[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23654-24289]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X02-120503]



MTC-00000001

From: Bud
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:15am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    The DOJ has sold the public down the river by not breaking up 
Microsoft. Breaking the company up would not have lessened its 
assets only its MONOPOLY POWER. The DOJ has partnered with George W. 
Bush to repay Bill Gates for his generous campaign contributions to 
him and the GOP party. There is nowhere the public can turn anymore 
now that our Justice Department has sold out to politics. There is 
no other explanation the public will believe.
    You've made your bed with Bill, now sleep in it. A monetary fine 
means nothing to the world's richest man_losing his power over 
the industry does. As you attempt to settle with him, he is already 
targeting LINUX for the Internet market_he has learned 
nothing, except whom to contribute to for favors. You people can 
spin it anyway you like, we, the public, see it for what it really 
is. There is no longer equality under the law, there is no longer 
equal enforcement of the law, the law is Dubya.
    Harold VanSickle
    Lewisburg, PA

MTC-1



MTC-00000002

From: Jordan, Bill
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/16/01 11:20am
Subject: Microsoft
    I very much support the overturn of Judge Jackson's ill-advised 
court ruling and the softening of the government's approach to 
Microsoft. Gates and his company have built without question the 
premier operating system and peripherals in the world. Would any of 
us want to depend on other products? I wouldn't and suspect that 
most people would line up on my side. Why do we try to penalize 
successful companies who pay more and more taxes as they become more 
successful?
    Believe me, if any of Microsoft's competitors had built the same 
so-called monopoly, they would be screaming like banshees if the 
government or anyone else tried to break them into pieces. We 
operate by the golden rule; whoever has the gold rules. That would 
be Microsoft. Leave them alone and let them continue to make great 
products, make lots of money, and pay lots of taxes so the 
Department of Justice, among others, can exist.
    Thanks for the opportunity to give my opinion. I love America 
and our capitalistic system. There will always be big guys and 
little guys, and no amount of governmental intervention will ever 
make things even. I want to be president of my company, but maybe I 
don't have what it takes to get to the top. Microsoft has what it 
takes and has proved it in the marketplace. Why hasn't Netscape, 
Linux, etc., etc. been able to do the same? Because they're not as 
good.
    Thanks,

MTC-2



MTC-00000003

From: David Reid
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov'
Date: 11/16/01 11:24am
Subject: against
    I have reviewed the available details of the proposed settlement 
with Microsoft and find, in my opinion, that is does little to serve 
the public interest. What it does is serve Bill Gates and company 
with a vaguely worded settlement that delivers a light tap on the 
wrist, complete with a side wink. It appears to me to be just one 
more case of Republicans serving their corporate support base at the 
expense of those who actually VOTE.
    David W Reid
    Intelligent Business Automation, Inc.
    847-921-8521 fax 630-214-3723
    [email protected]

MTC-3



MTC-00000004

From: Kenneth Jarvis
To: Microsoft Case_Comments
Date: 11/16/01 11:26am
Subject: Windows WITHOUT Internet Explorer_Make they give us a 
CHOICE.
    Currently, MSoft has access to EVERY computer in the world 
because they FORCE us to have Internet Explorer on our computers. 
With this access their Monopoly will ONLY GET STRONGER.
    I am a candidate for the Nevada Assembly District 18 and am 
going to introduce a bill that will require Any Software Company 
that sells software IN NEVADA to have Support IN NEVADA. Microsoft's 
claim that they HAVE to hook Internet Explorer onto Windows is 
FALSE. If they were forced to provide 2 versions of windows one WITH 
IE and one WITHOUT IE we would have a choice.
    As it is ALL computers that run Windows are FORCED to have IE 
available, taking up valuable Disk space if we choose to run another 
browser.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Ken Jarvis
    6420 E. Tropicana, #105
    Las Vegas, NV 89122-75 16
    [email protected]
    Phone_702-454-0509
    CC: Kevin Clarke

MTC-4



MTC-00000005

From: Bill McGaw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:26am
Subject: Microsoft
    As a consumer, the settlement is a sell out to big money. I hope 
the judge sees this and listens to the states that disagree with the 
Feds. Bill McGaw

MTC-5



MTC-00000006

From: Don Williston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:27am
Subject: settlement
    My comments about the Microsoft settlement:
    1. Unlike Standard Oil and American Tobacco, whose products were 
static in design, Microsoft's product is dynamic, constantly 
striving to be adequate.
    2. The error in the action against Microsoft is not that 
Microsoft was innocent, it is that the laws protecting Microsoft's 
product(s) are not proper for the intellectual property

[[Page 23655]]

markets, and the appropriate remedies must come from the Congress 
and not the Courts and not the Justice Department.
    3. What Microsoft owns is not property at Common Law; instead is 
property and property rights created by Congress. Article 1 Section 
8 provides Congress with the power: To promote the progress of 
science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors 
and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and 
discovenes.
    4. The key work in the Constitution is LIMITED.
    5. Secondly, the monopoly laws are to protect consumers, not 
competitors. Congress should be encouraged to clarify the property 
rights of copyright holders and patent holders, limiting their 
authority to license through OEM's to consumers, and requiring that 
the consumers have rights directly to the manufacturer. OUTLAW the 
term re-seller. Require Microsoft to support its products free for a 
period, perhaps no more than 3 years, but the three years runs from 
the time of the final sale of the product (i.e. Windows 95 was last 
sold as a new computer install when?, certainly more recently than 
1999), not the time of original marketing. Tort laws have held 
companies liable for products manufactured many, many years ago.

MTC-6



MTC-00000007

From: Ben Ross
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:27am
Subject: Bad Settlement
    I wanted to buy the pared down version of Windows since day one. 
This is an obvious case of bundling forced upon the consumer. Buying 
Windows is buying much more than an operating system_it's 
buying a way of life (any Microsoft president jumping around on a 
stage will tell you that too.) I don't want a religion, a culture, a 
virtual reality, or a new way of thinking, looking, or dealing with 
the world. Thank you. I like to control that on my own. Just give me 
the choice to buy the OS alone.

MTC-7



MTC-00000008

From: Harry Huff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:30am
Subject: Proposed settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    It is my strong feeling that this proposed settlement makes a 
travesty of the very notion of anti-trust law. It completely ignores 
the evidentiary foundation of the case and does absolutely nothing 
to impede Microsoft's continued stifling of innovation in the 
software industry. There's nothing more to say; this proposed 
settlement should be laughed out of court as the travesty of justice 
that it represents. It responds to the finding that Microsoft is 
both a monopoly and has seriously abused its monopoly status with 
meaningless "remedies" that do nothing to alter the 
fundamental practices by which Microsoft makes a laughingstock of 
the notion of "free markets".
    Sincerely,
    Harry A. Huff

MTC-8



MTC-00000009

From: geraux
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:30am
Subject: MS settlement
    Why do I continue to have the nagging thought that MicroSoft 
will survive the antitrust suit in stronger, healthier condition 
than before it was filed? Might it be the sympathetic treatment it 
has received by the Bush administration? What folly for naught!

MTC-9



MTC-00000010

From: Will Page
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:30am
Subject: the focus is off on why MS is a monopoly
    Hi
    From what Joe Public can tell about this case is that the big 
cause for alarm is that microsoft bundles application software with 
the sale of its OS. I do not believe that this should be the sole 
focus of why MS business violates anti-trust law. Have you ever 
tried to buy an PC with intel architecture without buying MS's 
operating system? Do not bother, it is impossible for consumers 
(businesses may do this when they buy machines en mass). I cannot 
buy a new machine to install another OS on it without buying Windows 
with it. If I already own windows and my hardware becomes outdated, 
I cannot decommission my dinosaur and install the OS I already own 
onto my new hardware. This is not a fair marketplace. Other superior 
operating systems have come and gone because of this practice and it 
really pisses me off. It is a shame, because microsoft actually 
makes some fine, high quality products. They do not have to practice 
business this way to remain profitable.
    Cheers
    William Page
    Principal IT technical Analyst
    703.227.7360

MTC-10



MTC-00000011

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: ASKDOJ
Date: 11/16/01 11:37am
Subject: Mr. Ashcroft
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to you as a very concerned citizen. I appreciated 
the job you have done, and think you have done well. This is in 
reference to the Microsoft case.
    I am only a concerned citizen, and I have no personal or 
financial interest in this case whatsoever.
    I want you to know that I am TOTALLY ASHAMED OF THE UNTIED 
STATES GOVERNMENT for continuing the prosecution of Microsoft. 
Microsoft has worked hard to develop an operating system and 
software that is reasonably priced, and has changed all of our 
lives. They should NOT be punished for innovation.
    The government SHOULD NOT be wasting taxpayer dollars on this 
case! I URGE you to stop this from continuing.
    I will make sure that I vote AGAINST anyone in office that 
continues this prosecution of Microsoft. We have far worse problems 
that we should be spending money on, that are not even be addressed.
    Please feel free to contact me regarding this,
    Kindest regards,
    Chris Hudgins
    Dallas, Texas
    CC: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw

MTC-11



MTC-00000012

From: Carolyn Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:38am
Subject: Antitrust case
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I am writing in response to the antitrust case against 
Microsoft. I've used computers regularly for nearly 20 years now, 
and been exposed to numerous software programs in this time. 
Microsoft by far, manufactures superior products, and offers great 
user-friendly tutorials to clients to ensure peak performance. No 
other company can claim their product operates better than 
Microsoft's line of OS products. And recently, I did buy a new 
computer with the new XP software. When I loaded the CD burning 
software, Roxio, into my computer to copy some music, it failed 
repeatedly, even tho I selected it as my default software. Finally, 
frustrated with Roxio, and the lack of instructions to overcome 
problems with the software, I removed the program, and used the 
Microsoft XP CD burning software. No problems whatsoever, and it has 
some great enhancements that I never even could've imagined.
    As a former DJ, I was extremely impressed. Once again, the 
reason why Microsoft has the undisputable market lead is because 
they make superior products, and people want them. They should be 
commended for such efforts & not reprimanded because they are 
"too big." They are a model for many American companies 
to emulate!
    Sincerely,
    Carolyn O. Martin
    [email protected]

MTC-12



MTC-00000013

From: Tony Anton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:40am
Subject: Microsoft "settlement"
    An even casual study of the Findings of Fact after the finish of 
the trial indicates that a differentiation must be made between a 
computer operating system and applications which run on that system. 
The crux of Microsoft's anti-competitive actions lies in the 
intermingling of applications and the operating system. In lieu of 
breaking up Microsoft, the company must be restricted to selling the 
operating system separately from its applications. This, with the 
provisions of the settlement opening the API's to developers, would 
generate competition and greatly benefit the consumer. Other 
operating systems would now also be able to complete, affording 
still more choices to the consumer.
    Anthony D. Anton
    2223-B East Santa Clara

[[Page 23656]]

    Santa Ana, CA 92705
    714-972-1729

MTC-13



MTC-00000014

From: Mark W Noakes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:42am
Subject: microsoft decision
    To whom it may concern,
    I understand that you are looking for commentary on the recent 
Microsoft decision.
    Frankly, I believe that the planned decision does not go far 
enough to constrain Microsoft. Microsoft has already proven that 
they have ignored previous oversight/probation initiatives and that 
they will continue their previous practices. Why should the govt 
trust them? Their new operating system, Windows XP, which further 
degrades customer choices, proves MS's continued intent to ignore 
any restrictions. I assume that you are aware that Microsoft is now 
threatening patent violation action against companies that work to 
provide software interoperability with Microsoft products. The best 
most recent example is Windows Media.
    I would challenge the argument that we should let Microsoft off 
the hook because it's the best thing out there. I use Microsoft 
Office because I have to, not because I think it's great. The sole 
reason is for the sake of compatibility with so many of the people 
that we communicate with across the country. I find Office in 
general and MS Word in particular to be a bloated poorly performing 
package that I spend way too much time trying to undo what it thinks 
I want it to do instead of what I want it to do. That's the general 
spirit of MS; they try to tell you what you want instead of letting 
you decide what you want and then force it on the end user.
    Please continue to pursue Microsoft in the spirit of the 
original antitrust suit.
    Sincerely,
    Mark W. Noakes
    Mark W Noakes
    Oak Ridge National Laboratory
    Engineering Science and Technology Division
    Robotics Group, R&D Staff
    Box 2008, Bldg 7606, M56426
    Oak Ridge, TN 3783 1-6426
    PH: 865.574.5695
    FX: 865.576.2081
    EM: [email protected]

MTC-14



MTC-00000015

From: Patrick Brewer
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/16/01 11:42am
Subject: Totally inadequate
    The agreement isn't nearly strong enough. Looking at 
Microsoft actions and past settlements over the last decade, an the 
current settlement is clearly not enough to keep Microsoft from 
abusing its position in the industry. Its hard for the consumer to 
see how they are harmed, but its much like the break of Ma' Bell. 
After the end of the phone monopoly you start to see much more 
innovation in the telecom sector. The same would be true with 
Microsoft.
    Patrick

MTC-15



MTC-00000016

From: eXWorld Internet News
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:42am
Subject: microsoft is getting off easy...
    I don't know what happened, but the DOJ has sold us all out. 
Once this settlement passes, we are all screwed. Microsoft is simply 
too big, too powerful and has no problem with continuing to abuse 
its monopoly over others. Unless you break up the company, no 
punishment will be effective enough.
    Microsoft is too big ... it can get into any industry at any 
time. No one can stop them because they have funds to absorb years 
of losses if necessary, in order to kill or take over competition. 
Xbox is a classic example of this. Only Microsoft would have the 
balls to enter the video game market at such a late stage, and take 
on power house companies like Sony and Nintendo. Why do you think 
Sega left the market? They had no chance knowing Microsoft was 
coming. Something needs to be done about this company.

MTC-16



MTC-00000017

From: Gary Sparks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:44am
Subject: Anti trust
    Sir or Madam
    I have watched the proceedings against Microsoft with wonder and 
disbelief. Punishing a company that has created one of the most 
innovative and beneficial products in the history of man for 
protecting and promoting its product is amazing to me.
    This is not a case of "ma bell" having all of the 
land facilities locked up forcing the consumer to use their services 
and products but of a company in a new industry that has a 
significant head start. They have every right to protect their 
market share as well as keeping the "formula" safe and 
intact for their operating system. Their are truly other 
alternatives for consumers who wish not to use their products but 
the consumer has made the overwhelming choice to use the superior 
product.
    This case reeks of special interest and of politicians again 
looking for the handout at election time. Internet and word 
processing technology is a gold mine that many would like to reap 
the benefits of but at the expense of a company that has done the 
due diligence and brought forward a product that appeals to 
consumers, businesses and yes even Governments. Don't punish a 
company for protecting and promoting a product that thru time has 
proven to be a valuable component of daily life throughout the world 
and dig a little deeper into your "soul" and do what is 
right. Free trade and enterprise is based upon the 
"right" of a company to grow and flourish.
    This industry has more than enough room for someone to come up 
with a better widgit but until that time don't hamstring someone for 
protecting their own. I wish someone in this instance would tell 
their opponents that they need to quit crying and make that next 
earth shattering step into the 21st century but don't snip at the 
heels of those who were brave enough to try.
    Thank you very much
    Gary Sparks

MTC-17



MTC-00000018

From: Joe Maranzano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:44am
Subject: Consumer Comment
    I am a user of Microsoft operating systems and applications in 
my small business. I believe the proposed settlement is inadequate 
to protect consumers and will not help much needed competition, 
especially in the application space. I have selected many non-
Microsoft applications because of their features and reliability. 
But I have found it increasingly more difficult to stay with these 
applications as I have upgraded to new Operating Systems. They are 
often not available at the same time as the OS nor do they take 
advantage of the new OS features. I would strongly recommend that 
you reconsider your agreement decision. I would favor a ruling that 
forced Microsoft to make the OS sources available publicly so all 
vendors have an equal opportunity to use the capabilities. I worked 
in the early days of UNIX and in that experience consumers got the 
very best applications at the time because of the open source to the 
OS.
    Joseph F. Maranzano
    SPMT, Inc.
    CC: Joe Maranzano, Gwynedd Maranzano, Tim Theiler

MTC-18



MTC-00000019

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:45am
Subject: Comments on Microsoft Case
    The Declaration of Independence proclaims that the government's 
fundamental purpose is to protect the rights of the individual, and 
that each individual has an inalienable right to the pursuit of 
happiness. Throughout America's history, this noble idea has 
protected the individual's right to pursue his own happiness by 
applying his energy to productive work, trading the products of his 
effort on a free market and rising as far as his abilities carry 
him.
    Over the past century, however, this freedom has been under 
attack, and one notorious avenue of this attack has been the 
antitrust laws. Under the guise of "protecting the 
public," these laws have allowed envious competitors and 
power-hungry officials to attack successful businessmen for the 
crime of being successful. It has led to the ugly spectacle of the 
creative geniuses of the business world_the men who have made 
this country great_being branded as oppressive tyrants, whose 
hard-won business empires must be broken to pieces and subjected to 
the control of government regulators.
    The Justice Department's current suit against Microsoft is the 
latest example of this trend. It is based on envy for the productive 
ability of Microsoft and its founder, Bill Gates. The result of this 
suit, if successful,

[[Page 23657]]

will be to deprive Mr. Gates of his right to control his own 
company, and to deprive the company of its ownership and control of 
its own products.
    The Justice Department's case_and indeed the entire 
edifice of antitrust law_is based on the bizarrely inverted 
notion that the productive actions of individuals in the free market 
can somehow constitute "force," while the coercive 
actions of government regulators can somehow secure 
"freedom."
    The truth is that the only kind of "monopoly" that 
can form in a free market is one based on offering better products 
at lower prices, since under a free market even monopolies must obey 
the law of supply and demand. Harmful, coercive monopolies are the 
result, not of the operation of the free market, but of government 
regulations, subsidies, and privileges which close off entry to 
competitors. No business can outlaw its competitors_only the 
government can.
    I hold that Microsoft has a right to its own property; that it 
has the authority, therefore, to bundle its 
properties_including Windows 95 and Internet Explorer_in 
whatever combination it chooses, not by anyone's permission, but by 
absolute right. I hold that to abridge this right is to attack every 
innovator's right to the products of his effort, and to overthrow 
the foundations of a free market and of a free society.
    I do not want to live in a country where achievement is resented 
and attacked, where every innovator and entrepreneur has to fear 
persecution from dictatorial regulators and judges, enforcing 
undefined laws at the bidding of jealous competitors. I realize that 
our lives and well-being depend on the existence of a free market, 
in which innovators and entrepreneurs are free to rise as far as 
their ability can carry them, without being held down by arbitrary 
and unjust government regulations. As a concerned citizen, I ask 
that the Justice Department's case against Microsoft be dismissed. I 
call for a national debate over the arbitrary and unjust provisions 
of the antitrust laws and for an end to the practice of persecuting 
businessmen for their success.
    John Ziebell
    73 Braemar Drive
    Elk Grove Village, IL 60007

MTC-19



MTC-00000020

From: Alexander P. Whitehouse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:46am
Subject: Microsoft settlement_feedback
    I am a long time individual computer software consumer. I am 
very concerned about your settlement with Microsoft and especially 
fearful that it will be meaningless in practice. I oppose your 
current settlement terms. Microsoft's clear track record would 
suggest they always act in bad faith. I would expect Microsoft to 
continue to find loopholes in laws and agreements. Microsoft's 
marketing and public relations releases are clearly "big 
lies". They will find ways to circumvent any agreement to 
continue their monopoly business practices which stifle competition. 
That company has more money behind them than really good or 
innovative products. Much more severe penalties are in order.
    Alexander P. Whitehouse
    Everett, Washington 98203

MTC-20



MTC-00000021

From: Daniel J. Yurcovic
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:46am
Subject: Settlement Comments
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I applaud the efforts of both Microsoft and the DOJ. Breaking up 
MS would have stifled innovation. This shows that the American 
economy does work, protects companies and mostly important the 
consumer.
    Way to go!
    Dan Yurcovic
    Daniel J. Yurcovic
    Project Engineer_Information Systems
    Ferris, Baker Watts, Inc.
    100 Light Street, 9th Floor
    Baltimore, MD 21201
    410.659.2589_Office
    [email protected] 

MTC-21



MTC-00000022

From: Chris McGrew
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:47am
Subject: Settlement thoughts
    I feel that the Dept. of Justice has let the common people down. 
Microsoft's punishment is nothing more than a light slap on the 
wrist. This will not help any business that is trying to compete 
with MS. With MS's history of giving away a competing product for 
nothing until a smaller competitor is out of business. This then 
allows them to charge any price and the consumer will have no where 
else to turn.
    Microsoft is a monopoly (only good result of this case so far), 
and the bundling practice is bad for everyone except Microsoft. I 
don't blame them and I honestly believe that any company in their 
position would have done the same thing, but they are the company in 
that position and the Department of Justice has the responsibility 
to protect smaller businesses and the consumer by placing fair 
restrictions on this type of practice. Even if those curbs are 
temporary and reviewed based on competition in the future by 
independent parties.
    Chris McGrew

MTC-22



MTC-00000023

From: Cris Hanna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:47am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Suit Remedies
    I strongly disagree with the actions you (the US Government and 
the Justice Dept) are taking in this matter. I am IT professional 
with over 20 years of experience and your suit appears to be all 
about choice. Well guess what, there are lots of choices. If I don't 
care to run Microsoft Windows with Internet Explorer, I don't have 
to. And if I do and want to use some other browser, nothing prevents 
that either. I can choose Linux, Unix, Sun Micrographics, Apple/
MacIntosh, and several others both on the workstations and the 
Servers.
    Microsoft and Windows are popular because they create good 
products which have made it easier today than ever for everyone from 
1st and 2nd graders to senior citizens to use and own a computer. 
You don't have to know how to configure a TCP/IP interface on your 
home computer and what choices to make when you need an internet 
browser if you are a consumer when you choose Microsoft's various 
consumer level products. They have integrated it specifically to 
make it easier.
    But if I'm running Windows on my computer and I want to install 
Netscape and use it, I can. If I want to use AOLs "integrated 
browser" I can do that. My choices are limitless, whether 
Microsoft chooses to offer an integrate product, or a stripped down 
version.
    Why are you wasting my valuable tax money pursuing this action. 
Bill Gates is the richest man in the world because the American 
public (and the rest of the world) tried it and liked it, not 
because there isn't any other choice as you try to infer. Bill Gates 
through his foundation is doing more than anyone else in the world 
with regard to charitable contributions in a variety of areas and 
all around the world. And because of his wealth, he pays more taxes, 
which goes to pay your salaries, so why not pursue something 
important. You want to talk about Monopolies and Anti-Trust... what 
about AOL/Time Warner
    Cris Hanna
    Belleville, IL

MTC-23



MTC-00000024

From: I am the only Glare
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:48am
Subject: Thoughts
    I think that the antitrust settlement is very sufficient and 
enough resources have been wasted on this case.
    I, as a consumer, do not feel hampered by Microsoft at all. Many 
companies have chances to enter markets or come up with competing 
operating systems or browsers and beat Microsoft at their own war.
    They haven't. This settlement will allow the government to 
settle their needs and prove they didn't waste valuable taxpayer 
money and it will remind Microsoft that they are still the best and 
why everyone wants to take them down.
    Stephen "You're only going to live this life once, so live 
it the way you want"Get more from the Web.
    FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com

MTC-24



MTC-00000025

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:48am
Subject: Anti-trust suit against Microsoft
    I feel that this whole action against Microsoft is not only an 
assault against Microsoft, but it is an assault on the free market 
economy, the capitalism of this country that has made this one of 
the most prosperous countries in the world.
    Microsoft is good, they have a good product that people want and 
other

[[Page 23658]]

companies want to be associated with it. In a competitive business 
environment there will always be winners and losers, it's the nature 
of the beast, and there are far too many whiney people in this 
country today who seem to feel that their wants are more important 
than anyone else's; 'I want so you have to gimme." These 
are simply spoiled brats, bullies whining because somebody else has 
a better product (or toy) than theirs. That's life in the big 
city! To sue a company because they have a preferred product is a 
waste of everyone's time and money. I have an invention, and those 
who know about it want it, and there is nothing else on the market 
like it. If I was forced to give it up or give my secrets away 
because some whiney cry baby didn't think of it first I would feel 
this whole country had gone to hell in a hand basket, and it would 
be time for me to leave it.
    Barbara De Shann
    Aliso Viejo, CA
    Every day is a new adventure....
    CC: [email protected]@inetgw

MTC-25



MTC-00000026

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:49am
Subject: penalties and process
    (1) Please help me understand what penalty is being applied to 
Microsoft for the illegal tactics they have used to put other 
companies out of business and achieve its monopoly status.
    (2) The Microsoft pattern has been to deny wrong-doing in the 
face of overwhelming evidence and use the legal system to delay and 
diminish any consequences. If there is no clear process to expedite 
claims against Microsoft in the future while Microsoft is denying 
wrong-doing, then how is the settlement going to be effective?

MTC-26



MTC-00000027

From: Chuck Pfeiffer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:49am
Subject: Unfair trade practices
    The settlement is a win-win for Microsoft, and a big lose-lose 
for consumers. Microsofts' illegal dominance and unfair practices 
are evident from the earliest days of it's inception when it 
deceived IBM with the lack of an OS and scrambled to put one 
together after the fact.
    It is further illustrated when the Hard Disk manufacturers 
devised a better method for the technical architecture of disk 
storage. Microsoft rejected their proposal keeping the hardware 
industry firmly in its' grasp. Then there was the use of unpublished 
code MS used to its advantage in developing proprietary software, 
while forcing the competition to program long subroutines around 
these discrepancies. MS continually disavowed this practice in 
public disclosure, until it was publicly documented by credible 
software experts.
    Microsoft has continually advanced, and still does, the practice 
of marketing vaporware to stymie the competition and engender 
hesitation in corporate and end user purchases. This had forced 
other companies to fold, sell out, or otherwise cancel their 
development plans as a result.
    The debacle over Java, and legal battles with Sun, have caused 
an otherwise beneficial software platform for uniting all types of 
machines and code into a single working environment was the furthest 
thing that Microsoft wanted. It would have severely undermined their 
current dominance and future plans to continue with that strategy. 
So MS developed their own form of code and imposed it on the market. 
Sun has a much system, but it was a threat to MS and could not be 
allowed to stand in their way.
    The entire computer industry, technology, and the many other 
side benefits of this new technology has revolutionized the world. 
However, it has suffered long periods of indecision and product 
development as a result of MS's desire and bullying to dominate the 
industry.
    There are many examples of these facts along the highway of 
development littered with the corporate corpses of those who tried 
to offer better products and strategies. They were run over, bought 
out, silenced, and even worse threatened with protracted legal 
battles to which MS has a bottomless pit of funding for legal 
engagement and harassment.
    The best strategy would have been to spit the company into two 
parts, but this will not happen unfortunately.
    They will continue to dominate the world with it's poorly 
written, unsecured, and otherwise buggy Windows software systems and 
architecture. They have as yet been unable to develop code that is 
anywhere as secure as Novell. Novell is just one more example of a 
market that MS has targeted for domination. Sure Novell made some 
fatal mistakes, but they still have a much better networking 
structure that is more secure than MS could ever hope to achieve. 
Settling this case is giving Microsoft the green light to continue 
it's illicit and illegally gained monopoly and stranglehold of the 
industry.
    Yours truly,
    Chuck Pfeiffer

MTC-27



MTC-00000028

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:50am
Subject: proposed settlement
    November 16, 2001
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    If this email address is open for the general public to offer 
opinions on the proposed settlement with Microsoft, I would like to 
add mine. I have worked in the computer industry since 1985. I 
remember the days when a disk formatted on one proprietary version 
of DOS did not run on another. I also remember when computers were 
too expensive and too cumbersome for the technology challenged.
    This all changed as a result of Microsoft's vision. 
Computers are in almost every home and most people do not know what 
they would do without one. I shudder to think at what would happen 
if the penalty were to break up Microsoft or if the penalty was so 
severe that they would shut down their operation.
    The proposed settlement is a good mix of punishment to ensure 
they do not engage in further predatory practices and ensuring that 
the volatile world of information technology does not take a giant 
step backwards.
    Thank you,
    Edward W. Scott
    Computer Manger
    Madsen, Kneppers, and Associates
    303.745.9990 - work phone

MTC-28



MTC-00000029

From: Lan Bragg
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/16/01 11:52am
Subject: Microsoft
    Really, really disappointed in the settlement Justice has made 
with Microsoft. The evidence was clear, the history of Microsoft 
disregarding any penalties imposed upon it is clear and the 
offending practices continue. Justice has sold out the American 
consumer. The only way to get Gates and his company to stop is to 
disengage the operating system from the applications software. You 
have not only abandoned that option you have reduced the penalties 
to meaningless self-monitoring. No one believes that after years of 
abusing and ignoring the Justice Department, the recent settlement 
will suddenly make Microsoft behave. Even less do we believe that 
the Justice Department will actually employ resources toward 
monitoring and controlling Microsoft, much less impose fines that 
will matter.
    We trust the government to step in when a company has proved 
themselves to be untrustworthy, to have severely injured their 
customers and to have taken from the market any other option or 
choice in the form of a true competitor. Microsoft has done all 
these things. If you don't believe this it can only be because 
you do not use a personal computer. I have many Microsoft 
applications on my computers. None of them work together. Errors and 
crashes are constant. Explanations and support are rare. True 
support costs $295 per incident. The most devastating viruses out 
today exploit the faults of Microsoft's software. Microsoft sells 
inferior products only because the government has allowed a monopoly 
to exist and grow out of control and now refuses to correct or even 
truly acknowledge the mistakes that have led us here.
    Microsoft and it's leaders are arrogant, selfish entities that 
cannot be trusted to monitor or control themselves. The Justice 
Department was our last hope. You have abandoned us when the 
evidence was clear. We are greatly disappointed. You should be 
ashamed.
    Loni Bragg
    CC: Lori Bragg,Dad_AOL (E-mail),Chris Pickett (E-mai...

MTC-29



MTC-00000030

From: Leslie Label
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:56am
Subject: My comment
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    Thank you for this opportunity to comment about the Microsoft 
settlement. The

[[Page 23659]]

settlement should address MS bundling of Internet Explorer with 
windows, MS preventing changes to windows to prefer it's own 
products (specifically problems of associating of .html to netscape 
comrnunicator),sabotaging of 3rd party products like Real Player.
    Sincerely,
    Leslie Lobel

MTC-30



MTC-00000031

From: Charles Akemann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 12:01pm
Subject: Please get off Microsoft's back.
    Please get off Microsoft's back.
    Charles Akemann

MTC-31



MTC-00000032

From: Cranford, Stephen C CIV
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 12:02pm
Subject: Disappointed in compromise
    I'm extremely disappointed in the comprise proposed by the 
Justice Department. Microsoft, even with the threat of the Justice 
department hanging over their heads, has continued, in the Microsoft 
XP product, to conduct illegal trading practices. Specifically, 
Microsoft is packaging free firewall software into it's OS. Like a 
drug dealer hooking the new unsuspecting junky, Microsoft has 
announced that it will provide the software free for a short period 
of time. The new junkies, I mean Users, will become accustomed to 
the firewall interface, software venders will write software that 
can work with the product, and then Microsoft will start charging 
for its use. Why would a consumer go out and obtain a similar 
product when Microsoft is already giving it to them bundled in their 
OS, free? The answer is, they won't.
    I was disappointed that the breakup of Microsoft was pushed off 
the list of penalties for the company. Their OS is substandard to 
almost every other OS on the market. It lacks administrative support 
for enterprise usage, and even after stealing innovations from all 
the other OS's (to many to name), it lacks ease of use and 
reliability. Just look at how users in your own office fix problems 
on their Personal Computers. I bet it is the new and improved 
Microsoft way, they reboot them. Before Microsoft, it was rarely 
necessary to reboot a machine, just to fix a problem. Downtime in 
the office was almost non-existent. Even with its proven track 
record of crashing unexpectedly, it is still forcing it's way in to 
our nations datacenters. I feel the only reason that it has managed 
to penneate into every corner of the market place is due to their 
office products and the need to provide compatibility for them. 
Since their office products are so tied into their OS, a user is 
required to buy their OS to run their office products. Other people 
wanted to share documents and information, so they bought similar 
office software and now Microsoft is everywhere.
    A truly open market would have Microsoft building their office 
products for all commercial OS's ( Solaris, Linux, HP-UX, MAC). The 
only way that can happen is if Microsoft Office and the other 
Microsoft software is excised from the Microsoft OS and their 
profits are not tied together.
    My perfect IT world is one where I have the choice to choose the 
best OS. The choice to add any software package that I want, and 
have that software compatible with all other similar software 
packages.

MTC-32



MTC-00000033

From: Kristian Rickert
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/16/01 12:04pm
Subject: Please explain
    Can you please tell me what the settlement contains and how it 
will prevent MS from it's unfair advantage?
    Their code is billions of lines long, their projects are 
hundreds of thousands. How can 3 people going through the 
corporation really monitor what they are doing? It's impossible 
unless they move nearly the speed of light.
    Besides, if they break the rules again, you just extend the 
penalty by 2 years?
    I'm disappointed in our government and how they are handling the 
case. They are considered guilty, and the only punishment the 
government is imposing is not a punishment, but preventive measures 
that are not guaranteed to work Please consider the tech-heavy 
states' opinions. If competition is to thrive again, and help our 
economy it will be the tech-heavy states that will be the ones who 
bring it back.
    We're in bad economical times now. You can help bring it back.

MTC-33



MTC-00000034

From: Terry Moore-Read
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 12:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement
    This settlement is bad and will do nothing to alter microsofts 
behaviour and does nothing to make restitution for their previous 
unlawful conduct. The main problems as I see it are
    1) the term is too short_given that most of the 
restrictions come into play at some future date (the release of 
windows xp service pack 1) the restrictions will likely only be in 
place for 3-4 years.
    2) The document is riddled with vagueness and get out clauses. 
Where microsoft is required to describe the ways its software and 
communications protocols work it is also allowed to withold any 
information which could compromise security. It is easy to argue 
that any knowledge of how a network protocol works could compromise 
security and sidestep this whole provision.
    3) All previous illegal conduct is essentially excused as long 
as they stick to the terms of this agreement_this seems very 
wrong_essentially corporate probation with no real punishment 
at all.
    4) Microsoft has a history of flagrant non-compliance with such 
consent decrees_this whole case started because of their 
refusal to comply with the previous settlement. The talk of the 
government seeking criminal penalties and civil fines should 
microsoft not comply with this agreement gives me little 
comfort_what criminal penalties where imposed for breaking of 
previous agreements?
    As a minimum any acceptable settlement must include an element 
of punishment of both the company and its board of directors for 
operating in an illegal manner.
    Terry Moore-Read
    9812 E 4th Ave
    Spokane WA 99206
    (these are my opinions not my employer's)
    This message and any attachments have been scanned for viruses 
during transmission from Lukins & Annis, PS.

MTC-34



MTC-00000035

From: Paul E Keane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 12:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft was found guilty by the trial judge.
    The government settlement is less than a slap on the wrist.
    The oversight panel is toothless.
    Microsoft continues its anti competitive behavior
    The proposed settlement fails to meet the seriousness of the 
crime(s).
    Paul E Keane
    2253 Franklin
    San Francisco, CA 94109

MTC-35



MTC-00000036

From: Richard Molen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 12:08pm
Subject: Microsoft sanctions
    Justice Dept.,
    Nothing less than dividing Microsoft's operating system group 
from its applications group will ensure that they don't use tactics 
such as inventing non-standard standards (and not properly sharing 
them).
    Their development tools division should probably become a third 
group (or at least in the application group). This is what has given 
them an unfair advantage over application software vendors. They 
will continue to have this advantage even with full-disclosure of 
their 'standard' interfaces due to the fact that they 
will have first knowledge of them. Furthermore, I do not believe 
that they will properly share all information needed for a 
competitor to properly interface to their software.
    Current Microsoft practice continues to assert Microsoft 
'standards' in place of existing ones, even while this 
case is in court! C# is one of the latest examples of this.
    From the business side, one has to wonder what legal competitive 
advantage a non-disclosure agreement has to offer. Microsoft 
certainly abused this medium and should be summarily punished for it 
by preventing them from making any more such agreements.
    While I admire Microsoft's business vision of selling flashy, 
mediocore software to the largest, if not most technically ignorant, 
population, I still have to wonder just how much Microsoft's success 
has set back the software industry. IBM's OS/2 and various unix 
operating systems as well as some well desgined real-time operating 
systems still

[[Page 23660]]

offer greater robustness and easier operation and troubleshooting 
than MS Window's.
    My fear is that Microsoft's flashy system and sleazy business 
practices will continue to obscure superior operating systems (like 
it obscured OS/2 Warp). Their applications will still be prefered 
over competitors, even if their competitors do actually get the 
correct interface information, if only because the Microsoft product 
will be perceived to work more seemlessly.
    In the end, it is my hope that the Justice Department dispenses 
true justice, not just a slap on the hand of Microsoft that kicks 
all their competitors in the teeth and ruthlessly manipulates an 
unsavy public.
    Sincerely,
    Richard V. Molen
    Sr. Software Engineer
    [email protected]
    Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
    http://personals.yahoo.com

MTC-36



MTC-00000037

From: Hugh Ross
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 12:08pm
Subject: Bitterly Disappointed with Proposed MS Settlement
    I understand that this is the address to which I may address 
comments to the DOJ on the proposed settlement agreement.
    I am very disappointed and strongly opposed to the proposed 
settlement. I firmly believe that the only way to ensure fair 
competition is to separate the applications and operating systems 
divisions of Microsoft. Any thing less will, I am convinced, not 
work, especially in light of Microsoft's past performance.
    Additionally, I feel that Microsoft is not being appropriately 
penalized for it's past behavior.
    As a consumer, I feel that I have been sold out by the DOJ. I am 
very disappointed.
    Hugh Ross, JD, MD
    University of Michigan Health System
    Department of Anesthesiology

MTC-37



MTC-00000038

From: bbagley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 12:10pm
Subject: Trust dept
    what a waste of my tax dollars! how could someone so guilty be 
allowed to escape?
    gates was even more guilty than oj simpson and you let him off. 
i hope your legal careers are destroyed by your disregard for the 
public, how big of a percentage does gates have to have to be a 
monopoly?
    sickening. b3

MTC-38



MTC-00000039

From: Rich Schaefer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 12:14pm
Subject: The DOJ is wrong with in this case.
    To whom it may concern:
    I don't know where to begin. I am a republican. I work for a 
computer distribution company, voted for Bush, am all for capitalism 
and our way of life. However, it is clear that this Department of 
Justice is just out of touch with the real issue of this case. This 
was not a case about web browsers. It is a case about a company that 
enjoys a monopoly status, has clearly abused it and as a result has 
eliminated any competition and innovation. This all has come at the 
expense of the American consumer and fair competition in an open 
market economy.
    There is little doubt that Microsoft is a monopoly. Two courts 
have already rendered this in their opinions. If one visits a retail 
store and buys an IBM compatible computer, there is no choice 
regarding the operating system. You will buy a computer with a 
Microsoft operating system.
    If I recall my college days as a political science major, the 
Sherman Anti-Trust Act was signed into law to prevent any one 
company from having an unfair advantage. Further, the core of this 
act was to ensure competition in the market place. The logic is 
competition benefits the consumer, establishes fair pricing and a 
market value for a product or service as well as the natural 
creation of new companies/industries and thus more jobs. The 
overriding goal is a diverse market place operating under a diverse 
economy while keeping America gainfully employed and spending back 
into the economy. Thus, all benefit. It appears the DOJ attorneys 
should crack open a Constitutional Law text and brush over the fine 
points of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, it's impact upon commerce and 
it's application to the present, as this may have been forgotten.
    How is this hurting competition and consumers? Microsoft as a 
monopoly is free to charge whatever they want for their operating 
systems and applications. And this they do. Microsoft distributes 
it's product three ways; by selling to name brand computer 
manufacturers, through "channel' distribution and finally in 
retail outlets. Name brand computer manufacturers (Dell, Compaq, 
IBM, Toshiba, etc) pay about one third less for operating systems 
and application software than a channel distributor, like Tech Data, 
Ingram Micro, ASI or D&H, even though name brand manufacturers 
and channel distributors are purchasing roughly the same number of 
operating systems and application software from Microsoft. This 
unfair and predatory pricing policy Microsoft maintains is unfairly 
exploiting the consumer by ultimately charging them substantially 
more. This pricing scheme is ultimately putting small distributors 
and independent businessmen and women out of business. Quite 
frankly, they cannot compete with name brand products because of the 
outrageous prices they are forced to pay for the same operating 
systems and applications, being purchased by channel distribution in 
the same volume as name brand companies.
    If anyone has been paying attention, they would have realized 
that many independent computer resellers have had no choice but to 
close their doors this year because they cannot compete. Even in bid 
situations, where the federal and state governments, are supposed to 
show favor to the "small, minority owned, disadvantaged 
business," these very people cannot fairly compete because of 
the inflated prices they must pay for Microsoft operating systems 
and applications.
    I say to you that these monopolistic behaviors on the part of 
Microsoft have a ripple effect through out the entire industry. As a 
result, the backbone of the American economy, the small businessman, 
is being destroyed. It is hard to fathom the DOT not opening their 
eyes and seeing reality.
    I find it equally hard to understand that, under normal 
circumstances, when a company manufacturers a product, they are in 
liable and responsible for it's support. However, Microsoft totally 
avoids this responsibility. Instead, they force the hardware 
manufacturer to do this for them. For example, if I own a computer 
(and I do) and have problems with the operating system, why is it I 
am forced to get support from my hardware vendor? My hardware vendor 
did not make the operating system. They are responsible for the 
hardware. In stead, if I must turn to Microsoft, who has the 
tenacity to call me a customer, for technical support they will 
promptly ask me for a credit card number before I can even speak to 
a technician. This is Microsoft's standard operating procedure. It 
is yet another example of them taking advantage of their monopoly 
status and the consumer being hurt by it. Microsoft is set up to 
collect money and little else.
    On top of that, Microsoft's paranoid history is one of wreckage. 
Any company that ever developed a product that Microsoft saw as a 
real or imagined threat, that company was either swallowed or put 
out of business. Microsoft used their monopoly leverage and lack of 
competition in the operating environment arena to destroy the 
problem. Untold product innovations have been destroyed before they 
were even imagined. Untold fortunes were never realized and an 
untold number of high paying, rewarding jobs for the American 
economy were never realized. Consumers and technical innovation have 
again been compromised by monopolistic behavior.
    This Department of Justice and John Ashcroft should be ashamed 
of themselves. The bottom line is this whole fiasco will return to 
federal court a few years down the road. It will make this 
administration look primitive and out of touch with today's business 
and legal climate. It is clear that this administration's DOJ is 
clearly in over it's head with respect to subject matter of 
information technology.
    Respectfully,
    Rich Schaefer
    Brick, New Jersey

MTC-39



MTC-00000040

From: bradrichardson @mac.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 12:14pm
Subject: Remedies inadequate
    As a worker in the technology industry, I am disappointed in the 
proposed remedies in the Microsoft case. Microsoft will not cease 
it's anti-competitive behavior voluntarily, and is continuing to 
enter markets with inferior products, using it's dominant market

[[Page 23661]]

position to eliminate competition in those markets (see the current 
PDA wars). When Internet Explorer was introduced, it was very 
inferior to the current market leader (Netscape Navigator). 
Microsoft then proceeded to give their product away (Can anyone say 
"predatory pricing"?) with the sole goal of eliminating 
Netscape so they can dictate how the internet is used. If they end 
up owning 95% of the browser market, as they do the desktop market 
now, they can ignore internet standards and become a standard unto 
themselves (which is already happening). Also, the one competing 
consumer platform, the Apple Macintosh Operating System, is said to 
only survive due to Microsoft Office being developed for that 
platform. In short, Microsoft is no longer concerned about 
competing, nor just profit, but control. The company should be 
broken up into at least two separate companies, with Explorer being 
stripped out of the OS and put into the hands of the Applications 
group. Yes, Judge Jackson's ruling was a good remedy. If anything 
less punitive occurs, Microsoft will continue laughing all the way 
to the bank. What the Justice Department is trying to settle for is 
an inadequate and ignorant solution.
    Brad Richardson
    Medford, Oregon

MTC-40



MTC-00000041

From: Patrick Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 12:15pm
Subject: Monopoly settlement decision
    Having read what was available about the settlement that has 
been suggested for the monopoly lawsuit against Microsoft I feel 
that this settlement is a highly inadequate solution and will prove 
to be ineffectual in it's stated aims, namely forcing Microsoft into 
a more level playing field with it's competitors and allowing 
consumers a broader range of options in the software market. I can 
only hope that the arrangement will be modified as a result of some 
of the states and the E.U. continuing to press for further 
restrictions and modifications to the Microsoft corporation's 
predatory business practices.
    Thanks,
    Patrick Williams

MTC-41



MTC-00000042

From: Ken Wolfe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 12:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    To Whomever This May Concern:
    The settlement proposed by the Federal Goverment will not help 
protect consumers. The agreement is impotent, and it is not in the 
public's best interest. It contains nothing that will actually alter 
Microsoft's predatory practices, or improve the economy in any way. 
The only thing that will stop Microsoft from behaving the way it 
does is a breakup, or some de-valuing of the Windows operating 
system.
    Best Regards,
    Ken Wolfe

MTC-42



MTC-00000043

From: John Carter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 12:17pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The Justice Dep't caved in the Microsoft settlement. Microsoft 
will continue its anticompetitive behavior until future abuses force 
the matter to be addressed once again.
    John Carter
    Nashville, Tenn.

MTC-43



MTC-00000044

From: Bryan Fazekas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 12:19pm
Subject: settlement is a joke
    After years of effort and millions of dollars expended, it's 
pretty clear that Bill Gates and Co finally figured out who to 
bribe. This "settlement" is a travesty of justice. I 
hope the remaining 9 states are able to push through a real penalty.
    Bryan Fazekas
_winemaker8 1 @yahoo.com
_ http://home.nc.rr.com/winemaker81/

MTC-44



MTC-00000045

From: Jimmy Hilley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 12:26pm
Subject: Public Comment
    This settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft is a total sham. 
You will never get an ounce of respect from this consumer ever 
again. Since when does anyone get to negotiate after being found 
guilty? THE CONSUMER GOT SCREWED! Justice in America, what a joke!

MTC-45



MTC-00000046

From: Joe Gerkman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 12:29pm
Subject: comment re: proposed microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs/Madams:
    Unfortunately, I would have to say as an IT professional with 
over 11 years of experience in the industry, that the results you've 
come up with really won't do anything to curb Microsoft's horrible 
and bullying business tactics and equally will do nothing to help us 
as consumers. They will continue to push their way through the 
Technology industry and leave unsuspecting consumers, and other 
software developers "in their wake". They care nothing 
for the consumer (except as far as their own pocketbook is 
concerned), and even less for other software developers, who 
incidently typically produce software of a higher quality and more 
stable, but who also typically get run-over' by Microsoft either 
directly or indirectly (through their agreements with computer 
vendors). As it is, if I want to buy a personal computer from Dell 
or Gateway without Microsoft Windows on it and have something like 
Linux on it, I can't ... as a consumer, that makes me quite angry. 
And after a few minutes with the computer vendor on the phone, I 
find out that Microsoft gets money for each and every system 
regardless of whether or not Windows/Office is on the machine, and 
that's why they can't ship it to me with Linux. That sort of 
situation is RIDICULOUS!!! I can't even get a computer with Windows 
2000 and Office 2000 anymore ... 1 must buy Windows XP ... and I 
don't like it! Thanks for "helping" us out as consumers, 
and in the IT/Computer industry (please note the sarcasm).
    I was hopeful that you would've come up with an settlement which 
could help avoid some of this, but unfortunately, it would appear 
that Microsoft has yet again gotten their way, and others are left 
to deal with the aftermath. If this was the result, you should've 
given up the case years ago and not wasted our valuable tax dollars 
on it.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph M. Gerkman
    Seattle, WA
    206-935-2800 (home)

MTC-46



MTC-00000047

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft
    You've let us down. We trusted you to act in the best interest 
of the American people and you, instead, act in the best interests 
of the criminals. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
    Ed Sawicki

MTC-47



MTC-00000048

From: Doug Lewis
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov'
Date: 11/16/01 12:31pm
Subject: Microsoft penalties
    Thanks a lot for giving a convicted monopolist pretty much 
everything they wanted after you already won the case. If the 
Justice Department really thinks it's imposed penalties that will 
stop Microsoft's monopolistic behavior, then it needs to hire some 
people that are more in the know with the technology industry. If 
the Justice Department wanted to protect Microsoft, since it's such 
an "innovator", they should know better than to take 
advice from the marketing department of the company they're 
prosecuting. I'm very dissapointed at how poorly the Justice 
Department has handled this affair. As a consumer, and an American, 
I feel really cheated.
    P.S. I am hoping that there was no political motivation behind 
the handling of penalties. Whether or not the anti trust laws are an 
appropriate blockade to Microsoft's activites is for a judge to 
decide. Anybody working for the prosecution in this case who 
deliberately chose to pursue weaker remedies because they felt 
"no business should be hassled by the government" ought 
to be fired for not doing their job.

MTC-48



MTC-00000049

From: William Clouse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 12:35pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    The proposed settlement looks to me like nothing more than 
window dressing. The

[[Page 23662]]

whole problem with Micorsoft is that the is no real alternative to 
using their operating system. They have a true monolopy on the 
operating system used by nearly all cionsumer PC's. The only 
alternatives have extremely limited software availablilty. The only 
solution I see to the problem is to force MS to make the Windows X86 
code an open standard so other companies may begin making operating 
systems that will be able to run software written for Windows. Until 
that happens the entire computer industry, as well as the consumer, 
will continue to be held hostage by Microsoft.

MTC-49



MTC-00000050

From: Brian H. Jensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 12:36pm
Subject: Comment
    Hello,
    Wow, I guess you still can buy government officials. Just out of 
curiosity how much did it cost Microsoft to buy you folks off?
    Brian 'disgusted by the DOJ" Jensen

MTC-50



MTC-00000051

From: Helga Kocurek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Deal
    I am very disappointed in the DOJ, it was bought by big money 
instead of pursuing the best for the consumer.

MTC-51



MTC-00000052

From: David Phan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    This is hardly a slap on Micrasoft's hand. It will not prevent 
Microsoft from illegally kill its competition by using its monopoly. 
In fact, it will encourage them to do it even more, knowing that 
they could get away with it.
    I am extremely disappointed in the outcome of the case. It shows 
once again the people with money are treated differently in the 
court of law. We might as well take that blindfold off of the 
Justice symbol.
    Your fellow citizen.

MTC-52



MTC-00000053

From: Helga Kocurek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 4:22pm
Subject: Bad Idea
    How could you?

MTC-53



MTC-00000054

From: MoserRJ
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft
    This suit is not supported by 75-80% of computer users. 
The entire suit is being pushed by Microsoft's competitors and the 
State AGs where these competitors reside. The Judge should accept 
the settlement and drop the remaining States suit. This would be a 
boon to our present economy. Any lengthening of the trial will only 
drag the Tech economy still lower. Let AOL, Novell, Sun, et al, 
fight the war with their products and not in the Courts.
    MoserRJ

MTC-54



MTC-00000055

From: C Pyrros
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 4:31pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Justice Department,
    I am deeply concerned about the settlement being proposed with 
Microsoft in the anti-trust matter. I do not believe the current 
settlement is sufficient to ensure a healthy, open, competitive 
environment in the future. I have been working in the personal 
computer industry since 1985, and observed Microsoft's ruthless 
behavior first-hand.
    In the late 80s and early 90s, there were several choices in 
desktop operating systems (DOS, OS/2, Windows, Macintosh), several 
choices in word processing software (WordStar, WordPerfect, Word), 
several choices in Internet Browsers (Mosaic, Navigator), and so on. 
As Microsoft gained market share, they unfairly used that influence 
to eliminate competition. Since Microsoft has so many revenue 
streams, they did, and still do, offer(ed) certain products at a 
total loss, for the sole purpose of eliminating their competition. 
There bullying tactics have sent chills through the entire IT 
industry, and still exert a profound effect.
    What happened to the other word processors? What happened to the 
other desktop operating systems? What happened to the other Internet 
browsers? In each case, Microsoft had the inferior product, yet 
somehow prevailed: WordPerfect was the better word processor, OS/2 
the better operating system, Navigator the better browser, Novell 
the better file server; yet a combination of good marketing (quite 
legal), behind-the-scenes bullying (illegal), and unfairly written 
contracts (also illegal) gave Microsoft the unfair advantage.
    When the free-market system operates correctly, price/
performance tends to drive the better and more economical products 
to the top. This clearly did not happen anywhere that Microsoft was 
involved. The Intemet-WWW browser market is a key example. The WWW 
specification was specifically designed to be completely platform 
independent: any server operating system, any client operating 
system, and any browser software could be used, completely 
transparent to the end user. Due to Microsoft's bullying, this is no 
longer the case: Microsoft's products create web pages that only 
function properly with Microsoft's browser. Due to Microsoft's 
market share, and the dominance of the IE browser, it has now become 
very difficult for users of other browsers and operating systems 
(for example, Linux users) to complain to web site owners that the 
Microsoft-ified web site won't function with their Linux-based web 
browser. The (Linux, OS/2, Nextstep, etc) user then has no choice 
but to use the Microsoft browser, on a Microsoft-supported operating 
system, if they want to use the Micro soft-ified web site.
    Microsoft's rejection of the de-facto Sun Java standard leads to 
a new version of Microsoft's browser (Internet Explorer 6) that does 
not support Java, further compounding compatibility problems in the 
WWW space. Only a company as large as Microsoft can exert the weight 
necessary to incapacitate and open standard, and they appear to be 
succeeding.
    I could also write pages on the billions of dollars in cost 
increases that the corporate world, and end users, have suffered due 
to incompetent Microsoft software. In thousands of cases, companies 
and individuals were forced to use the Microsoft product, despite 
its inferiority, due to unfair market practices. In the long run, 
these companies and users suffered a tremendous economic impact 
trying to use products that were not yet ready for public use.
    As for the future, Microsoft is already behaving questionably in 
regard to the upcoming Tablet PC market. Articles on this matter can 
be found a www.wired.com that express the problem.
    In order to ensure a competitive environment in the future I 
would propose the following:
    That Microsoft be separated into the following divisions:
    Operating Systems (Windows 98, ME, XP, 2000, etc)
    Internet Products (Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, etc)
    Application Products (Office, Word, Excel, Access, etc)
    Infrastructure Products (SQL Server, Mail, Outlook, etc)
    I would also propose that Microsoft be forced to open portions 
of the Microsoft operating systems specifications, so that other 
application developers could enjoy that benefits that Microsoft 
applications have had for over a decade. Further protections would 
be necessary to prevent collusion between the different formerly-
Microsoft companies after the separation.
    My knowledge of this problem is not unique by any means, but 
please permit me if may to humbly express my background: I have been 
working in the IT industry since 1985, consulting to small clients 
as well as Fortune 500 customers, on issues including network 
design, the Internet, security, infrastructure, servers, and 
personal computers. I have been certified under respective programs 
by IBM, Microsoft, and Novell. I appreciate your time and 
consideration in this matter. If I can be of any assistance, please 
do not hesitate to contact me.
    Sincerely yours,
    C Pyrros, CLSE, MCP 2000, MCSE 3.51, CNE 5.0, MCNE 5.0
    POB 14175
    Chicago IL 60614
    773 645-7475

MTC-55



MTC-00000057

From: Ken Dunn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 4:33pm

[[Page 23663]]

Subject: Settlement.
    This settlement is still too much to impose on a private 
enterprise. This whole suit never should have been filed. Microsoft 
is not a monopoly. There are several alternatives including linux, 
OS/2, Solaris for X86, Dr.DOS (yes, it does still exist despite 
claims to the contrary by the prosecution), PC-DOS (I just 
bought the 2000 version from IBM last month). This suit wrongfully 
damaged the global economy to an extent that it may not recover for 
5-8 years. As an independent software developer I (as well as 
most others in my field) rely and depend on various operating system 
features and functions to be available in a given version of an 
operating system. Microsoft has provided these functions and 
regularly upgrades them through service packs and Internet Browser 
upgrades (this is an important example of code reuse where commonly 
used routines are used by multiple applications and sometimes the OS 
itself, a point not understood by the so-called experts that 
testified in this kangaroo court proceeding). Almost all third party 
applications that use tcp-ip networking rely on pieces of the IE 
Browser and require a minimum version of that Browser in order to 
function correctly. I have many customers who use Netscape as their 
Browser of choice, but have realized performance and stability 
improvements by keeping the JE Browser up to date. If IE had not 
been "bundled' with the OS it would have cost most third party 
developers so much as to make continued support impractical and 
therefore truly reduce software competition and choice for 
consumers. Where was the DOJ when SUN controlled the workstation 
market so totally that even IBM didn't even try to compete? Where 
was DOJ when SUN was gouging the market for 4-10 times what a 
competitve product would have cost, especially when a huge number of 
these workstations were being paid for by the taxpayers for use by 
the government and government contractors? The only true justice 
would be if Microsoft was declared not to be a monopoly and those 
responsible for starting this whole antitrust action to be jailed 
for crimes against the United States and crimes against the global 
economy.
    A very dissatisfied customer of the DOJ, which is a true 
monopoly.

MTC-57



MTC-00000058

From: MikeAfromTX @aol.com@ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 4:34pm
Subject: (no subject)
    Gentlemen:
    I have been using PC's since 1977 and since the debut of the MS 
operating systems with the advent of the IBM PC MicroSoft has 
consistently tried to force (and has almost succeeded) all other 
operating systems out of business. They do this by incorporating 
packages into the OS (currently varying versions of 
"Windows")that are usually sold as stand-alone, by using 
their marketing power to force the authors of most software to write 
only for MS-based systems, and by forcing PC dealers to put only 
their (MS) products on PC's if they wish to continue doing business 
with MS. restriciting any changes to the product the dealers and/or 
customers might wish.
    The MS products are over-hyped and have a history of failing 
when released, the most notable example being "Windows 
95", which was usually not installable when first released, 
and required special downloads adding to the cost of the product. 
Additionally, they never really complete one product and eliminate 
the bugs in it, prefering instead to leave users with junk while 
they go on to the "new, improved" next edition of the 
product, always at increasing cost.
    The oft-stated resolution is to by another product if you do not 
like "Windows"; what product would that be that runs the 
software that is so prevalent in the industry? Linux is mostly a 
server platform and Unix as so unfriendly to users so is restricted 
to scientists and engineers. The only other package would be the 
Apple Operating System, and that requires a specific computer and 
package that at a minimum is twice as expensive as a standard PC 
with software.
    The roll-over by the Republican party to the big campaign 
contributor Bill Gates and MS is no solution at all; merely a wink, 
a nod and a "Gee, you really should be more careful!" 
kind of warning. At the very least MS should be forced to sell only 
a striped down version of its OS, minus any enhancement that is 
currently being sold as stand-alone; better yet would be to break 
the company into two independant segments, with Bill Gates 
prohibited from any dealings/ownership/stock in one of them.
    If this is not possible then the OS should be treated as a 
monopoly in the interest of the nation and tightly controlled as 
public utilities used to be before greed got the better of this 
nation.
    I realize the government will probably bury this response, but 
it sure would be nice if for once it acted for the good of the 
people instead of a corporation or political party; it would also be 
nice if the judge in the case had a chance to see it before it is 
shredded. In any case, I am sure you will not mind if I forward a 
copy to various industry publications.
    Thank you for your time.
    Mike Adams
    1302 Arcadia Avenue
    Austin TX 78757

MTC-58



MTC-00000059

From: Ralph Ewig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 4:36pm
Subject: comments on proposed settlement
    Dear DOJ officer,
    I am writing to express my concerns and severe dissatisfaction 
regarding the proposed settlement in the anti-trust case brought 
against Microsoft. The settlement has practically no punitive 
measures for past misconduct, or remedies to repair damage caused to 
consumers because of past microsoft misconduct. It is ridiculous 
that MS is to keep all the benefits of the actions it took, even 
though they have been legally identified as conflicting with 
existing laws. If I were to rob a bank, would I get to keep the 
money, with the judge telling me "don't do that again", 
and assigning my best pal to make sure I follow that advise??
    The proposed oversight committee to enforce prevention of future 
transgressions is a farce. Being on MS payroll, and with MS having 
significant influence on who will be part of the committee, I have 
zero confidence in the comittee's effectiveness or motivations.
    MS practice of pushing its products based on the companies 
superior capabilities in the manipulation of intellectual property 
laws, rather than technical innovation or economic value, has 
continously hampered innovation, harmed consumers, and suppressed 
any kind of competition from taking hold. The remedies *must* 
include full, and unconditional, disclosure of all windows API's to 
the general public, and only a breakup of the company that separates 
the OS division from the application division will be able to 
enforce this behaviour (out of economic neccessity if the OS part of 
the company intends to stay in business).
    Especially with recent events in mind, this country cannot 
afford to project the appearance that the DOJ is nothing more than a 
pawn of corporate america, where Lady Justice is anything but blind 
to enough political clout or economic influence.
    Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully,
    Ralph Ewig

MTC-59



MTC-00000060

From: Ned Wolpert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 4:36pm
Subject: Comments about the antitrust case against Microsoft
    Folks_
    I saw that one could mail here comments about the antitrust 
settlement. Here are mine. I'm both a consumer of electronic goods, 
and a programmer.
    The anti-trust settlement that was presented to the judge did 
not go far enough. Microsoft needs not just a watchdog around them, 
they need clear rules (without exceptions or time limits) to limit 
their ability to for anti-competitive marketing. This includes:
_Allow computer mfg the ability to put multiple OS on the 
computers they make, with NO penatilites from MS. (Ever)
_Allow computer mfg to customize a MS-Windows installed PC any 
way they want, with NO penalties from MS. (Ever)
    These are the two most important items that Microsoft should 
never challenge. The reason is simple: Microsoft only wants 
Microsoft tools on their systems. Computer mfg are more likely to 
listen to the buying public on what they want. MS isn't. So, if a 
computer mfg wants to put a dual-boot Windows/Linux with Opera for 
the web browser together, MS should not be able to dictate 
otherwise. No financial penalties should be levied by MS to the 
computer mfg.
    Far too many times has MS abused its position against other 
companies. (Stacker is one case that pops to mind, but I'm sure you 
folks have your list) As a developer, I'm tired of MS bullying 
people around their platform. As a consumer, I'm tired of not having 
choice

[[Page 23664]]

in the market. Regardless of the lies that MS says, they do not 
innovate. They do provide a service, but its not innovation. They 
take other ideas and re-work them, extending them with proprietary 
API's so no one else can hook into their service. (Such as Kerbose 
for security. They got all the benefits from the free software, but 
them made enough (1) small changes so that other kerbose systems 
were incompatible with their NT servers.) They did that with IMAP 
(MAPI), SMTP, SNMP, etc. They tried to do that with Java. (C# 
was the result of failing at taking over Java) They have caused much 
in the software world to not progress. Yet they continue to market 
their innovative ability.
    DOJ, please, you've got to help. MS abuses their position 
constantly. The settlement needs to be on the side of the consumer, 
one that can react quickly to when MS messes up. Help the other 
companies in being able to deploy their software, rather than having 
MS have a lock on the major computer mfgs.
    Thank you.
    Virtually,
    Ned Wolpert
    [email protected]

MTC-60



MTC-00000061

From: Ted McLaughlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 4:41pm
Subject: Concerns regarding Microsoft settlement
    I think that the currently proposed settlement is pathetically 
weak. I think the this administration is caving in to Microsoft in a 
desperate hope that it will somehow get the economy going again. 
They are sacrificing justice and long term security for all in the 
computer industry (except those who work for Microsoft) in hopes 
that somehow this will get the economy back on it's feet. Microsoft 
has a long history of violating every agreement that they have made, 
not just with the DOJ but with computer manufacturers and 
competitors in the software development arena. Many an extinct 
company has rued the day that they entered into an agreement with 
Microsoft only to have the company come out later with either it's 
own version of the software, or with it bundled into the operating 
system.
    I think that the quote from Bill Gates says it best: 
(Microsoft's chairman, Bill Gates, on Thursday defended the 
settlement as tough but one that "we're really pleased to 
have.") [pulled from CNN's website]. Microsoft wants this 
settlement so bad it isn't funny. They will be classifying 
everything as anti-piracy or security to keep it private, and then 
when they absolutely can't fight it any longer, they will drag their 
feet in disclosing the information so that it is obsolete by the 
time it is released. Microsoft's history in destroying it's 
competitors is well know. I know of Java developers now who are 
looking to transition to Microsoft's new development program for the 
sole reason that Microsoft has dropped Java. They think that is the 
Kiss of Death for Sun and that there is no reason now to keep 
working on Java. This is but one example of how this industry is 
cowering in fear of Microsoft and how every company dreads the day 
that Microsoft comes out with a product that competes with their 
own.
    The current agreement will do nothing to save Sun, nor will it 
help save any of the other companies who are in a losing battle with 
Microsoft. I also think that it is sad that the government is 
completely ignoring Microsoft's handling of it's Passport product. 
That should have been one of the things built into this agreement is 
something to place constraints on Microsoft's ownership of a great 
deal of private information. Windows XP was the biggest blow 
personal privacy on the internet since Microsoft got it's first 
T-l line to the internet. Another sad development is the state 
of the server market. Microsoft has already won the desktop war and 
is using that monopoly to kill off any competition that it has on 
the server side of things. Novell, Sun, and others are barely 
holding on due to the license agreements that Microsoft is putting 
in place to guarantee that if you use Windows and Office on the 
desktop, that you will use Windows as your server as well. Too much 
critical information is being placed on these servers to trust 
Microsofts horrendous track record when it comes to security, 
quality, and new licensing agreements to trust them with a monopoly 
of the server market as well.
    It is kind of funny, but also kind of scary, when any computer 
magazine quotes someone in the computer industry who has anything 
bad to say about Microsoft how they always want to be anonymous. 
When a network administrator at a utility company says he wants to 
be anonymous for fear of getting Microsoft upset that says a great 
deal about how out of control that company is. Many of us Network 
Administrators were cheering for the DOJ when this trial started. We 
had hoped that the sanctions would be severe enough to keep at least 
some of us from having to become Network Administrators on Windows 
XP networks. None of us want to work on Microsoft networks because 
they are flat out inferior to the competitions products, however we 
are all smart enough to read the writing on the wall and realize 
that Microsoft will soon own this market as well and we will have no 
choice but to either work on XP servers, or get into a new career 
field. Now we are all shaking our heads and are sorry that we got 
our hopes up. That is why I am so upset about how poorly the 
government has handled this settlement.
    If you need to reach me for more comments feel free.
    Theodore McLaughlin
    Network and Email Administrator for 13 years.
    7212 Dupont Ave N
    Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
    [email protected]_work
    [email protected]_home

MTC-61



MTC-00000062

From: Mike Haight
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 4:42pm
Subject: Antitrust settlement.
    To whom this may concern at the ever changing U. S. Department 
of Justice,
    I am disappointed with the outcome of this trial. It solves 
nothing. Microsoft will go about doing business in the same manner 
that they always have. Throw little innovative companies out of 
their way by including their own version with the operating system. 
Their version, when first introduced is always a watered down, less 
capable version. But, most people are lazy, they do not want to 
down-load and install. However, I'm not. I want choice. I want the 
best program out there. This entire thing has soured me on computers 
and also this system that is commonly called justice'. Here you have 
a clear monopoly, declared this by two levels of the federal courts, 
with a wrist slap. Do any of you actually think they will abide by 
these latest remedies when they have ignored them before? Had they 
been 'taken to task' then, we would still have multiple 
browsers to choose from. I have read the "Proposed Final 
Judgment" in its entirety. For every remedy, there is a fine 
print loophole that Microsoft can use to do nothing. This 
"Proposed Final Judgment" is a travesty.
    Where do these remedies address to problem of Microsoft forcing 
us to buy a version of their operating system when we purchase a 
computer? When I purchase a computer, I am buying hardware. I will 
choose what operating system meets my needs best. I do not want it 
forced on me. Do you people actually think that Microsoft Windows is 
the best that the human species is capable of? If not, how can this 
better one even have the slightest chance of 'getting its head 
above water for air' with a system of forced purchase of the 
other guys product in place. And now, what about media players and 
image processors? These two things have been bundled with the latest 
Microsoft operating system et.al.'. How many more little companies, 
you know the ones that actually take the risk 
in_first_developing this software, are going to die 
off because 'Johnny come lately' Microsoft is now 
bundling lesser copies of their work with an operating system'. 
Microsoft is only using these people as developers and marketing so 
later they can leverage them right out of existence by bundling to 
an 'operating system' declared as an monopoly.
    I know the computer industry has fallen upon hard times, but 
this does not change the law. Microsoft was in violation of the 
Sherman antitrust act. From where I sit, you have done nothing to 
stop them. You will not even slow them down.
    Regards,
    Michael Haight (903) 868-7342 [email protected]
    CC: Michael Haight at airmail.net

MTC-62



MTC-00000063

From: bray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:32pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    The proposed settlement below is unacceptable as a solution to 
past monopolistic practices by Microsoft. "Not long after the 
DOJ settlement, Microsoft announced it had agreed to another 
settlement regarding a separate class-action suit brought against 
the company by numerous parties that alleged overpricing of

[[Page 23665]]

Microsoft products. The settlement forces Microsoft to donate 
software, hardware, and services to America's poorest schools.
    This type of settlement would simply introduce Microsoft to a 
market where they could further extend their monopoly. A better 
solution would be for Microsoft to pay a specific amount of money to 
each of these poor school districts to be used for non-microsoft 
products only, such as computer hardware. Then a company such as 
RedHat or Apple could donate software for these systems or part of 
the Microsoft fine could be used to purchase this software.
    Allowing Microsoft or any company to donate their own product as 
part of a fine or punishment is akin to the drug dealer giving away 
the first few highs to get his clients hooked!!

MTC-63



MTC-00000064

From: Mark A Siedlecki
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Sirs/Madam,
    It is beyond my imagination that you decided not to break-up the 
worst monopoly in the history of our country. History has shown us 
monopolies only stifle innovation. Microsoft is no different! This 
was not done for the good of the American citizen, but must have 
been done to assist Big Business, once again.
    Shame on you'
    Sincerely yours,
    Mark A. Siedlecki
    President
    InsideWorld Corporation
    The Forum 1, 8601 Six Forks Road, Suite 400
    Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 USA
    Telephone: +1-919 866-1200
    Facsimile: +1-9 19 866-1210
    email [email protected]
    Check out our company websites
    www.InsideWorld.com
     
Free Email News, from around the World, on a Country specific basis
    www.InsideCountries.com Country Directory Site on a Country 
specific basis
    www.InsideTravel.com Discount Travel Site
    www.InsideDirect.com Travelers Health Insurance Service
    www.InsideWeather.com Worldwide Weather Service
    www.InsideGalaxy.com Free Community Website
    www.InsideGreetings.com P-Greeting Card Service on a 
Country specific basis
    This electronic message contains information from the 
Administrative department at InsideWorld Corporation, is intended 
only for the use of the addressee, and may contain information, 
which is PRIVILEGED or CONFIDENTIAL material. If you are not the 
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination 
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received 
this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message 
and its attachments and notify us immediately. Thank you.
    Telephone +1-919 866-1200 Facsimile +1-919 
866-1210
    Email [email protected]

MTC-64



MTC-00000065

From: Rogers (038)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 4:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am disappointed by the terms of the Department's proposed 
settlement with Microsoft, which I believe to be excessively lenient 
to Microsoft and not in the best interests of the public. The 
settlement does too little to restore competition to an industry 
dominated and abused by Microsoft's exploitation of its monopoly in 
operating-system software. Under the settlement Microsoft can 
continue to use its inside access to its operating-system technology 
and its monopoly market power to suppress competition by other 
companies.
    During the last presidential election it was reported that 
Microsoft and its employees made substantial financial contributions 
to the Republican presidential campaign. It was then speculated by 
the press that Microsoft believed that by doing so it would receive 
lenient treatment from the Department of Justice if George Bush won 
the presidency.
    It now appears that the money donated by Microsoft and its 
employees to the Republican Party was money well spent. While the 
donations are not likely to be provable criminal bribery, the 
donations certainly show that money can buy (the Department of) 
"Justice."
    Ronald L. Miller

MTC-65



MTC-00000066

From: Charles South
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 4:53 pm
Subject: Opinion on the US vs Microsoft Settlement
    [Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It 
has been converted to attachment.]
    I understand you are seeking feedback on the proposed Dept of 
Justice settlement with Microsoft at this address. I don't know what 
purpose that could have at this late date, but since you asked...
    I believe the Department of Justice has made a mistake in 
settling this case. The points of law were clear_ Microsoft 
misused its monopoly position in the industry to illegally stifle 
competition and attempt to control the market. Further, they did 
this over a period of years in a repetitive way in spite of a 
previous court judgement that went against them for doing this very 
thing. Their strategy has been clear from the beginning ... they 
regard themselves as the controlling force in the market and will 
ruthlessly suppress or drive out of business anyone they choose in 
order to achieve their ends of continuous growth. Any market they 
focus on tends to suffer as competition withdraws in the face of the 
onslaught.
    Further, the consumer is hurt by this tactic as competition 
(which controls prices in a free market) withers. Innovation is 
stifled because no true competitor is allowed to exist once 
Microsoft targets a market. The consumer is presented with an 
increasingly Microsoft-only solution when it comes to buying or 
configuring a personal computer. This is not a good thing.
    The Department of Justice had Microsoft cornered, finally, after 
years of pursuit and the expenditure of large sums of money. The 
evidence had been gathered, legal prosecution had been pursued in 
the courts, and Microsoft weighed as guilty on multiple counts ... 
senous violations all. The judgements were upheld at each level of 
appeal. The Government had won. I was stunned when I heard that the 
decision had been made to drop the attempt to split Microsoft into 
two parts and instead drop back to a light slap on the wrist with a 
few minor economic sanctions and controls.
    I believe this_Microsoft absolutely must be separated into 
two companies. It is the only solution that will remove the threat 
from the computer world we now have. I have no problem with 
Microsoft as a company that creates and sells operating systems. I 
also have no difficulty with Microsoft as a company that sells the 
dominant desktop productivity products in the world. But the 
coalition of the two is a poison trap for the American 
economy_because Microsoft uses their productivity products as 
the leverage to keep their customers in line and away from the 
competition in the operating system arena. Why doesn't Microsoft 
Office exist on the Linux desktop systems? It's because Microsoft 
knows it would undermine their sales of operating systems to big 
companies, some of whom would love to move off of Windows. So they 
carefully steer clear of offering Office on Linux and retain a 
stranglehold on desktop systems.
    I am not a Linux fan, but I absolutely want such products to 
flourish in the United States or else we will fail to make the 
progress we need to in the computer world, or worse_other 
nations will take the lead we once firmly had in this industry and 
leave us behind with our doddering Windows systems as they move on 
to better and more efficient systems. Microsoft must not be allowed 
to be the single innovator left in this country because, like all 
large companies, they are neither agile enough nor creative enough 
once they reach that size to retain those traits. I am also not a 
Microsoft hater. I do in fact love Excel, and I can tolerate Windows 
though it is not my favorite operating system. Visual Basic is a 
good product. Powerpoint is adequate, and though I don't 
particularly care for Word, I will grant that it works well enough 
for those that can master it. What I don't like is the fact that 
most of the products Microsoft makes are items constructed in such a 
way as to sell more and more of them ... and worse, they are 
constantly entertwined in such a way that you have to get all of 
them whether you want them or not. Microsoft candidly admits that 
their software licensing mechanisms are changing recently solely so 
they can extract more money from their customers, and not because 
there is any impression of value received for that money. Microsoft 
has lost

[[Page 23666]]

their way in that regard, and in a free market they would be avoided 
by some, and fall to a 2nd or 3rd choice by others. But in today's 
computer world you have no choice_you have to go with 
Microsoft because of their monopoly position.
    I do not believe any of the settlement clauses which have been 
discussed as the fallback position of the US Government will have 
any effect. Microsoft has been down that road before and been shown 
to ignore such constraints when they are imposed. I do not believe 
it will be any different this time. They will bide their time, stay 
below the radar for a couple of years and then quietly continue 
their march to overwhelm anyone who seems to be a competitor. Having 
spent this effort uselessly twice already, I don't see the 
Government trying once again in 2006 to resurrect this dead horse, 
and at that point Microsoft will have their full victory and walk 
away laughing.
    Only by having diversity and competition in the US computer 
industry can we hope to stay in our leadership role in this rapidly 
changing and evolving world. It is good to have multiple sources for 
innovation, and it is good to keep the marketeers out of the 
leadership role in such fast-moving industries. This will not happen 
with an intact Microsoft. You had the solution; you had them where 
you wanted them; and you had right on your side. You stayed your 
hand for the wrong reasons_which I believe turned out to be 
political expediency because of the new administration, and changed 
priorities in the Department of Justice. But in doing this political 
turnabout you betrayed the American people, whose fate was entrusted 
to you by our Constitution. The legal system was the only lever 
which could have made a difference and changed the course of the 
future. I sincerely regret that you failed to have the courage and 
the foresight not to see how urgent and how critical your role was.
    My dwindling hope lies with the few States that appear willing 
to continue to push this case, but the chance of their achieving 
anything other than monetary concessions is impossibly remote. Only 
the Government could have taken the admittedly drastic step of 
dividing Microsoft in two. That option is now over, for all 
practical purposes. I have watched the computer industry grow from 
the time I was a college student in the 60's and first fell in love 
with computers. I watched IBM's excesses in the 60's and 70's as 
their arrogance drove all before them, similar to Microsoft, and I 
watched as they later lost their stranglehold on this industry in 
the 80's as new technologies overcame their ability to adapt. And I 
watched Digital Equipment Company as they soared to the top of the 
industry in the 80's, losing their way as they failed to understand 
the critical importance of personal computers. And I saw the rise of 
Microsoft during the 80's and 90's, leading to the same type of 
arrogance IBM used to show 4 decades ago. The difference is 
this_Microsoft has a stranglehold not only on American 
businesses but also on the American consumer. Their fingers reach 
deep into all levels of the world economy for individuals and 
companies and governments. IBM never had that reach. Microsoft is so 
entrenched in the way computing is done that inertia alone will keep 
them there for at least a decade even if they stumble badly in their 
direction. That is "forever" in the computer world, 
where 5 years is a generation. It is critical that their decisions 
be made in the face of competition, and not by a monopoly posture in 
an industry they believe they own. Good luck with whatever you will 
do with this issue. I am disappointed and disillusioned that the 
Government chose to yield the winning hand as they did, and seems 
not to understand what they have done or what they have lost. I hope 
my point of view is more gloomy than necessary, and that events will 
work out for the best for America. However, I have built my career 
on being right about technical trends. If I had to bet on someone, 
I'd bet on me ... not on you.
    Charles South
    Chief Architect, Information Technology
    HRL Laboratories
    Malibu CA

MTC-66



MTC-00000067

From: Drew Wallen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 4:55pm
Subject: Proposed settlement is inadequate
    I am an independant computer consultant and advanced PC user. I 
have been following the Microsoft antitrust case for years and have 
been hoping for a decisive result which will protect me and my 
clients from MS's well-known predatory business practices and 
attitudes.
    The least I was hoping for was a breakup of the monopoly into 3 
companies: Operating Systems; Applications; and Games. With perhaps 
another company for internet and/or wireless functions. The joke is 
that in the short run Gates et al would scream about the breakup, 
but it would improve the competitive environment. In the long run, 
the rich would get even richer, as has happened with the ATT breakup 
where people who held their "baby bells" would have done 
wonderfully.
    I know you will get millions of messages, pro and con, so I 
won't run on. However you decide, I have vowed to wean my clients 
away from MS products and get them into Linux and Apple (of course, 
MS owns a huge stake in Apple as well).
    Microsoft free by 2003!!!
    I want to run them out of business altogether.
    Drew Wallen
    St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands

MTC-67



MTC-00000068

From: West Tennessee Print
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 5:02pm
Subject: Ruling opinion
First, I am not a microsoft basher they have done some good and some 
very bad things to the computer industry. I, as many others have to 
use Microsoft's products. Microsoft insists that they integrate 
things into Windows to help the user. I believe that they integrate 
to help Windows maintain its dominance. The perfect example is what 
they have done with their new version of Internet explorer. How does 
not offering Java or QuickTime support Help users? It doesn't it 
FORCES people to use Windows Media player and Active x.
    So, the effect of that is, if you want people to have access to 
your web page you MUST use microsoft programming tools. Does this 
help Business? What about Microsoft's New version of MSN blocking 
all but internet Explorer users, does this help users?
    The thing that the Justice Department should be worried about is 
.NET and Passport.
    Here's why:
    1. you must use windows because their are few real competitors 
that are brave enough to take microsoft head on for the desktop 
computer market
    2. people use Internet Explorer because it is integrated into 
windows
3. when using windows & internet explorer the computer urges 
people to setup a passport account and they finally give in
4. millions of peoples personal and credit information is now 
sitting on Microsoft's servers
5. by holding such valuable information microsoft has painted a 
giant bulls eye on its self for hackers to try and hit
6. Microsoft's history with computer security is dismal, how times a 
month are they issuing patches to fix security holes in Microsoft's 
IIS which runs the servers containing peoples information
7. the bottom line is that millions of peoples lives can be harmed 
by Microsoft's software and practices if microsoft is not limited in 
some way What is Antitrust Law For? PROTECTING & HELPING PEOPLE!
How does it control microsoft for them to make its windows code 
available to developers so they can build better programs for the 
monopoly? It actually helps microsoft because they get more stable 
programs to run on windows and it dose not address the problem of 
WHY Windows is running on over 97% of computers WORLD WIDE.
    It may not matter but its my opinion.
    AM

MTC-68



MTC-00000069

From: Jamie McGloin-King
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 5:04pm
Subject: The current proposed settlement does not protect me from 
Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly power.
    The Justice Department has failed me, my community, and the 
business I work for.
    This settlement is barely a slap on the wrist. How does this 
punish Microsoft in a manner commensurate with their crimes against 
the businesses and the citizens of America?
    Microsoft must be forced to sell a product without a built-in 
browser or any of their other built-in, insidious, low-quality 
products. Microsoft must be prevented from bullying PC 
manufacturers. Microsoft must be humbled, punished, and have its 
power reduced.
    Additionally, Microsoft should pay huge fines for its crimes. 
Where is that in the settlement?

[[Page 23667]]

    Now, Microsoft is trying to bribe the nine states that, 
correctly, don't agree that your settlement is fair or effective. 
Microsoft is offering them money in exchange for signing up to your 
settlement. This stinks, if you'll pardon my language. It stinks of 
back-room deals and a Justice Department that would rather be 
incarcerating minorities than safeguarding the right to a free and 
fair market. Where are the conservatives? It seems like the Justice 
Department is being run by folks with some radical ideas about why 
they should not enforce the laws of this nation and the rulings of 
its judges. That, in my opinion, is not justice. Please change your 
stance and craft a more punitive settlement. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Jamie McGloin-King
    Director of Partner Support
    www.prosperpoint.com
    (831) 429-1231 x102

MTC-69



MTC-00000070

From: Don Steiny
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 5:05pm
Subject: I am against the settlement
    Renate Hesse
    Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    I am disturbed that the Department of Justice is unwilling to 
enforce the antitrust laws. It seems that the DOJ simply does not 
understand the technical issues involved or the degree that 
Microsoft is damaging the US economy. I would be happy to spend time 
describing this to you. I teach operating system theory at 
University of California and San Jose State University. The 
settlement is wrong.
    -Don

MTC-70



MTC-00000071

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 5:13pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust settlement
    Dear sirs:
    I respectfully would like to tell you that the settlement you 
have arranged with Microsoft IS BAD!
    "Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates on Thursday defended the 
settlement as tough but one that "we're really pleased to 
have." Nine other states led by California, Iowa and 
Connecticut rejected it and will ask U.S. District Judge Colleen 
Kollar-Kotelly to impose tougher penalties during hearings next 
year."
    This statement from today's AP news say it all. Can the DOJ 
honestly say the settlement is one that "we're really pleased 
to have."? I don't think so. You just think that it is all you 
can get without taking it through the courts, where you know you 
would end up getting much more. Then why is Bill Gates saying it?
    "The department promised in its 1995 settlement that it 
would "end Microsoft's unlawful practices that restrain trade 
and perpetuate its monopoly power." Yet as Sporkin rejected 
it, he complained that, "simply telling a defendant to go 
forth and sin no more does little or nothing to address the unfair 
advantage it has already gained."
    This statement from the AP also sums it up. Microsoft is NOT 
repentant. They have been screwing small companies since before 1995 
and still continue to do so. They have no interest in competition 
for the public good and will continue any other noncompetitive way 
to wield their monopoly to gain market share in any area possible. 
All the current settlement does is tell them to go and sin no more. 
If they had actually been penalized the first time, they might not 
have sinned again ... and again ... and again. By not penalizing 
them now, you are telling them that they can do anything they want, 
knowing that the worst that will happen is that they won't be 
allowed to do it anymore.
    How can you think about all the companies that Microsoft has 
forced under by including similar software in Windows at "no 
extra cost", and say that this settlement is fair and that 
Microsoft should not be punished. Don't fool yourselves, this 
settlement is only a slap on the wrist to Microsoft and DOES NOT 
PUNISH THEM AT ALL.
    The only way to punish Microsoft and to be sure that they cannot 
do this again is to break them into two companies: Operating System 
and Application Software. They used their OS monopoly to create 
software against which no other company could compete, e.g., MS 
Office, Internet Explorer, Disk Scan, Disk Defragmenter, etc...
    This settlement is only in the best interests of Microsoft, not 
the public, and should not be pursued.
    Andrew L. Miller
    PC Solutions

MTC-71



MTC-00000072

From: Harry Reisenleiter
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov'
Date: 11/16/01 5:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not agree with the current settlement in this case. 
Microsoft is an abusive monopoly whose anticompetitive behavior has 
been ongoing, consistent, and damaging to consumers and to the 
market place.
    History is littered with products that Microsoft Microsoft 
continues to bundle products for no other reason than to destroy 
competing products. And they leverage their dominance of the desktop 
to the fullest.
    They continue to cite "consumer demand" for their 
bundling actions, but I defy you to find one legitimate study of 
consumers that would indicate a requirement, or even desire for 
Microsoft's actions. Certainly I doubt seriously that there would be 
justification for many of the "features" in the 
Corporate environment.
    I have been in the computer business for over 20 years and have 
dealt with all the largest computer companies. None have exhibited 
the disrespect for security, stability, or features that Microsoft 
has demonstrated_for years. None have so clearly leveraged 
their product with the destruction of competition as the aim. None 
have so distorted the English Language ("innovation" 
comes to mind), either.
    Please do not fold on the issues. Microsoft earned strict, 
severe and lasting punishment for their actions. They are a 
monopoly; they are anti-competitive; and they show absolutely no 
signs of changing.
    Thank you,
    Harry Reisenleiter
    [email protected]
    [email protected]

MTC-72



MTC-00000073

From: Madden, Ken
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov'
Date: 11/16/01 5:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Solutions
    Greetings.
    I just wanted to write to say that I agree with the current US 
GovernmentlDOJ solution-set to the Microsoft Antitrust allegations.
    As a Network Administrator in a mid-sized company (US-owned), I 
feel that it is Microsoft's right to innovate their product with the 
addition of browsers and add-ons and like programs_built into 
the OS. Even Microsoft's competitors wish to be able to innovate 
their products without government intervention.
    Each of the companies that instigated the DOJ investigation and 
suit had the opportunity and the will in the past to be 
monopolies_Novell was a virtual monopoly in the NOS market, 
Netscape was a Monopoly in the browser market. Each lost market 
share due to poor market positioning_Novell insisted that it 
be deployed and maintained by expensive Novell_trained 
engineers, Netscape was too unstable to be a pleasing browser 
experience. The computing consumer has benefited immensely from the 
easy availability of Microsoft networking and Internet Explorer 
stability.
    The question remains, however; Was Microsoft engaged in 
practices that were 'beyond the pale' in their agreements with 
other companies? That answer is clearly 'Yes' and therefore 
sanctions should clearly be brought against Microsoft for their 
behavior in this regard. However, splitting up the company and a 
forced-reveal of the crown jewels of their business_their 
source code_is also clearly beyond the mandate of proper 
sanctions for these actions.
    Computing in the world has clearly benefited by having a world 
software leader, who is at the least benevolent, and at most 
paranoid. Sometimes leaders need to be brought back into line, but 
they don't necessarily need to be deposed.
    Ken Madden
    Network Administrator
    VECO Canada (Engineering) Ltd

MTC-73



MTC-00000074

From: Joel Inguisrud
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft punishment
    Dear DOJ,
    Your settlement with Microsoft does not punish Microsoft in any 
meaningful way. Regardless of the enforceability of 
"behavioral changes" spelled out in the settlement, the 
fact remains that Microsoft is getting off scot-free for decades of 
criminal

[[Page 23668]]

behavior. Your settlement lets Microsoft executives behave in public 
as if they never did anything wrong. Your settlement is an insult to 
the hundreds of thousands of hard-working, creative computer 
industry workers who's lives have been and continue to be diminished 
by Microsoft's bullying.
    Please punish Microsoft as severely as they have illegally 
punished everyone who has tried to compete with them for the past 
twenty years_by levying billions of dollars in fines (to be 
distributed to university and national laboratory computer science 
research and development departments) and banning all public 
advertising and marketing of Microsoft products for ten years.
    This settlement is ten years late for the countless operating 
system, word processor, spreadsheet, presentation, email, media 
player, 3D API, programming tool, and web browser software 
developers out there, but if you instituted real punishment 
sufficient to cause Bill Gates and Steve Balimer to be forced to 
resign, at least the playing field would be level for the few of us 
who are left standing.
    Sincerely,
    Joel Ingulsrud
    [email protected]
    +1(916) 944-8434

MTC-74



MTC-00000075

From: Abdul Jabbar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 5:32pm
Subject: Pepsi vs Coke
    Please, don't forget the lame argument of Mr. Gates that it 
would be unfair to ask Pepsi to ship a pack of Coke with every pack 
of Pepsi. This argument is wrong because Pepsi (Microsoft) has the 
control (monopoly) over the truck (Windows) that takes Pepsi and 
Coke to the store. If the truck (Windows) would not carry Coke, 
consumers would have no way of getting it.
    http://inbox.excite.com

MTC-75



MTC-00000076

From: Don Marsh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 5:37pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I do not agree with the terms of your settlement with Microsoft. 
This company entered into an agreement with Justice in 1995 and 
immediately broke it. This has caused great expense to the 
taxpayers.
    Microsoft does not innovate and develop new ideas in application 
software. They simply steal their ideas from other software 
developers and add it to their operating systems and force OEM's to 
exclude the competing software.
    Microsoft will, in my opinion, find a way around the limiations 
in your agreement with them and continue business as usual. In the 
future how many software developers will want to spend a lot of time 
and money to develop new software technology only to have Microsoft 
steal their ideas and put them out of business?
    Because of their tactics, we will never know what the PC 
computing experience might have been. Microsoft writes unreliable 
and insecure software, but because of their monopoly, hard-working, 
more talented software developers were railroaded right out of the 
business and never had a chance. Just imagine if we had an operating 
system that didn't crash every time you turned around. We will never 
know now and that is sad.
    Sincerely,
    Donald Marsh

MTC-76



MTC-00000077

From:
To:
Date:
Subject: arrangement.
mike potter
Microsoft ATR
11/16/01 5:37pm
    this proposed settlement is clearly not a judicial settlement 
but a political backroom this proposed settlement is clearly not a 
judicial settlement but a political backroom arrangement. I see 
nothing in it that stops ms from continuing to exercise its 
monopolistic powers. There is nothing in it that penalizes ms for 
what it has done and finally there is nothing in it for the 
consumer. At the very least you could have made ms fix its previous 
OS before they try to lock down the next 10 years by forcing people 
to buy XP. to put it bluntly you have ignored your duties to the 
point that if you didn't have the "big stick" protection 
you would be legally on the stick for your performance i.e you took 
their money but you didn't protect the people
    Mike Potter
    Hamilton, Canada

MTC-77



MTC-00000078

From: Meir Levi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlemnt_Consumer input.
Ranet Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
US Department of Justice
601 D. Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    This is in response to Justice Department solicitation for input 
to the settlement with MS.
    MS is a company of which it was found GUILTY of violating the 
federal law. Courts have already determined that Windows OS is a 
monopoly. Now you are talking about Settlement?, and defending the 
decision to so?. Please, show me where else the Federal Government 
"settled with law breakers about their punishment. MS Broke 
the law now it has to be convicted and pay the price. Period.
    Windows OS have reached this level of market share through 
outright illegal, and unfair business practices. For past two 
decades, MS ripped us, the consumers of our hard earned money, and 
still continues to do so. In my view, DOJ is completely on the wrong 
track in dealing with MS.
    Having "three representatives watch MS business 
practices" is like having your dog to guard the meat. I do not 
wish to see my tax dollars are wasted on bogus government oversight 
on a company which its executives stick their thump up everybody's 
nose.
    Any fair settlement which serves consumers interest, should 
allow competition in the marketplace for the OS.. Therefore, Windows 
entire code MUST be accessible to other competitors to such a degree 
where they can CLONE it to run all existing windows based 
application and middleware programs, un-impeded by bogus copy right 
laws. Where, these competitors can also bundle any middleware S/W 
with their Operating Systems, just as much as MS does today. Had IBM 
had such an access to these codes in the past, their 0S2 Operating 
System would have been today just as successful as Windows. Please, 
don't believe to MS and their supporters FUD (Fear Uncertainties, 
Doubt) about the "nightmare" and "confusion" 
from which it may result in multiple OS's. In every industry, all 
competitors form a committees to set interface standard.
    It is true with the lightbulb, automobile tires, and million and 
millions of other products. There is no reason where competitors in 
the OS as well can't do the same.
    I object to the provision of this settlement with Microsoft.
    Thanks
    Meir Levi
    13126 Anza Drive

MTC-78



MTC-00000079

From: Chuck Dresback
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 5:41pm
Subject: COMMENTS
    I have been building PC's for several years and I own a 
Macintosh computer
    Microsoft has been selling defective operating system software 
to the public for at least eight years. Their systems consistently 
freeze and crash. When the public gets fed up they come out with a 
new system with more defects than the last and they charge lots of 
money for it. Their marketing department blames their software 
problems on third party software which is false.
    They get away with it because they have on competition in the OS 
arena and the settlement does nothing to address this key point. 
Macintosh systems and LInux, which are superior systems to Windows, 
don't crash but they have effectively eliminated those platforms by 
coercing the third party software publishers into not writing for 
it. The most popular flight simulator program, Microsoft Flight 
Simulator, isn't published for any platform other than Windows. BTW, 
it crashes for no reason at the worst time.
    There new OS. Windows XP, is set up to steal information off the 
user's hard drive for their use.
    These guys are crooks and because of the money they have paid to 
buy off the Congressmen it will be impossible to stop their 
relentless pursuit to control not only the computer field but also 
almost every product we will be using in the future, from air 
conditioners to vcr's and any other electronic device.
    In 13 years that I have owned Macintosh's, I reformatted the 
hard drive once. In 2000, I reformatted the PC hard drive seven 
times because of their crappy software.

[[Page 23669]]

    They should be required to share their source code and THEY 
SHOULD BE FINED AND REQUIRED TO REBATE MONEY TO THE PUBLIC AND THE 
GOVERNMENT FOR THiS ABOMINABLE BEHAVIOUR.
    Charles Dresback
    15755 Laura Lane
    Brookfield, WI 53005
    262-781-4774

MTC-79



MTC-00000080

From: david.massey @us.pwcglobaLcom@ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust settlement
    I still cannot see how the agreement reached with Microsoft 
addresses their illegal gains, nor how it can seriously prevent such 
a determined vioator (who still denies that it has committed wrong, 
even after the appeals ruling!) from continuing it's illegal 
behavior. Further, they continue to use their monopoly in the OS to 
force monopolies in other areas of computing.
    This is as if there was 1 mall in town (the internet) and all 
stores have to be in that mall, and the owner of the mall makes 
everyone enter the store through his own shop_and actively 
tries to deter customers from continuing into the mall!
    This settlement is bad for the people, bad for the economy, bad 
for a competitive environment, and bad for justice. [I don't know 
how you could get out of it, but you should certainly try.] David 
Massey

MTC-80



MTC-00000081

From: Joseph Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 5:57pm
Subject: Opposed to Terms of Settlement
    The evidence of monopoly pricing by Microsoft is plainly seen at 
any store that sells Windows XP. The Professional edition costs 
199.00 and the home about 99.00 and that is just for upgrade. Add 
$100.00 to that if it is a new purchase.
    Windows XP is simply an operating system and should sell for no 
more than $50.00 for a brand new copy if that much. But since they 
are the only game in town if you want your software to be compatible 
then you get to pay their price.
    The settlement does nothing to address pricing of MS monopoly 
products.
    Oh and if you want to run MS Office be prepared to empty your 
entire wallet. Their new activation technology could only be done by 
a monopolist, no one would subject themselves to it otherwise. Oh, 
and another point. The fact that Bill Gates is happy with this 
settlement should be all the evidence needed to know it does not do 
enough.
    Is there really anybody who does not work for Microsoft (or is 
an MS Shareholder) who thinks this is a good settlement? I think 
not.
    Joseph Wood
    Systems Engineer
    Corel Corporation

MTC-81



MTC-00000082

From: Maarten Legene
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 6:02pm
Subject: just order Microsoft to do three things.
    The antitrust issue is basically about two questions:
    1. What should be in an operating system and what shouldn't?
    2. If it should be in an operating system, where should it be in 
there?
    Ad 1.
    Internet Browsers, E-mail handlers, Word Processors, Image 
manipulators, Speech recognizers are no part of an operating system. 
These are applications.
    The OS is the necessary software between applications and the 
hardware. No less, no more.
    So in reverse: if it's an application, it's not a (part of an) 
operating system.
    Ad 2.
    Printerdrivers should be stored and found in a folder: 
printerdrivers
    Videodrivers should be stored and found in a folder: 
videodrivers
    fonts should be stored and found in a folder: fonts
    etc etc etc.
    Windows hides almost everything in places nobody can reach. The 
structure of Windows is violating free enterprise.
    So the anti trust regulations should be:
    A. Order Microsoft go offer Windows as an OS only, and define 
the OS as mentioned above.
    B. Order to create a Microsoft OS company and a Microsoft 
applications company, with a Chinese Wall between those two.
    C. Order the OS company to restructure its OS in a way that it 
will show a clear structure for everyone, including non-microsoft 
application software creators.
    Best regards / Maarten Legene
    (product and business developer)

MTC-82



MTC-00000083

From: Troy Gann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 6:09pm
Subject: What are you doing???
    To whom it may concern,
    As an American citizen and consumer I wish the government would 
stop being so lame and actually do something against Microsoft. You 
did nothing to protect me as a consumer or a citizen. Bill Gates 
must be having a huge laugh at our government and how inept our 
Department of Justice is. But then again no wonder our last election 
was the laughing stock of the entire world. The DOJ should have 
gotten some serious remedies done against Microsoft instead I can 
now look forward to having even more stuff crammed down my throat by 
Microsoft because they can now essentially get away with anything 
they want to do to Window. Where did anyone (consumers) get anything 
out of this? This was the biggest chicken sh-- out I have ever seen 
our government do. This is not going to help the economy and now 
Microsoft can put more products into thier operating system and 
screw other companies over. To bad we can not vote for the lawyers 
who work for the government I don't think any of them would get re-
elected.
    Then again who knows how many government officials (Congressmen, 
Senators and Judges) that Microsoft quietly gave money to or other 
gifts in order to get off so leniently. This was not American 
justice at it's finest. They broke the law and you barely slapped 
thier wrists. Somewhere at Microsoft headquarters they are having a 
huge party and laughing at you.
    A very disenfranchised consumer

MTC-83



MTC-00000084

From: [email protected] @ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 6:09pm
Subject: settlement doesn't do enough
    I believe Ralph Nader and James Love's open letter (http://
www.cptech.org/at/ms/rnjl2ko1larkotellynov501.html) does a good job 
of expressing my concerns about the settlement reached with 
Microsoft.
    I especially believe that any settlement must free consumers 
from being required to use Microsoft software. To this end, I 
believe that Microsoft's proprietary protocols and file formats 
(i.e. the .doc format used by Word, and other office software file 
formats, as well as protocols such as SMB/CIFS). Consumers currently 
must either use Microsoft's office suite or products with, by far, 
inferior support for the .doc file format in order to view documents 
that the vast majority of computer users currently create. This has 
been going on long enough that Microsoft has practically eradicated 
all other office suites formerly available for the Windows operating 
system. See also Andrew Tridgell's concerns that the settlement will 
allow Microsoft to continue withholding information about the SMB/
CIES protocol (http://linuxtoday.comlnewsstory.php3?ltsn=200 
1-11 -06-005-20-OP-MS).
    The restrictions set on what Microsoft can require OEM vendors 
to do or not do is a step in the right direction but not near 
enough, especially now that there are very few companies in a 
position to take advantage of these changes. This may have worked 
well several years ago, but I doubt that it would be very effective 
today.
    I urge you to take Mr. Nader and Mr. Love's comments, as well as 
the concerns I have expressed above seriously when reviewing the 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    David B. van Balen

MTC-84



MTC-00000085

From: Paul Fox, Ph.D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 6:12pm
Subject: Settlement with Microsoft
11/16/01 
    Dear Sir or Madam: I believe that the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft is extremely biased in favor of Microsoft.
    1. It does not punish Microsoft for their demonstrably illegal, 
anti-competitive behavior. Since when do we simply ask convicted 
criminals to not do it again? Let the punishment suit the crime, no 
more no less.

[[Page 23670]]

    2. It does not adequately protect the consumer or competing 
companies from repeated anti-competitive behavior by Microsoft. Even 
my own untrained eye (with respect to legal issues) found gaping 
loopholes in the agreement. I remember Microsoft squeezing through 
much smaller loopholes when they last settled with the government.
    We deserve much better from our Justice Department.
    Paul Fox
    Paul L. Fox, Ph.D.
    Associate Staff
    Department of Cell Biology/NC1O
    The Lerner Research Institute
    Cleveland Clinic Foundation
    9500 Euclid Avenue
    Cleveland, OH 44195
    216-444-8053 (Tel.)
    216-444-9404 (Fax)
    [email protected] (E-mail)

MTC-85



MTC-00000086

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 6:25pm
Subject: (no subject)
    Unless you are willing to go against AOL, Oracle, 
Sunmicrosystems, etc, etc, etc, you should push for everyone to go 
along with the settlement, especially the State of California who 
are probably being bought by Oracle, Sunmicrosystems, AOL, etc., 
etc....Get real.

MTC-86



MTC-00000087

From: that Jer guy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 6:26pm
Subject: MS breakup required
    The current penalties for Microsoft will not bring them to 
justice. There are more than enough vagaries and loopholes to allow 
them to continue stifling competition and growing their monopoly. 
The only way to successfully prevent the company from continuing in 
its stifling monopoly of the market is to break up the company.
    However, "horizontal" breakup into an OS company and 
an applications company will not help. It should be broken up into 
two or three companies "vertically", i.e. companies that 
have both OS and applications elements. These companies can later 
choose whether it is better business to focus on one of those areas, 
but more competition is needed both in the OS market and the 
applications market, in addition to the growing-together of OSes and 
applications which a horizontal breakup would address.
    Jeremy Faludi
    Stanford University

MTC-87



MTC-00000088

From: Thomas S
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:34pm
Subject: Remedy Case
    As an IT professional I need choices to satisfy my work daily. 
MS has proven that they are in direct violation of Anti-trust laws 
governing the denying the consume fo such choice by their use of 
strong arm tactics and backdoor meetings. I strongly urgeyou to not 
allow them acess to public schools in one case and to strongly 
reprimand them in the other. This is for the good of business and 
the IT community.
    Regards,
    L. Thomas Solet

MTC-88



MTC-00000089

From: Daniel Verbarg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust suit
    I may not know all the details of the settlement, but I think 
this is just another slap on the wrist for Microsoft. I do know in 
the settlement that the school systems do not have to use Microsoft 
products.
    Basically this settlement is a payoff for Microsoft. Microsoft 
is getting a few things out of this. One of the groups that is suing 
them is now off of their back, Microsoft gets to look good by 
"donating" money to poor school systems, they have an 
opportunity to take over another area of software that they are not 
the market leaders (school systems), and they proceed as normal in 
their business practices. I am not saying MS should be split up, but 
I'm not against that either. They treat OEM's and even consumers 
like crap. Just look at the new licensing agreements. These new 
licensing agreements are just a slap in the face of all them people 
settling their cases against MS.
    Please do something that could get more consumer choice in the 
OS and app market.
    Thanks,
    Dan Verbarg
    Systems Admistrator
    PS_Don't you think all the virus problems are enough 
evidence that there needs to be more choice and competition?

MTC-89



MTC-00000090

From: Don Rogers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 10:31am
Subject: MS AntiTrust Settlement
    Dear Dept of Justice,
    I am writing to register my opinion regarding the recent 
settlement that has been proposed for the MicroSoft Anti-Trust case.
    I think that it is a joke to be handing Microsoft an foot in the 
door of our schools as "punishment" for their anti-
competitive practices. This will be more of a reward, as is will 
increase exposure to MS software to future computer users.
    Please don't do this,
    Don Rogers
    City of Redding, Electric Dept.
    drogers @ci.redding.ca.us

MTC-90



MTC-00000091

From: Bill Scott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 6:32pm
Subject: penalties
    When Standard Oil was found guilty of being a monopoly, it was 
broken up into several companies, so that they would compete against 
each other. Why isn't this being done to Microsoft? It's been found 
to be a monopoly, why isn't the same penalty being enforced?
    Bill Scott

MTC-91



MTC-00000092

From: Steve Amos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Comments
    To the DOJ,
    I am not an employee, nor a competitor of Microsoft. I have no 
interest in software other than as a consumer. The following is my 
comments regarding the settlement with Microsoft. Do believe 
Microsoft should be penalized for their behavior. The agreement 
should include Microsoft being regulated by the FTC (Federal Trade 
Commission). This would be the proper agency to enforce penalties.
    Do not want Microsoft broken up. This never made sense legally. 
Do want Microsoft Operating Systems to allow easy installation of 
competitor products. Before releasing new or revised operating 
system, require Microsoft to release copies of new software 60 days 
prior to release to other software companies to test compatibility 
with their products. Microsoft will have to make the operating 
system compatible or ?dll? conflict free. This will keep a level 
laying field. Microsoft Office, Net and Future products also need a 
level field with interacting products. A similar 60 day industry 
pre-release needs to be part of the settlement.
    Next require Microsoft to adopt suggested retail pricing, and 
let the market price their products. This system has worked for 
automobiles and other technology. The competition will drive down 
prices for consumers. A fine would be appropriate to cover the 
expense of the court case. However I am against excessive fees. They 
drive down stock prices and set unreasonable standards for civil 
judgments. $5 million as a fine would be excessive in my judgment.
    This concludes my comments about penalties for Microsoft. I 
appreciate your taking the public comment into consideration. If any 
of these comments are unclear, please email me at 
[email protected] or call 949-380-1250.
    Thank you,
    Steve Amos
    Address below
    Digital Alarms, Access Control, Security Cameras, Networks & 
Phones Stop the Slime with Eye Crime.?
    Steve Amos
    President
    Eye Crime Pro
    24041-G Hollyoak
    Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
    949-380-1250
    Pager 949-470-5057

MTC-92



MTC-00000093

From: Bobowski, Eamon
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov'
Date: 11/16/01 6:33pm
Subject: The Settlement Doesn't Address Market Dumping

[[Page 23671]]

    Dear Department of Justice, You obviously don't have a clue as 
to how the high-tech marketplace works if you think that the 
proposed settlement will eliminate Microsoft's illegal practices, 
prevent recurrence of the same or similar practices and restore the 
competitive threat" the company faces from rivals.
    I will leave the detailed arguments to people better versed in 
these types of legal discussions, but as someone who works in the 
industry I can assure you that I for one don't believe that this 
settlement is an effective remedy. The long and the short of it is 
this: Without the leverage of the Windows operating system, many if 
not most of Microsoft's inferior freestanding products would have 
long since failed, and the honest companies creating competing 
products would actually be able to sell their products at a profit 
and continue the cycle of investment and invention.
    Instead, you have a never-ending cycle of small start-up 
companies who take their products to market and are systematically 
squashed by free products from Microsoft. This 1) discourages 
innovation and entrepreneurialism, 2) discourages venture capital 
investment, 3) concentrates wealth and power rather than distributes 
it, 4) discourages economic expansion and 5) winnows the ranks of 
companies who can go into the global marketplace and help bring 
foreign dollars back home.
    This is market dumping! The Japanese did it to us in the late 
70's & 80's and America raised holy hell. Microsoft does it to 
us in the late 90's & 00's and America turns it's back on us. I 
think the real problem here is that the justice department fails to 
recognize the similarities between VCRs, cars and software. Telling 
Microsoft that it has to allow other companies to put their free 
software on the desktop, does not address that the software should 
not have to be free to compete with Microsoft in the first place.
    Hire some people who understand how the world really works.
    Eamon Bobowski
    American Taxpayer

MTC-93



MTC-00000094

From: Joe Pontecorvo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 6:44pm
Subject: Lets get this behind us
    Lets get this behind us. From what I have read, the agreement 
sounds fair all around. The ones that are still making a big noise, 
and will continue to do so, are those people associated with 
Microsoft competitors.
    Yes, there are competitors. They would like to see Microsoft put 
out of business or crippled so bad that they could sell their 
products without any major Microsoft competition and maybe become 
king of the hill. I am not a Microsoft employee or associated with 
the company in any way. I am a user of Microsoft products, as are a 
great number of people who are making all the anti Microsoft noise.
    There are other choices out there for those that want to use 
them. Lets close this chapter and get on with more important 
business. I am a taxpayer and don't want to see anymore tax money 
spent on this.
    Joe

MTC-94



MTC-00000095

From: Richard Brubaker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 6:50pm
Subject: I am a consumer
    I am a consumer and came across this address while reading news 
on my email (on the free Outlook Express that came with Windows 
98..)
    It mentioned "The Justice Department also set up an e-mail 
address where consumers and companies may send their comments about 
the antitrust settlement. The address is 
"[email protected]" and will operate for 60 
days."
    My opinion is that this whole trial was brought about do to 
"PAC money" from competing companies of Microsoft. And, 
it's conclusion by the current judge is a blessing and the way 
it should be handled... BUT it should have never gotten to this 
point in my opinion... I feel that those companies that PUSHED so 
hard to see Microsoft punished should be financially responsible for 
the litigation expenses rather than the American Taxpayers and 
Consumers.

MTC-95



MTC-00000096

From:
To:
Date:
Subject: american peopi
Andrew Schuster
Microsoft ATR
11/16/01 6:53pm
    Thank you for coming go an agreement. This is the best thing for 
the economy and the american people in general. Perhaps some 
punishment would have been in order, but I think if you just keep in 
eye on them it will be fine.

MTC-96



MTC-00000097

From: Mike Kolitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 6:58pm
Subject: The settlement is good for this country
    DOJ, Microsoft, Judge Kollar-Kotelly and others, I have read the 
settlement, and have come to my own conclusion that this is a fair 
and just settlement. Personally, I don't believe that Microsoft ever 
deserved any of this, but as the Appeals court did find that they 
illegally maintained a monopoly, then so be it. Let me explain 
briefly why I believe this settlement to be adequate.
    It punishes Microsoft by restricting the contractual agreements 
that it can enter with OEMs, effectively ending that method of 
monopolizing the market.
    *It was agreed upon by both the DOJ and Microsoft, which 
would indicate that Microsoft would happily follow these guidelines, 
and is fully intent on doing so.
    *Microsoft realizes that it's reputation has been 
tarnished. Reputation is very important business, and Microsoft 
realizes that it has a lot of "making up" to do if it 
wants to win that reputation back.
    *This settlement, by requiring Microsoft to release 
technical details about it's Windows desktop and server operating 
systems, as well as Microsoft Middleware, will restore competition 
in the marketplace by balancing the technical playing field.
    I personally feel that Microsoft has always produced higher-
quality software than it's competition as a result of talent, not 
abuse of power, and the restrictions placed upon Microsoft by this 
settlement will allow Microsoft to do just that, while punishing 
them fairly and justly for the times where they did "cross the 
line."
    Please consider this in your findings.
    Thank you.
    Mike Kolitz
    Madison, Wisconsin

MTC-97



MTC-00000098

From: Dennis McClain-Furmanski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 7:02pm
Subject: Too early?
    I think the settlement came too early. I know of at least two 
products which, according to their tech support people, require' 
Internet Explorer to operate. These are Dragon Naturally Speaking (a 
speech-to-typing program) and Adaptec Easy CD Creater. The fact is 
these program may rely on some DLLs installed when IE is installed, 
but they certainly do not require, or even necessarily use IE in 
their operation.
    I suspect this insistance that IE is a "requirement" 
indicates collusion.

MTC-98



MTC-00000099

From: Iain MacAnTsaoir
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 7:04pm
Subject: the penalties against Microsoft
    It is just my opinion, but my opinion is one that I must 
express. ...
    If we wonder just how it is that computer technology has come so 
far in such a short period of time, then we need only look so far as 
Microsoft. Have they been ruthless in conducting their business? 
Yes. But that ruthlessness has allowed for there to be universal 
standards which have produced conformities that alone have propelled 
the development of this technology. We can all be certain that 
without Microsofts approach we would be years behind where we are 
now. It seems to me that penalizing a company for doing business, in 
a calculated and efficient way, is not only contrary to the American 
dream, but is also contrary to what American business 
needs_these days especially. If you want to halt rapid 
progress, and/or, if you want to set American business and the 
economy back, then do proceed. Its not like the debacle of the Bell 
break up is non-sequitor here.
    John Wright

MTC-99



MTC-00000100

From: Eric Murray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 7:17pm
Subject: Anti-trust Settlement
    The current settlement does not really protect the consumors or 
the competitors from the shark named Microsoft. It's Xbox

[[Page 23672]]

and Windows XP continues to destroy the ability of the other 
companies to make any profit, since they continue to add 
functionality to the system and dominate the technology area.
    Eric Murray

MTC-100



MTC-00000101

From: dixon hamby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 7:23pm
Subject: microsoft
    Your judgement against microsoft was WAY to lenient. Their 
history of abusing their operating system position is atrocious. The 
settlement is a joke. They should be broken up and fined.
    thank you
    dixon hamby
    http://www.idixon.coml

MTC-101



MTC-00000102

From: Charles B. Hoffman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 7:35pm
Subject: Since when is it illegal to make money in the United 
States? If you don't like Microsoft products d
    Since when is it illegal to make money in the United States? If 
you don't like Microsoft products don't buy them! It is as simple as 
that! I am embarrassed that my government would waste my money 
prosecuting the American Dream. IF the product didn't work or was to 
expensive, no one would buy it!
    It must be a pretty good company, Huh! Find something important 
to do like prosecuting illegal aliens.

MTC-102



MTC-00000103

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 7:35pm
Subject: "Settlement with Microsoft"!! HAH!
    This a farce!! Microsoft has hurt so many people put out so much 
crap and computer soft ware that only marginally works because they 
dominate the market. This is not fair nor right.
    They need to be censured by the bigger "bully." My 
Win 98 was rushed to the market and used to crash constantly, It's 
better now but still not reliab;le. I call it crash trash!!!
    Their Hotmail system is so full of holes that I get trash and 
Spain all the time and I only used it to one person. I was getting 
the trash Spain before that.
    Someone used Hotmail to put the Trojan Horse virus on my 
computer via my AOL account.
    I screamed at Hotmail and they told me that after a visual 
inspection of that account's activity, that they would cancel it 
because they were surfing looking for passwords!!!
    And it took manual intervention to do this!! The world's 
"premier" software company had to manually do this!!
    Hotmail was free and anybody could get it with absolutely no 
verification of critical personal data. I asked them how they could 
be so irresponsible to allow such terrorist activity!!!
    Break them up!!!!! Sanction them!!! Fine them billions!!!
    Teach the bastards a lesson.
    They also do things like this constanmtly: put out a cheap 
imitation product, at low or no cost, run the competition out of 
business and then dominate.
    They are too dominant and need to be taught a lesson!!
    Nick Schrier
    Box 60104 Sacramento CA 95860

MTC-103



MTC-00000104

From: Mike Barrington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 7:38pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    Microsoft has been tried and convicted of leveraging it's OS 
monopoly.
    This ruling was affirmed by the second highest court in the 
land.
    With this settlement, the government has given MS a free reign 
to leverage it's monopoly to the internet.
    It saddens me to see our judicial system made a mockery by the 
all mighty dollar.

MTC-104



MTC-00000105

From: Debra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 7:38pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    I believe that the appeals court has been very wise in the 
microsoft case. I am a consumer of microsoft products.I believe that 
business must be allowed to grow and profit in America to keep free 
interprise alive. I do feel that Microsoft was restrictive in 
sharing their knowledge and that the threat of a Monopoly was a 
concern.I believe that consumers and business's benefit when 
companys have the right to develop products and prosper from that 
development.
    I realize that software is the product many companys have to 
offer and that when a large corporation like Microsoft has the 
technology to prevent the copying of their products it would benefit 
other companys if Microsoft would sell them that technology. The 
question I pose is should a company be forced to sell their secrets?
    Perhaps the real issue is how long a company may keep new 
technology to themselves before they must sell/share that 
technology?. The Drug companies have a system that seems to work to 
keep the cost of making drugs affordable.
    Thanks for listening,
    A Consumer
    Debra Cook
    JCCATTLE @PRODIGY.NET

MTC-105



MTC-00000106

From: Bill Binkley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 7:39pm
Subject: MicroSoft
    To whom ever can help!
    Important points:
    FIRST ... consider how MicroSoft, (MS) gets market share for 
products.
    There was products for word processing and MS did not have a 
product. At that point in time Word Perfect was the premium word 
processing software. MS came out with MsWord which was not as good 
and gave it away. Most people opted for the free Ms Word even though 
it was not as good and thereby MsWord gained market share. NOW MS 
gets several hundred dollars for these products. In current 
environment you have to have MS's word processor on your system. The 
same thing is true for MS's spread sheet software, Excel, and for 
the Internet Explorer, (IE) browser being incorporated as part of 
the OS. Without the Windows OS monopoly these things could not have 
been possible. Competition is great but should be on an even playing 
field.
    SECOND ... MS is taunted for being innovative. When IBM designed 
the first PC they thought that the market place for a PC was in the 
100's of thousands. Therefore they did not want to design an OS. 
Gates and crew purchased the DOS from a company for less than 
$100,000.00 for use by IBM for the PC. Later MS incorporated the 
Graphics interface from Apple. With this Windows OS monopoly they 
have and are still forcing PC users to use their products because of 
the uneven competition.
    THIRD ... The browser war is the most recent example of the 
arrogance of MS. There is absolutely no reason that IE should be 
part of the Window's OS. The Windows OS is still unstable and 
incorporating the IE makes it more so. Since the IE is part of the 
OS is why the IE has considerable more security problems than other 
browsers. A lot of viruses only attack a PC if you use IE. If you 
have to reinstall the Windows OS, (the resolve some illogical 
problem) you have to remove IE, reinstall Windows, then reinstall I. 
With IE you can only have one version of the software on a PC. This 
creates additional problems for designers and users as some web 
sites only work with a certain version level of browsers. For 
example on my PC four versions of Netscape are installed and IE 5.5. 
I would like to have IE 5.5 and IE 6.1 both installed to test 
software I am writing. Web software has to be made to work with the 
majority of browsers and with the most used versions of those 
browsers.
    SUMMARY ... At a minimum the IE should be a separate product and 
not part of the Windows OS. This would not hinder MS from being 
innovative in any way.
    B.W. Binkley
    972 306-3911
    CC:

MTC-106



MTC-00000107

From: Brian Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 7:40pm
Subject: blindly dominated
    Unfortunately, most Americans (due to ignorance of software and 
the history of DOS, WIN 3.1, etc) have no idea of the damage that 
Microsoft has done. Sure, one could claim, "well they were 
just boosting the economy, keeping people employed, yada, 
yada." But what about the bugs, the memory leaks, the 
"undocumented features" of oh so many Microsoft products 
... they have cost companies so much money. And it's all because one 
man, Bill Gates, was so greedy that he sacrificed integrity and 
blindly

[[Page 23673]]

shoved his product in the faces of a nation. Like so many crooked 
companies, he didn't care about the consumer. He didn't care about 
quality. He only wanted the mighty greenback in his pocket.
    And all this time, the glorious yet fragile facade of Microsoft 
shields the unsuspecting, ignorant, and innocent people of this 
nation from the truth that lies rotting beneath. This rot affects 
the integrity of a nation, only encouraging more companies and big 
business to give up on the people and scramble for what we have been 
told by so many to hold dear, wealth. But again I ask, at what cost.
    Brian D. Smith
    Kent, WA 98031

MTC_107



MTC-00000108

From: Stephen Parrott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 7:42pm
Subject: MS penalty
    Your proposed penalties of Microsoft aren't nearly enough to 
restore competitiveness! Microsoft has been found guilty, and I as a 
consumer and as a taxpayer expect appropriate action from the 
government. However, what I see is an apparent decision to move on 
to other things, and do whatever you can to settle this quickly. 
Don't do this! The computer industry is important to the American 
economy, and far too important to leave to Microsoft's domination!
    I have watched Microsoft since the 1980's, and I firmly believe 
their business practices have caused a lot of harm to the software 
industry, and to me as a consumer. What no one knows, and what I can 
only imagine, is what the software world would be today if Microsoft 
hadn't put so many competitors out of business. Would we have 
Windows if Apple hadn't developed the Mac system? Would we have 
Excel without Lotus 1-2-3? Internet Explorer without 
Netscape? The list goes on for most all of Microsoft products. 
Without the other companies, Microsoft would have had no ideas to 
copy from, and in addition very little reason to innovate. Now that 
these other companies have become minor players, they aren't able or 
willing to commit major resources to development. Microsoft claims 
innovation, but has only displayed innovation when it comes to using 
their software to achieve business goals. Innovation for providing 
truly better software is left to people outside Microsoft; when a 
successful improvement emerges then Microsoft takes it. I want the 
justice department to take the responsibility of protecting a vital 
element of modern life, and the proposed settlement does not seem to 
do that. I don't want a facade; I want strong measures that truly 
level the playing field so that real competition thrives again in 
the software world. Come on guys, do your job!
    Steve Parrott

MTC-108



MTC-00000109

From: Marvin Rohrs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 7:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I strongly object to the proposed Microsoft settlement_I 
believe that the requirements are far too little when one considers 
the damage that has been done to the millions of existing users of 
their Windows O.S. The settlement will do absolutely nothing for me, 
as an end user of Windows. I will still be stuck with operating 
systems (I have 3 of them ? all Windows 98, 2nd Edition) that have 
embedded in them many completely unwanted and totally unrelated 
functions that occupy hard drive space and slow down my computers. I 
will still be stuck with an 0.8. that does not interface well with 
other, non-Microsoft software, resulting in frequent system freezes. 
Historically, each version of Windows that Microsoft releases 
promises to correct the bugs in previous versions, only to have a 
whole new set of bugs show up. They never seem to correct all of the 
bugs in a given version before releasing a new version_this 
leaves the user stuck with the problems.
    It is my opinion that Microsoft should be forced to provide 
current users of Windows 95, 98, 2000, and ME with a means to 
TOTALLY remove unwanted functions that have been illegally bundled 
with the basic Windows O.S._such as their Internet browser, e-
mail, and messaging. They should be forced to support previous 
versions until all of the bugs have been addressed and corrected.
    They should also be forced, in the future, to totally separate 
the Windows O.S. from their other software. Windows would then be 
marketed as a basic O.S. for which the code has been provided to 
other software developers so that their software can operate 
seamlessly with Windows, instead of freezing the system. Their other 
software would then have to compete fairly with software from other 
companies. As it is now, they have an extremely unfair advantage. 
They have literally destroyed Netscape and Lotus, both of which have 
products that are far superior to the comparable Microsoft software. 
Netscape used to be the dominant web browser until Microsoft used 
their monopoly on the Windows O.S. to destroy them_even though 
the Netscape browser is still superior to the Microsoft browser. The 
Lotus 123 spreadsheet used to be the only spreadsheet to have until 
Microsoft began to force computer manufacturers to offer their 
Office bundle with their computers. Lotus 123 is still far superior 
to M.S. Excel!!!! Unless Microsoft is forced to fully separate 
Windows as an O.S. (for which they, unfortunately, have a monopoly) 
from their software (for which they do not as yet have a monopoly), 
they will ultimately force other software companies into the same 
fate.
    Finally, Microsoft should be forced to make each new version of 
Windows backward compatible with software that ran satisfactorily on 
previous versions. For example, I have no intention of upgrading to 
the XP version because it is my understanding the there are many 
incompatibilites with other older software, even though it is not 
widely publicized. I have no intention of spending thousands of 
dollars to upgrade to newer versions of other software just so that 
I can boast the latest version of Windows and encounter a whole new 
range of operating bugs.
    Microsoft cannot be allowed to continue to use their monopoly to 
drive other companies to the wall, as they have done in the past.
    Sincerely,
    Marvin K. Rohrs, P.E.
    [email protected]

MTC-109



MTC-00000110

From: Larry E. Rhoads
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 7:48pm
Subject: Ability to purchase optional Operating Systems
    My concern is that this settlement does not provide any remedy 
to the many years which Microsoft has controlled the PC distribution 
in relationship to consumers choice for the operating systems 
available on a single PC. For example not even IBM could sell me a 
PC which had a duel boot option where I could order Windows and 
Linux or any other combination of other operating systems. The 
salesman response is that no one ever asked for that option even 
though I had just made that request. When you pushed the issue it 
was then said it was not done. No one would say that they didn't 
have a choice.
    Microsoft is still not playing on a level field in relation to 
the consumer where their controlling tactics have now left no viable 
alternatives in many areas. It is great to get free software for a 
year or two but then it is not much fun to find that this is the 
only version of that type of software now available. Then you find 
that to continue to use that software you are forced to buy a new 
license at a price which is now more than three times what it should 
be. Most companies can't use the free trick because they don't have 
the level of control or resources to destroy another competitor. 
Microsoft has and still does. I don't think this settlement goes far 
enough and the level of oversight in not nearly strong enough to 
provide an effective punishment or deterrent.
    Sincerely
    Larry Rhoads
    Tracking #: F2B2 1 67FD4D9D5 11 A24400A02478256E801 CD 1 4E

MTC-110



MTC-00000111

From: Bill Dempsey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 7:50pm
Subject: Opinion
    Hi,
    I'd just like to express my opinion on the entire Microsoft 
anti-trust issue. For many years, Netscape had a monopoly on the 
browser market with no real competitors. This allowed them to 
dictate standards that all web developers were forced to accommodate 
if they wanted their sites to be viewed. Nobody said a word about 
Netscape. For many years, Norton Utilities held a virtual monopoly 
in the hard drive management and repair category of software. 
Another example is Sun with it's total domination of the Internet 
server market for so many years. Does anyone else remember the total 
dominance of CPM in the workplace prior to DOS and then Windows? My 
point is that every apparently monopolistic hold on some aspect of 
the computer industry has

[[Page 23674]]

 been broken by one or more companies with better products at some 
point. Microsoft got to it's current level of dominance by offering 
better products, plain and simple. This is called competition and 
isn't that what a capitalist society is all about? The PC industry 
has also benefited from the fact that wide adoption of Microsoft's 
exceptional products has created standards which allowed the 
industry to progress at a much faster pace. Without these standards, 
I am convinced we would be at least a decade behind where we are 
now. With all of this in mind, I obviously believe that your 
settlement with Microsoft is a good thing for everyone. I also 
believe the economy will bounce back quicker under the unfettered 
leadership of Microsoft and it's visionary leader. No, I don't work 
for Microsoft. I even get annoyed sometimes with them when their 
software crashes. But honestly, their software crashes less often 
than most and I use it constantly. Kudos to your team for working 
out a reasonable solution without killing a technological leader we 
need during these harsh times.
    Best regards,
    _Bill
    Bill @Dempsey.net
    http://www.bill.dempsey.net
    "You can predict the future if you create it."

MTC-11



MTC-00000112

From: Bob LaGarde
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov'
Date: 11/16/01 7:51pm
Subject: Support for Microsoft Settlement Proposal
    In 1996 I founded LaGarde, Incorporated, a Kansas Corporation, 
engaged in the business of building "Business Applications for 
the Internet." In launching this venture I entered partnership 
programs with AT&T, Netscape, Novell, Digex and Microsoft. I was 
rejected for AT&T's program. I paid $200.00 for Netscape's 
program. I was offered the opportunity to pay $1500.00 for Novell's 
program. I paid nothing to enter Digex's program and I paid nothing 
to enter Microsoft's program. Microsoft immediately began furnishing 
me with developer software, sample code, web site advertising 
support and many, many other business opportunities. Microsoft has 
established a very strong track record of helping to build business 
opportunities for 3rd party companies. Microsoft continued to 
support our endeavors with free listings on the www.microsoft.com 
web site; inviations to speak at Microsoft professional events; free 
booth space at global trade shows; etc. Today I operate a Kansas 
corporation employing 20 people. We were recognized as an Exporter 
of the Year candidate by our Kansas Govenor, Bill Graves earlier 
this year based on the fact that through our overseas sale of 
StoreFront products we e-commerce enable merchants in over 70 
countries around the world. I strongly support the current proposal 
of the US Attorney General's office to settle this case.
    Bob LaGarde
    LaGarde_Makers of StoreFront E-Commerce Solutions
    www.lagarde.com
    www.storefront.net
    1.800.785.830.9800 (US)
    011.1.785.830.9800 (INTERNATIONAL)
    b.lagarde @ lagarde.com
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.295 / Virus Database: 159_Release Date: 11/1/
2001
    CC: 'GENERAL(a)ksag.org

MTC-112



MTC-00000113

From: j. 1. t.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 7:56pm
Subject: i have lost faith in the DoJ
    Many years ago the Dept. of Justice was ethically 
unassailable_you seemed to do everything right, defending the 
average guy and gal against getting raped by big business and 
whatever petty individual evil lurked out there.
    But this is the last straw. The AG is ignoring the will of the 
public in Oregon while pretending to be "for state's 
rights," is not interested in prosecuting anthrax scares aimed 
at abortion clinics even though he claims he doesn't allow his 
personal vendettas/opinions to influence his job (all the while 
saying he'll prosecute to the fullest extent of the law anyone who 
takes advantage of the current situation to scare people with 
anthrax threats), and now he's friends with Bill Gates.
    Hey_just ignore the courts, the people, and the 
constitution. That's all I've seen from Ashcroft and the current DoJ 
leadership in the past few months. Why even bother with a 
constitution? Or red stripes on that flag? It's just embarassing. 
This is America, for God's sake! Not some backward third world 
fascist state!
    Joshua Lurie-Terrell

MTC-113



MTC-00000114

From: GigLister@ aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 7:56pm
Subject: Requested Microsoft Settlement Comments!
    US Dept of Justice:
    What you guys did was flat-out, awful ... You dragged America's 
most premier company through a worthless public battle for what... 
so a few second rate companies that can't compete with Microsoft 
products anyway can get a place on their operating system ... and at 
who's added expense ... yeah, the working consumers!!!
    We weren't idiots ... a free Microsoft browser built in to their 
operating system was a cost/benefit to the consumer ... if for 
whatever reason a consumer wanted a browser other than the one 
Microsoft was providing for free, that was always an option to the 
consumer if they were willing to pay extra for the value they 
perceived getting from some other browser ... and the Windows 
Operating System was always built for compatibility to other 
browsers being installed. You guys got foxed into spending a bloody 
fortune in public taxpayers' money just so McNulty can attempt to 
sell his 'piece-of-shit' applications that he 
couldn't/won't be able to sell on his own anyway!!! So what 
was the point to all this nonsense ... I think whatever Microsoft 
had to yield to get rid of you Reno morons, it was far more than you 
deserved ... This case could never be defended as a protection of 
competitive benefits for the consumer ... had you won, we would have 
paid much more for acceptable software applications provided by the 
best in the business!
    You ought to give the settlement back ... you never were 
fighting for the public's rights/benefits from the beginning ... you 
just fought NcNulty's fight for him and lost like he would have lost 
had he fought this fight on his own!!! And for the states' AGs to be 
now fighting over whether this is the proper settlement of this case 
is even funnier ... most of these AGs still haven't found the pc on/
off switch!
    This case was a complete waste of time and money and you only 
got to wrongfully harm America's most prominent and productive 
company ... Oh yeah, I have never worked for the Goverment or 
Microsoft, so my comments started from a neutral position.
    You were the Bad Guys on this one!!!
    George J Lister
    Pennington, NJ
    CC: v_alex_poole @hotmail.com 
@inetgw,Groomer76 @aol.com@

MTC-114



MTC-00000115

From: Kevin Ulland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Trial_Question about dissenting states
    Hello, my name is Kevin Ulland. I fully support the settlement 
between the nine states, the DOJ and Microsoft. I don't believe 
Microsoft is a monopoly that has abused it's power, and Microsoft 
hasn't ever hurt me, the CONSUMER. But that's not what's at issue 
here.
    I believe that the settlement that the DOJ and Microsoft agreed 
to is fine. It not only tackles the anti-trust 
"violations" but also addresses the market and 
Microsoft's role therein. I am happy to see that nine of the 
eighteen states have signed on, but I am frustrated by the remaining 
states who wish to proceed with the trial. I have a question about 
those nine states.
    I live in Washington State. I am happy with Microsoft, I like 
Windows XP and it's features. I use Passport and love the fact that 
it's integrated into the OS. It saves me time! I love Internet 
Explorer. It renders beautiful web sites, and being a web developer, 
it's a great application. Netscape is non-compliant with the 
standards and mis-interprets code all of the time, creating ugly 
sites and interfaces. I DON'T want Microsoft to stop innovating. I 
want the next version of Windows to be even more rich with features. 
If Massachusetts or California go into the hearings in March and get 
extra sanctions or limitations applied to the deal with Microsoft, 
those limitations had better not effect me here in Washington, or 
any of the other 41 states! Just because California is listening to 
the special interest groups from Silicon Valley and Microsoft 
competitors and

[[Page 23675]]

NOT it's consumers, that should not affect me in my state. I 
remember my US history, and I remember that we all started out as 
separate states, like little nations, and we created a federal 
government to over see national issues. But laws passed in 
California do not apply in any other state, and I am hoping that a 
ruling against Microsoft for California, or the other nine states 
only applies in those states. If California law can't affect me here 
in Washington, why should a ruling for California affect me as well? 
Will a ruling for the nine states affect the other 41?
    Please answer this question, because I think it is vitally 
important that as a consumer I know what is going to happen to 
Microsoft and the software I use in my life and work. It is wholly 
unacceptable that these nine states' problems with Microsoft affect 
the rest of the nation. The settlement with the DOJ can affect all 
of the states, because it is an agreement with the Federal 
Government...
    Thank you,
    Kevin Ulland
    Citizen of Washington State

MTC-115



MTC-00000116

From: Arnie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:07pm
Subject: Microsoft: Mother of Computer Viruses
    Microsoft's well-documented battle against Java seems like an 
old story, but the casualties are still mounting. As a cornerstone 
of their battle against JAVA, and any platform-independent APIs, MS 
introduced and expanded the scripting capabilities of their 
applications to allow web-based scripting. This has been the basis 
for vastly destructive computer viruses (worms) from Melissa to 
code-red. While Sun spent many dollars and man-years making Java 
highly secure, constraining the scope of its actions, and designing 
it for internet activity, Microsoft rushed its existing scripting 
system into the internet business without any precautions. This has 
made it trivial to create worms which access a users MS Outlook 
addressbook to spread themselves. MS negligence in this area verges 
on criminal. While the media cites "Internet Viruses" 
and, especially now, various agencies are looking with renewed 
concern at computer security issues, the quiet truth is that these 
viruses are virtually all limited to Microsoft's shoddy 
applications. In this area in particular, their dominance is 
fundamentally dangerous. Like a crop with insufficient genetic 
diversity, an internet without diverse servers, app.s and O.S.s is 
more vulnerable to any single virus. The fact that Microsoft's OS 
monopoly leverages their applications hegemony makes these 
vulnerabilities more severe, and allows mediocre development to 
combine with a careless and hurried approach to security.
    The current proposed settlement does very little to reintroduce 
competition or diversity into markets that MS has already swallowed. 
It does absolutely nothing to address the systematic degradation of 
computer security which Microsoft P.R. describes as innovation. 
Well-publicized security holes in WindowsXP and MS Passport/Wallet 
systems should be troubling, but the unpublicized gaps sure to be 
lurking in a system of this complexity, from a group with this 
track-record of negligence should be terrifying. Microsoft's 
incompetent domination of the internet should be seen as an issue of 
national security, and yet it is being swept under the rug like a 
mere industry anti-trust squabble. Please save us!
    Sincerely,
    Arnie Cachelin
    Senior Software Engineer
    NewTek, Inc.
    San Antonio TX

MTC-116



MTC-00000117

From: Justin Hopper and Bogdana Manole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:38pm
Subject: Absolute Outrage
    I am a long-term software developer and user of Microsoft's 
products, however that does not blind me from their unjust business 
practices. I have seen once strong products like Netscape Navigator, 
Quicken and WordPerfect, literally crumble as Microsoft pushed it's 
way into the markets. Everything that is developed by Microsoft 
creates a further dependency on their products, including the 
operating system. What we have seen over the past years is more and 
more software products being developed by Microsoft. It used to be 
an operating system and now the company offers a complete end-to-end 
solution for IT businesses in just about any market. Where's the 
diversity?
    I currently reside, in Romania, a former Communist country. I 
can tell you first hand the dangers of a monopoly. For example, 
there is one telecom company in Romania (sound familiar) and the 
whoever wants to make a phone call must pay them a set tariff. Who 
ever wants to set up an ISP must pay them a set tariff. Who ever 
wants to receive extra phone services or even make and international 
phone call, must pay them a set tariff. If the consumer does not 
like it then who do they have to turn to? Noone! They are stuck with 
whatever price Romtelecom sets. Now tell me how this settlement is 
going to prevent this from happening to the technology market.
    The decision to make Microsoft give its software away for free 
to public schools is almost funny. Not only does it give Microsoft's 
operating system a leg up in what may be one of the only fields that 
it doesn't have control over; but it will probably be the end of 
Apple Computers. This is an ingenious idea and whoever came up with 
this proposal must have done so knowingly. The Department of Justice 
looks like a naive child being led by the giant software developer 
to do whatever it wants. Who is running the court-case, Microsoft or 
the DOJ? Sometimes it is hard to know.
    Sincerely,
    Justin Hopper

MTC-117



MTC-00000118

From: larry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:08pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement_comments
    The settlement with Microsoft was terrible! It does practically 
nothing effective to stop this monopoly, and in fact, they are going 
ahead full speed to take over the internet as much as they can. Even 
if they do not comply with the mild constraints, there are no really 
effective enforcement procedures. The hands of the enforcers are, to 
a great extent, tied. At best, they would get another mild slap on 
the wrist.
    I use an alternative browser (Opera), and Microsoft seems to 
have started attacking this browser as well. Many Opera users have 
complained to them about this, but their response has been **quite** 
poor. It would seem that they are out to eliminate it, or at least 
marginalize it, as they did with Netscape. One could go on and on 
with more examples of their predatory practices, but I'm sure you 
get the idea.
    I'm just an ordinary user_I don't work for their 
competitors, and have no ulterior motive for writing to you. I just 
want you to know how an "ordinary Joe" views the 
settlement. It makes one wonder how much "justice" they 
bought with their large political contributions. Thanks for 
listening,
    Larry Wright mail to: larry @wrightplace.org

MTC-118



MTC-00000119

From: Edwin E. Coad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:14pm
Subject: Shame on you!
    This settlement does not punish Microsoft, it rewards them. 
Microsoft destroyed companies, lives, etc. and they should be made 
to pay all those who they harmed directly and indirectly. Guilty is 
as guilty does. Wrong doing without punishment sends a clear 
messages, "we got away with it". Please reconsider the 
final order and settlement.
    Edwin E. Goad
    Casselberry, Florida

MTC-119



MTC-00000120

From: Don Lex
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:37pm
Subject: One users opinion

MTC-120
    llle:uILj/wIflJLemp/Lmp.nuil
    Department of Justice,
    RE: Microsoft Settlement
    My thoughts are simple regarding this complicated software 
business. As I read from public sources for settlement details; the 
settlement clearly fails to punish the Microsoft enterprise for its 
corporate behavior. Time has gone bye and the justice system may 
have indeed forgotten about the failed companies due to MicroSoft 
business practices. All of the failed businesses led to (1) lost 
competitive ideas, (2) lost employment, and (3) failed dreams. Long 
gone are companies like Netscape, Borland and others. Further the 
notion that MicroSoft would give software operating systems, support 
and applications to the poorest schools appears to increase the 
footprint of the Microsoft monopoly. This may actually

[[Page 23676]]

be worse than doing nothing. I do not envy your team in finding 
resolution with this matter or the tobacco matter, but please secure 
TRUE resolution. In my humble opinion, Microsoft needs to be broken 
into smaller companies like Judge Green did with AT&T.
    thank you for you time and consideration,
    DON LEX
    5160 Carriage Dr.
    Richmond, CA 94803
    1 of 1 12/14/2001 3:11 PM

MTC-120



MTC-00000121

From: Chuck Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I heavily use Microsoft products both personally and 
professionally.
    Having supported computers for 35 years, I would like to state 
my opinion, as a private citizen regarding the Microsoft settlement. 
The agreement, in which Microsoft will contribute it's product to 
educational facilities, gives Microsoft an unfair advantage in those 
education facilities and is not at all a fair response to their 
monopolistic behavior.
    Thank you,
    Charles W. Davis
    cdavis @ bestweb.net

MTC-121



MTC-00000122

From: George (038) Marsha
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:17pm
Subject: Dear Sirs
    Dear Sirs Just reading Mr. Gates response to the settlement 
should give the Justice Department an idea how good this is for 
Microsft. I am wondering why our government- my government- is 
allowing this kind of settlement to go through when it is clearly 
hurtful to American business and the American people.
    I am truly disappointed.
    George Brownlee
    Mesa, AZ
    480-703-2285

MTC-122



MTC-00000123

From: Joven Joven
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust lawsuit settlement.
    The current proposal for a settlement to this case is weak, and 
does nothing to help the IT community. The option to force Microsoft 
to either disclose the source code of Windows, or make them ship 
Windows in a stripped down manner without any additional software 
would have been a much better option. Microsoft is counting on the 
pervasiveness of their applications to force users to use them, and 
eventually have no option but to pay for their services. I use 
Hotmail because before Microsoft bought it, it was a very good free 
web based email system. Now that Microsoft has bought it they've 
been constantly sending me mail pitching their new services. I don't 
mind this at all, its Microsofts right to promote their services, 
concidering the fact that Hotmail provides no signifigant revenue 
outside of advertising. On the other hand, Microsoft should not make 
it difficult for a user to use one Microsoft service that they've 
paid for and avoid another. MSN Messanger on Windows XP is a prime 
example of Microsoft's practices. Every few times XP loads, 
customers have to constantly cancel the sign up feature if they 
don't want to use it. This goes way beyond simple marketing. Unlike 
Hotmail, which is a free service, Windows is something a customer 
pays for, and by doing so they should have the right to not be 
bothered about other Microsoft products. Internet Explorer is also 
another complete pain. By tying IE so deeply into Windows, Microsoft 
users have no real choice but to use it. By trying to give out such 
a pathetically weak settlement, you are ensuring that Microsoft 
continues to bully users and other sectors of the IT industry into 
being exclusive Microsoft customers simply by the way they ship 
software, not to mention the history Microsoft carries of bullying 
computer manufacturers and retailers by threatening to deny them 
liscensing. Microsoft can very easily maintain its monopoly if you 
either force them to disclose their source code or sell an 'OS Only' 
version of windows, as long as they switch tactics from bullying to 
shipping stable programs.
    Another thing that should be seriously concidered before the US 
court system gets plagued by class action lawsuits is to order 
Microsoft to either discontinue, or completly overhaul their Outlook 
Express and ISS programs. These two applications have plagued 
internet users all over the world with viruses coded to exploit the 
vast security holes in these systems. Placing penalties on Microsoft 
for putting off repairing security holes would be an excellent idea, 
as it would reduce the frequency of virus attacks such as Code Red 
and Nimda, as well as the latest fiasco involving Microsofts 'My 
Wallet' feature, which had a security hole so obvious it took a 
programmer only 30 minutes or so to exploit it in able to steal 
credit card numbers from Microsoft users who utilized the service.
    Obviously I am not the only one who thinks this way, as several 
state officials have shown by turning down the settlement agreement, 
as well as the entire European Union's plans to bring Microsoft to 
task.

MTC-123



MTC-00000124

From: Ron Shue
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 11/16/01 8:24pm
Subject: Thanks for selling us out.
    So far the settlement I have seen an reported. Does not correct 
the problem with microsoft. You are allowing them to take control of 
the computer industry. As a example with there next proposed 
business, expect to see Intuit company the makers of quicken and 
quickbooks will be the next fallen flag.
    As a US consumer, there is nothing in this for me. The harm that 
microsoft has already done to me is not being corrected.
    I have paid for software and them forced to use there software. 
Example is the browser. Which your settlement does not address.
    This whole thing is a joke, The only question that should be 
considered, is how does the U.S. consumer seek legal action against 
our goverment for failing to protect it citizens.
    I have worked for over 15 years in the computer industry and 
have watched microsoft climb to power, by making sure you had to run 
micorsoft software. I was also a Licensed developed for Digital 
Research software. Remember DR-DOS and GEM. One was a better 
DOS than MS-DOS the latter was a better graphic menu then 
WINDOWS. But WINDOWS 3.1 would not run on DR DOS and GEM would not 
work with microsoft software apps.
    Ron SHue
    Infrastructure Specialist
    Electronic Data Systems.

MTC-124



MTC-00000125

From: Peter Seebach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:24pm
Subject: Anti-trust settlement
    Any settlement should reflect the repeated and flagrant abuses 
Microsoft has engaged in, even during the ongoing trial. At a bare 
minimum, those harmed by Microsoft's practices should be compensated 
in some way. The original court findings remain; Microsoft broke the 
law. Any settlement that lacks a substantial and meaningful penalty 
is itself a flagrant disregard for judicial process.
    In the long run, it's probably not necessary to split 
Microsoft_and indeed, you can't fix a monopoly on software by 
splitting it up. What the government can, and should, do is make 
sure that Microsoft's competitors are competing on a level playing 
field. This means *NO* barriers imposed by Microsoft to getting 
competing products shipped with computers. No special 
"Windows" key trademark licensing. No agreements that 
systems *must* boot Windows. No special high prices for vendors that 
don't support Microsoft enough. Everyone has to get the same price, 
no matter what, from Microsoft_any other solution lets them 
impose multi-million dollar "fines" on vendors as 
punishment for non-cooperation. Furthermore, their file formats and 
standards need to be opened up.
    Past that, perhaps the best thing to do is simply to try the 
principals of the case for perjury; they clearly lied to the 
government, and no one should be able to get away with that.
    -s

MTC-125



MTC-00000126

From: Joe Balbona
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:25pm
Subject: Settlement
    There is every reason to believe that Microsoft will comply with 
this proposed

[[Page 23677]]

settlement to the same degree they have with past settlements. The 
DoJ had an excellent trial and exposed Microsoft for the liars that 
they are. They lied then and they are lying now about compliance. 
The remedy should be the division of the company as ordered by Judge 
Jackson.
    Joe Balbona

MTC-126



MTC-00000127

From: [email protected] @inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:29pm
Subject: Some thoughts
    Just figured since you set this email addy up I'd chime in and 
say that the judgement was bogus. Microsoft has done all they can to 
kill competitors through unfair business practices and all you do is 
say "Please don't do that again".
    I suppose it has something to do with the millions they've 
donated right? Things like this really make me lose faith in our 
government.

MTC-127



MTC-00000128

From: Lynne Weintraub
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:31pm
Subject: I don't agree
    I don't like the microsoft settlement. I don't understand why 
microsoft is being rewarded for thumbing their noses at U.S. 
consumers, the laws of this country, and the justice system. I don't 
like the fact that they have huge loopholes to slither through, and 
I think the justice department should not rush to settle until they 
can be closed very very tight!
    Lynne Weintraub
    Amherst, MA

MTC-128



MTC-00000129

From: Bob Niederman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:35pm
Subject: Thank you for using Pollit.com's Mail Form! (fwd)
    I believe that any settlement that would have a chance of 
restoring competition to the computer industry would require at 
least the following:
    1) All terms must be enforced by a non-Microsoft party with full 
access to all Microsoft resources, including source code. Microsoft 
cannot be trusted to voluntarily comply with any agreement.
    2) All communication protocols used by all microsoft products 
must be fully documented. Such documents must be made available to 
any and all parties for any reason, free of any charges or 
limitations in use. Microsoft is not allowed to change their 
protocols until 90 days after documentation of such changes are made 
available to any parties requesting them, free of charge or 
limitations in use.
    3) The previous term must also apply to all Microsoft APIs 
(Application Programming Interfaces).
    4) Microsoft may not keep agreements secret. In particular, the 
terms of the current OEM agreements, currently protected as 
"trade secrets" must be disclosed.
    5) Microsoft may not use agreements with Computer OEMs to 
restrict in any way the addition of other software to the computers, 
along with Microsoft products. In particular, OEMs are not to be 
prohibited from selling "dual-boot" systems, where the 
system can be booted into Windows or into some other operating 
system, such as Linux or a form of BSD or BeOS.
    6) Microsoft may not use their licensing terms to stop users or 
developers from using Open Source software or Free Software.
    7) Microsoft may not meddle in the the legislative processes of 
Fderal, State or local governemnts or bodies that make 
recommendations to them, with their work on UCITA being a prime 
model of behaviour that is prohibited to them as a monopoly.
    8) Micorsoft services (such as MSN) may not require the use of 
microsoft softwware by users wishing to use the service.
    9) Micorsoft services, sucgh as MSN, must not be forced upon 
users thorugh exiusive contracts with ISPs or LECs (such as Qwest).

MTC-129



MTC-00000130

From: Adam Warbington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:36pm
Subject: Comment on Microsoft settlement
    It is obvious to the informed members of the public that this 
decision is entirely based on the huge amounts of money Microsoft is 
willing to give to elected representatives. The settlement is vague 
and gives Microsoft exactly what they want, free and sactioned reign 
to shove their products down consumers' throats. Microsoft is not an 
example of a good business, it is an example of a good monopoly.
    The government has done its citizens a great disservice by 
allowing Microsoft to continue its predatory business practices 
unchecked.
    _Adam Warbington

MTC-130



MTC-00000131

From: mturyn @ world.std.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:37pm
Subject: Nix the settlement
    Microsoft have been bad actors for as long as they have been 
able to get away with it, and their corporate culture still is 
tilted to the "all markets we are in must be ours' direction 
that makes it likely that they will have monopoly power to abuse in 
more markets. Until they suffer some sort of palpable correction for 
acting as they have, it is unreasonable to expect them to act any 
differently; the current settlement neither constitutes a stiff 
enough penalty to be noticeable nor sends a signal that they are 
dealing with a D.o.J. willing to take them on should they 
egregregiously misbehave in the future.

MTC-131



MTC-00000132

From: esp5
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:42pm
Subject: guys... guys... guys
    how can you live with yourselves? What on earth possessed you to 
think that the settlement that you reached with MS had any teeth in 
it at all? If you want, I can go into a detailed analysis of exactly 
how the settlement you made totally screws the consumer, but the 
cynic in me tells me that it'd probably end up in the trash unread.
    Augh. Tell me it isn't so. I had such high hopes for you guys. 
Guess its just one more painful step in losing idealism and the 
belief in justice... *sigh*.
    Ed (hoping that he's wrong, but thinking that there's a 99.999% 
chance that he's right)
    (ps_if I *am* wrong, let me know. There's a good chance 
that a decent argument in front of Ms. Kollar-Kotelly will get you 
off the hook of an *embarrassing* deal with MS, or perhaps you can 
'recant' your belief in the settlement and give it no 
credence. And I'd be happy to draft a list of points exactly *how* 
Microsoft can worm their way out of Yet Another Consent Decree... 
*sigh*.)

MTC-132



MTC-00000133

From: Naden Franciscus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:42pm
Subject: Decision
    Whilst I am not from the States the ramifications of this 
decision extends worldwide.
    I simply want to state that Microsoft must NOT be allowed to 
maintain control of their API's for development. It is imperative 
that the Office and Windows combination is somehow broken as future 
operating systems can not succeed without Microsoft Office 
interoperability.
    Ultimately, I would be very happy if you (DOJ) could define the 
file formats of Microsoft Office products to be standards and 
subsequently require them to be 'open' and privy to 
everyone.
    This would solve so many, many problems.
    Thank you for your opportunity.
    Naden Franciscus
    Content Development Engineer
    Curtin University

MTC-133



MTC-00000134

From: Alex Barnes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:43pm
Subject: Comments on the Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    I am a computer strategy consultant, and advise large corporate 
clients on software technologies.
    I speak here not on behalf of my firm, but as a concerned 
citizen.
    I oppose the proposed settlement with Microsoft. The Government 
has already attempted to modify Microsoft's behavior with conduct 
remedies, and these have proved ineffective. Microsoft's behavior in 
bundling additional functionality into its Windows XP operating 
system, and in subverting open standards, indicates that the firm 
continues to abuse its monopoly position. This will have long-term 
adverse consequences not only to other software developers, but to 
their clients, including the large corporations that I advise. These 
costs and risks are passed back to the consumers, and are damaging 
to the US economy.

[[Page 23678]]

    It is evident that the DOJ's settlement is a political, not 
legal, remedy, and that it reflects the an unstated policy of 
tolerating monopolistic behavior. If the Government is opposed to 
anti-trnst law, then it should convince Congress to change the law, 
not subvert it through ineffectual sanctions.
    A minimum acceptable settlement would require Microsoft to 
unbundle its applications from its operating system (OS), make 
public the Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) that connect 
these applications to the OS, and refrain from implementing 
proprietary extensions to US and international standard interfaces. 
Microsoft should have no input into the staffing of any oversight 
body that is chosen to monitor compliance; instead, it should be 
staffed based on recommendations of industry organizations that are 
not funded or dominated by Microsoft.
    Regards,
    Alex Barnes

MTC-134



MTC-00000135

From: Herbst, Mike M.D.
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/16/01 8:43pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    It is my belief, based on my professional knowledge and 
experience as the Chair of the Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Informatics 
Committee, that the recent settlement proposal between the DOJ and 
Microsoft is completely inadequate.
    The proposed settlement fails to address the harm already caused 
by the Microsoft abuse of its monopoly. It also does not provide 
adequate protection for consumers from future abuses. The statements 
of Microsoft executives since the settlement indicate that they do 
not accept that their previous behavior was a violation of the law, 
nor that they must change their behavior in the future.
    Please do not let this travesty of justice take effect.
    Michael Herbst, MD

MTC-135



MTC-00000136

From: Miko Matsumura
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:44pm
Subject: wrist slap
    It's clear to me that consumers will continue to be hurt by 
Microsoft's activities, especially given Justice's blind eye to 
their XP bundling and continued violation of the regulations against 
their illicit business practices. Please reconsider your position.
    Best regards,
    Miko Matsumura
    Consumer and citizen.

MTC-136



MTC-00000137

From: Morss, Charlie
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov'
Date: 11/16/01 8:44pm
Subject: Bunding of alternate OS not allowed
    Hello,
    Please do not agree to any settlement that would restrict OEM's 
from bundling alternate operating systems when selling a machine 
with a Windows OS on it. Currently, it is my understanding that a 
OEM can not include a free version of Linux, BE, or any other OS 
without violating their contract with Microsoft. Microsoft may 
actually allow it, but the OEM losses their discounted pricing from 
Microsoft, essentially making it impossible for them to do any 
bundling on their own.
    This practice is clearly an illegal use of their monopoly.
    A settlement that does not take this into account assures that 
Microsoft's illegal monopolistic practices will continue (they will 
never have any "real" competition, contrary what they 
seem to indicate).
    Thank you for considering this issue,
    Charlie Morss
    34228 46th Ave S.
    Auburn, WA 98001

MTC-137



MTC-00000138

From: ash
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:46pm
Subject: MS, still being bullies.
    I am a college student and a want-to-be-programmer and belive 
the MS is a harsh monopoly. Granted, in the beginig they were a 
great aspiring company, but now they stomp out everyone to gain more 
market share. For instance, they have stomped out a lot of financial 
software by pushing their own. They have, obviously, taken the 
browser and added things to the HTML standard to make other 
(standard) browsers have problems. They have started .NET and 
Hailstorm which pretty much gives them a good hold on the people 
much like a Orwellian (sp?) government might. My point is they are 
starting to get out of hand and are killing off other great 
inventors by stomping out creativity with these malicious buisness 
practices.
    Thank you for your time,
    Ash

MTC-138



MTC-00000139

From: Scott Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:46pm
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust settlement fair and just, I support 
100%
    The anti-trust settlement reached between Microsoft and the US 
Department of Justice is fair and just, and I feel it addresses the 
issues that led to the trial.
    The states which remain participants in the anti-trust action 
against Microsoft are simply trying to protect companies operating 
within their borders, and their demands are unreasonable. I strongly 
urge the US Court of Appeals to recognize this and to find in favor 
of Microsoft against those states that choose not to accept the 
current settlement.
    We must remember one thing above all else... Antitrust law does 
not allow punishment for a company simply for being a monopoly, nor 
does it allow punishment for a company that puts its competitors out 
of business through ruthless competition. Microsoft may in fact be a 
monopoly, but it has not abused that position (yet) by using its 
market dominance to unfairly price its software. Yes, it is a 
ruthless competitor, but that is not illegal.
    The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was designed to protect consumers 
from companies who abuse their monopoly power to raise prices. In 
the last ten years, Microsoft has not significantly raised the price 
of Windows. Case dismissed.
    Some claim that Microsoft has been raising prices, as proven by 
the fact that Windows pricing has remained stable while other 
component prices in computers have declined. This argument is 
ludicrous.
    Consumers now receive for free software they used to have to 
purchase seperately from Windows: web browsing software, music 
recording software, and more.
    It is rather generous of Microsoft, in my opinion, to continue 
to price Windows at its current level. In every other business one 
can think of, new features cost money. Buy a car, get a stereo, and 
it will cost you more than if you purchased the car alone.
    Don't listen to the states. They simply represent the voice of 
jealousy, and they are using the courts to achieve what they could 
not achieve in the marketplace. The settlement is fair.
    Scott Johnson

MTC-139



MTC-00000140

From: Steve Odem
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:47pm
Subject: proposed settlement
    I think Microsoft has gotten away with grand larceny and you are 
slapping them on the wrist and saying Bill, be a good boy'. It is a 
lousy settlement which should not be approved by the Court.

MTC-140



MTC-00000141

From: Todd I
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:47pm
Subject: The agreement does not help consumers
    I am very disappointed in the agreement reached by the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft. Their past compliance with 
government restrictions should be a good indicator of future 
performance. I see no reason to believe that they will honor the 
current restrictions, given the weak monitoring and enforcement 
mechanisms.
    Microsoft's increasing restrictions, monitoring, and control of 
consumers in the face of antitrust litigation is clear evidence of a 
monopoly that needs to be moderated.
    I hope the government will take action to benefit consumers, and 
restore some form of competition to the market.
    Thank You,
    Todd Ignasiak
    Mountain View, CA

MTC-141



MTC-00000142

From: John Klapp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:50pm
Subject: Settlement
    I thin kit's unfortunate that you have wasted this much taxpayer 
money and then

[[Page 23679]]

refuse to fix the problem. Microsoft has demonstrated no intent to 
change their illegal business practices and will sidestip this mealy 
mouthed settlement
    John Klapp

MTC- 142



MTC-00000143

From: Andreas Pleschutznig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:38pm
Subject: Personal opinion to the Microsoft settlement
    First I don't understand the thought process of why this half 
way solution of imposing some restriction on Microsoft is even 
thought about. Microsoft has shown in the past that they do not 
honor such restrictions or try to find a loophole, or turn the words 
until it suits their needs.
    Secondly and even more important I don't understand the justice 
behind that. Here is someone has has been found guilty of a crime 
and still show no remorse and we do not punish them as the law would 
call for, but strike a weak deal with them. In the past the splitup 
of ATT was the best that could have happened to the customer because 
it reopened the market. My personal belief is that this should 
happen to Microsoft as this (the breakup) would force the Mini-MS 
companies to compete and thus have positive influence on the market.
    Here is how I could imagine how the market could be made better: 
Suppose Microsoft got broken into 2 or more companies which in my 
opinion could be
    a) The OS (Windows) company
    b) The Application company (Office, ...)
    This would lead to the situation that the Office company would 
want to sell as many copies of their Software as possible, and thus 
they maight want to port their Software to other OS's. Since now 
Windows no longer has the advandage of being the only one that has 
this office suite they would have to compete in the open market with 
features, stability,.., as they could no longer rely upon being the 
only one having this office suite.
    Just my $0.02
    Thanks
    Andreas Pleschutznig
    2509 Taylor Way
    Antioch CA 94509

MTC- 143



MTC-00000144

From: Pat Montgomery
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To the Microsoft antitrust attorneys,
    I strongly object to the terms of settlement of the Microsoft 
case. MS was proven in court and by appellate review to be a 
monopoly (which is no crime), but to have repeatedly and to the 
profound harm of its competition, abused this monopoly power (which 
is a crime).
    There are two issues:
    1) Justice: They clearly broke the law. To be let off with a 
handslap sends a clear and unambiguous message that they can get 
away with it, to their shareholder's advantage and the disadvantage 
of other businesses competing in their ever-expanding fields. This 
encourages them to do it again, knowing they are big enough to get 
away with it. I don't think this is what T.Roosevelt meant by the 
word 'bully'.
    2) Policy: Who in their right mind would now invest in a field 
of business that might *someday* be a field that MS decides it wants 
to dominate? The effects on competition, the putative underpinning 
of our economy, are devastating.
    This was a very unfortunate decision.
    Pat Montgomery
    28818 108th Ave. SE
    Auburn WA 98092
    [email protected]

MTC- 144



MTC-00000145

From: Charlie Krohn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:50pm
Subject: Proposed Settlement
    Gentlepersoris:
    Although I disagree with the Courts findings that Microsoft 
violated any U.S. statutes or common law, I believe that the 
settlement agreed to by Microsoft should be approved.
    I am at a loss to understand how the Justice Department can 
justify spending tens of millions of dollars to prosecute a case 
where the parties seeking protection from alleged monopolistic 
practices were competitors of the defendant. I thought the public 
policy behind anti-monopoly statutes was to protect the public. Just 
how was I harmed by receiving free software, especially software 
that was superior to that of the competition? Since when is the 
Justice Department's job to protect corporations whose products are 
inferior and non-competitive in a free market? Isn't Justice 
bothered by AOL's acquisition of Netscape? How is this different 
than Microsoft's situation? I don't know of any law that states that 
business is supposed to be easy or nice. Tough competition breeds 
better products at cheaper prices.
    Companies that can't compete should get out of the business. I 
don't see any justification for punishing the successful.
    Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Hopefully the 
Department of Justice will find better uses for its budget than 
continuing its blind crusade against Microsoft.
    Charles Krohn

MTC-145



MTC-00000146

From: Garry Heaton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:57pm
Subject: What about XP?
    Hello at the DoJ
    While the courts have been prevaricating over what penalties to 
impose on Microsoft the grotesque monopoly has delivered its 
ultimate coup_Windows XP_which represents nothing less 
than a nose-thumbing of the whole anti-trust case. This operating 
system, and the characteristic business practices associated with 
it, will do more to strangle competition on the desktop than all of 
the previous MS operating systems put together. Why hasnt this 
product been taken into account? Why is Microsoft able to continue 
with its monopolistic practices?
    American business law is a sham. There is no justice. Big 
business can buy its way out of anything.
    Garry Heaton

MTC-146



MTC-00000147

From: don @dbivens.dyndns.org @inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:02pm
Subject: please reconsider
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft will do nothing to 
prevent their abusive of their monopoly position. In fact, it is 
because of their repeated violations of previous consent decrees 
that they were investigated for the most recent antitrust trial. 
There appear to be essentially no teeth at all to the proposed 
settlement. I fail to see the point of adding time to their being 
under court ordered review if they violate the court ordered 
review?!
    More importantly Micrsoft doctored evidence in the trial, Bill 
Gates failed to show up and testify but rather sent in videotape 
where he acted arrogantly and continued to produce software that 
stifled competition. Many more anti-competitive acts and tactics 
have come out of Redmond since the trial first started which show 
their lack of concern for current US law.
    Lastly, and probably most importantly, is the fact that 
Microsoft was found guilty and the guilty verdict was upheld. I am 
at a loss to think of any case, particularly one this high-profile 
and this handily won, where the guilty criminal was allowed to 
negotiate their punishment!? The mind boggles...
    Please use the full force of antitrust law to restore healthy 
competition to this most vital part of our economy.
    Sincerely,
    Don Bivens
    1059 Croyden Ct
    Ft Mill, SC 29715

MTC-147



MTC-00000148

From: Jeffrey Stephens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:05pm
Subject: Important for Linux to Succeed
    Linux is the only viable competitor to Microsoft. Make sure that 
Microsoft divulges ALL their API's.
    Regards,
    Jeff Stephens

MTC-148



MTC-00000149

From: dnewcomb@serverl .netpath.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:05pm
Subject: In regards to the Microsoft settlement
    Any settlement that does not open the full documentation of the 
APIs for the Windows operating systems to everyone, without charge, 
is not valid.
    Try again
    Doug Newcomb
    Mebane, NC

MTC- 149

[[Page 23680]]



MTC-00000150

From: Murray Chapman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:06pm
Subject: Proposed remedy isn't tough enough
    To Whom it May Concern,
    Your proposed settlement with Microsoft is too weak. You won the 
case, yet Microsoft calls the settlement "fair," a 
definite sign that you could and should have got more.
    As punishment for violating the probation imposed by 
SporkinlJackson in August 1995, you are sentencing Microsoft to more 
probation, with the threat of extending that probation if they don't 
comply. Microsoft's demonstrated practice of disregarding constent 
decrees, coupled with the vague language of this new settlement will 
not change Microsoft's behaviour in any way. Further, where are the 
penalties for criminal conduct that Microsoft has repeatedly been 
found guilty of? (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.") "Civil fines" 
mean nothing to a company that increases its cash reserves by 
billions per month. A structural remedy would have been suitible; 
Microsoft got that judgement thrown out not becuase of any inherent 
flaws in it, but becuase of Jackson's protocol breach. Why is it now 
your position that this remedy is no longer necessary?
    You are quoted as saying you were looking for the "most 
effective and certain relief in the most timely 
manner"_why are you not trying for a "suitible 
penalty given the scale and scope of the violations"? Need I 
remind you that you won the case? "Timely" is a joke; 
the damage has been done, and the third parties who have been 
trampled by Microsoft's monopolistic behaviour seek a 
"proper" rather than "timely" setttlement.
    As someone who has been actively involved in computers for well 
over half my life, I urge you in the strongest possible terms to 
SERIOUSLY RECONSIDER seeking more in your proposed settlement with 
this convicted criminal monopolistic bully.
    *Extremely* disappointed,

MTC-150



MTC-00000151

From: Tim Agen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:06pm
Subject: Let Microsoft Alone
    I really feel that punishing MS is punishing innovation. I am 
pleased with the settlement.
    Tim Agen

MTC-151



MTC-00000152

From: Lester Stormes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 12:40pm
Subject: Consumer input regarding Microsoft
    As a consumer I believe through the computer operating system 
and add-ons Microsoft has developed, purchased or otherwise acquired 
it possesses to much control over data and normal information 
processing. It should be obvious to the most casual observer that 
Microsoft intends to be the one and only provider of not only your 
computer's operating system but the one and only provider of any 
software package which allows or enhances the sending and receiving 
of information via your computer or internet appliances such as 
mobile telephones, televisions, hand held devices, etc. In today's 
technology world it is no longer relevant to say that he who 
controls the gold_controls. Microsoft has all the gold it 
needs combined with dominate marketing and power over competition to 
buy or bury them which effectively means Microsoft is not only the 
information processing leader but controls information processing 
and he who controls the information_controls. Microsoft 
provides what appears to be a superb product but who can challenge 
them or make what would be improvements to their product. No one 
dares.

MTC-152



MTC-00000153

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 12:44pm
Subject: The DOJ-Microsoft settlement could not be better.
    This will benefit consumers. Anti-trust law should not be used 
to protect competitors like Sun, AOL, or Oracle. Competitors should 
have to compete. The law should not do their competing for them. Sun 
and AOL have tried to use this case to destroy their competition. 
Microsoft is dramatically bringing down the cost of large computer 
server installations and Sun does not want the price to come down. 
Sun wants to maintain crazy, high prices for server systems. AOL has 
a browser that competes very well with the Microsoft browser. The 
fact that AOL inexplicably pulled that product from the marketplace 
has nothing to do with Microsoft. If AOL would distribute that 
browser today it would reclaim 40% or more of the market. This is 
truly the only reason that AOL does not distribute its browser; they 
want to make Microsoft look bad. Watch my words, as soon as this 
antitrust case is finished AOL will suddenly decide to use their own 
Netscape browser and it will receive a wide audience and 
distribution. It would have a broad user base today but AOL refuses 
to distribute or support it because then it would be too obvious 
that Microsoft did not 'crush Netscape. AOL simply removed it 
from the market.
    The current settlement with the DOJ and Microsoft is excellent 
and is all that is required.
    Thank You,
    Bruce Garrick
    Sr. Application Developer
    Total info Services
    888-634-9942 x2484
    [email protected]
    "We must learn to live together as brothers or perish 
together as fools."_Martin Luther King, Jr.

MTC-153



MTC-00000154

From: Brian and Karen
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 11/16/01 12:45pm
Subject: Comments regarding Microsoft settlement
    From what I've read, the settlement with Microsoft does not 
include a significant penalty for their illegal business practices. 
If all American parents raised our children this way our country 
would quickly collapse. What is the Justice Department thinking? As 
it stands now, Microsoft has essentially been rewarded for their 
behavior and is very likely to continue to push and exceed legal 
limits.




MTC-00000155

From: Rodney Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft_Anti Trust
    Dear DOJ, First I would like to say that this legal proceeding 
must be handled with great care. It is very economically important 
to settle a case like this so everyone comes out ahead. It is 
obvious at this point that your expert opinion is that conduct 
provisions be established to bring about a beneficial SETTLEMENT.
    I am a software developer. My experience with the technology/
products in question lead me to conclude that conduct provision MAY 
be a sensible route to a reasonable out come. I must stress that 
technology is pushing forward and is requiring all software 
developers to use ever greater efforts to bring about products that 
are desirable. The comfort in the use of various technique matured 
during the 1980s that still serve as the building blocks for 
products in the year 2001. These building blocks have to advance in 
order to meet the needs of the currentlnext generation of software 
products. What I am specifically addressing is that Microsoft has 
advance EXPERIENCE in what ever technology it implements in its 
Windows OS. Competitors must struggle to implement new FEATURES 
provided in the Windows OS from the point of view of implementer. We 
all have to understand that Microsoft has invested money and effort 
to develop these new features, an intimate understanding of theory 
behind that technology thus exists.
    For those who are in competition with Microsoft to develop 
feature rich technologies timely exposure to privileged THEORY does 
not exist. Instead, while Microsoft has "the inside 
track" and is working on next years projects, the competition 
is just learning how the present features can and should be used.
    All of this is said to emphasize that one critical element to 
this very important legal matter is that there has to be fair access 
to new developments within the key technology, WINDOWS. If there 
were a way to maintain a list of technology being implemented and 
detailed information on the theory behind it, everyone would be in 
the advantages situation of technical literacy behind 
"A" target technology (WINDOWS). If there is no 
efficient method to implement such a strategy then I must urge on 
this basis alone that the company (MICROSOFT) be divided into an OS 
(WINDOWS) company and an Application company, two totally distinct 
companies, no ties. At this point, if a division was used, I would 
suggest no further remedy.
    If a division of the company was is not selected as a remedy for 
the Anti-trust case and a "fair sharing of technology is 
used", then I would also suggest that Microsoft be restricted 
from bundling "value added

[[Page 23681]]

 applets". Examples range from the simple, (Notepad, a simple 
text editor), to the more sophisticated (Instant Messaging, Video 
Editing, the Windows Media Player). These applets have no place 
under the title Operating System. They have no baring on the OS, 
they should all be omitted for (I'm no legal professional) legal 
simplicity.
    If however one decided not to pursue this aspect of this 
legality in this fashion, I then suggest at the least, competitors 
be allowed prominent accessibility/exposure to the OS (WINDOWS) 
consumer. An prominently exposed method to "use" or 
"try" a competitor's product should be available. This 
equal accessible method might encapsulate ALL competitor products to 
provide a clear distinction between what is "a part of 
Windows" and what is offered as an alternative.
    These alternatives would be included with the Windows OS with 
respect to competitor participation.
    This proposal for the Microsoft_DOJ, Anti Trust case is 
offered as a suggestion(s)
    Sincerely,
    A Concerned Citizen

MTC-155



MTC-00000157

From: Frank Moore
To: US Justice Deprtment
Date: 11/16/01 12:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
    I really don't know why I am writing to you. This is probably 
just a "mail drop" created by the DOJ in an attempt to 
placate the millions of citizens who feel that your proposed 
settlement with Microsoft is akin to no settlement at all. Rest 
assured, like the Attorney's General of the states that will not 
accept this sellout, we will not be placated either.
    What was the point of this entire exercise and the millions 
spent on prosecuting this case, if you were going to ignore the rule 
of law that was violated, and the defendants failure to comply with 
previous court judgments. Microsoft has shown time and time again 
that they cannot be trusted to even make a good faith effort to 
comply with court rulings and judgments. They have repeatedly 
thumbed their noses at the courts and continued in their 
reprehensible conduct toward competitors. Contrary to their claims, 
their conduct and past business practices has not advanced 
technology and innovation but rather has stifled it by eliminating 
competition and driving the true innovators out of business. When 
they perceive a threat by a competitor, they either "end 
support" for their competitors software, product, or protocol, 
alter their products to disable or cripple the competitors product 
on their platform, or include their own poor implementation of the 
competitors product in their OS in an all too often attempt to 
eliminate the market for the third party software. (Look at what 
they've done to JAVA)
    They also use their monopoly power to make the industry adopt 
their inferior implementation of these products as the industry 
standard.
    Their methods of doing this often violate not only the spirit of 
the law but the letter of the law as well. Why YOU, in total 
deference to the state Attorney Generals who entrusted this case to 
your care, and to the consuming public, are choosing to ignore the 
facts that have been more than adequately proven, is beyond me.
    Are you all so computer illiterate that you don't understand the 
implications and impact of Microsoft's illegal behavior on the 
industry or...do you choose to ignore it for political 
reasons as well?
    Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson had a grasp of both the legal and 
technical aspects involved here that seem to be lost on the current 
DOT team as well as the current judge. The fact that he may have 
made irresponsible comments to the press does not change the fact 
that his findings, in regard to the letter of the law, have been 
upheld on appeal. Your proposed settlement completely ignores this 
and, more importantly, completely ignores Microsoft's failure to 
abide by previous rulings. Your settlement has absolutely no teeth 
and leaves far too much "squirm room" for a company who 
spends millions of dollars on attorneys looking for ways to 
circumvent the letter and spirit of the law.
    I have read details of your proposed settlement. It's almost as 
if you're telling Microsoft, for the umpteenth time, "Now we 
told you not to do that before. If you do it again we'll really have 
spank you ... next time". IT IS TIME FOR SANCTIONS 
AND REAL PENALTIES NOW. They have been given another chance too many 
times.
    I am a former peace officer whose eighteen year career was ended 
by an assault, spinal cord injuries, and subsequent surgeries. I 
then returned to school where I studied computer network engineering 
and I am now an Information Technology Manager. I am a MICROSOFT 
Certified System Engineer (MCSE). I work with Microsoft product each 
and every day. I was an avid computer hobbyist prior to entering 
this new career and have worked with both Macintosh and MS/Windows 
products extensively.
    I have, first hand, seen the damage that Microsoft's illegal and 
unethical practices have done within the industry. I have seen 
Microsoft products with "wait codes" written into them 
in order to slow down performance on competing platforms. I have 
seen Microsoft products that, when installed on a machine that also 
has a competitors product installed, disables, cripples, or 
destabilizes the competitors product. I have seen how difficult it 
can then be to ferret out all of the components of the Microsoft 
product in order to restore the competing product, or platform, to 
functionality.
    I have seen Microsoft STEAL a third party software developers 
product by reverse engineering the source code, make their own poor 
implementation of their own version of the product, incorporate same 
into their operating system, an in doing so force the third party 
developer, or a superior product, out of business.
    This has always been, and under the terms of your 
"settlement will always be the business model for Microsoft. 
This type of behavior is entrenched in their corporate doctrine and 
they will not change unless YOU force them to change.
    Your proposed settlement does little or nothing to change the 
status quo. Your settlement also does nothing to compensate the 
hundreds of businesses and thousands of individual who have been 
damaged by Microsoft's behavior. These people, and for that matter 
all computer users worldwide, are entitled to compensation.
    As the US Justice Department, for whatever reason, seems 
unwilling or unable to pursue effective remedies in this case, I 
only hope that the Justice Departments of my home state, California, 
and the other states unwilling to accept this toothless, flawed, and 
totally ineffective settlement, will aggressively pursue this case 
and force an effective remedy that includes punitive damages.
    Thank you for your time,
    Frank Moore
    Tehacliapi, CA
    cc California Attorney General's Office

MTC-157



MTC-00000158

From: mark. [email protected]@ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 12:55pm
Subject: Sold out by DOJ
    Is this the email address where I can get the list of laws that 
I can freely break and receive only a DOJ admonition, "Now, 
now, don't do it again."? Or do I have to get that list 
directly from Microsoft? The Microsoft settlement endorsed by the 
DOJ is a sellout of the American public. Microsoft has crushed 
countless competitors through monopolistic practices_not 
through creating superior products_and called it 
"innovation".
    If there was ever a case for serious government trustbusting, 
this is it, but the proposed DOT settlement is nothing more than a 
mild slap on the wrist. How can you have the courts repeatedly rule 
that Microsoft is a monopoly, and then hand them such a victory?
    I hope the states or the E.U. has sense enough to do something 
meaningfull. I am ashamed of my government.
    Mark Schulman
    Orlando, Florida

MTC-158



MTC-00000159

From: Davidson, Tom
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov'
Date: 11/16/01 12:56pm
Subject: Geez.
    You guys really let Microsoft off the hook. I'm assuming the 
Bush administration just told you to let the thing die_or did 
someone there REALLY decide to settle after WINNING the case for 
less than what Microsoft was offering originally?
    Tom

MTC-159



MTC-00000160

From: bronto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 12:57pm
Subject: Capitulation
    I must voice my objection to the so-called settlement with 
Microsoft. It is nothing more

[[Page 23682]]

than outright capitulation. The settlement is nothing more than a 
slap on the hand to a convicted monopolist. Every provision that 
appears to have consequences has loopholes to escape through. 
Nothing was even attempted in regards to the bundling in XP. It's a 
travesty. There is nothing better than a free market, but it won't 
be free until MS is brought under control.
    Microsoft is "pleased" with the settlement; doesn't 
that speak volumes?
    Rob

MTC-160



MTC-00000161

From: Frank Lugo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 12:57pm
Subject: AntiTrust Comment
    I honestly feel the US Government has already wasted enough time 
and money on this case. Lets resolve this now!
    Frank
    [email protected]
    [email protected]

MTC-161



MTC-00000162

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 12:57pm
Subject: antitrust settlement
    Hello,
    In my view the antitrust settlement is completely unacceptable. 
The sollutions in the antitrust agreement will not stop Microsoft 
from continuing its current business practices. Windows XP is an 
excellent example of what Microsoft does best... force things onto 
an unwilling industry.
    I have specific problems with the following items.
    The intentional degradation of MP3 files with the new media 
player. How does this benefit anyone besides Microsoft and its WMA 
format? Unacceptable power to audit company's usage of windows 
products. This is so close to racketeering that its virtually 
indistinguishable.
    Forcing large corporations to one of microsoft's lincense 
managers is evil. Microsoft requires it and then charges tens of 
thousands of dollars for a single implementation so microsoft can 
see how much of their software you are using. NOT ACCEPTABLE
    Non Disclosure of API interfaces. Without knowledge of these all 
important interfaces one can not write programs to interface with 
windows. Microsoft retains the rights to disclose these interfaces 
as it chooses under the anttrust settlement. This is an enormous 
power for microsoft to pick and choose who writes what products at 
will.
    Bundling services. This is detailed in the antitrust ligiation 
but it needs to be more enforceable. The right choose what programs 
I have. Ever attempted to delete microsoft outlook and see it 
comeback within 10 seconds? Microsoft is using windows file 
protection to insure that certain programs remain installed no 
matter what. I hate outlook but I can't uninstall it. Windows XP is 
the same way.
    Anyway you can see that this antitrust settlement is bogus. I 
needs to be rewritten with some of the opposition involved. They 
know what dirty tricks Microsoft has employed. Let them have a say 
in fixing what was done to them.
    James Ressler
    Computer Science Student, Chico CA

MTC-162



MTC-00000163

From: Ralph Olsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 12:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above Microsoft 
case. I believe that the government settlement is a fair settlement 
and should be implemented as soon as possible.
    I strongly believe that the original trial judgement in early 
2000 plus the federal reserve raising interest rates were the two 
most significant factors that threw the whole country into a 
downward spiral.
    The original trial used up so much of Microsoft's technical and 
management energy that they were not able to develop new operating 
systems in a timely manner. As a result, the computer hardware 
outran the operational software and all the other application 
programs that would have been developed.
    I have used Microsoft products for many years, am a Microsoft 
stockholder, also a stockholder in Sun Microsystems, Oracle, Intel, 
and Cisco. I am very unhappy with Sun and Oracle for their part 
lobbying the attorney generals and the US government to bring the 
original suit against Microsoft.
    I believe strongly that this has been a real detrement to me as 
a personal user of computers. I have held off buying a new computer 
until just recently when the new Microsoft XP software became 
available.
    I don't know how all the lawyers involved in this case could 
ever come to an agreement, but if there were a opportunity to vote 
against the plaintiff lawyers in this case, I certainly would.
    Please settle this national disaster and lets get on with life 
and the productivity that can come from a lot less legal maneuvering 
and more and better software..
    Thank you,
    Ralph Olsen
    23824_113th Place West
    Woodway, WA., 98020 Ph: 206-546-9708

MTC-163



MTC-00000164

From: nn @broadcom.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 12:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a 40 year old computer professional of over 20 years I've 
worked at AT&T, Bell Laboratories, Sun Microsystems, Silicon 
Graphics, Broadcom, and some other smaller companies in Atlanta, New 
Jersey, and Silicon Valley. I think I have a reasonable 
understanding of the basics of the marketplace in which Microsoft 
competes. I've seen the business practices of Microsoft first hand 
many times over the years.
    When the DOJ started their anti-trust case against Microsoft I 
said "This will be yet another slap on the wrist."
    So here we are several years later, Microsoft has been convicted 
of (1) being a monopoly and (2) abusing their monopoly status. And 
what happens? The DOJ Sells us Out.
    "Us" are the consumers, the purchasers of software 
and computers and the users of the Internet. The DOJ demonstrated 
that a multi-billion dollar corporation is above the law. The DOJ 
made a mockery of our Anti-Trust laws. I am outraged by this and 
very upset with the DOJ and the Bush Administration for failing to 
fulfill their legal requirements and selling out to corporate 
interests.
    Microsoft does very little "innovation". Microsoft 
is a Marketing company, an exceptionally good one, that intimidates 
and bullies and takes advantage of its monopoly status to DECREASE 
COMPETITION. This is what anti-trust laws were made to correct.
    "The [DOJ], led by antitrust chief Charles James, contends 
the settlement will eliminate Microsoft's monopoly abuse and restore 
competition in the marketplace". Hello? Earth to Mr James. 
This settlement is a sell out and will have practically no impact on 
Microsoft's practices other than to *encourage* them to abuse their 
monopoly further since they clearly can get away with it. This 
settlement was written by Microsoft, what else needs to be said?
    This settlement is a slap on the wrist. Just like the previous 
slaps on the wrist that various courts have ruled on against 
Microsoft. They didn't make a bit of difference, neither will this. 
This is obvious. It doesn't take an advanced degree to understand 
this. This DOJ action reinforces the publics increasing critical 
perception of our higher courts as a place where large corporations 
are except from the laws. I strongly urge Judge Kollar-Kotelly to 
throw out this settlement because it is useless. History will judge.
    Sincerely,
    Neal Nuckolls
    [email protected]
    400 East Caribbean Drive
    Sunnyvale, CA 94089

MTC-164



MTC-00000165

From: rfinell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 12:59pm
Subject: settlement
    The only promises DOJ attorneys can be absolutely sure Microsoft 
will keep, are that jobs will be waiting for them when they leave 
government service.

MTC-165



MTC-00000166

From: Aaron J. Bartlett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 1:02pm
Subject: DOJ vs MS Agreement
    "What the settlement seems to do is prohibit Microsoft 
from breaking the law IN THIS SPECIFIC WAY for a period of five 
years. Imagine a murderer who shot his victims being enjoined for 
five years from using a gun, but still being allowed to carry a 
knife."
    "It is important to understand here that Microsoft 
management does not feel the

[[Page 23683]]

slightest bit of guilt. They are, as they have explained over and 
over again, just trying to survive in a brutally competitive 
industry, one in which they could go from winner to loser in a 
heartbeat. The fact that Microsoft makes in excess of 90 percent of 
the profit of the entire software industry, well that's just the 
happy result of a lot of hard work. Pay no mind to that $36 billion 
they have in the bank. And since Microsoft doesn't feel guilty, 
their motivation in agreeing to this settlement is just to get on 
with business. This is a very important fact to keep in mind when 
trying to understand the event. This isn't Microsoft being caught 
and punished, it is Microsoft finding a path back to business as 
usual, which is to say back to the very kind of practices that got 
them here. Microsoft, confident in its innate cleverness, is willing 
to give up certain old monopolistic behaviors because there are new 
monopolistic behaviors now available to replace them."
    "Microsoft has to open-up certain Windows communication 
APIs to other developers, but there is no restriction at all on the 
addition of new APIs. So expect a LOT of new APIs, many of which 
will do nothing at all except confuse competitors. There is nothing 
in the agreement that says Microsoft has to tell anyone which APIs 
it really intends to use. So just like interpreted software is 
obfuscated to hinder would-be copiers, expect Microsoft to obfuscate 
Windows, itself."
    "Microsoft has to allow third-party middleware, but a 
glaring loophole was left for Microsoft, simply to redefine code as 
not being middleware. If they stop distributing code separately and 
draw it into Windows, well as I read the proposed settlement, 
middleware stops being middleware after 12 months. So if something 
new comes up (all the old middleware is explicitly defined) 
Microsoft can integrate it and (eliminate) the opposition one year 
after they stop distributing it separately."
    "These loopholes are nice, but they don't amount to the 
kind of leverage Microsoft would want to have before signing away 
any rights. Bill Gates would want to believe that he has a new and 
completely unfettered weapon so powerful that it makes some of the 
older weapons completely unnecessary. He has found that weapon in 
.NET." "But hey, .NET isn't even successful yet, right? 
It might be a big flop. Wrong. Those who think there is any way that 
.NIET won't be universally deployed are ignoring Microsoft's 90 
percent operating system market share. Whether people like .NET or 
not, they'll get it as old computers are replaced with new ones. 
Within three years .NET will be everywhere whether customers 
actually use it or not. And that ubiquity, rather than commercial 
success, is what is important to Microsoft."
    "Here is the deal. .NET is essentially a giant system for 
tracking user behavior and, as such, will become Microsoft's most 
valuable tactical tool. It is a system for tracking use of services, 
and the data from that tracking is available only to 
Microsoft."
    ".NET is an integral part of Windows' communication system 
with all calls going through it. This will allow Microsoft (and only 
Microsoft) to track the most frequently placed calls. If the calls 
are going to a third-party software package, Microsoft will know 
about it. This information is crucial. With it, Microsoft can know 
which third-party products to ignore and which to destroy. With this 
information, Microsoft can develop its own add-in packages and 
integrate them into the .NET framework, thus eliminating the third-
party provider. A year later, as explained above, the problem is 
solved."
    "Alternately, Microsoft could use the information (this 
.NET-generated market research that Microsoft gets for free and 
nobody else gets at all) to change Windows to do service discovery 
giving an automatic priority to Microsoft's middleware. The 
advantage here is in giving the appearance of openness without 
actually being open.
    "These possible behaviors are not in any way proscribed by 
the proposed settlement with the DOJ, yet they virtually guarantee a 
continuation of Microsoft's monopoly on applications and services as 
long as Microsoft has an operating system monopoly. When Microsoft 
talks about "innovation," this is what they mean. 
Nothing is going to change."
    "My preferred outcome is still that Microsoft be forced to 
sell its language business, and the proceeds of that sale be 
distributed to registered users of Microsoft products. You might 
think to suggest that in your comments to the court."
    Robert X. Cringely
    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpitIpulpit200ill08.htmi

    I share Mr. Cringley's observations in how the outcome of the 
DOJ agreement does little to protect consumers and businesses from 
Microsoft's business practices, into the future.
    Microsoft will further expand it's control by penetrating new 
markets through the perpetuation of it's operating system monopoly 
onto new devices, such as the recently released X-Box. The release 
of this device will allow Microsoft to position themselves in a way 
that will build a need for developers to design software for 
Microsoft's operating systems, due to better market penetration. The 
developer will only have to create code once, to be able to deliver 
his software to PCs running Windows Operating Systems, X-box gaming 
systems running Windows Operating Systems, and the recent deal 
between Microsoft and Sega for arcade machines running Windows 
Operating Systems.
    Without placing severe penalties for it's monopolistic behavior 
in the past, and controlling it's actions into the future, Microsoft 
will continue "business as usual" by controlling various 
markets through the expansion and inclusion of additional software 
into it's operating systems.
    Aaron J. Bartlett

MTC-166



MTC-00000167

From: Bill Gascoyne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 1:03pm
Subject: Why is Microsoft not being punished?
    To whom it may concern:
    Microsoft is an unrepentant monopolist. The currently proposed 
settlement is nowhere near harsh enough. It makes only weak 
provisions to correct Microsoft's behavior, and does nothing to 
punish Microsoft's past behavior. There is no provision to try to 
undo the damage that Microsoft has done to its partners and 
competitors, and there is no incentive for Microsoft to repent its 
past wrongdoings in any way whatsoever.
    Mirosoft still does not admit to being a monopoly, despite the 
fact that the court has found it to be one. Based on past behavior, 
it seems obvious that Microsoft will seek any and all means to 
continue business as usual, and the currently proposed settlement 
provides for very few barriers for Microsoft to do so.
    Through its monopoly practices, Microsoft has established file 
formats that are both proprietary and de-facto standards. No 
competition is possible under such circumstances for word 
processing, spreadsheets, or presentation material.
    Microsoft should be made to reveal much of its source code, and 
be made to open its file formats so that competing products can be 
introduced to compete with the defacto standards of programs like 
Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. If this is done, someone will no doubt 
write such programs for the Linux OS, and then we'll see how well a 
bug-infested product like Widows does against real competition!
    William H. Gascoyne
    935 Northrup St.
    San Jose, CA 95126
    408/298-3020 (h) 408/433-7126 (w)

MTC-167



MTC-00000168

From: Lander, Scott
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 11/16/01 1:04pm
    "simply telling a defendant to go forth and sin no more 
does little or nothing to address the unfair advantage it has 
already gained."
    Hello
    I am the system administrator for Transamerica Reinsurance. I am 
extremely computer literate and knowledgeable. I have followed the 
Microsoft case with great interest, and more then a little 
frustration, over the years.
    While I don't have the legal background to say if Microsoft has 
violated laws, I do have the technical background to know that 
Microsoft practices have definitely been detrimental to the public 
(and corporate) world. Many. far to many for it not to be 
deliberate, competing products have been stamped out by the very 
simple strategy of forcibly installing the MS version with the 
operating system, and by making the operating system opaque enough 
to ensure that the competing tools can not be as reliable as the MS 
version.
    This has had the side effect of making the MS Operating System 
itself become extremely bloated, forcing consumers to continually 
purchase system upgrades to maintain the same level of performance. 
This may be good for the system vendors, but most certainly has NOT 
been good for the system consumers.
    You might say that is the price of progress, however competing 
products, such as Linux,

[[Page 23684]]

have been growing their level of sophistication faster then MS, 
without anywhere near the level of associated bloat.
    I believe that the consumers, and in fact, MS itself, would be 
better served by not allowing MS to integrate so much into the OS, 
and instead be forced to compete on a level playing field with 
competitors on the peripheral items, much as they do with the office 
suite. I am so convinced of this in fact, that I am amazed MS hasn't 
done it on their own_it would be a potential tremendous money 
maker for them, with their great marketing capabilities.
    Please, don't rush into an agreement which clearly will not 
address the very harmful practices MS routinely engages in.
    Thank you
    Scott Lander

    704 573 1693

MTC-168



MTC-00000169

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 1:07pm
Subject: A Travesty of Justice
    I find it highly disgraceful that the terms and penalties 
applying to Microsoft have been so weak in contrast to their 
infractions.
    I fear that there are those who believe that the practices of 
Microsoft in this regard have greatly helped the public at large, 
but that is far from the truth. The stifling of competition has 
created a vacuum due to the dirth of credible competition to 
Microsoft's hold on the software/OS industry. The uncountable number 
of companies that have been forced to fold due to the pressure 
exerted by Microsoft both fiscally as well as legally have reduced 
the ability of consumers to really have a choice. The egregious cost 
of software for the entire Microsoft line to date is just a minor 
symptom of this pervasive illness.
    I fear that these missteps are due in part to the complete lack 
of credible experts as to the internal nature of the software of 
Microsoft. If you reviewed the code (which I admit, I have not been 
privy to, but I have much experience with the software over the 
years) that comprised the OS, you would see how it was changed at 
stages to make it "incompatible" with other software 
from competitors (i.e._Netscape and many others). I fear that 
the DOJ does not have the resources, nor the inclination to pursue 
this in a manner that is appropriate due to some influence exerted 
from more Conservative corners.
    That stricter sanctions have not been taken is really an affront 
to the monopoly laws that were so well enforced initially by the 
Roosevelt administration (and I do mean Theodore). Microsoft's 
monopoly will continue to flourish, and I wish to add, for the 
record, that I am disappointed that justice can so easily be 
purchased in this day and age.
    Sincerely,
    Vivek Paramesh

MTC-169



MTC-00000170

From: Gary Eckstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 1:11pm
Subject: not enough
    I fear that the settlement proposal is inadequate. It provides 
insufficient safegaurds against microsoft using its dominant market 
position in the OS market to extents dominance in other areas such 
as media players and other ad-ons functions, such as its passport 
technology and its .NIET strategy.
    Windows XP illustrates microsoft's continued tendancy to design 
its core products to function better with its own add-ons 
technologies than with third-party products providing similar 
services. Only recently, Microsoft removed support for netscape 
plug-ins, and with it support of alterntive media players.

MTC-170



MTC-00000171

From: Raph
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 1:12pm
Subject: In my opinion, Microsoft is being treated unfairly. If it 
wasn't for the
    In my opinion, Microsoft is being treated unfairly. If it wasn't 
for the Windows operating system, we would be in the dark ages. 
Windows has allowed many people to make use of computers, where 
before, they may have been presented with ugly text and command 
lines_with NO STANDARDS. Everyone likes to take down people 
who become too successful. Why can't these companies with lawsuits 
against MS stop crying and be more creative. Why do we have to make 
success easy for everyone?
    If they want easy, why don't these companies write software for 
Linux. Linux is free for everyone. Linux was supposed to be the 
Windows killer. There are opportunities everywhere for these 
companies. Instead, they want to ride on Microsoft's success by 
publishing on Microsoft's OS like as if it were a right, and they 
want to rape MS at the same time. It boggles my mind. Those 
crybabies should get lost and write Linux applications.
    Does America have to lessen our standards for creativity and 
innovation? The REAL creative people will always find a way too 
succeed, but all I see are companies that want the easy 
"success" by lawsuits. This country has become filled 
with lawsuits as an excuse to be less creative and less innovative.
    Let's not be more creative and innovative. Let's all companies 
band together and bring down the ones that are successful, and lower 
our standards of success. Let's bring down Microsoft, not with 
creativity and innovation, but with lawsuits. Better yet, let's 
bring down Microsoft while using Windows.

MTC-171



MTC-00000172

From: James Kocurek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11116/01 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I can not believe the Department of Justice is proposing this 
settlement. It's obvious that there had been an outside influence on 
the DOJ to settle this case now. Microsoft lawyers WILL NEVER allow 
the DOJ to enforce any of those settlement provisions.
    Say good bye to competition and hello to a single source of 
ideas. Plus, you'll eventually be paying by the month for use of MS 
Office products. Better put that cost increase into your DOJ budget.
    Very disappointed in DOJ.
    james

MTC-172



MTC-00000173

From: Lei Xu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 1:21pm
Subject: comments on Micsroft settlement
    To who it may concerns, I think the settlement is very 
reasonable. consumers will benifit more from the new Microsoft while 
competion and freedom of inovation are kept.
    I only want to give a example for this: A simple network card 
sells for $30 for Windows-based PC while the same network card is 
priced at more than $300 for SUN Microsystem's least expensive 
desktop computer. The scale of difference is unbalance. consumers 
need Microsoft and its ability to compete.
    Thnaks for consideration!
    Lei Xu

MTC-173



MTC-00000174

From: Steve Henderson
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov'
Date: 11/16/01 1:23pm
Subject: What a waste of time
    At best it is a small nuisance to the Microsoft monopoly. Bill 
must be laughing his butt off and congratulating his lawyers on a 
job well done.
    Justice Dept.? Now there is an ironic name for you.
    Steve Henderson
    FraserAlS
    shenderson @ fraser-ais.com
    610 378-0101 ext.136

MTC-174



MTC-00000175

From: Esposito, Paul
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 1:24pm
Subject: Dept of Justice Settlement
    I personally think the DOJ sold out to Microsoft. The DOJ is 
using the excuse of 'it is better for the economy' as 
the reason for the settlement, this is far from the truth. Microsoft 
has crushed many small companies and even some large ones, whose 
products were better than theirs. What does that do to the economy. 
More people out of work, more companies that go under.
    I'm ashamed that Illinois, the state where I live and work, has 
signed up. I give credit to the states that are holding out, I'm 
sure the government is pushing hard for them to settle. I really 
think you should look at the penalties those states are proposing, 
they make sense. Microsoft should be forced to produce a version of 
their 0/S that does not have all of the other products installed. 
This product should be priced separately. This would allow other 
companies a chance to compete. It is foolish to think that Microsoft 
is throwing all of the other software into the 0/S for free. The 
truth is that they just increase the cost of the 0/S with all the 
add-ons, and then it is left to the consumer to decide if they want 
to spend more money to

[[Page 23685]]

go buy a competitors product, or just use the one that they already 
paid for. I find it strange the DOJ changed their views on the 
subject of Microsoft, so quickly after the change in administration 
(and I'm a republican).
    These views are strictly my opinions, they are not shared by my 
company. A little about myself. I'm a Software Developer/DBA. 1 work 
with Microsoft products on a daily basis, as well as, working with 
their competitions products. Again these are my personal views.
    Paul Esposito

MTC-175



MTC-00000176

From: John Roberts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust settlement
    I don't think that this settlement provides enough protection to 
consumers that Microsoft will not engage in predatory practices in 
the near future.
    1) Microsoft does not have to share source code with other 
companies developing applications for their operating systems. This 
gives Microsoft's application development teams an incredible head-
start, by allowing them to perform concurrent development. All other 
companies have to wait until the operating system is fully released, 
and then they are given only some of the data & information that 
Microsoft's application development teams are given.
    2) Any court challenge / enforcement done under the new 
regulations will not be able to react quickly enough to stop anti-
competitive behavior. There is no point in launching a challenge 
against Microsoft, when the challenge may spend 2-5 years in 
the court system. By that time, your company will be dead, and 
Microsoft will have eaten your lunch.
    3) Microsoft's operating system & applications are becoming 
more deeply inter-woven, deceasing the probability that any new 
competitor entering these markets will be able to compete against 
the combined entities. In fact, it is getting more and more 
difficult to un-install unwanted Microsoft applications, and install 
applications from competitors, (e-mail clients are an example of 
this). I hope that the United States government reconsiders, and 
places real, immediate and severe restrictions on Microsoft.
    John Roberts

MTC-176



MTC-00000177

From: Joseph H. Dougherty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft "settlement" unconscionable
    For the DOJ to have settled for less than Microsoft originally 
offered is an absurdity. Microsoft's bullying, dishonesty, and 
successful anticompetitive manipulation makes the "free 
market" arguments irrelevant to this case: the DOJ should have 
worked to restore an open and innovative environment, but has 
instead worked against the public interest to institutionalize the 
bloat, mediocrity and bullying that are the core of Microsoft as it 
is today.
    I'm sure that the Republican apparatchiks who managed this 
fiasco will do well from it once they pass through the revolving 
door from government disservice to corporate or lobbying jobs; 
sadly, the rest of us will have no such compensations.
    Microsoft has already completely disregarded an earlier 
toothless settlement, and DOJ staffers are not such fools as to 
believe this one will be effective.
    JHD

MTC-177



MTC-00000178

From: Natarajan Sivasailam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 1:33pm
Subject: Opinion AGAINST Proposed Settlement
    Dear Sir/Ma'm,
    I am writing to let you know of my opinion of the US DOT 
settlement that has been proposed with MS. With all due respect, I 
humbly submit to you that the terms of the settlement is not enough, 
and should include more measures that can be said to be 
"tough". The very fact that none of Micro Soft' 
executives have owned up that their actions have caused 
"significant" harm to their Competitors, and hence the 
Consumers at large, goes on to show that they are indeed not 
repentant of their deeds, and it would not be surprising to note 
they will breach any of the said terms of the agreement, or back 
away from fair business practices. A very good example is the case 
of Micro Soft' case during the 1995 case with the US DOJ, when it 
violated the terms of the agreement reached between both the 
parties. According to me,
    "The best way to rectify a mistake is to own up to the 
shortcomings, and take corrective and preventive measures to lessen 
the impact of their wrongdoings . Instead of doing so, and rather 
substantiating one' mistakes, the person only goes on to make a 
bigger mistake."
    I hope that this statement crisply summarizes my thoughts, and 
of a person who looks forward to an industry that indulges in 
healthy competition and best practices that are ultimately aimed at 
the welfare of the Consumer.
    Sincerely,
    Regards,
    Nataraj
    "The only thing for a good person to let evil triumph, is 
to do nothing"

MTC-178



MTC-00000179

From: Thomas D. Helmholdt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Insufficient to Protect Consumers 
November 16, 2001
    Dear U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,
    I am writing to express my belief that the provisions of the 
settlement agreement between the United States and Microsoft are 
insufficient to protect consumers. Although I am not an expert in 
the computer field, I am a consumer for personal purposes and for 
business purposes. I am dismayed that Microsoft will continue to be 
able to leverage it's operating system to foist off on consumers 
additional "add-in" software. However, I am even more 
annoyed that Microsoft will be able to maintain it's coercive 
contracts with computer manufacturers requiring them to pay for a 
Microsoft operating system for every computer they sell, even if the 
computer system does not include Microsoft's operating system 
software. Over the last few years, I have attempted to purchase 
computers without Microsoft's operating system or with alternative 
operating systems. In each case, I was told that I would still have 
to pay for the Microsoft operating system, even if I did not want 
it. What kind of competitive system is this? Do I have no choice at 
all? It is my understanding that the current agreements that are in 
place with computer manufacturers and distributors will not change 
this practice. To add insult to injury, I have recently been 
informed that Microsoft will no longer sell Windows 95, and/or 
Windows 98 operating systems. This creates a tremendous problem for 
system administrators in small and medium size business who have 
previously been forced to standardize on these systems. Even though 
I am an intellectual property law attorney, I am at a loss to 
understand why a company like Microsoft should be able to maintain 
it's copyright in computer software that has been misused for anti-
trust purposes. By analogy, under patent laws, the patent can be 
held invalid and/or unenforceable, and the subject matter covered by 
the patent is dedicated to the public for it's free use from that 
point forward. It would seem an effective strategy to signal to all 
future software businesses that if they misuse their copyrights that 
the rights contained therein will be forfeited. The entire source 
code of all software that Microsoft has used in violation of the 
anti-trust laws should be stripped of any copyright protections and 
competitors should be free to reverse engineer, copy, distribute and 
sell it without any interference from Microsoft. It seems illogical 
to allow Microsoft to maintain a legal right in the copyright of 
software that has been placed in it's hands by the government. If it 
is a right granted by the government, it would appropriate to remove 
the protections of that right when it is misused. This would truly 
foster competition, it would allow competing operating systems to be 
quickly developed and sold that are compatible with Windows 95 and 
Windows 98 operating systems. Then the consumer will have a real 
choice of purchasing the new Microsoft operating system or 
purchasing a competitor's clone of the old misused operating 
systems. These are my thoughts on the matter, and I hope you will 
find them helpful.

MTC-179
    Sincerely,
    Thomas D. Helmholdt



MTC-00000180

From: M Rausher/Present-Day Products
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust settlement
    I would like to go on record as suggesting that the proposed 
antitrust settlement for

[[Page 23686]]

Microsoft is inadequate_it will not prevent the abuses from 
continuing; it will not adequately punish the company for past 
abuses, and it will not allow for adequate competition and 
innovation in the field. A monopoly can only be dealt with by taking 
extreme measures, to make a strong point to the industry, and to 
eliminate the "blockage" in the way of free commerce. 
This proposal does neither.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Rausher,
    President, Present-Day Products

MTC-180



MTC-00000181

From: Joe Blue
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 1:39pm
Subject: DOJ's proposed penalties do not undo the market damage
    Hello,
    As a software developer I can assure you that the proposed DOJ 
settlement does nothing to undo the monopolization of the browser 
market that Microsoft accomplished through its illegal business 
practices. Microsoft now has over 80% of the browser market, and 
growing, precisely because of the illegal conduct determined in the 
case. Why are there no penalties to force them to disgorge that 
advantage, by bundling an alternative browser? The lesson for 
Microsoft: use whatever means to destroy any competitive threat, and 
then deal with future-conduct remedies by subversion. This is 
precisely what happened in the 1995 consent decree.
    SINCE WHEN DOES A REMEDY FOCUS ONLY ON FUTURE BEHAVIOR AND NOT 
ON ADDRESSING THE HARM ALREADY PERPETRATED? THIS IS NONSENSICAL.
    Joseph Blumenthal

MTC-181



MTC-00000182

From: Andybur, Richard W
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/16/01 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I fell the agreement is fair for all parties. Less settle this, 
so we can grow the economy again. This has gone on to LONG!
    Best Regards,
    Rick Andybur
    StorageTek_Channel Product Manager
    Central Region
    Strategic Accounts/ SBC
    *314.854.8820
    * E-mail: [email protected]

MTC-182



MTC-00000183

From: Ron, Heather (038) Jon Feldman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 1:46pm
Subject: Please Break Up Microsoft
    As an Engineer living in 'Silicon Valley', I am well 
acquainted with the current state of software technology, 
Microsoft's product line and it's position in the Market, as 
well as competitive consumer software packages. My problem is that 
Microsoft's software has gotten progressively worse over time while 
their aggressive marketing tactics haves become increasingly 
invasive into private lives.
    To me, major issues include, but are not limited to, the 
following
    (1) Microsoft is endlessly bundling ancillary software packages 
with Windows which destroys competition because of the competitive 
advantage of the Windows bundling.
    Regardless of the Microsoft quality, and it is generally less 
than competition's full-featured product, the competition is at a 
disadvantage and a potentially superior product cannot be 
competitive.
    (2) It appears that Microsoft's own Windows software code is so 
massive that they are creating more bugs then they are fixing 
because of their endless integration of other programs into Windows. 
I believe that these other accessory' programs would function faster 
& more effectively if they were completely separate software 
packages, interfacing to Windows in exactly the same manner of the 
competition.
    To restate this, I believe that Microsoft's policy of direct 
integration into Windows, rather than producing a superior product, 
has resulted in an inferior product because they are able to 
sidestep the software rules they would have others follow.
    (3) Microsoft's PASSPORT/.WEB initiative is being marketed so 
aggressively that now Microsoft customers are forced to sign up with 
PASSPORT in order to get Customer Service.
    Again, if you are not signed up for PASSPORT, then you do not 
get customer support on any Microsoft product. Since I do not want 
to put personal information into Microsoft's PASSPORT program, I may 
get no customer support.
    I do not want Microsoft given the power to drive internet 
eBusiness.

MTC-183



MTC-00000184

    As a knowledgeable consumer and voter, I am seriously concerned 
that Microsoft's business practices have not changed since the 
recent anti-trust actions. As history shows, Microsoft's market 
approach is to bully both the competition and consumers by virtue of 
their market power. Again, this is not in the best interests of the 
American public and I am very disappointed in the current 
Administration's efforts and consider them a step backwards. Because 
of the above issues, and many others, I want Microsoft broken up 
into at least 3 companies; Operating Systems (Windows), Office 
Products and Internet Products. The interaction between these 
different software products and the Windows operating system would 
then follow the same rules as their competition.
    PLEASE support consumers on this and do NOT let Microsoft off 
the hook.
    Ron Feldman
    5104 Westmont Ave
    #11
    San Jose, 95130

MTC-184



MTC-00000185

From: EXT-Gallarzo, Luis G
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 1:46pm
    Working in a fairly diverse computing environment, I have come 
across many of the violations where Microsoft has been found guilty. 
Anything from not being able to install Apple's QuickTime player to 
Oracle compatibility problems. With the current settlement Microsoft 
is going to continue to abuse their power which makes me wonder why 
the government sued Microsoft in the first place. If the government 
is really concerned with the consumers, it should pay us back for 
all of the tax dollars squandered on this case or see it through to 
the end. I believe that computer standards should be in place to 
keep consumers from being violated, but one company should not have 
free reign establishing those standards. I hope the judge does not 
approve the so called "sanctions", and that the 
government follows suit with the last nine remaining states and 
force Microsoft to play fair with the rest of the computing 
industry.

MTC-185



MTC-00000186

From: James E. Felton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Articles I've read in newspapers (and on websites) suggest that 
the Department of Justice is letting Microsoft off easy because the 
prosecution of Microsoft it is hurting our economy. Is that what we, 
as Americans, are supposed to teach our children? That crime is 
"ok" as long as it (temporarily) helps our economy?
    Microsoft has been proven guilty of serious crimes that affect 
all consumers, and all businesses, and in fact, may affect our 
entire future. And were going to let them off easy just because it 
is temporarily inconvenient to punish them properly? Absurd! The 
fact that this case was tried as a civil case instead of being tried 
as a criminal case HAS ALREADY let them off easy, no matter what 
civil penalties may be imposed. Several Microsoft executives SHOULD, 
actually, be facing JAIL TIME. But now, not only are we not 
punishing them under criminal law, but we're even going to let them 
off easy on the civil penalties? THIS SETTLEMENT is a crime against 
all Americans, and all computer users of the world!
    In the meantime, A. Alfred Taubman of Detroit faces a strong 
possibility of 3 years in prison, and $300,000.00 in fines for MUCH 
lesser crimes (charged with violating the Sherman Antitrust Act by 
fixing prices at Christie's and Sotheby's auction houses) because 
prosecution of his crime doesn't negatively affect the economy. And 
there are MANY examples of FOREIGN companies, listed on the DOJ 
website, who have received far greater punishment for far lesser 
crimes.
    This settlement is ridiculous! Microsoft was PROVEN GUiLTY 
BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT. Most of the charges were upheld by the 
Appeal's Court. The evidence is a matter of PUBLIC RECORD. Bill 
Gates, and other Microsoft executives SHOULD BE IN PRISON. Instead, 
they stand to walk away with a slap on the hand!
    PLEASE GIVE UP on trying to convince the "hold-out" 
States to join this settlement! This

[[Page 23687]]

proposed settlement DOES NOT adequately address the crimes. And the 
"hold-out" States are THE PEOPLE'S only remaining hope 
of JUSTICE in this case. The (proposed) settlement MIGHT HAVE BEEEN 
acceptable IF Microsoft had been willing to settle BEFORE the judge 
issued his findings of fact. But THEY DIDN'T. Microsoft arrogantly 
CHOSE to take it's chances in court and THEY WERE PROVEN GUILTY. If 
this (proposed) settlement becomes final, the Justice Department is 
basically allowing Bill Gates and Microsoft to walk away LAUGHING at 
our system of justice, while STEPPING ON the LITTLE GUYS who play 
fair! And WE, THE PEOPLE, will PAY for it all!

MTC-186



MTC-00000187

From: EXT-Gallarzo, Luis G
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 1:51pm
    Working in a fairly diverse computing environment, I have come 
across many of the violations where Microsoft has been found guilty. 
Anything from not being able to install Apple's QuickTime player to 
Oracle compatibility problems. With the current settlement, 
Microsoft is going to continue to abuse their power which makes me 
wonder why the government sued Microsoft in the first place. If the 
government is really concerned with the consumers, it should pay us 
back for all of the tax dollars squandered on this case or see it 
through to the end. I believe that computer standards should be in 
place to keep consumers from being violated, but one company should 
not have free reign establishing those standards. I hope the judge 
does not approve the so called "sanctions", and that the 
government follows suit with the last nine remaining states and 
force Microsoft to play fair with the rest of the computing 
industry.

MTC-187



MTC-00000188

From: Joe Mason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 1:53pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    It is business as usual at MicroSoft. Has anyone at the Justice 
Department used WindowsXP yet? MicroSoft continues to abuse its 
monopoly position in the Operating System area with this new OS. 
Rival software does not work with XP if MS has bundled a similar 
product (check out and see if RealPlayer, QuickTime, etc work well 
with it), and MicroSoft has added ADVERTISING for their products 
that pop up to annoy users of the OS whether they want to or not. 
Finally, the cumbersome activation procedure must be repeated for 
the same computer if the user merely adds peripherals and changes 
reconfigurations as well as when they have to reinstall the software 
(a common occurence with the poor quality of MicroSoft products). In 
other words, the government has not slowed the Robber Baron of the 
21st Century in the least. They continue to break the law and flout 
the governments attempts to restore order and equity to the 
Computing field.
    Sincerely,
    Gordon Joe Mason
    Nome, Alaska

MTC-188



MTC-00000189

From: Dave Bunting
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 1:54pm
Subject: Guilty of crime but no punishment???
    Justice:
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is not just. Found guilty 
of a crime, Microsoft must be punished in proportion to the unfair 
prices it has charged its customers, and to the injury it has done 
to its competitors.
    But the settlement includes no real punishment, only difficult- 
or impossible-to-enforce attempts to make Microsoft cease its 
criminal practices. Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates on Thursday 
defended the settlement as tough but one that "we're really 
pleased to have." Of course he's please to have it. Any 
settlement that the world's biggest criminal is "pleased to 
have" is proven by his pleasure to be grossly inadequate.
    An adequate settlement would have Mr. Gates displeased at being 
handcuffed and lead off to prison. Judge Stanley Sporkin said 
correctly in 1995, "simply telling a defendant to go forth and 
sin no more does little or nothing to address the unfair advantage 
it has already gained."
    And I add: Neither does it address the billions of dollars in 
wrongful profits it has gained and in injuries it has done.
    PLEASE don't let these criminals off without punishment as this 
settlement does!
    Dave Bunting
    Packwood WA

MTC-1 89



MTC-00000190

From: Jim Hillegass
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft should be split
    I'm Jim Hillegass, CEO of J. River, a 20 person software firm 
located in Minneapolis.
    I believe that Microsoft has abused its power and should be 
split into an applications company and an OS company. I understand 
that the Justice Department has decided against this, but I want to 
express an opinion. Here's why. Microsoft is big and, to please 
shareholders, must become still bigger and more profitable. There 
are no significant niches left in the software business where a 
company can make products without competing with Microsoft.
    Competition with Microsoft would be fine IF the details of the 
OS were made available equally to software vendors like J. River and 
to a Microsoft applications company. As it stands, details on the OS 
are extremely hard to get.
    I watched Microsoft destroy Wordperfect, Lotus, Netscape, and 
many smaller firms. The same thing is happening now with Real 
Networks, and the newest OS removes niches in zipping files, 
printing photos, and many other areas. I would be happy to provide 
more detail.
    Regards,
    Jim Hillegass
    J. River, Inc.
    125 N First St
    Minneapolis MN 55401
    www.jriver.com
    www.musicex.com
    612 677 8200 x 203

MTC-190



MTC-00000191

From: Roland Radtke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 1:59pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement comments
    I do have some comments on the mechanics of the TC commitee. 
These comments are motivated by the idea that any well functioning 
system should be self-regulating, that is it should have safeguards 
built in against escalating behaviour.
    I must caution that systemically, the carte blanche that the TC 
members seem to enjoy with respect to spending as per the proposed 
final judgement is quite a horrible idea.
    QUOTE: The TC members shall serve, without bond or other 
security, at the cost and expense of Microsoft on such terms and 
conditions as the Plaintiffs approve, including the payment of 
reasonable fees and expenses.
    QUOTE: The TC may hire at the cost and expense of Microsoft, 
with prior notice to Microsoft and subject to approval by the 
Plaintiffs, such staff or consultants (all of whom must meet the 
qualifications of Section IV.B.2) as are reasonably necessary for 
the TC to carry out its duties and responsibilities under this Final 
Judgment. The compensation of any person retained by the TC shall be 
based on reasonable and customary terms commensurate with the 
individuals experience and responsibilities. Together, these two 
stipulations allow the TC_or even just one TC member_to 
incurr as much cost on microsoft's behalf as they choose to. There 
is no reason that the plaintiffs, who control the cost, but do not 
incur it themselves have it in their own interest to make sure that 
the total cost stays within reasonable bounds.
    I strongly suggest that as part of the judgement, an annual 
budget is proposed that cannot be exceeded. This would correct the 
problem. Another systemic problem inherent in the judgement, but a 
lesser one to a degree, is that it is within the self-interest of 
the TC to cause an extension of the oversight time period. This 
might be changed if the judgement made explicit that at the end of 
the initial period, TC members must relinquish their posts, and a 
completely new set of members will be selected in the case of an 
extension.
    Sincerely,
    Yours,
    Roland Radtke

MTC-191



MTC-00000192

From: s wang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 2:02pm
Subject: view on MSFT case
    As an IT professional, I do believe this case has become 
irrelevant given the rapid changing IT environment since 1998.
    Although Microsoft did enforce the marketing position of its IE 
browser for

[[Page 23688]]

Windows installation and conducted business improprieties with 
"special deals' for certain vendors, overall, I do 
believe the case settlement has much addressed the issues that was 
in the original case.
    On the upside, Microsoft did delivery productive software 
technologies to improve our productivities, to varying degree of 
consumer satisfaction, as well as help to standardize software 
technology.
    Without certain level of standardization, the collaboration and 
integration among our businesses may be in a state of more 
confusion.
    Therefore, if Microsft agrees to adhere to the remedial actions 
stated in the settlement, that should provide a first step forward. 
There is no way for everything to become perfect or acceptable 
overnight.
    The 9 disagreeing states should be concern that they are 
squandering our tax dollars on an historical, out of context case. 
IT and business environments have changed since 1998 and Microsoft 
had soften its marketing approach with Window XP.
    I suggest that the 9 disagreeing states give the case a rest, 
see how the settlement works out in today's environment, then go 
forward if necessary. This on-going lawsuit, to me, is a job 
security for these state attorneys who has too much tax dollars to 
squander.
    regards,

MTC-192



MTC-00000193

From: Steve (038) Jen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 2:02pm
Subject: concerned individual on the proposed deal in US vs. 
Microsoft
    Dear DOJ,
    Havent you learned anything from history? The deal you've 
proposed, in all its loopholes & insufficiencies, is deja vu to 
the 1995 decree. Microsoft spat in the face of that decree as you 
remember.
    It will do so again.
    I use Microsoft software, and i use non-Microsoft software. I 
insist on choices, and I know that thru choices we gain innovation. 
I do not want Microsoft in complete control of the market, as they 
are now, and will be with this ineffectual, shortsighted deal.
    In the absence of a breakup, the only solution to the serious 
violations upheld by \2/3\ of our nation's highest courts is to 
force Microsoft to release all source code for the shipped OS. This 
is easy to enforce, is simple and elegant. If Microsoft wants to 
embed media player, messaging, web browsers, a kitchen 
sink_then force them to release the code. Since they wouldnt 
want to do that, they'd be compelled to offer these products 
independently of the OS, on a more level playing field with the 
competition.
    Isnt this the crux of the trial?
    Please listen to the public.
    Steve Burkett
    129 NE 57th. St.
    Seattle, WA 98105

MTC-193



MTC-00000194

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 2:03pm
Subject: Break Micro$oft into 3 pieces
    Justice Department,
    Micro$oft should be broken up and not just 2 piece, but 3. 
Micro$oft should be broken into an Operating System house, 
applications house, and now with their push on the Internet an 
Internet service house.
    This would mean better products for Unix and Lynx based 
computers forcing Micro$oft to compete on its merits as an operating 
systems provider company without forcing people to use their 
operating system or else no ubiquitous useful applications for you. 
One company, Micro$oft, should not have so much control over a 
growing industry that will influence the way the world working in 
the future.
    Norm Lutz

MTC-194



MTC-00000195

From: Tony Patti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 2:03pm
Subject: Remedies for Microsoft monopolies insufficient
    We need greater constraints on the Microsoft computer monopoly 
than those proposed.
    As a user of Macintosh computers, I am a victim of Microsoft's 
monopoly every time I try to use software or browse a web page. Just 
because everyone at the Department of Justice uses Windows, they 
think there is no reason to believe they should stop the Microsoft 
monopoly. If you used another computing platform, you would realize 
just how much it is costing consumers to allow Microsoft to continue 
to dominate the computer industry.
    Microsoft's arguments that they could lose their monopoly in a 
minute is not only specious and self-serving, but is also untrue 
from the historical perspective of the computer industry. People 
have made the same claim about how the internet was going to wipe 
out AOL for the past 8 years, and by now it is clear to see that 
people don't change their computing habits as easily as Microsoft 
claims.
    Since Microsoft clearly has a stranglehold over the entire 
industry, they are abridging the freedom of speech in America by 
making it necessary to buy a copy of their software to exchange 
speech between computers.
    The source code of all Microsoft operating systems, past and 
future, is now a document that belongs to everyone in the world. 
Since we all depend on it, Microsoft should not be allowed to keep 
it secret any longer. Anything less would severely constrict the 
rights of every US Citizen, not to mention the rest of the world. It 
also impinges on the ability of our government to function since 
everything is computerized.
    This is not a business decision, as the DOJ seems to think. This 
is a decision about the very rights of our citizens to communicate 
openly, for now and into the future.
    Tony Patti
    4161 Humphrey
    St. Louis, MO 63116

MTC-195



MTC-00000196

From: Sheldon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I am writing this to provide my comments on the Microsoft 
antitrust settlement. I have been involved in the Computer Industry 
for overfifty years. I have lived through the emergence and 
transition of the Personal Computer. I have seen companies come and 
go. Do we want to go back to the days of different, non compatible 
Operating Systems and hardware? Microsoft has provided us all with 
aneasy to use, integrated, and most of all a standard. Microsoft 
became a monopoly by default. Let us look at the Personal Computer 
marketplace after IBM introduced their machine in 1981. Some of the 
PC's were offered by Cromemco, Vector, Altair, Radio Shack, Atari, 
andCommodore. Each had its own proprietary hardware, and used non-
standard forms of the CP/M Operating System. You chose a 
platformbased on what software was available for it, unless you were 
a software designer. If you purchased a Cromemco computer, for 
example, the word processing software that was offered did not 
necessarily work on the Vector machine. There were no standards that 
allowed software to work ondifferent platforms and operating 
systems. Do we want to go back to this? This would not be in the 
best interest of the consumer, nor the industry. The IBM PC changed 
this by providing an open architecture, where anyone could build 
equipment that would work with the IBM PC. Anyone could build a 
video card, a memory card etc. that could be installed into the IBM 
PC. What IBM did not allow was for others to use their BIOS. This 
meant you couldn't build your own IBM PC. It wasn't until Compaq 
reverse engineered the BIOS that the Personal Computer market took 
off. Now others could produce an IBM compatible PC. We may ask why 
did the IBM PC create such a stir. I think it was VisiCalc for the 
IBM PC, the Spreadsheet that was available on the Apple as well as 
the IBM name. This spreadsheet is what businesses were waiting for. 
Shortly after this we began to see other software appearing. Ashton 
Tate's dBase, which became the de facto database. VisiCalc later to 
become 123 the de facto standard spreadsheet, and WordPerfect and 
WordStar the two giants of word processing software. These companies 
were monopolies in their own right. Then Microsoft introduced 
Windows as the Operating System for the PC. None of the major 
players either recognized its impact or didn't wish to invest in it. 
Microsoft introduced Word for Windows, the first Graphical User 
Interface (GUI) word processor, and Excel the first GUI spreadsheet 
for the IBM compatible PC. None of the other giants produced GUI 
products with the ease of use and functionality that the Microsoft 
products provided, until it was too late. Both business and 
consumers eagerly accepted, and benefited from the innovation 
introduced by Microsoft. There were no competing Operating Systems 
offered by anyone. IBM tried with their 0S2 which might have been of 
interest to engineers but it did not appeal to the majority of 
users. At this time Microsoft did not have a monopoly in anything. 
By providing what the market wanted they came

[[Page 23689]]

to dominate the OS, and Office application fields. They became an OS 
monopoly and an Office software powerhouse. The others failed to 
innovate and compete. Also in this time frame there was Novell who 
dominated the PC network world. Microsoft introduced Windows NT 
followed by Windows 2000 and because of its features, ease of use 
and relatively low price supplanted Novell as the network OS 
ofchoice. Of course there were the variations of UNIX but this was 
not the choice for the PC platform.Now we see losers, who didn't 
innovate and understand how to compete, asking the Government to 
punish Microsoft for being successful. AOL Time-Warner would like to 
have the monopoly on Instant Messenger. They are crying foul that 
Microsoft is again being innovative andintegrating their Instant 
Messenger into the Operating System. Sun Microsystems has had years 
to come up with an OS that would be inexpensive, and have numerous 
compatible software applications that work on the PC. They haven't 
done it. Yet they cry foul, decrying Microsoft's success. They and 
others tried to champion the Network Computer which did not use 
Microsoft Windows. The world did not beat apath to their doorway. 
Linux was supposed to be answer to those who wanted out of the 
Microsoft OS world.
    What happened? Its sales seem tobe mainly to a few. Compaq is no 
longer installing it on their computers for a lack of demand. Why is 
this? It is not easy to use,has many problems, is really not able to 
work across many platforms and lacks sufficient applications that 
most consumers want. It is not innovative or competitive. Is this 
Microsoft's fault? The Courts have found that Microsoft used its 
monopoly illegally. For this they should be punished. The punishment 
should be such as to consider its affect on consumers and the 
industry. The punishment shouldn't be one that prevents Microsoft 
from innovating and creating products that are easier for us to use. 
It shouldn't punish a company for its success. Those who are jealous 
of Microsoft would have Microsoft punished for its success. Is this 
what you want?
    Sincerely,
    Sheldon Teicher
    1000 Capitola Way
    Santa Clara, CA 95051

MTC-196



MTC-00000197

From: Dan Bance
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case
    The proposed remedy for Microsoft is laughable. It is also 
inconsistent with American legal practices. In the findings of fact, 
it was found that Microsoft was an illegal monopoly and had 
illegally maintained and extended their monopoly in the operating 
system market. Fundamental to law in this country is an idea that we 
don't allow people or corporations to retain that which they've 
acquired illegally. That said, the original proposal to break up 
Microsoft is also flawed in that it preserves the Monopoly. The 
source code and rights to the Windows operating system should be 
placed up for auction and awarded to, say, the 3 highest bidders 
thus reducing the monopoly to an oligopoly. It is my belief that 
nothing else will restore competition and innovation to the computer 
operating system industry. Don't allow this travesty to continue.
    Daniel Bance
    Computer Operations Coordinator
    Advancement Services
    Virginia Commonwealth University
    (804) 828-2043

MTC-197



MTC-00000198

From: James Mitchell Uliman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 2:05pm
Subject: Settlement unfair and wrong for consumers/economy
    Greetings, I am a citizen of the United States of America and 
have a strong opinion against the proposed settlement between the 
United States Department of Justice, several of the litigating 
states and Microsoft Corporation. This settlement is a poor 
substitute for justice. Microsoft has been found guilty many a time 
of anticompetitive actions in the past, and in this trial. Yet, 
there seems to be a reluctance to actually punish these criminals. 
If a person were to burglarize a corner gas station, that person 
would serve time and make reparations. Microsoft has put the world 
economy at stake by taking control of the personal computer market 
as well as other industries within the technology sector. You are 
probably reading this email right now within a Microsoft Operating 
System, in a Microsoft Mail Transfer Agent, running on a 
"Microsoft Certified System" made to run their Windows 
Operating System. It is clear what has been done by them. What 
remains to be seen is if the Department of Justice can enforce the 
laws which have been so contemptuously broken. Let us not forget 
that Mr. William H. Gates Jr. perjured in a court of law over the 
duration of this lawsuit. He stated that a video made showing that 
their Internet Explorer product could, in fact, be removed from the 
system without serious damage done to the system. When the truth 
became known, the video was a hoax. The lack of punishment by the 
Department of Justice on perjury (of various infamous persons) is 
becoming a topic of discussion among the citizens of the United 
States of America. The doubts that the Department of Justice can 
effectively operate have been mentioned in public arena several 
times over. This should not have to happen. Action must be taken. 
Real punishment for criminals must be doled, or else the government 
will become weak in the eyes of it's constituency. I am including a 
hypertext link to an open letter from Ralph Nader to the presiding 
Judge of this case: http://www.cptech.org/at/ms/
rnjl2kollarkotellynov501.htm
    Please for the good of the people of the United States of 
America, reconsider this settlement.
    Thank you,
    James Mitchell Ullman
    Technical Specialist I
    Zach S. Henderson Library
    Georgia Southern University
    http://www2.gasou.edu1facstaff1jmullman
    Office: 912-681-0161
    CC: [email protected] @ inetgw ,Richard 
Ullman,Aaron Hann...

MTC-198



MTC-00000199

From: John Whitaker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 2:07pm
Subject: US vs. Microsoft
    I think the Microsoft settlement is a good one for the nation. 
It opens up doors for other competition on the Windows platform. As 
a consumer I look for good value in what I purchase. If I get 
"extras" included in a purchase I'm ahead of the game! 
When I say extras I mean browsers, cdplayers, movie makers. This is 
GOOD for the consumer!
    I've always had a choice to use competitive products on the 
windows platform. Sometimes I purchased these products because they 
where "better" than what Microsoft had to offer.
    Let's just get this done with ... Our country is in enough 
chaos. Let's beat down our real enemies. Not a company that supplies 
good software at low prices.
    John Whitaker
    Phoenix, AZ

MTC-199



MTC-00000200

From: Pedro Bonilla
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find the proposed settlement with Microsoft a selling out by 
the Justice Dept to the Corporate thug it says it regulates. These 
slap on the wrist provisions do nothing to stop the juggernaut that 
Microsoft has become. If the Justice dept really wants to help the 
American public then fine Microsoft in the same manner as the EU but 
instead keeping the money give it to Microsoft competitors such as 
Netscape , Caldera Linux and others. Then make Microsoft disclose 
the workings of the operating system API's especially the file 
system api which is prohibitively expensive to secure. Microsoft is 
waging war against the open software groups by keeping this 
information secret. Without the money and intellectual assets of 
Microsoft independent software vendors cannot hope to compete. 
Microsoft not only invades the browser market but almost any 
software market with its tactics. One can only hope that while the 
Justice dept is attacking the browser market that Microsoft is not 
making significant headway in other software markets. If Microsoft 
is not stopped they will one day control and own the software market 
as a whole. The extreme greed of this corporation is depraved.

MTC-200



MTC-00000201

From: ROBERT REMINGTON
To: Microsoft ATR,rremington @ webtv.net @ 
inetgw,mcarona @.
Date: 11/5/01 3:01am
Subject: Simon Sez
    Any settlement proposals concerning my finances and investments 
must include the hidden and intentionally masked advertising 
revenues from every related television

[[Page 23690]]

commercial campaign, especially multiyear Fortune 500 campaigns.
    Specifically, the advertising agencies that developed the multi-
year 'Jack' commercials for the Jack-In-The-Box Company 
have reaped untold millions of dollars in production and royalty 
fees. This food service company, once owned and controlled by the 
Ralston-Purina Company of St. Louis, Missouri, later based in San 
Diego along with McDonald's Corporation of suburban Chicago 
and its advertising agencies have withheld settlements and equitable 
distribution of creative royalties for many years, causing me undue 
and unnecessary years of hardship, loss of income and ridicule. 
Violations of free speech, and other civil rights have been trampled 
in order for each law enforcement jurisdiction to check into my 
story. My objectives are to receive a fair distribution of profits, 
nothing more or less than the originating producers received for 
developing the campaigns. Nothing short of a total audit of 
broadcast television commercials and business advertising budgets 
will reveal the enormous amount of fraud involved with this 
multiyear scam. Simon Marketing files a $1,000,000,000 lawsuit 
against McDonald's Corporation in a counterattack designed to thwart 
McDonald's efforts to sue Simon for the Monopoly Game scandal. Simon 
sez McDonald's has known for over ten years about the prearranged 
winners of supposedly fair marketing games, and has encouraged Simon 
to target specific individuals during the "broad marketing 
campaigns." Two senior McDonalds management staff are forced 
to resign in the scandal and corporate reorganization. USDOJ 
building security staff acknowledges the television commercial links 
with nickname references to me upon my arrival to the Los Angeles 
Federal Building/US Courthouse. I am honored, and amused by this 
unorthodox recognition as I have a sense of humor. I also have 
patience for a just agreement, however intentional stalling, 
subversive actions, assaults, and felony attacks against me on a 
daily or weekly basis harden my resolve to receive my money without 
any further delays. I would like to thank all of the people who have 
listened to me via email during past three years, and a special 
thanks to those who may have saved me from harm during an 
unpredictable time. A sincere appreciation goes out to those in law 
enforcement that really care about others by going the distance 
protecting me in challenging environments. As you may have observed, 
I have provided reciprocal security and briefings for select cities, 
public and private facilities, and groups to the best of my ability.
    Respectfully,
    Robert Remington
MTC-201



MTC-00000202

From: Chuck Case
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/5/01 7:07am
Subject: Settlement
    Dear DOJ Representative (hopefully also Mr. Ashcroft), I can't 
begin to say how disappointed I am that the DOJ came up with such a 
weak settlement with Microsoft. I am now officially embarrased. 
After all we've been through (the trial) you are not even punishing 
Microsoft. Their behavior has been confirmed by your letting them 
off the hook. They learned they can do whatever they want and you 
will do nothing.
    I like Microsoft software but their business practices are wrong 
wrong wrong. They were found guilty (twice) and you didn't punish 
them at all. I would have (and did) expect more from folks of your 
stature. Contrary to what must be believed (by your department) 
letting MS off will not help the economy. It will hurt it, because 
their behavior will now become even more pronounced. You have done 
us all (consumers) a grave disservice.
    Repectfully,
    An Average American Citizen.

MTC-202



MTC-00000203

From: Bob Rattner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/5/01 9:11am
Subject: Cowards!!
    Dear DOT,
    Thanks for caving in on the Microsoft case... .you should hang 
your heads in shame! Failure to stop this monopoly legally will 
cause incredible damage. When hackers eventually try to bring down 
the web, Microsoft will be their weapon.
    I wonder how much of a bribe Gates delivered to the AGs for 
their next campaign war chest..your department is as crooked and 
reprehensible as Microsoft. It's the obviously poor 
"decisions" like this one that give scum like Gates and 
Ballmer, and their equally scummy counterparts in Washington the 
reputations as theives and liars which they so richly deserve.

MTC-203



MTC-00000204

From: Jerry Callen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/5/01 10:21am
Subject: Concerns with proposed Microsoft settlement
    I am writing to express concerns regarding the proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. In particular, the 
proposed settlement will not address the needs of so-called 
"open software" developers. It is precisely this 
audience that is in most need of reliefe and that offers the best 
counterbalance to Microsoft's operating system monopoly.
    My specific concems are:
    (1) Sections D and E of part III require that Microsoft disclose 
the middleware APIs and communications protocols required to 
interoperate with Microsoft operating systems and servers. However, 
disclosure is to be via "Microsoft Developer Network (MSDN) or 
similar mechanisms". MSDN is a subscription service; 
disclosure must be via a mechanism that:
    (a) does not require any payment to Microsoft, and
    (b) does not enable Microsoft to become aware that a potential 
competitor is interested in these APIs and protocols. The disclosure 
mechanism should be via an Internet Web sitre that is freely 
available without any registration requirement.
    (2) Section I requires that Microsoft license any intellectual 
property required by ISVs, LAPs, etc. to interoperate with Windows 
operating systems, but then goes on to state that the terms be 
"reasonable and non-discriminatory." In the "open 
source" development model, there is no organization that can 
sign and/or pay for the appropriate license. There must be a 
guarantee that open source developers can use any and all Microsoft 
intellectual property they required AT NO CHARGE. Anything less than 
this effectively stiffles open source development entirely.
    (3) Section 3 specifies that Microsoft need not disclose those 
portions of APIs or communications protocols "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". The inclusion of "encryption or 
authentication systems" in this statement makes it impossible 
for open source systems (such as Samba) to fully interoperate in a 
Windows domain, which relies upon proprietary extensions to the 
public "Kerberos" security protocol.
    Encryption & authentication experts are unanimous in their 
view that security must be based upon publicly-revealed, open 
protocols that can be examined by experts for flaws. Microsoft must 
be required to make full disclosure of its authentication & 
encryption protocols, not only to enable third party software to 
interoperate, but to insure that these protocols do their jobs and 
do not contain avoidable vulnerabilities.
    The proposed settlement is unacceptable in its current form. As 
a programmer and consumer of open software, I urge you to correct 
these flaws prior to issuing the final settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Jerry Callen
    63 Orchard Street
    Cambridge, MA 02140
    617-876-5330
    [email protected]

MTC-204



MTC-00000205

From: Ellis M. Zsoldos Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/5/01 10:27am
Subject: Settlement
    Good morning,
    I'll make my comments brief.
    I have read the consent decree as you published in detail. I am 
a Software Engineer who benefits from Microsoft products. With that 
in mind let me say that this settlement proposal is a win for 
Microsoft and a loss for consumers and the tech industry. This will 
in no way restrain Microsoft's business practices and will only 
continue to harm other software firms. There have been many good 
companies in the past decade which no longer exist specifically 
because of Microsoft's business practices. This settlement will in 
no way prevent the same practices from destroying existing and 
future software companies, and it may in fact contribute to a 
depressed tech economy for some time to come.

[[Page 23691]]

    By agreeing to this settlement the Department of Justice has 
done nothing more than throw away all the money and time spent on 
this lawsuit over the past four years. This was our tax money that 
was spent on this lawsuit. As a citizen I expected more for my 
money. I am very disappointed with the proposed settlement.
    I am unable to reach a conclusion as to why the DOJ would make 
such a week settlement in light of the evidence and rulings against 
Microsoft.
    I plan to share my thoughts with my state attorney general, as 
well as my senators and congressman.
    I sincerely hope that you reconsider your actions in this case.
    Sincerely,
    Ellis M. Zsoldos Jr.

MTC-205



MTC-00000206

From: Stephen Ray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/5/01 10:34am
Subject: Microsoft decision
    To whom it may concern;
    regarding the settlement reached with Microsoft, my personal 
advice is dramamine.
    It works best for the dizziness that must surely follow rolling 
over that fast.
    MOST sincerely,
    Stephen Ray
    stray @naxs.net

MTC-206



MTC-00000207

From: Dennis Wink
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov'
Date: 11/5/01 11:18am
Subject: Opposition
    I am writing to state my displeasure with the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft. The settlement, as structured , is a 
betrayal of the consumer. Microsoft has shown in the past they 
cannot be trusted to comply with agreements like this. Every clause 
in the settlement is riddled with exceptions that will allow 
Microsoft to continue it's current predatory practices. It is 
disappointing to see that after all the time, effort and money that 
was spent on this case the DOJ is giving up and selling out for 
political expediency.
    Dennis Wink
    San Diego, CA

MTC-207



MTC-00000208

From: Matthew Marcella
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/5/01 11:59am
Subject: You Nitwits
    The agreement that Microsoft wrote stinks. You obviously know 
nothing of software. Microsoft will behave worse than ever and will 
have your agreement to help them eliminate competitors and consumer 
choice.
    Matt Marcella
    20 years in software development

MTC-208



MTC-00000209

From: [email protected] @inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,antitrust @ ftc.gov @ inetgw,Ralph 
@ essen...
Date: 11/5/01 12:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Hegemony: States Should Seize The Initiative
CC: letters @ latimes.com@ inetgw,letters @ 
sjmercury .com @ iï¿½7E** Ille:///LI/wlnltemp/tmp.fltm
Re: States Weigh Going It Alone in Legal Battle With Microsoft
    "This consent decree will remedy the problems that were 
caused by Microsoft's unlawful conduct, prevent the recurrence of 
those problems and restore competition in the software industry.
    This says one thing on the surface but below says the DOT is 
more interested in letting the mafia run the software business while 
it maintains a shell of a government agency, faux arm of We The 
People. Perhaps the States should seize the initiative to become the 
true arm of We The People...
    "Does anyone think this settlement is going to change 
Mierosolï¿½7E's behavior?" said Scott G. MeNealy.
    If MeNealy and golden golf ball buddies were serious about 
breaking the Microsoft Hegemony they would call for eliminating it's 
IP protection for the building of a true platform for competition on 
the merits...
    We The People
    Take Back Our Flag
    From The United CcrpccJions Of America
    12/11/2001 10:51 AM

MTC_209



MTC-00000210

From: nn @broadcom.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/5/01 12:24pm
Subject: The Microsoft settlement is a complete sellout
    This deal is not even a wrist slap. Microsoft has been proven to 
(a) be a monopoly in the market of computer operating systems and 
(b) abused other corporations and individuals using its monopolist 
position.
    Personally, I'm outraged at the DOJ and the Bush Administration. 
This deal, assuming it takes hold, is not even a wrist slap. It's a 
love letter to the most arrogant and unrepentant monopolist since 
Standard Oil. It's an invitation to keep on plundering and whacking 
competition in the most important marketplace of our times, the 
information marketplace.
    What a sham.
    Neal Nuckolls
    [email protected]

MTC-210



MTC-00000211

From: Doug
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/5/01 1:15pm
Subject: Fwd: Rule Maker: Microsoft's HailStorm
    Has Microsoft walked all over the Justice department??

MTC-211



MTC-00000212

From: James J. Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/5/01 1:28pm
Subject: Proposted settlement of US vs. Microsoft action
    I am 71 years old, a citizen in good standing of the United 
States and a PC user. Of course, I use a MS Windows operating system 
on my computer. This mail is to inform you that I am very 
disappointed with your proposed settlement of subject action. Why? 
Well, the Court of Appeals did not reverse the District Court's 
finding that Microsoft violated antitrust laws and used their 
monopolistic power to harm competitors. Also, previously when court 
action issued restraining orders on Microsoft, the company violated 
them. Why do you think it will not do it again, even with the in-
house watchdog committee you have proposed? Microsoft is deserving 
of severe punishment as a two time looser and abuser of the free 
enterprise system. Frankly, I feel you have caved in and, as such, I 
have a much reduced confidence in your integrity and ability to 
protect citizens such as myself from predatory businesses. I have 
been a life long Republican, but I must say administration actions 
such as yours cause me to wonder if I should continue to support the 
Republican agenda.
    James J. Lewis
    1500 Turnmill Drive
    Richmond, VA 23235
    j .lewis [email protected]

MTC-212



MTC-00000213

From: Randy Chase
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/5/01 1:32pm
Subject: Dear servants of the people:
    Dear servants of the people:
    'Reasonable and nondiscriminatory' access to 
Microsoft API's and file formats automatically discriminates against 
open source projects like Samba and Koffice. The result is a 
defective consent decree, and the loss of my faith in your justice.
    Randy Chase

MTC-213



MTC-00000214

From: Jay Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/5/01 2:13pm
Subject: Truly pathetic
    1 don't know how much worse a government organization can get 
than the current group in charge of this anti-trust process. 
Obviously there is much political pressure to get this out of the 
courts and the people be damned!
    It is very obvious that Microsoft BROKE THE LAW! Even the 
appeals court agreed. So why come up with a wimpy, ineffective, 
totally useless resolution?
    As a consumer and software developer , I am totally and 
thoroughly disgusted!
    I hope the states show the DOJ what a true and meaningful 
resolution is!
    Utterly, truly pathetic!
    Jaybird B-)

MTC-214



MTC-00000215

From: JAMES G. EVANS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/5/01 2:43pm
Subject: Sellout
    The "settlement" was a sell-out. Microsoft has used 
every possible trick with the software to attempt to monopolize 
every

[[Page 23692]]

aspect of computer use right down to how one can get on the internet 
and made the use of other software difficult if not impossible. The 
bundling of programs will finally drive out other competitors who 
cannot make their programs "free".
    Thanx for nothing!
     

MTC-215



MTC-00000216

From: Frank D'Angeli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/5/01 3:30pm
Subject: Spineless
    I am so disgusted with what has happened to the American Justice 
system. Microsoft has not only committed repeated, illegal, 
monopolist acts but was caught red-handed submitting false evidence 
in their trial.
    Microsoft has bought and paid there way out of sure punishment 
and the Bush administration and you lackeys in the DOJ should be 
ashamed of yourselves. Makes me sick to think you people call 
yourselves American when you are supposed to be preserving 
competition.
    Frank DAngeli
    Medford, MA 02155

MTC-216



MTC-00000217

From: Andre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/5/01 3:48pm
Subject: So what was the point?
    Dear Anti-trust Division, US Department of Justice, I don't work 
in high tech. I don't own stock in Microsoft or in any of their 
competitors. I don't even know anyone who works for Microsoft or any 
of their competitors. I'm just a consumer and a user of Windows and 
other software programs.
    And boy, do I think this settlement sucks.
    Microsoft clearly and flagrantly violated anti-trust laws, and 
CONTINUES TO DO SO by using profits from their OS monopoly to fund 
money-losing forays into other areas designed to hurt_or 
better yet_bankrupt opponents. They've done it over and over 
again (web browsers, streaming media players, word processors, 
spreadsheets, presentation programs, mobile device operating 
systems, and the list goes on and on).
    Now they're at it again with the XBOX, just you watch. What 
gives them the right to use monopoly profits to subsidize losses in 
the console gaming market_to the tune of an estimated $700 
million_$1 billion over the next several years?
    I call your efforts at enforcing the anti-trust laws pathetic. 
For my money, you all might as well have not bothered with any of 
this. It's like convicting a criminal of a violent crime then 
letting him go unsentenced and free because he has connections. Or 
trying to referee a boxing match without bothering to strip the 
machine gun away from the bigger boxer.
    A lot of show, little to show for it. If you had just left 
Microsoft alone, by now they would probably have pushed the 
arrogance button so hard that consumers would probably be in open 
rebellion.
    Yours truly,
    Andre Williamson
    Silver Spring, MD

MTC-217



MTC-00000218

From: Mark Alishouse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/5/01 3:51pm
Subject: congrats
    You managed to COMPLETELY betray the American people and destroy 
your agency's credibility all in one deal.

MTC-218



MTC-00000219

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/5/01 3:51pm
Subject: From a small business owner: Settlement is in all our best 
interests
    I am adding one voice to what I hope will be many in supporting 
your pursuit of settlement in this case. I was relieved last week to 
see the Attorney General's announcement of a tentative settlement, 
but very concerned this morning when I read on the CNN site that 
several of the State's Attorney's Generals are not sure they can 
support the settlement. I would strongly suggest that American 
business and the public at large needs this case settled.
    I am an owner of a small IT consulting and integration business 
with what I think is a fairly objective view of Microsoft and the 
rest of the IT industry. I use Microsoft products but use a wide 
variety of other vendors' products also; I am neither a Microsoft 
detractor nor fervent supporter. I am by no means an expert in the 
law, but I am a strong believer in upholding the law. If Microsoft 
broke the law, they should be held accountable. However, as it seems 
to have been the case in so many of the big anti-trust actions of 
the information age, the complexity of the cases can almost 
overwhelm the real issues. I feel that this happened from the 
beginning in this case, along with far too many emotions and big 
egos at play. This is not about significant moral and social issues; 
it's just computer hardware and software, in the end only tools.
    The real issue in my mind is that we the knowlegeable consumers 
of this technology can and do make informed, and often very clever, 
decisions based on the quality and effectiveness of a product or 
service. We are able to make those decisions regardless of whether 
that product was offered in a way that may, technically, conflict 
with anti-trust laws. For example, Microsoft licensing has been an 
issue in this case. If I am considering a Microsoft product for a 
client where, in my opinion, the licensing is "unfair" 
or not advantageous to the client, I will recommend against the 
product, AND FIND ANOTHER SOLUTION FROM THE VAST ARRAY AVAILABLE. I 
am convinced that even if that licensing were found to be in 
violation of anti-trust laws, no remedies will significantly impact 
that decision I make and the resulting solution I choose.
    After decrying the emotions that seem to have been involved in 
this trial, I will say that I feel (granted without much factual 
backup) that the way this case was brought about, the deplorable way 
the press was used to hype the various factions, helped to hasten 
the slide of the technology sector in the economy. Many of the dot-
com balloons were going to deflate, we all new that, but this case 
seemed to stick a pin in them instead of allowing gradual deflation. 
So as I have seen business conditions get tight, companies lay off 
good people, and our 401K's crater, I have a certain amount of anger 
over this case. Especially because in the end, once again, the 
marketplace populated by very bright and resourceful people, will 
decide the real fate of Microsoft. Please don't let this settlement 
get away, for all of us.
    Thank you,
    Stan Padgett
    President,
    GGM Information Technology Group, Inc.
    843-824-0908

MTC-219



MTC-00000220

From: Chris Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/5/01 4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Wins at LOSING...and THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!
    Are you folks settling for the public interest or for the 
interest of an ILLEGAL MONOPOLIST??? The settlement DOESN'T MAKE ANY 
SENSE! It's definite that the consumer and innovation is the BIG 
LOSER!!! A SELL OUT TO AN ILLEGAL MONOPOLIST THAT LOST IN THE COURT 
OF LAW IS NOT HOW ANTI-TRUST WORKS.........I think!
    It's obvious, Geo. W. is paying back his Illegal Monopolist bud!
    THANKS FOR NOTHING!
    November 5, 2001 States balk at settlement proposal Joe Wilcox, 
CNET News.com The 18 state attorneys general who are co-plaintiffs 
in the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit are not expected to sign a 
settlement agreement_at least in its current 
form_hammered out between the software giant and the Justice 
Department, said sources familiar with the matter.
    The Justice Department and Microsoft on Friday delivered the 
proposed settlement in the form of a consent decree to U.S. District 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. But the states asked the judge for 
more time to review the settlement, which received little input from 
the attorneys general, said sources familiar with the negotiations.
    Lawyers representing the states are scheduled to meet with 
Kollar-Kotelly at 6 a.m. PT Tuesday to deliberate the matter. During 
the status hearing, both sides are expected to discuss further 
proceedings under the Tunney Act. Under that law, a judge must 
review a settlement to ensure that it is in the public interest and 
was not politically motivated.
    "The states are working intensively to review the 
settlement," Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said Monday. 
"We will report to the judge on Tuesday."
    In chambers on Friday, the judge reiterated her earlier view 
that settling the case would be in the best interests of the 
country.
    The states appear to be deeply divided over how to proceed with 
the case, in light of the judge's instructions, possible resistance 
from

[[Page 23693]]

the Justice Department and the resources that likely will be 
required to continue the nearly four-year-old antitrust battle, 
sources said. The states largely focused their attention on numerous 
apparent loopholes in the consent decree and the limited scope of 
the agreement.
    "In antitrust doctrine, there is this concept of fencing 
in the monopolist," said Jonathan Jacobson, an antitrust 
lawyer with Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in New York. 
"You fence them in so that they don't repeat the same 
behavior. I don't see that's here" in the consent decree.
    Antitrust law demands that "remedies should be forward 
looking," said Emmett Stanton, an antitrust attorney with 
Fenwick & West in Palo Alto, Calif. "That doesn't appear 
to be the case here."
    The proposed consent decree would compel Microsoft to reveal 
some Windows XP code to make it easier for third-party software to 
work with the operating system, and make some concessions regarding 
PC makers. But it steers clear of emerging technologies such as 
digital rights management and Internet authentication.
A "get-out-of-jail-free card"
    The states appeared most worried about possible loopholes that 
might empower Microsoft rather than restrain its monopoly muscle.
    Bob Lande, an antitrust professor at the University of Baltimore 
Law School, pointed to the 22-page agreement's definition of an 
operating system and its lack of restrictions on Microsoft's 
bundling in more features.
    "They should be concerned about this," Lande said. 
"The agreement says Microsoft can tie (products to Windows) 
because they can define the operating system any way they 
want," Lande said. "So conceivably, Microsoft could tie 
a ham sandwich to the operating system."
    One of the case's core issues was the integration of Microsoft's 
Internet Explorer Web browser into Windows 95 and 98. 
"Contractual tying has not really been addressed" in the 
proposed settlement, Stanton said.
    Referring to the board game Monopoly, Lande described many 
provisions of the proposed settlement as a "get-out-of-jail-
free card."
    States also are deliberating what role a three-person technical 
committee would legitimately have to enforce the consent decree. 
Microsoft apparently considers the committee and its power to 
regulate the company as a tremendous compromise, said sources 
familiar with the matter.
    If the states sign the settlement, however, the company could 
announce a compliance officer for enforcing the agreement as early 
as this week.
    The states have gotten an earful from Microsoft competitors, 
which in recent weeks have complained of a cold reception at the 
Justice Department. Under the Clinton administration, Joel Klein, 
assistant attorney general at the time, openly solicited feedback 
from Microsoft competitors Oracle and Sun Microsystems.
    Some Microsoft competitors had expected similar openness from 
current Assistant Attorney General Charles James, whose former firm, 
Jones Day, represented Microsoft rival AOL Time Warner.
    But with the exception of the media giant, James reportedly did 
not meet directly with Microsoft competitors, choosing to send 
subordinates instead, said sources familiar with the dialogues.
    The attorneys general are expected to continue their discussions 
Monday, as they hammer out a strategy that some sources indicated 
might not be unified. Some states were leaning toward going along 
with the settlement, while others wanted to push ahead without the 
Justice Department, sources said. The states could also ask for 
modifications to the agreement.
    California and Massachusetts are among the five or six states 
most resistant to the proposed consent decree, at least in its 
current form. Should California go along with the settlement, much 
of the coalition would likely follow, said sources familiar with the 
situation.
    Also involved are Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, 
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Minnesota, New York, North 
Carolina, Ohio, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of 
Columbia. In July, New Mexico settled independently with Microsoft.
Concerns about the judge
    The states are gravely concerned about Kollar-Kotelly, who is a 
newcomer to the case, particularly in light of her desire to see the 
case settled, sources said. In August, Kollar-Kotelly was randomly 
assigned to the case to replace U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield 
Jackson.
    Lande warned that the states should not take lightly Kollar-
Kotelly's comments about striving for a swift settlement.
    "You have this judge who doesn't know the facts of the 
case, doesn't know the games that Microsoft plays and maybe really 
doesn't want to get into the facts," he said.
    If none, or only some, of the states sign the agreement, the 
original schedule set by Kollar-Kotelly would continue. The non-
agreeing parties would file their proposed remedy by Dec. 7, with 
Microsoft responding by Dec. 12. A remedy hearing is tentatively 
scheduled for early March.
    This could put the court in the position of overseeing two 
different sets of activities in the case: concluding the settlement 
by the process established by the Tunney Act, and preparing for a 
separate remedy hearing.
    Before Kollar-Kotelly holds the Tunney Act hearing, there must 
be a 60-day period of public comment, in part to ensure that the 
agreement is in the public interest. Under the terms of the proposed 
deal, the Justice Department is to publish the proposed settlement 
in the Federal Register on or before Nov. 16.
    The Justice Department also will publish a notice informing the 
public of the proposed Final Judgment and public con-mient period in 
the Washington Post and the San Jose Mercury News, for seven days 
over a period of two weeks commencing no later than November 15, 
2001, the consent decree states.
    Within 30 days after the close of the period for public 
conirnent, the Justice Department must publish its response in the 
Federal Register.

MTC-220



MTC-00000221

From: [email protected] @inetgw
To: setters @washpost.com@inetgw
Date: 11/5/01 4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Hegemony: Think About Post Serial Monopoly Fiasco
CC: Microsoft ATR,antitrust @ftc.gov @ 
inetgw,Ralph@essen...
Re: A Risk Worth Taking
    We don't mean to play down the risks.
    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. The Wash Post doesn't mean to do what it 
is doing. Ooops, I did it again...
    The agreement will prevent Microsoft from retaliating against 
Computer makers who deal too closely with its competitors.
    The Washington Post excells at propping up a time-tested status 
quo that magically transforms failure into success. This is the 
status quo of lip service, of appearances. The DOJ made a grand 
effort against M$ tallied in dollars, hours, words, sweat and 
energy. But these are no substitutes for results.
    It will allow computer manufacturers to use rival imaging, 
messaging and browser software on an equal footing with Microsoft's 
own offerings.
    This statement cannot be cast as ignorant, misinformed wishful 
thinking, the DC politician's cop-out du jour.
    Rather, this statement is, by the raw predictability of 
Microsoft's modus operandi and it's unprecedented hegemony over 
public infrastructure, a blatant lie.
    We The People, well informed now, think the Wash Post should 
stop squawking lies, and start a dialog giving it half a chance of 
retaining a shred of credibility post serial monopoly fiasco, 
because eventually, the truth will beat the lie.
    We The People
    Take Back Our Flag
    From The United Corporations Of America

MTC-221



MTC-00000222

From: Wesley Watters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/5/01 4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Deal
    Sirs,
    You have sold us out. May you rot in Hell.
    See you on election day,
    W. Watters

MTC-222



MTC-00000223

From: Jud Meaders
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/5/01 4:36pm
Subject: Proposed MSFT settlement
    Dear Mr. James and the Antitrust Division:
    I am writing to tell you how disappointed and angry I am 
@ what I know thus far of this proposed settlement. I agree 
with Rep. John Conyers, who accused you of making 
"inexplicable and irrational" concessions in the 
settlement talks. I also like his analogy: "This is like 
losing a game by forfeit when your team was ahead with the bases 
loaded and your best batter on deck."
    Any third-grader knows that you don't appease a school yard 
bully. You stand up to him and hold him accountable for his 
behavior.

[[Page 23694]]

    Everybody knows MSFT is a bully and an illegal monopolist 
(everybody, it would seem, except you and your division). In my 
opinion, you have failed miserably where MSFT is concerned. Taking 
breakup off the table as you did when you were in the catbird seat 
was inexplicable. Letting MSFT dictate the terms of the settlement 
was, too (MSFT was often quoted in the media saying what they would 
and would not do; since when do the guilty get to dictate the terms 
of their punishment?).
    This great economy of ours in NOT dependent on MSFT. If you 
would only enforce the hand that the appellate court gave you, you 
would quickly see how innovative and deep the technology sector can 
be. Instead, you crumpled. MSFT will continue its stranglehold on 
the industry; the economy and the American consumer will continue to 
suffer.
    You gave the case away to a company that has shown time and 
again that it cannot be trusted to do the right, fair and legal 
thing. This is the same company that was caught cheating in at least 
two of its in-court presentations during the trial.
    I would also like to know why our government is THE largest MSFT 
customer; they're guilty, so why are they still on the approved 
vendor list? Are you aware of their track record on (lack of) 
security? Please be assured I will make my opinions known to my 
senators and representatives. If what I have read so far is true, 
you have lost your credibility with me. This 
"settlement" stinks the place up.
    Thank you for posting the proposed settlement on your website 
and for your time.
    Sincerely, Jud Meaders

MTC-223



MTC-00000224

From: Steven Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/5/01 4:42pm
Subject: Settlement is a disgrace
    The settlement with Microsoft is an absolute disgrace and an 
insult to law abiding taxpayers. Microsoft destroyed companies, 
abused monopoly powers and lied a in federal court.
    Any criminal who was convicted of breaking a federal law and/or 
lies in a federal court must now get the same treatment. In other 
words, pardon and set free every criminal. Not only should the 
settlement be thrown out, but those government officials responsible 
should be investigated for corruption.
    S Hill

MTC-224



MTC-00000225

From: Zackary D. Deems
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/5/01 5:01pm
Subject: What was the point?
    I'm sorry, but after watching the court battle and knowing the 
DOJ had actually beaten Microsoft. I don't understand why you would 
give up. Microsoft wins. Microsoft gets a slap on the wrist. 
Microsoft continues to strongarm the general public and there's 
absolutely nothing we can do about it.
    90% of people currently running windows 95, 98, ME, NT, or 2000, 
have absolutely NO real reason to upgrade to XP. none. Yet Microsoft 
is effectively forcing us to do so by de-supporting 95 and refusing 
to sell licenses to anything but XP. If I want to install ME on a 
new machine, I have to purchase an XP license first. If I want 
support, I'd better upgrade.
    Innovation., it's a nice big fat word that is the equivalent of 
"Taking what somebody else has done, making it slower, making 
it bigger, putting an MS logo on it, and making it completely 
incompatible with the original version." Your settlement 
manages to fill 21 pages with legal speak, but accomplishes 
absolutely nothing. I don't know if Bush instructed you to take 
whatever they offered in order to settle, but it reads like a self-
imposed punishment from Microsoft. "Ok mommy, I promise to 
play nice and let the other boys use my toys.. as long as they give 
me their toys, but I want them back, and if they get one like mine, 
I get theirs too, because it's based on mine."
    You left enough holes that *I* could find legal loopholes, and 
I'm no lawyer.
    I certainly hope the states refuse to accept this settlement, 
because you basically wasted the country's time and money for three 
years in order to accomplish what had already been done.
    Microsoft is busy positioning itself to cement its monopoly 
firmly in place, and extend it further into the internet realm, and 
all you can do is slap them on the wrist. You seem to have forgotten 
what the case was about to begin with.
    Remember Netscape? That company that MS tried to drive into the 
ground by tying Internet Explorer with windows 98? The one seriously 
hurt by MS deciding to give away explorer, knowing that netscape had 
been making money on Navigator? Remember RealNetworks?
    I don't care who places what icons where on the desktop. People 
who use the operating system long enough to learn it tend to ignore 
that stuff anyway, or delete it (which is what I do). Rather than 
following the whole tying issue, you chose to ignore that and 
concentrate on a PRESENTATION issue. COME ON!
    Who gets helped by allowing microsoft to prevent hardware makers 
from putting icons on the desktop if MS doesn't have a competing 
product? Certainly not the competitors.
    At the moment, Microsoft has NO incentive to (a) Write better 
software, (b) fix the horribly insecure and buggy software they are 
currently selling, (c) abide by your ruling, because they know that 
they're set for at least the next 8 years (assuming Bush gets 
reelected).
    In other words, Microsoft gets to spend the next 8 years 
innovating themselves more firmly into an abusive situation.
    By the way.. would you consider it an abuse on their part for 
them to.. embrace and extend.. the TCP/IP protocol.. which is what 
the internet is based upon.. allegedly in an effort to 
"Improve" the protocol.. only to make it so machines 
speaking THEIR version don't play as nice with traditional TCP/IP 
networks? You might want to look at their implementation in XP, 
because before long, they're going to be doing their best to force 
the non-XP computers off of the internet, because Unix, Mac, etc, 
all speak real TCP/IP.. but the billion+ computers running XP run 
MS's new TCP/IP variant.
    Sounds like strongarming abuse to me.
    But then again, you're busy slapping them on the wrist.
    You failed. You did a horrible thing. I hope you look back in 10 
years and read in the history books about how pointless you made 
this whole case. History will not be kind to you. For your sakes, I 
just hope it doesn't offer your specific names signed to the 
settlement. The country as a whole no longer has any faith in your 
abilities. You can't protect us from Anthrax, and you knowingly let 
a predator like Microsoft loose into the wild, after you had it 
locked firmly in a cage.
    A writer for ZDNet was correct, it seems: A vote for Bush WAS a 
vote for Microsoft.
    My condolences on your defeat.
    Zackary Deems
    Systems Engineer
    Virginia Dept. of Education.

MTC-225



MTC-00000226

From: EXT-Williamson, Micky
To: Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov'
Date: 11/5/01 5:16pm
Subject: thanks...
    I can't say I was shocked by the decision, but at least call it 
what it was ... a boost to the economy.
    The facts are:
    1. Microsoft was convicted of breaking the law.
    2. Microsoft thumbed its nose at the industry during the penalty 
phase by embedding more products, and recently by even making there 
msn site unusable by mozilla and there takeover of qwest's ISP 
business will only support there proprietary POP3 protocol which 
will force people to use Microsoft's OS....
    so,
    call it what it is ... politics.
    Micky Williamson
    Project Manager Web Bold

MTC-226



MTC-00000227

From: Samuel Scott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/5/01 6:19pm
Subject: Redirection of Traffic
    Dear Sir/Madam
    In leu of the current world affairs this may seem trivial, but i 
do not think it is. As of recently (past weeks) when using 
Microsofts Internet Explorer v. 5.50, when typing in a URL that does 
not exist (example www.lkjhgffddss.com) you get taken to the 
Microsoft Network. the precise URL is http://auto.search.msn.com/
results.asp?cfg =DNSERROR&FORM =DNSERR& v=1&q=www%2 
Eplkjuy %2Ecom
    There are several issues here. If you know the way the internet 
works there is an amazing amount of info you can unfairly find out 
about each unique visitor. What Operating system they use, who they 
use as an ISP (Internet service provider like AOL, Earthlink, 
stc...), what website they came to you from......etc.
    I'm a small business, but it is plain to see what a dominating 
position that company is

[[Page 23695]]

in. They have locked out all competing products to theirs in 
numerous ways and now forcing users to go to their website......This 
issue with the redirection of traffic is outrageous. Anyone who has 
some knowledge in this area would see that. I hope to see this 
addressed.
    Truly Yours,
    Sam Scott

MTC-227



MTC-00000228

From: jas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/5/01 6:34pm
Subject: My thoughts on the matter...
    Hello,
    I am a long time software developer who has used Microsoft 
development products even before the introduction of Windows. This 
experience also includes working as a subcontractor for Microsoft 
consulting, as well as serving on one of their 
'standards' committees during the early days of OLE/COM 
(wosa/xrt).
    For what it's worth, I'd like to throw my two cents in: If 
what I have read in Yahoo's news is even partially true...http://
dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/20011105/tc/
mssettlement_reads_likea.fairy_tale_1.html..t
hen either you guys are on the take, or your pretty stupid.
    To remedy the anti-trust problems with what you have arrived 
at_is worse than doing nothing at all.
    Microsoft has, and continues to use it's monopoly powers to 
unfairly railroad innovative software companies out of business, and 
with billions of dollars of marketing muscle, they may very well 
exercise the very same destructive influence on the internet, at 
least as far as US software development is concerned.
    I say this because I don't thing that countries outside of the 
US, and especially the ones that comprise the future high-growth 
software markets_will be as short sighted as the USDOJ.
    Heck, for national security reasons, foreign government software 
procurements will not lock themselves into a single vendor for 
mission critical software, only our country (de-facto) will.
    Personally, I'll do OK, as a contractor, I'm a hired gun, but 
I've seen so many great and innovative software companies go down 
the drain because they never had the inside lock on the operating 
system internals, nor the untold billions in cash required to stave 
off a monopolist attack in their niche market.
    When you've seen what happened to hardware values: the bang for 
the buck that you get: in real and absolute terms, one can only 
imagine what we might have had if the same level of competition 
existed on the software side of the market.
    Unfortunately_due to your recent 
'remedy'_we are only left with our imagination of 
what could have been.
    John Soprych
    Objective Response, L.L.C.

MTC-228



MTC-00000229

From: Marietta Massey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/5/01 8:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As I understand the settlement proposed by the DOJ with 
Microsoft, it does not address any of the requirements laid out by 
the appeals court.
    Jobs flourish when there is heavy competition, especially in the 
computer industry. By refusing to ensure that competition exists, 
you reduce the number of jobs available in the technology sector, 
reduce innovation in that sector, and in general damage the economy.
    Please review your agreement_this is bad for the economy, 
for the people, and for business.
    David Massey
    mrmasseyearthlink.net

MTC-229



MTC-00000230

From: jim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/5/01 8:58pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SEEKS TO CUT DOJ ANTITRUST FUNDING
    The Washington Post reported on October 15, 1999 that Microsoft 
acknowledged speaking to members of Congress about its unhappiness 
with the DOJ, but said that CUTTING DOJ's FUNDING was NOT A MAJOR 
PRIORITY of Microsoft. (excerpt from www.senseient.comlnewsl 
1_1999.htm)
    Microsoft is buying its way out.
    James Bandlow

MTC-230



MTC-00000231

From: Kaya Bekiroglu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/5/01 9:16pm
Subject: Settlement a travesty
    As a citizen of this great country and a software professional, 
after studying the proposed Microsoft settlement I must express my 
deepest concern. I'm sure you're receiving many letters like mine, 
so I'll skip directly to my key points:
    (1) The settlement fails to punish Microsoft for past monopoly 
abuses, nor sufficiently remedies such abuses.
    (2) The settlement fails to address current illegal leverage 
into new markets by means of application tying in Windows XP, most 
importantly in these markets: media players (Windows Media Player), 
digital music (undisclosed Digital Rights Management APIs), 
subscription based ISP services (MSN Explorer), Real-time 
Notification and Messaging (Messenger) and distributed 
authentication services (Passport).
    None of these, with the exception of Digital Rights Management 
APIs, have any legitimate claim to reside in the rapidly expanding 
OS cocoon.
    The following, smaller markets are also in jepoardy: IP 
Telephony, video conferencing, home video editing, digital photo 
finishing, email clients, and terminal services.
    (3) The settlement fails to ensure successfull prevention of 
future monopoly abuse, specifically in the desktop OS, internet 
browser, office application suite, distributed authentication, and 
digital media and music markets. While Microsoft does not currently 
have a monopoly in all of these markets, the chances are very high 
that it will within the next two to five years. I strongly doubt a 
conduct remedy will be strong enough to avoid failure here, 
expecially considering management contempt for previous conduct 
remedies and antitrust law in general.
    Please rethink your settlement strategy. I would recommend 
adopting a firm resolve in settlement negotiations, for the 
following reasons:
    (a) The case against Microsoft is extremely strong.
    (b) The odds that your organization has sufficient technical 
saavy to avoid being fooled into agreeing to a toothless settlement 
is very high (as evidenced by the current settlement proposal).
    (c) A full and fair remedy will not adversely affect the U.S. 
economy. In addition to the numerous U.S. competitors Microsoft has 
and will put out of business, Microsoft's profit margins and 40 
billion dollar cash horde are a testament to the unreasonably high 
inefficiency in Microsoft's core markets.
    These monopoly profits = costs for all software consumers, 
whether they be a large business, a sole proprietorship, or a 
college student.
    Thank you for your time,
    Kaya Bekiroglu

MTC-23 1



MTC-00000232

From: Kent Daniels
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/5/01 9:29pm
Subject: The proposed remedy will not and cannot work
    The remedy proposed by the DOJ in the Microsoft case provides a 
potential loophole for Microsoft that would prevent them from having 
to release their operating system's API's to software competitors. 
By allowing such a major flaw in this ruling to go unchecked, it 
would effectively give Microsoft the latitude to continue business 
as usual, as a "practicing monopoly".

MTC-232



MTC-00000233


From: Bob Nystrom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/6/01 12:16am
Subject: You guys just don't get it
    From where we sit in the trenches, either you guys just simply 
don't get it, or the money Billy sent to George and the lunch with 
Cheney and Bailmer fixed this.
    Everyone in the software community knows Microsoft is a 
monopoly. There simply is no question. They restrict choice because 
that is a convenient way to avoid innovation and maximize profits. 
After all, if you have only driven Yugo's, have only seen Yugo's, 
how would you know what a BMW is? Or a Ford, for that matter. 
Consumers could not compare Windows to anything else. The only 
comparisons allowed were Windows 2000 to 98 to 95 to 3.1. All 
Microsoft products- boy is that a coincidence! As a consumer, I 
could not buy

[[Page 23696]]

a computer from Dell or Gateway, or IBM WITHOUT Windows. They could 
not by license agreement sell it to me. This is good for me?
    Over the last three years, with such a bad job of defense, with 
so many glaring errors and mis-statements, how can you not get it? 
There is a finding that they are in fact a monopoly, but how does 
this lame decision address this? Gates and Company are eating your 
lunch like they have so many others. Your oversight commission won't 
have a prayer. Microsoft's internal divisions- Office, for example, 
will still get code changes way before anyone else. Competition is a 
joke. Microsoft has not gotten where they are because they produce 
excellent products. They are where they are because of restrictive 
licensing practices and insider access to code changes. Period. How 
can anyone compete when they release an OS update that breaks your 
product, and then takes you weeks of time to develop a patch, during 
which time they release their product which just happens to work? If 
you rely on word processors or spreadsheets, what do you do? Hello 
Word. Hello Excel. Goodbye Lotus 123. Goodbye Wordperfect. Goodbye 
Netscape.
    There is a no more dangerous company in the world today than 
Microsoft. Steel and Ma Bell could not hold a candle to Microsoft. 
The amount of information that they control is staggering and 
growing exponentially, and those in the software business can see it 
clearly. You don't get it. And with the release of XP, even veteran 
watchers are shaking their heads by the unprecedented_even by 
Microsoft standards_landgrab.
    Passport? Smart Tags? Computer profiling? Give me a break. Ask 
Kodak how they feel right about now. Or the guys who developed 
Internet Explorer.
    There is no greater divide and generation gap between Washington 
and the real world than computer literacy. You guys are living in 
the dim past. This was your last chance to stop Gates and Co. You 
are now on the radar screen, and Gate's WILL hand you your heads.
    As for the economy, 30 more billionaires and hundreds or 
thousands of multi-millionaires will crank up the money supply 
faster than one multi-multi-billionaire.
    You guys just make me sick. You are a disgrace to this country. 
Why don't you just put a "Justice For Sale" sign on the 
Whitehouse and get it over with.
    Sincerely, Bob Nystrom

MTC-233



MTC-00000234

From: James Ludlow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/6/01 1:38am
Subject: Thanks for selling the public out
    Mr. Bill gets to pick the next head of the anti trust division 
of the USDOJ. I hope the next one is more honest than the current 
one!

MTC-234



MTC-00000235

From: Familia Sosa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/6/01 2:20am
Subject: Concerns about the settlement with Microsoft To the DOJ, 
Antitrust division in charge of the Microsoft antitrust case.
    I would appreciate if this e-mail could be shared with the state 
attorneys working on the anti-trust case, and with U.S. District 
Judge Kollar-Kotelly.
    I am a bit concerned about the Microsoft settlement. I would 
hate for this settlement to be just another slap in the wrist which 
leads to the death of innovator companies such as what happened with 
Netscape.
    What guarantees are there that Microsoft will not use it's 
windows desktop monopoly to extend into other areas? They have 
already done it to extend into browsers, knowcking Netscape out of 
the #1 spot, not by innovation, but by dumping ang tying. They 
have also resulted in the death or clsoe to death of other 
innovative operating systems such as BeOS and OS/2 by their strong-
arm exclusionary tactics. I am glad that at least this last point 
seems to be addressed by this settlement, although this is little 
consolation to BE Software, and IBM, and to the consumers who have 
lost so much by not having a fair playing field in the business and 
consumer operating system market.
    They seem to be on their way to doing the same thing with web 
portals by tying MSN content with windows, possibly making yahoo, 
excite, iwon, goto.com and other portal companies into the next 
Netscape_extinct.
    They are trying to do the same by tying their ExpedialMSN site 
with their OS, reducing the incentives for users to go to alternate 
travel web sites.
    They are already doing this with the instant messaging client 
which is tied to their new operating system and may result in 
serious detractor to the proliferation of more open instant 
messaging protocols that work with alternative operating systems. 
They are already tring some other force of tying for their .NET 
platform, forcing the authentication to be done in their 
"Passport" product_a desicion that can only help 
Microsoft extend their monopoly into the potentially rich web 
services market. What incentive will this new settlement give to 
companies to use alternatives, when there might not be any incentive 
to use alternatives to the default windows product, or possibly face 
the wrath of Microsoft in 5 to 7 years anfter this consent decree 
runs out? What guarantees does this settlement place that Microsoft 
will STOP their illegal tying, when they themselves are the arbiters 
of what is tying and what is 'innovation"? What penalties will 
the company suffer to pay for their behavior which has already been 
proven as destructive of the innovation that the company says they 
so much want to protect? It is amazing that he company was found 
guilty of serious wrong doing and yet they again get a slap in the 
and, without any punitive damages!
    Part of the caracterization for what is illegal tying and what 
isn't depends on whether consumers may benefit from the tying. I 
maintain that tying of a product that works ONLY with their 
operating system is no benefit at all, and works just to extend 
their stranglehold in the computing world and to extend their 
monopoly to other areas! This clearly may go against the definition 
that Microsoft may declare when explaining their reasoning for tying 
more products with their O/S, and because of the apparent wording of 
this settlement it is very possible that the spirit of the 
settlement will be declared null by the words used to create it.
    I am also VERY worried that they might be doing the same for the 
gaming industry with their new "X-Box". I pled that you 
look VERY carefully at what sort of deals and tactics Microsoft is 
using to get developers to write code for their X-Box. It has 
already been suggested that by the reason for their X-Box is to 
guarantee that developers will continue to write games that will 
work in X-Box and can be easily ported from X-l3ox to Widows 
and viceversa. Sounds like an attempt to extend their monopoly into 
gaming consoles as well. I would not be surprised if they were 
making deals with software developers that had conditions on the 
games being created and/or ported first for windows/xbox to the 
exclusion of other consoles and or operating systems.
    In conclusion, I am concerned. I have already seen in the past 
how a hasty deal, worded conveniently for Microsoft and allowing 
Microsoft too much leniency has already been rendered innefective in 
stopping them from illegally tactics. This new deal sounds like 
another hasty deal done with the hope to jump start the economy 
without taking into consideration the potential for more harm to the 
software industry, to innovation, and to the economy.
    Eileen and Miguel Sosa
    CC: [email protected]@inetgw

MTC-235



MTC-00000237

From: [email protected] @ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/6/01 6:51am
Subject: not just dual-boot
    As a Linux user, I am forced to pay Microsoft when I buy a 
computer. I'm pleased to see that last week's decision won't let 
Microsoft forbid vendors from selling dual-boot systems. But it 
seems to allow Microsoft to forbid systems that don't run Windows at 
all. Given Microsoft's fear of Linux, it probably will try to stop 
non-Microsoft systems, and I'll have to pay the "Microsoft 
tax" yet again.
    Please clarify the agreement to specify that:
    1. Microsoft may not enter into agreements with vendors that 
limit the operating systems and OS combinations they may pre-
iristall.
    2. If a consumer buys a computer with Windows installed, but 
doesn't want to use that OS, Microsoft (or the computer vendor) must 
pay a full refund.
    Thank you very much,
    James Keating

MTC-237



MTC-00000238

From: Leonard Scaffido
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/6/01 8:01am
Subject: where has justice gone?
    Up until now, it was unimaginable to me that the Department of 
Justice would cave in to Microsoft's blatant illegal behaviors, even 
under a republican administration. And now they have your 
"blessing."
    You have betrayed us.

[[Page 23697]]

    Shame on you. Shame.
    Leonard Scaffido

MTC-238



MTC-00000239

From: Chris Lee
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected] @inetgw
Date: 11/6/01 9:54am
Subject: DOJ SELLS OUT to MicroSUCK!
    (Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It 
has been converted to attachment.)
CC: ASKDOJ, American Atr
    Hey DOJ IDIOTS (or GeoW clones)!
    WHO ARE YOU FOLKS WORKING FOR ... THE PEOPLE OR Microsoft (THE 
ILLEGAL MONOPOLY)???? There's something terrible happening in the 
DOJ and it has to do w/GeoW's POLITICAL APPOINTEES!!!
    Chris
    November 6, 2001

U.S. and Some States Split on Microsoft, Risking New Delay

By STEPHEN LABATON with STEVE LOHR

    WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 The 18 states involved in the Microsoft 
(news/quote) antitrust case appeared headed for a sharp split today, 
with one group of attorneys general planning to sign onto the 
proposed settlement between the software giant and the Bush 
administration and another group preparing to challenge it, saying 
it leaves loopholes that would undermine provisions intended to 
promote competition.
    After three days of intensive deliberations, only one state 
attorney general, Thomas F. Reilly of Massachusetts, officially 
announced his position. He said Massachusetts would seek to block 
the deal, concluding that it "may prove to be more harmful 
than helpful to competition and consumers." Officials of other 
states skeptical of the agreement, which included Connecticut and 
California, spent the afternoon in a late-stage effort to persuade 
Microsoft and the Justice Department to reopen the proposed 
settlement to eliminate a variety of ambiguities and provisions that 
the states viewed as too lenient, lawyers involved in the 
negotiations said.
    The attorney general of Illinois, Jim Ryan, suggested he would 
support the agreement, while the attorney general of New York, Eliot 
L. Spitzer, postponed a planned announcement of his endorsement 
after his efforts to strike a separate deal with Microsoft 
collapsed, the lawyers said.
    The failure of the Justice Department to gain the endorsement of 
all 18 states throws the proposed consent decree into question and 
creates a situation that antitrust experts said is without legal 
precedent.
    At the least, the disapproval by some states is likely to delay 
the resolution of the case for many months.
    Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of United States District Court in 
Washington has instructed the parties to outline their positions at 
a hearing here on Tuesday morning. She has suggested that she may 
conduct parallel proceedings to consider both the merits of the 
proposed consent decree and the objections raised by officials of 
some of the states. Her original schedule suggested that she would 
not decide what to do before late next spring at the earliest.
    Career officials at the Justice Department who have spent years 
working on the antitrust suit were

MTC-239



MTC-00000240

From: David Peter
To: [email protected] @inetgw
Date: 11/6/01 10:04am
Subject: The Weak Stand Against Good Moral and Ethic Behavior and 
Microsoft....
    I'm amazed that this administration has supported and ignored 
the effects of the illegal behavior of Microsoft. Also that the 
position is to encourage such behavior. We all see now that the 
Goverment and Microsoft join to run this country.... What a 
shame.... I have been a long time republican and I hate to even 
consider standing for this administration dealings with the 
Microsoft case.
    God Bless a Honest America!
    David Peter
    CC: Microsoft ATR,antitrust @ usdoj .gov @ 
inetgw,ASKDOJ,vi ...

MTC-240



MTC-00000241

From: James Carter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/6/01 10:12am
Subject: Please withdraw from this non-effective settlement.
    I am a real person working in the computer industry who can tell 
story after story (many to me) of microsoft abuses.
    I help companies with information, microsoft is not a competitor 
of mine.
    As you know, anti-trust violators must be:
    (1) punished
    (2) receive remedies which prevent future abuses.
    I'm afraid the proposed settlement does neither.
    This IS about the economy.... Microsoft kills innovation and 
does it by breaking the law.... while sitting on 30B US$ in cash.
    Paid for by the consumer.
    Consumers like the marvels of COMPUTING, not microsoft... but 
many confuse the two... They like Mac and AOL too... Its the 
technology they like... never mind it's a law-breaking company even 
higher educated people can't seem to get their minds around.
    I would be happy to assist in elaborating and helping in any way 
in getting an effective remedy... I have lots of ideas.
    Considering Microsoft's history of ignoring consent decrees, I 
hope that you will agree that another consent decree should be held 
highly skeptical as an effective remedy. The fact that Microsoft 
violated a 1995 consent was part of what prompted the current 
antitrust proceedings. How effective can the same remedy be, when 
its prior violations helped to protect and extend Microsoft's 
illegal monopoly?
    Microsoft has recently released Windows XP, a computer operating 
system with the explicit goal of extending their monopoly reach into 
web services. This is a clear violation of antitrust law, and a 
clear demonstration that Microsoft intends to completely ignore 
remedial actions to reinstall competition into the computer software 
market.
    I urge you to reject the current settlement and pursue an 
effective remedy to restore competition in the computer operating 
systems market, and prevent Microsoft from extending their illegal 
monopoly into other computer software markets.
    I am a modestly self-employed programmer, who has personally 
suffered the abuses at the hands of the goliath. Please don't let 
the average folks down. Even the ones who confuse loving computers 
and communication revolutions with MS.
    I would help you with remedies or evaluation of such in any way 
I can.
    sincerely,
    James Carter
    221 Hosea Ave. Apt. 2
    Cincinnati, Ohio 45220
    (513) 559-9701

MTC-241



MTC-00000242

From: Bill Sappington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/6/01 10:28am
Subject: Justice for Sale or Business as usual with the republicans 
in power.
    Gentlemen,
    Congratulations, you have crafted an utterly toothless document, 
that allows Microsoft to continue doing what it has been doing all 
along. No behaviour is altered here.
    You are utter cowards.

