25am
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,
Kathleen Webb
3108 E. Sierra St
Phoenix, AZ 85028
MTC-00027563
From: Galen Seitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am writing to comment on the
proposed settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust
case.
The proposed settlement is little more than a slap on the wrist.
This settlement will do little to deter Microsoft's anticompetitive
practices.
I urge you to seek stronger remedies.
Sincerely,
Galen Seitz
Senior Engineer
Seitz & Associates
Portland, Oregon
MTC-00027564
From: lz b
To: Microsoft
ATR,[email protected]@inet
gw
Date: 1/28/02 3:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the United States Department of Justice, I am writing to you
concerning the Microsoft Settlement. I believe that the cause of
Microsoft having 90 percent of the browser market share is
obviously, Internet Explorer being included in the Microsoft
operating system. Therefore, I think that Microsoft should pay
Netscape a large enough amount of money so that Netscape will be
reimbursed for the terms they suffered, including a loss of
customers.
Yet, this reimbursement will not suffice Netscape to be
completely prosperous unless Microsoft goes bankrupt with the loss
of money. Along with the reimbursement, Microsoft should have to
guarantee that further releases of operating systems will not
include the Internet Explorer program.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Burstein
An 8th grade student at the Harker School In San Jose,
California
MTC-00027565
From: Jeremy Mazner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:42am
Subject: In support of settlement
To whom it may concern,
As a member of the software development community, and a long
time computer user, I write to express my firm support for the
proposed settlement expressed in the Nov 6 Revised Proposed Final
Judgement.
Any software developer will tell you that their best work is
done on the backs of others''. The same holds true in any
industry--we make advances by building on the current
generation of technology. It is natural and expected that the
baseline for any technology continue to evolve. It was a revolution
in the early 1990's for a consumer operating system to include
native support for internet protocols like TCP/IP, and that
revolution enabled an entire new generation of software to be
written. No longer did an application developer have to worry about
how their application should communicate with other
computers--the operating system provided that bsaeline
functionality, so that the developer could focus on their real
value-add. Similarly, the inclusion of HTTP and HTML protocols in
Windows provides a baseline for developers today, making it possible
to build new categories of applications that leverage the world wide
web, without having to implement these protocols from scratch every
time. As a developer, I rely on a robust, evolving platform that I
know will provide the same baseline services on every computer on
which my application is installed.
By way of comparison, can you imagine a home electronics company
like Sony building products for a world where every house might have
a different type of electrical service? 110V at 60Hz here, 220V at
50Hz there, 150V at 80Hv elsewhere. To succeed in mass-marketing
products, they'd need either a huge variety of power supplies and
product ``SKUs'' to fit the variety of power services, or
they'd need to invest research into a universal power supply that
would work with them all. Either option is a waste of not only
Sony's time and effort, but of every other company that would sell
consumer electronics--they'd each have to reinvent the wheel to
create this universal power supply, and that's money that could have
been spent on developing new types of products.
As a computer user, I want the most features I can get for the
lowest cost. As an advanced user, I appreciate the flexibility to
add or remove components and change defaults as I see fit, but that
doesn't mean I don't want a complete, modern, functioning operating
system out of the box. You'd be hard pressed today to find users who
don't want access to the internet, email, and instant messaging when
they turn on their new computer. To suggest that such functions are
not part of the core operating system is to ignore the evidence of
today's marketplace, in which not just Microsoft, but Apple and
RedHat include these functions to satisfy customer demand. I support
the proposed remedy allowing consumers to remove default
functionality, but it is non-sensical to suggest that there is no
benefit to having it there in the first place.
It is equally non-sensical to suggest that a ``trimmed-
down'' operating system deserves a cheaper price than one with
the complete complement of functionality. Today's software market
clearly establishes that ISVs are willing to pay per-unit premiums
to OEMs to include their applications on new computers. If AOL is
willing to pay $5 per machine to have its software installed, and
Real Networks the same, then a ``full-featured'' computer
with their software should cost $10 less than the trimme-down
version.
A version of Windows lacking modern communications features
would rightly cost more that the deluxe package.
In the interest of full disclosure, I will note that I am both a
Microsoft employee and shareholder. My views, however, are my own,
and do not neccesarily reflect those of my employer and its
officers. MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your
photos: Click Here
MTC-00027566
From: Justin M.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice,
It is going to take more than a slap on the wrist to stop
Microsoft's anticompetitive actions and undo their consequences. I
am convinced that the current proposed settlement is no more than
just that. I do not see any real punishment here for Microsoft. I do
not see any real opportunity for competitors to jump into the Intel-
compatible operating system market, and I do not see anything that
takes away the advantage Microsoft has given its products through
anticompetitive means.
Described in the competitive impact statement, are parts of the
Proposed Final Judgment which contain exceptions. I fear that
Microsoft will find ways to use these exceptions to anticompetitive
ends. For example, I feel that this proposal does not effectively
curb Microsoft from using license termination as a threat to OEMs.
It does not put restrictions on the kind of reasons that can be
given for license termination, and it does not specify how long
Microsoft must wait between license termination notices. I am sure
that if I can find even one such loophole, lawyers can find many
more.
I also wonder why only 20 OEM's are protected by this Proposed
Final Judgment. It concerns me that a creative, smaller company can
still have it's innovations thwarted by Microsoft's anticompetitive
practices. More over, if this case is settled with a non-punitive
arrangement, it will set a precedent that will allow Microsoft and
other monopolistic bullies to get away with anticompetitive behavior
DESPITE CONVICTION.
[[Page 28059]]
This would make the Sherman Act and other antitrust laws
ineffective, and would be a disservice to the American people.
Let's prove that the American justice system cannot be swayed by
even the most powerful and richest individuals and corporations.
This is what the Sherman Act and antitrust laws were written for.
Signed,
Jennifer Baer and Justin Montejano
MTC-00027567
From: Rob Terrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have been a professional in the computer business for over 20
years. I'm not some anti-Microsoft zealot; I use Microsoft software
on a daily basis, as I have for years. However, Microsoft's market
power makes it very nearly impossible for smaller companies,
companies where true innovation arises, to compete in a meaningful
way. The proposed settlement does nothing to protect our smaller
companies against Microsoft's monopoly.
Technology is a malleable, shapeshifting thing. Any behavioral
remedies that apply to technology can be easily coded around, the
same way Microsoft was able to code around physical hardware
limitations, such as the 640k limit. I feel that a structural remedy
is the only thing that can level the playing field.
Thanks for listening,
Rob Terrell
MTC-00027568
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:56am
Subject: [Fwd: Microsoft Settlement]
Respected Members of the U.S Justice Department.
For some time I have watched the Antitrust case of several U.S
states vs Microsoft with hope, trepidation and sometimes dismay. As
a technologist for over a decade I have observed the tactics
Microsoft has employed to maintain it's dominant market position
often at the expense of business.
It seems to me that these enteprises have to pay a
``Microsoft Tax'' and in return, innovation and
competition is stiffled. This is surely a development America and
her corporate citizens can ill afford to allow continue. I beleive
that the point has been reached where Microsoft has become a burden
to the information economy, and an appropriate settlement must be
reached. I believe a break up of the company would serve little or
no purpose as the real issue is Microsoft's behaviour and strategies
focused on leveraging market share through control of innovations by
restricting vendor freedom. A settlement that benefits the I.T
industry by re-introducing competition, will create a stimulus in
the economy as a result of freedom of choice. I reason that such a
settlement will also benefit Microsoft by creating change within the
corporation.
These practises must stop for the information economy to evolve
and such mechanisms for acheiving this may include:
1. Publish Interfaces and standards.
An end the Microsoft (MS) practice of ``embracing and
extending'' method of aquiring ownership of publicly owned
protocols. This could be acheived by requiring MS to publish the
extensions to file formats, software interfaces and communications
formats on implementation of a software component. It is this
behavoir that threatens to uproot the Open Systems Interconnect
model that is the foundation for the information economy.
2. Defensive only Legal and contractual restrictions Prevent MS
from using aggressive patents, lawsuits and non-disclosure
agreements to restrict innovation. These tactics used against
vendors and particularly volunteer computer programers and computer
scientists destroy enterprise and opportunity within the information
industry.
As an Australian citizen I respectfully ask you consider my
contribution as a friend of the American people. Your decisions will
have internationl ramifications and I would hope these suggestions
provide you with some useful insight.
John Mifsud
Terrigal Australia
Email: [email protected]
MTC-00027569
From: Zachary Weinberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear sir,
I write to express my concerns with the proposed settlement. I
do not believe that the Proposed Final Judgement as it stands will
have any significant effect on Microsoft's anti-competitive
practices. I'd like to endorse Dan Kegel's open letter and analysis
of the PFJ, which you may find at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html and http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
respectively.
Thank you,
Zachary Weinberg
Software Consultant, CodeSourcery LLC
Berkeley, CA
MTC-00027570
From: Shane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 3:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I would like to make a comment regarding the Microsoft Anti-
Trust case.
For years I have been working with computers, at home and at
work. I see the importance of computers, the trends in technology
and understand the role of consumers in it all. Without a doubt, I
believe that Microsoft has helped hundreds of millions of people
throughout the world. The amount of good they have produced is un-
measurable. I have watched and read about the Anti-Trust cases and
see that every accusation is a lie. They don't hurt consumers,
consumers are not complaining, corporations who aren't good enough
to prevail in the market place are complaining. It's obvious that
their attacks on Microsoft have hidden agendas other than their goal
of helping consumers since it's ridiculous to say that Microsoft has
hurt them. Every legal trick is being used against them; millions
are being wasted on court costs. All because Netscape Navigator
isn't better than Internet Explorer, all because Microsoft gave it
away for free and tries to offer consumers everything they need to
run a computer in one package. If Microsoft loses this case, this
will be one of the most underestimated atrocities of the century.
The attack of the good for being good. The denial of property
rights. The lose of freedom. All and much more that cannot and
should not happen. Justice eventually always prevails,
I hope it happens soon.
SHANE E STAATS
[email protected]
MTC-00027571
From: Frank Warren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I have been involved with PC's since the first Altair.
Microsoft's list of abuses, criminal and civil violations, and
outright piracy, are legend within the industry. The proposed
settlement does not address the illicit profits that have been made
through such piracy, theft of intellectual property, or extortionate
methods of acquiring and crushing innovation in the industry.
Microsoft has spent the last 22 years planning, and then
implementing, the dismemberment of one firm after another, and
getting away with it. Microsoft is a killer whale, whose attack on
the body of the industry is to be answered with a band-aid.
The original plan of your department to break Microsoft apart
would have helped, and demonstrated that pirates cannot thrive just
because they become rich at it.
Microsoft has pillaged, plundered and raped the entire industry.
More, their .NET plans shows that they do not intend to stop. Now
they want to own the Internet itself.
Withdraw the offer of this settlement if you expect any of us to
obey any of your laws.
Sincerely,
Wilson Franklin Warren
Livermore, California 94550
MTC-00027572
From: Arun Rao
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it may concern,
I would like to put forth my opinion that the proposed Microsoft
Settlement does not prevent Microsoft from using its monopoly of
desktop operating systems to further its ventures into other
markets. The settlement does not punish microsoft for its illegal
activities.
Microsoft has slowly begun its transition from a desktop PC
software provider to enterprise, consumer devices and service
provider company. The proposed settlement doesn't prevent Microsoft
from utilizing its 95% desktop pc market share to push its monopoly
into other areas such as internet services. Microsoft's .NET is such
a service, which microsoft is using its latest version Windows XP to
push into the market.
Microsoft has broken the law and been found guilty. Microsoft
has hurt consumers by removing, the very fundamentals of a free
[[Page 28060]]
market economy, choice. Consumers can never truly obtain fair prices
for services with out competition. Microsoft has crushed competition
using its power, the power of its monopoly. Many companies have gone
bankrupt and many more will eventually because they cannot penetrate
a Microsoft dominated market. This will eventually hurt consumers
more.
I implore you to reconsider the settlement and opt for a
judgement that will provide, consumers and the companies that have
been hurt by Microsoft's illegal acts, justice.
Sincerely,
Arun Rao
MTC-00027573
From: Nick Banfe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
UI am writing in regard to the Micosoft settlement. I am a
concerned citizen, Silicon Valley
.Comer and I am apaulled at the judgement.
This amounts to nothing more then momopoly and fixing.
Nick Banfe
1716 Morgan Street
Mountain View, CAl 94043
(650) 964-6425
Sincerely,
Nick Banfe
MTC-00027574
From: Jon Hutchinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This whole suit is frivolous, was just brought about as a
sideshow to distract the public from the real corruption that had
been going on in the White House and parts of the Federal Government
in the later part of the last decade.
It all should all be thrown out immediately, as it has directly
or indirectly affected the economy, in an adverse way, and the
thousands of investors who have invested in a great and innovative
American company like Microsoft.
Jon Hutchinson
Seattle, WA
MTC-00027575
From: Calvin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am opposed to the settlement agreement reached between the
United States Justice Department and Microsoft to settle the
antitrust case won by the United States of America.
The settlement will not increase competition in any market where
Microsoft has a major offering. In markets where it has a monopoly,
such as operating systems and business applications, it will only
serve to strengthen it's monopoly. This reduces competition in other
markets where Microsoft may choose to compete because of the
advantage the monopoly provides.. This is what the Antitrust act was
creaated to prevent.
Nothing in the agreeement will insure that other companies or
individuals will have an equal opportunity to bring improved
products to market because Microsoft will still control the
operating system, the business applications and now, the browser.
Improvements in web development can be stifled by Microsofts
bundling of the browser to eliminate competition in that market.
Future bundling or application tieing is not covered in the
settlement if it is not related to an OEM contract.
In particutlar, web developers are now beholden to Microsoft to
insure their software and services will work on most computers. At a
whim, Microsoft can easily disable those developers offerings if it
wants to offer it's own services or products by simply modifying the
browser, operating system, or business applications to give a
preference to the Microsoft offering. Microsoft can do this after an
OEM sale of it's operating system when XP or future operating
systems must register and receive an authorization so that they will
function.
By the time legal action can be taken against Microsoft to
prevent this activity, the damage to competing companies and
individuals is already done. Not unlike what happened to Netscape
after Microsoft tied Internet Explorer to it's operating system.
Additionally, Microsoft was found guilty of violating the
Sherman Antitrust Act. The settlement contains no punishment for
Microsofts illegal behavior. If this crime has no punishment, why is
it a law? If Microsoft violates the settlement agreement, it will
only result in further litigation, but not in any punishement.
I believe a much harsher penalty, such as breaking the company
into smaller competing companies to increase competition in the
market would provide a much better remedy to Microsofts illegal
behavior and would benefit the economy generally by increasing
comepetition.
Thank you for your consideration.
Calvin Tolman
software and content developer
721 E 300 S
Salt Lake City UT 84102
CC:[email protected]@
inetgw
MTC-00027576
From: mothership
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 4:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to disagree with the micro soft decision as I think
it would hinder anyone who wants otouse the internet...
Bruce Vasconcellos...
Fiji
MTC-00027577
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Remarks on the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust
case. This piece is not comprehensive, but the analytical and
historical points I make apply to most aspects of the problem. Among
the different classes that are impacted by the Microsoft monopoly
are the classes that buy Microsoft as consumers, producers and
vendors. I contend that these direct victims are not its principal
victims.
I identify three principal classes of victims:
1) Those (such as myself) engaging or aspiring to engage in
Microsoft-free microcomputing.
2) Those through choice of employer, authority, supplier,
customer, or other outside relation or agency are compelled to work
with Microsoft products. These people suffer contact with inferior
products and the spiritual stress of contact with an enterprise
whose ``business model'' is founded on the stifling of
human cooperation and technical advance.
(It is disgraceful that children should be exposed to Microsoft
Windows in schools; this kind of publicly sanctioned exposure is
harmful to their education and to their moral development).
3) The General Public.
I write primarily on behalf of Microsoft-free microcomputing and
to a large extent for the General Public and the national interest.
This response is organized in the following manner:
1) What is an Operating System, and what Microsoft has converted
it into.
2) How is this monopoly harmful and dangerous?
a) Economic costs of Microsoft's monopoly
b) Supposed costs of remedies
c) Broader costs and dangers
3) Why the proposed remedies are either useless or counter-
productive.
4) Some recommendations for remedy.
1) What is an Operating System, and what Microsoft has converted
it into.
The Operating System (OS) is a system of programs that runs the
computing machinery, placing the machinery under a unified control
so that it can service the other programs (the ``jobs'')
running on the computer and regulate their contention for resources.
The OS provides programs with an environment and a set of standards
for accessing that environment. Programs are ordinarily written to
the environment provided by the OS, not directly to the machinery.
Microsoft does not share the ``naive'' view of a
computer held by entrepreneurs, workers, scientists, engineers,
programmers, students, or ordinary users, viz., of a computer as a
machine for extending and multiplying capabilities. Microsoft sees
computers as something for which access can be restricted and
ransomed for profit, and sees the operating system as a particularly
strategic chokepoint. To Microsoft, a computer is not an engine, but
a venue for selling applications. In this view, computer
capabilities do not flow from Microsoft, they are withheld by
Microsoft and released in restrictive form.
``MS-Windows--the Inextricable DOS''
MS-Windows is a computer program effecting the illegitimate and
technically unnatural integration of non-operating system
functionality into the OS for the sole purpose of fortifying and
extending Microsoft's MS-DOS monopoly. (In the current DMCA
vernacular, some might call it ``an anticompetition
device.''). MS-Windows is designed to ensure 1) that competing
[[Page 28061]]
operating environments (e.g., Geoworks, Quarterdeck, HP) will not be
viable on a Microsoft platform, 2) that the degree of control
exercised by Microsoft over applications will be greater than that
which would be possible in DOS, and 3) that the operating system,
operating environment, user interface, and application programs will
be so entangled as to deliberately block the government from being
able to separate them (separation is a necessary step in the type of
approach that the governments are now pursuing). By blurring these
boundaries, Microsoft creates a burden-barrier to economic
evaluation, law enforcement, industry, competitors, and government
regulators. Thus, any application running on MS-Windows that
Microsoft covets, it has the power to appropriate.
Poor security was already a hallmark of Microsoft Operating
System, but it is a necessary by-product of the attempt to create a
monopoly-application posing as an operating system because of the
artificial integration of the application-level (``user
space'') with the operating system. (A significant share of the
economic damages caused by Microsoft is attributable to its faulty
security).
It is not really possible to write a good system that runs on a
bad operating system. When the Operating System overwrites memory
locations or crashes without recovery, the application suffers. A
large portion of the resources of the development process must be
diverted to ``defensive programming'', an attempt to
protect the integrity of the program and data from the defects of
its running environment, an attempt which can only be partly
successful at best.
2) HOW is this monopoly harmful and dangerous?
2a) Economic costs of Microsoft's monopoly
In 1983, the issue may have been Microsoft overcharging
customers. At that time, the spectacle of Microsoft selling a badly
broken Operating System and charging its victims for the repairs
dominated the scene.
By 1984, Microsoft's monopoly was the central problem facing
microcomputing. IBM-Microsoft was harming: 1) Digital Research, the
leading low-end operating system 2) hardware manufacturers and
vendors designing or selling non-compatible systems 3) software
companies. Microsoft's variant of DOS, ruthlessly extended by the
creation of Windows was designed to trap customers into their
proprietary closed ``Microsoft market'' As long as their
software is incompatible with acceptable norms and established
standards, technical, commercial and legal, their customer-victims
will have to follow them to whatever computer platform and network
site that Microsoft chooses.
An assessment of the costs to the economy of the Microsoft
monopoly must include the enormous resources that were diverted to
dealing with problems that existed only as a result of programming
in the Microsoft environment, e.g., the years of 640KB limit,
``expanded and extended memory'', inability to share
peripherals because of a single-user limitation. These difficulties,
tied exclusively to the Microsoft environment, added directly to the
cost of development, linked software to transient problems, and were
a barrier-to-entry, preventing programs from being written, products
from being delivered on time, etc.
Microsoft has been able to work with some manufacturers to
create computer peripherals that have deliberately had vital parts
removed so that they cannot function except with the
antidote--the matching version of the Microsoft Windows
Operating System. These crippled machines (many names including
winmodems, winprinters) have introduced much uncertainty into the
buying process, making purchases much more difficult, the end result
much inferior even for those able to run these mutilated devices and
the life expectancy of the equipment diminished as they are now
wholly dependent on the version of MS-Windows.
The operating system defines the environment for software
development. If the OS is replaced, the software will often not be
portable.
2b) Supposed costs of remedies
Contrary to the impression of those outside the field,
Microsoft's creativity has thus far been restricted to how to hold,
strengthen and extend the monopoly it was given. The cost of
dropping Microsoft is far from great because it is a hollow system
that has never had the stability to allow programming, so few
programs of long-term values have been written. Microsoft uproots
its customers anyway as part of a business cycle posing as a product
cycle, so there is effectively no cost to uprooting the system.
The question is not whether we are better off with Microsoft and
today's computers than without Microsoft but with the computers
before the IBM PC. Nor is it a choice of the chaos of freedom with
incompatible zones of products versus the ``order'' of one
dominant zone triumphant, albeit wholly incompatible with all others
and unable to change. At every stage there were better alternatives
and economic losses should be measured against contemporary
alternatives. Superior alternatives that were driven off the field
by Microsoft succumbed to monopoly power and not superior quality or
lesser costs. The value of the choice to the decision maker was not
based on technical merit but rather on permission to participate in
a closed market.
The ``network effect'' here is not primarily a
concomitant of the number of applications. That is a secondary cause
of a more fundamental strategy of creating a network of captive
users. The ``network effect'' is the number of captive
users. Microsoft's market and its product are the network of
customer-victims. The operating system is the chain that binds that
network. This would not be the case with an open operating system,
it is a consequent of deliberate artificial restrictions.
A cursory look at Microsoft's advertisements reveals what it
thinks are its strongest assets.
1) Microsoft offers vendors and developers access to this large
market. It is made to appear as if Microsoft were providing a
service by building a market and making it accessible to commerce;
in point of fact, Microsoft's role is to build a virtual wall and
provide conditional entry on both sides of the gate, i.e.,
restricted access to the market and from the market.
2) Microsoft sells its business and marketing power. They say,
``join our Program X (on their unfavorable terms) and we will
include you in our profit world, providing contacts and
customers.''
2c) Broader costs and dangers.
MICROSOFT HAS PREVENTED SOFTWARE FROM BEING DEVELOPED, BY
CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF THE SOFTWARE ENVIRONMENT. A stable
platform is a pre-condition for long-lasting software, and the long
operational life of the software amortizes the development costs.
THE MICROSOFT MONOPOLY ABORTED THE BIRTH OF AN AMERICAN SOFTWARE
INDUSTRY (on the low end of computing). Indeed, the benefits of the
special laws written to encourage the healthy growth of that
industry have been reaped by the main forces set against its
development.
The development of the ``personal computer'' has been
greatly retarded by its diversion to the dead-end of the single-user
system.
A ``personal computer'' is in the first place a
microcomputer. The same microcomputer is personal if used by one
person in that way, and a group machine if used by a
``group''. With a multi-user operating system, different
accounts can be set up and used concurrently, whether by a single
person or a group of persons. Timesharing has been the norm in
computing since the mid-nineteen-sixties; Microsoft is decades
behind the industry. Compare the processor speed and memory of a 486
to a PDP-11! MS-DOS and MS-Windows are hopelessly
uncompetitive on price/performance with multi-user DOS and Unix-like
systems. (In a January 2002 column in ComputerWorld, Nicholas
Petreley details how the latest version of MS-Windows is still sub-
minimal in its ability to allow multiple users to function
concurrently).
Computers are a technology that is inherently adaptable to
personal styles of work. Microsoft has designed a system imposing a
uniformity that undermines the liberating promise of this
technology.
Not all software is an endpoint; software can be built on other
software, e.g., customized macros. All of this is lost in the
Microsoft environment. Microsoft is transience. The transience of
Microsoft makes the solution of the problem before you relatively
easy, since abolishing Microsoft will not hurt secondary
developments. Old programs will not be lost--Microsoft has
already robbed its victims of any programs and experience they might
have developed through time. (In contrast, the UNIX and VMS programs
that I wrote since 1982 are still usable today. The investment in
learning UNIX and in writing for UNIX is still amortizable, and will
continue to be good for decades to come.)
The Proposed Final Judgment shows no cognizance of the
breakthrough in computing in the 1980's that multiplies the
potential for programs to build on other programs. The Free Software
Movement is revolutionizing the organization of computing and the
potential values of computers.
[[Page 28062]]
The PFJ exhibits a parochial view that ignores that the world at
large will be building its computer infrastructure on free software
implementing open standards.
With respect to the two principal classes of victims: those
working outside that closed market, and humanity as a whole, which
has suffered multi-trillion dollar losses. The solution should not
be inclusion in that market, because that Microsoft-dominated market
is qualitatively inferior. The solution is the dissolution of that
market and the migration to other, superior markets.
It is anticipated that the 21st century will experience
``Cyber Wars.'' Machines using Microsoft Windows are
especially vulnerable and will be attacked. Every part of American
life that relies on these systems will be placed in jeopardy by such
an attack.
MS-DOS and MS-Windows are not secure. Every machine that
is running such a system and is connected externally by network is
vulnerable to attack. There is a multiplicity of vulnerabilities
involved. It is common knowledge that Microsoft has a backdoor built
into Windows-- that means that Microsoft has built a means of
external entry into Microsoft Windows; any program employing the
entry sequence has complete control over the machine. Microsoft
Windows is architecturally unsound and insecure--once breached,
too much of the system is exposed; application programs run with too
much power over the system. Microsoft has designed Windows to spy on
its customer-victims (e.g., to survey non-Microsoft products and to
verify licenses); these features can be ``cracked'' and
exploited by non-Microsoft attackers as well.
An Internet Service Provider can read and store all traffic
passing through its system. Control over ISPs gives Microsoft access
not only to the work of their customers, but to all the email sent
by their customers to innocent third parties. This power plus the
power to read all networked machines running Windows adds up to a
greater power than either taken severally.
As the world's citizens begin to employ higher quality, non-
Microsoft systems that express true American values, our
technological, industrial and military superiority will fade.
(Already the export of Microsoft products to foreign markets is
damaging the reputation of U.S.-made goods).
3) Why the proposed remedies are either useless or counter-
productive. Many of Microsoft's improper and criminal activities
have been exposed and addressed in prior cases. This proposed remedy
and this proposed settlement offer a woefully inadequate structural
framework for addressing these problems. Any analysis of how
Microsoft expanded its monopoly and responded to previous failed
attempts at correction would be sufficient to show that Microsoft
has shown itself immune to these remedies.
Since an unambiguous specification of the system is not feasible
given even the best intentions, it is always possible to claim
compliance with the Decree while maintaining effective
incompatibility.
A computer in a networked environment should not be considered
personal. If Microsoft's market is defined as personal computers,
the court will miss its mark. Microsoft is moving its market to the
network, where the environment will be rental license-enforcing,
insecure and privacy violating. Microsoft is able to tap and control
computers running Microsoft Operating Systems owned by government,
business, religious and non-governmental organizations, schools,
research establishments, accounting and law firms, medical
practices, and private individuals and families.
A secret OS and secret applications are able to work together
secretly. MS-Windows can store information anywhere without the
knowledge of the user. The OS has access to everything on the
system. If encryption is done with software that Microsoft can
identify, the OS can copy the plaintext that is being encrypted; and
vice versa for the decryption.
In the absence of general legislation regulating the use of, and
providing for inspection of, all source-secret software sold to the
public and used by the government, the court must make decisions on
how to counter this threat when exercising its supervisory power in
cases such as this, where such software can be used in violation of
antitrust laws.
The objective should not be minor adjustments to the profit-
imbalance that exists for producers in that market. It is that
closed market itself that should be the objective of the antitrust
forces. THE AIM SHOULD BE THE MIGRATION OF TRAPPED CUSTOMERS OUT OF
THE MARKET. This Proposed Final Judgment allows Non-Disclosure
Agreements (NDAs). These agreements have been used by elements of
the computer industry to circumvent (First Amendment) freedoms and
to manipulate affairs to cover up information perceived by them as
potentially damaging to them and to suppress progress.
4) Some recommendations for remedy.
It is critical for the remedies in the cases that have been and
will be filed against Microsoft to define the monopoly in terms of
the customer base and the software, not solely in terms of the
hardware. Microsoft was not a computer manufacturer prior to the
Xbox (peripherals aside). Microsoft enjoys a monopoly position on
``personal computer'' or ``Intel-compatible''-
based microcomputers, and that monopoly needs to be addressed.
Failure to acknowledge and address the other end of the monopoly (or
the other monopolies) will mean that neither the discourse, nor the
remedial action, will be able to track Microsoft across changes of
hardware to handheld, ``game computers'', embedded
devices, cable television and set-top boxes, assaults on the
Internet and telecommunications, copyright enforcement, and the
Microsoft charity racket, and extortion operations that rely on
privacy violations and access to computers and Internet packets.
Compatibility with previous versions must be demanded and
enforced. Programs written for a given version will be broken by
revision (called by Microsoft ``Service Packs''). When
software is changed, the system often breaks. So-called
``upgrades'' need to be rigorously backward compatible to
avoid this. Customers do not want their working environment and
their archives made unreliable or unusable by these forced
purchases.
The file formats, communications protocols, interfaces and any
other related material that is necessary to the migration of data
tied to any application needs to be available to competing products
and any other program for any purpose. It should be published and
disclosed in full, at once and maintained for each revision on a
timely, ongoing and accurate basis. Such disclosure must be in a
form where anyone can access this material outside of Microsoft's
knowledge, and with full indemnification from any so-called
``intellectual property'' issues. The interfaces and
formats, like the ``look-and-feel'' are not the product,
and should be considered as public domain, not as proprietary. The
restrictions in the PFJ III. D and E are completely unacceptable;
they are counter to the goals of the judgment. The goal should
include that authors or companies engaged in developing conversion
programs or products, in whole or in part, or providing such
programs or services will be free to do so without any debt, royalty
or obligation to Microsoft, its subsidiaries or partners. It is
imperative to address boot problems such as mandating that Microsoft
will not require a particular sector, partition, or drive and
possibly providing penalties for interference by Microsoft with
installation of other systems, for example, by erasing or destroying
the integrity of other partitions.
Copyright the screen?
In the appeal of this very case, Microsoft claims that because
they copyrighted the appearance of their product's image, they
should be able to prevent the owner of the screen from displaying a
related image. Please consider the clear implications of this
ownership argument for all the other copyrighted screen images in
the world.
Following the bombing of the World Trade Center, the Red Cross
had to put out a call for Microsoft licenses. It should be made
clear to everyone in the world that license restrictions have no
force in emergencies. Attempts by companies such as Microsoft to put
automatic license enforcement into software can potentially result
in death, possibly on a large-scale.
On remedy by disclosure of API's:
Microsoft programmers in other parts of the company have access
to these critical details in advance of their competitors and can
influence the design decisions. A wall of separation is a necessity,
so that no internal or privileged communications occur. (See for
example Network Solutions, Inc. where such a wall has been created
between the registration of domain names and the database
implementation. (I have no knowledge of whether this has proven
successful, but I cite it as a precedent for this approach, perhaps
worthy of investigation.)) Microsoft has the sole power to decide
and effect changes. One of the central problems in software
maintenance is the cost of changed designs, including interfaces. In
particular, this is a major concern of the area known as
``Object-Oriented Programming'' (committing to an
interface is considered by some authors as a ``contract''
between the
[[Page 28063]]
programmer/designer and the user of the program interface). Computer
programs are best written by individuals or small teams. In any
large project, and Microsoft Windows is one of the largest, no
programmer or manager can comprehend or control the situation, even
with full access and authority. There are multiple versions, some
written specifically for individual OEMs and clients (and doctored
versions submitted to courts), and multiple revisions. The
capability of even Microsoft to find what it wants and effect
changes that it wants is costly and limited. This is further
compounded not only by the complications resulting from proven
misconduct but by the quality of Microsoft's design, programming and
development environment. An inspector or team of inspectors
appointed by the Court would have limited capabilities even under
the dubious assumption of a willing and helpful host.
Make sure that inspectors are not limited to read-only access.
The rules of engagement must include the ability to copy, modify and
test the programs in whole or in part, in special environments and
in conjunction with any programs immunized from all licensing
restrictions. Non-disclosure agreements have been used to neutralize
critics, by exposing them to material covered by the NDA.
Divest all Internet-related holdings including UUNet, Spyglass
and hotmail. Terminate the NCSA Mosaic license to Spyglass.
The proposed final judgment focuses too narrowly on the motive
of large profits in its analysis of the dynamics of the computer
market. Most authors of books, articles, music, poetry, and computer
programs do not have such an expectation, and are thus not motivated
by it. The force of not-for-profit work in computers is an
indisputable fact. (The Internet was built by volunteers). This
Judgment threatens to strangle these great creative forces.
I urge all actors in this case to exercise the options under the
Tunney Act and withdraw the proposed settlement.
Michael E. Smith
[email protected]
MTC-00027577--0008
From: Joe Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Re: Microsoft Settlement
I have been following the Microsoft Antitrust case with great
interest. As a consumer, I find myself very much at the mercy of
Microsoft's monopoly power. When I shop for a computer, I see only
one brand of software available pre-installed--Microsoft. Email
attachments I receive are often in file formats that can only be
read by Microsoft software. I have felt like a captive of this
juggernaut for years, and I fear the future holds more of the same.
When I learned that Microsoft had been found guilty of anti-
competitive use of their monopoly power, I was encouraged. I looked
forward to seeing them punished for their illegal actions, and
restrained from repeating them in the future. I was very
disappointed to read the proposed settlement. There appears to be no
significant penalty for the past abuse of their monopoly power. I
saw only the mildest of restrictions, aimed at industry conditions
of the past rather than of the future. Microsoft keeps all the
fruits of their past criminal behavior, and there is no incentive
not to behave as arrogantly in the future as they have in the past.
The provisions are cleverly drawn, so as to leave Microsoft plenty
of room for evasive maneuvers. Interestingly enough, they are also
worded so as to deny any relief to developers of open source
software, which Microsoft has acknowledged as the greatest remaining
threat to their dominance of the software industry.
The stock price told the story. It was not significantly
affected by publication of the proposed settlement. The industry
recognized that it would have little impact. An adequate settlement
should have some impact on Microsoft's business, and this is not an
outcome to be feared. Exposing the perpetual windfall that is
Microsoft to the pressures of normal competition will be a good
thing for the economy as a whole.
I would look for two things in any acceptable settlement. First,
penalties that punish past abuse, and then restrictions to prevent
future abuse. Many possible measures would serve both objectives.
Consider the following:
1.) Make Microsoft publish all of their proprietary file formats
and communication protocols immediately. Specify harsh penalties if
they are inaccurate or incomplete in publishing these. They should
be required to drop all proprietary extensions to industry standards
from their Web development software, except for such extensions
which are accepted by a majority of competitors in the industry
within a reasonable time after their publication.
2.) Void all exclusive or restrictive agreements with PC vendors
which impose any financial or other penalty, direct or indirect, for
including competitors'' application software or for selling
PC's loaded with other operating systems. Prohibit such agreements
in the future.
3.) Require Microsoft to strip XP of all bundled applications
for which established competitors offer free versions of an
alternative. They are repeating in the multi-media player software
market the exact same conduct for which they were just convicted in
the Internet Browser market.
4.) Consider dividing the company, but not in the way most often
proposed. The link between operating system and applications has
been exploited so thoroughly that the damage cannot practically be
undone, but the link between software and the delivery of services
and content has not yet been exploited to the same extent. Require
Microsoft to spin off all software development operations,
separating them from the services and content portion of their
business.
Appoint monitors at each resulting unit to enforce their
independence from each other. Alternatively, consider regulating
them as a monopoly, just like a utility. Control their prices, and
supervise the quality of their service, for the benefit of
consumers.
The consistent pattern of Microsoft's behavior in the past is a
fair way to predict future behavior. Unchecked, they can be expected
to use anti-competitive measures in their efforts to dominate the
markets they are entering now and chose to enter in the future. I
would say to the court that you have an unrepentant law breaker in
your hands, a repeat offender. Deal with them severely.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Jonathan Martin
Mobile, AL
MTC-00027579
From: John Giannandrea
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:52am
Subject'' Microsoft Settlement
Attached in HTML and Plain text.
http://www.meer.net/j g/doj--comments.html
[email protected]
Comments on the Revised Proposed Final Judgment
http://www.meer.net/ig/doi comments.html
John Giannandrea, Independent Software Developer,
Formerly ('94-'99) Chief Technologist in the Internet Browser group
at Netscape/AOL
Summary
After reviewing the Revised Proposed Final Judgment, the
Competitive Impact Statement, the May 18th 1998 Antitrust complaint
together with the findings of the District Court and the Court of
Appeals I submit that the Proposed Final Judgment fails to describe
effective remedies for Microsoft's illegal activities.
An effective Final Judgment would prevent recurrence of the
illegal behavior and provide relief and protection for independent
software developers to develop innovative new middle-ware products
and compete with Microsoft in the market for Windows software. The
terms of this Final Judgment will not achieve this result because it
is seriously flawed.
These comments briefly describe the following problems with the
Proposed Final Judgment:
1. Problems with the scope of the remedy
2. Shortcomings in the OEM configuration provisions
3. Loopholes and technical shortcomings with the wording of the
judgment
4. Restrictive language related to Intellectual Property.
5. Problems with the term and proposed implementation
6. Flaws in several of the definitions
Taken together I believe these flaws in Proposed Final Judgment
make it an inappropriate remedy for the illegal behaviors found by
the Court of Appeals. While changing some of the specific wording of
the Final Judgment and removing some of the loopholes will make it
stronger, on balance it is a wholly inappropriate remedy for the
ongoing harm done by Microsoft in protecting and extending its
Windows monopoly.
[email protected]
January 27th, 2002.
[[Page 28064]]
1. Problems with the scope of the remedy
There are several problems with the scope of the proposed
remedies which are likely to make it ineffective in practice. The
Final Judgment does not correct the harm done to the marketplace
today by Microsoft's existing software products, nor address the
issue of backwards compatibility and harm done to the market by
ongoing changes (``upgrades''). Nor does the Final
Judgment address the crucial issue of APIs in Microsoft middle-ware
products themselves, as opposed to APIs in the Windows Operating
System Product.
1.1 What products fall under the proposed remedy?
Sections III.D, III.E and III.H limit the practical effects of
the Final Judgment to some future versions of Microsoft's latest
operating system product (WindowsXP, SP1) or 12 months from
submission of the Final Judgment. This will not provide effective
remedy for the actual installed base of Windows users, of which
WindowsXP remains a small minority. Microsoft's monopoly position
is, and will be for the length of the initial proposed term, made up
of Windows2000, WindowsME, Windows98 and Windows95 products and
their associated middle-ware product lines. It is in these products
that harm is and was being caused by the illegal activities. For the
Final Judgment to be effective in providing relief, the
communications protocol and Windows API disclosures need to apply to
the actual installed base of Windows. It is no more technically
difficult for Microsoft to document current APIs than it is to do so
in future products.
The final paragraph of III.H limits the proposed remedies to
middle-ware as defined by a timeline relative to the release of new
Windows operating system products. The reality is that the illegal
conduct relates to all existing and past Microsoft middle-ware
products, and the release of future versions of Windows will not
significantly affect the harm being done in the marketplace. There
is no technical reason why existing Microsoft and non-Microsoft
middle-ware will not be compatible with future versions of Windows.
In fact Microsoft makes considerable effort to ensure that Windows
is ``backwards compatible'' with its own applications.
Remedies need to apply to all future versions of Windows, and
all middle-ware now and in the future, and the obligations of the
monopoly holder should not change unilaterally with a product
release cycle under their express control. Much of the harm found by
the Court is related not just to the disclosure of interfaces
and APIs, but to the fact that Microsoft can stop supporting a
documented feature or API without consulting the affected parties.
One possible way to improve the Final Judgment would be to add a
new condition to [II. C. that allows OEMs the option of shipping any
prior Microsoft middle-ware with any subsequent version of Windows.
1.2 Middle-ware APIs are as important as Windows APIs
Section III.D. proposes that Microsoft shall disclose APIs used
by its middle-ware to interoperate with a Windows operating system.
Since middle-ware such as Internet Explorer or Windows Media Player
has added, subtracted or altered significant APIs with each
subsequent version, including minor, so called
``maintenance'' versions, and since these APIs are
depended on by the the majority of ISVs. III.D. should be extended
to require disclosure of all APIs used by, or provided by any
Microsoft middle-ware product, including APIs in other middle-ware
software.
1.3 Changes to current and past middle-ware needs to be covered
The definition in VI.J excludes software in minor version
changes from the definition of Microsoft middle-ware. Yet it was
exactly such a minor change that disabled Java for millions of
Internet Explorer users, or forced thousands of ISVs to abandon the
Web Plug-in API and redevelop or abandon their middle-ware. (See
http://www.meer.net/jg/broken-plugins.html)
At a minimum all software middle-ware released by Microsoft and
in use by a majority of Windows users should be covered by the Final
Judgment for it to be effective.
2. Shortcomings in the OEM configuration provisions
It is clear from the findings of the Court that there needs to
exist remedies that enable OEMs and End Users to be able to add,
remove and replace middle-ware without limitation by Microsoft
through its Windows product. It has been shown to the Court that its
technically easy to allow middle-ware either from Microsoft or its
competitors to be added and removed from the Windows operating
system. The current language in the Final Judgment does not protect
distribution of new and innovative forms of middle-ware and
therefore fails to remedy the current situation where investment and
competition in Windows middle-ware is ``chilled'' by
Microsoft's prior and current practices.