MTC-242



MTC-00000243

From: Randolph Penna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/6/01 10:34am
Subject: finally
    Hello,
    Maybe now you guys can stop making the new software cost more 
.... xp is more than the last OS cost, but you people say your 
protecting the consumers. SO PROTECT ME NOT THE BUSINESSES ....
    The only thing you and the 19 states want is money. STOP now... 
the last thing we need is a government OS.
    There is no better browser than IE. There is no better office 
program. The worst thing is you probably use and depend on the 
software you battle. There is no better OS. You have nothing but the 
bitter jealousy of companies like SUN who can't make it on their own 
because their products suck ....
    I dare you to respond to this email, you know this is all 
politics and money and no interest in the "consumer"... 
what a waste of years of college for the lawyers to waste their time 
in this supposed "free market amercia".
    When you keep going on with this, you will drag the markets down 
too, if I was bill gates, I would trap you in red tape until the 
next administration comes. Maybe we could have a real attorney 
general that actually understands freedom of capitalism past what 
his bureaucracy thinks it is.
    Randolph Penna
    [email protected]
    http://www.nomadx.com
    Tel. 630.530.9469
    Fax 630.530.9521
    Powered by Inter-Agent

MTC-243

[[Page 23698]]



MTC-00000244

From: Chas Boyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/6/01 11:33am
Subject: Microsoft written settlement?
    I am appalled that the Department of Justice has chosen the side 
of big business instead of the American public with this proposed 
settlement with Microsoft. Microsoft is a monopolistic behemoth that 
has been trampling on innovation for years. Its practices are 
apparent to all that care to look for them.
    This proposed settlement seems as though it was written by 
Microsoft itself.
    In fact, David Coursey, a Microsoft lackey writing for PC 
Magazine, in reviewing the proposal was even embarrassed by it. Why 
isn't the Justice Department embarrassed for floating it?
    I have voted Republican in every election since I began voting 
26 years ago. This proposal gives me serious concern in continuing 
that trend.
    As an aside, we should get out of Afghanistan immediately as I 
believe we have no right to enforce justice worldwide when we are 
not doing so at home. Why isn't my flag waving today?
    Charles Boyer
    Martinez, GA

MTC-244



MTC-00000245

From: Bob Tompkins, The Computer Mechanic
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/6/01 12:24pm
Subject: Thanks for nothing
    Sorry to hear that you guys caved in to Bill Gates pressure. Had 
our sitting President actually been elected to the Office, Microsoft 
would now be two companies instead of one, paid massive fines for 
their arrogant and clearly illegal tactics and the not-ready-for-
primetime Windows XP would be back on the drawing board for removal 
of the components that will force even more software makers out of 
business.
    Too bad that Republican administrations don't believe that 
clearly delineated Anti-Trust Laws should be enforced against the 
worst offenders. I hope the attorneys general involved in the case 
have the gonads to stick to theur guns and press for meaningful 
penalties against Microsoft.
    Bob Tompkins

MTC-245



MTC-00000246

From: MCCOLLOCH,LARRY (A-SanJose,ex 1)
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov
Date: 11/6/01 1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Justice Department:
    I do not support the proposed settlement. It will not correct 
Microsoft's monopolistic culture.
    Please support the states and pursue a structural change to 
Microsoft. I prefer the structural change even if it takes longer 
and costs more taxpayer dollars. I feel it will be cheaper in the 
long run to correct Microsoft's monopoly now.
    Regards
    Larry McColloch
    [email protected]

MTC-246



MTC-00000247

From: Paavola, William
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/6/01 2:26pm
Subject: Bad choice
    You are supposed to prevent monopolies. As a long time consumer 
of computers and ralated material I am appalled how you have caved 
in to Microsoft. You are not doing your job!
    William Paavola
    Office (973) 533-3720
    Fax (973) 535-0731
    Pager (888) 937-7352
    Cell (201) 981-4821

MTC-247



MTC-00000248

From: Mark Lambert
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov','AskDOJ(a)usdoj .gov'
Date: 11/6/01 2:31pm
Subject: USDOJ Comments
    This proposed settlement is a joke. There is nothing in this 
settlement that will cause Microsoft to change their business 
practices. I can't understand how they can get away with this, even 
after lying during the trial. Here are some of the concerns I have 
about the settlement.
    Though the ruling makes it easier for non-Microsoft applications 
called "middleware" (Internet Explorer, Java VM, Windows 
Media Player, Messenger, Outlook Express, and their successors) to 
get onto the desktop, it still allows Microsoft to discriminate 
against companies that haven't sold a million copies in the U.S. and 
survived for a year after doing so. This means that companies that 
don't need protection from Microsoft are the only ones who get it.
    Hardware vendors would be allowed to place non-Microsoft icons 
on the desktop, but only if Microsoft already has a competing 
product. Think up something before Microsoft does, and they can 
still exclude you from the desktop because they don't (yet) compete 
with you. So much for first-mover advantage.
    Microsoft has to provide developers with information on its 
application programming interfaces_at least those APIs 
developers need to exercise their rights under the agreement. But 
there's a Catch-22: If a developer actually uses the APIs, it must 
provide its code back to Microsoft. This could allow Microsoft to 
use any innovation created by third parties. So how much innovation 
will happen?
    Under the agreement, Microsoft would be required to disclose 
these APIs at the time of the "last" beta release of new 
Windows OS code. Since Microsoft gets to decide which release is the 
"final beta," it could, essentially, release the final 
beta on one day and release the code a week or two later, giving it 
a significant time-to-market advantage.
    Microsoft retains the ability to discriminate against Internet 
content providers, and the settlement would allow indirect 
discrimination against software vendors through arrangements with 
hardware companies. All the previous double-talk seems minor 
compared to this: The settlement would allow Microsoft to terminate 
licensing agreements first_and defend its actions later. 
Microsoft may also continue to manipulate pricing schemes and 
discounts. In these ways, Microsoft has lost little of its ability 
to keep hardware companies in line.
    Even if I ignore all the gotcha's outlined above, the proposed 
settlement really doesn't change very much. If Jackson's break-up 
order was an empire-shattering 9 on the Richter scale, then the 
settlement proposal is a 2.1_usually called a microquake, and 
barely felt unless you're right on top of it.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Lambert
    2082 W. Thaxton Circle
    Riverton, UT 84065

MTC-248



MTC-00000249

From: Tom Wilson
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov
Date: 11/6/01 2:43pm
Subject: The settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    As a concerned consumer and Information Technology professional, 
I would just like to say I am disappointed to see that justice is 
for sale in America. This settlement is nothing more that a slap on 
the wrist for Microsoft and a slap in the face to American consumers 
and citizens. This settlement proves that money can buy anything, 
even justice. Microsoft paid to put an administration in place that 
would let in continue to be a monopolistic company and got exactly 
what it wanted. A Justice Department that was more interested in 
keeping Microsoft as a profitable campaign contributor and keeping 
the big money party donations flowing than they were about the well 
being of American consumers. Shame on you. A government for big 
business by big business is the mantra in Washington DC.
    Tom Wilson
    1231 Fourth Ave
    Dayton, KY 41074
    Radac Corporation
    (859) 581-7500
    (859) 581-3724(fax)

MTC-249



MTC-00000250

From: Eugene L. Willey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/6/01 2:59pm
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust settlement
    You are recreating a monster. The Microsoft plan is to dominate 
the information technology field with inferior, unstable and 
vulnerable products. You cannot run a government that utilizes such 
products. At a time when homeland secruity is front and center, this 
ruling sends a signal that the information industry will be 
dominated by a funamentally flawed system architecture. His code is 
secret because its flaws cannot be exposed without his ruination. 
Everyone that uses Microsoft products knows that they crash and that 
each crash produces unintended and unpredictabel consequences. Most 
of the recent virus attacks center on

[[Page 23699]]

Microsoft products because they are the weakest. Linux/Unix are 
superior in every way but all PC's come with Windows so the beat 
goes on. The handling of this case will go down in history as a dark 
and perhaps sinister page ... Gene

MTC-250



MTC-00000251

From: Johnson, Brian E
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/6/01 3:08pm
Subject: Settlement with Microsoft
    This is just one of thousands of responses to the settlement 
(see below). Most people who use a computer for anything other than 
to read E-mail are very disappointed with how easy Microsoft got 
off. I think we will see the most aggressive crushing of the 
competition that we have ever seen by Microsoft now that they know 
they can get away with it.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Johnson
    Stability and Control Flight Test Engineer
    The Boeing Company
    206-655-5727
    Jeremy Allison & Andrew Tridgell: Analysis of the MS 
Settlement and What It Means for Samba.
    Nov 6, 2001, 08 :28 UTC (21 Talkback[s]) (11251 reads)
    (Other stories by Jeremy Allison & Andrew Tridgell)
    The Samba Team would welcome Microsoft documenting its 
proprietary server protocols. Unfortunately this isn't what the 
settlement stipulates. The settlement states '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 111.1), 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 or server operating system 
products) with Windows 2000 Server or products marketed as its 
successors installed on a server computer.
    Sounds good for Samba, doesn't it. However, in the 
"Definition of terms" section it states 
"Communications Protocol" means the set of rules for 
information exchange to accomplish predefined tasks between a 
Windows Operating System Product on a client computer and Windows 
2000 Server or products marketed as its successors running on a 
server computer and connected via a local area network or a wide 
area network. These rules govern the format, semantics, timing, 
sequencing, and error control of messages exchanged over a network.
    Communications Protocol shall not include protocols used to 
remotely administer Windows 2000 Server and products marketed as its 
successors. If Microsoft is allowed to be the interpreter of this 
document, then it could be interpreted in a very broad sense to 
explicitly exclude the SMB/CIFS protocol and all of the Microsoft 
RPC calls needed by any SMB/CIFS server to adequately interoperate 
with Windows 2000. They would claim that these protocols are used by 
Windows 2000 server for remote administration and as such would not 
be required to be disclosed. In that case, this settlement would not 
help interoperability with Microsoft file serving one bit, as it 
would be explicitly excluded.
    We would hope that a more reasonable interpretation would allow 
Microsoft to ensure the security of its products, whilst still being 
forced to fully disclose the fundamental protocols that are needed 
to create interoperable products.
    The holes in this document are large enough for any competent 
lawyer to drive several large trucks through. I assume the DoJ 
lawyers didn't get any technical advice on this settlement as the 
exceptions are cleverly worded to allow Microsoft to attempt to 
evade any restrictions in previous parts of the document.
    Microsoft has very competent lawyers, as this weakly worded 
settlement by the DoJ shows. It is to be hoped the the European 
Union investigators are not so easily fooled as the USA.
    A secondary problem is the definition of "Reasonable and 
non-Discriminatory" (RAND) licensing terms. We have already 
seen how such a term could damage the open implementation of the 
protocols of the Internet.
    If applied in the same way here, Open Source/Free Software 
products would be explicitly excluded.
    Regards,
    Jeremy Allison,
    Andrew Tridgell,
    Samba Team.

MTC-251



MTC-00000252

    ï¿½7Euoj .gov @ inetgw
    Microsoft ATR,antitrust @ ftc.gov @ inetgw,Ralph 
@essen.
Date: 11/6/01 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Hegemony: Freedom Plus Power
    CC: letters @latimes.com@ inetgw,letters @ 
sjmercury.com@i.

MTC-252
    Re: 3 More States Back Microsoft Settlement
    "Free country_states free to oppose settlement, 
Microsoft free to charge any price, consumers free to take it or 
leave it, ha ha ha ha. Freedom alone_that is quaint.., freedom 
plus power_that is winning combination, hiccup ... Kind of 
looks like more power comes more freedom... watch out, ball roll 
down tilted playing field accelerating to my benefit, ha ha ha ha ha 
..."

MTC-252



MTC-00000253

From: StGeorgeV @ aol.com@ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/6/01 3:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Issue
    Dear Sirs:
    It is my understanding that the Microsoft settlement includes a 
provision that Microsoft will be required to turn over the Windows 
source code to competitors and potential competitors.
    If this is true, I believe that this will allow terrorists and 
hackers to more easily get into computers using Windows. It gives 
them a roadmap to get into systems and bring them down.
    If I am right, then I believe Microsoft should NOT be required 
to provide the source code to others.
    I am just an interested civilian.
    Thank you for Listening,
    Robert Hicks
    3118 Gracefield Road Apt. #T23
    Silver Spring, Maryland 20904
    301-572-7747

MTC-253



MTC-00000254

From: Peter Nigrini
To: Microsoft ATR,ASKDOJ
Date: 11/6/01 4:15pm
Subject: Microsoft consent Decree
    Your negotiation settlement of the Microsoft Case is a outright 
betrayal of the trust placed in you by the American people. I urge 
you to reconsider and fulfil your responsibilities to protect 
consumers for monopoly control of the software/operating system 
industry.
    Peter Nigrini
    Projection and Lighting Design
    244 E 7th St. #16
    NYC NY, 10009
    T212.475.2978
    M9 17.488.1097
    F253.660.9919

MTC-254



MTC-00000255

From: Chris Welsh
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected] @inetgw
Date: 11/6/01 4:38pm
Subject: Regarding the Microsoft Settlement
    United States Department of Justice:
    State Attorneys General:
    United States District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly:
    I object to the proposed Microsoft settlement. I believe that it 
will require too much government involvement and its enforcement 
will be too expensive. I doubt that it will correct the damage done 
by Microsoft or cause them to reform their behavior.
    I propose a simpler, cheaper remedy which will be effective and 
fair: Revoke some of Microsoft's patents and copyrights. Give them 
back to their rightful owners or to the public.
    This remedy would return the competitive system to its natural 
state by freeing Microsoft's competitors to produce interoperable 
products without the threat of lawsuits. It would also strongly 
deter future anticompetitive acts by entities which value their 
patent and copyright privileges.
    This remedy would be fair because it would both reduce 
Microsoft's ability to profit from their crimes and seize the assets 
used as tools to commit those crimes. The value of many of 
Microsoft's works was created mainly by depriving consumers of any 
alternative choices. Consumers and computer vendors should be 
allowed the right to freely duplicate the existing

[[Page 23700]]

Microsoft works. Those works are inferior to the work which would 
have been produced in an freely competitive marketplace.
    It would be trivial to implement this remedy. The court would 
simply select an appropriate set of patents and copyrights, declare 
them void, and refuse to enforce them. The selection could be 
limited to only those patents and copyrights directly involved in 
criminal acts, or the court could deny Microsoft all patent and 
copyright privileges for some period of time.
    As a general rule, an anticompetitive monopolist should never be 
granted extra power to prevent competition through patent and 
copyright. To the contrary, a market entity's access to legalized 
monopoly protection should be inversely proportional to its size. 
This would lead to a stable market of medium sized producers and 
would maximize competition and innovation.
    Finally, I want to suggest that every computing product or 
service offered for sale, whether from Microsoft or not, should be 
accompanied by a warranty [see note 1]. The warranty should clearly 
document the product's input and output, including the type, 
purpose, and format of all files and network resources used. While 
this is not currently law, the court should require it of Microsoft 
from now on.
    Note 1: Because source code describes exactly what a program 
does, unobfuscated source code should be considered a sufficient 
warranty for software products.
    Thank you for your good work. I hope you are able to find a fair 
solution in the best interest of society.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Welsh
    Sunnyvale California

MTC-255



MTC-00000256

From: Nathan Ebresman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/6/01 4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear sir or madame,
    As a concerned citizen, I urge you to not settle the antitrust 
case against Microsoft giving them (as I see it) only a slap on the 
wrist. I am asking you to break them into an two parts, one for 
applications and the other for operating systems, because I see that 
as the only real way to truly level the playing field in the 
industry as they have routinely mocked the court system throughout 
the course of the trial.
    Thank you for listening.
    Nathan Ebresman

MTC-256



MTC-00000257

From: Brad Wellington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/6/01 4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I am writing to you in regards to the recent agreement made 
between Microsoft and the DOJ. I am appalled at the DOJ letting 
Microsoft off without any regard to the main issue at hand. As a 
technology professional I feel compelled to voice my displeasure, 
and point out the inadequateness of the remedies put forth. 
Microsoft has blatantly and illegally used its operating system 
monopoly to push competitor's out of the market. This is no longer a 
question, they have been found guilty on this count. They illegally 
forced Netscape out of the browser market and now they are seeking 
to do the same exact thing with Windows XP. Windows XP has both 
instant messaging software as well as photography software bundled 
into the operating system, which completely shows Microsoft's 
respect for the federal government and the DOJ in particular. I am 
wondering at this point if in 5 years Microsoft will be able to 
bundle a Ham Sandwich and tires for my car into the operating system 
that I will be forced to buy.
    This illegal leveraging of the Windows OS is the core issue at 
hand and has not been addressed at all in the agreement Microsoft 
has reached with DOJ. Microsoft's ability to bundle whatever it 
wants into its operating system needs to be stripped. Any settlement 
reached with Microsoft MUST touch on this core issue. They must not 
be allowed to continue bundling whatever they want into their 
operating system. Please take the opinions of people who understand 
this technology into account. Thanks for your time.
    Brad Wellington
    Software Engineer

MTC-257



MTC-00000258

From: Thomas Farrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/6/01 8:44pm
Subject: Proposed microsoft settlement
    Hi,
    I have read with horror the news stories about the DOJ's 
proposed settlement with Microsoft. While I would be pleased to see 
the case settled, as a computer professional I know it is vitally 
important that Microsoft be brought under control in order for the 
computer and software industry to have a future.
    I don't believe the proposed settlement will do anything to help 
prevent Microsoft from further extending its monopolies or crushing 
its potential competition out of business. There are way too many 
loopholes. Microsoft gets to say way too much about what it will or 
will not do under the proposed settlement.
    Furthermore, since Microsoft has already been found to be a 
lawbreaking organization, I don't trust them to obey whatever 
settlement they may agree to, and would expect there to be very 
harsh penalties specified for noncompliance. I don't believe the 
proposed settlement has such penalties.
    Finally, because Microsoft has already been found to have broken 
the law, as a taxpayer I expect them to pay for all of the 
government's legal costs and the court's costs incurred in this 
case. I find it unconscionable that the DOJ would allow Microsoft to 
settle without reimbursing the taxpayers expenses.
    In short, I am deeply upset that the DOJ has agreed with this 
proposed settlement, and strongly protest allowing it to go forward.
    Thomas M. Farrell
    Somerville, MA

MTC-258



MTC-00000259

From: Stunt Car
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/6/01 8:53pm
Subject: You guys are weak as piss.
    DoJ,
    You guys should change your name. As you are currently being 
misrepresented by calling yourselves anything to do with Justice.
    I'm glad the Organization I work for is costing a shift away 
from Microsoft product.
    Then again your entire nation is pretty pathetic. About to be 
wiped out by an enemy who lives in a cave a rides donkeys. And you 
need my small countries support as you are too incompetent or scared 
to do it yourselves. LOL.
    Even I'm beginning to tire of having to support a nation with no 
real idea what is going on. But I guess we won't be seeing much of 
you once your stock market collapses. As a nation that can not even 
properly generate enough electricity you are starting to sound like 
another backward and corrupt administration I've been hearing about.
    Anyway I'm prepared to reverse my opinion if I can have some of 
your payola from Microsoft. Please send in cash.
    Keep up the sham. And remember when trying to relax, don't take 
a deep breath anymore.
    CYA .... stuntcar

MTC-259



MTC-00000260

From: [email protected] @inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/6/01 9:37pm
Subject: Your Settlement.
    I don't understand why you let Microsoft off so easily. My 
impression is that Microsoft is a monopolist of the most predatory 
sort and they need to be controlled if the software industry is to 
flourish. They are sleazy, greedy, grasping and give capitalism a 
bad name.
    In contrast to AT&T which used its monopolistic power to 
give good service to the US for many years, Microsoft has used its 
power to sell inferior Operating Systems that inconvenienced their 
users for years and used the profits to drive competitors out of 
business.
    I always considered myself to be a Republican, but I don't 
believe that any business should be allowed to drive out other 
businesses with the most underhanded of methods, especially in the 
face of all of the laws that are designed to allow competition to 
flourish.
    Do your job, guys. You were elected to uphold the laws, not to 
give Microsoft a free ride.
    John Cox

MTC-260



MTC-00000261

From: Kie Muzyka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/6/01 9:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Decision
    To whom it may concern:
    I am supportive of a settlement in the case. However, there are 
some aspects of the proposal that I do not agree with.
    Provide operating system interfaces to all software 
suppliers_

[[Page 23701]]

    1. This is good. However, this should hold true from now on, not 
be limited to 5 or 7 years.
    2. This info must be made available to all software suppliers as 
soon as it is available to other areas within Microsoft.
    Allow PC makers or retailers to replace Microsoft components 
with competitive components_
    1. This is good, but the pricing must reflect the removal of the 
components. As I understand it, Microsoft can bundle their 
components and set a price. PC maker can remove components 
selectively, but must still pay the same price to Microsoft. This is 
not good! Where is the motivation for any action?
    This is exactly one of the reasons that OS/2 failed in the 
marketplace. The OS/2 user had to pay for OS/2 & Windows.
    If these aspects of the settlement are not corrected, then the 
settlement is worthless.
    Kie Muzyka
    823 South Peytonville
    Southlake, Texas 76092
    817-481-6354

MTC-261



MTC-00000262

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/6/01 10:52pm
Subject: AtATgram: Nine Say Yea, Nine Say Nay (11/6/01)
    Brian  is sending you a scene 
from_ As_the_Apple_Turns!_
    Scene 3378 follows:
    Nine Say Yea, Nine Say Nay (11/6/01)
    Sometimes we really love living in Massachusetts. Sure, the 
taxes may be on the high side, but at least our money gets us an 
attorney general that won't roll over and play dead like a certain 
Bush-administration Justice Department we could mention.
    Whereas the feds are looking to end the three-year run of 
"Redmond Justice" not with a bang, but a whimper of a 
settlement so full of loopholes you'd think it was a breakfast 
cereal, not all of the eighteen states involved with the case are 
willing to roll with that particular punch.
    The states had until today to decide whether or not to sign on 
with the proposed settlement, and according to a CNET article, fully 
half of them have refused to cave that easily.
    Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly has been saying for 
days that he wouldn't sign, and stuck to his guns; he and the 
attorneys general of eight other states have therefore managed to 
split "Redmond Justice" into_two_shows. 
The "classic" story will continue with settlement 
hearings, as the feds and half the states feverishly try to get the 
heck out of Dodge; meanwhile, an as-yet-unnamed "Redmond 
Justice" spinoff will follow the continuing litigation as nine 
states push for a resolution that actually, you know, 
_accomplishes_something. It's antitrust fun for the 
whole family!
    Funnily enough, an Associated Press article describes Microsoft 
attorney John Warden as "frustrated" that half the 
states are pushing forward and quotes him as saying, "The 
issues in this case have been beaten to death and they have been 
beaten to death by people who are worn out." 
Awwww... Is widdle John-John all tuckered out? Since 
Microsoft's strategy all along has been to stall until the issues 
become moot and the government changes hands, maybe the company 
should have hired a lawyer with a little more stamina. Suck it up, 
John, because it ain't over yet.
    You're in this for the long haul.
    To see this scene as it was meant to be seen, complete with 
links to articles and formatted as originally broadcast, visit: 

    To see the complete, unadulterated episode in which this scene 
was originally broadcast, visit:
    
    As the Apple Turns: 
    This Scene: 
    This Episode: 
    Copyright (c)1997-2001 J. Miller; please don't forward 
without this attribution and the URLs above. Other reproduction 
requires J. Miller's explicit consent; please contact him at the 
site. Thanks.

MTC-262



MTC-00000263

From: Bob Rattner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/7/01 9:00am
Subject: Humbug!!
    Dear Mr. James,
    In re: Microsoft, you sir, are a liar and a coward. How much 
graft did you accept from Mr. Gates for your spineless support of 
his agenda? You are a disgrace to the word 'justice'. 
Shame, shame, shame!!!
    Bob Rattner
    43 Nieman Ave.
    Lynbrook, NY 11563

MTC-263



MTC-00000264

From: Raymond Blum
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/7/01-9:08am
Subject: Inadequate controls for Microsoft
    I am writing to you in regards to the recent agreement made 
between Microsoft and the DOJ. I am appalled at the DOJ letting 
Microsoft off without any regard to the main issue at hand. As a 
technology professional I feel compelled to voice my displeasure, 
and point out the inadequateness of the remedies put forth. 
Microsoft has blatantly and illegally used its operating system 
monopoly to push competitor's out of the market. This is no longer a 
question, they have been found guilty on this count. They illegally 
forced Netscape out of the browser market and now they are seeking 
to do the same exact thing with Windows XP. Windows XP has both 
instant messaging software as well as photography software bundled 
into the operating system, which completely shows Microsoft's 
respect for the federal government and the DOJ in particular. I am 
wondering at this point if in 5 years Microsoft will be able to 
bundle a Ham Sandwich and tires for my car into the operating system 
that I will be forced to buy.
    This illegal leveraging of the Windows OS is the core issue at 
hand and has not been addressed at all in the agreement Microsoft 
has reached with DOJ. Microsoft's ability to bundle whatever it 
wants into its operating system needs to be stripped. Any settlement 
reached with Microsoft MUST touch on this core issue. They must not 
be allowed to continue bundling whatever they want into their 
operating system. Please take the opinions of people who understand 
this technology into account. Thanks for your time.
    Raymond Blum
    Systems Engineer

MTC-264



MTC-00000265

From: Tom Friedland
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/7/01 9:48am
Subject: proposed settlement
    Dear Antitrust Division,
    I teach a course at Rutgers University that is studying the 
Microsoft case. Please email me a draft of the Proposed Settlement. 
I hope to use it in my class Monday of next week.
    Thank you.
    Tom Friedland

MTC-265



MTC-00000266

From: Chris Lee
To: Microsoft ATR,American Atr
Date: 11/7/01 9:49am
Subject: MS SELL-OUT: STUPIDITY reigns in DoJ
[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It has 
been converted to attachment.]
CC: ASKDOJ,president @whitehouse.gov 
@inetgw,vice.presid...

    THANK GOD FOR THE "STATES" TO SAVE THE PEOPLE FROM 
THE SELL-OUT BY DoJ & GeoW!!! The questions arrising from this 
so-called "settlement" is "Did GeoW and his DoJ 
political appointees receive something UNDER THE TABLE?" and 
"Should there be an investigation for possible CONFLICT OF 
INTEREST or FRAUD"?
    THERE'S SOMETHING NOT RIGHT IN WASHINGTON!!!!
    THANKS FOR NOTHING GeoW & cronies!!!
    November 6, 2001, Breakaway states nix Microsoft pact, Joe 
Wilcox, CNET News.com_WASHINGTON_Several states have 
refused to accept an agreement between the Justice Department and 
Microsoft, choosing instead to press further antitrust litigation 
against the software company.
    The settlement agreement, to which nine of the co-plaintiff 
states have now given their support, remains essentially unchanged 
from the proposal put forward by the Justice Department and the 
software giant on Friday. Any changes would be only clarifications 
and not a substantive reworking, according to the government.
    Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who did not 
sign onto the proposal, said that the settlement is a

[[Page 23702]]

"triumph of hope over history," a deal that is 
"good but may not be good enough."
    Many outside the case, from consumer groups to Microsoft 
competitors and antitrust specialists, have said that the deal goes 
easy** on the software titan.
    Said Blumenthal: "My present intention is to proceed in 
the litigation." Tuesday's refusal, however, does not mean 
that those states will not come to terms with Microsoft at a later 
date.
    "We in Iowa continue to look at the agreement. We move on 
with the litigation, (but) we are open to settlement talks," 
said Iowa's attorney general, Tom Miller, who also has not signed 
the deal.
    "We congratulate the states that settled." Miller 
said that the case's mediation process "produced some real 
progress," especially regarding its disclosure of technical 
information on servers. Other concerns remain about the dictates for 
Microsoft, including safeguards for PC makers and openness to third-
party applications.
    The federal government brought suit against the software maker 
in 1998, and subsequent court decisions found Microsoft to be a 
monopolist that used its dominant position in operating systems to 
unfairly compete against other software makers and gain favorable 
deals with PC makers. A federal judge had ordered Microsoft split 
into two companies and the imposition of other strong remedies.
    An appeals court in June threw out the breakup order, but in 
remanding the case to a lower court upheld the monopoly ruling and 
ordered that new remedies be set in keeping with that ruling.
    U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a relative 
newcomer to the case, was randomly assigned at the end of August. On 
several occasions since then, she has said that a settlement would 
be in the best interests of the country.
    On Tuesday, the Justice Department expressed satisfaction with 
the recent progress toward a settlement and expects more states to 
sign on.
    "We are very pleased with the results thus far," 
said Charles James, assistant U.S. attorney general. "This 
settlement is good for consumers and the tech economy.
    The other states that have not signed onto the settlement 
proposal are California, Florida, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, 
Utah and West Virginia. Also in the group is the District of 
Columbia.
    "We made every effort to reach a compromise to address the 
states' concerns and allow everyone to move forward, Microsoft 
Chairman Bill Gates said in a statement Tuesday. 'Yesterday, at the 
request of the states, we made some additional revisions to clarify 
the proposed decree and better capture the intent of the parties.
    Earlier in the day, Microsoft indicated its willingness to keep 
working toward a settlement with the remaining states, even as it 
expressed a hope that the well-worked matter would be more or less 
closed Tuesday.
    "Microsoft will never refuse to listen," said John 
Warden, an attorney for the company. "The issues in this case 
have been beaten to death.. .by people who have been worn 
out."

Going forward
    The case now will proceed on two tracks. One track will involve 
public comment as dictated by the Tunney Act, and the other will be 
continued litigation with the states not agreeing to the settlement.
    "I'm going to be going forward from this point on two 
parallel tracks," Kollar-Kotelly said. Mediation among the 
parties ceased with Tuesday's hearing.
    The Tunney Act requires that the judge would review the deal to 
ensure that it is in the public interest and is not politically 
motivated.
    Before Kollar-Kotelly holds a hearing in keeping with that law, 
there must be a 60-day period of public comment after the proposed 
settlement is published in the Federal Register, which should take 
place within the next two weeks. After the public comment period, 
there will be 30 days for the government to respond, meaning that 
the next phase should conclude in February.
    One observer said that the remaining states face an uphill 
battle in their continuing opposition to Microsoft, given the loss 
of their allies and worries about limited resources.
    "The states can't lose any more, other than the enormous 
expense of continuing the battle," said Bob Lande, an 
antitrust professor at the University of Baltimore Law School. 
"With California, they have $3.7 million assigned to their war 
chest. The question is, will that be enough?"
    "We're very confident that there will be sufficient 
resources" to continue the process, said Connecticut's 
Blumenthal, who left the door open to settlement farther down the 
road.
    Earlier in the day, the 18 state attorneys general were divided 
into three groups: One wanted to accept the settlement as it is, the 
second was undecided, and the third wanted to litigate. That split 
remained after several days of intense discussions that continued 
into the early hours on Tuesday.
    "An extraordinary amount of work was done over the 
weekend," said Brendan Sullivan, the lead attorney for the 
states. "They negotiated until (12:30 PT) this morning, and a 
redline (amended) version was dispatched to the Justice Department 
and the remaining states at (5:30 PT) this morning."
    Mediator Eric Green, a professor at Boston University, said that 
the states "worked through the night until the break of dawn 
this morning." The states that have joined in the settlement 
are Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, New York, 
North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin.
    The Justice Department and Microsoft delivered their settlement 
proposal, in the form of a consent decree, to Kollar-Kotelly last 
Friday to meet a court-ordered deadline. The states complained that 
they weren't given adequate input into the negotiations leading up 
to that settlement and that the proposal offers Microsoft too much 
wiggle room.
    Microsoft's industry foes continued to find fault with the 
settlement Tuesday.
    "The state attorneys general who today rejected the 
settlement agreement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice 
were right to do so, and we support them," Paul Cappuccio, AOL 
Time Warner's general counsel, said in statement. "That 
agreement fails to protect consumer choice and promote competition, 
by leaving Microsoft free to continue to abuse its monopoly."
    **Rivals, others lament Microsoft deal
    By John G. Spooner, Stephen Shankland, and Joe Wilcox
    Staff, CNET News.com
    November 2, 2001, 1:20 p.m. PT
    http://news.cnet.com/news/0- 1003-200-7758623 
.html?tag=prntfr
    Consumer groups and Microsoft competitors reacted to Friday's 
proposed antitrust settlement with disappointment and skepticism.
    The reaction to the deal reached by the software titan and the 
Justice Department in the landmark case boils down to one simple 
sentence: Microsoft got off easy.
    "They seem to have done pretty well with the settlement 
with the DOJ," said James Love, director of the Consumer 
Project on Technology. The organization, formed by Ralph Nader in 
1995, focuses on intellectual property rights, among other issues.
    'We're disappointed," he said. "We would 
have expected to see more pop" in the settlement.
    Earlier court decisions found Microsoft to be a monopolist that 
used its dominant position in operating systems to unfairly compete 
against other software makers and gain favorable deals with PC 
makers. A federal judge had ordered Microsoft split into two 
companies and the imposing of other strong remedies.
    An appeals court in June threw out the breakup order, but in 
remanding the case to a lower court upheld the monopoly ruling and 
ordered that new remedies be set in keeping with that ruling.
    AOL, Sun dismayed AOL Time Warner, which owns the Netscape 
Communications browser that was at the heart of the antitrust 
charges that surfaced in the mid 1990s, responded to the settlement 
deal with dismay.
    "In its current form, today's proposed consent decree, 
like the one entered in 1994, does too little to promote competition 
and protect consumers, and can too easily be evaded by a determined 
monopolist like Microsoft," Paul T. Cappuccio, executive vice 
president and general counsel at AOL Time Warner, said in a 
statement.
    The proposed settlement, he said, "fails to fulfill the 
promise of the unanimous decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals 
condemning Microsoft's extensive illegal conduct and requiring an 
effective remedy to prevent its reoccurrence.
    AOL Time Warner's negative reaction to the settlement is not 
surprising. The company has sparred on numerous occasions with 
Microsoft and recently walked away from high-profile discussions to 
embed its America Online service in Windows XP. Its Netscape unit 
competed with Microsoft in the Web browser market and brought 
evidence of anti-competitive behavior to the attention of 
regulators.
    Sun Microsystems lambasted the proposed settlement as 
"more narrow and less punitive" than the proposal 
rejected by the Department of Justice in March 2000 and said

[[Page 23703]]

it merely "reinforces the status quo, and will do nothing to 
restore competition and innovation in the marketplace." 
"Throughout the last century, the U.S. economy has profited 
greatly from sound antitrust enforcement," Sun Chief Executive 
Scott McNealy said in a statement. "Today's agreement signals 
a retreat by the federal government, and a defeat for consumers.
    The proposed settlement, Sun said, is a blow to consumers and 
the technology industry and "a wholly inadequate response to 
Microsoft's major and continuing antitrust violations and to the two 
levels of Federal Court that found Microsoft guilty of violating 
U.S. antitrust law."
    The other view: A "home run
    But not everyone is opposed to the settlement.
    Dick Armey, majority leader of the U.S. House of 
Representatives, issued a statement calling the settlement a 
"home run for consumers" and urged the state attorneys 
general who are co-plaintiffs in the case to avoid dragging out the 
proceedings. The states have the ability to contest the settlement. 
"Businesses should not be afraid that when they create popular 
products, they'll be saddled with endless litigation," Armey 
said.
    Matthew Szulik, chief executive of Linux seller Red Hat, also 
took a contrarian tack, saying that Microsoft faces limitations on 
its behavior either through legal channels or in the unfettered 
marketplace.
    In the absence of a strong settlement, Microsoft's own 
behavior_for example, its increasing software 
prices_will help hasten its decline.
    "By their own actions, they've put themselves in a bit of 
a trap," Szulik said. "I can't see them escaping this 
trap without damaging their long-term prospects.
    Microsoft will be forced out of its proprietary ways regardless 
of the settlement, because companies increasingly networked computer 
systems can only be built on open communication standards, he added.
    "In an enterprise environment, there will be requirement 
to interoperate with other forms of computing."
    Criticism of the settlement began to swell on Thursday as word 
of the impending deal leaked out.
    Trade groups opposing Microsoft's monopoly behavior distributed 
the last proposal prepared by U.S. District Judge Richard Posner 
before earlier settlement talks collapsed in April 2000.
    The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) 
was one of the groups canvassing in Washington on Thursday using 
Posner's final settlement draft to attack the negotiations.
    "This is a total capitulation," said CCIA President 
Ed Black. The government is "settling for something less than 
what they could have had a year and a half ago. Since then they 
succeeded in having Microsoft found to be a monopolist (and) they 
had a unanimous Court of Appeals ruling in their favor with very 
strong language."
    CCIA is one of the groups expected to challenge the settlement 
as not being in the public interest.
Tying products together
    The Software & Information Industry Association (SII) on 
Thursday also urged the Justice Department and the state attorneys 
general to reject the settlement.
    Ken Wasch, the SIIA's president, said in a statement that the 
"settlement agreement, stunningly, will not change either 
Microsoft's business practices nor its software implementations one 
iota."
    He added: "The purported settlement permits Microsoft to 
continue to technically tie the monopoly product of the Windows 
operating system to various middleware products, in direct 
contravention to the findings of fact affirmed unanimously by the 
Court of Appeals."
    The settlement proposal does make some concessions regarding 
"middleware_including Web browsers, e-mail clients, 
media players and instant-messaging applications. PC makers will 
have more freedom to offer such products from companies other than 
Microsoft, but a similar development over the summer resulted in 
few, if any, such offers.
    The Windows operating system emerges largely untouched, and 
Windows XP will be free of any far-reaching restrictions.
    The Progress & Freedom Foundation, a body that studies 
technology's effect on public policy, warned in a statement that the 
settlement does little to prevent Microsoft from "continuing 
monopolization."
    President Jeffrey Eisenach said that, with the deal, the Justice 
Department "proposes to enter into a settlement that fails to 
meaningfully address any of the court's findings. It's an 
embarrassment for the Justice Department, a disservice to the law 
and an affront to the DC Circuit."

MTC-266



MTC-00000267

From: cww @westling.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/7/01 9:55am
Subject: One small voice
    I would like to strongly protest the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft. It does not go far enough to substantially change the 
competitive landscape and in effect, cedes a continuing monopoly to 
Microsoft. Several things would have to be addressed to have a 
meaningful effect for those of us who have to try to make a living 
with alternatives.
    Preload agreements which force any computer buyer to accept a 
copy of Windows whether they want it or not must be abolished. 
Microsoft File formats must be added to the disclosure of APIs to 
allow competitive products to interoperate and compete.
    Pricing must be decoupled from exclusivity agreements, on paper 
or implicit. Pricing should be the same for everybody and a line 
item. not buried into the price of a computer.
    As for remedies, There is an easy solution that would accomplish 
many goals and remove the burden of enforcement. It would avoid all 
the evasive and delaying manoevers and put MS in the position of 
wanting to be good citizens.
    The US government should simply remove Microsoft from the 
approved vendors list and leave it off until behavior is acceptable. 
Not only would this send the right message, it would directly impact 
the competition issues by providing an opportunity for the 
suppressed competitors to recover. I suggest that Open Source 
software be a component to preclude any corporation from achieving 
monopoly status again. This is far more rational and pragmatic than 
suing MS on the one hand and being their largest customer (hidden by 
contractors) on the other
    I don't suppose one computer guy is very important, but I have 
lived the computer industry for 30 years of so and qualify as an 
expert.
    Regards
    cww

MTC-267



MTC-00000268

From: Byron York
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/7/01 10:38am
Subject: Pathetic
    It is pathetic how the DoJ has surrendered to Microsoft. Goes to 
show what a couple million dollar donation to the Republican party 
can get you. Is that against the law? Clinton was investigated for 
all types of spurious reasons. Why is there not an investigation 
into Bush and Ashcrofts collusion with Microsoft? Executives from 
Microsoft met in the WHITE HOUSE!!!!!!
    When is there going to be a bribery investigation of Ashcroft 
and Bush? It is obvious that Microsoft bought their way out of the 
suit. There is *NO* way that anybody would *WIN* the battle then 
surrender the war. What the heck is going on?
    I thought that the Department of Justice was about JUSTICE. Not 
about who has the most money to buy the form of 'justice" that 
they want. I have lost all faith in the legal process in this 
country. To have *9* federal judges declare Microsoft an abusive 
monopoly and then to have the DoJ, which is supposed to be looking 
out for the consumer, capitulate right before the miracle is 
absolutely DISGUSTING.
    Why don't you go have some more backroom meetings with 
Microsoft. I am sure that is completely within the guidelines of the 
Bar. Your division of the DoJ should be ASHAMED.

MTC-268



MTC-00000269

From: Viktors
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/7/01 11:58am
Subject: National security diminished by settling Microsoft case
    I believe that the current settlement direction with Microsoft 
is a grave mistake. Diversity in operating systems and other 
computer software is essential for reducing the threat of cyber-
attacks. Furthermore, giving one company, Microsoft, the ability to 
remotely monitor and control all computer activity is extremely 
dangerous, while also making it easier for an enemy to find a 
weakness that could be used to attack a much larger population of 
computers.
    I am a long-time IT professional, but am writing as a private 
citizen. I know that whomever is reading this probably is not 
intimately familiar with all of the software

[[Page 23704]]

 details and would not understand an in-depth analysis. So I will 
just point out a few items, in high level terms, as best I can. I 
assume someone would contact me if they want to discuss more 
details.
    Software can be viewed in many ways as an analogy to biological 
evolution. One of the dangers that biology has taught us is that the 
less diversity there is, the more vulnerable the population is. 
Likewise, operating system software and other office software that 
is used so widely that it is in almost every computer makes it 
easier to create a devastating cyber attack. Because the internals 
of the Microsoft software is seen by few eyes, it is more likely to 
contain numerous vulnerabilities, that clever hackers can exploit. 
This argues for breaking up monopolies in the IT industry so that 
there are more software choices for customers and so that any attack 
will harm a smaller population. In fact, ideally, the operating 
system and other security sensitive software source code should be 
viewable by everyone. This quickly leads to fixing the 
vulnerabilities, rather than hiding them, as with proprietary 
software. Microsoft will never publish their software source code, 
and thus will continue to put our IT infrastructure at greater risk, 
to the extent that they remain an operating system (and desktop 
office suite) monopoly.
    What concerns me more, is that Microsoft's direction with XP is 
to give them more ability to "upgrade" user's software 
remotely, even without them knowing it. This may be nice for 
Microsoft, but it give Microsoft potentially unlimited "big 
brother" power over everyone's computer. But, even worse, once 
that update capability is hacked by less friendly people, they can 
use it to create cyber terror much easier than today.
    I can already see numerous ways of working around the settlement 
agreement. Microsoft's latest XP operating system is an example. 
Even though they "publish" the interfaces, they require 
me to register my software for use with their interfaces, otherwise 
I will not be given the encryption keys required to talk through 
their "published" interfaces. In general, I think the 
"settlement" will only let Microsoft reinforce its 
monopoly while making our IT infrastructure more vulnerable to cyber 
attacks. Please let me know if anyone needs to discuss this further.
    -Viktors Berstis, Austin Texas

MTC-269



MTC-00000270

From: Mike Whalen
To: Microsoft ATR,attorney general @ state.mn.us @ 
inetgw
Date: 11/7/01 12:08pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I would like to register my displeasure with the settlement 
reached by the DOJ and Microsoft regarding their antitrust 
violations. What the settlement provides is nothing more than carte 
blanche for Microsoft to continue its anti-competitive behavior; in 
fact, this settlement makes it more straightforward (and legal) for 
Microsoft to pursue this behavior then it was previously. To wit:
_Microsoft must allow applications & middleware onto the 
desktop that have distributed over 1 million copies and have been in 
business for greater than one year.
    This clause allows large, established competitors to Microsoft 
to be used. However, what about new competitors? They will not be 
given the chance to be placed on the desktop. If such a clause was 
in place when companies like AOL were in their infancy, it would 
have been more difficult for them to reach their present size.
    This clause does not help the companies that most need 
protection from Microsoft.
    _Microsoft must disclose all new APIs to developers by the 
time of the last beta release of the operating system.
    Ridiculous; you haven't defined a time window for the last 
beta'. Microsoft could release the last beta immediately before 
shipping the operating system.
_Microsoft must disclose all undocumented APIs to developers; 
however, if developers ...request_this information, they must 
provide their source code back to a 3rd party approved by Microsoft.
    As a developer, I wouldn't dream of giving Microsoft my source 
code; they have shown no compunction from stealing ideas from other 
companies and individuals.
    The antitrust trial spelled this out in great detail. Therefore, 
this clause is completely ineffectual.
    Besides, who is Microsoft going to approve as the third party?
_Microsoft does not need to disclose any APIs related to
    1. Security
    2. Anti-virus
    3. License enforcement
    I can think of credible reasons why developers may 
need_to know these APIs.
    For Microsoft's upcoming .NET, a major portion of the API is 
related to security and authentication. In fact, it is central to 
any developer wanting to use .NET for future development of Windows 
products and services.
    By spelling out these specific instances of 'violations', 
you allow Microsoft_more_latitude to continue its 
anticompetitive behavior, rather than less. Microsoft can credibly 
state that many of its APIs related to "back-end" 
services, such as COM+ and .NET services are related to security and 
authentication. These are the thrust of new development at 
microsoft, and access to these APIs is critical to producing 
successful new applications. Microsoft can also continue to 
discriminate against smaller, newer competitors, stifling innovative 
products and preventing them from being displayed on the desktop. 
Microsoft also has the ability to get at the source code(!) of any 
developer who requests information on their APIs. I believe that 
this will cow most, if not all, developers from requesting 
information; they would have to provide, in essence, their most 
valuable property in return: it is akin to giving away your most 
precious business plans to your largest and most aggressive 
competitor. What sane company would do so? I urge you to reconsider 
this mistaken and shortsighted decision.
    Thank you for your time,
    -) Mike Whalen
    Doctoral Candidate in Computer Science
    University of Minnesota

MTC-270



MTC-00000271

From: Halim Chtourou
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/7/01 3:44pm
Subject: Microsoft case comments
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am deeply concerned by the terms of the U.S. Department of 
Justice's settlement with Microsoft in this case. I believe that the 
proposed settlement, and most likely any proposed settlement, is not 
being tough enough on Microsoft. The settlement contains many 
loopholes that will allow Microsoft to continue to their illegal and 
anti-competitive behavior which would only result in more permanent 
harm to the computer industry and future lawsuits costing even more 
tax payer money. Although it may be difficult to plan and initially 
execute, the plan to breakup Microsoft has been the ONLY viable 
solution I have seen to this case. The breakup of Microsoft is truly 
the only way to correct the terrible crimes that Microsoft has 
committed against nearly anyone in the world that has used and 
worked with a computer. Microsoft can be broken up without major 
impact to businesses and the economy. The first divisions to be 
separated should be relatively unrelated entities such as 
Microsoft's operating system and application software division, MSN, 
and Microsoft's X-Box division. These three divisions should be 
separate companies that are not allowed to use their influence to 
help each other, as Microsoft is currently using it's Windows 
monopoly power to help them gain users of MSN and their X-B ox. Look 
at MSN for example. What other major national internet service 
provider ONLY functions with Windows-based computers? I don't 
believe there are any others. How does the proposed settlement 
prevent Microsoft from doing things like this? I don't believe that 
it does. After separating these core divisions, Microsoft's 
operating system and application software units can be separated 
into two or more separate companies. Without the monopoly of Windows 
to leverage, Microsoft Office may actually face competition in the 
marketplace and be forced to strive towards 
innovation_something Microsoft claims to be fighting for, but 
very rarely actually does.
    I urge you, please consider not only what this settlement will 
mean for the future of Microsoft and their monopoly, but also look 
at what they have done in the past, how they have continuously 
flaunted their power in the face of government attempts of 
restriction, and how they have greatly harmed competition and 
innovation in the computer industry.
    Thank you for your time,
    Halim Chtourou
    Information Systems Technology and Digital Media Student at 
Albright College, Reading, PA.

MTC-271



MTC-00000272

From: Nobody
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/7/01 3:54pm
Subject: A Linux Today story has been

[[Page 23705]]

mailed to you!
    This message is sent to you from Linux Today (http://
linuxtoday.com) Miguel Sosa, [email protected] 
has requested that we send you this article.
    You can find this story online at: http://linuxtoday.com/news 
story.php3?ltsn=200 1-11-06-005-20-OP-MS 
Jeremy Allison & Andrew Tridgell: Analysis of the MS Settlement 
and What It Means for Samba.
    The Samba Team would welcome Microsoft documenting its 
proprietary server protocols. Unfortunately this isn't what the 
settlement stipulates. The settlement states:
    "B. 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 111.1), 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 or server operating system products) 
with Windows 2000 Server or products marketed as its successors 
installed on a server computer.
    Sounds good for Samba, doesn't it. However, in the 
"Definition of terms" section it states:
    "Communications Protocol" means the set of rules for 
information exchange to accomplish predefined tasks between a 
Windows Operating System Product on a client computer and Windows 
2000 Server or products marketed as its successors running on a 
server computer and connected via a local area network or a wide 
area network. These rules govern the format, semantics, timing, 
sequencing, and error control of messages exchanged over a network. 
Communications Protocol shall not include protocols used to remotely 
administer Windows 2000 Server and products marketed as its 
successors.
    If Microsoft is allowed to be the interpreter of this document, 
then it could be interpreted in a very broad sense to explicitly 
exclude the SMB/CIFS protocol and all of the Microsoft RPC calls 
needed by any SMB/CIFS server to adequately interoperate with 
Windows 2000. They would claim that these protocols are used by 
Windows 2000 server for remote administration and as such would not 
be required to be disclosed. In that case, this settlement would not 
help interoperability with Microsoft file serving one bit, as it 
would be explicitly excluded.
    We would hope that a more reasonable interpretation would allow 
Microsoft to ensure the security of its products, whilst still being 
forced to fully disclose the fundamental protocols that are needed 
to create interoperable products.
    The holes in this document are large enough for any competent 
lawyer to drive several large trucks through. I assume the DoJ 
lawyers didn't get any technical advice on this settlement as the 
exceptions are cleverly worded to allow Microsoft to attempt to 
evade any restrictions in previous parts of the document. Microsoft 
has very competent lawyers, as this weakly worded settlement by the 
Dol shows. It is to be hoped the the European Union investigators 
are not so easily fooled as the USA.
    A secondary problem is the definition of "Reasonable and 
non-Discriminatory' (RAND) licensing terms. We have already seen how 
such a term could damage the open implementation of the protocols of 
the Internet. If applied in the same way here, Open Source/Free 
Software products would be explicitly excluded.
    Regards,
    Jeremy Allison,
    Andrew Tridgell,
    Samba Team.
    http://linuxtoday.com/news story.php3 ?ltsn=200 
1-11-06-005-20-OP-MS (The sender's internet 
address was 64.175.29.2 18

MTC-272



MTC-00000273

From: Bob Slate
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov'
Date: 11/7/01 7:29pm
Subject: Caveats: experience from the EEC settlement against IBM
    To Whom It May Concern:
    With regard to the current action/settlement with Microsoft 
(which I have not followed in detail), and possible EEC actions 
against Microsoft, it brought to mind some caveats which might be of 
interest given my previous job at Amdahl Corporation with a parallel 
with an anti-trust settlement by IBM with the EEC.
    In 1984, IBM settled an anti-trust action by the EEC by agreeing 
to the "Undertaking" which allowed for competitors to 
request interface information so that products of competitors could 
"attach" to those of IBM. This information was to be 
provided within 120 days of IBM making an announcement of a product 
using those interfaces. Amdahl was a competitor of IBM, 
manufacturing System/39O plug-compatible mainframes. Amdahl was able 
to make interface requests and receive such information, sometimes 
with very onerous charges. After 10 years (around 1994), IBM decided 
to drop the Undertaking, claiming that it had adopted it 
unilaterally, rather than it being imposed. In the subsequent years, 
the prices of the interface specifications skyrocketed: several page 
specifications cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and 100+ page 
specifications cost several millions of dollars. IBM oftentimes 
delivered specifications YEARS after they shipped their products, 
which made life difficult when the market required that a new 
product be delivered every year. It was easy to fall behind and lose 
customers. Losing customers meant less revenues, and less revenues 
made it tough to foot the bill for expensive specifications which 
ended up being a sizeable component of an engineering budget.
    By 2000, IBM's competitors in the System/39O mainframe arena had 
dropped out of the market. Today IBM enjoys a monopoly again in that 
market segment. A lesson to be learned here is that competition can 
thrive only when barriers to competition are not onerous. A 
monopolistic entity with vast financial resources can charge onerous 
fees for interface specifications, making it impossible for very 
small software companies to obtain the information that they will 
need to create products needed for their survival.
    The setting of the prices of the interface specifications cannot 
be under Microsoft's control. Reasonable time limits for delivery of 
complete interface specifications must be established by an 
independent body.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Bob
    Bob Slate, Director, [email protected]
    Engineering Development http://www.extremenetworks.com
    Extreme Networks
    3585 Monroe Street
    Santa Clara,CA 95051
    CC: Bob Slate

MTC-273



MTC-00000274

From: Terry Linhardt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/7/01 8:05pm
Subject: proposed settlement
    You sold us out. You sold out the consumers of the United 
States. You know how I feel? I feel like I have been told to drop my 
trousers, bend over, and get ready to let Bill Gates stick me where 
the sun never shines. And personally, I think that whoever came up 
with the proposed settlement should drop *their* pants, and may I 
suggest I have a place for that settlement.
    Thank you for your consideration of my email.
    Terry R Linhardt

MTC-274



MTC-00000275

From: xCarolFantasiezz @ aol .com @ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/7/01 8:48pm
Subject: Danke nochmal.
    Hi gruss Dich, ich will mich eigentlich nur ganz schnell fur 
Deine Hilfe bedanken. Ohne Dich hatt ich des nie gepackt mit dem 
Video auf meine Homepage. Schaus Dir mal bitte an und sag mir was 
ich da noch besser machen kann. Zum Video Du kannst aber 
auch bei AOL Kennwort http://fantasie.nightsites.com eingeben. Ich 
dank Dir noclimal wie verruckt..
    Carol

MTC-275



MTC-00000276

From: George
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/7/01 9:44pm
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust..
    To the A.G. of the United States of America, the Dept. of 
Justice, et al.,
    A Federal Judge found Microsoft "GUILTY" of being an 
illeagle monopoly. And you then let them dictate the punishment.As 
one "of the people, by the people, for the people" I 
have just two questions
    First...how do you sleep at nignt?
    Second...now that you have helped them screw the American people 
can we expect at least a kiss from you (now that you're done kissing 
Bills ass ) or from Microsoft. Or

[[Page 23706]]

should we just look for the hundred dollar's on the night stand when 
we get up in the morrning?
    Now so as to make sure that I have made my point,I will put it 
into plain, simple, American english
    Now that the American people have been fucked by you and 
Microsoft. Do we at least get a kiss, or should we just expect to be 
paid like a cheap whore?
    If the latter is true, please put mine into an account to help 
pay down the defficate that the present administration is running 
up.
    Lastly, please remember where the fallowing sayings come from. 
Then go back and do the job you are paid for.
    "We the People ..."
    "When in the course of human events
    Signed
    One really pissed off American,
    George S. Bogart Jr,

MTC-276



MTC-00000277

From: LBier49 @aol.com@inetgw
Date: 11/8/01 2:47am
Subject: (no subject)
    Ashcroft and Associates,
    At least MS admits it is soft. Shame on you. The worst 
monopolist since the era of the trusts and you cave. And that 
assessment is not from some neophyte, but from a JD-MBA, 
Rutgers Class of 1975, who has been practicing for 26 years. Again, 
shame. While Penfield may have shown unusual commentary form, most 
of what he said was accurate. Bad taste. Bad appearing. Sure. But 
was it the worst taste or conduct with a federal judge? Come on. In 
the real world many federal judges run rough shod over parties. 
However, that is another issue. Windows is flawed as are all 
operating systems by their nature. That is why MS is periodically 
coming out with new operating systems. But when they integrate their 
products and exclude competing products without legitimate business 
reasons, they are using their monopoly power.
    I guess we are going to have to leave it to the State's Attorney 
General and the Europeans.
    Politics, and I mean by that the Bush administration, has sided 
with the monopolists and their cronies and against the American 
people. I can only hope that the American people will make you and 
your cronies pay politically. I know MS is paying you a lot. How 
much did the company "contribute" to your political 
bedfellows and causes? SHAME, SHAME, SHAME
    CC: Microsoft ATR,ag @ state.ca.us @ inetgw,oag 
@ state.tx.u...

MTC-277



MTC-00000278

From: Jim Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/8/01 2:57am
Subject: Shame on you!
    You have caved in. You have submitted to political pressure, 
economic pressure, whatever the heck it was. And in the process, you 
have bound the feet of the personal computer industry and the 
software industry. You have allowed Microsoft to dictate the terms 
of whatever growth will occur from here; you have basically screwed 
the pooch on this one. I have no faith in this government any more.
    James Hill
    Fairfax, CA

MTC-278



MTC-00000279

From: Max Lybbert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/8/01 3:04am
Subject: proposed settlement
    Since the proposed settlementto the United States et. al. v. 
Microsoft cannot be implemented without seeking public comment, let 
me go on record opposing this agreement between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice. With all due respect to the people who 
negotiated the settlement and their intentions, no evidence exists 
that the agreement won't be violated like every one of the previous 
agreements Microsoft has entered into with the Department of 
Justice. Believing that Microsoft intends to abide by this 
agreement, or that the threat of extending the provisions of the 
agreement two years if Microsoft doesn't abide by it will keep 
Microsoft honest is wishful thinking.
    A better settlement should be proposed. Otherwise I will spend 
the next two years ashamed of the officials I elected, and I will 
work to vote them out of office, along with their appointees.

MTC-279



MTC-00000280

From: Christian Loweth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/8/01 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It seems to me that Microsoft has indulged in not only anti-
trust violations but racketeering as well. Is this a possible avenue 
of approaching their abuses?
    Christian Loweth
    New Port Richey FL

MTC-280



MTC-00000281

From: Eugene L. Willey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/8/01 1:17pm
Subject: Secret code in windows
    As I understand the settlement with Microsoft, Microsoft may 
maintain as secret and proprietary certain critical parts of their 
operating system. The vision of critical parts of our government 
using systems that have code known only to Mr. Gates is totally 
unacceptable to me as a citizen. A prerequisite for use in the 
government of any operating system should be that use of the system 
can have no unintended consequences. The only way such a premise can 
be true is for all operating systems used by our government be in 
the public domain. This used to be the law, The law apparently has 
been changed so that government offices can be infested by secret 
systems ... Please consider these remarks.
    ... Gene

MTC-281



MTC-00000282

From: Eugene L. Willey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/8/01 1:34pm
Subject: Government use of Microsoft software
    Is it constitutional for our government to allow contractors to 
supply goods such as software that does not disclose its code to our 
government. The code for the operating sytems being used by our 
government will be known only by Mr. Gates. This is dangerous in the 
extreme. To give a cititzen such extrordinary power is wrong and 
perhaps criminal Our government is free to use Public software which 
does not violate any disclosure rules. These comments are meant to 
be constructive. I hope you will give them some consideration. 
...
    Gene (Eugene L. Willey, 314 West 14th Street Hastings, Ne. 68901 
(402-463-5121))

MTC-282



MTC-00000283

From: Jak Crow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/8/01 4:05pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Are you people insane? Your "settlement" will 
do_NOTHING_to protect consumers and competitors. In 
fact, since you apparently haven't read your own settlement 
document, you should be aware that Microsoft can 
"interpret" its way out of all your deals. If this is 
allowed to pass, I wouldn't discount the possibility that the DoJ 
has been bribed into throwing the case, and I hope the DoJ gets 
investigated for this farce.

MTC-283



MTC-00000284

From: xxOl2
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/8/01 6:45pm
Subject: Federal Register Citations / MS (US Dist. Ct DC 
98-1232)
    Dear Sir/Ma'am:
    Please indicate the Federal Register citation for the 
Department's Proposed Final Judgement, and Proposed Final Consent 
Decree in the Microsoft case. (US Dist. Ct. DC 98-1232), at 
your earliest convenience.
    Thank you,
    Mike Dvorak
    m.t.dvorak @att.net

MTC-284



MTC-00000285

From: Nicky Morrow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/8/01 7:15pm
Subject: Comment on Doj vs MS
    Dear Sir/Maam,
    I'll keep my comment very short: Please pass on to your boss 
that it will be a cold day in hell before I vote republican again. 
Is it clear what I think about the MS settlement?
    Nick Morrow

MTC-285



MTC-00000286

From: John R. Cox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/8/01 10:54pm
Subject: Your settlement is a travesty.
    Paul Thurott's Wininfo website called your settlement a a 
travesty of justice. I wouldn't consider them a radical anti 
Microsoft site;

[[Page 23707]]

just the opposite. I personally consider it a pretty mild comment.
    At least 3 of the richest men in the world made their money by a 
blatant monopoly. They didn't reinvest any of the money to make it 
any more of a quality product than it had to be and the 
unreliability of Windows is legendary. The American people (and the 
world) were cheated as a result. They used their money underhandedly 
to drive competitors out of business and only invested money where 
it would crush a competitor.
    There are good monopolies but Microsoft is not one of them.
    There are laws designed to protect us from that kind of 
behavior. You are responsible for enforcing those laws and you 
failed to do so. I know you have an ideology, but you also have 
responsibilities.
    You guys make me ashamed to be a Republican. Perhaps it's time 
to think about how you can recover some credibility.
    Have a nice day.
    John Cox

MTC-286



MTC-00000287

From: bryce @chmls05 .mediaone.net @ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/9/01 10:39am
Subject: Settlement toothless
    Dear DOJ;
    I'm disappointed by the proposed settlement. It does nothing, 
means nothing.
    What the industry really needs is for Microsoft to stop 
undermining industry standards.
    Microsoft extensions to industry standards are the biggest 
threat to competition and to a level playing field.
    In addition, DOJ should insist that Microsoft publish certain 
file formats_notably Word and Excel_that are now so 
utterly dominant that it's impossible to build a product without 
interoperating with them.
    Bryce Nesbitt
    170A Coolidge Hill
    Cambridge, MA 02138
    CC: [email protected]@inetgw

MTC-287



MTC-00000288

From: Michael Kuske
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/9/01 11:32am
Subject: Is this Microsoft Sweepstake illegal?
    To whom it may concern,
    I have a question. Is the following Microsoft sweepstakes 
illegal? I recently ran across a sweepstakes that Microsoft is 
sponsoring (http://www.msnpeakperformance.coml). It was my 
understanding that it was not legal to force people to use your 
products as a condition of entering such a contest. If you look at 
the site, this is clearly the case here. Either you download and use 
their product (.NET Passport) or you can't enter. There is no 
alternative entry method provided. Don't have a computer? You are 
barred from entering. Your computer uses different (non-Microsoft) 
technology? You are barred from entering. Don't want Microsoft's 
.NET technology on your computer? You are barred from entering.
    You would think with the trouble Microsoft has had recently that 
they would be sensitive to this type of issue. Then again they have 
had a history of thumbing their nose at the law, haven't they.
    Thanks,
    Michael Kuske
    The information in this email, including any attached files or 
documents, is confidential, may be privileged, are copyrighted 
property of Billserv, Inc. and is intended solely for the 
addressee(s) and other official use by the receiving company. 
Access, copying, dissemination, distribution or re-use of the 
information in this email and aforementioned attachments by anyone 
else or any outside party is strictly prohibited. If you are not the 
intended recipient, all copies of this email and associated 
attachments in your possession should be destroyed.

MTC-288



MTC-00000289

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected] @ inetgw
Date: 11/9/01 2:13pm
Subject: Antitrust
    ATR,
    I was sad to see that Microsoft case has gone from almost a 
break up of the company to a slap on the hand indicating everything 
they have done or planning to do is ok and does not impede 
technology in the world. I believe the court may have better 
understanding of these issues were they more computer oriented/
related in their field to see the repercussions Microsoft has put 
upon us. Don't get me wrong, I use Microsoft but am limited to only 
using Microsoft due to their thwarting of the market. I attempt to 
use other software types and vendors but are limited to the 
"May not work with Microsoft." Have you seen the new XP 
and passport software? It has to be the most monopolistic, big 
brother approach I have ever seen. The fees charged by Microsoft for 
the latest software scheme also forces a company to only use their 
software for a long period of time. I thought great I just wont use 
Passport because I don't want my personal info shared with 
Microsoft_when I tried for support they said it was required 
to have passport filled out before continuing. Did you ever wonder 
why other countries ie China have banned Microsoft within their 
country? There is no longer competition in the market. A break-up 
would have spurred more competition and economic growth.
    Anyhow as a general citizen I thought I would express my 
feelings hoping to relay that not only the states, but millions of 
people are under the mafia-like' stronghold that Microsoft has put 
upon us and we don't like it.
    If you'd like peoples opinion, post it on the web in visible 
places_not hidden in the Judgment court orders.
    Adam Walker
    slamcorp @mediaone.net
    559-274-1196
    Standard disclaimer: All statements made in this email are on my 
own behalf and not my employer.

MTC-289



MTC-00000290

From: root  wt6.usdoj .gov @ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,antitrust @ftc.gov @ inetgw,Ralph 
@essen ...
Date: 11/9/01 2:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Hegemony: Dreams Of Plundering
CC: letters @latimes.com @ inetgw,letters @ 
sjmercury.com @ i ...

MTC-290
    Re: Microsoft: Find a Real Fix
    One key provision, for example. supposedly requires Microsoft to 
disclose coding ... Read the fine print, however, and 
you'll discover that Microsoft only has to disclose. ...
    It's not necessary to list the many fatal loopholes to see the 
conservative intent. To the conservative, competition, consumer 
rights, and the integrity of the system are all trivial luxuries not 
worth the fight.
    Rather for them, preserving the USA's economic hegemony on the 
world stage, and cultivating Wall Street superstars, are the only 
substantial goals.
    The REAL fix for competition, consumer rights, and the integrity 
of the system, is releasing the commodity OS into the public domain 
where it belongs.
    "Conservatives preserve throne which I plunder and dream 
of plundering it themselves one day,
    Dallah
    willing ..."




MTC-00000291

From: William J. Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/9/01 2:19pm
Subject: Settlement conditions
    I am not a lawyer, but I am a CPA and over the 25 years that 
I've been in accounting I have read a number of lawsuits and other 
legal agreements. It seems to me that the settlement with Microsoft 
only requires them to do what the law has provided all along, with 
the exception, to use an automobile analogy, that there will now be 
someone in the back seat to tell them they're speeding. It doesn't 
mean that they will slow down, they are just more aware of what they 
are doing.
    Therefore, I feel that unless the court imposes potential severe 
penalties on the Board of Directors of Microsoft, that the course of 
Microsoft slowly pushing out competitors wherever it feels there is 
money to be made, or where it perceives a potential threat will 
continue unabated or possibly accelerate.
    I, therefore, recommend, that the Board of Directors of 
Microsoft be subject to immediate jail time if at any time Microsoft 
is found to have violated the terms of the settlement. This would 
include all current and all future directors. Only by making the 
Board responsible in a way that will have immediate and substantial 
impact will on themselves will there be any hope of the settlement 
agreement being honored.

MTC-291



MTC-00000292

From: [email protected] @inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,antitrust @ ftc.gov @ inetgw,Ralph 
@essen ...

[[Page 23708]]

Date: 11/9/01 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Hegemony: Stupid Change Rules'
CC: letters @ latimes.com@ inetgw ,letters @ 
sjmercury.com
    "You want change rules of game every year like stupid NBA? 
Stick with original rules of game. Original rules is Microsoft 
retain gargantuan advantage of owning industry standard OS bestowed 
in 1982 by profit Ronnie Reagan, peace be with him ...

MTC-292



MTC-00000293

From: Chris Lee
To: Microsoft ATR,ASKDOJ
Date: 11/9/01 3:25pm
Subject: U.S. Settlement Leaves Microsoft More Entrenched
    To CASHcroft & lackeys:
    Does anyone in the GeoW DoJ understand the LAW? Is anyone ashame 
of this gross sell-out of the "people" to the ILLEGAL 
MONOPOLIS, MicroSUCK??? The settlement as written is ludicrous, 
considering the people WON IN THE COURT OF LAW, plus, in the APPEALS 
COURT!
    A citizen/consumer/voter,
    Chris
    U.S. Settlement Leaves Microsoft More Entrenched
    By Rob Pegoraro
    Friday, November 9, 2001; Page EOl
    What are we going to do about Microsoft?
    The govemment 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 
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.1' 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].
    2001 The Washington Post Company

MTC-293



MTC-00000294

From: Brad Wellington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/9/01 4:14pm
    I am writing to you in regards to the recent agreement made 
between Microsoft and the DOJ. I am appalled at the DOJ letting 
Microsoft off without any regard to the main issue at hand. As a 
technology professional I feel compelled to voice my displeasure, 
and point out the inadequateness of the remedies put forth. 
Microsoft has blatantly and illegally used its operating system 
monopoly to push competitor's out of the market. This is no longer a 
question, they have been found guilty on this count. They illegally 
forced Netscape out of the browser market and now they are seeking 
to do the same exact thing with Windows XP. Windows XP has both 
instant messaging software as well as photography software bundled 
into the operating system, which completely shows Microsoft's 
respect for the federal government and the DOJ in particular. I am 
wondering at this point if in 5 years Microsoft will be able to 
bundle a Ham Sandwich and tires for my car into the operating system 
that I will be forced to buy.
    This illegal leveraging of the Windows OS is the core issue at 
hand and has not been addressed at all in the agreement Microsoft 
has reached with DOJ. Microsoft's ability to bundle whatever it 
wants into its operating system needs to be stripped. Any settlement 
reached with Microsoft MUST touch on this core issue. They must not 
be allowed to continue bundling whatever they want into their 
operating system. Please take the opinions of people who understand 
this technology into account. Thanks for your time.
    Brad Wellington
    Software Engineer

MTC-294



MTC-00000295

From: Joan Hanegan
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 23709]]

Date: 11/9/01 5:38pm
Subject: MICROSOFT COMMENT
    Why can't this be over? Our country is based on free 
enterprise... .but only to a certain point? You can create it, 
nurture it, sweat and worry over it, spend all of your life, time, 
and your own money on it, but when it finally pays off the 
government wants to say "you can't do that"! If, and 
when, someone else makes a product that out-performs Microsoft's, 
then they can be in the "winner's circle"! Until then, 
oh well.. .get over it and get back to work. Why is the United 
States spending my tax dollars on this? I did not have a say so in 
this legal dispute!
    I'm sorry, but I just feel that the US is telling us that we 
cannot succeed. This is not an issue of whether Microsoft, or Bill 
Gates, pays their taxes... it is a few little guys crying that Bill 
has all the marbles. Guess what, he won them fair and square. It 
sounds just like my 6 years that wants to re-write the rules when 
he's losing..and what would that teach him? Son, you don't have to 
work for your rewards, just cry loud enough and the US govt will get 
them for you! PLEASE!
    Thanks for hearing my comments on the situation and I truly hope 
that this can come to a speedious conclusion.
    I. Hanegan of Baton Rouge

MTC-295



MTC-00000296

From: Ken Krechmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/9/01 5:38pm
Subject: The use of standards to increase competition
    Gentlepersons,
    The new judgment of November 2, 2001 no longer requires 
splitting the company. However, the same approach is used to have 
Microsoft publish its operating system application programing 
interfaces (APIs) to allow other companies to develop compatible 
products. Microsoft maintains their very successful operating system 
monopoly through the use of these proprietary APIs, as well as 
aggressive marketing. Publishing APIs does not render them open. It 
is not even clear in this judgment how these APIs are described: 
software program code, written specification, formal description 
langauge, or? Open standards appear to be necessary to create open 
interfaces. For a discussion of the history of monopolies and 
standards, the problems that are not resolved by published APIs and 
how open standards may be used to maintain both competition and 
competitive advantage please see http://www.ses-standards.org/
library/krechmerbaskin.pdf for a copy of Microsoft Anti-Trust 
Litigation_The Case for Standards' the first prize paper at 
the World Standards Day proceedings.
    Ken Krechmer
    Senior Member IEEE
    Fellow International Center for Standards Research University of 
Colorado, Boulder
    Technical Editor Communications Standards Review

MTC-296



MTC-00000297

From: Rally for America
Date: 11/9/01 5:57pm
Subject: Rally for America in Austin_Free Concert & Laser 
Light Show
    [l7al2fd.JPG] For more information on the Rally for America, 
visit: http://www.rally4america.com For the program, visit: http://
www.rally4america.com/program.html Speakers at the Capitol will 
include several Texans who lost loved ones in the September 11 
attacks. Admission is free to both the Capitol event beginning at 
4:00 pm and the Waterloo Park Benefit Concert and Laser Light 
Spectacular beginning at 5:45 pm. Donations will be taken for the 
Rally for America Memorial Fund and 100% of the proceeds will be 
used to build a memorial in Austin to the victims and heroes of 
September 11. Free parking is available at the Capitol Visitors 
Garage in the block bounded by 12th and 13th and San Jacinto and 
Trinity. This garage is only one block from both the south steps of 
the Capitol and Waterloo Park. Please contact 
[email protected] or (512) 476-8787 with any 
questions about this event. We would be most appreciative if you 
could forward this message to your friends and colleagues. Note: If 
you do not wish to receive messages about the Rally for America in 
the future, please send a message to [email protected] 
requesting to be removed from the list.

MTC-297



MTC-00000298

From: Sam Bennett
To: Criminal Division,Microsoft ATR,American Atr,NEWCA...
Date: 11/9/01 8:18pm
Subject: Stand up and be counted:
    STAND UP AND BE COUNTED FOCAL VERSE: "HE WHO IS NOT WITH 
ME IS AGAINST ME, AND HE WHO DOES NOT GATHER WITH ME 
SCATTERS." HE REPLIED, THOSE WHO HEAR THE WORD OF GOD AND OBEY 
IT." LUKE 11:23, 28.
    The message for today is: "STAND UP AND BE COUNTED" 
Scripture: Luke 11:23,28; Matthew 1:18-2:23; John 15:5; 
Proverbs 8:14, 21-22; Proverbs 1:7; Proverbs 3:7; Psalms 
10:2,4, Proverbs 16:18; 2 Chronicles 7:14; Matthew 5:11, 44; Matthew 
10:23; Matthew 23:34; Luke 11:49; John 5:16; John 15:20; Revelation 
20:10, 12, 13; Ephesians 2:8-9; James 2:18, 26; Isaiah 54:6; 
Matthew 24:42, 44; Matthew 24:36; Matthew 24:38-39; Isaiah 
34:1-4; Isaiah 60:12; John 12:48; John 3:16, Luke 9:60 
(Scripture is from the NIV).
    ARE WE WARRIORS WHEN WE SERVE OUR LORD AND MASTER? DO WE COWER 
DOWN WHEN WE HEAR THE WORD ?ACLU?, OR ?I?M GOING TO FIRE YOU FOR 
READING THE BIBLE OR SAY ANYTHING ABOUT CHRIST IN THIS 
BUILDING." PERHAPS YOU ARE AFRAID TO PASS OUT BIBLES ON THE 
STREET WHERE YOU MIGHT BE ARRESTED?
    ARE YOU AFRAID TO PASS OUT CHRISTIAN LITERATURE TO SCHOOL 
CHILDREN, OR DEFY SOMEONE WHO REFUSES TO ALLOW YOU TO DO THE WORK OF 
THE LORD. ARE YOU ASHAM- ED TO LET PEOPLE KNOW YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN? 
DO YOU, OR WILL YOU STAND UP BOLDLY AND SPEAK OUT ABOUT JESUS 
CHRIST, OR DO YOU SAY NOTHING, AND GO WITH THE FLOW OF SOCIETY WHO 
SITS ON THEIR HANDS AND RESTS ON THEIR BLESSED ASSURANCES, AND 
ALLOWS PEOPLE TO DIE AND GO TO HELL EVERY DAY?
    FOLKS, IF YOU ANSWERED YES TO ANY OF THESE, I HAVE ONE THING TO 
SAY ? ?YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOUR- SELF .? GOD GAVE HIS SON TO 
THE WORLD IN THE FORM OF A LITTLE BABY BORN TO A HUMBLE, JUST MAN, 
AND A VIR- TEOUS AND PURE WOMAN, A VIRGIN AS GOD'S WORD TELLS US IN 
MATTHEW 1:18-2:23. HE CAME INTO THIS WORLD FOR THE SOLE 
PURPOSE OF DYING FOR THE SINS OF HUMANKIND. GOD BLESSES US 
THROUGHOUT OUR LIVES WITH SO MUCH? WERE A NATION OF WASTEFUL, 
UNGRATEFUL, OPPORTUNIST WHO SIEZE THE MOMENT TO ACCRUE WEALTH FROM 
ADVERSITY AND DESPAIR; DID YOU SEE ALL THESE ?LITTLE SHOPS OF 
PATRIOTISM? THAT SPRING UP ON STREET CORNER EVERYWHERE? WHY DON'T 
THEY SELL "JESUS" SHIRTS AND DISPLAY THE SAVIOR WE ARE 
SUPPOSED TO LOVE AND SERVE. WHY WASN'T THE SALVATION ARMY CALLED 
WHEN THE WORLD TRADE CENTER AND PENTAGON WAS ATTACKED? THEY DO 
INDEED OFFER THE WAY OF SALVATION AS WELL AS PROVIDING COM- PASSION 
AND THINGS FOR THE WELL BEING OF PEOPLE IN NEED. THIS BOMBING HAS 
BECOME BIG BUSINESS TO SOME IN THIS NATION. AND BY ALL MEANS LETS 
SEE THAT THE DOGS ARE TAKEN CARE OF AS WELL. DOESN'T MATTER TO SOME 
THAT THERE ARE HUNGRY FOLKS WHO NEED TO BE FED; LETS FEED THEM DOGS. 
GOD NEVER CREATED A DOG WITH A SOUL AND NEVER WILL.
    FOLKS, WE ARE REALLY A NATION OF PROUD, PATHETIC PEOPLE WHO LOVE 
FLIRTING WITH DISASTER. WE FLAP OUR WINGS, STICK OUT OUR CHEST AND 
SAY, ?WE ARE AMERICA, THE MIGHTEST NATION ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH, 
AND WE CAN WHIP ANYONE!? CAN WE? WE ARE PATHETIC BECAUSE WE PLACE 
OUR TRUST IN WHAT MAN SAYS. MAN IN FACT CAN DO NOTHING WITHOUT GOD'S 
FAVOR EXTENDED TO HIM.
    JOHN 15:5 TELLS US, 21 AM THE VINE, YOU ARE THE BRANCHES; IF A 
MAN REMAINS IN ME AND I IN HIM, HE WILL BEAR MUCH FRUIT; APART FROM 
ME YOU CAN DO NOTHING." WE ARE A PROUD AND PROFANE (SECULAR) 
PEOPLE! ARE YOU PROUD? GOD'S WORD TELLS US IN PROVERB 8:13 ?TO FEAR 
THE LORD IS TO HATE EVIL. I HATE PRIDE AND ARROGANCE, EVIL BEHAVIOR, 
AND PERVERSE (UNREASONABLY WRONG/SELF WILLED) SPEECH. WHAT IS THE 
LORD SAYING HERE? EXACTLY WHAT YOU HEAR! PROVERBS 1:7 AND 3:7 SAYS, 
?THE FEAR OF THE LORD IS THE BE- GINING OF KNOWLEDGE, BUT FOOLS 
DESPISE WISDOM, AND DISCIPLINE. DO NOT BE WISE IN YOUR OWN EYES, 
FEAR THE LORD AND SHUN EVIL."
    WE HEAR ABOUT ARMADA'S, NAVAL BATTLE GROUPS, 13-52 AND 
STEALTH BOMBERS OF THE AIR FORCE, MIGHTY

[[Page 23710]]

FIGHTING MAN OF THE USMC, AND THE APACHE ATTACK HELICOPTERS OF WHAT 
MEN SAYS IS THE MIGHTY US ARMY. THEY ARE MERE PLAY TOYS IN THE EYES 
OF GOD. I HATE TO BUST YOUR BUBBLES FOLKS; ALL THE POWER OF ALL 
WEAPONS OF ALL NATIONS PUT TOGETHER DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER OF 
ETERNAL GOD. COMPARED TO THE POWER OF OUR MOST HIGH GOD, ALL THESE 
PUT TOGETHER AND JOINED WITH ALL NATIONS, DON?T HAVE ENOUGH POWER TO 
BLOW THEIR NOSE.
    AMERICA IS A PROUD NATION. THE WORD OF GOD SPEAKS OF PRIDE. 49 
TIMES ?PRIDE? APPEARS IN THE HOLY BIBLE. LET ME JUST GIVE YOU A FEW 
THINGS THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT PRIDE, AND THESE ARE FROM THE KING JAMES 
VERSION. PSALMS 10:2: ?THE WICKED IN HIS PRIDE DOTH PERSECUTE THE 
POOR, LET THEM BE TAKEN IN THE DEVICE THAT THEY HAVE IMAGINED.? 
PSALMS 10:4: ?THE WICKED THROUGH THE WICKEDNESS OF HIS COUNTENANCE, 
WILL NOT SEEK AFTER GOD; GOD IS NOT IN HIS THOUGHTS.? AND, THE ONE I 
THINK APPLIES TO THE SITUATION THE UNITED STATES IS IN NOW. PROVERBS 
16:18: ?PRIDE GOETH BEFORE DESTRUCTION, AND AN HAUGHTY (PROUD) 
SPIRIT BEFORE A FALL.? IN EACH OF THOSE 49 VERSES, NOT ONE OF THEM I 
DON'T BELIEVE IS USED POSITI VELY TO HONOR GOD. A PROUD INDIVIDUAL 
CANNOT EFFECTIVELY WORSHIP GOD. PRIDE; ITS EVIL, PRO- FOUND, AND 
UNHOLY TO THE LORD. HE DOESN?T SAY, ?BE PROUD, COME, AND HUMBLE 
YOURSELF BEFORE ME. PRIDE IS NOT USED IN HIS INSTRUCTIONS, AND EVIL 
CAN?T COME IN THE PRESENCE OF OUR HOLY FATHER GOD. HE IS HOLY, AND 
CANNOT LOOK ON SIN. HE TURNED HIS BACK ON JESUS WHILE HE HUNG 
BETWEEN HEAVEN AND HELL BECAUSE HE COULD NOT LOOK ON SIN. IT HAS 
BEEN OVER 30 DAYS SINCE THE BOMBINGS BY WHICH 3 PLANES CAUSED THE 
DEATH OF THOUSANDS. THE FOURTH CRASH IN PENNSYLVANIA CAUSING DEATH 
TO MANY. DO WE HATE THOSE THAT DID THIS? UNFORTUNATELY WE HAVE TO 
SAY YES. IS BIN LADIN HATED? YES. BUT, I TELL YOU WE HAVE TO ASK 
FORGIVENESS FOR HIM FROM THE GOD WE SERVE; THE TRUE AND LIVING GOD. 
DID NOT JESUS ASK FOR FORGIVENESS OF THOSE WHO CRUCIFIED HIM; 
"FATHER FORGIVE THEM, FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO." 
LUKE 23:34
    PEOPLE ARE MOURING THE DEAD, HOLDING VIGIL, AND PRAYING FOR 
THOSE WHO HAVE GONE. IF THEY WENT INTO ETERNITY LOST, THERE IS 
NOTHING WE CAN DO FOR THEM. ALL THE PRAYER SAID FOR THEM FROM NOW 
UNTIL THE END OF TIME, WILL DO NOTHING FOR THEM. IF THEY WENT INTO 
THE KINGDOM OF GOD, THEY HAVE REACHED THEIR REWARD, ANT) THEY ARE 
FAR BETTER OFF THAN WE. WE ARE NOT GOING TO CHEAT OLD MAN DEATH, AND 
WE CAN'T GET AROUND IT.
    FOLKS, GOD'S WORD SAYS IN LUKE 9:59-60, THAT JESUS SAID TO 
A MAN ON A ROAD "FOLLOW ME.' THE MAN SAID, "LET ME FIRST 
GO AND BURY MY FATHER." BEFORE HE WOULD FOLLOW THE BECKON CALL 
OF DISCIPLESHIP, SOMETHING ELSE HAD TO BE DONE. JESUS SAID UNTO HIM 
"FOLLOW ME AND LET THE DEAD BURY THEIR OWN DEAD." ARE WE 
READY TO YIELD AND FOLLOW CHRIST COMPLETELY, OR WILL WE BURY OUR 
DEAD FIRST?" THIS COMMAND OF THE SAVIOR WAS FOR THEM TO GO AND 
PROCLAIM THE KINGDOM OF GOD. LUKE 9:60
    FOLKS, PEOPLE SPEAK WITH THEIR LIPS. BUT, THEIR HEART IS IN- 
DIFFERENT TO GOD. WE SAY "ALL THIS MISERY, DEATH, AND 
DE_ STRUCTION IS REALY BAD." WE THINK ?THAT COULD HAPPEN 
TO ME, BUT I CAN SERVE THE LORD ANOTHER TIME. ?THERES A YANKEE 
BASEBALL GAME AT THE OLD PARK TONIGHT. I HAVE BOUGHT TIC- KETS AND I 
AM GOING.? "THE CHURCH SERVICE IS GOING ON, BUT I?M GOING TO 
SKIP IT THIS TIME.? ?THERES A BAR WHERE THE GANG HANGS OUT, SO I'LL 
STOP AND SEE IF THEY ARE THERE, AND PROBABLY HAVE A COOL BREW.
    I KNOW I CAN GET A COLD ONE AT THE PARK ? BOY WHAT A LIFE, AND 
WHAT A NIGHT OF ENJOYMENT I'M GONNA HAVE WHEN I GET THERE! SOUND 
FAMILIAR? COULD NOT THAT MONEY HAVE BEEN SPENT TO SEND A BIBLE OUT 
TO SOMEONE WHO HUNGERS FOR THE WORD OF GOD? WHAT ABOUT THE PERSON ON 
THE STREET WHO IS HUNGRY FOR A MEAL AND MAY NOT HAVE EATEN FOR 
AWHILE. NOTHING WENT TO THEM, AND GOD WAS NOT PRAISED OR HONORED. 
GOD MOST LIKE- LY WONT EVEN BE GIVEN A THOUGHT.
    JESUS IS COMING AGAIN. GOD IS SAYING, ?AMERICA TIME IS RUNING 
OUT; I LOVE YOU SO MUCH, BUT I WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO CONTINUE IN 
YOUR WICKED WAYS. IF YOU WILL NOT HEED MY CALL, I WILL BRING YOU TO 
YOUR KNEES, AND I REALLY HAVE THE POWER TO COMPLETELY ANIHILATE 
YOU.? FOLKS, IF WE ARE TO BE A CHRISTIAN NATION, A SEPARATED LIFE 
FROM SECULAR SOCIETY IN OUR DAILY LIVING IS WHAT OUR LORD COMMANDS 
US TO DO. 2 CHRONICLES 7:14 TELLS US THE WAY THIS NATION CAN 
CONTINUE TO HAVE THE FAVOR OF OUR HEAVENLY FATHER. ?lF MY PEOPLE 
WHICH ARE CALLED BY MY NAME, SHALL HUMBLE THEMSELVES, AND PRAY, AND 
SEEK MY FACE, AND TURN FROM THEIR WICKED WAYS, THEN WILL I HEAR FROM 
HEAVEN, AND WILL FORGIVE THEIR SIN, AND WILL HEAL THEIR LAND.?
    GOD'S WORD SAYS WHAT HE WILL DO, ITS SET IN STONE, AND HIS WORD 
IS ABSOLUTE IN AUTHORITY; HE DOES NOT NEGOTIATE, AND ITS DIRECTIVE 
IN NATURE. HE SAYS, "WHAT I SAID IS WHAT I MEAN; MY WILL IS TO 
BE AND WILL BE DONE. AMERICA WILL DO WHAT I SAY, OR AMERICA WILL BE 
DESTROYED.
    FRIENDS, GOD'S WORD GIVES US HIS CHARGE. ARE YOU AFRAID TO STAND 
UP AND BE COUNTED? ARE YOU AFRAID TO TELL SOMEONE THAT JESUS LOVES 
THEM? WHY? DO YOU NOT SERVE A RISEN SAVIOR? ARE YOU AFRAID OF LOSING 
YOUR JOB BECAUSE OF IT? ARE YOU AFRAID TO BE PERSECUTED? IF YOU ARE 
GOING TO BE A SERVANT OF GOD AND FOLLOW JESUS CHRIST YOU WILL BE 
PERSECUTED. HE GAVE US THAT PROMISE IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, LUKE, 
AND JOHN. MATTHEW 5:1l,44, 10:23, 23:34;LUKE 11:49;JOHN5:16,AND 
15:20 ARE JUST A FEW PLACES.
    JESUS SAID IN JOHN 15:20, EXACTLY HOW IT IS TODAY; THE BAD NEWS 
IS THAT ITS NOT GOING TO GET ANY BETTER; RATHER IT'S GOING TO GET 
WORSE. ?REMEMBER THE WORD THAT I SAID UNTO YOU, THE SERVANT IS NOT 
GREATER THAN HIS LORD. IF THEY HAVE PERSECUTED ME, THEY WILL ALSO 
PERSECUTE YOU; IF THEY HAVE KEPT MY SAYING, THEY WILL KEEP YOURS 
ALSO.? AMERICANS, WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE AWAKENED YEARS AGO; SOME ARE 
STILL ASLEEP, AND WORSE SOME NEVER WILL; WAKE 
UP_"FOOLISH, FOOLISH, PEOPLE!"
    IF FOLKS ARE GOING TO JUST SIT BY PASSIVELY AND BE CONTENT TO GO 
WITH THE FLOW, satan IS GOING TO HAVE HIS WAY WITH THEM. I FOR ONE 
AM NOT WILLING TO DO THAT! CHRISTIANS ARE ALREADY WEARING LEAD SHOES 
WADING IN A TORRID UPHILL STREAM, AND THE PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS 
IS CONTINUING. IT WILL CONTINUE TO GET WORSE ? LOOK AROUND AND READ 
REVELATION; YOU ARE AT A BIRTDAY PARTY COMPARED TO WHAT IS GOING TO 
COME FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT RIGHT WITH THE LORD.
    THE ONLY HOPE ANYONE HAS IS TO TURN TO THE LORD; SEEK HIM. 
REPENT OF THEIR SINS, AND ASK FOR MERCY, NOT JUSTICE, NEVER JUSTICE. 
THEN FOLKS CAN HAVE PEACE IN A SINFUL WORLD. WILL YOUR LIFE AS A 
CHRISTIAN BE EASY ? NO. WILL YOU BE ABLE TO HAVE PEACE IN YOUR HEART 
AN]) MIND? ABSOLUTELY! JESUS OVERCAME THE WORLD, AND SO CAN FOLKS 
OVERCOME ADVERSITIES IN THEIR LIFE. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY YOU WILL 
EVER BE ABLE TO DO THAT ON YOUR OWN.
    FOLKS, satan WAS DEFEATED LONG AGO AND HE KNOWS HIS GOOSE HAS 
BEEN COOKED. "HE WILL BE THROWN INTO A LAKE OF FIRE ANT)
    BRIMSTONE WHERE THE BEAST AND FALSE PROPHETS. THEY SHALL BE 
TORMENTED DAY AND NIGHT, FOREVER AND EVER. REVELATION 20:10. ARE YOU 
GOING TO GO WITH HIM? IF PEOPLE ARE LOST IN SINS AND DON?T TURN FROM 
WICKEDNESS THEY ARE ON THEIR WAY. YOU SAY YOU 'RE NOT WICKED;? YOU 
SAY YOU ARE A JUST AND RIGHTEOUS PERSON, A RIGHTEOUS DOOD AS IT 
WERE, AND YOU HAVE NO SINS TO CONFESS AND YOU DON?T NEED CHRIST IN 
YOUR LIFE! WELL, FRIEND I BEG TO DIFFER WITH YOU; YOU ARE WRONG 
BECAUSE GOD'S WORD SAYS SO. I JOHN 1:8 SAYS, "IF WE CLAIM TO 
BEWITHOUT SIN, WE DECEIVE OURSELVES AND THE

[[Page 23711]]

TRUTH IS NOT IN US." "AND I SAW THE DEAD, SMALL AND 
GREAT BEFORE GOD; AND THE BOOKS WERE OPENED WHICH IS "THE BOOK 
OF LIFE;" AND THE DEAD WERE JUDGED OUT OF THESE THINGS WHICH 
WERE WRITTEN IN THE BOOKS, ACCORDING TO THEIR WORKS ." 
REVELATION 20:12. AND THE SEA GAVE UP THE DEAD WHICH WERE IN IT; AND 
DEATH AND HELL DELIVERED UP THE DEAD WHICH WERE IN THEM, AND THEY 
WERE JUT)GED EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS." REVELATION 
20:13. YOU CAN?T PAY A PRIEST ENOUGH TO EVER FORGIVE YOU; HE DON'T 
HAVE THAT POWER, NO MATTER HOW MANY HAIL MARYS YOU SAY. THERE ARE 
NOT ENOUGH THINGS YOU COULD WORK AT TO PAY FOR YOUR SALVATION. GOOD 
DEEDS ALONE WILL NOT ALLOW YOU GO INTO HEAVEN. BEING A METHODIST, 
CATHOLIC, JEWISH, BAPTIST, BUDDHIST, MUSLIM, OR ZIONIST WON'T GET 
YOU ONE INCH CLOSER TO HEAVEN. IF YOU ARE COUNTING ON GOING TO 
HEAVEN JUST BY YOUR DENOMINATION OF FAITH, YOU AREN'T GOING TO MAKE 
IT. YOU HAVE GOD'S WORD ON IT, AND HIS PROMISE.
    A PERSONS DENOMINATION OF FAITH NEVER GOT ONE PERSON INTO 
HEAVEN, AND IT NEVER WILL_BUT, IT HAS SENT SO MANY TO HELL. 
SALVATION, GOD'S GIFT OF HIS SON, AND THE DEATH OF JESUS ON CALVARY 
FOR ALL PEOPLE'S SINS IS THE ONLY WAY YOU MAY HAVE ETERNAL LIFE. 
EPHESIANS 2:8-9 SAYS, ?FOR BY GRACE ARE YE SAVED THROUGH 
FAITH, AND THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES; IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD, NOT OF 
WORKS. LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST.?
    IN JAMES 2:18 WE ARE TOLD, ?YEA, A MAN MAY SAY, THOU HAST FAITH, 
AND I HAVE WORKS; SHEW ME THY FAITH WITHOUT THY WORKS, AND I WILL 
SHEW THEE MY FAITH BY MY WORKS.? IN VERSE 26, "THE BODY 
WITHOUT THE SPIRIT IS DEAD, SO FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS ALSO, 'WE ARE 
TOLD BY JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS. IF YOU ARE TRYING TO GET TO 
HEAVEN ON YOUR OWN WORKS, YOU JUST HAVEN?T GOT A CHINAMANS CHANCE. 
NOW IF YOU THINK YOUR DEEDS ARE RIGHTEOUS ENOUGH TO GET YOU TO 
HEAVEN, I CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO ISAIAH 64:6. ?ALL YOU HAVE BECOME 
LIKE ONE WHO IS UNCLEAN, AND ALL YOUR RIGHTEOUS ACTS ARE AS FILTHY 
RAGS; AND WE ALL DO FADE LIKE A LEAF AND OUR INIQUITIES, LIKE THE 
WIND, HAVE TAKEN US AWAY.? NO OUR DEEDS WITHOUT CHRIST IN OUR LIVES 
ARE NOT RECOGNIZED ? THEY ARE NOT LIKE A LAY AWAY PLAN ? WHEN YOU 
PAY ALL YOUR PAYMENTS THEN THEY BECOMES YOURS. JESUS CHRIST'S DEATH 
ON THE CROSS, HIS ACCEPTANCE OF YOU, YOUR REPENTANCE OF SIN, AND 
ASKING CHRIST INTO YOUR LWE HUMBL- ED AS A LITTLE CHILD WILL GIVE 
YOU ETERNAL LIFE ? THERE IS NO OTHER WAY. JESUS CHRIST IS COMING 
AGAIN. WHEN? MATTHEW 24:42, AND 44 GIVES US THESE INSTRUCTIONS: 
?WATCH THEREFORE: FOR YE KNOW NOT WHAT HOUR YOUR LORD DOTH COME. 
THEREFORE BE YE ALSO READY: FOR IN SUCH AN HOUR AS YE THINK NOT, THE 
SON OF MAN COMETH. JESUS TOLD US IN MATTHEW 24:36, ?BUT OF THAT DAY 
AND HOUR KNOWETH NO MAN, NO, NOT THE ANGELS OF HEAVEN, BY MY FATHER 
ONLY.? YES, ONLY GOD KNOWS WHEN CHRIST'S COMING IS GOING TO BE.
    IN THE DAYS OF NOAH, SO IT WILL BE AT THE COMING OF THE SON OF 
MAN. FOR IN THE DAY OF THE FLOOD, PEOPLE WERE EATING AND DRINKING, 
MARRYING AND GIVING IN OF MARRIAGE, UP TO THE DAY NOAH ENTERED INTO 
THE ARK; AND THEY KNEW NOTHING ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN UNTIL THE 
FLOOD CAME AND TOOK THEM ALL AWAY. THAT IS HOW IT WILL BE AT THE 
COMING OF THE SON OF MAN. SO YOU ALSO MUST BE READY, BECAUSE THE SON 
OF MAN WILL COME IN AN HOUR WHEN YOU DO NOT EXPECT HIM.' MATTHEW 
24:38-39, AND 44.
    FOLKS, WHAT GOD SAID IN THE OLD TESTAMENT IS MEANT FOR TODAY 
ALSO. LISTEN TO ISAIAH 34:1-4 ? ?COME NEAR YOU NATIONS AND 
LISTEN. PAY ATTENTION YOU PEOPLES! LET TIlE EARTH HEAR, AND ALL THAT 
IS IN IT, THE WORLD, AND ALL THAT COMES OUT OF IT! THE LORD IS ANGRY 
WITH ALL NATIONS; HIS WRATH IS UPON ALL THEIR ARMIES. HE WILL 
TOTALLY DESTROY THEM, HE WILL GIVE THEM TO SLAUGHTER, THEIR SLAIN 
WILL BE THROWN OUT, THEIR DEAD BODIES WILL SEND UP A STENCH, THE 
MOUNTAINS WILL BE SOAKED WITH THEIR BLOOD, ALL THE STARS OF HEAVEN 
WILL BE DISSOLVED, AND THE SKY ROLLED UP LIKE A SCROLL; ALL THE 
STARRY HOST WILL FALL LIKE WITHERED LEAVES FROM THE VINE. LIKE 
SWIVELED FIGS FROM THE FIG TREE. ISAIAH 60:12 SAYS, "FOR THE 
NATION AND KINGDOM THAT WILL NOT SERVE YOU THEY SHALL PERISH; YEA, 
THOSE NATIONS SHALL BE UTTERLY WASTED. AMERICA, WORLD; WAKE UP, 
LISTEN, AND REPENT! FOLKS, GOD'S WORD IS THAT BY WHICH WE WILL BE 
JUDGED. JESUS SAID IN JOHN 12:48, ?HE THAT REJECTETH ME, AND 
RECEIVETH NOT MY WORDS HATH ONE THAT JUDGETH HIM; THE WORD THAT I 
HAVE SPOKEN, THE SAME SHALL JUDGE HIM IN THE LAST DAY. JESUS TELLS 
US IN LUKE 11:23, 28; OUR FOCAL SCRIPTURE: ?HE WHO IS NOT WITH ME IS 
AGAINST ME, AND HE WHO DOES NOT GATHER WITH ME SCATTERS.? ?BLESSED 
RATHER ARE THOSE WHO HEAR THE WORD OF GOD AND OBEY IT.'?
    FRIEND, THIS IS THE MESSAGE FOR TODAY. IF YOU HAVE NOT MADE A 
STAND, A COMMITMENT FOR CHRIST; NOW IS THE TIME. satan DOESN?T WANT 
ANYONE TO DO THAT. HIS DESIRE IS FOR EACH PERSON TO PUT OFF 
ACCEPTING CHRIST. IF HE CAN GET A PERSON TO DO THAT, THEN HE 
CON'rROLS THAT LIFE, AND THEY WON'T COME TO KNOW THE LORD. AND IF 
THAT PERSON THEN DIES IN THEIR SINS, satan HAS THEM RIGHT WHERE HE 
WANTS THEM ? HIS GUEST FOR ETERNITY. satan KNOWS HE CAN'T WIN; HE 
WANTS TO TAKE AS MANY WITH HIM AS HE CAN. ARE YOU GOING TO BE ONE OF 
HIS COMOANIONS FOR ETERNITY?
    GIVE YOUR HEART AND SOUL TO THE LORD AND DON?T LET satan CLAIM 
YOU FOR HIS OWN. JESUS DIED FOR ALL PEOPLE, GOD LOVES YOU SO MUCH 
THAT HIS ONLY SON WENT TO THE CROSS TO DIE A HORRIBLE DEATH SO THAT 
ALL COULD HAVE ETERNAL LIFE THAT WOULD ACCEPT IT. DON?T TURN CHRIST 
AWAY. ?FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD, THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN 
SON, THAT WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH IN HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH BUT HAVE 
EVERLASTING LIFE. JOHN 3:16 WHOSOEVER IS YOU FRIEND IF YOU NEED THE 
SAVIOR TURN TO HIM NOW. If YOU need Christ in your life, please 
don't turn Him away. Don't delay accepting Christ as your Lord and 
Savior. Each and everyone of us will make a decision for or against 
Christ sometime in our life- time. We will either accept Jesus 
Christ and reject the devil, or we will accept the devil and reject 
Christ.
    Romans 5:8, 10 tells us: "God demonstrated His own love 
for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 
Since we have been justified by His blood, how much more shall we be 
saved from God's wrath through Him?" Come accept Christ, now 
is the time of His favor. Please don't turn Him away?
    Today is the day of salvation. John 6:37 says, All the Father 
giveth me shall come to me; and him, that cometh to me I will in no 
wise cast out. John 3:36 tells us, "he that believeth on the 
Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not on the son 
shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him."
    Jesus patiently awaits you to come to Him. "Behold I stand 
at the door and knock; if any man hears my voice and open the door, 
I will come in and sup with him and he with me." Revelation 
3:20. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Romans 
3:23.
    For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal 
life, through Jesus Christ ourt Lord. Romans 6:23 For God so loved 
the world, that He gave His only begotten son, that whoseoever 
believeth in Him, should not perish but have everlasting life. John 
3:16. This is the Roman road to salvation. You have a decision to 
make if you are lost. You will reject or accept Christ sometime; 
today perhaps or in the future. Come, the master calls, come to know 
Jesus as your Lord, and accept the Salvation He offers you as a free 
gift. If you need a Bible, please go to: www.bible.com. There are 
Bibles in about 50 languages, and 13 versions. Another site to visit 
is: www.blueletterbible.org. This one is amazing as to what it 
contains; Hymns, dictionary, and so much more! Please visit my web 
site at: www.ourchurch.comlmember/w/wwwthereshope; you can also 
access the Bibles from there. Christ loves peoples of all the 
nations of the world. He proved that in a way no one has ever 
equaled. He could have said, "just forget this thing about 
dying, I am not going through all of this." I shudder to thing 
what would have happened if He would have done that. Christ died a 
horrible

[[Page 23712]]

death on Calvary because He loved us so much. Just ask Christ into 
you're life; you will never regret it I thank you for your time, God 
bless you! I will be praying that you too will come to know Christ, 
if you need a Savior. If you are a born again Christian, go out and 
share the word of God and your experience with someone who is yet to 
have done this, and try to win a soul for Christ. The fields are 
white to harvest and the laborers are so very few. I'll be praying 
for you friend. _Sam_

MIC-298



MTC-00000299

From: Kyle Lussier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/10/01 12:41am
Subject: Ashcroft on Larry King / Microsoft Case
    Hi Ashcroft, and staff,
    I saw you (Ashcroft) on Larry King. While I can understand your 
desire to fight terrorism. Isn't that what the new Homeland Defense 
office is for?
    Saying that you dropped the Microsoft case to focus on terrorism 
is a total bunch of after the fact crap. The only reason you are 
saying that is because you are now realizing how big of a mistake 
you made, and are trying to hide behind the mistake behind 
terrorism. We wont let you. I didn't realize that a bunch of idiots 
flying planes into the WTC cause federal and civil laws to be 
suspended. I will not support anyone who believes that laws designed 
to protect consumers, entrepreneurism, and the fundamental 
availability of the American Dream within the United States can be 
selectively enforced. Don't give me the crap about being too busy to 
enforce anti-trust. The reality is, it took more effort to go out of 
your way and cut a side deal with Microsoft than just doing 
*nothing* and letting the legal system work, the way it is designed 
to, and the way it should have been. When a total consumer oriented 
guy like Ralph Nader who has no affiliation with high technology 
stands up and says this is horrible for consumers, I don't know how 
you can say, with a straight face that it was good for consumers.
    Your imperialist, Al Capone like decision to stomp on an on-
going analysis and investigation tells me you guys are either idiots 
that don't understand the issues, or you are anti-entrepreneur. So 
which is it? Again, I do not wish to offend the people within the 
DoJ who worked hard on the Microsoft case, I salute you, applaud 
you, and sympathize with you. I know you didn't sign the agreement. 
I am holding Bush and Ashcroft directly responsible for their 
actions, not you. I know the DoJ has many wonderful staff, and I 
appreciate, so very much what they have done for America.
    I am holding Bush and Ashcroft responsible for their actions, 
and I am counting the days until 2004 to campaign against them and 
get them booted from office to be replaced by people who believe in 
capitalism, the American Dream.
    You may have made a feudalistic, unethical dictatorial friend in 
Microsoft, but you have made an enemy of high tech. That's some 10 
million people versus 30,000 or so Microsoft employees. Pretty 
stupid if you ask me.
    Regards,
    Kyle Lussier, President Tel 770 222-0991
    [email protected] Fax 770 222-0998
    AutoNOC http://www.AutoNOC.com
    CC: ASKDOJ,president @ whitehouse.gov @ 
inetgw,vice.presid...

MTC-299



MTC-00000300

From: Michael A. Alderete
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/10/01 1:53pm
Subject: U.S. v. Microsoft: Security provisions
    From 
    James rejects these criticisms and says the decision to protect 
Microsoft's security provisions was "one of those 
'duh' issues." He continues: "Microsoft has 
security protocols. Are we going to tell everyone how they work? Do 
you want people to get access to your credit-card information when 
you shop on line?"
    You obviously don't understand electronic security and 
encryption. The only security systems that work are those where 
everyone knows how they work. Depending on keeping the mechanism 
secret GUARANTEES that the security will eventually be broken. 
Requiring the mechanism to remain secret means the security system 
is not very strong. There's plenty of security systems which are 
publicly documented and well-understood, and which still stand up to 
attack. Maybe you've heard of DES, AES, and other current encryption 
systems.
    History is riddled with security systems which were kept secret, 
and then were broken. Recent examples are CSS for DVDs, various 
watermarking techniques for digital music, and Microsoft's Passport 
system. The most famous example is Enigma, the 
"unbreakable" cipher system used by the Germans in WWII. 
Have you heard of WWH?
    Don't hide your settlement loopholes behind the word 
"security," because it's a lie, and eventually people 
will recognize it as a lie, and hang you for it.
    Michael A. Alderete
    
    >http://www.alderete.corn>
    voice: (415) 861-5758

MTC-300



MTC-00000301

From: [email protected] @ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,antitrust @ ftc.gov @ inetgw,Ralph 
@essen...
Date: 11/16/01 2:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Hegemony: Mafia Monster Bribery
    CC: [email protected] @ inetgw,letters @ 
sjmercury.com @ i...

Re: Microsoft Makes Offer to Holdouts
    Join in the settlement signed last week by the Justice 
Department and nine other states and the company will pay all 
litigation costs they have run up so far, including attorneys fees. 
The states have 10 days to accept the offer.
    Bush's Mafia Monster, Microsoft, attempts to bribe litigators 
into chucking their principles. It is the profound lack of it's own 
principles that causes Bush's party to bribe the defenders of 
productivity, justice, integrity and of course, principles...
    the Justice Department yesterday filed a formal defense of the 
agreement, arguing that it provides consumers with 'prompt, 
certain and effective protection from the software giant's anti-
competitive practices.
    Considering the Mafia Monster's modus operandi, this is just 
wishful thinking and lip service_ nothing more.
    While the court system's inherent flaws would postpone relief 
for at least two years this is no license for the continued abuse 
that is assured we will witness by this settlement.
    "You whine about bribery after government ok murder, rape 
and torture, I think you simply like to whine..."

MTC-301



MTC-00000302

From: dmazzoni @dydimus.dreanthost.com@ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 2:18pm
Subject: My opinion on the MS/DOJ settlement
    I'm not all that happy with the MS/DOJ settlement. Rather than 
get angry, though, I'd like to suggest a small change to the terms 
of the settlement that would make me a lot happier: Right now there 
is no penalty for Microsoft if it does not comply with the terms of 
the settlement. It seems to me that this panel of three experts that 
oversees Microsoft's compliance should have the power to extract 
fines from Microsoft for every incidence of noncompliance. Otherwise 
the whole settlement seems silly. Microsoft agrees not to do certain 
things_but there's no agreed consequence if it does so anyway! 
I'm especially concerned that Microsoft will find a way to obey the 
letter, but not the spirit, of the settlement_and that is why 
a third part must have the ability to punish Microsoft for ignoring 
this settlement.
    Thanks very much for accepting the public feedback via this 
email address. It means a lot to know that even if you don't agree, 
you've heard my opinion.
    Dominic Mazzoni
    Research Programmer
    Pasadena, CA

MTC-302



MTC-00000303

From: brian hanson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 2:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a user of home pc's the Microsoft/Dol settelment does nothing 
to force Microsoft from attempting to manipulate the type of 
software that I use, let alone stopping the predatory tactics which 
allow Microsoft from entering new areas of innovation and driving 
the orginators out of business.
    This settlement is a farce. Mircosoft knows it and the Dol knows 
it. What is worse, as long as the present administration remains in 
power, Microsoft knows that even if it flagrantly breaks the agreed-
upon remedies, the DoJ anti-trust division will look the other way.
    The settlement should be scrapped. The courts need to be the 
instrument of punishment if meaningful change in

[[Page 23713]]

Microsoft's monopolistic and predatoristic ways are going to happen.
    It is shameful that the DoJ is allowing itself to become nothing 
more than an apologist for the Bush Administration. The proposed 
settlement is not even a slap on the wrist, and as such, the DoJ 
should be embarassed to have any association with it.
    Brian Hanson
    3806 Powercat Lane
    St. George, KS 66535

MTC-303



MTC-00000304

From: Gary Prideaux
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 2:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It looks like Microsoft's power reaches deeply into the justice 
department! After years of watching Microsoft use their sheer size 
to destroy numerous companies, many of whom told their story during 
testimony, I find it unfathomable to accept the judgment as 
proposed!
    By not punishing Microsoft, you are granting them free rein to 
carry on business as usual. I am sure they have targeted the 
companies that tried to stand up to them during the trial as their 
next victims.
    Hopefully someone will rise above the Microsoft political 
contributions and allow justice to prevail. Or will it be left to 
the states to punish this behavior? If we catch bin Laden, and he 
promises not to kill any more Americans, will you let him off too?

MTC-304



MTC-00000305

From: JD
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments @doj .ca.gov @ 
inetgw,...
Date: 11/16/01 2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Vs. DOJ Case
    Break them up. Make them open their source-code, not let them 
come out with a new product for the next eight years, and force them 
to use standard protocols, and standard formats, as well as make 
them open them. This is a monopoly we are talking about. NOT just 
some large company. The Baby-Bells are STILL monopolys and these 
criminals in Redmond should pay for breaking the Law.
    Microsoft should NOT be let off lightly no matter how much money 
they have. I don't care how many states were paid off, or how many 
government officials were bought. Somthing MUST be done to punish 
them. You fry criminals for murder in an electric chair, but those 
who harm on a wide-scale basis in the industry, suffers nothing. 
Why? Because they have all this money? Because the governenment 
enjoys swimming in their room of dollar bills?
    The release of XP should have been stopped, for privacy 
violations of U.S citizens, but nothing was done. It seems like 
nothing is being done to stop them even now! I, as a citizen of this 
country DEMAND that REAL action (Above) be taken against them. That 
they be slammed harder than Bell/AT&T, and prevent them from 
monopolizing a market in the future.
    J.D. Meadows
    Linux & BSD Systems Administrator
    128 CR 753
    Tupelo, Ms
    38801

MTC-305



MTC-00000306

From: [email protected] @inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 2:20pm
    I believe that harsher penalties should be imposed on Microsoft. 
Currently the consumer market for a PC is approximately 90% for 
Microsoft. Apple, Linux, BE, and a few even smaller others are 
scraping for the remaining 10%. I also think that Microsoft should 
be held responsible for software that it releases that might 
comprimise personal information. For example Microsoft passport has 
been cracked into three or more times already. Once using email via 
hotmail (another Microsoft owned company). The Code Red internet 
virus scare was only affecting Microsoft machines running their 115 
software with the language set to English. It seems to me that our 
industries dependance on this company is too great. Clearly they 
should be presenting the best possible software, and responding to 
security holes in a timely manner. If our industry was built on some 
diversity then not all areas of the economy would be taken under at 
once. Then there is the forced passport signup with Windows XP. Or 
that at Starbucks.com one's only option for paying online is to use 
microsoft passport. Then there is the xbox, another microsoft 
invention to take over the privacy of the consumers home. Completely 
compatable with microsoft windows, games will be easily ported, etc. 
Users are already posting pictures on the web about the xbox's 
"green screen of death" which everyone is familiar with 
the blue version on previous Microsoft products. Contrast this with 
Sony's playstation or Nintendo's gamecube who have near perfect 
track records so far in the game console area. They know and 
understand that consumer quality is of upmost importance. I believe 
that Microsoft just doesn't care. Take for example microsoft's new 
play per use software licensing idea. Where users with be forced to 
upgrade their software at a cost, whether they want to or not. Or 
how about Microsoft's exclusion of the java virtual machine from 
Windows XP? They are making it easier for users who may not know 
alot about compters to get hooked on j# and the .net system, 
instead of even knowing what java is and then choosing. Microsoft 
forces smaller companies to use their standards, and file formats. 
Recently I found that the search engine in windowsXP will refuse to 
find files that have extentions not registered with Microsoft. ie: a 
file.png might never be found. Try reading the End user license 
agreement for microsoft frontpage, maybe some freedom of speech 
issues there.
    Regardless I think that Microsoft should be held resposible for 
its products, and should be forced to provide the best possible 
system they can. If eventually we have to use Microsoft products, 
then I will quit using computers all together and find a job 
painting houses or something.
    my two bits,
    Shawn

MTC-306



MTC-00000307

From: root
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 2:21pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
CC: daly @ idsi .net@ inetgw,remotejob 
@yahoo.com inetgw,s...
    Your Honor, the Court and the Department of Justice,
    I am lead to believe that this address is the proper place to 
forward opinions on the ongoing Microsoft trial. Please find mine 
attached.
    Conclusions: If the Court decides to follow thru with this 
settlement we will be back in the situation we had in 1995. The 
world will be waiting another 5 years until Microsoft's behavior 
requires yet another monopoly trial. A quick settlement that does 
not resolve the root cause of the problem is not in the public 
interest.
    Prosecute and restrain the bundling, tying, code-mingling. This 
issue is the "root cause" and if this is not restrained 
there will be no effective market for software. I understand that 
the higher Court has changed the criteria but this item MUST be 
pursued and restrained. IBM was forced to "unbundle" 
it's hardware and software. It was further required to publish 
interface specifications. Why can't such a remedy apply to 
Microsoft?
    Microsoft should be required to ship every application in a 
separate, shrink-wrapped form that can be installed or removed at 
will. This is clearly technically possible because it is what every 
competitor must do. The playing field should be level and require 
the same behavior by Microsoft.
    A three person "oversight" panel that is unable to 
report concerns to public review is useless as an effective vehicle 
for restraint. It is also too small to police any judgement.
    Who I am: I'm a programmer with 30 years experience. I've worked 
on software ranging from applications (e.g. Axiom, a computer 
algebra system), languages (ECLPS, an expert systems language), 
compilers (AMLX, a robotics automation language), operating systems 
(VM1370, writing the free storage algorithm) and networking (Pinger, 
an network monitoring software package).
    Biases and Affiliations: I've worked for IBM Research, Approach 
(Microsoft NT consulting), Centrport (Web Advertising) and Worldcom 
(Networking).
    What my interest is: Microsoft has a pervasive effect on me and 
the industry that has been my career. I've watched the changes over 
the last 30 years and I have concerns about the long term health of 
this industry.
    Sources of information: I've read every available published 
report from the courts including the original trial and the Court of 
Appeals. I've read every press release and article I've been able to 
find on the web.
    My position on the proposed settlement:
    (a) I'm appalled.
    (b) I do not believe that the proposed settlement represents an 
effective remedy for past actions, including actions infringing the 
original 1995 settlement.
    (c) I do not believe that the proposed settlement will be an 
effective deterrent to future infringing actions.

[[Page 23714]]

    (d) I do not believe that the proposed settlement will enable 
other companies to compete against Microsoft.
    (e) I do not believe that the negotiation team for the Justice 
Department understands how easily the proposal can be circumvented.
    (f) I do not believe that the proposed "three 
person" oversight team will in any way act as an effective 
watchdog for Microsoft.
    Comments and Opinions on the proposed settlement:
    (a) I'm appalled.
    Any negotiation can be measured by the fact that it finds a 
middle ground between opposing forces. Except for Microsoft I find, 
and hold the opinion that, this proposed settlement is widely seen 
as unjust, unfair, unworkable and outrageous.
    The argument has been given that this trial will last another 
year or two and that it is in the "public interest" to 
settle this trial now. If the current behavior is so damaging that 
we require relief immediately rather than full and fair relief why 
doesn't the DOJ just request a restraining order from the Judge?
    Why are we not fixing the "root cause" of the 
Microsoft problem? I'm technically skilled enough to advise you that 
THE KEY ISSUE that needs to be restrained is the bundling 
(integration, or to use Microsoft's misuse of the word: 
"innovation"). The Appeals Court remanded this issue to 
the lower Court to be resolved. If you don't pursue this issue you 
have NOT solved the problem. The software market will NOT thrive and 
consumers (and myself) will be harmed.
    Why is there no discussion of XP and future operating systems? 
It is clear to me, as an expert in the field, that XP is a glaring 
example of using bundling, tying and code-mingling (none of which 
are technically justified) to pursue monopoly maintenance. It is not 
acceptable to ignore XP as part of any settlement. If the DOJ 
decides to follow thru with this settlement we will be back in the 
situation we had in 1995. The world will be waiting another 5 years 
until Microsoft's behavior requires yet another monopoly trial. A 
quick settlement that does not resolve the root cause of the problem 
will is not in the public interest. It will simply delay justice 
another 5 year.
    (b) I do not believe that the proposed settlement represents an 
effective remedy for past actions, including actions infringing the 
original 1995 settlement.
    Microsoft agreed with the DOJ and the Court in 1995 that it 
would take steps which would stop it's infringing behavior. Moments 
after the agreement was signed Bill Gates publicly declared that he 
could effectively ignore the agreement. Which he did. Claiming the 
right to "innovate" but pursing a technically 
unjustified scheme of bundling Microsoft has continued to build and 
maintain it's monopoly position.
    This proposed settlement is not even accepted yet and Bill Gates 
has already stated that he is happy that "this issue is behind 
us". Microsoft will not willingly change it's behavior to 
pursue something that is not in it's best interest. Indeed, to make 
such a change would be illegal as the company is required by law to 
operate in the best interest of it's stockholders. The new 
settlement MUST be coercive. This one requires behavior changes that 
have no effect on the market or future infringing behavior. It 
restrains prior but abandoned behavior.
    (c) I do not believe that the proposed settlement will be an 
effective deterrent to future infringing actions.
    At the heart of this case is the issue of bundling, tying and 
code-mingling. Microsoft has NO TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION for this. 
The pure reason for such actions is to tie one product to another in 
such a way that they are both required by design but not by 
function.
    Microsoft should be required to ship every application in a 
separate, shrink-wrapped form that can be installed or removed at 
will. This is clearly technically possible because it is what every 
competitor must do. The playing field should be level and require 
the same behavior by Microsoft.
    (d) I do not believe that the proposed settlement will enable 
other companies to compete against Microsoft.
    According to the proposal Microsoft is capable of deciding what 
parts of the system will be available for publication. There are no 
outside experts to question their "judgement". How are 
we to know that some portions of the code and API are 
"security related? Microsoft said so.
    Surely you jest. Does the Court believe that statements about 
infringing actions by Microsoft should be taken at face value? Is 
the oversight panel capable of reviewing the reputed many million 
lines of code to dispute the claim? If the review panel disputes the 
claim and the DOJ disagrees will anyone ever know? Will the public 
be informed? Will it be entered into Court records? Without proper 
API and interface specifications it is not possible to write 
competing code. Without restraining Microsoft against changing 
published specifications a competitors code is at the mercy of 
changes it cannot control but Microsoft can. Microsoft should, like 
IBM before it (the disk drive case), be required to publish 
specifications of their APIs. They should be required to maintain 
backward compatible specifications in the case of changes.
    Microsoft should also be required to ship products in a 
separate, shrink-wrapped form through channels that are available to 
competitors. If the programs are installed by OEM manufacturers then 
the shrink-wrap versions should be shipped with the equipment. It 
should be possible to install and uninstall every application. This 
is not only technically possible (contrary to Microsoft's testimony) 
but is exactly the situation faced by every competitor. Without at 
least these controls there is no competition.
    (e) I do not believe that the negotiation team for the Justice 
Department understands how easily the proposal can be circumvented.
    Programming is a subtle art. I've been doing it for 30 years. 
Given the proposed settlement I could easily make it worthless. 
While I have great respect for the legal skills of the Court and the 
DOJ I feel that neither party understands how easily the proposed 
restraints are ignored and how little effect they can have to ensure 
effective competition. Bill Gates is technically savvy enough to be 
aware of this. He is making a mockery of the Court and you don't 
even understand how.
    (f) I do not believe that the proposed 'three 
person' oversight team will in any way act as an effective 
watchdog for Microsoft. If a breakup is not the final result of this 
proceedings then the Court MUST ensure that there are a sufficient 
number (much more than 3) of technically capable people to provide 
oversight to any final ruling.
    Microsoft claims (though it is obvious nonsense technically) 
that XP has many millions of lines of code. I know that the API 
specifications number in the many thousands. Surely the Court does 
NOT believe that a 3 person panel, one of which is appointed by 
Microsoft, can possibly police a judgement.
    With all due respect,
    Tim Daly
    daly @ idsi.net
    Nov 16, 2001

MTC-307



MTC-00000308

From: THami [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 2:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
    Great job on the Microsoft settlement. This country needs 
innovative people like the inventors at that company to retain 
incentives to forge ahead into new endeavors. I am now proud of our 
Justice Department again. I live in California, and will ask our 
state to butt out of the case now.
    Thomas E. Hammack
    p.s. (to State of California) BUTT OUT !!!!!!

MTC-308



MTC-00000309

From: Nathan S. Van Curen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 2:25pm
Subject: If you are just going to give Microsoft a slap on the wrist 
why don't you just make windows 2000 50
    If you are just going to give Microsoft a slap on the wrist why 
don't you just make windows 2000 source code public domain. If 
Microsoft has a superior product then the new operating systems 
built off the source code will not be successful. But if Microsoft 
is inferior as I believe, the open source industry will take over. 
Level the playing field and then let market decide. I'm sure that 
I'm not the only person that knows that this the best solution. 
please leave the politics out of this decision. There is still time 
to change the DOJ's place in the history of the software industry.
    Thanks
    Nathan Van Curen

MTC-309



MTC-00000310

From: Marc Brumlik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 2:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
    I could not resist making a comment here. I have been in the 
computer industry since

[[Page 23715]]

1979 and have watched with horror and amazement and amusement as 
Microsoft has consumed or trampled on one company or idea after 
another. They have become the company they are today through years 
of abusive practices that have left comsumers with a product (in 
Windows) that is in some ways the sum of many good products and 
ideas that were either bought or stolen from other companies, and at 
the same time far less of a product that they would have today had 
Microsoft had to compete and innovate through these years. A simple 
and glaring example of the lack of quality consumers have been 
forced to accept as status quo is the fragility of all Microsoft's 
operating systems through Windows 98, which they themselves now 
admit in touting the new XP version. That this unreliability is 
apparent in only Microsoft's product line and not inherent to 
computers in general can plainly be seen in the fact that Unix and 
Linux operating systems running on the same computer hardware are 
hundreds of times more stable.
    One of the earliest examples of Microsoft's boldness in 
intellectual property theft was with the case of Stack Electronics. 
I have often wondered, as this lengthy trial progressed, why nobody 
seems to remember how blatantly Microsoft stole that company's only 
product and simultaneously "added a new feature" to 
MSDOS version 6 that made that version a must-have upgrade from 
version 5. Had they not "aquired" that feature, version 
6 upgrades would have had lackluster sales and history would have 
been much different. At that time, Unix was still a big player in 
the market, as was DR-DOS (remember how THAT 
disappeared?_another story altogether) and other true 
competitors.
    If you do not recall, Stack electronics had a wildly popular 
program that created more space on hard drives by compressing the 
data stored on it. About half a year prior to Microsoft's release of 
MSDOS version 6, they pre-announced that it would have a disk 
compression feature built in. This set the set the stage for the 
death of Stack electronics because their sales immediately dried up. 
When Microsoft finally began shipping version 6, it literally 
included Stack Electronic's product unchanged! Stack sued Microsoft 
and won, but the settlement vastly understated the amount of revenue 
the company had lost considering the huge number of copies of their 
software that was now distributed with every single copy of DOS 
sold. This was, in part, becasue their recent sales were seen as 
miniscule (thought the reason was obvious_that the pre-
announcement had killed the company months earlier). Then, Microsoft 
had the audacity to counter-sue Stack over the fact that the 
compression software had tied itself into MSDOS through some 
undocumented software features (very similarly to the way current 
software vendors need certain information about Windows 
"API" in order to make their product work seamlessly). 
Amazingly Microsoft won this suit, resulting not only in their 
ownership of the product they had stolen, but also ownership of 15% 
of Stack Electronics itself!
    History has repeated itself, over and over, in front of anyone 
who has been watching. In my opinion, no settlement that is based on 
legal language and the responsibility of continued enforcement could 
possibly succeed. Aside from the diligence and technical expertise 
required, the fact that such offenses take so long to pursue and 
resolve means that, as in the past, the damage is done and Microsoft 
has succeeded in its goal far in excess of what any reasonable 
penalty could undo.
    I do not think that splitting the company is necessarily the 
solution. However, I do think that one thing which should be done is 
to require them to publicize the API's to Windows so that a third-
party software vendor can create a product that is integrated into 
Windows as cleanly as a Microsoft product. Failing to do that would 
be like allowing an auto manufacturer to create a car that requires 
a new and undisclosed fuel which can only be purchased from the 
manufacturer. It could be called "innovative", but it 
prevents the consumer any choice in purchasing and it prevents 
competition for fuel suppliers.
    Marc Brumlik
    Tailored Software, Inc.
    [email protected]

MTC-310



MTC-00000311

From: Nilan, Jon
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov
Date: 11/16/01 2:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case
    Microsoft, and every other software company, must give 
programmers equal access to the codes needed to make their software 
work with Windows and every other program. Isn't the preceding 
statement the end result to this case. Will this case effect other 
industries rights to produce proprietary products and eliminate 
competition that will eventually destroy product quality for 
consumers. The software companies that choose not to make operating 
system programs should not dictate, through our government, to those 
that do make operating system programs. The next case will be GM 
suing Ford for not allowing a GM product to be installed on a Ford 
product. Aside from the tactics Microsoft used to manipulate oem's 
and those actions they should be punished for, this and every other 
company in the future should not be regulated by our government to 
force one company to use another's products. I do not want to be 
forced to by an inferior product because its the only one available.

MTC-311



MTC-00000312

From: Dustin Vargas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 2:35pm
Subject: PUNISH THE FELON MSFT
    .NET is MSFT's next monopoly tool.YOUR JUDGEMENT is a JOKE.. 
.you all should be ashamed with that deal. ITS like OJ all over 
again... .guilty but nothing u can do about it.. .so lemme get this 
straight * .MSFT was FOUND GUILTY OF 4 FELONOUS CRIMES BUT YET NO 
PUNISHMENT?? JUST SUPERVISION?? PS. VOTING DEMOCRAT NEXT YEAR

MTC-312



MTC-00000313

From: Edward Wustenhoff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 2:37pm
Subject: Settlement
    I think it is obvious that Microsoft will not be able to change 
its behavior as long as "Justice can be bought. Its in the 
nature of the Beast.
    I believe the American Justice system is in deep trouble. Too 
many times we see that rather than doing justice, the exact letter 
of the Law is followed not the intend.
    That is why nobody votes anymore, thats why nobody believes 
being a juror is an honor and that's why politician are perceived to 
be the new aristocracy.
    The settlement confirms the above again. If the justice 
department had any courage and a real will to represent the people's 
interests, MSFT would have been put under a lot more scruteny and 
Windows XP would not have been allowed to be released. I will not 
buy XP, but tell me, what alternative do I have?
    Oh and its not MSFts "innovation" that has put them 
where they are:
Windows = comes from Apple
Browser = Comes from Mozilla & Netscape
Streaming Media = real networks
    etc....
    I hope the Europeans will do a better job..
    My 2cts.
    Edward

MTC-313



MTC-00000314

From: Robert Low
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 2:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Hello.
    The proposed settlement does absolutely nothing to Microsoft, 
which is why they agreed to it. Any changes are cosmetic and of no 
real value to consumers or industry.
    The only "proper" decree was breaking the company 
into 5 separate companies that could only communicate with each 
other via a public internet newsgroup (or similar.) The original 
decree of two parts was barely acceptable, and, as I read the 
reversal, only based on the the Judge's extra-curricular comments. 
It could have been, and should have been reinstated without 
question.
    There needs to be a punitive component, as well as a guide for 
corrective action. With the current agreement, you have thrown away 
BOTH components!
    Very upset
    Bob Low

MTC-314



MTC-00000315

From: Brian Sullivan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 2:41pm
Subject: M$oft
    Don't settle with Microsoft, they make crap products that cost 
to much and dominate the industry.
    Thanks,
    Brian Sullivan
    President Vitamincart.com

MTC-315

[[Page 23716]]




MTC-00000316

From: Gary Prideaux
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It looks like Microsoft won again! All those resources have now 
conspired to make everything work out to their advantage. It looks 
like they will now be able to continue their practices of tanking 
competitors by stuffing more non-operating system additions to their 
product.
    It looks like Mr. Gates' contributions to the current 
administration have paid off. Hopefully the individual states will 
look at the case with a more open mind.

MTC-316



MTC-00000317

From: Jim Dompier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 2:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Unhappiness)
    Hello,
    I am totally flabbergasted by the DOJ toothless answer to a 
company that has brutally abused its power in the marketplace which 
has ultimately led to damaging consumers and costing this country 
millions of dollars, needless to say the countless companies that 
were ruined by this beast.
    What a JOKE! Microsoft must be laughing their way all the way to 
their bank accounts over this one.
    Jim Dompier
    3075 Ala Poha PL 504
    Honolulu, Hawaii 96818

MTC-317



MTC-00000318

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 2:49pm
Subject: you have failed to do your job
    First, let me say that it was obvious to many software 
professionals that Microsoft had violated the consent decree. Of 
course Internet Explorer was separate from the operating system, and 
had been bundled! At the same time that Microsoft was bundling 
Explorer with Windows, it was providing Explorer for Apple's MacOS. 
Obviously, if Explorer was available as a separate product for 
another vendor's operating system, and could so easily 
be_added_to_another vendor's operating 
system, then it had been added to Microsoft's operating system as 
well. The fact that Microsoft's engineers had wedded Explorer 
tightly or loosely to Windows was not relevent. They provided an 
application as a product for another company's operating system, and 
included that same application with their own operating system, 
obviously in violation of the consent decree. Any discussion of 
whether or not it could be easily removed from Windows is 
unimportant. They agreed not to bundle, and then they did bundle.
    Next, the fine for contempt of court, when Microsoft failed to 
comply with Judge Jackson's orders, was too small by an order of 
magnitude or so. An easy and effective strategy for Microsoft, 
rather than relying on lawyers, would have been to simply take its 
sweet time in "separating" Explorer from Windows, and 
simply pay the fine. What was the fine, $1 million per day? Say that 
Microsoft simply had taken 6 months to essentially do nothing but 
gain even more market share from Netscape and others by continuing 
to bundle Explorer with Windows. Put this seemingly large amount of 
money in its proper perspective by comparing this to the marketing 
money that Microsoft cheerfully spent promoting each release of its 
Windows operating system. You will see that $180 million would be an 
acceptable price for the "product launch" of Explorer. 
In the future, judges contemplating fines should not rely on 
history, but on the problems in front of them at the moment.
    Moving right along, to the next legal disaster... 
Splitting Microsoft should have been allowed as a remedy. It should 
have never been taken off the table.
    In fact, Microsoft should have been split into separate parts. 
At the very least, one company should have been given the 
applications, and another the operating systems. Probably other 
parts should have been split off as well. Among other reasons to 
choose this remedy it has the benefit that it would be obvious to 
the government whether or not Microsoft was complying with it. The 
current settlement does not have this nice property, and I predict 
more legal action against Microsoft will be indicated, if not taken, 
before too long.
    There remains no great incentive for Microsoft to provide Office 
on OS platforms other than its own, other than the threat of more 
legal action. Microsoft Office (and Word in particular) is a de 
facto standard and requirement in the business community. Allowing 
Microsoft to force the rest of its software on us by attaching it to 
the Office suite is wrong, expensive, and harmful to the consumers. 
For example, the success of Apple's MacOS operating system is 
dependent on the availability of Microsoft's Office suite. The 
likelihood of that availability continuing would be improved if the 
people selling Office did not have an interest in seeing sales of 
Windows 2000, Windows XP, etc also increase. Notice that Office is 
not available for any version of Unix other than MacOS X. Why is 
this? Given that Microsoft has gone to the expense of porting 
Office, why would they not make the modest additional effort to port 
it to other versions of Unix? Certainly Microsoft could sell more 
copies of Office, if it would also sell to the entire Unix market 
(including Linux). The existence of a market for the Office suite on 
the Unix operating system is evident from the existence of 
StarOffice, a poor knockoff, created initially by a single person, 
without much funding, and since purchased and adopted by Sun 
Microsystems. But for Microsoft to port and sell Office for Unix 
would mean less sales of Microsoft Windows. This linkage needs to go 
away. Microsoft Office is expensive enough already as it is, without 
the consumer being obligated to also pay for Windows, and incur 
additional network effects from also being tied to that operating 
system.
    I wonder, though, as I bother to write all this, what the point 
is, in even trying to make this letter as informative and clear as 
it is (which is not very, yet). You have already settled. What 
remains?
    Ben Chase
    Software Engineer
    http://www.bealenet.com

MTC-318



MTC-00000319

From: Lonnie Mullenix
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft's monopoly.
    It is very interesting to see that Microsoft is still 
controlling the outcome to their anti-trust case.
    Even if a person wants to Special Order a computer from Compaq, 
you have to take a version of Windows as the operating system.
    When someone in the government can explain WHY Microsoft has the 
power to dictate what operating system I can get on a NEW COMPUTER 
and why Microsoft is the only supported OS for nearly all ISPs and 
then make me believe that Microsoft DOES NOT have a monopoly!
    As an American consumer, I should be able to walk into ANY 
computer store and buy a computer with ANY OPERATING SYSTEM I WANT, 
pre-installed. Until that day comes, you will never convince me that 
the government is doing anything to prevent Microsoft from 
perpetuating their current monopoly in the computer industry. And as 
such, keeps my opinion of government lawyers and judges pretty much 
where it has always been.
    PAWNS OF BIG BUSINESS WITH TOTAL DISREGARD FOR THE AMERICAN 
WORKING MAN.
    Thanks,
    Lonnie
    Well, Windows Got Me Again. Need new address book entries, etc.

MTC-319



MTC-00000320

From: Bob Porporato
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/16/01 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft should be penalized for their actions
    I am extremely disgusted in the outcome of this Microsoft trial. 
Microsoft has clearly broken the rules and yet they continue to only 
get their hand slapped.
    I would like to remind you of other instances where Microsoft 
has not played fair or followed the State and Federal laws. When I 
worked for Borland in the early 90's, Microsoft was accused of 
stealing our code(reverse engineering the compiled code) in a 
Borland Conference in Palm Springs. Microsoft at first denied any 
wrong doing but then came out with a public apology. Awhile later, 
Microsoft was accused and convicted of stealing (compression or 
anti-virus?) code(incorporating another vendor's product) from a 
small Carlsbad(Southern CA) software company into their OS without 
permission or an agreement license. Microsoft was arraigned(tried), 
lost, and slapped with a small fine. Microsoft responded by 
investing in the company! If Microsoft can't steal or cheat their 
way out, they buy them!! With the anti-competitive browser case, 
Microsoft was found quilty of anti-competitive tactics(and 
monopoly?). The outcome: No break up of the company and now a 
settlement.

[[Page 23717]]

    I hope people realize we should be setting an example for the 
next generation and current set of businesses in US and the 
world_Illegal or wrongful business tactics is not acceptable. 
They are clearly a monopoly and have been wrongfully hurting other 
businesses. Instead it looks like Microsoft is being let off the 
hook for other business reasons_we need the taxes they 
generate or...
    I urge you_Do the right thing!! Since they were convicted 
of wrong doing, throw the book at them!!! Please do not settle on 
this issue_this action only sets the wrong statue for other 
businesses inside and outside of the US and for individuals(both the 
current generation and the upcoming generation).
    Bob
    Disclaimer: The views represented in this email do not reflect 
the views of my company and are solely the views and opinions 
presented by me.

MTC-320



MTC-00000321

From: Steve Hayhurst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 2:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    This is not a settlement. Microsoft has shown clearly that they 
are predatory, that they will not honor the rules, and can not be 
trusted. Witness after witness from Microsoft found themselves 
caught in flat out lies about events, strategies, and conversations.
    The states have rejected the "settlement" for what 
it is_more worthless than the 1995 agreement which Microsoft 
ignored. This new "Settlement" does not resolve 
anything_and, with what we have seen with the release of XP, 
Microsoft continues to force it's predatory behaviors into new areas 
of the industry with arrogance and nose thumbing at the rest of us 
and the government.
    While I am disappointed in Judge Jackson's behavior, I found his 
rulings to be accurate. The DOJ did a masterful job of proving 
Microsoft's predatory behavior AND their violation of the 1995 
agreement. Now, the DOJ is throwing in the towel_even though 
Bill is sitting on the mat with a bloody nose.
    Why should Microsoft be any different than the rest of us? If I 
chose to make a legal agreement, then break it, I would be fined for 
breaking that agreement.
    WHERE IS THE FINE FOR MICROSOFT???!!
    DO NOT ALLOW MICROSOFT TO GET AWAY WITH THIS! It will only be 
tougher the next time, and there will be a next time unless the fine 
is severe enough. Frankly, based on their record, I bet there will 
be a next time regardless.
    Regards,
    Steve Hayhurst
    email: [email protected]
    site 1: http://www.accessone.comï¿½7Eshayhurs
    site 2: http://mywebpage.netscape.com/shayhurs/index.htm (3D 
work)

MTC-321



MTC-00000322

From: Lee Warren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 2:54pm
Subject: Decision
    Here's my 2 cents for what is worth:
    This is a blasphemy of justice. "This settlement might 
help restore some competition if implemented as they read, but whose 
definitions are so full of loopholes and exceptions that imagining 
the agreement restraining Microsoft is like imagining river 
restrained by a hair-net." 1
    1. MWJ, 11/10/21
    Thank You
    Lee Warren

MTC-322



MTC-00000323

From: Scott Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 3:02pm
Subject: settlement
    I am a small software developer that is creating a product that 
would directly compete with Microsoft. From carefully reading the 
settlement, it is clear that with it in place I will have no chance 
of being able to fairly compete with Microsoft. They will never let 
me package my technology with Windows and if I did they would use 
their monopoly to crush me the same way the are attacking products 
that currently compete with their browser, media player, instant 
messenger, and digital media tools. I cannot get any financing for 
my venture because of this. I have to assume that some sort of deal 
was made between the Justice Department and Microsoft because it is 
inconceivable to think that the "experts" at Justice 
could be so ignorant to think that this will solve anything. 
Microsoft has never been able to introduce any home grown 
innovations. They steal or purchase their innovations. Pretty soon 
there will be no one left to steal from or buy out and Microsoft 
will be able to do as they please and tax the internet.
    This is exactly why we need campaign finance reform legislation 
now. Microsoft bought this settlement.
    Scott Anderson
    CTO, mediaComponents.com
    San Francisco

MTC-323



MTC-00000324

From: Worldlist@aoLcom@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 3:03pm
Subject: On MS
    Good day!
    I believe one of the biggest problems with us developers is that 
MS will bundle.
    The OS is now only a small part of the Windows software. All the 
bundling of the other software is what's putting us out of business.
    Example: MS sees that a program is doing very well. So. in it's 
next release. It bundles a clone of the competitors software. And of 
course being free with the OS, puts the other company out of 
business. How can you compete with free? Example: ZIP is the biggest 
download on the Internet. So what did MS do. It included ZIP in XP. 
For free! This will put about 5 top companies out of business.
    That's all they have to do to put someone out of business. Just 
clone it. Include it in Windows for free. End of competitor, end of 
story for those companies.
    The OS should be nothing but the OS. And when you have a 
monopoly on the OS, you have the advantage of bundling any software 
you want to put out the competitors.
    Mike O'Rourke
    Brandyware Software

MTC-324



MTC-00000325

From: Paul N. Schatz
To: [email protected] @inetgw
Date: 11/16/01 3:11pm
Subject: I strongly urge you to continue your pursuit of more
    I strongly urge you to continue your pursuit of more stringent 
anti-trust penalties against the Microsoft corporation. The present 
half-hearted settlement proposed by the Federal Government seems 
more informed by political considerations rather than looking out 
for the welfare of consumers. As we speak, Microsoft continues with 
the same unlawful anti-competitive practices for which they have 
already been cited by the Federal courts, a citation upheld at all 
levels. The proposed Federal settlement will have very limited 
effect on this continuing anti-competitive behavior of Microsoft.
    Paul N. Schatz
    Paul N. Schatz, Professor Emeritus
    Chemistry Dept, University of Virginia,
    McCormick Road
    Charlottesville, VA 22901
    ph 804-924-3249 (office); 804-293-4810 
(home)
    fax: 804-924-3710
    CC: Microsoft ATR

MTC-325



MTC-00000326

From: Scott Russell_Network Engineer
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/16/01 3:12pm
Subject: I believe the goverment is blowing this all out of 
porpotion. Microsoft made
    I believe the goverment is blowing this all out of porpotion. 
Microsoft made an exellent product, and should not have to share. If 
comsumers do not like Microsoft products there are alternitives. 
Don't blame microsoft for lazy consumers that do not want to 
reaserch any alternitives. Other companies can write software for 
Microsoft Windows Operating System, and they sell it every day. If 
you don't like the software, don't buy it.
    Scott Russell
    Network Engineer
    The Forecast Group
    909-987-7788

MTC-326



MTC-00000327

From: Allan Bonadio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 3:13pm
Subject: not enough
    As many others have reiterated, I'm telling you that the 
microsoft settlement is not enough to keep them under control and 
competitive. I am a programmer and I can see things that most of 
these decision makers can't see.
    There's a provision that says that Microsoft must publish their 
APIs. Well, microsoft

[[Page 23718]]

already publishes their APIs. They send tons of DVD's full of 
gigabytes of information to all the programmers who sign up for 
their developer program ($1300 apiece). This has been going on for 
many years.
    But this is never enough. There's always secrets about MS 
Windows that they don't reveal to programmers, and this allows their 
applications to have an unfair advantage in the marketplace. I've 
seen it myself and I've talked to countless programmers who confirm 
the same thing.
    There is a group who makes software called 'Wine", 
they allow Windows software to run on Linux. If Microsoft really 
revealed ALL of their APIs, then Wine could run any Windows 
software, because the programmers work from the APIs. And, in fact, 
they can run Windows software from Adobe and many other companies, 
no problems, because these companies abide by the APIs that 
microsoft publishes_they play fair.
    The only software that Wine can't run is applications from 
Microsoft_because Microsoft does NOT play fair. Microsoft 
programmers use unpublished APIs to gain an unfair advantage that no 
other company can compete against.
    Please consider strengthening this settlement_THAT's 
what's good for the economy, rather than letting off one corporation 
that's sabotaging the rest of the computer industry. Haven't you 
noticed that Microsoft is the only computer company that's not had 
layoffs?
    "Come to the edge," he said. They said, "We 
are afraid".
    "Come to the edge", he said. They came.
    He pushed them... And they flew_Guillaume Apollinaire

MTC-327



MTC-00000328

From: Hal Widlansky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 3:23pm
Subject: re: settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    As a member of the technology community and a user of many 
Microsoft products, I feel the need to give you feedback on the 
proposed "settlement" with Microsoft.
    First, let me be absolutely clear: I think the proposed 
settlement is *A JOKE*. It's completely inappropriate, given the 
facts of the case and the realities of the industry. It does not 
even begin to address the grievances brought against the company. 
Given the outcome of the trial and appeal, one would have assumed 
any settlement would have included SOME sanctions and SOME forced 
changes in the behavior of the company. It suffers from the same 
weaknesses as the 1995 settlement, being worded as to apply ONLY to 
Windows XP. All MS has to do is rename the product next year, and 
all bets are off.
    The settlement, as it is currently written, only requires 
miniscule changes in the way the company was doing business before 
the trial strarted and does not begin to address the realities of 
the monopoly-driven market. It's clear that whoever negotiated this 
deal does not understand the technology industry to the extent 
required. If that's not the case, then the government has suddenly 
lost interest in punishing the guilty.
    Please consider at least giving them a slap on the wrist. The 
current deal represents more of a pat on the head.
    _Hal Widlansky
    CIO, RuckusGames
    310-553-0900

MTC-328



MTC-00000329

From: Christian BAYER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 3:25pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Hi,
    It is my sincere hope that some party will allow the process of 
justice to continue. The Microsoft corporation has seriously 
suppressed innovation and competition in the software industry. It 
has been clearly found that the company has operated in an illegal 
manner, much to the detriment of consumers and competitors. It is my 
hope that these violations result in penalties of the greatest 
severity allowed by law. As one of the many who has been harmed by 
the illegal and immoral actions of the Microsoft corporation I have 
expectations that the justice system should perform it's function. 
The Microsoft corporation flagrantly abused it's monopoly and 
continues to do so. The company's behavior is making a mockery of 
the charges brought against it. The new Windows XP operating system 
incorporates programs which take the violations the company has been 
found guilty of to a new level. The taxpayer dollars spent on the 
legal proceedings should not be wasted. The criminal behavior of the 
Microsoft corporation should not be allowed to continue and it's 
past behavior should be severely punished, for the greater good of 
those who have suffered from Microsoft's foul deeds. Thus far no 
remedy I have heard of begins to address the crimes Microsoft has 
committed.
    Christian Bayer
    IT Assistant
    Timberline Lodge and Ski Area
    Accounting Office
    24540 East Welches Road
    Post Office Box 1238
    Welches, Oregon 97067
    503.622.0796
    [email protected]

MTC-329



MTC-00000330

From: Cal Chany
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 3:35pm
Subject: M$ Settlement

    I see this as another OJ Simpson trial ...proof that if one has 
lot's of money, one can get away with murder.
    M$ will continue their strangle hold on the consumer and 
corporate America. They will continue unfair practices ... dose the 
DOJ actually expect 3 auditors to keep M$ on the straight and 
narrow? Osama bin Laden the millionaire terrorist supporter sees to 
it that thousands of people are killed with planes. We sent special 
forces after him and his kind. Billionaire Bill Gates and company (a 
US Terrorist/Monopoly if there ever was one), does not kill people 
... he just bleeds them of their hard earned money by deceptive 
practices, terminates competition by buying or squashing them out of 
existence. This is fair?
    I'm working on switching to Linux rather than sending any more 
money to M$.
    Cal Chany, Ph. D.
    Assistant Professor
    Section of Ob/Gyn Research
    Rush Medical Center
    1653 W. Congress Pkwy, J5818
    Chicago, IL 60612
    312-942-6377 (phone)
    312-942-2771 (fax)

MTC-330



MIC-00000331

From: rumall @earthlink.net@ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 3:43pm
Subject: NO to settlement!!
    I am gravely disappointed with the Justice department settlement 
with Microsoft. As a consumer I don't want to be given only one 
choice of products. Reject the settlement and procede with more 
severe penalties than the slap on the wrist currently proposed.
    Thank you.

MTC-331



MTC-00000332

From: R. M. Panoff, Ph.D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 3:47pm
Subject: The settlement is as fraudulent as you are!
    Sirs/Madams:
    This settlement will do nothing to help the consuming public or 
the education system; rather, it will enable Microsoft to continue 
to perptuate a fraud: lousy software that requires undue service and 
support, and will be harmful to public and private education. It is 
not just their monopolistic tactics: their insidious attempts to 
force all education developers to "do it their way" are 
famous. They repeatedly "break" features in their 
browsers, or fail to support them, so that developers will be forced 
to buy server services from them. They are actively trying to kill 
Java as a platform-independent language, which will cripple the 
education and scientific communities as we work to build QUALITY 
COURSEWARE that will run on any platform and any browser. To wit: 
all of the award-winning course ware that we have developed AT 
GOVERNMENT EXPENSE for the Department of Defense Schools will be 
rendered useless if this settlement is approved. Microsoft will be 
able to kill off anyone's use of any browser but its own, will 
further suppress Java and its implementations, and will corrode the 
value of the good work already done.
    I would welcome the opportunity to prove my assertions and to 
demonstrate for you exactly what their monopolistic practices have 
already done and will likely continue to do in the future. Stop 
lying that this is in the public interest. You have no idea what the 
public interest is if you believe this to be the case.
    Robert M. Panoff

MTC-332



MTC-00000333

From: Adrian Quinonez

[[Page 23719]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 3:48pm
Subject: Your proposal
    Your proposed settlement for the Microsoft case is embarrassing 
to say the least. I cant help but worry about the future of real 
competition in the U.S. I keep hoping that some one I your office 
will raise a voice to say how wrong this agreement is. Microsoft is 
stifling competition. Microsoft is hindering if not completely 
preventing innovation, unless it fills its own wallets. I am really 
hoping that the court sees that this agreement in not in the best 
interest of any one except for Microsoft. This agreement does 
nothing to punish Microsoft or for that matter hinder its ability to 
prevent any competition in anything that Microsoft might have a hand 
in. This agreement is an embarrassment. Its no agreement at all, its 
just a license for Microsoft to continue to do everything it has 
been doing with out any thing being done. Its as if this whole case 
was for nothing. And at then end Microsoft will continue to do what 
it have always been able to do. Kill innovation. What this agreement 
is saying, is that innovation can only come from Microsoft.
    I will write to as many people as I can to fight against this 
agreement. I Believe it is wrong for the Long tem economy, it is 
wrong for the tech sector, it is wrong for the common user, and it 
is wrong for America.
    Adrian Quinonez
    Delias MIS
    435 Hudson St
    New York NY 10014
    2125906555

MTC-333



MTC-00000334

From: Steve Brooks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 3:51pm
Subject: The Settlement will change nothing
    There is little or nothing in the proposed MS antitrust 
settlement which will prevent MS from using its proven monopolistic 
power to dominate new marketplaces, specifically in the internet 
marketplace.
    A case in point: One week before the settlement was announced, 
Microsoft disabled access to the msn.com portal to all non-Microsoft 
browsers. Although they later reversed this decision due to 
universal pressure, there is nothing in the proposed settlement to 
stop MS from this clear use of monopolistic power. After years of 
dismissing and sabotaging Java, Microsoft will deploy their C# 
(C-Sharp) language with the same goals as those of Java. This new 
language doesn't provide any features or benefits that haven't been 
available with Java, with the exception that Microsoft will now have 
the ability to ensure that new Web applications will operate 
properly only on Windows-based platforms. There is nothing in the 
proposed settlement to prevent Microsoft from co-opting the software 
development industry in this manner.
    The excitement and promise of the World Wide Web were based in 
the platform independant nature of web applications. The Browser and 
the Java programming language are tools which were developed to 
enable this vision to be achieved. Microsoft has, and will continue 
to, do all in its power to ensure that they will control the 
development of the internet in the same way that they have 
controlled the desktop computing marketplace.
    Steve Brooks
    Healdsburg, CA
    [email protected]
    References:
    C# and Java:
    http://news.cnet.com/news/
0-1003-200-4603136.html
    http://news.cnet.com/news/
0-1003-201-4591145-0.html
    Microsoft disabling msn.com access:
    http://news.cnet.com/news/
0-1005-200-7655334.html
    http://news.cnet.com/news/
0-1005-200-7660935.html
    http://news.cnet.com/news/
0-1005-200-7667367.html

MTC-334



MTC-00000335

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 3:51pm
Subject: Proposed settlement not long and strong enough, in my 
opinion
    I am mainly concerned about the short term of the proposed 
settlement. After one or two years into the agreement, manufactures 
will again face uncertainty over potential Microsoft retaliation for 
promoting competing products. The five year term is hardly a large 
enough time window to allow competing products to establish 
themselves.
    Also, the spirit of the proposed settlement is fine. However, we 
can be sure that Microsoft will largely ignore the spirit of the 
settlement, and with continual legal stonewalling, largely 
circumvent the proposed measures.
    Charles Pilkington [email protected]
    25 Glenn Drive http://www.cpsoft.com
    Halifax, N.S. 902-450-5761 (W)
    B3M 2B8 902-443-9392 (H)

MTC-335



MTC-00000336

From: Jeff Hassler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 3:52pm
Subject: Microsoft 'settlement'
    This so called settlement is a complete travesty.
    It does absolutely nothing to prevent their continued predatory 
practices and destruction of fair competition and does absolutely 
nothing to punish Microsoft.
    Microsoft has ripped off the public for hundred of billions of 
dollars and you fools want to let them keep the resources they 
unlawfully gained and continue to rip us off.
    You must work for the government; no one else would hire idiots 
like you!

MTC-336



MTC-00000337

From: Dailey, Paul
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/16/01 3:52pm
Subject: I am writing to voice my displeasure with the settlement 
with Microsoft. The
    I am writing to voice my displeasure with the settlement with 
Microsoft. The resolution was no more than a slap on the wrist. As 
Judge Sporkin said "simply telling a defendant to go forth and 
sin no more does little or nothing to address the unfair advantage 
it has already gained." This will not be beneficial for the 
consumer or the economy. Any undergrad level economics class will 
teach that a monopoly is never good for the consumer or the economy. 
Look at what happened with telecomm.
    Thanks,
    Paul F. Dailey

MTC-337



MTC-00000338

From: Ken Gilmore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 3:52pm
Subject: settlement does nothing to help consumers
    The proposed settlement doesn't force MS to do much except 
look for ways to get around the toothless provisions.
    What would truly benefit consumers would be to force MS to make 
and sell a basic operating system that does not include any software 
or features except those needed to access the computer hardware and 
allow other programs to run. The focus should be on stability and 
security.
    There are many good, capable, and innovative programs available 
from third-party developers. Many are completely free. They are 
designed to do a job well, with no hidden agendas. I use Mozilla for 
browsing the web, Pegasus Mail for email, Xnews for reading Usenet 
newsgroups, etc. There are extremely capable free programs out there 
for manipulating digital photos, for working with sound and video, 
for writing letters, keeping a database, tracking finances, etc. 
Most people are unaware of these other options; they end up just 
using whatever came with Windows. The result is a huge competitive 
advantage for MS, and little incentive for MS to innovate or make 
their products secure. Why should MS care about making their email 
program immune to viruses when they have 95% of the market share? 
Answer: they don't care. The result is billions of dollars in 
losses for business and home users due to viruses and other security 
risks. There is no need to tie the browser, email program, media 
player, or any other software to the operating system. The only 
reason MS does it is to force their programs on consumers and gain 
market share. Consumers benefit from competition and choice. They 
would benefit greatly from a stable and secure basic operating 
system.
    Please reconsider the sanctions against MS. Consumers are being 
robbed of innovation and choice.
    Kenneth Gilmore
    2331 Mills Road
    Jacksonville, FL 32216

MTC-338



MTC-00000339

From: Larry Simmers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 4:03pm
Subject: oppose proposed MS settlement
    Renata Hesse,
    In regards to the proposed settlement, the text of which I read 
at: http://

[[Page 23720]]

www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9500/9549.htm I wish to register my very 
strong dissatisfaction with the government wimping out and 
essentially letting Microsoft promise not to do such illegal acts 
any more. Letting them get off with violations of the law without 
any penalties and nothing stronger than another version of the 
consent decree of '95 is laughable. Years from now when the 
government has to go after MS again for their monopoly over PDAs, 
set-top boxes, or web-browsing cell phones people will point to this 
as when the DOJ should have achieved a meaningful settlement.
    In particular the section on "Enforcment Authority' 
appears to be meaningless. "Enforcement by the United States 
or plaintiff States may include any legal actions or proceedings 
that may be appropriate to a particular situation, including 
petitions in criminal or civil contempt, petitions for injunctive 
relief to halt or prevent violations, motions for declaratory 
judgment to clarify or interpret particular provisions, and motions 
to modify the Final Judgment" Except for state or federal 
action finding Microsoft in contempt of the order, I don't see 
how this so called enforcement creates any different situation than 
if Microsoft was never found to have violated the law.
    Even though I'm from MA I'm a registered Republican 
and supported President Bush's election. I am disgusted that 
he would cowtow to industry this badly. I believe in minimal 
government intrusion in industry but have personally experienced the 
downside of Microsoft's monopolistic control of PC/Windows 
usage. I set up a Passport account to provide follow on information 
to a serious error report that Windows XP sent to Microsoft. When I 
did so I was also set up with Windows Messenger and was online, 
without my knowledge or consent. It was only because I noticed the 
icon in the systray change that I even knew I was online. I had to 
find the information to hack a system file to allow me to remove 
Windows Messenger from my system, and this is the kind of thing MS 
will keep doing.
    It wasn't necessary to settle this weakly to remove any 
negative effect of this anti-trust case on the economy.
    Larry Simmers
    Dedham, MA
    Lsimmers @mediaone.net

MTC-339
    CC: Lany Simmers

    MTC-339



MTC-00000340

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 4:03pm
Subject: no penalty?
    I'm not sure if this is the correct message to send to the 
young people of this nation (or to the people of the rest of the 
world). The message that seems to be too easily gleaned from the 
Justice Department decision not to penalize Microsoft for past 
wrongs is that if you are a large enough corporation then all you 
have to do is promise not to do the things you've been doing 
wrong for the past 15 years in the future and all will be forgiven. 
What would the effect be if this sort of reasoning were applied 
equally to all? Drug dealers, murders, money launderers, white 
collar criminals, basically anyone that has ever done anything legal 
would be able to say, "I'm sorry. I won't do it anymore. 
Can I go now? Thanks." A bully in the schoolyard is being 
allowed to keep the money it has beaten out of the other school 
children as long as he doesn't do it again. This is all very 
disturbing. Situations like this make it difficult to be 
"proud to be an American." Corporate profits seem to be 
the focus of this administration, not the health and well-being of 
its citizens. After reading as much as possible about this proposed 
settlement I feel embarrassed for this nation.
    Regards.

MTC-340



MTC-00000341

From: Damian Murtha
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 4:04pm
Subject: WAKE UP
    It makes me sick to think what the DOJ was thinking when they 
came out with this deal. Power lies with the control of the API's. 
It's like giving a test to two people and telling one of the two 
they can write the test. The person who wrote the test is going to 
do better. One phrase I have heard that makes me mad is "It's 
better for the country to end this case". It maybe better for 
the country in the short run, but not for the long run. If it ends 
with this settlement the states will have wasted six years and 
millions of dollars. "simply telling a defendant to go forth 
and sin no more does little or nothing to address the unfair 
advantage it has already gained."_Stanley Sporkin
    Damian Murtha

MTC-341



MTC-00000342

From: Rusty Neff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I would like to applaud the Justice Dept. for reaching a 
settlement with Microsoft that is fair, and will actual benefit 
consumers.
    Many of the supposed remedies put forth by MS competitors have 
no benefit to consumers. In most cases, the consumer would be 
harmed. And that's what anti-trust is really all about 
... consumer benefit. Not welfare for competitors as MS 
competitors seem to believe.
    The concept that tying additional products to the operating 
system is harmful to the consumer is pretty weak to begin with. 
Maybe people don't remember the wonderful days when fonts were not 
part of the OS. I do, and it was a royal pain. Fonts were purchased 
separately (from a variety of sources, I might add) and were not 
always compatible with certain programs or printers. There was a lot 
of competition, but no benefit to the consumer.
    E-mail is another example ... with competing 
programs and lots of incompatibilities. It was nearly impossible to 
e-mail attachments to someone with a competitive program in the 
early 1990s.
    If the Internet and computing are ever going to be fully 
functional for people like my mother (75 years old) software must be 
bundled. Don't even think about having her install add ons, plug-ins 
and the like ... all in the name of competition. Why 
should she be forced to deal with arcane technical matters just to 
satisfy Real Networks, Sun Microsystems and their ilk?
    If people want an alternative to Microsoft's operating system, 
they can buy a Mac, or install Linux. I've lived through PC program 
choice at the very basic level in the workplace from 1982 onward. 
Anyone who says those were the good old days obviously wasn't there. 
An operating system with continual added functionality is WONDERFUL, 
as long as consumers have the ability to add on any additional 
software they choose.
    Rusty Neff
    200 SW Scheuner Dr.
    White Salmon, WA 98672
    phone: 509-493-3947
    fax: 509-493-8556

MTC-342



MTC-00000343

From: usbgavp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 4:07pm
Subject: Settlement
    I for one believe that the entire anti-trust suit was initiated 
erroneously. Microsoft did nothing that any other company would do 
to protect its product. The concept that they didn't provide access 
to Netscape and other internet software was false. They did not 
include that software in the windows program but they did provide 
that any internet software program could be used in windows. This 
the same as saying WordPerfect did not include Microsoft word in 
their program. The internet software and Windows are produced by the 
same company, Microsoft and they packaged them together which to me 
makes sense.
    A company starts from nothing and becomes the major supplier of 
a computer operating system. I thought that was the idea of free 
enterprise, if you built a better mouse trap everyone will flock to 
your door. Microsoft built a better computer operating system and 
everyone bought it. The competition could not build a better system 
to compete so the government steps in to slap them down with a law 
suit. That is not the free enterprise system I know.
    I think the entire suit should be thrown out an let Microsoft 
get on with designing more and better software.
    Keith Melick

MTC-343



MTC-00000344

From: Helga Kocurek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 4:08pm
Subject: MS Deal is reprehensible
    MS has a history of writing buggy programs. The reason that MS 
is so successful is its tendency to use shady deals to eliminate the 
competition.
    Your deal will hurt all of us, we will be forced to deal with 
more and more buggy code.
    Helga Kocurek

MTC-344

[[Page 23721]]



MTC-00000345

From: Greg Dainard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 4:09pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    I believe Microsoft has not changed their attitude. I believe 
they looked for any simple, little thing they could do to assuage 
the government lawyers at little to no real cost to them.
    What is needed is to fashion a remedy that Microsoft will 
understand. I propose we take some dollar amount from 
Microsoft_say 5 or 10 billion dollars_and divvy it up 
among corporations hurt because of Microsoft's documentable actions 
prior to October 25, 2001 (date of Windows XP release). That big wad 
of cash in their bank account didn't happen because they played 
nice, and we need to make sure they understand that those who don't 
follow the rules don't get rich.
    Companies who should receive at least part of the settlement: 
Sun, for the MS Visual J++/Java for Windows garbage that MS pulled 
Netscape, because MS gave away a product for free that Netscape was 
successfully charging for Real Audio and other audio playback 
software which is now likely to get killed by the WMA features 
integrated into XP Be (now out of existence), but who had a 
brilliant OS killed because of Microsoft's illegal stipulation to 
hardware makers that they couldn't install more than one OS on a 
box. Some of this should also be given to the Linux crowd.
    Adobe, for the screwing John Warnock took over the PostScript 
licensing that MS preempted when they created TrueType fonts and 
probably many more ...
    The existing remedy as proposed is simply not sufficient.
    Sincerely,
    Greg Dainard
    [email protected]
    CC: [email protected]@inetgw

MTC-345



MTC-00000346

From: Jones, Dave
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/16/01 4:11pm
Subject: Let competition reign free ...
    Greetings,
    First off, allow me to thank you for setting up this e-mail 
address. I've wanted to voice several opinions on this ongoing trial 
for quite some time and never really had a place to send them.
    Next, let me say in brief, do NOT let Microsoft off the hook.
    As a long-time computer user (since around 1984), and computer 
professional, I can attest to the monopolistic practices of 
Microsoft. Unfortunately, in my opinion, I don't think the trial 
went deep enough into the technology and the practices Microsoft 
uses to eliminate competition. Seeing however as this process is 
winding down, it doesn't make much sense to lay out a point-by-point 
letter to you now.
    I would like to make mention of a recent tactic Microsoft tried 
to pull to lock more users and companies into spending more money 
and being more ingrained into Microsoft products. Several months ago 
Microsoft announced that they would be invalidating all licenses on 
any of their OS products that were older than Windows ME (for home 
users) and Windows 2000 (for business users). This means that a user 
of Windows NT4 would no longer be able to receive support from 
Microsoft, nor would Microsoft continue to develop upgrades and 
software patches for the OS to fix things like security holes 
because, in their eyes, the product was no longer valid. This 
equates to buying a car with a 10 year 100,000 mile warranty, taking 
it into the dealer shop two years later to have a hazardous defect 
repaired and not being able to get any parts for it because the 
company "discontinued the model."
    Fortunately, based on public opinion (which obviously wasn't 
very positive) Microsoft decided to revoke their plans and statement 
for the time being to re-evaluate their decision. However, the point 
remains, Microsoft was saying "You buy our latest and greatest 
stuff, or you're screwed." Even though, at least on this day, 
Microsoft has not gone forward with this business practice, the fact 
that they started the ball rolling (i.e.. public announcements were 
made, letters of notice sent to corporations, etc) to force people 
to upgrade shows just what a bully they are.
    That's the most recent item I can think of to bring to your 
attention. I could obviously go on about how their forcing/tying of 
software makes my job harder, and my home computing experience less 
than enjoyable most of the time. How their "Trade 
Secret" OEM licensing scheme forces manufactures to put only 
Microsoft OS's and Software on PC's they sell, eliminating choice at 
the consumer end. How they force software developers to 
"comply or die" just to get their software to run 
somewhat decently on the Windows OS platform. Yes, I could go on 
about it, but I'm sure you've heard it all before.
    In closing, I'd just like to reiterate, Microsoft needs to 
change. And since they don't seem to be willing to do it on their 
own, someone needs to change them. If they were willing to force 
their customers to upgrade even after a guilty verdict was brought 
upon them, it's obvious they aren't afraid. I have faith in you, my 
government, our government, to do what is right and strike some fear 
into Microsoft.
    Very Respectfully,
    David Jones
    Des Moines, Iowa

MTC-346



MTC-00000347

From: Eric Benedict
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 4:14pm
Subject: Microsoft capitulation decree ...
    To whom it may concern:
    I noticed on a cnn web page that this email address was set up 
to collect comment on the pending agreement between Microsoft and 
the US DOJ et al. Based on the agreement which I have read and the 
public statements by the DOJ, I don't expect that there is much 
interest in my commentary; however, since there is a non-zero chance 
it might have an impact on reviewing the agreement, I'm writing this 
letter.
    I am not a lawyer, but I can read and understand what the 
literal meaning of text is, and am quite capable of thinking inspite 
of the presence of "legalese"...
    I am against the agreement as it currently stands. Microsoft has 
been found guilty of illegal practices (and accepted previous 
consent decrees of similar actions {which it subsequently 
violated}). This agreement does not contain any puntitive 
actions against Microsoft. While I would be disappointed in the lack 
of puntitive action(s), I would accept such an agreement provided 
that it provides suitable mechanisims to prevent future improper 
behavior. As written, this agreement starts to provide such 
protections; however, they are effectively nullified by the 
vagueness of several exceptions. The ability to exercise the 
exceptions is left to the discretion of Microsoft and so this 
agreement provides no real check on Microsoft's behavior.
    In particular, the Final Judgement III.D states that Microsoft 
must provide to ISVs, IHVs, etc., the API's and related 
documentation to allow for 3rd parties to interoperate with a 
Windows Operating System Product. This sounds good; however, in 
III.J.2(b) and (c) Microsoft does not have to release this 
information to someone who 
_in_Microsoft's_opinion does not have a 
reasonable need. Furthermore, (d) states that someone who recieves 
this information has to agree to submit to a 3rd party (of 
Microsoft's approval) their program for testing, at that person's 
expense. Combined, these exceptions pretty much allow Microsoft to 
exclude numerous and legitmate 3rd parties by either declaring 
carefully written standards or only approving 3rd party verifiers 
with excessive fees (and pricing out low budget developers).
    Next, in III.H.2, Microsoft is supposed to allow users, et al., 
to designate a non-Microsoft Middleware product to be used in place 
of a Microsoft Middleware product. This also sounds good; however in 
III.H.3's second paragraph there are two exceptions: 1 where the 
Middleware product would be interacting with a sever maintained by 
Microsoft or 2. that the 3rd party product does not implement some 
feature consistent with a Windows Operating System Product. Since 
Microsoft again gets to control what is required, they can assure 
that there is always at least one "required" feature 
which only their Middleware provides. It is true that they must 
provide the specifications to any ISV who asks for the information, 
but only in a "reasonably prompt" manner. During the 
intervening time, a "technical innovation" can easily 
occur at Microsoft, resulting in another new technical requirement. 
Thus, Microsoft can quite easily and legally keep any competing 
Middleware Product off of their platform by careful specification 
writing (and updating ...).
    I am sure that there are probably several other more subtle 
loopholes; however, these are so glaring that I was able to find 
them with little effort.
    Thus, the exceptions in this agreement effectively nullify the 
restictions on Microsoft's behavior. I strongly encourage that this 
agreement be, at a minimum, amended to close these loopholes. 
Ideally, I

[[Page 23722]]

feel that this agreement should be re-written to include some form 
of a punititive measure given the overwhelming Findings of Fact 
against Microsoft. Leaving this agreement unmodified is, in my 
opinion, a complete capitulation to Microsoft.
    Sincerely yours,
    Eric L. Benedict
    175 Lakewood Gardens Lane
    Madison, WI 53704

MTC-347



MTC-00000348

From: McDougal, Daren D
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov'
Date: 11/16/01 4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Hello,
    I think this case has taken more time than it is worth. The 
facts are companies don't like Microsoft because they offer a 
superior product and they have there hands in everything. Microsoft 
offers a product that helps consumers get work done and that does 
not cost us an arm and a leg. That's why states like California (my 
home state) don't like it. Because the other companies cant make 
better products. Please once in for all protect all consumers and 
end this...
    Daren McDougal
    Sacramento Customer Service Supervisor
    (800) 876-3151 Ext. 49069
    "Would somebody please tell Donald Rumsfeld to stop 
Squinting...He is giving me a complex".

MTC-348



MTC-00000349

From: Helga Kocurek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 4:18pm
Subject: MS decision
    The deal with MS is appalling and detrimental to all computer 
users.

MTC-349



MTC-00000350

From: tim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 2:11pm
Subject: The settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I wish to voice my opinion that the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft is too soft to accomplish any real changes in the 
industry. Microsoft will still be allowed to dominate it's rivals in 
anti-competitve fashion. This settlement does nothing to restore the 
heavy damage done by Microsoft, nor does it do enough to ensure that 
competition will revive in the future.
    Microsoft has squirmed it's way out of all the restrictions 
place on it in the past by hiding behind technical excuses, and that 
is what it will do in the future as well. You can't ask a thief to 
suddenly be ethical, you have to put him in jail, or punish him in 
some way. This tiny slap on the wrist is going to do little to 
protect us, and will likely embolden Microsoft to continue in it's 
monopolistic abuse. Thank God that some of the states have rejected 
your sellout agreement, and realize that more must be done, if 
equity is going to be restored to the computer industry.
    A very unhappy constituent,
    Tim Lakey
    CTO CarbonWave

MTC-350



MTC-00000351

From: Kevin Evans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:56am
Subject: Microsoft
    Big surprise a big money president helps a big money defendant 
get off easy! Funny thing that Microsoft only exists because of 
antitrust against IBM and the requirement to publish their technical 
specifications. How come Microsoft is not required to do the same? 
Guess we already know. Why not just shut down the antitrust division 
since you guys exist in name only.

MTC-351



MTC-00000352

From: Jason.Xiong @fairchildsemi.com@ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:56am
Subject: Protect consumters, but not Microsoft
    The settlement annoucement in Nov. 2 was a disappointment but 
not a suprise. It is a disappointment becase Microsoft is almost 
assured that it can keep their practice and virtual monopoly with 
minimal adjustment mainly for show.

MTC-352



MTC-00000353

From: Genewray @aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:59am
Subject: Microsoft Decision
    Now that you have reached the decision regarding Microsoft lets 
get on with letting Microsoft do what it does best, produce great 
products. You will always have to listen to the "whiners, 
e.g., Sun Microsystems, and all the others that testified before 
Congress about how Microsoft has "done them wrong.
    Really, these losers are just crying on your shoulder because 
their products can't compare with Windows and other Microsoft 
products. I wouldn't buy Microsoft's competitor's products anyway. 
These competing products like Linus, Unix, Sun Microsystems online 
servers are OK for businesses to use, but, they will never be able 
to lure home users like me to their products. Why switch to 
something harder to use when you don't have to make the change.
    I am going to buy the product that I want to use, not what these 
"whiners" want me to buy. Press on with the decision you 
have made and tell the court to tell the remaining states that want 
to further rake Microsoft over the coals to grow up and stand down.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important 
issue. P.S. I am certainly happy to see Microsoft's competitors 
losing their corporate butts in the stock market.
    Gene Wray
    Chesterfield, Virginia

MTC-353



MTC-00000354

From: Fredrick Fogg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    All of Microsoft's competitors keep complaining about all the 
software that Microsoft bundles in with their operating systems 
(Windows Messenger, Internet Exploerer, Windows Media, etc) saying 
that the users will not want to buy their software because their 
computer will already have software to do these things already 
loaded. Well, being a computer programmer and a home computer user 
daily, I can assure you, people find software that they like and 
they use it, be it Microsoft or any other company. Everything that 
Microsft bundles into their operating systems can be removed and 
other software can be loaded and used with their operating system. 
The choices are out there for all consumers, so why do these other 
businesses cry and complain about Microsoft, because Microsoft has 
provided and will continue to provide software that it top of the 
line and equal, if not better, than all the others. I use a lot of 
other software besides Microsoft. As a matter of fact, I like to use 
3 or more different programs to do the same thing because each has 
its own unique abilities and I like to have them all available to 
me.
    So it is time for other businesses to quit crying and for the 
government to settle this case. If you want more business, make a 
better product. Consumers are not stupid, they will buy the product 
that best suits them.
    Fredrick Fogg

MTC-354



MTC-00000355

From: Al Legatzke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:02am
Subject: Comment
    I believe that Microsoft has done what it could without turning 
the key in the lock and shutting down it's operations. I think that 
a person that has committed to a business and risked his money is 
entitled to make a profit whether it is a few dollars or a lot of 
dollars, it was his risk and guts that enabled this to happen and it 
creates jobs for thousands of people. I have a small business and it 
has taken several years of hard work and dedication to get to where 
I'm at today (still barely showing a profit) almost all of the 
dollars earned from this company have gone right back into it to 
make it what it is today.
    Allen Legatzke
    [email protected]

MTC-355



MTC-00000356

From: GH
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Plan
    Sirs:
    After a first cursory reading of your defense of the settlement 
agreement causes me great concern. At first glance this appears to 
be a sellout against this country's citizens of the most agressive 
monopolist we have seen in the last 50 years.
    Microsoft will effectively evade your settlement conditions and 
their behavior will not change. Allowing the company to continue to 
add features to their OS that have

[[Page 23723]]

nothing to do with an operating system is one of the worst forms of 
tying that I have seen. Your settlement will not change behavior or 
increase competitive pressure on the company. The DOJ has sold out. 
It's simple and no amount of spin can change that fact.
    Gene Harris
    Tetron Software, LLC
    300 Cricket Hollow
    Edmond, OK 73034
    405-359-0345

MTC-356



MTC-00000357

From: N. Bohr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:03am
Subject: Pedicabo ego vos et irrumbo
    These are the word that Mr. William Gates told to the DoJ. DoJ 
failed to understand what is going on_I pray that the Judge 
will toss this settlement and investigate
    Mr. Charles James and his team for malfeasience.
    Please have Mr. Ashcroft issue the following: Ashcroft to 
Restructure Justice Dept.
    WASHINGTON (AP)_Attorney General John Ashcroft plans to 
announce a restructuring of the Justice Department, including a 
revamping of the FBI and the immigration service, to better fight 
terrorism and collect revenues for it new parent, a senior 
department official said Wednesday.
    The five-year plan, which Ashcroft is to present in a meeting 
Thursday with his top deputies and other employees, as required by a 
secret protocol within in capitulation to Microsoft, will reflect 
new emphasis on preventing Open Source Coding and Linux usage. 
Forthwith Linux and IBM mainframe/enterprise server programmers or 
supporters will be prosecuted as terrorists, the official said, 
speaking on condition of anonymity.
    The FBI has already shifted resources to focus on investigating 
and disrupting additional Linux attacks, though agents continue to 
investigate the Sept. 11 attacks and anthrax cases. IVIr. William 
Gates, Sr. the new de facto head of the newly renamed Department of 
Justice has informed the soon to depart head of the soon to be 
renamed FBI that all investigations concerning Anthrax must be 
dropped. The Justice Department restructuring was in the works 
before Microsoft coup d'etat. All law enforcement activities will 
now be control in Redmond. The CIA and NSA will be joined into one 
unit to be named .NET.
    Ashcroft will no longer report to Pres. Geo. W. Bush but to 
William Gates, Sr. Agents of Redmond in pre-dawn raids seized the 
assets and people of Oracle, SUN, and RED-HAT. Rumors of summary 
executions have been denied by the DoM. The Department of Microsoft 
is the official name of the former Department of Justice.
    Along with the settlement announcement, the DoM (Formerly known 
as the Dept. of Justice] also has acknowledge that AAG Charles James 
will leave the DoM in six months to accept the role and 
responsiblity of Microsoft's Chief Irrumatist. It is reported that 
he will earn his $6.3 million Cayman Is account in three months by 
just being in Redmont for M. Wm Gates, pere et fils and M. Ballmer. 
All citizens are urged to report to the DoM any individual who is 
known or may know any computer language other than VB, there is a 
$50,000 reward for all C or C++ programmers who are captured and 
killed.

MTC-357



MTC-00000358

From: jlapeer.mindspring
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the most simple, direct solution, that creates the 
best "Win/Win" solution for all, is to break Microsoft 
into at a minimum of 2 separate corporations. One cooperation would 
be the "Windows" operating system and the other would be 
all other things. The Windows Operating system would need to be 
defined as that code that provides the interface between 
Applications and the underlying hardware. It is strange that this 
administration advocates the removal of terrorist and terrorist 
actions, yet is in the process of single handedly reversing the 
efforts of many, over a period of time to resolve one of the most 
outrageous "Computer" terrorist in the last 15 years.

MTC-358



MTC-00000359

From: Rick E.Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:07am
Subject: You are oonce again failing to protect us.
    Hello,
    How many times are you going to give microsoft the benefit of 
the doubt. They are expanding and forcing competitors out of every 
space they enter. As a consumer, I am faced with no choice for many 
of the entertaiment applications I run. They have squeezed all 
competition out of the pc os market space. YOU have proven this 
practice is the result of illegal leveraging of their monopoly. This 
practice is also affecting our organization at work.
    I am the systems architecture manager for a 250 person 
architecture firm. This year we are facing 60,000 dollars in 
increased licensing costs based on Microsoft changing its licensing 
practices midstream. We have tried to minimize this costs by using 
servers which run unix to handle authentication and share files. 
These are the few areas where any platform should be able to do the 
job.
    Microsoft has implemented proprietary services in areas where 
all other operating systems can seamlessly integrate. I am able to 
connect apple, sun. hp, and linux for free and without difficulty. 
Many vendors were giving away software that would allow Microsoft NT 
to integrate with the systems at a low cost of for free. Microsoft 
changed the way their servers connect with 2000 once again breaking 
this interpretability. We now have bought 20,000 dollars worth of 
software to overcome their attempts to force us to use microsoft 
servers. In the end we believe this will be cheaper than getting 
further in debt to microsoft. This software is not necessary to 
integrate any other vendors. Vendors which don't have a monopoly 
don't seem to work so hard to break connections with their rivals.
    This practice is prevalent in every area that microsoft enters. 
How far are you going to let this go? Is this the first time 
Microsoft has broken a deal with you? Don't blame the economy for 
your inability to beat them. Microsoft is not an asset to this 
country and we don't need to protect it. We need you to protect us 
from it. Thankfully a few states have a little more integrity than 
you.
    Exposed,
    Rick Moore

MTC-359



MTC-00000360

From: Syd and Marty Carison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:07am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    No kidding! !! !!! You really expect us to believe that all 
those bribes (excuse me, campaign contribution) to the Bush Campaign 
have had no affect on your decision to softball the penalties for 
Microsoft. Your boss, the Attorney General serves at the pleasure of 
President Bush! I bet the professional staff is just livid. This is 
just another case where campaign contributions (bribes that have 
been deemed legal by the politicians) have affect a major government 
decision. Why not ask us to believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth 
Farie?

MTC-360



MTC-00000361

From: Mike Harrington
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 11/16/01 9:08am
Subject: Microsoft
    Enough already, I believe that Mr Gates and company have been 
punished enough just in legal bills. Let's get on with life.
    Mike Harrington
    Network Administrator
    Trek, Inc
    716.798-3140 ext 232
    http://www.trekinc.com 

MTC-361



MTC-00000362

From: Isif
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:09am
Subject: Hello,
    Hello,
    I believe that requiring the option rather than being forced to 
have MS products (internet explorer, media player etc) installed by 
default is the right approach. In windows XP this had gotten much 
worse.
    As an avid computer user, student and part time IT pro I still 
haven't found a way to remove media player or MSN messenger.
    I think this review summarizes the glaring problems I am trying 
to illustrate http://www.redhat.comlaboutIopinions/xp.html This 
problem will only get worse unless something of large proportion is 
done. In this case fines aren't really the answer, if my company 
made 1 billion dollars a month I wouldn't really mind being fined.
    Thank you for your time,
    Isif Ibrahima

MTC-362

[[Page 23724]]



MTC-00000363

From: Bob Rattner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:12am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear DOJ,
    After reviewing the Settlement Documents, I do not believe that 
Microsoft will be effectively constrained by the proposal, nor will 
its monopoly be neutralized. I urge a more detailed review of the 
charges, and significantly stronger penalties and controls.
    As a consumer, I have little complaint about Microsoft desktop 
products; indeed the PC upon which I am composing this note runs 
Windows and other MS code. While some of the anti-competitive 
practices related to desktop PCs are real, and have been addressed 
in the proposed settlement, there is a much larger issue; a 
Microsoft monopoly of the browser market and the Worldwide Web.
    I have two points:
    1. Security Risk. Microsoft is the portal of choice for hackers, 
particularly those who spread viruses. Every major virus propogated 
in recent years has been spread through Outlook. As a nation, can we 
afford to allow one company to control the Internet, and allow it to 
be sabotaged? I think not.
    2. Media Monopoly. As the Web becomes more integrated with other 
media (such as Television), we run the risk of having one company 
capture an overwhelming share of news and information services. Just 
as there are laws which limit the ownership of multiple media/news 
media by a single publisher or broadcaster, we should be protected 
against an Internet/Network operator's ability to control public 
information. In summary, the questionable marketing tactics used by 
Microsoft, and the effects on consumers (and our currently frail 
economy), are minor issues compared to their greater corporate goal 
of a "Microsoft Web". The time to address this is now. 
Microsoft should be ordered to remove its browser and network code 
from all PC desktops, and promote/market them seperately on a CD or 
elsewhere. Simultaneously, Windows should be made to accomodate 
other browsers easily, though open source coding. Consumers are just 
too lazy to remove the MS options on their own, and Microsoft knows 
it!
    Respectfully submitted,
    Bob Rattner
    43 Nieman Ave.
    Lynbrook, NY 11563

MTC-363



MTC-00000364

From: Thomas Ellen
To: Dept Justice
Date: 11/16/01 9:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am disappointed in what I have heard so far in the news in 
regard to the Microsoft antitrust settlement. I began using IBM's 
OS/2 operating system back in the mid 90's (then a joint project 
between Microsoft and IBM) because DOS and early WINDOWS operating 
systems were not powerful enough. Since Microsoft split with IBM 
they have undermined the use of other operating systems by consumers 
on PC's by their monopolistic contracts with PC manufacturers and 
their deliberate writing of their software so it would not work on 
other systems such as OS/2. This obviously deprives consumers who 
would like an alternative to Microsoft Windows that choice. In terms 
of a settlement, I would like to see Microsoft forced to repatriate 
the tens of billions of monopoly rents they have made to the other 
companies who had competing products such as IBM, Linux, Netscape 
and so forth. This money should be held in trust by DOJ and 
distributed to the harmed companies. To get this money, these 
companies have to spend it on development and marketing of these 
competing PC software products. For instance, I would like to see 
IBM continue with the development of OS/2 and put a real push on to 
market it to consumers. The second part of the settlement should be 
the mandate that Microsoft has to make their software (Office, 
games, etc.) compatible with other operating systems. Finally, the 
third part should be the elimination of the monopoly contracts they 
have with PC manufacturers.
    Please reach a settlement that really restores competition.
    Tom Ellen

MTC-364



MTC-00000365

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:14am
Subject: Don't miss the big picture!
    Dear Justice Department,
    When considering the remedy against Microsoft, please consider 
just how difficult and expensive it was to bring this case to trial. 
America has a long history of powerful corporations, and of vigorous 
political debate, but this trial marked a change where the 
corporation had far greater resources than either the state or 
federal governments to litigate the case. Concentrations of power, 
whether monopolistic or not, pose the greatest threats to our 
everyday freedom. To allow a monoloplistic and powerful central 
enterprise like this one to continue is foolhardy. We will pay the 
price if you lack the courage to correct this aberration.
    Recently I received a message when I launched Internet Explorer 
that something needed to be updated and that it would take 17 
seconds. I said ok. Well, it took more than 17 seconds, and it 
wasn't a necessary update. It was some foolish little program that 
changed the cursor into a picture, and I could buy enhancements for 
it for some amount, 15.00, I think. A couple of days later I read 
about how popular this new gizmo was and that 93 million copies had 
been downloaded already! This Orwellian experience demonstrates what 
the future of computing will be where Microsoft dominates the 
desktop. It is monitoring my use, force feeding and falsely 
packaging its products, and exposing the most powerful asset of the 
modern age to all sorts of mayhem. Allowing this company to go 
forward with its everyday practices would make as sense as allowing 
bin Laden to buy an airlines. Continuous negotiation will not lead 
to practical changes. If you are afraid to bear your teeth, then the 
American people have no effective defense.
    Respectfully sunmitted,
    Steve Consilvio
    Squeegee Graphics
    69 Main St
    Cherry Valley, MA 01611
    1-800-388-4454
    Local 508-892-1022
    Fax 508-892-8968
    
    Voice (805) 227-7202
    Fax (805) 237-4032

MTC-419



MTC-00000420

From: Ignacio Valdes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:34pm
Subject: DOJ settlement.
    A very important issue that is not addressed in the settlement 
is Microsoft opening their proprietary file format for their office 
suite, especially Word and Excel. This is a key way it retains its 
monopoly.
    Ignacio Valdes, Editor: Linux Medical News
    http://www.linuxmednews.com

MTC-420



MTC-00000421

From: Tony Placilla
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:35pm
Subject: the Microsoft setelment
    We oppose the DoJs proposed settlement with Microsoft in the 
strongest possible terms Tony & Maureen Placilla 
[email protected]
    "Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be 
explained by stupidity.

MTC-421



MTC-00000422

From: Sean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:36pm
Subject: Re: Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters
    This settlement won't work. Microsoft violated the last consent 
decree it signed, and it will violate this one, too. Settling for 
the weak conduct correction measures is tantamount to giving parole 
to a repeat parole violator. The Department of Justice should get 
behavioral remedies at least as strong as those recommended by Ralph 
Nader. Possibly even hit MS with a monetary penalty. In order for 
the penalty to have maximum effectiveness, it would be ideal if the 
penalty were something like forcing Microsoft to donate $2 billion 
to the Free Software Foundation, or as a non-returnable investment 
spread over the industry in its competitors as a "gift" 
for abusing its monopoly. I would personally prefer a break-up of 
Microsoft entirely so that the Windows monopoly can't be exploited 
to expand in to new markets at all. I don't know why the DOJ is 
trying so hard to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Microsoft 
is thumbing its nose at the Department of Justice with Windows XP, 
and the DOJ settles. Never mind the plethora of new attempts to 
leverage Windows monopoly that XP contains. Forget the fact that 
Microsoft is selling the XBox at around $100 loss in a gambit to 
expand its monopoly to the video game console market.
    Please don't let Microsoft get away with its flagrant abuse of 
the law and its monopoly.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sean Lake

MTC-422



MTC-00000423

From: paulpam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I just want to know whose palm did Microsoft grease to get away 
with it!

MTC-423



MTC-00000424

From: Scott I-Jail
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:38pm
Subject: Settlement is not a good deal for America
    The settlement as it is proposed fails to address one of 
Microsoft's primary issues of the case which is, contrary to what 
Microsoft would have us believe, assimilation is not innovation. 
Innovation is based on the ability of small companies to change the 
world we live. This ability is critically in danger in the personal 
computer market space. Microsoft's belligerent and monopolistic 
tactics regarding small innovative companies provided no benefit to 
the nation.
    The economic prosperity we recently enjoyed was not enabled by 
Microsoft it was built upon the hard labor of many small companies, 
the ability of these companies to compete in the marketplace needs 
to be preserved.
    Having spent my career in IT in Microsoft centric and non-
Microsoft centric companies, I hope the current settlement proposal 
is reconsidered and saner heads prevail.
    Scott Hall

MTC-424



MTC-00000425

From: Robert Shuler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:

[[Page 23735]]

    I read that you are soliciting input. I have run a small 
software business, http://mclsoft.com, since about 1994. And yes I 
have been impacted unfavorably by Microsoft. And no, I don't see 
anything in the settlement that will help with the problem. The most 
pressing concern at present is new technology I'm developing which 
could eventually make PC based business applications nearly 
obsolete. I am hesitating and delaying this technology, and may 
eventually decide not to market it at all, simply because I feel 
that Microsoft will take the idea and give it away free until I am 
out of business, just like they did with Netscape. I'm not aware of 
any language in the settlement that prevents them from repeating 
this atrocity. Is there? If not, then it is not practical for me to 
invest in technology they are likely to confiscate in their usual 
fashion, by incorporating free versions of it into their other 
products or services.
    That is not the only example of how the mere fact of Microsoft's 
typical behavior suppresses innovation. In each of their last 
several OS releases, they have introduced subtle incompatibilities 
that cause me to have to spend time re-engineering old applications 
instead of developing new ones.
    Speaking as a consumer of computers and software, I have lost 
many old applications to Microsoft's creeping incompatibility. So 
have many of my associates. I would gladly purchase a version of 
their OS, or anyone else's, which was compatible with my old apps, 
and supported modern hardware. But they have chosen not to market 
it, all compatible competitors have gone out of the business, and 
there is no practical choice. Oh, sure, I can buy an Apple, but it's 
not compatible with anything. Neither is Linux. There used to be 
compatible DOS's and even compatible gui-based OS's, such as OS2, 
but they have all succumbed to Microsoft's anticompetitive 
practices. Consider the many variations of UNIX that are available, 
all compatible to varying degrees. This is the normal free market 
state of affairs.
    Tell me, how is the settlement going to change any of this?
    It is not. The settlement appears only to pander to a couple of 
players, such as AOL, making it easier for them to offer certain 
very limited products. It does not address root issues. I don't use 
AOL (or MSN) and don't use my computer to listen to music (neither 
does anyone I know). No small businesses or business consumers care 
about anything in the settlement as far as I can tell.
    Feel free to contact me for additional information.
    Robert Shuler
    MediaComm Software

MTC-425



MTC-00000426

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:39pm
Subject: antitrust
    Could spout the typical adages about money, republicans, 
business, etc but there are more important issues. microsoft, over 
the years, has done much harm to others in the industry, aka 
competition, and nothing was done. they have crimped innovation and 
and continue to try to manipulate laws to suit there own (very 
large) ambitions. they try to stop the flow of security information 
and wipeout whomever opposes them. i could go on and on as i've been 
in the industry for many years.
    the courts have ruled that they violated antitrust laws, they 
have_ let that stand and press on with appropriate and 
meaningful penalties. their control, nay stranglehold, on technology 
must be loosened if not broken. i've seen too many good companies 
and technologies trampled by their ego.
    please let justice be done. we don't ask for protection, only 
for the right to fair competition from their embrace, extend, and 
destroy attitudes.
    thank you,
    jim trexler

MTC-426



MTC-00000427

From: Bruce Mohier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Judgement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    While I applaud what the DOJ and Attorney General Ashcroft are 
doing on many fronts (responding to Sept 11th and the restricting 
the use of drugs used to terminate life in Oregon), I cannot approve 
of the judgement agreed to with Microsoft. It appears (from my 
perspective) as if Microsoft has ably demonstrated what it was 
convicted of (of being a monopoly) by weaseling out of the judgement 
with essentially no penalties.
    As someone who works in the IT industry everyday I'm concerned 
about the spread (and control) of Microsoft into more and more 
aspects of what I do. It seems inevitable, after the outcome of the 
trial, that the servers that I support will eventually be running 
Microsoft's software and that Micrsoft will be free to expand into 
any area that they want to without government regulation.
    Bruce Mohler
    Bruce Mohler_Software guy... Of course my password is the 
same as my pet's name.
    My dog's name is rit5%ang, but I change it every 90 days.

MTC-427



MTC-00000428

From: Robert J. Lynn Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:42pm
Subject: What I think should be done:
    Force Microsoft to include source for NO EXTRA ChARGE with EVERY 
copy of Windows. Maybe even Office.
    -Rob

MTC-428



MTC-00000429

From: Steve Parker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:42pm
    Hi, having read the article at http://www.wired.comInews/ 
antitrust10, 1551 ,48452,OO.html, I have, as a non-voluntary 
Microsft user, the following comments:
    The most obvious is the Gates quote : Bill Gates on Thursday 
defended the settlement as tough but one that ``we're really pleased 
to have.''
    If Microsoft are found to have done wrong, how come they're 
``really pleased'' with the settlement?
    As far as MS's attempts to protect the RIAA and others, this 
code had been cracked before Windows XP was officially released, so 
there is no justification in their hiding code on this kind of 
basis. Apart from the damage their (proven) monopoly has had on the 
US and worldwide economy, the software flaws (code red, nimda, 
miranda, etc) which have had such strong effect because of their 
monopoly, are much more strongly felt by all companies, American and 
foreign. I feel that the DoJ, America, and the world, should not 
accept this token settlement, from the evidence that has been 
presented.
    AT&T were harshly punished for their monopoly practices, 
which were not so far-reaching as Microsoft's use of their monopoly. 
From the results we have seen, particularly in the past six years, 
of the Microsoft monopoly on PC operating systems, surely users must 
be better freed from this monopoly power.
    As a consumer, the major way in which I suffer from this, is in 
the Microsoft Office suite which has ridden on the back of this 
monopoly. Since most documents are distributed in the Microsoft 
Office formats, if these were made freely available, to developers 
of all kinds_Windows, Mac, Linux, even GPL developers, *then* 
we would have freedom as conusmers. As for the rest of the above-
mentioned article, I agree with the overall tone of the article. And 
as for Jackson's removal from the proceedings, let's not forget that 
the interviews were given on the (honoured) basis that the 
interviews not be published until after the case.
    With Regards,
    Steve Parker.
    Kbr> Steve Parker 
Steve_G_Parker @hotmail.com 
4DIV> http://steve- parker.org/&A> 
-----
    

MTC-429



MTC-00000430

From: Bryan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:44pm
Subject: you didn't do enough for us
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Thank you for offering this email address as a forum, but no 
thanks for your weak backbone in your effort to protect consumers. 
The operating system business for desktops today is stale and 
uncompetitive. That is a direct result of MS's business practices. 
How come you focused so much on Netscape, but didn't focus on MS's 
licenses that doesn't allow a pc manufacturer to sell dual-boot 
machines. A linux/windows combo would be a great sell to consumers 
for companies, but MS doesn't allow that. You should have protected 
us from those predatory actions.
    I find it extremely odd that the you, after using the bundling 
of code as the main thrust of your case, would suddenly abandon that 
angle and turn your back on us, the consumers. As MS has shown us 
with XP, they are perfectly willing to deny trying to be

[[Page 23736]]

monopolistic, yet continue their abusive practices. They have 
included more and more software as ``bundled'' with the 0/S, and 
more and more smaller companies are put out of business. It is very 
bad for the marketplace and innovation, to have one monster company 
that can stomp little companies out by bundling code. That means 
fewer and fewer smaller companies will continue to try to build 
great products where MS might come along. The entire tech sector 
suffers when MS gains more power.
    Please rethink your decision to settle so weakly. Please support 
those states who refuse to give up. Please remember the goals you 
had when you started this case. If you support competition, you 
should reprimand MS a lot more sternly for violating anti-trust law. 
I'm very disappointed in you...
    Sincerely,
    Bryan Thompson

MTC-430



MTC-00000431

From: John Zachary
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:45pm
Subject: Comment about the MS case
    As a computer scientist, a long-time (15 years) computer user, 
and a tax payer, I am severely disappointed in the proposed 
settlement with MS. The DoJ has dropped the ball in instituting real 
change. MS has repeatedly demonstrated the following: they do not 
care about about innovation, they will not deal fairly with 
customers, they will not deal fairly with business partners, and 
they will not deal fairly with competitors. In a time where 
virtually all software related companies are reporting poor 
earnings, it is not coincidence or superior ability that enables 
Microsoft to post good finanical results. It is their monopolistic 
position that does.
    I have been developing software for over 10 years. I have tried 
in earnest to support non-Microsoft platforms. This choice was based 
on the need for heterogeneity in the software landscape and the fact 
that most all other software platforms are technically superior to 
most Microsoft software products. It is a shame to see Microsoft 
dominate the industry to the point of squelching out technically 
superior alternatives, mostly due to their hyper-aggressive business 
tactics. With Linux and the set of BSD operating systems (e.g., 
FreeBSD), I am hopeful that some headway can be made against the 
Redmond juggernaut. Unfortunately, NeXTstep, OS/2, BeOS, and others 
could not, and the software industry is worse for it.
    It is apparent that the U.S. Government will not deal with 
Microsoft as a monopoly in the same way that other monopolies have 
been dealt with (Exxon, IBM, AT&T). This is a disservice and I 
implore you to reconsider the settlement in its current form.
    Microsoft will not single-handedly alter economic cycles. But 
with your help, they can single-handedly stifle innovation to the 
point of severely retarding the software industry.
    Respectfully,
    John Zachary, Ph.D.
    State College, PA

MTC-431



MTC-00000432

From: ajablins@ enflex.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:45pm
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement
    Dear U.S. Department of Justice Representative,
    I was completely appalled by the recent settlement made between 
the U.S. Department of Justice and Microsoft.
    It doesn't come close to offering a remedy that would force a 
change in the behavior of a company that has been found to be a 
monopoly. It doesn't come close to punishing a company that has done 
so much damage to the computer industry.
    Microsoft failed to follow instructions the last time it was 
pursued by the U.S. government. Therefore, the punishment this time 
should be even worse. Instead, it amounts to a mild scolding, 
nothing more.
    I agreed with Judge Jackson's remedy. The only way to get the 
monopoly out of Microsoft is to split up the operating system and 
applications divisions into separate companies. As long as Microsoft 
is one company, it may continue to make its applications work well 
with its operating system and make the competitor's products not 
work as well. It may continue to offer its applications as ``part of 
the operating system'', thus forcing the public to buy applications 
that they may not even want through a higher price for the base 
operating system product. The public doesn't get to choose the 
vendor for the applications they want. Microsoft gets to choose. And 
Microsoft always chooses its own applications.
    Microsoft's bullying strategy crushed competing companies in the 
industry. Microsoft should have to pay reparations to these 
companies for the damage it caused. This settlement offers nothing 
to those companies.
    Microsoft has bundled even more applications into the XP 
product. Why would anybody want to go buy a competing product when 
Microsoft has already bundled it into its operating system product? 
More of the same strategy. Real Audio will be joining the ranks of 
Netscape in no time unless the government stops this monster.
    Allowing the OEMs to plug in other competitor's products is a 
nice attempt, but the OEMs must still pay for the competing 
Microsoft applications because they are included in the XP base 
operating system price. Unless the OEMs are getting a price break 
when they uninstall a Microsoft application, I doubt many will want 
to spend more money to install another vendor's product.
    There have been many loopholes identified in the settlement by 
technical and legal editors on the Internet, especially regarding 
the term ``middleware''. That frequently repeated phrase will allow 
Microsoft to move middleware software into the base operating system 
and circumvent some of the proposals. And the verbage regarding 
exceptions to making available the APIs (application prototcol 
interfaces) because they are related to security? Heck, Microsoft 
will just label as ``security related'' many of the APIs that have 
nothing to do with security, just so they won't be available to 3rd 
party vendors.
    This settlement will not level the playing field for competing 
software companies. Instead, it will just shore up Microsoft's 
monopoly by providing enough backdoors so that Microsoft can 
continue its monopolistic practices.
    I understand that our country has other pressing demands, like 
fighting terrorism. But if our country does not punish its own bad 
guys, how are any other countries to take our intepretation of 
justice seriously?
    Anne E. Jablinske
    [email protected]

MTC-432



MTC-00000433

From: Zach Edwardson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:46pm
Subject: DOJ/MS settlement
    Thank you for a fair, unbiased settlement.
    Zach Edwardson

MTC-433



MTC-00000434

From: Sean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:46pm
Subject: Re: The Microsoft Settlement
    I sent a prior email, so I'll keep this one short.
    I forgot to mention in my previous email that one of Microsoft's 
arguments in the trial, that its monopoly has helped drop price for 
the consumers, has just been proven flat out wrong. Just search any 
internet news site for information about Microsoft's licensing 
changes, and how much more customers will have to pay to MS. 
Microsoft couldn't get away with such an action if it weren't a 
monopoly, and it should have been the equivalent of Microsoft 
handing the Department of Justice a tactical nuclear weapon. Why 
hasn't the Department of Justice brought up new charges? Or at least 
used Microsoft's recent behavior as an argument that strict measures 
are needed to curb the Redmond, Washington, company's blatant 
disregard for the law.
    Sean Lake

MTC-434



MTC-00000435

From: kramer SETH
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov'
Date: 11/16/01 9:48pm
Subject: Your Unsatisfactory Performance
    To Whom It May Concern:
    The solution you have reached is highly inadequate. No doubt 
reached too early because of either the Judge Kollar-Kotelly's 
desire to wrap it up quickly, (because speed is always in the 
interest of justice,) or the obnoxious inanity of the simpering saps 
that Microsoft has hired for attorneys. You must understand that 
this is not a solution. There are no provisions to prevent Microsoft 
from remaining the horrible anti-competitive monster that it still 
is. In case you haven't seen Windows XP the situation is not getting 
better with age. Bundling of software, underhanded deals, and wanton 
railroading of any innovative or competitive idea have become 
staples of Microsoft business

[[Page 23737]]

practices. I realized a Republican administration meant I would once 
again have to learn to swallow the bitter pill of if the moral 
majority, and a pro-business attitude that would sicken any mortal 
man, but you've got to be kidding me. Machiavelli would be a better 
corporate citizen! How could the justice department turn a blind eye 
to a software juggernaut responsible for the jamming their 
incredibly inept software onto anything with a processor capable of 
running it, and a hard drive big enough to store such bloat ware. I 
hope you folks sleep well at night, because the faint glimmering 
hope I had in the justice system has been obliterated.
    Yours, most disappointedly,
    Mr. Seth D. Kramer

MTC-435



MTC-00000436

From: Phillip Landis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:41pm
Subject: please get MS under control
    As an IT Director for a medium-sized manufacturer, I have 
watched as Microsoft has altered licensing, raised prices and forced 
upgrades on our business. They are squeezing and buying out the 
competition so that there are no alternatives.
    MS products are extremely bug-ridden and insecure. The cyber-
terrorists will have a field day on our nation's computer networks 
if they are not forced to produce software of better quality. 
Putting out a patch after the fact is not acceptable.
    Where they once helped to build an industry, I am afraid MS has 
now gotten far out of control. You really need to look at everything 
they do. They are active on a lot of fronts. They are also faster to 
move than the US government, and they are very smart.
    If you do not exert better control over them, the good MS has 
done will be far overshadowed by the damage they inflict or allow to 
be inflicted. Thank you for the opportunity to give you my personal 
thoughts.
    Phillip D. Landis
    IT Director
    PoolPak, Inc.
    3491 Industrial Drive
    York, PA 17402-0452
    (717) 757-2648 voice
    (717) 757-5058 fax

MTC-436



MTC-00000437

From: dr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:48pm
Subject: ms case
    Thank You for taking my email.
    I wish to express my extreme displeasure with your handling of 
the Microsoft case. I have been working as a software developer for 
over twenty years and could not help but notice the monopolistic 
practices of the Microsoft corporation over the past several years, 
and in particular; in the past year or so.
    To keep this letter brief, I can sum up all I want to say in 
that they (Microsoft), being the provider of the operating system, 
have total control of the operating system of nearly every personal 
computer sold in the world. It is very troublesome that not only 
have they used this operating system control to dominate the 
software industry, but now they are using their position to control 
internet service's such as isp's, email, portals, etc. as well. One 
just needs to purchase a personal computer and take notice, what 
software would you use; Wordperfect? Lotus? Netscape? Java or Linux? 
I think one would use all Microsoft. What internet services would 
one use; Yahoo? Excite? CNN? ABCNEWS? A local ISP? All these 
software vendors and services can not compete with Microsoft when 
the user is continuously "herded" to Microsoft software 
and service. It is not that the superior level of perfection that 
Microsoft software and service has reached that drives this use; it 
is pure dominance of the industry. Just look at the countless 
security flaws in their (Microsoft) software that have been revealed 
over the past few years. Do you think that business and personal 
users would tolerate such inferior products if they had any idea 
that they had a choice? My personal experience with dealing 
Microsoft software, as a developer, is that I constantly have to 
"program around" Microsoft problems and "road 
blocks". Microsoft makes it very difficult for software other 
than their own to work on their platform. This makes any 
standardization, that would be extremely beneficial to the software 
industry, difficult to implement as long as Microsoft controls the 
desktop.
    David Robertson

MTC-437



MTC-00000438

From: Dave Engbers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:49pm
Subject: Concerned.
    Gentlemen:
    The outcome of the trial against Microsoft left me with the 
following feelings:
_American politics can be bought, i.e. Bush;
_The US Justice system is fatally flawed in that it is now the 
corporation that effectively metes out justice;
    The next thing this carnivorous, rancunous and ubiqutous excuse 
for a company will try and do is:
_outlaw open-source software under the veil of societal 
benefit;
_kill off, stifle or bleed dry, then acquire anything or 
anyone remotely competing with them.
    Please consider renaming yourselves Department of Law On The 
Take, as there is no Justice in here. The US thinks it can rule the 
world, yet is toppled by an ugly billionaire that wrenches and worms 
its way through the worst I for one will be closing the door on 
Microsoft in my company, the company I do contract work for and any 
firm I can convince on technical grounds that a change is feasible, 
as I also believe you guys are spying on us in Europe through that 
Redmondian Beast's software.
    No more. Just Open Source and GPG, my data belongs to.. .me!
    Yours sincerely
    Dave Engbers
    Futurity Translations
    Netherlands.
    CC: [email protected]@inetgw

MTC-438



MTC-00000439

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:50pm
Subject: settlement
    I am just one one the millions happy to see this case coming to 
a conclusion. As consumers, we have always had the choice of 
alternative operating systems. Ill conceived and expensive for all 
but the grandstanding attornies, who were the only ones to benefit. 
I applaud the Justice Department for getting its priorities in 
order.
    J. Styles ([email protected])

MTC-439



MTC-00000440

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice, As a concerned citizen and a professional 
working in the Information Technology sector, I am shocked at the 
failure of the United States government to seek an appropriate 
settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust trial.
    Microsoft has been found guilty of abusing monopoly power and 
those finding have been upheld on appeal. Given the background of 
the findings of fact and findings of law in this case, the 
government's settlement constitutes little more than a capitulation 
to an illegal activity. It is no more honorable than striking 
closed-door deals with drug cartels or organized crime.
    At a time when no other operating system vendor is 
"integrating" unnecessary components into operating 
systems, Microsoft continues to do so. There is no technologically 
sound reasoning for doing this. The research into operating system 
complexity was done by IBM in the 1970's and resulted in the 
splitting out of non-critical functions from the operating system. 
This results in a smaller, easier to test, and therefore, more 
stable operating system. All major operating systems today have 
followed this pattern of creating an "layered" approach 
to development.
    The reasoning that Microsoft continues to integrate services 
into the operating system cannot be justified on a technological 
basis, therefore, we must look to other reasons for doing this. The 
most common reason, given during the testimony phase and upheld by 
the appeals court, is that the integration was done for marketing 
purposes in order to make it more difficult to use non-Microsoft 
products.
    Microsoft has a long legal history of creating barriers to 
competition. The Caldera suit centered around the contention that 
Microsoft intentionally displayed an error message if it detected 
the presence of DrDOS, a Digital Research competitor to MSDOS, on 
the machine. The suit was quickly settled under a sealed agreement 
within weeks after the announcement that a copy of the original 
source code containing the aforementioned error message was 
discovered in a former employee's garage.

[[Page 23738]]

    They have successfully fended off suits for using 
"undisclosed API's" which denys competing products a 
level playing field by hiding many operating system features which 
are known only to themselves. To a technologist, this is a simple 
matter to prove and is considered to be a "given" when 
dealing with Microsoft, but they have managed to convince the courts 
that they are not engaging in this activity.
    Microsoft has also been guilty of co-opting public standards so 
that they no longer work with competing products which follow the 
published standards. The most infamous case of this was their 
polluting of the Kerberos encryption standard. By taking a public 
standard and changing it to their own needs, their enormous 
marketing power can sway the development of open standards in any 
way they wish.
    Having eradicated all major corporate competition from Netscape, 
Borland, IBM, et.al., they are currently turning their sights on Sun 
Microsystems Java language and the Open Source movement. Java is 
currently the fastest growing computer language and has been for a 
few years. At the current rate of growth, it may become the most 
popular programming language in use in the near future. By not 
taking steps to curb Microsoft's aggressive anti-Java campaigns, 
American business is faced with the risk of having what they have 
chosen as the best tool for their needs be degraded and compromised 
so that Microsoft can continue and extend their monopoly hold over 
the Information Technology sector. The damage to the American 
economy and technology sectors by Microsoft's manipulation of the 
field is very real. By actively taking steps to make it more 
difficult to run competing products, such as was done with Windows 
XP's product certification, Microsoft is endangering the livelihood 
of every company that does not use 100% Microsoft solutions.
    I would not be as concerned if Microsoft's products lived up to 
the marketing hype that surrounds them. Just today, another security 
patch was released for Internet Explorer because a exploit was found 
which revealed the contents of cookies stored on a user s computer. 
The constant string of security lapses associated with Microsoft 
products (Internet Explorer, Internet Information Server and Outlook 
being the top offenders) stems from design decisions made to support 
marketing efforts rather than an attempt to provide this country 
with a stable technology platform to move forward upon. It is 
generally acceptable to have to reboot a computer running Windows on 
a daily basis, the cost in lost productivity to American business 
from a single daily reboot of every computer running Windows is 
staggering. Add to this the additional costs to American business 
and consumers by the numerous viruses which spread through Microsoft 
products on a regular schedule. The cost of viruses alone has been 
estimated in the billions of dollars for this year.
    As Microsoft continues to add "features" to it's 
suite of services, a fundamental change is quietly sweeping through 
the world. Started in Finland by Linus Torvolds, the Linux operating 
system has already proven itself to be more stable and more secure 
than anything Microsoft has produced. The Linux operating system is 
distributed in the Open Source model which means anyone who wants 
access to the source code has complete and unrestricted access. The 
code itself is owned by no one but is free for anyone to take and 
use. In the past few years, advances in many fronts coming out of 
Germany, Mexico, Israel, Australia and the United States have moved 
Linux from an underground phenomenon to a mainstream product. At the 
same time, Microsoft continues to escalate the requirements for 
entry into it's own product line while Linux has opened the 
Information Technology sector to the entire world. At this time, 
Linux is seen by Microsoft as their top competitor.
    It is my deep fear that if real and substantial steps are not 
taken to curb Microsoft's continued monopoly influence in the 
technology sector, that American business will soon find themselves 
at a disadvantage. Through competition of an 
"evolutionary" nature, Linux continues to advance at a 
staggering pace. Some of these advances are even coming out of 
China, the remaining Communist power. It seems ironic that the 
United States where it is generally accepted that competition brings 
better products might soon be faced with the situation of being a 
"second" in Information Technology because we failed to 
act to ensure competition would work when we had the chance.
    It is for these reasons and others that I oppose the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft. The settlement does nothing to restore 
competition, nor does it provide for penalties for past wrongs. I 
believe a moral and just resolution to this case must bring both.
    Sincerely,
    James Schultz_Data Architect
    2801 S 13th
    Lincoln NE, 68502

MTC-440



MTC-00000441

From: thockin @hsmtv32a.SFBay .Sun.COM @ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:51pm
Subject: MS settlement
    The Microsoft settlement is an embarrassment. I am embarrassed 
for you.
    Tim Hockin
    Systems Software Engineer
    Sun Microsystems, Cobalt Server Appliances
    thockin @sun.com

MTC-441



MTC-00000442

From: Timothy L Christy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:51pm
Subject: Shame (Dept. of Jerk Offs)
    It is a good time to be a Monopoly and a Great American 
Terrorist with your brand of justice...

MTC-442



MTC-00000443

From: westerj @mta4. srv.hcvlny.cv.net @inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:53pm
Subject: Microsoft and DOJ
    Folks, Am glad we can get on now, but equally dissappointed in 
the settlement terms. Instead of squabbling about it, the Government 
is a customer, a LARGE customer of Microsofts.
    So... Why not vorte with wallet as well? Think of creative ways 
to build mandates for software used by the federal and state and 
local govts that inspire interoperability. That help us all embrace 
and benefit from standards. Any corruption of a standard must make 
software from that vendor ineligible for acquisition by MY tax 
dollars. Lawyering as an approach may not always work, the wallet 
might be mightier than the barrister!
    Thanks
    John Westerdale
    P.S. We must face the fact that LInux (aside from being 
extremely low cost), is a contender for an Operating System, and not 
the Evil-Flying-Monkey that Redmond would have us believe it to be. 
Your (.gov) support may turn the tide by refuting the standards-
breaking techniques of Microsoft. They deserve to prosper if they do 
a good service, also deserve to plummet if they transgress the trust 
of the public. They have. Force them to loosen their grip. Do the 
Personal Identity, before MS controls our society.
    # Windows is easier to learn, but hard to use #
    # Linux is harder to learn but easier to use #

MTC-443



MTC-00000444

From: rfberger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    How Do I get a copy of the documents in order to make pertinent 
comments. [email protected]

MTC-444



MTC-00000445

From: Benjamin Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust trial
    Dear sir or madam,
    I am writing this to communicate my discontent with your current 
settlement agreement with Microsoft.
    While it is clear that many issues of past misbehavior on the 
part of Microsoft have been considered and addressed, these measures 
are, in my opinion, insufficient to do any long term good.
    Microsoft has long been under the watchful eye of the FTC and 
other government agencies for a good, long time now. Even the fact 
that this anti-trust trial was underway did not stop Microsoft from 
using their newest software release, Windows XP, from being used to 
leverage their Monopoly to gain an advantage in a new market, a la 
MSN. Not only does Microsoft not show any indication of slowing 
down, it seems they are only accelerating their efforts to use this 
leverage as fast as they can.
    Their Instant Messaging software is integrated into the 0/S to 
kill the AOL and Yahoo! instant messengers. Their media

[[Page 23739]]

player is integrated into the 0/S to have the same effect on Real 
Player.
    And their Windows XP behaves similarly when somebody wants to 
sign up for Internet access through MSN.
    As a web developer, I implore you to reconsider your recent 
agreement to settle with Microsoft.
    You've already done the legal footpounding needed to demonstrate 
that Microsoft is a monopoly. You've already done the legal 
footpounding needed to demonstrate that they are in violation of a 
number of laws that restrain the actions of a Monopoly.
    In short, you've all but won the fight already!
    We're just waiting to determine what's the legal remedy for 
these unlawful acts.
    To settle, at this point, reminds me very much of the cliche of 
the unarmed English policeman: "Stop! Or I shall say stop 
again!".
    We've been saying "Stop!" to Microsoft for too 
long_it's time for a stiff, effective remedy, and I honestly 
think that the move to breakup was right!
    -Ben

MTC-445



MTC-00000446

From: Chris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:59pm
Subject: Simple Remedy
    Require Microsoft to prevent OEMs from installing their 
operating systems on any computing device. If a consumer wants to 
run the latest Microsoft operating system, make the consumer buy the 
OS and install it him/herself.
    In addition, document formats need to be open (eg, XML), and 
APIs such as DirectX need to be opened up.
    Regards,
    Chris

MTC-446



MTC-00000447

From: Tom Glascock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 9:59pm
Subject: Where's the PUNISHMENT ELEMENT?
    In the settlement between Microsoft and the DOJ, there is no 
PUNISHMENT element. It is PUNISHMENT that deters crime. Microsoft 
must be punished for their crimes, period, if they are going to 
stop. If they are not, then their arrogant, self-serving, pompous, 
bullying and illegal behavior will continue.
    Tom Glascock
    3848 gardner av
    cincinnati oh
    45236

MTC-447



MTC-00000448

From: Ray Farquuad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti Trust settlement
    Folks, this settlement makes me so angry it is hard to put into 
words how completely let down I am about how the Justice Department 
has handled this case since the change of administrations. I 
strongly believe that this settlement will do absolutely nothing to 
force Microsoft to change their ways. Simple proof, see how embeded 
into the Windows experience the Windows Media Player is in the new 
XP version. No company will ever ever be able to compete with this, 
and this "settlement" will not stop Microsoft from 
continuing such practices.
    Suffice it to say that if I read a quote from Bill Gates such as 
this one from CNN.com:
    Microsoft's chairman, Bill Gates, on Thursday defended the 
settlement as tough but one that "we're really pleased to 
have." "Despite the restrictions and the things in this 
settlement, having the uncertainty removed and the resource-drain 
removed we think is very positive, not only for Microsoft but for 
the industry," Gates said in an interview. "We're 
hopeful to get it put behind us."
    I am sure they (microsoft) are convionced they have gotten away 
with massive Anti-Trust infringments that continue to impair the 
progress of technology. If Gates is happy, he has obviously won, I 
am not happy. Evil has prevailed. Do you in the Justice department 
actually feel good about this? I would hope that any reasonable self 
respecting and sentient being on this planet would see the err in 
these ways.
    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://
explorer.msn.comlintl.asp

MTC-448



MTC-00000449

From: Don (038) Mary Felice
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    MS has created thousands of jobs and has contributed to 
technical advancement and a much more prosperous country. 
Competitors, who are unable to compete, should not be rewarded. I 
was a Software engineer (not at MS but another company) and I feel 
very strongly that MS should not have been brought to trial in the 
first place, much less punished. If someone builds a better OS or a 
better internet service, then more power to them but the government 
should not be interfering.

MTC-449



MTC-00000450

From: noisebrain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:02pm
Subject: settlement is ineffective
    The agreement has been written up in many editorials, and they 
all agree,
    1. It is easy to see how microsoft can get around almost all the 
restrictions
    2. It is difficult to see how the government will enforce any of 
it (and more so given your poor track record_you're still 
coming to terms with issues that were current 6 years ago, and have 
not begun to look at what Microsoft has done in the last couple 
years).
    Isn't an antitrust settlement supposed to do something concrete 
to rectify the situation when it's been found to be a problem (which 
it has)?
    The Microsoft issue is like the railroads and the phone 
company_it's not just about a company or a self-contained 
industry. The computer industry is arguably a large part of 
America's technological and economic leadership. The investigation 
HAS established that Microsoft has hurt competition_something 
that everyone in the computer industry already knows ...Microsoft is 
so dominant that people are afraid to even speak! By not fixing this 
situation you're hurting America's future.
    John Lewis
    University of Southern California

MTC-450



MTC-00000451

Kassia Krozser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I am writing to express my unhappiness with your recent 
settlement of the Microsoft case. As a consumer, I am no better off 
than I was before. In fact, I am in worse shape. I no longer have 
any choice if I wish to purchase a personal computer (which is why 
I'm certain my next computer purchase will be a Mac)_I must 
buy the Microsoft operating system, preinstalled with Microsoft 
software. If I wish to continue using the software I prefer, I must 
uninstall all the Microsoft junk and install my own preferences.
    This lack of choice is inherently unfair to consumers. If we 
wish to purchase a brand name machine, we are stuck with the deals 
struck by Microsoft. It would be preferable to purchase a machine 
with the operating system installed and allowing the consumer to 
make the decisions regarding software. Otherwise, I get the 
privilege of going to the additional expense of acquiring software I 
don't want or need_it's bad enough that consumers are being 
locked into an operating system that all but guarantees they'll be 
charge for upgrades they may not need. It is this lack of 
competition and choice that offends me about this settlement. The 
consumer has been discounted, the other software vendors have been 
discounted, and Microsoft continues to do business as usual. I am 
truly unsure about how this settlement reflects the findings of the 
court.
    A future Mac customer,
    Kassia Krozser

MTC-451



MTC-00000452

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:02am
Subject: Caving in
    Dear Department of Justice Anti-Trust against Microsoft: 
Microsoft should not exist as it does today. There should be 3 
organizations:
    1. Operating Systems
    2. Productivity Software
    3. Hardware
    The three should be scattered to the wind as far as corporate 
headquarters go and have 0% communication. It bewilders me that the 
Bush Justice Department believes that Microsoft can be handled with 
an "oversight committee". They have ignored and 
disobeyed court orders in the past_what could possibly make 
you think they won't do

[[Page 23740]]

it again. Wait, Bill must have given you his word.. .you shouldn't 
put much faith in that.
    Microsoft has destroyed competition. They have bullied their way 
into markets where they had no presence through the use of their 
operating system monopoly.
    Examples:
    1. How did the Microsoft Mouse become so popular??? They offered 
them at a steep discount to manufacturers who also installed their 
OS.
    2. When did Word become soo popular?? I'll give you a hint: the 
same time Windows 3.1 came out. Why then do you ask? That's easy. 
There were system calls that Microsoft shared within its own 
corporation they did not share with outsiders. This made Word for 
Windows perform great in comparison with WordPerfect for Windows.
    This administration has really gone after the bad guys in the 
terrorist networks.. .it should be lauded for that. However, it is 
ignoring the baddest guy in the corporate sector.. .and it should be 
called to the carpet for that.
    At least the EU is still looking into this. Hopefully the 
Europeans have more spine than my own government and will stand up 
and take a chunk out of the biggest bully in the corporate sector in 
my lifetime.
    Sincerely
    Jared Heath

MTC-452



MTC-00000453

From: Lou
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:02am
Subject: Proposed Settlement
    This 'proposed settlement' is comparable to catching the 
fox (Microsoft) with feathers in his mouth and putting him back in 
the 'chicken coup' after he promises not to eat any more 
chickens! Make no mistake about it; Bill Gates will continue doing 
what he has always done regarding the issues of this lawsuit.

MTC-453



MTC-00000454

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a computer professional with 31 years experience, mostly as 
a technology manager at a large (multi-billion) enterprise. My 
responsibilities include technology assessment, selection and 
procurement. I am also an individual user of Microsoft technology at 
home.
    My professional experience with Microsoft has led me to the 
strong belief that Microsoft is the most arrogant, self-serving 
business I've ever come in contact with. Because of my long tenure 
in the technology field, I well remember IBM's behavior and 
overwhelming market dominance that led to the DOJ action against 
IBM. In my opinion, there is no comparison between the two. IBM's 
market position, while probably at least as strong as Microsoft, was 
not used by IBM to destroy competition or explicitly act to the 
detriment of customers. IBM was never as blatantly arrogant as 
Microsoft routinely is.
    Microsoft has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate their 
total disregard for the needs of their customers. Rather, Microsoft 
is clearly motivated solely by the cash-flow needs of it's business 
model, which is fundamentally to force customers to purchase the 
same functionality over and over while blocking or destroying any 
other vendor from providing comparable functionality. To say that 
Microsoft's business practices are predatory is an understatement.
    My strong recommendation is to impose the strongest possible 
ongoing constraints on Microsoft. The current remedies proposed are 
clearly inadequate. The breakup previously being discussed seems 
much more likely to protect consumers from Microsoft. Absent that 
kind of structural remedy, I see nothing to prevent Microsoft from 
continuing to pillage and plunder both the individual and business 
customer's pocketbook.

MTC-454



MTC-00000455

From: Gary Meyers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:05am
Subject: M$
    How much money was in that envelope passed under the dinner 
table Steve Ballmer handed to the Dick Cheney to get the buy out the 
DOJ (his nephew is now part of that department...isn't he)? Your 
corrupt attitude towards an established monopoly is so visible that 
I can't understand how you can face the public with a straight face! 
I find your "punishment" to be a total injustice and 
insult to the American people. I am neither a Republican nor a 
Democrat...but I'd rather be caught with my pants down than to be 
caught with monopolistic corporate money lining it's pockets. Thank 
you for your time. American voting tax payer.

MTC-455



MTC-00000456

From: Steve Jacobson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement seems like it is far too little, far too late. 
Most of the practices that Microsoft would be restricted from 
engaging in are the ones that allowed Microsoft to gain its dominant 
Monopolistic position. Now that Microsoft has this position, it is 
engaging in other practices to maintain it.
    Many of these tactics are still available to Microsoft. The 
continued availability of Windows XP in its current form is a 
complete flaunting of Anti-Trust regulations, and shows total 
disregard for the fact that Microsoft actually is a confirmed 
Monopoly.
    In short, it appears that the government caved to Microsoft in 
the name of expediency to bolster the economy and boost consumer 
confidence in the wake of 911. Score one more for the monopolists of 
the world, and for the terrorists, who have successfully altered US 
behavior with their actions.
    Steve Jacobson

MTC-456



MTC-00000457

From: Britt Burton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:09am
Subject: I am not a lawyer, but english is my native tongue
    Hi, After having read through the anti-trust settlement 
proposed, I can only think that our government has been completely 
purchased by Microsoft. For every proposed penalty, there is a 
clause that gives Microsoft either power to change the penalty, or a 
clause which essentially makes the penalty null and void.
    The marketplace only grows when competition is fostered. 
Microsoft in every instance, by it's size alone, can crush any 
competition without regard for whether that competitions product or 
service is superior to Microsoft's competing product or service. 
Microsoft was found guilty of this behavior. Non Platform specific 
standards have been developed for every type of data transfer, 
Microsoft has always chosen to adopt all platform agnostic standards 
then through 'extending' them (Microsoft's term) turn them into 
standards which then only are accessible through Microsoft products 
or services.
    Please reconsider this sham, and deal Microsoft a real 
punishment as you did to the Bell Telephone company back in the 70's 
and 80's.
    Britt D. Burton...

MTC-457



MTC-00000458

From: Eric Milhizer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement is Unacceptable
    DOJ: As an avid Microsoft product user and small business 
executive, I have learned to welcome Microsoft's innovative new 
products and at the same time be crippled by their anti-competitive 
behavior. I believe that the DOJ is continually ignoring one of the 
key findings of fact in this Microsoft case: Judge Jackson ruled, 
and the appellate court upheld, that Microsoft broke antitrust laws. 
The last corporation of Microsoft's size to do such a thing was 
AT&T with a $1.8 billion dollar award to MCI in 1980 (after a 
ten year legal battle). AT&T was broken up, and the 
telecommunications landscape subsequently exploded with increasingly 
innovative and affordable products and services. Ubiquitous 
availability of cellular telephones and the Internet became 
available due to this ruling.
    As for your behavior in the Microsoft case, I was appalled when 
I heard that you removed the "break-up" option from the 
negotiating table without extracting any concessions. While I 
personally think that a break-up was not warranted, you should be 
ashamed of yourselves as attorneys for giving something as valuable 
as that without getting a single thing in return. Remind me not to 
employ your services for any legal work in the future.
    Moreover, Microsoft was proven in a court of law to be a 
monopoly. Even Republicans (such as myself) have to admit that there 
is no higher crime in the business world. Monopolies stifle 
competition, and innovations from smaller companies never make it to 
market. What if AT&T had not been severely penalized? Would we 
have cellular service like Sprint PCS, Voicestream, etc? Probably 
not. Would the Internet have been allowed to flourish if AT&T 
owned all

[[Page 23741]]

the local phone lines to the home? Again, probably not.
    So in addition to being ashamed of yourselves for poor 
negotiating skills, you should ask yourself this question: what 
innovations will never make it to market in the next 5_20 
years because Microsoft has not had to pay a penalty for its prior, 
monopolistic actions?
    In short, I'm appalled at the DOJ settlement, I'm puzzled by 
your worthless negotiating tactics, and I'm saddened to think of all 
the future opportunities lost because of this settlement.
    Eric Milhizer
    452 Marshall Rd
    Southlake, TX 76092

MTC-458



MTC-00000459

From: Rich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After following this company closely for the last ten years I 
feel that you have done the industry and consumers a great injustice 
with this settlement. They have disregarded previous attempts to 
control their monopoly status and this settlement will not alleviate 
the problem.
    Currently Microsoft is hampering innovation by wiping out 
competition before it gets a chance to prosper. There have been no 
major advances in computer software & technology in the last ten 
years due to the practices of this company. Isn't this what you are 
supposed to prevent? This is not a "friendly" monopoly! 
I urge you to reconsider this action.
    Thank you for your time.
    Richard P Wawronowicz
    Lead Software Engineer

MTC-459



MTC-00000460

From: Rich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After following this company closely for the last ten years I 
feel that you have done the industry and consumers a great injustice 
with this settlement. They have disregarded previous attempts to 
control their monopoly status and this settlement will not alleviate 
the problem.
    Currently Microsoft is hampering innovation by wiping out 
competition before it gets a chance to prosper. There have been no 
major advances in computer software & technology in the last ten 
years due to the practices of this company. Isnt this what you are 
supposed to prevent? This is not a friendly monopoly! I urge you to 
reconsider this action.
    Thank you for your time.
    Richard P Wawronowicz
    Lead Software Engineer

MTC-460



MTC-00000461

From: John W. Lussow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:15am
Subject: Comments on Microsoft
    I just feel that I need to speak to someone about a problem I 
have with Microsoft. Due to security problems with Internet Explorer 
and Outlook, my company suggests that we use Netscape Communicator 
for email and surfing.
    My company went out and purchased Microsoft Office 2001 for Mac 
and I had to install it on the my computer at work. The installation 
went fine, but when it came to registering the product with 
Microsoft, I got an error that no browser was installed. It asked if 
I wanted to install Internet Explorer now. I said no and I got a 
message stating that I could not register Microsoft Office until I 
install a browser. I had a browser installed but it wasn't theirs. I 
could not register my product and I am ineligible for program 
upgrades because I elect to use another web browser.
    I understand that Republican politics will protect big business 
but this should not be allowed to continue. I use Microsoft products 
everyday and until I had this problem I didn't understand why people 
were so upset with Microsoft's business practices. Now I believe 
that Microsoft has become too big and even the federal govemment 
will have a tough time controlling them. If this happened to me on 
my one machine I can't imagine what companies trying to compete with 
Microsoft are facing.
    John Lussow

MTC-461



MTC-00000462

From: Bob Peiffer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:19am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust
    This anti-trust case against Microsoft is the most ridiculous 
and stupid cases I have ever heard of. Microsoft has been backbone 
of the PC industry since its inception. They have spent many 
billions of dollars in development to get to where they are today. 
Without Microsoft there would be no PC and there would be no Home or 
Industry use the Internet. They have done all of this and haven't 
burdened the consumer with their costs.
    They don't force or encourage the consumer to use their Internet 
Explorer nor do they require the user to signup for MSN Internet 
Service.
    The companies that are complaining have no basis for the 
complaint other than that they may be struggling due to bad 
management. I don't even understand why Sun Inc. is involved in 
this. Their boxes run the Unix operating system, and are expensive 
high-end computers used as Internet Servers and heavy duty CAD/CAM. 
Microsoft is no threat to them.
    AOL Inc. is a scam operation. Their Internet Provider Service is 
a total rip off to the consumer. The service is the highest priced 
service in the market. It is also the worst service in the market. 
They use sneaky marketing tactics to lure the consumer to sign up 
for their service.
    The latest one is 1000 hours of free service for up to 45 days. 
If you do the numbers, you will soon discover that the consumer 
cannot even begin to use this offering. Even if they could keep 
their computer online 24 hours a day, the AOL service would not 
allow the continuous connection.
    Real Audio is another scam. They try to entice to sign up for 
their expensive monthly service where they promise all kinds of 
exciting multi-media services. They only thing they give the 
consumer are a monthly bill and the opportunity to spend more hard 
earned money on unneeded overpriced junk software.
    I think the people behind the new Linux operating system are 
just riding the band wagon. I'm sure they would love to learn how 
Microsoft does the things they do in their Windows products. In 10 
or 20 years Linux may become a competitor but not to Microsoft. It 
will be competing with Unix.
    If I were to decide this case, my decision would be to require 
all of the States involved to pay Microsoft's legal fees and close 
it.
    If you really want to go after a company, go after AT&T 
again. They are currently creating a Monopoly in the Cable TV 
industry. An industry that has no competition and the consumer has 
no choice. The Justice Department should also take note that 
Microsoft is the only large company that didn't jump on the Sept 11 
band wagon and fire thousands of workers.
    I wish someone would resolve the issue that allows companies to 
operate with two sets of books (one for internal and one for the 
Government and the investor). The current so call accepted 
accounting procedures are allowing these companies to legally steal 
billions.
    Enough said, thank you for the opportunity to voice my side.
    Sincerely
    Bob Peiffer

MTC-462



MTC-00000463

From: David Stanley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I understand the need to finish this case and move on, but 
should we do it without resolving anything? How many times does a 
company need to be taken to court for the same type of actions and 
each time be told to stop doing it? You're like the parents who say 
"No", but never back it up. No one learns from someone 
telling them, "Stop, and if you do it again, we're going to 
tell you to stop again!"
    With Windows XP and the .NET strategy, it should be fairly 
obvious that Microsoft does NOT intend to stop anti-competitive 
practices. The .NET strategy alone is a complete step toward total 
domination on the internet. I can't imagine a world where Microsoft 
rules the net. This company can't even protect it's on servers from 
hackers and we're going to let them control commerce on the net?
    If Microsoft had climbed into the position of being the dominate 
one because of better product or better business practices, that 
would be one thing. But, from the start, this company relied on lies 
and bullying to get where it is, and we just tell them to quit. Over 
and over again. As the world becomes even more dependent on the 
computer, we are only allowing Microsoft to completely monopolise 
the situation.

[[Page 23742]]

    When you control 90% of the world's computers, you control 
competition. I don't care how competitive the tech world is, you 
can't compete with them. When Microsoft integrates products into 
their operating systems, only Microsoft wins. Most users, and this 
is their own fault, see that program there and use it because it's 
already there for them. Why go out and get competitors products if 
you can get it free from Microsoft, even if it is an inferior 
product? It's like NBC trying to run ads on CBS, it's not going to 
happen and Microsoft knows this.
    The problem also is that Microsoft knows that the government 
will not do anything about it. Why stop what got you to the top, if 
there are no consequences?
    Thanks for your time,
    David Stanley

MTC-463



MTC-00000464

From: Dave Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:20am
Subject: settlement
    Microsoft will ignore this one and you will be back in court 
again. How many companies will have to lose value or go under 
because of Microsoft's practices before they are really punished? 10 
years ago there were 3 companies producing DOS, multiple other OS's 
that could be used on a PC and plenty of applications for all OS's. 
Now, you just about have to use Windows in order to buy applications 
for use. Let's get back to multiple OS vendors, application vendors 
making their product for those OS's and a thriving tech industry, 
not one that is failing and is dependent on what Microsoft wants and 
steals
    David G. Anderson
    [email protected]
    Director of Information Systems

MTC-464



MTC-00000465

From: Gevaert, Thomas
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov'
Date: 11/16/01 10:20am
Subject: Your recent settlement agreement
    This has to be the worst 'settlement' in recent memory. How much 
did Microsoft pay you to rule in their favor? Oh, that's 
right_the entire government machine is now controlled by Big 
Business these days... May you be on the other side of the fence one 
of these days. Maybe then you might appreciate how unfair this sort 
of thing is to the average person.
    Tom Gevaert

MTC-465



MTC-00000466

From: Chris CTR Rinehart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern: The negotiated settlement between the 
DOJ and Microsoft is flawed. Microsoft in the past has violated 
previous negotiated settlements about bundling of products and its 
business practices with its OEM partners. Case in point:
    Forcing OEM equipment manufactures to preinstall an OS on any 
new computer that a consumer will purchase. This forces the 
Microsoft Windows Monopoly, by forcing consumers to buy a copy of 
Windows for their computer. What if that consumer has already 
purchased a legal copy of the Windows and their previous computer 
has suffered a catastrophic hardware failure. Does this void the 
Windows licensing agreement on the previous copy of Windows. No it 
does not. So when the consumer goes to purchase another machine from 
and OEM (i.e. Dell, Gateway, or any other third party OEM) they are 
forced to purchase another copy of Windows usually at a price of $89 
or more, and usually the consumer does not end up with the product 
CD. Instead the OEM bundles more products onto a recovery CD that 
has more Microsoft software and other software specifically for the 
machine purchased. So the consumer never sees a legitimate copy of 
the program for their own use on the purchase of a future system. 
Another Case In Point:
    Windows XP_has bundled with it a personal firewall, forced 
registration of the product or it automatically expires after 14 
days, CD burning software, Internet explorer (what started this 
Antitrust action in the first place), mandatory registration for 
their new .NET PASSPORT Service (which could lead to Microsoft 
controlling the Internet and e-commerce), and other products.
    So by continue to bundle products into Windows XP even during 
the Antitrust Action. Is this a sign of good faith by Microsoft to 
changes its business practices even during the time that they were 
under litigation with the DOJ and 18 States? I tell you NO IT IS 
NOT! This just proves that your settlement has signaled that 
Microsoft can and will continue to get away with abusing its 
business partners and consumers.
    I urge the DOJ to force Microsoft to give up its windows source 
code as a permanent remedy. But allow Microsoft to be the technical 
advisor of an open source Windows Specs. to help guide software 
manufactures to develop a more stable, secure Windows platform.
    Thank you
    Christopher Rinehart
    Web Developer

MTC-466



MTC-00000467

From: Walt Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:23am
Subject: Settlement With Microsoft
    So, again, we the people get the shaft while Microsoft retains 
the rights to the gold mine of unfair competition in the 
marketplace. We who struggle with the 'built in' software additions 
we do not want in favor of better or easier to use versions, because 
Microsoft has made them a required part of the Windows operating 
system. Now with the release of XP, unhampered by any intervention, 
we see more of the same intrusive nature of the company. This 
program requires you to register within 30 days of installation or 
it ceases to function. The bad part is, it does a complete inventory 
of your computer and reports all this back to Microsoft at the time 
it registers. My question is why? Why does Microsoft need to know 
everything I have on my computer?
    The company continues to move ahead, now that you the Department 
of Justice have watered down the only chance that was open to do 
something for the consumers in our nation. I do not advocate taking 
Microsoft down. I do advocate forcing them to a level playing field 
when it comes to software and compatibility. Microsoft has promised 
for years to have all the bugs out of its operating system. It has 
yet to happen. But due to the pressure it exerts on the market, it 
continues to dominate, pushing out the possibility that others might 
have an equitable share, and present what might actually be a better 
alternative. Microsoft doesn't always have the best ideas or the 
best way to do things, but without restraint, it matters little as 
they will impose their ideas on us all.
    Walter I. Wilson
    132 Rolling Park Drive
    Lexington, NC 27295
    (336) 956-1474
    [email protected]

MTC-467



MTC-00000468

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:23am
Subject: Microsoft Penalty
    From what I understand, the current penalties against Microsoft 
should be a bit stricter, as they don't adequately compensate for 
prior misdeeds or prevent future ones. One 'penalty' that would be 
effective in the future would be a requirement for a stripped-down 
operating system, which would enable OEMs and end-users a much 
greater choice among the products available from all sources. This 
would only require a much simpler, published specification from 
Microsoft (based on NT/Win2000 technology for stability, since the 
system kernal by necessity would have to be kept separate from 
application memory).
    This would not require Microsoft to open its proprietary vault, 
only its doors to the trading floor.
    Steve Wideman ([email protected])

MTC-468



MTC-00000469

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    In my opinion, had it not been for Mr. Bill Gates and his 
Microsoft Corporation, I would not be capable of even writing you 
this e-mail today! His vision took computers to a level that regular 
people could use the tools of our future. We are now there and 
moving even further because of his wisdom and vision. Let the others 
add to and enhance his vision but I feel it very wrong and almost 
anti-American to punish a person that took his dream and made it a 
reality. Isn't that what we all want to do? Do what we do better 
than anybody else and control our own future.
    I'll stop before you think I am his mother, but I feel we should 
be thanking the man and the company for what they have given us. 
Certainly we should not punish him for doing what all business what; 
being successful.
    Thank you,


[[Page 23743]]


MTC-469



MTC-00000470

From: Chuck Lcntes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:26am
Subject: DOJ settlement is toothless
    I think it is clear that this settlement is a hand slap. The 
right settlement is splitting applications from operating systems.
    Charles R. Lottes
    Ballwin, MO

MTC-470



MTC-00000471

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may Concern: I want to encourage your staff to seek 
stronger remedies for the case against MSFT. This company is out of 
control with the ability to leverage any amount of money, technology 
or people to sway the outcome in their favor. I work in high 
technology as a Consultant using MSFT products for over 12 years and 
have seen it for a long time coming. The way they killed off Dr. DOS 
by not letting Windows 3.1 load on it, it required that you rebuild 
a PC with MS DOS in order to add Windows 3.1, this was anti-
competitive way before the browser war started.
    The amount of $$ lost and complaints from my clients who felt I 
was ripping them off for the addition of MS DOS on their PC which 
already had Dr. DOS was the beginning of my dislike for the way MSFT 
corrals their users.
    You cannot allow Micorosft to continue to bundle all the extra 
software for Audio, Video, Web sharing, Picture Editing, Word 
Processing etc etc as this harms the consumer by wiping out small 
companies that make good, viable products that MSFT identifies as 
valuable businesses and then adds the feature into Windows next 
release.
    The harm is that many of those companies fail, their owners and 
workers lose their jobs, the economy suffers from unemployment and 
all the time MSFT just gets bigger and has more money than any other 
business in the world. To top it off, the licensing language for MS 
Windows lets them hide behind every word, eliminating their 
responsibility for making better, more secure software and instead 
allowing them to take away the software leaving you a heap of bills 
and no recourse for action against their poor designs.
    If the Gov't isn't big enough to rein in this gorilla of 
technology then who in the marketplace will be able to do it. Not 
some smaller company or the average consumer, its up to the Gov't to 
earn their money and win this case. Don't you dare allow Bill Gates 
and his staff to lie in court, doctor video tapes and act like they 
"Oops" made a slight mistake in the trial. Those 
"Oops" mistakes are what find their way into our 
software and make it hard to fix. If MSFT had spent \1/2\ the Court 
case money on fixing the errors in their products we would all be 
better off.
    I wholly stand behind the states that are holding out for more 
penalties and restrictions. MSFT must be reined in, and they Must 
pay Fines and maybe even a class action suit for the way they added 
Internet Explorer to Windows 95 and made it so that you couldnt 
reload to fix a damaged Windows 95 install but instead had to go out 
and buy a newer Windows version in order to fix the older version.
    If you would like more info on my experiences with the poor 
attention to detail and slack way of improving their priducts please 
call me or reply here asking for more details, this company cannot 
be allowed to get off cheaply or without new controls in place to 
prevent this from continuing longer. We will all suffer if we let 
them steamroll over us.
    thanks for your time
    Jonathan Olas 11/16/2001
    CIO-MMI Computing Group
    Boston, MA
    508 360 3443
    [email protected]

MTC-471



MTC-00000472

From: Sean Moon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:29am
Subject: Microsoft antitrust settlement
    When determining an appropriate penalty, please remember that 
Microsoft's practices have harmed consumers and actually damaged the 
economy through reduced purchase options.
    Whatever remedy is approved simply must ensure that the company 
cannot repeat it's monopolistic behavior. The company has repeatedly 
demonstrated it's total disdain for the legal system and (as 
displayed by the current version, Windows XP) it's intention to 
continue it's illegal practices through bundled software and 
leveraged control of third-party products. The proposed remedy does 
not accomplish this.
    In the end, additionally, the penalty must address the consumer 
damages as well. I personally own multiple copies of Microsoft 
operating systems and office products. I had no choice in my 
purchases in order to ensure compatibility between my home 
workstations and my office (U.S. Government) workstation. Cheaper, 
faster, better options exist_but the Microsoft monopoly left 
me no choices and required that I spend additional funds. A rebate 
to consumers who can present valid licenses (which should be simple 
to track thanks to Microsoft's anti-privacy programs) would be 
appropriate. Such a rebate should not be in the form of credits 
toward further purchases of Microsoft products as that would only 
further enhance their domination.
    Thank you.

MTC-472



MTC-00000473

From: Keith Steensma
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:30am
    If you think that the agreement with Microsoft is going to 
change the way that they do business, you must have a vacuum in the 
bone structure between your ears. Unless Microsoft is severly 
'punished', business will be back to normal the day after the 
agreement is signed.
    And I am a Microsoft shareholder.
    Keith Steensma
    Jacksonville, Arkansas

MTC-473



MTC-00000474

From: BRIAN SCHULZ
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/16/01 10:31am
Subject: Antitrust
    I do not believe Microsoft has been properly chastened for their 
monopolistic tendencies. All over the web, there are copies of 
actual MS memos debasing Linux and other operating systems as 
inferior. They tout their products as the "best', yet 
the very same software is fraught with security issues that have 
lead to the loss of billions of dollars through destructive worms 
and viruses.
    There is a joke in the tech community about the famous 
BSOD_the Blue Screen of Death. This has frustrated millions of 
users ever since Windows 95 was released. Microsoft makes itself the 
only option available to new computer users whenever they purchase 
computers from every single major computer manufacturer in the 
world. If the correlation between such wide usage and security 
issues were the only issues, that in itself should be sufficient for 
further investigation. Why do they insist on coercing everyone to 
use things that are widely known to be inherently unstable, while 
excluding external solutions from other software manufacturers?
    We wouldn't have all these problems if people simply had more of 
a choice, an alternative to the bloated, unstable, and unsecure 
operating system which is forced on them when they turn on their 
brand new computers. These are all valid concerns, but they are the 
only the tip of the iceberg.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Schulz

MTC-474



MTC-00000475

From: David Wood
To: '"Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:31am
Subject: Sanctions
    I have looked at the structures for Microsoft XP and nothing has 
changed. The sanctions suggested by the government will not do 
anything to stop the practices of bundling that created the lawsuit 
in the first place.
    (The Rev. David R. Wood)

MTC-475



MTC-00000476

From: Fred Pesther
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:32am
Subject: comments
    Without Microsoft the personal computer industry would still be 
operating back in the dark ages.
    Why DOJ has seen fit to punish an enterprise for working hard 
and being the best at what it does is beyond me. We should all be 
thankful for their work in producing products that everyone can 
understand and operate.
    Ease up.
    Fred Pesther
    Greensboro NC


[[Page 23744]]


MTC-476



MTC-00000477

From: Nicholas Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:35am
Subject: heard it all before
    Conduct remedies? criminal penalties and civil fines? are you 
serious? has any of this ever stopped microsoft before? what makes 
you think it will now? fines don't scare them. court proceedings 
don't. they just bide their time and wait for everyone else to grow 
tired of proceeding, then they pick up where they left off. as they 
will again, and you let them off the hook. again.
    Nicholas Williams
    Melia Design Group
    [email protected]
    http://www.melia.com

MTC-477



MTC-00000478

From: Jamie Aresty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:38am
Subject: penalty
    to whom it may concern, i feel it is my duty to at least comment 
on the microsoft penalty faze. i have been using personal computers 
consistently since 1984. i continue to use apple computers and their 
software as it is better than microsoft.
    the problem, or at least one aspect of it, is that microsoft 
truly does force PC users to use their software. They clearly have 
abused their monopoly status. they are accused of lying to a 
European committee investigating these abuses. judge penfield, a 
conservative reagan appointee, had such strong emotions behind his 
actions because of these abuses by microsoft. this current 
administration is being far too lenient with microsoft. they deserve 
the most severe penalties and consumers must be assured that they 
will not be subject to more abuses by microsoft.
    yours truly,
    jamie aresty

MTC-478



MTC-00000479

From: Rich and Deb Sensale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:39am
Subject: Settlement?
    Hello. I have been involved in the computer industry in many 
capacities for over 20 years. During that time, I have seen 
Microsoft go from a small garage company, to the giant behemoth it 
is today. The one constant about how this company has operated over 
the years seems to be their complete lack of ethics when dealing 
with consumers and other companies.
    The Netscape browser killing was just one relatively small 
example of how they use their corporate advantage as a monopoly to 
threaten, beat down, and generally intimidate other companies into 
their way of thinking. Small startups with novel and innovative 
approaches are often squashed under their giant corporate feet. As 
for consumers, well, the Microsoft strategy for success seems to go 
something like this.
    a. Design an operating system or product with a lot of major and 
annoying bugs.
    b. Issue some bug fixes that fix a few of them, and charge a 
hefty sum for any meaningful kind of technical support.
    c. Make sure you ONLY give good support to people who pay a 
premium for it.
    d. After a while, put together a "new" version of 
that OS with all the bug fixes installed and a few minor 
alterations, and sell it as a completely new operating system, at a 
good high price.
    e. Go back to step a.
    Microsoft relies on the fact that in our country, there is 
actually no accountability held for software companies to ensure the 
quality of their product. Their included liscense agreement states 
that if you do not agree with it, you should return the software for 
a refund. Well have you ever tried to return opened software for a 
refund? You can't! No place I have ever bought software allows you 
to return an opened package. And if something does not work on your 
machine, you are out the money you paid and the time you wasted.
    A proper penalty for MS would be one that actually is a penalty. 
Up til now MS has shown that the slap on the wrist approach is both 
a waste of time and money.
    It angers me when I see a settlement like the one proposed by 
the DOJ and remaining states. It is not penalty at all and will do 
absolutely nothing to dissuade MS from carrying on bad business as 
usual.
    Here are a few suggestions for what might actually improve the 
situation and the industry in general.
    1. Break up MS, but not into 2 seperate companies who don't 
compete with each other. Seperate it into 3-4 companies, each 
company maintaining the rights to all of their software. This 
effectively puts all of these baby bills into direct competition 
with each other and the rest of the industry.
    2. Make MS release all source code to the public domain. 
Windows, Word, you name it. Get some REAL competition going.
    3. HEAVY financial penalties.
    4. If the company ever acts in the same manner again, put them 
under receivership.
    MS has been found guilty of criminal monopolistic behavior, they 
need to be punished, not rewarded. The Justice sitting on this case 
has to get over the politics and back room dealings and do some 
serious damage to show that this administration, the DOJ and the 
Courts do not allow this sort of criminal behavior to go unpunished. 
Im not sure what happened over at the DOJ between Clinton and 
Gerogey boy, but it doesnt seem to be very good. Politics should not 
enter into this sort of case. The government has spent millions of 
tax dollars to end the MS criminal behavior, they should end it, not 
just slap em on the little finger and say play nice. The things MS 
has done requires drastic action, the more drastic, the better.
    Sincerely
    Rich Sensale

MTC-479



MTC-00000480

From: Odin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:40am
Subject: Comment_Microsoft AT Trial
    I'm deeply disappointed in the settlement of the governments 
case against Microsoft. Microsoft's practices have rendered 
competition ineffective when trying to compete with such a dominant 
company.
    Microsoft continually strikes "agreements" wherein 
they prevent companies from even using a competitor's product. 
Including products that are 'just good enough" often 
prevents a better product from gaining support. Time and time again 
Microsoft has "updated" their own software only to 
render a competitor's product useless.
    Internet Explorer is a prime example. The web was created with 
universal standards in mind. Microsoft has continually hijacked 
these standards and changed them so that they only work with their 
own software. Often, when unable to compete on a product level 
Microsoft simply buys a competitor and then includes the product in 
the next release of Windows for free.
    I feel that in the future the government is going to have to 
address this issue again at more expense to the taxpayer. How 
dominant must Microsoft be before the government realizes what is 
going on?
    Robert Womble
    Ramseur, NC

MTC-480



MTC-00000481

From: Sherry Buckowing
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Well, here is my opinion, just remember, you asked for it.
    Should we really bite the hand that feeds us? How many people, 
companies, and organizations involved in the persecution of 
Microsoft use their products? I would be willing to bet most of them 
use them, if not at work, then at home.
    Do you use Microsoft products? Is it because you are forced to, 
or simply because you like the product? People don't buy and use 
Microsoft products because they are the only choice; they buy them 
because they are the best choice. If you don't want to use the email 
program, the music player, or the messenger program that is included 
with Windows, then you simply choose not to install them when you 
install Windows. You do have that option. Granted that the software 
is pre-installed on bundled systems in the store, but the disks do 
come with the system. You can customize your installation by 
uninstalling certain things, or you can simply wipe it all off the 
hard drive and do a new installation, then only installing the 
things you want. Or, you can wipe it all off your hard drive and 
install a completely different operating system if you would like. 
Or, you can buy your computer somewhere that builds the systems so 
you're not getting a "package deal" with software you do 
not want. The truth is that the options are out there, but the 
general population does not know how to do these things. So, should 
we fault Microsoft for the lack of knowledge of the average Joe? I 
don't think so.
    This whole thing has been a pathetic waste of time and tax 
dollars. And most of all it is an insult to the American people. We 
make our own choices; we are not simply a group of robots marching 
to the beat

MTC-481

[[Page 23745]]



MTC-00000482

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:43am
Subject: Comments on Microsoft settlement.
    The biggest problem with your settlement is that it does not 
deal with anti competitive behavior such as
    (1) Windows XP released recently contains a free music player 
that will not play standard music files but will play Microsoft's 
proprietary format. For a $40 upgrade, you can get one that plays 
standard formats. The music industry does not need another format, 
but rather Microsoft is only trying to force the industry to adopt 
its proprietary format. This is similar to the problems Microsoft 
caused with Sun and Java a couple of years back. This is also 
similar to the browser wars where a FREE internet explorer was 
released on the net. Microsoft used the proceeds from the operating 
system and office tools to fund a free browser. This browser still 
causes all kind of problems as it does not always adhere to HTML and 
other standards. Another example is MS Office is now the standard in 
industry, but Microsoft controls the data format. Companies make 
converters, but all Microsoft has to do is upgrade the data format 
and these companies are forced to update their software. Microsoft 
prevents companies from competing by owning the data format that is 
the industry standard.
    Solution 1: Split the company into a operating system company 
and a software product company. Don't allow them to play these 
games. You can't regulate them when they go their own way and 
innovate new Microsoft standards. You see the US government has not 
yet got into regulating HTML standards, music file standards, etc... 
And they probably should not. But if you let Microsoft operate as is 
it will work to make Microsoft controlled formats as the new 
standard.
    Solution 2: The US government will need to regulate all data 
formats and control these standards. Yuk.
    (2) Windows XP that was recently released costs as much as $199. 
MacOS X which was also released recently costs $99. Apple has a much 
smaller market so thus they do not get the benefits of the economy 
of scale that Microsoft does. So why does it cost twice as much? 
Well the answer is that Microsoft is price gouging. They also charge 
excessively for MS Office. My company since it works with others in 
the industry must always upgrade these tools at whatever cost 
Microsoft is willing to charge. For new applications that are not 
well accepted Microsoft then gives these away free since the other 
parts of the company easily funds these. Microsoft recently started 
a huge ad campaign to hype the new XP software. Why do they need to 
spend more money on hyping the new operating system than all of 
Apple makes on profits from its operating system? The answer is that 
the performance and features do not entice people to upgrade. 
Microsoft benefits by getting a large percentage of users to 
upgrade, thus making it the new standard. Then the more reluctant 
and cost conscious companies will be forced to upgrade for 
compatibility reasons.
    Solution 1: Split the company into three companies: operating 
system, office, and other tools. This will prevent price gouging 
from financing other new tools.
    Solution 2: Have the US government regulate the prices of 
Microsoft tools.
    (3) Recently someone I knew purchased a Microsoft mouse. He 
wanted to register the hardware purchase so that the warranty was 
usable. What he found out is that he was required to have a Passport 
account at Microsoft in order to register the software. (Once again 
Microsoft forcing people that use one component of Microsoft to use 
another). My friend did not want to have his personal information 
placed in this system as it is used by Microsoft for things other 
than warranty. So should he not get refunded for the portion of the 
product that is associated with warranty costs. If he works for a 
company that needs microsoft tools, then he will not complain with 
fear of reprisals.
    Solution 1: Microsoft needs consultants/monitors within 
Microsoft walls watching for bad business practices and putting in 
place fair means for fixing these problems.
    These are a few of my comments. I still think a break-up is the 
best way to deal with Microsoft. I don't think that the Appeal court 
over turning the previous ruling to split was issued because it 
thought a split was out of the question, but rather that the 
previous Judge was biased.
    Thanks for soliciting input.
    Doug Hiser, Ph.D.
    Tality Corporation

MTC-482



MTC-00000483

From: Paul Strauss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:45am
Subject: Microsoft did nothing wrong!
    Yes Microsoft flexed its muscle and made competitors play 
according to their rules but that is only because everybody wanted 
to be associated with what THEY created! You should not be 
penalizing a company because it was ultimately successful unless you 
publish guidelines that tell other up and coming companies that you 
are doing great and achieving the American dream as long as you do 
get to ?XXX? level of success. At the very least, it is 
unconceivable that you would limit what the company can put into its 
own product. Can?t you see how asinine that is telling a company 
what it can and cannot produce?
    Sincerely,
    Paul Strauss
    [email protected]

MTC-483



MTC-00000484

From: Guy Walker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:45am
Subject: Settlement is totally inadequate
    To whom it may concern,
    I would like to voice my opinion that the proposed settlement 
with Microsoft falls far short of what is needed to remedy 
Microsofts anti-competitive practices. I have worked in the 
Information Services industry for over 15 years and have experianced 
first hand the types of issues this settlement is supposed to 
address. As both a professional, and home, user of Microsoft 
products including Windows 3.1, 95, 98, 2000 Professional and 
Server, NT 3.x and 4.0, I have seen an ever increasing tendency for 
competitor software to run slower or unreliably, as well as a 
"you have to do" thrust to these operating systems.
    You only have to look to the Active Directory implementation in 
Win2000 to see an example of the latter. I am required to to 
implement a Microsoft DNS service in order to deploy Active 
Directory. This is an absolutely ridiculous requirement as 
companies, people, etc. have been able to run DNS services on other 
operating systems for ages without causing an issue for other 
operating systems or software.
    Now Microsoft forces the issue by making it a key component of 
their latest OS while at the same time "end of lifing" 
prior operating systems that did not have this requirement.
    And regarding the first point about Microsoft OSs being 
"unfavorable" to competitor software. The examples are 
endless, there is a wealth of research to draw upon, this case 
examined a number of these and you have experts testimony to support 
you. I simply wish to note that my first-hand experiance indicate 
that these claims are true.
    I continue to be absolutely dumb-founded that given the wealth 
of evidence, prior rulings, and Microsoft's history, that you are 
actually proposing this settlement.
    Now, please be aware that I have also built two corporate 
infrastructures based on Microsoft operating systems and software 
over the last 4 years and recognize the quality of their products. 
The issue here is not the quality of the products but rather the 
right to chose, and not to be penalized or inhibited when that 
choice is not in Microsoft's favor. Please reconsider this 
settlement and make the necessary adjustments to protect both the 
corporate and casual consumer, as well as maintaining a competative 
industry.
    Guy Walker
    Sr. Consultant
    Integrity Consulting Associates

MTC-484



MTC-00000485

From: Geoff Beidler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:45am
Subject: Dear Sir,
    Dear Sir,
    I am writing to tell you what I think of the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement that has been proposed. Basically, I think it is a 
complete sell out of everything for which the Dept. of Justice is 
supposed to stand. Individualls and small companies look to the 
government to protect them from large corporations. It is the duty 
of the government to assure that there is a fair marketplace, where 
no company can become so powerful that it no longer need to compete 
but can simply leverage its existing power to dominate emerging 
markets.
    The settlement that DOJ has aggreed to may or may not stop MS 
from commiting more crimes in the future, but there is no reason to 
believe that it deprives MS of it's ill gotten gain. If MS were 
guilty of murder, the DOJ effectively made MS promise not to kill 
anybody for the next five years. If they do kill someone in that 
time, then they aren't allowed to kill anyone for two more years.

[[Page 23746]]

    The OJ Simpson case answered the question, "How much money 
does a man need to get away with murder?" This case answers 
the question, "How big does a company need to be to buy off a 
presidential administration?"
    Geoff Beidler

MTC-485



MTC-00000486

From: Hayden, Brian
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/16/01 10:48am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Let me explain my position before my assessment of the 
settlement. I am a professional software developer and manager, who 
has worked with Microsoft tools, products, and their business 
practices since the early 1980's.
    I have at times worked very closely with their developer support 
and client support organizations. I have hired Microsoft consultants 
to aid my development teams. I am currently working with Microsoft 
tools, platforms and services, and I fully expect to continue some 
form of business relationship in the future. I admit that I have a 
love/hate relationship with Microsoft. I have first hand experience 
of Microsoft business practices, good and bad. example: In the early 
1990's, my software development team was having a problem using a 
new 'standard' feature in the latest version of MS 
windows ( at that time). My team spent 2-3 weeks working with 
Microsoft and paying support fees to get aid to resolve the problem. 
Microsoft kept using 'But, its works correctly in the latest 
MS-Office, doesn't it?'. Yes it did. Another week of effort 
buy one of my engineers discovered that MS-office was NOT using the 
functionality provided by the OS, it was using functionality built 
directly within MS-Office. Another call to MS effectively got the 
response of: 'Oh well, you got us. It doesn't really work for 
you, you can't make it work. That's why the Ms-Office engineers went 
to OS engineers, got the basic functionality and made it work, just 
for Office. Too Bad. So, what are you going to do about it?'
    Since that day, I have always reviewed Microsoft with a cautious 
perspective. Since that day, Microsoft has gotten even worse about 
lying, predatory and illegal business practices. Business practices 
that are so illegal and wide scope, that the Justice Department felt 
it necessary to TWICE take Microsoft to federal court for their 
conduct. Twice, the DOJ has proven their case. Microsoft has been 
proven to be a monopoly that has illegally used their position to 
hurt competitors and illegally entrench their position. Twice, the 
DOJ has totally caved-in at the penalty process. The proposed 
solutions are totally inadequate to stop Microsoft from further 
illegal business practices. Actually, the proposed penalties are 
rewarding Microsoft for their prior illegal behavior, and actually 
allows them to continue those illegal behaviors into the future.
    Please reconsider the proposed penalties. By a decision of the 
Supreme Court, Microsoft is a monopoly that has illegally hurt 
competitors and consumers.
    Please make me believe that the DOJ represents the interests of 
all people in a balanced fashion, not just the interests of the 
wealthy and powerful individuals and corporations. The choice is 
yours. I, as a consumer actually fear Microsoft. The last two years 
gave me hope. Now, I have little hope left.
    Brian G. Hayden
    [email protected]

MTC-486



MTC-00000487

From: Rick Hohensee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am an idependant programmer, and as such feel that I represent 
the general public to a fair degree. My longstanding suggestion for 
a Microsoft remedy is at ftp://linux01.gwde.de/pub/cLleNuX/interim/
amicus_curae and http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/
kernel/0107.1/0088.html or websearch for "Hohensee" 
combined with "Compromising Microsoft" and/or 
"Microsoft's word". Suffice it to say that what I think 
might actually be remedial bears little resemblance to the current 
active proposal, and that this could eventually be addressed by 
national legislatures around the globe.
    Rick Hohensee
    301-595-4063
    Adelphi, Md.
    CC: [email protected]@inetgw

MTC-487



MTC-00000488

From: geoffrey sanders
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:49am
Subject: Anti-Trust Settlement Response
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I must voice my extreme disappointment and disagreement with the 
DOJ settlement proposal for the Microsoft Corporation Anti-Trust 
case. After reading the settlement documentation, it remains 
apparent that large amounts of leway still exist (especially when 
using 'technological terms' in a legal document) that 
will allow Microsoft to continue it's monopolistic practices. Let's 
be honest; do we all really believe that Microsoft would be so quick 
(and willing) to accept this settlement if it wouldn't benefit them 
in some manner? I propose that this settlement be discarded in favor 
of a 'more educated' and 'technically savvy' 
settlement proposal. A panel must be formed to review what needs to 
be accomplished. This panel must include current industry leaders 
(both proprietary and Open Source markets) to ensure that the DOJ 
truly UNDERSTANDS what technical requirements to include in the 
settlement's legal documentation, and how to ensure that Microsoft 
is not given sufficient room to continue monopolistic practices that 
suppress and hinder other information technology entities. 
Therefore, please tally my rejection of the current settlement in 
its present form.
    Regards,
    Geoff Sanders
    San Diego, CA

MTC-488



MTC-00000489

From: Peter E. Greulich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have worked with and against Microsoft for over 10 years. I 
have cheered for them and rooted for the opposition against them. 
The agreement that you are proposing does nothing to eliminate the 
negative impact that Microsoft is having on my daily life. They are 
a different company from five years ago. Today, they impact my daily 
life negatively. They have a monopoly that is impacting me, a 
consumer, in the following ways:
    (1) Every PC that ships from a PC manufacturer today carries the 
burden of a Microsoft operating system charge_even if the PC 
should come loaded with Linux. PC's can not become cheaper because 
as the price of hardware has fallen, the Microsoft PC operating 
system has become more and more expensive, or a larger percentage of 
the investement that I make in a solution for home and business. Try 
calling Dell and getting a quote for a hardware with and without 
Microsoft and see if you can tell how much they are 
paying..........(they won't quote it)
    (2) Inferior products. Compare Microsoft Word and other word 
processing products that have attempted to take Microsoft on. Many 
are superior products with better usability and lower prices. But 
because every PC today ships with Word, Excell, Powerpoint, etc...I 
can not utilize these products. Their market share is reduced to 
microsopic levels and I have to pay over 450 dollars (new) for a set 
of "productivity" applications, that should only cost 
100 dollars. I have looked at Word 2000 and grimace at learning 
again, a new set of rules, popups, preferences and concepts that 
should have nothing to do with typing a simple letter. Word is no 
longer easy to use_it is a monolithic, feature packed, 
monopolistically priced software package that needs competition in 
the market place....(that can only be provided with a level playing 
field).
    (3) Unwritten collusion between Microsoft and PC Manufacturers. 
Oh, I am not saying that they get in a smoke filled room and decide 
what to do, but their destinies are so tightly linked as not to 
require a spoke word. It is understood that new applications should 
require more hardware and constant consumer upgrades of hardware 
every two years to keep pace with Microsoft's 
"imbedding" of many useless features. Upgrading between 
OS's should be so hard as to make it simplier and more cost 
effective to put out 1000 dollars to get one 
"preinstalled"...
    (4) Imbedding of software that I have no control over and 
threatens my day-to-day privacy. Why does it have to be so hard to 
"not" use Microsoft imbedded functionality. Software 
providers like "Gator" get ripped in the press when 
their software takes over their computer (and rightfully so), but I 
have alternatives to their software. I have no alternative to 
Microsoft that is based on a "make money" model. Some 
would say Linux_but hey, if there isn't a profitable business 
plan behind the software, let's not kid ourselves_it isn't 
viable for consumers or business'. I WILL NEVER GIVE MICROSOFT MY 
CREDIT CARD NUMBER.

[[Page 23747]]

    (5) Two weeks ago, after asking Microsoft to never release any 
information about me to anyone_I get a spam mail from their 
MSN network_unsolicited and unwanted. I requested that they 
forward the document to me where I accepted their offer for 
SPAM_no reply. Microsoft will trample on my freedoms to make a 
buck_sorry, can't buy their stock. May I die poor but 
unhumbled. Remember the past when there was competition:
    Let's not forget what it used to be like when there was 
competition in the market:
    (1) System upgrades were few and far between and fix packs were 
the normal course of business and considered part of the "cost 
of doing business". Today when it is easier to download 
upgrades with less human effort (ie higher productivity for the 
software manufacturers), why is it that more upgrades are required 
in shorter periods of time.
    (2) Applications were written to be fast and tight with quick 
response time. Consideration was given to backward compatibility to 
run the consumers' ages old application packages. Who can argue that 
the 3270 data stream wasn't one of the most open standards of all 
time. IBM kept that stream unmodified for 20 years and fought back 
competition the whole time_today Microsoft changes its 
standards rather than competiting with more creative ideas and 
better usability.
    (3) Minimized cost of training. Since application packages were 
supported longer, the consumer didn't have to "waste 
time" every two years relearning an application.
    (4) Choice_Oh my God, I had choice just a few years ago. 
DOS, Windows 3.1, 05/2, Windows NT, Unix, thin clients, etc....Now 
even the ol' DOS support is gone.....I wonder how much longer Unix 
on the client is left for this world? Remember when crash protection 
was a selling feature that kept OS/2 at 10 to 15% market share with 
the only real usage in the business market. Linux long term doesn't 
have a chance unless it can be "preloaded" at the 
manufacturing site and gain market share...can't do that with your 
agreements.
    (5) Fun reading the trade press_boy is it boring today. 
Used to be fun to pick up the press and read about who had what 
vision for the future on the client. Gee, now all I read about are a 
few "middleware" vendors worring about their market 
share, not concerned with dramatic changes in the 
industry.......Palm OS isn't long for this world. Microsoft will 
leverage the same monopolisitic power to drive them out of 
business.......the tie between applicaitons and OS. Of course there 
were downsides_but I believe in the free market system, free 
enterprise and the busting up of monopolies like AT&T. Please 
get back on task and make life more interesteing, less costly and 
more fun by providing an environment where Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, 
Dell, Compaq, HP, Real Networks all have to compete on an open 
playing field. May it be an environment where the most creative and 
daring can win, not where the one with the most money and control 
can force an inferior, less usable, less stable product on me every 
two years for another couple hundred bucks.
    Sincerely
    Peter E. Greulich
    Consumer and concerned citizen.

MTC-489



MTC-00000490

From: phadkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:51am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The planned settlement in the Microsoft Antitrust case is 
completely inappropriate for a company that has repeatedly 
demonstrated its unwillingness to abide by the law. You are dealing 
with a Robber Baron mentality, and must react accordingly. Frankly, 
the proposed government settlement looks like a "sell 
out". Nothing short of releasing the Win32 code into the 
public domain will do, and even if that were done it would be 
necessary to prevent Microsoft from introducing propriatary changes 
to the code.
    P.H. Adkins

MTC-490



MTC-00000491

From: Tim Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
    I feel the States and the US Government were wrong in pursuing 
Microsoft in an antitrust case. I think that any company, i.e., 
Dell, Compaq, HP or others who used Microsoft products should have 
been part of this sham of a lawsuit. Hey, they accepted the limits 
Microsoft put on them using their products and made a ton of money. 
If I can't match or exceed my competitor then I need to find another 
line of work. Crying about unfair practices is just plain "I 
can't make it on my own and I need you to stop them so I can catch 
up". You are penalizing Microsoft because they have researched 
and developed a dream of Bill Gates. I believe that the US 
Government and the States involved are the ones that are stifling 
competition. If Sun Microsystems or those other companies can't hire 
intelligent and forward thinkers to advance their product then let 
them go out of business! I don't have to buy Microsoft! I choose to 
do so.
    Tim Williams

MTC-491



MTC-00000492

From: Daniel Earp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:54am
Subject: I know this is pointless ...
    I know this is pointless, as this is likely to simply be 
deleted, but I thought I might add my two cents worth. I am a small 
business owner and Network Engineer. I have personally been harmed 
by Microsoft's iron handed methods. I'd like to share a few with 
you.
    When Windows ME was due out, the beta ran perfectly fine with 
the NetWare client v3.3 available at the time. But the day of 
release, the client was found to be incapable of working with TCP 
protocol. Do you know what kind of black eye I took when suddenly it 
was discovered that new PCs that shipped with ME couldn't be used on 
our network? This was obviously kill code. The problem still exists 
today.
    Or how about the way the OEM agreement works. If you buy a 
computer from me, I pay $5 less for Windows than retail. But when 
something breaks, I am the one that is responsible for support. You 
can't call MS at all. You have absolutely no support from them. My 
five dollar profit is suppose to pay for that support, even though I 
don't have the right to make a single support call to MS myself.
    Or how about this one. When I do an install, I get an install of 
Outlook Express no matter what I do. I can't change that option 
during the OEM install. And if I don't do the OEM install, I can't 
install products like OEM Office 2000. But that install make me 
vulnerable to all the Melissa variants, and will kill my GroupWise 
client. Legally I can't fix it. How stupid does that make me look 
when my PCs always show up needed further work before they're 
network ready?
    When I saw that you guys were winning the case, I was overjoyed. 
I thought there was finally going to be something done. They you 
caved in. You sold me out. Your solution is a joke. Now the same 
events are going on with Windows 2000 and XP. Installing live update 
on a Windows 2000 machine will kill Adaptec Easy CD Creator 
software. But that's ok. Installing Windows XP gives you free CD 
master software, so you don't have to install Adaptec. Sound 
familiar?
    You've fixed nothing. You've helped no one. In fact, you've only 
made it worse. Now they know that you're spineless and toothless. 
You've failed the people you were hired to protect. I don't know 
what idiot thought selling me out was a good idea. I'm sure in 
proper government fashion the list is long and feeds back on itself 
at several points. But I hope you know what you've done. My business 
is closing next month. Given the choice of being a Microsoft shop or 
going out of business * my choice is clear. And in the current 
environment, selling Novell is hopeless.
    Thanks for nothing.
    R. Daniel Earp
    PC Network Solutions
    Raleigh North Carolina

MTC-492



MTC-00000493

From: Shockwave
To: Microsoft AIR
Date: 11/16/01 10:58am
Subject: Microsoft Case
    I've been thinking about this whole anti-trust thing and I've 
come to the conclusion that this is one case that should never, and 
I mean never been brought to trial. I am not now nor have I ever 
been an employee of Microsoft, but a consumer that feels that 
Microsoft has been given a raw deal. If other companies cannot 
create a product competitive to the product Microsoft offers, that 
is not Microsoft's fault, now is it? If Netscape had the ability to 
come out with a product similar that they could have bundled their 
Navigator software with, they could have done so and then could have 
competed with Microsoft for the PC Operating System business. But 
nooooo, these other companies chose instead to ask the government to 
sue Microsoft.
    Please, Mr. Ashcroft, I was thrilled when President Bush chose 
you as Attorney

[[Page 23748]]

General, now, please, do the right thing, and drop all the charges 
against Microsoft.
    Thanks
    Lany Poindexter
    521 Barbary Lane
    Woodstock IL 60098
    815.337.8147

MTC-493



MTC-00000494

From: Ray Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I you have sold out the computer using populous with this 
decision. You have actually accomplishing nothing except using the 
taxpayers money. The limited restrictions and lack of penalties you 
have placed on Microsoft will not stop them from continuing to try 
to dominate the industry, as a case in point look at the Win2000 
issues and how much that slowed them up. They can BUY anyone not 
cooperating with them or just give stuff away to their competition 
and by the time anyone can react the damage is done just like WinXp.
    I am very disappointed in how this entire thing was handled 
including letting the "buy-out" some of the states 
... that was utterly disgusting. I am very disappointed 
in what the DOJ managed to accomplish. The cost/benefit ratio was 
way over on the side of Microsoft on this one. The DOJ could have 
saved the taxpayers a lot of money by just letting Microsoft have 
their way, they will anyway.
    Thank you for providing a place for people to have their say.
    Ray Wilson
    Email [email protected]

MTC-494



MTC-00000495

From: Joe Allred
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:00am
Subject: Strongly Disagree with Settlement
    I strongly disagree with the action of the Justice Department in 
settling the anti-trust case with Microsoft. The settlement is 
inadequate; the company will be able to bypass many of the sanctions 
because of vague language (refer to Associated Press article by Ted 
Bridis). I feel that Microsoft might use the exemption to keep 
secret any information that might violate the security of anti-
piracy technology to hide details about many of its products. Any 
criminal penalties and civil fines that the Department of Justice 
might seek if the company violates the 3deal2 will be too weak and 
ineffective given the size and monetary resources of Microsoft. I 
can only hope that U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly will 
impose tougher penalties during hearings in February. Perhaps she 
will have the foresight of Judge Stanley Sporkin who scrapped a 
Microsoft settlement in the 1995 case. Like him, I strongly believe 
that the proposed settlement is not in the public interest.
    In the 1995 settlement the Justice Department promised that it 
would "end Microsoft's unlawful practices that restrain trade 
and perpetuate its monopoly power." Microsoft to this date has 
not backed down from its arrogant and deceitful practices. I believe 
that the Justice Department is simply telling Microsoft to 3go forth 
and sin no more.2 This does little or nothing to address the unfair 
advantage it has already gained and continues to exert.
    Microsoft is the schoolyard bully that will not be persuaded by 
moral arguments, but must be sent to reform school before a calm 
learning environment can be restored. The penalty in this case must 
not only suit the crime, but must be in direct proportion to the 
size and stature of the offender. A slap on the wrist is not 
suitable.
    Please do not settle with Microsoft.
    Joe Allred
    Hardware Buyer
    BYU Bookstore
    395lB WSC
    Brigham Young University
    Provo, UT 84602
    [email protected]
    Phone 801-378-5744

    Fax 801-378-7208
    www.byubookstore.com

MTC-495



MTC-00000496

From: John Marshall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:02am
Subject: Microsoft settlement stiffles independent innovation in the 
computer industry
    The settlement does not remove Microsoft's ability to stifle and 
halt innovation.
    The source entry points should be made public.
    A stripped version of Windows should be made available for 
purchase so users can install what they want.
    The requirement of 1 million units for a third party to have 
their software added it too onerous.
    John Marshall
    4218 Beresford Way
    La Canada, Calif. 91011
    John Marshall
    [email protected]
    818 790 7700
    8777207730

MTC-496



MTC-00000497

From: glenn himes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:04am
Subject: $
    you sniveling cowards microsoft is a bigger threat to the U.S. 
than bin lauden how do i explain to my son that the Gov. can be 
bought off its politics as usual guess ill just tell my son the Gov. 
is owned by business and in his lifetime ( h&s 12 ) he can get 
screwed by the Gov. more than he will ever get it when married

MTC-497



MTC-00000498

From: Jim Dreger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Something needs to be done about how Microsoft treats competing 
software companies. If Microsoft sees something that it thinks would 
add benefit then it adds it to it's operating system rather than 
selling it as an add on. With every new release Microsoft add 
features from companies that they have no business adding to the 
Operating system. The Operating system should be a base to be added 
to, let them define the base then stick with it so other companies 
that come up with a good idea do not get run out of business because 
Microsoft decided to add it to the operating system. Even breaking 
the company up will not solve these problems, they need to have a 
clear guideline as to what the 'Operating System' is and what it can 
have. That would be the only way to prevent them from doing this 
kind of behavior.
    Thanks
    Jim Dreger
    4309 Rigney Lane
    Madison, WI 53704

MTC-498



MTC-00000499

From: Jason Halt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:05am
Subject: Penalty not good enough
    Microsoft must be stopped_their illegal practices continue 
with Windows XP. I believe the fairest thing to do is to break up 
the company into three units:
    1. Operating System company
    2. Software company
    3. Hardware company
    Jason Halt
    Software Engineer
    DIS Corporation [http://www.dis-corp.comj
    360.647.4 197

MTC-499



MTC-00000500

From: Steve Rimicci
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the November 2 
settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft.
    I believe the settlement is not in the best interests of the 
computer industry nor in those of the public which they serve. The 
terms of the settlement often appear to be so vague as to be 
unenforceable.
    I am a software engineer with 20 years experience, and I believe 
that this does nothing to deal with Microsoft's monopoly on PC 
operating systems. I personally believe the only solution is for 
Microsoft to be split into two separate companies. One for Operating 
Systems and another one for applications.
    However, absent that remedy, I believe that there is a 
worthwhile compromise available, and in essence, it is the position 
espoused by the Open Software Group. The country will be best 
served, and business interests will not be harmed, if, as a matter 
of course, all computer components, whether they are hardware or 
software, have a required minimum of "behaviors and 
requirements" publicly stated. Computer specialists with 
interests to protect will always have clever, superficially 
plausible defenses for their own

[[Page 23749]]

"proprietary approach." However, with respect to the 
interaction of components, regardless of vendor, this should be 
based upon an "open approach." Therein lies to pathway 
to the greatest benefit for the greatest number.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Sincerely,
    Steven Rimicci
    20 Simpson Drive
    Framingham MA 01701

MTC-500



MTC-00000501

From: Ronald A. Mitchell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:07am
Subject: My Comments
    1. Americans have a very short Memory_and so does the 
DOJ_Case in point_you all forgot just how monopolistic 
IBM is and has been in the past!
    2. The amount of money wasted in this entire travesty should be 
an embarrassment to the United States Government and the companies 
that chose to start this mess. Had they all put there money where 
their hollow words have gone, they could have built a better 'mouse 
trap" and thus put competition in place.
    3. I have yet to see any compelling evidence on how the 
"consumer" has been harmed.
    4. Shame on Microsoft's representation early in this mess for 
the Internet Explorer was NEVER part of Windows 95. It was something 
you had to buy and add on to the original product!! And shame on the 
DOJ for being so naYve in computers and software to believe that the 
Internet Explorer was an integral part of Windows 95!!
    5. Last, you should punish Bill Gates for his stupidity, but not 
the very innovative workers. Microsoft has gone out of its' way to 
ensure that companies could write software compatible with its' 
software!! The amount of documentation readily available from 
Microsoft is staggering and yet the naive folks at the DOJ and the 
18 States that don't have a clue don't seem to comprehend this fact. 
Hey, look at Apple, you want something that is obsolete every time 
Apple rolls out a new version of their MAC OS, then go buy a MAC! 
You and zero compatibility, go buy LINUX and just see how far you 
get from one release to the next!! The DOJ really needs to move into 
the 22 Century and quite acting knowledgeable about things the DOJ 
doesn't have a clue about!
    SHAME ON YOU ALL for wasting my tax 
dollars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Ronald A. Mitchell
    Ron Mitchell
    Email: [email protected]
    (408) 270-2096 [Home]
    (408) 398-1588 [Cell]
    (408) 532-9834 [Fax]
    WWW.BCDCON.COM

MTC-501



MTC-00000502

From: Oscar Vela
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:09am
Subject: Penalties NOT sufficient to change Microsoft's tactics with 
smaller innovative companies
    The government has missed another chance to protect its people 
and business (especially small and medium sized companies) from 
unfair practices used by Microsoft since the 1980's. For instance, 
their operating system updates/upgrades over the years have rarely 
added added value to their product upgrades. Much of their upgrades 
have been software fixes from the previous versions with little to 
offer except cosmetic changes.
    For example, their only major change (from Windows 3.1 to 
Windows 93) was to take the Apple Macintosh GUI system and use it as 
an upgrade of their OS. This company rarely innovates. It prefers to 
buy, if not outright copy software, from its competitors and call it 
its own. It pressures companies to do join their effort or be 
stamped out. It muscle computer hardware companies not to use any 
other operating system unless, it lose its license or a cut in the 
price of the Microsoft's OS. The remedies recommended by the 
government at this time do not do enough to change Microsoft's way 
of doing its anti competitive business practices.
    Please do the right thing for the majority of people in this 
nation. ... Take a stronger stand against what Microsoft 
has done and will continue to do.
    Thanks, Oscar Vela

MTC-502



MTC-00000503

From: Jeffrey White
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov
Date: 11/16/01 11:12am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
    To whom it may concern:
    I propose the most lenient stance against Microsoft. The states 
that do not want to go with the Federally proposed compromises do 
not represent me. Microsoft has, if anything, made my job easier. 
Their combination of products are put together to improve 
productivity. Would you buy a car without all the parts in it that 
make it do what you want to do with it??? Are you going to make GM 
give customers the option of putting a Ford engine in them???
    Microsoft monopoly is on brain power. They are known in the tech 
industry as being one of the best places to work. They don't hire 
programmers necessarily. They hire thinkers. They even (legend has 
it) have a series of brain teasers (or puzzles) to determine whether 
you are the type of thinker they need. Their superiority comes not 
from a deliberate attempt (though they have done some things 
questionable like forcing use of the browser) to be a monopoly. It 
comes from their hard work in the wake of all their competitors' 
failure to innovate.

    I have tried the browsers. Netscape has problems because they 
fail to meet standards. IE succeeds because it complies to standards 
(and standards are created by the ISO-which Microsoft cannot 
control). An operating system, by itself is useless. A lot of 
programs are over-priced to the point the consumer cannot afford 
them. The browser (being built in) gives the consumer the ability to 
gain immediately gain access to the internet. Without it, more trips 
to the store and more money has to be spent. You have to hope you 
get a browser that is compatible with your system. I have seen cases 
where they are not!!!!!! You have to get it installed, get the disk 
for an ISP,etc, etc. How does this benefit the consumer???? With 
Microsoft, they give you the browser, and with its setup, the 
ability to connect up (immediately) to one of many ISPs they have 
available (and it shows Microsoft's competitors to their MSN 
service! !!!!
    I also am afraid of the economic fallout of carrying this 
lawsuit too far. The tech sectors stocks get affected by the stock 
prices of companies that are leaders like Microsoft. I guarantee you 
that the stock of the tech sector will fall greatly if Microsoft is 
ever broken up or punished too severely. Microsoft is not laying off 
(unlike the very same companies that are against Microsoft). They 
bring a lot of money into the economy. And, they do not do as other 
tech companies have done, i.e. move their programming tasks to 
foreign entities like India. If you were a programmer with your own 
company and put the effort you are putting into this lawsuit, into 
your programming company, you would do the things Microsoft has 
done, and that is innovate.
    Microsoft affects my job. Their stable platform keeps my job 
easier. I dont have to debug their operating system to get my 
programs working. I guarantee you that I could not say the same 
thing about their competitors. The browser, in my opinion should be 
part of the operating system. They designed it to be stable. I use 
it, more often that not in my job, I sometimes use Netscape to see 
how badly the online banking code, that my company writes, is mauled 
by the errors that are in Netscape (and I do see a lot of problems 
in Netscape).
    In conclusion, this lawsuit does not protect the consumer. It 
protects some special interest groups who are for the competitors of 
Microsoft. If Microsoft is a monopoly, so is Ford, and GM, etc, etc.
    Jeff White

MTC-503



MTC-00000504

From: Dale Fenimore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:13am
Subject: Some Settlement.
    US DOJ,
    You caved-in to a monopolist and, as a result, are rewarding 
that monopolist for abusing its monopoly power ... something it 
continues (and now will continue) to do.
    Your "penalties" are weaker than what was rejected 
last year as unacceptable ... while you "pressed' ahead with 
your case against Microsoft. How, in good conscience, can you put 
the spin on this that it's the right thing to do and is good for 
consumers? Hogwash. Now, with the terrorist activity that has 
recently occurred, you decide that Microsoft is below your bar for 
attention ... and you're just trying to get rid of it now. This 
makes it expedient for you.
    You've done the public ... and industry ... a tremendous 
disservice by the "settlement" you've reached. The ONLY 
winner here is Microsoft ... the public and industry loses ... and 
your credibility concerning the ability to handle monopolists (esp 
when that

[[Page 23750]]

monopolist has as much money and as much bought influence as 
Microsoft has) is severely strained.
    MS will continue to grow ... continue to use its market power to 
plow under competitors ... and reduce consumer choice. And you've 
helped to keep them there, despite the opportunity to help. You've 
gone pennywise and pounds foolish here ... your big (long term) 
picture doesn't really include the consumer. You've let politics 
interfere with a judicial process and, as a result, let all 
consumers and competitors (present and future/potential) down. You 
may have slowed Microsoft down just a tad ... but you're FAR from 
accomplishing what you, and the other States, started out to do. 
Thanx for nothing. While it would have cost US, the people, more 
money in the short run to pursue this case properly, it would have 
saved everyone significant bucks in the long run, enabled decent 
competition to have proceeded, and improved the economy (by 
providing a level playing field for competition). You've enabled the 
monopolist and its monopolistic behavior. Time will tell ... but 
now, you've pretty much lost your opportunity.
    Your present path makes me very angry and very disappointed in 
you. You're s'posed to protect the public from abuse of monopoly 
power. Microsoft has demonstrated time and again that it can't be 
trusted to NOT abuse it's monopoly position.., but then, the DOJ has 
apparently conveniently developed amnesia relative to what it 
doesn't want to see...

    DLF

MTC-504



MTC-00000505

From: tony kwong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:07pm
Subject: proposed settlement does not serve the nation's interest
    DOJ,
    What is good for Microsoft is most emphatically NOT good for the 
nation overall. What little gain Microsoft's shareholders and this 
administration's fund raisers reap has to be paid for many times 
over by consumers who are denied choice and companies who are the 
victims of Microsoft's predatory business practice. All of this only 
happens because Microsoft can indulge in monopolistic behavior. Of 
this, the Clinton administration's justice department has won the 
point through due process of law. Now, the Bush administration's 
justice department intends to let Microsoft continue with a slap on 
the wrist. The nation's interest will be better served by strong 
curbs on Microsoft's behavior since that will provide for far more 
innovation and economic growth. If this inconveniences Microsoft, 
they have earned it through a long history of monopolistic behavior 
and sanctions are indeed called for. Full disclosure of the APIs and 
protocols used by Microsoft products should be the cornerstone of 
any settlement that actually tries to remedy Microsoft's practice of 
using secret and/or changing APIs to disable competitor's attempt to 
produce inter operable software which is needed to compete in the 
marketplace (which incidentally will provide the maximal benefit to 
consumers of such software). Stiff penalties should be imposed for 
any such violations with generous bounties offered to anybody who 
can document any such violation, including immunity from DMCA if the 
investigation indeed uncovers a violation of the antitrust 
agreement. After all, Microsoft should not be allowed to hide any 
criminal act behind DMCA. It does not matter if it was intentional 
or a mistake, maybe this will finally make Microsoft pay some 
attention to the quality of what they do. Just take a look at their 
appalling record of security holes that allow viruses to flourish 
because as a monopoly, their users are forced to bear this burden 
without recourse.
    Show some backbone. The nation's best interest can only be 
served if the DOJ does not act as if it dances to the tune of the 
campaign contributors and lobbyist. yours sincerely
    tony kwong
    tkwongjr @nc.ff.com
    cary, nc

MTC-505



MTC-00000506

From: Dale E. Strickler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:07pm
Subject: Microsoft's Monopolistic Practices
    Dear Sirs and Madams,
    I have been a using of Microsoft products shortly after their 
arrival on the market. I my view they have been strong competitors 
and have developed a few good technologies.
    However, I believe that their legitimate technological advances 
have been far out weighed by underhanded, dishonest and down right 
illegal practices. Every time they have gone to court I have hoped 
that the federal government would fine and restructure them 
appropriately to compensate for the damage they have done to the 
industry through their many monopolistic practices.
    Though their cut-throat distribution agreements, their software 
bundling and many other things have more than warranted harsh 
penalties_in my mind_what has bothered me the most is 
there ability to continue to tell half truths and lies, in press 
releases, on packaging, and even in court yet without penalty, fine 
or other action. The blatant fabrication of evidence during the 
trial with The Honorable Thomas Penfield Jackson alone should have 
landed someone in jail. If I went to go to court with videos that I 
(or one of my employees) had blatantly altered I am fairly certain 
that I (or one of my employees) would be in jail now. I would expect 
nothing less for those at Microsoft that were aware of the doctoring 
of the videos that were entered into court record. Though I do not 
agree with The Honorable Thomas Penfield Jackson's actions during 
that trial I strong believe that his actions should not excuse or 
allow Microsoft employees to get away, without punishment, for 
presenting false data in a court of law! Too many times have I seen 
Microsoft hurt the industry and more directly my lively hood by 
using their power and influence to get settlements, or get 
dismissals in cases where I am sure that someone with my meager 
income would surly been jailed.
    I don't know what it is going to take, or from which country the 
conviction will come, but someday, I trust that Microsoft will get 
the punishment it deserves. I would be encouraged if that punishment 
came now, from the current powers overseeing the proceedings. I 
would hate for the true and correct judgement of the perpetrators 
involved to only come when they face their maker.
    Best Regards,
    Dale E. Strickler
    President and Sr. Consultant
    DES Software Engineering Consulting
    E-mail: [email protected]
    Voice: 434-846-7003 (NOTE New area code!)
    FAX: 434-846-7040 (NOTE New area code!)
    Web: www.dessec.com

MTC-506



MTC-00000507

From: Ted Halmrast
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:05pm
Subject: unjust settlement
    I am extremely disappointed in the Department of Justice for 
settling the case with Microsoft in such an extremely incompetent 
manner. The Department of Justice has sold out the American consumer 
and should be ashamed.
    Ted Halmrast
    7580 Derby Lane
    Shakopee, MN 55379
    952-233-1980
    tedh @tera.teralink.com

MTC-507



MTC-00000508

From: Wayne Bell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:15pm
Subject: Integration is the real issue here
    Hello,
    I have been following the government's case against Microsoft 
over the years, and I believe the real issue is the fact that 
Microsoft integrates its products into its operating system to a 
level which competitors can't because they do not have the intimate 
knowledge of the operating system's source code and/or the ability 
to remove microsoft's competing products without altering the 
operating system itself. By integrating Internet Explorer into the 
operating system, Microsoft was able to make IE SEEM faster because 
it took no time to load the program... because windows already 
loaded most of it along with the operating system. This is part of 
why windows 98 and higher use so much system RAM. They load portions 
of microsoft products so that their products will always be faster 
to load. This makes the system SLOWER for those with less RAM and is 
not desirable at all.., imagine if all of your programs loaded into 
memory at once... your system would crawl. Netscape, Realplayer, and 
others have created "fast launch" programs which can do 
the same thing now, but the only reason they do is because they need 
to compete with microsoft products. This is not an efficient use of 
system resources. Also, Microsoft's competitors cannot remove MS 
products

[[Page 23751]]

without harming the OS in some way...nor can they integrate thier 
own products where MS's were.
    The only true remedy to this situation would be to open up major 
portions of the operating system source code to all software 
companies.
    Also, Microsoft's licensing practices are suspect... I would 
make sure that they contained no provisions which would prohibit PC 
manufacturers from installing multiple operating systems or 
modifying major parts of windows if they choose.
    This recent "settlement" isn't even a slap on the 
wrist. I think cutting the company into pieces was a good plan to 
restore true competition in the applications market, but if that 
isn't an option, then the source code of windows should be made more 
open and allow for companies to make significant SUPPORTED 
alternative integrated programs possible. MS seems to be on the path 
of integrating EVERYTHING into the operating system. While this 
would do wonders for compatability and perhaps ease of use, it will 
destroy a competitive marketplace and leave users at the mercy of 
Microsoft's monopolistic practices and future fees and licensing 
programs.
    Thank you for your time,
    Wayne Bell

MTC-508



MTC-00000509

From: vperez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:14pm
Subject: Everything has it's price.....
    How could you spend OUR money without any remedy ???????? I am 
ashamed of the Ashcroft regime. You will be blamed for the lack of 
innovations not Microsoft. Microsoft has humiliated the DOJ once 
again.........

MTC-509



MTC-00000510

From: Joshua2000ad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:12pm
Subject: My comments...
    You suck.
    Joshua

MTC-510



MTC-00000511

From: Will Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:10pm
Subject: Comment on Microsoft Settlement
    I've been an IT professional now for almost 22 years. When I 
first started in this industry, IBM was king and there was constant 
pressure from other organizations such as DEC, HP, Honeywell and 
others to innovate to keep up the competition. They serviced niche 
markets with their innovation and thrived.
    Now, the computer industry is more consolidated fewer and fewer 
companies make the products that we rely upon for all levels of 
computing whether that be academic, business or home use. 
Unfortunately Microsoft under the WinTel aliance has forged a very 
strong position, so strong that it dominates virtually every tier of 
computing. Yes, Intel makes Chips that go into the systems, however 
at least there is some competition for Intel, including AMD and 
Cyrix. Where Windows is concerned, there seems to be one source 
Microsoft. Great position to be in.
    There really isn't an alternative to Desktop 0/S for General 
Purpose use other than Windows. Unfortunately Linux is a very 
distant third in this regard. Remember Apple? Yes they're still 
around however they've been hurt not by innovative product 
competition, but unfair leveraging of technology. Microsoft has 
attacked key sectors of threatening technology by either dumping on 
the market or using the three E's_Embrace, Extend, Erradicate. 
Java technology has been irreprably damaged by Microsofts dilusion 
and non-standard practices resulting in another Court case. However 
since Microsoft has extremely deep pockets even for the Federal 
Government it appears as though attrition has set in.
    What Microsoft does to the software industry is akin to an 800lb 
Gorilla being let into a banana shop. For example, Internet Explorer 
was a product that took over 600 developers to work on. Microsoft 
dumped the product for "free" on the marketplace 
claiming it's innovation was good for consumers. Funny, Internet 
Explorer isn't available for Unix, or Linux, or Apple just Windows. 
When two technologies are equal, the one that's free will win. 
That's a marketing knowledge. When Windows 98 was released IE was 
bundled with it even though it wasn't critical to the 0/S use. 
Microsoft claimed it added value, however it stiffled competition 
such as Netscape and Opera. Even now Microsoft builds proprietary 
standards into their web sites requiring the use of their technology 
to access it, forcing users into their way of thinking and doing.
    So, when it comes to desktops and now unfortunately Server 
environments Microsoft is becoming the dominant force. However their 
tying of products together gives them an exteremly unfair advantage 
over their competition. A classic problem was when WordPerfect was 
still around the developers found bugs in the Windows API. They 
reported them to Microsoft. Microsoft then announced to the world 
that WordPerfect was buggy on Windows. Likewise Microsoft dumped 
MSOffice for incredibly low prices, so low that WordPerfect couldn't 
compete. Again deep pockets allowed Microsoft to eat profitablity to 
force out the competitors product. Once the other Product is 
severely damaged, it's time to raise the prices because now they 
have a vendor lock In.
    Microsoft should be allowed to innovate, any company should. But 
it should be precluded wholly from predatory market practices that 
stifle small business and even competitors practices. Yes Business 
is brutal but being able to tie products forces customers to buy 
your solution wholly and forego any of the competitors product.
    So, my question after Microsoft dominates the entire software 
middle structure who can compete with them? My recommendation would 
be that all Microsoft Windows APIs be fully documented and available 
to all software houses.
    Microsoft divest it's Office assets or spin them off to another 
company. barring that Microsoft should be barred from releasing any 
new version of Office or Windows for a period of no fewer than 5 
years on Intel based platforms. This would allow competitors to at 
least take advantage of documentation and make their products more 
competitive than Windows based solutions. Microsoft should also be 
ordered to release their Office suite and other products on at least 
three other operating system platforms, Apple, Linux and Unix.
    Thank You
    Will Wood
    Software Architect
    1605 McGreg Ln.
    Carrollton TX, 75010

MTC-511



MTC-00000512

From: lawtenn 4
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:18pm
Subject: DOJ settlement
To: Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Dept. of Justice
    Regarding the DOT antritrust settlement recently negotiated with 
Microsoft, and accepted by nine states thus far, I would simply like 
to say that I am very supportive of the plan as I understand it, and 
am very embarrassed that my state, Kansas, continues to be one of 
the few states left to oppose the settlement.
    I like and value Microsoft as a company and as an industry 
leader; I believe that they are very competitive and strive always 
to develop and promote their products, which I appreciate and will 
continue to buy. While I have grown to admire Microsoft as a well-
managed, innovative company, I have grown very weary of all of the 
whining from its' competitors (esp. AOL, Sun, 
Oracle....); the settlement seems to be a very 
good attempt at moving on past this long, tedious antitrust battle, 
and, if everyone would just agree to move on , could help in 
invigorating the economy and the stock market. I do not believe that 
this settlement is "too weak" and lenient toward 
Microsoft; they have agreed to significant concessions, and appear 
to honestly be ready to end this saga and return to normal life 
without the shadow of litigation.
    Thanks to all of the DOT attorneys, and the mediator, as well as 
Judge Collen Kollar-Kotelly for the fair and neutral way in which 
this settlement has been conducted thus far. Although I am strongly 
Democratic, I am sorry that the Clinton administration ever 
supported this antitrust case in the beginning; I believe that I 
represent many, many Americans when I urge you to continue to press 
toward final settlement as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Nancy Hermreck
    lawtenn4 @msn.com

MTC-512



MTC-00000513

From: Bryon Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:16pm
Subject: Re Microsoft
    DOJ,

[[Page 23752]]

    When someone breaks the law, their penalties are determined by 
the legal system. Why is it that Microsoft has been proven guilty, 
but then invited to determine their own punishment. Simply telling 
the public that Microsoft will behave from now on is ludicrous. If 
someone commits murder or kidnaps someone, they are not allowed to 
simply promise that they won't do it again. They pay for what they 
have done. You are not punishing Microsoft for what they have done. 
The about face has to mean that many of you have had your pockets 
lined by Microsoft. I think you are behaving in a disgusting manner. 
This is not surprising in such a corrupt administration.
    Bryon Wilson

MTC-513



MTC-00000514

From: Adam Gregory
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:16pm
Subject: microsoft anti-trust ruling
    How can the DOJ consider a lenient and vague settlement 
sufficient to make microsoft cease its illegal antritrust 
activities? With every subsequent edition of windows since the case 
was first filed microsoft has further strengthened its monopoly 
power with more and more bundlings and abused its power with 
increasingly arcane and restrictive licensing. The latest version of 
windows bundles a webbrowser, video and music player, firewall, and 
instant messenger. This is far worse monopolising than microsoft was 
found guilty of previously, and the trend looks set to continue. 
Recently leaked memos reveal the microsoft planned strategy of 
"embracing and extending" internet protocols to make 
competing software incompatible with them and so create an uphill 
struggle for competition to remain in the market. With microsoft's 
behaviour becoming worse and worse all the time, how can a slap on 
the wrist settlement possibly deter them? Their flagrant continued 
abuse of their power in complete disregard of the courts only shows 
that they know they can get away with anything simply by throwing 
enough money at lawyers and buying political favour with campaign 
donations. The lack of justice in this case is especially evident in 
the fact that a rich corporation found guilty can then negotiate a 
'punishment' with the courts. Are convicted thieves 
afforded the same courtesy? No, they're convicted and they're 
punished. Why should there be such different conditions when a rich 
and powerful corporation is found guilty? Truly big business is 
above the law if the law must treat those it convicts with such 
diplomacy.
    I sincerely hope that a reasonable solution can be found that 
doesn't involve the government and courts kowtowing to wherever the 
money Is.
    Sincerely, Adam Gregory

MTC-514



MTC-00000515

From: bruno @users.succeed.net@ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft monopoly
    It is not difficult to understand that any monopoly damages 
everybody. Only the presence of competitors force you to improve 
yours produtcs, limit your price, and to evaluate your costumers. 
Everybody has benefit from the competition between AMD and INTEL. In 
the worse, exchange a fine for a promotional tool, is the way to 
reinforce a monopoly.
    Thanks, Bruno Angelin

MTC-515



MTC-00000516

From: Black, Nathan
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/16/01 10:23pm
Subject: You failed
    The Settlement in US vs MS, for which you established this email 
address, is a miserable failure. You have allowed Microsoft to turn 
it around to fascilitate the elimination of any competing product 
that interface with their products. Such as: Samba; an open source 
program to allow other computers to view and use Microsoft Windows 
resources Kerberos ; as Microsoft has 'embraced and extended' this 
security protocol to prevent interoption with other competitive 
operating systems HTML ; Microsoft has also embraced this protocol 
to prevent interoption with other systems, including other browsers. 
See the information on CNN or your favorite news publication about 
what the MSN.COM web page looked like after the release of Windows 
XP SMTP ; In Exchange 2000, Microsoft has extended this protocol 
with a series of X- entries in the header of its Active Directory 
configuration (for example) to prevent interoperation with 
alternative operating systems. POP3 ; Microsoft has extended this 
protocol with an authentication piece into Outlook Express so that 
no other email clinets will work with the POP servers that use 
Microsoft services. (Microsoft Exchange) Your settlement with 
Microsoft doesn't prevent any of these things from continuing, but 
it has given them full power to continue with the current methods of 
destroying all competion.
    If anything, you should destroy this 'settlement' and not do 
anything. We (the public) were better off before you started this 
trial.
    Nathan Black
    913 Harbor House Dr. #7
    Madison WI 53562
    608-441-0304

MTC-516



MTC-00000517

From: Bart Locanthi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:22pm
Subject: Appalling DOJ/Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs and Honorable Senators:
    The "settlement" is a craven and complete sell-out. 
The verbiage of the agreement is not only toothless, but it reads 
like (and probably was) something drafted by Microsoft lawyers. 
Where is the punishment? Microsoft was found guilty of monopolistic, 
abusive behavior_and the conviction was upheld_with many 
thousands of jobs lost and hundreds of companies destroyed in its 
wake. Microsoft behaved contemptuously during the trial, and we can 
only expect the very worst from them after this terrible 
"settlement" essentially puts the government seal of 
approval on their behavior. Microsoft is, correctly, proceeding as 
if there is nothing to stop them. After walking away scott-free from 
the worst the DOJ could throw at them, can we expect anything less 
than even worse behavior? Almost coincident with the announcement of 
the DOJ cave-in has been the introduction of Windows XP, which is a 
living, operational exercise in bad faith and restraint of trade. I 
can already hear the muffled cries of stifled innovation and 
squashed companies.
    With the sudden take-over of large ISP offerings_including 
those of Qwest_by MSN, consumers have already been slammed 
into the replacement of their existing software by Microsoft 
products. As always, Microsoft's continued success will be at the 
expense of consumers, the industry, the science of computing, and 
the welfare of this country.
    I feel utterly betrayed by my supposedly representative 
government.
    Dr. Bart N. Locanthi
    8456 SW Charlotte Drive
    Beaverton OR 97007
    [email protected]
    CC: Gordon Smith,Ron Wyden

MTC-517



MTC-00000518

From: daisyanne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:18pm
Subject: Sherman Act?
    Dear Sir, I read the complaint.
    1. This is an action under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act 
to restrain anticompetitive conduct by defendant Microsoft 
Corporation ("Microsoft"), the worlds largest supplier 
of computer software for personal computers (PCs"), and to 
remedy the effects of its past unlawful conduct. I can only say this 
is not about the Sherman Act or for the benifit of the people. Its 
about money. It seems to me the judicial branch has found a way to 
legally expand professional employment. In summary the complaint is 
like a deck of card having 52 pages. You can make your hand by 
dictating the game. In due respect, stop this madness.

MTC-518



MTC-00000519

From: Cole Thompson
To: microsoft.atr
Date: 11/16/01 10:36pm
Subject: Stronger remedies are needed
    As a Senior Web Developer for Kaiser Permanente, one of the 
nations's largest healthcare providers, I am deeply concerned about 
the proposed settlement for the Microsoft antitrust case. For about 
the last five years, I have noticed that truly innovative 
technologies from small companies in the computing industry have 
tended to be withdrawn from the marketplace, apparently due to 
pressure or threats from Microsoft. During this same five years, the 
cost of Microsoft software has steadily increased, even allowing for 
inflation, while the cost of other companies' software (Sun 
Microsystems, Oracle, Sybase, Borland and many more) has almost 
without exception decreased quite dramatically. The costs of doing 
business as a software

[[Page 23753]]

company have not increased during this time. The only reason 
Microsoft has bucked the overall trend toward less expensive 
software is that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power, and dictates 
prices to computer vendors. These arbitrarily increased costs are 
ultimately borne by American consumers. Consumers and businesses are 
damaged in just the same way that they would be if the cost of 
gasoline were doubled.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Cole D. Thompson
    Senior Web Developer, Kaiser Permanente
    tel: 1-510-627-2245

MTC-519



MTC-00000520

From: Rand Partridge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:35pm
Subject: DOJ/Microsoft Settlement
    I am a consumer. Having read a variety of interpretations of the 
DOJ/Microsoft settlement, I don't agree that the settlement as it 
currently exists is in the best interests of the consumer, now or in 
the future. I support the States who have decided to pursue 
continuing the legal case against Microsoft.
    Rand Partridge
    Hutchinson, Kansas

MTC-520



MTC-00000521

From: leoboy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:32pm
Subject: settlement comments
    I am not satisfied that the penalties the government proposes 
will in any way reduce the power of Microsoft over the computing 
world in its present monopolistic form. I find it unfortunate that 
the lawyers who are supposed to be working to protect me, the 
consumer, are more concerned about the well-being of Microsoft than 
they are in making sure the true competitive basis of the economy is 
allowed to fuction unfettered by the deliberate manipulations of 
Microsoft. On of the most obvious excesses in which Microsoft is 
known to have engaged was the threat to pull Compaq's license to 
install Windows as its operating system if Compaq proceeded with 
plans to bundle Netscape with its software bundle. Compaq recended 
its decision and Microsoft won again and the consumers lost again. 
That Microsoft proceeded to market XP speeding up everything in 
order to beat possible court injunctions only magnifys their plans 
to control the entire Internet and by control I mean make as much 
money as possible off of every conceivable internet transaction. If 
I don't want XP on my computer because the government has moved so 
slowly and now is backing off of truly punishing Microsoft for their 
flagrant and multitudinous violations of the free market economy and 
antitrust laws, I have really no other choices available to me to 
continue advancing with the technological features that are now 
coming on the market place.The article I read that mentioned this 
email address gave no direct answers as to what the government 
lawyers are proposing to use to dismantle Microsoft's strangle hold 
on the progress of the computing world and the internet. The article 
only said that the lawyers were assuring the judge that.... so 
what's the big secret? What are you going to do make Microsoft stop 
this massive abuse of power?? I would like an answer and at least be 
emailed an addresss or website where I can find the exact proposals 
the government lawyers are suggesting. We have a right to know as 
consumers what you are doing to protect our future in the computing 
world.
    Sincerely,
    Dan E. Craig

MTC-521



MTC-00000522

From: Tom Watson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:30pm
Subject: DOJ settlement is not in consumers' best interest
To: US Department of Justice
Re: Proposed Microsoft. Settlement
    Having followed the personal computer industry since it's 
inception, I am greatly disappointed in the government s decision to 
settle the Microsoft antitrust case on such unfavorable terms to 
consumers. As far back as the early 90's, Microsoft was using unfair 
and misleading practices (e.g. intentionally causing errors and 
misleading messages when Windows 3.1 was installed atop 
DR-DOS) to hobble competitors. By refusing to provide usable 
versions of its Office software on competitors' operating systems 
and making file conversion difficult, Microsoft established Office 
as a standard for all users. Later, when it had fairly well 
conquered the personal computer operating system and productivity 
software market, it began throwing its weight (and financial muscle) 
around in an effort to hijack the Internet (e.g. giving away/
bundling Internet Explorer for free to undermine Netscape's revenue 
stream). Having retired all comers in the browser market, Microsoft 
has now set its sights on owning all transactional authentication 
rights on the internet. The obvious goal is to insert itself into 
(and charge a fee for) every transaction which occurs on the 
Internet. In each of these instances, Microsoft has leveraged its 
Windows monopoly (established as fact in Judge Jackson's court) to 
move into another part of the computer software market.
    By settling the case on the proposed terms, the government would 
be:
    1) Forgiving Microsoft for 10 years of monopolistic behavior
    2) Ignoring the harm caused to consumers by the artificially 
high cost of Microsoft Windows (which has been used to subsidize 
Microsoft's entry into all these other software markets)
    I urge the DOJ not to settle with Microsoft on the proposed 
terms. I believe strongly that significant harm has been done to 
consumers and that Microsoft should be held financially accountable, 
as well as structurally reformed to prevent further abuse of the 
Windows monopoly. The remedies proposed by Judge Jackson were 
appropriate.
    Finally, I urge the government to hold the officers of the 
company responsible (individually and collectively) if it can be 
shown that harm to consumers resulted from their actions.
    Tom Watson
    Austin, TX

MTC-522



MTC-00000523

From: Karl Hiramoto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:38pm
Subject: OS monoply
    My opinion:
    Anything less then a break up of Microsoft will not break 
Microsoft's monopoly on Operating systems. On the application 
programs side side. Anyone who develops a good mass market software 
application Microsoft will put out of business.
    Karl Hiramoto 
    BS in Computer Engineering (www.sdsmt.edu)
    Practicing Engineer

MTC-523



MTC-00000524

From: Eric And Steff Runquist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:45pm
Subject: Microsoft continues to steamroll
    Microsofts behavior while the antitrust case is still in 
progress should give us a little hint of how they will behave in the 
future. Their new Windows XP combines an Instant Messaging software 
package into the Operating System in exactly the same way they 
bundled their Web Browser in the Operating System. That, after all 
was one of the origins of this case, so many years ago. If they 
don't hesitate to pull this kind of stunt while they are under 
investigation, what will they do after the suit is settled? They've 
shown their lack of respect for the power of the US government. 
Microsoft's new strategy centered around web services and their .NET 
initiative is merely a higher-level monopoly mechanism. This one 
floats just above the Operating System, but has the exact same 
potential to force-out any competitors through hardball leverage 
techniques.
    The fact that Bill Gates is so ready to accept this settlement 
should set off alarm bells. This man is an extremely tough 
negotiator and shrewd business man. He knows a honey of a deal when 
he sees it. He also knows it's for a limited time only, so he will 
push everybody to get this thing finished before the momentum 
reverses.
    Sincerely,
    Eric Runquist
    A concerned citizen.

MTC-524



MTC-00000525

From: Harry George
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:42pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    On the one hand I'm not surprised by the proposal. Disgusted but 
not surprised. A man with $30B in cash can certainly gain the 
support of senators, representatives, DOJ appointees, and judges. On 
the other hand, I suspect there are a few honest civil servants 
still in the system, who would like to see alternative points of 
view from impeccably credentialed, true blue Americans. For example, 
I'm a upper middle class, middle aged swing voter. I work in a 
Fortune 100

[[Page 23754]]

company, bringing technical and business degrees plus extensive 
experience with both Microsoft and non-Microsoft products to the 
effort. There is no question in my mind that the issues are much 
larger than browsers, that Microsft has no intention of allowing a 
level playing field, and that the DOJ's proposal is mockery of 
justice
    Simple put, the issue is not "are the consumers better 
off. That's like saying "El Duce made the trains run on 
time". No, the issue is balance of power in a representative 
democracy. See L. Lessig's analyses for details.
    [By the way, I notice the parallels to Thomas at EEOC. He got a 
a Supreme Court appointment out of a series of anit-American policy 
decisions (leaving plausible deniability for the upper ranks). What 
was the price this time?]
    Harry George
    [email protected]

MTC-525



MTC-00000526

From: Thomas Cattell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:36pm
Subject: DOJ consumer comments
    Dear Department of Justice,
    Thank you for providing an opportunity for consumers to comment 
about the current Microsoft legal situation.
    My family runs a small business. We are shopping for a new 
network and work stations. We are talking to a lot of people, and 
reviewing how best to do our work. We currently use a server run on 
Novell network software and a program sold by Symantec in the 1980s. 
We do use Microsoft Outlook Express for our e-mail. We have found 
Microsoft to be most responsive to our current needs, both 
personally and with the software applications they have packaged. 
They are great marketers as well_they consider the customer's 
needs and work to fulfill them. My mother and I attended a Microsoft 
Big Day event on Wednesday where our questions were answered and an 
overview of all the programs was presented. They have what we need 
to keep our business running efficiently_much better than we 
have been running it! We have not been able to find any other 
company who can supply our needs as neatly packaged and as easily to 
operate as Microsoft has. I would find myself against anything that 
would break up their product as there is nothing to do the job as 
efficiently for those of us that are FAR from experts.
    Thanks once again for this opportunity to comment.
    Tom
    Thomas J. Cattell
    P.O. Box 210
    Lusby, MD 20657
    1-888-243-7215
    1-800-243-7215 (fax)
    [email protected]

MTC-526



MTC-00000527

From: John McBride
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:16am
Subject: The DOJ : An embarassment to America
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    As a software developer, familiar with most every issue in this 
case (as well as many left out of the various trials) I have to say 
that the DOJ has done a fine job of embarassing the United States of 
America, not only at the national level, but to the world at large.
    Microsoft is a criminal organization that steals from other 
companies. There can be no argument on this point; it is simply a 
fact. They are a convicted criminal organization. Yet the DOJ has 
let them off nearly scot free.
    By its tepid action, the DOJ has made the phrase Justice" 
a hideous parody of the word Americans learned as a child. To many, 
your action has done nothing but reinforce the opinion that the USA 
is not a country of fairness or justice, but one of corruption, 
favoritism, greed and privelege.
    How on earth can any American utter that most hallowed of 
phrases_"With Liberty and Justice for 
All"_without feeling that those words are now 
meaningless? That is the legacy this executive branch has given 
America. I suggest you close all the federal prisons and let the 
inmates rnn free. At least your standards of justice will then have 
been applied equally to Microsoft and the common criminal; to me 
there is no difference.
    Regards,
    John McBride,
    N. Edwards, CA.

MTC-527



MTC-00000528

From: art_frame @mac.com @ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:09am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sirs:
    I don't understand... You declare Microsoft to be a monopoly but 
you leave the same people in charge of the company who have lied and 
ignored other consent decrees as a regular course of business.
    You reward them with lengthly legal entanglements time and time 
again while they continue to force their products onto consumers who 
have little in the way of other choices. Finally the Microsoft 
product becomes a defacto standard, even though a bad one, and the 
arguement is mute.
    This is the time to punish the truly guilty and to demand that 
part of the settlement be an ousting of Gates and Balmer from any 
and all management or oversight of the Microsoft corporation. A 
little jail time wouldn't hurt these "robber barons", 
either.
    In this time of economic downturn, the DOJ has an opportunity to 
step up and do its part to eliminate the biggest obstacle to the 
computer industry. Remember, the telephone system never got very far 
away from the original Bell box until the monopoly was broken up and 
the industry got to breathe clean fresh air, once again.
    You could also start by not allowing M$ to sell ANYTHING to the 
federal government for a period of ten years. Our nation's security 
would additionally be better served by a migration away from an 
operating system that draws the most attacks and toward a system 
that affords REAL security and not what M$ pretends is security.
    Ralph Arnold, CEO
    Memories Unlimited, Inc.
    5134 Dublin Cir. N.W.
    Canton, Ohio 44720-7409
    1-330-499-8400
    "consultants in video computer products and electronic 
aids to the handicap with over 30 years experience in computers and 
related projects"

MTC-528



MTC-00000529

From: Jim Perry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:08am
Subject: I disagree with the MS settlement
    I am a satisfied user of many MS products, but also think they 
are a company that has abused their monopoly position and seriously 
harmed other companies as well as the public. I believe the court's 
finding of fact is right on the money. I disagree with the 
settlement for the following reasons:
- Loopholes and insufficient remedies to prevent similar behavior in 
the future
- Fails to punish MS for past misdeeds, including gross disregard 
for the court's authority during the trial (rigging demos, denying 
the removability of IE, etc.)
- Fails even to address monopolistic behavior since the findings of 
fact, such as bundling Passport authentication with the operating 
system, thus channeling e-commerce through MS.
    MS has a stranglehold on PC operating systems for the desktop. 
Companies such as Apple, Be, and others have no ability to compete 
fairly without restrictions on MS behavior, access to APIs to 
produce compatibility layers, and the promise of strong support from 
the DOJ in the future.
    Thank you,
    Jim Perry
    163 Third Street
    Fillmore, CA 93015

MTC-529



MTC-00000530

From: Michael Bacarella
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:26am
Subject: Microsoft case
    It seems increasingly clear that anti-trust law is extremely 
hard to define and is more a weapon which politicians use to kick 
uncooperative companies in line. Some say the fact that Microsoft is 
one of the largest contributors to the Republican party is evidence 
that Microsoft is trying to corrupt government. I think it's 
evidence that politicians wanted to see some green from the 
previously apolitical software giant all along, and now that they're 
playing the game, the DOJ has been instructed to lay off them.
    I mean, which is more trustworthy here?
    Sure Microsoft has some shady business practices, but it's not 
like they've caused ecological disasters related to oil, or support 
right wing military dictatorships in banana republics, or had 
fathers who were the head of CIA, or opposed the Civil Rights Act, 
etc.
    Michael Bacarella 
    Technical Staff / System Development,
    New York Connect.Net, Ltd.

MTC-530



MTC-00000531

From: Herrmann

[[Page 23755]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I found the settlement being agreed upon between Microsoft 
Corporation and the Department of Justice to be an insult to 
American consumers, Microsoft's corporate victims and to the Justice 
Department itself.
    The terms of the agreement do very little to prevent Microsoft's 
anti-competitive behavior and do nothing at all to lessen 
Microsoft's monopoly power.
    Still worse, you've set a terrible president. Your actions have 
spoken clearly that corporations can be found guilty of monopoly 
power and strong arm tactics and will receive no remedial actions. 
The eyes of the world are watching.
    Sincerely,
    James Herrmann

MTC-531



MTC-00000532

From: Kevin Gamiel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:21am
Subject: Strongly disagree
    I strongly disagree with the "punishment". You must 
do more, I have watched Microsoft's horrible practices for years, 
you simply must do more. Please, you probably have Windows and you 
know how bad it is. That is your best indication of why you should 
punish more, if there were more competition, software wouldn't be so 
bad.
    Kevin
    Kevin Gamiel Email: [email protected]
    Island Edge Research, Inc. http://www.islandedge.com
    Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina

MTC-532



MTC-00000533

From: Steven Ebeling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:18am
Subject: Well You know
    Here are my comments as follow.
    1. You break microsoft up you are just cretaing not 1 but more 
than one monopoly. Becuase no matter what The so called computer era 
that we live in is based and will always revolve around. Yeah you 
take people that are like me and apt to try something different for 
example Linux yeah it is great and all but it has more downsides 
that i dont like and i think windows is still a better OS. What i am 
trying to say is that people right now are not ready for change they 
are use to WINDOWS AND OFFICE. It took the common person a long time 
to learn anything about computers and what have ya. And you are 
pretty much saying that you are gonna go screw it all up and make 
them relearn to fit the new "Standard' For me and many other 
people yeah it wouldnt be hard but for the common person it would be 
another challenge that they dont need to deal with it.
    I may sound stupid and all but think about it really hard and 
maybe just maybe you will see where i am comming from
    Thanks
    Steven Ebeling
    A.K.A Bio_nuclear
    If you can not forgive others, than god can 
not forgive you....
    [email protected]

MTC-533



MTC-00000534

From: Mike Poz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:32am
Subject: Thoughts on this whole AntiTrust thing...
    I can say with some certainty that you're probably going to get 
a lot of ï¿½ACI-Microsoft is Evil+ACI-emails from the very 
outspoken minority of Microsoft haters, but I don't know how many 
emails you'll get from the folks who think the US Government should 
stay OUT of private businesses. You know, the silent masses who when 
nothing goes wrong say nothing at all.
    Some points here that I want to make that are +ACo-VERY+ACo- 
valid:
    1. Microsoft plays hardball business in it's licensing 
agreements. Big deal, so do most other businesses, and I don't see 
those businesses getting taken to court.
    2. Microsoft, as far as I'm concerned, has been the victim of a 
concerted effort by it's competitors, Sun and Oracle to name a few, 
to get the US Government to do what they couldn't do by ordinary 
business practices, and that's replace Microsoft in the number one 
position.
    3. Microsoft, in attempting to standardize the desktop and 
notebook computer operating systems have done so much more to HELP 
consumers and businesses than any other company that it's rediculous 
to sue them. My parents have a much easier time with computers since 
they've moved to Windows, as many other people in the world.
    4. There are so many software and hardware companies that have 
both come into existence, and +ACo-SURVIVED+ACo_ and become 
prosperous because of Microsoft's efforts to make Windows the 
standard, that the few companies that have gone out of business can 
easily be attributed to normal business failures that happen in 
+ACo-EVERY+ACo- industry, not just the software industry.
    5. Microsoft owns the rights and code to Windows. Period. It's 
theirs legally, and if they don't want to give out source code or 
want to make it so that their applications software talks to their 
operating system software a little easier, then so be it. It's 
MICROSOFT's RIGHT to do this, and Microsoft's competitors have been 
given so much by Microsoft already to allow their software to 
operate on Microsoft's Windows operating system that it stuns me 
that this travesty of justice has continued for this long. Plainly 
stated, whiners who couldn't come up with a better solution are 
using the legal system, and much to my dismay, the legal system is 
accomodating these whiners.
    I spent 11 years serving honorably in the US Marine Corps and 
Marine Corps Reserves and it SHAMES me to see our government 
throwing away millions of dollars on a trial that as far as I'm 
concerned should have been declared a mistrial when Judge TP Jackson 
was found to have uttered his comments that definitely show a bias 
against the defendent. Not just in his covert comments but his 
comments and actions in the courtroom, both against Microsoft +ACo-
AND+ACo- the District Court of Appeals, who have overturned TP 
Jackson's rulings in the past.
    Please end this farce and waste of my tax money and start doing 
things to help the citizens of this country who need better 
education, families that need homes and children that need medical 
aid and food.
    Please start taking care of the PEOPLE of this country and stop 
kowtauing to Microsoft's competitors and political lackeys that are 
just seeking a re-eleection platform when their term is due.
    Regards,
    Mike Poz

MTC-534



MTC-00000535

From: [email protected]@ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:31am
Subject: M$ settlement
    You've gotta be kidding with that weak 'remedy'. I've read it. 
Did you let Micro$oft's lawyers draft it? It looks like it. 
Micro$oft is a master at dodging exactly this sort of thing, and 
this settlement will have absolutely no effect whatsoever. Do you 
need proof_? Bill Gates likes it, he calls it 
"fair". It must be a great relief to him to win after 
all this litigation. Trouble is, he did NOT win. He was found guilty 
of serious crimes. Micro$oft has done more to hold back innovation 
and progress in the computer software industry than any other party 
in recent memory. They need to be STOPPED. And PENALIZED. This 
settlement does neither.
    The FIRST thing that I want from a remedy in the M$ antitrust 
case is a penalty tough enough to make BilIG pout and whine about 
requiring "fairness" and "freedom to 
innovate" and all that rot. Right now he's smiling because he 
knows he's gotten away with it. Tomorrow he'll turn around and do it 
again. This is no penalty. It's more like dinner and a movie. Why 
don't you just fine them $1 and go home?
    Mike Battle
    1817 N 51st St Ste J
    Phoenix AZ 85008

MTC-535



MTC-00000536

From: Brenden Ashton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:26am
Subject: Please do not cave in
    Hi,
    I am writing this email because I am concerned about the 
'remedies' that have been proposed in the anti-trust 
lawsuit against Microsoft. I feel that the DOJ has caved in, and is 
allowing Microsoft to get away with illegal practices, and is in 
fact allowing Microsoft to continue these practices. Over the last 
few years I have bought numerous computers and have been forced to 
buy yet another copy of Microsoft's operating systems each time, 
despite the fact that the old computers are siting in a cupboard. In 
addition I feel that Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer as 
part of the operating system was a deliberate attempt by Microsoft 
to eliminate competition. This practice of Microsoft is not 
new_it has in the

[[Page 23756]]

past made sure that some of its software would not run if 
competitor's software was detected (e.g. DRDOS and MS-Word). Also, 
this practice is still continuing, for example Windows XP has a lot 
of bundled software (CD writing software, media players etc) that 
will make life difficult for Microsoft's competitors in this area.
    I think that not only Microsoft should pay a huge penalty for 
doing the things it has done in the past, afterall they did make 
piles of money this way, but that Microsoft should be prevented from 
continuing in these practices. The proposed remedies do not make 
Microsoft pay any penalty for its past actions and the limitations 
on its future practices are very weak. It would be easy for 
Microsoft to continue its business practices under the proposed 
remedies as they leave Microsoft many loopholes.
    Thanks for listening to my rant,
    Dr Brenden Ashton

MTC-536



MTC-00000537

From: Brett Stalbaum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:33am
Subject: Weak deal
    Please understand that the European Commission is going forward 
with their investigation of Microsoft. What will your settlement 
look like if the EC's findings and remedy is significantly harsher? 
But putting behind narrow political concerns, I move on to my real 
concern. You are certainly aware that Microsoft controls a major 
cost area for almost all corporations, since they provide the 
desktop OS for these companies. You should be aware that the browser 
wars are over, Microsoft won via their unfair competitive advantage. 
This is old history. What Microsoft wants now is the server market, 
and they are moving on it primarilly by leveraging their control 
over the desktop_via both corporate pricing and closed 
integration with the desktop_to unfarily influence the choice 
of server decisions by major US corporations. IBM, Sun, HP, and 
others all hang in the balance.
    If we should lose the vibrant and open innovation that spins out 
of this particular competitve market, the systems depended upon by 
Global business will be less secure (MS is the OS of choice for 
hackers because it is so easy to defeat), more expensive, and less 
innovative. Think also of the defense implications in this time of 
global uncertainty. You need strong provisions in the settlement to 
prevent Microsoft from unfairly closing this market through monopoly 
(anti-market) power.
    Thanks,
    Brett Stalbaum
    Adjunct professor of CIT
    Evergreen Valley College
    San Jose CA

MTC-537



MTC-00000538

From: Chris Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:39am
Subject:
    Aren't you ashamed? 0_0
    (really don't know what else to say. How can you even pretend 
that the settlement you've reached will deal with the situation? 
That you're dealing with people in good faith? You sold us out!)
    Chris Johnson

MTC-538



MTC-00000539

From: Danny Crawford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:35am
Subject: I don't believe it
    I can't believe you people allowed Microsoft to get less than a 
slap on the hand. I had a business that was forced to close because 
we were unable to get a product into the market because Microsoft 
has such a strong hold on the desktop operating systems. Microsoft 
dictates what developers can do with their software and they also 
dictate what a consumer can do with the software. Clearly after 
reading the Microsoft Windows End User License Agreement Microsoft 
is not selling you the software they are renting it to you because 
at any time they can take it back from you even though you have paid 
such an expensive price for it. I understand that Bush ask the DOJ 
to stop pursuing Microsoft. That being the case I can assure you 
that my vote will be a lot different this time. I can now see the 
Bush does not have any concerns about the welfare of consumers and 
consumer's rights.
    -Danny

MTC-539



MTC-00000540

From: Charles Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:53am
Subject: you have GOT to be kidding.
    To the persons whom it may concern: Having found the media to be 
inaccurate more often than not when reporting on stories of great 
technical complexity, I took it upon myself to review the PDF of the 
proposed settlement with Microsoft because I wish to comment on it.
    My comment is summed up in the subject line of this letter. Upon 
reviewing this settlement, I have to ask why you ever bothered suing 
Microsoft in the first place. This "settlement" is a 
disgrace to both parties, provides NO penalties for Microsoft's 
indisputably illegal previous acts, gives them NO incentive to 
change the way they do business, has plenty of loopholes allowing 
for MS to actually CONTINUE the very acts that landed them in court 
in the first place, and allows Microsoft to choose who will oversee 
their slap on the wrist, I mean "punishment."
    It's a joke. It's cruel to the many businesses that have been 
crushed or hurt by Microsoft's abuse of their monopoly power and 
were hoping for a measure of redress, pisses all over the findings 
of law and fact by Judge Jackson (and affirmed by the Appellate 
Court) and generally allows Microsoft a free hand in their insane 
plan to take over the world_LITERALLY.
    I don't see why you view a bunch of mentally-incompetent 
hoodlums in the wastes of the third world as the greatest threat 
since Hitler, but cannot see that Microsoft's singleminded 
determination to control the entire US economy (and by proxy, the 
world's economy) as any less dangerous. You are not doing yourself 
any favours and are in fact guilty of a decidedly unpatriotic act of 
selling out the best interests of the people of the United States.
    For god's sake, grow some backbone! At the VERY LEAST, you 
should craft a settlement that forces the government to review their 
technological needs and award contracts in ALL areas where MS 
Windows does not need to be used to some other OS vendor. I've never 
been more disgusted with the government in my life. The Justice 
Department needs to rename itself if this goes through ... I suggest 
"The Department of Two Justices ... one for the Rich, the 
other for the Rest."
    Sincerely
    Charles Martin
    Maitland, FL

MTC-540



MTC-00000541

From: Pete
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:44am
Subject: Sellout
    This is the worst possible outcome to this case that you could 
possibly figured out.
    I wrote on CNN, YEARS ago that if microsoft was allowed to do 
that to Netscape then everyone's software would soon be assimilated 
into the Microsoft collective. Here we are YEARS later and this has 
become the system of microsoft innovation"
    Example: You guys are fighting over desktop icons and microsoft 
moves there entire platform to the Startup button in XP. Then says 
ya you can do anything with desktop icons like they're giving you 
something. You taking so long to get this sorted out Microsoft wins 
by loosing. While you guys keep wasting time Microsoft has tried to 
"innovate" the entire web. Then you let them go.... 
Shame Shame... In ten more years we'll all look back at all of this 
and realize just how big of a mistake you guys just made.... There 
is nothing in this agreement that is going to stop microsoft's 
behavior. They will just innovate around the agreement, You watch 
and see...
    G Conner

MTC-541



MTC-00000542

From: Bill Ataras
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:41 am
Subject: do not settle with microsoft
    I don't agree wth settling this case. microsoft has truely 
abused their position. An "operting system" does not 
contain anywhere near the amount of user accissible features that 
windows does. Only a tiny part of the windows package is an 
operating system. The rest is software products competing unfairly 
with other products in the marketplace by being shipped with the 
unerlying operating system.

MTC-542



MTC-00000543

From: Jerome Hammonds
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:41 am
Subject: Just One Question...

[[Page 23757]]

    Why did you even bother with a trial when, in the end, you 
didn't do a thing? I have completely lost faith in anything you 
purport. Your apologist press release did nothing but reaffirm my 
recently-gained belief that you don't plan on doing anything to 
punish Microsoft for their egregious antitrust violations. Even 
worse, you've ensured that they can continue doing it in the future 
with the full reassurance that the American Department of Justice 
has no teeth whatsoever.
    Jerome Hammonds
    CEO, System Medics

MTC-543



MTC-00000544

From: Steve Sheldon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 3:03 am
Subject: Microsoft settlement fair
    As a person who has been intimately involved in the IT Industry 
for 20 years, including working with many of the alternatives to 
Microsoft products, I feel the settlement proposed is fair. I know 
that I as well as most of my coworkers are tired of seeing companies 
such as Sun, Oracle, etc. spending all of their resources on 
government lobbying, instead of providing real competition in the 
marketplace by improving their products so they actually work well.

MTC-544



MTC-00000545

From: Hooman Katirai
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 3:01 am
Subject: Comments regarding Microsoft Antitrust Case
    The problem with the settlement is that it addresses past 
abusive behavior by Microsoft while doing little to address the 
future abuses that may happen or are already happening.
    Specifically I would like to highlight one central tenet of the 
settlement: allowing other companies to integrate their own web 
browsers. This is not a true remedy in the sense that it does not 
correct the original problem nor does it correct any of the other 
more pressing problems to anything more that a petty degree. 
Succintly, Microsoft has already won the browser war by abusing its 
monopoly powers. Allowing other manufacturers to integrate their own 
browsers will not correct this problem.
    There are several reasons why this is so. First, most 
manufacturers won't bother to integrate a new browser into their 
products. Even if they did (for example in return for some monetary 
compensation), any installed browser will have enourmous 
difficulties competing with the "default" browser that 
will be shipped by the majority of computers worldwide. Thus, many 
web sites will continue to be designed only for Microsoft's Internet 
Explorer while the opposite_the creation of web sites for 
other browsers_will seldom be the case. Thus Microsoft's hold 
in the browser market will continue to tighten over time.
    But more importantly, Microsoft's ambitious plan to illegally 
usurp Netscape has succeeded. The while the legal remedies purport 
to address this problem they do will not have any significant effect 
on Microsoft's activities. Second, the legal remedies do little to 
address Microsoft's present and future anticompetitive behavior. 
Recently we saw an epidode of this, when hotmail_a Microsoft 
owned web-based e-mail service_the largest of its kind in the 
world, suddenly locked out all competing browsers (including 
netscape) from it's service without prior notice. A message on the 
site asked users to "upgrade" to Internet Explorer, and 
it claimed the reason for the lock out was to enable the page to be 
rendered correctly.
    These claims however have since been demonstrated to be baseless 
lies. It was found that if the hotmail web page was accessed with 
Internet Explorer, and the source of the page was saved to a file, 
the file would render correctly in all competiting browsers. This 
demonstrates that the source code for these web pages was in fact 
renderable by all competiting browsers, while exposing Microsoft's 
claims as manifestly false.
    The only solution, as painful as it may be, seems to be to split 
the company Only in this way will they be prevented from continually 
abusing their power as the relentlessly have done and as the Justice 
department must be well aware. Any belief that such a break-up will 
be bad for the economy ignores the even greater loss sustained in an 
enviornment that lacks competition. Thus we must do the 'right-
thing" and press on.
    Best Regards,
    Hooman

MTC-545



MTC-00000546

From: Peter Hoff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:56 am
Subject: This settlement is a travesty
    I strongly believe that the DOJ has done a disservice to the 
American people, and indeed, the people of the world, by accepting 
the terms of this settlement. The settlement essentially absolves 
Microsoft of any wrongdoing and contains huge loopholes which 
Microsoft will certainly use to avoid the terms which it feels are 
not to it's advantage.
    I speak specifically of the clause which allows Microsoft to 
avoid revealing APIs on security grounds. I am certain this will be 
broadly abused my Microsoft, and there is no incentive for them not 
to, as the oversite commitee will be on their payroll and has no way 
to punish Microsoft even if it wanted to. The arguements Microsoft 
presents in support of this clause are completely bogus, and I offer 
as evidence the BSD operating system. Not only is the BSD source 
code (and therefore all APIs) openly available for anyone to peruse, 
it has also earned a reputation for being far more secure than any 
Microsoft product. The same is true of Linux, although it is not 
considered to be as secure as BSD.
    The lack of any punishment for past abuse is especially irksome. 
Microsoft has shown absolutely, and no signs that they have any 
intention of changing their ways. Quite the opposite in fact, as 
Windows XP proves.
    This settlement seems to only be to the advantage of Microsoft, 
essentially giving them a liscence to continue their abusive 
monopolistic practices for the next several years, further 
entrenching themselves.
    This settlement is a travesty, a sick joke played on the 
American people by those who are suppost to defend our interests.
    Disappointedly,
    Peter Hoff

MTC-546



MTC-00000547

From: Alex Hochberger
To: "microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov
Date: 11/17/01 3:21am
Subject: The current settlement fails to address the issues
    I am a small business owner that has worked in the computer 
industry for 5 years, as well an active enthusiast for over 10 
years. While I applaud the attempts to negotiate a settlement and 
remove the uncertainty in the computer industry, I fear that the 
short-term gain is outweighed by the long-term consequences.
    The primary problems that I have with the settlement is that 
there is nothing in it that punishes Microsoft for their illegal 
actions, and does nothing to remove the gains that they have made 
through anti-trust violations over the past 5 years.
    As a result of Netscape's experiences, it is impossible to get 
venture capital or angel funding in any market that Microsoft 
currently has a presence. The rest of the computer industry is 
unable to go into business against Microsoft, because of a belief 
that they will change their APIs or otherwise undermine the validity 
of your business.
    The problem is not that Microsoft is a fierce competitor; the 
problem is that any software business must reach customers on 
Microsoft desktop computers. Despite the positions of Apple and 
Linux in some niche markets, computer software will not work without 
reaching Microsoft desktops. Given trends over the past few years of 
not charging consumers directly (particularly for software), this 
puts the remainder of the computer industry in a difficult position. 
As Kodak saw with their printing services being pushed aside by XP's 
printing services, it doesn't matter if consumers choose to install 
your software, Microsoft will change their system to force their 
choices upon the consumer.
    I support Microsoft's ability to innovate, but the rest of the 
industry must be allowed to innovate as well. It is impossible to 
innovate in an environment where your competitor controls the ground 
rules of the engagement.
    The most interesting effect of a structural remedy would be 
allowing a Microsoft OS company to continue reaping the monopoly 
rents for the shareholders, while the applications company would 
need to compete on equal footing with the rest of the industry 
because the OS company would have no incentive to provide unique 
access to the Microsoft applications company. Without a structural 
remedy, the agreement must accomplish the goals of allowing open 
access for all companies to consumers utilizing the Microsoft 
desktop operating system. Further, Microsoft must be prevented from 
utilizing its current monopoly to stop

[[Page 23758]]

competition from Linux and other Open Source software initiatives.
    The provisions allowing Microsoft to disclose their protocols 
and APIs must be strengthened to prevent the security exemption 
(which is unnecessary, proper protocol security is not undermined by 
revealing the source code, protocol security should be 
mathematically secure, not obscured in the software source code) 
from shielding the important interoperation protocols. Further, the 
disclosure should be public disclosure, not limited to people under 
NDA at a Microsoft facility. Several of Microsoft's new competitors 
(Red Hat, Suse, Sun Microsystems, etc.) rely upon technology that is 
build in open source projects under the GNU General Public License. 
For these companies to compete, people without nondisclosure 
agreements must be able to access and work with the protocol 
specifications.
    As Microsoft is found to have a monopoly in the desktop 
operating systems market alone, these restrictions should be limited 
to the desktop environment.
    I propose that all protocols utilized by Microsoft (any exchange 
of information between software included in any distribution of 
Microsoft desktop software with another computer) have a detailed 
specification released into the public domain. If protocols are 
found that are not documented, Microsoft should be fined severely 
and the source code to the Windows operating system that 
communicates with those protocols should also be released into the 
public domain. Additionally, if specifications are found to be 
erroneous, the source code should be released into the public 
domain.
    Microsoft should not be able to gain an advantage in any market 
as a result of their desktop operating system monopoly. Any attempts 
to do so should result in severe penalties.
    Microsoft should be prohibited from providing any services that 
generate revenue for Microsoft with the operating system. Microsoft 
should be forced to compete on equal footing with third parties for 
this business. Microsoft's MSN service is able to compete with AOL 
in large part because Microsoft leveraged its desktop monopoly to 
place MSN in a prominent location, while AOL was forced to reach 
deals with OEMs.
    While Microsoft will maintain an advantage as a result of having 
a business relationship with the OEMs, they should be forced to 
compete with third parties. OEMs should be able to bundle commercial 
services with the computers (including those from Microsoft), but 
allowing Microsoft to skip this stage allows them to leverage their 
monopoly.
    Microsoft should be able to include any reasonable amount of 
technology with the operating system. However, if this technology is 
part of a service, Microsoft should not be able to leverage their 
position to achieve this goal.
    For retail versions of the software, Microsoft should not be 
allowed to bundle the services. Allow them to sell or give away CDs 
that provide this software, or allow users to download any service 
that they want. However, Microsoft should not be able to force the 
user to have their services accessed (or have the operating system 
offer to let you download their software).
    Microsoft should be forced to fully document their new 
technology 9 months before the retail version of the software is 
released. When Microsoft announced that IE was going to be bundled 
with Windows, Netscape should have had the full documentation for 
how this occurred. Netscape should have had an opportunity to let 
users replace the bundled Internet explorer with a fully integrated 
Netscape system.
    I wish to see Microsoft encouraged to innovate in the technology 
sector without preventing competition by the nature of their desktop 
monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    Alex M. Hochberger
    Alex M. Hochberger, CEO, Chairman
    Feratech, Inc.
    123 Newbury Street, Third Floor
    Boston, MA 02116
    Phone: 617-517-9343
    Cel: 617-821-6015
    Email: [email protected]
    Web: http://www.feratech.com

MTC-547



MTC-00000548

From: bud
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 3:15am
Subject: DOJ/MS Settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    I would like to respectfully suggest:
    1) That Microsoft be required to publish and commit to the 
Public Domain the API's (Application Program Interfaces) 
('documented' and "undocumented") for all of their 
Operating Systems from MSDOS V1.O onwards and into the future;
    2) That likewise they be required to commit to the Public Domain 
the source code for all of their Operating Systems from MSDOS V1.O 
to (but not including) Windows XP;
    3) That they be restrained from anti-competitive practices in 
perpetuity.
    Thank you,
    D. Woodrow Compton,
    consumer and U.S. citizen
    3204 41st Street
    Metairie, LA 70001

MTC-548



MTC-00000549

From: michael
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 3:05am
Subject: Feedback
    The proposed settlement falls far short of dismantleing the 
Microsoft monopoly for the following reasons:
    1) The company is allowed to profit enourmously from criminal 
activities.
    2) The The language of the agreement is far too vague. 
Restrictions appear in one section, and appear to be countered in 
other sections.
    3) The monopoly has created illegitimately based, closed, 
standards. No one can compete because the large majority of pc users 
would lose access to their data if they wanted to switch. These 
illegially based standards need to be exposed to allow competitors 
to adopt them, ultimately providing consumers with equally 
functional alternatives. This means the Windows API, networking 
system, and document file types.
    4) In my opinion, bundling is not an issue so long as consumers 
can choose to install competing products and use them as defaults.
    The only idea from the agreement that I believe will help 
consumers is the restrictions on the ability of Microsoft to force 
OEM's to sell only Windows on their PC's. The option of a dual boot 
computer, one that boots Windows as well as a competitors Operating 
System, will allow consumers to try alternative operating systems 
without having to overcome the often difficult task of installing 
and configuring the operating system. I believe this percieved 
difficulty is the reason most consumers purchase pre-configured 
PC's. Placing all operating systems on potentially level ground will 
promote innovation in the PC industry.
    Thank you for your time,
    Michael Wollenberg
    [email protected]

MTC-549



MTC-00000550

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 3:04am
Subject: Please.. .do something...
    To whom it may concern,
    I must chime in a say that SOMETHING must be done to help break 
up the monopoly that is Microsoft.
    I know that there was a settlement and that there were penalties 
levied again Microsoft, but the majority of those levies were one 
that were already in place and being followed. Microsoft's dominance 
in the desktop computer market is staggering and stifling.
    Competition sparks innovation and competition is exactly what 
Microsoft does NOT have. With this lack of competition, Microsoft 
has little reason to significantly improve their product or open up 
their specifications to others so that they may develop competing 
products:
    Letting Microsoft bully the computer industry and the government 
is truly a blow against all that American industry has been about 
for the past 150 years. We have made sure that monopolies don't 
maintain a grasp, thereby choking innovation and inspiration, all in 
the name of money. Please stop Microsoft now, before it is truly too 
late.
    Sincerely,
    Lee McLain

MTC-550



MTC-00000551

From: Jeff Sepeta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 3:37am
Subject: failure of the justice system
    As a computer consultant with 10 years experience in the 
industry, I find that the settlement you've offered to Microsoft 
threatens to instill even more animosity between the American public 
and our ailing legal system_ and this, within months of the 
Supreme Court selecting our President. After

[[Page 23759]]

years and millions of dollars spent on this case, you've basically 
walked away from any kind of credibility. Why? Was Bill Gates' 
donations to the Bush candidacy an influencing factor?
    Microsoft has been stealing technology from their competitors 
for over 15 years, but only gets a hand-slap with this, the most 
important intellectual property case ever. Warnings to Microsoft 
have worked in the past, and there is little reason to think that it 
will work now. The only way to send a message to Microsoft that 
weilding their monopoly power over the industry is wrong is to come 
up with a stronger settlement_perhaps a 5 billion dollar 
judgement to be divided up amongst their competitors? Actually, the 
suggested breakup made the most sense.
    Please note that Windows 98 cost $100 new. Windows XP costs 
$200. Now that they've knocked their competitors to the ropes, they 
can charge whatever they want for products. This is a sign that they 
have won, and the Justice Department has abandoned their role as 
protectors of democracy.
    Jeff Sepeta
    Sepeta Consulting, Inc.
    www.sepeta.com
    [email protected]

MTC-551



MTC-00000552

From: Eric Porter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 3:31am
Subject: The Microsoft Case
    Microsoft should not be punished for their success, which is 
what the antitrust laws are used for. I defend Microsoft's freedom 
to innovate. The antitrust laws are immoral. Those laws should be 
revoked and the Government has no right to destroy producive legal 
businesses.
    -Eric Porter

MTC-552



MTC-00000553

From: John Reyst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 3:26am
Subject: Microsoft DOJ Settlement
    I'll keep this brief. While the restrictions on Microsofts 
future actions may be adequate (I don't believe they are) I fail to 
see any clearly punitive consequences. At the VERY LEAST I would 
like to hear Bill Gates be forced to make a statement admitting 
guilt. Up to now we have never heard Bill admit anything illegal, 
even though the courts very clearly indicate they did. "We 
admit that we knowingly broke the law. It was a mistake, and we 
knowingly and willingly harmed the consumers choice because of our 
illegal acts. We further state that because of our past misdeeds, we 
are forced to be supervised so we don't continue to harm consumers, 
or consumer choice."
    Thank you,
    John Reyst

MTC-553



MTC-00000554

From: John Hightower
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 4:02am
    It's time to let Microsofi's competitors compete by making 
better products, not paying off the Justice Department with 
political contributions. The anti-trust laws are for the benefit of 
end users (consumers), NOT competitors who can't make the grade with 
customers because of shabby marketing of their inferior products. 
The settlement should stand as is. The original case should never 
have been brought in the first place.

MTC-554



MTC-00000555

From: Immanuel Raja J
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 4:02am
Subject: Microsoft Sir,
    I have purchased a desktop PC Fujitsu. I didnt wanted MS Windows 
98 on it but I have to pay for it. (I payed for the product which I 
didn't want to use.) Now I am forced to use the product (which 
ofcource I rarly use) because I have payed for it. I had some 
problems with the product. Looking at the Advertisement for Windows 
ME (which claims to be a better product then other Windows for home 
versions) I purchased an upgrade and installed it. I feel very sad 
to say this that when I defrag the hdd I found that I could not 
restart my computer. On further investigation I found that Windows 
ME DEFRAG has eaten all my systems files. I feel I am cheated 
because they had sold me an inferior product. Latter I found that 
Windows ME when installed in partition heigher then 8GB gives me 
error. I also have linux (SuSE 7.1) running on my PC. Though Linux 
is free I paid a little heigher then the price I paid for my Windows 
ME. But interestingly SuSE kept its promise. I have no problem in 
running Linux. Though Linux GUI may not be as good as that of 
Windows the following are the points why I prefer to use Linux.
    1. Stable: I have had no crash so for.
    2. Fast: Linux is faster in executing a command or program.
    3. On the long run I have no fatigue using Linux but using 
Windows I get frustrated every time I run it for a long time.
    4. Secure: I was never in need of any additional software then 
the ones SuSE offered me. (No Anti-Virus, No Additional firewall, 
etc..)
    5. I AM FORCED TO RETAIN THE WINDOWS PRODUCTS BECAUSE THE 
LICENCE SAYS THAT ONCE I OPEN THE CD I CAN'T RETURN._How will 
I know if windows is good for me or not. I should be able to return 
Windows CD, with all the original packing to MS and should be able 
to get a return on my receipt.
    6. I DON'T LIKE SOME TO FORCE ME TO BUY THE A PRODUCT I DON'T 
WANT_Consumers should be protected. Computer hardware vendors 
should offer products what their consumers want and not be forced by 
misuse of monopolistic attitude of the software manufacturer. I 
definetly want multi-vendor support on my hardware like AOL Instant 
messaging and Yahoo Messaging, Real Player, Netscape. I would also 
like to use open-source products like Apache server, MySQL server, 
PERL. I would prefer my hardware vendor to support me on products 
like this.
    I am concerned that this case should not only address microsoft 
issue but also any future company which will try to misuse their 
monopoly.
    I make my humble suggestion that such companies should not only 
be legally penalised but also should be made to pay hefty fines to 
the goverment And such fine money be use further to stops all sorts 
of misuse of monopoly.
    Please protect the consumers from such companies. I have 
confidence in you. You can make a change now. Thank you for allowing 
us to raise our voices.
    Kind Regards
    Immanuel

MTC-555



MTC-00000556

From: Jeremy Horwitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 3:56am
Subject: Devastating Settlement
    As a longtime observer of Microsoft's software development and 
business tactics, I feel compelled to write and express my sincere 
shock and disappointment at the limited scope of the proposed 
settlement tentatively reached with Microsoft. That untold millions 
of tax dollars could have been spent to reach a conclusion such as 
this_political motivations aside_is, from my 
perspective, an indictment of the entire antitrust enforcement 
mechanism of the FTC. What results from a settlement such as this 
one is a Microsoft no worse, and in fact considerably better, than 
the one that threatened or tore smaller companies to shreds only 
several years ago. All of Microsoft's core applications, from the 
Office suite (Word, Powerpoint, Excel, and Outlook) to Internet 
Explorer, and Media Player have become so tightly integrated with 
Windows as to be the near-exclusive choices of PC users. The Justice 
Department and FTC's inactions during the course of this prosecution 
have resulted in the continued bundling of products that were at one 
point competing with other companies' crown jewels_ Netscape 
Navigator and RealPlayer_products that because of Microsoft's 
dominance are now on the cusp of irrelevance. Microsoft today is 
stronger than ever, its competitors are weaker than ever, and its 
products _ as evidenced from their latest licensing agreements 
and pricing structures for Windows_are more expensive and 
restrictive than ever.
    By focusing in a strict textual sense on bullying of Microsoft's 
competitors, e.g. by telling them that they "shall not 
retaliate," you ignore the truth of their 
actions_through monopolistic power, Microsoft need not 
retaliate against those who threaten them. They can give away 
products that render their biggest competitive threats (and your 
greatest agency concerns) completely irrelevant if not bankrupt. 
Frankly, the specific phrases and terms used your proposed agreement 
uses are unbelievable. Look at Microsoft's history_their famed 
case against Apple, their innumerable one-sided development deals, 
and their previous history of working against their own distributors 
and customers. This is a company that tests and twists the meaning 
of

[[Page 23760]]

every word in every written agreement they sign. Face it: they pay 
some of the world's best software programmers and lawyers a lot more 
money than you do, and they will figure out ways around a document 
as hastily drafted as this one. Force Microsoft to sell a Windows 
stripped of Internet Explorer, Media Player, and Messenger. Force 
the price to be one third the price of what they sell the entire 
suite for. And allow Microsoft's competitors_ AOL/Netscape, 
Real, Apple Computer, and many smaller companies with great 
ideas_to have a fighting chance to succeed in the marketplace 
again. This is what the FTC and Justice Department are charged to do 
under our federal antitrust laws.
    Yours,
    J. Horwit

MTC-556



MTC-00000557

From: vedder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 3:40am
Subject: On the alleged "settlement"
    Please actually punish Microsoft for their actions. While I 
applaud you finding them guilty of! for their monopolistic 
practices, the "remedy" posed in the settlement you have 
reached does nothing more than say "Gosh, you were bad. You 
shouldn't be the huge monopoly you are. We won't do anything to 
prevent you from furthering your monopoly, or even punish you for 
getting where you did. Just know that we are all awfully upset with 
you. Remember to continue donating huge sums of money to the 
political party of your choice. Or both, as that covers all your 
bases." No penalty. No reason for them to stop doing what they 
are doing. This is a "settlement"?
    I wish I could donate dollar for dollar against them, but I'm 
just a citizen, so I guess they win.
    _David Vedder
    New York State resident and US citizen.

MTC-557



MTC-00000558

From: P0 Box
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 4:12am
Subject: M$ & DOJ
    I would like to comment on the Microsoft/DOJ antitrust 
settlement. I do not feel that the proposed restrictions' on 
Microsoft will achieve anything or compensate for the damage that 
the company has wrought in the past.
    "simply telling a defendant to go forth and sin no more 
does little or nothing to address the unfair advantage it has 
already gained."
    Very wise words from the now retired judge Stanley Sporkin and 
the recent arrangement between the DOJ and Microsoft does nothing to 
address unfair advantages gained by Microsoft through it's previous 
(on-going) anti-competitive practises.
    I would also like to thank the justice dept. for setting up this 
email address for feedback.
    Regards,
    Paul Berrecloth

MTC-558



MTC-00000559

From: REF
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 4:08am
Subject: Microsft Settlement
    I was and still am appalled by this anti-trust suit against 
Microsoft! If the government thinks Microsoft has been uncompetitive 
I think the government had better look into the grocery business. 
There is where they will find activity not in the best interest of 
the public! Look at how many grocery stores operate under the 
pretense as an independant grocer, yet are owned by a single 
parent" company. This is what I consider an UNFAIR PRACTICE 
and DECEPTIVE to the consumer. Microsoft should NOT be repremanded 
for their innovative products that have revolutionized the computer 
industry in a way that allows the average person to comprehend and 
therefore use a computer. The products offered by Microsoft have 
opened a whole world of ideas and other products introduced by their 
competitors. America stands for FREE INTERPRISE and the opportunity 
for anyone with a good product the capability of marketing that 
product to the world. That ideal should extend to Microsoft just as 
it extends to any other company.
    Edie L. Fisk

MTC-559



MTC-00000560

From: Donnell Sam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 4:03am
Subject: Comments from Australia on the Microsoft case
    I think it is funny that the DoJ lets a company which has preyed 
on others left, right and centre get away with less than a slap on 
the wrist. Is the DoJ technically ignorant? Have you ever tried 
using any other browser along with Internet Explorer on Windows? Has 
anyone from the DoJ tried playing Real Audio clips on XP? Are all 
the technical writers fools? Are they all biased? How can a company 
with such a horrendous record be allowed to continue to produce 
software which reduces the chances of anybody else competing?
    Why must peoeple be condemned to use mediocre software just 
because Microsoft produces it?
    Sam
    Sam Varghese
    http://www.gnubies.com

MTC-560



MTC-00000561

From: Brian Jamison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 4:31am
Subject: Comment from a high-tech CEO on the proposed settlement
    I am a high-tech startup CEO with a track record of several 
successful companies and over fifteen years in the computer 
industry. I am also a published author on electronic commerce 
(Electronic Selling, McGraw-Hill, 1997).
    As proposed, the settlement means total victory to Microsoft, 
and will only encourage their illegal behavior. The settlement will 
not magically spur our economy into growth_ in fact it will 
only take us further into recession. There is a solution. Allow me 
to explain.
    There is a way to reintroduce competition back into the 
marketplace and jumpstart our economy_force Microsoft to 
openly disclose its source code for Windows. Every line of it. I'll 
tell you why.
    Opening up the Windows source code will spur a wave of 
investment, job creation, and innovation. No sane investor will back 
a company that plans to compete with Microsoft today. But were the 
rules of the game known, as they used to be, innovation and economic 
growth would return.
    Because investors will not back Microsoft competitors, there has 
been a disturbing lack of advancement in software for personal 
computers that runs on Microsoft Windows in the past few years. The 
pace of software development used to be so fast that businesses and 
consumers felt an urgent need to undertake the substantial cost, 
both in time and capital, to upgrade their hardware and software at 
least every two years.
    That need is no longer present. Ask the leaders of Dell, 
Gateway, Intel_ ask the leaders of America's great businesses. 
They will tell you there is simply no compelling reason to upgrade 
their systems with anywhere near the same frequency as they used to. 
They do not percieve a competitive advantage in doing so.
    Microsoft's lawyers claim that certain parts of the Windows 
source code cannot be made public because of security concerns. As 
an expert in security and cryptography I tell you this is nonsense. 
I should know, I wrote an article on cryptography for the Microsoft 
Developer's Journal. The worst form of security is security through 
obscurity. The best form of security is that which is subject to 
public scrutiny. Language that allows any part of the operating 
system to be shielded from open release will be exploited by 
Microsoft.
    No other penalty is necessary than this. None other will serve 
to spur on our economy. You have in your hands the obligation to 
restore competition to the marketplace. I trust you will do the 
right thing, and force Microsoft to open Windows source code to the 
public.
    Thank you for your time,
    Brian Jamison
    CEO
    Interest Bearing, LLC
    937 Westwood Blvd
    Los Angeles, CA 90024
    [email protected]

MTC-561



MTC-00000562

From: jwilkins @bitland.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 4:28am
Subject: unwise.
    So here's the story to date.
    Microsoft is discovered doing things to squelch competetion in 
1995. They are hit with a ruling that should have discouraged 
further abuses.
    Flash forward 4 years.
    They're still at it..
    So another settlement is reached.. more or less the same.. no 
restructuring. Another 'go forth and sin no more' type 
of settlement.
    What on earth makes you believe that they'll do anything 
different? An incredulous observer

[[Page 23761]]

    Jonathan

MTC-562



MTC-00000563

From: Greg Handy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 4:21am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The Microsoft settlement is too lenient. It does almost nothing 
to stop Microsoft's monopolistic behavior. Let me talk about why it 
does practically nothing.
    1. Sure, preventing Microsoft from coercing computer makers into 
excluding certain icons on the desktop is good. But it has a limited 
effect. Do you go to the desktop every time you want to run an 
application, or do you use the Start button? Personally, I don't see 
my desktop for weeks at a time. This is a very small concession from 
Microsoft.
    2. Forcing Microsoft to disclose information about the OS...This 
is not a concession at all. They have always been good about sharing 
technical information. That is why Windows won the battle against 
OS/2. They made it easier for developers than IBM. Bill is laughing 
at you guys for this one. I know about this. I am a software 
developer. I have never had a problem obtaining information about 
Microsoft APIs. Go to http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/ and see all 
the documentation they provide for developers. Or search their 
knowledge base at: http://search.microsoft.comladvanced 
search.asp?qu=&siteid=us.
    3. Do you really think somebody on Microsoft's campus is going 
to do anything? Microsoft will only allow them to see what they 
want. And what if there is a disagreement? We will go back to court 
for a long protracted battle, and 3 operating systems later, maybe a 
judge will issue an injunction. It will not stop their monopolistic 
behavior.
    Here is the real issue. Microsoft can run just about any 
software company out of business, as they did with Netscape. All 
they have to do is include a certain piece of software in the 
operating system for "free". Will people play for 
something, they can get for "free"? No, I don't think 
so_Microsoft will run the competition out of business. And of 
course, it is not free. Microsoft has to pay their developers for 
every application they develop. The price of the operating system 
goes up, and consumers have to pay for products they may not need. 
This is tying two products together. If you want the operating 
system, you have to buy a web browser, and TCP/IP stack, and media 
player, and Paint program, and work processor, and games, and phone 
dialer, and email program, etc. Is tying illegal? I suspect it is.
    Judge Jackson's decision to split Microsoft into 2 companies is 
a good one. Let the MS software company compete with others on an 
equal footing. Put somebody in the MS operating system company to 
ensure that only OS functionality is added to the operating system. 
Any new additions to the OS must be approved as an integral part of 
the operating system, and not an application. That way, all 
applications have an equal chance to succeed, and competition is 
restored. Not only that.. .but the OS company can focus on making 
the OS smaller, faster, and more stable, without having to worry 
about writing applications.
    Splitting Microsoft into two companies is a win-win situation 
for consumers. They get a better OS, and competition is restored to 
the software applications business.
    Greg Handy
    http://greghandy.org
    [email protected]
    (703) 234-3954 x8786

MTC-563



MTC-00000564

From: Dave Kjar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 4:32am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Remedies
    Dear Sir or Madame,
    Please accept my comments as a concerned US citizen pertaining 
to the proposed remedies in the ongoing Microsoft anti-trust 
litigation. I consider myself an informed and conservative opinion. 
I have 20 years of computer software and hardware development 
experience, a degree in Electrical Engineering, and focused 
experience using and developing for Microsoft's systems as well as 
for their their competitor's. A remedy such as is proposed simply 
requires Microsoft to 'sin no more' and is inadequate because:
    1. This is not the first ruling of anti-competitive behavior. If 
Microsoft chooses not to comply, it would not be the first time that 
such remedies would be ignored by that company. Microsoft has in the 
past show no sign of a conscience when it ignored previous remedies 
and invented additional methods to squelch competition.
    2. There is no apparent financial incentive for the company to 
comply, based on the precedent set by this and previous light 
actions against the company. Microsoft is clearly placed a regime 
where crime pays, hansomely. Since previous judgements were levied, 
Microsoft has "innovated" the art of squelching its 
competition in ways that are not addressed by the remedies. Examples 
include:
    Frontpage licensing, which prevents the publishing of 
information critical of Microsoft.
    SDK licensing, which prevents alternative compiler tools to be 
used.
    OEM agreements, hidden behind a woefully mis-applied veil of 
"trade secret."
    SQL Server licensing, which dissallows publishing of performance 
data.
    Requiring licensees to disclose participation in government 
investigations, as noted by Texas' Attorney General in 1997.
    Impending expiration of licensing and support for older 
operating systems.
    Nearly all Microsoft application licenses, which specifies 
Microsoft operating systems, and does not allow for emulated or 
competing systems.
    Misinformation in public statements, regarding competitors 
licenses (recently Novell) and common free licenses (as GPL and 
Berkeley).
    Corporate purjury, as in the falsification of evidence presented 
in the USDOJ trial.
    Very few of the above list of infractions are prevented by the 
USDOJ's purported remedy. Again, market forces alone cannot correct 
the above situations, since Microsoft has monopolized PC software 
infrastructure market. The remainder of practices actually addressed 
by the ruling are weakened by loopholes in which the ruling's 
terminology is explicitly left to the interpretation of the convict! 
This freedom of interpretation must be removed from any effective 
remedy.
    A far more effective remedy would be to separate the part of 
Microsoft that sells to the infrastructure market from the divisions 
of Microsoft that compete in creating applications that run on that 
infrastructure. Note that this would not devalue a legally operating 
corporation, since the court has ruled that the markets are 
separate. (In fact, the only way that it could actually devalue the 
company is in the way it deters product tying, monolithic 
integration, and abusive licensing practices to continue.)
    I wonder, will the USDOJ's policy against criminals, as 
displayed by this proposed remedy, be applied to drug pushers? Under 
such application, a man guilty of selling crack, heroin, marijuana, 
and speed would be convicted of posessing marijuana and speed, and 
be sentenced to a handshake and a promise not to use anything the 
convict believes is marijuana for 5 years.
    I have personally been injured by Microsoft's conduct. Over the 
past 6 years I bought 2 leading edge computer systems, actively 
seeking for vendors that would sell me the hardware without the cost 
of Microsoft OS added in. In each case, I wan unable to find a 
vendor that could meet my specifications without buying unneeded 
software from Microsoft. I estimate that Microsoft's practices 
robbed me of $500.
    It is obvious that, unless it seeks additional remedies of a 
punitive and structural nature, the Justice Department will fail to 
perform its duties in upholding the law of the land, and in acting 
in the interest of the citizenry. Do not make our government a party 
to the robbery.
    Dave Kjar 
    7427 Castle Wood
    San Antonio, TX 78218

MTC-564



MTC-00000565

From: Cathy Gage
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 4:48am
Subject: Comments on Microsoft Judgement
    If Microsoft is allowed to get away with this slap on the hand 
that the Justice Department calls a settlement, then we know longer 
have to wonder who will control the world of technology when it 
comes to operating systems and anything currently known as 
software.. ..Microsoft is a monopoly and it seems the Justice 
Department is just allowing them to continue to be one! 1 hope the 
states still holding law suits against them succeed where a weak-
kneed Justice Department is obviously not willing to. If Microsoft 
is allowed to continue to set the standards we see in the computer 
world today, we can obviously forget anything that even comes close 
to excellence! And so much for innovation because they have yet to 
even come close to such a thing....the only thing they seem able to 
be innovative about is screwing the American

[[Page 23762]]

public and using "so-called" representatives in the US 
government as their agents.
    Sincerely,
    Cathy Gage
    Chugiak, AK
    gagecathy @gci.net

MTC-565



MTC-00000566

From: John Pampuch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 4:45am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I realize that you will receive extensive email at this address; 
no response is necessary.
    Microsoft will continue to extend its software monopoly by 
leveraging their already massive deployment advantage. Prior to the 
earlier settlement, Microsoft strong armed OEMs into bundling their 
office software with their OS. In the context of web browsers, I 
find it interesting that the market penetration of MSIE matched the 
market penetration of the first version of Windows where the browser 
was integrated.
    What will prevent this from happening in the space of instant 
messaging, or other genres of software? I would be curious to see 
what happens in these markets.
    John Pampuch
    408-504-3544

MTC-566




MTC-00000567

From: Christopher Griesel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 4:39am
Subject: Microsoft Upgrade Eligibility_Competing Products and 
Computing science advancement for humanity, not for gross profit.
    Hi,
    1. A glaringly obvious thing for me was that for Windows 95 and 
NT4, to be eligible for the upgrade version, owning a competing 0/S 
made you eligible to purchase the upgrade, with every subsequent 
release of Windows, the only way to be eligible for the upgrade 
version was to own a previous Microsoft O/S, not a competitor's (Not 
that there is anymore).
    2. IF they figured on the Internet integration for windows so 
long ago, why did Windows 95's default network and dial-up 
installation not have TCP/IP by default, but rather Microsoft's 
preferred tech: IPX/SPX at the time?
    3. I remember having to fork over money for the first versions 
of Internet Explorer, imagine if Netscape never gave theirs away for 
free, we'd be paying for our www browsers from the very beginning, 
just the way Microsoft would like it.
    Last point:
    If computing is supposed to become such an integral part of our 
everyday lives and were supposed to embrace it as a society, isn't 
it scary that one company has totalitarian control over the system 
running the most widely adopted technologies today?
    Shouldn't the systems adopted everywhere be open for 
integration, examination and evaluation by representatives of 
humanitarian society? e.g. Professors, writers, academics? and not 
profiteers whose' clouded primary objective is profit and not the 
advancement of society through the technologies we adopt?

MTC-567



MTC-00000568

From: Russ Magee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 4:33am
Subject: Concerns over DOJ/MS Settlement
    Dear Sirs/Madams;
    As a computing professional who has worked in the industry for 
nearly 10 years, I feel I am qualified to comment on the USIDOJ 
anti-trust case and Microsoft's conduct in the computing industry.
    I feel the settlement reached with Microsoft is totally 
unacceptable. Microsoft's hold on the market is unaffected by the 
DOJ's lawsuit, as MS still retains complete control over the defacto 
standards for doing business today_the Microsoft Office data 
formats; MS still has 'trade secret' OEM contracts which 
are rumoured to prohibit the installation of any non-MS operating 
system alongside theirs; and MS still refuses to disclose critical 
programming information to other software companies and programmers 
worldwide.
    The concept of an operating system, which all PCs require to run 
at all, in our day and age must be considered 'critical 
infrastructure', much like our system of national highways, or 
the electrical system. Microsoft, as well as any other popular OS 
vendor, should be required to adhere to strict standards of public 
availability, without prejudice, for the common good (*not* for one 
corporation's benefit).
    Microsoft is constantly modifying their software (especially 
their Office Suite's data formats) so that no one can make an 
adequately compatible software. To truly open up the desktop 
computing market again to competition, Microsoft should be required 
to:
    1) Publish *complete* specifications of the data formats used in 
Microsoft Word, Excel, Access, and Powerpoint applications;
    2) Be required, for a period of at least five (5) years, to make 
*freely* available (no NDA contracts) any planned changes to the 
above formats, at least ninety (90) days prior to releasing any 
product, or product update, which would modify the above formats;
    3) Be required to fully document the Application Programming 
Interfaces (APIs) and network communication protocols for the 
current flagship Windows operating systems (Windows 2000 and Windows 
XP); it has been *proven* many times over that Microsoft withholds 
critial API information in order to prevent competitors from 
designing fully compatible software.
    4) Be required to make all OEM licensing agreements publicly 
available (they are currently claimed to be 'trade 
secrets' by Microsoft), and be compelled to remove any clauses 
prohibiting or penalizing OEMs for placing other, non-Microsoft 
operating systems, on PCs at time of sale alongside their own 
operating systems.
    Please consider these points before final judgements on the 
Microsoft anti-trust case. If the above points are not implemented, 
Microsoft will be perceived to be 'above the law', and I, 
among many others in the computing industry, will have lost a great 
deal of respect for the American Department of Justice as an 
instrument of the law.
    Truly,
    Russell Magee

MTC-568



MTC-00000569

From: [email protected] @ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 5:24am
Subject: COMMENT ON SETTLEMENT w/MICROSOFT
    As an American citizen I must tell you I have about lost all 
faith in American 'justice" with this so called 
"settlement" between the U.S. Government and Microsoft 
after Microsoft was found guilty of predatory (and I might add 
egregious) anti-trust actions.
    I agree with the CEO of Sun Microsystems that what has happened 
is the "equivalent of being caught on tape committing murder 
then simply walking away scott free."
    This settlement is an affront to every American's sense of 
justice in this country. How you lawyers can expect young kids in 
the barrios of East L.A._or anywhere for that matter_to 
be good citizens and "obey the law" when the law is a 
joke and that joke is right out front for them to see, is beyond me. 
All you have done with this decision is prove to these kids that 
with enough money and power you can hire good lawyers to "get 
you off' (does the name O.J. Simpson come to mind here?)
    I agree with Ed Black of the Computer & Communications 
Industry Association when he says "Every one of those (meaning 
the settlement "elements" that give Microsoft loopholes 
to slip through) is a loophole I can drive an aircraft 
through".
    I cannot imagine what in God's name government lawyers in this 
case were thinking about with this insulting 
"settlement" unless there is some sort of kickback or 
favors involved here. This thing makes no sense at all to the 
average American.
    Microsoft had a trial, fair and square. Even MORE than fair 
since they had the best lawyers money could buy_something the 
average American does not have. Microsoft was convicted despite it's 
"best-in-the-land legal minds that money could buy". Now 
damn it, the company should pay a heavy price for breaking that law 
and destroying God knows how many businesses along the way 
_just like any American would have to pay. In destroying those 
business ventures along the way with it's predatory practices 
Microsoft also bloodied the lives and dreams of thousands of hard 
working men and women.
    As far as I am concerned, every government lawyer involved in 
this decision to slap Microsoft on the wrist is either a crook, 
terminally stupid or hopes that by his actions he'll end up someday 
with a sweet job on Microsoft's payroll.
    God help us all if these lawyers are representative of the 
people we taxpayers have on the payroll.
    Ron Faver
    Seattle

MTC-569

[[Page 23763]]



MTC-00000570

From: yottahz @EARTH @inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 5:23am
Subject: freedom
    Greetings,
    I am an open source developer and a US citizen. As far as I am 
concerned, the free software movement does not need, or benefit, 
from the help of the government. Open source IS the PEOPLE, and 
PEOPLE WILL prevale over corporations that prevent our freedoms. IN 
FACT, by punishing Microsoft you are giving them an excuse to attack 
us further.
    signed,
    James D Taylor

MTC-570



MTC-00000571

From: Jean-Claude Gervais
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 6:05am
Subject: About the Microsoft suit
    Hello,
    I'm a software developer with 20 years experience.
    I feel I owe Microsoft for the last ten prosperous years I've 
had in my profession. The meteoric rise of Windows coupled with my 
knowledge of it has assured me a good living, and I thank them 
wholeheartedly.
    I think that it is suicidal for the economy and the IT industry 
to hamstring them.
    Microsoft started out small and became a tremendous success; 
they followed the American dream.
    The only reason they are being persecuted now that they are 
successful is that some of their competitors can't win with a 
superior product because they don't have the wherewithal to pull it 
off, and instead have to resort to lobbying and other dishonourable 
methods to attack a great software company.
    Thank you.
    Jean-Claude Gervais
    Laval, Quebec
    Canada

MTC-571



MTC-00000572

From: Ian Struckhoff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 5:54am
Subject: Settlement
    I am apalled by the settlement agreement with Microsoft. The 
company has abused one of the biggest monopolies in recent history, 
and was essentially already convicted. What sort of prosecutor would 
settle out of court during sentencing, and settle for far weaker a 
remedy than the court would demand? This is an important process, 
and represents our ability, or lack-thereof, as a nation, to stop a 
unabashed monopolist with arrogant policies from abusing its 
position. At least some of the states know that a big crime demands 
a stronger punishment.
    Ian C. Struckhoff
    Enfleld, NH

MTC-572



MTC-00000573

From: George Polly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 6:34am
Subject: comment
    your settlement has not gone far enough to break a microsoft 
takeover of the PC industry, you need to force them to break the OS 
from the applications, this is the only way to allow other companies 
to compete on the application side. why would anyone buy an instant 
messager or browser if they can get one for free with there OS?
    if microsoft can control the OS and the major applications, they 
can then control the technology and economics of the PC industry. 
please force microsoft to release its OS bare, meaning no 
applications (at a reduced price, of course). this would open up 
more people, like myself, to get the latest OS technology without 
being forced to install the microsoft applications which i dont want 
or need.
    thanks,
    george polly
    Get 250 color business cards for FREE!
    http://businesscards.lycos.comlvp/fastpathl

MTC-573



MTC-00000574

From: Ken Alverson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 6:21am
Subject: support for microsoft
    You guys made the front page of Slashdot.org, so I'm sure you're 
receiving a flood of mail right now. Rather than write a long drawn 
out message detailing my support for Microsoft (which I don't have 
time to write and you probably don't have time to read), I'd just 
like to briefly ask you to take the current surge of emails with a 
grain of salt. Slashdot is populated in bulk by rabid anti-Microsoft 
teenagers. Loud, idealistic, reactionary teenagers, who enjoy 
flooding emailboxes supporting their latest cause, whether or not 
they know what they are talking about.
    I do not mean to characterize all Slashdot members as idiots, 
there are smart people there too, with opinions worth considering, 
both negative and positive. However, please do not take the sheer 
bulk of negative mail as representative of the world at large.
    Thanks!
    Ken

MTC-574



MTC-00000575

From: Carl Lumma
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 6:10am
Subject: Illegal Climate? (in the style The New York Times;)
    First, allow me to suggest that the points agreed upon in the 
recent settlement with Microsoft (MS) are meaningless_nothing 
but the collected idle gripes of anyone who's ever had a product 
'ruined' because MS used the Windows desktop as ad space 
for their own competing product while the plaintiffs actually had to 
get users to run an installer to convert the desktop into a 
billboard on their behalf. If advertising were the issue, users 
ought to be able to charge for their desktop space. [If you get 
caught thinking this far-fetched, consider that such a system has 
evolved in the shareware industry.] But advertising is a non-issue; 
anti-trust legislation is not meant to reward reparations to 
vanquished competition. The issue is preserving a climate for future 
competition.
    The smorgasbord of gripes, even if we didn't agree with the 
above, or if we did agree that MS should be punished but could see 
no other course of action, is at least so difficult to implement 
that it is effectively harmless to MS and useless in supporting a 
competitive marketplace. The Justice Department, who takes three 
years and three judges to get a "settlement", would have 
us imagine that they can enforce such a complex and ambiguous policy 
in market-time? The one single, effortlessly and unimpeachably 
enforced, admirably fair and effective sanction that could have been 
imposed on MS but was not is: A Complete Good-till-canceled 
Moratorium on Exclusionary Licencesing. The measure would leave MS 
to compete with only their own highly-touted (and justly so) merits 
as a software maker and their indisputable dominance, even by 
classical standards, of the computer software marketplace. nt can be 
argued that the engine of backward- compatibility means egregious 
degree of dominance x in a classical market is on the order of 
unstoppable monopoly lOx in the computer software market, once the 
size of the software standard in question, and thus the cost of 
engineering a new standard from the ground up, reaches a certain 
point. After, only a 'shadow' (playing in the 
dominator's sandbox) model is viable; a niche which never seems to 
win more than 5% (and seldom more than 1%) of such a sandbox, even 
in the volatile arena of microprocessor hardware, where the sandbox 
in question is defined by a relatively small and well-published 
item; an instruction set vs. oceans of poorly-commented and poorly 
documented MS source code.]
    This raises the question: is exclusionary licensing against the 
law? The answer is: It isn't. It is a practice grandfathered 
everywhere from soda fountains to newspaper routes. Has Microsoft 
done anything illegal at all? It has been found to be a monopoly, 
and to the extent that is illegal we are justified to meddle in some 
of the more aggressive of their trading practices, and exclusionary/
restricted licensing policy is the Jimmy Valentine of their 
notorious efforts here, especially regarding their publicly-leaked 
goal of eradicating the Linux sandbox.
    But is MS really a Monopoly? I have dispute x with Jackson's 
findings of fact... Instead of asking Jackson, let's ask Linus 
Torvalds, a person with more knowledge of the computer industry, and 
likely with more general intelligence anyway. He asks if there is 
any company other than MS_at all, in any sandbox, that is 
profitable on the basis of EULA software binaries. With the 
forgettable (if not dubious) exceptions of Adobe and Corel, the 
answer would have to be: No. Notable are Sun and Apple; companies 
with excellent software products who tried unsuccessfully to leave 
their hardware-based economics. Also notable is IBM, the hardware 
company that gave birth to MS but was unable to profit on software, 
finding a role only as a service/solution provider. In a market 
truly so difficult, is there any one who would hear Microsoft cry 
Judas having

[[Page 23764]]

been denied the right to restrictively license their product?
    Carl
    CC: [email protected] @inetgw,jeremy 
@keyspan.com@ inetgw

MTC-575



MTC-00000576

From: Giles Constant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 7:10am
Subject: A small comment about Microsoft
    Dear sir/madam,
    It is impossible to buy a laptop computer in the UK without 
giving money to Microsoft. Really_I've tried. Even if I intend 
to use Linux on the machine, due to the OEM licensing restrictions 
(which the DOJ settlement has failed to effectively address), 
licensees are not allowed to provide me with the hardware without 
Windows. The EULA has a clause which says if you do not use the 
software, you can take it back to the vendor for a refund, but 
unfortunately, this is only applicable for the price of the entire 
laptop. This is (in my opinion) the most definitive example of the 
term "monopoly" I can possibly imagine. Although I speak 
from the UK, where the problem is likely to

MTC-576



MTC-00000577

From: Steve Evans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 6:09am
Subject: no sir, i dont like it
    The views that you will promote with the signing of this 
agreement will hurt everyone's interested, and will hurt foreign 
economies like the one that I am in, Australia. We lived through the 
monopoly of Microsoft for far too long. Not only cant we sell 
solutions to our clients that can run on alternate operating systems 
on the users desktop, we are shunned and forced to move and support 
Microsoft products. They do not innovate any part of their products, 
and just force customers and myself to buy and use their products. I 
don?t like it. It has hurt the business that I work for's bottom 
line when we have to re-install a Microsoft product on a server or 
workstation because the product was faulty and the customer did not 
want to move to an alternate platform.
    No sir, I don?t like it.
    Please do not continue with the current approach with Microsoft. 
I do not know where I will be in 1 years time if they keep forcing 
me to support their products that eventually eat up my business? 
bottom line through endless support and paying for Microsoft to fix 
their bugs (ie when I call their help line and don?t receive my 
$320AU back because it is a bug that isn?t going to be fixed until I 
purchase the next version of their operating system).
    Regards,
    Steve
    "triumph of hope over history"_Connecticut 
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal describing the Microsoft/DOJ 
settlement proposal.

MTC-577



MTC-00000578

From: Jack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 6:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    How can there be NO monetary penalty in this settlement?
    Microsoft has stolen billions from the American people and 
businesses and you are letting them keep their ill gotten gains?
    Disgraceful!

MTC-578



MTC-00000579

From: denis miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 6:40am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I have reviewed the settlement reached and found it to be a 
totally unacceptable capitulation of the rights of the citizens for 
a free and honest market place.
    How can the consumer be protected when a convicted monopolist 
does not suffer any penalty, does not agree to any real forced 
change in behaviour, not even a promise not to do it again?
    The settlement can only be viewed as a total capitulation to 
microsoft by the US government.
    The only hope for any real justice is the remaining states will 
persue the action until a real settlement is reached.
    Denis Miller

MTC-579



MTC-00000580

From: Scott Peterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 7:34am
Subject: proposed settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am a consumer who uses Microsoft Windows and many other 
Microsoft programs both at home and in my work as a physician, part 
of a very large group practice also using Microsoft products 
extensively.
    Even through rejected by my state of Connecticut, I write in 
strong support of the proposed settlement.
    While I think the government's case has been greatly overblown, 
the courts have in fact found that Microsoft engaged in 
anticompetitive behavior and requires a penalty. The proposed 
settlement should be accepted quickly, so Microsoft can get on with 
its excellent work.
    I particularly write to comment against stronger penalties that 
would disrupt software integration and convenience for consumers, 
require consumers to spend useless time and money rsearching all 
sorts of "competitive options," and then have to fiddle 
around with their computers for hours getting all this stuff to work 
properly together_to say nothing of troubleshooting and other 
problems. The Microsoft group of products is a wonderfully useful 
and efficient system. Their software is a tribute to American 
ingenuity and should be supported rather than attacked. Microsoft's 
competitors are just using this case to try to force consumers like 
me to buy products of theirs which we don't want_let them win 
my business in the marketplace, not through some heavy-handed 
intervention of the government.
    In short, settle this case, move on, and let us all worry about 
things that do matter.
    Thank you very much for this opportunity to comment.
    Sincerely yours,
    W. Scott Peterson, M. D.
    317 Tranquility Road
    Middlebury, CT 06762
    wsp @ opticare.net

MTC-580



MTC-00000581

From: paul
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 7:33am
Subject: Justice
    I have read the "settlement', it will not stop Microsoft, 
I, a "dumb consumer" can tell that. Greed is at the 
heart of this, and having seen the "corruption" in this 
government in the past I cannot help but believe that down inside 
this settlement there is an exchange of money. Time will reveal all.
    Microsoft will find a way around almost if not every provision 
and will continue to behave in exactly the same manner as 
before.They have been very successful with their current pattern and 
will not change it unless forced. Leopards can't change their spots. 
And this agreement allows Microsoft to basically decide for itself 
what to change and who will oversee and enforce the changes. The 
crooked judge letting off the crooked company for a fee.
    This a wonderful example of why this government is doomed to 
failure. Greed has led to corruption at the highest levels. Everyone 
knows it, nobody in government is doing anything really about it, 
just pocketing the money and giving it lip service.
    And you wonder why people don't have any confidence in it. Just 
look at it's fruits....

MTC-581



MTC-00000582

From: T.Baden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 7:33am
Subject: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND MICROSOFT CORPORATION (http://
www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/200 1/November/01_at_569.htm)
    Dear Sirs,
    I read the posting at http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/November/
01_at_569. htm with great interest. I work in the 
information technology (IT) industry. I started getting paid to work 
with computers 1980. I have watched the implosion of IBM (and it's 
resurrection), I saw Apple start up, (building on great Xerox 
research). Then a startup company put out inferior technology using 
questionable tactics that ate the desktop market alive. I 
wholeheartedly support the antitrust action against that company. 
But it is with a sense of ?what could have been? I read current 
agreement.
    While I would have preferred a stronger judgment (more later on 
that), I understand the current climate mandates a lesser 
punishment. Please bear with me as I detail:
    It looks like the agreement is easy to enforce. Or is it? 
"Disclosure of Middleware Interfaces" and 
"Disclosure of Server Protocols" are good fulcrums to 
pin Microsoft down on, but may be difficult to enforce. The 
published set of Microsoft interfaces is very large (and documented 
at

[[Page 23765]]

a mediocre level) set of interfaces and protocols: there are 10's of 
thousands of them and while many of their characteristics are 
documented, many of the ways they interact are not documented (it 
takes programmers years to learn a useful subset of them). Without 
going into the details, I submit that you will find the undocumented 
set of APIs and protocols to be at least as large if not larger and 
the documentation to be worse. What if Microsoft publishes a select 
group of these, enough so that the initial attempts to use them take 
12 months before people start to figure out there is something 
missing. Meanwhile Microsoft releases 2 more versions of Windows 
(just the way Microsoft did with IE) adding much more hidden 
functionality that makes the old sets obsolete. I think the 
"On-Site Enforcement Monitors" would have a terrible job 
of keeping up.
    If there is at least the possibility that this might happen, it 
will be a very significant barrier to the server and middleware 
developers. Now instead (here's the later bit): contract "On-
Site Enforcement Monitors" to find every last stitch of 
Windows source code, and stamp it all "GNU copy left" 
(see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html) and publish. Should 
not take more than a year, maybe less. Contract ends, enforcement 
complete, no chance for Microsoft to renege (again) because 
"the horse has left the barn". Also: do not split 
Microsoft, do not collect any money from Microsoft.
    The damage to Microsoft would be immense; it is possible that 
Microsoft may not recover from it. But, not only does Microsoft get 
a penalty, the IT industry gets a boost from the action: The IT 
community are given all windows code (and the right to make as many 
copies as they like). I know Microsoft would never agree to such a 
thing. You'll need to fight for this one. But, this type ruling 
would send a much stronger message than any fine or break up: 
antitrust law would surly be regarded not to mess with after such a 
ruling.
    Okay, back to reality:
    I think you have a nice agreement given that the political 
reality of the day probably excludes the ?GNU copy left? option. Go 
get ?em!
    I want to thank you for allowing me this opportunity to comment. 
One final thought:
    Yes, this is about market and money, but for me, it feels 
personal. I expect that many people working the software development 
community feel this way: I respect good technological solutions to 
problems; I appreciate elegant (as mathematicians use the word) 
solutions to problems. What Microsoft did was much worse than 
violate antitrust law: elegant and good solutions count for almost 
nothing in the IT industry today (there are exceptions-the Palm for 
instance). I think this is sad. If a *strong* message is sent, maybe 
we can leave most of the mediocrity behind and get back to good 
elegant solutions.
    Sincerely
    Toby Baden.

MTC-582



MTC-00000583

From: Brian Sadler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 7:20am
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement
    As a citezen of the US, I would like to take the time to comment 
on the settlement. First, I think it is a bad idea to settle because 
they have a proven track record of not living up to their 
agreements. Second, their products are not helping the economy, they 
are tightening a noose around it. And third, they ARE a monopoly.
    I feel that this administration simply "sold out" to 
microsoft and its citezens are going to pay the price.
    Thank You.
    Brian Sadler
    Houston, Texas

MTC-583



MTC-00000584

From: Praedor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 7:50am
Subject: You failed the users and the overall industry
    I am strongly disappointed in the outcome of the case against 
the clearly guilty Microsoft. You caved and gave them everything, 
extracting virtually nothing. Your "settlement" doesn't 
prevent Microsoft from continuing business as usual.
    They are free to bundle to their hearts content, a weapon to use 
against ANY potential competitor. They are free to continue trying 
to turn the internet into a Microsoft-net via closed, propriatory 
protocols and by altering or adding to fully open standards.
    You all skipped over the meat and gave them a very useful and 
stern "Stop it, OK?" Brilliant. And the punishment: Do 
not violate the new consent decree like you have violated ALL other 
such beasts in the past or we will make sure you are still 
"burdened" with the decree for 5 more years so you can 
continue to violate and ignore it.
    Your agreement needs to go further. Microsoft must be enjoined 
from producing ANY new communication protocols without fully 
disclosing/publishing them for general use. Microsoft must be 
enjoined from modifying ANY standard, general communication protocol 
already existing without first FuLLY disclosing the nature of the 
modifications so that anyone else who might wish to interoperate 
with Microsoft systems are free to do so_no restrictions. All 
Microsoft programming APIs must be fully released and documented so 
any software maker can create competitive or interoperating 
applications that fully work as they should on Microsoft operating 
systems. Finally, Microsoft must be prevented from making ANY 
restrictive licensing deals with ANY company that in any way hinders 
competitors from gaining full access to users or systems.

MTC-584



MTC-00000585

From: Mike McMahon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 7:40am
Subject: thanks (for wasting our tax dollars)
    So after spending 4 years and many millions of tax dollars to 
prove that microsoft obtained and maintains an illegal monopoly, and 
you win the case and survive an appeal, NOW you decide that all you 
wanted was another concent decree?
    What a total lack of conviction on your part! How could you make 
such strong arguments during the trial and now simply walk away from 
seeing that justice is served? Either you have a worthwhile case or 
you dont, but to pursue and WIN a case but then settle for a 
meaningless wrist slap, this makes me wonder if law abiding 
companies (and citizens) are just being nieve to think their own DOJ 
can protect us.
    The proposed settlement does nothing to prevent continued abuse 
of this monopoly and nothing to remedy their previous illegal acts. 
Thanks for NOTHING!!!! !! !!!!!
    R Michael McMahon
    mcmahon @ activewire.net
    PS. I do not work for a Microsoft competitor, in fact I own a 
computer network company which makes 80% of our revenues supporting 
Microsoft products. My reason for being so outspoken is that I have 
witnessed Microsoft's continued repression of valid, alternative 
technologies whenever MS is not part of the equation. The case at 
hand may be the last chance to constrain a convicted lawbreaker from 
perpetrating similar offenses in emerging markets such as web 
services.

MTC-585



MTC-00000586

From: Sean Hurley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 3:23pm
Subject: microsoft antitrust
    The government settlement with Microsoft is a disgrace.
    You should be ashamed of yourselves, selling out hardworking 
Americans the way you have. At the least Microsoft should have been 
forced to license its propnetory operating system to third party 
developers, with an agreement that standards for the OS should be 
maintained by the national bureau of standards.
    Agh.
    Sean D. Hurley
    60 Lilac Drive #5
    Rochester, NY 14620

MTC-586



MTC-00000587

From: bengroes @mindspring.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 3:09pm
Subject: (no subject)
    Everybody get off the back of Microsoft.

MTC-587



MTC-00000588

From: alsee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 3:08pm
Subject: The public needs CHOICE
    I don't want WindowsXP.
    Most programs will soon only be available in XP only versions. I 
WILL HAVE NO CHOICE.
    I might want to stay with Windows98.
    Microsoft is terminating support for Win98 and older operating 
systems. I WILL HAVE NO CHOICE.
    I don't want to inform Microsoft of my complete hardware 
configuration.

[[Page 23766]]

    WinXP requires my info be sent to Microsoft in order to 
activate. I WILL HAVE NO CHOICE.
    I don't want to inform Microsoft every time I upgrade my 
computer.
    WinXP requires reactivation when I change hardware. I WILL HAVE 
NO CHOICE.
    I do NOT want to give Microsoft authority to 
"automatically download[software] onto your computer" 
and I do NOT want to agree Microsoft may "disable your ability 
to copy and/or play [music/video]".
    These OBSCENE clauses are in Microsoft's MEDIAPLAYER7. Some 
internet files are only supported by
    Microsoft's media player. I WILL HAVE NO CHOICE.
    I do not want to give Microsoft my personallpasswordlcreditcard 
data.
    Microsoft is developing it's new ".NET" project to 
be inescapable online. I WILL HAVE NO CHOICE.
    I am a PROGRAMMER. I would like to be able to write programs.
    In order to receive "API, Documentation or Communications 
Protocol[s]" the proposed DOJ settlement requires that I have 
"reasonable business need", meet "standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and 
viability of [my] business", and to "submit, at [my] own 
expense ... to third-party verification, approved by 
Microsoft". As an individual, I WILL HAVE NO ABILITY.
    And in order for me to "exercise any of the options or 
alternatives expressly provided [me] under this Final 
Judgment" I may be required to pay "royalties or other 
payment of monetary consideration". As an individual, I WILL 
HAVE NO ABILITY.
    These clauses benefit Microsoft, and in particular they penalize 
free software. Free software is currently Microsoft's biggest fear. 
Do not hand them a weapon.
    I am concerned by any settlement clause that says 
"[anyone] may be required to grant to Microsoft ... any 
intellectual property rights". Microsoft has broken the law 
and should not receive additional rights as a reward. There is 
concern Microsoft may attempt to use this to attack the Gnu Public 
License. Do not hand them a weapon.
    I am concerned that "Windows Operating System Product may 
invoke a Microsoft Middleware Product in any instance in which 
..." Software I CHOOSE NOT to use should NEVER be invoked!!!
    I am concerned that Microsoft is not paying financial penalties 
for illegal tactics/profits.
    I am concerned that Microsoft is not threatened with substantial 
and specific penalties for failure to comply.
    I am concerned that Microsoft is not required to release API's 
for Windows prior to WinXP. Microsoft has certainly made/can make 
self-serving changes in WinXP in anticipation. Microsoft should be 
required to release full API documentation without qualification, 
starting at from Windows98 or earlier.
    I am concerned that Microsoft will have influence over selection 
of 2/3 of the TC.
    I am concerned that the TC will be under a gag order. "No 
member of the TC shall make any public statements".
    I am concerned that Microsoft will be watched for only 5 years. 
In terms of Microsoft's business strategies is on the scale of the 
life span of one product_Windows98.
    I am concerned that the DOJ is being pressured to accept a bad 
settlement, whereas Microsoft is quite happy to drag out the legal 
battle. This position is allowing Microsoft to make unreasonable 
demands. Microsoft abuses proprietary file formats, communications 
protocols, and API's. These should be disclosed without 
qualification. I am not a lawyer, however following section sounds 
to me like free reign to use anti-competitive tactics on any 
business that uses their upcoming ".NET" service: 
"Nothing in this section shall prohibit Microsoft from 
entering into (a) any bona fide joint venture or (b) any joint 
development or joint services arrangement with any ISV, IHV, TAP, 
ICP, or OEM for a new product, technology or service, or any 
material value-add to an existing product, technology or service, in 
which both Microsoft and the ISV, IL-TV, LAP, ICP, or OEM contribute 
significant developer or other resources, that prohibits such entity 
from competing with the object of the joint venture or other 
arrangement for a reasonable period of time."

MTC-588



MTC-00000589

From: Duane Mann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft made the industry, but killed competition
    To whom it may concern:
    Please include me in the thousands (hopefully millions) who are 
displeased with your Microsoft settlement. Did their earlier 
settlement teach us nothing? They have complete disregard for 
government regulation. If you've given them the slightest loophole, 
they've already seen it and are altering their strategy to take 
advantage of it. They did it before, which is why we had this new 
trial in the first place! This is the company that faked videotape 
evidence. This is the company that created a non-bootable version of 
Windows when asked to remove Internet Explorer and tried to argue 
that they were just doing what the judge asked for.
    I am not a complete anti-Microsoft zealot. I admit freely that 
their work on DOS and Windows essentially created the home PC 
market. But they have destroyed competition. Windows might have made 
the home PC possible for the masses.. .but what about folks like me 
who understand the options and choose not to use Windows? Does 
Microsoft give me a choice? Not if they can help it. That's why they 
are a known monopoly. Sure I can choose to run Linux (and I do), but 
can I go to a retail store and buy a machine with Linux pre-
installed so that I don't have to pay the proverbial 
"Microsoft tax"?
    Nope.
    I would prefer not to use Microsoft Word, Excel, or any of the 
other applications in Microsoft Office. They are poor applications 
with a mediocre interface, a bloated file format, and countless 
known security holes. But do I have much of a choice? No, because 
Microsoft has eliminated competition in those areas as well. That's 
a monopoly of theirs that was barely touched upon. I would prefer 
not to use Microsoft Internet Explorer. Again, does Microsoft give 
me much of a choice? Just barely.
    There are many, many people out there who will argue that 
there's nothing wrong with Microsoft applications. That is because 
they don't know what competition is like. Why do we have viruses 
like Code Red and Nimbda? Because of the quality of products like uS 
and Outlook. The masses don't understand this. They think that 
viruses and blue screens of death are just part of the normal 
computing experience. Sure, it was good that Microsoft made it 
possible for them to have a computer in the first place, but they've 
also got people so frustrated that they're screaming and swearing at 
their computers and rebooting 3 times a day because they think it's 
the only option they have. And it's not.
    I have never wanted to see Microsoft broken up, or restrained, 
or any other number of remedies that would hurt the masses at large. 
If people like to use Windows and other applications, they should 
have the right to do so. But the fact is that there are many people 
who choose not to, and many more people who do not know that there 
is a choice, and those are the people that need to be considered. 
Microsoft deliberately acts to prevent competition, and that is 
where they need to be stopped. If the argument is truly that 
Microsoft is good for the industry, then only healthy competition 
will prove that. Does Linux compete? Only to the extent that 
Microsoft lets them. We've already established that Windows is a 
monopoly, after all. Isn't there supposed to be some sort of 
punishment for that?
    Thank you for this forum to express my thoughts. I truly hope 
that the government can modify Microsoft's proven anti-competitive, 
monopolistic practices and not just produce a settlement that 
registers as little more than a speedbump on their road to industry 
domination.
    Duane Morin
    978 691 5795
    [email protected]

MTC-589



MTC-00000590

From: Joe Yong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 3:35pm
Subject: Enough already
    I thought the DOJ did the American public a huge justice when it 
decided to settle. Granted, Microsoft does need tight monitoring to 
ensure it stays within the boundaries of the law but penalizing a 
company for competing fiercely is NOT the American way. Else, we're 
implicitly saying, America breeds and protects slackers and 
whinners.
    The settlement is more than adequate so long it is enforced. 
Let's move on. There's much to do in rebuilding this nation and its 
economy. Microsoft is a huge contributor in many aspects so taking 
them down does no good to the rest of us. Also, if you're REALLY 
interested in protecting the public against unfair practices by 
companies with large/monopolistic market shares, check out the 
following:
_SUN Microsystems in the enterprise server business

[[Page 23767]]

_Oracle in the database business
_AT&T in the cable TV business
_ebay in the online auctions business
_Intel in the PC chip business
_IBM in the mainframe computing business
    There are lots. Difference is, Microsoft is by far, the most 
well known, in your face, company while others are squeezing 
consumers dry, often without anyone knowing it. Btw, anyone notice 
that the state AGs that did not accept the settlement are also home-
statds for Microsoft's major competitors? If the law can be 
manipulated by corporations to attack their competitors, we've got 
some serious problems in this country's system.
    Joe Yong.

MTC-590



MTC-00000591

From: Jeff Donosky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 3:32pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Department of Justice:
    I would like to provide positive feedback on the proposed 
settlement of the case vs. Microsoft Corporation. I do believe that 
the Department and Microsoft have found a wide reaching and fair 
settlement to the Department's allegations against Microsoft 
Corporation. I believe that it is sufficiently wide reaching 
regarding product development and business practices, while keeping 
flexibility for the company to continue to innovate and meet 
customer needs in the future while continuing to drive America's 
leadership in the highly competitive global technology business.
    Sincerely,
    Jeffry Donosky
    Seattle, WA 98052
    Tel: 206/547-5119

MTC-591



MTC-00000592

From: Lyle McDermed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 3:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my opinion that this case should never have been brought 
against Microsoft in the first place. It seems to me that, we had 
some ineffiecient competitors who claimed the victim status and the 
justice department fell for the scam. However, this case should be 
closed now so that business and productivity can get on in the U.S. 
Also, it would seem to me that the innovative and productive 
companies, which leads to profitability for stockholders and jobs 
for many peoples, should not be punished. If the justice department 
wants to punish a business, do so to the companies that are 
failures, such as most of the airlines.
    Sincerely,
    Lyle K. McDermed
    741 Grandview Dr.
    Corsicana, TX 75109

MTC-592



MTC-00000593

From: Keith Fulton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 3:45pm
Subject: Comments about Microsoft Settlement Proposal
    Hi,
    My name is Keith Fulton and I am a registered voter in Houston, 
Texas. I do not believe the settlement proposal is sufficient 
because all it does is address Microsoft's future behavior without 
punishing them for numerous and systematic violations of the law for 
which they have been convicted in court. If someone was accused of 
murder, tried, found guilty and then was given probation, most 
people would see that as a miscarriage of justice. I believe that is 
a good analogy for this settlement. Microsoft has been convicted of 
violating the law in a way that affected millions of people over a 
period of years and continues to affect both them and the multi-
billion dollar market they comprise. Both punishment and remedies 
are appropriate. This settlement provides for only the latter. The 
only way I can think of to break Microsoft's ill-gotten stranglehold 
on the OS market is to make the full source code for Windows 
publicly available and adaptable for modifications and resale by 
other parties. Only then will the market truly return to having 
multiple viable choices for consumers. Microsoft would then also be 
put back on an even footing with the rest of the OS industry. I 
don't know if these comments will have any effect or not. Hopefully 
the Justice Department will take under advisement my comments and 
the countless others I am sure they are receiving, since we have 
taken time out of our busy schedules to voice our opinions despite 
the slender odds of anything being changed.
    Kind regards,
    Keith Fulton
    1316 Crocker St.
    Houston, TX 77019

MTC-593



MTC-00000594

From: kay in arizona
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    With regards to the settlement for Microsoft, we believe it will 
be in the best interest in the economy and the consumer to settle 
this case as soon as possible. The nine states that are holding out 
apparently are doing it with the interest of companies in their 
state that are competitors of Microsoft. Microsoft should be able to 
inovate and press forward on the various aspects of technology. The 
technology companies that are on the stock market all suffered with 
the continous pursuit of this suit against Microsoft. We hope this 
soon will be over. Thank you.
    Howard & Kathryn Worden

MTC-594



MTC-00000595

From: Charles D Hixson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft is an abusive monopoly
    Microsoft is an abusive monopoly. It has routinely engaged in 
illegal actions to drive its competition out of business. Sometimes 
the actions are borderline, and sometimes (I wanted to write 
occasionally) they are even legal.
    I will admit that many of the actions that I have characterized 
as illegal would, in fact, be legal were Microsoft not a monopoly. 
But it is. And it routinely acts, both tactically and strategically, 
to restrain trade.
    The Stac case is a case in point. At that time Microsoft may not 
actually have been a monopoly, though I feel that it was one. Still, 
it appropriated the software that Stac had written against their 
express desires and included it within the Windows source code. (At 
this point the value of the Stac company took a strong hit.) When 
challenged in court, Microsoft tied things up for a long time, and 
then replaced the challenged code with code from another company 
(that they got cheap.. .it wasn't anywhere near to being as good). I 
don't remember the details here, but Stac was now in such bad shape 
that Microsoft was able to buy it up for an extremely cheap price. 
Nobody has dared to challenge them similarly since then, and that 
was over twenty years ago. But they've spent the time since then 
improving their monopoly, if not their software.
    Please do not misunderstand me. I doubt that any other monopoly 
would have been much better. Monopolies tend to engage in unsavory 
practices, and large successful monopolies tend to assume that 
criminal law doesn't apply to them. They usually seem to prove 
themselves correct, but I had had some slight hope that this 
wouldn't have been another such case. It's been quite blatant.
    Charles Hixson

MTC-595



MTC-00000596

From: r(u)hodg Hodgson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 3:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settelment
    I would like to express my opinion. I cannot see how MS has hurt 
the public in any way and I belive that any undue harsh judgment 
would do the countrey more hurt than any thing. If any outher co. or 
person can make a better os I would buy it and not theirs. Thank You 
Robert Hodgson;

MTC-596



MTC-00000597

From: John Dawson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 3:53pm
Subject: Proposed Settlement.. Just say no.
    Your Honor, dear sir or madam,
    I work with both Microsoft based personal computers, and UNIX 
based servers, on a daily basis. I hold a Masters of Science degree 
in Electrical Engineering and work as a principle developer of 
hardware and software techniques for automated testing of large data 
communication networks. I respectfully submit my personal views on 
the proposed settlement offer relative to the on-going Microsoft 
anti-trust case.
    I am concerned that many people in the U.S. Department of 
Justice have portrayed the proposed settlement agreement as being 
good for the American people_it is not.
    I am terribly worried that Microsoft appears to be able to 
manipulate the American political system and assert undue influence 
upon the current legal proceedings.
    Who will decide which future software innovations are strategic 
to Microsoft, and hence, must be an integral part of the computer 
operating system?

[[Page 23768]]

    When Microsoft "bundles' a new capability into its 
operating system, it immediately gets a monopoly share of the market 
for any similar products. Since Microsoft gets to define the minimum 
operating system bundle, they set the base fees that manufacturers 
must pass on to their customers. In order to maintain lower costs, 
most manufacturers will be unwilling, or realistically unable, to 
add or substitute programs that compete with the base services 
already provided by the operating system. This gives Microsoft a 
significant advantage in the software marketplace. Without splitting 
Microsoft's applications away from its' operating systems, Microsoft 
will be able to force its way to the top of any software or 
information service market it chooses.
    I further believe that the proposed settlement agreement does 
not give sufficient consideration to the advantages Microsoft will 
maintain over competitors based upon the proprietary nature of their 
computer operating systems. Microsoft's own internal development 
will not be hampered by, or relegated to use, the same published 
interfaces that competitors must use. By not fully disclosing the 
internal mechanics of the operating system, Microsoft is free to 
optimize significant advantage for its own "bundled" 
solutions.
    For the past several years Microsoft has used this advantage in 
clearly illegal ways to crush competitors. Where is the penalty for 
Microsoft's heavy hand? Without significant sanctions in this case, 
the proposed settlement will let a brutal monopoly force a 
proprietary delivery platform, for Microsoft market domination, upon 
the American people. This is not a matter of innovation, this is a 
matter of Microsoft being able to fix pricing for bundled solutions 
that force competitors out of new and emerging marketplaces.
    I ask that you please reject the proposed settlement and 
instead, pursue a ruling to break this company into two or more 
separate entities. Thank you in advance for your consideration in 
this important matter.
    John Dawson
    1405 N.E. 148th Ave.
    Vancouver, WA 98684
    (360) 883-1382

MTC_597



MTC-00000598

From: Luiz Delima
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The idea that Microsoft or any company cannot ad features to its 
products is utterly absurd. It would be a major hassle to consumers 
if car buyers had to buy tires or radios or whatever from different 
suppliers in order to avoid "bundling" or if they had to 
buy mustard and ketchup separately when ordering their burgers. 
History has shown that Microsoft products have lowered prices and 
beneffited consumers. I don't see why competitors should be 
protected to the detriment of consumers. America is all about 
freedom including the freedom to improve. Competitors should compete 
on features and prices and not survive by govemmnt sponsored 
cocooning. Even the old Soviet Union moved away from economic 
dictatorship.

MTC-598



MTC-00000599

From: Konrad M.Kempfe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is to encourage a swift and fair settlement of the case 
against Micrososft.
    It is in the interest of the United States economy and thereby 
in the interest of the American People. A prolongation of the 
litigation process is not in the interest of the American People.
    Konrad M.Kempfe MD
    715 Bogar Drive
    Selinsgrove, PA 17870

MTC-599



MTC-00000600

From: Emmanuel Huna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 4:34pm
Subject: A comment on the Microsoft antitrust case
    Hello, I have learned that citizens can send comments about the 
Microsoft antitrust case to your address, 
[email protected] 
 , and I am including a 
story that I hope you?11 find relevant.
    From 1998 to 2001, I worked as a software engineer for a company 
called ThinkLink, a San Francisco, CA based startup. We developed a 
product that allowed customers to access their email, faxes and 
voicemail over the Web or the phone (this is generally referred as 
?Unified Messaging?). The company grew from 6-7 employees 
working in an old milk factory to a booming business with 140 
employees in offices in downtown San Francisco, CA.
    I won?t go into more details on the technology or our business 
model, but suffice to say that we created a product that was 
scalable and feature-rich. We integrated our system with companies 
like Netzero Inc. (www.netzero.com ), 
Lycos (www.lycos.com ) and many others. 
By summer 2000, we were signing up over 10,000 new customers per 
day, and we reached over 6.5 million accounts 7 proving that we were 
the leaders in the voice over IP/Unified Messaging space.
    At that time, our top management announced that Microsoft had 
approached us and was interested in purchasing ThinkLink. Not being 
on the board of Directors nor top management, the only information I 
received came from our weekly company meetings. For months, our CEO, 
David Ward, kept telling us that the deal with Microsoft was almost 
ready ? he used the expression ?a matter of days? a few times. In 
fact, Microsoft Engineers came to ThinkLink and we even started 
integrating our system with their Web email product, Hotmail 
(www.hotmail.com ) Unfortunately, on 
February 2001, all 110 employees were called on a Friday afternoon 
and the announcement was made that ThinkLink ran Out of 
funds_since a secure loan was called upon, the company was 
closing down. The hard work and hopes of hundreds of people were 
shattered in one instance.
    After ThinkLink closed down, I learned many details on what had 
actually happened. As previously mentioned, for months Microsoft 
dragged its feet, but an offer was finally made in August 2000. 
Microsoft was to purchase ThinkLink Inc. for $400 million dollars. 
From what I understand the deal was almost sealed: even seating 
arrangements for ThinkLink employees at Microsoft's offices in 
Mountain View, CA were defined.
    The lawyers from both sides had agreed on the details, and 
ThinkLink's top management signed the documents. The documents were 
then sent to Redmond, WA to be signed by Microsoft. Unfortunately, 
to everyone's surprise at ThinkLink, Microsoft decided not to go 
through with the deal, the official reason being that it was afraid 
of getting into trouble with the DOT since it was entering the 
communications business and it already had some deals with AT&T. 
But to prove its seriousness, Microsoft offered ThinkLink a $25 
million dollar secured loan ? this would help the struggling startup 
in our difficult economy until Microsoft decided that it was the 
right time to go through with the deal.
    ThinkLink's top management had wasted so much time in the 
negotiations with Microsoft that it had no choice: it accepted the 
secure loan, thereby sealing the coffin on ThinkLink's future. By 
the beginning of 2001, Microsoft started putting pressure on 
ThinkLink to pay back the secure loan ? and ThinkLink had no choice 
but to close down and all assets from the company were transferred 
to Microsoft. Microsoft tried to recruit some employees from 
ThinkLink's Engineering Dept. and offers were made after ThinkLink 
closed down. Not one engineer accepted an offer ? most of us felt 
betrayed and we did not wish to help Microsoft in any way.
    With its secured loan trick, Microsoft was able to get its hands 
on ThinkLink's technology (which was a perfect fit to their 
?Voice.NET? services with XML/I-ITTP based applications) and in any 
case, it eliminated a potential competitor. They had to spend $25 M 
dollars, instead of the original $400 M.
    There is no doubt in my mind that Microsoft planed this from the 
beginning. Although ThinkLink's top management did have some 
responsibility in accepting the loan and the conditions, I feel that 
ultimately Microsoft had the most to gain and the ThinkLink's fall 
was a direct result of dealing with the big, powerful and 
unscrupulous monopoly from Redmond. Recently, a company called 
Reciprocal was victim to the same Microsoft tactics_how many 
other companies have fallen in the same way?
    To summarize, here's how I see the situation: 1) A startup has 
some kind of productltechnology that Microsoft needs or that could 
threaten it in some way. 2) Microsoft shows interest in the company 
and offers to purchase it for $Y million dollars. 3) After months of 
negotiation, Microsoft does not purchase the company, but to prove 
its seriousness about the whole deal, it offers a SECURE loan of $X 
million (where X is a fraction of the original price, $Y, discussed 
in 2_something like $25 million instead of $400 million) 4) 
The company now against

[[Page 23769]]

the wall (since so much time has passed and its a startup with 
limited funding) accepts the loan from Microsoft. 5) A few months 
later, Microsoft calls on the secure loan and forecloses on the 
company: they now have the technology they wanted and they have 
eliminated a competitor.
    This is exactly what Microsoft did with ThinkLink, and they can 
only do this because they have billions. Wasting a few million with 
ThinkLink or Reciprocal is worth it_they are actually making 
money since they don't have to spend the R&D dollars to get the 
technology or the marketing dollars to fight the competitors. I 
still am in contact with many of ThinkLink's previous employees ? in 
fact we have an online discussion group with over 70 participants. 
We would appreciate a response, and thank you for trying to make our 
markets a fair playground.
    Regards,
    Emmanuel Huna
    [email protected]
    http://www.ehuna.org

MTC-600



MTC-00000601

From: Marcella Fenske
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 4:15pm
Subject: microsoft, good reliable company, let the show begin, 
onward mfst..(*.*). . . microsoft, good reliable company, 
let the show begin, onward mfst..(*.*). . .

MTC-601



MTC-00000602

From: Jim Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 4:11pm
Subject: Let there be choice for the average software consumer!
    The home computer is a staple of modern life. People use their 
computers to communicate with each other, conduct business, 
research, and even for entertainment. Our society as a whole depends 
upon the home computer.
    I am a fan of windows 2000. It is an operating system that 
doesn't crash very often. It is easy to use and has a lot of built 
in features. I understand Windows XP takes this to a new level.
    I am not against features in an operating system. They add to a 
users experience and the power of their computer. What I am against 
is the lack of competition that Microsoft faces. Admittedly they do 
a good job of innovating even when they hold a monopoly of the 
market. But imagine for a moment that two Windows XP caliber 
operating systems were being produced by two different companies, 
both vying to land on your desktop as a home user. Undoubtedly, 
prices would be lower to the consumer and features of the operating 
systems would become even better. Problems that today are overlooked 
would be given quick attention (such as some of the serious security 
holes that Microsoft rarely gives second thought to.)
    The consumer wins. It has been established that Microsoft uses 
the most aggresive tactics of anti-competitiveness available. If 
there is any way that they can take out a competitor, or assimilate 
them, they will. This only increases their monopoly, and decreases 
competition in the market place. I say this is unfair, and it is 
high time the government steps in and does something intelligent to 
remedy the situation. What action is called for I do not know. But 
something must be done! Although innovative in features and user-
friendliness, Microsoft has a long standing history of serious 
security flaws that repeatedly appear in their products. So called 
"e-mail viruses" actually only affect people who use 
Microsoft's Outlook Express mail reader. Why the media calls them 
"e-mail viruses and not "Outlook viruses" I do not 
know.
    Why is Microsoft not held accountable when their mail program 
facilitates the spread of these so-called "e-mail 
viruses?" I do not know. But I call for accountability. And I 
call for government intervention that there might be serious 
competition in the market place. All this so that your average 
consumer can have more than one good choice for a full featered 
operating system.
    Microsoft does not stand for the freedom of choice that 
capitalism offers as it's benefit. Microsofts first interest is 
market dominance at all costs, and to them the consumers interests 
come second. More and more features of the home computer now fall 
under the power of this monopoly. The only good choice for Word 
Processing is Microsoft Word. The only good choice for web browsing 
is Internet Explorer. The only good choice for your operating system 
is Windows. This is how Microsoft wants it to be.
    Unfortunately for most people, this is how it is. No good and 
meaningful competition in the marketplace, no good alternative 
choice for the average consumer. Something must be done to remedy 
our situation as consumers, who for now must depend upon one company 
alone_Microsoft.
    The innovation and development of the home computer has come 
from many companies and still continues to come from many companies, 
such as AMD, Intel, IBM, Cyrix, Macintosh, HP and others.
    For a society which has reaped the benefits of computer hardware 
engineered competitively by many different businesses in the private 
sector, why must we reap the shallow benefits of software engineered 
by only one company? Please, as the government of this wonderful 
country, do something to protect our rights as consumers. Please do 
something to let there be choice and freedom in the software market.
    Please stop the company Microsoft that has shown it will at any 
cost try to destroy this choice and freedom for us, the consumers.
    Thank you sincerely,
    Jim Brown
    [email protected]
    CC: [email protected]@ 
inetgw,[email protected]@. . .

MTC-602



MTC-00000603

From: Andrew Ness
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 4:02pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    When considering the settlement beween the Ashcroft DoJ and 
Microsoft, the word "sellout" rather than 
"settlement" comes to mind. This settlement is 
effectively a reward for predatory behavior, and sets a dangerous 
precedent for future companies with monopolistic aspirations. If a 
company manages to corner the market on a particular item, they can 
expect to be dragged into court by their victims, but as long as 
they make a large enough soft money contribution to the winning 
party, they will get off with a settlement so riddled with 
exceptions that no business practice is affected and all future 
lawsuits are effectively stifled.
    My congratulations, Mr. Gates. You've bought the Department of 
Justice.
    Andrew Ness

MTC-603



MTC-00000604

From: robert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 4:43pm
Subject: settlement comments
    I find the proposed Microsoft (MS) woefully inadequate and 
should be discarded.
    First, there are absolutely no penalties for past illegal 
behavior! Make no mistake that MS did profit from past misdeeds. 
Under the proposed settlement, they get to keep their illegal 
profits. MS is hardly a first time offender, and has shown 
absolutely no remorse. This, in and of itself, provides a powerful 
incentive for both MS and other companies to break the law.
    Second, the conduct only remedies would be largely ineffective. 
Microsoft has shown in the past it's ability to get around any 
conduct probations. Look at the Windows 95 decree. They just 
released a "new" operating system called Windows 98, and 
went right around the decree.
    Third, the technical committee that is supposed to oversee the 
conduct of MS is a joke. MS. who is a lawbreaker (the District Court 
was unanimous in this), gets to select one member out of three, who 
in turn gets to have a voice in selecting the third member. The 
phrase "fox guarding the hen house" comes to mind. 
Further, the committee is gagged, and sworn to secrecy, denying the 
public any information on Microsoft's compliance with the agreement, 
and will be paid by Microsoft, working inside Microsoft's 
headquarters. This will render the committee completely ineffective 
and MS will continue breaking the law.
    Fourth, there is little to no protection for the open source and 
free software movements. Right now, they are the only potential 
competitors to MS. Yet, under J. 1 and J.2 of the proposed final 
order, Microsoft can withhold technical information from third 
parties on the grounds that MS does not certify the 
"authenticity and viability of its business." MS has 
repeatedly described the licensing system for Linux (the most widely 
used open source/free software operating system, but not the only 
one) as a "cancer" that threatens the demise of both the 
intellectual property rights system and the future of research and 
development. It is apparent that MS will use J. 1 and J.2 to deny 
interoperability information to the movement in an attempt to kill 
them off or marginalize them and maintain its illegal monopoly.

[[Page 23770]]

    Only by forcing MS to release FREELY the information early in 
the development cycle can competition, all competition not just open 
source, be given a chance. Releasing the information at the same 
time as MS releases a new product will still give MS a big 
advantage. It takes time to develop new file filters and other 
interoperability components, and MS would be given a large 
headstart.
    Please consider these and other criticisms of the settlement 
proposal, and avoid allowing the illegal activities to continue. It 
is far better to send this unchastened monopoly juggernaut a sterner 
message than the less than a slap on wrist message the proposed 
settlement sends.
    Robert Spotswood

MTC-604



MTC-00000605

From: Carl J. Clement
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 4:39pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Micosoft has been an innovative company which has contributed 
valuable standards to the computer industry.
    The anti-trust suit against Microsoft represents a tawdry 
attempt by its unworthy competitors to accomplish by government fiat 
what they couldn't accomplish by good old-fashioned honest 
competition. The Federal settlement should not be punitive, and the 
States should accept it.
    Cordially,
    Carl J. Clement

MTC-605



MTC-00000606

From: Marion Behiert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 4:39pm
Subject: settlement 11/17
    From what I understand of the settlement, it sounds like 
Microsoft is getting off pretty easy and still has restricted other 
companies more than is fair for competition. I also believe some of 
the other companies are trying to limit Microsoft's innovation 
ability, which isn't fair either.
    Marion Behiert
    5926 Price Rd.
    Milford, Oh 45150

MTC-606



MTC-00000607

From: Doug Drizd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I have to say that I outraged by the agreement that your offices 
have reached with Microsoft. This is not an agreement that will 
benefit the public either in general or in its specific application 
to users of personal computers in personal or commercial 
applications. It is rather evident that this was basically a 
selling-out on the part of the Justice Department who appears to 
have lost the will to fight in a case which they were clearly 
defending the American people from the predatory and self-serving 
practices of a company whose clear desire is to destroy all 
competition so that they can direct our individual use of our 
computers to their line of products. The Justice Department was 
right to pursue Microsoft; they should have been tried and, even 
thought the courts may not have agreed with the way in which Judge 
Jackson handled the case, the fact remains that Microsoft was guilty 
of the charges against it. You threw in the towel when you were 
winning and could have gotten a genuine settlement that could have 
benefited the American people, too. Instead Microsoft can now go on 
with their past practices cognizant of the fact that you have no 
ability to limit the same practices that they were tried for in the 
past. You could have done so much better. You really owed that much 
to the American people.
    Sincerely,
    Doug Drizd
    Clearwater, Florida

MTC-607



MTC-00000608

From: steve erickson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 4:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I am relieved the settlement is nearly complete. I think our 
Nation needs Microsoft to get back to business as usual.
    Steve

MTC-608



MTC-00000609

From: norman Spector
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 4:44pm
Subject: AGAINST THE ENTIRE PROCEDURE
    THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF MONOPOLY AND ANTI TRUST IS FOOLHARDY. I 
USE WINDOWS AS MY OS, MICROWAVE OFFICE FOR SPREAD SHEET AND WORD 
PROCESSING, NETSCAPE AS MY BROWSER, YAHOO FOR MY PERSONAL MAIL AND 
SPINNER FOR MUSIC. I CHOSE THESE PIECES BECAUSE I THOUGHT THEY WERE 
BEST.
    EARTHLINK IS MY WEB SITE HOST. THIS DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A 
MICROSOFT MONOPOLY TO ME.
    NORMAN SPECTOR
    CC: WENDY @norsal.com@inetgw

MTC-609



MTC-00000610

From: amedeo60 @juno.com@ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    From A. Pozzuoli 50 Martindale Road Clifton, NJ 07013 at 
[email protected]
    Leave microsoft alone! They have contributed to our economy and 
they have done all the hard work. I don't see where the Government 
has to keep butting into their endeavors. Let the competitors invest 
time and money as Gates did. Thank you.

MTC-610



MTC-00000611

From: chief chief
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 4:59pm
Subject: This Administration is the protector of money not people.
    This Administration is the protector of money not people. We the 
people did not get the cost (real) of the trial. Microsoft's 
punishment is words, which they will interpret any way they wish. 
This Administration will not enforce Anything unless it involves the 
little guy

MTC-611



MTC-00000612

From: Jim and/or Betty Weber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 4:57pm
Subject: Opinion on Microsoft
    Can you imagine what the federal government, AND MOST BUSINESSES 
would be like if there were dozens of operating systems using 
totally incompatible versions of software that would result in a 
larger debacle in Washington and the business world than we now 
have.
    Bill Gates had the initiative to start Microsoft. It would serve 
all those jealous jerks right if Mr.... Gates would sell ALL of his 
shares in the company, close it down, and say ADIOS!! I DON'T HAVE 
TO PUT UP WITH THIS CRAP !!!!!

MTC-612



MTC-00000613

From: TESTA558 @ aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 4:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I found the untitrust agreement settlement as by far in the 
interest of all of us Consumers.We should indeed settle this case 
entirely as soon as possible in order to allow the Nation to focus 
on much higher priorities: Domestic Security, War and Economic 
Growth. The greatest strength of America has always been Innovation 
and Innovation, not Investigation.
    At a time like this, with the Nation involved in a protracted 
grinding war and furthermore in a near collapsing economy,a 
uninanimous settlement agreement will be definetly in the interest 
of Consumers and Entire Economy
    Respectfully
    Anthony Testa

MTC-613



MTC-00000614

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: microsoft.atr@usdoj .gov
Date: 11/17/01 4:53pm
Subject: MS, Be and gobeProductive
    Hi!
    I thought this might be of interest.. Many people have been hurt 
by Microsoft in an unfair and illegal way, and many of them look up 
to you for some kind of closure. I really hope you can provide it.
    Here's a link to a first preview of gobeProductive 3, an office 
suite that debuted on the BeOS and is making an entrance on the 
Windows platform. http://www.osnews.com/
story.php?news_id=265 As an ex-employee of Be Inc. (RIP), I 
know Gobe as a small company that has come to excel both technically 
and in its ability to gain its customers' respect and loyalty. It 
would be a shame to see them getting brutally slaughtered by the 
usually unfair practices of the Redmond giant.

[[Page 23771]]

    The entrance of their new product on the Windows platform might 
also be a good time to quietly monitor how Microsoft reacts to new 
competition with one of its core businesses and if its practices 
have changed since the beginning of the antitrust trial.
    Regards,
    Nir Gilboa.
    PS: I forgot to mention that in my opinion you have missed 
perhaps the biggest offense by Microsoft-threatening OEMs to revoke 
their licenses if they decide to include an OS other than Windows on 
their products. But I'm sure JLG already pointed that out. Farewell 
to him and his great company.
    Global Virtual Desktop
    http://www.magicaldesk.com

MTC-614



MTC-00000615

From: Frank Manheim
To: Microsoft ATR,nnamelet@ yahoo.com @ 
inetgw,fmanheim @ u...
Date: 11/17/01 5:10pm
Subject: Observed problems and costs incurred because of Microsoft 
monopoly
FROM: Frank T. Manheim, 13126 Pebble Lane, Fairfax, VA 22033; 
telephone workplace 703-648-6150, home 
703-631-0166.
    I am a chemist working at the U.S. Geological Survey National HQ 
in Reston VA, and have experienced certain problems and costs due to 
Microsoft policies in the course of my work. My observations and 
opinions are my own and don't reflect official policy at USGS. I 
don't have the expertise to know whether the below problems can be 
legally applied to the remedies sought from Microsoft. But to the 
extent my observations reflect similar problems experienced by other 
computer users in governmental agencies and private industry, they 
imply economically significant damage not related to browsers or 
middleware, due directly and indirectly to anticompetitive practices 
of Microsoft. I did not find these issues explicitly mentioned in 
the documentation your recommended for examination.
    (1) Viruses. Microsoft's near-monoculture status in the U.S. and 
elsewhere has made computers and servers running MS software an 
especially tempting and damaging target for malicious purveyors of 
viruses. In July of this year I was shut down for one week because 
of the dangerous Nimda virus. Many other persons and some servers at 
USGS were likewise affected. This affected my cooperation in 
groundwater research with the Delaware Geological Survey, the 
University of Delaware, and the National Park Service, as well as 
other USGS groups. The loss of working time for me from this episode 
alone is equivalent in costs to more than half of the year's 
computer purchases made by me and assistants. Damage from other 
viruses targeting Microsoft products is widespread among users in my 
acquaintance. MacIntosh users have been far less affected by 
viruses.
    (2) Crashes and poor operating efficiency. Windows is famous for 
its bugs and crash-prone performance. In my experience no other 
leading software has been so prone to serious operational flaws so 
consistently. When design flaws and problems emerge in ordinary 
software products, they are either corrected, or competition emerges 
and the software is superseded by better products. Performance 
problems have slowed my everyday operations using Windows 95 and 98 
in ways not experienced by colleagues using MacIntosh. I have had to 
use Microsoft because of its monopoly position in low-level database 
management software (until recently) critical for my work.
    3_Avoided or inflated-cost software support. Keeping 
software functioning and solving use problems is a critical part of 
computer efficiency. It is also expensive. When pioneering computer 
manufacturers slackened in support of their products_or priced 
it out of range, a number went out of business or were relegated to 
minor roles. This happened with commodore Computer and Ashton Tate's 
DBase line of database management products. In contrast, products 
like WordPerfect rose to leadership in large part because of 
outstanding support.
    Because of its dominance Microsoft has been able to push its own 
Office products into leading roles and then almost completely 
relegate costs of support for WORD, EXCEL, ACCESS, and POWERPOINT. 
to hardware manufacturers or third-party suppliers. Microsoft's own 
support_at monopoly-aided prices_is now mainly provided 
to larger busineses and agencies. Recently, my handheld device, 
Compaq'sIPAQ, suffered from synchronization problems due to bugs in 
Microsoft's Outlook driver (version 3.1). These flaws were beyond 
the ability of Compaq support staff to fix. But Microsoft's support 
page for its PDA drivers explicitly pointed out that responsibility 
for support of drivers was given to users and manufacturers. 
Business user support is provided at $245 per incident_almost 
half the cost of my PDA. In short, not only does Microsoft charge 
more for widely used office software but it has largely freed itself 
from the cost of supporting that software due to its monopoly 
position. That applies to virus control as well operating system and 
secondary products. It's as though General Motors dominated American 
auto production through key patents, and thereby was able to 
deemphasize product quality, and after a 30-day guarantee period, 
leave responsibility for failures and operating problems totally to 
dealers.
    SUMMARY: The cost in time and personal efficiency owing directly 
or indirectly to Microsoft's dominance and policies sustained by 
that dominance I estimate as being at least 3-4 times my total 
yearly cost of computer equipment and software. At least 10% of my 
total computer use time is wasted or severely impacted by software 
difficulties in ways that are affected much less for other firms' 
software products. I realize that this may be harder to document or 
assess accurately, but I suggest that the effect may be measurable. 
Part of the normal and necessary cost associated with computer 
support from which Microsoft frees itself owing to its monopoly 
position could be estimated by calculating relative outlays for MS 
and other firms including Apple, Adobe, and Corel. To the extent 
that the courts accept the charge that Microsoft has wrongfully 
built and exploited its market dominance, then it should be 
penalized for the unfair advantages it has recovered through 
avoiding software support.
    Respectfully submitted.

MTC-615



MTC-00000616

From: Kyle Putnam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 5:06pm
Subject: More than just a slap on the wrist
    Good Evening,
    I am writing to express my concern over the proposed settlement 
between the DOJ and Microsoft. I haven't been following it recently, 
but news reports make it sound like the settlement has already been 
accepted and is in effect.
    Anyway, I think that the government is going easy on Microsoft 
because of the current economic conditions. It may be true that the 
latest version of Windows requires new hardware, and will increase 
both hardware and software sales, but it will also cause a further 
monopoly for Microsoft over the PC software market.
    For example, Windows XP recommends that its users sign up for a 
Microsoft Passport account, but uses words like "You won't be 
able to use the internet services without signing up with a Passport 
account. Click here to get one." New users will think it is 
required to use the Internet at all, and as Microsoft pushes its 
Passport technology to Amazon, eBay, and several other major 
retailers, they will gain another fist around the neck of the 
technology market.
    I think Windows XP should have DEFINITELY been put on hold until 
a decision was finalized about the case. The analagy has been made 
before, although it is not quite the same magnitude, that letting 
Microsoft release Windows XP while Microsoft is on trial is like 
letting a serial killer buy handguns and kill more people while he 
is on trial. I think the punishment against Microsoft must be swift 
and harsh, no matter what the state of the economy is. The 
technology stock market didn't really fall, it was only hype that 
made it appear so big in the past, and Microsoft can't change this.
    Splitting the companies divisions such as the Windows, Internet 
Explorer & Media Player, Office, Hardware, Xbox, PC Video Games, 
and all other factions of the company should be actual separate 
companies. Different names, different CEOS, and all in competition 
with each other. The fact that Microsoft has gotten this far is 
plain appaling. Anothing possible solution is that Microsoft should 
be forced to release source code, specifications, or other 
information on its products.
    Microsoft lately has shown no responsibility for its poorly 
designed, insecure software such as Windows NT, Windows 2000, and 
especially IIS.
    As I am sure you are aware, they have drafted an agreement 
between business partners (and worse yet, security companies) that 
forbids them from releasing detailed information on a security 
exploit. They claim this will make things more secure, but time has 
proven over and over that obscurity leads to insecurity.

[[Page 23772]]

    I urge you to take swift action against Microsoft, and action 
much stronger than the proposed (or already effective) settlement 
between the DOJ and Microsoft. Don't you think Microsoft has had its 
time to get rich, (in)famous, and "innovate"?
    Kyle

MTC-616



MTC-00000617

From: Mumsy37 @aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 5:04pm
Subject: Enough
    Think it is time to leave Microsoft alone and let them get on 
with producing great products. You, DOJ, need to encourage state 
attorney generals to let go of the bone and not be so petty. I think 
with 9-11 we have more important things to do.
    Thank you.
    Mumsy37 @aol.com

MTC-617



MTC-00000618

From: Vincemiele @aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 5:28pm
Subject: Just Action US Justice Dept,
    MSFT has NOT harmed a single consumer. Please cease further 
action.. .except to shut down the case. We customers would not be as 
advanced in computer knowledge and capability if it had not been for 
Bill Gates and Co. America is also better off for having had MSFT 
products and services AS-THEY-HAVE-BEEN-SOLD.
    Antitrust action protects consumers not competitors. Again, I 
cannot see where the first consumer has complained.
    V.P. Miele

MTC-618



MTC-00000619

From: Rachel Campbell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 5:24pm
Subject: Good work
    I'm glad that you're working towards a quick resolution with 
MS_many companies have put off IT decisions until a judgement 
is made.
    -Dave Campbell, programmer

MTC-619



MTC-00000620

From: Frank Agnello
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 5:16pm
Subject: Do Your Job
    What a shameful performance. The Department of Justice nominally 
exists to bring about justice for the citizens of the United States.
    You have failed the citizens and the nation in the Microsoft 
case by failing to bring about justice in any way shape or form. Did 
you notice the lower courts found that Microsoft acted 
monopolistically? Please discharge your responsibility to address 
this violation and redress wronged parties. You actions are so far 
from just, its as if you are trying to equal the Supreme Court's 
partisan role in the election. Making the world safe for 'General 
Motors' is not the standard. Your role is to help make the world 
safe for fair competition in software and Microsoft must be brought 
to justice.
    Corporations are not citizens. That corporations are indemnified 
from legal redress for wrong doing that individual citizens are 
punished for is on its face improper.
    A government high-jacked by savage capitalists is no government.
    Sincerely,
    Frank Agnello

MTC-620



MTC-00000621

From: Jose Niell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the matter should be settled. There is no reason 
whatsoever to accuse Microsoft of monopoly. I feel very strongly 
that Microsoft has benefited me and everyone I know. Any 
inconvenience has been to the competitors of Microsoft, not to the 
consumers. They should improve their products and beat Microsoft in 
the market. The government has no business hurting one company for 
the benefit of another.
    This lawsuit was a hoax to begin with, to protect the 
competitors of Microsoft and not the public. Millions of taxpayers 
dollars have been wasted in this useless demand. And millions of 
work hours have been miserably wasted, that would have been put to 
much better use in other endeavors. If the government is really 
concerned about monopolies it can concentrate on the public school 
system, Medicare, the Post Office and Social Security for starters. 
And then go to all the other government supported monopolies. But I 
think the public school system is the most damaging of them all.
    Not Microsoft.
    Jose P. Niell, MD

MTC-621



MTC-00000622

From: Tim Maroney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 5:36pm
Subject: about the Microsoft settlement
    I work in the software industry. Specifically, I am a longtime 
Macintosh software developer, which means I have lived under the 
shadow of Microsoft for my entire professional career. The shadow is 
long and dark; it is a shadow that seeps into every crack, and plays 
every trick it can imagine, crushing competition through both blunt 
assault and subterfuge. I was encouraged by the initial remedy 
imposed in the antitrust trial, and discouraged for the future of my 
industry when it was reversed on appeal for no apparent reason 
besides the judge voicing his understandable frustration with the 
weasely antics of the defendants.
    I do not understand how you can even consider a settlement based 
on conduct remedies, when Microsoft has been repeatedly placed under 
conduct remedies in the past and has done everything in its power to 
find loopholes in them, and in many cases simply flouted them 
completely. In addition, there is no limit to the number of new 
abusive practices the company can come up with, and no conduct 
remedy can anticipate them. The only feasible anti-trust remedies 
given a history of flouted conduct remedies are structural ones. The 
breakup was an excellent starting point, though the actual lines of 
division could have used more careful consideration with respect to 
strategically important issues like development tools.
    Another structural remedy worth considering is the public 
utility solution, in which key parts of the Microsoft 
edifice_I'd suggest operating systems and development 
tools_become publicly owned in return for a reasonable payment 
to Microsoft, minus the value of penalties for its monopolistic 
behavior, and with interoperability constraints imposed on its 
applications to counteract the benefit they have already derived 
from monopoly pressures. If Microsoft were just another application 
developer without the ability to use its monopoly position in 
operating systems to dominate the application market and other 
software markets, we might start to see some real competition 
emerging again in the software industry. At the same time, Microsoft 
would remain quite profitable and successful, although to maintain 
its success, it would have to try the radical approach of producing 
superior products at lower prices.
    Tim Maroney [email protected]

MTC-622



MTC-00000623

From: Robert A. Morley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 5:32pm
Subject: Settle the case now!
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    In response to your request for public comment on the proposed 
settlement in the case of United States v. Microsoft Corporation, I 
urge you, as an independent citizen with no direct financial 
interest in Microsoft nor any of its competitors, to settle the case 
as soon as possible and in a way that imposes the fewest possible 
restrictions on Microsoft. And any time, and especially during these 
difficult times, we should applaud Americas successful companies and 
allow them to innovate and to grow, rather than hold them back by 
pursuing regulatory actions born of the concerns of a century ago 
and dressed up in New Economy lingo, and motivated by the self-
interested pleadings of competitors.

MTC-623



MTC-00000624

From: Vivian Papsdorf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 5:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is a fair one and it should be 
accepted and implemented as soon as possible by all states involved 
in the controversy in order to benefit the industry, the general 
economy, and the shareholders.

MTC-624



MTC-00000625

From: Deirdre Yanes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 23773]]

    I think it is about time that the federal government and all the 
states drop all charges against Microsoft and get on with other more 
important things. It seems a shame to me that Mr. Gates is punished 
for coming up with new ideas that help us all with our computers. 
Frankly, as a normal ordinary customer, I would much prefer having 
everything bundled into one application so I don't have to worry 
about going out and searching for the applications I need. With 
Windows, they are all right there for me.

MTC-625



MTC-00000626

From: Tim VanAsselt
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 12/6/01 2:15pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    If Microsoft operating systems division and their application 
software division are not separated then you will never see 
Microsoft applications (e.g. Office) run on other operating systems 
such as Linux and Unix. Not the case for the rest of the software 
world.
    Tim Van Asselt
    Mgr of software engineering
    Enternet LLC

MTC-626



MTC-00000627

From: Marge Moe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is about time this matter was settled. It never should have 
begun. Microsoft is a wonderful company doing wonderful things for 
consumers! Where would we consumers be without the technology 
Microsoft has developed? We use it every day.

MTC-627



MTC-00000628

From: A.J. Kirby Co.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 6:06pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
    To whom it may concern: Regarding the Microsoft settlement: I am 
a consumer and a very small voice in this matter. My opinion is not 
based on extensive technical knowledge. Experience is all I have and 
my experience is that Microsoft products are mediocre. They are the 
standard for most computer users but not the best technology. I have 
heard them described as "just good enough'. Their ubiquity 
insures their longevity. A monopoly that has been found to act in an 
illegal manner is in charge here and not the marketplace. The DOJ 
settlement will do nothing to correct this situation in my opinion. 
Over the years I have watched many software companies loose ground 
to Microsoft. Independent reviews of their products place them ahead 
of Microsoft's products yet they did not survive competing with 
Microsoft and its illegal behavior.
    This oppressive power does not just apply to software. For 
example, by simply deciding not to produce the program Microsoft 
Office for the Macintosh operating system, Microsoft would most 
likely cause Apple Computer, Inc., to declare bankruptcy. In fact it 
was brought out in the trial that Microsoft did indeed threaten to 
stop development of the program. How can competition be served when 
a company has that power? How many other companies are threatened in 
the same manner? I also wonder how many companies are reluctant to 
speak out for fear of reprisal?
    I think of it this way: computers need an operating system to 
run and software to perform specific functions. This is why, in 
fact, the proposal to split Microsoft into two companies was so 
logical. One Microsoft company would produce an operating system and 
the other Microsoft company would produce software to run on that 
system. Microsoft would have to compete with other software 
companies. Their products would have to be more than just good 
enough. As it stands now, and this settlement does nothing to 
prevent this, Microsoft does not have to compete with other 
application companies. All it has to do is make any application part 
of the operating system and the other software companies can do 
nothing. How can a company compete with that situation and why is it 
so hard for the DOJ to understand that this is so damaging to the 
software industry? It is sad that the settlement the DOJ has reached 
with Microsoft appears to have been influenced so much by politics 
and haste. It would be difficult to prove the extensive harm 
Microsoft has caused the computer industry but it would be very 
rewarding to think of all the wonderful programs and innovation we 
could have had. It is depressing to think Microsoft is once again 
going to just take up where it was before all this court business.
    I do not think this settlement is going to have much impact on 
Microsoft and I would predict that the government and Microsoft will 
probably be back in court within the next five years. Thank you for 
this opportunity to express my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Richard K. Cooley
    28 Willingdon Ave.
    London, Ontario
    Canada N6A 3Y6

MTC-628



MTC-00000629

From: Frank Lowney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 5:52pm
Subject: Microsoft
    As a citizen and consumer, I cannot understand how the DOJ has 
allowed itself to be worn down to a nub by the Microsoft monopoly. 
No one disputes the facts of the case: Microsoft has attained and is 
abusing its monopoly status in computer operating systems and 
several major genres of software (word processing, spreadsheet, 
presentation, web browser, etc.).
    Now they seek to leverage this power to conquer other markets 
such as media, e-commerce and a host of other areas. Consumers in 
these monopolized markets now pay significantly more than they 
otherwise would and get shoddier and shoddier goods and services in 
return. This is how monopolies have always behaved, behave now and 
will forever behave. That's why we have anti-trust laws and the 
means to enforce them. The only remedies that will work and be 
acceptable in the long run by consumers are remedies that convert 
Microsoft from a monopoly to something else.
    We need and have every right to expect your protection. Please 
reconsider just slapping Microsoft on the wrist and do the right 
thing_remove their monopoly power.
    Dr. Frank Lowney [email protected]
    Director, Electronic Instructional Services, a unit of the 
Office of Information and Instructional Technology, Professional 
Pages: http://www.gcsu.edu/oiit/eis/ Personal Pages: http://
www.faculty.de.gcsu.edu/-flowney
    Voice: (478) 445-5260
    We don't make instruction effective, we make effective 
instruction more accessible.

MTC-629



MTC-00000630

From: Bernard D. Dunn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 6:20pm
Subject: Settlement
    The case against Microsoft is nothing more than a Clinton 
administration vendetta. The worst possible thing the Justice 
Department could do is breakup Microsoft. It is because of Microsoft 
that I am able to send this E-mail. The Country is as far ahead in 
the computer world because of companies like Microsoft. The anti-
trust suite was ridiculous and should have been thrown out the first 
day in court. The best one can say for Janet Reno and her case 
against Microsoft is she headed the Injustice Department. Long live 
Microsoft and what they have done for the computer industry.
    Bernard D. Dunn
    Alexandria, Virginia

MTC-630



MTC-00000631

From: Lincoln Shumate
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 6:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    In response to your request for public comment on the proposed 
settlement in the case of United States v. Microsoft Corporation, I 
urge you, as an independent citizen with no direct financial 
interest in Microsoft nor any of its competitors, to imposed the 
kinds of penalties and restrictions on Microsoft as is necessary to 
prevent them and deter others from engaging in similar monopolistic 
and anticompetitive practices.
    There will be more benefit to the health of the economy for 
business, labor and the consumer when there is an environment in 
which entreprenuers feel there is no unfair advantage against 
producing better products. Entreprenuers need to rewarded by the 
marketplace for their creativity and innovation in an environment 
which doesn't allow strong arm methods that prevent them from 
succeeding on their on merit. More successful businesses also means 
more employed people and lower prices for the consumer. An 
environment which fosters competiveness is better for everyone 
except the monopolists. The penalties and deterrents should be such 
that they do not

[[Page 23774]]

discourage business from innovating and producing, only from using 
unfair practices.
    I would recommend requiring Microsoft to admit to their 
violations of the law in a highly publicized manner with an apology 
to their competitors and the consumers. Also Microsoft should have 
to pay for an advertising campaign which explains the problems with 
anticompetitive business practices and to cite and praise other 
businesses which have succeeded without engaging in those practices.
    Sincerely,
    Lincoln Shumate

MTC-631



MTC-00000632

From: Ryan Doherty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 6:14pm
Subject: Questioning lawsuit.
    Something just struck me as I was reading an article about the 
trial. Why aren't car manufacturers being sued for selling 
automobiles with Air-conditioning, AM/FM radio, CD-player, power-
windows, power-steering, sun-roof, ABS brakes, air-bags, etc...
    Most consumers look to buy a simple product with as many built-
in add-ins as possible, since it avoids the complications of 
shopping for additional products. Also, I feel that the inclusion of 
additional microsoft products with their operating system is equally 
important, since it prevents errors or incompatibitilies that occur 
between almost all computer products between almost every operating 
system available.
    Reliability is an important aspect of computer technology... so 
is protecting intellectual property...
    Reliability will be fortified by forcing microsoft to share the 
workings of it's operating system with other companies, which will 
assist in the production of software that will take full advantage 
of the operating system. Although, acknowledgment and protection of 
Microsoft's intellectual property will be compromised by such a 
decision.
    A new form of intellectual property protection must of applied 
to computer technology (similar to the biotechnology property 
protection surrounding genetically modified organisms and biotech 
patents)...
    Knowledge is important for ensuring that a company survives this 
fast paced world (especially during the current world-wide 
recession)... Sharing of such knowledge is equally important to 
ensure that new products grow from the old ones...
    Ryan Doherty
    Ottawa, Canada

MTC-632



MTC-00000633

From: ESQ
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 6:08pm
Subject: f9500/9549.htm
    Dear Renata, and other DOJ participants in the MS antitrust 
suit. I'm a Swede that induced by problems with the W98 
"OS" during the shift between 98 / 99 went ravingly mad 
over a crashing computer while heavily dependent on the same while 
promoting finance of some mines and Oilfield in the Republic of 
Kasachstan.
    So if that were not difficult enough, when having an obstructive 
computer loaded with expensive analysis software, that constantly 
gave up on me. Well,, everything ended up in a judicial assault by 
corrupted structures in the Republic of Latvia Clearly another 
story, but inevitably linking me in to the Microsoft issue again. 
Forced to give up all financing work remigrating to Sweden 
completely out of cash after six months in closed arrest, it came on 
me again. Tried to find a job in computing, as in ground being an 
Electronic Engineer with some 25 years of experience in 
microelectronics and software, really from scratch. The Swedish 
authorities had introduced a "Drivers License" for 
computers based on MS windows, Hi Dee Hoo.
    Almost all educational material were based on the highly 
manipulative MS Visual Studio, as I regard to be in violation of a 
principal human right, The freedom to Assemble. Was essentially 
subjected to a boycott as being able to define MS structured program 
generating Creativity Suites, tying up program creation to API's 
while it exist compilers f.o.x. Inprise Borland Bcc32 generating 
close to OS independent byte code, as well as Assembler and of 
course Java that Microsoft tried to obstruct by introducing their 
own API's in the MS version. The Java maneuvering actually flashed 
back a bit as MS Java don't perform as well as the original SUN 
product, even on Windows.
    Though not a US citizen, I've lobbied hard against MS initially 
through a member of the US congress Judiciary Committee between the 
end of Mars 99 to November 99. I regard Microsoft a a world wide 
plague, and could perticipate the ability to produce software 
enslaving the users. The issue "To use Software, or to be used 
by it" turned obvious, as MS already was on their way to 
implement it in full scale. Take their "Product range" 
Windows 95 / 98 / ME / XP / NT 3 / 4 / 5 "2000" I can 
and I've installed all API's of those "products" on my 
close to four years old machine everything works extremely well 
after some stripping down of highly experimental automation code 
(mostly producing system crashes), that in every way has to be done 
in order to have a non kamikaze computer.
    Talk about 'The Emperors New Clothes" So be it.
    Must congratulate you to you conclusions and the remedy 
proposed. The "Violating Structure" must either comply 
or face self erosion. Well done.
    O.K. Microsoft have created jobs, but based in poor software, 
generating problems, generating maintenance, and so forth.
    What will happen if that grows, and finally collapses, as most 
Windows OS's do, but in full scale?
    Would not personally object if Gates serves life long prison, 
remembered for to introduce "the human factor" into a 
machine that properly loaded never fails.
    With My Best !!!!
    Peter Johansson.
    [email protected],

MTC-633



MTC-00000634

From: Martin Caron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:16pm
Subject: grow a spine
    history will remember that period as the far west in technology. 
Terror from the big dark microsoft.
    What i love the most about ALL THIS is that a simple baby toy 
that can be dangerous or or a simple leaking rubber around a window 
on a car mean imediate recall at the manufacturer cost but an 
operating system that don't work (they are always wost and worst) 
can be sell with no support!! (don't tell me patch exist because i 
don't personaly fix my recalled car).
    Tanx a lot USA to tell all young in this country that you must 
not fight for your right. Resistance is futile. Don't inovate 
because the bigger lawyer win.
    I hope the DoJ will be included in future law suit because you 
are part of the problem. BTW do you have a purpose. And remember, 
grow a spine because you look like a slug around the world!

MTC-634



MTC-00000635

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:15pm
Subject: Big Brother
    Being that we are TaxPaying Citizens. What Right does the 
Federal Government have telling us how to run our Business, as long 
as we are not Breaking the Law. The Group that Created the Law that 
MircoSoft is experiencing, is made up of Lobbyist and self-servient 
People that are only upset because they are not on the successful 
end of this situation.
    The Government should take into consideration how much Monies 
MicroSoft has not only Saved the American Public on the Costs of the 
Internet, as well as Computer Software, but how much additional Tax 
Revenue it has received from The Public because of Monies spent on 
the same. I the Cost of Computers and Internet Access were at Higher 
Levels, the populous of the World would not be able to afford such 
luxuries. That is exactly what they would be, Luxuries. Thank you 
MicroSoft for allowing everyone access to the World!
    Craig J Rooth
    President
    S & R SALES GROUP

MTC-635



MTC-00000636

From: peter gillespie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:25pm
Subject: re: microsoft settlement
    Dear DoJ, I think the proposed settlement is woefully inadequate 
to provide any relief to the billions of consumers who have been 
victims of this machiavellian monopoly. It is estimated that the 
monopoly effect on the price of Windows is around $20.00 per copy. 
An adequate remedy would start with a full reimbursment together 
with triple damages for all purchasers, of which I am sure Microsoft 
has very thorough records. Then it would address the contemptuous 
behavior Microsoft and its ceo toward the prior judgement in this 
case and the judicial

[[Page 23775]]

process in general and provide substantial incentives to correct 
their behavior in the future. Anything less condones the type of 
behavior Mr. Gates displayed in the depositions that were introduced 
at trial.
    sincerely peter gillespie

MTC-636



MTC-00000637

From: JOY BROWN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Sirs,
    We think this case has long overdone its constructiveness. Too 
much politics have been in play. It is in the consumer's interest to 
settle this promptly with a minimum impact to Microsoft who has 
helped bring the computer industry up to its high level. Without 
their aggressive tactics we believe the computer science would be 
behind where it is at this time. We urge a prompt settlement to end 
this turmoil.
    GOD BLESS,
    Joy & Lila Brown 1526 Thomas St. SW,
    Olympia, WA 98502

MTC-637



MTC-00000638

From: Joe Buczek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:23pm
Subject: Comments on DOJ proposed settlement with Microsoft
    Dear DOJ,
    The published proposed settlement with Microsoft concerning its 
anti-trust conviction is a travesty of justice. Microsoft, by its 
own admissions and demonstrated behavior, plus the considered 
testimony of numerous, credible expert witnesses violated anti-trust 
laws. It earned its guilty verdict. The proposed settlement does 
NOTHING to prevent Microsoft from continuing the behavior that got 
it convicted. It does NOTHING to undo the monopoly Microsoft has 
established.
    At a minimum, the settlement should include these stipulations:
    _Microsoft shall publish the programmatic API's to *all* 
of it system and application software, without restriction and 
without cost, to the public. The information should be publised on 
the internet and should require no binding agreement between 
Microsoft and anyone who wishes to use it.
    _Microsoft shall publish all data, protocol, and file 
formats for all of its products. The publication of any changes to 
these must preceed the publication of software by Microsoft by a 
minimum of 6 months prior to any commercial release of Microsoft 
products that use them.
    _Microsoft shall be required to charge all customers, 
regardless of buying volume, the same price for all of its products.
    _Microsoft shall be prohibited from "bundling" 
any products based on the purchase of any other products, regardless 
of whether they are made by Microsoft or not.
    Anything less than the above simply ignores the gravity of the 
legal judgement that Microsoft BROKE THE LAW. It will do nothing to 
foster competition in the software development business. Microsoft 
should pay treble damages for the cost of the government's 
prosecution of the case against them, especially since it was 
demonstrated DURING THE TRIAL that they attempted to deceive the 
court.
    The proposed settlement is an affront to the justice system's 
conviction of Microsoft, and it is an insult to the hundreds of 
expert witnessess and thousands and thousands of independent 
software developers who must face monopoly power if the judgement 
does not include the above stipulations intended to, for the first 
time, PERMIT COMPETITION with Microsoft on a more level playing 
field.
    As an independent software developer, I urge the DOJ to put the 
above stipulations into the settlement.
    Respectully,
    Joseph Buczek, independent software developer
    Buczek Consulting
    1261 Lincoln Ave., Suite 218
    San Jose, Ca 95125
    (408) 298-6178
    [email protected]

MTC-638



MTC-00000639

From: John Lemke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:30pm
Subject: Repeat offenders needed tougher sentences
    Dear Department of Justice:
    I have read the recent ruling and proposed resolution to the 
Microsoft anti-trust case. It is my strong belief that the proposed 
remedy will have almost NO IMPACT on the current market abuses by 
Microsoft.
    There are three items in the proposed remedy that need to be 
brought to light:
    _Microsoft was given a similar ruling in 1995 to disallow 
the bundling of Internet Explorer and Windows, in an attempt to 
prevent Microsoft from illegally leveraging its Desktop OS monopoly 
into the Web Browser market. Six years later, we see that Internet 
Explorer has over 90% of the web browser market. The Department of 
Justice FAILED to prevent Microsoft from illegally extending its 
monopoly into the Web browser market.
    _Microsoft has dealings with OEMs which prevent them from 
installing any other operating system except for Windows on a new 
PC. The proposed remedy makes it more difficult for Microsoft to 
continue doing this. However, the issue that it fails to address is 
this:
    What other operating system would OEMs install? There could have 
been an opportunity two years ago to help out Be, Inc. gain a 
foothold with its superb desktop OS, but they are gone now due to 
Microsoft's abuse. This leaves Linux, (which is either a toy for 
hobbiest geeks or a server operating system), or OS/2. It's doubtful 
that OEMs would want to install either of these on a desktop PC. 
Thus we see that the Department of Justice IS FAILING to prevent 
Microsoft from continually reaping the benefits of its past illegal 
behaviour.
    _The proposed remedy makes a provision to force Microsoft 
to disclose protocols to qualified 3rd parties for the purpose of 
interacting with its software. This alone could have been the single 
most important part of the remedy, if it hadn't been de-clawed by 
the "Security" except granted later on. Microsoft can 
propose that its implementation of the SMB / NetBIOS protocol uses 
password encryption, whose protocol cannot be published due to 
security concerns. Therefore, Microsoft will continue to keep that 
protocol a secret, and use it to enchance interoperability between 
Windows systems and destroy / eliminate interoperability with non-
Microsoft systems. (such as Unix / Samba) The security clause in the 
remedy MUST BE REMOVED, or the Department of Justice WILL FAIL to 
prevent Microsoft from leveraging its desktop monopoly into a 
communications protocol monopoly.
    Thus we see how the Department of Justice has failed, is 
currently failing, and will continue to fail to protect the industry 
from Microsoft, unless the proposed remedy is altered significantly 
to address past abuses, current abuses, and future abuses that 
inevitably will happen.
    I propose the following:
    _Microsoft be forced to 
disclose_every_protocol used for communication between 
two PCs, or between two separate services or programs on a single 
PC. This disclosure will be UNCONDITIONAL, regardless of the 
protocol's intended or actual use. (Note that this will not require 
the disclosure of encryption keys.) The availability documentation 
for said protocols must be prominently displayed on http://
www.microsoft.com, and endorsed as enthusiastically as the current 
flagship product. The documentation must be available for free 
download in a simple, open format (such as HTML 1.0, or plain text), 
and must also be available for hardcopy, costing no more than the 
printing and shipping cost.
    _Microsoft be forced to not make_any restriction 
whatsoever_ on the freedom of OEMs to modify, change, add to 
or delete from the hard drive of the system which they sell. OEMs 
must be given the ability to modify any and all parts of the PCs 
hard drive, regardless of whether that section of the hard drive 
contains a Microsoft product or a non-Microsoft product.
    _To address the benefits that Microsoft currently enjoys 
due to past abuses: Microsoft be forced to make known the 
availablity of competing software products. (such as Red Hat Linux, 
Sun StarOffice, and Opera Software) The method by which Microsoft 
makes these products known shall be up to them, provided that they, 
at a minimum, display a link to at least one competing product on 
their home page for EACH of their own products featured on the same 
homepage. The link to the competing product must be as prominent and 
enthusiastically displayed as the link to Microsoft's own product. 
This specific remedy shall be in place for 3 years.
    While it is doubtful that my proposed changes would have a 
significant impact on the Desktop OS monopoly, it would raise 
awareness of the availabily of competing products and ensure that 
those products are able to interoperate with Microsoft's. It is my 
hope that the Department of Justice will consider these changes and 
avoid falling into

[[Page 23776]]

the same pitfall which they previously have, are currently, and are 
about to fall into.
    Sincerely,
    John Lemke

MTC-639



MTC-00000640

From: Joyce Harness
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:32pm
Subject: MSFT Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    In my opinion I feel the country's economy would best be served 
in the full settlement of the Msft case. I personally feel the Msft 
has helped the economy much more than hurt it. Thank you.
    Joyce Harness
    3015 NW 73rd
    Seattle, WA 98117
    206-784-9126

MTC-640



MTC-00000642

From: Joe Beach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:27 pm
Subject: ridiculous settlement
    Hello,
    I have read about the settlement that you reached with 
Microsoft, and I was wondering just how much Microsoft paid you to 
cave in to them in such a flagrant manner.
    How is it that a department with the word "Justice" 
in its name, comes to an agreement with a company that has been 
legally found to be an abusive monopoly that has unfairly destroyed 
its competition, and that agreement has no punitive damages? 
Wouldn't it make sense to fine the company to remove the profits 
that it has made illegally? Wouldn't it make sense to return some of 
that ill-gotten gain to its victims? Wouldn't that be, in normal 
circumstances, considered justice?
    When a criminal is prosecuted and FOUND GUILTY, the prosecution 
does not customarily then as the criminal if he would please, if it 
is okay with him, and if he doesn't have any better idea or have 
something else he'd prefer to do, go to jail now. This is no 
different. Microsoft does not get to decide the terms of their 
punishment. The have been found guilty of a crime. They must accept 
a fair punishment handed down by the court. The court and the 
prosecution does not need to worry about whether Microsoft will be 
upset with the punishement. In fact, if the punishment is 
reasonable, I would EXPECT Microsoft to be upset with it. The fact 
that Bill Gates has stated that he is happy with this settlement 
should be a big sign that the settlement has no teeth, and will not 
prevent Microsoft from continuing to use its market position to 
prevent competition.
    A settlement with Microsoft should have several components. Some 
of them are:
    1. Fines to remove the profits that Microsoft has illegally 
gained from its monopoly abuses.
    2. Compensation to the victims of its monopoly abuses.
    3. Provisions barring Microsoft from using its license terms to 
prevent computer manufacturers from selling computers with multiple 
operating systems pre-installed.
    4. Requirements that Microsoft make its data file formats 
public, so other software makers can be assured that they will be 
able to make interoperable products. This is the major barrier to 
entering the office software market.
    Any settlement that does not at least have these terms is a 
sellout to Microsoft, and makes the it appear that the current 
administration is in Microsoft's pocket. Most of the computing world 
knew that Microsoft was attempting to delay the legal process in the 
hope that a Republican would become president and end the 
prosecution against them. It appears, though, that the Bush 
administration decided that would be too blatant, and so instead had 
the prosecutors offer Microsoft a ridiculously lenient settlement 
instead. These are the type of sell-out actions that undermine 
people's confidence in the legal system.
    Joe Beach
    11533 East Alaska Avenue
    Aurora CO 800 12-2220

MTC-642



MTC-00000643

From: Art Holland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:25 pm
Subject: some criminals
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I have been a computer user for close to 20 years and my general 
impression of Microsoft over that time is that they have done more 
to retard progress in the industry than advance it. However, I'm 
disgusted by that fact that having broken the law, as verified 
unanimously by the Court of Appeals, they are not being punished or 
restricted in how they go about obtaining dominance of the internet.
    The government should have levied a serious fine on the company 
(at least $10 billion) and required them to sell a basic, 
functioning (as determined by an independent panel) operating system 
for 1/2 the cost of Windows with competition stifling add-ons.
    Thanks,
    _Art

MTC-643



MTC-00000644

From: Ray D Pratt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:35 pm
Subject: Whore
    You know it, and I know it.

MTC-644



MTC-00000645

From: Brett Christoffersen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:34 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please retract your settlement offer.
    Microsoft is the most destructive force in the computer world 
today, any product that competes with them is either bought 
(hotmail.com) or crushed (Netscape ... by giving away Microsoft's 
browser for free), or excluded from functionality (Quicktime (Apple) 
is now systematically excluded in favor of Microsoft's RealMedia ... 
the only way to get this functionality back is to download patches 
from Apple_Microsoft and AOL's fight over instant messenger 
and Microsoft's competing product is another example). When 
Microsoft can't do these items, they try to set up 
"standards" that exclude their major competitor so that 
the Microsoft product is the "standard" that PC users 
"should use" ("J++" is a good 
example_fortunately, Java by Sun Microsystems won this war ... 
it was simply too good to be supplanted by the inferior J++). When 
all else fails, they bribe their competition ($100 Million to Apple 
... $135 Million more to Corel).
    Microsoft's goal is to rule with an iron fist ALL of computing 
from the desktop (90% marketshare) to the mainframe (Windows NT) to 
gaming (the "XBox", which competes with Sony and Sega) 
to the internet (Explorer sets MSN.com as its default) and all the 
content on it (many Microsoft pages are written in html that is 
"Windows-only" ... try to access them with a Mac or 
Netscape and the page with either fail to load, or the browser will 
crash). Even their e-mail client (Outlook) sets its preferences in 
such a way that many older e-mail programs cannot read the e-mails 
that come from Outlook machines ... thus the receipient thinks (s)he 
must upgrade to "keep up".
    Windows XP is even worse than previous versions at these tactics 
from what has been leaked to the net. It integrates everything now 
... try to "uninstall" Explorer and the OS will 
collapse, try to use Netscape and you'll likely find it so hard that 
only the most experienced user can do it.
    I am a loyal Macintosh user for years, but am well versed in PCs 
as I've used both platforms for years. I've seen the Mac innovate 
(the Graphic User Interface, the mouse, the 1.44 Meg floppy, 
Quicktime, back-side L2 caching, FireWire, parallel process 
computing for the home user, voice recognition, a nearly virus- 
impenitrable OS) and the PC destroy or mimmic. Stop Microsoft (and 
Bill Gates) from destroying the world of computing by making it 
"my way or no way'. Go after him with the furver that we are 
currently going after Osama Bin Ladin.
    Brett Christoffersen

MTC-645



MTC-00000646

From: davis chris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:34 pm
Subject: you failed us
    Its hard to express my disappointment in your decision to settle 
on such weak and meaningless terms. I am a software developer in MN. 
MN is dominated my MS. Most IE manager's are afraid to use anything 
else. During the trial this mentality was weaken and IT workers were 
starting to convince our employers that open source and alternative 
technologies were safe to use. I was actually proud of our 
government for what they did. MS was destroying our industry, and 
they were about to save it before it was too late. But, now its over 
and MS won. I can't understand that you could settle on with these 
weak provision when just 1-2 years ago you want to break the 
company up. That's quite a change of heart. Almost 180 degrees.

[[Page 23777]]

 Its truly sad, and I hope it wasn't a back room deal. Now the fight 
is over. IT managers view MS as stronger than the government itself. 
Most of the IE developers who were fighting in the trenches for the 
DOJ, the fight for public opinion, are not unemployed or shunned.
    You failed those who supported you. Now what are we suppose to 
do?
    -Chris Davis
    ex software developer

MTC-646



MTC-00000647

From: Judy Ponto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:33 pm
Subject: antitrust
    I am on Microft's in this on-going struggle. The are intovative 
and now share with other providers in the industry. From my 
prospective this company enhances the American tradition of free 
enterprise, intovation and creativity.
    Sincerely,
    Judy Ponto
    [email protected]

MTC-647



MTC-00000648

From: cartercherry3
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:48 pm
Subject: Support DOJ-MSFT Settlement
    The DOJ settlement with MSFT is in the national interest and 
fair to both parties. Hopefully, the recalcitrant attorney generals 
who have not settled will reconsider.
    Cordially,
    Carter M. Cherry, MD

MTC-648



MTC-00000649

From: Justin Zygmont
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:40 pm
Subject: microsoft case
    I've been following this case for a long time, if you let them 
off it's going to hurt us dearly. The DOJ is the only one that can 
do anything at this point, Please don't let them get off like this.

MTC-649



MTC-00000650

From: Harold Mead
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:40 pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    You have no teeth in the settlement. Go and sin no more wont do 
it, and that is all you have in this document. The wording is so 
vague Microsoft can,and will, do whatever they want to do. It will 
be business as usual at Microsoft. And who can blame them. They got 
exactly what they wanted from the Government, A vaguely worded 
unenforceable document with A business as usual Guarantee. You had 
better listen to some of State lawyers. Microsoft has aptly 
demonstrated, business as usual, in the recent past, and will do so 
again in the future, with this document in place.

MTC-650



MTC-00000651

From: Michael A. Alderete
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/10/01 1:53 pm
Subject: Re: U.S. v. Microsoft: Main Index
    In a shocking, I say shocking development, 
the Department of Justice' has completely capitulated on the 
Microsoft antitrust trial, giving a convicted monopolist a light 
slap on the wrist. Just another example of George Bush helping the 
rich get richer. A quick recap of history: in 1998, the DoJ sued 
Microsoft in federal court for alleged antitrust violations. After 
months of dubious legal strategy, damning evidence, and ludicrous 
courtroom behavior, Microsoft was in 2000 convicted by a 
conservative Federal judge of being a monopoly and abuse of monopoly 
power. Note the word convicted.
    In 2001, seven more Federal judges_a full sitting of the 
appeals court, most of them conservative appointees 
also_unanimously upheld the bulk of the conviction. Note the 
word upheld. Now, after weeks of 
"negotiation," the DoJ and Microsoft have arrived at a 
"settlement" that is so full of ambiguities and 
loopholes that it's not clear that it will have 
any effect on Microsoft behavior, let alone 
actually restore balance to the technology industry.
    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 settlement fails on every one of 
these.
    I've read a few objections to this position, penned by Microsoft 
apologists, or Microsoft's buddies at the DoJ, and none of them hold 
water:
    The proposed settlement is strong, and it really will 
modify Microsoft's behavior. No, it's not. Ralph Nader (a 
man I'm not fond of) and James Love have  which details the deep flaws in the settlement 
far more eloquently than I can manage. Read that for the details.
    That letter assumes the worst about Microsoft's 
behavior, but Microsoft is good, the settlement will have a positive 
effect.
    History suggests this is not correct. Inserting weasel words and 
then using them to studiously adhere to their interpretation of the 
agreement while flagrantly ignoring the spirit is 
exactly what Microsoft did to the last consent 
decree with the DoJ. Certainly, depending on Microsoft to be 
"good" is a pretty flawed way to approach handling a 
convicted and unrepentant monopoly abuser.
    This antitrust case is all about Microsoft's rivals 
complaining, not about real consumer harm.
    If that were really true, I doubt if eight (count 'em, eight) 
Federal judges would have upheld the conviction. It's not as though 
they don't understand the law.
    And if that were really true, what's up with Microsoft raising 
the prices on their products? The price of the operating system has 
been steadily creeping upwards; Windows XP is $10 more than the 
prior upgrade, and Microsoft is currently moving corporate customers 
onto new support programs which will cost twice as much as the old 
programs.
    Explain to me how paying more for a product is not 
"consumer harm."
    But Windows XP delivers more value, that's why it costs 
more. Um, no. Look at other parts of the software industry 
where there is actual competition. Over time you get more value, and 
you pay the same or less. I've been upgrading Quicken for many 
years, getting lots more value in every release, and the price to 
upgrade is the same. Quicken has competitors, so Intuit can't raise 
the price. Windows does not have competitors, so Microsoft abuses 
their monopoly power and raises prices.
    Microsoft just wants to protect their freedom to 
innovate. Aha ha ha ha ha ha! Aha ha ha ha ha ha! That's a 
good one! Aha ha ha ha ha ha! "Innovation" has nothing 
to do with it. Microsoft wants to protect their freedom to crush 
their competitors. Microsoft has never had a reputation for 
innovation, for good reason; they copy the best ideas from their 
competitors and put those into Windows in such a way to steer 
consumers towards other Microsoft initiatives (currently that's MSN 
and Passport; if you've installed Windows XP, you know exactly what 
I mean).
    But if Microsoft can't integrate functionality into 
Windows, then consumers won't get the benefits of that integration. 
The integration is the innovation.
    Integration of extended functionality into a users computing 
environment is certainly desirable. However, that integration can be 
done in a way that fosters innovation and competition, or it can be 
done in an exclusionary way. Guess which way Microsoft has been 
doing things.
    The current settlement proposal recognizes and acknowledges 
this, and is attempting to change Microsoft's anti-competitive 
behavior in this area. But the language is so weak and riddled with 
holes, it depends on Microsoft to be "good," something 
they have repeatedly demonstrated they don't know how to do.
    Final note: I'm not an  in the total 
capitulation of the DoJ. I think it was a perfectly ordinary case of 
George Bush making sure that rich people can stay rich, by making 
the world safe for large corporations to do whatever they want. But 
I don't have strong opinions here at all.
    Michael A. Alderete  
 voice: (415) 861-5758.

MTC-651



MTC-00000652

From: garypr7265 @ worldnet.att.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/10/01 3:30pm
Subject: Someone thinks you'll like this...
    Someone you know, going by the name, "Gary Rost", 
thought you'd find this interesting. If you don't like it, you can 
yell at them. They said their email address was 
[email protected].

[[Page 23778]]

    I, Cringely The Pulpit. Caught in a UNET Don't Expect Microsoft 
to Give Up One Weapon Without Acquiring Another_How .NET 
Assures the Continuation of Monopoly By Robert X. Cringely.
    The proposed Microsoft settlement with the Department of Justice 
has been out for several days, and there has been more than enough 
ink used to say that it is a sweetheart deal for Microsoft. The DOJ 
wants to get on to more important duties like confiscating nail 
clippers at airports, so the deal looks good to them. But to those 
of us who got our legal education from old episodes of "Law 
and Order," the deal stinks. How does it restore competition? 
What does it do for those hundreds of competitors who are no longer 
even in business because of Microsoft's monopolistic tactics? Well, 
those outfits_if they exist and if they can find the money to 
do so_can file civil suits. But most of them won't. I would 
like to see a class action lawsuit against Microsoft. What the 
settlement seems to do is prohibit Microsoft from breaking the law 
IN THIS SPECIFIC WAY for a period of five years. Imagine a murderer 
who shot his victims being enjoined for five years from using a gun, 
but still being allowed to carry a knife. So the best use of this 
space this week, given all the other pundits who have already 
criticized the settlement, is for me to throw out some ideas about 
why Microsoft went for it, and how their behavior will change as a 
result.
    It is important to understand here that Microsoft management 
does not feel the slightest bit of guilt. They are, as they have 
explained over and over again, just trying to survive in a brutally 
competitive industry, one in which they could go from winner to 
loser in a heartbeat. The fact that Microsoft makes in excess of 90 
percent of the profit of the entire software industry, well that's 
just the happy result of a lot of hard work. Pay no mind to that $36 
billion they have in the bank. And since Microsoft doesn't feel 
guilty, their motivation in agreeing to this settlement is just to 
get on with business. This is a very important fact to keep in mind 
when trying to understand the event. This isn't Microsoft being 
caught and punished, it is Microsoft finding a path back to business 
as usual, which is to say back to the very kind of practices that 
got them here. Microsoft, confident in its innate cleverness, is 
willing to give up certain old monopolistic behaviors because there 
are new monopolistic behaviors now available to replace them.
    Microsoft has to open-up certain Windows communication APIs to 
other developers,
1 of 6 12/11/2001 4:24 pm
but there is no restriction at all on the addition of new APIs. So 
expect a LOT of new APIs, many of which will do nothing at all 
except confuse competitors. There is nothing in the agreement that 
says Microsoft has to tell anyone which APIs it really intends to 
use. So just like interpreted software is obfuscated to hinder 
would-be copiers, expect Microsoft to obfuscate Windows, itself.
    Microsoft has to allow third-party middleware, but a glaring 
loophole was left for Microsoft, simply to redefine code as not 
being middleware. If they stop distributing code separately and draw 
it into Windows, well as I read the proposed settlement, middleware 
stops being middleware after 12 months. So if something new comes up 
(all the old middleware is explicitly defined) Microsoft can 
integrate it and screw the opposition one year after they stop 
distributing it separately. These loopholes are nice, but they don't 
amount to the kind of leverage Microsoft would want to have before 
signing away any rights. Bill Gates would want to believe that he 
has a new and completely unfettered weapon so powerful that it makes 
some of the older weapons completely unnecessary. He has found that 
weapon in .NET.
    But hey, .NET isn't even successful yet, right? It might be a 
big flop. Wrong. Those who think there is any way that .NET won't be 
universally deployed are ignoring Microsoft's 90 percent operating 
system market share. Whether people like .NET or not, they'll get it 
as old computers are replaced with new ones. Within three years .NET 
will be everywhere whether customers actually use it or not. And 
that ubiquity, rather than commercial success, is what is important 
to Microsoft.
    Here is the deal. .NET is essentially a giant system for 
tracking user behavior and, as such, will become Microsoft's most 
valuable tactical tool. It is a system for tracking use of services, 
and the data from that tracking is available only to Microsoft.
    .NET is an integral part of Windows' communication system with 
all calls going through it. This will allow Microsoft (and only 
Microsoft) to track the most frequently placed calls. If the calls 
are going to a third-party software package, Microsoft will know 
about it. This information is crucial. With it, Microsoft can know 
which third-party products to ignore and which to destroy. With this 
information, Microsoft can develop its own add-in packages and 
integrate them into the .NET framework, thus eliminating the third-
party provider. A year later, as explained above, the problem is 
solved.
    Alternately, Microsoft could use the information (this .NET-
generated market research that Microsoft gets for free and nobody 
else gets at all) to change Windows to do service discovery giving 
an automatic priority to Microsoft's middleware. The advantage here 
is in giving the appearance of openness without actually being open.
    These possible behaviors are not in any way proscribed by the 
proposed settlement with the DOJ, yet they virtually guarantee a 
continuation of Microsoft's monopoly on applications and services as 
long as Microsoft has an operating system monopoly. When Microsoft 
talks about "innovation," this is what they mean. 
Nothing is going to change.
2 of 6 12/11/2001 4:24 pm
    It is easy to criticize, but for a change, there is actually 
something that you and I can do about this problem. Under the Tunney 
Act, the court has to open a 60-day period for public comment before 
any settlement can become final. This will happen after the 
settlement is entered in the Federal Register and will probably 
involve the court establishing a web site. This will be your chance 
to say what you think should happen in the case (look in the 
"I Like It" links for further information). My preferred 
outcome is still that Microsoft be forced to sell its language 
business, and the proceeds of that sale be distributed to registered 
users of Microsoft products. You might think to suggest that in your 
comments to the court.
    Finally, I have a little space left over to respond to some of 
the critics of last week's column about the predicted rise of 
Microsoft's C# language at the expense of Java. This column was 
wildly unpopular in the technical community. Remember that unpopular 
is not bad for a columnist. UNREAD is bad. So I thank all those 
people who got upset and told their friends to read what idiotic 
things I had written. But I also stand by my words. So here are the 
typical complaints followed by my typical responses. Thanks go to 
those nerds who provided such pithy criticism and especially to 
those who helped me sound halfway intelligent in my response. For 
those whose eyes glaze over when the talk gets technical, just 
reread the first part of this column and get mad at Microsoft all 
over again.
    Criticism 1: C# Apps are tied to Windows, Windows, Windows. 
While this is fine and wonderful for windows developers, there are 
thousands of UNIXIMac/mainframe/PalmOS/etc developers out there that 
will be left high and dry. And let's not forget Java runs on 
everything from mainframes to smart cards. Bob's reply: Java won't 
die and I never said it would. Java didn't kill C++_it just 
stole market share. Visual BASIC was one of the biggest languages of 
the 90s yet it was Windows-only. Unix is entrenched on the server 
side, but that's the fault of Windows, not C#. So maybe we can 
rephrase it_C# will dominate Java on Windows. That's still 
a pretty big statement. Not to mention, C# is compiled to an IR, 
making a C# runtime for Unix possible and even probable as long 
as it skips serious Windows-specific APIs.
    Criticism 2: The "Java is slow" myth. More recent 
JVMs can actually perform as well as or BETTER than natively 
compiled code. This is because they do just-in-time compilation, 
making the Java code as fast as native machine code. Also, there is 
only so much optimization the compiler can do when you compile a 
program, having no idea how it will actually be used when it is run. 
At runtime, there is a lot more information available to the system 
as to what parts of the code are the real bottlenecks. Recent Java 
implementations employ dynamic runtime optimizations, where parts of 
the program that run more frequently are recompiled in an optimized 
manner to improve performance. These dynamic optimization schemes 
are a very exciting new field for compiler and virtual machine 
engineers_and they are totally lacking from poor old 
statically compiled C#. The very way that C# gets compiled 
ties you to Windows, so dynamic optimization of running C# code 
will be all but impossible to implement. In the long run, Java has 
the potential to seriously outperform all statically compiled 
languages.
    Bob's reply: I have very informed friends who have ripped JVMs 
inside out and they
3 of 6 12/11/2001 4:24 pm
can't even see HOW JVMs can be claimed to rerform better than 
compiled code. C (we're

[[Page 23779]]

not talking about C# yet, because the critic is talking natively 
compiled code, like C) will always outperform Java. C doesn't have 
garbage collection, runtime type checking, runtime array bounds 
checking, dynamic linking, runtime dynamic-optimization, etc. Java 
just does too much for the user at runtime to ever run as fast as C.
    Here's some code:
for (int g=O;g9 19/782-0667 OS->W95 OSVers-
>05R2 Brand->IBM Aptiva Chip->Pentium Mem->32 modem-
>LT Win Modem Speed->576+ PIVers->5x Browser->NC Source-
>5 SUBMIT->Send Support Request ___REPLY, 
End of original message__- 5013 Sandlewood Drive 
Raleigh, NC 27609-4422 Home: 9191782-0667 Fax: 919/
783-6637 (call before sending a fax)
    The terrorists who attacked the United States on September 11 
aimed at one nation but wounded the world ... But if the world can 
show that it will carry on, that it will persevere in creating a 
stronger, more just, more benevolent and more genuine international 
community across all lines of religion and race, then terrorism will 
have failed.
    _Kofi Annan
    Secretary General of the UN and Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize 
for 2001 E-Mail: JudyandLeo @Prodigy.net
CC: US vs Microsoft

MTC-656



MTC-00000657

From: William M. Edwards
To: Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 11/11/01 11:46am
Subject: U.S. v. Microsoft: Proposed Final Judgment
    Hello,
    Last week, I returned from vacation to learn about the proposed 
final judgement published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To say 
that I was shocked is an understatement.
    I have worked in the computer industry for over 20 years, and 
over those years I had already learned of the many predatory and 
unscrupulous acts perpetrated by Microsoft. Indeed, I have myself 
been vicitimized by Microsoft's misdeeds by virtue of being an 
employee of a victimized company.
    When the DOJ finally took action against Microsoft, I was 
elated. I felt that Microsoft would finally be punished for its 
blatantly illegal behavior and/or prevented from engaging in such 
behavior any longer. Judge Jackson's findings of fact futher 
bolstered my optimism. The courts finally acknowledged the scope of 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior and the harmful effect it has 
on the computer industry. Microsoft's attempts to delay justice 
through apeals did not surprise me, nor did the fact that Judge 
Jackson's findings of fact withstood scrutiny and re-examination. 
Microsoft is guilty and does not have a leg to stand on, and I was 
therefore optimistic that Microsoft would eventually receive 
judgement against them that was so long overdue.
    The proposed final judgement is essentially letting Microsoft 
off scott free. As an American taxpayer, I am outraged that the DOT 
is essentially throwing out a case that they have spent a so much 
time and a huge sum of money on, especially in the final stages of 
litigation they have already won. As an American who depends on the 
DOJ to protect him from those who engage in illegal activity and to 
punish those that do, I feel betrayed.
    Some would say that Microsoft no longer is in a threatening 
position and that the anti-trust suit against Microsoft is no longer 
relevant. Hogwash. Microsoft still holds a monopoly on desktop PC 
computer systems and can still bundle any software with the Windows 
operating system that it so pleases under the guise as being part of 
the operating system, thus allowing them to continue their illegal 
anti-competitive behavior. The fact that they can leave the browser 
entwined within the operating system still allows them to illegally 
leverage their current Windows monopoly to extend the monopoly to 
Web-based applications. In short, Microsoft will continue with their 
past illegal behavior undeterred. The long-term effects of this on 
the computer industry and consumers in general will be detrimental.
    This case reeks of politics in its worst form. Justice has been 
subverted by undue leniency by "friends in high places". 
I promise you that this will come back to bite you. Microsoft will 
once again be in the headlines and you will have some explaining to 
do.
    Sincerely,
    William M. Edwards

MTC-657



MTC-00000658

From: Jeff Pert-in
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 23781]]

Date: 11/11/01 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft
    To All at the Department of Justice,
    I am very disheartened to learn of the DOJ's light handed 
treatment in regards to the sentencing of a company convicted of so 
openly breaking the United States' anti-trust laws. Allowing 
Microsoft to get off with so much as a slap on the hand is a an 
insult to the American consumer and America's legal system. Yet 
again, it appears that it only matters who you are and how much 
money one has when it comes to justice! Microsoft is GUILTY! Allow 
them to be punished like any other corporation would in the same 
circumstances!
    Recent actions in the bundling of new software applications 
within the new Windows XP OS even prove Microsoft believes it has no 
reason to fear the DOT. Even more, the .net strategy show Microsofts 
determination to clench a stranglehold on even the Internet itself!
    Computers are set (if not already) to take over vital functions 
on a world-wide scale, from air traffic control, to financial and 
medical database systems. Allowing one platform to control them all 
will only open invitation to national disaster as one weak link in 
the software (or infamous hidden "back-doors") will put 
the American public at the mercy of virus writers and other cyber-
terrorists! Case in point: A single flaw in Microsoft server 
software led to the Nimda virus and other similar attacks which cost 
industry millions (billions?). Having a wider variety of platform 
choice would greatly reduce the effect of such an attack, as a 
terrorist would need much greater resources to compose a virus or 
strategic attack against multiple computer system types.
    At any rate, please reconsider your weak response to the 
Microsoft conviction. To do otherwise is an injustice and would do 
nothing but reinforce Microsoft's grip on the world.
    Thank you for listening. I know I speak for many others!
    Jeff Perrin

MTC-658



MTC-00000659

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/11/01 7:02pm
Subject: antitrust
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am a computer user and I strongly object to the settlement you 
have brokered with Microsoft. In the United States we are supposed 
to have choices. When it comes to operating systems for personal 
computers we have two: Windows and Linnux. Windows is an expensive, 
diffcult system that uses excessive space on the hard drive, is 
plagued by inconvenient system failures, and has little or no 
capacity for modification. Linnux is a cheap, unfathomable system 
that supports few applications. Our choices are very limited because 
of Microsoft's monopoly. The whole point of this court case was to 
give citizens more choices when we shop for pc operating systems. 
The remedy Microsoft has been able to foist on you and us protects 
their monopoly and leaves a consumer landscape in the operating 
system market that allows two choices: bad and worse. I want to be 
able to buy an operating system that has only the functions I need, 
can be taylored to my specifications, augmented seemlessly with many 
different types of software, has a resonable price, is reliable, 
never forces me to use a particular internet browser for smooth 
operation... get the picture?
    Mike Brennan
    110 Beresini Lane
    Hollister, CA 95023
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Find a job, post your resume.
    http://careers.yahoo.com

MTC-659



MTC-00000660

From: Ralph
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/11/01 8:30pm
Subject: What a sell out!!
    I am very disappointed to see the U.S. government cave into 
Microsoft after so many years of hard work. I do not believe the 
agreement will restore competition in the PC software market but 
will instead cement Microsoft's excessively dominant position. How 
could you negotiate such a swiss cheese agreement?
    Like you forced IBM to unbundle hardware and software, you 
should have forced Microsoft to unbundle the operating system with 
applications.
    Here is what you should have done:
    * Remove all applications: browser, media player, passport, 
instant messenger, etc, from base OS.
    * Require Microsoft to provide an application CD with these 
applications instead.
    * Require all PC manufacturers to include a full CD of non-
Microsoft software. Such software can be freeware, shareware, 
trialware, or open source. Forbid the sale of any Microsoft OS, 
retail or pre-installed, without these two CD's.
    Consumer chooses what mix of applications to install from either 
CD. The consumer gets to choose the best from each.
    Instead, what you have done is harm the consumer by limiting the 
choices the consumer can make. Clueless consumers will take the 
Microsoft applications by default. Innovation will suffer.
    Too bad I can't tell you who I am, for fear of retribution from 
Microsoft.

MTC-660



MTC-00000661

From: andrew arnold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/11/01 9:08pm
Subject: Make Remedies More Forceful
    Dear DOJ:
    I have been following the case vs. Microsoft closely because I 
am an average user that feels that competition in the industry is 
lacking. Microsoft has managed to leverage its way into one area 
after another because of its monopoly power. The WordPerfect word 
processor and Netscape Navigator web browser are prime examples. 
Once dominate applications fell when Microsoft abused its monopoly 
power.
    The recent proposed settlement appears too weak to me. Please 
consider taking stronger action to restore competition in such an 
important part of our economy.
    Kind regards,
    Andy Arnold
    Louisville, KY
    [email protected]

MTC-661



MTC-00000662

From: Scott Dunbar
To: USDOJ
Date: 11/12/01 12:44pm
Subject: Wired News :Windows XP: EXtra Proprietary
    A note from Scott Dunbar:
    Obviously, the DOJ is incapable or unwilling to bring Micro$oft 
to justice. You guys "prosecute, and the villians get worse.
    From Wired News, available online at: http://www.wired.com/news/
print/0,1294,48011,O0.html Windows XP: EXtra Proprietary By Michael 
Tiemann 2:00 a.m. Oct. 31, 2001 PST Microsoft has launched its 
latest version of Windows, Windows XP (eXtra Proprietary). 
Tightening its stranglehold on all industries that use computers, 
Microsoft's Xl? features are certain to further degrade customer 
choice, cost/performance and, in some cases, even civil liberties.
    Let's start with the premise of any free market economy: 
customer choice. The Windows XP default installation process offers 
one choice for Internet connectivity: Microsoft's proprietary MSN 
network. On top of this, Microsoft also has specially tuned its 
MSN.com site to reject connections from non-Microsoft browsers, 
including Netscape, Mozilla and Opera.
    See also:
    Of Mixed Messages, Linux and XP
    Lindows: Linux meets Windows
    A Linux OS to Challenge MS?
    XP Demo: Hey, This Is Fun
    XP Is Hot, But Not Windows 95-Hot
    Give Yourself Some Business News
    Microsoft has been convicted of monopolistic practices by not 
one, but two courts, and has had its appeal to the Supreme Court 
denied. It might make one wonder why Microsoft is being so bold with 
its exclusionary, eXtra Proprietary technologies. It's because 
Microsoft believes that time is on its side; the 1995 abuses are 
only now being judged, and there's no remedy or no penalty in sight.
    In the meantime, Microsoft has been earning $1 billion a month 
net income from its monopoly, money users pay because they believe 
they have no choice. Should users who have been unable to free 
themselves from Microsoft's regular proprietary technologies expect 
life to get any better by buying into Microsoft's more powerful 
eXtra Proprietary technologies? Let's see. One of the most 
controversial new eXtra Proprietary technologies is Windows Media. 
In a twist that no framer of the U.S. Constitution could have 
imagined, Microsoft is using patents to prevent software 
interoperability with its eXtra Proprietary technologies. Of course, 
Windows Media has to compete with the immensely popular MP3 format, 
but Windows XP limits the quality of MP3 encoding and decoding. By 
intentionally degrading the quality of all competing

[[Page 23782]]

 technologies, and by allowing only Microsoft-approved uses of its 
own technologies, Windows Media has the potential to create yet 
another monopoly for Microsoft_a monopoly that extends from 
software to content. Such a monopoly would change our entertainment 
economy from one of unlimited content at limited cost, to one of 
limited content with unlimited costs.
    Moore's Law promises that silicon technologies will offer 2x 
price/performance improvements every 12 to 18 months. Yet every 
version of Windows (and Windows XP is no exception) conspires to 
steal most if not all of the dividends of Moore's Law. The result is 
that PCs have become much more powerful, but not much cheaper nor 
much more functional.
    Microsoft Windows, on the other hand, has become much more 
bloated. Microsoft is hoping thousands of users will rush to stores 
and spend nearly $100 for their latest OS. Don't do it. EXtra 
Proprietary technologies require extra CPU speed and memory, 
virtually requiring a hardware upgrade to go with your software 
upgrade. Indeed, Microsoft has the audacity to suggest that if your 
PC is more than two years old, you should junk it and get a new one.
    While PC vendors may welcome that message, such a wasteful 
approach is actually bad for the economy because it bankrupts the 
buyers that keep the economy going.
    Another eXtra Proprietary feature is Passport, a recent winner 
of a Big Brother Award. Passport collects user information (name, 
phone numbers, credit card numbers, etc.) and stores that 
information at Microsoft. Passport is the "how" that 
then gives Microsoft control over the "who, what, when, 
where" and possibly "why" of Internet 
transactions. Microsoft is happy to let customers exchange personal 
privacy for convenience within Microsoft's proprietary network.
    A writer for the Christian Science Monitor recently observed: 
"More than anything else, XP reminds me of a tourist trap. You 
arrive in a foreign city, and a handsome stranger walks up to you 
and says he will show you around the city. He offers to take you to 
the very best shops and restaurants. But you soon realize that he is 
taking you only to places that are owned by his relatives or by 
someone who gives him a kickback.'
    Microsoft's eXtra Proprietary go beyond mere tourism: Most users 
find that with Microsoft's Passport they cannot get out of Microsoft 
Country once they enter. Is this really where you wanted to go 
today?
    Let's get out of this vicious trap the way we got in: by 
controlling what we do with our money. If you are already running 
Microsoft's products, do the sensible thing and BOYCOTT THE 
MONOPOLIST. Let Microsoft's latest products sit in warehouses until 
Microsoft comes to their senses and removes all the eXtra 
Proprietary technologies they've been engineering over the past 
several years. Wait until Microsoft offers a level playing field to 
other operating systems, applications and network service providers.
    For those of you who cannot stand still, join a LUG (Linux Users 
Group) and maybe upgrade to Linux. Aside from saving a bundle on 
licensing fees (there are none), you'll get unprecedented freedom 
and control. With thousands of Red Hat Certified Engineers, and 
millions of Linux enthusiasts, any configuration running on any 
hardware can be supported at a fair price (determined by a free 
market of competing vendors) for as long as you want. Suddenly, 
hardware and software upgrades will be your choice, not a choice 
dictated to you. Suddenly, money you spend will be on things that 
you value, not things you are forced to pay for. Suddenly, you will 
begin to see the engine of growth that Moore's law enables come back 
to life, and the dividends it pays will be ones you can put in your 
bank account, not the bank account of a convicted monopolist.
    Michael Tiemann is the chief technical officer of Red Hat.
    Related Wired Links:
    Of Mixed Messages, Linux and XP Oct. 31, 2001
    Lindows: Linux meets Windows Oct. 25, 2001
    Gates: Hello XP, Goodbye DOS Oct. 25, 2001
    Don't Have a Cow: XP Is Here Oct. 25, 2001
    A Linux OS to Challenge MS? Oct. 25, 2001
    XP Is Hot, But Not Windows 95-Hot Oct. 25, 2001
    XP Demo: Hey, This Is Fun Oct. 24, 2001
    Copyright (C) 1994-2001 Wired Digital Inc. All rights 
reserved.

MTC-662



MTC-00000663

From: Kevin Hodapp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/12/01 2:19pm
Subject: More evidence on microsofts anti-competitive nature
    I just found a article on Microsoft on an leaked email that 
reviles more on their anti-competitive nature at http://
www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/22770.html.
    "There are many other things that you need to watch out 
for with Linux and the Linux Compete Team has been busy creating 
some great collateral to help you win. One thing you have to always 
keep in mind here_Linux is the long term threat against our 
core business. Never forget that! You should be smothering your 
accounts from every angle and if you see Linux andior IBM in there 
with it, then get all over it. Don't lose a single win to 
Linux" So it sounds like they are going to start another 
FUD(Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt http://www.geocities.com/Si1iconValley/
Hills/9267/fuddef.htm1) campaign, which they have done in the past. 
These campaigns are used as pro-Microsoft propaganda to crush anyone 
who competes against them, which often results in Microsoft using 
this dirty FUD tactic to spread misinformation and lies intent on 
destroying their competition and making them look good.
    It also seems to be that they are going to start bullying and 
harassing businesses switching from UNIX to Linux and/or Windows to 
Linux, to switching to their own products. The thing that does not 
make since is that while UNIX and Linux are the same so a switch can 
be done easily with little cost, why would any business go through 
the hassle from UNIX to some other Microsoft product? They are 2 
completely different operating systems. The business would have to 
spend a lot of cash to get their computers functioning like they use 
to if they switched to some Microsoft product, which are not quite 
as reliable and cost efficient as UNIX/Linux in the first case. I 
think this is about the amount of money Microsoft can make on the 
licensees and their outrageous price schemes making lots of money 
off of these businesses with little effort and support on their 
part. This is a big reason many business are switching to Linux, the 
cost is just too much for too little.
    Also I do hope that you make sure that Microsoft does not try to 
worm its way out of these anti-trust restrictions. I am saving up 
for my next computer with will hopefully be a Dual-Boot system 
(thanks to the rulings), primarily it will be a Linux server running 
SAMBA(Thanks to the ruling again) so I can communicate with my old 
Windows 98 based PC and any future Microsoft OS's if I get another 
machine. This pc will have a small windows partition for those 
occasional games I can't run in Linux.
    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://
explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

MTC-663



MTC-00000664

From: Anita (038) Curtis Engelman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/12/01 2:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Asheroft:
    I am requesting you to reconsider your Department's agreement to 
the settlement with Microsoft. I am just a regular computer user 
who, up until a few months ago, felt no antipathy towards Microsoft. 
But now I think reconsideration is necessary due to the following:
    1. There is real, credible evidence that Microsoft's new Windows 
XP operating system will severely compromise the security of the 
Internet. See http://grc.com/dos/xpsummary.htm for details. 
Microsoft has been advised of the issue, but they are ignoring this 
critical matter.
    2. It is my impression that Microsoft is continuing their 
monopolist practices in Windows XP.
    3. Microsoft is moving toward a new level of end-user control by 
restricting end-users from installing Windows XP and Office XP more 
than 4 times. And, if you make rather simple modifications to your 
computer hardware, your prior installation of XP or Office XP may 
not function.
    Sincerely,
    Curtis L. Engelman
    127 Pennsylvania Avenue
    Binghamton, NY 13903
    607-724-9255

MTC-664



MTC-00000665

From: K Field
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/12/01 4:48pm
Subject: Microsoft seems to be laughing, Please read
    HI I am a Microsoft supporter,, well at least in the past,,, 
Microsoft seemed to be

[[Page 23783]]

innovative & supplying good products & support.. I have been 
reading articulate lately from other professionals or people like 
myself who alarmed at the changing practices of Microsoft.. Where is 
this going to leave us if Microsoft rears its ugly head in a rabid 
attitude.. We all use the Windows platform & would be at its 
mercy,, I hear of things that begin to turn my stomach in the idea 
that such an idea might happen to soon.. The have to much power 
& control which in the hands of some is way to frightening.. 
Microsoft should also pay for the costs of such a trial as well, I 
will keep it short as to not overwhelm,, I still like Microsoft, at 
least for the moment but my opinion is changing along with many 
others in the Tech world.
    Microsoft needs a good spanking not a scoulding Thanks Your 
supporter Ken

MTC-665



MTC-00000666

From: Neal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/12/01 10:43pm
Subject: Comments about MicroSoft
    1. MicroSoft produces programs that are not very good, but uses 
it's Monopoly to force upon everyone.
_ Windows releases get worse at each issue.
_ Example: I have Windows NT 4 (SP6a) [Windows NT 4.6a] and it 
still doesn't work correctly.
    2. It breaks competitors with outrageous licensing requirements 
for computer vendors.
    3. New Internet offerings invade privacy and attempt to destroy 
existing web sites.
    4. They add "features" to Windows designed to kill 
any competition, while claiming to "enhance" Windows.
    5. Claim to support and comply with Internet Standards, but 
break them on purpose in IE.
    6. Truly believe they are "above" the general needs 
of the Public and need not answer to the basic rules of business 
behavior and the Government rules.
    7. Laugh at DOJ and State efforts to bring them into the real 
world. They continue to ignore all previous sanctions and pending 
ones because they figure DOJ will do nothing.
    8. Release new OS versions that fix "bugs" and 
require users to pay full price to replace the faulty OS they 
released (Example: Windows 98-> Windows 98 SE)!
    9. Now hide "updates" and "upgrades" as 
Service Packs so the screw ups are not obvious to the consumer.
    10. Have never released a version of Windows that was fully 
functional, the x.0 version is well known by Business and some 
Consumers to be a "BETA" to be tested by the user!
    11. Have "stolen" software from other vendors (DOS 
6.0) and included in MicroSoft products.
    12. Never finish an OS, just make a new one and demand that all 
users purchase the new one and toss the previous one. LB Neal

MTC-666



MTC-00000667

From: Van Secrist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/13/01 3:07am
Subject: Please don't settle like this
    Dear Sirs,
    I am an entrepreneur working on a software/web application. I am 
extremely worried with your current proposed settlement with 
Microsoft. The company has a long history of squashing any form of 
competition. I and many other developers are terrified of 
Microsoft's wrath. There is a genuine fear in the developer 
community of getting in Microsoft's gun sights. There are so many 
loopholes in the current settlement that will allow Microsoft to 
continuing their lying, cheating, conniving ways. Your settlements 
need to be far more air-tight.
    Shame on you for proposing such a transparent and ludicrous 
settlement. I've truly lost faith in the U.S. government. Do the 
honorable thing. If you are not up to the task of prosecuting a 
convicted monopolist, then resign and let someone capable handle the 
matter.

MTC-667



MTC-00000668

From: Ailde
To: Ying Shi,Joel S. Polin,John Lee,Myron Kaplan,Joe K...
Date: 11/13/01 3:13pm
    Dear Friends,
    I have just read and signed the online petition: "OS/2 is 
Dead, Long Live to OS/2!" hosted on the web by 
PetitionOnline.com, the free online petition service, at: http://
www.PetitionOnline.com/OS24FREE/ I personally agree with what this 
petition says, and I think you might agree, too. If you can spare a 
moment, please take a look, and consider signing yourself.

MTC-668



MTC-00000669

From: [email protected] @inetgw
To: tiemann @cygnus.com @inetgw
Date: 11/14/01 2:43pm
Subject: Windows XP: EXtra Proprietary
CC: Microsoft ATR,antitrust @ftc .gov @ inetgw,Ralph 
@ essen...
I,,"..,
Re:Windows XP: EXtra Proprietary
    This is an excellent article. But targeting Microsoft directly 
misses the real target: the environment that cultivates Microsoft. 
Fixing the environment breaks the pattern in addition to individual 
perpetrators. It is time that the movement start focusing on 
principles. A failure of principles has the USA in a lot more 
trouble than it wants to admit. Capitalism is dangerous when taken 
to extremes, like anything. Moderate it. Start the transition with 
the sore thumb of radical capitalism, the Microsoft Monopoly Menace.
    "Moderation and such is not the will of almighty Dallah 
according to profit Ronnie Reagan, peace be with him... Try again 
for you to hit jackpot, my capitalist friend..."
1 of 1 12/11/2001 4:23PM

MTC-669



MTC-00000670

From: Richard Finley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/14/01 8:48pm
Subject: Microsoft
    The old saying "if you tell a lie often enough, it will be 
believed" is still good. The Microsoft lie that any 
restrictions on them would limit innovation has taken the form of a 
truth. How can bundling an internet explorer be called innovation?
    I am amazed that you sold out to them after the appellate court 
agreed they are a monopoly, all you had to do was let the court 
determine a just settlement.
    You truly are a great friend of big business, I say that as a 
former Republican.
    Richard Finley

MTC-670



MTC-00000671

From: Eugene L. Willey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/15/01 2:31am
Subject: Java and Xp
    I hope you lawyers realize you have tens of thousands of 
overworked developers rewriting web deployed code to replace Java on 
their applications. .You Mr. Gates and his Gatesian dreams are 
really accelerating. With the help of out federal government. You 
have effectively destroyed a very powerful technology overnight. Mr. 
Gates has removed Java from XP so XP users cannot access java 
enabled websites. I personally will be rewriting 1000's of lines of 
code using C# and P# I suppose or removing java from my 
sites. You guys used the war to hide this dastardly deed and we are 
paying for your miscalulations. Where is the oversight you promised. 
I don't think all your lawyers are working on Homeland Security. At 
least not the ones who prosecuted thei miscarriage of justice. You 
decided and now we must pay. I don't believe you ever intended 
oversight of this debacle. I hope you can tell I am really mad. This 
is like the government submitting citizens to torture.... Gene

MTC-671



MTC-00000672

From: Eugene L. Willey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/15/01 2:41am
Subject: Follow-up to prior message
    In order to comply with your decision we must all buy XP 
machines to replace our existing machines. Microsoft is not making 
their software C# and P# which they say will replace Java 
Platform independant. So your decision creates a ready made new 
market form your pet company. This is now a truly terrifying state 
of affairs. You not only approved of their monopolistic practices 
you failed in your oversight and made them mor of monopoly than they 
were before. Mr. McNealy was right about you guys. This is truly 
disgusting... .Gene

MTC-672



MTC-00000673

From: [email protected] @inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,antitrust @ ftc .gov @ inetgw,Ralph 
@essen...
Date: 11/15/01 4:52am
Subject: Microsoft Hegemony: Competition XOR Compatibility
CC: letters @ latimes.com@ inetgw,letters @ 
sjmercury.com @ i.
Re: Sony sees world with less Windows
    The technology would enable people to communicate ... without 
going through a computer or an operating system such as Microsoft 
Windows.

[[Page 23784]]

    The only way anyone can compete with Microsoft is by fragmenting 
the computing infrastructure. Had the USA promoted an open standard 
OS, then all infrastructure would be compatible. By refusing to 
force the standard commodity OS into the public domain where it 
belongs, the free market radicals have forced competition and 
compatibility to be mutually exclusive. Fantastically asinine.
    "You want competition and compatibility both? That is like 
having cake and eat it too, dummy...
    1 of 1 12/11/2001 4:22PN

MTC-673



MTC-00000674

    M. Dandini
    Microsoft ATR
    11/15/01 5:03pm
    Piu1 Traffico al tuo Sito!
    Webmaster,
    iscriviti Gratis alla Top List italiana dove ogni sito ha 
diritto a vedersi esposto ii proprio banner. Ii suo nome Grandioso!
    Hai notato che le maggiori top list italiane hanno eliminato 
tutti i banner dei siti iscritti?
    Ii proposito di Grandioso proprio quello di riavere una Top List 
con banner per tutti!
    Per informazioni: http://www.grandioso.it/webmaster.htm
    * * * *
    Per rimuovere la tua e-mail dalla mailing list rispondi a questo 
messaggio inserendo la dicitura UNSUBSCRIBE nell'oggetto
From:
To:
Date:
Subject: 

MTC-674



MTC-00000675

From: [email protected]@ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/15/01 9:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very disappointed at the weak approach DOJ has taken in 
this case. As a Macintosh user, the monopolistic practices of MS are 
evident. Apple hangs on by a thread, and only because MS needs it as 
evidence of fair competition.
    The high price of MS software indicates a market lacking 
competition, and a short look at history shows many companies 
failing when confronted by the huge resources of MS.
    Please reconsider your approach to this case. The US will 
prosper when competition is truly fair.
    Philip Tate
    Freeville, NY

MTC-675



MTC-00000676

From: David (038) Cara Urry (CDU Associates)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/15/01 10:49pm
Subject: Please don't settle the Microsoft Case
    1) The legal representation of the US Justice department case 
against Microsoft is a product of the 2000 election. They all owe 
their jobs to Microsoft who made significant contributions to the 
Bush campaign. The Bush presidency cut the funding on the Microsoft 
case to a ridiculous point.
    2) Microsoft has an undisputed monopoly on operating systems. 
They are close to having a monopoly on many types of Application 
Software (Web Browser, Word Processor, Spread Sheet, Presentation 
Graphics). If this settlement is agreed as written, it will be the 
death of Application Software development in the United States and 
this agreement will go down in history as it's tomb stone. I'm sure 
you have much more lengthy arguments they I could make as to why.
    David Urry
    209 Vest Way
    North Andover, MA 01845
    I have 17 years of software development experience. 6 months ago 
I founded my own company after being Vice President of engineering 
for Beachfire.

MTC-676



MTC-00000677

From: Ken Landon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 2:48am
Subject: Microsoft
    Gentlemen:
    As a consumer and taxpayer, I respectfully request that you drop 
all charges against Microsoft. The company has provided software at 
reasonable prices that has made my life much better. If justice is 
to be done, all antitrust charges against Microsoft should be 
dropped and all the company's expenses involved in fighting the case 
should be reimbursed to it.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth Landon
    200 Clinton Street
    Brooklyn, NY 11201

MTC-677



MTC-00000678

From: LarryW
To: Microsoft AIR
Date: 11/16/01 3:13am
Subject: Antitrust Settlement
    After reading what you did NOT do to Microsoft on the Ap. I must 
complain that you have sold out the computer users of the world to a 
Monopoly. MS has a strangle hold on the computer users and no small 
company will ever shake them loose. There is NO competition and 
never will be unless you break them up. Had the Government NOT 
broken up AT&T we would still be renting our 61b bell ringing 
phone from the local phone company and paying $0.50 per minute for 
long distance. We need competition in the computer industry not a 
giant killer.
    Larry Williard

MTC-678



MTC-00000679

From: Bob Belier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 5:51am
Subject: Anti-trust settlement
    Have looked over the settlement offered by the DOJ to Microsoft 
in this case I can't help but wonder why congress doesn't start 
looking at Microsofts anti-trust exemption, not baseballs.
    The "remedies" have no chance of working. Only the 
largest companies will be able to get access to the desktop, smaller 
one's will be shut out, again. Who's idea was it to have Microsoft 
pay the "watchdog panel"? That's like having the 
residents of Sing-Sing pay the guards and expecting no one to 
escape.
    This was a huge sellout by the DOJ and did nothing for anyone. 
Hopefully the other 9 states that had the sense to not buy into this 
settlement can get some real change brought about in MS's practices.
    I'm very disappointed in this settlement, and I think the 
taxpayers got ripped off on 6 years of legal costs for no apparent 
gain.
    Robert Beller
    Zion, Il

MTC-679



MTC-00000680

From: adbdigital
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 6:11am
Subject: The proposed settlement is not in my, nor the public, 
interest.
    Hello,
    As a consumer, I find the settlement with Microsoft to be 
inadequate. The settlement MUST include a multi-billion dollar fine 
against Microsoft, for the harm they have caused. Without a fine, 
there is no penalty to Microsoft.
    The proposed settlement is not in my, nor the public, interest.
    Sincerely,
    David Sheiman

MTC-680



MTC-00000681

From: Jen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 6:13am
Subject: Microsoft's Business Practices.
    To whom this may concern:
    As a citizen and consumer I am pretty outraged by the mess 
Microsoft has placed the computer industry in. When a company gets 
control over an industry as important as the computer industry the 
consumer pays the price. With the recent release of the Windows XP 
operating system they have once again taken another step to unfairly 
entrench their position. The companies practice's are insulting and 
very unfair.
    Because they are the only choice I have to run the software I 
need to. I have to put up with this new activation 
"feature." This is just another step for them. Everytime 
I have to reformat my computer or add new components to it I have to 
contact them to activate the software I already purchased. I really 
hope they are not gathering personal information about me without my 
knowing it. The main problem here is I have NO choice in the matter. 
Not to mention it makes me feel as though they are watching 
everything I do in the privacy of my own home. What's next for them, 
required thumprints to print a paper?
    Bottom line is this, they are the only company that can get away 
with this. Do you think in a competitive industry like lets say the 
automobile industry, that a car company would choose to make you 
call in any time you wanted to add a new improved part to your 
engine? Sorry John Doe this is made in japan part is not supported 
by our company so your car wont start now. No, because

[[Page 23785]]

people have a choice in the type of car they buy. But not so in 
software. If we want to play game X we have to call them for 
permission because we just added a new sound chip. This just boils 
my blood. Whats next they going to require their customers to come 
down for DNA tests before we can use Windows 3000 which the consumer 
has already paid their hard earned money on. I am not a lawyer and I 
know nothing of the law. But I do know whats right and wrong. And 
this is just plain wrong. If the consumer has no choice in the 
matter than the company should be regulated. I might also point out 
that I have never written a letter like this nor been involved in 
anything political. But enough is enough. Its bad enough they make 
us pay for products that don't work very well to start with. Now we 
have to ask their permission everytime we choose to change 
components in our computers? I wish I had a choice. Because I would 
not choose this. Keep up the good work on the anti-trust suit. I am 
one taxpayer that is happy you are on the job.
    Janae Pippins
    US. Citizen

MTC-681



MTC-00000682

From: Jack E. Uber II
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 6:14am
Subject: Comments on Antitrust Actions Against Microsoft
    Greetings,
    First, I never agreed with the premise that Microsoft was a 
monopoly. By the very definition of a monopoly, a business entity 
has to own all or virtually all the factors of production for a 
given commodity to even qualify as a monopoly. Even using the most 
liberal accounting of the "factors of production" in 
this case, Microsoft fails this test. Unfortunately, the individuals 
involved in this case appear to have more emotion directed at 
Microsoft than dispassionate reason.
    Second, in no reasonable way can anyone say that the consumer 
will benefit through ANY antitrust actions against Microsoft. The 
current level of accessibility to extremely powerful computers for 
all Americans would not have been possible if not for the efforts of 
Microsoft, IBM, Dell, and so on. Prior to the personal computer 
revolution, a single license of an operating system was priced 
somewhere around $10,000. MS DOS, and then Windows, obliterated that 
pricing model and made computers available to virtually everyone.
    Finally, it is clear to even the most casual observer that there 
have been several hidden agendas here. The reliance of the DoJ on 
testimony from the likes of Sun Microsystems and Oracle demonstrates 
either supreme naivete or bias. Anyone who has ever read the 
rhetoric from the likes of Scott McNeely or Larry Ellison knows that 
they HATE Microsoft and, more to the point, Bill Gates. Using the 
same yardstick that was used against Microsoft, Sun Microsystems 
might find itself standing in front of a judge. Additionally, the 
extortion like tactics of the various states attomeys general is 
readily evident. Their only motivation is to gain monies from any 
action against Microsoft. They are doing a disservice to their 
constituents and the general public as a whole
    Respectfully,
    Jack E. Uber II DP: FAX: EP: e-mail: (618) 256-3177 (618) 
256-6558 (618) 744-1409 [email protected]

MTC-682



MTC-00000683

From: Capucine Badin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 6:22am
Subject: Internet met la m6moire individuelle et collectiveï¿½7E 
lThonneur
    Internet met la mï¿½7Emoire universelle l'honneur!
    La socidt6 Viscolicap sort Myposterity.com, premier site 
entirement dï¿½7Ediï¿½7E ï¿½7Ela conservation de Ia mï¿½7Emoire des 
internautes. En effet, le site Myposterity.com permetï¿½7Eses 
visiteurs de crier trï¿½7Es facilement des documents multimedia 
contenant textes, images, video, photos sans aucune limitation 
d'espace.
    A Ia difference des traditionnels sites personnels, tous les 
documents cries par les abonnds seront conserv6s en ligne pour des 
dï¿½7Ecennies afin que les proches de 1'abonnï¿½7Eou 
mï¿½7Eme tous les intemautes puissent les consulter. Autre garantie 
de conservation, l'abonnï¿½7E reï¿½7Eoit un CD-Rom 
contenant 1 /'ensemble de ses travaux. Un exemplaire de ce mï¿½7Eme 
CD-Rom est 6galement envoyï¿½7Ela Bibliothque Nationale de France 
afin d'y ï¿½7Etre conservd ï¿½7Ejamais en tant que 
document du patrimoine national.
    En rdunissant les espaces personnels de 
milliersd'internautes, le site Myposterity.com compte 
devenir en quelques annï¿½7Ees une vdritable encyclopï¿½7Edie en 
ligne permettantï¿½7Ela fois la consultation et la conservation 
d'une mï¿½7Emoire universelle pour le plus grand 
plaisir de tons les internautes.
    Capucine Badin
    Responsable du dï¿½7Eveloppement
    0147036456
    [email protected]

MTC-683



MTC-00000684

From: Unique Solutions
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 6:47am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    As a computer professional for thirtyfive years, I have been 
forced by dell, dale computers in michigan, and other vendors to 
purchase microsoft operating systems whenever I purchased a pc. This 
is not right. ms should be broken up as they are definately a 
monopoly or at lease prohibited from forceing their operating system 
on us through their predatory contracts with vendors. dennis skinner 
810 227 4852 if someone wishes to discuss..
    CC: [email protected] @ inetgw

MTC-684



MTC-00000685

From: Mark Goodale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 6:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs,
    As you have set forth this email address to recieve public 
opinion regarding the settlement with Microsoft, here is my opinion.
    I am simply a consumer, with no corporate interests. I'm a full 
time student, finishing up a major in Religious Studies at Bradley 
University in Peoria, Illinois. I am also a computer enthusiast. I 
believe the current settlement with Microsoft will not effectively 
redress the problems created by the Windows monopoly.
    Microsoft has shown repeatedly that it will exploit any 
advantage at its disposal to unfairly crush competition, and I think 
the rather vague terms of this current settlement agreement qualify 
as such an advantage.
    Furthermore, the primary disadvantage to the average computer 
user is not merely that of limited software choices due to 
Microsoft's monopoly practice, but ALSO the fact that Microsoft uses 
it's monopoly position to push inferior products to market while 
being assured of "instant sales", simply because the 
product is their "newest release."
    Microsoft's monopoly market position has created a specific 
culture between both the company and the American public. The 
company has become habitual in its release of buggy and 
insufficiently beta-tested software, and due to their nigh-complete 
domination of the software and OS markets, the American consumer has 
been forced into an "Always buy the next version of the 
software" behavior pattern, in hopes that some more of the 
bugs of previous editions will be addressed. While certainly, nearly 
EVERY piece of complex software will have some errors in it, in a 
truly competitive environment companies are somewhat more forced to 
make sure that more bugs are repaired PRIOR to shipping, as a 
competitive market will not generally accept an inferior product.
    Microsoft has repeatedly thumbed its nose at both you, the US 
Dept of Justice, and at me, the average American consumer. This 
settlement is little more than slapping them on the wrist and saying 
"Go forth and sin no more." To truly make serious 
inroads against Microsoft's monopoly tendencies and practices, 
splitting the company in half is the most likely candidate for 
success. Forcing them to take their operating systems "open 
source" would do a fair bit towards that as well.
    Unfortunately, antitrust efforts against Microsoft will likely 
avail the American consumer very little until a viable competitor 
for the Windows OS arises in the market. This becomes unlikely even 
with splitting the company or opensourcing Windows, simply because 
Microsoft's monopoly has gone on so LONG that customers are already 
highly dependant on its proprietary technologies, and will be 
generally hard to woo away to a new product line. However, I'm 
confident that with one of the two additional options as well as a 
tightening of language loopholes in the Settlement agreement, that 
some innovative company may find a way to do so.
    Thanks for your time,
    Mark S. Goodale


[[Page 23786]]


MTC-685



MTC-00000686

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 6:54am
Subject: Thoughts on MS Settlement...
    My thoughts on this whole thing is IT'S LUDACRIS! ! !!! Just 
because Bill Gates has come up with a superior operating system and 
other software doesn't mean you should loot him, ruin his product 
and destroy the public's computers. Even if you do decide to tear 
Bill Gate's empire apart it's not going to help these people, like 
Mac Computers, trying to introduce an inferior product. The only 
reasons these people get 'shut out' because of his 'monopoly' is 
because they can't come up with a product that even comes CLOSE to 
Bill Gate's OS. I mean, look at mac computers. They are slow, there 
is no software for them becuase they're slow and it's not very user 
friendly. All your doing with seperating Microsoft is making Windows 
less user friendly because the two companies are manufacturing one 
half of the old MS... .What's that going to do? It's going to force 
people who aren't so good with computers to stop using them 
entirely. As for the rest of us? Well. We'll either buy MS 
compatible or we'll buy nothing else until there is an OS that can 
compete with the number of games, hardware and other software 
products (and quality of products) that Microsoft has. I can tell 
you, you'll never catch me with Mac.
    In conclusion. Leave Bill Gates the hell alone.

MTC-686



MTC-00000687

From: Randall Cooke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 7:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I believe that the prosperity America has experienced in the 
last decade has more to do with work force productivity improvement 
than any government initiated, sponsored or controlled activity or 
program including any and all bills that were passed in Congress 
during the last 15 years.
    The primary basis of that productivity improvement was the desk 
top computer and the amazing software that was developed to go with 
the PC. Whether Microsoft is guilty of breaking any law is well 
beyond my understanding, but I am opposed to any settlement or 
penalty that would have the effect of forcing Microsoft to give away 
it's "secret ingredients" or harm its corporate 
structure in any way.
    If laws were broken, then invoke financial penalties with the 
threat of further prosecution in the event any laws are broken in 
the future. Do not dismantle one of America's most important 
economic engines_especially at this critical time.
    Sincerely,
    Randall Cooke
    24 Cherokee Drive
    Richboro, PA 18954

MTC-687



MTC-00000688

From: auto29727 @hushmail.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 7:24am
Subject: Microsoft walks!
    It's been business-as-usual at Microsoft even since the trial 
began. Does the penalty imposed on Microsoft indicate a specific 
date when they must begin complying with the law, or is it some kind 
of wink-wink-nudge arrangement?
    Microsoft was developing Windows XP during the trial. That 
development included the commission of the same anti-competitive 
practices that brought Microsoft to trial in the first place. Why is 
allowed to sell this product?
    I'll have to wrap up this email now; Windows is about to crash 
on me again. I guess I'd better get used to it. I'll close with a 
thank you to the DOJ for wasting an enormous amount of money to give 
Microsoft a slap on the wrist.
    A slave Microsoft consumer

MTC-688



MTC-00000689

From: Chuck
To: [email protected] @ inetgw
Date: 11/16/01 7:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    My name is Chuck Haislip. I am a WV resident currently deployed 
to Europe with the US Army. I have been following the results of the 
Microsoft Antitrust Case and I would like to extend my thoughts that 
the penalty is too lenient. Thank you
    CPT Charles G. Haislip
    US Army Medical Corps

MTC-689



MTC-00000690

From: Clay Andres
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:07am
Subject: Opposed to Microsoft settlement
    Microsoft has been found guilty on many charges, including using 
its monopoly power to thwart competition. The current proposed 
settlement does nothing to penalize Microsoft for breaking the law 
and nothing to remedy the loss caused to hundreds of companies and 
millions of customers. Furthermore, the limitations imposed on 
Microsoft's future business practices will do nothing to keep them 
from perpetuating their illegal monopoly and using it to squash 
whatever competition it wants. The proposed settlement perpetuates 
the status quo, which is that Microsoft gets to make all the 
decisions for the entire personal computer industry and is quickly 
moving to a position where it will be making those decisions for the 
Internet and for handheld computing devices, as well. This will not 
provide a healthy, competitive environment, and innovation will be 
stifled. Forward into the dark ages!

MTC-690



MTC-00000691

From: XxJennifer23xX@ aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:07am
Subject: Comments about MS Settlement
    I am a retail manager at a major electronics chain. I have been 
using PC's for 16 years since the systems booted up with DOS. I have 
used every version of Windows up to Windows ME.
    I have been appalled year after year as Windows required more 
and more operating resources to run the computer. Even more so since 
Windows requires so much more operating resources for Microsofts 
other products that are tied in to Windows. I have always maintained 
that I don't buy a computer for it's operating system. I am a 
website developer as well and don't need or want to have all the 
extras Microsoft forces on you.
    And now with the launch of Windows XP I have crossed the line to 
being horrified. What kind of operating system is now going to 
require at least 128 megs of RAM with 256 preferred?? Unbelievable. 
Microsoft has not learned anything at all from all of these anti-
trust proceedings. My customers complain every single day about how 
much system resources Windows takes up. This is true from Windows 95 
to present. Even more unbelievably is the fact that all the plug in 
MS is ramming down our throats in the the "operating system 
"causes frequent system crashes and results in lowered 
productivity due to the need to constantly fix the machine.
    Bottom Line? An operating system, even a nice GUI operating 
system is just that. It is not an instant messager, multi-media 
player, internet connection etc. And with Windows being the only 
choice it is no wonder that computers get faster and better hardware 
and greedy MS jumps in with Windows and uses up all the extra speed 
and power to try and force the MS products down our throat over the 
top of other applications that are more memory friendly and run 
without crashing the computer on a regular basis.
    I am also no novice. I have graduated from the Microsoft 
Certified Systems Engineering courses and have many years of 
experience.
    Please don't back down. Force MS to turn Windows back into what 
it is supposed to be. A smooth, no hassle operating system that does 
not interupt and interfere with my computer work that has nothing to 
do with Microsoft.
    Thank you very much.
    Steven Thompson
    110 Battey St
    Putnam, Ct 06260
    860 963 7898

MTC-691



MTC-00000692

From: chuck hinkle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:08am
Subject: Wrong kind of message
    If I recall, it is an accepted conclusion that Microsoft 
deliberately acted in a ruthless and illegal manner. Their actions 
forced many competitors in the application and utility and operating 
system arenas out of business, thus reducing our choices as 
consumers while raising prices and lowering quality.
    As a result, this settlement permits Microsoft to maintain the 
gains of these illegal operations, imposes no monetary penalties, 
and I don't see where it does anything to prevent them from 
continuing these practices, particularly since there are no 
consequences for this behavior.

[[Page 23787]]

    If we're not going to punish the criminals, then why bother to 
prosecute them? And if we condone Microsoft's illegal activities, 
then how can we justify prosecuting others?
    Chuck Hinkle [INTJ]
    I CLH WAREs
    II [email protected]
    II
    Ii "Perception is usually more persuasive than 
reality."
    II

MTC-692



MTC-00000693

From: Bob McMurray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:22am
Subject: Microsoft Case
Dear Sir or Madam:
    I am writing to express my dissatisfaction with the proposed 
penalties in the Microsoft Antitrust case. As a former computer 
support professional I feel I have a good amount of first-hand 
knowledge of their products. Of particular concern to me are two 
issues: bundling and windows source code. Microsoft has made habit 
over the last two years of bundling more and more software with 
their operating system. This has the unfortunate consequence that 
consumers are not aware of the competitors for the Microsoft 
products (or their favored partners). Many users do not have the 
time to go out and research things like instant messengers, media 
players, and browsers. Therefore, they will just use what's given. 
On the other hand if they had to make a choice, they may not choose 
the Microsoft product_why not favor the outcome that gives us 
more choice, and puts control marketplace in the hands of the 
consumer rather than the supplier.
    Another unfortunate cost of bundling is bloating. To run the 
latest version of Windows, Microsoft recommends that you have at 
least 128 megabytes of RAM, lots of diskspace and a pentium 3 
processor. However, for most users (myself included) the range of 
things I want to do is fairly limited: browse the web, word 
processing, email. I could do all of those things just fine back 
when I had 16 megabytes of RAM, and a Pentium. Why do I need to 
upgrade my computer? Because microsoft has bundled so much into 
their software (in the way of applications like instant messengers, 
and pseudo applications like ActiveX) that it can't run on a small 
system any more. What's more most users are forced to upgrade 
because Microsoft no longer supports their older systems. It's like 
Ford saying they will no longer sell parts for cars built in the 
80's_everyone should go out and buy 2001 models. This is a 
deceptive marketing practice, and requires user not only to buy more 
and more Microsoft products but to upgrade their computer 
constantly_just to keep doing the things they were doing all 
along. It also raises questions for many users as to whether there 
may be anticompetitive cooperation between Microsoft and Intel (the 
dominant chip maker), since people need to upgrade their CPU's every 
time a new operating system comes out.
    The issue of windows source code has dramatically skewed the 
applications marketplace in favor of Microsoft. Since Microsoft has 
the source code for windows, it's applications can be written to 
take advantage of subtleties (and to avoid bugs) in the operating 
system. Other applications will not have this advantage. As a 
result, Microsoft's applications can be much more powerful and much 
more stable (not that they are) than others. To use the automotive 
analogy this would be like Ford refusing to tell From what size oil 
filters to produce for Ford cars and trucks. This would of course 
make Ford's fit better and work more reliably.
    Finally, right now Microsoft has an effective monopoly on 
operating system for the Intel platform. Because there is no set of 
standards for how operating systems and applications interact 
(Microsoft gets to make them up as they go along), there will never 
be a competitor (since it would not be compatible with existing 
Windows Applications). The creation of standards may seem a bit 
unnecessary, but look what it's done in the CPU industry. There are 
standards for how Windows interacts with processors and 
motherboards. As a result we have several CPU manufacturers (Intel, 
AMD, Cyrix, IBM) and lots of motherboards all of which are 
compatible with Windows. This has spurred innovation (and increased 
chip speed dramatically) and lowered prices. I would like to see 
something like this for Operating Systems and Applications. If there 
were standards then other companies could build operating systems 
for the Intel platform that would work with popular applications and 
be effective competitors to MS Windows. This would spur innovation, 
reduce prices and result in all sorts of favorable outcomes for 
consumers and the economy. Of course, requiring Microsoft to release 
their source code would be a step in the right direction_other 
programmers would be able to determine such a standard from the 
code.
    Innovation in the operating system market is nonexistant. Most 
commentators agree that all of the versions of windows since 95 have 
simply been repairs of bugs that should have been fixed the first 
place. Windows 95 itself (from the users point of view) was just a 
rip off of Steve Jobs NeXT operating system and MacOS. Windows XP 
while looking quite different doesn't really do much more than the 
older versions_it just includes more bundled software. The 
bottom line is that by giving consumers choice and opening up 
competition, the marketplace will see more innovative products and 
have more choices. This will ultimately be good for the computer 
industry (when people are excited about it, they invest), and the 
products that come out of this will benefit the whole economy. Don't 
hesitate to contact me if you have questions or would like further 
comment. You can reach me at 585-275-0751 or this email 
address.
    Please reconsider the settlement you have proposed.
    Bob McMurray

MTC-693



MTC-00000694

From: joejarrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:35am
Subject: Microsoft charges
    In my opinion, their is little that you can do to adequately fix 
or punish the Microsoft Corporation, short of fining them their net 
worth, then disbanding the company when they can't pay their 
business license fees. I suspect that they have violated the spirit 
and the letter of laws for many, many years, trampling competition 
as they encountered it. I became disgusted with them nearly a decade 
ago.
    Joe Jarrell
    348 Carter Dr.
    Charleston, WV 25306
    [email protected]

MTC-694



MTC-00000695

From: Mark Robinson
To: Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 11/16/01 8:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir/Madam:
    I can't believe how we've been sold out. Hope the states can do 
better.
    mir

MTC-695



MTC-00000696

From: Mike Eggleston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 8:54am
Subject: Microsoft ruling not sufficient
    My opinion of the punishment against Microsoft. Because of the 
way Microsoft has treated competitors and consumers, the corporation 
should be separated into two (or more) separate companies. One 
company should be charged with developing the OS and OS-only related 
technologies. The other company (or companies) should be charged 
with working on pure applications such as Word, Excel, Office, etc. 
These two (or more) companies should work as rivals with competing 
technology; not as incestuous children getting one over on their 
parents (the government).
    Mike Eggleston
    Fort Worth, TX
    817-905-0138

MTC-696



MTC-00000697

From: Mike Wexler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:41pm
Subject: MS/DOJ settlement
    I must say I'm disappointed in the settlement. As the original 
judge found, its quite clear that MS has a monopoly. With 90%+ 
marketshare in operating systems, office applications, and web 
browsers its pretty obvious. Its also quite clear that Microsoft has 
the ability and the desire to use these monopolies to establish new 
monopolies. Its been clear how they have used the operating system 
monopoly to keep hardware vendors from bundling competing office 
suites or competing operating systems.
    It also seems quite apparent that these monopolies are injuring 
the public. It is currently required in most businesses that you run 
Windows/Office in order to exchange files with your peers. This 
means most people are required to run an unstable and insecure 
operating system. Much more

[[Page 23788]]

reliable operating systems have been available for years. So people 
spend a huge amount of time rebooting their computers, reinstalling 
their operating systems, buying and running virus checkers, etc. 
because windows is poorly designed. Unfortunately the flaws are not 
obvious and first glance. Seldom does it crash using the demos that 
Microsoft distributes with their operating systems. Its not until 
you get it home that the pain begins.
    Microsoft has started addressing some of the reliability issues 
of late with Windows 2K and Windows XP. These are starting to use 
techniques that have been in common practice since the early 
seventies for keep flaws in applications from damaging the operating 
system and crashing the computer. But its quite clear that BY DESIGN 
these operating systems and the applications that Microsoft includes 
with them are insecure.
    There are several reasons that they are insecure:
    (1) The designs don't keep components compartmentalized. So its 
easy to get in through a web browser or email program and effect 
other components of a users system.
    (2) Microsoft is sloppy in their development efforts. They leave 
out error checking necessary to find buffer over run problems an 
they don't use computer languages that automatically do this.
    (3) Since the software is all proprietary it is not open to peer 
review. Researchers, customers and competitors can't look at the 
code, find the problems and fix them or ask Microsoft to fix them. 
And now Microsoft is trying to tell security specialists to keep the 
problems secret, Indefinitely, so that their is less pressure on 
Microsoft to actually fix the underlying problems and so the general 
public is not aware of the true extent of the problem.

MTC-697



MTC-00000698

From: Ryan McCarthy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:49pm
Subject: Re: Settlement
    Hello. I found this address in a story at slashdot.org and I 
hope it is correct.
    I must say that I am horribly disappointed in this settlement 
and can only hope that it gets thrown out.
    I suppose that it is a good thing that the FBI is working with 
the EU to get US law to apply in Europe, because it sort of balances 
out the efforts of the antitrust division to insure that it doesn't 
apply in America. If I had violated any law as badly as Microsoft, I 
would be in jail. After all they have done to cripple the computer 
world, they instead get the DOJ's seal of approval.
    As much as it will pain me to do so, I am going to have to vote 
for a Democrat in 2004 simply to change your leadership. It seems 
our professionals only do what current appointees like rather than 
enforcing the law. The laws made by the Congress, signed by the 
president and interpreted by the courts have said that Microsoft has 
acted (and continues to) criminally. However much stock John 
Ashcroft owns in Microsoft should not be enough to overturn all 
that, should it?
    Ryan T. McCarthy
    Strafford, NH

MTC-698



MTC-00000699

From: Loren Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:46pm
Subject: Antitrust Settlement
    To Whom it may Concern,
    The recent settlement with Microsoft is terribly inadequate. It 
has been clearly shown that Microsoft has cost the public BILLIONS 
of dollars through the abuse of its monopolization of the desktop. 
While that may not be enough to justify splitting up the company, 
this money was extorted from all companies, households, and 
government offices that use Windows. If the goal of the DOJ is to do 
uphold justice, Microsoft should be made to give back the money that 
it has unlawfully taken. Letting Microsoft get away with the current 
restrictions is like catching a burglar red handed and sending him 
to his getaway car, loot still in hand, with an admonition not to do 
it again. It is, in short, a cruel mockery of the concept of 
justice. I urge you to reconsider the case while there is still 
time.
    Regards,
    Loren P. Williams
    Student, UCSB
    [email protected]

MTC-699



MTC-00000700

From: Thomas M. Lahey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:45pm
Subject: Microsoft & my experience competing against them
    Good Day,
    First a little history. My company, Lahey Computer Systems, 
Inc., an Arizona Corporation (April 1967) licensed to do business in 
Nevada, has competed against Microsoft beginning in September 1986 
and lasting until Microsoft abandoned the Fortran market a couple of 
years ago when they worked something out with DEC (that's probably 
an interesting event all by itself). DEC took whatever Microsoft 
"gave" them and created a powerful product that we 
competed against with modest success, i.e., we stayed in business. 
DEC was acquired by COMPAQ and nothing changed in the market place. 
COMPAQ "gave" Intel the Fortran business and now you can 
download what used to be the DEC Fortran language system for free if 
you aren't going to use it for commercial development.
    Now let's return to competing against Microsoft.
    (1) Microsoft gave their Fortran away to major users. Of course, 
you must have been using Windows to qualify for this 
"gift."
    (2) Resellers were given discounts based on the total number/
dollar of all Microsoft products sold. So if a reseller sold 9 
Windows and 1 Fortran, the discount was for 10 units. Both of these 
practices violated the spirit, if not the letter, of what IBM had to 
do when they were forced to unbundle their operating system software 
from the hardware. Finally, as XP has validated, Microsoft sees 
something good and then decides that good thing is a part of the 
Windows Operating System_and they don't even do it well.
    I believe the intended settlement, a kiss on the wrist if I ever 
saw one, total misses the point that Microsoft was guilty of anti-
trust practices and NOTHING happens. Thanks for the opportunity to 
finally say what has been on my mind for some time.
    Regards,
    Tom
    Thomas M Lahey, CEO/Owner
    Lahey Computer Systems, Inc.
    CC: Bill Lassaline

MTC-700



MTC-00000701

From: David Lentz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 8:06am
Subject: Microsoft settlement comment
    I suppose that since the basic verdict was already in place, the 
DOJ Wasn't able to backtrack on that as well, and back away from the 
whole thing, telling Microsoft, "Sorry for the trouble, we'll 
not bother you any more.t1
    My comments: (1) With Microsoft being convicted of predatory 
monopolistic behavior, I would have thought that it was too late for 
a "settlement"_especially one that does nothing to 
discourage the same or worse behavior in the future (which is 
continuing at this moment), it does nothing to encourage free and 
open markets, and does nothing to compensate those identified 
parties (let alone the many companies damaged by Microsoft's illegal 
business tactics but not identified in the complaint) damaged by 
Microsoft (for instance, Netscape and the customers who bought 
Microsoft products).
    Nice way to shake a convicted felon's hand, and tell them to 
carry on, the law won't trouble them any more.
    (2) As I understand it, the judge urged a speedy settlement, so 
as not to further damage the economy in a time of weakness. Exactly 
how does letting a convicted monopolist continue without change and 
without compensating those damaged by their past practices help the 
economy? I would have thought that busting up a monopoly would have 
helped the economy more than anything else. The breakup of the Bell 
System has certainly resulted in many more choices (along with lower 
prices) than we were getting when it controlled our telephone 
systems.
    (3) I would presume at this point, that the DOJ is going to 
further the cause of helping the economy by dismantling the 
antitrust enforcement unit and save the taxpayers some money. It 
certainly performs no useful function.
    David Lentz
    15126 Count Fleet Ct
    Carmel, IN 46032
    [email protected]

MTC-701



MTC-00000702

From: J Mos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 8:01am
Subject: Monopoly(Money) + Master = Bill Gates

[[Page 23789]]

    Bill Gates must have paid a person or people with the Justice 
Department and agreeing states 6 digit or 7 digit dollars under the 
table for the government to accept a soft soft one sided settlement 
the totally works in favor of Microsoft.
    If you tell anyone that is making money and controlling a 
worldwide business, o.k., here is the deal if you tell your 
competitors your business secrets for x amount of years that will 
settle the case.. .Do you really think he will jeopardize his 
monopoly empire, come on... Bill Gates is probably going to release 
1980's and 1990's secrets only to satisfy the courts. While, current 
2000 and beyond secrets remain monopoly secrets.
    I thought our country was built on fair equal rights and equal 
business options to all; is Bill Gates and Microsoft an exception...
    The government made Bell and AT&T split which opened up a 
fair market for other telephone communication companies. The 
government should make Microsoft split and allow other computer 
businesses to produce a product line of other type windows for fair 
market.

MTC-702



MTC-00000703

From: Debra Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 7:50am
Subject: AGAINST SETTLEMENT
    That Microsoft is an abusive monopoly has been shown. That it 
has a long history of routinely ignoring and circumventind court 
ordered behaviorial restrictions is well established. That it has 
illegally transferred vast wealth from the pockets of computer users 
to those of its shareholders has been shown. What has not been shown 
is that this monopoly has been responsible for advancing consumer 
interests. These facts have been proved through long years of 
litigation by the various states and the Justice department. And now 
we settle.
    What do we have? Consumers have not be given the money which has 
been illegally taken from them. Companies destroyed by monopoly 
practices remain non-existent. Technologies not developed because 
competition was stifled do not exist still. Stock holders in rival 
technology companies are still wiped out.
    What we do have is another court order qualitatively similiar to 
all the broken orders of the past. This order is supposedly tougher, 
but the tough rules are bound to technology and monopoly practices 
of today. We all know these rules will not bind Microsoft as 
technology issues shift in the future_a mere 12 months away 
for Microsoft. We already see Microsoft gearing up for monopoly 
practices in the passport and .Net technologies. I seriously, very 
seriously, doubt DOJ ability to keep up with the technology and MS 
monopoly practices. I'll assume that DOJ will have to file suit 
again in a few years to counter new forms of monopoly abuse. We will 
constantly react long after the fact and with little actual effect. 
If we have determined that MS illegally enriched itself at the 
expense of consumers and competitors, why do they now keep these 
profits? If they have a history of ignoring the Court and DOJ why do 
they get yet another opportunity to do the same.
    I am skeptical of the earlier breakup order. However, at least 
it was qualitatively different from the long series of broken 
behavior restrictions. It's approach was correct, even if the 
details may have been questionable.
    DOJ must re-examine its goals. Is it to 1) protect consumers, 2) 
undo the damage done by illegal actions, 3) stop further damage from 
being done, 4) extract itself from the legal quagmire that the MS 
case has proven to be. The first three all seem legitimate goals, 
obtainable to some degree. The fourth seems to be the choosen 
course.
    I am deeply disappointed,
    Michaell Taylor, PhD
    109 Franklin Aye, #2
    Harrison, NY 10528

MTC-703



MTC-00000704

From: Gary L. Folz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 8:16am
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Sir:
    Here is another example of the government's intrusion into 
capitalistic practices. When will it ever end???
    Gary L. Folz
    10 Green Street P.O. Box 248 New Berlin, NY 13411
    Tel: 607-847-6508
    Fax: 607-847-6288
    email: [email protected]

MTC-704



MTC-00000705

From: Charles Ingram
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 8:10am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am very disappointed in the Governments settlement with 
Microsoft. They are a block other companies and dominate the market 
in an unhealthy way. I hope the states will step in and finish what 
the Government did not have the heart to do and that is break up 
Microsoft.
    Charles T. Ingram, MD
    152 Connell St
    Jasper, GA 30143
    [email protected]

I1-LTC-705



MTC-00000706

From: Greg Pierce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 8:10am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I won't go into detail at this time on my feelings as I'm sure 
you have much mail to read, but I'd like to voice my opinion. I 
think the proposed settlement with Microsoft is embarrassing and 
thoroughly inadequate. As Chief Technology Officer for a mid-size 
manufacturing company in Texas, I am faced day-in and day-out with 
the lock in and competitive constraints that have been caused by 
Microsoft's monopoly. Microsoft has not changed it's behaviors in 
any meaningful way, and without penalties, the damage done by their 
actions is not undoable. The monopoly continues untarnished.
    Please take greater action than suggested.
    Greg Pierce
    [email protected]

MTC-706



MTC-00000707

From: Fred Day
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 8:09am
Subject: Microsoft
    My feeling is that this case should be settled to the maximum 
benefit of the consumer!!! Nothing more need be said_that says 
it all!!! Settle this case so that the average consumer receives the 
maximum benefit!!! Pure and simple!!! Thank you.
    Sincerely, Fred Day in Orlando, Florida.

MTC-707



MTC-00000708

From: dlphilp @hagus.bright.net@ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 8:33am
Subject: a poor example
    Greetings:
    I have observed the case since its start, and I must say that I 
am very disappointed with the outcome. Not surprised, however: 
Microsoft has obviously spent an enormous amount of money on this 
case, and as we all know, you can buy the very best justice in the 
world right here in the USA.
    You would have to be living under a rock to not see how the 
company has used its leverage to destroy competition and retard 
innovation. Nothing new or useful has come out of Redmond for years, 
their lies and distortion of truth notwithstanding (viz Gates' 
latest claim to "inventing" the open source movement). 
Bills such as the DMCA and judgments such as this one simply 
demonstrate the power of a multi-billion dollar bank account and the 
willingness of the current administration to accomodate Microsoft in 
their attempts to destroy all competition (in favor of a very 
inferior product, I must add). No thanks to the DoJ for pandering to 
Microsoft. Shame on you all. Microsoft now has a green light to 
continue its attempted dominance of the computing life, on-line and 
off. What a disgusting outcome.
    Best regards,
    == Dave Phillips

MTC-708



MTC-00000709

From: Howell, Paul
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/17/01 8:32am
Subject: ms doj settlement
    Hello,
    I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to communicate with 
you regarding the recent MS vs. DoJ settlement.
    I'll keep it short.
    I am very disappointed in the settlement and, as a consumer, do 
not believe that harm done to me by MS in the past, will be 
prevented in the future. My choices are limited to mostly MS 
products. Non-MS products that I tend to not have a competing 
product from MS. The monopoly that MS enjoys was not won based on 
great technology. In fact, most MS products are inferior and riddled 
with bugs. Rather, predatory license agreements paved the way for 
the juggernaut that is MS.

[[Page 23790]]

    I fully supported the most severe remedies in this case. It's 
too bad that the DoJ put MS's interests ahead that of the consumer.
    Regards,
    Paul Howell.

MTC-709



MTC-00000710

From: Kim A. Soinmer
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 11/17/01 8:32am
Subject: short comment on MS-DOJ settlement
    Good morning,
    I was just given this email address but I have to be elsewhere 
soon so this will be short. Based on what I have seen of the 
proposed agreement the DOJ is giving Microsoft barely a slap on the 
wrist with the implied explanation that the economy is weak and we 
don't want to bring down a big player.
    I disagree since by being a monopoly *and* using it's monopoly 
power to illegally hold onto markets, Microsoft has done things that 
hurt the economy in the long run. By doing this aggreement you are 
giving the company the ability to challange the government itself. 
Excuse it already does that.
    One area was never addressed and that was Microsoft still 
requires and will still require manufacturers to only install 
Microsoft operating systems. The consumer is not given any realistic 
choice in this. For that "choice" we have software that 
crashes regularly. The other areas of the settlement allow Microsoft 
to hinder open source software programs and to still force all but 
the largest computer manufacturers to a strict contrl of the 
"computing experience" Like the last consent decree this 
one has no teeth and Microsoft will become more arrogant and 
powerful. That is the last thing our nation needs.
    Thre will be other people writing you who are more eloquent 
thatn I on either side of the proposal. I can only hope my words 
will tip the balance toward redrafting the agreement. I hope you 
rectify this situation, v/r
    Kim Sommer
    718 Harvey Drive
    Bloomington
    Kim A. Sommer

MTC-710



MTC-00000711

From: John Scott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 8:48am
Subject: MS Settlement
    I am appalled by the recent announcement of a DOJ settlement 
with Microsoft. That announcement virtually coincided with the 
release of Windows XP_an 'operating system" that 
continues the Microsoft policies of strangling competition and 
defrauding the public. The government has shown time and again that 
consumers are defenseless against corporations who break the law.

MTC-711



MTC-00000712

From: Juan P. Sales
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 8:46am
Subject: Fox
    I live in Brazil and when I try to access the local Fox website, 
www.mundofox.com.br using Linux Red Hat with Opera browser, I get a 
warning saying that my Operating System may present errors in the 
visualization of the site and suggesting the use of Windows 98:
    Nossos sistemas detectaram que voce esta usando urn sistema 
operacional que pode encontrar alguns erros na visualizaca-o das 
paginas do nosso site. Os sistemas operacionais recomendados sa-o.. 
Windows 98 ou superior. This is the kind of attitude that MS is 
promoting among webmasters worldwide. It's a clearly monopolistic 
attitude, which stands against my freedom of choossing what OS and 
browser I want to use.
    If sites around the world are having this attitude, it's because 
of Microsoft forcing them or giving them advantages (discounts or 
something like that). I thought that you were supossed to defend the 
rights of the common people, but with the proposed agreement, you 
seem to defend the right of MS and other bigs companies os impossing 
theirs products upon us.
    Juan P. Sales
    Sen. Vergueiro 45 / 1102 Flamengo
    Rio de Janeiro
    Brazil

MTC-712



MTC-00000713

From: Paul Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 8:34am
Subject: Leave Microsoft alone
    Leave Microsoft alone. We need their intelligence and products 
that we the people enjoy using. Let competition work out their own 
problems so that they to can provide superior products for the 
public.. .or shut up!
    Thank you for letting me sound off about this matter!!! A 
Microsoft products user and USA citizen from birth, Lois Martin God 
bless us everyone!

MTC-713



MTC-00000714

From: Dick Wall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 8:44am
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I am writing to you to voice my concern over the recent MS/DOJ 
settlement. I do not believe it to be a strong enough settlement to 
keep Microsoft honest (they have a proven track record of being 
distinctly dishonest in the past). I am sure you are going to get a 
lot of letters explaining how the settlement could be strengthened 
or enforced better. What I am more concerned with is the apparent 
softening in the attitude the DOJ has displayed towards Microsoft.
    In short, I want to cut through to the heart of the matter, what 
is best for the industry as a whole.
    The Microsoft spin machine has been putting in overtime to 
convince the world that DOJ legislation would be bad for innovation. 
What a spin. If you look at history you will see that the last thing 
Microsoft does is innovate. If you look at the historical major 
breakthrough's in the world of technology you have a hard time 
finding anything that Microsoft or the PC world is actually 
responsible for or involved in. Considering that the Microsoft 
windows on PC platform is by far the most common platform in the 
industry, I challenge anyone to list 5 important breakthroughs made 
on this ubiquitous platform. Internet (Unix and VMS through 
Arpanet), World Wide Web (created on NeXT), Hypertext (that would be 
Apple), Desktop GUI Paradigm (Xerox Parc, using Unix).
    The only thing Microsoft appears to have innovated is the 
development tools to make a million applications that look exactly 
the same. In short, Microsoft displays little to know innovation, 
and in fact their dominance in the information world seems to stifle 
innovation in others. Take for example Be. I followed the BeOS 
closely, watched as the first attempt in a very long time was made 
to introduce a new commercial general purpose operating system. It 
was one of the most staggering examples of innovation I have ever 
seen. The very architecture of the OS was so ambitious as to be 
electrifying. The speed and responsiveness exhibited to the average 
user was not by accident, it was due to the extensively multi-
threaded nature of the OS. It was at least five years ahead of 
Microsoft in terms of architecture, but it never stood a chance. I 
know there are at least as many business reasons why they may have 
failed as there are causes to point the finger at Microsoft, but the 
truth is that Microsoft have, for the period of their dominance, had 
a *negative* net effect on the "innovation" they claim 
to embody.
    I have lost count of the excellent ideas, technologies, or 
companies who have been bought out, run out of business, or simply 
never stood a chance because of the grip Microsoft holds on the 
computer industry. It is a measure of the strength of the grip they 
exhibit when an operating system like Linux which technically is at 
least a match for windows in all key areas, and is given away for 
free, still eeks out at best a moderate survival on the server. It 
is also interesting that much of the innovation taking place in the 
world of IT still seems to come from Linux and other Unix platforms, 
and not from PCs running windows.
    I would urge the DOJ to please consider carefully these issues 
past, and what would truly be best in the future for the industry. 
If Microsoft is able (for example) to dominate business and commerce 
transactions on the internet through it's .NET initiative, what 
future is there then for other platforms and competition.
    Incidentally, and interestingly, .NET is another example of 
innovation-not-quite. XML was drawn from HTML and SGML (UnixINeXT 
background). The architecture mentioned is primarily a unix and java 
developed architecture. Heck, even Client/Server was so alien to 
Microsoft that they did not really start to get it until a couple of 
years ago_ approximately 25 years after one of the best 
examples of client/server_X window system_was developed 
by MIT on Unix!).
    Thanks for listening.
    Dick Wall

[[Page 23791]]

    [email protected]

MTC-714



MTC-00000715

From: Michael Hedger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 9:06am
Subject: Sell Out
    Just thought I'd add my voice to those that are upset about the 
Bush Administrations sell out. Not much more could be expected 
though from an Administration put in place through a violation of 
the constitution and which has worked diligently to eliminate the 
constitution from every level of American life. Sort of makes the 
Soviet Union look good_at least the law applies to everyone 
there!
    Michael Hedger

MTC-715



MTC-00000716

From: Dave Waggoner
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov'
Date: 11/17/01 9:03am
Subject: Bad settlement.
    From out here in "flyover" country, it looks like a 
total cave-in to Microsoft.
    There are only two remedies that will work:
    1: Force Microsoft to fully document all proprietary extensions 
for ALL applications, and release those specs. Require MS to use 
open specs on all products in the future.
    2: Release the Source Code for Windows 2000 under the BSD 
license. With these two, competitors stand a fighting chance at 
making up all the ground that MS has unfairly gained.
    Thanks for your time.
    Dave Waggoner

MTC-716



MTC-00000717

From: Frank 249
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 8:56am
Subject: The deal sucks Does nothing to help Corel.

MTC-717



MTC-00000718

From: Sass, Joe
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov
Date: 11/17/01 8:52am
Subject: Monopoly
    The Sunday ads prove every week that Miscrosoft has a monopoly. 
On any given page, there may be 20 ads for Software. Two products 
are in the $150-$500 range. Both from MS. All the others all around 
the $50 mark. Coincidence? So unlikely!
    Joe Sass
    [email protected]

MTC-718



MTC-00000719

From: Bob Nixon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:08pm
Subject: microsoft monopoly
    The current settlement requiring microsoft to donate software or 
hardware to poor schools only serves to further the company's 
monopolistic position. Kids who grow up with the microsoft way of 
doing things are unlikely to change the way they compute later in 
life.
    Microsoft's stifling pressure on Netscape has forced one of the 
truly free browsers into the hands of the unscrupulous and privacy 
invading marketing practices of AOL (personal opinion). There are 
many fine operating systems and browsers with advantages far more 
practical and efficient than Windows/Explorer: Unix , Linux and 
Macintosh, to name a few. When a company reaches the size and power 
of Microsoft the question of free enterprise no longer applies 
because their influence both monetarily and in terms of ubiquity 
allow them to slant the market as they choose. This is not the 
American way, as I understand it. (or, perhaps it is but, according 
to the ideals underpinning this country, should not be.) I have 
grown up with computing. I learned my first programming language in 
1977. Computing can be a truly great tool but lets keep it free and 
clean and it's marketing practices fair. They have been shown to be 
guilty, please impose real penalties which don't amplify their 
crime.
    Robert Nixon

MTC-719



MTC-00000720

From: Warren L. Rutledge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 9:26am
Subject: Regarding proposed settlement with Microsoft
    Having read extensively on the case, judgements, and the 
proposed settlement, I felt as though I needed to express my views 
on the topic to you.
    First, I applaud your efforts to stop Microsoft's predatory 
practices within the software industry. As someone who has worked in 
the information technology field for the past 11 years, I find 
Microsoft's practices to be very chilling. Their unwillingness to 
allow any type of competition, use of underhanded (and now 
demonstrably illegal) tactics, and immense wealth are a continuing 
damper on true innovation in the industry. No one wants to try to go 
forward in a new market because Microsoft may decide that's where 
they compete and they'll destroy you. However, your efforts in 
regards to the proposed settlement have fallen woefully short of the 
mark. It appears to my reading that the agreement is largely without 
teeth, that Microsoft essentially dictated the terms, and that 
rather than having chastised Microsoft, you are in fact allowing 
their behavior to continue virtually unchecked.
    What concerns me the most is the apparent lack of technical 
understanding by the DOJ lawyers. The Microsoft team is obviously 
competent in this regard. While I am certain the government lawyers 
were doing their best, in this case it appears that they were quite 
clearly in unfamiliar territory. I would suggest that it would be 
wise to contract with technologically savvy law firms for consulting 
on these types of cases in the future.
    As for the remedies, I was stunned at the complete lack of 
teeth. Having won what appeared to be a slam dunk on the facts at 
both the trial and on appeal, it seems that you were in a far better 
position to set terms. Further, you missed the most egregious types 
of behavior that could be easily remedied.
    For example, Microsoft routinely discourages competition by 
keeping all document formats proprietary. There is no business 
reason for these to be proprietary as all the intellectual property 
to do the processing is in the actual code, not the document 
formats. When competitors close in on providing compatibility with 
the Microsoft document formats, Microsoft changes these formats 
without warning and in ways that break competing products ability to 
import them properly. You could have done the world a great service 
simply by specifying in the agreement that they could not keep their 
document formats proprietary and that they must give 6 months notice 
of any changes to their formats prior to implementation.
    Finally, I am wondering why Microsoft is allowed to financially 
unpunished. I can understand not requiring any type of jail time, 
but how can you justify not stripping them of at least some portion 
of their ill gotten gains? Again, that just feeds speculation that 
this was a completely political settlement bought and paid for by 
Microsoft last year. As a life long registered Republican, I find 
that thought revolting but I cannot point to any cogent argument on 
the part of the DOJ to say why they did not pursue any type of fine. 
If you do have some type of argument as to why a company who used 
illegal practices to eliminate competitors and keep building 
monopoly profits should be allowed to keep all they have gained from 
their illegal activity, I'd be interested to hear it.
    I am certain that you are hearing from a great many people in my 
career field who are as surprised as I was. Please understand that 
we expected that having won in court, that you were going to put 
some restrictions on Microsoft. What we see is that while Microsoft 
appears to you as a chastised company, it is quite clear to those of 
us who must work in their shadow that they are far from even being 
shamed. They have already indicated that they will not change any of 
their practices as a result of this agreement because there are 
loopholes for every occasion. Please reconsider your ill advised 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Warren L. Rutledge
    Boise, Idaho

MTC-720



MTC-00000721

From: berlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 9:09am
Subject: Microsoft are evil.
    Microsoft are probably THE biggest example of a monopoly I've 
ever seen. They make you buy their operating system if you want a 
GUI style operating system that will work with the x86 lines of 
processors (the most common types in use for home pcs). Then, they 
make you use their tools and programs. Have you ever tried 
uninstalling Internet Explorer? HA! Good luck! Same goes for any 
other major program or utility that Microsoft load in with their 
operating

[[Page 23792]]

systems. If you guys don't do something, they WILL try and take over 
the software market, guaranteed.
    [email protected]

MTC-721



MTC-00000722

From: Micah Gorrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 9:28am
Subject: Microsoft is a bunch of evil bastards and they should go to 
hell.

MTC-722



MTC-00000723

From: John Harris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel it is about time a settlement was reached with Microsoft. 
What seems strange to me is that it took this long. During this same 
period, several of the old "Standard oil companies and several 
of the old "Bell" telephone companies were allowed to 
merge back together with no questions asked. I feel these mergers 
could be more harmful to consumers than Microsoft having a monopoly 
in computer OS. I believe having a common OS is actually good for 
the consumer. Could you imagine 10 different OS?
    There would not be any continuity between computer systems and 
the multitude of software that is available now would probably be a 
great deal less.
    Thanks for letting me express my opinion.
    John Harris

MTC-723



MTC-00000724

From: cathy gramze
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 9:31am
Subject: MS settlement
    How does this proposed settlement compensate me, a Microsoft 
customer, for the harm done to me in the past?
    Whatever makes you believe that Microsoft will abide by it, when 
they have NOT abided by the 1995 settlement?
    Much stronger measures are indicated here. I oppose this 
settlement agreement and ask for the actual breakup of Microsoft 
into at least 3 companies.
    Catherine Gramze
    Michigan

MTC-724



MTC-00000725

From: jm @mandrake.prospeed.net @ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 9:50am
Subject: Do not shirk your duty
    Dear Sir or Madam;
    I am appalled at the inadequacy of the proposed settlement 
terms. Now that Microsoft has killed IBM OS/2 and BeOS, and Apple is 
marginalized, and Microsoft has reached almost 100% market share, 
how will the settlement restore or even enable competition in PC 
operating systems?
    Now that Microsoft has dumped their browser on the market, 
setting the price at zero, killing Netscape's viability as a browser 
company, and Internet Explorer has reached somewhere between 50 and 
80% market share (starting from 0%, need I remind you?), how will 
the settlement restore or even enable competition in Internet 
browsers?
    How will the settlement terms prevent further 
"Netscaping" (it's a verb, now, you know, meaning to 
bundle products and their attendant markets out of existence) of 
streaming audio, streaming video, digital photography, etc. by 
WindowsXP? Do you not understand the import of this case, as 
Microsoft seemed to, by its accelerating delivery of WindowsXP in 
advance of any settlement?
    How will the settlement terms prevent Passport's/.NET's 
monopolization of Internet infrastructure? Of PocketPC's plans for 
monopolization of the PDA/handheld market? Of XBox's plans for 
monopolization of the gaming console and/or home entertainment 
market?
    As an MIT computer science graduate with nearly 20 years of 
industry experience, I am appalled that Microsoft will be able to 
continue to quash innovation in the industry with continued 
impunity, and with the implicit endorsement of the DoJ. As a small 
software business owner with 11 years of industry experience, I am 
appalled that Microsoft will be able to reap the benefits of the 
market dominance achieved through its longstanding illegal business 
practises. As a member of the endangered species of Massachusetts 
Republicans, I am appalled and embarrassed that the party of the 
free market has kowtowed to a rapacious, unrepentant monopolist, 
that has done everything in its power to restrain competition and 
eliminate consumer choice and freedom. They have played hardball 
with every threat they've encountered, including now the DoJ, and 
they have always won.
    While I can understand that this is their nature, and that this 
is how they always act, I cannot understand your actions. Either you 
do not understand the importance of winning the case and restoring 
competition, or you have cowered in the face of a tough fight.
    It is the undeniable function of government to protect citizens 
from both foreign and domestic threats. Do not shirk your duty. 
Please feel free to contact me at any time so that I may more fully 
express my opinions, so briefly expressed herein.
    Very Truly Yours,
    John Morrison
    John Morrison
    == MAK Technologies Inc.
    185 Alewife Brook Parkway, Cambridge, MA 02138
    http://www.mak.coml
    vox:617-876-8085 x115
    fax:617-876-9208
    [email protected]

MTC-725



MTC-00000726

From: Diane Metzler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 9:45am
Subject: Settlement
    My company www.softdesigns.com is from CT. I support our 
attorney general and urge you to listen to him and seriously 
consider making the penalties against MS more strict.

MTC-726



MTC-00000727

From: [email protected] @ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 9:40am
Subject: Microsoft Monopoly Remedies
    My one real grievance with Microsoft and their marketing 
practices is that I cannot buy any pre-built PC through mainstream 
distribution channels without the pre-installed Microsoft operating 
system and all of the associated crap that comes with it. There is 
no choice. I have been building my own PCs from scratch for years to 
avoid this. The function of a free market is to provide choice, and 
the proper remedy to Microsoft's abuse of the monopoly power they 
hold is to enforce choice. Specifically there should be no 
constraints on what Microsoft licensees may do with regard to the 
configuration of their machines. The right to use that one purchases 
from Micrsoft for their products should not be encumbered with any 
constraints on what one may otherwise do.
    When I buy a car, the manufacturer give me orders about how to 
decorate it, or what other types of cars I may own at the same time, 
or where I have to get my parts and accessories.
    Thank you for your attention.
    * Joseph W. Gibson Lead Software Engineer *
    * "Surf the Wave of Chaos" *
    * [email protected] C/UnixIX *

MTC-727



MTC-00000728

From: Jim Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 9:38am
Subject: Why the Microsoft Antitrust Settlement Should Be Rejected
    When all is said and done, the current settlement sends one 
message loud and clear:
    Breaking the rules pays.
    Microsoft has killed thousands of businesses and innovators over 
the years, and not even the 1995 court order slowed them down. They 
have amassed an enormous hoard of cash from their extensive illegal 
and unethical practices and used that money to branch into numerous 
other businesses with the same ruthless intent to destroy 
competition and dominate the information age.
    In effect, they have been engaged in money laundering, and now 
the government is giving Microsoft total amnesty. Not only does the 
current settlement allow Microsoft to keep its ill-gotten 
advantages, but also it does not even address the deceptive 
accounting practices which have far overstated Microsoft's earnings 
over the years, and have even concealed years when Microsoft 
actually LOST money. The effect from this has been to drive 
Microsoft's stock much higher, and thereby further increase 
Microsoft's market monopoly. Are we a nation of laws or not?