III.H.3 allows Microsoft to undo an OEM configuration in any
subsequent version of a Windows product and to change the way an
OEM's configuration interacts with Windows in each subsequent
version. This lack of ``backwards compatibility'' is in
Microsoft's interest at the expense of the OEM's investment.
III.H.3. Allows Windows OS to undo an OEM's configuration
automatically after 14 days. But it does not give the same
capability to an ISV, or the OEM themselves. If a third party
provides competitive differentiation by adding features and services
on top of Windows they should be able to do so with no hindrance
from Microsoft at all. If it is determined that Windows should have
a ``revert'' feature that disables or undoes an OEM's
enhancements, then that feature should have an ``undo''
capability so that the enhanced product purchased from the third
party is not irreparably harmed by the behavior of the Windows
software at some later time.
III.H attempts to give end users and OEMs the right to add and
replace non Microsoft middle-ware with competitive middle-ware, an
essential component of the proposed remedies. Rather than just
stating this as a simple requirement, additional restrictions are
imposed in III.H.2:
that competing middle-ware be replacing a Microsoft middle-ware
that the middle-ware be a specific subset of possible middle-
ware that has a particular and limited type of user interface
that Microsoft can require (and itself present?) a confirmation
dialog for the end user if the change is made by software that the
user presumably installed themselves
III.H.3 imposes conditions on Microsoft operating system
products altering OEM configurations, but Microsoft middle-ware also
has a documented history of making such alterations. The Final
Judgment does not protect OEM investments or end user choices unless
it enjoins all Microsoft software products from altering, without
express permission, the end user experience. It is exactly
Microsoft's ability to make unilateral changes that expresses its
monopoly power and distorts the market for improvements to Windows.
The mechanism proposed in III.H. 1 allows Microsoft to provide a
interface choice to enable ``all Microsoft Middle-ware Products
as a group''. This should be specifically disallowed since it
reinforces the distinction between Microsoft and non Microsoft
software, and suggests that an end user would be given the default
choice of ``taking everything'' (i.e. all available
Microsoft middle-ware, turning off competitors middle-ware) in order
to allow ease of use and configuration.
III.C.3 The requirement that a non-Microsoft middle-ware product
should display a user interface ``of similar size and
shape'' to a Microsoft middle-ware product is technically
onerous. The additional inferred requirement that a middle-ware
product can only launch automatically if a Microsoft middle-ware
product were otherwise to do so, is also technically unreasonable.
If the purpose of this remedy is to allow competition in such
middle-ware; to allow, for example, an OEM to configure a PC so that
it connected automatically to an IAP or ICP on boot up, then these
restrictions would preclude this.
3. Loopholes and technical shortcomings with the wording of the
judgment
There are significant exceptions and conditions attached to the
definitions used by the Final Judgment. These exceptions appear to
make the remedies themselves weaker and in several cases are
technically inaccurate or groundless.
3.1 Excluding existing middle-ware Section III.H after III.H.3
describes two exceptions where Microsoft middle-ware would be
allowed to execute in preference to competing Middle-ware. These
exceptions effectively negate the value of III.H and are seriously
flawed.
3.1.1 The first exception is for middle-ware ``invoked
solely for use in inter-operating with a server maintained by
Microsoft''. Given the current and past scope of MSN and the
services provided by various servers in the
``microsoft.com'' domain, this exception is unreasonable.
For example, a component of Windows that contacted a server to
upgrade or maintain the device driver software on a Personal
Computer would be exempt from III.H. This would presumably preclude
an OEM from providing their own value-add service using the same
component APIs of Windows. As the value and
[[Page 28065]]
prevalence of network services grows, Microsoft would be able to
continue to exclude competing middle-ware as long as they could
define the service as being hosted at Microsoft. This would also
include most .NET services, which Microsoft has publicly stated will
be at the core of most end user functions in all future versions of
Windows. The proposed remedy for past behavior is ineffective.
3.1.2 The second exception is if ``non-Microsoft middle-
ware fails to implement reasonable technical requirements...''.
This is an unreasonable and overly broad restriction on the proposed
remedy. The specific example given, failure of support ActiveX, is a
most egregious example. ActiveX is not a feature of Windows, it is
an API created for Internet Explorer middle-ware expressly to tie
that middle-ware to the Windows platform. In a healthy competitive
environment it should be end users that conclude if middle-ware is
providing ``functionality consistent with the Windows
product'', not Microsoft. The idea that Microsoft themselves
are qualified to say what is and what is not a valid non-Microsoft
middle-ware product puts the fox in charge of the henhouse. In fact
by the definitions of this section of the Final Judgment, most
existing successful non-Microsoft middle-ware (Java, Netscape
Navigator, Web Plug-ins) would be exempt from the remedy. It was
precisely the success of these products, demanded by end users, that
precipitated the threat to Microsoft and led to the illegal
behavior.
3.2 Limitations on disclosure of communications protocols
Section III.E. Requires disclosure of any communications
protocol implemented in a Windows OS installed on a
``client'' computer.
This would appear to exclude protocols implemented as Microsoft
middie-ware, such as Web Browsers, or communications middle-ware
such as e-mail programs (Outlook Express) or streaming media players
(Windows Media Player). It would also appear to exclude protocols
implemented in the same copy of Windows, running as a
``server''. Given the advent of ``peer-to-peer''
computing this distinction excludes more significant protocols than
it includes. To meet the intent described in the impact statement,
the requirement should be the disclosure of any communications
protocol implemented by the Windows Operating System Product and any
Microsoft middle-ware product.
3.3 Preventing disclosure on ``security'' grounds.
Section III.J. 1.a attempts to limit the APIs and protocol
descriptions to be published as part of the proposed remedy. The
exceptions include those that would ``compromise the
security...'' of the Microsoft products. It is well known and
supported by the majority of reputable computer security experts,
including many who work for Microsoft Corporation, that disclosure
of the mechanisms of software makes it more secure, not less secure.
In fact requiring Microsoft to document and disclose APIs will make
the products more secure as flaws are discovered by peer review and
then repaired. Computer security should not be considered valid
technical grounds to limit disclosure.
3.4 Limitations on who can access the disclosures
Section III.J.2 places all kinds of limitations on the
disclosure of the information central to the proposed remedy. In
III.D the Final Judgment requires Microsoft to disclose APIs to all
listed parties via ``MSDN or similar'' i.e. publicly and
for a small fee. This conflicts with III.J.2 which allows Microsoft
to withhold such information unless Microsoft itself determines
``a reasonable business need'', or that the requester
meets ``standards established by Microsoft for ...
viability''. These restrictions are unnecessary and are not
vital to the remedy. The required information should be disclosed
simply, via MSDN or Microsoft.com, to anyone who has a valid Windows
license. Section III.J.2 additionally requires that non-Microsoft
middle-ware innovators be in ``compliance with Microsoft
specifications'' and, at their own expense, pass a Microsoft
defined third party verification test. These new tests and
requirements are onerous, and do not exist in the market today
except as optional marketing programs. In particular the non-
Microsoft middle-ware at issue in the anti-trust action would not
have met these standards. These additional requirements and
limitations will serve to place further hurdles in front of middle-
ware ISVs. They only serve the interests of the monopolist in
limiting access to the required APIs as has happened in the past as
documented in the Findings of Fact.
4. Restrictive language related to Intellectual Property.
The licensing terms implied by the Final Judgment are both more
onerous than the prevailing market today, and unfairly biased in
favor of Microsoft.
The terms of III.G are not in force if Microsoft licenses
intellectual property from the third party. This would appear to
allow, for example, Microsoft to enter into an exclusive
distribution arrangement with an ICP if the ICP had a reciprocal
license to Microsoft for some middle-ware enhancement related to
their Internet content. This kind of transaction is common in the
industry today and would seem to weaken the intent of III.G Section
III.I.5 grants Microsoft the right to require a competitor to
license to it IP rights to ``relating to the exercise of their
options or alternatives provided by this Final Judgment''. This
is an onerous and unreasonable requirement because Microsoft does
not need such non reciprocal IP rights to comply with the Final
Judgment. (Could such rights be licensed father by Microsoft to
other ISVs?)
III.I requires Microsoft to reasonable and non discriminatory
licensing of any intellectual property required for the market to
take advantage of the provisions of the Final Judgment. However
there is a restriction (H.III.3) on sub-licensing. This would in
practice curtail most ISV business models if a technology innovator
was unable to resell its technology to an ``end user'' OEM
or ISV without that entity then being required to obtain a license
from Microsoft.
The last paragraph of III.I explicitly states that the terms of
the Final Judgment will not confer any rights with regard to
Microsoft IP on anyone. But as the Final Judgment requires
disclosure by Microsoft of APIs, protocols and detailed
documentation of mechanisms inherent in middle-ware interfaces, then
certain legal rights are in fact surrendered in most jurisdictions.
III.I does not address the significant and influential market in
royalty free software (such as Linux) and the open standard nature
of the Web protocols and standards. Industry standards groups which
Microsoft itself is an active member of such as W3C (The World Wide
Web Consortium) customarily require all APIs and protocols to be
royalty free. Yet III.I potentially places further restrictions or
costs on ISVs developing products and innovations under that model
if they wish to integrate them with Windows.
5. Problems with the term and proposed implementation
5.1 Term is not long enough
The Final Judgment has a term of five years (V.A), or seven
years with additional violations. Given the pattern of illegal
behavior by Microsoft since 1995 and the fact that Windows Operating
system product cycles are frequently many years apart, the scope of
this agreement appears unusually short. A 10 or 15 year agreement
would be more appropriate.
5.2 Issues with creating a competent technical body
The Final Judgment requires a three person technical committee.
While this committee is intended to be knowledgeable about software
design and programming, it also needs to be knowledgeable about
Internet standards and protocols, online transactions and web e-
commerce architectures and business models. It is unlikely that a
committee as small as three people will have the requisite skill set
to oversee the broad range of initiatives and innovations that
center on the Windows platform and are the subject of the monopoly
concern. The committee would be more in keeping with industry
standards and accepted practice if it were larger and comprised of
experts in several fields.
5.3 Public disclosure of information relating to enforcement
Section IV.B. I0 and other language in IV (e.g IV.D.4.d)
suggests that the Final Judgment requires the work of compliance and
technical overview to be conducted in secret. For example if an ISV
submitted a complaint to the TC or the Microsoft Compliance Officer
it is not required that the complaint and its response be published
(IV.D.3) It would be more in keeping with industry standards and
accepted practice for technical discussion around the enforcement of
a Final Judgment be open to wider technical review. This would
improve the quality and accuracy of such review as well as
reassuring the community of OEMs, ISVs etc. that the enforcement
process was actually working. At a minimum there should be a
requirement that the TC host an independent web-site to communicate
with the industry about the status of enforcement issues.
6. Flaws in several of the definitions
There are many problems with the definitions of key terms that
affect the meaning and substance of the Final Judgment.
[[Page 28066]]
VI.A. A suitable definition for Application Programming
Interface needs to include interfaces provided by middle-ware
itself, since middle-ware can include tiers of software, not just a
simple arrangement where middle-ware calls the Windows software
layers. A more accurate and common definition of APIs would be
independent of both the terms Windows and middle-ware.
VI.B. The scope of Communications Protocol should not be limited
to communications with a ``server operating system''. This
excludes the concept of one Windows XP PC talking to another PC,
which is a common occurrence and should be within the scope of the
remedy. ``Peer-to-peer'' is an example of a middle-ware
category that is not covered by this definition.
VI.J.2 and VI.K.b.iii both require that the covered software be
``Trademarked'' to be under the terms of this agreement.
This requirement seems to exclude certain middle-ware. For example
``My Photos'' and ``Remote Desktop'' are new
middle-ware in WindowsXP and are apparently not trademarked. VI.T
defines Trademarked to exclude certain named products regardless of
their impact in the market.
VI.J.4 excludes software that has no user interface, such as a
streaming video codec or a web commerce protocol handler. VI.K. 1
lists certain products explicitly as middle-ware. Given that the
Final Judgment as written only covers Windows XP and subsequent
versions (it should be modified to cover prior versions), the list
of covered products and categories should also include MSN Explorer,
Microsoft Outlook and other Microsoft Office components, Windows
Movie Maker and others.
VI.N limits the definition of a ``non-Microsoft middle-ware
product'' to one that has shipped 1,000,000 copies in a
previous year. Under this definition, Netscape Communicator would
not be covered by this Final Judgment, nor would Sun's Java JVM,
both examples cited by the Court of middle-ware that require relief.
The idea that a competing product has to already be successful to
receive the protection of the Final Judgment is flawed. This
condition should be removed.
VI.N defines non-Microsoft middle-ware in terms of code exposing
APIs, which are defined in VI.A as being uses by Microsoft middle-
ware (this is a circular definition). More importantly, non
Microsoft middle-ware should not be defined more narrowly than
Microsoft middle-ware. Not all middle-ware ``exposes a range of
functionality to ISVs though published APIs'' although some
(like Java) does. The original Netscape 1.0 web browser would have
failed the definition in VI.N VI.Q defines Personal Computer as
using an Intel x86 processor. Microsoft has in the past and will
most likely in the future ship Windows Operating systems for
processors other than x86. The Court found that Microsoft's illegal
practices in respect of distribution of Internet Explorer also
extended to the Macintosh Power-PC platform so this definition is
overly narrow.
VI.R. 150,000 beta testers is an unusually large number, even
for Windows and suggests that ``timely manner'' would be
defined as the last test release of a Microsoft product rather than
the first public test release. The interests of the enforcement are
better served if Timely Manner was defined as the first public test
release of a Windows OS product.
MTC-00027580
From: Jason W. Solinsky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 4:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My name is Jason W. Solinsky. I am a software entrepreneur and
have served as the Chief Technology Officer of four different
enterprises.
I am writing in opposition to the proposed settlement of the
Microsoft anti-trust case.
My opposition is for the following reasons:
1. The proposed settlement is almost entirely focused on
measures to prevent abuses by Microsoft in the future, and does not
address past behavior in any substantive way. Nor does it provide
any incentive for
Microsoft not to repeat its past actions.
Microsoft was found to have violated the Sherman anti-trust act
in numerous ways to preserve its monopoly on consumer operating
systems, the single most valuable monopoly on the planet,
conservatively valued at $150-200 billion dollars. As a
software entrepreneur, I can tell you that every startup is asked
``The Microsoft Question'' by potential investors.
``How will your venture fair if Microsoft decides to
aggressively target your space?''. A fear that Microsoft will
do to new companies what it did to Netscape has caused at least six
companies that I am personally aware of not to be started. This
suggests that nationwide THOUSANDS of new enterprises and sources of
innovation and competition for Microsoft have been destroyed by
Microsoft's behavior.
Despite this, the proposed settlement is almost entirely focused
on preventative measures. If, in 1995, Microsoft was offered the
choice of ceasing all illegal activities or entering into this
settlement in 2002, Microsoft would, without question, have chosen
this settlement. Protecting a $200 Billion dollar asset, even
slightly, is worth suffering the negligible restrictions placed on
Microsoft by this settlement a thousand times over. By offering a
settlement which results in a business outcome that is superior to
not violating the law in the first place, you send a clear message
to future executives that they can ignore our nation's anti-trust
laws with beneficial results.
2. The proposed remedies will not prove effective in preventing
future abuses by Microsoft. The findings of fact, made much of the
fact that the software industry is a rapidly changing business. The
department of justice seems to have completely forgotten about this
in drafting the settlement. Nearly every provision has had loopholes
placed in it that dramatically weaken its effectiveness.
As an expert in computer security, I would like to focus in
particular on the provision that exempts Microsoft from disclosing
the details of its security APIs if Microsoft feels that such a
disclosure would compromise the security of its products. I note the
following:
A: The single most important step in ensuring the security of a
product is public disclosure of its security mechanisms. This allows
other experts to review its safety, and it permits potential users
to make informed decisions about the risks inherent in the product.
Especially in the wake of September 11, allowing an exemption which
encourages less secure products is unthinkable, yet that is
precisely what the department of justice proposes to do.
B: Microsoft has historically used security protocols as a
method of preventing compatibility with third party products.
Witness what Microsoft did with Kerberos. It doesn't matter how open
Microsoft's APIs are if they are permitted to design
incompatibilities into their security protocols that prevent
effective interoperation.
Given this is surprising and unfortunate that the Department of
Justice has agreed to this provision. If no other change is mode to
this settlement, which on the whole I believe is entirely in
adequate for the circumstances, I strongly encourage the DOJ to
tighten this provision by providing that a SINGLE COMPUTER SECURITY
EXPERT UNAFILLIATED WITH MICROSOFT be given the ability to review
all materials that Microsoft wishes to keep secret under this
provision and UNILATERALLY reverse Microsoft's decision. Anything
less will not only result in less secure products, but will give
Microsoft a government-endorsed anti-competitive tool so powerful,
that the remainder of the settlement is of little significance.
In conclusion, I think that this entire settlement is inadequate
for the circumstances, and encourage the DOJ to pay particular
attention to the security exclusion, which reflects a lack of
knowledge of computer security by its drafters.
JWS
You can contact me as follows:
Jason W. Solinsky
268 River St. #2
Cambridge, MA 02139
(617) 547-3555
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00027581
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To'' Microsoft ATR
Date'' 1/28/02 4'57am
Subject'' Microsoft Settlement
I oppose the settlement reached in the Microsoft antitrust case.
I am not a lawyer and I had a lot of trouble as a result, trying to
follow the documents made available to the public at: http://
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm#docs but I and my family
and business do use computers, and the outcome of this case is
critical to our future.
I just fail to see that there is any penalty in the settlement,
and I fail to see any admission of guilt on the part of Microsoft
(MS) or its senior executives. On the contrary, with the exception
of the fact that there will be three people charged with monitoring
MS for a very limited time (MS has been making flagrant violations
of law and of ethics for over twenty years!), there seems to be no
penalty at all. There is no fine, and there is no breakup.
Historically (to the best of my recollection, including AT&T and
Standard Oil) in the case of major monopolies a breakup always came
about
[[Page 28067]]
which would allowed increased competition not only with outside
competitors bu t also among the various new units resulting from the
breakup.
I am also concerned about the Department of Justicef??s
(DOJf??s) and the Governmentf??s interest in the public interest. It
was explained shortly after the September 9, 2001 terrorist attack
that the government felt the pursuit of justice with respect to MS
was not a high priority. I was shocked at the comments. No other
felon was let off the hook because of the events of 9-11.
I am further concerned about major political contributions made
in 1999 and earlier and the impact that they have on the
Governmentf??s view of what is right and wrong and what penalties
should be imposed. The specter of impropriety is certainly present.
And I am concerned about MS's influence during this public
comment phase because in the past it has been demonstrated that MS
has orchestrated a f??stuff the ballot boxf?? approach which they
have taken many times in the past while trying to influence the
Government and the public to act in its (MSf??s) behalf. One recent
example of this was reported by ZDnet News (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/
story/0,,t269-s2102244,00.html):
<
Corresponding Secretary LXNY
LXNY is New York's Free Computing Organization.
http://www.lxny.org
Co-Winner of the First Linus Torvalds Community Award 1999
PS. If you use the web or email you use free software. The
Internet is built of and on free software.
MTC-00027597
From: Christopher Bradley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs;
I am not satisfied with the current ruling ``against''
microsoft. I believe they have a virtual monopoly on operating
system software which they have strengthened both by intimidating
business tactics and by bundling their software together, thus
forcing users to use their software to do any meaningful work. I
als0 strongly object to their entrenched reluctance to open up their
code for public inspection. I agreed with the original Penfield
rulings and think that the company's monopoly should be broken up.
It's very difficult to fix a car if you don't know how the
pieces fit together, and the company refuses to sell you a shop
manual. I have spent many hours trying to keep my home computer
going. This is particularly difficult in the Windows environment due
to the inaccessibility of the basic operating system.
Lastly, please DON'T let microsoft donate thousands of computers
to our schools. That is a move to further consolidate their hold of
the educational marketplace, and perhaps their hold of the next
generation with their fault ridden products. It would not be an act
of philanthropic charity.
Thanks for your time,
Christopher C. Bradley, M.D.-Ph.D.
Department of Neurology, Yale University School of Medicine
15 York Street, LCI 701
P.O. Box 208018
New Haven, CT 06520-8018 (203)785-4085
MTC-00027598
From: Dave Solomon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The current proposed settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case
is not in the public interest, I strongly believe. It opens a gaping
loophole in the antitrust laws, through which Microsoft could, and
almost certainly would, continue to abuse its monopoly market power
in the huge market for Intel compatible personal computer operating
systems.
This loophole, which I see as very dangerous, is at the end of
the settlement text. It grants Microsoft sole discretion in deciding
what is a part of the Windows (tm) product.
This loophole would allow Microsoft to determine, for example,
that all of these things are part of the Windows operating system: o
Internet Explorer (but --not-- Internet Explorer for
Macintosh!), thus resolving, by corporate decree, a product tying
issue that is still unresolved from the Microsoft antitrust trial
and appeals court ruling;
o email software (Microsoft may already have monopoly status in
this market as well, by vice of their predatory pricing and bundling
of their Outlook products);
o anti-virus software, threatening several currently thriving
products from Norton, McAfee, etc.;
o graphics software along the lines of PhotoShop;
o income tax preparation software, thus assimillating the
flourishing market for income tax preparation software into
Microsoft's Windows market.
o any other new and popular software genre that develops in the
future.
This case is highly visible and controversial, and was initiated
under a major political party (the Democrats) that is now out of
power in the executive branch of our government. This settlement
proposal has all the earmarks of political convenience and
expediency that it should not have, and none of the earmarks of
thoughtfulness, thoroughness, and fairness that it should have.
Please give the current proposed settlement the rejection that
it so richly deserves.
Dave Solomon
13917 Crest Hill Lane
Silver Spring, MD 20905-4464
MTC-00027599
From: Terry Quigley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I've watched with interest the unfolding of the Anti-trust case
against Microsoft, and found the original recommendation fo a
Microsoft split up travesty of justice. That Anti-trust should be
such a potent force in the USA is in itself bizarre. Here's a
country that has shown the rest of the world that Capitalism
actually works. Capitalism works because it has its own inbuilt
system of checks and balances i.e. the free market, and, properly
implemented, isn't weighed down by tons of regulation. This is
especially the case in the IT industry where Microsoft has been and
continues to be such a positive force. From my knowledge, no IT
company has ever effectively monopolised an industry segment. If an
IT company found itself in a monopoly position and chose to
compromise prices and/or quality, its monopoly position would be
temporary at best--technology is changing far too quickly for
someone to take an uncompetitive position.
I'd like to finish by stating that Microsoft should be lauded
for its contribution to the IT industry and to America as a whole,
and not be dragged through a costly (to American taxpayers and
Microsoft), unnecessary court case; it should not be punished for
its success. Microsoft is a very positive example of what can be
done when Government is the instrument not the controller of the
people.
Come on guys, let America pump its chest with pride not resort
to punitive insecurity.
[[Page 28075]]
Yours sincerely,
Terry Quigley, M Info Sys
38 Eddys Grove
Bentleigh, 3204
Victoria, Australia.
MTC-00027600
From: Mark Boszko
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wish to express my displeasure with the DOJ's proposed
settlement with Microsoft, for the following reasons:
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.
Thank you for considering my points.
Mark Boszko
374 N SUMMIT AVE STE 101
GAITHERSBURG MD 20877-3116 301-977-0401
MTC-00027601
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:01am
Subject: Rule against microsoft!
I'm writing to urge you to take more harsh action against
Microsoft. The current recommendation of having microsoft supply
thousands of computers to schools is actually rewarding Microsoft,
rather than punishing them. One market which has been successfully
addressed but a competitor to Microsoft is the education market. Now
the recommendation to ``punish'' microsoft it to use the
law to force them into one of the few markets where a competitor has
managed to carve out a niche. Microsoft must be laughing all the way
to the bank on that one. PLEASE, do not allow this company to become
even more entrenched and allow it to further dictate the future of
software development and even more importantly, the way people work
and learn.
Dan Hogan
6703 Ilex Ct.
New Market, MD 21774-2907
301-865-3712
MTC-00027602
From: Karl O. Pinc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs and Madams,
I attach 3 versions of my comments, a PDF file for printing, a
HTML copy for following references, and a ASCII text copy for
interoperability.
Regards,
Karl O. Pinc
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected] (U.S. Department Of Justice)
From: [email protected] (Karl O. Pinc) 5512 S. Woodlawn Chicago,
IL 60637
Introduction
I write so that there is a public record which points out that
the Stipulation and Revised Proposed Final Judgment 1 does not
provide the relief claimed in the Competitive Impact
Statement \2\, and to point out that at least some of the
failure of relief should be clear to anyone, with or without
computer industry background. Further, I describe how the Proposed
Final Judgment explicitly authorizes Microsoft's continued use it's
monopoly powers to advantage over it's competitors. I therefore
conclude that the public and the marketplace would be better served
if the Proposed Final Judg- ment was scrapped and the government
imposed no penalty on Microsoft. Finally, I point out the means, as
generally acknowledged in the industry, by which Microsoft intends
to preserve and extend it's monopoly and an obvious way in which
Microsoft can be prevented from doing so.
I do not have time or energy to analyze the entire Proposed
Final Settlement. I focus on only a few elements and how they meet
the relief claimed:
``The Proposed Final Judgment will provide a prompt,
certain and effective remedy for consumers by imposing injunctive
relief to halt continuance and prevent recurrence of the violations
of the Sherman Act by Microsoft that were upheld by the Court of
Appeals and restore competitive conditions to the
market.'' \3\
Contractual freedom unrestrained by monopolist pressure
Starting with the first relief claimed:
``Ensuring that 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, by broadly prohibiting retaliation against
a computer manufacturer that supports or distributes alternative
middleware or operating systems.'' \4\
Let us examine this claim. Presumably, the following elements
provide the above relief:
``Microsoft shall not enter into any agreement with:''
(item 1.) ``any IAP, ICP, ISV, IHV or OEM that grants
Consideration on the condition that such entity distributes,
promotes, uses, or supports, exclusively or in a fixed percentage,
any Microsoft Platform Software...'' \5\ In plain
english, Microsoft may not prohibit an OEM& \6\ from
putting a non-Microsoft program on the computers they sell. However,
note the exception that immediately follows: ``except that
Microsoft may enter into agreements in which such an entity agrees
to distribute, promote, use or support Microsoft Platform Software
in a fixed percentage whenever Microsoft 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 Microsoft Platform
Software'' \7\
At first glance, it seems that Microsoft can require OEMs to
distribute Microsoft software, but only in equal or smaller quantity
than the OEMs distribute non-Microsoft software. Indeed, this would
be the case if product at issue was not software. However, Microsoft
need only require OEMs to distribute Microsoft software in a
quantity which matches not the actual quantity of non-Microsoft
software shipped, but the quantity of non-Microsoft software which
is ``commercially practicable'' the OEM to ship. To
investigate the ``commercial practicality'' of
distributing non-Microsoft software, examine a short list of
products which are the primary competition for various Microsoft
products:
. The Netscape \8\ web browser in place of Microsoft
Internet Explorer (IE)
. The AOL \9\ software used to connect to the AOL Internet
service in place of Microsoft Internet Explorer which connects to
the MSN Internet service
. The Apache \10\* web server in place of Microsoft
Internet Information Server (IIS)
. Linux \11\ in place of Microsoft's operating systems
(XP, Win 2000, Win ME, Win 98, Win95, etc.)
. StarOffice \12\ in place of Microsoft Office (Word,
Excel, Power Point, etc.) \13\
The above non-Microsoft programs all have one thing in common.
They are free of charge. The only cost associated with the
distribution of these programs is the amount of space the programs
occupy on the computer's hard drive, a negligible cost in today's
era of cheap hard drives. Or, looked at another way, the computer's
owner can completely recoup the disk space taken by any of these
programs for the cost of dragging the program into the trash. For
all intents and purposes these programs, arguably Microsoft's
strongest competitors, are free. This means it is
``commercially practicable'' for an OEM to distribute any
or all of these programs with every computer sold.
Therefore under the terms of the Proposed Final Judgment,
Microsoft may require ``any IAP, ICP, ISV, IHV or OEM'' to
include a Microsoft program 100% of the time. The Proposed Final
Judgment allows Microsoft to collect a `tax'' on every
sale. Should Microsoft for some reason find it to its advantage not
to charge for its software, the simple fact that a product is always
sold with Microsoft programs pre-installed is an advantage not
granted to the competition. Imagine how much it would cost to have
someone install, for example, a copy of the Microsoft XP operating
system on a computer you already own.
As written, this clause of the Proposed Final Judgment
authorizes Microsoft to
[[Page 28076]]
continue to reap advantage from its monopoly. Removing this loophole
seems straight-forward. The clause could read: ``except that
Microsoft may enter into agreements in which such an entity agrees
to distribute, promote, use or support Microsoft Platform Software
in a quantity equal or less than the distribution, promotion, use or
support for software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software
On casual reading of the judgment the appearance is that this
clause does nothing more than allow Microsoft to negotiate a share
of business comparable to the it's competitor's share. Yet the
simplicity of the revision which would meet this ``fair
share'' requirement leads me to conclude that the more complex
``commercially practicable'' phrasing of the Proposed
Final Judgment is deliberately included to allow Microsoft to use
its monopoly to force contractual arrangements which ensure the
ubiquitous presence of Microsoft software on all computers.
Indeed as: ``Nothing in this provision shall prohibit
Microsoft from enforcing any provision of any license with any OEM
or any intellectual property right that is not inconsistent with
this Final Judgment.'' \27\ the final judgment clearly
allows Microsoft to make contracts requiring the distribution of its
software on all of a vendor's products if the vendor wants to
distribute any of Microsoft's products.
Competitive market conditions
The Competitive Impact Statement state that the purpose of the
judgment is to ``restore competitive conditions to the
market''.\28\ To see that the judgment does not accomplish this
goal you must first acknowledge that Microsoft's most significant
competition is not based in any one company. Microsoft's most
significant competition is from Open Source \29\ \30\
software. If this is apparent to you, feel free to skip forward.
The Open Source competitor
To make clear the magnitude of the threat posed by Open Source
to Microsoft, I analyze here the entire range of Open Source
programs. The non-Microsoft programs mentioned in this segment are
all Open Source unless otherwise indicated. Although the Competitive
Impact Statement emphasizes middleware, and the middleware
competitive market, in the words of the Competitive Impact
Statement, it is Microsoft's ``operating system monopoly''
that Microsoft engaged in illegal acts to protect. Therefore an
analysis of more than just middleware competition is in order.
Microsoft has illegally bolstered its operating system business and
the remedy should address the competitive market for operating
systems as well. Irrespective of what the remedy addresses, the
presence of Open Source operating systems in my examples serve to
illustrate the power of Open Source software as a class of programs
and in no way diminish the threat Open Source middleware poses to
Microsoft. First, note that the Open Source operating systems are
the only \34\ operating systems which run on the same hardware
as the Microsoft operating systems, the PC hardware. Almost by
definition they are Microsoft's only competition. Although Microsoft
seems entrenched in the dominant position as the software supplier
for ``commodity'' computer hardware, it is clear that in
many emerging markets Open Source software is the market leader, not
Microsoft. The Apache web server is the market leader with twice the
market share of Microsoft.\35\ Open Source leads Microsoft in the
embedded systems 38 market.\39\ Linux is replacing existing Unix
systems in the fast paced environment of the special effects
studios.\43\ Open Source software is capturing markets Microsoft
hopes to move into, and even appears to be eroding some of
Microsoft's existing markets. The market share of Open Source
software is often hard to measure, as there is centralized
distribution point, but by all accounts the share of Open Source
operating systems on server 46 systems is growing. A (Microsoft
funded) Gartner \47\ study \48\ (3rd Qtr, 2000) found
8.6% of the servers sold were shipped with Linux. A IDG \49\
study \50\ (Aug, 2000) found Linux had achieved a 17.2%
penetration in the server market. InfoWorld \51\ (Aug, 2000)
reports \52\ the Gartner study predicts ``that by 2005,
Linux, Unix, and Windows 2000 will account for 77 percent of the
server market. More important, the report expects that the 77
percent will be split equally among the three.'' Point of sale
systems are moving to Linux. ZDNet \53\ reports \54\
(Jan, 2002) ``Boscov's, with 36 locations in six states in the
mid-Atlantic region is replacing 500 Windows NT servers with Linux
on an IBM zSeries 900 mainframe''. Even the traditionally
conservative financial services market is adopting Linux.
Information Week \55\ reports \56\ (Oct, 2000) Linux is
gaining a foothold on Wall Street and in the broader financial-
services community''. An IBM \57\ press
release \58\ (Aug, 2001) hollered ``WALL STREET MOVES TO
LINUX AND IBM FOR FINANCIAL TRADING'' when portions of the New
York and American Stock Exchanges began to run on Linux. Mainstream
publications are beginning to publish Linux related information for
the general public, like The Chicago Tribune \59\'s Linux and
Things \60\ series. It s no wonder that the arrival of a
Microsoft Office compatible Open Source program, like the
aforementioned Star Office Suite or the AbiWord \61\ word
processor or the Gnumeric \62\ spreadsheet are considered
developments which could finally break Microsoft's hold on the
computer desktop. An October, 2001 analysis \63\ \64\ of
the Open Source movement for the British Government concludes
``we as yet see no sign that OSS will become a viable
alternative to Microsoft Windows, for user's (general purpose)
desktop machines in the corporate or home PC markets. However, OSS
on the desktop may soon become a significant player in the
developing world.'' It also concludes ``Within five years,
50% of the volume of the software infrastructure market could be
taken by OSS.'' The progress made by Open Source programmers
has not been lost on Microsoft. In October of 1998 internal
Microsoft documents which discussed the threat to Microsoft poised
by Open Source and possible responses was leaked to the public.
These internal Microsoft documents became known as the Halloween
documents \66\, these documents were later
confirmed \67\ authentic by Microsoft. In October of 1999
Wired \68\ reported \69\ ``Aubrey Edwards, group
product manager in the business enterprise division at
Microsoft.'' said ``There's a lot of interest around Linux
and we need to compete.'' In May, 2001 Microsoft spoke out
against Open Source. ZDNet reported \70\ ``Microsoft on
Thursday stepped up its long-running battle against the open-source
software movement, and in another story \71\ said the speech
came across as an attack, as if Microsoft feels the desperate need
to discount what people see around them-that open-source software is
doing real and solid computing work for an evergrowing number of
computer users, big and small.'' It appears Microsoft is
increasingly threatened by Open Source. The Register \72\, a
British news source which writes in an excitable style
reported \73\ in Dec, 2001 that it had obtained a confidential
memo from Microsoft Windows Division Vice President Brian Valentine
who was reported to have written to his sales team ``Linux is
the long-term threat against our core business. Never forget
that!''.\74\
Judgment sanctioned suppression of the Open Source competition
The Proposed Final Judgment is supposedly
``Creating the opportunity for software developers and
other computer industry partici pants to develop new middleware
products that compete directly with Microsoft by requiring Microsoft
to disclose all of the interfaces and related technical information
that Microsoft's middleware uses to interoperate with the Windows
operating system.'' \75\
However, the judgment allows Microsoft to withhold ``all of
the interfaces and related technical information'' from
Microsoft's most significant competitor, the Open Source programmer.
This is because Open Source software is not, historically, produced
by a company. It is produced by a loose collection of individuals
who use the Internet to collaborate, some of whom are sometimes paid
for their efforts by the companies which employ them. The judgment
reads: ``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 APIs and related
Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware to interoperate
with a Windows Operating System Product'' \76\
But Open Source programmers are not ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs or
OEMs and so Microsoft need not disclose anything to them. Open
Source programs are, by definition, given away if they are
distributed by their author. Not only is there no company to which
Microsoft can release a license granting information, there is no
money to pay for such a license. The Judgment continues:
``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 that
is,
[[Page 28077]]
on or after the date this Final Judgment is submitted to the Court,
(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
product) with a Microsoft server operating system
product.'' \77\
But, the cited Section III.I makes it clear that the disclosure
again need only be made, under license, to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs,
or OEMs. The Open Source programmer is excluded.
To exclude any possibility that Microsoft might have to release
specifications to an Open Source programmer the judgment requires
that the information recipient must have ``a reasonable
business need for the API, Documentation or Communications
Protocol'' \78\ and that Microsoft will judge ``the
authenticity and viability of its business'' \79\ before
releasing information. Open Source programming is not a business,
and is therefore explicitly excluded.
Clearly the Proposed Final Judgment benefits the large
commercial software developer, and excludes the Open Source
movement, Microsoft's most significant competitor, from the
benefits. Microsoft can only gain from the inevitable lessening of
Open Source's market share.
A continued extension of the Microsoft monopoly
Microsoft is widely acknowledged to be attempting to become the
primary issuer of electronic identity documents. The idea is that
each individual is to have a single user-name and password, held by
Microsoft. This new ``passport'' is to replace the
separate user-names and passwords presently issued by banks,
merchants, bulletin boards, and anybody who requires authentication
before access is granted to a web site or other electronic document.
Microsoft's product is called ``Passport'', and it's an
essential component of Microsoft's new .NET technology. Note that
the centralization of the identification information, and the
corresponding tendency toward a ``natural monopoly'', is
intrinsic to the Passport idea. Microsoft is explicitly not required
``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'' ... ``authentication systems'' 80.
As the Passport technology is all about communications protocols
supporting authentication systems, the judgments again authorizes
Microsoft to keep secret the information it uses to extend it's
monopoly.
A reasonable way to prevent the extension of Microsoft's
monopoly would be to require Microsoft split off it's Passport
division.
Conclusion
That a judgment should be so flawed, so unable to provide
relief, and so sympathetic to the monopoly it is supposed to be
protecting the public from, and that such a judg- ment is the second
try at a resolution, leads me to believe that, for whatever reason,
the judicial system is unable to provide any relief and will only
make things worse should it change the status quo. As it stands, the
proposed judgment is clearly worse than no judgment, as it
explicitly grants Microsoft the right to use it's monopoly power to
suppress it's competition. Left to itself, Microsoft will eventually
collapse under it's own weight, as IBM did. I urge the court to
reject the Proposed Final Judg- ment.
BEGIN RATIONALE: Although it's not within the court's power to
so order, and shouldn't be, it's too bad that the obvious remedy
cannot be applied--a moratorium on federal government purchase
of Microsoft products. ;-) END
RATIONALE:
Notes
1. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm
2. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9500/9549.htm
3. Competitive Impact Statement, Section I
4. Competitive Impact Statement, Section I
5. Proposed Final Judgment, Section III, Sub-Section G
6. Original Equipment Manufacturer, i.e. the folks who sell
computers.
7. Proposed Final Judgment, Section III, Sub-Section G, item 1
8. http://browsers.netscape.com
9. http://free.aol.com/
10. http://httpd.apache.org
11. http://www.linux.org
12. http://www sun.com/software/star/staroffice
13. You may never have heard of
14. http://www.sun.com/software/star/staroffice or it's twin
15. http://www.openoffice.org . They are sponsored by
16. http://www.sun.com . To quote a
17. http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/documents/
QinetiQ--OSS--rep.pdf ``The first real trials are
starting now.'' Early adopters include
18. http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl'sid=01/08/10/1441239 and
19. http://www.vnunet.com/News/1124456 . You know some thing's
up when you suddenly get
20. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/O2--O4/
b3767021.htm of the old StarOffice, which has been available since
at least December 1999, in response to the interest generated by
21. http://consultingtimes.com/sofeatures.html
22. http://www.techtv.com/print/story/
0%2C23102%2C3351510%2C00.html
23. http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/3818/2/ the
24. http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/3857/1/
25. http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/3841/2/
StarOffice. (A sample quote:
26. http://www.smartcomputing.com/editorial /
article.asp?article=articles %2Farchive%2Fc0101%2)
14. http://www.sun.com/software/star/staroffice
15. http://www.openoffice.org
16. http://www.sun.com
17. http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/documents/
QinetiQ--OSS--rep.pdf
18. http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl'sid= 01/08/10/1441239
19. http://www.vnunet.com/News/1124456
20. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/ content/02--04/
b3767021.htm
21. http://consultingtimes.com/sofeatures.html
22. http://www.techtv.com/print/story/
0%2C23102%2C3351510%2C00.html
23. http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/3818/2/
24. http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/3857/1/
25. http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/3841/2/
26. http://www.smartcomputing.com/editorial/article.
asp?article=articles %2Farchive%2Fc0101%2F 59??
27. Section III, Sub-Section A, paragraph 3
28. Competitive Impact Statement, Section I
29. http://www.opensource.org
30. I use the term ``Open Source'' loosely in this
document to encompass both the
31. http://www.opensource.org and the
32. http://www.gnu.org Speaking rigorously the Free Software
movement's
33. http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/ are the largest threat to
Microsoft, although much Open Source software giving Microsoft stiff
competition is not licensed under a copyleft-style license.
31. http://www.opensource.org
32. http://www.gnu.org
33. http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/
34. As far as I know.
35. See the various methods of measurement and market breakdowns
at the widely followed
36. http://www.netcraft.com/survey/ and
37. http://www.securityspace.com/s --survey/data/index.html
web server surveys.
36. http://www.netcraft.com/survey/
37. http://www.securityspace.com/s --survey/data/index.html
38. Embedded systems are the software that runs computers built
into items which are not themselves computers--the computers in
everything from cell phones to dishwashers.
39. A
40. http://www.evansdata.com/emtarg.htm
41. http://evansdata.com/ESTOC.htm shows the number (27%) of
embedded developers choosing Linux for their next project to be
nearly double the number (14.1%) choosing the Microsoft product.