MTC-728



MTC-00000729

From: Dean Haparanta
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/17/01 9:56am
Subject: Settlement

[[Page 23793]]

    What a sell out! Just throw it out and be done with it. Why 
waste any more taxpayer time and money. As a Network Consultant, I 
can tell you, you people do not understand the problem(s) or 
Microsoft in any way, shape or form.
    Dean W. Haparanta
    Cedar Valley Consulting
    [email protected]
    (319) 472-5241 Voice
    (319) 472-5241 Fax

MTC-729



MTC-00000730

From: David Sollars
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 9:56am
Subject: Letting Microsoft of the hook
    Add me to the list of millions of Americans and tens of 
thousands of computer technology administrators who feel you have 
completely dropped the ball on protecting our freedoms from the 
obvious aim of world control of computer and internet technology by 
Microsoft. I thought your job was to protect us, but instead you 
turn us over to be held hostage by a company that has shown no mercy 
in crushing every obstacle in its path. Where is the freedom in 
freedom of choice' when there are no longer any choices. 
DISGRACEFUL.
    David Sollars
    Spanish River Church
    2400 Yamato Road
    Boca Raton, FL 33431
    561/994/5000 x228
    dsollars @spanishriver.com

MTC-730



MTC-00000731

From: David McKeon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 9:52am
Subject: This sends a green flag to companies to user unfair 
practices.
    This sends a green flag to companies to user unfair practices. 
Where is the penalties part of the this judgement?
    Do you really think this will stop Microsoft from piling more 
libraries into their music recorder and calling it secret? That is 
the tactic it used with Explorer, hide the libraries in the OS and 
call it the OS, not a browser.
    How can there be a competing product such as Samba if all of a 
sudden the password Technology is patented, secret, or used in 
hiding copy righted material? It doesn't need to be, but it will be 
as soon as your judgement got into action.
    You have not punished this company you gave it a green flag to 
do what its done in the past. Drive other job making, taxable 
businesses into the ground. This isn't what the Federal Government 
is being payed to do by the people. Fix the problem, don't hide it.
    Ever wonder why people program for free for LINUX and GNU 
software? Its because the world and the tech people are tired of 
what the Government isn't doing. How do you tax a free piece of 
software? You can't, so you are forcing the world to fix the 
problems we see that MS is causing, and dropping your tax base in 
the process. The people of the world are coming together to resist 
what MS is doing to our computers. And companies are tired of being 
overcharged for a 2 dollar CD. MS doesn't innovate, they buy their 
competitors to drive out threats to thier Monopoly. You haven't 
fixed this.
    I'm sorry to see the Federal lawyers can't seem to get it right. 
Perhaps to many see the money they make if they get a chance to work 
for MS.
    David McKeon
    Grand Rapids, MI

MTC-731



MTC-00000732

From: Brad Snedeker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 9:52am
Subject: Microsoft
    To whom it may concern,
    I can understand the government draging Microsoft to court for 
unfair pricing of its OS's. But making Microsoft share or strip down 
its code is unfair. I have used Novell, Linux, Dos, Windows, and NT 
Os's. I have found that most unwanted pieces of these systems can be 
removed or uninstalled with no ill effects to the system.
    Computer users in the United States have made their choice, and 
chosen Microsoft products. If I buy a computer with Windows 
installed on it and want to try a different os I simply remove 
Windows. Until someone builds a better os then Windows, Windows will 
be the top seller. If the people so choose... And please remember 
its the consumer that has made the choice not a State or govenment 
group. Instead of wasting time and resources picking on Microsoft 
why don't these companies, states, and the government move on to 
more productive issues. Hmm maybe design a better os. Feed hungry 
people in different states in the US, or protect citizens in this 
country from outside influences.
    We the people are not as stupid as some of you think. We have 
made our choice. And Microsoft is the winner. A good product at a 
fair price is the American way of life.
    Thanks for your time.
    Have A Great Day
    Brad Snedeker ESA

MTC-732



MTC-00000733

From: Mary Euyang Shen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 10:12am
Subject: Settlement
    Whatever you do, please let Microsoft "go". The 
consumer is not hurt by Microsoft's monopolistic hold_without 
its software, we would still be in a state of numerous different 
operating systems, not able to talk to each other. Give the people 
who made today's technology possible credit and let the economy be 
healthy again. The competitors should be ashamed of themselves for 
not developing better software but instead, resorting to 
"crying to Mama." Please just settle. Mary 
Shen_Microsoft program user and stock holder

MTC-733



MTC-00000734

From: Paul FM
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 10:08am
Subject: You missed a few things in your settlement
    You missed a few things in the MicrosoftlDOJ settlement:
    1. All of Microsoft's Software development tools (Visual C, 
Visual basic, etc.) seem to to have license requirements that forbid 
the user from creating another operating system, or a product that 
can compete with MS office or Internet explorer. Unfortunately, 
Microsoft embeds OS secrets in these products that are nearly 
impossible to use without them (in other words creating a competing 
product without these tools is nearly impossible). You should have 
had Microsoft rescind these sections of the license.
    2. You should also have required that all Contracts with OEMs be 
registered with the justice department for review. To make sure 
Microsoft wasn't sneaking some anti competitive item in the 
contract.
    3. You should have had Microsoft agree not to enter any other 
market and to remove themselves from directly providing Internet 
Service (MSN), as this is their new tool for controlling the market.
    I have no problem with not breaking up Microsoft. Their monopoly 
is held together by restrictive contracts, not by the fact that they 
supply OS and Office software both.
    I have no problem with Microsoft keeping secret code. In a truly 
competitive market they would have to make their product co-exist 
and interact properly with competitors, and reveal how to 
communicate with their server products. I should preface the 
following by making it clear that I believe the Federal government 
legislates too many things that should be left to smaller government 
units (drinking laws, the now defunct 55 MPH speed limit law, and 
the like). I believe the job of the Federal government is to make as 
few laws as are needed to protect the rights and safety of citizens. 
But I do believe one of the thing the Federal Government must do is 
ensure a competitive market place.
    I think much if not all of the Microsoft problem could be 
corrected with legislation that:
    a. Forbids the Federal Government from doing business with 
Monopolies (if there are no alternative sources it should allow the 
Federal Government to create one). As long as Microsoft is a 
Monopoly, the huge amount of business they get from the Federal 
Government would go to competitors. If the Federal Government 
stopped using Microsoft Office, other companies would be able to 
stop using it as well (including Universities and State 
Governments), if the Federal Government couldn't use Internet 
Explorer, government web sites might not be compatible with 
it_forcing others to use alternative that are.
    b. Forbids contracts that penalize a customer for using or 
supplying competitive products (as in Alternate OSes on a machine) 
this needs to be more generalized to prevent another company from 
using exclusive contracts in an anti competitive way (it could also 
apply to anti competitive clauses in software development tools).
    I think Microsoft is a symptom of the holes in anti-trustlanti-
monopoly legislation. Other companies restrain themselves only as a 
common practice. The result of the Microsoft

[[Page 23794]]

case will impact other companies contemplating the same methods of 
gaining market share. Removing Monopolistic methods from the market 
place is the best way to ensure a competitive market place.
    The views and opinions expressed above are strictly those of the 
author(s). The content of this message has not been reviewed nor 
approved by any entity whatsoever.
    Paul F. Markfort Information Technology Professional
    _SysAdmin_Email: [email protected]
    MEnet Rm# 155 Web: http://www.menet.umn.edu/-paulfm
    Mechanical Engineering MEnet Phone: (612) 626-9800
    111 Church Street Home Phone: (651) 774-2136
    Minneapolis, MN 55455-0150

MTC-734



MTC-00000735

From: Aaron McBride
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 9:58am
Subject: Who's the competitor?
    I'm a software developer, and a potential competitor to MS. Will 
I be able to get a look at the API? Will it be posted on a website 
somewhere for all who are interested to inspect, or is it only for 
large companies like AOL/Time Warner/Netscape/Sun/Whatever to look 
at? I'm a little confused about how this will restore competition to 
the browser market. Six months from now MS will still control 97% of 
the user's web browsers. There needs to be a way for someone to 
easily make an IE clone, that they can add their own features too.
    That's all for now.
    _Aaron McBride

MTC-735



MTC-00000736

From: Jim Coleman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 10:19am
Subject: Department of Justice Microsoft Settlement
November 17, 2001
Department of Justice
Washington, DC
microsoft.atr@ usdoj .gov
cc: [email protected]
Subject: Department of Justice Microsoft Settlement
    This is the second time that I?ve ever written a government 
official/agency. The first time was last week when I wrote the West 
Virginia Attorney General to thank him for standing up for the 
rights of West Virginians by pursuing the anti-monopoly case against 
Microsoft. That letter was necessary because, you, my 
representatives at the Federal level, have decided that my rights as 
a user of non-Microsoft software are without merit.
    As stated in my email to the Honorable Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., 
I?ve used Microsoft products for many years. Like all modern PC 
users, each of my computers were purchased with Microsoft operating 
systems (MS-DOS or various versions of Windows) preinstalled by the 
OEM (original equipment manufacturer). Except for a brief period 
when the IBM OS/2 operating system was available to consumers, 
purchasing a Wintel (Windows/Intel architecture) PC meant purchasing 
a Windows license. As Judge Jackson correctly pointed out, consumers 
are given no choice in the matter. As I?ve come to realize, it is 
exceedingly difficult to purchase a new PC without a Windows 
license. It is a statement of fact that, in the vast majority of 
computer users? minds, Windows *IS* the computer. It is also true 
that the average consumer has no more choice in operating systems 
than they have a choice of air to breathe. Despite the fact that, 
unlike air, alternate and arguably superior PC operating systems 
have been available for some time.
    Though I consider myself an advanced user now, that was not 
always the case. When I purchased my first PC in June 1994, I did 
not know how to operate it. My experience at that time was limited 
to a bit of MS-DOS and the mainframe programs my employer ran at 
work. I?d never used a computer with a GUI (graphical user 
interface) and had never used a mouse.
    Though the foundation of Microsoft's monopoly was already in 
place, the playing field was slightly more level in 1994. If you 
lived in a major city, for a brief period of time, you could still 
walk into a computer store and choose both your hardware and your 
operating system. Stores that carried them were exceedingly rare but 
IBM was still preinstalling its OS/2 Warp operating system on its 
PCs in 1994. Apple's Macintosh OS was, of course, also readily 
available. I?d researched both these and Microsoft Windows 3.11 
before making my purchase.
    Though I did not understand everything I read, I knew the 
computer press had very definite opinions about the relative merits 
of each of operating system. In a nutshell, the Mac was considered 
the easiest to use. OS/2 Warp had superior multi-tasking and memory 
management. Windows 3.11 was supposed to be an improvement over 
version 3.1 but wasn?t considered in the same league as the other 
two OSes technologically.
    None the less, I purchased a Packard-Bell PC with Windows 3.11 
and clearly remember my reasons for doing so:
    * I had only so much money to spend and Macs, then as now, were 
much more expensive than PCs. Though I preferred the Mac, I could 
not afford one.
    * Though I could read all about it in computer magazines, I 
could not find an OS/2 Warp display model in the Parkersburg, WV 
area. Though it had problems, I used Windows exclusively for many 
years. I accepted computer crashes and frequent reboots without 
question because they happened to everyone. I thought they were 
normal. Like millions of others, I upgraded to Windows95 when it 
became available and expected things would get better. The upgrade 
cost several hundred dollars because it also meant I had to invest 
in a larger hard drive, more RAM, new diagnostic utilities and anti-
virus software, and at-home tech support since I wasn?t yet capable 
of upgrading hardware. The instability continued.
    When Windows98 was released I upgraded again on the promise that 
everything had really been fixed this time. When, several hundred 
dollars later, things were not better, I began to look for 
alternatives.
    OS/2 Warp was long gone. Macs were as expensive as ever. I?d 
heard about an alternate operating system called Linux and learned 
that it was possible to install both it and Windows on the same 
computer. Over time, I learned how to obtain and install Linux, 
running it at first on an old 486 PC we?d acquired. Redllat 4.3, was 
crude and rough compared to Windows but it never crashed and, unlike 
Windows, ran well on the older computer.
    When I learned that I could by Linux CDs for $2.00 from web 
establishments like cheapbytes.com, I knew Linux was a way to free 
myself of constant, expensive upgrades. The transition was not easy. 
I?ve spent countless hours learning how to install, configure and 
support a Linux computer. I relied heavily on books and on the Linux 
on-line community. Few computer users would go to such efforts. 
Judge Jackson rightly outlined what he called Barriers to Entry. I 
understood that concept immediately.
    Over time, I learned to love Linux. We run both it and Microsoft 
Windows in our home. Many programs are not available in Linux 
versions and some of our hardware works only with Windows. I use 
both OSes interchangeably and move from one to the other with ease. 
We no longer use Microsoft Office software, preferring the freely 
available, multi-platform StarOffice suite instead. Our StarOffice 
Linux documents can be opened and read in our StarOffice Windows 
programs with ease and visa versa. And, happily, the Internet, for 
the most part, is still a realm where operating system or hardware 
platform does not matter.
    I?d like to think that the alternate tools we?ve come to rely 
upon will always be available but I fear this will always be the 
case. Today, Microsoft controls over 90% of the PC market and has 
tremendous influence on the PC industry. Its might can dictate not 
just how technology will be deployed but which technology will be 
deployed. It regularly uses its monopoly powers to unfairly move the 
PC industry in directions that benefit it alone. That fact has been 
determined in court and is not in dispute.
    It has lately been extending that influence to the Internet, 
corrupting long standing open protocols by weaving its own 
proprietary code into the framework. One of the ways it does this is 
by promoting its Internet Explorer browser. Shipped on each and 
every OEM PC since the release of Windows98, it is the most used web 
browser in the world. The Internet, which was designed to be open to 
everyone regardless of computing platform, is turning into another 
Microsoft property. It's already common to find web pages that do 
not display properly in non-Microsoft browsers. Microsoft's ?Windows 
Update? program, an integral part of the Windows OS, works only with 
Internet Explorer. And Microsoft's Microsoft Network's web pages are 
deliberately designed to deny access to browsers other than Internet 
Explorer. Users that prefer to use Opera browsers (http://
www.opera.com), for instance, are deliberately denied access. This 
is crucial since Opera has been selected as the browser of choice by 
a consortium of

[[Page 23795]]

hand-held computer devices--another market Microsoft is trying 
to contol. Microsoft has demonstrated time and again that it is 
incapable of acting in the public's best interest. The Department of 
Justice was entrusted by the citizens of the United States to look 
out for our interests. Its settlement with Microsoft is an abuse of 
our trust.
    Best Regards,
    Jim Coleman
    Upsala 75
    [email protected]
    http://www.upsala.org

MTC-736



MTC-00000737

From: James Bryson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 10:16am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    What are you people thinking? The whole reason for this lawsuit 
was monopolistic practices by Microsoft.
    By allowing the company to continue to bundle other software 
into windows, and making those rpograms an integral part of said 
Windows, the consumer is now being allowed to have the choices he or 
she so deserves.
    I guess it doesn't matter to the gonernment that we have elected 
that we, as Americans, like to have many choices. With Microsoft 
making Outlook Express, Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer 
integral to Windows, we have been stymied in our choices.
    It is becoming more difficult to remove these applications, if 
not impossible without crashing Windows, and and use something else. 
I think Ashcroft and the rest of the DOJ need to gain some backbone 
and make Microsoft ease up on their monopolistic practices, make 
Windows internal working available to the software developers for 
better integration and to stop bundling IE, OE and WMP into windows.
    I thought the government was supposed to be "for the 
people, by the people, and of the people" not 'for the 
company, by the comapny and of the company".

MTC-737



MTC-00000738

From: Sheenada
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 10:15am
Subject: Equal Treatment
    To whom it may concern;
    The Microsoft case is the first time that I have heard of a 
defendant being found guilty, and the guilty verdict being upheld by 
appellate courts, where the guilty defendant was given the 
opportunity to negotiate the punishment. The negotiations resulted 
in a compromise and a reduced penalty. Should I ever be found guilty 
of anything I will surely demand my right to equal treatment under 
the law, and demand a compromise which reduces my punishment.
    Thank you for your concern and the opportunity to refuse to 
comply with any punishment imposed.

MTC-738



MTC-00000739

From: Will Ganz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 10:15am
    Attorney General John Ashcroft,
    The proposed deal with Microsoft is too weak. Witness the 
continued integration of such services as instant messaging, on 
demand multimedia, and e-commerce(Passport), into the new release 
Windows XP. The flaccid excuse of using the horrific events of 11 
September as a reason for rushing to a settlement is almost a 
sacrilege to the memories of the EMS personnel that died there. To 
rush to a conclusion of this since "the economy is bad" 
is as equally wrong or amoral as overlooking Bill Clinton's felonies 
since "the economy is good".
    The true irony of the whole situation is that Microsoft could 
have gotten to their position of dominance by sheer engineering 
excellence without having to resort to such deeds as copying others 
code without license(DOS ver 1 and Stack), vaporware (Visual Basic 
4.0 & 5.0 for the Macintosh), planting fake error messages in 
their software(DR-DOS & Windows 3.0/3.1), threatening to 
withhold licenses if hardware vendors even offered another OS( OS/2 
& Linux), threatening to withhold licenses if hardware vendors 
don't pay for a copy of Windows even if the machine ships with a 
competing OS(multiple small shops with Linux, UNIX, & OS/2), 
changing the boot sectors for operating systems so that competing 
OS's cannot be multibooted (Windows 2000 with BeOS, Linux, and the 
various types of B SD), trying to divide up the market space with 
competitors(knife the baby with Apple&QuickTime or Internet 
Explorer for Windows and Netscape for everything else) and violating 
contractual agreements to twist other's software into Windows 
specific trap(Sun & Java).
    Read Bill Gates own testimony before Congress when he stated 
that the cost of software goes down even with the amount of 
complexity goes up. Now, look at the ever increasing cost of 
Windows. A license for Windows has gone from 2% of machine cost when 
Windows 3.1 was released to 30% today with Windows XP. This is 
directly from Bill Gate's mouth. You said that Timonthy McVeigh 
wouldn't get a retrial in spite of the monumental FBI SNAFU. Yet 
Bill Gates gets to rip, rape, and ruin the computer industry at his 
leisure now.
    HOW MUCH EVIDENCE DO YOU NEED???? You have a lot less evidence 
against bin Laden and the US is bombing Afghanistan, yet you hand 
out essentially a warning ticket for jaywalking to multibillion 
dollar/year company that doesn't even bother pay income taxes at 
all. That fact is directly from their annual report to their 
stockholders. None, Nyet, Nada, and don't intend on it either. As an 
RN that is busting his backside to pay his bills and support a 
bureaucratic royalty of eunchs in DC, that is a double insult to 
have to pay more income tax than Microsoft, Inc. does. And I am 
talking actual number of dollars, not percentages here. You know, 
the long folding green stuff with pictures of dead presidents on it 
that makes the world go round?.
    The only reason that we have had a rise in competing operating 
systems in the past is that Microsoft has HAD to be restrained 
during the trial lest their activities would be used against them in 
court. Now, you are going to undo the ONLY decent thing that the 
previous inhabitants of DC managed to do right. What happens to the 
economy when Microsoft now has a free hand to wreck vengence as it 
sees fit and only has to answer to a bunch of paid patsies that 
meets annually?
    The best visual analogy that I can give you is a mature pine 
forest. Mature pine trees have a monopoly on the environment. They 
poison the ground with their acidic needles so that no other plant 
can grow. Microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems, and 
poisons/absorbs any new idea into their OS or Office products. There 
isn't anything for wildlife to eat since everything except pine 
trees are dead to about 20 feet off the ground. No one wants to 
develop new products for the Windows environment since Microsoft 
will write the same functionality into their products. We will have 
the same technological diversity as there is ecological diversity at 
the ground floor of forest. The only OS diversity is the Macintosh 
with 5% the market share and Linux with 1%. Pine trees will grow to 
over 100 feet high and live for almost a century, only adding height 
and girth. Microsoft only produces superior products when they face 
competition. A mature/dying pine forest will only rejuvenate itself 
when it is cut/burn down. Pine seeds will only germinate after the 
wax coating is burnt off. Do your job and light a match to 
Microsoft's monopoly.
    Specifically, this should be added to the restrictions on 
Microsoft:
    * prohibitions on the integration of instant messaging, media 
playing, and currency exchange into the Windows operating system
    * immediate release of all API's for prior versions of Windows
    * require the development and release of a database program to 
complement the Macintosh version of Office in the same manner that 
the program Access is a relational database component for the 
Windows version of Office, this would increase the viability of the 
Macintosh platform of a competitor
    * require the release of the previously announced Visual Basic 
for the Macintosh to promote the development of vertical 
applications on that platform, this would compensate for the FUD 
that Microsoft used to freeze competing development languages on the 
Macintosh platform
    * require the inclusion of the Java Virtual Machine from Sun in 
Windows XP
    * prohibit the release of any new Windows operating system until 
the number of bugs is less than 10% of number of lines of code Shame 
on you for selling us out. This stinks so badly that it has coined a 
new word "Seattlement".
    Sincerely,
    William E. Ganz, RN
    2301 Pebble Vale #614
    Plano, Texas 75075
    NRA member when I was 16 in 1971 & Republican when I was 18 
in 1973.
MTC-739



MTC-00000740

From: akn

[[Page 23796]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 10:35am
Subject: Microsoft deserves CONSTANT VIGiLENCE.
    Competitors should not have to sue to reverse Microsoft's 
unlawful acts as the delay just adds further damage. A committee of 
competitors should be invited to have direct access to a federal 
three judge panel to obtain a rapid ruling and ban on Microsoft 
detailed practices inconsistent with the finding of guilt already 
found on Microsoft.
    akn @mediaone.net

MTC-740



MTC-00000741

From: ManbytsDog @aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 10:30am
Subject: MS Settlement_Comments
    In short, a travesty for justice, the American consumer, and for 
much of the computer industry itself.
    It's hard to imagine justice leveling a less punitive punishment 
for MS. This one makes the Supreme courts rubber stamping of the 
Florida election a minor transgression.
    Ten years from now, this decision will echo in business text 
books as an egregious failure for the law, government and all 
business. Watching the Gates video deposition was like watching a 4 
year old deny he had his hands in the cookie jar while it was caught 
on film and telltale fingerprints remained.
    Just a law abiding tax payer almost stunned at what amounts to a 
wholesale reversal.
    Shame on you.
    I have no stake personally, professionally or otherwise in MS, 
but if ever there was an antitrust case that needed serious redress, 
this is/was the one that got away.
    _John S

MTC-741



MTC-00000742

From: bmielke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 10:24am
Subject: I just Hope
    To whom it may concern;
    If any of the individual responsible for the 11 Sept 2001 are 
brought before into a court to answer for their actions I pray to 
God that none of the DOJ personnel associated with the Mircosoft 
case represent us, because who ever it is they will walk the earth a 
free man after these DOJ lawyer are finished.
    PS. Thanks for doing a really poor job at representing me.

MTC-742



MTC-00000743

From: Dennis Stiliwaggon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 10:45am
Subject: settlement
    Howdy
    this short message is to express my opinion.
    The settlement allows the guilty to go on free of their 
responsibility. This is against the very oath the DOJ prosecutors 
swears to when they accept their obligations to bring the full 
extent of the law to those found guilty. If not you, then who?
    sea ya

MTC-743



MTC-00000744

From: Neil Youngblood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 10:44am
Subject: Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Leave Microsoft alone. They cannot help their products are the 
best and everyone wants them. Look at the gasoline corporations. 
Everyone needs to stop trying to take someones money without earning 
some themselves. Screw all of you jealous people, you all mess up 
the good things in life.
    Sincerely,
    Neil Youngblood

MTC-744



MTC-00000745

From: Jessica Tang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 10:39am
Subject: MSFT settlement
    Thank you for bringing this witch hunt to an end.
    STOP punishing success!!

MTC-745



MTC-00000746

From: Bill Toner
To: Microsoft AIR
Date: 11/17/01 10:37am
Subject: Microsoft trial comments
    I see the DOJ hsa set up this email for comments on the 
Microsoft antitrust trial.
    I have to say that I'm disappointed with the setiment agreement 
made. The discussions I've seen find many loopholes for MS to get 
around just about all restrictions should they desire to do so. And 
their use of the loophole on the 1994/1995? consent decree banning 
the bundling of Windows 95 and Internet Explorer show that they'll 
use all the sneaky tricks they possibly can.
    I myself had hoped for a three-way split in the company, for 
Operating System, Internet stuff (MSN, Internet Explorer, and other 
tools that aren't useful without internet connection) and 
applications (Word, Excel, video/music players like Media Player, 
encyclopedias, etc. that aren't significantly internet related or 
absolutely required to run a computer). The two-way split suggested 
by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, as it would let the "other 
stuff' company bundle applications and the internet together, which 
could still have forced people dependent on Word and Excel for work 
to become dependent on Internet Explorer and the MSN network, which 
could hurt other internet service providers, especially the smaller 
companies ther serve a particular town or city only. The small town 
I grew up in has such small "mom & pop" ISP company, 
and if they were to lose business due to shady forced dependencies 
on MSN, the whole town would be screwed, as there are no local MSN 
or AOL connection phone numbers, and we'd all then be forced to pay 
long-distance toll telephone charges to connect. I imagine there are 
a lot of similar small towns across the nation.
    I believe that the DOJ's case could have accomplished more if 
you had not concentrated so much on the MS1E vs Netscape issue and 
nearly ignored many other relevent issues. MS hijacked the Kerberos 
networking protocol, modifying it to be incompatible with non-MS 
products specifically to insure customers would be forced into using 
MS products together and force them away from Unix or other non-MS 
platforms that have very important uses. MS stole the name 
"Internet Explorer" product name from a small company 
that had registered the trademark or copyright or whatever covers 
this issue intheir state, and was waiting for their federal 
application to be processed. MS sued and appealed until this small 
company could no longer afford to try and protect their registered 
product name and was forced into bankruptcy, MS won. MS's case was 
based on the argument that "internet explorer" is too 
generic a term to trademark or copyright. But if I were to start 
selling another software product of any kind, I bet you my house 
that MS would sue me out of existence.
    And I cannot fathom how MS gets away with their claim of 
"innovation". They've either bought or stolen 99% of 
their products from other developers. Windows was of course stolen 
from Apple, who themselves finangled it from Xerox. Internet 
Explorer was bought from another developer, perhaps the entire 
company was bought. Flight Simulator was bought. There is a gian 
list of such MS "innovations" at http://www.vcnet.com/
bms/departments/catalog/index.shtml There is an interesting 
discussion of what software concepts were "innovated" by 
MS at http://www.vcnet.comlbms/departments/innovation.shtml MS 
really hasn't innovated nearly as much as they claim to have done. 
We all know htat MS is trying to turn the internet into .net, where 
only MS platform based MS products can possibly do anything. I don't 
use a Windows PC. Nor do I use Linux or Macintosh. I use a more 
obscure platform that just happens to be more suitable to me than 
these more popular platforms. Do you think I will be allowed on the 
MS .net? Of course not. Even though there are developers that would 
be willing to make software to allow my computer access to .net, MS 
will not allow such distribution of their protocols specifications 
to such independent small developers, they'll cry "security 
issues or something as a loophole to protect their APIs and keep 
things nicely proprietary and incompatible with anything else. I 
will be kicked off the internet, as I truely cannot tolerate the 
horrible Windows user interface (in my personal opinion, which is 
all that counts as far as my pocketbook is concerned when spending 
the kind of money that computers cost, I won't pay that much for 
something I, personally, hate) and gross instability.
    MS is trying to get a lot of control over the music recording 
industry as well. They are trying to get the RIAA to put .wma 
digitally encoded files on audio CDs as well as the standard audio 
tracks for stereo equipment. What good does that do me, as I don't 
use Windows and thus have no .wma player? I will not be able to 
create my own digitally encoded formats that my platform can play, 
as the CD is copy protected. Sure, there are

[[Page 23797]]

copyright issues at hand needing protected, but why not use an 
industry standard format available to all platforms? Why limit 
listeners to the Windows platform? Why leave me out? At work I use a 
Unix (Sun Solaris brand) workstation, so I can't listen to my music 
there unless I go out and spend $50 on a cheapo audio-only CD 
player. Why should I be forced to do that when my old CDs play 
perfectly well in the workstation's CDROM drive? Microsoft is trying 
to force people into Windows PCs by lobbying RIAA to adopt their 
proprietary file format which isn't usable on non-MS computer 
platforms.
    MS isn't just about owning most people computer usage, MS is 
trying to take over a great deal more than that, and I don't believe 
that the settlement agreement is enough to contain their borg-ish 
assimilation of the computer industry and other large portions of 
the US economy as subdivisions of the current Microsoft 
conglomerate. I realize that other current events have caused 
respectable distractions from the MS situation, but it seems like 
this agreement was hashed together in order to dump the MS trial so 
the DOJ can concentrate more on other large and of course important 
issues. I think the MS issue needs to be kept at least on the back 
burner and not just thrown in the trash heap. Two federal courts 
have ruled them to have broken antitrust laws, MS requires a bit 
more than this weak slap on the wrist.
    I thank you for your time in reading my concerns with this 
issue.
    Bill Toner
    [email protected]

MTC-746



MTC-00000747

From: philip bernstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 10:52am
Subject:
    I find it hard not to be cynical here. Microsoft has a track 
record of circumventing many of the laws now in place against it. 
How this settlement will curtail this is beyond me.
    They have taken the law into there own hands and used it to 
there own advantage and have consistently hurt consumers, by 
limiting choice. I do not use microsoft products (I find them to be 
buggy and inferior to most programs out in the market), and because 
I choose not to use there product, I have to find ways to get around 
there lock on the software and pc market.
    I have been to web sites that refuse my connection due to the 
fact the I am not running microsoft software. Is this good for me 
the consumer? I like choice and microsoft is trying to eliminate my 
choice of software to use. I find the decision of the government in 
this instance to be rather naive in the fact that they think they 
can control what microsoft has become. In *fact, I think the 
government has let down the U.S. consumer. In a country where we 
have choices for just about anything, not to have a choice of which 
software to use (and actually be able to access any given web site 
or resource, as proven recently by microsoft blocking access to 
there web sites against Opera and netscape web browsers), is in my 
opinion a criminal act (one of which they would surely protest if 
sites blocked them).
    Since they have been proven guilty of anti-trust behavior, and 
also for not living up to the last remedies imposed on them, I think 
it's rather sad that the government would rather give them a slap on 
the hand rather than take some positive action against them and put 
choice back into consumers hands. After all, we should be a country 
of choice and not a country of microsofts choices.
    Philip Bernstein
    [email protected]

MTC-747



MTC-00000748

From: George Schuldberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 10:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    As a tax paying American citizen I am dissappointed in the 
Justice Departments proposed settlement of the anti-trust suit with 
Microsoft Corporation. Based on the fact that Microsoft has been 
found of anti-competitive behavior, I believe that the punishment 
aspect of the proposed remedies does not nearly address the severity 
of their infractions. Furthermore microsoft with the release of 
Windows XP continues to use the same tactics of bundling unrelated 
software into their operating system in order to drive out 
competitors in other markets. Microsoft has repeatedly shown it is 
not willing to compete in a legal fashion, despite prior Justince 
Department restrictions (1995). I believe the only way that 
Microsoft will conduct business legally is to take away their 
ability to use their operating system to make gains in other 
software products. I hope the Justice Department will reconsider 
their position and provide protection for American consumers by 
seekind more substantial penalties against Microsoft Corporation.
    Respectfully yours,
    George Schuldberg
    gschuldberg @ev 1 .net

MTC-748



MTC-00000749

From: Andrew Bulmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 10:50am
Subject: Microsoft
    I work at a non-profit non-governmental organization. I use 
Microsoft Products such as Windows, Internet Explorer, and Office. 
This is not to say that I like these products but I must use them. 
Other organizations use these products and that means we must use 
these products. There are several facts I would like you to 
consider.
    I. You cannot buy a PC that does not come with Windows pre-
installed. Ocassionally an OEM will offer Linux but at the same 
price as Windows. If you check the prices all Linux Distributions 
are less than the price of Windows. Also you cannot get a PC that 
has both Windows and another operating system installed even though 
it is technically possible. I am assuming that MS's agreement with 
OEMs prohibit this.
    2. File formats are kept secret. How many times have you 
received a Microsoft Word .doc file as an attachment to an email? I 
get a word document in the email almost every day. Since the file 
format is secret, only MS Word can open it. Since people regularly 
email word documents this means that I need to have word to view 
them.
    3. The majority of people who surf the internet use MS Internet 
Explorer. This is because IE comes with Windows and Windows comes 
with their PCs (see above). This means that most web pages are 
designed to be viewed by IE only. Standards that are ignored by 
Microsoft are ignored by web developers. When the anti-trust case 
against Microsoft began, Microsoft had a monopoly on the Operating 
System of PCs. Now Microsoft has a monopoly on the office suite, 
internet browser, media player, and is working on establishing a 
monopoly on gaming consoles (Xbox). You cannot use a computer 
without using Microsoft. This needs to be stopped.
    Like I said earlier, I work for a non-profit organisation that 
does not have the money to be able to afford to upgrade our 
Microsoft products. The alternatives just aren't there, so we have 
to send money to microsoft that we would much rather use to teach 
children to read.
    I hope that Microsoft's file formats, networking standards, and 
OEM agreements are opened up so that there can be some competition. 
I would like to see the prices fall and able to use alternate 
products.
    Thank you for your time
    Andrew Bulmer

MTC-749



MTC-00000750

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 10:53am
Subject: RE: MS settlement
    Shame on the DOJ.
    Robert Lorenzini President
    Newport Harbor Net

MTC-750



MTC-00000751

From: John Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:15pm
Subject: An example must be set
    To whom it may concern:
    If the courts let Microsoft go with a slap on the wrist, 
Microsoft will feel free to continue with their antitrust practices. 
Indeed they are doing so even though a remedy has yet to be 
finalized. And why shouldn't they? The courts have yet to do 
anything to stand in their way, in my opinion.
    It has been said that Microsoft could just move out of the 
country. I say fine, it would be their undoing in my opinion. The US 
economy would not lose on this one. Eventually a US company would 
step up to take their place. But this new company would at least 
know the limits of what is acceptable.
    This has gone on far too long, please stop this injustice as 
soon as possible.
    Thanks.
    John Jones
    Cleveland, Ohio

MTC-751



MTC-00000752

From: Vance, Larry

[[Page 23798]]

To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/6/01 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust settlement
    I am a computer system administrator by profession and have been 
vexed by Microsofts methods of anti-competetive business practices. 
I do not feel that Microsoft has been held responsible for the 
damage that they have inflicted on the general computer industry and 
on the exhorbitant costs that have been incurred by our society. I 
feel that the Department of Justice has failed in their job to 
protect the citizens of the United States of America for non 
competitive practices from this corporation.
    Happy computing,
    Larry Vance
    303-267-9801 (work)
    303-324-4310 (mobile)
    [email protected]

MTC-752



MTC-00000753

From: bobh@ anarres.optimizations.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 10:54am
Subject: Comments on proposed Microsoft settlement.
    Dear Sirs,
    The proposed settlement is a travesty of justice. Microsoft was 
found guilty of violating their previous settlement agreements, 
behaving in a particularly un-competitive way, and through the whole 
trial has thumbed their noses at the law. No where in the settlement 
are they taken to task for their serious misbehavior_and it is 
serious, Microsoft is big enough to be a symbol, do we want other 
businesses to behave this badly? The settlement does little to 
affect Microsoft, and has few if any real remedies. At this point 
Microsoft should be on notice that ANY misbehavior will result in a 
swift and stern response.
    At the very least, ALL of Microsoft's existing and future data 
formats and the means to interoperate with them should be made 
public. It should not be up to Microsoft to pick and choose who 
their competition might be.
    Failure of a Microsoft service to work with another vendor's 
product_ because of that other vendor's id only (as in the 
recent MSN debacle) should be treated as a violation of the 
interoperability requirement. Microsoft is driven by greed. Greed is 
a dangerous thing to reward.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Bob [email protected]_(970) 
859-7481

MTC-753



MTC-00000754

From: david(u)s(u)02330
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:02am
Subject: Justice Department vs Microsoft
    Dear Representative,
    My two greatest concerns with the current Microsoft agreement 
are the punishment portion and the authority of the oversight panel.
    As far as I can tell, Microsoft is not being punished for it's 
years of illegal behavior that they've been convicted of, but rather 
have been put on probation. A panel of three probation officers (two 
of which will be chosen with Microsoft's influence) will monitor 
Microsoft's behavior. I fail to see any more punishment than that. I 
personally don't believe Microsoft will give complete and accurate 
information to it's competitors about how to efficiently interact 
with its operating system (especially if it offers competing 
products). I also don't believe they will stop trying to intimidate 
the hardware vendors. Perhaps they will be less blatant about it, 
but not stop.
    I believe that the most optimistic outcome of this settlement 
will be that Microsoft will walk a fine of aggressively working 
against the spirit of the settlement while simultaneously trying to 
meet the letter or the law (as Microsoft interprets it, which is 
interesting because I don't think that they believe Microsoft has 
done anything wrong).
    When (and not if) Microsoft breaks the law again, it is unclear 
to me what the above mentioned panel has the authority to do. Can 
they shut Microsoft down, levy fines, arrest executive officers, or 
is it back to court we go? My guess is that it's back to court. I 
say this with the believe that Microsoft will legally challenge any 
decision of the oversight panel. In general, why rush the settlement 
(which is not in Microsoft's interest) if it's only going to lead to 
more courtroom battles?
    regards,
    Dave Sheehan

MTC-754



MTC-00000755

From: massey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:02am
Subject: DOJ Settlement a sham
    The DOT settlement is a complete sham. Microsoft has, for many 
years, built a monopily and used it to squash inovation and 
competition in the computer software and hardware business. They 
have made BILLIONS by cheating competitors and stifeling software 
developement yet there will be no fines imposed_this is sad.
    Reading the settlement I, thou not a lawer but a programmer, can 
find many many ways to subvert it's provisions. The DOJ is supposed 
to protect the people from monopily control_not help a 
monopily continue unrestricted. Under this agreement the computer 
industry and consumers will be damaged even further.
    Jim Massey
    909 Wynstay Circle
    Valley Park, MO 63088

MTC-755



MTC-00000756

From: Howard Shane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:12am
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Sirs and Madams:
    I believe that by allowing Microsoft to go forth into the world 
without even being required to ship a version of Windows without 
Internet Explorer and other free tools designed to trample 
cometition amounts to little more than a slap on the wrist. It's 
obvious that they haven't learned their lesson. Example: bundling of 
a media player in Windows XP that directly competes with Real Player 
(tin) without even offering the individual a choice of programs to 
play files composed in Real's own format.
    The battle is over for Netscape, and I'm fearful that it's 
nearly over for the US consumer as well. I envision a world ten 
years from now where Microsoft controls all software used on 
computers and to access the internet, both from the server end and 
the users' as well. Soon there will be only three things certain in 
life: death, taxes and the annual Microsoft subscription agreement.
    Howard Shane

MTC-756



MTC-00000757

From: Michael Baird
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:05am
Subject: Sanctions
    This is ridiculous, I'm a Republican, I voted for Mr. Bush, I'm 
extremely unsatisfied with this, it's a total sellout. Microsoft 
gets a slap on the wrist (it's only obvious to look at the great 
campaigning they are doing to push this settlement). This does 
nothing to reign them in, and only further enhances the anti-
competitive market place to which the computer industry has been 
stagnated for years.
    Regards
    MIKE

MTC-757



MTC-00000758

From: Joe Henley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:21am
Subject: Please stop MS's anticompetitive actions
    I understand this site is for comments on the DOJ/MS antitrust 
action. Please do not proceed with your current settlement plans 
with Micro Soft. It appears you have given up your trial victory and 
are going to let them continue their anti competitive practices. I 
hope you will re-join the nine states who want MUCH stronger 
constraints placed on MS activities.
    I have been a MS user since the 1980's (yes, I'm that old). I 
have watched them push producers of complementary software out of 
business (eg., disk compression), watched them cripple competing 
software (eg., the competing DOS), watched them use the operating 
system monopoly to advantage their their middleware (eg., any office 
product _Lotus, Word Perfect, etc., etc.), and watched them 
get away with going around the US Court system's rulings against 
them (eg., the "browser ruling"). The impact of this 
that a significant aspect of this country's revolution in 
information processing is being controlled by one company. The power 
of competition is almost completely absent. This is NOT what we want 
for the future. We need many companies competing, especially the 
smaller ones. In the past, the successful smaller companies have 
been crushed by Micro Soft; the evidence is that they will continue 
to do so unless you act to stop them.
    PLEASE do not give in to Micro Soft as it appears you are doing. 
Please help this

[[Page 23799]]

country regain some competition in the operating system/middleware 
segment of the economy. PLEASE help stop MicroSoft's predatory, anti 
competitive behavior.
    Thanks for listening.
    Joe Henley

MTC-758



MTC-00000759

From: Curt Cox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:20am
Subject: Proposed restraint
    Greetings,
    In light of the previous findings of fact, that Microsoft is a 
monopoly, I would like to propose that all Microsoft dealings be 
readily available for public scrutiny. This should be a part of any 
settlement with Microsoft. More specifically, all contracts in 
effect between Microsoft and other companies should be a matter of 
public record_in both existence and precise details.
    This includes, but is not limited to, partnerships, joint 
ventures, acquisitions, and product sales. Furthermore, the 
contracts should be available on a Microsoft funded website overseen 
by the DOJ. The DOJ should ensure that the site is
_complete
_accurate
_well organized
_searchable
_continuously available
_responsive
_optionally downloadable as a single archive
    Sincerely,
    Curt Cox

MTC-759



MTC-00000760

From: Peter Apu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:19am
Subject: Miscarriage of justice
    To whom it may concern,
    In my humble opinion teh settlement represents a slap on the 
wrist to an unfair heavy handed monopolist. A clean break of the 
company into one devoted to operating systems (Win 95/98/ME/NT/2000/
pocketpc) and all other applications would have been the best but 
costliest solution. soon microsoft will bundle all applications into 
one "operating system The optimum one would have been a 
requirement that all APIs should be openly published, any API used 
by a microsoft application that is not openly published should 
warrant a minimum fine of $1000 X number of copies of application 
sold.
    my 1.5 cents

MTC-760



MTC-00000761

From: Don Oliver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:29am
Subject: You Rolled Over
    Dear Sirs/Madams:
    Your "settlement is simply a reward to Microsoft for 
decades of illegal monopolistic behavior.
    There is nothing to stop them from raising the price of their MS 
Office products to OEMs to force them to abandon any competitor 
product placements. Microsoft has proven by their deceitful 
testimony during the first trial (doctored videotapes, lies about 
their email message history, etc.) that they have no fear of the 
U.S. government.
    They were operating for several years under a consent decree 
before that, and they did not change their behavior one iota. This 
is a travesty of justice and serves to weaken our anti-trust laws. I 
urge you to reconsider the position of the nine states who oppose 
this settlement, and don't foist this Pyrrhic victory on the U.S. 
public.
    Don Oliver
    Independent Software Vendor
    Donny World, Inc. "We Deliver Community "(tin)
    279 East Central Street, Suite 140
    Franklin, MA 02038 www.donnyworld.com
    Voice: 508-384-4166 FAX: 
508-384-8683

MTC-761



MTC-00000762

From: Ericnewlon @cs.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I had an idea for a public service sentence for the case against 
Microsoft I wanted to share. They could develop software that could 
analyze baggage and package x-rays at airports to help screeners 
identity contents.
    Thank You for listening.
    Eric Newlon
    1419a\1/2\ E John
    Seattle, WA 98112
    Web site ericnewlon.comï¿½7EE-mail 
address ericnewlon @cs.com

MTC-762



MTC-00000763

From: John Mupi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:52pm
Subject: Microsoft should be taken down
    My comment on the Microsoft / DoJ settlement is that Microsoft 
should be taken down. They are too big of a monopoly and I think I 
will start using Linux exclusively.

MTC-763



MTC-00000764

From: Cody
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:52pm
Subject: Microsoft monopoly and its use of that monoply
    It has been shown how much dammage a monopoly can do when they 
spread into other adj cent markets. Many companies was forced out of 
business because of a direct result of how microsoft choises to do 
business. There are other reasons too. Microsoft goes into an open 
market, using its monopoly to gain a very large share, and closes 
the doors. Many of microsofts products are a direct resule of this. 
IE, Office (Word, Excel, Access, etc), Outlook, NT (NT/2000/xp) and 
many many more are only arround because of such leaverage that they 
can force onto computer manufactures, business, and home users. 
Microsoft, in the world of computers, is the only one, who does not 
play well with others. They have gotten a monopoly on the desktop 
market, they are forcing into server, console, web, ISP, and many 
other markets. Even when the government tells them not to ship a 
product by a cort of law, they still do. Many of there stTOS or 
software agreements are pushing the line of being tilleagle. They 
are pushing things onto everyone that no body wants. Things that 
purly exploit citizens.
    The current regulations that are proposed are far to little and 
far to late. This should have been done in 96, and conmpleted before 
98 came out. Bakc when there was still chouce of a desktop OS that 
played nice with each other.
    At the very least, MS should open all API and protocalls needed 
when talking to windows from a network. They also need to open all 
Windows API's so other competing developers on windows can compete. 
They also must make the defult settings use the least common 
denomator for compatibility.
    Thank you for you time,
    Cody Nelson

MTC-764



MTC-00000765

From: Henry Pierce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:51pm
Subject: Settlement
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft does not go far enough. 
It does not prevent Microsoft from continuing to intimidate small 
companies from producing products that are technically superior to 
Microsoft offerings, thus, preventing the public from seeing 
alternatives to Microsoft offerings. The web browser is only one 
specific issue. The license agreements to develope under Microsoft 
platforms effective take my freedom of self expression away by 
saying that I cannot publish my own source code developed under 
Microsoft. Also, current licensing restriction tell me I cannot use 
certain tools available that are "free".
    Again, the Web Browser is only one issue of how Microsoft 
continues to try to tell people how to do and live thier lives. The 
Settlement must be preventive of future action based on past action, 
not just settle past wrongs.

MTC-765



MTC-00000767

From: Michael Jennings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:54pm
Subject: Recommendations: DOJ vs. Microsoft.
    I've owned a computer dealership since before IBM sold personal 
computers. I'm also a programmer. Microsoft is extremely abusive and 
anti-competitive._ Microsoft is far, far more anti-competitive 
and abusive than the US DOJ vs. Microsoft antitrust case discusses. 
If the present case in resolved in an insufficient fashion, there 
will be a need for another case immediately. Secret file formats are 
anti-competitive._A good partial resolution of the case would 
be to prohibit Microsoft from using secret file formats. Then

[[Page 23800]]

there could be competition again. At present there cannot be 
competition because the software from the dominant company, 
Microsoft, produces file formats that cannot be reproduced because 
they are secret. So, another company cannot make software that 
reliably inter-operates. At present, if a big customer upgrades to a 
new version of Microsoft Office, and sends out files in a format 
incompatible with previous versions, all people who receive the 
files are forced to upgrade their Microsoft software. Companies 
understandably don't want to go to a good customer and ask that a 
document be sent again in a former file format. Microsoft produces 
software that is deliberately faulty._Windows 95, Windows 98, 
and Windows ME all have artificial limitations which cause them to 
crash even though there are plenty of hardware resources. These are 
called "User Resources" and "GDI Resources". 
The memory for these resources is artificially limited to 128,000 
bytes in some cases and 2 megabytes in other cases. When these 
resources are exhausted, the operating systems stop functioning. 
Microsoft deliberately allows piracy._Major competitors of 
Microsoft like Corel Word Perfect and IBM Lotus WordPro have 
difficulty competing because Microsoft allows enough piracy of 
Microsoft products that competitors cannot sell theirs. I called the 
Microsoft legal department and complained about this. The result was 
that I was a witness in a case against one of the pirates. More 
recently I tried to complain about this again, but it is now 
impossible to contact Microsoft's legal department.
    In my area Microsoft Office 2000 is available for $50.00 at 
dealers who sell low-cost computers. I have verified with Microsoft 
that these are pirated copies. Over a period of many years, 
Microsoft has not taken sufficient action against the pirates to 
allow a chance for honest competitors. Microsoft is ending 
support._Next month, December 2001, Microsoft will stop 
providing support for Windows 98, apparently in an attempt to force 
users to upgrade. Another good partial resolution of the DOJ-
Microsoft case would be to extend the support time for at least 
another 10 years. Many people have computers that operate fine for 
the purpose for which they are used. For example, an accounting 
department in a small company may use Windows 95, or even the DOS 
operating system. These people should not be forced to upgrade. 
These are only a few of the extremely anti-competitive and abusive 
methods Microsoft uses, in my opinion.
    Regards,
    Michael Jennings

MTC-767



MTC-00000768

From: Paul
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:53pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Hello,
    I'm composing this e-mail with the likelihood of someone 
actually reading it.
    I am a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer and like Microsoft 
software. Programming and networking are the things I enjoy. Thought 
I'd make some basic points. A monopoly that isn't regulated is not a 
good thing unless you have benevolent management. Microsoft has a 
monopoly on the workstation and home PC market. Microsoft has used 
the operating system monopoly to force other products on customers. 
Internet Explorer is a good example. Microsoft continues to abuse 
the operating system monopoly. XP is an example. The DOJ needs to be 
tougher on Microsoft, or any company that abuses monopoly. I've put 
a lot of thought into how Microsoft, DOT, customers, and rivals 
would be in a "win-win" situation. If someone is serious 
about listening to my suggestions, please contact me at 
816-651-4025.
    Take Care and God Bless.
    Paul Taylor
    [email protected]

MTC-768



MTC-00000769

From: Randy Hester
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement, No Punishment?
    So far all that has been discussed in the settlement is 
restrictions on future conduct. Where is the punishment for their 
past offenses? I thought they were actually convicted of misusing 
their monopoly power! A promise not to do it again does nothing to 
compensate for past behavior.
    Regards,
    Randy Hester

MTC-769



MTC-00000770

From: James Saville
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:55pm
Subject: Thank you
    For settling a case that was about competitors who are too inept 
to make it in the marketplace, not consumers. I believe Microsoft is 
a great company, and has been developing some fantastic products 
over the years. It's a shame our system punishes success, as we have 
choices in computing, and have for some time. If Microsoft's 
competitors spent more time building great products, and less time 
whining, people would buy them. Thanks for not wasting more of our 
taxpayer dollars on a case that doesn't really mean anything. I 
choose to use their products_I have the skills to run Linux, 
Solaris, or any other operating system and application 
set_their stuff is just the better product, and worth the 
money. Perhaps folks will realize that many of 'consumers' 
don't use their products because we are forced to, but because we 
want to.
    James Saville

MTC-770



MTC-00000771

From: Rex N. Clarke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Proceedings
    If all the government attorneys do their job just right then 
Japan can take over the lead in software just as they did in the 
electronics industry. But, that isn't all bad I guess, they could 
use some of their American defense arena acquisitions to siphon off 
a small percentage of their profits. Good job guys, well done!
    Rex Clarke

MTC-771



MTC-00000772

From: Patrick Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    After reading many of the clauses that were agreed on with the 
subject settlement it is clear that the Department of Justice has 
relinquished its role as an enforcement agency for carrying through 
with Anti-Trust proceedings. This so-called settlement was so lax in 
its penalty actions towards Microsoft that its even debatable 
whether Microsoft actually comes out of these proceedings even 
stronger than before. Several of the 'restrictions" placed on 
Microsoft were merely just cleverly weasel-worded constraints that 
does nothing to stop them from using similar avenues as in the past 
to continue to restrict innovation and brow-beat remarketers. Not 
only should Microsoft had to pay a large penalty for its anti-
competitive practices (in the billions of dollars) they also should 
have been made to break up their company into two separate business 
units (one Operating System, One Applications), at a minimum. As a 
fiscal-conservative, I'm embarrassed by what seems to be a complete 
and total cave-in by Justice, bordering on dirilection of duty.
    Best Regards,
    Pat

MTC-772



MTC-00000773

From: larzgold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After reading as many articles about the settlement I am still 
wondering what the goverment won on this. Microsoft has to tell 
everyone the API to windows except when it is a security issue. 
Which is undefined. They are not penalized for anything past wrong 
doings, and are not forced to support older applications. Hence they 
can come out with office xp2 and say hey are no longer fixing bugs/
updates in the previous version, and basically have income for life. 
I am not anti-microsoft, in fact I am a shareholder, a developer of 
MS applications and write articles on how to convert Perl base 
applications to MS ASP/COM. But my fear lies with the fact the 
microsoft needs competition to better itself, and to give users a 
better choice. Forcing me to buy OfficeXP upgrade now, or pay a 
higher price later, well now I am moving to Star Office. Don't car 
companies have to support a car for so many years after making them, 
and can have recalls etc. Software may not kill anyone like a car 
might, but companies can go broke with the licensing they are 
enforced on them. The best letter explaining what is wrong is the 
Ralph Nader letter. Personally I would like to see a fund setup for 
open source/competitor software funded for the next 10 years, and

[[Page 23801]]

also for them to have to open source any software they stop 
supporting. For example, when win95 is no longer supported an users 
have to upgrade, make the code open. This will allow computer 
companies, and hardware companies to continue to support the product 
after msft gives up support.
    I hope you re-evaluate the decision very carefully.
    [email protected]

MTC-773



MTC-00000774

From: Bob Garvey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:58pm
Subject: opinion
    I called Gateway computers yesterday to get a quote on a new PC. 
Once the price was established I asked how much it would be without 
an operating system. They answered that there is no difference in 
price. This is a monopolistic market.
    I hear often, in the press, and in discussion that Microsoft is 
an innovative company. Microsoft brings forward that argument often. 
Check the facts: Window -> Xerox, Mouse -> Xerox, SQL Server -
> Sybase, FoxPro -> bought, VisualBasic -> bought.
    The windows operating system is intergrated: by any standard 
except anti-competitive / market driven that is not the best design.
    Please put the arrogance of Microsoft in check. They are 10 
steps ahead of the DOJ and gaining.
    Bob Garvey
    816-914-3295

MTC-774



MTC-00000775

From: Lany Seltzer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:06pm
Subject: it could have been worse
    I have disapproved of the case against Microsoft from the 
beginning, and would prefer that it be dropped completely. But as 
the settlement agreement eliminates the most stupid provisions of 
the original judgment, I urge its adoption so that the industry and 
the nation can move on and put this ridiculous episode behind us.
    Larry Seltzer
    127 Parker Ave
    Maplewood, NJ 07040
    (973)378-8728

MTC-775



MTC-00000776

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:00pm
Subject: Allowing Microsoft to Continue Business as Usual Will 
Weaken What Humanity Can Be
    I don't have forty-billion dollars and an army of lawyers to 
push my case, but I think that reasoning and sheer logic has a 
chance this time around. Microsoft it a monopoly. It clearly is. 
There is no doubting that Microsoft is a monopoly. If you look past 
the the technical law jargon and the army of lawyers, you can see 
this clearly. When the US initially set up anti-trust laws, they had 
companies like Microsoft in mind. They would not let Microsoft go or 
even let the case be dragged on for a decade. The fact that the case 
has been dragged on for a decade is yet another obvious peice of 
evidence that proves Microsoft is a monopoly. Now, what has 
Microsoft done for the world? They have made tens of billions of 
dollars for themselves, almost none of which goes into making an 
error/bug free operating system. It isn't that hard, really, to make 
an error free operating system. All you have to do is know what you 
are doing, take all cases into consideration, and implement the 
fail-safe devices in the program. So why does Microsoft still have 
bugs in their software? It is because it is good for their business. 
They take no account of how much humanity could benefit from 
trouble-free computing, because trouble-free computing isn't good 
for business. If the open source developers had forty-billion 
dollars to spend on equipment and employees, the US would accelerate 
into another greater information age. This information age would be 
free, everybody could afford a computer, and everybody would know 
how to use a computer. The current reason why so many people cannot 
afford a computer is because of Microsoft. They provide 500 dollar 
operating systems that a free Linux system could send straight to 
hell in any stability test. Half of the cost of Microsoft's products 
are marketing costs, which Linux does not need. Open source 
developers do not have to market, because their products sell (if 
that is the right word) themselves. Condemning Microsoft would 
benefit mankind.

MTC-776



MTC-00000777

From: Joseph L. Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:00pm
Subject: Unsatisfactory MicroSoft Anti-Trust Settlement
    To whom it may concern;
    Sirs, I feel very strongly that the current settlement of the 
MicroSoft Anti-Trust case is insufficient and deeply flawed. 
MicroSoft has been found guilt of being a predatory monopoly, and of 
repeated abusing its overwhelming market position to bankrupt its 
competitors and strong-arm PC retailers into restrictive and 
monopoly-power-enhancing licensure 'agreements'.
    The primary complaint against MicroSoft is not the content of 
its software_though a case probably could be made of 
such_but rather its flagrant disregard for the law and 
blatantly abusive marketing practices.
    As an example of MicroSofts disregard for the law, you need look 
no further than their most recently released 'Operating System' 
(OS)Windows XP. Even in the midst of being prosecuted (and after a 
judgement against them) for predatoy marketing practices in the form 
of software bundling (a la Windows 98 and MicroSoft Internet 
Explorer) they have developed and RUSHED TO MARKET an operating 
system which offers only a very incremental improvent in 
performance_but instead is BUNDLED with far more software. 
Microsoft might argue that the Software is an intrensicly useful 
part of the OS; of course, that argument has previously been ruled 
against in court. MicroSoft might argue that some of the newly 
integrated software may be Opted-Out of; and of course everyone 
surly realizes that opt-out services have been examined in court and 
found to be far less desirable than Opt-In choices.
    The penalties imposed upon MicroSoft are virtually meaningless; 
MicroSoft has been so wildly profitable as to make W. Gates 
fantastically wealthy_some US$ 56 Billion or more if memory 
serves. Any fine levied will be an insignifigant fraction of MicroS 
ofts assets; any program(s) whose source must be opened to public 
scrutiny will be similarly insignifigant_MicroSoft could 
simply release a 'new' piece of software and use its market abuses 
to make it the new de facto standard. A 'More Of The Same' solution 
will NOT be effective. Quite simply, MicroSoft MUST be split into at 
least two mutually exclusive sections; an Operating Systems section 
and an Applications Software section.
    Please note that MicroSoft is a 'Vertically Integrated' 
monopoly_ much like Standard Oil was; it controls not only the 
production of a resource (computing power made available through the 
operating system, similar to Standard Oils control of oil production 
through ownership of refineries) but uses this control to select who 
can compete to retail it (the companies who write application 
software to must face unfair pricing when they attempt to compete 
with MicroSofts own products, much like the Gasoline retailers 
attempting to make a profit against Standard Oils retailers, while 
being in the unenviable position of having to buy their gaoline from 
Standard Oils refineries). It is the continual abuse of this 
'Vertically Integrated' structure which has lead to MicroSoft being 
found GUILTY of being a Predatory Monopoly; and so any lasting 
solution MUST address this issue. Any failure to split MicroSofts 
Operating System away from MicroSofts Application Software will 
forever fall badly short of preventing future abuses.
    I sincerely hope that no settlement LESS than the splitting off 
of the Operating System Unit will be reached; thank you for your 
consideration in this matter.
    Joseph L. Brown

MTC-777



MTC-00000778

From: Adam Loutzenhiser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:59pm
Subject: Microsoft is a shameless monopoly
    Hash: SHAl
    Microsoft should have no right to exist under current law 
because of their anticompetitive practices. Although there are many 
examples of Microsoft's stealing intellectual property from other 
companies and individuals, such as their TCP/IP stack, one practice 
stands out in my mind: Microsoft prevents computer manufacturers 
from allowing a computer with a Microsoft operating system from 
alternatively booting into a non-Microsoft operating system. This is 
quintessentially anti-competitive, because it effectively prevents 
other operating systems than Windows from getting mass market 
exposure. Most computer users use whatever software is packaged with 
their

[[Page 23802]]

systems usually because it's beyond their ability to install other 
software. This is especially true of operating systems. Although an 
operating system such as Linux, for example, can be just as user-
friendly or even more user-friendly depending on the end user, the 
installation process often requires technical knowledge that most 
users don't have. Although there exist computer shops that will 
install operating systems, most users, not being able to justify 
spending money for an extra operating system, simply use what is 
packaged with their computer.
    Because of the preexisting popularity of Microsoft operating 
systems, computer manufacturer's can't simply not install a 
Microsoft operating system. The simple act of installing a Microsoft 
operating system prevents them from installing a non-Microsoft 
operating system on that computer for the customer because of 
contracts computer manufacturers must sign before they may install 
any Microsoft operating system. If it weren't for these anti-
competitive contracts, most computer manufacturers would probably 
install a Linux-based operating system in addition to a Microsoft 
operating system, giving end users exposure to alternative operating 
systems. Without the anti-competition contracts, end users would 
have a choice which operating system they use, instead of being 
forced to use Microsoft's products. Recently, a memo has been 
"leaked" by Microsoft, naming Linux as "THE" 
competition. Therein it was stressed that Linux has a very good 
chance of displacing Microsoft in both the server and desktop 
markets. However, nothing could be farther from the truth, because 
Microsoft has created anti-competition contracts with computer 
manufacturers. In fact, the memo itself is dubious, because 
Microsoft's goal would be to prove that it indeed has competition in 
order to insure it's survival as a monopoly. Whereas a memo such as 
that can be easily fabricated and "leaked," as Microsoft 
would have us believe it was, anti-competition contracts are 
undeniable. When the two tell different stories, it is logical to 
trust that the factual and undeniable anti-competition contracts 
tell a better story of where Microsoft sits as a shameless monopoly.
    Adam Loutzenhiser, loutzena @ student.gvsu.edu, http://
velex.Ocatch.coml
    AIM: v313x, Yahoo: v313x
    "Everyone falls the first time. If you never know failure, 
how can you know success?"
    _ Morpheus, The Matrix

MTC-778



MTC-00000780

From: J. Greg Davidson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft is flouting the law and undermining the economy
    After finding Microsoft guilty of systematic damaging 
monopolistic behavior they are getting only a tiny slap on the 
wrist. What is their response? Leveraging their monopoly to expand 
into the computer gaming market (never mind that their software 
makes writing games harder and will slow the expansion of that 
industry), network services (recently MSN turned off support for 
non-microsoft browsers and then turned it back on in response to 
complaints, sending fear into anyone using a non-microsoft browser), 
a virtual machine named .net designed to undermine Java (and they 
just shipped an old out of date Java with Windows XP so that Java 
would look bad), and on and on. Their arrogance is hard to believe, 
one must look again and again. What is the effect of this flagrant 
violation of the law and of the findings of the Justice department? 
How can we expect any business to obey our laws? How can we expect 
innovation to keep coming out of small companies when the markets 
and patents are increasingly locked up and an anacronistic monopoly 
makes all the rules? What is the moral effect of the massive 
political contributions from Microsoft just before this sudden 
softening of law enforcement?
    Please do your duty and break up any and all companies found to 
have become damaging monopolies. It will actually be good for their 
shareholders, as the smaller more focused pieces will get new life 
in a more competitive market. Capitalism is like a garden, a bit of 
pruning keeps it healthy.
    J. Greg Davidson
    [email protected]

MTC-780



MTC-00000781

From: ron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:08pm
Subject: Crime
    The settlement is a joke!!!
    You need to fix this problem, MS should be broken up.

MTC-781



MTC-00000782

From: John Langford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:15pm
Subject: Settlement comments
    I find it very strange when an entity is convicted of 
multibillion dollar crimes and then suffers no punitive damages. The 
terms of the settlement seem to be about equivalent to banning a 
bank robber from entering a bank by the left front door because that 
is how he robbed the bank last. I would like to see:
    1) Code of conduct remedies without the serious loopholes of the 
current system. It is not a serious remedy if Microsoft can 
determine who gains access to the source code. It is not a serious 
remedy if Microsoft can avoid revealing "authentication 
protocols". They will simply make every protocol involve some 
amount of authentication.
    2) Damages. In fact, punitive damages. Breaking the law, 
especially breaking the law to get several billion dollars should be 
bad. It sends a very poor message if this does not happen.
    John

MTC-782



MTC-00000783

From: Joshua Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:14pm
Subject: Sell-out to Corporate Interests
    Please add these comments to whatever official record you may be 
keeping of responses to the Microsoft settlement: Microsoft lied 
every step of the way in its trial, and now you expect people to 
believe that these same executives in Microsoft can be trusted to 
stop anti-competitive practices with only minimal sanctions. So 
typical of a Republican administration_selling out to 
corporate interests. This was a Reagan appointee who decided the 
company needed split up, so it's not as though Microsoft hadn't 
already been given every benefit of the doubt from the start. David 
Boies and his team proved in court that Microsoft practiced 
dangerous and malicious anticompetitive behavior, and the Justice 
Department under President Bush and John Ashcroft has suddenly 
forgotten that. Reagan bailed out IBM, and now Bush has bailed out 
Microsoft. Justice does not hinge on securing the best interests of 
corporate America at the expense of all else, and the administration 
and the DOJ in particular would do well to remember that.
    Disappointed,
    Joshua Brown
    336 Sleepy Hollow Rd.
    Smithfield, PA 15478-1242
    (724) 564-4964
    [email protected]

MTC-783



MTC-00000784

From: internic @ speakeasy.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:13pm
Subject: Insufficiency of Remedies in the Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the settlement that has been made in the 
Microsoft case is both an insufficient remedy of past wrongs and 
will be an abismal failure as an attempt to stem future wrong 
doings. The primary problem is that as a result of their anti-
competive business practiced, Microsoft now enjoys a strangle hold 
on the operating system web browser markets as well as the large and 
growing influence of their media player and other software. The 
settlement seems geared to setup rules for oversight over future 
business practices, but lacks any punitive portion for past acts, 
which must be included to disuade Microsoft, and other corperate 
giants, form using similar methods in the future. More over, without 
reversing or negating some of these ill gotten gains, it is 
inevitable that Microsoft will only grow in prominance and contol 
over the marketplace. This situation is bad for consumers and for 
innovation. I strongly urge you to review the comments of Ralph 
Nader, in his recent open letter on the subject, for a more detailed 
and insightful evaluation of the situation, and I hope that you will 
instead seek a stronger and more effective remedy in the Microsoft 
case than the current settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Nick Cumming

MTC-784



MTC-00000785

From: John F. Sowa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:23pm
Subject: Need for tougher penalties

[[Page 23803]]

    I have been working in the computer field for nearly 40 years. I 
am retired now, but I am amazed at the complete absence of any 
serious penalties against Microsoft.
    IBM and the DOJ signed much tougher consent decrees, which were 
in force for many years, even though IBM was never convicted of 
anything.
    Microsoft has been found guilty of illegally extending their 
monopoly, and the conviction was unanimously upheld by the Court of 
Appeals. The "interim relief" levied by Judge Jackson 
was far tougher than the final remedy agreed to by the DOJ.
    But the proposed settlement includes no penalties at all. The 
most it does is to compel Microsoft to obey the laws that they have 
been brazenly violating at every opportunity. I can understand that 
breaking up Microsoft might be difficult to carry out, but such a 
penalty was enforced against AT&T when it was a far large 
monopoly.
    Recommendation:
    1. Impose Judge Jackson's "interim remedies" 
immediately.
    2. The DOJ should negotiate further penalties while the interim 
remedies are in force.
    3. As a minimum penalty, Microsoft should be forced to pay the 
full legal costs of the DOJ and the states that have joined with the 
DOJ.
    The DOJ is a lot bigger and a lot more powerfule than Microsoft. 
They should take off the kid gloves and tell Microsoft that it is 
time to negotiate seriously.
    Sincerely,
    John F. Sowa
    An American voter and taxpayer
    Web site: http://www.jfsowa.com

MTC-785



MTC-00000786

From: Sinan Karasu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:21pm
Subject: Bad Settlement
    Bad for consumers, bad for future of civil rights and bad for 
the future of American businesses all around the world.
    This will lead to crippling of business in America in 
conjunction with SSSCA,DMCA. And eventually the rest of the world 
will give America the finger and take away the leadership that this 
country acquired thru cultural imperialism. Oh well. In 5 years you 
will wake up to this, when it is too late, but at least you will be 
able to experience despair.
    Sinan Karasu
    Soory for the terseness, but I really don't think you people 
deserve anymore consideration, considering...

MTC-786



MTC-00000787

From: David A. Cornelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:17pm
Subject: Poor Judgement
    Dear DOJ,
    I've been in the IT industry for 16 years, 10 as a consultant, 5 
as an independent. For the past 5 years I have used almost entirely 
Microsoft tools and overall have used Microsoft software since I got 
into this business.
    I'm about to shoot myself in the foot.
    Theres a chain of events that's been entirely whitewashed it 
seems. In the mid 1990's, Netscape was born and so was the first 
commercial web browser. In short order Microsoft created Ineternet 
Explorer, challenging a dominant Netscape product with a vastly 
inferior version 3 of IE. In a very short period of time though, 
Microsoft released not only IE 4, but it also released client/server 
development tools that worked strictly with IE 4. Microsoft had very 
strong relationships with Fortune 500 corporations that were already 
running Windows and so passing on these tools was a free ticket to 
stealing the browser market from Netscape or anyone else. With those 
built-in relationships and the strong-arm tactics used with both 
vendors and competitors, Microsoft used it's monopoly to literally 
wipe out a competitor in a matter of months. IE became the dominant 
web browser in less than 18 months from its first release. No other 
company on earth could have turned the tables so quickly on an 
industry.
    They claim to build a better product and this is true. But if 
you have Fortune 500 America testing your software (pre-release was 
something Microsoft used to speed poorly tested software to market), 
it's a sure bet things will shape up quickly. Netscape had no such 
inroads into corporate America. All they had was a popular product 
that could be downloaded for free.
    Anyway_the rest is history. Netscape browsers have about 
5% of the market now and IE has about 90%. This game is over. So now 
we have Windows Media Player vs. Real Audio and QuickTime. It's 
almost ridiculous that the DOJ is ignoring this as another slam 
dunk. Using the same Fortune 500 foothold, Windows Media Player 
will, in less than 12 months, become the dominant media software. 
Real Media will likely go bankrupt (or get sucked into AOL) and have 
the DOJ to thank. We also have MS Messenger. This might be a battle 
for a little while because AOL has such a large share of the home 
market, but with XP now shipping with it built in, AOL users are 
going to flock to a more easily accessed ISP (MSN) and 
... another slam dunk.

    What's next? This will continue to happen to any software that 
becomes vastly successful in the vertical markets that runs on 
Windows. If I create some cool new thing that runs on Windows and I 
refuse to sell out to Mr. Gates, they'll just build their own and 
squash me like a bug. How? Because they can tie it to Windows. Why 
would someone purchase and/or download any software if it's already 
built into Windows? Go figure.
    Microsoft can go on, but in my mind the original Netscape 
shareholders from before the AOL bailout should get a billion 
dollars and so should Sun for the Java fiasco. For any competing 
product that gets tied to Windows, all competitors should receive a 
direct payment. So Real Audio and Apple (QuickTime) should recieve a 
cut as well.
    If you're going to allow Microsoft to tie secondary software to 
Windows, then you should force them to compensate their competitors 
or force them to allow OEM's to install whichever competing software 
they so choose. In fact, I would give the OEM's an open license to 
modify Windows in any way they see fit as long as it doesn't effect 
security and reliability.
    To do otherwise not only harms consumers, but likely will be 
seen as Microsoft having the government in their back pocket. You 
might as well give a seat at the table to Bill Gates.
    David Cornelson
    Geneva, IL
    [email protected]
MTC-787



MTC-00000788

From: Steven Edwards
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:16pm
Subject: Microsofts OEM Restrictions
    To Whom is may concern,
    I am part of a poject to build a operation system called ReactOS 
that aims to be a 100% replacement for Mircosoft Windows. I will 
100% in support of this settlement only if two issues are addressed.
    1. Our project is GPL/Open Source and not for profit. You must 
insure we have access to the needed API's/Code to be able to run 
Microsoft applications and drivers, even though we are non-for-
profit.
    2. Microsoft should not be allowed to restict how the OEM's 
package our Operating System with a new computer. If a customer 
wants to run both Operating Systems, then Microsoft should not be 
able to limit the customers right to chose. This would be like me 
owning a Ford car and Ford telling me my right to use the car would 
be taken if I used GM parts.
    Thanks for your time
    Steven Edwards

MTC-788



MTC-00000789

From: Jim Ward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:26pm
Subject: What a joke of a "Settlement"
    Microsoft is found by the courts to be a monopoly that abused 
it's power. Nothing in the settlement will prevent them from 
continuing this anti-competive behavior. It is more full of loop 
holes than the now famous slap on the wrist "no bundle on top 
of DOS" settlement. The loophole on that one was Win95 did not 
have DOS in it. What a lie, you couldn't even get by such an obvious 
lie to close this loophole. Well you guys have out down yourselfs on 
this settlement. This baby has even more loopholes.
    When Netscape had 80% market share they forced Dell to not ship 
with Netscape. What is even more outrageous is they forced Dell to 
have the employees not use Netscape. When IBM had a better OS as in 
OS/2 they withheld Windows 95 licenses to punish them. They provided 
false testimony in court and doctored a video to show what they 
wanted instead of the truth. They have and continue to stifle true 
innovation. So what do you do about it REWARD THEM.
    I sincerely hope the Judge and the States prevail and show how 
you sold out the whole high tech industry and all of the consumers 
you are forced to pay high prices for an inferior product.

MTC-789

[[Page 23804]]



MTC-00000790

From: Ted Eselgroth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Decision ...
    You've heard all the arguments on the anti-Microsoft side, so I 
won't repeat them. Just put me down in the "you screwed up 
really, really big" column. *sigh*
    Ted Eseigroth
    Webmaster; Glen Ellyn Web Site
    Chairman; Glen Ellyn Technology Advisory Commission
    Board Member; Glen Ellyn Economic Development Corporation
    Member; Glen Ellyn Chamber of Commerce
    Adjunct Professor, Computer Training; College of DuPage
    630/469-7058
    [email protected]
    http://eselgroth.com

MTC-790



MTC-00000791

From: Toby (038) Toni Meehan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:25pm
Subject: settlement promotes Microsoft technology and products
    I don't understand how this settlement will punish Microsoft 
(MS). It simply institutionalizes their existing monopoly by 
encouraging:
_developers to learn, use, and license MS technologies through 
"disclosure of middleware interfaces", "disclosure 
of server protocols", and "licensing of intellectual 
property"
_computer manufacturers to bundle MS products as the 
"ban on exclusive agreements", "ban on 
retaliation", and "uniform licensing terms" will 
drive down their costs related to MS product procurement
_competitors to avoid directly competing with the MS monopoly 
because every developer and computer manufacturer is promoting, 
selling, and supporting only MS products (particularly when they're 
less expensive and more pervasive than ever before thanks to this 
proposed settlement)
    These punishments come too late to be effective now that 
Microsoft is a monopoly. Alternatives will not flourish through 
competition as consumers will receive MS products at lower prices, 
in more tailored offerings from computer manufacturers, and with 
more inexpensive applications to boot. If you want to punish MS, hit 
them where it hurts_the bottom line. Have them cover the cost 
of the court case and on-site enforcement (to serve the public 
good_taxpayers), plus some large annual sum of cash ($50 
million per year sounds good) for the next five years (to fund 
organizations in the public good, like academic computer science 
programs to improve the professionals MS competitors need, non-
profit organizations like Debian to offer some immediate 
competition, and standard making bodies like the JETF, W3C, ICANN, 
and IEEE that can break the MS hold on defacto standards) with on-
site enforcement of all the existing "punishments". If 
after 5 years, they still commit the same crimes as a monopoly, the 
annual payments continue until the behavior stops.
    With a serious financial punishment like this added to those 
proposed, MS prices will go up, allowing for more competition. 
That's how you create competition for a monopoly_with 
economics. It also gives MS a solid business case to change its 
behavior_one of the few things they seem to understand.
    I hope I articulated this well as society, consumers, and 
government deserve better.
    CC: Russ Kenny, Mark Pinkerton

MTC-791



MTC-00000792

From: Michael Westbay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:24pm
Subject: Against Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am very much against the currently proposed settlement between 
the DOJ and Microsoft. There is nothing in the settlement that 
Microsoft can't get around when it comes to not disclosing 
information to the only competition that MS hasn't been able to beat 
down, the Open Source community. I used to develop software for the 
Microsoft platform. When installing service packs and other 
Microsoft products like MS Office started causing serious problems 
with other software packages from third party vendors (Borland and 
Netscape in particular) that I used, I began becoming less and less 
enthusiastic about using Microsoft. And I was one of the biggest 
promoters of the MS platform in our company before that. I got so 
fed up with Microsoft in 1998 that I reformatted my notebook 
computer and installed FreeBSD (a free UNIX-like operating system) 
and haven't used MS on that machine ever since. When I bought a new 
computer two years ago, the preinstalled version of MS Windows 
didn't last five minutes before being reformatted over. Between 1998 
and 2000, I slowly got my work assignments changed over to where I 
could work in a platform independant environment (thanks to Java), 
and on January 5, 2000, I reformatted the last Microsoft partition 
that I was using.
    However, because I do work as a software developer, it is 
important that I interoperate with Microsoft users. The settlement, 
as it stands, looks to allow Microsoft to completely exclude Open 
Source projects like SAMBA from interacting with Microsoft operating 
systems based on bogus "security" concerns or simply by 
disagreeing with the Open Source "business" model.
    Take a look at this section:
    J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
    1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third 
parties:
    (a) portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of 
Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise 
the security of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital 
rights management, encryption or authentication systems, including 
without limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement 
criteria; or
    (b) any API, interface or other information related to any 
Microsoft product if lawfully directed not to do so by a 
governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.
    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, 
authenticationJauthorization 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.
    I mentioned that SAMBA is important for other operating systems 
to communicate with Microsoft based systems. SAMBA is an open source 
project that primarily allows MS and non-MS operating systems to 
share files and printers on a network. Given J-1-a 
above, it would not be hard to imagine Microsoft claim and/or modify 
their communications protocols to contain some sort of 
"security" information, thus making those communication 
protocols except from disclosure. If Microsoft didn't have a record 
of underhanded tricks to exclude competition, then I could believe 
that this little loophole wouldn't make much of a difference, 
however, I've witnessed them break Netscape's TCP/IP (a 
communication protocol) with a version of MS Office which shouldn't 
have had anything to do with network communication (at that time), 
so I wouldn't put this past them.
    Furthermore, J-2-b and c "protect" 
Microsoft from revealing any API documentation to anybody based on 
their "business need" and the "viability of its 
business." Open Source software is FREE! It has less to do 
with "business" and more to do with providing a solution 
to a problem. The Open Source community is essentially a group of 
volunteers who help one another get a job done. Even though its 
members tend to be distance geographicly, it's more of a 
"community" than many small towns are these days. And 
Microsoft has stated time and again that this is their next target 
for enialiation, as they've killed off so many other branches of the 
software market in the past.
    The above two and several other provisions (such as not 
guaranteeing non-reprisals from Microsoft against OEMs that do NOT 
ship computers with a MS operating system) of the current agreement 
do nothing to protect Open Source, which is more and more becoming 
the only hope to compete against Microsoft's monoploy.

[[Page 23805]]

    The proposal, as it stands, is unacceptable.
    Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
    Michael Westbay
    Work: Beacon-IT http://www.beacon_it.co.jp/
    Home: http:/fwww .seaple.icc.ne.jp/?westbay
    Commentary: http://www.japanesebaseball.comlforum/
MTC-792



MTC-00000793

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:27pm
Subject: microsoft anti-trust settlement
    I want to state that i think Microsoft is a fine company. but 
there software is pushie. for instance, I subscribe to aol. but i 
just received a msn disc in the mail. it gave me 3 month free. I 
thought i would like to see what it was like. if i liked it, i might 
consider using msn for my net. once i installed it, it knocked out 
my connection to aol. i could not access aol. i think thats wrong, 
and besides they hurt themselves. once I saw I could not access aol, 
which i am paying for. I uninstalled msn without even trying it. I 
think they hurt themselves by being pushie. and I dont believe that 
it should be the only operating system available to the consumer. 
and concerning windowsxp I understand that you need to call 
microsoft for a access to reinstall the program.I think this is 
terrible, once a person buys the program it become the purchaser 
property and the person who owns it should have the right install it 
as many times as they want to, without having to call microsoft. I 
think thats real arrogance and dishonest. I might add I wont be a 
purchaser of xp. again I want to state that microsoft is a good 
company, but we are dealing with their faults and the ways to make 
it better for the consumer, and not microsoft. please do not lose 
sight of this.

MTC-793



MTC-00000794

From: Catherine Valiant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:27pm
Subject: Settiment with Microsoft
    Dear DOJ,
    I was very saddened to see you cave in on the MS case. You were 
up and took a dive. Shame. It really makes me lose faith in the 
government: one of the few legitimate and necessary roles of a free-
market government is to prevent monopolies, no?
    Regretfully,
    Cat

MTC-794



MTC-00000795

From: Chris Gonyea
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom This May Concern:
    After reading the terms of the settlement that the DoJ and 
Micrsooft came to terms with, I can't help but feel disgusted by it. 
This does nothing to Microsoft to curb its anti-competitive 
practices. Nothing is done to punish Microsoft for its past 
behaviors. Time and time again, Microsoft has stopped its 
competition from offering viable products. It has a near monopoly in 
Operating Systems, Internet Web Browsers, and Office Suite products. 
Whenever a company offers a product that could protential compete 
with Microsoft, Microsoft agressively attacks the company until it 
is destroyed.
    If a settlement must be made with Microsoft, then a different 
one has to be drafted. This current settlement is nothing more than 
a slap on the wrist. Believe me, 5 years from now, Microsoft will be 
as strong as ever if this settlement is implemented.
    Please reconsider this settlement and impose stronger 
restrictions.
    Chris Gonyea

MTC-795



MTC-00000796

From: dick@ softplc.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:29pm
Subject: How did this come about
    I have owned a private software company for 20 years and have 
watched Microsoft closer than most anybody else. Judge Jackson saw 
all the evidence. He was best positioned to offer a penalty. 
Everything that happened since his final ruling is very unfortunate 
for the software industry. Microsoft must be stopped while there is 
still a software industry. But now I fear it is too late I am very 
disappointed in this settlement.
    Dick Hollenbeck
    President, SoftPLC Corporation
    SoftPLC, Open Architecture Control Software
    [email protected]
    Ph: 512/264-8390
    Fx: 512/264-8399
    http://www.softplc.com
    I want to be what I was, when I wanted to be what I am now.

MTC-796



MTC-00000797

From: Joel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft is bad for the system
    I can not speak for everyone but Microsoft is dangerous for the 
entire US and the world, stifling innovation and technologies that 
should exist today. By stifling or putting competition out business 
Microsoft has prevented the United States from a huge amounts of 
revenues. The Internet was built on cross-platformabilities and has 
become "Windows-centric". The issue of "Smart 
tag" technology that Microsoft has will envoke copyright 
infringement.
    Privacy issues are a huge concern today and Microsoft is one 
company that has a horrible track record for handling these types of 
data. With their Hailstorm initiative they are gathering data to do 
knows what with and most people are not aware of Microsoft's 
intentions. Please do us the consumers a favor and come down hard on 
Microsoft, they are not benefitting anyone but themselves.
    thank you,
    Joel Philips

MTC-797



MTC-00000798

From: Mark Josephs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:19am
Subject: Comment on Proposed Agreement
    I think the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case is a 
direct reward to Microsoft for breaking the law. As in many cases in 
common law, this case has its special considerations. However, the 
public is served when there is dynamic competition in all areas of 
industry. The settlement does little or nothing to restore the basic 
fair business practices needed to stimulate and sustain a robust 
technical development community in the United States.
    Microsoft was found guilty of breaking the law to further its 
monopoly and crush any competition. Microsoft as a criminal 
enterprise is not being punished. Criminals do not change their 
behavior unless they are punished. Microsoft has gained great 
economic and political power by breaking the law and now appears to 
be using this economic and political power to escape any punishment 
for its crimes. Please reconsider this settlement. Please consider 
the economic and political power bargains that are implied by this 
settlement. Criminal enterprises should be punished, please consider 
adding appropriate punishments to the settlement.
    Thanks for your time,
    Joseph J. Simpson
    6400 32nd AVe. NW #9
    Seattle, WA 98107
    206-781-7089

MTC-798



MTC-00000799

From: Gregory J. Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:17am
Subject: Re: settlement
    I'm quite displeased that my government has decided to let 
Microsoft off the hook when they have been declared a monopoly. The 
terms of this settlement does little to prevent Microsoft from 
continuing their monopolistic practices and does nothing to punish 
them from their past regressions. Microsoft has proved it's self a 
fierce competitor and will stop at nothing to own what ever market 
it wishes to own. It will try and try again destroying it's 
competitors or at the last resort buying them out. At work I use a 
MS operating system, MS Office, we have MS servers and I use a MS 
web browser. Forget about using an "alternative" web 
browser, my IT department forbids it because it would be 
incompatible. MS marketing at work!
    Now they want to control my personal information with their .NET 
initiative. They say it's because that is what people what and they 
are just trying to give us what we want. The real reason is because 
MS wants to own a potential market and keep the rewards for 
themselves. They have shown that they have no interest in security 
or doing anything of interest to the user. They don't make changes 
until they are forced to and then they are often do a poor job or 
steal from other companies. I certainly do not trust Microsoft. From 
a Wired article: "Microsoft chairman Bill Gates on Thursday 
defended the settlement as tough but one that "we're really 
pleased to have." If Microsoft is glad to have it then it 
clearly does not go far enough. I

[[Page 23806]]

hope that the judge will reject this settlement as inadequate. I 
also hope for a Department of Justice that is interested in 
protecting the interests of American citizens rather than the 
interests of large corporations.

MTC-799



MTC-00000800

From: Anthony R. Cassandra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:23am
Subject: Comment on MS ruling
    Monopolies are one of the market failures of capitalism. As 
such, it is one of the governments prime tasks to prevent them from 
forming and to dismantle them when they do materialize. The 
supression and elimination of monopolies is the governments duty, 
regardless of the immediate economic implications. This has to be 
done for the long term benefit of our country. Failure to do this, 
is the goverment failing to do its job. Monopolies restrict people's 
freedom, and to sacrifice freedom for econoic reasons is not only 
wrong, but against the principles of the people that created and 
gave their lives for this country.
    Microsoft has been stifling innovation by sucking up companies 
that had been creating innovative technology, to bring them under 
the umbrella of a corporation whose main focus is to monopolize 
every segment of the software market, not on creating innovative and 
quality products. To those that truly understand technology, the 
inadequacies of their software is so obvious as to not even warrant 
debate. Only those that do not understand the technology, or that 
have remained ignorant, sheltered in a world where there is only 
Microsoft software, do not see the deficiencies in their products.
    I am very upset with the settlement of this case as it shows 
that money and lawyers, and not citizens or principles, yield most 
power in this country. It is not the justice department's job to 
engage in economic prediction, nor base their actions on such 
things.
    Anthony R. Cassandra, Ph.D. email: [email protected]

MTC-800



MTC-00000801

From: Eugene L. Willey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:27am
Subject: Possible anti-trust violation
    Dear Sirs: Risco Systems has deployed a nation wide Realtors 
system that only works with the Internet Explorer browsers and 
further I believe Microsoft is actively pursuiing this stategy with 
other organizations. To see this for yourself logon to: http://
hastingsmls.risco.net/G3/Logon.asp? This practice would seem to me 
to violate your settlement. This site or any Risco controlled real 
estate board will not work with Netscape, Opera, or Mozilla. It is 
specifically designed to bar access by any other browser If there 
really is any oversight of your decision this might be a place to 
start. How many sites out there prohibit access by all browsers 
exceopt the Microsoft browser and why are such sites barring such 
access. Is Microsoft encouraging such behavior? They are very rich 
and very aggressive people. Please take a look at this for me and 
all consumers.
    Gene

MTC-801



MTC-00000802

From: Mehmet Guler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:27am
Subject: Leave MS alone
_Are you going to prosecute Netscape because they drove Mosaic 
out of business using THE SAME TACTICS MS used in ridding them 
(Netscape) out?
_Are you aware that this verdict might have had a positive 
effect IF IT HAD BEEN REACHED 3-4 YEARS AGO when bundling 
really mattered?
_There are ALTERNATIVES to MS. They are even free.
_Which mail client are you using to read this message? 
Outlook? Give it up. Settle and let it be over with for everyone!

MTC-802



MTC-00000803

From: Robin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:26am
Subject: Microsoft Wrist slap
    I am appalled at the microSOFT approach you are taking against 
this monopolistic predator. Since they have come out with XP, why 
not have them reveal their "old" OS source code? This 
would act as a major deterrent. Our only hope is that the states 
that have the best and most knowledgeable data processing background 
can get the judge to see what a microSOFT sell-out you guys have 
dealt the American consumer.

MTC-803



MTC-00000804

From: jamesc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:24am
Subject: Caving to Microsoft
    Please realize, firstly, that I am Canadian, and therefore 
understand if you do not heed my opinion as valid. That aside, I 
think it is horrible how you, as a branch of your nation's 
government, have caved to what I can only assume is a promise of 
relief in an economic downturn in return for a light settlement 
against Microsoft. First you allowed Microsoft to drag this case to 
the point of oblivion, (all the while costing your nation's 
taxpayers millions and millions and millions of dollars), a tactic 
obviously angled at wearing thin your government's willingness to 
prolong a costly battle, and then when you decide to come to a 
ruling, you dole them out a stern wrist slapping, with a padded 
belt. I do hope you realize that your decision makes the Department 
of Justice the laughing stock of governing bodies, (until another 
inevitably steps up to the plate, luckily for you), and those that 
_live_ in your country have absolutely no confidence in 
your willingness to protect justice, let alone them. And how is it 
that you agreed to let Microsoft dictate TO YOU how you would 
implement 'punishment'? I suggest, heartily, that you change your 
department's title to "Department of Corporate 
Protection". This title would more aptly reflect your 
painfully obvious inclination towards serving only the corporations 
that inhabit the country, as opposed to the people. You do not offer 
justice, nor do you uphold it. Why do you bother using the title in 
your department's moniker?
    JamesC

MTC-804



MTC-00000805

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:38am
Subject: Bush Justice Department toothless tiger
    Who's kidding whom, this kid gloves approach to Microsoft 
appears to be little more than appeasement on the part of the 
Justice Department. Much sterner measures were in order Microsoft 
has proven itself to be a corporate thug. But this administration is 
partial to big business. And they don't come much bigger than 
Microsoft. Or more ruthless. I say put the screws to them as they 
have to so many other companies.

MTC-805



MTC-00000806

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:38am
Subject: msft
    I'm at a loss to come up with details for a deal that is less in 
the public interest than that reached by the DOJ with MSFT. I'll 
cast my next federal vote accordingly.

MTC-806



MTC-00000807

From: Carl Bright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:37 am
Subject: Comments about the antitrust settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I have been following the Microsoft case since the inception, 
and I am very disappointed at the outcome. Never before in the 
history of America has the court system granted a monopoly the 
ability to continue to illegally bundle products. Until Microsoft is 
banned from bundling software into the operating system, there will 
never be another real software innovation or application.
    To make my point:
    Microsoft bundled disk compression into the OS._There has 
not been any further disk compression utilities.
    Microsoft bundled the Internet Explorer into the OS._It 
has caused all but the extinction of other internet browsers.
    Microsoft bundled the Email and Usenet services into the 
OS._It has caused all but the extinction of other internet 
mail programs.
    Microsoft is currently bundling incompatible fire wall software 
into the OS_It will spell the demise of current personal 
firewall software such as Black Ice.
    Microsoft in currently bundling media player(s) into the 
OS_It will spell the demise of current computer media players.
    In short, look at all the independent software selection you now 
see on the store shelf. Some day they will all be bundled into 
Microsoft's OS.

[[Page 23807]]

    The weak actions by the DOJ has caused the death knell for 
independent software designers because no one will spend time and 
money to develop innovative software just to have it stolen and 
integrated into Windows and then harrowed as the next big upgrade.
    The General publics last chance for was to divorce the Windows 
OS from the bundled applications. The DOJ has now made that 
necessity impossible in the short term and has handed Microsoft the 
weapons to destroy all software innovation in the foreseeable 
future.
    Carl Bright
    20821 Gold Street
    Harrah Oklahoma.
    73045

MTC-807



MTC-00000808

From: Jim Rhine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:30am
Subject: Re: Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters
    Wanted to let you know that I feel that the decision between the 
DOJ and Microsoft will do nothing in the long run to benefit 
consumers nor keep Microsoft from further utilizing their monopoly 
to help only themselves. The DOJ had a sure win fight and instead of 
following thru appears to have simply given into more red tape and 
political B.S. When Microsoft is brought back into court again in 
the future the DOJ will only look even more foolish than it does now 
for not taking care of the problems that Microsoft's monopoly 
present to consumers, competitors and to our country and it's 
economy as a whole today. Perhaps some day these issues will be 
taken care of in a better way than was decided thru this decision 
although I am not holding my breath.
    Jim Rhine

MTC-808



MTC-00000809

From: Arthur Copeland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:46am
Subject: Microsoft is way out of bounds
    I havenot seen any mention of Microsofts practise of forcing 
users of hotmail to their msn site with a window of 5 seconds to 
act. In my case I am thrown into msn.de the german microsoft site, I 
dont speak german and I have no interest in going to msn germany. i 
have used Hotmail for years but its the only site where it forces 
the next site ive seen except with MSN sites. You should stop these 
practises along with the ones mentioned in the press. Get your FREE 
download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

MTC-809



MTC-00000810

From: jose gomez reguera
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:42am
Subject: WINDOWS
    The novelty, intricacies and widespread marketing of Windows are 
what have allowed Microsoft to sell its flaw-ridden product without 
restrictions, nor mandatory safeguards for the unwary consumer.
    Jose Gomez Reguera

MTC-810



MTC-00000811

From: Eugene L. Willey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:39am
Subject: Possible violation of your decision
    If you sign on to www.msnbc.com you will see that their online 
video's can only be viewed by the Microsoft Media Player. All other 
online news networks offer RealPlayer as an option. e.g foxnews, 
cspan, cnn, bbc and so on. The RealPlayer is a superior product but 
you cannot use it on MSNBC. Gene

MTC-811



MTC-00000813

From: Jason Straight
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:04am
Subject: Give me a choice_No more Microsoft Taxation!
    My biggest complaint about MS comes when I need to purchase a 
new PC from a large computer vendor like Dell, Gateway, etc. Most of 
them have such an iron clad deal where MS requires them to ship all 
new computers with some form of windows or face losing bonuses and 
refunds. For instance I recently purchased a Dell laptop and I told 
them I didn't want an operating system on it (I was going to install 
linux on it, and I already own various versions of the windows 
operating system I don't use that if I wanted windows on my laptop I 
could have used). Anyway I argued with the salesperson about not 
wanting windows or the extra Microsoft software (MS works and 
expediamaps, etc . . .) to no avail. I was told that I couldn't get 
the computer without the software bundle. So I was stuck paying for 
extra garbage I didn't want. It would have been the same with many 
other vendors as well. So now I have yet another copy of windows I 
don't need but was forced to pay for.
    Imagine if you will that you are allergic to anchovies, yet 
everywhere you went to get pizza they said that you had to have them 
whether you wanted them or not, and you had to pay extra for them. 
But you insisted you didn't want them to no avail and they explained 
that if they wanted to carry anchovies at all, for the people who do 
want them, that the anchovie foundation said they had to put them on 
every pizza or they wouldn't get paybacks for sending out every 
pizza with anchovies.
    Or you buy a car and they force you to pay extra for air 
conditioning when you live in alaska.
    You buy a house and they force you to buy an expensive 
refrigerator with the house when you already have a brand new one 
you planned on using.
    You go to wal-mart and buy a computer and the computers there 
have been modified to force you to use a certain internet provider 
when you've already pre-paid a year at another provider who won't 
give you a refund now. What if you were forced to flush 20 sheets of 
toilet paper down the toilet every time you flushed it even though 
you only pee'd? What a waste that is. I could go on forever with 
examples of nearly illegal annecdotes like these but even though it 
may not be "illegal" the way MS does it now it certainly 
should be. I forces the consumers to pay for microsoft software 
whether they use it or not. I know of only 1 entity that can do this 
legally. The government, it's called tax. Who appointed MS a 
govememtn entity? Answer: The government of the US did by allowing 
these types of things to go on for too long. Next time I have to pay 
the MS tax when I buy a new computer I'll be sure to write it off as 
tax exempt donation to a branch of the new US government.
    Actually that poses me an Idea, if the govt can't control MS 
they should protect the people by offering a refund at tax time if 
we send in real microsoft licenses with our tax refunds.
    I've got a collection that could bring me a good refund next 
year. There's no question Microsoft isn't stupid they ride the edge 
of the laws on this stuff for sure, it's time for new laws governing 
these kinds of practices. I don't mean rewrite the constitution to 
cripple business I mean write laws that put any company who owns 
more than 75% market share of any type that could be considered a 
necessity into the category of a utility provider. A utility 
provider that can be regulated by stricter laws than those who don't 
have a monopoly.
    Telephone companies, power companies, etc... many of them are 
regulated in some way, in how they interact with citizens, however 
MS is allowed to go on running however they see fit. Another perfect 
example:
    I run an internet provider in an area where the telephone 
company service is wretched, no matter how much I dislike them and 
their poor service I have to use them, but at least the govt 
regulations tell them they can't force me to pay $80/mo for basic 
service which sucks, and tack on extra services on top of the $80 
when I don't want them, then on top of it, as much as I hate the 
service I'm forced to pay a re-installation fee every year of $500 
just because they decided to upgrade the lines in the area, which 
really wasn't an upgrade when you consider the rotten quality I was 
getting before. This "upgrade" is nothing more than 
fixing a couple of the problems that I shouldn't have been having in 
the first place. Ameritech can't get away with it, but Microsoft 
can.
    Want to make sure MS can't keep hurting the public like this 
then you'll have to tell MS they can't make deals like that with 
computer manufacturers, but MS covered their ass well on this one. 
Actually you should be telling the computer manufacturers they 
aren't allowed to force sales like that on consumers, that they have 
to offer to sell machines without windows at a price reduction 
reflecting the manufacturers suggested retail price of the software. 
Oh but that won't work either, because they'd just hike the prices 
to cover buying MS software even if they had to throw it in the 
garbage to make sure they made their quota with MS to get the cash 
back. You're screwed, there's nothing you can do to protect the 
customers unless you stop that company and stop them good.
    Microsoft has a strangle hold on the industry throught the 
applications that

[[Page 23808]]

 microsoft software runs, if there were alternatives that could run 
the applications produced for MS software there would then be choice 
for consumers in what they wanted to use, not what X computer 
manufacturer told them they had to buy. Force MS to open source and 
make free their API's so that other operating systems can be made to 
run applications and games written for microsoft windows. If linux, 
freebsd, BeOS, Mac OSX, Solaris, IRIX could run the same microsoft 
office and quickbooks pro you get off the shelf, why would anyone 
use windows at all? It's certainly not the better choice for any 
reason other than the software available for it, in many instances 
there are cheaper alternatives to windows that are more stable and 
even as friendly to use, not to mention secure but MS was allowed to 
grow to epic proportions and force software makers, computer makers 
and other companies to soley support MS and if they support anyone 
else they feel the wrath of losing big $$$. Like a MS fine.
    Give choice back to the people. In many ways Microsoft has 
become the government of the computer industry, they have laws (sell 
windows with every pc, don't support our foes, etc.), they have 
fines if the makers break the laws by not giving them their cut of 
the collected taxes. And through the makers they impose taxes 
forcing you to pay them $$$ for something you don't use. At least 
when I pay taxes I'm paying for a strong government to protect me (I 
think anyway). Fine them a million dollars every time there's a 
security exploit for windows, they'll be gone in a month.
    Switch all the government PC's over to a free operating system 
like linux use the $$$ saved on software licenses to contract out 
programmers to write software for the gov't that could also be used 
in the private sector then sell it. MS loses money, alternative 
operating systems gain needed applications and you make money in the 
end selling the software. Don't allow them to stray from the 
standards of HTML with their browser. If it's not part of w3c then 
they are breaking the law.
    It's imparative that MS not be allowed to become the self 
appointed anything. Right now they are the self appointed government 
of the computer industry, if they aren't forced to follow existing 
standards on the internet they'll own that soon too.
    Jeet Kune Do does not beat around the bush. It does not take 
winding detours. It follows a straight line to the objective. 
Simplicity is the shortest distance between two points.
    Bruce Lee_Tao of Jeet Kune Do
    Jason Straight_President
    BlazeConnect_Cheboygan Michigan
    ISP: www.blazeconnect.net
    Products: www.blazeconnect.com
    Phone: 231-597-0376 _Fax: 
231-597-0393

MTC-813



MTC-00000814

From: chris.whipple @ hq.com@ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:01am
Subject: Settlement is too weak.
    I feel that the core issues at work in the antitrust trial have 
not been adequately addressed in the settlement. Microsoft continues 
to leverage it's desktop monopoly into new markets (instant 
messengers, media players), and the settlement does not address 
these issues at all. As a consumer and IT professional, I feel that 
Microsoft's current and continued business practices have had and 
will continue to have a negative impact on my computing experience 
and the industry as a whole.
    Respectfully,
    Christopher Whipple
    Technical Projects Engineer
    HQ Global Workplaces

MTC-814



MTC-00000815

From: Don Beusee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I have great concern about the DOJ/Microsoft settlement. I don't 
think the agreement will work.
    What I see as the fatal flaw is the restrictions on the power of 
the Technical Committee, which insures they won't have enough power 
to do anything. All they will really end up doing is delaying the 
process of taking MS back to court when they try to maneuver around 
the rules. The finding of the Technical Committee can't be used in 
court against MS nor can they testify, which means that if they do 
find MS to be doing something wrong they will tell the US Dept of 
Justice. The DOJ will then have to go to court to get the authority 
to investigate MS to produce their own evidence of wrong doing, but 
only after MS has had a long period of time and ample notice to hide 
the evidence.
    The bit about the TC not being able to speak publicly is also 
very damaging, because it keeps the members of the TC from saying 
anything if either side tries to avoid their responsibility. Right 
now, if the TC found that MS was violating the rules but the DOJ 
didn't want to investigate they couldn't take their complaints to 
the public. This makes it far to easy for both sides to just quietly 
sweep the whole thing under the rug.
    Finally, the inability of the TC to take any action other then 
notifying the DOJ prevents them from having any real power to 
threaten MS into compliance. At the very least, the TC needs to have 
the power to petition the judge directly for a injunctions to block 
activities by MS until the DOJ decides on a course of action and the 
power to petition the judge to fine MS for resisting oversight.
    As for the remedies themselves, there are so many loopholes that 
most, if not all of them, have no teeth to prevent MS from doing 
what they've been doing all along. And the remedy package is not 
enough to stimulate competition in this market (which needs it 
BADLY), even if enforceable with no loopholes, which this package is 
not). I can itemize each point if you like_just let me know.
    The purpose of this email is to let you know that I strongly 
object to the settlement, with the main reason being that the TC has 
no power to do anything. This is the weakest part of the settlement. 
The DOJ already won the case_why doesn't it insist on a strong 
remedy package and give the TC some real power to take action? The 
TC should be reporting directly to the courts, on a monthly basis on 
the status of compliance.
    Regards,
    Don Beusee
    CC: attorney.general@ po.state.ct.us@inetgw,atcapO 
1 .msh...

MTC-815



MTC-00000816

From: [email protected]@ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:24am
Subject: the settlement
    The proposed settlement does not do enough to curb the practices 
of Microsoft. Of course the company is entitled to bundle whatever 
it wants in its software. However, the Internet and the digital 
revolution are something of a public utility, so Microsoft can be 
prevented from hampering the interoperability of competing products. 
We will all lose a great deal of future innovation if Microsoft is 
allowed to continue squashing every competitor. I still use Netscape 
for e-mail and Web surfing, despite the fact that Windows is 
designed to crash Netscape regularly. There are reports that in 
Windows XP it is difficult to replace the bundled defaults. It is 
this behavior that must be prevented. I realize that the economy is 
in a bad state, but we must not abandon our principles. Then again, 
I guess you haven't abandoned your principles: this settlement is a 
right wing Republican cave-in to a rich, arrogant company.
    Dwight Romanovicz
    Austin, TX

MTC-816



MTC-00000817

From: Lorin Olsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:21am
Subject: US v. Microsoft: Concerns of a Consumer
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I have been an active computer user since 1976. My computer 
experiences started with IBM mainframes (5/360 168) but have 
included every major microprocessor offering from Intel and 
Motorola. In that time, I have used most every major operating 
system created_including all of the products released by 
Microsoft.
    As an interested consumer who has spent many dollars on 
Microsoft products, I have been intensely interested inthe ongoing 
U.S. v. Microsoft case. As a consumer, I have felt compelled to use 
Microsoft products and upgrade according to their schedule. I used 
to be a very satisified Netscape user. But I found that as I used 
Netscape, more and more services were bundled with features that 
required Internet Explorer. With each successive Microsoft Office 
purchase, I have felt compelled to upgrade or not stay compatible. 
With Windows XP, Microsoft has deployed a product that all butr 
requires subscribing to Microsoft's service offerings (MSN 
Messenger, Passport). In short, I have felt that my choices have 
been severely constrined by the practices of Microsoft. My 
continuing hope is that whatever penalties or

[[Page 23809]]

settlement is imposed, Microsoft's core behavior can be modified. As 
a consumer, I want to have more choices not less. I want to know 
that my investment in Real Networks software (Real Player and Real 
Jukebox) won't be lost because Microsoft bundled a free version of 
multimedia tools. As a ZoneAlarm Pro user, I want to know that my 
investment won't be stranded because Microsoft bundles a free 
product in the operating system. My larger concerns are that once 
Microssoft eliminates competition (in music, video, security, etc) 
that I won't be forced to buy products from the only remaining 
vendor_Microsoft. Worse still, I don't want Microsoft to 
eliminate its competition and then I cannot use alternative 
computing platforms (e.g., Linux) simply because the only existing 
tools are for Windows platforms.
    Finally, I hate to think of a computing industry that does not 
have innovation. For years, computers have been the means of 
transforming our lives and increasing our productivity. While 
Microsoft maintains monopoly control on the industry, innovation 
will be stifled. There is no incentive for the monopolist to 
innnovate. Rather, there is every incentive to make only marginal 
changes_thus protecting the revenue stream. This means that 
truly new ideas won't come from Microsoft. This is certainly the 
case over the past few years. But when real innovation is 
introduced, Microsoft has been swift to embrace these things and 
elminate the innovators (by unfair competition or by acquisition). 
In short, unless Microsoft's behavior is changed, I fear that 
consumers will not see any real innovation. All you have to do to 
see that this trend is look at the differences between Windows 95 
and Windows XP.
    Apart form some minor cosmetic changes, the interface is nearly 
identical. After seven years, where are the innovations? Where is 
the voice control? Where are the effective "equal 
access" tools? As a citizen, a consumer, and a computer 
professional, I hope that the Department of Justice works to ensure 
real competition. Do not sacrifice true competition because of some 
vain hope that Microsoft will spare the economy after 9-11. It 
won't. In fact, real competition is the only thing that will 
completely revitalize the technology sector.
    Sincerely,
    Lorin Olsen
    Overland Park, KS
    Phone: 913-894-0706

MTC-817



MTC-00000818

From: Harvey McDaniel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:44am
Subject: No surprise
    Gentlemen;
    I am deeply disappointed in my government's flaccid attempt to 
bring some sort of justice to the software industry. MIS 's path to 
success is littered with the broken and battered companies in it's 
wake.
    And you, gentlemen, have failed in your duty to all of us.
    H. W. McDaniel
    31888 Fayetteville Drive
    Shedd, Oregon, 97377

MTC-818



MTC-00000819

From: Andrew Lanclos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:43am
Subject: This settlement is not in the best interests of consumers 
and business.
    It is in my belief that this settlement is mostly being proposed 
at this time so that Microsoft will be "free" to bring 
the market back to its once-prosperous state, and allow the economy 
to revive. While these goals are virtuous and lofty, the fact of the 
matter is that Microsoft's short-term profitability will not allow 
the economy to recover in the long term.
    As Stanley Sporkin put it during his denial of the original 
settlement terms put forth in 1995, "simply telling a 
defendant to go forth and sin no more does little or nothing to 
address the unfair advantage it has already gained." The 
settlement proposed right now amounts to little more than saying 
"Stop, or I'll say 'Stop!' again!" I agree that dividing 
Microsoft into parts is not the answer_Little exists to ensure 
that those severed companies wouldn't simply cooperate fully with 
each other in "strategic partnerships".
    A better remedy would be to have a codebase oversight group 
composed of industry-familiar persons who would be able to point out 
deficiencies in Microsoft's products that harm consumers' right to 
choose. For instance, Windows XP is being hotly contested in many 
foreign nations due to its overwhelming power over the user. 
Microsoft's "concessions" in this manner are to allow a 
small measure of competitive advertising, as long as Microsoft's own 
services and products also remain advertised with the same capacity. 
To restate the thinking of many Unix users, "The operating 
system runs the computer. It's not the operating system's job to 
play movies or record MP3s or write a letter. That task is left up 
to applications, applications that should be optional for users to 
pick and choose between publishers, or none at all if the user 
doesn't need that functionality."
    I use Windows XP because I find it to have many new features to 
the actual Operating System that are very beneficial to users. 
However, there are also many bundling practices with Windows XP 
that, if I were a novice user, would impose an unnatural selection 
choice on me to use a Microsoft product, simply because it's 
convenient. Many (Over 50%) home PC owners still don't have internet 
broadband service, so picking a competing web browser over Internet 
Explorer is a rather difficult task. First off, the user has to know 
that it exists, and many don't. Secondly, at its current download 
size, it takes well over two hours to download. Most users would 
balk at being online for that long, and simply bail out at this 
point. Microsoft has used this as a leverage point for some time to 
prevent users from working with Netscape. Most online users I know 
that use Netscape do so because it was provided by their Internet 
Service Provider. When (And they have before) Microsoft proposes 
licensing restrictions for ISP software including Internet Explorer, 
they general give ISPs only two choices. Provide only Internet 
Explorer, or pay us money to allow you to carry IF without our 
license restriction.
    Microsoft has just recently entered the video game console 
market. As a longtime consumer of this market, it scares me 
terribly, because I know that the same predatory practices Microsoft 
has long employed in the PC realm will also (and have already) be 
used here. It's no secret that exclusive titles help to strengthen a 
console's marketability, but Microsoft is entering this market with 
significantly higher resources than Nintendo and Sony have at their 
disposal. Sony may be an electronics giant, but they don't have the 
cash to bet the farm on the success of the PlayStation2, especially 
in the economy's state as it is. Microsoft's tactics include 
offering developers free licensing and benefits for developing 
titles exclusively for their system, the Xbox. While this is 
normally harmless, the fact is that Microsoft has significantly more 
power to do this than Nintendo and Sony, both longtime legitimate 
competitors in this arena. Microsoft can (and does, and will 
continue to) simply offer developers the only financially viable 
option_Develop for us for free, or take your chances 
elsewhere. Effectively, they'll stifle off the ability of developers 
to publish titles on other systems simply because of the fact that 
their short-term economic viability is ensured by Microsoft's 
marketing dominance. Microsoft will win not because it has superior 
hardware or superior marketing or superior title offerings_It 
will win because it had more money to play with. The situation here 
is tantamount to an Olympian athlete who has long been using 
anabolic stimulants to repeatedly artificially win 
competitions_He then suddenly decides that he wants to compete 
in other races, such as the decathalon and the long jump, because 
"it's his right to compete", even though he has already 
demonstrated a clear unfair advantage.
    Microsoft makes some decent software, assuredly. But the fact of 
the matter is that its development staff is hindered by a cycle of 
marketers and lawyers gone mad, who can't stop the cash flow lest it 
leave them dry. Microsoft doesn't need to branch out into other 
markets to assure its long-term financial viability. It's already 
ensured this by crushing all the competition in the markets it 
already exists in. And the bureaucratic dawdling in this matter has 
only allowed Microsoft to continue to stifle competitors even more. 
Microsoft may say that its competitors just don't have things 
together, and that their failures are their own faults, but the fact 
is that repeatedly Microsoft has put forth barriers to entry, and 
any perceived "difficulties" are generally due to 
Microsoft's own efforts. They have a long history of ballot-
stuffing, false advertising, and outright lying (Bill Gates himself 
said in a CNN interview three nights ago that the Nintendo GameCube, 
one of the Xbox's competing systems, was $299 in price. It's 
actually $199, which is one of its primary selling points). Quietly 
issuing retractions and apologies does little for the consumer 
market when the damage has already been done.
    Nothing exists in this settlement which will result in the 
"most effective and certain

[[Page 23810]]

relief in the most timely manner.' It doesn't even amount to a slap 
on the wrist because nobody's slapping anyone. Microsoft can not and 
WILL NOT be stopped by the measures in this anti-trust settlement. 
In reality, the most effective measure of the settlement with 
Microsoft has already been done_Microsoft has had to devote 
its lawyers and part of its fund to fighting this court battle that 
would have normally been used to take down even more competitors. 
Those who support it by claiming that it puts an end to 
"government waste" will be poorly served because it the 
settlement will have effectively become a waste of 6+ years of time 
and bureaucracy and money put forth to settle this. Don't make this 
whole case a waste. Come up with some better restrictions on 
Microsoft that will ensure its own viability along with its 
competitors.
    Drew Lanclos
    Mississippi State University
    CC: [email protected] @inetgw,alanclos 
@its.msstate.e...

MTC-819



MTC-00000820

From: Andrew C. Oliver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is deplorable. Microsoft has continued to raise 
prices as it has become more dominant and has become ever more bold 
in raising the barriers to market. As both a citizen and a software 
developer I am appalled by this slap on the wrist" solution. 
As a participant in the economy I agree now is NOT the time to split 
up the company, but a continuance until the economy recovers 
followed by a sharp and deep cutting penalty (such as splitting up 
the company) is called for.
    Microsoft is not a technology innovator, they are a large trust 
with deep pockets that buys up or tramples via often illegal 
agreements such as:
    1. "group boycotting" (with ISVs and VARs),
    2. Tie-in agreements masked under the guise of new features. If 
I agree to sell you my house and I'll throw in the house next door 
and the price has mysteriously doubled from when the house was sold 
alone, does that qualify as a new property feature?).
    3. Allocation of Customers or Markets. (attempts to reach 
agreements to this effect with Netscape, and Apple)
    Regardless of the political positions of the party in power, the 
LAW should be enforced. This agreement laughs in the face of the 
rule of law and the DOT should be ashamed of itself.
    Andrew C. Oliver (Republican, North Carolina) www. 
superlinksoftware.com CC: jesse [email protected] 
@inetgw

MTC-820



MTC-00000821

From: pmemer@ localhost.localdomain @inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:48am
Subject: settlement
    Microsoft wins the rest of us lose, Its nice to see where 
MicroSoft put its money in the last election. Who says the 
Department of Justice can't be bought. This teaches all north 
americans that crime does pay as long as the people meant to enforce 
america's laws are crooks themselves. Hopefully the next time the 
Democrats win they charge the current leadership of the Department 
of Justice with collusion with Microsoft.
    Sincerely Philip Memer
    Citizen of the Banana republic of Canada

MTC-821



MTC-00000822

From: RE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:48am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement Comments
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. I believe this settlement is counter to the interests of 
the American public, deleterious to the American economy, and not 
adequate given the findings of fact in the trial.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law 
and spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit 
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and 
productivity in our nation. Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause 
the public to bear increased costs and deny them the products of the 
innovation which would otherwise be stimulated through competition.
    The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices which 
they have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from 
engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future. It is my 
belief that a very strong set of strictures must be placed on 
convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to continue 
their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.
    R. Laderman
    CEO, KM Inc. San Francisco, CA

MTC-822



MTC-00000823

From: Ray Ashmun
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:46am
Subject: Its Fair
    Lets get this overwith. The settlement is fair and should be 
implemented now.

MTC-823



MTC-00000824

From: Brian Kendig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:46am
Subject: Comments from a former Netscape employee
    Dear Department of Justice:
    I worked for Netscape for almost five years, from early 1995 
until late 1999. I rode the roller-coaster through all of its ups 
and downs, from the time when we could do no wrong to the time when 
we could do no right. I've been in the industry for much longer than 
that. I saw Netscape's end coming. Everything Microsoft did to us, 
they've done before and they're done since.
    I appreciate the opportunity to offer a few thoughts.
    (1) Microsoft claimed all along that the web browser was a 
useful application which deserved to be tied to Windows. The crucial 
question they never answered was: what about Microsoft Word? 
Everybody uses a word processor; why didn't Microsoft add Word's 
powerful features into Windows, to benefit consumers in the same way 
they did by adding Explorer's powerful features to Windows? The 
answer is that Word had no serious competition, so Microsoft was 
content to sell it separately and to offer a stripped-down word 
processor ("WordPad") bundled with Windows. I've 
believed all along that a great solution to the tying issue would 
have been for Microsoft to include a stripped-down basic web browser 
with Windows, and to sell the full-featured Internet Explorer 
separately. This would let customers surf the web without buying 
anything extra, but if they wanted additional features, plenty of 
competition in the market would give them lots of choices of more-
powerful web browsers.
    (2) Microsoft defeated Netscape simply because they had the 
cash, the resources, and the time to copy every one of our most 
important products feature-for-feature, and give it away for free. 
They rarely got things right on the first try, but by bundling 
browsers and servers in with Windows and by releasing subsequent 
versions with more features, it was inevitable that they would 
eventually match our quality_and then it was inevitable that 
customers would choose the free solution over ours. Many of our 
customers still remained loyal, and purchased Netscape software 
rather using Microsoft's give-aways, but still, we were doomed from 
the very start. (Not only did Microsoft's freebies wound us deeply, 
but our grave was dug when they even went a step further and bullied 
our major accounts to stop using our software.)
    Many people have complained that Netscape's software became 
unpopular because it was bug-ridden and couldn't keep pace with the 
features Microsoft was adding to their software. My response to this 
is: YOU try fixing bugs and adding features and keeping pace with a 
company which has a near-infinite cash supply, all while your own 
revenues are slipping away!
    We did the research and development. Microsoft saw what worked, 
copied it, and gave it away. How could we possibly survive? More 
importantly, what does this say about the Next Big Thing, whatever 
that may be? What incentive does a person have to turn his great 
idea into a company, when he knows that Microsoft can simply steal 
his idea and undersell him once he proves that his idea is a 
success? The only options available these days are to follow the 
open source movement or ally with Microsoft; there is no longer any 
room for anything else.
    (3) Microsoft has a long history of abusing their power, and 
they've been taken to court for it many times in many different 
countries. They've learned, however, that if they can get a court 
case to drag on for years, any ruling will become irrelevant because 
the competition it was supposed to benefit has long since died off. 
And not only are they

[[Page 23811]]

skilled at dragging the proceedings through molasses_but they 
also thumb their nose at the government while doing it; were they 
ever reprimanded for introducing a falsified videotape into evidence 
two years or so ago?
    Any ruling against Microsoft must be strong and unyielding. So 
far their punishment for shrugging penalties aside has been another 
court case which has dragged on for another few years, and they'll 
only ignore the outcome of this one too.
    This must stop now.
    IVI Brian Kendig Set your priorities right. / A /.._. 
brian at enchanter net No one ever said on his V /_/ j http:/
/www.enchanter.netl death bed, "Gee, if I'd _ _ 
/_ Be insatiably cunous. only spent more time at / / / Ask 
"why" a lot, the office."

MTC-824



MTC-00000825

From: J Langley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:10pm
Subject: Drop the case against Microsoft. Don't you think the 
Country has enough.
    Drop the case against Microsoft Don't you think the Country has 
enough.
    Jim Langley

MTC-825



MTC-00000826

From: tbudd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01_12:07pm
Subject: court system...
    The current decision makes it pretty obvious to the American 
public that MS owns the To use an analogy. MS copied other vendor's 
technology to build a "highway" system for PCs. They 
used illegal practices to turn it into a monopoly. Whenever someone 
makes a new successful "car" that runs on the 
"highway", MS copies it and "gives it away for 
free". That is, MS charges for it in the cost of the highway. 
Whenever someone complains, MS asserts their "right" to 
incorporate anything into their highway monopoly. Obviously, MS is 
paying government officials plenty of $ to insure that MS can 
maintain and expand their monopoly with impunity. When will someone 
stop the madness?
    Regards,
    -Tracy

MTC-826



MTC-00000827



MTC-00000828

From: Ron Goodman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:56am
Subject: Disgusted with proposed Microsoft settlement
    The proposed settlement is pitiful, even coming from a 
Republican administration. No penalty for past criminal activities, 
no penalties for future illegal activities, no indication that 
anything meaningful will be done to change Microsoft's behavior. 
Previous administrations won the case in the courts, and you're 
walking away from doing anything with that victory. Our only hope is 
that the remaining states and the EU will show more integrity and 
courage than the current administration has been able to muster.

MTC-828



MTC-00000829

From: SMunger@ aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:21pm
Subject: (no subject)
    Comment re Microsoft settlement: Its about time to get this 
resolved. The government has been vindictive and unreasonable in 
dealing with this company that has done so much to facilitate our 
country's businesses. Without microsoft our economy would be much 
less efficient. Lets give some credit to this incredible company and 
let them get on with business. I am from Iowa and I don't think that 
our attorney general serves the people in the position he takes. The 
settlement is reasonable. Lets get on to the next generation of 
software and technology and stop the bureacratic intereference with 
a free economy and business innovation. Stan Munger

MTC-829



MTC-00000830



MTC-00000831



MTC-00000832

From: Jason Jeffries
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:39pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    Thank you for settling the case with Microsoft_the only 
thing better would have been to never bring the case to court in the 
first place.

MTC-832



MTC-00000833

From: Andy Freed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft case resolution
    To Whom @ Department of Justice,
    I understand wanting to be finished with the Microsoft case, but 
there has been no solution as the current agreement reads. The weak 
terms of the agreement seem to forget all the non-existent companies 
who have been killed or absorbed by Microsoft's bully tactics.
    I think that the administration is making a huge mistake with 
the current resolution. Nothing was solved, and no practice has 
changed, or gone punished. The administration may want to reconsider 
this settlement if they truly have the interest of both business and 
technology in mind.
    I thank you for providing this opportunity to voice my opinion. 
I only hope that my state does the same. It seems to be busy enough 
with its suit on behalf of its assisted suicide rights.
    Sincerely, Andy
    Andy Freed
    andyfreed @ mac.com
    [email protected]

MTC-833



MTC-00000834



MTC-00000835



MTC-00000836

From: mikea
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I have owned and operated a small computer technical support 
business in a small community in the California Sierra foothills for 
the past three years. Before that I worked for ten years at a mid-
sized corporation as a computer system administrator, and I have 
been employed in the computer business since 1985. All of my clients 
use versions of Windows, including Windows9x/ME/2000/XP, and I have 
been at Ground Zero during the two lawsuits of note involving the 
Justice Department and the Microsoft Corporation.
    While the finding of the Justice Department that Microsoft had 
violated U.S. anti-trust law was heartening_since my 
experience has been conclusive that this is exactly what they 
did_the recent settlement is totally unacceptable. This is not 
a remedy, it is an appeasement of such depth and breadth that I have 
to wonder what sort of corruption is at its root. It fundamentally 
does not address the main problem with the Microsoft monopoly, which 
in the finding is described as "the application barrier to 
entry." In other words, Microsoft is still free to load its 
operating systems with all sorts of marketing garbage that freeze 
out competitor's products that are often superior, in that they are 
free of the bugs that often plague Microsoft initial offerings that 
have been designed to capture a particular market.
    A perfect example of this is what happened with Internet 
Explorer. The first versions were an embarrassment to good 
programming, but because the browser was given away and 
automatically loaded onto the desktop with the delivery of Window98, 
Netscape never had a chance. Rockefeller would have been proud. The 
problem with this is that, with all monopolies, my clients were 
financially harmed by this chicanery. They did not have a choice in 
the browser market, and as Internet Explorer was forced down their 
throats in order for them to do business, they suffered financial 
losses due to the consequent loss in productivity.
    Now we are headed down this same dismal road once again. With 
the release of WindowsXP, you had a unique opportunity to address 
the application barrier to entry by preventing Microsoft from taking 
advantage of its monopoly in the operating system market to capture 
the digital media, development, and internet application markets, 
just as it did with the browser market. But you failed to protect 
consumers and businesses alike by reaching a settlement with 
Microsoft that does nothing to address its proposed monopoly in 
these emerging markets.
    I do not know how you sleep at night after having reached this 
tainted agreement; though I have a feeling that a corrupt Republican 
administration with pillows stuffed with soft money, you most likely 
sleep very, very soundly. Just so you know, out here in the 
hinterlands we are not sleeping so well. Our dreams are, instead, 
nightmares, as we twist and spin trying to figure out how we are 
ever going to root out the criminal corruption that creates the

[[Page 23812]]

stench so prevalent in Washington DC at this time in history. I will 
remind you that small businesses are the ones who will be hurt by 
your decision, and they are by far the largest percentage of 
employers in this country.
    I beg of you, please reconsider your decision. Our economic 
future, the health of our families and our communities, absolutely 
depends on a Justice Department that is free of criminal behavior.
    Most Respectfully Yours,
    Michael P. Anderson
    [email protected]
    10288 Natasha Ct.
    Nevada City, CA 95959
    [email protected]@inetgw
    CC:

MTC-836



MTC-00000837

From: Timothy Enders
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:48 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with many who believe the proposed settlement doesn't 
address the crimes that the defendant has committed and will not 
discourage more of the same in the future.
    The behavior of Microsoft has hurt, rather than helped, the 
computer industry. The loss of a truly competitive marketplace will 
continue to impede progress. This environment now threatens to be 
exported to more markets as Microsoft positions itself as the 
intermediary of all online transactions. Now I read that Microsoft 
is offering to payoff the remaining states to join the settlement by 
offering to pay their legal fees. This is further proof to me that 
the DOJ has acquiesced to this corporation and is not upholding the 
law.
    Regards,
    Timothy M. Enders
    209 Edgerton St
    Rochester, NY 14607

MTC-837



MTC-00000838



MTC-00000839

From: michael baxter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:45 pm
Subject: strong enforcement provisions what a fucking joke! admit 
it, you guys are just blowing gates.

MTC-839



MTC-00000840

From: gwl(a)iwdc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:53 pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I strongly encourage the Justice Department to complete its 
action against Microsoft. I am a small business man who makes his 
living from using the products Microsoft makes. I think this has 
gone on long enough. Please consider closing this issue.
    Regards, Gary
    Gary W. Little
    The Gary Little Company, Inc.
    mailto:gwl @iwdc.net
    Box 430
    Gulf Breeze, Florida 32562
    Tel: +850-434-8384
    Fax: +850-434-8974

MTC-840



MTC-00000841

From: Michael Dunn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:52 pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I feel this case should be settled as soon as possible as per 
the revised proposed final judgment.
    Michael Dunn

MTC-841



MTC-00000842

From: John Keelin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:49 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    Some comments regarding the proposed settlement. According to an 
article at USAToday.com, The Justice Department also considered 
trying to force Microsoft to sell a stripped-down version of Windows 
that did not include built-in software for browsing the Internet, 
reading e-mail, listening to music or sending instant-messages.t9
    I believe that you should have pursued this approach for several 
reasons. I use both the Windows and Apple Macintosh Operating 
Systems on a regular basis. Both of these products offer bundled 
software, which I would agree benefits the consumer. It is the way 
in which Microsoft leverages the bundled software that highlights 
Microsoft's abusive behavior.
    The following outlines some of the key differences in the way 
software is bundled by these two leading operating system providers: 
Internet Explorer (Microsoft product available on Both MacOS and 
Windows) On a macintosh, if a web site address is entered into 
Internet Explorer incompletely (e.g. news vs. www.news.com) the 
browser assumes and correctly takes the user to the requested site 
(e.g. www.news.com). On Windows, incomplete web address entries take 
you to a Microsoft-branded search site.
    Conclusion: The bundled web browser on Windows gives Microsoft 
an unfair advantage on promoting it's web properties. Software 
Update Features On the Macintosh, there is a program called 
"Software Update" that logs onto an Apple Computer FTP 
server and provides the user with a list of updated system software. 
The user selects the updates and the "Software Update" 
program downloads and installs the new software accordingly. Windows 
offers the same feature called "Windows Update." 
"Windows Update" REQUIRES that a user connect with 
Internet Explorer to update their system software. Instead of a 
separate program, like Apple Computer offers for the same software 
update ability, Microsoft requires the use of Internet Explorer to 
perform these actions. Conclusion: On the Macintosh, If I remove 
Internet Explorer and decide?
    2. Mandate that Microsoft discontinue the practice of tying non-
related features together to essentially require that their products 
be installed even if a user chooses a competitive product. The 
second remedy would be difficult to oversee and enforce, making the 
first remedy a seemingly preferred approach. Sincerely,
    John

MTC-842



MTC-00000843

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:58 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE! We are sick of government trying to 
stiffle competition in today's market. If companies can't work 
around what Microsoft has already established TOO BAD. It doesn't 
matter to me that Bill Gates makes billions of dollars. Free 
enterprise is free enterprise. Quit spending our hard earned tax 
money on trying to destroy what this company has spent years on 
creating. You are part of the reasons why people resent the 
governement so much. We give, give and give and you take, take and 
take.

MTC-843



MTC-00000844

From: dnlboyle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:57 pm
Subject: settlement
    Your settlement agreement with the Microsoft Corp. was fair and 
equitable to everyone.
    Congratulations.
    Dave Boyle
    [email protected]

MTC-844



MTC-00000845

From: Gary Gromet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:55 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    The settlement is excellent for all, especially the consumers. 
Discount Health Foods
    www .DiscountHealthFoods.net
    858 N.Krome Ave.
    Homestead, FL 33030, USA
    Tel: 305-247-8487
    Fax: 708-575-6632
    I use Hotmail because all incoming and outgoing e-mail is 
screened for viruses by Symantec(Norton Anti-Virus)

MTC-845



MTC-00000846



MTC-00000847

From: Will Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:04pm
Subject: Comments on the MS/DOJ Settlement from a Concerned Consumer
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    The proposed settlement between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice fails to remedy the state of events which originally brought 
Microsoft to the attention of the Department of Justice, namely, 
that it had engaged in anti-competitive and predatory practices 
designed to protect its existing monopoly of the OS market, and to 
give it monopoly power over the web-browser market.

[[Page 23813]]

    Microsoft holds a monopoly on the worldwide operating system 
market; that is, Microsoft's Windows operating system is the most 
common in the world, being installed on over 90% of computers based 
on Intel's x86 processor architecture. This fact, combined with the 
enormous number of people in the workforce who are untrained on any 
operating system but Windows, gives Microsoft extraordinary powers 
to direct the development of new applications, and by extension the 
day-to-day usage patterns (behaviors) of the owners of the 
computers. Currently, no operating system poses a significant threat 
to the dominance of Windows, largely because the majority of 
applications developed for Windows and used by most businesses and 
individuals cannot be used under other operating systems.
    The provisions in the settlement regarding interoperation, 
sections III.d, III.e, and III.j, completely fail to remedy this. 
Under this judgement, Microsoft would continue to be allowed to use 
proprietary protocols, APIs, and file formats to maintain and even 
extend its dominance not just of the operating system market, but 
also of the associated markets relevant to business software. If the 
Department of Justice is truly interested in restoring competition 
to the operating system market, the Final Judgement of this case 
should require Microsoft to cease using proprietary protocols, APIs, 
and file formats; specifically, Microsoft should be required to 
publish full specifications for all of their previously closed file 
formats, such as (but not limited to) the .doc, .xls, and .ppt 
formats used by Microsoft Office, for the Application Programming 
Interfaces used to create Windows-based applications, such as (but 
not limited to) the DirectX API for three-dimensional graphics 
rendering, and for communication protocols intended for use in 
transmitting information across networks. Sufficient information 
should be published for competitors to be able to create their own 
implementations of Microsoft protocols, APIs and file formats so 
that software originally written for Windows would run in competing 
operating systems, such as Mac OS or Linux. This information should 
be made available royalty-free, and should include not only 
existing, but any future protocols, APIs, and file formats Microsoft 
might create.
    Not only is the proposed settlement too lax in regard to its 
punitive measures, it is also too lax in regard to enforcement. If 
Microsoft fails to adhere to the terms of the agreement, the 
agreement gets extended. In essence, the proposed settlement grants 
Microsoft government approval to continue business as usual, despite 
the negative effects on competition and (more importantly) on the 
ability of consumers to use non-Microsoft products.
    I strongly disfavor the proposed settlement, and ask that it be 
reconsidered by the court.
    William David Martin

MTC-847



MTC-00000848

From: dan @sof.ch@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:03 pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I started programming before DOS and Windows came. Microsoft is 
bad, their product is bad. This is not really meaningfull, they are 
not alone. A lot of company are doing their work bad and they won't 
last long.
    Microsoft is a special case. They do bad (dangerous) software, 
but because they have the monopoly power, they are in position to 
force nearly everybody to use or a least to adapt to their way. Let 
just imagine what's the next step in Microsoft strategy: where do 
they have more territory to conquer? INTERNET. They started the 
Internet war with Explorer. The next step will be to twist 
protocols, to make them proprietary.
    YOU HAVE TO STOP THEM.
    How do you believe Microsoft will be fair after 20 years of 
illegal practices. They don't know themself how to behave fairly. I 
think the current settlement is bad. As you admit this settlement, 
you admit that everything is an OS, you admit that Internet is only 
an extension of Windows and finally that any other operating systems 
will be part of Window (at least ostage). This is a manner of 
enforcing their position.
    You have to broke them. That's the right remedy, because 
Microsoft-application will need to work not only with Microsoft-OS 
but with other OS too and that's good for people. Microsoft-OS will 
have to support different platform if they do not want to die, will 
have to plublish their API because nobody will use their soft if 
they do not.
    I really think the only right remedy, the one that can help 
people and firms is to BROKE Microsoft at leas in 3 parts:
_Microsoft OS
_Microsoft Application
_Microsoft Network
    Doing this you really will break the monopoly.
    PS: sorry for my english, I'm not an american citizen. Courage, 
fuyons...

MTC-848



MTC-00000849

From: Mark Seifert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:00 pm
Subject: Settlement agreement
    I am writing to protest the blank check being given to Microsoft 
to continue to dominate the software industry. Legal gimmickry has 
been the main source of Microsoft's wealth, not the production of 
excellent software. Open sourcing should be the ultimate goal, not 
the continued and ever expanding restrictiveness forced by 
Microsoft. Microsoft's "licenses" should be illegal. On 
what basis does Microsoft demand that once one buys a copy of 
Windows 2000 or XP, one must not install it on any more than one 
machine. This kind of tyrrany is similar to that of the Taliban.
    Once one pays one exorbitant price to Microsoft to buy an 
operating system disc, one should have the right to install it on as 
many machines as one wishes. That is the case with Linux. 
Intellectual property should not extend to the relationship between 
a software disc and a given machine, as there is no basis for this 
connection.
    Concernedly,
    Mark Seifert MD

MTC-849



MTC-00000850

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:59 pm
Subject: no deal!!
    The deal u made for microsoft was to help them not the us, the 
public. Please stop saying u have the publics interest at heart her. 
It is plan for anyone to see that u want to gave Nicholson what ever 
they want to abuse us the American public.. Will be glad to vote u 
out of office next election. This time we will not make a mistake 
like the last president election.
    Download NeoPlanet at http://www.neoplanet.com.

MTC-850



MTC-00000851



MTC-00000852



MTC-00000853



MTC-00000854



MTC-00000855

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:49 pm
Subject: (no subject)
    To whom it may concern,
    The purpose of this letter is to comment on the MS/DOJ 
settlement. I doubt that anyone will read this letter, but I feel 
obligated to write it regardless. It saddens me that we live in a 
government that can't handle a single corporation, where a company 
can so blatantly get away with criminal activities under the guise 
of "innovation". How can one have faith in a government 
to fight wars and protect us if they can't even deal with a single 
corporation? What Microsoft has done over the past 20 years is 
criminal, there's not even any reason to elaborate past that point, 
it's just given. At this point it's all politics who they can dig 
dirt up on and who they can pay off. It won't be too surprising if 
before long they start claiming that people who use free software 
are "terrorists." That seems to be the easiest thing to 
throw at the public to garner support. So, anyway, thanks for not 
reading this.
    Disgustedly, Me.

MTC-855



MTC-00000856

From: Joe Cool
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:49 pm
Subject: Unhappy
    Justice Department,
    Thank you for allowing the citizenry to leave comments about MS/
DoJ settlement. Officially I would like my comment to be 'very 
unhappy with the decision/settlement'.
    I could spend my moment here by talking about economics, 
innovation, financial responsibilites or even social costs; however, 
I will skip that in favor of one thing: the future of our country. 
Read the polls, the studies, talk with your peers and you will find 
a decreasing hopefullness in the future felt by the bulk of the 
citizenry. I believe I know enough finance and politics to realize 
most of how and why government policy is

[[Page 23814]]

shaped. But remember our attitudes of all life's aspects over the 
last 30+ years. You don't need to read the statistics, ask yourself. 
I believe you will find this 'decreased hopefullness' also. That is, 
unless you are not in the majority.
    If you believe this declining state, then you should be wary how 
you support any given current government agenda. Making decisions 
based on desired results in a given 2 or 4 year period can be at 
odds with an increasingly hopeful, promising future for the bulk 
citizenry. The better, long term solution should be choosen, yes? 
What is better, how is that measured? Measured so many ways, I 
suggest looking at this one: The one which promises the greatest 
long-term net social benefit. This should be calculated by the 
entity which benefits individually the least over all outcomes.
    Corporations are made to last more than a lifetime. So is our 
government. Both types need decisions which will ensure continued 
success (success is defined differently for each). Individually we 
need to pay bills, be employed; but we have the chance to help 
ensure this is the greatest country in the world. I realize this may 
be difficult, but do you really want to continue making decisions 
which choose a few over the many? This is why I am "unhappy 
with the decision/settlement". Once again, thank you for 
listening, we are all supposed to be the government. By the people, 
for the people.

MTC-856



MTC-00000857

From: Nancy Harrison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 3:00 pm
Subject: Microsoft "settlement"
    I have boycotted Microsoft software since 1995. Try this: go to 
any retail store and try to buy peripherals (printers, scanners, 
modems etc) for a NON-Windows system. Not real easy unless you have 
a Mac instead of a PC.
    Now, the real problem is M$'s determination to "de-
commoditize" the Internet. They want it all. Can you stop 
them? I want the right to use another operating system with the 
software for the Internet now available thru the web, not designed 
by Microsoft.
    What if you bought a Porsche, and were told you had to have a 
Chevy engine in it? "Oh. if you want a Porsche engine you'll 
have to go to Germany and buy one and install it yourself. Only 
Chevy engines are available for cars in the US".. NHarrison, 
Linux and Mac user

MTC-857



MTC-00000858

From: David Olegar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:57 pm
Subject: Antitrust Settlement
    This settlement gives Microsoft a free ride to continue to abuse 
their monopoly position. It desperately needs teeth.

MTC-858



MTC-00000859

From: David Olegar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:57 pm
Subject: Antitrust Settlement
    I understand this is the e-mail address to send feedback 
concerning the Microsoft antitrust settlement. As a Windows 98 SE 
user and resident of Western Washington state, I understand the 
importance of Microsoft to the economies of the USA and Washington 
state. However, I believe that it is against the long term interests 
of the USA and the computer world in general for Microsoft to abuse 
the monopoly position that they are in. You have asked Microsoft to 
do some things which would be beneficial if implimented. However, 
there appear to be no useful sanctions whatsoever if they do not 
comply. This agreement needs more teeth.

MTC-859



MTC-00000860

From: Edmond Meinfelder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 3:00 pm
Subject: the settlement
    I am disappointed in the Microsoft DOJ settlement. Regardless of 
the rule of law, Microsoft remains a monopoly. Capitalism, wonderful 
as it is, fails without competition. The best product for the best 
price will never be produced by a monopoly; it's not in their best 
interest. In the current marketplace, the only competition left is 
from the free software arena. Microsoft, in a roundabout way, 
acknowledges this though their constant nagging against free 
software.
    The US thrives on information technology. Having a monopoly in 
this vital area is shortsighted and detrimental to the future of 
this country.

MTC-860



MTC-00000861

From: Jay L. Alberts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:12 pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    Just a quick note to let the DOJ know that I am in favor of the 
proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case. This case has 
stalled innovation long enough. Thanks to the prevalence of 
Microsoft products I am able to effortlessly exchange files and 
documents with colleagues around the world when working on our 
research papers and grants. These features only serve to improve our 
work.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Jay L. Alberts
    Jay L. Alberts, Ph.D.
    Dept. of Health and Performance Sciences
    Georgia Institute of Technology
    Atlanta, GA 30332-0356
    jay.alberts @hps.gatech.edu
    Voice: 404.385.2339
    Fax: 404.894.9982
    www.hps.gatech.edu

MTC-861



MTC-00000862

From: Bruce L. Friedman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:11 pm
Subject: DOJ-MS Settlement Agreement Opinion
    I am told this is the forum for sending in public opinion for 
the proposed settlement. I am a computer professional, familiar with 
MS Windows (3.1, 95, 98, Me, NT, 2000, and XP) as well as with Linux 
from various distributions (RedHat, Slackware, etc.) and Sun Solaris 
operating systems. I have been working professionally in the field 
for 16 years and hold undergraduate and graduate degrees in computer 
science. My feeling from reading the press reports on the settlement 
is that Microsoft having been found guilty of monopolistic practices 
is being penalized by having to donate software to schools. This 
doesn't make sense. If the penalty's purpose is to prevent them from 
practicing as a monopoly in the future, I don't see how that would 
do it. I think the only penalty that should matter should be 
financial. The real question should be_how much, and who is 
the beneficiary? I think education is an excellent choice for the 
recipient. As for how much, I can't say. However, it should be based 
upon the assets and income of the corporation. I would think that 
something on the order of half of the corporate assests would not be 
overly punishing given the impact they have had on the marketplace 
in the personal computer business.
    Sincerely,
    Bruce Friedman
    [email protected]

MTC-862



MTC-00000863

From: WESCODIST@aoLcom@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17101 3:03pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    It is high time for the DIcharge of the case against MICROSOFT 
which has been motiviated by their competitors fueling pockets of 
the politicians and the states lawyers. I was involved in a just 
antitrust suit and know the influences are biased beyond reason. 
This company MSFT has provided a service to the average american and 
the world beyond any comperable damage they could ever have done. I 
feel this warped attitude just to extract money is unwarrented/... 
Wes Decker Seattle,WA

MTC-863



MTC-00000864

From: Donald, Teresa, (038) Abby Fleming
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:04pm
Subject: Please level the playing field
    Dear Department of Justice,
    It is my personal opinion that the news reports of the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft do not do enough to encourage free trade. 
My reasons are as follows:
    1. Promotes exclusive deals using a secure facility implies 
exclusive. The news report says that the details of programming code 
would be available at a secure facility. Let's say that I as an 
individual would like to write an application. The availability of a 
secure facility is of little value to me unless I can afford to go 
there. To be of value to me across the nation then more information 
needs to be available on a national basis. It is only through 
nationally available information can a future generation of rising 
programming students have to information necessary to create a new 
wave of software companies. Free trade is promoted through 
competition.

[[Page 23815]]

    2. Restricts free trade through bundling The proposed deal 
allows Microsoft to use its dominant position in home computer 
operating systems to finance its venture into software applications. 
This bundling of software applications restricts free trade.
    On the surface Microsoft appears to avoid the charge of bundling 
software since it does not separately sell the bundled software. At 
best I consider this a legal loophole. I consider Microsoft to be 
breaking the intent of the law. The intent of the law is to promote 
free trade. Microsoft is using its dominant position in desktop 
operating systems to sell bundled software. In other words I would 
estimate that a significant portion of the cost of the upgrade of 
the operating system from Windows 98 SE to Windows Me is not the 
cost to improve the operating system but the costs associated with 
the applications such as media player that are bundled with the 
operating system. Windows Me is recognized by many as being inferior 
to Windows 98 SE. It is because of this inferiority that many 
computer distributors such as Dell offer the customer the choice of 
which operating system to install on new computers. But that is 
beside the point. The point is that what Microsoft is really selling 
is not a product to recover the cost to upgrade the operating system 
but is really selling bundled software such as media player to cover 
the cost to add this bundled software to the product offering.
    The potential profit margins on Microsoft products are 
tremendous. A blank compact disk can be purchased for less than a 
dollar. A pre-recorded compact disk with commercial artwork on the 
packaging and on the disk can be purchased for under five dollars. 
The Microsoft operating system on a compact disk cannot be purchased 
for under one hundred dollars. It is this large potential profit 
margin that leads to organized crime and software pirating. The 
Linux operating system can be downloaded over the Internet for no 
cost or purchased for less than fifty dollars. A retail box version 
of Linux usually comes with technical support to resolve 
installation problems. A Microsoft operating system when purchased 
with a new computer does not include any Microsoft installation 
support.
    The bundling of a software application with the operating system 
accomplishes three purposes for Microsoft. (1) it adds value to the 
operating system which is intended to stir demand for upgrades (2) 
the major cost for an upgrade is not always the cost of updating the 
operating system portion of the upgrade but the added or bundled 
software; the cost for the bundled software is recovered in the 
operating system price, and (3) takes software revenue away from its 
competitors. Microsoft is using its dominant position in desktop 
operating systems to take software markets away from its 
competitors. This injures free trade. This can best be remedied by 
dividing the operating system and hardware (joysticks, mouse, 
keyboards, and xbox) portion of the Microsoft business from all 
other portions of Microsoft. Windows XP combines the technology 
available in Windows 2000 with the technology available in Windows 
Me. Page 33 of the October 16 edition of PC magazine described some 
of the new features available in Windows XP. The features are 
described as follows:
    Tightly integrated features formerly available only from other 
software makers abound. Microsoft has built some of the features 
from scratch and used third parties (with which it will now compete) 
for others. At the top of the list are Windows Messenger instant-
messaging software (targeted directly at AOL's turf) and an improved 
Windows Media Player (taking on Real Networks? Real Player). Windows 
XP includes an Internet firewall, a Web cookie controller (watch 
out, Norton!), CD creation software (sorry, Roxio!), PPPoE support 
for use with ADSL connections (ante up, Wind River), and a file-and 
settings- transfer wizard (a la AlohaBob) to ease the transition 
between PCs...? The above paragraph includes the competitors AOL, 
Real Networks, Norton, Roxio, and WindRiver. Many of these companies 
are publicly traded. If Microsoft can gain an unfair trade advantage 
over publicly traded companies such as these then some future 
college students who wants to be given the same opportunity as Bill 
Gates had will not have a chance. This discourages free trade.
    3. Restricts free trade through dominant position Microsoft has 
a dominant position for desktop computer operating systems. It is 
using this position to restrict the ability for competitors to 
create competing applications that run on the operating system. It 
does this by not sharing application development information. This 
injures free trade. Twenty years ago it was very popular for a 
computer manufacturer to create and maintain an operating system 
that will run on the latest computer being sold. Many manufacturers 
supported Unix since over 90% of the code is in the public domain an 
the remaining 10% is the device drivers to support the hardware. The 
Unix operating system is written in the ?C? programming language. 
Microsoft operating systems are written in either the ?C? 
programming language or the object oriented version of the ?C? 
programming language called ?C++?. Computers are not sold because 
they are pretty but because they provide value in productivity 
(workplace software) or entertainment (games, movies). In this 
environment a computer manufacturer would want as many applications 
as possible to run on their operating system. They would provide 
documentation on operating system calls with every computer sold. 
Information needed to create an application was not referenced as 
company secrets.
    Microsoft has established the Microsoft logo program as a way to 
test software applications to ensure that they are taking advantage 
of new operating system features and avoiding problems that were 
present in the older operating systems. Programs that pass the tests 
are eligible to have the Microsoft logo artwork added to the retail 
box packaging. Microsoft sells programming languages that run on 
their operating system. Last year I purchased ?Visual Basic 6.0 
Deluxe Learning Edition?. It came with a compact disk and two 
manuals. Neither manual included the information needed to be able 
to write a program to install a software application. It contained a 
package and deployment wizard that included some source code that 
could be customized and some object code without the source code. 
Neither the manuals nor the source code provided the information 
necessary to meet Microsoft's logo program. I have been researching 
the Microsoft web site and other sources of information for 
information on how to write an installation program for a software 
application that will only display a help file. I want this software 
application to be compliant with the logo program. I also want this 
program to make registry calls using Unicode and support operating 
systems such as NT/2000/XP. What I have found is that two different 
third party books recommend the purchase of an installation program 
from another third party.
    By not making application creation information available 
Microsoft is discouraging free trade.
    4. Restricts free trade through dominant position Historically 
many market leaders do not like standards. Microsoft appears to be 
no exception. Many market observers discussed how that JAVA became 
popular for its ability to work across many different computer 
operating systems. A subset of JAVA was called JavaScript and is 
supported by the Netscape web browser.
    The Linux operating system does not require a web browser. A 
Netscape web browser is available for the Linux operating system. 
Microsoft claims that their web browser is an integral part of the 
operating system. My personal observation is that Microsoft calls 
many software applications part of the operating system for the 
reasons outlined earlier.
    Microsoft also sells and supports programming languages. They 
used their expertise in programming languages to give Internet 
Explorer version 5.0 the ability to do things that cannot be done by 
JavaScript. By including the price to develop this software in the 
cost of the operating system gave Microsoft an unfair trade 
advantage. They were able to supply this product for 
"free" as a feature of the operating system rather than 
charging a price for each copy as was once done by their 
competitors.
    Much of the Internet's wide acceptance has been established by 
industry standards. Microsoft used its dominant position in 
operating systems to distribute its web browser. Once it has a 
dominant position in the web browser marketplace it developed and 
implemented its own version of new Internet standards. The dynamic 
HTML available in Microsoft Internet Explorer is not compatible with 
Netscape. The result of this incompatibility is that some web sites 
could not afford to continue doing web software development for both 
browsers. They chose to go with the dominant player Microsoft. This 
bully tactic by Microsoft is an injury to free trade.
    The Windows XP operating system includes Internet Explorer 6.0. 
This web browser is available for download for use on earlier 
operating systems. It supports an Internet draft standard for 
handling privacy issues associated with web cookies. The release of 
a product that supports a draft standard by a company with a 
dominant share of the market is acting like a bully. A bully should 
be treated as a bully. The

[[Page 23816]]

Microsoft .NET initiative is intended to radically change the way 
that web development is done. Microsoft is using their programming 
experience to offer programming language support to web servers. The 
new programming language is called "C#". This is 
intended to create a dramatic impact to web servers as these 
programming languages can replace scripts written in Microsoft's ASP 
languages or competing script languages such as PERL.
    The cost of development of the .NET initiative has to be carried 
by Microsoft major sources of revenue. These are the operating 
system and Microsoft Office. Microsoft is again using its dominant 
position in operating systems to grow into other software markets. 
This injures free trade. It provides an unfair trade advantage. The 
Windows operating system is written in the programming languages 
"C" and "C++". The Linux operating system is 
also written in "C". The new programming language 
"C#" is not intended for use in operating system 
development or enhancements.
    5. Pricing discrepancies
    One report claims that 80% of the motherboards made for personal 
computers are made in Taiwan. Some of the cards that plug into 
motherboards are made in China. Many electronic assemblies are made 
overseas where labor rates are less expensive. The home desktop or 
tower computer is no longer solely an American product. The 
technology no longer exists solely in America. Personal computers is 
an international market. Many computer dealers assemble components 
and preload the operating system onto the hard drive. The hardware 
drivers are not written by the computer dealers but by the companies 
that made the computer components. This applies to the drivers for 
video cards, printers, modem cards, sound cards, and compact disks. 
Industry standard drivers are usually available for the disk 
controllers and compact disks. Microsoft offers the same product for 
two prices. I consider this to be illegal. The operating system is 
sold for one price when preloaded and another price in a retail box. 
One magazine ad has the Windows XP Home Edition Full OEM version for 
$104. Another ad lists the retail box edition of the same software 
for $299.99. Many software games are sold in Walmart in retail boxes 
for $30.00. Therefore the cost of manufacturing and distribution of 
the retail box should be reasonably less than $30.00.
    The intention by Microsoft is that the computer dealer that 
loads the software would become responsible for any installation 
support regarding the operating system. This may be true for some 
computer dealers. It is not true for all computer dealers. Some 
computer dealers sell computers with no technical support. They 
require a customer to directly contact the manufacturer of the 
hardware component for operating system device driver support or 
installation support. The Microsoft agreement with a computer dealer 
cannot be a contract with the suppliers to the computer dealer. No 
money changes hands between these parties so therefore no contract 
exists. In these situations Microsoft is charging different prices 
for the same product.
    6. Agreements
    Some reports say that Microsoft is using its dominant position 
in the marketplace to force computer dealers to limit the icons that 
a computer dealer can place on the desktop. I consider this to be 
illegal since it restricts free trade. It allows Microsoft to 
promote other products that it sells while discouraging the 
promotion of competing products. I support the court ruling that 
allows computer dealers to have more control of the icons placed on 
computer desktops.
    7. Tying
    Anytime that one company promotes another company's product then 
I am considered about tying arrangements, kickbacks, or promotion 
fees. Microsoft has realized that installation is a problem and has 
released for distribution the customer version of a Windows 
Installer program. This program was released with Windows 2000 but 
is available for installation on earlier operating systems. The 
upgrade from Internet Explorer version 5.0 to 5.5 will require the 
installation of this software before the upgrade can occur. 
Microsoft web site also recommend two companies where the software 
developer can purchase the application that creates the installation 
package. Both companies want over $1000 for the package. This causes 
me to wonder whether or not either of these companies have exclusive 
deals with Microsoft or if Microsoft has a financial interest in 
either one. Hiding information discourages free trade.
    Microsoft web site promotes Verisign as a root authority for 
issuing certificates. Certificates are a means to implement 
security. There are many companies that issue certificates. Root 
authorities are visible by selecting tools, Internet options, 
content, certificates, trusted root certification authorities. Why 
did the company "Verisign" get singled out for 
attention?
    It is acceptable for Microsoft to permit applications developers 
to sign their work with a digital signature or to encrypt their work 
with a certificate. However Microsoft should not require either 
step. If either step is required then Microsoft one step closer to 
tying the development of an application with another independently 
sold product. If this is a requirement it will restrict free trade.
    Sincerely,
    Donald Fleming
    2224 A Oakwood Ln
    Florence, SC 29501



MTC-00000865

From: Jim Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As far as I'm concerned, a complete sellout by the DOJ. A mild 
slap on the wrist for MS. This will do nothing to deter the illegal 
and monopolistic MS practices. It continues in XP and will continue 
in the future.
    You failed.

MTC-865



MTC-00000866

From: Aaron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:02pm
Subject: Microsoft case antitrust settlement
    I am very disappointed with the current proposed settlement of 
the Microsoft case. The current settlement does nothing to prevent 
Microsoft from using their monopoly power as they have in the past 
and as they continue to do. In the current setup, there is no way 
for other parties to compete with MS. MS is free to give away 
software, and ever preload it, to compete with 3rd party software 
like they did with IE to beat down Netscape. The big problem here is 
that there is already a monopoly, and due to this there is no way 
for competitors to get footing. What really needs to take place is 
for Microsoft to be split into 2, or even 3, different companies. 
This would split off the OS side from the apps side. In this day and 
age, both MS office and Windows have a near stranglehold on the 
market. If another OS was to start taking off, Microsoft could 
either not make an office suite for that product that wasn't as good 
as the same on different platforms, or could delay shipping a 
version of office. Both of these would cause the competing platform 
to not gain as much ground as they need. Microsoft has made 2nd rate 
versions of Office in the past for the Mac (version 4.2.1) along 
with constantly changing file formats so that Office documents on a 
Mac aren't compatible with those on the PC. Or as seen with Linux, 
an OS which they haven't made a version of Office for, while they 
likely would if the apps department was a separate company from the 
OS side of thing.
    Likewise, if a competitor to MS Office started taking 
marketshare away, MS could just change the way the OS works, or not 
release info needed for 3rd party products. This too is something 
that MS has done in the past for several different competing 
products, and is something that has come up on several occasions in 
this trial.
    Another section that should possibly be separated from the rest 
of the company is the networking tools. This would include lIE and 
other network related apps. IMO this could stay part of the Apps 
group, but should be considered if MS claims that lIE should go with 
the OS. I hope that some of the input from the public is used to 
decide how this case is decided, though I am leery of the DOJ 
listening too much to the quantity, since it has come out that MS 
has sent in support letters for themselves in the past, some from 
real people but a lot from people that no longer exist. Also, MS has 
been shown to be spending a lot of money lobbying, and I would hate 
to see them buy themselves out of this case and not get punished for 
using monopolistic powers.
    Thanks for listening
    Aaron Daniel

MTC-866



MTC-00000867

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:09pm
Subject: back off
    Back off. You have punished MSFT enough. Any more will 
discourage creative people from submitting new ideas.

MTC-867

[[Page 23817]]



MTC-00000868

From: Phil Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:04pm
Subject: States may have rights and their interests, but at what 
expense to the national interest?
    In my opinion, a settlement should be reached between Microsoft 
and the federal government. Those states that remain opposed to the 
points tentatively agreed upon are actively sabotaging the situation 
at hand. It would seem that these states are not in fact interested 
in looking out for their residents, but perhaps more for their 
corporate constituents. It is one thing to sarcastically quip that a 
corporation can ?purchase? a senator or a congressman, but the very 
notion of ?owning? a state is sickening to the very core.
    The behavior of these states has not been explained clearly to 
those members of society that would be most directly affected by 
these states course of action. If they indeed have a legitimate 
grudge with Microsoft, why is it not spelled out directly, for the 
public to know and understand? I would like to see the federal 
government impress upon these state prosecutors that their 
intentions will cause far more harm than good, and that they should 
concede to the better solution of settling this case with Microsoft.
    _Phil Smith

MTC-868



MTC-00000869

From: Brad Paton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:12pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I just wanted to register my opinions on the Justice 
Department's proposed settlement with Microsoft.
    First, given the fact that the primary objection the Appeals 
Court had with Judge Jackson's verdict on the case was his 
penalties, not with his legal rulings that Microsoft was both a 
monopolist, and one that abused its monopoly power to expand to 
other fields. To quote from the Friday Wall Street Journal covering 
David James's defense of the settlement:
    "Mr. James said the Microsoft settlement reflects changes 
in the software industry since the Justice Department sued Microsoft 
in 1998. While the case began as the result of the so-called browser 
wars between Netscape and Microsoft's Internet Explorer, Microsoft 
has won that war, Mr. James said."
    This means that he acknowledges in public that Microsoft used 
their monopoly leverage to successfully defeat Netscape in the so-
called browser wars. But according to everything I have read about 
traditional anti-trust resolutions is that the two primary things a 
settlement is supposed to achieve are: 1) a guarantee that the 
monopolist is unable to repeat it's illegal expansion into other 
fields, and 2) deny them the fruits of their original illegal 
expansion. Addressing the first contention and how it relates to the 
proposed settlement, I don't know how given both the history of 
Microsoft's behavior in the prior consent decree, and the fact that 
even though it was found guilty of illegal behavior the company 
maintains that it has done nothing wrong (if you can find one 
instance in the public record of any Microsoft executive from Bill 
Gates on down contradicting this, you are much better detectives 
than any of the many journalists covering the case), I don't see how 
basically telling the company, "Now don't do it again." 
is going to be effective.
    Essentially, Mr. James has acted as though he not only disagreed 
with the court findings, but would never have filed the case to 
begin with, despite supposedly winning it! To the second concept 
above, there are no penalties anywhere in this settlement that even 
pretend to address this. There isn't even a financial penalty, 
despite the fact that Microsoft took one of the most dynamic 
companies in the US technology industry, Netscape, and basically 
eviscerated it so much that it wound up being swallowed whole by 
media companies, to whom they are basically a technology adjunct. 
Could you imagine the same thing ever happening to Microsoft? Do you 
think there weren't significant job losses at Netscape? Why is 
Microsoft considered the only "innovative" company 
worthy of being let do whatever they want, simply because they are 
so dominant that anything done to hurt them is seen as hurting the 
American economy, rather than the harm that they have done in the 
inverse?
    There are some who say that Microsoft has 
"innovated" so much that they are the sole reason the PC 
industry is where it is today. Exactly where is the PC industry 
today? True, the costs of equipment have roughly stayed constant, 
and today's machines are much more powerful than they used to be, 
but that is hardware advances, an area that Microsoft doesn't 
operate in! In the area of software, our desktop computers still 
routinely crash every bit as frequently as they used to. Software 
programs that were miles better than anything that could be done in 
the analog world, word processing for example, used to fit on a 
single density floppy disk (remember those?). Now they take up over 
100 megabytes of hard drive space (roughly 200 times as large), 
still mostly do the same things, require 40 times as much system 
memory, and still crash (usually by running out of memory, a problem 
almost always caused by either faulty coding in the software, or the 
operating system). Take a document that you wrote on an early PC, 
say 10 years ago, open it in Microsoft's Word 2001 (or XP), save it 
in the native format, and compare the file sizes. You haven't done 
anything to it, and it now takes up over 4 times as much space!
    Imagine what would have happened to American industry if 
Microsoft servers powered the financial industry instead of IBM's 
mainframes. These mainframes have been operating relatively fault-
free for over 20 years! Microsoft upgrades everything within a year 
or two, always promising that this time they've gotten it right, yet 
they still can't even approach that level of reliability. If 
anything, the standards of software reliability that Microsoft has 
been a prime mover for getting the American public to accept has 
probably impeded the progress of American technology more than any 
other single factor. They have gotten away with practicing via 
coding the exact same sorts of sophistry that all the dot-coin 
companies that crashed in the past couple of years were doing, only 
the investment public isn't nearly so permissive what you do with 
their money as what you do with their computers (and time).
    I know the general state of the software industry is not within 
the purview of this case, but not significantly penalizing Microsoft 
for it's rapacious behavior in the past not only encourages it, but 
also sends a message to the rest of the industry that such behavior 
is not only permitted, but encouraged.
    Sincerely,
    Brad Paton

MTC-869



MTC-00000870

From: Capecodjac @aoLcom@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has done more good in developing & building the 
Internet than all the competitors combined. They risked capital 
& are entitled to all the rewards the market place can bestow 
upon them. Our whole society has developed by being innovative. To 
punish Microsoft is to help destroy innovation.
    John H Camey
    5909 Edinburgh Court
    Dallas Tx 75257

MTC-870



MTC-00000871

From: Arturo Rafael Martinez Retama
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:05pm
Subject: microsoft should be punished for its past monopolic 
practices
    i think microsoft should be punished for its past monopolic 
practices

MTC-871



MTC-00000872

From: Gary N Fanning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:11pm
Subject: DOJ/Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    No. Do not allow Microsoft the opportunity of reaping a reward 
from a punishment.
    I am not sure of what punishment I would place on Microsoft, but 
the current proposal is only a short term punishment, with a long 
term possible gain.
    Have Microsoft develop/convert its most popular softwares, 
Office, development tools, etc., to competing platforms. After a 
stated period of time, 3-5 years of support, Microsoft may 
stop support and enhancements. Microsoft would have to publish the 
software into the open source community.
    Regards,
    Gary Fanning
    Vice President
    Elevating Communications, Inc.
    918.587.0131 x102

MTC-872



MTC-00000873

From: grossklas

[[Page 23818]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:17pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Try as I may, I can find absolutely no constitutional authority 
for the actions the federal government has taken against Microsoft. 
These actions are a blatant usurpation, arrogation and illegitimate 
seizure of power of tyrannical proportions. While Bill Gates is not 
one of my personally favorite people, nevertheless, I totally object 
to any sanctions being placed on his company whatsoever by any 
branch of the federal government.
    If justice is to be done, then all punishments, assessments, 
damages, fines, disciplines, judments, limitations and agreements 
relating to this unjust "settlement" by the federal 
government against Microsoft must be voided and I demand that this 
be done.
    William P. Grossklas, Sr.
    609 Spring Road
    Elmhurst, IL 60126
    Phone: 630 530 2973
    Fax: 630 530 2976

MTC-873



MTC-00000874

From: william @mta2.srv.hcvlny .cv.net @ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:15pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    While reviewing this document it became evident that the past 
and current Microsoft Windows (tm) products, not there Graphical 
User Interface (GUI) platforms, was being addressed.
    Fortunately, from a legal standpoint, Microsoft Corporation has 
begun to transition away from the existing Windows (tm) product 
offerings. Recently introduced ".Net" products will 
replace all Microsoft Corporation Windows (tm) products within the 
next thirty six (36) months.
    Consequentially, this settlement and its multiple year remedies 
address soon to be nonexistent Microsoft Corporation products.
    Any settlement must address this software vendors GUI product 
lines which include past, present and future Microsoft Corporation 
product offerings.

MTC-874



MTC-00000875

From: Paul Whitmore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:20pm
Subject: I oppose the settlement
    I am outraged that the solution to years of predatory marketing, 
flagrant lies that extended all the way through the MS public trial, 
and anti-competitive strategy is rewarded with such a lame 
settlement. The failure to promote true diversity will one day 
unleassh a catastrophe, given how abysmal MS has been about 
security. I oppose the settlement, and am very angry that the DOJ 
has failed to fulfill its civic obligation to protect American 
citizens from such blatant law-breakers.
    Paul Whitmore
    3356 16th St SF, CA 94114 Home 415.626.6479 Work 415.932.6182
    http://www-psych.stanford.edu/ï¿½7Ewit

MTC-875



MTC-00000876

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Attorney General
    If I understand it properly, this settlement will provide 
Microsoft with an opportunity to continue, in my opinion, the 
excellence in two areas of concern to me.
    First, the development, testing and support of the finest 
computer software, that I as a small business owner can use to 
increase my productivity. Second, the contribution to my retirement 
fund with the excellent growth of Microsoft stock.
    In my opinion, both of these opportunities areas have been 
significantly restricted with this legal action.
    God bless you, your family and The USA.
    Coach C. Sam Benson
    Personal & Professional Success Coach
    Human Dynamics Resources
    Division of Aviation Consultants Inc
    118 12 CR 76
    Findlay, OH 45840
    419-424-0248
    [email protected]
    www.coachwithsam.com

MTC-876



MTC-00000877

From: S.I. and/or Matilda Chou
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    Microsoft's behavior must be strongly regulated because of its 
past monopoly history and lack of remorse in unlawful practices. We 
must stop MS from perpetuating its monopoly practice of maximizing 
its profits by shutting down support for its older products and 
pushing everyone towards buying newer, supported Microsoft products.
    The following is from http://www.langa.com/newsletters/2001/
2001-11-15.htm
    [Next month (December 2001) Microsoft will cease to provide 
support for MS DOS, Windows 3.xx, and Windows NT 3.5x; and support 
will become limited for Win95, Win95 OSRi and Win95 05R2. Seven 
months from now, in June 2002, Microsoft will cease to provide full 
support for Win98, Win98SE, and WinNT4.x. That's right: Starting 
next month and ending next June, the overwhelming majority of 
current Windows users will find themselves operating OS versions 
that the vendor_Microsoft_either doesn't support, or 
only partially supports!]
    Note that Win98SE is currently the largest segment among 
Operating System users.
    Sincerely Yours,
    S.1. and Matilda Chou
    5323 Mount Burnham Drive
    San Diego, CA 92111
    858-560-0531

MTC-877



MTC-00000878

From: Paul Whitmore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:20pm
Subject: I oppose the settlement
    I am outraged that the solution to years of predatory marketing, 
flagrant lies that extended all the way through the MS public trial, 
and anti-competitive strategy is rewarded with such a lame 
settlement.
    The failure to promote true diversity will one day unleassh a 
catastrophe, given how abysmal MS has been about security.
    I oppose the settlement, and am very angry that the DOJ has 
failed to fulfill its civic obligation to protect American citizens 
from such blatant law-breakers.
    Paul Whitmore
    3356 16th St SF, CA 94114 Home 415.626.6479 Work 415.932.6182
    http://www-psych.stanford.edul_wit

MTC-878



MTC-00000879

From: ArnoldfS @aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sirs:
    ENOUGH ALREADY!!!
    The Federal courts have settled the Microsoft case and we have a 
WAR going on! Pay attention now to those things that are harmful to 
our country! Tell those nine state AG's to find some other way to 
selfaggrandize and push their political agenda.
    "Let's Get Rolling!"
    Arnold F. and Linda E. Schmitz
    163 Deer Lake Circle
    Ormond Beach, FL 32 174-4275
    [email protected]
    CC: [email protected]@inetgw.

MTC-879



MTC-00000880

From: Stuboxi @aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:30pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    It is about time this waste of taxpayer's dollars finally comes 
to an end. What you really need to ask is the consumer been harmed 
by Microsoft's actions? I don't think so! Not when the cost of 
software continues to decrease and the quality and new features 
continue to improve greatly. This case was a result of a bunch of 
cry babies-competitors of Microsoft (Netscape/AOL, Sun Microsystems 
and others) who were losing the technology battle to Microsoft. If 
you guys would have spent as much money on homeland security and 
anti-terrorist efforts as you did on this Microsoft case the World 
Trade Center towers would probably be standing today. Leave 
Microsoft alone and let the market determine the winners and losers-
they will choose with their pocketbooks. Go catch and prosecute some 
"real" bad guys.
    Stuart Boxenbaum
    CC: jackchub @bellsouth.net@inetgw.

MTC-880



MTC-00000881

From: Craig Fisk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft is NOT a Monopoly

[[Page 23819]]

    Why do people think Microsoft is a monopoly? There not forcing 
you to use any of their products. You've got choices like Linux and 
Macintosh. So what if they bundle IE or a video editing program or 
Media Player? YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE THEM. Its not like Adobe is 
going to loose any more money on Premier and MusicMatch is certainly 
not going to loose any more money. Just because Internet Explorer is 
bundled with Windows does not mean you have to use it.

MTC-881



MTC-00000882

From: Richard Kems
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to end this crap against Microsoft. If you track the 
law suit and the downturn in the economy, they track very closely. 
Microsoft is large enough to bring down the general economy. 
Microsoft does not deserve this negative government action. Now that 
Bill Clinton and his band of thugs are out of the way...END THIS 
NOWW!!!! It will be a big boost to the economy.

MTC-882



MTC-00000883

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
    [Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It 
has been converted to attachment.]
    Byun Hung Kim for President... Microsoft walked.  No, Microsoft hit a home run in the bottom of the 
ninth with two out.  Seems alot like our war on 
terrorism, the solutions don't seem to address the problem.
    To stick with our baseball analogy, Microsoft reminds me of Pete 
Rose . It's not so much what they've 
done, it's their refusal to admit  they have 
done anything wrong.
    The current anti-trust case against Microsoft came on the heels 
of a previous case in which they were found guilty. Strike One. 
Judge Jackson ruled them a Monopoly, with the appeals court 
upholding that claim and reversing the remedy. It's a high pop-up 
behind the plate, and the DOJ is doing their best Damien Miller 
 
impersonations. Strike two.
    Then, with the count up on the batter, a lollypop over the 
middle of the plate. Home run. By the way, did you notice the lack 
of balls?? Next:  The cage that Gates 
built... _> The cage that Gates built...
    As Microsoft evolves, there is a growing desire by Microsoft to 
control file formats. Certainly their control over their Office 
formats does more to bolster the Windows platform than anything. 
Now, they want to move into the space occupied by MP3 with their 
proprietary WMA format. If Microsoft is sucessful, it may be that in 
ten years you will be required to pay Microsoft to listen to a new 
album. More to the point, you may have to be running Windows to 
listen to music. For all of those out there who cannot figure out 
what .NET is, it is Microsoft's strategy to turn the Internet into 
Microsoft's own version of AOL.
    Microsoft can accomplish this due to their monopoly in the 
operating system market. As they change their operating system, they 
can continually redirect "The path of least resistance", 
by making MP3 hard to play and WMA easy to play. Want to rip a CD in 
XP? It'll be WMA format unless you connect to this site, research 
encoders, purchase and install one.
    They will use Passport/Hailstorm to restrict access to the known 
internet if they can get their way. Want to do online shopping?? 
Please log in via Passport. This is to make the internet more secure 
 they 
will tell you. As we have already stated in a previous rant 
, 
Microsoft doesn't "get" security. They think it's 
something you add after the features are done.
    They use their browser to add in non-standard HTML tags, or 
force you to write "incorrect HTML" for it to look like 
you want it to in IE. They use non-standard extensions of public 
specs and then claim the  competition is defective when it cannot render these 
obscure and undocumented tweaks. Microsoft is so entrenched in these 
tactics , that it often accuses it's competitors 
 of 
doing the same. The reality of it is that Microsoft does not see any 
other way to play the game. If they do not resort to anti-
competitive tactics, how can they succeed?? With Microsoft off the 
leash and back on the prowl, they may have a point. Next:  It just keeps getting worse...> It just 
keeps getting worse...
    It seemed an unlikely%2Osettlement  %2Ofrom% 2Othe%2Ostart,% 2Obut%2Oone% 2Owe%2Ohad% 
2Ohoped% 2Owould% 2Ohave% 2Osome teeth if it was to be made. Not 
only does this new deal not impose any real restrictions on 
Microsoft, but actually provides them with new tools to steal GNU 
 tools. (OOPS! Did we say steal, we meant 
embrace and extend ...) From Eben  Moglen, Columbia Law Professor:
    There are [also] several provisions designed by Microsoft and 
accepted by an indifferent or careless government. Sections 
III-D and E say that Microsoft must document its APIs within 
reasonable time, for ISVs [independent software vendors], "for 
the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System 
Product." Not, in other words, to allow a competing Non-
Microsoft Operating System Product to interoperate with Windows 
applications. This is designed to make it possible for Microsoft to 
deny information to developers of [free software like] GNU and Linux 
[who create products that are not designed solely to work with 
Windows.]
    111-1(5) says that [developers and hardware manufacturers] 
"may be required to grant to Microsoft on reasonable and 
nondiscriminatory terms a license to any intellectual property 
rights it may have relating to the exercise of their options or 
alternatives provided by this Final Judgment; the scope of such 
license shall be no broader than is necessary to insure that 
Microsoft can provide such options or alternatives." Microsoft 
will use this to argue that code under the GNU General Public 
License (GPL) [which protects such software as GNU and Linux] must 
be licensed to it on non-GPL terms, so they can use the code in 
their own programs without having to GPL their programs. What, did 
they have to strike clause 32i that states that every U.S. Citizen 
is required to pay Microsoft one-hundred dollars yearly whether you 
use Windows or not? Also note that the API's must be opened up a 
little, but not file formats.
    Next:  Burn all .DOC's day! 
_>
    Burn all .DOC's day!
    Nowadays you cannot apply for a job without Microsoft Word. 
"Please submit resume in .Doc format." Page 4 of this 
rant should be the part where I tell you to abandon the MS formats 
and use.... ...and use... And there you have it. What else is there? 
Name me an alternative to the .DOC format that is open and widely 
interoperable. Name me a slideshow producer that rivals Power Point 
with the same qualities. What is there??
    Nope, page 4 is the page where I call out Bill Gates' rivals. 
Scott McNeally, Larry Ellison, and Steve Jobs, you all suck. You 
whine about Microsoft, but refuse to challenge them.
    When Microsoft announced Windows NT, Sun should have shot back 
with the Solaris home edition for x86. Sun should have invested time 
and effort into a competing Office package, groupware, Something! 
They purchased Star Office way too late in the game. Now they want 
to talk about Sun One?? Microsoft has no plan, but one vision for 
.NET, while Sun has no plan and no vision for Sun One. Sun should 
have at least produced the definitive Java version for the Windows 
platform.
    Sun is an OS company just like Microsoft, and they have let 
Windows take the lead. Oracle?? Larry Ellison can't even fight off 
Gates, much less fight against him. Steve Jobs sucks because he 
refuses to take the battle to Gates. Apple, if you are listening, 
port OS X to x86. Show the strength of the BSD codebase, sell it for 
50$, and mop the floor with Microsoft. So long as Apple refuses to 
port to generic hardware, they will continue to be a marginalized 
competitor.
    These corporate entities are at least playing on the same field 
with Microsoft, and they need to state their challenge for Microsoft 
territory, and fight the ensuing war. Instead

[[Page 23820]]

they play a game of punch and run, trying to be a David against a 
Goliath and hoping one small lucky shot can slay the beast.
    Next:  Microsoft Uber Alles 
_> Microsoft Uber Alles
    The Bush administration may have settled due to concerns about 
the economy, but anyone who's smart would get out of any stock that 
competes with Microsoft. The have carte blanche to run roughshod 
over the industry and by God they intend to. (Note: Actually, the 
real reason MS got a deal was due to Campaign Bribery. They weren't 
even supposed to lose the appeal. To find out more about your 
elected corporate shills, visit the  library.) Write your state 
attorney general, let him know you dissapprove, write your 
congressman, write John Ashcroft, write President Bush, send 
    1. 1 have had numerous people complain to me about the fact that 
Internet Explorer is un-installable. Several parents find that 
Netscape is a better choice, and much easier to use when it comes to 
protecting children from questionable comment. However, leaving 
Internet Explorer on the system is mandatory, and also opens the 
computers to new security threats. I feel this is an example of 
Microsoft's attempt to monopolize the Internet.
    2. In times prior, Microsoft has operated an online gaming 
website called "The Zone". I would like to point out 
that users attempting to access this website with Netscape were told 
that they *had* to use Internet Explorer to access the site. Once 
again, this was attempting to push Netscdape out of the running for 
competition.
    3. I also beileve certain non-classified portions of Microsoft's 
source code should be available to the public, or at least to 
security professionals. Microsoft has shown an inconsistency in the 
past with providing security fixes for crticial flaws in a 
reasonable manner, and if officials from other computer departments 
were able to more closely referance, this could help to sort out 
potential problems that computer crime can cause.
    4. Although this is slightly off-topic, I beileve Microsoft 
really needs to concentrate against bashing open source software. If 
MS and the Open Source community could learn to peacefully co-exist 
and prosper, I'm fairly sure we could become the chief software 
producing country in the world, if we are not already. Note that 
this also could seriously stimulate the economy to avoid the 
potential 'recession' that everyone fears is heading in.
    Thank you for providing your time and bandwidth to recieve our 
feedback,
    Sincerely,
    Jonathan J. Zegelien

MTC-890



MTC-00000891

From: Fox Hollow Farm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am a retired, home user, reasonably expert, frequent user of 
my home computer. I wish to make 2 points. Microsoft has made life 
much easier for us non-experts by providing software which operates 
seamlessly between different programs and tasks. Gone, for good I 
hope, are the days when the programs which a normal person uses 
(word processing, spread sheet, e-mail, internet, checkbook, address 
book, etc.) were disjointed and couldn't transfer information to 
each other and to the person with whom I was trying to communicate. 
Microsoft is a great company, that has led the way and been a model 
in the last decade of prosperity. They have done so not only by 
being smart, but by being aggressive in business. That's the 
American way. That's what causes de-facto standards which make life 
easier. Every time I pay my telephone bill, to 3 different 
companies, I am reminded of the disservice that was done by breaking 
us a public utility. Certainly, monopolies or near monopolies need 
rules for the protection of their customers, but asking them to give 
up business gains gotten by doing business by making their product 
better is wrong.
    Ed Schoenhari
    Langley, WA
    [email protected]

MTC-891



MTC-00000892

From: Jean Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR Date; 11/17/01 1:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Living in Washington State I note first hand the benefits 
Microsoft has given the PUBLIC OF THE USA, not just our State. In 
fact many places in the world are benefactors. Also having been 
owner-operators of a small business for 32 years I know that 
competition can also be a constructive mode. I request that the 
Microsoft Company be allowed to operate and progress as in the past, 
helping to teach other businesses how to compete and to learn how 
success can be accomplished. Thank you for letting me offer my 
experiences with success. M. Jean Thompson
    2034 E. North Crescent Spokane, Wa. 99207

MTC-892



MTC-00000893

From: Jay Reitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:13pm
Subject: Well done!
    I firmly believe that justice has been done in this case. 
Microsoft is one of our nations greatest assets, technically, 
economically and symbolically. I believe that the settlement reached 
is both fair and equitable. I'm pleasantly surprised that a large 
government agency can (occasionally) do the right thing.
    >.J.



MTC-00000894

From: Seymour Phillips
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:11pm
Subject: settlement
    Dear Madam: We agree with the settlement, and hope that the 
States that remain out of the suit will be brought back in to 
settle, and allow Microsoft to continue their good work. Sincerely, 
Seymour Phillips

MTC-894



MTC-00000895

From: ender@ ike.prioritynetw orks.net @ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:10pm
Subject: Concerned Citizen's comments on the MS/DOJ settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I would like express my deep misgivings about the proposed 
Microsoft settlement reached by the company and the Department of 
Justice. I will keep my comments brief, and more to a philosophical 
standpoint, as my groundings in anti-trust law are weak.
    It seems to me that there is no punishment in this settlement. 
There are only provisions to guard against future unlawful behavior. 
We have an amazingly powerful multinational corporation who has been 
running up against the law for its business practices for years who 
has been proven_ to have violated the law (when Judge 
Jackson's finding of antitrust violations were upheld). Where is the 
punishment? The proposed settlement is a slap on the wrist and a 
thin leash for Microsoft. The American Justice system is letting a 
convicted offender off the hook without then suffering for what they 
have done. Do you expect this to rehabilitate their behavior?
    The modern justice system does not take organized drug dealers 
after they have been arrested and give them a punishment of behavior 
restrictions while they continue to live in the outside world. They 
are sent to prison.
    Yes, these are two different types of crimes_but the basic 
precept is the same: criminals will strike again and again until 
their behavior is modified.
    We are dealing with a corporation that is a criminal. These fact 
is beyond dispute. Are we treating them like one? I don't believe 
so. Maybe I'm alone in my opinion, but I think corporations that 
defy U.S. should pay for their mistakes. And with this current 
settlement I don't believe Microsoft is paying any real 
penalty_they have before them only restrictions on future 
behavior.
    Please strengthen this settlement to teach Microsoft a lesson. I 
think it is obvious from the companies conduct before, and 
especially during the trial that they have a serious problem 
respecting the laws of this nation. It is time that this changes.
    I am a computer professional, and have been administering all 
types of computer systems and networks for over seven years

[[Page 23822]]

now. People in my profession see first had the negative results of 
Microsoft's illegal monopoly. I see the effects of their lawlessness 
everyday, and I ask you to put a firm, but just stop to it.
    Sincerely,
    Jonathan Claybaugh
    Priority Networks
    37 Fox St. #1
    Boston, MA
    617.822.7576

MTC-895



MTC-00000896

From: [email protected] @inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:10pm
Subject: Publish the file formats
    Please protect American consumers and businesses from the 
Microsoft monopoly. As a business owner, I am all too aware of the 
cost of maintaining compatibility with the .DOC, .XLS, and .PPT 
formats. The money I give to Microsoft would be better spent hiring 
engineers, sales, and admin staff.
    Please force Microsoft to publish all file formats. Please 
prevent Microsoft from releasing new software until the file formats 
have been publicly available for 6 months. The term "publish' 
should include all embedded images and ancillary protocols. The goal 
should be to allow a competitor to read an write a true .DOC (etc.) 
file.
    thank you
    Bob Smith
    President, Fourelle Systems, Inc.
    Santa Clara, CA

MTC-896



MTC-00000897

From: John M Seehagen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:13pm
Subject: Selling out to Microsoft.
    I'm disgusted at how the DOJ sold out to Microsoft. It was 
possible to reach a harsher judgement against Microsoft even before 
the Appeals Court found Microsoft guilty of maintaining a monopoly. 
It is also pretty obvious that the Bush Administration used 
September 11 as an excuse to just slap Microsoft on the hand. It is 
obvious that the government has decided to settle also because they 
believe a strong Microsoft leads to a strong economy. The settlement 
fails to stop Microsoft from maintaining their monopoly and creating 
new ones. The number of loop holes in the agreement lets Microsoft 
ignore the settlement and do as it has done before. As we speak 
Microsoft is trying to monopolize other Markets such as the PDA, 
Game Console and streaming media markets. Microsoft also plans to 
Monopolize the internet with .Net. I know come next election I won't 
be voting for the bush administartion because the War on 
Terroism(which I support) is no excuse to do unethical and illegal 
things such as selling out to Microsoft. Bush knows that he was able 
to do it because there won't be any special investigator to expose 
him for his illegal activities.

MTC-897



MTC-00000898

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:13pm
Subject: comment regarding proposed MicroSoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing to express my strong belief that the currently 
proposed settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust case is not severe 
enough. Having read the proposed settlement I am quite sure it does 
little to prevent Microsoft from using it's monopoly to prevent 
potential competition and further abuse consumers. It is my sincere 
hope that the settlement will be rejected and a penalty imposed 
which allows for non-Microsoft software to compete.
    Thank you,
    Chris Olson
    IT Security Professional

MTC-898



MTC-00000899

From: Richard Tackett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 2:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    microsoft has done nothing wrong.. .a great company who pays 
there taxes!!!

MTC-899



MTC-00000900

From: Rick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 10:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Is A Monopoly
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    In response to your request for public comment on the proposed 
settlement in the case of United States v. Microsoft Corporation, I 
urge you seriously consider the already established findings of fact 
that Microsoft is indeed a monopoly that has aggressively leveraged 
this advantage with OEMs to deny access to its competitors. This has 
destroyed competition so badly that consumers are left with little 
choice since Microsoft products are the proprietary standard 
shipping with all new personal computers. For the last 15 years, I 
have observed that excellent companies whose products I had been 
using were one-by-one forced into oblivion by the overwhelming 
monopoly power of Microsoft. You must act in the public interest as 
install preventative measures against Microsoft to assure they 
cannot ever act against consumers again. You must remove their 
monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    Rick Stanczak
    16804 Luckenwald Drive
    Round Rock, TX 78681

MTC-900



MTC-00000901

From: James D. Bearden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:36pm
Subject: Public Interest
    To Whom It May Concern,
    Our government was formed to defend it's people from threats 
both foreign and domestic. I believe the proposed settlement for 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice is not in the public 
interest and will do little to remedy Microsoft's stranglehold on 
the computer industry, much less punish them for being the Supreme 
Court affirmed monopolist that they are. I feel that the Department 
of Justice sought this weak settlement with a belief that it would 
be good for America and turned a blind eye toward Microsoft's 
history of skillfully circumventing legal restraints and how much 
more good a stronger settlement would bring.
    I have spent many hours reading the settlement, and even though 
I am no lawyer I do know something about the computer industry. 
Please, the proposed settlement is not a good one, and is little 
better than no settlement at all. In fact, I would much rather that 
the Department of Justice eventually lose in court rather than see 
Microsoft shrug this off. At least fine them a few billions dollars: 
It might irritate them for a few days, but they might at least 
respect the law during that period.
    James D. Bearden
    [email protected]
    http://james.nontrivial.org/

MTC-901



MTC-00000902

From: Falcon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:33pm
Subject: control freaks
    You pompous statist freaks should leave Microsoft and all other 
companies alone. The free market will take care of them. Why don't 
you people get real jobs?

MTC-902



MTC-00000903

From: Daniel Prather
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:33pm
Subject: I'm disappointed
    I have to say that I'm severely disappointed in the agreement 
reached by Microsoft and the Department of Justice. Essentially, 
your agreement reinforced the things that Microsoft already did for 
its competitors, things which are quite inadequate. The issue isn't 
whether or not everyone can build software that works with Windows, 
it's how nobody can build software that does NOT work with Windows. 
Microsoft's Windows operating system is on 90% or more of the 
desktop computers in the world ... is this because it's superior to 
other offerings? Hardly. Computer builders / manufacturers are 
threatened they'll lose their licensing perks if they offer 
competitors' products. People are not able to make software for 
other platforms and be profitable, simply because of the former 
reason ... all systems run Windows or Microsoft charges everyone 
much more. This is not right.
    I know I am not the only one who sees this. It simply reinforces 
my belief that the government and government departments are fully 
controlled by the corporations of this nation. It's just amazing at 
the momentum lost in the DOJ vs MSFT case after Bush became 
President and Republicans dominated the government. Oh well, to 
reiterate apparently, money dominates all, even justice.
    Daniel Prather cyran @knology.net
    MysticOne_IRC KF4FSE

MTC-903

[[Page 23823]]



MTC-00000904

From: Lisa Chiang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:38pm
Subject: comments about the Microsoft anti-trust case
    Hash: SHAl
    I have a few comments about this whole case. First, you should 
know that I use as few Microsoft products as possible. I became a 
Linux user as a student when I noticed that all the tools that I 
needed, a compiler, word processing, spreadsheet, etc... was 
starting to really add up. Not only that, but it was buggier than 
hell.
    Since I only use Microsoft stuff when I have to, the Microsoft 
case shouldn't affect me, right? Wrong. The main way that this case 
affects me is that everywhere I turn, people insist on using 
Microsoft products which they admit are buggy and also full of 
security flaws. If we could add up all of the hours wasted by our 
secretaries trying to get a table pasted from Microsoft Word into 
Microsoft Powerpoint to keep its same formatting, I think you would 
find that Microsoft owes the government a lot of money. Yet the 
government insists on using Microsoft products! I think this use of 
government money is truly a case of fraud, waste, and abuse!
    Right now my company (DOE facility) is supposed to upgrade their 
systems to Windows 2000/Office 2000. I have a new computer with 128 
MB of RAM and Windows 2000 Pro_and it is slow. What about the 
rest of the people in my office that have Windows 98 and old 
hardware? Why do we have to upgrade? Do you realize that a majority 
of our users are only using their computers to read their email and 
do their on-line training (web based). I can see why PDA's are so 
popular_much cheaper, they do the job, and they seem to work 
well. (Unfortunately for them, PDA's are not supposed to be used 
where I work due to security issues with the wireless versions.)
    My only other comment is that Microsoft is a business. When a 
business does not deliver a product, I cease buying their products 
which is why I am a Linux user. Not all of the products in the Linux 
world work but they at least can not lock me into constantly 
upgrading my software against my wishes. I've heard that Microsoft 
plans to quit supporting DOS with their release of XP. Guess what, 
most of our instrumentation uses old DOS PCs and they work just 
fine. (I, of course, have pointed out the availability of FreeDOS.)
    So I guess I just am troubled by your recent actions. I do not 
see how they will prevent Microsoft from behaving in an illegal 
manner. Ironically, it is probably large government organizations 
like DOE, etc... that will be hurt the most by the failure of the 
DOJ to pursue a more active watchdog role. For example, our company 
is constantly fighting security bugs and virii with their 
software_I think they gave up recently because now we are 
behind a firewall! I just wish that we could spend our money on 
mission critical upgrades we truly need, rather than on dubious 
software ugrades that a vendor insists that we need and seems able 
to force upon us.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely yours,
    Lisa Chiang
    10110 Rockbrook Dr.
    Knoxville, TN 37931

MTC-904



MTC-00000905

From: Jason Pippin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:38pm
Subject: Stiffer penalties for Microsoft
    We need to force Microsoft to FULLY document their API's and 
adhere to open standards for communication protocols for all past 
and current operating systems. This would allow software developers 
to compete on the windows platform and compete with the windows 
platform with compatible operating systems. Closed standards and 
APIs are what has allowed Microsoft to abuse their monopoly power. 
If Microsoft had to compete properly, the price of their operating 
system would decline and consumers would get to keep more of their 
money to spend on other more tangible things like food, clothing and 
shelter.
    If Microsoft sells 100,000,000 copies (a conservative figure) of 
their operating system and overcharges $100.00 per copy, they have 
just stolen a 10 billion dollars from the citizens of the US and The 
government. Add to that their policy of using stock options to avoid 
paying any taxes and they present a drain to the economy greater 
than any terrorist network. Microsoft Must Be Leashed!
    Jason Pippin,
    Sebastopol, California
    824-8392

MTC-905



MTC-00000906

From: Frank Surerus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:37pm
Subject: No No No Settlement
    I am a loyal Microsoft customer. Their actions lately have 
convinced me that their monopoly over operating system software is 
being totally abused. If we are ever to have some kind of meaningful 
competition something must be done NOW. I am NOT talking about 
browsers ? there are plenty of browsers available to anyone who does 
not want to use MS Internet Explorer ? I am talking about Operating 
Systems. Microsoft's recent actions such as cutting support, 
initiating Product Activation (for applications as well as operating 
systems), show a total disregard for customers. The only way to 
change this is to promote competition!!!
    Frank Surerus
    500 Villa St.
    Elgin IL 60120
    franko @megsinet.net

MTC-906



MTC-00000907

From: Mark Stout
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:45pm
Subject: Restitution, open application interfaces?
    To you who defend the taxpayer against terrorists, foreign and 
domestic, Hail!
    I'm looking for the part that returns money to people who were 
forced into upgrades, some penalty for Microsoft's demand, during 
the month just past, when they revoked Windows 95 licenses held (and 
paid for) by non-profit organizations, and how people can connect to 
a Microsoft Exchange Server with a mail reader other than Outlook.
    I realize that three items got into the last paragraph, but I'm 
overflowing with thoughts at the moment. Microsoft, over the past 
two weeks, has tried to end the practice of notifying a software 
vendor of security holes and then publicizing them two weeks later 
to ensure that the vendor patches the flaws. In instances where the 
details have been witheld, other vendors have claimed that the flaw 
was "theoretical" and not real.
    There are applications where the U.S. Government is using MS-
DOS, because no version of Windows allows the flexibility that the 
application demands. Microsoft's licensing practices put them in a 
position to demand that respirators, missle fail-safe devices and 
astronaut life support systems be shut down; yet I've heard of no 
apologies or changes in these policies.
    Netscape announced in 1994 that they were going to offer an 
operating system. Where did it go? When was it released?
    The non-profit issue stands on it's own; automakers can't 
dictate what year of vehicle people buy.
    If you're in a company or government agency that has Exchange 
Server handling mail, you have to use Outlook, security holes and 
all. The protocol by which Exchange and Outlook communicate is not 
licensed to anybody, not published, and not regulated for security. 
A non-Windows computer in any company that has Exchange Server is 
without mail, but I haven't seen the government move to fix this, I 
haven't been financially compensated or apologized to by Microsoft, 
and the specification for this interface hasn't been released.
    Overturn the DMCA, free Dmitri Skylarov and the population of 
the United States from this tyranny. The entire purpose of the 
American Revolution was to get such injustice off of our backs. The 
man said that backup software was possible, and went to jail for it. 
What taxpayer benefits from that? What would Jefferson have said? 
What if taxpayers had the situation put before them, and were asked 
to vote?
    Microsoft's End User License Agreement for Media Player 7.x 
(part of Window 2000 and XP, free upgrade to Win95 and 98), gives 
Microsoft the right to arbitrarily delete files from the users 
computer. I haven't heard the reversal, apology, nor have I been 
financially compensated for that travesty.
    Microsoft's End User License Agreement for FrontPage (web 
authoring_I've never used it) forbids the use of the computer 
its installed on to carry words portraying Microsoft in a negative 
light. You cant suggest that FrontPage's EULA is heavy-handed on a 
computer that FrontPage is installed on. If this license is backed 
in court, the Bill of Rights is no longer law, and the original 
states that made that a condition of thier ratification of the U.S. 
Constitution have the right_or obligation_to secceede.
    The U.S Declaration of Independance explained in it's opening 
words that people

[[Page 23824]]

have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 
Corporations are afforded no such rights; you can take away 
Microsoft's existance, legally. When Microsoft declares who can live 
and die, which the use of DOS puts them in a situation to do, the 
Court is left with no choice but to eliminate this threat to 
Americans.
    1. Seize all of Microsoft's financial assets.
    2. Disconnect communications lines in and out of Microsoft's 
headquarters building
    3. Clear out people from that building using the Washington 
National Guard, and that of surrounding states.
    4. Use the assets to pay down the National Debt. If there's some 
left over (likely), start many software firms of less than fifty 
programmers each, maybe one team per state, to write replacement 
applications/programs. The small teams are where all innovation 
comes from. Let's repeat that: TI-W SMALL TEAMS ARE WHERE ALL 
INNOVATION COMES FROM!
    Microsoft had a good product in 1979, called Microsoft BASIC. 
They didn't invent BASIC, they just had the best implementation. 
Once they stole CP/M via QDOS and renamed it MS-DOS, evereything up 
till the "Dot Net" initiative was a copy of a small 
company's innovation. Every single thing that they claim as an 
innovation, till "Dot Net", was somebody else's idea.
    The "Dot Net" initiative is the closing of the fist 
arround us; store all of your medical records, financial records, 
personal email, etc. in a server in Redmond. You won't even need 
your own hard drive anymore!
    Your own room. Your own car. Your own house. Your own pets. Your 
own children. Your own mind.
    What customer asked for this? This isn't entirely innovative, 
either; The Nazi's and Stalin have played with this idea before.
    In 1979, while I was in junior high school, I started designing 
a graphics computer. I asked Microsoft about a memory chip that was 
already programmed with BASIC. Bill Gates himself wrote me back, 
saying that they only sold BASIC on a floppy formatted for the CP/M 
operating system. He advised me to build a CPIM computer, and buy a 
BASIC floppy from Microsoft.
    They tell me he's the smartest man in the world, and I've taken 
that personal letter to heart: when I finish that computer, it'll 
run CPIM and I'll buy a BASIC floppy from Microsoft.
    p.s. Ask Richard M. Stailman, of www.gnu.org, what the remedy 
should be. Then you might reconsider the above as a modereate 
approach.

MTC-907



MTC-00000908

From: Craig Koller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:44pm
Subject: Regarding the Settlement
    As a consumer, I think the most powerful weapon Microsoft wields 
over its competitors is not the applications or even the operating 
system, but its proprietary file formats for Word, Excel, Media 
Player, and now even Internet Explorer data. No other application or 
middleware developer can compete fairly because of the fearful 
nature of most users, afraid to use other software that may create 
files unreadable or, worse yet, corrupted, when delivered to others 
with Microsoft applications.
    That's why I believe MS, as a proven monopoly, should be forced 
to publish its file formats so that others can offer competing apps 
to edit or even create similar documents. The fact that MS Office 
used to cost a small fraction of what a computer did, compared to 
today, when it commands half the price of the hardware, is an 
example of where the lack of competition has hurt consumers in the 
wallet.
    We're forced to use Microsoft software not by choice, but by 
necessity. If the government sees fit to allow MS to continue as a 
sanctioned operating system monopoly, we should at least be allowed 
to use less expensive application software in Windows to create 
documents and communications.
    Thanks for your time.

MTC-908



MTC-00000909

From: Brian Butte
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:40pm
Subject: Microsofts Monopoly
    I am a 31 year old professional consultant with pwc consulting 
specializing in Internet portal technologies and infrastructure. My 
strong technical background started with my fascination with 
TRS-80 computers in 1980 and blossomed into my Bachelor of 
Science degree in Computer Engineering. I have written software 
utilized in over 10 million GM cars and trucks as part of the Engine 
Control Module, designed 100% uptime enviroments for dot coms and 
dot bombs, and built CRM solutions for some of the Fortune 500. I am 
recognized as an expert in my fields including public presentations 
and publication.
    I state my qualifications because I am not sure that anyone 
deciding the fate of Microsoft has the technical capacity to 
understand the state of Microsoft's monopoly nor its impact on 
innovation. What is easy for people can be harmful. As a parent of 
three children under the age of four, I can unequivocally state that 
although jumping down the stairs is easier than walking, it can 
result in disaster. A child must be repremanded for inappropriate 
behaviour lest they never learn to become a productive part of 
society. How often do the unrestricted actions of another child 
influence your own child to act outside the well established 
boundaries of acceptable behaviour? Deterance is the most effective 
means to discipline a child; action, reaction. Consider your son or 
daughter caught at school misbehaving. Did you witness the act? No. 
Is the damage done? Yes. Do you dismiss the circumstance? Not as a 
responsible parent. You make sure the child understands the 
behaviour is wrong, you punish the child appropriately, and most 
importantly you do not let your child profit from the endeavour in 
hopes they learn crime doesn't pay. As important for society, the 
child influences other children through repeitition of the same 
rules of behaviour and repeats the lesson for their children. 
Examples of right and wrong reinforce the rules of society for 
everyone, including companies.
    Without a breakup of Microsoft, the United States Government 
endorses their strong arm tactics and unfair competition. I am not 
concerned about Microsoft, but rather I am concerned about 
precedent. The reality of the Microsoft case is that the damage is 
done and cannot be remedied; even by so strong a statement as 
disolving the corporate bond between the operating systems, 
development tools, and software packages. However, their actions are 
inexcusable.
    Microsoft has stolen ideas from many companies, repackaged the 
ideas, and mass marketed them to the public. How can the world be 
better off when Microsoft stifles invention? Were the inventors of 
the web server, windowing interface, mouse, web browser, file 
compression, and countless others better off because of Microsoft? 
Did they have the chance to sell their ideas to the public 
unhindered by competition with their own ideas? Anyone who answers 
yes clearly lacks integrity and would have the United States 
Government endorse the actions of RCA in stealing the concept of 
television from its inventor, Philo Farnsworth. We have one multi-
billion dollar employer of thousands instead of multiple multi-
billion dollar employers of thousands. We have hundreds of hyper-
millionaires from Microsoft and thousands who have seen promised 
millions crumble to dust. What promise you ask? The promise of the 
American Dream! Is this the lesson we want to teach to our children; 
to replace the promise of Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and Alexander 
Graham Bell in favor of Bill Gates whose only invention is the 
software license agreement that says when the software doesn't work, 
tough?
    What will happen, and it will happen, when the new Microsoft 
comes along and dominates the industry. Not possible? It has already 
happened once. The United States sued IBM for anti-trust and won. 
What key mistake did IBM make during the deliberations? They decided 
to focus on mainframes and thus handed Microsoft the key to a 
powerful world. Microsoft outgrew their world and starting exploring 
others which lead to theft, invasion, and finally domination.
    If Microsoft is not held accountable for their actions, not only 
is the clear message to corporate America that crime does pay, but 
that it pays well. If logic, and not special interests, prevail, 
Microsoft will be held accountable for their actions with a penatly 
as severe as their ill-gotten
    success.
    Brian Butte
    CC: Jolene Butte,Jerrel Mattson,Helene Butte,marniehar...

MTC-909



MTC-00000910

From: MR_CRAIGI
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:46pm
Subject: support settlement
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment. In the narrow scope of 
the law the DOJ could not hope to achieve any more in settlement or 
continuted litigation. This should be the end of a long, expensive, 
and debilitating process for our country.

[[Page 23825]]

    Craig Johnson

MTC-910



MTC-00000911

From: Les Lohmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:45pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    Dear Sirs/Madam,
    I have been using computers since 1968. Up until MS abused their 
monopoly position by tying retail products to the OS, there was a 
pretty clear separation between the OS, which offers services 
primarily to retail programs (software) and retail software. Since 
MS began truly flaunting their position of power, the availability 
and usefulness of retail software has diminished tangibly. Walk 
through any software shop (that has survived) and look at the 
selections. There are a lot of Games, but most else is MS.
    Interestingly, now MS is beginning to compete in Games. They 
already include several in the OS, thus justifying including more, 
since the government has also turned a blind eye to this situation. 
Soon, MS will also be the behemoth of games.
    There is only one fair solution. Frankly, even Mr. Gates will 
prosper. MS should not be permitted to produce any retail (defined 
by others) software. The company should be split in two, permitting 
an even playing ground for everyone.
    The health of computing and the economy depend on true open 
competition. The proposed settlement fails to even scratch the 
surface.
    Leslie John Lohmann, FSA, FdA, EA
    8-4-1 1-50 1 Kitamachi
    Nerima-ku, Tokyo 179-0081
    While I am a US citizen, I believe the issues transcends 
national boundaries.
    Les Lohmann
    mailto:llohmann @tkc.att.ne.jp
    LIA$FACTS$ index at http://www.benefitslink.comIlohmann
    http://www.japan.co.jp/-llohmann

MTC-911



MTC-00000912

From: Brian Florakh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:45pm
Subject: Professional opinion about settlement
    For the record my name is Brian A. Horakh, my phone number is 
760-944-7660, I am the CTO of a small software company. 
I am an MCSE (Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer), and also hold 
certifications from Compaq, Novell,. Linux, Sun, and Oracle, I 
program in 14 different languages, on 3 different platforms, i've 
written books on topics such as system security, and high 
availability. In otherwords this settlement will directly affect my 
career_so I figured I ought to write in an give you my two 
cents. I have read the proposed draft and concluded that you are 
falling into the same Microsoft trap that they have so craftily 
woven for so many of their competitors. There are big gaping holes 
which prevent, or at least indefinitely delay enforcement, once this 
deal is signed they'll literally have to kill a dozen people in 
their business practicies before it makes it back to 
court_because without a homicide it's going to be really hard 
to prove dirty business tactics, but you can bet they're going to 
keep playing dirty. ou need to look at their implementation of 
contractual history with other companies (i'll provide a few 
highlights):
-1998 Microsoft licenses Java, embeds into Internet explorer
-1999 Microsoft extends Java (knowing that Sun will get mad and sue 
them)
-2000 Sun gets mad and sues them.
-2001 Sun gets injunction, which says Microsoft can't use 
Java._Microsoft drops Java support from Internet Explorer, 
effectively killing the language [it's still breathing, but trust me 
it's dead] .. whats ironic is Microsoft comes out smelling like a 
rose, in court they say "we have to have the freedom to do it 
our way, Sun told us it's their way or the highway, we took the 
highway" .. no legal expert in the world even consider 
accusing them of anti-competitive business practicies from dropping 
Java support, after all Sun made them do it. But Sun was setup to 
fail, they were played like a puppet from day 1.
    Want another one:
-1992 Microsoft wants to own the Internet, realizes the way to do 
this through the browser.
-1995 Microsoft have a good market share, but is facing trouble due 
to anti-competitive behavior with Netscape, mostly because they are 
giving their software away for free_and everybody knows it's 
just to kill Netscape, but nobody cares. Meanwhile netscape begins 
to feel pressure.
-1997 Microsoft settles with court, continues to apply pressure to 
OEM's under the table. I can't tell you how many stories i've heard 
where they've done this_NOBODY comes forward because it would 
mean the end of your career.
-1997_Microsoft side steps the Netscape arrangement by 
"embedding" JE inside the operating system, blab blah 
blab.. stuff happens .. freedom to innovate (tell me one thing 
they've Innovated)
-2001- it's great, now a webpage can crash by Operating system 
(Which btw: I blame you guys for since you made them "take it 
into the OS"). They now have a 95% share?? 1 can keep going on 
and on and on .. just give me some time. The bottom line: YOU NEED 
TO RETHINK YOUR PLAN_go for broke, don't settle for less, 
otherwise you certainly aren't doing this industry, or the consumer 
a favor. Explain to the judge how they've consistently violated 
every agreement anytime it was in their best interest. Explain how 
the current arrangement will basically ensure that you're out of 
their hair, and they're free to do business as usual. Please 
reconsider the punitive damages for Microsoft, make them redo their 
licensing, make them publish ALL protocols they use as PUBLIC DOMAIN 
[okay at least no licensing which prevents the Linux folks from 
building an interoperable and better product].. please think about 
it.
    Brian A. Horakh
    Chief Technical Guy
    Zoovy, Inc.
    Direct: 877-ZOOVY-4U x 111

MTC-912



MTC-00000913

From: Pragnesh Sampat
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement comments
    I think that the DOJ has let Microsoft get away with very light 
penalties (to put it mildly).
    What is at stake for a consumer is one's freedom to choose, not 
the ability to restrict anybody's right to innovate. Most of the 
media coverage and even the DOJ's points, unfortunately, do not 
address this issue. It may not be directly the point of the 
antitrust case, but there is relationship here which cannot be 
ignored. Microsoft routinely flaunts open standards and protocols 
and misuses its dominant position in the desktop. Since it has lots 
of money, it can simply destroy any competition by buying the 
companies out and destroying them. Standards are there for a reason: 
they allow interoperability between different vendors products and 
ultimately drive down the costs for the consumer. If you look around 
many of the day to day products, like films and videotapes and 
electrical sockets and many other common items, the costs for 
consumers go down due to standardization, since companies have to 
compete ruthlessly to be the provider of the cheapest solution. Some 
standards examples from the computer and communications industry 
are:
- open PC architecture
- The Internet protocols (TCP/IP) and many communication standards
- Computer buses like PCI to interconnect peripherals and devices
- IEEE POSIX standards and so on.
    The same can be applied to many widely used and common computer 
applications like word processing and spreadsheets. If the 
interfaces between applications and Operating System adhere to 
standards, there can be many competing applications to the now 
dominant Microsoft Word and Excel. History shows that wherever 
standardization occurs, ruthless competition drives down costs. But 
Microsoft does not allow this to happen.
    Are there examples of products where two products are very 
similar and offer almost the same things, but one is practically 
invincible from it's position? Compare Microsoft Word and 
WordPerfect (from Corel). A reference to the ubiquitous Halloween 
documents (whose authenticity has been publicly acknowledged by 
Microsoft) shows the views Microsoft has towards standards.
    Now, one cannot force a company to adopt a standard, since it 
may believe that what it has to offer is superior. Fine. It is 
perfectly OK not to follow standards. It is generally true that when 
a company does not follow a standard, it will end up pricing the 
product higher than the ones compliant with the standards (e.g. some 
Sony products, Bose sound systems etc.) This is logical, since 
customer may have to pay more for the superior products.
    The current situation is so bad in Microsoft's case that 
consumers end up paying higher for an inferior product

[[Page 23826]]

(compared to the Linux operating system) and still feel that they 
don't have any choice in the matter.
    It is almost evil to let injustice get away unpunished. It is 
unworthy of a great republic to let a situation develop where 
citizens are slaves to a dictator/monopoly rather than being able to 
choose. Each citizen can be a king only where the freedom to choose 
is not compromised.
    -Pragnesh
    Pragnesh Sampat
    3123 Salisbury Court
    Wexford, PA 15090

MTC-913



MTC-00000914

From: Johannes Ernst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16101 11:48pm
Subject: comments about the settlement
    The settlement is not in the public interest because:
    1) Over years, Microsoft has made and continues to make large 
amounts of illegal monopoly profits. Nothing in the settlement 
remedies this. A large fine is necessary.
    2) Tomorrow, if Microsoft decided that SQL Server was part of 
Windows, and Office was part of Windows, the settlement agrees that 
that would be okay as Microsoft gets to decide what is part of 
windows and what is not. Not putting a limit on what new functions 
can be integrated into Windows is obviously not acceptable.
    3) As you know, and as many Microsoft employees and ex-employees 
have stated publicly before about cases in the past, if Microsoft, 
for whatever reason, is forced to publish their APIs early on, which 
would allow competitors to be on equal footing with similar 
Microsoft products, Microsoft outruns them by keeping changing the 
APIs_ essentially forcing the competitors to always follow and 
never be on the same page. This is well-documented practice. There 
is nothing in the settlement that prevents this practice. Note that 
because of all the ill-gotten monopoly profits, Microsoft is better 
capitalized than any other software company, and will thus always 
win this battle.
    4) The settlement makes free and highly innovative software such 
as Samba essentially impossible. This is very clearly against the 
public interest. Microsoft should be forced to license all API-
related intellectual property for free.
    5) A good measure for whether "competition has been 
restored" in the software industry is whether or not startup 
companies will get funded by professional venture capital investors 
in Silicon Valley, who may compete with Microsoft some time down the 
road. This settlement makes no difference in this respect at all. 
ANY investor will run immediately if there is even a remote chance 
that there will be competition with Microsoft at any point in time. 
This is clearly not a market that is level, allowing free innovation 
for the benefit of consumers.
    6) The proposed restrictions on Microsoft conduct are in no 
relationships to the size of the violations of the law. The 
settlement is so obviously insufficient that we have to assume that 
the justice department was somehow politically motivated to agree to 
these terms. If so, the judge is obliged to turn down the settlement 
under the relevant laws.
    7) Any serious conduct remedies_while theoretically 
possible_ will be so complex and difficult to enforce that 
they are infeasible in practice. The original court was correct that 
the appropriate remedy is breakup.
    8) Microsoft should be forced to publish all APIs to its 
operating system sufficiently in advance to a commercial release, so 
that 3rd parties have a chance to build competing products in time. 
If a 3rd party could build a Linux-based Windows API emulator, for 
example (which they can't in practice, see issue #3 above ...), 
competition would be much more real. In an even better scenario, it 
would be a standards body under the auspices of a recognized 
standards authority who would define the APIs, not Microsoft.
    9) Similarly to the rules that carmakers are under in 
California, Microsoft should be forced to make sure that by a 
certain date, say, 3 years from now, at least X percent of all 
desktop operating systems sold are not Microsoft's. I don't see a 
reason why this can't be demanded_and it would most certainly 
restore competition.
    10) Microsoft should be prevented from leveraging the desktop 
monopoly into any other market whatsoever, such as embedded systems 
or servers.
    Thus I believe the settlement is very far from the public 
interest. It should not be accepted by the court.
    Best regards,
    Johannes Ernst.

MTC-914



MTC-00000915

From: Lynch, Edward P (Ed)
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj .gov'
Date: 11/16/01 11:47pm
Subject: I think this settlement is the worst thing that has 
happened in the last
    I think this settlement is the worst thing that has happened in 
the last 100 years, and that includes Sept. 11,2001 and Dec. 7,1941 
combined. Bill Gates has NUKED th U.S. government Big time. After 
Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7 1941, Japan's Gen. Yamamoto said 
"I'M AFRAID WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS TO AWAKEN A SLEEPING 
GIANT." If you think Bill (PIRHANA) Gates was bad, Wait until 
you see Bill (GREAT WHITE) Gates. Microsofts Creedo is We will rule 
the world, and the U.S. gov. reply is WHAT CAN WE DO TO HELP YOU.

MTC-915



MTC-00000916

From: Miles Lane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:46pm
Subject: I am shocked and appalled at the Justice Departments 
failure.
    To whom it may concern:
    I have worked at Microsoft, both as an employee and a 
contractor. Since then, I have worked as a software tester for many 
companies, including Compuserve (Sprynet) and Amazon.com. Throughout 
the last fifteen years, I have studied the computer industry, the 
internet and the communications industry.
    I have seen how effectively and relentlessly Microsoft takes 
advantage of every opportunity to control markets, leverage 
products, strongarm suppliers, OEMs and ISVs. I happen to know that 
Microsoft has sold products at a loss in order to flood markets with 
their product and lose money in order to gain strategic market 
share. The are a proven monopolist.
    It is dispicable that you have caved into pressure from 
Microsoft and the Bush government and made a deal that harms 
competitors and harms consumers.
    I work on Linux and volunteer a vast amount of my time in an 
attempt to help Linux become a viable desktop alternative to 
Microsoft Windows and Office. Microsoft's strangle hold on the 
industry is so absolute that in one way or another everyone's 
choices and opportunities are constrained by Microsoft's dominion.
    How can you bear to look yourselves in the mirror in the 
morning?
    Miles

MTC-916



MTC-00000917

From: Kenneth Filak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:46pm
Subject: Inadequete
    In the 1995 consent decree Microsoft promised to build a 
"chinese wall" between its applications and OS 
divisions. Microsoft also promised that it would reveal the API's to 
competitors to ensure a fair competitive environment for competing 
applications.
    When Judge Sporkin refused to sign off on this consent decree 
the DOJ and MS went forum shopping and got Judge Jackson to sign off 
on the that consent decree.
    Flash forward to the trail held before Judge Jackson and was 
shown that Microsoft purposefully ignored all the restrictions of 
the 1995 decree. Every witness that MS presented at the trail were 
shown to be disassembling and lying. When Judge Jackson expressed 
his honest outrage in seeing his court be insulted and abused by 
Microsoft's dishonest tactics Microsoft went forum shopping yet 
again.
    Microsoft is on its 3rd Judge.
    The Court of appeals has unanimously agreed that with Judge 
Jackson's ruling on Microsoft's anti trust criminal behavior. 
Microsoft has shown itself to be dishonest and untrustworthy by 
violating its previous agreements.
    But the DOJ wishes to give them yet another bite of the apple. 
Once again the DoJ wishes to promote a toothless meaningless 
agreement with an organization that has shown its disregard for the 
laws of our country. This is a sham agreement with a corrupt 
company. Microsoft's excuse is its pursuit of power and greed. What 
is the excuse of the DOJ for selling out the American public.

MTC-917



MTC-00000918

From: Brian Shock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:03am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case
    Dear Sirs:
    Even as a software developer who primarily uses Microsoft 
products for his

[[Page 23827]]

livelihood, I am extremely disappointed by the decision not to 
punish Microsoft. This company is a monopoly by every definition, 
and in the worst tradition of monopolies, uses questionable or 
illegal practices to stifle competition.
    Regardless of the reasoning behind failing to pursue the 
antitrust case against Microsoft, publicly this looks very much like 
criminal conspiracy between the Justice Department (along with the 
Bush Administration in general) and big business.
    Brian Shock
    Phoenix, AZ
    brianshocki @home.com

MTC-918



MTC-00000919

From: David
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:03am
Subject: Failure.
    I feel that the settlement reached with Microsoft will be a 
great service to big business..., if by big business you mean 
Microsoft. 3 years of being watched by 3 people of whom Microsoft 
has a say and pays them and what after 3 years? You have enough 
emails about how this Settlement will suit M$ interest VERY well 
indeed. And they will not be punished at ALL. ..i.e.-> no 
penalty. But I have an idea for you, and I'm sure I'm not the only 
one with this idea.
    Recommendation that WILL get Microsoft's attention.. .put in 
place a penalty to M$ to be paid out to (via an acceptable medium 
UN-influenced! un-influencable by M$ but truly independent or at 
least less friendly towards M$. This is a penalty after all!) to go 
towards Open-Source projects. More directly Linux. This WILL get 
M$'s attention and present much more of a hanmcier over them than 
any amount of money could as they already have more than enough of 
it.
     Open-Source.. .that is what scares M$ and they will respect (as 
long as it is monitored by Independent people with powers to monitor 
and make public their findings (Quarterly report?) without (!) 
Microsoft's influence or shadow hanging over them as well as the 
right to impose further fines as required) a fine which helps a 
competitor with whom M$ is unable to bargain or exercise influence 
over. Most importantly Microsoft is Afraid of Open Source. Perhaps 
the only thing it is afraid of and will do everything it can to stop 
Open Source. Anything to stop it via any one of the companies past 
tactics to others. This can be reflected in M$'s statements about 
open source of which I'm sure you have many examples already. One 
note; imagine what would happen, (of if you prefer?why it has not 
yet happened by a single major OEM company) if an OEM began to ship 
a small number to their computers directed at the 
"small" market out there that would like a pre-installed 
Open Source OS. There aren't any such examples that come to my mind, 
how about yours?
     Otherwise I feel that the DoJ has let me as a consumer down and 
is not acting in my best interest with it's current apparent wish to 
quietly let this matter slide. I also feel that the idea of the DoJ 
"tiring" and being worn down insulting. I hope similar 
stances aren't taken in other places in the government because the 
DoJ is tired of pursuing the case. Most important of all, this so 
called settlement stinks. I expected better of the DoJ in light it's 
representing not only a number of U.S. States?but that they appear 
too weak to win for lack of conviction, purpose, and sense of duty 
in the face of co-operate which has been found guilty of law 
breaking and monopoly abuse.
    Thank for you time?.and thank you for you help upholding the 
rights of the smaller companies looking to survive in light that to 
upset the giant is to cast yourself into it's shadow.
    David.

MTC-919



MTC-00000920

From: Arthur O'Connor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:55pm
Subject: Microsoft "Settlement"
    I can see that the Republican National Committee are going to be 
getting some VERY generous contributions on the next elections. Much 
more than the ones they did last year to insure that they got off 
better than 'Scott Free' on their (`antitrust') case. I sure wish 
that I were wealthy enough to `buy Justice'. I'm just a poor slob 
that has to obey the law. "The Golden Rule of our `Justice' 
dept. is "He who has the gold, makes the rules". Way to 
go John Ashcroft & Bill Gates!!!fl!!
    Art O'Connor * Bristow Ok.

MTC-920



MTC-00000921

From: William Owens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 11:54pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    Thanks for ending this nonsense!

MTC-921



MTC-00000922

From: Tony Cooper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:06am
Subject: Sad
    It is sad when multi billion $ corporations can buy the 
government off for breaking a few laws & running others out of 
business whilst still being able to sue other people who break laws 
by utilising software microsoft since abandoned.
    Obviously there is not Justice in America anymore & It's 
things like this that attract people to doing unlawful things in the 
pursuit of their own justice.
    As a person who used to sell microsoft products & know first 
hand the deceit that is employed to generate revenue, I am saddened 
to see that truth & justice now take a back seat to the American 
way of greed. I use a text based client that complies with the 
standards relating to email & not microsoft products or a web 
browser to read my email. As a result I appreciate not receiving 
html or microsoft products in my email as do millions of other 
people who use clients that comply to the standards.

MTC-922



MTC-00000923

From: J Spicer
To: microsoft.atr(at)usdoj.gov
Date: 11/17/01 12:05am
Subject: comment
    As a consumer, I would like to see Microsoft carry on without 
too many new restrictions, except for one. I feel a huge monopoly 
like theirs, should never be allowed to `buy out' any other new 
uprising companies ones that may have new ideas and systems from 
fresh minds ... that may eventually mature and bring competition 
back to the marketplace. This practice is one that only kills or 
eats up dangerously new ideas before they become a valid player in 
the marketplace. Thanks for giving consumers a chance to say 
something
    John

MTC-923



MTC-00000924

From: James M. Rogers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:03am
Subject: The Microsoft settlement is a joke.
    I am shocked that Microsoft can be caught breaking the law and 
get caught lying during the trial, convicted, the conviction upheld, 
and they get no punishment. This settlement is nearly identical to 
their 1995 agreement, which allowed them to take over the browser 
market. I am tired of one company having so much power that they are 
essentially untouchable. They can illegally put other companies out 
of business using their unfairly aquired monopolies. Guess it just 
takes a few friends in the white house and a little bit of money in 
the right places. If I ever get the opportunity to vote against 
anyone involved with this settlement, I will be sure and do so.
    What a joke. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

MTC-924



MTC-00000925

From: danny @tampabay.rr.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:15am
Subject: Comment
    I think that if a judgement was reached to force Microsoft to 
put all their protocols useable for cross-platform communications 
out as open source things would be assured to be on a level playing 
field.

MTC-925



MTC-00000926

From: Larry D. Larsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:13am
Subject: Thanks a lot
    I am CEO of an Instant Messaging company. Thanks to your new 
arrangement with Micro$oft, were probably going to be out of 
business within a year, maybe two. From aU of us, thanks a lot. 
Maybe you would like to lay railroad tracks through my backyard 
while you're at it.
    Larry D. Larsen
    CEO
    IveCon, Inc.

MTC-926



MTC-00000927

From: Shawn Fitzgerald
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 23828]]

Date: 11/17/01 12:26am
Subject: Never Strong enough
    Once again the government fails to meet the needs to protect the 
people that placed it in control. A WEAK effort to slap the wrists 
of a Monopoly, is how I would grade your agreement.
    After being FORCED from my job as a Consultant at Immedient 
Consulting inc. Dallas, TX due to threats by regional Microsoft 
executives, I believe the DOJ did not present their case very well. 
While I do believe that some of the Microsoft bashing is unfounded, 
I know that there are efforts to hold back Java and Linux 
development by Microsoft. It amazes me that the government can't 
collect enough evidence to prove the FACTS that all US citizen's 
know. MICROSOFT IS A MONOPOLY!!! Microsoft does not agressively 
compete, they actively attack those that might offer innovation, or 
alternatives to a solution that is unstable, unscalable, and 
proprietary.
    For future reference, why put out an Email address AFTER you 
have finished the case??? Why not publish an email address BEFORE 
the case, during the discovery phase, to help you find out where to 
look??? If you would have provided a way to give you evidence to 
prove your case, I'm sure you would have had warehouses of evidence.
    Thanks....For nothing!!!
    Shawn Fitzgerald
    Java Consultant, Linux user, Windows sufferer.

MTC-927



MTC-00000928

From: Kyle I. Winkler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:22am
Subject: good job:
    As a young technology guru, I have seen the possibilites of how 
"high tech" will take us into the future and help to 
stablize our economy. I very much agree with your decision in the 
Microsoft Corportation settlement. I am happy to see that the Bush 
Administration is not against Big Business, but instead, putting 
trust back in to business. Many may disagree with the effectiveness 
of the settlement but I truely believe this is in the best interests 
of our economy. Thanks for all of the hard work and especially the 
great job of the administration in defending freedom and democracy 
during these trying times.
    You all are to be commended!
     Thanks again,
     Kyle J. Winkler
     17, Missouri

MTC-928



MTC-00000929

From: [email protected]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'd like to voice my displeasure with the Microsoft (MS) 
settlement. Given the fact that the Department of Justice (DoJ) 
essentially won the case, and rightfully so, it's sad to see that 
the end result is a toothless agreement that will have little impact 
on MS's actions. The agreement fails on three counts: It imposes no 
penalty for MS's prior actions, it sets rules of conduct that have 
loopholes, and it sets up a system of oversight and enforcement that 
is closed to scrutiny and very favorable to MS.
    Judge Jackson and every Judge on the Appeals Court all agreed 
that MS violated the antitrust laws on several counts. Yet, with 
this settlement, MS is getting the proverbial "slap on the 
wrist," not even facing a steep fine for their misdeeds. It 
seems to me akin to a convicted bank robber walking away scot-free 
with loot in hand, because he promised to mend his ways.
    This agreement was apparently sought in part to provide quick 
relief, but anyone who has studied Microsoft's history will tell you 
that the corporation has always pressed the envelope of legality. 
Even as this case was ongoing, MS hastily released Windows 98 with 
IE integrated in order to preempt justice, and later released 
Windows XP, which takes the anticompetitive bundling of applications 
even further than the earlier products that got them into court in 
the first place. If MS has the incredible audacity to undertake such 
actions while being sued, who would believe they would willingly 
submit to the spirit of this agreement? I would think any settlement 
or judgement would depend upon the remorsefulness of the defendent, 
and there is absolutely none in evidence in this case. It seems 
quite naive to think that MS has changed its ways; if history is any 
guide, we will see MS dragged into a new antitrust suit in a few 
years, something that could have been avoided if proper remedies had 
been instituted now.
    In conclusion, I'm shocked that the DoJ went from a position of 
victory, and pressing for punishment and an effective remedy, to one 
of timid, ineffective compromise. I as a consumer can see that MS 
wields incredible power in the computer industry thanks to their 
monopoly on the base operating system upon which other software is 
layered, and it's plain that Microsoft intends to leverage that 
power as much as possible to everyone else's detriment. Rumors 
abound of ugly politics setting the Department's agenda, but 
whatever the case, I still hope that justice can be served.
    Sincerely,
    Reid Rivenburgh
    P.S. For a more detailed account of the problems with the 
settlement, see Ralph Nader's letter to Judge Kollar-Kotelly, 
available at .

MTC-929



MTC-00000930

From: Eric Cox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:30am
Subject: ok...
    So, cave in, do what our not really the majority elected 
president wants you to do. How can it be good for the economy for a 
proven monopoly (one the people have known to be a monopoly quite a 
great while before the courts decided it was) to go unchecked.
    It seems rather futile to apply restrictions and repremends to 
their rather old school markets. I really hope someone has been 
paying a good deal of attention to microsoft's recent ventures. They 
are moving away fom their "traditional" market and into 
the world of reoccurring prices. Ala passport and whatever the 
latest buzzword is. It is a market of services. Whatever you do, do 
not imply restrictions on something solid, imply those restrictions 
into behaviors, protocals, and licensing... I'm sorry I have little 
faith in the judicial government.., it has not worked in my favor 
for many years...
    I don't expect you to do what is right for the people or 
industry. I don't even expect you to do what is right for our 
government. I don't expect a great deal anymore...
    I would just like to see our government is a just a little bit 
stronger then a greedy corporation. (Publicly held corporations by 
law and definition are greed driven)
    I'm sorry it has to be your heads all our anger will fall on...
    Eric Cox
    Earthlink Systems Administator

MTC-930



MTC-00000931

From: Gregory Chi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:33am
Subject: You guys have got to be kidding us
    This is a settlement? After some careful inspection (and I gotta 
do a bit more) it looks like out and out surrender. Thanks a lot for 
keeping the desktop a nicely growing monopoly (that's sarcasm).

MTC-931



MTC-00000932

From: Nicola(OOEF) Michel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:33am
Subject: My opinion on the settlement
    Like many others in the IT industry, I think Microsoft got off 
far too easily in this case. Why have they not been punished for 
violating previous agreements? Rather than repeating what has 
already been said, I refer you to more informed and eloquent 
critics, such as Ralph Nader. This outcome is typical of what 
happens in Washington, where lobby groups and big business have far 
too much influence. The only beneficiary of this weak ruling is 
Microsoft. Who is standing up for everyone else, including those of 
us outside the US?
     Nicolai Michel
     nicolaimvideotron.ca

MTC-932



MTC-00000933

From: Cralis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement is unfair to the consumer
     Dear sirs,
     I would like to respectfully say that I believe the settlement 
between the DOJ and MS is VERY unfair. It will do very little to 
protect competition from monopolistic practices by microsoft, it 
will do nothing to help the consumer and open source software, and 
it has NO penalty for past monopolistic conduct on Microsoft's 
behalf.
     First, while I highly commend the DOJ argueing for the option 
to have a version of windows shipped without certain extra

[[Page 23829]]

programs.. .1 feel the DOJ has neglected to realize that MS's vast 
potential for control with Windows XP. Many programs are built well 
into XP and are designed to control the user in a manner that 
benefits MS. They will control what hardware we can use, what 
software we can use (the registered hardware/software only), what we 
can see, hear, and do. While I sympathize with the DOJ's view that 
this will benefit the DOJ in regards to pirated software and 
obscenities such as child pornography, NO COMPANY DESERVES THIS 
AMOUNT OF CONTROL. .1 say it very strongly because I believe that 
this level of control goes against our constitutional right of 
choice in the pursuit of life, liberty (LIBERTY), and happiness. 
This is a big gamble on MS's part, if they succeed they will 
essentially OWN the entire Internet, all electronic transfers, and 
the electronic life of all individuals who want to do either.
     Second, whether or not any competitor gains access to windows 
code makes little difference. What matters is that MS takes file and 
communications protocols and makes them trade secrets, then 
restricts the ability for anyone to use them only to those people 
who will not compete with MS. This destroys open source, free 
software, and the ability for a new company to get into the market 
in an environment where the majority of computers rely upon MS 
protocols. The FIRST thing that should be done is to forbid MS from 
making its protocols secret and keep them from making agreements 
with other companies for secret protocols, and instead require that 
all protocols in use by MS become open to ALL of the PUBLIC. This 
will keep them from destroying any more smaller competitors who are 
just trying to bring something new to market, and will likely make 
it a more friendly environment where individuals who were afraid to 
compete before will feel less threatened and less likely to lose 
their entire life's goals, dreams, and life savings trying to make a 
product MS will either want to swallow up or totally destroy.
     Third, MS has repeatedly demonstrated that they believe they 
are above the law. They continue to do and flaunt their monopolistic 
practices despite the court battle, and frankly are saying 
"hey the DOJ can't touch us". Their monopolistic 
practices are WELL documented, yet the DOJ's settlement has no 
penalty for their past crimes!! Lo, should all criminals be so 
lucky! At the very least MS should have some major billion dollar 
penalty assessed against them, if not have some major oversight and 
payments. If the DOJ does not feel it deserves the reparation 
payments, feel free to pay them to all of MS's consumers. We wont 
argue. I would like to point out a few things as well:
     * Judge Jackson said that Microsoft would raise the prices of 
it's next version of Windows because it can do so and nobody would 
have a choice to pay it. Please note that Windows XP is double the 
cost of Windows 2000. He also said that they would continue to add 
new programs and hijack protocols for their own benefit, and they 
have done that as well. I have at least 6 utilities such as Zone 
Alarm (a personal firewall) that will not operate under Windows XP) 
WHY? They are spitting in the face of the DOJ and saying "so 
what? do something about it.", while at the same time cutting 
the legs out from under competition such as Zone Alarm, who have 
done it right and refuse to sell to Microsoft.
     * Windows XP only allows you to use it 5 times on different 
hardware configurations. They also argue that they should be allowed 
to restrict us to putting their software on only one program. WHY? 
Should we also be restricted to only using cars in the same state we 
bought them, or only being allowed to read books for only a year 
before destroying them or giving them back? The SOFTWARE INDUSTRY is 
NO DIFFERENT from other industry in respects to buyer's rights. Why 
let them cheat us out of that because they want to be different? The 
legal history on buyer's rights is VERY clear. Please dont change 
them.
     * Microsoft has not "innovated" anything new for as 
long as I can remember. They buy other markets out, they steal, and 
they hijack. They take something that already exists, change it, and 
call it their own. They are "software terrorists". In 
fact I can think of a number of technological andlor software 
advancements that were squashed by Microsoft BEFORE THEY EVEN GOT 
STARTED because they would have been competition.
     * Microsoft is NOTORIOUS for their software being buggy and 
full of security flaws and holes. Yet we are supposed to allow them 
access to all of our personal information and financial information? 
This is a HUGE national meltdown just waiting to happen!
     * Microsoft is moving foward at an extremely rapid pace. Their 
.Net project is designed for two purposes: 1. to control the 
internet and get part of any micropayments or online transactions, 
and 2. to make a worldwide network where you pay for the temporary 
use of a program (whether it be an operating system, application, 
utility, or game matters not) and bypass the entire issue of 
"buying a program". Imagine that. That would be like all 
of the car companies getting together and deciding they will no 
longer sell cars, but ONLY rent them.
     * Microsoft MUST be under some form of oversight and have NO 
SAY in who is in that con-m-iittee. TI-WY are the criminals! Why 
should they get a chance to make it easier on themselves? That would 
be like prison full of criminals getting to decide who the prison 
warden will be. Dont let Microsoft fool you! Please consider that 
Microsoft's plans for the future involve controlling each and every 
person who has a computer and wants to go online. Stop Microsoft 
before you can no longer do so. For the consumer's sake, for the 
sake of competition and free enterprise, and for the sake of 
technological advancements in the future.
     Thank you for your time.
    Matthew `Cralis' Olson
    Starfire Design Studio
    Starfire Developer, Editor, and Webmaster
    cralis @home.com 503.585.4049
    (http://www.starfiredesign.com/starfire)

MTC-933



MTC-00000934

From: Bren McMullen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:41am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    I think that microsoft should be made to sell a 'striped-
down' version of windows for a far less price. With all of the 
current bundled software included in WinXP, Microsoft is undoubedly 
creating a large monopoly in the computer software industry, pushing 
larger and more experienced companies with better software out of 
buiness. Instead of also making it available to run other software 
without purposeful intervention. At yet, Microsoft forces all of its 
uneducated users to toy with their inferior versions of popular 
software. Microsoft has no previous experiences in the fields of 
instant messenging or digital photography, and yet they decide to 
include it with the operating system that will be forced down the 
throats of home users all over the country.
    On another note, they are bosting their inferior software, and 
also ideas stolen from other operating systems (i.e. the virtual 
desktop concept from linux) to give their new WindowsXP more 
leverage over other versions of Windows. These will convince more 
users to pay the outstanding prices they are charging. As if they 
arent getting enough revenue from their new Xbox. Along with 
offering a stripped down version of Windows, we should also FORCE 
Windows to remove their .NET, Bill Gates is going to take over the 
world scheme, and get rid of their insecure uS (internet information 
server) protocols which are being shipped and turned on as defualt 
in their Internet Explorer, which is the dominating broswer ever 
since it was bundled and set as default with Windows.

MTC-934



MTC-00000935

From: brandon marks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:35am
Subject: microsoft
    Thanks for not breaking up Microsoft. If too many software 
companies try to break off into very different directions, 
everything working as uniformly as it does now might not be 
possible. Send a friend your Buddy Card and stay in contact always 
with Excite Messenger http://messenger.excite.com

MTC-935



MTC-00000936

From: Ryan Roberts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:34am
Subject: this settlement is disgusting
    I am a student at Michigan State University. Last Wednesday we 
reviewed the Microsoft anti-trust violations and deceptive practices 
in my telecommunications policy class. It made me think that the DoJ 
is very afraid of Microsoft, that George W. Bush does not want the 
Microsoft case to exist, and that Microsoft blatantly broke the law 
on numerous occasions. If I was a burglar and I broke into 10 houses 
and stole lots of jewelry. I would go to jail. I wouldn't be told, 
"hey, stop committing crime now okay? If

[[Page 23830]]

you say you won't do it again, we'll just keep an eye on you for a 
little while." If I was Microsoft and I did everything in my 
power to destroy any potential middleware from arising using 
despicable practices including forcing other companies to bend to 
their will through complete lies(Mac Office) and purposefully 
distributing Java tools which only worked on my version of JVM while 
proclaiming that not to be the case, I guess that I do only get told 
to stop, and promise NOT TO BE A CRIMINAL ANY MORE. THEY BROKE THEY 
LAW.
    DoJ: Hold out your wrist please Mr. Gates. *slap!*
    Bill: Oooookaaaaay, I've learned my lesson. *mutters something 
under breath that sounds like, "suckers!!!".*
    DoJ: Well I guess it was worth the millions and millions spent 
on the case then, if you learned your lesson. Forget the court costs 
or any monetary reparations whatsoever Mr. Gates. The American 
taxpayers gladly shoulder the load of your invaluble lesson.
    Angry Narrator: And no one lived happier ever after than Bill 
Gates, and no one in America really cared because they are 
disillusioned with the system and resigned to the fact that 
Microsoft does whatever it wants. Had the DoJ protected the people's 
interests, who knows? The day might have been won in the name of 
good, but alas, that is not the case.
    The End
    Good job DoJ. I mean bad job. yeah, bad job is what I meant. If 
you're going to have a giant trial and spend a lot of time and 
money, doesn't it make you feel frustrated to finally end up with a 
castrated settlement?
    Thank goodness that Justice has 9 states with the common sense 
not to accept this rubbish, as Justice is not accustomed to dining 
on rubbish. Hopefully Microsoft will pay through the nose in civil 
trials as well. Whatever happens, you failed. That's how lots of 
people feel. Not just me. Lots of people. I can start a list if you 
want.
    Ryan Roberts
    rober294 @msu.edu

    MTC-936



MTC-00000937

From: Jeny Kreps
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:33am
Subject: My comments on the DOJ_Microsoft settlement.
    I am Jerry L Kreps
    521 West Garber Avenue
    Lincoln, NE 68521
    (402) 475-4657
    This settlement after FOUR years, and on the heels of an equally 
worthless consent decree from a previous 'settlement', 
which Microsoft totally and completely ignored, is exactly why the 
US legal system is held in such LOW regard by a large majority of 
the American People. The DOJ simply does not work for the best 
interests of the common citizen any more. They behave more like 
lackeys of big business. Why? The DOJ won the court case and 
Microsoft is convicted as a monopolist. The DOJ won the appeal and 
Microsoft's conviction stood. The orignal DOJ team is replaced by 
Bush appointees who immediately snatch defeat from the jaws of 
victory.
    DOJ lawyers defended the settlement stating: "Government 
lawyers carefully weighed 'those proposals but ultimately 
chose other sanctions against Microsoft that they believed would 
result in the most effective and certain relief in the most timely 
manner.' " This is patently absurd. 
"Carefully weighed" suggests that Microsoft's side of 
the scale was preloaded in its favor. "most effective and 
certian relief in a timely manner" is a description of the 
relief that Microsoft recieved from the DOJ, but it is NOT a 
description of any possible relief the consumer might gain from this 
settlement. Microsoft's relief is effective, knowing they will not 
be finded a single penny after stealing Billions from the consumer. 
They know it is certain, because the DOJ is behaving like the 
'fix is in'. They know it is timely because even though 
XP was quickly launched ahead of schedule in an attempt to snowball 
the DOJ into more lenient terms, Microsoft received NO terms of 
significance at all, so their XP launch, the biggest invasion 
against privacy and the Bill of Rights yet launched, goes ahead 
unhindered. The DOJ team goes on to say 'the settlement, if 
approved by the court, would "eliminate Microsoft's illegal 
practices, prevent recurrence of the same or similar practices and 
restore the competitive threat" the company faces from 
rivals.'
    This, too, is patently absurd. There is absolutely NO teeth in 
this settlement. When Microsoft violates (not if) what paulty 
"restraints', and I use the term loosely, there is in the 
agreement, the ONLY punishment is that they have to endure another 
TWO years of the same ineffectual watchdoging.
    Frankly, if you haven't been able to figure it out yet, I am 
disgusted at the DOJ incompetence. It goes beyond incompetence, it 
is criminal. Disbarment proceedings would have been undertaken had 
any of you performed so poorly in the public courts of the land. Mr 
Nader gave an excellent analysis of the "settlement" in 
his letter to the Judge. http://www.cptech.org Although a convicted 
monopolist Microsoft is given NO meaningful punishment, NO 
meaningful supervision. NO teeth which could restrain Mr. Gates and 
Mr. Ballmer from proceeding full steam ahead without changing any 
tactics. In fact, the settlement, rather than protecting the 
consumer, legalizes Microsoft's outragous behavior. Of the three 
"watch kitten" (dog would be an inappropriate 
description) one will be selected by Microsoft, and that person will 
have a say in the selection of one of the other two. So, right from 
the start, the committee is biased at least 1.5 to 2 out of 3. IF a 
two out of three vote is required then Microsoft already possesses 
the ability to BLOCK any unfavorable decisions the committee could 
make. What brilliant genius on the DOJ team agreed to that? In 
addition, the three "watch kittens" will be housed on 
the Microsoft campus, in Microsoft offices, paid by Microsoft, and 
they will be under a GAG order, essentially preventing them from 
informing the public about any progress Microsoft is making in 
abiding by the essentially worthless settlement. What brilliant 
genius on the DOJ team thought that scheme up, and how did he/she 
get the rest of the team to sign on? A better question would be 
"How much did they get paid to sell out the American People, 
you know, the ones whose interests they are supposed to represent?
    Your "IMPACT" report is pure fabrication. It reminds 
me of Neville Chamberlian's peace treaty with Hitler. It became 
apparent SIX WEEKS before the settlement was announced that 
Microsoft had advanced notice of what the outcome of the settlement 
would be, and immediately returned to its Monoplistic, predatory 
attitudes by modifying its PC OEM licenses to restrict what icons 
and other software the PC OEM could put on the Desktop along with 
WinXP. Addtiionally, Microsoft forbad the PC OEMs from installing 
any other OS along with WinXP in a dual boot mode. These rquirements 
are extremely aggregious and certainly an example of Microsoft 
LEVERAGING its monopolistic position even before the settlement was 
announced. If Microsoft can be so bold as to enbark on this course 
of behavior even before they supposedly knew what the outcome of the 
case would be, not one single point of this settlement will deter 
them for a single second to do even bolder and more outragous 
acts.weak Expect to see their legal teams, by threats of legal 
action and by shady uise of patents and other legal devices, 
intimidate Open Source programmers, the Linux Kernel team (one of 
whom, Alan Cox, has already resigned from maintainence of the 2.4 
kernel because of fear of the DMCA being applied against him for 
revealing security fixes in a GPL product for which he is a 
principal programmer!!!!! !!)
    For the last ten years software houses and security companies 
and software researchers have had a consumer favorable policy of 
rapid reporting of bugs and security holes, along with demonstration 
code which proves the bugs or holes and which can be used to test 
theweak effectiveness of any patches software houses offer. 
Microsoft is against informing consumers of the threats to their 
personal and financial information that bugs in their software 
poses. They would rather such holes are kept secret. This was the 
standard 15 years ago, and such holes were rarely admitted, and bug 
patches rarely offered. In fact, anyone who announced bugs was 
immediately persecuted, both professionally and legally. Eventually, 
because of the never ending holes, primarily in Micosoft's OS and 
software, an deomcratic policy of rapid announcements was 
instituted. Recently, in response to a virtual flood of trojan 
horses, email viruses, server security holes found in Microsoft's 
software, especially the IIS web server engine, the Gartner Group 
has advised consumers to switch from 118 web servers to Apache web 
servers. Even though such holes had been known for several years in 
various Microsoft products, it is only after Gartner Group advised 
consumers to switch to Apache did Microsoft address the problem. 
Their solution, announced a couple of days ago, well AFTER the DOJ 
settlement, would have the computer world return to the bad old days 
where bugs and holes would be kept secret. Only Microsoft, flexing 
in new INVIGORATED MONOPOLY POWER would attempt such a wholesale 
brow beating of the

[[Page 23831]]

computer industry. I have no doubt that Microsoft has been 
accompaning the public lashings with private threats of economic 
penalties for all companies that don't toe their new line.
    Jerry Kreps

MTC-937



MTC-00000938

From: lowell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:53pm
Subject: recent settlement
    Folks:
    Judging from how the defendant behaved under a previous consent 
decree without an enforcement clause of any sort, what makes anyone 
think they'll behave any differently under this one? The toothless
    Gang of Three? Cant see it...

MTC-938



MTC-00000939

From: David Gould
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust trial
    I think it sums it up to witness that Gates himself is 
"happy" with the settlement. Who in their right mind, 
when found guilty of such a severe crime as anti-trust law 
violations, should be "happy" with the punishment they 
receive? This is an obvious sign that the settlement was far too 
lenient on Microsoft. As a software engineer who is very aware of 
the enormous market power behind Microsoft, I sit here simply 
appalled at the weakness and lack of backbone in our government's 
justice department.
    Corporate entities seek out business models that are ambiguously 
or even very clearly illegal or un-constitutional in foundation, 
then they expect the government to protect their flawed business 
models just because they "help support the US economy" 
by providing jobs and goods to our citizens. And what does our 
government do? It steps right in line and defends outrageous 
legistlation like the DCMA and this bogus resolution to the 
antitrust trial.
    Here I think it is very clear, the new administration came in, 
ignored the history of the case, ignored the experts who basically 
unaminously suggested not just breaking MS up into two or three 
companys, but several companies, as well as other severe 
restrictions on their business practices... and got right in line 
behind "the big american corporation, savior of our 
economy". Who cares if our constitution and laws are flushed 
down the toilet, as long as we keep unemployment low right? And even 
as you negotiated with microsoft, they made a fool of the justice 
department by continuing to flaunt their monopolistic practices, 
launching the most asbsurdly anti-trust violating piece of software 
yet, Microsoft XP, and continuing to bully the entire vertical 
market of PC manufacturing into locking out their competitors' 
products. History has proven that it is better to take the medicine 
now then wait till later, especially in the case of monopolistic 
practices. Unfortunately it appears the justice department doesn't 
even have the technological understanding to realize that microsoft 
is hurting and stifiling innovation and technological progress in 
our country by preventing nearly any other US company from having a 
chance to launch competing products because of the enormous barriers 
to entry they can impose through leveraging their monopoly of the PC 
operating system market. And this damage far outweighs any short 
term benefit to our economy. Eventually this will lead to the US 
being surpassed technologically by companies from other coutries 
like Germany, Britain, or Isreal. But I realize this letter is a 
complete waste of time. After all, it's clear you are on their side.
    Thanks for nothing DOJ.
    Dave Gould

MTC-939



MTC-00000940

From: Raymond Rizzo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:51am
Subject: Settlement still insufficient
    For quite some time now I have been following this case. I, as a 
tech., depend strongly on a decision that will force fair play in 
the market place. Microsoft as a whole has, as far as I have 
noticed, complete disrespect for any standardization. Which in its 
self is a step toward trying to force a monopoly. For example, when 
Netscape introduced Java Script microsoft decided to spin off a 
version that offered only enough limited compatability so as to 
force people to switch web browsers, following started the Browser 
War". To further their plans for a takeover of the web market 
the then integrated Internet Explorer 4 into windows 95, and then 
following was the release of windows 98 which had no optin of 
removal. This is what started the government intervention, but it 
dosent stop there. With the release of Windows XP, Microsoft has, in 
the same fasion, bundled more of their software with the operating 
system without giving the user a means to remove it. Programs such 
as Windows Media Player, Windows Movie Maker, Microsoft Gaming Zone 
for example canot be removed by standard uninstalation methods, nor 
even by deleting the files from the hard disk, due to the fact that 
they are immediatly copied back regardless of the end user wanting 
the programs or not. This is the behaivor that must be stopped, the 
company is doing exactly what it was doing before the court case had 
even started.
    The result is the end user being forced into using a Microsoft 
product to force competition out of the market. Look at any of the 
bundled applications that microsoft has added to their standard 
instalation and check the userbase of the bundled protuct vs 
competition. Exery time they incorperate another item into their 
product another companies userbase goes down. It is invasion of 
citizens own personal freedom to be forced keep a product they do 
not want, and it is an even greater injustice to let a company 
continue to abuse their position in a marketplace the way microsoft 
has. All I can ask, is that the settelment not only be based on a 
way to secure a free marketplace for the US, but to also help the 
millions of windows users attain the ability to choose what 
applications they want to use on their PC.

MTC-940



MTC-00000941

From: Simon G. Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:45am
Subject: Microsoft Case
    I understand this is an e-mail where citizens can comment on the 
Microsoft anti-trust case.
    My personal opinion is that the government should not interfere 
with the workings of the private sector. In cases of anti-trust, I 
thought that the law was intended to prevent monopolies. Well, there 
are other companies that produce office software and operating 
systems, which are they only things that Microsoft seems to even 
have a large market share on. Just because a company has a large 
market share, that doesn't mean they are monopolistic_it might 
just mean they are good at what they do.
    Am I biased? Well, I personally won't buy Microsoft products 
because they are too expensive. But I think that in a free market 
system, if most people in the US decide to buy it, that's their 
choice and Microsoft should not be punished for it.
    Sincerely,
    Simon Smith
    Brookline, MA

MTC-941



MTC-00000942

From: Bryan J
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 12:42am
Subject: Please answer my questions...
    Why did you, the government, let us down by letting Microsoft 
off the hook? A five year probationary period? A time-limited sneak 
peak at PORTIONS of the OS source code? Thats all? For a company 
that has been using illegal practices and violating the Sherman 
Anti-Trust Act and subsequent antitrust laws ever since its 
domination of the OS market began?
    I have a couple of questions for you:
    (1) What about the draconian licensing agreements that MS has 
with some hardware companies saying that only Microsoft OSes can be 
shipped on their systems or they'll be cut out and not given MS OSes 
for their systems at all? That's not monopolistic? What did your 
agreement do to address this situation? Nothing? Was this rumor/
issue addressed in discussions at all?
    (2) Did the Republican/big business philosophical underpinnings 
of the prosecution have anything to do with it? The DOJ under 
Clinton was much more firm and seemed to have their act together 
much better than you guys, which pains me very much to say, 
considering I'm a conservative Republican...
    (3) When there's a monopoly nobody gains in a market economy. 
Competition makes for better products and prices. The consumer gets 
higher quality at a lower price. When did you all forget this BASIC 
principle that I understood in junior high school?
    (4) Most important question_How can putting any piece of 
software into their OS to compete with ANY other software in the 
market NOT be monopolistic? Even if 3rd party software compaines 
have access to SOME MS code, for a limited period of time (5 years), 
how is that going to truly remedy a monopoly situation?

[[Page 23832]]

    The bottom line: the computer desktop OS isn't just a tool for 
use. It's becoming a utility_necessary for everyday 
functioning in more peoples' lives every day. Monopolistic utilities 
need to be regulated and broken up. What was wrong with splitting MS 
in 2- one side goes OS development and the other does everything 
else?
    Bottom line_You have failed me as a consumer, and in the 
long haul, you may have done more harm to information technology 
throughout the world than can ever be repaired. My choices for 
desktops will forever be limited (especially if Open Source Software 
fails in the marketplace)_ and MS will control information 
throughout the world when .NET is implemented in its fullest form 
and I HAVE to use it because everyone else is. Thanks...
    Id like to have some answers to my questions. I pay 
taxes_I pay your paychecks_give me some answers. 
So_WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING??
    Bryan Roseberry
    A concerned citizen in Mesa, AZ

MTC-942



MTC-00000943

From: [email protected] @ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:05am
Subject: Comment on MS settlement
    Microsoft has been harming consumers for years. From the early 
'80s they had tried to kill Apple's more advanced computer system, 
until the system architecture of the Intel world allowed an 
equivalent graphical interface. Now Microsoft COULD have supported 
Apple's system better, but CHOSE to make a less useful system 
available for years, all the while saying that the world needed DOS. 
This hurt consumers. It hurt Apple, and it hurt many small companies 
that were involved in the marketplace.
    More recently, Microsoft has killed, one at a time, any small 
and succesful product line. Disk Cache vendors were swallowed. TCP/
IP vendors were destroyed. There are other examples of this 
predatory bundling in addition to Netscape's web browser.
    And now you are proposing a settlement that will give Microsoft 
complete impunity from the guilt of their past actions.
    Shame on you, DOJ. Are you for free enterprise or just afraid of 
those high paid lawyers that MS has?
    James A. Hinds

MTC-943



MTC-00000944

From: Barth Netterfield
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:04am
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust case
    Hi,
    [one line summary: the proposed settlement is not strict enough]
    Please consider this when considering the proposed settlement: 
This may very well be the most important antitrust case since the 
railroads were broken up.
    By having a monopoly on the operating system, Microsoft is able 
to leverage into other areas of computer technology, with the stated 
goal of controlling all aspects of computing. Controlling computing 
means controlling almost all aspects of modem financial life. 
Without strong legal intervention, it will be impossible for any 
business or individual to function without paying Microsoft whatever 
Microsoft wants them to pay.
    A comparison with the railroads being the only form of 
transportation in or out of a town is a good one.
    Microsoft has shown itself to be a well managed, and and 
effective company_ we can absolutly count on them to be very 
clever and effective in maintaining, building, and exploiting the 
monopoly they have developed. Any possible loophole will be 
exploited. We can count on it.
    Thanks for reading (whoever is reading this....)
    Barth Netterfield

MTC-944



MTC-00000945

From: Robert Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:03am
Subject: proposed remedy not enough
    Microsoft has thumbed its nose at the Department of Justice the 
entire trial. Even the trial has not curtailed their abusive 
practices, 2 weeks ago their new msn network forced web surfers to 
use Microsofts browser to view their site! Their windows software is 
overpriced, filled with security flaws and the worst part it is, 
many have no other option but to use it. I'd be interested in seeing 
the world where innovation ruled, and the progress that would be 
made without monopolies.
    robert lewis

MTC-945



MTC-00000946

From: Mark Shadley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:01am
Subject: DOJ/MS Settlement
    To Whom it may concern,
    I am greatly dissapointed that although Microsoft was found 
guilty of violating the law, the U.S. Justice Department has 
essentially let them off with a slap on the hand. Microsoft has 
shown in the past, that it has no respect for the law or court 
rulings. It will continue to stifle innovation, crush competition, 
and charge whatever prices it wants for it's products. I don't want 
to believe it, but it really looks like Microsoft bought their way 
out of legal trouble.
    Thank you for reading this.
    Mark Shadley

MTC-946



MTC-00000947

From: Terry Hermary
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:16am
Subject: Words about Microsoft and the anti-trust issue
     To whom it may concern,
    I do not believe the best interests of American society, nor the 
interests of the free world are being considered with respect to the 
Microsoft Monopoly.
    I am a business owner in a small technology based company 
providing solutions to the industrial automation market. 
Manufacturing and processing industries in North America are facing 
increasing threats from low cost producers in other regions. This 
takes away jobs and displaces our workforce. For industry to compete 
in this environment, industrial automation is a necessity.
    We have had experience with various operating systems and 
software. We build our own for our products while employing industry 
standard interfaces. Microsoft has too big a hand in the infant yet 
powerful area of computing. Microsoft is well recognized amounst the 
small guys making it happen, but just like the former USSR structure 
which existed and was talked about between trusted friends, but 
never 'officially recognized' for what it was), we are 
feeling powerless. The ultimate toll will be on the system that lets 
Microsoft continue to abuse it's market position. The business 
practices of Microsoft need to be moderated in the best interest of 
our future generations. Too much influence is being concentrated and 
only the influenced cannot see this.
    With all due respect, Terry Hermary
    [email protected]

MTC-947



MTC-00000948

From: Microsoft ATR
To: ATRMAIL1 .ATRCAFO1 .MSMailbo
Date: 12/6/01 2:02pm
Subject: should not have let them off easy -Forwarded
From: tburkard @vostok.tangentis.com@ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:06am
Subject: should not have let them off easy
    It is a shame that the DOJ has let Microsoft off with almost no 
real penalties. Having been in the industry, I have seen Microsoft 
kill great ideas and companies time and time again. They have 
repeatedly show that they are a predator, not an innovator. They 
have yet to contribute anything of their own to the industry. Now 
that they have been let off, they will no doubt continue to wreak 
havoc by altering standards and trying to make them proprietary. 
(They did it to kerberos and several others.)
    Anybody familiar with the industry is insulted when the 
government says (or concedes) that Microsoft is not a monopoly or 
does not leverage their monopolistic position to squash competitive 
companies, standards and ideas.
    Trent Burkard
    CEO Tangent Information Systems, Inc.
    Seattle WA

MTC-948



MTC-00000949

From: Ralph Butler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:21am
Subject: Goverment Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    As a consumer presently and in being in the PC business for 30 
years at IBM, I do not agree with the your judgement against 
Microsoft. The judgement needs to go further into allowing Microsoft 
to bundle it software in an integrated package. Just look at

[[Page 23833]]

Microsofts XP software and you can see that the company has not 
changed it's ways. I am not against Microsoft for coming out with 
innovated programs but they should be sold separately with other 
competitive programs and not as an integrated software package.
    Regards,
    Ralph Butler
    Retired IBM Staff Engineer in Product Development.

MTC-949



MTC-00000950

From: Nathan Krick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 1:20am
Subject: good decision
    Since most of the e-mails directed to this address are probably 
sent by people who think that the ruling in this case was a poor 
decision, I felt the need to send an e-mail saying that I think it 
was a good decision. I believe this for many reasons, including the 
following.
    First, OS. Microsoft is not a monopoly, Linux is becoming a 
larger "threat" as it gains more and more support, 
including support from industry giants such as Intel, AMD, and HP. 
If nothing else, Linux is certainly a viable option now and I don't 
think it can be argued that Microsoft is a monopoly in the OS 
market.
    Second, Office Suites. Microsoft is not a monopoly in the Office 
Suite market either. Other options exist, such as Corell and Star 
Office. Adobe also makes good software for page layout and 
publishing, and Macromedia dominates the internet and web design 
market.
    Third, Internet Browsers. In this area, other options such as 
Netscape and Opera exist.
    Forth, Intellectual Ownership. Microsoft retains intellectual 
ownership of the source code for all of their software, to force 
Microsoft to open their source code for their competitors to see is 
illegal according to our constitution. They own the software and 
have the right to open the code (or not open it) to whomever they 
want. It's called capitalism, the notion on which our country was 
founded.
    Fifth, Inovation. Microsoft's competitors are upset because 
Microsoft includes to many applications and tools with their 
software and say that either Microsoft should not be allowed to do 
so, or should include their tools too. That is all innovation, 
Microsoft makes a good product, and then they bundle it with their 
other software, how is that illegal? They own the rights to the 
software and can distribute it however they want to. That is like 
telling a car maker that they have to allow the buyer to decide what 
company they want all the options in their car from. (I want my 
power windows from company X, and my automatic locks from company Y. 
No, the manufacturer makes their own equipment and bundles it with 
the car.) Again, it's capitalism. We are not talking about Standard 
Oil or Mitsubishi here. Microsoft does not own everything (I have 
yet to see an entire computer system designed, built, and sold by 
Microsoft, hardware and software_that could potentially be a 
monopoly_take a look at Apple). Microsoft designs good 
software and many people use it because they like it. I don't use 
software just because it came bundled with my system. I use what I 
like to use best. Microsoft has plenty of compitition and with the 
internet, the competitors software is plenty easy to get.
    Nathan Krick

MTC-950



MTC-00000951

From: Armstrong.Steven
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/17/01 6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    [Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It 
has been convened to attachment.]
    Thank you for posting the settlement information on http://
www.usdoj .gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm. I do appreciate this act of 
openess by the government's DOJ. It does facilitate some degree of 
hope! I just wish the rest of my reaction could have retained that 
happy, hopeful note.
    As I read the settlement, I couldn't help but feel betrayed, 
cheated and dismayed by the real terms. Where's the pain of penalty? 
Where's any strenght in oversight? What is the real structural 
changes expected to occur and how will they be ensured to occur? 
It's toothless, clawless, and simpering in tone.
    The DOT terms of settlement with Microsoft are incredibly weak 
and shortsighted, and show and incredible lack of concern for the 
consumer. It obviously yields a big ZERO value to the consumer and 
seems to ensure Microsoft's continued dominance. You are giving us a 
bandaid when our collective arms have been twisted and broken, and 
kneecaps kicked in by Bill Gates and cohorts.
    There is no dollar amount penalty assessed against the richest 
company and richest man in the world for years of monopolistic and 
predatory practices, nothing against a company known for earning 
billions and also known for paying zero federal taxes. Their 
'taxfree' dollars were being spent on the teams of 
lawyers that chewed up the DOT up like candy. It really makes me 
angry to see the DOT applying a few baby teeth to the armored and 
muscled 90000 pound Godzilla that is Microsoft is. In fact, the 
settlement appears to make things safer for Microsoft rather than 
show them there's a price to pay for behaving in a monopolistic 
manner for decades. IBM should have had such a deal!
    The DOJ did not impose a single dollar amount penalty against 
this company which has billions of dollars in assets, greater than 
many 2nd world countries.
    It did not stop Windows XP and require unbundling of products 
that supplanted dozens of competitor software maker's products. 
Microsoft tends to redefine any company making a profit selling 
something that runs on Windows as a competitor and try to grab their 
market with a low ball or free Microsoft alternative (that quickly 
becomes a standard). Remember Netscape? Not in the settlement.
    It did not stop Microsoft from excluding Java from XP and the 
newest versions of it's Internet Explorer. For 8 years, Java has 
been the glue of the open world of the interative web...now it's 
tossed aside in favor of Microsoft's insecure and proprietary 
ActiveX products and .NET. Microsoft can bald face declare Java as 
insecure without challenge. It can change Windows and other software 
delivery timetables to make sure that Java isn't available. Remember 
Netscape? Not in the settlement.
    It doesn't make user security something that MUST be improved by 
Microsoft.. .every week seems to bring out more flaws allowing the 
consumer's wallet to be picked by the electronic thieves using the 
internet. If there was any true competition, Microsoft would have to 
fix these flaws and fast! Digital Research had DR DOS which 
Microsoft worked hard to eliminate, and that was buried in some weak 
settlement. You know Microsoft operates like pirates, and yet the 
settlement doesn't seem to demand anything back to the consumers who 
tried to use DR DOS and Windows 3.1 and who eventually had no other 
choices. You leave us captive on the Microsoft pirate ship, and they 
have their hands in our pockets.
    There are no rebates to the consumer for operating system 
software known for it's 'blue screen of death' and 
shoddy customer service (all problems solved by reinstall windows 
and rebooting or upgrading for hundreds of dollars). There are 
countless stories of people losing their data and functionality as 
Windows corrupts the data and itself. We have no recourse. The EULA 
says we can only get up to $5 or a new CD from Microsoft if try to 
see any recompense for a misperforming $600 Windows product. There 
EULA actually states their software isn't guarenteed to do anything 
useful although their marketing constantly stress ease of use, 
productivity and usefulness. No compensation to dozens of companies 
crushed by Microsoft, or bought out and folded, on it's way to 
global domination.
    No compensation to the truly innovative companies like Borland, 
who had it's top development staff lured away with millions dangled 
before them. If a company dares to make something competitive with 
Microsoft, Microsoft tries to steal their developers, and set up 
obstacles to the companies success, invoke legal actions, anything 
but compete fairly and openly. No inquiry into it's use of stock 
options to hide wealth from taxation, pay off all sorts of parties, 
and how hard they work to keep the value propped up without really 
delivering true improvements to consumers.
    Real security comes from peer review by real experts in the open 
market. No opportunity for this is created since whenever Microsoft 
can show a security concern, it can hide it's software or bring 
legal action against anyone trying to understand how it works. The 
settlement gives Microsoft further protections in this! Where's the 
penalty? I see them benefited! No requirement to fully open the 
Windows software APIs and source code to all developers who would 
dearly love to provide more innovation and variety and improved 
functionality to our free markets. Microsoft is a defacto standard 
but can protect it's products from competition by continuing to 
shield it's inner workings from other competition. Many competitors 
products stop working whenever a 'patch' is provided but

[[Page 23834]]

Microsoft's own products don't seem to snagged like that, but gain 
market share every time this occurs, since nobody wants software 
that will break when a new security patch is needed. Microsoft only 
grants access to the inner workings by requiring the viewer of 
source code to sign documents that cause an agreement to never write 
anything that competes with Microsoft products, and may not reveal 
anything viewed.
    No penalties assesed to Microsoft or compensation awarded to PC 
manufacturers for the contracts restricting them from what they 
could distribute. No punishment to Microsoft or compensation to web 
ISPs where Microsoft is forcing them to adopt their software as 
standards. No support for developers and software firms who would 
dearly like to innovate but are shut out by Microsoft's closed 
approach to partnering and development, worse they are often 
steamrolled by Microsoft who pretends to show interest in supporting 
a developer's product until they can use their R&D to produce 
their own replacement. Their goal is to take every profitable market 
which PCs have, through other companies products, helped generate, 
and then to take all the credit for it.
    There needs to be requirements of Microsoft that all it's 
products will begin to and continue to adhere to international 
computing standards instead of innovating their own private world of 
interfaces that only works with Micorsoft products. The cost to the 
international and national businesses of having to constantly 
rewrite and upgrade in order to meet Microsoft's latest 
'industry standard' is in the billions annually. NO 
business application I've written using Microsoft tools 3 years ago 
will work without being rewritten today. Businesses are bearing an 
incredible burden trying to keep up with Microsoft's pace of 
technology change, and being forced to constantly rewrite the same 
business critical software for each new version. This lack of 
stability is a cost no where addressed or calculated. Any IT manager 
can tell you that the cost of supporting a PC on a workstation desk 
amounts to thousands of dollars a year. adding critical inhouse 
business applications can triple that. MIcrosoft uses planned 
obsolescence to assure a constant need for developers to rewrite, 
for new license purchases, and new more powerful PCs to be 
purchased.
    The government should be pressing Microsoft to fully cooperate 
with the Open Source groups and to open their systems. Closed 
systems offered by Microsoft are far more expensive than consumers 
realize, especially as free products steadily evolve into for fee 
products and then into monthly service fees. With .NET Microsoft is 
trying to move all Windows consumers to a subscription basis through 
MSN. Our rights as consumers have been reduced by every legal 
innovation in their EULA_software licenses, and further 
reduced by DCMA and UCITA. Now Microsoft and it's third party 
affiliates remand to themselves the right to shut down the PC of 
Americans where they believe some violation of their license terms 
might be occuring. . .no due process, no right to appeal, it's just 
shut down and 'deactivated'. Where was our Justice 
department when these changes occured in Microsoft licensing? YOU 
MUST MONITOR THEIR EULA AGREEMENTS. They basically are giving 
themselves rights to our wallets and any information we have on our 
PCs and any consumer data collected by them or their affiliates 
(which they hope will be all business and governmental bodies). Why 
are you not protecting our right to privacy, our rights to control 
our own information, our rights to fair use of copyrighted material? 
You give this all to Microsoft without a fight.
    Now Microsoft is trying to contain free speech about it's 
security weaknesses by restricting the conversation to only special 
priveledged groups. What is the DOJ going to do about that? 
Consumers and businesses will have no idea whether or even if they 
lost control over their own wallets due to a security weakness known 
to Microsoft to terrorist groups or electronic crooks, or perhaps to 
politcal action groups favoring Microsoft's lobbying causes.
    Microsoft is seeking to control access to the information and 
services on the internet through the MSN portals and requiring 
Windows XP users to go through this using Passport, Hotmail, etc. 
Where is the DOJ on this? No penalty. No inquiry. See no evil, hear 
no evil, say no evil. Your settlement with Microsoft befits the 
three legendary monkeys. Microsoft never improves the software 
already installed by making it faster, smaller, more efficient, or 
more reliable. They just pile on features, require more upgrades, 
require hardware upgrades, replace competitor packages with their 
own, make it require a bigger PC, which triggers more purchases of 
new Microsoft products, and continues the constant annual extraction 
of billions dollars from American and world consumers. Now they try 
to move us to subscription basis, and consumers can't figure out how 
to stop this madness!
    I had hoped Republican leadership and constitutional 
conservatism would have meant real respect for constitutional rights 
of citizens and American freedoms of choice, advocating legal action 
which opens markets, supports free trade, and keeps the markets open 
to all American and world innovators. Instead, I see capitulation to 
THE CORPORATION, weakness, and the moral fiber of jello. You now 
seem to be the big corporation's department of justice, not The 
People's. Your settlement is encouraging Microsoft to continue it's 
dominance indefinitely. You apparently can't stand up to the biggest 
software bully in the world on behalf of your fellow American 
citizens or the world community. The DOJ staff were allowed to 
shrivel, to become so overworked, and so tired that they couldn't 
fight anymore. The DOJ was allowed to be bullied about and shaken 
down by Microsoft lawyers. The DOJ doesn't stand for much now, and 
to the world our DOJ looks like it's owned by Bill Gates. So many 
complain that people don't respect government anymore.. .1 see it as 
government has obviously failed to retain that trust and respect, 
and I imagine Microsoft is secretly laughing at the DOJ as well. It 
has publically revealed it's arrogance against the DOJ and attempted 
to deceive courts and subvert process. So to me, this deal looks way 
too sweet and easy on the single biggest company on the face of the 
earth, and vindicates their hard nosed, never yielding resistance 
and antagonism to our laws.
    Steven Armstrong, JR Info Consultant
    10801 35th Ave
    Pleasant Prairie, WI 53158

MTC-951



MTC-00000952

From: Ken Kyler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 6:26pm
Subject: I disagree!
    First, I have a BS in Business and a MS in Software Engineering. 
I'm not a Joe Sixpack. I don't buy this settlement at all. The best 
course of action was to break MS into 2 companies; an operating 
system company and an applications company. Then the playing field 
would be level. Given the US hasn't the moxy to do that, the next 
best course is very, very strict controls on MS_not the 
useless controls agreed to.
    Ken Kyler

MTC-952



MTC-00000953

From: Jack Lynch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer and a Microsoft hardware and software user I wish 
to make a few comments about the settlement. I have never 
experienced any anti-competitive practices. I have always had 
choices of hardware and software products and have never had to make 
decisions based on any monopoly situation. I have purchased a lot of 
Microsoft products and other company's products as well. I purchase 
on the basis of the best match between the features of the various 
products and my specific needs and benefits from those products. I 
have never been forced into anything because of lack of choices.
    Microsoft's continual marketing of new and innovative products 
has enhanced my personal and business productivity and has kept the 
competition continuing their product development to compete in the 
marketplace. This all works out to the benefit of all consumers.
    The recent slide of the US economy began with the Government's 
attack on Microsoft. A remedy has been proposed that is acceptable 
to Microsoft and to consumers like myself. Let's activate this 
remedy now! I guarantee this will mark the beginning of a resurgence 
in the strength of the American economy!
    Good Luck on moving forward on this_-we all need it!
    Jack Lynch
    19411 Burgundy Way
    Saratoga, CA 95070

MTC-953



MTC-00000954

From: LIN HART
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 6:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
To: The Justice Department
Re: Consumer Response
    Over the past few weeks I have been attempting to understand the 
decisions

[[Page 23835]]

coming from the Justice Department in response to the Microsoft 
case. It would appear as if they've decided to represent Microsoft 
rather than the people's best interest. The details of their most 
recent decision does little if anything to rein in the growing reach 
of Microsoft in it's efforts to dominate and control the PC/IS, 
wireless and Internet based technologies.
    It seems to me that one of the keys areas left unresolved is 
"middle ware" and Microsoft intentions regarding the 
use, sale and deployment of "middle ware." It appears 
that Microsoft competitors have been left at the mercy of Microsoft 
by the Justice Departments proposed settlement. The settlement, if 
upheld by the court, allows Microsoft to continue using it's 
Monopoly operating system as a kind of Trojan Horse, bundling it's 
product offering into the operating system. Such a procedure further 
facilitates Microsoft's practice of injecting current and future 
applications directly into the consumers experience, while competing 
middle ware providers of applications for music players, browsers, 
CD burners, Java apps and financial programs (just to name a few) 
have to continue fighting an uphill battle to access the same 
customer space.
    Action that were not adopted, such as the one mentioned below, 
would have given considerably more weight to the proposed 
settlement:
    "The Justice Department also considered forcing Microsoft 
to sell a stripped-down version of Windows that did not include 
built-in software for browsing the Internet, reading e-mail, 
listening to music or sending instant-messages.
    The current settlement seems to have found a way to ignore 
current reality and the future market implications. OEM equipment 
providers will not be significantly incented or motivated to 
challenge Microsoft and its present position of advantage. To do so 
would be too costly. Competing software companies are in no position 
to do so, given Microsoft's size, monopoly positioning and financial 
capabilities. Competing middle ware companies are going to get 
crushed; leaving Microsoft with a clear field to continue their 
domination.
    There is much more that confounds me about this case. The 
proposed Justice department settlement is laced with loopholes for 
Microsoft to dance around it's obligations. Access to key Windows 
code has been effectively shielded from non-Microsoft application 
programmers. How absurd is it to think that a panel of 3 people can 
keep a tight rein on Microsoft, when even the Justice Department and 
the Federal Government seem to be unable to do so?
    I hope the judge presiding over this case will give considerable 
consideration to pushing back against the Justice Departments and 
Microsoft's position. The current settlement proposalis comparable 
to giving General Motors unfettered power to determine the brand and 
type of cars that will use the interstate highway system and to 
allow them to deliver to the consumers door their own brand of gas, 
tires and oil. Given this kind of power to influence consumer 
choice, the results would be pretty obvious. Of course even this 
scenario, if enacted, would be significantly farer than what the 
Justice Department is now offering up. At least General Motors has 
some form of competition already in place; something Microsoft has 
never had to deal with.
    I have enormous respect for the 9 states and their attorneys, 
who have demonstrated the kind of intestinal fortitude, lacking by 
our federal judicial system and many of our elected officials. With 
all due respect to the Justice Department, political tinkering and 
political influence seems to be written all over this case.
    I'm hoping the Justice Department will find cause to revisit 
their findings and their proposed solution.
    L. J. Hart
    St. Louis, MO

MTC-954



MTC-00000955

From: Trey Pattillo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 6:47pm
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    I work for a government organization, so was the settlement 
reached to protect Micro$oft and avoid the Irony Of The Day: 
"A government organization purchasing goods and services from 
a vendor found guilty, by the government, for violations of the 
Sherman Anti-Trust Laws, established by the government."
    I am deeply concerned that our political system has allowed a 
convicted criminal to get away on "their own terms". As 
a taxpayer I demand that all government agencies stop pertetuating 
the Micro$oft Monoply, and spend my hard earned tax dollars wisely 
by supporting the *NIX systems with costs only a fraction or M$.
    The ultimate penality for Micro$oft __ removing 
income resources of their #1 customer YOU!
    Trey Pattillo
    Operations & GIS
    Coastal Bend Council of Governments 9-1-1
    2910 Leopard St
    Corpus Christi, TX 78408
    ph: 1.361.881.9911 ext. 227

MTC-955



MTC-00000956

From: Stan's Computer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft
    To Whom It May Concerned,
    I strongly feel that the Government shouldn't dictate to any 
company what it can include or exclude from its products. This is 
supposed to be a free society and not a dictatorship. This action 
has cost us the taxpayers more than it is worth to pursue in the 
first place. I also believe that forcing any company how to make 
their product is unconstitutional.
    Stanley R. Kneppar
    8109 Hibiscus Circle
    Tamarac, Florida 33321-2134
    (954) 720-0413
    [email protected]

MTC-956



MTC-00000957

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 6:40pm
Subject: (no subject)
    I feel this lawsuit has gone on too long,it appears that 
competitors of Microsoft used the Justice Dept.because they couldn't 
produce a better product, and wanted to hold back the competition 
.The computor companies in Califorina are urging California's 
Attorney General tocontinue the suit, only to serve their 
owninterest.Whatever happened to free enterprise?

MTC-957



MTC-00000958

From: MDigia62O3 @aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 6:36pm
Subject: Settlement
    America was found and built on a competitive spirit. Our 
constitution speaks to this. I just don't understand why Microsoft 
is being singled out. Should Michael Jordan be asked to play with a 
hand behind his back. Should Tiger Woods be asked to give his 
opponents strokes. They either broke the law and should be punished 
or did they just build a better mouse trap? P.S. I would also be 
interested in knowing how much of "MY" tax dollars were 
spent on this case. Michael

MTC-958



MTC-00000959

From: Ray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 6:56pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Once again Microsoft and it's money buy the legal system.

MTC-959



MTC-00000960

From: [email protected] @ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 6:53pm
Subject: Too Weak
    The government caved!
    Microsoft has 95% of the OS market in the world. And for the 
next 5 years someone is gonna watch em? Who pays, probably me, if 
for no other reason that to use computers in the world today one 
must buy Microsoft products.
    WindowsXP extends this monopoly. It comes with normally extra 
products. Where one might buy Real player, it comes with Windows 
Media, putting Real out of business. Where one might buy any add on, 
Microsoft will usurp the industry standard, and extend it, putting 
anyone who tries out of business. Anyone who wants to work with the 
95% is required to buy a microsoft product.
    They didn't get here by participating, but by strong arming the 
their customers (in this case, computer buyers aren't the customers, 
since they were required to buy a computer pre-loaded with Microsoft 
software, the PC manufacturers were the customer). Microsoft argues 
they inovate. I have yet to see anything they have inovated. MSDOS, 
they bought that. Excel, purchaced, Internet Explorer, purchased. 
Name one thing they invented? Sure they package all this, but so do 
others.
    To only give them a pathetic minor set of requirements full of 
loopholes and

[[Page 23836]]

exceptions does no one any good. You might as well send 'em a check 
for all the money spent on the Justice department, maybe then they 
will stop trying so hard. Microsoft would be better served by 
putting Bill Gates in Jail for a year or two, to remind corporations 
that strong arm tactics are the same for gangsters as well as 
corporations. If the president of the company served time, that 
would discourage illegal practices more than pathetic wimpy minimal 
restrictions.
    I am moving to the country that does it. It is really hard to be 
patriotic when the very government that we ought to support doesn't 
support us.

MTC-960



MTC-00000961

From: [email protected] @inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 6:50pm
Subject: An Alternate Solution
    Dear DOJ,
    The current agreement in the Microsoft antitrust case is 
seriously flawed. All the analysts agree that it will not have much 
effect on the companies operations, much like the previous 1995 
consent decree. Indeed the MS stock price actually rose after the 
details of the agreement were published, a sure sign that it was 
ineffectual.
    So what remedy would really bring competition back to this 
market? To know this one must understand how MS maintains its 
monopoly:
    1) Tight control over OEMs.
    2) Levereaging the windows installed base by bundling.
    3) Secret file formats/APIs which hinders other software vendors 
compatability/performance.
    Broadly speaking Microsoft is a box which denies access to its 
intellectual property. If you remove the box you solve the problem. 
The solution I propose is: The source code of the Windows family of 
operating systems should be made available under the LGPL (http://
www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#LGPL) except to any company 
which manufactures, supplies or sells PCs. The design documentation 
for this source code should also be made available under a similar 
license and in a format readable by non-Microsoft web browsers.
    This solution has many beneficial aspects:
    1) It is easy to implement.
    2) Competition is installed within the market. Any company can 
build and sell windows or a derivative.
    3) It is easy to police.
    4) The exceptions guard against the build up of vertical market 
segments.
    5) Microsoft remains free to innovate (it is just everyone else 
is now too!)
    6) Under the terms of the LGPL license, any derivatives of the 
source code must themselves be licensed under the LGPL and therefore 
be available to those who buy the executable version. This prevents 
re-assertion of the monopoly by Microsoft or one of its new 
competitors by denying access to the source code again.
    7) Access to the design documentaion aids understanding of the 
source code and hence gives competitors a leg up. ft also stops 
Microsoft obsfucating the source code and putting all the inforation 
about how the code really works elsewhere.
    Microsoft certainly wont be undone by this solution. It has a 
strong brand name and it has a competitive advantage in that it 
knows the source code.
    It also does not address Microsoft's monopoly in business 
software. My reasoning for this is that there are competing products 
in this arena and with the increasing importance of the web, the 
Office file formats will become less important.
    I look forward to Microsoft arguing that IE is not part of the 
OS sometime in the near future. (At which point Microsoft's 
intentions toward the Internet should also be examined.)
    Yours Sincerely,
    Chris Moore
    Software Engineer in the UK
    Sig pending!

MTC-961



MTC-00000962

From: Janus Daniels
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 6:49pm
Subject: MS suit
    US spent time and money to prove the obvious fact that MS is a 
predatory monopoly. It has done virtually nothing with that victory. 
AT&T suffered worse, and they delivered an excellent product, 
and did less damage.

MTC-962



MTC-00000963

From: Andrew Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 7:23pm
Subject: BUNDLING
    Why is bundling products against the law? There are many 
products bundling in the market in the world. Clock with radio, TV 
with VCR, computer with printer or scanner, buy one ice cream and 
get one free, 4 tires get one free, get dinner and get one free, buy 
a new car and get radio free and install. What's wrong bundling 
products?
    When one is not smart enough to invent their own programmer 
codes for software. You can ask the government for help.
    When one buys a software it will cost one price. And if one buys 
a million softwares the price will lower like wholesale. Right? Bill 
Gates goes out to promote his products everytime. I never see any 
competitors doing the same. Only they sit in their offices like 
church mouses and waiting for salary and bonus and cry monoply. Some 
one said" Cut off the air supply" is that a crime? Heard 
many times and loud "I will kill you, you sob" that's 
what one call a figure speaking and not a crime.

MTC-963



MTC-00000964

From: Carol Bartholf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 7:21pm
Subject: Opinion regarding Microsoft
    Hello,
    I am a computer professional, most 'techies I know think that 
Microsoft has violated anti-trust laws and will continue to do so as 
long as they are allowed to by the government. Bill Gates testimony 
was a classic illustration of his contempt for the government. 
Microsoft has foisted inferior software on the public and driven 
good software off the market with his anti competitive strategies. 
Please do not let them off so easily. They are just laughing at all 
you!
    Thanks,
    Carol

MTC-964



MTC-00000965

From: Chris Arnette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 7:21pm
Subject: Strongest Penalties
    Please impose the stongest penalties allowed by law.. .Given the 
recent terrible events that have happened to our country, I urge you 
to not let Microsoft continue (they have already been found guilty) 
to hurt our free enterprise system by breaking the law and hurting 
many companies, employees and citizens...
    Please enforce the law and protect all Americans from abuse of 
power and money...

MTC-965



MTC-00000966

From: Joe Charmella
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 7:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs;
    This is just to let you know that I believe that the settlement 
that you have proposed is ludicrious. It is a reward to Microsoft 
for breaking the law. The only thing that you can say about it is 
that it is prompt. It does not provide relief for the countless 
companies that they have put out of business nor does it bring any 
amount of equity to software companies. One item of of the 
settlement that will prove to be particularily troubling is that no 
person of the three member committee overseeing Microsoft will be 
able to testify against the company in court. Presumably this means 
that you would have to build a case independently of the committee. 
One question, What good does the committee do? Apparently nothing.
    As a result of this settlement, Microsoft will be back in court 
within the next 5 years on different Antitrust violations. I can 
only hope that the next administration will not capitulate in the 
same manner that this administration did.
    Sincerely yours;
    Joseph N. Charmella

MTC-966

 

MTC-00000967

From: Craig Ringer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 7:45pm
Subject: One 'vote' for harsher punishment
    Hi
    I'm the IT Manager of a small/medium business in Western 
Australia, the POST Newspapers (http://www.postnewspapers.com.au).
    As an Australian citizen, I can't claim to have a direct say in 
this matter. However, I must express my concern for the current 
settlement, given that legislation made in the US about IT has the 
depressing habit of

[[Page 23837]]

filtering through to Australia_and also, the US is the only 
place where MS can be practically restrained.
    While I can't claim to be well educated in the details of the MS 
v DOJ proceedings, I must express my concern about the potential for 
loopholes, etc, in the current settlement. As has been stated in 
some media, the settlement was reached more out of lawyer exaustion 
than any real breakthrough. MS wore them down.
    The settlement also strikes me as a slap on the wrist_it 
doesn't do much about the privacy concerns about MS. for example 
(though it may be outside the scope of the settlement to deal with 
these), all the hooks to MSN and other MS services, etc. tisers 
_can change these, but MS is unlikely to have the OS installer 
ask them to pick from a list of option for, say, seach site or web 
browser. They will set themselves as the default, and perhaps 5% of 
users will ever change it.
    As for OEM rights_that is a step in the right direction 
and I applaud the settlement's handling of that part. Overall, I'm a 
proponent of the "harsher penalties for CRIMINAL 
COMPANIES," plus restrictions such as requiring them to ship 
both their product and the competing products in 
"middleware" applications like web browsers and eMail 
clients. So if they can't remove IE from windows, all well and 
good_ integration has its advantages. But 
they_can_make the hooks available to Mozilla.org, 
they can implement an alternative and have it ship with windows as a 
user-selectable alternative. Even better, have the windows installer 
ask the user what mail program, etc, they want to use!
    MS couldn't provide support of course_but they don't 
provide useful end-user support anyway.
    So classify me under "tougher restrictions and 
penalties"... and thanks for taking the time to read this.
    Craig Ringer
    IT Manager
    POST Newspapers,
    2 Keightley Rd,
    Shenton Park WA 6009
    Australia

MTC-967



MTC-00000968

From: SantaGRBIV @aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 7:32pm
Subject: Criticism
    Charles James was quoted as saying, "Some of the loudest 
and most vocal criticism has come from some of Microsoft's 
competitors." I would say that this is only true because they 
have the money and power to be vocal. However, I agree completely 
that if this is all that is going to be done to MS even though they 
have been found guilt, then the entire process was a waste of time. 
How much money did US tax payers spend to get a guilty verdict only 
to have it basically ignored by a remedy that has absolutely no 
teeth?
    Most little guys in the industry are afraid of MS and will not 
be vocal.
    Best regards.

MTC-968



MTC-00000969

From: Karen Asher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 7:32pm
Subject: Comment on Proposed MS Settlement
    Sirs,
    As a former employee of the Bell System who served during 
Divestiture, I would like to congratulate you on perpetrating the 
biggest joke ever attempted in the field of anti-trust/anti-
competition law. It is encouraging to see evidence of such broad and 
uninhibited slapstick in a field that is, normally, devoid of any 
vestige of humor.
    I won't address the Proposed Microsoft Settlement terms as I 
feel Mr. Nader's previous comments to you need no embellishment.
    I will speak to my experience as a Microsoft customer and to the 
frustration and limitations of operating a consumer PC while using 
an MS platform. In order to keep my Operating System (OS) 
functional, it was necessary to refrain from deleting MS's Internet 
Explorer which I do not use. At that time, my resources were limited 
and I was not in a position to purchase either another PC or a 
larger hard disk drive. I was not able to fully use all of the 
functions of that machine which I bought for my own purposes. I 
consider that to be as intrusive as any other of MS's business 
practices.
    Since then, I have purchased other machines with larger disk 
space and newer Operating Systems. All of these Operating Systems 
have been variations of MS Windows as I use MS Office for my 
personal and business needs. Each machine has the same limitation 
caused by disk space taken up by MS's Internet Explorer. The most 
recent OS (ME) will not perform the OS-update function unless 
Internet Explorer is loaded. No "patches", no security 
updates, nothing. If you feel that this isn't non-competitive in 
design and effect, then you have seriously failed to assess the 
totality of the circumstances from the consumer's point of interest. 
MS's intrusive and un-warranted business practices have cost me 
money I did not wish to spend over and above the cost of my purchase 
of their retail products. Microsoft has dictated to me, via their 
manipulation of their operating systems, the additional software 
that I could utilize and has prevented me from purchasing and/or 
using software that would have been of benefit to me.
    As this trend has continued unabated since Windows 3.0, I have 
no reason to believe that it will cease as a result of your efforts. 
I insist that any settlement with Microsoft that purports to be 
undertaken on the behalf of consumers or potential competitors must 
include remedies sufficient to deter MS's monopolistic business 
practices. Full disclosure of source code to potential competitor's 
is essential to ensure this. It is also essential that MS not be 
permitted to place insurmountable obstacles in the path of such 
competitors. Your Proposed Settlement is not sufficient to guarantee 
the performance you claim it will produce and should be modified 
accordingly.
    Respectfully,
    Karen L. Asher

MTC-969



MTC-00000970

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 7:27pm
Subject: Penalty for antitrust activity
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I, as a user of Microsoft products, to the exclusion of 
virtually all other competing software, feel your chosen penalties 
are NOT nearly harsh enough. This company will never stop its 
predatory practices when left whole.
    They may not stop if split into several pieces, but coordination 
would be more difficult. I strongly ask that you reconsider your 
decision.
    I own no Microsoft stock, do not and have not worked for 
Microsoft or any cooperating or competing company, and have no 
interest in this issue beyond the fact that I am forced by Microsoft 
to use their products. Thank you.
    James E. Forbes
    1809 Meridian St.
    Reese, MI 48757

MTC-970



MTC-00000971

From: Sam Katz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 8:04pm
Subject: Antitrust settlement
    Microsoft is not playing fair in its bundling game, the 
manufacturers have no incentive to replace the middleware, and 
Microsoft can change the user's preferences by simply giving them 
notice. Microsoft's bundling uses up system resources and hard drive 
space, and as I barely use any Microsoft products this is 
inacceptable. Microsoft uses the price of the Windows operating 
system to pay for its supposedly "free" software. They 
should sell them as seperate componets. Here are some examples:
    1. Firewall: Competes with Norton and a bunch of other utilities
    2. CD Burning: Competes with Nero (arguably superior according 
to review sources.)
    3. Windows Media Player (which thanks to the blocking of MP3 
ripping puts sites like MP3.com at a difficult circumstance) It 
competes with realplayer. Its browser can be used to leverage 
standards like ActiveX and create sucerity hazards for users.

MTC-971



MTC-00000972

From: Richard Flagg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 7:58pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir
    I think is is time to let business operate freely. This case 
against Microsoft has taken to much time and money and has hurt the 
consumers who buy computer software. I urge you to get on with 
business and let free entrerprise operate as it should
    Richard L. Flagg
    430 College Ave
    Culver, md 46511

MTC-972

[[Page 23838]]



MTC-00000973

From:
Richard Griffin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 7:53pm
Subject: Antitrust settlement
    As a consumer I am happy that the government is backing away 
from the drastic sanctions originally considered against Microsoft. 
I do not know one consumer who has been hurt by Microsoft's business 
practices. Other companies have to learn to compete. It doesn't make 
sense to punish a company because it is successful.
    Anna Griffin
    OFallon, Missouri 63366

MTC-973



MTC-00000974

From: jay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 8:38pm
Subject: microsoft
    Jay Gardner
    4644 shadow wick
    Arlington tn
    38002
    This has gone on long enough. Let Microsoft be. This company has 
help more people then any company I know (like job creation) I am a 
computer net work engineer with a bank. This lawsuit is all about 
the other companies that are jealous of Microsoft's success and 
everyone knows it. there're companies that are larger and have more 
anti trust issues that Microsoft. but it always easer to go after 
the richest man in the world so we can bring him down to earth. Is 
this what's capitalism is all about jay

MTC-974



MTC-00000975

From: jay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 8:38pm
Subject: microsoft
    Jay Gardner
    4644 shadow wick
    Arlington tn
    38002
    This has gone on long enough. Let Microsoft be. This company has 
help more people then any company I know (like job cration) I am a 
computer net work engineer with a bank. This lawsuit is all about 
the other companies that are jealous of Microsoft's success and 
everyone knows it. there're companies that are larger and have more 
anti trust issues that Microsoft. but it always easer to go after 
the richest man in the world so we can bring him down to earth. Is 
this what's capitalism is all about jay

MTC-975



MTC-00000976

From: Howard King
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 8:11pm
Subject: re: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney microsoft.atr@usdoj .gov
Fm: Howard King [email protected]
re: Microsoft Settlement
    Bottom Line:
    Settle with Microsoft and let them proceed with making better 
and improved software for the consumer.
    Discussion:
    As a retired electrical engineer, I have been a computer user in 
the last 12 years. Admittedly, I am a dumb computer user. I am good 
at word processing, but if I have to delve into the operating 
system, I am lost. So its a good thing the consumer has one 
operating system to work with.
    I believe that a "standard" operating system is best 
for the consumer. Microsoft continues to improve their product and 
the price is not exorbitant. Considering what the software does, 
it's a bargain.
    I can't imagine what the computer business would be like if 
there were X number of operating systems. Every application would 
have to be compatible with each operating system. It would be a 
mess. Sure it's competition, but has Microsoft raised their prices 
to hurt the consumer? I don't think so.
    Forcing Microsoft to disclose Windows source code is NOT FAIR to 
any company. Are companies willing to give away their proprietary 
information? Probably not!
    The consumer has not been hurt by Microsoft! they have made 
computers available to all of America!
    Thanks for considering my opinion.
    Howard King
    P.S. I am a Corel Word Perfect (competitor to Microsoft Word) 
user, but it is based on the Microsoft's operating system. Windows 
is great!

MTC-976



MTC-00000977

From: Keith Krabill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 8:55pm
Subject: The terms agains MS are not strict enough
    Dear sir,
    I am not a lawyer, I am an ordinary consumer with no particular 
connections. The terms published as meeting the antitrust violations 
are not strict enough. Over the past years, I have noted the 
recurring problems Microsoft has had in meeting the terms of 
previous settlement decrees. This is a worrisome place to start.
    The terms published in the current plan don't seem to have 
distinct "teeth" to speak of in the event of non-
compliance.
    Last, the terms don't seem to address the actual issues that led 
to the court case, and appear to allow Microsoft to benefit from the 
illegal activities that have been identified.
    Thanks
    Keith Krabill
    6499 Old Post Circle
    East Amherst, NY

MTC-977



MTC-00000978

From: Roy Christmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 8:48pm
Subject: comment
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
    I think the government has demonstrated that Microsoft has 
monopoly power in operating systems for personal computers, and the 
evidence shows that it uses that power in various ways to further 
its own ends to the detriment of consumers. Microsoft claims to 
innovate, but in fact Microsoft copies the work of smaller 
innovative companies and then uses its monopoly power to supplant 
their businesses.
    Even throughout the trial period, Microsoft has continued to 
engage in these practices in new business areas such as streaming 
media. Microsoft's ownership of the operating system franchise makes 
this practice possible. This situation does not encourage 
innovation; on the contrary it puts a damper on it because no one 
can afford to compete with Microsoft.
    I urge the DOJ to do something to stop this practice. The 
current settlement seems to be nothing more than a slap on the 
wrist. This is very disappointing.
    Sincerely,
    Roy Christmann

MTC-978



MTC-00000979

From: Marvin Snyder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 8:39pm
Subject: Microsoft issues
    Please, please, please stop trying to "protect" us 
from Microsoft. If they were a monopoly, the quantity and/or quality 
of their product would have gone down, or the price would have gone 
up, or both.
    Instead, we now get more computing capability by a huge factor, 
at a price that has actually gone down, than we ever could get 
before. Innovation proceeds apace in economies that leave innovators 
alone. It is squelched in economies that control, regulate, and 
"protect." We cannot afford to have you people 
"protecting" us any more. It's just simply too 
counterproductive. Government is an extraordinarily poor allocator 
of resources, whether they be capital, talent, entrepeneurism, or 
jobs. Please don't try to outthink, out-allocate, or outsmart the 
free marketplace of ideas. It's never been done successfully, and 
there's really no reason to try now. Could you just figure out a way 
to quietly leave us all alone? I know it flies in the face of what 
you're trained to do, but please try. We need you to be on our side 
for a while, and just let nature takes its course. We'll be fine. 
Honestly.

MTC-979



MTC-00000980

From: Haifeng Xi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:19pm
Subject: A monopolist should be punished.
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    The DOJ had previously found Microsoft to be a monopolist, but 
the settlement included no punishment for past actions. Isn't that a 
bit weird? It left doubt as to its protections against future 
Microsoft monopolistic practices. To make things even worse, not 
long after the DOJ settlement, Microsoft announced it had agreed to 
another settlement regarding a separate class-action suit brought 
against the company by numerous parties that alleged overpricing of 
Microsoft products. On the surface, the settlement forces Microsoft 
to donate

[[Page 23839]]

software, hardware, and services to America's poorest schools. 
However the settlement could simply introduce Microsoft to a market 
where they could further extend their monopoly.
    I am writing to support a counter-proposal that Red Hat Inc. 
brought forward. In its counter-proposal, Red Hat offered to provide 
free software to every school in America if Microsoft provided the 
value of its donation in hardware costs rather than its own 
software. Please consider this proposal seriously, for the sake of 
the welfare of American schools and children.
    Best Regards,
    _ Haifeng

MTC-980



MTC-00000981

From: The Sleuth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 8:59pm
Subject: Finally!!!
    Dear DOJ folks.
    Thanks for dropping this waste of time issue and please do not 
bring it back up again. Leave progressive innovative companies alone 
please. Jihad against Microsoft was bad fanaticism.
    Rick Morelan
    Las Vegas NV

MTC-981



MTC-00000982

From: Timothy R. Butler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 8:55pm
Subject: Comments on the United States v. Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I am writing with a few comments and concerns about the 
settlement proposal that has recently been established with 
Microsoft. I am appreciative of the Department of Justice's action 
to provide this e-mail address for such concerns.
    1.) This proposal doesn't seem to attempt to remedy the problem 
with non-Microsoft middleware accessing files from Microsoft 
middleware. For instance, it would be advisable to restrict 
Microsoft from making undocumented changes to the Microsoft Word 
file format to prevent Microsoft from illegally maintaining a 
monopoly on word processing software.
    2.) This proposal doesn't cover potential problems with .Net, 
including Microsoft's potential ability to restrict projects (such 
as Ximian Mono) that attempt compatibility with this format. While 
the proposed remedy prevents Microsoft from making a protocol that 
only Microsoft servers can access, it does not seem to prevent 
Microsoft from making Windows use open protocols to access services 
that can only be powered by Microsoft products. This is crucial due 
to the fact that Microsoft's stated goal is to move most computing 
activities over to .Net infrastructure.
    3.) The settlement does not restrict Microsoft from taking anti-
competitive action by requiring Original Equipment Manufacturers to 
pay for Windows even on systems that do not include the Windows 
operating system. This could be a major hindrance for alternative 
operating systems such as Linux.
    4.) The proposal lacks any preset penalty, other than extention 
of the proposal, to Microsoft should the terms be violated. Since 
Microsoft has a track record of ignoring the previous agreement with 
the U.S. Department of Justice, this could potentially be a problem. 
In the least, this lack of penalty could cause irreversible harm 
during the interlude before a new Judgment could be handed down.
    5.) Finally, the proposed settlement lacks any retroactive fines 
or punishment for previous anti-competitive behavior.
    Thank-you for your time, I appreciate your consideration of the 
points considered above.
    Warmest Regards,
    Timothy R. Butler,
    Chairman and CEO,
    Universal Networks

    Timothy R. Butler Universal Networks http://www.uninet.info 
[email protected] ICQ: 12495932 AIM: Uninettm 
Christian Portal and Search Tool: http://www.faithtree.com Open 
Source Migration Guide: http:Ilwww.ofb.biz "Christian Web 
Services Since 1996"
MTC-982



MTC-00000983

From: John D. Bohumil
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 8:55pm
Subject: A concerned citizen's view
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I do not feel that the DOJ has gone far enough. Actions should 
be taken which will guarantee that this issue against MS will not 
have to be addressed yet again. It would appear that the current 
decision is merely a "wrist slap" which will do nothing 
to deter MS from continuing the monopolistic practices of which they 
have been found guilty. I urge you to take genuine and effective 
action instead.
    Sincerely,
    John Bohumil
    Minneapolis Minnesota USA

MTC-983



MTC-00000984

From: orondo kid
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 9:15pm
Subject: proposed settlement
    fair! defined
    us patents run for the protection of valuable trade
    secrets;
    BUT THEY DO NOT RUN FOREVER it is not fair to consumers! 
businesses that could and would give consumers a choice in the 
computer industry if the government would give them the chance. 
Because Microsoft has acted in the manner we are all aware of they 
should be (punished) by not giving in to them in the arena of secret 
codes! If keeping others who are capable of givinf us some other 
operating systems. CPM was great but was squeezed out by...U NO HOO
    Sincerely
    BERT MUNSON
    110 STORAGE ROAD
    ELDON MO 65026
    AKA [email protected]

MTC-984



MTC-00000985

From: Chris Ahlstrom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 9:09pm
Subject: Microsoft bundles and disables
    Microsoft bundles almost every type of software into their 
operating systems, and keeps the price of the OS the same. Sounds a 
lot like when the Japanese dumped memory chips in the U.S.
    Can you tell me where are the other PC operating systems that 
compete with Microsoft? Linux and FreeBSD don't count. Where are the 
Atari 800 and Atari ST machines? Where are the Commodore 64's (or 
descendants) and the Apple II's (or descendants)? Where is BeOS? 
Where is GEM? Where is DR-DOS (or descendants)? All torpedoed 
by OEM contracts and NDAs.
    Are you guys too far out of it to do a good job preventing 
Microsoft predation? Heck, even Kenneth Starr and Robert Bork are 
more with it than you fellows.
    Sorry to be so rude, but I think Microsoft has bought many 
people of with shares of Microsoft stock.
    Why else would you do absolutely nothing to prevent the lock-in, 
warranty-voiding deals that the Office stores provide?
    I can't even get a "naked PC" (look it up at 
www.google.com)...
    I have to pay a Microsoft tax whenever I buy a laptop.
    And I strongly dislike Microsoft's buggy beta software.
    Thanks for listening.
    Chris Ahlstrom
    ahlstromc @home.com http://24.9.74/l56

MTC-985



MTC-00000986

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly urge you and all the States involved to drop all the 
charges against Microsoft and allow it to go on with the business of 
creating jobs for the people who desperately need them and wealth 
for the nation and its stockholders.
    Enough is enough, it is time to close this chapter once and for 
all.
    Charles
    Notara

MTC-986



MTC-00000987

From: Mike Mormando
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 9:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern,
    Please rethink the Microsoft deal, it isn't a settlement, it's a 
capitulation, and something that no one with half a brain thinks 
will really make any progress toward curbing Microsoft's excesses. 
Thanks for you time Michael I. Mormando

MTC-987



MTC-00000988

From: [email protected] @ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 9:26pm
Subject: Re: A Strong Disagreement...

[[Page 23840]]

    To Whom It May Concern (The United States Department of 
Justice):
    Quite frankly, I am strongly disappointed with your terms of 
settlement with Microsoft.
    Your conditions are nothing more than an incredible slap on the 
wrist for the completely diabolical corporate behavior, Microsoft 
has clearly exhibited.
    As well, many citizens, consumers, and businesses that are a 
great part of the high tech industry were considerably disgusted, as 
your result of lack of appropriate action.
    Thousands of jobs, products, and new markets have clearly 
suffered as a result of Microsoft monopolistic pillaging.
    Without equivocation, the applicable and suitable consequence 
would have been either the complete breakup of the behemouth, or a 
requirement that Microsoft only produce the basic Operating system- 
no internet browser, email, and media player.
    For this would truly allow an open and free marketplace.
    I, just as several others, are beginning to question what is the 
true purpose of having a Department of Justice_when it is 
apparent, the division is completely ineffective and worthless?
    The DOJ needs be a part of the solution, not part of the 
problem.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Wilson

MTC-988



MTC-00000989

From: Rudy and Norma Brownell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 9:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Sir:
    The whole process of litigation against Microsoft has been 
unfair and unnecessary. It all started by a complaint of an 
unsatisfied person wanting to 'make Microsoft pay and enlisting an 
eager congressman into this plan. It appears Microsoft will pay 
through the nose, meaning less opportunity for the public to be 
better served with out reaching products and services. It is 
sincerely hoped this judgment will be amended to be not punitive, 
or, better yet to be reversed.
    Thank you for your attention and prayerfully for your support 
for Microsoft.
    Rudy Brownell
    308 Dakota St.
    Kannapolis, NC 28083

MTC-989



MTC-00000990

From: Timothy Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 9:16pm
Subject: Microsoft is bad
    I would like to add my name to the long list of people who 
believe the following two things:
    1) The settlement has too many loopholes and therefore will not 
have any significant impact on the behavior of Microsoft.
    2) The settlement does not punish Microsoft for past misdeeds. 
Competition is the corner stone of our economy. Microsoft is 
blatantly anticompetitive. The problem has to be eliminated, and a 
weak settlement won't do it. Microsoft will flagrantly violate the 
spirit of it and call upon the loopholes in order to justify their 
violations.
    I wonder if anyone is going to read this. The DOJ seems to have 
made up their mind on this issue. What are the chances that it may 
see the settlement as a mistake?

MTC-990



MTC-00000991

From: c7771eo@ inetmail.att.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 9:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Comments
    At the rate at which technology is changing, this suit by DOJ 
became almost meaningless less than one year into litigation. 
Motivation for continuance seemed more politically directed than 
legally. It was like trying to shoot down an F-iS with a 
slingshot.
    Even before the suit began, Microsoft was evolving into another 
form, with more internet focus. Perhaps a more proactive legal 
approach via Congress (winch) may work better. Notice any 
correlation between the demise of the stock market rally and 
Microsoft's legal troubles?
    Hmmm! Microsoft, like it or not is intricately woven into the 
economy. What used to be said about GM?

MTC-991



MTC-00000992

From: David 0. Blanchard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 9:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The judicial system has determined that Microsoft is a monopoly. 
The settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice 
imposes only minor sanctions on Microsoft. I believe that stronger 
sanctions are in order and that the originally suggested breakup of 
the company may be the appropriate action.
    I am not a lawyer and do not speak the language of law. I have, 
however, closely followed this case and have reached my conclusions 
based on depth and breadth of knowledge of this case.
    Thank you for allowing me to submit my brief comments.
    David 0. Blanchard
    David 0. Blanchard Flagstaff, Arizona [email protected]

MTC-992



MTC-00000993

From: Michael Wallman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 9:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    The Microsoft settlement is a blatant sell-out of the interests 
of the public, a slap in the face of the entire concept of 
antitrust, and a blatant political pay-off. We shall not forget the 
details when the next elections arise.
    Michael E. Wallman
    U.S. Citizen (and Voter)

MTC-993



MTC-00000994

From: WILLIAM HOFFMAN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 9:35pm
Subject: (no subject)
    I believe the original lawsuit was bad for and the major reason 
for the collaspe of our 10 years of prosperity. A prosperity that 
was in large part a product of our technical creativity. Funny, the 
thing that made prosperous we destroyed.
    Bill Hoffman
    [email protected]

MTC-994



MTC-00000995

From: Cameron Huff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 10:05pm
Subject: The Microsoft remedy"
    To whom it may concern
    I am a computer user and former worker in the IT industry (I 
have no reason or desire to work in IT anymore thanks to Microsoft). 
I find this "settlement" that the Department of Justice 
proposed to be disgusting and worthless. I believe that it will do 
nothing to bring competition back into the computer industry and 
will only harm the United States in the long run. If this 
"settlement" goes through, then the US will be put into 
a computer backwater where Microsoft rules and anyone who lives in 
the US will be unable to "talk" to the rest of world due 
to Microsoft protocols that don't "work" with any other 
computer system on the Earth.
    If this is what the US goverenment wants, then I am leaving this 
country as fast as I can.

MTC-995



MTC-00000996

From: melvin d. johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 10:03pm
Subject: settlement
    think the gov.should settle this lawsuit now. it good for the 
country and buisness. thank you
    melvin johnson

MTC-996



MTC-00000997

From: JacHovis @aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very much in favor of the Microsoft settlement. I was 
opposed to the previous administration's attack on Microsoft which I 
feel is one of our premier American companys. How did they ever harm 
we consumers? The answer is that they did not. I for one want 
Microsoft on my computer!!!! I have had other formats & they do 
not compare. Thank God for the administration we now have, who are 
friendly to a great co. such as Microsoft!!!! Thanks for your 
attention, Jack Hovis.

MTC-997



MTC-00000998

From: Kevin B. Castleberry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 9:58pm
Subject: Please let MS get on with making software
    Hello,
    My business depends on MS continuing to move forward with their. 
NET direction

[[Page 23841]]

ASAP. If MS does not do it I am afraid another company from another 
country will.
    TIA,
    Kevin
    Kevin B. Castleberry, MCP mailto:kcastlebeny @BSSAuto.com 
919.365.8424 (24x7) Browning Software Services, MCSP Service is 
Automatic http://www.BSSAuto.com

MTC-998



MTC-00000999

From: Ian Bicking
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 10:35pm
Subject: I do not support the settlement
    As an independant developer who, I feel, has been indirectly 
hindered in his operations by the Microsoft monopoly, I was very 
unhappy to see the proposed settlement with Microsoft.
    The enforcement authority as presented is far too limited in 
ability, too closed from public view, and easily coopted, 
manipulated, and deceived.
    You presume that you can somehow trust Microsoft to act in a 
proper manner, when they have clearly shown that they are 
untrustworthy lawbreakers, who will purjer themselves to hide their 
true intents and practices. Their behavior during the suit was 
absolutely disgraceful. Their extensive use of astroturf 
"grassroots" support shows how little true support they 
have. This cannot be ignored.
    For the settlement to have any real effect, it must not give 
Microsoft future negotiating power. You cannot let them define 
things as being "security related" and then hide them. 
You cannot let them say they are doing a best effort, when that best 
effort is not successful. You cannot let them say anything, because 
they will *certainly* lie. The proposed settlement is clearly not in 
the interest of the People of the United States. If it takes longer 
to get a ruling that you can enforce, then so be it_the 
compromises you propose are far, far too great, and practically an 
encouragement to Microsoft that they can blatently break the law and 
not receive significant punishment. I also hope you take into 
consideration the fact that some of the pro-Microsoft/pro-settlement 
feedback will be fraudulent, as Microsoft has done exactly this sort 
of thing before. If you do find evidence of this, I hope you make it 
public, and even better prosecute those who would manipulate the 
system in such a non-democratic and dishonest manner.
    Ian Bicking Colorstudy Web Design
    [email protected] http://www.colorstudy.com
    4769 N Talman Aye, Chicago, IL 60625 / (773) 275-7241

MTC-999



MTC-00001000

From: Gary
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 10:34pm
Subject: This is why you should stop MS
    Thay are nothing but a bunch of copy n paste artists who intend 
to destroy innovation.
    See this link: http://www.euronet.nlIusers/frankvw/index.htmA 
"One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them...

MTC-1000



MTC-00001001

From: Ravi Gehlot
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:09pm
Subject: My opinion.
    Dear readers,
    I feel that I should write an e-mail like this because I would 
like you to know my thoughts about the MS/DOJ case that has been 
going on. I strongly feel that the DOJ has done an astonishing work 
for the settlement of the Microsoft case. The Microsoft company had 
to go to justice and be judged. The company didn't know how to play 
the role respecting other companies. The monopoly was getting huge 
and many other few companies were going down because of that. Users 
now have the free opportunity to choose wether to use Internet 
Explorer or not since it can be deleted. Other small companies now 
have the spot they never had before. I really believe that Microsoft 
is gonna have to work harder than never to keep up with rival 
softwares and companies. It means better products from Microsoft and 
more space for the others.
    Congrats,
    Ravi.



MTC-00001002

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:23pm
Subject: my 1c worth
    I've been a sofware developer for almost 10 years.
    In that time the options for the mainstream consumer seem to 
have dwindled. On the plus side, I guess it's easier for someone to 
walk in off the street and get a computer that mostly works most of 
the time. There are no confusing choices to make as to which OS, 
wordprocessor, browser etc., it's all there and it all mostly works. 
I guess it's like walking into a car yard and saying "I have 
$5000 to spend and I want a red one!". That simple!
    I'm annoyed that people don't have the choice anymore, or 
rather, that the choice is glossed over so completely.Maybe I'm a 
tech-snob, expecting everyone to have the same understanding and 
appreciation of computers that I do. Why should you have to 
understand the internal combustion engine, and how to service it, 
just to buy a car? The most charitable interpretation of some of 
Microsoft's actions are a desire to make things easier for the 
average consumer. Even if that were the intent, I think we've 
reached the point where the public at large is no longer served by 
this attitude. I think computers have become complex enough to 
warrant some respect/appreciation from the users. I don't think we 
can force consumers to have this appreciation (licenses to own and 
operate a computer? not likely, or even desirable!). However, when a 
mayor company completely disregards the consequences of their 
actions again and again in an effort for market share (mostly by 
adding features that more often than not result in security 
nighmares), then they should be help accountable in some way.
    I can walk into a shop and buy a car powerful enough to be 
incredibly dangerous in my novice hands (and I'll probably end up 
wrapped around a tree). I can buy a computer, connect it to the 
internet and become a source of a DDOS attack. The difference is 
that, at least the car manufacturer had to make some attempt to make 
the car safe to drive. Microsoft seems under no such obligation.
    Though the cracked computer does not threaten life directly, how 
much longer will this be the case as more utilities are vulnerable 
to attacks from the net? how many lives would be at risk of major 
powerstations failed due to a DDOS my missions of compromised 
systems? OK, maybe that's stretching things a bit far, but what 
about the cost to industry? The email became a lot longer than I 
planned, and (until now) I even avoided mentioning the L word 
("LINUX", there, I've said it!). I've tried to present 
what I feel are arguments applicable to the majority of computer 
users, there are many more applicable to computer nerds like myself.
    I've you've gotten this far, I'd like to sincerely thank you for 
taking the time to read
    my email.
    with friendly regards,
    Thomas Sprinkmeier
    P.S. I know it's customary to give 2 cents worth of opinion. I 
took the liberty to convert from Australian dollars



MTC-00001003

From: William E. Murray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:19pm
Subject: Bad judgement in settlement
    I believe you have done all consumers and an entire industry a 
grave injustice. This settlement is only politics as usual. You 
should hang your collective heads in shame for this sellout. I have 
retired after 43 years in the industry. Bill Gates and company were 
lucky others made grave mistakes in marketing.
    Marketing is the only strength of Microsoft they will now 
smother both the consumer and all competitors.
    At least it seems the EU is going to continue as well as some 
states who have integrity. Once again I can not stress enough the so 
called settlement is very bad for this country.
    William Murray



MTC-00001004

From: Mark(u)D(u)S
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:12pm
Subject: Choices
    As a US consumer I am pleased with having the option to choose 
between many brands of cars, refrigerators and tv's. I am also 
pleased that I can buy my car from Japan, my TV from Korea and my 
refrigerator from German.
    However I'm extremely disappointed in the lack of choices I have 
for buying OS software. Why can't I buy an OS created in Japan or 
Germany. The US court is illegally protecting the US economy by 
allowing the continuing Monopoly of Microsoft, with some minor slap 
on the wrist.
    Sincerly Mark Simms

[[Page 23842]]



MTC-00001005

From: Earl Brightup
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Forget about breaking Microsoft up.
    The only way to allow the software business to become 
competitive is to force Microsoft to license their source code (on 
any product released for sale to the public), to anyone who wants 
it, for a reasonable fee (say $5,000 or $10,000), making it 
available within 90 days after first delivery date.
    This allows anyone to make improvements and sell them, make 
additions and sell them, make competitive products and sell them. In 
other words, it allows competition to those who wish to pursue that 
course. It also allows anyone who claims Microsoft stole their code 
to see if the code sequence(s) are in the new product.
    If you don't allow this, Microsoft will always hide behind the 
"improvements to the Windows experience" bunk.and 
continue to pursue its cutthroat tactics
    Earl D. Brightup
    9105 Fox Estates Drive
    St. Louis, MO 63127
    (314) 842-0208



MTC-00001006

From: Weigen Liang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:35pm
Subject: Against the settlement
    Against the settlement.
    DOJ tried this before, the MS abuse continued.
    See below: The DOJ promised in its 1995 settlement that it would 
"end Microsoft's unlawful practices that restrain trade and 
perpetuate its monopoly power." Yet as Sporkin rejected it, he 
complained that, "simply telling a defendant to go forth and 
sin no more does little or nothing to address the unfair advantage 
it has already gained."



MTC-00001007

From: Dave C. Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:27pm
Subject: Enforce The Findings of a Federal Court!
    Dear Renata Hesse,
    Today in the mail I received an advertisement for Qwest DSL/MSN 
services (despite the fact that I'm already a Qwest DSL subscriber). 
I'm offended, on behalf of all computing consumers, on the technical 
requirements listed for using MSN internet service...
    Nowhere on the cover letter, nor in the main text on the tri-
fold brochure, is there any mention of technical requirements 
listed. The words "PC" and "Windows" are not 
even mentioned... On the back page, in a 3" square block of 
fine print, the requirements are identified as "Windows 98 
Second Edition or later operating system." This, of course, 
means that only newer Windows PCs are supported, a typical Microsoft 
tactic..
    A couple of months ago, a friend of mine in Colorado Springs got 
an iMac for his kids. He uses PC's for his business, and was already 
an MSN subscriber, and wanted to set up the iMac to use MSN for 
internet access as well. Since the iMac already came with Internet 
Exploder (oops, I mean Explorer!) and Outlook Express, he thought 
that he already had the software that he would need to have 
installed. He called MSN tech support to get instructions on how to 
configure the iMac to dial in and get connected. After waiting on 
hold for a while, the tech support person told him that MSN could 
not be used on Macintoshes, and that they did not support it. My 
friend refused to accept this, and called me for a second opinion. 
Figuring that it just used a "PPP" dial up connection, I 
could see no reason why it wouldn't work with his iMac I had him 
open his "Dial-up Network Connections" dialog on his PC 
to get the phone number and user ID. Next I had him look at the 
network settings, and discovered that everything was set to use DHCP 
(Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol).
    The only thing that I can think of that is different about DHCP 
on the Macintosh is that it expects to have the IP addresses for the 
Domain Name Service (DNS) manually entered into the configuration 
dialog. Since MS wouldn't give the DNS addresses to my friend, I had 
him dial up from his PC, then we used the "winipcfg" 
command to determine what addresses had been assigned by the server.
    Now armed with the user ID and password, the phone numbers, and 
the DNS addresses, we set up the Internet preferences on the iMac, 
and within minutes we were online with MSN from a Macintosh] (It 
amuses me to do things that others, especially MS, say are not 
possible!) I think that it took us less time to solve the problem 
than he spent on hold waiting for MSN tech support!
    As I've mentioned at a couple of MacinTech meetings this summer, 
Qwest has partnered with MSN to replace their own ISP services, 
Qwest.net, in exchange for offering Qwest DSL service to MSN users. 
They intend on converting all of their current Qwest.net residential 
subscribers to use MSN services by the end of the year, except for 
Macintosh and UNIX users that MSN says that they can't support. MSN 
doesn't offer several of the services that Qwest has offered for 
years, such as multiple email addresses for a single dial-up 
account, and automatic email virus scanning. These services will be 
discontinued when users switch to MSN.
    I am offended not only because MSN won't support non-Windows 
platforms, but I'm also bothered by how they are treating PC 
users... Note in the requirements that it specifies Windows 98 
Second Edition, or later. If a PC user was still running Windows 95, 
which would be perfectly reasonable for many home users, they would 
also not be supported. While they have the option of upgrading, this 
could turn into an expensive proposition. Chances are that they 
would be forced into adding memory, and perhaps adding disk space as 
well, as MS tends to increase the need for memory and disk space 
with each upgrade. While Win98SE is listed as the minimum, chances 
are not good that you would still be able to purchase an upgrade to 
98, as it is (obviously) several years old. They would probably need 
to upgrade to Millennium Edition, which may introduce enough 
incompatibilities that they may then be forced to purchase upgrades 
to many of their applications as well... All of this time, money, 
and effort just to have a faster internet connection!
    As many of you know, even though my passion is really for the 
Macintosh, I have supported PC's for the past six years or so. I 
can't understand why a DSL connection that uses an EtherNet 
connection to connect to the computer, couldn't be supported 
adequately on Windows 95, or the first release of Win98, rather than 
only the Second Edition. The "or later" clause is also 
troublesome when you consider that NT4 came out in 1996, so it would 
apparently not be supported either. Only Win98SE, Millennium 
Edition, and Windows 2000 would be supported, as well as Windows XP.
    It irritates me when technology companies almost seem to go out 
of their way to incorporate "planned obsolescence" into 
products and services in order to force consumers into upgrading. 
While sometimes the improvements in technology mandate changes and 
upgrades, both networks and the Internet were widely available prior 
to 1998, so I can't think of any reason that MSN would be unable to 
support high-speed internet access from older platforms. I believe 
that Apple has been extremely supportive of their installed customer 
base throughout the years. Apple's software upgrades have been kept 
very low cost, often free or available for the cost of shipping and 
handling, such as the 10.1 upgrade. Apple even used to offer 
hardware upgrades, where the logic board from an older machine could 
be replaced with a new one, literally making it the same as the new 
model. Microsoft's software upgrades are often more than half the 
price of the full product. Even though Apple's hardware may be a bit 
more expensive in the initial purchase, I still believe that they 
are less expensive in the long run to own, operate, upgrade, and 
support.
    Microsoft has been working on new product licensing and support 
programs where the software and support are virtually rented or 
leased, rather than purchased. The cost to purchase standalone 
versions of the products will become increasingly high, until it 
becomes cost prohibitive to not participate in the programs, which 
force users to stay up to date with current software offerings. This 
isn't being done for the customers benefit, it is to provide a 
continuous revenue stream for Microsoft. They are afraid that users 
aren't going to be convinced that there are compelling reasons to 
upgrade to Windows XP or Office XP, and that they will just continue 
to use the applications and operating system that currently have, 
depriving MS of any additional profit. It has also been reported 
that Microsoft intends to stop supporting Java and JavaScript, 
popular Internet web site scripting languages developed by Sun 
Microsystems, in future versions of Internet Explorer. The only 
scripting that will be supported are Microsoft's own technologies 
like ActiveX and VBscript. This is not due to waning support for 
these competing tools in community, nor by expensive or restrictive 
licensing from Sun. I believe that Microsoft is once again 
attempting to "herd the sheep" in the direction that is 
best for Microsoft,

[[Page 23843]]

with no regard to the best interest of the user. I'm sure that MS 
hopes that since IE is so prevalent, with so many users, that more 
companies will be forced to switch their web sites to use MS web 
technologies, which of course are only available on MS servers.
    I feel that companies should win customers and sell products by 
being better, not by being bigger. Positioning products to eliminate 
competition, reduce the number of alternative choices, or manipulate 
consumers down a path of increasing dependence are desperate 
practices. I have heard several sports commentators discussing the 
home run race during the past couple of seasons being driven by the 
competition between Bonds and McGwire. Without the pressure of the 
competition, and the incentive to outperform one another, many 
speculate that neither one would have accomplished the feats that 
they have. In the early days of desktop publishing, the race between 
PageMaker and XPress, or Illustrator and Freehand, made for better 
products all around. This kind of competitive, open market economy 
is what this country was built on. Microsoft, in my opinion, has 
lost sight of this view. They are not concerned about serving their 
customers, or providing them with innovative, useful tools to 
increase their productivity. At least, they are not as concerned 
with that as they are with making a bigger profit, squeezing more 
little competitors out of the picture, and expanding their market 
share until they have a completely captive market that they can lead 
around by the nose...
    To serve customers with better products, and more options, they 
would want to offer the same products and services across a broader 
range of platforms. I have never understood why the Access database, 
such as it is, has not been offered on the Mac, when it is bundled 
with Office for Windows. FileMaker is cross-platform, with files 
that are interchangeable, so I am certain that this would be 
possible. Oracle has made their database run on Mac OS, why not SQL 
Server? There have been plenty of email servers on the Mac, why not 
Exchange? Why can't you synchronize a PocketPC device with a 
Macintosh the same as we do with Palm devices? My view is that MS 
offers products on other platforms only to dangle a carrot in the 
eyes of users, hoping to eventually lure them over to the dark side 
(a Windows-based platform) in order to get the rest of the features.
    Apple, for instance, has produced FileMaker and ClarisWorks for 
Windows, and has recently released a Windows client for its free 
iTools web services. Palm offers desktop synchronization software 
for Macintosh and Windows, and there is free software available for 
Linux as well. Microsoft has also taken an adversarial approach to 
open source or free software such as Linux. Corel and Viso, before 
being sold out to Microsoft, had embraced the Linux community as an 
opportunity, offering their products to a new audience. Why wouldn't 
Microsoft want to offer Office for Linux, enabling users to pick the 
platform that best suited them? For that matter, it seems to me like 
Microsoft could do well to follow Corel's lead, and offer its own 
distribution of Linux. MS could build a better installer wizard, 
port features like ODBC and OLE, and make a system that could easily 
interoperate with Windows machines, while perhaps offering higher 
performance on older hardware. They would still generate revenues by 
selling the OS, the applications, and the support services.
    Well there you have it ! Now, have the "Ball's" to 
correct these situations and mead out the punishment to Microsoft 
that they have proven to deserve. A slap of the wrist won't cut it! 
They continue to abuse the consumer and the competition with their 
unbridled arrogance even while facing the pending punishment you are 
charge with coming up with. You know it and so do the nine states 
that will fight for justice.
    Sincerely,
    David C. Hill
    "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, 
that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, 
support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the 
success of liberty."
    ....John Fitzgerald Kennedy_1/20/61
    Dave Hill  :-)



MTC-00001008

From: Kelly L . Fulks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:27pm
Subject: DOJ/Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I feel that the proposed resolution was not properly worked out 
to the benefit of the American public. The proposed resolution was 
reached quickly under the disguise of Sept. 11. It was claimed that 
a quick resolution to this case would benefit the economy and the 
public. While in the very short term, this might have some validity, 
it seems that the long term needs more consideration.
    Doesn't the release of Windows XP prove that Microsoft isn't 
going to change? They continue to "integrate" things 
into the OS so that alternatives are not available, and they 
continue to pressure vendors, so that alternative OSs are not 
available. While I feel that Microsoft has the privilege to include 
any software in the package that they wish to include, they should 
not be "integrating" everything into the OS. I also 
believe that parts of the proposed resolution might be good.
    Microsoft providing references to file formats, etc would be a 
good thing as standards and inter-operability of systems would be a 
good thing. However forcing everyone into a single mold isn't good 
for anyone. Why should I be "forced" into the Windows XP 
mold like the rest of the world? Maybe it doesn't fit my needs. Free 
markets are founded on choice and I have not choice right now, I 
don't have a choice because the major vendors can't sell a computer 
with a Microsoft OS already installed. I have no choice, I must pay 
for it whether I use it or not. This would be like paying Chrysler 
before you can drive your Lincoln car. Please reconsider and 
withdraw this proposed resolution and spend a little more time 
helping the consumers and the economy, instead of caving in to what 
is good the Microsoft and is quick.



MTC-00001009

From: Jerry Tibor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:58pm
Subject: Comments about the Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    "...the settlement, if approved by the court, would 
"eliminate Microsoft's illegal practices, prevent recurrence 
of the same or similar practices and restore the competitive 
threat" the company faces from rivals."
    The above is a quote from an Associated Press article about the 
Department of Justice's statements on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I can only believe that the Department of Justice may 
know a great deal about the law but they know very little about the 
computer industry and even less about Microsoft and their historical 
behavior in the industry.
    The proposed settlement would do absolutely nothing to prevent 
the kind of abuses that Microsoft has employed time and again to 
first gain and then perpetuate their monopoly on desktop operating 
systems. I find it tragic that Judge Jackson chose to complicate 
this case by his actions, yet his assessment of Microsoft in the 
interviews he granted was absolutely accurate. In my experience, 
Microsoft is singular in its approach to business and demonstrates a 
complete lack of morals or ethics.
    A conduct remedy will do absolutely nothing to change their 
approach to the marketplace. They have always been and will continue 
to be uncooperative in changing any of their business practices. 
They will choose to misinterpret every aspect of the settlement to 
their advantage, and the settlement doesn't really require them to 
give in that much in the first place. This settlement is not in the 
public interest and if approved, time will show that it is simply 
inadequate to change the monopolistic behavior of Microsoft.
    Jerry Tibor, CNA
    President, Network Users Group of Anchorage
    Tibor Consulting Computer & Network Consulting
    [email protected]
    (907) 561-6871_voice
    (907) 561-7100_fax



MTC-00001010

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:46pm
Subject: (no subject)
    Dear Sirs,
    Please settle this matter as quickly as possible. It seems to us 
that from the time the Justice Department began this suit, the stock 
market has had a very difficult time staying out of the basement. 
The completion of Microsoft should just work a little harder. 
Amazing that the states still opposing this settlement have tech 
companies who are not doing quite so well.
    Good it be sour grapes?
    You have far more important matters to be concerned with at this 
time. Let's just get this over.
    Sincerely,
    Ann and Bob Maier-Sugg



MTC-00001011

From: lloyd olson

[[Page 23844]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:44pm
Subject: microsoft
    Dear Sirs,
    I think that the case has been completely rediculous, in the 
first place.If you have to punish them, have them pay for some 
medical for the Afgans.This case has made the economy go down hill 
and now with the war, we just may have a bad recession.
    Sincerely,
    Eileen and Lloyd Olson



MTC-00001012

From: Larry Belkin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/17/01 11:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Anything less than a settlement requiring the separation of the 
Operating System from the Software Division is unenforceable; 
Microsoft will continue its monopolistic practices. If we really 
want other Operating Systems and other software developers to have a 
fighting chance, please require that Microsoft be divided into to 
separate companies: 1. Windows Operating System; 2. Microsoft 
Software Co.
    Thank you.



MTC-00001013

From: Paul Rippey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 12:16am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Imagine that Ford also made highways and gas stations, then got 
enough of the market so they could manipulate the technology and 
somehow make cars that worked better on their own highways, and ran 
better on their own gas stations. Ford would make half-hearted 
efforts to let other car manufacturers have their secret codes for 
adapting their own cars to the Ford highways and gas, but the others 
would know that there would always be new versions coming out, and 
that Ford would always have information first, and would not 
introduce the new highways until their cars were perfectly tuned for 
them. The situation is analogous in software. Please continue 
reading.
    Dear Department of Justice,
    My understanding is that you have sollicited public comments on 
the MicroSoft case from consumers. I am a consumer and have a 
particular experience to share.
    I believer that MicroSoft has been able to manipulate their 
operating system monopoly into a monopoly in other areas. A case in 
point: It is a problem for me that there is only, essentially, one 
word processor on the market. Since there are millions of computer 
users, and word processors are relatively easy to program, and 
tastes vary, this is a distortion.
    I have used MicroSoft products for around fifteen years, I like 
some, and I don't like others. That seems like the way things should 
be in a competitive market. I personally find the word processor 
Word to be overkill. It has countless features that I don't want or 
need, and it does not do the things I want particularly well. I 
recognize that there might be other users who love it, which is 
fine. My problem is, as a Mac user, I have no choice. None. Because 
the Word file format is the standard, and it is very difficult to 
open Word documents perfectly, I am obliged to have Word on my 
computer.
    I have now upgraded my principal Mac to system OSX and want to 
upgrade my other software. The MS Office upgrade costs $250. My wife 
has a second computer, and I use one at the office also. That is 
$750 that will eventually be paid to MicroSoft for UPGRADES, not 
even buying the original program. Intuitively, this is more than the 
market price would be if there were competition. Like I say, it is 
heavy burden.
    I believe that the MicroSoft monopoly constitutes a heavy burden 
on me and on the rest of the American Public, and the proposed 
settlement is too little and too late. Nothing in the proposed 
settlement makes me think that things will change in any substantial 
way.
    Paul Rippey
    4, Rue Dribka
    Oudayas, Morocco
    212-37-70-23-21
    CC:hendersonn@ washpost.com@inetgw, 
contribute@macosrum...



MTC-00001014

From: Dahv Kliner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 12:04am
Subject: DOJ cave-in
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is woefully inadequate. Given 
the serious and sustained nature of Microsoft's illegal activities, 
the penalties are insufficient, and the settlement will not ensure 
fair competition in the computer software industry. Microsoft has 
not even admitted any wrong-doing. Please ensure that our nation's 
anti-trust laws are enforced.
    Dahv Kliner
    2624 Campeche Court
    San Ramon, CA 94583



MTC-00001015

From: ROBERT H BARGE JR
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 12:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Having followed this case from its inception I think the 
proposed settlement is good for M'soft, the government and,most of 
all,THE CONSUMER. R H Barge, Arcadia, Ca.



MTC-00001016

From: J. Davis
To: Microsoft ATR, Gary Lody, pulsetaker
Date: 11/18/01 1:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    D.O.J._Show us some Justice. In the mid-nineties, 
Microsoft agreed to stop it's predatory and monopolistic practices. 
They obviously didn't. Their attitude has always been to push the 
limit. It's standard practice for them call in the lawyers and ask 
just how far they can go. All they're getting is a slap on the 
wrist, again. They know that in three or four years, they can drive 
on with doing what they do best. Putting a strangle-hold on the 
world by stifling competition, and overly restrictive licenses that 
won't even allow me to transfer my old copy of Windows 95 to my 
mother when I upgrade my computer.
    We, the people who have been paying through the nose, would like 
to actually see some justice done. Their "screw the little 
guy" attitude shouldn't go unanswered. If you aren't going to 
break the company up, which is the only just thing to do, at least 
make them to release their source code. As a matter of fact, really 
foster some competition. Make them release their source code to the 
linux developers. Then they'll really have to earn their market 
position. If you don't, they'll just do everything they can to 
circumvent the Law and fair business practices again and again. They 
were doing it elsewhere without any fear of reprisal, while this 
trial was underway. Included are a few examples of Microsoft's 
conduct. Pay attention to the dates. They go back a long way. Only a 
pittance few are listed here.
    Quoted from http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/-lloyd/tilde/InterNet/
Law/ February 2001: Sun accepted $20M from Microsoft in an out of 
court settlement for MS breaking the Java license conditions. 
Microsoft probably looks upon this as small change for delaying 
tactics to muddy the Java waters while getting a competitor up. 24 
July 2001, Linux offer to charity in Windows row, The Age IT1 p2, 
Nathan Cochrane. "Sydney free software distributor and trainer 
Everything Linux has pledged to support a Geelong children's charity 
whose work Microsoft halted last week for distributing PCs with 
obsolete copies of its software." [...] a.. [LA: It shows the 
potential risk of getting locked in to a single source monopoly 
supplier. Many charities are donated old PCs. These often are not 
big enough or fast enough to run current MS Windows. MS have 
apparently stopped this charity from loading copies of e.g. Win3.1. 
Fortunately the Linux operating system will run fine, even on an old 
486, and it's free. And Openoffice (Staroffice) is a free office 
software suite -word, -excel, etc._see [Sun] in Refs.]
    4 August 2000: The European Commission (EC) began investigating 
claims that Microsoft selectively withheld information from some 
software companies, seen as being competitors, with the aim of 
extending its near monopoly in the desk-top operating system market 
into other markets. This would violate European Union antitrust 
laws. February 2000: The European Commission (EC) will investigate 
complaints that Microsoft that indulges in anti-competitive 
practices, in particular making it difficult for competitors to 
write software that can interact with the new Windows 2000 p.c. 
operating system.
    20 November 1998: The Microsoft Anti-Trust case has been running 
since 19 Oct 1998 and some heavyweights have now testified about 
pressure being applied to them by MS to do, or not do, 
'uvw', or else MS might do 'xyz' e.g. Intel 
w.r.t, some Intel multi-media software that MS allegedly disliked, 
Apple w.r.t, its QuickTime movie product, its default web browser 
and MS Office software, and of course Netscape... Bill Gates has 
also testified, denying the significance of internal MS email 
messages containing threatening language against other companies.
    17 November 1998: A US court found that Sun Microsystems Inc. 
would be likely to win its case, that Microsoft violated its Java 
contract and therefore granted an injunction

[[Page 23845]]

that Microsoft must change any of its products (e.g. Windows98, 
Explorer .... ) that it claims to be Java compatible, or that are 
derived from Java technology, so that they genuinely are compatible 
with Sun's Javatm test suite.
    19 October 1998: Microsoft Anti-Trust case begins in court. D. 
Lawsky. MS 'disabled' competitor's sound system. The 
Age, IT1, Tues 28 July 1998, p3. Realnetworks Inc. [make internet 
sound and music software] ... has accused Microsoft of releasing a 
program that disables its product. Chief executive Robert Glaser [of 
Realn'] [...] told the Senate Judiciary Committee [MS] was using its 
dominant position to extend its grasp of the software market. [...]
    Four other executives [inc' from Lotus, Acer] gave specifics on 
ways they said Microsoft used a monopoly in the Windows operating 
system to compete unfairly. [...] March 1998: A USA court told 
Microsoft to remove the Java-compatible logos from Microsoft 
Internet Explorer and Microsoft Software Developers Kit while a 
court case brought by Sun Microsystems continues. Sun has sued 
Microsoft for breach of contract over its Java licence; see 7 
October 1997 below. This may yet be a case of Sun winning a battle 
but losing the war? January 1998: Apple turned in a profit after its 
recent losses, painful cuts and much debated $150M investment by 
Microsoft (1997).
    Conrad Walters Microsoft faces fine over Net dominance, The 
Australian Wed' 22 October 1997. The US Justice Department yesterday 
asked the Federal Court to fine Microsoft $US! million a day over 
the software giant's attempt to dominate the Internet. [...] [LA: 
Microsoft's web browser Explorer-4 grows ever more closely involved 
with the Windows-95 (soon Windows-98) operating system. Microsoft's 
argument is that they are just adding improvements and new functions 
to their o.s.. The counter view is that MS is attempting to stifle 
competition in the web browser market, specifically to knock-off 
Netscape which held 70% of it as of mid 1997. The European 
Commission is also investigating if Microsoft is using its monopoly 
of Windows-95, and hence monopoly (to all intents and purposes) of 
P.C. operating systems, to force computer suppliers to install 
Explorer as the default browser to the detriment of Netscape. 
Incidentally, it has been suggested that if the Windows O.S. 
specification was freely available there would be some real 
competition in P.C. operating systems because other software 
companies would be able to implement the spec', hence be able to run 
the applications programs which are the reason for Windows' 
popularity, and offer an alternative to MS.]
    7 October 1997: Sun Sues Microsoft For Breach of Javatm Contract 
Sun claims that Microsoft products Explorer 4.0, the recently (Oct 
1997) released ms web-browser, and Software Development Kit for Java 
(SDKJ) failed the Java compatibility tests and so should not be 
labelled as being Java compatible, nor should the Java-compatible 
logo be applied to them. The Sun press release alleges that 
Microsoft's actions include "...secretly adding Win32-specific 
and other APIs to the Java class libraries...".
    Some conspiracy theorists believe that Microsoft would like to 
kill Java off, others that it would like to hijack it.
    Ralph Nader's Essential Information is organising an Appraising 
Microsoft conference (13-14/11/97) to discuss whether or not 
Microsoft engages in unethical business practices and whether its 
dominance of the p.c. software market is harmful.
    Quoted from Fox News:
    "Speaking on CNNfn's Digital Jam, O'Reilly & 
Associates president Tim O'Reilly said he was questioned earlier 
this week by Justice officials, and that he told them that Microsoft 
is artificially trying to keep some competitors' software from 
functioning properly on its desktop Windows NT environment. [...]
    "O'Reilly said he's concerned by the fact that 
Microsoft_which by its own admission is somewhat of a 
latecomer to the Internet software market_is trying to take 
control of the global network. 'They're doing all they 
can to take control (of the Internet). In the process, I think 
they're damaging it pretty seriously.' ... Microsoft started 
creating a showdown when it began bundling its Web server with 
Windows NT, it's high-end operating system. Microsoft is reportedly 
telling companies they can't use competitors' software on the NT 
workstation platform and have sought to limit the use of standard 
Internet protocols with their software. ... 
"'They're saying 'you have to use our 
platform the way we want you to.' The vision they have is 
contrary to the way people want to use it. They're saying we'll tell 
you how to use the Internet and saying the way we want you to use it 
is the way that benefits our revenue the most."' CNNfn, 
8.22.96
    LA Times:
    "In the most dramatic allegation yet that Microsoft Corp. 
uses bullying tactics to protect its turf, Apple Computer Inc. has 
charged that the software giant threatened to withhold a key piece 
of software unless Apple agreed to drop two lawsuits and a competing 
product.
    "The allegations are contained in a Feb. 13 letter from 
Apple to U.S. District Judge Stanley Sporkin. In a stunning decision 
last week, Sporkin rejected as too narrow a consent decree that 
settled antitrust charges by the Justice Department against 
Microsoft. [...]
    "Microsoft ... denied the allegation, and Chairman Bill 
Gates said he was disappointed by Apple's treatment of Microsoft. 
[...]
    "According to Apple... the computer maker a year ago 
attempted to obtain a copy of Windows 95, a yet-to-be released 
version of Microsoft's best-selling operating system software. ... 
Typically, Microsoft gives an early version of its software to 
independent software developers. Since December, 1993, about 40,000 
independent software developers have received the early, so-called 
beta versions of Windows 95.
    "Apple claims that Microsoft withheld Windows 95 because 
of two copyright infringement cases. In 1988, Apple filed suit 
against Microsoft, contending that Windows copied the Macintosh 
operating system. ... In December, Apple filed a lawsuit against San 
Francisco Canyon Co., charging that the start-up company gave 
Apple's copyrighted video software to Intel Corp. and Microsoft. 
Later, Apple sued Microsoft.
    "... Apple Chief Executive Michael Spindler and 
Microsoft's Gates met to settle their disputes .... Apple contends 
that Gates issued a veiled threat against Apple, saying that 
withholding Windows 95 was 'cause and effect' for 
Apple's decision to file a second lawsuit against Microsoft. 
"At the same meeting, Gates asked Apple to drop Open Doc, a 
software program that competes with a Microsoft product called Ole.
    "Apple said it informed Assistant U.S. Arty. Gen. Anne K. 
Bingaman of its problems with Microsoft. After a phone call from 
Bingaman, confirmed on Thursday by the Justice Department, Apple 
received the early version of Windows 95.
    "Although unorthodox, Bingaman's decision to intervene 
falls within her rights, legal experts said. 'I wouldn't 
call it mediation,' said Stanford University law professor William 
Baxter. 'I would call it law enforcement.' [...]
    "Gates ... sent a letter to Spindler, saying that he was 
'disappointed' by Apple's actions. 'Microsoft 
develops more software for Apple than any other company,' he 
stated. Reflecting the tense relations between the two, Gates listed 
more than two pages of grievances." Los Angeles Times, 
2.24.1995, p. D-1
    "Critics of the Redmond, Wash.-based company, the world's 
largest software publisher, have repeatedly claimed that it has used 
its dominance and relationship with IBM to crush tiny competitors 
and outmaneuver larger rivals.
    "Particularly upsetting to many smaller software 
publishers is Microsoft's unique strategy of providing both system 
software, which controls the computer's basic operations, as well as 
application programs, such as word-processing and spreadsheet 
packages. "Critics argue that because Microsoft controls the 
system software, it has an unfair advantage in developing 
application programs that must operate with the system 
software."
    Los Angeles Times, 3.13.91, p. D-2.
    Quoted from ZDNet:
    Caldera vs. Microsoft: It's Not Over Yet
    By Mary Jo Foley
    Smart Partner
    February 4, 2000
    Caldera and Microsoft may have ended up settling their four-
year-old antitrust suit before it went to trial, but the fireworks 
aren't over. The latest explosion: Former Microsoft Germany employee 
Stefanie Reichel admitted in her deposition that she destroyed files 
and other information that potentially could have been used as 
evidence against Microsoft in the Caldera case. Reichel also 
admitted in the newly public deposition excerpts that her direct 
supervisor discarded hard drives of computers in Microsoft's German 
office.
    Reichel said in her testimony she had destroyed e-mail messages 
that "could be problematic in an investigation," at the 
request of Microsoft management. Reichel also said she may have 
destroyed paper copies of documents.
    At the end of January_as a result of a lawsuit brought by 
three media firms, The

[[Page 23846]]

Salt Lake Tribune, The San Jose Mercury News and Bloomberg 
News_a number of previously sealed documents in the Microsoft-
Caldera case were unsealed. Among the two boxes of documents were 
tens of pages of excerpts from



MTC-00001017

From: Bob Hastings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 12:48am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust case
    I cannot believe that the United States Federal Government is 
letting Microsoft off so easily after having been found guilty of so 
many charges. They are a monopoly that has absolute control over the 
PC market and will be free to charge whatever prices they choose for 
their products and there's not a thing that any of us in the 
Information Technology industry can do about it. Look at their new 
licensing policies for Pete's sake. I'm sure Bill Gates and Steve 
Ballmer are having a good laugh at all of our expense.
    Don't believe me? Next time you go into a CompUSA or any other 
computer store and just try to find any application that doesn't run 
on Windows. This is wrong and it shouldn't be this way and it 
doesn't look like our government has the guts to stand up to a 
finincial dictator.
    Sincerly saddend
    Robert J. Hastings, Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer
    6202 Myra Court
    Austin, Texas 78749



MTC-00001018

From: Tom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 12:46am
Subject: My opinion
    (1) Microsoft is guilty of monopoly practices.
    (2) They are likely to continue.
    (3) They should be heavily fined for past offenses, with 
compensation to victims.
    (4) They should be made to undo the structural blocks posed by 
their practices, and also to do some things proactively to promote 
competition.
    (5) They should be monitored closely in the future. (The DOJ 
should not quit the case until all harm_past, present and 
future_is rectified.
    Thank you,
    Tom Chapman
    Santa Ana, CA



MTC-00001019

From: John C Trosie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 12:17am
Subject: opinion re Microsoft
    The Government should now leave Microsoft be.
    The benefits Microsoft provides the economy and the technical 
Improvements to the industry far out ways the possible damage that 
company does to competition. In fact, Microsoft provides a stimulus 
to the competition, or should, to do better, do more research, etc. 
be more inventive, more productive to help the present state of the 
economy... John C Trosie



MTC-00001020

From: Chris Adams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 1:25am
Subject: Extremely disappointed with the proposed settlement
    I work in IT and see how much money Microsoft's practices have 
cost my clients on a daily basis. When Microsoft was found guilty of 
antitrust violations, I had hoped it might restore competition to 
the industry. Unfortunately, the proposed settlement looks like it 
was written by Microsoft's lawyers_it gives up less than they 
were offering to settle for before losing the case!
    Now that Charles James has sold out a significant fraction of 
the US economy and cost the US a few trillion dollars, I wonder if 
this approach will extend to other areas of law enforcement. Will a 
convicted drug dealer or murderer be released if they promise not to 
do it again? I'm sure many of them have enough money to pay off the 
same people.
    Regards,
    Chris Adams



MTC-00001021

From: Troy L Jacobs_Raw Infinity
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 1:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    A lot of people have been swayed by the headlines on how much of 
a monopoly Microsoft has, I just want to set a few things straight. 
I have been programming computers for almost 20 years and have seen 
a lot of changes in technology in that time. Microsoft has far 
surpassed others when it has come to opening the door for 
programmers.
    They have piloted such technologies as Active X and the 
Component Object Model (COM).
    We programmers have never had as much freedom as we do now. 
Instead of cutting us out of the picture or making us no more than 
vainglorious macro writers, Microsoft has given us the best (by far) 
programming environment in the world. They pioneered Rapid 
Application Development (RAD) and created an awesome opportunity by 
incorporating Visual Basic for Applications into all of the Office 
programs.
    A lot of people may not speak highly of what they consider to be 
a monopoly, but others and myself are very grateful that Microsoft 
has given us this freedom.
    Microsoft must spend millions of dollars just developing the 
technologies that I am speaking of.
    They could have just as easily made all of the Office programs 
?closed?. Instead they exposed all of the objects in them so that we 
could program them ourselves.
    The battle between Internet Explorer and Netscape is now 
ludicrous. With the advent of COM and Distributed COM (DCOM) the 
horizon is now clear.
    As I programmer I had to research for quite some time to decide 
what technologies that I would invest in and learn. I studied all of 
the available ones and found that Microsoft has, bar far, the best 
suite of languages and programming environments.
    I am looking forward to what the future holds. We should all be 
grateful.
    Regards,
    Troy L Jacobs
    Raw Infinity 
    Phone: 503.752.2849
    [email protected] 

    www.geocities.com/rawinfinity 



MTC-00001022

From: Sam Cramer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 1:10am
Subject: The proposed settlement is far too weak
    The proposed settle of Microsoft vs. US is far too weak. As a 
software professional who has worked in the field for 20 years and 
as a keen observer of Microsoft's unfair tactics, I believe that the 
proposed settlement will do next to nothing to stop Microsoft's 
outrageous abuse of their monopoly status. At the very best, the 
proposed settlement is a slap on the wrist. To this concerned 
citizen, it looks like a sell-out.
    Sincerely,
    Sam



MTC-00001023

From: Kevin A CLick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 1:43am
Subject: Microsoft/DOJ settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing this in response to the latest lawsuit against 
Microsoft. The proposed settlement is apparently satisfactory to 
some states and individuals. Clearly, however it is unsatisfactory 
to many. I am dissapointed that the business practices demonstrated 
and abused by Microsoft to gain their "lion's share" of 
the market have been penalized with what amounts to a slap on the 
wrist. I realize that in order to force a fair capitalist playing 
field, taking away the advantages gained by the clear violation of 
anti-trust laws would be difficult. I realize also that it would 
temporarily stagger a tech economy that is already struggling. But 
one of the main reasons that the tech economy is struggling is 
because of the illegitemate business practices of tech companies 
like Microsoft. The idea that Microsoft should be required to open 
up it's Windows OS source code to competitors and independent 
programmers is the best solution. This will not greatly impair the 
operation ! or profit scheme of the company. Microsoft's main profit 
comes from programs like their Office suite.
    The ability for other companies and programmers to see their 
Operatin System source code would serve to level the unfair 
advantage that they have gained through the monopolistic practices 
that the legal action addresses. Please do not cave to the economic 
and political pressure and do right by the people in this country 
that you are sworn to serve the interests of. Thank you for your 
time.
    Kevin Click
    Seattle, WA
    (206) 632-3524
    "Say what you will about the sweet miracle of 
unquestioning faith, I consider the capacity for it terrifying and 
absolutely vile."

[[Page 23847]]

    Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
    "Mother Night"
    "Mother Night"



MTC-00001024

From: Patrick J. Burke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 3:09am
Subject: Please read
    Fellow citizens of the Department of Justice,
    Microsoft was found guilty and they should have been punished 
more severely. However, you people are now going to enforce the hand 
slap they probably bought and that's fine with me, but I hope you 
keep one thing clear: people, as a whole, are developing memories 
that go further and further back. You people will be remembered for 
how you handle this so I hope you've looked into the future of 
computing and seen how things like open standards and free software 
may influence things to come. And I hope your decisions are made 
with a mental picture of a future that barely remembers the great 
monopoly_or uses anything it created. How will that future 
look at those involved in today's amazing injustice? Make good 
decisions that reflect the severity of the crime Microsoft was 
proven to have committed. And think of the MS-less future, you know, 
the one your children and mine are being handed.
    Deeply concerned,
    Patrick J. Burke
    Coral Springs, FL



MTC-00001025

From: Gary Young
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 1:57am
Subject: Strong opposition to the proposed Microsoft settlement
    If not for "political" and competitor's 
"survival" aspects regarding this case, Microsoft would 
be, and should be, severely punished. The agreed to "slap on 
the wrist" punishments are a joke and if Microsoft's 
competitors and (even) business allies would speak freely there 
would be double the evidence and vocal disdain against Microsoft. 
Microsoft's continued failure to acknowledge their past behavior 
should have an affect on the punishment. If there is anything I 
would NOT worry about, it is that severely punishing Microsoft would 
harm others. Even in the short term, most of even the strongest 
proposed remedies would be better for almost everyone. In the long 
run, we all gain and we would then have a precedent that shows you 
can't get away with illegal and unethical business practices. The 
proposed agreement is a big win for business thugs everywhere.
    Gary Young
    Aliso Viejo, California
    [email protected]



MTC-00001026

From: Henry D. Kasson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 3:12am
Subject: Antitrust Settlement
    I wish our government would get off this case. Where would we be 
in the personal computer world without Microsoft! Microsoft is a 
world class leading developer. Don't tie their hands_let them 
roll.
    Thanks for setting up this address so I and others can send you 
our thoughts.



MTC-00001027

From: Troy Sullivan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 3:20am
Subject: microsoft ruling
    To whom it may concern:
    As a tax payer and believer in fair trade, I am furious by the 
jello backbone our justice system has displayed. Finally there was 
something that was going to be done to help consumers and the DOJ 
caved in. How much did Bill Gates donate to the Rupublican party?
    Small and start up companies do not have a chance because of the 
heroin like addiction that Micro$oft has on the market. I am not 
opposed to buying micro$oft products if they are superior; however, 
most of the time they are not. The are known bugs in the operating 
system and products which causes consumers the have to buy the 
newest ones to fix the garbage that they bought in the first place.
    My only hope left is that the courts will not accept this 
ruling, and the Europeans will be stronger than our own justice 
system.
    Sincerely,
    Troy Sullivan
    A concerned tax payer



MTC-00001028

From: John P. Mundt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:20pm
Subject: Anti-trust settlement
    Very briefly, we are a Macintosh school district under ever-
increasing pressure to change to the WinTel machines used in the 
"real world." The anti-trust settlement, where WinTel 
machines appear in schools only exacerbates the pressure since it 
increases their market share, fosters the use of their software, and 
makes their monopoly even better. Why not force them to pay for and 
place Macitosh or Linux machines in the schools?
    John
    "You can lead a boy to college, but you cannot make him 
think."
    Elbert Hubbard
    John P. Mundt Assoc. Dir., Computer Services
    Adlai E. Stevenson High School 847.634.4000x1217
    One Stevenson Drive FAX 847.634.7309
    Lincolnshire, IL 60091 [email protected]



MTC-00001029

From: Ken Prevo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 8:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The very least that I would find acceptable would be a 
"Chinese Wall" between the operating system division and 
the rest of the company. Microsoft has historically used the 
operating system to advantage their other product lines_often 
to the detriment or destruction of competitors. As a programmer for 
30 years, I experienced their proprietary and changing APIs since 
DOS 2.1. Without government intervention this will continue.



MTC-00001030

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 7:44am
Subject: have we become stupid
    Gentlemen I ask again "have we become soooo stupid" 
Have we forgotten what it takes to be a great nation of achievers. 
From time to time you hear or read completly stupid coments. Like 
three weeks ago I was reading our Todays News. On the front page the 
front page Was a picture of an American ground forces soldier. With 
full details on all the equipment that he carries while in combat 
with arrows showing where each of these article are on their bodies. 
I read this in total disbelief over how little we care for our 
military forces safety that are putting their lives on the line for 
us to maintain the (what we call) the right to freedom.
    I built a company from my garage to a 255man operation based on 
an idea. I can't even imagine how angered I would have been if some 
jerk would have come to me and said, "You are way too 
successful and have achieved way too much" therefore we are 
going to force you to give up your monopoly because we have a group 
of stupid people over hear that need your business to slow down. 
Somebody forgot the working for three days without sleep, and 
working through Christmas, and worrying where the next dollar was 
coming from to be able to not get bad credit, etc., etc. Why have we 
as a nation become so stupid? In case anybody hasn't noticed. The 
superlatives (achievers) are the ones that create wealth and 
prosperity for our country, feed them don't stifle their efforts.
    "An angry American"
    Geo.



MTC-00001031

From: eevans1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 6:33am
Subject: Microsoft
    It's about time this so called "case" against 
Microsoft be dropped, stopped or considered irrelevant. They did 
nothing more than offer THEIR customers a good way to use the 
internet. The people who did the most complaining have long since 
gone their own ways anyway. You keep monkeying with software and 
well end up paying more for it, just like most of the other things 
the government has "helped" us with.
    E. R. Evans



MTC-00001032

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 4:51am
Subject: As a user of alternative operating systems such as BeOS,
    As a user of alternative operating systems such as BeOS, 
OpenBSD, and Linux, and also as a former employee of a company (Be 
Incorporated) hurt by Microsoft's monopoly, I feel that the 
settlement doesn't do any justice. Microsoft essentially gets a slap 
on the wrist and told to play fair. Meanwhile, Microsoft has managed 
to slip out three new versions of Windows doing the exact same thing 
they've been doing since the antitrust

[[Page 23848]]

suit started, and aren't going to recompensate its competitors for 
its practices. Microsoft wins again.
    In addition, Microsoft has just started shipping it's X-Box 
video game system, which is backed by Microsoft's monopoly. 
Microsoft has purchased several significant video game companies in 
an effort to become the powerhouse in the video game industry, and 
likely will significantly hurt its competitors which mainly utilize 
independant software development companies to produce games. Result: 
Microsoft will likely obtain a large market share, possibly even 
another monopoly. Microsoft wins again.
    Not to sound completely biased against Microsoft, but their 
tactics need to be halted. The Department of Justice holds the only 
opportunity to correct Microsoft's behavior, and allowing it to 
operate as a single company will not do that.



MTC-00001033

From: Don Wires
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 8:41am
Subject: give it up
    now that clinton and his corrupt cabinet are gone, please drop 
the case. microsoft was punished enough by reno. their 
"crime" was being profitable. naughty people make too 
much money. come on! whatever you make you should be able to keep. 
leave microsoft alone and go after drug dealers who launder money or 
better yet go after the bankers who help them.
    thanks



MTC-00001034

From: Colynn Kerr (Shaw)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 8:24am
Subject: Consumer Comment on Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer who has chosen the Mac OS, an operating system 
that competes with Windows, I would like to register my concern that 
the proposed settlement does little to discourage Microsoft from 
returning to its old anti-competitive ways.
    Microsoft has shown by its actions in the past that it has 
little regard for court agreements, knowing full well that it can 
use the slowness of the judicial process to further extend its 
monopoly influence. Microsoft's pattern of behavior is likely to 
continue and the settlement is unlikely to prevent a recurrence. The 
three-person team charged with monitoring Microsoft's actions MUST 
be given a stronger mandate to stop problems quickly. If Microsoft 
uses the proposed process to stall as it has done in the past, the 
market will be further damaged. This settlement will remove 
Microsoft's restraint because there is no threat of swift 
preventative court action. The proposal must have more 
'teeth" to stop anti-competitive behaviors quickly.
    Under these court measures, Microsoft will likely continue to 
enter new markets and create its own proprietary standards using its 
dominant market position to crush competing products. As it has done 
repeatedly, it will continue to bundle its own versions of competing 
products into Windows, starving competitors out of the market. It 
took a lot of courage for competitors to come fourth during this 
long drawn out trial and there may not be the will to come fourth 
again if it only is to result in such a watered down settlement. 
This may be the last, best chance to curb Microsoft's habits.
    To strengthen the court settlement I suggest:
    1) creating a checklist of identified Microsoft anti-competitive 
actions and beside each item insuring a swift court action to be 
taken;
    2) creating a streamlined process that remains in situ to act 
quickly to stop anti-competitive behaviors as they arise;
    3) keeping in place a series of strong punitive measures that 
will be levied against Microsoft quickly and remain in force until 
Microsoft stops its anti-competitive behaviors;
    4) require Microsoft to pay the costs for each and every 
investigation of its actions;
    5) creating an Ombudsman position to field all competitors and 
consumer concerns, feeding the results of such investigations to the 
tribunal and requiring further investigation by them;
    6) creating an office with funded staff for each member of the 
tribunal to give them all the tools they need;
    7) requiring an immediate stop to Microsoft's efforts to extend 
its market influence into new markets for a set period of time, to 
allow those markets to flourish before Microsoft can enter them;
    8) requiring Microsoft to charge fair market value for each and 
every bundled product, in addition to the cost of its other 
products;
    9) requiring Microsoft to offer competing products or 
opportunities to choose competing products, with each Microsoft 
bundled product;
    10) requiring full disclosure and prominent display to consumers 
of each and every Microsoft anti-competitive action.
    In summary, the settlement must more strongly protect the 
market.
    Colynn Kerr [email protected]



MTC-00001035

From: Simon.Holledge@ Operajaponica.org@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 8:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edinburgh 18 November 2001
    Dear Sirs,
    The settlement with Microsoft announced on Novmeber 2 is 
inadequate and will allow the company to continue unfair business 
practices. I believe that it would be in both the national and 
international interest to split the company into two or three parts.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Simon Holledge Simon Holledge Opera japonica http://
www.Operajaponica.org The Ancient East Asia Website http://
www.AncientEastAsia.org The Elisabeth Schumann Website http://
www.ElisabethSchumann.org Flat 3 (2nd floor left), 5 Wemyss Place 
Edinburgh EH3 6DH Phone 0131 467 4861 Mobile 078 1383 5826 Email 
[email protected] Email 
[email protected]



MTC-00001036

From: James Russell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 8:29am
Subject: WebTv ownership!
    October of 2000 I purchased a webtv system from Montgomery Wards 
as I could not afford a regular computer.I am used to the idea that 
when I buy something,I own it.No one at the store told me that 
Microsoft still owns the insides of the unit,which means that I paid 
$200.00 for an empty metal box.
    I didnt find out about this until I tryed to find a low cost 
ISP.Thats when I found out that even if I change ISP's,I still have 
to pay Microsoft $9.95 per month to use their equipment.Also they 
charge the highest internet rate of all the ISP,s,$24.95 per month.I 
watched many commericals about this product before deceiding to buy 
one,I should say those 1/2hr infomercials,and nothing was said about 
this.
     I think that Microsoft is guilty of consumer fraud,and this 
should be addressed also before you let them off the hook.
    Sincerely,
    James M. Russell



MTC-00001037

From: Rune Q. Nordhagen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 9:06am
Subject: United States v. Microsoft Corporation
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I appreciate the opportunity to express my opinion. In response 
to your request for public comment on the proposed settlement in the 
case of United States v. Microsoft Corporation, I urge you to settle 
the case as soon as possible and in a way that imposes the fewest 
possible restrictions on Microsoft.
    I have no direct financial interest in Microsoft nor any of its 
competitors. In my opinion, the government should interfere with 
successful companies as little as possible. We should applaud 
America's successful companies and allow them to innovate and to 
grow. This will in turn help our economy grow and thus create 
economic growth and better lives for all of us.
    Sincerely,
    Rune Q. Nordhagen
    9284 E. Mohawk Lane
    Scottsdale, AZ 85255
    mobile +1-602-790-6808
    [email protected]



MTC-00001038

From: Don McClarty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 9:02am
    I believe it is time to leave Microsoft alone and find some 
thing to do that would help the country instead of destroying it 
like has been done in the past.



MTC-00001039

From: Oren Ben-Kiki
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/18/01 9:02am
Subject: Micrososft Settlement

[[Page 23849]]

    I'm not a USA citizen. This means I can't write "my 
congressman" when it comes to issues like the Microsoft trial. 
However I'm very much dependent on the results of this trial. I take 
the liberty of writing to you in the hope that foreign citizens have 
an equal standing_or at least some standing_ at the 
current state of affairs.
    I've been working as a paid computer professional ever since 
1983. I've seen and used many operating system and companies come 
and go. And I don't like the trend which has been set by Microsoft's 
operating systems. There are many cases where there is a 
"natural synergy" between two services, but this synergy 
is still a bad thing. It happens every time there is 
"infrastructure" vs. "application". 
Infrastructure being a "natural monopoly", this allows 
the infrastructure company a monopolistic lock on the related 
application market.
    In phone communication this is the actual wiring of houses vs. 
the actual end-point equipment (phones, office switchboards). 
Imagine only being able to buy an AT&T phone.
    In cable TV it is the wiring vs. the set-top boxes and channels. 
I heard that France has managed to avoid the usual unhealthy synergy 
there. The cable company there serves a similar role to that of a 
phone company. It must distribute anyone's content (for a fee, of 
course), just like a phone company is bound to allow anyone to make 
a phone call with any content. This allowed a healthy competition in 
conent creation, where everywhere else one is bound to a single 
channels provider together with the physical cable.
    In computers, the "infrastructure" and 
"application" may seem less well-defined (but see 
below). The principle still stands, however. An unhealthy synergy 
between hardware and operating system was the hallmark of the 
monopolistic IBM era. Today decoupling them is taken for granted, 
allowing a healthy competitive market place_for hardware. The 
relationship between an "operating system" and 
"the applications" is the same as in all the above 
cases. There is a technical synergy, that's correct. But as in all 
the above cases, taking the easy way of mixing them together ends in 
an inefficient market place and inferiour, over priced products.
    The solution is the same, in principle, for all the above cases. 
A company may choose to be in the infrastructure business. Its 
products must be well-documented and open for use by anyone. This 
means anyone could duplicate the infrastructure (usually at a large 
cost) and hence profit margins are low_but the market is 
large. A company may also choose to be in the applications business. 
Its products may be closed, proprietary, and next to impossible to 
duplicate. Hence margins are high, but the market is smaller. An 
infrastructure company must focus on stability and standards. An 
application company must focus on innovation and tailored solutions. 
It is impossible for a company to be both. It is simply too 
lucrative to corrupt the infrastructure (the low margin operation) 
for a specific application (the high margin operation). This 
naturally discriminates against other application companies. 
Publishing the infrastructure details doesn't help, either. The 
simple fact is that one company is able to change the infrastructure 
to fit its applications while all others must fit their applications 
to fit someone else's infrastructure.
    In short, the only viable solution to the problem is to break 
Microsoft into two separate companies. One which makes 
"infrastructure", and one which makes 
"applications". Note that infrastructure isn't 
necessarily "operating system". Microsoft has invested a 
lot of effort in destroying the original, clean definition of what 
"operating system" means as opposed to "an 
application". For the purpose of the separation, 
"software infrastructure" is "any piece of 
software which monopolizes the use of resources in a computer or a 
network". These may be hardware resources or software 
resources (such as network addresses).
    The monopolistic software infrastructure company must publish 
the full interface to its products. Any such company should fall 
under similar legistlative restrictions to those of utilitity 
companies_the electric company, the phone company etc. The 
application software company would be free of such chains.
    Any other solution won't address the core issues. Forcing 
Microsoft to publish all infrastructure details_including file 
formats, network protocols, and APIs_is better than nothing, 
but is a band aid solution where a surgeon scalpel is called for.
    Note that this solution is not against Microsoft's own 
interests. One argument against a split was that the combined worth 
of the two companies would be greater than the worth of the current 
Microsoft (as in the AT&T case)_and what sort of a 
"punishment" is that? This argument proves that the 
current mixture of infrastructure and application is harming 
Microsoft's share holders as well as its customers. The fact it may 
very well be profitable to split the company is proof that the only 
reason not to is the resulting loss of power by the few people 
leading Microsoft today. In fact these people have broken the law in 
the process of obtaining and wielding this power. Therefore 
splitting the company makes perfect sense. It would exactly 
"punish" the power-seeking few (by taking away their 
power), while benefiting (financially) everyone else.
    Thank you for your time,
    Oren Ben-Kiki
    [email protected]



MTC-00001040

From: joe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 9:14am
Subject: Comments
    Joseph Bondi
    [email protected]
    Hello: I believe the agreement is correct not to split Microsoft 
into two companies,the settlement is O.K., but one area that should 
be looked into the price of their new operating system XP everyone 
is selling it at the same price $99 for the upgrade and $199 for XP 
PRO , I Thought it is illegal to price fix? Lets get some 
completion. Thank you



MTC-00001041

From: Rick Tomaschuk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 9:13am
Subject: More Lollygagging
    Its too bad the USDOJ does'nt prosecute its own white collar 
crimanals the way foreign criminals are dealt with. Why not police 
your own criminals and set an example for the rest of the world.
    Microsoft has devastated the lives of countless honest hard 
working Americans/Canadians through its illegal practices. Wake up!
    Rick Tomaschuk
    Principal_Driving Force Technologies Ltd.
    Driving Force Technologies Ltd.
    15-6400 Millcreek Drive, Unit 404
    Mississauga, ON
    L5N 3E7
    Tel: 905-813-3036
    Novell/Caldera Partner
    Email: [email protected]
    Web: http://www.dftl.com
    Richard Tomaschuk_Principal



MTC-00001042

From: Antwan L. Payne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 9:09am
Subject: Leave microsoft alone
    With all due respect to the US govt. and the Supreme Court 
Justices, Microsoft has made things easier for the average computer 
buyer. For example I just bought a brand new computer (I am an 
experienced user), a Compaq Presario and I have found that the way 
Microsoft bundles it's software makes it easy for the novice 
computer user to send e-mail, surf the web, and listen to mp3's. If 
Apple wants more customers then they should work on their software 
rather than the outside casings. If Microsoft did not standardize 
the PC then imagine how hard it would be to buy a computer game, or 
a word-processor that will only work on one type of OS that few 
have, instead people can buy games, and other software and know it 
will work on their computer. So in my humble opinion I think that 
there are other things going on in the world than computer software. 
Microsoft, I admit has a monopoly, but it is a helpful monopoly.
    Concerned Computer User,
    Antwan L Payne
    [email protected]



MTC-00001043

From: Charles T. Nardino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 9:07am
Subject: Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is a travesty. Millions of 
taxpayer dollars have been spent on this case, proving Microsoft to 
be one of the most ruthless, underhanded operations this country has 
ever known. Is it really possible that all the Justice Department 
can do now is to say to Microsoft: "Because you have behaved 
so abominably in the past, we are going to ask you to please be 
nicer in the future, OK Microsoft, please, please, please?" 
Justice Jackson's remedies were infinitely more fitting and just.
    As a consumer of computer products who has been hurt by 
Microsoft's policies repeatedly in the past, I am offended. As an IT 
consultant, I am shocked. As a US citizen,

[[Page 23850]]

I am disgusted to see that my government agencies can do no more 
than bow to the will of a monopolist.
    Charles T. Nardino
    465 West 23rd St.
    New York, NY 10011
    Charles T. Nardino
    [email protected]



MTC-00001044

From: Richard B. Kelly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 9:56am
Subject: Settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case
    To the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
    Pennsylvania Avenue
    Washington, DC
    Comments Supporting Settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust Case
    I am a semi-retired attorney who still is able to practice 
because of the capabilities of using the computer to communicate 
with long-term clients. It seems a bizarre concept that millions of 
people like me would not be able to continue to buy "turn 
key" information systems as they are developed because some 
competitor believes its ability to compete is reduced. As I 
understand it the "bundled" software products:
    1. are not being priced at prices that are unaffordable to 
anyone who can afford the hardware, and so price gouging is not a 
realistic issue from the point of view of the user;
    2. most of us users have neither the knowledge nor the 
inclination to buy a bunch of separate products and integrate them 
ourselves; and
    3. a combination of new features in software will accelerate 
their integration and use, providing huge benefits including 
increased productivity for me and everyone else. Thus I strongly 
support the settlement.
    Richard B. Kelly, Attorney-at-Law
    1 Riverside Drive
    Lake Placid, New York 12946-1832
    [email protected]



MTC-00001045

From: Current User
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 9:28am
Subject: Attn: State Attorneys
    Hello, I currently am a customer of microsoft (indirectly), and 
I must express to you my great displeasure with the trivial 
recommended penalties against this foul-smelling behemoth. Please do 
not openly accept these wrist-slap intensity sanctions against the 
company, as they are influential enough as it is to suppress any 
attempt at succession in their industry.
    I thank you greatly for your attention to my concern on this 
matter, and please, choose principal over quick money, the markets 
will wait, microsoft IS NOT worth it_we are.
    Remember: "...I make a million dollars every two 
hours..."_Bill Gates, gloating.
    Consumer



MTC-00001046

From: Ken Hoag
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 9:23am
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    In response to your request for public comment on the proposed 
settlement in the case of United States v. Microsoft Corporation, I 
ask you to settle the case as soon as possible with zero 
restrictions on Microsoft. This company is one of America's shining 
lights and the government has/had no cause to interfere with its 
progress. If competitors cannot compete with Microsoft's innovations 
then they should fall by the wayside and winners like Microsoft 
should be allowed to bloom.
    Ken Hoag
    Phoenix Arizona



MTC-00001047

From: St(00E9)phane Moureau
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Advantages
    Dear Madam,
    Dear Sir,
    First forgive my bad english and thank you for giving us a 
chance to comment.
    I hope you'll not forgot the advantages that Microsoft has 
already taken from such unfair practices in such competitive markets 
during all those years.
    All the money MS has accumulated while they were imposing their 
products without any ethic.
    All the companies MS has been able to buy with that money.
    All the MS rivals, and some were producing better products, 
technology break-through, that have gone to bankruptcy because they 
were unable to compete with such a giant able to spend money on huge 
advertisement campaigns, huge teams of developers to 'copy' similar 
products. You must review history, it's always the same process that 
MS is following.
    A "new technology/standard" appears, MS quickly 
follow the trend and release a version, full of problems, bugs, and 
some tiny extensions, making both (their and original one) 
incompatible, and by benefiting from their market dominance, 
illegally acquired, and delayed communication to external 
developers, imposing MS copy of that technology: html, javascript, 
C#/J# <- java, M$ Server/asp <- php/mySql, Windows 
<- Mac OS, XP <- OSX,...
    Even a MS high-level manager was surprised to sell a product 
with so many bugs, I don't remember the exact sentence but that's 
the idea, that appeared in the press about a quickly released 
Windows version. Why people are using those bad MS version then? 
Just because most are simple users, which are not computer 
specialists, and they use what they receive "as-is" and 
a great percentage are using Windows and all the features that MS is 
imposing internally. And also because distributors were obliged to 
do so.
    How many users are aware of what's going on behind the scene? 
How many users are able to switch to another, often better, 
technology? Even some professionals are unable because MS has 
intentionally made those changes almost impossible. Quickly those 
who are aware, computer technicians, etc... are too obliged to 
follow because most users are using MS "incompatible" 
versions.
    Those last years press is full of events showing how aggressive, 
unfair, illegal practices MS has used intentionally at all possible 
levels, some even by illegally spying on its customers. Even if 
strong rules against MS might lead to short-term negative 
consequences (job loses, etc), on the long run all the industry and 
the consumers will benefit from a fair competition. But not 
forgetting all the advantages that MS has unfairly acquired during 
all those years is essential, perhaps mandatory !
    Mr Bill Gates seems pleased by the current agreements probably 
for that reason.
    They will not truly affect MS, the "powerful 
monster" is alive and running and it will not be too much 
affected by them. All that accumulated money allows now MS to buy 
any competitors (e.g. hotmail), to artificially support competitors 
to avoid antitrust accusations (e.g. Apple), to make huge 
investments to reproduce internally any new standard, to diversify 
its activities (e.g. Xbox) and repeat the same unfair suffocating 
tactics.
    All the advantages obtained in such fast markets are essential 
and can make a huge difference between live and death for a 
concurrent company. A lot of people in Europe are hoping that the 
judgment will really mark the end for such unfair practices but 
also, and mainly, that it will redistribute/compensate the 
advantages MS has taken during all those years from other 
competitors.
    Ineffective judgments and inadequate rules would be badly 
perceived by people from other countries in those troubled times 
that USA encounters now. USA is taken as a model for a lot of 
people, its attitude must be irreproachable. But I'm confident that 
fair and really effective solutions will be found, providing that 
email address to send our comments is a good proof.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Stephane Moureau
    Place Victor Martin, 1
    7321 Bernissart
    BELGIUM



MTC-00001048

From: Marc Fishman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 10:23am
Subject: settlement doesn't rescind profits
    Regarding the DOJ settlement with Microsoft. After reviewing the 
terms of the settlement I'm left scratching my head and wondering 
why Microsoft is permitted to keep the fruits of their illegal 
actions. In exploiting their monopoly position, Microsoft profited 
heavily while competitors were damaged and lost sales. In America, 
when someone profits from illegal activities it's customary to seize 
those illegal profits. I would suggest determining the extent of 
Microsoft's profits from their illegal actions and levying of an 
equivalent fine and additional punitive damages. The money should be 
distributed to the competitors directly injured by Microsoft's 
actions to help them recover and develop competing products.
    Marc Fishman
    [email protected]

[[Page 23851]]



MTC-00001049

From: LELAND C DAVIS, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 10:05am
Subject: My Thoughts
    For nearly 3 years the Microsoft matter has been before you, 
Microsoft, and the general public. My home state is Maine so I 
couldn't be further from local influence and live in the United 
States. The contribution Microsoft has made to our society as well 
as to all locations on the face of this earth is immeasurable. How 
did this accomplishment occur, HARD WORK!! This business was started 
from "scratch" and I admire greatly their 
accomplishments. Were they over zealous? I don't think so. In my 
little hometown in Maine we had a local orchardist who worked very 
diligently and built one of the largest apple businesses on the east 
coast. Was there jealousy and criticism of their operation? YES! 
This past year they went out of business because of foreign 
competition after being handed down three generations. What attitude 
prevailed?? "What a shame", jobs lost and thus consumer 
spending down and the local economy hurt badly. The economy on the 
face of this earth has been improved by Microsoft and I hope this 
thought will be prevalent in the decisions to be made.
    Thank you, Leland C. Davis, Jr.
    LELAND "LEE" DAVIS. Jr.



MTC-00001050

From: Eric
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 10:06am
Subject: Microsoft settlement against
    Since the settlement you have made with Microsoft I have learned 
that big business is bigger than big government. No ware in your 
settlement do I see you addressing the things that the average user 
of the software wanted. If I select non Microsoft software I do not 
want to be asked if that is what I want more than once and you have 
left that option open to them. You are not making them unbundle 
there software and I believe that was the start of the whole thing. 
All I can see is that this is a sellout to Microsoft and is only 
good for Microsoft.
    Eric Laise
    405 Live oak st
    Bowie TX 76230
    [email protected]



MTC-00001051

From: Trevor Doerksen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 11:05am
Subject: Moving the big ship
    Microsoft is a fantastic company with some great product. 
However, not all of its products are superior to its competitors and 
often demonstrate an ability to develop exactly what the market 
doesn't need, (e.g. Insecure server software, mediums in which 
viruses are able to flourish, and code that can affect the 
performance of 3rd part software within their browser or OS).
    Even though they are a huge company they seem able to move this 
big ship with pinpoint accuracy when it comes to eliminating 
competition through its approach to international standards and 3rd 
party software. Although not examples of these practices were 
discussed at the trial, and some new "dirty practices" 
have been witnessed, I think this is one of the most important 
things about MS technology and its approach to others.
    As a monopoly, MS should have to clearly define to the rest of 
the market where it is going, when, and how it might impact those 
companies working with and in MS eyes against them to install and 
view software on its OS. A recent example of eliminating its plug-in 
architecture for its browser demonstrates the ability that a simple 
move can eliminate competition even further.
    From a punitive point of view, I believe in a break up. From a 
solutions-focused point of view, I believe in full disclosure of its 
strategy, code, future directions, and all business meetings minutes 
be made public so that the public, media, government, etc. is able 
to keep their eyes on a company that demonstrates its continuing 
power with dominance over the market.
    It won't be long until there is only one company selling word 
processing software, media players, and browsers in the world. This 
can only be good if we don't believe in a free market. Opening up 
source code and other company information for the market to openly 
compete is necessary. Like drug patents a time advantage can be put 
forward to the company that demonstrate research and development 
(not just buying or in most cases stealing ideas, information, and 
strategies) a very short term exclusive (the technology world moves 
fast) right to gain an in on the market.
    Thanks,
    Trevor Doerksen
    University of Calgary



MTC-00001052

From: sidesoft
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 10:51am
Subject: DOJ,
    DOJ,
    This case is killing our economy. Milton Friedman the Nobel 
winning economist stated this would happen when the lawsuit started. 
His projections have indeed come true. Look at the NASDAQ and 
specifically Microsoft's competitors. Tell the State AG's that the 
DOJ will drop the lawsuit altogether unless they settle immediately. 
We are on the brink of a recovery and badly need a settlement. For 
investors, the working class, retires, our school systems that are 
short of monies, on and on... This ECONOMY, created by this lawsuit, 
has created major economic losses. Please get this behind us!
    Warren McKenna
    Kalona, IA



MTC-00001053

From: zippy theclown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 10:50am
Subject: microsoft's non-justice..............
    dear sirs,
    as a consumer of computer products, i must say that you really 
BLEW IT when it came to settling the microsoft case. without 
microsoft opening their code to other software makers, they will 
never lose their monopoly_point in fact_when they 
changed their MSN website and browsers other than IE wouldn't 
connect and it turned out they had abandoned world-standards for 
XHTML code to use their own.......yeah, that really proves the whole 
point, doesn't it. they do what they want and when everyone else's 
prices are moving down, microsoft is leveraging their prices higher 
with a subscription basis_pay us now, pay us later, and if you 
don't have WinXP, we'll drop support for everything else so your 
software eventually won't work and you'll have to buy WinXP and pay 
even more since you didn't jump on the wagon at the start_what 
kind of business practice is that_charge two different prices 
for the same product depending on when you buy it..........sheer 
monopoly and you didn't solve a thing with your case_no wonder 
9 other states balked at the final agreement_they obviously 
had some IT experts advising them while you probably only had a 
bunch of fool lawyers who don't know crap..... time will tell how 
big your mistake was and then it will be too late.
    sincerely, ken hood



MTC-00001054

From: Steven Hummel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement_Too Many Loopholes
    Let me keep it simple. Microsoft was able to subvert Netscape's 
free access to the software market through a single loophole in the 
consent decree. We now find ourselves in the disturbing situation 
where the current settlement contains many loopholes. If we really 
believe Microsoft will not use these loopholes to maintain its 
current monopolies and to continue its monopoly advance into the 
Internet, we're all in for a big surprise. Let's not allow history 
to repeat itself. Now is the time to get it right. Closing the 
loopholes will be a good initial step towards arriving at a 
settlement that will pave the way for an open software market.
    Thanks,
    Steve Hummel
    Arlington MA USA



MTC-00001055

From: Fenton Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (not)
    Government lawyers "carefully weighed" those 
proposals but ultimately chose other sanctions against Microsoft 
that they believed would result in the "most effective and 
certain relief in the most timely manner."
    This is sad. It is practically admitting that our government 
cannot discipline a company if they have enough money and lawyers. I 
believe it is also short-sighted. Without real and effective remedy, 
the same case will be back again in a few years.
    In a 68-page court filing Thursday, the Justice Department 
formally defended its choices in the landmark settlement it 
negotiated between Microsoft and nine states. The government assured 
the judge the settlement, if approved by the court, would 
"eliminate Microsoft's illegal practices, prevent recurrence 
of the same or similar

[[Page 23852]]

 practices and restore the competitive threat" the company 
faces from rivals.
    This is what they thought the last time they compromised with 
Microsoft. And here we are again. Imagine what the monopoly will 
look like the next time.
    Those of us who try to work in the computer realm are struggling 
constantly against the Microsoft monopoly. Those outside of it 
simply do not understand that the very nature of computer 
interconnectedness creates strong pressure for everyone to conform 
to the same standards. The only question is whether those standards 
will be universal ones, created by all parties, or those imposed by 
the biggest bully.
    In the short run the public may think that the latter is an 
acceptable choice, but in the long run it is a disaster for 
everyone.
    Fenton Jones



MTC-00001056

From: Charles Troje
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 11:47am
Subject: Prosecution of MS is wrong
To Whom It Concerns,
    Stop the rape of microsoft.
    The government's job is to protect property rights, not violate 
them. Either you acknowledge that the owner of property has the 
right to dispose of it as he chooses (i.e., run his own business as 
he sees fit), without positively violating the rights of others 
(which Microsoft has never done), or you are a statist, socialist 
thug who thinks he has the right to control the lives of others, and 
force them at the point of a gun to do as you see fit.
    Anti-trust law is immoral. End this injustice now, and leave 
those who create wealth, commerce, and industry free to create and 
innovate to the best of their ability without having to fear being 
punished for it.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Troje
    Tampa, FL



MTC-00001057

From: Giacomo Zardetto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 11:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Congratulations are in order to those involved, representing the 
government, for having settled the litigation against Microsoft. 
Creators of innovative products such as Microsoft need to be 
encouraged, in order to be motivated to "create". Of 
course the incentive to create and innovate provide 
"satisfaction" and "riches". It's easy to 
get confused and say: It's OK to innovate and get rich, just don't 
get too rich or to innovative, otherwise, we will attack you. If we 
don't create and innovate in the U.S.A., another country will do it 
for us. Do you honestly think that if Microsoft would have been 
created in Japan, China or Germany these governments would have 
interfered with their success?
    Fact, the Clinton Administration spent more energy, time and 
money in chasing and prosecuting Microsoft that they did on chasing 
the terrorists that bombed our embassies, USS Cole, etc. Now does 
this make sense?
    Thank you for putting a stop to the nonsense on suing Microsoft 
for it's success and desire to be the best.
    Giacomo Zardetto
    [email protected]
    Orcas Island, WA



MTC-00001058

From: Ken
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 11:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Now that Microsoft has a monopoly, it overcharges for it's 
product. Keep this in mind when accessing the damages on Microsoft
    Ken Moreau
    1701 S Warner Ave
    Bay City, MI 48706-5264
    [email protected]



MTC-00001060

From: Jos(00E9) Luis L(00F3)pez de Victoria
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 12:20pm
Subject: On the allowance of monopoly.
    If you allow it, however unfamiliar the ground of forbiddance, 
the Nation shall lose. Have you forgotten the breakup of AT&T? 
Was that wise? Of course it was. Pray tell, what keeps you now?



MTC-00001061

From: Rick Spung
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 12:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case
    Dear Sirs;
    I am hopeful that the Judicial Department will tighten up the 
proposed settlement with Microsoft, because it appears to be full of 
loopholes and exemptions. Microsoft was found to be a monopoly, and 
it was found to have harmed the U.S. consumers, by stifling 
competition, restricting the development of new products and 
handcuffing computer users who wanted choice in applications.
    Microsoft's conduct during the antitrust trial also shows that 
it plays fast and loose with the truth. Microsoft executives lied 
repeatedly under oath while giving testimony. Microsoft falsified 
evidence, misrepresented statements by industry experts, threatened 
and intimidated competitors and orchestrated a bogus public 
relations campaign by submitting fake letters from "concerned 
citizens" to state attorneys general.
    I believe that Microsoft has no credibility, and has no 
intention of working in the best interests of the consumer. 
Microsoft's pattern of conduct over the past two decades has been to 
obtain, by any means necessary, a dominant market share in a 
particular software product, and then to maintain, by any means 
necessary, that market share. If it means preventing innovation by 
competitors, so be it. If it means preventing consumers from having 
access to software by competitors, so be it.
    I believe that, at a minimum, Microsoft should be required to 
release ALL programming code of ALL software programs determined by 
the Justice Department to be in monopoly status, within six months 
of their release.
    According to U.S. drug industry patent law, companies who 
develop new drugs are allowed a fixed time period of legal monopoly 
status, in order to recoup their costs of research and development. 
After the expiration of the time period, the products are no longer 
protected and thus become public domain information, eligible for 
generic production. Similarly, Microsoft's products that currently 
are categorized as having a monopoly status should be subject to the 
same arrangement, with a much shorter time period, due to the faster 
track of software development. I believe that a protected time 
period of roughly 180 days is sufficient.
    My understanding of the proposed settlement is that the Judicial 
Department will be depending on Microsoft to define many of the 
terms, as situations arise. This is total and utter folly, as 
Microsoft's past conduct has amply demonstrated. I guarantee you, if 
these issues are not resolved in a more airtight and consumer-
friendly fashion, future litigation will result.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely;
    Richard Spung



MTC-00001062

From: Siegfried Behrens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 11:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    While I agree that a settlement with Microsoft is in the best 
interest of the nation, some of the terms in the CIS are a bit too 
harsh for Microsoft. The government should remember that Microsoft 
is one of America's best business assets. We need companies like 
Microsoft to remain strong in our war against terrorism. Microsoft's 
security technology is helping American business and government in 
its greatest time of need.
    This is the language that I thought was too harsh:
    "Creating the opportunity for software developers and 
other computer industry participants 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."
    I don't believe Microsoft should have to disclose this much 
information about how they work with Windows. This is their 
competitive advantage and they should be able to keep it, not have 
it stripped away by the government.
    Thank you for considering my opinion.
    Siegfried Behrens
    4848 Chevy Chase Dr.
    Chevy Chase, MD 20815



MTC-00001063

From: RICHARD LANGLOIS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 12:50pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I'm glad this is over its ashame that people critcised microsoft 
because after all bill gates is a great inventor and it was jealousy 
that caused all of this he did nothing wrong god bless bill gates 
and america.

[[Page 23853]]

RICHARD LANGLOIS



MTC-00001064

From: Craig H Fry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 12:39pm
Subject: A potential resolution to the MS case
    The feelings of myself and my colleagues is that the best way to 
resolve this is to force MS to break their OS and any future OS 
apart from the applications they install with the system. We should 
be able to purchase MS Windows without all the bells and whistles. 
It shouldn't simply be IE, or email, or messenger. It should extend 
even farther to Notepad, Paint, and Games. If I want the 
applications, I should be able to purchase the MS Plus! pack with 
all these applications. Or be able to purchase Symantec's, Network 
Associates, or any other company that would create an application 
package for the Windows system. By making MS reveal all the hooks 
and calls Windows has, it will level the playing field for industry 
and give new life to many many companies.
    Thank you
    Craig Fry
    CEO
    CyberEagle Technologies Inc.



MTC-00001065

From: Bruce Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 12:24pm
Subject: Settlement
    Gentlemen;
    The recently announced settlement with Microsoft, Inc. in the 
case "US Vs Microsoft, Inc." under U.S. antitrust law 
is, for the most part, unacceptable.
    It is my opinion that this settlement amounts to near approval 
of Microsoft's anti-competitive actions of the past. This settlement 
not only lets Microsoft off with a token "slap on the 
wrist" for its past misdeeds, including ignoring previous 
agreements with DoJ, it also leaves Microsoft wholly intact to 
pursue other avenues in its attempt to not just compete but 
completely destroy companies it views as potential 
"threats" to its hegemony.
    A structural solution is the only one that would preclude future 
violations of anti-trust law by Microsoft. But this avenue appears 
to be anathema to the DoJ under President Bush. Only a structural 
solution can prevent Microsoft from uses its OS leverage with 
computer manufacturers in stifling competition. Yes, this might 
reduce the value of Microsoft stock. So what? Microsoft's stock 
value is as high as it is BECAUSE of its anti-competitive practices. 
A reduction in its stock price due to a structural solution to this 
case would be a just penalty to the company and its owners.
    Please reconsider the current remedy as proposed. It has no 
teeth and given Microsoft's historical lack of compliance with DoJ 
settlements a structural separation of the OS, application and 
languages divisions is the only course of action that will preclude 
this type of recidivism on Microsoft's part.
    Thank you for your consideration of my amicus curae.
    Bruce Lewis
    [email protected]



MTC-00001066

From: NPT
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 12:50pm
Subject: comments
    Urge settlement of the case as quickly as possible. I am 
concerned about issues raised by Sun and others, and think minor 
modifications to the settlement could make this workable for all. As 
a user of Windows, I would like to be sure that I can run other 
software programs without XP stickiness. Overall, I believe the 
Microsoft case needs to be settled for the high technology industry 
as a whole to move forward. Nancy Parkes Turner, Olympia, WA



MTC-00001067

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,antitrust@ftc. 
gov@inetgw,Ralph@essen...
Date: 11/18/01 2:00pm
Subject: "How much do we have to pay you to screw 
Netscape?"
CC: [email protected]@inetgw,letters 
@sjmercury.com@i...
Re: Justice Rejects Microsoft Penalty Critics... have said the 
settlement announced Nov. 2 is inadequate and charged that the 
company will be able to bypass many of the sanctions because of 
vague language.
    The Microsoft Monopoly Menace will exploit any vague language in 
the settlement. You're dealing with the most hardcore there is. The 
federal government can't enforce those sanctions effectively because 
it has no software expertise. The chameleon nature of software 
allows the Menace to morph it's products into something that can 
slip through your fingers. It is against the will of We The People 
to pay us lip service with the settlement with lesser intentions to 
enforce it. This case is hugely symbolic. Harvard Business School 
Press is ready to publish a dozen pulp mills worth of books on the 
market hammerlocking strategies of "america's favorite 
entrepreneur" after you bless it with this failure to enforce 
the Sherman Acts, ensuring deception and hegemony as not only the 
strategy du jour but urgently required to maintain the confidence of 
financiers.
    The game gets shoved right into the mafia realm. If you care 
about truth and justice you have to pretend you don't notice the 
Menace. You have to lie to your students, let them learn the truth 
out in the "real world". You have to lie to yourself. 
And lie to everyone else while you refuse to face the fire and deal 
with the problem that the Menace defines with crystal clarity. Gates 
practically shouted out: "How much do we have to pay you to 
screw Netscape? This is your lucky day" and you failed to rise 
to the challenge. This has been the federal government's opportunity 
to continue it's critical role in steering industry. Uncle Sam made 
aviation happen, and the radio, telephone, transistor, UNIX, and the 
internet. The government steers while imbecile corporations push 
like oxen. You could have created an open standard PC OS instead of 
passing IBM's monopoly torch to the Menace. It's a delusion to think 
the free market can steer itself_it just crashed through so-
called "Windows".
    You don't allow corporations to block sections of the public 
library for competitive purposes do you? Technical progress must 
flow unfettered just like your interests and ideas flow unfettered. 
Microsoft, Intel, Texas Instruments are all guilty of keeping great 
technologies out of the mainstream for stockholder benefit. This is 
flat insane. The armies of developers who had to adjust to those 
wildly inferior technologies represents a great cancer.
    Monopolists commandeer the common sense of competition on the 
merits, and replace it with the hammerlocking of markets. There is 
an upper limit on the power allowed corporations before their abuse 
outweighs any benefits. Remember, corporations are the people's 
beasts of burden. When they start running off the row, they lose 
their reason for being, and must be retired. There are great 
efficiency benefits from placing the commodity OS into the public 
domain where it belongs. It takes government regulation out of the 
loop, raising it's standing with the people. You get respect when 
you adhere to principles. Conservatives might be accurately accused 
of create dysfunction within government in order to turn the people 
against it. This is extremely dangerous as the corporation fills in 
the void and wreaks havoc. The corporation is a vice like war or 
even tobacco and alcohol. It's success is measured directly by it's 
exploitation of customers and employees. The only sustainable way to 
implement the concept is to limit it's power so as to reap the 
benefit of economy of scale without letting it rape and pillage 
society. The great big back hole that is MS Windows will continue 
sucking in all software functionality until it's devoured the entire 
telecommunications and computing infrastructure. Yeah, like the 
profit motive steered the development of the telephone and 
transistor. Like hell. Progress requires sorting out what is 
appropriate and what's not. The Microsoft Monopoly Menace dictating 
the rules of the game is not appropriate. The federal government 
must define the rules of the game for the new century. Get with it.
    We The People
    Take Back Our Flag
    From The Untied Corporations Of America



MTC-00001068

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 1:43pm
Subject: Re: The Microsoft settlement and justice dept.
    It seems clear to me that the current Justice department has an 
agenda for settling the monopoly abuse case that their Justice 
department predecessors have already proved in court rather than 
continue the case to it's more logical conclusion in front of an 
impartial judge. What is that agenda??? When 9 appellate court 
justices agree that Microsoft was guilty of antitrust violations 
then what should happen is for the case to follow a course to 
conclusion that does not give the appearance of impropriety. If the 
court was right that the remedy set forth by Judge Jackson should be 
set aside because of the "appearance of impropriety" by 
Judge Jackson, then let's apply that same standard

[[Page 23854]]

now and have this matter concluded in the "light of public 
view" where the common person will better be able to judge the 
motives and agenda of both the Justice department and Microsoft. 
Many people have already concluded that both the Justice departments 
actions and words are suspect. Anything less that a complete rebuff 
of this "settlement" and a return to court in the light 
of public view is a sad travesty of justice.
    Steven E Stanley
    [email protected]



MTC-00001069

From: Dave
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 1:31pm
Subject: gov. involvement
    These are troubled times and in my option this suite has been 
wrong headed from the start.We have choices, good ones and the 
prices are and have been coming down. That is not what happens when 
the big guy is crushing the little one. Stop wasting owe money (read 
tax) and draining Microsoft's. We knead innovative guys right now 
and you guys have a few more importuned things to be doing. Trust 
the people and the market, we will reward or punish with much more 
clarity and justice than Washington can or will.
    David O'Brien
    807 South View Terr.
    Pleasant Hill MO. 64080
    [email protected]



MTC-00001070

From: Roger van Unen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 1:16pm
Subject: Ruling...
    Hi judge,
    I have been following the Microsoft case from abroad and I must 
agree with the critics: the way justice works in the USA is not very 
clear. Guilty; split up; no split up and in fact a bonus being a 
con. It is true that Microsoft is what it is today due to his 
illegal behavior. The way your president became a president was 
distasteful for any democracy and especially for the biggest in the 
world.
    There should be a fair sanction not only to prevent it from 
happening again but also for the fact that it happened and due to it 
people lost their jobs and perhaps even worse. No one can turn this 
back again, but these people finally got the law on there side 
during the first verdict and I think the law should not let them 
down.
    Regards and a fair ruling,
    Roger
    tel: +31 318 646752
    fax: +31 318 646768
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00001071

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 2:23pm
Subject: Justice for sale?
    When justice is put on sale, the robber barons (i.e. Microsoft 
in the case of IT industry) can always afford to make the highest 
bid. How can it be good for the US economy, or the global economy to 
that matter, when better technology or genuine innovation 
(WordPerfect, Netscape etc. ad nauseam, not forgetting the 
uncountable startups that never happened or never will happen 
because going against the convicted but unhindered monopolist 
equates to a corporate infanticide) always loses to Microsoft's 
forcefully bundled (tied-in) versions??
    The so-called settlement does nothing to correct Microsoft's 
past wrongdoings nor will it prevent any in the future. Judge 
Penfield Jackson was outraged for a very good reason, even though he 
only looked at Microsoft's business practises from a very narrow 
perspective, and his getting censured for speaking his mind was 
nothing short of tragi-comic.
    The Department of Justice should concentrate on delivering 
justice instead of being some sort of a business-political executive 
arm of the currently elected government. The September 11 terrorist 
attacks on America, despite being despicable acts, should have no 
bearing to the MS _anti-trust_ case, all arguments 
should be based on law and all legal entities should be treated 
equally before it. I though such things would only happen in Banana 
Republics.
    Laissez-faire is a great idea, but it will never work 
efficiently under monopolies.
    Patrick



MTC-00001072

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 2:04pm
Subject: microsoft settlement ineffective
    thanks for your solicitation of comments.
    i have been in the business since 1985 and have witnessed the 
rise of microsoft. i would say that their market position was 
largely gained in a perfectly legal manner through outmarketing the 
competition.
    BUT, i have also seen them throw their weight around, at least 
since windows 3.1 was released. at that time, windows 3.0 worked on 
top of microsoft's own ms-dos, as well as dr-dos, which i believe 
novell owned at that time. windows 3.1 still worked with ms-dos, but 
not with dr-dos, thus forcing novell to assume the expense of a 
quick revision and sending disks to all customers. given their 
subsequent behavior, i can't believe this was a simple coincidence. 
this pattern has repeated itself many times since in my observation 
and as determined by the district court & the circuit court of 
appeals.
    while it would be nice for microsoft to recognize their 
transgressions, that is not necessary. but solid measures to prevent 
such conduct in the future are a necessity, and they will need to be 
tough as microsoft still doesn't understand what they did wrong, and 
it thus likely to continue as before. this settlement is weaker than 
the previous one about not bundling internet explorer, which they 
have now successfully broken without consequence to microsoft.
    i can only hope that the remaining states and european union 
will do their job where the justice department has abdicated their 
responsibility. their claims about innovation are met with laughter 
even amongst their proponents. the longer they can continue to abuse 
their monopoly position, the longer that the american and world 
public will continue to have buggy and insecure software foisted 
upon them. remember, the recent spate of viruses, worms and web 
attacks (eg nimda, code red etc.) all relied on the gaping security 
holes in microsoft products.
    please understand that microsoft stifles competition and weakens 
the US software industry, not the reverse. strict sanctions or a 
breakup strengthen the US software industry overall!
    thanks
    richard akerboom
    independent consultant



MTC-00001073

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 2:26pm
Subject: Merry Christmas, Microsoft
    I'm disgusted to see millions of our tax dollars, and even more 
valuable years worth of opportunity cost, squandered by the DOJ on 
this case. Why did you bother filing suit in the first place? Oh, 
that's right. You didn't, your predecessor did. If this isn't an 
entirely political decision, you couldn't prove it by me.
    Dave Welsch
    [email protected]



MTC-00001074

From: Scott Kuban
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 3:00pm
Subject: Why are you letting Microsoft off so easy?
    US DOJ
    Why are you letting microsoft off so easy. Everyone and I mean 
EVERYONE knows that Microsoft is a Monopoly that pushes everyone 
else around. Consumers, Businesses, Competitors, and ultimately the 
Economy are going to suffer because you don't have the courage or 
integrity to do what is right. I have lost a little more faith in my 
government because of this weak attempt to "eliminate 
Microsoft's illegal practices, prevent recurrence of the same or 
similar practices and restore the competitive threat".
    It was made apparent in a recent interview that reporters have a 
better understanding of this case than the Attorney General (http://
www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2001/1102newsconference.htm), but surely 
someone in the Justice Department is competent enough to see that 
this charade, cloaked in legal jargon, is not in the best interests 
of the American People.
    My only question is whom do I need to vote out of office to get 
the Justice Department revamped from the special interest puppet it 
is today? A US Citizen jaded by the politics involved in our 
"Justice" Dept.
    Scott Kuban
    Chattanooga business owner



MTC-00001075

From: Robert Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 2:29pm
Subject: SMB/CIFS
    I am sure that you have heard this before during the review 
period, but here goes. It is critical that Microsoft document many 
of the protocols used in cross platform computing. A very important 
one is CIFS. This enables

[[Page 23855]]

non Microsoft platforms to share files seamlessly with Windows 
machines.
    With the advent of Windows XP, this is a protocol that is being 
changed to shut off non Microsoft solutions, steering system 
implementers towards Microsoft solutions even if the Microsoft 
solution is not the desired solution of first choice. Please take 
this into account in your decision making.
    Thank You
    Robert Lee



MTC-00001076

From: David Howe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 2:27pm
Subject: I agree with the settlement proposal
    This email is to express my approval of the proposed settlement. 
It's entirely fair in my opinion. I've never been unhappy with my 
choices as a consumer and have always been pleased with Microsoft's 
products.
    Windows XP is a great product and it would have been a tragedy 
to the consumer and the economy if there had been changes or delays. 
The remaining AG's are only looking out for themselves or the 
competitors of Microsoft. They don't represent the consumer in my 
opinion.
    Thanks for your efforts in bringing this issue to a close. David 
HoweGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://
explorer.msn.com



MTC-00001077

From: stu tyson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 3:43pm
Subject: microsoft
    its time to settle this and go on. I remember days before MSFT. 
when there was only a DOS operating system and nothing was 
compatible, All of the other Companies that are screaming about a 
monopoly had just as much right as MSFT to develop and sell products 
but they didn't even try.



MTC-00001078

From: Edward Romer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 3:27pm
Subject: Tunney Act: Public Comment US v Microsoft
    Dear Ms. Hesse
    I am responding to your request for public comment under the 
Tunney Act in US v Microsoft.
    I strongly urge you to settle the case against Microsoft with as 
few restrictions on Microsoft as possible. Microsoft and companies 
like them epitomize the innovation which makes the United States 
great. At all times, and particularly during the difficult one we 
now face we should be embracing the companies which have contributed 
so much to our country and economy and we should not hold them back 
by pursuing outdated regulatory concerns brought on by a group of 
less successful and disgruntled competitors. I am a private citizen 
with no affiliation with Microsoft or any of their competitors.
    Thank you,
    Edward Romer
    132 Scribner Hill Rd.
    Wilton CT 06897
    203 762 1206



MTC-00001079

From: Gwem Maisenhelder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 3:26pm
Subject: comments on antitrust settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Having used the microsoft operating system since I have owned a 
computer, I have nothing but contempt for the company and its 
products. By its own admission, Microsoft has built bugs into its 
bloated operating system to cause problems with the Netscape 
browser, which I prefer to use. I am constantly rebooting and having 
messages that I have to close programs to run the program I am 
trying to run even when NO other programs are supposed to be 
operating. That is part of the bloat_microsoft running things 
in the background that I do not want or need.
    What the consumer should be offered is an operating 
system_clean and simple_with the consumer able to add 
whatever he or she wants and needs. To be blunt, I do not believe 
Microsoft will follow any of the court's directives. In fact, it has 
already demonstrated its supreme arrogance and contempt of authority 
throughout these proceedings. Microsoft has an exceedingly large 
amount of cash and is a powerful company_both of which should 
have a negative bearing on the court's view. . .I really hate to see 
Bill Gates and company get away with their egregious attempt to 
destroy other companies and monopolize their sector to such an 
extent that the consumer cannot make a choice.
    Gwen Maisenhelder
    2830 Dunkirk Drive
    St. Louis, Mo 63119



MTC-00001080

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 3:45pm
Subject: Commentary on Microsoft's monopoly position
    It is incredible to someone outside the US, that Microsoft have 
been able to routinely break the law to maximise profit. Existing 
sentencing is obviously not having the desired preventative effect.
    There is even some spin put on the existence of a Microsoft 
monopoly. Of course they have a monopoly. Just try to buy an x86 
laptop without paying for Windows. Can't be done.
    Thank you for taking the step of making a feedback e-mail 
address available.
    Regards,
    Vik Olliver
    New Zealand



MTC-00001081

From: Mark D. Gregory
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 4:36pm
Subject: It's about time
    It's about time this case was settled. I've been a Microsoft 
customer for 20+ years. I've sold Microsoft products. I've sold 
products that competed with Microsoft products. I've worked at 
Microsoft. I've worked at competitors of Microsoft. I've programmed 
in Microsoft's environment as well as other OSs. I'm also a 
Microsoft stockholder. At no time in all that time have I felt that 
Microsoft dealt with me in anything less than a professional and 
appropriate business manner. Have they been aggressive? Absolutely.
    Have they violated any law in those dealings? I don't think so. 
Admittedly, a monopolist has different standards to live up to, but 
unless the monopoly is obtained illegally or until a company KNOWS 
that it falls under the monopoly statutes, that behavior is not 
illegal.
    But, as I understand the laws on monopoly, the intent of those 
laws is to protect the consumer. Not competitors, not other 
companies, consumers. So, has Microsoft restrained competitors who 
would have brought better products to market? I don't think so. As 
an MS employee I used the Netscape broswer for quite some 
time_it was a better product. Once IE became the better 
product, I started using it instead.
    Could I have continued to use Netscape? Of course. I chose not 
to. How do I feel about having the browser imbedded? I'm extremely 
pleased. It's much easier to use that way, and it costs me less. I'm 
also not displeased to have Instant Messaging, music components or 
any of the other new things in Windows XP. If I wanted to use a 
competing product, I've got internet access built into my OS so 
finding the competing product is very easy and fast. Did Microsoft 
charge me too much? Not at all_if anything, they've driven the 
cost of quality software down, and then have NOT driven it back up. 
I'm convinced that this suit was prompted by Microsoft's rivals, who 
have proven themselves unable to compete on the merits if their 
products and therefore chose to use the courts to try to tilt the 
field in their direction_and manipulated the government into 
doing it for them.
    So, you got the court to declare them a monopoly. They probably 
are, though I still am not totally convinced that the market 
definition for their marketplace was correctly set. In any case, 
I've read the proposed settlement and I believe it's fair to all 
parties involved. Microsoft is to be kept from business practices 
that are considered predatory from a monopolist. They're required to 
reveal their APIs (I've always thought they did_I've never 
needed one I couldn't find, or for that matter one that was there 
but hidden). They have the right to upgrade their 
products_after all, how do you improve a product if you can't 
add features? Even a monopolist needs to have that right.
    I think that the court should enter into this agreement with no 
reservations and I also think that the court should impose the same 
settlement on the states that have refused to settle.
    Respectfully
    Mark D. Gregory
    2324 SE 5th Way
    Meridian, ID 83642



MTC-00001082

From: Richard Vance
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 4:34pm
Subject: Is MS so strong that you can't even slap their wrists?
    Dear DOJ,
    I knew that Ashcroft was an old style Confederate States of 
America guy. And I

[[Page 23856]]

knew he is a gun nut. And I knew he is a religious zealot. But I 
didn't knoe that he would go soft on law enforcement because the 
accused party gives large dollars to political campaigns.
    I do not see a single thing in the proposed settlement that will 
prevent MS from pursuing its old habits. Not even a slap on the 
wrists. Its more like you waved your finger at their nose and begged 
them not to do that so openly.
    A seriously dismayed computer engineer.
    Richard Vance
    421 Curtis Drive
    Huntsville, AL 35803
    ps. So the courts threw out the "breakup". Big deal. 
You can still force them to separate their OS and applications into 
two profit centers. The OS must have free public access to certified 
APIs to the OS.
    They must also produce a "no bells and whistles" OS 
as an alternate. I don't want IE, Outlook, and all the other crap 
they dump on me when I just want a Windows based OS. And it must be 
"STABLE" so folks will use it. You are all weak kneed 
wimps.



MTC-00001083

From: Charles S Oakes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 3:47pm
Subject: embarassing settlement
    count my vote AGAINST the DOJ's "slap on the wrist" 
settlement with Microsoft. Your e-mail address was provided at: 
http://www.luskinreport.com/ along with Mr. Luskin's own pro-
settlement message which I suspect is self-serving in spite of his 
claims to the contrary. Mr. Luskin's argues that "...we should 
applaud America's successful companies and allow them to innovate 
and to grow, rather than hold them back by pursuing regulatory 
actions born of the concerns of a century ago and dressed up in New 
Economy lingo, and motivated by the self-interested pleadings of 
competitors." This begs the question of why Standard Oil 
broken up? It also assumes that Microsoft is an innovator which it 
certainly is not, e.g. spreadsheet programs and web browsers both 
evolved from a freeware packages, MS was a late comer to the GUI and 
mouse, PowerPoint was formerly a successful product of an 
independent company, and MS Word started as a primarily Mac product 
because it initially couldnt compete with programs such as 
WordPerfect and WordStar on PCs (wonders what proprietary knowledge 
of the underlying OS can do) and then MS threatened Apple with 
discontinuing MS Office if Apple didnt do things the MS way.
    Microsoft's products are frequently not superior and a 
competitive and open market would pass judgement; however, the tying 
of an OS with accessory software products combined with Microsoft's 
strong-arm marketing tactics on hardware distributors has allowed 
them to circumvent consumer based marketing controls. DOJ's proposed 
settlement will send MS merrily on their way to continue doing what 
they've been doing for nearly a decade_buying smaller 
competitors or forcing them out of the market or into niche 
positions which will probably ultimately fail. Only a group of 
humans with incredibly impaired judgement or no experience with a 
wide variety of computing OSs and software packages would argue that 
the 'choices' provided by Microsoft are generally superior. When you 
have no choice but theirs is a bad time to wake up and argue that 
you're suddenly paying more than you were previously to accomplish a 
task which was formerly cheaper and more efficient.
    Dr. Charles S. Oakes
    1 Washington Drive
    Whitehouse Station, NJ 08889



MTC-00001084

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear sirs,
    I started programming a computer in 1959. At that time, there 
were no such things as an operating system. The computer barely had 
a compiler, and my first language was called SOAP (believe it or 
not). That was the first generation of computers.
    The second generation was also introduced without an operating 
system. It did however had a piece of one called IOCS or the input/
output control system. Very late in the life of the second 
generation computers, the IBM 1410 released a version of an 
operating system. It had a few more features that were also 
announced with the operating system announced with the IBM 360 
computer.
    The first true operating system was released with the IBM 360, 
and it took several years to make it truly work.
    The reason I 'm giving you this little piece of history, is to 
illustrate the fact that any operating system evolves over time by 
adding features to support newer technology. Whole new features were 
added when computer systems first went on-line to support 
communications.
    Therefore I believe that Microsoft did not do anything wrong by 
adding features to Windows to support the internet, if fact, I 
believe that it would have been wrong NOT to support the internet. 
We must allow Microsoft to expand Windows to allow it"s users 
to take advantage of new technology. I believe that the verdict that 
Microsoft did anything wrong was a mistake and should be reversed.
    Sincenly.
    Ronald M Jeanmougin
    [email protected]



MTC-00001085

From: bettendorf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 5:06pm
Subject: Comments re proposed settlement
    I am both a corporate user and policy-maker regarding Microsoft 
products, and a personal consumer. I find deeply disturbing and 
negligent the proposed settlement the United States Department of 
Justice has made with regard to Microsoft's illegal, monopolistic 
behavior.
    The proposed settlement does nothing regarding remedy for past 
illegal activities on Microsoft's part. Put baldly, in civil court, 
Microsoft, with in excess of US$30 BILLION in cash and liquid 
assets, can well afford to excessively encumber any attempts at 
recovery by plaintiffs, perhaps to the point of rendering such 
attempts moot by virtue of plaintiffs' more limited financial 
resources.
    Microsoft has been convicted before of similar, anti-competitive 
behavior. The remedies reached in the past have done little or 
nothing to modify either its behavior or its basic attitude towards 
the legal rights of its competitors. Past behavior demonstrates a 
complete unwillingness on the part of Microsoft to endorse either 
the spirit, or the terms, of any remedy.
    Microsoft's past behavior has eliminated numerous directly 
competitive and potentially competitive products. Their claimed 
justification for their actions, product innovation and market 
enhancement, is false. They have deliberately and illegally 
destroyed competing operating systems, applications, and utilities 
by manipulation of necessary technical interfaces to their products 
and by extorting distribution channels into denying access to the 
marketplace to such competing products.
    Microsoft's industry domination has become a direct threat to 
the economic and technical health of our economy. It's current .NET 
initiative attempts, in the face of its conviction, to tie its 
operating system and integrated development environment to ALL 
electronic commerce. All such transactions would be directly 
monitored and their access controlled by centrally-located Microsoft 
servers. Even transactions having nothing to do with a Microsoft 
product or service would be forced to be completed on Microsoft-run 
computers in communication with Microsoft servers. A more insidious 
degree of control is difficult to imagine.
    At the same time, Microsoft has demonstrated itself even just on 
technical merits to be completely unworthy of such control. Its 
Passport personal data storage mechanism, which it is increasingly 
FORCING its users to use in order to gain basic services with regard 
to its own products, has, despite Microsoft's assurances of 
security, already been compromised completely. Computer experts have 
demonstrated the ability to retrieve ALL of a Passport user's 
personal data: Name, address, full credit card information, and any 
other stored data, using a simple exploit that works over the 
Internet.
    Of course, the Court must concern itself with circumstances 
germane to the case at hand and not necessarily with potential 
future problems. Nonetheless, Microsoft's current behavior belies 
its sincerity in entering into any settlement. It is not interested 
in acting within the limits of the law, and as such, the proposed 
settlement does not adequately resolve its current conviction.



MTC-00001087

From: Shirley Adams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 4:42pm
Subject: 3 Year Wait
    I am very concerned, as I am pretty much home bound by Emphasema 
24/7. Not allowing Microsoft to carryon their innovations would 
seriously affect me.
    Can not afford to travel (since 2.3%) will not even keep up with 
Rent, Eating In by myself & Medicare + Supplemental etc. Am 
already in RED before anything else.

[[Page 23857]]

    Please see your way to close this action soon so you can & 
concentrate on more pressing things such as the welfare of your 
Seniors. Thank you in advance for your at HOME problems.
    Shirley J. Adams
    7800 Mockingbird Ln.
    Lot 180
    N. Richland Hills, Tx. 76180-5508



MTC-00001088

From: gaines
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 5:36pm
Subject: STUNNED
    I cannot believe that this is a true sense of justice. What part 
of monopoly is confusing? MS is a monopoly. Monopolies are bad.



MTC-00001089

From: Steve Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 5:16pm
Subject: Settlement in Microsoft Antitrust Case
    Quick opinion: Sucks.
    There's an old story about a guy who bought "the world's 
smartest mule". When he got it home, the mule simply wouldn't 
do anything. He complained to the guy who sold him the mule, who 
came out to see what the problem was. "You said this mule 
could plow a field practically by himself". "He 
can." "But he won't. He won't do anything".
    The seller picked up an ax handle, walked over to the mule and 
hit it square between the eyes, as hard as he could, and said 
"plow the north 40". The mule then docilely walked off 
to do the plowing. "He'll do anything you tell him. But first 
you've got to get his attention."
    This settlement simply isn't going to get Microsoft's attention. 
They have engaged in long standing anticompetitive practices, 
according to the Findings of Fact and the Findings of Law. Indeed, 
the Microsoft corporate culture holds that Microsoft's way of doing 
anything is automatically The Right Way, and that no other software 
companies have any right to exist. This is going to be very 
difficult to change, if it's possible at all.
    It does not address the fundamental problem that got Microsoft 
into this mess in the first place_abuse of its monopoly 
position in both operating system software and office desktop 
applications. Indeed, it is difficult to see *any* effective change 
in Microsoft's more obnoxious business practices:
    * Tying Windows licensing fees to *total* computer production 
instead of computers with Microsoft Windows installed. Whether you 
use it or not, you still pay for it.
    * "Hijacking" open standards by extending them in 
Microsoft-proprietary directions and ensuring that their software 
will work only with the extended versions.
    * Keeping competitors' software from interoperating by using 
rapidly shifting, proprietary data formats. The settlement briefly 
touches on
    APIs and communications protocols; however, it does so only in 
the context of licensed software. This allows Microsoft to 
effectively outlaw open- source alternatives to its own programs. 
(Open source projects can't pay licensing fees, and reverse 
engineering has been effectively outlawed by the DMCA.)
    * Spreading "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" about 
competing products.
    * And the one that started the fuss, adding new application- 
level functions into the OS, specifically to run the competition out 
of business.
    Even the sections that prohibit "retaliation" do so 
only in terms of pricing. Nothing prevents Microsoft from, say, 
refusing to provide technical support for any computer set up for 
"dual boot". The settlement's definition of 
"pricing" is also slippery; it specifically allows 
kickbacks (sect. 3, last paragraph of subsection A.) Another problem 
is that the settlement specifies no specific penalties for 
noncompliance. What will happen if Microsoft completely ignores the 
settlement? Nothing that I can see, except that it will run two more 
years (??!) Yeah, "such other relief as the Court may deem 
appropriate." Given that there are absolutely no penalties for 
the original violations (except for this powder-puff settlement and 
a bit of bad publicity), I can confidently state that there won't be 
any penalties.
    What would be a penalty?
    * Corporate officers thrown in jail for contempt.
    * Fines significant for a company with more than $10 billion in 
cash reserves.
    * Public release of "proprietary" interface code and 
data formats.
    * Blocking releases, or withdrawal of products.
    During the 2000 election, I heard the confidant prediction from 
a number of quarters, both pro and anti Microsoft, that, if Bush 
were elected, the Microsoft case would be thrown out. Looks like 
they were right. As an aside, one hopeful sign is that the 
settlement is being published in WordPerfect format. Perhaps the 
Department of Justice is rethinking the U. S. Government's status as 
a Microsoft-only shop?
    Steve Smith [email protected]
    Agincourt Computing http://www.aginc.net



MTC-00001090

From: Manfred Gebhard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 5:12pm
Subject: Requested Microsoft Settlement Comments
    US Department of Justice: Government interference is wrong most 
of the time. This was not an antitrust case and it was only heard 
because of the incompetent democratic administration. That fat pig 
of a judge assigned to the case was totally biased and should have 
been removed very early. You have done great damage to Microsoft, 
the shareholders and to the economy. Shame on you!!
    M.Gebhard
    Bradenton, FL
    CC:George Lister



MTC-00001091

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 5:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I for one am totally disappointed in the settlement reached by 
the Justice Department with Microsoft. After finding and reaffirming 
that Microsoft HAD indeed engaged in monopolistic practices, now, 
years later the Justice Department suddenly decides that Microsoft 
can be trusted to "play fair" by agreement alone? Like 
it agreed back in the mid 90's when it agreed to play fair?
    You want to make the playing field level for all 3rd party 
software developers and the applications developers at Microsoft? 
Want to help so more of them don't go out of business or lose market 
share to Microsoft? Then split Micorosoft into 2 companies. An 
operating system company and an application system company. THEN 
appoint your panel or committee to make sure neither company passes 
or requests "technical services" from the other sister 
company that wouldn't be publicly made to other 3rd party 
developers. The market would realize a sudden influx of new or 
improved competiting software products with Microsofts applications 
if everyone has equal access to the hidden code or 
"hooks" that Microsofts Application Developers now have. 
. . Microsoft wouldn't have to release a single line of their 
"secret code" it they didn't want to_so long as 
the information they released to their respective sister company was 
the same information released to the 3rd party companies.
    Dick Preston
    Senior Network Analyst
    Columbus Industries, Inc.



MTC-00001092

From: Ren(00E9) Hamel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 6:06pm
Subject: Mon avis public.
    Non, je suis contre l'entente. Elle ne sert pas l'intirat 
public.



MTC-00001093

From: zippy the pinhead ami
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 6:04pm
Subject: MS/DoJ settlement
    Yet Another Demonstration to The World that the U.S. of A. has 
The Best Goverment money can buy.



MTC-00001094

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 6:01pm
Subject: (no subject)
    you did the right thing let mircosoft do what they like most 
make good things work.
    thanks
    David Walker.



MTC-00001095

From: Christopher Bergeron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 6:59pm
Subject: The USA can't sell out to Microsoft...!
    To whom it concerns:
    I'm a network administrator in Atlanta, GA. Microsoft has been 
bastardizing my industry in ways too numerous to mention. From 
changing industry standards (and forcing thier adoption with thier 
monopoly of

[[Page 23858]]

the Desktop PC) to forcing companies out of business by integrating 
features into their [undeniably dominant] operating system.
    I am starkly opposed to the current proposed Microsoft remedies. 
I have been plagued with bug-ridden software from Microsoft and I 
can not escape thier grasp of my industry. If I had an option, I 
would certainly excise it. Please weigh the potential damage that 
will result if such a meaningless remedy is handed to Microsoft and 
Bill Gates. I can't help but think back to the Blackrock empire of 
old; and how my government avoided corruption and did the right 
thing and paved the way for REAL American progress.
    Please don't allow Microsoft or Bill Gates to line the pockets 
of my representatives, and please see to it that an appropriate 
remedy gets forced upon Microsoft. They have been found GUILTY by US 
LAW, and I demand an appropriate punishment. Please don't sell our 
country out.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher M. Bergeron



MTC-00001096

From: Travelperks1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 6:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my belief that the government has held back the Technology 
Industry and the economy with its pursuit of this case. The suit 
should be closed and the Justice Department should get out of the 
way of innovation. The economy, the country, and the consumer will 
all be better off.
    Charles R. Chambers, Sr.



MTC-00001097

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 6:48pm
Subject: Comment on MS settlement...
    I'm a twenty-year veteran of the software industry. I've watched 
time and again as MS picked off it's competitors by hook or *crook*, 
screwing the consumer every step of the way. Nothing about this 
settlement will redress the past, or change the future. What a waste 
of time and taxpayer dollars.
    Disgusted in Austin



MTC-00001098

From: Tom Marsh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 6:17pm
Subject: Public Comment regarding Microsoft Settlement
    To the Department of Justice:
    As an IS professional who is intimately familiar with 
Microsoft's anti-competitive practices I must strenuously object to 
the settlement recently agreed to by Microsoft and the DoJ. My first 
objection is that the settlement does not address the most 
flagrantly illegal and unethical actions that Microsoft has taken: 
their secret agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEM). 
Under these secret agreements, companies are forbidden to sell 
computers configured to run both Microsoft Windows and a competing 
operating system (such as Red Hat Linux or IBM OS/2). The penalty 
for breaking the agreement, or even acknowledging the existence of 
such an agreement, is the revocation of the OEM's right to sell 
Microsoft Windows. Since Windows represents about 92% of OEM 
business, this would put most PC manufacturers out of business. As 
such, none are willing to challenge the agreements. The only 
benefactor of these agreements is Microsoft; All other parties 
suffer.
    The consumer suffers because if they don't have the knowledge to 
install a third party operating system they are de facto prohibited 
from using said third-party software since they can't buy a PC with 
the software pre-installed, and don't have the ability to install it 
themselves. The consumer also suffers from decreased innovation in 
the field of computers and software. The OEM suffers because it 
cannot offer a unique product in a competitive marketplace, under 
threat of shutdown by Microsoft. My second objection is to the 
actual remedies indicated in the settlement. Microsoft is a company 
with $25 billion in cash on its balance sheets. It could lose money 
for the next decade and still pay all employees. A seven year 
consent decree for Microsoft is like a being acquitted to a regular 
person. After all, we've been down the road of "be good, 
please" with this defendant before.
    When their business practices ran afoul of the last settlement, 
Microsoft simply chose to break the agreement it had previously 
made, rather than fail to conquer the browser market. It is my 
opinion that this settlement is not in the public interest. The 
public's interest is best served by having a rich menu of software 
delights to choose from, not a 3x5 card with one word written on it, 
"Windows".



MTC-00001099

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 7:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: DOJ
From: K. H. Adams, Jr., Oak Grove, Scottsville, Va. 24590, (804) 
286-4939
    Background: I am a retired employee of Verizon.
    Comment: The proposed settlement with Microsoft is fully 
adequate. It is time for the DOJ to stop squandering its resources 
chasing Bill Gates, while terrorists roam free. I urge you to settle 
with Microsoft immediately, and get on with the war to make America 
secure.
    Sincerely,
    K. H. Adams, Jr.



MTC-00001100

From: Dan Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft trial...
    Microsoft's file structures should be open for programmers to 
link to. Anything less would be ridiculous.
    Dan Anderson



MTC-00001101

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 7:13pm
Subject: PLEASE, It's time we all grow up!
    Let's do something really important.
    Go to war against those who wish us dead. Defeat and eliminate 
those who wish to cut our throats. Yours, your spouses and those of 
your children. I mean, can you imagine...what if we attacked, 
instead, one of the greatest and most beneficial companies in 
history? Imagine doing that to Microsoft, a US corporation.
    The days of the Democratic DOJ is now, thank God, behind us.
    Vance W. Mylroie and Family
    Medina, WA.



MTC-00001102

From: Blomberg David
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/18/01 7:02pm
Subject: Settlement offensive to US
    Before you discard this message I am a US citizen currently 
living in Japan but upon hearing of the proposed settlement and its 
lack of penalties on MS I am offended. There are no provisions in 
this that would remotley curb MS antitrust tendencies or even start 
to allow competing OS's a viable ground to fight on. I urge the 
court to deny this settlement. MS has been declared an Antitrust and 
there needs to be real penalties pronunced not this make it all go 
away quietly type of settlement.
    Thank You for your time
    David Blomberg
    System Engineer
    Nihon Libertec Co. LTD
    1-34-14 Hatagaya
    Shibuya-ku
    Tokyo
    Ph: (03)3481-8321
    Fax:(03)3481-8371



MTC-00001103

From: umbdae@nodots-daemon@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 8:08pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I must object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. The net effect of 
this settlement is a complete cave-in on the part of the government, 
AFTER winning a finding of fact in the trial court. I can see 
nothing in this agreement that benefits consumers or the public at 
large, but I can see that this settlement will allow Microsoft to 
continue its anti-competitive activities, but now under the approval 
of the U.S. government. The best outcome to this situation would be 
to split Microsoft into multiple companies, but I recognize that 
this is not a viable option in the current economic environment. 
Given these realities, the next best option would be to require 
Microsoft to publish:
    * the entire Windows applications programming interface (API) in 
a manner that would allow others to reverse engineer clones of the 
Windows operating system.
    * the complete file format of each Microsoft application, such 
as Word or Excel in a manner that would allow others to reverse 
engineer work alike applications.
    * the complete specification of any Microsoft extensions to 
industry standards such as the Kerberos security interface. 
Microsoft must not be allowed to "embrace and extend" 
software into proprietary implementations.

[[Page 23859]]

    For at least the next 10 years, Microsoft must be required to 
publicize the APIs and file formats for all its applications at 
least 60 days prior to their release to prevent Microsoft from 
creating "moving target" applications.
    There is ample historic precedent for imposing these rather mild 
restrictions on Microsoft. Just as one example, AT&T was 
required to open its networks to other carriers and to create a 
standard plug interface to allow other manufacturers to sell 
telephones.
    While I appreciate the governments large amount of work, the 
current settlement is not sufficient to protect the consumer or the 
national interest. Please go back and create a settlement that works 
for all of us.
    Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or 
comments.
    Kurt Arthur
    [email protected]
    314.503.4959



MTC-00001104

From: Christopher Paris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 7:50pm
Subject: I Do Not Understand DOJ Reluctance to Seek a Forward-
Looking Remedy
    To Whom It May Concern:
    An enormous amount of taxpayer money has been spent litigating 
US v. Microsoft. Surely when the Government embarked on this course, 
it was foreseeable that it would be necessary to exert effort on 
proving up required remedies. Why have you sacrificied the interests 
of the American consumer by relenting when the battle is almost won, 
and then ANNOUNCING your intention to do so before negotiations were 
complete?
    I am a constant user of the Microsoft operating system, and I 
submit to you this point: yes our nation is afraid of retaliation, 
and yes the economy is suffering, but think of the TENS OF THOUSANDS 
OF LOST MAN-HOURS AND I.T. DOLLARS THAT GO DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE OF 
THE MS OS, which is purposefully designed to envelop more and more 
of digital economy, at the expense of all competition. (This is not 
a controversial statement; it was proven by your Department after 
great effort.)
    How do these "global" costs factor into your 
decision that litigating damages is simply too burdensome? We will 
never know because we didn't get to hear the testimony. I implore 
you to back out of this insufficient settlement.
    These opinions are my own, and do not reflect the positions of 
my employers, clients, or professional associations.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher Paris
    1812 Windermere Drive
    Plano, Texas 75093
    214-673-5874
    TX Bar No. 24032930



MTC-00001105

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 8:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We support the government's decision not to break up Microsoft 
into separate pieces. We strongly recommend that the individual 
settlements with competitors be handled as expeditiously as 
possible. The longer this action takes, the more harm it does to all 
who are involved in any way in computer services. Let's get these 
matters settled and move on as soon as possible for the good of all.
    Antonio and Josephine Marone



MTC-00001106

From: Steve Larrison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 8:53pm
Subject: Dear Ms. Hesse,
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    Concerning the solicitation for public comments on the Microsoft 
antitrust suit settlement, as an independent citizen with no 
financial interest in Microsoft, I urge you to settle the case as 
soon as possible in the least restrictive way possible. Adam Smith 
came up with a system that works. Microsoft has clearly the spirit 
of capitalism to heart to create products that enjoy public support. 
Even as someone who prefers Unix/Linux Operating Systems to Windows, 
I recognize that Microsoft has been successful in giving the public 
what it wants. Any attempts to punish them for their success will 
continue to retard the tech. Industry at a point in time where the 
economy does not need any more artificial restraints. Please remove 
the uncertainty hanging over the technology sector, and allow the 
benefits of innovation and productivity improvement to continue to 
grow unabated.
    Steve Larrison



MTC-00001107

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 8:33pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    If I understand the Microsoft antitrust case correctly, 
Microsoft was found guilty of breaking the law by using its monopoly 
position as the operating system on the computer to undercut 
Netscape and drive them basically out of business (i.e. they were 
bought by AOL). They achieved this by bundling their software/
browser with the operating system and offering it for free where 
Netscape charged for theirs (i.e. to make themselves a viable 
company). Since Netscape didn't have an operating system of their 
own, this gave them NO chance to compete with Microsoft. Since the 
courts unanimously found Microsoft guilty of breaking the law on 
this issue_shouldn't Netscape shareholders have the right to 
sue Microsoft for financial losses as well as punitive damages? Who 
knows how Netscape would have done if Microsoft had been forced to 
only challenge them on their own turf. When a company (Microsoft) 
can toss in other goodies where they have total control to squash 
competition, then that does violate the Sherman antitrust act in my 
opinion and that company should be made to pay the appropriate 
penalty. In my opinion Microsoft has not. They got a slap on the 
wrist from a pro-business Justice Department and are already 
engaging in the same behaviour again with Microsoft XP. This was a 
case in which the courts found UNANIMOUSLY_TWICE_that 
Microsoft was guilty. It is my opinion that this administration is 
so concerned about the economy and their inability to do something 
about correcting the downturn (especially after Sept. 11), that they 
would just as soon this case go away. In this economic uncertainty 
the federal government caved in on a case the courts had them 
winning. IT SETS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS PRECEDENT FOR THE FUTURE! It 
sends the signal that if your pockets are deep enough you can buy 
your way out of anything_INCLUDING BREAKING THE LAW and 
INCLUDING DRIVING COMPETITORS OUT OF BUSINESS. Is this the message 
this government wants to send? Because in my opinion this is the 
message this justice department did send in their settlement with 
Microsoft_AND THEY SHOULD BE ASHAMED!



MTC-00001108

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 8:32pm
Subject: Allow non-MS Operating Systems to be preinstalled.
    DOJ,
    One of the key abuses of Miscrosoft's (MS) monopoly power is the 
way they leverage their operating system (OS) monopoly to keep 
hardware sellers from providing systems that have both a MS OS and 
other non-MS OSs preinstalled. Forcing MS to drop this practice 
would have many benefits.
    1) Easier for users to experiment with new OSs.
    2) More incentive for hardware developers to provide drivers for 
more OS's making the OS's easier to use and more relibale.
    These two effects would allow other OSs to build a foot hold 
amongst the non-expert computing public. This is the market that 
must be penetrated to compete with MS in the OS area. The only 
reason computer sellers such as Dell, Gateway, and others are not 
currently selling machines with multiple OSs is because of MS 
contract restrictions. The BeOS (now defunct) and Linux OSs would 
both benefit greatly from this policy.
    Matt Kussow



MTC-00001109

From: MDiGrosso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 8:19pm
Subject: My view
    Leave Microsoft alone and go catch the frigging nuts of the 
world.....If you would have pursued bin laden as hard as you did 
gates the WTC would still be here....In case you forgot this is 
America if you make something that NO one else makes ,better than 
anybody else could ,and sell it for a fair price.....you become very 
very rich and a target of all the sad sacks who are mad because they 
did not think of it first...IT would be a real sob if Microsoft 
moved to asia and all that cheap labor and exported to USA...
    You guys are lucky Bill Gates is a true American...Most companys 
would have moved...every country in world would give them every 
break in world to get them there.

[[Page 23860]]



MTC-00001110

From: William P Todsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 9:30pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I support the Proposed Antitrust Settlement.



MTC-00001111

From: Bob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 9:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    I have been employed in the software development field for over 
25 years, spending the past 10 years writing software for the 
various Windows operating systems, using mainly Microsoft tools. I 
am currently Beta testing the Microsoft VS.NET development tools.
    I recently spec'ed a new PC. I had the choice of either an Intel 
or AMD processor, motherboard from 5 top-tier suppliers, memory from 
3 top-tier suppliers, a NIC from 5 top-tier suppliers, hard drives 
from 3 top-tier suppliers, video card from 3 top-tier suppliers, 
audio card from 2 top-tier suppliers, monitor from over 6 top-tier 
suppliers, and an overwhelming choice of CD-RWs, DVDs, keyboards and 
mice.
    For the operating system, I had the choice of Microsoft and 
...... nobody. I have followed the Microsoft trial in both the print 
and electronic media. Microsoft has been found guilty of violating 
the anti-trust laws. I fail to see how the proposed settlement will 
prevent Microsoft from continuing to violate the law. At the same 
time, I don't see ANY punishment for its illegal behavior. Hello? 
What incentive does Microsoft have to avoid becoming a repeat 
offender when there is no punishment for the crimes of which it has 
been convicted? So far, it appears that Microsoft calculated 
correctly that any punishment it might receive would simply be a 
minor cost of doing business to continue its illegal monopoly. 
Microsoft needs to be punished to such an extent that should Mr. 
Gates consider violating the law again, he will remember that the 
last time he did that, he lost a lot more than he ever gained, and 
quickly decide against that course of action.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Ainsley



MTC-00001112

From: Scot Kreienkamp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 9:26pm
Subject: response to the DOJ deal
    Simply put, I do not think that this goes far enough in the 
remedies. The language in the agreement is vague and can be used to 
circumvent certain responsibilities the DOJ is trying to impose, 
which negates the whole agreement. And the penalties only last for 5 
years? So in 5 years Microsoft can go right back to driving other 
companies out of business? How wonderful for Microsoft, terrible for 
the rest of the world. I hope when you see the millions of other 
comments from people in the tech industry you will consider them. 
I've been in the industry for 5 years and seen much of Microsoft's 
antics, and my working life is often miserable because of the stunts 
they pull on the public using their monopoly.
    Scot Kreienkamp
    [email protected]



MTC-00001113

From: Frank Loebig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 10:19pm
Subject: MSFT ANTITRUST CASE
    I am one of the millions of Americans using microsoft software 
on my computer. I have been told by the Department of Justice that I 
should not be happy with it because Microsoft is a Monopoly and 
created it.
    They will be the White Knights riding to my rescue. Well, here 
is the way I see it.
    1. The entire case was brought to trial because the Microsoft 
competition saw that better products could be produced by Microsoft 
at less cost, or free. It would mean that companies like Sun 
Microsystems would be threatened by competition and they would lose 
their monoply for their product.
    2. For the first time, Silicon Valley, who ignored the 
politicians and political contributions, make huge contributions to 
politicians to get the suit brought by the Justice Department and 
paid off Attorney Generals, through contributions of course. 
Microsoft was a little late getting into this game and lost the 
race.
    3. The public was certainly hurt finincially by what Microsoft 
did; the stock that is. Almost every mutual fund had MSFT stock as a 
pretty good percentage of their portfolio. The Justice Department 
suit not only brought down the MSFT stock but also burst the bubble 
of the this sector of the market, dragging down the rest of the 
market with it. It cost me and millions of investors, pension funds, 
etc., billions or trillions of dollars which may never be recovered.
    So, who was hurt by a small group of companies, who couldn't 
compete in the marketplace, and decided to get the government to 
squash the competition? Millions of small investors, that's who!
    Settle this thing and let the free market in America determine 
determine who should surrive or go under. When the PUBLIC demands 
that the Justice Department take action against a Monoply, that's 
when a case should be brought. For example, 99% of Americans will 
tell you that Cable Companies are a TRUE Monoply, they are gouging 
the public, making you buy channels you don't want and somehow, the 
Justice Department can't seem to get the picture. I think that once 
again, the cable companies got to the politicians first, and in this 
case, made sure NO suit would be brought by Justice Department.
    Renata B.
    Hesse, you have no courage if you don't suggest and insist that 
something be done about the Cable Monoply.
    Thank you,
    Frank A. Loebig
    [email protected]



MTC-00001114

From: Ronnie Jensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 10:07pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The proposed settlement between Microsoft and the government has 
no teeth.
    (1) Microsoft is a monopoly..this is a proven fact held up in 
court and on appeals.
    (2) Not knowing the law, what is the boundries of a 
monopoly..Can they keep their monopoly based on the law, where the 
law protects them, or is the court's intention to promote 
competition.
    (3) The findings of the court should have no loopholes (as I 
have read in the settlement agreement)
    (4) If an OEM is responsible for installing and supporting a 
Microsoft product then they shall have the right to adjust what they 
want the customer to see. Which means it is not up to them to supply 
Microsoft icons on the screen. However if Microsoft sells their 
product to an end-user they can do want they want. The difference is 
that by having an OEM reseller install and support the product, 
Microsoft is almost entirely void of anti-class action suits, 
whereas the reseller is not.
    (5) All Microsoft products should be sold at the same price, 
whether to an OEM'er or to the general public.
    This would take away all secret deals and clout. It would raise 
the price of their software, however it would be fair for all, which 
is what a monopoly should be concerned about.
    (6) Since the federal government and a number of states have 
"won" the case and found Microsoft to be guilty, they 
should bar any Microsoft products from being installed for 5 years. 
This would give all other vendors an opportunity for market share. 
This is what Microsoft has done..as in the settlement with Caldera 
for DR-DOS.
    (7) On the X-box..Microsoft has said they are selling the 
product below cost..Is there not a law against "dumping" 
in the United States..They are using their "Monopoly 
Money" to drive more companies out of business by this 
dumping. I could go on and on and on..but please do not let this 
company be above the laws. we must be tough.
    Thanks,
    Ronnie Jensen



MTC-00001115

From: Brian Hamlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 9:59pm
Subject: NO to Settlement, Inadequate
    The current settlement is inadequate to stem the illigal, 
monopolistic practices of Microsoft. It is too little, but not too 
late to take the high road and face up to this company as is your 
duty.
    sincerely
    Brian M Hamlin
    US Citizen, consumer



MTC-00001116

From: Rudy Stefenel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 10:07pm
Subject: Microsoft hearing and a fair penility phase.
    Hello,
    I have been using Microsoft products for over twenty years so I 
am especially interested in the outcome of the case between the US 
Justice Department and Microsoft. This is especially interesting 
because Bill Gates is a prince of a person who donated literally 
over a billion dollars to education.

[[Page 23861]]

Also, I know President Bush is partial to big business, and I know 
that he hopes that this case does not have much impact on Microsoft. 
I knew from from the beginning that this case would be a great test 
to see how fair the US Justice Department will be with these kind of 
pressures.
    I had a lot of confidence in U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly when I first heard that she was taking the case. I even 
wrote to her to tell her that. I lost confidence when she announced 
part of the government's decision early in the penalty part of the 
case. She announced that the government would not break up 
Microsoft. Even if that is part of the outcome, how it could be fair 
to the Prosecution by giving the Microsoft Lawyers the advantage of 
knowing that they don't have to worry about this possibility early 
on in the case?
    It is my opinion that the US Justice Department is too afraid to 
take a fair stand with Microsoft because doing so might hurt the 
economy. Also I think that the US Justice Department is frightened 
of Microsoft because Microsoft has enormous financial resources and 
hires top of the line lawyers. If Bill Gates is not happy with the 
settlement, he will find a way to drag the case on indefinitely. He 
already got one Judge fired from this case.
    In fact, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is at risk 
if Microsoft is not happy with the outcome. I read in the news that 
she owned lots of stock in Microsoft's competitors and that she did 
not sell all this stock right away when she was handed this case. I 
read that she sold it a little at a time. She still owned a 
significant amount of this stock well into the case. If Bill Gates 
is infuriated at her judgment, then his lawyers can demand a new 
hearing because U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly owned 
stock in competitors of Microsoft who stand to gain if the Judgment 
is hard on Microsoft.
    I am disappointed in the Bush administration, and the US Justice 
Department, for not taking a position with U.S. District Judge 
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly and demanding that she diverse herself of all 
this stock immediately upon taking on this case.
    Even though Microsoft's success is important for our economy, it 
is important that the US Justice Department do not cave into 
Microsoft. The integrity of the Justice Department and the Bush 
administration is at stake.
    The settlement must address the fact that Microsoft bundles 
application software programs with Windows and this is unfair to 
competition. Users are forced to buy Microsoft's application 
software programs because they are included with Windows. Microsoft 
will either price these application into the cost of Windows or this 
becomes as a means of putting Microsoft's competition out of 
business, deliberate or not. When the competition is gone, Microsoft 
is free to raise the price of Windows.
    It seems that U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is not 
concerned about the bundling aspect of this or she would have 
stopped or delayed the the sale of Windows XP. More likely, she did 
not have the courage to stop Windows XP. This worries me terribly.
    Also, I am not sure that U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly will demand that Microsoft give enough details about writing 
software application programs so that Microsoft's competitors can 
write full effective programs to run under Windows. Microsoft is 
likely to have secret ways of linking Microsoft applications like 
Microsoft Office into Windows. Microsoft software will run better 
under Windows because Microsoft will keep secrets. Microsoft will 
probably get around this by saying that giving out this information 
would be a security risk.
    At this point, either U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly 
must grow courage to issue a fair judgment against Microsoft fast or 
she should be taken off this case. Even if she achieves the guts to 
do the right thing, it might backfire on her because Microsoft knows 
that she did not diverse herself of all the stock in Microsoft's 
competitors right away. It may be that our only hope of getting a 
fair judgment against Microsoft is by the determination and courage 
of the few states who are not happy with the proposed settlement 
with Microsoft.
    Think about this: Microsoft has offered to pay the all the legal 
expenses to date to the states holding out if they will give in. 
Making an offer like this should be against the law. It is like 
bribery. What is U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly doing 
about this? Is anyone in the US Justice Department going to do 
anything about it?
    The US Justice Department has already determined that Microsoft 
is guilty. What is going on now is the penalty phase of the case. We 
need a US Justice Department with the conviction and guts to give a 
fair penalty, even if it hurts our economy and even if it brings on 
a wrath of more legal fighting back from Microsoft.
    If U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly does not have the 
guts, then we should get someone who does. Is the only hope for 
courage a few hold out states now?
    Rudy Stefenel
    San Jose, CA
    Votes in all elections!



MTC-00001117

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 10:51pm
Subject: Antitrust Document
    This document is totally full of holes that Bill Gates could 
drive a truck through. Microsoft has never been punished for 
delivering promises that it never met, destroying other company's 
products and wasting the planets resources by delivering software 
that requires constant repair (if indeed it is repairable).
    Nothing about this judgement will change that. Microsoft employs 
very sharp and very cunning people with almost no ethics. There is 
nothing that even resembles a slap on the wrist.
    I don't have the time to spend rewriting it for you, I'm wasting 
my time trying to fix outlook express so that it will read 
newsgroups properly because Qwest sold out to Microsoft and now I 
have to use their reader instead of the Netscape one that actually 
worked properly. Read some of the books on Bill_especially 
"Hard drive"_and you'll know you want to rewrite 
this. In some ways he's worse than a terrorist_he looks legit. 
His aunt taught him to be like this. You've got to punish this 
company and stop them from giving us crappy products and smothering 
the competition.
    Chris Pollard_A computer engineer for 31 years



MTC-00001118

From: Ian Joyner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 10:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a non-U.S. citizen, I and many others find that the 
settlement between the U.S. Government and Microsoft is extremely 
weak kneed. I have followed this case since 1998. The settlement 
sends a message to the rest of the world that the U.S. is unable to 
protect fair business practices where it is seemingly against the 
interests of U.S. politics or economy. The settlement is however, 
against the interests of the public.
    The settlement only tells Microsoft to modify its future 
behaviour. That is no punishment or compensation for the acts it has 
already committed against other companies. In other words, although 
Microsoft has been found guilty of such conduct under the Sherman 
Act, it is a win for Microsoft.
    Microsoft bleats that it is defending the right to innovate. 
However, it has successfully defended the right to crush the 
innovation of others, without which many Microsoft products would 
not now exist, either by take over or by stealing the ideas and 
programming code off others. The U.S. DOJ must review this case and 
impose stiffer penalties, even the break up into two or more 
companies, if the U.S. is to be trusted in the international 
community.
    As a software professional, I would like to see balance and 
fairness restored in this industry, and am very concerned about this 
latest turn in this trial.
    Ian Joyner
    Sydney
    Australia



MTC-00001119

From: Charles Graham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 10:40pm
Subject: Comments regarding Microsoft
    Dear Justice Department,
    As a member of the software industry since graduation with a 
BSCIS and BSBA from Ohio State University in 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 and Netscape is a Microsoft 
business partner. Microsoft came

[[Page 23862]]

 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 luck 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 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 was angry at 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?
    Sincerely,
    Charles Graham
    Salem Automation Inc.
    4500 Indiana Ave, Suite 40
    Winston-Salem, NC 27106
    [email protected]
    Phone 336-661-0890x106
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00001120

From: Andrew Ling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 11:53pm
Subject: Case Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Hello. My name is Andrew Ling and as a member of the I.T 
industry, a former employee at Microsoft and as a concerned citizen, 
I wish to voice my opinion on the recent settlement reached in the 
case of DOJ v. Microsoft Corp.
    I have been using Microsoft products for well over ten years 
now. I have become so familiar with their products and technologies 
that I have achieved Microsoft's highest level of certification, the 
MCSE. Needless to say, I have a thorough understanding of many of 
Microsoft's products and in fact I myself use them everyday. As far 
a computer software goes, Microsoft can hardly be equaled amongst 
many types of software and operating systems technology let alone 
bested. In my opinion Microsoft's newest OS, WindowsXP, is the best 
operating system I have ever used, or ever even conceived of using; 
and this leads me to my point. Nobody else can touch Microsoft's 
products because nobody has been allowed to compete with them for at 
least the past 10 years. Microsoft has crushed their competition any 
way they could in order to come out on top.
    As I said in the opening of this email, I am a former employee 
at Microsoft. I was in fact a contractor, not a Microsoft employee; 
I worked for Compuware Corporation on contract with, and on location 
at Microsoft, here in Charlotte, NC as a telephone support engineer. 
Although I was a contractor I was still allowed to attend most 
meetings, and during some of these meetings Microsoft's true colors 
would shine through. Granted, I heard nothing of true substance or 
anything blatantly illegal or wrong, but one absolutely gets a feel 
for what they are all about, and what they are about is putting 
every single one of their competitors out of business. I had long 
suspected that was the mood of Microsoft from hearing 
"leaked" information off the internet or seeing hidden-
camera videos of some of Microsoft's meetings and strategy planning 
sessions. I suspected that before going to work there, but actually 
working there made it a fact.
    In defense of Microsoft I will say this:
    *They are an extremely generous employer to their employees
    *The workforce is tremendously diverse and,
    *They put a lot of pride and hard work into the products they 
make and the services they offer.
    These good things I say about Microsoft do not matter however; 
they were found guilty of breaking the law and I fully agree with 
that ruling. As I said before, I always knew Microsoft was 
"evil" ever before I worked there, but now this is 
apparent to the rest of the country. If you read anything in this 
email read this; the settlement is tremendously weak. Microsoft will 
continue to dominate with such a slap on the wrist and nothing will 
have changed. And I fully believe that this is why not all of the 
states involved in this case agreed to the current settlement. It is 
way too weak. The noose needs to tighten around Microsoft a lot 
more. When this happens we will truly begin to see the 
"true" essence of innovation and more importantly, 
competition.
    These are just my opinions.
    I wish to remain anonymous
    I wish this letter to be held in confidence
    *for the record I left Microsoft amicably at the end of my 
contract
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Ling_MCSE, A+
    * Mailto:[email protected]
    * Phone: (704) 562-8137 Primary
    * Phone: (704) 875-3732 Home



MTC-00001121

From: Mickey Aberman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/18/01 11:19pm
Subject: Settlement appears very bad
    I have been keeping up with the case and reading extensively. I 
started out doubtful about the legal merits of the government's 
case, but I followed the trial almost daily and agreed with the 
judge's findings. I have read the terms of the proposed final 
judgment. Microsoft engaged in section 1 violations of a nature that 
might have put executives of a less-powerful and self-righteous 
company in jail. The government proved illegal conduct, to the 
satisfaction of the appellate court. There have been blatant 
attempts to use the monopoly in Windows to create monopolies in 
other products. I believe Microsoft has succeeded with Word and 
Outlook_formerly two products that have been bundled in 
"Office." As a small-business owner, I can't avoid doing 
business with Microsoft without suffering a lot of aggravation and 
expense. It starts with being dependent on Windows and the far 
lesser compatibility of non-Microsoft browsers, word-processors, 
email programs, and now imaging software. This is not a result of 
innovating. Its leverage of market power. The proposed settlement 
has got to have Microsoft executives cheering. There are few 
specific requirements (and therefore interpretation and proof 
problems) and there are no teeth. At best, the government wins the 
opportunity to start over. The government's capitulation smells of 
influence and politics.
    It is probably too late to do anything to tighten up, but please 
try.
    Mickey Aberman
    Charlotte, NC
    Note: Although I am an attorney, I have no clients that are 
competitors of Microsoft; I am speaking for myself as a product 
user.



MTC-00001122

From: Daiana Baldanzi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 12:17am
Subject: Dear Ms. Hesse,
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    In response to your request for public comment on the proposed 
settlement in the case of United States v. Microsoft Corporation, I 
urge you, as an independent citizen with no direct financial 
interest in Microsoft nor any of its competitors, to settle the case 
as soon as possible and in a way that imposes the fewest possible 
restrictions on Microsoft. At any time, and especially during these 
difficult times, we should applaud America's successful companies 
and allow them to innovate and to grow, rather than hold them back 
by pursuing regulatory actions born of the concerns of a century ago 
and dressed up in New Economy lingo, and motivated by the self-
interested pleadings of competitors.
    Louis Dorsey
    San Pedro Ca



MTC-00001123

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 12:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This litigation was ill-advised from the beginning. It is very 
hard for me as a consumer to understand why the government would 
penalize a company who has made our lives easier, more efficient, 
and less

[[Page 23863]]

expensive because they have made the best mouse trap. Capitalism 
should reward ingenuity not punish it! Congratulations.



MTC-00001124

From: Zachary Niemann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 12:35am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I have been working with and teaching people how to use 
Microsoft products for several years now. In fact, I am an 
MCT_a Microsoft Certified Trainer_a distinction held by 
few individuals. During the time I have been in the computer 
industry, I have heard many points of view. But to quote George W. 
Bush, "Make No Mistake", there has never been any 
controversy over whether or not Microsoft is a monopoly. It has been 
manifestly evident to all intelligent parties. It is a common joke. 
What else can we do but joke about it? It is reality. I don't like 
the idea of "biting the hand that feeds me", but the 
best solution for this industry is nothing less than a full breakup 
of the company and the opening up of Windows source code. Don't 
worry, Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and whatever piece they still control 
will still be fine. They ARE the wealthiest men in the world. And 
there is a reason they are the wealthiest people in the world_ 
they have a stranglehold on the industry. Break them up_life 
will go on. Gates will still be rich. The difference is that 
millions of people will finally have a CHOICE. Isn't that what 
America is all about? PLEASE, live up to your name_The 
Department of Justice. Give us *justice*. Please. Break Microsoft 
up.
    We're waiting, we're hoping, we are the American people,
    Zachary Niemann, MCSE, MCT
    344 So 26 St #2
    Lincoln, NE 68510
    (402) 477-1164



MTC-00001125

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ART, 
[email protected]@inetgw,Ralph@essen...
Date: 11/19/01 12:34am
Subject: Microsoft Hegemony: "Devil In The Details"
    C C: [email protected]@inetgw, 
[email protected]@i...
    Re: World Bank faces 'great challenges' the World Bank also 
renewed its push to help developing countries obtain financing while 
stressing the rule of law and sound economic policies am the 
cornerstone to sustained economic development. "Protestors 
accuse WTO's words to be particularly hollow, and I can vouch for 
them, for experience tells me that after your market cap surpasses 
roughly $50 billion, the role of law no longer applies to you... 
congratulations."



MTC-00001126

From: David Balsamini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 12:39am
Subject: msft case public comment
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    In response to your request for public comment on the proposed 
settlement in the case of United States v. Microsoft Corporation, I 
urge you, as an independent citizen with no direct financial 
interest in Microsoft nor any of its competitors, to settle the case 
as soon as possible and in a way that imposes the fewest possible 
restrictions on Microsoft. At any time, and especially during these 
difficult times, we should applaud America's successful companies 
and allow them to innovate and to grow, rather than hold them back 
by pursuing regulatory actions born of the concerns of a century ago 
and dressed up in New Economy lingo, and motivated by the self-
interested pleadings of competitors.
    David Balsamini
    New Jersey



MTC-00001127

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 2:00am
Subject: Microsoft/DOJ settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I believe it is crucial that Microsoft be required to fully 
document:
    1. The Application Programming Interface to any current or 
future operating system. More importantly, there must be someway to 
prevent other Microsoft software, e.g. Word, Excel, etc.. from 
using_undocumented_API calls which give those 
programs an advantage.
    2. Microsoft's true stranglehold is the use of proprietary 
datafile formats which make it exceedingly difficult for other 
vendors to write program which can interact with those formats. It 
is crucial that the file formats be documented and made publicly 
available. This still requires would be competitors to implement the 
functionality, a non-trivial task, but would allow competing 
programs to interact with Microsoft file formats.
    The key to any settlement with Microsoft must include these 
items to make it possible for competing programs to evolve. All of 
the user applications will then compete on the basis of ease-of-use 
and stability and other important merits. The current situation, 
i.e. control of the file formats and API's, has in fact created an 
artificially limited resource. 
Microsoft_must_document this information for 
internal use. It is hardly a difficult or expensive task to make 
these things public knowledge.
    This sort of standardization is usually done by industry groups. 
Microsoft's monopoly position has allowed them to completely ignore 
this process and prevents such standards from being implemented. 
Wherever standards exist and are publicly available, purchasers of 
materials covered by the standards benefit.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Denheyer
    15629 NE 99th Way
    Redmond, WA 98052



MTC-00001128

From: CAROL J. TODD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 1:01am
Subject: Settlement of the Case Against Microsoft
    I hope you drop the whole thing. If Bill Gates is smart enough 
to create Microsoft and become a billionnaire over it, more power to 
him! Isn't it America where whatever you dare to believe, you can 
achieve? He pays BIG taxes to support you people who are suing him, 
and he's very generous in many humanitarian and conservation 
projects around the world. Ordinary people like Microsoft just the 
way it has always been, not split up and a big problem like 
AT&T. Please, not another disaster like that. So get over it and 
leave Microsoft alone!
    Carol Todd
    Colorado Springs, CO



MTC-00001129

From: Charles Tubbs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 1:51am
Subject: Microsoft's GUILT
    It is my understanding that the appeals court upheld eight 
felony counts against Microsoft, yet the settlement doesn't require 
them to admit guilt of any kind. As far as the general public knows, 
they have only acted with "super integrity" (in 
Ballmer's words).
    How can this settlement represent the interests of Justice?



MTC-00001130

From: Saul, Jim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:19pm
Subject: pro_settlement
    I think that the settlement is fair.
    Jim  Saul MIS Manager 
internet.com a division of INT Media Group, Inc phone 218 998 7787



MTC-00001131

From: Bill MacAllister
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:21pm
Subject: Please breakup Microsoft
    Hello,
    I just wanted to a short indication of my view of the business 
practices of Microsoft and its effect on technology. For 5 years I 
worked at a software company that produced Internet email software. 
For years now Microsoft has made life very difficult for internet 
postmasters both by:
    1. Producing software that flaunts the messageing standards, 
both Internet and OSI standards.
    2. Producting email user agents and word processing software 
that are targets for even the novice hacker to attack random hosts.
    The penetration of Microsoft email products into the market 
place has been dramatic. In large part this can be attributed to the 
delivery of Microsoft Mail as a "free" addon to 
Microsoft Office. This is very similar to the problem that the court 
considered in looking at web browser embedded in the operating 
system.
    In my opinion, any settlement that does not require Microsoft 
applications divisions to operate independantly from the operating 
system developers is a waste of your effort and my tax dollars. It 
needs to be in the best interest of the Microsoft applications group 
to provide software on any or all
    Bill
    Bill MacAllister
    Senior Programmer, Pride Industries
    10030 Foothills Blvd., Roseville CA 95747
    Phone: +1 916.788.2402 Fax: +1 916.788-2540

[[Page 23864]]



MTC-00001132

From: Stan Stewart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:21pm
Subject: Microsoft
    In my mind, the settlement is fair.
    We don't need to punish one of our great companies just because 
they have a good product that no one else can compete with.
    I have Linux on my machine also (dual system). Windows is far 
superior in every way. When Linux puts together a competitive 
product I'm sure they'll attract a good following as Windows has 
been able to do. Redhat and the others need to work harder at 
improving their product. The same goes for Netscape.
    I believe it is sufficient to monitor Microsoft and insure that 
they don't attempt predatory practices, but punishing them for 
success is not acceptable.
    Stan Stewart
    Fraser, Michigan



MTC-00001133

From: Laurent Domenech
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 3:11am
Subject: my comments on the agreement
    Hello,
    It seems pretty unfair and biased. Whether or not we are going 
through a national crisis doesn't change the fact that Microsoft 
shouldn't be allowed to go on with their monopoly. Not only, this 
didn't help innovation but now it's our privacy that they're after 
with XP.
    Thanks for listening,
    Laurent



MTC-00001134

From: John Schroeder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 2:17am
Subject: Microsoft case
    Renata Hesse
    I would like to say that it is about time the Microsoft case is 
settled. I do not believe it should ever have begun in fact. As a 
senior citizen, now retired I believe Microsoft has done far more 
good then bad for the computer public. I had never touched a 
computer until I was in my fifty's and I have seen things much 
improved with the Microsoft products ever since. I have run Gateway 
and Dell computers. I have used Windows 95, 98, ME and soon will use 
Windows XP. I have run Explorer and Netscape, both at the same time 
on one computer with out a problem. I currently run three chat 
programs, AOL, ICQ and MSN with no problems. I am not a computer 
genius and I have not worked in the industry either.
    I also have run several other competing products side by side on 
my computer. Quicken and MS Money, Microsoft media player and Real 
Jukebox. Various email programs, etc. I have been able to add or 
remove these programs without any major problems and was free to 
decide which I wanted to keep. I also was never forced to buy any 
Microsoft programs. Why have we been prolonging this outcome other 
then to benefit competitors? I guess if I had a product that could 
not compete it would be okay to have the government to step in and 
slow the other guy down. Most anti trust parts of this case have 
disappeared due to time and circumstances anyway. My thought on this 
is if you don't like the company or the products don't buy it. There 
are other systems and programs available. This is a no brainer.
    And if the government wants to worry about monopolies they can 
start with the oil companies before we have only 2-3 left and 
gas prices go sky high and never return. The options for the 
consumer are much worse in this case. If you do take on big oil give 
us another judge that has his mind already made up and sleeps in 
court. What a bozo.
    Thanks for listening
    John Schroeder
    3806 177th Place SW
    Lynnwood, WA 98037
    [email protected]



MTC-00001135

From: Alan Zasi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 2:11am
Subject: Microsoft case
    I urge you, as an independent citizen with no direct financial 
interest in Microsoft nor any of its competitors, to settle the case 
as soon as possible and in a way that imposes the fewest possible 
restrictions on Microsoft. Our economy is very weak, and 
unrestricting Microsoft will help stimulate growth.
    Alan Zasi



MTC-00001136

From: Dirk van Swaay
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/19/01 5:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    How is it possible that the DOJ agreed to this settlement? I 
thought you guys were out to punish Microsoft, compensate the harmed 
competitors, partners, and customers, and then place effective 
blocks to the sort of behaviour that got them in trouble.
    The current settlement does nothing to punish MS for what it has 
done, completely forgets about all the people who were harmed by 
their behaviour, and completely misses the mark in its attempt to 
curb Microsoft's anticompetitive behaviour.
    It seems you are turning a blind eye to MS.
    Yours upset,
    Dirk van Swaay
    Network Support
    Bristol, UK



MTC-00001137

From: Mike Spangler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 4:59am
Subject: Settlement
    I'm not impressed. We have process control software running on 
Microsoft Windows. We are operating a PSM regulated facility. 
Nothing in your settlement pries them open or leaves them 
accountable so that either Microsoft or other people can fix their 
security holes, or even dislodge their extra "features" 
when you don't want them. The option of forcing a stripped-down 
version of Windows should be re-examined, and implemented. Our 
control software does not need to be interrupted by the OS deciding 
to ask us if we want to download the newest MP3 from MS.Net.
    Mike S.
    Process/Instrument Engineer
    Moses Lake Industries
    [email protected]



MTC-00001138

From: Nico de Vries
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/19/01 4:34am
Subject: Its perfect.
    Hello,
    I think the proposed settlement is perfect. Implement it ASAP 
please.
    Take care,
    UCC Business Solutions B.V.
    Nico de Vries
    Technisch Directeur
    Buizerdlaan 2
    Postbus 1357
    3430 BJ Nieuwegein
    Telefoon030-6008600
    Fax030-6008601
    [email protected]
    http://www.ucc.nl
    Have a nice day!
    "Any e-mail messages from UCC are given in good faith but 
shall not be binding nor shall they be construed as constituting any 
obligation on the part of UCC"



MTC-00001140

From: blair davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 6:03am
Subject: Microsoft red wrist....DOJ is a disgrace to America
    This Microsoft settlement is an outrage. Slapping the wrist of 
MS after it was tried and convicted of serious antitrust violations 
is a joke and a disgrace.
    It is anti American, immoral, and against the free enterprise 
system. It will kill competition, innovation, and thus many jobs. 
Why don't we save folks the hassle of choosing a tire and just go 
with one company and one tire ...Firestone's ATX.
    blair davis
    [email protected]_email
    (713) 590-2349 x1135_voicemail/fax



MTC-00001141

From: Donn Edwards
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 5:45am
Subject: The wheels of US justice are incomprehensible
    Dear US DOJ
    I am a programmer who has been following the various Microsoft 
lawsuits with interest over the years and I must say that your 
proposed settlement with Microsoft amounts to more of a capitulation 
than a settlement. If Microsoft is guilty of a crime, then surely it 
should be punished? If it has inflated prices over the years, then a 
refund would be a good place to start.
    If it has broken the law by producing operating systems that 
harm other products, then surely Microsoft should be forced to issue 
a CD to all *existing* Windows users, starting with Windows 95, 
containing updates to those operating systems that will enforce 
compliance with the law? If MS is going to be forced to sell a 
cheaper version of Windows without all the other junk, then

[[Page 23865]]

this should apply to all versions of Windows 95 onwards, and not 
just Windows XP onwards.
    Perhaps you could do it as part of the enforcement process: the 
first time that MS gets cheeky and violates the compliance issue, 
then Windows XP and Windows 2000 should be included in the list of 
operating systems that need to be changed to comply with the law. 
Next time they get cheeky, then add Windows ME, and then Windows 98 
SE, and so on. Not only will this allow existing customers to 
benefit from the enforcement of the law, but it will increase 
Microsoft's costs, by having to go back to older versions of their 
code and change it.
    The wording of the proposed agreement sounds all well and good 
in theory, but it was obviously written by people who have never 
struggled to get Microsoft to
    a) Admit there is a problem
    b) Work on fixing it
    c) Getting a fix that makes things better, not worse
    Have you guys ever actually tried to report a problem and get it 
fixed? I doubt it! If so, then you would provide mechanisms whereby 
Microsoft's own reluctance to admit that they have done anything 
wrong would be addressed. Until you get that mindset to change, you 
are going to continue to look like fools in the eyes of the general 
public, both at home and abroad.
    Best wishes,
    Donn Edwards 
    21 Elbon Road, Blairgowrie, 2194, South Africa



MTC-00001142

From: Robert F. Tulloch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 5:44am
Subject: Anti Trust
    I cannot believe that you folks entered into this limp dick 
settlement against M$. Gates is the ultimate capitalist pig, 
trashing competition and foisting trash OS's on folks. M$ continues 
to violate the spirit of competition as we speak. As an example 
their file backup system in ME & XP backs up Interbase database 
files (an open source competitor) every time there is a change. This 
has the effect of slowing a system using IB to the point it is 
useless and appears inferior to M$ products. This was done purposely 
to make IB look bad. But you go ahead with your settlement. You have 
really acted in the interest of the citizenry.
    Or is it that Bill Gates contributed big time the the 
republicans. Shame on you and the government. You failed. I will not 
comply.



MTC-00001143

From: Chris Norwood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 5:34am
Subject: microsoft decision
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I realise that as an Australian citizen my views on the 
Microsoft (MS) case are probably of little concern. However, I find 
the US court decision somewhat perplexing. Your court has seen 
evidence of Microsoft creating, maintaining and increasing a 
monopoly in not only the United States of America, but the whole 
world. The Windows Operating System contains so much peripheral 
software that the vast majority of users will never consider using 
alternative software. Added to this is the difficulty in 
disassociating software such as Explorer, MSMessanger and 
Mediaplayer. Adding alternative software is beyond the average user 
as MS products keep on usurping installed software from competitors 
as the primary program. MS is a company that has bullied OEM's, 
bought out rivals (e.g. Corel) and stymied competition such as 
Netscape by giving its software away for free and claiming it is 
part of the Operating System and can't be disassociated (e.g. 
Exploerer). The remedies you have proposed seem inadequate to quell 
fears that MS will continue to gain dominance in computing software 
markets etc. The original decision to force Microsoft to split into 
an operating system and general software companies seemed like a 
sensible decision based on MS executive's failure to comply with 
previous restraints on their marketing behaviour, in fact for most 
people in the computing world believe even this was inadequate. Even 
during the trial, MS executives were shown to be deceptive, in 
particular Bill Gates. Your failure to place sufficient restraints 
on this company will hopefully be rectified by the European Union 
courts and other foreign legislative authorities. As it stands, the 
Justice of the United States of America appears to be inversely 
proportional to one's wealth.
    Yours Sincerely,
    Chris Norwood



MTC-00001144

From: Alan R. Houtzer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 7:54am
Subject: Justice Stepped Aside for Microsoft
    This settlement does nothing to solve the problem and nothing to 
punish the offender. It serves no purpose except for Microsoft. For 
them, it gets them out of this litigation free. With Windows XP, 
Microsoft now continues to destroy the industry, and to usurp 
additional industries, leaving only itself. Microsoft continues to 
see that it has nothing to fear from the U.S. Justice Department.
    What kind of law even allows for a ?settlement1 anyway? Can I go 
out and kill someone and ?settle1 with the courts on the kind of 
punishment I want? The courts found that Microsoft broke the law. 
Punish them and disable this repeat offender which has no regard for 
law from doing it again.



MTC-00001145

From: Normande Babin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 7:11am
Subject: ...
    It's not your problem if other companys can't compete with 
microsoft.



MTC-00001146

From: vilb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 6:41am
Subject: Unacceptable
    To Whom it may concern:
    AN UNACCEPTABLE__I have been in the computer 
business for 20 years and it is my opinion, that MS actions are with 
out a doubt completely illegal and a serious threat to the future of 
humanity. The results of this will have future global impact, that 
is much greater than the terrible events of this 
September._OUTRAGE.



MTC-00001147

From: Eelko de Vos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 6:39am
Subject: Microsoft Case
    Dear DoJ,
    During the last couple of years I have been following the case 
against Microsoft closely. Lately, I've been baffled by the outcome. 
I would like to know the motivations you've used to withdraw from 
the previous course. I also learned that your president has shown 
leniency towards Microsoft and tried to stop the lawsuit from 
continuing: he has asked the DoJ for a settlement course instead of 
a conviction course. This shocked me.
    I would like to ask you to persue a conviction course that will 
lead to a split-up of the company in at least three different 
companies, as Microsoft is most definately controlling the market in 
an unhealthy way. Their ethics are questionable, at the least, and 
their strategies and tactics are to be considered murderous for 
software development around the world.
    Sincerely,
    Eelko de Vos, the Netherlands



MTC-00001148

From: Timothy Stevens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 8:12am
Subject: Microsoft Action
    Greetings,
    I think all you have done is slap Mr. Bill Gates on the hand and 
said play nice. You are doing nothing to make sure this will not 
continue or happen again. Microsoft is a monopoly, that you have 
stated, now by law that is illegal. Every other monopoly, look at 
AT&T, was broken up and not only survived but thrived. Why will 
you not do this to Microsoft? If you do not then you are not 
enforcing the laws as you are supposed to do.
    A very upset end user,
    Timothy Stevens
    Papillion, Nebraska



MTC-00001149

From: Michael Foy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 8:02am
Subject: Very disappointed in the recent settlement with microsoft
    As an individual living in England, I don't suppose my views 
about your recent microsoft settlement should count for very much, 
but I thought I'd at least have my say, after all, 'if you 
remain silent when evil is done, then you are supporting it.'
    Microsoft is a monopoly, which uses its dominant position in the 
computer market to stifle innovation and rivals. Their use of 
passport system is an infringement of my rights to privacy, their OS 
XP is full of holes, allowing easy access by zombie programs, they 
buy up shares in rival companies to get leverage. They lie about 
their products, plagiarise other people's software and use their 
size to undercut any opposition.

[[Page 23866]]

    It's like having ONE oil company, who will only sell petrol to 
certain manufactures of cars. Please reconsider your verdict, and 
rather than split microsoft into two, just take away windows from 
them, allow them to work on applications, which will sell 
themselves, but make windows a 'FREE' operating system with open 
source, like linux.
    Thank you.
    Michael Foy



MTC-00001150

From: Adam Roberts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 7:57am
Subject: Netscape & Windows XP problem
    I have come across a problem that in Windows XP that STOPS 
Netscape from installing. I reported this as a bug when I received 
Windows XP Professional RC2 but it wasn't fixed. Do the following: 
i.e. Have a directory called win98 that contains the setup files for 
Windows 98. i.e._c:/masters/win98. Then have the netscape 
setup program in parent directory. i.e._c:/masters/cc32e47.exe 
run cc32e47.exe and when it gets to 100% it reports that it can't 
install Windows 98 and then fails. If you rename the win98 directory 
to something else then it works okay.
    Adam Roberts
    [email protected]
    +44(0)7762127353



MTC-00001151

From: Lawry, Ted
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 8:22am
Subject: MS Settlement
    With scum like you, who needs criminals?
    This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant 
affiliate and may contain confidential and privileged material for 
the sole use of the intended recipient (s). Any review, use, 
distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you 
are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the 
recipient), please contact the sender or reply to Enron Corp. at 
[email protected] and delete all 
copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are 
not intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or 
evidence a binding and enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or 
any of its affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other 
party, and may not be relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract 
by estoppel or otherwise.
    Thank you.



MTC-00001152

From: ACarran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 8:19am
Subject: An Essay on Microsoft
    Microsoft is a virus. It is the 'caulerpa taxifolia' 
of the sea of software, transforming a vibrant diversity into a 
mediocre sameness. It has no predators, and its hosts have no 
resistance. It has infected over 95% of the silicon-based life on 
the planet. The antibodies have mutated, and become totally 
ineffective. The thousands of macro viruses, Melissa, iloveyou, and 
the tens of thousands of other viruses are merely secondary 
infections.



MTC-00001153

From: robmorton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 8:15am
Subject: MS dependencies
    My name is Robert Morton. I am a Senior Computer Support 
Specialist. I was happy when the US Justice Department decided that 
Microsoft needed to be pursued as a monopoly. It is clear to anyone 
that they are a monopoly and use this power to go into other 
markets. They essentially killed Netscape, and are now focusing on 
instant messaging. If you happen to use a computer that is not 
dependant on their operating system, they will hold your company 
hostage with Office.
    MS has shown time and time again that they do not care about the 
law. Any minor action you take against them will be ignored. Once 
that happens the entire process will have to start all over again. 
How many times will the US allow MS to lie in court, submit false 
evidence, etc. before something is done? Please reconsider the 
solution. The US has spent a lot of money creating a solid case. The 
proposed solution will not even slow MS down from repeating their 
past transgressions.
    There are only two solutions that could work. One, break the 
company up. Since that probably will not fly in the current process, 
there is one other possibility. Have MS open up the file formats for 
their applications. This would allow other companies to write 
compatible versions of all their applications. The file format would 
have to remain open and changes approved before they can be 
released. This one change would allow WordPerfect or AppleWorks to 
legitimately compete with MS Office. Also if MS does not feel there 
is a market for a product, someone else could fill the gap. For 
example, MS Project is not made for other platforms any longer. If 
the file format was open, someone could write an application for 
UNIX or Mac that would be able to read, edit and save MS Project 
files. At least this would weaken the company1s strangle hold on 
other platforms.
    A concerned citizen,
    Robert Morton
    10503 Lime Tree Way
    Beltsville, MD 20705



MTC-00001154

From: Bill Albright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 8:28am
Subject: Microsoft
    Computer users are the most unloyal consumers there ever can be. 
their success is from building the best software available. Rather 
then punish success why not look at those companies that truly 
stifle the consumer choice? Yes the computer users has choices but 
none of them are any good. Stop the un American attack on Microsoft.
    Bill Albright



MTC-00001155

From: Richard Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 8:35am
Subject: settlement
    What a bunch of lawyer BULLS**T! Microsoft has a strangle hold 
on the entire computer market, and anyone who denies that is not 
living in the real world. I can not go out and buy a new computer 
today without THE operating system that Microsoft has chosen for me! 
Please include a stripped down version of Windows in the settlement! 
This would be a step in the right direction. If nothing else stop 
Microsoft from strong arming the computer manufactures into loading 
the OS they choose onto new computers, please leave the choice in 
the public's hands! It sucks that I cannot choose the OS I want! 
Thanks for listening...
    Richard Lee
    Help Desk Technician
    The Hotchkiss School
    Lakeville, ct. 06039
    Ph. 860-435-3855
    Phone (860) 435-3855
    [email protected]



MTC-00001156

From: Walter Padgett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 8:34am
Subject: Microsoft
    Good Morning,
    I've tried to follow this case as close as my schedule would 
allow. My brief summary of all of it is as follows:
    1. Bill Gates has a history of not following the law in the 
past, so what will make him change now?
    2. Technology changes too fast for this type of settlement to be 
effective five years out.
    3. Bill Gates uses other companies technology and then settles 
out of court.
    I am a supporter of the American way but Bill Gates tramples all 
over the smaller Americans. I understand that everyone has the 
chance to make something of themselve but it is more difficult when 
someone steals your code. I believe the settlement should include 
some type of provision protecting the small guy when he sues to 
reclaim his code or program. It's a formidable task to fund a legal 
defense that can combat Microsoft's team of lawyers.
    I believe the laws of the land should be changed to allow 
technology lawsuits to proceed fairly quickly through the courts. 
The reasoning for this is that technology changes everyday and by 
the time the case is settled, companies have a chance to change 
their program to avoid future lawsuits and release a new version 
during the current lawsuit. This basically makes it harder for the 
small guy who might be a victor to continue writing and selling his 
program.
    Thanks for your time,
    Walter "Wally" Padgett



MTC-00001157

From: Clarence (038) Joann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 8:29am
Subject: Drop the case
    This case would never have been brought if MS had given enough 
money to Dem party. It's time to let go, for the good of all. I am 
not a shareholder and never have been, but do own other Tec stocks.
    Clarence & Joann Huygens
    4195 390th St

[[Page 23867]]

    Hospers, Iowa 51238



MTC-00001158

From: Jim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 8:29 am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I respectfully submit these comments and observations. I am a 
technologist who has been in this industry since 1985. I currently 
work of a brand building corporation that uses both Windows and 
Macintosh systems. In a prior career I worked for Ameritech (now 
SBC) for 30 years, five of which were in the IT organization.
    It appears that Microsoft has again accomplished its objectives 
and will continue now on its campaign of total dominance of anything 
it chooses. I fail to understand why you, our Justice 
representatives, would once again offer a simple slap on the wrist 
to a company that has ignored a similar punishment in the past. 
Clearly, this approach has not and will not work. You have given 
Microsoft has so many ways to interpret this agreement that it is a 
total waste of paper. Were they not convicted of being an illegal 
monopoly? Did they not destroy competition in as many ruthless and 
illegal ways as they desired? Are you, with this agreement, 
increasing competition? Is this agreement good for our future? I 
believe, along with many others, that the answer to all these 
questions is a resounding NO.
    I strongly encourage the Justice department to reconsider its 
position and to enjoin the remaining 9 states to vigorously bring 
this case to justice. A justice that will encourage competition and 
send a clear message to Microsoft and any others who operate outside 
the law. The Justice department should stop Microsoft's aggressive 
and illegal behavior once and for all. It is harmful to our future 
IT economy to allow this evil doer to continue in his illegal 
pursuits.
    Respectfully submitted,
    James R. Felbab
    Technologist,
    Hanson, Dodge Design
    [email protected]



MTC-00001159

From: Steve Ober
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:22pm
Subject: collect and give where needed_not punishment
    Dear Staff,
    Gates is getting off by offering little to nothing. Operating 
Systems like Bill's need to allow other systems and programs like 
Linux to run together otherwise the same monopoly is there.
    I work in mental health research and people who receive mental 
health services are in great need of computers. This will not only 
help them but the whole community will be benefited by creating tax 
payers and lower the great benefit dollar that is paid out to may 
who could work if they received proper training and employment 
assistance.The ticket to work program is spreading out and many 
people with brain disorders will have the opportunity to work and 
not suffer the benefit cliff.
    With all the time and money that public funds were used in the 
legal battle why rush into an agreement before spending the time to 
get a return for the public for the illegal business practices 
Microsoft has engaged in? Please don?t overlook people with 
disabilities when opportunities like these surface.
    We need computers and software to train people to become 
taxpayers. If not now when?
    With all the money being shift to children's education, which is 
the way it should be, it is leaving people with work histories like 
children out in the cold. Don?t just punish Gates; rather use some 
of this ill-gotten gain to help people who truly need the help. 
Remember those whom you know with brain disorders and how hard they 
try to work with their limitations. I am one and work around many 
and advocate by research and trying to get a grant to address well 
documented unmet informational needs that consumers, loved ones, 
service providers and the public are telling us they need.
    Steve Oberlin
    305 Cross Street
    Akron, Ohio 44311



MTC-00001160

From: Stan McClellan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft "settlement"
    it stinks. i'm embarrassed that the DOJ thinks this arrangement 
will benefit anyone other than Microsoft. Microsoft is the worst 
kind of monopolist. they have viciously predatory practices. they 
don't foster innovation, they dismember any company whose innovation 
is potentially threatening to their corporate goals. they threaten 
"partners" with unpleasant ramifications in order to 
maintain "product integrity". they bilk consumers with 
constant "upgrades" which don't maintain backward 
compatibility ("planned obsolescence"), thereby 
enforcing "churn" in software subscriptions, license 
fees, and the like.
    Stan McClellan, Ph.D
    [email protected]



MTC-00001161

From: Daniel M. Dreifus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 8:46 am
Subject: Microsoft antitrust settlement
    I was very disappointed to see the DOJ vs. Microsoft case 
proposed for settlement without meaningful reformation. I believe it 
has become nearly impossible for new companies to truly innovate by 
introducing products that would complete with Microsoft. Wasn't the 
purpose of the original action to create an environment where 
competition could be fostered without the domination of the 
technological field by a single player? I am concerned that 
Microsoft will own and control all aspects of the Internet. I do not 
trust their benevolence to manage it for the public good. While it 
should not be the role of government to do so, as Americans we trust 
the free enterprise system of competition to offer reasonable 
alternatives to consumers.
    I just don't understand_monopoly power was demonstrated as 
a finding of fact, then no credible action was taken to counter its 
continued dominance. It is my opinion that Judge Jackson, even with 
the years of experience on the bench, and scholarly restraint, found 
it impossible to contain himself after witnessing the patently false 
and outrageous claims put forth by the defendant. I am certain the 
press was constantly pressuring him for comment.
    I do not believe he entered the trial with prejudice, but that 
his opinion was formed during presentation of the evidence. Please 
consider meaningful reform in the Microsoft case. I do not believe 
they have excelled through innovation, but through bullying 
competitors into oblivion with threat and intimidation.
    Commercial Resource Management
    Daniel M. Dreifus
    Toll free: 888 716-0672
    Fax: 805 584-8348
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00001162

From: Charles, Robert F
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/19/01 8:48 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Thank you for this opportunity to express my views and opinions 
on the Microsoft Anti-Trust matter.
    First of all, it has been, and always will be, my belief that 
the Anti-trust laws were designed to protect the Consumers_not 
the Competitors. It is my understanding that this action was taken 
by Competitors in voice of the Consumers. As a consumer of Microsoft 
products, I neither felt threatened nor victimized by Microsoft's 
methods of Marketing of its Internet Browser, Windows or other 
Software Products. Instead, I felt I was getting a Quality product 
at a reasonable cost.
    Secondly, I applaud the diligence of the DOJ for protecting 
consumers such as me. As aggressive as Microsoft is in the Market 
Place, your actions should make all consumers feel that their rights 
are kept first and foremost in the highest regard by your branch of 
Government.
    Thirdly, I do not feel Microsoft's actions warrant any punitive 
retribution any stronger than what is proposed. I do wish the 
remaining nine states drop their law suits and "cease and 
desist" further action as we know that they are Competitor 
Friendly states with ulterior motives in mind.
    Thank you, and with kindest regards I am very truly yours,
    Robert F. Charles
    Robert F. Charles
    Global Automotive Americas North
    RF Project Reliability Engineer
    tyco Electronics /AMP Incorporated
    *(336) 727-5847 *(336) 727-5195
    *[email protected]
    *Mail Stop 079-40
    PO Box 55
    3800 Reidsville Road
    Winston-Salem, NC 27102-0055



MTC-00001163

From: jelmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 9:16 am
Subject: This settlement is a joke

[[Page 23868]]

    They are still doing it. Bundling msn messenger and the windows 
media player with XP Sending out emails to novel's customers telling 
them their product has an expiry date Using sun's java pet store 
unjustly as a benchmark The list goes on and on Companies like real 
networks, aol, sun stand to lose billions, and with settlements like 
this well why stop?
    Even more important the freedom of choice of the consumer in 
taken away. Sure you can download netscape instead of internet 
explorer. But fact is most users will take what they've got, After a 
long day of work they don't want to bother with installing another 
browser if this one works just as well. Bundle it with windows and 
at least 40% will start using it right away. When that is in place 
they add some proprietary technology to it , like active X or some 
nifty eyecandy that makes your screen fade away when you leave the 
page. Deviating from the standard just enough to make it impossible 
to make it annoying for the casual user to browse with netscape. 
(make msn network inaccessible for netscape browsers is another good 
way to achieve this) Put a stop to Microsoft misusing its position 
in the market, split up the company or let them sell a bare bones 
operating system. There is NO OTHER option. Even opensourcing 
windows would be a joke, as no one can create a 100% compatible 
windows. Annoying the casual user again and thus they will not use 
it
    Hope you reconsider the agreement
    Sincerely,
    jelmer



MTC-00001164

From: Richard Copits
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 9:08 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement comments....
    Once again, the Government has proven that it doesn't care about 
the consumer. Just once it would have been nice to have seen the 
Government actually have some balls and stand up for the rights of 
the average consumer and citizen rather than be a suck-up to 
business. I guess money ranks above ethics once again with the 
sellout and buckling under to Microsoft. I would have thought that 
this administration was more ethical and principled than it's 
proving to be. I guess that Clinton set the precedent in making the 
Justice Department just a rubber-stamp bunch of butt-kissers. It's a 
shame there are no real Americans left there any more.... There are 
a bunch of us that are ashamed that you all are handling this case. 
You are so out of touch with the citizens of the country and what 
they feel and think that it's pitiful....
    Dick Copits
    Shopping Cart Solutions
    www.smart-choices.org
    Totally FREE Shopping Carts
    for Paypal and More!!



MTC-00001165

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 9:03 am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Since the consumer has not been directly affected by any 
microsoft actions, it is our opinion that this situation should be 
settled quickly without causing any further damage to microsoft and 
our economy. There are many more extremely important issues that our 
government should be dealing with in this time of crisis.
    Joan & Seymour Spears



MTC-00001166

From: George Burke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 8:50 am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please stop the littigation against micrsoft. Being a sucessful 
business in the USA requires a company to overcome its competition 
by any means. Microsoft has followed the rules and is being sued 
because of it. I do not understand why the US government feels that 
it must destroy a legitimate business simply because it is 
sucessful. Is the government trying to make businesses leave the USA 
and provide jobs for people in other contries? If that is true, it 
is becoming very sucessful.
    The abuse of the judical system by the justice department must 
be stopped and the case against Microsoft must be dropped.
    George Burke [email protected]



MTC-00001167

From: susan maloney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 9:51 am
Subject: my thoughts on DOJ vs MS
    Are you using linux or unix operating system to trying to figure 
out the penalty against microsoft...i bet you're using a microsoft 
os....are you using star office for linux as your word processor or 
microsoft word?.... probably ms word.....are you using netscape or 
internet explorer to send e-mail regarding microsoft will you 
attempt to screw them?....probably internet explorer. I just wanted 
to point out that Linux, star office and netscape are all free 
software that you can get from the internet. Microsoft Windows is 
something that you need to pay for microsoft internet explorer is in 
the windows program but again you paid for it...(and the price 
wasn't low by the way), microsoft word is something that you paid 
for too.
    I don't understand why everyone is going against microsoft when 
you had to pay for their products and everyone else gives their 
stuff away for free. Microsoft may bundle things together but 
shouldn't the fact that one had to pay for microsoft products be a 
deterent to help the other companies keep up with microsoft. Most 
people don't know how to use computers, so they would rather pay 
microsoft to put everything together for them than put it together 
themselves....they don't know how to set up an Operating system, 
they don't know how to install software like staroffice or 
netscape...or they are just to lazy to learn how to do it. Red Hat 
Linux operating system has a graphical user interface (gui) that 
looks just like windows, i don't see anyone going after red hat 
linux. The reason you're going after microsoft is because microsoft 
is bigger than, and run better than the government. microsoft 
influences the world with it's software. you make it seem like MS is 
run by the mafia or something with all these illegal practices. The 
fact is some people got mad that Bill Gates is richer and more 
powerful than they were and they are trying to knock him down a few 
pegs. I think microsoft is doing the general non-computer using 
public a favor by intergrating all of these products together. As an 
example of what i mean...today, go out and get a computer with linux 
installed....get yourself a copy of star office from the 
internet....install netscape and see how terrible it is now that 
it's made by AOL(time/warner)(which i can't believe that you allowed 
that company to get so big...when are you going to go after them). 
After you get so mad that you can't get anything to work properly, 
you'll thank God that microsoft put everything together for you so 
you didn't have to.
    PS. Anyone who recieves this can forward it to whom ever they 
please. I tried to send it to Bill Gates also, but I expect it will 
fail. If it gets to someone who has the ability to forward it to 
Bill, please do so. Thank you.
    PPS. I teach computers. If it wasn't for Microsoft, I wouldn't 
have a roof over my family's head, food on the table, or a car in 
the driveway, or a job to go to. No one has yet to sign up for a 
linux class but my microsoft classes always seem to have someone in 
the seats. Thank you Bill and thank you microsoft...Keep up the good 
work.
    PPPS. This email is not biased for microsoft because i teach 
their classes either. I make low wages for the computer and teaching 
fields. I just really enjoy what I am doing.
    CC:[email protected] 
@inetgw,[email protected].



MTC-00001168

From: Warren Hack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 9:44am
Subject: Comments on Proposed Settlement
    I work for a contractor on a NASA budgetted mission, 
specifically the Hubble Space Telescope project, as a Sr. Software 
Systems Engineer. I do not have any commercial stake in PC software, 
but rather develop software for scientific use on a variety of 
computer platforms, including PCs. I also have professional 
experience selling and servicing PCs. Therefore, as a professional 
in the software industry, the proposed settlement with Microsoft 
would firmly entrench the monopolistic policies of Microsoft as the 
norm for the industry. This settlement does nothing to address the 
true problems that Microsoft was found guilty of in court: that they 
use Windows as a platform to dominate the PC with their software in 
lieu of anyone's software. There are no sanctions in this settlement 
to keep them from buying out one promising company working on some 
software, 'bundling it' with Windows and overwhelming all the 
desktops with their version when other companies are making better 
versions. This practice formed the basis for the suit against 
Microsoft in the first place, as that was how Microsoft's Internet 
Explorer came to be so ubiquitous despite it being inferior to 
Netscape. They have also done the same with screen savers (remember 
After Dark, the once standard for screen savers), media players (how 
much longer will RealPlayer last thanks to you?),

[[Page 23869]]

backup software (remember Colorado Systems), and many other programs 
that Windows has 'bundled' with the OS. Thanks to you no other 
software companies will have much of a chance of success. As new 
applications develop outside of Microsoft, they will simply do as 
they have always done: buy whichever company they can developing 
that type of application (regardless of the software's actual 
quality), 'bundle it' with Windows and swamp every desktop 
with their version before the other companies can even establish 
their software in the marketplace.
    None of those programs, I do repeat NONE of them, affect the 
core functionality of the operating system; they only serve to pad 
Microsoft's bank accounts at the expense of others through the use 
of monopolistic practices as defined in the court of law. The 
proposed settlement went out of its way to leave these practices in-
tact, and therefore, preserve the very basis of their monopolistic 
trade. After getting such a resounding conviction, I wouldn't be 
surprised to hear your budget's have been supplemented by Microsoft 
given the settlement you proposed. That opinion reflects the 
perception this settlement gives to the public, and especially to 
those of us who work professionally with PCs and software 
development. I only hope that your department will review this 
settlement with the attorney general's that are holding out and seek 
a stronger settlement with them.
    Warren Hack
    3411 Abbie Place
    Baltimore, MD 21244
    Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are mine alone and should not 
be taken as a statement of my employer's opinions.



MTC-00001169

From: Mark Wizner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 9:32am
Subject: States
    I hope the remaining states can extract alittle justice.



MTC-00001170

From: Page, Gary R.
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/19/01 9:58am
Subject: Microsoft
    Thank you for the forum to allow the public to submit their 
opinion concerning Microsoft.
    I am a computer programmer and have use Personal Computers since 
their inception. I started with MS-DOS 1.0 and have progressed 
through every release. One more than one occasion, I purchased 
products (e.g. DR-DOS, Rbase) which were subsequently driven 
out of business by Microsoft's predatory practices. An excellent 
book on this subject is "Barbarians Led by Bill Gates" 
by Melissa Edstrom.
    The fundamental aspect of this case is the definition of an 
Operating System. Microsoft has declared that any feature which can 
be integrated into the Operating Systems IS part of the Operating 
System. This is incorrect. The Operating System is simply the 
software required to allow application programs to 
"communicate" with the physical hardware. This 
perspective is applied in the Linux/Unix worlds with the Operating 
System defined uniquely as a "kernel". 
"Windows" is an application which directly interfaces to 
the hardware. Because of the intimate relationship between Microsoft 
applications and underlying "Operating System", other 
applications vendors can not possibly compete. No competition 
equates to mediocre products. This is proven.
    Please reconsider these remedies and allow the Justice 
Department to force Microsoft to create and maintain a generic 
operating system. This is good for business and the people who use 
computers.
    Thanks,
    Gary R. Page
    Dallas, TX
    CC: Carol (E-mail),Randy (E-mail)



MTC-00001171

From: Clay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 9:58am
Subject: settlement comments
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement: Not enough was done to 
ensure a proper settlement. Microsoft will continue to devour 
companies it thinks are coming up with something too competitive. 
Microsoft only thinks of itself and should be punished for its harsh 
business practices. The company should have been broken up or made 
to pay extremely severe fines. As it stands now, only the consumer 
will be punished.
    Clay Carson
    [email protected]



MTC-00001172

From: Glenn Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 9:53am
Subject: Microsoft vs. Justice Opinion
    Dear Justice Department Representative:
    I just found this Email address on my latest edition of Wired 
News and thought it was an opportunity too good to ignore. If the 
opinions of a Microsoft consumer have any weight whatsoever (which 
is historically untrue) then let my thoughts add to the tired scales 
of justice.
    Having watched your comedic battle against Microsoft for the 
last few years, I can agree with Mr. Gates that the strain on the 
taxpayer and the waste of manpower are ridiculous. That is by 
design, of course. Knowing that there was no other way to win, 
Microsoft has won the war of attrition vs. the resources of the U.S. 
Government. Not even the entire country of Afganistan could do that.
    I use Microsoft products every day. I work with them. I play 
with them. However, I remember a day when FoxPro was the best 
database (they were devoured by Microsoft) and WordPerfect was an 
efficient and effective word processor (they were kicked out by the 
Microsoft clone, Word). Those softwares were the best because they 
were made by companies that had to create quality software in order 
to compete. There were dozens of productivity software makers out 
there. If one of them was prone to nasty macro viruses or crashed 
every hour or so, you could easily switch to another one. Now? To 
get software from other vendors requires a Mac_but, of course, 
Microsoft will take care of all of their tools as well.
    The remedies proposed by the settlement are weak. In fact, 
behavioral remedies will be as hard to enforce as this entire farce 
has been to execute. Microsoft will still continue to push its 
competitors out of the market_not by offering a better 
product_but by their established and growing strangle-hold on 
the software industry.
    The only solution would have been to split up the giant and let 
it compete with itself. Two (or more) extremely powerful software 
companies_bloated but at least with a competitor on equal 
terms_would at least have less time and resources to smother 
innovation and might even create something of their own for once.
    I'm sure you've read quite enough of these now (in fact, I doubt 
you've even gotten this far) so I will finish. Once upon a time, I 
believed my government could protect me from tyrants, thieves, and 
tragedy. It seems that isn't true... and every time I see MSnbc, MS 
windows, and MS passport I will remember that Microsoft is now my 
big brother who will tell me what to think, what to do, and to keep 
all my secrets (and I didn't even elect them). We all suffer for 
your failure.
    Sincerely,
    Glenn Anderson



MTC-00001173

From: Mitchell Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:05am
Subject: Disappointing Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    While it's true that neither party ever gets everything they 
want in a settlement, you've proven that once again, if you have 
enough money you don't have to be responsible for your actions in 
America. Why didn't you insist on changes to XP? Why only 5 years of 
monitoring? Microsoft has proven time and again that it will not 
abide by court judgments, let alone settlements. What makes you 
think this time is any different?
    You should have pushed along to trial, and Justice should have 
asked Congress to create a law providing for a "corporate 
death-penalty" where anti-trust violations are concerned. 
Capitalism represents the core of our economic strength, and you've 
allowed one of the greatest cheaters of capitalism to get off the 
hook with a slap on the hand. When a corporation engages in anti-
competitive practices, it commits the most serious crime (short of 
physical injury or murder) possible to our system. Such evildoers 
must be tried and punished at all cost.
    You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Microsoft can now 
continue to hold customers hostage, thanks to you.
    Mitchell Smith
    Irvine, CA



MTC-00001174

From: Dave Dahl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:05am
Subject: DOJ missed the bigger monopoly case against MS
    Bigger than the browser antitrust issue, please look into why 
Microsoft owns 98% of

[[Page 23870]]

the word processing market. This was far more devastating to 
consumers than the browser issue. In a textbook monopoly move, 
Microsoft systematically removed WordPerfect and other hopefuls as 
choice we might have for word processors. Around 1995-96, 
WordPerfect dominated with it's $495 product. People loved it and 
tech support was free. Then, Microsoft released Word for Windows at 
$99, a price point they knew would destroy WordPerfect. Consumers 
cheered as $99 became the new price for a word processor. 
Microsoft's could low ball Word because revenue from Microsoft's OS 
division paid the bills. Their plan worked and WordPerfect all but 
died. One might say that's competition, but here's the problem. Fast 
forward to 2001 and Microsoft no longer offers Word for $99. With 
competition eliminated, Word now sells for $339!!!!! Do we get added 
value for the extra price? No, they eliminated the competition so 
they can charge anything. Free tech support like before? Ha, get out 
your credit card. We all pay their price because they removed our 
choice. The monopoly worked. Bigger problem is, MS Word is not a 
good program, and we're all forced to use it.
    PLEASE DOJ. You must stop this activity so software authors can 
innovate in the future.
    Thank you,
    Dave Dahl



MTC-00001175

From: Nello Lucchesi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Too Lenient
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I was very disturbed to read about the extremely mild remedies 
that the Department of Justice has offered to settle the Microsoft 
anti-trust case.
    The courts have found that Microsoft has a monopoly on operating 
system software and that Microsoft has used that monopoly unfairly 
to enrich itself in other markets. Extending its monopoly powers 
into other markets has chilled the competitive environment and 
damaged consumers by depriving them of the products and price-
competition in these markets.
    Please consider other, more severe, remedies for Microsoft's 
antitrust violations including breaking up the company into a 
separate organization for the operating system. Thank you for your 
time and attention.
    _nello
    Nello Lucchesi, President
    The October Group, Ltd.
    449 Park Avenue, Glencoe, IL 60022-1527
    847.835.1765 (Voice)
    [email protected]



MTC-00001176

From: John J Tollefsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 9:58am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Reneta Hesse
    Trial Attorney
    Antitrust Division
    RE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    As a former CEO of a ?dot.com,? a long-term businessperson in 
the Seattle area, and a practicing attorney concentrating in 
business litigation, I have a different perspective than that of the 
Justice Department (at least as I see in the press). The major issue 
and the critical need in the software industry is the survival of 
independent software development. To defend their actions, Microsoft 
has raised the ?straw men:? right to innovate and right to improve 
their products for the benefit of consumers. Consider the example 
Bill Gate uses in his press conferences: General Motors is not told 
that it cannot add headlights to their automobiles are they? This is 
actually a very good example of the problem. The answer is ?No, when 
headlights were invented, General Motors had the right to include 
them in automobiles.? The problem arises because Microsoft not only 
wants to include the headlights in their automobile, it wants to be 
the exclusive manufacturer of them (?It's a matter of quality 
control, you know?). From what I can understand from the settlement, 
it misses the point. The key issue is not how much the market knows 
about Microsoft software and source code, the issue is whether 
Microsoft has the right to own all new innovations. Thus, it should 
have the right to integrate a browser, but as a monopolist, it must 
purchase from more than one outside supplier. It also cannot be 
allowed to use its market power to decide that only one supplier of 
browsers (e.g.) can exist.
    As a small time developer of software, I see Microsoft as a 
monopolist and Netscape that was equally ruthless company both of 
whom attempted to monopolize the browser market. If Microsoft had 
not stopped Netscape, it would now own (as a monopolist) the browser 
market. The right solution would have stopped both Netscape and 
Microsoft from driving alternative (some very good) browsers from 
the market.
    In short, I see the settlement as benefiting a few large 
companies who are near monopolies themselves and doing little or 
nothing to protect small developers from the immense market and 
political power of these companies.
    John Jacob Tollefsen
    Lynnwood, WA
    [email protected]



MTC-00001177

From: Bruce Rogovin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:12am
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Sir:
    I read large parts of the findings of fact that were released 
many months ago by the previous judge in the case. Therefore, it was 
with total shock and dismay that I read the proposed settlement of 
the case last week. Once again, the justice department is giving 
Microsoft a slap on the wrist for their totally corrupt and harmful 
procedures in the business place.
    I suggest that any justice department official be required to 
watch the sleazy testimony of Bill Gates before they are allowed to 
have any say in the settlement. A re-reading of the findings of fact 
would also be helpful. Microsoft is bound and determined to use any 
tactics, legal or otherwise to control every aspect of the market. 
Where is the competition we have been taught in school that was the 
backbone of this nation? There is none if Microsoft is allowed to 
keep up their illegal actions.
    How about some teeth in your proposal??
    Dr. Bruce Rogovin



MTC-00001178

From: Dave Dahl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:10am
Subject: Microsoft economies of scale = Higher Prices ????
    Forget the browser issue, Microsoft continues to steal from us 
all...
    While PC hardware prices have fallen steadily, Windows OS and 
upgrade prices have risen. The proportions are completely out of 
whack. WindowsME lists for $209 and you can buy basic PC hardware 
for not much more. Remember back when Win3.1 was $119 and 79? Why 
the higher price now? The enormous volume of PCs sold would indicate 
Microsoft could now charge less to everyone. Shouldn't the public 
benefit from economies of scale? No need to. There's no competition, 
so they charge more then call it innovation.
    So when are they going to help consumers and drop their absurdly 
high pricing, and place reasonable charges on support? Where are the 
economies that come with high volume sales? When there's 
competition? There isn't any because they eliminated it. Microsoft 
simply continues to hold the huge userbase hostage.
    Please DOJ. It is time to stop them.
    Dave Dahl
    Salt Lake City, Utah



MTC-00001179

From: Olszewski, James
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/19/01 10:07am
Subject: Microsoft Case_James F. Olszewski II
    I am writing to this email address as I was informed that the 
DOJ was seeking opinions on the case.
    I have been a Computer Technician and Network Administrator for 
several years. I have worked with Microsoft products for many years, 
as well as numerous other-vendor products. I have also kept a close 
eye on this case, as I have witnessed Microsoft's anti-competitive 
and predatorial behavior over several years time.
    My opinion of the settlement is that it is incomplete. It does 
not even come close to making Microsoft 'atone' for the 
businesses or careers it has destroyed nor for the misperceptions it 
has inflicted upon the public with it media practices. Many of its 
customers have absolutely no idea what kind of damage this company 
has done and this is by design. Also, those companies that decide to 
stand up against Microsoft's unreasonable requirements for licensing 
are not protected from retaliation.
    Microsoft has also, in my opinion, treated the Federal 
Government with disdain and has used the same 'sheer weight of 
power' tactics it uses with any company that does not fit in 
with its business model. Besides being legally questionable, this 
insults all US citizens and hints at future behavioral

[[Page 23871]]

problems when that 'weight' grows even larger. Microsoft 
is NOT above the United States and MAY NOT choose when and where to 
obey the law.
    In my opinion, fees and damages should be levied in proportion 
to the net worth of the company and the business it has stolen. It 
should be immediately accountable for its actions when dealing with 
competitors and customers. It should be expected to meet product 
quality standards, without being allowed to solely create those 
standards.
    In short, it should be treated as any other company and one that 
has been tried and convicted of aggressive and anti-competitive 
practices. In any other case, an individual or company that has 
repeatedly thumbed its nose at authority and has consistently worked 
loopholes to take advantage of the 'letter of the law' 
as opposed to the 'spirit of the law' would have been 
punished and made an example of.
    Why should Microsoft be any different?
    James F Olszewski II
    204 Monroe Street
    Traverse City, MI 49684



MTC-00001180

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:06am
Subject: MS "Settlement"
    This has got to be, without a doubt, the single worst settlement 
ever made. It's obvious to myself and everyone else who actually 
understands the "tech industry" that the Department of 
Justice has no idea whatsoever of how to handle businesses that 
abuse the system so blatantly as Microsoft has. They have put up 
with Microsoft dragging their heels for years and, just as there was 
some hope of actually getting somewhere, they completely and utterly 
fold. Granted, breakup of the company is far from the best idea, but 
there are literally dozens of other solutions which, as far as the 
public has been notified, were not even considered. At the VERY 
least the government ought to have forced TOTAL licensing of ALL 
Windows code to whoever wants it for a fixed, REASONABLE price. The 
"remedies" that the DOJ/M$ team have come up with are a 
travesty and will in no way impair Microsoft's illegal, immoral 
actions in the slightest nor will they "stimulate the 
economy". In fact, the only thing they will do is hurt the 
consumer and impair their "choices" in software and 
hardware resources for now and years to come. I can only hope that 
the court will see reason and reject the "settlement" 
outright. I'm ashamed, as an American, to have this 
"Justice" department representing me.



MTC-00001181

From: Gordon Setter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:21am
Subject: Don't let them get away with it...
    Let me begin by noting that I do not work for any of Microsoft's 
competitors, nor do I have any significant investments in those 
competitors. However, spending thirty years in the computer business 
guarantees one broad exposure to Microsoft products and practices, 
so I am well aware of that company's behavior and their on-balance 
negative contribution to the computer and technology industries.
    1. Microsoft does not innovate in technology, despite Gates's 
public pleas to let them innovate. Microsoft instead stifles 
innovation, through the most innovative application of anti-
competitive behavior in history. The Internet Explorer browser is 
just the latest example of the well-proven Microsoft strategy: spend 
just enough on development to make the product barely acceptable to 
allow the business and marketing forces to overwhelm competitive 
products, and then slash the development budget and stop innovation. 
Word, Excel, PowerPoint and numerous other products have been 
through the same process. Unfortunately the innovative competitors 
squashed by Microsoft's illegal activities in those areas are no 
longer around to defend themselves, while computer users are forced 
to use products which last had serious innovation applied more than 
five years ago. The masses accept this like sheep; they're not aware 
of how good computer products could be had Microsoft not stopped 
innovation. Of course the worst offender is the Windows operating 
system. Major releases of Windows have had only two purposes: to fix 
devastating bugs that major corporate customers were complaining 
loudest about, and to carry the water for the destruction of 
competitive applications such as the browser. No student of computer 
science would give Microsoft even partial credit for innovation in 
operating systems beyond those two functions.
    2. Microsoft destroys the innovation of others. For example, 
read the book "Startup" by Jerrold Kaplan for just one 
example of Microsoft's behavior in destroying companies whose 
technology threatens their monopoly or their plans for expansion of 
that monopoly. The well-known and often-repeated process goes 
something like this: innovative startup company creates new 
technology; Microsoft meets with company under the guise of 
strategic alliance; if Microsoft can learn enough to steal the 
technology, it does so and uses its Windows monopoly to prevent the 
startup from coming to market; if it can't steal the technology, it 
finds all the companies in the space and conducts a dutch auction, 
buying the company which will sell itself for the lowest price, 
using the threat of buying a competitor to get companies to lower 
their price; Microsoft assimilates the purchased company and uses 
its monopoly power to put all the other competitors out of business, 
then slashes the development budget for the acquired product and 
moves to the next victim.
    3. Microsoft is a terrible corporate citizen. Consider simply 
their success in getting Judge Jackson to despise their behavior 
during the trial, resulting in aberrant judicial behavior, exactly 
what Microsoft wanted. This is a company whose business arrogance 
and flagrant law-breaking must be stopped. No legal settlement will 
have any impact whatsoever on Microsoft's behavior. Please study the 
history of the suit brought by Palm Computer against Microsoft a few 
years ago. You will note that Microsoft clearly infringed Pal'1s 
trademark in calling their new handheld systems Palm computers. Palm 
sued, and Microsoft settled saying they would no longer use the term 
``Palm computer'' . The DAY AFTER the settlement, full page ads 
appeared in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and USA Today 
boasting of Microsoft's ``Palm-sized computer'', yes with the ``P'' 
capitalized. You can be assured that Microsoft is already preparing 
the fuck-you ad to follow the proposed settlement of the federal 
anti-trust suit.
    4. The proposed settlement will have NO impact on Microsoft 
which is beneficial to consumers. Microsoft will only be emboldened 
by the fact that the government spent so much time and money and 
achieved nothing. Concluding the proposed settlement with Microsoft 
will allow you to look back in five or ten years and realize that 
Microsoft has gained and abused even more monopoly power, and that 
software innovation has effectively stopped.
    PLEASE BREAK UP THIS COMPANY IN A WAY THAT DOES NOT ALLOW THEM 
TO LEVERAGE THEIR MONOPOLY TO DESTROY INNOVATION AND INNOVATIVE 
COMPANIES!!!!



MTC-00001182

From: Paul D. Motzenbecker, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:14am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case
    To whom it may concern:
    I strongly object to the proposed Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. Mr. Gates et al have shown themselves to be contemptious 
of the laws and a previous consent order that you worked out. Now 
that another one is in the offing. Judge Jackson got it right with 
his breakup order. You should be seeking nothing less. Microsoft 
want the freedom to innovate as long as they are the only ones with 
such freedom.
    Peace,
    Paul D. Motzenbecker, Jr.
    6710 Baltimore Avenue
    University Park, Maryland 20782-1109
    301-927-5593



MTC-00001183

From: Avery E. Dee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:27am
Subject: Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    As a personal computer/internet professional, I am appalled at 
the terms of this settlement. It does virtually nothing to stop 
Microsoft's ruthless practices to own the internet and the personal 
computer industry.
    The technology gaps provided in your settlement are big enough 
to drive a truck through, and be assured Microsoft will do just that 
in their quest to dominate all forms of electronic business. This 
settlement is giving away the store, and should not stand.
    Avery E. Dee
    President and Founder
    Silicon Valley Bus Co.



MTC-00001184

From: Philip Caplan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:26am

[[Page 23872]]

Subject: Microsoft and the Anti-Trust case
    As a customer of Microsoft's, I believe that the settlement as 
proposed is too lenient on Microsoft.
    They have shown previously that "a promise to be better-
behaved in the future" is a non-punishment, as they are quite 
capable of evading or avoiding such a promise.
    I think a very large fine (several billion dollars) would have 
been a more appropriate penalty.
    PHILIP CAPLAN



MTC-00001185

From: Jerry Daniel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:24am
Subject: anti-trust
    I don't feel that this settlement addresses the issue that 
brought microsoft to this point; bundling software with is Os. How 
can companies compete with this practice? I feel that the Os should 
be a completely separate entity entirely. Also this settlement seems 
to make microsoft responsable for policing itself which they have 
not made an attempt at so far. I'm sure that microsoft's executives 
are laughing that they have won and can do whatever they want from 
now on. I think that the justice department failed to do it job in 
this case.
     Jerry Daniel
     Computer Services Specialist III
     Department of Romance Languages
     University of Georgia
     706-542-0475
     706-542-3287 fax
     [email protected]
     www.rom.uga.edu



MTC-00001187

From: Frank, William M.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:33am
Subject: Microsoft and Illegal Bundling
    Microsoft to this day has License agreements with Dell, Gateway, 
Micron and others that forces one to buy a copy of Microsoft Office 
when one buys a PC.
    Go to www.dell.com, go configure any PC, and it will come with 
Micorosft Works, or more often Microsoft Office.
    This adds to the cost of a PC for any user, and discourages 
adoption of Word Perfect or Star Office or other competitors.
    It is not free, the cost is hidden.
    William Frank
    Network Specialist
    University of Texas_Houston
    (713) 500-9537



MTC-00001188

From: James Reynolds
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:33am
Subject: Breakup Microsoft.
    Breakup Microsoft. They are guilty. Give them a punishment that 
actually punishes them. Breakup Microsoft.
    Thanks:
    James Reynolds
    http://www.cc.utah.edu/ï¿½7Ejer29950
    [email protected]
    [email protected]



MTC-00001189

From: Arthur F. Hogberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:30am
Subject: Microsoft's monopolistic practices.
    I do not want Microsoft blocking my choice of software. Please 
break this company up. Or at least prevent them from monopolizing 
the market.



MTC-00001190

From: Fred Kinder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    If this is the best settlement you can come up with, why on 
earth did you even bother to initiate the antitrust action in the 
first place. From what I can see in the proposed settlement, there 
are virtually no competitive restrictions placed on Microsoft and 
certainly the proposed settlement contains no punitive action 
whatsoever.
    Come on folks, Microsoft was found guilty and does not even have 
to pay court costs?
    The settlement offer provides nothing to delay, let alone 
inhibit, the anti-competitive tactics that Microsoft has employed 
(and enjoyed) in the past. You have allowed yourselves to become so 
wrapped up in obscure technical details such as middle-ware, that 
you have completely lost sight of the objective of a settlement in a 
case where the defendant has been found guilty_that is, the 
objective of any settlement should have provided (1) some form of 
punishment for the guilty party and (2) a mechanism to assure all 
competitors and consumers that the transgressions of the guilty 
party will not be allowed to be repeated. The settlement offer 
provides nothing substantial relative to either of these objectives.
    It seems to me that this entire process has been a massive waste 
of time and taxpayer money.
    Just my opinion.
    Fred Kinder
    2814 Panorama Drive
    Carrollton, TX 75007
    (972) 245-4341



MTC-00001191

From: Andrew F. Herrmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ_
    The settlement you have proposed with Microsoft is unacceptable. 
Given that Microsoft owns 95% of the desktop operating systems 
worldwide, you can be assured they have a monopoly. Their next 
biggest rival, Apple Computer has less than a 5% market share. Even 
our own courts have determined that Microsoft is a monopoly. So, the 
question remains, did Microsoft use it's monopoly power to hinder 
competitiveness?
    Undoubtedly, the answer is yes. MS when taking on much smaller 
rival Netscape in the browser arena, decided, the easiest way to 
kill that company was to give Internet Explorer away for free. With 
their large bank account and multiple income making products, they 
readily destroyed Netscape, who's only income was from Navigator. 
Netscape as a browser only exists today because AOL bought it. How 
can one not think this was an abuse of power? Secondly. with such 
sway over the personal computer desktop, Microsoft was also able to 
make a "deal" with Apple Computer saying at it's base 
"if you don't make IE your standard browser, we will stop 
making MS Office for your platform." Is this business as usual 
in the United States? I think not. Finally, the bundling that 
Microsoft continues to aspire to, including Windows Media Player and 
the new Windows Movie Player are but another attempt by MS to set 
itself up as the provider of choice, by offering the American people 
no choice. I believe that the people of the US deserve a pro-active 
DOJ that will not allow the continuing dominance of a company that 
continues to abuse its monopolistic position.
    Our own court system has determined and affirmed that Microsoft 
is a monopoly. I urge you to require harsh measures upon Microsoft, 
including the possibility of a breakup of the company. It would be 
an injustice if the Executive Branch of the United States 
Government, over stepped its bounds and proceeded with the 
settlement as proposed. Let the court's ruling stand, and let's give 
innovation back to the people who CAN and DO innovate, not the 
company in Redmond that stifles it for its' own protection. _
    Andrew Herrmann
    Tech. Coordinator, College of Arts & Sciences. Saint Louis 
University
    [email protected]
    314.977.3635
    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human 
stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
    -Albert Einstein



MTC-00001192

From: David Sopchak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:35am
Subject: Don't let Microsoft off lightly
    Sirs,
    I implore you to not settle the case against Microsoft in the 
manner that has been publicized. Microsoft has already been found 
guilty of abusing its monopoly power- please dictate a suitable 
punishment to fit the crime, and one, given Microsoft's poor track 
record, that does not allow Microsoft to police itself. They have 
proven incapable of such behavior in the past.
    Microsoft has shown, time and time again, that it is not 
interested in following the rulings of courts. It still bullies and 
threatens real and perceived competitors. Its products are hardly 
innovative. What Microsoft does best is see when another company 
creates real innovation, and either buys the company (if that 
company is small), blatantly creates a rip off of that innovation, 
or undercuts the innovative company by offering its own product in 
that market segment that is either free or so low cost that it 
drives the competitor out of that segment. Ultimately, consumers are 
the real losers in this scenario.
    Standard Oil was broken up for some of the reasons mentioned 
above. As an American taxpayer and computer end user, I ask that you 
help computer industry innovation flourish by creating an 
environment where might does not make right.

[[Page 23873]]

    Sincerely,
    David Sopchak_
    David Sopchak, Ph.D.
    Senior Development Scientist
    Dais-Analytic Corporation
    11552 Properous Drive
    Odessa, Florida 33556
    727 375 8484 x206
    fax 413 604 9171



MTC-00001193

From: Wesley Horner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:43am
Subject: neh on the settlement
    Tell me the millions in tax dollars spent on this case won't be 
wasted by settling with another consent decree. I see the setelment 
as being even worse than what happened last time we settled with 
Microsoft. This settlement is loaded with holes and doesn't seem to 
do much to address microsofts past behavior and it certainly doesn't 
prevent them from doing things to smash the competition in the 
future. I don't want to be forced to use Passport to be on the 
internet!.
    Wes _
    [email protected]
    My old sig was about Vaxen and VMS but I can't even figure out 
the name of the company that owns them anymore.



MTC-00001194

From: Gary Rehorka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:41am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft settlement
    I am writing to express my concern over what I feel is a major 
shortcoming in the proposed settlement. Microsoft has been found to 
have engaged in illegal monopolistic activities. The proposed 
settlement seems only to deal with potential future acts by 
Microsoft and attempts to place controls on that behavior. Nothing 
in the settlement seeks to correct the harm Microsoft's illegal acts 
has caused. Microsoft escapes all punishment for having broken the 
law. It is my position that without some form of punishment the 
proposed settlement will always be fatally flawed. Microsoft has 
acted to stifle competition in the past. Microsoft's illegal 
activities have forever changed the competitive landscape in the 
area of software development, both in regards to operation systems 
and consumer software. Microsoft has used its monopoly position to 
force out smaller competitors and to disincline the development of 
competing software products. It should be forced that correct that 
wrong by fostering competition in the future. I believe that a large 
fine, commensurate with the revenue Microsoft derived from it 
illegal activities, should be levied on Microsoft.
    I propose that the fine levied on Microsoft should be used to 
correct the market changes the company's illegal activities have 
caused. The fine should be used to establish a fund that would 
provide monies to independent software developers to develop 
competing or complimentary software to that which Microsoft 
supplies. I would add the provision that the resulting code be made 
freely available to all interested parties using the method 
pioneered by the open software movement by having the software 
published using the GNU Public License. This will insure that the 
money illegally gained by Microsoft is used to reestablish a healthy 
competitive software industry.
    Only by working to undo the harm done by Microsoft's illegal 
monopolistic behavior can the proposed settlement be seen as being 
in the interest of the American public. Simply attempting to 
restrain future illegal acts by Microsoft fails to address its past 
wrongs and leave Microsoft in a stronger position directly gained 
via illegal means.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Gary Rehorka _
    Gary Rehorka email: [email protected]
    P.O. Box 601 phone: (413) 259-1295
    Shutesbury MA 01072



MTC-00001195

From: Al Agrella
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:40am
Subject: Microsoft Deal
    What a deal for Microsoft! Since when is it ok for a monopoly to 
exist under current laws without a regulatory board? This is a bad 
deal for consumers and it's clear the justice department has sold 
out. Microsoft has bought the market and the US Justice Department 
was the seller.



MTC-00001196

From: Wendy Hedgpeth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Reviewing the current Microsoft settlement information. I 
believe the terms are fair and still allow Microsoft the freedom to 
be innovative.
    http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm



MTC-00001197

From: Aaron Braunstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:48am
Subject: Proposed settlement: You've got to be kidding
    It is with shock, amazement and no small amount of 
disappointment that I've read the terms associated with the proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust actions.
    I cannot believe that after the years of research and litigation 
involved in this effort that the Department of Justice is wholly 
ignorant of what Microsoft has done and what they are likely to do 
in the future if such an anemic set of 'guidelines' and 
'restrictions' are imposed. My composing and presenting a lengthy 
argument to you via eMail is likely not to have any kind of impact 
(if it is even read) so I will not waste my time.
    In summary, please take this eMail as an emphatic vote against 
the current settlement and for a much stronger solution. After 20 
years in the industry_the last 12 of which have been in the 
SiliconValley, I can hardly imagine a greater danger to innovation 
and customer choice than Microsoft being 'forced' to operate under 
these guidelines_except perhaps an unfettered Microsoft. 
Please understand that you have the burden of an incredible 
responsibilty on your shoulders and tens of millions of people are 
depending on you. Please don't fail us.
    Aaron Braunstein
    



MTC-00001198

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:45am
Subject: Microsoft case
    Hi,
    I think the goverment should'n be that lenient with this company 
that for years is been a predator. tft



MTC-00001199

From: Rodney Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft_Anti Trust (Appendage)
    Dear DOJ,
    This eMail serves as an appendage of an original eMail sent 11/
16/01 (which is included after the following text).
    The previous message neglected to mention the browser issue. 
During the court proceedings under Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, 
William Gates (as I have read in technology news) states he didn't 
know what a browser is. I take his statement to mean that there is 
no clear definition of a browser simply because his own software 
package can be found specifying the need for a browser. Further, 
tying in of his browser to the Windows OS is not as clear an issue 
as Microsoft has pressed. My experience with Windows and the 
accompanying browser lead me to understand that:
    1) The browser technically has nothing to do with the OS.
    2) The Internet has nothing to do with the OS.
    3) Internet access and a browser are two separate things.
    To explain the above declarations in simple terms. The browser 
that was originally created as a method of viewing information 
stored and accessed from the internet was later extended to the OS 
as a means of maintaining consistency of appearance and usage 
between the OS and the internet. To simplify further, the code used 
for the browser and the code used for connecting/accessing the 
internet are two distinct components. Competing browser products as 
it relates to the internet are defrauded on the basis of underlying 
code that uses the Windows OS (now the primary use) browser to 
display internet information. Again, to simplify further, it is the 
internet access code that is the object of tying or commingling. It 
is this component that should be the focus of litigation.
    To clarify why I chose to de-emphasize the technical merits of 
the browser with the OS (Windows) is that confusion arises from 
Microsoft's argument about the importance/difficulties of the 
browser. The browser as it stands today is important to Microsoft 
only as it relates to the importance that made the GUI (Graphical 
User Interface) a successful technology. However, my PERSONAL 
opinion is that this is contrived to a large degree. I PERSONALLY 
don't like the CONVENTION (browser as it relates to the OS) which is 
all it offers, in MY OPINION.
    Original Message
    First I would like to say that this legal proceeding must be 
handled with great care.

[[Page 23874]]

It is very economically important to settle a case like this so 
everyone comes out ahead. It is obvious at this point that your 
expert opinion is that conduct provisions be established to bring 
about a beneficial SETTLEMENT.
    I am a software developer. My experience with the technology/
products in question lead me to conclude that conduct provision MAY 
be a sensible route to a reasonable out come. I must stress that 
technology is pushing forward and is requiring all software 
developers to use ever greater efforts to bring about products that 
are desirable. The comfort in the use of various technique matured 
during the 1980s that still serve as the building blocks for 
products in the year 2001. These building blocks have to advance in 
order to meet the needs of the current/next generation of software 
products. What I am specifically addressing is that Microsoft has 
advance EXPERIENCE in what ever technology it implements in its 
Windows OS. Competitors must struggle to implement new FEATURES 
provided in the Windows OS from the point of view of implementer. We 
all have to understand that Microsoft has invested money and effort 
to develop these new features, an intimate understanding of theory 
behind that technology thus exists. For those who are in competition 
with Microsoft to develop feature rich technologies timely exposure 
to privileged THEORY does not exist. Instead, while Microsoft has 
"the inside track" and is working on next years 
projects, the competition is just learning how the present features 
can and should be used.
    All of this is said to emphasize that one critical element to 
this very important legal matter is that there has to be fair access 
to new developments within the key technology, WINDOWS. If there 
were a way to maintain a list of technology being implemented and 
detailed information on the theory behind it, everyone would be in 
the advantages situation of technical literacy behind 
"A" target technology (WINDOWS). If there is no 
efficient method to implement such a strategy then I must urge on 
this basis alone that the company (MICROSOFT) be divided into an OS 
(WINDOWS) company and an Application company, two totally distinct 
companies, no ties. At this point, if a division was used, I would 
suggest no further remedy.
    If a division of the company was is not selected as a remedy for 
the Anti-trust case and a "fair sharing of technology is 
used", then I would also suggest that Microsoft be restricted 
from bundling "value added applets". Examples range from 
the simple, (Notepad, a simple text editor), to the more 
sophisticated (Instant Messaging, Video Editing, the Windows Media 
Player). These applets have no place under the title Operating 
System. They have no baring on the OS, they should all be omitted 
for (I'm no legal professional) legal simplicity. If however one 
decided not to pursue this aspect of this legality in this fashion, 
I then suggest at the least, competitors be allowed prominent 
accessibility/exposure to the OS (WINDOWS) consumer. An prominently 
exposed method to "use" or "try" a 
competitor's product should be available. This equal accessible 
method might encapsulate ALL competitor products to provide a clear 
distinction between what is "a part of Windows" and what 
is offered as an alternative. These alternatives would be included 
with the Windows OS with respect to competitor participation.
    This proposal for the Microsoft_DOJ, Anti Trust case is 
offered as a suggestion(s)
    Sincerely,
    A Concerned Citizen



MTC-00001200

From: john gabriele
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:52am
Subject: the case against MS
    Please, *please* stop microsoft from using its monopoly position 
in the market to crush free market forces. They have destroyed many 
businesses that they otherwise could not compete with and will 
continue to do so until stopped by larger forces than them- selves.
    John M. Gabriele



MTC-00001201

From: Brian T. Paquin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:49am
Subject: Another victory for Microsoft
    To whom it may concern,
    I would like to say how displeased I was when I read the 
"penalties" that were imposed on Microsoft. Companies 
like IBM and ATT learned the hard way... monopolies are NOT in 
america's best interest.
    But I guess times have changed, and laws can be bent! How 
Microsoft can have a SAY in what they will accept for penalties is 
outrageous. Found GUILTY, they must accept the ruling passed by a 
judge or jury.
    I may not be seeing things correctly, from a legal point of 
view, but this is how the average american sees it!!
    Justice has NOT been served.
    Brian T. Paquin
    Yale University
    Department of Pathology
    310 Cedar Street, BML 161
    New Haven, CT 06520
    (203) 785-6500
    [email protected]



MTC-00001202

From: David L. Van Brunt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:49am
Subject: Abuse of Monopoly has reached the consumer level
    A few years ago, I purchases a database product from Microsoft. 
On the box and in its advertising, it explicitly stated 
"designed for the Power Macintosh". I spent over $400 on 
this piece of software. It was so badly bug-ridden as to be unusable 
for my purposes, so I called the Microsoft Help Line.
    I was transferred many times until I reached a person who was 
experienced with that product. They told me that what I wanted to do 
was not operational in the software version that I owned (though the 
box clearly said it should be), that they knew it was a bug in the 
code, and that the software I bought was not really designed for 
Power Macintosh but was instead a hastily made port of their Windows 
product. Further, they said that the bug was going to be fixed in 
the Windows product (free updates for users of their OS), but that 
there would be no further updates of the Mac product (since it was 
not really "designed for Power Macintosh" as they 
claimed). They also said no, I could *not* have a refund because the 
box was opened. When I complained that I deserved a refund because 
they had both misrepresented themselves and sold me a defective 
product, the Microsoft representative *actually laughed at me*, and 
said, "Yeah, well.... Who you gonna go to? The 
competition??" This sort of arrogant customer abuse comes with 
the confidence of impunity. They had already violated earlier 
"remedies" for their earlier abuses, and did not 
hesitate to trample the consumer who didn't comply with their will 
(their OS or no OS).
    Good for consumers? Ha! the only remedy good for consumers would 
be to break up this company to allow competition among the real 
innovators in the marketplace.
    Warm regards,
    David L. Van Brunt, Ph.D.
    Assistant Professor
    University of TN Health Sciences Center 



MTC-00001203

From: Theo M
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:49am
Subject: Comment on the proposed settlement
    I am extremely disappointed at the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft, following the Appellate court decision of 7-0 on 
the most important parts of the case, and the subsequent denial of 
review of this decision by the Supreme Court, in effect signaling 
you all how ro proceed with a strong DOJ case, which would allow you 
to turn Microsoft into a company that competes based on merit, 
rather than by twisting the arms of everyone it considers a threat 
to its illegal monopoly.
    To forfeit that strong position with the proposed settlement, 
and allowing Microsoft to be arbiter of its future, and of how to 
handle itself with regard to its policies towards competitors, and 
bundling of its products, is a travesty of justice.
    How did we go from a proposed breakup in two of the company to 
this situation of giving it all it wants with a "behavior 
adjusting" settlement? Have we learned nothing from the past? 
Isn't experience with "consent decrees" that Microsoft 
has totally disregarded in the past, that we are where we are today? 
What are the guarantees that we won't have to deal with Microsoft 
with a new lawsuit in the future, and why should we, the taxpayers, 
foot the bill of monitoring this outlaw corporation? How have you 
dealt with ALL the violations of the Sherman Act it was found guilty 
of? Is this what Justice is in this country-watching Bill Gates lie 
repeatedly during his deposition, and no one at all taking issue 
with it-then allowing him to keep his pie and eat it too? The 
proposed breakup of the company is the only long term viable 
solution, which would allow for increased competition, the absence 
of monopoly abuses, and will not cost taxpayers

[[Page 23875]]

any more tax dollars. How could you put aside the chilling 
testimonies of witnesses to Miscorsoft's abusive and lawless 
monopoly maintenance practices? How dare you?
    You have created an environment where corporate predators are 
rewarded, and entrepreneurs are considered fodder for monopoly 
abusers. You have abrogated your responsibilities to protecting the 
laws of competition in this country, and of properly punishing those 
who blatantly, and repeatedly abuse them.
    Sincerely,
    Theo Maschas



MTC-00001204

From: John Covele
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:56am
Subject: getting away with anything
    Microsoft has proven it is stronger than the U.S. government, 
and can do anything it wants. As a convicted illegal monopolist, 
Microsoft receives only a slap on the wrist.
    I've been working in the computer industry since the days before 
Microsoft was a monopoly. Back then, there was lots of healthy 
competition. Slowly but surely, Microsoft used illegal tactics to 
squeeze the life out of all the other companies. Today, the computer 
industry is at the mercy of an 800 lb gorilla. There is no way for 
new companies to come out with new products.
    The root of the problem is that Microsoft has a monopoly on BOTH 
the OS and leading office applications. They can afford to 
"dump" on the market with money-losing products in 
either area, just long enough to starve out the competition. Today, 
they are choking the life out of Palm primarily because people 
mistakenly believe they need to be compatible with Word and Excel, 
therefore they choose Pocket PC devices. Today, they are targeting 
the video game market and they can afford to dump the hardware and 
lose money on every sale, because they have the huge bankroll of an 
illegal monopolist.
    Just look at the net profit of Microsoft. It is an obscenely 
high percentage of sales. No other company in the industry has such 
high profit margins. Consumers are being screwed.
    The only way to restore healthy competition is to make Microsoft 
compete fairly: the OS and Applications businesses need to be 
separated. The current settlement agreement is about as effective as 
the last one. Too little, too late...
    John Covele



MTC-00001205

From: Jim Hartneady
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:52am
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    These are my comments regarding your settlement. I offer them as 
a user in a business environment :
    * You have provided no punishment, therefore, no reason for MS 
to change its behavior. You have only introduced inconvenience which 
MS will ignore as it has in the past. The EU will be harsher on them 
than this settlement.
    * There is no compensation for the companies that were injured 
or eliminated by MS tying their product to the OS.
    * The oversight panel has no authority to stop/correct improper 
behavior.
    * Even among very strong MS supporters there is a feeling that 
DOJ let them down and that MS will continue to provide mediocre 
products to the Government, private industry and home use. Non MS 
supporters are much less kind, both to MS and to DOJ. When there is 
no competition there is no reason to get better than marginally 
adequate. As a continuing monopoly this settlement means we get no 
relief. It only would have improved if the operating system was 
split away from the other products in a separate company. The OS 
would continue to be what ever it wants but the MS applications 
would have had to compete on merit.
    Sorry you couldn't do better.
    Jim Hartneady



MTC-00001206

From: Anthony.Burokas @millscorp.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 11:05am
Subject: Much harsher Microsoft punishment required.
    I am extremely dissatisfied with the DOJ decisions on the 
Microsoft anti-trust case. Not only has clear evidence been shown 
that Microsoft has illegally manipulated the market, but even during 
the case, Microsoft has continued to push their domination plans 
forward by great leaps and bounds. I do my best to avoid their 
software as much as possible, but it is actually quite impossible. 
What that is the case-you know that there are serious anti-trust 
issues.
    Case in point: Microsoft's new "Passport" which 
forces everyone, even users of free software and unrelated services, 
to enter their personal information into this privately held 
database of Microsoft. What will it be used for? I have no control 
over it. Yet Microsoft forces us to join and gives us no other 
option.
    They are starting to take over the gateways... and the toll of 
my privacy is too expensive. Would you rather let Microsoft have 
more power than the government? Because, if it is a government of 
the people, they have already won. Unless the DOJ acts strongly and 
swiftly to break Microsoft apart into completely separate, and 
competing groups, you are acknowledging that they are the matrix, 
and we have no one who can stop them. Anthony
    ______
    Anthony Burokas
    3455 Brookview ROad
    Phladelphia PA 19154



MTC-00001207

From: Besedick, Stephen
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/19/01 11:02am
Subject: Microsoft Penalty Phase
    To Whom it May Concern,
    My name is Stephen Besedick, and I am a Technology Coordinator 
at an elementary school in Orlando, Florida. My job centers around 
finding and integrating technology solutions for the faculty and 
students at my school. It is not hard to see (especially with the 
movement in our school district to establish a PC standard), that 
the "blind" adoption of the Microsoft OS (Windows) as 
well as its corresponding applications solutions is 
"forcing" people to accept technology solutions that may 
not necessarily match how they want to work, or give them 
opportunities to see if other, more viable solutions exist. The rush 
to use Microsoft as a "standard" eliminates the option 
of "choice," . . . and choice is what drives a 
competitive market. If schools, businesses, and idividuals do not 
have a choice in how they want to complete their work, they they all 
become slaves to the system that they endorse. Microsoft certainly 
has a right to operate and innovate to satisfy their customer base, 
but they do not have the right to bury (at this stage of the market) 
legitimate attempts to offer competitve products in the areas that 
Microsoft does business. It is a well known that Microsoft has 
simply swallowed competitive technologies, and then turned around 
and offered them under their name, in order to keep their cash box 
full. If this situation was accepted as the norm in every other 
business or consumer categroy, we would only be driving ONE brand of 
car, eating ONE brand of food, and buying all of our other goods and 
services from ONE branded store. I do not think that this is an 
American vision. Microsoft has gotten too big to think rationaly 
about how its business practices affect society . . . they are 
driven simply by cash and control. If we aren't careful, our 
technology infrastructure will be influeneced by just one company, 
and everyone will just have to like it! It is the Federal Goverments 
duty to make sure that the technology section of our economy has a 
level playing field . . . a field where EVERYONE plays by the same 
rules, and that the winners and ultimate moneymakers are those which 
offer the best product at the best price.



MTC-00001209

From: timoth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 11:21am
Subject: Inadequate Settlement
    This settlement is completely against the public interest. It 
does not address the key problems with the Microsoft monopoly. When 
a company that has 90% of the market can use layers in combination 
with relatively unlimited money and as see by this settlement 
doesn't have to answer to anyone including the government we, the 
average american citizen pay dearly.
    In other industries when you buy a product that is shipped 
defective, you can return it. Then go somewhere else to buy an 
alternative product. This form of captialism keeps the industry in 
line. Every version of Windows I have owned has crashed, damaged my 
files, caused me to lose many hours of work. Every version of 
Windows I have used has been defective. In fact I know of no single 
person who hasn't lost many hours of work because of defects in 
Windows.
    If you are to run Windows you have to agree to the End User 
License Agreement, which rids you of any legal rights to seek 
compensation for damages caused by Microsoft products.
    That in itself wouldn't be a problem if there were competing 
products to choose from, because any business that acted in this

[[Page 23876]]

way would be washed out of the industry because people wouldn't 
stand for it and would buy competing products. For example say you 
bought a refrigerator that randomly turned off (crashed) and spoiled 
your food, and one that you had to agree to a legal agreement that 
said that you have no rights to go after the manufacture of the 
refrigerator to simply turn the refrigerator on. You wouldn't stand 
for that. You would never buy anything from that manufacturer ever 
again.
    Now imagine that there was only one manufacturer of 
refrigerators that had inside monoply deals with all the appliance 
stores (where can you find a PC computer that you can buy from a 
store that doesn't have windows). Or better yet, monoply deals with 
the manufactures that build the outlets for electrical plugs, so 
there was a special plug that was pre-installed in all new homes 
that would only work with this one manufactures refrigerators. Would 
those people even know that they should have a right to a 
refrigerator that actually works correctly if there has never been a 
competitor in the industry. The status quo would be the wool over 
the eyes of the common everyday person.
    As one who works in the computer industry it is as clear as day 
to me. And I pay for this problem every day. Here are some more 
examples,
    1.) Say you have an idea for a new product. Like the web-browser 
was or say like video compression tools are now. Then you produce 
that product. You find that you cannot sell it. And the reason is 
simply that Microsoft will copy the idea then bundle it with Windows 
and sell it for free in combination with raising the costs of the 
operating system which you have no choice to buy. New examples of 
new products bundled with XP,
    a.) Movie maker (movie editing, capturing, compression, etc).
    b.) Media Player (playback of compressed media, watch and listen 
to online radio and tv, play dvds, etc).
    c.) Windows Messenger (online communication).
    d.) Digital photography tools.
    e.) Msn (aol clone).
    f.) and more
    How are you suppost to produce a competive product when 
Microsoft takes any idea that becomes profitable by someone else and 
then uses monoply power to bundle it and sell it way under cost (in 
many cases for free).
    2.) Look what is happening with the Xbox. They are selling it 
way under cost just to try and take over another industry. First 
they take advantage of Sega when Sega is hurting making a deal with 
Sega to use WinCE in the Dreamcast. Then Microsoft copies the 
hardware work that Sega put into the Dreamcast and uses the software 
knowledge gained in that previous deal to produce a clone product 
called the Xbox. Then Microsoft uses its deals with the PC game 
industry to get a lot of developers writing games for the Xbox. And 
finally they use huge amounts of monoply money to sell the thing 
under cost. They have already pushed Sega out of the industry, soon 
they will do whatever they can to push out Sony and Nintendo.
    In all they progress completely un-checked by any method. There 
is no innovation going on at Microsoft other than to take advantage 
of monopoly power.
    RESTORE CAPITALISM AND COMPITITION IN THE PC COMPUTER INDUSTRY 
AND BREAK UP THIS MONOPLY NOW! OR WE WILL ALL CONTINUE TO PAY, 
PERHAPS WITH MOST OF THE POPULATION UNKNOWING.
    Timothy Lottes
    4910 Forest Ave Apt 305
    Downers Grove, IL, 60515
    630-697-6747



MTC-00001210

From: Chuck Counselman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 11:12am
Subject: Antitrust settlement feedback
    I was very disappointed to hear that the DoJ had essentially 
caved in and given up on stopping Microsoft's anticompetitive 
practices. I am pleased that some of the states, including my own 
MA, are continuing to fight.
    Charles C. Counselman III
    Professor, M.I.T.



MTC-00001211

From: Leonard Dudzinski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 11:06am
Subject: A proposal to deal with Microsoft
    US Department of Justice,
    Like many Americans, I suppose, I have been pondering the 
Microsoft case currently being tried by the US Department of 
Justice, and thinking about what solution I would favor. I have an 
idea for how the DOJ could deal with Microsoft that I have not heard 
discussed as one of the options, and I am grateful that the US 
Department of Justice has opened this forum to share ideas on the 
case. I strongly believe that the ruling is correct that Microsoft's 
monopoly was gained illegally and hurts consumers. Microsoft has 
clearly demonstrated the willingness to wield its monopoly power to 
benefit itself at the expense of others. Microsoft's monopoly power 
must be ended. I also strongly believe that, especially during these 
these times of war, it is not in the US governments best interest to 
be reliant on one computing platform for its function and national 
security. Recent events have demonstrated that one computing 
platform can be devastated by hackers or viruses, while others are 
immune. My proposed remedy is this: rule that the Federal Government 
must support multiple computer platforms, operating systems, and 
software suites in the interest of national security and in support 
of the free market.
    While the US DOJ does not have the power to dictate the market 
in a free market economy, it does have the power to affect how the 
Federal government responds to it. A DOJ ruling that it is not in 
the governments best interest to be dependant upon one supplier for 
most of its computing resources, and that the government must foster 
competition in the computer marketplace where possible, would be 
fair, effective, and within its powers. To that end, the President 
should issue an executive order that the US Federal Government will 
support multiple computer platforms, operating systems, and 
productivity software suites, and no single computer platform, 
operating system, or suite of software will hold greater than a 50% 
market share within the federal government (The Federal market share 
percentage could be debated). This ruling would create an immediate 
demand for Microsoft's competition within the Federal Government, 
and with all those who deal computationally with the Federal 
Government, which, I would think, is a large part of the computer 
market as a whole. Thus, this ruling would have the effect of 
destroying Microsoft's power to monopolize the market while 
preserving the company and its products. This ruling would have the 
additional effect of driving the computer industry towards standards 
to improve interoperability between platforms, operating systems, 
and standard software suites, which benefits all consumers. 
Microsoft would then be forced to play fair with its competitors 
products and standards.
    I welcome comments on the idea.
    Respectfully,
    Leonard A. Dudzinski
    Concerned US Citizen
    Leonard A. Dudzinski
    270 Windward Dr
    Elyria, OH 44035
    e-mail: [email protected]
    [email protected]



MTC-00001212

From: Barry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 11:23am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I strongly object to the proposed Microsoft settlement. Their 
crimes are far too serious for such trifling punishment. And their 
history proves that they will not abide by any agreement that 
requires voluntary cooperation on their part.
    Barry McAllister
    DNA Visual Business Solutions
    833 W. Jackson Blvd.
    Third Floor
    Chicago, IL 60607
    v: 312.654.8383 x23
    f: 312.654.8388
    www.visitdna.com



MTC-00001213

From: King, Cory
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/19/01 11:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement,
    I think the settlement looks fair to everyone concerned. I think 
it will allow Microsoft to be a viable and competitive company. I 
think they will continue to have ability to create new products and 
forge part of America's future.
    Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion as an American.
    Cory King
    704-887-7450 ext: 5624



MTC-00001214

From: Brian Beattie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 11:23am
Subject: From my understanding of this

[[Page 23877]]

setlement and my 25 years in Operating
    From my understanding of this setlement and my 25 years in 
Operating Systems development, during which I have watched 
Microsoft's increasing agressive actions with distress as they have 
used various monopolistic actions as well as other practices that 
would appear to be illegal on their face (such as diseminating false 
information). I find I am incredulous at the lack of effect 
restrictions on Microsoft in the proposed settlement, whom I 
consider the worst corporate criminal this country in a long time. I 
only hope that the States involved in this action are able to do the 
job that needs to be done, which that the US DoJ is would seem 
incapable of doing.
    Brian Beattie



MTC-00001215

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 11:30am
Subject: No Subject
    a few billion dollars seems to buy a lot of justice.



MTC-00001216

From: Clarence Ebersole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 11:30am
Subject: settlement
    The settlement proposed does not
    1. Punish MS for violation of antitrust laws.
    2. Discourage MS from further violation of those laws. and in 
fact it lets MS off with a slap on the hands and a tongue in cheek 
"no no", as MS continues violating those same laws with 
their new software releases.
    They further are practicing MANDATORY registration of software 
after it has been purchased, in an attempt to appear not to be 
mandatory they call it product activation, and then they say you may 
or may not register. What a travesty.
    If the agreed to settlement is approved MS will continue 
trampling on the consumer and its competitors.
    Thank you,
    Clarence Ebersole



MTC-00001217

From: Mike Curtis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 11:25am
Subject: Inadequate redress
    As a professional in both the software and media industries, I 
was quite dismayed to see how paper thin the restraints against 
Microsoft are in the current settlement agreement.
    MS will not be constrained from continuing its predatory 
practices in bundling or pricing, and will still have free reign to 
stifle competition on a variety of fronts.
    I think it is a grave disservice to the American computer 
industry and consumers to allow this settlement to proceed as 
planned.
    If we cannot topple the monster with this attempt, what hope 
does any future attempt have?
    A dissatisfied consumer and vexed industry professional,
    Mike Curtis
    Strategic Media Lab
    [email protected]



MTC-00001218

From: William Malgieri
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 11:25am
Subject: Settlement issue
    Hi,
    Regarding the MSFT settlement as an Apple user I'm a little 
concerned. I did not see any provision that prevented MSFT from not 
excluding Apple's OS from their development plans. For exapmle Apple 
would have gone out of business if MSFT did not make the deal with 
them to continue development of Office. And Apple had to sell 10% of 
the company to them to do it.
    What about Linux?
    MSFT has become the most powerful application developer because 
of the OS monopoly. What does the settlement do to address this 
issue?
    Thanks,
    Bill Malgieri



MTC-00001219

From: Heck, Gregory
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/19/01 11:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a user of Microsoft and Apple software I have an intimate 
understanding of the implications of Microsoft's monopoly. I feel 
the DOJ has folded and let the American public down. Microsoft is 
now stronger than ever. They have won and are unstoppable. Anything 
less than a restructuring plan is a waste of all of the time and 
money that was put into this endeavor. I don't think destroying the 
company will solve anything, but I do think they need much stronger 
remedies than what is on the table now. Microsoft didn't get it 95% 
market share on quality, the got it through questionable deals and 
predatory policies. Microsoft has made competitors software unstable 
on their OS numerous times. Once the competitor has lost a lot of 
ground Microsoft will then buy that technology and incorporate it 
into their products making it work.
    The DOJ has really messed this one up. I wouldn't want to be the 
one who history records as the people who let the largest monopoly 
in history get away free and clear.
    I sincerely hope the judge rejects the terms of this settlement 
and asks for much harsher penalties such as breaking the company 
into groups as was discussed in the beginning of this process.
    You must reign in Microsoft now before they have the chance to 
destroy the Internet and dominate it like they have the desktop. If 
you believe in free enterprise and equal opportunity for everyone, 
Microsoft must be stopped now before .NET can spread and stop free 
enterprise as we know it.
    Thank you
    Greg Heck
    "Within the computer industry, the description, 
'more like a Macintosh' is always a high praise. The 
description 'more like Windows' is rarely used as 
praise."_The Seattle Times



MTC-00001220

From: Julian Kovalsky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 11:36am
Subject: This is ridiculous
    I'm sick of Microsoft throwing their weight around. They have 
done many sneaky and unfair things for years. This settlement is a 
joke! It shows that they can even buy the Government.
    This is sick!
    Put an end to Microsoft Monopoly!
    Julian Kovalsky



MTC-00001221

From: Ty Davison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 11:34am
Subject: Justice Department_Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am an independent computer consultant, and I have long been 
angered and repulsed by Microsoft's attitude and marketplace 
actions. It came as no surprise to me that they were found to be an 
illegal monopoly. My business virtually requires that I use their 
products (system software, web browser, applications), and my strong 
preference would be to do otherwise. I simply have no choice in the 
matter. Which brings me to the proposed settlement of the case. I 
have grave doubts that it will change ANYTHING regarding Microsoft's 
attitude, behavior, or market dominance. Microsoft has signed 
consent decrees before and nothing has changed. I don't know that 
breaking the company into pieces would have solved the problem faced 
by consumers, but at least it would have injected competition into 
the marketplace. As it stands, I do not believe that Justice 
Department's agreement will do that. Please reconsider your 
position.
    Sincerely,
    Ty Davison
    SiteRev.com



MTC-00001222

From: D C
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 11:34am
Subject: Anti-trust misused
    I'm sure you are getting a bunch of comments from people who do 
not like Microsoft and wanted you to bury them. Me I do not 
particularly care for Micorosoft either, but as an American who has 
lived overseas and seen the harm that a competition based instead of 
customer based Anti-trust law can inflict, I wonder if we are not 
slipping into wrong mold. Anti trust law is supposed to be about 
protecting consumers not competitors. Hey Microsoft might not 
produce a perfect product; but neither does anyone else.
    Consumers will not be harmed until Microsoft begins gouging them 
with higher prices. They have not been harmed and neither has 
competition. Here are some real Antitrust issues:
    I do not see you going after Mobile who pulled the lic from 
their biggest supplier in Nebraska (an independent) because he would 
not sell only Mobile (35% of his business). Here's another one for 
you. My own phone supplier Quest is dragging its feet upgrading the 
CO's and relocating them waiting until the competition is out of 
business so they do

[[Page 23878]]

not have to give away market share and compete. They refused to 
upgrade my local CO (central Office) so I could get DSL from a 
competitor but parts of the CO that are used by their customers are 
DSL compliant. Here's another real monopoly...Cable modem internet 
access. Why don't the cable companies have to release their lines 
for the internet the same way that AT&T had to for long 
distance. Here's another one...I live in Minneapolis. Northwest has 
85% of the gates. Why does it cost me $300 more to fly northwest 
from Minneapolis to Denver for Thanksgiving than it does to fly from 
Chicago to Denver on Northwest? (I checked...airport fees are higher 
in Chicago and ridership is comparable)Now that is gouging customers 
becasue you have a monopoly.
    Back to this case...
    People do have choices in operating systems and software. Amazon 
just made a big splash about how much money they save my going to 
Linux. I use IBM dos for a lot of my floppy's for boot disks and 
batch programs. And I still use Netscape as a browser and 
Wordperfect for word processing, even on my Windows operating 
systems. UNIX is not about to go out of business and neither is 
Apple or Java. But even if they do, someone else will take their 
place.
    How does giving software away for free hurt consumers? Just 
because I no longer have to pay for Netscape doesn't hurt me as a 
consumer in the slightest. In fact it helps keep costs down. And who 
the hell ever asked for a dos based PC OS like Java anyway. If they 
lose out because their interface is harder to use than the GUI 
provided by windows and Apple, tough for them. They made a losing 
bet. We need to remove our concern for competition and competitive 
companies from the equation unless we can prove that customers are 
being gouged.
    Netscape had several options that it chose not to pursue:
    1. They could have taken Gate's offer to buy their company and 
make them the Internet browser of the future. But no they just 
wanted Gates and customers to pay too much for a browser. So 
Microsoft invented their own. If they had sold out, their stock 
holders would be much better off today too.
    2. They could have chosen to build a better operating system and 
compete with Gates and company. Their are plenty of anti-microsoft 
techies out there who would love nothing better.
    3. They could have started giving away their browser at a lower 
cost making it economically unfeasable to develop a competing 
product. Did they really think that Gates would go to all the 
trouble and legal/management expense of trying to buy their company 
and then not go after another solution? duh?
    4. They could have agressively marketted to the public the 
benefits of their product over Microsoft and they might still be 
selling a browser because there are people out there like me who 
would gladly pay for the increased funtionality of their product.
    PS...you could just as easily substitute Word Perfect here. They 
chose foolishly and paid the price.
    THE REAL LAW:
    If Microsoft decided to build an operating system that would 
only work with Microsoft software...it would be perfectly legal. But 
of course, this will not happen because every person and company I 
know needs and uses products that are not Microsoft. If they did 
something this stupid their market share and stock price would drop 
like a rock.
    THE REAL TRUTH:
    If Gates had given a little more money to the political parties 
who saw him giving away billions to charity adn got jealous and 
wanted more of the pie...this whole law suit would probably ahve 
disappeared like a fart in the wind.
    Douglas A Cavin
    11641 Virgina Ave N
    Champlin, MN 55316
    763-300-2166



MTC-00001223

From: bill(u)brewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 11:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very pleased that the DOJ, the States (9 of them) , and 
Microsoft have agreed to a settlement. I hope that the other states 
join in soon.
    Bill Brewis



MTC-00001224

From: John L Smitter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 11:40am
Subject: Dear Anti-Trust Division
    Dear Anti-Trust Division
    I thank you for coming to the agreement with Microsoft and 
allowing them to continue as the provider of 
"AFFORDABLE" software and systems that allow individuals 
like myself the benefit of email communication, powerful document 
production equal to Multi-Million Dollar companies and 
organizations, and a better way of life for the USA and world.
    I have been associated as a user of computers and computer 
systems since the mid 1960's when the computer filled a 20 x 40 
room, and required an army of specialized individuals to operate it, 
and the out put was only available on reams and reams of paper. I 
have benefited most by the Microsoft developments and improvements 
through out the years.
    I first began PC applications using a Spreadsheet program called 
VisiCalc, which was replaced by Lotus, a very significant 
improvement, but a much more significantly program called Excel was 
provided by Microsoft. Microsoft provided Excel to me at a very 
competitive price, and had broader compatibility and so many 
advantages over Lotus that it soon became the Spreadsheet of choice. 
The same situation is true with WordPerfect. I paid $400.00 for 
WordPerfect as a word processing soft ware, it was the best there 
was, until Microsoft provided Word for $100.00 and the ease of use 
and quality of delivery put WordPerfect in the drawer.
    I had opportunity to use Sun Micro Systems, Hewlet Packard 3000, 
IBM System 30, Novell PC Network, and Microsoft NT. Again, cost and 
ease of installation and use made Microsoft the one of choice. Each 
of the other named systems had a better opportunity to provide 
benefit to the consumer than Microsoft!
    They chose to keep costs high and less innovative than 
Microsoft! So for me, to go after Microsoft as the Justice 
Department did, hurt consumers and businesses much more than it 
helped.
    Again, thank you for coming to this conclusion!
    John L Smitter



MTC-00001225

From: William Shaw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 11:40am
Subject: What Has Changed Except MS is Off-the-Hook?
    Several questions, I think you know the answers....
    * Does the settlement impose a monetary penalty that strips MS 
of moneys obtained by using illegal practices?
    * Dose the settlement make it substantially more difficult for 
MS to buy any other competitors, technologies, or industries in 
which to launder its ill gotten gains?
    * Does the settlement break up MS into smaller, more competitive 
companies making it easier for the people and their government to 
monitor compliance with the settlement?
    * Does the settlement force MS to publicly admit to illegal and 
anticompetitive activities?
    * Does the settlement release into the public domain important 
Windows technologies so all companies can take their place at the PC 
OS and application table?
    I am not a lawyer, but I believe the answer to all of these 
questions is NO! Then I ask, what will be accomplished by the 
settlement? I cheer those states that will continue the legal 
process against MS!
    William Shaw
    Ben Lomond, Cal.
    [email protected]



MTC-00001226

From: Gregory
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 11:44am
Subject: secure new government communications network
    How to kill two birds with one stone, remove Microsoft from the 
loop.
    Can the government remove Microsoft IIS and Windows XP/2000 from 
its approved buying list?
    Can Microsoft OS/Office products ever be said to be secure?
    Are you locking the barn after letting out the cows?
    Five year moratorium on Windows OS for desktop and servers would 
go a long way to sending the message that monopolies that force 
users into needless upgrades, bundled software, and insecure desktop 
and servers are no longer approved.
    Why add GovNet when what you need to do is secure the desktop 
and server and remove Microsoft servers and desktop machines from 
vulnerable, sensitive and critical areas?
    OS/2 died due to FUD, not because of any inherent flaw or that 
Microsoft was a

[[Page 23879]]

superior operating system. Of course at that time there was anti-IBM 
sentiment and Microsoft was the perceived to be the underdog at the 
time.
    First Microsoft developed its own set of java tools to insure 
that its version of java and not Sun1s, was deployed and lead to 
confusion for users. Now it has dropped support for java.
    Even as this is being resolved Microsoft had the audacity to 
3pull the plug on MSN.com and disable features if it didn1t see a 
3supported browser. By the way, Explorer doesn1t have as good a 
support as Mozilla (Open Source) and Mozilla worked better than 
Explorer on MSN.com. But Microsoft was the sole arbiter of what was 
or was not 3compliant- and 3supported.- You expect Microsoft to act 
any different or police itself or allow itself to be policed by any 
standards that it doesn1t agree to?
    Force Microsoft to change by removing it from all government 
purchase lists for 5 yrs unless there is absolutely no Linux or OS/2 
or *nix or other available platform from HP, IBM, Sun, Apple, etc 
based on ability to deliver a solution.
    Gregory Youngs
    Fairfield, Iowa
    From New York Times,
    November 17, 2001
    To Forestall a 'Digital Pearl Harbor,' U.S. Looks to 
System Separate From Internet
    By ALISON MITCHELL
    WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 ? The Bush administration is considering the 
creation of a secure new government communications network separate 
from the Internet that would be less vulnerable to attack and 
efforts to disrupt critical federal activities.



MTC-00001227

From: Doug Hanley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 11:50am
Subject: Microsoft needs strict discipline in its business 
practices.
    Just today it releases Office v.X for Macintosh OS X. At this 
link it states its upgrades are available for $200 at this link: 
http://www.microsoft.com/mac/officex/prodinfo/t_upgrade.asp 
However all the purchase links have it for $269 or more. This is 
standard with their practices, this settlement is less than 
satisfactory.
    Doug Hanley Apple Product Professional 702-396-0697
    MacTEK Digital Services Apple Solution Experts Fax 
396-0698
    mailto:[email protected] http://www.mac-tek.com Las Vegas, 
NV



MTC-00001228

From: Roy Gosewehr
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/19/01 11:48am
Subject: Feeback on proposed settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am extremely disappointed in the Dept of Justice's proposed 
settlement with Microsoft. Microsoft is clearly a monopoly and has 
clearly used it's monopolistic position to manipulate the 
marketplace to the detriment of consumers and competitors (many of 
which that are no longer in business).
    The proposed settlement does not introduce any real restrictions 
on the market behavior of Microsoft. It does not include any 
penalties for past violations of previously agreed conditions. It is 
not enforceable. And if it is violated by Microsoft, it will take 
another long trial at taxpayer's expense to re-establish what has 
already been proven by this trial.
    Clearly, the DOJ has lost it's effectiveness in dealing with 
anti-trust issues. (It almost appears as if the DOJ has been bought 
and paid for.) The waste of dollars in winning an anti-trust case 
and then failing to follow up with relevant and effective penalties 
truly sickens me as taxpaying US citizen.
    Sincerely,
    Roy C. Gosewehr
    Plano, TX



MTC-00001229

From: Daniel A. Shockley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 11:46am
Subject: settlement is a waste of taxpayer money
    Hello,
    I work in the IT Industry currently, and am disappointed with 
the current settlement proposal between the DOJ and Microsoft. It 
seems to indicate a complete surrender by the organization that is 
supposed to enforce our nation's laws. If Microsoft has broken the 
law, it should be punished. The current settlement proposal is 
essentially a "don't do it again" response that doesn't 
even adequately enforce compliance. The oversight committee 
described in the proposal would seem to have little incentive to 
actually enforce the terms of the agreement.
    A much simpler solution that would force Microsoft to compete 
would be to prevent it from any future purchases of other companies 
and prevention of purchase of other software product code. It would 
force Microsoft to compete on their actual ability to write 
software, rather than allow them to buy out any threat. Whatever is 
done, surrender, after a fairly successful litigation, is an 
absolute waste of taxpayer money.
    Thank you,
    Daniel A. Shockley, Database Programmer
    [email protected]



MTC-00001230

From: Greg Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 11:59am
Subject: Help us!
    Help us! I can't afford the monopoly. I need alternatives!
    Greg Miller
    http://www.greg-miller.com
    [email protected]
    512.346.4589
    9617 Great Hills Trail #514
    Austin, Texas 78759



MTC-00001231

From: Eddie Hargreaves
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 11:57am
Subject: Proposed Settlement is unacceptable
    I just wanted to voice to you that I believe the currently 
proposed settlement is insufficient. Although I don't believe that 
breaking up Microsoft is the answer, the current plans are not 
strong enough. The main problem (as is currently evidenced in 
Windows XP) is that because Microsoft controls the Operating System, 
they can force users to use their software and keep them from using 
other, better software; thus running good software companies out of 
business. Microsoft needs to follow the same rules as everyone else, 
and instead is making the rules up. Consumers and businesses have 
been harmed by Microsoft's business practices, and they need to be 
shown they can't do that. Justice must be done.
    Ed Hargreaves
    Kennewick, WA



MTC-00001232

From: Beljaeff, Gene
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/19/01 11:53am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Justice Department,
    Please, please, please don't let Microsoft get away with just a 
slap on the wrist. Any remedy for future behavior should be paired 
with some sort of penalty for past 'bad' behavior. I am a 
concerned private citizen who uses a computer at home and who is a 
web developer at work. I truly believe that breaking up Microsoft 
into separate companies (one for the Windows operating system, and 
one for applications), along with a huge fine for past aggressions 
is a fair remedy.
    Thank You,
    Gene Beljaeff



MTC-00001233

From: Red Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 11:53am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft settlement comments
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am writing to express my opinion that the settlement between 
Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice announced on November 2 
is inadequate. The proposed settlement includes vague langauge that 
provides little assurance that it will eliminate Microsoft's illegal 
practices, nor will it prevent recurrence of the same or similar 
illegal practices
    The court has found that Microsoft has a monopoly for desk-top 
computer operating systems. Unfortunately, the proposed settlement 
shows little understanding for what a desk-top computer operating 
system is. An operating system is a distinct set of processes that 
enable application system software to use the various hardware and 
peripherals of a computer system. Under the proposed terms of the 
settlement, Microsoft will be free to continue to use its operating 
system monopoly power to an unfair advantage with various and 
multiple application systems businesses.
    A more fair settlement would require that Microsoft sell a 
stripped-down version of Windows only performs operating system 
functions. Application systems that should not be considered part of 
an operating system include software for browsing the Internet, 
reading e-mail, listening to music or sending instant-messages. I 
would prefer that the court require that Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice enter a settlement that

[[Page 23880]]

ensures effective and certain relief. Such a settlement should 
clearly deliniate restrictions on Microsoft's behavior that limit 
use of its monopopy power to unfairly expand into application 
systems business.
    Fredrick Miller
    consumer and U.S. Citizen
    1924 Claremont Commons
    Normal, IL 61761



MTC-00001234

From: jwt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 12:13pm
Subject: DOJ & Microsoft settlement agreement
    Department of Justice,
    I would like to comment on the proposed Microsoft and DOJ anti-
trust settlement agreement.
    In general I do not believe the agreement adequate to solve 
past, or likely future, abuses by Microsoft.
    Specifically, I believe the dominance of the Windows operating 
system allows Microsoft to leverage pricing structure and pricing 
plans to the detriment of business and personal consumers. With 
regard to the OS Microsoft has also made it virtually impossible for 
third party developers to make true competition possible through 
refusal to release all OS code, such as all APIs, which would allow 
third parties to compete on a level playing field. New pricing also 
works to the serious detriment of small business and non-profit 
corporations whose present investment in hardware and software make 
alternate selection of an operating system impractical and forces 
them to pay prices for OS software that is excessive when compared 
with previous purchases.
    More significantly, the ability of Microsoft to leverage its 
operating system and applications software is so widely known and so 
seriously abused that the present agreement is at best a joke and 
not taken as a serious remedy by any user. The original basis for 
action, the Netscape browser, has been followed by a multitude of 
similar examples including, but not limited to, the email client, 
music and audio software, instant messenger software, and others. 
Java, a common Internet protocol from Sun Microsystems, Quick Time 
from Apple Computer, and Real Player from Real Audio, are examples, 
under the current operating system, which have been made more 
difficult to implement.
    In the current OS "minor" issues like the constant 
nagging of the user who fails to sign up for a "Passport 
Account" under Windows XP (personal and professional) is a 
clear example of a marketing advantage on the Internet not available 
to any other vendor of an operating system. The hassle just to get 
rid of the undesired Microsoft applications software or getting 
third party software to function in its place is another example of 
monopolistic abuses exercised in the XP OS by Microsoft.
    I am a consumer of business and personal operating system and 
applications software and have no affiliation with any computer 
industry entity. I had hoped that the Federal government, through 
the Department of Justice, would serve as my last bastion of defense 
via the anti-trust laws of our great nation in protecting my rights. 
I have been most disappointed.
    This is not a business versus consumer issue in the usual sense. 
It is an abuse of monopolistic powers in one of the most flagrant 
cases of the behavior of monopolies in U.S. history. The issue is 
not that of "pro-business" or "pro-
consumer." The issue ultimately, if not resolved in accordance 
with U.S. anti-monopoly statutes, could well undermine the 
technology capabilities of the U.S. by undermining the free and open 
competition in all areas of business and commerce which has made our 
country great. Without fair and free competition our country cannot 
continue to prosper.
    Finally, the proposed settlement works to the disadvantage of 
all "consumers," from large corporations to university 
research science departments, from small business to individual 
consumers. The proposed settlement is a travesty of anything 
resembling "justice" in this case.
    Submitted for your consideration by
    Jerry W. Tompkins
    [email protected]
    (home address and telephone number furnished upon request)



MTC-00001235

From: James Hebdon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 12:06pm
Subject: Harsher Penalties
    The settlement as it stands is not sufficient. Microsoft has 
been breaking the law for years and years.
    Slapping them on the wrist and saying everything is fine will 
not work. They have shown that they have no respect for the law and 
that they will slip through the cracks if given the slightest 
leeway. If the government does not uphold the law, then we are truly 
lost. Enact harsher punishments. Defend the public interest.
    James Hebdon
    932 S. 500 E. Apt #1
    SLC, UT 84105
    801.671.6158



MTC-00001236

From: Richard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I never understood the logic of the Department's actions against 
Microsoft. Granted they are tough competitors but the PC revolution 
and economic boom that came with it are mostly due to Bill Gates 
vision to bring an affordable and user friendly information 
appliance to the masses. He should be awarded the Medal of Freedom. 
Having been a Unit Chief in the FBI's Information Resource Division 
during the late 90's I certainly understand how your attorneys got 
suckered into attacking on Microsoft. I am glad you have put this 
stupidity behind us.
    Richard Schneider
    Supervisory Special Agent_retired



MTC-00001237

From: elexus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 12:02pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I believe it is in the best interest of consumers and the 
economy to approve this settlement off.
    Ann Keefe



MTC-00001238

From: rich vereb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 12:24pm
Subject: Comments
    I am a thirty year practicing CPA who began his career at a 
"big eight" firm and continues to serve small and local 
businesses and organizations in the US.
    Those who believe Microsoft or any other monopolist will not 
quickly invent new means of restoring its market power are only 
fooling themselves. How else could a software publisher release 
obviously faulty (buggy) programs with impunity?
    By convincing the courts that it is only leasing_not 
selling_a computer operating system, this monopolist has 
burdened all of us with a renewable payment system subject to its 
exclusive benediction.
    By "bundling" application software into its 
operating system, Microsoft has prevented any realistic competition.
    Why can the courts not understand the harmful effects 
Microsoft's corporate policies wreak? Real users (citizens actually 
purchasing the programs) noticed and published their complaints ten 
years ago. Nothing significant has been done or is proposed to 
address those illegal practices.



MTC-00001239

From: elexus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 12:16pm
Subject: MICRSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Let's settle this case and move on.
    Tom Keefe



MTC-00001240

From: Paul Hewitt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft is guilty and should be split up and watched 
carefully
    I believe everything that MS has been accused of is patently 
true, and they should be spit up and watched carefully for 
anticompetitive and predatory behavior ... of which they practice 
regularly in the market. I have a friend who is the IT Director for 
a very large asian laptop and desktop computer manufacturer. They 
ship MS software standard on their system, and also employ many 
thousand people here in their US headquarters. He tells me every 
time MS comes out with a new product (dot release or brand new), the 
MS "thugs" come to see him a few months ahead of release 
to "emphasize" that he should install and be using this 
new product or release on all his desktop systems when the 
production version is available, which of course requires him to 
issue a substantial purchase order. If he does not order and install 
this new software, his company will not be allowed to ship the new 
MS software to their customers on the laptops and desktop systems! 
... yes this is blackmail! But, they can't do anything about it.