According to a (April 2001)
42. http://www.linuxdevices.com/ articles/AT2492406168.html
survey, ``the percent of developers considering using Embedded
Linux for new projects has zoomed to the number two spot
(38%)--second only to market leader Wind River's
VxWorks.''
40. http://www.evansdata.com/emtarg.htm
41. http://evansdata.com/ESTOC.htm
42. http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT2492406168.html
43. From the on-line news source
44. http://www.salon.com/tech/feature /2001/11/01/
linux--hollywood/ : ``Linux goes to the movie .... Who
says free software is passe? Hollywood's special-effects industry
can't get enough of the operating system built by hack- ers, for
hackers.'' The movies Shrek and
45. http://www.nwfusion.com/newsletters /linux/2001/
01156783.html were brought to you by Linux.
44. http://www.salon.com/tech/feature /2001/11/01/
linux--hollywood/
[[Page 28078]]
45. http://www.nwfusion.com/newsletters/linux/2001/01156783.html
46. as opposed to desktop
47. http://www.gartner.com
48. http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?id=330693
49. http://www.idg.com
50. http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing /9904/02/
linuxgrow.ent.idg/
51. http://www.infoworld.com
52. http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/08/14/
000814opbiggs.xml
53. http://www.zdnet.com
54. http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate /stories/main/
0,14179,2841690,00.html
55. http://www.informationweek.com
56. http://www.informationweek.com/808/linux.htm
57. http://www.ibm.com
58. http://www.ibm.com/servers/eserver /zseries/os/linux/
zseries--stock.html
MTC-00027602--0009
59. http://chicagotribune.com
60. http://chicagotribune.com/technology/developers /
chilinuxgallery.storygallery?coll= chi%2Dtech r
61. http://www.abiword.org/
62. http://www.gnumeric.org
63. http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/rfc/rfc
--document.asp?docnum=429
64. The
65. http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/documents /
QinetiQ--OSS--rep.pdf is available as a PDF.
65. http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/documents /
QinetiQ--OSS--rep.pdf
66. http://www.opensource.org/halloween/index.html
67. http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld /lw-1998-11/lw-
ll-halloween.html
68. http://www.wired.com
69. http://www.wired.com/news/linux/0,1411,31801,00.html
70. http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1106
-814293.html?legacy=zdnn
71. http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories /story/
O,lO738,2717631,OO.html
72. http://www.theregister.co.uk
73. http://www.theregister/co.uk/content/4/22770.html
74. To my knowledge, the authenticity of this memo has not been
denied by Microsoft.
75. Competitive Impact Statement, Section II, bullet 6
76. Proposed Final Judgment, Section III, Sub-Section D
77. Proposed Final Judgment, Section III, Sub-Section E
78. Proposed Final Judgment, Section III, Sub-Section ],
Paragraph 2
79. Proposed Final Judgment, Section III, Sub-Section J,
Paragraph 2
80. Proposed Final Judgment, Section III, Sub-Section J,
Paragraph 1
MTC-00027603
From: Daniel Upper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is grossly inadequate in two substantial
ways.
First, it doesn't address the primary reason that business users
use Windows, which is Microsoft's ``Office'' suite of
productivity applications -- notably Word, Excel, and
Powerpoint. Most businesses and industries (the legal profession
being something of an exception) have effectively standardized on
these applications. Because most office workers have the Office
applications available, it is common practice to email documents to
others in Word, Excel, and Powerpoint file formats.
This common practice effectively requires everyone in the
business world to have applications which can read and write Office
file formats. And-- because only Microsoft knows all the
details of these file formats--the only applications which can
read and write all aspects of these formats are those sold by
Microsoft. Most word processors have some ability to read Word
documents, but stop short of implementing features like
``change tracking'', which is widely used in collaborative
work. The non-Microsoft tools I've tried for reading Powerpoint
presentations have all been unable to render some slides
intelligibly at all. I, for one, use Linux for almost all of my
computer tasks, but can not function in the business world without
access to a Windows computer.
So Microsoft has two mutually supportive monopolies, one on
operating systems Windows and the other on productivity application
suites. Resolution of case must provide a way for other OSes to have
full use of/access to MS Office format documents. And it is not
sufficient to require MS to sell versions of the Office applications
for other OSes. MS has sold versions of the applications for MacOS,
and MS has manipulated the production of these versions in ways
which have enhanced the Windows monopoly.
Microsoft should publicly document all file formats and network
protocols it uses. Such documentation can be
inadequate--accidentally or deliberately--so if there's
any doubt that the documentation is adequate, MicroSoft should be
required to publish working code. In addition, the clauses in
Microsoft's End User Licence Agreements (EULAs) which prohibit the
user from disassembling, decompiling and reverse engineering should
be voided and Microsoft should be prohibited from including such
clauses in future EULAs.
Second, the proposed settlement only seeks to provide relief to
Microsoft's commercial competitors. Certain clauses in the proposed
settlement, such as Section III(J)(2), require Microsoft to make
specified information available to businesses, and let Microsoft
judge who qualifies as a business. Various not-for-profit entities,
including not-for-profit organizations, individuals, universities,
and government agencies--are important participants in the
software industry. Public interest is not served by excluding them.
Quite a bit of important and widely used software is developed
by non-for-profit entities. Such software includes the Linux OS,
which is developed by an ad-hoc group of programmers and may be the
OS which comes closest to competing with Windows. There are
indications that Microsoft is concerned that Linux and other
``open source'' software may become important competitors.
(Although there are companies in the business of enhancing and
selling Linux, most Linux software is not written by these
companies.) Instead of requiring Microsoft to make specified
information available to specific businesses, the settlement should
require Microsoft to publish the same information publically.
Daniel R. Upper
1330 NW Hillcrest
Corvallis, OR 97330
MTC-00027604
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Marian Pedersen
PO BOX 1518
Layton, UT 84041-6518
MTC-00027605
From: Joseph Gilvary
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:07am
Subject: Disagree with settlement
I disagree strongly with the proposed settlement. I would like
to express my disappointment that the Justice Department and several
states, including shamefully, my home state of Maryland, would
consider ending the actions against the predatory monopolist
Microsoft without ensuring sufficient protection for consumers to
ensure a competitive environment in the future. Microsoft's actions
have stifled, not encouraged innovation in the software industry.
Respectfully,
Joseph Gilvary
MTC-00027606
From: L. Drew Pihera
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This settlement is a bad idea for a number of reasons. The most
prevalent in my mind is the fact that currently, businesses and
consumers really have no choice in the matter of what operating
system to buy. I am currently at work, where I am a research
[[Page 28079]]
scientist for the Georgia Institute of Technology's Research
Institute. I am not composing this email on a Linux machine, though
that would be my preference. In fact I have requested such a
machine, but it has been deemed not doable. The reason I am told, is
that we must remain compatible with the rest of the world. So by
default, because everyone runs Windows, we must. Not because it's
the better product, not because it's cost effective, but because
they hold the monopoly on desktop systems. I have asked other system
administrators why they run Windows, and the reason is some
permutation of a need for Windows to remain compatible or a need for
Microsoft Office for the same reason. Without a choice, productivity
is cut. There are countless times I would have been able to produce
work faster if I did not have to deal with Windows, but I did not
have a choice. If I want to run Linux at home, I have to buy a
second computer because first and foremost, I need to stay
compatible with work, and thus must have a Windows machine. The
cycle is never ending. I have also had to port code from various
other operating systems to Windows as well, most recently in a
language called ``C'' which is supposed to be
standardized. This means that I should be able to take the code
straight to the Windows machine and use it, as I used nothing but
the ``plain vanilla C'' as we call it (meaning using
nothing but the standard functions of the language). There were
however multiple changes that needed to be made to the code however
in order to get it to work. These were usually just a simple name
change for a function call, but this is an illustration of another
way Microsoft breaks inter operability to maintain a monopoly and
force people down the Windows path.
L. Drew Pihera
Research Scientist I
Electronic Systems Lab,
Georgia Tech Research Institute
Atlanta, GA 30332 Phone: (404) 894-7041
MTC-00027607
From: Nick McKnight
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
In regard to the specifics of the proposed final judgement,
Section III.J.2.c would allow Microsoft to condition licensing of
security-related APIs based on their right to certify the
``authenticity and viability'' of a potential licensee's
business. This right could be used by Microsoft to block progress in
many free software projects aimed at interoperability. Active third-
party involvement would be needed to insure equitable standards in
the licensing of security-related APIs. I feel the comments offered
at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html should also be
considered. Based on his comments at http://slashdot.org/
article.pl'sid=01/12/17/1235220&mode=thread I believe Stephen
Satchell should be considered for appointment to the proposed three-
person Technical Committee.
With greater dependence on digital infrastructure, the
availability of software that is both secure and open to innovation
is a critical need. I believe free software such as GNU/Linux can
help fulfill this need and should be encouraged.
Sincerely,
Nick McKnight, Lawrenceville, GA;
Software Engineer
MTC-00027608
From: Nathan Florea
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice;
I have numerous problems with the Proposed Final Judgement
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I believe it is
inherently flawed and will prove ineffective. I think it would have
been unacceptable before Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact. After
that, however, any settlement as favorable to Microsoft as this one
is mind boggling.
I think the specific reasons the Proposed Final Judgement is
flawed have probably been adequately covered in comments from my
fellow citizens. Instead, I will write about why I do not think any
behavioral remedy will be adequate to curb Microsoft's anti-
competitive practices. This is something that I can perhaps provide
some unique or at least less common insight on.
I think that the corporate culture at Microsoft will make any
behavioral remedy ineffective. As someone who worked at Microsoft
during the antitrust trial, I think I have some understanding of the
corporate culture there. It is very insulated. A large portion of
people who work at Microsoft have no professional contact with
anyone outside of company. It is very polarized with an ``us
against the world'' mentality. The use of anything but
Microsoft products, unless there is absolutely no Microsoft
alternative yet, is frowned upon. And Microsoft believes it did
nothing wrong. This is evidenced in the public statements from its
executives, such as Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer. Never have they
said that Microsoft did anything wrong. In fact, they have
constantly claimed Microsoft has done nothing wrong, even after
Judge Jackson's findings. And this permeates throughout the
corporate culture. Never did I hear a Microsoft employee voice an
opinion out of line with the company's position. Never did I hear
anyone admit the DOJ case had any validity.
Until Microsoft changes their corporate culture and acknowledges
that it engaged in anti-competitive practices, a behavioral remedy
will simply be an obstacle to work around or through. And Microsoft
has proven how effective it can be at getting around any behavioral
changes with the previous consent decree. Expecting a behavioral
change to be effective given Microsoft's track record and unyielding
stance is foolishly optimistic at best.
Please reconsider a structural remedy. At the very least, make a
genuine attempt to change the corporate culture. Microsoft has to
take responsibility for its crimes before any settlement can move
forward.
Sincerely,
Nathan Florea
MTC-00027609
From: wayne swygert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:14am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To Whom it may concern:
Please put an end to the persecution of Microsoft--this
lawsuit is nothing more than envy on the part of their competitors
who wish to substitute political and legal maneuvering for free
market competition-which is all Microsoft has ever done, despite
dishonest publicity to the contrary. The fact remains that Microsoft
does not have the power to force anyone to buy it's
products--it's just not possible. Only the government can
physically coerce.
Therefore, please end this lawsuit now...cease punishing
Microsoft...it is immoral and unjust.
Sincerely,
Wayne Swygert
MTC-00027610
From: Mott Dave Contr WRALC/LYSBD
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 7:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement does not go far enough to punish
Microsoft. Their monopoly has damaged quality and innovation in the
computer industry. Their success in the consumer operating system
market has spilled over into enterprise software. Uninformed, non-
technical business managers who use Microsoft products at home, like
them, and do not have enough experience with computers to recognize
low-quality products when they see them, have forced businesses into
using Microsoft products. Technical business people have been forced
to use their inferior products simply because of Microsoft's
monopoly in consumer software.
Microsoft should be punished for their monopolistic abuses. They
should be forced unequivocally to open up all technical details of
their enterprise operating systems (Windows 2000 Professional and
Server, Windows XP Professional and Server) and all technical
details of Microsoft Office in order to enhance competition.
They should be forced to help competitors ``catch
up''. They should be forced to allow porting of Microsoft
Office to Linux and Solaris operating systems.
MTC-00027611
From: Greg Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice,
Microsoft should be allowed the freedom to innovate and compete
in the competitive software industry. Most of us in this industry
can see through this case to the real issue of Microsoft's
competitors attempting to use the legal system as the means to an
end. I strongly support Microsoft and their freedom to innovate.
Sincerely,
Greg H. Allen
Allen Consulting Services,
President and CEO.
mailto:[email protected]
MTC-00027612
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
[[Page 28080]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please do not penalize success.
Thank You,
Lewis Hartman
4867 Granger Road
Akron, Ohio
MTC-00027613
From: Green, Steve W. (O85)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 7:19am
Subject: Microsoft anti trust settlement
I believe that the provisions of the agreement in the Microsoft
antitrust case are tough, reasonable, fair to all parties involved,
and go beyond the findings of the Court of Appeals ruling. They
should be enacted as currently agreed without any changes,
deletions, or additions.
MTC-00027614
From: Joshua Davis
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 7:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The purpose of government is to enforce the laws decided by the
individuals that we vote into office. To compromise this process
will compromise the purpose that government holds in our lives. I
believe this decision is an example of how foolish we become when
our decisions are dictated by individual financial gain.
Joshua Davis
Research Scientist I
Electronic Systems Lab,
Georgia Tech Research Institute
Atlanta, GA 30332
Phone: 404.894.7554
MTC-00027615
From: Matthew Bromley
To: Microsoft
ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/28/02 7:21am
Subject: Microsoft
I support microsoft and believe that they should not be
penalised for being successful. I resent the government's
characterization of me as a helpless victim who cannot choose
software that is useful to me. I do not think that the government
has any right to decide what can be in my computer. I resent the
idea that a successful business and its products are a threat to
anyone. 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. I
want to see an America where success is not throttled, but embraced.
I want a free America where anyone with enough intelligence and hard
work can be a self-made man like Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates. I
believe Microsoft has a fundamental right to its property. It is the
government's job is to protect this right, not to take it away.
matthew bromley
MTC-00027616
From: McCabe, Patrick
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 7:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the purposed settlement is reasonable and fair to
all parties. Settle this case now and let's get on with business.
Building better products through innovation is the solution.
Pat McCabe
[email protected]
MTC-00027617
From: Dr. Charles Stewart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:25am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Sir/Madam,
I would like to submit this argument to the Microsoft settlement
consultation process (Tunney act), to the effect that the appeal
court justice in charge of the DOJ/Microsoft case chould overrule
the settlement and pursue a strong structural remedy, such as the
originally proposed breakup. This argument is available online,
together with comments from interested parties, at: http://
www.advogato.org/article/425.html
I believe that it is the responsibility of the Department of
Justice, and not Microsoft, to protect the economic interests of the
computer industry by protecting competetion and innovation. The DOJ
strongly argued for this position in its suit against Microsoft, but
in its recent settlement it has reversed its position, apparently
concluding that what is good for Microsoft is good for the software
industry. If the DOJ truly believes this, then it should appeal the
current verdict. To reverse its previous legal position without
arguing for this reversal in court is unethical, because this
constitutes a vacation of its responsibility to uphold the public
interest.
I think the above conclusion, that the DOJ has abdicated its
position as guardian of the public interest, is inescapable if we
accept the following theses:
1. Microsoft's responsibility to its shareholders entails its
aggressive exploitation of the whole of its competitive strengths:
Microsoft has pursued a clear and consistent position in court.
While Microsoft's performance in Judge Jackson's court may indicate
that Microsoft tampered with evidence, where it stands in respect to
its position as monopoly has been clearly argued with both
conviction and integrity. It is this: the lesson learned from IBM's
troubles with antitrust suits in the 1980s is that a dominant
business in the computer industry can only protect its shareholders
interests by maintaining its monopoly without being intimidated by
the threat of antitrust legislation.
2. In Microsoft's business, only the paranoid survive:
Furthermore, for Microsoft to maintain its monopolies in an industry
that changes as quickly as the computer industry means that it must
extend its monopoly to any new market whose products threaten to
displace its current monopolies. Microsoft understands that its
responsibility to shareholders requires it to leverage its existing
monopoplies to intimidate and undermine rivals in other markets
whose products possess this power; this is the principal conclusion
of Judge Jackson in the trial brought by the DOJ.
3. Microsoft's monopolies injure business innovation, technical
innovation and price competition in the computer industry:
Especially they undermine the competitive strengths of alternatives
developed by companies too small to challenge Microsoft in the
courts, such as Be's BeOS and Dave Winer's Frontier, and of
contributions by developers in the free software community such as
Linux and Zope.
4. To maintain competition in the markets in which Microsoft
dominates through its advantages as a monopolist requires Microsoft
to be successfully limited in the courts.
5. To restore competition to these markets without infringing
Microsoft's `right to innovate'' requires a structural
rather than a behavioural remedy: Microsoft is a `serial
recidivist': there is a long history of bevioural remedies
that have failed to deter Microsoft from effective exploitation of
its monopoly position. The DOJ argued strongly for a break up of
Microsoft in the trial courts. If it no longer believes that
Microsoft's monopoly position requires effective legal limits, it
has a duty to make its reaons for beliving this public. Its failure
to do so is a very gross failure of its ethical and legal mandate to
protect competition from monopoly abuse in the computer industry. I
believe that the courts should pursue a structural remedy, ie. a
breakup of Microsoft, irrespectively of the DOJ's new position in
the proposed settlement.
Dr. Charles Stewart
(associated with Dept. Computer Science, Brandeis University)
MTC-00027618
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:26am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To Those Concerned:
It is fair to say that Microsoft has been a pioneer in the field
of computers programming and this computer age. Its motto
``freedom to innovate'' has resulted in the many
improvements in the American life, be it commerce, manufacturing,
transfer of information, individual amenities, learning etc., In
fact it has impacted every phase of human activity, not only in the
USA but throughout the world.
As an ex-Associate Professor (retired) in the field of business
management, accounting and finance, I have witnessed the development
of the various Microsoft programs over the 15 years and their impact
on the students'' ability to use them to accelerate the rate
and, thus, the volume of learning. It is also fair to say that
Microsoft's contribution to the other pioneers to create peripheral
electronic products by providing capital through investing in such
ventures or providing its products to enable them to build on the
basis of such information. The cumulative benefit to of all the
enterprises to humanity has been greatly enhanced,
The charges brought forth against Microsoft's that business
activities were monopolistic and the decision issued by Judge T.P
Jackson has been adequately proven to be an erroneous one over the
period between its inception of the charges made and the present by
the mere facts of the industries'' (and substantial competitor
[[Page 28081]]
companies) activities and mode of operations e.g. Aol - Netscape -
Time Warner and many others. I am willing to accept that the
technical aspect of the law resulted in fines, and that Microsoft is
willing to go the extra mile to resolve the issue by proposing a,
more than generous, settlement. which is now being unreasonably
turned down.
The penalties that seem to be on the table are substantial and
extremely unfair to Microsoft's investors who have patiently awaited
for the day that they will be rewarded in terms of dividends. The
investors have realized the necessity of reinvestment for the
development of new and innovative products and the accumulation of
profits for use for the new products. Now the resources are being
diverted to other parties'' benefit. I believe this is totally
unfair if not utterly unwise.
The stance of the nine states is an extremely self-serving one.
Who are they to say that their citizens were overcharged on
Microsoft products? I cannot imagine any individual who feels any
differently then I. Microsoft did not put a gun to my head to force
me to buy its product. I did it voluntarily and gladly. I would like
to know how these state litigants intend to spend the monies that
they aspire to receive, Surely they don't, and cannot, identify each
of the product purchaser and give them their refunds. Even if they
tried, the bureaucratic system would absorb the lion's share of the
funds, leaving pennies on the dollars to the actual purchasers of
the product. I for one, am looking for a fair return on my hard
earned investment. I can only expect that to happen if this case is
closed and Microsoft can continue to exercise its prerogative and
right to innovate.
Microsoft has the right to protect its intellectual property and
the right to innovate without impediments. Its business practices
are no different from those of the competitors who have survived the
present depressed economy.
ITS TIME TO SETTLE THIS ISSUE AND MOVE ON.
Respectfully,
Albert J. Haleblian
CC:[email protected]@
inetgw
MTC-00027619
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:26am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Please find attached my sentiments supporting a speedy
resolution of the Microsoft anti-trust case. I think it would be
good for our economy.
Thanks
Michael Panzera
(See attached file: USAGPanzera--Michael--1078--0121
.dot)
207 Burlington Road
Freehold, NJ 07728
January 22,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft
I am writing to state my support for the settlement of the
Microsoft antitrust case. I appreciate your leadership in directing
your Department to negotiate for three months with Microsoft in
order to reach this reasonable settlement. It is time now to move
on.
Gratitude is what I have for your sensible leadership on this
matter, Mr. Ashcroft. Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Michael Panzera
MTC-00027620
From: Todd Olson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Honorable Court:
I find it doubtful that the currently proposed remedies for the
issues of the Microsoft case will succeed in meeting the ruling of
the Court of Appeals as to what ``a remedies decree in an
antitrust case must seek''. Herein two additional remedies are
proposed which I believe substantially improve the resolution of
this case. Following the statement of the proposals, are comments on
the motivation and justification of the proposals, which in turn are
followed by some details of the proposal. Since my experience in
legal matters is very limited, I hope that others who are more
experienced will see merit in the general nature of these proposals
and refine them to a form that is suitable for use in this matter.
PROPOSAL SUMMARIES
Proposal #1: Jump starting the strangled OEM infrastructure
for marketing non Microsoft operating systems by requiring Microsoft
to pay for it's creation.
Proposal #2: To reduce the probability of future illegal
monopolization resolve that the only contractal terms between
Microsoft and other parties that can be litigated and enforced in US
courts are those that have been made widely and publically available
adequately prior to the violation of terms in question.
PROPOSAL RATIONAL
Proposal #1 is a necessary addition to the proposed remedies
as it is the only way to ``deny to the defendant the fruits of
its statutory violation''. As long as it is essentially
impossible to to purchase an intel based desktop computer system
with a non microsoft operating system (such as BeOS, Lunix, *BSD),
particularly from a major hardware vendor which has long been a
problem for both my private activities as a computer hobbiest and my
professional activities as a computer support provider, as long as
this situation remains, then Microsoft is enjoying the fruits of its
past illegal monopolistic behaviour. Normally if merchant X entered
merchant Y's place of business and destroyed merchant Y's
merchandise we would say to merchant X ``not only must you not
do that again, you must renumerate merchant X for the cost of
undoing the damage you did, so that he can return to
business''. Why then, if merchant X has carried out this
distructive behaviour repeatedly for years would w! e only enjoin
merchant X to stop that behaviour and tell merchant Y that they must
bear the cost of the damage they have received with out
renumeration? Do the OEM's actually find the current proposed
remedies convincing enough that they are willing to make the
investement to be able to ship computers with non Microsoft
operating systems? In evaluating the proposed remedies, the court
should ask the OEM's this question. I suspect that in the absence of
the addition of proposal #1 they will not, and hence the
proposed remedies will do little to change the current market
situation for consumers of computer systems. It is likely more must
be done.
Proposal #2 is a necessary addition to the proposed remedies
as it is the only way to ``ensure that there remain no
practices likely to result in monopolization in the future''.
Microsoft's track record in creating innovative ways to bully other
businesses is sufficently well established that merely (narrowly)
listing past transgressions and saying ``don't do that
again'' clearly won't prevent them from undertaking new
bullying in unlisted areas, particularly new markets. It is in
everyone's best interest, including Microsoft's, that they grow out
of this behaviour. It has long been understood that they way to
minimize egregious bullying behaviour is to require all transactions
occur in public ... that is why we put lights by ATMs .... and why
the US constitution goes to some length to require that governmental
proceedings must no be behind closed doors. Should we abandon this
sound principle here, when it is most needed?
I believe that neither of these additional proposals (as
elaborated below) impose undue burden on Microsoft. I believe they
are necessary to provide relief and restitution to all of us living
in a world stunted by Microsofts past practices. I believe that
these additions will strengthen both the US economy, by freeing it
from over dependance on one providor of computer services, and also
strengthen Microsoft, by encouraging it to stop spend so much of
it's energies on destructive practices, trying to keep the rest of
the world down, and rechannel those energies to new constructive
activites.
PROPOSAL DETAILS
Proposal #1: Jump starting the strangled OEM infrastructure
for marketing non Microsoft operating systems by requiring Microsoft
to pay for it's creation.
The goal is to rapidly create an OEM infrastructure that co-
markets with the current Microsoft OS based computer systems,
computers that--on the same hardware, out of the box--run
non-Microsoft operating systems, both in addition to and instead of
the Microsoft OS ... at minimal additional cost. The deliverable is
that it be possible to purchase from major OEMs both individually
and in large quantity, standard hardware that out of the box (a)
directly boots into at least one non Microsoft operating system (b)
directly dual boots into at least one non Microsoft operating system
in a manner easily managed by a novice computer user. (c) directly
multi boots in to at least two different non Microsoft operating
systems in a manner easily managed by a novice computer user. Option
(a) should be available in (say) 4 months, option (b) in (say) 6
months and option (c) in (say) 8 months.
One key issue is ensuring that such an infrastructure is not
unnaturally re-strangled
[[Page 28082]]
by Microsoft (or any other party). Although the effectiveness of the
proposed remedies to ``unfetter a market from anticompetitive
conduct'' is doubtful, as a hypothetical, lets take them as
adequate and pass on to the other key issue which does not appear to
be addressed in the proposed remedies.
The other key issue is the cost of creating this infrastructure.
we propose that Microsoft pay for the creation of this
infrastructure. This should be viewed in a renumerative rather than
a punative light. This should be viewed as an aid to recovering what
would have been had Microsoft not abused it's monopoly.
There are at least two different types of cost involved:
(a) the one time costs faced by the OEMs in creating an
infrastructure that permits them to ship hardware with a variety of
operating systems.
(b) the costs (both one time and on going )of ensuring the other
operating systems to be shipped work on the hardware that is shipped
which suggests at least two different levies on Microsoft assets:
(a) Microsoft should be assessed a one-time, non-punative, fine
of some appropriate amount (perhaps US$100,000,000), to be disbursed
by neutral, knowledgable trusteeship, over a short period of time
(perhaps 9 months), to the OEMs, for the sole purposes of
implementing the proposed infrastructure, and getting the alternate
operating systems working on the shipping hardware.
(b) A fee, to be paided by Microsoft, to a neutral trusteeship,
is to be assessed on every copy of Microsoft operating system
shipped, for some intermediate period of time (perhaps 3 years), and
is to be used for the sole purpose of underwriting the work of
keeping the alternative operating systems operating the rapidly
mutating hardware shipped by the OEMs. The level of the fee will be
reviewed and adjusted every few months.
Thought might also be given to levying a fine on Microsoft to be
used as a startup investement to bring BeOS back to the market
place. Note that the aim is to bring in to existance what we most
likely would have had, had Microsoft not strangled it. The aim is
not to demand that Microsoft underwrite the system beyond some
reasonable incubation period.
There are many details to be worked out...
(1) Who chooses what operating systems are available? It is
preferable that many choices be made available, and let the customer
choose. Personally I'd like to be able to choose at least one linux,
one *BSD, and BeOS.
(2) Who provides the boot loader? Clearly this should *not* be
in the hands of Microsoft. It is to be hoped that the industry can
spec an fully open standard that Microsoft then be compelled to
comply with.
(3) What will prevent Microsoft (or other vendors) from having
their operating system damage other systems installed (over writing
boot blocks, etc). Perhaps large punative damages if this occurs
would be appropriate.
(4) How to ensure that Microsoft does not force the rate of
(gratuitus) hardware mutation so high (by rapidly changing what
hardware they support and don't support) that other OS providers are
exhausted by trying track it? In part by steeply raising the above
mentioned fee imposed on each shipped Microsoft OS for underwriting
this work on other OS. And perhaps in part by additional legal
remedies.
(5) How to avoid having two hardware systems emerge ... one that
can not run anything but Microsoft's OS, and one that runs
everything else?
(6) Note that Microsoft must have no say in how the various
moneys are disbursed ... I don't think we can yet trust Microsoft to
not trojan such an effort.
(7) How to avoid building the proposed infrastructure in a way
the Microsoft ends up controlling? Perhaps Microsoft must be
explicitly forbidden to participate in the infrastructure
development. Note care should be used to avoid building with pieces
that Microsoft can end-of-life there by gutting the infrastructure
shortly after it is built.
Proposal #2: To reduce the probability of future illegal
monopolization resolve that the only contractal terms between
Microsoft and other parties that can be litigated and enforced in US
courts are those that have been made widely publically available
adequately prior to the violation of terms in question.
The goal here is to create an environment where it is much
harder for Microsoft to engage in the sort of divide and conquor
bullying tactics of the past. This remedy should be in force for ten
years. At which point it should be reviewed and extended if need be.
One way to insure public availability is to levy an annual fine
on Microsoft that a neutral trusteeship would use to maintain a
website with all published Microsoft contracts. The website must be
well connected and widely accessible with a wide range of standards
complient web browsers in an anonymous manner (no registration,
etc).
It is very important that all the information be available to
everyone. Based on my experiences at the retail computer level, I
believe that many small business would have choosen other products
years ago, and hence not be trapped in the current gratuitious
upgrade intensive, insecure, computing environment they now find
themselves in, if they had know what sort of business tactics
Microsoft was using. By making this information open to all, the
public and the markets can police Microsofts future behaviour,
rather putting that burden soley, and inappropriately, on the
courts.
To guard against obsfuscation, vagueness, and excessive subtlety
the above fee should also be disbursed periodically to a variety of
independent evaluators who should be charged with evaluating the
clarity of the contracts, and the degree to which several innocuous
interlocking contracts can establish monopolistic dominance. Of
particular concern are terms such as ``... vendors in good
standing'' which leaves the meaning of the contract entirely up
to Microsoft, and are a particular effective form of bullying.
Appropriate punative fines should be levied if such Microsoft is
found to be engaging in such evasive and injurous practices.
CLOSING REMARKS
I believe the above to be necessary in resolving the Microsoft
case. However it most likely will not be sufficent.
I hope that the court finds something of use in these remarks.
MTC-00027621
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:31 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
The following comments are being submitted pursuant to the
Tunney Act in response to the proposed settlement of The United
States v. Microsoft, Inc.
Sincerely,
Samuel Greenfeld
Personal Background:
I am an electrical engineer presently working for the United
States Army. Due to outstanding security issues I will not comment
further about my specific position. I have a bachelors degree in
electrical & computer engineering and an masters degree in
engineering with an electrical specialization. I am also a certified
engineer-in-training in the state of New Jersey.
In the past I have performed computer consulting where I
designed and managed entire Internet and Intranet systems. I have
worked computers systems both reliant and not reliant on Microsoft
products. In the process I have done limited integration and seen
the interactions of Microsoft products with those from other firms.
My comments come from the perspective of an end-user, programmer and
systems administrator.
The enclosed comments are to be taken as my personal comments;
they are NOT necessarily the official views of the U.S. Army, the
U.S. Government, nor any portion of either organization thereof. Any
questions about my comments should be directed to the email address
from which this message was sent.
General Information:
Microsoft's products have become de-facto standards in the
United States'' computer market. Approximately 90% of all
computers presently in use today are estimated to be using a
Microsoft operating system. The next-nearest competitor is believed
to be Apple computer, with a market share of approximately 5%.
The lack of a significant competitor has discouraged
manufacturers of other devices from supporting other operating
systems. Many hardware items now are designed primarily for use with
Microsoft-running computers. ``Winmodems'' and
``Winprinters'', found in almost any computer store, are
so named because they and their software drivers rely on features
found in Microsoft Windows products. Winmodems themselves have
become so popular due to their low cost that many computer
manufacturers no longer supply full-featured modems; the term itself
can be found the packages of many modems in computer
stores. \1\ In the software world,
[[Page 28083]]
products that do support non-Microsoft operating system (OS)
platforms tend to charge more for versions that do not run on a
Microsoft OS. This is largely due to economies of scale since
Microsoft's operating systems dominate the market. Except for
certain specialized applications, the high price of programs for
non-Microsoft operating systems tends to turn off cost-conscious
companies from purchasing non-Microsoft operating systems and their
programs in the first place.
In addition, software and hardware companies often refuse to
support efforts to use their hardware and/or software on other
platforms due to the support headaches and expenses this causes.
This causes problems for projects like SANE \2\, which attempts to
allow users of Linux (one alternative operating system), to use
photographic scanners on other platforms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An example of a winmodem can be found at http://
www.usr.com/products/home/home-product.asp'sku=3CP5699A . Note the
description states that the item is ``designed exclusively for
the Windows operating system.''
\2\ The SANE Project Internet homepage: http://
www.mostang.com/sane/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shortfalls of the current proposal / Proposed additional remedies:
The court, having recognized that Microsoft's operating system
lead has effected competitors, has proposed opening up many of
Microsoft's programming interfaces, protocols and related to third
parties.
While I agree with the court's intent, I personally believe the
current settlement fails to address the needs of several parties.
Please find the additional items I wish to be addressed lettered
below:
A. The current proposal fails to provide a competitive market
for third-party replacements of Microsoft middleware and operating
systems: The settlement as currently written requires Microsoft to
generate information about its protocols and upcoming interfaces in
the beta stage of projects \3\. This is a phase too late for
many firms to match Microsoft's development, and will result almost
always in Microsoft being first to market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Reference Section III.D of the Competitive Impact
Statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An example of a software project already continuously caught
lagging behind Microsoft's protocol changes is the Samba
project. \4\ This project attempts to create an alternative
client and server for Microsoft's SMB Networking protocol. Given a
lack of documentation and constant tweaks, quirks, and other issues,
they constantly find themselves at least a year behind Microsoft's
current network server protocol revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://www.samba.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order for there to be a level playing field for Microsoft,
Samba, and other developers (regardless of area), protocols and
APIs, however tentative, must be made available within sixty (60)
days of Microsoft's development of them at least for the first five
(5) years of the settlement. Without such a provision, companies
will be unable to match Microsoft's market offerings in a timely
manner, and hence many often fail to produce timely competing
products.
B. The current settlement fails to address the needs of
independent, typically non-commercial and/or ``free''
software developers: The Samba project, mentioned above, has no real
``home-base'' organization that can sign contracts on its
behalf, nor could be considered a ``business'' by any
stretch of the imagination.
While a skilled engineer might be able to build or repair a
record player or cassette deck, building a home-brew CD or DVD
player is almost out of the question. Hence, many hobbyists have
turned to software development. The number of hobbyist-designed
programs on the market today is significant; they range from paint
programs to office suites to independent operating systems with
their own supporting middleware.
Many companies employ the people working on products such as
Samba could sign these contracts on their employee's behalf. But
there is no single business that could sign the necessary paperwork
to make an alternative version. Non- disclosure agreements may also
be problematic, as many freely available programs make their source
code available for others to modify to their unique requirements.
Since independent and home developers often like to make
products that compete with Microsoft's products, the settlement must
be modified so any party, regardless of business, educational, or
other status, can acquire information on Microsoft's APIs. Such
terms should allow the resulting end products in the vast majority
of cases to exist in source code form.
C. The current proposed settlement fails to include a user
education segment. Few users change or remove the default programs
that Microsoft and/or the OEM that built a computer provide. A
joint-industry effort must be made to educate consumers to ensure
they understand they have alternatives, even if said alternatives
cost money over what they paid for software to be included with a
computer.
D. The current settlement proposal fails to provide a means to
identify the party most likely at fault due to a user's problem.
When software and/or hardware products interfere with one other, the
makers of the products involved may span several companies. Such
companies, as those familiar with attempting to get technical
support are aware, tend to blame each other.
There must be a clear registry or other source that a user can
see that tells them whose product is performing can perform function
on their computer. The registry must state at the very least the
manufacturer of said item, the installer of said item and a
technical support contact and means (phone, email, etc.). This
registry must also note if several products are capable of
performing said function; these programs may interfere with each
other as well.
All ``ll-behaved'' programs made after this registry
program is incorporated into Microsoft's operating systems (and made
available for older ones as a retrofit) should use this registry.
That way both users and technical support personnel are aware as to
what performs what task on a user's system.
MTC-00027622
From: Scott F Keep
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:31am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
I am a lawyer but not an antitrust lawyer. I am not sure I
understand why the government brought its suit against Microsoft in
the first place--or to the extent that I understand why the
suit was brought, I am not sure I agree. In any event the suit was
brought and there is now a proposed settlement. I am also a consumer
of computer software and hardware, as are the three other members of
my family. I believe that this litigation has been expensive for all
sides. It has added to the cost of computer produces and had a
chilling effect on the entire computer industry for unknown or
speculative future gains. While I am a computer consumer/user, I am
not a guru. I don't need 10 different operating systems. I need one
that will integrate easily all the different applications. I need
standardization and easy of integration.
I believe that settling this litigation now--and the
quicker the better--is in my family's best interests and in the
best interests of the vast majority of computer users.
MTC-00027623
From:
[email protected]@in
etgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:09am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Case
I understand you are listening to public opinion on the case
against Microsoft. That, if I may say, is your first mistake. It is
not a matter of public opinion whether Microsoft is allowed to be
free to sell its product to a willing buyer- in a free society. Any
such transaction has nothing to do with parties outside of that
transaction. How dare you be so presumptuous! Microsoft has added
incredible value to all our lives, business and public and must be
left free to continue its product development and promotion in any
way it see fit.
Land of the Free? Only if you realise the evil that this case is
trying to perpetrate.
Simon Bates
Waterloo, London.
MTC-00027624
From: Stuart J. Hysom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past,
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly
position in the operating system market. This is especially
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past
transgressions.
Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future
repetition of those abuses.
[[Page 28084]]
This, in my opinion, goes against the very foundation of law. If a
person or organization is able to commit illegal acts, benefit from
those acts and then receive as a ``punishment''
instructions that they cannot commit those acts again, they have
still benefited from their illegal acts. That is not justice, not
for the victims of their abuses and not for the American people in
general. I don't believe that the current proposal provides adequate
reparations to those injured by Microsoft's anti-competitive
behavior.
While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
Sincerely,
Stuart J. Hysom
Department of Sociology
Emory University
1555 Pierce Rd. NE
Atlanta GA, 30322
404-727-7510
MTC-00027625
From:
[email protected]@in
etgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:54am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To whom it may concern:
As a professional computer programmer and computer user for
almost 2 decades, I feel obligated to make a comment regarding the
settlement the DOJ has reached with the monopolist Microsoft. Given
Microsoft's history of using its monopolist position to force its
way into one market after another and leaving a trail of crushed
competitors in its wake, I feel the proposed settlement agreement is
a travesty of justice. Microsoft has the attitude that its behavior
has benefitted customers when in fact the only entity that has
benefitted is Microsoft. Furthermore, I strongly believe that
Microsoft will continue to behave in a manner that will cause
further violations of the anti-trust act unless the government sends
it a message, in the form of a *much* stronger punishment, that this
behavior will not be tolerated.
As things stand, MS will continue to break the law, and they
will have to be forced into court to make them comply. Of course,
all this will take years, as MS will send a swarm of lawyers to
delay any legal action until it's far too late to do anything about
it. Microsoft is *right now* using its monopoly to work its way into
new markets, yet nothing is being done about it. The longer the
government waits to act, the worse things get for consumers.
A stiff fine (as a percentage of Microsoft's worth..say 1%),
separating the operating systems from the applications divisions of
Microsoft, and forbidding Microsoft from entering any new markets
for a couple years (to allow a competive environment to develop in
these new areas) are all required to put Microsoft in a position
relative to other companies that will allow competition to once
again thrive to the benefit of the consumer.
Thomas Swann
Oviedo, FL
MTC-00027626
From: Eben Moglen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please find attached a filing under 15 U.S.C. Section 16 in
relation to the above matter.
Very truly yours.
Eben Moglen
Professor of Law
Columbia Law School,
435 West 116th Street,
NYC 10027
columbia.edu
voice: 212-854-8382
fax:212-854-7946
moglen@
General Counsel,
Free Software Foundation http://moglen.law.columbia.edu
January 27, 2002
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 Professor of Law at Columbia University Law School in New
York, and General Counsel (pro bono publico) of the Free Software
Foundation, a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation
organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with
its headquarters in Boston. I make this statement under the
provisions of 15 U.S.C. 16(d) concerning the Proposed
Revised Final Judgment (hereinafter ``the Settlement'') in
United States v. Microsoft Corp.
The remedies sought to be effected in the Settlement are, in
their broad outline, appropriate and reasonable measures for the
abatement of the illegal conduct proven by the United States at
trial. The goal of such remedies is to require that Defendant
affirmatively assist the restoration of competition in the market in
which the Defendant has been shown to have illegally maintained a
monopoly in violation of 15 U.S.C. 2. The remedies
embodied in the Settlement would substantially achieve that goal,
appropriately furthering the Government's pursuit of the public
interest, if the Settlement were amended to rectify certain details
one-sidedly favorable to the Defendant's goal of continuing its
illegal monopoly.
Defendant--in the interest of continuing unabated its
illegal monopoly--has artfully drafted certain clauses of the
Settlement so as to hobble potential competition, giving the
appearance of affirmatively assisting to undo its wrong, but
covertly assisting instead in its continuance.
The District Court found that the Defendant had illegally
maintained a monopoly in the market for Intel- compatible PC
operating systems. (Findings of Fact, November 19, 1999,
� 19.) The mechanism of that mo- nopolization, the court
found, was the attempt to establish exclusive control of
``application program interfaces'' (``APIs'') to
which applications developers resort for operating system services,
so as to prevent the possibility of ``cross-platform''
development threatening Defendant's operating systems monopoly.
(Findings of Fact, � 80 and passim.)
The Settlement accordingly makes appropriate provision to
require Microsoft to provide access to full and complete technical
information about its APIs on non-discriminatory terms, so as to
prevent Defendant's prior conduct in erecting artificial and illegal
barriers to entry to the monopolized market.
But the precise terms of the Settlement create a series of
artful technical loopholes vitiating the primary intention. Section
III(D) provides that:
Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for
Windows XP or 12 months after the submission of this Final Judgment
to the Court, 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 APIs and related
Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware to interoperate
with a Windows Operating System Product. (emphasis added)
The ``sole purpose'' requirement means that Defendant
does not have to make any such API information avail- able to
developers of software whose purpose it is to make competing Intel-
compatible PC operating systems. Only those who make programs that
interoperate with Windows Operating Systems Products may receive
such information. Under III(I)(3), an applications
developer who has received licensed information concerning De-
fendant's APIs could be prohibiting from sharing that information
with a maker of a competing Intel-compatible PC operating system,
for the purpose of interoperating with that competing product. Under
III(I)(2), if a potential competitor in the market for
Intel-compatible PC operating systems also makes applications
products, it can even be prohibited from using licensed information
it receives in order to make those applications interoperate with
Defendant's products also interoperate with its own competing
operating system.
What should be a provision requiring Defendant to share
information with potential competitors in the monopolized market
turns out, after Defendant's careful manipulation, to be a provision
for sharing information ``solely'' with people other than
competitors in the monopolized market. The same language has been
inserted into III(E), thus similarly perverting the
intention of the Settlement with respect to Communications
Protocols.
Defendant has not merely engaged in this undertaking with a goal
to the exclusion of potential future competitors from the
monopolized market. In the teeth of the evidence, long after having
been proved to have behaved with exaggerated contempt for the
antitrust laws, Defendant is attempting in the very Judgment
delivered against it to exclude from the market its most vigorous
current competitor.
Defendant's most significant present challenger in the Intel-
compatible PC operating systems market is the collection of
[[Page 28085]]
``free software,'' which is free in the sense of freedom,
not necessarily in price: thousands of programs written
collaboratively by individuals and organizations throughout the
world, and made available under license terms that allow everyone to
freely use, copy, modify and redistribute all the program code. That
free software, most of it licensed under the terms of the Free
Software Foundation's GNU General Public License (``the
GPL'') represents both an operating system, known as GNU, and
an enormous corpus of applications programs that can run on almost
all existing architectures of digital computers, including Intel-
compatible PCs.
Through one such free software component, an operating system
``kernel'' called Linux, written by thousands of
individuals and distributed under the GPL, the GNU operating system
can execute on Intel-compatible PC's, and by combining Linux with
other free software, GNU can perform all the functions performed by
Windows. Non-Microsoft Middleware can execute on Intel-compatible
PCs equipped with components of GNU and Linux. Intel-compatible PCs
so equipped currently account for more than 30% of the installed
server base in the United States, according to independent industry
obsevers.
The District Court found that ``by itself, Linux's open-
source development model shows no signs of liberating that operating
system from the cycle of consumer preferences and developer
incentives that, when fueled by Windows'' enormous reservoir of
applications, prevents non-Microsoft operating systems from
competing.'' (Findings of Fact, November 5, 1999,
� 50.) (referring, confusingly, to the combination of
GNU, Linux, and other programs simply as ``Linux.'') The
District Court correctly found that in order to compete effectively
with Defendant in the desktop operating systems market for Intel-
compatible PCs, systems equipped with the free software operating
system should be able to interoperate with ``the enormous
reservoir'' of Windows applications.
There is no inherent barrier to such interoperation, only an
artificial barrier illegally erected by Defendant. If Defendant were
required to release information concerning its APIs to the
developers of free software, GNU, Linux, the X windowing system, the
WINE Windows emulator, and other relevant free software could inter-
operate directly with all applications that have been developed for
Windows. Anyone could execute Windows applications programs bought
from any developer on Intel-compatible PC's equipped with the
competing free software operating system. And because, as the
District Court found, the cost structure of free software is very
much lower than Defendant's, the competing operating system product
is and would continue to be available at nominal prices. (Findings
of Fact, November 5, 1999, � 50.)
That would be too effective a form of competition, from the
Defendant's point of view. For this reason, Defendant has included
in the Settlement the terms that exclude from API documentation
precisely those to whom it would be most logically addressed:
potential competitors seeking access to the monopolized market. If
the Settlement were enforced according to its intention, the result
would be immediate and vigorous competition between Defendant and
the parties against whom, the District Court found, Defendant was
illegally maintaining a barrier.
The Settlement should be amended to level that barrier, which
the current language inserted by Defendant artfully maintains. The
language of III(D) and III(E) should be amended
to require Defendant to release timely and accurate API information
to all parties seeking to interoperate programs with either Windows
Operating System Products or applications written to interoperate
with Windows Operating System Products.
For the same reason, Defendant's attempt to continue denying the
free software development community access to its APIs through the
imposition of royalty requirements, in III(I)(1),
should be removed. As the District Court recognized, free software
development means that everyone in the world has access, without
payment of royalties or prohibition of redistribution, to the
``source code'' of the software. All APIs and other
interfaces are fully available at all times to anyone who wants to
interoperate with the existing programs. This, and the ability to
reuse existing program code in new programs without payment of
royalties or license fees, permits vast numbers of interoperable,
high-quality programs to be written by a mixture of volunteers and
professional project developers for free distribution.
By authorizing Defendant to engage in non-reciprocity by
charging royalties for the same information about its programs, thus
purposefully ousting volunteer developers, and by prohibiting
``sublicensing,'' thus precluding profit-making developers
from seeking interoperability with volunteers, the Settlement is
craftily perverted into a mechanism whereby Defendant can continue
to withhold API information so as to preclude the operations of
potential competitors.
The Settlement should be modified so that III(I)(1)
requires reciprocity, by precluding the imposition of royalties on
developers who make their own APIs fully available without payment
of royalties or license fees, and so that III(I)(3)
precludes limitation on sublicensing, and requires Defendant to
release API information on terms reciprocal to those on which
competitors make their own API information available.
In one additional provision Defendant has attempted to subvert
the intention of the Settlement in order to preclude effective
competition by the Intel-compatible free software operating system.
Under III(J)(1), Defendant may refuse to disclose
``portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of
Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise
the security of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital
rights management, encryption or authentication systems, including
without limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement
criteria.''
This provision is so indefinite that Defendant can be expected
to argue that all APIs and Communications Protocols connected with
the security and authentication aspects of electronic commerce
(including especially ``without limitation'' keys and
authorization tokens, which are the basic building blocks of all
electronic commerce systems) can be kept secret.
At present, all such protocols and APIs are public, which is
appropriate because--as computer security experts would testify
if, as it should, the District Court seeks evidentiary
supplementation under 15 U.S.C. 16(f)(1)--security is not
attained in the computer communications field by the use of secret
protocols, but rather by the use of scientifically-refereed and
fully public protocols, whose security has been tested by full
exposure in the scientific and engineering communities.
If this provision were enforced as currently drafted, Defendant
could implement new private protocols, extending or replacing the
existing public protocols of electronic commerce, and then use its
monopoly position to exclude the free software operating system from
use of that de facto industry standard embodied in its new
unpublicized APIs and Protocols.
Defendant then goes further in III(J)(2), according
to itself the right to establish criteria of ``business
viability'' without with it may deny access to APIs.
Considering that its primary competition results from a development
community led by non-profit organizations and relying heavily on
non-commercial and volunteer developers, one can only conclude that
Defendant is once again seeking the appearance of cooperation with
the rule of law, while preparing by chicane to deny its injured
competitors their just remedy.
The Free Software Foundation not only authors and distributes
the GNU General Public License, and in other ways facilitates the
making of free software by others, it also manufactures and
distributes free software products of its own, particularly the GNU
operating system, and sells compilations of its own and
others'' free software.
The Foundation sustains specific injury from the violations set
forth in the complaint that are not remedied by (and indeed are
specifically excluded from) the Settlement. The Foundation and the
other free software developers with whom it acts are the single most
significant competitor to the Defendant in the monopolized market,
and the adoption of the Settlement as drafted, with its terms so
carefully designed by Defendant to preclude its effective
competition, would be a travesty.
We urge that the Settlement be amended as we have described.
Very truly yours,
Eben Moglen
MTC-00027627
From: Pascal Goguey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
Dear Sir, Madam,
I am not sure my comments will be valid since I am posting from
abroad. However, it may be a good thing to stress that people
[[Page 28086]]
from the whole world, and not only US are frustrated by Microsoft
practices, mainly for the following reasons:
1. Impossibility to buy an Intel-based machine which is not
preloaded with any of the versions of Microsoft Windows;
2. Impossibility to get a refund from Microsoft in most of the
countries when sending back the OS;
3. Extreme difficulty for an OEM to sell machines equipped with
alternative operating systems;
As for the recent settlement, it leaves a lot of room for
reinforcement of Microsoft's monopolistic position. In particular,
the fact that Microsoft must provide software for free to school is
like a powertool in Microsoft's hands: first, it costs them a
subdollar fee to duplicate the software, and they could even make it
downloadable, and second, it will be a free advertisement campaign
as all the students in these schools will become used to their
products, and therefore more likely to purchase what they are used
to. The settlement also lacks a true anti-monopolistic policy.
I am not optimistic enough to think my contribution would change
anything, but I hope a significant number non-US residents will join
in the same effort.
Best regards,
Pascal Goguey
Kamigyou-ku Ishiyakushi-cho 699
Oomiya doori Motoseiganji-sagaru,
Charmant co-po nishi-jin 302
602-8226 Kyoto, Japan.
Work phone: +81 6 6906 3475
Home phone: +81 75 432 4370
MTC-00027628
From: Josh Fryman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To those involved in the Microsoft settlement case:
I am writing you to express my concern over the Proposed Final
Judgement (PFJ) that is being considered. As a PhD student and
researcher at Georgia Institue of Technology in the College of
Computing, I note with a technical perspective that the PFJ is not
in the best interests of the public.
I have watched Microsoft and its behavior for the past 20-odd
years, and tell you freely that the glaring tricks present in the
PFJ will enable Microsoft to continue with their anti-competitive
practices, and even make the situation worse. The result of being
found guilty of Anti-Trust laws should leave Microsoft punished and
--incapable-- of repeating the business decisions and
practices that fostered such acts.
While I know the holes in the PFJ to be many and quite large,
here I will pick just one item and try to bring it to your
consideration. In the PFJ, Microsoft is required to share the
Windows operating system APIs with competitors. The wording which
this is done, however, is so weak and narrow that several problems
exist.
1--Microsoft determines who it's competitors are, and what
pieces of software meet the weak definition of API.
2--Microsoft clearly states that only for-profit companies
can even be considered as to whether or not they are competitors, a
decision again which only Microsoft can render itself. This
immediately precludes free software, such as the Linux operating
system of many news articles, from being able to use any information
Microsoft may release.
3--Well known and practiced software engineering and
research terms and definitions, such as API, are rewritten in this
PFJ such that many Microsoft's own products would not be bound by
any parts of the PFJ.
Expressing the concept here in simple terms, if a little over-
simplified, may help your understanding. An ``API'' is an
overloaded acronym. It has meant in a traditional sense
``Application Programmer Interface'', or some close
variant. In a modern sense, the ``API'' is not restricted
to Applications or Application Programmers, but is meant in a
broader sense of *any* piece of software interacting with *any
other* piece of software on a system must do so through a set of
published interfaces. These interfaces are an ``API''.
Microsoft has a long history of publishing only part of the API
suite for it's products, such as Microsoft Windows and Microsoft
Internet Explorer, to name just two of the multitude. While
competitors struggle to work with the Microsoft APIs, Microsoft's
own products use undocumented (unpublished) APIs that are faster,
simpler, and have more features. (Not all unpublished APIs are
faster/simpler/etc, but many are.) When competitors discover these
undocumented APIs, Microsoft has a known habit of changing them to
break competitors software, starting the cycle over again of hidden
API discovery.
Another typical example of Microsoft behavior can be seen in
their Windows 2000 operating system. They took a known public
standard, called Kerberos, for secure authentication of users via
password and login names, for a baseline system and integrated it
into Windows. Then, to ``extend it'', they very slightly
modified the behavior to be feature-wise identical but
implementation-wise incompatible with all other kerberos based
systems. They then billed this as ``all-new'' technology
and made their changes a hidden, unpublished secret such that other
companies'' products could not interface with Microsoft's
products. Their change? Several ``bits'' in the structure
of a kerberos message are reserved, but meant to be 0. Microsoft set
some of these bits to 1, breaking the standard.
How do these examples relate to the issue at hand? In a very
simple manner, they illustrate typical Microsoft behavior. Now, in
the PFJ, Microsoft will be able to set its own standards for who may
be considered a competitor, and who may see what it considers an
API. It even allows Microsoft to change the APIs without telling
anyone until much too late!
This is unjust. For this one area to be corrected, Microsoft
should be required to do something along the following lines:
--All products must have their APIs published and released
into the public domain. Any patents or copyrights on these API
designs are also released into the public domain. (Here ``All
products'' would be restricted to Microsoft Windows, Microsoft
Internet Explorer, and all other programs that are installed by
default with any Microsoft Windows operating system product.)
--Microsoft can not change the API without a 6-month prior
public notice in DOJ designated major forums for the industry.
--Microsoft must allow individual components to be opted as
not installed, as well as removable after installation, without
degrading the system behavior in any way.
--Any Microsoft product found to be using undocumented or
unpublished APIs immediately becomes public domain, and all source
code, patents, and copyrights are released to the public domain.
--Any Microsoft product found to be violating the terms of
this section becomes public domain property, with all source code,
patents, and copyrights released to the public domain.
These first three simple guides would allow any and all
companies to compete with Microsoft in a fair manner. It would also
prohibit Microsoft from unfairly changing their APIs without giving
fair warning to competitors. The final clauses are meant to be a
deterrent to Microsoft for violating these rules.
These are the types of rules and judgements expected when a
major monopoly-holder is found guilt of illegally maintaining their
monopoly and abusing their power. Not the light wrist-slap that the
PFJ is when examined closely.
Regards,
Josh Fryman
210 Arrowhead Rd
Bogart, GA 30622
email: [email protected]
phone: 706-548-8784
PhD Student and Researcher
College of Computing
Georgia Tech
MTC-00027629
From: Chip Piller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:00am
Subject: microsoft anti trust comments
I find the terms outlined in the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ)
of the Microsoft Antitrust case to not be in the best interests of
the public. In general I find that the PFJ does not go far enough in
it's remedies, that the PFJ should be rewritten so that the language
and terms used in the document are more clearly defined, and that
the PFJ be more direct and eliminate exceptions and allowances so as
to be more restrictive and to eliminate loopholes.
Section III Prohibited Conduct
This sections states that the royalty schedule will be
``established by Microsoft and published on a web site
accessible to the Plaintiffs and all Covered OEMs''. I would
like for the schedule to be made available to the general public.
Also, the nature of the web site and access to the web site both
need to be defined. The concern here is that Microsoft will prepare
the web pages and web site in a way that favors or requires the use
of Microsoft products for proper access.
III-B-2 permits Microsoft to charge different
amounts for it's products based upon ``reasonable'' volume
discounts. The term reasonable must be defined. However,
[[Page 28087]]
even if reasonable is defined this volume discount amounts to
nothing less than discrimination against small businesses and
individuals and therefore should not be permitted. The royalties,
fees, and charge schedule should be uniform across the board and
should be made public.
III-B-3 Market development allowances. The court has
determined that Microsoft is a monopoly and the court has found
Microsoft guilty of anti-competitive practices. I am opposed to the
court making provisions for Microsoft for market development. This
exception makes no sense.
III-D/E This is a very important section. Microsoft must
be required to make full and complete disclosure of the API's and
documentation necessary for interoperating with all Microsoft
software products, not just the Microsoft operating system.
This disclosure needs to be made to the general public and
without charge so that members of the open source programming
community may develop their software to be compatible with the
software produced by Microsoft. This disclosure should be changed to
include items such as the Microsoft file formats used by the
Microsoft operating system as well as the file formats,
communication protocols, and authentication methods used by other
Microsoft products such as Word, Excel, and Exchange.
In addition I would like to add that I believe that competition
for Microsoft will come from the open source programming community,
which is comprised of volunteers around the internet. I would like
to see the PFJ remedies be available to these people who will then
be able to make their software compatible with that of Microsoft so
that consumers will be given a real choice in their software.
Regards,
Maurice F. Piller, Jr.
2631 Blue Meadow Lane
Knoxville, TN 37932
Email: [email protected]
MTC-00027630
From: Ronald W. Greiner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:11am
Subject: Settlement
1. Please allow the proposed settlement to proceed allowing for
minor minor adjustments.
Please allow the State of Oregon to set their own policy for the
Right to Die. I have voted republican most of my life but sticking
your nose into this issue make me think your religious feelings are
more important than my right to choose. They are not!!!!!
MTC-00027631
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user. This is just another method for states to get free
money, and a terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of
computer technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most
dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
James Ervin
625 Washington St
Kerrville, TX 78028
MTC-00027632
From:
[email protected]@inet
gw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tax Compliance--State and Local Tax Services
Ernst & Young LLP--Indianapolis Shared Services Location
5451 Lakeview Parkway South Drive
Indianapolis, IN 46268
Phone: (317) 280-3614
Fax: (317) 280-6102
EYCOMM: 2477726
Dear Sir or Madam,
Given the economic recession we are presently in, as well as the
events of September 11, I think it is absurd how much time, energy,
and money my government has wasted in pursuing Microsoft. Like only
a few other times in our nation's history, we should be able to
discern acts of true hatred and evil, those that cause significant
amounts of real harm to the citizens of this great country, from the
acts of an organization that has produced such overwhelmingly
positive results for not only its people and shareholders, but also
for its industry and this country as a technological and economic
super-power. Time does not permit me to go into all the details of
my position, but I think it is well past the time for the government
(including the Department of Justice) to get back to protecting
those that it is supposed to protect.
I say these things not as a Microsoft employee (or as a relative
of an employee) or shareholder, but as a taxpayer who funds the
operations the government of this country. In a capitalist society
there will always be sour-grapes. I think the founding fathers would
shudder at the thought of the government tampering as heavily as it
has with Microsoft.
Let's let business get back to business, and let's have
government work on protecting citizens from REAL harm.
Steve.
MTC-00027633
From: Daniel Phillips
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In 1989, Microsoft apparently obtained a patent covering two
principle components of a W3C recommendation, CSS and XSL. Microsoft
was a member of the committee drafting the recommendation, and filed
for the patent during the time the recommendation was being drafted:
http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US05860073-- (US5860073:
Style sheets for publishing system)
There was some coverage of this sad affair at the time: http://
www.zdnet.com/sp/stories/news/0,4538,2205109,00.html
The question is, might Microsoft intend to use these patents in
an attempt to erect new barriers in front of competitors with regard
to the CSS and XSL standards? What is to prevent that? Considering
the doubtful circumstances in which the patents were obtained, might
it not be prudent to compel Microsoft to rescind these patents, or
equivalently, release them into the public domain, in order to
ensure that these patents are not misused.
Daniel Phillips
MTC-00027634
From: Mike Sallman
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 8:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to urge you to reconsider the proposed final
judgment in this case. This settlement does little to deter
Microsoft from their monopolistic practices and even less to provide
redress for past anti-competitive activities.
Microsoft's monopoly stifles innovation, creativity, competition
and freedom which are the hallmarks of our free-enterprise system.
Michael Sallman
IT Administrator
Fidelity Bank
MTC-00027635
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:15am
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,
Elizabeth Woods
R.D. # ! Box 100-A
Corsica, PA 15829-9635
MTC-00027636
From: Ingham, Richard
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 8:18am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust case
[[Page 28088]]
This is to comment that I support this ruling. It will be better
for the economy to move beyond this. The plaintiffs shold not be
able to win in the courtroom what they cannot win in the
marketplace.
Respectfully,
Richard Ingham
mailto:[email protected]
MTC-00027637
From: Bill Hopfer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bill Hopfer
2684 Seneca Drive
Jacksonville, FL 32259
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am outraged that Microsoft was attacked three years ago. The
antitrust suit has been less about reprimanding illegal activity
than it has been about greed and jealousy. I would like to see this
case settled as soon as possible; it has truly been a disgrace.
Microsoft puts out an excellent product and it has been good for the
American public by standardizing software with Windows. Where would
we be without such a user-friendly interface? Back at DOS or Basic,
trying to communicate with the computer at various prompts and
having to learn the language of the operating system in order to do
so.
The settlement is good for the consumer. The consumer will
benefit because Windows installation will not be mandatory on most
computers and both computer makers and users will be allowed to
reconfigure Windows as they see fit. Microsoft will accordingly
reformat Windows so that it will support software alternatives.
I am upset that Microsoft's competitors wish to continue the
suit against the Microsoft Corporation. This has gone on far too
long already. It is time to settle. I urge you to support the
agreement reached last November.
Sincerely,
Bill Hopfer
MTC-00027638
From: Nelligan, Michael P
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 8:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
There are many problems with the proposed settlement. As a user
of several ``open source'' I would like to address two
major ones.
First the required API sharing limits those to whom Microsoft
would have to make API specifications available in such a way that
many open source projects could be excluded. Further it allows
Microsoft to place limits on how such specifications may be used or
distributed. In order to be more fair Microsoft should be required
to make ALL APIs publicly available so that all software producers
(large or small, profitable or not) could benefit and continue to
work on developing competitive products.
Second, the settlement makes no mention of file format
specifications; for example Word .doc files and Excel .xls files.
Microsoft uses its file formats to make it more difficult for
competing products to compete by not publishing the format
specifications and by changing with most new versions of their
software. Because of this projects to create competing software must
spend excessive amounts of developer time and effort in figuring out
how to be compatible with Microsoft's products. Supporters of
Microsoft frequently point to a failure to read and write Microsoft
file formats as a reason why competing products are not as good as
Microsoft's products. In the trial Microsoft pointed to open source
products as potential dangerous competitors for themselves. The
judge did not find that such products were competitive but did
believe that they could be. To allow Microsoft to use the Final
Judgment to limit the ability of open source projects to produce
strong compatible by competing projects would defeat the intention
of using the judgment to promote competitiveness in the market
place.
Thank you for considering these objections.
Michael P. Nelligan Network Systems Analyst for Battelle
Memorial Institute,
505 King Ave., Columbus, Ohio, 43201
Resident of Ohio at 60 Euclid Ave., Columbus, OH 43201
MTC-00027639
From: Dale Wiener
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft
The lawsuit forged against Microsoft by the Department of
Justice was uncalled for. Microsoft has been painted in a bad light
through this litigation. The only thing Microsoft is guilty of is
providing consumers with superior products. The purpose of this
letter, however, is to express my support of the settlement.
The settlement came at great cost for Microsoft. Microsoft has
agreed to disclose the internal interfaces of its Windows operating
network. This is revolutionary in that it allows Microsoft
competitors to gain access to interface. Interface disclosure will
further allow developers to replace competing software into the
Windows'' system.
I believe that these sacrifices are necessary only in that they
allow Microsoft to begin concentrating solely on the practice of
software design.
Sincerely
Waltraud Wiener
MTC-00027640
From: Morris, Mitchell
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 8:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would like to register my objection to the proposed settlement
in US v. Microsoft. Specifically, I object to section III.J.2.c
wherein Microsoft reserves the right to refuse to disclose
information to entities which don't meet Microsoft's standards for
business viability. Given our American tradition of individual
effort and entrepreneurship, I find this claim that a citizen must
prove his business viability to Microsoft's satisfaction before
being allowed to compete in the marketplace to be most distasteful.
Thank you,
Mitchell Morris
MTC-00027641
From: Frank Biggs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Based upon reading the decision, I do not believe this
adequately addresses the issues of the Microsoft case. It fails to
punish past practices that the DOJ proved or to prevent future
actions of the same nature by Microsoft. The wording of the decision
will allow Microsoft to manipulate the language to its advantage and
to continue its activities virtually unabated. With this in mind,
the decision should be rejected.
John F Biggs II
12346 Swan Wings Place
Huntersville NC 28078
MTC-00027642
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I am an academic computer user of some years'' experience.
I avoid Microsoft software as much as possible. On occasions when I
have used it, I have found it to be unreliable, insecure and prone
to viruses. Most of the people I speak to who do use it feel that it
is imposed upon them, that they have no real choice, and have
submitted with a ``you can't fight city hall'' attitude.
This letter is a small attempt at fighting city hall.
In my view the two worst aspects of the Microsoft Corporation's
behavior are its bullying tactics and its deliberate subversion of
standards such as email and web-page formats. These are difficult
practices to legislate specifically against, but they are made
possible by the sheer size and power of Microsoft, which is why the
original idea breaking up the corporation was a good one. Smaller,
competing companies could not commit such abuses as successfully.
Although it is difficult to frame rules to outlaw bullying as such,
there are several specific instances of it that could be prevented,
but are not, in the proposed settlement. One is forcing
manufacturers to include a Microsoft operating system with their
computers, whether or not the customer wants one. Another is
forbidding the use of free software in conjunction with various
program components. Both of these are outrageous impositions on the
customer, made possible only by Microsoft's monopoly position. In
fact the only time I run a Microsoft operating system these days is
to do my income taxes. I don't know for certain why no one produces
a tax program for, say, Linux, or some other Unix-like operating
system. It would be simple enough to do. The tax programs are simple
combinations of well-established spreadsheet and browser
technologies, and don't depend on the operating system to any
serious extent. It
[[Page 28089]]
would be quick and cheap to port the tax programs I have used to
Linux, and the Linux market, while not comparable in size to the
Microsoft one, must be large enough to be profitable for such a
small extra outlay of effort. My guess, however, is that the
potential profit is not big enough to offset the threat of
retaliation by Microsoft. They are big enough that all they need to
do is hint at retaliation.
Another general tendency that cannot be prevented outright, but
could be better curbed than it is in the proposed settlement, is
acting as if Microsoft owned the user's computer. Their software has
always made unannounced edits to system files and replaced system
components at will. Now they are putting in license provisions that
have the effect of requiring the user to get their permission to
upgrade his/her own hardware. Surely it must be possible to force
them to give the buyer of software the right to use it as he/she
sees fit, within the general framework of the law.
Although these are not the only shortcomings of the proposed
settlement, they are the ones that seem most vital to me. I'm sure
that others will write to you focussing on different ones.
Yours respectfully,
Stephen Isard
MTC-00027643
From: Bob Gordon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
The current ``settlement'' is a bad one because it
does not address the basic issue of Microsoft's monopoly of of
desktop operating systems.
MTC-00027644
From: Kevin Krumwiede
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a student and independent software developer. Though I am
not well-versed in legal matters, I found the provisions of the
proposed Microsoft settlement fairly easy to understand. However, as
an independent software developer, I believe I have a much better
understanding of their implications than the average person.
I do not believe the provisions of the proposed settlement will
significantly affect Microsoft's stranglehold on the market, for the
reasons I have outlined below. It is important to remember that
Microsoft basically invented the industry they dominate. Microsoft's
rise to power was contemporary and symbiotic with the invention and
widespread adoption of personal computers. Prior to that time,
computers were not consumer products. It was largely a hardware
market, and software was something that just came with the hardware.
Much of the software in use was independently developed and freely
distributed. Microsoft cunningly exploited the growing PC market to
gain a monopoly on the operating systems and software that runs
them.
Today, the only significant threat to Microsoft's monopoly is
the same kind of independently-developed, freely-distributed
software that existed before it--software developed by people
like me. Perhaps as a blacklash against Microsoft's business
practices, and spearheaded by the operating system known as Linux,
free software has made a significant comeback in limited areas of
the market. However, it has been unable to gain a foothold on the
desktop--the market for operating systems and applications
currently dominated by Windows 98/ME/XP, Microsoft Office, and
Internet Explorer-- for reasons not sufficiently remedied by
the proposed settlement.
The settlement wisely recognizes the ubiquity of Microsoft's
proprietary APIs and protocols and the necessity of making them
available to developers who can't compete without them and often
can't (legally) reverse-engineer them (sections III.D and III.E).
Conspicuously lacking is a similar provision concerning proprietary
file formats, which are crucual to any interoperability with
Microsoft's Office products. To its credit, the settlement also
prohibits many of the anti-competitive practices that Microsoft has
used to maintain its monopoly.
But here is the key shortcoming of the proposed settlement: none
of its provisions benefit Microsoft's real competition, the free
software developers. We are not officially-recognized ISV's, IHV's,
IAP's, ICP's, or OEM's; we are a loose-knit organization of
individuals around the world, working on countless independent
projects in our free time and with no expectation of monetary
retribution. Few of us would ever ``[have] a reasonable
business need for the API, Documentation or Communications Protocol
for a planned or shipping product'' (section III.J.2(b)) or
``[meet] reasonable, objective standards established by
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability'' of
our development efforts (section III.J.2(c)).
Few of us would meet the ``reasonable and non-
discriminatory'' terms of the provisions (particularly section
III.I.1) and thus would not benefit from sections III.D and III.E.
Likewise, few of us can afford to ``submit, at [our] own
expense, any computer program using such APIs, Documentation or
Communication Protocols to third-party verification'' (section
III.J.2.(d)). The solution, as I see it, is to require that
Microsoft publish the specifications of its proprietary APIs,
protocols, and file formats, making them available not just to
qualifying competitors, but to all competitors. This would ensure
interoperability of all independently-developed software with
Microsoft's products, eliminating the single greatest obstacle
Microsoft has employed to keep upstart competitors out of the
market.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Kevin J. Krumwiede
1807 Woodlands Drive
Smyrna, GA 30080
(770) 431-8185
MTC-00027645
From: Ty van den Akker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am vehemently OPPOSED to the proposed settlement on the
grounds that the settlement is too narrowly defined to be of any
lasting effect in the dynamic software industry.
Ty van den Akker
Arlington, MA 02474
Ty van den Akker
[email protected]
(617) 426-4277 x311
Oculus Technologies Corp.
http://www.oculustech.com
Boston, MA
MTC-00027646
From: Edward Remmers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Attorney-General Ashcroft:
I am writing to endorse the proposed Microsoft Settelement. I
think that it is fair, but very onerous. Unfortunately, there are
critics who wish to impose a ``success tax'' on Microsoft.
In my opinion, this is very unfair. These critics wish to dismantle
the free enterprise system in the U.S. Unfortunately, critics of
Microsoft sound like ``cry babies.'' Instead of crying,
they should work at out-performing Microsoft. I strongly urge you
not to respond to the ``cry babies.'' Many states have
accepted the proposed settlement as fair.
Please have the DOJ accept the proposed settlement. Only the
trial lawyers will benefit financially from this case. Please place
the interest of our country above the interests of the ``cry
babies'' and trial lawyers trying to line their pockets.
Edward G. Remmers
MTC-00027647
From: Anthony Cullen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This is a raw deal for consumers and does very little,
practically speaking, to redress the harm done to consumers or to
prevent further harm in the future.
Anthony P Cullen
S/390 Technology and Architecture Division
Alliance Custom Microprocessor Design
D/zdza ms p/312 914-435-4758
MTC-00027648
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the
[[Page 28090]]
most dynamic industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
BETTY RIDGE
10549 54 AVENUE NORTH
ST PETERSBURG, FL 33708
MTC-00027649
From: Charles Boncelet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:37am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I am a Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering, with
a joint appointment in Computer & Information Sciences at the
University of Delaware. I have published widely in these areas for
20 years. In my opinion, the proposed settlement does nothing to
curb Microsoft's excesses. Over the years, Microsoft has used (and
abused) its monopoly position to stifle innovation and eliminate the
competition in many ways.
I suggest Microsoft be split into two companies, one responsible
for operating systems (e.g., Windows) and one for applications,
e.g., Office. Failing that, the government should insist on at least
three things:
1. The file formats used by applications such as Office should
be made open the public. This would allow other, generally much
smaller, companies to produce products that interoperate with
Microsoft's. (What Microsoft did to the the office productivity
software producers far exceeded in its venality what they did to
Netscape in the browser wars.)
2. Any networking standards used in Microsoft products should be
open and public. Again, this would allow other products to
interoperate with Microsoft's. This is crucial in a modern,
networked computer world.
3. Disallow any contracts between Microsoft and computer vendors
that restrict the ability of the computer vendors to supply
alternative software and operating systems on their computers.
Computer vendors should be allowed without penalty to produce
machines that run linux, BEOS, MAC OS, etc without interference from
or tithing due to Microsoft. Microsoft has been a cancer on the
industry. Please do not allow them to continue.
Sincerely,
Charles Boncelet
(work) 302-831-8008
Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engineering
(fax) 302-831-4316
University of Delaware, Newark DE 19716
http://www.eecis.udel.edu/boncelet/
Email: please use [email protected],
[email protected], or
[email protected]. Other addresses are
unreliable.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00027650
From: Kukla, Jim
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 8:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the proposed settlement is a bad idea. The
information contained in this e-mail including any attachments may
constitute Corvis Corporation Proprietary Information that is
subject to Non-Disclosure Agreement and cannot be disclosed to any
other party without the express consent of Corvis Corporation. If
you are neither the intended recipient of this e-mail nor
responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient,
note that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or retention of
this e-mail is prohibited.
If you believe you have received this e-mail in error, we
request that you notify the sender by return e-mail and then delete
this e-mail and any return e-mail immediately.
MTC-00027651
From: Kalisvaart, Adri
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lincoln RI, January 27, 2001
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
e-mail: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Mrs. Hesse,
I am an immigrant from Germany and I remember how my parents
became accomplices in the crimes committed by their government by
virtue of being Germans. That is the reason why I must register my
opposition to the injustice done to Microsoft by the Justice
Department. My reasons are best expressed in a letter of mine in the
12/6/99 issue of TIME. Therefore, I am sending you the unedited
version of that letter.
Dear Time Editor:
Lynching is alive and well in America. No, not in some backward
corner of these United States. This time the lynching takes place in
Time [November 15, 1999 Busting Bill] and on CNN for the whole world
to watch. This time the Justice Department of the United States of
America is proudly committing this heinous crime.
Who is being lynched? No, not some unfortunate person for having
the wrong skin color. This time the victim is a productive genius
and creator of wealth for himself, for me and for countless millions
around the globe. It is Bill Gates.
Yes, there is a criminal in the case of US versus MS, but it is
not Microsoft. I resent it very much that I am an accomplice to this
crime by virtue of being an American. What is most appalling in this
case is the victim's inability to defend himself. Bill Gates should
have demanded that the Justice Department cease violating his
inalienable rights--namely, his right to his life, his liberty
and his property. By failing to do so, Bill Gates has become an
accomplice in his lynching.
Sincerely, Adri Kalisvaart
5 Wake Robin Road # 2004
Lincoln RI 02865-5220
Home Tel: (401) 333 6303
Office Tel: (508) 236 1021
e-mail: [email protected]
MTC-00027652
From: Timothy McGinnis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
See attached
Timothy S. McGinnis
MTC-00027652 0001
1929 Pendelton Drive
Raleigh NC 27614
January 27,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
As you know, Microsoft has been undergoing a three-year lawsuit
by the US government and I'm using this opportunity to voice the
opinion of the average American consumer.
I am an IT professional and use the products of many vendors
including Microsoft's. My colleagues and I have stated many times
that Microsoft has been the main contributor to the success and
growth of the industry. This lawsuit has given an unfair advantage
to other software providers who seem to be capitalizing on this
misfortune. What we need to do is move this case out of Federal
Court once and for all and stop wasting the time and money of
American people. Microsoft should not have to be spending its budget
on legal matters, instead, investing it on creating new more
efficient software to bring our world further into the technological
evolution that we've headed in. Microsoft has played a phenomenal
role in the success of our country's economy, both locally and
globally, and for the good of all consumers, seeing Microsoft free
from litigation will help boost this recession we're in out the
door.
The settlement should be embraced to make supporters and
competitors satisfied with the procession of production in the IT
industry and the competitive market. The settlement will ensure the
compliance of Microsoft's actions as pro-competitive. Let our
country move on from this lawsuit and get on with more serious
issues plaguing our nation. I thank you for your attention and
ongoing support for the American consumers.
Sincerely,
Timothy McGinnis
MTC-00027653
From: Mark Gryska
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir(s) Madam(s),
I find the proposed settlement of the Microsoft case
unsatisfactory. As a computer professional for more than 15 years I
have watched Microsoft grow from a small company to a very large
company. In that time I have been dismayed by the business practices
of the company which I feel have stifled technical innovation by
means of broken standards and aggressive actions towards its
competitors. As a consumer and user of Netscape Navigator I feel
that I have been harmed by the tactics by which Microsoft sought to
make Internet Explorer the number one browser.
I see further signs that the company is making in roads in 3D
gaming and stands to
[[Page 28091]]
follow much the same pattern as it has in the past. I believe that
the company should be broken up into at least 3 seperate entities
and face heavy fines.
Sincerely,
Mark Gryska
MTC-00027654
From: Lea Blanton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:45am
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 express my support for Microsoft and the
settlement that was reached in November. Microsoft has pledged to
carry out all provisions of this agreement and create more
opportunities for competing companies. Under this agreement,
Microsoft must license its Windows operating system products to the
20 largest computer makers. Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate
against computer makers who ship software that competes with
anything in its Windows operating system. The settlement contains
many guidelines that Microsoft has fully agreed to uphold.
I see no reason to continue costly and expensive litigation that
drives down stock prices and contributes additional uncertainty to
individual and organizational purchasing plans in an already
uncertain economy. This settlement will serve in the best public
interest. Please support the November settlement.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lea M. Blanton
611 Westridge Drive
Burlington, NC 27215
MTC-00027655
From: Manohar Hora
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sir:
It is very unfortunate that in spite of all the advances that
have happened in the Tech Industry, you are after Micro soft that is
responsible for the advances. why don't you waste public money on
some thing worthwhile. History will tell that the Justice Dept. was
responsible for the down fall of US Computer Industry. This is
business. Let every one struggle without any help from the Govt.
One concerned citizen
MTC-00027656
From: dkitts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Will you PLEASE leave Microsoft alone and end this case now. As
an IT professional, I see many of my peers in jeopardy of layoff or
already looking for jobs due to the slowing of companies application
development cycles. Much of this has to do with the economy, but
when times are tough economically, companies stop spending on
``risky'' investments. The turmoil surrounding the
Microsoft case has made companies put many projects on hold due to
anxiety on the base operating systems to run the applications on.
The anti-trust case is helping to keep that up! I believe that a
quick settlement will help bolster the economy, help the .com
industry back on it's feet and will be the best thing for the United
States.
I also believe that Microsoft has had a historically better
record of keeping the consumer and businesses best welfare in mind
than most other vendors. BEFORE MS, companies like Apple charged
OUTRAGEOUS amounts of money for their software, particularly
operating systems. Now, you can buy sophisticated operating systems
like Windows 2000 Professional for under $400!!!!
I also thoroughly believe that Microsoft came to market years
ago with better, more consumer friendly products than Netscape and
AOL and therefore deserved to win the market share they have. When a
truly better product IS available, I'm sure the IT industry will
flock to it. Look at the interest in Linux! It is mainly a warmed up
version of the venerable UNIX operating system, but they have sold
TONS of copies just out of curiosity of the IT industry. If Linux
ever is proven to be better, it will flood the IT landscape in
months...but, at this point, it is simply not technically better or
more efficient. (By the way, IT professionals will argue UNIX vs.
Windows vs. whatever forever, much like teenage boys will argue over
which was faster, Pontiac or Ford)
As far as Netscape goes, a few years ago I attended a Netscape
Professional Developers Conference (sponsored by Netscape). At that
point in time they pretty much stated on an emotional, not logical,
level that they hated MS. They didn't even want to build a Web
server to run on a Microsoft platform!!! I believe that Netscape
(AOL) will whine forever about Microsoft and will always be trying
to manipulate the courts, the DOJ or whoever they can to try to
``compete'' with Microsoft. This is not because the are
not allowed to compete in the market place, it is because they just
simply cannot produce anything better than equivalent products.
Please stop wasting my tax money on Microsoft...I'd much rather pay
for the War on Terrorism. Even if the amount of money spent on the
Microsoft Anti
Trust case only equates to one day of expense for the War on
Terrorism, I'd MUCH rather spend the money on day hunting for bin
Laden, than years hunting Bill Gates.
Just my humble opinions,
D. Frank Kitts
[email protected]
MTC-00027657
From: Srivastava, Samir
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 8:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Madam/sir,
Please note my wish as a citzen of the United States of America
to disagree with the settlement as offered by the Justice Department
to resolve the Microsoft monopoly case.
As I understand it, the goal of the Justice department should be
to ensure that a fair and just solution be implemented in the
interest of the American Public, as well as sufficient punishment
for the wrong doing engaged in by Microsoft. I believe the current
soultion offered fails on both counts listed above. Microsoft has
been found to be a monopoly (this in itself is OK) in operating
systems, but they have been found to use this power to inhibit
competition and gain market share in other areas such as browsers
and Office productivity software. This behavior was rightly found to
be illegal. Sufficient punishment demands that they be prevented
from engaging in this kind of practice ever again.