[[Page 23881]]

    Now any IT manager knows you never install the first release of 
any new software on your production systems ... you install it in a 
test environment first, until all the bugs are out and then roll it 
out to your users. This is especially true with MS Windows, since 
they usually get it right the 3rd time, after copying some other 
innovative product in the market, embedding it in their OS or giving 
it away for free to put the other company out of business. So, my 
friend is forced to play this game with the MS thugs, giving them 
their purchase order, telling them he's installing it on all their 
desktops, but only installing it on selected, non-critical systems. 
When the MS thugs come to check this out, he takes them to each 
department and shows them only a small number of systems that have 
the software running, then de-installs these machines after they 
leave. But, in the end, MS wins because they get their money and 
they can say that the new software is being used by certain 
companies (when is really isn't). Yet, since my friend looks at MS 
as the "defacto" standard supplier of operating systems 
and office productivity software, and doesn't want to be 
"blacklisted" in his profession, he plays this game to 
keep his job. Hmmmm..... doesn't this sound like IBM in the 60's!
    I know the current administration doesn't favor the breaking up 
of Microsoft. I'm actually a republican and absolutely believe in 
letting the markets work things out thru competition. But, I've seen 
so much over the years in predatory and monopolistic behavior that I 
believe MS will eventually take all innovation out of the market, 
and continue to put competitors out of business thru this behavior. 
MS always releases inferior software the first time ... they wait to 
see what competition does, then just copies them and either includes 
the functionality in Windows, or releases a product to compete which 
is for free or at a substantial discount over their competitor. Look 
at innovations like Java, Quicktime, MP3, streaming video, XML, etc. 
(not to mention the original word processors, spreadsheets, and 
presentation packages) All of these "open" standards 
have been changed slightly, included in a microsoft product, making 
them proprietary ... only working under MS software. Example, look 
at the number of web sites now that ONLY are viewable on a Windows 
system with Internet Explorer! This is because of what they did with 
Java ... first saying they will license it from Sun and abide by the 
standard, then changing it under ActiveX and making it proprietary. 
They are doing the same thing with XML now ... under their .NET 
initiative. What them twist the XML standards to their own version, 
then force their developer community to use it.
    I have been in the computer hardware and software business for 
20 years ... and have quite a few business associates who have 
echoed these same observations over the years. Microsoft is a 
monopoly and it's leaders are laughing all the way to the bank. The 
difference between Bill Gates and IBM in the 60's is that IBM had 
blinders on and was too big and entrenched in its mainframe 
technology to change quickly ... Gates doesn't believe that any of 
his tactics are bad for consumers of computing ... he's paranoid and 
will continue to take new markets and put competitors our of 
business without hesitation ... at the cost of innovation and value 
to the consumer.
    Paul Hewitt



MTC-00001241

From: Tim Ramsey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 12:29pm
Subject: Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    I do not believe that the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
case is nearly strong enough. I have been a software developer for 
almost 40 years and have observed Microsoft's practices from their 
emergence up to the present. Note that I am a contract developer of 
software used primarily by the Government; I am not a Microsoft 
competitor. I strongly believe that MS practices have stifled 
creativity, been the root cause of failure for numerous small 
software companies and have resulted in a restriction of choices for 
users.
    Their primary methods for accomplishing this have been:
    * bundling deals with large PC manufacturers that demotivate 
users from purchasing alternatives_in many cases the 
"alternative" was actually the original inventor of the 
technology who today is not in business.
    * development of unnecessary MS specific variations of 
fundamental technologies_market share is then used to capture 
users, and since the MS technology is not compatible with the 
originals, the urge for compatibility creates a tidal force to 
assist them in capturing the market. Examples: Java and the present 
activity to capture multimedia web technology.
    * erection of roadblocks to file compatibility and other forms 
of secretiveness that make it difficult and sometimes impossible to 
use applications from other developers in conjunction with that from 
MS_try translating a Powerpoint file to any other format for 
example, or a Word document loaded with equations and figures. I 
note that most other developers go to great lengths to make their 
applications compatible with others and that this practice is of 
considerable benefit to users.
    * bundling price structures that make it uneconomic to use other 
applications.
    Let's see how these practices work together to eliminate 
competition. For example MS Office is priced so as to make purchase 
of a single package uneconomic_suppose I need only Word; the 
purchase price is very large compared with that of Office (assuming 
I can find a copy), so I buy Office. I would have bought a competing 
product based on price and features, but I had to have Word for 
compatibility. Later, I need graphics software. Since I bought 
Office, I own a copy of Powerpoint. Although I detest the way it 
works, I am now faced with a choice: use Powerpoint unhappily or 
spend more money on a graphics application that I like and face 
incompatibility with my customers who use Powerpoint mainly because 
Microsoft made it too hard for them not to.
    I feel that that methods like these are exactly what is meant by 
the term "monopolistic practices". I am very unhappy 
that the proposed settlement is likely to enable Microsoft to 
continue to follow their historic course to the detriment of both 
the software development and user communities. I hope you will 
consider these thoughts in your deliberations.
    The opinions expressed above are entirely my own and might or 
might not be shared by my employer.
    Tim Ramsey
    Senior Principal Engineer
    CSC
    Huntsville, AL
    (256) 498-3000
    [email protected]
    [email protected]



MTC-00001242

From: Ron Carlson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 12:27pm
Subject: Sell out!
    Break M$ up! Behavioral remedies have failed in the past and 
won1t work now.
    enjoy,
    Ron Carlson
    At home in Taiwan since 1990



MTC-00001243

From: Gene Anaya
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 12:26pm
Subject: Unsatisfied with agreement
    To whom it may concern,
    From what I have read in the press related Internet-based 
coverage, I must express my concerns that the negotiated agreement 
between the Department of Justice (which hopefully represents me, an 
American citizen) and Microsoft regarding the ongoing anti-trust 
case falls woefully short of providing any real benefit or relief to 
me, an individual consumer, nor to me as an employee of a technology 
company that competes with Microsoft.
    Microsoft has been ruled a monopoly which abused its position to 
further its goals in other related markets. This, to my 
understanding, is illegal. However, there appears to be no 
consequences of these actions. A promise to not break the law for 
five years (with regards to pricing and requiring hardware 
manufactures to install Microsoft products) hardly sounds like a 
punishment.
    Microsoft has repeatedly stated that they would not "give 
up their RIGHT to innovate" throughout this case. This is a 
great marketing catch-phrase that any technology company could use. 
However, Microsoft has a relatively weak track record when it comes 
to "innovation." The notion that 
"integrating" a product into the core Windows operating 
system is the same as "innovation" is a subtle but 
important mis-statement made by Microsoft. Nobody would suggest that 
Microsoft stop improving their products (ask anybody who runs a 
Windows-based machine and has encountered the "blue screen of 
death" if they would appreciate Microsoft improving their 
products).
    My concern is that I do not see how this agreement will curtail 
Microsoft's efforts to continue to "innovate" by 
"integration" in

[[Page 23882]]

 anti-competitive means. They have made the argument that their 
customers benefit by the "integration" of Internet 
Explorer into Windows. What is to prevent their making the following 
argument: Our customers will benefit by our providing Word 
Processing capabilities in our Windows operating system. In fact, 
our customers would also benefit from the "integration" 
of a spread sheet as well as a presentation package into our Windows 
operating system. So, from now on, all copies of Windows will be 
"integrated" with what was once known as 
"Office". And, this is because our customers will 
benefit from this. Now, this is not likely to happen simply because 
Microsoft makes so much money off of the Office product line. But 
they are doing this exact type of thing with their 
"Passport" technology.
    What is to prevent Microsoft from doing what they have done all 
along and watch the industry, and when a truly innovative concept 
comes along (almost always from a relatively small company), 
Micosoft announces that they intend to "integrate" that 
type of technology into Windows? This type of 
"innovation" by "integration" needs to be 
addressed. My final area of concern is Microsoft's history of 
furthering their monopoly by a policy of selective exclusion, 
usually made under the guise of "providing the best user 
experience possible for our customers." An example of this 
type of behavior is Microsoft's treatment of the Java platform and 
programming language. Rather than support Java in an inter-operable 
and industry-friendly manner, Microsoft chose to 
"pollute" Java in ways that allowed it to only operate 
on Windows-based machines. For the most part, Microsoft's java 
implementation was one of the better ones on the market at the time. 
So, it is clear that Microsoft can produce a quality product. They 
could have chosen to fully support Java, and then provide separate 
Windows-specific "enhancements" to Java. For reasons 
left to other to argue, they choose to disrupt technology that they 
cannot make proprietary.
    The current release of Windows XP has caused some concern 
regarding the Passport technology "integrated" into it. 
If one assumes that this is an "innovative" idea that 
will benefit the customer (now who the customer is may be up to 
debate_is it me, the individual, or the Internet-based 
business, like Amazon.com?), then why exactly does the technology 
only exist on Windows-XP? Why is this "Passport" 
technology not also available on the Macintosh platform? Microsoft 
does develop some software for this non-Windows-based platfrom 
(Office and surprsigingly the "cannot be removed without 
breaking Windows" Internet Explorer). Why is this technology 
not available on any UNIX-based or other non-Windows-based 
platforms? A good idea that benefits customers should be made 
available to customers, without requiring the customer to change 
platforms. There is nothing fundamentally "operating system-
specific" in the idea of "single sign on" 
technology. The fact that the client machines (a Windows XP) machine 
will comunicate with the authentication server(s) over the Internet 
dramatically weakens any notion that the client (or the server for 
that matter) necessarily be a Windows-based machine, and by 
inference that this is in any way a piece of technology that need be 
"integrated" into the operating system. The ability to 
read and write to a hard drive or CD ROM on the local desktop are 
clearly areas where "integration" into the operating 
system makes sense. But when you are talking about electronic 
communication (whether it be low-level authentication services or 
higher level web-browsing or MP3-playing), it can be more correctly 
identified as either a seriously poor engineering design or a ploy 
to leverage the Windows market share into dominating other markets, 
such as authentication, web browsing, MP-3 playing or other 
such markets.
    In short, I wish to express my concerns again that the current 
agreement does not appear to provide any benefit nor releif from 
past abuses by Microsoft, current efforts by Microsoft to leverage 
the dominance of Windows (see my concerns about the Passport 
technology), nor any means of preventing future abuses of the 
"innovation by integration" arguement made by Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    Eugene Anaya



MTC-00001244

From: Paul E. Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 12:38pm
Subject: Comments about the Microsft antitrust settlement
    I am writing this as a consumer:
    My belief is that there is no reason for Microsoft to bundle 
their version of a web browser, multimedia players, instant 
messaging, and so on, with their operating system other than to 
extend their monopoly to other areas. I believe the current 
settlement will allow Microsoft to get back to "business as 
usual" very quickly. I believe that consumers need a better 
remedy than the one proposed.
    Microsoft will still continue to be the dominant player in 
operating systems and software even if the harshest penalties 
suggested were imposed. Why waste taxpayer dollars in the courts if 
antitrust laws are not going to be enforced?
    Paul E. Smith



MTC-00001245

From: William (q)Jay(q) Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 12:36pm
Subject: Make Microsoft Play Fair
    I recently upgraded my home-office PC's operating system to 
Windows XP. The OS itself so far seems to be very robust: an 
excellent product. This is where my praise of the new operating 
system ends.
    Did you know that when you purchase the Windows XP upgrade and 
then try to set up your internet connections, you are almost FORCED 
to choose the Microsoft Network for your Internet service provider? 
Ok, perhaps "forced" is a strong word. Let me put it to 
you this way. I've been an Internet user for almost 10 years. When 
setting up Windows XP to work with my internet provider, the ONLY 
option presented to me for browsing the Web was the MSN Explorer. 
Upon clicking on this option, I am brought to the Microsoft Network 
signup wizard. I did NOT want to sign up for Microsoft Network. 
After searching through the programs in the "Start" 
menu, I found what I actually wanted. Microsoft Explorer. 
Fortunately, I knew what I was after and looked for it. I can't help 
but wonder what a first-time user would have done. I should note 
that both Windows Explorer and Windows Outlook Express (for E-Mail 
& Newsgroups) are built into Windows. There is no option to use 
other products. While there ARE ways to avoid having these 
applications installed with Windows, or to remove them later, it is 
not done easily.
    There is no doubt that Microsoft Windows IS the dominant 
operating system. I've tried other operating systems (IBM OS/2 and 
several versions of LINUX) and have been forced to return to Windows 
due to the lack of applications available for the other Operating 
Systems. In my opinion, this is a "Chicken or the Egg" 
conundrum, and not something I have the knowledge to solve.
    However, what I DO know is that Microsoft makes is VERY 
difficult to use Non-Microsoft products with its operating system. 
Prove this fact to yourself. Give a novice user a computer with a 
blank hard drive, bootable CD-ROM drive and ISP information, 
along with the retail version of Windows XP Home Edition. The user's 
assignment: Set up Windows XP, and then sign onto the internet.
    How to solve this problem? Microsoft should be broken up into 3 
parts. (1) The operation system division. (2) Applications Division. 
(3) Internet Services Division.
    This would stop Microsoft from using its virtual monopoly in the 
OS market to force users into using other Microsoft products. It 
would restore free and fair competition to the Applications market. 
Perhaps the newly independent Applications division would create 
versions of former Microsoft products for LINUX and other operation 
systems. The newly created Internet Services Division would now have 
to compete head-to-head with AOL, Earthlink, etc. (a fight, I 
suspect, they would lose, but who knows).
    The question is not and SHOULD not be, "Is this good for 
Microsoft?" but "Is this good for consumers and the 
technology sector in general?" The answer to the first 
question would be "possibly, possibly not." The answer 
to the second question is a resounding "YES."
    Microsoft makes an excellent operation system today. (I don't 
know how they came to dominance with their Windows 9* and ME 
products, they were horrible. But Windows NT/2000/XP operating 
systems are fantastic!) Some of their applications are top-notch and 
should be able to compete well with other vendors independent of 
Microsoft. Their Internet Services. well, that remains to be seen. I 
say these things so that you understand that I'm not of the radical 
"I Hate Microsoft" group. I simply want to see more 
options available to me.
    William J. Davis
    [email protected]



MTC-00001246

From: Rob Fiorendino

[[Page 23883]]

To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/19/01 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that settling the Microsoft case with the terms that 
have been published would be a horrible idea. Please reconsider 
taking them to court and imposing a penalty that would mean 
something!
    Rob Fiorendino
    3809 Jackson St. NE
    Columbia Heights, MN 55421



MTC-00001247

From: James Nicholas Rhodes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 12:57pm
Subject: hello
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    I am a Canadian who is marrying my American fiancï¿½ soon, 
so since I am moving to the United States once approved by INS, I 
hope that my input is put into this discussion.
    I am studying to be a Computer Analyst/Programmer at Red River 
College in Winnipeg, Canada. I have used Windows every day since the 
first iteration of it and even DOS before that. I also am a 
Macintosh user, and I am running Mac OS X at home on my iBook from 
Apple. Since I am well versed with both Windows and the Mac, I think 
I can provide some enlightenment here. Being a Macintosh user, I am 
so tired of Microsoft bullying Mac users into accepting their 
"standard" for the internet, Internet Explorer. Just 
because Microsoft has lots of money, they think they can enforce any 
"standard" they want on the internet. What Microsoft 
needs is not a slap on the wrist, as I will put what this deal 
appears to render Microsoft. The US DOJ cannot allow Microsoft to 
continue its anti-competitive behavior. A prime example is in the 
new OS, Windows XP. Microsoft has made it very difficult for someone 
to record a music CD into the MP3 format, forcing end-users to use 
their their own proprietary format. This is ridiculous, since I own 
the CDs I make MP3s from, I have a LEGAL right to do so. Why is 
Microsoft being allowed to do this? This is a prime example of 
Microsoft trying to shove their "standard" on the rest 
of the computing world.
    Another example is the blocking of QuickTime 5 use on Windows 
PCs by Microsoft. They deliberately made it difficult for Apple to 
allow Windows users to use QuickTime on the Windows platform. Thank 
God that Apple has some really genius-level software engineers, 
because Apple was able to provide an updated version to combat 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior.
    A further example is the Java programming language from Sun... I 
just finished a course in Java programming and it is the most 
wonderful programming language to use. But Microsoft continually 
does whatever it can to kill Sun's Java, because it is just too good 
for Microsoft's own liking. It is a threat to their stability as a 
software producer because an application properly coded with Java 
can run on any platform, since it is platform agnostic. All of the 
Java programs I wrote in my course can be run on my iBook running 
Mac OS X which is a sheer delight. No code changes have to be 
made...
    I only use Windows at college now, because I am forced to. I 
chose to use a Mac a long time ago, and with the new OS, Mac OS X, 
it is more stable and more user-friendly than Windows XP will ever 
hope to achieve. Mac OS X does not have all of the security flaws 
that Windows (whatever version one chooses) has, and this is one 
reason why I dislike Windows_ the product is just so unstable 
at best.
    The DOJ has to listen to people who use both platforms, because 
it is important to get their input on this case. The final judgment 
will have many ramifications in the future, so please choose wisely. 
Letting a company this big get away with anything it feels like 
doing is dangerous to the consumer like myself, but I also say it is 
dangerous to the stability of a government in the long run. I would 
hate to see the US government become a "puppet" of 
Microsoft's whims, because I care about the US very much since I am 
marrying my American sweetheart. I was very glad to see the US Army 
change critical systems from Windows NT to the Mac platform because 
of security concerns. I routinely even get people trying to hack 
into my system, but with my trusty built in firewall into Mac OS X I 
wish them all the luck in the world. :)
    President Bush's office even sent me an Official Presidential 
portrait with a letter once they were available, because they were 
impressed with my letter about why I want to become an American. I 
even decided I am going to be a Republican when I can... :)
    Regards,
    James Rhodes
    p.s. God bless America...



MTC-00001248

From: Eric Geoffroy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 12:47pm
Subject: How much did MS pay to get off?
    My colleagues and I wonder how much more MS paid to get off 
compared to O.J. This case that originally was off to a good start 
has now been touched by dirty hands. The proposed punitive measures 
are grossly disproportionate to the offenses. Talk about a slap on 
the wrist. How can our government try to fight voter apathy when it 
turns its back on its people. A case against a Mega-Monopoly like 
this has to be fought by a giant if justice stands a chance. The 
only thing we have to put up against MS is the Federal Government. 
And our government has backed down again, and once again the badguy 
gets off, and the people lose hope and respect for our elected 
officials.
    My suggestion to get this case back on track, so that justice 
can be served_
    1. Root out the spineless among you and replace them with people 
with integrity.
    2. Fight this case like you mean it. The fact finding has 
revealed a lot of dirt and wrongdoing.
    Sincerely,
    Eric Geoffroy
    IS Manager
    Navis LLC



MTC-00001249

From: Seymour Joseph
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 12:38pm
Subject: DOJ Proposed Settlement_Total Capitulation
    Hi,
    I was told this email address was set up for consumer comments 
on the proposed DOJ settlement with Microsoft.
    I think the proposed settlement does not address any of the 
significant issues facing the US software industry:
    * It does nothing to curb Microsoft's agressive monopolistic 
practices with third parties.
    * It does nothing to compensate those businesses terrorized and 
destroyed by Microsofts monopolistice practices in the past
    * It does nothing to keep Microsoft from continuing down the 
same path again and again. Witness the recent launch of their 
Windows XP product which now bundles even more applications into the 
operating system in an effort to do to more companies what they did 
to Netscape with the release of Windows 95 that sparked this case.
    The agreement I have read basically feels like a complete 
government capitulation to Microsoft business as usual and I am VERY 
dissapointed with my taxpayer dollars being WASTED to try Microsoft 
and find them guilty only to have the Department of Justice let them 
go with a pat on the back.
    Seymour Joseph
    Director, Technology Services
    Bucks County Intermediate Unit #22
    705 Shady Retreat Road
    Doylestown, PA 18901
    Phone (800)-770-4822 x1110
    Fax: 215-489-7874
    Email: [email protected]
    Web (BCIU): http://www.bciu.k12.pa.us
    Web (Seymour): http://www.bciu.k12.pa.us/users/sjoseph/
Welcome.htm



MTC-00001250

From: David R. Plas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 12:57pm
Subject: complaint about settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I am writing to voice my disappointment in the recent settlement 
offer to resolve the anti-trust litigation being brought by the 
Dept. of Justice and the States against Microsoft. From my 
perspective, the proposed settlement gives Microsoft too many 
avenues to prevent or delay any process that might interfere with an 
anti-competitive action on Microsoft's part. The appeal mechanisms 
in the agreement will allow Microsoft to carry out anti-competitive 
actions for some time before the government will be able to force an 
end to such behavior. As was argued frequently during the trial, 
time is everything in the computer industry, and belated efforts by 
the government to restrict anti-competitive behavior are 
meaningless. Please revise the agreement with Microsoft to 
explicitly ban anti-competitive types of business practices by 
Microsoft, and to put in place a fast-acting mechanism to punish the 
company for violations in the agreement. The current agreement will 
do nothing to change Microsoft's behavior or its effects: the 
illegal

[[Page 23884]]

maintenance of monopoly power in an incredibly important and rapidly 
expanding American industry.
    Sincerely,
    David Plas



MTC-00001251

From: Grehan, Yvonne
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/19/01 1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In the interest of justice, economics, and freedom to innovate, 
please expedite the settlement of this long-standing case against 
Microsoft. Numerous segments of our economy, our daily living and 
our retirement planning have been negatively impacted by this epic 
saga. Please encourage settlement soon.
    Yvonne Grehan
    [email protected]



MTC-00001252

From: Pete Schloss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The remedies in the proposed settlement do not address two 
areas: the price fixing which Microsoft accomplishes using its 
monopoly position in computer operating systems, and monetary 
damages due to other companies harmed by these acts. Consumers have 
been and are continuing to be harmed by these practices.
    (1) Pricing for Microsoft Windows and Office products are 
artificially high and are maintained high due to lack of 
competition. All other components of PC pricing have declined 
greatly in the past ten years, but Microsoft software prices have 
increased. Only in areas where Microsoft has competition have prices 
been lowered.
    (2) In one area in particular, the IE browser, the pricing is 
predatory (zero), because this pricing is intended to drive 
competition out of business. This tactic has almost succeeded now. 
The purchase of Netscape by AOL was an indication of how successful 
this tactic is. Monetary compensation is due to Netscape.
    (3) Bundling of other zero-priced features like CD writing in 
the Windows XP version is intended to drive other competitors out of 
business; at which point Microsoft will raise prices in these future 
non-competitive areas. Restrictions on bundling of competitive 
products into Windows are needed to prevent future damage to 
competitors.
    (4) Microsoft has used its OEM license agreements to further the 
above goals. The proposed remedies do not address damages to parties 
caused by the illegal license agreements in place up until now. In 
particular, BeOS was driven out of business due to the restrictions 
in the OEM license agreements. At a minimum damages, should be 
awarded to BeOS to compensate for their losses due to unfair 
practices.
    (5) Microsoft has signed consent decrees in the past and then 
ignored them, continuing the conduct which the consent decrees were 
supposed to remedy. To prevent this from happening, there should be 
significant monetary damages (for example, treble the amount of 
losses at a minimum) specified for any future violations of the 
terms of this Final Judgement. It also should be made very easy for 
harmed parties to make claims for these damages. Many of Microsoft's 
competitors do not have the resources needed to pursue remedies 
through the court system, so an arbitrator should be appointed by 
the Court to hear these challenges in a simplified forum without 
requiring major resources for batteries of lawyers. This may sound 
like a peculiar request, but if similar mechanics had been in place 
previously, this current lengthy court procedure might not have been 
needed.
    Detailed comments supporting thes arguments are contained at 
this URL: http://money.york.pa.us/Articles/Microsoft.htm
    Pete Schloss



MTC-00001253

From: Steve Nicholson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 12:59pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am tired of Microsoft running good competitors out by bundling 
their similar programs with the operating system. Microsoft does not 
make the best or most reliable product & when they integrate it 
makes the individual products worse not better. Please make part of 
the settlement just the operating system, a product separate from 
media player or internet explorer.
    I looked at the license agreement for a media player upgrade 
& they come out a say that it may disable other products without 
your knowledge or consent. It may also download security updates 
without your knowledge or consent. They should not be allowed to 
take control of the software I already have on my system with out my 
consent. Stop them from forcing their garbage to the user.
     Digital Rights Management (Security). You agree that in order 
to protect the integrity of content and software protected by 
digital rights management ("Secure Content"), Microsoft 
may provide security related updates to the OS Components that will 
be automatically downloaded onto your computer. These security 
related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure 
Content and use other software on your computer. If we provide such 
a security update, we will use reasonable efforts to post notices on 
a web site explaining the update.
    Protect the people from the monopoly called Microsoft. Do not 
give up on the unbundled, cheaper, more reliable versions of 
software. I should not have to uninstall it afterwards, should be 
options to install or not the whole time.
    Steve Nicholson
    [email protected]



MTC-00001254

From: Kevin Barth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 1:18pm
Subject: Public Comments on the Microsoft Antitrust settlement
    Sirs_
    I am taking this opportunity to express my extreme 
dissatisfaction with the proposed settlement of the Microsoft/DOJ 
antitrust lawsuit. As a web application programmer and analyst, I 
have been continually exposed to the effects of Microsoft's extreme 
monopolistic practices. Microsoft likes to brag about its extreme 
market share, and they would have us believe that the sole reason 
for this market share is its creation of well-written, innovative 
products, which can easily fill the needs of consumers. 
Unfortunately, having to work with these prematurely released, 
extremely buggy and inconsistent products, it is obvious to me that 
if any real competition existed, Microsoft would soon be in the 
position of having to spend a lot more money tightening up its 
programs if they are to risk fading into obscurity. It is equally 
clear that they chose to spend that money eliminating the opposition 
through grossly unfair marketing and advertising practices rather 
than improving the quality of the product. I believe that the 
findings of fact in the trial more than adequately proved this, 
regardless of any judicial bias which may be claimed.
    The proposed settlement is nothing more than a slap on the wrist 
for Microsoft. It will have neither the effect of punishing them for 
past misdeeds, nor that of discouraging future ones. There is no 
public accountability. Because it does nothing to whittle away the 
vast advantage Microsoft has built for itself over the years, it 
does nothing to encourage other companies to compete with Microsoft. 
There is, after all, a huge juggernaut to overcome, and precious few 
companies have the resources to overcome that barrier. Thus, with no 
competition, the consumer is left in the same place that he has been 
all along_lacking alternatives, he will remain with Microsoft 
because of their foothold.
    In short, the proposed settlement actually rewards microsoft for 
past misdeeds, and ensures that they will continue to profit from 
them. It is my sincere hope that this settlement fails, and that the 
individual states who have relied upon the department of justice to 
look after their best interests react to this betrayal with lawsuits 
of their own. No other course of action seems at all likely to bring 
the sort of justice that the American consumer requires and 
deserves.
    Kevin Barth
    Kevin Barth, Programmer/Analyst
    QRC Division of Macro International Inc.
    (301) 657-3077, ext. 129_http://www.qrc.com
    fax (301) 657-3862



MTC-00001255

From: Sam Barnum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 1:18pm
Subject: Obvious Problems with MS
    The primary issues with Microsoft's practices are
    * Prohibiting hardware vendors from offering products that 
compete with Microsoft products
    * Using its monopoly to leverage closed, proprietary data 
formats, and exclude competing, standards-based formats.
    * Extremely poor security on homogenous server software which 
could lead to huge disruptions of internet traffic.
    The first seems to be the easier issue to deal with. Open up the 
OEM agreements with hardware vendors, expose any shady/

[[Page 23885]]

unethical goings-on. The second case is probably the more harmful of 
the two. It comes down to playing nice, and acting as part of the 
information systems community rather than a corporate predator. 
Microsoft seems to view all technology as something to be 
supplanted/assimilated rather than utilized within a framework. 
Abandonment of Samba and Java, development of Internet-Explorer-only 
websites (including MSNCB), and the undermining of the TCP/IP 
protocol with Denial-of-service-friendly Windows XP are some of the 
more troubling examples that come to mind. If Microsoft were not a 
monopoly, the above behavior would be laughably self-destructive for 
any company. However, when Microsoft flouts standards, those 
standards lose a lot of their meaning. Anyway, I appreciate the 
chance to voice my concerns, good luck to you.
    Sam Barnum
    San Francisco, CA



MTC-00001256

From: Brett Sher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Unless the fix is in and settlement is just intended to be a 
sham (which is what a lot of Americans suspect is happening), close 
*all* the loopholes. Ignore Microsoft's whining. Hit the bastards 
hard. God knows they deserve it.
    The computer industry has been stagnating because of lack of 
competition. Do something drastic enough that investors will dare to 
support companies going head to head with Microsoft. Anything less 
will be no remedy at all.
    _Brett Sher



MTC-00001257

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft vs. DoJ settlement.
    Ms. Renata Hesse,
    I have been told that this email address is for public comment 
on the settlement between Microsoft (MS) and the The Department of 
Justice (DoJ). As a long time user of MS's products and other 
operating systems may I open my comment by saying how sorry I was to 
see such meager sanctions imposed and the way the DoJ has failed to 
seek more effective remedies. I've been in the IT industry for over 
fifteen years. Most of that time I was in Australia before being 
lured to the US by Oracle. In that time I had to pay punishingly 
high rates for MS products. In some cases the products didn't even 
work as stated. I can give an example of MS-DOS 3.3 with MS Word and 
output to early laser printers. There was no effective support and 
no way to get this fixed and no ability to get a refund thanks to 
the barriers MS had put up between itself and the customer base.
    Over the years, up to MS-DOS 6.1 and into Windows 95, 98, 2000, 
Windows for WorkGroups and NT I see nothing has changed. They make 
their systems more proprietary, make it harder to connect to and 
refuse to acknowledge any problems with their products. Over the 
years they have blamed the hardware, other products and 
hackers_generally only to release a patch to fix a problem 
with their products. I had hopes that the DoJ would take the way MS 
acted in court, their history of non-compliance and their predatory 
practices into account. I was sad when I read read the current 
turnabout.
    As to the future_does anyone really believe they will 
abide by any court order that restrains them from further 
unscrupulous acts? I don't think so and neither do many of the 
pundits in the media and the internet. We have been burned so many 
times by MS that I think the negative reaction to MS is very 
understated. I hope that you and your fellow prosecutors who have 
basically given MS free reign are left to untangle some of the 
technical problems that you are now saddling the IT community with. 
Ever tried to download a patch for MS from a non-MS browser to help 
someone else_it just hangs.
    If I went into every problem I've had over the years from MS's 
control of the boot loader to it's almost PostScript compliant 
output in its applications I would need several weeks. However I'm 
sure you will have many other people who also wish to voice their 
disgust so I'll leave me email here.
    If anybody wants further contact I'm willing to expand on 
details by email.
    Sincerely,
    David Evans
    Oracle Corporation
    [email protected]
    There is magic in the web.
    Telephone: +1-650-506-2120
    Othello Act 3 Scene 4 by William Shakespeare
    Facsimile: +1-650-633-0594
    All of the statements and opinions expressed here are my own, 
and do not necessarily represent those of Oracle Corporation.



MTC-00001258

From: John Foley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 1:25pm
Subject: Take Microsoft Down!
    I am adamantly against allowing Microsoft to get off 
"Scott Free"! They have tried to take or 
"steal" ever technology from Java to now?? VBox? When is 
their sweeping invasion of every major industry using computers 
going to end? If they can not buy what they want, they STEAL IT and 
change it so that it ONLY works on Windows producrts. Check out the 
numbr of web sites that can ONLY be browsed with Internet Explorer!! 
Microsoft has invented little, but more like the Janapese who take a 
product and change it for their own resales. so goes Microsoft. No 
innovation, just outright high-jacking of any company who might have 
a technology that Microsoft might want to call their own. We 
consumers have some intelligence and are thankful that this email 
site has been set up to allow our opinions about Microsoft.
    John Foley



MTC-00001259

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 1:23pm
Subject: Comment
    I urge you to settle the Microsoft dispute as soon as possible. 
The consumers are NOT being served with this rediculous suit. It was 
only launced to benefit a few competitors and NOT on behalf of the 
users. Leave Microsoft alone, it created a platform from which all 
others can build. Before this base, programs were written with 
various codes that were incompatible and a user had be be sure a 
pruchase would work and interact with other software. With 
Microsoft, everything works together.
    Thank you for listening. [email protected]



MTC-00001260

From: Suarez, Tony
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Corp.
    To the US Government,
    Don't tell people to "be all they can be", and then 
slap them around if they become the best at what they do. Free 
enterprise is what made the country great, not government 
intervention and manipulation of business.
    The market will always adjust itself. Maybe not overnight as 
most Americans seem to require, but it always does in a competitive 
environment. Another great idea will always come along to challenge 
the current supremacy of a corporation if you just let the people 
and private sector work their magic.
    Tony Suarez



MTC-00001261

From: Marsha McCurley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft penalties
    Dear Sirs:
    Many of Microsoft's business practices were predatory and worthy 
of praise only by Attila the Hun. No one disputes that they got 
caught doing illegal dealings that smack of Nazi power plays. I feel 
the most sorry for their so-called partners, not their rivals. I 
recall overhearing the last part of a tv news broadcast describing 
some of what they had forced their partners to do, and it was a 
shock when I realized that they were talking about Microsoft_I 
had thought they were discussing Mafia business practices.
    I feel that Microsoft has harmed us all by forcing companies and 
consumers to take their software junk and thereby limit our choices, 
and also that also limits the directions for software and hardware 
development in the future. America has always been the land of 
choices_don't let Microsoft take that freedom away from us.
    I am shocked that after the USDOJ found Microsoft to be guilty 
of being the largest monopoly in history that you would then turn 
around and be the wimpiest bunch of fools I've ever heard of and let 
them get away with it. If you don't take measures now to stop them, 
you will be proving to the whole world that you're on their payroll, 
too. Get some guts and put a stop to them. Separate the OS division 
from the rest of the company. Make them show some ethics for a 
change. Make them let consumers have choices instead of the 
omnipotent Bill deciding what we should have. Make them really have 
to compete and the whole technology market will improve.

[[Page 23886]]

    Sincerely,
    Marsha McCurley



MTC-00001262

From: George A. Denino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 1:34pm
Subject: OS vs. Application Software: A Primer
    OS vs. Application Software: A Primer
    1. All computers start up (boot) by running operating system 
(OS) software. This software creates an environment in which useful 
work (word processing, page layout, image manipulation, web site 
creation, sound editing, etc.) is accomplished through the use of 
task specific applications running within the parameters established 
by the operating system.
    2. An application can run correctly under an operating system 
only if the developers of the application software know the 
requirements dictated by the operating system.
    3. A company which creates both the operating system and task 
specific applications has a distinct advantage over any competitor 
wishing to create a similar task specific product. The OS developer 
need not divulge all of its programming code to developers of 
competing applications. In fact, it may even incorporate, within its 
operating system, lines of code designed specifically to break a 
competing program.
    4. The recent settlement between the government and Microsoft 
Corp. ignores these facts as well as the well established history of 
Microsoft's anti competitive and monopolistic tactics used to 
undermine applications such as Netscape Navigator and WordPerfect. 
These applications did the same work as Microsoft's Internet 
Explorer and Word. Each did its task far better than its Microsoft 
counterpart until Microsoft decided to "integrate" its 
own products into its Windows operating system. Neither Microsoft 
product could have become the de facto "standard" in its 
respective realm without this sham policy of 
"integration."
    5. Any settlement which allows Microsoft to continue this 
blatantly monopolistic policy is ludicrous. Only one of two possible 
solutions would adequately address the underlying problem which led 
to the government's initial legal action against Microsoft:
    a. To level the playing field, Microsoft would be required to 
release its entire Windows code to all software developers.
    b. Microsoft would not be permitted to "integrate" 
any of its in house applications into its operating system, and 
sanctions sufficient to restore true competition within the software 
industry would be implemented against the company.
    George A. Denino
    Mac & PC Support
    Franklin Computer Services Group
    mailto:[email protected]
    (614) 899-2180 Home/Office
    (614) 899-2676 FAX
    (614) 673-4921 Voicemail/Pager
    Communications V.P.
    The Alliance of Greater Central Ohio
    http://www.harmonize.com/alliance
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00001263

From: Steve R. Whitaker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 1:38pm
Subject: bad descision
    It seems to me that in light of the latest ruling by judge 
Koleen that Bill Gates is now more powerful than George Bush. 
Microsoft now controls over 90% of the world's computers. Almost our 
entire government is controlled by Bill Gates' software. You think 
that because we have bigger troubles in Afganhastan, that we don't 
need to be fighting with Microsoft? The Taliban will lose 
significance in a few months but Bill's software will be controlling 
our lives for decades to come. Being that Microsoft has 30 billion 
in cash and owns many other businesses including a national 
broadcasting company. They now have the power to buy politicians, 
influence public opinion and control what people will and will not 
do on the internet. The government is apparently harder on kids that 
copy music and software than they are on criminals with guns. Judge 
Koleen doesn't know enough about technology to be making landmark 
descisions on who will control the internet and what constitutes as 
a potential copyright problem. Even our armed forces relies heavily 
on Microsoft products. How can some young college kid in a remote 
country write a superior OS and our entire defense forces has to 
liscence buggy insecure software from Bill Gates. I guess I know the 
answer... its hard to collect taxes on free software.
    Steve Whitaker



MTC-00001264

From: T. Breheny / DiGiTAL ZEN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 1:36pm
Subject: complications by design greetings,
    as an apple developer producing content for both macOS and 
windows platforms, i've repeatedly seen my efforts seemingly blocked 
by microsoft in their attempt to control the marketplace. two such 
examples include the mime-type "hijacking" which windows 
media player was notorious for, so that content that was intended 
for playback w/in the quicktime architecture (cross platform) was 
instead stolen by WMP; and in the case of advanced interactive 
movies (which i author) like wired sprites and QTVR, windows media 
player could not play correctly, thus giving the end-user a failing 
experience and the impression that either i as the author had done 
something wrong, or that quicktime was at fault (neither being 
true).
    most recently w/ the announcement that MS had dropped support 
for netscape-style plugins, an established protocol on the web, in 
favor of (no surprise) their object/active-x mechanism.
    i hope that, politics aside, this matter will continue to get 
the attention it deserves from the DOJ. microsoft can make decent 
software (i'm using their mail program and web browser on my mac), i 
just wish they could "play nicely" realizing that we're 
all trying to deliver compelling content to the public and don't 
need unnecessary hurdles in an attempt to block the competition.
    thank you in advance.
    Terry Breheny, Founder/Producer
    DiGiTAL ZEN 
    "We did not inherit the earth from our parents, rather we 
are borrowing it from our children."



MTC-00001265

From: Joe Frank
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find it amazing that as a user of many computer products, the 
settlement clearly does not address the core issue of the complaint 
that most people who would enjoy a lower cost Window's Operating 
System's without all the new add on's that may or may not be wanted.
    A break up of MSFT may be too harsh but a break up of bundling 
applications with the operating system would lead to a lower OS 
cost. This would still allow MSFT to develop those 
"innovative" applications but in a competitive 
environment that is equal to all given that everyone has access to 
the necessary API's.
    That would allow the consumer to spend their money where they 
want and still allow MSFT to compete. As is stands now if you want a 
competing application you need to pay twice. There is consumer 
protection at it's best. Also the basis of MSFT's PR campaign has 
been innovation. However with the descent decree fresh in hand how 
long did it take them to announce their intention to 
"unbundle" JAVA from Window's? A truly innovative 
feature which competes directly with MSFT's view of the future. I 
hope the judicial system shows more common sense than the new DOJ 
did.
    Joseph Frank



MTC-00001266

From: Michael Leitao
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 1:40pm
Subject: settlement
    Dear Government Representatives,
    I am very disappointed in the DOJ decision to settle with 
Microsoft with no real punitive damages assessed against an 
organization that has clearly done more to stifle innovation rather 
than develop it as they frequently assert at every rhetorical 
opportunity. This organization has, in my humble opinion, created 
road blocks to the advancement of technology while appropriating and 
constraining developments from other organizations. It is 
unfathomable that such an organization will be allowed to continue 
to do such harm to the advancement of technology especially while we 
are all looking forward to economic recovery. If there is any way 
for this decision to be reversed I strongly urge you to do so. I 
sincerely hope the states who have decided to challenge the 
settlement will prevail.
    Michael Leitao



MTC-00001267

From: SBMB12
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 1:39pm
Subject: Social Policy Litigation
    BROWN ENTERPRISES
    You cannot fail, you can only produce results!

[[Page 23887]]

    SUCCESS STARTS NOW
    In preface, let me say that I have no vested interest in either 
the DOJ or in the stock of Microsoft. My investment has been in my 
country as a loyal, patriotic, and voting citizen through the 
decades.
    Now retired from years in middle and upper management, I have 
watched the serge of litigious terrorists in the environmental, 
family, social, civil, and recently political business policy 
arenas.
    Much more in touch now with the pulse of the masses, I can tell 
you with all confidence that the case against Microsoft has been and 
continues to be viewed as a contrived liberal attempt to punish the 
wealthy and redistribute wealth, in this case knowledge, to those 
companies unable, unwilling, and less dedicated to the pursuit of 
excellence. It is not the practices of Microsoft that appear to be 
unfair; rather, it is the manipulation of the government against 
them that appears sinister and an invasion of pure competition in a 
capitalistic society. Even a cursory recollection of the tenants of 
Antitrust Acts show a factitious extension to support the 
governments case.
    Do not expect the American public and business person to agree 
or respect the prosecution of a company who, has from it's 
inception, exemplified the American business ethics of creativity, 
investment, hard work, intensity, comprehensive marketing, and 
dominating success. From the first trading post in Jamestown to 
date, those companies who succeed are those who prove themselves to 
be the best to the buying public. They do not depend on a "big 
brother" using the peoples money to punish the successful and 
subsidies the inferior.
    Personally, I have always thrived on competition in sports and 
business and measured results in terms of final score or sales by 
the rules as they existed during the competition. When the 
government has to redefine the definition of "antitrust" 
in order to justify it's position, the ad hoc assault becomes a 
ludicrous farce in the eyes of all those who have watched and 
benefited from the software company. The DOJ case seems to depend on 
what the definition of "is" is. If we apply the same 
definitions to other companies in other industries, who will be 
next..... Wal Mart, Coke, Home Depot, GE?
    Henry David Thoreau saw the demon of political government 
litigation when he wrote in 1849, "Policy does not make 
morality". With all due respect, let the best company(s) win. 
Regarding your efforts against military and religious terrorists: 
God's speed for your safety and success and God bless you all.
    We look forward to the DOJ regaining it's respectability after 
the embarrassing rein of Ms. Reno, the most unqualified Attorney 
General in the history of the department.
    Sincerely,
    Skip Brown



MTC-00001268

From: Philip Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 1:47pm
Subject: very dissastisfied
    Your settlement with Microsoft allows it to become twice as much 
a monopoly as it is today. It would be better to drop the case 
entirely than enact the currently preposed settlement which gives 
Microsoft even more priveledges to abuse consumers. I am a US 
citizen, tax payer, and voter. I beleive that this settlement with 
Microsoft is an excellent example of the waste and poor performance 
of my government.
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
    http://personals.yahoo.com



MTC-00001269

From: John Springer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 1:47pm
Subject: Proposed settlement doesn't solve anything
    I object to the proposed settlement agreement, as it does NOT 
make it possible for anyone to compete with Microsoft in any 
computer-related market they choose to be in.
    I believe the Windows operating system needs to be treated like 
a publicly owned standard, not a private money machine. Every 
software maker needs to have equal access to it, and computer 
manufacturers should be free to do whatever they want with it on 
machines they build.
    It is an enormous myth that Microsoft was the magician that 
drove the computer industry to success. Microsoft has never made 
anything better, cheaper, or simpler in their history. It is Intel's 
success at continuously increasing hardware performance at lower 
prices that made the PC industry happen. So we can stop thinking 
that the success of the whole industry depends on keeping Microsoft 
at unconscionable, monopolistic profit margins. I am most concerned 
about the future of the Internet. The Internet, as originally 
conceived, was built on simple open standards that everyone could 
use. Microsoft is hell-bent on destroying open standards and the DOJ 
settlement does not prevent them from marching forward by building 
more and more proprietary things into their monopoly OS until they 
control all electronic communications. That is wrong. And no-one but 
the DOJ can stop it.
    Regards,
    John Springer
    5933 Hwy 101 N
    Yachats, OR 97498



MTC-00001270

From: Jill Stone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle this case immediately! The economy is so bad, how can you 
continue to punish the one good company in the USA. Do you want 
Japan to control everything? This is stupid! Spend the money 
tracking down terrorists and leave MS alone!



MTC-00001271

From: rhankel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 1:50pm
Subject: Problem not solved
    Hi,
    I don't feel the the deal made solves the underlining 
problem_Microsoft's monopoly. At the end of the day they will 
still be able to leverage their monopoly to gain advantages which 
will reduce or eliminate the competition. Microsoft has bundled 
software in several key areas such as downloadable sound and video 
which has nothing to do with the core os. But because this software 
is bundled, people are less likely to download competitors, even if 
the software is free, because of the difficulty of downloading and 
installing, especially if your are not a technically minded person. 
(How many people do you know who don't know how to set the time on 
their vcr.)
    It would be far better to force Microsoft to license their os to 
other venders but at a regulated rate. (Otherwise they will price it 
so high nobody will want to touch it.) Dividing the company is no 
good either as the os portion would still have the monopoly. The 
best would be to open source the code for the OS. Microsoft would 
still be able to develop and market their product but they wouldn't 
be able to leverage it for fear of someone else coming in and doing 
what they won't.
    In short, please remember what this case was all 
about_Microsoft using its monopoly to illegally leverage 
dominance in emerging technologies such as the internet. The 
solution must directly prevent Microsoft from ever having even the 
slightest chance of doing this ever again. From past experience with 
Windows 95 and Internet Explorer you can see that only the strongest 
action will prevent further abuse.
    Thanks,
    Rod Hankel



MTC-00001272

From: Jim Driskill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    RE: Microsoft Settlement
    How much did it cost to persuade you to ignore the intent of the 
law, consumer protection and your sworn duties?
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals.



MTC-00001273

From: Trevor Tally
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/19/01 1:57pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft Case
    As a consumer, I don't think the proposed settlement benefits me 
at all. Being that it is pretty much agreed that Microsoft is a 
monopoly, I would have liked to have seen Microsoft forced to reduce 
prices and fees for the consumer. For instance:
    1. Set a maximum price for products that they have a large share 
of the market (Similar to Utility Regulation in the past)
    2. Force them to provide free customer and product support to 
registered product owners
    Let's look at the facts:
    1. Microsoft typically Nets $5-8 Billion dollars on $20 
Billion in sales per year. I don't know of any large company that 
makes that kind of profit margin.
    2. Developer support is charged at nearly $250 per hour, regular 
support is about $150 per hour. Microsoft thinks it is generous by 
giving you two free calls when you buy a

[[Page 23888]]

product, but then they don't provide a manual with the product. You 
have to purchase their books if you need to help or pay their high 
fee for help after two lousy calls.
    The two points above indicate that Microsoft is using its 
monopoly power to gouge the consumer. Secondly, these numbers paint 
a telling picture as to why competitors can not compete. Microsoft 
has so much money to throw around that they either outspend in 
R&D or buy any company that develops a better product.
    Please, re-focus your attention on actually doing something that 
benefits the consumer. Basically, Microsoft is our only option for 
many products and we are getting gouged big time in our pocket book 
by their business practices.
    Thank you for your time.



MTC-00001274

From: Rich Gerdy
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/19/01 1:57pm
Subject: Public Comment
    A brief comment on Microsoft's proposed settlement. When I 
purchased a computer from Gateway, I tried to order the spreadsheet 
known as 1-2-3 (Lotus). My wife was proficient in this 
program. Gateway told me they could not install that program because 
Microsoft would not let them. It was a nightmare converting to 
Microsoft's own spreadsheet program called Excel. I hope the 
settlement addresses all the customers who were forced to give up a 
computer program that they relied on and convert to a different 
program.
    Thank You Richard Gerdy



MTC-00001275

From: Joe Arico
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 2:19pm
Subject: Settlement
    I am very disappointed in the settlement agreed upon between the 
DOJ and Microsoft. Where is justice being served except to benefit 
the Government. This settlement is nothing more than slap on the 
hand for Microsoft and a punch in the gut to consumers.
    In any other industry these similar practices would incite the 
government to break up the company.
    The SEC prevents mergers between companies based upon the 
benefits to consumers using a method that evidently does not hold up 
in a court of law. The market share that Microsoft holds is easily 
enough to be called a Monopoly. Even the lower courts ruled that 
Microsoft was a Monopoly and the ruling was held up in the appeals 
courts.
    Please tell me how a fine is going to prevent Microsoft from 
being a monopoly.
    Joe Arico



MTC-00001276

From: Jeff Cooper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 2:18pm
Subject: Settlement
    Your decision to settle with Microsoft without breaking up the 
company disregards all findings of fact and does not provide any 
protection to the American public.
    You sold out.



MTC-00001277

From: Steve Cohn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 2:16pm
Subject: Proposed settlement is not appropriate for the industry
    Although the intent of the Justice Department's settlement with 
Microsoft is laudable, I do not believe that it takes into account 
the fast pace of the technology industry, contrasted with the slow 
pace of litigation. Microsoft has used this discrepancy in the past 
to its advantage. The charges around the current case stem from 
violations made in 1998 while Microsoft was already under a consent 
decree. It has taken over three years for remedies to even be 
proposed. During that time, hundreds of companies have been trampled 
over by Microsoft, and the market position of Windows has only 
solidified. It is also impossible to estimate how many potential 
competitors never got off the ground because they dreaded the idea 
of going up against a monopoly.
    The solutions proposed do not prevent these kinds of issues from 
occurring again, they only provide ways of monitoring them when they 
do occur; which puts consumers and competitors at the same 
disadvantage that they were three years ago. If the remedies 
concentrate on specific technologies and terminologies, rather than 
the inherent structure and practices of the company, Microsoft will 
always find a way around them and count on the delay of the Justice 
system to render the issues moot.
    Their history speaks for itself.
    Steve Cohn
    Los Angeles



MTC-00001278

From: Wes Simonds
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 2:08pm
Subject: you've got to be kidding me
    Even if you think this arrangement is fair (and it's not), it's 
certainly being spun by the media, and will always be remembered, as 
the bastard brainchild of Bush's Republican influence on the 
Department of Justice, and not as a triumph of the same organization 
that brought down Al Capone. Do you really want that to be your 
legacy?
    That Microsoft will continue to wield monopoly power, crushing 
all contenders such as Netscape in hot, emerging markets by bundling 
free software with its operating system, is the central issue, and 
one which is completely ignored by this feeble deal.
    Wes Simonds



MTC-00001279

From: Brad Werth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 2:28pm
Subject: comments about the Microsoft settlement
    DOJ:
    I feel that the proposed settlement with Microsoft is utterly 
toothless and will only serve to legitimize Microsoft's existing 
illegal practices. It is clear that the DOJ is not up to enforcing a 
consent decree, judging by the circumstance in which we now find 
ourselves after the last consent decree. It would serve the public 
interest better for Microsoft to be convicted of abusing monopoly 
power, and for dire consequences to occur as a result.
    In short, the recent actions of the DOJ in regards to this case 
run roughshod over the hard work of your predecessors. So much has 
been accomplished in bringing Microsoft to account for its criminal 
behavior, and now you are going to drop the ball? It is absolutely 
disgraceful_ without government to protect the public, who 
will? You should be ashamed.
    Brad Werth
    [email protected]
    The opinions expressed here are solely my own. My employer has 
no sanction of this message.



MTC-00001280

From: Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 2:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice,
    I am disappointed in the settlement between Microsoft and the 
DOJ. Microsoft is the most predatory corporation in the 1900's and 
has received little more than a hand slap. The settlement is a step 
in the right direction but there need to be some additional, stiffer 
penalties to give Microsoft's competition a fair footing on which to 
compete against them. The most important thing I would recommend is 
forcing Microsoft to publish the specifications for their file 
formats for Word, Excel, Powerpoint and Access. With a market share 
of 90%+ for Microsoft Office, no one can successfully sell an 
alternative for Microsoft Office because it will not reliably read 
Microsoft Office documents, which are emailed from Corporation A to 
Corporation B, assuming Corporation B has Microsoft Office to open 
them. Every copy of Microsoft Office sold increases this barrier of 
entry for competitors. Forcing Microsoft to publish its file formats 
will ensure that other office suites can compete with Microsoft 
Office on features and quality, not on how well they read Microsoft 
Office documents, 90% of the documents out there.
    Hardware vendors should be allowed to sell their machines with 
no operating system or a free operating system preinstalled for $50 
or $100 dollars cheaper than with Windows preinstalled. The way 
Microsoft currently forces vendors to buy Windows licenses makes 
this financially implausible for hardware vendors. Just like you can 
buy a car cheaper without an option, you should be able to buy your 
computer cheaper without the Microsoft Windows option.
    The penalty for non-compliance with this settlement should be 
stiffer. If Microsoft does not comply with current terms of its 
settlement, there should be a $1 billion dollar initial fine with a 
$50 million dollar a day fine until they comply, not simply an 
extension to their probationary period. That would be a meaningful 
penalty for non-compliance. Thanks for hearing the voice of the 
people and not merely the sound of campaign contributions by the 
pro-Microsoft lobbying campaign.

[[Page 23889]]

    Charles Leeds
    Senior Information Security Analyst
    McKee Foods Corporation
    [email protected]
    (423) 238-7111 x2319



MTC-00001281

From: Jeff Jay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 2:23pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am appalled by the Justice Department's proposed settlement of 
the Microsoft anti-trust case.
    Today, Office X was released by Microsoft for the Mac platform. 
It is no better than AppleWorks, but businesses demand Microsoft 
products for compatibility reasons. So I will be forced to buy it. 
AppleWorks is $79 and Office X is $499. Get it?
    Jeff Jay
    Grosse Pointe Farms, MI 48236



MTC-00001282

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 2:21pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Ladies and gentlemen:
    As a laissez-faire Republican who opposes government 
intervention in most cases, and believes that there is nothing the 
Government can't screw up by intervening, I never thought I would be 
writing this letter. But I cannot object more strongly to the 
proposed settlement with Microsoft.
    Microsoft has stifled innovation and sucked the life-blood out 
of the computer industry for long enough. They have built their 
empire on marketing prowess and on making customers need them, not 
on innovation. They have systematically crushed competition. When 
DOJ filed suit, I thought it was long past time. When they won, I 
saw a ray of hope. It was the ONLY significantly good thing I ever 
saw come out of the Clinton administration.
    To settle now, on the terms you have proposed, is the most 
pathetic breach of faith with the American people I have ever seen. 
Why not just give them a federal license to continue to steal? The 
new XP is the worst yet in terms of over-reaching the consumer that 
pays for it. If they didn't have such an oppressive monopoly, I 
would never have bought the stuff. Put an end to these shenanigans 
by pushing these idiots to the wall.
    These people don't need consent decrees, they have already had 
them. They need jail terms.
    Matt Warnock 
    President/CEO, Millcreek Ventures Corporation 
(www.millcreekvc.com)
    Executive Vice President, Wayne Brown Institute 
(www.venturecapital.org)
    Cell/Voicemail: (801) 573-5329 Mail:1836 Tramway Drive, 
Snowbird Utah 84092



MTC-00001283

From: John Carosella
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 2:59pm
Subject: Inadequate
    The proposed settlement is inadequate to discourage and prevent 
Microsoft's abusive practices. This is a CONVICTED MONOPOLIST! 
Consider what effect similar constraints would have had on Standard 
Oil 100 years ago_effectively nothing. Ridiculous! This is one 
of the richest companies in the country, with a stranglehold on 
desktop computing (achieved illegally!!) that has every intention of 
exploiting its current (illegally obtained) position to further its 
stranglehold.
    Very severe penalties are required if innovation (and the 
associated creation of value, wealth, and progress) is to return to 
the computer software industry.
    Read the history of the AT&T breakup! The only part of the 
communications industry that DIDN'T benefit was local services, 
where the monopoly was maintained. And we see the impact to this day 
with the predatory practices of the RBOCs on the aspiring broadband 
internet service providers. Monopolies MUST be dismembered or they 
continue to perform against their charter (maximize shareholder 
value) irrespective of the consequences to the public.
    Break Microsoft up into MANY pieces. In the end, it will be 
better for Microsoft's shareholders as well as the public interest.
    John S. Carosella
    Executive Management
    Zippy Communications
    355 W. Olive Ave
    Sunnyvale, CA 94086
    (ph) 408 732 6540
    (fx) 408 732 2950



MTC-00001284

From: Pete Starzewski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 2:49pm
Subject: Opinion on Microsoft
    The settlement only addresses past violations, most of which are 
no longer relevant due to a changing marketplace. I see no mention 
of even more insidious behavior like the strong arming of enterprise 
customers to purchase support and upgrade contracts using vague 
threats of legal actions and piracy audits. Worse yet, we have the 
pending. Net initiative which is a thinly vieled attempt to leverage 
Windows to monopolize commercial use of the internet.
    Finally there is the issue ot Microsoft's subversion of 
established standards which is a blantant attempt to isolate and 
destroy certain open standards that compete with Microsoft's 
proprietary products. If at least these three issues are not 
addressed in the settlement, then we have all just wasted our time 
and effort. Microsoft will wind up back in the courts in another 5 
years.
    Pete Starzewski
    Network Systems Engineer
    Green Bay Packaging Inc.



MTC-00001285

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 2:45pm
Subject: Why is "monopoly" not a crime in the past 
tense?
    This agreement simply does not punish Microsoft in any way for 
the monopolistic crimes it has already committed and which are 
admitted as such in the findings of fact. It's ability to keep 
Microsoft from continuing to indulge its monopoly is doubtful to say 
the least. That the gov't would assent to this plan after proving 
Microsoft a monopoly so irrefutably is a travesty.
    regards,
    Wild Open Source Inc. "Making the bazaar just a little 
more commonplace." home: www.smith-house.org work: 
www.wildopensource.com



MTC-00001286

From: Phil Russell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 2:39pm
Subject: Statment on the DOJ-Microsoft Propsed Settlement
    I am addressing this to the email address given for consumer 
response to the proposed Miscrosoft Anti-Trust Settlement.
    I am pleased that you have given us this email address and now 
are listening to average computer users.
    In my opinion, the agreement as I have read about it lets 
Microsoft almost completely off the track. Microsoft's destruction 
of Netscape is not addressed in any way, form, shape or manner.
    Because of their threats to Apple, novice Macintosh users are 
now effectively forced to use Microsoft Internet Explorer and 
Microsoft Outlook Express for web and email through the forced use 
of Mail and Browse aliases Apple must place on the desktop. These 
aliases make the novice user have these programs as default since 
the novice does not know how to evade using these aliases.
    It might be educational for the judge in this case to listen to 
Bill Gates as he continually pounds on the suggestion that he does 
not want to see Microsoft kept from "innovating." He 
uses this word over and over. The challenge I pose to any Windows 
user is to show me just ONE thing Microsoft has EVER innovated. I 
have yet to see a Windows user come up with a SINGLE innovation. It 
is my observation that Microsoft borrows, steals or buys anything in 
the marketplace which looks good. Microsoft's real expertise lies in 
the fields of marketing and of improvement of products they borrow, 
steal or buy.
    Indeed, it is Apple Computer which innovates... the first 
commercial graphic user interface (1984 Macintosh and earlier Lisa), 
QuickDraw, and Firewire as a few examples. So the court cannot and 
should not seek to protect innovation by a company. Microsoft, which 
never innovates at all. Further, in fashioning a remedy, I think the 
judge should take particular notice of the absolute lies Bill Gates 
told the previous judge in the case, Penfield Jackson. This kind of 
behavior can tell the current judge much about how drastic the 
remedy must be to counter this kind of lying by the CEO of the 
leading corporation in America.
    My bottom line is that the agreement, as I currently read of it, 
lets Microsoft almost completely off the hook. Please back off and 
try again for a remedy which curbs Microsoft's predatory behavior in 
the marketplace.
    This case should not be a political football, with Democrats 
fighting for anti-trust protection and Republicans seeking 
advantages for big business. Let common sense reign!

[[Page 23890]]

    Thank you for listening to a home user,
    Phil Russell
    "Within the computer industry, the description, 
'more like a Macintosh' is always a high praise. The 
description 'more like Windows' is rarely used as 
praise."_The Seattle Times



MTC-00001287

From: James E. Gazin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 3:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I've been following the Microsoft case since it's inception. 
Early on, I was cheering for Microsoft, but recent developments have 
caused me to change my mind. The new licensing requirements for 
Windows XP and the changes that have been made to MSN.COM to kick 
off Microsoft's new ".NET" initiative have left me cold.
    On Windows XP licensing:
    I have never installed Windows without having to reinstall it at 
some point in time. I also make frequent changes to my hardware as I 
try to keep up with technology. Windows XP, should I upgrade to it, 
would have me call MS Tech Support every time I did an install or 
made changes to my hardware and put me in the position of having to 
explain to an MS representative why I need to reinstall or 
reactivate the OS.
    It is none of MS's business what hardware I install Windows on. 
They have no right to peek into my computer and see how their OS is 
being used. Just imagine the possibilities for Microsoft: They know 
what hardware I'm using and that puts them in a position to 
"suggest" that I add certain hardware to my system. It 
gives them an edge over the competition. Microsoft justifies their 
registration requirements by raising the software piracy banner and 
claiming that they are just trying to protect themselves. Microsoft 
is the richest corporation in the world! They can't be hurt too much 
by piracy.
    On the new ".NET" initiative:
    I've had a HotMail account for the last several months. I don't 
have one now, because MS broke their own licensing agreement and 
claimed I hadn't accessed my account recently and therefore had to 
reapply. (I hadn't accessed my account for one week and according 
the agreement I only had to access it once every 90 days.) To 
reactivate my account, I would have had to read and agree to a new 
20 page licensing agreement that included this new 
".NET" stuff. Microsoft is trying to force everyone on 
the WEB to use their new "Microsoft Wallet" and store 
all their personal information on MS servers. Microsoft servers have 
a long history of being hacked and I, for one, believe that if you 
put all your eggs in one basket and tell all the thieves where your 
basket is, you increase your odds of being ripped off.
    In my opinion there is only one possible solution that would 
truly level Microsoft's playing field. The justice department must 
require Microsoft to publish all Windows programming hooks and the 
purpose of each hook. (I use the word HOOK as a synonym for program 
calls to the operating system.) This would allow other companies to 
create operating systems that were compatible with Windows and 
Microsoft would be forced to compete in the market solely on the 
merits if its OS. We would have a standard operating system template 
and competition: the best of both worlds.
    What do you think computers would cost today if Advanced Micro 
Devices hadn't challenged Intel and forced performance up and prices 
down? We NEED competition in the OS workspace as well. It is the 
only reasonable solution.
    Sincerely,
    James E. Gazin
    [email protected]



MTC-00001288

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement Opinion
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I can't say that I know much about the final results of the 
anti-trust suit, but I can say that I am sickened, saddened, and 
horrified that one of the largest innovation-crushing, illegal, and 
underhanded monopolies in the history of the United States is being 
dismissed with hardly more than a slap on the wrist. The only course 
with any hope at all is to BREAK MICROSOFT INTO THREE COMPANIES, AS 
ORIGINALLY PROPOSED. This is indeed a sad time for our democracy. I 
only hope that one day, all of those responsible for this travesty 
will have to support Microsoft operating systems for the rest of 
their natural lives, without benefit of investment in Microsoft.
    Gregory Santos
    San Diego, CA
    U.S.A.
    Disclaimer: the foregoing opinions are not in any way claimed to 
be the opinions of my employer, associates, or family. However, many 
of my co-workers feel similarly.



MTC-00001289

From: Walter Lee Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 3:15pm
Subject: Comments about the proposed settlement with Microsoft
    Thank you, first of all, for providing a venue for concerned 
citizens to add their opinions to this important court case I hope 
that the volume of response you will surely get does not overwhelm 
your systems and proves valuable in concluding this case in a manner 
that restores fairness to the marketplace.
    Microsoft has grown to the point that it dwarfs many nations in 
its size and influence world wide. How it got to be this big is a 
matter of some contention, but it has been proven, time and again, 
to have leveraged its overwhelming market share in one area to gain 
dominance in others. I see no end to this trend. It may be too late 
to stop this process, as Microsoft could simply purchase a small 
country and move its operational headquarters there, if it is 
presented with a compelling business reason to do so.
    Any fair penalty in this case will address the financial losses 
of the companies that Microsoft competed with unfairly, as well as 
the losses of individual computer users who have had their freedom 
of choice artificially restricted. A penalty that does not include 
Microsoft admitting guilt for what they have done to date, and does 
not preclude them from developing new products or services which 
could be used to reduce competition and raise the barrier to entry 
for competitors, does not go far enough to stop this behavior from 
ever occurring again.
    As a monopoly in the desktop computer system software industry, 
Microsoft has to live by a different set of rules than the companies 
that make up the other 5% of the desktop market share. Where other 
companies can seek to create coalitions and partnerships with other 
companies in order to mutually promote their products' use, 
Microsoft is larger than the rest of the software industry put 
together. Any partnership it is likely to make is strictly for the 
purpose of restricting that partner's actions to those that benefit 
Microsoft directly or indirectly. Microsoft's relationships with 
other companies should be monitored directly by the court for any 
hint of anti-competitive behavior.
    As a latecomer to the Internet party, Microsoft used its desktop 
dominance to artificially inflate the market for its web browser 
software. The fact that its browser was weaker and buggier than the 
competition did not matter_the enormous push of the Microsoft 
marketing machine (not a crime, but a case where dollars could out-
do technical quality or competence), the fact that they gave it away 
for free (technically "dumping", since it cost something 
to produce, after all), and the fact that ISP's and hardware 
manufacturers were coerced into promoting it rather than Netscape 
Navigator (definitely illegal) combined to give it a commanding lead 
over technically superior products. Microsoft should be fined 
billions, the proceeds should be distributed to Netscape and other 
browser manufacturers, hardware manufacturers, and the end users.
    Microsoft would like to extend its dominance in the desktop to 
file servers as well. Even though file servers need to be available 
to many different client operating systems, Microsoft can take the 
open standards that make this cross-platform intercommunication 
possible and change their interpretation of them subtly to ensure 
that only a Microsoft client can communicate efficiently with a 
Microsoft server. In many cases, they have done this already. The 
net result is that competition in the desktop client marketplace is 
restricted by behavior in the server marketplace and vice-versa.
    Even more frightening is the thought that Microsoft might use 
this same strategy in the web server market. The net result would be 
catastrophic for the Web and its users, as Microsoft would 
effectively be in control of the entire internet, and could change 
the underlying transport protocols to restrict use of the Web to 
their browser or desktop operating system or both.
    Microsoft must be enjoined from deviating from any open 
standards, and must follow them explicitly. They may be a party to 
the creation of these standards, but they cannot have more than one 
vote in that process. If they make a web server software, it must

[[Page 23891]]

interoperate with all browser clients equally. If they make a file-
sharing server, it must interoperate with all desktop operating 
systems equally. If they incorporate any features into their desktop 
or server operating systems that are either available on other 
platforms as middleware or third-party software applications or were 
previously available as middleware or third-party software 
applications on their desktop or server operating systems, those 
operating system features should have to meet the same standards of 
universal availability to non-Microsoft client systems as their 
predecessors.
    Finally, it doesn't seem possible to keep Microsoft from giving 
itself an unfair advantage, since they make the server operating 
system, desktop operating system, middleware, application software, 
utilities, etc. all in one shop. The last time this sort of behavior 
was noticed by the courts, it was because US Steel owned the mines, 
the mills, the railroads, the ships, and the trains. They could set 
any price they liked, and could keep competitors from ever reaching 
profitability.
    Microsoft should be divided into separate companies: Programming 
Languages, Server Operating Systems, Desktop Operating Systems, 
Server Application Software, Desktop Application Software, 
Middleware. Each of these companies would be walled away from the 
others, and would expose only the programming interfaces and source 
codes that they would share with any non-Microsoft competitor to 
each other.
    These standards are much higher than those that Microsoft's 
competition lives by, but until the day comes that Microsoft is not 
larger than all its competitors combined, it must live by them. 
Right now, no matter how bad a product they produce, people will buy 
it. The ordinary expectation of "survival of the 
fittest" has been supplanted by "rule by the 
fattest". That is not good for business and it is not good for 
the world.
    Thanks for your time,
    Walter Lee Davis



MTC-00001290

From: Paul Ahlgeen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am glad, as most of America, that this matter is almost over. 
Competition is not the answered question, AOL/Turner should show all 
of us that competition has never been better. IBM, SUN, Lunix (all 
kinds), and many others all try to give ME what I need and want. I 
and others like me buy, install. and maintain systems from Home to 
factories and Offices across the land. We use the stuff and decided 
that Microsoft wins for the best effort to design software that 
works together and performs the many different tasks that we ask. 
Had we liked the other products out like IBM_OS2, AOL's 
Netscape Browser, or any other 'wow-sir we would have used 
theirs more. But We Didn't. Settle this now and keep the 
'think tank' that has been doing what the world needed 
together at one Microsoft.
    Paul Ahlgreen
    PHA International [email protected]



MTC-00001291

From: Lon Hutchison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 3:14pm
Subject: MS monopoly settlement
    To Whom, etc;
    I am appalled that Microsoft is getting off so easily. Microsoft 
stifles innovation in the marketplace through their strongarm 
tactics as regards competing companies and will strengthen their 
hegemonic grip on the marketplace if they (Miscrosoft) are not 
properly punished, and duly regulated, for their illegal business 
practices which have made them a de facto monopoly.
    Ralph Nader recently submitted a letter to the Department of 
Justice and Judge Kollar-Kelly on the matter of the Microsoft case 
settlement. I wholeheartedly support the points Mr. Nader made in 
that letter. Microsoft must be made to understand that they can not 
run roughshod over the marketplace and consumers and this 
settlement, as it is now, will do little or nothing to discourage 
Microsoft from conducting their illegal business practices ad 
infinitum.
    Sincerely,
    W. Lon Hutchison
    New York, NY, USA



MTC-00001292

From: Allen Wicks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 3:29pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft's business model has been and still is abusively anti 
competitive and anti innovative (despite what their PR hyperbole 
claims). The cost to consumers and to industry wide innovation has 
been immense. Even today after losing all the way to the Supreme 
Court, MS continues its business model largely unabated. The 
proposed settlement "penalties" are easily thwarted by 
MS, creating essentially no penalties at all; so, why should 
MS_or any other large firm_cease violating anti-trust 
laws? So far the MS model is a textbook example of the financial 
success of such unethical and even illegal business practices. 
Please consider this my request that the very weak Proposed 
Microsoft/DOJ Settlement NOT BE ENACTED. MS has been found guilty 
and has lost all appeals. They made a joke of their earlier (1994) 
settlement. Now it is time for them to be STRONGLY PENALIZED:
    [1] Their anti competitive behavior must be prohibited, and 
permanently, not just for five years. Any firm with such immense 
resources can and will make a mockery of any weak 5 year 
restrictions, simply by spending a few tens of millions slipping and 
sliding around the legal system.
    [2] Very large fines must be imposed, sufficient to make Gates 
et. al. sufficiently aware of the consequences of the firm's illicit 
behavior that they are stimulated to want to change that behavior.
    [3] Anti competitive business dealings (e.g. it has been and 
still is virtually impossible to buy _any_ personal 
computer, even an Apple Macintosh, that does not default to 
Microsoft's browser whether the buyer wants it or not!) must be 
clearly and unequivocally prohibited.
    [4] Perhaps most important, 
a_permanent_"Microsoft Litigants' Defense 
Fund" should be created from fines levied against Microsoft. 
Such a fund (with zero influence or participation by MS allowed) 
should make litigation funding and legal support available to firms 
who feel that they have been harmed by MS's failure to comply either 
with anti-trust law or with the (hopefully very harsh) terms of the 
2001 penalties when they are promulgated.
    [5] Movement of Microsoft's abusively anti-competitive and anti-
innovative business model into emerging markets MUST be enforceably 
prohibited. The internet and the "convergence" market 
spaces in particular (but not limited to) need be kept accessible to 
small innovators and not locked up by the likes of Microsoft. Much 
has been expressed that MS is a market leader and that penalizing 
them penalizes an already weak tech sector. What MS really is is an 
industry bully; penalizing such business behavior will in a very 
short time period overall stimulate the tech sector as innovators 
can again start innovating unfettered by fear of what type of 
response may come from the industry bully.
    Thank you.
    _Allen Wicks
    Small business person and computer industry observer since the 
1970s.
    Allen Wicks
    [email protected]
    10164 Laburnham Circle, Truckee, CA 96161
    530-550-8727



MTC-00001293

From: Schwalb, Robert
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/19/01 3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As evidenced by the recent release of Windows XP, Microsoft will 
continue its predatory practices unless it is broken into at least 
two companies; the first producing application software, and the 
second operating systems. The logic of Microsoft's position on 
bundling application software with the operating system, would allow 
it to include, for example, a compiler. After all, following 
Microsoft's arguments, any application will present a "better 
user experience" if it's part of the operating system. Then 
there are the implications for national security_ In a 1998 
Computerworld article Paul Strassman of the National Defense 
University in Washington, DC, rightly observed that: Microsoft's 
dominance in operating systems represents a new threat to the 
national security of our information-based society. The government 
is trying hard to contain the expanding power of Microsoft by 
antitrust litigation that would prove present harm to consumers. 
That's insufficient. The government also should address the risks 
from information warfare attacks on a largely homogeneous systems 
management environment. Inevitably, infoterrorists and criminals 
will take advantage of flaws in the gigantic Microsoft operating 
systems that are on their way to becoming the engines for running 
most of our information infrastructure....An all-encompassing 
operating system bares itself to hostile exploitation of paralyzing 
security

[[Page 23892]]

flaws. The presence of a fatal defect is unavoidable, as the 
complexity of Microsoft systems expands to bizarre proportions with 
each new release. It's the search for such a fault that occupies the 
minds of some of the brightest computer experts. Finding a crack 
through which one could induce mayhem with only a few keystrokes 
would be worth a great deal of money, especially when supporting an 
act of terrorism....No agricultural expert would suggest that only 
one crop, using the identical seed strain, be planted in Kansas, 
Ohio, Illinois and Iowa. "Monocultures," as biologists 
call them, are just too vulnerable to pests, disease and an 
unprecedented combination of ecological conditions. The Irish potato 
famine, for example, was caused by reliance on a single strain of 
potato.



MTC-00001294

From: Al Pierce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 3:21pm
Subject: MicroSoft antitrust settlement
    I, as do most persons I know, feel that this settlement is a 
mere slap on the wrist. MicroSoft has done more to harm innovation, 
quell creativity, and limit consumer choice than any company I have 
witnessed in my twenty five years working in the computer and high 
tech industry.
    I am astounded that they are being allowed to remain a single 
company marketing both operating system software as well as 
applications software. I've seen many software applications that 
were clearly superior and offered a legitimate alternative to 
MicroSoft products destroyed by MicroSofts' monopoly power and 
underhanded marketing practices.
    If this settlement goes through it will be a sad day for 
justice. Mr. Gates thinks this is a fair settlement. That means they 
are getting off easy. A fair settlement would have him screaming.
    Al Pierce
    Senior Staff Engineer
    A computer without Windows is like a cake without 
mustard._anonymous



MTC-00001295

From: Neil Ratzlaff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 3:36pm
Subject: I want to be a federal criminal, too
    After a surprisingly successful prosecution and resoundingly 
upheld conviction of Microsoft, the DOJ has decided that there are 
no penalties for breaking the law. Not even a token fine! Add to 
that travesty the lack of restrictions on future behavior, and even 
Bill Gates couldn't have come up with a more favorable settlement if 
he tried. You should be ashamed of yourselves.



MTC-00001296

From: Sylvester LaBlanc
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/19/01 3:35pm
Subject: Microsoft is acting worse than ever.
    I am a software developer. I am very unhappy with the control 
that Microsoft has over the industry. They are acting worse than 
ever and need to be broken up. I would suggest that they be broken 
into three companies by Operating System, development tools, and 
applications. They use their power in each area to force developers 
and users to use their products in the other areas. I am very 
unhappy with their attack and imitation of the Java environment, and 
their removal of support for plug-ins in their browser.
    The current proposals will do nothing to stop the monopolistic 
practices of the company.
    Sylvester La Blanc
    2620 W. Windhaven Dr.
    Rialto, CA 92377



MTC-00001297

From: Allen Wicks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 3:35pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft's business model has been and still is abusively anti-
competitive and anti-innovative (despite what their PR hyperbole 
claims). The cost to consumers and to industry-wide innovation has 
been immense. Even today after losing all the way to the Supreme 
Court, MS continues its business model largely unabated. The 
proposed settlement "penalties" are easily thwarted by 
MS, creating essentially no penalties at all; so, why should 
MS_or any other large firm_cease violating anti-trust 
laws? So far the MS model is a textbook example of the financial 
success of such unethical and even illegal business practices. 
Please consider this my request that the very weak Proposed 
Microsoft/DOJ Settlement NOT BE ENACTED. MS has been found guilty 
and has lost all appeals. They made a joke of their earlier (1994) 
settlement. Now it is time for them to be STRONGLY PENALIZED:
    [1] Their anti-competitive behavior must be prohibited, and 
permanently, not just for five years. Any firm with such immense 
resources can and will make a mockery of any weak 5 year 
restrictions, simply by spending a few tens of millions slipping and 
sliding around the legal system.
    [2] Very large fines must be imposed, sufficient to make Gates 
et. al. sufficiently aware of the consequences of the firm's illicit 
behavior that they are stimulated to want to change that behavior.
    [3] Anti-competitive business dealings (e.g. it has been and 
still is virtually impossible to buy _any_ personal 
computer, even an Apple Macintosh, that does not default to 
Microsoft's browser whether the buyer wants it or not!) must be 
clearly and unequivocally prohibited.
    [4] Perhaps most important, a _permanent_ 
"Microsoft Litigants' Defense Fund" should be created 
from fines levied against Microsoft. Such a fund (with zero 
influence or participation by MS allowed) should make litigation 
funding and legal support available to firms who feel that they have 
been harmed by MS's failure to comply either with anti-trust law or 
with the (hopefully very harsh) terms of the 2001 penalties when 
they are promulgated.
    [5] Movement of Microsoft's abusively anti-competitive and anti-
innovative business model into emerging markets MUST be enforceably 
prohibited. The internet and the "convergence" market 
spaces in particular (but not limited to) need be kept accessible to 
small innovators and not locked up by the likes of Microsoft.
    Much has been expressed that MS is a market leader and that 
penalizing them penalizes an already weak tech sector. What MS 
really is is an industry bully; penalizing such business behavior 
will in a very short time period overall stimulate the tech sector 
as innovators can again start innovating unfettered by fear of what 
type of response may come from the industry bully.
    Thank you.
    _Allen Wicks
    Small business person and computer industry observer since the 
1970s.
    Allen Wicks
    [email protected]
    10164 Laburnham Circle, Truckee, CA 96161
    530-550-8727



MTC-00001298

From: Paul Cesarini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 3:51pm
Subject: huge disappointment
    Hello DoJ:
    I just wanted to drop you a line to express my huge 
disappointment over your settlement with Microsoft. I realize you've 
got bigger fish to fry, what with the terrorist attacks on 9/11, but 
since your dept. invested so much time, energy, and effort into this 
trial_why keel over and die now? Seriously, I've been teaching 
about this trial for the past 2-3 years now in most of my 
Telecommunications classes, and I can't believe you're basically 
slapping MS on their collective wrists again, knowing full well how 
they blatantly ignored similar "remedies" in the past.
    You had them on the ropes and_seemingly at the moment of 
victory_opted to instead let MS slither away. I'm not a huge 
fan of Ralph Nader, but fully agree when his recent views on the 
settlement. Bush (and consequently Ashcroft) have lost my vote in 
'04. _
    Paul Cesarini
    Supervisor, Student Technology Center
    Jerome Library, Bowling Green State University
    Bowling Green, OH 43403
    office: (419) 372-7740 fax: (419) 372-7723
    http://personal.bgsu.edu/pcesari/



MTC-00001299

From: ab
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 4:00pm
Subject: microsoft is a MONOPOLY
    PLEASE PUNISH THEM, I CANNOT STAND ALL THE BUGS IN THEIR 
SOFTWARE. PLEASE CONSIDER ALL THE MILLIONS OF ****MAN HOURS**** THAT 
ARE WASTED EACH AND EVERYDAY BECAUSE OF MICROSOFT'S BLESSED 
MONOPOLISTIC ANTI-OPEN, ANTI-IMPROVABLE SYSTEM WITH 
****INTENTIONAL**** ANTI-COMPETETIVE "BUGS". THESE MAN-
HOURS COULD HAVE BEEN USED TO PRODUCE AND FEED OUR WEAK ECONOMY!



MTC-00001300

From: Paul Horning

[[Page 23893]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 3:53pm
Subject: How does this stop future violations?
    Dear Sir or Madam;
    I see nothing in this settlement to right past wrongs or to 
prevent future transgressions from Microsoft. In fact I see a 
complete victory for Microsoft. Bill Gates is no genius but he his a 
fantastic POKER PLAYER! What happened is he called the DOJ bluff and 
you are FOLDING! The government's cards may be weak but they would 
still beat Microsoft in a showdown.
    I am ashamed of you.
    -Paul Horning
    North Liberty, IA



MTC-00001301

From: Ted Rust
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 3:51pm
Subject: Worried About Microsoft
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I appreciate having the opportunity to address the current 
situation involving the DOJ and Microsoft's antitrust case. Thank 
you for setting up this email address to gather the thoughts of 
"common" folk like myself.
    I have been extremely disheartened by the turnaround experienced 
in this trial beginning with Judge Jackson's dismissal from the 
case. I watched the initial proceedings with great ferocity and was 
very pleased to see all the terrible things Microsoft had done 
brought to light. I had been paying attention to the atrocities of 
this company for quite some time, as it had affected me in many 
ways. I have been a Macintosh user for a long time, and had 
repeatedly witnessed the crushing power of Microsoft as its 
juggernaut mentality left few small companies in its path. I 
witnessed things like Netscape, being toyed with by Microsoft's 
bullying tactics with PC makers and by using competing, but always 
incompatible, technologies. I watched a good company, Spy Glass, go 
the way of the dodo bird, because Microsoft essentially tricked them 
into giving up their web browser product for a cut in revenues which 
would never come, since they gave it away for free.
    I have watched many things. At each and every turn, I watched 
Microsoft do things that no other company could do. I watched as 
they got away with it all. I'm not saying that companies never do 
anything wrong ... but Microsoft goes beyond bending rules and 
blurring lines. Microsoft blatantly lies. Microsoft cheats 
customers. Microsoft bullies people into being its ally, leaving 
competing companies with nowhere to go. I thought there was going to 
be some relief from all this horrendous monopolization, but then the 
tide was turned. I have a sinking feeling that there are pockets 
being filled in the Bush administration. It's no secret that the 
Bush administration coddles big businesses and this looks like just 
another example of a "you scratch my back..." mentality. 
The one saving grace of this whole debacle is that California and 
other states have not given in. Microsoft deserves the fate decided 
by Judge Jackson. More people need to read the findings from that 
case. It goes on and on for hundreds of pages. Company after company 
has been pushed, bullied, unfairly shutdown and broken. It is time 
for them to reap what they have sewn.
    I am begging and pleading with whomever reads this to bring more 
light to what they have done. (And what they have not done, which is 
innovate! It is curious how often that word is mumbled, when nary a 
person can name an innovation that has come out of 
Microsoft_almost everything they claim as an innovation was 
bought, stolen or copied from someone else.) Don't let them off so 
easily. The current settlement does not do anything to prevent these 
same things from happening again and again. I urge the DOJ to take 
this seriously and use Microsoft as an example of what will happen 
to companies that cross the line. They have no scruples, no ethics 
and, so far, no accountability for what they have done.
    Thank you for taking the time to listen to one person's point of 
view. I know I am not the only one that feels this way. (I could 
easily name 100 people that feel exactly as I do ... and many 
magnitudes more if I were to do a simple query on the internet.) I 
hope that this "comments" period has some affect on the 
case at hand. I hope the voices of the masses are not ignored. 
Microsoft is a deceptive, over-grown, evil beast that will stop at 
nothing to stay on top. I simply hope that our government can see 
through the dollar bills and give us all a little glimpse of truth 
and justice.
    Sincerely,
    Ted Rust



MTC-00001302

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 4:08pm
Subject: Proposed MS settlement.
    Microsoft has a history of lying and evading. Absent stringent 
oversight and concrete enforcement provisions, there is no reason to 
expect they will do otherwise in future. Furthermore, 'simply 
telling a defendant to go forth and sin no more does little or 
nothing to address the unfair advantage it has already 
gained.' Meaningful penalties are the least the government can 
do to redress some of the harm done to consumers and competitors.



MTC-00001303

From: Barry Levine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 4:03pm
Subject: Doesn't even pass the laugh test
    There can be no remedy for the grievous offenses committed by 
Microsoft unless it includes breaking up the company into two 
distinct groups:
    1. Operating Systems (OS)
    2. Applications
    They idea that Internet Explorer (IE) is, or should be, 
"part of the Operating System" is ludicrous. IE is an 
application, period. Attempting to claim otherwise by sabatoging the 
OS so that removing IE renders Windows somehow 
"incapable" or "less than it was" is a 
blatant attempt to link the OS with the IE browser. This is, on its 
face, absurd. For proof of my assertion, consider that Apple's 
MacOS9 (and its new MacOSX) can use ANY vendor's browser and STILL 
maintain a tight integration of services between the application and 
the operating system. Microsoft is simply attempting to push users 
of its OS over to its portals in an attempt to squeeze every penny 
of revenue out of its customers at the expense of its competitors 
AND its customers (by removing choice!). EVERYONE out here (both 
Apple and non-Apple users) knows this. For the DOJ to feign 
blindness in this regard is the height of cynicism; it doesn't even 
pass the laugh test.
    The proper way to manage the breakup is to force ALL 
communications between the two groups to be public_via 
postings in the Internet. It is only in this manner that the public 
(and the applications vendors) can be assured that the OS group and 
the Applications group do not pass "secrets" to each 
other.
    Judge Jackson's interviews with the reporter may have been 
inappropriate but his findings of fact -AND- his remedies were 
"spot-on".
    Barry Levine



MTC-00001304

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I feel the antitust settlement between Microsoft and the US DOJ 
does not go far enough to punish the company for all the competitors 
they have crushed with their monopoly. More importantly and more 
troublingly, there aren't adequate safeguards to prevent them from 
continuing this behavior. Please reconsider, and make them stop 
abusing the consumers and shutting out competitors with their 
monoply.
    Yours truly,
    Stanton E. Collins
    Stanton E. (Ed) Collins
    81 Narrow Lane
    PO Box 1405 (mail)
    So. Lancaster, MA 01561-1405
    (978) 365-7453 home
    [email protected]
    Office:
    401 Main St.
    PO Box 1447 (mail)
    So. Lancaster, MA 01561-1447
    (978) 365-1900
    (888) 365-1900
    (978) 365-1911 fax



MTC-00001305

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Wrist Slap
    Are you stupid or paid off by Microsoft? That's the only two 
reasons I can see for claiming that the 'wrist-slap' you 
want to give Microsoft will have any effect on their criminal 
empire.
    Hey, if you believe what you're saying, I have this bridge for 
sale...
_Andrew W Applegarth



MTC-00001306

From: PanaVise
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 23894]]

    Please break up Microsoft into 3 or more entities, one that 
sells operating systems and related system/server software (Windows, 
etc.), another that sells applications software (MS Office, et al), 
and one that handles Internet provision and other media-related 
services (MSN, MSNBC, etc.). Microsoft has WAY too much influence 
for a single corporation. And make Bill Gates divest himself of all 
but one of them.
    Mark S. Willis



MTC-00001307

From: Tim Ambrose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 4:15pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement!
    You have made your decision against Microsoft, so please advise 
these remaining states to drop this futile effort. All it does is 
cause a drain on so many companies to inovate. It is evadent which 
Microsoft competitors are behind this and what their motives are!
    Please, for the good the world, stop this war on our most 
important company NOW!!!!!



MTC-00001308

From: Chris Wardman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 4:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    As a consumer I am very disappointed that the DOJ have caved in 
to Microsoft's illegal business practices and that furthermore they 
show no sign of changing their anti competitive policies of crushing 
competitive technologies by any means necessary. I feel that it is 
only a matter of time before paying Microsoft is considered a a 
license fee to use a PC.
    Chris Wardman



MTC-00001309

From: Joanne Kalogeras
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    To the Dept. of Justice:
    I'm really unhappy with the outcome of the Microsoft case. It's 
the Bush administration going easy on big companies who don't need 
the help at the expense of people and small businesses. Microsoft 
has one goal: it's not innovation, it's not making the world a 
better place, it's not making great software. It's only about the 
bottom line, and we know this for a fact. They lied for years about 
having a firewall between applications and OS development, and 
finally admitted the truth. They haven't exactly shown us they're 
trustworthy. Why is this company not being forced to change their 
policies regarding monopolistic bundling? Why aren't they being 
forced to be fairer about their operating systems. Why isn't the 
Justice Department angry that Microsoft shows a blatant arrogant, 
dismissive attitude towards you? Top that with the lenient attitude 
the Bush is now taking with the tobacco industry, and it looks like 
favoritism to me. I think it stinks. I applaud the effort Judge 
Kollar-Kotelly and the mediators put into the agreement, but the 
gov't completely folded. This settlement hardly affects the way 
Microsoft does business. I'm sure that Bill gates is "really 
pleased to have" this impotent settlement. Thanks for 
listening.
    Joanne Kalogeras



MTC-00001310

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 4:26pm
Subject: Insufficient scope of settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I wish to express my concerns about the current antitrust 
settlement with Microsoft. As I understand it, the current 
settlement constrains Microsoft's behavior only with regards to so-
called "middleware" applications. I believe such 
behavior must be constrained with regards to any competing products, 
particularly operating systems. For a good presentations of 
Microsoft's behavior to suppress competition with competing 
operating systems, I refer you to the article below, which states 
the case rather well.
    http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/10/23/13219/
110
    Darren Hiebert
    137 Inwood Trail
    Madison, AL 35758
    W: 256-971-2977
    H: 256-464-6654
    Darren Hiebert 
    XonTech, Inc. (256) 971-2977



MTC-00001311

From: Bernard P Ducamp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 4:20pm
Subject: Cave-In
    I think DOJ needs to realize that in the past, Microsoft ignored 
consent decrees it had agreed to.
    Penalties for violations must be in place, otherwise Microsft 
will continue to ignore the government, AS IT HAS IN THE PAST. What 
if your average citizen performed felony acts, and as the ONLY 
penalty........ was asked by the government: "Please don't do 
this in the future" ?????



MTC-00001312

From: Yannick Rendu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 4:19pm
Subject: Sell their language business
    Dear DOJ,
    Microsoft's predatory actions will not be stopped by this 
settlement. The settlement provisions are much too vague and aren't 
forward-looking. Microsoft's .NET will ensure its continued 
monopoly. The amount of information they (and they alone) will glean 
from the public's use of .NET will give them a huge tactical 
advantage over any other company that would like to compete in any 
computing environment.
    The hardest tie-in to Microsoft is their new programming 
languages. Create a program for Microsoft using one of their 
languages and your product becomes very hard to move to any other 
platform; this due to designed differences. I feel the punishment 
should be that Microsoft must sell their language business and give 
the proceeds to registered users of Microsoft products. Microsoft 
has not made the computer revolution possible. The revolution has 
been the internet. Don't be lenient on them due to their supposed 
importance in today's world. We would have what we have today 
without Microsoft having ever existed. They do not innovate, they 
assimilate.
    Sincerely,
    Yannick Rendu
    Yannick Rendu, System Administrator_E-Media 
Specialist_Brand Development :: Volan Design LLC
    303.530.2828 tel_303.516.1551 fax



MTC-00001313

From: Patrick T Kent
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 4:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case
    To whom it may concern,
    Please be aware that while the economy is a major concern right 
now, tomorrow will be another day, and the decisions of today will 
have to be lived with for a very long time.
    Being concerned about terrorism is everybody's business, as is 
this antitrust case, whether one is an American or not. This is an 
issue of worldwide concern. And while the world is at war against 
terrorism, standing shoulder to shoulder with Americans in this time 
of crisis, America is busy giving world domination to Microsoft on a 
platter! Don't be under any delusions, this is exactly what is 
proposed by the recent settlement of the antitrust case and the 
world is watching in disbelief!
    Please understand that the US government has a responsibility to 
the whole world on this issue, and more than just the domestic 
economy of today needs to be considered. This behemoth (Microsoft 
Corporation) of industrial/commercial terrorism needs to be brought 
to justice just as assuredly as Osama bin Laden. Please do the right 
thing.
    Regards,
    Patrick T Kent
    PO Box 505
    Noarlunga Centre
    SA 5168
    AUSTRALIA
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00001314

From: Brian West
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 4:31pm
Subject: The Microsoft settlement of Nov. 2nd is inadequate and the 
language is too vague.
    The Microsoft settlement of Nov. 2nd is inadequate and the 
language is too vague. It does not go far enough to protect 
consumers and states. Microsoft cannot be trusted.
    Regards,
    Brian West



MTC-00001315

From: Bruce Lieberman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 4:59pm
Subject: Microsoft travesty :(
    Your proposed settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust case adds 
to the disappointment, disillusionment and cynicism of the American 
people with our federal government :( I guess Microsoft CAN buy 
almost anything they want. You should be ashamed. Thankfully at 
least 9 _STATES_ have the stones to stand up and try 
to do the right thing. A very unhappy taxpayer :(

[[Page 23895]]



MTC-00001316

From: Tom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 5:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My take on this is simply that the punishment for Microsoft 
should be based on the amount of money they made from violating the 
antitrust laws. This would be an enormous sum and would probably 
break up the company as we know it. So much the better for the 
marketplace. The best technologies being developed right now will 
never stand a chance to make it to consumers if Microsoft remains 
intact and without fear of reprisal from the DOJ. Redmond is 
laughing their asses off right now. And the joke is on all of us.



MTC-00001317

From: Jerry Tibor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 5:03pm
Subject: Unmasking Microsoft's innovation scam Computerworld 
Communities
    http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/community/story/
0,3201,NAV65-1797_STO65470,00.html
    Jerry Tibor, CNA
    President, Network Users Group of Anchorage
    LAN Manager
    Enrollment Services Computing Support
    University of Alaska Anchorage
    [email protected] (907) 786-4734_voice 
(907) 786-1537_fax
    Unmasking Microsoft's innovation scam
    Microsoft argues that integrating new features such as 
MediaPlayer into its operating system is innovation. That's 
untrue_and should be illegal.
    BY MARTIN GOETZ
    (November 08, 2001) Should Microsoft's integration strategy be 
considered illegal? Join the discussion in Computerworld's Operating 
Systems Forum to discuss the issues with your peers. Now that 
Microsoft Corp. and the U.S. Department of Justice have reached an 
out-of-court settlement that won't restrict the vendor from bundling 
applications with its operating systems, Microsoft thinks the world 
should cheer now that it can "freely innovate." What 
could be more un-American than stopping a company from its 
inalienable right to innovate? The Justice Department says it will 
impose restraints on Microsoft that "will open the operating 
system to competition." But the issue isn't operating system 
competition. It is the illegal bundling of new functions that 
shouldn't be part of anyone's operating system.
    Integration Isn't Innovation
    In 1998, well before it made that same argument in court, 
Microsoft began its public relations effort to try to convince the 
world that its "integration" of new Windows functions 
was critical to its ability to innovate. To the public, and probably 
to a vast number of computer professionals, it didn't seem such an 
outlandish claim. But it really was. When this claim is examined 
more closely in terms of what it takes to build, maintain and 
improve software systems, one can only conclude that Microsoft is 
trying to pull the wool over the world's eyes.
    The desire to innovate in software systems hasn't changed since 
I started programming in 1954. The concept of developing new 
versions of software systems, including operating systems like DOS, 
VMS and Windows, with new features and functions has been with us 
for at least 40 years. When IBM unbundled its software in 1970 and 
created a competitive environment, innovation became more important, 
because adding features to a software system improved its 
marketability. Tie-ins have been illegal since the end of the 19th 
century, when the Sherman Act antitrust laws were written. The 
question of the legality of software tie-ins was raised back in the 
1960s in several suits against IBM, which included lawsuits filed by 
the Justice Department and Applied Data Research.
    Microsoft apparently wants to change the antitrust tie-in laws 
by convincing the world that the ability of its staffers to innovate 
would be limited if they couldn't integrate freely and without 
restraint. What nonsense.
    "Integration," as the word is used by Microsoft, 
means "tie-in" to the rest of the world.
    PR Pitch Falls Short
    Microsoft's "innovation through integration" public 
relations effort began with Bill Gates' unveiling of Windows 98 in 
April 1998, when he discussed a Microsoft white paper entitled 
"Integration, Innovation and the PC." Microsoft stated 
in the paper that the integration of new features and services in 
Windows 98 would benefit both consumers and independent developers. 
At about the same time, Microsoft announced its "Freedom to 
Innovate Network" Web site as an ongoing method of 
communicating to the public. It included statements made by elected 
federal and state officials who supported Microsoft's right to 
innovate. The site also contained Microsoft's latest legal briefs, 
as well as propaganda aimed at showing that the government's case 
against the company had no merit. The thrust of the message was that 
the government, should it win the case, would restrict Microsoft's 
freedom (or ability) to innovate.
    Just about everyone recognizes that "Freedom to 
Innovate" is synonymous with motherhood and apple pie. We're 
all for it; enough said. But what about illegal tie-ins, 
monopolization, unfair competition and freedom of choice? Where do 
those subjects fit into the equation? And is it an axiom that you 
need integration to innovate? The facts prove just the opposite. 
Integration not only has zero correlation with innovation, but it 
also actually discourages it. In the antitrust trial, Microsoft's 
main defense witness, James Allchin, testified that the company's 
deep integration of Internet technologies into Windows 98 was a 
natural step in the evolution of operating systems. The District 
Court, as well as the appeals court, didn't buy his argument.
    It's no accident that the eight appellate judges stated twice in 
their briefs that Microsoft failed to show the benefits of 
integrating. The court said, "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." The judges added that 
"Microsoft failed to meet the burden of showing its conduct 
[in integrating functions into its operating systems] serves a 
purpose other than protecting its operating system monopoly." 
Clearly, it's no oversight or accident that Microsoft's expensive 
law firm and technical staff didn't make strong arguments before 
both courts.
    The Integration Option
    The real question that the courts would have had to decide if 
the trial continued was: Could Microsoft develop new functions (or 
innovate) only through integration, or could those be developed just 
as well using interfaces? New functions can be implemented either 
way, but they should be implemented through interfaces. Here's why:
    ï¿½ Software engineering principles state that functions 
should be isolated and made as independent as possible so they can 
be systematically debugged and changed. Changes are always required 
to accommodate new user requirements, new hardware or operating 
system requirements and for ongoing maintenance for correcting 
errors after programs are operational. ï¿½ Tight integration 
just creates larger and larger programs, which over time become 
unmanageable. The design, programming, testing and maintenance of 
these larger programs becomes more complex, expensive and time-
consuming.
    ï¿½ It's desirable to design new functions so that they can 
operate in several environments_for example, with different 
versions of Windows 9x or NT or other operating systems. Tightly 
integrated programs don't allow for cross-platform use. Lastly, it's 
easier to release new versions of a program when it isn't tightly 
integrated with another program. For instance, new versions of 
Microsoft's Windows and Internet Explorer could be developed and 
released independently if they just interfaced with each other.
    Clearly, in the case of Windows 98, the tight integration with 
the Internet Explorer browser produced no technical innovation. This 
is obvious because the functions of the Windows 98 Internet Explorer 
browser that was tightly integrated with Windows 98 were identical 
to the functions of the Internet Explorer 4.0 browser that bundled 
with Windows NT, 95 and 3.1; the Macintosh systems; and the Solaris 
operating systems.
    Under the law, tie-ins are illegal. Bill Gates' statement that 
Microsoft should be able to put "anything under the sun into 
its operating system" should be challenged in court. One can 
only hope that the nine states that are opposed to the proposed 
settlement, as well as the European Commission, will pick up the 
gauntlet that the Justice Department has dropped. Martin Goetz is a 
former programmer, software designer, chief technology officer and 
president of Applied Data Research Inc. in Princeton, N.J. You can 
reach him at [email protected].
    For more coverage and information related to this topic, head to 
the following Knowledge Center.'
    ï¿½ Operating Systems



MTC-00001318

From: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 23896]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 5:01pm
Subject: settlement
    I am extremely disappointed with the Department of Justice 
regarding the Microsoft Monopoly proposed settlement. Basically, you 
are telling Microsoft, "You've been naughty, now don't do it 
again." Did I miss something? Didn't the Department of Justice 
win the case, and prove that Microsoft illegally used it's monopoly 
power to increase and maintain market share, and drive competitors 
out of business? What prevents Microsoft from continuing this 
pattern of illegal behavior? Where is the punishment for their past 
misdeeds? What is the Department of Justice thinking?
    This proposed settlement is unacceptable, but not a surprise 
under the Ashcroft/Bush administration. You are not looking out for 
the interests of the citizens of the United States, and you are 
caving in to the ill gotten interests of an illegal monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    George Sievers



MTC-00001319

From: Philip Obal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 5:22pm
Subject: Justice Failure_Microsoft Wins
    Hi,
    My name is Phil Obal, President of IDII, and a software designer 
for over 20 years. I believe that Microsoft is getting off very, 
very easy. It took away large market share from Netscape's internet 
browser_by illegal activities_and what did you do?
    Microsoft is just a giant and will continue on being a larger 
giant. You did not slap and punish it hard enough at all. I am 
extremely disappointed. Justice was -not- done.
    Sincerely,
    Phil Obal
    President
    Industrial Data & Information Inc. (IDII)
    Route 1, Box 580
    Webbers Falls, OK 74470
    USA
    Website: www.idii.com
    E-mail : [email protected]
    Phone : 918-464-2222
    Fax # : 918-464-2221
    Management consultants & system integrators for Supply Chain 
Execution (SCE) SOFTWARE_Including WMS, TMS, YMS, LMS, ERP, 
Optimization, Inventory, Forecasting, and more.
    See our free newsletter on SOFTWARE_at http://
www.idii.com/esn/index.htm



MTC-00001320

From: StModde11
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 5:18pm
Subject: anti-trust ruling
    To Whom It May Concern,
    Please note my disappointment in the ruling decision in regard 
to the Govt. case against Microsoft. As a worker in the technology 
field, I have seen many instances of Microsofts monopolistic 
practices. Enough so that I fear them, and feel constrained in my 
consumer choices. Please reconsider your decision, and prosecute 
this case to its full extent. Capitulation has never worked, what 
makes you think it will work now?
    Sincerely,
    Sean Flynn
    415-775-6449



MTC-00001321

From: Kevin Long
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 5:17pm
Subject: my contribution
    To Whom It May Concern:
    After years of watching companies like Dell, Compaq, and Apple 
bullied by Microsoft, I had hope that the antitrust suit would reign 
in the monopolist. I was disappointed to hear things will be 
"business as usual".
    I've used a variety of hardware and software platforms for the 
past several years, and I've seen several favorite applications die 
because they weren't born in Redmond. It's clear that Microsoft did 
not create products such as Money, Internet Explorer, and FrontPage 
in order to make a superior product: those products were created 
explicitly to destroy Quicken, Netscape Navigator, and Pagemill. 
There are companies innovating out there, but Microsoft is not one 
of them. Deciding to allow them to continue on as they have been 
will only lead to fewer choices for consumers and more compatibility 
problems for anyone who doesn't run a Windows PC. Many companies and 
individuals are working towards creating standards for the industry, 
and Microsoft is doing its best to force everyone else to adhere to 
theirs. This is not right, and it does not benefit consumers. I wish 
you the best as you evaluate this decision and work to better the 
state of computing for everyone.
    Kevin Long
    *The opinions expressed in this letter are not necessarily those 
of my employer.
    Kevin Long, CCNA
    Information Security Analyst
    TruSecure Corporation



MTC-00001322

From: Eric Hall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Hello_
    I am appalled by the USDOJ settlement with Microsoft. I don't 
see how this settlement will be truely enforced, nor how it relieves 
consumers of information systems from the monopolistic practices of 
Microsoft. I believe that this settlement is bad for consumers, bad 
for companies, and bad for innovation in the information systems 
area.
    I urge you to reconsider this settlement, and look at remedies 
that will have an actual impact in the marketplace rather than those 
that have a surface appearance of making a change.
    Thank you very much,
    _eric



MTC-00001323

From: Art Paquette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 6:05pm
Subject: 11-19-01 / 1604 mst
    Mr Gates and his Microsoft Corporation have done more to help 
our economy and improve our lives. You should be rewarding him and 
Microsoft and give thanks that this country can produce his type of 
entrepreneurial acumen and broaden our tax base as it has...
    Art Paquette, Chino Valley, AZ



MTC-00001324

From: Hayes, Ed
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/19/01 5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    I personally believe that you have perpetrated a gross abuse of 
the trust of the American people. I am both annoyed and dumbfounded 
by the choice (by the current Justice Department [a descriptor that 
I am using loosely mind you]) to let Microsoft off with a simple 
wrist slap. You have most decidedly made my mind up as to how to 
vote in the next National election. You have proven to me that the 
current Justice Department in purely partisan in nature, and 
apparently willing to sell out individual Americans in favor of 
Corporate America.
    Ed Hayes



MTC-00001325

From: Jennifer Bales
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 5:34pm
Subject: Opposition to settlement
    I write to oppose the Microsoft settlement with the DOJ. 
Microsoft almost entirely ignored their last consent decree, and I 
see no reason why they won't do the same again. They do not feel 
that they have done anything wrong, and there is no penalty for 
continuing their practices, so why would they change anything. 
Please, step outside your offices and talk off the record to people 
in the software industry. Microsoft is the primary killer of 
innovation and new products in the market. Any time a company comes 
up with a new product that is threatening to Microsoft's monopoly, 
Microsoft either (1) buys it, (2) announces their own similar 
product to ship "very soon." Who will buy the new 
product when Microsoft is going to bring one out "very 
soon"? Especially since, in the hard cases, Microsoft can 
simply add the functionality to Windows for "free". And 
then raise the price of Windows to account for it, of course.
    This is a truly terrible deal for the software industry. You 
have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. We will be back in 
this exact same place again in another few years_if any 
companies beside Microsoft are still standing to complain. Please 
reconsider.
    Regards,
    Jennifer
    Jennifer L. Bales
    Macheledt Bales LLP
    Registered Patent Attorneys
    http://www.mbj-law.com
    [email protected]



MTC-00001326

From: usimages
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 5:23pm
Subject: Public Response
    It appears to me that everything and the only thing that the 
Justice Department ever has said about MICROSOFT is always negative, 
demeaning, condescending and always a put down. Why is that? 
Certainly

[[Page 23897]]

some one in the whole US Government must believe that maybe just 
once that have done some good.
    You know businesses are like a beautiful, tender, wholesome, 
lovely, kind women and they should be cared for and nurtured. Have 
you ever done anything to help Microsoft or Bill Gates or to help 
businesses? Possibly you'd like to take another point of view for a 
few moments! Bill Gates has single handedly built up, developed and 
most importantly STANDARDIZED this industry. It still needs a lot of 
work but think of how many light years ahead the USA and the world 
are because of the leadership and competition he has offer to the 
industry.
    Several times I have emailed to Microsoft and to Bill Gates, to 
no avail, (but I'm not going to give up), requesting an audience to 
project my personally developed pro forma ideas which would negate 
your entire 'bullying' effort towards Bill Gates and 
Microsoft.
    You should know that none of us are perfect but BG and MS have 
done so much for this country that he should be given the Medal of 
Honor. Well that is my point of view for what its worth. Thank you 
for taking the time to present my opinionated ideas.
    All the Best,
    Chuck Persons [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00001327

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 6:08pm
Subject: Comments on proposed deal
    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-00001328

From: O'Connor Family
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 6:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madame:
    I understand that this e-mail address has been set up so that 
citizens can offer their feedback on the recently negotiated 
settlement between MS and the Justice Department. I have no idea how 
a company like MS can be found guilty by two federal courts of using 
their monopoly power to injure consumers and the competition and be 
let off the way they are by this settlement. Below is a recent 
column by Thomas Oliphante of the Boston Globe which speaks better 
to my feelings than I feel capable.
    Kevin R. O'Connor
    Buffalo, New York
    FOR TOM REILLY, part of whose job as Massachusetts attorney 
general involves smelling rats, the so-called settlement with 
Microsoft he was asked to sign off on this month with virtually no 
notice reeked of rodent. Because his nose was working, Reilly put up 
a caution sign, which became a stop sign. The result: Possibly the 
worst settlement ever negotiated in the most important antitrust 
case since Big Oil got busted nearly a century ago will have to 
fight for its life on the merits.
    Maybe parts of the deal with Microsoft will prove worthwhile 
upon close inspection. Maybe the bad parts will get exposed clearly 
for what they are. Maybe the whole thing deserves the garbage pile. 
But at least, thanks to Reilly's unwillingness to get rolled in what 
he described as "a classic maneuver," we will all get a 
fair chance to find out. In major league lawsuits involving the 
public interest_and the Microsoft case is a 
classic_there ought to be two basic rules for negotiations 
between the government and the offending firm. The first should be 
that a settlement should not be welcomed or approved simply because 
it has been reached. Conversely, it should not be opposed or 
rejected simply because of the compromises it includes.
    In this case, Reilly responded with a snap of his fingers when I 
asked him how tough it was to figure out what was going on in the 
Microsoft case. The federal judge now in charge of the case in 
Washington had encouraged settlement talks, but as far as anyone 
knew (particularly the 18 states that are every bit as much a part 
of the action as the Justice Department) they were proceeding very 
slowly.
    Then, with what Reilly calls "unexpected 
suddenness," the states were told from Washington that there 
was a deal, in which their input has been a flat zero. They would 
have no more than 48 hours to review it before it would be announced 
to the public and to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.
    The Justice Department_as in President Bush's political 
appointees who had frozen out the experienced lawyers who had 
actually dealt with the case_signed the deal. When Reilly, on 
behalf of Massachusetts, asked for a week to study the thing, he got 
two working days plus last weekend. But it was enough. It was 
obvious that a steamroller had been put in motion. When that 
happens, it's usually because the light of day is feared. It was 
then up to the states to find out why. During that weekend, the 
other major player from the states, the veteran attorney general of 
Iowa, Tom Miller, organized a series of conference calls with 
various players in the technology business, the victims as it were 
of Microsoft's officially found violations of the law. The result 
was a sound basis for opposing the Bush administration's proposed 
deal.
    For Reilly, whose background is in trial courts as a prosecutor 
going after crooks, it helped to start with the fact that Microsoft 
was found guilty (twice) of illegally abusing its monopoly position 
in the operating system software for personal computers. So, as 
Reilly told me, it made sense to examine the penalties in the 
settlement suggested for the repeated offenses.
    There were none. There was nothing to undo the monopoly 
power_and precious little to effectively prevent future 
violations. As Reilly put it, for every proposed rule there was an 
exception, for every Microsoft commitment there was a loophole. The 
agreement had only a five-year time frame, with the computer 
manufacturers designated as the cop on the beat for the deal, but 
deprived of nightstick or gun.
    Not only that, but the oversight committee for the deal would be 
dominated by members beholden to the convicted defendant, Microsoft. 
And get this: If the committee found evidence of noncompliance in 
its work, that evidence could not be presented to a judge in court.
    "That is crazy," Reilly said. Microsoft, and its 
Bushie allies, have succeeded in splitting the 18 state plaintiffs. 
But the remaining nine are anchored by arguably the two most 
important technology states, California and Massachusetts, with Tom 
Miller's Iowa, a consumer protection leader, in the middle. The 
steamroller was stalled. What happens now is that the settlement can 
be examined in depth, with the aid of evidence and testimony under 
oath. As I said, parts of it may hold up under this light.
    But those like Reilly who want to pursue their vision of a fair 
shot for innovation and maybe a cheaper Windows some day, who 
believe that the opportunity to make a better widget out of 
Microsoft's shadow is central to the country's economic future get a 
chance, too. In all, it was one fine piece of lawyering on behalf of 
the beleaguered public interest.



MTC-00001329

From: Mike Ziegler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 6:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    I am very supportive of the government's decision to settle the 
Microsoft legislation. I, like many of my peers, believe this case 
was ill advised from the start. The government needs to be more in 
tune with the changing environment of the technology sector of our 
economy. By settling the DOJ and the US Government send a powerful 
message to investors, that the DOJ and the US Government support the 
formation of capital, and the desire to rule a marketplace. This act 
along with others will help to encourage investors to again invest 
in capital markets and take risks.
    Bravo!
    regards,
    mike



MTC-00001330

From: Trout

[[Page 23898]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Does not go far enough
    Department of Justice,
    Representatives,
    I have worked in the computer industry for quite some time, in 
tech support, web development, video and film directing/editing, 
multimedia and sound engineering. I have used all sorts of Operating 
Systems, from various forms of Windows, to various MacOS-es, to many 
varieties of unix. I should also say I am not in any way affiliated 
with any plaintiffs in the Microsoft case, and I do not work for any 
of their competing companies (and I haven't worked for any competing 
companies in the past). From the ground though, I have seen many 
effects from Microsoft's way of doing things.
    As the court has ruled, I agree Microsoft is a monopoly. They 
control a vast majority of the Operating Systems in use by computer 
users, and a vast majority of the "office productivity" 
suites through Microsoft Office. As you know, this is not a crime. 
Simply being a monopoly is not the problem. It's what you do with 
your monopoly once you have it.
    There are many known facts that indicate even before Microsoft 
could likely be considered a monopoly, it was conducting 
questionable or even illegal business practices. Some of these 
issues have been raised in previous court cases, many which 
Microsoft has lost, and others Microsoft has settled out of court.
    When Microsoft acheived dominant marketshare, I believe they 
continued their questionable practices, but this time with added 
strength. Microsoft has continually used strong-arm tactics to bully 
other companies into doing things to fit Microsoft's vision. That 
sounds rather flighty in a tight sentence. What it means in reality 
is that Microsoft has used it's position to guarantee further sales, 
harming other companies in the process, without regard to the 
consequences.
    It has said to computer manufacturers "If you don't put 
our office suites on your computers, you have to pay full retail 
prices for Windows (or you can't ship Windows at all). If you don't 
put Windows on all your computers, or you ship computers with other 
operating systems, you will have to pay more for Windows (or you 
can't ship Windows at all). If you put competing or unapproved ISPs 
or multimedia software on the desktop, you will have to pay more for 
Windows (or you can't ship Windows at all)." In a highly 
competitive marketplace like computer manufacturing, can a company 
afford to tack on an extra $200 to the cost of production just to 
include a non-Microsoft software package? Even if that software is 
easier to use or has more features?
    When competing products have come from other companies, 
threatening to overtake a market Microsoft has it's eye on, 
Microsoft often buys the company, or releases free similar software. 
Microsoft can continue to profit from it's monopoly products 
(Windows and Office) while the other company is losing money. Once 
the competitor is out the door, they can begin profiting from that 
sector. Cases where Microsoft has attempted this strategy recently 
is Internet Explorer vs Netscape; Windows Media Player vs. Real 
Networks, Quicktime and Macromedia; MSN Instant Messenger vs AOL IM, 
ICQ, and Yahoo IM; .net vs Java. This list is the current 
battleground. The Federal Court has addressed these issues before. 
In the early 90's it ruled against Microsoft, making it operate 
under certain restrictions because of it's prior abuses.
    If you look as Microsoft throughout it's history, has it 
changed? Has it made any corrections to it's bad behavior? Or has it 
simply tried to hide the fact that it operates the same way it 
always has, continuing to force-bundle it's products, and driving 
competitors out of business just so it can hold onto a monopoly 
marketplace? I think it has. I think the last major judgement in the 
Microsoft case has been largely ignored. Microsoft is still bundling 
products against the prior ruling, and it is still acting like a 
child without any moral direction.
    During the current court-case, Microsoft has continually said, 
"If judgement is ruled against us, it will hinder innovation, 
and deprive other companies who depend on us from being able to do 
their jobs." I think this is revisionist and just plain wrong. 
This statement is so transparent in protecting Microsoft's own 
interest, it is ridiculous. Historically, Microsoft's actions have 
been in exact opposition to statements like this.
    As a judge, if a thief kept re-appearing in the court because he 
kept robbing banks, would you let him off, or give him probation, 
just because he kept promising to do better? How many times would it 
take for this theif to be brought before the court before you said, 
"Ok, look, you just don't get it. You are a menace to society 
so I am putting you away." How many times does Microsoft have 
to be brought into a courtroom before somebody finally says, 
"Ok, you obviously don't get it, so we're going to keep you 
from doing any more harm"?
    I don't necessarily think Microsoft should be broken up. I don't 
know what the final solution is. But the settlement on the table has 
no teeth. It is another slap on the wrist, the kind Microsoft is 
used to. I imagine this is what Microsoft imagined would happen all 
along. Even during settlement talks, it is continuing to practice 
illegal bundling tactics and other questionable licensing schemes 
with Windows XP. It is saying it will do one thing to the court, 
while doing the same old thing behind it's back. And again, even 
without the monopoly issues, this was all covered in previous cases. 
Even though illegal, they are also operating against the previous 
restrictions. What makes you think they will treat the new 
restrictions any differently?
    Microsoft must be shown that it cannot partake in illegal 
practices, not simply with a slap on the wrist, not just with more 
restrictions and watch-dogs, not with the court just saying 
"Ok, you've been bad, so we'll be watching you! Don't do it 
again!"
    The court must enact real punishment that shows Microsoft it's 
behavior is unacceptable. It must also enact real incarceration that 
prevents Microsoft from causing more harm.
    Thank you for your time.
    Michael Allen
    117 20th Ave E, #203
    Seattle, WA 98112
    CC:George Bush,Patty Murray,Maria Cantwell



MTC-00001331

From: Rhoda E Schollars
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 6:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am attaching my comments written in my last Microsoft program. 
Because of the problems I had with FrontPage and bCentral I am 
filing a complaint with the FTC for bait and switch. Someone needs 
to do something to protect the American public if you won't. If you 
don't want to do your job, why don't you quit and find another one? 
The software companies opposing Gates have lawyer, Gates has his 
lawyer, you were supposed to be my lawyer. Your job is to protect 
your employer, the American taxpayer but with the 
"settlement" you abandoned your responsibility.
    What you have done is given Microsoft permission to destroy 
small businesses everywhere. I'm a small businesswoman and Bill 
Gates' tentacles are reaching out and squeezing the life out of me. 
Three examples should hopefully explain why I am so upset. They 
should also illustrate the inherent danger of any monopoly, like the 
one you are sanctioning.
    First, I love a word processing program called WordPerfect 
because it let's me do everything that I want to do. I can't use it 
any longer because Bill Gates makes it impossible to use. I know 
you're saying that WordPerfect Mill exists_but that doesn't 
matter, I can't use it. Most people use the grossly inferior product 
put out by Microsoft called Word and then only because it is bundled 
in with other Microsoft products. If I used WordPerfect I could not 
exchange my documents with Word users_including Outlook users, 
etc. I would be cutting myself off from clients, friends, etc who 
use Word.
    Years ago Bill Gates apparently admitted his and his employees' 
incompetence when he stated that Word just couldn't read 
WordPerfect. That was a crock then as it is now since they could 
have found a way. There were a lot of bridges that independent 
shareware producers had created between Word and WordPerfect. Gates 
just wanted to destroy WordPerfect, which is what he has done. So 
what is the result to the American public? We're stuck with a 
program full of glitches that is slowly dumbing down the American 
public. As a joke I typed in some famous American documents 
including the Gettysburg Address. I remember that document 
specifically since Word declared it to be riddled with errors and 
faulted it for having many "long sentences." In fact, I 
just ran spell check and it didn't recognize Gettysburg but it did 
recognize Microsoft.
    Second, I had an account through bCentral for a website. I have 
canceled the account since I have reached my frustration level with 
the site and Microsoft's products. The site was created using a site 
manager that was exclusive to Microsoft. It took me a good day to 
master using the manager and then anther day to get the site up. 
Microsoft decided it

[[Page 23899]]

couldn't leave well enough alone and did away with the site manager. 
It sent me a "free" copy of FrontPage so that I was 
forced to use if, which meant spending another day or two learning 
anther program. Well, I had problems almost from the start. First, 
the program caused RealPlayer to crash twice. Then all non-Microsoft 
products starting giltching in small ways_e.g, pop up boxes on 
the Internet would not work unless they were Microsoft's.
    Then I imported my website into the program so I could edit it. 
There is obviously something that I did wrong or them is a problem 
with the program since all links showed except "Home". 
It's hard to put out a website when the reader can't go home 
whenever they want. I read and re-read their instructions but 
nothing worked. So I contacted Microsoft and asked for help. Their 
response, "Read the book". I did that again and still 
couldn't do anything. Finally I decided I'd live with no link to 
Home and published the site. Well, it ate my site. I tried to 
contact Microsoft again and no response. So I threatened to cancel 
my account. Then I got the offer of support for $35. This is on a 
product that they forced me to use when they unilaterally did away 
with the site manager and forced me to use FrontPage. Obviously they 
are too big to care if their products work or not-another problem 
with monopolies.
    Finally, Microsoft is "partnered" with Intuit, which 
produces low-end accounting software including Quickbooks. 
Quickbooks is used by many small business people to do their books 
and this low-end monopoly generates a lot of money for Intuit since 
they do the Microsoft shuffle. They create inferior products and 
then do "upgrades". My question is, why do they need to 
do so many upgrades if their products were good to begin with? They 
do the "upgrades" for one reason and that is to force 
people to purchase the "upgraded" product. You see, 
their products don't read up, only down. In other words, when my 
clients do their books on a Quickbooks upgrade produced after the 
one that I have, I cannot read it. So I have to upgrade whether I 
want to or not. The same is true of regular Microsoft 
products_they read down but not up. We're forced to 
continually buy "upgraded" products, which to me means 
that the initial products were inferior. If there was competition a 
company couldn't do that. They'd have to get it right the first time 
or their competitors would put them out of business.
    All these problems develop because of monopolies and you're 
doing nothing to stop Microsoft. And they are costing me time and 
money. If the problem is the Windows operating system and Gate's 
control of Windows, you need to split it off into a separate 
company. Either that or make it a public utility, like the electric 
company. Pay them royalties but take it out of their control. Then 
they'd have to compete on a level playing field and I have the 
feeling that Bill Gates would fail since his products are inferior 
to those of his competitors. He just controls Windows and can force 
the public to use the crap that he produces.



MTC-00001332

From: Douglas (038) Maria Cramer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 7:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    It is with great concern and a deep sense of foreboding that I 
have read the settlement agreement between the United States 
Department of Justice and Microsoft. It is my opinion that the 
agreement falls far short of achieving any real remedy to 
Microsoft1s predatorial and anti-competitive business practices. It 
will neither provide reparations for damage that has already been 
done to a number of individuals and corporations nor will it prevent 
future abuses of Microsoft's monopolistic advantage in the computer 
software marketplace. From what I have read and seen in the news 
media concerning this case, whether or not Microsoft is a monopoly 
and whether or not it uses this monopoly to unfair advantage over 
competitors is not in question. This has been found to be true and 
Microsoft is guilty of violating our country's anti-trust laws. The 
question is how to go about setting things right so these activities 
are stopped and competition is returned to the industry. The 
settlement appears to do little to answer this question.
    The settlement as it stands places a great degree of emphasis on 
Microsoft acting in good faith to avoid certain specific practices 
that unfairly leverages its operating system monopoly to place its 
products at an advantage over those of other software developers. 
Microsoft has already shown by its violation of a previous consent 
decree that it cannot be trusted to act in good faith. Also, during 
the course of the legal proceedings, Microsoft continued to carry on 
with business as usual as though its business practices were not 
even under scrutiny. This "business as usual" recently 
culminated with the release of the Windows XP operating system that 
not only contains the Internet Explorer web browser with code co-
mingled with the operating system, but also introduces new bundled 
applications such as a video editing package and instant messaging 
software that are placed at an advantage over competing products by 
their inclusion with the operating system bundle. Windows XP also 
further attempts to extend Microsoft's monopoly into other areas by 
leveraging its compressed digital music format, Media Player 
multimedia viewing application, PassPort user authentication system, 
and .NET Internet technologies against competing technologies from 
Apple Computer, Sun Microsystems, IBM, and others. Microsoft 
continues to operate as it always has with no apparent regard for 
the laws it violates, the companies it harms, or the consumers who 
suffer because of the stifled competition and innovation that result 
from these activities.
    This being the case, I would have been somewhat relieved to have 
discovered the settlement contains meaningful and effective 
consequences should Microsoft violate the agreement. I was astounded 
to find out that it does not. The settlement provides little more 
than a slap on the wrist should Microsoft not curb its anti-
competitive practices. If this were not enough, the settlement 
appears to provide plenty of loopholes through which Microsoft will 
be able to squirm that will allow it to continue operating as usual 
without technically violating the agreement. Obviously, I am not the 
only one who believes this. The settlement has come under fire from 
computer industry leaders, consumer advocacy groups, and prominent 
citizens. It has proven so inadequate that a number of states that 
participated in the case are refusing to accept the settlement and a 
number of corporations are considering filing civil lawsuits in an 
attempt to seek justice where the Justice Department has fallen 
short.
    As a tax-payer and voter who has watched as the Justice 
Department invested countless man-hours and tax dollars into the 
fight against the Microsoft monopoly, I am deeply disappointed in 
the end the result. As far as I can tell, little has been 
accomplished and nothing has really changed. Microsoft is still a 
monopoly, it is still using this unfair advantage to the detriment 
of others, and most likely will continue to do so for the 
foreseeable future. As a result, they will be able to continue to 
run other companies out of business, squash innovation that does not 
fit into their plans, and take advantage of consumers through higher 
prices, the undermining of better competing technology, and the 
ongoing elimination of viable alternatives to their operating 
systems and other software products. In regard to the Microsoft 
anti-trust case, I believe the Justice Department has failed the 
American people.
    Sincerely,
    Douglas J. Cramer
    1340 Conewango Avenue
    Warren, PA 16365
    (814) 726-0312
    [email protected]



MTC-00001333

From: Firechild
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 6:46pm
Subject: Settlement Feedback
    To whom it may concern,
    Having been in the computer support industry for the last 13 
years, I can say for certain how disappointed I am in this possible 
settlement structure.
    Microsoft should not be allowed to exploit their co-mingling of 
application & OS products. Doing so *hurts* innovation, and 
fosters additional monopoly abuses. These abuses have been 
**PROVEN** true. Any move by the justice system that doesn't prevent 
this from happening again is a slap to the face of consumers...
    Sincerely,
    Steve Clark
    IT Manager



MTC-00001334

From: Stephen J. Kayner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 6:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am an information technology professional and am extremely 
concerned about the failure to rein in the Microsoft monopoly. They 
are already way too powerful and now that you appear to have caved 
in to them, they are demonstrating an

[[Page 23900]]

anti-competitive attitude worse than I have ever seen in them.
    This is serious business. Information technology does or will 
rule the world. Too much of that power is in Microsoft's hands. They 
feel once again in a position to dominate virtually any market by 
using the proceeds of their monopolies to outlast their competitors 
and forcing users of their operating systems to use other monopoly-
extending technologies. This is not good for consumers, or for 
business, or for anything else but the protection and extension of 
the Microsoft monopolies. If Microsoft is not severely chastened 
now, we will all deeply regret it. You must either break them up 
into three pieces: Operating Systems, Applications, and 
Entertainment, or you must prohibit them from bundling any 
applications or services with the operating systems.
    At the very least, you must do these things:
    1) the Passport technology must be removed from Windows XP and 
not allowed to be included in any future version of Windows
    2) all media applications must also be removed from the 
operating systems
    3) the browser must be decoupled from the operating system and 
made available only as competing browsers are available to Windows 
users (i.e. downloadable, and not included with the operating 
system).
    Thanks for listening, and don't screw this up. The consequences 
are far too dire.
    Stephen J Kayner
    Sacramento, CA
    916-454-5202



MTC-00001335

From: strapane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 7:25pm
Subject: MS ruling
    Justice,
    Your decision on Microsoft is a welcome sign of sanity in the 
petty politics that have pervaded this case from the beginning. We 
are all better off with a common platform for developers controlled 
by a solid company willing to invest far more than anyone else in 
ongoing research and development. Apple, by comparison, has had a 
dismal R&D record combined with the most anti-competitive 
behavior ever demonstrated by a computer company. Their squashing of 
Apple clone companies showed they were not competitive and were not 
interested in providing comsumers with a good product at the best 
price. Even Linux companies charge nearly as much as Microsoft for 
their operating systems which were built largely on open-source code 
and contributions from thousands of volunteers. OK, Microsoft can be 
a bully and needs to be watched closely, but overall they have been 
good for comsumers and the industry.
    Your solution recognizes these facts and doesn't fall into the 
"tear down the giant" mentality that made a mess of the 
telephone industry where lesser measures might have left us with an 
amazing Bell Labs and a seamless nationwide wireless network. 
Microsoft will eventually provide regular users great new science 
like their data mining technology (included free with SQL 2000), or 
perhaps break-through speech recognition, thanks to your settlement.
    Sam Trapane, MCSE
    [email protected]



MTC-00001336

From: Ian Deane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 7:23pm
Subject: Concerns about MS settlement
    After the WTC attack governments in all countries are 
reassessing their vulnerability to terrorist attack. Operating 
systems and the internet now represent essential public 
infrastructure. Modern corporations absolutely depend on their e-
mail, www access, databases etc. Is this infrastructure too valuable 
to be trusted to a tiny centralized group of people? It would seem 
that any widely used operating system controlled by a tiny group 
represents a single point of failure. A perfect target for anyone 
trying to cause maximum disruption. The vulnerability exists on 
several levels:
    1) A military attack on Microsoft's Redmond campus combined with 
some assassinations of key people could easily render the company 
unable to support, develop, and security patch its products. 
Considering how widely the software is deployed and that Microsoft 
is trying to convince Telcos, Stock Exchanges, Banks and Airports to 
use its products this is a scary thing.
    2) Viruses like code red were able to propagate so quickly 
because all Windows boxes are clones of each other. The internet is 
becoming like an ecosystem with no genetic diversity. A pathogen can 
wipe out 100% of the population easily once it can kill a single 
member. We should remember that code red was almost benign. Most of 
the damage it caused was due the network traffic generated by its 
propagation. Imagine if it had been malicious (propagate for 2.5 
hours then reformat). It would have made the WTC attack look like 
someone bombing a mailbox. The extraordinary market share of 
Microsoft has made us extremely vulnerable to this sort of attack.
    3) Free markets with lots of competitors are like democracies 
and tend to result in product excellence and satisfied consumers. 
Consumers vote with their dollars. Monopolies on the other hand are 
like empires. An empire can be well governed but if the emperor is a 
tyrant then everyone suffers. Is Bill Gates a good emperor? Who will 
succeed him if he were killed? What if we get a tyrant?
    4) If anything happens to the software vendor responsible for 
our public infrastructure then its customers are left high and dry. 
With no access to the source code and unable to purchase service 
contracts, many other companies could fail along with the software 
vendor.
    5) Since the source code for MS software is kept secret and is 
accessed by a tiny group programmers there is a lot of opportunity 
for coders to write backdoors or time bombs into the software. Who 
is doing the background checks on these programmers? It should also 
be noted that the whole world is dependant on this tiny group of 
programmers for security fixes. For example consider the 
vulnerability in IE reported on November 1st that took 3 weeks to 
fix. Should this tiny group of programmers be responsible for 
deciding which bugs should be fixed and when then get fixed? What if 
the entire programming team were assassinated?
    .Net is Microsft's attempt to centralize things more than ever. 
So the single point of failure problem is going to get worse rather 
than better. Fifteen years ago PCs were nifty gadgets adored by 
computer geeks. In such a niche market a monopoly is tolerable. 
Today PCs are as important as phone lines, railroads, hospitals and 
highways. Allowing a single company to control these is absurd. 
Considering the civil rights that citizens are being asked to 
surrender in the name of safety from terrorism should large 
monopolies not also be required to surrender some of their 
ownership, control and copyright?



MTC-00001337

From: Peter M. Arnow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 7:09pm
Subject: Proposed settlement
    In other words, Microsoft won. Since they are not being broken 
up, Microsoft should have, at least, been required to make the 
Windows operating system open source. Concealing the source code of 
the operating system and allowing them to write software for the 
operating system gives them an unfair advantage, which they have 
abundantly abused in the past. Indeed, all the abuses for which 
Microsoft has been found guilty have their root in the secrecy of 
the Windows operating system source code.
    Peter M. Arnow
    8008 NW 31st Ave.
    Apt. 807
    Gainesville, FL 32606
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149_Release Date: 9/18/
2001 


MTC-00001338

From: Melvin D. Eng
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 7:27pm
Subject: Comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement with U.S. DOJ
    Dear Sir,
    Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the proposed 
settlement between Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice 
relating to the current antitrust activities.
    As a consumer, the proposed settlement does not provide any 
effective remedies in the short term or more importantly, the long 
term. Microsoft is leveraging their Operating System monopoly to 
support other Microsoft application software. Microsoft is 
accomplishing this by ?bundling? other application software with the 
Operating System software. The other Microsoft application software 
should stand via their own merit. The Operating System monopoly, 
when ?bundling? occurs, provides Microsoft with a clear unmatchable 
advantage that allows Microsoft with the capability to ?attack? 
competitors. There is only one effective solution. This solution is 
to break

[[Page 23901]]

 Microsoft into at least two companies. One company would be the 
Operating System company and the other company would be the 
application software company. In addition, the application software 
company must be treated the same as any software development company 
by the Operating System company.
    This is the only method that I see that can effectively level 
the playing field for all software developers. If you have any 
questions, feel free to ask.
    Thank you for your time.
    Melvin Eng



MTC-00001339

From: VM
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 7:25pm
Subject: comment on antitrust settlement with Microsoft
    1. As a web developer, my job has become increasingly more 
difficult by Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly power. Now that they 
have acquired browser dominance through illegal means, they have 
slowly but surely began to make changes to their dominant browser so 
that web developers such as myself must start using Microsoft-
specific code to make sure our web pages appear okay in their 
browser (Internet Explorer). This has meant that some of the pages I 
develop that look okay on Microsoft's browser will NOT look okay 
using another company's browser. Since I would like the web pages I 
develop to have as much hits as possible, I am thus forced to make 
two versions, one that works with most browsers and one that works 
with Microsoft's browser. This has led to increased development time 
and development cost.
    2. Though Microsoft pays lip service to following "web 
standards", their web development tools (ASP, Frontpage), by 
default, create proprietary features which prevent other browsers 
from viewing pages created with those tools properly.
    3. When I use non-Microsoft web servers such as Apache as well 
as non-Microsoft CGI technology such as Cold Fusion, PHP, recent 
versions of Internet Explorer have caused problems. Functions that 
used to work with older versions of Internet Explorer (when it was 
not yet the dominant browser) no longer work. Web users thus get the 
impression that there is something wrong with the site when in fact 
it is their browser (because it doesn't conform to web standards) 
that is at fault.
    4. Despite the fact that their multimedia-streaming technology 
is inferior to offerings by Real and Apple, Microsoft through its 
dominance of the desktop is forcing users to use Windows Media 
Player at the expense of Real Audio/Video and Apple's Quicktime.
    5. Palm users are starting to have difficulties syncing their 
PDAs with certain versions of Windows_may be because Microsoft 
has a competing product: Microsoft PocketPC.
    6. It is virtually impossible to purchase PCs without having to 
pay for Microsoft Windows even if the buyer will be using Linux or 
other OSes. If you will do rudimentary checks with most PC sellers 
(Gateway, Compaq, HP, IBM, Acer, Dell), they will inform you that 
you cannot buy the PC without paying for Microsoft Windows. If you 
say you will be installing Linux, they will say their contract with 
Microsoft prevents them selling you a "bare" PC without 
an OS_they will lose their OS discounts if they do so.
    9. There are rumors that after the settlement is completed, 
Microsoft plans to go on a buying spree and purchase their rivals 
outright.
    Suggestions:
    1. Force Microsoft to divest itself of the browser (Internet 
Explorer) and prevent them from creating their own proprietary 
browser.
    2. Make Internet Explorer public-domain and placed under the 
control of an open-source standards body.
    3. In the interim, make sure all versions of Internet Explorer 
conform to all web standards and if they are not, have Microsoft 
pull them from use and recode them_to be tested by the WWC 
(Worldwide Web Consortium).
    4. Have all versions of Microsoft web servers, web development 
tools, CGI technology (IIS, Frontpage, ASP) conform to all web 
standards and if they are not, have Microsoft pull them from use and 
recode them_to be tested by the WWC (Worldwide Web 
Consortium).
    5. Have Microsoft pay monetary damages to companies they have 
harmed by their illegal activities: Netscape, Apple, Intel, Borland 
International, Novell, etc.
    6. Have Microsoft include Real and Apple multimedia technology 
with Windows.
    7. Have Microsoft include Palm technology with Windows and make 
sure they work well.
    8. Disallow Microsoft from giving discounts to PC manufacturers. 
There must be uniform pricing to prevent Microsoft from using 
monetary enticements to prevent PC manufacturers from selling 
"bare" PCs or PCs with other OSes pre-installed.
    9. Disallow Microsoft from purchasing or merging with companies 
that offer rival software or are dominant in their category. These 
suggestions, if implemented, will ensure competition and greater 
innovation in the computer arena.
    Thank you for your time.
    Vicente Malixi



MTC-00001340

From: VM
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 7:33pm
Subject: comment on antitrust settlement with Microsoft
    From http://www.sltrib.com/11182001/Business/149631.htm Most 
Microsoft Foes Won't Criticize Settlement for Fear of Retaliation 
SAN JOSE, Calif._Not many high-tech companies talk openly 
about the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement. Even fewer 
criticize the deal in public, despite private misgivings.
    They still, after all, must work with the world's largest 
software maker, which controls the operating systems of more than 90 
percent of desktop computers and can play a big role in the fate of 
their businesses.
    The exceptions are the usual suspects_mainly those 
companies that possess enough clout, money and muscle to risk a run-
in with the software giant.
    The most outspoken critics include database powerhouse Oracle 
Corp. and Unix server king Sun Microsystems Inc. Both dominate their 
core markets despite Microsoft's efforts.
    Larry Ellison, Oracle's billionaire chief executive, told a 
crowd at the Comdex computer show in Las Vegas this week that the 
settlement is "a complete victory for Microsoft, a complete 
defeat for the government. I give Microsoft credit for keeping a 
straight face."
    Sun's chief, Scott McNealy, also expressed outrage that the 
Department of Justice_after winning the case_seemed to 
snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
    It is not just provisions riddled with loopholes or toothless 
enforcement. The deal indicates an unwillingness of the government 
to police antitrust crimes, critics say.
    "The only thing I can conclude is either the Justice 
Department didn't know what it was doing or they did know and just 
decided to give up," said Michael Morris, Sun's vice president 
and general counsel.
    Microsoft declined to answer specific questions about the deal, 
but co-founder Bill Gates has said the company will accept its 
strictures.
    Most companies that must work with or compete against the 
software giant either refused to elaborate beyond short written 
statements, or remained silent altogether.
    Real Networks, which makes streaming media software, declined to 
comment beyond a short statement, which called the settlement a 
reward not a remedy. Ditto for AOL Time Warner, Palm and Novell. 
Others, including software-maker Adobe Inc., computer-maker Apple 
Computer Inc. and chipmaker Intel Corp. refused to make any 
statements at all.
    Major PC manufacturers also were silent. Only a handful of other 
high-tech companies would discuss specific reasons for their 
opposition to the settlement. Opera Software ASA had little to lose.
    The Norway-based company long ago gave up on persuading PC 
makers to install its critically acclaimed Web browser on new PCs. 
Microsoft's exclusive deals had already shut it out of the market.
    Opera might benefit from the settlement under some provisions 
that allow computer makers to install non-Microsoft 
"middleware" such as Web browsers. But only the links to 
Microsoft software could be removed, not the programs themselves. 
That means Microsoft could set itself up as the default system 
despite any agreements with PC and software makers.
    "We're not being extremely hopeful that this is going to 
open up a lot of doors in the PC marketplace," said Jon von 
Tetzchner, Opera's chief executive.
    At any rate, the same PC makers that won't comment on the 
settlement probably aren't interested in raising the ire of 
Microsoft, even if retribution is barred in the settlement.
    "There are loopholes," von Tetzchner said. 
"And there's the practice of life. All of those companies will 
think twice before upsetting Microsoft."
    The entire debate over what Microsoft can do and cannot do 
appears to be rendered moot: Under the settlement, Microsoft can

[[Page 23902]]

 define what comprises the Windows operating system "in its 
sole discretion."
    Companies also might be reluctant to talk because the deal 
allows Microsoft to keep from its competitors the critical details 
about how programs and operating systems can function best in a 
Windows environment.
    Software programs are intricate tapestries. To function smoothly 
when running on top of an operating system such as Windows, the 
stitches that link an application with the operating system must be 
snug and seamless.
    Competitors complain that because Microsoft was not compelled to 
immediately reveal to them how to make those stitches, it will 
continue to dominate in such areas as word processing, spreadsheets 
and e-mail.
    "This settlement does not remedy the monopoly. It 
legitimizes it," said Michael Tiemann, chief technical officer 
at Red Hat Inc., a distributor of a variant of Linux, a competing 
operating system whose basic code is open and public.
    Microsoft has a history of undermining software projects backed 
by consortia of major tech companies that aim to create applications 
that work well with a variety of operating systems, potentially 
threatening the Windows monopoly.
    The company infuriated promoters of Java when it created 
Microsoft-specific versions of the programming language in the late 
1990s. This year, Microsoft changed and patented a protocol used by 
Samba, open-source software that lets a Linux machine share files or 
manage print jobs such as a Windows server.
    "The whole concept of a free market is to allow fair and 
open competition and to permit customers to make choices," 
Tiemann said.
    Drew Spencer, chief technology officer of Orem's Caldera 
International, a Linux provider, worries that Microsoft won't 
release enough information to allow alternative platforms to 
participate in upcoming Web services.
    Steven McGeady, a former Intel Corp. vice president who made 
headlines during the antitrust trial for testifying against 
Microsoft, said the deal only reinforces his own, post-Intel 
business strategy.
    "Competing with Microsoft head-on is a bad business 
practice," he said. "And it would be a bad business 
practice regardless of any of the potential remedies."



MTC-00001341

From: Alan Murray
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/19/01 7:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    We're writing to add our voice in the outcry against the Justice 
Department's antitrust suit settlement for Microsoft. Fortunately, 
our Utah attorney general is willing to reject the settlement, 
though it jeopardizes his promise for re-election. As usual, it 
appears that people are voting with either their wallets or along 
party lines. It's disappointing that people are obviously losing the 
clear perspective on this issue, due to the financial benefits which 
some can gain in this, or due to the assumption that to defy 
Microsoft is somehow at odds with the Republican philosophy of 
supporting big business. This is a clear case of a company 
conducting bad business, and it should be punished accordingly.
    Microsoft has shown repeatedly that it is determined to use its 
substantial monopoly to take over countless sectors in the business 
world. This is a situation that is not healthy for our economy, 
especially at a time when so many companies are barely making it 
anyway. We are in an environment where only the very strong and very 
established can survive. Such an environment does not encourage new 
ideas and new companies_something our economy needs so 
desperately at this time.
    We support politicians and lawmakers who vote to uphold the laws 
and principles which enable free enterprise to thrive.
    _Alan and Tamara Murray



MTC-00001342

From: VM
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 7:37pm
Subject: comment on antitrust settlement with Microsoft From http://
www.siliconvalley.com/docs/opinion/dgillmor/dg110701.htm Holdout 
states last hope to help ease Microsoft's grip on U.S. consumers
    BY DAN GILLMOR
    Mercury News
    So it's down to a few states that have enough money to fight and 
refuse to be bullied. They are American consumers' last hope for an 
outcome that doesn't leave Microsoft on a clear path toward 
controlling the choke points of tomorrow's commerce and 
communications.
    No one should be surprised that half of the state attorneys 
general have given up. A few undoubtedly believe the Justice 
Department's sellout achieved something. Others were just along for 
the ride and are feeling Microsoft's_and the federal 
government's_enormous lobbying pressure. Watch the campaign 
contributions flow to see what may have happened with at least some 
of the politicians who were handling this lawsuit.
    If U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who's now hearing 
the case, has any courage, the Tunney Act hearing should be 
extremely revealing. There are so many questions raised by the 
malodorous deal cut by the Justice Department that it's hard to know 
where to begin. The best place to start is with the bizarre 
settlement itself. The document reads as though it had been written 
by Microsoft lawyers. Every time you read an item that suggests 
actual restraint on Microsoft's behavior, you find weasel language 
elsewhere that undermines the supposed concession. This thing isn't 
just full of loopholes. It's meaningless.
    For instance:
    ? Why did the lawbreaker get to keep the loot it made from 
violating the law? Do we give bank robbers the same courtesy?
    ? Why does this settlement implicitly give Microsoft the right 
to withhold information about its programming interfaces to open-
source and free software writers?
    ? Microsoft, in its sole authority, gets to decide what goes 
into Windows. Since that eviscerates every other provision in the 
agreement, why bother with this charade at all? It would also be 
useful to put some key people under oath, to answer questions about 
the politics of this case. For instance:
    ? Why did none of the non-political professional staff members 
who worked on this case support the settlement? Have they been 
ordered to keep their mouths shut? If so, why?
    ? What was the substance of the summer conversation between Vice 
President Dick Cheney and Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer?
    ? Attorney General John Ashcroft's deputy chief of staff_a 
Microsoft shareholder and former official of the Republican Party, 
which got massive Microsoft campaign 
"contributions"_reportedly told Microsoft 
opponents to back off even after he'd supposedly recused himself 
from the case. He's denied the report, but let him do so under 
penalty of perjury. (Oh, wait, who'd prosecute? This Justice 
Department?)
    There's another angle that the media, in particular, need to 
examine as quickly as possible. Is it possible that Microsoft and 
the government have made some secret arrangements that will be 
couched under "anti-terrorism" rhetoric when or if they 
emerge into the public light? The government's new surveillance 
powers would be far easier to carry out if Microsoft became a 
government ally in this area.
    Have there been such side deals? I hope not. I would prefer to 
think that Microsoft was rewarded by an administration that opposes 
antitrust enforcement on ideological grounds, as this one surely 
does. California deserves special credit for its stance. Bill 
Lockyer, the state attorney general, has emerged as the most 
important public official in America when it comes to holding back 
the Microsoft tide. This means that Microsoft, with its bottomless 
pockets and utter ruthlessness, now loathes him more than any other 
public official.
    Contact Lockyer's office at (916) 322-3360 and express 
your support. He needs to hear from people who understand what's at 
stake. Dan Gillmor's column appears each Sunday, Wednesday and 
Saturday. E-mail [email protected]; phone (408) 
920-5016; fax (408) 920-5917. PGP fingerprint: FE68 46C9 
80C9 BC6E 3DD0 BE57 AD49 1487 CEDC 5C14.



MTC-00001343

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 7:37pm
Subject: Holdout states last hope to help ease Microsoft's grip on 
U.S. consumers
From: Vip Malixi
Subject: Holdout states last hope to help ease Microsoft's grip on 
U.S. consumers
    Email a Friend brought to you by BayArea.com and 
SiliconValley.com
    Mon Nov 19 19:37:02 2001 comment on antitrust settlement with 
Microsoft
    Posted at 8:16 p.m. PST Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2001
    BY DAN GILLMOR
    Mercury News
    So it's down to a few states that have enough money to fight and 
refuse to be bullied. They are American consumers' last

[[Page 23903]]

hope for an outcome that doesn't leave Microsoft on a clear path 
toward controlling the choke points of tomorrow's commerce and 
communications.
    No one should be surprised that half of the state attorneys 
general have given up. A few undoubtedly believe the Justice 
Department's sellout achieved something. Others were just along for 
the ride and are feeling Microsoft's_and the federal 
government's_enormous lobbying pressure. Watch the campaign 
contributions flow to see what may have happened with at least some 
of the politicians who were handling this lawsuit.
    If U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who's now hearing 
the case, has any courage, the Tunney Act hearing should be 
extremely revealing. There are so many questions raised by the 
malodorous deal cut by the Justice Department that it's hard to know 
where to begin.
    The best place to start is with the bizarre settlement itself. 
The document reads as though it had been written by Microsoft 
lawyers. Every time you read an item that suggests actual restraint 
on Microsoft's behavior, you find weasel language elsewhere that 
undermines the supposed concession. This thing isn't just full of 
loopholes. It's meaningless.
    For instance:
    Why did the lawbreaker get to keep the loot it made from 
violating the law? Do we give bank robbers the same courtesy?
    Why does this settlement implicitly give Microsoft the right to 
withhold information about its programming interfaces to open-source 
and free software writers?
    Microsoft, in its sole authority, gets to decide what goes into 
Windows. Since that eviscerates every other provision in the 
agreement, why bother with this charade at all?
    It would also be useful to put some key people under oath, to 
answer questions about the politics of this case. For instance:
    Why did none of the non-political professional staff members who 
worked on this case support the settlement? Have they been ordered 
to keep their mouths shut? If so, why?
    What was the substance of the summer conversation between Vice 
President Dick Cheney and Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer?
    Attorney General John Ashcroft's deputy chief of staff_a 
Microsoft shareholder and former official of the Republican Party, 
which got massive Microsoft campaign 
"contributions"_reportedly told Microsoft 
opponents to back off even after he'd supposedly recused himself 
from the case. He's denied the report, but let him do so under 
penalty of perjury. (Oh, wait, who'd prosecute? This Justice 
Department?)
    There's another angle that the media, in particular, need to 
examine as quickly as possible. Is it possible that Microsoft and 
the government have made some secret arrangements that will be 
couched under "anti-terrorism" rhetoric when or if they 
emerge into the public light? The government's new surveillance 
powers would be far easier to carry out if Microsoft became a 
government ally in this area.
    Have there been such side deals? I hope not. I would prefer to 
think that Microsoft was rewarded by an administration that opposes 
antitrust enforcement on ideological grounds, as this one surely 
does.
    California deserves special credit for its stance. Bill Lockyer, 
the state attorney general, has emerged as the most important public 
official in America when it comes to holding back the Microsoft 
tide.
    This means that Microsoft, with its bottomless pockets and utter 
ruthlessness, now loathes him more than any other public official.
    Contact Lockyer's office at (916) 322-3360 and express 
your support. He needs to hear from people who understand what's at 
stake.
    Dan Gillmor's column appears each Sunday, Wednesday and 
Saturday. E-mail [email protected]; phone (408) 
920-5016; fax (408) 920-5917. PGP fingerprint: FE68 46C9 
80C9 BC6E 3DD0 BE57 AD49 1487 CEDC 5C14.
    Address of original story:
    http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/opinion/dgillmor/dg110701.htm
    SiliconValley.com_Inside The Tech Economy
    You are receiving this email because a friend of yours thought 
this article might be of interest to you.



MTC-00001344

From: trinko
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 7:35pm
Subject: i'm outraged
    Microsoft has, and continues, to use monopolistic leverage to 
destroy competitors and rip off consumers. For example XP allows 
Microsoft to tax the internet by charging web sites for placement. 
Given that there's no real alternative to most users Microsoft will 
effectively be able to tax most online sales since the companies 
will pass on the costs of buying placement in XP to consumers, 
albeit invisibly. The only viable solution is to split the company 
and require them to eschew charging for any placement in the OS. 
This will still leave Microsoft well off finanacially.
    One note. I'm a mac user. I pay about the same for an OS upgrade 
as does a Windows user. But the mac base is 1/20th that of the 
Windows base. That seems to indicate that Microsoft is milking the 
market. If there were any competing source, as there is in the chip 
arena, i bet those windoze users would be paying a lot less.



MTC-00001345

From: David Todd
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/19/01 7:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I'm concerned to read press reports that show this settlement as 
merely trying to prevent Microsoft's future bad behaviour, without 
punishing its current misdemeanours.
    I know that Microsoft is unhappy about a break-up, but 
fundamentally is that such a bad thing? Microsoft is a monopoly in 
several IT spaces. If MS was split into three_Operating 
Systems and Tools, Back Office Servers, User Applications, would 
that really hinder the companies ability to innovate? I realise that 
much software is starting to have both server and client components, 
ie exchange without outlook doesn't work, so Data Analysis requires 
some functionality from SQL Server. Looking forward to a better 
outcome from this for all of us ...



MTC-00001346

From: John LaFrance
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 7:47pm
Subject: Microsoft and DOJ settlement
    I think the settlement is too leniant for Microsoft. If you are 
going to punish them, then PUNISH them, not tickle them with soft 
restrictions and concessions. They are a monopoly and have abused 
their power long enough!



MTC-00001347

From: lEO kOWALSKI
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 7:45pm
Subject: Judgment against Microsoft
    Dear Sir:
    I sympathize with Microsoft. At least he gains his monopoly 
through product development and not through buying out his 
competitors as many other corporations are doing. I'm sure if other 
companies are able to develop a better product the public would buy 
it instead of the microsoft product. A waste of taxpayers money.
    Leo Kowalski



MTC-00001348

From: VM
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 7:39pm
Subject: article regarding antitrust settlement with Microsoft
    From http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/opinion/dgillmor/
dg101101.htm Microsoft using XP to tighten grip on users
    BY DAN GILLMOR
    Mercury News
    At long last, Microsoft has released a consumer-oriented 
operating system that won't be in danger of regular failures. What a 
shame, if not a surprising one, that Microsoft has ratcheted up its 
standard set of anticompetitive tactics with the release of Windows 
XP. If you buy a new Intel-compatible computer you'll have 
essentially no choice in the matter. Microsoft effectively controls 
the software side of the personal-computer industry, and it has 
decreed that Windows XP is what you'll run. The questions are 
different this time.
    If you aren't buying a new PC soon, should you replace your 
current operating system with XP? I say no, unless the stability of 
your current software is so awful that you can't stand it anymore. 
And if you are getting XP on a new computer, are there ways to 
mitigate Microsoft's ever-growing control-freakery and have things 
your own way, not Microsoft's? Not always.
    The increase in reliability is a major improvement for home 
users. I've been running the business-oriented Windows 2000 on my 
laptop computer. XP is based on the same foundation, and it's like 
the difference between wood and cardboard. One tends to be sturdy. 
The other tends not to be.
    There are also some intriguing changes in the user-interface, 
the screen that greets you

[[Page 23904]]

when you start the system, and the way it works. I can take or leave 
most of them, but novices will find that Windows XP is in many ways 
easier to use than its predecessors. Naturally, Microsoft is not 
content with the unprecedented advance of selling a reliable 
consumer product. With its grip on the computer industry, it has 
also decided to steer its customers down new and sometimes 
disturbing paths.
    If you buy the upgrade software, you'll be required to register 
the software with Microsoft. If you don't, the operating system will 
stop working. Later, if you've changed your PC's hardware 
sufficiently to trigger Microsoft's paranoid fear that someone may 
be trying to make an unauthorized copy of the operating system, 
you'll need to call the company and get its permission to keep using 
your computer. Microsoft is also using its desktop monopoly to herd 
you into its own corral. Again and again, you'll be steered to 
Microsoft or Microsoft partner sites and services, thereby reducing 
your choice unless you want to make extra effort.
    Then there's the Passport authentication system. You are 
required to sign up for it if you want to use the instant-messaging 
software that comes with the operating system, and most users will 
do so by default because most users do what they're told.
    Passport is the linchpin to Microsoft's next generation of 
software_its aim to convert packaged products into pay-as-you-
go services that run on the Web. You need to think very hard about 
whether you want to give Microsoft the keys to your financial and 
online identities. You may trust Microsoft to keep its word not to 
abuse this position, but the company's fairly abysmal record on 
security should give you considerable pause. The bottom line on 
Windows XP is simple. Reliability is coming with many strings 
attached. Only a monopolist could get away with this, which is 
exactly the point.
    Dan Gillmor is the Mercury News' technology columnist. Visit 
Dan's online column, eJournal (www.siliconvalley.com/dangillmor). E-
mail [email protected]; phone (408) 920-5016; fax 
(408) 920-5917. PGP fingerprint: FE68 46C9 80C9 BC6E 3DD0 BE57 
AD49 1487 CEDC 5C14.



MTC-00001349

From: George McKinlay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 8:07pm
Subject: Settlement
    From my readings of the settlement it is clear that this 
settlement will not inhibit Microsoft from continuing or extending 
its prior anti-competitive practices into new areas. Microsoft 
should not be permitted to develop applications, or if it does these 
applications should not be done by the acquisition of companies 
(such as Bungie) and the subsequent releasing of Windows only 
versions of their software. Microsoft should not be permitted to 
purchase companies such as Adobe? instead it should be forced to 
divest its interests in such companies.
    Microsoft should be obligated to stop distributing free/bundled 
software such as Explorer, MS mediaplayer, C# and other 
strategic software/languages/formats that have developed 
independently of Microsoft and which Microsoft now considers 
important in its strategy to dominate the internet.
    If Microsoft is permitted to continue to develop non operating 
system software then it must be obligated to provide concurrently, 
fully functional and feature complete software on all commercially 
viable operating systems with adequate market share (Mac OS X, 
Linnux, Solaris etc) just as ATT was/is obligated to carry 
competitors business on their infrastructure.
    Respectfully
    George Mckinlay
    [email protected]



MTC-00001350

From: Jack Wenrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 8:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the Justice Department proposed settlement with 
Microsoft is nothing but a sham. Microsoft has been trampling on 
competitors for years and stifling competition. The settlement is 
not even a slap on the wrist.
    Their punishment should be immediate and severe. If the current 
settlement sticks, they will just continue their predatory manner.
    Jack Wenrick
    2829 Hastings Rd
    Silver Lake OH 44224



MTC-00001351

From: Johnson, Bradley R
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/19/01 7:59pm
Subject: Anti-Trust Case Against Microsoft
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I heard that you were soliciting feedback from consumers 
regarding the MS anti-trust case. I am a mac-user, and have used MS 
Office products for over 8 years. I am a scientist with a PhD in 
materials science and engineering, and I use several different 
computing platforms (mac, PC, unix, etc.) and a multitude of 
different software applications on a regular basis. I am quite 
computer literate. For me, cross-platform compatability and cross-
application compatability is essential to my work. Microsoft, with 
its proprietary file formats, and monopoly market share domination 
of desktop pubilshing environment make my job very difficult, and 
hence, by default, I am required to use their software in order to 
move and share information between computers and different clients. 
I think that Microsoft should be treated as a monopoly and 
regulated/controlled/penalized for aggressive and predatory business 
practices. I cite the following reasons:
    1. Because they have a dominant (monopoly) market share 
position, and because their software formats are proprietary, third 
party file translators don't work very well. Hence in order to share 
computer file information with other people or between different 
platforms, one is essentially forced to use their software.
    2. Even within their own software, file translation between 
platforms (mac -> pc) has bugs and problems. They have made great 
improvements over the last 7 years, but there are still problems. 
(e.g. sharing a mac Word 2001 document with embedded windows 
metafiles with a PC user with Word2000 doesn't work_the images 
don't show up on their machine.) The solution for this problem is 
that the consumer has to purchase a new version of the software. 
They don't support their software with bug fixes for a very long 
time. I had problems with the performance of Word6.0.1 for the mac. 
The solution was to purchase Word 98. I had lots of problems with 
performance and stability with Word98_the solution was to 
purchase Word2001. I have discovered problems with Word2001. The 
solution? Buy Word v. X. Since there are no other market 
competators, they can pass off bug fixes and new releases and charge 
consumers full price without really ever fixing or solving the 
problem. If the software worked as advertised, that'd be one thing, 
but to pay full price for buggy software, and then be told that all 
the problems will be fixed in the next release is not fair to the 
consumer. Consequently, I think that they should be required to 
maintain their software with annual or semi-annual bug fixes and 
updates for a period of at least three years.
    3. They have used their dominant market share and proprietary 
file formats as leverage to eliminate competition from other 
software competitors. For example, look at the fate of WordPerfect 
and Corel Office. Word perfect at one time dominated the word 
processing market, and now it is essentially defunct. On the PC 
side, this product still exists, but it has been discontinued on the 
mac side_this especially smells fishy considering Microsoft's 
recent investment in Corel. One may ask, why not let Apple make a 
competitor for MS Office_the answer is pretty clear. MS would 
quickly drop MS Office for the mac, and thus there would be no way 
for mac users to share files with PC users. Consequently, what small 
number of mac users that exist would be eliminated from the business 
world, because they would be forced to switch to PC to get their 
work done. The lost revenue of these mac users would further 
diminish the viability of Apple, and the company could ultimately go 
under. At one time, this was such a significant issue for Apple, 
that they traded software rights for a promise from MS that they 
would sustain MS Office development on the mac.
    I don't know if anyone will read this, but I hope so, and I hope 
that it might be useful in this case.
    _Bradley R. Johnson



MTC-00001352

From: James(u)Rolevink(a)mac.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 8:45pm
Subject: Proposed settlement with Microsoft.
    TRUTH, JUSTICE & THE AMERICAN WAY?
    Have you guys ever heard of the doctrine of the Separation of 
Powers over there in the U.S.?
    What is the point of having a judiciary if a sympathetic 
president can just step in, appoint a political glove puppet to the 
D.o.J., have a few words in the right ears, and then

[[Page 23905]]

make a total mockery of the entire judicial process by effecting a 
complete about face, notwithstanding the fact that the earlier 
D.o.J. team secured comprehensive and devastating victories before 
nine different judges over eight egregious breaches of the anti-
trust laws, laws as enacted by your own parliament???
    It is VERY telling that, on the one hand John Ashcroft can claim 
that the proposed settlement "provides prompt, effective, 
certain relief for consumers and removes the uncertainty in the 
computer market, a critical factor in today's economy [and that it] 
imposes a broad range of restrictions that will stop Microsoft's 
unlawful conduct and will restore competition in the 
industry", when ``the Justice Department's senior non-
political staff didn't sign on to the agreement, signalling their 
opposition'', on the other.
    Did the Microsoft spin-meisters write those lines for him? No 
wonder Bill Gates is so keen to, ``implement this settlement 
promptly and fully''; it's about as onerous as having been legally 
obliged to open one's Christmas presents.
    What does this mean about the facts and telling the truth? Were 
the original D.o.J. team lying? Were the nine judges stupid and got 
the whole thing wrong? Have the anti-trust laws suddenly changed? 
Why bother with the pretext of having a judiciary at all? Why not 
just dispense with them altogether and make the president a despot, 
as it wouldn't make much practical difference in the present 
circumstances? The parallels with this case and the means by which 
the present U.S. government rose to power are a little frightening!
    Oh how hard it must be for Microsoft to keep a straight face; 
they have never had to fight a fair fight in their life, and if this 
joke of a settlement goes through, they probably never will.
    In short, this smacks of cronyism and it belittles all arms of 
power by showing the divisions between them to be a mere charade 
staged to placate the public sense of democracy and justice. Truth, 
justice and the American way? From where I am standing, it sounds a 
little rich to me!
    Thank goodness for the States and for Federation in general!
    Thank goodness for the Tunney Act.
    Thank goodness for the E.C. investigation.
    Thank goodness that not everyone is in the pocket of Microsoft 
or the present administration in the U.S..



MTC-00001353

From: Eric Shepherd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 8:26pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The proposed settlement appears to be a complete surrender by 
the Department of Justice, after soundly trouncing Microsoft in 
court. What's the point of spending years in court only to barely 
slap Microsoft on the wrist? A breakup would have been a minimally 
acceptable outcome, but since the courts have rejected that option, 
you need to come up with a next-best-thing, instead of throwing your 
hands up in the air and calling it quits.
    If the proposed settlement goes through, it will spell doom for 
the computer industry.
    _ Eric Shepherd Owner, Syndicomm http://www.syndicomm.com 
Building communities, bit by bit.



MTC-00001354

From: Jonathan Hudson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 8:26pm
Subject: crazy?
    they're still a monopoly. their sites are inaccessible to 
macintoshes. they shut macs out of hotmail for weeks on end. try and 
get quicktime running on XP
    jonathan hudson_www.studio2f.com



MTC-00001355

From: Shannon Jacobs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 8:47pm
Subject: Disapproval of the Microsoft settlement
    Everything I've seen over the years and read about this 
settlement says Microsoft got away with murder of other 
corporations. Again. They've also penalized and overcharged 
customers while absolutely disavowing any legal responsibility for 
the problems and pains they cause. Microsoft is not concerned with 
how much their products cost_all they are concerned with is 
making sure they get as much money as possible. They provide support 
like a kind of charity, and publicize it as a kind of false 
advertising. If I were a betting man, I'd say the probability of 
this settlement leading to any significant change in Microsoft's 
illegal behaviors is effectively zero. You'd have to give me 100:1 
odds and spot me a million dollars just to get me to play the game. 
However, it's exactly what I expected from Bush since we all 
understand how he feels Microsoft's pain.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00001356

From: Chris Cassell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 8:59pm
Subject: Less than a slap on the wrist for MS
    Sirs,
    I was most disappointed in the DOJ's decision to ignore the 
testimony provided during the hearings which lead to Judge 
Penfield's decision. Penfield was reprimanded for his comments after 
the trial, not his decisions. These were upheld by a higher court.
    This DOJ settlement will have no effect on Microsotft's 
behavior. Microsoft has a history of ignoring settlements. They will 
ignore this one as well, because it has no teeth. MS was found to be 
violating several anti-trust laws. To let MS off with considerably 
less than a slap on the wrist, sends the message back to MS that 
such activities are acceptable corporate behavior.
    Several facts were brought to light during he hearings:
    Bill Gates lied to the Court and was caught at it.
    The demonstrations about the ease of removing Explorer were 
falsified.
    It was proven that Microsoft intentionally modified its 
operating system to render competing browsers at a disadvantage.
    MS incorporated copyrighted concepts from competitors without 
permission or payment.
    Essentially, the DOJ has told MS that the software and operating 
system playing field is theirs and they can defend it with whatever 
means they can bring to bear. Without a substantial penalty for 
their paranoid and invidious behavior, they will not play fairly. 
This disregard for fair competition has already been demonstrated in 
many of the features incorporated into the new Windows XP operating 
system.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Cassell
    1506 Bristol Avenue
    Westchester, Illinois 60154



MTC-00001357

From: Doug Knowles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 8:53pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement is woefully inadequate
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I have been a software engineer for over 25 years, and I am 
writing to protest the inadequate sanctions imposed on Microsoft 
under the proposed antitrust settlement. The settlement will allow 
Microsoft to continue its most predatory practices and rob consumers 
of the opportunity to experience, evaluate, and possibly choose 
among potentially competitive technologies.
    The great failure in the DOJ's case against Microsoft is that it 
concentrated on harm inflicted on competitors that are still in 
existence today; what has been forgotten is the longer list of 
technologies and competitors that Microsoft stifled and killed 
before consumers ever had a chance to know they existed, let alone 
choose as an alternative to the narrow choices offered by Microsoft. 
As an employee of various firms that partnered and/or competed with 
Microsoft, I have seen Microsoft exercise the clout it holds as a 
near monopoly in at least three different ways that I believe to be 
in violation of the spirit (if not the letter) of antitrust law, and 
certainly to the detriment of the software industry in general as 
well as its customers:
_ Misdirection given to independent software vendors (ISVs) by 
Microsoft operating system managers to steer them away from a 
competitive position vis a vis Microsoft applications;
_ Threats made against ISVs to withhold technology cooperation 
on established product lines to prevent those ISVs from pursuing 
independent product development efforts not to Microsoft's liking;
_ Exploitation of smaller competitors (through a combination 
of partnerships and threats) to make them temporary agents of 
Microsoft's agenda to their ultimate detriment.
    If the DOJ can not back away from this settlement, I hope that 
the states that have rejected the settlement have more success in 
re-establishing diversity and competition in the software industry.
    Sincerely,
    Douglas A. Knowles
    99 Gerard Road
    Norwell, MA 02061



MTC-00001358

From: Mark Hayes

[[Page 23906]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 8:48pm
Subject: The settlement.
    I1m ashamed that my government is entering into a settlement 
like this. Microsoft clearly violates antitrust laws, even more so 
with the release of WindowsXP, and they should be punished. There 
are legal precedents here, do Standard Oil and Bell Telephone ring 
any bells?
    Mark Hayes
    Creative Director
    Mark Hayes Design
    [email protected]



MTC-00001359

From: Ben Pearre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 9:00pm
Subject: Stop, or I'll say 'Stop' again!
    If I don't pay my taxes for 10 years while claiming that I have, 
and I'm caught, is the remedy that I'm told to start paying my taxes 
again? If not, why not?
    Even if no harsher penalty is applied to Microsoft, it should be 
required, somehow, to be put in a position wherein it is worse off 
than it would have been had it never done anything illegal. 
Punishment usually involves more than the warning "Stop, or 
I'll say 'stop' again"!
    When corporations have more power than ever before, the 
government should redouble its efforts not to be swayed by corporate 
power. What I see instead is a government that did too little, too 
late, and now has to bow to the will of its corporations.
    Sincerely,
    Ben Pearre
    MIT
    Cambridge, MA
    [email protected] http://hebb.mit.edu/
ï¿½7Eben



MTC-00001360

From: Karen Atwood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 9:12pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement public input
    My family and I share the growing concerns of many people across 
the U.S. about the apparent "20 lashes with a wet 
noodle" penalty on Microsoft for very real violations of the 
anti-trust laws of the country. I have listened to people echo these 
complaints when they call in to talk shows_even to 
C-SPAN to voice their anger that the Justice Department has 
dropped the ball in the Microsoft case. What has happened here? It 
smacks of backroom deal making and leaves a bad taste in the mouths 
of citizens who thought justice would be done, but now think that 
government officials at the highest level have betrayed them. Sign 
me a disgusted Mac user.
    KA
    Karen Atwood
    256 Mohawk Avenue Extension
    Warren, Pennsylvania 16365-3410
    phone/fax- 814 726 2774



MTC-00001361

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 9:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Everyone, and that includes the Justice Dept. and the states 
involved , should leave Microsoft alone. Our country's technology is 
as advanced as it is today because of Microsoft and the brilliance 
of Bill Gates. Anti-trust is meant to protect the consumer against 
companies and not companies in competition with each other that 
can't compete. That is all this case is really about, companies that 
couldn't cut it and got jealous of microsoft.
    Ann Ruth & Eugene Figg Tallahassee, Fl.



MTC-00001362

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 9:02pm
Subject: No Subject
    Dear Sirs,
    I have a Sony FX240 laptop running Microsoft Windows ME. I 
downloaded Microsoft Internet Explorer but cannot use it because if 
I start it the sign-up screen for MSN internet comes up and cannot 
be avoided. Also other internet applications steer you towards MSN 
internet. I don't know how that cannot be defined as unfair business 
practices; unsophisticated users have no easy way to avoid falling 
into the Microsoft trap.
    Peter Bletzinger
    4085 W.Enon Road
    Fairborn OH 45324
    [email protected]



MTC-00001363

From: Kevin L. Arnold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 9:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement does not reach far enough. Microsoft is a 
monopolist that has abused its monopoly power and will now likely 
continue to do so.
    _ Kevin L. Arnold
    5132 15th Avenue South
    Minneapolis, Minnesota 55417
    612.822.3231



MTC-00001364

From: Shawn Freebairn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 9:19pm
Subject: My thoughts.
    I have been following this case as "one of the consumers 
your settlement will benefit". This settlement is not even a 
slap on the hands for microsoft. Given this company's past and their 
complete dissregard for the Rule of Law in abuse of monopoly power 
of which it has been convicted, YOUR REMEDY FOR MICROSOFT IN THIS 
SETTLEMENT IS A COMPLETE JOKE!!!!! NOT ONLY WILL MICROSOFT CONTINUE 
IN THE SAME LAW BREAKING COURSE YOU HAVE BASICALLY TOLD THEM IT IS 
O.K.!!!!
    Very dissatisfied
    Shawn Freebairn



MTC-00001365

From: peter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 9:14pm
Subject: Ridiculous settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am baffled by the Microsoft settlement. As a computer 
professional, it is obvious that MS has exhibited vicious, anti-
competitive behavior. In fact, this is no longer an opinion held by 
those of us in the field of technology, but a fact of law.
    Consequently, it is bizarre that they be let of with a slap on 
the wrist and no substantial force to compel them to change business 
practices. They have shown contempt for the consumer, contempt for 
competitors, and contempt for the legal process against them. Like 
many in my profession, I have friends who were put out of business 
by MS. I have clients who have spent more money because of MS's 
contempt for quality software and basic security.
    They don't make good software_they don't have to. They 
just have to force their competitors out of business with 
restrictive, unfair and illegal practices or by giving away free 
software. And you are now telling them that it is OK to operate that 
way_that the consequences for illegal behavior are less 
expensive than competing fairly in the first place.
    Please reconsider. Microsoft is a monopoly. Please don't let 
them think that statement depends on what the definition of 
"is" is.....
    Thank you,
    Peter Linde
    The Linde Group, Computer Support, Inc.
    [email protected]

    The Linde Group, Inc.
    2612 8th St., Suite B
    Berkeley, CA 94710
    510-705-8910 x33



MTC-00001366

From: Reg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:00pm
Subject: Microsoft solution
    I feel the only real solution to the Microsoft problem is to 
break the company in two, because nothing will really change if they 
can continue to bundle whatever they like with the operating 
system... Force them to compete to sell products like Office and it 
will allow other companies to get a fair chance...



MTC-00001367

From: Byron Salazar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 9:41pm
Subject: Proposed Final Judgement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am an student and employee of the Georgia Institute of 
Technology in Atlanta. As I work extensively with personal computers 
using Microsoft and competing products, I was dismayed by the 
limited nature of the proposed Final Judgement regarding Microsoft's 
use of its monopoly power.
    Microsoft has demonstrated repeatedly that it is willing to use 
its monopoly power to gain an unfair advantage over competitors. 
This has been proven in a court of law. Although the proposed 
judgement begins to address past infractions on Microsoft's part, 
those battles in the marketplace are over, and Microsoft has already 
won. Microsoft is already moving on, and the judgement does little 
to prevent future abuses of monopoly power.

[[Page 23907]]

    Microsoft is aggressively pursuing several new strategies. Among 
them are the "Passport" authentication system and the 
".Net" subscription process. Because these are heavily 
integrated in the XP operating system, they are poised to benefit 
from and strengthen Microsoft's monopoly position. Further, The 
".Net" strategy is integrated into the Windows license, 
effectively neutralizing the Judgement's power over it. Passport is 
forced upon users of many Microsoft web services, (including the 
popular Hotmail) which in turn are integrated into Microsoft 
applications, which have already come to dominate the market as a 
result of Microsoft's monopoly power. The Judgement as proposed 
would have been very effective five years ago. Unfortunately, this 
industry changes very rapidly. Much more broad measures are 
necessary to protect consumers now and in the future.
    _ Salazar, Byron
    http://homepage.mac.com/mebyron/



MTC-00001368

From: Andrew Steele
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 9:40pm
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    It is my concern that Microsoft is becoming a much larger 
business than what it should be. Not only did it take away the 
majority of profit and business from Netscape Communications by 
offering its software free of charge to businesses, it has continued 
that character to this very day. Just watching one of the head 
operators of the business give a speech to his workers puts fear 
into my heart on this issue of when this will stop. Here is my 
concern: Microsoft holds an overly large percent of the OS business, 
and holds tight control over its users to make sure that they 
continue to use their software. With Microsoft XP, this company has 
produced software that requires users to upgrade after 6 months. 
Microsoft holds a large share in the browser software business. 
Internet Explorer is considered one of the top two browsers that are 
provided on the internet today. Microsoft is now trying to take over 
the gaming industry with the introduction of the X-box. Microsoft 
also makes such an extensive variety of products with software as to 
compete with every existing software company that exists.
    In conclusion with viewing each of Microsoft's adventures, one 
would come to the conclusion that Microsoft should continue an 
attitude change that would encourage healthy competition consistent 
with the American ideal. Microsoft should limit the employment of 
its employees until the business' core employment consists of one 
department that completes one task. If their are employees that are 
on staff, their numbers should be insignificant in comparison to the 
whole.
    Microsoft should use its resources to honor customers by making 
the best products that can be made, instead of demanding from them 
money for products that may or may not be of the best quality. 
Microsoft should be ultimately forced to do the best that they can 
do, instead of using their money to create so many partnerships with 
companies that people feel a need to either put their software as 
compatable with Microsoft or go out of business. Microsoft needs to 
do the best that they can instead of use their money as influence. 
Thank you for reading my thoughts.
    Drew
    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://
explorer.msn.com



MTC-00001369

From: Ed Sheron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:35pm
Subject: Let's get on with it
    Microsoft has done and awful lot for this economy. They are 
being penilized by companies that are jealousby what they have 
accomplished. Its time for them to throw in the towel and admitt 
that they are envious of Mocrosoft. SunWest has charged exorbant 
price for what you get and yet they are envious of Micorsoft. 
Netscape, didn't they sell for a big profit?
    Microsoft is entitle to make a profot for what they give us as 
is any business. This thig has gone to far and its time to call a 
halt. I've been more than happy with the quality and price I paid 
for from Microsoft.
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.274 / Virus Database: 144_Release Date: 8/23/
01 



MTC-00001370

From: jwall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:29pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please reconsider the current settlement with Microsoft.
    It is far too lenient.
    From what I have read Microsoft has lied (Purjered) many times 
throught the trail. With no perjury charges being made it appears 
the justice system is working for Microsoft who is being allowed to 
do whatever they want.



MTC-00001371

From: Michael Stephens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:24 pm
Subject: Settlement give Microsoft too much
    The DOJ has conceded far too much to Microsoft. It is extremely 
troubling that you will permit them to bundle any application into 
the Windows OS. This has no positive benefits: For example, bundling 
IE into Windows makes neither IE nor Windows better than if they 
were not one and the same. Yet there are negative ramifications: 
bundling plainly stifles competition, and thus innovation: the 
practical demise of Netscape is on point, and with the release of 
XP, we're sure to see the same with photo-editors, media players, 
and more.
    Moreover, you've permitted too many loopholes for Microsoft to 
override non-Microsoft applications that OEM's have installed on 
PC's.
    Microsoft is also using Win XP to extinguish existing de facto 
standards. Specifically, the DOJ settlement does nothing about those 
standards which were NOT included with Win XP. In not including such 
Internet Standards such as Java and MP3 capabilities, Microsoft, 
with its Windows Monopoly, seeks to crush such standards with its 
own "equivalents." When the old standards are crushed, 
MS will thus have locked its total control over internet Music and 
more.
    Finally, splitting MS in two would have benefitted the 
stockholders too. Surely President Bush, with his MBA, has some 
understanding of why this is.



MTC-00001372

From: Michael Jardeen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:17 pm
Subject: The great sellout
    Never in the history of American Justice has there been a 
greater fraud passed off as Justice. This resolution provides 
nothing for consumers, and does nothing to help reign in the 
behavior of one of the most voracious companies in history.
    I am not sure how any one at the Justice Department sleeps at 
night. Microsoft lost at every step and in the end won due to a 
gutless DOJ decision to let them off with nothing more than a tap on 
the wrist...you should be ashamed.
    I worked at USWest for 13 years...that was a real Consent 
Decree! Michael



MTC-00001373

From: Dale Fairbanks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 11:14 pm
Subject: Settlement
    5 years ago Microsoft said they would behave. We are back at it 
again. When the agreement runs out in 5 years, they can go back to 
their old ways, then we spend more government money to investigate 
them again.
    Next time they will do a better job of getting rid of 
incriminating evidence. I can not go anywhere in my computer without 
being reminded that MSN or Explorer is waiting to service my needs. 
I think the company still should be broken into two companies.



MTC-00001374

From: Ruth Silveira
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 11:03 pm
Subject: Tunney Act
    Follow through with this act and end all of this !!!! Making the 
biggest and the best should be Microsoft's prerogative. Isn't that 
what he free trade market is all about?
    Microsoft makes a good product and doesn't screw with the 
consumer. If they want something different they can purchase it. If 
the government spent as much money taking care of the un-employed 
,hungry and homeless in our country as they have on this case we 
would be in good shape.
    I see this whole process as a witch hunt with a very biased 
judge presiding over most of it. Thank you, Ruth Silveira



MTC-00001375

From: Walter Dufresne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:59 pm
Subject: Please curb Microsoft.
    Dear Sirs,
    Please take strong action to curb this monopolistic Microsoft 
Company.

[[Page 23908]]

    Sincerely,
    Walter Dufresne Walter Dufresne
    31 Montgomery Place, Brooklyn, NY 11215-2342 USA
    tel: +1.718.622.1901 fax: +1.718.789.1452
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00001376

From: XXLTINVESTOR
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 10:58 pm
Subject: MSFT trials
    Come on! end this crap! Stop wasting the voters money. The 
clintons are gone to create their own kind of hell in NY, even 
though she is still in dc. The DOJ under the goofiest politicized AG 
for the past 100 years under orders by the clintons in order to 
drive contributions to slick hilly and Mr. Gore went after MSFT in 
order to attack the biggest muck in the tech space, help their $ 
raising from the tech cos, and hopefully keep the Republicans out of 
the White House so they would not be prosecuted for all of their 
crookedness.
    Being in league with and prompted by Ellison, who arrogantly 
wanted to be the richest man in the world, only adds to the 
injustice. Tell the state A's G to get lost with their political 
ambitions also. The CA AG is another Ellison tool.
    The deal is cut, it seems reasonable, and seems to address the 
problem. IF NOT GO AFTER ELLISON_he is a monopoly in the DB 
sector and it was even worse during the period covered by the MSFT 
suit.
    The DOJ is not supposed to be the business bludgeon of a private 
citizen and a crooked politician. That was supposed to be banned 50 
years ago. And I'm a Democrat. Imagine what I would think if I were 
not one.



MTC-00001377

From: bousozoku
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 12:05am
Subject: My comments
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    As a software developer as well as a computer user, I am 
concerned that the recent agreement settles nothing for which the 
lawsuit was initiated.
    Over the years, I have seen various attempts by Microsoft to 
secure its position:
    It had been shown by Andrew Schulman in Doctor Dobb's Journal, 
that they put special programming into Windows 3.0 and 3.1 to 
dissuade users of Digital Research's DR-DOS with their product. They 
were also in an agreement to use the Stac storage compression 
technology, then decided to dissolve the agreement, but left the 
programming in their MS-DOS 6.2.
    Microsoft was late in building office suite software for their 
own operating system. In the early days of Windows 3.0, their office 
software performed terribly. When Windows 3.1 arrived, not only did 
their software perform much faster, the competitors' software broke.
    There was much discussion of undisclosed APIs (Application 
Programming Interfaces) used by the office products. Recently, they 
disabled Apple's QuickTime plug-in (and others) for Internet 
Explorer.
    I understand that someone will monitor Microsoft's accounting 
practices. I'm not certain this was ever a problem. It is their 
business practices which need adjustment.
    If Microsoft are allowed to proceed with only a minimum of 
change, they will continue to restrain free enterprise. I'm not 
saying that everyone can be protected from Microsoft, but much more 
needs to be done. Why does Microsoft need to agree to punishments 
anyway? Does the U.S. government fear Microsoft? Besides this, why 
was there such a marked change in the course of this trial once the 
Bush administration came into office?
    Thank you,
    Curt Risor
    Oviedo, FL



MTC-00001378

From: Karl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 11:44 pm
Subject: Feedback
    The course of this trial since the advent of the current 
administration is a travesty of justice.
    There's a major discrepancy in the judicial process's ability to 
keep up with the fluidity and capriciousness of business, industry, 
technology, society. Can we somehow make this leviathan motile? Can 
the judicial process integrate modern technology to enlarge the 
"court of popular opinion" for one and perhaps 
incorporate a "Digital Judiciary," a way that can better 
integrate new information into ongoing efforts for another?
    The Court mishandled an episode that's essentially eons past. 
Meanwhile, in realtime, the defendant has continued with the same 
behavior it was found guilty of, and now fully intends to 
consolidate as much control over the digital domain as they can 
maintain with their instant tap into the purse of each user.
    Don't think I haven't noticed the irony of using the defendant's 
product to generate my response.
    How do you kill a giant Money-Sucking parasite that makes it 
hosts vulnerable to infections?
    Exterminate sounds so dramatic.
    Karl Cook



MTC-00001379

From: Rene E Lemieux
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/19/01 11:18 pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    The information that has been made available through the press 
and commentary by individuals knowledgeable in the world of personal 
computers indicate that the result of the subject settlement will be 
a disservice to the consumer.
    If Microsoft were to expend as much money and effort in 
producing and supporting their products as they do in executing 
legal maneuvers, they would not have to browbeat their vendors and 
customers to gain acceptance of their software. They have a 
consistent history of amending their license terms such that a 
consumer cannot depend upon getting the support called for in the 
documentation that accompanies their product.
    As an example, I purchased the upgrade from Windows 95 to 
Windows 98SE and the documentation said that I would get 90 days of 
live telephone product support from the date of my first call. I 
installed the software and required assistance after 30 days had 
gone by (I had been trying to use on-line help and their support 
site). I called the support line and was told that this was the 
first of my TWO live support calls that I was allowed. I asked about 
the 90 days provision and was told that it was no longer their 
support policy.
    This is as basic a consumer fraud issue as a car manufacturer 
reducing a buyer's new car warranty. Yeah, I know they put it in the 
fine print that if I don't want to accept their license terms I can 
return the software within 30 days for a refund. What do we do for 
personal operating systems then? We've already committed to hardware 
that requires windows. Let's get in the real world and realize that 
they can only get away with this because of the monopoly they've 
built in the operating system arena.
    Their software is poorly written as evidenced by the 
unbelievable number of patches they have to produce for each 
rendition of their software. Allowing them to continue, and indeed 
strengthen, their demonstrated monopolistic behavior can only cause 
increased consumer dissatisfaction with no recourse, they hold all 
the cards. I don't know of another software company that's been able 
to survive producing applications with failures and security 
problems to the extent Microsoft does.
    Allowing them to integrate more utility and functional software 
into the operating system will enable them to extend this monopoly 
to nearly the entire range of utility and functional software 
currently available from multiple vendors. Obviously there may be 
some exceptions to this, primarily in very specialized applications 
such as CAD/CAM, accounting systems, etc.
    The greatest impact will be in the consumer and general business 
office software. We are the "silent majority" that get 
lost in the political sea changes after so much of our money is 
spent in pursuit of the issue. I will be extremely disappointed if 
SEVERE constraints are not placed upon both what Microsoft can 
integrate into the operating system and the extent to which they are 
allowed to change support provisions after an Item is purchased.



MTC-00001380

From: John Abbe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 1:09am
Subject: Yet another citizen
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I am yet another citizen, writing to ask you to reconsider your 
slap on the wrist to Microsoft. As their recent actions in blocking 
non-Microsoft web browsers from msn.com shows, they continue to 
habitually, and without awareness or remorse, use inappropriate 
practices to their own advantage.
    As their lack of response to the 1995 consent decree shows, 
future oversight is likely to be insufficient to convince them to 
change their ways. Without substantial enough legal action that 
directly addresses

[[Page 23909]]

their monopoly power in the very near term (e.g. splitting the 
company up, required release of Internet Explorer and Windows source 
code), it seems very likely that they will continue to abuse that 
power.
    Finally, as many others have pointed out, there are many 
loopholes in the language of the agreement that would make their 
continued abuse of their monopoly position legal (e.g., the current 
language lets them define what counts as the operating system).
    I urge you to:
    1) Find substantial fixes to their anti-competitiveness that are 
unarguably clear and easily-enforced in the near term, in addition 
to the competition-restoring requirements on future action in the 
current settlement (which i predict they will ignore, requiring 
future court action).
    2) Go back and fix the loopholes in whatever remains of the 
language in the existing settlement.
    Sincerely,
    John Abbe
    1618A Alcatraz Ave
    Berkeley, CA 94703
    510-654-7113
    _
    All you need is...
    John Abbe / CatHerder http://www.ourpla.net/cgi-bin/pikie.cgi
    If you don't like the news, go out and make some of your 
own."
    _Wes Nisker



MTC-00001381

From: Eric Welch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 12:57am
Subject: sell out
    You sold out to Microsoft. Bill Gates got an early Christmas 
present. There is no penalty in the so called 
"penalties" the Justice Department settled for. Windows 
XP only shows how Microsoft is carrying on as if there had never 
been a case. Nobody can say justice was done. Have you checked 
Microsoft's policy that won't allow Dell or Gateway or anyone else 
to sell OEM versions of Office to any company with more than 500 
computers? What is the justification for that?
    What about Passport? What about Windows XP's driving people to 
Microsoft customers to buy photo and print processing? What about 
their demand that if someone put an icon on the desktop that THREE 
Microsoft icons have to be there for affiliated services?
    You wasted all that money we paid in taxes to pursue Microsoft. 
They were proven to be a monopoly that did damage to innovation and 
competition, and a healthy economy. And you are doing NOTHING to 
stop it. You don't serve the people, you serve the super rich. As 
many of us have always suspected you would. Cave in, that is. Thanks 
for nothing.
    Eric Welch
    Carlsbad, CA



MTC-00001382

From: Raymond Doty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 12:17am
Subject: comment
    The major failure of the proposed settlement is its failure to 
address the unfair advantage of the Microsoft applications 
divisions. The applications divisions have intimate access to the OS 
during development and can exploit this during application 
development. Even further, they can tell the OS developers what they 
would like and they can get a custom patch to suit their needs. Both 
of these have occurred in the past with Windows 95, and 98. 
Microsoft products contained updates to the os, which were necessary 
for the product, but were not available with competitors products. 
Any fair settlement should preclude the applications divisions from 
getting any information and treatment in regards to the OS which is 
not available to other software developers at large, including their 
competitors.
    Raymond Doty



MTC-00001383

From: Danny Bowman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 12:14am
Subject: Microsoft
    As a certified Microsoft developer with a software product of my 
own on the market, I am angered by the actions of Microsoft and it's 
continued leveraging of it's Windows monopoly to propagate it's 
anti-competitive marketing tactics. The lack of initiative and 
motivation on the behalf of the Justice department to reign in a 
convicted monopolist is appalling. I make my living developing 
software. Were my product to be assimilated into Microsoft's 
operating system as a "benefit" to customers, I would, 
very simply, be out of business. Microsoft should be able to develop 
any software they want. But they should NOT be permitted to 
distribute this software as part of their operating system.
    In my opinion, Microsoft software should be a separate business 
entity from their operating system. Their continued arrogance, 
bullying, anti-competitive business tactics, and illegal 
monopolistic conduct as determined by some of the highest courts of 
our country, should not be permitted to continue. Given Microsoft's 
continued behavior, the only way to effect a true remedy is break 
the company in two, per Judge Jackson's earlier decision. He may 
have not shown the best of judgement in talking to the media, but he 
certainly had the most realistic perspective on the true nature of 
Microsoft.
    Your's truly,
    Danny Bowman
    MCSD



MTC-0001384

    From: Neil Jensen
    To: Microsoft ATR
    Date: 11/20/01 2:11 am
    Subject: Slap on the wrist
    I cannot help but wonder how much Gates paid George W. to get a 
mere slap on the wrist for Microsoft's outrageous predatory 
behavior.
    Neil Jensen: [email protected]_http://
www.sumeria.net/ If you want to inspire confidence, give plenty of 
statistics. It does not matter that they should be accurate, or even 
intelligible, so long as there is enough of them.
    _Lewis Carroll



MTC-00001385

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 1:44 am
Subject: Antitrust Settlement
    Why bother to expend the costly resources to take Microsoft to 
court, have it found guilty and then not insist on any punishment or 
any serious means to prevent further repetitions of its illegal 
business practices?
    Very few people expect that the so-called remedy that is being 
proposed will actually reign in Microsoft's flagrant refusal to 
abide by antitrust law.
    The DOJ has made itself a laughingstock and, as much as I 
support the Bush administration, it appears to have been bought by 
Microsoft's political contributions.
    Pathetic.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Baggarley



MTC-00001386

From: David Meyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 1:17 am
Subject: Settlement
    If Microsoft now wins in the pretense of this 
"settlement" because the government's lawyers are too 
intimidated or too co-opted, then it is we users and developers who 
pay the price. Here's the thing. The United States government and 
the governments of however many states spent a great deal of our 
taxpayer money in successfully proving Microsoft is an abusive 
monopolist. That is something we users experience everyday. This 
settlement is nothing more than an abandonment of what was 
established in a court of law_that Microsoft is a dangerous, 
abusive stiffer of competition and innovation. Walking away through 
the thinly veiled pretense of this "settlement" is a 
betrayal of the judicial process, the law and those of us who foot 
the bills for such things.
    David Meyer



MTC-00001387

From: Francesco Porta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 1:15 am
Subject: Please, stop the MSFT Monopoly
    Dear Sirs,
    I'm working as a System Manager in a library of an Italian 
University. Even if I try to avoid using MSFT products, I find a lot 
of problems with them, due to the heavy position of MSFT in the 
market. In few words, my top problems are:
    1. viruses only come from MSFT products used in PCs of my users
    2. a lot of my users consider that something is standard if it 
adhere to MSFT products (Office documents and so on)
    3. CDs cannot be used in a network environment because they are 
at 90% or more only for Windows
    4. MSIE doesn't allow some multimedia file to be played, like 
Quicktime or RealPlayer files.
    Best regards. FP
    Dott. Francesco Porta_Torino



MTC-00001388

From: Robb Roaten
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 23910]]

Date: 11/20/01 3:47 am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust
    Please reconsider your settlement with microsoft. Having been in 
the industry since the early 90s, I have seen them continually crush 
innovation. I am extremely disappointed with such an easy settlement 
for them. Microsoft has already succeded at controlling the 
technology industry, and will continue to reach into other 
industries. I am also troubled that our justice system cannot move 
quickly enough to move against monopoly actions until its way too 
late.
    Thank You,
    Robb Roaten
    Taxpayer



MTC-00001389

From: Campbell Krenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 2:59 am
Subject: monopolistic downward spiral
    hello, I am emailing in concern of the whole Microsoft antitrust 
case. I have long been a supporter of Microsoft, and thought it 
better than Linux and/or Unix, as it was the most compatible. 
although, while examining the facts, in a broad sense, Microsoft is 
seeing that it's customers are starting to take a new and different 
view to it's large corporation, and it's not entirely better. in the 
wake of the fact that Microsoft could be split up, or hit with other 
serious consequences, it set out to tighten it's grip on it's users 
(just my opinion, but what do I know? I'm just going off of what I 
see). this grip has been tightened in ways you might not realize, it 
is getting the world so hopelessly dependent on windows, that to 
shut down the company would cause severe economic consequences. 
Stocks, businesses, and the government would be hit by such a 
serious action, that, it just might affect our nation's stability. 
Microsoft is still exercising it's monopolistic powers in some 
cases, such as that of the case between Microsoft and Sun, where 
Microsoft thought it would be better to discontinue shipping the 
real version of java, and put in their own little java version. sun 
developed java, it's not like Linux which has many different 
competing developers, java is sun's creation, yet Microsoft is 
creating their own version? this is pushing sun ( a major competitor 
with Microsoft)...off the table... as explained in many online 
articles. I now believe Microsoft is phasing the rest of the world 
out, and creating situations where consumers NEED Microsoft's 
products for things to work, such as their web page, MSN.com; they 
have locked any browser except IE to be able to view it. 
coincidence? XP is shipping with software packages that make up some 
companies' only product(s), they are decreasing the need on 3rd 
party software, in essence creating the 'Microsoft gathering' to 
increase the dependence on the windows operating system. if more 
people depend on this operating system, the less likely it is to be 
affected by any, shall we say, government legislation. like the new 
ruling does not affect Microsoft's profits within the range of 10 
cents! because everything is being made for windows, it IS the most 
compatible, but MS has been making that more and more untrue with 
every version of windows that they release that doesn't support one 
more app. I would say 50% is selectively and intentionally not 
supported, as you see in sun's case and Netscape's case. now to the 
privacy issue. an operating system that ships with desktop security 
measures defeats the purpose of being an operating system. a company 
that tries to 'secure' its products from its customers will lose 
business. I'm not talking about pirating windows itself, so much as, 
copying cd's, gathering useless user information and other things of 
the sort. what good is a product if you can't use it for the 
original reason you bought the software? Microsoft is also 
definitely setting up a HUGE database of users, and no doubt will 
soon be doing business with doubleclick.net, selling anonymous user 
profiles for money, and yes,
    Microsoft would have all of this because everyone will have to 
have registered. And the dependence on the software will be so high, 
they will always have a product to sell. Personally addressed 
advertising will be extended to desktops, without user's notice or 
permission, as the government passed that INCREDIBLY STUPID FUCKING 
LAW.....allowing companies to share customer information freely 
without their permission, and the only way to get them to stop doing 
that was to specifically say 'don't send it'. I guess the 
don't send option is what made it pass, as that law totally and 
completely is unconstitutional and set against the founding 
principles for freedom, privacy and individuality that our society 
is so closely based upon. personally, I think it was written by 
people who don't really think that the internet is a big problem, 
nor a security issue, but that law extends WAY beyond the internet.
    so does anyone see it yet? Microsoft is increasing our 'need' of 
windows, and the government is punishing them, which is really 
kicking all of the consumers in the ass. people need to pick, it is 
obviously not in the interests of the public to have to share 
information about them that is not necessary for normal business 
operation. so do you root for the government and all the other 
computer manufacturers and software programmers that Microsoft is 
very apparently belittling, but hiding behind the excuse that, MS 
makes it's own software, and therefore has a right to distribute 
whatever it likes with windows? Well Microsoft has transformed, once 
you have no healthy competition, and you have lots of business, you 
become a SERVICE not a business. some people are also praising 
Microsoft. For what exactly? Putting out 4 different versions of 
their operating system per year, and only changing minor things? 
this recent change is welcome, yet they focus on an aspect of the 
operating system that is not critical to the goal of the product. 
which is multimedia, woo hoo(yea right). If I want a rich multimedia 
experience, it's NOT going to be coming from Microsoft that's for 
sure! so Microsoft is slowly phasing other software out by trying to 
cover all it's bases: gaming (x box, and computer games), firewalls, 
imaging software, java, Linux, (and not to mention the 50 gazillion 
software titles it is not compatible with), and most definitely the 
ultimate TV system. by including these products, users feel no need 
to go out and buy software, or certain hardware for that matter, 
causing a downturn in the economy. Nobody would be buying anything, 
because they already have it. maybe one day Microsoft would make 
their own computers, fully equipped and compatible with nothing but 
Microsoft's products of course!
    what if the government were to shut down Microsoft? Microsoft 
would undergo heavy lawsuits because users that purchased windows 
xp, cant register their product, and therefore wont work. so the 
government would have to keep some aspect of Microsoft alive, 
insuring that the economy doesn't undergo drastic swings because 
current technology doesn't work right. MS certainly has made their 
place in the world with windows XP, NOW THEY CAN'T BE SHUT DOWN. 
thank you for reading my email and letting me get my point out 
there. thanks,
    Campbell
    Graphics/IT Support
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    P.S._while revising this email, windows 2000 crashed with 
a very ugly blue screen, which froze again in the process dumping 
the memory, and never automatically rebooted the computer. another 
coincidence?



MTC-00001390

From: Phil Shapiro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 2:55am
Subject: astounded at no penalty in settlement agreement
    i was astounded to hear that there is no penalty fee in the 
proposed microsoft settlement agreement. the message this sends the 
public? breaking the law does pay.
    _phil shapiro
    arlington, virginia



MTC-00001391

From: Jerry Pham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 2:27am
Subject: This settlement is a travesty of justice. There are 
loopholes that allow
    This settlement is a travesty of justice. There are loopholes 
that allow Microsoft to escape from almost every restriction placed 
on them. There are no punitive measures for their past violations of 
Anti-Trust laws. This is dispicable and I am thoroughly outraged. 
You can tell You boss, Mr. Bush, that I do not intend to vote for 
him in 2004 if this is allowed. Furthermore, I will campaign for and 
support his opponent, whoever it may be, from the primaries until 
November 11. As a conservative, I do not wish to do this, but I 
cannot let our Justice System be tainted, whether it be from the 
Left or Right.



MTC-00001392

From: Geers J.C.
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/20/01 4:41am
Subject: The case
    Hello,
    I'm writting you from the Netherlands. I'm try too keep uptodate 
with the case most of the time and from what I heard.
    The sollution before you is a sollution for the future . But the 
case lacks a punishment for what's done in the past.

[[Page 23911]]

-Compaies have lost lots of profit by microsoft doings.
-People all over the world have been left no choice of what 
they use.
-and more
    All this has been said to be true. Why isn't there a punishment 
for this in the settlement?? I ssems to me this is like a little kid 
who steals candy. And you telling the kid not to steal in the 
future. Microsoft isn't a kid. They're grown up. So please be a 
judge and not a Mom or Dad and punish MS like a adult. They know 
the've been wrong. Think of all the people/companies that got hurt 
by them.
    A sollution like this one isn't fare to them.
    Thanks
    Chris Geers MCSE.
    The Netherlands. (sorry for my poor english.)
    De informatie in dit e-mail bericht is uitsluitend bestemd voor 
de geadresseerde. Verstrekking aan_en gebruik door anderen is 
niet toegestaan. Aan persoonlijke opvattingen van medewerkers van 
het waterschap Reest en Wieden kunnen geen rechten worden ontleend.



MTC-00001393

From: chas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 4:54am
Subject: DOJ settlement
    I'm afraid that the settlement doesn't go far enough. The 
original focus was to break up the company. Ultimately the 
settlement amounted to no more than a slap on the wrist. For 
instance, no sooner did the settlement finalize, than MS was accused 
of keeping all but its own browsers from accessing its MSN network. 
Granted, it was remedied but it is an example of how MS flaunts its 
"power" in the face of the DOJ.
    Time will tell.
    Charles Cusumano



MTC-00001394

From: Barbara Renz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Windows software
    There need to be strict actions against Microsoft. They 
obviously have a monopoly and it is not because it's a great 
operating system. Windows is a lousy operating system, but what else 
is there to use? Every PC I buy comes with Windows preloaded, where 
do I get a different OS? Have you ever tried to delete Windows 
Internet Explorer or Outlook from the computer? You can't do it! 
They have to be installed or the Windows operating system won't 
work! Where are my choices as a consumer? How can there be any 
competition when there is only one product available? If computers 
are going to be sold with software on them, then there should be 
different operating systems for the buyer to try included on the 
computer. If consumers did have access to different software then 
Microsoft wouldn't be such a big company because their software is 
terrible and they know it!
    Thank you,
    Barbara Renz



MTC-00001395

From: Bob Fila
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 7:30am
Subject: Proposed settlement
    As a personal and business user of both Macintosh and Windows 
operating systems, I urge you to insist that the Windows operating 
system be treated as such, i.e. an operating system only, and that 
Microsoft not be allowed to bundle its own software accessory 
features into the operating system_as users we should be 
allowed to select whatever accessory software programs we want to 
and we should not be subjected to having to figure out how to remove 
Microsoft's embedded programs like Windows Media or Internet 
Explorer nor be expected to use these programs as our first choice. 
An operating system is just what it says_a software program to 
perform the "basic" operations of the 
computer_comsumers should always have the option of choosing 
what alternative accessory software they want to provide more user 
specific functions such as accessing the internet, downloading music 
files, playing streaming video, etc.



MTC-00001396

From: Patrick E. Mc Hugh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 6:40am
Subject: Get off their backs
    It is with great displeasure that as an American I look at your 
efforts of time and money that has been expended against Microsoft, 
when there were terrorists plotting the killing of Americans running 
free and your eyes were blinded to this threat by your over zealous 
and partisan nature to bring down a company that has made all our 
lives better through more effective technology. Let the marketplace 
decide who has a better product that consumers want to spend their 
dollars on.
    Patrick E. Mc Hugh



MTC-00001397

From: Rob Short
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:41am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust
    Thank you for setting up this feedback link to the DOJ. I 
appreciate the ability to respond to the topic of Microsoft's anti-
trust activity. I believe we should vigorously pursue legal 
remediation for the following reasons:
    1. Microsoft consistently demonstrates an aggressive predatory 
practice towards smaller, more nimble but less cash rich companies. 
result:
    A. as a result of this practice, innovation is diminished as 
Microsoft slaps together proprietary means of controlling the 
general public's use of technology.
    B. America's ability to engage in progress in the new 
information age is stifled as Microsoft seeks to control the markets 
rather than have technology move forward.
    2. Any company attempting to corner the technology market this 
early in a new era is a threat to the well being of America's 
competitive philosophies. Imagine standardizing on a particular type 
of car at the beginning of the 20th century, or one type of boat at 
the dawn of the age of discovery.
    3. Microsoft blurs the lines of international standards for web 
access and functionality. result:
    An internet that doesn't always work the way it should with 
competing versions of JAVA and html that do not work the same way on 
each platform or each browser as Microsoft makes Explorer work only 
with certain flavors.
    Internet companies with huge productivity losses as they have to 
design web sites with competing versions of standards in mind.
    Microsoft is more than capable of competing fairly, it is time 
that we impose very harsh restrictions on their anti competitive 
practices.
    Their last series of court cases clearly showed their 
willingness to lie in the courtroom(-telling the Federal government 
in a sham test that Explorer could not be seperated from Windows), 
demonstrated their reliance upon lawyers and delaying tactics rather 
than innovation, and showed the American public how smaller 
companies that could have made a difference in the future have been 
smashed by Microsoft legal hopscotch and the release of inferior 
products onto the market. Thanks for the opportunity to respond.
    Warm regards,
    Rob Short
    Richmond, VA



MTC-00001398

From: John Droz, jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 7:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    Thanks you for being open to comments on this case. As a 
physicist, member of Mensa, and a person who has been involved with 
computers for over thirty years (e.g. as a consultant with several 
hundred clients), I am admittedly not your average consumer. I want 
to briefly say that, in my opinion, the federal government's 
proposed settlement with Microsoft is an embarrassing sellout to a 
company that has had a LONG history of persistent, unacceptable and 
untrustworthy behavior.
    PLEASE DO NOT IMPLEMENT ANY SUCH AGREEMENT!
    Feel free to contact me for computer related matters.
    John Droz, jr.
    HC 1 Box 50
    Greig, NY 13345



MTC-00001399

From: rand wetherwax
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 7:50am
Subject: microsoft is bad
    I have seen Microsoft bully MANY companies buying them out, 
stealing their ideas, making shoddy copies...
    PLEASE_we need to STOP M$!
    MICROSOFT IS A MONOPOLY!
    How many times does this need to be proved?!
    Do something stronger to protect us innovator!
    thanks
    rand wetherwax
    san francisco, ca

[[Page 23912]]



MTC-00001400

From: Michael J. Mcnall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 7:36am
Subject: Microsoft vs Freedom
    November 20, 2001
    Salutations sojourner,
    I do not know if I have the means requisite to adequately 
communicate my benumbed dismay over the egregious lack of Justice in 
the courts decision regarding MicroSoft. There is nearly the taint 
of perfidy in the air surrounding the removal of Mr. Jackson coupled 
with the clownish censure of him by some sycophants of MicroSoft.
    The evidence presented in the trail was clear enough for a blind 
fool to perceive, that Microsoft is guilty. Their machinations and 
evasive dissimulation's underscored their guilt most aptly. In fact 
they are culpable of a most grievous evil against that hallowed 
pillar of America, Freedom. Through the the wickedness of their 
hearts and the rapacious greed which drives them, MicroSoft has 
declared all shall bend the knee in servitude to their system.
    I am not a slave. I will not pledge allegiance to an Evil 
company. I am a free man who would have all Americans and the 
businesses which provide services to them have the freedom to choose 
the computer operating system they desire, not that which Mr. Gates 
and Mr. Ballmer declare they must use.
    It is my prayer that in this late hour of the darkening gloom 
some persons of courage would lift up the Light of Truth and render 
a judgment against MicroSoft of such a profound severity they would 
become incapable of ever perverting the course of the digital realm 
again.
    Please, I beseech you, stand as Moses stood before the corrupt 
Pharaoh and deliver us from the tyranny of his dominion in to the 
land of Freedom, yet once more.
    Sincerely,
    Michael J. McNall



MTC-00001401

From: rand wetherwax
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 7:31am
Subject: microsoft is bad to me!
    I have seen Microsoft bully MANY companies buying them out, 
stealing their ideas, making shoddy copies...
    PLEASE_we need to STOP M$!
    MICROSOFT IS A MONOPOLY!
    How many times does this need to be proved?!
    Do something stronger to protect us innovator!
    thanks
    rand wetherwax
    san francisco, ca
    Hey, my email in Paris is the same old one! 
[email protected]



MTC-00001402

From: Paul
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 7:59am
Subject: Anti trust case
    I feel that you let Microsoft off too lightly. It will be too 
long before they feel any affects of your "settlement" 
and it will be business as usual.
    I am disappointed.
    Paul Troyer
    713 W. Main Street
    Sugarcreek, Ohio 44681 _
    Paul Troyer
    IT Manager
    Mahon Studios, Inc.



MTC-00001403

From: Mike Wagman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 7:56am
Subject: Microsoft ruling
    To be honest I was very surprised by the settlement. I do feel 
it is far from complete. The main reason was the lack of respect 
they show by continuing their strong arm tactics while the trial was 
going on.
    The spent 130 million to buy controling interest in Corel, 
shutdown Corel Linux_changed the charter of the co so they 
won't start it up again. Sold it for a 65 million loss.
    Microsofts defense of this was two fold.
    First to blame you_stating the judicial pressure forced 
them to sell Corel (although that does not explains the changes they 
forced Corel to make) so they would not control the industry.
    Secondly as they lost money how could that have been illegal. 
Microsoft has consitantly demonstrated a desire to impeed inovation 
in this industry unless they have purchased the right to it. They 
have demonstrated a sever lack of respect for the laws of this 
nation. They have an insane ego_demonstrated by calling a 
product of theirs "me". I am a computer repair 
technician and consitantly see alternatives to microsoft outperform 
microsoft products, however no one can break the strangle hold they 
have on things.



MTC-00001404

From: Pam Niedermayer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 7:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    And this is what monopolies do:
    Wall St. Journal, 11/20/01
    http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB1006208124410658840.htm
    I figured maybe you people have forgotten why you originally 
sued MS. _
    Pamela G. Niedermayer
    Pinehill Softworks Inc.
    600 W. 28th St., Suite 103
    Austin, TX 78705
    512-925-9313
    http://www.pinehill.com



MTC-00001405

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 8:39am
Subject: Disgrace
    Renata Hess:
    You have whitewashed this case. Please rethink what you have 
done in the name of fair competition.
    Rick Maring



MTC-00001406

From: aymsley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 8:39am
Subject: amazing!
    I am simply overwhelmed and amazed at how easy it must be to buy 
your way out of pemalties. Things aren't going your way, lets get 
(BUY) a new more sympathetic administration and we will be ok! The 
republicans and microsoft really pulled one this time...but just 
wait, it all comes around. We will bring it up in the next election.



MTC-00001407

From: Richard C(00F4)t(00E9)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 8:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    As a person who's been involved in computing for over 20 years, 
I'm quite disappointed with how little progress has been made in the 
area of usability. I've been a longtime Mac enthusiast, largely 
because Apple Computer has maintained innovation as a core value. 
But as hard as a few select hardware and software developers have 
tried, in the face of the difficulty so many people have in using 
computers as a so-called productivity tool, I ask myself, "Is 
that all there is?"
    I am very disappointed with the direction the settlement is 
going against Microsoft. It's a deft twist of logic that Microsoft's 
defense is to protect their right to innovate, when countless 
elements of their products are ideas that have been either outright 
copied from others or "dumbed-down" implementations of a 
similar concept.
    I do have respect for the market economy. I do feel that in 
order to survive, any product must have the right balance of 
satisfying a need of a customer, and should adequately reward the 
developer for their efforts required in making such product 
available. Once innovation stagnates, however, I don't see the value 
to the economy as a whole in merely churning profits, particularly 
in the computer industry, which is still in its nascent phase. 
Products such as wristwatches and bicycles have long since reached a 
point where their chief functionality has been satisfied, and 
innovation is less crucial. Moreover, I don't know of many people 
who are particularly intimidated by either of those products _ 
something I cannot say of the desktop computer.
    It reminds me of the automobile industry some 25 years ago, 
which seemed rather stale until the rising quality and better cost 
on imports began to outflank domestic auto giants. The complacency 
encouraged expensive, inferior products, and once something better 
did arrive, the industry shift was needlessly abrupt.
    I believe that Microsoft's practises have chilled competition. 
Today, once the Internet browser leader, Netscape, is practically a 
parody of itself. Java, the "write once, run anywhere" 
language, is slowly being asphyxiated by Microsoft's ever-changing 
"standards" and protests. When importing text files from 
Microsoft products, invariably certain characters are transposed 
with others_flying in the face of the ASCII character 
standard, which, once adopted some 35 years ago, became the 
foundation of modern computing. Divide and conquer.
    As a Canadian citizen, I have no voting power in the United 
States to express my

[[Page 23913]]

opinion on these matters. Nonetheless, computers are the centre of 
my working career, and I do know that their potential as a business, 
educational and informational tool has not yet been attained. I do 
feel that Microsoft's practises have become a barrier to that end, 
and would like to see that they be appropriately discouraged from 
continuing to operate as they do.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Cote
    2306-23 Sudbury Street
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    M6J 3W6



MTC-00001408

From: Frank D'Angeli
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoft [email protected]. 
gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/20/01 8:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Not in Public Interest
    Thank you for taking the time to read this email. As a 
professional computer user, and avid reader of the industry rags 
since 1984, with extensive experience with both Wintel and Mac 
computers, I feel compelled to let my thoughts be known regarding 
the Microsoft settlement. I had noticed since 1991 that Microsoft 
was strong-arming OEM's and competitors. I remember then wondering 
why the government was letting this happen. Microsoft had a choke-
hold on technology and I was beginning to resent their hold because 
I noticed that the capabilities of my Mac were always introduced by 
Apple first and then copied (and not as well, I might add) by 
Microsoft. It made me mad that people that only used Windows would 
get technologies years after I had received them from Apple yet they 
thought Microsoft invented them. I knew this would slow the rate of 
innovation in the industry; affecting me, the consumer from being 
able to use technology that was being stifled by Microsoft.
    I heard someone say that racketeering charges should be brought 
against Microsoft. I agree with that. But, as for the current 
settlement, please do all you can to have the original remedy 
reinstated; breakup Microsoft. They need their OS company broken 
into two or three pieces so that their goal of forcing their 
activation scheme, .NET, PassPort, Hailstorm, is not forced on 
customers that want windows but don't want to sell out their 
freedom.
    One of most embarrassing days of being an American was when Bill 
Gates was asked by the Republican leadership why he wasn't donating 
more money to them. Here was a congressman, who is supposed to 
uphold the law, putting out his hand to a convicted monopolist and 
asking for it to be greased! Unbelievable.
    Microsoft tried to kill the anti-trust division; they didn't 
succeed but they found another way to win, by making a back room 
deal with Charles James, who is a disgrace. Please fight this 
settlement with all you have for people like me that know the truth 
and know that Microsoft must, must, must be stopped and punished. 
Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Frank D'Angeli
    57 Pinkert Street
    Medford, MA 02155



MTC-00001409

From: Don Tillman
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/20/01 8:58am
Subject: Suggestions.. probably not the first;)
    Greetings!
    My name is Don Tillman. I am the Computer Engineer with Wright 
State University's Department of Psychology. I have been working 
with computers for 17 years, 12 years professionally. Over the years 
I have been watching Microsoft and the industry in a microscopic and 
macroscopic fashion. From all of my reading about Microsoft (books, 
magazines and journals) and from my experiences as a technician of 
hardware and software (Mac, Windows(PC), and Unix) I have come to 
some conclusions.
    *It is clear that Microsoft is a monopoly.
    *They are a monopoly in our department because of their Office 
software.
    *They are a monopoly with other software developers since 
Microsoft owns about 90% of the market share (operating systems): 
Software developers hardly want to consider developing for the 
Macintosh (Apple Computer) or Linux(Unix) since they seem to only 
have such a small market share. This is a BIG problem. This only 
helps the monopoly that Microsoft has.
    *It is clear that Microsoft has been helping it's own 
application developers with it's own undisclosed documentation about 
it's API's and they have abused that information to beat the 
competition by developing faster and more efficiently with those 
API's.
    It is clear that WE NEED a STRONG remedy for the situation.
    Your current remedy is not strong enough. Here is what I 
propose...
    (1) Microsoft open all of it's file format for all of it's 
application software for 10 years. This would include Microsoft 
Office et. al. This would allow developers to write competing Office 
software that is file compatible with Microsoft's. This is crucial 
since competition cannot exist without being compatible with the 
biggest office suite in existence.
    (2) A true breakup of Microsoft. It is clear that they are 
abusing their power and the only way to stop that (considering that 
they have not been coperative on reasonable terms) is by making the 
giant smaller. Peroid.
    Here are the groups:
    Applications (Office etc.)
    Operating Systems
    Software development tools
    Games and gaming hardware
    Educational Software
    This will force Microsoft to behave by forcing to live by the 
rules that it has imposed on other companies in terms of competition 
and access to relevant API's.
    Microsoft has had years to work with you and other companies 
politely and kindly. They have done nothing but stonewall the 
process and manipulate the media and deliberately piss off Judge 
Jackson so that they could trash his ruling. It is VERY OBVIOUS that 
Microsoft seems to think that they have to answer to no one. I SAY 
THAT THEY ARE WRONG! A slap on Microsoft's wrist is the wrong 
message. They need to be emasculated!
    Sincerely,
    Don Tillman



MTC-00001410

From: William Wang
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/20/01 8:55am
Subject: Microsoft has gotten off too easy!
    Hello I would like to voice my displeasure with the feds 
settlement agreement. It seems to me that Microsoft has indulged in 
not only anti-trust violations but racketeering as well. Is this a 
possible avenue of approaching their abuses? I am very saddened that 
the history I learned in High school and the supposed laws I learned 
in college don't apply to a giant corporation like Microsoft. I 
guess if you are a big enough corporation you can use dirty, 
underhanded techniques to dominate the market and become the 
monopoly you wish. I urge you all to do something about this 
situation and punish those who break the rules.
    Unless times have changed so drastically this is not the America 
that was once advertised.
    Sincerely,
    William N. Wang, M.D.
    14 South Letitia St.
    Apartment 202
    Philadelphia, PA 19106



MTC-00001411

From: James O'Brien
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 8:40am
Subject: Public Interest
    The DOJ settlement with Microsoft is in the public's best 
interest. The competitive playing field is open and level. There are 
many very substantial companies which have the intellectual and 
financial resources needed to successfully compete with Microsoft, 
including Oracle, SunMicrosystems, IBM, Compaq, Hewlett Packard, 
Computer Associates, Intel, Dell, etc. These companies are free to 
offer competitive products to the public, should any or all of them 
choose to do so. They certainly do not need Federal or State 
governments to help them compete.
    The average consumer has benefited greatly from Microsoft's 
innovation, excellent products, and very affordable prices. DOJ's 
settlement with Microsoft is appropriate and in the best interest of 
technology consumers. Continued opposition to the settlement by 
certain States is irrational.
    James E. O'Brien
    O'Brien Consulting, Inc.
    Winter Park, FL



MTC-00001412

From: Michael_Lin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 9:04am
Subject: Microsoft settlement terrible for public
    Dear Justice Department:
    I will get right to the point: your settlement with Microsoft is 
shamefully inadequate. Even BusinessWeek, no enemy of the interests 
of corporate America, firmly

[[Page 23914]]

criticized the settlement as doing too little, both in what it did 
cover and what it did not.
    I will not give technical suggestions on how the settlement can 
be improved. I am sure you have been receiving a lot of feedback in 
this area. I will only raise the very important issue of deterrence 
and punishment. When a criminal is convicted, there is usually some 
punishment. If not, there is the threat of future punishment to 
deter repeat offenses. In your settlement, I see neither. If I 
understand correctly, the only punishment if Microsoft violates the 
five-year accord is that the terms will be extended for another two 
years. You mean, the punishment for breaking an agreement and 
rendering it ineffectual (yet again), is that they will be asked to 
follow the agreement for a little longer? This agreement would be 
appropriate only if there had been no court cases, or if Microsoft 
had prevailed in court. However, we, the public, through the efforts 
of you, the Justice Department, have won repeated rulings that 
Microsoft broke the law.
    Given that Microsoft's willingness to commit criminal acts has 
been proven, strong deterrence is needed. You should insist that if 
Microsoft violates the current agreement in the future, it will be 
broken up. Nothing less than the fear of breakup will deter 
Microsoft from acting however it will. The fate of the last consent 
agreement demonstrates as such.
    Please remember that you represent us, the public, who are all 
consumers of computer software. It is your duty to serve our 
interests.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Lin
    Children's Hospital, Enders 250
    300 Longwood Avenue
    Boston, MA 02115
    phone: 617-355-5949/8395
    fax: 617-738-1542



MTC-00001413

From: David Maxwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 8:59am
Subject: vs. Microsoft
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing to notify you of my support for continued 
prosecution of Microsoft, in order that they may be more heavily 
censured. At the least I hope they are pressured to reduce their 
heavy-handedness, and at the best I hope they are restricted from 
their monopolistic practices. I am disturbed by Microsoft's 
behavior, and consider it to fit under the definition of 
racketeering in many cases. I applaud your efforts to investigate 
this matter and to protect the consumer. Please continue pressing 
for more severe penalties for Microsoft in order that the consumer 
and marketplace can benefit.
    I am a U.S. citizen, but although I currently reside outside of 
the United States, I believe that this issue has a worldwide effect.
    Sincerely,
    David Maxwell
    Higashi 1, 21-1 Aoi-cho
    Kakegawa-shi, Shizuoka-ken
    436-0018
    JAPAN



MTC-00001414

From: William Wang
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/20/01 8:59am
Subject: Microsoft has gotten off too easy!
    Hello I would like to voice my displeasure with the feds 
settlement agreement. It seems to me that Microsoft has indulged in 
not only anti-trust violations but racketeering as well. Is this a 
possible avenue of approaching their abuses? I am very saddened that 
the history I learned in High school and the supposed laws I learned 
in college don't apply to a giant corporation like Microsoft. I 
guess if you are a big enough corporation you can use dirty, 
underhanded techniques to dominate the market and become the 
monopoly you wish. I urge you all to do something about this 
situation and punish those who break the rules. Unless times have 
changed so drastically this is not the America that was once 
advertised.
    Sincerely,
    William N. Wang, M.D.
    14 South Letitia St.
    Apartment 202
    Philadelphia, PA 19106



MTC-00001415

From: Scott Turner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 9:39am
Subject: Microsoft vs DOJ
    Sir,
    Funny how things go, when our Govenor Bush won the election, the 
first thing I thought was, "Well, Microsoft just got off the 
hook." I really had hoped that the DOJ would hold Microsoft to 
the same standard that others are held, but it really does appear 
that they bought their president. After being found guilty of 
violating the Anti-trust laws, you let them off with a "Please 
don't be a bad boy."
    They didn't follow any of the agreements that they had prior to 
this, what makes you think that they will follow any slap on the 
wrist agreement now? You must apply a stringent penalty to them. If 
they had competed, rather than start with the rather lopsided 
advantage that they did, they would have had to do thing 
differently. Lets face it, Microsoft doesn't compete. They apply try 
to apply what the Soviet military called the eleventh principle of 
war, anahilation. Or haven't you noticed that while releasing 
updates to their OS they have steadily increased their price of the 
OS, while providing "free" their web browser. Of course 
it's free. You pay for it when you purchase the OS.
    That is why it is more expensive.
    Scott Turner



MTC-00001416

From: James F. Palmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 9:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am a professor who teaches in a landscape architecture program 
and does independent consulting. I use both Wintel and Apple 
computers. I am disappointed in the recently announced Justice 
Department antitrust settlement with Microsoft. The settlement seems 
to me focused on protecting of the right of computer sellers to 
advertise rather than to stop Microsoft from controlling the 
software market through their dominance in the operating system 
market. This settlement does little to nothing that will place 
Microsoft on an even playing field with other software developers. 
Microsoft's most recent operating system release has an even more 
inhibiting effect on users (including myself) who might purchase 
third party software and on developers who might write such 
software.
    I understand that many are pleased to just have the whole thing 
settled. However, the settlement misses the point and lets the 
offender go free.
    James F. Palmer, Ph.D., ASLA
    SUNY-ESF
    Syracuse, NY 13210



MTC-00001417

From: Philippe Roy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 9:17am
Subject: Microsoft
To: Attorney General
From: Philippe Roy, 7770 Oak Grove Cir., Lake-Worth, FL, 33467
Object: Seeking a non-monopolistic Software and OS market.
    As we can see clearly with shipment of XP, Microsoft has not 
changed and will not change unless you do something about this. In 
XP, they are currently seeking the death of MP3. Given that they 
can't provide a better technology, they use there monopolistic 
market to leverage their own technology. It is exactly that kind of 
behavior that makes our technological lives totally miserable. Once 
a smaller company produces a winning product or solution, they 
create something hardly comparable and blocks the original solution 
from their OS. This is unacceptable. Bullying shouldn't be rewarded.
    I strongly hope that you will pursue the avenue of breaking up 
Microsoft in 2 distinct and separated companies. This is the only 
solution that doesn't rely on having them understanding their wrong-
doing.
    Good luck and, should you succeed, we will be forever be 
grateful about your contribution to a successful technological non-
monopolistic society.
    Philippe Roy



MTC-00001418

From: John Konopka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 9:05am
Subject: re: ms antitrust case
    Sirs,
    I just wanted to drop you a line to say I am very disappointed 
with the proposed settlement in the microsoft antitrust case. I 
can't speak about this legally but I wanted to tell you that I 
really hope there is some way to secure stronger remedies in this 
case. If the government can't protect us from microsoft's illegal 
behavior who will?
    Best Regards,
    john konopka



MTC-00001419

From: Ace Hobby Web (038) Graphics
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 10:09am
Subject: not much of a settlement

[[Page 23915]]

    If the DOJ wasn't going to punish Microsoft, then why didn't 
they just say so, instead of pretending to do something with this 
sham of a settlement. I could enumerate the instances in which they 
violated the law and attempted to deceive the court, but you should 
already know those facts.
    Is the DOJ familiar with the eponym 'Quisling'?
    Dan Poynter
    Webmaster, Graphics Department
    Ace Hobby Distributors, Inc.



MTC-00001420

From: Howard Robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 9:49am
Subject: Microsoft antitrust case
    I do not think the government really sees the real problem with 
Microsoft. The only way to move forward is sperating the operating 
system from applications. Why?
    When the upgrade from Windows 95 to 98 came out, guess what. The 
best selling video board, best selling sound board, the Jaz 1GB 
backup unit would not work any more. Why? Because MS changed their 
software so the drivers would no longer work since these companies 
would not kiss up to MS. We all had to work around the problems 
until the drivers were reworked. MS knew this all along. What did 
that cost little users like me? Too much! Out of the 5 major word 
processors in the last 15 years, MS actions has killed three of 
them. All of which are better than any copy of MS Word. The fifth 
one did themselves in without help from MS. We are now left MS Word. 
It is a very poor, buggie program that can't do what the other three 
could do. (And I still use two of them all the time and use Word 
only when others require it. And then I convert Word to XY to 
operate.)
    Why does MS operating systems crash? Because they can't or will 
not write a good memory manager. (Good ones like QEMM & OS2). MS 
does not use the memory protection levels in the Intel chips because 
by not using them it is easy to block other companies application 
programs and drivers. O, but controlling MS with slow down the great 
progress MS has made for us in solfware! If you believe that, I has 
some swamp land for sale for you. All during the 80's we had 
freeware/shareware add ons to the operating system that its still 
ahead of anything MS can do. (And I still use for serious 
computing.) Now every good fix/add-on that comes out, MS quickly 
makes a change in the operating system so it will not work anymore. 
But, it does not matter if the government solves this problem. The 
real world and market place will find other solutions to MS and 
their poor controlling software. Most of us serious computer users 
are finding ways around these problems and in ten years MS will not 
be needed anymore. The problem is it cost us lots of money and time 
to solve/fix the problem generated by MS continued sabotage of 
others software. Why should it all operate the one way MS wants it? 
Its a computer that can be programmed anyway we want to do things. 
In the end we will control it. We just don't have billions of 
dollars to do it like MS.
    Howard Robinson
    2420 Westridge
    Plano TX 75075



MTC-00001421

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 9:46am
Subject: this is fun!!
    You have got to check this out!!! Its unreal!! Just click on the 
link....Bobbie http://go.readclick.com/refid.cgi?refid=145380



MTC-00001422

From: Jim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 9:41am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I respectfully submit these comments and observations. I am a 
technologist who has been in this industry since 1985. I currently 
work for a brand building corporation that uses both Windows and 
Macintosh systems. In a prior career I worked for Ameritech (now 
SBC) for 30 years, five of which were in the IT organization.
    It appears that Microsoft has again accomplished its objectives 
and will continue now on its campaign of total dominance of anything 
it chooses. I fail to understand why our US Justice representatives, 
would once again offer a simple slap on the wrist to a company that 
has ignored a similar punishment in the past. Clearly, this approach 
has not and will not work. Microsoft has so many ways to interpret 
this proposed agreement that it is a total waste of paper. Were they 
not convicted of being an illegal monopoly? Did they not destroy 
competition in as many ruthless and illegal ways as they desired? 
Will this agreement, increase competition? Is this agreement good 
for our future? I believe, along with many others, that the answer 
to all these questions is a resounding NO.
    I strongly encourage you to persist in your efforts to 
vigorously bring this case to justice. A justice that will encourage 
competition and send a clear message to Microsoft and any others who 
operate outside the law. Microsoft's aggressive and illegal behavior 
should be curbed once and for all. It is harmful to our future IT 
economy to allow this evil doer to continue in its illegal pursuits.
    Respectfully submitted,
    James R. Felbab
    Technologist,
    Hanson, Dodge Design
    [email protected]



MTC-00001423

From: Digital Solutions
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/20/01 10:19am
Subject: Disappointed in Microsoft Settlement
    It really is a shame to see big business act the way Microsoft 
behaves. If all the AG's and Justice would take a hard look at the 
nose thumbing that Microsoft performed with XP, you would see 
blatant disregard for any laws. Why did the settlement come after 
WinXP was released? Microsoft rushed the release because once the 
cat was out of the bag, no one was going to put it bag in. Look at 
all the added software that XP has included. This exactly the same 
argument as the browser tying issue.
    I want everyone to take a look around themselves and examine the 
impact that Microsoft has on every element of society. Is this good? 
If you answered yes, then it will only get worse. (i.e. Xbox, 
Passport, MSN browser lockout, Windows Media Player music files on 
CD, list goes on). If you think that it is unhealthy for one company 
to dictate how we live and use their power to cripple consumer 
decisions, then the settlement as we know it must be adjusted for 
harsher terms.
    Ray George
    Product Line Manager
    Digital Solutions
    3057 Union Street
    Bellaire, OH 43906
    740-676-8776 x222
    740-676-4441 fax
    CC:Microsoft
    ATR,attorney.general@po. 
state.ct.us@inet...



MTC-00001424

From: Oz Barron
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected] 
@inetgw,attor...
Date: 11/20/01 10:19am
Subject: Regarding the settlement
    Thank you for providing the ability for the public to comment on 
the proposed settlement to the Microsoft case. As as been 
established for years, Microsoft has indulged over and over again in 
anti-competitive, predatory monopolistic behavior. The list of 
companies they have killed, and the technologies they have crushed 
grow longer every day.
    If there were one isolated issue, or a short term business 
practice involved, I would agree that a soft penalty as is proposed 
would be appropriate, but Microsoft's history and on-going business 
practices show a blatant disregard for the letter and spirit of the 
law.
    Through their illegal behavior, Microsoft has established 
themselves as a monopoly and they have grown wealthy at the expense 
of true competition and the budgets of millions of technology users. 
Across the board, we have seen technology prices drop, from hardware 
to software, except in the case of those tools developed by 
Microsoft. Competing products, such as word processors, 
spreadsheets, and even operating systems, have no real chance of 
competing where the basic rules are written and closely guarded by 
one company.
    To use an analogy, it is as if Ford owned the exclusive right to 
produce oil. We all have to use it in one form or another, but Ford 
would be free to sell it for any price they chose, and to restrict 
its access and use in any way they see fit.
    This is very similar to the current climate in the computer 
industry. I strongly urge you to reconsider your stance, and to 
apply much stronger penalties in this case. Allowing Microsoft to 
continue on as usual, as they will under this proposed agreement, 
will continue to stifle competition and innovation in the industry. 
After all, Microsoft has not developed ANY new technologies 
themselves, with the exception of the Access

[[Page 23916]]

database, a product so poorly written, it is given away free.
    Thank you for your time.
    A bit about me: I have been involved with the personal computer 
industry for over 20 years. I remember when MS first started. I have 
used every operating system on the desktop from CP/M, DOS, Windows 
1.0, Atari, Amiga, Commodore, OS/2, NT, Unix, Mac OS 9, and now Mac 
OS X. I am not a kid with wild eyes and an axe to grind, I'm just a 
small business trying to earn a living, but Microsoft's predatory 
practices continue to cost me a significant amount of money.
    Oz Barron
    6 Moraine St
    Belmont, AM 02478
    617-489-8703



MTC-00001425

From: Kevin Walker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 10:18am
Subject: Comment on Microsoft anti-trust case
    To whom it may concern:
    I have long experience with personal computers, and it is clear 
to me that Microsoft's operating system monopoly is very harmful to 
consumers.
    The proposed settlement falls far short of giving consumers the 
full benefits of a free market.
    Kevin Walker
    3481 Redcliff Rd
    Moab, UT 84532



MTC-00001426

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 10:11am
Subject: Giving Away the Store
    Mr Attorney General,
    Is it customary to give up when an appeals court has declared 
you a victor? I cannot express fully the distress I feel over the 
DOJ mishandling the Microsoft anti-trust case. After the appeals 
court decision stating that Microsoft is indeed an illegal monopoly, 
the DOJ turns around and gives away the store.
    Shame on Attorney General John Ashcroft for not standing up for 
the rule of law and not standing up for the American people. Janet 
Reno would never have denied us justice like that.
    Carrie Beal
    129 Painted Post
    Bastrop TX 78602



MTC-00001427

From: Jacob Engstrand
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 10:27am
Subject: Comments
    Hello,
    My name is Jacob Engstrand, and I've been a professional 
computer programmer for over 10 years.
    I'm not a lawyer in any way, but from what I understand, the 
settlement between the US government and Microsoft will not stop 
Microsoft from breaking the law and hindering innovation like it has 
done for several years now.
    Something more than suggested by the current settlement must be 
done to stop their illegal behaviour.
    Respectfully,
    Jacob Engstrand
    Uppsala, Sweden



MTC-00001428

From: Jobs(a)impactsolutions.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 10:23am
Subject: Microsoft
    Hello,
    The following is from www.news.com: ``Microsoft, which recently 
reached an antitrust settlement with the U.S. Justice Department, is 
on the point of settling a raft of private antitrust cases, 
according to a report Tuesday.
    The Wall Street Journal reported in its online edition that the 
software giant has tentatively agreed to give software and computers 
to more than 14,000 of the poorest U.S. schools over a five-year 
period, which would help resolve the majority of its pending private 
class-action lawsuits.''
    I would suggest that you mandate that Microsoft purchase 
Macintosh computers and software to settle this case. Forcing 
another 14,000+ schools to use Windows and Microsoft software isn1t 
a very harsh punishment_Money is like water to Microsoft and 
you are essentially allowing Microsoft to purchase market share.
    In fact, Microsoft (along with Dell) has targeted schools as a 
growth area_one long dominated by Apple Computer. This so 
called settlement allows them to buy market share, which they will 
later tout to the detriment of Apple Computer.
    Believe me, if this proposal is agreeable to Microsoft, there 
has to be an upside or they wouldn1t even consider it.
    Does this proposal provide a school with a choice of computer 
platform? If a school wants Macintosh Computers, is that OK under 
the terms of this settlement?
    I don't see how this kind of settlement prevents Microsoft from 
using its monopolistic power to do further damage to competitors.
    Definitely worth looking into.



MTC-00001429

From: Ben Eastwood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 10:22am
Subject: The deal
    I would like to register my support for continued prosecution of 
Microsoft. As a user of Microsoft products, I feel that I am being 
for to take "new and improved" Microsoft upgrades at an 
unfair price. I also feel that they are indeed using their operating 
system monopoly to leverage their way to dominance of web access, 
streaming media delivery, office productivity, and many other 
aspects of the technology sector. Please don't let them off easy.
    Ben Eastwood
    IT Manager
    wilweb.com
    The above opinions are my own and may not reflect those of my 
employer.



MTC-00001430

From: Michael Scaramozzino
To: [email protected] 
@inetgw,microsoftcomment...
Date: 11/20/01 10:41am
Subject: Thanks for standing firm!
    Dear Attorneys General,
    I just wanted to commend you all on standing firm against the 
enormous pressure to settle the Microsoft anti-trust case. I only 
wish the DOJ and other AGs had as much fortitude. Microsoft found 
ways around previously imposed sanctions and I fear that any type of 
penalty, short of structural, will simply fail to sufficiently reign 
them in.
    I've been president of a multimedia company since 1987 and I 
have watched Microsoft imitate and extinguish numerous innovations 
over the years. They see an innovation in the marketplace and 
quickly move to kill it, by copying it into their monopolistic 
Windows operating system. They then use their monopoly to erect 
sufficient roadblocks to competition so that their version will win 
out.
    Here are just a few examples that come immediately to mind...
    Windows itself was an imitation of Macintosh
    Excel was an imitation of Lotus 123
    Word was an imitation of WordPerfect
    Windows Media Player and AVI were imitations of QuickTime
    ActiveX was an imitation of Java
    JScript was an imitation of JavaScript
    MSN was an imitation of AOL
    MS Instant messaging was an imitation of AOL's instant messaging
    Internet Explorer was an imitation of Netscape Navigator
    MS Money was an imitation of Quicken
    Even MS-DOS wasn't "innovated" by Microsoft, it was 
imitated from CPM
    I honestly can't think of ANY product that Microsoft invented or 
innovated by themselves without copying it from some other company 
first.
    In my opinion, the only way to really level the playing field, 
is to separate the operating system from Microsoft's other product 
divisions, structurally. Prevent the new system company from 
colluding with the new applications company and prevent the system 
company from incorporating stand-alone third-party products into the 
operating system in the future.
    Short of that, it will quickly return to business as usual at 
Microsoft and innovation & competition will continue to be 
stifled.
    Thanks for standing firm,
    Michael Scaramozzino
    President, DreamLight Incorporated, Woburn MA
    http://DreamLight.com
    CC:Microsoft ATR



MTC-00001431

From: Peter Gray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 10:39am
Subject: Microsoft.
    Should Microsoft receive harsher penalties?
    I am very disappointed with the Feds settlement. Fortunately 
nine states' AG's agree with me. I have sent the following to the 
states' AG's dissatisfied with the terms of the USDOJ settlement 
agreement. This settlement is to the benefit of Microsoft and not to 
the markets and consumers.
    It seems to me that Microsoft has indulged in not only anti-
trust violations but

[[Page 23917]]

racketeering as well. Monetary reparations will do nothing to stop 
their abuses that have stifled the computer industry for years and 
years.
    As you can see, my position well exceeds current prosecution 
parameters. Even if you don't agree with my extreme position, but 
desire more vigorous prosecution, I urge you to continue this case 
until an appropriate separation of Microsoft entities is made.
    I urge you to continue this case. Do not fold in the face of 
adversity. You stand for everything this country was found on. 
Freedom.
    God Bless you.
    Best Regards,
    Peter Gray
    155 West Concord st
    Boston MA, 02118



MTC-00001432

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 10:39am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Microsoft has way too much control already, over the direction 
that the user may take on the internet.
    Many people are new to the internet, and MicroSoft attempts to 
limit their choices, and often the route that MicroSoft uses is of 
lower quality or less reliability than other choices that are 
available.
    Nothing short of a strong hand is going to prevent MicroSoft to 
continue to act in a very non-competitive manner.
    You are dealing with a Corporation that believes they are a 
special case, that they can set themselves above their 
competition...and even above the government offices of the United 
States of America.
    They will look for and find any cracks and crevices, loopholes 
that they cn exploit. They will interpret the rulings in their own 
favor rather than to the letter of the ruling.
    Their purpose is Power and Control, rather than the betterment 
of the World, as they claim. Users and the internet as a whole will 
thrive and innovate far more, with strict controls on Mr. Gates and 
his company. MicroSoft does NOT innovate, by the way. They copy what 
others are doing, and use every resource at their command to crush 
those who are the real innovators, and who wish to compete in the 
marketplace. The marketplace will cease to exist if MicroSoft is not 
brought to heel with a sharp rein.
    Bill Martin
    13330 Blanco Rd.
    1401
    San Antonio, TX 78216



MTC-00001434

From: Carlos Edwards
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 10:51am
Subject: Microsoft Trail
    I am very disappointed with the outcome of the Microsoft trail. 
I believe harsher penalties should be enforced. Please do not back 
down, do not settle.
    Sincerely,
    Ronald Edwards
    270 South 5th Street
    Brooklyn NY, 11211



MTC-00001436

From: Dewayne Christensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 10:49am
Subject: MS Settlement
    Short and sweet: My personal opinion? This settlement is a joke. 
You guys had them and blew it. My only hope now is that Microsoft 
will follow in IBM's footsteps and screw themselves up.
    Dewayne Christensen
    241 NE 59th Terrace
    Topeka, KS 66617



MTC-00001437

From: william lane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 10:43am
Subject: Don't Quit
    Please DO NOT cave in on this Microsoft thing. The proposed 
solution looks like capitulation by the DOJ.
    William Lane
    Via OSX Mail
    Calgary, Canada



MTC-00001438

From: Kyle Crawford
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/20/01 10:58am
Subject: MS Case Settlement does not go far enough
    What about the damage caused by Microsoft's monopolistic 
practices? Many companies have been either put out of business or 
reduced to a niche market.
    The settlement does nothing to address the damage already done. 
It is too little too late. The damage is done. Microsoft is a 
stronger monopoly because of their illegal practices. Why wouldn't 
any other company practice the same crimes when they will come out 
ahead anyway? Microsoft needs to be held accountable for past 
actions and the effects of their actions.
    Kyle Crawford
    4 Sunset Drive
    Douglassville, PA 19518
    CC:'microsoftcomments(a) 
doj.ca.gov",'attorney.general...



MTC-00001439

From: Rawls
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/20/01 10:58am
Subject: Comments
    With respect to the proposed Consent Decree 
("Decree") between the United States Department of 
Justice ("DOJ") and the Microsoft Corporation 
("Microsoft" or "Company") in settlement of 
the antitrust action between DOJ and Microsoft, I must express my 
condemnation of the Decree in the strongest possible terms and I 
respectfully request that the Court reject the Decree for the 
reasons set forth below.
    The Decree in no way serves the public interest or the public 
good.
    The Decree approaches, but does not even achieve, a mere slap-
on-the-wrist for the continuing behavior of this convicted, 
unrepentant abusive monopolist.
    There are no penalties imposed for Microsoft's behavior 
whatsoever. Why are there no fines, no court costs, and no DOJ costs 
of prosecution being recovered? Why are no damages of whatever type 
being paid? Why is the management of Microsoft_the same 
management that has blatantly breached previous settlement 
agreements_being allowed to remain in charge of the Company?
    It is possible for a reasonable person to view the behavior of 
Microsoft as racketeering and the Company's actions should be 
investigated to determine if such actions in fact fit that pattern.
    In summary, the Decree lacks penalties that fit the crime. The 
Decree will not end Microsofts monopoly abuse behavior and will 
encourage the continuation of such behavior in the future. I predict 
the government will soon be back in court with another Microsoft 
antitrust suit if this
    Decree is accepted.
    Thank you. (signed)
    F. Rawls Sansone
    7401 NW 85 Street, #105
    Tamarac, FL 33321
    CC:[email protected] 
@inetgw,attorney.gener...



MTC-00001440

From: Rob [email protected]@inetgw
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/20/01 10:56am
Subject: Racketeering
    Mr. Attorney General of California:
    Please do not accept the inadequate settlement being pushed by 
the Federal government for the Microsoft matter. As a computer-using 
citizen of this state ! urge you to protect your constituents from 
what is really something like corporate racketeering. How many small 
tax-paying California companies have been driven under or hobbled by 
Microsoft's illegal practices? That translates into less revenue for 
the State and higher taxes for the rest of US.
    Stand your ground and demand that they pay the appropriate 
penalty for the damage have and continue to cause. Please protect 
us.
    Robert Huber
    20095 Nob Hill Dr.
    Yorba Linda, CA 92886
    CC: Microsoft ATR
    ??? Please get off Bill gate's back, & try catching 
dangerous crooks for a change!!!
    Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. Click 
Here



MTC-00001441

From: Stan Gould
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 10:52am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
DOJ
    In short, I think the government threw in the towel much too 
soon. From way back in the days of DOS, Microsoft has repeatedly 
demonstrated an inability to tolerate competition. A small company, 
whose name I do not remember, came up with a way to compress DOS 
files in the mid 90's. It was very popular, as it allowed for 
increased storage on hard disks that were very expensive at the 
time. Microsoft put the software in its update to DOS and crushed 
the company. This was just the beginning...
    Recent news reports state that Microsoft invested in Corel, the 
company that owns the

[[Page 23918]]

rights to WordPerfect. Corel recently announced that they will no 
longer make WordPerfect for the Mac. Looks like Microsoft killed the 
only real competitor to Word for the Mac market. Of course, they 
will still allow it for the PC market, as they must maintain the 
illusion of competition.
    And now, Microsoft wants to control the Net and forces users to 
call them to reinstall XP? The monopoly continues. I hope the 
states' attorneys general continue their lawsuit.
    Thanks for the ability to comment.
    Stan Gould



MTC-00001442

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:03am
Subject: Is economic aid next?
    There is no justice in this settlement.



MTC-00001443

From: Charles S. C. Clement
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 10:59am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Shame on you for caving in!
    Microsoft has done and continues to do serious damage to the 
competitive marketplace in which they operate. Past legal actions 
have done little to change their behavior and nothing to change 
their attitude. Significant remedies are needed to keep them in 
check. If you need reassurance, witness the glee and excitement 
expressed by Gates, Ballmer, et al after the settlement was 
announced_they know they're getting off easy. Consider these 
facts:
_you and eighteen states felt strongly enough to press the 
case in the first place
_numerous additional, credible charges of anticompetitive 
behavior have surfaced outside the scope of the formal litigation
_it is widely accepted that Microsoft has ignored and/or 
flouted earlier court orders
_the EU is pursuing several investigations of Microsoft's 
anticompetitive behavior
    Where there's smoke, there's fire! The rush to settlement seems 
to have been prompted by concerns about the economy in the aftermath 
of September 11. The argument suggests that unshackling Microsoft 
can help boost the ecomony. This is debatable, but even accepting it 
as true does not make it a good idea_the short term boost to 
the economy has to be weighed against the long term harm caused by 
Microsoft's ruthlessness and the potentially huge economic 
opportunities created by unshackling innovation, the true casualty 
of the Microsoft's behavior.
    It makes me sick every time I hear Bill Gates talk about 
innovation. Sure they've added value, but Microsoft bought or copied 
many of their best products. And we may never know how many great 
ideas/products/companies they squashed along the way. So, not only 
are they not innovative but they actively hinder innovation!
    In the interest of full disclosure, you should know that I am a 
Microsoft stockholder.
    If the barn door is not yet completely closed, I urge you to 
revert back to your earlier stand against Microsoft.
    Charles S. C. Clement
    P. O. Box 882
    Norwich, VT 05055



MTC-00001444

From: Jeremiah Connelly
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/20/01 10:59am
Subject: Please do not let Microsoft get away with their crimes.
    I am writing to state that it is my opinion Microsoft has 
illegally harmed my Kansas business and the businesses of my 
customers by abusing their monopoly.
    Jeremiah Connelly



MTC-00001445

From: Chris Ruggiero
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:14am
Subject: Don1t settle!
    Greetings, My name is Chris Ruggiero, and I am disgusted with 
this whole idea of letting Microsoft off with what appears to be a 
slap on the hand. I strongly encourage you to seek much harsher 
punishment for Microsoft's illegal monopolistic practices, we need 
to show not only Microsoft but any other company out there that this 
kind of illegal practice will not be tolerated.
    Please do not let them get away with this, right now they are 
laughing at you all the way to the bank!
    Chris Ruggiero
    573 Emerald Ave #4
    El Cajon, Ca 92020
    Chris



MTC-00001446

From: Mr. Gutierrez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:14am
Subject: comments
    To whom it may concern,
    I thank you for allowing the public to provide input in this 
matter. I would like to be brief with this. It is obvious that there 
is a monopoly and the justice department cannot receive enough 
evidence from the software developers because this would doom their 
businesses. In my own opinion, Microsoft needs to be broken up into 
three separate companies. The Internet and server software group, 
the application software group and the Operating System Group. This 
would prevent them from monopolizing the entire software market any 
further. Even the video game market is going to be taken over by 
Microsoft in the next year. The company needs to be broken up to 
allow for better competition which will in turn bring about better 
products for the customer.
    The lack of competition in the OS market has left 95% of the 
entire computing world using the most ineffective OS in the market. 
Windows not only provides hackers access to personal files but 
allows individuals with malicious intents to create harmful and 
widespread viruses that end up infecting the majority of computer 
systems. Mac users and Unix users usually are immune to these 
attacks because the viruses are not written to attack these systems. 
Please, there must be something done to diversify the OS market and 
allow some competition within this segment of business. When ever 
some new technology comes into our lives, one company seeks to 
dominate which Microsoft has. ATT did the same thing and now prices 
are down and the products and services have greatly improved. Please 
do the same for this new technology. Competition brings about change 
and better products for everyone. It's the American way.
    Sincerely,
    Ignacio T. Gutierrez
    Director of Computer Services
    St. Augustine School
    1300 Galveston
    Laredo, Texas 78043
    956-724-8131
    [email protected]



MTC-00001447

From: Jim Brager
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    As an interested observer of the case against Microsoft, I am 
still, after all the years the DOJ has spent litigating this case, 
trying to determine where I, as a consumer, have been harmed by the 
business tactics of Microsoft.
    When Microsoft began producing their products, they met, and 
continue to meet, all of my desires for efficiency and productivity 
in the "home computing" area. The mainframe platform is 
easy to use and allows me to navigate whether I'm at home, 
traveling, or visiting locally.
    The convenience of "integration" of their products 
has been a blessing to my computing needs, not a hindrance.
    If the firms of "Silicon Valley" are unable to 
compete against the Microsoft products, it isn't due to Microsoft's 
products, but rather their own inefficient systems that cause the 
marketplace not to purchase them. Rather then whining and run crying 
to the DOJ, Silicon Valley should invest in the personnel and 
R&D to really compete. After all, that's the American 
System_ Competition! Microsoft may not always compete fairly, 
but that's business, as much as it is in life everywhere. Can you 
imagine if the San Francisco Giants were told not to put Barry Bonds 
into their lineup against Toronto, because Barry hits too many home 
runs! If you want to play the game, then compete, don't ask for 
someone else to lower the quality of the competition!
    Bring this case to a close now with this pending agreement. Our 
nation needs to get back to the job of growing the economy, and as 
can plainly be seen, the financial health of the nation has gone 
downhill since this case began. It's time to end it now.
    James Brager
    6502 W. Wahalla Ln
    Glendale, AZ 85308



MTC-00001448

From: Jeff White
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:10am
Subject: MS Case comments
    I would like to add my comments on my perspective of the 
Microsoft case. As an educator in the state of Pennsylvannia, I have 
been "forced" to use Microsoft Office because the State 
has adopted it as the

[[Page 23919]]

standard software. Normally, this wouldn't disturb me, but in this 
case it does. The reason is that in order to win the bid, Microsoft 
drastically subsidizes their software. What would be a $500 product 
when purchased on the open market is only $55 when purchased by 
schools or colleges. No other vendor could reduce their product that 
much in cost to compete. The result? Microsoft takes over the office 
software market and pushes all competition out. They are either 
substantially undercutting the competition's prices by selling their 
product below cost, or they are price gouging on theopen market. In 
either case, they have destroyed any sense of compettition.
    Furthermore, but "forcing" the state to accept a 
"deal they can't refuse," Microsoft has brought a burden 
to schools. I was the former Director of Technology in a school 
district for over 6 years. During that time, we installed over 800 
computers and purchased and installed ClarisWorks/AppleWorks on alll 
of the machines. Now, in order to maintain the standard with the 
state, the district is forced to change their software resulting in 
caost for the software, cost of installation, caost of training, and 
countless hours of instructional prep time lost to converting files 
to a software package that doesn't have as many capabilites. So much 
for freedom of choice within schools to teach following best 
practice principles.
    Lastly, since many schools use Macintosh computers, Microsoft 
consistantly offers late, meager upgrades to their software for Mac 
users. Hence, the Windows users are always ahead, which is an unfair 
advantage by the company that makes Windows.
    In my opinion, the company need to be broken into two separate 
unrelated entities.
    Sincerely,
    Prof. Jeff White
    Kutztown University



MTC-00001449

From: Brian Clark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust resolution comments
    Hello,
    I am disappointed that you did not go far enough in limiting 
Microsoft's monopoly powers with regards to bundling products with 
its Windows operating system. As Vice President of Information 
Technology for my company, I hate the fact that Microsoft has so 
much control over the computers and software that we purchase. As a 
consumer, I want choices.
    I don't want Microsoft to dictate to me how and when I use their 
products.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Clark
    Vice President
    Information Technology
    BrannWorldwide
    http://www.brann.com
    847-943-2100 tel.
    847-943-2101 fax



MTC-00001450

From: David Black-Schaffer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:21am
Subject: Microsoft AT Settlement
    Hello,
    I just wanted to pass on my thoughts regarding your proposed 
settlement with Microsoft. It is clear that Microsoft has flagrantly 
abused its monopoly position and I believe your restrictions will 
not be effective as technology changes. Microsoft has demonstrated a 
masterful ability to take advantage of new technological 
distribution channels and business models to extend its business 
influence and I believe it will continue doing so since the new 
restrictions can not anticipate all new technologies. I believe the 
only way to prevent Microsoft from continuing to abuse its monopoly 
position is to introduce competition in its sphere of influence by 
forcing its various units to compete rather than collaborate. If you 
doubt this, consider if there is any other approach which would 
lower the price for consumers. As things currently stand, if you 
sell the OS and the key applications you have no incentive to try 
and make users use one or the other since they will buy both.
    Good luck!
    _David



MTC-00001451

From: Alexander Odood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:15am
Subject: What a Shame
    We had our one great opportunity to stop the bully and bring 
some real innovation back to the market. Instead Microsoft gets off 
with a slap on the wrist and is sent off to continue on it's merry 
way to gobble up any and all remaining free markets.
    As a consumer I am appalled at the governments apparent lack of 
balls to see this thing all the way through. Microsoft will never 
voluntarily give up or curb it's practices. They have everything to 
gain and very little to lose by just plowing ahead and stomping on 
anyone who gets in the way. It saddens me that ten years from now 
when we have to go through this whole thing again we will wish that 
we had solved the problem when we had the chance.
    alex



MTC-00001452

From: Carl Fink
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:15am
Subject: Time for this monopoly to end!
    To whom it may concern,
    It's time to weaken the grip that Microsoft has on the US and 
the world. Over the last 20 years they have consistantly used 
preditory tactics against competitors. They have driven many of 
their competitors out of business because they own the operating 
system. They have effectivly kept their API's secret and used them 
to leverage their applications. While the tactic has been effective 
against their competition, this is like owning the product, the 
railroad and the track. It was wrong in the 1900's and it's wrong 
now. Microsoft has laughed at past punishments and I believe they 
will continue to do so. The latest agreement is a slap on the wrist 
for some rather nasty business practices. It should not be 
supported. Judge Jackson was right, it's time to split the company 
in two.
    Carl Fink
    Rochester, NY



MTC-00001453

From: James Reynolds
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/20/01 11:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Since when does a judge give a killer a light sentence when the 
killer does not express remorse? And since when does a judge not put 
a killer in jail who shows an inclination of killing again? I don't 
see any remorse or indication Microsoft is changing their illegal 
behavior.
    I feel that the breakup order should not have been reversed. 
That punishment was just and appropriate. Please come up with a 
punishment just as strong as a breakup. The current settlement will 
only inconvenience Microsoft a little, and does very little to stop 
their illegal behavior.
    Sorry I can't provide the evidence that Microsoft is still 
behaving illegally. But it is widely published and easily visible if 
you start up Windows XP and try to use it for a little while (but 
don't ever type in your credit card number or soon you will be 
singing "Where did all my money go?").
    Microsoft is greedy and indifferent and will not stop breaking 
the law unless harshly punished.
    Thanks:
    James E. Reynolds
    1030 W. 500 S.
    SLC, UT, 84104-1314
    801-322-5259



MTC-00001454

From: Atkinson Computing Services
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft case
    Hello.
    If you're keeping track of how the public feels about the 
proposed settlement with Microsoft, put me in the "not 
satisfied" category. It escapes me how a company can receive 
such a hand slap in light of their past conduct. Like the O.J. 
Simpson case, this settlement undermines my already shaky confidence 
in our system of justice. It only shows that if you have enough 
money and clout, you can break the law and then buy your way out of 
any legal repercussions.
    David Atkinson
    26325 Ohio Avenue NE
    Kingston, WA



MTC-00001455

From: James G. Downward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am distressed that the proposed settlement is far too lenient 
and that Microsoft's monopoly will continue to grow leaving computer 
users with increasingly fewer options for desktop software and 
operating systems.
    If you look at the new "Technologies" or 
"Features" which are introduced as part of Windows XP 
the future looks grim. We may be forced to store personal data using 
Microsoft's Passport in order to use web commerce, we may be 
restricted to only

[[Page 23920]]

playing multimedia sound and movies using Microsoft's proprietary 
media format, our desktop applications and web pages may 
automatically sprout unintended web links to Microsoft sponsored 
sites, and we will be forced to pay monthly fees to Microsoft in 
order to use their software.
    As long as Microsoft controls both desktop applications and the 
operating system, it will continue to strangle innovation, force 
users to pay outrageously high prices for software, and behave like 
500 pound gorilla.
    Jim Downward
    2740 Lowell Road
    Ann Arbor, MI 48103



MTC-00001456

From: Steve Poole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:24am
Subject: horrifying decision
    As a long-time software engineering professional in the state of 
Washington I can tell you first hand that Microsoft is relentlessly 
predatory and unethical in its dealings with ISVs in addition to 
OEMs. The DOJ settlement with a proven illegal monopolist is 
appalling, and the ridiculous loophole of "The software code 
that comprises a Windows Operating System Product shall be 
determined by Microsoft in its sole discretion." in the 
settlement definitions is absolutely obscene. Just about the only 
thing I respected the Clinton administration for was taking on 
Microsoft. The Bush administration has betrayed my vote, and 
threatened my livelihood and that of thousands of other software 
professionals with its handling of the matter. I am disgusted and 
will not forget.
    Steve Poole
    9512 13th Ave NW
    Seattle, WA 98117



MTC-00001457

From: Hotmail
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:42am
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Sir's;
    I used to be a staunch supporter of Microsoft in it's early days 
because they used to be very customer oriented and did what made 
sense. That has all changed. Now they only do things that makes 
sense for them and anything to take more money out of customers 
pockets. I, for one, hate to have a conglomoration of software 
loaded on my computer that I will never use and I am forced by 
Microsoft to have it on my computer. There is no way of removing it 
without major and complex jirations that even some computer 
consultants (like myself) are reluctant to undertake.
    The more complex a program, the more likely a possibility of 
bugs and breakdowns. There is clear evidence of it that even Bill 
Gates has recently admitted to (he has promised in recent talks to 
"fix the PC in the next decade).
    A more viable solution would be to allow the customer to choose 
the features that they would like on their computer at setup time 
much like they choose various application software now. An operating 
system should be just that_an operating system. The customer 
should have an option to choose the applications that they wish to 
install and not be forced by Microsoft to install everything from 
them.
    Microsoft has adopted a posture of forcing themselves on the 
customer and since Microsoft has developed a monopoly on PC 
installations the customer does not have a choice but to buy their 
system if they wish to be somewhat compatible with the industry.
    I say, break them up and allow for a more competitive 
environment. It worked with the long distance telephone industry and 
the public is enjoying long distance telephone rates that are the 
same as or cheaper than local rates. Same thing will happen in the 
computer industry if you succeed in breaking up
    Microsoft. There are software companies that are selling their 
software for $30 to $100 and are able to make a profit. The same 
thing can be true for an operating system. Micrtosoft has been 
jacking up the price of the operating system more and more as they 
gained more and more of the monopoly on it. Only three or four years 
ago they used to sell Windows for under $40 and now they have it at 
$300 and even the upgrade is at $200. I bought the Visual Studio at 
$400 just a couple of years ago now it is at $1000.
    When engineering costs are recovered a product usually goes down 
in price. Not with Microsoft. It keeps going up proportionately to 
the amount of monopoly control that they have.
    I hope I had given you enough reasons to brek them up. If you 
need more, let me know and I'll spend some time and do some research 
and provide you with more.
    Don Schlesak_Computer Consultant/Owner
    Donlin Services Inc.



MTC-00001458

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:43am
Subject: Very disappointing
    Around here, in Huntsville AL, it seems we have given up 
fighting Microsoft's strong arm tactics (bordering on racketeering). 
It appears an unwinnable battle because of the strength of their 
illegally gained strangle hold on our industry.
    The DOJ was supposed to help. The DOJ let Microsoft walk all 
over them. Microsoft representatives are surely having a hard time 
not chuckling when discussing their "penalties". Who 
does the DOJ represent? Certainly not the citizens it appears.
    Very disappointing. But at least a few states are listening to 
their citizens.
    Mike Stulting
    1919 Shellbrook Dr
    Huntsville, AL 35806
    ___ Mike Stulting [email protected]
    ___ CSC (256) 885-7369



MTC-00001459

From: bob frost
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:31am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear persons:
    As an information professional and educator, I am in no small 
degree dismayed by the settlement agreement recently negotiated 
between Microsoft and the Justice Department in the Microsoft anti-
trust case. Having also been trained in the economics of industrial 
organization, I understand such law pretty well, and to me it is 
clear that Microsoft's violations of the Sherman and Clayton Acts, 
particularly with respect to tying and predation, are not 
sufficiently addressed by the remedies proposed.
    I worry most, however, that the agreement does almost nothing to 
prevent Microsoft from repeating on the Internet what it did with 
operating systems. That is, by dint of its control over the PC 
operating system, Microsoft effectively destroyed its competition in 
the sphere of software applications. Using its control over 
operating system source code and application programming interfaces 
(APIs), Microsoft gained control over the entire PC platform. Here's 
a list: Spreadsheets: was Lotus 123, now Microsoft Excel Word-
processing: was WordPerfect, now Microsoft Word Databases: was 
dBaseIII and FoxPro, now Microsoft Access Email: was Eudora and many 
others, now Microsoft Outlook and Entourage You will note, I hope, 
that almost all of the original competition not only lost product 
dominance, many such firms also went out of business or were 
acquired by others in dire circumstances. By a sharp reduction in 
the competition, Microsoft has therefore effectively quashed 
innovation in microcomputing applications. While one might claim, as 
the Bush Justice Department, that such is the way of legitimate 
competition, earlier findings of fact in this case indicate 
otherwise and no credible remedies are proposed.
    With its emerging ?.NET? strategy, Microsoft is overtly planning 
the same strategy for next-generation Internet-based software. With 
the very recent release of Windows XP, that approach is overt, as, 
for example, Microsoft implements code that not only precludes the 
use of competing products (Apple's Quicktime, Real's RealAudio, and 
Sun's Java), it uses its market share to undermine open and global 
Net standards carefully and at length designed, negotiated, and 
affirmed by almost all relevant non-Microsoft players
    Finally, in this time of heightened fears about security and 
privacy, I must note that consumers are systematically damaged and 
such damage will grow in the future by Microsoft's notoriously 
insecure products. Over the past several months there has been a 
raft of costly security holes discovered in Microsoft server 
software, among them the costly Nimda and RedAlert virii. Worse, 
just last week, Microsoft had to disable large portions of its new 
"Passport?" authentication service due to security 
concerns. Passport is, in simple terms, a repository and serving 
system for the personal data used in e-commerce. It is integrated 
into Windows XP. As Microsoft in the future will undoubtedly use its 
market muscle to impose Passport as the authentication standard for 
e-commerce, consumers will be in constant danger of leaks of their 
personal information. In addition, by dint of its control of the 
Passport database, Microsoft will become the largest repository

[[Page 23921]]

of consumer information in the world. Given its past abuses of law 
and minimal respect for others, I simply would not trust Microsoft 
to safeguard consumers? vital interests; rather, I can assure you 
that if there is money to be made in mishandling personal 
information by Microsoft, they will do so. In conclusion, it is my 
deeply held belief that the proposed anti-trust settlement in the 
DOJ v. Microsoft case is unacceptable. Innovation will continue to 
be stifled, consumer security will be compromised, and software 
prices will remain at high, monopoly-based levels. I beg your office 
to reject the agreement. Thank you for your attention in this 
matter.
    Sincerely,
    Robert L. Frost,
    Associate Professor of Information
    Women's mobilization: the best way to defeat fundamentalists of 
all kinds_Islamic or Christian.



MTC-00001460

From: Diana Shindorf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:46am
Subject: Microsoft
    Can you please help me? I have been trying to locate "what 
federal law (and sections) was Microsoft sued under in 1998?"
    I have been searching and searching and am coming up with 
nothing on it.
    Thank you,
    Diana Shindorf



MTC-00001461

From: Rutherford, Ronald
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/20/01 11:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings. This is just a short note to say that I also believe 
that the proposed Microsoft settlement, as it currently stands, is 
unacceptable. Please keep up the fight. Thanks.
    Ron Rutherford
    Seattle



MTC-00001462

From: sfmacguy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:44am
Subject: ms resistance
    I would hope that you would continue your courageous efforts 
against the criminal enterprise known as MS.
    I was surprised that the JOD case made it as far as it did; not 
surprised that the current administration wants to offer them a wet 
kiss as a penalty. Shouldn't this be a RICOH prosecution for 
racketeering?
    Maybe I've been watching too much Law & Order, but if 
someone tries to compel you to use their flavor or else, isn't that 
the same as the mob compelling corner store owners to sell their 
cigarettes?
    Wouldn't it be interesting if white college brats who end up 
crooks were held to the same legal standard as uneducated, swarthy 
Mediterranean wise guys?
    Go for the throat; this is how you make your bones!
    Francis R. Kerr, Jr
    San Francisco
    415.999.5540



MTC-00001463

From: Ted
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:56am
Subject: Disappointed
    US DOJ:
    I just wanted to take the time to show my disappointment in your 
position on the current case against Microsoft. I don't know how 
many people's pockets are being lined by this disgraceful 
"settlement", but I'm glad to see a few states sticking 
to their guns. (I notified all of them of my support.)
    The tactics that Microsoft uses sicken me and cause me serious 
concern over the ability of future companies to compete on a level 
playing field. I have not only seen, but also felt the affects of 
their ruthless and unethical behavior. One only needs to read of the 
original investigations to find out the root of all this evil. 
Repeatedly Bill Gates and other Microsoft cronies stated 
emphatically that they had done no wrong. And repeatedly internal 
documents were produced that forced them to admit that they had 
indeed done exactly what they had been accused of. And without 
exception, people just shrugged their shoulders! How can that be! 
They lied to us, to their customers and to a high court judge.
    I think it is high time that Microsoft reaps what it has sewn. 
Kudos to California and the other eight states' attorneys general. I 
look forward to a day when real innovation can again take place 
without fear of Microsoft retaliation.
    Sincerely,
    Ted Rust
    750-66 Mobil Av
    Camarillo, CA 93010
    805.484.9585



MTC-00001464

From: Todd Stubbs
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/20/01 11:52am
Subject: Please don't let them off so easy!
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I am writing to express my disappointment over the US Justice 
Department's decision to settle the Microsoft anti-trust case.
    I have been a professional user and programmer of microcomputer 
technology since 1983. Almost from the very beginning of their 
existence, Microsoft has been more than merely agressive_they 
have been deceitful and, I believe, unethical. Their behavior as a 
company has always been egregious, even if it has not always been 
illegal. However, at that point in time when they became a monopoly, 
whenever that was, this pattern of immoral behavior became illegal 
as well.
    The conundrum, of course, is what to do about it. I do not 
believe that heavy government involvement in regulating the affairs 
of Microsoft is in either the public's or Microsoft's best interest. 
And yet, any regulation or injunction you put forth, they will find 
a way around it, or merely ignore it as they have done in the past. 
It would seem that there is little else the Justice Department can 
do to but ask for some remedy that would change Microsoft's 
structure_nothing else will work.
    Let me also debunk the myth that what is good for Microsoft is 
good for the economy. It is patently false, simplistic thinking. 
Microsoft has squelched so much good technology so that their own, 
often mediocre, products will prevail in the marketplace, that the 
doldrums the technology industry recently faced may never have 
happened had the Justice department defended a true market economy 
several years ago when Microsoft faced a similar charge. In my 
estimation, the market would already be 2 to 10 times are large as 
it is now if it hadn't been for Microsoft's egregious behavior.
    Microsoft is the single most anti-innovative force in the 
technology industry today. Period.
    Letting Microsoft off easy would probably provide a next-
quarter, short-term benefit, but would continue to restrain the 
innovation and growth as it has done (except for Microsoft) for the 
last 10 or 12 years. Please, do not do this!
    Respectfully yours,
    S. Todd Stubbs
    Instructional Research & Design
    Center for Instructional Design
    Brigham Young University
    Provo UT 84602
    (801) 378-3069



MTC-00001465

From: Joseph Boykin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:50am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am writing as a citizen of Massachusetts in regards to the 
proposed settlement with Microsoft. As a "computer 
professional" I am very familiar with the industry and 
Microsoft and firmly believe that the proposed settlement is unfair 
to numerous corporations that have attempted to develop competing 
products, consumers who have used or even those that have *not* used 
Microsoft products.
    I firmly believe that Microsoft has engaged in numerous anti-
trust violations. Their unfair business practices seems to permeate 
the entire company. For example, the company I was most recently at, 
and held the position of Vice President of Engineering, was looking 
to raise additional venture capital. We were courting Microsoft as 
one of those investors. Although the deal never went through, 
Microsoft required a deal where they would invest $5M in the 
company, but *required* that we commit to buying $2M worth of 
Microsoft products.
    I hope that a more fair and equitable agreement can be reached 
in regards to this matter.
    Yours truly,
    Joseph Boykin
    7 Hampton Road
    Natick, MA 01760



MTC-00001466

From: david lopez
To: microsoftcomments @doj.ca. 
gov@inetgw,attorney.gener...
Date: 11/20/01 11:47am
Subject: microsoft anti-trust case
    Dear Sirs/Madams:
    I am glad to hear that your offices have chosen not to join in 
on the deal that the U.S. Department of Justice recently struck with 
Microsoft. Unfortunately, my home state of

[[Page 23922]]

New York has decided to change its mind regarding the economic evils 
of a monopoly power in the marketplace.
    I will not go into a lengthy discussion as to why a monopoly is 
a bad thing. Any freshman economics major can tell you that.
    I am also sure I do not have to remind you that the previous 
antitrust case against Microsoft went nowhere because the government 
chose to use conduct remedies that Microsoft subsequently ignored. 
As someone once said "Those who ignore history are condemed to 
repeat it". I am afraid that the current administration does 
not read their legal history books.
    In case you may think I do not understand technology, I have 
been operating production computer systems for over 15 years. I am 
well versed in the single vendor versus multi-vendor pros and cons. 
Please do not listen to the talking heads in various magazines who 
overwhelmingly support Microsoft either from ignorance or perhaps 
monetary arguments (Microsoft as a large consumer of advertising may 
very well influence editorial opinion).
    In closing , Microsofts arguments regarding freedom to innovate 
are specious. Off-hand I can not list five things that Microsoft 
created for the computer industry that a competing company did not 
pioneer. Microsofts history is that they wait till someone else 
creates a market, they buy a small time bit player and use a bunch 
of money to promote their solution and the business consumer uses it 
because it is from Microsoft, not because it is techically a better 
product. The one thing I can give Microsoft credit for is their 
over-riding mantra of ease of use. Much of the success Microsoft 
achieves in the marketplace is from bundling software titles and 
from making existing titles easier to use.
    Sincerely,
    David Lopez
    [email protected]
    Database Administrator with a major financial company



MTC-00001467

From: Ben Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/20/01 12:00pm
Subject: reject the microsoft settlement
    If Teddy Roosevelt were in the Whitehouse, Microsoft would have 
been split into at three companies five years ago. Since ours is an 
age in which politics is defined almost purely by money, it is not 
surprising that the Bush Justice department has entirely caved in 
the face of Microsoft's monopoly.
    I applaud those attorney's general who have balked at the 
preposterous settlement. Microsoft must be punished for it's anti-
competitive practices, it's extortion of pc makers and its 
racketeering to fix prices and control the digital age.
    Microsoft should be forced to compete on an even laying field. 
This is the only way we can stop the endless production of 
plagiarized software (every Microsoft OS from Window 3 to the new XP 
(a blatant rip off of Apple's superior OS X)), application designed 
to cripple competing operating systems and it's relentless march to 
acquire and profit from the personal information on every single pc 
in the world. Throughout it's history, Microsoft has indulged in not 
only anti-trust violations but racketeering and blackmail as well.
    I hope you will continue your struggle against this behemoth.
    Sincerely,
    Ben Thompson
    Ben Thompson
    917 Madeira Dr. NE
    Albuquerque, NM 87108
    v. 505-998-2100
    f. 505-998-5018



MTC-00001468

From: Kurt Stoll
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/20/01 12:00pm
Subject: Microsoft deal
    Sirs:
    I am very disappointed in the settlement that Microsoft has 
apparently been able to establish with the US Justice Department. 
They have obviously used their monopoly power in PC Operating 
Systems to create monopolies in productivity software, development 
tools, and web browsing. And, their current .NET strategy is clearly 
an attempt to extend their monopoly throughout the web and into 
every computer.
    While I always felt that breaking up Microsoft was too harsh, 
the monitoring provided for in the current settlement will do little 
to blunt their empire-building efforts. And there are no real 
penalties in the settlement for their past abuses. They have already 
established that they are willing to skirt and ignore any agreements 
that they come to with government agencies, continuing with their 
efforts undaunted.
    The argument of some that harsh penalties and restraints will 
have a negative impact on the US economy are both specious and 
short-sighted. We do not forgive a woman who attempted to bomb a 
police car more than 20 years ago, simply because she has lead an 
exemplary life since. We should not forgive a company that has 
committed similarly grave offenses simply because they play an 
important role in our economy. In fact, it is because of the 
importance of their position in our economy that we must make 
certain that they toe the line; infractions on their part have a 
large impact in our lives.
    Also, while it's true that imposing severe penalties on 
Microsoft may result in short term negative consequences for our 
economy, in the long run, our economy and consumers will all benefit 
from the increased competition. We do not need a juggernaut to 
establish standards_the web established useful and important 
standards that many people use on a daily basis (HTML, POP, TCP/IP, 
...) without the guiding hand of a monopoly. In fact, many of these 
standards were established by non-profit organizations and consumer 
demand. Finally, while I don't mean to draw a parallel between 
Microsoft and foreign enemies such as the Taliban or Sadam Hussein, 
it is clear that we are willing to sacrifice the short-term 
performance of our economy in a just cause. I believe that Microsoft 
has committed grave offenses; it is important that they receive 
proportional penalties for past behavior and real restraints on 
future behavior. Prosecution of Microsoft is a just cause for which 
I and many like me are willing to make a short term sacrifice.
    Sincerely,
    Kurt Stoll
    1702 Vetta Drive
    Livermore, CA 94550



MTC-00001469

From: Jonathan Haddad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 12:03pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Greetings:
    My name is Jonathan Haddad. I've been watching the Microsoft 
trial since the whole thing began, and I must say I'm very 
dissatisfied with the proposed settlement. Please do everything in 
your power to make sure Microsoft doesn't get off with a slap on the 
wrist.
    Jonathan Haddad



MTC-00001470

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 12:10pm
Subject: (no subject)
    The Microsoft is totally unfounded. What Microsoft did for the 
computer industry and the internet was and is invaluable. All they 
are guilty of is setting the stanard protocol of communication 
between computers and computer users whether through the internet or 
not. The American Consumer is free to choose whatever software or 
hardware we wish. Mr. Gates and Microsoft revolutionized not 
monopolized the computer industry. I personally have used all the 
available operating systems and hardware available on the market and 
Microsofts products superior. Simply put: if you don't like it, buy 
something else. Mr. Gates and Microsoft pay taxes too. And I'm sure 
thier taxes for one tear equal more than a blue collar citizen, like 
myself will earn in 5 or 10 years. Microsoft is guilty only of 
producing a better product. Thank you
    Mr. Kevin Biafore
    Berea, Ohio



MTC-00001471

From: Ostravich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 12:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust lawsuit
    I've been told I can e-mail this address to provide feedback on 
the Microsoft Anti-Trust settlement currently on the table. Although 
I am heartened by the advance in the settlement to prevent 
"exclusive dealing", I am very disappointed that there 
are no restrictions to prevent Microsoft from bundling any product 
into their operating system. Microsoft employees clearly stated in 
the e-mails used in evidence at the trial that the only reason they 
bundled Internet Explorer into their Windows operating system was 
because Internet Explorer was an inferior product and the bundling 
prevented competitor's products from being used. They attempted to 
do the same thing with Apple's QuickTime and even broke competitor's 
software so that it would not run properly leaving Microsoft's 
version of that product as the only alternative.
    Now with the advent of Microsoft's XP operating system I am 
concerned that there

[[Page 23923]]

will be no competition for Multimedia products and whatever else 
Microsoft wants to compete in. The way it has worked in the past is 
if Microsoft has used technology to redirect any content to 
Microsoft's products for displaying that content. What they've done 
with Interet Explorer, they will now do with their multimedia 
products destroying any competition or reason for a company to make 
a competing product.
    Let me be clear_I don't think the solution should be a 
financial one. The trial clearly shows that Microsoft engaged in 
behavior that was anti-competitive and a punitive monetary solution 
will not correct that. If Microsoft should not be split into an 
operating systems company and an application company, I would at 
least like to see a clear division of Applications and Operating 
Systems so that if a company wants to make a competing product it 
can be easily plugged in to the Microsoft Windows Operating System. 
Competing companies must find it frustrating when they invent the 
technology (Netscape, Real Networks, Sun Microsystems), and then 
Microsoft duplicates the technology and disallows those competing 
companies software to work correctly. This is not Microsoft being 
innovative_they have not invented any of this technology. 
They've simply embraced that technology, sometimes extended it, and 
shut out their competition. This means there will be no further 
innovations in that technology arena because there is no incentive 
for the companies to extend technology that will not be deployed on 
the Windows platform.
    Please reconsider the current settlement and renegotiate the 
settlement to prevent Microsoft from stifling competition.
    Thanks for your time,
    Greg Ostravich



MTC-00001472

From: Steve Linke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 12:07pm
Subject: settlement terms will do nothing to stop Microsoft's 
monopolistic actions
    Justice Department:
    The agreement is a joke. It does absolutely nothing to punish 
Microsoft for its past abuses, and it does little or nothing to stop 
them from using their monopoly position in the operating system 
market to abuse competitors in emerging markets that rely on the 
operating systems. The lack of punitive measures provides a tacit 
invitation to Microsoft to continue their abuses regardless of 
potential lawsuits. They can make more money from these abuses than 
it costs them to defend themselves in court, particularly since they 
are now conditioned that any agreements are going to be watered down 
and full of loopholes. In addition, the years-long delays while the 
suits wind their way through the courts assure that any ruling 
against Microsoft will only affect markets that they have already 
used their monopoly power to dominate. Below is a timeline that 
could be repeated ad infinitum if Microsoft is not punished 
appropriately. Note, in particular, the claim of your department in 
February of 1995 that the agreement you reached with Microsoft at 
that time would "end Microsoft's unlawful practices that 
restrain trade and perpetuate its monopoly power." This is the 
same claim you are mistakenly making about the current agreement, 
but you seem hell-bent at repeating this mistake. February, 1995
    The Justice Department reaches a settlement with Microsoft in a 
previous case closely related to the current one. The Justice 
Department promised in this settlement that it would "end 
Microsoft's unlawful practices that restrain trade and perpetuate 
its monopoly power."
    Judge Stanley Sporkin, now retired, rejects the proposed 
settlement when he determines the decree was not in the public 
interest. He complains that, "simply telling a defendant to go 
forth and sin no more does little or nothing to address the unfair 
advantage it has already gained." Spring, 1995
    A U.S. appeals court overturns Sporkin's decision, saying he 
relied on inappropriate evidence, and removed him from the case. 
August, 1995
    Judge Sporkin is replaced by Thomas Penfield Jackson, who 
approves the settlement. 2000
    Thomas Penfield Jackson recommends splitting up Microsoft into 
an operating system company and an applications company as a result 
of the current anti-trust case. Early, 2001
    The same U.S. appeals court that rejected Judge Sporkin's 
decision and removed him from the previous case, rejects Judge 
Jackson decision and removes him from the current case. He is 
replaced by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. November, 2001
    The Bush Justice Department significantly waters down the 
proposed remedies against Microsoft and assures Judge Kollar-Kotelly 
that the settlement, if approved by the court, would 
"eliminate Microsoft's illegal practices, prevent recurrence 
of the same or similar practices and restore the competitive 
threat" the company faces from rivals. (Sound familiar?)
    Sincerely,
    Steve Linke
    23 Travis Ct.
    Gaithersburg, MD 20879-3212
    Home: 301-947-0286
    Work: 301-496-7276
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00001473

From: Greg Alton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 12:03pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Today I read that Microsoft's proposed settlement with the 
government over the antitrust complaints may include a donation by 
Microsoft of computers to U.S. schools.
    This is absurd. This goes completely counter to the original 
problem, e.g., abuse of monopoly power, since this settlement will 
undoubtedly reinforce that monopoly.
    The only terms under which this type of settlement could make 
sense were if Microsoft were required to donate equipment (software, 
etc) from other companies.
    Please don't let this settlement proceed as is. Alas, I fear the 
taste for enforcing antitrust has left the Justice department.
    Greg Alton



MTC-00001474

From: Richard Potter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the terms of the settlement are short-sighted. For one 
thing, it creates the impression that Microsoft is above the law. I 
refer specifically to the apparent perjury (Gates deposition), 
evidence tampering (doctored demo video), and witness intimidation 
(myriad companies) which occurred during the trial. Moreover, it is 
clear that Microsoft was only too willing to flaunt the terms of the 
earlier restraining order. A slap on the wrist hardly seems 
appropriate.
    Microsoft has consistently acted arrogantly and illegally (as 
exemplified by the evidence and the verdict), and they can be 
expected to do so under the proposed terms. Economic theory and 
practice inform us as to what can be expected from a monopolist, and 
the case of Microsoft is classic confirmation. The consumer has been 
burdened by sub-standard, unstable, overpriced Microsoft products 
for years. Because there is no effective competition, they are under 
no real pressure to perform and, in fact, they have exploited the 
situation. Imagine the consequences if the AT&T monopoly hadn't 
been broken up: today we would have perhaps a half dozen models of 
telephone available to the consumer, no cell phones, stunted use and 
development of fax technology, sky-high long distance rates, and no 
Internet. You can rely upon the fact that Microsoft's domination has 
resulted in similarly constrained technologies and opportunities in 
the computer marketplace.
    The most frightening thing, however, is the ability their 
unfettered operating system monopoly confers for creeping into and 
taking over other markets (multimedia, servers, music downloads, Web 
browsing, e-mail, office productivity). We now have the X-Box 
creeping into the living room along with Microsoft's digital 
recording service for TV. And, then, there is Microsoft's Passport 
security, the ultimate intrusion and stranglehold.
    Where does it all end?
    Your proposed settlement reeks of a politically motivated 
whitewash. Microsoft's money and lobbyists have apparently had their 
way. The fullness of time will undoubtedly show what a blunder this 
is and how poorly the citizenry of America has been served.
    Richard C. Potter
    117 Heritage Drive C-2
    Stevensville, MT 59870



MTC-00001475

From: Clyde Crossland (Telepress)
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/20/01 12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Watching in awe at all of the big companies becoming fewer yet 
bigger by "joining" I really wonder if Government is 
able to be in charge. In the Microsoft case, the Justice department 
has directly sold the small "average guy and gal" 
consumer out. Lack of competition pretty much gets us a dictatorship 
type of market. They produce or provide what they want and we have 
to buy

[[Page 23924]]

it if we want anything at all. Plus they get to change it at will 
whenever they want more $$ as we don't get a choice if we want to 
maintain a viable use of a current product. We don't get a choice to 
use only a portion of their product, buy all or get none!
    Our country was built on small to medium Bsns giving a freedom 
of choice. You have further choked off the spirit of innovation and 
small to medium size guy having the opportunity to provide 
innovative advancements. Look only to the price of medications that 
are currently prohibitive for many seniors and you get a good idea 
of "cornering the market". I am not foolish enough to 
believe all answers are really simple, but I can't be moved to 
believe that endorsing monopolies and choking out the future hopes 
of aspiring innovators is what we are about in this country. You 
basically have rolled over for them!!



MTC-00001476

From: Dave Yost
To: US Dept of Justice-Microsoft anti-trust comments,C...
Date: 11/20/01 12:14pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement is far too weak.
    I'm in the computer industry. I know one of the first 8 
Microsoft employees, who also attended Harvard with Bill Gates. I 
read the book. I think Judge Jackson was if anything too lenient. 
And I know first hand the chilling effect that Microsoft's bullying 
monopoly has on competition, which is killed before it starts by 
fear of Microsoft's domination and illegal tactics.
    David Yost



MTC-00001477

From: Ann Hendricks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 12:14pm
Subject: Too easy
    Please add my comments about the Microsoft settlement. It is far 
from punishing Microsoft's monoply and should be reconsidered- they 
are getting off too easily and the settlement reeks of power and 
money on Microsoft's part.
    Thank you.
    Ann Hendricks
    1376 Mary Lee Way
    San Jose, CA 95118



MTC-00001478

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 12:26pm
Subject: Antittrust remedies for Microsoft
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am writing to express my dismay at the proposed settlement 
between the Department of Justice and the Microsoft Corporation. 
After 4+ years of legal wrangling and an equal amount of time 
chilling innovation and financially destroying good companies, the 
industry needs an effective solution without delay. The settlement 
proposed by a number of the states provides, on paper, reform in 
several areas. There is, however, enough leeway in the proposal for 
debate. This would result in Microsoft continuing to flagrantly 
disregard the law and another 4+ years in court while the industry 
continues to suffer.
    The only solution that will provide for real change in the 
industry is one that provides real and definite punishments for 
Microsoft's past behavior and provides for a strict adherence, by 
Microsoft, to open and established industry standards. All 
protocols, formats, and API's used by microsoft products must be 
legally bound to open, published, free standards to allow true 
interoperability with any competitors who wish to enter the market. 
This would negate some of the economic and technical advantage they 
have established through the exercise of thier illegal monopoly.
    I ask that you take my opinion into consideration while dealing 
with this case. I work everyday with both Windows and UNIX software. 
My company develops software for mission critical applications. 
Microsoft's OS's do not provide for the real-time data processing 
and are not stable enough to support our applications. We are 
forced, however, to use Windows as well as UNIX because the 
corporation that has invested heavily in our company uses it and 
there is no way for other OS's to reliably interoperate with it. 
That corporation uses it because they need to interoperate with all 
their business partners who run it, and because when buying a 
computer it is cheaper to get one that comes with Windows than to 
get one without any OS at all. This situation is unacceptable.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Rock
    1447 Geneva Rd.
    Ann Arbor, MI 48103



MTC-00001479

From: Sherry
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 11/20/01 12:19pm
Subject: DON"T SELL OUT!
    Dear Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney:
    I'm a 55 year old CPA, whose first computer course was Fortran 
II (in the Jurrassic days of punch cards), former IRS agent, MS in 
Taxation, and writer. I've used every MS o/s system except CP, which 
I will never use. I currently have two systems at home, both I built 
myself. My husband's has Me and mine 2000. I've watched how 
intrusive MS has become, with the last bit of arrogance being the 
inclusion of IE and Outlook in both OS system. I don't want to IE or 
Outlook Express, nor do I want MS deciding what I have on MY 
desktop. I use Lotus Smartsuite, Opera 5.1 as a browser; however at 
times, I'm forced to use IE, especially when downloading MS updates. 
One of the tricks I especially dislike is the rerouting of URL's to 
MSN affliates. Also they deliberately include code which negates the 
use of non-MS equipment. For example, I use a Logitech TrackMan 
mouse. When I loaded SP 2 for Win 2000, mainly to obtain antiSirCam 
virus protection, my system crashed. I later discovered from a John 
Dorvak (sp) column that SP2 isn't compatible with Logitech Trackman. 
No where in the MS literature is that mentioned. I got my system 
running again, without SP2. These are only a few examples of why the 
DOJ needs to pursue MS.
    Sincerely,
    Sherry Stigge
    CPA
    720 Dawn Way Gilroy, CA
    408 848 4158.



MTC-00001480

From: R. Stacy Smyth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust case
    I understand that this email address has been created for public 
comments on the Microsoft antitrust case.
    By its recent actions in the case_dropping the request 
that Microsoft be broken up_the justice department has shown 
itself to be completely under the thumb of an administration which 
cares only about the interests of big business, to the exclusion of 
anything that could be called "justice." This is 
especially, glaringly obvious because the justice department was on 
the right track_going after Microsoft as hard as it 
could_under the previous administration.
    This is a travesty, a national disgrace, and a course of which 
the staff of the justice department should be personally ashamed.
    Stacy Smyth
    10 Grove Place
    Albany NY 12203
    CC:patrick Smyth,[email protected] 
@inetgw,[email protected]@i...