Under the current proposal, Microsoft would get lots of legal
``wiggle room'' to comply with the letter of the law but
not the intent of the law. Since Microsoft has previously proven to
be very good at avoiding complience (the original consent decree
from the 1980's), one can assume without a doubt that Microsoft will
again play these games. So, the punishment part of the proposal must
be designed so that Microsoft will not have anything to gain by
playing legal games. It should be a very large cash fine, as this is
the only way to get the attention of high paid executives that
consider themselves above the law.
Secondly, for a fair and just solution for the American public,
the Justice department should rule that Microsoft has to publish all
the data formats for its data files. This should not be a burden to
Microsoft. These data formats are important because one has to have
knowledge about the formats to read the data. As it stands,
Microsoft does not share this data with the industry and prevents
other companies from being able to read its data formats, such as MS
Word files for example.
There is no reason that MS Word files from one user need to be
read only by another MS Word user, except for the fact that it is
difficult and time consuming to decode by anyone else without
information from Microsoft. This is analagous to AT&T only being
able to call other AT&T customers or phones. But this is not the
case, in fact, in the telecommunications industry the signalling
standards (or data format) for a call are well known public
information.
This means that if I want to phone home to the USA from
Switzerland, all I need to do is call my number in the USA. Because
the signalling standards are known by everyone, the Swisscom phone
switch can convert my request such that is easily decoded by the
AT&T phone switch. With this well known or open data format, the
public is well served. Notice that there is no affect to the
intellectual property of AT&T or Swisscom. The public does not
know or care how the phone switches work as this is not published,
but only that the data formats are known so the systems can
interoperate.
I believe that the same model should be applied to the Microsoft
case. I don't care what they put into windows, but when they take
the data formats for the Internet browser, MS Office suites and a
host of other programs and refuse to share the formats publicly, the
public will have no choice but to use only Microsoft software to be
able to decode them. Notice that even on the Mac platform, one
[[Page 28092]]
must use MS Office programs to be able to read a Word document sent
by someone else.
I sincerely hope that you will read my proposal and implement a
tough but fair solution in the Microsoft case. Please make sure that
the American people win in the name of justice, fairness and
innovation for the sake of a free world.
Thank you for giving the American public a chance to comment on
this issue.
Thank You and regards,
Samir Srivastava
Core Network Engineer
COLT Telecom AG
Badenerstrasse 820
CH-8048 Zrich
t: +41 1 5 600 900
f: +41 1 5 600 910
e: mailto:[email protected]
www.colt.ch
we make business straight.forward
MTC-00027658
From: Chris Hanson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am President of a small software and consulting company named
bDistributed.com, Inc., located in the Chicago area. (Web site and
contact information below.) As President of a company that develops
software primarily for the Apple Macintosh and Sun's Java
technology, I strongly believe that the Microsoft antitrust
settlement does not go far enough to I don't think any behavioral
remedy will work on Microsoft. They have an established pattern of
behavior of ignoring behavior remedies, disobeying court orders,
lying to federal judges, and so on. The only remedy that will work
and restore competition to the marketplace is structural: The
company needs to be broken up and there needs to be heavy government
oversight not only of the resulting ``Nanosofts'', but of
the interactions between them and the rest of the market.
Here's my recipe for a workable breakup: Nanosoft 1 does only
operating systems (both workstation and server). Nanosoft 2 does
does only workstation applications, including Office, the Outlook
client, the Messenger client, the NetMeeting client, and so on.
Nanosoft 3 does only server applications, including SQL Server, the
Outlook server, the Messenger server, the NetMeeting server, etc.
Nanosoft 4 is the content company (MSN).
The workstation and server application companies would only be
allowed to communicate through open, publicly-documented protocols.
In other words, other companies could write fully-functional
Microsoft Exchange clients that compete with Microsoft Outlook
without reverse-engineering. And so on. Also, I believe that
Microsoft needs to be compelled to support the competitors they
harmed for a certain period. Microsoft should be required to do the
following:
(1) Bundle AOL Time Warner's Netscape web browser with the
Windows operating system for a period of 5 years, and work with all
interested external developers to make it possible to fully replace
Internet Explorer as the default browser (including in places like
the help system).
(2) Bundle Apple's QuickTime multimedia technology with the
Windows operating system, and make it possible to use it instead of
Windows Media Player for all multimedia access and playback on the
system. Microsoft is currently attempting to use its monopoly power
in operating systems software to extend its monopoly in multimedia
playback--AFTER BEING RULED A MONOPOLY--and this action is
necessary to counter that attempt.
(3) Continue to support, promote, and keep up-to-date Microsoft
Office on the Apple Macintosh for a period of 5 years, and expand
their support to include up-to-date Macintosh versions of the
Microsoft Outlook email and scheduling application (or add 100%-
compatible functionality to the Microsoft Entourage for Macintosh
email and scheduling application), the Microsoft Access database,
and the Microsoft Project project management application.
(4) Publish all specifications for all native data formats and
protocols of all Microsoft applications under a royalty-free and
non-discriminatory license, IN PERPETUITY, allowing developers to
create applications both for Windows and for other platforms that
compete directly with Microsoft applications with a reasonable
guarantee of 100% compatibility.
I believe the steps above are necessary to restore healthy
competition to the computer software marketplace. Even without a
structural remedy, the above steps would go a long way; with a
structural remedy, the above steps would ensure non-Microsoft
software developers are on a more level playing field than the
current settlement proposal allows. And without at least (2) through
(4) above, Microsoft is effectively unrestrained from eliminating
its remaining competition. We cannot let this happen if the software
industry is to remain a vital and growing sector of the worldwide
economy, because without the return of true competition it will
stagnate.
--Chris
Christopher M. Hanson, President
Email: [email protected]
bDistributed.com, Inc.
Phone: +1-847-372-3955
Making Business Distributed
Fax: +1-847-589-3738
http://bdistributed.com/
Personal Email: [email protected]
MTC-00027659
From: Sean Chisek
To: Microsoft ATR,Ron Steward
Date: 1/28/02 8:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The propoesed settlement is bad for consumers and useless as far
as breaking the Microsoft monopoly.
Sean Chisek
MTC-00027660
From: Victor Laties
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please continue the court action against that predatory company
Microsoft. Don't be influenced by the intense lobbying effort on the
part of that company. Netscape was the originator and the most
innovative outfit to work in this area. Microsoft acted as a bully
and is certainly in a monopy position right now. Nothing in the
proposed settlement will serve the public influence.
Victor Laties
MTC-00027661
From: Chris Hanson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
(This is an amended version of a message I sent accidentally.
One item, (5) below, was added to a list of suggested remedies.) I
am President of a small software and consulting company named
bDistributed.com, Inc., located in the Chicago area. (Web site and
contact information below.) As President of a company that develops
software primarily for the Apple Macintosh and Sun's Java
technology, I strongly believe that the Microsoft antitrust
settlement does not go far enough to I don't think any behavioral
remedy will work on Microsoft. They have an established pattern of
behavior of ignoring behavior remedies, disobeying court orders,
lying to federal judges, and so on. The only remedy that will work
and restore competition to the marketplace is structural: The
company needs to be broken up and there needs to be heavy government
oversight not only of the resulting ``Nanosofts'', but of
the interactions between them and the rest of the market. Here's my
recipe for a workable breakup: Nanosoft 1 does only operating
systems (both workstation and server). Nanosoft 2 does does only
workstation applications, including Office, the Outlook client, the
Messenger client, the NetMeeting client, and so on. Nanosoft 3 does
only server applications, including SQL Server, the Outlook server,
the Messenger server, the NetMeeting server, etc. Nanosoft 4 is the
content company (MSN).
The workstation and server application companies would only be
allowed to communicate through open, publicly-documented protocols.
In other words, other companies could write fully-functional
Microsoft Exchange clients that compete with Microsoft Outlook
without reverse-engineering. And so on.
Also, I believe that Microsoft needs to be compelled to support
the competitors they harmed for a certain period. Microsoft should
be required to do the following:
(1) Bundle AOL Time Warner's Netscape web browser with the
Windows operating system for a period of 5 years, and work with all
interested external developers to make it possible to fully replace
Internet Explorer as the default browser (including in places like
the help system).
(2) Bundle Apple's QuickTime multimedia technology with the
Windows operating system, and make it possible to use it instead of
Windows Media Player for all multimedia access and playback on the
system. Microsoft is currently attempting to use its monopoly power
in operating systems software to extend its monopoly in multimedia
playback--AFTER BEING RULED A MONOPOLY--and this action is
necessary to counter that attempt.
(3) Continue to support, promote, and keep up-to-date Microsoft
Office on the Apple
[[Page 28093]]
Macintosh for a period of 5 years, and expand their support to
include up-to-date Macintosh versions of the Microsoft Outlook email
and scheduling application (or add 100%-compatible functionality to
the Microsoft Entourage for Macintosh email and scheduling
application), the Microsoft Access database, and the Microsoft
Project project management application.
(4) Publish all specifications for all native data formats and
protocols of all Microsoft applications under a royalty-free and
non-discriminatory license, IN PERPETUITY, allowing developers to
create applications both for Windows and for other platforms that
compete directly with Microsoft applications with a reasonable
guarantee of 100% compatibility.
(5) Include the latest version of Sun's Java Virtual Machine
with the Windows operating system for a period of 5 years, and
ensure it works properly ``out of the box.'' Java provides
developers with the ability to easily create rich software
applications that work well both on Windows and on other operating
systems like Apple's Mac OS X and the Linux operating system. By
including good support for Java with Windows, developer risk in
writing for Java would be greatly reduced. I believe the steps above
are necessary to restore healthy competition to the computer
software marketplace. Even without a structural remedy, the above
steps would go a long way; with a structural remedy, the above steps
would ensure non-Microsoft software developers are on a more level
playing field than the current settlement proposal allows. And
without at least (2) through (5) above, Microsoft is effectively
unrestrained from eliminating its remaining competition. We cannot
let this happen if the software industry is to remain a vital and
growing sector of the worldwide economy, because without the return
of true competition it will stagnate.
Chris
Chris Hanson
Email: [email protected]
bDistributed.com, Inc.
Phone: +1-847-372-3955
Making Business Distributed
Fax: +1-847-589-3738
http://bdistributed.com/
Personal Email: [email protected]
MTC-00027662
From: Paul Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
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. Any settlement of this case with the
US Justice Department must not allow Microsoft to continue its
monopoly practices. To do so would seriously dampen software
innovation in the United States and threaten our global economic
competitiveness.
Paul H. Lewis
Government Documents Librarian
USC Aiken Library
Aiken, SC 29801
http://library.usca.sc.edu
803-641-3320
MTC-00027663
From: Ed Lorenzen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:54am
Subject: ``antitrust''
I use many Microsoft programs on my computer, and also many from
other manufacturers. I resent this attempt by unsuccessful
competitors to interfere with my selection of software. If their
products are any good they would not resort to the under-handed
tactics that they are using here. Please drop this unfair suit. I do
not believe that the Department of Justice, or any court, is
competent to determine how I will use my computer, and I resent this
effort to control my personal property and actions.
Microsoft has a fundamental right to its property, and the
government's job is to protect this right, not take it away. Control
of any business by the government is obscene, and has been
repeatedly shown to be a failure, not in the public interest.
Brar E Lorenzen
Prescott Valley, AZ
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00027664
From: Ledoux, David C
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 9:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir,
I am firmly OPPOSED to your proposed settlement of the Microsoft
anti-trust case. The settlement is far too weak and will not prevent
Microsoft from continuing to leverage their ever-growing monopoly
until they control ALL of the computing industry and all of the
Internet. I am sickened that my government would allow that to
happen. Microsoft has been found by the courts to be a MONOPOLY,
which they built by engaging in illegal and immoral business
practices, and they must be broken up and/or prevented from using
that monopoly to further harm the free market system on which our
nation depends for its prosperity.
Microsoft has, in the past, wriggled out of consent decrees, and
there is no reason to think that they will not be able to work
around this extremely weak settlement. A 3-member oversight
committee (with one member from Microsoft!) is worthless to enforce
this, as well. For this settlement to be anything other than a slap
on the wrist, Microsoft must be forced to publish ALL of their APIs,
and be forbidden from any and all anti-competitive licensing
practices, just for a start. Their contracts with OEMs must be
published and monitored by the courts to prevent such things as
their dual-boot restriction, which the current settlement does not
even address!
Finally, there should be language in the settlement by which
Microsoft will be forced to publish ALL of the Windows source code
if they do not comply 100% with the spirit and letter of the
settlement.
Thank you for allowing me to comment on this.
Sincerely,
David C. LeDoux
Reston, VA
MTC-00027665
From: James E. Leinweber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:01 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am strongly opposed to the proposed settlement in the
Microsoft Antitrust case as entirely inadequate and
counterproductive, and not in the public interest.
The likely effect of adopting it would be an maintenance of
Microsofts current OS, Office suite, and Web browser monopolies, and
their extension into new areas. This would give rise to the need for
yet a third antitrust case a few years from now. I entirely agree
with the criticisms and comments in the ``open letter''
submitted by Dan Kegel under the Tunney act (see , though I am submitting my own
additional comments rather than co-signing his.
I have worked in the computer industry for 30 years, including
20 years experience with Unix systems and intensive deployment of
Microsoft products since 1993. Though I have no legal training, I
have followed the Antitrust case with interest, and have read the
Findings of Fact, the Conclusions of Law, the appeals court ruling,
and the proposed settlement. I found the facts entirely accurate,
the conclusions persuasive. The appeals court ruling was slightly
dissappointing, while the proposed settlement appalls me. and
Microsoft's tactic with their first antitrust case, resulting in the
consent decree, was to obey the letter of the agreement while
completely violating its spirit. That is what led to the current
antitrust case. The proposed settlement basically has Microsoft
promising not to repeat several of the ploys which entrenched their
current monopolies, while doing nothing to reduce those monopolies,
and blatantly inviting them to extend their monopolies into new
areas.
Tactics Microsoft has used, which have affected me, and which
are not addressed by the settlement include:
* Deliberately introducing new API's and abandoning support for
old ones, in order to provide a ``moving target'' too
costly for competitors to be compatible with. This imposes extra
costs on my organization to convert our own applications to work
later versions of Microsofts own software. This has been
particularly noticable in the mutation of the Visual Basic interface
to Microsoft Office.
* Similarly, use of new secret file formats in their office
suite to prevent compatibility with competing products, even their
own. When Office-97 was first introduced, it was incapable of
writing Office-95 format documents. This tactic forced people to
upgrade to new versions in order to be able to read documents from
early adopters. My organization had to abandon the use of
Wordperfect, which we prefered as a word processor, due to the
difficulty of exchanging documents with organizations using
Microsoft Word. Similarly, their ``embrace, extend,
extinguish'' approach to Internet protocols. This tactic, of
designing proprietary additions to widely used protocols is designed
to capture control of technologies, which can in turn be used to
extend their monopolies and further increase the application barrier
to entry as cited in the findings of fact. It was quite notable with
their implementation of Java--which they
[[Page 28094]]
lost a court case over. A more recent example is their introduction
of proprietary extensions to Kerberos authentication protocols in
Windows-2000. Existing Kerberos clients can authenticate with
Microsoft servers, but Microsoft clients cannot usefully
authenticate with non-Microsoft servers. They are currently
extending this into their Passport service, in an apparent attempt
to create a new monopoly in Internet authentication services. These
abuses of their monopoly power to pervert interoperability has
forced my organization to deploy more Microsoft servers than we
would otherwise wish to.
* Gratuitous incompatibilities with competing products. Note
that Microsoft lost a private antitrust case with Caldera over this
MTC-00027665--0002 involving Windows 3.1 and DR-DOS,
though the terms of their out of court settlement are secret. In
another example, when Microsoft introduced windows NT 4.0, they
removed support for the IBM OS/2 ``HPFS'' filesystem,
though the windows NT 3.51 drivers operated perfectly well under
windows NT 4.0. Microsoft utilities deliberately reported HPFS file
systems as ``damaged'', when they were not. The
continuation of this and similar tactics forced my organization to
stop using os/2 in any significant way.
A particularly blatant and egregious example of this was during
2001, when--while waiting for the appeals court to finish its
antitrust ruling!--Microsoft (1) removed Sun-compatible Java
from windows-XP (2) broke compability of Netscape browser plugins
with Internet Explorer 5.5 via service pack 2, without even the
excuse of a new browser internal architecture (3) broke
compatibility with Apple Quicktime multimedia, which competes with
Windows Media player. If that is their behavior while under court
scrutiny, one can scarely imagine what they might do after the
settlement.
* raised prices on older OS's which had competition, such as DOS
and Windows 3.1, above the price of newer OS's which did not yet
have competition, such as Windows-95. In a competitive market they
would not have been able to do that, and this abuse of their
monopoly position was a deliberate tactic to rapidly move the
installed base of systems toward an increased application barrier of
entry. This contributed significantly to the extension of their OS
monopoly into the office suite arena. It raised the cost of
deploying PC's in my organization, as we opted not to deploy
windows-95 to any significant degree.
Having destroyed most of the commercial competition already, the
next big threat to their monopoly position may be from open source
projects such as Linux. The proposed settlement creates several new
possible obstacles to the prospect of open source competition, as
described in Dan Kegel's letter. The loophole that security-related
protocols do not have to be disclosed is particularly glaring.
This secrecy is a bad security practice--ask anyone at the
National Institute of Standards and Technology who was involved the
exemplary and open development of the Advanced Encryption Standard
(AES or Rijndael) currently replacing the obsolete 1970's Data
Encryption Standard (DES). In addition to being a bad security
practice by a vendor whose monopoly position in the industry makes
their security weaknesses a matter of national security interest, it
is anticompetitive. Ask anyone on the team of the
``Samba'' project which tries to provide file sharing and
printing services on Unix systems compatible with Microsoft file and
print sharing about the difficulties which Microsoft's changes in
unpublished security protocols have created.
* Deliberately dropping support for older software to force
users to upgrade to newer software. For example, Microsoft is no
longer providing security fixes for Internet Explorer 4.0, in the
hope of forcing users onto later versions which are more
incompatible with their competitors. This summer they will stop
providing fixes for NT 4.0. My organization is still running IE 4.0
on NT 4.0, but we will be forced to upgrade this year by this
tactic. Furthermore, Microsoft next ploy seems to be attempting to
use the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, the antitrust settlement
itself, and the California pricing case to extend its monopolies
further and prevent competition from open source projects.
Accordingly, I suggest that the proposed settlement be significant
extended to include measures such as:
a) Microsoft has to publish all API's and file formats in their
final form 6 months before any product using them is first sold.
b) All contract terms have to be published, and they may not
sign exclusive contracts with one vendor whose terms are not
available to other vendors.
c) depositions and settlement details from other antitrust cases
may not be held secret, in order to allow collaboration between the
various victims of their monopoly.
d) Microsoft cannot sue open source projects for infringement of
patents or trade secrets. Copyright suits against open source
projects would be limited to copying of code or documentation; they
could not sue over API's nor programming languages.
e) intellectual property such as patents must be licensed on
equal and generous terms to all commercial firms.
f) Microsoft may not sue anyone for violation of patents which
affect Internet Standards adopted by the Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF).
g) Microsoft may not raise prices on previous products faster
than rate of inflation, nor price new versions below old versions
h) Microsoft must provide security fixes for older versions of
products for 7 years from the date of first retail sales.
i) under ongoing court supervision, violation of these terms is
punished by fines of 1 million dollars per day per product until the
violation is remedied.
I don't know if the antitrust laws permit it, but a fitting
response to Microsofts abuse of monopoly power to crush competition
and extort excess profits would be to impose a large fine, perhaps
as high as 10 billion dollars, and then use it to finance open
source projects under a BSD-style license. The results would be
equally available for commercial or public use, or even by Microsoft
itself. The public and government would benefit from the resulting
freely available software, while commercial competitors of Microsoft
who bid to provide it would benefit from the revenue, the base of
code, and the experience of writing it.
Sincerely,
James E. Leinweber
Information Systems Specialist
Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene
University of Wisconsin
465 Henry Mall
Madison WI 53706
MTC-00027666
From: Jack Reece
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
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-00027667
From: Carl F. Brechler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As the Justice Department is in its final stages of deliberating
on the proposed Microsoft settlement to decide whether to accept the
settlement or to litigate it further. It is my position that the
present proposed settlement be adopted since it offers a reasonable
approach to the solution of the suit. It offers a compromise that
will enhance the ability of all Americans to access the Internet and
use innovative software products to make their computer experience
easier and more enjoyable. Furthermore, it offers the potential of
additional innovative products to enhance worker productivity.
Sincerely,
Carl F. Brechler
3025 Red Wing Court
Bettendorf, IA 52722
MTC-00027668
From: John Quirk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:03am
Subject: Microsoft case
Dear Dept. of Justice:I am most concerned about your decision to
settle your pending suit with Microsoft. I strongly believe it will
[[Page 28095]]
not resolve the problem and may actually create additional problems
down the road. With the Enron debacle hanging over our collective
heads, this quick fix appears to be another possible blunder on
government's part. Do take some time to really think this thing
through and get some input from different sectors of the
economy.Quite simply put, I am saying no to the Microsoft
settlement.
John Quirk
14 Waterview Drive
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
Telephone 518/ 226-0427
MTC-00027669
From: Satoshi Yajima
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 5:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I'm glad to post the comment on Microsoft Settlement.
Thank you.
* Internet Explorer really needed for customers In early 1990s,
Microsoft Windows 3.x have ``File-manager'', file-managing
utilities, although some of third vendors produced alternatives of
File-manager. Because file-managing utilities such as File-manager
was essential part of operating systems; customers could not do
anthing without it.
The same thing is true to IE, the Microsoft's browser. Now that
the Internet is essential to our information society, operating
systems couldn't work well without browsers. Microsoft has to
develope browsers to make their operating system worth enough for
customers
* Micorsoft have no intention to monopolize the market, I think.
Now they are promoting ``.NET Platform.'' This platform
collaborates other platforms; they will not replace other platforms
with their own operating system, Microsoft Windows. .NET Platform
makes Microsoft Windows interconnect with other platforms throughout
the Internet.
Microsoft should grow up the computer technology with being free
from any legal unreasonable restriction.
* Large share of Windows is never a barrier to market's growth.
Someone would say Microsoft Windows have large share of the Market
and it causes other vendors to develope new operating systems. I
would say, it is WRONG.
Developing operating system is, originally, difficult to develop
and cost too much. Even though there were many operating systems
used now, it would be difficult to develop new OS. Large share of
Microsoft Windows have no relations with the fact that other vendors
couldn't develop new operating systems. Regards.
Satoshi Yajima ([email protected])
Tokyo, Japan.
MTC-00027670
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please get on with the settlement process. There is no reason to
prolong an investigation that has already been concluded.
Microsoft is experiencing the same downturn in fortunes as any
other software company and will forever be subject to the likes and
dislikes of the marketplace without regard to size of company and
its market share.
Leave them alone!
Let those with new ideas and processes innovate and
create...marketplace advantage is available to anyone offering
something better than the competition. And the ultimate judge of
something better...the marketplace.
Please, quickly and without fear, rule in favor of settlement.
Thomas L. McEnaney
Owner-Pres.
The Star Alliance
6285 Fieldstone Place
Reno, NV 89523-1204
775-787-0433
MTC-00027671
From: MACKERSIE, DAVID
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 9:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please let the Microsoft settlement stand. I believe it is
strongly in the public's best interest.
Microsoft is an important driver for lowering the cost of
technology. As a user of Microsoft products for the past 20 years, I
have noticed that the company has consistently lowered the cost of
technology for every market that it has entered. Just as the
industrial revolution lowered the cost of textiles by mass
production and economies of scale, so too does Microsoft lower the
cost of software by mass production and economies of scale. The
complaints against Microsoft are like the complaints of artisans and
craftsmen who have been forced out of work. We feel sympathetic for
their loss, but we know that economies of scale serve society best.
Best Regards,
David Mackersie
Sr. Principal Software Engineer
PRI Automation
MTC-00027672
From: Ezra Berch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
As provided by the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed
settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust case. I
believe the settlement is not in the public interest and is harmful
to consumers. It will allow Microsoft to continue to be an illegal
monopoly.
A few years ago, another antitrust case by the government
against Microsoft was settled by means of a consent degree. That
consent degree did almost nothing. As a result of its
ineffectiveness, the current antitrust case was filed. This previous
case shows that stronger penalties are needed to curb Microsoft's
illegal behavior. The penalties proposed by the Settlement are not
even close to being strong enough.
One of the major penalties of the settlement is the limited
disclosure of some Windows API's to competing companies. However,
this provision, like other parts of the settlement, is full of
loopholes. For example, Microsoft need not release this information
to groups which do not meet certain criteria as a business (Section
3(J)(2)(c)). However, some of the biggest threats to Microsoft, such
as the Linux operating system and the Apache web server, would not
be covered by this. Furthermore, Section 3(J)(1) allows Microsoft to
not disclose information for security reasons. This loophole allows
Microsoft to not disclose some information simply by classifying it
as part of a ``anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing,
digital rights management, encryption or authentication
system.''
Finally, there is no real enforcement mechanism included in the
settlement. Any company hurt by a major violation of the settlement
by Microsoft would have to sue Microsoft if the government does not
agree with its claim. Many smaller companies have nowhere near
enough resources to sue a big company such as Microsoft. In
addition, in the years it takes for the lawsuit and its appeals to
be resolved, much damage will already have been done. In summary, I
am strongly opposed to the proposed settlement between the
United States and Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Ezra Berch
11713 Stonington Place
Silver Spring, MD 20902
MTC-00027673
From: Rep.Kreuser
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 9:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Ms. Hesse:
I am writing to urge your approval of the settlement of the U.S.
v. Microsoft case. Microsoft has been a leader in innovative
technology and has provided tremendous benefits for consumers.
Prompt settlement of this case is in the best interest of consumers,
our schools, and of our economy.
Technology can be a very powerful teaching tool. To prepare
today's students to be tomorrow's leaders we must take every step to
ensure that the technology is available to every student. A
settlement such as this could assist less fortunate school districts
in obtaining the technology necessary for quality education. Over
$30 million in taxpayer money has been spent on this case. It is now
time to put this matter behind us and move forward.
Sincerely,
Jim Kreuser, Assistant Assembly Democratic Leader
State Representative
64th Assembly District
MTC-00027674
From: Jim Holron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 28096]]
The settlement allows Microsoft to strengthen the hardware
barrier to entry. Specifically, in section III, paragraph A, section
1, the restriction applies only to middleware. This restriction
should also apply to device drivers and applications.
It appears that Microsoft is currently working to keep hardware
manufacturers (video card manufacturers, sound card manufacturers,
etc) from supporting non-Microsoft operating systems. Unless the
settlement is rewritten to stop this behavior, Microsoft will be
able to strangle hardware support for non-Microsoft operating
systems. Unless all APIs are made public, Microsoft will be able to
deliberately sabotage non-Microsoft products. Since all application
software depends on the operating system, Microsoft can implement
two versions of an API, a secret one that works correctly, and a
public one that contains bugs. Indeed, through six weeks of reverse
engineering, my employer has found exactly this situation! All APIs
should be published and made available to the public, including open
source developers who can not abide by non-disclosure agreements or
pay royalties (such as The GIMP, and the Apache web server, both of
which run on top of Windows).
Microsoft's current monopoly position depends on a complex web
of secret standards. By using proprietary, non-published standards,
Microsoft traps its customers. All communication and storage
standards should be published and freely available to the public.
Anyone, including open source developers, should be able to develop
products compatible with the De facto standard. Proprietary security
standards endanger Internet security and hamper development of new
technologies. The entire security community understands that
unpublished standards are a security hole waiting to happen. The
world's most rigorous security standards are published and
scrutinized by security experts throughout the world. If a security
hole exists, public scrutiny will discover it before a malicious
intruder can exploit it.
If Microsoft security standards remain secret, malicious
intruders will reverse engineer the code, find the security holes,
and exploit them before Microsoft can discover and fix the holes.
This reality has played out over the past several years as worms and
virii plagued the Internet. Microsoft should not only publish all
security standards, they should publish the standards a full year
before deploying them, thus giving the public time to discover
security holes before they can be exploited.
Microsoft recently proclaimed that they will focus on
``trustworthy computing''. In response to this notice,
some of the world's leading computer security experts have outlined
policies that Microsoft should take to improve security. One of
those recommendations was to publish all security standards before
deploying them. This settlement specifically allows Microsoft to
flaunt that expert advice in an apparent misunderstanding of
computer security.
Over the past several years, Microsoft has used its monopoly
position to crush competing products. They essentially wiped out OS/
2 and BeOS (both competing operating systems), Lotus Office Suite
(still exists, but nobody wants it because it doesn't support
Microsoft Office documents), and HP OpenMail (which threatened
Microsoft's customer lock-in strategy).
To counter Microsoft monopolistic practices, the industry has
responded by developing open source software. Open source software
is developed by volunteers throughout the world. All of the source
code is available to anybody who wants it. People may freely
contribute to the code, and freely distribute the code. The open
source community has become Microsoft's new prime target for
destruction. Since open source software is not controlled by any one
company, Microsoft can not buy it or drive it into bankruptcy.
In a leaked memo (which Microsoft admits to writing), Microsoft
outlines their plans to attack the open source community. Their plan
is to take existing open standards, make trivial modifications so
that they are no longer compatible, and deploy those modified
standards.
Furthermore, Microsoft plans to patent their changes so that no
one can develop a compatible product. This settlement makes
provisions for for-profit closed source companies to access
Microsoft's proprietary standards, and to license the necessary
patents to implement those standards. If this settlement goes
forward, it will not only be difficult, but also illegal for open
source developers to create software which can inter operate with
the De facto standard. The open source community has made tremendous
contributions to society. Their work is valued in the billions of
dollars. Dozens of companies in the United States alone, base their
business on developing open source software. This settlement will
allow Microsoft to crush those companies, and hinder development of
future open source projects.
Any adequate settlement will guarantee that any software,
including open source software, will be able to inter operate with
Microsoft software.
MTC-00027675
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:14am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Solution
I disagree with the proposed solution to Microsoft's antitrust
case.
Allen R. PRice
219 S. Livingston
Whitehall, MI 49461
MTC-00027676
From: Harms, Marilyn
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 9:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not see how breaking up a company, that does great work,
will help anyone. I believe good competition is the answer and that
only makes the playing field level for all players.
I think if the company could make it's products more
interchangeable with other computers, they would still come out the
winners, but let the other companies attempt to compete on the same
playing field.
We need more competition, not laws to limit peoples initiatives
and work and excel in their particular field. How would we be where
we are without this great incentive to be the best.
Marilyn Harms, B.S., PA-C
Clinical Coordinator
USDSM PA Studies Program
Vermillion, SD 57069
605-677-6568
Fax 605-677-6569
MTC-00027677
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please see the attached as my views on this matter. I am
involved in the commerce of the technology sector in the RTP. THank
you for your attention.
(See attached file''
USAGDavidson--Carolyn--1006--0121.doc)
Carolyn Davidson
January 22, 2002
46 Kimberly Drive, Durham, NC 27707
Attorney General John Ashcroft
The Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
The purpose of this letter is to voice my support for the
settlement that was reached between the Department of Justice and
Microsoft. Since the beginning of this case, three years ago, the
Department of Justice has spent an enormous amount of time and money
pursuing the anti-trust dispute. While I certainly speculate the
merits of this case, I was pleased to finally see the end of this
dispute. I believe it is in the best interests of everyone involved
that the matter be resolved. Given the current state of the economy,
resolution of this case would naturally spur economic recovery in
the technology markets, which is important here in the Research
Triangle.
The terms of the agreement represent compromise on the behalf of
Microsoft. The stipulations of the settlement call for the licensing
of Microsoft at a uniform rate to the largest twenty PC
manufacturers. In addition to this, Microsoft is also willing to
disclose the protocols of the Windows design system, allowing for
the design of software that is increasingly compatible with Windows.
It is my opinion that the settlement should be enacted at the
end of January. I certainly believe that the time has come for
resolution. Resolution in this matter is altogether beneficial.
Thank you for your time regarding this issue.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Davidson
MTC-00027678
From: Lisa Munsat
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Dept. of Justice
Washington, DC
Dear Ms. Hesse,
I am very concerned about the proposed Microsoft settlement
because I do not believe
[[Page 28097]]
that it is in the public interest. We, the consumers, need
competition and choice so that we can decide for ourselves what
products we want on our computers, and we need to be able to combine
non-Microsoft products with Microsoft products on our computers.
Also, the current proposed settlement leaves too many loopholes for
Microsoft to exempt itself from crucial provisions. Thirdly, the
court must hold public proceedings under the Tunney Act so that
citizens, consumer groups, customers, and Microsoft's competitors
can equally participate.
Thank you for considering my comments and input.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth M. Munsat
1505 Lamont Court
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
(919) 929-7282
MTC-00027679
From: Chriss Winston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear General Ashcroft,
I am both a consumer of Microsoft products and a small
stockholder. I have seen the money my husband and I set aside for
our son's college education cut in half since the federal
government, under the last Administration, undertook what I believe
was a vendetta against a great company. Now, you have a chance to
right a wrong. As a consumer, I am very happy with both the quality
and price of Microsoft's products. I have seen no indications
whatsoever of price gouging. To the contrary, over the years,
Microsoft's products have become less expensive not more while
offering the consumer increasingly improved technology. There has
been no harm to the consumer period. As far as I'm concerned, the
entire case should be thrown out, but at a minimum, you should
settle it and let the tech sector recover from the near fatal attack
by the Clinton administration. If anyone is to blame for the fall of
tech stocks over the past 18 months, it is Al Gore and Bill Clinton,
and the sorry mess began with their ill-advised, politically-
motivated Microsoft anti-trust suit. Please right this wrong and
settle with Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Chriss Winston
P.O. Box 129
Pomfret, MD 20675
MTC-00027680
From: Dan Tepper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi!
I just wanted to take a few moments to comment on the proposed
settlement to the Microsoft Anti-Trust case. The proposed settlement
is not sever enough, there is no real punishment for Microsoft
included in the settlement, it does nothing to ensure that Microsoft
does not continue to abuse their monopoly. Microsoft obviously feels
the same way, as shown by their recent attempt to expand their
monopoly into the education market (one of the few markets they do
not have a monopoly in).
Please do not approve this settlement..
Thanks,
Dan Tepper
Concerned Citizen
MTC-00027681
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The actions of Microsoft Corporation and their agents
demonstrate that they willingly and illegally leverage their
influence to damage and even ruin competitors. This is bad not only
for the consumer, but incredibly unfair to the people (and their
families) that put forth an honest effort to bring something to the
market place, believing that they would compete on a level playing
field. Justice cannot be served to these individuals and companies.
But to those who would place their efforts at risk in the future,
they must believe that the fruits of their endeavors will not be
wrestled away by a stronger entity.
In this society, we are dependent on the judicial process to
punish such offenders, at least to the minimum degree, such that it
is a real deterrent to like or repeat offenses.
It is my belief that the current settlement proposal cannot
possibly accomplish this goal.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Hohn
Software Engineer
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00027682
From: Tony Smolar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing against the proposed settlement in the Microsoft
case because I do not believe that it is strong enough. I believe
that a strong an effective penalty is needed against Microsoft
because their past behavior has shown that they will sidestep weak
government action, and continue to use whatever tactics are
necessary to maintain their current monopolies and pursue new ones
Thank You,
Tony Smolar
MTC-00027683
From: Steward, Ronald Ray (UIS Student)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 9:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
I am writing regarding the Microsoft Antitrust case. I am a
graduate student in computer Science at the University of Illinois
at Springfield. For many years I have watched the developments in
the computer industry. I have been greatly disheartened
MTC-00027684
From: L. Charles Andersen, Sr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
As a United States Citizen and tax-payer I want to make my
opinion heard regarding the Microsoft Settlement. I believe the
original lawsuit was politically motivated and clearly not in the
interest of the American economy or anybody beyond Microsoft's
competitors. The proposed settlement is reasonably fair and should
move forward as quickly as possible. Delaying the settlement will
only prolong the problems with the economy we are currently
experiencing and hurt Microsoft and the IT industry even more.
Thank you,
L. Charles Andersen
Caledonia, Wisconsin 53108
MTC-00027685
From: Jacques Guenette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:17am
Subject: Settlement
To whomever it may concern :
Let's settle this and move on. We all have better things to do,
and we can all benefit from Microsoft focusing on business, not
legaleze. Jacques Gu� nette
President
DLGL LTD
Jacques (Jag) Gu� nette
[email protected]
[email protected]
tel. 450-979-4646
fax 450-979-4650
cel. 514-942-1267
MTC-00027686
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:25am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
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 express my support for the settlement that was
reached in early November in the Microsoft antitrust dispute. It is
my opinion that this suit has only wasted America's time and
money since its inception three years ago. Any further litigation
needs to be halted and this settlement accepted as a fair conclusion
to a frivolous suit. The American economy has gone into decline; I
believe that the stock market crash we experienced two years ago was
in part a direct result of this suit. We will not see the end of
this current recession until Microsoft and American business in
general can operate without the interference of the government.
A politically biased White House I believe, instituted this
suit. It was a significant factor in my voting Republican in the
last election. I agree with this settlement only because it puts a
stop to this frivolous litigation, in a perfect world this suit
would be dismissed. Thank you for your time and for the effort that
you and your colleagues have put into seeing this suit come to an
end. It has cost American citizens millions of lost dollars in
personal and retirement savings due to the damage to Microsoft share
prices.
Sincerely,
[[Page 28098]]
John Kennedy
520 Charleen Lane
Knoxville, TN 37920
MTC-00027687
From: ParisiHC
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
** Confidential **
W204 N9187 Lannon Road
Menomonee Falls, WI 53051
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I am writing to express my opinion regarding the legal dispute
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I feel that the
settlement reached between the two is fair, and this matter should
end quickly. The agreement is fair because it requires significant
changes in Microsoft's future business dealings. To give you one
example, Microsoft consented to license its Windows products to
large computer makers at the same rate and on equivalent terms and
conditions.
In summary, the Microsoft case has reached a fair settlement.
Future government intervention will only hamper business as a whole.
Please conclude this case, and allow Microsoft to develop now so
that it can improve the nation's economy.
Sincerely,
Henry C. Parisi
Henry Parisi
cc: Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
HC Parisi
W204 N9187 Lannon Road
Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin 53051
Home: 262 251-1539
Mobil: 414 416-2107
e-mail: [email protected]
MTC-00027688
From: Vincent Caputo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
2801 Deer Street
Mohegan Lake, NY 10547
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
This is to give my approval to the agreement reached between
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. This was reached after
three long years of litigation, costing both parties enormous
amounts of money. It is time to end this debate and move forward.
Microsoft has also evidently been chastened and has agreed to any
number of demands from the Department of Justice. There will be a
technical committee to monitor future adherence; Microsoft has
agreed to allow computer makers to ship non-Microsoft product to
customers; Microsoft has agreed to design future versions of Windows
providing a mechanism to make it easier to promote non-Microsoft
software; Microsoft would help companies better achieve a greater
degree of reliability with regard to their networking software.
Microsoft has done a great deal to pay for any ``sins'' it
may have made.
Please give your support to this agreement. It is time to move
on. We have more important things to worry about.
Sincerely,
Vincent Caputo
MTC-00027689
From:
[email protected]@
inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My opinion is that all of Microsoft (MS) competitors are out to
increase their market share of comparable products. Wheteher their
product is superior or infurior. Those states most likely have
financial(in the form of hometown jobs or other state benefits) or
re-election agenda's or both.
CC:[email protected]@
inetgw
MTC-00027690
From: Anna Quirk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think it's disgraceful that Microsoft should settle out of
this case with such little consequence for their business practices.
I thought this was an anti-trust case. How does this settlement
settle the issue of anti-trust? I find it completely unacceptable.
Anna Quirk
Hinesburg, VT
MTC-00027691
From: Gerald McClain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
Enough is enough!!!!! Let's get on with starting our economic
engine again. Microsoft products have made our workplace a better
work place. We need the inventive create ideas that drive a great
economy. The savings in our factories and business offices has been
tremendous!! Wake up, don't kill our economy again. While the terms
of the settlement are tough, I believe they are reasonable and fair
to all parties, and meet--or go beyond -- the ruling by
the Court of Appeals, and represent the best opportunity for
Microsoft and the industry to move forward.
Please give us in industry a break and let our economy get going
again. I teach teachers, professors, and trainers from industry and
government how to train at a distance using two way video, web based
instruction and virtual courseware. We have gone so far, yet have so
far to go to achieve the dreams of students and facility to distance
learning. We need the creative talent of Microsoft working at the
forefront driving our economic engine.
Please give us a break and settle the Microsoft suites.
Gerald R. McClain
Vice President Internet and Multimedia
Teletraining Institute
1524 W. Admiral
Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074
Telephone: 405-743-3463
Email:
[email protected]
URL: http://www.teletrain.com
Retired Professor and head of Mechanical Design and Manufacturing
Engineering Technology, Oklahoma State University
MTC-00027692
From: Mark Hofmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am opposed to the current settlement that has been placed on
Microsoft. I feel that the judgment does not go far enough to
address the issues that the investigation of Microsoft has
uncovered. While there are some parts of the settlement that will
keep Microsoft from committing these same illegal acts in the
future, there has been nothing put into this settlement that ?rights
the wrongs? of the past. We do not allow criminals in this country
to get away with murder if they say they will not do it again.
Microsoft should not have this privilege, either. This is also
not a guarantee of the future, either. Consider the 1995 consent
decree levied on Microsoft. They paid almost no heed to the courts
then, and if the past is any indication of the future, then it is
likely that Microsoft will not fully comply with this settlement,
either. There needs to be just punishment and enforcement.