MTC-00001481

From: Patel Lokanath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough damage has been done to the US economy and to Microsoft 
as a company. Microsoft has already been punished to the maximum and 
the company (MS) should be left alone and its time to move on. There 
is nothing wrong if a company is moving forward in the name and 
principle of innovation. There are more important things to do in 
life e such as feeding the hungry, national security, and how to fix 
the economy. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Lokanath Patel
    [email protected]
    Dubuque, IA
    563-589-6328



MTC-00001482

From: Sean Branney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 12:36pm
Subject: MS Anti-Trust
    Dear Department of Justice,
    As a long time member of the IT community, I have watched with 
horror and dread as Microsoft has extended its tendrils throughout 
the industry, wielding its monopoly with self-serving glee. I was 
very pleased to see the United States stand up to their illegal 
practices and enforce the law.
    While I'm not familiar with all of the intricacies of the case, 
I've followed reporting on the settlement in the news. I must say 
that the settlement seems absurdly lenient to Microsoft, and I have 
no doubt that if the settlement is agreed to, Microsoft will 
continue to misuse their position of dominance in the industry and 
some future

[[Page 23925]]

government administration will be forced to find a meaningful 
settlement.
    Stop for a moment to consider what a genuinely incredible tool 
the Internet is. It is genuinely changing the world in a meaningful 
and positive way. However, Microsoft has positioned themselves to 
co-opt the Internet itself and make it little more than a profit 
center for them. Consider that most of the world now accesses the 
Internet through their tools. There's an ever-dwindling number of 
options available as they eliminate their competitors. Microsoft 
alone has the clout and influence to set the standards as to how the 
Internet will work in the future. Will they select the 
"best" technology that best serves mankind or will they 
select standards that will serve Microsoft shareholders?
    Obviously Microsoft will pursue their profits. However, the 
point of the anti-trust litigation, it seems to me, is to eliminate 
unfair practices and break up a monopoly which has the power to 
affect the very future of humanity. The proposed settlement terms 
seem like a weak and ineffectual gesture rather than a meaningful 
stand to protect the Internet as a dynamic, diverse, robust 
marketplace for human ideas and communication.
    Thank you for soliciting public input on this matter.
    Sean Branney
    Glendale, CA



MTC-00001483

From: Seven
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 12:32pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft
    I'm not in the least satisfied with the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft. Nothing in the proposals opens up the marketplace for 
significant new players, and indeed, leaves MS open to similar 
behaviour in the future. The playing field is very far from level. 
I'm a very small software developer based in Toronto.
    Morley Chalmers
    7Office Inc.
    595A Church St #4
    Toronto, Ontario
    M4Y 2E6
    [email protected]
    Morley Chalmers
    for the 7Office team
    [email protected]
    416/926-9296



MTC-00001484

From: Denis Letelier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    Microsoft is probably one of the most unethical companies in the 
country. I hope they can be stopped, especially, their latest 
bullying request, the onerous, invasive, illegal, Passport. It is 
now impossible to register a product in the regular manner, now 
Microsoft requires to sign up for Passport before anybody can 
register one of their products. One shudders to think what they are 
going to do with the information and contract they end up with, by 
having the unsuspected public sign up for their Passport.
    Denis Letelier



MTC-00001485

From: David O'Rourke
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/20/01 12:42pm
Subject: Missed the point?
    Am I am correct in that the agreement does not include making 
Microsoft's file formats available to competitors? If that is 
correct then we have we have missed the most important remedy.
    Sincerely,
    David W ORourke



MTC-00001486

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I can hardly express my dissatisfaction with the settlement . 
Microsoft was found guilty of unfair business practices, and is 
still showing those tactics in new products such as XP. How is it 
possible that they got off without any real censure.
    The department of justice is supposed to be responsible to the 
people. Just because Microsoft is a supporter of our president 
should not mean they can break the law with impunity.
    Please reconsider your position in the Microsoft case.
    Armin Karcher
    1054 Tevlin Ave
    Albany, CA 94706



MTC-00001487

From: Martin Sandberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 12:38pm
Subject: Stiffer penalties
    It is time and past time to start actually undoing the damage 
that Microsoft has done. Currently it is impossible to secure 
Venture funding for any desktop application development. One could 
argue that this drove far too much money into the 
internet_Microsoft wasn't there, so you could actually build a 
company without it being destroyed by Microsoft. Far from harming 
the economy, a truly effective set of sanctions ( I favor breaking 
them into at LEAST 4 companies with the exact same rights to all the 
code) could bring the desktop back to life, prevent them from 
destroying the internet and produce a huge boom!
    Martin
    Happy Mac developer



MTC-00001488

From: Charles Houghton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 12:57pm
Subject: Severe displeasure
    I am horrified that the DOJ is not pursuing any MEANINGFUL 
settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust case. Their anti-competitive 
behaviour destroys companys and innovation at an alarming rate.
    I strongly support continued legal effort by State's Attorneys-
General a concerned US Citizen and Registered Voter,
    Charles Houghton
    317 W 99th St #7d
    New York, ny 10025



MTC-00001489

From: Terence McKinney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 12:52pm
Subject: After MSN debacle...DOJ still doesn't get it?
    Sirs,
    After MSN blocking and killing other browsers very recently, you 
SHOULD have gotten a clue about what is going on. Please get some 
competinant technical help in the DOJ who understands the 
implications of Microsoft smothering the entire technology field.
    It's not what they bring to the table at low cost, but what we 
will never see developed. A case of what could have been many times 
over with new technology.
    Terence McKinney
    Internet Developer



MTC-00001490

From: Michael Brook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 12:51pm
Subject: Settlement
    I oppose the settlement with Microsoft.
    1. The settlement gives the company the ability to seek 
restoration of a microsoft configuration beginning 14 days after 
purchase. There is no restriction on this practice in the 
settlement. This means that the company can if it wishes, cause a 
window or other notice to appear 3suggestingï¿½ that I use the 
Microsoft middleware each and every time I attempt to use another 
company1s software.
    2. The company has the ability to prevent me from using chosen 
software if it 3fails to implement a reasonable technical 
requirement 3. This technical requirement is not specified, and the 
decision is left to the company for its discretion. This gives the 
company broad discretion to prevent the use of non-Microsoft 
products on the argument that it fails to implement this unspecified 
technical requirement.
    3. It allows Microsoft the discretion to decide which portions 
of code and API 3compromise securityï¿½ giving the company the 
ability to shield massive amounts of code from developers in order 
to favor Microsoft products.
    4. It allows Microsoft 3sole discretionï¿½ to determine 
what is Windows and what is software. This goes to the heart of the 
initial case. Users were prevented from removing a simple web 
browser from their computer because the company had determined that 
it was part of the OS. I can foresee Microsoft determining that ALL 
of its software it part of the OS, including such things as word 
processors, spreadsheets, etc., and forcing users to use these 
products rather than competitors products.
    5. It prevents users from removing Microsoft software from their 
computer. While users can remove the 3iconsï¿½ it provides no 
guarantee than end-users can remove unwanted programs from the 
drive, but rather allows Microsoft to hide the programs so that they 
can remain untouched on the drive, and allows the company to 
constantly remind the user that it would prefer they use the 
Microsoft product.
    All of these aspects allow the company to continue to behave in 
the way that has

[[Page 23926]]

hindered innovation in computer software for nearly a decade, and 
allows the company even greater freedom to suppress third-party 
software developers at the expense of the company1s own software.



MTC-00001491

From: David Schwab
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 12:45pm
Subject: some thoughts on MS
    Hello,
    I've been using computers for a number of years as a source of 
income. I'm a graphic artist by trade. Since computers are my 
livelihood, I have a keen interest in all things related to this 
field. I have been following the Microsoft trail, and I keep 
noticing that certain facts never get brought up. So here is my take 
on how Microsoft runs it's business.
    One of the most obvious things they did to try and kill 
competition in a field is with web browsers. Microsoft was late to 
the game, and was worried that Netscape would make the Windows 
operating system less important by using Sun's Java for browser 
based applications. Microsoft did not have a web browser of their 
own, so they did what they always do, they bought one. Or more 
precisely they stole one! They went to Spyglass and made a 
proposition to license the Mosaic browser. The deal was that 
Spyglass would get a percentage of every browser sold. But then 
Microsoft gave it away for free! This way, no money to Spyglass, and 
who wants to pay $35 for Netscape when you can have a browser for 
free? Interestingly, Mosaic was the original version of Netscape. 
The analogy here is what if Coca Cola opened their own chain of 
supermarkets. With every purchase you got a free six pack of Coke. A 
lot of people would take the free Coke, even if they might prefer 
Pepsi.
    Another one. I use an Apple Macintosh computer, and not a PC 
running Microsoft Windows. Windows is obviously a copy of Apple's OS 
and NeXT Step from NeXT Computer. Apple's new OS is named "Mac 
OS X" ... Microsoft just announced their new OS... 
"Windows XP." Why the "X" in the name? I 
think this is to confuse consumers, who have been reading and 
hearing a lot of positive things about Mac OS X. In Apple's case, 
the X is the Roman numeral for the number 10, since this is version 
10 of the Mac OS. In MS's case, it means nothing. It's really 
Windows 5, maybe. So why not "Windows V" then? Apple's 
new graphical interface is named "Aqua" because it has a 
shimmering liquid look, and a lot of blue. MS decided to name their 
new interface for Windows XP "Luna" because... well I 
don't know, except that it has four letters, ends in an 
"a" and sounds a bit like "Aqua." Plus all 
the reviews say Windows XP looks a lot like Mac OS X (which was out 
since March 2001).
    Once more, they can't make a better product, so they want to 
confuse consumers. it's a smoke screen to take the spotlight away 
from a competitor. They don't innovate as Bill Gates like to remind 
us so often. They merely copy and steal other's products, change 
them to their own design, and then drive the products that they 
copied out of the market. Why? To make a better product, or to have 
World Domination? This is the real question. As a consumer I know my 
choices are fewer because of Microsoft. I am writing this on 
Microsoft Outlook Express, because there are so few choices of email 
programs for the Apple Macintosh. Being a much smaller market, it's 
just not worth it for companies to make a product that has to 
compete with a Big Company that gives away free software. Also it 
came bundled with the computer. So MS even has a hand in Apple's 
pie.
    More... they made Windows XP so that the popular audio format, 
MP3, would not play back with high quality, unless you pay more 
money for an add-on. This is to make their own Windows Media Player 
the standard format, and thus giving them undue control over the 
market place. If they get their way Windows Media Player will become 
ubiquitous. Forget MP3, and Real Audio, and QuickTime. Every one 
will have to license the MS format. This is the same thing they 
tried to do with Java. Add so much of their own proprietary code as 
to wrestle the control away from Sun, and make their version the 
standard.
    And with them bundling all this stuff... who needs to spend 
money buying a word processor, when your new PC have MS Office, and 
everything else you need. True, you might like Word, but maybe not. 
And removing this software might be very hard. Just look at trying 
to remove MS Internet Explorer from Windows. I think the DOJ needs 
to look at a company like Apple Computer, to see the way it should 
be done. Every program can be removed by just dragging the folder to 
the trash. And Macs don't come with a lot of software... because 
Apple wants their developers to make money too!
    What I think needs to be done is to make MS release the code and 
API "hooks" that software developers need to make their 
products work better with Windows. The way it is now, for instance, 
parts of MS Office and Internet Explorer are built into the 
operating system. This makes MS' own products run better then the 
competition, and I feel gives them an unfair advantage. They claim 
this is "innovation," and if this is true, let others 
use it too.
    Since MS does not have competition in the PC operating system 
market, what difference would it make to let another company's web 
browser have full access to the guts of the OS, and it's build in 
HTML rendering engine.
    Since MS makes no money on Internet Explorer, and they don't 
have to worry about people buying a different OS, they have no 
excuse!
    Thanks for the opportunity to speak my mind on the matter.
    Yours truly
    David Schwab
    4 Walnut Place
    Montclair, NJ 07042
    973-509-8978
    www.david-schwab.com



MTC-00001492

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments @doj.ca.gov 
@inetgw,...
Date: 11/20/01 12:59pm
Subject: FW: reject the microsoft settlement
    If Teddy Roosevelt were in the Whitehouse, Microsoft would have 
been split into at three companies five years ago.
    Since ours is an age in which politics is defined almost purely 
by money, it is not surprising that the Bush Justice department has 
entirely caved in the face of Microsoft's monopoly.
    I applaud those attorney's general who have balked at the 
preposterous settlement. Microsoft must be punished for it's anti-
competitive practices, it's extortion of pc makers and its 
racketeering to fix prices and control the digital age.
    Microsoft should be forced to compete on an even laying field. 
This is the only way we can stop the endless production of 
plagiarized software (every Microsoft OS from Window 3 to the new XP 
(a blatant rip off of Apple's superior OS X)), application designed 
to cripple competing operating systems and it's relentless march to 
acquire and profit from the personal information on every single pc 
in the world.
    Throughout it's history, Microsoft has indulged in not only 
anti-trust violations but racketeering and blackmail as well.
    I hope you will continue your struggle against this behemoth.
    Sincerely,
    Ann Petit
    Director of Educational Services
    New Mexico Media Literacy Project
    505.828.3129 phone
    505.828.3142 fax
    www.nmmlp.org
    "The basis of our government is the opinion of our 
people" Thomas Jefferson



MTC-00001493

From: Donald Kasprzak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 1:00pm
Subject: microsoft issues
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I would like to write to ask you to consider harsher penalties 
against Microsoft. My role in various IT departments over the past 
14 years has lead me to realize that the company has aggressively 
participated in criminal business practices.
    While working for a competitor in 1992 I was shocked to learn 
that Microsoft would bundle for free their office application with 
any system sold running windows 3.x, while our product could not 
begin to bundle that software for free.
    Today this has been repeated by missing the .net in the breakup 
of the company. While this was ignored during the discussion of 
breaking the company into separate business units, it is the train 
barrelling down the internet track that we cannot avoid.
    Please feel free to contact me for any further information you 
may need or may want to request.
    Regards,
    Don
    Donald A. KasprzakTechnology Manager
    William F. Eisner Museum of Advertising and Design
    208 North Water Street, Milwaukee Wisconsin USA 53202
    e: [email protected]
    w: http://www.eisnermuseum.org
    p: 414.276.7889.269f: 414.291.8077

[[Page 23927]]



MTC-00001494

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 1:00pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement opinion
    I would just like to voice my opinion on the Microsoft case. I 
would like for Microsoft to give up control of the operating systems 
that are placed on a hard drive by the original equipment 
manufacturer (OEM). OEM's should be allowed to ship Intel-based 
hardware without an operating system, or install another OS if a 
customer requests it and the OEM sells it. I have purchased a number 
of computers from IBM, Dell and HP and all "MUST" ship 
with Windows (Gateway even told me I have to purchase Microsoft 
Office or another Microsoft product in order to purchase a computer. 
I did not buy from Gateway). I use FreeBSD (UNIX) and used BeOS 
(they are now defunct because they were not able to gain marketshare 
on PC hardware), so I pay Microsoft for software licenses I do not 
use (generally $99 for Win98 and $199 for WinNT... those were the 
prices for OEMs when I purchased the computers about five years 
ago).
    Perhaps the easiest way to eliminate or minimize OS-monopoly 
control for any software manufacturer is not to allow OEM licenses 
with hardware vendors. If a customer requests Windows XP, the OEM 
must sell a full retail version of the OS (at retail cost) with the 
hardware. If a customer requests Linux, the OEM sells a retail 
version of Linux. BeOS... retail version. This would eliminate the 
control because now the customer/consumer demands what OS they want 
to use. Microsoft would have to be more competative. Think about it, 
most Linux and Unix distributions are $49 to $79 at CompUSA. 
WindowsME is about $99-$120 and Windows2000 is about 
$199-$299. Microsoft would be forced to play at the Linux/Unix 
prices since they view them as the main competitors.
    In short, don't allow OEM relationships between OS manufacturers 
and hardware vendors. The only way around this would be for the OS 
manufacturer to become a hardware manufacturer too (i.e. Apple 
Computer, Silicon Graphics, Sun Microsystems, IBM, etc._none 
of which have a monopoly).
    Thanks,
    Alex Christ
    Consumables Lead
    MacDermid ColorSpan R&D
    6900 Shady Oak Road
    Eden Prairie, MN 55344 USA
    ph. (952) 943-3243
    fx. (952) 944-9461
    [email protected]



MTC-00001495

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Another crime far larger than Microsoft's is the utter waste of 
of my American dollars. The dollars spent on this trial is 
ridiculous and then such a ridiculous settlement. SPLIT Them up 
period, fine then till it hurts real bad. Microsoft has committed 
serious crimes against the American people. Now, punish them 
severely.
    Larry Vogel



MTC-00001496

From: Tom Carr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 1:10pm
Subject: Setelment concerns
    Dear Sirs,
    Being a professional in the industry, I just wanted to say the 
settlement with Microsoft is just what I expected from our Federal 
Government, a complete sell out! Who Got bought?
    You have wasted years of our time, and millions of our tax 
dollars, to accomplish what? NOTHING! You are just letting them go, 
basically...anything short of a breakup and total disassembly of the 
monopoly they hold on the industry is a sell out that will cost the 
American people ten fold for years to come. Way to go feds!
    THANKS FOR NOTHING!



MTC-00001497

From: Oscar Myre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Justice
    Hello,
    I wish to commend you on taking a stand against the practices of 
Microsoft. I feel that they powered their way to a weak settlement. 
I don't wish for a cruel ruling. My wife and I will pray for 
justice. Microsoft needs to know that they will be held accountable 
for their actions just like everyone else.
    God Bless,
    Oscar & Michelle Myre IV
    127 Terumi Lane
    Longview, WA 98632
    360.575.9839



MTC-00001498

From: Hull, Joseph F
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/20/01 1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement_The settlement, in its current 
form, is no t in the best interests of the country nor ordinary 
citizens.
    To U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the Solicitor 
General, Attorneys on the Case and Whomever It May Concern:
    I am a computer professional with ove 30 years of professional 
experience. I have been a computer professional since before there 
was a Microsoft Corporation and have watched Microsoft's 
unprecedented growth of influence in the computer industry with both 
excitement and alarm. I am writing as a private citizen, albeit one 
with some expertise in the matter at hand, not as a representative 
of any company or organization.
    In my opinion, Microsoft has made major positive contributions 
to our industry and our country and has been greatly rewarded for 
them, both financially and in reputation. However, as Microsoft's 
influence has grown, its business practices have both become more 
pernicious and increased in the burden they place on "the rest 
of us." It is time for Microsoft to cease and desist. Just as 
behavior that should be tolerated but discouraged in an adolescent 
should not be tolerated at all in an adult, it is time for the 
community, represented by the US Department of Justice, to demand, 
in the form of a court order, that Microsoft grow up.
    "The marketplace of ideas," not unbridled capitalism 
has ever been the American way. Legitimate business and economic 
competition should not tolerate abuse of monopoly power (remember, 
this has already been adjudicated). Microsoft has demonstrated, both 
over time and recently, its intention and willingness to continue 
its aggressive repression of all companies and products that it sees 
as competitors for its products. Microsoft has demonstrated, both 
over time and recently, its intention and willingness to exploit any 
loophole, any flaw in wording, any explanation, however outrageous. 
The settlement, in its current form, ignores this evidence. It is 
clear that Microsoft will continue such behavior until it ceases to 
provide financial benefit to the company.
    The remedy is likewise clear. Microsoft must be divided into 2 
or more corporations: 1 which holds the rights to all of Microsoft's 
computer operating systems and forbidden to develop other kinds of 
computer products; the other(s) holding the rights to all other 
computer software and forbidden to develop computer operating 
systems, at least for the near future (much as the Baby Bells are 
forbidden to develop long distance telephone service products until 
they open their signal delivery systems to competitors. Gee, do you 
suppose it would be beneficial to commerce and the country as a 
whole if the Baby Bells were divided into service delivery companies 
and retail sales companies. Hmmmm.) The county's experience with the 
breakup of ATY&T, from Judge Greene's initial order to the 
Telecommunications Act of 1995, should be a caution to you.
    In my opinion, the settlement, in its current form, is a 
flagrant attempt by Microsoft to continue its repressive business 
practices. In my opinion, it is your job, as an organization of our 
representative government, to oppose this with every tool available. 
The current settlement must not be accepted.
    Regards,
    Joseph F. Hull
    NAS Software Architect
    Digital Media Center
    AT&T BroadbandVoice: 303-267-7176
    4100 E. Dry Creek Rd.FAX: 303-267-6760
    Littleton, CO 80122Email: [email protected]
    e-Week
    November 19, 2001
    Judge Should Assess Settlement
    After years in the courts, the proposed settlement of the United 
States of America and nine states vs. Microsoft is as toothless as 
the consent decree of 1995 Microsoft again must make only nominal 
behavior changes. In return, it gains legal protection for many 
practices that landed it in court. The holes in the proposed 
settlement are gaping.
    First, OEMs looking for non-Microsoft options that better meet 
the needs of customers may still find Microsoft impeding third-party 
products that sold fewer than 1 million units in the United States 
the year before.

[[Page 23928]]

    Second, Microsoft may keep secret and refuse to license any APIs 
or protocols to would-be competitors that "compromise the 
security of ... anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital 
rights management, encryption or authentication systems." 
These are the very stumbling blocks for those trying to compete with 
native Windows components for multimedia, e-commerce, messaging and 
file sharing.
    Third, competitors must then, at their own expense, submit their 
software to a third-party testing organization to ensure compliance 
with Microsoft protocol specifications.
    Fourth, the agreement specifically excludes servers, PDAs and 
handhelds and may even exclude tablet PCs, which Bill Gates, in his 
Comdex keynote, said will be the most popular computing platform in 
five years.
    Fifth, Microsoft now has legal protection to add whatever it 
wishes to its operating systems, offering the same preload and 
default invocation benefits as before. OEMs have new freedoms to 
change these defaults, but how many real alternatives will be 
available?
    Sixth, Microsoft is not required to disclose the format of 
locally stored data files, such as document, address book, mail or 
stored music formats, that leverage the Windows desktop monopoly to 
tie users to other Microsoft software as much as APIs or network 
protocols do.
    Finally, the agreement lacks any penalty for Microsoft's gains 
in market share and revenue as a result of past illegal behavior. 
The proposed settlement won't protect the marketplace from 
Microsoft's product- and service-tying, nor will it encourage new 
competition. The agreement needs to be toughened to provide 
substantive remedies for substantive violations.
    The nine states, plus the District of Columbia, that have 
rejected this settlement should hold their courses, as should the 
European Union. We call on U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly to use the upcoming 60-day public comment phase to carefully 
determine if this agreement is, in fact, in the public interest.
    CC:'jfh'



MTC-00001499

From: Davis, Kelly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 1:23pm
Subject: Anti-Trust settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I read with great dismay the continuing effort of the Justice 
Departments efforts to settle with Microsoft. I realized that the 
United States is at a critical juncture internationally and 
politically, but I am having a hard time understanding why the 
Justice Department thinks it is such a good idea to settle with 
Microsoft at this particular point in time.
    The thing I am concerned about is that the only thing Microsoft 
has ever been inventive at was in finding new ways to destroy their 
competitors. They are a company that has been built upon the premise 
that they own, or can buy or steal any type of innovation that comes 
along. Far from being the most innovative company in the 20th 
century they are the late twentieth century equivalent of 
"Robber Barons." They are good at marketing and they are 
good at recognizing what it is most consumers are willing to live 
with. What they are not, however, is innovative.
    As lawyers who work for a pro business government you must see 
Microsoft as a wonderful panacea for the future of the United 
States. As a software engineer who programs using Microsoft tools, 
on a platform that Microsoft designed, over a network that Microsoft 
is striving to own, I see Microsoft as a monopolist bent on making 
my life more difficult. By agreeing to settle with Microsoft you, 
who should know better, have inadvertently given Microsoft the 
ability to track more personal data about people in the United 
States then the U.S. census has ever known. This is what we get with 
.NET technology.
    Please reconsider the settlement with Microsoft. It is a bad 
idea. It is bad for America. It is bad, even, for Microsoft.
    Kelly Davis



MTC-00001500

From: Ben Carroll
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/20/01 1:23pm
Subject: Regarding the Microsoft Settlement
    To the Offices of the California Attorney General and the U.S. 
Department of Justice, I would like to convey my dissatisfaction 
with the U.S. Department of Justice's settlement agreement in the 
Microsoft anti-trust proceedings. As I understand it, California is 
one of the states which has refused the settlement as it stands and 
I am glad to see that my home state is attempting to do the right 
thing against pressure from above.
    My principal complaint about the agreement, detailed in today's 
Wall Street Journal, is that it is not a penalty for Microsoft. It 
is merely an investment and a sanctioned furthering of their 
monopoly in a place where it may be seen as political suicide to 
stand against it. The idea is that Microsoft is always trying to 
find ways to seed the market to their benefit, to build user 
dependency on their OS and software products. To permit them to pay 
their debt to society by donating $1.1 billion of their own software 
to schools in need will just make the students of the 14,000 
eligible schools into future customers of Microsoft. They will make 
back that $1.1 billion in spades over the next few years.
    To use a metaphor that the schoolchildren affected may 
understand, Microsoft is a wolf, and the USDOJ has just handed them 
a finely tailored suit of sheep's clothing.
    The other problem with this sort of a "penalty" is 
that it lends itself to questionable accounting practices. For 
example, if Microsoft donates a copy of their new Office X program, 
does that count against their penalty for the full retail cost, or 
just the cost of delivery for the unit itself. If it is the former 
rather than the latter, then Microsoft is getting off with a truly 
light sentence. Using the example of Office X, the retail price is 
in excess of $400.00. The cost of delivery, including the box, full 
documentation, and a handful of CD-ROMs could not possibly exceed 
$20.00.
    I would like to propose an alternate settlement with only slight 
changes which would still have the effect of bettering school 
environments in economically challenged areas. Rather than 
permitting Microsoft to seed the market with its own products, the 
penalty which would be more appropriate would be to have them donate 
products from competing companies.
    What I would like to see Microsoft donate to these schools is 
something along these lines:
    1_100,000 iMacs and 50,000 G4 desktop machines
    2_150,000 generic PCs (using AMD chips, rather than Intel, 
but that's another issue altogether) with RedHat Linux pre-loaded 
instead of Windows
    3_1,00,000 PalmOS-based PDAs (no Windows CE systems)
    4_14,000 (one per school) Sun Sparcstations
    5_14,000 licenses for Oracle database software
    6_140,000 (ten per school) Sony PS2 and Nintendo Cube game 
systems (no X-Boxes)
    I think that this would have the dual effect of penalizing 
Microsoft while also bolstering the competition enough that a 
somewhat more competitive environment would be the result.
    The people who run Microsoft may be fine people, individually 
great business people. However, their work in concert has produced a 
bully of a company. And bullies, if not properly reprimanded will 
simply go on to become bigger, meaner bullies. I hope that some 
appropriate action such as I have described can be encouraged.
    Sincerely,
    Benjamin I. Carroll
    CC:Microsoft ATR



MTC-00001501

From: Paul Whitewood (091)Corp.Engineering(093)
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/20/01 1:17pm
Subject: Every time I think of my tax dollars being used to assault 
Microsoft, I
    Every time I think of my tax dollars being used to assault 
Microsoft, I cringe. Stop the waste of the tax payers money and 
settle with Microsoft. Please move on to productive activities. Free 
market principles of supply and demand are still alive and well in 
the US.



MTC-00001502

From: Alex Perry
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/6/01 2:30pm
Subject: Class Action comment
    According to a RedHat newsletter article, DOJ is soliciting 
feedback on the proposed settlement of the class action suit. If 
this is not the case, feel free to discard this message. I recommend 
against accepting the proposed settlement on four grounds: (1) It 
does not compensate the individual consumers who overpaid (2) It has 
a significant detrimental effect on the school system (3) There is 
zero net financial impact to the defending corporation (4) It does 
not discourage the defendant from repeating the act.
    As a consumer who has involuntarily purchased Microsoft's 
product, and paid the

[[Page 23929]]

higher prices for the product after the company has driven a 
fledgling competitor out of business with a dumping tactic, it would 
be really nice if the class action settlement could provide me with 
some benefit (even if tiny) for the cost and hassle incurred. Since 
I have no children, I therefore receive no direct benefit of the 
provision of Microsoft computers in the school system. However, we 
must consider the other people with children, and also the potential 
indirect benefit that I might accrue by being in a country with a 
better educated workforce. Is there a benefit to the schools?
    Historical data shows that schools, when given a real choice, 
will purchase Apple's Mac series of computers because they are 
easier to learn and have a wider range of educational software 
available. Therefore, the court system is proposing to give these 
schools something that they would rather not receive; would it not 
be better to have Microsoft apologize for its price fixing and 
monopoly position by providing each school with one computer, with 
the school having the option of choosing the manufacturer and 
operating system it runs?
    Separate to the benefit to the school budget is the impact on 
the students. While Mac software is designed to educate and 
encourage its users to explore the information available, the goal 
of Microsoft software is to entertain (at home) and support business 
(at work). The purpose of attending school is to learn, not to use a 
computer that is optimized for video games and pay-per-listen 
multimedia. In every way, Microsoft aims to separate its user 
community from any understanding of how the computer works and is 
achieving the user's requests. As such, I believe that providing 
these systems will _reduce_the technical and scientific 
capabilities of the school's graduates and ensure they are better 
able to function as untrained consumers. That certainly doesn't 
match my employer's staff needs.
    If the school uses its small budget to purchase educational 
software that will make the computers useful for their teaching 
goals, an additional problem will manifest a few years in the 
future. When the existing licensing on the Microsoft-based operating 
system and software expires, the school will be forced to pay a lot 
of money that is likely to ruin the slim budget available for 
software. Several groups have argued that, at that time, the school 
can choose to either not upgrade or to switch to a different 
operating system (such as Linux). Neither of these options are 
viable and need to be eliminated from consideration for the 
following two reasons. Microsoft's software, as made available at 
the present, ceases to function correctly after a few years in order 
to force the upgrade. If the school chooses not to upgrade, the 
computer will degrade into unusability. Since Microsoft denies 
independent software vendors (ISVs) the right to sell new software 
that runs on old Windows versions, the school would also be unable 
to purchase any software. As an example, I suggest attempting the 
impossibility of purchasing Microsoft's Visual Basic development 
environment that runs on a Windows 3.11 based computer. This is 
analogous to the situation that the schools will find themselves in, 
in the near future.
    As the provider of the computer system, Microsoft can choose the 
hardware contents very carefully. Many hardware manufacturers, due 
to the monopolistic situation, have been forced to sign odd 
agreements. These provide information needed about their hardware to 
Microsoft_and_prohibit that manufacturer from divulging 
that information to any other organization. In this way, it becomes 
impossible for the competing operating systems to run correctly on 
that computer system, even if the hardware manufacturer would like 
to do so. Therefore, it is trivial for Microsoft, while complying 
with this settlement, to deliver computers which will never ever be 
able to run any non-Microsoft operating system.
    The school system is actually one of the few market segments in 
which Microsoft has not yet succeeded in driving out the 
competition. Conventionally, a settlement requires the defendent to 
contribute to a cause that would impair its future sales revenue, 
instead of increasing its future revenue ... and recovering the 
settlement cost.
    Historically, the marketing value of having its computer, or 
software, or allied product in an educational setting is shown to be 
sufficiently high that many computer manufacturers have freely 
donated millions of dollars in kind, without any pretence of being 
'forced' to do so by a US court. For example, when I was 
in university, I was using one of the highest performance computer 
systems available from IBM, provided by them in order that I would 
learn to use it and potentially purchase their systems on 
graduation. Market studies have shown that the return on investment 
by these generous acts was better than any conventional marketing 
campaign. Thus, I find it disappointing that the settlement provides 
the defendent with a large future revenue opportunity and also 
forces the existing market segment dominating company to operate at 
a significant disadvantage for the next decade. Is it really the 
case that the DOJ wishes to encourage Apple to go out of business?
    Finally, the publicity campaign I have been observing recently 
has described the settlement by Microsoft as an act of generosity 
with no implication in their media statements about any apology or 
wrongdoing to the general public. This does not seem to set the 
stage for avoiding a repetition of their error in future.
    I am a PhD Electronic Engineer, involved in the development of 
Concealed Weapon Detection systems for DOJ and DOD components. The 
monopolistic status of Microsoft has enabled a deterioration in the 
quality of its products, such that they are unsafe for use in a 
critical safety product (as a CWD portal must be), yet the monopoly 
forces their use in the systems we deliver. I am in the process of 
attempting to migrate the product to Linux, to provide a safe system 
to our customers, but the tactics documented in the other lawsuits 
make this difficult. My involvement in the software industry dates 
back to 1981, so that I have observed the creation, growth and 
business tactics of Microsoft ... and their impact on other 
companies.
    In conclusion, I request that the court either (1) Implements my 
'school choice' suggestion above, or (2) Accepts the 
concept proposed by RedHat et al, or (3) Settles but prohibits 
Microsoft from school donations
    Sincerely,
    Alexander Perry.
    PS. This comment is submitted as a personal opinion, and I am 
neither requested nor authorized to represent my employer.
    ?? : Quantum
    ?? : Magnetics
    ?? :
    An : Advanced Magnetic Systems
    InVision Technologies :
    Company : Alexander Perry
     : Principal Engineer
    QUANTUM MAGNETICS : Group Leader, Advanced Sys
    7740 Kenamar Court :
    San Diego : Tel: 858.566.9200 ext 404
    CA 92121-2425 : Fax: 858.566.9388
    www.qm.com : [email protected]



MTC-00001503

From: Marc Alayon
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/6/01 2:28pm
Subject: Not a good idea
    This agreement will not punish MS but extend its monopoly into 
an area where they currently do not dominate.
    MS should be forced to change there business practices.
    Try to purchase an Intel based computer with Red Hat linux 
installed. Companies are required to sell the computer with Window 
installed. So, if I want a computer that runs RedHat linux I must 
purchase a pc with Windows installed. Delete Windows and install 
RedHat.
    I am forced to purchase Windows even though I do not want it.
    I have more complaint if you need them.
    Cordially,
    Marc G Alayon
    US Citizen



MTC-00001504

From: Stephen Smiroldo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft's Anti-Trust case
    I am at work, so I need to make this short. I support your 
decision for more stringent anti-trust prosecution against 
Microsoft.
    I believe Microsoft has broken numerous anti-trust laws and have 
practiced questionable and immoral business tactics in the past as 
well as in the present. Please keep defending this nation against 
monopolistic companies such as Microsoft.
    I hope that the truth of how Microsoft has practiced it's 
business will be dealt with proper justice. Please do not allow 
justice to take a backseat to politics and economics.
    Thank you,
    Stephen Smiroldo
    299 Cambridge Drive
    Daleville, VA 24083
    540-857-3371
    CC:[email protected] 
@inetgw,[email protected]...



MTC-00001505

From: C. Alexander Cohen
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 23930]]

Date: 11/20/01 1:28pm
Subject: Settlement comment
    To Whom It May Concern:
    It seems to me that the proposed settlement is nothing short of 
a government cave-in. The terms neither correct the egregious 
behavior of Microsoft, nor contain any punishment for their past bad 
acts, nor any restitution for those businesses wounded or even 
killed by Microsoft's heavy-handed tactics.
    Further, the proposed settlement enshrines forever Microsoft's 
'right' to use their proven monopoly power to roll over the 
competition by imitating their technology, bundling it within the 
operating system and claiming it is necessary (when it 
isn't)_witness RealPlayer for example, and making it difficult 
to obtain competing products. Their new system (XP) even forces the 
user to use the Microsoft product even when the customer has gone 
through the trouble of obtaining and installing other software, 
again on the bogus claim that it's necessary for some trumped-up 
reason! The "Board of Wise Men," being under Redmond's 
thumb will have no real effect. The terms of the settlement are 
written in such an opaque way as to obviate any real responsibility 
adhering to Microsoft.
    Additionally, the new Passport promises to block out (or at 
least steer the user away from) any but Microsoft's partners for 
non-related products reached by internet. Add to this, the 
methodology which will no doubt convince inexperienced users that it 
is required to send all manner of personal information, including 
credit card numbers, to Microsoft_whose security lapses are 
legendary!
    Even after the settlement was announced, Microsoft blocked all 
browsers but their own (Internet Explorer_"IE") 
from accessing their portal site. Later, they 'relented' and allowed 
the most minor players (such as the browser Opera) access. They are, 
to this day, trying to block anyone from releasing information about 
the security holes in their software; on the excuse that it will 
lead someone to exploit them, meanwhile leaving the vast majority of 
users vulnerable. Microsoft has no care for the user_only the 
users' money. Microsoft is a corporate thug of the worst (or nearly 
worst) kind. True, they are a cornerstone of our economy; but that 
should not relieve you of the responsibility; nor them of the onus 
to correct the situation. Remember that breakup in no way harmed the 
children of Standard Oil or AT&T.
    The proposed settlement should be junked and Microsoft should be 
punished commensurately for their acts, both past and continuing.
    Anything less is a sell out.
    Sincerely,
    C. Alexander Cohen
    39 South Pine Street
    Dover, NH 03820



MTC-00001506

From: Timothy Cox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 1:29pm
Subject: Citizen's view of the Microsoft case settlement.
    I have read several reports that claim the current settlement of 
the Microsoft case might unfold in such a way where Microsoft 
provides free technical support, software, and training to school 
systems.
    PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN! Who could compete in the 
education technology market when Microsoft is flooding our schools 
with free (monopolized) products?
    In short, you don't fight a monopoly by making them flood the 
market with their own product.... Even if it is for free! They did 
this with Internet Explorer remember?
    Just remember, history books will be written about this case and 
if Microsoft gets away with this monopoly, you will join the ranks 
of those people who are remembered throughout history as the 
bumblers of justice.
    If you do not stop this company now, who will?
    Tim Cox
    Taxpayer



MTC-00001507

From: Roger Gliebe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 1:27pm
Subject: Settlement Worthless
    As an IT worker for the past dozen years, I have observed the 
many violations of the law that Microsoft has done. They have forced 
their OEM customers into paying for operating system products they 
never sold and have offered discounts to customers who would 
exclusively sell their operating systems. They have also tried to 
either buy up and destroy their competition in various software 
products, or force them out by bundling a competing product that 
they wrote with their operating systems.
    The remedy proposed by the DOJ does nothing to punish Microsoft 
for these past wrongs, including the perjurious testimony and 
falsified evidence provided by Microsoft during the trial. A large 
fine equivalent to the estimated amount of business they have 
illegally destroyed would be good for starters. This fine should be 
equitably distributed among the many companies that were hurt by 
their illegal actions after paying for the government's cost of 
these legal proceedings. Microsoft needs to be prevented from doing 
similar illegal acts in the future. While allowing third party 
developers to view Windows code may help them write software that is 
as optimal as Microsoft software, it does nothing to address the 
crimes mentioned in the first paragraph. Microsoft needs to be 
divided up into separate companies so that the operating systems are 
divorced from the applications written to run on those operating 
systems. Microsoft (the OS part) also needs to be prevented from 
bundling their own applications with the operating system without 
paying royalties to the new Microsoft applications company. They 
need to be forced to offer other developers similar bundling 
opportunities, and this should be supervised by a court appointed 
magistrate. There are many software companies writing good software 
for Microsoft OSes, and they need to be given an equal opportunity 
to Microsoft to sell their software in the free marketplace. As far 
as agreements with computer hardware companies (OEMs) are concerned, 
Microsoft should be prohibited from offering discounts for exclusive 
deals and should only be allowed to charge for actual number of 
copies that the OEMs ship to their customers. Microsoft should also 
be forced to provide a fully usable copy of their OS with every OEM 
sold computer, not a limited restore CD that only works on that one 
computer. End customers should be free to transfer their license to 
any computer they wish to use it on.
    Forcing Microsoft to give away their products to schools and 
offer reduced pricing to schools does nothing to address any of 
these issues and it merely propagates their monopoly. This 
settlement appears to be crafted by someone at Microsoft to further 
entrench their products in a monopolistic way.
    Roger Gliebe



MTC-00001508

From: Scott Harrison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 1:33pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement Comment
    The proposed Microsoft settlement with the Department of Justice 
is a sweetheart deal for Microsoft. The DOJ wants to get on to more 
important duties like confiscating nail clippers at airports, so the 
deal looks good to them. But to those of us who got our legal 
education from old episodes of "Law and Order," the deal 
stinks.
    How does it restore competition? What does it do for those 
hundreds of competitors who are no longer even in business because 
of Microsoft's monopolistic tactics? Well, those outfits_if 
they exist and if they can find the money to do so_can file 
civil suits. But most of them won't. I would like to see a class 
action lawsuit against Microsoft. What the settlement seems to do is 
prohibit Microsoft from breaking the law IN THIS SPECIFIC WAY for a 
period of five years. Imagine a murderer who shot his victims being 
enjoined for five years from using a gun, but still being allowed to 
carry a knife. It is important to understand that Microsoft 
management does not feel the slightest bit of guilt. They are, as 
they have explained over and over again, just trying to survive in a 
brutally competitive industry, one in which they could go from 
winner to loser in a heartbeat. The fact that Microsoft makes in 
excess of 90 percent of the profit of the entire software industry, 
well that's just the happy result of a lot of hard work. Pay no mind 
to that $36 billion they have in the bank. And since Microsoft 
doesn't feel guilty, their motivation in agreeing to this settlement 
is just to get on with business. This is a very important fact to 
keep in mind when trying to understand the event. This isn't 
Microsoft being caught and punished, it is Microsoft finding a path 
back to business as usual, which is to say back to the very kind of 
practices that got them here. Microsoft, confident in its innate 
cleverness, is willing to give up certain old monopolistic behaviors 
because there are new monopolistic behaviors now available to 
replace them.
    Microsoft has to open-up certain Windows communication APIs to 
other developers, but there is no restriction at all on the addition 
of new APIs. So expect a LOT of new APIs,

[[Page 23931]]

many of which will do nothing at all except confuse competitors. 
There is nothing in the agreement that says Microsoft has to tell 
anyone which APIs it really intends to use. So just like interpreted 
software is obfuscated to hinder would-be copiers, expect Microsoft 
to obfuscate Windows, itself. Microsoft has to allow third-party 
middleware, but a glaring loophole was left for Microsoft, simply to 
redefine code as not being middleware. If they stop distributing 
code separately and draw it into Windows, well as I read the 
proposed settlement, middleware stops being middleware after 12 
months. So if something new comes up (all the old middleware is 
explicitly defined) Microsoft can integrate it and screw the 
opposition one year after they stop distributing it separately. 
These loopholes are nice, but they don't amount to the kind of 
leverage Microsoft would want to have before signing away any 
rights.
    Bill Gates would want us to believe that he has a new and 
completely unfettered weapon so powerful that it makes some of the 
older weapons completely unnecessary. He has found that weapon in 
.NET. But hey, .NET isn't even successful yet, right? It might be a 
big flop. Wrong. Those who think there is any way that .NET won't be 
universally deployed are ignoring Microsoft's 90 percent operating 
system market share. Whether people like .NET or not, they'll get it 
as old computers are replaced with new ones. Within three years .NET 
will be everywhere whether customers actually use it or not. And 
that ubiquity, rather than commercial success, is what is important 
to Microsoft. Here is the deal. .NET is essentially a giant system 
for tracking user behavior and, as such, will become Microsoft's 
most valuable tactical tool. It is a system for tracking use of 
services, and the data from that tracking is available only to 
Microsoft. .NET is an integral part of Windows' communication system 
with all calls going through it. This will allow Microsoft (and only 
Microsoft) to track the most frequently placed calls. If the calls 
are going to a third-party software package, Microsoft will know 
about it. This information is crucial. With it, Microsoft can know 
which third-party products to ignore and which to destroy. With this 
information, Microsoft can develop its own add-in packages and 
integrate them into the .NET framework, thus eliminating the third-
party provider. A year later, as explained above, the problem is 
solved. Alternately, Microsoft could use the information (this .NET-
generated market research that Microsoft gets for free and nobody 
else gets at all) to change Windows to do service discovery giving 
an automatic priority to Microsoft's middleware. The advantage here 
is in giving the appearance of openness without actually being open. 
These possible behaviors are not in any way proscribed by the 
proposed settlement with the DOJ, yet they virtually guarantee a 
continuation of Microsoft's monopoly on applications and services as 
long as Microsoft has an operating system monopoly. When Microsoft 
talks about "innovation," this is what they mean. 
Nothing is going to change. My preferred outcome is still that 
Microsoft be forced to sell its language business, and the proceeds 
of that sale be distributed to registered users of Microsoft 
products.



MTC-00001509

From: Bradley Hawks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I was appalled at the most recent proposed settlement of the 
case against Microsoft. Everyone agrees at this point that Microsoft 
is guilty, yet they continue to practice questionable if not 
outright illegal business practices. The department of Justice seems 
content to just stand by and let this happen though. You are 
servants of the public good and it is your duty to redress 
grievances against the American people, yet you seem content to let 
Microsoft get away with breaking the law without any punishment 
whatsoever.
    Microsoft needs to be punished for it's actions, not just told 
that they are "bad boys" and let off. Please pursue this 
action until justice is done, and Microsoft suffers real punishment 
for it's illegal actions. Our government is the only organization 
powerful enough to confront the Microsoft monopoly for us.
    Please, for the sake of all of us, do not settle this action 
until Microsoft has been punished for it's actions, and there are 
guarantees that it will never act in this way again. Thank you.
    Brad Hawks
    System Administratorphone: 585-5801
    Physics Departmentfax: 581-4801
    University of [email protected]



MTC-00001510

From: Casey Tschida
To: Microsoft ATR,attorney.general @state.mn.us@inetgw
Date: 11/20/01 1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust Debate
    Hi
    I am an individual living in central Minnesota that is largely 
involved in the computer community. I have done a large amount of 
research during my high school period, continue with updated news 
and rumors, and of course own and use computers daily. Now I am an 
Apple Macintosh enthusiast. But the Microsoft anti-trust debate 
influences many businesses, even worldwide. I have never had support 
for Microsoft because of their shifty ways. Ever since the beginning 
of their time they have copied ideas that seem to have a great 
future. Anything that looks like a good idea they snatch up in a 
second. Many of these ideas came from Apple's technologies. Such as 
Microsoft's Media Player closely resembles Apple's QuickTime and 
Windows XP is a poor stolen idea of the new Mac OS X. Now there are 
many more examples out there and not all have included Apple. They 
have also gone much farther than the illegal standpoint. They offer 
particular; interesting, innovative, profitable looking; companies 
large amounts of money in order to steal certain shares of the 
market. A recent example was when Microsoft acquired Bungie 
Entertainment, a dual platform gaming company. They removed the 
upcoming release of HALO, planned to be ported to the Macintosh, and 
specifically forced their new subsidiary to make it exclusively for 
the brand new X-Box. I agree Bill Gates and the rest of the higher 
officials at Microsoft should be punished highly and restricted in 
the future from such activities as this high priced, dollar spending 
monopoly will do anything to get whatever is profitable and good. I 
thank you for your time!
    Casey(Cheetah)
    Casey Tschida
    (320) 259-7724
    1277 15th St. NE Apt. 108
    Sauk Rapids, MN 56379



MTC-00001511

From: Thane Norton
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/20/01 1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Commentary
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing to let you know my opinion on the Microsoft 
Settlement. I feel that they have, with forethought and intent, 
stifled competition and reduced consumer choice. Many of the avenues 
they have chosen would be legal for a company that was not a 
monopoly, but that is not the case here. I also feel that they will 
continue to do things like this, and will use new 
'innovations' (such as the X-Box and .NET) to further corner 
the market. As Microsoft has shown that they are unwilling and/or 
unable to police their own practices, the only remedies that will 
actually prevent further abuses are either division of the company 
or installation of some sort of oversite panel.
    These opinions are mine, and do not reflect those of Wacom, it's 
parent company, or affiliates.
    V. Thane Norton III
    Software Engineer
    Wacom Technology Corporation
    phone: 360.896.9833 x172
    fax: 360.396.9724
    cell: 503.351.7971
    page: [email protected]
    mailto:[email protected]
    WACOM (wah'-kum)
    Towards the Harmonious Development between Human and Computer



MTC-00001512

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft AntiTrust Lawsuit
    This settlement is ridiculous. It does nothing to Microsoft, 
which is what Microsoft and Bill Gates wants, because they think 
they didn't do anything wrong. And this lastest development, where 
Microsoft is giving $1.7 billion in software to schools, is just 
another attempt to sidestep the issues. Microsoft and Bill Gates 
wants to control everything the consumer buys, from your computers 
and software to eventually your T.V., phone service, washer/dryer, 
toaster, etc. Microsoft and Bill Gates are terrorists to consumers.
    A child came home from school and asked his mother if he could 
go out and play. The mother asked did he do all his homework. The 
child said yes. So the mother let him go out and play. The next day, 
the child's teacher calls the mother and says the boy hasn't been 
doing his homework for weeks.

[[Page 23932]]

So when the boy came home from school, the mother said, "You 
told me you did all your homework." The boy said, "I 
thought I did do my homework." And the mother said, "And 
how about the previous weeks, how come you didn't do your 
homework?" The boy said, "I didn't think it applied to 
me, because all the other kids at school like me. Mom, can I go out 
and play now?" The mother said, "Well, go clean your 
room for 10 minutes and give me 2 dollars, then you can go do 
whatever you want." So, of course, the boy agrees.



MTC-00001513

From: M.S. Braccio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 1:34pm
Subject: microsoft
    do NOT let microsoft get away with this 'settlement'!!! 
the company's attempts to buy off the remaining states by paying 
their legal fees is disgusting. corporate america and we individuals 
who must deal with microsoft everyday have had enough. please work 
to exact a more just and tough settlement. DO NOT SELL OUT!!!
    a concerned user in WA
    VSMoore
    Seattle, WA
    [email protected]



MTC-00001514

From: John Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 1:34pm
Subject: Don't let MS off the hook
    If all you were going to do was slap MS on the wrist, why did 
you even bother taking them to court in the first place. Forcing MS 
to act the way it should have acted all along is NOT a remedy. 
Breaking the law usually involves PUNISHMENT! Fines, jail time, 
community service, etc. MS got away with murder, and the federal 
government of the most powerful country in the world simple says: 
"Keep your illegally gained profits, keep your illegally 
gained market share and customer base, but don't do anything illegal 
again."
    This is crap!!! Theives don't get to keep their loot; they give 
it back then they go to jail. Have you forgotten how criminals are 
supposed to be treated?
    John Wilson
    1034 Town and Four Pkwy Dr.
    Creve Coeur MO, 63141



MTC-00001515

From: Frank Lowney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 1:47pm
Subject: this settlement is too weak
    What happened to DOJ resolve to protect us from an abusive 
monopolist, specifically Microsoft? We consumers are now more 
vulnerable than ever now that MS has learned how to circumvent our 
only hope of federal protection.
    As in ancient times, divide and conquer still works 
magnificently.
    Dr. Frank Lowney [email protected]
    Director, Electronic Instructional Services, a unit of the 
Office of Information and Instructional Technology,
    Professional Pages: http://www.gcsu.edu/oiit/eis/
    Personal Pages: http://www.faculty.de.gcsu.edu/flowney
    Voice: (478) 445-5260
    We don't make instruction effective, we make effective 
instruction more accessible.



MTC-00001516

From: Ellen Breyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 1:47pm
Subject: Settlement Unacceptable
    Hi:
    The proposed settlement is far too lenient and entirely 
unacceptable. Microsoft, convicted as a predatory monopolist again 
and again, must pay for its repeated transgressions against 
consumers.
    Far more limits on its conduct, especially tying, must be 
implemented. A breakup into 3 companies would be satisfactory: 
operating systems, applications, and internet.
    In addition, heavy penalties MUST be assessed, to punish 
Microsoft's past illegal behavior and to serve as a warning to 
others contemplating criminal actions against consumers.
    Get tough on this criminal!
    Thanks,
    Ellen Breyer
    Seattle, WA
    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://
explorer.msn.com/intl.asp



MTC-00001517

From: Mike Cebulski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 1:44pm
Subject: What are you guys doing!?
    You had a tyrant in your grasp and you let him go. I currently 
use Microsoft products and have for many years, not because I find 
them better or like them in any way, but because they have such a 
grip on everything that I can't use the products I like. To use 
other products would alienate me from the many others who use the 
same products, most for the same reason I do. It's a vicious cycle 
that is supported by every effort of Microsoft because they know 
their products don't really support themselves. Yeah, it's good 
business practice, for them, but it really sucks for those of us who 
want to leave their products by the roadside but can't.
    The next time you have Microsoft in court, and there will 
definitely be a next time now, please bring the hammer down on them.
    Michael Cebulski
    Burlington, WI



MTC-00001518

From: John Arends
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 1:37pm
Subject: microsoft
    I really think Microsoft has gotten off too lightly. It's gotten 
to the point where its impossible to do well in an academic setting 
without it. Due to Microsoft's domination of the market, students 
are forced to either purchase grossly expensive MS Office, or make 
illegal copies of it, just to pass classes in a university setting. 
Profs require powerpoint presentations, and oftentimes send word 
files to students, or require students hand assignments in word 
files.
    Because of the domination, students have to keep buying office, 
and using windows, and just further microsoft's hold on the market. 
Some serious changes need to be made with this company.
    Thanks for your consideration.
    John Arends
    8039 Kenton
    Skokie, IL 6007



MTC-00001519

From: Tony Wren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 1:48pm
Subject: I don't understand the logic
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I have been listening to comments in the trade journals, and 
among my friends and colleagues both in an out of the computer 
industry. The general consensus among those who actually understand 
the technology is that the Justice Department pretty much snatched 
defeat from the jaws of victory, and struck a blow for white collar 
criminals everywhere. How ironic that an administration that 
espouses competition and free enterprise should come to an agreement 
that stifles these two cornerstones of America's commercial might.
    This is not my view alone (as someone who has been involved with 
the industry since 1976) but the view of essentially all the 
observers of note who have written extensively on the subject since 
its announcement.
    Dissent in the industry against these criminal actions has now 
ceased, for fear of retribution... for, have no doubt, Microsoft now 
has no fear of the US judicial system. It can do as it pleases. It 
has proven twice that corruption, criminal behavior and corporate 
misdeeds are rewarded, not punished. How sad.
    Competition in technology over 20 years fueled our economy. By 
surrendering competition to Microsoft rule, we now give the mantle 
of innovation to others.
    Sincerely,
    Anthony Wren
    tony@bctv,net



MTC-00001520

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 1:52pm
Subject: Settlement!
    My opinion of Microsoft is that they want total control of my 
computer and everything I do! I cannot use Netscape as my browser as 
Microsoft has made enough hoops to jump through to make it a 
continuing frustrating experience! Hindsight is of course better, 
but a few years back Bill Gates promised more freedoms...now they 
are all gone when dealing with the Explorer, it only hooks you onto 
Gates gadgets!!!!'
    What kind of settlement would I want? To be able to use my 
computer without Microsoft always leaning over my shoulder!
    Thanks
    Linda Armstrong
    ps_I think Microsoft should have to fund all schools that 
fall below and behind. And while Gates is at it, pay the salaries of 
the special computer teachers that will be needed. This is a HUGE 
need!!!!



MTC-00001521

From: Peterson, Guy

[[Page 23933]]

To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov.'
Date: 11/20/01 1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I find it appalling that we as a country whose fundamental 
beliefs in its government are being tested right now would be 
willing to let a company like Microsoft bully, buy and lie its way 
out of being penalized for it's legally acknowledged violations of 
the anti-trust laws.
    Would such allowances have been made for any other company? 
Would we allow only one manufacturer of automobiles or aircraft have 
a 90% share of the market? Especially when that company had 
illegally stolen that share of the market?
    What kind of moral lesson is going to be learned from this by 
other companies and the people who manage them? That as long as you 
can kill off your competition before being convicted of a crime, and 
are rich enough, that no "real" crime has been 
committed? To hide behind statements like: "it is for our 
customers benefit" or that "any break-up at this time in 
our country's struggles would be inappropriate" are 
despicable.
    I firmly believe that Microsoft has destroyed the development 
and implementation of many real advances in this industry. I work 
with PC and Macintosh platforms and use a variety of software for 
both. The amount of truly new and creative applications has been 
dramatically reduced because of Microsoft's stifling, anti-
competitive practices.
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft has so many ambiguous and 
ill-defined terms that it is worthless. The history of this company 
speaks for itself_ it will drag out as long as possible any 
potential future litigation to the point where that judgment is 
meaningless. The fact that Microsoft has so much control over the 
oversight of its "punishment" is verging on the 
unbelievable.
    To have my government lose its strength of will and vision of 
fair play is truly disappointing.
    Do not settle with Microsoft.
    We will all lose.
    Sincerely,
    Guy Peterson
    Visual Communications Manager
    Manitowoc Cranes, Inc.
    2401 South 30th Street
    Manitowoc, WI 54221
    T 920-683-6316
    F 920-683-6277
    [email protected] 




MTC-00001522

From: Andy Barrus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 1:55pm
Subject: Penalty, What Penalty?
    I'm not sure why this forum is here but feel compelled to write. 
I am appalled at the injustice done to the American people with the 
recent settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust case. Here is a 
company that willfully violated previous agreements and penalties 
and now they can keep doing business as usual.
    Where is the penalty? Please take a look at how many companies 
are no longer in business (or not a factor) as a direct result of 
Microsoft's business practices. Netscape, WordPerfect, Novell, 
Claris...I'm sure the list is quite extensive.
    Please don't buy into the Bill Gates rhetoric that his company 
should be free to innovate. The only innovation Microsoft can take 
credit for is taking monopolistic business practices to a higher 
degree than any company previously. The majority of 
"innovations" Microsoft takes credit for were already in 
place by Novell, Apple, and other companies.
    What about the court findings? Weren't they (Microsoft) guilty 
this time as they were in previous proceedings? The soft penalties 
did not stop them in the past; what makes you think it will stop 
them this time? I am glad our criminal court system at least puts 
convicted murderers and rapists behind bars and doesn't just slap 
their wrists when they say we won't do it anymore.



MTC-00001523

From: Greg Hammond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    The law protects the Small as well as the Big. Should the Small 
do harm to the Big, the Small would be punished with little effort 
from the Big. And it should be the same if it were the opposite.
    This does not seem to be the case with Microsoft. They harmed 
Smaller companies with their practices. They need to be fined and 
that fine should aid the Small in their efforts to compete fairly 
with the Big. They (Microsoft) need to be monitored because they are 
on parole, they did break laws, they did inflict harm.
    Just because the impact to the Small did not reach as far in 
some states as in others the law should be levied equally across 
all. Not state by state.
    Open source for Operating System_Yes! (Fair competition) 
No competition in Applications with unfair advantages_Yes! (No 
proprietary codes.)
    Microsoft Monitored for 10 years_Yes (Appoint team 
2-3 year terms.) Fined $20M a year for 10 years to support 
startups in application design. Managed by the same people who will 
monitor MS. (Admin expenses not to exceed 10%)
    Microsoft to pay Legal bills for anti-trust case. (Payment over 
10 years.)
    This whole thing is just blown way out of scope. Think small but 
effective. Think fair so that no-one feels cheated or picked on. 
Think about a cure.
    Good Luck,
    Gregory Hammond
    System Coordinator_Los Angeles, Ca



MTC-00001524

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/20/01 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft civil damages?
    Is the Microsoft Civil suit offer of value? I don't know the 
details & I can only surmise that Microsoft has few options:
    pay a fine
    lose face publically
    lose opportunity to build market share
    or
    build market share
    build a database of personal user information
    build (perceived) dependence
    build (perceived) goodwill
    do it for free (use money already lost?)
    _I believe microsoft knows they would lose & pay
    _the poor schools likely couldn't afford to be customers 
any way
    _the coming .net strategy has similarities to cigarette 
addiction_pay per use
    _software duplication is cheap beyond the current 
installed base
    _used, functional computers (p100s, Macs, etc) are 
practically being given away now
    I use many OSs inc W95, DOS, Win 3.1 & choose Mac_it 
is more productive for me, easier, just plain better & costs 
MUCH LESS TO KEEP RUNNING... For one I don't worry about viruses, 
ever...
    Microsoft is being sued by the Government while Apple was 
designated as a "national treasure"... Does the 
'state' lead by example in their purchasing? Or is microsoft 
dependence just another form of glorified UI?
    Why is this so difficult for people to understand & to think 
beyond the lobbyists...
    Dependency can lead to vulnerability_ie. the old addage 
'strength in diversity'...
    A couple of current articles:
    http://www.junkbusters.com/news.html
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/22952.html
    Good luck,
    Bruce March Architect
    Toronto, Canada
    CC:attorney.general @po.state.ct.us 
@inetgw,[email protected]...



MTC-00001525

From: Joe Bergeron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am far from satisfied with the settlement reached in the 
Microsoft anti-trust case. Microsoft is pernicious and must be 
reined in to preserve some semblance of competition in the computer 
operating system market. Their claims of "innovation" 
have never been anything more than laughably cynical. They are 
getting off far too easy in this case.
    Joe Bergeron
    Apt 52, 121 N Gateway Blvd
    Ridgecrest CA 93555



MTC-00001526

From: daniel freeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 2:00pm
Subject: Antitrust settlement
    I demand as a taxpaying consumer that my rights be protected 
from an acknowledged monopolist. I know that arguments have been 
made by Microsoft that to split them up would damage the US economy, 
however, we have already had a court determine that Microsoft is 
using its monopoly position to do damage to the US economy by 
overcharging and stifling competition. We should not be talking 
about theoretical damage but in fact damage. How can the

[[Page 23934]]

potential damage outweigh the actual past and current damage done to 
the US consumer and economy by reducing the productivity gains from 
faster, better, cheaper that open competition bring. Who knows where 
we might be right now if Microsoft hadn't killed so many budding 
competitors who would have forced Microsoft to be more efficient and 
cheaper for consumers.
    Microsoft needs to be split up to ensure that the economy can 
recover from the dammage they have done and continue to do.
    Daniel Freeman
    181 B Landers St.
    San Francisco, CA 94114



MTC-00001527

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 2:00pm
Subject to: U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly...
    [Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It 
has been converted to attachment.]
    Dear Judge:
    Thank you for this opportunity for the public to give comments 
on the MSFT settlement... I am about as public as they come, I have 
no connection to MSFT or the DOJ or the States, or any Computer or 
software companies ..... I am an Architect in Boulder, CO. I have 
bought software from many different companies, including MSFT. My 
words are True .... and direct.., please read this with all due 
understanding and importance that this issue brings to our form of 
capitalism. Without a proper solution, our economy will suffer 
unbelievable harm from the extinction of true innovative companies 
that no longer exist because of MSFT ....
    There are four things wrong with this settlement ....
    1. It does not address the most important one of the 8 injuries 
found by the appeals court where MSFT was found to have violated the 
Sherman Anti trust act in 8 separate violations.
    2. It does nothing to keep MSFT from doing the same thing to 
other companies, including RealNetworks, as it did to Netscape .... 
(which is the cause of the antitrust suit in the first place)
    3. The Settlement was brought about because of macro political 
motivation.
    4. Half of your plaintiffs (half the states) do not agree with 
the settlement... See bottom conclusion for an easy solution to a 
proper remedy ....
    1) The appeals court found that MSFT illegally commingled 
application software with its OS to use the OS as leverage in 
gaining a new market .... (see violation of antitrust acts, by 
Appeals court). MSFT's new OS, WindowsXP, still uses this illegal 
method of commingling code, in direct violation of the Appeals court 
decision, the settlement does not address this at all ..... nor does 
it address the Tying issue which is related, and the appeals court 
asked you, the lower court, to consider this tying issue ... the 
Settlement does not address this even in a cursory way ..... This is 
a grieves error, and what the entire trial was about, without 
addressing this, you will find yourself back in court with MSFT as a 
defendant, while they try to justify another complete decimation of 
another market, like Netscape's market was destroyed earlier ....
    2) The whole trial was about how MSFT, scared that Netscape's 
product, would sublimate the OS, used its Monopoly to take over a 
new market ..... whether the DOJ or MSFT wants to admit this, this 
is what it is all about .... Netscape innovated and created the 
Browser market, and had 80% to 90% of the market, until one day, 7 
MSFT execs came into a Netscape Board meeting, and said: 
paraphrasing "give us a piece of your business, and a board 
seat, or we will put you out of business".... (this did 
happen, quoted from a book by Michael Lewis) and sure enough, MSFT 
did put Netscape out of business, (Netscape's had to be bought out 
by AOL, after its market share dropped to less than 20%) after MSFT 
used its OS to tie this new market product too, and then gave this 
product away for free ....... now we will never see another 
innovation by Netscape because its main source of revenues was taken 
away from it ..... All of this is illegal to do when you have a 
monopoly that you can leverage ..... and this is what the finding of 
fact and Conclusion of law found, yet the settlement does nothing to 
address this ...... Worse, it is happening again, this time to 
RealNetworks .... MSFT is doing the exact same thing to 
RealNetworks, MSFT has illegally commingled and tied its 
"Media player" application software to its OS, as it did 
with "internet Explorer", and now RealNetworks will 
suffer the same fate as Netscape, and the settlement does nothing to 
stop this ..... RealNetworks actually created the consumer demand 
and Market for streaming video, now they will lose everything, and 
we will never see another innovation from RealNetworks again, 
because they will have to declare Bankruptcy within a year or two or 
they will be taken over like Netscape was ....... mark these words 
down ..... This is a good way to see how really bad this settlement 
is, when another company is being completely decimated by what the 
appeals court has already ruled illegal to do, yet the settlement 
does nothing about ............
    3) The DOJ had asked for tougher penalties during different 
administrations .... and The DOJ had asked for tougher penalties 
before the start of a War ..... nothing has changed between now and 
then, except the political climate ..... however important this war 
is, it does not give the DOJ carte blanche to completely cave away 
from the people's needs at home .... The DOJ had asked for tougher 
penalties even before the appeals Court handed the DOJ a victory in 
nearly every area, the only exception is the area you are deciding 
today...the remedies .... a good way to judge this political 
situation is that the only people you can consider non political, 
are the 9 judges who have already heard this case .... and ALL of 
them, including the 7 appeals court justices have decided 
unanimously that MSFT has broken laws which this settlement does not 
address .... there is no reason why the DOJ should cave with 
ineffectual remedies including not even considering the Tying issue 
and not dealing with commingling .... there is no reason except that 
the macro political climate has changed drastically, including a 
start of a war ..... this should not be a reason for deciding this 
issue .....
    4) you cannot have a settlement, when half of the people 
involved (half of the states) are against the settlement .... The 
states have legitimate concerns, yet The DOJ excluded them from 
settlement talks so that there would be no interference in this 
settlement, a settlement that gives all and complete victory to 
MSFT, which everyone who is neutral agrees that the DOJ has handed 
them .... the DOJ did not act in good faith by excluding the states 
from something that the States had worked so hard on .....
    Conclusions...
    The solution or remedy is really quite easy to address, I'm not 
sure why the states wanted MSFT broken up, and I'm very sure why the 
DOJ wants to levy such easy remedies on MSFT, but the true solution 
is easy ....
    There would by no disruption to the economy with this solution, 
MSFT would have very little regulation hanging over its head, and 
the solution is easily implemented .....
    All you have to do is have MSFT unbundle and unmingle its 
application software from its OS, so that MSFT has to sell the OS on 
one CD, and the application software on another CD.. 
(mediaplayer,IE,instantmessaging,MSN..etc) ..... with no ties 
between these two separate marketing efforts ..... MSFT does not 
need to be a separate company to do this ..... which means zero cost 
to the economy, and tiny cost to MSFT, and if a consumer really 
wanted MSFT's apps, and their OS, they would buy both CD's, and by 
the time they loaded both CD's, the consumer would have exactly the 
same product as they would have by buying Windows XP ..... A win win 
for the consumers choosing MSFT, and MSFT themselves .....
    This would solve all that is wrong with the settlement ...... 
the settlement does have some good points, like the OEM's must be 
able to control their own "desktop" meaning they can't 
be told by MSFT that if the OEM's want the OS, then they have to 
have these apps on there too ..... or that they cannot have other 
companies app software ....
    With this solution above other companies can sell their CD's to 
these OEM's and the OEM's can have both MSFT's apps or CDs and other 
companies apps or CD's along with MSFT's OS .....
    If you want some punitive remedies too, (which MSFT deserves, if 
you read the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the 
appeals decision), you can tell MSFT that they can no longer invest 
in other companies for a period of five years, and they must divest 
from other companies that they own less than 50% of ...... This 
would be a punitive remedy, and MSFT would think twice about 
breaking the law again .....
    A very simple solution if you think about it .... And I really 
hope you think about it, because true innovation, and the fate of 
real companies with real products are at stake, RealNetworks will 
cease to exist with this settlement as it is today ..... think about 
it, a company who actually created the streaming video market put 
out of business by a company (MSFT) that actually copied

[[Page 23935]]

RealNetworks' product, and bundled this copy with an existing 
monopoly and then destroyed RealNetworks' market the one that 
actually brought the innovation to market in the first place .... a 
sad state of affairs ... and this settlement, as it is, will do 
nothing to remedy the situation ......
    Thank you,
    jon.



MTC-00001528

From: Ray Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to express myself on the weak agreement that has been set 
forth for Microsoft. I have been involved in the computer industry 
for more than 20 years and have watched Microsoft obtain great 
market shares and technologies time and again in less than fair or 
honest ways. Please do not put a road block in the growth of this 
industry by letting Microsoft continue to break the law and break 
the backs of any new competition that arises. Already they are 
taking advantage of the situation and are beginning to raise the 
cost of licenses for both education and corporate customers because 
they have been so successful at crushing the competitors illegally. 
They will only take greater advantage as time passes and they move 
into areas, and use their monopolic power to dominate.
    Thanks for your time
    Raymond E. Thompson



MTC-00001529

From: Ultramafic Consulting (CCS)
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments @doj.ca.gov@inetgw
Date: 11/20/01 2:05pm
Subject: Settlement disagreement
    I have to say that I am extremely disappointed in the settlement 
offered by the government in the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. I live 
and work in silicon valley and have seen first hand a number of 
companies that have had to close their doors over the past 6 years 
due to "competition" with Microsoft. They did not close 
down due to mismanagement, lack of startup capitol, or poor product 
design. On the contrary, their products can now be found 
"integrated" into a number of Microsoft products.
    I work on multiple operating system platforms including Windows, 
MacOS, and UNIX and have worked on hundreds of software programs 
over the years. I have yet to see an innovative program that 
Microsoft has not tried to copy and replace with one of their own. 
Of course they should be allowed to create a competing product for 
anything out there, but they always do so in the vein of eliminating 
the competition. Microsoft has some wonderful products, but rarely 
is theirs the first or even the best. In most cases, their product 
is actually pretty poor, but with the weight of their other products 
and business tactics, they eliminate the competition and slowly 
improve their own products after the competition is gone.
    I ask you now, what email client are you using? How many choices 
do you have? What browser do you use? Again, what are your choices? 
Word processor, spreadsheet, operating system, the list goes on. 
Microsoft is an illegal monopoly. They were convicted of that a 
while back. The punishments in the past for companies like Microsoft 
have been pretty stiff and effective, why are they different? The 
settlement, as offered, will not slow them down one bit. I wish I 
had an appropriate penalty to offer that would work to eliminate the 
abuses that Microsoft has perpetrated, but I don't. That is not my 
job, it is yours. I just hope that the remaining Attorneys General 
continue the fight against an illegal monopoly that is strangling 
innovation, progress and fair competition. I thank you for your time 
and consideration.
    Patrick J. Wolpert
    Computer Consulting Services
    San Jose, CA 95136
    (408) 307-2064
    (253) 681-8178 Fax
    [email protected]



MTC-00001530

From: Chris Ray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust suit
    We need to be protected from Microsofts pursuit of it's own 
interests. The Federal Government has declined to protect us. I 
applaud our state Attorney Generals for taking up the anti-trust 
suit in a serious way instead of rolling over as the Federal 
Government has.
    _Chris Ray
    4 Hill Drive
    Petaluma, CA 94952



MTC-00001531

From: Nick Kohn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 2:02pm
Subject: settlement
    I am writing to you to ask that you seek harsher penalties 
against Microsoft. It is undeniable that they have committed 
numerous acts breaking the law. Many of them have not even been 
named in the trial. If the US government does not seek stiffer 
penalties (i.e. breakup), Microsoft will continue to break the law. 
In addition, other companies will follow Microsoft's example, 
knowing that there are no consequences to breaking the law. Thank 
you.
    Nicholas Kohn
    [email protected]
    934 S. State #2
    Ann Arbor, MI 48104



MTC-00001532

From: Talos Tsui
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 2:00pm
Subject: microsoft case
    To whom it may concern,
    The settlement is letting them off the hook too easily, I am 
supporting the nine states who against the settlement and move 
forward to the case. Microsoft, brought Bungie Software last year, 
because they want exclusive games for their own Xbox gaming 
platform. They spend extra money in front of companies and make sure 
they have exclusive for their own system. Bungie announced they are 
working on the game, "Halo", first on Macworld Expo 
Summer of 1999 for both Mac and PC. As a mac user, I want that game, 
now I have to wait god knows when before it comes out for the mac 
because of Microsoft. Sure, they (Microsoft) have the money, and 
they don't care about others.
    Yours,
    Talos
    Talos Tsui
    The Iconfactory
    [email protected]
    http://www.iconfactory.com
    icon design
    user interface design
    interactive design
    website design



MTC-00001533

From: Donald Mastriano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 2:13pm
Subject: $1 billion worth of software.....not what you think
    As a professional business person I recognize the proposed $1 
billion settlement as nothing serious to Microsoft, and instead, a 
coup of a PR and marketing assault on young minds. Imagine all those 
poor kids having to use monopolistic software given as a 
"gift" or "punishment", whatever, now they 
get hooked on it, Microsoft is squealing in delight as it seriously 
tries to not giggle in your settlement meetings.
    Wake up.
    Donald J. Mastriano, Ed. D.



MTC-00001534

From: Stephen Dampier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    Hello,
    I'm a professional web developer who works in a corporate 
environment. 95% of our software is made by Microsoft. 98% of our 
computers run Microsoft operating systems. I am the sole Macintosh 
user although there are several Linux users here.
    It is very difficult in the environment to use anything but 
Microsoft operating systems and software such as the Office suite of 
applicatons including Excel, Word, PowerPoint etc. It is also very 
difficult to use an email client that is not Microsoft branded since 
other clients will not interface with the server software. Most 
people use Internet Explorer, another Microsoft product. More and 
more websites offer only Microsoft centric video formats.
    We are essentially unable to exercise our freedom in this 
country to choose a computer and operating system, web browser, 
email program, office software etc from other manufacturers other 
than Microsoft. I recommend that Microsoft be required to provide 
the specifications and source code to their operation systems, 
office software, email server programs, web browsers, and media 
software so that everyone is playing on the same field and can 
actually write their own software that is compatible with ALL 
Microsoft products. Essentially, Microsoft products should be made 
open source. There can be no open and free market until this 
happens. Further, the companies leaders should be punished for their 
lack of cooperation, out right lies told to the court

[[Page 23936]]

and their anti-competitive practices that they have practiced and 
continue to practice. A jail term would work better than mere fines 
since money means very little to the richest men in the world.
    You should take all care to prevent Microsoft from squashing 
other technology based markets such as the gaming consol market etc. 
We need restrictions put into place that will prevent big boys like 
Microsoft from coming in and JackBooting all over the competition.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen Dampier
    Finaplex
    208 Pennsylvania Ave, Suite 202
    San Francisco, CA 94590



MTC-00001535

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 2:06pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express concern over the details of the proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case. While it is debatable 
whether Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's original breakup order, 
which has since been vacated, was too extreme, the appeals court 
unanimously accepted his findings of fact and affirmed that 
Microsoft is an illegal monopolist.
    My concern is over how weak the current settlement is. Microsoft 
has in the past completely ignored consent decrees, which is what 
the new settlement amounts to. That aside, I would support a consent 
decree which actually allowed for significant penalties for non-
compliance; however, the only penalty for engaging in future 
monopolistic behavior seems to be an extension of the 
"enforcement" period by two years, which essentially 
leaves the company free to continue on its current course of 
controlling the market by any means available. Many individuals I've 
spoken to seem to harbor the opinion that the Justice Department has 
sold out on this settlement proposal.
    I do not know how to go about fixing the situation without the 
probability of further lengthy appeals. I do, however, know that the 
current proposal lacks any sort of real punitive muscle, and some 
real punishment and/or enforcement is needed to prevent a 
continuation of the status quo. If a structural remedy is seen as 
too harsh, at least some significant financial penalty (a minimum of 
5-10% of the company's net worth) should be applied. 
Furthermore, at the very least given the company's past behavior 
under a consent decree, the current proposed settlement could be 
acceptable provided that there are severe penalties for non-
compliance.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Fowler
    Andrew Fowler NCI_Frederick
    Postdoctoral Fellow PO Box B, Frederick, MD 21702
    [email protected] 301-846-6951 (work) / 
301-846-6231 (fax)



MTC-00001536

From: Rohan Samahon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 2:16pm
Subject: Windows has become a Public Good
    The suggested remedies thus far have been far insufficient in 
remedying the problem at hand. Microsoft has grown large and so 
powerful that even the government can't make a fair impartial ruling 
on the problem. You are probably all typing up your reports and 
decisions on Windows based PCs. The fact of the matter is that 
Microsoft's Windows operation systems have become the standard and 
the system that more than 95% of PCs use. Software must be tailored 
to work on this platform. In essence Windows is comparable to our 
roads, a public good and resource. How can one company dictate how 
the roads will be designed and simultaneously create cars (software) 
that will run on those roads? The two interests are conflicting 
interests to the consumer. Microsoft has grown so immensely large 
that they can afford to give a software program away for free, ie: 
Internet Explorer, hotmail accounts, Windows Media Player, etc... 
because it receives major revenues from its operating system sales. 
Meanwhile companies that rely on the revenue of their one product 
ie: RealPlayer, Netscape Communicator, etc.. are run out of 
business. Once they're gone Microsoft can now control the price of 
that industry: ie: video playback and also its innovation or the 
slowing thereof. This is so frustrating as a consumer that the US 
govt. is overlooking this for the benefit of Microsoft. This company 
has abused its marketplace position over and over again. As soon as 
any of their products hit critical mass they control that market 
too. We've seen this over and over again. Wake up DOJ.
    Rohan P Samahon
    Technology Support
    American Institute of Biological Sciences
    107 Carpenter Drive, Suite 100
    Sterling, VA 20164
    Telephone: 703.834.0812, ext. 102
    Fax: 703.834.1160
    E-mail: [email protected]
    http://www.aibs.org



MTC-00001537

From: Yawn, Gary
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/20/01 2:15pm
Subject: Please settle this case so this economy can get back on its 
feet. Notice the
    Please settle this case so this economy can get back on its 
feet. Notice the economy began to falter about the time the DOJ 
started rumbling about Microsoft's antitrust atrocities. Further 
notice the economy is gaining steam now that the end is in sight. 
Continue to delay the outcome, and I think you'll find the economy 
begin to delay its return to greatness.
    However, that is not my only concern. I do not think I ever 
heard the public complain about this "monopoly"; only 
competitors. To me, this would indicate Microsoft is a fierce 
competitor, but not necessarily a monopoly. The hundreds of 
thousands of people who use MacIntosh computers, Linnux operating 
systems, Palm operating systems, Unix, etc. don't buy into that 
"monopoly" game. Microsoft is NOT the only game in town.
    Thanks,
    Gary Yawn
    2368 18th Ave
    New Virginia IA 50210
    515-979-5451



MTC-00001538

From: Jim Hassinger
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/20/01 2:13pm
Subject: Justice Department soft on digital monopolism
    I was very disappointed to see the recent settlement of the case 
against Microsoft. The "punishment" meted out simply 
does not fit the crime. It's as though we caught Osama bin Laden and 
let him off with a couple of years in reformatory. Microsoft has 
engaged in monopolistic practices for years, and now is being 
excused by those people whose view of software is not sufficiently 
developed to understand what the monopoly is doing, nor why it is 
important for government to step in.
    Let me explain my position. I think that the breakup of the 
company into operating system/other software/and other investments 
was a proper part of the reconfiguration of the software world to 
foster competition, always an important part of American capitalism. 
I would go further in legislative and regulatory initiatives, not to 
punish Microsoft, but to make sure that no new Microsoft can emerge. 
First, I would make it necessary to publish the specs of all file 
formats. In other words, my new, whiz-bang application saves a file. 
The specs of that file must be open, so that developer B knows how 
to treat the data in his application, which may alter it in some 
way, or in fact, "Save as..." that exact file format. 
That would go a long way to guaranteeing interoperability, which has 
great benefits to all consumers.
    Secondly, internet standards need to be enforced. Many of the 
standards developed by the scientific and non-profit bodies, by the 
American taxpayer, in fact, are being altered_so that only the 
users of one platform, or the users of one operationg system, will 
be able to access some new service on the internet. Of course, true 
innovation should be encouraged, but a mere technical 
trick_locking out users of Real streaming video, for instance, 
not by adding anything significant to the service, just by tweaking 
the interface enough to lock out competitors, for 
instance_should be punished in civil and even criminal courts. 
If someone comes up with a meaningful advance, it should be 
protected only to the extent that it benefits all.
    Again, the government should require the publishing of details 
of the new standard, so that a new technique should be swiftly 
available to all. At the moment, if Microsoft (the most obvious 
candidate for monopoly, but not the only one) tweaks their treatment 
of sockets, or java, or ActiveX, so that other developers cannot 
access it, it's game over. Publication must come simultaneously with 
the development, or else the natural advantage of an innovator in 
the digital era becomes an unfair monopoly.
    I am disappointed, but not surprised, by the leniency of the 
Justice Department vis a vis a prime campaign contributor. The 
American people deserve better.

[[Page 23937]]

    James Hassinger
    [email protected] 

    1149 Coronado Ter
    Los Angeles, CA 90026



MTC-00001539

From: Damien Sorresso
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/20/01 2:21pm
Subject: Microsoft/Department of Justice Settlement
    I am writing all you Attorneys General and the United States 
Department of Justice to express my extreme dissatisfaction at the 
"settlement" that the Department of Justice has reached 
with Microsoft. I am not a resident of any of the states I am 
writing to, but my life will be affected by the Department of 
Justice's cave-in as much as anyone else's. I feel that, as a 
registered voter and American, my voice should be heard.
    Microsoft was ruled to be an illegal monopoly. It's settlement 
with the Department of Justice does not take even the smallest 
amount of what are, in my opinion, requisite actions against 
Microsoft to ensure that it does not tighten its stranglehold of the 
computing industry.
    The new settlement, unlike the one proposed by Judge Jackson, 
does not require Microsoft to disclose its API's to third parties 
anymore. Section J1:
    No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
    1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third 
parties: (a) portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers 
of Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise 
the security of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital 
rights management, encryption or authentication systems, including 
without limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement 
criteria; or (b) any API, interface or other information related to 
any Microsoft product if lawfully directed not to do so by a 
governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.
    Section a allows Microsoft to get around disclosing API's and 
other information by claiming that its security is threatened. This 
allows Microsoft to continue its closed, monopolistic way of setting 
new "standards" in the computing industry. This 
settlement will not change anything at all.
    Section b offers Microsoft government protection for its 
monopolistic acts. It allows for Microsoft's non-disclosure to be 
enforced by the government. This is totally unacceptable. Microsoft 
has been ruled a monopoly, and these terms seem more like the 
government wants to protect Microsoft's monopoly, rather than doing 
what it should and break it up.
    In spite of the fact that it has been ruled a monopoly, 
Microsoft continues monopolistic and domination-like actions. I 
shall list some recent actions taken by Microsoft that belie its 
monopolistic nature:
    1: Upon opening the new MSN website, users of the Opera web 
browser were unable to view the site. Users of Opera were directed 
to "upgrade" to Microsoft's own Internet Explorer web 
browser to properly view the content. Microsoft, when questioned 
about the incompatibility, accused Opera of being non-compliant with 
the XML standard specifications. Opera immediately shot back that 
they prided their web browser on standards compliancy, and submitted 
an XML standard test of MSN that showed it to not be compliant with 
the XML standard specifications, thus identifying MSN as the 
culprit. Microsoft then fixes the problem so that MSN could be 
viewed by other browsers. Had Opera not made public MSN's non-
compliance to the XML standard, Microsoft's attempt to coerce users 
of Opera into using Internet Explorer would have gone unnoticed. 
Microsoft has no shame in continuing it attempts to dominate the 
internet.
    2: Windows XP and the latest version of Internet Explorer do not 
ship with Java support. Java is one of the key components for the 
internet, because it works with every operating system that can run 
a Java Virtual Machine. Why would Microsoft not want to support this 
standard? Because it is a roadblock in Microsoft's attempts to 
saturate the internet with Microsoft-only standards and products. 
Java works with every operating system, and Microsoft is attempting 
to replace it with a Windows-only standard that would force any 
desiring to be on the internet to buy a Windows PC, rather than a 
Macintosh or Linux machine.
    3: Microsoft's proposed security procedures are based on 
"security through obscurity." Microsoft disallows the 
publication of any security holes than may be found in its operating 
systems or applications for at least 30 days after the said hole was 
found. Even then, security companies are only allowed to release 
very general information that is not helpful to system 
administrators wishing to develop a temporary work-around for the 
problem while Microsoft works on a patch that fixes the hole. The 
fundamental problem with this approach is that it leaves the 
security hole completely open and unguarded for a period of one 
month. Microsoft is essentially taking the chance that no rogue 
hackers will discover the flaw and exploit it in 30 days. After 
making the public aware of the problem after 30 days, system 
administrators must wait for Microsoft to release a patch. The 
public release of information cannot contain the information 
required to exploit the security hole, so system administrators 
cannot test the problem on their own networks, nor can they isolate 
and deactivate the part of the network that is flawed. For most 
companies, this means an indeterminate time of over one month in 
which their network is vulnerable if it is running Microsoft 
software as its backbone. Taking the network offline is simply not 
an option in today's e-commerce-based industry.
    Of course, many may say that the alternative is to simply use 
Linux or UNIX in place of Microsoft's software. However, Microsoft 
already has enough of a presence in business networks that a 
transition to Linux would cost a great deal in the short-term in the 
purchase of new servers and the training or hiring of certified and 
UNIX-knowledgeable network administrators to replace MCSE-certified 
ones. While a large company like IBM can make this transition 
without worrying about cost in the short term, the large number of 
startup companies that have sprung up that are using Microsoft's 
products do not have this option due to lack of revenue and sales. 
They must use the money they have to maintain their existing network 
and pay Microsoft outrageous licensing fees.
    4: Microsoft is now beginning to try and extend its influence 
and power to every aspect of the technology market. The recent 
release of the X-Box to the game console market, coupled with 
Microsoft's Ultimate TV and the presence of the Windows Media Audio 
format on copy-protected Compact Discs, should be enough to show 
that Microsoft is not satisfied with mere domination of the computer 
operating system market. They wish to impose their closed-standard 
and secretive approach on any technology market that they can.
    5: Microsoft continues to write new "standards" for 
the computing industry that conveniently only work with its 
operating systems, instead of embracing real standards. Real 
standards are written by committees which openly-publish their work 
so that anyone can use it. The Motion Picture Experts Group (MPEG) 
writes the MPEG standard for the industry, and any wishing to comply 
with this standard can obtain a license and make it work with any 
operating system or media player. Microsoft's standards are not 
available to the public, and they can only be used by Microsoft 
products. No version of Windows comes with built-in servers for 
telnet, FTP or any other open standard. All Linux distributions and 
Mac OS X come with built-in support for these open and accepted 
standards. Microsoft forces you to buy a Terminal Server application 
that uses a closed and proprietary communications protocol.
    Microsoft is a monopoly and should receive harsher penalties, 
such as a break-up or forced-disclosure of the source code for 
Windows. Private organizations should not be able to bully the 
government into protecting their monopolies and have the government 
passively approve of such bullying tactics against other companies 
that offer even the smallest bit of competition.
    Please know I desire harsher penalties for Microsoft, and I 
support any reasonable action taken in seeking these penalties.
    Damien Sorresso
    CC:Dominic Sorresso,Michael Sherry,contribute@macosru...



MTC-00001540

From: Larry Herfindal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 2:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement_NO!!!!!!!!!!!
    The feeble settlement that is being proposed by the Justice 
Department is not in the best interest of the consumers. Microsoft 
blatant disregard for the law and malicious actions towards it's 
competitors must be addressed. Just as Judge Sporkin stated in the 
1995 U.S. Appeals Court case against Microsoft: "simply 
telling a defendant to go forth and sin no more does little or 
nothing to address the unfair advantage it has already 
gained". Microsoft has proven repeatedly that it can not be 
trusted. The settlement

[[Page 23938]]

 must prevent Microsoft from using it's monopoly against the 
industry. The only way Microsoft can be trusted is to separate the 
operating system from the applications software by breaking the 
company up into two separate companies.
    I feel that Justice Department has sold us out!! If we can't 
count on the Justice Department to look out for our best interest 
then WHO????? What is good for Microsoft is not always good for the 
industry!!
    Thank you for your time,
    Larry Herfindal



MTC-00001541

From: Ralph J. Luciani
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected] 
@inetgw,ag@oag...
Date: 11/20/01 2:18pm
Subject: DOJ settlement re: Microsoft monopolistic practices
    To Whom it may concern:
    I would like to strongly object to the terms of settlement in 
the DOJ/Microsoft case. This was a total capitulation on the part of 
the DOJ where Microsoft was clearly shown to be in violation of 
anti-trust practices. It is now up to the state attorneys general to 
correct this miscarriage of justice. It is vital that the American 
judicial system sends a strong message to Microsoft, and any multi-
national corporation that involves itself in unscrupulous and 
unlawful behavior that such conduct is unacceptable.
    Ralph J. Luciani
    1322 Clearview Drive
    Oakville, Ontario
    Canada
    L6J 6X6



MTC-00001542

From: amy lee tyler
To: mailto:microsoftcomments @doj.ca.gov@inetgw
Date: 11/20/01 2:29pm
Subject: I support further prosecution of Microsoft in the Anti-
Trust case
    I am a resident of Austin, Tx. Unfortunately, my state has 
settled with Microsoft in the anti-trust battle. My Attorney-General 
does not represent me, and my only recourse is to ask that you 
continue to prosecute. Microsoft's latest action, the 'donating' of 
$1 billion worth of microsoft windows, software and hardware to 
schools (while in theory a nice gesture) illustrates how they 
continue to use their power to and unlimited wealth to move more and 
more people onto their platform.
    Please continue the fight for equality.
    Amy Tyler
    http://www.amytyler.com
    512.527.0415
    9617 Great Hills Trail #512
    Austin, Texas 78759



MTC-00001543

From: amy lee tyler
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/20/01 2:23pm
Subject: I support further prosecution of Microsoft in the Anti-
Trust case
    I am a resident of Austin, Tx. Unfortunately, my state has 
settled with Microsoft in the anti-trust battle. My Attorney-General 
does not represent me, and my only recourse is to ask that you 
continue to prosecute. Microsoft's latest action, the 'donating' of 
$1 billion worth of microsoft windows, software and hardware to 
schools (while in theory a nice gesture) illustrates how they 
continue to use their power to and unlimited wealth to move more and 
more people onto their platform.
    Please continue the fight for equality.
    Amy Tyler
    http://www.amytyler.com
    512.527.0415
    9617 Great Hills Trail #512
    Austin, Texas 78759



MTC-00001544

From: Bob Eliason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 2:22pm
Subject: Re: settlement
    Microsoft has broken the law and continues to extend their 
illegal practices. The operating system must be broken away from the 
software business to protect the consumer. They are already eyeing 
digital television, game boxes, and Internet access and have made 
major inroads in creating a "standard" that they can 
control.
    Just in the Internet realm, they adopted JAVA, attempted to 
change the standards by modifying their server software to only use 
their version, and then dropped it completely from Windows to 
eliminate it. Not a surprise since it is a potential competitor. 
Netscape plug-ins were eliminated to disable Quicktime. Hotmail has 
new "security" that disables other e-mail programs.
    Innovation is not taking place. You now even have to get their 
permission and provide personal data just to use your computer that 
is running their software. There are better operating systems but 
the consumer is not given a choice or when there is a choice, the 
other platforms are not supported by Microsoft servers, services, or 
equivalent features. We could all just buy a Macintosh but it will 
be dead on the day that Microsoft stops making Office for the Mac 
(which doesn't have feature parity now).
    Correct this sad settlement and create a punishment. It is a 
shame to hide behind September 11th. The consumer deserves better.
    Bob Eliason
    [email protected]
    2685 Milton Hills Drive
    Charlottesville, VA 22902



MTC-00001545

From: Dave Coker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 2:30pm
    To whom it may concern :
    I am totally appalled by the current MicroSoft settlement. For 
years they have without restraint of any kind practiced a predatory 
form of business. They have effectively increased costs and limited 
consumer choice, all in the course of their efforts to control and 
increse market share.
    I plead with you to revisit this decision as soon as possible, 
before it is too late.
    In closing, as a Computer Professional with over twenty years 
experience I am obliged to point out that many lay people don't 
really know what they are being deprived of because of Microsofts 
practices.
    Please correct this wrong.
    Dave Coker



MTC-00001546

From: Larry McMunn
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/20/01 2:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Having been involved in the computer industry since 1984, I have 
been witness to many trends and developments.
    It cannot be in the interest of the American public (or the 
world's public, or any state's public) for one company to monopolize 
the computer operating system software and be a major developer or 
supplier of application software as well.
    Microsoft should be two discreet companies_one company 
dedicated to supplying the Operating System software only, and the 
other company (applications and productivity software) competing on 
the same level playing field as other suppliers of computer 
applications software.
    All computer manufacturers should be guaranteed access to the 
Operating System software regardless of any other software installed 
on their product.
    Furthermore, while I don't think that the government should set 
the pricing of software, all manufacturers should pay the same for 
the Operating System as others at a similar manufacturing level. For 
instance, all manufacturers producing up to 100,000 units per year 
might pay XX amount, those who make up to 500,000 units might may 
pay 90% of XX, up to 1,000,000 annually maybe 80% of XX, and over 
1,000,000 units per year might be at 70% of XX. This would guarantee 
that computer makers could not be pressured into taking a sister 
company's product, freeing them from "software 
extortion".
    Sincerely,
    Willard L. McMunn,
    President
    McMunn Associates, Inc.
    900 Haddon Avenue, Suite 302
    Collingswood, New Jersey 08108
    856.858.3440
    Good Scripting! :-)
    Larry McMunn
    President
    McMunn Associates, Inc.
    Specialists in automated Data Visualization thru Apple products
    Collingswood, NJ
    (856) 858-3440



MTC-00001547

From: Daniel Bliss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Keep up your efforts with trying to rein in Microsoft. The 
proposed settlement leaves gaping loopholes for them to continue 
monopolistic practices, especially with regard to software that is 
bundled with the Windows operating system. I see the settlement as 
being a particular threat to competing (or open source) technologies 
such as:
    _RealPlayer (a key Microsoft competitor that is being 
pushed off the Windows desktop with the bundling of Windows Media 
Player)

[[Page 23939]]

    -Open GL (the open source game acceleration technology 
that's being pushed out by Microsoft in favor of DirectX, a move 
that could freeze the Macintosh out of games and other 3D 
applications because while Open GL is available on both platforms 
DirectX for now is not)
    -Java; the open-source architecture that drives a huge 
number of web sites and Internet applications (Microsoft is cutting 
back support for Java from new Windows software including Windows XP 
and Internet Explorer) customers will have to manually install a 
plug-in. That's a move that not only undermines Java's designer, Sun 
Microsystems, but causes serious trouble for businesses across the 
country that have built Internet commerce on Java)
    -the Internet itself, where Microsoft has engaged in 
questionable practices in the past on web sites it controls with 
regard to support for Netscape web browsers, and where the company 
is very ambitious about expanding its presence.
    In more general terms, as a Macintosh user, I'm also concerned 
about the impact that a continuing increase in Microsoft's power 
would have on users of platforms other than windows. You take away 
non-Microsoft 3D acceleration, you take away Java and you corral the 
Internet, and in three strokes you have effectively ended the 
average consumer's ability to routinely use anything other than 
Windows, and indeed anything other than Microsoft products for all 
but the most specialized uses.
    I find it very interesting that the Microsoft Office updates 
brought out during the anti-trust investigation (Office 2000 for the 
PC, Office 2001 and Office v.X for the Macintosh) have broken from 
Microsoft's recent practices and allowed full backwards 
compatibility with the file formats of the previous versions (Office 
97 for the PC, Office 98 for the Mac); I think if Microsoft gets off 
as lightly as the Department of Justice wants them too, we'll go 
back to the bad old days of significant incompatibility between each 
new update of Office. We already see a situation in which Apple, 
which has to work hard for its customers, enables in some cases ten 
year old applications to use its new OS X operating system through 
the ``Classic'' interface that comes included for the $129 price, 
while Microsoft, which charges $200 to $300 for comparable versions 
of Windows XP, has dropped support even for applications that are 
just two or three years old.
    Moreover, I'm also concerned about a case in federal court 
Maryland where Microsoft is trying to get judicial approval for a 
deal to dismiss more than 100 private lawsuits related to 
overcharging for Windows by donating used computers_a million 
of them_to poor school districts. If this settlement fails to 
specify which platform, Mac or Windows, these computers should be, 
or worse yet specifies that the computers be Windows-based, 
Microsoft's ``penalty'' would be to hook even more people to the 
Windows operating system in what is the most important market for 
Microsoft's only serious mainstream competitor in the operating 
system market, Apple Computer; in any case, it is a deal that would 
seriously undermine an already beleaguered computer hardware 
industry while having a minimal impact on Microsoft with its almost 
$40 billion cash reserve. If this is approved, it effectively makes 
the company even more of a monopoly than it already is. Microsoft 
already has more than 70 percent of the education operating system 
market and 95 percent of the market as a whole, a situation that 
raises anti-trust issues by almost any definition.
    Overall, I urge you to keep up the battle to hold Microsoft 
accountable, because without it, consumer choice and indeed the 
economics of almost every business other than Microsoft will suffer.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel Bliss



MTC-00001548

From: John
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 2:31pm
Subject: Sirs,
    Sirs,
    As a interested observer of the proceedings against Microsoft, I 
can't imagine that Microsoft is any different than Intel, Sun 
Microsystems or Oracle. And I know there are a lot of other 
companies who dominate there specific industries.
    Unfortunately Mr. Gates tends to rub people the wrong way, so 
right or wrong he both lost and won the case.
    I think you did the right thing by settling the suit, now if you 
could get the "Greedy" to settle theirs, maybe life 
could go on and even maybe Microsoft would buck the current trend 
and Hire employees back instead of letting them go.
    Respectfully
    John G. Yuzzolin
    [email protected]



MTC-00001549

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 2:40pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    Dear DOJ,
    In the past, when some lawsuits were settled with terms 
"lightly" in favor of Microsoft, they sometimes have 
continued to thwart the law and continued to commit unacceptable 
business practices. As a tech coordinator for a school district that 
uses both Macintosh(R) computers and PC's running Windows(R), I can 
tell you that the vastly superior user experience for students and 
consumers is on the Macintosh platform. If Microsoft is allowed to 
remain a "whole" entity, then they will never stop 
destroying consumer choice and restricting a fair and balanced 
computer industry. Please do what you can to see that they are split 
up into two companies, one designing the operating systems, and the 
other to design applications that run on ALL viable operating 
systems. In my opinion, Bill Gates should be removed from any 
position of power in both companies as it was proven in the anti-
trust trial that he was and is the chief catalyst for anti-trust and 
non-competitive business practices
    Sincerely,
    Chris
    Hamady



MTC-00001550

From: Scott M. Hoffman
To: Microsoft Anti-Trust
Date: 11/20/01 2:42pm
Subject: Civil Suits Settlement
    I'm not sure if this is the appropriate address to send this to, 
but I had to voice my opinion, so here goes:
    Regarding the recently annouced settlement of civil suits in the 
Microsoft case, I am appalled. While donations to charitable 
organizations could be useful, it is unbelievable that the DOJ is 
perpertuating the Microsoft monopoly. It's as if the judicial system 
has confirmed that they are a monopoly, and someone has decided that 
it's okay.
    Where is the remedy for the people? I can't believe that the 
last three years of judicail proceedings has been to give Microsoft 
a slap on the wrist and a pat on the back!
    Something else must be done! Is there a forum where remedies are 
discussed without the counsel of the convicted?
    Thanks for your time,
    Scott Hoffman



MTC-00001551

From: Allison and Casey Weeks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 2:39pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    In response to your request for public comment on the proposed 
settlement in the case of United States v. Microsoft Corporation, I 
ask that we the people quickly settle our suit against Microsoft 
with minimal punishment. My biggest argument is you can always buy 
an Apple.
    Casey Weeks



MTC-00001552

From: Bob Wishnefsky
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments @doj.ca.gov@inetgw
Date: 11/20/01 2:36pm
Subject: Unhappy with Microsoft settlement.
    I am unhappy with the Microsoft settlement. I do not know if the 
government cares about citizens views, but I felt that I must share 
them.
    It seems to me that Microsoft has indulged in not only anti-
trust violations but racketeering as well. Is this a possible avenue 
of approaching their abuses?
    Robert Wishnefsky
    1852 Oakwood Avenue
    Glendale, CA 91202
    (818) 244-5833



MTC-00001553

From: Patrick McDonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 2:52pm
Subject: Keep them on their toes
    To whom this may concern,
    I just can't believe you're ready to let Microsoft off the hook 
so easily, and so conveniently for the company. This settlement 
really looks like it was politically motivated. Whether it was or 
wasn't, I honestly can't say, of course. But it sure looks like 
Microsoft swallowed the DoJ whole, and quite easily, too. As far as 
the DoJ is concerned, it's game over. You loose. No

[[Page 23940]]

amount of press release blab can hide that conspicuous fact. Or the 
fact that M$ repeatedly and demonstrably lied to you in court, which 
is uncomfortably close to laughing at you.
    Soon enough, Microsoft will get back to doing what it does best, 
i.e. being a brutal and abusive monopolist. And expect them to be 
back at it with a vengeance. For M$ has just been reminded that 
strangling competitors using a combination of legal and illegal 
means is a hugely worthwhile and profitable enterprise that far 
outweighs the relatively modest price to be paid.
    In the name of many consumers from the US and abroad, who 
mistakenly thought that the DoJ (if anything) might force Microshaft 
to play by the rules... thanks a lot. You really let us down.
    Pat McDonald



MTC-00001554

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 2:49pm
Subject: Comments on the AntiTrust Case
    I would strongly encourage you to consider that Microsoft has 
inflicted significant pain and abuse on the office and home pc user 
over the past 20 years. They have incorporated features and 
functions into their base operating system which they made available 
for free and which caused other vendors of retail software that 
competed to go out of business (or they were basically forced to 
sell to Microsoft). They have mislead business partners and their 
customers (reference what Microsoft did to OS/2 for example).
    Any settlement must include a brick wall between the operating 
system, applications, and web divisions of Microsoft and there must 
be monitors in place with sufficient authority to correct abuses. 
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views 
of Kaiser Permanente Information Technology.
    Lionel B. Dyck, Systems Software Lead
    Kaiser Permanente Information Technology
    25 N. Via Monte Ave
    Walnut Creek, Ca 94598
    Phone: (925) 926-5332 (tie line 8/473-5332)
    E-Mail: [email protected]
    Sametime: (use Lotus Notes address)
    AIM: lbdyck



MTC-00001555

From: Richard C. Haight
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 2:44pm
Subject: Break it up!
    Microsoft will never reform. It constantly crushes competition 
both for applications & operating systems. Microsoft programmers 
can (and do) tip the playing field strongly in their favor. Their 
new "Passport" service will give them more information 
about PC-using public than the Government has. Through clever PR 
their own deplorable internet security loopholes have been blamed on 
the Web as a whole.
    I spent my 40-year working career in software development, 
mostly at Bell Labs. I have watched Microsoft closely since the 
early '80s. Every day the average PC/Mac owner pays more and 
receives less in return because of Microsoft. The are the "Big 
Government" of software. Nothing approaching their 
monopolistic grip has been tollerated in the U.S. within the last 
100 years.
    Check out Robert X. Cringely's articles in Microsoft. See http:/
/www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011101.html as an example.
    Richard Haight



MTC-00001556

From: Mike Rocus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 2:58pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft Case
    I am against Microsoft being able to spread it's monopoly by a 
court ordered settlement. As stated in this web page: http://
news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-7928195.html 
"Under proposed terms of the settlement, Microsoft would 
donate software, services, training and licenses for reconditioned 
computers_an array valued at more than $1 billion_to 14 
percent of the nation's poorest schools, said lawyers representing 
consumer plaintiffs."
    Rather than forcing the schools to use the Microsoft OS (and 
further Microsoft's goals of monopolizing the operating system 
market), the ruling should allow schools to choose the operating 
system that best suits the needs of the school and force Microsoft 
to purchase what the schools say they need. By forcing the schools 
to use the Microsoft operating system, the schools will be trapped 
into future purchases of the same system by default. This isn't a 
punishment, it's a gold mine for Microsoft!
    Sincerely,
    Michael E. Rocus



MTC-00001557

From: David Barto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft and Monoploy power
    I find it interesting that the proposed 'solution' 
to the anti-trust trial is almost identical to the previous 
sanctions applied to microsoft in the prior bundling case.
    The net result from the prior sanctions applied to microsoft was 
that nothing happened and microsoft continued to use its market 
power and position to prohibit inovation and limit acceptance into 
the market any product which could possibly weaken microsofts 
position on the desktop.
    Since the DOJ has given up any hope of controlling microsoft, it 
is hoping that microsoft will control itself. Prior actions show 
that microsoft has no intention to control itself, and has every 
intention to push any technology which is not microsoft controlled 
out of the space microsoft wishes to be in.
    The courts have ruled that microsoft is a monopoly. This is not 
contested by anyone except microsoft.
    Prior monopolies were broken up. Standard Oil comes to mind... 
How much market share did it have when it was finally separated?
    The same remedy should be applied to microsoft. Anything less 
will only be giving microsoft the opening it requires to complete 
pushing all other companies from the market.
    When we only have one company to choose from for desktop 
software, it is too late to try and fix the problem. The time is 
now, and the only thing which makes since is to apply the 
'Standard Oil' solution to microsoft. David 
[email protected]@visionpro.com
    From a Marketing type: Don't give me any technical reason why 
something can't be done. If you really believed in the product you'd 
make it work.



MTC-00001558

From: Kyle Hoker
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/20/01 2:56pm
Subject: Short and to the point
    I am a Microsoft Windows user both at work and at home. I have 
no ill feelings toward the company, yet I wanted to address this 
issue of a remedy to the Microsoft case. Would a Microsoft breakup 
hurt the economy?
    The answer, concisely, in no. Realistically, it would be a major 
boon to the technology sector. Short answer, no one can compete with 
Microsoft. Even those that have had success with products outside of 
Microsoft's control are immediately either purchased outright or 
carbon-copied into 'extended functionality.'
    Consider this: Microsoft, for all their 
'innovation,' has never actually created anything 
substantial save 'integration.' Microsoft did not bring 
us a Word processor, or a spreadsheet. They did not bestow upon the 
world a graphical user interface. Even the web browser escaped their 
notice for several years. They were not the first to pioneer video 
and audio compression for streaming media. They have never been 
trailblazers of security.
    Simply put, Microsoft has always had the freedom to 
'innovate,' however they have never actually done so. 
What they have is the forced power to 'integrate.' Isn't 
that the heart of what is at stake?
    Dividing the corporation is the only remedy that makes any 
sense. Level the playing field as it were. No one can compete with 
Microsoft's integration. By the time 3rd party developers get a hold 
of the code by which to plan their strategy, Microsoft has had ample 
time to integrate the applications seamlessly into the OS.
    No company can financially target any Microsoft-established 
market. Look where Microsoft's integration has brought us to date; 
The abandonment of cross-platform standards such as Java (to be 
replaced with a nearly identical, yet Windows-only language of 
C#), the secret 'hooks' in the OS that only 
Microsoft is privy to, allowing 'integration' between 
the OS and applications that simply cannot be matched by those who 
might wish to compete, the OEM agreements that have historically 
punished a vendor for attempting to give a consumer any choice as to 
what operating system their computer might be shipped with.
    Split up Microsoft. Plain and simple. If the products they offer 
the world continue to dominate then it will be on their own merits. 
Force Microsoft to consider a much more open stance, force them to 
acknowledge alternatives. Allow for competition, which in

[[Page 23941]]

turn will drive the marketplace, and thus jump start a fledgling 
technical sector. Innovation comes from competition, and competition 
comes from rules. Enforce the rules that have made this nation 
strong for over two hundred years. It is a far too dangerous gamble 
to concede that one company has the power to lead the world into the 
21st century.
    Sincerely,
    Kyle Hoker.



MTC-00001559

From: JBAJ 27
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 2:53pm
Subject: More Training on Microsoft Products for the Unemployed.
    Greetings,
    My only comment on the recent Microsoft decision is that some of 
the 1 Billion dollar settlement be put into furthering the 
educations of the Unemployed. Some of the money should be used to 
fund more training on Microsoft products at the State level.
    As a recent beneficiary of the Unemployment system here in 
Michigan, I can fully understand the need for more computer 
training. Oh there is training on Basic use and functions of 
Microsoft Office, but there isnt any Intermidiate and Advanced 
classes on the use of Microsoft NT, SQL Server,and some of their 
other products.
    Thank you for your time and attention.
    Sincerly,
    Gerald P. Baj



MTC-00001560

From: Dorothy Craig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 2:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think what you have done over these many years to Microsoft 
has been great for the lawyers but a disgrace for you. Would Japan 
do this to Sony or Germany to Siemans??. Microsoft is a national 
treasure for Americans to be proud of and appreciative for all it 
has contributed to making the U.S. #1 in the world in 
technology.
    Because Larry Ellison came crying to you because he couldn't 
stand the competition you caused millions of taxpayers dollars to be 
wasted aside from diverting Mr. .Gates time from innovating and 
causing him unnecessary stress. Don't you understand how rare such a 
creative brilliant person is ? That our government should try to 
destroy him and his work is really evil. Unfortunately you are 
powerful enough to destroy anyone and any thing wasting the 
taxpayers money. I am so ashamed of the Dept of Justice. Did I say 
Justice ?? Where is the Justice? Are you going to reimburse the tax 
payers or Mr. Gates ? No, your buddy lawyers have it all in their 
fat pockets and we are all poorer for your activities.
    You were not protecting us. You would have better spent these 
years getting Universities to inform you when students from 
terrorist countries disappeared. You could have sent illegal 
foreigners out of our country. Illegal means nothing to you when it 
is a foreigner breaking our laws but you attack one of the greatest 
Americans to come along . How is it that a Mexican can illegally 
cross our border and have a baby and it is a legal citizen ? You 
have lost your mind and care not for the law. How do these illegal 
foreigners get so privileged ?
    Lets hope you will spend our tax money protecting us from real 
danger_terrorist not a great national asset such as Microsoft
    Dorothy Craig



MTC-00001561

From: oldeez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 2:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Suit
    My personal opinion is, this suit should never have happened. It 
was bogus from the get go. This is not a "public 
Utility" that needs corralling_this is private 
enterprise. Let the competition gear up, think up, plan up, but 
don't penalize Microsoft for their wonderful OS that brought 
millions of people into the home computer market. (People such as 
myself, a 78 year old widow).
    Sincerely,
    Jean LeComte,
    St. Petersburg, Florida 33707



MTC-00001562

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 2:59pm
Subject: What to do with Microsoft
    I believe it would be in the best interests of the computing and 
software industries to break up Microsoft into a system software 
company and an applications company.
    Then each company's products can compete on their own merits 
instead of the proprietary links they now enjoy. Competing companies 
must have access immediately to any information shared between the 
two new Microsoft entities.
    Failure to adhere to this rule would result in a multi-billion 
dollar fine, (to be determined) such that it would actually make a 
difference to Microsoft if they had to pay it.
    Each of the two companies would be prohibited from writing 
contracts that preclude installation, nor require the removal of, 
any other software vendors products from any given hardware product. 
Failure to adhere to this rule would result in a multi-billion 
dollar fine, (to be determined) such that it would actually make a 
difference to Microsoft if they had to pay it.
    Microsoft should pay the maximum legal penalty NOW for it's 
transgressions. This is in fact a punishment. Not a wrist slap.



MTC-00001564

From: Dick Rucker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I'm a long-time user of Microsoft products on both the Macintosh 
and on the PC. I use them because I have to, whether I want to or 
not.
    I urge that the court reject the Justice Department's negotiated 
settlement as inadequate because it is unlikely to restore healthy 
competition in the marketplace, and Microsoft is very unlikely to 
change those practices that have served them so well in the past. A 
three member panel for which Microsoft has chosen 1.5 of its members 
is likely to be firm as warm butter. If you want details from my own 
experience with Microsoft and its products, I'll supply them, but I 
suspect you have all the anecdotes you need.
    Richard A. Rucker
    10426 Darby St.
    Fairfax, VA



MTC-00001565

From: Darby Lee Darrow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I am a consumer that has been effected by the anti competitive 
practices of Microsoft. A lot of really good work has been done to 
hold them accountable for their actions. However a lot of work 
remains. It is obvious from their actions since their last consent 
decree that they hold the court systems in contempt and the only 
method of getting their attention/compliance will be through more 
severe penalities. Perhaps breaking them up is our only hope.
    Please keep this in mind when deciding your course of action in 
the coming weeks/months.
    Darby Lee Darrow
    12717 Via Sombras
    Poway, CA 92064



MTC-00001566

From: Gordon C. Hawkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    I don't have a lot of time to write you a long-winded letter 
telling you all the reasons why you shouldn't settle the Microsoft 
case, but i'll leave you with this impression.
    I work in the computer industry_I hate Microsoft. They are 
the worst thing that ever happened to computers. I am not saying 
that I dislike their operating systems, I do think they make the 
occasional good product, but there is NO COMPETITION. Their pricing 
is overvalued, and their licensing agreements wouldn't be signed 
even if the Spanish Inquisition was still in control. Even though my 
e-mail address is a Canadian address, I am an American and I do 
vote, and I urge you_BREAK UP MICROSOFT.
    I know the DOJ has fought hard in this case, and there is a lot 
of good work being done by the DOJ in this case_BUT DON'T QUIT 
NOW. PLEASE. Consumers need a future where they have choice. Open 
standards will always prevail over proprietary standards_MS 
does not support open standards. Consumers need security. Microsoft 
has continually failed in providing the industry with secure 
products_or support furthering security on the Internet in a 
collective manner. For instance, IPv6_Internet Protocol 
Version 6_is a standard that has been developed, and if 
implemented would make the Internet much more secure. MS has done 
nothing to promote or implement this standard. Just a quick thought, 
with the recent rash of virus threats, why hasn't Microsoft 
'strong-armed' their channel partners to bundle their 
software with Anti-Virus software instead of their Internet Browser?

[[Page 23942]]

    Microsoft deliberately mis-engineers products in order to sell 
expensive upgrades later. Case in point_Windows Millennium 
Edition, possibly the worst OS ever created, was released less than 
a year before "Windows XP (eXtra Pain)." I would propose 
that Microsoft DID THIS ON PURPOSE, so that consumers using Windows 
ME would be dying for an upgrade when their systems disintegrate due 
to a neutered driver base, or networking stack, or complete lack of 
functionality that was in Windows ME. Why create Windows ME? Grab 
some quick cash from unsuspecting consumers and then force them to 
upgrade to Windows XP later.
    I could really go on and on, but I must close with one last 
thought (a repeat)_
    KEEP THE FIGHT UP. BREAK UP MICROSOFT.
    Gordon C. Hawkins
    Vancouver, BC, CANADA
    (originally from MARINA DEL REY, LOS ANGELES, CA)



MTC-00001567

From: Lorin Rivers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 3:11pm
Subject: Microsoft is anti-competitive
    The proposed settlement, as I understand it, is the slightest of 
wrist-slaps compared to the damage this company has done, and will 
do given the opportunity, to the competitive landscape. They've 
proven they will do anything to "win". Any settlement 
that does not include a heavy fine and close inspection of their 
future business dealings will result in a total domination of the 
computer and personal electronics industry in a matter of years by 
Microsoft.



MTC-00001568

From: Daniel Freed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 3:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Monopoly
    I feel as though the agreements made by the DOJ and Microsoft 
will not stop microsoft's abuse of monopoly powers. You are wrong to 
completely eliminate breaking the company up as an option. Go back 
to trial and use the overwhelming evidence to once again do the 
right thing. Prevent them from damaging competitors by illegal 
actions.
    -Daniel Freed
    Web Designer
    3114 Timanus Ln.
    Baltimore, MD 21244
    [email protected]



MTC-00001569

From: brian tester
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 3:15pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    To whom it may concern_
    I am a Minnesota citizen who uses both the Macintosh operating 
system and Microsoft Windows on my computers. I make my living using 
both platforms. However, I am disappointed with the federal 
government's proposal to settle in the Microsoft anti-trust case.
    I believe that Microsoft are indeed acting against public 
interest in the way they seek to propagate what some might describe 
as an operating system monopoly.
    I urge you to pursue more stringent prosecution in the interest 
of penalties against Microsoft that more accurately reflect their 
crimes, real and attempted.
    Thank you for your time and consideration. I know you will 
follow the letter of the law and in the end, do the right thing.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Tester
    411 N. Wheeler
    St. Paul MN 55104



MTC-00001570

From: David Dellinger
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/20/01 3:14pm
Subject: Settlement
    Hello,
    I completely support your actions to continue the anti-trust 
suit against Microsoft.
    David Dellinger
    9332 Hazelbrook Drive
    Huntington Beach, CA 92646, USA
    Phone: +1 714 378-6112
    Fax: +1 714 377-2333
    CC:Microsoft ATR



MTC-00001571

From: Mcdonald, Richard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 3:12pm
Subject: As a taxpaying citizen, I'm miffed
    I'm miffed at how our elected officials have decided not to take 
action against the illegal practices of Microsoft. This settlement 
is a shameful display of lack of backbone on the part of the DOJ and 
I am extremely dissappointed. I will back future action to elect 
officials who will look out for the consumers of this nation, not 
the shareholders of Microsoft.
    Thank you for nothing.
    Sincerely,
    Richard McDonald



MTC-00001572

From: DYMOND Christopher S
To: Microsoft ATR,ag @oag.state.fl.us 
@inetgw,attorney.g...
Date: 11/20/01 3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust
    I am very disappointed with the Feds settlement of the Microsoft 
Anti-Trust case. Microsoft should not be allowed to continue 
predatory behavior and should pay substantially for past predatory 
behavior. Please purse what ever legal action you can to block the 
consolidation and subsequent abuse of market share power in the 
software industry.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher Dymond
    Salem, Oregon



MTC-00001573

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 3:18pm
Subject: Agreement way too soft...
    This is a joke. Clearly the Justice Department (at least under 
our big-business friendly president) isn't taking Microsoft 
seriously. The failure to zealously pursue an injunction against the 
release of Windows XP (which only serves to expand Microsoft's 
monopoly by integrating additional features, forcing competeing 
products out of the market) is ridiculous.
    DOJ must pursue stronger penalties against Microsoft than what 
the agreement currently provides for.
    Byron Barry
    906 Hermitage Dr
    Austin, TX
    78753-5716



MTC-00001574

From: Dr. David A. Zatz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 3:17pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft settlement
    I must ask you to reject the proposed settlement with Microsoft. 
By agreeing to a toothless settlement with Microsoft, you would 
condone a variety of illegal practices which have bankrupted many 
companies and sent many people out of work, while suppressing 
superior technologies. You would also send a clear message to the 
world_that in America the law is a tool of the wealthy, that 
if you have been successful enough, your crimes will be forgiven. 
Certainly that would be the case with Microsoft_ essentially 
destroying WordPerfect, Lotus, Netscape, and, to a degree, Apple 
(not to mention many others) would be forgiven, if Microsoft would 
promise to hold itself mostly to the law in the future. That's 
pretty weak, and given how well they've fulfilled their promises in 
the past, foolish as well.
    Given Microsoft's contributions to the current administration 
during the election, we suspect the world would consider a 
settlement like this to be payback, as well.
    Microsoft can stand real penalties. What's more, some real 
prevention would be handy at this time. Microsoft, which owns or has 
substantial in many media outlets, is soon to take over most of the 
world's authentication through .Net and Passport. It is practically 
forcing MSN down users' throats, and I would be surprised if MSN did 
not pass AOL within two years, given the sheer number of times a new 
user has to turn down MSN service.
    That's too much power for one company_especially one with 
a history of abuse.
    Please make the settlement workable and enforceable, and extract 
some penalties, or reject it out of hand.



MTC-00001575

From: Van Secrist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 3:32pm
Subject: Make MS carry a JVM
    Dear Sirs,
    I am an entrepreneur working on a software/web application. I am 
extremely worried with the current proposed settlement with 
Microsoft. The company has a long history of squashing any form of 
competition. I and many other developers are terrified of 
Microsoft's wrath. There is a genuine fear in the developer 
community of getting in Microsoft's gun sights. There are so many 
loopholes in the current settlement that will allow Microsoft to 
continuing their lying, cheating, conniving ways. The settlements 
need to be far more air-tight.
    At the very least, there is one huge concession that Microsoft 
should be forced to

[[Page 23943]]

make. This concession would increase software availability AND 
compatibility across multiple platforms. It would also lower the 
costs of software developers in developing new products, because 
they could write code once and simply recompile that code for the 
various platforms. This concession would create a proliferation of 
software titles on all platforms.
    What is this concession? Force Microsoft to bundle a Java 
Virtual Machine with their shipping OS. Java is a language designed 
to be platform independent. Microsoft tried to usurp control over 
the Java language from Sun a couple of years ago. A court ruled that 
Microsoft violated their contract with Sun by introducing code that 
would "optimize" Java performance on Windows. In 
reality, Microsoft "polluted" the Java language and 
ruined Java compatibility across multiple platforms. But hey, it 
played great on the PC. Recently, Microsoft said they would NOT 
support Java at all. Why? Because they see this as a threat to 
Windows dominance.
    To reiterate, forcing Microsoft to distribute the JVM (hell, 
force them to build support into the OS) would allow developers to 
write software ONCE. They could then recompile that code to work on 
Windows, Mac OS, Linux, BeOS and Unix. Imagine writing code one time 
and having it available to ALL platforms! THAT WOULD REINTRODUCE 
COMPETITION IN THE SOFTWARE INDUSTRY!
    I implore you not to settle on the current terms. Should you 
wish to discuss this, I am enclosing my contact information. For the 
record, I have no affiliation with any of Microsoft's competitors.
    Sincerely,
    Van Secrist 3888 Elderbank Drive Los Angeles, CA 90031 
323.227.9888 (h) 310.917.2584 (w)



MTC-00001576

From: Paul Carroll
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/20/01 3:32pm
Subject: Concerned Citizen Unhappy with MS Deal
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am writing to you today because I am very dissatisfied with 
the deal Microsoft is striking with the DoJ. Everything I have read 
indicates that while all courts have upheld the contention that 
Microsoft has used anti-competitive and monopolistic practices, they 
will only be given a slap on the wrist with a very vague bargain. 
Not only do I believe that the deal is detrimental to the consumer, 
but I also believe that the deal will end up costing the taxpayers 
money as they fund future attempts to make sure Microsoft obeys 
nebulous guidelines. I want a clear cut decision against Microsoft 
in this case, and am willing to suffer through the trials necessary 
to get it right. We are willing to fight a war against terrorism for 
as long as it takes to guarantee our safety, we should be willing to 
act similarly to guarantee our competitive freedom. It has reached 
the point in this country that it is practically impossible to buy a 
computer without buying a Microsoft product, even if we have no 
intention of ever using the computer with a Microsoft operating 
system. Would we stand still if we could not buy a car without 
buying a Microsoft trailer along with it? What if you could not buy 
ground beef without buying a Microsoft hamburger bun?
    I would have been happy with the original court order splitting 
Microsoft, and feel that it makes sense. It was easily 
understandable to the general public, and clearly showed that 
monopolistic behavior would not be tolerated. Unfortunately, 
Microsoft got out of that one on a technicality - simply because the 
judge talked to reporters, the decision was thrown out. Higher 
courts have upheld the findings of the lower court, but now the 
penalty is paltry. I can understand (if not agree with) arguments 
that splitting the company was too drastic, but surely people of 
reason can see that the proposed deal is too lenient. Please pursue 
this case with utmost vigilance. Make sure that Microsoft does not 
threaten freedom again.
    Thank you,
    Paul Carroll



MTC-00001577

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected] 
@inetgw,Ralph@essen...
Date: 11/20/01 3:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Hegemony: Jackpot Over Justice CC: 
[email protected] @inetgw,letters 
@sjmercury.com@i... Re: Microsoft Unveils $1B 
Settlement
    But Hausfeld said he felt it was the government's job to find a 
way to curtail Microsoft's power, and that it was unrealistic to 
expect that a better deal could be reached for such a large class-
action group.
    Justice is unrealistic? The Microsoft prosecution has done 
nothing but solidify the avalanche of jackpot over justice.
    "It is will of almighty Dallah, you know, ka ching ka 
ching, that lies win over truth, jackpot over justice..."



MTC-00001578

From: Steve Jencks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 3:42pm
Subject: Travesty of a corporate monopoly
    Dear Sir or Miss,
    Please consider that the Microsoft penalties as currently listed 
in the settlement are a weak slap on the wrist at best. Microsoft 
continues to have the power and ability to control much of the 
technology world and seeks to control the access of information and 
services with it's .Net initiative. I'm afraid that the DOJ will 
find too late that Microsoft will become bigger than government 
influence can contain and will stronghold the technology companies 
to whatever suits it's needs.
    Steve Jencks
    East Lansing, MI



MTC-00001579

From: J H
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the settlement proposed with Microsft is BOGUS. 
Refurbished equipment? They'll use old pc's with a few new parts and 
skate the issue. They need to have a baseline for this type of 
settlement. I mean, if it was I that got this deal, you bet you'd be 
getting Pentium 166's or less. This is too broad for justice. With 
this kind of settlement, the equipment can wind up costing as much 
as $20.00 or should I say as little as.
    It appears that the more money you have the more laws you can 
break, and you write your punishment. A good example of our Judicial 
system at it's best.
    Microsoft got away with bankrupting companies and alienating 
others..this is merely a slap on the wrist.
    Do something you can hold your head up for!



MTC-00001580

From: ron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 3:38pm
Subject: microsoft has to be delt with
    To whom it may concern,
    I wish to express my thoughts regarding the impotent federal 
settlement with the Microsoft monopoly.
    As a computer industry professional I've had to deal with the 
problems and_intentional_incompatibilities_that 
Microsoft has designed into their software. Not only is the market 
dominance that this company has used to reinforce the perception 
that the Microsoft way is the only way to conduct business. Limiting 
the consumers perception what is possible ( as I'm sure is many 
lawmaker) but it also crushes, buy outs and or pirate's the 
innovative concepts of other business that would promote 
compatibility... Right now people don't have a option as to what 
they can buy and use if they wish to conduct business or gain 
employment due to the intentional incompatibilities with non 
Microsoft products.
    There are many other issues both of common sense and of the 
technically inclined as to why the monopoly has to be broken up and 
severely weakened. If not for the general benefit of the society in 
regards to creative though patterns but to promote a healthy 
business environment where competitive ideas and technology can 
enter the marketplace and take root. Not only for the short tern but 
for also the long term benefit of both business and society.
    How many billions of dollars have been wasted both nationally 
and internationally by the dependency upon Microsoft products ? Is 
not the predominant (if not exclusive ) targeting from both virus 
and computer worms upon Microsoft software not reason enough to 
diversify the consumers options?
    Not only for private and business security but for also of 
Government? If Microsoft didn't have this monopoly there would never 
be a foothold for these costly and damaging viruses to gain a 
foothold much less spread so easily?
    I urge you to take severe action against Microsoft: Breaking it 
up into at least 3 different companies that will be unable to 
coordinate their efforts ( In accordiance to both state and federal 
law).
    Severely Fine the company for its practices of using its 
monopoly to prevent free market competition and needless 
incompatibilities with both its operating systems and its software.

[[Page 23944]]

    Require the company to publish its code and adhere to recognized 
international standards for all its software and forbid it to use 
its market dominance to pervert such standards to read "into 
the system" but send out as a industry incompatible Microsoft 
monopoly standard now unreadable by those "accepted 
standards".
    Thank you for your time in reading this I hope that I've 
expressed myself clearly so that my perceptions may be known and 
appropriate action taken. If there are any questions please feel 
free to contact me at my home (619.294-6631)
    Sincerely,
    Ron Bueno
    owner
    Bueno Advertising



MTC-00001581

From: David POWERS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 3:38pm
Subject: against settling, against sole-source internet
    microsoft's intentions for its monopoly on personal computer 
operating systems are clear: to leverage it into a control of 
networks and of software distribution.
    any software they have under their roof is nearly impossible to 
compete with. any computer standards they gain majority control over 
quickly become impossible to keep up with for other vendors, unless 
they agree in contract to accept the piece of the pie microsoft has 
reserved for them.
    it astounds me that a conservative republican administration is 
settling a case of such clear anti-competitive ramifications. there 
will be things, basic important things, about networking, about 
using computers, about LIVING in our era, that people will not be 
able to do unless they are working for microsoft. this is a bad way 
to ensure flexibility in the future of the network, and the 
computer. this is a violation of your job to enforce anti-trust law.
    / dtp /
    David POWERS
    230 Oak St #31
    San Francisco CA 94102
    tel/fax 415 487.9663
    http://chromo.home.mindspring.com/



MTC-00001582

From: Cedar McKay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 3:48pm
Subject: don't fold to big money
    please stand up for the consumer and demand real penalties from 
microsoft, not this watered down non-penalty.
    John McKay
    Seattle
    Washington



MTC-00001583

From: Keys Curry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My comments:
    I feel that the US government gave away much of the necessary 
penalties and regulatory oversights in the Microsoft settlement. I 
gather that this was done primarily because of the perilous state of 
the economy after 9/11.
    The operating system clearly has the features of a common 
carrier and, as such, requires that significant efforts be made to 
prevent Microsoft from using their ownership of the OS to 
disadvantage other companies. Microsoft has clearly done this in the 
past and they will continue doing it into the foreseeable future 
without more significant restraints. In a few years, they will 
dominate many other areas (the Internet, PDA's, telephone software, 
etc.). The Justice Department will be forced to take them to court 
yet again. The results will be more costly and, ultimately, more 
disruptive than if the Justice Department had stuck to its guns 
during this round.
    I'm very disappointed and I don't look forward to watching 
Microsoft take control over the Internet.
    Keys Curry



MTC-00001584

From: Robert Ambrose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 3:44pm
Subject: injustice
    Hello,
    I would like to add my voice to those who oppose the settlement 
(which I am tempted to call "sell-out") with Microsoft, 
which leaves monopoly power untouched despite overwhelming evidence 
that the catalog of illegal activities engaged in by Microsoft that 
prompted the anti-trust case are and will continue to be the guiding 
strategy for the monopolist. What is justice, if it bows to the 
wealthy while baring its backside to the rest of us?



MTC-00001585

From: Eric Bailey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 3:42pm
Subject: Harsher settlement needed
    Microsoft has been a belligerent bully in the business world for 
years. The current penalties don't begin to atone for what that 
company has done. I by no means have a perfect solution to the 
problem, but I'm sure those directly involved with this case have 
something in mind.
    Thank you very much for your efforts in this matter,
    Eric Bailey
    1020 Sevier Ave.
    Menlo Park, CA 94025



MTC-00001586

From: Thomas Hutchins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Hello!
    I find it utterly amazing that this so called settlement could 
even be considered.
    This does nothing to control Microsoft illegal behavior and only 
cements their monopolistic position.
    The deal might be worth considering if Microsoft paid for other 
companies products to be installed in the schools.
    If this were not so serious it would be could be considered a 
joke. One wonders if there is money floating around in this deal. 
This MUST be stopped!
    Thomas Hutchins 
    R?djursv?gen 28, 466 32 Sollebrunn, Sweden
    Tel +46 322 83250_Fax +46 322 93995



MTC-00001587

From: Martin Leaney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 3:50pm
Subject: AGAINST THE SETTLEMENT
From: Martin Leaney 
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 13:48:53 -0700
To: 
Subject: SETTLEMENT
    I hope it is not too late but I feel the settlement does not go 
far enough and is too hard to control.
    Microsoft is trying to settle the Private Suit against them by 
giving Windows computers to under-priviledged people_which 
only gets Windows software into more places and is little more than 
advertising_not a penalty.
    After Microsofts actions during the Anti-Trust trial I think 
most people can see what lengths MS will go to in trying to protect 
the cash machine they have built.
    Martin Leaney



MTC-00001588

From: Yorgey, Dean, American Legion
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/20/01 3:48pm
Subject: settlement
    I never thought that Justice had a case to begin with, however, 
the settlement is fair and more beneficial to our schools and 
students. Good Job!



MTC-00001590

From: Restless Natives
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 3:50pm
Subject: A bad settlement
    The proposed settlement of the Microsoft Anti-Trust Trial is bad 
for business and bad for America. Since it allows Microsoft to 
continue to illegally stifle competition it also a travesty of 
justice. It also signals a failure to keep politics out of the 
judicial system. Rescind it now!
    John Anderson
    President, iNatives, inc.
    [email protected]



MTC-00001591

From: Kalaydjian, Marty
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/20/01 3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I want to commend you for reaching a reasonable compromise in 
this matter, and putting a final end to the Clinton Administration's 
"War on Business." If our Federal Government had fought 
terrorism during the prior administration with half the zeal they 
fought "big tobacco" and Microsoft, 5,000 Americans 
might be alive today. It is really wonderful having a new 
administration with some common sense.
    Thank you for putting this shameful example of abusive 
government behind us.
    Marty Kalaydjian
    521 Briarwood Drive
    Eden, NC 27288
    Phone: (336) 623-4650
    Cell: (336) 613-0027

[[Page 23945]]

    email: [email protected]



MTC-00001592

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 3:55pm
Subject: About the DOJ vers Microsoft ... And District Judge J. 
Frederick Motz
    Sirs,
    The DOJ's feeble attempt to settle with Micosoft is the worst of 
cash power politics at the expense of the consumer... the voter. 
Microsoft is a repugnant technological cancer. Ruthlessly run as an 
illegal monopoly.
    And now I wish to oppose a settlement that has the company 
spending a billion dollars on seeding it's products in schools. It's 
like asking a drug dealer to give away more drugs to hook more 
victims! Microsoft should have spent a billion dollars on APPLE 
products for schools to endeavor to repair Microsoft's damage to the 
American technology environment!
    Thankyou.
    Pen Densham.
    Citizen and Apple User
    CC:[email protected] 
@inetgw,[email protected]...



MTC-00001593

From: Jerame Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I am appalled!! I cannot believe you allowed Microsoft off with 
such a slap on the wrist. That slap on the wrist is a slap in the 
FACE to the American Consumer. Microsoft is an abomination and needs 
to be stopped. What you have done is created a worse mess for 
someone else to clean up in the future. They will gloat and begin to 
think they are invincible. That even the US Government can1t even 
take them down.
    It1s a disgrace to your post to allow such a blatant and bold 
monopoly to go unchallenged. Microsoft is an affront to the 
computing industry. You are more worried about the effect on the 
almighty dollar than you are protecting the American Consumer. I am 
an American Consumer and I1m outraged. I have NEVER bought a 
Microsoft product, and I never will. They don1t need my money. They 
have everyone else1s money.
    You really dropped the ball, and I hope you don1t continue 
making such outrageous mistakes.
    Jerame Davis
    3715 N. Meridian St. 1A
    Indianapolis, IN 46208
    317-924-4746
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a 
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    -Benjamin Franklin



MTC-00001594

From: Jonathan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 3:51pm
Subject: Dismay at Microsoft farse!
To: DOJ & States
    I just wanted to express my extreme dismay at the total & 
complete cave in that the DOJ & many states agreed in the 
Microsoft settlement. I mean if you were going to back down so much 
why'd you even bother with the big trial for the last 2 or 3 years?
    What a dissapointment. Ohwell perhaps the E.U. has more of a 
spine then the DOJ & States. Of course their remidies can only 
do so much since it's a US company ...
    -Jonathan Gracey
    New York The "iClock"
    http://www.applelinks.com/pages/iclock/
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00001595

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected] 
@inetgw,Ralph@essen...
Date: 11/20/01 3:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Hegemony: Damage Control Mode
    Dear DOJ,
    Forget about enforcing that settlement with Microsoft. We The 
People know that it'll cost more than it's worth. We also want to 
prevent the damage from 09% of the population kidding themselves 
about it. Just let the Microsoft Hegemony run rampant so we can 
rebuild a fresh case against it.
    CC:[email protected] @inetgw,letters 
@sjmercury.com@i...



MTC-00001596

From: KPNQwest
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 3:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Monopoly
    I am an American citizen living in Europe. It is my opinion, and 
that of many others that Microsoft has been given a ``pass'' on the 
issue of Monopoly. I cannot comment on legal grounds but as a user, 
maker and creator of software I find their current status stifling 
in the market. When they ID an area they can simply buy their way in 
(see XBOX) or using FUD stop development. It was clearly documented 
in the trial, it is clearly documented in emails and letters, it is 
clearly documented in the way they behave. Please stand up to them 
and make sure that Microsoft is broken up or at least strictly 
controlled.
    Best Regards,
    Rick D. Wintheiser
    R. Prof. Mota Pinto, 247_1 Esq
    4100-356 Porto Portugal



MTC-00001597

From: James P. Drummond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 3:57pm
Subject: 1 Billion dollar Private case settlement
    I don't seem to have any other method of reporting my disgust at 
the settlement reached in this case. So I thought I would write here 
to do what I can to prevent the same in other cases.
    The private case settlement is the biggest Microsoft marketing 
ploy I have ever seen. This is a greater outcome than microsoft 
could have ever imagined. Forcing every little child in the United 
States to begin their computer oriented life using microsoft 
products or even better usig software and machines so generously 
donated by microsoft. This just further enforces Microsofts death 
grip monopoly in software, and gives them them the expectation that 
all of these children will continue using their products for years 
into the future. Microsoft has absolutly no problem with spending a 
billion on marketing, and thus will see no punishment and only 
benefit from this settlement.
    James P. Drummond



MTC-00001598

From: JEFFREY AVELLANET
To: microsoft.atr
Date: 11/20/01 4:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement After reading the recent press 
releases regarding the settlement of a raft of private antitrust 
cases that would require the company to spend over a $1 billion to 
put software and computers into some of the poorest U.S. schools, I 
nearly fainted.
    This settlement would_
    * Cost virtually nothing to Microsoft except the cost of some 
CD's and old, refurbished computers that they can get for next to 
nothing.
    * Give Microsoft an excellent PR opportunity.
    * Give Microsoft the opportunity to make money off of the 
children/schools via their "Passport" service, which is 
geared to make money from all transactions the user places through 
his/her computer.
    * And, most ludicrously, give Microsoft even more market share 
than it already has by unseating Apple as the dominant provider of 
computers to grades K-12! Let me repeat the irony of this_
    Microsoft has been ruled a monopoly, so as punishment, they are 
given more market share! Ridiculous!
    If anything, the company should be required to donate the Apple 
or Linux products instead of their own!
    How on earth did it go from a break-up of the company, to giving 
them more market share on a silver platter?
    Jeff Avellanet
    (concerned citizen!)



MTC-00001599

From: Thomas, Allen G.
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/20/01 4:04pm
Subject: OPINION ON MICROSOFT CASE
    I feel it is a descent move to get them to donate their $$ to 
some deserving schools.But let's leave them alone now and move on to 
other more important issues.They have received enough flack and for 
what ?Being a good marketing company? Enough is enough !]



MTC-00001600

From: Craig Bergh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Hello,
    This is Craig Bergh from Worthington, MN. I do not want to see 
the quick settlement for Microsoft. They must have their day on 
court.They have manipulated the market in a thousand ways.
    Todays offer to give some copies of Microsoft products to 
schools is laughable. Their new software literally a new Pentium 4 
computer to even run a simple word

[[Page 23946]]

processor. And this manuever only entrenches teir monopoly A few 
years ago they forced Wordperfect out of business when they would 
not give the source code to Windows (so Word Perfect could write the 
program for Windows 95) until a week or two before it was relased. 
At the same time, Microsoft literally gave Microsoft Word for free 
with all new computers. Word Perfect market share dropped from 70% 
to 4% overnight. This was a cold example of using the monopoly power 
of Windows to also dominate the Word Processor market as well.
    The Microsoft products are really not very well written, have 
poor security from hackers, and crash frequently. Yet because they 
dominate the market so much, we are forced to deal with the second 
rate software. This is the United States of America. Microsoft MUST 
GO TO COURT and defend their beahvior. I am sorry the first judge 
screwed up the case with his pretrial comments. He was probably 
right, but the judge must be unbiased.
    Keep up this case. Do not be in any hurry to settle. Get the 
facts, determine if any laws have been broken. If so, determine a 
penalty appropriate for the crime.
    Sincerely,
    Craig Bergh
    133 Lake Avenue
    Worthington, MN 56187



MTC-00001601

From: Doyle and Linda Hasty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 3:59pm
Subject: Microsoft agreement
    Bill Gates is doing much to help many organizations. This 1 
billion gift should be sufficient for the government to get off his 
back and allow him to use his abilities to help computer users 
around the world.



MTC-00001602

From: Robert C. Marshall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 4:13pm
Subject: The Microsoft Dragon
    I've been in the computer field for about 40 years, as a machine 
operator, a developer, and as a computer scientist and engineer. I 
am retired from IBM and currently am an associate professor at 
Austin Community College in Texas.
    A settlement like this is very bad, to say the least. One of the 
goals of monopolistic companies in the computer field like 
Microsoft, or IBM, is to capture the technical minds of the coming 
generations. IBM once did this by providing free software to 
schools. By doing this, Microsoft can look as though they are 
settling a suit, but they are simply preparing to further their 
monopoly into the next generation by making large quantities of 
their software products available to schools. I hope this does not 
happen! Microsoft will eventually starve out all competition if it 
does. Microsoft should be restricted and punished, not aided and 
abetted in furthering their monopolistic practices.



MTC-00001603

From: Anil (Neil) Gulati
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 4:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This judgement has not been anywhere near severe enough. 
Microsoft have been using FUD tactics throughout the whole process. 
As the following extract demonstrates, despite all their wailing 
about 'innovation' (not something Microsoft is known 
for) and 'freedom', they have been prepared to increase market share 
by any means whatsoever, morals and laws not withstanding.
    Microsoft needs to be punished and fined as a clear message to 
other companies that criminal activity is not allowable as part of 
business in the free world. Also Microsoft needs to have its 
operations curtailed so that it will be restricted from repeating 
the same behaviour. There is no indication that they will do this 
voluntarily. The split up of the company seems to be the most viable 
outcome as initially ruled by Judge Jackson.
    12. Microsoft, however, has not been willing simply to compete 
on the merits. For example, as Microsoft's Christian Wildfeuer wrote 
in February 1997, Microsoft concluded that it would "be very 
hard to increase browser share on the merits of IE 4 alone. It will 
be more important to leverage the OS asset to make people use IE 
instead of Navigator." (MS7 004346). Thus, Microsoft began, 
and continues today, a pattern of anticompetitive practices designed 
to thwart browser competition on the merits, to deprive customers of 
a choice between alternative browsers, and to exclude Microsoft's 
Internet browser competitors.
    Anil Gulati
    Anil (Neil) Gulati
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    (0414) 85 87 82
    Leichhardt, Sydney



MTC-00001604

From: Joan Rastani
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/20/01 4:09pm
Subject: Concerns
    Oh Great_now "the Microsoft way" will be 
indeliby etched into the students who grow up to be the adults who 
will be making buying decisions for future generations_all 
they will know about operating systems and software is that which 
Micosoft spoon feeds them.
    They will provide $$ for teacher training and copies of Windows 
and Office. Are they going to teach the teachers how to use the 
Microsoft products with the Microsoft $$. How sweet. And you think 
the rest of us can't see right thru this......it smells really bad!



MTC-00001605

From: Dean Snyder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Monopoly
    Greetings,
    The reported Microsoft technology donation to poor schools is 
not a "settlement" of the monopoly_it is an 
extension of the monopoly. Be honest and address the monopoly with 
realistic remedies.
    Respectfully,
    Dean A. Snyder
    Senior Information Technology Specialist, Humanities
    Krieger School of Arts & Sciences
    The Johns Hopkins University
    426A Gilman Hall/3400 North Charles Street
    Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218
    410 516-6021 office
    410 961-8943 portable



MTC-00001606

From: art
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 4:18pm
Subject: ripped of by the monoply
    How could Microsoft be anything but a monoply when they take 
almost $500. for their office product and continue to squash 
competitors by incorporating features initiated by others, thanks to 
their platform monoply.
    Why not stand up to monopolistic enterprises. Just because DoJ 
is busy with other important issues, please don't look the other way 
and cave in to MS.
    MS can only thank the disaster of 9/11 if you let them off easy!
    Please do your job beyond minimum expectations.
    your taxpayer,
    art schroepfer



MTC-00001607

From: Patrick Stapelberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 4:15pm
Subject: Are you insane??!!!
    Even the poor schools are mostly likely to purchase computers 
from Apple Computer. Schools are still one of Apple's primary 
installed base. So what, you want to publicly fund Microsoft's 
further invasion of one of Apple's last vertical markets?
    HOW CAN THIS BE ANYWHERE CLOSE TO JUSTICE!!!!!!
    Patrick Stapelberg
    181 Mulberry Circle
    Lodi, CA 95240



MTC-00001608

From: David Kijanka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 4:15pm
Subject: This is a horrible settlement
    The Microsoft settlement is a horrible deal for the class 
(consumers) and an enormous victory for Microsoft.
    1. The aggrieved class gets nothing
    2. Microsoft admits no wrongdoing
    3. Worst of all, it assists Microsoft's monopolistic hegemony by 
placing unlimited copies of its software in the marketplace to 
create "Microsoft addicts."
    Gates must be getting a good laugh.
    David Kijanka



MTC-00001609

From: Tarantino, Paul S.
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/20/01 4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a long-time computer user at home and in business, I was 
appalled to read details of the recently announced settlement 
proposal in the Microsoft antitrust case. This proposal does not 
serve the interests of consumers or of open competition. The 
proposed

[[Page 23947]]

settlement leaves Microsoft's illegal monopoly power in place, is 
full of poorly defined language and potential loopholes, provides 
for no redress of past wrongs on the part of Microsoft, has no 
meaningful enforcement mechanism (if Microsoft does not abide by the 
terms of the settlement, those terms will continue to apply for two 
more years), and does not provide sufficient outside oversight of 
Microsoft's business practices (a sequestered three-person oversight 
committee, with Microsoft having veto power on public disclosure of 
non-compliance issues). Microsoft has never acknowledged any 
wrongdoing, despite District Court findings that were upheld 
unanimously in the Court of Appeals. Microsoft has a dismal record 
of compliance with previous consent agreements, and continues to 
maintain and extend its monopoly power with Windows XP and its 
bundled products and services. I have absolutely no confidence that 
the proposed "remedies" will reduce Microsoft's 
predatory practices.
    Even as the court case and settlement discussions have gone 
forward, Microsoft has has radically revised its pricing models, 
imposing much higher licensing costs on organizational customers, 
many of whom are essentially "locked into" using 
Microsoft products and have no effective alternatives. The 
"applications barrier to entry" remains firmly in place.
    The events of September 11 and Judge Kollar-Kotelly's strongly 
expressed interest in rapid closure should not be an excuse for 
complete capitulation to a guilty party. A settlement on these terms 
causes more harm than continuing litigation.
    I have read dozens of editorials and opinion pieces in print and 
online media which characterize the proposed settlement as vague, 
meaningless, riddled with escape clauses, a "slap on the 
wrist" or an outright victory for Microsoft.
    Here are some suggestions for additional constraints to 
consider:
    1. Each of Microsoft's existing APIs, protocols and file formats 
(for all of its software products) should be made freely available 
to the public, not just to a narrowly defined class of OEMs and 
software producers. New or modified APIs, protocols and formats 
should be publicly posted well before they are incorporated into new 
software releases (perhaps in advance of the first beta 
distribution). Each instance of incomplete or untimely compliance 
should result in a substantial fine.
    2. Microsoft should have no authority over computer OEM 
decisions re the PC desktop, its layout and contents. Why are the PC 
manufacturers not considered Microsoft customers, rather than mere 
delivery boys for the "Windows experience?"
    3. Microsoft software applications or functions which have no 
bearing on the basic operation of the PC computer system (e.g. web 
browsers, music and video editors/players, photo print ordering) 
should be completely severable/removable from the Windows 
installation, and function as standalone applications only.
    Thank you for your consideration. I will continue to follow the 
resolution of this case with great interest.
    Paul S. Tarantino, CDR, USN (Ret.)
    11211 Silver Tree Place
    Columbia, MD 21044



MTC-00001610

From: Corni, Dave (GEAE, Digital)
To: '[email protected]'
Date: 11/20/01 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Your understanding of how microsoft does business is not 
adequate enough for you to make a decision.
    Your understanding of technology is obviously very limited. 
Microsoft blocks competition by buying, not creating, functionality 
and incorporating it into their "operating system". 
Hell, they didn't even buy it from Sun Microsystems, they stole it!
    Did you realize that now Microsoft is competing with 
manufacturers of MP3 players? Yup, they put an MP3 player into their 
latest version of their "operating system". And that is 
just one example of technology that they are destroying by 
questionable methods. There is also the questionable sales and 
licensing tactics that they use to keep their competition out of 
major markets. Then there is the technology that they just steal.
    And how do you punish them? By putting the software in question, 
unchanged, into millions of potential consumer hands, so they can 
grow up thinking how great Microsoft is. You are literally paying 
Microsoft to advertise.
    It'll be the best ad campaign since Joe Camel.
    You are a group of incompetent clods who should have removed 
yourself from the case for not understanding the technology enough 
to make a decision. Congratulations on being stupid.



MTC-00001611

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 4:20pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern. Thank goodness this is over. Now you and 
Microsoft can deal with some of the real issues of our daily lives.
    John Wice



MTC-00001612

From: David
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 4:19pm
Subject: Public comment
    David Rubright
    2643 Newport Rd NE
    Solon, IA 52333
    United States of America
    11/20/01
    It has been clearly shown that a monopoly exists. This monopoly 
acts like a public utility without oversight. In its wake are ?minor 
competitors1 without the leg up of being ?tied1 to an operating 
system. Unchecked the monopoly moves into other areas of computing 
and electronic industry like a cancer. Its activities are consistent 
with a monopoly abusing its position.
    The antitrust litigation has brought its practices under 
scrutiny. Its defense being that it doesn1t need to abide by the law 
because it represents a ?new1 industry.
    The monopoly has concentrated wealth and power to the point that 
it mocks our legal system. Many ?innovations1 are stolen from 
competitors or ?monopolized1. This monopoly can fund a lengthy 
appeals process and avoid any law it doesn1t find useful. The 
central question has been debated and judged. This turn toward being 
less aggressive is an opportunistic moment for the monopoly. A 
monopoly is a form of tyranny. This one is no different. I have 
witnessed this form of tyranny, this monopoly without restraint, and 
ask for you to stop placating to it.



MTC-00001613

From: Ronnie Jensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 4:29pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Let the schools install Red Hat and let Microsoft supply the 
hardware..



MTC-00001614

From: karl(a)martin-gas.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft case
Good afternoon,
    I hope everyone has a wonderful Thanksgiving.
    My email is to state my dissatisfaction at the current agreement 
reached in regards to the Microsoft anti trust case.
    I feel it has been proven many times that Microsoft has abused 
its position as a global business giant. Even going to the extent to 
thumb it's nose at the government on several occasions (the latest 
the release of XP). Microsoft is not bad because it's big or that is 
contributes significantly to PAC's. Microsoft abused its power as a 
multinational company. That fact was proven in the case against it. 
What was dismissed is the fact that Microsoft would not be broken 
up.
    The point, I'm sure you waiting. After spending millions of 
dollars (or at least hundreds of thousands) of taxpayer money, we 
don't have a different Monopoly than we had in the beginning. 
Punishment? I'm sure the definition is much different than what we 
have just been privy to. Microsoft will continue it's run for 
Monopoly of the A.D.
    Microsoft should be dealt a horrible blow that will not affect 
its workforce, but affect its opportunity to continue its horrible 
monopolistic ways.
    Don't cower in front of the evil doers! It's not terrorism, its 
business!
    God Bless America! And save us from the monopoly!
    Karl Riley
    5101 Estes Pkwy #12
    Longview, Texas 75603
    PS Did I mention that XP thing?



MTC-00001615

From: David Irvine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 4:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Terrorism
    I read with interest (or rather incredulity and resignation) 
about the settlement of the class action suit where Microsoft is 
required to give a bunch of free software to make up for their 
failings.

[[Page 23948]]

    Microsoft must be laughing all the way to the bank. We have seen 
here in Australia, many cases where our proposals to develop web 
applications based on international standards are rejected because 
the organization is reluctant to put any non-Microsoft software on 
their servers because it would jeopardize their continued supply of 
free software from Microsoft. Microsoft uses their monopoly to force 
the competition out by giving away free software and holding that 
power over the head of any organization that dares to try anything 
that could be construed as competition.
    On top of this Microsoft is actively encouraging the development 
of web sites that only work properly using Microsoft operating 
systems, applications and browsers. Witness the sudden unannouced 
dropping of support for browser plug-ins that their competition use. 
Suddenly you must do it the Microsoft way and no other. Very large 
numbers of web sites must change overnight with no prior warning.
    Microsoft represents the most dangerous anti-competitive 
monopoly the US has ever seen due to the poor quality of their 
products and lack of attention to security. The homogeneous nature 
of the US computing environment represents a major opportunity for 
terrorists. Even relatively uneducated young teenagers know how to 
attack.
    Break it up! Put it in competition with itself. And stop 
Microsoft's predation on other companies that produce good cross-
platform applications. They acquire the company and drop the 
versions that run on competing systems.
    What are you afraid of?
    David Irvine
    PS. Why is it that Microsoft Office is so expensive and its only 
real competition must give away their product if it even hopes to 
compete?



MTC-00001616

From: mike staples
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 4:30pm
Subject: 1 Billion, what a joke, and of course there is no telling 
what they will charge themselves for the
    1 Billion, what a joke, and of course there is no telling what 
they will charge themselves for the teacher training. This is almost 
as bad as the governments settlement with GM over the saddle tanks 
on their trucks. You guys are a joke when it comes to punishment!
    On the other hand, what if Bill Gates said the hell with it all 
and closed shoip, then all the people of America would be screaming 
at the government.
    You guys cannot win, no matter what you do, someone is going to 
be pissed off.
    Remenber, Microsoft made 7 billion and some change last year, so 
1 billion is a joke.



MTC-00001617

From: Dan Hoskin
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/20/01 4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    It's about time. I think it's a good deal for everyone.
    Thanks,
    Dan



MTC-00001618

From: Smythe DuVal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft/DOJ Settlement Condones Political Corruption
    I'd like to comment on the recent settlement between the DOJ and 
Microsoft.
    I have worked in the software and computer industry since 1989, 
including several startup firms that have partnered with Microsoft. 
I have followed the anti-trust cases against Microsoft since the 
mid-90s and I own a few shares of Microsoft stock.
    I am shocked at the settlement the DOJ has reached with 
Microsoft. By any legal standard it is a weak settlement. I will not 
go into the details of of why this settlement is so weak_that 
has already been done ad nauseum. The DOJ attempted to create a 
face-saving settlement that looks tough and is actually quite 
benign. What has taken place is an abuse of the rule of law. The 
settlement is worthy of criticism because it blatantly condones 
political corruption.
    Before writing this letter, I researched the political campaign 
contributions made by Microsoft to the major Parties. It appears to 
me and no doubt other Americans that Microsoft entered a quid pro 
quo arrangement with the major Parties_one in which Microsoft 
drastically increases their campaign contributions and in return the 
anti-trust suit will go away. Here are Microsoft's donations to the 
Republican and Democrat Parties since 1992:
1992_$51,483
1994_$103,702
1996_$237,484
1998_$1,357,746
2000_$4,356,376
2002_$837,385
Source: Center for Responsive Politics_
OpenSecrets.org
http://www.opensecrets.org/ industries/
contrib.asp?Ind=C5120&Cycle=2002
    Microsoft's donations significantly increased as their legal 
troubles increased, reaching over $4 million in the 2000 election. 
Now that the lawsuit is "settled", donations for the 
2002 general election are drastically reduced, and yet still a large 
sum. That surge of money in 1998 and 2000 and the resulting 
settlement represent political corruption in the highest offices of 
this government. Microsoft bought this DOJ settlement.
    It is reported in the news services today that Microsoft is 
offering to pay all court and litigation costs to the remaining 
States, if in return these States would drop their case against 
Microsoft. This eye-brow raising offer illustrates two 
things_one, Microsoft isn't subtle when doing political 
corruption, and secondly, it offers a glimpse at the un-ethical 
environment they have participated with the major parties in recent 
years. Would any law abiding American driver, pulled over by a law 
abiding Police officer, offer to pay the officer's time in court if 
he in return would not write up a ticket? This is the very 
definition of attempted bribery. Microsoft's offer to the States is 
no less the same. Maybe they should donate lots of money to the 
State level Republican and Democratic Party_they have already 
done that. Here is a thorough report detailing the corruption 
between Microsoft and officials at all levels of the government:
http://www.commoncause.org/publications/microsoft/microsoftstudy.pdf
    The Democrats, the Republicans, and the Justice Department 
failed to uphold the rule of law and have set the most blatant 
precedent that bribery is acceptable practice. Indeed_I 
anticipate if Microsoft doesn't pony up "protection 
money" in future election campaigns_they will find 
themselves in legal trouble again. Case in point_for the 2002 
elections, Microsoft is the highest donor to the major Parties in 
the software industry.
    I hope the remaining States and the European Commission have 
more integrity than the Democrats and Republicans who make up the 
"Department of Justice". America needs people who not 
only preach but also practice the rule of law.
    Smythe DuVal
    Marietta, GA



MTC-00001619

From: Steady Ed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Reaches Private Antitrust Settlement
    This settlement is a charade. It makes no sense, is just a 
Microsoft pay off and it is horrible for competition and consumer 
choice.
    It's as though a cigarette companies punishment is to supply 
schools with free Cigarettes. I'm sure Apple Computer and network 
hardware and software companies for example, will find the 
settlement unsettling to say the least. How can they compete in 
their main market place when a company is given a key to the 
facility and a green light to wire and network the district with 
their proprietary equipment and software.
    It's a hard place to be in for the schools who see Microsoft 
waving one billion dollars in front of their face. It's blinding. 
Who can argue the benefits of technology to our youth and cost 
reduction to our schools.
    However, I estimate this one billion investment will pay off 
handsomely and be a windfall for Microsoft and its products 
entrenchment in those very same schools within the near future.
    One billion dollars is the same amount of money that Microsoft 
is spending on Advertisement alone for Windows XP. I think this is 
also roughly the amount that the company plans on loosing on the 
Xbox this year in-order to solidify a market presence.
    This One billion to the schools, like the XP marketing blitz and 
Xbox expenditures, solidifies a presence in a market for Microsoft.
    This is a strangle hold on those very schools which will now be 
completely dependent on Microsoft.
    The Ironic thing is that if Microsoft was to offer a billion 
dollars to set up schools with their equipment it would not be 
allowed because it would be anti-competitive.
    You can not punish a company that has 41 billion plus in cash in 
the bank by giving

[[Page 23949]]

them whole markets for pennies on the dollar and call it a Monopoly 
remedy.
    You got to love the Genius behind Microsoft. They pulled another 
fast one on US, the public.
    Joshua Orzech
    California



MTC-00001620

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 4:59pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Sirs:
    I run a small one man business printing very large baseball 
posters using Microsoft Excell. I have experienced many problems 
using this software that has caused me to lose many hours of work. 
Every time that I have called Microsoft for technical help I have 
been told I would have to either pay for the help or contact the 
people who sold me the computer for the help. My problems are not 
mainstream and the computer shop cannot help me. My problems revolve 
around errors and flaws in Microsoft software (Excel and Windows 
3.1).
    PLEASE DO NOT LET MICROSOFT OFF THE HOOK!!!!.
    Any one who would sell this software and not support it with its 
errors does not practice ethical or moral business practices. If I 
could purchase other software from someone else I would but I 
cannot; Microsoft is the ONLY company who writes software that I can 
use.
    If you would like to contact me I can be reached at :
    Peter Allen
    Ovidian Enterprises
    51 Taylor St. Suite 1-L
    Waltham, MA 02453
    [email protected]
    781-398-1768
    Thankyou for your efforts to protect us against unfair business 
practices (along with the protection from those "people" 
who would try to kill us)
    Sincerely
    Peter Allen



MTC-00001621

From: Raffael Cavallaro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 4:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement too soft.
    Dear Attorney General,
    I am a concerned citizen writing to ask that you insist that any 
settlement be much tougher on Microsoft than the details of the 
proposed settlement currently circulating in press reports. As you 
know, Microsoft has already been found guilty of violations of anti-
trust law, has already been found to be a monopoly, and these 
rulings have been sustained by the US Supreme Court. Such 
transgressions, especially where they damage the interests of 
consumers, as well as the interests of many high technology 
businesses, demand severe penalties.
    Some have proposed requiring a forced revelation of the source 
code of the various Windows operating systems. Others suggest 
forcing Microsoft to release versions of Windows with no internet 
application software included, so that Microsoft's anti-competitive 
effect on that market can be rectified by allowing computer 
manufacturers to include non-Microsoft browser software on new 
machines.
    Whatever remedies you and the other Attorneys General demand, 
they must be tougher than a mere Consent Decree. Remember, we are 
here in the first place because the original Consent Decree signed 
by Microsoft was too weak to stop their monopolistic and illegal 
practices. Another weak Consent Decree will guarantee that the 
future of computing, indeed, the future of high technology, will be 
not merely dominated, but completely controlled by a single 
predatory monopoly. The victims of this monopoly will undoubtedly be 
both consumers and businesses, indeed, all the people of the United 
States.
    It is no exaggeration to say that the future of the 21st century 
is in your hands. Please don't give away the potential benefits of 
such a powerful technology to a single, greedy, predatory monopoly. 
Please demand a tougher settlement. I, the voters, and your 
posterity will surely thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Raffael Cavallaro, Ph. D
    [email protected]



MTC-00001622

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/20/01 4:54pm
Subject: Suggested Microsoft Conduct Remedy
    As I understand the current state of the Microsoft (MS) 
antitrust case, MS has been found guilty of abusing its monopoly 
position. The proposed settlement is that MS will be subject to 
government oversight for 5 to 7 years. As a MIS veteran with Math 
and Computer Science degrees and over 15 years experience I would 
like to offer a simple vision of what "conduct" the 
government should insist that MS follow.
    MS has used its dominance of the OS to achieve dominance of the 
Applications that run on top of the OS. The object of the government 
oversight should be to break MS's lock on the link between the OS 
and the Applications. The only way to do this is to FORCE MS to 
publish the documented (and undocumented) APIs in the OS necessary 
to load and run MS Windows Applications. MS will scream bloody 
murder, and try to spin this as un-American, but running an abusive 
monopoly is un-American too. Publishing ALL of the necessary APIs 
should allow other OSs to run Windows Applications (including 
Microsoft Office). I have emulated other OSs like Windows on top of 
OSs like Macintosh and UNIX, but this has always been problematic 
because the MS APIs have to be reverse engineered because MS 
obviously doesn't cooperate in these efforts. If the government 
FORCED MS to cooperate then the other OSs could be able to run MS 
programs natively.
    Compliance would be EASY to monitor. If MS were forced to 
release OS APIs, then there would be a stampede in the LINUX world 
to support the APIs in order to run native Windows Applications. The 
LINUX community already has a global and public means of development 
and review for projects, and I am sure that a Windows port would 
become a high priority multi year project. If MS complies then the 
LINUX world will be able to make a workable clone of the MS OS. This 
OS clone would run on top of LINUX and be able to run all MS 
Applications. If MS "forgets" to mention some of the 
APIs, the LINUX crowd with its global review system will identify 
what is missing. If a clone MS OS can be built and it runs MS 
Applications, then MS compliance will have been demonstrated. 
Microsoft Excel, Word, Media Player, Internet Explorer, and Power 
Point could be the applications used to verify compliance.
    Even though MS would cry, they shouldn't worry unless they are 
afraid that their OS is so weak that a LINUX based clone would 
outperform the MS OS. Either way the consumer benefits. If the MS OS 
is superior, then the consumer now has two choices: buy the MS OS or 
use the slower but free LINUX clone. If the free LINUX version of 
the MS OS ends up being superior then the consumer is allowed to use 
a higher quality lower priced product. Either way the MS monopoly on 
the OS and the abuses that have resulted from the monopoly will be 
fixed by this approach. There should be NO time limit on the 
publication of the APIs, as long as MS makes OSs they should be 
forced to publish the APIs.
    Skip Steuart
    Steuart Investment Company
    phone:301/951-2744



MTC-00001623

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 4:52pm
Subject: Shame
    What can be said other than "Shame" for your 
cowardly capitulation to the monopoly which will further depress the 
economy.
    You have failed in your sacred trust to America.
    Shame.
    Don Kraig



MTC-00001624

From: Darren Varner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Don1t let em get away with it. Letting them give away their 
systems to schools is a penalty? What about those that compete to 
get their systems in schools such as Apple for instance. This isn1t 
a penalty, it is a GIFT! Stay after them. They ain1t all bad, but 
they ain1t anywhere near good!



MTC-00001625

From: Eric Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:08pm
Subject: Re: [Mac OS Rumors]
    I am terribly disappointed with the results of the Microsoft 
antitrust case. This company has built success upon continued 
thievery of technology developed by other companies and elimination 
of the source by use of its market share and domineering practices. 
These are the facts found in the case before some under-the-table 
dealings ensured the verdict didn't stand and the company was let

[[Page 23950]]

off with a settlement. When the trial had begun, I was under the 
impression that justice would at last be served against a company 
bent on forcing its products upon all people by way of existing ones 
and eliminating all competition. The main example I cite for this is 
the inception of the Internet Explorer web browser, which was 
released for free on two major computing platforms in the sole 
interest of destroying such competitors as Netscape, who must charge 
money for their web browser to stay in business. The especially 
bothersome part was releasing their browser for the Macintosh when 
they make no profit from the sales of such systems, and therefore 
have nothing to truly gain by eliminating other browsers on that 
platform.
    The Microsoft megalith not only makes inferior products, as can 
be proven by numerous security and stability flaws, but 
exponentially increases the variety and inferiority of such 
products. Why must Microsoft now include its instant messenger 
within Windows XP, with no option for removal I might add, and why 
must XP continually harass its users to sign up for Passport, a 
technology that's bound to make its members vulnerable to numerous 
security breeches, since knowing someone's Passport information 
allows one to hack into personal information of that member on a 
number of web sites.
    Big business is running this country more and more. The 
government is losing power to business as we are told to embrace our 
rich, fat cat friends as the lifeblood of America, no matter how 
much the CEOs make in comparison to the average laborer in one of 
their sweat shops. Having worked at such jobs, I can say Capitalism 
is a failure in the liberal sense, in that the lowest class workers 
can't even live on the wages of a single job of that type. These 
people are lucky to able to own a home in our present economic 
conditions. I'm tired of big business being the only successful 
force in this nation.
    Capitalism is a failure.



MTC-00001626

From: Jason Hobbs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It seems to me that if Microsoft is labeled a monopoly, they can 
make everyone happy by "giving" away their product and 
growing bigger in the meantime. Am I one of the few that see this as 
just a "legal" way to make a monopoly grow. I am ashamed 
of the way the DOJ has handled the situation.
    Jason Hobbs



MTC-00001627

From: Jon Steiner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:11pm
Subject: My Input
    Dear DOJ,
    I just wanted to let you know that I don't feel the current 
settlement is in the best interest of the country or the economy. It 
merely reinforces Microsoft's monopoly position in the software 
world, and does not curtail their behavior. The 
'charity' that is being bandied about as a remedy 
doesn't change that fact.
    _Jon Steiner, Software Engineer, New York City



MTC-00001628

From: Robert Powell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:10pm
Subject: Mircosoft Case
    I am proud to live in a country where a company such as 
Microsoft can grow and prosper. The products that have come from 
Microsoft with my computers have always added value to my 
investment. I have tried other products, but have returned to 
Microsoft because I like them more. I view the settlement as a very 
positive development and hope the company will continue to inovate 
and prosper.
    Sincerely,
    Robert L. Powell
    Buffalo, NY



MTC-00001629

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:10pm
Subject: You gave them publicity!!
    This is a settlement? A punishment? To order them to further 
strengthen their monopoly on the public, by pushing Microsoft 
products down students' throats?! My god! Couldn't you be subtle 
about throwing the whole concept of fair trade out the window? 
"You must perform massive publicity efforts as punishment for 
shutting down the creativity and innovative spirit of your fellow 
Americans." Short sighted? I don't think so. I think that this 
is a sell out. A pathetic, poorly executed attempt to cover up the 
fact that the government is in bed with corporate giants right now, 
and wouldn't want to scare off any other large corporation by taking 
a stand for independent effort and competition. This chance will 
never come again. You have closed off the finest part of American 
capitalism: creativity, spontaneity and the opportunity to execute 
on any idea.



MTC-00001630

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:09pm
Subject: Antitrust settlement
    What a disappointment. So, Microsoft provides/teaches its 
products,_self-promoting itself into infinity. Children/
teachers trained in Word, etc will have no use or knowledge for 
competing products.
    Shame on you.
    C J Wilde
    Bellevue WA



MTC-00001631

From: Tom Gottshalk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:13pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
    Dear Sirs,
    Frankly, I have had problems all along with the DOJ's case 
against Microsoft because I think the main tenant of the suit that 
the public was harmed by Microsoft was never proved to any degree 
what so ever. Sure, even the most superficial review of the case one 
could make an argument that technically MS (Microsoft) violated some 
dusty corner of anti-trust law. And even show, as has been done, 
that MS is a monopoly. But given all that, I argue that it has done 
no harm to the public in fact just the opposite. The very best thing 
that happened to the PC buying public was that the MS DOS operating 
system became the accepted standard. Shelf after shelf at retail 
stores filled with compatible software products. Computer games 
exploded and within a matter of a few years the internet became 
truly global. As a private citizen of the US I regularly browse 
libraries all over the world from my home. All this happened because 
there was a standard PC operating system that was compatible with 
all other so called IBM PCs anywhere in the world.
    On the one hand, since 1981 when I purchased my first PC for 
about $2900.00 not including software except IBM DOS 2.0. To the one 
I purchased last year for $1500.00 including fabulous software 
compared to my first unit. I have benefited from 120 times in 
processor speed, 500 times the size of RAM, and 20,000 times the 
disk storage space of my hard drive. All for about half the cost of 
my original PC.
    On the other hand, since the DOJ action against MS the negative 
impact on my IRA and my saving investments I would estimate has cost 
me somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000 in stock values and mutual 
fund values.
    At this rate, I will take all the harm MS can dish out. Of 
course I am being factious. The fact remains, I do not think MS has 
harmed any consumer this one in particular but the DOJ has, and for 
what? To prove a legal technical point.
    Remember, MS does not monopolize a natural resource. MS could 
close their doors tomorrow and sit on their copy right and there 
would never be another version of any of their software. Their 
engineers could refuse to THINK about improving Windows and Internet 
Explorer and the DOJ could do nothing to compel them to do 
otherwise. It is not a matter of getting someone else to drill 
cheaper or dig mines cheaper and share the product more broadly. All 
software is the product of thought not muscle and sweat. To what 
ever extent the DOJ punishes Microsoft it is to that extent that the 
DOJ will control, restrict, and frustrate the creative impulses of 
human thought that has benefited mankind thus far immeasurably. The 
DOJ is judging Microsoft with tools created in a completely 
different era and for a completely different kind of consumer 
product than we have before us. The DOJ is like a pre-Copernican, 
they can not see the true nature of the world because they fear a 
new vision a new truth because they believe they are right. Fine 
Microsoft a dollar and be done with it.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Gottshalk
    344 Remington Dr.
    Ovideo, FL 32765



MTC-00001632

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:13pm
Subject: Private Antitrust Suits
    Sirs:
    I am amazed at the proposed settlement for the private antitrust 
cases.

[[Page 23951]]

    Microsoft has been declared a monopoly and in return you intend 
to turn over an additional 14% of the educational market to them as 
well. That way, their competitors lose a ton of business and an 
entire generation of students are indoctrinated into the Microsoft 
world. Have you bothered to check with the competition to see if 
they think that they can afford to give up 14% of the educational 
market to this ruling? Or will this ruling simply help Microsoft 
drive their last competition out of the personal computer market 
entirely?
    One last question... when is Bill Gates going to go to jail for 
giving false statements at the original trial?
    Because if he can get away with it then I guess I can, too, 
someday. It may just cost me a donation or two to the right 
politicians, eh?
    Ralph Arnold
    Canton, Ohio



MTC-00001633

From: Mike Benda
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am disappointed with the terms of the USDOJ settlement 
agreement in the Microsoft anti-trust case.
    From all that I have read and observed about Microsoft's 
actions, this corporation shown blatant disrespect for both the law 
and fair business practices.
    I believe that allowing Microsoft to continue with its 
institutionalized conduct is bad for the consumer, the industry and 
the country.
    Michael Benda
    3830 19th Street
    Apt. 3
    San Francisco, CA 94114
    [email protected]



MTC-00001634

From: Ildefonso Cruz,MD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:19pm
Subject: Microsoft agrees to settle private antitrust suits
    It is no punishment for Microsoft to "give" 1B 
dollars of software and training to poor schools.
    When Microsoft gives software to people who would not buy it 
anyhow, they are loosing only pennies at most. Giving software to 
schools is a marketing scheme that worked well for Apple. So, where 
is the punishment?
    Bartering is for people who don't have money. With this fine 
Gates won't feel a thing. Get actual dollars and let the schools and 
projects the government decides on, and let the schools and project 
managers themselves decide what to spend the money on.
    Don't fine them what they can produce out of thin air.



MTC-00001635

From: Michael Overton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:18pm
Subject: Proposed Settlement
    As a computer technician, I have grave reservations about the 
proposed settlement. Those concerns are tied to the basic problem of 
preventing Microsoft from continuing to violate the laws regarding 
the leveraging of its monopoly into other markets. Microsoft 
continues to deny it has done anything wrong, even after several 
attempts to appeal the ruling have failed. This fundamental attitude 
on their part indicates that they feel they have done nothing wrong, 
and therefore will see no reason not to continue precisely the same 
conduct. There must be a strong mechanism to keep competition in the 
marketplace, or there will be no marketplace, just a choice of 1.
    Please consider this factor, and please try to find some method 
to prevent the kind of conduct that has already been found to 
violate the Sherman Anti-Trust act.
    Michael Overton
    2500 E. Saginaw Ave
    Lansing, 48912
    (517)487-0592



MTC-00001636

From: NOVIELLI, JOE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:17pm
Subject: Coffee Analogy
    The playing field is not even.
    What if the largest coffee producer were to package their own 
brand of sugar with their coffee. That is: you buy a pound of coffee 
and you get some sugar for FREE.
    Wouldn't this effect competition among other sugar producers?
    Now, what about if that same coffee producers, also bundles 
cream, milk, stirring sticks, and a travel mug...for FREE as well.
    What would happen now?
    Dairy producers are effected, makers of travel mugs and stir 
sticks are effected, and since the product is selling so well, NO 
ONE is buying other coffee brands. Eventually the price of coffee 
starts to rise because competition (in several markets above) is 
almost none existent. Microsoft's businesses need to be segregated 
to reflect an even playing field for all to play in the long term.
    My humble opinion.
    Joe



MTC-00001637

From: Ildefonso Cruz,MD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:16pm
Subject: Microsoft agrees to settle private antitrust suits
    It is no punishment for Microsoft to "give" 1B 
dollars of software and training to poor schools. When Microsoft 
gives software to people who would not buy it anyhow, they are 
loosing only pennies at most. Giving software to schools is a 
marketting scheme that worked well for Apple. So, where is the 
punnishment?
    Bartering is for people who don't have money. With this fine 
Gates won't feel a thing. Get actual dollars and let the schools and 
projects the government decides on, and let the schools and project 
managers themselves decide what to spend the money on.
    Don't fine them what they can produce out of thin air.



MTC-00001638

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement_a very bad deal for developers 
and consumers.
    I don't think the settlement accomplishes anything since 
Microsoft can basically continue doing what it was doing while 
playing games and doing good PR things (like giving free things to 
schools_you were going to investigate Apple for antitrust for 
doing the same thing!).
    If Usama Bin Laden is captured, but it takes time and the 
Appeals court says he is guilty but drawing and quartering (break-
up) is too severe, are you going to give him probation if he 
promises not to engage in terrorism again and give him back all the 
frozen accounts?
    First, there are injured parties, notably Netscape and Sun. 
Where is the millions or billions they have to pay or give in 
services like including their browser and Java technology in their 
windows releases? Or lock out Internet Explorer (Microsoft is free 
to contribute to Mozilla which is Open Source if they think features 
should be modified or added) and C#? Nowhere. Microsoft keeps 
its ill-gotten gains in both money and market share. Or gets to 
spend the money on what they were going to spend it on anyway.
    Second, the courts found Microsoft Guilty. Including the appeals 
court. Guilty people normally have to pay a penalty. Even if the 
current administration considers the antritust laws an ass, the laws 
are still there and need enforcement. I cannot choose which law I 
obey, but I don't have billions to argue the point. I find it 
strange that people voted for the current administration only to 
have what appears to be checkbook justice going on. If you are going 
to have a penalty-free decree written by Microsoft, you should 
simply move to dismiss instead of pretending anything will be done 
to limit Microsoft's dominance.
    Third, the reason they were sued in the late '90s is BECAUSE 
THEY DID THE EXACT SAME THING WITH WINDOWS 95. They promised not to 
bundle so they integrated instead and spent years arguing that 
integration wasn't bundling and that they weren't doing anything 
wrong while they were doing things to lock out competitors and 
leverage one monopoly into others.
    They promise not to hold back info, but they can just move to 
patents or add some digital protection thing in every API so 
everything is effectively exempt from the settlement. And you can 
spend five more years in court the next time they TOTALLY AND 
COMPLETELY VIOLATE THE SPIRIT OF THE AGREEMENT (and will the DoJ 
cave in then?). The devil is in the details and they snookered you 
with windows 95 in the details and they just did so again_if 
they weren't worried they wouldn't argue over every jot and tittle.
    A short and simple (and painful_given their guilt and 
assuming the laws are taken seriously_) agreement would have 
been better. If Microsoft can't live with restrictions on virus, 
piracy, and DRM controls, then they should go to the marketplace and 
let third parties develop the technology. If they don't like OEM 
restrictions then they should simply sell on a non-discriminatory 
basis_same price and contract for all comers.

[[Page 23952]]

    Finally, the EULA in every Windows installation says if you 
don't agree, you can take back THE SOFTWARE where you bought it for 
a full refund. I challenge the DoJ to try this. Buy a Laptop (for 
Linux or something else) and try to return just the Windows 
software. Or even buy an upgrade and try to return it. Microsoft 
won't even live by the terms of their own written legal agreements. 
If there was a provision that anyone (user or business) buying a PC 
could get a refund on Windows (from Microsoft) if they didn't want 
it, that would by itself fix most of the problems with OEMs.



MTC-00001639

From: Ben Pearre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:25pm
Subject: Bad Microsoft! Punishment: extend your monopoly!
    It seems an odd kind of justice to "punish" 
Microsoft by allowing it to extend its monopoly into schools. Any 
settlement that involves Microsoft contributing software is no 
punishment at all, but something that would help Microsoft 
regardless. If Microsoft is to pay $1.1 billion, $0.9 billion in 
software (valued however Microsoft chooses to value it, see 
Monopoly), then Microsoft is actually paying $0.2 billion to extend 
its stranglehold on the minds of the population. Remember, the cost 
for Microsoft to "donate" 0.9 billion dollars' worth of 
software is essentially nothing. How much do you think your copy of 
Windows costs Microsoft to produce? A few cents. If Microsoft is to 
give money to schools as a punishment for its crimes, it should be a 
punishment, not a victory. Perhaps Microsoft could give the schools 
$1.1 billion worth of hardware that works with Linux?
    Sincerely,
    Ben Pearre
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Cambridge, MA
    [email protected]
    http://hebb.mit.edu/ï¿½7Eben



MTC-00001640

From: Brian R. Burton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:24pm
Subject: bogus product registration
    Dear DOJ:
    I have noticed that after installing Office:mac 2001 (which is 
not my choice for the computer lab I direct, but because of the 
monopoly, the IT department here requires it; or perhaps Microsoft 
requires it of them?) on the various iMacs we have in the lab, that 
to register the product a "Passport" account is 
required. If you don't have one (I don't), you are just told to 
register later; thus leaving the product unregistered. This 
"Passport" account is another product of Microsoft's 
apparently designed to facilitate their .Net strategy of storing 
personal information to be used for commerce in the future. I don't 
think one ought to be required to sign on to another product during 
the registration process of a product. Whether you care or not, 
that's my two cents worth.
    Besides this, I think your settlement is a cave-in and very 
wrongheaded. It may protect foreign competitors like Sony who 
probably would have had their "oxygen supply" cut off 
prior to the settlement, what with them being both a Windows 
licensee and a competitor to the XBox with their Play Station, but 
it does nothing for the American companies whose focus has been on 
innovative products in a "competitive marketplace." As 
it turns out, the marketplace wasn't that competitive. I currently 
see an entire industry almost totally controlled by one company; 
indeed, one man. For the future, I see an entire economy and nation 
controlled by this same one company; one man.
    Anyway, I have somehow managed to continue to use Apple Macs for 
nearly 15 years now and which has been damn near unbelievable since 
1995. I have a feeling that a change is drawing near.
    Thanks for nothing,
    Brian R. Burton
    Albany, GA



MTC-00001641

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected] 
@inetgw,microsoftcomm...
Date: 11/20/01 5:34pm
Subject: Strong Microsoft Remedy
    I ask that each of you direct your good offices to make sure 
that the Remedy in the Microsoft anti-trust case be stringent and 
strong. I have watched this company manipulate, strangle and stomp 
competition and harm the computer industry. As a Macintosh technical 
support guy, I know things need not be that way. (Not that Apple 
hasn't done bad and manipulative things as well.)
    Please help us consumers and technical people *at least* 
breaking up MS into different elements. At best, put portions of 
their OS into the public domain.
    With Thanks,
    Bill Geraci (jer-AW-see)
    BGCompHelp
    Computer Trainer and Consultant
    P O Box 221
    Blue Island, IL 60406
    e-mail: [email protected]
    Pager / Voicemail: 708-988-1936
    Fax: 708-388-1493
    "Take it easy but take it."



MTC-00001642

From: Brian Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:33pm
Subject: Comment on Proposed Settlement
    I'm writing to inform you that like many Americans I am 
extremely disappointed with the proposed settlement between 
Microsoft and the DOJ. Microsoft's strategy is simple and a blatant 
abuse of its monopoly power_they pick a product, like 
browsers, instant messaging, or streaming video, that they want to 
dominate, and then bundle it with Windows claiming it's a 
"feature". If lack of competition really produced better 
products, the Soviet Union would have led the world in technological 
prowess. The high-tech industry in this country and consumers 
everywhere can only be hurt by a world where Microsoft, not the 
market, dictates what products will be successful. If every TV set 
sold was made by one company and they decided to throw in a VCR with 
every one of them, sure consumers would benefit_but not nearly 
as much as they would if free competition led to a number of 
manufacturers battling it out to make the best VCR possible.
    Free enterprise is what this country was built on, and it deeply 
worries me to see my government throwing this principle out the 
window to placate Microsoft.
    Don't let the emails I'm sure Microsoft has people writing on 
their behalf fool you_most people are against this settlement 
and want to see more stringent penalties imposed that prevent 
Microsoft from bundling products and crushing new industries before 
they can be born. I hope the United States will be persistent in 
bringing Microsoft to justice.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Smith



MTC-00001643

From: Bill Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:27pm
Subject: Microsoft
    It appears that Microsoft has come out unscathed again. Being so 
kind to our school children will probably teach them that if you are 
big enough, you can get by with murder.
    There should at least be a penalty to keep them from doing the 
same thing again. As soon as the cases are all settled, I am sure 
they will be back to their old tricks. Why won't there be a penalty 
that will make Bill Gates think twice before he beats the little guy 
to death?
    W. P. Wilson
    4516 Grand Forest Dr.
    Schertz TX 78154



MTC-00001644

From: Bruce Brehm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:42pm
Subject: Simple Solution
    Plain and Simple:
    The software code to the windows operating system should be made 
part of the public domain...
    Then all software developers will have complete access to the 
underlying operating system (OS) code; preventing any unfair gain 
for Microsoft (MS) to practice 'trickery' within the OS to prevent 
third parties from creating alternative software products that could 
possibly outperform MS applications at cheaper costs...
    For example, what if somehow the first person who created a 
means for sending and decoding normal television transmissions from 
the airways, had patented the process, virtually taken control of 
all the transmission stations, and didn't tell everyone exactly what 
the limitations of the transmitted signal was that was being used... 
Only television companies who it liked could use the airways in the 
best possible fashion... Without full disclosure, they could just 
tweak the system a bit, so that the picture that they were able to 
provide on one manufactured TV was slightly better the signal that 
was possible on competing TV.
    Is this not what MS has done in the software industry?
    Bruce B. Brehm

[[Page 23953]]



MTC-00001645

From: Jeff Gagne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am reading in the press today that as part of this agreement 
Microsoft will give 1 Billion dollars worth of services, software, 
and hardware to schools.
    It's a wonderful thing when the remedy to an antitrust violation 
is to gain even more marketshare and make it even more difficult for 
companies like Apple to survive. Apple makes a large portion of it's 
revenue from Education and this might as well put them on the block.
    This is just bad.
    Jeff Gagne
    10638 Hollow Tree Rd.
    Orland Park, IL 60462



MTC-00001646

From: R. W. Potter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:39pm
Subject: Re: Proposed Settlement
    As an average user of personal computers and software, I have 
several objections to the proposed Microsoft settlement.
    1. The settlement does nothing to punish Microsoft for its 
repeated abuses of monopoly power. Microsoft's practices over many 
years forced numerous competitors to either cease business in the 
software area, or to drastically alter their sales/distribution 
efforts. Yet in the proposed settlement the monopolist is not 
required to provide any restitution to either the firms that were 
unfairly abused, or to consumers who now have fewer software choices 
and must pay high prices for the products of Microsoft. Thus the 
monopolist is rewarded without any penalty for past misdeeds. 
(Software give-aways by Microsoft also cannot be considered any form 
of penalty since they extend the monopolist's market share and 
reduce further the potential market of competitiors.)
    2. The three-person tribunal which is to oversee the proposed 
settlement cannot be expected to be effective. Microsoft will 
appoint one member, and have a say in a second member. The group 
will be paid by Microsoft and will work at their offices. It is 
naive to expect that this tribunal will not become co-opted by 
Microsoft under these circumstances over the course of several 
years. Any such oversight body must be completely independent, 
reporting to and compensated by the Court.
    Thank you for your consideration of these views.
    * [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00001647

From: Thomas Wong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:37pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft settlement
    What a waste of time and taxpayer money. Once again a wealthy 
company has bought justice.
    America may have the best judicial system in the world, but it 
does have a serious flaw.
    If you have money you can play the game. I just read that Exxon 
had their Alaska settlement reduced.
    As the saying goes, MONEY TALKS.
    Just what did it cost the Government to sue Microsoft? (Does 
anyone know?)
    Why not have Microsoft reimburse the Government for all the 
legal fees?
    I guess that would be asking too much.



MTC-00001648

From: Joe Borzellino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:44pm
Subject: Harsher remedies needed in MS case
    Hello,
    I wanted to let you know that I support efforts to seek harsher 
remedies in the Microsoft antitrust case. The proposed Federal 
settlement will do nothing to curb Microsoft's anti-competitive 
practices. I urge you to pursue the case further and hold Microsoft 
responsible for their illegal actions. Our nation's economy and 
national security depend on a vibrant innovative technology 
industry. MS's dominance in operating systems and applications and 
their insistence on MS only solutions in the server and enterprise 
markets can only increase the vulnerability of our economy and 
national security to adverse circumstances. I urge you to reconsider 
the preliminary settlement provisions and to seek more substantial 
remedies.
    Thanks,
    Dr. Joseph E. Borzellino
    5095 El Verano Ave
    Atascadero, CA 93422



MTC-00001649

From: Bruce Brehm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Plain and Simple:
    The software code to the windows operating system should be made 
part of the public domain...
    Then all software developers will have complete access to the 
underlying operating system (OS) code; preventing any unfair gain 
for Microsoft (MS) to practice 'trickery' within the OS 
to prevent third parties from creating alternative software products 
that could possibly outperform MS applications at cheaper costs...
    For example, what if somehow the first person who created a 
means for sending and decoding normal television transmissions from 
the airways, had patented the process, virtually taken control of 
all the transmission stations, and didn't tell everyone exactly what 
the limitations of the transmitted signal was that was being used... 
Only television companies who it liked could use the airways in the 
best possible fashion... Without full disclosure, they could just 
tweak the system a bit, so that the picture that they were able to 
provide on one manufactured TV was slightly better the signal that 
was possible on competing TV.
    Is this not what MS has done in the software industry?
    Bruce B. Brehm



MTC-00001650

From: Leverenz, Tim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:49pm
Subject: Settlement
    The just relapsed settlement by Microsoft to furnish schools 
with software and hardware is the biggest bunch of baloney I have 
ever heard. Giving an abusive company a free inroads to, probably 
one of the last truly competitive areas for computing, just does not 
make any sense.
    But Hausfeld said he felt it was the government's job to find a 
way to curtail Microsoft's power, and that it was unrealistic to 
expect that a better deal could be reached for such a large class-
action group.
    This curtails power? You give away free software and 
refurbished, USED computers. Knowing the way MS thinks, they will 
donate Windows 95 and 80Mhz computers. Then when all the schools 
systems sign their licensing agreement, they will be forced to 
purchase more than $1 billion in hardware and software to remain 
compliant with their agreement. This is a BIG, BIG win for MS and a 
big loss for competition in America.
    Yes, it is wonderful that disadvantaged children can gain access 
to computers and information that was not available to them. But at 
the cost of innovation and free competition?
    You people were elected by me and my peers. We do not pay to 
have our way. You are supposed to represent our way, but you sell 
out to some powerful, egotistical company that will not admit that 
they do not play fair. This is justice? this is punishment for 
abusive power? Oh, we'll just sugar coat it with some feely good 
news that disenfranchised children now have access to computers and 
Americans, who are too busy with their lives and terrorist crap will 
suck it all up and smile that justice was done. What you have done 
to the American people is terrorism against new ideas and a free 
market that is dictated by good products and the will of the people, 
not by buying and influencing mindless, greedy politicians.
    I am ashamed to be an American, the so called land of the free 
where people's dreams can come true, as long as Bill Gates says you 
can...
    Tim Leverenz
    C-Graphic, LLC
    414-481-3100
    Fax 414-481-3353
    Cell 414-460-8477



MTC-00001651

From: Dan Rosendale
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 11/20/01 5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    I am a school board member in Southeastern Ohio and would like 
some information concerning how our school district could apply for 
funding as a result of the Microsoft case.
    Regards,
    Dan Rosendale



MTC-00001652

From: Williams, Lance
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:54pm
Subject: comments on antitrust settlement
    This note is in response to your request for public comment on 
the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement.
    To begin, I am a real person, not a fiction, and my comments 
reflect my own opinions.

[[Page 23954]]

You will doubtless receive a great deal of paid commentary from 
shills for Microsoft, or even comments lauding the proposed 
settlement from nonexistent people. Microsoft has been so flagrant 
in their fraudulent manipulation of public commentary that this 
behavior is evident even to the public. Countless "letters to 
the editor" in countless publications attest to this sort of 
corporate disinformation. Out-and-out fraud is accompanied by 
disingenuous commentary from Microsoft satraps and fellow-
travellers. These are all symptoms of the excessive power and wealth 
Microsoft has accumulated, and the abusive means to which this power 
and wealth are employed.
    A computer operating system has an easily delimited function.
    It organizes the use of the computer's hardware_its 
memory, processors, and peripheral devices _ for the user's 
applications. Applications programs, whether for email, text 
editing, or entertainment media, are in a clearly separate category. 
They reflect what the user of the computer wants the computer to 
accomplish; the operating system provides the means. Microsoft has 
tried to confuse this distinction with the goal of controlling the 
market for all computer programs, a goal quite contrary to consumer 
interests throughout the world. Many valuable applications can be 
made "features" of the operating system, removing a 
competitive marketplace for improved products. The features and 
structure of Microsoft's operating system, which is under their sole 
control, provide a powerful instrument of monopoly.
    The only effective remedy for Microsoft's abuse of their 
monopoly power is to keep them out of the applications software 
business. If you vend an operating system, you cannot sell 
applications: otherwise, you've always got the inside track. There 
will never be a level playing field without this principle.
    The remedies proposed have no more chance of inhibiting 
Microsoft's criminal behavior than those undertaken in 1995. I 
implore our Department of Justice to take the greatest pains to 
avoid the widespread public impression that Microsoft is now 
sufficiently wealthy and powerful to be above the law.
    I admit to my regret that I now share this impression, and 
believe it to be accurate.
    Respectfully yours,
    Lance Williams
    Walt Disney Feature Animation
    (818) 526-3422



MTC-00001653

From: CC
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:53pm
Subject: MicroSoft gets off easy
    MS has not stopped their monopolistic ways as proven by Windows 
XP.
    The breakup was the PROPER thing to do.



MTC-00001654

From: Sutton Colin
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/20/01 5:52pm
Subject: Reparations?
    I have read that in the proposed settlement Microsoft agrees to 
donate software and computers to more than 14,000 of the poorest US 
schools during the next 5 years.
    I hope the schools get to choose which software, and from which 
manufacturers, otherwise this is more anti-competitive behaviour.
    Regards,
    Colin Sutton
    CC:'thurrott(a)win2000mag.com'



MTC-00001655

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:52pm
Subject: Penalties? What penalties?
    The current settlement proposed for Microsoft is a travesty. In 
my mind it corresponds to letting a killer free from death row and 
giving him a coupon for a free assault rifle.
    The appearance is that Microsoft has purchased both the 
Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government and the 
Judicial branch is powerless. In five years Microsoft will own all 
media outlets and the internet and totally control public opinion. I 
don't fear the Taliban, but Microsoft scares me to death.



MTC-00001656

From: steve wolff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 6:11pm
Subject: The Microsoft settlement idea is a BAD one !!!!!
    The idea of letting MS give away computers to schools as a 
settlement is HORRIBLE. It simply lets the MS brands get more 
entrenched. eg Apple gets hurt in this process and MS gets stronger 
and more market share. BAD BAD BAD MS should pay cash to schools and 
let them decide on how to spend it. Not s/w or h/w.........
    Why not some investment in companies competing with MS!!
    Steven B. Wolff
    Sr. VP and CTO
    415 883 1500 1711 fax



MTC-00001657

From: Robert Newton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 6:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti Trust
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I write to express my sincere concern as to the terms of 
settlement of the Microsoft Anti Trust case.
    I have read the original judgement given in this case and one 
can only conclude that Microsoft has continually acted in and 
unethical and unprincipled manner.
    Microsoft has deliberately and knowingly used its power to 
stifle competition, but more importantly has in so prevented good 
technologies from coming to market or been accepted.
    Microsoft is a ruthless and an unfit company, you will be 
failing in your responsibilities if you do not take the strongest 
possible action against them.
    There is a consensus in the computer industry that Microsoft has 
used it power to get a very lenient settlement and this leads to a 
dis respect for the prosecuting authorities.
    I encourage you to take more decisive action to ensure that this 
monology (Microsoft) gets a settlement more befitting their 
inconsumable behaviour.
    Yours truly
    Robert Newton
    Australia



MTC-00001658

From: Case Coe W
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:59pm
Subject: MicroSoft penalties INADEQUATE
    Even in the face of the lawsuit, MS continued its illegal 
practices with Windows ME, Windows XP, and the new MS Office suites. 
The penalties are too lenient and will not deter continued and 
future violations. The break-up, as with Standard Oil, was the 
correct avenue to pursue.
    Coe Case
    [email protected] mailto:[email protected]
    PEI Electronics, Inc. (256) 895-2313
    An Integrated Defense Technologies, Inc. company



MTC-00001659

From: Alan Brooks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 5:54pm
Subject: microsoft
    I am very disappointed with the DOJ's ruling on the Microsoft 
anti-trust case. I believe they unfairly compete in our marketplace 
and that they abuse their power.
    Please take note that many people feel this way.
    Alan Brooks
    5400 Astor Lane Apt. 405
    Rolling Meadows, IL 60008



MTC-00001660

From: John Hails
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 6:12pm
Subject: My opinion on the Microsoft case
    I think this notice pretty much says what the outcome is. 
Microsoft once again takes everyone to the cleaners.
By REUTERS
    WASHINGTON_Microsoft said on Tuesday it had reached a deal 
to settle a raft of private antitrust cases against the company, 
which sources said would cost the software firm more than a billion 
dollars.
    The agreement with class action attorneys would require the 
company, which agreed to settle its separate 3-year-old case with 
the Justice Department earlier this month, to provide free software 
and computers to more than 14,000 of the poorest U.S. schools over 
five years, sources close to the case said. More here:
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/ technology/tech-tech-microsoft.html
    The settlement should really really make a lot of people very 
mad.
Namely
    Apple for one. It is a great idea to give to the schools badly 
needed technology. But to force Microsoft products onto schools is 
not only a really nasty thing to do to schools in one fell sweep it 
give market share to Microsoft and takes away from Apple.
    The thing to do is take the actual MONEY and NOT equipment or 
software and give it

[[Page 23955]]

to the schools so they purchase what they want and how they want.
    Not have it shoved down their throat. Besides, allowing them to 
gain market share in education is a REWARD...it is NOT punishing 
them in any way. If the money was given to the schools to use at 
they saw fit they might spend it on other things not related to 
Microsoft and the school would benefit but MS would not. Look at it 
in the long run...MS gets to sell them upgrades and updates. That 
isn't right.
    I can't believe this stuff is going like this. How horrendous 
this is. On the top it looks great that MS is giving to schools and 
who could possibly be against it. But really, who can be against 
giving them the money so they can buy the technology they want and 
can use? NOT whatever MS feels they need. This settlement is just 
plain wrong. MS is being rewarded all over again rather than 
punished.
    Please someone stand up and tell me that I am completely wrong. 
Should I be HAPPY about this?
    Carl Blake



MTC-00001661

From: TopXML_Mark Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 6:11pm
Subject: sell out
    To whom it may concern.
    You won this case in ever court in the land at every level. You 
even won it in the supreme court. And you settle for wishy-washy 
terms which Microsoft will side step by moving to web 
services_that will make all of this irrelevant.
    How was this possible? Kelly-Kotar would never have gone against 
the Supreme Court who confirmed Microsoft is indeed a monopolist. So 
in the end the industry and the public needed future behavioural 
protection from this monopolist and you didn't provide it.
    America is fighting for economic survival. Thousands of 
companies and innovations needed to be protected from this behemoth 
which has 31 billion in savings. These little companies like Real 
Networks and Red Hat needed you to collar the monopolist and give 
them a chance. You failed to protect them. Now small companies like 
mine have no protection from the monopolist, just when the economy 
was turning sour.
    Don't for one second think their "better" citizen 
rubbish will stand. They screwed you in 92 and they screwed you 
again now. When will you learn? You and your team should be ashamed. 
You win everything at every level and you lose anyway. Bush must be 
proud.
    Sincerely,
    Mark.
    TopXML
    http://www.topxml.com
    Xselerator XSLT Editor
    http://www.topxml.com/xselerator



MTC-00001662

From: John Murchison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 6:11pm
Subject: Please do not relent against monopoly
    Because of the volume of mail you're surely receiving, I will 
make this brief: please deliver to Microsoft a harsher punishment 
than the current deal. Their monopoly is common knowledge, 
experienced every day and confirmed in court. As they snake into new 
markets (with XBox, UltimateTV, etc.) and proceed with their .NET 
strategy, the timing is crucial. Do not just give them a slap on the 
wrist. I have talked with about two dozen people in the University 
of Texas community. Many of them feel forced to use Microsoft 
products, and all agree that the company has violated the rules of 
the market. Please punish this Goliath.
    John Murchison
    2610 Rio Grande
    Austin, TX 78705



MTC-00001663

From: David Peavey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 6:22pm
Subject: The Microsoft penatly is a disgrace!
    Dear USDOJ,
    Do you really think that Microsoft is NOT a monopoly? Do you 
really believe they haven't used their massive size to virtually 
wipe out the competition? Competition in sooooo many areas such as 
Word processing, Spreadsheet, Block diagram dwgs, Internet Browsers, 
Email, etc. has all but vanished. They certainly didn't use a 
superior product!
    Lotus 123 used to be the most widely used spreadsheet 
application in the accounting profession (where spreadsheets are 
mostly used). Quattro Pro was better than Excel too. But Excel is 
the most widely used because MS used their huge marketing, pricing, 
and development policies to squash the competition. Now Lotus 123 
and Quattro are all but gone.
    Microsoft couldn't make a graphics program that was worth beans 
(Draw). So they PURCHASED the ONLY serious competitor (VISIO). Since 
the purchase, the quality of the product has gone down. And there 
are no other block diagram type applications on the market.
    I LOVED Netscape_but Netscape has basically "thrown 
in the towel" and given up because IE is free! (But only if 
you buy their MS Windows). Why isn't IE free for Linux?!?!?
    And lets talk about MS Word. What ever happened to a clearly 
better product_Word Perfect? It has been bannished to the 
Linux world because MS isn't interested in developing a product 
where they don't have a "head-start" on the internals of 
the OS. Word Perfect has a GREAT equation editor_MS Word 
doesn't. But what do you suppose is the more widely used product? 
All because MS used it's marketing, development, and pricing 
strategies to muscle out the competition.
    Outlook is not much better_There were plenty of really 
good email programs on the market until MS started pushing it with 
Office. Now MS Outlook is the most widely used. Do you really think 
America is less vulnerable to computer viruses if we all only use 
one email program?!?!?! How many Netscape Messenger computer viruses 
are there?!?!? Hint_less than 1. You really should read 
"Cuckoo's Egg: Tracking a Spy Through the Maze of Computer 
Espionage" by Clifford Stoll. His basic thesis is there is 
strength in diversity_even in computer software.
    Thank GOD you actually blocked Microsoft's purchase of Quicken. 
That was a faint glimmer of intelligence in the Justice department. 
But why didn't you block their purchase of VISIO? The glimmer was 
muscled out by Microsofts marketing and pricing strategies.. :)
    Besides their huge marketing and pricing strategies, Microsoft 
dominated because of their unfair development strategies. In the 
office automation tools, Microsoft Word, Excel, Outlook, 
IE_All are now dominant because Microsoft knew the internals 
of the OS as these products were developed.
    And they knew the internals before the OS was available to the 
rest of the world. Hence_they had a head start on the 
development. In addition, Microsoft unfairly knew about undocumented 
internal OS calls and functions that the competition could NOT have 
known about. This forced the competition to work harder. So 
Microsoft leveraged it's huge dominance in the OS market to dominate 
the other markets as well.
    Do you have any idea how difficult it is now for a competitor to 
develop a serious competing word processor like Word or a spread 
sheet like Excel?
    There isn't a chance!
    Who says "what's good for Microsoft is good for 
America"? Look at Quicken vs MS Money. Quicken shows real 
innovation whereas MS Money is crashy trash. This shows the power of 
real competition. Because of your blockage of MS's purchase of 
Quicken a few years ago, the products (both of them) have gotten 
REALLY good! There is NO stimulus to make IE better now is there?
    And aren't you concerned about the "big brother" 
attitude of Microsoft? Consider Microsoft's Passport_where 
they collect all your personal information (including credit card 
information and passwords) to allow you to "browse the 
web" easier! Aren't you concerned about Americans' civil 
liberties and rights to privacy!?!?!?
    This penalty is a sham! Sure the schools could use the bucks 
but_don't you know that Microsoft ALREADY has a school 
donation program that donates software and training to schools. All 
your penalty is saying_"yes, you should continue 
this". And do this with Microsoft products!
    This is absurd! Microsoft didn't even get off with a slap on the 
wrist! Personally, If I were judge, I would:
    (1) Split Microsoft into two pieces_Windows, and all the 
rest. This would "level the playing field" for all 
Office automation products giving all competitors an equal start 
when development commences.
    (2) Do the school donation thing_but make it NOT tax 
deductable (since it's a penaty after all)_and require them to 
support Apple and Linux OS's in equal parts to Microsoft. Students 
would then be more diversely educated_ which allows for cross 
fertilization of software structures. Making all computer programs 
stronger and more resilient. The total amount of donations need to 
be 50% of their gross profits over the last 10 years.
    (Figuring that they would have been 50% less profitable if they 
had played fairly).

[[Page 23956]]

    (3) Require Microsoft to make their source code for all past, 
present, and future Operating systems (Windows, DOS, and any others 
they try to make that aren't called Windows and DOS) OPEN SOURCE 
within 3 months of it's release. This includes all patches, fixes, 
and updates. This would force Microsoft to "come true" 
when competitors accuse them of "stealing" trade 
secrets. All good software is open source anyway_this would 
force Microsoft to "clean up their act" and make their 
programs less buggy.
    David Peavey
    H/W Engineering Manager
    47835 Westinghouse Dr.
    Fremont, CA 94539
    510-492-4286
    510-353-9570 (fax)
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00001664

From: Jeff Adams
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/20/01 6:20pm
Subject: Please keep up the pressure on Microsoft
    Hello,
    Please keep it up.
    These guys have ruined and are continuing to ruin the 
marketplace for software developers. I'm not sure what the DOJ was 
thinking. Please persuade the judge to do something.
    For example, their pulling of Java support from Windows XP has 
caused us problems as we have a Java based client.
    Also based on past experience, as soon as we announce our 
product, they'll try to announce something similar to freeze the 
market.
    They are simply untrustworthy. Ten years ago I wrote a driver 
that MS asked to distribute. We signed a contract that said it was 
only to be distributed with a specific product. What happened, they 
posted the driver on an "all comers" bulletin board and 
ruined that business for me.
    And for what? Giving someone a reason to buy one of their 
overpriced bug fix upgrades?
    My recommendations for penalties:
    (1) Break them up into multiple units, Core Operating System, 
Server Products (IIS, SQL-Server, etc.), Desktop Business 
Applications, Desktop Home Applications, Hardware (Keyboard, Mice, 
etc.). No non-public communication between the divisions. Require 
each division to port their products to one other competitive 
platform. Sell the Macintosh Unit to Apple.
    (2) "Bug's" submitted to an independent third party. 
Bug fixes available to meet advertised specifications available at 
no charge. Upgrades would then be for only new features, not bug 
fixes that should have been fixed for free.
    (3) Possibly require all current software product's source code 
to be made available for one year. This would stimulate competition 
and would allow the world to see the bugs and fix them properly.
    Thanks in advance!
    Jeff Adams Online Voice = Improved Bottom Line
    CEO, Intensifi
    650-216-0110
    [email protected]
    www.intensifi.com
    CC:Microsoft ATR,attorney.general 
@po.state.ct.us@inet...



MTC-00001665

From: Bruce M. Brantseg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 6:19pm
Subject: Light
    A billion for Microsoft is no punishment.



MTC-00001666

From: Gary Young
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 6:16pm
Subject: Strong opposition even to the latest Microsoft offer
    I heard today on the news that Microsoft wants to donate a 
billions dollars worth of computer equipment to schools as an 
upgrade to their settlement offer. I don't know the details but it 
seems pretty obvious how this would be money well spent for 
Microsoft to continue their monopoly. Yet another self serving 
"Microsoft Foundation".
    Microsoft is never going to agree to fair and severe punishment. 
Trying to appease them is major mistake.
    Gary Young
    Gary Young wrote:
    If not for "political" and competitor's 
"survival" aspects regarding this case, Microsoft would 
be, and should be, severely punished. The agreed to "slap on 
the wrist" punishments are a joke and if Microsoft's 
competitors and (even) business allies would speak freely there 
would be double the evidence and vocal disdain against Microsoft. 
Microsoft's continued failure to acknowledge their past behavior 
should have an affect on the punishment. If there is anything I 
would NOT worry about, it is that severely punishing Microsoft would 
harm others. Even in the short term, most of even the strongest 
proposed remedies would be better for almost everyone. In the long 
run, we all gain and we would then have a precedent that shows you 
can't get away with illegal and unethical business practices. The 
proposed agreement is a big win for business thugs everywhere.
    Gary Young
    Aliso Viejo, California
    [email protected]



MTC-00001667

From: gawlocp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 6:29pm
Subject: Microsoft using Office to keep Windows dominant
    Microsoft Office is the most dominant office productivity 
software package in use today. Since Microsoft makes both the OS and 
the Applications they have full control of how the applications will 
run and also how they will be used.
    Microsoft Office for windows has the following applications:
Microsoft Word_A powerful word processing application
Microsoft Excel_A spreadsheet application
Microsoft Powerpoint_Presentation (slideshow) application
Microsoft Access_database and database access application
    One problem that is forcing companies into abandoning the 
Macintosh computing platform is that Office for Macintosh has only 
Word, Excel & Powerpoint. Access is not made for Macintosh. 
Microsoft rebuffs (annual) requests from the macintosh community 
saying "that there is not sufficient demand for them to write 
the software for this platform." They have even stopped other 
companies from writing a "compatible" program so that 
the Macintosh business users will gain this functionality. I 
strongly suggest that they will not include (or allow) this package 
to be made available to the Macintosh community to continue to push 
the business community to standardize on Windows and abandon all 
other platforms.
    If the company were split into two independent units... the 
application group would release a powerful (full) version of Office 
for all Platforms. (Macintosh, UNIX, Linux...)
    Thanks for listening
    Peter



MTC-00001668

From: Brian MacManus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 6:24pm
Subject: Please don1t let them get away with this 1
    Dear DOJ
    I am a Mac User and have been assaulted from Microsoft for 10 
plus years. I am ashamed that you are simply slapping their wrist. 
That is what I should do to you. They continually thwart 
competitors, ie Apple, and strongarm their 3standards: on the entire 
computing world. What are you folks thinking here!
    This company needs to be split up into 2 business units at the 
VERY least, one for Operating Systems and the other for Productivity 
Software, or you will be a wimp in many eyes, mine especially
    Do Whats Right
    Please email me for further discusion
    [email protected]
    Brian MacManus_under duress from MS



MTC-00001669

From: newmanites
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 6:23pm
Subject: Don't let Microsoft off the hook!
    To the folks working on the Microsoft anti-trust case,
    As a taxpayer and voter, I am outraged that the Microsoft anti-
trust case is in jeapordy of ending in a sweetheart settlement.
    Whenever Microsoft bundles new applications into their operating 
system, competition is stifled. This pattern of behavior has been 
repeated for years with disaterous consequences for companies trying 
to
    Unless the anti-competitive behaviors outlined in the finding of 
fact are addressed, then all my tax dollars are wasted, and a 
dangerous signal is sent that any large company that can afford 
high-roller lobbyists and deep-pockst campain contributions can get 
off with a slap on the wrist.
    The country's information infrastructure is vulnerable to cyber-
attack due to our over-

[[Page 23957]]

reliance on Microsoft products. If there were real competition in 
the marketplace, Microsoft would be motivated to fix its buggy 
software before it is released.
    Please finish the job! Please see to it that meaningful 
behavioral remedies are put into place. Competition is the American 
way!
    Sincerely,
    Arthur M. Newman



MTC-00001670

From: Wolf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 6:50pm
Subject: Settlement....
    I am writing to express my concern with regards to the pending 
settlement of the anti-trust case against Microsoft.
    I feel that if Microsoft is allowed to continue as outlined in 
the Dept. of Justice settlement it will be a severe blow to fair 
competition in the softwqare industry and will make the open-source 
software movement a think of the past. In reading the proposed 
settlement I saw far too much potential for Microsoft to start 
closing and making illegal to develop cross-compatible comepeting 
products. That coupled with Microsoft's often-stated opposition to 
the entire open-source software community would make it possible for 
them to use their monopoly position to eliminate open standards and 
thereby force consumers, businesses and colleges to accept 
Microsoft's products, and anyone making an open source equivalent 
that was interoperable with the Microsoft product would be subject 
to penality.
    I do not live in one of the nine states which is continuing to 
pursue the case but I definately support those states in their 
effort to seek a meaningful and appropriate remedy to the Microsoft 
case, because I feel that the settlement proposed by the Dept. of 
Justice amounts to effectively a slap on the wrist and has little to 
deter continued abuse of a monopoly position.
    Mike Tabasko
    1123 Penobscot Road
    Richmond, Virginia 23227



MTC-00001671

From: mike kimball
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/20/01 6:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'd like to express my discontent with the United States v. 
Microsoft settlement.
    I hardly need restate The Complaint that Microsoft has 
deliberately and unjustly controlled the market through extensive 
anticompetitive activities, deception, and threats. They have never 
dominated the market through the merits of their 
products_indeed the word "merit" can hardly be 
mentioned in the same sentence with "Microsoft product", 
unless coupled with the word "lacking". They are, in 
short, the bullies of the software world.
    All the proposed settlement will do is validate Microsoft's 
business practices. Why should they change anything? They can afford 
powerful teams of lawyers to protect their interests by reducing our 
judicial system to a game of expensive legal busywork. They have 
gotten away with illegal activities for years, resulting in profits 
numbered in a mind-boggling array of zeroes, and the Final Judgment 
is, "don't do that anymore; at least not for the next five to 
seven years." A gentler slap on the wrist I've never seen.
    Microsoft has made it abundantly clear that their only concern 
is for profit, and market domination. Period. They are the enemies 
of the American spirits of competitive innovation and fair play. 
They are not admonished by the Justice Department's censure, or 
anyone else's for that matter. They WILL NOT stop their illegal 
practices until forced to do so by specific legal orders. Without 
jail time or stiff fines, their practices remain profitable, and 
they will continue to adapt and innovate methods of monopolizing the 
market for their own gain.
    Michael T. Kimball
    820 3rd Ave. #2
    Salt Lake City UT 84103



MTC-00001672

From: Jesse Spears
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoft [email protected] 
@inetgw,...
Date: 11/20/01 6:38pm
    Hello,
    I'm writing to let you know that I applaud your efforts to bring 
some semblance of justice to the Microsoft monopoly (except for the 
US DOJ, which is receiving this letter because I want them to know 
I'm displeased with their actions regarding Microsoft).
    In my opinion, the Microsoft monopoly has caused more harm, and 
brought more suffering to the world than pretty much any other non-
governmental entity (with the possible exception of various Oil 
companies, the World Trade Organization, and the World Bank).
    They do this through unfair, unethical, and illegal business 
practices. Microsoft has forced so many companies out of business by 
using unfair business tactics that most potential entrepreneurs have 
given up on competing with them. They either stay away from anything 
that Microsoft is doing, or create a product with the sole purpose 
of being bought out by Microsoft.
    Microsoft adopts standards, then changes them so they only work 
with their products (see Java as a prime example).
    They create copycat products (usually inferior) and then give 
them away for free with their OS, for the sole purpose of hurting 
competitors (for instance, Netscape being forced out of business by 
the free Internet Explorer).
    They force Hardware manufacturers to ship one of their Operating 
System products exclusively, in exchange for favorable licensing 
rates (see, well, every PC hardware manufacturer since the Mid 
80's). They do this in an attempt to force competing Operating 
Systems vendors out of business (long list of them, stretching back 
to many varieties of DOS, and the current one they are attempting to 
squash is Linux). Dell recently pulled their support of Linux on 
their Home systems, now requiring you to pay for a copy of Windows.
    The few times the US government has done any thing, it's never 
been more than a slap on the wrist. In this latest case, Microsoft 
just delayed the punishment phase to wait until an administration 
more favorable to their monopolistic practices was in power (and, 
apparently it's worked, showing yet again that US citizens can't 
depend on the federal government to do what's right for it's 
citizens...Big Business Lobbyists control it all).
    Please, continue to seek justice in this case.
    I only wish the rest of the plaintiffs had the moral strength to 
do so also.
    Sincerely,
    Jesse Spears
    5212 Bandera Creek Trail
    Austin, TX 78735
    SpearSoft 
    Harpoon3 info is at 
    *Harpoon3 is_currently_only available for 
Macintosh computers*
    Tune in to my music broadcast at: 166.90.143.157:13288
    Additional info at: 
(now broadcasting 24/7 at 56kbps/22khz/stereo)
    Jesse and Joyce's Homely page is at 



MTC-00001674

From: Paul Pesta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 6:59pm
Subject: NO settlement
    Current settlement is inadequte.



MTC-00001675

From: curt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 6:55pm
Subject: public comment
    DOJ,
    I can see how the intent of the agreement might help reduce 
Microsoft's abuse of their monopoly power. Although I think the 
specifics of the agreement have loopholes that Microsoft will get 
around. I don't see how it punishes them for the abuse of monopoly 
power they were found guilty of.
    Unfortunately, the longer you wait to generate a just agreement 
the less relevant the agreement becomes.
    Curtis L. Fiene



MTC-00001676

From: The Admeen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 6:52pm
Subject: the more I learn about the proposed settlement, the more 
I'm apalled at what MS will be allowed to do-such as have 14 days to 
change the software on my machine WITHOUT MY CONSENT, LET ALONE 
KNOWLEDGE.
    Imagine, if you will, buying a car from Ford...and two weeks 
later, a Ford rep shows up to change out your car stereo to one they 
like better...would you ever allow this? Of course not.



MTC-00001677

From: Daryn Sharp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 7:12pm

[[Page 23958]]

Subject: comments on the "settlement"
    To whom it concerns:
    I do not believe the proposed settlement is satisfactory. The 
spirit of the agreement attempts to restrain Microsoft from 
continuing some of its most flagrant behaviours, but yet it fails to 
effectively create a framework that will realize any tangible goal.
    For instance, nearly every provision provides vaguely defined 
definitions and exceptions. Microsoft's conduct and justifications 
since the first antitrust suit have demonstrated that they will 
capitalize upon any available loophole.
    The terms of access to the "communication 
interfaces" are terrible at best. These APIs are one of 
Microsoft's strongest weapons against competitors. Allowing 
Microsoft to deny access based upon the "viability of their 
business model" and other similiarly bogus exceptions 
nullifies the provision. All of the OS-level APIs and application 
file formats should be fully documented and accessible by any 
individual or company. This is the only way to ensure that 
interoperable products may truly begin to exist and compete.
    Given no punishment, Microsoft has little deterent to stepstep 
the spirit of this new agreement. Past history has shown that 
behavioural remedies have not worked with Microsoft. Microsoft 
should be disciplined for their "crimes" in such a 
manner that will deter them from attempting to violate this new 
agreement. Letting them off with nothing more than a scolding will 
result in yet another antritrust suit in the near future. History 
will repeat itself yet again.
    Upset would be a mild term to describe my dismay with the 
suggested settlement. I've watched this drama unfold for nearly a 
decade now, and I'm extremely disappointed that this is best 
settlement proposal that could be reached.
    May I please have my wasted tax dollars back?
    Sincerely,
    Daryn Sharp



MTC-00001678

From: Dean Masai
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 11/20/01 7:06pm
Subject: How to settle the lawsuit
    Greetings, U.S. Dept. of Justice:
    Splitting up the company is the best thing to do. You can still 
do it. Do it. How else can you level the software/hardware market 
"playing field?" That was the purpose of the suit in the 
first place, correct?
    Well, MS has been found to be a monopoly; it's been found guilty 
of using its monopoly status in unfair business practices. Punish 
them, just as any other person or business found guilty would be 
punished. And rectify the situation so that this kind of thing will 
not happen again. Think of the future for the computer industry and 
the American (and world) economy. The U.S. Free Enterprise System 
works best on free market principals. Let the free market decide 
which software to use. Level the playing field.
    Donations to political funds should have nothing to do with 
JUSTICE, so ignore all of MS' political donations and attempts to 
influence your decision. We, the people, want JUSTICE. Just do it.
    Dean Masai



MTC-00001679

From: Bob Lopez
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/20/01 7:06pm
Subject: Microsoft case opinion
    I just wanted to make my opinion heard regarding the Microsoft 
case. I think that Microsoft has intentionally been involved in 
monopolistic practices for may years, and that it has severely hurt 
the computer industry and stifled the US technology economy as a 
result. I also think that they are getting off far too easy, as they 
have done so in the past.
    I implore you to please stop this monopoly now while there is 
still a chance. You can make a difference today while there is still 
barely enough of the technology industry left to produce far more 
advanced technology and bring back hundreds of thousands of jobs 
back to the US.
    Thank you,
    Bob Lopez
    Chief Scientist
    AcrossWorld Communications, Inc.
    1601 Civic Center Drive, #102
    Santa Clara, CA 95050 USA
    www.acrossworld.com
    +1 408 261 6816 (voice)
    +1 408 261 6811 (fax)
    [email protected]



MTC-00001680

From: Steven Luscher
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected] 
@inetgw,ccpp@csgb...
Date: 11/20/01 7:03pm
Subject: More stringent prosecution for Microsoft
    The state of the Microsoft anti-trust suit distresses me. I 
implore you to do everything you can to affect more severe 
prosecution for this corporation. They have clearly committed severe 
anti-trust violations for which they have not been appropriately 
penalized.
    Steve Luscher
    90 Muir Avenue
    2nd Floor
    Toronto, ON M6H 1G1



MTC-00001681

From: cynthia nichols
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 7:16pm
Subject: Micro$oft antitrust settlement
    I would like to comment on the antitrust settlement. I believe 
that Micro$oft will continue to abuse its stronghold on the market 
unless it is broken up. I cannot believe that the multimedia player, 
the e-wallet and other software including browser "forced 
use" should be allowed. Please work to see that there is a 
level playing field and make Micro$oft play by the rules.
    Thank you.
    Cynthia Nichols



MTC-00001682

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 7:14pm
Subject: Settlement
    Folks, this settlement actually represents the triumph of common 
sense and civic spirit. I'm gratified to see Microsoft will be 
investing so much money in the underadvantaged kids of the nation.



MTC-00001683

From: Bud
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 7:14pm
Subject: stupid!!
    You people are incredibly stupid or very supportive (in a 
campaign repayment kind of way). It is probably a mixture of both, 
with emphasis on the later! Bill Gates has been supplying software 
and computers to schools for years...why??? Because then everyone 
begins at a very young age to use Windows (MS) and know nothing of 
MacINtosh, Linux, Unix, or any other software.
    So as his punishment for wanting to control the world and the 
Internet, he settles by doing what he's always been doing...making 
charitable write-offs that will further monopolize his operating 
system at the expense of the government (tax deduction). Here is the 
news story: Microsoft said it would provide cash, training, support, 
computer hardware and software to more than 12,000 public schools 
serving nearly 7 million of America's poorest children.
    "We believe this is a fair and reasonable solution that 
will benefit consumers, the high-tech industry, and the overall U.S. 
economy," said Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer.
    What a laugh in the government's face for Microsoft. You have 
spent $millions$ to prove that Microsoft has indeed tried to 
monopolize the OS and Application software market_and then 
squandered that investment by giving him what he already does for 
his own benefit. Now he can further monopolize by influencing the 
young minds of the public school system.
    You have done an injustice to the laws of this country and the 
people who depend on you to enforce those laws.
    Harrold VanSickle
    Lewisburg, PA
    cc: Congressman Peterson
    cc:Glazer, Mike



MTC-00001684

From: Oleh Sharanevych
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Prosecutors,
    This so called settlement smells of back room politics and shows 
that you too are toeing the line to Microsoft's whims.
    SHAME ON YOU FOR SELLING OUT!!
    Sincerely,
    Oleh Sharanevych
    Trec Rental Corp.
    404 West St.
    New York, N.Y.10014
    212-727-1941



MTC-00001685

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 7:22pm
Subject: Do not let the latest settlement stand.

[[Page 23959]]

    How does this punish Microsoft? This settlement further 
strengthens Microsoft's monopoly on the computing industry, unless 
the computers and software Microsoft has to provide to these 
educational institutions provide competing products and not 
Microsoft Windows or their other software this is a reward for 
Microsoft. The monetary amount means little to Microsoft as it can 
easily afford it. Remember Microsoft as been found GUILTY and should 
be punished to decrease their market share and break their monopoly, 
not increase it. I'm sorry, but I feel Judge Penfield Jackson's 
break up ruling was the correct one and his ruling should not have 
been dismissed regardless of his out of court comments.
    I know my comments will mean very little if any at all, but I'am 
a concerned citizen and believe in fair competition in this country. 
Microsoft Windows should not be the only operating system on 
computers, PC's workstations or servers, people or companies should 
be givin a choice when purchasing one. This also includs office 
software, browsers, games, internet, etc.
    Sincerly:
    Richard Williams
    Allentown Pa.



MTC-00001687

From: jim farler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 7:19pm
Subject: You sold out
    The Justice Department sold out to big business. Justice in this 
country no longer has any meaning at all. The attorney general is 
nothing more than a puppet for the extremist right wing element lead 
by Bush and Chaney.
    This is but a symptom of the loss of human rights. Ashcroft 
promises only to take human rights away from non-US citizens, so who 
cares about them. What happens when private citizens disagree with 
this the extremist element? Do we go to jail? It is the next step!!!
    We all lose!!!
    James S. Farler



MTC-00001688

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 7:34pm
    To Whom it May Concern:
    The pattern of behavior that Microsoft has exhibited over the 
past 10-15 years shows a disturbing trend to monopolistic 
practices, as borne out in the recent judgement against them in your 
anti-trust lawsuit. I am disgusted that you now bow to their 
lobbying efforts and back away from the Justice Departmen's hard-
fought anti-trust victory.
    Didn't the previous consent agreement contain provisions for 
curbing Microsoft's business practices? Didn't Microsoft agree to 
that settlement only when faced with an anti-trust lawsuit?
    Weren't they finally sued because they did not honor that 
agreement? Although the remedy was thrown out, were the findings in 
that anti-trust case not upheld?
    The argument could be made that they offer much of their 
software for free and how that is a benefit to the consumer. But 
that is the short term view they want you to take. Like a drug 
dealer, they hook you with seemingly negligible restrictions, an 
unending supply of goodies and once hooked, are able to control your 
access to them and how you use them. For a hefty fee, of course. 
It's insidious. They used the Internet Explorer browser to foil any 
attempt at loosening their grip on operating systems, by offering it 
freely and undermining companies that did not have the luxury of OS 
earnings to fall back on. They have done it many times and will 
continue to do this until there are no credible alternatives rather 
than the 2 or 3 that now exist. At least in the server market. There 
are none for consumers. The news today shows that Palm is losing 
market share to Microsoft and their Palm PC OS devices. Palm is yet 
another example of a company who started with a superior product and 
over 80% market share yet will slowly have their cash position and 
market share eroded by the slow, unending crawl of Microsoft's 
corporate weight.
    It is the lowest form of self-delusion to think that Microsoft 
won't treat your proposed settlement any differently than the one 
they previous ignored. It's also insulting to taxpayers to think we 
don't see that you are pandering to the interests of one of the 
largest and most aggressive companies on the face of the earth 
rather than doing your job to protect the interests of the American 
consumer. We're smarter than that. I had hoped those who protect our 
interests were but I find I am sorely mistaken.
    Mark Doerr
    Los Angeles, CA



MTC-00001689

From: Ken Weickert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 7:33pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft Anti-Trust Case
    I am disappointed in the Microsoft antitrust settlement. I 
believe that it will do very little, if anything, to curb 
Microsoft's monopolistic practices. And just as important, I don't 
see that it does anything to undo the damage to consumers and 
competitors that has already been done by Microsoft's practices. I 
believe that splitting up the company was the more appropriate way 
to go.
    Ken Weickert



MTC-00001690

From: Gilbreath, Troy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 7:27pm
    It appears that the government wants to ensure that Microsoft 
retains and even adds to its software monopoly both now and in the 
future by using marketing's "loss leader" approach to 
conquer the very small percentage of the software market that has 
not already been crushed by Microsoft.
    Isn't there another way to settle, rather than push other 
software vendors out of potential markets. A school with little or 
no money may decide to use Linux as an alternative (if that is even 
viable). Linux seems to be the only significant operating system 
(OS) option to Microsoft on a typical individual's personal computer 
(which happens to be commodity hardware sliding ever so quickly 
toward obsolescence_what a contrast to Microsoft's 
applications!). What percent of the American population can think of 
another OS to load on a individual PC (besides Windows 98, Windows 
XP, Windows NT, etc.) (or getting all new hardware and OS with a 
Macintosh. They still make those don't they?). I cannot think of any 
other operating system to load on an individual PC, not a server, 
for regular daily individual use. But Linux is free and these 
schools will have no need to adopt it because the government has 
intervened in the free market and given these people Microsoft 
software. Not only will they get software, but they will get trained 
evangelists leading the classroom. I can only guess how many times a 
day the word Microsoft will be uttered by everyone, I will be 
suprised if even one day goes by without the utterance.
    Isn't there some kind of legal principle where if a word is used 
over and over again, superfluously, then that word becomes public 
domain? Could Microsoft be synonymous for "indivual PC 
operating system and applications." Also, will anyone short of 
a computer professional, especially in a poor school, be able to 
find enough time to learn more than one operating system? more than 
one word processor? more than one spreadsheet application? more than 
one database management system? more than one presentation program? 
more than one email program? more than one calender / personal 
organizer program? more than one browser? What about computer 
languages, computing paradigms, business models, etc...
    HURDLE 1: Can you name...
an operating system that does not begin with Windows?
a word processor besides MS Word?
a spreadsheet application besides MS Excel?
a database management system besides MS Access or MS SQL Server?
a presentation program besides MS Powerpoint, MS FrontPage, etc.?
an email program besides MS Outlook?
a calender / personal organizer program besides MS Outlook?
a browser besides MS Internet Explorer?
    GOOD, you made it passed Hurdle #1 but how many answers for 
each question did you get? If you got one or two, I am willing to 
bet that you are computer "savvy." Does one or two 
competitors constitute a market engaged in free competition? You may 
say that the list was too long for one hurdle, but I would propose 
that we only scratched the surface. Nevertheless, brevity will 
suffice for Hurdle #2:
    HURDLE 2: What store, down the street from my house, in my 
neighborhood has this software (answered in Hurdle #1) on the 
shelf?
    I am all for helping the needy; however, it seems that the 
government may have fallen for a shrewd ploy by Microsoft or even a 
sucker punch at the end of a tough fight. Better that the government 
make Microsoft give these schools $500 million and keep its own 
software. Let the schools do what they would like with the money. I 
suppose the MS sales reps would be calling the schools to establish 
accounts the very next day. Let them compete with everyone else. Or 
is that

[[Page 23960]]

what Microsoft was supposedly doing the past 10 to 26 years?
    Maybe not everyone prefers the alternative mentioned above, 
maybe Microsoft...
    "Microsoft will give the nation's poorest schools more 
than $1 billion in cash, products and services in order to settle 
most of the private antitrust lawsuits filed against the huge 
software company. The proposed settlement, to be disbursed over five 
years, will pay for teacher training, technical support, refurbished 
computers and copies of Microsoft's most popular software, such as 
Windows and Office, at more than 12,500 schools, company spokesman 
Matt Pilla said." (USA Today 20-Nov-2001)



MTC-00001691

From: Amber Denker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 7:36pm
Subject: MS monopoly
    As a consumer, I am appalled that the DOJ is barely slapping the 
wrist of this monopoly.
    The simple facts are that they are guilty of using their 
monopoly to further their application department. Surely every 
person realizes that this is not a level playing field so long as 
they are allowed to do this.
    I dont believe they will all of a sudden start 
"behaving". Why should they? All they would need to do 
is pay their way outta of any future problem just as they are doing 
now. (And if they are to earn another billion in the process of 
breaking these new rules, it becomes quite cost effective to do just 
that!) The only effective remedy for Microsoft's abuse of their 
monopoly power is to keep them out of the applications software 
business. If you vend an operating system, you cannot sell 
applications: otherwise, you've always got the inside track. There 
will never be a level playing field without this principle.
    Sincerely,
    Amber Denker
    Toluca Lake, CA



MTC-00001692

From: James Lyon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:33pm
Subject: Deeper Roots
    Hash: SHA1
    The fact is that Microsoft is an inevitable product of the 
socio-economic structure in which the Western World operates. 
Putting that aside for a moment, and dealing with the Anti-Trust 
case in isolation for the purposes of contributing to the current 
debate, I have the following comments:
    The Anti-trust issue goes far deeper than MSIE being bundled 
with the OS, and ironically MSIE is one of the few products that 
could have competed on technical merit and did not need the 
"leg up". This leads me to my point: 
The_existence_of a predominant Operating System whose 
internals (both technical and political) are known to one or more 
privileged companies gives rise to the competition obstacles and so 
on.
    The only way to level the playing-field and to ensure there is 
real opportunity for innovation and enterprise to be able to be 
delivered to the market-place by new or existing competitors is to 
remove all the financial, technical and political advantages that 
Microsoft (and potentially others) has/have in the Operating System 
in question. The judgement appears to broadly address this issue. 
However, Microsoft have a well-established reputation and a clearly 
demonstrated ability, to make very minor changes retrospectively 
that will remove sufficient crucial features without appearing to do 
so.
    It is in the process of delivery and in the sustainability of 
the Judgement that the real risk now lies. Please take care to keep 
an eye on the proverbial ball as Microsoft become involved on a day-
by-day operational basis.
    In addition, there is one point that is overlooked. There is an 
indirect and subtle (therefore hard to measure) leverage of the 
Operating System's harmony with applications_above the 
Middleware layer. The problem here is the tendency of a consumer or 
business to make a buying decision on the implied or real benefit 
from utilising both Application software and Operating System from 
the same Vendor, with the private internal knowledge cited above. 
This is, at best, very weakly addressed in the Judgement and 
requires better attention if it is not to significantly undermine 
the worthwhile nature and effectiveness of the provisions outlined.
    Finally, if you were_really_genuine about 
levelling the operating system metaphorical "playing 
field", then you would have added the provision that MS would 
be obliged to make equally available every application or middleware 
component on at least one other "major" operating 
system. It doesn't matter which, so long as it was reasonably widely 
used and supported. This way, there would always be choice and 
opportunity for users to select operating systems and/or select 
applications (etc.) without interdependency that might benefit 
Microsoft exclusively.
    I hope this is helpful and constructive_I look forward to 
your revised press release!
    Best regards,
    James.



MTC-00001693

From: Christopher C. Stump
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:28pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    Please put a stop to the Microsoft empire! The recent settlement 
in which MS has to provide computer equiptment to some of the 
nation's poorest schools is a total sham. They need to provide $1 
billion in computer equiptment, which includes software, and MS sets 
the price on the majority of that software?!?! That is ridiculous. 
You are allowing the crooks to dictate their own punishment. 
Furthermore, the computer software and hardware will be obsolete in 
a few years (5 maybe less), then what? Those schools have to pay MS 
to upgrade their operating systems and come up with extra cash to 
buy new hardware just to keep up-to-date the computer labs that MS 
so graciously endowed them with?!? Come on, please slap this 
monopoly in its heart and break it apart!
    One last point as to why this settlement is bogus: The current 
operations of Microsoft with its introducion of .NET technology 
& its new line of operating systems (XP) which provide tight 
integration with the MS website are far worse offenses than why they 
were brought into court in the first place. If you thought 
integration of Internet Explorer with Win98/NT was a bad idea, what 
about the fact that so many applications/services of XP are only 
compatabile with other MS products? That nearly everything in the 
web browser defaults you to a MS site? That MS products offer zero 
compatability with Apple, Sun, HP, Red Hat, etc. software, while all 
these other companies strive to make software with compatible 
standards? You already know that MS has a history of bad business 
practices, and what they are doing now is the worst!
    Please seriously consider prosecuting MS again for its newest 
offenses and revaluating the most recent settlement. The offer by 
Red Hat, Inc. to provide open source software with the hardware that 
MS buys is reasonable. This move would encourage competition between 
MS and Linux and would lessen the impact of Microsoft being able to 
dictate the number of computers/OSs that come out of its $1 billion 
settlement (although it wouldn't end the chaos because MS has 
companies like Dell, Compaq, and HP in its pocket). My opinion: If 
you're not going to hit this monopoly any harder than the current 
settlement, then make MS buy Sun SPARC machines and load them with 
Red Hat Linux to give to the schools :) That would at least 
embarrass the corporate giant.
    One last note: Please do not let corporate America (MS) control 
our country's legal system. From this settlement that is the 
impression I, and many others, are getting.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher C. Stump
    [email protected]
    Loyola University Chicago computer science graduate student
    Linux user/Open Source software supporter



MTC-00001694

From: Kevin Philips
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 7:37pm
Subject: Settlement
    So, as I understand it, the settlement allows them to INCREASE 
their installed Win-Tel product base! Rather than require them to 
donate THEIR software and computers it should require them to 
actually give $$$ to be used BY the SCHOOLS for software and 
computers OF THE SCHOOLS CHOICE! Why should the SETTLEMENT of a 
MONOPOLY allow them to INCREASE their installed base and PROFIT?? 
Also, THEY should be required to pay ALL LEGAL FEES. Why should I as 
a taxpayer pay them. The payment of legal fees is NORMAL! I really 
think more than this should happen but I know from the way you are 
currently approaching this that more would be unrealistic. Also, the 
issue was never really MONOPOLY as much as it was extortionate 
busines practices, lying etc. But these are all things that are 
condoned by government. Microsoft is really just a microcosm of our 
politics.

[[Page 23961]]



MTC-00001695

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 7:37pm
Subject: Anti-Trust Settlement, Penalties
    Gentlemen,
    The Judiciary branch's gutting of the U.S. v. MicroSoft 
decision, and the proposed settlement under the Bush 
administration's DOJ is a putrid, malodorous outrage. But, what else 
would one expect?



MTC-00001696

From: Timothy Worman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 7:40pm
Subject: Microsoft still using same tactics
    To whom it may concern:
    As someone who is employed in the technology sector I am 
extremely displeased with the settlement which has been agreed to 
between Microsoft and the DOJ. This settlement amounts to years of 
wasted effort and money and it has not changed Microsoft's tactics 
one iota. Even as you broker a deal, Microsoft continues to use one 
product to foist another separate product on what is nearly entirely 
an unsuspecting public.
    As an example, take my recent purchase of a cordless Microsoft 
Intellimouse Explorer_a fantastic mouse. In order to register 
my new product with Microsoft, I am being directed via their 
software to sign up for a "Passport" account. If you're 
not familiar with Passport, it is Microsoft's protocol to store 
consumer names and passwords so that you are not 
"inconvenienced" with having to remember multiple 
passwords on web sites you frequent.
    However, if I don't deem Microsoft trustworthy, there doesn't 
seem to be a way for me to register my product otherwise. And as 
coincidence would have it, Passport is the centerpiece of 
Microsoft's new .Net software strategy whereby applications such as 
Word would be accessed over the internet on a subscription basis. 
However, Passport is a completely unrelated product to the mouse I 
purchased yet I don't see how I, as a consumer, am presented with 
other options.
    However, merely giving me a choice about what method of 
registration I prefer is not nearly the whole issue_DOJ 
efforts have fallen short on exactly this type of action. Microsoft 
is attempting to move their monopoly from the desktop to the 
Internet via their .Net strategy. I do not want Microsoft to be in a 
position of being able to choose, for example, what Bank I use if in 
fact they leverage Passport and .Net to promote strategic partners.
    Passport is just one more example of a technology which would 
serve the public better if it were an Open Source standard that did 
not promote any one company or it's partners. And indeed there is an 
alternative to Passport being proposed by another consortium. 
However, does it stand a chance? Microsoft can force almost it's 
entire desktop consumer base to use Passport or some aspect of it's 
.Net strategy simply via the sheer numbers of its installed 
base_THE VERY SAME TACTIC THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE UNDER DECREE 
NOT TO DO with respect to other products. Please, do not let this 
kind of manipulation continue. Please don't reduce your penalties to 
simply forcing Microsoft to provide options and concessions along 
with the default_which is continued use of these tactics. 
Simply put: DO NOT allow Microsoft to use one product to force 
another UNRELATED product on consumers. Make this stop. PERIOD. Do 
you trust Microsoft with your personal information?? Already, using 
the same Windows/Outlook/Word/Excel/VisualBasic vulnerabilities 
which have made a recent rash of Windows-based worms possible, a 
programmer has demonstrated the ability to steal Passport 
information from another's computer. Should the products of a 
commercial company that stands to reap the rewards of my personal 
data be in control of protecting it? Please, MAKE THIS STOP!! 
PERIOD.
    Thank you for your time,
    Tim Worman
    Database Administrator
    Graduate School of Education and Information Studies
    University of California Los Angeles
    [email protected]
    CC:Tim Worman



MTC-00001697

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 7:57pm
Subject: I am VERY disappointed with the fed DOJ settlement, it is 
FAR TOO WEAK!
    I am VERY disappointed with the fed DOJ settlement, it is FAR 
TOO WEAK! I would ask you to pull out of the settlement and pursue a 
stronger settlement.
    Thank You
    Ken Butcher



MTC-00001698

From: Jeff McManus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 7:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    A prime example of the need for campaign finance reform. If 
Microsoft is not a monopoly, what is? I would like to have an 
alternative to the "blue screen of death" and debugging 
Microsoft's software for them, but I guess that is too much to ask. 
All Microsoft has to do is stall and put in an administration more 
to it's liking and it's like nothing happened. Violate the law at 
will. Call the judge crazy. Everything is for sale. Including 
justice. Pathetic. And they settle with the states by giving them 
money and software. Theirs! Now their own marketing is part of the 
settlement! You ought to be ashamed and embarrassed! After the 
election fiasco, we found out that the Supreme Court is biased. Now 
we know the Justice Dept can be bought. Disgusting!



MTC-00001699

From: Brian Hansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 7:49pm
Subject: Break Up the Cheaters!
    Sirs:
    In our industry, web development, Microsoft has consistently 
used it's position to bully and steal. Break them up!
    Brian Hansen
    President
    Total Site, Inc.
    "Net Solutions from Concept to Aftercare"
    1221 Pearl Street
    Boulder, CO 80302
    (303) 415-9404 fax (303) 415-9405
    [email protected] http://www.totalsite.com



MTC-00001700

From: Lee J. McLean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 7:46pm
Subject: Where do I begin?
    Dear sir,
    I would very much like to add my opinion regarding the 
settlement the DoJ reached with MS, but frankly there is so much to 
say that I don't even know where to begin. Take the recent debacle 
regarding non-Microsoft browsers being blocked from msn.com, for 
example. Is there anything in the agreement to prevent such anti-
competeitive practices as this? Not that I can see.
    Sure, they backed down in this case, but do you think they still 
will when Passport effectively gives them control over all XP users' 
access to the internet? History has shown us that when they hold the 
cards, man do they play them. And they tried to do this at a time 
when they had already been found guilty of being an illegal monoploy 
on appeal! Does this look like a company that is in any way afraid 
of the terms of the settlement they have reached? More importantly, 
does this sound like a company who would even agree to anything that 
would have a significant impact on their monoploy position? Once 
again, history tells us no. The mere fact that such a flagrantly 
arrogant company has even agreed to this settlement in itself 
demonstrates that settlement's inadequacy. Then there is the simple 
fact that Microsoft has not been punished in any way for their 
(legally upheld) past misdeeds. What they have done effectively 
amounts to theft on an upnprecedented scale, yet you let them go 
without punishment? I understand your deisre to expidate this case, 
but if this was more important than getting a fair result then it 
would have been better to have reached settlement years ago. But 
then and again, this entire case was precipitated out of the failure 
of your previous settlement with MS, wasn't it? Clearly there is 
something else that is far, far worse than a lengthy court case: an 
unfair result. And clearly_from the point of view of both the 
consumer and the computer industry as a whole_that's what this 
settlement is.
    Regards,
    Lee McLean



MTC-00001701

From: RK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 8:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    So I as the customer that was/is forced by microsoft to use 
their product by them disabling or deciding to no longer support a 
competitors product get no relief. I as a taxpayer will have to 
subsidize the settlement with my tax dollars as microsoft will be 
able to write it off as a business expense. The schools, who's 
leaders decided

[[Page 23962]]

that computers where not important to education will now get the 
"Benefits" without doing anything. The schools, 
businesses, and people that paid for the software that led to the 
suit being filed get nothing but the pleasure of watching microsoft 
make more money at the government trough by writing off the 
settlement. Writing off the software as good will, or as a 
charitable donation, and then writing off the cost of manufacturing 
it also at inflated costs.
    I am glad that the justice department is on my side, allowing me 
to help Bill Gates keep his money on selling incomplete bug ridden 
systems. Windows is NOT an operating system. It is an application 
designed to run as a shell over a true operating system. An 
operating system should only run the guts of the computer. The 
video, sound players, word processors, Email systems, etc. ARE 
applications that should be able to run on any operating system, but 
are restricted by the design of the so called operating system. Any 
program should be able to run when compiled on the operating system 
with the operating system sub-routines static on the system.
    R. Krogol
    Lynchburg, VA



MTC-00001702

From: Reid (038) MJ
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 8:16pm
Subject: Microfoft
    Please do not let Microsoft off the hook so easily. They are 
counterproductive to the computing industry. They do not inovate, 
they stong arm and bully competitors. They are a cartell and should 
be delt with accordingly.
    Thank you
    Christian Manasse
    971 e monterey st Chandler, AZ. 85225.



MTC-00001703

From: Dave C. Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 8:11pm
Subject: You call this Justice!!!
    This settlement is pathetic!!!
    This just plays into the hands of Microsoft!!! Who the hell 
thinks this is punishment to a monopoly. All this does is allow 
Microsoft to "SEED" it's hardware/software further into 
the schools under the guise of "Gee look at us ! aren't we 
great donating all this software and hardware that only runs 
Microsoft software"
    What a way to insure you'll stay a Monopoly!! And to think the 
courts actually proposed this????
    Pathetic !!!
    David C. Hill
    Arvada, Colorado
    "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, 
that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, 
support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the 
success of liberty."_John Fitzgerald Kennedy_1/20/
61
    Dave Hill  :-)



MTC-00001704

From: Nate Schwenk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 8:02pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Sirs:
    I have watched over the years as Microsoft has crushed one 
competitor after another. It troubles me greatly that the Justice 
Department had clearly proven that this was done unethically and now 
you are essentially abdicating the case. Microsoft was shown to be 
lying several times in court, yet the "penalty" is 
nothing more than a request that Bill be nice for a while. The 
company is so devious that what you consider to be restrictions will 
be twisted into license for further dominance.
    Now that Microsoft is well on its way to software monopoly, it 
is beginning to enter the hardware market also. Examples are the 
XBox and the tablet PC. It will never rest until it is stopped by 
force or there is no more competition, and even then it will be 
vigilant to stamp out any possibilty.
    I believe you have abdicated, probably in the hope of large 
political contributions. I am thankful for a few state attorneys 
general who are standing to fight for freedom and truth.
    Sincerely,
    Nate Schwenk
    2701 Old Stage Rd.
    Spring City, TN 37381



MTC-00001705

From: Craig Simmons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 8:28pm
Subject: Great Attempt at Destroying an American Company!
    To whom it may concern,
    I just wanted to give my sarcastic thanks from consumers around 
the world in the communist antitrust case against Microsoft. I do 
not and have never worked for Microsoft so do not misunderstand. But 
I have followed this case from start to finish and have hoped for 
one socialist from the DOJ to explain how this case was ever helping 
consumers; the whole point of antitrust legislation and enforcement. 
How have consumers been so seriously hurt by Microsoft that years 
and millions of dollars were tied up in this venture? If so, will 
someone explain how? Microsoft provided most software for free, such 
as Internet Explorer, which allowed the Internet Information Age to 
begin and explode. Operating Systems were provided at market value 
and consumers were not gouged for upgrades once the OS was 
installed. Windows OS's allowed the installation of competing 
software such as Netscape Navigator. I'll tell you what the point of 
this whole insane abuse of an American company was: Money. Competing 
companies needed a way and time to catch up and attempt to get a 
piece of Microsoft's market share. States saw an opporunity to get 
money....what did they settle for? Money in essense. They get free 
software from the very company that they were attempting to break 
up. Is that all they wanted? Microsoft would have given it to them 
had they asked and do so to many poor school districts around the 
country. I'll bet if Gates and Microsoft had given money to the 
Democratic National Committee like the CEO of Novell did and still 
does, this would have never happened. So, in conclusion, I just 
wanted to send out a hearty thank you from consumers around the 
world. Thank you for sparing me from paying $89 for the best 
operating system. I could have payed $89, but now it will be $289 to 
compensate for legal bills caused by the DOJ protecting consumers. 
Great job once again and another great use of American tax dollars.
    Sleep well at night communists. You lost again...Microsoft was 
smarter than you as usual.
    Regards,
    Craig Simmons
    Baton Rouge, LA
    [email protected]
    P.S. I would include my address but someone at DOJ would 
probably turn me over to the IRS for another one of those protecting 
America's pork spending audit. Get back to seeing if there are more 
civil liberties you all can destroy.



MTC-00001706

From: Mabel(a)Home.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 8:24pm
Subject: Against settlemnt
    (1) It does not address the improper use of their monopoly to 
drive out competition.
    (2) It give them cover to "buy" one market, 
education they do not already own.
    This is wrong and should be reveresed. I agreed with the nine 
states AG would see through this capitulation for the sake of the 
economy?????
    Tim Yackle
    Glastonbury, CT



MTC-00001707

From: matthew goossen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 8:23pm
Subject: microsoft anti-trust
    what was the point of finding microsoft guilty of monopolistic 
practices when all they get is a slap on the wrist? the punishment 
did not meet the crime.
    i am disappointed.
    matthew g. goossen



MTC-00001708

From: Tim Carroll
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 8:44pm
Subject: Disciplinary Action Needed
    Dear Sirs/Madams,
    Microsoft needs some harsh disciplinary action brought against 
it. You backed off on the punishment and look at the immediate 
result, they've practially copied Apple Computer's "Mac OS 
X" with "Office XP", not only by naming the system 
software in an almost identical manner to confuse consumers, but 
also by the "look and feel" of the system software.
    They practially copied Netscape with their Internet Explorer and 
essentially put that company out of business and the government 
stood by and did nothing, so Microsoft is seeing how far they can 
push the line again_don't let them get off scott free.
    Thank You!!!
    [email protected]



MTC-00001709

From: Donald Patzsch
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 23963]]

Date: 11/20/01 8:42pm
Subject: How awful
    I do not believe that the people who have been involved in the 
Microsoft suits are ethical, or even decent citizens. You have 
agreed, apparently, that Microsoft can set out its programs and its 
"services" to schools as a result of the various 
lawsuits. Such a miscarriage of Justice. Microsoft will get the 
CREDIT and the PUBLICITY and the fact that its software will be used 
by more people. Such awful people we have in the courts. Since the 
last Presidential Election, I have certainly changed my mind about 
the courts from top to bottom.
    Donald W. Patzsch
    Brandon, Florida.
    November, 2001



MTC-00001710

From: Tim Carroll
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 8:42pm
Subject: Disciplinary Action Needed
    Dear Sirs/Madams,
    Microsoft needs some harsh disciplinary action brought against 
it. You backed off on the punishment and look at the immediate 
result, they've practially copied Apple Computer's "Mac OS 
X" with "Office XP", not only by naming the system 
software in an almost identical manner to confuse consumers, but 
also by the "look and feel" of the system software.
    They practially copied Netscape with their Internet Explorer and 
essentially put that company out of business and the government 
stood by and did nothing, so Microsoft is seeing how far they can 
push the line again_don't let them get off scott free.
    Thank You!!!
    [email protected]



MTC-00001711

From: Jerry Myers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 8:29pm
Subject: the proposed Microsoft settlement is a joke.
    I am truly appalled that an agreement as blatantly supportive of 
Microsoft is even being seriously considered. It does NOTHING to 
address their behavior at all. Other than the dollar amount involved 
it actually serves to extend and support their monopoly by adding 
even more windows machines to schools. This is like punishing a drug 
dealer by making him give away most of his supply of crack cocaine 
to schoolchildren. You may think this is too harsh of a comparison. 
It is not. The situation is exactly like that. "We will give 
them free software (ours)" offers Microsoft. This will ensure 
that, later in life, they are a part of the Microsoft masses. 
"We will get them a bunch of $500 (or less) computers" 
says Microsoft. Which, incidentally, will not buy anything by 
Microsoft compatible computers, so the "they can buy Apple 
Macintoshes if they want" argument is completely spurious. 
Ignorant School Boards will always choose to get more machines for 
the dollar, ignoring all other factors (cost of ownership/support/
etc). Microsoft KNOWS that. They encourage it. So do the IT guys who 
get bigger budgets because they have to spend tons of man hours 
supporting those windows machines. So they encourage buying 
Microsoft as well.
    The harm that Microsoft has done to the consumer and to the 
computer industry as a whole is hard to judge. What would our world 
be like of Microsoft would have allowed their products to compete on 
their own merits instead of engaging in all of the seedy and 
outright abusive tactics that they have? Would we have IBM's OS2 
Operating system forcing Microsoft's products to be less buggy and 
better supported? Would Apple, SUN, and SGI (among others) be more 
of a presence in the marketplace? Thereby forcing an even higher 
level of innovation, quality, and lower prices?
    I think the answer to both is a resounding YES.
    PLEASE do not allow Microsoft to walk away from this with no 
measures in place to correct it's position and it's policies.
    When a man is convicted of a felony he loses certain rights. 
When a company commits certain crimes (repeatedly) then they should 
be penalized in ways that would never be considered for a company 
not guilty of those offenses. Do what is right. Do what is best for 
our businesses, our consumers, and our economy. Force Microsoft into 
a position where they cannot repeat their offenses. AND penalize 
them for having committed them in the first place. If you do not, 
then you have failed in your oath of office.
    Jerry Myers



MTC-00001712

From: LaPalme, Joe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 9:03pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust case
    Excellent. Microsoft has shown again that they continue to 
benefit our society in every way.



MTC-00001713

From: Dave La Vack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 8:54pm
Subject: ms settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    As the CEO of a small information technology firm I have tried 
to follow the Microsoft suit from it's inception several years ago. 
As time has gone by I've seen Microsoft not only continue its 
predatory practices but position itself to completely take over the 
computer software market and has even broadened it's focus to other 
markets. The new .net strategy makes the current predatory practices 
appear miniscule. If this happens, there will be nothing you can do 
to stop them. From my point of view the settlement is pure and 
simple politics. The current settlement proposal slaps Microsoft on 
the hand and asks the company not to do it again. The sad part is 
that Microsoft makes, at best, mediocre software. The people who are 
creating great software can't compete so the consumer loses every 
time.
    The way I see it, stopping Microsoft from taking over this and 
other industries would be too inconvenient. We have long forgotten 
the principles on which this country was founded. We have sold them 
out for convenience. It would be too inconvenient to do the right 
thing. It was too inconvenient to count each and every ballot in 
Florida regardless of whether the voter's rights were infringed. It 
would have taken too long, and well, we were just not willing to 
wait. My suggestion is to get them out of either the application or 
OS business. Let them have one but not both. Make them get rid of 
the Office suite of products so the buyer can make them work equally 
well under linux, mac, unix, etc. This way they would have to 
actually create some decent software to keep people in their camp. 
If only it were convenient.
    I'm quite sure that Microsoft will continue to dominate the 
computer OS and Application software industry forever because no one 
can afford to challenge them_not even the U.S. Government. 
With the hidden agendas of the current administration, it would be a 
pipe dream to think that the justice department would consider the 
consumer's interests over big business in such a matter. So there, 
if you couldn't tell already, I'm not happy about the proposed 
current settlement. Big business wins and the consumer loses no 
matter how you dress it up.
    Regards,
    L. David La Vack
    dave la vack, systems engineer
    shiner systems
    information technology for creative professionals
    101 west fifth street suite 239
    winston-salem nc 27101 usa
    tel 336 722 0001_fax 336 722 4477
    [email protected]
    "Don't waste your time on jealousy. Sometimes you're 
ahead, sometimes you're behind. The race is long and, in the end, 
it's only with yourself."



MTC-00001714

From: Timothy Worman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 8:49pm
Subject: Microsoft still using same tactics
    To whom it may concern:
    As someone who is employed in the technology sector I am 
extremely displeased with the settlement which has been agreed to 
between Microsoft and the DOJ. This settlement amounts to years of 
wasted effort and money and it has not changed Microsoft's tactics 
one iota. Even as you broker a deal, Microsoft continues to use one 
product to foist another separate product on what is nearly entirely 
an unsuspecting public.
    As an example, take my recent purchase of a cordless Microsoft 
Intellimouse Explorer_a fantastic mouse. In order to register 
my new product with Microsoft, I am being directed via their 
software to sign up for a "Passport" account. If you're 
not familiar with Passport, it is Microsoft's protocol to store 
consumer names and passwords so that you are not 
"inconvenienced" with having to remember multiple 
passwords on web sites you frequent.
    However, if I don't deem Microsoft trustworthy, there doesn't 
seem to be a way for me to register my product otherwise. And as 
coincidence would have it, Passport is the centerpiece of 
Microsoft's new .Net software

[[Page 23964]]

strategy whereby applications such as Word would be accessed over 
the internet on a subscription basis. However, Passport is a 
completely unrelated product to the mouse I purchased yet I don't 
see how I, as a consumer, am presented with other options.
    However, merely giving me a choice about what method of 
registration I prefer is not nearly the whole issue_DOJ 
efforts have fallen short on exactly this type of action. Microsoft 
is attempting to move their monopoly from the desktop to the 
Internet via their .Net strategy. I do not want Microsoft to be in a 
position of being able to choose, for example, what Bank I use if in 
fact they leverage Passport and .Net to promote strategic partners.
    Passport is just one more example of a technology which would 
serve the public better if it were an Open Source standard that did 
not promote any one company or it's partners. And indeed there is an 
alternative to Passport being proposed by another consortium. 
However, does it stand a chance? Microsoft can force almost it's 
entire desktop consumer base to use Passport or some aspect of it's 
.Net strategy simply via the sheer numbers of its installed 
base_THE VERY SAME TACTIC THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE UNDER DECREE 
NOT TO DO with respect to other products. Please, do not let this 
kind of manipulation continue. Please don't reduce your penalties to 
simply forcing Microsoft to provide options and concessions along 
with the default_which is continued use of these tactics. 
Simply put: DO NOT allow Microsoft to use one product to force 
another UNRELATED product on consumers. Make this stop. PERIOD. Do 
you trust Microsoft with your personal information?? Already, using 
the same Windows/Outlook/Word/Excel/VisualBasic vulnerabilities 
which have made a recent rash of Windows-based worms possible, a 
programmer has demonstrated the ability to steal Passport 
information from another's computer. Should the products of a 
commercial company that stands to reap the rewards of my personal 
data be in control of protecting it? Please, MAKE THIS STOP!! 
PERIOD.
    Thank you for your time,
    Tim Worman
    Database Administrator
    Graduate School of Education and Information Studies
    University of California Los Angeles
    [email protected]
    Home Address:
    417A North Mentor Avenue
    Pasadena, CA 91106



MTC-00001715

From: Mike Kwiatkowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement_Do not give up the fight!
    I am very disappointed is the settlement. It lets MS off the 
hook with a hand slap. To make things worse, MS got off easy in the 
latest class action settlement regarding the donation of MS products 
to schools. This is a shame. It will extend their monopoly power 
even further.
    Mike Kwiatkowski



MTC-00001716

From: Richard Cooper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 9:21pm
Subject: intelligence
    It is my personnel opinion that Mr. Gates is smart enough to 
come up with all the software ahead of other companies that the 
Government should leave him alone and his company. The plain truth 
is that no one wants to be outdone and get the kind competition that 
Microsoft is dealing out. This is suppose to be the land of 
opportunity and free enterprise. If the Government wants too get a 
large Company for antitrust law breaking they should take a long and 
hard look at The Coca Cola Company. These people hold a greater 
monopoly than Microsoft.
    Investigate and you will find out that this is very true!
    God Bless
    Richard Cooper



MTC-00001717

From: The Washingtons
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments @doj.ca.gov@inetgw
Date: 11/20/01 9:11pm
Subject: Micro$oft Monopoly
    I think that Microsoft has gotten away with something. The 
courts found them to be an illegal monopoly. I think it is a shame 
that they stand to benefit from their illegal actions. I am asking 
you to pursue a stronger penalty. They continue to claim publicly 
that they did nothing wrong, even after the courts findings. Now as 
part of the settlement they are going to be allowed to 
"donate" more of their technology to schools. This will 
further the Microsoft cause. It will increase their exposure and the 
public's reliance on their products. I think it's a crime. DON'T LET 
THEM GET AWAY WITH THIS!
    Craig Washington
    3 Cayuse Ln.
    Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
    CC:[email protected] @inetgw,ag 
@oag.stat...



MTC-00001718

From: Steve Abrams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 9:07pm
Subject: shame on you!
    It looks like Microsoft has bought themselves a Justice Dept. I 
understand the pragmatics of politics, but you people swear an oath 
to serve the citizens of this country. Turning a blind eye to 
Microsoft's predatory pricing policies and anti-competitive 
practices and, even worse, believing that they'll actually abide by 
their public statements, is ludicrous and I have to tell you that 
the respect I held for the USDOJ is completely dissipated. What's 
more, I know that many of you agree with me (I've only recently 
moved from Washington, DC) but choose to violate your oaths and 
completely reverse yourselves on their criminality. I understand 
that politicians must roam as the winds of social change blow, but 
that's the rationale for having civil servants swear an oath. Oh, 
and if anyone there has the temerity to float an economic rationale 
for the USDOJ's decision, don't bother. I've spent the better part 
of the past decade trying to deal with the problems that Microsoft's 
technology invariably brings, but I've never doubted their ability 
to turn a profit. So, shed no tears for Microsoft ... shed them 
instead for the respect and integrity you once held, and have now 
squandered.
    Finally, I know how easy it is for a civil servant to distance 
themselves form such things but, in my opinion, everyone at the DOJ 
deserves a share of the shame ...
    So, shame on you all...
    Steve Abrams
    Steve Abrams Fingers: [email protected]
    CORPS (//www.ics.uci.edu/corps/) Mouth: +1.240.461.3610 
(cell)
    Information & Computer Science Eyes: 2521 W. Sunflower 
Ave., #K-7
    University of California-Irvine Santa Ana, CA 
92704-7523
    Irvine, CA 92697-3425 http://www.ics.uci.edusabrams/
    "Annoying me just makes it easier to understand the 
voices"



MTC-00001719

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 9:37pm
Subject: My concerns
    Defenders of Justice,
    I have no doubt my associates who will also read this may feel 
the need to fear their careers as a result of my statements here, 
and since I will also be submitting this for their review, I intend 
to collect their comments and keep them ready in case they feel I am 
terribly out of line.
    Nonetheless I will express my experience and my perception of 
these matters, for I see it's negative effect on their choices as 
much as on my own.
    In my own experience over the last 15 years in the computing 
community I have witnessed a number of individuals decide not to 
enter into various markets, from desktop software to vertical 
applications such as film effects, simply because Microsoft 
threatened to enter into that market. I realize that the competition 
itself is not against anti-trust laws, but many who see the 
predatory practices simply do not bother to try, and thus, in my 
opinion, the market is denied great new ideas, and those who 
originate them are left with no compensation and no realistic way to 
exploit their own dream to their own benefit.
    As a very small operator, offering customized support operations 
to creative professionals, I, like others, am in no position to 
defend my works from the exploitation. I fear, as I have for some 
time, that the practices of Microsoft are now so entrenched that it 
is nearly impossible to properly evaluate the extent of the damage. 
Those damaged have long ago faded away to lowly positions in IT or 
as private consultants, and have for more than 10 years now, elected 
not to compete.
    We have not given up here at Silence, but as a small firm, we 
have to work harder to maintain our vision and pursue our dream, all 
the while fearing that when it is realized, we will be sued by 
Microsoft for infringing on a market that they will not bother to

[[Page 23965]]

exploit until we have success with our product. We feel that to 
compete with Microsoft, we too, will have to give away a product 
concept we have worked most of our lives to develop. This fear and 
the realities of Microsoft's eventual intrusion, also affects the 
ability of the entrepreneur to secure financing. I am sure you will 
understand that if I sold out to Microsoft, I could get all the 
financing I want. Unfortunately I am not willing to roll over and 
deny my purpose in life. I quote from a letter to us dated July 
18th, 1994, where, when seeking legal representation, the law firm 
we approached, Klarquist, Sparkman, Campbell, Leigh & Whinston 
(Portland, Oregon) told us in no uncertain terms, ...; In the end, 
we decided we could not, in good faith, take on representation of 
your venture, due to a possible future conflict of interest with the 
work of Microsoft and SoftImage." and ...you revealed 
just enough of your technology for me to recognize a potential 
conflict. In particular, you noted that your technology involves 
generation of video effects base on an audio soundtrack." 
Although Mr. Cornwell of the above mentioned firm who wrote the 
letter misrepresented the technology we were developing, we live in 
a climate today where few legal counselors and attorneys are even 
willing to take on the legal behemoth that this corporation has 
become. When I cannot even interest the law in protecting our ideas 
for money, the issue of monopoly power may be at play. At the very 
least, the definition of Monopoly Abuse, as the law currently 
stands, may be in need of review. Standing as they are as the most 
infiltrated, unsecured and unreliable product line available for 
personal and business systems, (why doesn't the defense department 
run their servers and operating systems) they are hardly in a 
leadership role. We must remember that their position is not based 
on innovation but intimidation. Everything I have read about the 
trials shows that these things are true and proven. I do not 
understand why it takes our government longer to right wrongs than 
ever before. The Justice department seems more concerned about 
avoiding economic calamity. I suggest the downturn would not have 
been as severe for technology stocks had there been numerous 
operating system and internet browser alternatives.
    Microsoft proposes a world in which I am increasingly 
uncomfortable, and our society becomes ever more enamored of Bill 
Gates skill at cheating the system and stealing his way to success. 
Few can prove it, but everyone seems to know it. We are proud that 
Bill Gates can cheat his way to the wealth level of a small nation 
unto himself. He has created nothing of value in my eyes, and I 
wonder why I remain unable to build my firm, and compete on an equal 
level. Why so many of my professional associates wish I could 
compete? because they understand and approve of my vision of 
technology. They are creative professionals, many of them. And they 
find our works supportive of their needs, and less trapping than the 
Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt that Microsoft has managed to engineer 
into every aspect of their product lines. Some of my customers 
remain upset that I am unable to set them up with a completely 
Microsoft Free system. If I cannot, and they cannot produce their 
works, I am out of business.
    As regards remedy, I am certain that most will be pleased by the 
acts of philanthropy that Microsoft will do, but it will do nothing 
to motivate the amazing engineers and programmers I have met to 
complete their dreams free of fear of reprisal and coercion. I have 
felt this coercion many times in my travels and meeting with 
computing professionals, all of whom have sadly concluded that 
competing with Microsoft in any market is a foregone failure.
    Please do not reward their behavior.
    M. David Acosta
    Founder and Chief Technical Officer
    Silence
    103 Summit Ave.
    Elmwood Park, NJ 07407
    201 703-2966
    Feel free to contact us on any of these matters, We are less 
afraid of Microsoft than most.



MTC-00001720

From: John Fuhrmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 9:31pm
Subject: Don't you get it?
    Dear DOJ
    Re Microsoft:
    Even if you broke them up they wouldn't change. You know this. 
They are still engaged in the same slimey practices. It is part of 
their corporate culture now.
    Heaven help us all.
    Regards,
    John Fuhrmann



MTC-00001721

From: Jeff Martens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 9:44pm
Subject: Why Cave?
    What I don't understand is why DoJ would cave in to the 
country's most egregious monopolist, the company that single 
handedly has stifled all commercial operating system development and 
has done more to harm the US software industry than any other 
entity, just as they release a new operating system more heavily 
laden with anti-competitive features than any of its predecessors.
    Jeff Martens [email protected] Assistant 
Professor and Director of the MS Program in CS Hood College 401 
Rosemont Ave. Frederick, MD 21701 http://mathcs.hood.edu/
&;martens 301-696-3980



MTC-00001722

From: mentholiptus
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/20/01 9:44pm
Subject: Microsoft got off easy....
    I don't want to use windows. Ever.
    The way things are looking, I'll have no choice in a matter of a 
few years.
    They MUST be stopped. They have bigger plans, and it will be too 
late if we wait any longer.
    A couple of examples (I don't have the time to go into detail): 
They are in the process of killing the mp3 format. They are trying 
to kill JAVA, buy replacing it with their C# (or .NET strategy), 
which is a stolen and jumbled JAVA.
    These will be their next two targets. Just watch.
    Anyway, know my friends and I are disgusted with microsoft's 
abuse of power, and lack of taste and compassion in an otherwise 
very fertile industry.
    Jesse Volner
    859 1st ST NW
    Rochester, MN
    55901



MTC-00001723

From: Abe Jellinek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 9:42pm
Subject: Please no...
    Don't settle, please! This company is a convicted monopolist 
that has caused and is causing massive harm to the industry. 
Netscape wasn't the first and it isn't the last (Look at Spyglass 
Inc., Stak Co., etc.).
    Take them to court and make them pay.
    Abe J



MTC-00001724

From: Brian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 9:53pm
Subject: Not a punishment
    I have been following this case loosly, but I keep current, and 
the overridding feeling I get from the case is this is just a big 
game to Microsoft. They are largely making a mockery of the US 
Justice Department and national anti-trust laws, and as some of my 
foreign friends have pointed out this would seem to be the exact 
case the anti-trust laws were designed for. They shouldn't be any 
more of a monopoly than a car manufacturer_why would you 
punish a monopolistic car manufacturer by having them distribute 
promotional materials to poor children? And with the built-in 
lifespan of the few years that Microsoft software has, those poor 
schools will forcibly become Microsoft customers.
    Brian



MTC-00001725

From: Jonathan Walseth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 10:18pm
Subject: Micro$oft
    Ok, at work we sit around on our hands NOT getting anything 
done.
    Why, because we are not allowed to use any other software except 
that lousy Microsoft shit.
    Clear..??
    Jon Walseth



MTC-00001726

From: Kevin Schumacher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 10:18pm
Subject: I'm totally against the DOJ's proposed settlement...
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I'm totally against the DOJ's proposed settlement...and very 
surprised and disgusted with Mr. Ashcroft's decision to completely 
reverse the prior administrations' years of hard work by abandoning 
the case against Microsoft.

[[Page 23966]]

    Joseph Klein did his job very well, has integrity and dedication 
which is absent in the current top job in the DOJ.
    Judge Jackson was correct in finding Microsoft guilty of anti-
competitive business practices, among other things. Even the Court 
of Appeals unanimously agreed with his findings of fact,_that 
Microsoft is a monopoly, and illegally maintains a monopoly.
    Now the DOJ suddenly abandon's it's case? This, after winning???
    John Ashcroft DOES NOT REPRESENT ME, nor do I believe he has the 
best interests of consumers (the world over, NOT just in the United 
States) in mind. He is either a foolish man, or a very na?ve one if 
he believes that any "agreement" with Microsoft can be 
effectively enforced. Has Mr. Ashcroft no familiarity with the prior 
"agreement" between Microsoft and the DOJ? It seems he 
is completely ignorant of Microsoft's history and business 
practices.
    I support the States who must now assume the burden of 
performing the DOJ's job.
    Mr. Ashcroft, do you have any idea what this world will be like 
in the future, after Microsoft controls everything in the computing 
world?
    I hope you realize what you've done.
    Respectfully,
    Kevin Schumacher
    (a voter)



MTC-00001727

From: James Botaitis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 10:03pm
Subject: comment
    I understand that the DOJ is accepting comments from "joe 
public" on the Microsoft case.
    I found it a bit disturbing, yet not surprising, when the years 
of court battles and so obvious contempt for the people and laws of 
the land by Microsoft, that the proposed settlement is nothing more 
than a slap on the wrist for the offender. I, my family, my friends, 
and my business contacts would like to observe "justice" 
served on Microsoft. While there is always some need to take pot 
shots at, and make fun of, a winner...it is obvious that Microsoft 
did wrong and tried to hide that fact.
    Justice should hurt... and hurt more than ones wallet. Righting 
a wrong, and punishing previous behavior, should be a burden on 
Microsoft... not a line item in a spread sheet.
    Regards,
    James Botaitis Esq.