I thank you for all of the hard work that you do for the good of
the country and appreciate your hard work.
Sincerely,
Mark Hofmann
22 Green Woods Lane
Unionville, CT 06085
MTC-00027693
From: Jim Kull
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please do something about Microsoft. They have nearly eliminated
all competition. They stole windows from Apple and are currently
destroying Netscape. Please help.
Thanks,
Jim
MTC-00027694
From: Lin Tuschong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20530-0001
Madam, I am writing about the current Microsoft suit upon which
decisions are about to be made. Current proposed settlement issues
will allow Microsoft to continue to extend its monopoly, and,
potentially to gain a major stake in the control of the internet. It
will also provide the company with opportunities to set aside
crucial provisions of the settlement. The settlement will not allow
consumers to run paid-for Microsoft
[[Page 28099]]
applications on other operating systems. If a customer purchases a
product, it should be their decision upon which operating system it
will run.
Consumers who are spending their hard-earned cash have a right
to choose what products they wish to install on their computer
systems, rather than having Microsoft make their decisions. This has
the potential to continue to injure other players in the computer
field, many of whom offer good quality product that currently has
difficulty competing with Microsoft. In the spirit of free
enterprise, and to uphold the standards against monopolies, the
settlement issue need to be reconsidered and other choices must be
made.
Thank you for your time.
Lin Tuschong
6821 NW 30th Ave.
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
954-975-2703
MTC-00027695
From: Gary L. Breeden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs, I would like to voice my opinion regarding the case
the Justice Department is involved with regarding Microsoft
Corporation. Herein my comments: Unfortunately DOJ and US Courts
actions against Microsoft appear to be driven more by Competitors
than CONSUMERS! I have over twenty five years of experience in
computer and information systems development for both fortune 1
companies and small businesses and have ``grown up'' with
almost every type of computer system imaginable.
I have seen everything form the ``big blue hand of
IBM'' as it strangled creativity with its structured products
to the free handed ``scare tactics'' of the UNIX crowd
(e.g., SUN, Corel, AOL/Time Warner, AT&T (a hideous monopolist
even today)) who shout wondrous promises of ``open
systems'' that to this day are so closed that very few
applications run consistently between/among the myriad of UNIX and
LINUX variants. For the most part, the UNIX/LINUX crowd is still
playing the same old games ... point fingers and shouts negatives
about anyone in their gang who proposes a standard that is not in
tune with their individual biases. As a result, the world has a
UNIX/LINUX platform that is so fragmented that the proponents aren't
quite certain how to ``pull it together''. And they are
not listening to CONSUMERS as we vote by buying the products we
want! MICROSOFT! Creative, interactive, integrated products that
work as expected when needed without a gaggle of technocrats to keep
it running.
Let's give credit to a great AMERICAN effort ..... Bill Gates
and Microsoft .... they pulled together products that are
overwhelmingly major customer successes. They created innovative
products that deliver innovative solutions to day-to-day business as
well as household solutions! WE AS CONSUMERS KEEP BUYING THEM
BECAUSE WE WANT THEM! DOJ apparently believes American Consumers are
not intelligent enough to make rational decisions. What happened to
``majority opinion''? If we don't believe a product adds
value to our wealth and lives, we WILL NOT BUY IT! Let the market do
its thing! Keep government out of the free market. If Microsoft's
competitors create better products, American Consumers will buy
them. Microsoft has brought consistency through innovation and
creativity to an industry that historically has been overwhelmingly
structured and pragmatic at the expense of the every day consumer. I
remember when IBM's operating systems for PCs cost over $500
dollars! Sun Microsystems OS's cost into the thousands of dollars to
run their microcomputers. American Consumer's are getting a feature
laden, innovative products (Windows OS & Windows Office) at
unbelievably low prices. Microsoft has in total brought computing
machines into consumer's homes at prices that are affordable! IBM,
SUN, etc. would be thriving if they modeled their product offerings
after Microsoft (creative and innovative consumer oriented/driven).
Microsoft listens
.....If their competitors did, they would enjoy the spoils of
success The campaign being waged by the trustbusters lawyers at DOJ
and our Courts opens the door to a multitude of private lawsuits
This litigation could end up looking a lot like the tobacco
industry, with a lot of lawyer time (and FEES) and a big legal
process for Microsoft and the computer industry to manage. Almost
before the ink was dry on the judge's ``finding of fact''
lawyers began generating fees by filing class-action suits against
Microsoft. Nearly 290 cases are currently pending in 32 states and
the District of Columbia. The Justice Department thus spent 40
million+ dollars in TAXPAYER FUNDS to prosecute a case that wiped
out at least $80 billion in privately owned assets of TAXPAYERS and
could ultimately obliterate much more. In spite of the warning
signs, former Netscape CEO Jim Barksdale (a Microsoft Competitor)
continues to peddle the notion that a government-ordered break-up of
Microsoft ``is the simplest solution.''
In reality, the simplest solution is to let the free market work
rather than allow government lawyers apply nineteenth-century
statutes to the twenty-first century economy. Lawyers making money
for lawyers .... what a conflict of interest! All credible studies
I've read regarding consumer opinions regarding DOJ vs. Microsoft
have OVERWHELMINGLY been in favor for letting the free market work
and keeping the government (especially the DOJ with its 19th century
mentality) out of it. Listen to the consumers and not competitors!
American Consumers are taxpayers! Give us a break! Clearly these
cases are motivated by special interests and not consumer opinion!
The DOJ experts for the most part are Microsoft competitors whose
products have not competed based on quality, interoperability, and
usefulness with Microsoft's products. Apparently they collectively
``hired'' the DOJ to do their dirty work for them! America
was built on the concept of free market and competition with very
limited government intrusion. America's innovation and creativity
has been a bi-product of this approach. Now we reward companies
(e.g., Microsoft) who have been creative and innovative by
permitting their competitors via the DOJ to blast this great
American approach.
Get real DOJ .... join the twentieth century! Listen to the
consumer! We vote with our buying dollars! The DO J, US Courts, and
our government must come to grips with the fact that successful
American businesses should not be subject to the political whims of
anti-capitalist apparatchiks, greedy lawyers, and publicity-hungry
politicians who have little understanding of the high-tech economy.
Bill Gates created a company worth half-a-trillion dollars, a
company now co-owned by tens of millions of Americans (TAXPAYERS!).
He created wealth. The would-be regulators can only destroy wealth.
In the case of Microsoft, so far they have wiped out at least $80
billion (and the number is growing). Destroying wealth is not
creating wealth. Even Microsoft competitors that ``stand to
benefit'' from the case, including Sun Microsystems, AOL (which
owns Netscape), IBM, and RealNetworks all experienced significant
declines in share prices as a result of their actions in this
regard.
I guess the competitors who sponsored this D0J trustbuster event
are reapin9 their rewards now, If they can compete with products of
equal or better quality with Microsoft, consumers will buy their
products! That's what free markets ensure. Drop the ego trip DOJ and
get out of the case and let the free market work! We are not a
socialistic economy!
The money DOJ has spent on this case could have been better
spent fighting the real monopolist .... oil companies, mass media,
medical companies (doctors, drug companies, providers), auto
companies, insurance companies, utilities (especially the government
ones like TVA), and the idiotic, egotistical government agencies
that refuse to move into the 20th century and act normal. What's
next, will the DOJ storm the offices of Microsoft armed with semi-
automatic arms and carry away Bill Gates and hold him in some
government facility or compound (AT TAXPAYERS EXPENSE) until the DOJ
completes stroking its ego?
LISTEN TO THE CONSUMERS DOJI WE AREN'T AS STUPID AS YOU IMPLY WE
ARE.
IF WE DON'T LIKE A PRODUCT, WE WILL STOP BUYING IT IRRESPECTIVE
OF THE MARKETING AGREEMENTS MANUFACTURERS AND VENDORS MIGHT HAVE.
AMERICAN CONSUMERS ARE NOT DUMB! WE DON'T NEED HAND HOLDING; WE
ARE MATURE ENOUGH TO MAKE COMPETENT DECISIONS!
Apparently the DOJ needs to observe and learn from AMERICAN
CONSUMERS ! I do NOT feel that consumers have been harmed by
Microsoft; in fact, I firmly believe the economy, consumers,
government, and taxpayers owe Microsoft and Bill Gates a warm
hearted ``Thank you'' for the American wealth they
created.
Microsoft's products are very consumer oriented and deliver
functionality that consumers are and have demanded. Admit it DOJ.
You made a mistake. Or are you free to admit it?
[[Page 28100]]
Gary Breeden
[email protected]
http://www.isabiz.com
865-719-3561
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The information in this e-mail and any
attachments is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or
the agent or employee responsible to deliver it to the intended
recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail, and
destroy this e-mail message along with any attachments. Thank you.
MTC-00027696
From: Damon Merrill Cann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a Ph.D. student in Political Science at the State
University of New York at Stony Brook. I object to the proposed
settlement. Microsoft has become too large to provide any of its
services well. Their practice of bundling software products
deceptively traps the average consumer into using inferior products.
It prevents competitors from entering the market. Reducing barriers
to entry is critical to a competitive economy.
I further object to the practice of creating intentional
incompatibilities in Microsoft products that prevent them from
running on other operating systems. The proposed settlement would
not remedy this problem.
As a catch all, I agree with the criticisms leveled at the
porposed settlement which are published on-line at http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html Please reconsider the settlement,
Sincerely,
Damon Cann
Ph.D. Student
SUNY at Stony Brook
37 Soundview Dr.
Port Jefferson, NY 11777
MTC-00027697
From: Strawn, Natalie M.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Hesse: I am writing in full support of the proposed
settlement agreement with Microsoft that would provide technology
funds, computers, and software in low-income communities.
As a future educator, I know that the state of Wisconsin would
benefit from the technology funds.
Technology enhances what is taught in the classroom and students
take away not only knowledge of the content area, but it also allows
the students to become technology savvy. Being technology literate
is not a privilege, but a need in today's world. Due to the lack of
funding in school districts in the state of Wisconsin, some schools
aren't getting the same advantages as other schools. With the
proposed settlement, students would get the technology they so
greatly need.
The proposed Microsoft settlement is a great opportunity for the
schools, teachers, and students of Wisconsin. The settlement would
help us make sure that no student, in the area of technology, is
left behind.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Natalie Strawn
UW- Eau Claire Student
321 4th Avenue
Eau Claire, WI 54703
MTC-00027698
From: Ken Seikel
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/28/02 9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Microsoft Settlement
I am a U. S. citizen with 28 years experience developing
software for computers. I wish to express my concern that the
proposed settlement agreement is inadequate remedy, in light of the
considerable public harm.
A pattern of Microsoft behavior is evident, (including the
disregard for the 1995 consent decree), suggesting that unless an
effective remedy is enacted at this time, the public will continue
to suffer from the lack of competition and we will again be
searching for remedy in some future litigation of an even more
complicated nature.
The proposed settlement will be an ineffective remedy. It
appears likely to provide a roadmap for future behavior which would
exploit the loopholes, further harming the public. In effect, it
grants Microsoft rights which would not otherwise exist. By allowing
Microsoft the power to define the terms, it may actually foster
anticompetitive behavior. By focusing on commercial competition, it
ignores or even hinders open source software, one of the most viable
alternatives to Microsoft software. I believe that an effective
remedy must educate and inform the public, promote competition and
prevent further abuse of monopoly power. The following comments may
be helpful in achieving that result.
Restrictive licensing terms prevent public disclosure of
Microsoft product performance characteristics. Even freedom of
speech is under attack from Microsoft. Provisions in the license for
their web site creation tool prohibit anti-Microsoft statements.
Microsoft must make public service announcements, acknowledging
their violations of antitrust law, and the harm caused to the
public. Complete disclosure is required. They recently attempted to
hide information from the public by barring the media and the public
from upcoming depositions Additionally, Microsoft did not fully
disclose congressional lobbying or contact with members of the
current administration as is required by the Tunney Act.
Federal regulations have provided for educational information to
the public in many product areas. Product labeling provides food
product ingredients, automobile fuel efficiency, appliance energy
consumption, tobacco and alcohol health considerations. Imposition
of labeling requirements for PCs will similarly benefit the public.
When the IBM PC was introduced in 1981, operating system
software was not bundled into the system price. IBM offered several
operating systems for the PC. The public chose the lower cost
solution, which was IBM's version of Microsoft DOS. The public
deserves choice today, but it is effectively denied by the bundling
policies of the Microsoft OEMs.
For any computer system offered with Microsoft software, OEMs
must make that same system as readily available without the
Microsoft software. The price difference must reflect the actual
costs associated with providing the Microsoft software, support and
warrantee services. A refund based model is not adequate. The costs
must be fully disclosed on the product labeling and Microsoft must
not financially benefit from the sale of a system without Microsoft
software.
Uniform pricing for Microsoft products should be via a single,
published, public volume discount schedule. Pricing must not be
influenced by any other consideration. The software resulting from
Microsoft's claimed ``freedom to innovate'' should be
offered as separate products, not bundled into Windows.
``Freedom to innovate'' should not imply ``freedom to
integrate''.
Microsoft must be prevented from practicing their
``Embrace, Extend, Extinguish'' tactics to wrest control
of standards to their benefit. Their dot.net plans are an attempt to
extend the monopoly to the internet itself. Microsoft must be
prevented from using their current monopoly power to extend it into
new areas. New versions of Microsoft products as well as new
Microsoft products must, as the installation default, compatibly
interoperate with prior versions of Microsoft products and other
non-Microsoft software programs. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Kenneth W. Seikel
1226 Eastwood Circle S. E.
North Canton, OH 44720
Take care... Ken Seikel [email protected]
MTC-00027699
From: Robert Browner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:39am
To Whom It May Concern: I have followed this litigation since it
inseption. I belelive it was politically inspired and used as an
escape from other problems. I also believe that if it went to the
Supreme Court it would be ruled in favor of Microsoft. However,
under the current situation both Microsoft, the government, and the
several states agreed upon this settlement. I belelive it should be
accepted as is and let all parties go on with more important and
revelant business.
Robert Browner
MTC-00027700
From: Eric Wadsworth
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 28101]]
Date: 1/28/02 9:41am
Subject: USAGWadsworth--Eric--1004--0126.doc
5005 Timber Edge Drive
Richfield, OH 44286
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am glad that the Tunney Act allows me to participate in some
small way in showing my support for Microsoft in the settlement of
the antitrust case. Microsoft has been a strong source of support
for American prosperity of quite some time now. With the legal
wrangles of this court action behind it,
Microsoft should be able, I hope, to return to its business of
providing innovations to increase efficiency for business and around
the world.
The settlement is, like all settlements ever, a compromise. In
my opinion, Microsoft graciously conceded the most. All it got was
to have the court action end with it still in one piece. In
exchange, it conceded to give up its United State Constitutional
protected copyright and patent interests. For example, Microsoft is
documenting and disclosing to the other companies who make software
the digital code to the various internal interfaces of its Windows
operating system programs. Microsoft is in good company with great,
bold, innovative technology companies like IBM and AT&T in being
sued for antitrust.
Thank you so much for having enough sense to work to end this
mess with a settlement that is worth agreeing on. I appreciate your
leadership.
Sincerely,
Eric Wadsworth
MTC-00027701
From: Hohn, Charles
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 9:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The actions of Microsoft Corporation and their agents
demonstrate that they willingly and illegally leverage their
influence to damage and even ruin competitors. This is bad not only
for the consumer, but incredibly unfair to the people (and their
families) that put forth an honest effort to bring something to the
market place, believing that they would compete on a level playing
field. Justice cannot be served to these individuals and companies.
But to those who would place their efforts at risk in the future,
they must believe that the fruits of their endeavors will not be
wrestled away by a stronger entity.
In this society, we are dependent on the judicial process to
punish such offenders, at least to the minimum degree, such that it
is a real deterrent to like or repeat offenses.
It is my belief that the current settlement proposal cannot
possibly accomplish this goal.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Hohn
Software Engineer
CC:Beattie, Chris,Wheaton, Ken,Antle, Deborah
MTC-00027702
From: Duff, Michael
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe this settlement is a BAD idea and very bad for the
computing economy.
Microsoft shouldn't be destroyed by punishment, but should also
not be able to buy their way out of this.
Michael P. Duff, Jr.
Director, divine Advanced Web Technology (Chicago)
Work 312-601-3048 Cell 630-408-7538
http//www.divine.com http//duff.dnsalias.com
MTC-00027703
From: Bagby, Jon W. (091)C(093)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 9:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your Honor
Fact 1: Microsoft Corporation has broken no laws.
Fact 2: This frivolous lawsuit should never have been
entertained by any court.
Fact 3: I resent the government's belief that it has to force
it's ``protection'' on me when I neither want nor need it.
Toss this litigation out into the street where it belongs.
Stop punishing businesses and individuals for their hard work
and success. Stop allowing (empowering?) failed businesses to set
the rules for the markets in which they couldn't compete in the
first place.
Thank you.
Jon W. Bagby
IT Professional
CC:'activism(a)moraldefense.com''
MTC-00027704
From: Raymond Peeples
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 9:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs,
I am in favor of the settlement and urge it's adoption! Thank
you!
Raymond C. Peeples Jr.
Service Repair Coordinator
Stanley Elevator Co., Inc
``The time when you need to do something is when no one
else is willing to do it, when people are saying it can't be
done.'' Mary Frances Berry
MTC-00027705
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
End the lawsuits and let the market determine the best solution.
AOL has nothing to complain about when it comes to unfair practices
and monopolies.
Mick Stoffel
651-733-7932
MTC-00027706
From: Nicolas Ouedraogo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a computer professional working and interacting with
Microsoft products for the past 10 years, I have numerous first-hand
experiences of the ill-effects of Microsoft's abuses of monopoly
powers and predatory business practices on my daily work. Although
living and working abroad, these abuses and practices have and still
are affecting me personally and professionally, which shows how far-
reaching the ill-effects can be.
After closely watching this case, including relevant documents
of the trial and numerous commentaries in the press, I believe that
the proposed settlement will not achieve its goals and, as an
american citizen, I feel compelled to express my concerns about it.
Microsoft's past and present behaviours have already been described
at length during the trial, but the ones which have affected me the
most can be summed up as:
(A) illegally restricting competition in the OS market
(B) illegally using its monopoly position in the OS market to
enter other markets or restrict competition in other markets
However, the proposed settlement fails to correctly address those
two points, and does so in various ways, notably:
- Microsoft's past behaviours have showed how clever it can be
in finding and exploiting loopholes in its agreements--the DOJ
has a first-hand experience of this (cf. the 1995 consent decree
with Microsoft). The proposed settlement is too vaguely worded in
this respect, so careful attention should be given to the various
means (and their wording) needed to acheive these goals.
- Also of the highest importance, specific means should be
provided to guarantee that open source and free software can develop
unharmed by Microsoft's actions. By Microsoft's own admission, free
software (and particularly the Linux OS) is its biggest competitor,
but strangely the proposed settlement's wording of Microsoft's
behavioural remedies specifically includes only commercial software
developers--thus leaving free software developers, most of whom
are individuals or not-for-profit entities, with no rights at all,
as though they don't even exist.
Even worse, Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language
against not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that
Microsoft need not describe nor license API, Documentation, or
Communications Protocols affecting authentication and authorization
to companies that don't meet Microsoft's criteria as a business:
``...(c) meets reasonable, objective standards established by
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its
business, ...''
The same goes for Section III(D), which deals with disclosure of
information regarding the APIs for incorporating non-Microsoft
``middleware'', and which gives some rights to commercial
concerns only. This is particularly unfair, because Microsoft's
harms have and still are affecting not only businesses, but also the
public at large, including individuals and not-for-profit
organizations.
So, in my view, any settlement should include, as a bare
minimum, the following requirements:
[[Page 28102]]
(A) To restore competition on the OS market, the proposed
settlement should:
1. Require Microsoft to:
--publish OEM prices for licenses to all version of Windows
and its successors.
--offer different prices for the same product based only on
quantity bought. The complete pricelist must be made public and
access to the different prices cannot be tied to factors other than
quantity.
--publish the conditions under which it gives access to the
source code of any of its OS, and provide such accesses in a non-
discriminatory way These mesures would provide a mean for consumers
to make informed choices when selecting computer platforms to buy,
prevent Microsoft from illegally using OEMs to raise the barrier to
entry in the OS market, and prevent Microsoft from threatening ISVs
to deny them access to the source code of its OS.
2. Prevent Microsoft from:
--refusing to sell licenses of its OS to anyone
--entering in a bundling agreement or contract which
includes a Microsoft OS, with OEMs or resellers
--using a software-related patent to block or hinder the
development and public offering (free of charge or for a cost) of a
software competing with Microsoft's products. Microsoft should be
required to license, free of charge and in a non-discriminatory way,
any software-related patent it owns to any software developer,
provided the software using the patent will also be publicly
available free of charge. Commercial software using Microsoft-owned
patents can be required to license these patents for a reasonnable
cost, provided that that cost is published by Microsoft and equally
applied in a non-discriminatory way to all commercial vendors.
--publicly offering (free of charge or for a cost) any
hardware device driver without also publicly offering, free of
charge, its source code.
--certifying any hardware as working with Microsoft
software, unless the hardware's complete specifications are publicly
available free of charge.
These five measures combined would remove a big part of the
barrier to entry illegally placed by Microsoft on competing products
in the OS market, and prevent future actions by Microsoft to
restrict competition, including those from open-source and free
software products.
This would also prevent Microsoft from using hardware devices as
a mean to maintain its monopoly position:
- by ensuring that any hardware supported natively by a
Microsoft OS can also be supported by any other OS (including open
source and free software operating systems like Linux)
- by ensuring that Microsoft cannot use its ``seal of
approval'' to reinforce its monopoly position by helping
hardware manufacturers in marketing products for which the
specifications are not publicly available.
(B) To prevent Microsoft from using its OS monopoly as a way of
achieving another monopoly position in another market, the proposed
settlement should require Microsoft to:
--publish, free of charge and without any non-disclosure
requirement, complete documentation of all interfaces between
software components, all communications protocols, and all file
formats used in any software publicly offered (free of charge or for
a cost) by Microsoft for the past three years, and those publicly
offered (free of charge or for a cost) by Microsoft for the next ten
years. These documentations for software publicly offered (free of
charge or for a cost) by Microsoft for the past three years must be
publicly available at most one year after the date the settlement is
in effect.
--publicly provide answers, free of charge and in a
reasonable time, to all questions raised by anyone regarding any
aspect of an interface (as distinguished from implementation
techniques) that the published documentation fails to address, and
do so for the next ten years.
--make available in a convenient way, the ability to remove
any software component that is part of a Microsoft OS (such as
Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, etc..) and replace it with
a competing software component.
These three mesures combined would ensure that complete
interoperability with Microsoft present and future products becomes
possible, thus guaranteeing that fair competition can exist in all
software markets in which Microsoft is present. They also address
some of the past harms done by Microsoft by requiring it to use some
of its ill-gotten gains to provide the public with some means to
interoperate with some of its past, still widely in-use software.
I sincerely hope that my concerns about the proposed settlement
will be correctly be addressed, and I will watch very closely the
outcome the case.
Regards,
Nicolas Ouedraogo
C.T.O.
Juillerat-Grin S.A
17, rue de la Fontenette
1227 Carouge
Switzerland
tel. : +41 (22) 827-3030
fax: +41 (22) 827-3033
email: [email protected]
MTC-00027707
From: Clayton Carter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:46am
Subject: Comments Regarding Microsoft Settlement
I am convinced that the punitive measures laid out by the
proposed Microsoft settlement are wholely inadequate and mostly
ludicrous. I'm speaking mainly of the supposed $1 billion that will
be invested in poor schools, but I'm also convinced that bulk of the
rest of the settlement is little more than a slap on the wrist. In
regards to the $1 billion to be invested in the public school
system, I can't help but be flabergasted. While not myself a huge
fan of Apple computers, I whole hearted agree with the comments that
Steve Jobs made about the settlement. I believe that the most
relevant of his points was that pouring money and computers loaded
with Microsoft software into the school system would do nothing more
than train entire generations of students to be future Microsoft
customers, further guaranteeing Microsoft's stranglehold on the
personal computing industry.
Few would doubt that computers will play a larg part in our
future. In light of this, you have the chance to affect (and
benefit) our future profoundly by putting Microsoft in its place and
removing from their hands the power that they currently hold over
the computing industry.
I trust that you will act in the best interest of the American
people.
Thank you.
Clayton Carter
Information Technology Specialist
Harvard/Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
MTC-00027708
From: Fraser Smithson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please enter my letter attached in comment for Microsoft
Settlement Public comment.
Fraser Smithson
Fraser D. Smithson
2390 Tarpon Road
Naples, FL 34102
941-793-5155
[email protected]
January 31, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I believe the antitrust case against Microsoft should never have
been brought.
However, as it was actually brought three years ago, I believe
that the settlement agreement is the best think for Microsoft, and
for America. Continuing this wasteful litigation will not benefit
any one.
The settlement was not reached in haste. All parties had a
chance to bring up their concerns and grievances and issues during
three months of negotiations with the mediator appointed by the new
federal judge on the case. Microsoft gets to stay intact. The
companies behind the government antitrust action get Microsoft to
abandon many of its legal rights. Copyrights and patents of
intellectual property rights were protected by America's Founding
Fathers in the United States Constitution over two hundred years
ago. Microsoft has taken a strong stance to protect its intellectual
property. After all, intellectual property, the collected, written
down in software code, and tested mental power of its employees is
practically the whole business worth of the software industry. I
know that Bill Gates and his co-workers at Microsoft have faced
difficult challenges in the past, since they were founded a little
over twenty years ago. Under the settlement, Microsoft will be
helping the entire computer industry, including the many leading
companies that are American. That should be seen as in the best
American interest.
Thank you for your support of the Microsoft antitrust
settlement.
Sincerely,
Fraser Smithson
[[Page 28103]]
MTC-00027709
From: Marty Altman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CC: Marty Altman
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Sirs,
Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I would very much like to add my
voice to the objections over the proposed Microsoft Settlement. I
won't belabor the details here, as folks like Dan Kegel (http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html) have done an outstanding job with
these points. I strongly support his ``Open Letter to DOJ Re:
Microsoft Settlement'' (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html).
I believe the Proposed Final Judgement is critically flawed in
several ways. Perhaps the most objectionable to me is that it
doesn't require any fundamental shift in monopolistic attitudes or
practices in order for Microsoft to successfully litigate their way
to ``compliance''.
Quoting from Dan Kegel's introduction:
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. Clearly Microsoft has
exercised monopolistic practices, and the Proposed Final Judgement
provides little real relief for the software development, vendor, or
end user communities. If nothing else, the definitions for key terms
in the settlement are sufficiently narrow to allow Microsoft to
employ a long standing tactic of litigating their way to what they
feel is a successful end.
Perhaps more subtle there don't seem to be any provisions in the
settlement designed to alter, let alone provide substantive
punishment for, Microsoft's history and culture of predatory
attitudes. Deeply held attitudes will not change themselves- they
require a catalyst. In my view, the Proposed Final Judgement has no
sting.
Quoting again from Dan Kegel's introduction:
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).
I respectfully disagree with Attorney General Ashcroft's
assessment that the Proposed Final Judgement would, ``end
Microsoft's unlawful conduct.'' In my view, the final judgement
should include three principal aspects:
- enough procedural remedy to affect a significant shift in
Microsoft's monopolistic business practices,
- enough sting to affect a significant shift in Microsoft's
predatory business attitudes, and
- enough compliance machinery to assure both these shifts take
place.
I agree with the conclusions stated elsewhere that the Proposed
Final Judgement, in its current form, does little to affect
Microsoft's monopolistic attitudes and practices, and is therefore
not in the public interest. It should not be adopted without
substantial revision.
Thank you for your time,
Marty Altman
Senior Scientist
Science Applications International Corporation
Orlando, Florida
-The opinions expressed herein are my own, and should in no way
be interpreted as belonging to SAIC.
MTC-00027710
From: Phillips, George H.
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 9:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I believe the Microsoft settlement to be completely inadequate.
As an IT professional, I have been hobbled for years by inferior
software forced upon me by the illegal practices of Microsoft. They
need to be reigned in now! Thank you. These opinions are mine alone
and not those of my employer.
George Phillips
Email: [email protected]
MTC-00027712
From:
[email protected]@ine
tgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division, US Dept of Justice I
would like to submit a comment on the Microsoft settlement proposal.
I believe the settlement must include a very strong provision
assuring inter-operability.
I believe it is the responsibility of the U.S. Government to
drive this process, as it will not happen without U.S. Government
leadership. When railroads were first being built, there were no
standards. Different rail lines were built with different guages.
Each community had its own local time.
There wasn't any such thing as a standard guage, or a standard
time zone. It proved impossible to serve the public interest without
governmentally enforced standardization.
A standard track guage was agreed upon. The U.S. Government
created and imposed Standard Time Zones to ease the problem of
railroad scheduling.
You now have a similar responsibility in software. Unless the
U.S. Government mandates inter-operability, the Sherman Act will,
for all practical purposes, become a dead letter with respect to the
software industry.
Inter-operability protects the consumer, and it protects
competition, and it's the only meaningful way to apply the Sherman
Act to this vital industry. Inter-operability means that files
created by one application must be readable by the next.
Regardless of who the application creators are.
Spreadsheet files must be equally readable by all software
applications. Word processing files must be equally readable by all
word processing applications.
It's the software equivalent of standard guages and standard
time zones. If you don't establish and enforce an interoperability
rule, you'll dry up the market for smaller scale competitors and
turn the market over to its biggest player.
You'll give a de facto green light to monopoly.
Thank you for your consideration.
I look forward to the DOJ exercising leadership that protects
America's strong commitment to competitive capitalism, that honors
America's enduring hostility toward monopoly.
Sincerely yours,
Steven H. Johnson
Annapolis MD 21401
MTC-00027713
From: Wendy Pellegrini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:49am
Subject: I am against this ``settlement''
I am against this ``settlement''.
This settlement does not punish Microsoft for their criminal
behaviour. It rewards them. At the very least, you must force them
to open their APIs so that competitors might stand a chance of
competeing in the future.
Wendy Pellegrini
Software Engineer
Zixlt.com, Inc.
MTC-00027714
From: Stanley R Droy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement, From
[email protected]
Dear Sir: I have been dealing with the computer makers, software
producers since 1969. Thats right 32 years ago. During the last 10
years, Microsoft corporation has done everything it could to help
this country rise in its computer usage and availability to the
common public. They should be given a medal for their achievements.
To continue any form of prosecution is outrageous. We should help
and support the Microsoft company, instead of stealing their assets
for political gain. If the States need money, they should tax all
the people in their state to acquire funds and not join a bandwagon
of bandits. Sincerely yours,
Stanley R. Droy
MTC-00027715
From: Dan Warburton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
[[Page 28104]]
I am very concerned that as a Monopoly microsoft is allowed to
leverage this status in other ventures. I know ATT was not allowed
to invest out side of its on field. So I don't think Microsoft
should be allowed to invest outside the Windows/Office area.
Specifically , as a monoply Microsoft should not be investing in
Network Services (msn.net) or ISP servcies (MSN/Quest) or Media
(msnbc). Microsoft should divest it's self of these companies.
Thank You.
MTC-00027716
From: Laurent Domenech
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:59am
Subject: my comments
Since your time is valuable, I'll make it short: Microsoft's
position is a threat to consumers. The monopoly should be broken.
Thanks,
Laurent
MTC-00027717
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:59am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Enough is enough--Let microsoft innovate to help get this
economy moving again.
George Newton
MTC-00027718
From: Steve McGee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 9:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ,
As a taxpayer and software engineer, I think all the legal
action against Microsoft is ridiculous. I am not now and never have
been a Microsoft employee, but I've used their products for many
years. They have done nothing but improve the quality of software
and lower the prices of software. I don't agree with all their
actions, but I don't agree with the court's decisions against them.
Regardless of my feelings, I believe any punitive action should
be tempered with a sense of reality. These guys have created lots of
jobs for lots of people, and I cannot see any downside to that.
Let's get this settled and over and move on. Let AOL and Sun and
the rest complain all they want, but let's move on. Steve McGee
Lakewood, Colorado
MTC-00027719
From: Alfieri, Matthew
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 10:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
--- Original Message -----
From: Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Network
[mailto:[email protected]] Sent:
Sunday, January 27, 2002 8:09 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. 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
Matthew Alfieri
7 Northfield Gate
Pittsford, NY 14534
January 27, 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 go on record as
being a staunch supporter of the proposed agreement that was reached
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. The litigation
between these two has gone on for long enough, more than three years
actually. It is time to put this issue to rest and move on.
The settlement actually goes further than Microsoft would have
liked, but they decided to settle because it was in the best
interests of the IT industry and the American economy. The
settlement mandates that Microsoft make future versions of the
Windows operating system to include a feature that makes it much
easier for computer makers and consumers to remove Microsoft
software programs from Windows and then replace it with non-
Microsoft software. This completely opens the industry up to much
more competition, and the companies producing the competing software
will need to deliver a ``Grade A'' product to the market,
or people will simply not buy it.
Everything is now in place for a stronger IT industry and a
healthier economy. I support this settlement because it looks out
for everyone's best interests. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Matthew Alfieri
Matthew Alfieri
MTC-00027720
From: Steward, Ronald Ray (UIS Student)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 10:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Renata B. Hesse:
I am writing regarding the Microsoft settlement to express my
disagreement. I am a graduate student in computer science at the
University of Illinois at Springfield. I have observed the software
industry for several years and watched as Microsoft grew into the
monopoly it is now.
This entire settlement is flawed. It apparently attempts to
protect competition from other venders that wish to run their
software on the Microsoft operating system. Microsoft has already
killed off the competition in the office suite and other key
markets. This action is simply too late.
Much more important is that proposed settlement goes way beyond
too little and is entirely superficial. Software design is very
complex. There are a million ways to produce incredible advantages
when the developer controls both the operating system and the
software to run on it. The proposals merely attempt to preserve
access to use and what might be thought of as advertising or ease of
install. After this settlement has the illumination of time, it will
be seen as a technical travisty of justice.
This court case will make all others pale in comparison. In the
future anyone contesting Microsoft in court will likely have to
prepare their briefs with pen and paper because the software giant
will have access to everything written or transmitted by computer
and all users will be registered for targetted monitoring. Perhaps
even every computer with a microphone attached will need to be
unplugged to avoid eavesdropping.
George Orwell could not imagine the power you are conceding to
the Software giant.
I look to our future and weep,
Ron Steward
CC:'ron.steward(a)epa.state.il.us''
MTC-00027721
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
JONATHAN ESKANDER
33 ARLINGTON RD.
SCARSDALE, NY 10583
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing this letter today to express my deep concern over
the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. I believe that the sooner
this suit comes to a close, the better. We have spent countless
taxpayer dollars on the frivolous pursuit of case and it needs to
come to an end.
It is my opinion that the settlement that has been reached in
this case is fair. Microsoft will design all future versions of its
Windows operating system to be compatible with the products of its
competitors. The company will also license Windows out to the top 20
computer manufactures at the same price and on the same terms. This
settlement will be ensured by a three-person technical committee,
which will monitor Microsoft's future business tactics and their
compliance with the settlement.
This litigation needs to end. Please support this settlement.
Thank you.
[[Page 28105]]
Sincerely,
Jonathan Eskander
MTC-00027722
From: Lester Housel
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 10:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
105 Lake Brantley Terrace
Longwood, FL 32779
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 full support of the recent settlement
between Microsoft and the US department of Justice. I think the
lawsuits were unjustified in the first place and should have ended
long ago.
The terms of the settlement do not even protect the consumer and
reflect the intense lobbying efforts of Microsoft's competitors and
the apparent lack of concern for the public's best interests by the
lawmakers and politicians. For instance, Microsoft is forced to
disclose interfaces and protocols that are internal to
Windows'' operating system products. They also must grant
computer makers broad new rights to configure Windows so that
competitors can more easily promote their own products.
In spite of these flaws, I urge your office to finalize the
settlement. The alternative of further litigation would be
detrimental to our economy. I hope you suppress the nine states that
want to drag this thing through the mud.
Sincerely,
MTC-00027725
From: Choi, Eunice Q
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 10:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft settlement is more than just and fair. Please
settle the case so that Microsoft will continue to deliver
innovative software for consumers at a reasonable price.
This case was not a case to protect the consumers but a case for
the benefit of the competitors.
MTC-00027726
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Case
Maria Eskander
33 Arlington Rd.
Scarsdale, NY 10583
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I want to take this opportunity to express my support for the
settlement that has been reached in the Microsoft antitrust case. I
feel that prolonging this lawsuit will only hinder the future
development of business in this nation. This country and its success
have been built by the hard work and entrepreneurial sprit of
American businesses. This suit chips away at this very foundation.
The settlement that has been reached in this case is fair.
Microsoft will design all future versions of Windows to be
compatible with the products of its competitors; they have also
agreed to cease any action that may be considered retaliatory. The
terms will be ensured by a three person technical committee that
will monitor Microsoft's compliance with the settlement. This
settlement is the best option for America for the simple fact that
it will bring this case to a close.
Microsoft is one of this nations largest employers, and
continuing this suit is an imprudent move at this time. Thank you
for your support of this settlement.
Sincerely,
Maria Eskander
MTC-00027727
From: Christine Scammon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:01am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Dear Judge,
I'm a concerned citizen who would like to voice her opposition
to the proposed final judgment being considered in the Microsoft
suit. Microsoft has used its Windows operating system to destroy
competitors in other software markets, and every court has concluded
that it has violated anti-trust laws. The proceeds of these
violations is huge, yet this settlement does nothing to undo those
profits, and if allowed to continue in these practices, it will
certainly have serious consequences for the rest of the companies in
this industry. If the proposed final judgment is adopted, Microsoft
is the winner. I urge you to reject the proposed settlement.
Respectfully submitted,
Christine Scammon
Champlin, MN
MTC-00027728
From: Peter F. Dubuque
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to oppose the proposed settlement in the antitrust
case against Microsoft. The company has been twice found guilty of
violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. I believe the proposed
settlement is grossly inadequate in preventing future violations of
the law. It does nothing to ensure a viable software market in which
companies other than Microsoft can develop an innovative new product
without facing the threat of Microsoft rolling out a free knockoff
embedded in the operating system.
It does nothing to ensure that alternative products have the
information needed to interoperate with Microsoft products. It does
nothing to address the fact that the consumer marketplace is
impoverished by other companies'' inability to compete against
Microsoft in the present state of the market. And it provides no
significant obstacle to further violations of the law. (If the
consent decree is violated, it gets extended two years...what kind
of remedy is *that*?)
Any reasonable settlement should at the very least include the
following:
- Complete and accurate documentation of *all* Microsoft file
formats and interfaces, to allow competing products to operate in
conjunction with them
- Prohibition of deliberate measures taken to prevent
interoperability with non-Microsoft products
- Prohibition of anti-competitive pricing of Microsoft products
(e.g. discounts on licenses to companies who agree to not use
competing products such as Linux)
Ideally, I'd also like to see a ban on any product or company
acquisitions by Microsoft, or any joint ventures with other
companies that might allow Microsoft to leverage its monopoly to
enter a new market (e.g. transaction fees for electronic commerce or
home entertainment).
Microsoft has been found guilty of antitrust. I find it utterly
unconscionable that the DOJ, having won its case, is willing to
throw out years of work with the utterly inadequate settlement it
has proposed.
Peter F. [email protected]
MTC-00027729
From: Harold Holderith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:04am
Attached is a letter prepared by Microsoft which I have signed
and which I wholeheartedly endorse.
Harold Holderith
565 55th Av N.E.
Saint Petersburg, FL 33703
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I would like to take a moment to express some of my views
regarding this case. I am a user of Microsoft products and a general
supporter of the company. I believe that it is an example of the
successes that can be gained under the free enterprise system.
Although I do not agree with every decision that Microsoft has made,
I do believe that it is entitled to its position as the industry
leader.
There will always be those that try to litigate away pieces of a
company's market share. We just have to be careful to recognize when
consumer protection is used as a veil to hide return on investment.
I concede that Microsoft has tried to block entry to the market by
independent vendors, and in that light we should reprimand
Microsoft. I believe the settlement your office reached with
Microsoft provides the common ground. It is fair, reasonable, and
extensive. I do see the need for further action at the federal
level.
The settlement will force Microsoft to be a more responsible
industry leader while allowing it to retain its competitive
advantage. It has agreed to change the way it licenses, markets, and
develops its software, as well as the way it deals with those that
design or promote non-Microsoft programs. It will disclose various
protocols and interfaces within Windows for use by the competition,
and will allow non-Microsoft programs to be promoted in Windows.
It appears to me that the necessary corrections have been made
to address the issues that brought about the lawsuits. We
[[Page 28106]]
must now allow the IT industry and the economy to move forward. This
settlement is the tool. It has been three years and countless
dollars in the making, and should be given a chance to work.
Sincerely,
Harold Holderith
MTC-00027732
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
D. Lewis
PO Box 9145
Bakersfield, CA 93389-9145
MTC-00027733
From: Barbara Fiegas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement: Proprosed Final Judgement Judge,
We are writing today to emplore you to take the Proposed Final
Judgement and add some teeth. As the Court of Appeals has affirmed
Microsoft had unlawfully and intentionally deceived Java developers
and ``polluted'' the Java standard, we are asking you to
restrict their ability to modify Java technologies and add punitive
incentives for them to support computer industries standards.
As a small business, we appreciate the free market opportunities
that exist here in America, and hope you will keep them firmly in
mind as you make this decision.
Respectfully yours,
Barbara Fiegas
Swift Fulfillment Services
1A Glenwood Ave
Lynbrook, NY 11563
voice: 516-593-1198
fax: 516-596-2911
MTC-00027734
From: Gary Gordhamer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I would like to express my dis-satisfaction with the current
proposed settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft. I have been
working in the information technology area for over 10 years now,
and have seen the Windows platform grow from a limited use simple
operating system, to a monopolistic control of the destop and mid-
range server market.
Their growth has been through the use of legal and illegal
business practices as shown by the verdict the recent and distant
court cases.
The current proposed settlement does not seem to offer any form
of monopolistic control as it would seem is required.
I tend to compare this to the monopoly of the phone system. When
the ``baby'' bells were born, the only way they could
complete was by strict adhearince to standards set by the goverment
(FCC), and strick fines for not following these standards.
This allows me to choose from many differnt phone options, and
phone hardware which I can purchase at many store from many vendors.
Yet when I choose to purchase a computer, or computer operating
system there tends to be only one option available. With fixed
price, fixed features and limited compatible options.
The current settlement proposole does not offer a open fixed
standard that is controlled external to Microsoft. It does not put
into place a way to infuse the market with competing companies that
will be able to deliver product to the supply chain as Microsoft
can.
I would hope that one day I can visit my local Wall-Mart store
and see a set of competing products on the shelf, offering various
options and price points. Untill then I must still lease my computer
from Microsoft and get only what they allow, much like the phones of
the 1970's that I leased from AT&T.
Respectfully,
Gary Gordhamer
Owner / DBA
H&H Consulting services, LLC.
Waukesha, WI
MTC-00027735
From: Dale Beeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement!
Dale Beeman
598 Foxwood Boulevard
Englewood, FL 34223
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
For quite some time now, I have been following the case against
Microsoft filed by the DOJ. I am therefore quite familiar with the
issues involved. Considering that this case has dragged on for over
three years, spending an exorbitant amount of taxpayer dollars, I am
very pleased that a settlement has finally been proposed. Though I
strongly feel that the terms of the settlement are very harsh for
Microsoft, I am willing to support this in the interest of putting
this matter to bed.
Ending this lawsuit now is a very necessary action to help boost
the sagging economy and revitalize the slowing innovations in the IT
industry. In order to achieve the fastest close to this matter,
Microsoft has agreed to terms that were not even found illegal in
the lawsuit against them. They have also agreed to terms that have
the distinct potential to limit their competitiveness. Microsoft
agreements include the unprecedented move to share their internal
Windows interfaces. Microsoft has also agreed to cease its more
aggressive marketing practices.
This kind of settlement has obviously taken some time to draft
and the terms of which should more than appease Microsoft's
opponents. There is therefore no need to press this matter any
further.
Sincerely,
Dale Beeman
MTC-00027736
From: Judy L. Powers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlepersons:
It is absolutely amazing to me! AOL-Time-Warner is the king of
the industry in keeping its customers captive by providing a whole
?city? of options to its bank of members (mostly first-time internet
users), and then making it difficult for their less experienced
members to get out of AOL to surf freely on the web. And these are
the people crying ?sue the bastards? about the Microsoft
Corporation? Isn?t this the pot calling the kettle black? Protracted
and repetitive litigation is never a benefit to the public, and
rarely to either client, just to the attorneys. Is AOL's counsel
short on billable hours these days?
Thanks for listening. Let's stop the litigious behavior, thank
the judiciary for its most diligent work and call it a day with the
spurious afterthought suits.
Judy L. Powers
6593 Alleghany Court
San Jose, CA 95120
[email protected]
CC:[email protected]@
inetgw
MTC-00027737
From: Walt Goodpastor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:11am
Subject: Support for Microsoft
Punishing successful producers like Microsoft is not only
morally wrong, it is stupid and self-defeating. It rewards
Microsoft's competitors, thereby assuring that consumers will be
stuck with inferior products and services.
Free-market competition obtains the best results by rewarding
the superior performers. It is a process of selection of the best,
not a process for inclusion of the mediocre and inferior. Free-
market competition is not the ``Special Olympics,'' and if
the foolish people who insist on making it so are successful, the
result will be a degradation of the quality of life for everyone.
MTC-00027738
From:
[email protected]@
inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:13am
[[Page 28107]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The outcome of Microsoft antitrust case will be critical to the
technology industry's future. Unfortunately for those of us in the
industry, the remaining states want to prolong the case and impose
broad, irresponsible remedies.
The Microsoft antitrust case has been a key factor in slowing
innovation and growth in Massachusetts's technology industry. It was
not mere coincidence that the decline of the industry followed in
the footsteps of this case. With the future of Microsoft and the
Windows platform in doubt, the case brought crippling uncertainty to
the industry. Smaller entrepreneurial companies that have been the
lifeblood of this industry were forced to hold back on innovations
because of their limited research and development budgets. With
fewer innovations coming out of smaller software developers and
uncertainty as to the future of the platform, corporations also
slowed their own IT spending.
To make matters worse, the state attorneys general who did not
to join the existing settlement are pursuing remedies that will
wreak havoc on the rest of the industry as they attempt to lock down
Microsoft. By some accounts, they would require Microsoft to produce
over 1000 different versions of Windows. For software developers,
the testing of products for bugs and compatibility issues is one of
the most expensive parts of product development. How will the
garage-based software developer ever meet the demands of testing
their products on all those versions?
If the attorneys general want to ensure a healthy future for the
technology industry, they will join the Department of Justice and
nine other attorney generals in the effective settlement already
reached.
Further litigation will only continue the economic downturn and
their proposed alternative to the settlement will likely result in
further consolidation in the industry and the death of the
independent software developer.
Howard Diamond
Chairman, Corporate Software & Technology
MTC-00027739
From: Clint Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please see the following letter regarding the Microsoft Settlement:
Clinton Miller
8609 51st Terrace, East
Bradenton, FL 34202
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing today with the hope that my views on this matter
will play a role in bringing closure to the excessively overdone
lawsuit against Microsoft.
After three long years of litigation, with its immoderate
allocation of taxpayer dollars, I was very pleased to hear that the
DOJ proposed a settlement last November. Bringing closure to this
case will give the economy the boost it needs and give Microsoft the
opportunity to get back into the game and stabilize the IT industry
once again.
I have a hard time grasping what the dissatisfied states have
issue with and why they continue to press for litigation. If they
closely examine the terms of the settlement, they will see that
Microsoft's concessions are more than fair. They have even agreed to
terms and conditions that were not even at issue in the lawsuit.
Microsoft's competitors should be satisfied to know that Microsoft
has agreed to disclose their internal interfaces as well as provide
licenses for their intellectual property. Over and beyond this,
Microsoft has also agreed to create future versions of Windows that
will allow for non-Microsoft compatibility.
To me, if the Government, Microsoft and the competitors are
satisfied with the fairness of the settlement, this should be more
than enough for formalizing it.
Let's do this soon, in the best interest of all parties
involved.
Sincerely,
Clinton Miller
CC:[email protected]@
inetgw
MTC-00027740
From: Mike Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:13am
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. I will be brief here because I feel that others far more
qualified and eloquest have already state the why's and wherefores
of my position. Suffice it to say that I feel the proposed
settlement fails completely to punish Microsoft for the
anticompetitive practices that they were found to have employeed.
And on a similar note I also feel that there is no real
enforcement of the remedies whih are put forth in the proposed
settlement. The remedies which are put forth, being wholly
inadequate in it's attempt to modify the business practices of
Microsoft, are provided no real means of enforcement. The psuedo-
enforcement provided in the proposed settlement amounts to an
oversite committee with no powers to enact change except through the
courts.
Thank you for your time. I hope that I have been able to add
something positive the discourse.
Michael J. Anderson
Bartlesville, OK 74006
[email protected]
MTC-00027741
From: Marc Garon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 6:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am among the millions of computer system professionals who
disapproves of the measures imposed against Microsoft, as they are
woefully inadequate in proportion to the damage incurred on the IT
industry.
MTC-00027742
From: John E Campbell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Department of Justice
I wanted to let you know that I strongly support the
negotiatedsettlement of the Microsoft case in its present form. I
urge you to support this result and feel it is very much in the
public interest.
I will greatly appreciate your consideration of my comments and
your efforts to help effect a final settlement along lines of that
already proposed.
Thank you very much.
John E. Campbell Jr.
PO Box 537
Sanibel FL 33957
MTC-00027743
From: Michael Shuey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:15am
Subject: Re: Proposed Microsoft anti-trust settlement
Attn. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice:
Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed
Microsoft settlement. In particular, I would like to voice my
concerns over section III D, API Disclosure.
It has been ruled (and upheld in subsequent appeal) that
Microsoft has abused its monopoly power, particularly in the areas
of operating system software and business applications. As long as
Microsoft is able to modify the application programmer interface
(API) secretly the company will always be able to prevent competing
business applications from running at peak efficiency and to prevent
non-Microsoft operating system code from running the latest
Microsoft business software. Unless Microsoft is forced to openly
publish the Windows API specification third-party developers will
always be unable to compete on equal footing. A measure like section
III D is necessary.
While section III D is a step in the right direction, the
proposed remedy is far from an effective solution. The Windows API
is one of the most complex software interfaces in use
today--merely documenting it is a daunting task.
With such a large degree of complexity it is quite easy to omit
certain details. In the current settlement there are no provisions
to handle such omissions, whether they are accidental or
intentional. As the Windows API evolves (witness the changes that
occur with every major new release of operating system software) it
would be very easy to again recreate secret, proprietary API
extensions to restore competitive edge for Microsoft business
software. Without some kind of regular auditing procedure for the
Windows source code, performed by a well-funded neutral third party,
there is no way to guarantee that complete, accurate documentation
will continue to be made available.
Unfortunately, a third-party code audit would not adequately
solve the problem. Currently, according to Definition A and
[[Page 28108]]
Definition J in the proposed settlement, the Windows API is limited
to interfaces between Microsoft Middleware and Microsoft Windows,
excluding APIs used by other programs or hardware device drivers.
Without providing a broader definition of ``API''
Microsoft can easily avoid the API disclosure restrictions by merely
claiming to have integrated a portion of their application software
with the underlying operating system (such as in the case of
Internet Explorer).
Futhermore, the definition (J) of ``Microsoft
Middleware'' itself is problematic. The definition limits
itself to particular versions of Microsoft software distributed via
conventional channels. Newer versions of Microsoft software, or
versions of existing software introduced though online services, may
not be counted as ``Microsoft Middleware'' for the
purposes of this settlement, effectively allowing Microsoft to
extend their API to support their software without concern for API
disclosure.
Without some signiciant revision to the proposed settlement, I
believe that little will be done to prevent Microsoft from
continuing to abuse its monopoly to limit the amount of choice
available to the consumer.
Mike Shuey
MTC-00027744
From: Albert Fedorchak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe the proposed anti-trust settlement is not in the
consumers best interest. Microsoft has abused their position and
stifled compitition, created incompatibilties with other OS's and
even with it's own OS. They should be broken up and auctioned off to
the hightest bidder. Criminal charges should be filed for conspirasy
to gain market share by illegaly abusing thier monopoly and some of
the major player should go to JAIL.
Albert Fedorchak
MTC-00027745
From:
[email protected]@inetg
w
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a tech entrepreneur for the the past 12 years, I've
traditionally had little concern for how government could or might
affect my business. With most small businesses, there isn't the time
to follow legislation nor the resources to hire lobbyists as AOL,
Sun, Oracle and Microsoft do.
However, the influence that government wields over our industry
appears to be increasing and has finally forced me to take notice
and get involved. Through my membership in the Association for
Competitive Technology and other organizations, I have started to
follow these issues more closely and, at least, attempt to voice my
concerns with lawmakers. It's clear that small technology businesses
can no longer afford to simply ignore the role government plays our
industry, despite the likelihood they won't be heard.
Nowhere has this been more obvious than in the Microsoft
antitrust trial. In the absence of an active community of small tech
businesses, corporate behemoths that have branded Microsoft
``public enemy number one'' have claimed the mantle of
``Defenders of the Industry.'' Yet, their cries for
further litigation and harsher remedies seem to be borne less out of
concern for industry as a whole and more out of corporate self-
interest. If they are successful, the result would be further damage
to the entrepreneurial technology companies that are the life blood
of the industry.
While it may go too far in some areas, the settlement agreed to
by the DOJ, nine states and Microsoft addresses the real concerns of
small tech businesses. The provisions that guarantee access to the
information (API's and other code) necessary for developers, create
transparent pricing, and force Microsoft to relinquish control of
the desktop will ensure innovation and competition will continue to
flourish.
The biggest benefit of this settlement, however, is that it
finally puts this case behind us. While it has loomed over the
industry, small tech businesses have been held hostage as the
industry waits to see the outcome of the trial. The outcome of the
case will have collateral effects throughout the industry and the
threat of court-mandated technological changes has left small
companies with larger partners having limited budgets for research
and development in limbo. Many small companies find their success in
Microsoft's wake. Minor penalties levied against a behemoth
Microsoft, even in the form of handouts to Microsoft's behemoth
competitors, will have deadly ramifications to small companies
technologically on the edge and financially on the bubble.
Judge Kollar-Kotelly, I urge you to accept this settlement no
behalf of the thousands of small tech businesses that need closure
to these case, not continued litigation to benefit a few of
Microsoft's largest competitors.
E. Andre Carter
President
Irimi Incorporated
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00027746
From: Eleanor Polini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:15am
Subject: re: microsoft settlement
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I write you today to support the Microsoft settlement. This
settlement agreement contains provisions that extend well beyond the
products and procedures that were actually at issue in the suit.
After three years of needless lawyers and testimony, and another
three months of intense negotiations with a court appointed
moderator, this settlement has been reached and should be
implemented.
The provisions of the agreement include requirements for
Microsoft to dramatically change its business practices and to
become accountable to the government and the industry. One of the
most significant developments in the case is Microsofts agreement to
license its intellectual property to competitors. The provision
requires Microsoft to license that intellectual property, instead of
prohibit the other company from using it. To ensure accountability
and compliance with this settlement, Microsoft has agreed to submit
its business practices and engineering to a three person, government
appointed technical committee
These provisions, among others, will serve to increase
competition and foster innovation inside the technology industry. I
support the settlement, and want the country to move
forward.
Sincerely,
Eleanor Polini
MTC-00027747
From: Hilton, Keith
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 10:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This lawsuit needs to be settled now! While Microsoft may have
gone too far in some of it's business practices, it's competition is
using the courts and the politicians to fight, rather than doing it
in the marketplace. It's hurting consumers and having a negative
affect on the marketplace.
Keith Hilton
Verizon Information Services
Manager--Planning, Performance and Measures
Phone: (972)453-3763
Fax: (972)453-7961
[email protected]
MTC-00027748
From: Melanie Reisenauer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:23am
Subject: Anti-trust suit against Microsoft
Dear Madam or Sir:
You must not use our United States government to attack a
private company! If Microsoft has committed a crime (a real crime,
i.e. real fraud or real coercion) then by all means fine them, jail
them, etc... but to attack Microsoft for the reason that we all know
they are being attacked--because they are ``too big/
successful/profitable, etc..'' is immoral and goes against what
the Founding Fathers of this country fought for; the freedom to
educate oneself, learn a skill, enter the market with that skill and
become successful (yes, even if more successful then the
competition)--the American Dream.
To attack a company because of it's ability to be successful
sends a very negative message to all entrepreneurial individuals;
which by the way, without those individuals this country would not
have the standard of living that it does today. The message states
very plainly, ``Be careful! Do not become too successful! That
which you have spent your life building with your own sweat,
initiative, and hard work can be taken from you (by our own form of
coercion) because we have the power and the guns.''
I would ask you, ``By what authority?'' How is it
possible in the freest nation on earth that you are able to take up
guns and the threat of a jail sentence or heavy fines and penalize
someone/a company for their
[[Page 28109]]
ability to be very successful???? Success is not a crime and the
instant you treat it as such you have moved us closer to becoming a
socialist/communist government controlled state. Haven't any of you
read any history? Don't you know that this is exactly what happened
in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia? Their ``governments''
(today we see them for what they were--thugs; thugs with guns
and power) decided they had the right to simply take over private
businesses, all in the name of ``the people''. Look where
it got those ``people''. There ceased to be private
business, no one could find a job, food lines, production as they
knew it came to a halt, the ``government'' lived like
kings while their ``philosophy'' ``for the
people'' killed them!!
So I ask you again, ``By what authority?'' Do we need
to destroy the last great bastion of freedom on this earth (America)
with tyranny rule and socialist/communist policies just so that Bill
Gates, and any others who have created wealth both for themselves
and countless others will be ``brought down to a manageable
size?'' And who arbitrarily and by what authority decides what
is a ``manageable size?''
Again, ``by what authority?'' Answer that question
honestly. If you do, your answer will be, ``By no
authority.'' You are simply assuming the right to do this and
yet you have none. Rights are bestowed onto the INDIVIDUAL to
protect them (and their property/company) from majority rule,
government coercion, mob rule, etc. All are just different names for
the same group.
This is a very immoral and slippery slope that you embark upon.
You should turn and immediately walk away from this slope, knowing
that this country will be safe again from anyone spouting ``in
the name of the people''.
Bill Gates is one of those ``people''. What about his
rights? Does he not deserve the same protection from force/coercion/
mob-majority rule? That answer is yes, not because he is extremely
wealthy, but inspite of it. He has not committed a crime, he is not
a criminal. He is a man with a vision and the fortitude to make it
happen. Does our United States Government now have the authority to
punish such men???
Anyone reading this e-mail, if you've even allowed yourself to
read this far and haven't deleted it by now, should pick up a copy
of Ayn Rand's : Atlas Shrugged and read it. It is where you will
find the answer to the question: ``By what authority?''
A United States citizen,
Melanie M. Hoffman
MTC-00027749
From: Steve Edgecomb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a long time user of Microsoft products. They have always
worked for me and been what I needed as a user.
Having said that, I think Microsoft has used less than savory
business tactics to gain market share. I feel that Microsoft is
attempting nothing less than complete domination of the PC software
market. That is a strong statement I know. I will not attempt to
recap any of the testimony that anyone has heard in this case. You
know better than I what has transpired. As a user and as an IT
Director, I make that strong statement from a cost basis. Microsoft
releases software with a lot of features, and a lot of bugs. This is
an attempt to rush to market. They then produce an
``upgrade'' which they charge for. Sometime, they charge a
lot. Most often, the upgrade is what they promised would be in the
first version.
I am all for better products and new features, but it should,
number 1, work; and number 2, not cost a fortune to upgrade or to
keep pace. I fear the price structure should Microsoft gain total
control of this market. Even now, it is a confusing array of license
structure, upgrade costs, service packs, and patches.
Steven H. Edgecomb
IT Director
Mutual Benefits Corporation
[email protected]
MTC-00027750
From: Daniel Sells
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please 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.
Thank you,
Daniel Sells
MTC-00027751
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
908 Dutch Mill Drive
Ballwin, MO 63011-3548
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I understand that the Justice Department is presently soliciting
comments from the public regarding the proposed Microsoft
settlement.
I am a retiree who owns Microsoft stock. I also own two
computers that are using the Microsoft operating system. I will soon
own a third one. We have come to where we are in this technology due
mostly to the efforts of Microsoft. I do not see that the Microsoft
operating systems have hampered others from getting into the
business. In fact I am writing this to you using the Netscape
Messenger program.
It is my wish that you approve the settlement. This case has
been pending for over three years, and during that time the
offensive and advantage have changed hands too many times to count.
The prospect of additional litigation offers only one certainty:
uncertainty.
The settlement on the table takes away that uncertainty. While I
am sure there will be some argument in the details, the agreement
provides substantial opportunities for growth in the research and
development of non-Microsoft software programs. Microsoft has agreed
to eliminate restrictive activities in the areas of pricing,
licensing, distribution and system configuration.
I hope that you see the wisdom of going forward with this
settlement in the very near future.
Sincerely,
Roy D. Welch
MTC-00027752
From: Gwendalle Cooper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly advise that the settlement already stipulated be
accepted regarding Microsoft. Enough is enough.
Sincerely,
Gwendalle cooper
MTC-00027753
From: Gil Friend
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:28am
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'' problem, enabling Microsoft
to maintain an effective ``lock'' on the applications
market.
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.
[[Page 28110]]
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-00027754
From: Raymond Rider
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
4537 Amboy Road
Memphis, TN 38117-6101
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
Thank you for your leadership in these trying times.
As a systems administrator I am directly affected by the
setbacks in the industry. The American technology industry has been
on hold since the inception of this suit three years ago. I have
been without work since September 2000 due to a crash in the IT
industry, for the most part a direct cause of the attempt to split
Microsoft into smaller pieces. This has caused extreme problems in
the American IT field. A once strong and promising field, in which
America was the leader, has become a wasteland of ruined American
companies and unemployed American professionals. The harmful
antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft must end. This lawsuit is the
cause of these problems. The sooner this litigation comes to an end
the better it will be for America. Because Microsoft has agreed to
settle on terms favorable to its competitors there is no reason to
continue the suit. Microsoft has agreed to publicly document and
disclose to its competitors the Windows operating system internal
interfaces and server interoperability protocols. I can tell you
that these are huge concessions of intellectual property rights.
Thank you for the work you have done in bringing about this
settlement. Hopefully Microsoft and the rest of the American IT
industry will be able to get back to business, and America can get
back on its feet. Thank you.
Sincerely for American IT resurgence,
Raymond Rider
MTC-00027755
From: Sage M. Friedman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To:
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
I would like to comment on the settlement in the Microsoft case.
As I see it this settlement does not address the fundamental issues
of Microsoft's aggressive and illegal behavior as a monopolist,
further it gives Microsoft far to many opportunities to continue its
behavior.
Among those issues not addressed is the barrier to entry for
emerging operating systems, which will not be able to run any of the
70,000 existing application available on Windows. Consumers need
freedom from intrusion by Microsoft into their computing choices.
Microsoft has demonstrated a unwillingness to let consumers choose
their own software, they have done this by including irrelevant
software in with Windows. They have extended their monopoly into the
realms of photo processing, forcing consumer to choose between
Microsoft's stable of photo developers when developing electronic
photos unless the consumer follows complicated procedure to find
other options.
The remedies proposed by the Plaintiff Litigating States are far
superior to the proposed settlement. I respectfully urge you to hold
public proceedings under the Tunney Act to give citizens and
consumer groups an equal opportunity to participate in this process.
Thank you
-Sage Friedman
-Richard Perl
Pacific Partners
1 West 67th Street, #500
New York
NY 10023
MTC-00027756
From: brandon rettke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Dept. of Justice
601 D. Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Hesse:
I write to you in support of the proposed Microsoft settlement
that would direct millions of dollars to in-need schools across the
country for much needed technology.
While much attention is given to the lack of technology in poor
urban areas, we can not forget that many rural schools lack the even
most basic technology in their schools. There are parts of rural
Wisconsin that don't have 911 in every part of the county, or
schools that don't have classrooms with phones, let alone computers.
Technology can be used as a wonderful teaching tool, and I
encourage the U.S. Government to support the settlement as a way to
get much needed money to our schools in need. Thank you for your
time.
Sincerely
Brandon Rettke
3122 Glenhaven Place
Eau Claire, WI 54703
MTC-00027757
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:27am
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,
Paul Hawkins
8931 Farley
Overland Park, KS 66212
MTC-00027758
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
As allowed under the Tunney Act, I want to comment on the
settlement proposed to deal with the Microsoft anti-trust case. My
main concern is that the proposed remedy fails to prohibit
intentional incompatibilities historically used by Microsoft. In
many documented instances in the past, Microsoft has purposefully
made its applications impossible to run on competing operating
systems. I believe that this is anti-competetive, given their
admitted monopoly, yet the proposed remedy does not deal with this
at all. See the following Web page for details of this: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#caldera In general, I agree
with the problems identified in Dan Kegel's analysis: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
Thank you.
John Burger
Writing for myself
MTC-00027759
From: Rosemary Tracey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 28111]]
Leave Microsoft the opportunity to move foward. Terms of
settlement are tough enough, do not reject settlement.
MTC-00027760
From: Stephen S. Messutta
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 10:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
1/28/02: Several years ago, when I was desperately trying to
convince my family that Mac was superior, my kids insisted they
wanted the ``Magic Schoolbus'' programs, which were
offered exclusively by Microsoft Home and supposedly worked on Mac
and PC.
We eventually purchased 2 of the programs. One worked
``ok'' and the other did not, for no apparent reason.
Nothing I did made it work. Microsoft offered tech support but only
at a toll-call phone number. When I did reach tech support they
could not help. What I learned about why one of the series would
work fine and the other not, however, made me sick.
Microsoft was really a software ``broker'', buying or
commissioning programs from different people but packaging them as
their own. So you could have different programs with different
glitches, nothing the same. If you bought a ``package'' or
wrapped programs, such as Microsoft Office, the programs might not
work with each other. In addition, they might issue the program to
get the ``jump'' on someone else, whether the software was
proven or not.
Thus you could have a program which had been designed for PC but
which was offered on the same CD or disk for MAC, but did not work
properly on a MAC machine. Sometimes it felt as though it was a
conspiracy to make MAC users switch to PC just to get the programs
to work right. I tested my theories because I purchased a MAC
Performa 640CD, which had both a MAC platform AND PC
platform--with MAC-OS on one side and Windows 3.1 on the other.
What I felt began to happen, however, was that fewer and fewer
programs were offered as MAC compatible, in order to get the
programs out into the PC market quickly and beat Microsoft to the
punch, because if the program was first offered as MAC compatible
Microsoft would try to clone a deceptively similar version of it for
Windows which did not function well or at all on MAC. If you destroy
the software market, the demand for the hardware disappears . . . .
What I also learned was that because MS-DOS was so cumbersome
compared to MAC-OS, that more and more ``power'' was
needed to run the ``Windows'' programs--resulting in
the need for more and more powerful machines, resulting in extremely
rapid obsolescence. To me this is a primary illegal and unfair
combination. In terms of my 640CD, I witnessed the difference there
as well: MAC-OS programs continued to work fine for upwards of 5
years. I had a lot of other software, such as Broderbund, for
children, which was wonderful and educational, and with which I
never had a problem, MAC or PC. After less than a year, however,
Windows 3.1 was outdated because newer PC software required more
power.
Especially as a member of my local school board, I feel that
Microsoft deserves not only to be dismantled, but severely punished
for effectively putting an unfair and unnecessary drain on our
economy in its attempt to monopolize and destroy all competition.
When two brats--Steven Jobs and Bill Gates--have the
power to manipulate the economy that way, enough is enough. They
might as well have been named ``Armour'' and
``Swift'' and Upton Sinclair might just as well have
written about the excesses of the software industry. I also believe
that in an attempt to undercut MAC, PC began to rely upon cheap,
inferior foreign components. Among other things, this resulted in a
loss of jobs in a potentially rapidly growing sector of our economy.
Finally, I believe that the ``Microsoft'' scandal, as
I would like to call it, has been more devastating than ENRON to
millions of ordinary citizens who attempted to follow the prior
administration's lead in ramping up to the ``information
superhighway'', and that the entire system of issuance of
patents and copyrights needs to be overhauled: if a person has the
ability to create a ``superior'' program from which
another can create an inferior ``clone'' but outmarket the
superior product, there is something wrong with our system of
protection for intellectual property.
Stephen Messutta
1043 Manor Drive
Wilmette, IL 60091
[email protected]
Cell/VoiceMail: 847.606.2782
CC:'rks(a)pcsintl.com''
MTC-00027761
From: Doug Clark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I want to add my request that the final settlement of the
Microsoft case be based on much harsher terms than the ones now
being considered. As a consumer I am concerned that Microsoft will
again abuse the very lenient terms now proposed. As I see the new
Microsoft XP operating system unfolding I am again seeing their
monopolistic practices continue. An example, MS has now (or in the
near future) ended all direct support for its past operating
systems. This forces consumers to switch to the new and only other
available operating system. MS has further begun a pricing strategy
that will not allow consumers to buy their product outright at a
reasonable price; which forces consumers to ``rent'' their
products. Once this phase is complete, MS can raise the
``rental'' price at their whim. Thank you for allowing me
to contact you.
Sincerely,
Douglas Clark
4107 Jefferson St.
Austin, Texas
MTC-00027762
From: Kenneth W Cochran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The current Microsoft Antitrust Proposed Settlement is grossly
insufficient as a Remedy for their practices.
Thank you for your attention.
Kenneth W. Cochran, CDP
Alexander City, Alabama
MTC-00027763
From: The Salmons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:35am
Subject: settlement
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
The boom in technology over the past ten has been the energy
behind our economic prosperity. New innovations lead to confidence
and spending among Americans. Our economy is need of assistance.
Accepting the Microsoft settlement is the first step to economic
recovery. The Microsoft Company and the Department of Justice have
done an excellent job in finding the balance for marketing their
product without endangering their competitors.
Please adopt the settlement and bring the issue to closure.
Sincerely,
James E. Salmon
Moab, Utah
MTC-00027764
From: Dean Barrere
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
1200 Virginia Drive
Tipp City, OH 45371
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
This settlement is important to our economy. Our country must
move on. As I am happily using the new Microsoft XP, I can only
further express my concern regarding the delay in the settlement's
approval. Of course, I release that much of the current delay is due
to legal requirements, including the public comment period required
under the Tunney Act, during which time I am writing now.
As I review the terms of the settlement, it seems that Microsoft
is making a concerted effort to make beneficial changes in licensing
and marketing of its world-renowned software. While it seems evident
that the settlement only benefits all involved, I do not understand
why there would be any further action taken on the Federal level.
Why tie up tight budgets fighting a battle that has already been
settled well?
Better to peaceably resolved disputes at relatively low cost and
with a good spirit created, than to litigate disputes at high
expense with only smoldering rancor created. As our economy is
challenged, let us help promote the competitive nature of America,
and help foster America's economic growth. Let's get back to
business, and let the American IT industry help us get back on our
feet. I thank you for your support of the settlement.
Sincerely,
Dean Barrere
[[Page 28112]]
MTC-00027765
From: Sudha
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It does not make sense to consider Microsoft a monopoly. Titans
like IBM and SUN have been the real monopoly for years--just
check out any of their products like LearningSpace from IBM or Java.
1. Microsoft's products are VERY EASY to use as opposed to other
products that have very difficult learning curves.
2. It is very easy to learn Microsoft product with EXTENSIVE
help within the application, may books to choose from, and also on
the web. On the contrary other products do not even have books.
Training and support from other vendors are 10 times more expensive!
3. IBM and SUN have been the real monopoly. They always have
``pushed'' their products--I know for a fact from
first hand experience. And when they ruled all were happy!
Sudha
Database Administrator
Department of Human Oncology
Telephone: 608.263.1549
Email:
[email protected]
MTC-00027766
From: Burgess Allison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I oppose the Proposed Final Judgment:
* The Proposed Final Judgment fails to prohibit
anticompetitive practices towards OEMs.
* The Proposed Final Judgment fails to prohibit
anticompetitive license terms currently used by Microsoft.
* The Proposed Final Judgment fails to prohibit intentional
incompatibilities historically used by Microsoft.
* The Proposed Final Judgment preserves Microsoft's monopoly
power--which Microsoft has been found guilty of abusing.
* The Proposed Final Judgment does nothing to restore
competition.
* The Proposed Final Judgment allows and encourages
significant anticompetitive practices to continue, would delay the
emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating systems, and is
not in the public interest.
It is astonishing that this settlement was arranged and
publicized as being pro-business in the aftermath of September 11.
The Proposed Final Judgment is only ``pro'' for one
business--Microsoft. It is anti-business for hundreds of other
companies and for the overall health of the IT industry.
The Proposed Final Judgment is also anti-law and anti-courts.
Microsoft demonstrated during hearings before the court a wanton
disregard for the truth, and for the respect due to federal courts
and the US Department of Justice. Its representations mocked the
court system and the Department of Justice. To reward such a company
with this Proposed Final Judgment is nonsensical, and would hurt the
long term effectiveness of our antitrust laws and the respect for
our system of justice.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if this Final Judgement
is approved, Microsoft will openly gloat about the accuracy of Bill
Gates'' prediction from 4 years ago, ``There is no fine,
there will be no fine, no-one ever pays a fine.''
This hurts business and it hurts the justice system.
G. Burgess Allison
8301 Westchester Drive
Vienna, VA 22182
[email protected]
703-280-1477
Yes, I am a US citizen of voting age.
MTC-00027767
From: Kevin J. Burgam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement as it currently stands is bad idea. It
will not foster greater competition, nor will it prevent Microsoft
from monopolizing a truly great resource, the internet. Please stop
it.
Thank you.
Kevin J. Burgam --
Kevin Burgam is a Technical Support Specialist with Datacomp
Appraisal Services, Inc.
He may be contacted by the following methods:
email: [email protected]
phone:616-574-0480 x215
direct: 616-988-4215 or 877-407-0215
fax:616-574-0486
Datacomp Appraisal Services, Inc.
3215 Eaglecrest Dr. NE Ste.100
Grand Rapids, MI 49525-7046
MTC-00027768
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:39am
Subject: (no subject)
4 Spruce Drive
East Brunswick, NJ 08816-2017
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 PennsylvaniaAvenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
During the beginning ofNovember 2001, the Department of Justice,
Microsoft Corporation, and ninestates, with assistance from a
mediator negotiated the terms of a settlementthat will bring an end
to the antitrust lawsuit. The suit has been going on for over three
years, and I supportany agreement that will put this senseless suit
to rest.
Per the settlement,Microsoft has agreed to design future
versions of Windows to provide a functionto make it easy for
computer makers, consumers and software developers topromote non-
Microsoft software within Windows. The function will make it
extremely to add or remove access to featuresbuilt in to Windows or
to non-Microsoft software. Consumers will have the freedom to choose
to change theirconfiguration at any time.
This is a good settlement for all involved, especially
consumers. I support the settlement, and hope it isapproved as soon
as possible.
Sincerely,
Marina Luzanskaya
MTC-00027769
From:
[email protected]@in
etgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am sad to see that Microsoft competitors resort to political
tricks to win what they lose on the market. Business competition
should be resolved on the market not in court. I see absolutely
nothing wrong with Microsoft business competitive tactics. People in
Microsoft work like crazy and nobody in the world work as hard as
they do. Let's not try to destroy the pride of an American business
success. Otherwise, see what's happening to Auto industry.
We are losing the war on automotive. Aerospace, barely. Software
is our last frontier and we are still maintaining the leadership
status. We need the leader, the vision and more importantly, the
pride.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00027771
From: candacehawthorne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:43am
Subject: Settlement
Dear DOJ,
I feel the settlement is fair and should be finalized as soon as
possible. The Democrats are leading the march against Microsoft and
I feel they are being over zealous and greedy. Microsoft has allot
of cash and this suit opens the door for the leaches to come out.
Microsoft has won based on having better products, not how they
were marketed or how business practices were handled. Netscape makes
a sub standard product and always has. Computer users know what's
out on the net to download and try and they do. Ninety percent of
them choose Microsoft for ease of use, updates and great
functionality. Please get the other nine states off of Microsoft's
back. It's unAmeican and anit business to let the fleecing of
Microsoft continue. AOL, SUNW and ORCL will have to compete on their
own merits and quality of products just like Microsoft does
everyday.
Microsoft has tons of competition just like everyone else.
Microsoft is a LEGAL MONOPOLY. Please wrap this which hunt up and
put an end to it. This is not helping the economy or American
business.
Sincerely,
Candace Hawthorne
Metairie, LA 70001
MTC-00027772
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Instead of praising a company such as Microsoft and Mr. Bill
Gates for giving us the technology they have; there are envious and
greedy companies that are always filing lawsuits because they are
not as clever.
God Bless Microsoft.
Vickie Sheer
[[Page 28113]]
MTC-00027773
From: Edward Hejtmanek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
to whom it may concern,
I am in the eighth grade and have been assigned to learn all
that I can about the Microsoft cases, the current one and the one
that started in the 1990?s. I typically sympathize with big
companies and I am an avid user of Internet Explorer. I believe that
if the states want to settle out of court, as they did in the first
case, then that is a perfectly acceptable alternative and therefore
the older case was settled fairly.
The new case of AOL-Time Warner and nine states versus
Microsoft, is deserved on Microsoft's side. They used anti-
competitive business practices to get over the Netscape Navigator.
But the question is really is it a better system? If it is then it
should have more of the browser market and deserves it. For example,
I recently heard that AOL uses the Explorer as it's default for when
you join. Why would they do that when they have their own browser,
unless it is inferior to the Internet Explorer. So if it is a
superior browser why are they taking them to court, they want
Microsoft to not bundle the browser with the operating system? Fine,
they won?t need to if it is a better system they will have the same,
or more of the market. As John D. Rockefeller incorrectly said
?Combination [monopoly] is necessary.?
Edward Hejtmanek
MTC-00027774
From: Rick Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a professional consultant who makes a living developing and
implementing Microsoft based solutions for my clients I have to say
that having a single, standardized browser is actually in the best
monetary interest of my clients for the simple reason that they
don't have to pay me to develop and test an Internet based solution
across multiple, incompatible browsers.
A browser is similar to a TV--everyone agrees on the
frequencies (standards) and then vendors produce products to take
advantage of the standards. . . and, like it or not, since version
4.0, Microsoft has created the best browser on the market. So I
think Microsoft actually did everyone a favor by making a superior
product available for free.
Additionally, if you go back and read some PC Week (now eWeek)
articles from ``96 & ``97 you'll see that Netscape was
planning on adding operating system features to Netscape in a bid to
increase its functionality. Microsoft had a dominant position in the
desktop O/S market and needed a browser. Netscape had a dominate
browser and needed an O/S. IBM, Novell and Apple had tried
unsuccessfully for years to supplant Microsoft and failed--and
believe me, as one who lived through it as a professional, it was
due to the inadequacies of their products and not Microsoft's
``strong armed tactics''. At this point common sense
should prevail and show that Microsoft only needed a good browser to
send Netscape to the scrap head of software history--and that's
just what happened.
This case has been a waste of taxpayer's money to the sole
benefit of Sun and Oracle. As a tax payer I'd like to know why my
money is being used to promote their agenda instead of letting the
market speak for itself--as it clearly has.
I know Microsoft has been found guilty and I disagree with the
arguments used to reach the conclusion as they are technically
inaccurate... but that'' s now water under the bridge.
So I urge you to please accept this settlement, quit wasting my
money, and get on to prosecuting real criminals.
Sincerely,
Rick Davis
President
Davis Computing, Inc.
MTC-00027775
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michelle Schlatre
7605 Westgate Blvd
Austin, TX 78745
MTC-00027776
From: Morris Richards
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Morris Richards
8605 East Mc Kinley Street
Scottsdale, Az 85257-4527
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,
Morris W. Richards
MTC-00027777
From: Lawrence, Mark
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/24/02 10:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think that the Settlement as it is right now is a farce!
Microsoft needs to answer for the crimes committed.
Mark Lawrence
Hospital Billing Clerk
Human Resources Health Center
Tel: (305) 638-6661 ext. 3060
Fax: (305) 638-6856
mailto:[email protected]
<>
MTC-00027778
From: Scott Dawes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:46am
Subject: Tunney Act; 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. While many technologically astute industry
insiders have harmoniously raised their voice in Anti-Microsoft
fervor, the consumer has been largely unheard and is at risk of
great harm by the lawsuit and the Proposed Final Judgment in United
States v. Microsoft. I assert that the Proposed Final Judgment is
not in the public interest.
In the days of Windows 3.1 and early in the era of Windows 95,
Compaq Computers and a few other computer manufacturers loaded their
own Graphical User Interface (GUI) on their DOS/Windows PCs. It was
a disaster. Customers had to learn how to use each unique GUI.
Manufacturers GUIs were designed to take over the computer desktop
and were resilient to novice users attempts at removal or
deactivation.
If there were other computers in the home or office, or at home
versus at work or school, customers were confused and frustrated.
The manufacturers GUIs were typically poorly designed as opposed
to the Windows
[[Page 28114]]
GUI, which had been thoroughly researched and designed. In addition
to poor aesthetic design, the third party GUIs were prone to be
buggy, exasperating hardware and software compatibility issues.
Computer retailers and sales people had to spend a great deal of
time at their own expense deactivating those GUIs. This was
necessary in order to minimize product returns by frustrated
consumers.
Even in those early days of Windows, the Windows 3.1 GUI was a
vast improvement over the naked DOS environment or the Manufacturers
GUI. The arrival of Windows 3.1 prompted an explosion of business in
the computer industry. When CPM was young and DOS was new, we had to
pay hundreds of dollars for even the poorest quality menial desktop
application software. The industry had not caught on to the notion
that software for consumers should be designed to the consumers
liking and needs.
The pre-Windows computer industry had not been exposed to
significant competition and we the consumers paid excessive prices
for computer hardware, software and related services as a result.
The software we got was generally overpriced and seldom performed as
promised.
When Microsoft entered the OS and application arena, things
began to change. Suddenly there was a savvy competitor on the scene
who listened to their customers. Microsoft delivered applications
that fit our needs at prices we could afford. Owning a computer no
longer required a consumer to be hamstrung by software vendors and
technicians who previously demanded exorbitant prices while failing
to deliver promised results. Thanks to Microsoft, the time-honored
notion of striving to deliver value and service collided headlong
with an aloof industry formerly oblivious to such a precept.
Since Microsoft has entered the arena, the industry, though
begrudgingly, has matured. Companies today must deliver as promised
and at fair prices in order to survive. Though many were forced to
become better companies as a result of Microsoft competition, the
carping from carpetbaggers in the industry has continued
unceasingly. With Microsoft Windows, a customer can take a new
computer home or to the office and with no prior knowledge of
computers, can be enjoying the fruits of the technology age within
hours if not minutes. I challenge any novice to do the same with a
UNIX or LINUX computer, an exercise that I propose every person
involved in United States v. Microsoft should undertake. The
exercise would quickly reveal that it is the comparative superiority
of the Windows product and not trade practice that is responsible
for Microsoft's phenomenal success. Microsoft has put the consumer
in the drivers seat and the industry resents that fact.
The growth of the computer industry has outstripped the capacity
of business legal jurisprudence. The Justice Department lawsuit
against Microsoft has attempted to reconcile emerging intricacies of
an industry that did not exist when the anti-trust laws were
written. The Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft,
in it's attempt to punish Microsoft, risks punishing the consumer
instead. It is apparent that the governments suit against Microsoft
has persisted only as a result of a massive lobbying effort on the
part of bitter competitors who were for the most part striped of
their technologically tyrannical power over consumers.
Please do not return us to the dark ages by allowing equipment
manufacturers to alter the functionality of the Windows desktop.
Please do not discourage Microsoft from integrating intrinsic
elements of business and personal computing into a single cohesive
operating system. These things not only should be engineered and
delivered by a single source, but must be delivered by a single
source if computing is to continue to evolve. And lastly, please do
not interfere with the computer users ability to send and receive
spreadsheets, word processing documents and email documents
seamlessly to other associates across the nation and around the
world. As such would be the effect of placing inferior products at
an artificial advantage by crippling Microsoft's ability to lead the
technology in the consumers direction.
The problems you strive to resolve in your Proposed Final
Judgment are a noble and justifiable cause, but are tantamount in
this case, to burning the forest to prevent forest fires. The
solution to all of the problems you embrace must be addressed in new
laws and mandated standards designed to accomplish for all computer
users what Microsoft has succeeded in providing for their customers.
That is standardization of how the computer is used and how business
and personal files and information are shared. In the vacuum born of
legislative inaction, Microsoft has been forced to undertake and has
accomplished this extraordinary task for their customers in spite of
being confronted with an unwilling industry and a hostile
government.
I beseech you to invoke whatever means are available and
necessary to abate any potentially harmful effects against Microsoft
in the Proposed Final Judgment or the Amended Proposed Final
Judgment.
Failure to do so will ultimately and necessarily result in
greater harm to the public whom you seek to protect.
Finally, aggressive anti-Microsoft email campaigns by embittered
industry insiders are hereby rebuked and as such are not likely
representative of the public or of public interests. Such campaigns
are likely to be an exploitation of the justice system for purposes
of financial gain and for resolution of personal grievances. I
beseech you to consider and weigh them as such.
Respectfully,
Scott Dawes, Tulare, California, Computer user since 1979
MTC-00027779
From: Aaronson, AM (Alan)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 10:46am
Subject: Letter re Microsoft Settlement
<>
Alan Aaronson
Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals LLC
5 Livingstone Avenue
Dobbs Ferry, New York 10522-3407
This message, including attached files, is confidential and
intended for the addressees only. Any unauthorized use,
dissemination of the information, or copying of this message is
prohibited. If you receive a message not being the addressee, please
notify the sender by returning the e-mail immediately and delete the
message.
January 26,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am in the chemical industry and use Microsoft's Windows on a
daily basis. From my experience and in my opinion, Microsoft's
Windows has become the standard operating system for business and
personal computing.
The most reasonable choice for the Justice Department is to
conclude the antitrust lawsuit with Microsoft and allow them to
return to business with the terms of the settlement having been
enacted. The government has aggressively sought to break-up
Microsoft over the past three years. This offensive from the Justice
Department has diverted attention from other ways of dealing with
Microsoft's excessive tactics-- including strong-arming
competitors--that I have read about in the media.
I am pleased a settlement has finally been reached. As I
understand them, the terms of the settlement require Microsoft to
deal more fairly with competitors and not to retaliate in any way
against vendors who want to use competitors'' software instead
of Microsoft's. I feel that the terms Microsoft has agreed to serves
their best interests at this time, and gives the competition
reasonable means by which to win consumer loyalty.
The best action the Department of Justice can take is to end
this onslaught against Microsoft for being very good at what they
do. I think the best is yet to come from Microsoft, and this
country's economic rise. I seriously urge the Department of Justice
to accept the terms of the November settlement with Microsoft.
This opinions expressed in this letter are my own and are not
meant to represent those of my employer.
Sincerely,
Alan Aaronson
MTC-00027780
From: Bill Herring
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:47am
Subject: Proposed settlement between the Department of Justice and
Microsoft
Dear Sirs and Mesdames:
I do indeed believe that Microsoft has in some cases been an
overbearing competitor, and probably should be brought in line, but
as a user of Microsoft products, I do not believe that Microsoft
should be prevented from providing the software that we as a country
have profited from.
I have used Microsoft program products for years as well as
software from other producers. I find that Microsoft sets a standard
that their competitors sometimes find it hard to meet. As a user, I
value that they produce programs and systems that are
[[Page 28115]]
rich in function, of high quality, and are sold at a price that I
can afford.
The fact that they have become a de facto standard, and that I
can use their office products and exchange information with others
without running into compatibility problems is also important to me,
and is a major factor in my businiss use of their products.
By all means hold them to correct behaviour, but punitive
actions that lessen their ability to meet their customers needs
would be contrary to good business practice, and, I think, would
cost us dearly as a nation and as an economy.
Thank you for your attention,
William L. Herring
System Administrator
Strategic Power Systems, Inc.
11301 Carmel Commons blvd,
Charlotte, NC 28226
MTC-00027781
From: Dean Stelow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please proceed with the settlement as it currently exists. Its
fair and has the added benefit of helping our kids in school get
modern computers and software.
Thankyou,
dean stelow
nordev inc
MTC-00027782
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
John Woolley
2324 Dolores Court
Pinole, CA 94564-1804
MTC-00027783
From: James Adams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Is this Microsoft ``compromise'' a joke? If that is
the proposed solution you might as well save the taxpayers a ton of
money and not even attempt to do anything to Microsoft. The only
people this settlement will hurt is the end-users whether they are
home users or corporate users.
I realize that a person with $80+ billion has a lot of influence
on the American justice system but that does not give him the rights
to mandate to every single PC manufacturer and PC buyer what we
should be using. The only thing this ``compromise''
accomplishes is still giving Mr. Gates his money but also costing us
the end-users more by having to purchase another
``option''.
If you truly want to make the industry fair and best for economy
you would force Microsoft to actually have a choice. Let us buy a PC
without shoving Windows and Office down our throats. Let us buy it
with a non-Microsoft OS and not have to pay for Windows. Give a
choice of one or the other or no OS at all. That is truly what the
industry wants and needs to see.
Your compromise will in now way punish Microsoft at all. They
still get their money. They still have their OS and Office on all
PCs.
At the very least something should be done to slow down the
release of new OSes. It costs American business a small fortune to
keep up with a new OS every two years. Not to mention the IT
professionals like myself that are trying to complete certifications
it is nearly impossible to keep up with the new OS changes unless
you spend $10,000 every two years to go to a ``boot camp''
to get your certification. Or even just to get familiar with the new
changes in the OS. It is a tech support person's nightmare to keep
changing OSes every two years.
Thank you for you time and I truly hope that more comes out of
this case than the simple slap on the wrist that is proposed. I
don?t know that I have a good solution either the only thing that I
hope is that we are truly given a choice of operating systems on a
PC and not have to pay for something we don?t want.
Thank you,
James Adams
Network Manager
Cashco, Inc.
607 W. 15th
Ellsworth, KS 67439
Phone: 785-472-4461 Ext. 182
Fax: 785-472-8543
MTC-00027785
From: Ron Coveney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
The Microsoft Settlement is not enough but a break-up is by far
worse. What is needed is that they be regulated as a legal monopoly.
This gives the government the ability to respond as needed when
issues arise. Further, they could reduce the MS selling prices which
has been a sticking spot. With what they pay out in dividends to
still have over $35 billion dollar in cash on hand shows they are
over charging. Again break-up is not an option. The problem with the
industry was; all the different operating systems prior to DOS and
making all their code public just helps hackers. Yes other companies
need access to the code but it needs to be controlled and secure,
thus regulation.
Ron Coveney
MTC-00027786
From: mark nesky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I firmly believe that Microsoft is a monopoly, and I hope they
are prosecuted.
Microsoft is a colossal company, and as a consumer, I feel like
their monopoly is much more far-reaching than just their web
browser, Internet Explorer. And I am not referring to their flawed
implementation of Java or the control they exert over computer
manufacturers ability to configure the machines they sell. I am
referring to their overall market pervasiveness, that my only choice
for word processing and spreadsheet software is Microsofts Office
program. And that I need to use the Microsoft Windows operating
system to be compatible with the network where I am employed. There
are alternative software programs to those offered by Microsoft, but
often they are harder to find and less likely to be fully compatible
with the software used by colleagues.
I believe a poignant example of their monopoly is the way they
can intentionally make older versions of their software
incompatible. What I mean is, when a few people upgrade to the
newest version of a Microsoft product, their colleges must also
upgrade if they want to be able to share files. Thus I could have a
perfectly good piece of Microsoft software that serves my needs as
is, yet be forced to pay money to Microsoft in order to maintain
compatibility. THEY ARE BREAKING SOFTWARE I OWN, SOFTWARE THAT ONCE
WORKED FINE.
A friend of mine who is a Linux programmer explained how
Microsoft broke Excel files. My friend was writing a program that
read in Excel files for use in an alternate spreadsheet program that
runs on Linux. His study of two versions of the file format showed
them to be exactly the same except a small tag in the beginning that
stated the version of Excel that created the file. Because of this
tag, older versions of Excel refuse to open the file, even though
the file is fully compatible. Thus Microsoft used the file format to
force Excel users to upgrade, even though the new file format is
identical except for this tag!
A well-designed file format should transcend software versions.
When a new feature is added to the file format, that feature can be
tagged with a name when it is used. Thus a file that does not
require the new feature will be identical to the old file format,
and a file that does use the new feature can mostly be read by older
software, which can read everything except the part with the new
feature, which it will ignore. The practice of intentionally
breaking older files is immoral. But since there are few
alternatives to Microsoft software, people must buy and keep buying
it.
Microsofts new subscription based business model is simply
making their shady forced upgrades explicit. As described above,
they are forcing people to upgrade to new versions by making older
version incompatible. But with a subscription model, they will force
us to upgrade because our
[[Page 28116]]
license has run out. The only reason they could get away with such
atrocity is because they are a monopoly! From a prosecution point of
view, perhaps the browser war with Netscape is a more clear-cut
example of Microsofts monopoly. With Internet Explorer preinstalled
and available in the start bar, the start menu, and on the desktop,
it is clear that Microsoft is leveraging their operating system to
promote their web browser. And with such a huge user base viewing
the web through the Microsoft browser, Microsoft can sell default
bookmarks to companies and promote its own wares through bookmarks
and the default home page, furthering its monopoly.
Microsoft is so big and influential, that I worry that they will
buy and cheat their way out of prosecution. I bet that their will be
a disproportionate amount of pro-Microsoft email sent to the DOJ
because Microsoft will be encouraging all its employees to flood
this email address with praise. Microsoft will stoop that low, and
if opportunity presents, much lower. If Microsoft is not prosecuted
harshly, I fear the situation will worsen. They will get away with
more and more, and their size and influence will grow. If their
influence grows any more, there may not be an opportunity to
prosecute again.
Their potential to influence has grown tremendously, especially
now that they have bought NBC. I have not yet seen them abuse this
power, but that is probably because I do not watch TV. But if
Microsoft continues to grow, and even the news is delivered with a
pro-Microsoft slant, there may be no hope for competition in the
future. I believe that Microsoft has grown out of hand, and I really
hope the government can stop this problem before it gets too late.
One proposed solution I heard in the continuing coverage of the
trial was to break Microsoft into several smaller companies. Such a
split might separate the operating system from other software
programs. I believe such a split will be a good step in the right
direction. But I hope that is not the only penalty imposed on
Microsoft. Another part of the solution should be requiring
Microsoft to standardize and make available their file formats and
interfaces. All communication between Microsoft programs, across
networks, and between programs and the operating system should be
well documented. In addition, this documentation should be made
available well in advance of the software that makes use of it, so
companies can make their alternative products compatible the moment
the Microsoft programs hit the shelves. If the alternative software
is fully compatible, then I believe it will have a much better
chance of surviving. And I think that increased compatibility will
benefit the software world in general. Standardized interfaces and
file formats will make sharing file across versions, platforms, and
vendors much more reliable. There will be much more competition and
innovation.
Recently Microsoft proposed a settlement to the case brought
against them by the states. The settlement proposed by Microsoft
would not help, Microsoft offered to give a large dollar amount of
their software away to schools. Fortunately, I think that the states
saw through this ploy. This would not be punishment; this would
simply be Microsoft furthering its monopoly! Microsoft would have
extended its user base to many more people. And when these students
left school, they would expect Microsoft software in the work place,
because that is all they will have known!
If Microsoft escapes prosecution, it will only be because they
are so big and influential. How ironic. Please do not let this
happen!
If I sound biased, it is because I feel like I have been forced
to use Microsoft products. There is little choice. And the choice
there is, is obscured by a lack of money for marketing. When I
mention alternative operating systems like BeOS (which recently went
under) people dont know what I am talking about. Likewise, few
people have heard of other office vendors. Some of the alternative
programs are better and cheaper, yet they go on unnoticed. I am
strongly opposed to Microsofts monopoly, but I want to be clear that
I do not work for any competitor. Neither my employer nor myself
stand to benefit directly from the prosecution of Microsoft. But I
believe the whole United States will benefit if this monopoly is
stopped.
Thank you for giving me the chance to express my opinion.
I hope that justice is performed fairly. And I hope the outcome
is determined by what would be best for this country and its people.
Sincerely,
Mark Nesky
MTC-00027787
From: Dan Rosenthal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is a tough competitor primarily because it's products
are functional and always improving. The reliability and
compatibility of their products has brought order to a chaotic
software market.
Standards are necessary in every market: the standard distance
between tracks beneath railway cars allows trains to cross our
country regardless of the rail provider. The standard number of
volts and the shape of outlet receptacles allows appliances to be
used safely regardless of the corporation that builds them or that
generates the electricity. (This is been standard in-country, but
not world-wide, causing a need for special plugs when traveling).
Microsoft is setting national and international standards
because it manufactures customer-preferred products. Customers have
voted for Microsoft by using and purchasing their software. We
should encourage such an innovative company...not penalize it for
it's success.
Dan Rosenthal
Columbus, Georgia
MTC-00027788
From: Jim Worthington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:53am
Subject: Microsoft Case
I believe strongly that the penalties for Microsoft's antitrust
misbehavior need to be sufficient to strongly discourage such
behavior in the future. Microsoft's competitors have been seriously
wronged by its illegal tactics. Microsoft does not appear to believe
it has done anything wrong despite rulings to the contrary and
continues to act in similar anti-competitive ways.
It is important to restraint the company's behavior in order to
create a competitive software environment. I hope that you will rule
accordingly.
Sincerely,
James M. Worthington
President
WorthSoft, Inc.
MTC-00027789
From: pixel fairy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
my comments have two focuses. I'm certain you have already read
much of why the proposed remedy will have little effect on the
practices. i have found nothing in the proposed remedy to repair the
damage and restore the market place. my first concern is what
Microsoft hides and from whom. while implementation is intellectual
property, the apis, protocols, and formats should now be publicly
available for reasons described below. ive also included a comment
about the scope of the settlement.
in section III.I the formats, apis, and protocols need to be
publicly available, this is the only way to really lower the barrier
of entry to anyone who wants to make compatible software, and is
especially important to developers of free software. in its current
form, Microsoft can exclude certain parties such as free software
developers. also section III.D mentions MSDN as a delivery channel.
this would force developers to sign up for Microsoft services in
order to obtain the information. the information should be mirrored
by at least one independent third party. section III.J.2 is
especially dangerous as discussed below.
because Microsoft has illegally dominated the desktop operating
systems market, competitors should now be able to make thier
software compatible at the api level, which is why the operating
systems api needs to be public knowledge so that third party
implementations (win32 emulators, compatibility layers, etc) can be
developed, removing that barrier of entry. this is very important as
windows compatibility has become essential for any commercial
desktop software to survive or operating system to be viable to a
large market.
any deviance from the published api should be carefully
appraised, and documented and fixed in timely manner. a hard
deadline should be set for at least documenting any error in
Microsoft's implementation to allow outside developers to know about
and work around such.
III.J.1 can be abused, if left in the settlement should be
watched very carefully by the TC, but preferably taken out.
implementations of well designed security protocols are just as
effective if the implementation let alone the api is exposed. this
clause could easily be used by Microsoft
[[Page 28117]]
to continue to use secret interfaces in thier products.
III.J.2 need to be taken out as it is very dangerous. it could
easily be abused. Microsoft should not be able to set the standards
on who can access thier api documentations for the reason set above
and because this clearly allows Microsoft to decide who can and can
not be privy to the information. Any organization or individual that
Microsoft deems a credible threat would be denied access to the
information, or at least delayed until it the protocol was changed.
this was probably included by Microsoft lawyers as a way to counter
the threat of free software or open source developers and has no
value in restoring competition or redressing the damages done.
Microsoft should only be allowed to use thier patents or copyrights
defensively and this restriction should also extend to any companies
owned by Microsoft. This idea is discussed by the gnu project at
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-antitrust.html
Microsoft has recently acquired some of the ip regarding opengl
from sgi. opengl is an open 3d graphics library used on many
platforms including windows. its in competition with Microsoft
direct 3d which only runs on windows. if Microsoft used this to
inhibit development of opengl or tie it to windows directly or
indirectly it would have a horrible effect on the computer graphics
industry.
The settlement only applies to desktop software. microsoft is
also in other bussiness and has other software departments that are
related, and thus the settlement should apply to all of the
corporations software.
MTC-00027790
From: Tacke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I believe the proposed settlement should be approved by the
Department of Justice.
I have thought from the outset of this litigation, and continue
to believe, that this action by the government was unwarranted and
motivated by political interests led by Sun Microsystems and Oracle.
The nine states objecting to this settlement are also aligned with
these political interests. More recently, AOL Time Warner, a
significant Microsoft competitor, has piled on.
To alter this proposed settlement as advocated by its opponents
would do nothing but weaken Microsoft against these powerful rivals.
And, their gains would not have been as a result of their
innovation, vision, or management skills, it would be because of
unwarranted government intervention.
Microsoft's activities have not harmed consumers. To the
contrary, consumers and the US economy have benefited enormously
from Microsoft's innovation and persistence. To alter the proposed
settlement with the result of weakening Microsoft against its
competitors would harm consumers.
This litigation has been a waste of taxpayers'' money.
Approve the settlement and let the free market system work.
Respectfully submitted,
Stephen P. Tacke
4943 Sandestin Drive
Dallas, Texas 75287
CC:'Steve Tacke''
MTC-00027791
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Randall Stogentin
4013 W. Ogle St.
Dixon, IL 61021
MTC-00027792
From: Judy Thornburg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel the whole law suit was frivolous from the very beginning.
This country is about competition and being innovative. If a company
falls behind is is probably do to the lack of the above two things.
I use a Apple computer. A couple of years ago I had a Permorma
5215CD, with an older operating system, it got so I could not get
Netscape product to work on it, Microsoft Explorer did, so when I
purchased an iMac I went to the Microsoft product because it worked
on my older computer! Government needs to keep its hand out of the
running of business in this country.
Judy Thornburg
MTC-00027793
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:58am
Subject: The proposed MS Antitrust Settlement is INADEQUATE!
The current proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement is
completely inadequate to address the abuse of monopoly power that
Microsoft has perpetrated in the past decade. In particular, I feel
that the only way to redress this grievence, and open the market to
competition is to open the Microsoft APIs and protocols, and to
protect all OEMs from microsoft retaliation for shipping systems
with competing operating systems.
The open API clause in the existing agreement is flawed on
several counts:
- The term ``API'' is defined so narrowly that several
important protocols and platforms are not included at all. The most
important of these are the MS Office document formats, and the .NET
platform.
- The settlement requires Microsoft to release API documentation
but it prohibits competitors from using this documentation to help
make their operating systems compatible with Windows. So, what
exactly is the point of releasing the APIs, and how would this
distinction be enforced?
- MS is not required to release the APIs and documentation
before the products are released. This means that competitors are
constantly playing catchup, and microsoft can effectively change the
rules at will to deliberately destroy compatibility with competing
products. I would reccomend that the APIs and documentation be
publically published, without restriction, at least 3 months prior
to the release of any product using those APIs.
On the question of OEMs, the settlement allows microsoft to
continue discriminating against small ``white box'' OEMs
that account for a large proportion of system sales. In my opinion,
all OEM sales should clearly break out the cost of the operating
system from the cost of the hardware, service, etc.
Please do not let this settlement go forward.
Respectfully,
Eric George
Colorado Springs, CO
MTC-00027794
From: Pradipkumar Ramanlal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This comment urges the presiding judge to reject the proposed
settlement.
Little in the proposed settlement between ``The
Government'' and ``Microsoft'' addresses one of the
most perverse actions that Microsoft can take to
(1) impede competition,
(2) further strengthen its windows monopoly,
(3) stifle innovation and
(4) harm the consumer
The issue pertains to Microsoft's ability to bundle software.
Microsoft has steadfastly maintained there should be (little or) no
restriction on its ability to ``innovate'' (i.e., to add
additional features to the Windows Operating System like Internet
Explorer and Windows Media Player).
Unless the issue of bundling is adequately addressed is any
settlement, the following scenario will almost certainly prevail:
Innovators generally have a strong interest to expend large
amounts of resources (money and talent) to create middleware because
of the hugh market that exists and the potential for windfall
profits if successful.
But innovators are cognizant of the fact that the risk-rewards
structure is extreme: winner-take-all.
Innovators are also cognizant of the fact that there is a
significant advantage to being first-to-market.
Thus success demands aggressive competition and a quick outlay
of large
[[Page 28118]]
amounts of resources. It is just such innovation and tactics that
brought about technologies of significant value to consumers: the
browser (by Netscape) and the streaming audio/video (by
Realnetworks).
It a competitive system, innovators are willing to take hugh
risks if the potential for hugh rewards exists.
But Micorosoft, by using its monopoly power, has successfully
decoupled the rewards from the risk. It has found a way to lay claim
on the reward following its discovery, while assigning the costs
associated with unearthing this discovery to the original innovator.
How is this possible?
A big part of the innovative process is to uncover the product
or service consumers demand most. To that end, innovators expend
valuable resources on inventing all kinds of products and services
since initially it is unclear which one will ``click''
with consumers.
Microsoft has simply to sit back and let all the innovators in
the market do their creative work and expend their resources. Once
the dust has settled, and the winning product or service is
revealed, Microsoft steps in and creates a product to compete solely
with this winning product. In a competitive system, such a strategy
would be futile lacking the ``first-to-market'' advantage.
But not so for an entrenched monolpolist.
By bundling its competing version of the winning middleware to
the operating system, Microsoft has the benefit of offering a
winning product without having incurred the true expense incurred in
uncovering this winning product, which is the sum of all the
resources spent by all innovators in total in uncovering this
product (most of them of course unsuccessfully).
Traditionally, Microsoft has bundled this winning software into
the operating system so that consumers have the perception that they
get it for free. What is being done is that Microsoft garnishes the
product from the innovator and passes it on to the consumer at no
charge.
Why shouldn't the govenrment be happy if the consumer gets
something for nothing? First, it stifles further innovation since
innovators now understanding there are no rewards to taking hugh
risks.
Second, with more and more winning middleware products added to
the operating system, the Windows monopoly becomes further
entrenched at a disproportionately low cost to Microsoft. Third,
with all future innovators deterred from the market, consumers must
rely soley on the innovative power of the monoplist.
Of course, there is the proposed remedy that Microsoft offer
different versions of the operating system at different prices to
afford the winning middleware innovator the opportunity to profit.
This remedy is vastly subject to manipulation by Microsoft
because the costs and revenues are decoupled.
Costs are determined by the cumulative labor expenses of the
industry as a whole and the success likelihood of any one firm,
while revenues are determined by whatever Microsoft sees fit to set
the price differential between the two versions of the operating
system, one with and the other without the middleware.
Proposed price differentials based on the length of code are
also subject to manipulation given that Microsoft can make ite base-
version operating system any length is chooses.
These is also the issue of when the APIs are made available to
the outside innovator and microsoft internal developers for software
upgrades of this winning middleware. They must be made available at
the same time.
Of course, microsoft is apt to claim in future, as it has in the
past, that the added winning middleware is now an
``integral'' part of the operating system and therefore
the playing field with respect to API disclosures will not be level.
The only remedy to ensure future innovation persists is if
Microsoft competes on the same terms as all the other innovators in
generating new and winning middleware.
In the least disruptive way to microsoft, this can best be
accomplished by requiring microsoft to form a wholly owned
subsidiary with whom microsoft has a public and transparent arms-
length relationship on the same terms offered to all competitors
producing bona-fide competing middleware.
Sincerely,
Pradipkumar Ramanlal
Associate Professor of Finance
University of Central Flroida
Orlando, Florida
MTC-00027795
From: Burton W. Phelps
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:59am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Please read the attached letter.
Burton W. Phelps
Support the NFA. E-mail your Congressional Representatives and
support the NFA budget and ask for more personnel to do the job.
Go to www.mrsmith.com for Congressional e-mail addresses.
1213 Lorene Drive, Pasadena, Maryland 21122-4895
410-437-1990 Fax 410-360-7043 E-mail:
[email protected]
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
As a Microsoft supporter, it is essential that I show my support
for the settlement but also for the company's return to developing
new products. Microsoft has done a lot for the technology industry
and is responsible for leading the way in software development. They
should not be chastised for coming up with the most innovative ideas
and the best products. In this light, Microsoft is the embodiment of
the American dream to achieve success. We should embrace this
accomplishment instead of discouraging it. This celebration of
success can begin with the end of the Microsoft Antitrust case.
Three years have passed since the beginning of this case and it
has taken the Department of Justice and Microsoft too long to
reconcile differences. I am confident that the terms of the
settlement are a result of careful analysis that will best serve the
interest of all entities involved. First, Microsoft has agreed not
to retaliate against those that directly compete with Microsoft as
well as those who support those competitors. In addition, Microsoft
has agreed to grant computer makers the right to remove consumer
access to features of Windows and instead replace those features
with access to non-Microsoft software programs. Furthermore,
Microsoft has agreed not to enter into any agreements that will
obligate any third-party to exclusively endorse any Windows
technology.
As you can see, the Department of Justice has taken extreme care
to resolve this case to the best of its ability. The terms involved
are reasonable and fair in the eyes of the public, the State, the IT
industry as well as the economy. Clearly, the best course of action
to take is to end the settlement.
Sincerely,
President
MTC-00027796
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:00am
Subject: The Honorable Department of Justice:
The Honorable Department of Justice:
I would like to express my opinions regarding the Microsoft
case. Since all the evidence points to the fact that Microsoft was
guilty, why not let them pay their fine and the world could back to
business. The Attorney Generals of the dissenting States should look
at the problems in their own backayrds, instead of prolonging this
issue. Most States these days have budget deficits, so what is the
benefit of directing additional time and resources to this matter.
I'm sure if you polled most consumers, myself included, they would
not feel terribly slighted by the Microsoft actions. If I were due
compensation, I would donate the money to Homeland Security, which
is something really important!
Sincerely,
J. R. Kot Jr.
MTC-00027797
From: Andymo13
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As an American citizen having watched this case go on and on for
far too many years at the urging of Microsoft's primary competitors,
it is time it is put to bed. The settlement is fair and reasonable.
While the competitors may still be complaining, there has never
been any proof that consumers have been harmed in any way. Let's
stay focused on the consumer and encourage big corporate tech
companies to do so as well. They and all of us would be better
served by better products, than by more law suits.
Approve the settlement. Let Microsoft get back to doing what it
does best, serving their customers.
MTC-00027798
From: Jeffrey S. Smith
[[Page 28119]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I have been watching the Antitrust Suit that was brought against
Microsoft since it was filed with great intrigue. Since public
opinion has been welcomed, I would like to give my input.
I have worked in the Electronic Security Industry for the better
part of 23 years. The last 7 years I have worked for a Software
Development Company that specializes in Computer Software and
Hardware for the Electronic Security Industry. Until recently, we
did not develop or use any of the Microsoft Operating Systems for
development of our software. We have always purchased the computer
from companies like Everex, Premio, Digital, Compaq, etc. Until the
Antitrust charges were filed, we were forced to buy Windows
Operating systems along with the machines. Bare in mind, we never
ordered the hardware with even a hard drive in them, but we were
forced to buy the operating system because as I was told by all of
the companies we purchased from, ?That the agreement that they have
with Microsoft states that they have to sell a Microsoft Operating
System with every computer sold?. 4 or 5 years in a row, we would
end up donating 200 to 300 new operating systems to some local
vocational schools since we could not resell them, as they were OEM
versions of Windows. Obviously, this is just one of many scenarios
that Microsoft seemed to have created and fostered into the current
situation. I feel that scenarios like this are why the DOJ did the
right thing in bringing the Suit against Microsoft. Obviously,
scenarios like this are clearly anti-competitive and a win/win
situation for Microsoft. They get to make a sale even though us and
other companies had no intention of using their Operating System.
Hardly seems like Freedom To Innovate as Microsoft has said.
In my opinion, they should not be broken up. I feel that more
damage would come as a result if they were, economically as well as
technology wise. However, I feel the penalties need to be much
stiffer than what is proposed currently for the settlement. The
financial penalties are not nearly stiff enough. They should not be
allowed to give computers to schools as part of the settlement since
this will obviously hurt Apple with their excellent school program
that until now Microsoft has not really cared about. Possibly
donations to charities or other worthwhile causes would be good as
part of the settlement. Microsoft and other companies need to
remember this case as a reminder of how not to do business. The only
way to do that is to hit them in the wallet and possibly some sort
of log term Federal oversight for a few years to keep them honest.
(If that is possible).
I truly feel Microsoft is an amazing company and a lot of the
Technology that we have at our fingertips is thanks to them. They
should have the Freedom to Innovate, putting a stranglehold on the
bulk of the Technology Industry is not Freedom. There truly is no
other game in town currently as far as the technology goes. However,
if Microsoft would have been allowed to continue several years ago,
there would never be a chance for any other company to even attempt
to do what Microsoft has done. If things are done right in the
settlement, maybe there will be some new players in the game.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey S. Smith
Operations Manager
Bold Technologies Ltd.
(847) 625-7700 voice
(847) 625-5500 fax
A Bold Group Company
Chicago London Rotterdam
www.boldgroup.com
MTC-00027799
From: Brian Filipiak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:57am
Subject: Re: U.S. v. Microsoft: Settlement Information
Hello,
I am writing to let you know that I feel the proposed settlement
is inadequate in many respects, specifically with regards to
proposed remedies regarding what Microsoft would provide to school
districts. This would only *enhance* their monopolistic practices,
not rectify the problems. Please reconsider the actions you have
proposed, and look to some of the other useful suggestions proposed
elsewhere.
Sincerely,
Brian Filipiak
Brian Filipiak
Teacher Education
313L Porter Building
Phone: 734.487.7120 x 2645
Grant Associate
College of Education
Eastern Michigan University
Fax: 734.487.2101
MTC-00027800
From: Hull, Tom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a customer of Microsoft, I strongly support the proposed
settlement. I believe that Microsoft products offer excellent value
and have improved my productivity at my office and my home. Also, as
a believer in the capitalist system, I am very concerned about harsh
remedies being imposed on a company which has demonstrated shown
true entrepreneurial vision. Without the leadership of Microsoft,
the digital communication system that we function on today might not
have been achieved.
MTC-00027801
From: Kuzdas.Tommy
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/28/02 11:01am
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement.''
Tommy D. Kuzdas
7205 West Marine Drive
Milwaukee, WI 53223
Email: [email protected]
Dear Sir, as a concerned citizen in the state of Wisconsin I
have been tracking the Microsoft case with some interest. As a
consumer I was very, very angry with microsoft for dictating to me
what software would be loaded on my computer. I am still very angry
with being forced to accept Internet explorer and other Microsoft
products as a condition of buying a computer.
I believe the aggreement that the federal government is trying
to force on the states is totally unacceptable for the following
reasons: 1. Microsoft is not forced to admit guilt. Microsoft was
convicted of being a monopolist and of abusing its power in
violation of both articles of the Sherman Anti-trust act. This
conviction was upheld UNANAMOUSLY by a seven judge panel in a
federal appeals court. In addition the U.S. Supreme Court has turned
down Microsoft's appeal. Has any defendant convicted of a crime ever
been able to bargain their way out of a conviction? I find this
concept to be repugnant and outrageous! Furthermore, Microsoft was
given every opportunity to change its conduct over the last seven
years. Microsoft deserves no sympathy! My smpathy is reserved for
Microsofts victims. Finally if this conviction is overturned the
ability of the computer industry and of consumers to recover damages
will be all but destroyed.
2. Microsoft should have absolutely no say in how they are to be
policed and regulated. The job of the technicle monitors should be
to uphold the interests of the public and of the rest of the
computer industry. Microsoft's interest is in maintaining its
Monopoly and continueing to strangle the rest of the industry
through tactics of extortion, exclusive contracts, and product
tying.
3. The aggreement should be open ended with regards to time. I
do not believe that any company over the next five to seven years
will be able to directly threaten Microsoft's monopoly. A serial
killer when convicted gets the key thrown away. Microsoft should be
treated the same. Not withstanding comments later in this letter, I
feel the aggreement should last at least ten years with the
provision that if Micosoft violates any part of the aggreement it
gets extended for another 10 years. Microsoft should also be
reguired to pay all reasonable costs for required enforcement
actions.
4. The aggreement lacks teeth. Microsoft conduct reflects a
total disreguard and contempt for our justice system. Assessing a
fine of a million dollars a day or even ten million dollars a day
means NOTHING to Bill Gates. I believe that Microsoft should be
required to forfiet their copyrights to ALL of their operating
systems (DOS versions 1.0--6.0, Windows, Windows 3.0, Windows
95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, and Windows Melenium)if they are ever
found in contempt for violating the consent decree and that such
judgement would be final and not subject to appeal. I do not mean
the government now owns Windows. I mean the copyrights cease to
exist.
Windows and DOS becomes freeware availible to be used as
individual companies and individuals see fit.
5. Microsoft may argue that such a penalty is too harsh. My
rebuttle would be to simply point out that based on their past
behavior strong motivation is required to ensure compliance with the
consent decree.
Microsoft needs to stop walking the line, stepping over, then
becoming good boys
[[Page 28120]]
again when their errors are pointed out. I would recommend that the
anti-trust compliance officer be given power to disaprove of any
contracts he believes violates anti-trust law , and that such
contracts be reported to the justice department. The software
industry and the federal government should get to decide who fills
this important post. Microsoft should also be advised that they
would be expected to obey the consent decree in spirit as well as
word.
In conclusion I would like to say the following:
I believe that Microsoft should be held accountable for
violating the Sherman Anti-Trust act. I believe that the copyrights
to all of Micrososft's operating systems should be disolved because
Microsoft used their copyrights in a manner which violated the
Sherman Anti Trust Act. This action would be simple, severe (the
equivilent of a 500 billion dollar fine), and would end Microsoft's
monopoly power. This punishment would send a strong message to the
computer industry. (A message I believe the industry wants to hear).
The computer industry would be able to make competing operating
systems by decompiling and reverse engineering Windows. This
punishment would also created the paradign shift which Microsoft
fears. A shift that I believe the computer industry desparately
wants and that would have benifitted consumers. A proliferation of
operating systems based on Windows API's would also creat the ideal
conditions for Sun Microsystems JAVA programing language. Stripping
Microsoft of their copyrightsthis would also save the federal
government the hassle of monitoring Microsoft's corperate conduct.
I aknowledge that creating such a shift would give Sun
Microsystems a monopoly of their own. However I believe the owners
of Sun Microsystems would be very carefull about how they conduct
bussiness. Microsoft has claimed that anti-trust laws have no place
in the computer industry because of the pace of inovation. Microsoft
could not be more wrong. The anti-trust laws are not about
technology. They are about bussiness ethics and fair play.
Protecting consumers and small bussinesses from predatory bussiness
practices. Ethics are universal and transend any bussiness including
the computer industry.
I have strong objections to the prevailing philosophy in the
Federal Court System that companies engaging in anti-competetive
behavior should not be punished, only restrained. This philosophy
does nothing to right the wrongs of competitors harmed by illegal
marketing practices. I would point out that Judge Jackson could have
sentenced Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer to three years in a federal
prison and confiscated Microsoft. (I understand that had he done so
the punishment would have been vacated for being too harsh).
Congress intended that anti-competitive behavior be punished as
criminal behavior.
As a consumer I would very much like to see Sun Microsystems
vision come to pass. ``Write once, run anywhere!''
Microsoft must be forced to pay for the manner in which they
undermined competition based on the merits.
I ask that the judge presiding over the punishment phase of this
trial see this letter.
Respectfully,
Tommy D. Kuzdas
MTC-00027802
From: Dave Dooling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:06am
Subject: Not tough enough
Gentlemen:
As a freelance writer I would like to register my string
disapproval of the weak remedies proposed in the Microsoft antitrust
settlement. Microsoft has behaved like a corporate thug and has even
acted as if it was above the law. The supposed side-by-side
demonstration of two different operating systems in
court--which turned out to have the results
altered--should have earned the lawyers time in jail for
perjury and contempt. As a science writer, I know that the correct
way to run the test would have been with two identical hard drives
swapped in and out of the same machine so the test would be a true
apples-and-apples comparison. It is an example of how Microsoft does
what it wants. The proposed remedies would leave the field open for
them to continue taking advantage of the consumer and to prey on
other businesses. In particular, the proposal to give away software
and old computers means nothing as far as financial penalties go.
Microsoft will tout the retail value of packages that actually cost
them a small percentage to manufacture. They will then have schools
locked into Microsoft software and have to pay dearly for upgrades
in the future. The situation is more like a pusher giving a school
kid the first fix for free. Microsoft is too big for the national
good. They control most of the desktop and are trying to extend
their reach into more of business and entertainment. I strongly feel
that stronger remedies are required, including splitting the company
into three or more separate companies. I further believe that given
the reliance of American business on Microsoft products that the
U.S. Government should consider regulating Microsoft as a public
utility.
Sincerely,
Dave Dooling
Dave Dooling / D2 Science Communications
555 Sparkman Drive, Suite 820C / Huntsville, AL 35816 USA
256-890-0972 (voice & fax)
256-830-5800 (Sharon, my wife and secretary,
[email protected])
[email protected] http://d2sci.com
MTC-00027803
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the settlement proposed by Microsoft is very generous.
The benevolent education of our youth is a good idea. Please let our
creative corporations do their job and help America stay number one.
Ralph Darnell
MTC-00027804
From: Dan Jenkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:02am
Subject: Remedies for Microsoft antitrust suit
I've been a system administrator, programmer and technical
support person for about 25 years. As Microsoft's products and
behavior have directly affected me and my clients (and will continue
to do so ), I must comment on the suit.
In all my years in the industry, I have seen relatively little
of the often-claimed innovation of which Microsoft speaks. I have
seen competitive companies purchased and put out of
business--eliminating competing product lines. I have seen
information obfuscated and altered in small, undocumented ways to
preclude competition--and to force client's to upgrade to
maintain basic compatibility within their own companies. I have seen
(and continue to see) severe security flaws.
These flaws have cost my clients and our whole economy enormous
amounts to battle.
So, given a history of consistent, persistent abuses, I submit
that only pervasive, unarguable remedies will cause Microsoft to
alter its behavior.
Microsoft's proposal to provide large amounts of their products
for use in the school's merely demonstrated their monopolistic
behavior. The school's would have required ongoing support and
upgrades--which would have cost more money that poor school's
don't have in the first place. By entrenching themselves in the
school's, they would have deepened their hold on the mind share of
the next generation of computer users, thereby, perpetuating their
monopoly. In my opinion, these remedies ought to include (at least)
the following items:
- Prohibit bundling contracts whereby the cost of the operating
system is included invisibly in the cost of the system. That way,
the consumer is aware of what he is paying for, and what
alternatives would truly cost.
- Require formats and APIs to be documented. Microsoft uses much
that is proprietary in their system, which can then, in turn, lock
out competitors from creating competing programs. (The fact that
Microsoft has the best-selling operating system with an embedded web
browser, and the best-selling office software suite, gives them an
almost airtight stranglehold on what is essentially a self-contained
system.)
Therefore, I recommend that all proprietary formats, protocols,
etc., be opened: the API, itself, file formats for all (non-
licensed) applications, communications protocols, and anything else
that would hinder competitors from being on a level playing field
when writing applications for the Windows platform.
- Separate the application development from the operating system
development. Microsoft application developers gain an unfair
advantage in internal knowledge of Microsoft operating systems over
their competition.
- Require email and web clients be separately installed from the
operating
[[Page 28121]]
system. Both Internet Explorer and Outlook are installed by default
on Windows platforms. Most customers do not even know other
alternatives exist. If a new Windows system prompted to install
these components and indicated that alternatives exist (such as
Netscape, Opera, Eudora, and others), then customers would have the
chance to choose alternatives. This would also potentially reduce
some of the impact of the security flaws--as most have been due
to the email or web browser clients Microsoft provides.