MTC-00001728

From: Ron Severdia
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/20/01 9:58pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    It's remarkable how powerful corporate America has become. So 
powerful that even our own federal government will bow to their 
every whim. I am, of course, referring to the latest proposed 
settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft. It1s nothing less than an 
embarrassment to the Department of Justice. Though the DOJ defends 
the settlement by stating it will eliminate Microsoft's illegal 
practices, prevent recurrence of the same or similar practices and 
restore the competitive threat, the legal wording has too many 
loopholes. In addition, it does not adequately punish Microsoft for 
damage it has already done to the tech sector.
    I still have a little faith that this matter will be resolved 
appropriately, and the mafia tactics Microsoft has employed for many 
years will not go unpunished. This situation is slowly becoming a 
travesty of justice ... another black mark on the face of the 
judicial branch. The best solution is to make Microsoft make 
retribution in a fashion that they will not soon forget; be it a 
break up or severe penalty.
    If this recent settlement passes, they will walk away from all 
this with a smirk on their faces ... and no incentive whatsoever to 
halt any future activity which unfairly and ILLEGALLY 
3bulliesï¿½ competitors.
    Ron Severdia



MTC-00001729

From: George Wagner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 10:34pm
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust case
    I was quite disappointed when I heard that the prosecutors were 
going to let Microsoft off with a slap on the hand (again). It was 
so ineffective before, I am amazed that anyone would consider it 
this time. While I don't know how to deal with the monopolistic and 
predatory business practices that Microsoft continues to employ, but 
to let them off without sufficient safeguards is simply asking for 
more of the same. the current plan does NOT provide enough 
protection for the consumer, and does not level the playing field 
for competitors. This is something that I was brought up to believe 
was an integral part of our business model.
    I was pleased to hear that your office also feels that the 
proposed remedy is insufficient. Please continue to pursue this 
until a fair settlement is reached.
    Thank you,
    George Wagner



MTC-00001730

From: Stanley Weilnau
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 10:24pm
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust settlement
    To US Dept of Justice:
    I feel that the proposed agreement with Microsoft on the 
settling of the anti-trust case to be a total waste of taxpayers 
money. The judgment came down that Microsoft had performed some 
illegal acts and the agreement is a repudiation of that finding. The 
proposed settlement that was rejected before the judgment was 
stronger than the agreement that is now being discussed.
    I do hope that the states continue their lawsuit and that 
Microsoft actually has to own up to it's uncompetitive practices 
that have reduced the competitiveness in the marketplace. Past 
practices of Microsoft are a guide to what the future of an 
unrestrained Microsoft will be. The entry of Microsoft into the 
video game console market shows how Microsoft is leveraging its 
monopoly position in the PC operating system market into another 
area to dominate.
    This failure to hold Microsoft accountable for it's practices 
shows me that justice is simply a matter of how rich you are and how 
much you have donated to the current political party in office.
    Stanley Weilnau



MTC-00001731

From: Dennis (038) Diana Wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 10:33pm
Subject: Shame on you!
    I am appalled at your bogus settlement of the Microsoft 
Antitrust Suit!. How dare you agree to such a lame punishment for 
all of the damage that has been done to the computer industry by 
Microsoft. It is clear that Microsoft's political contributions to 
the Republican Party and the present administration was not in vain. 
America will see this ultimately for what it is. This is simply 
another example of the well heeled political contributors buying out 
the Justice System. Shame on you for this Microsoft settlement! They 
have been found overwhelmingly guilty and they are going to be 
punished by having a few consultants lounge around the Microsoft 
campus while Microsoft continues their predatory practices. That 
will really curb their predatory practices. If I am ever found 
guilty of anything, I hope to have these government negotiator$ 
handle my negotiations for me.
    The US DOJ is a true embarassment to the entire world.
    Robert Wright



MTC-00001732

From: andrew arnold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 10:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Too Lenient
    I am writing to voice my concern over the proposed settlement 
with Microsoft. I feel that as a consumer, I do not enjoy the amount 
of choice I should in the computer software industry. There is no 
credible alternative to many of the product categories that 
Microsoft dominates. It is clear that they have continuously 
"strangled" new technologies that they saw as a threat 
to their dominance (Web Browsers, Word Processors, Java, Media 
players, etc).
    Please consider taking a stronger position against this company 
that was found GUILTY in court for being an anti-competitive 
monopolist.
    Sincerely,
    Andy Arnold
    505 Oxford Pl
    Louisville, KY 40207
    [email protected]



MTC-00001733

From: Merkaba22 @aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 10:48pm
Subject: Please take care of this
    Dear Madam or Sir:
    Since you are still hearing on this case, this article says it 
better than I could:
    OPINION: Microsoft on Truth Serum_the Antitrust Settlement 
Examined
    Contributed by Tom Nadeau
    osOpinion.com
    November 20, 2001

[[Page 23967]]

    The proposed Microsoft agreement looks good and feels good, but 
listen to how the definitions in the agreement would play out in 
real life, and then the agreement doesn't sound very good for 
competing software companies or consumers.
    The recent antitrust settlement between the U.S. Department of 
Justice and software monopolist Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) has enough 
loopholes to sew a circus tent.
    The settlement actually grants Microsoft extra legal powers 
beyond what it had before the trial.
    Don't think so? Well, here is a simulated conversation that may 
convince you. This is what I believe a Microsoft official would say 
to a neutral examiner asking questions about the settlement 
agreement, if the software giant were under the influence of a 
truth-enhancing substance.
    Microsoft on truth serum. Listen in.
    Set You Free
    Examiner: "Let us start with the definitions, shall 
we?"
    Microsoft: "Of course. Words mean things, whatever we want 
them to mean."
    Examiner: "A. Application Programming Interfaces 
(APIs)"
    Microsoft: "APIs running on one operating system (.NET) 
and calling a different operating system (on your PC, remotely via 
the Web) are exempt from regulation."
    Examiner: "B. Communications Protocol"
    Microsoft: "Since the settlement exempts code to remotely 
administer Windows2000 Server and its successors, all our 
communication software will be embedded with pieces of this code. We 
will not have any Communications Protocols that can be regulated 
according to this definition."
    Legal Loopholes
    Examiner: "D. Covered OEMs"
    Microsoft: "The 20 highest licensees? Does that mean 
licenses paid for, licenses delivered to customers, licenses 
committed to, or licenses actually registered by the end 
user?"
    Examiner: "H. IHV (Independent Hardware Vendor)"
    Microsoft: "The settlement says they're only 
'independent' if they depend on us for Windows. Unless we 
already 'own' them, we don't have to give them 
anything."
    Examiner: "I. ISV (Independent Software Vendor)"
    Microsoft: "The settlement says they're only an 
'independent' if they depend on us. But if they only sell 
software for non-Microsoft operating systems, we don't have to give 
them anything. They will never be able to make their non-Windows 
products interact with our Windows-only products." Hidden 
Message
    Examiner: "J. Microsoft Middleware"
    Microsoft: "The settlement says it's only Middleware if it 
has a X.x version number. But we don't use version numbers any more. 
We use year numbers. So our Middleware is not regulated by this 
settlement."
    Examiner: "K. Microsoft Middleware Product'
    Microsoft: "The settlement calls it a 'middleware 
product' if it is embedded in the operating system.... But it's just 
'middleware' if it is distributed separately. If it is 
distributed by a shell company controlled by Microsoft through stock 
ownership, then it's not 'middleware' because it is not 
distributed by Microsoft or a wholly owned subsidiary." A.P.I. 
Arrogance
    Examiner: "L. Microsoft Platform Software"
    Microsoft: "We'll ship the APIs as a standalone product 
through a third-party company, or sitting on a Web server somewhere. 
But we don't have to divulge any details of the APIs because they 
won't have a version number. So they're not 
'middleware'_and therefore are not covered by 
'middleware' clauses. Since they are not part of Windows, they 
are also not a 'middleware product.' "
    Examiner: "M. Non-Microsoft Middleware"
    Microsoft: "Sure, like we wouldn't give away free copies 
of comparable 'Microsoft middleware' to put them out of 
business. Except that it's not 'Microsoft middleware' if it 
has no version number, so it would not be regulated by this 
settlement."
    Examiner: "P. Operating System"
    Microsoft: "If we ship the APIs separately_on the 
Web_then it says that Windows is not even an operating system! 
It's totally unregulated!"
    More Monopoly
    Examiner: "Q. Personal Computer"
    Microsoft: "Right, only PCs are covered. They let us 
extend our monopoly into game boxes, TV, servers, handhelds, phones, 
PDAs, whatever."
    Examiner: "R. Timely Manner"
    Microsoft: "We have to deliver product info as soon as we 
ship to 150,000 beta testers per version. However, we no longer beta 
test with more than 148,000 testers per version."
    Examiner: "U. Windows Operating System Product"
    Microsoft: "Ha! Doesn't even cover DOS-based stuff. We can 
keep spreading that stuff around any way we want. Oh, and that last 
sentence... We can put anything we want to in Windows_any code 
owned by anybody! Yes, Just give me that last sentence!"
    Best For Last?
    About that last sentence.
    The slickest part of all is to put the definitions at the end of 
the document, where they legally overrule all that comes before, and 
to place the loosest definition of all at the very end of the 
document, slyly positioned to trump any preceding malarkey.
    That last sentence ostensibly was inserted to protect Microsoft 
from having to ship code that it did not choose_so that 
Microsoft would not have to ship a rival company's code, such as 
Java or Netscape, for example. But Microsoft can choose to claim 
that a competitor's product *is* a Windows Operating System Product, 
because the last sentence says that the court grants Microsoft the 
"sole discretion" over "the software 
code"_not just "the Microsoft software 
code"_that Microsoft chooses.
    Above the Law
    While other companies may have their claim to software ownership 
reviewed by the courts, this "settlement" exempts 
Microsoft from such review_ immunizing Microsoft from 
copyright lawsuits.
    This is a license to hoist the Jolly Roger and sail the seven 
seas, pirating any rival code that Microsoft chooses.
    Peace,
    Geoffrey McCabe
    36 East 7th Street
    NYC 10003



MTC-00001734

From: George H. Norsworthy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 10:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge our elected officials to act responsibly on the matter of 
monopolistic practices. It's a matter of law, not expedience.
    George Norsworthy



MTC-00001735

From: Chad Hartley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 10:43pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I find it hard to believe that the current settlement benefits 
American Citizens. After all, Microsoft now has an opportunity to 
continue with their practices of restricting competitive software 
and they now can market their own software in school systems across 
America. The school systems in which they would be giving computers/
software to, would have to eventually upgrade their operating 
system. Is this the spirit of competition?????? No! Please be bold 
and strong in your stance against Microsoft. I must say that I do 
use widow applications, however, I also use Apple, Unix, and Lenox. 
I find it hard to believe that this settlement has accomplished 
anything, except what Microsoft wanted!!!!!
    Sincerely,
    Chad



MTC-00001736

From: tom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:22pm
Subject: comments on microsoft settlement
    I feel that the proposed microsoft settlement is woefully 
inadequate and will do nothing to take the teeth out of microsoft's 
monopoly. If approved as it stands, it will be a complete failure on 
the part of the united states to address the problem of Microsoft's 
monopoly.
    Tom Bryce
    1375 26th ave
    San Francisco, CA 94122



MTC-00001737

From: Alvin L Nazario
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I'm writing this letter to voice my concern about the possible 
settlement of the Microsoft Monopoly trial.
    If what was publish in The Wall Street Journal is true 3Under 
the deal, Microsoft would provide software valued at approximately 
US$900 million to schools where at least 70 percent of the students 
qualify for the federal free or reduced lunch programs, the 
representative for the law firm confirmed. Microsoft would also have 
to supply some 200,000 reconditioned PCs and

[[Page 23968]]

laptops, the representative added. In addition, the software maker 
would be responsible for providing $90 million in teacher training 
and $38 million in technical support. An independent foundation 
would also be set up to ensure that objectives of the deal were met, 
with Microsoft shelling out another $250 million to set up the 
foundation, as well as seeking $200 million in matching funds.
    Additionally, Microsoft would contribute another $160 million to 
help support a program that teaches students how to repair and 
service computers and networks.'' then please explain to a simpleton 
such as myself, how is this going to hurt or eliminate Microsoft's 
monopoly? Equipping schools with PC's running Windows would only 
further their dominance in the computer industry, as these schools 
will become dependent on Microsoft's future upgrades and not to 
mention hurt sales of other operating systems such as Macs, Linux, 
BEos etc.
    This settlement would only benefit Microsoft by standardizing 
their operating system for the future generation of America. I hope 
that fairness will prevail, and all parties hurt by this 
monopolization will gain to benefit rather then depend on M$.
    Thank You,
    Alvin



MTC-00001738

From: D. Dietzel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    CC: dd
FROM:
    Dennis Dietzel
301-G Marshall Street
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
11/21/2001
    Dear U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General John Ashcroft:
    Having read the latest relevant and recommended documents on 
your website regarding the currently proposed settlement of the 
monopoly/anti-trust case with Microsoft, I wish to give you my 
comments, and urge you to reconsider and rewrite this 
'settlement', as it does very little, if anything, in 
offering any meaningful, significant remedy or relief to the average 
home computer user/Citizen, who has been harmed by Microsoft's 
prior and continuing illegal, restrictive and extremely invasive 
behavior/business practices.
    I am 49 years old, a disabled American citizen living solely on 
Social Security Disability, and I have been not only a computer 
user, but a computer builder, system administrator and computer 
service person for many years. I have used many of Microsoft's (and 
other companies') software products for many years, and have 
followed this court case involving Microsoft with keen interest.
    It is my firm belief, and the belief of many Citizens with whom 
I am acquainted and have spoken with concerning this case and 
proposed settlement, that Microsoft has in the past, can and will 
continue to control, inhibit and restrict not only other companies' 
products (competitive or not) purchased by the end user from working 
and interacting well with the Windows OS, but will also reduce the 
average Citizens' and users' control over and use of their operating 
systems (Windows XP) and unwanted and competing Microsoft programs 
'added into' the Windows OS by Microsoft, (as Microsoft 
has demonstrated time and again, most conclusively and consistently 
over many years, and was in fact convicted of).
    In examining the Proposed Settlement and Impact Statement, I can 
find no effective or realistic proposed remedy for or benefiting any 
of our Citizens and legal computer end users of Microsoft software 
in the United States of America from the past or the present 
continued illegal misconduct and monopolistic, invasive and 
restrictive misbehavior by Microsoft Corporation, unless said 
Citizen(s) would be fortunate enough to have access to an unlimited 
amount of funding which would be required to obtain effective legal 
representation at a powerful and persistent enough level to bring 
any such violations to the attention of the Court and sustain such 
action, much less in order to obtain any meaningful Judicial relief. 
If you, our United States Department of Justice and our Federal 
Court system cannot obtain effective relief for the public now, at 
this time, in this settlement as a result of Microsoft's 
conviction, it is extremely unlikely you will be able to do so at 
'some future date', as is commonly stated by most 
lawyers in their conversations when discussing 
'remedies' for violations of court orders or illegal or 
improper behavior by any person or entity convicted of a crime..
    As far as any evidence I can offer for my views and comments, I 
can factually state that by my own exhaustive efforts, Microsoft 
Internet Explorer still cannot be effectively removed by the average 
end user (which was one of the main issues in this case when it was 
brought), either in past or in the newest and present Windows XP OS 
released last month (October, 2001). Most if not all home end-user/
Citizen control or adjustment of program control involving home user 
interaction with Internet Explorer and windows XP itself is either 
eliminated or severely restricted, and most other computer software 
programs sold for use with any previous Windows OS prior to the date 
of release of 'XP' is made instantly incompatible with 
the upgrade installation of XP, and will in fact not function. If I 
want to upgrade my current version of Windows 98SE to Windows XP as 
of this writing, 9 out of 10 of my own quite beautifully 
functioning, very expensive and non-Microsoft software programs will 
absolutely not work with Windows XP, and I will be forced as a 
result of this to buy entirely new or alternate versions of the 
various programs I mention, in order to continue using them with 
this 'new and improved' version of Windows. As an 
analogy, why should I have to overhaul the engine of my car, put in 
a new car stereo, seats and interior, and pay for a new paint job on 
the exterior, just because I want to purchase a better set of better 
tires and wheels for the car, i.e., as the new Windows XP OS upgrade 
represents to me and my use of my personal home computer?
    To use an upgrade to Microsoft's 'XP' past 30 
days following my legal purchase and installation of this software 
on my computer, myself or any other legal home computer user must 
either have an active Internet connection or physically make a 
telephone call to Microsoft, in order to 'activate' 
Windows XP by transmitting or quoting a very long sequence of 
numbers, and then in turn enter into my computer another extremely 
long sequence of numbers EXACTLY as quoted to me by a Microsoft 
representative, in order to receive 'activation 
permission' to continue to use the software upgrade on my 
computer; if I do not do so, my computer is made instantly 
INOPERATIVE, and I must reformat my hard drive, losing all of my 
programs, data and hard work, since the computer will not boot! 
Microsoft's new advertising slogan may be, 'Yes, you 
can', but rest assured that most home users do not and cannot 
find it amusing to stay on hold on their telephones with a company 
for 30 minutes, in order to receive permission from a Microsoft 
company representative to continue using a product they have 
obtained and paid for legally, that they have taken great pains to 
install and upgrade on their personal property, i.e., our home 
PC's.
    At this writing, Microsoft has acknowledged that the public 
uproar and reaction to their newly-adopted 'activation' 
requirement', has resulted in an illegally written 
'pirate' software program that is currently in world-
wide distribution as a no cost download, and is readily available to 
anyone in order to overcome Microsoft's Orwellian invasion of 
a legal computer user's right to privacy. This illegal software, 
which if downloaded and used by any legal computer user in order to 
continue their use of their already-paid-for and installed product 
upgrade on their home computer, would of course, make said prior 
legal users new criminals.
    Microsoft by their own admission, has clearly stated since the 
release of XP and the illegal software 'fix', that they 
had anticipated such an event, so the question is raised, if 
Microsoft has publicly announced that it anticipated that it's 
own behavior would inspire otherwise law-abiding computer users to 
become criminals, in order to continue to use their already legally 
acquired and paid for software upgrades on their home computers, 
then why does Microsoft engage in such invasive and restrictive 
actions in the first place? As the proposed settlement or impact 
statement does not address this specific matter in any manner that I 
can recognize, I must state for the record that NO other American 
software requires this type of outrageous, restrictive and invasive 
seeking of it's 'permission' in order for it's 
software product to continue to be used legally by the average home 
user/Citizen, who has already paid their license/software charge and 
installed the XP OS software on their home computers. As long as the 
home user/Citizen pays for their own licensed use of the Windows 
software/operating system (obtaining by legal purchase of course), 
it is NONE of Microsoft's business what brand name computer the 
Citizen uses, how many or what kind of hardware components a Citizen 
chooses to uses/alter/change, nor what component changes the

[[Page 23969]]

home user may decide to make in the future to his/her privately 
owned personal computer and it's components in order to legally 
install, re-install or to continue to use the Windows XP upgrade or 
any other Microsoft Operating System on their home computer. It is 
the same principle, in that it is no more the business of my local 
Wal-Mart grocer how many dozen eggs I am going to buy from their 
store, how I will arrange the eggs in my kitchen, how I am going to 
cook my meals with any of the food I purchase from them, what kind 
of frying pan, bowl, spatula, microwave oven or stovetop range or 
oven I cook my food with, as long as I am not going to break the law 
doing it! (Please note my previous analogy to the automobile tires).
    This is another continuing example of the extremely restrictive 
and invasive behavior being currently forced at this very moment in 
our history, upon the average home user/Citizen by Microsoft, as it 
is already illegal to make copies of Windows, or to install the 
software on more than one personal computer at a time. I believe 
that not only I, but the vast majority of my fellow citizens and 
home computer users in this country respect and obey this law, and 
that I/we do NOT infringe on Microsoft's rights in any way, shape or 
form!! It is not credible to any reasonable and law-abiding person 
that Microsoft would honestly respond to any such request from 
anyone made to Mr. Gates or his company, Microsoft, for their 
personal information, or that anyone would inform him that he cannot 
make changes to his own or his companies' computers' components 
without contacting all of his registered customers first. (I don't 
think it would be reasonable that I or any other Citizen or home 
computer user who buys or uses Windows XP would make such an 
invasive personal request of Mr. Gates or Microsoft, nor would I be 
realistically interested in said personal information, before 
deciding whether to buy the Windows XP upgrade from Microsoft., much 
less before installing and continuing to use it, but this IS my 
point).
    If I or any other legitimate computer user keeps my/his/her 
legitimate sales receipt and CDKEY registration number provided with 
the Windows XP OS software upgrade purchase as proof of ownership/
license, as has always been the acceptable practice in the past by 
Microsoft when a Citizen pays for it's software/OS upgrades, why 
must I/we be forced to comply with such an invasion of my personal 
computing privacy, by and from a company who in fact has been 
convicted of monopolistic wrongdoing and lawbreaking, whose only 
intent is to poke it's corporate nose inside of not only the inside 
of my computer (my personal PRIVATE property), but more 
specifically, where my computer is located in my home; in my 
bedroom??!? I repeat; as long as I or any other legal user is not 
engaging in illegal behavior, such as making illegal copies of 
Microsoft's programs or re-selling them, altering their code or 
installing more than one copy of the XP OS upgrade software, it is 
MY business what I do with the inside components of my computer, and 
certainly not Microsoft's!!!
    Continuing further, on each bootup of the new Windows XP OS 
upgrade, and at various other intervals determined by Microsoft, the 
end user/Citizen is currently bombarded with constant harassment 
from Microsoft to entice him/her to enter intimate personal 
information (including financial information) in order to use it's 
'Passport' system, which Microsoft tries to pass off as 
a computer users'/Citizens' 'convenience', but is 
actually subjecting me or any other home user to more extremely 
invasive and harassing behavior, on Microsoft's behalf, to say 
the least. IT IS NONE of Microsoft's or anyone else's BUSINESS what 
my personal information is! I don't want to pay for continued, 
forced sales pitches or Microsoft's corporate propaganda every time 
I boot my computer's operating system or open a 
'window'. I want a functional operating system upgrade 
for my computer with NO post-installation nonsense from Microsoft. 
As far as I can determine, there is no clear way to stop this 
automatic harassment which is now sold and incorporated inside of 
the XP OS upgrade, short of un-installing Windows XP, which 
endangers my previous version of the operating system, and my 
personal data! Microsoft's only concession on this point is to 
say that their harassing invasiveness will eventually 'go away 
by itself'.
    I note that there is some evidence offered in the Impact 
Statement concerning the automatic way the Windows XP OS upgrade 
currently forces unwanted and unapproved changes of configuration or 
operating system environment conditions, such as, that in the 
future, the user/Citizen must be given notice and the chance to 
approve or refuse such automatic, unwanted or unsolicited changes by 
Windows XP. I applaud this part of the Statement, but it does not 
address any of the concerns I have raised in my comments above, nor 
does the Statement address the fact that in buying, installing and 
using Windows XP, Microsoft forces a user/Citizen to obtain a 
'virtual' program from Microsoft in order to run 
programs containing 'Java', their own 'virtual 
Java download'. Part of the original complaint in this lawsuit 
dealt with Microsoft's illegal behavior toward the Java 
writers (the company who owns the Java code) and subsequent users of 
programs utilizing Java code. If a home user/Citizen does NOT comply 
with Microsoft's edicts by downloading Microsoft's 'virtual 
Java download', the home user's currently installed and 
used programs utilizing Java will no longer work with the XP 
upgrade. If the average home user/Citizen who legally purchases the 
Windows XP OS does not possess an internet connection to download 
all of these 'fixes' or other such relief which may be 
provided by Microsoft such as 'virtual Java', or other 
remedies that may be imposed by the Court, there is effectively no 
relief or remedy provided to the American public at large in this 
matter, as Microsoft has never before and most likely will never in 
the future voluntarily issue free disks (CD's or otherwise) to 
impacted legal users, consumers and Citizens, without first 
demanding some type of mandatory charge or fee from those users 
concerned, to correct/remedy this behavior.
    As far as the '3 person, Court appointed committee of 
computer experts' that will supposedly have total access to 
all of Microsoft's inner workings, computer code, documents, 
etc., to ensure that Microsoft will not further engage in any 
illegal and bad behavior, could you kindly please reassure and 
inform me (and all of the other American home computer users who pay 
for, legally own and use Microsoft software), whom these 
'experts' might be, what makes them computer experts, 
and how any average, reasonable Citizen can be expected to believe 
that only '3 computer experts' can possibly be 
constantly examining all of the inner workings of the Microsoft 
Corporation, all of it's programming activities and business 
divisions in any meaningful way, so that Microsoft WILL be forced to 
comply with the Court's Order? Only 3 people/experts?!? How many 
attorneys contributed to bringing this case before the Court, and to 
it's current status of Proposed Settlement? I don't think that 3 
lawyers much less 3 'computer experts', could or would 
have taken the particulars of this case on for trial, much less to 
ensure compliance with a settlement, although it might currently 
take 3 lawyers just to explain the current proposed settlement and 
Impact Statement to the average end user/Citizen, so that they could 
fully understand the terms and future implications of said 
settlement in order to intelligently offer their concerns and 
comments to the Court!
    I strongly believe that there should be NO EXPIRATION DATE of 
any final order regarding this proposed settlement, just as there is 
no expiration date mandated by law or court order, for notifications 
and recalls to the American public regarding dangerous or defective 
consumer products. As I mention at the beginning of my comments, I 
have used Microsoft software products for many years, and have NEVER 
seen a product recall involving the failures of their software (or 
of any Court order forcing them to comply with any court order or 
law dealing with flawed products).. If the automobile industry were 
allowed to make cars that were as restrictive to use, and as 
defective in use, as Microsoft Windows operating systems and 
upgrades have proven to be time and again over the years, the auto 
industry would have gone out of business many, many years ago.
    In closing, I again respectively but most strongly request and 
urge the U.S. Department of Justice and the Court to rethink and 
rewrite the 'proposed settlement' of this case, and to 
instead offer a settlement that will actually benefit the public; 
the average home user/Citizen, including the stated alternative 
considerations listed, such as mandating Microsoft to issue a stand-
alone version of it's operation systems completely devoid of 
it's own 'Middleware' products, without the OS's 
automated changes and restrictive, invasive 30-day 
'activation' ploy/scheme, at a reduced price. Allowing 
Microsoft to give $1,000,000,000.00 worth of 'free' 
software to the American public schools is a very nice gesture, and 
I'm sure our schools will be very happy with this 
philanthropic gesture by Microsoft and Mr. Gates, as the news media 
is reporting today.
    However, this gesture doesn't protect nor does it offer any 
relief the average home user/Citizen to any degree, nor does it 
mandate any form of punishment to Microsoft for

[[Page 23970]]

breaking the law in the past or in the future, except to 
'extend' the period of time for court-ordered 
supervision of Microsoft by the '3 computer experts'. 
Such action does NOT constitute remedy, protection or punishment 
that is readily observable to the average, reasonable American.. 
Personally, I don't want to have to go back to high school to 
use Microsoft's gift of free software to the American school system, 
in order to benefit from this 'proposed settlement' as 
it stands. Surely Mr. Gates can do something more meaningful for the 
public to show Microsoft is attempting to mend their ways and to 
redeem their illegal behavior, than to give away software to only 
our public schools, something which Mr. Gates' private 
'Gates Foundation' does already. I think that a more 
meaningful and appropriate condition of settlement would be for 
Microsoft to be required to offer at no cost, a new and current 
Windows operating system upgrade (without restrictive and invasive 
actions required by the end user) to legal computer user/Citizens, 
who have purchased and installed any Windows operating system during 
the period of time that this legal action has transpired, until 
final settlement of this case. To the American public, it might be 
worth $1,000,000,000.00 for Microsoft to be mandated in this 
settlement to undertake such an action, as said condition would 
truly address the wrongs committed by Microsoft upon the public in a 
far more genuine and realistic manner than by Microsoft's 
'giving' the same/equivalent amount of unspecified 
'free software' to the American public school system. 
Admittedly, our public schools are a deserving but extremely select, 
publicly supported organization/institution benefiting 
America's children, but said current offer would not 
immediately or in any way benefit the majority of the adult segment 
of the American Citizens whom have been wronged by Microsoft's 
illegal behavior.
    Thank you for your kind and generous time and attention in 
reading my comments, and I pray that they will be brought to the 
Court's attention, on behalf of all of the end users and average 
Citizens in America, so that 'We, the People' (besides 
the children in our public school system) will have relief from 
Microsoft's unlawful behavior. (Just how did the original 
lawsuit allege that the school system was harmed by Microsoft's 
illegal behavior, anyway? I could not find any allusion to this fact 
in any of the relevant court documents in this case).
    Very Truly Yours,
    Dennis Dietzel
    301-G Marshall Street
    Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
    [email protected]
    CC: The Honorable Ike Skelton, Member of Congress (MO)



MTC-00001739

From: Mick Conners
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:51pm
Subject: An outrage
    Folks,
    I truly cannot believe that this settlement is even considered. 
Why? I can't list everything here, but consider this. If I buy a 
Windows based system, I am truly stuck. I choose another OS to run 
on that machine, I have no other software to choose from to become 
compatible with the windows world. Novell and Apple are both in the 
same dilemma they are trying to fight an up hill battle with a 800 
lb. gorilla as some would say. However, to be fair both products 
MUST remain compatible with you know who, Microsoft. Without this 
compatibility these companies cannot compete. Why should they cater 
to someone that already OWNS the PC market.
    Finally, the use of a gorilla in the above analogy is wrong. A 
gorilla is a social, caring and docile animal. Microsoft is not.
    So please think about your decision. We want Microsoft to be 
competitive not force others out of business. Many a good company 
has failed. They tried to compete, however, because Microsoft will 
either take over or use their leverage to create an anti-competitive 
market. Read from a few years ago in Business Week a Day in the 
shoes of Bill Gates then make your final judgement.
    Thanks much,
    Mick
    Mick Conners
    136 W. Goodland St.
    Sun Prairie, WI 53590
    608-825-9919
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00001740

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:44pm
Subject: microsoft
    i deplore your suit against microsoft while allowing major oil 
companies to unit. where will it stop? with one or two major 
companies who will tell us and you, of coarse what to pay and how to 
pay it. of coarse i know they are already telling the government 
what and when to do something.
    what i am really saying is that you are all a bunch of stupid 
jerks!!!!!!!!



MTC-00001741

From: John F. Koen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:30pm
Subject: proposed settlement
    Hi, I wanted to comment on the settlement Microsoft proposed 
today (or yesterday). I am against this latest proposed settlement. 
I think that having the only penalty be Microsoft's providing 
computers and software will only go further toward reinforcing 
Microsoft's monopoly position, clearly against the intent of the law 
and the finding of guilt. Microsoft (as have other computer/software 
companies) has previously donated equipment and software to schools. 
This can serve several purposes such as good public relations, 
favorable media coverage (Microsoft has done it during previous 
trials, apparently to help sway the 'court of public opinion') 
and increasing 'market share.' Allowing this 
'settlement' only reinforces the problem.
    John Koen
    1204 Cypress Street, #2-F
    Philadelphia, PA 19107
    [email protected]
    tel: 215-875-8555
    cell: 215-275-1842
    http://www.johnfkoen.com



MTC-00001742

From: Mike Chambers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:54pm
Subject: RedHat wants to help Microsoft
    Thought someone might be interested in this article by RedHat to 
help them settle.
    http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/
press_usschools.html
    Mike Chambers
    Mt. Prospect, IL
    Netlyncs



MTC-00001743

From: Ronald Gallimore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:52pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement is unwise & unjust
    What has been proposed by the DOJ is inadequate given the 
serious misdeeds of Microsoft. The settlement will deter Microsoft 
from continuing the practices that have been so harmful to many 
consumers and companies. I read the trial judge's findings 
carefully, and it is unbelieveable that the US government would be 
so dismissive of the implications.
    I urge you to reverse course and propose remedies that might 
actually have some effect.
    Ronald Gallimore
    302 15th St., Santa Monica, CA 90402 (telephone: 
310-395-1375)



MTC-00001744

From: Paul (038) Cindi Armstrong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern, I would like to express my 
disappointment regarding the settlement with Microsoft. It appears 
that Microsoft will be left in tact with billions of dollars in 
profits from its "monopolistic" practices while only 
being punished for a mere billion. Further, they continue to 
maintain a monopolistic market share on computer operating systems 
and key software programs. The capacity for Microsoft to outmanuever 
competitors through legal and fiscal brute remains. The fear of 
Microsoft has not been diminished.
    There has been no real service to society in the punishments 
awarded. A billion dollars for schools is token money. Further, 
their products are often mediocre at best and prone to crash costing 
me and my business hundreds of dollars each month in lost time. If 
they had better products, I might be more enthused by this 
settlement. Instead, I'm feeling locked in without real consumer 
choices of alternate programs. I strongly oppose this settlement.
    Paul Armstrong
    Fond du Lac WI



MTC-00001745

From: G Ramos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:59pm
Subject: MS
    Microsoft is getting off easy; they have put out-of-business or 
out of competition one too many companies.

[[Page 23971]]

    Their manipulative and predatory way of doing business needs to 
be severely limited to prevent further abuse. Fines are also 
warranted.
    G. Ramos



MTC-00001746

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/01 11:56pm
Subject: No Subject
    If they spread into all areas of education, you set a long term 
snowball rolling of a much bigger monopoly. Microsoft would become 
inbread into an entire generation. most compitition would be dead 
before conception. thank you for your time.
    Jeremie Lederman



MTC-00001747

From: Mike(a)Blumenthals.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/20 2:53pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Your proposed settlement does nothing to address the real issues 
raised by the monopoly of Microsoft.
    Mike Blumenthal



MTC-00001748

From: jrosenbe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/20/20 7:46am
Subject: You should know that in it's infinite wisdom, you cannot 
get tho feed from MSNBC on anything other than a Windows computer 
now. This started a few days ago.
    Just a little nibble by Microsoft. Another choice gone. I 
consider them the most dangerous company/organization in the world.
    They provide mediocre to poor software that you are forced to 
use by sheer weight of their numbers while innovative companies with 
better ideas or processes are either crushed by their power or 
bought up.
    They should have been broken up.
    Joe Rosenberg



MTC-00001749

From: 2bulldogs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 12:10am
Subject: Microsoft Wins Again...
    Who is Microsoft fooling when they promise to give 1 Billion in 
cash and software to the poorest schools in the nation? Don't our 
children deserve the best? By the time the software gets to our 
schools it will almost certainly be outdated. Why not just give the 
American education system 1 Billiion dollars in cash. That way the 
neediest schools can choose their own operating system. Maybe an 
operating system that is more stable than the Windows platform. 
Remember our children deserve the best.
    Sincerely,
    Mr. RJ Carswell



MTC-00001750

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 12:09am
Subject: Good To End This Case
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am just an ordinary citizen with little knowledge of the legal 
system, but have understood, from the beginning, that the Microsoft 
Antitrust Case is more a case of government interference than a case 
of/for "justice." Reminds me of the lyrics; 
"...because I have friends in high places...", wherein 
the competitors of Microsoft ask the DOJ to fight their case for 
them vs. duking it out in the marketplace.
    Now, I sincerely pray that the states Attorneys General (those 
refusing to agree to the settlement reached by the DOJ and nine 
other states Attorneys General) will stop the bullying, tighten 
their belts and STOP. The entire fiasco has harmed the consumer, the 
stockholders...and the United States economy! As the foregoing makes 
clear, I, and thousands of Americans, are extremely pleased with the 
settlement reached. As a next reform, I would suggest that 
legislative and judicial bodies stop harassing the tobacco industry 
and the millions of Americans who choose to smoke. What kind of 
justice is it to pass the costs of the settlements to consumers, 
making multimillionaires of the attorneys prosecuting these cases? 
It is downright frightening what legal, legislative and other 
administrative bodies are doing TO American citizens in the name of 
"protection."
    Sincerely,
    Sharon Dunton



MTC-00001751

From: Bruce Rogovin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 12:09am
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Sir:
    I remember as a child reading about the Standard Oil Trust and 
how the monopoly was terrible for competition and the country. As a 
result, Standard Oil was broken up, so that the American way of fair 
competition could prevail.
    Whether or not there is a direct corellation with the Microsoft 
case, it is obvious that Microsoft has become a totally corupt and 
completely out of control monopoly. I read with utter disbelief the 
judge's Statement of Facts on the case. It was hard to believe that 
one company could do so many illegal activities and still be free to 
do more. The US government on previous occasions has simply slapped 
Microsoft on the wrist and allowed it to continue almost completely 
unchanged. Now the justice department is about to dot he very same 
thing. It is as if the justice department has not read the statement 
of facts. I would beg anyone involved witht the case to watch Bill 
Gates taped testimony. I have never seen anything as sleazy. This 
was the president of the world's largest corporation, lying and 
covering up under oath. I implore you to do something to stop 
Microsoft from it's illegal and immoral attempts to dominate every 
corner of every market they deem important. Please do something to 
break the monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Bruce Rogovin
    7555 Fernwood Dr.
    Cincinnati, Ohio 45237
    513-731-9669



MTC-00001752

From: Carl Blackman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 12:03am
Subject: comment on the draft agreement between the doj and ms
    I am strongly opposed to the current draft agreement between the 
dept of justice and microsoft. Microsoft has already shown its 
contempt with and continued illegal activities following the last 
agreement they entered regarding their anti-competitive practices. 
The only ruling that will bring an end to these practices is to 
breakup the company into at least two parts, perhaps more. 
Innovation is the fundamental asset the US IT community has; the 
currently proposed settlement will do much to limit new innovation.
    I urge you to reconsider your draft agreement and return to the 
only suggestion that will be beneficial to computer users, both 
individuals and corporations.
    Carl Blackman
    3413 Horton St
    Raleigh, NC
    27607-3414



MTC-00001753

From: michael branton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 12:13am
Subject: Microsoft
    I urge you to vigorously pursue much stronger penalties against 
Microsoft than are in the current proposal by the DOJ. This company 
has been shown to be a monopolist and its actions are not in the 
public interest, nore is the proposed settelment in the public 
interest. Further, Microsoft has continuously flaunted is violation 
of US law in its monopolistic practices, and is thus very unlikely 
to change its behavior without severe penalties being imposed.
    Dr. Michael Branton
    1910 Deerfoot Run
    Deland FL 32720



MTC-00001754

From: cvers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 12:11am
Subject: Pentities To Encourage a Competitive Market
    There must be real penities with the Microsoft settlement. 
Penities which improve the competitive software market. Microsoft 
should be fined a significant amount of money (say 2 billion 
dollards) which should be specifically allocated to Netscape and 
other vendors to develop a competitive browsers with all browser 
standards cross platform. Microsoft should be barred from adding to 
their browser any special capability that is windows only. If they 
want to add some special capability, source code should be available 
to competitors (six months in advance) for other OS's migration. Any 
significant efforts must be made to maintain the World Wide Wed OS 
neutral design. As for their major leverage with Windows, the 
settlement should delute thier competitive advance to leverage 
Windows only applications with their Windows Operating system.
    Microsoft should be requiried to make their applications 
available on both Linix, Solaris,

[[Page 23972]]

HP and IBM Unix for the next five years as they are doing with Apple 
Computer. This must include all significant Business applications 
including Office, Microsoft Project, and Visio. Note: for Apple at 
present, they have this agreement only for Office. Corporations 
cannot consider switching to another OS until the other Business 
applications are also available. This should also include any other 
future significant Business applications. Also, when Micrososft 
releases updates, all pending competing product vendors (or 
translator vendors) should have a release at lease six months in 
advance of all information necessary for the development translator 
This should be the law for all software vendors anyway. These 
suggestion I think will make the software market more competitive.
    Michael Barto
    IT Project Manager (Over 25 years)
    Cell Phone: 714-883-1949



MTC-00001755

From: kapilnath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 12:17am
Subject: comment....
    To Whom it may concern,
    I think this "solution" is ridiculous. It serves to 
extend the Microsoft monopoly into areas where hitherto they have 
had no market at all. I think a better solution would be to have 
Microsoft spend $1billion towards computer hardware, thus giving 
computer access to the less priviledged. (This is good) The software 
should be a form of Linux. I believe that Red Hat...a well 
established software company has extended their software free of 
charge. Future updates of their operating and system software can be 
downloaded for free or purchased for a few dollars.
    If Microsoft is allowed this solution... in a few years it will 
be time to update the software. Microsoft just gained a new user 
base and who is going to pay for it then?
    This is no solution for a monopoly.
    Kapilnath



MTC-00001756

From: Joe Paul
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 12:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Not tough enough! Not only that, the settlement puts more of 
their products in the hands of young impressionable kids. You should 
have demanded they provide Lotus and Corel software instead.



MTC-00001757

From: Michael De Jong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 12:31am
Subject: letting Microsoft off
    I feel Microsoft is not being dealt with harsh enough. they 
should allow companies such as Apple, Netscape and Real display 
their application shortcuts on windows desktops and make sure they 
work flawlessly. The same should also been done with Apple Macintosh 
Desktops. The government should look into using more Macs, as they 
will provide a safer and more cost effective solution to government 
needs. Letting Microsoft donate Window's machines to low budget 
schools as a form a punishment is plain stupidity. The children will 
be exposed to a MS world and nothing else. Deal with Microsoft with 
harsher punishment, the US economy will benefit in keeping other 
competitors alive vs supporting a Microsoft world.
    Michael De Jong
    Calgary, AB



MTC-00001758

From: Tadd Torborg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 12:24am
Subject: Re: MacInTouch: Mac news, information and analysis
    I am disappointed with the press reports that the heavy handed 
leveraging of Microsoft's monopoly in Operating Systems (and Office 
applications) has been used against IBM and others successfully and 
now will not be punished. MS should be limited such that it's sales 
never exceed 50% of the total sales in any marketplace. This would 
mean that no more than 50% of all installed OSs was made by 
Microsoft. No more than 50% of all installed Word Processors could 
be made by Microsoft. If Microsoft ever does go beyond 50% they 
should be punished in a trivial and obvious way, say by having it's 
entire U.S. operation closed for a month for each infraction 
following the determination of any infraction. If Microsoft truly 
does innovate and provide better products, they should do rather 
well with just under 50% of each market they venture into. If they 
do not, an under 50% market share will spoil all of it's illegal 
practices and Microsoft will ether learn or go away.



MTC-00001759

From: Richard Levine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 12:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has made a generous settlement proposal.It will 
benefit those who need it the most.States that have been depending 
on the settlement will get the benefit of better education,and 
California that ranks 48th in Academics would do well to settle.It 
is truly a pity that Gray Davis will be leaving the govenorship in 
such a sorry state,but penalizing industry for revenue would be his 
most egregious act of his career.
    Richard Levine



MTC-00001760

From: Jordan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 1:06am
Subject: RE: Mircosoft monopoly
    Hi,
    I would like to voice my position on the Microsoft anti-trust 
case. It is suggested that Microsoft has become the biggest software 
company not by offering a good product, but by criminal acts. This 
is a serious matter for all computer users and business around the 
world. To be offered one product by one company, we might have just 
been taken over by the Nazis. Lets free the computer industry of 
such a controlling and manipulating company. _
    Jordan Koutroumanidis
    Art Director
    MOF Advertising
    This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged 
or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named 
addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message 
(or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you 
may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. 
Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its 
attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any 
content of this message and its attachments which does not relate to 
the official business of MOF advertising must be taken not to have 
been sent or endorsed by any of them. No warranty is made that the 
e-mail or attachment(s) are free from computer virus or other 
defect.



MTC-00001761

From: JMc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 1:03am
Subject: The proposed settlement
    Sirs:
    After reading some of the details in the proposed settlement of 
this case, I have concluded that:
    1) Microsoft has applied political pressure on the DoJ to 
achieve it's goals, or
    2) The DoJ team is incompetent / poorly-advised and cannot 
credibly represent the interests of the U.S. in this case.
    If either of these are true, it's a sad day for America and for 
consumers who will be subject to the continued adverse business 
practices of the monopolistic, ruthless empire that Microsoft has 
become. As a minimum, Microsoft should be divided, and the 
applications business should be isolated from OS development 
efforts.
    Sincerely,
    James McSheehy



MTC-00001762

From: Dave Austin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 12:59am
Subject: Settlement conditions
    I believe that MS's offer of $1B in goods and services to 
schools merely serves MS's purposes and is trojan horse furthering 
the monopoly. In the end those schools with MS products will extend 
reliance on MS.
    A better solution would be for MS to spend the same $1B 
purchasing their competitor's (i.e. Sun and Apple) goods and 
services. That would provide the schools with the same or better 
technology and give MS competitors the opportunity to compete, 
essentially helping to level the playing field.
    MS's offer to give away their own goods and services worth $1B 
is ludicrous. That $1B give away will not only extend dependence 
upon further goods and services but will earn them that much and 
more over the an extended period because others (i.e. teachers, 
parents) will have to purchase equipment and software at home to 
support school children's work.
    Please don't accept the MS offer as a golden goose. It has too 
many pitfalls.
    Thanks,
    Dave Austin



MTC-00001763

From: Ben Geyer
To: Microsoft ATR,attorney.general

[[Page 23973]]

@po.state.ct.us@inet...
Date: 11/21/01 12:57am
Subject: Comments re MS suit and settlement
    Sirs & Mesdames:
    The writer is not a resident of any of your states, but just a 
retired citizen of Arizona who would like to be heard. By way of 
background, after receiving my MSEE from MIT in 1949, I participated 
in the design and construction of one of the very early 
computers_OARAC, built by the GE company in 1949-51 for 
the US Air Force. Most of the rest of my career was in the field of 
military electronics for various military services at the GE plant 
in Syracuse, NY. I have, however, maintained a serious interest in 
the field of computers all of my life. First of all, this may be a 
done deal, but it is nonetheless a bad one. I have just today seen 
reports to the effect that MS is being allowed to settle one or more 
suits by giving MS products and equipment to certain schools. That 
is certainly a back door method of undercutting the only minor 
competition that they have_namely Apple Computer. This gift 
should be required to be in cash with the specific provision that 
the schools should decide what equipment and software they need. If 
Apple goes down, we are all at the non-existent mercy of MS.
    Perish forbid!
    Relative to other aspects of this case, it is my opinion that 
without some provision for the separation of MS into two (or more) 
separate companies_ perhaps 'Operating Systems' 
and 'Application Programs'_the entire court action 
will have come to naught! MS has demonstrated on numerous occasions 
that it is able to find its way around lesser court imposed 
restrictions. Let's not bother to repeat that experience. It would 
be a waste of the taxpayer's money and the court's time.
    In short, you, ladies & gentlemen, are our final hope that 
the MS juggernaut can be stopped, and IT MUST BE! Please give it 
your very best effort!
    Bernard H. Geyer
    1938 Forest View
    Prescott, AZ 86305
    928-445-0494



MTC-00001765

From: smacsteve(a)mac.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 1:13am
Subject: Re: Microsoft agrees to settle private antitrust suits
    You people haven't a clue. This will only further the Microsoft 
stronghold on the consumer market! This money should be made 
available for schools to buy computers and software from competitors 
like Apple. Apple is the only real competition to MS and it's 
software domination. Thus it should benefit the competition not 
offender. This will show students there is still a choice. What 
sense does it make to say "look there is still only one 
choice, Micro$oft. Think about it.
    Stephen Lauterbach



MTC-00001766

From: zbyter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 1:12am
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Sir,
    I feel that this latest decision to let Microsoft off the hook 
is a slap in the face to the thousands of consumers and companies 
that have been manipulated and controlled by Microsoft's 
manipulation and deceptive tactics. Please make them accountable for 
their actions. If they are allowed to get away with what they have 
done where will it stop. Who will be the next victim of the 
corporate abuse. Please stop this injustice and protect us from the 
future abusers.
    Thank you.
    Julio Cardona
    1402 Hoyt St.
    Lakewood, Colorado 80215



MTC-00001768

From: Wally
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 2:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Folks at the Department of Justice,
    I just watched a local newscaster read a story in the most 
incredulous manner about the latest in the Microsoft's dealing with 
the law. Even he couldn't believe what he was reading. The story was 
that Microsoft would agree to fund the 12,500 poorest schools with 
computers and software as "settlement in dozens of private 
antitrust suits." I can't believe it either. Here is a link to 
a CNN story about it: http://money.cnn.com/2001/11/20/technology/
microsoft/index.htm What are we doing, feeding our children to the 
monopolists?
    I have to say that I was severely disappointed with the proposed 
antitrust settlement that came out in early November of this year. 
It seemed not even a slap on the wrist, but more a pat on the back.
    Despite an incredible onslaught of money, resources, lawyers and 
political pressure, the basic judgement against Microsoft stood: 
They are guilty of monopolistic practices. Plain and simple. Nothing 
has changed that. The Microsoft business plan of centralizing all 
services onto the Windows platform is easily understandable. They 
are a business operating in a capitalist system which rewards 
predatory and proprietary behavior. If all roads lead through 
Microsoft in the computer world, then Microsoft gets to extract its 
ounce of flesh from all of us and reap great profits. Great work if 
you can get it.
    This business plan works wonderfully for Microsoft in terms of 
profit and longevity, but does it really serve the public? No. It 
isn't meant to. No matter what spin it is given.
    What is good for the public? Certainly, having more than one 
operating system in general use is a must. Thank goodness a lot of 
web servers run UNIX/Apache or the whole internet would be brought 
down in a regular basis every time a new Microsoft email virus makes 
its rounds. This happens with increasing regularity. One 
monopolistic operating system becomes a very inviting target for 
plain idiots as well as true cyber terrorists.
    One monopolistic operating system doesn't really foster 
innovation as well. If Microsoft only controlled the operating 
system arena, one could argue that innovation could flourish. 
However, Microsoft wants you to use their word processor, web 
browser, email client (I'm using Outlook Express at this moment), 
spread sheet, database, et al. Where is there room for third party 
developers to flourish? How does one compete especially given the 
programming "hooks" that Microsoft has written into 
their operating system solely for the benefit of its own 
applications?
    I work on the Internet. I build web sites and teach the same at 
Cabrillo College in Aptos, California. Although I haven't been in 
the computer business for that long, I have been happy that the 
Internet is an open environment that works for all computing 
platforms. HTML, the language that is used for web pages is a 
universal language. One should be able to view a web page using any 
web browser on the UNIX, Linux, Be, Solaris, Mac or Windows platform 
with equal success. This open environment promotes innovation. 
Microsoft would like to sew up the internet to only its platform. 
Earlier this month, the corporate Microsoft website couldn't be 
accessed except with the Microsoft browser and (I believe) a 
computer running Windows. They called it a glich, I see it as a 
glimpse of the future. Nat a very cheery one.
    My expectations of you at the Department of Justice are very 
high. I expect you to treat these convicted monopolists as the 
criminals that they are under U.S. law and punish them accordingly. 
I understand that the current agreement is even easier on Microsoft 
than the one that Microsoft itself proposed last year.
    Microsoft would have you believe that what is good for Microsoft 
is good for the economy and the country. The truth is that what is 
good for Microsoft is good for the Microsoft bottom line and not 
necessarily the rest of us. I hate to say this, but the folks in 
Redmond Washington are laughing at the Department of Justice and the 
American public. They arrogantly and apparently correctly felt that 
could break the agreements they made in the antitrust suit in the 
mid 1990s with impunity. And so they have. Now, the current proposed 
agreement looks like candy in the eyes of a kid. The reputation of 
the Department of Justice is on the line as well. Is the Department 
of Justice to be known as an arbiter of law, a protector of the 
American public, a sword in the hand of justice to smite down the 
enemies of our nation?
    Or just another minion of big business.
    Well folks, in a long winded way, you have found that I strongly 
disapprove of the proposed Microsoft Antitrust Settlement. I see it 
as a travesty of justice. It looks like a sell out by my government 
to a business and I find that extremely disturbing.
    Thank you for your time.
    Regards,
    Wally Parham
    831-459-0449
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected] 
@inetgw,senator@feinstein....



MTC-00001769

From: El (038) Lois Koelder
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 23974]]

Date: 11/21/01 1:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    You have made the right decision in your reaching an agreement 
with Microsoft. The Law Suit was a big mistake to begin with.
    El



MTC-00001770

From: WMBennett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 1:33am
Subject: Microsoft antitrust settlement
    Is this proposed settlement in the public interest??? Either you 
people simply do not understand the computer software market, or you 
are in Bill's pocket. You have let us down.
    Sincerely,
    William M. Bennett



MTC-00001771

From: Tom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 2:06am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I would like to comment on the news of a settlement offer of 
computers and software by microsoft to settle the private party 
litigation.
    Is this the address that can be used for that?
    Thanks
    Tom



MTC-00001772

From: Hans Gerwitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 2:04am
Subject: Settlement
    I find it unacceptable that punitive measures for established 
criminal offenses are being influenced by "the economy" 
and other items of temporal context. I could only hope, were I to 
commit a crime, the public prosecutors would have reason to believe 
it was best not to punish me because of the impact it might have on, 
say, my employer.
    Hans Gerwitz
    [email protected]



MTC-00001773

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 2:22am
Subject: Microsoft violated the Anti-Trust law: Why rewarding 
them!!!
    It's sad to find out that people in charge to punish Microsoft 
are in fact helping them to be a dominant company in American 
schools.
    Settlement terms could bite Apple in schools By Michael Kanellos 
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
    November 20, 2001, 5:45 p.m. PT A proposed settlement agreement 
in a series of antitrust suits may not only give Microsoft a fairly 
inexpensive legal resolution, it may also help the company and its 
PC allies further erode Apple Computer's position in education.
    Under a settlement proposal in a series of private antitrust 
lawsuits announced Tuesday, Microsoft agreed to donate approximately 
$500 million to help bring technology to some of the nation's most 
disadvantaged schools. The deal will also allow these schools to 
obtain a virtually unlimited supply of Microsoft software for the 
next five years.
    Those terms, say analysts, could hurt Apple and other software 
providers. Historically, education has been one of Apple's primary 
markets. And although the company has slipped to No. 2 in 
kindergarten through grade 12_behind Dell_it still has a 
larger installed base than anyone else.
    Free software, though, is hard to pass up. Apple, as well as 
Linux companies and other educational software developers, could 
find themselves out in the cold in school districts flush with new 
Microsoft products.
    Microsoft could wind up "undercutting everyone in the 
education market," Gerard Klauer Mattison analyst David Bailey 
said. The best-case scenario for Apple would be that Microsoft 
increases the overall level of PCs in schools without directly 
harming a company like Apple, he said.
    Linux specialist Red Hat Software tried to counter Microsoft's 
move soon after the settlement was announced. The company said it 
would provide its software to every U.S. school district and 
encouraged Microsoft to convert the software component of the deal 
to increased hardware donations, which costs the company little.
    "While we applaud Microsoft for raising the idea of 
helping poorer schools as part of the penalty phase of their 
conviction for monopolistic practices, we do not think that the 
remedy should be a mechanism by which Microsoft can further extend 
its monopoly," Red Hat CEO Matthew Szulik said in a statement. 
An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment on the issue.
    The potential pain for Apple comes in the unique settlement 
terms. Under the deal, Microsoft will grant approximately $500 
million to help underprivileged schools create self-sustaining 
technology programs. Of that, $90 million will go to teacher 
training, while $160 million will go to technical support. Microsoft 
will also match contributions from other donors.
    Additionally, Microsoft will donate approximately 1 million 
refurbished PCs to these schools and provide them with complimentary 
Microsoft software. The donations would go to public elementary and 
secondary schools, at which 70 percent of students are eligible for 
federal meal assistance, or approximately 14 percent of the nation's 
schools, according to Microsoft. Approximately 12,500 schools, 
representing 7 million students and 400,000 teachers, would be 
eligible to participate in the program.
    With these donations, Apple equipment becomes far less 
attractive to cash-strapped districts. Even if the grant funds are 
used to buy Apple equipment, a district would have to pass up 
opportunities for free software. In recent years, Apple has seen its 
share of the market decline because of price competition. Dell is 
now No. 1 in the education market, with 37 percent of new elementary 
and high school sales in the second quarter, according to IDC. Apple 
came in second, with 23 percent.
    Familiarizing students with Microsoft technology could also make 
loyal customers out of today's students. Developing familiarity, in 
fact, was the basis for Apple's push into education back in the 
1980s. The theory was that students would stick with the technology 
they understood best. While there may be some truth to this, it 
hasn't completely panned out in the numbers. Apple's share of the PC 
market is below 5 percent, far below its share in education.
    Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer denied the proposed settlement was 
an attempt to boost the company's share of the education market. 
"The benefits we provide can be used for PCs or 
Macintoshes," he said. "It can be used for PC software 
or Macintosh software. Certainly, the money can be used for non-
Microsoft software, so I don't view it as some big thing about 
market share." Microsoft also produces applications for Apple 
computers, pointed out IDC analyst Roger Kay.
    Although the settlement terms will likely help Microsoft's 
position in education, more tangible benefits come from the 
relatively light terms. The company is effectively making a $500 
million charitable donation and giving away its own software to 
settle a case where the liability could have stretched into far 
higher figures.
    The case in some ways is being settled for pennies on the 
dollar, according to Bob Lande, an antitrust professor with 
University of Baltimore School of Law.
    The company will also likely get positive public relations 
messages out with the deal, said Gartner Dataquest analyst Michael 
Silver. "This gets Microsoft out of all these lawsuits in one 
fell swoop," Silver said. "It's a penalty, but it makes 
Microsoft look good and gives schools PCs, and in so doing would 
give Microsoft an even larger installed base than they already 
have."
    Best Regards.



MTC-00001775

From: Cliff Crouch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 2:07am
Subject: Still accepting comments on the proposed Microsoft anti-
trust case settlement?
    Dear Dept. of Justice:
    I subscribe to a daily email "Technology Update" 
from The Wall Street Journal. In today's issue, the WSJ.com editors 
write:
    Microsoft is set to settle scores of private antitrust cases 
that charge the company abused its Windows software monopoly. Under 
the settlement,
    Microsoft would provide software and computers to over 14,000 
schools at an estimated cost of about $1.1 billion.
    Let me get this straight: Microsoft Corporation is tried and 
found guilty, in U.S. federal court, of being a monopoly that has 
deliberately engaged in illegal and abusive practices to achieve and 
maintain that monopoly status ... and then it is allowed to settle 
lawsuits against it by "providing software and 
computers" that will further entrench its monopoly status?
    Has the legal world gone utterly barking mad?
    I mean, although I'd like to believe otherwise, a small still 
voice tells me that these aren't Apple Macintosh computers, Linux-
based software programs, UNIX operating systems, or even old BeBoxes 
that

[[Page 23975]]

 Microsoft plans to dump ... er, "provide" ... are they?
    Don't you realize that even in providing "free" 
software to these schools (or other entities), Microsoft hooks them 
into the upgrade cycle? That it creates an environment where people 
will shy away from anything that's not compatible with the Microsoft 
Windows operating system? Don't you realize that if an anti-trust 
case settlement allows Microsoft to provide "free" 
software to schools, you are effectively shutting out the company's 
competitors? How can any other software maker_for example, 
Apple Computer_even *hope* to compete in, say, a school 
district, if Microsoft has already strategically placed 
"free" Intel-based computers running "free" 
Windows software throughout it? If you let this happen, you are 
*furthering* Microsoft in its monopoly, not hindering it. *Please* 
do something meaningful to penalize Microsoft for its predatory 
behavior and to allow other companies to compete with it on a more 
even playing field.
    Astonished, incredulous, & appalled at my government's 
leniency toward this monopoly,
    Cliff Crouch
* * * * *
    
    
* * * * *



MTC-00001776

From: Rob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 2:29am
Subject: Microsoft anti trust agreement
    I would like to voice my disappointment with the anti-trust 
remedy being discussed by the DOJ. I feel this remedy falls well 
short of having any significant impact on Microsoft's predatory 
business practices.
    I believe the only solution is one often discussed in public 
forums. That is separating Microsoft into two separate companies 
with one developing system software and nothing else. Any remedy 
short of bisecting the company is simply window dressing. The US tax 
payer will be paying for another anti-trust law suit within a short 
period of time.



MTC-00001777

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 2:25am
Subject: A MOST GENEROUS SETTLEMENT OFFER BY MICROSOFT !
    GENTLEMEN: I repeat the subject matter!!!!! V e r n C l e m e n 
t s
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00001778

From: Bert Mahoney
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/21/01 2:24am
Subject: Sharing my opinion of the Microsoft anti-trust case
    Dear Madams and Sirs,
    I am not a resident of many of your states (I reside in 
California) but I feel compelled to share my opinion with you. I'm 
writing you to let you know of my absolute dissatisfaction and 
displeasure with the current results and reports coming from the 
Federal Government's Microsoft anti-trust case.
    I've been following this case in the news for many years and 
feel as though I am well-informed, not just the casual observer, but 
I also know that I do not know every single detail of the case. I 
feel that Microsoft is being given a light slap on the wrist for the 
actions they have indulged in. It is outrageous that they are 
"reaching a settlement" and not being handed very strong 
punishment!
    Remember that this is a company that has over 90% of the desktop 
operating systems market and without question used that advantage in 
ways which were illegal. I would be willing to bet that you are 
reading this email on a PC using one form or another of Microsoft 
Windows.
    I happen to be writing you on a Macintosh.
    Thank you for your time and for your efforts in the fight 
against the anti-trust operations of Microsoft.
    Best of luck in your efforts.
    Regards,
    Bert
    Bert Mahoney
    Digital Media Director
    The Thacher School
    e: [email protected]
    p: 805.640.3201 xt. 264
    f: 805.646.3251
    w: www.thacher.org
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00001779

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 2:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    A Quote from CNet on your proposal:
    "Under a settlement proposal in a series of private 
antitrust lawsuits announced Tuesday, Microsoft agreed to donate 
approximately $500 million to help bring technology to some of the 
nation's most disadvantaged schools. The deal will also allow these 
schools to obtain a virtually unlimited supply of Microsoft software 
for the next five years.
    Those terms, say analysts, could hurt Apple and other software 
providers. Historically, education has been one of Apple's primary 
markets. And although the company has slipped to No. 2 in 
kindergarten through grade 12_behind Dell_it still has a 
larger installed base than anyone else. Free software, though, is 
hard to pass up. Apple, as well as Linux companies and other 
educational software developers, could find themselves out in the 
cold in school districts flush with new Microsoft products. "
    Here's an idea. Make Microsoft buy $500 million worth of Apple 
iMacs to put in those schools. This way the children xcan learn a 
great new Unix variant in the Mac OS X and the professors wont have 
to stop teaching to troubleshoot.
    Andrew F. Herrmann
    Tech. Coordinator
    College of Arts & Sciences
    Ext. 3635
    [email protected]
    "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who 
has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to 
forgo their use."_Galileo Galilei



MTC-00001780

From: Wayne Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 2:47am
Subject: I can't belive this
    After all the work and all the money spent to prove Microsoft 
broke the law, now we've decided to back down?
    This is crazy. Microsoft is the most monopolistic company of all 
time, and have crushed hundreds of competitors. The are not 
innovative and lack of innovation has created a nightmare system. 
Their security holes have cost billions of dollars for which all 
they do is fix the hole.
    This sounds like a complete political decision and not based on 
what is right and just. Something needs to happen to put competition 
and thus reward back into the computer industry. Without major 
remedies, in a few years, all hope of innovation will be gone, and 
we will have one choice, whether it is good or bad.
    Please reconsider ... This is madness.
    Wayne Fox



MTC-00001781

From: thevoidboy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 2:46am
Subject: Re: MacInTouch: Mac news, information and analysis
    Sell out, weak-kneed, pathetic loss of millions of our tax 
dollars after securing a conviction on monopolistic practices.
    If you were consistent, you would treat poor criminals as fairly 
with a slap on the write and note to be signed by Mommy that they 
would never do anything bad again.
    Your President lost the election; it looks like his cronies are 
making sure he'll lose the next one.



MTC-00001782

From: Michael Laurence Meyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 2:46am
Subject: Microsoft whould receive harsher penalties
    Microsoft whould receive harsher penalties
    Michael Laurence Meyer
    Obernhausen 25
    36129 Gesfeld
    Germany
    [email protected]
    or
    [email protected]



MTC-00001783

From: David Bishop
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 3:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In regards to the settlement proposal I'd like to suggest that 
Microsoft donate the $500,000 into a general fund which would then 
be used by those receiving the money in any appropriate way they see 
fit.
    One struggle many schools have had recently is to maintain some 
autonomy over their school districts and this settlement very neatly 
undermines or unduly influences that ability.
    A Trojan Horse by any other name.....

[[Page 23976]]

    Sincerely,
    David Bishop
    320 D St
    San Rafael, CA 94901



MTC-00001784

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 3:09am
Subject: why settle?
    After all the expense of the original trial and appeal that 
found MS had indeed violated antitrust statues, I don;t understand 
why the settlement allows MS to continue using the same techniques 
that the Gov sued them in the first place.
    Antitrust is all about consumer choice. Thanks to MS I find I 
have less and less choice over what software choices I can make. I 
like Netscape but feel prssuried to use IE. Ditto for word 
processing, spreadsheet and presentation software (Word, Excel and 
Powerpoint).
    The .NET strategy will force less and less conumer choice and 
more & more monopolization by MS.
    Please consider some other "settlement."
    Thanks
    Richard E. Luna
    [email protected]



MTC-00001785

From: Andrew R. Reimisch
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments @doj.ca.gov 
@inetgw,...
Date: 11/21/01 2:57am
Subject: Microsoft is getting off easy.
    I have just seen an article on a web site that describes a 
"Grassroots effort against Microsoft settlement". This 
is a movement that I am proud to join.
    As an avid Macintosh user and supporter, I have been profoundly 
against anything that has the Microsoft name attached to 
it_especially software. As it stands Microsoft has been a 
monopoly since the introduction of Windows 95. Ever since, I and 
other fellow Mac Users, have been subject to the same pressures and 
attitudes that is equally seen with racism. Using such a powerful 
term is the only way to describe what I have endured for my entire 
life as a Macintosh User.
    I personally feel that when the anti-trust case was brought out 
into the open, it was going to be a step in the right direction for 
fairness within the computing industry. As it currently stands, I 
have been let down AGAIN. I felt that with the backing of the 
Department of Justice behind this suit, things would grow for 
Computing. Right now I see this situation as another fat cat getting 
off with a slap on the wrist, getting a stern lecture, where the cat 
is faking sincerity and has its fingers crossed.
    Today we have to stand up to this "giant" and say 
that everyone deserves equal time and representation. This giant has 
its grip on just about everything available and this is 
fundamentally wrong. Please include my name in support in the effort 
to bring down this bully of the Technological Age.
    Andrew R. Reimisch
    (aka) MacPhx
    Addicted/Devoted/Obsessed to Macintosh
    KillGates, Inc.
    I can be reached at:
    [email protected]



MTC-00001786

From: Wallace Karraker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 3:40am
Subject: Microsoft offers $1B to schools_How is this a 
punishment?
    I must comment on an AP Newswire story this evening (Excite.com) 
that "More than 12,500 of the poorest schools in the nation 
would receive $1 billion in computers, software, training and cash 
in an unusual deal offered to settle most of Microsoft Corp.'s 
private antitrust lawsuits." How does this punish Microsoft? 
Can you please explain to me how the current software and hardware 
vendors of these schools will be compensated for the loss of income 
from this arrangement? Won't this effect the local businesses that 
depend on school districts for their income, as well? This 
effectively eliminates competition for those school districts and 
allows Microsoft to become the only provider of services. Doesn't 
this constitute a "MONOPOLY"? The article mentioned that 
the company currently has a $32B cash reserve, so implementing a $1B 
levy over five years would hardly be a punishment.
    Please reconsider this arrangement. This is not a punishment for 
Microsoft, nor is it a bargain for the school districts it 
supposedly assists. The initial investment of hardware or software 
is typically a small part of overall operational cost. Providing the 
schools with a solution crafted from Microsoft will lock these 
school districts into software that is well known for its expense of 
maintenance and overall difficulty of usage. If the schools are as 
poor as indicated, anyone trained as an MCSE or above will use it as 
a ticket out of that system, leaving behind a complex, expensive 
system that will require expensive support after Microsoft has paid 
"their dues to society".
    This is a red carpet treatment for Microsoft to displace Apple 
computers small lead in the education community. Apple maintains a 
narrow margin in the education market through innovation, 
understanding what their customers want, solid and reliable 
computers, considerable value for the money invested and remarkable 
ease of use. By reducing income over five years made on server, 
hardware and software sales by this free "gift" from 
Microsoft, any company would likely be in pretty serious trouble at 
the end. Will Apple survive a shelling like this, possibly, but will 
the DOJ be able to reverse a decision of this magnitude, within a 
timely manner, if the company is wiped out?
    The current antitrust litigation on the Microsoft lawsuit has 
been proceeding since 1998. In that time the company has released 
Microsoft Windows 98SE, Windows Millenium, Windows 2000 and now 
Windows XP, each progressive operating system has incorporated the 
best of third party software from the version before. No other 
company can compete with Microsoft on a feature by feature basis 
within their own operating system. Microsoft controls all aspects 
off the computer market, and have been aggressively pushing their 
technology into other markets that will provide even more income and 
inherent power over all of our lives. My suggestion is to have 
Microsoft provide monetary donations only. With the added cash 
infusion, poor schools can provide what they need to make their 
system work based upon what they need, not what is offered. If they 
decide to purchase Microsoft products, let them purchase it with 
Microsoft money, but at no different pricing than any other school 
system would be asked to pay. If a school has another operating 
system (Apple, Unix, or Linux), the administrators would not feel 
compelled to dump their existing systems in favor of a Microsoft 
only solution.
    Sincerely,
    Wallace Karraker
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00001787

From: Leon van Schie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 4:48am
Subject: Grassroots effort against Microsoft settlement growing
    To whom it may concern,
    I am shocked by the recent news regarding the Microsoft 
settlement. Instead of punishing Microsoft for their monopoly 
strategy you are giving them a green light to basically kick Apple 
Computer out of the education market by donating an astronomical 
amount of money in Microsoft products to this industry, thus giving 
Microsoft a go ahead to continue to do business as usual. I'm sorry 
but this goes beyond my comprehension. You are playing Microsoft's 
cards by making them an offer like this.
    To my humble opinion they should be punished not by putting more 
of their product into the market, especially such a sensitive market 
like education, but by giving them a punishment that1s appropriate. 
If you want Microsoft to donate zillions of dollars, let them do 
that to a neutral institution like food for 3rd world countries or 
something in that order.
    What impression do you give Microsoft (and others like them) 
here? If you monopolize the market by unfair means of business we 
will reward you by allowing you to do more business and even kill 
some competition on the way?! By putting more Microsoft products out 
there you are giving companies like Apple Computer absolutely no 
chance what so ever to sell their product in the education industry, 
hence they start to monopolize that industry as well.
    A concerned Dutch citizen.
    Best regards,
    Leon van Schie.
    Bervoetsbos 189
    2134 PP Hoofddorp
    The Netherlands
    Email: [email protected]
    Don't say you don't have enough time. You have exactly the same 
number of hours per day that were given to Helen Keller, Pasteur, 
Michelangelo, Mother Teresa, Leonardo Da Vinci, Thomas Jefferson and 
Albert Einstein."
    H. Jackson Brown
    CC:microsoftcomments @doj.ca.gov 
@inetgw,attorney.gener...

[[Page 23977]]



MTC-00001788

From: Zoran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 4:28am
Subject: Do the right thing!
    I have just read in a similar case regarding private litigation 
for Anti-trust that Microsoft will settle the cases by putting more 
Window's Machines and Software in public schools. Doesn't that just 
further the monopoly? You guys sound almost as bad. Do the right 
thing_somebody has to...
    Respectfully,
    Zoran Nedich



MTC-00001789

From: Gavin Lapeyre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 4:06am
Subject: do computer users a favor fight microsoft
    Microsoft is a company that has abused it's power worse than any 
company I can think of. They do innovate they steal and squash 
anybody and anything that can gets in their way. Look what there 
doing to the federal government. You must keep on fighting
    Gavin Lapeyre
    551 Venice Way
    Venice, CA 90291



MTC-00001790

From: Steve S. Scherping
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/21/01 3:50am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing you because I am extremely concerned about the 
current state of the settlement concerning the Federal Governments 
case against Microsofts antitrust practices. I feel that harsher 
penalties should take place. Take as an example, the recent offering 
by Microsoft as a settlement for the private antitrust cases brought 
against them. Not only do I believe this offer allows them to 
continue their monopoly since they will be imposing more of the 
software, operating systems, and hardware onto users, it also is 
quite meager since the potential value is $1.1 billion, when they 
readily have $36 is readily available capital. In this case, being a 
monopoly, Microsoft also controls the value of its products so again 
it is able to shorthand those involved in the settlement. I 
understand that this does not directly relate to your case, but it 
is deeply troubling that a company that is supposed to be punished, 
in the end will probably come out the winner again. I am not a rogue 
citizen that has a vendetta against Microsoft. Rather, I am an 
experienced system administrator that utilizes Microsoft products on 
a daily basis. In a university setting we are forced into pricing 
schemes and meager product offerings from Microsoft since our 
students are not capable of using other offerings since they 
consistently use proprietary technology and also force developers 
and manufacturers into sole platform support scenarios. Microsoft 
continues to test its corporate boundaries by attempting to force 
users into using their products. A recent example would be that 
their hotmail service which once supported email clients for other 
platforms, no longer supports those clients because of its 
.netPassport strategy. They also continue to alter known standards 
into their own proprietary technology.
    Please continue your efforts to halt the illegal business 
practices of
    Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Steve S. Scherping
    Business:
    Communications Technician
    CLA Language Center-U of MN
    51 Folwell Hall
    9 Pleasant St SE
    Minneapolis, MN 55455
    Home:
    810 Thornton St. SE, Apt. 1004
    Minneapolis, MN 55414
    [email protected]
    http://umn.edu/home/scher037
    http://www.ssstech.net



MTC-00001791

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected] 
@inetgw,Ralph@essen...
Date: 11/21/01 6:18am
Subject: Microsoft Hegemony' Public Sector MUST Guide Private Sector 
CC: [email protected] 
@inetgw,[email protected]@i...
Re: Microsoft's Great Web Offensive
    "The paradigm shift"_in which corporate 
customers would move an ever-increasing volume of business functions 
to the Web_"was going to happen with or without 
Microsoft," "That's why they jumped in."
    Microsoft, the great follower, with tens of billions of monopoly 
rent dollars available to create paradigm shifts simply waits 5 
years after someone ELSE blazes a trail, then flits along the well-
cut path just in time to sabotage the pioneer and steal the ripe 
fruit of his labor.
    In short, .Net is a good idea. But can it be done'?_As 
much as we like to pick on big companies, it's the big companies 
that have the resources, wherewithal, and clout to make something of 
this scale happen." says Burton Group's Lewis.
    WRONGO. Uncle Sam drove aviation, radio, telephone, transistor, 
UNIX and the internet. So stop selling us your hallucinations about 
the private sector's competence_the public sector MUST guide 
the private sector or it will derail_sorry. Truth sometimes 
hurts. "Give me credit for inventing internet, I'll take it, 
ha ha ha..."



MTC-00001792

From: Mark Hurty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 5:05am
Subject: Remedy for Microsoft Monopoly
    I venture that remedy, not punishment is the key to a great 
outcome of the Microsoft anti-trust case. Punishing a bully only 
serves to inflame and enrage the bully_guaranteeing that the 
bully will renew his efforts to assert his dominance through, well, 
bullying.
    There is a remedy_elegant in its simplicity, meaningful in 
its effect_and it would test whether Microsoft's ongoing claim 
that its aggressive business tactics are merely reflections of their 
desire to innovate for the benefit of their customer, is genuine. 
Let's start with a little comparison to another technological 
industry, telecommunications.
    There are hundreds of different telephones on the market today, 
offering an array of clever technological features. Your phone can 
announce who is calling, take messages when you are away, and 
provide you with a tool to control the lighting in your home, or 
perform a host of other little tricks. And even if I have a high-
tech, feature laden phone made last year by Panasonic, it's no 
problem for me if you have a plain vanilla phone made in 
1920_we can still talk to each other. We can communicate with 
each other without the slightest hitch, because once phones are 
plugged into the network, they speak a single, common language. All 
the glorious features of the handset, or the wonderful advantages of 
call waiting and caller ID or other phone company technologies which 
we've come to take for granted do nothing to change the information 
carried on those thin copper wires from my house to yours. Perhaps 
call is translated into a digital signal somewhere along it's route, 
then reconstituted as an analog message just before arriving at its 
destination. I don't need to worry about that, nor does the person 
at the other end of the line. We can trust that no matter what kind 
of phone we use, we can communicate. And with the breakup of 
AT&T, and increased competition between telephone carriers, it 
has remained relatively inexpensive to own and use a phone.
    Now in the software industry, there is a different paradigm, and 
one that Microsoft has exploited to its advantage for years. Let's 
say you buy into the Microsoft value system, and purchase a computer 
that uses one of the various flavors of Windows. And suppose you 
purchase a copy of Microsoft Office with its suite of applications. 
Now you can communicate flawlessly and readily with anyone else who 
has bought into Microsoft. You can write a document in Microsoft 
Word and send it to your Microsoft buddies and they will have little 
problem opening that document and viewing on their computer. Let's 
say, however, that you have some friends who use Linux, or MacOS, or 
some other operating system. And let's say they didn't buy a copy of 
Microsoft Office. Now when you send that same file to them, there is 
a problem_how do they read what you've written? There is a 
cottage industry, providing solutions for translating files between 
operating systems and word processing programs, but the real burden, 
both in terms of cost and effort, falls on the shoulders of the 
person who receives the document. If that's how the phone system 
worked, it would fail miserably. If I needed a phone just like yours 
so I could talk to you, I would of course be compelled to either 
have a bunch of phones_one for everyone I needed to talk 
with_or I could buy a phone from a dominant monopolist who 
controlled the largest share of the market. Microsoft's goal appears 
to be to dominate the software/computing/communication/entertainment 
industries, compelling all of us to buy something from them just to 
be able to take part in community life. Their argument that their 
products are dominant because they are

[[Page 23978]]

more innovative or easier to use or simply better than the 
competition's products is hollow. Their products are dominant 
because Microsoft has cleverly eliminated the competition.
    Under the existing paradigm, Microsoft has an easy time 
squashing competition. Because they can use their control of the 
operating system to make it just a little easier to use their 
programs, and just difficult enough to use competitive programs, 
corporations will do the dirty work of building Microsoft's monopoly 
for them. Information Technology departments insist on a single, 
standard suite of programs for corporate use because it makes it 
easier for them to do their work. Most often they chose Microsoft, 
because Microsoft controls the whole computing/networking/
information environment_everything is just a little easier to 
use. And each new corporate installation takes Microsoft a step 
closer to killing all its competitors, once and for all. And since 
mom or dad uses Microsoft Windows and Office at work, the home 
computer needs to have_big surprise_Microsoft Windows 
and Office. The franchise just keeps growing and competition keeps 
disappearing.
    So to the remedy. If Microsoft were compelled to give out a 
complete specification for all the document formats for all their 
programs, and agree to maintain an open, standard version of that 
specification so that every software company that wanted to could 
write a program that would open, edit and write documents in the 
same format, there would be a meaningful and real opportunity for 
competition in the software industry. If every program created 
documents with an identical structure, it would be just like the 
telephone. I could choose software that made it easier to compose a 
letter, or software with a more intuitive interface. I could buy a 
plain vanilla program that just allowed me to type words on a page, 
and you could open it with your high-end, Microsoft word processor, 
with all its bells and whistles. Of course there might be a need for 
more than one file format. Spreadsheets, databases, presentation 
programs, etc. would need different specifications_but they 
could still be standardized. Layout programs with fancy designs 
already have a well established, open specification in the Portable 
Document Format (PDF) created by Adobe. (Although, even that format 
could stand a bit more "openness," too.)
    What would be the ramifications of such a remedy? For starters, 
Microsoft would be forced to live up to it's public relations 
campaign that it merely does what it does out of it's desire to 
innovate for customer benefit. No longer could the gang in Redmond 
compel whole corporations to buy thousands of licenses for it's 
programs (so that the corporate IT Manager can be assured that 
everyone in the company can communicate with each other). Innovation 
and quality interface design would become the currency of the 
software industry. Competition will thrive, and consumers will 
benefit through lower prices for software, and greater ease of 
communication.
    I appreciate your consideration.
    Mark
    Mark Hurty
    [email protected] 650.328.1399
    http://www.hurty.com/ideas.shtml



MTC-00001793

From: Lu Timdale
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/21/01 7:15am
Subject: Microsoft SHOULD NOT be allowed to set its own monopoly-
extending remedy
    How is it possible that a declared monopolist is allowed to set 
their own remedy. Especially since this remedy is extending their 
monopoly and even squeezing out some main competitors for that 
market namely Apple. They should not be allowed to make donations of 
software to anyone. Firstly because it extends their monopoly and 
secondly because the retail value of their software is far greater 
than what they would actually have to dole out. Let's not let them 
get away with murder here.
    Lu Timdale, dissatisfied professional



MTC-00001794

From: Scott Wiesenmeyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 6:52am
Subject: Comments on Microsoft Case
    I've been watching the anti-trust case against Microsoft with 
much interest over the past three years. Like the court judgment, I 
agree that Microsoft is a monopoly which has abused its position in 
the market. Unfortunately, the current settlement proposal between 
the Department of Justice and Microsoft is worrisome. I recognize 
the fact that the task of finding a suitable penalty for Microsoft 
is a difficult task, but the current proposal appears too weak to 
bring any noticeable change in the market. If this settlement is 
implemented in it's current form, Microsoft will only continue to 
get stronger. Past cases against Microsoft where it has either won 
(Apple v. Microsoft regarding GUI designs), come away with a light 
penalty (previous settlements between Microsoft and the DoJ), or 
even lost (Sun v. Microsoft regarding Java), it gives Microsoft a 
sense of invincibility that it can take whatever action it likes 
without fear of severe punishment.
    Microsoft claims that any action against it will harm innovation 
in the industry, but when has Microsoft ever really been a pioneer 
in the computing field? It did not invent the operating system (the 
core of what became MS-DOS was bought), the Graphical User Interface 
(first developed at Xerox PARC and later popularized by the Apple 
Macintosh), the World Wide Web (CERN) or the web browser (the first 
mainstream browser was Mosaic, developed by programmers at the NCSA, 
and whose code was licensed to Microsoft as the foundation of 
Microsoft Internet Explorer), or just about any other major computer 
technology. Instead, Microsoft sits like the spider in the center of 
the web, waiting for the next major technology to appear and then 
moves in to dominate it using its position to its advantage and 
whatever means at its disposal to succeed.
    The case of Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer to take the 
dominant position in Web browsers has been well documented in the 
court case, but it is not the only instance of Microsoft using the 
bundle tactic to gain the upper hand. About a decade ago, the office 
productivity software market was incredibly diverse. Today, about 
the only product left is Microsoft Office. Once, programs like Lotus 
123 and WordPerfect were the top products, not Excel or Word. On the 
Macintosh, Microsoft held the high ground with Excel, but Word was 
rivaled by competitors such as WordPerfect, MacWrite, WriteNow, 
FullWrite, and others. My choice was MacWrite, having turned away 
from Word after getting tired of it's bloated nature. Then Microsoft 
began Microsoft Office, where the only way to obtain a program like 
Excel was to buy the complete bundle. Since Office came with a word 
processor, Word, it became harder for businesses to justify the 
expense of staying with their existing word processor, spreadsheet, 
or presentation program when one already came with Office. The net 
result was Microsoft took over the market segment in the matter of a 
few years. Competing products were discontinued as Microsoft drove 
them out of business. Now, choice is limited and Microsoft touts 
it's victory as standardization. But did we get the best product or 
merely a bloated, buggy, piece of software that cheated in the 
marketplace to win the top position?
    The dominant position with Office also gives it an additional 
club to use against any competing operating system. It could be 
argued that the inability of operating systems such as IBM's OS/2, 
NeXT's NextStep, or Be's BeOS, or Linux to gain market share in the 
desktop operating system market was that Microsoft Office was not 
available. The Macintosh continues to survive in the desktop 
marketplace because Microsoft markets (and makes a large amount of 
profit from) MS Office for the Mac. The price of this support is 
that Microsoft's web browser, Internet Explorer, is the default 
browser on all new Macintosh computers. This has become the 
Microsoft way: use one advantage to gain another.
    Sadly, whatever action is taken against Microsoft, the damage it 
has done to the market has already happened. Between its monopolies 
of the Windows operating system and the Microsoft Office 
productivity package, the odds of any competitor taking market share 
from Microsoft is very slim. But what can be done is to show 
Microsoft that its actions are wrong and to prevent it from using 
preditory tactics to gain market leadership instead of innovation 
like every other company in the business. This means a STRONG 
punishment that Microsoft will not forget. Judge Jackson's remody of 
breaking up Microsoft was proposed for this reason. It needs a 
penalty that will get its attention, not one that it will ignore in 
a matter of months. It will not do much for the damage Microsoft has 
done already, but it gives a glimmer of hope to future competitors 
who will take on the giant. The people want choice, not Microsoft 
taking it away. In no other market sector do we lack choice as badly 
as in ones where Microsoft dominates. Something must be done, 
otherwise we face stagnation.
    Scott Wiesenmeyer

[[Page 23979]]

    Decatur, IL
    [If you need a summary, here it is: "Back to the drawing 
board, DoJ."]



MTC-00001795

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 6:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement is Anti-Republican, Anti-Business 11/
21/01
    Dear Friends at the Department of Justice:
    I am a former paralegal and law librarian. I am a long-time and 
relatively happy Windows user (with past experience in FORTRAN, 
COBOL, DOS, and Mac's Apple OS, and some familiarity with Linux). I 
am also a current America Online user, with past experience using 
Earthlink and MSN. So I have some informed perspective on the 
proposed antitrust settelement with Microsoft. From the numerous 
press account summaries of the proposed DOJ settlement with 
Microsoft that I have read, I am convinced that the settlement will 
not end Microsoft's anti-competitive conduct. The settlement is 
anti-Republican and anti-business, surprising coming from a 
conservative Republican administration. Indeed, it appears like a 
re-run of the failed 1995 antitrust settlement brokered by the 
Clinton administration.
    The settlement (and, by inteference, the DOJ) is an object of 
ridicule in many online computer forums and magazines, even among 
Windows users. You are being portrayed as patsies for Microsoft. It 
is said that the DOJ has been directed by the Bush administration to 
end the suit because Microsoft is a big political money donor. Your 
settlement with Microsoft is viewed by computer-literate businesses 
and commentators as a capitulation. I thought that Republican 
administrations favored increasing competition in various industries 
and increasing the numbers of small businesses. Microsoft's conduct 
throughtout its history has been exactly the opposite, and I predict 
that if this settlement is implemented in its current form, new 
antitrust suits will arise in the future, necessitating DOJ 
intervention again. Among many other defects in the settlement, 
Microsoft appears free to continue its pattern of adopting and 
bundling imitations of 3rd party products, and then crushing 3rd 
party suppliers.
    I am especially disturbed that you will allow Microsoft to 
"lock-in" the United States with its new and very anti-
competitive and privacy-invasive "product activation" 
policies for Windows XP, restrictive licensing policies for 
businesses, attempts to force businesses to upgrade every two years, 
etc., etc. I thought a Republican administration wanted to help 
businesses! By leaving MS Windows as the default monopoly operating 
system in the United States, you are giving unfair advantages to an 
operating system that even its users and defenders admit is full of 
security holes, buggy, unstable, priced beyond its actual worth, and 
marketed from a monopolistic posture. (Bear in mind, I'm a 
realtively sophisticated computer user, and I spend a lot of time 
running diagnostics on my Windows system.)
    Ironically, the rest of the world has already figured this out: 
in Europe, adoption of Linux is growing rapidly. The mayor of Mexico 
City recently announced that his city government and their public 
school system will adopt Linux, because Microsoft's high costs and 
restrictive licensing policies place Windows beyond their reach. The 
Chinese government refused to adopt Windows as its preferred 
operating system, and has chosen Linux, partially due to cost 
considerations, and partially due to fears that Microsoft will 
deliberately plant security holes in systems marketed to the Peoples 
Republic to assist the US military intelligence-gathering. A Chinese 
corporation in Hong Kong recently gave an interview to the press in 
which they said that they were abandoning their Windows servers and 
desktop computers in favor of Linux after a recent virus epidemic 
put half of their Windows servers out of business. A story from 
Kenya says that one of their primary computer development people is 
urging customers to adopt Linux_he says that Windows' costs 
will place it permanently beyond the reach of most African 
countries. Many U.S. corporations have begun adopting Linux for 
their servers and desktops, including Amazon.com. You notice that 
the U.S. Defense Department isn't using the Windows Office Suite? 
They're using StarOffice, which can be used with Windows or Linux.
    So, you'll say, what's the problem, if people don't like 
Windows, they can switch to Linux. But even though Linux and other 
competing systems are available in the U.S., they face formidable 
obstacles to adoption in this country because of the "most 
favored nation" position Microsoft has been allowed to seize. 
The current antitrust settlement will allow MS Windows to retain its 
unfair monopoly advantages in the U.S., making the adoption of 
competing systems like Linux far more difficult than they would be 
if the antitrust laws were enforced upon Microsoft.
    Just for starters, Windows comes pre-installed in virtually 
every PC_to get a Linux computer or a dual boot computer with 
Windows and Linux, you must either special order it, or buy a 
Windows computer (priced accordingly!), uninstall Windows, and then 
install Linux yourself, or install a dual boot of both systems, a 
lengthy process that is not always safe for your computer, and a 
process that is very complicated for average computer users.
    Why should the rest of the world have more freedom of choice 
with regard to their preferred computer operating systems than the 
U.S.? This is ridiculous. We're the richest country in the world, 
and we should have the greatest choice in computer operating 
systems, but we've allowed one company to flout our antitrust laws, 
circumvent weak settelement agreements, and become a monopoly.
    Please, do not continue pursuing this settelement agreement. I 
hope that the nine states holding out against it continue to do so.
    In conclusion, I am seriously considering switching to Linux. My 
current Windows Millenium system performs reasonably well (if I 
continuously monitor it for DLL problems, download patches, and fuss 
over it)_but I am not upgrading to a Windows XP system with 
invasive privacy intrusions, and I am very upset at the conditions 
that Microsoft is going to impose on businesses, including forced 
upgrades every two years, licensing of every desktop copy, etc., 
etc.
    But I'm a relatively sophisticated user_what about the 
average consumer, trapped on Windows because the DOJ has, over the 
last decade, let Microsoft engineer its products and market them, so 
that it is very difficult to switch to other operating systems?
    Can you imagine a situation in which the DOJ would give such 
advantages one variety of car? Allowing one car manufacturer to gain 
complete ascendancy over the U.S. market? Every car sold would be 
say, a DaimlerChrysler, and if you wanted another type of car, you 
would have to buy a kit, and laboriously remove parts of the car and 
its engine to install the car parts of your choice? No way.
    Very sincerely,
    Robin Margolis
    [email protected]



MTC-00001796

From: Robb Roaten
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 7:48am
Subject: This Settlement Stinks
    I can't believe what I've read this morning about the settlement 
and MS being forced to (expand its market share by) expanding into 
MS putting software/equipment into schools only makes schools depend 
on the microsoft system. Education is one area that MS does not 
completely dominate. Please reconsider your settlement.
    Thats only one point of contention out of very, very many Thanks 
DOJ, You're handing MS more money and power on a silver platter.
    Robb Roaten
    Taxpayer
    Memphis,TN



MTC-00001797

From: Bobby Hays
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 7:45am
Subject: Microsoft makes our govt look like chumps!
    Microsoft has bought, cajoled, threatened, and destroyed so many 
powerful companies. They have taken the freedom of people to live 
their life they way they want to by forcing their swill upon us. If 
they can buy our government so easily, how much longer until they 
just flex their strength and take over? Do we really want to see 
"USA_XP"? Please your part to keep competition and 
technology growth alive.



MTC-00001798

From: talosman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 7:37am
Subject: please let my voice count
    I read this yesterday..... wired news 
(wired.com)_Microsoft confirmed Tuesday it has reached a 
settlement in most of the private antitrust lawsuits filed against 
the software giant.
    Under the proposed settlement, the company will provide more 
than $1 billion to over 12,500 of the nation's poorest schools over 
five years. The money will pay for teacher training, technical 
support,

[[Page 23980]]

refurbished computers and virtually unlimited amounts of Microsoft's 
most popular software, such as Windows and Office, company spokesman 
Matt Pilla said.....
    I think the money should allow the schools to buy whatever 
systems and software they want. They make their own decisions!!!! 
they give away more "winodws" and "office" 
software for free... that expand their market share even more?????? 
a lot of schools use macintosh, I think at least 50% of the 
education market use Apple Computers. this deal no doubt hurt 
Microsoft's competitor_Apple Computers.
    I am against this settlement. and ask for a better settlement 
deal!
    Talos Tsui



MTC-00001799

From: Tony Silva
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 8:31am
Subject: Microsoft Case Opinion
    I sit here dumbfounded at how this corporation has managed to 
totally subvert the legal process and buy it's clemency. The recent 
judgment is anything but. The farce of this verdict rivals that of 
the O. J. Simpson case.
    This company, this monopoly has broken the law, repeatedly, 
knowingly, continually. They have made mockeries of past legal 
judgments against tem. They have lied in court.
    The recent suggestion that they make amends by donating software 
to schools is a final slap in the face. It is like a convicted 
heroin dealer asking for lenience if he provides the drugs free to 
school children for X number of years. Just hoe pervasive is the 
influence of this man Gates?
    This corporation needs to be disempowered. Their monopoly of the 
computer software industry in the US (and worldwide) hurts all of 
us, daily. Please have the courage and integrity to do the right 
thing. Stop Microsoft from its parasitic drain on innovation and 
progress.
    Tony Silva
    Nishinomiya, Japan
    U.S. Citizen
    [email protected]



MTC-00001800

From: Greg Mader
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/21/01 8:06am
Subject: I beleive that the proposed settlement does not create a 
more com petitive environment.
    Dear Department of Justice,
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft does not protect the 
consumer, and it certainly does not create an environment that 
advances competition. Out of the many companies that were destroyed 
by Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior, (such as Netscape, Ashton-
Tate, and Wordstar) none of them can be brought back to life. 
Rather, I would hope that any settlement will allow new companies to 
come back into the arena, and have a chance at a successful business 
operation. The settlement also does nothing to facilitate the 
growing field of open source software. Instead, MS has taken open 
source standards, and attempts to reduce their interoperability with 
non Microsoft systems. Specific examples of this include Kerberos, 
and the SMB file sharing protocol.
    Gregory A. Mader
    GIS Analyst,
    Chicago, IL



MTC-00001801

From: Stonewall Ballard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 7:51am
Subject: Comments on Microsoft settlement
    This proposed settlement is a sweetheart deal for Microsoft. It 
will do nothing to repair the damage from their past actions, and it 
will have no practical effect moving forward. Microsoft will 
maintain and even strengthen their monopoly.
    It's clear why this has happened. The Bush administration is 
hostile to anti-trust enforcement, and Microsoft has become a major 
contributor to the Republican party.
    The official corruption is evident in the terms of the 
settlement, which sound ok on their face, but contain enough 
loopholes that they will not actually have any effect. This allows 
the government to claim that they're doing something, when in fact, 
they are not. I strongly urge the government to reject this 
settlement and adopt Judge Jackson's breakup plan. While Judge 
Jackson may have personally screwed up, his remedy plan was the 
right approach. Don't let his personal failure keep us from doing 
the right thing.
    _Stonewall Ballard
     34 Aurora Lane
     Concord, MA 01742
    Stonewall Ballard
    [email protected] http://www.sb.org/stoney/



MTC-00001802

From: Praedor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 8:48am
Subject: Microsoft's offer to end lawsuits is not acceptable
    The recent offer by Microsoft to give computers, software, and 
training to hundreds of needy schools is NOT an acceptable means to 
end any lawsuits. It is entirely self-serving and monopoly-feeding.
    They would give computers containing Microsoft software to these 
schools and train individuals on how to use Microsoft software and 
manage Microsoft networks. This is merely intended to create future 
paying customers since Microsoft would NOT provide free 
upgrades_they would have to pay and feed the monopoly in order 
to maintain and improve their "generous gift". Not 
acceptable. It is not acceptable that any punishment or acts of 
contrition on Microsoft's part would serve to maintain and expand 
its monopoly, which is has always illegally strengthened and 
maintained. Nothing in any settlement can in any way enhance their 
monopoly status now or in the future. ANY settlement must serve 
instead to enhance competition and erode its monopoly.
    You have caved in to money and caved in to pro-monopoly forces 
in the Republican Party with your giving Microsoft what IT wants in 
the settlement. You have made a mistake that is undefendable and can 
only be corrected by actually acting properly against an inarguably 
illegal monopolist (there is NO question as to legality 
here_the courts have clearly and unambiguously determined that 
Microsoft has acted illegally in maintaining and growing its 
monopoly_no argument). You do not have to continue your 
mistake. Correct the situation, reject the current Microsoft offer, 
and put real teeth and punishment and correction into the 
settlement.
    Praedor Tempus
    Utah



MTC-00001803

From: williamhuchting
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 8:48am
Subject: $1 billion in settlement money spent on...
    I read that Microsoft is going to give $1billion away to 
disadvantaged schools as part of their settlement.
    The trouble is it is in the for m of their own product.
    Better solutions:
    1. Make Microsoft give them cash so they can lower class size, 
etc. Microsoft has $20 + on hand
    2. Or make Microsoft provide the schools with $ 1 billion of 
their competitors' products.
    Now #2 would be a boost for competition.
    Cheers,
    William Huchting



MTC-00001804

From: rj friedman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 8:48am
Subject: MS Settlement is Unacceptable
    As a concerned US citizen living abroad, I wanted to write to 
let you know that I am extremely disturbed at the proposed terms of 
settlement that the US Dept. of Justice has agreed to with 
Microsoft.
    Given Microsoft's past history of manuevering around their 
supposedly binding agreements; given the huge number of loopholes in 
the proposed agreement; given the overall weakness of the remedies 
in relation to the crime; it would make a mockery of all the time, 
effort, and money that went into the proceedings to date, to accept 
those terms. I would like to STRONGLY urge you to reconsider this 
ill-advised proposed settlement, and to hold out for a more just and 
more meaningful remedy.
    RJ Friedman



MTC-00001805

From: phjul
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 8:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Does the settlement include anything about the DOJ supporting 
Microsoft Word Documents
    Its kind of annoying having to use Word Perfect to read the 
complaint against Microsoft!!!!!!!!!!!!!



MTC-00001806

From: Dennis F. Kahlbaum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 8:53am
Subject: Disagree with Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 23981]]

    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 OS market, but to whatever Microsoft decides to conquer 
next (PDAs, Gaming Consoles, etc.)
    Thank you.
    Dennis F. Kahlbaum



MTC-00001807

From: Michael Sperazza
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 11/21/01 8:51am
Subject: Comments
    You really have Gates laughing now. Two courts have ruled he had 
abused a position of a monopoly and you are giving him a slap on the 
wrist. He has not been effected by other orders to change his 
practices, why do you think he will now. In fact he is already 
positioning things to go around the restrictions and they have not 
yet been finalized. Microsoft continues to claim the each new 
version of software adds features the customers ask for. But I can 
tell you (having 15 years experience in the business world and now 
in academics) they have added very little to office, since the first 
windows version, that even advanced users need. What they have done 
is incorporated features into Windows that little designers have 
developed and put them out of business.
    And now this school 'gift' is part of the penalty, 
ha! Gates feels if he can get the young using his software he will 
have them when they are older. He should have to donate 1B worth of 
other developers software, to make up for past practices, help the 
competitors and dilute Microsoft' hold on the market.
    If Gate's can out muscle IBM (OS/2), Lotus (Office suite, also 
IBM) and other large corporations, what chance does the consumer 
have of seeing creative new produces from small developers? You need 
to do much more!
    Michael Sperazza



MTC-00001808

From: Andrew Edmondson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 8:49am
Subject: Microsoft
    Since the economy is in a downward spin anyway shoring it up by 
letting Microsoft get away does nothing as they are only the last in 
line to shore things up.
    It is the corporation that buy their product that need help. The 
need it terms of pricing and of choices_and a great way of 
doing that would have been to break the monopoly up to stimulate 
growth in the computer sector to allow for this.
    All this deal has done is to allow Microsoft to shore up 
defences and allow it to continue what it was doing all along.
    Effects of this agreement will be seen throughout not only the 
tech sector during the next decade, but aerospace, national defence, 
banking, and all related activities_and I am very afraid it 
will be extremely negative.
    It is too bad the current administration did not have the 
courage to do what was right.
    I am very worried and sad at the same time.
    A. Edmondson



MTC-00001809

From: Rodney Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 9:12am
Subject: Microsoft_Anti Trust (2nd Appendage)
    Dear DOJ,
    This eMail serves as an appendage of the first eMail sent 11/16/
01 and second eMail sent 11/19/2001 (they are included after the 
following text).
    I read in technology news that a aspect of a settlement with 
Microsoft involved the company supplying a billion dollars of 
Microsoft software to the dis-advantaged. I did not intend to get 
this involved with supplying suggestions but I feel very strongly 
that this type of rectification although expensive, works in 
Microsoft's favor. They are able to leverage this situation by 
extending the usage of its own software. My role is not to direct 
the legal situation, only to observe and maybe comment if the 
opportunity arises.
    This current eMail is just my observation and note of dis-
satisfaction.
    Thank you for the opportunity to participate in such an 
important legal proceeding.
    Sincerely,
    A Concerned Citizen
    (The first two emails follow...)
    First Appendage
    This eMail serves as an appendage of an original eMail sent 11/
16/01 (which is included after the following text).
    The previous message neglected to mention the browser issue. 
During the court proceedings under Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, 
William Gates (as I have read in technology news) states he didn't 
know what a browser is. I take his statement to mean that there is 
no clear definition of a browser simply because his own software 
package can be found specifying the need for a browser. Further, 
tying in of his browser to the Windows OS is not as clear an issue 
as Microsoft has pressed. My experience with Windows and the 
accompanying browser lead me to understand that:
    1) The browser technically has nothing to do with the OS.
    2) The Internet has nothing to do with the OS.
    3) Internet access and a browser are two separate things. To 
explain the above declarations in simple terms. The browser that was 
originally created as a method of viewing information stored and 
accessed from the internet was later extended to the OS as a means 
of maintaining consistency of appearance and usage between the OS 
and the internet. To simplify further, the code used for the browser 
and the code used for connecting/accessing the internet are two 
distinct components. Competing browser products as it relates to the 
internet are defrauded on the basis of underlying code that uses the 
Windows OS (now the primary use) browser to display internet 
information. Again, to simplify further, it is the internet access 
code that is the object of tying or commingling. It is this 
component that should be the focus of litigation.
    To clarify why I chose to de-emphasize the technical merits of 
the browser with the OS (Windows) is that confusion arises from 
Microsoft's argument about the importance/difficulties of the 
browser. The browser as it stands today is important to Microsoft 
only as it relates to the importance that made the GUI (Graphical 
User Interface) a successful technology. However, my PERSONAL 
opinion is that this is contrived to a large degree. I PERSONALLY 
don't like the CONVENTION (browser as it relates to the OS) which is 
all it offers, in MY OPINION.
    Original Message
    First I would like to say that this legal proceeding must be 
handled with great care. It is very economically important to settle 
a case like this so everyone comes out ahead. It is obvious at this 
point that your expert opinion is that conduct provisions be 
established to bring about a beneficial SETTLEMENT.
    I am a software developer. My experience with the technology/
products in question lead me to conclude that conduct provision MAY 
be a sensible route to a reasonable out come. I must stress that 
technology is pushing forward and is requiring all software 
developers to use ever greater efforts to bring about products that 
are desirable. The comfort in the use of various technique matured 
during the 1980s that still serve as the building blocks for 
products in the year 2001. These building blocks have to advance in 
order to meet the needs of the current/next generation of software 
products. What I am specifically addressing is that Microsoft has 
advance EXPERIENCE in what ever technology it implements in its 
Windows OS. Competitors must struggle to implement new FEATURES 
provided in the Windows OS from the point of view of implementer. We 
all have to understand that Microsoft has invested money and effort 
to develop these new features, an intimate understanding of theory 
behind that technology thus exists. For those who are in competition 
with Microsoft to develop feature rich technologies timely exposure 
to privileged THEORY does not exist. Instead, while Microsoft has 
"the inside track" and is working on next years 
projects, the competition is just learning how the present features 
can and should be used.
    All of this is said to emphasize that one critical element to 
this very important legal matter is that there has to be fair access 
to new developments within the key technology, WINDOWS. If there 
were a way to maintain a list of technology being implemented and 
detailed information on the theory behind it, everyone would be in 
the advantages situation of technical literacy behind 
"A" target technology (WINDOWS). If there is no 
efficient method to implement such a strategy then I must urge on 
this basis

[[Page 23982]]

 alone that the company (MICROSOFT) be divided into an OS (WINDOWS) 
company and an Application company, two totally distinct companies, 
no ties. At this point, if a division was used, I would suggest no 
further remedy.
    If a division of the company was is not selected as a remedy for 
the Anti-trust case and a "fair sharing of technology is 
used", then I would also suggest that Microsoft be restricted 
from bundling "value added applets". Examples range from 
the simple, (Notepad, a simple text editor), to the more 
sophisticated (Instant Messaging, Video Editing, the Windows Media 
Player). These applets have no place under the title Operating 
System. They have no baring on the OS, they should all be omitted 
for (I'm no legal professional) legal simplicity. If however one 
decided not to pursue this aspect of this legality in this fashion, 
I then suggest at the least, competitors be allowed prominent 
accessibility/exposure to the OS (WINDOWS) consumer. An prominently 
exposed method to "use" or "try" a 
competitor's product should be available. This equal accessible 
method might encapsulate ALL competitor products to provide a clear 
distinction between what is "a part of Windows" and what 
is offered as an alternative.
    These alternatives would be included with the Windows OS with 
respect to competitor participation. This proposal for the 
Microsoft_DOJ, Anti Trust case is offered as a suggestion(s)
    Sincerely,
    A Concerned Citizen



MTC-00001810

From: Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 9:10am
Subject: Proposed Settlement
    I can not disagree with the proposed settlement with Microsoft 
enough. Despite the clear ruling that Microsoft is a monopoly, who 
has illegally used it's power to enforce it's monopoly, none of the 
settlement terms would affect the key components of Microsoft's 
monopoly. I will not go into the details here, I'm sure you are 
aware of what I'm talking about. Please reconsider your proposed 
settlement and consider positions such as California's.
    Yours Truly,
    Lee G. Shapiro
    22833 Kings Court
    Hayward, CA 94541
    510-728-0114



MTC-00001811

From: Robert B. Waltz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 9:06am
Subject: Comments on the Proposed Settlement
    I must write to express my dismay that the Justice Department is 
letting Microsoft off the hook so easily.
    Let's look at it this way: I use a Macintosh, not a Windows PC. 
I'd like to buy a spreadsheet with macro programming capability. I 
have exactly one choice: Microsoft Excel. This is not a choice I 
want. This company is so omnipresent that it can dominate even the 
computing platform it DOESN'T absolutely control. Something has to 
be done.
    I agree that Microsoft probably can't be broken up at this time; 
Windows is almost as much a part of our national infrastructure as 
the power grid. But it needs to be much more strictly controlled. 
Something needs to be done about the categories it dominates, such 
as spreadsheets and word processing. The logical solution, it seems 
to me, is to treat it as a public utility: As with a power or a gas 
company, it should need advocates for consumers overseeing its 
pricing practices, and ALL source code for EVERYTHING should be 
published so that competitors can see what Microsoft is doing.
    I want that non-Microsoft spreadsheet. Any solution failing to 
provide that clearly has not addressed Microsoft's monopoly.
    Robert B. Waltz
    St. Paul, MN
    [email protected]



MTC-00001812

From: David Wisniewski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 9:15am
Subject: their performance is unacceptable
    From the Macintouch (http://www.macintouch.com/) website, dated 
Tues November 21. Microsoft has admitted it was wrong when it denied 
earlier knowledge of an Internet Explorer security hole discovered 
by another firm, according to a ZDNet story: "IT security firm 
Online Solutions discovered the exploit on 1 November and informed 
Microsoft's Security Response Center with the technical details of 
its discovery on the same day. Microsoft acknowledged the alert 
along with the promise that it would investigate the issue as 
quickly as possible. But a lack of feedback on the investigation 
prompted Online Solutions to place increasing pressure on Microsoft 
to issue a bulletin about the IE hole. After one week of waiting, 
the security company went public with a press release about the 
exploit on 9 November_Microsoft published an alert on its Web 
site later that day."
    This sort of behavior is unacceptable from a company that 
supplies software to the majority of the country. If the company 
seizes monopoly control of the market, it must remain responsive to 
threats and problems with its software. If it cannot, I am sure 
smaller companies would care more about pleasing its customers, and 
would react in a more timely fashion. Please don't throw away this 
monumental case. There are far too many important issues at stake to 
let Microsoft off with a slap on the wrist.
    Regards,
    David Wisniewski



MTC-00001813

From: Daniel L Christie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 9:14am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    the microsoft suits are a millstone around the neck of the tech 
industry and the economy as a whole. T he sooner it is settled the 
better for everyone, consumers,stockholders,and the general economy. 
It will give new hope and optimism to us all. We will also feel the 
goverment has shown a little more common sense.
    sincerely
    Daniel Christie 11/21/01



MTC-00001814

From: ILPI
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 9:13am
Subject: The MSFT settlement is absurd
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is absurd for many 
reasons. Here are just a few, in our opinion:
    1. Where is the PENALTY? Microsoft illegally stole/won the 
browser market through anti-competitive practices. What is the 
penalty?
    2. They are still up to the same practices. Microsoft no longer 
supports Java, a widely accepted language supported by their arch-
rival Sun. Microsoft did so under the spurious claim that Java is an 
extreme security risk while their alternative implementation of 
ActiveX (long ago rejected by the free market) is even more so 
(remember, this comes on the heels of a lost court battle over 
MSFT's attempts to co-opt and bastardize the Java language in 
violation of their licensing agreement). Now, all but the most tech-
savvy users, a small minority, will have the knowledge or time/
effort to add Java support to their machines. In fact, Microsoft 
products are such large security risks that the Gartner Group 
recently recommended that Microsoft IIS users immediately migrate 
away from that platform. Likewise, MSFT is leveraging their monopoly 
to force the market over to subscription-based services under the 
banner of .Net. .Net was not something the market requested. Users 
did not ask for mandatory leasing of their software and operating 
systems. Most users upgrade when they believe the newer software 
gives them an advantage; MSFT has realized that word processors etc. 
can't get any more feature-bloated and that upgrades won't drive 
their bottom line. They wish to milk the cash cow forever by forcing 
their captive audience into a subscription-based model. Microsoft is 
forcing this upon them by virtue of its monopoly position; most 
other users have no other choice but to give in to this extortion.
    MSFT is also leveraging their monopoly to disingenuously 
convince its users that they must subscribe to Passport/Hailstorm. 
This requires users to divulge personally identifying and sensitive 
information which will be stored on MSFT's "secure" 
server in order to take advantage of the OS features.
    Want some more? MSFT, for no apparent technical reason, decided 
to do away with the standard plug-in feature of browsers in IE 6. 
This instantaneously removed Apple QuickTime and Real Media players 
from the IE browser unless the savvy user knew what workarounds were 
required.
    3. Their newly announced private "settlement" of 
antitrust cases allegedly features a penalty of "free software 
and computers to more than 14,000 of the poorest U.S. schools over 
five years". This is not a penalty, it is a REWARD. This will 
give them an incredible amount of ammunition in finally dislodging 
Apple from the education

[[Page 23983]]

 market once and for all. The settlement should be MONETARY with 
schools free to make their own choice about computing decisions free 
from the Microsoft hegemony. And if this settlement was to 
acknowledge unfair practices, maybe forcing MSFT to buy the school 
whatever Linux and Apple products they wanted instead would be even 
more fair.
    The list goes on, but we'll end here to keep this letter 
relatively short.
    Regards,
    The ILPI Support Team
    Interactive Learning Paradigms, Incorporated Save time, effort 
and $$ with web-based distance learning & training. Complete 
custom solutions as low as $20 per employee per year. More info: 
(859) 396-5218, [email protected], http://www.ilpi.com/



MTC-00001815

From: Jeremy Reichman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 9:12am
Subject: My view on the proposed Microsoft anti-trust settlement
    I find the government's recently-announced Microsoft anti-trust 
settlement agreement wholly unsatisfactory. I work in the technology 
field and am a user of both Microsoft and non-Microsoft 
technologies. In my role at work and my life at home, I am 
continually pressured to use Microsoft technologies "because 
they are the standard" or "because that's what everyone 
else uses." In many cases, I would rather use something 
compelling from another company, but the demands to "just fit 
in" are unceasing.
    The courts have found Microsoft to be a monopolist. This is 
undisputed. Nothing but radical measures can reshape or reform the 
competitive landscape_or anti-competitive landscape, as I see 
it_that Microsoft has created.
    It is true that no competitors have had the willpower to sustain 
a long and expensive campaign against Microsoft in our free 
marketplace. But it is also true that everyone just expects 
Microsoft to win, market after market, dominating each new field 
they enter. This single company owns the majority of desktop 
computer systems on the planet with their software, and turned that 
into dominance of the desktop applications market. They own the Web 
browser, and are working to make the Internet their own by tying new 
services to their proprietary Web technologies. They are moving into 
the hardware realm with input devices (mice, keyboards, etc.) and 
have worked aggressively to build media properties (MSNBC, MSN). 
They want to own the handheld computer space, and are doing so based 
on their already-built monopoly on desktop computers. They seek to 
own the game console market. They are fighting tooth and nail to 
push out competition in the server rooms and data centers of the 
world, and are again doing it by leveraging their position in 
desktop computing.
    Each step is based on their overwhelming control of another 
market. This is not simply a company trying to stay profitable for 
its shareholders. This is a company working against the public good 
of a free and open market. This is a company that has built legal 
defenses and deep pockets that sustain it in money-losing endeavors 
in new markets, until they can push competitors into niche spots. 
Their competitors cannot fairly respond to these attacks because 
Microsoft builds upon its past and attacks from all angles at once.
    I also find it disturbing that Microsoft offers its products to 
large organizations at such discounted prices that there's very 
little chance that a competitor could get its foot in the door with 
a rival product. There's simply little way an independent developer 
can hope to outprice Microsoft, whose products can go for much less 
than a quarter of the retail price when bought on contract. While 
this saves money, it freezes out other kinds of solutions from 
different companies.
    Do not mistake me: Microsoft builds products that are compelling 
to consumers and can often stand on their own merits. They are 
successful at what they do. My point is that they are too 
successful, and in too many areas, precisely because the technology 
arena allows them to tie all of their products together so that 
customers have nowhere to go but Microsoft. I shudder to think that 
even my government buckles to this pressure, and will not produce a 
legal remedy which will actually do something to address the 
systemic problems that Microsoft presents to all of us.
    Jeremy Reichman
    545 Robert Quigley Drive, Apt 1
    Scottsville, NY 14564
    (585) 889-5343



MTC-00001816

From: Stan Diamond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 9:40am
Subject: Microsoft's proposed settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I am writing to express my dismay at the proposed settlement of 
the Microsoft antitrust case. I think that many of us believe that 
Microsoft basically got off virtually free in the federal case, but 
my comments here are more directed to Microsoft's proposed support 
the schools tactic to mollify the remaining states.
    While on the surface, it appears that Microsoft is being 
magnanimous in offering $500 million in cash and an equal amount in 
software to be distributed over five years to more than 12,000 
public schools nationwide, it would seem to this reader that the 
nature of the settlement only solidifies Microsoft's antitrust 
stance. If this were in fact a truly strings-free offer of support 
to the schools I would applaud it vigorously. However, in order to 
be such an offer, it should contain nothing at all proprietary to 
Microsoft. This includes the software component, the training 
component, and most of all the fact that two out of the five members 
of the new foundation's board would be Microsoft employees. All of 
these components of the settlement would appear to solidify 
Microsoft's dominant and dictatorial position in the world computer 
business. The proposed settlement should be completely vendor 
neutral_both by providing the schools with the freedom to 
secure software, hardware and training from any vendor they so 
choose and by preventing Microsoft from having any presence or 
influence on the board of the proposed foundation which will have 
the responsibility of approving or denying school applications for 
aid.
    I would further be cautious about allowing Microsoft to reap 
double tax benefits_first by taking a charge against earnings 
in the amount of the settlement and secondly by further deducting 
the amount of the settlement as a contribution to a charitable and/
or educational foundation.
    I would hope that the proposed settlement in its present form is 
not accepted by the states and countries still considering a real 
solution to the antitrust case that appears to be being swept under 
the rug by the Justice Department.
    Sincerely,
    Stan Diamond
    24 Iliad Street
    Leominster, MA 01453
    [email protected]



MTC-00001817

From: Richard Mallamo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 9:38am
Subject: Your Microsoft Settlement Is A Disservice To America
    Dear Friends,
    Clearly, the ultimate outcome of the Micro$oft settlement will 
be no net change in anything. This "punishment" is so 
light as to almost constitute a reward for their egregious behavior. 
In the unlikely event that Micro$oft even complies with the consent 
agreement (and they have of ignoring and stonewalling prior court 
orders), it will do nothing substantive to end their behavior or to 
spur competition.
    What is particularly outrageous is the fact that the latest 
version of Windows, and the emerging Micro$oft strategy_and 
here I'm particularly thinking of their .NET strategy_contain 
mechanisms that will only create an even broader monopoly, putting a 
death-grip on the whole computing world. Your office's settlement 
offer does nothing to remedy the matter. I urge you to do what's 
right and truly put an end to Micro$oft's lawlessness.
    Richard Mallamo
    PO Box 413
    Liberty ME 04949



MTC-00001818

From: Paul Gorski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 9:31am
Subject: Settlement is anti-competitive itself
    Hello,
    The proposed settlement that requires Microsoft to donate 
software to schools will further erode competition. Microsoft for 
years gave away software, initially, just to reap the benefits of 
upgrade prices and pricing down the road.
    By making Microsoft donate software to schools, you eliminate 
competition for those software manufacturers who'd have to sell 
software to those schools. Microsoft should set up computer trust 
funds (of sort) for those schools and let the schools decide how to 
spend the money. But not only schools, nonprofits too. A general 
fund for nonprofits, that they'd have to apply for, but at least 
have access to. Microsoft shouldn't be made to

[[Page 23984]]

donate their products to schools, Microsoft should donate funds for 
computer purchases and let the schools decide how to spend their 
computer dollars. This allow for hardware and software competition 
in the schools' decision making processes.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Gorski



MTC-00001819

From: Patel Lokanath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 9:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good job! Hurray for the kids. I don't see anything wrong with 
this settlement. keep up the good work, Finally, everybody wins.
    Sincerely,
    Lokanath Patel,
    Dubuque, IA
    PatelLokanath&JohnDeere.Com
    563-589-6328



MTC-00001820

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 9:50am
Subject: Real punishment
    If Microsoft wants to donate computers and software to schools 
as a plea agreement, how about Apple computers with AOL and Netscape 
loaded and a few of the other companies they destroyed along the 
way. No sense in allowing this to be a self serving punishment.
    [email protected] Chris Cicala from Orland Park, IL



MTC-00001821

From: Network Administrator
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 9:50am
Subject: Microsoft
    DOJ,
    I am shocked at the total lack of thought that went into this 
settlement- or maybe the Bush administration is further securing its 
role as corporate thug-thereby securing more millions for the next 
election.
    Regardless, Microsoft has escaped justice again. They will 
parlay this into more abuses which hurt our economy and stifle 
competition. They are not innovators they are thieves. Its only 
legal 'cause they are getting away with it.
    I don't believe Microsoft should be broken up creating more 
monsters. I believe that a substantial portion of Microsoft's assets 
should be seized and a sizable portion of Microsoft's future income 
should be ear-marked for a multi-billion dollar pool of money to re-
finance businesses that Microsoft has put out of business, help 
restore the lives of those devastated by their anti-competitive 
practices and restore the competitive balance in the computer 
industry. Microsoft uses these practices across almost every related 
industry. Gates, Balmer, etc. should be left with money but they 
should be required to work and maintain profitability in order to 
fund the pool of money under threat of criminal charges against them 
for racketeering. This case is only the weakest of the allegations 
against them. That is the appropriate remedy-make them finance the 
competition they have sought to squash.
    While certainly my business is adversely affected by Microsoft 
(lack of OS secuity, dirty tricks with their servers, email viruses, 
on and on)-I would not be claiming any of this pool so it is not 
self interest that I suggest this solution.
    And now, I hear that they are again attempting to escape private 
class action suits against them by further artificially securing 
market sector in education. They are laughing at you-again.
    rick palmer
    network administrator sunflower community network kansas city's 
non-profit network access project since 1994



MTC-00001822

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 9:42am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust suite
    I am concerned with the current settlement agreement with 
Microsoft. It appears that there is no "bite" in this 
agreement and that business will be as usual with MS. I do not 
believe that those negotiating this deal are aware of the anti-
competitive practices that this company has engaged in and will 
continue to engage in unless they are stopped. There are many 
published books on the subject that I would suggest that you read, 
several come to mind "The Microsoft File", 
"Barbarians lead by Bill Gates", "World War 3.0 : 
Microsoft and Its Enemies"," U.S. v. Microsoft: The 
Inside Story of the Landmark Case" and "Pride Before the 
Fall: The Trials of Bill Gates and the End of the Microsoft 
Era" all of which detail the anti-competitive nature of this 
company. Unless they are stopped from "innovating" which 
based on the context in which Bill Gates uses this word must mean 
"steal" or "rip-off" they will continue to 
kill true "innovation". Of particular concern is the $1 
billion investment in our nations poorest districts.
    Although I have not been able to find any specifics on this deal 
I do know that it involves hardware and software. My question is do 
the users get a choice of Mac, PC, Linux, Sun box for the hardware 
or is it strictly MS and Windows machines?? This is important 
because if it is limited to Windows platforms it only re-enforces 
the Monopoly they already hold on the industry.
    Joe Barisa
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00001823

From: Lee Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 9:51am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft settlement
    I wish to speak out in opposition to the proposed settlement of 
the Microsoft anti-trust suit.
    My reasons for this opposition are many, but the primary 
objections are in that the proposal is so vague and open to 
interpretation as to insure nothing more than continued legal 
proceedings as Microsoft continues to leverage it's monopolistic 
market share in ways that shatter the very foundations upon which 
any and all competitive markets must sit. The market share held by 
Microsoft is so extreme that Microsoft felt it was reasonable to not 
only consider the blocking of all browsers except it's own product, 
Internet Explorer, to msn.com they (Microsoft) actually did block 
access until public outcry became loud enough to make them 
reconsider. While this action by Microsoft in and of itself may not 
serve to warn us of the level of this danger, I would like to bring 
to your attention that a local radio station here in Seattle, Wa. 
(KVI 570 am http://www.kvi.com/) has now blocked all access to it's 
website to all browsers except Microsoft's Internet Explorer. Should 
you attempt to visit this site with other than Internet Explorer, 
you are presented this page http://kvi.com/
NetscapeUser.asp?Site=KVI.com .
    Such actions are contrary to the very foundation of the Internet 
........"The power of the Web is in its universality. Access 
by everyone regardless of disability is an essential 
aspect."_Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Director and inventor of 
the World WideWeb. While it is understood that Mr. Berners probably 
had in mind physical disabilities when he made this statement, I 
have little doubt that he never dreamed that a browser would become 
so powerful as to block all others to "information".
    Nothing in the W3C standards supports the single browser concept 
as a "standard". Indeed, any site that blocks all but IE 
is also blocking the editor/browser of the W3C, Amaya http://
www.w3.org/Amaya/ . W3C has a page addressing accessibility http://
www.w3.org/WAI/eval/ and it states "2. Use a graphical user 
interface (GUI) browser (such as Internet Explorer, Netscape 
Navigator, or Opera) and examine the selection of pages while 
adjusting the browser settings as follows......."
    Your honor, I respectfully submit to you that when a company's 
product's have become so pervasive in the market that Radio Stations 
will abandon W3C standards for the internet and block access to 
their sites to anyone that isn't using a specific browser, then the 
threat to the public interest represented by that company is almost 
beyond comprehension. I now see that Microsoft is offering as a 
"settlement" to other law suits a proposal that only 
serves to expand it's sphere of influence even further. I urgently 
request that you reject the proposed settlement in the case before 
you and examine remedies and punishments that will truly serve the 
public's interest and not submit to the persuasions of fear.
    The American market place is very strong and can easily overcome 
any temporary setback more extreme measures may extract from 
Microsoft at this time; however, if this monopoly is allowed to 
continue it's unbridled growth it, like all other cancers, will one 
day be so demanding that it will kill the very host on which it 
feeds.
    Sincerely,
    Elbert Lee Allen



MTC-00001825

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 9:59am
Subject: Monopoly
    Please stop this monopoly. It hurts us all.

[[Page 23985]]



MTC-00001826

From: Nevin Lyne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 9:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ Staff,
    The proposed settlement in which I have included a short clip 
below: "Under a settlement proposal in a series of private 
antitrust lawsuits announced Tuesday, Microsoft agreed to donate 
approximately $500 million to help bring technology to some of the 
nation's most disadvantaged schools. The deal will also allow these 
schools to obtain a virtually unlimited supply of Microsoft software 
for the next five years."
    How is this punishing a monopolistic company, by handing them a 
way to penetrate into a market they are not the strongest player in. 
Apple Computer is still be far the strongest player in the education 
market, and you are now going to make it even harder for Apple to 
compete as Microsoft is going to be allowed to give free Microsoft 
software to schools that would otherwise be buying from possible 
Microsoft's competitors. Microsoft should be made to give away and 
support competing OS's like Apple's MacOS 9 and MacOS X systems, or 
Intel based PCs running only Linux OS, or even Sun Solaris for Intel 
which is available from Sun for free. This *Punishment* for 
Microsoft in the end is more of a blessing for them as you are 
practically handing them long term victory in a market they have had 
a hard time penetrating to begin with.
    Please reconsider supporting this currently poor excuse as a 
settlement, a punishment should be a painful thing, not something 
they can be proud of. Make them pay to support their competitors 
they have practically smashed out of existence instead of helping 
them complete the task of becoming the only Operating system maker 
on the planet with any clout.
    Its agreements like this that we should all be ashamed of. Thank 
you for your time.
    -Nevin Lyne
    Small business owner (Gippy's Internet Solutions_ http://
www.gippy.net/, and working class citizen (I work during the day at 
my "day" job, and striving towards the American dream of 
owning a successful small business at night, and I try to do it all 
without Microsoft products as I feel as a small business owner they 
are NOT helping me in any way, they are harming me with their poorly 
written, bug filled and security deathtrap "software".)
    Nevin Lyne_Production Specialist
    Mayo Clinic_Research Web Team
    200 First St SW_Siebens 630a
    Rochester, MN 55905
    Phone: 507-284-2704 Fax: 507-284-1772
    http://www.mayo.edu/research/



MTC-00001828

From: Marvin Mellem
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Hi,
    Don't settle! It's as simple as that. I've read article upon 
article stating how antitrust cases are supposed to be 
'forward looking' and yet I don't see that happening 
here!
    Why did you guys take breaking up the company off the table? 
There was no pressure to do that or for you guys to NOT go after 
Windows XP. Sigh...here's my beef. The whole deal is about how 
Microsoft ties these products into their OS's and kills off 
competition right? Well have you looked at Windows XP yet? I don't 
wanna HAVE TO get a MS Passport to enjoy some features in my OS. 
Especially since some guy has already compromised its security. Yet 
Microsoft is forcing me to do so, UNFAIR! I mean they killed 
Netscape for crying out loud, and I've been on the internet for 
about six years now, yet THIS YEAR is the first time that I have had 
to switch from Netscape to Internet Explorer as my default browser. 
The only reason I did that was because more and more sites are 
optimising surfing for Microsoft web browsers only.
    Now all that I've said till now IS valid, but here is my main 
problem. I'm from South Africa, and economics being how they are the 
USD is roughly ten times stronger than our Rand. So, say I want to 
go buy a copy of Windows XP Home Edition, I have to fork out just 
under R1 100 to buy it directly from the SUPPLIER! And as a general 
consumer I don't even have the necessary access to buy it from the 
supplier. I have to buy it from the stores who are bound to charge 
me more. Now if you think that is bad, listen to this. I work in the 
IT field, I have a good PC at home, but if I'm to be taking my IT 
work and studies seriously I can't do it on Windows XP HE, I need to 
buy myself a copy of XP Professional so that I can learn it to keep 
ahead of the pack in this cut throat market we have here. But you 
wanna know the retail price on that? Can you guess? It costs over R3 
200 at the SUPPLIER once more...now you see all those figures would 
be okay if I earned say...R20k per month or so, but I don't. I get 
to walk home with roughly R3,4k/month after tax deductions...etc. 
Can you see me getting my hands on a copy of Windows XP Professinal 
LEGALLY? Now I read somewhere that it was discussed as part of a 
settlement that Microsoft develop a 'barebones' version 
of its OS? Well I like that idea!!! I LOVE my third party software, 
there isn't much in the actual Windows OS suite that I actually use. 
I prefer Symantec for antivirus software as well as disk maintenance 
software...etc. I used to prefer WordPerfect till MS Office became 
the standard down here(not that it's tied into the OS thank God). I 
may use media player from time to time, but that can be downloaded 
off the internet, and I can live without it because I have another 
video player(shareware) that actually works better than media 
player. Heck I even prefer Winamp to play my songs over media 
player, it's too big/bulky/clunky.
    I startup Windows and what do I use? Windows Explorer, the MS 
Dos prompt(which is gone nowadays from what I hear), rarely 
notepad(it sucks like wordpad does, I mean why tie in barebones word 
processors like that which are never used?). I don't use Scandisk 
anymore since I have Norton's Disk Doctor which works only 100 times 
better(always has). I don't need to use disk cleanup either since 
Symantec Systemorks has Cleansweep which works better than disk 
cleanup. Heck let's just say that I don't even use any windows 
'glitter'. I use the OS, install my own study/work 
software and that is all I do. I don't sit in MS paint or imaging or 
any of those Windows apps. I just use the Windows OS.
    So the proposed plan to get Microsoft to make a 
'barebones' OS is a good one if it will drastically 
reduce software prices for me. I mean think about it, there is a 
GLOBAL economy here. MY country is one of many working on plans to 
BRIDGE the digital divide between first and third world countries, 
and how can we do that when the Software which is the 
'blood' of the digital era is so darn expensive?
    Just food for thought, use it, don't use it...it's free. :-) :-)
    PS: I read about the settlement that they give funding for PC's 
for underpriveledged schools, well my questions is if you settle 
with a payment stratergy, then how does that answer the question of 
a 'forward looking' anti-trust settlement? From my 
understanding it wont answer any of the questions of the laws 
Microsoft was found guilty of breaking and in doing so it only 
entitles them to a fresh round of breaking more antitrust laws. 
http://www.webmail.co.za the South-African free email service



MTC-00001829

From: Brian T. Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 10:03am
Subject: Microsoft proposed settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    The recent proposal by Microsoft to give one billion in software 
and services to underprivileged schools is anything but punishment. 
While I would not argue that this is something that is badly needed, 
it will only help Microsoft to maintain their monopoly. Strict 
regulation of Microsoft is the only way to maintain healthy 
competition in the software industry.
    Brian Anderson
    Strike Anywhere Design
    www.LogicAndProportion.com



MTC-00001830

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 10:02am
Subject: Your Settlement Spells Doom for Hi Tech
    Gentlemen:
    I've just read an article about how well Microsoft is doing in 
penetrating new markets... servers, handheld PDA's, even game 
computers. In servers and PDA's, they're increasing market share 
much more quickly than their competitors.
    And it's no wonder. Microsoft has almost unlimited resources. 
There's really no market they can't eventually conquer with their 
deep pockets. In a free market, competition should be allowed to 
sort out the winners and the losers. And I agree with that. But in 
this case, it becomes a question of should the profits from the part 
of Microsoft that's been judged to be a monopoly (desktop operating 
systems) be restricted in their use in other markets?
    I would think the answer is YES.

[[Page 23986]]

    I bought a Handspring Visor PDA about a year ago. I love it. 
Walter Mossberg recently wrote a review for the Wall Street Journal 
about the latest generation of PDA's that uses Microsoft's Windows 
CE as the operating system. His conclusion was that the Palm/
Handspring devices (which both use the Palm OS) would likely be more 
satisfactory to business users. And after reading his criticisms of 
Windows CE, I found myself feeling fortunate that I had chosen 
Handspring.
    Well, due to the size mismatch, Handspring & Palm's days may 
be numbered. If PDA's that use Windows CE are priced significantly 
less than Palms & Handsprings, it's obvious what will happen. 
Most companies can't afford to "buy" market share by 
selling below cost or, as Microsoft did with web browsers, simply 
giving their product away. Microsoft can not only afford lavish 
marketing expenses, but can afford to sell below the margins 
required by their non-monopoly-subsidized competitors.
    If it isn't too late, I wish you'd give this some thought in 
your settlement negotiations with Microsoft. If your proposed 
settlement is approved by the court, five years from now Palm and 
Handspring will likely be fringe companies, much the way Novell 
(remember Netware) is today. I'll be using Windows CE, not by 
choice, but because the other companies ran out of profits to fund 
R&D, and then got left behind. And I'll be cursing you because 
you let this inevitability occur.
    Make Microsoft compete fairly in the new markets it covets. 
Don't let them use their ill-gotten monopoloy profits to pave under 
the rest of the high tech sector.
    Eric R. Lorgus, President
    Great Valley Industries, Inc. (GVI),
    928 Springdale Drive,
    Exton, PA 19341-2805,
    610-524-8200 x103,
    610-524-8665 fax,



MTC-00001831

From: Wilner, Richard A.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 10:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I am very disappointed with the Feds settlement.
    Microsoft has been getting away with activities like this for 
years. From stealing the operating system from the Macintosh to 
pulling the rug out from under developers that were developing 
applications for OS/2, to taking control of the internet with their 
browser. With money brings power and they have much to much power. 
They wiped out Netscape by offering their browser for free and 
putting it on every PC that was sold
    Richard Wilner
    Command Media, AEW & EW Systems, Phone (516) 575-0997, 
Fax (516) 346-2577, email: 
[email protected]



MTC-00001832

From: Richardson, Paul
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/21/01 10:18am
Subject: The Settlement
    To Whom It Concerns,
    I just wanted to drop you a note expressing my dissatisfaction 
with the Microsoft settlement. The trial demonstrated that Microsoft 
participated in unfair, anti-competitive behavior and that it harmed 
consumers and the industry. The whole point of the trial was to 
determine whether Microsoft had caused harm, and if so to prevent 
them from repeating their actions and to attempt to correct some of 
the problems they created. The settlement is very weak and does not 
go far enough. Microsoft caused many companies to go out of business 
by bundling and by forcing computer manufacturers not to include 
competing products. This greatly harmed the software industry and 
caused many companies to go out of business. The original decision 
would have caused the company to be split up so that it could not so 
easily repeat its anti-competitive behavior. This at least would 
have paved the way to creating a more competitive software market. 
Instead of striving to correct the problems in the industry created 
by Microsoft, the current settlement is nothing except the lightest 
of slaps on the wrist for Microsoft. It does not attempt to rectify 
anything, and it barely punishes Microsoft for its long history of 
abuses. If the Department of Justice goes through with this 
settlement, it is just an invitation for Microsoft to continue its 
behavior and for other dominant companies to do the same. The 
Government is suppose to strive to protect the consumers and the 
settlement does nothing towards this goal.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Richardson
    2952 Bunker Hill Lane
    Santa Clara, CA 95054



MTC-00001833

From: Gedeon Maheux
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 10:11am
Subject: Re: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    How does letting Microsoft flood the education market with its 
operating system help discourage them from their current monopoly 
status? This proposed agreement does nothing to Microsoft short of 
making them dish out some cash over the long-haul, which, by all 
accounts they can well afford. I for one am VERY disappointed in 
this agreement and in those that helped draft it. It goes against 
logic and reason and should be discarded immediately.
    Respectfully,
    Gedeon Maheux
     Gedeon Maheux
    The Iconfactory
    [email protected]
    336.299.5251
    http://www.iconfactory.com
    icon design
    user interface design
    interactive design
    website design



MTC-00001834

From: Brian Jackson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I am personally DUMBFOUNDED that the Dept. of Justice has agreed 
to a settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust proceedings that 
essentially ENCOURAGES Microsoft to further extend it's dominance in 
the desktop operating system/applications software market.
    The currently proposed settlement, which would require Microsoft 
to donate $500 million to disadvantaged schools, leaves the door 
wide open for the company to extend it's dominance into one of the 
few markets where actual competition stills exists: the Education 
market. In what way does this portion of the proposed settlement 
punish Microsoft for their anti-competitive practices? By further 
eroding the slim market share held by their only real competitor in 
the desktop operating system/applications market, namely, Apple 
Computer?
    It is my personal opinion as an IT professional that the entire 
settlement is extremely weak in it's scope, and is little more than 
a slap on the wrist to the continually arrogant and aggressive 
management of the Microsoft Corporation. However, I find the portion 
that requires the donation to the Education market particularly 
offensive and short-sighted. I think the DOJ should rethink this 
whole thing, and do the right thing for everyone invloved. In my 
opinion, that would be the breakup of the Microsoft Corporation into 
2 separate companies, one that produces the Windows Operating 
System, and one that produces Application software (Microsoft 
Office, Internet Explorer, etc.). Anything less is damaging to both 
the consumer and businesses that compete with Microsoft in selling 
computer software.
    Please consider these very important factors before committing 
to any settlement deal with Microsoft!
    Sincerely,
    Brian Jackson
    Network Administrator
    Galerie au Chocolat
    4000 Red Bank Road
    Cincinnati, Ohio 45227
    513.527.8200 ext. 127
    513.300.9451 (mobile)



MTC-00001835

From: Andy Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 10:56am
Subject: alternate proposal
    To the US Department of Justice:
    When I read about Microsoft's settlement offer, I thought of the 
old restaurant joke: "The food here is bad_and the 
portions are so small!" When it comes to software, you can't 
make up for qualitative flaws with volume.
    I have seen Red Hat's proposal , but for all the reasons it makes 
sense, it would make even more sense to have Microsoft spend that 
billion dollars on Apple hardware. Wouldn't it be much more 
appropriate to have Microsoft buy computers that can't run their 
operating system? If Microsoft would buy the hardware, I'm sure 
Apple could be persuaded to donate software and support, though 
Apple computers already come bundled with the operating system and 
many easy-to-use applications at no extra cost. Microsoft could 
donate copies

[[Page 23987]]

of Office, the Mac version of which is very well liked.
    My proposal would be much better for students than either 
Microsoft's or Red Hat's. For example, Apple's iBook laptops, along 
with their Airport technology, are a very inexpensive way to get a 
whole school connected wirelessly to the Internet; there is no 
equivalent in the Wintel world. Also, Linux is terrific, but it's 
never been anywhere near the #1 platform in the education 
market, as Apple is. I doubt Red Hat would expand their offer to 
include porting hundreds of educational apps from the Mac platform 
to Linux_or retraining hundreds of teachers and administrators 
who are already happy with Apple computers.
    I believe what I am suggesting is (a) fair to all parties, (b) 
more appropriate than what Microsoft is offering, and (c) much more 
beneficial to the cause of educating American students. I hope you 
will agree.
    Respectfully yours,
    _Andrew G. Lee



MTC-00001836

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a very strong supporter of Microsoft and the Bill Gates 
Corporation. I think he has done more for technology and continues 
to do more than any of the other companies. This judgement can have 
a huge impact on the economy of the U.S. I think his offer is most 
genrous.
    Eva McVay
    Fort Myers, Fl.



MTC-00001837

From: David Keller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 10:54am
Subject: Don't let Microsoft fool you again!
    http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/tech/software/
10004276.html



MTC-00001838

From: JLilly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 10:32am
Subject: Microsoft offer counters logic
    Dear Sir,
    The proposed settlement by Microsoft to supply schools with 
computers and software does nothing but further entrench their 
monopoly. In fact, it leverages their share into one of the last 
markets where there is still real choice; education.
    Instead of letting Microsoft dump their software into the 
nations schools, I suggest having Microsoft pay that same amount in 
cash, perhaps for a "technology" earmarked fund, and let 
the schools choose what they want to do with it. If they choose 
Microsoft, more power to them. If they continue to use Macs, that's 
fine too. At least they will have a choice, and they won't have the 
monopoly hoisted onto them under the false pretense of a 
"gift."
    John Lilly



MTC-00001839

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 11:05am
Subject: IS THIS FOR REAL?
    I find the proposed conduct remedy to be inappropriate and 
wholly inadequate for a company which has demonstrated nothing but 
contempt for previous similar conduct remedies (such as the 1995 
consent decree in which MSFT agreed not to "tie" 
application software to the OS-but then did just that with Internet 
Explorer). Even after being found guilty of antitrust violations in 
that case, they face no punishment, and thus have no incentive to 
take the new conduct restrictions any more seriously than the old 
ones.
    Paul Gartland
    Austin, TX



MTC-00001840

From: Jim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 11:03am
Subject: Pay the people back what Microsoft has stolen.
    They have pirated all their money at our expense. Obviously 
taken advantage of those that are not educated enough to know. 
Please keep the pressure on them.



MTC-00001841

From: Nick Farwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 11:00am
Subject: This settlement is ridiculous.
    Please reconsider letting Microsoft off the hook. Their behavior 
has clearly demonstrated absolute disregard for the principles of a 
free market and human ingenuity. For years they have stifled any 
competition with an iron fist.
    If the Justice (hah!) Department fails on this, letting 
Microsoft off with a slap on the wrist, I feel that millions of 
Americans will lose whatever remaining respect and trust they had 
with the federal government.
    Best,
    Nick Farwell Stage Operations Supervisor A Contemporary Theatre 
700 Union St. (206) 292-7660 x1759 voice Seattle, WA 98101 
(206) 292-7670 fax (206) 718-7358 mobile



MTC-00001842

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 10:58am
Subject: A Just Settlement
    Since Microsoft's Applications and Operating Systems groups are 
at the root of much of the antitrust controversy, my suggestion is 
simply this: Require Microsoft's Applications Group to release and 
support versions of their popular software applications (i.e. 
Office, Visio, Internet Explorer, etc.) for the three main competing 
Unix platforms: Solaris, FreeBSD and Linux.
    This solution would truly spur competition by encouraging other 
software vendors to also support these competing operating systems. 
Because of Microsoft's dominance, they're only motivated to support 
their own Windows and to some extent, the MacIntosh operating 
systems.
    EMILE A. WALKER
    Sr. Member of the Technical Staff (SMTS)
    Computer Sciences Corporation



MTC-00001843

From: James T Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 11:12am
Subject: You've given the farm to Microsoft.
    I am thoroughly disappointed and disgusted with the DoJ's recent 
treatment of the Microsoft monopoly.
    The proposal of Microsoft to 'saturate' schools with 
their product is equivalent to the extremist Islamists (not to be 
confused with true Islam) have taken over (by offering for FREE) the 
general education of Pakistan children in their militant madrassas.
    Why? In return for the chance to 'hook' young minds 
on their militant views. [email protected]



MTC-00001844

From: Sean Wagner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 11:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    This is exactly what I want to say about the proposed settlement 
with Microsoft.
    Sean Wagner
    Dear DoJ,
    A recent disturbing fact has been brought to my attention 
regarding the case against Microsoft. I quote from CNet.com: 
"Under a settlement proposal in a series of private antitrust 
lawsuits announced Tuesday, Microsoft agreed to donate approximately 
$500 million to help bring technology to some of the nation's most 
disadvantaged schools. The deal will also allow these schools to 
obtain a virtually unlimited supply of Microsoft software for the 
next five years.
    Those terms, say analysts, could hurt Apple and other software 
providers. Historically, education has been one of Apple's primary 
markets. And although the company has slipped to No. 2 in 
kindergarten through grade 12_behind Dell_it still has a 
larger installed base than anyone else. Free software, though, is 
hard to pass up. Apple, as well as Linux companies and other 
educational software developers, could find themselves out in the 
cold in school districts flush with new Microsoft products. "
    Here's an idea. Make Microsoft buy $500 million worth of Apple 
iMacs to put in those schools. This way the children can learn a 
great new Unix variant in the Mac OS X and the professors wont have 
to stop teaching to troubleshoot Windows.
    Best,
    Andrew F. Herrmann
    Tech. Coordinator, College of Arts & Sciences
    Saint Louis University



MTC-00001845

From: John C. Blakley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 11:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You have absolutely got to be kidding! I guess this is why no 
one trusts government to do anything right. This whole anti-trust 
thing has been about Microsoft dominating the marketplace through 
bully tactics and product giveaways and you think that forcing them 
to spend a billion dollars to put their product into more locations 
is a PENALTY?
    Do you think the public is foolish enough to believe this is a 
penalty? Apparently the Department of Justice is. Over the years, 
they

[[Page 23988]]

have given away product for free at a substantial cost knowing that 
everything they give away will need to be upgraded and that the user 
will be locked in to the Microsoft Upgrade Revenue Bonanza.
    If you want to penalize them, why not have them put 1 BILLION 
DOLLARS worth of Macintosh computers. They would still benefit in 
sales of applications, but at least not the operating system too. If 
not that, at least some semblance of a real penalty.
    John Blakley



MTC-00001846

From: Allen Wicks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 11:17am
Subject: OPPOSED to Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft's business model has been and still is abusively anti 
competitive and anti innovative (despite what their PR hyperbole 
claims). The cost to consumers and to industry wide innovation has 
been immense. Even today after losing all the way to the Supreme 
Court, MS continues its business model largely unabated. The 
proposed settlement "penalties" are easily thwarted by 
MS, creating essentially no penalties at all; so, why should 
MS_or any other large firm_cease violating anti-trust 
laws? So far the MS model is a textbook example of the financial 
success of such unethical and even illegal business practices. 
Please consider this my request that the very weak Proposed 
Microsoft Settlement NOT BE ENACTED. MS has been found guilty and 
has lost all appeals. They made a joke of their earlier (1994) 
settlement. Now it is time for them to be STRONGLY PENALIZED:
    [1] Their anti competitive behavior must be prohibited, and 
permanently, not just for five years. Any firm with such immense 
resources can and will make a mockery of any weak 5 year 
restrictions, simply by spending a few tens of millions slipping and 
sliding around the legal system.
    [2] Very large fines must be imposed, sufficient to make Gates 
et. al. sufficiently aware of the consequences of the firm's illicit 
behavior that they are stimulated to want to change that behavior.
    [3] Anti competitive business dealings (e.g. it has been and 
still is virtually impossible to buy any personal computer, even an 
Apple Macintosh, that does not default to Microsoft's browser 
whether the buyer wants it or not!) must be clearly and 
unequivocally prohibited.
    [4] Perhaps most important, a permanent "Microsoft 
Litigants' Defense Fund" should be created from fines levied 
against Microsoft. Such a fund (with zero influence or participation 
by MS allowed) should make litigation funding and legal support 
available to firms who feel that they have been harmed by MS's 
failure to comply either with anti-trust law or with the (hopefully 
very harsh) terms of the 2001 penalties when they are promulgated. 
Use of such funds would be on condition that wins against MS include 
some sort of financial return back to the fund; legal support would 
be free to any law firm suing MS, and MS would be specifically 
prohibited from legal action or discovery proceedings against the 
fund.
    [5] Movement of Microsoft's abusively anti competitive and anti 
innovative business model into emerging markets MUST be prohibited, 
and in a manner that is readily enforced. The internet and the 
"convergence" market spaces in particular (but not 
limited to) need be kept accessible to small innovators and not 
locked up by the likes of Microsoft. Much has been expressed that MS 
is a market leader and that penalizing them penalizes an already 
weak tech sector. What MS really is is an industry bully; penalizing 
such business behavior will in a very short time period overall 
stimulate the tech sector as innovators can again start innovating 
unfettered by fear of what type of response may come from the 
industry bully.
    Thank you.
    Allen Wicks
    Small business person and computer industry observer since the 
1970s.
    Allen Wicks
    [email protected]
    10164 Laburnham Circle, Truckee, CA 96161
    530-550-8727



MTC-00001847

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 11:15am
Subject: Bad settlement
    It seems to me that the remedy (requiring Microsoft to furnish 
underserved schools with PC hardware and software) actually helps 
Microsoft. Similar to the monopoly Microsoft already enjoys with its 
operating system defacto installed on new computers, Microsoft's 
"gift" to underserved students not only is good PR for 
the company, but a way to corral in a whole new generation of users 
and consumers. While perhaps better than no computers at all, giving 
these kids a Microsoft desktop will brainwash the kids into 
believing Microsoft is the only choice. Instead, Microsoft should be 
required to provide techincal grants to the schools so that they can 
choose the software and hardware they want, be it Linux, Apple, 
Microsoft, etc. Letting Microsoft "donate" their 
software ensures that they will reap the rewards from future 
upgrades. This is no punishment at all for their anticompetitive 
policies. Contrary to their PR, Microsoft does not make efficient, 
lean, and troublefree products which can withstand free competition. 
They run the industry and force us to use their software by 
swallowing and/or pillaging the competition.
    The saddest part of the whole judgment is that the big kahuna 
Windows XP is a huge step in further consolidating their monopoly, 
and the past issues have already become moot. Microsoft, as usual, 
sidesteps its legal troubles by reaching their tentacles further and 
more omniverously into PC users' lives. The company needs to be 
broken up if the government wants to ensure its citizens of freedom 
of choice and true innovation that only real competition can offer. 
Microsoft's strategy of using their deep pockets (thanks to an 
unbridled monopoly) to lobby on its behalf has obviously worked. Not 
only will users be stuck with Windows operating system, an office 
suite, and a browser, but all content delivery will be channeled 
through their proprietary formats (windows media files for music and 
video), and through their financial payment network. Our whole 
computing experience will be filtered through Microsoft.
    Paul Takeuchi
    Brooklyn, New York



MTC-00001848

From: Howard Coles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:37pm
Subject: MS Monopoly
    Dear Sirs,
    I would just like to express my concern toward any resolution or 
settlement that would further a monopoly for Microsoft products.
    It would appear that the current proposed settlement would cause 
Microsoft to have to "donate" Hardware, Software, and 
services to under privileged school systems.
    I believe that is should be obvious that this would introduce 
more young minds to Windows thus furthering Microsoft's control, and 
ultimately leading to more users of their OS. I think it would be 
more of a punishment for them to provide another brand of OS, 
Hardware, Software and Services. If you allow them to extend their 
control will the result not be a stronger monopoly? If you have kept 
current with Microsoft's current practices then you will understand 
that they are already setting in motion a licensing scheme that 
locks you into their products for years, while trying to setup a 
"single sign on" system (.NET) that would provide them 
with everyone's information.
    As you can discern from this message I am very much against them 
providing more MS software. I feel that RedHat's suggestion is 
viable, let MS Provide everything EXCEPT the OS, and help create a 
competitive product that will enable consumers to have a truly 
viable option. The exact OS to provide would not necessarily be 
RedHat's Linux, but considering their offer would be a very good 
idea. I also feel that it would be in everyone's best interest to 
force Microsoft to remove any hint of a penalty, either in their 
licensing or reseller/OEM agreements, to Computer hardware providers 
who opt to preinstall any OS other than Microsoft's.
    Thank You,
    Howard Coles Jr.
    Network Analyst II



MTC-00001849

From: Leonard Dudzinski
To: [email protected] 
@inetgw,attorney.gener...
Date: 11/21/01 11:32 am
Subject: A proposal to stop Microsoft
    To the States Attorneys General,
    I want to begin by thanking you for your courage and judgment in 
continuing to prosecute Microsoft for is antitrust abuses even as 
other states and the Federal government have proposed a settlement 
with Microsoft that, in my opinion, does nothing to stop a very 
dangerous monopoly. To make matters worse, the settlement that I am 
hearing about today to allow Microsoft to give free software to poor 
school districts actually increases Microsofts monopoly power by 
increasing Microsofts user base,

[[Page 23989]]

training a new generation of Microsoft-only users, and 
disadvantaging Microsofts competitors in the education market!
    I have been pondering the Microsoft case currently being tried 
by the US Department of Justice and your states Attorneys General, 
and thinking about what solution I would favor. I have an idea for 
how the DOJ could deal with Microsoft that I have not heard 
discussed as one of the options, and I am grateful that your State 
Department of Justice has opened this forum to share ideas on the 
case. I strongly believe that the ruling is correct that Microsoft's 
monopoly was gained illegally and hurts consumers. Microsoft has 
clearly demonstrated the willingness to wield its monopoly power to 
benefit itself at the expense of others. Microsoft's monopoly power 
must be ended. I also strongly believe that, especially during these 
these times of war, it is not in the state or federal governments 
best interest to be reliant on one computing platform for its 
function and national security. Recent events have demonstrated that 
one computing platform can be devastated by hackers or viruses, 
while others are immune. My proposed remedy is this: rule that your 
government must support multiple computer platforms, operating 
systems, and software suites in the interest of government security 
and in support of the free market.
    While the Judicial Branch does not have the power to dictate the 
market in a free market economy, it does have the power to affect 
how the government responds to it. A DOJ ruling that the government 
must foster competition in the computer marketplace where possible, 
would be fair, effective, and within its powers. To that end, and in 
the interest of government security, an executive order could be 
issued that the government will support multiple computer platforms, 
operating systems, and productivity software suites, and no single 
computer platform, operating system, or suite of software will hold 
greater than a 50% market share within the government (The 
government market share percentage could be debated). This ruling 
would create an immediate demand for Microsoft's competition within 
the states and federal government, and with all those who deal 
computationally with these governments, which, I would think, is a 
large part of the computer market as a whole. Thus, this ruling 
would have the effect of destroying Microsoft's power to monopolize 
the market while preserving the company and its products. This 
ruling would have the additional effect of driving the computer 
industry towards standards to improve interoperability between 
platforms, operating systems, and standard software suites, which 
benefits all consumers. Microsoft would then be forced to play fair 
with its competitors products and standards.
    I welcome comments on the idea.
    Respectfully,
    Leonard A. Dudzinski
    Concerned US Citizen
    Leonard A. Dudzinski
    270 Windward Dr
    Elyria, OH 44035
    e-mail: [email protected]
    [email protected] http://inbox.excite.com
    CC:Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00001850

From: Smythe DuVal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'd like to comment on the recent settlement between the DOJ and 
Microsoft.
    I have worked in the software and computer industry since 1989, 
including several startup firms that have partnered with Microsoft. 
I have followed the anti-trust cases against Microsoft since the 
mid-90s and I own a few shares of Microsoft stock.
    I am shocked at the settlement the DOJ has reached with 
Microsoft. By any legal standard it is a weak settlement. I will not 
go into the details of of why this settlement is so weak_that 
has already been done ad nauseum. The DOJ attempted to create a 
face-saving settlement that looks tough and is actually quite 
benign. What has taken place is an abuse of the rule of law. The 
settlement is worthy of criticism because it blatantly condones 
political corruption.
    Before writing this letter, I researched the political campaign 
contributions made by Microsoft to the major Parties. It appears to 
me and no doubt other Americans that Microsoft entered a quid pro 
quo arrangement with the major Parties_one in which Microsoft 
drastically increases their campaign contributions and in return the 
anti-trust suit will go away. Here are Microsoft's donations to the 
Republican and Democrat Parties since 1992:
    1992 $ 51,483
    1994 $ 103,702
    1996 $ 237,484
    1998 $ 1,357,746
    2000 $ 4,356,376
    2002 $ 837,385
    Source: Center for Responsive Politics_
    OpenSecrets.org http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/
contrib.asp?Ind=C5120&Cycle=2002 Microsoft's donations 
significantly increased as their legal troubles increased, reaching 
over $4 million in the 2000 election. Now that the lawsuit is 
"settled", donations for the 2002 general election are 
drastically reduced, and yet still a large sum. That surge of money 
in 1998 and 2000 and the resulting settlement represent political 
corruption in the highest offices of this government. Microsoft 
bought this DOJ settlement.
    It is reported in the news services today that Microsoft is 
offering to pay all court and litigation costs to the remaining 
States, if in return these States would drop their case against 
Microsoft. This eye-brow raising offer illustrates two 
things_one, Microsoft isn't subtle when doing political 
corruption, and secondly, it offers a glimpse at the un-ethical 
environment they have participated with the major parties in recent 
years. Would any law abiding American driver, pulled over by a law 
abiding Police officer, offer to pay the officer's time in court if 
he in return would not write up a ticket? This is the very 
definition of attempted bribery. Microsoft's offer to the States is 
no less the same. Maybe they should donate lots of money to the 
State level Republican and Democratic Party_they have already 
done that. Here is a thorough report detailing the corruption 
between Microsoft and officials at all levels of the government: 
http://www.commoncause.org/publications/microsoft/microsoftstudy.pdf 
The Democrats, the Republicans, and the Justice Department failed to 
uphold the rule of law and have set the most blatant precedent that 
bribery is acceptable practice. Indeed_I anticipate if 
Microsoft doesn't pony up "protection money" in future 
election campaigns_they will find themselves in legal trouble 
again. Case in point_for the 2002 elections, Microsoft is the 
highest donor to the major Parties in the software industry.
    I hope the remaining States and the European Commission have 
more integrity than the Democrats and Republicans who make up the 
"Department of Justice". America needs people who not 
only preach but also practice the rule of law.
    Smythe DuVal
    Marietta, GA



MTC-00001851

From: Henry Zeller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 11:22 am
Subject: Microsoft Ruling
    To whom it may concern,
    As one who has endured the business practices of Microsoft for 
many years, I want to voice my displeasure with the so-called 
penalty imposed on Microsoft.
    This company was targeted for investigation for its ruthless 
monopolistic methods. They relegated vast numbers of competitors to 
the bankruptcy ashbin, while intimidating all those who did not 
comply with their wishes into submission.
    Here we are. After all the efforts to impose justice on 
Microsoft, they are now rewarded with a guaranteed market share that 
competitors for those markets will not have access to_thanks 
to the Justice Department. In essence, DOJ has agreed that Windows 
is only one operating system, and others need not be considered. So 
what was the point?
    Punitive damages should have taken the form of 5 billion dollars 
cash, distributed equally indexed on surviving companies inability 
to do business in the WinTel world, as seed money for development of 
more software to directly compete with Microsoft, and even to 
develop for other platforms, such as Macintosh, Linux, etc.
    Thumbs down. As a law abiding American_I have been let 
down by DOJ Regards
    Henry Zeller



MTC-00001852

From: Peter C.S. Adams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 11:41 am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I cannot overstate my disgust at the U.S. Justice Department's 
proposed settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. I echo the 
words of numerous industry analysts: This isn't a remedy, it's a 
reward.
    I wonder what would happen if some mafia boss made the same 
proposal to Mr. Ashcroft. Would he agree, saying, "Gosh, Mr. 
Gotti, you mean to all those people you

[[Page 23990]]

murdered, but if you promise not to do it any more, you can keep all 
the money you stole"? Remember, Microsoft agreed to change its 
ways before in a consent decree, and simply ignored it when it was 
no longer convenient for them.
    Simply put, Microsoft is in the position to dictate U.S. policy 
today, and it got that way by breaking the law. I strongly urge you 
to back away from this settlement. Continuing abuses and security 
problems at Microsoft underline the need for real reform there, not 
surrender by Justice.
    Peter C.S. Adams
    222 Edgewater Drive
    Framingham, MA 01702



MTC-00001853

From: Sergio Valdes-Flores
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 11:37 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Why the gov't should never have been involved in suing M$oft, 
there is NO JUSTICE.
    But if you believe you can make a difference in this case, read 
on, first Microsoft's lawyers offer is going to have Microsoft stuff 
UP THE KAZOO in every aspect of software, like a domino effect, it 
only serve's Ballmer's plan for world domination, and definitely not 
the underpriviledge schools students. then secondly, it will be a 
laughter to the world, for those proposing to curve monopoly the 
Justice Department, are actually INCREASING MONOPOLY , and then 
double talk on the virtues that monopoly serves no real innovation 
practices but only commonality and sideroads from real standards or 
benefit consumers for look at the price of Office suite, where 
Microsoft makes all their money.
    Thus Microsoft's solution of DONATING software, their "so-
called product", in settlement serves NO JUSTICE. It only 
creates more evil in lopsiding the only sector that promises 
sustained growth ....Are you blind to this ? However, Red Hat's 
solution has NOTHING to do with RedHat, for Linux is Linux is Linux 
not RedHat's and it is source and binary free just like FreeBSD is 
free, and you can download it for free, upgrades are free , you are 
only paying for a CD and jewel case when you buy it from a store for 
a 1/10 the cost of the Microsoft OS software. And further 
more, those that learn to do system administration in any kind of 
UNIX know more about the network and system administration than 
those that are MCSE certified. Both Linux and BSD (FreeBSD, NetBSD, 
OpenBSD) are FREE OF CHARGE and thus of "branding". It 
is perfect for students to learn in, and there are world processing 
applications as well as presentation applications and spreadsheets 
application totally free of charge that are suited for either the 
Linux or the BSD environment. One application in point, MacOSX Sever 
10.x which is not free, as you very well know, gives you an Apache 
Web Server application and Tomcat JavaServerPage application, they 
are not part of the price of the Mac software, you just get them for 
free, for MacOSX is a professional GUI on top of a Free software 
foundation which is UNIX, namely Darwin, a variant of FreeBSD.
    I am all in favour of ending the suit, make Microsoft contribute 
to american schools with HARDWARE, that which is not theirs, for the 
Intel-Microsoft bully alliance and MONOPOLY that everyone knows it 
exists, should be shaken up for their prices to be more competive 
AND their products to be better than just mediocre at best.
    Thank you,
    A concerned citizen of the World.
    November 20, 2001
    Paper: Private Microsoft Suits Near Settlement
    By Matt Carolan
    Microsoft is close to settling numerous private antitrust suits 
against it, and public schools may benefit.
    Citing academics and attorneys close to the discussions, The 
Wall Street Journal's online edition reported Tuesday that Microsoft 
was putting the finishing touches Monday evening on an agreement for 
the company to provide software and computers to more than 14,000 of 
the poorest schools in the U.S. over a five-year period.
    Estimated at a cost of approximately $1.1 billion, this payment 
would satisfy "most of its pending private class-action 
lawsuits" the Journal said.
    The agreement would have to be approved by U.S. District Judge 
J. Frederick Motz in Baltimore, who is overseeing the myriad class-
action suits from around the nation that have been consolidated in 
his court.
    The Journal reported that the unusual proposal came from one of 
the lead plaintiffs' lawyers in the case, Michael Hausfeld, who 
concluded that the estimated 65 million members of the plaintiff 
class would receive as little as $10 in a settlement or court 
victory. After administrative costs and attorney fees even that 
small amount would disappear.
    The settlement would provide, among other things, training for 
students and teachers in popular Microsoft software, reconditioned 
hardware, and education in repair of computers and networks.
    Under the terms of the deal, Hausfeld and his fellow attorneys 
would receive their fees from a separate payment by Microsoft to be 
determined by the judge.
    The Journal's online story noted that one of the side effects of 
the settlement would be to solidify Microsoft's hold on the student 
computer market, which plaintiff's lawyers shrugged off as an 
inescapable fact of the marketplace.
    But THIS would be JUSTICE BETTER SERVED, please don't continue 
to monopolize the American People and the People of this 
WORLD....PLEASE MS/DOJ_RED HAT OFFERS OPEN-SOURCE OPTION ON 
SETTLEMENT Posted November 20, 2001 04:12 Pacific Time NEW 
YORK_Red Hat jumped into the Microsoft class-action suits 
settlement fray Tuesday, offering to provide open-source software to 
every school district in the United States free of charge.
    Red Hat encouraged Microsoft to redirect the money it plans to 
spend on its own software_estimated at more than US$500 
million_into purchasing additional hardware. Microsoft said 
earlier Tuesday that it had agreed to settle the 100-plus class 
action suits accusing it of using its desktop operating system 
software monopoly to charge users inflated prices. Under terms of 
the deal, Microsoft would supply computers and its own software to 
thousands of the U.S.'s poorest schools For the full story:
    http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/11/20/
011120hnredhatoffer.xml?11 21weam _
    Sergio Valdes-Flores 
    Web Staff-R'us, Inc
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00001854

From: Matthew McGraw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 11:39 am
Subject: MS Settlement unfair
    I am an avid IT professional_who works mainly with MS 
products. The settlement now on the table increases their monopoly 
by increasing their product penetration in schools, and does nothing 
to stop them from side-stepping this behavior in the future.
    Get some balls, guys, and realize that the economy for the next 
5 years isn't as important as the economy for the next 50.
    -Matthew 
_________
_________
    Matthew McGraw
    Rocket Science Consulting
    3288 21st St. Suite 250
    San Francisco, CA 94110
    415.518.8003



MTC-00001855

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 11:49am
Subject: Comment on Microsoft Anti-trust resolution
    To whom it may concern:
    This comment is with regard to the recent reports I have read 
regarding Microsoft's offer to donate Microsoft technology to school 
systems as part of an overcharging for products settlement. As such 
it is indirectly related to the larger anti-trust settlement 
currently in progress, but I think serves to illustrate how 
Microsoft tends to turn penalties to its advantage.
    My understanding is that Microsoft is offering to donate up to 1 
billion dollars worth of Microsoft technology products to 
underprivileged schools as penalty in a case where it previously 
overcharged schools for Microsoft products. I see many problems with 
this settlement:
    1. It is a "first hit is free" policy that 
entrenches Microsoft products within schools, and makes it harder 
for schools to move away from Microsoft and future support fees when 
there may be better alternatives.
    2. I assume the value of the penalty is calculated on 
"Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price" (MSRP) for the 
products, rather than what it actually costs Microsoft. I am sure 
you realize that it costs pennies to produce a Windows CD-ROM 
that is sold for hundreds. Certainly, there was a lot of research 
and development to produce that CD, but once that's recouped, the 
rest is

[[Page 23991]]

profit. The penalty should be calculated in terms of costs to 
Microsoft, rather than MSRP.
    3. It penalizes other manufacturers who are in competition for 
the education market. This includes not only companies such as Apple 
in the hardware and software sector, but also the Linux and Unix 
derived operating systems which are starting to make inroads into 
schools as low-cost server platforms for such things as internal web 
site creation and mail services.
    4. If this plan goes through, the government is in effect 
sanctioning a monopoly power to dump products into a market in which 
it is competing. The effect will be to drive out competition and 
make the monopoly stronger, with very little cost to the monopolist.
    These are what I think are the most troubling aspects of the 
offer. I could go on.
    I'll summarize by saying that I think the offer by Microsoft is 
a cynical attempt to further its monopoly in the operating systems 
field, and drive out nascent competition (Linux) in the education 
field in particular. Frankly, I think it is an affront to the 
intelligence of the Department of Justice and the courts if it 
thinks neither can see through such an obvious ploy. In my opinion, 
the correct penalty would be to take the dollar value Microsoft has 
offered to disperse in Microsoft products, and have them disperse it 
in cash to the same schools it is offering to "help". 
The schools can then use the money as they best see fit: Buy 
Microsoft software, buy competing technology, upgrade hardware or 
even spend the money to improve infrastructure unrelated to 
technology. In this way Microsoft is penalized in a manner that is 
fair to it (since it has suggested the dollar amount,) the schools 
are helped, and Microsoft competitors are not penalized.
    Thank you for considering these comments.
    Nick Tamburri
    Clinton, MA



MTC-00001856

From: John Horvatic
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 11:46am
Subject: Microsoft needs to be punished!
    To whom it may concern,
    Please don't settle with Microsoft. They need to be punished and 
what I have read so far is that has not happened yet! There should 
be a huge fine and I'm not talking millions I'm talking BILLIONS!!! 
Put them down for the count not just for the round. What the DOJ has 
done is given them a pinch on the hand and told Microsoft to go 
ahead and do it all over again and we promise not to bother you 
anymore. What kind of punishment is this? Why don't they throw some 
of the executive team in prison. I thought that's what you do with 
criminals isn't it? Please be more aggressive with this case than 
the DOJ and don't let them get away with what they have done and 
continue to do.
    Sincerely,
    John Horvatic



MTC-00001857

From: Boudreau, Dale E
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov',' attorney.general(a)po...
Date: 11/21/01 11:45am
Subject: Settlement proposal...Please use extreme caution...
    As a consumer who is interested in the best economic choice in 
hardware and software, I ask you to use extreme caution and 
diligence in accepting the latest settlement proposal. I admit that 
I do not have all the facts in front of me, so forgive me if my 
assumptions are incorrect. My understanding is that Microsoft, 
should the proposed settlement be accepted, would provide $1Billion 
worth of technology resources to schools in under privileged 
districts. While I fully support the use of the money to benefit 
schools in under privileged communities, I have a significant 
concern about the long term implications and offer, instead, the 
following proposal:
    Proposal
    Before I detail my concerns, I would like to suggest a proposal: 
The department of justice fines Microsoft for the same amount 
proposed (in cash and equivalent software costs), and uses the money 
collected to send grants to the same schools that would benefit from 
the settlement proposal. The schools then choose what hardware and 
software to buy, in a free market transaction. Schools will benefit 
from improved technology, the economy would benefit from a $1Billion 
revenue infusion, and the consumer would benefit from free and 
equitable purchasing decisions.
    Reasoning
    You will probably hear these arguments, but I wanted you to hear 
them from a consumer whose only interested is in a free and 
competitive marketplace. Yes, I am a Macintosh user, but not a 
fanatic. I use them because they are competitively priced and well 
designed, and because their presence in the marketplace gives at 
least a little reason for Microsoft to be concerned in the consumer 
and education market spaces. As most Macintosh users, I am also a 
Windows user. I want the freedom to use the best available tool 
(best from an economic standpoint).
    I will keep it short, but have two key concerns. If Microsoft 
retains significant decision rights or influence over what software 
and hardware solutions are distributed, they will do so to their own 
advantage. This means that they will have strong incentives to 
install Windows based hardware and software solutions, which will 
result in the following:
    1. Microsoft will gain unfair install base in a market that is 
still a Macintosh stronghold
    2. This settlement will give Microsoft brand strength that will 
materially benefit the corporation and its shareholders.
    These two concerns, from an economic standpoint, result in the 
same outcome. Microsoft, as a result of the settlement, will enjoy 
future cash flows and, thus, value as a result of this proposal. The 
proposal is therefore, not punitive, but is actually a good business 
investment. Here's why. Computer hardware and software are, by 
design, a sticky business with high switching costs. Once you have 
invested in a platform, whether Windows, Apple or Unix, it becomes 
very costly to switch. Hardware and software compatibility problems, 
as well as long learning curves, make it costly to change from one 
platform to another. By donating their software to schools, 
Microsoft gets a jump step into a market that is still a stronghold 
for Apple. This will have two effects. First, assuming that some of 
these donated products supplant those of a competitor, Microsoft 
gets their products placed in place of a competitor. Since their 
products have zero marginal cost, Microsoft stands to lose 
substantially less than the $1Billion dollars noted in recent 
articles. Second, vendors of Windows compatible hardware will gain 
install base and market share in the educational space. Should this 
share become significant, tipping effects will cause future 
purchasing decisions to favor Windows-based products by a 
significant margin. As a result, one of the few remaining 
competitive markets in the PC industry becomes a monopoly market. 
Microsoft will also stand to benefit in terms of brand strength. 
They could enjoy significant goodwill resulting from what seems more 
like a 'fair deal' than a punishment, and their products are in the 
hands of potential future consumers. A year from now, no one in 
those schools will remember the law suit, but they will be looking 
at the Windows logo on their computer screens every day.
    From the standpoint of the shareholder, this is not a 
punishment, this is a marketing investment: a one time cash outflow 
that will potentially create a stream of future inflows. It benefits 
Microsoft materially, and hurts its competitors. Isn't this exactly 
what this lawsuit was intended to correct?
    Dale E Boudreau
    "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an 
act, but a habit."_Aristotle
    CC:'webmaster(a)consumer.state.ny.us',' contribute(a)m...



MTC-00001858

From: ausband
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 11:45am
Subject: Microsoft settlement is no good
    Dear Sirs,
    I am writing you today to express my dissatisfaction with the 
settlement arrangement that the DOJ has struck with Microsoft. The 
DOJ Seems to have received a short memory along with a new Attorney 
General and new President, otherwise is would remember that MS has 
violated the intent of those agreements it has made with the DOJ in 
the past. MS has also lied to the DOJ, the Courts and the Public 
before and when caught never even bothered to apologize for doing 
so. As a computer professional I have some recommendations for what 
would be an appropriate solution for dealing with MS in a manner 
that will dissuade MS from behaving in the same manner again.
    1. Open source all their Operating Systems but only the OS's, 
allow them to maintain ownership and collect licensing fees as long 
as it does not violate the next section.
    2. Forfeit all MS patents and copyrights to technologies that MS 
either, bought after driving the pervious owner of those

[[Page 23992]]

technologies out of competitiveness or that MS developed based on 
another companies technology but that been has changed enough of so 
that MS can win an intellectual property court fight(activeX).
    3. Forbid Direct bundling of other software with MS operating 
systems, the default install of an OS must not contain software 
other then core system resources, other software such as web 
browsers, DV editing , Digital picture interface and email can be on 
the same CD but may not be part of the default install.
    These solutions will prevent MS from further their exploiting 
their monopoly, punish MS for past transgressions against others, 
and promote new and innovative solutions, software that can be 
written with compatibility to a level that only other MS 
applications have been in the past, in my opinion. All this would 
result in more and better solutions for consumers in an environment 
where companies can be truly competitive.
    William L. Ausband
    21 Wright Rd.
    Wethersfield Ct 06109



MTC-00001859

From: quasimoto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 11:59am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Just another example of the real meaning of the terms 
"free market" and "justice" in 
America_wealthy corporations are given the former and can buy 
the latter.
    I use GNU/Linux and support the Free Software Foundation. This 
message was composed and transmitted using free software, licensed 
under the General Public License.



MTC-00001860

From: John Liston
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/21/01 11:55am
Subject: Comments on U.S. v. Microsoft Proposed Final Judgment
    November 21, 2001
    To the United States Department of Justice:
    I thank you for the opportunity to comment on the U.S. v. 
Microsoft Proposed Final Judgment. I am motiviated to write because 
I am angry about the Proposed Final Judgment. I believe the court 
should reject the judgment because it is weak, fraught with 
loopholes for Microsoft to exploit, and is solely forward-looking. 
That being said, I believe the court should use the terms of the 
judgment as part of an interim remedy as it seeks to impose a final 
remedy.
    I speak as one who owns a small software development company and 
who has observed Microsoft and the software industry for over 20 
years. I believe that the point to any settlement with Microsoft is 
both to punish Microsoft for its past misdeeds and to impose 
restrictions that will level the competitive playing field. I 
believe the Proposed Final Judgment does neither of these.
    Regarding the past: Microsoft has been convicted twice of using 
its monopoly in desktop operating systems to achieve dominance in 
other areas. I believe Microsoft's wrongdoing goes far beyond what 
it has been convicted of, and has greatly harmed both the software 
industry and consumers. I believe the best measure of the harm 
Microsoft has done is the $36 billion cash it now has banked, which 
in a truly competitive environment would be $0. Microsoft pockets 
better than 90 percent of software industry profits, and its cash 
reserves increase by $1 billion each month. I believe to restore a 
competitive environment, any settlement should fine Microsoft $36 
billion now, plus $1 billion per month until Microsoft is found to 
be in full compliance with a harsher final judgment. Microsoft has 
ignored consent decrees in the past, leading us to the current 
anticompetitive situation, and cannot be trusted to comply with any 
behavioral remedy. The only remedy Microsoft will respond to is 
judicial force, and I think that begins with the serious fines I 
suggest. Microsoft is capable of paying these fines with cash on 
hand, so it cannot possibly harm current operations. The money 
should be distributed to the 50 states in proportion to their 2000 
population. I think of this as Microsoft's payment of punitive 
damages for past behavior.
    Microsoft's prior convictions were based on two specific 
anticompetitive practices that I believe require additional and more 
specific remedies. First was the anticompetitive bundling of 
Internet Explorer with the Windows operating systems, harming 
Netscape Communications. Second was Microsoft's proven intent to 
"embrace, extend and extinguish" the Java programming 
language, harming Sun Microsystems. I believe the punitive damage 
payments do not cover the direct harm done to the competitive 
environment and consumers by these specific actions.
    The issue with bundling Internet Explorer is essentially the 
question the question of "what is an operating system?" 
Microsoft insists that an operating system is whatever Microsoft 
decides it is, so it can bundle anything it wants. I think that 
there is little to be gained from arguing with Microsoft on this 
issue. Let Microsoft bundle whatever it wants in the operating 
system. I believe the issue to consumers is not what is in the 
operating system. Instead, the issue is whether the OS is supported 
and works correctly. I believe that Microsoft's continuing monopoly 
in desktop operating systems is remedied in part by requiring a 
lengthy period of OS support. Were there a competitive environment, 
the duration of OS support would be determined competitively. But 
Microsoft holds a monopoly, so I think the court must impose a 
reasonable OS support period. Doing so will would prevent Microsoft 
churning customers by rapid OS obsolescence. I believe Microsoft 
must be required to support each OS revision, including all bundled 
software, for not less than seven years. This support must include 
fixing bugs and offering these fixes in maintenance releases at no 
cost to consumers, since Microsoft can charge what it wants for the 
OS up front. As further consumer protection, Microsoft must be 
required not to bundle enhancements with its operating system bug 
fixes. And to ensure the Internet Explorer OS component "works 
correctly", it must be required to fully support any W3C 
Internet standard it implements. That support can be monitored 
through conformance tests by the W3C itself, at Microsoft's expense, 
and Microsoft must be required to withhold any OS release when 
Internet Explorer does not fully conform with W3C standards. Note 
that this does not prevent Microsoft from innovating.
    Regarding the direct harm Microsoft did to Netscape 
Communications: I don't think you can redress this because Netscape 
has since been bought by AOL and portions spun off. All I think you 
can do is make sure Microsoft cannot use its Internet Explorer 
browser monopoly to impose its own standards on the Internet, and I 
think the requirement to conform to W3C standards does that.
    As for the harm done to Sun Microsystems and the Java language, 
Microsoft's intent was to use the control it has over an extensive 
developer network to cause them to write "polluted" Java 
applications that work only on Windows. In doing so, it violated its 
license agreement with Sun. Microsoft has since settled with Sun, 
but nothing has undone the harm Microsoft did to consumers. To 
remedy this, Microsoft must be required to deliver Sun's latest Java 
Virtual Machine as part of the Windows OS, and to distribute JVM bug 
fixes under the same standards as it distributes its own Windows OS 
bug fixes.
    Regarding the future, I think the Proposed Final Judgment begins 
to right the wrongs of Microsoft's current business practices, but 
it does not go far enough to create a level competitive playing 
field. I would seek to eliminate loopholes in the terms of the 
Proposed Final Judgment, and strengthen their enforcement, and I 
propose three additional terms.
    First, Microsoft must be forced to publish the Office file 
formats. Microsoft has historically changed its Office file formats 
on a regular basis simply to cause users to upgrade Office 
regularly. Publishing the Office file formats will cause Microsoft 
to compete based on the merits of the Office software, and not 
merely bank on "network effects" and users' inability to 
migrate their documents to competing office productivity products.
    Second, Microsoft should be required to divest itself of its 
programming language products and to no longer compete in 
programming language development. Microsoft's language products are 
closely tied to the Windows operating systems, so divesting 
Microsoft of the languages business has a leveling effect on the 
marketplace. It will cause Microsoft to publish the Windows 
operating system APIs fully and fairly. It will force Microsoft to 
use the same language compilers as the rest of the industry, 
eliminating the incentive to create undocumented APIs. Also, the 
separate languages business will be subject to competitive forces, 
and may decide to offer the programming language products on other 
operating systems. Eliminating language products should not affect 
current Microsoft profitability, and proceeds of the sale should go 
to registered users of the affected products.
    Third, Microsoft should be prevented from purchasing 
technologies or technology

[[Page 23993]]

companies for a period of five years. Microsoft claims to be an 
innovator, and fights fiercely for its right to innovate. Truth is, 
most Microsoft innovation has come from copying the products of much 
smaller companies and then out-marketing them, or from purchasing 
such companies outright and subsuming their innovations. I think 
that preventing the purchase of companies and technologies for five 
years will force Microsoft to innovate in its own right in order to 
maintain a competitive market position. This will enable the birth 
of new Microsoft competitors.
    I hope you will give my comments some thought. I think they 
comprise a much fairer remedy for Microsoft's past predatory 
practices, and provide an effective constraint on future behavior. I 
also think they do not call for a major oversight effort and its 
expense, which I think is a great weakness of the Proposed Final 
Judgment. Finally, I believe the court must immediately impose 
interim conduct restrictions and monetary penalties until there is a 
final conclusion of this case.
    Sincerely,
    John Liston
    3520 Nichols Rd.
    Medina, OH 44256



MTC-00001861

From: Bryan thurnau
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/0111:53am
Subject: Not stiff enough penalty
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I feel that the terms of the Microsoft agreement are not harsh 
enough. It might also turn out to be benefitial to the company. 
Currently one of their competitors has the largest share of the 
education market (Apple Computers) and if Microsoft is allowed to 
put up to a billion dollars worth of hardware, software and training 
then this may severely hurt Apple. These terms should be 
reconsidered and only allow the company to give one billion in cast 
for computer purchases. If the schools decided to choose a wintel 
based system then good for Microsoft.
    As you can see if Microsoft is allowed to go ahead with the 
aggred upon terms then they are just using their corporate muscle 
against another competitor. Please consider this and any other 
similar issue when deciding the fate of Microsoft.
    Thank you
    Bryan Thurnau



MTC-00001862

From: Sklar Instruments
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/0112:13pm
Subject: Anti Trust settlement
    It is very disheartning that the government is letting Microsoft 
off so easily after their very questionable business practices. 
Hopefully the American people will find out who is being paid off in 
this case and then be able to take care of them.



MTC-00001863

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/0112:03pm
Subject: Proposed settlement.
    The proposed settlement in the Microsoft case seems to be 
nothing more than a marketing ploy by the company. The one area 
where they do not have a stranglehold on computing is the education 
market. The proposal seems to be nothing more than an attempt to win 
more of this market. By issuing free software which presumably runs 
on Wintel machines, the only real competitor (Apple computers) will 
see a further erosion of their market share.
    Microsoft should be forced to pay cash ONLY, to schools and to 
the businesses which have been hurt by their abuse of the monopoly 
position which they old.
    Sincerely,
    Andrea Furby



MTC-00001864

From: Jay Hipps
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/0112:02pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft Anti-Trust Action
    To whom it may concern:
    As someone who has used computers for over 20 years, I feel 
compelled to write regarding the current legal action against 
Microsoft.
    First of all, I think some perspective is needed. The computer 
industry is, in many ways, an outgrowth of the scientific community. 
The scientific community has long operated on a particular set of 
standards and ethics which are designed to allow humanity's 
knowledge, as a body of information, to grow as quickly as possible. 
Discoveries are shared so that a breakthrough in one area might 
encourage a similar increase in knowledge in another.
    Computer science once worked in the same way. Computer 
languages, usually developed by universities, were published openly, 
as were enhancements to these languages made by others. These Open 
Standards allowed the entire field of computer science to move 
forward, adding new innovations to past knowledge.
    Admittedly, the industry has changed greatly. In some ways, it 
is a natural maturation_the field is exponentially larger than 
it was 30 years ago and the market as it exists today is much 
different, after the personal computer revolution put machines into 
most of the homes in America. It is only natural that companies with 
commercial products will guard their new innovations more carefully 
than in the days when computers were limited to an academic and 
research environment. Surely there can be no objection to this by 
anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the laws of economy 
and business that currently exist in both the U.S. and much of the 
world.
    However, some holdovers from the days of scientific research 
remain, and it is here that I take issue with Microsoft. Open 
Standards are still an important part of the worldwide community of 
computer manufacturers and software developers.
    A great example of this is the World Wide Web. The WWW operates 
primarily on "hypertext markup language," a way of 
encoding text and other information for viewing on the Internet. 
HTML's Open Standards are overseen by a non-profit governing body 
(the World Wide Web Consortium or W3C) which maintains the standard. 
(There are many similar examples of Open Standards_Apple 
Computer created what they call Firewire, a data communications 
standard now recognized by the IEEE_another standards 
body_as IEEE 1394. Sony uses it, too, and calls it iLink.)
    These Open Standards still play an important role in the 
computing community. They are the common ground shared by all 
computer users and are the lifeblood of the industry. This cannot be 
stated too strongly_without Open Standards, the advancement of 
computer technology will become the sole domain of the largest 
companies already in the field. There is no true innovation without 
Open Standards.
    Unfortunately, Microsoft has attempted to take advantage of the 
fairness and equal opportunity of the Open Standards model. They 
have repeatedly used Open Standards in their products and then, 
deviously, revised the implementation of these standards slightly, 
usually while they are claiming to "increase 
functionality" or "innovate." Due to their 
omnipresence in the marketplace, the bastardized Microsoft version 
of the standard quickly subverts the existing standard, which then 
allows the company to further extend their monopoly_after the 
buying public discovers that Microsoft competitors' products don't 
work properly with the new Microsoft "standard."
    I will let others with more technical knowledge than me 
enumerate Microsoft's uses of this strategy. I am familiar with a 
few_the "enhancements" they made to HTML in order 
to strengthen the market share of Internet Explorer comes to mind 
immediately_but I am a writer and not a technologist.
    I will say, however, that I find the company's business 
practices extremely distasteful and I recommend exploring the full 
range of penalties to them, in order that they should cease their 
anticompetitive practices.
    Regards,
    Jay Hipps
    Vallejo, California



MTC-00001865

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 12:00pm
Subject: settlement
    It's time to move on!! Microsoft has done more to benefit the 
software industry and America than any other company. If it made a 
profit in the meantime, that's the American way. Free enterprise.



MTC-00001866

From: Ken
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 12:26pm
Subject: Anti-Trust Settlement
    The proposed settlement between the Justice Department and 
Microsoft is weak, will not stop future abuses, and does not protect 
consumers. This settlement favors Microsoft to such a degree that it 
would appear that Microsoft's donations to the Republican party and 
the Bush presidential campaign were a quid pro quo, and this

[[Page 23994]]

directly affected the course of the Justice Department in settling 
the case. As a consumer, I find it incredible that the defendant in 
this case has gotten so much influence regarding the nature of the 
punishment. This is not justice and it's not a remedy for proven 
anti-trust violations.
    The settlement does not address unfair advantages Microsoft has 
gained using illegal behavior. Companies have been destroyed, not 
though fair competition, but rather by Microsoft's monopoly tactics 
to maintain and increase their market share. For all practical 
purposes, there is no longer any competition in the browser market. 
Microsoft's competitors have been harmed and many companies 
completely destroyed. The proposed restrictions will not prevent 
further abuses. Just look at the features that Microsoft has 
bundled, or in some cases excluded, in its new Windows XP just 
released in October of 2001. It was proven in the anti-trust trial 
that Microsoft attempted to coerce, bully, and illegally obtain and 
maintain a monopoly with multimedia application technology to the 
detriment of Real Media, Apple Computer, and others. They include 
their own multimedia player and exclude other similar products from 
other companies. By removing support and making it difficult for 
consumers to add competing products that are often superior to 
Microsoft's bundled products, consumers have been harmed. They have 
removed support for Java from Windows XP which will disrupt e-
commerce and Java based applications delivered over the Internet. 
This has harmed Sun and other companies that have invested heavily 
in Java based technology that Microsoft considers a threat to their 
monopoly. Microsoft has "modified" their version of 
another technology, JavaScript, the programming language for Web 
browsers. These changes to Microsoft's implementation of JavaScript 
are intended to hijack the previous JavaScript standard and make it 
their own. As a result, only Microsoft Web browsers will handle this 
new standard properly. The examples go on and on. Consumers have 
been and continue to be harmed. The proposed 3 member panel that 
will oversee Microsoft will likely be biased in favor of Microsoft, 
or at the very least, not fair in protecting consumers. With one 
member chosen by Microsoft, one chosen by the Justice Department, 
and the third chosen by these two members, the judgment of the panel 
will be questionable. With their oversight activities done in secret 
and their salaries paid by Microsoft, it looks like the fix was in 
and Microsoft won.
    Ken Goff
    422 5th Street SE
    Watertown, SD 57201
    (605) 882-1917



MTC-00001867

From: Emtopia204 Unlimited
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft/DOJ Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Greetings. I am writing to express my deep concern about the 
current situation regarding the Microsoft-DOJ settlement. It is my 
considered opinion that there is nothing punitive about the USDOJ 
settlement agreement. Rather, it smacks of complacent collusion. Far 
from dissuading Microsoft from its predatory business tactics, this 
action is tantamount to handing this enormous company an opportunity 
to further entrench its stifling monopoly.
    I urge you to carefully consider the consequences of the USDOJ 
settlement agreement. I would hope that the lawsuit against 
Microsoft be renewed with maximum resolution and vigor, and that 
this company be made to pay the proper penalty for its cynical, 
dishonest and harshly anticompetitive policies. I believe that if 
this action to curb Microsoft's recklessly expansionist tendencies 
is to have any meaning, the punishment must one commensurate with 
the company's sheer size and influential power. The DOJ settlement, 
as it stands, is not even a love tap, but an indulgent pat on the 
head. Please ensure that the authorities in this case have the 
boldness and courage to take every measure in seeking justice 
against a firm that I feel has tragically become a rogue beast set 
loose in the marketplace.
    In closing, thank you for your time and consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Max MacDonald
    Toronto, Canada
    416.462.9434



MTC-00001868

From: Bosboom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am shocked by the recent news regarding the Microsoft 
settlement. Instead of punishing Microsoft for their monopoly 
strategy you are giving them a green light to basically kick Apple 
Computer out of the education market by donating an astronomical 
amount of money in Microsoft products to this industry, thus giving 
Microsoft a go ahead to continue to do business as usual. I'm sorry 
but this goes beyond my comprehension. You are playing Microsoft1s 
cards by making them an offer like this.
    To my humble opinion they should be punished not by putting more 
of their product into the market, especially such a sensitive market 
like education, but by giving them a punishment that is appropriate. 
If you want Microsoft to donate zillions of dollars, let them do 
that to a neutral institution like food for 3rd world countries or 
something in that order.
    What impression do you give Microsoft (and others like them) 
here? If you monopolize the market by unfair means of business we 
will reward you by allowing you to do more business and even kill 
some competition on the way?! By putting more Microsoft products out 
there you are giving companies like Apple Computer absolutely no 
chance what so ever to sell their product in the education industry, 
hence they start to monopolize that industry as well.
    A concerned Dutch citizen.
    With kind regards,
    Thomas Bosboom



MTC-00001869

From: John Cook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 12:42pm
Subject: Disguested at settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am disgusted to read about the Microsoft Antitrust settlement. 
Such a settlement encourages anti-competitive practices for 
businesses world-wide, because the benefits can be seen to far 
outway the punishments to be. An example must be set, and action 
should be taken on two fronts. Microsoft must repay society for the 
tremendous harm it has done to industy and computer-using society to 
date. Secondly, action must be taken to discorage similar practices 
from occurring in the future.
    The only real way to action this second problem requires 
separating Microsoft into two companies: Applications, and Software. 
How else can other software companies (or other operating system 
companies) compete on an equal basis?
    On a specific note, allowing MS to supply schools with its 
software is probably the best marketing program it could conceive. 
We already know how important seeding software into school 
students_managers of the future_is, evidenced by the 
substantial computer software discounts already given to students. 
But why would schools bother buying competitors' software if it is 
now provided with free software from MS? And the cost to MS? 
Development costs are fixed. How much does it cost to distribute an 
extra N-thousand copies? Further more, when MS fund other school 
programs to you imagine they will teach using Word Perfect on a 
Macintosh? Not a chance on earth. This is no punishment, this is 
marketing budget well spent.
    I urge you to strongly reconsider this settlement. It is not 
just America that has been disadvantaged and harmed by the actions 
of Microsoft, it is the world, and now it is likely to continue to 
be so.
    Sincerly,
    John Cook (computer programmer)
    John Cook
    [email protected]
    3/58 Carr Street
    Coogee NSW 2034
    Australia



MTC-00001870

From: Andre De Wolf
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/21/01 12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sir or Madam,
    I am very disappointed with the USDOJ settlement agreement with 
Microsoft. The proposed conduct remedy is in my opinion 
inappropriate and inadequate. There is no punishment for the 
unlawful actions of this company; I feel that the settlement is 
merely a slap on the wrist, and there is nothing in the decision 
that will prevent this company to continue with their business as 
usual. The company has no incentive to take the new conduct 
restrictions any more seriously than the old ones. After all, after 
the 1995 consent decree in which Microsoft agreed not to tie 
application software to the operating system, they did just that 
with MS Internet Explorer.

[[Page 23995]]

    I am now also very concerned about the settlement regarding the 
private suits. Microsoft is proposing to donate $1 billion in 
computers, software, training, and cash to settle private antitrust 
suits. Again, this is a slap on the wrist for this company with cash 
reserves of approximately $32 billion. At least a large part of 
these cash reserves is the result of illegal, anti-competitive, 
monopolistic actions by Microsoft. Returning only a small part of 
this illegally obtained money is incomprehensible to me. Also, the 
real cost to Microsoft of software bought by the schools is a 
fraction of what these schools will be charged; this will 
automatically reduce the total amount of Microsoft's donation.
    More importantly, and very ironically, this settlement would 
even enhance the monopoly position of this company, by introducing 
more of its software into schools, an area where there has been 
traditionally more competition (e.g., from Apple) than in other 
areas. Matthew Szulik, CEO of Red Hat, stated that "We do not 
think that the remedy should be a mechanism by which Microsoft can 
further extend its monopoly;" I totally agree with this 
statement. I do not expect a public statement by Apple regarding 
this proposed settlement: Apple still needs Microsoft very much 
because of the importance of Office for Mac, and therefore it cannot 
afford to publicly criticize Microsoft.
    Although it is very obvious that this deal could be beneficial 
for the schools involved, it inappropriately benefits Microsoft in 
too many ways. This deal is in no way curtailing Microsoft's power, 
which should be the goal of dealing with a monopolistic company. 
What is totally unacceptable is in the details of this agreement. 
Although the schools could use the donated money in any way they 
would want, it includes a statement that those using Microsoft-
compatible computers would receive more free software than others... 
Obviously this is a strong incentive for schools to purchase 
computers with the Windows operating system with the donated money.
    In my opinion, the proposed donation by Microsoft would only be 
acceptable if the donated money could ONLY be used to buy equipment 
and software that is NOT made by Microsoft (for example, PCs with 
Linux, or Apple computers). In addition, Microsoft should not even 
be allowed to donate software to these schools that received 
donations; donation of Microsoft software again is an incentive for 
the schools to purchase computers compatible with or running 
Microsoft Windows. These modifications and restrictions in the 
proposed donation by Microsoft would actually reduce the monopoly 
position of this company, which should be the goal of any 
settlement, and it would benefit companies that have suffered from 
the illegal practices by Microsoft. This donation should only be 
part of a settlement; other punishments, restrictions, and actions 
are still very necessary in order to prevent Microsoft from 
continuing to illegally abuse its monopoly position.
    I hope that the nine states that are still pursuing tougher 
sanctions against Microsoft do not give in as easily as the USDOJ, 
and will be looking for an appropriate punishment of the company 
that used illegal means to further improve its monopoly position. I 
also hope that the remaining states will include provisions to 
stimulate more and fair competition in the computer business.
    It would be very ironic if the "punishment" for 
unlawfully using a monopoly position would be to allow Microsoft to 
further strengthen its stranglehold on the computer industry.
    Sincerely,
    Andre De Wolf, MD
    Professor of Anesthesiology
    Northwestern University Medical School
    Chicago
    Private address:
    2381 Legends Court
    Riverwoods IL 60015
    _
    Andre De Wolf, MD
    Department of Anesthesiology
    Northwestern University
    Chicago, Illinois
    [email protected]



MTC-00001871

From: monk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 12:31pm
Subject: settlement
    to whom it may concern,
    i wish to protest the proposed settlement in the strongest 
possible terms. this amounts to a minor penalty for a major 
infraction.
    sincerely,
    richard hordinski
    po box 6352
    cincinnati,oh
    45206



MTC-00001872

From: Robert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Victory Ripoff
    Hello,
    I'm very perplexed today after reading in the business section 
of the San Francisco Cronicle about Microsoft's punishment being 
reduced to supplying free computers to poor schools. It mentions 
that Microsoft would supply the software free too.
    Um... If it's Office XP and Windows XP, which is what is already 
shipping, then the present cost for the schools is moot. Microsoft's 
activation scheme and plan for regular "rental" charges 
for use of their software, which has been widely publisized by them, 
means in the end the poor schools will be paying Microsoft more 
money than Microsoft will loose by giving them free software and 
computers. Secondly, it locks out anyone else from trying to sell to 
poor schools, such as Linux and Apple. Oh, and did I mention the 
fact that Microsoft gets a tax write off for this? What is going on?
    This kind of deal only puts more money into Microsft's pocket 
and expands their market share by giving them a stronger hold on one 
of the few markets that still has competition_education.
    Please defenend our California schools from this all-devouring 
beast!!!
    Sincerely,
    Robert Biggs



MTC-00001873

From: Sean Stevens V.2.0
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/21/01 12:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    do not settle. this will just repeat in 5 years again. I have 
personally seen people loose their jobs at a startup company because 
microsoft was working on a similar, unrelated to Windows, 
technology. they gave up because they knew they could not compete 
with microsoft, because they can bundle whatever they want with 
their OS for free, and make it difficult for other companies to get 
their products to work.
    _Sean Stevens, Brookline, MA.



MTC-00001874

From: Steven Reed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 12:44pm
Subject: antitrust
    Microsoft is hindering the competiveness and quality of the 
computer industry. Since they have no real competition, they 
continue to make buggy software that requires continous upgrades and 
support. They do not pay attention to security issues since everyone 
has to buy their garbage software anyways. Companies and citisens 
are being backed into a corner with no way out. Our nation's entire 
information structure is at risk. please break up microsoft into 
three companies so that each will have to stand upon their own 
products rather than expecting and forcing individuals to to buy 
into the microsoft lie.
    Steven D. Reed
    72 Elm Court
    Kennesaw, GA 30152
    [email protected]
    770-590-0725 Home Phone & some internet use



MTC-00001875

From: Nick Moudakis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 12:53pm
Subject: Lost Faith in Justice System
    To whom it may concern,
    I feel compelled to write this letter to vent my frustrations 
regarding the Microsoft Anti-trust trial/remediation. I feel that if 
a stricter, more punishing remedy is not laid down against MS, they 
will continue to break the law well into the future. I find it 
laughable that a company can be found guilty of breaking the law, 
yet, will get off with what I percieve to be punishment that in no 
way will alter their behavior in the future. Why waste the money on 
discovery of criminal behavior if in essence we are not going to do 
anything about it. No company in the history of the world ( to this 
point ), has used misinformation, monopoly power, false advertising, 
false endorsements, and coersion to get what they want as vehemently 
as MS. It must be curtailed somewhere, they must be forced to play 
fair. The time to hand down an effective, long lasting remedy is 
now. If this is not done, will we be doing this all over again in 5 
years. I seem to recall that they were found guilty of similar 
charges in

[[Page 23996]]

the mid nineties, and that due to the weakness in the punishment, 
they basically were able to disregard completely the recommended 
practices that they had agreed to follow. Basically, left to 
themselves, they will continue to do whatever they want to whoever 
they want. As a side note, it appears that they are trying to settle 
their ongoing private anti-trust law suits by way of monetary/
software/hardware donations to needy schools. How altruistic. Lets 
see, we broke the law, we will give away what for us is really quite 
a small amount of money, and increase our marketshare and our public 
perception at the same time, yup, that will ceratainly make us think 
twice about all the bad things we have done in the past. It is a 
joke. Please don't let the governments case against MS turn into a 
joke as well. It is extremely disheartening when a company becomes 
more powerful than the Justice system of the United States of 
America.
    Nick Moudakis
    552 Seth Place
    Castle Rock, CO 80104



MTC-00001876

From: Yarger, Ned
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/21/01 12:51pm
    i think this settlement only helps to strengthen microsoft's 
position to become the sole source supplier of software, etc to the 
public. it seems to be an endorsement for microsoft to continue 
giving away its products to eliminate competition, and to continue 
its undisciplined business practices. it is another example of the 
eroding judicial process.



MTC-00001877

From: John Springer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 1:01pm
Subject: Settlement must prevent extending the monopoly
    The MS settlement needs to prevent them from extending their 
monopoly on the OS into other areas, specifically the Internet.
    Specifically, they should not be allowed to incorporate 
proprietary internet communication protocols into Windows, thereby 
putting technology onto everyone's desktop that no-one but Microsoft 
can interface to. The "Passport" program is a perfect 
example. New technologies built into Windows must have published 
open interface standards, so other companies can build on them. I do 
not believe the current agreement provides for that.



MTC-00001878

From: Erik Snyder
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/21/01 12:59pm
Subject: No deals
    Hello,
    I would like to express my outrage about the outcome of the 
anti-trust case against Microsoft. I believe that they need to be 
dealt with in a much harsher way. If the current decisions are the 
example of how this is to be handled they are not going to solve 
anything. Microsoft has thumbed its proverbial nose at the United 
States Department of Justice by choosing to perform more extreme 
versions of its anti-trust behaviour with the release of the Windows 
XP operating system. They have done the same thing that they did 
with the Internet Explorer browser software and Windows '98, just 
with a much larger variety of software this time. This company needs 
to be stopped from doing anything like this again and they should 
not be allowed to decide their own fate. Their choices will cement 
their stronghold in the market more than they have already 
entrenched themselves. Please, make the right decision and do not 
let these injustices continue.
    Thank You,
    Erik Snyder
    4316 W Henderson St
    Chicago, IL 60641



MTC-00001879

From: Anthony Tribby
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/21/01 12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft's monopoly also hurts non-customers
    One point I have yet to hear raised in the entire discourse 
related to this case is how Microsoft's monopoly mindset even hurts 
people who use none of it's products. My company has servers running 
on Mac OS X and straight Unix, with no MS machines or server 
software running anywhere. Yet, we have periodically experience huge 
perfomance drops on our servers when email viruses have surfaced 
that exploit well-known security holes in MS's software, as our 
servers will be deluged with thousands of requests for access to 
ports that would be vulnerable on an MS server. Even though these 
requests are otherwise harmless to our machines, just the processor 
time eaten up by rejecting them can be a drag on performance.
    While Microsoft might say blame for this should all be laid on 
the heads of the "hackers", I feel that MS has been 
negligent in releasing such horribly flawed software in the first 
place, and doubly so in taking a very passive stance in making their 
customers aware of the problems and (only some of the time) methods 
for addressing them. If a car owner can be successfully held 
negligent for damages caused by a car theif because he left keys in 
a running car, I think clearly MS is being negligent by releasing 
such easily-exploitable software.
    This negligence is compounded by the fact that MS's near-
monopoly standing in the computer market makes it difficult for 
those who might prefer to move to another platform, which in turn 
puts less pressure on MS to actually fix the problems, or to make 
sure all their customers are aware of the need to fix them.
    a.t.tribby
    CC:Microsoft 
ATR,[email protected]@inet...



MTC-00001880

From: Raphael DiLuzio
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected] 
@inetgw,attorney....
Date: 11/21/01 12:53pm
Subject: help stop monolopy
    If you are interested please pass this on
From: Christian Loweth
Date: Saturday, November 17th 2001
To: [email protected]
Subject: Grassroots effort against Microsoft settlement growing
    Hi,
    I posted the following on several forums last week as well as 
many Users Groups and the response has been encouraging. Please feel 
free to share this info among friends/colleagues if you wish. Should 
Microsoft receive harsher penalties?
    I am very disappointed with the Feds settlement. Fortunately 
nine states' AG's agree with me. I have sent the following to the 
states' AG's dissatisfied with the terms of the USDOJ settlement 
agreement. "It seems to me that Microsoft has indulged in not 
only anti-trust violations but racketeering as well. Is this a 
possible avenue of approaching their abuses"
    As you can see, my position well exceeds current prosecution 
parameters. Even if you don't agree with my extreme position, but 
desire more vigorous prosecution, I urge you to write to the 
Attorneys General to inform them of your support. You don't have to 
reside in these states to write them. Write to all of them if you 
wish. The Attorneys General exist to provide services to their 
constituency. I believe that for the most part they take this 
responsibility very seriously. They want to get the bad guys. It is 
my opinion that Microsoft, Gates, Ballmer, et al, are the bad guys.
    Below are the email addresses of the nine states Attorneys 
General dedicated to continuing with more stringent anti-trust 
prosecution. Included is USDOJ address to express your displeasure 
to the Feds. For international readers I have included a link to a 
USDOJ website listing other countries who are undertaking anti-trust 
action.
    Please include your name and address. This contributes to your 
authenticity. They may want to send you a snail mail confirmation. 
Please put it in your own words.
    A formulation was made years ago by various entities like 
newspapers, magazines, politicians, and such.
    They figured that for every person who bothered to write to them 
represented X amount of people who didn't take the time and effort 
to write but shared similar opinions. X can equal anywhere from one 
thousand to ten thousand depending the specific circumstances of the 
recipient. So, as you can see, the simple act of writing can have a 
multiplier effect.
    That's why your single contribution is so important.
    If you agree that Microsoft has gotten off too lightly, I plead 
with you to take a few minutes, write to the Attorneys General and 
make your opinions known. When we're all using Microsoft Windows at 
least you'll be able to console yourself by knowing that you at 
least tried to resist Microsoft hegemony.
    This is the time to strike. They believe that they have 
hornswoggled a sweet deal. Their guard is down, if just a bit. This 
is far from over.
    California: [email protected]
    Connecticut: [email protected]
    Florida: [email protected]
    Iowa: [email protected]

[[Page 23997]]

    Kansas: [email protected]
    Massachusetts: [email protected]
    Minnesota: [email protected]
    Utah: [email protected]
    West Virginia: [email protected]
    US Dept of Justice-Microsoft anti-trust comments: 
[email protected]
    US Dept of Justice-other sites worldwide: http://www.usdoj.gov/
atr/contact/otheratr.htm
    This is a real opportunity for those of us who want more 
stringent prosecution. Before, Microsoft had only to have one team 
of lawyers to deal with the Feds. Now, their efforts will be diluted 
by virtue of having to confront nine different government entities. 
The time to express your opinion is now. Together we can have a 
positive impact on the future of computing if only we take the time 
to express our opinions to those who hold the public trust.
    Best regards,
    Christian Loweth
    New Port Richey FL
    Raphael A Di luzio
    Professor of New Media
    University of Maine
    New Program
    5713 Chadbourne Hall RM 410
    Orono, ME 04469-5713
    w 207.581.4425
    c 207.745.7025
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    "my kung fu is better then your kung fu"
    -ancient wang chung master



MTC-00001881

From: verbonrt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 1:06pm
Subject: MSFT
    The Fed. Gov't should back that wolf pack of 
lawyers_professors_envious corporations and 
"media" right out of DODGE and let MSFT and the rest of 
Amer. get on with its fair and competitive ways.
    Russ & Jacque Verbon
    Enumclaw, WA



MTC-00001882

From: V.S. Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 1:05pm
Subject: outrageous
    so you're 'punishing' microsoft by 
'making' them give poor schools Windows, Microsoft 
software and Windows PCs? you're not settling a legal case, you're 
handing the fox the keys to the henhouse. i can't think of anything 
you could do that would further erode the market share of 
microsoft's competitors and provide microsoft a larger monopoly. you 
guys are IDIOTS!!!!!!! and we're sick of it......
    VSMoore
    Seattle, WA
    "Be bold and noble forces will aid you"_Goethe



MTC-00001883

From: Patrick O'Grady
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 1:04pm
Subject: I firmly oppose the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust case.
    Hello:
    I am extremely upset about the current state of the Microsoft 
anti-trust case. As a computing industry professional and business 
owner, my eyes and heart are very close to what happens here. I am 
ashamed that our government, our department of 
"Justice," feels that the current settlement provides 
any kind of remedy. It is not a remedy. In fact, it's an insult. 
I'll count the ways.
    For over twenty years, Microsoft has successfully persued a 
policy which destroys it's competition. Companies such as Borland, 
Lotus, and Novell produced products which were vastly superior in 
terms of quality, stability, and usability. But Microsoft's wildcard 
is their ability to change their operating system. This is 
specifically used to create compatibility problems with competing 
products. Imagine you have a car: it's like changing the size of a 
bolt so your competition has to buy a new set of wrenches. The 
ensuing user frustration always works in Microsoft's favor, and the 
result is a switch to more Microsoft products. It's interesting how 
in recent cases (Microsoft Word), they create this compatibility 
problem with older versions of their own products_forcing 
users to pay the money to upgrade. This would not be the case if 
there was at least one truly viable competitor in the marketplace.
    They have no accountability, and they take advantage of that. 
We're all familiar with the ways in which Windows needs to be 
rebooted frequently. Of the six computers I have at home, five are 
various flavors of non-Microsoft operating systems, and excluding 
power fluctuations and physical moving of the equipment, none have 
required rebooting in the past year. This is proof that a 
considerably higher quality metric is achievable. I really wish that 
I could use one of these OS's on my laptop. But because Microsoft 
has destroyed the competition in Word processors, I'm unable to get 
away from their operating system. Quality metrics are frequently 
compared with the quality of automobiles or perscription drugs. 
While the scope of the application is different,



MTC-00001884

From: david ailes
To: Microsoft ATR,attorney.general 
@po.state.ct.us@inet...
Date: 11/21/01 1:23pm
Subject: MSoft
    I am particularly dissatisfied with the settlement that the 
courts have made with Microsoft.
    I would hope that you will exercise your full authority to see 
that the monopoly and anti trust actions of Microsoft are not only 
eliminated, but adequate punishment is enforced, and future similar 
actions are prohibited and enforced.
    David Ailes
    200 Carolina Av.
    Winter Park, FL 32789



MTC-00001886

From: KenMendoza
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 1:20pm
Subject: How fair is this really?
    To who it may concern,
    It is beyond doubt that Microsoft has been judged to have 
systematically employed monopolistic and unfair business practices. 
By playing our legal system like a virtuoso, it has avoided any real 
harm to its core businesses and in fact has proven that it is better 
to break this law and pay what ever small price in order to gain 
momentum and market share. Microsoft is unchallenged and there is no 
end in sight. Now Microsoft is going to be "giving" 
Windows XP to 12,000 of the nations's poorest schools. What a great 
ploy. Now these 12,000 schools will depend on Microsoft upgrades as 
well as train hundreds of thousands of future Microsoft consumers. 
Let's face it. Microsoft has won and owns us all. Please have the 
decency to stand up and add an asterisk to this sad chapter in 
American history.
    Sincerely,
    Ken Mendoza
    408-585-3903
    160 Towne Terrace #5
    Los Gatos, Ca 95032



MTC-00001887

From: Jed Haile
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/21/01 1:19 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorneys General and Department of Justice Officials,
    I have spent a large amount of time studying the proposed 
settlement for the Microsoft antitrust trial and I must express my 
extreme displeasure with the settlement.
    Both the initial trial verdict and the appeals verdict upheld 
the fact that Microsoft is a monopoly that has illegally used it's 
monopoly power to deny other companies a chance to compete, and to 
control the flow of technology. Microsoft official were evasive and 
borderline to committing perjury in their testimony during the 
antitrust trial. Microsoft willfully disregarded the terms of their 
1995 consent decree. What reason does any of us have to believe that 
Microsoft will honor the letter or the spirit of the proposed 
settlement? There are no strong enforcement clauses in the 
settlement, and there are enough exemptions and loopholes to make it 
entirely unclear what the settlement even restricts or enforces.
    When the 18 states and the Department of Justice began this 
antitrust action against Microsoft the goal was to establish that 
Microsoft had illegally exercised monopoly power and to obtain 
punishment for that crime and to insure that Microsoft would no 
longer be able to commit further crimes of this nature. The proposed 
settlement does none of these things. Nowhere is there any 
punishment for Microsoft's breach of law, and the settlement 
contains enough exemptions and exclusions to leave Microsoft a broad 
lattitude to operate how it pleases.
    The settlement is hopelessly biased in Microsoft's favor and I 
believe that Microsoft's past behavior warrants extreme reason to 
believe that Microsoft has no intention of honoring this settlement. 
Microsoft has never acknowledged their guilt, Microsoft has never 
accepted responsibility for their crimes, and Microsoft

[[Page 23998]]

will certainly never agree to sign a settlement that limits their 
ability to continue to operate as they accustomed. The only option 
is to have punishment and corrective measures IMPOSED on Microsoft. 
I urge the Department of Justice, the State Attorney Generals, and 
the Judge officiating over this trial to reject this proposed 
settlement. A great amount of time, money and effort have gone into 
establishing that Microsoft did indeed violate the law, and this 
settlement does nothing to justify that great effort.
    With all respect,
    Jed Haile
    290 E 13th St
    Idaho Falls, Id. 83404
    Phone: (208)522-4518



MTC-00001888

From: cwilliambloom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 1:17pm
Subject: Settlement
    Microsoft has agreed to settle their case in a most reasonable 
way and the addition of their offer to low income children for 
computer and software, is more than fair. It is about time that the 
federal government stop spending money on harassing this first-class 
company and use the saved money to better use of the funds.
    C. W. Bloomfield and F. E. Bloomfield



MTC-00001889

From: Robert J. Sharp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 1:25pm
Subject: employment
    I believe if we are going to sell our natural resources (BP 
AMOCO) and allow Netscape and AOL to merge and McDonnell Douglas and 
Boeing then I believe the government is wasting my money. Which is 
really bad since after 17 years with Boeing (MDC) I will be laid off 
this January 25, 2002. If the government want something to do then 
help me feed my family.
    Best Regards,
    Robert J. Sharp
    Principal Engineer
    Structures 747/Mod.
    The Boeing Company
    316-523-0202



MTC-00001892

From: Rick Sanchez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 1:25pm
Subject: Displeasure with Microsoft Settlement
    As a user of Microsoft products and an active computer product 
consumer, I was incredibly disappointed by the anemic settlement 
that was reached with Microsoft. While I think a break up might not 
have been the answer, clearly Microsoft is an unrepentant monopolist 
and the sanctions as outlined will do little if anything to curb 
their tactics.
    I'm writing to say that I strongly support the pursuit of 
harsher sanctions against Microsoft. Anything that fails to address 
the Microsoft tactic of "adding functionality" to 
Windows and killing competition in that market is too weak and anti-
consumer.
    Thank you for your time.
    Rick Sanchez
    2000 Brewster Ave.
    Redwood City, CA 94062



MTC-00001897

From: Rodney Ankeny
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 1:26pm
Subject: Can we start getting our priorities straight?
    This suit against Microsoft should be laid to rest as soon as 
possible. It should have never been brought in the first place. The 
Justice Department needs to stay out of private squabbles. I 
vehemently object to public tax dollars being spent by the Justice 
Department so they can be the private attorneys for companies that 
have more than enough money to afford their own. The Justice Dept. 
was led around by the nose by a group of people who made obscene 
amounts of money that they didn't earn in the Netscape stock run up, 
and that in itself is a travesty of Justice. If the actions of the 
Justice Dept. had been successful, we would now be paying 
significantly more for software we are getting for free. How can the 
Justice Department claim to bring a suit against a major corporation 
in the name of protecting the consumer, and the principal complaint 
is that the company was giving its software away free, instead of 
overcharging like the companies whose dirty work you were doing? How 
can you claim to promote competitiveness and innovation, when you 
organize a lynch mob to squash it? And lets see, the Justice Dept. 
has plenty of money to hurt the consumer, but when asked to deal 
with a serious and harmful illegal alien problem in Florida (which 
directly led to the events of Sept. 11) the pathetic excuse is that 
we don't have the money or resources. Here's a suggestion for you: 
CHASE CRIMINALS, NOT CITIZENS. I am beyond disgusted with this.



MTC-00001899

From: Doug Birling
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/21/01 1:29pm
Subject: Anti-Trust Case
    I am writing this letter to express me feelings about the 
Microsoft case. Over the years I have heard of a number of great 
products that were to be developed, only to be either bought or 
challenged by Microsoft. The future for us looks no better as 
Micorsoft wants to control our living rooms with Direct TV, and the 
XBox gaming system. It is still unknown how evil their "Dot-
Net" services will become, but Microsoft has proven time and 
time again that they cannot be trusted.
    I have read several articles which state that Microsoft will 
settle with the US. I have also read a recent article stating that 
as part of settlement talks that Microsoft as a 
"Penalty" will pay a billion dollars to pay for school 
computers. At first this seems like a strong penalty, but this too 
plays into Microsoft's hand. I'm sure they would love to give out a 
bunch of copies of windows, knowing full well that they can in the 
future charge upgrade fees. The number of computers will also add to 
the Monopoly that they already have. Students will be forced to use 
windows and their parents might decide "Since the computers at 
school are Windows, we'll get that at home!" This would just 
add to the problem. Please consider all sides when enforcing a 
penalty.
    I as an American have the right to choose; If I want to use a 
computer or not, and if so, what type, what programs. If those 
choices are dictated to me, then that's not right and something 
should be done about it.
    Doug Birling, Milwaukee WI, USA.



MTC-00001900

From: Jay Olson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 1:27pm
Subject: The Microsoft hegemony
    The recent settlement for Microsoft which includes the 
contribution of one billion dollars worth of software, services, and 
cash to the 12,500 poorest schools in the nation is a paradox. As 
you know, MS is on trial for anti-competitive practices. Well, 
punishing MS by forcing them to further inundate the educational 
community with MS software and services is, in itself, an anti-
competitive practice. So the punishment for MS is to force them to 
further indulge in their crime? As you know, forcing them to 
distribute their software and services will only make those 
recipient schools dependent on MS in the future, while increasing 
the market penetration and mind share of Microsoft products. Perhaps 
you could force them to buy iMacs for those schools and provide a 
lifetime free license of MS Office on each of those iMacs, now that 
would be poetic justice. It would force MS to support the 
competition in the OS arena, while furthering their market 
penetration in the Office arena, but ony by giving away their 
biggest cash cow for free!
    This makes no sense to me, as I understand it makes no sense to 
you. I am writing to encourage you to continue in your efforts to 
reach a fair conclusion to this situation. Let this trial set a 
precedent for the future. Let the rich of the world know that our 
government is not for sale.
    You have my support.
    Jay Olson
    112 Amador
    Watsonville, CA 95076



MTC-00001901

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:18pm
Subject: Red hat settlement better
    I think there are several flaws in Microsofts proposed 
settlement. For one it would greatly increse the monopolistic 
practice by getting there OS in the hands of younger children. It 
would not give the childern the choice that is deserved. Plus the 
Liscences that Microsoft has put on these computers runs ouyt in 5 
years forcing the schools to either buy a new liscense, or upgrade 
the computer. That's no punishment, it's a business oppertunity! Red 
Hat's proposal is much better. It put an alternative OS in the 
schools, and Does not run out of a liscense. And most of all the 
real punishment that because microsoft used monopolistic practices, 
the have to provide the hardware for a competetors OS.
    Just my 2 cents,
    Wayne Sitton

[[Page 23999]]



MTC-00001902

From: Clay, John
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/6/01 2:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement is Myopic
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    The DOJ's settlement with Microsoft is myopic, short-changes our 
population including other software companies and business in 
general, and rewards Microsoft for it's monopolistic practices. It 
reminds me of parents who cave in to their children when they (the 
parents) most need to set good examples and demonstrate an 
unwillingness to accept unacceptable behavior. Microsoft management 
must be howling with laughter as a result of the amazing good 
fortune to have the DOJ punishment require them to increase their 
present and future stranglehold on the PC industry by providing free 
software to an, as yet, under exploited market sector_the same 
software that they would generate regardless of the settlement. 
Astonishing logic.
    It is imperitive that the DOJ send a clear message that 
Microsoft's monopolistic practices will not be tolerated. That 
message needs to include enough real monetary penalties that it is 
unmistakable. It also must not in any way be capable of assisting 
Microsoft, particularly by growing more consumers for their product. 
If Microsoft is to help poorer school districts then it should be in 
the form of direct funding, not an "in kind" donation of 
their product offering.
    John M. Clay
    Tallahassee, FL



MTC-00001903

From: Bob McCormick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 1:51pm
Subject: Please do not accept Microsoft's Private Antitrust 
Settlement Proposal. US Department of Justice
    To Whom it may concern,
    Please do not accept Microsoft's proposal to settle the Privte 
Antitrust lawsuits. This is in no way a punishment to Microsoft but 
would simply extend their monopoly. How would that 
'punish' microsoft? If this were to truly punish 
Microsoft it would be 1 Billion dollars worth of competitors 
hardware and software. The Government's settlement is hardly a slap 
on the wrist. Please do not make it worse by accepting the current 
proposal for settlement of the private antitrust lawsuits.
    At the very least, make them give 1 Billion dollars cash to the 
schools and let them decide how to spend the money. But if this is 
truly to punish Microsoft, make them buy 1 Billion dollars worth of 
hardware and software solely from competing companies. It has been 
judged that they are a Monopoly. Do not extend that monopoly by this 
proposed settlement offer.
    Thank you,
    Bob McCormick
    175 Alice Ave. S.
    Salem, Oregon 97302



MTC-00001904

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I think this case was without merit from the very beginning. 
Unfortunately, those various competitors that Microsoft fought so 
hard against in our free market system and beat, hands down, had no 
other alternative than to have the government try to stop them. Of 
course, they dislike the proposed settlement too. Big surprise!
    Microsoft and the entire technology industry in this country had 
suffered immeasurably and it's time to put this nonsense behind us. 
Stop wasting taxpayer money. Settle the case and get it over with.
    Regards,
    William Kennedy



MTC-00001906

From: Pickney, Micheal
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/21/01 1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Bill Gates said he likes it. Another billionaire well served by 
the Bush justice department.



MTC-00001907

From: Apple
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am shocked by the recent news regarding the Microsoft 
settlement. Instead of punishing Microsoft for their monopoly 
strategy you are giving them a green light to basically kick Apple 
Computer out of the education market by donating an astronomical 
amount of money in Microsoft products to this industry, thus giving 
Microsoft a go ahead to continue to do business as usual. I1m sorry 
but this goes beyond my comprehension. You are playing Microsoft1s 
cards by making them an offer like this.
    To my humble opinion they should be punished not by putting more 
of their product into the market, especially such a sensitive market 
like education, but by giving them a punishment that1s appropriate. 
If you want Microsoft to donate zillions of dollars, let them do 
that to a neutral institution like food for 3rd world countries or 
something in that order.
    What impression do you give Microsoft (and others like them) 
here? If you monopolize the market by unfair means of business we 
will reward you by allowing you to do more business and even kill 
some competition on the way?! By putting more Microsoft products out 
there you are giving companies like Apple Computer absolutely no 
chance what so ever to sell their product in the education industry, 
hence they start to monopolize that industry as well.
    A concerned Dutch citizen of Belgium.
    With kind regards,
    Van De Vyver Dirk.
    Winkelstraat 22
    9060 Zelzate
    Belgium
    Email: [email protected]
    CC:microsoftcomments @doj.ca.gov 
@inetgw,attorney.gener...



MTC-00001908

From: Dennis Brake
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/21/01 2:18pm
Subject: Micro$oft
    Now I'm really scared. Mocro$oft has become more powerful than 
the US Government! This whole process has made me think about how I 
make a living. I should have become a thief. I could steal millions 
of dollars, get caught, go on trial, and agree to pay $10 in fines.
    Dennis Brake



MTC-00001909

From: Little
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 2:14pm
Subject: Settlement for real.
    Dear Sir:
    After reading about the "settlement", I am truly 
shocked. Forcing Microsoft to push their technology (i.e. Market 
freely) to all of the student in the under privileged schools is not 
fair to those who compete in that market. This can almost be seen as 
a long term investment for Microsoft, not a penalty. The correct 
answer is that Microsoft pays out cash to the schools. This money 
should be ear-tagged for technology and training. This will allow 
the market place and the schools to decide what technologies they 
choose to use.
    In the big picture 500 mil is not very much. This is the amount 
of money that was "lent" to KPMG Peat Marwick my 
Microsoft durring the late 90's. The monies were be used to rebuild 
the KPMG infrastructure using exclusively Microsoft products and 
technology. This was part of an arm-twisting deal that made KPMG to 
drop their use of technologies from Apple, Netscape and
    Novell.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Lee Little III



MTC-00001910

From: Jay D. Jester
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 2:01pm
Subject: Proper Settlement
    DOJ Staff,
    As a lifetime Republican, I have to say that I disagree with 
your disicion to settle with MS. By not forcing MS to either open 
the OS to all developers and users, or split the company in some 
manner that levels the application developers world, you have 
limited the number of companies that will invest in new application 
development.
    MS has for too long kept many OS 'hooks' private to 
the own developers. With the new habit of adding applications to the 
OS, it will make stand alone development more difficult since they 
can hide even more from outside developers.
    How long will it be before MS Office is part of the OS? MS does 
not drive the tech economy, their products are tools, just like hard 
drives, CPU's, and RAM. They should be treated no different.
    Thank You,
    Jay Jester
    [email protected]



MTC-00001911

From: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 24000]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 2:22pm
Subject: Anti-trust settlement
    As further evidence that you must not allow this settlement to 
go forward you only need to look to the anti-trust settlement 
announced yesterday.
    "[11:15 AM CST] Microsoft Scores Another Major Settlement 
In Its Favor, & One That Might Hurt Apple's Education Sales by 
Bryan Chaffin at MacObserver
    ...From a Forbes.com report:
    The proposed settlement will pay for teacher training, technical 
support, refurbished computers and copies of Microsoft's most 
popular software, such as Windows and Office, at more than 12,500 
schools, Microsoft said. Microsoft admits no wrongdoing in the 
settlement, as is standard in agreements of this kind. The company 
said it will take a pretax charge of about $550 million in the 
current quarter ending Dec. 31 to cover the proposed settlement. 
After taxes, the company expects to incur a charge of about $375 
million, or between 6 cents and 7 cents per share.
    ...From a TheStreet.com report:
    "Under this settlement, they're giving away their 
software, which has zero marginal cost for them, and putting it in 
poor schools that never would have bought it anyway," says Ed 
Black, head of the Computer & Communications Industry 
Association, an anti-Microsoft trade group. "They're like the 
guy on the street that's got people watching the pea in the pod: 
Microsoft's got everyone watching, but they just put the pea in 
their pocket and walked to the bank."
    "It's not a punishment, it's a reward," says Eugene 
Crew, an antitrust attorney at Townsend & Townsend & Crew in 
San Francisco who has been working on the California portion of 
suits. He says that his firm was taken aback by the proposed 
settlement, which it first read about in media reports Tuesday 
morning. He says he'll ask U.S. District Court Judge J. Frederick 
Motz not to accept the proposed settlement during a hearing set for 
next Tuesday, or at least release his clients from being covered by 
it."
    It's obvious that monopolistic actions can be used as tactics 
and that the US Dept. of Justice can be used as an ad hoc sales 
force. I'm hoping that I might be able to come up with a way to get 
them to force Hollywood studios to cast me in their movies ro TV 
shows. It'd make my job as an actor so much easier.



MTC-00001912

From: Art Isbell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 2:22pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft settlement
    The proposed settlement of class-action claims of price-gouging 
by Microsoft wreaks of yet another Microsoft marketing scam that 
will further Microsoft's incursion into the education market, one of 
the few markets that Microsoft's only small computer systems 
competitor, Apple Computer, has a foothold. This will likely 
exacerbate Microsoft's monopoly which is the underlying problem that 
resulted in the class-action claims in the first place.
    Beneficiaries of this settlement proposal, poor schools, will 
then be saddled with computer systems and software whose cost of 
ownership is known to be higher than that of Apple computer systems 
and software. These schools are the least able to afford these 
unnecessary expenses.
    Many school systems already have Apple computers, so delivering 
incompatible computers and software to these schools will result in 
additional expenses and hardships.
    Microsoft values its settlement based on the retail price of its 
software whereas the incremental cost of the software it proposes to 
deliver will be almost nothing. So in punitive terms, this 
settlement is not fair.
    A much more reasonable settlement would be grants of $1.1B cash 
made by Microsoft to the 14,000 poorest school districts with these 
grants earmarked to buy computers and software. This would allow the 
school districts to determine the best computers and software for 
their particular situations.
    I urge you to reject the proposed settlement as it stands.
    Art Isbell
    1350 Ala Moana Blvd. #1408
    Honolulu, HI 96814-4211



MTC-00001913

From: Daniel M. Dreifus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 2:21pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please reconsider allowing Microsoft to donate millions of 
dollars of sofware to schools, and instead have them donate cash for 
computer purposes so they may have the option to purchase 
competitive systems and software, such as Apple or even Linux.
    Commercial Resource Management
    Daniel M. Dreifus
    Toll free: 888 716-0672
    Fax: 805 584-8348
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00001914

From: CEP
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    Greetings,
    I'm an individual that learned about the DOJ email concerning 
the Microsoft case from Wired News. I believe that a lot have 
already been said. However, for some reasons that I guess, I seen 
all the recent actions that have been taken by the DOJ and the 
states involved in the case and I believe that the decisions taken 
are barely helping the great values and principles that the court of 
the United States are defending.
    Microsoft commercial practices not only shows that they endanger 
the world economy but worse our own culture. For years Microsoft has 
forged a name not on his technological advances or breakthroughs but 
mostly on the way it feeds his business from major sources like the 
innovations of his competitors and its future competitors (i.e. by 
hiring and swallowing brilliant students from universities). The 
pattern followed by the development of Microsoft business clearly 
shows that this company aims a cultural hegemony that she'll be 
capable to change or sell as she pleased if we let it follow it's 
course. It will severely harm the world economy and, most of all, 
greatly endanger what constitutes it's soul part, the wealth of 
human values that rules visibly and silently our balance.
    I deplore that some great minds cannot see the harm that has 
been done not only economically but at every level of human 
activity. I believe that the price we will all pay for such 
commercial practices will far exceed what our most brilliant minds 
can calculate.
    I do not wish to sink Microsoft for the fun of it or to defend a 
cause. This company and his leader are a great asset in every way. I 
just believe other ways exist to compete sanely with others without 
excluding totally the others and endangering the processus of 
innovation.
    1) The splitting of Microsoft is not a necessity.
    2) Letting Microsoft go away that easily without making major 
changes in it's commercial practice will help the economy in short 
terms but will be only report a danger that will increase in time.
    Saving money now, spending more later ?
    3) Microsoft must sell a strip down version of his OS Windows 
and facilitate (not divulgate) immediately it's source code. It 
should propose a new way to share codes that could not impede the 
competition. It should work in a way that could stimulate the 
competition instead of microsofting it.
    4) The "almost" deal with the U.S., I believe that 
the U.S. government didn't had the gut to finish the job. Worse 
because of that attitude, Microsoft signed another deal (software to 
the poor U.S. schools) that will increase is power in a way that 
justified is bringing to justice in the first place. Do you think 
that Microsoft should help more than the U.S. poorest schools ? 
Don't you think that he has done harm only in the U.S. ?
    5) This court of justice & the U.S. has a great deal of 
responsabilities on it's shoulders not only for the sake of the U.S. 
rights but for the principles and values on which they build there 
national order and greatly influenced the world.
    By sending you my comments, I have done my civic contribution.
    Charles-Etienne Paquin
    [email protected]



MTC-00001915

From: j m
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 2:26pm
Subject: proposed MS private antitrust settlement
    This e-mail is in regard to the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft private antitrust lawsuits, as mentioned in the 11/20/01 
Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/
businesstechnology/134368881_microsoft20w.html) I find it more 
than a bit ironic that Michael Hausfeld feels the best way to settle 
these private antitrust lawsuits against Microsoft is to seed 
"the nation's poorest schools" with Microsoft products, 
thus exposing students to (some might say forcing the students to 
use) the very software that is considered so ubiquitous as to be a 
monopoly.
    To me, that is analogous to punishing the tobacco companies by 
forcing them to give

[[Page 24001]]

away their products to children too young to know the difference. 
While I admit that is overstating the health repercussions, I don't 
think it is overstating the financial ones. A more original, and 
effective, solution would be to force Microsoft to donate $1 billion 
in Apple hardware and software, or better yet open source software 
such as Linux. Then again, since open source software is free, that 
would cost Microsoft nothing but the minds and pocketbooks of the 
next generation.
    I can only hope that this proposed settlement is discarded by 
the Justice Department and/or judge on the case.
    Jason Miller
    12341 25th Ave NE
    Seattle, WA 98125
    day: (206) 850-4144
    eve: (206) 363-4192 Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer 
at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp



MTC-00001916

From: Van De Vyver Dirk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 2:23pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am shocked by the recent news regarding the Microsoft 
settlement. Instead of punishing Microsoft for their monopoly 
strategy you are giving them a green light to basically kick Apple 
Computer out of the education market by donating an astronomical 
amount of money in Microsoft products to this industry, thus giving 
Microsoft a go ahead to continue to do business as usual. I1m sorry 
but this goes beyond my comprehension. You are playing Microsoft1s 
cards by making them an offer like this.
    To my humble opinion they should be punished not by putting more 
of their product into the market, especially such a sensitive market 
like education, but by giving them a punishment that1s appropriate. 
If you want Microsoft to donate zillions of dollars, let them do 
that to a neutral institution like food for 3rd world countries or 
something in that order.
    What impression do you give Microsoft (and others like them) 
here? If you monopolize the market by unfair means of business we 
will reward you by allowing you to do more business and even kill 
some competition on the way?! By putting more Microsoft products out 
there you are giving companies like Apple Computer absolutely no 
chance what so ever to sell their product in the education industry, 
hence they start to monopolize that industry as well.
    A concerned Dutch citizen of Belgium.
    With kind regards,
    Slos Marijke.
    Winkelstraat 22
    9060 Zelzate
    Belgium
    Email: [email protected]
    CC:microsoftcomments @doj.ca.gov 
@inetgw,attorney.gener...



MTC-00001917

From: Gregory
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 2:43pm
Subject: Red Hat alternative in Microsoft settlement
    I think an escrow fund set up to help schools_funded by 
Microsoft_ administered by someone else_and allow 
institutions that are ``need'' to buy whatever they feel they 
need_not just Windows or Microsoft products, which doesn1t 
really hurt or punish Microsoft.
    Gregory Youngs
    Fairfield, Iowa Red Hat proposes alternative in Microsoft 
settlement 
    By TODD R. WEISS (November 21, 2001) 
    After Microsoft Corp. announced a proposed settlement yesterday 
to resolve a class-action lawsuit against it (see story) , upstart 
Linux vendor Red Hat Inc. came up with an alternative deal that it 
says would more fairly punish Microsoft for its monopolistic 
practices.
    In its announcement , Red Hat said Microsoft should be required 
to settle the cases by distributing rival Red Hat Linux software to 
thousands of schools across the nation, instead of deepening its 
hold on the schools by distributing more of its own software.
    Matthew Szulik, president and CEO of Research Triangle Park, 
N.C.-based Red Hat, said his company raised the idea because 
Microsoft's offer_to give computers and its software to more 
than 14,000 of the nation's poorest schools_doesn't really 
punish Microsoft for its past practices.
    Instead, he said, the Microsoft approach would simply give the 
software giant a wider reach in the nation's schools. 
"Microsoft should not be rewarded for their monopolistic 
practices," Szulik said.
    Rick Miller, a spokesman for Microsoft, had no comment today on 
Red Hat's counterproposal but said any additional software donations 
to the schools from Red Hat would be welcome through an independent 
foundation being proposed under the settlement.
    The software giant announced its offer yesterday, less than 
three weeks after reaching a deal in its antitrust battle against 
the U.S. Department of Justice and nine states (see story) . Though 
the company signed an agreement to settle the lawsuits under these 
terms, the proposal must be approved at a hearing Tuesday in the 
U.S. Federal District Court of Maryland, which is overseeing the 
case.
    The lawsuits alleged that Microsoft used its Windows desktop 
operating system monopoly to force users to pay inflated prices for 
the company's other software. Critics of the company's proposal 
quickly called it too light in doling out punishment for the alleged 
infractions.
    Red Hat officials said the company's cheaper open-source Linux 
operating system could bring technology upgrades to far more 
students and schools than Microsoft's more costly software.
    Szulik said the court asked yesterday for public comment on the 
Microsoft proposal, adding that his company's alternative idea would 
be far more serious punishment for Microsoft. "My hope is that 
they at least know there is an alternative out there" for a 
settlement, he said. "The judge can make a decision knowing he 
has multiple options."
    Asked if he thinks his company's counterproposal has any chance 
of succeeding, Szulik said, "It would have been worse if we 
didn't do anything. If we don't do it, who else is going to?"
    Instead of supplying Microsoft software and using that as a 
considerable amount of the value of the deal, Microsoft could use 
that money instead to purchase additional computer hardware for the 
schools, according to Red Hat, increasing the number of purchased 
computers from 200,000 to more than 1 million.
    Under the alternative plan, Red Hat would provide free copies of 
its Linux operating system, office applications and other software, 
as well as online support, to any U.S. school system. The Microsoft 
proposal covers a five-year period, while the Red Hat proposal has 
no time limit.
    Al Gillen, an analyst at IDC in Framingham, Mass., called Red 
Hat's proposal "a creative solution" that would more 
severely punish Microsoft by making it spend more out-of-pocket 
money for hardware, instead of being able to include its own 
software at non-discounted prices as a large part of the settlement 
value.
    But, he added, it's not likely to get any support from 
Microsoft. It's a "turf war," Gillen said, with 
Microsoft trying to make inroads in an important market segment by 
using the settlement to increase its software use in the schools, 
where students will get used to it and be influenced to buy it on 
their own for home use.
    "Knowing the position, the posture, that Microsoft has 
regarding Linux and open-source software in general, there's zero 
chance that Microsoft will [on its own] do anything with open-source 
software," Gillen said. "They view that as competition, 
as they should."
    Copyright (C) 2001 Computerworld Inc. All rights reserved. 
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without 
express written permission of Computerworld Inc. is prohibited. 
Computerworld and Computerworld.com and the respective logos are 
trademarks of International Data Group Inc.



MTC-00001918

From: ANDRAR
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 2:41pm
Subject: Fair settlement;
    I think they reached a fairly settlement between microsoft and 
the goverment.
    It's about time to settle this because the consumer is the one 
getting hurt.



MTC-00001919

From: hmkachline
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 2:38pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement comments
    While I realize that since September 11th you have a great deal 
more to do than to fight illegal business practices, I hope that you 
will consider the following in your settlement agreement with 
Microsoft:
_Have a few people who know something about computers and CS 
to watch the

[[Page 24002]]

company. It is my opinion that if they built cars, the result would 
be closer to a Yugo than a Lincoln.
_Microsoft, like all companies, needs to make a profit. This 
cannot come from selling blue sky. If you look at their TV 
advertising for XP, blue sky appears to be exactly what they're 
pushing. I cannot say that anyone wants to go to a mall where every 
store is run by the same company. In my opinion, that is exactly 
what Microsoft has attempted to do in the software industry. With 
their recent incursions into the PC market and the game and set-top 
box market, it is apparent that Microsoft desires to control more 
than software.
_Read the licensing restrictions. If Microsoft made 
refrigerators with ligatures like this, would you buy one?
_I read that part of the agreement, according to Reuters at 
 is that Microsoft is "to provide free 
software and computers to more than 14,000 of the poorest U.S. 
schools over five years," While this may seem at face value to 
be the equivalent of a community service sentence, in my opinion, 
the sentence is on the schools who get the "free" 
software and computers, because a_the settlement appears to 
rule out the choice of non-Windows based systems, such as Apple and 
UNIX. b_Who is going to pay for support and upkeep? The 
"poor school districts? With what source of income? If the 
poor schools have to hire IT people to fix what breaks_and 
something will break_the computer will hardly be 
"free". On a broken computer, free software is useless. 
Unless provision is made for warranty service for a reasonable 
period of time, the students and the poor school districts will 
suffer, even though Microsoft will have followed DOJ stipulations.
    Thank you for providing an address for comments.
    Harry M. Kachline
    Anchorage, Alaska _
    
    "When you come to a fork in the road, take 
it."_Yogi Berra



MTC-00001920

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 3:20pm
Subject: I am so pleased that this case is close to settlement.
    I am so pleased that this case is close to a final settlement. 
It will be good for the country.... ss@Peace ... P
    Ed of Aberdeen
    [email protected]
    http://hometown.aol.com/EdAberdeen/index.h 
tml



MTC-00001921

From: Atlas Int'l
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/21/01 2:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
    Dear Attorney General:
    I feel Microsoft should receive a much harsher penalty for their 
antitrust actions. The verdicts have been returned. But, the 
sentence is more a blessing in thinly veiled disguise.
    If the feds are intimidated by Microsoft, I urge the state 
attornies general not to be. If double jeopardy prevents further 
action on the antitrust case, I feel racketeering may be another 
avenue worth pursuing. This corporation is a criminal entity and 
must be punished. Please continue your efforts against this actively 
growing monopoly. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any 
questions regarding my position on Microsoft and their business 
tactics.
    Sincerely,
    Bob Holkan
    8109 Otium Way
    Antelope, CA 95843
    (916) 712-7348



MTC-00001923

From: Doug Clark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 2:46pm
Subject: unfair Microsoft settlement
    Dear Ms. Renata Hesse. As a consumer of software products, I am 
dissatisfied with the Microsoft settlement proposed my the 
Department of Justice. My main concern is not with the remedies. In 
fact the provision that PC manufacturers can install dual boot start 
up programs and install multi operating systems is exactly what the 
market needs to promote competition. But I have great concerns about 
the oversight process. Having Justice Department personnel on site 
at Microsoft offices does NOT guarantee that MS will not water down 
their restrictions, nor pressure manufacturers and software makers 
through verbal, "off the record" agreements. I am also 
opposed to MS's request to give away its programs to school 
districts. This only further extends their monopoly. I believe that 
stronger enforcement measures are needed to prevent MS from 
repeating their past predatory business practices. Thank you for 
your time and consideration. Sincerely, Douglas Clark, Austin, Texas



MTC-00001924

From: Andrew Harris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 3:31pm
Subject: NO DEAL FOR MICROSOFT!!



MTC-00001925

From: Han Klomps
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 3:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it concerns,
    I am shocked by the recent news regarding the Microsoft 
settlement. Instead of punishing Microsoft for their monopoly 
strategy you are giving them a green light to basically kick Apple 
Computer out of the education market by donating an astronomical 
amount of money in Microsoft products to this industry, thus giving 
Microsoft a go ahead to continue to do business as usual. I1m sorry 
but this goes beyond my comprehension. You are playing Microsoft1s 
cards by making them an offer like this.
    To my humble opinion they should be punished not by putting more 
of their product into the market, especially such a sensitive market 
like education, but by giving them a punishment that1s appropriate. 
If you want Microsoft to donate zillions of dollars, let them do 
that to a neutral institution like food for 3rd world countries or 
something in that order. What impression do you give Microsoft (and 
others like them) here? If you monopolize the market by unfair means 
of business we will reward you by allowing you to do more business 
and even kill some competition on the way?! By putting more 
Microsoft products out there you are giving companies like Apple 
Computer absolutely no chance what so ever to sell their product in 
the education industry, hence they start to monopolize that industry 
as well.
    A concerned Dutch citizen.
    With kind regards,
    Han Klomps
    Lupine-oord 41
    3991 VH Houten
    The Netherlands
    email: [email protected]
    telefoon: (+31) 30-6352390
    gsm: (+31) 6-53535915
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00001926

From: steve harley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 3:22pm
Subject: comments for the record
    please note my comments for the record on the pending settlement 
of the Microsoft anti-trust suit. the Justice Department is not 
representing my interests with this proposed settlement.
    i prefer a settlement which promotes consumer choice and quality 
software. the proposed settlement does not do that; it does not 
significantly alter the conditions that Microsoft has illegally 
exploited.
    if this settlement takes effect, i believe Microsoft will again 
take illegal action in the market because when the penalties are so 
light, Microsoft can make more money up front than it will lose 
during the next protracted litigation cycle.
    please don't make breaking the law profitable for Microsoft.
    thank you
    steve harley
    101 w. archer pl.
    denver CO 80223
    303-777-6475
    [email protected]



MTC-00001927

From: Phillip Ross
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 3:31pm
Subject: Anti trust
    Should Microsoft receive harsher penalties? I am very 
disappointed with the DOJ's settlement. Fortunately nine states' 
AG's agree with me. It seems to me that Microsoft has indulged in 
not only anti-trust violations but racketeering as well. An abuse of 
power on the part of Microsoft (MS) that was not addressed in the 
trial was that MS has effectively eliminated a consumers ability to 
choose an alternative operating system when ordering a PC from an 
Original Equipment Manufactures (OEM's). (Dell, et all)

[[Page 24003]]

    I believe that MS, in a premeditated fashion, used their 
Monopoly powers to ensure that the Windows OS would be the only 
operating system that would be accessible to a consumer when they 
turned on their computer and because of this they have stifled 
innovation in the marketplace and harmed the consumer by denying 
them the choice of an alternative product. Let me describe how MS 
may have illegally achieved their position in the market.
    MS successfully stifled competition in the marketplace by not 
allowing OEM's (as per contract) to ship a computer that presented a 
choice of operating systems to the consumer when that computer was 
turned on. This choice of operating systems could have been provided 
by the OEM without any cost to MS for the install.
    Microsoft blocked consumer choice by pressuring OEM's into 
signing contracts that obliged them to ship Windows only computers. 
If they refused the OEM faced the threat of losing the right to ship 
any MS product.
    This type of practice by Microsoft will continue (if not in this 
form another) unless the monopoly known as Microsoft is either 
broken up into separate units or another remedy that I an not clever 
enough to devise is formulated that allows fair competition in the 
industry.
    As you can see, my position well exceeds current prosecution 
parameters. Even if you don't agree with my extreme position, but 
desire more vigorous prosecution, I urge you to pre sue this line of 
inquiry. The browser is not the issue the operating system is.
    I believe that the DOJ takes the responsibility of this matter 
very seriously. This is why I urge the DOJ to expand the scope of 
this case or start a new one that specifically addresses this 
problem.
    Good luck.
    Phillip M Ross
    4554 NE Alberta Ct.
    Portland, Oregon 97218



MTC-00001928

From: ROBERT ROH
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 4:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Payment to Schools
    It seems only fair that non-public schools should not be 
excluded from the list of the 'nation's poorest 
schools." Many non-public schools are not private elitist 
schools but are deeply involved in serving the poor.
    The non-public school of which I am the superintendent is in 
rural Nebraska, a depressed area with 33 % of our students on free 
and reduced lunch. The average per household income in Richardson 
County is barely over $23,300.
    Respectfully,
    Rev. Robert A. Roh
    Sacred Heart School
    1820 Fulton Street
    Falls City, NE 68355-2234
    402-245-3002



MTC-00001929

From: Kathi Wong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 4:04pm
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement
    PLEASE don't let Microsoft get away with merely donating 
computers and software to needy schools. This is so cynical it's 
pathetic. I saw right through it right away when I heard about it, 
and I'm not exactly a rocket scientist. It's a way for Microsoft to 
get a foothold in schools where they already have WAY too much 
influence. Microsoft is attempting to settle an antitrust lawsuit by 
committing antitrust actions. How incredible is that? Let them 
donate the financial EQUIVALENT of those computers and software and 
allow the school districts to buy what they need most, including 
other types of computers and software.
    Kathi Wong,(865)379-1832, [email protected]



MTC-00001930

From: warren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi. I am a California citizen, and I am writing you to let you 
know how outrageous the Microsoft "Settlement" is to 
myself and my peers. As part of the settlement, they 
'have' to provide schools with free software? If they 
did this on their own volition, they would be charged with unfair 
market practice. How can other software companies, who are already 
struggling against the huge Microsoft corporation, compete with free 
software?
    This decision is basically giving Microsoft the government 
sanctioned option to wipe out whatever competition they now have in 
the education market.
    It fails me to see how this can be considered a punishment.
    I sincerely hope that the Justice Dept does NOT accept the terms 
of this insulting settlement.
    Thank-you for your time.
    Warren Friedman
    12 Mariele Dr
    Fairfax, Ca 94930



MTC-00001931

From: gary miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 3:53pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement is inadequate
    I am greatly disappointed that the Dept of Justice has not put 
adequate restraints on the behavior of Microsoft, and accepted a 
very weak settlement that does not protect the interests of the 
American public. I hope the DOJ will give very close scrutiny to 
current and future behavior by Microsoft.
    I am particularly concerned over the provision in the settlement 
agreement that requires Microsoft to divulge Windows APIs only to 
competitors that Microsoft determines have a "valid" 
business plan. Whether intended or not, one effect of this provision 
is to handicap the "open source" movement in ever 
inventing a rival technology that could work well enough with 
Windows to threaten Microsoft's own monopoly.
    Open source has hatched such technologies as the Linux OS and 
the latest incarnations of Netscape. Yet in their earliest stages, 
open source technologies rarely have a profitable business plan at 
all, so Microsoft need not tell them how to make their applications 
run to best advantage on a Windows machine. Small wonder future 
Netscapes will appear clumsier than Explorer. Without API 
disclosure, Microsoft's possibly inferior technologies come out of 
the gate with a prejudicial ability to integrate more smoothly with 
the Windows OS, and users will be discouraged from even trying 
alternative technologies. This element in the federal settlement 
nips a good portion of future competition in the bud. At the very 
minimum, a settlement should require Microsoft to sell an 
"unbundled" operating system with fully disclosed APIs, 
so that any third party could write an analog to, for example, the 
Passport technology, that could work as well with Windows as 
Microsoft's version.
    I personally find Microsoft's past behavior so 
egregious_and so much unchanged even after the upheld findings 
of monopoly practices_that I hope the nonconsenting state 
attorneys general and the EU pursue substantial damages, and, 
especially, injunctions now against any future such behavior by 
Microsoft. Surely without suitable injunctions, while damage 
proceedings drag on Microsoft will only further entrench its current 
monopoly and extend it to such growing sectors of the American 
economy as e-commerce and internet computing. Microsoft's ongoing 
behavior together with its de facto omnipresence on the nation's 
computer desktops easily threatens to extend its monopolistic 
practices into new arenas, resulting in higher OS costs to every 
user and stifling new competitors in ever more fields.
    Microsoft's continued march to subsume new technologies (instant 
messaging, media players, etc, and ABOVE ALL e-commerce in its 
infancy) into Windows XP, its retention of the right to revert all 
OEM alternative desktop settings to Microsoft's own 14 days after 
purchase, and its continued refusal to admit any past misbehavior 
whatsoever all demonstrate that more drastic remedies are needed, 
and sooner rather than later.
    I only regret that Microsoft carries such influence in my own 
state (Washington) that my own attorney general has not joined in 
the other attorneys' general case.
    Sincerely,
    Gary Miller
    1707 W 9th Ave
    Spokane WA 99204
    PS. I would normally write a "real" letter in hopes 
of carrying more weight than an e-mail message, but understand that 
public safety concerns make email more reliable these days.
    "The greatest obstacle to communication is the presumption 
it has already occurred."



MTC-00001932

From: Ryan Halpin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Inc.
    Stop spending my hard earned tax dollars on a witch hunt. No-
body said Boo or anything to the contrary when Bill Gates started 
Microsoft. Every body wanted to jump on the band wagon then. Now 
that he has become successful and is worth billions,

[[Page 24004]]

keeping Americans employed and pumping billions back into the 
economy, a few want to level the playing field, for fair play???. 
When you guys level the playing field in a lop-side college football 
game then and only then can you start attempting to level the 
playing field in the economic sector. THOSE THAT WORK HARD GET 
REWORDED, THOSE THAT CRY FOUL SHOULD GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD 
AND GET SOME MORE PRACTICE TIME, or come up with something that the 
American public wants to buy...LIKE BILL DID...Get off Bills' case 
and start hounding that other billionaire that's creating so much 
news these days...He's the EVIL ONE....
    Ryan Halpin Billings Montana...



MTC-00001933

From: Matt O' Brien
To: Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov, microsoftcomments(a)d...
Date: 11/21/01 4:09pm
Subject: Against the Microsoft Monopoly
    To the individuals involved in the Microsoft trial:
    I wanted to take a moment to let my feelings known regarding the 
latest decisions with the Microsoft corp.
    I am completely against the business practices of the Microsoft 
corporation and its products.
    The release of Windows XP has shown Microsoft's stance on 
continuing its practices on copying technology, crushing 
competition, and ruling the industry unfairly. The idea that now 
Windows directs the user to certain websites Microsoft wants you to 
visit is infuriating. The fact that XP now has technology that is 
identical to Apple's iTunes, iMovie and QuickTime raises a whole 
host of questions. Microsoft stole from Apple Computer the 
"look and feel" of its OS, and now has done the same 
with it's "media player". Don't any of these issues 
raise red flags?
    The average consumer has no notion of these things, nor that 
it's wrong. The aveage consumer wanders into Best Buy and blubbers 
out, "Uh, duh, I need a computer to go online with..." 
Microsoft takes full advantage of the uninformed consumer and pushes 
its products on with no regard for competition or other software.
    Take for instance, if you have a PC that is running Windows (you 
have NO other choice BUT to run Windows), you HAVE to run 
Microsoft's Internet Explorer software to browse the web.
    What happened to Netscape Navigator?
    This is just ONE of the many many examples of the monopoly 
Microsoft demands.
    Microsoft is clearly throwing money at the problem to get people 
to shut up. I, as a consumer, and not going to stop fighting 
Microsoft. Their technologies are no good. Better products are out 
there and as consumers we are all going to be forced to give 
Microsoft our money for lousy technology. Please, I beg do not drop 
this case with Microsoft because you are tired of fighting. Don't 
let Microsoft just throw money at the problem. "Equipment and 
training" will do no good in breaking the Microsoft monopoly. 
Microsoft wants to train children how to use its products. Not 
anyone elses' but its own. Microsoft is DEDICATED to owning the 
entire computer industry. We CANNOT see this happen. This is 
America; we have freedom to choose here. And if Microsoft does what 
it wants to, we will no longer have freedom to choose. A computer is 
a very personal piece of equipment. Do you want to trust your 
finances and all other personal information to Microsoft??
    I think not.
    If possible, please let me know that you have received this 
email and have heard my voice. I am one of many, many individuals 
who feel strongly against the Microsoft monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    Matt O'Brien
    1110 East Ogden Avenue.
    No. 103
    Milwaukee, WI 53202



MTC-00001934

From: Renee Murray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 4:08pm
Subject: Settlement with Microsoft_BAD IDEA
    I am very displeased with the proposed DOJ settlement with 
Microsoft. In addition this week we learn that Microsoft has 
proposed providing software to low income schools as part of the 
settlement with the states. Microsoft gets to provide the same 
software it used to violate antitrust legislation, as settlement for 
the violation_how ironic. Also, this settlement of software 
basically provides for additional injury to alternative operating 
systems_such as the Apple Mac OS. You will be taking market 
share away from Apple in education as a reward to Microsoft for its 
violation of antitrust laws.
    The US DOJ needs to hold Microsoft actually responsible for its 
actions. They violated antitrust laws and continue to do so with 
Windows XP (now taking over music and video and eliminating JAVA 
support). Break the company up as was originally proposed. Microsoft 
has yet again proved its antitrust mentality and the proposed 
settlement is less than a slap on the wrist. Microsoft will actually 
gain in the education market.
    Cameron T. Murray



MTC-00001935

From: Anthony Graham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 4:56pm
Subject: Settlement is a disgrace
    The DOJ settlement with Microsoft is a disgrace and a blow to a 
strong, competitive American software industry.
    As a result of years of Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior, 
dozens of quality applications and companies have been essentially 
destroyed including Lotus, Novell, WordPerfect, Corel, and Netscape. 
Several other companies, industries, and products are now on the 
list of future victims of Microsoft's monopoly including but not 
limited to: Real Networks, Eudora (email), Palm, Tivo, ReplayTV, and 
Handspring. The Web itself is now well on its way to being 
completely controlled by Microsoft software.
    They have behaved illegally and this settlement rewards them for 
it. After years of illegal behavior there is absolutely nothing in 
the agreement that prevents them from continuing to behave illegally 
and nothing that punishes them for past behavior. Forcing them to 
donate software to underprivileged schools (who wouldn't have the 
money to buy it anyway) increases their market share and costs them 
nothing. It even affords them a PR opportunity.
    In the face of the Government's inability to protect the 
software industry, we will continue to be faced with sub-standard 
software from Microsoft that is protected from competitors by their 
Windows monopoly and whose flaws permit serious security breaches on 
a daily basis. We will not see a credible competitor Word Processor, 
Email client, Web browser, Spreadsheet, or database application in 
the US. Meanwhile, the software industries in countries outside the 
US, some of which are shielded from the Windows monopoly (China, 
India) will grow as the result of talent and competition.
    This settlement must be scuttled for our software industry to 
thrive. The only solution to this problem is to prevent Microsoft 
(structurally) from behaving in the way it has for the last 10+ 
years.
    Anthony Graham
    San Diego, CA



MTC-00001936

From: Kyle Crawford
To: "Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 11/21/01 4:50pm
Subject: MS Case Settlement Bogus
    The proposal by Microsoft to donate it's own software to schools 
is ridiculous. This would on'y serve to strengthen their monopoly. 
How is this punishment?
    The very notion of this proposal is disgusting.
    Kyle Crawford
    4 Sunset Drive
    Douglassville, PA 19518
    CC:"microsoftcomments(a)doj.ca.gov", attorney.gen...



MTC-00001937

From: Nany Ramamurthy
To: "Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov"
Date: 11/21/01 4:33pm
Subject: Sir/Madam, Sir/Madam,
    Microsoft by tying Internet Explorer and Windows killed the 
Innovative product Netscape. Now Microsoft trying to bundle more 
services with XP to kill competition in other areas. The settlement 
announced Nov. 2 is inadequate and the company will be able to 
bypass many of the sanctions as it did in the earlier case in 1995 
and hence brought this case in 1998 and the courts have unanimously 
found that Microsoft violated antitrust laws.
    The company had reached a deal to settle a raft of private anti-
trust cases to spend more than $1bn to put software and computers 
into some of the poorest American schools. The deal will close 
another chapter in the software giant's legal saga, while helping 
Microsoft make further inroads into the nation's schools, which once 
were dominated by its rival Apple Computer Inc. and will reach 
future customers mind at the early age.

[[Page 24005]]

    I do not think the remedy should be a mechanism by which 
Microsoft can further extend its monopoly.
    Thanks & Bye
    Narayanan (Nany) Ramamurthy
    Senior Software Engineer
    Trintech Inc.
    5 Independence Way, Suite 170
    Princeton, NJ 08540
    USA
    Tel.: + 001 609 919 6027
    Fax: + 001 609 720 1020
    e-mail: [email protected]
    CC:Nany Ramamurthy



MTC-00001938

From: Matt Schultz
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/21/01 4:49pm
Subject: 
    Dear Sirs and Madams:
    I am writing on behalf of the electronics industry and the 
people of the United States, urging you to hang tough in the anti 
trust case with Microsoft Corporation.
    None of you could imagine where the electronics industry would 
be right now, had it not been for Microsoft crushing anyone and 
everyone who had the audacity to think this was a free country. This 
industry would be vibrant right now, I'm convinced of it, and 
leading the whole country out of recession. Microsoft's dominance 
and dirty tactics have cost this nation billions of dollars of GDP 
and hundreds of thousands of jobs.
    I cannot tell you how many times we worked with giant OEMs such 
as Hewlett Packard, Seagate, Maxstor, Storage Technology, Digital 
Equipment, LSI Logic, and others, on Windows OS drivers for 
peripherals, and each one of these firms_to a man_was 
(and continues to be) terrified of MSFT. They know what side their 
bread is buttered on. I saw the cancellation of dozens of projects 
in the 1990's because Microsoft simply wouldn't validate the 
drivers, favoring one company over another.
    I understand that the Bush administration, due to it's war 
efforts against terrorism, would rather concentrate on that all 
important goal than to waste resources continuing the fight against 
Microsoft. The government has won it's case, but now it appears that 
akin to the giveaway of Eastern Europe after World War II, the US 
government wants to give this win away as well. I give MSFT 
executives all the credit in the world for keeping a straight face, 
as Larry Ellison put it.
    But the economy needs this shot in the arm more than ever now, 
MSFT has strangled the life and innovation out of the computer 
industry for so long, it's now stagnate. We need desperately to have 
competition come back to the industry, so small firms with big ideas 
won't get wiped out. So MSFT can't deny the little guy 
interoperability with their stranglehold on the Industry anymore. To 
put Americans back to work and re-invigorate the industry, the US 
government and the States battling this anti trust violator must 
level the playing field. It's such an enormous uphill climb now.
    Please do not allow MSFT to damage Apple Computer and the 
25,000+ suppliers of Mac OS based peripherals and software. The 
current $1 Billion "penalty" Microsoft will take out of 
petty cash and give to schools will do nothing but increase Windows 
market share in one of Apple's most dynamic markets. The influx of 
Microsoft capital into the education market will inflict very 
serious damage to Apple Computer and thousands upon thousands of 
small US companies that provide consulting services, peripherals, 
software, drivers, firmware, and other products that support the Mac 
OS now used throughout the US education system to a very large 
degree. Many companies will be forced out of business, many 
Americans will lose their jobs to Microsoft once again. Only this 
time, it will be government sponsored.
    It is a market that Microsoft has targeted for many years and 
after falling short in their own efforts, it seems they have now 
partnered with the US Government and the States to win this 
lucrative market finally after a 15 year battle.
    This deal has to have Dell, Compaq, HP and Gateway licking their 
chops as Microsoft has sadly duped the government very, very 
smoothly here. This penalty is a Trojan Horse; it will turn out to 
be a gigantic marketing ploy, damaging Apple's share tremendously in 
the education market, while boosting Microsoft's share for years and 
years to come. Microsoft should realize a return of more than 8X on 
the measly one billion they will put forth. Some slap on the wrist, 
folks.
    What an incredible blunder by the government. Win an anti trust 
case and then hand over one of the last remaining non-Microsoft 
markets! Incredible! What a brilliant and resounding victory for 
Microsoft. Stand tall, ladies and gentlemen. The whole industry is 
waiting for you good people to do the right thing.
    Would it not be embarrassing to have the US Government & the 
States surrender to Microsoft, only to watch the European 
governments come to the aid and rescue of the US electronics 
industry? This could very well happen. You have won the case in 
court! But you're losing it in the conference room. Re-group, folks, 
and please focus on doing the right thing.
    "Always do right; this will gratify some people and 
astonish the rest."
    _Mark Twain (1835-1910)
    Best Regards,
    Matthew J. Schultz
    7985 S. Bemis Street
    Littleton CO 80120 USA



MTC-00001939

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 5:11pm
Subject: The DOJ seems to be admitting its own inferiority?
    When a company is so "illegally" profitable that the 
DOJ treats it as the "King of Microsoft," instead of 
following previous precedents? I mean by the DOJ's logic, there was 
NOTHING wrong with the Sherman railroad bridge being for the use of 
ONLY one Sherman company! Instead of "bailing" under 
pressure from M$, the DOJ is supposed to represent the interests of 
everyone in the American population. By the DOJ's current logic, I 
could place a toll charge over 1 bridge over the Mississippi River, 
requiring EVERYBODY to pay me a toll charge before I would let them 
cross my only one bridge over the river?
    I had an "epiphany" or something about this 
happening when I was a freshman in business at the University of 
Illinois in Urbana/Champaign in 1987! I could "see" in 
1987 how EVERY UIUC official/secretary had an Apple Macintosh 
computer on their desk to help them with their work? And I had also 
"heard" about M$ Windoze 1.0 and I knew then that every 
software product by M$ was an addition to the former M$ product, and 
I thought of how a future M$ Windoze would overtake the MacOS? This 
was precisely what started happening on a big scale with Windows 95 
in 1995!
    Billl Gates was trained in Computer Science, which entails total 
domination before applying the "brakes," so this is why 
the antitrust problem? I can see how my Illinois attorney general 
has "bailed" from the suit, as is a tendancy of Chicago 
politics, but there are still 9 states that will hold M$ accountable 
for its actions!
    Jeff Strong
    [email protected]
    217/234-2547 apt/voicemail
    916/405-3010 voicemail
    508/590-5532 fax



MTC-00001940

From: Benjamin Turner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 5:06pm
    So let's see: it's been agreed that Microsoft has illegally used 
its monopoly position to hurt competitors and consumers, and the 
government wants to cave in with a slap on the wrists in the form of 
the currently-proposed settlement deal? We have antitrust laws for a 
reason, and letting Microsoft get away with their anticompetitive 
behavior (again) is not in line with those reasons. Please continue 
to push for a stricter set of remedies against this law-breaking 
behemoth.
    Benjamin Turner
    10251 Kenny Lane
    San Jose, CA 95127
    (408) 929-3097
    Benjamin John Turner [email protected] http://
www.usfca.edu/turner/ [email protected] "The 
happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything; 
they just make the most of everything that comes along their 
way."



MTC-00001941

From: Joe Creitz
To: Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov, attorney.general(a)po...
Date: 11/21/01 5:04pm
Subject: Please oppose the proposed Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    If my understanding of the proposed Microsoft settlement even 
comports only slightly with its reality, then this is no settlement 
at all. It would do nothing punitive, nothing to remedy past 
misconduct, nothing to inhibit future misconduct, and nothing to 
diminish Microsoft's monopoly power_ indeed, it would help 
Microsoft make additional inroads in a computer hardware and 
software market in which

[[Page 24006]]

Apple, for example, now competes against it well (education), 
thereby enhancing Microsoft's monopoly power. Thus, the settlement 
does not impose any penalty, but rather it confers a benefit, on a 
company that has been found liable for unlawful abuse of its 
monopoly power.
    This so-called "settlement" is a joke and an 
offense, and the Department of Justice and the states should do 
everything in their power to oppose it.
    Sincerely Yours,
    Joe Creitz, Esq.
    SBN169552
    Joe Creitz
    Attorney at Law
    2507 Bryant Street
    San Francisco, CA 94110
    tel: 415-642-4200 x164
    cell: 415-269-3675
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00001942

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 5:29pm
    I have watched I have been in the IT industry for more than 14 
years. I have watched Microsoft use their market dominance to 
consistently erode market share from other competitors. They have 
used same principle time and again Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt to deny 
areas of the market where they did not yet have a product or where 
their product was so buggy that it couldn't effectively compete on 
it's own merits. Does anyone working on the case actually think that 
any single company can stand up to Microsoft when it has more than 
36 billion dollars in liquid assets. Even if multiple companies 
banded together against Microsoft they can't stand against a 90%+ 
market share in the PC arena. If you don't stop them now XP will 
take over the internet and we will all be facing the fully embraced 
and extended world as written by Microsoft.
    Thank you for your time.
    Spencer Mitchum
    Certified Novell Administrator 3x, 4x, 5x
    Certified Novell Engineer 3x, 4x, 5x
    Master Certified Novell Engineer
    Cisco Certified Network Associate
    Cisco Certified Design Associate



MTC-00001943

From: WILFREDO TORRES
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 5:20pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SLAP ON THE RIB
    DEAR USJD; WHY MR. BUSH AND MR. ASHCROFT DON'T MAKE ILEGAL ALL 
LAW SUITS AGAINST BIG BUSINESSES AND AN ACT OF TERRORISM AS WELL? 
THE FACT OF THE MATTER THAT MICROSOFT OR ANY OTHER COMPANY OR 
INDIVIDUAL REGISTER A PATENT/.INVENTION DOES NOT GIVE THEM THE 
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT TO CRUNCH INNOVATIVE COMPETITORS THAT MAKE A 
SIMILAR PRODUCT EVEN OF SUPERIOR QUALITY/LOWER COST. I FOUND AN 
OUTRAGE INSULT BY PART OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO SETTLE THIS 
CASE WITH LITTLE OR NO PUNISHMENT FOR MICROSOFT AND TO MAKE MATTER 
WORSE, THERE IS NOTHING IN RETURN FOR US THE CONSUMERS.



MTC-00001944

From: Ron Habacker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 5:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    I believe this is a terrible settlement for the U.S. and for 
consumers. All it imposes is conduct remedies, and for each of 
those, there is a loophole through which Microsoft can circumvent 
it. I wish to see Microsoft, who has been found guilty of *criminal* 
activity, as well as lying during the actual trial, to be punished 
much more severely than this. One of the remedies would be opening 
up their proprietary document formats (*.doc, *.xls, *.ppt, etc) to 
EVERYONE, so that everyone can have a level playing field in 
competing office suites without having to worry about 
incompatibility issues.
    Windows XP is even worse than the tying/bundling issues that got 
Microsoft into trouble in the first place, but the government wishes 
to turn its back on more anticompetitive behavior because the 
economy is in a recession and they believe Microsoft can help pull 
us out of it. Kindly stand up for what is right. Stand up for the 
American PEOPLE for once, instead of some insidious, 
anticompetitive, illegally competing, mega-corporation.
    Thank you.



MTC-00001945

From: Nicholas Spies
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 11/21/01 5:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    (This supercedes another note I sent earlier today (21 Nov 01) 
to the main DOJ email address.)
    The settlement, or at least the penalty aspect of it as reported 
in the press (i.e. Microsoft to give needy schools $1B of computers 
and software) is utterly inappropriate, even laughable, considering 
the economic havoc that Microsoft's business practices have wrought. 
Indeed, this "punishment" or "act of 
contrition" is simply anyother way for Microsoft to increase 
its monopoly, and assure itself of more repeat customers! If this 
offer is NOT part of the DOJ's Proposed Settlement, but a public 
relations ploy by Microsoft, the following stipulations should, in 
my opinion, be added to the Settlement for the reasons detailed.
    Microsoft, whether or not mandated by the DOJ to dontate 
computers to schools, should only be allowed to do so by purchasing 
and donating Apple MacIntosh (or other Apple ) computers, with an 
appropriate Apple OS and, optionally, Microsoft software 
applications, to the schools. This would help to strengthen Apple's 
position in the market, which has historically been strong in the 
educational sector, and punish Microsoft more justly.
    This would have an immediate, concrete effect in levelling the 
playing field, if only slightly, while yeilding some monetary 
compensation for what may well be $100M+ in direct and collateral 
damages in the form of reduced productivity for computer users, 
losses to investors in businesses crushed by MS, lossage of work due 
to the notoriously unstable behavior of Microsoft's products, and 
even the seemingly trivial cost of having the Windows logo displayed 
for a couple of extra seconds, just for promotional purposes, every 
time a Windows computer is booted; cumulative wasted time must run 
into man- centuries!
    Most importantly, it would give students and teachers at needy 
schools a much better solution to their needs, and a far better base 
on which to build an infrastructure for educational computing 
facilities. For, by practically any measure, Apple's computers have 
always, and continue to be, easier to use, interconnect, and 
administer than Microsolf's platforms.
    While this may sound "contraversial" at first, it 
seems to me that Microsoft should be penalized where it counts, 
while redressing some of the damage it's monopolistic practices have 
done to the company that originated, and made affordable, user-
friendly personal computing (Apple).
    Why reward Apple and not Xerox, Sun, Silicon Graphics, etc? 
Because Apple has survived and thrived as the only reasonable, and 
affordable personal computer, and, if secondary schools are to 
receive this windfall, Apple is already well-established in this 
area. Also, Apple computers are more compatable with Microsoft 
products out of the box than Windows is with anything but Windows. 
If Atari, TI, Tandy, or Commodore hadn't been driven from the market 
by the hegemony of Wintel (Windows running on Intel processors), 
there would be real choices other than Apple. Finally, the 
Government has an opportunity to emphasize that diversity of 
computer architectures is as important as diversity of operating 
systems.
    I sincerely hope that this will be given consideration and that 
you will reply.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Nicholas Spies
    843 East Poplar Street
    Coatesville, PA 19320-3346
    610-383-9072



MTC-00001946

From: Antony Tovar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To USDOJ,
    I am writing to object to the Proposed Final Judgement. As per 
your on-line instructions (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-
settle.htm) I have reviewed the current documents and would like to 
make the following specific suggestions:
    1. Since it was found guilty of illegal businesses_and on 
a huge scale_ Microsoft should be responsible for all 
government court costs. This should also include the costs for any 
state goverments that reject the current proposal. (The newspapers 
report this cost as $15M to-date, a pittance to Microsoft.)
    2. Removal/simplification of all extended definitions, e.g. 
"any middleware with a version number of form X.x." 
These details are unnecessary and, I believe, only exist to provide 
loopholes for Microsoft to evade the spririt of the document. The 
various sub-

[[Page 24007]]

sections should be worded in a way that the intent is clearly 
understandable to IT professionals (if not the general public).
    3. Substitution of all references to "Microsoft 
Middleware" with the more general "Microsoft 
software." The public's concern is not limited to 
"Middleware" and the definition therein; we don't want 
Microsoft to be able to force any software on us, regardless of how 
we obtain it or how it is legally defined.
    4. Inclusion of a provision specifically labeled, 
"Eliminating Microsoft's monopoly control of Internet and 
Windows desktop standards." This seems a natural conclusion to 
a 'successful' antitrust action. They can be allowed to 
maintain their Windows and Office software as they see fit, but they 
should lose their monopoly leverage. While I appreciate the 
provisions in the current proposal that require documentation of all 
APIs, e.g. integration between Internet Explorer and the Windows 
desktop (assuming that IE is considering 
"middleware"...), I feel that the current exceptions 
clearly allow Microsoft to continue blocking competition. So, 
instead, I would like to see the addition of requirements such as 
publicly documenting the formatting information of all current/
previous Office document types (so that competitors to Office could 
offer flawless backwards compatibility). I know Microsoft considers 
this an unwarranted 'grab' of their intellectual property but since 
the market for OSes and office suites has matured, the aspects of 
their products that belong in the public domain can easily be 
identified (and it only has to be a one-time event).
    5. Clear instructions that OEM customers do not need to pay a 
Microsoft license fee (for Windows, Office, etc.) for every computer 
they sell, and that they will not be penalized (e.g. higher prices) 
for offering computers with non-Microsoft Operating Systems. 
Currently, the Proposal only stipulates that OEMs will not be 
penalized for offering dual-boot systems; this still requires them 
to pay Microsoft for a license!
    I have been a computer professional for 10 years. In that time, 
I have never considered Microsoft Corp. to be a customer-oriented 
company and I believe this opinion has been confirmed by the 
testimony in the latest anti-trust court case. Please do not allow 
their behaviour to go unpunished, or the market to continue 
languishing under their monopoly control.
    Antony Tovar
    Technology Manager, TSKM Accounting
    http://www.tskm.com
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00001947

From: chucky cheese
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/21/01 5:34pm
Subject: Microsft settlement_my views
    I would have a serious look at just what Microsoft is getting in 
this latest deal. Donating a billion dollars worth of hardware and 
software to poor school districts is a kind gesture on the 
surface_BUT, look at it from Microsoft's perspective. What 
they are being allowed to do is flood the education market with 
their own products and they are harming other manufacturers who rely 
a great deal on this market. Their donation (mildly punitive 
settlement) could possibly be used to gain tax advantages. The 
school districts will eventually have to upgrade their products and 
rest assured it won't be with other vendors' products. There is also 
the issue of servicing and support. This also is another revenue 
stream for Micosoft. I understand that the school districts can take 
the cash option and buy what best suits them. This won't happen 
since Microsoft rules the computing world_they will buy 
Microsoft!
    Is this an oversight on the part of the government or is this a 
blatant compromise to just end this whole affair? Whatever it is, it 
must be stopped.
    I do plead ignorance on the terms and conditions of the latest 
settlement, however, even I can see just what Microsoft is getting 
here_it's a free gift from the government. Please don't allow 
Microsoft the opportunity to walk. People are angry and 
tired_do the right thing.
    Thanks for your time.
    James



MTC-00001948

From: Ulla Hald
To: Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov', 'attorney.general(a)po...
Date: 11/21/01 5:33pm
Subject: Please oppose the proposed Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    If my understanding of the proposed Microsoft settlement even 
comports only slightly with its reality, then this is no settlement 
at all. It would do nothing punitive, nothing to remedy past 
misconduct, nothing to inhibit future misconduct, and nothing to 
diminish Microsoft's monopoly power_ indeed, it would help 
Microsoft make additional inroads in a computer hardware and 
software market in which Apple, for example, now competes against it 
well (education), thereby enhancing Microsoft's monopoly power.
    Thus, the settlement does not impose any penalty, but rather it 
confers a benefit, on a company that has been found liable for 
unlawful abuse of its monopoly power.
    This so-called "settlement" is a joke and an 
offense, and the Department of Justice and the states should do 
everything in their power to oppose it.
    Regards,
    Ulla Hald



MTC-00001949

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a professional software engineer and the owner of a small 
software firm, I have taken a keen interest in Microsoft's 
development of a personal computer operating system monopoly, and in 
the subsequent filing and progress of the United States v. Microsoft 
case. I am pleased that the court has correctly identified 
Microsoft's pattern of illegal monopolistic behavior; however, I am 
concerned that the proposed settlement, while carefully written, 
will fail to make any substantial impact on Microsoft's future 
conduct.

Background

    As mentioned in the documents associated with the case, the 
District Court found, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, that 
Microsoft unlawfully protected and maintained its operating system 
monopoly in violation of antitrust laws. In the United States' 
Competitive Impact Statement, two examples are cited of this type of 
behavior. One example is the elimination of Netscape Navigator as a 
viable cross platform competitor to Microsoft's own Internet 
Explorer, thus increasing the barriers to new competitors' entering 
the operating system market. The other example is Microsoft's 
partially successful efforts to squelch Sun Microsystems' Java 
language, thus ensuring that third party applications developers 
will have a large incentive to develop first_ or 
only_for Microsoft's dominant Windows operating system.
    It should be noted that Microsoft engaged in this type of 
behavior even where it was clearly monopolistic and anticompetitive: 
the example given is that of threatening Apple with the termination 
of Microsoft Office for Macintosh, not for any business reason 
related to the Office product, but instead to force Apple to make 
the unrelated Internet Explorer product the default Macintosh 
browser. Microsoft has yet to admit that this and similar examples 
of obviously unethical and illegal behavior were wrong; indeed, they 
continue to act in accordance with their own peculiar interpretation 
of 'innovation', ignoring others' standards of ethics or 
law. These examples are typical of Microsoft's behavior.

The Proposed Final Judgement

    The Proposed Final Judgement seeks to remedy Microsoft's 
unlawful conduct by prohibiting certain forms of 
behavior_behavior that Microsoft has used in the past to 
illegally leverage and maintain the Windows operating system 
monopoly. In particular, Microsoft would be required to use common 
Windows licensing terms for the 20 largest original equipment 
resellers of Microsoft products, would be prohibited from 
retaliating against them, and would be required to make applications 
programming interfaces (APIs) available to third party software 
developers. Unfortunately, these remedies would be unlikely to have 
a significant practical effect on Microsoft's conduct.
    Microsoft's past behavior and present statements indicate that 
they do not view anything that they have done as wrong, either 
ethically or legally. In light of this, they are likely to simply 
continue their present behavior into the future, ignoring any 
settlement terms just as they have in the past ign ored antitrust 
law as a whole. The plaintiffs will thus have the burden of taking 
Microsoft to court for each individual violation of the settlement 
terms. In practice, the vast majority of such violations will likely 
be simply ignored; third party vendors have development schedules 
are often measured in days or weeks, and would rarely be able to 
afford the months or years required

[[Page 24008]]

 to resolve disputes by appealing to the various proposed committees 
or the plaintiffs. The result would be little if any change in 
Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior.
    In addition, Microsoft can easily circumvent specific terms. For 
example, the proposed terms would restrict Microsoft's licensing 
with respect to their 20 largest original equipment resellers. While 
these 20 largest resellers currently constitute a substantial 
portion of Microsoft sales, Microsoft could restructure their 
product licenses_for example by licensing on a state by state 
basis_so as to increase the nominal number of resellers, and 
thus limit the applicability of the proposed terms to a small 
fraction of their customer base. Microsoft could play similar games 
with respect to many other portions of the proposed terms, and 
indeed with any specifically defined behavioral remedies.
    Microsoft has also shown a great ability to invent innovative 
new forms of anticompetitive behavior. However, because the proposed 
settlement terms are so narrowly defined, they will do nothing to 
prevent new forms of anticompetitive behavior on the part of 
Microsoft. Given that Microsoft has not admitted to any wrongdoing 
in previous behavior that was found to be illegal, they are likely 
to continue to violate the antitrust laws in new and different ways 
in the future. Finally, and most importantly from my standpoint as a 
third party software developer, the technical aspects of the 
proposed remedies are simply unworkable.
    The proposed terms seek to allow third party developers to 
compete with Microsoft's in house efforts by requiring Microsoft to 
publish documentation f or its APIs. The argument is that such 
documentation would have, for example, permitted Netscape to compete 
on an equal basis against Microsoft's own Internet Explorer.
    Unfortunately, publishing accurate and complete API 
documentation at early development stages, as envisioned in the 
proposed settlement, is not realistic; at those stages, the software 
itself is being constantly modified and updated, such that any 
published documentation becomes obsolete nearly instantly.
    For one example, I was at one point involved in a project that 
used certain Microsoft Windows network APIs. We had one particular 
problem that we could not resolve even after days of effort; 
eventually we resorted to paying for phone support from Microsoft on 
the issue. It turned out that one of the API calls we were using had 
actually been omitted from Microsoft's product because of delivery 
deadlines, resulting in an unexplainable crash; we had to use a 
workaround.
    This is typical of the problems faced by third party developers 
when competing with Microsoft in house efforts. Issues that can be 
resolved with a single email exchange or two minute phone call 
between Microsoft employees involve, for those who work in other 
companies, many unanswered emails, hours of hold time on the phone, 
and the requirement to authorize unexpected expenditures. This is 
true even in the presence of published API documentation. The 
advantages of personal contact and responsiveness at a working level 
within a company simply cannot be legislated in written settlement 
terms.

Breaking Up Microsoft

    As discussed above, the terms of the Proposed Final Judgement 
would not prevent Microsoft from continued illegal use of its 
monopoly power; given Microsoft's refusal to wholeheartedly admit to 
previous wrongdoing, the best that could be hoped for would be minor 
changes in a few specific cases, and most of those only after 
additional litigation. The proposed terms' efforts to legislate a 
level playing field through the publication of APIs is likewise 
doomed to failure, since informal communications within the 
Microsoft organization will always be much quicker than formal and 
time consuming communications with those outside the organization.
    The only solution is to reorganize Microsoft into separate 
entities, ensuring that it is in the interests of these new entities 
to behave in ways that are not illegally monopolistic. One way to do 
this would be to break Microsoft up into two parts. One part would 
be a Windows operating system company, the other a separate 
Microsoft applications company which would own both independently 
marketed applications software such as Office, as well as separately 
distributed free software such as Internet Explorer. The 
applications company would then have an incentive to develop for all 
operating systems, not just Windows, and the Windows operating 
system company would no longer have any reason to give special 
treatment to Microsoft applications developers over third party 
developers.
    This solution would benefit both the public and Microsoft's own 
stockholders.

Benefits to the Public

    At present, much of Microsoft's efforts on behalf of its Windows 
operating system are centered on maintaining the Windows monopoly. 
This limits the amount of effort that could otherwise be spent on 
actually improving features or reliability, or on lowering prices. 
This can be demonstrated by the fact that the only major personal 
computer manufacturer which does not use the Windows operating 
system_Apple Computer_has consistently higher margins 
than any of the manufacturers that do use Windows. Since all these 
manufacturers, including Apple, use the same component suppliers, 
the difference in margins cannot be attributed to hardware component 
cost or quality; instead, it is largely the result of software 
differences. Either Apple is able to charge a higher price by 
providing an operating system superior to Windows, or it is able to 
keep its per unit operating system development costs below the 
amount competing manufacturers pay for their copies of Windows.
    If the Windows operating system were provided by a separate 
company, this new company could no longer leverage Microsoft's other 
assets_such as Office or Internet Explorer_to preserve 
its monopoly. Instead, it would have to refocus its efforts on 
improving the Windows operating system. These improvements might 
take the form of better features or reliability in the operating 
system itself, or of better and more accurately documented APIs that 
would make it cheaper to develop higher quality third party 
software, or simply of price reductions for the Windows product that 
would be passed along to the consumer. In any case, consumers would 
see a substantial benefit.

Benefits to Microsoft Stockholders

    After a breakup, Microsoft stockholders would own stock both in 
the Windows operating system company and in the Microsoft 
applications software company. While the resultant changes in the 
operating system company would primarily benefit the public, Windows 
would still have substantial economies of scale that would benefit 
stockholders no less than they do today. In addition, freed of the 
need to artificially support the Windows monopoly, a separate 
Microsoft software company could expect to substantially improve its 
performance and value.
    At present, the efficiency of Microsoft's applications 
development is handicapped in both obvious and subtle ways by the 
necessity of preferentially supporting the Windows operating system. 
One of the more obvious examples is having the continuance of a 
Macintosh version of Microsoft Office used as a political tool, 
rather than being based solely on sound business considerations. 
More subtle are the requirements to preferentially support the 
Windows infrastructure, eschewing alternatives such as perhaps the 
Java language_simply out of loyalty to the corporation.
    Similar inefficiencies are typical of other large monopolies. 
For example, the breakup of AT&T into separate regional bell 
operating companies and a long distance company resulted in 
substantially improved efficiency and growth_such that the 
total value of the separate companies today is many times that of 
AT&T when it was a monolithic monopoly prior to breakup. A 
separate Microsoft applications development company would no longer 
be bound to support the Windows operating system except where that 
would be efficient. Applications could be developed using the most 
effective tools, regardless of source. The result would be higher 
product quality, lower development costs, improved market share and 
market growth, and, ultimately, higher value to stockholders.

Conclusion

    United States v. Microsoft has correctly identified Microsoft's 
past pattern of illegally supporting and exploiting its Windows 
Operating system monopoly. In addition, simply having both Windows 
operating system development and Microsoft applications software 
development under a common organization results in inefficient use 
of unrelated efforts to bolster the Windows monopoly. Breaking 
Microsoft up into a Windows operating system company and a separate 
Microsoft software company would enable both companies to operate 
more efficiently, benefiting both the public and Microsoft's own 
stockholders.

[[Page 24009]]

    warren J. Dew
    Somerville, MA



MTC-00001950

From: Jeffrey Kazmierski
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/21/01 6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft "settlement"
    Dear All:
    Unfortunately, my state's (Michigan) Attorney General was one of 
the AG's who caved into accepting the truly absurd DOJ/Microsoft 
"settlement".
    I would like to applaud those of you who understand the law, 
and, more importantly, have demonstrated a rather refreshing amount 
of common sense by sticking to your guns and continuing your quest 
to serve Microsoft_a company that has and continues to 
practice illegal monopolistic business tactics and strong-
arming_with appropriate punishment and justice.
    It is completely evident that the remedies proposed and accepted 
thus far are hardly a punishment_some can even be considered a 
reward_ and it is becoming increasingly clearer that Microsoft 
may be involved in racketeering and bribery. There is just no other 
way to explain these ridiculous, "slap-in-the-face" 
settlements.
    For every consumer and for every professional firm like ours, I 
wish you the best and hope Microsoft finally receives its 
due_break them up!
    Sincerely,
    Jeffrey J. Kazmierski
    President and CEO
    dw2.com, Inc.
    15. North Walnut, Suite 201
    Mt. Clemens, MI 48043
    dw2.com, Inc._the active media architects
    http://www.dw2.com
    810.954.3660 tel
    810.954.4660 fax
    888.dw2.4567 free



MTC-00001951

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 5:51pm
Subject: Settlement Much Too Lenient
    To Whom It May Concern:
    After speaking with many of my friends and colleagues, a 
majority of us feel that the proposed Microsoft Settlement is far 
from equitable. I have personally witnessed their wanton anti-
competitive behavior and their clear violation of Anti-Trust laws 
(and Racketeering Laws) in the course of my professional life. The 
truly unfortunate part of this situation is that it will appear to 
many Americans that anyone with enough money and lawyers can get 
what ever they want in this country.
    Other countries, with their own disputes with Microsoft, are 
surely shaking their heads in disgust. Many U.S. States have also 
voiced their opposition.
    The computer industry has likely been the most competitive, 
innovative industry in the history of this country. After this is 
over, I can guarantee you, Microsoft will be back to their old 
tricks again. Your decision to let Microsoft get off easy will come 
back to haunt all of us.
    Sincerely,
    Wayne Quimby



MTC-00001952

From: rob(u)ART
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 5:38pm
Subject: Settlement with Microsoft
    I think it would add insult to injury to allow Microsoft to 
deposit their products in the schools.
    Doesn't that create unfair competition to other companies trying 
to persuade the schools to buy their products?
    Why not require Microsoft to give a certain amount of money to 
the schools and let the schools decide what computer products they 
want to buy. In other words, they can choose not to buy Microsoft. 
Isn't that the point of the lawsuit in the first place: make sure 
the playing field is level and that consumers can exercise choice?
    Robert Morgan
    Honolulu



MTC-00001953

From: wilbur nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 6:35pm
Subject: Bad decision...
    To whom it may concern:
    The remedies set out in the Microsoft settlement case represent 
a gross miscarriage of justice. Please consider much stronger 
penalties.
    Sincerely,
    Wilbur Nelson
    Offcenter Concept House
    280 W. Katmai Ave.
    Soldotna, AK 99669
    Voice: 907.260.6904
    Fax: 907.260.6905
    e-mail: [email protected]
    web: www.offcenterconcepts.com



MTC-00001954

From: Hugo Acurio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 6:44pm
Subject: Microsoft got it easy!!!
    Hello My name is Hugo Acurio, And I just want to say, that 
Microsoft got it easy, what is going on with our justice, come on!!! 
500 million in software for education, this will only make their 
monopoly bigger



MTC-00001955

From: David S. Long
To: [email protected] 
@inetgw,attorney.gener...
Date: 11/21/01 6:40pm
Subject: RE: Microsoft Judgment
    As a longtime computer user and someone personally affected by 
Microsoft's business practices, I urge you to rethink acceptance of 
the current judgment. Specifically, I am referring to Microsoft 
being "forced" to donate $500 million to schools and 
then allowing them to give their software away. This action only 
encourages the monopolistic practices that Microsoft has been using 
for years. As you know, one of the ways a company exploits a 
monopoly is by controlling price. Most people might think the 
company achieves this by charging a high price for their products, 
but they can also do it by charging very little or nothing. By 
allowing Microsoft to give away hundreds of thousands of copies of 
its software, worth millions of dollars, the government is allowing 
them to compete with an unfair advantage. Microsoft is required to 
adhere to a verdict that only increases its market share and does 
not allow other companies to compete. Who in their right mind would 
buy product "X" for $100 when they can get product 
"MS," normally costing $400+, for free? And don't forget 
the operating system. If a school, normally short on funds, buys new 
equipment that requires training, productivity software, the 
operating system, and other items, why would they buy any equipment 
that didn't use this free software and free service? Microsoft 
doesn't sell PC hardware, but, by default, they require users to 
purchase PC equipment to run their OS. Apple, for example, cannot 
compete because they cannot sell these schools anything, hardware or 
software, that can take full advantage of the free Microsoft 
solution. If Microsoft is providing millions of dollars in training 
for Microsoft products, why would they want to buy Apple products, 
and pay for Apple training and support?
    Please help us who have small businesses that support the 
"other" platform. Don't encourage the further 
development of the Microsoft monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    David S. Long
    Founder
    v.2 Consulting
    [email protected]
    415 626 3130
    http://www.version2consulting.com
    v.2 Consulting specializes in Macintosh support as well as 
cross-platform integration. We believe IT support should be non-
intrusive and easy to understand. v.2 Consulting has served the 
print & web publishing, film production, graphic & 
industrial design, audio recording, advertising, and video 
communities since 1999. CC:Microsoft ATR



MTC-00001956

From: Albert Howard
To:[email protected] 
@inetgw,[email protected]..
Date: 11/21/01 6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Attorneys-General,
    I am hopeful that your principled stands on making the 
punishment fit the crimes committed by the principals of Microsoft 
will succeed. I want to encourage you to stand firm for justice for 
all of us who have suffered from the stifling of innovation and the 
low quality of computer operating systems pushed upon us.
     Justice requires that you succeed.
    Thanks, Al Howard, 504 HWY 169S, Seale, Al 36875
    CC:Microsoft ATR



MTC-00001957

From: Tom Loveman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 6:53pm
Subject: Fox guarding the hen house
    Dear DOJ,
    I am writing to express my deep personal displeasure with the 
proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case.

[[Page 24010]]

    The provisions in the consent decree amount to letting the fox 
(Microsoft) guard the hen house. Practically every provision 
provides an out for Microsoft should they not like the way a 
particular situation effects them.
    Time and time again, I have watched Microsoft yield it's 
monopoly to crush their competition, by either purchasing companies 
who over more innovation, or giving away their crapware free to 
destroy the fledging start-ups.
    I honestly believe that had Microsoft not been allowed to cut 
such a wide swath across the technology industry there would be more 
companies with a wider array of products_all competing and 
therefore yielding better products. Microsoft has not help 
technology expansion_it's monopoly lets them charge whatever 
they want and there for makes technology more expensive for 
everyone. They have yet to show that any of their products released 
actually was worth the price they asked. The settlement does nothing 
more than reward Microsoft for it's behavior by giving them the go 
ahead to continue these practices legally. They've crushed countless 
hopes and dreams, hampered innovation (save for Apple Computer from 
which Microsoft steals every idea), and profited from a strangle 
hold on technology. Regardless of current economics or changes in 
the competitive environment, Microsoft should pay for their 
indiscretion, possibly be broken up, and face stiff penalties should 
they revisit their illegal practices.
    I hope you seriously consider letting this fox off the hook.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Lovema
    [email protected]
    19201 Van Aken Blvd. #513
    Shaker Heights, OH 44122
    216-561-9222



MTC-00001958

From: Stephanie Santmyers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 6:49pm
Subject: microsoft settlement-No
    If Microsoft wants to give schools a billion it must be in cash. 
Poor schools need books, supplies, and breakfast programs for 
students not computers. Microsoft wants to make good little consumer 
Microsurfs. Stephanie Santmyers



MTC-00001959

From: Michael Fussell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 6:46pm
Subject: Settlement
    It appears to this business Owner that the proposed Microsoft 
settlement is merely a slap on the wrist for someone who has 
demonstrated an arrogance and disdain for the rule of law. I would 
urge you to revist the case and seek permanent remedies including 
splitting Microsoft into an operating system company and an 
application company.
    Michael Fussell, PE
    President
    Fussell Engineering
    3700 South Russell
    Suite 106
    Missoula, MT 59801



MTC-00001960

From: Wendell Shackelford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 6:46pm
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    To Attorney General Ashcroft,
    I am extremely disappointed in the leniency of the proposed 
settlement with the MicroSoft corporation.
    I have followed this case from the beginning. At every 
opportunity Microsoft has shown contempt for the law.
    They violated the consent decree regarding the illegal tying of 
Internet Explorer and Windows, and when taken back to court, 
falsified evidence in an attempt to prove that the web browser and 
operating system could not be separated. Their offer to provide a 
broken version of windows without Internet Explorer clearly shows 
their unrepentant attitude.
    When it appeared that the case was going against them, they 
mounted an artificial "grass roots" campaign by having 
employees of their publicist write letters to the editor on their 
behalf without acknowledging the conflict of interest.
    The Department of Justice has made a very strong case, and the 
weakness of the proposed settlement is insulting.
    I am proud to say that my Attorney General, Bill Lockyer, 
understands the importance of this case and the critical role of the 
antitrust laws in creating a free and fair marketplace.
    A monopoly is never good for the economy, and that should be 
irrelevant in the pursuit of justice in any case. I urge you to 
continue to prosecution of Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Wendell Shackelford
    1228 11th Street
    Imperial Beach, CA
    cc: State of California Attoney General Bill Lockyer
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00001961

From: Yann Ricard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 7:11pm
Subject: Microsof Settlement
    To whomever this may concern:
    My name is Yann Ricard. I am a computer technologist with 15 
years experience in the industry, seven of which running a software 
publishing company. I wish to provide these comments on Microsoft 
settlements.

Specific Remedy

    The settlement should not comprise remedies where Microsoft is 
"condemned" to give away technology to a needy segment 
of our society (education, health, whatever). This would actually 
assist Microsoft in furthering its monopoly, by damaging any 
competition in these markets. In the end the beneficiary of these 
gifts would be harmed as well by the weakening of competion and 
alternative technology providers.

General Comments

    While the prominent position of Microsoft has had the beneficial 
effect of bringing on some level of standardization in what might 
otherwise have been a chaotic marketplace, it is extremely clear to 
me that over the years, Microsoft has had a considerable stifling 
effect on this nascent industry. Computers are still very immature 
products. They are still ridiculously hard to use and troubleshoot 
for "ordinary people", and have yet to fulfill many 
existing promises, let alone develop avenues yet uncharted. We are 
therefore still at a stage where flourishing of ideas is much more 
important than standardization.
    From a national point of view, I realize that knocking down 
Microsoft too hard may be seen as weakening the prominence of the US 
in the world computer market. However, letting Microsoft run 
unopposed in the US may set up the long range conditions for the 
emergence of overseas competition that is a generation ahead.

Anecdotal Evidence

    I have a very personal experience of the marketing power of a 
company such as Microsoft. In the early 90's, I ran a small software 
publishing company. Our latest software product had garnered very 
positive reviews in the trade magazines, and we had just received 
very large orders from mass marketers, such as Costco. This was a 
very big deal for our company. We manufactured a large amount of 
product specifically branded for Costco. Before we shipped the 
product, Microsoft announced a competing product (actually a series 
of products), and Costco and the other mass marketer immediately 
canceled their order to us in order to make shelf space for 
Microsoft's product. Our seven year old company had made such a 
heavy investment in this product based on initial market feedback 
that it never recovered from the financial jolt of these cancelled 
orders, and folded thereafter. Microsoft's product turned out to be 
a complete flop after all, but by then, the competition was dead. I 
am not blaming MS for my financial mismanagement. I bet everything 
on one product and lost. My mistake. What is interesting is that MS 
is so big that the mere announcement of a product snuffs out 
competition. This is exactly what happened with Windows, which in 
its original incarnation was considerably inferior to all 
competitors (who remembers Gem?).
    Sincerely.
    Yann Ricard, VP and Web Editor WEB: http://virtual-egyptian-
museum.org
    Virtual Egyptian Museum MAIL: yann@virtual-egyptian-
museum.org
    A non-profit educational venture FAX: (805) 565-1086



MTC-00001962

From: Julie Armstrong Psy.D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 7:08pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am opposed to the recent DOJ proposed settlement with 
Microsoft. It appears that the inclusion of a donation of Microsoft 
computers and software to schools would substantially increase 
marketshare for both hardware and software for the districts 
selected to participate. Instead, I propose that dollar value be 
determined, donated to

[[Page 24011]]

school districts to spend in whatever technological way they wish.
    Further, I propose that Microsoft hardware and software 
divisions be prohibited from federal contract bidding for a period 
of not less than one year.
    Let's give the few other companies with the capability a chance 
to make a real impact on the market!
    Thank you for your efforts,
    Dr. Julie Armstrong
    Julie A. Armstrong Psy.D RNCS
    Clinical & Forensic Psychology
    152 So. Lasky Drive
    Penthouse Suite
    Beverly Hills, Ca 90212
    310.273.9190



MTC-00001963

From: Craig Wall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 7:07pm
Subject: Microsoft must be stopped, yet new grievances
    I own a small business, and utilize a computer in professional 
and personal matters. It continues to amaze me how no one will touch 
Microsoft as it bullies consumers and businesses.
    I will limit my grievances JUST to the LAST 3 months!
    1. Windows XP knowingly disables Quicktime content on websites 
within it's latest browsers (5.5 and 6). Quicktime is exceptionally 
popular (oh and did I mention it is a rival of MS technology?) Sites 
I previously enjoyed movie previews and software training now don't 
work with Explorer. The consumer be damned, I guess, is Gates 
mantra. Furthermore, the quicktime content on my own website won't 
work when potential clients take a peek. MS wants to destroy 
marketshare of its competitors anyway it can, and could care less 
about me as a consumer or as a business man.
    2. Java. MS knowingly and willfully is trying to destroy JAVA by 
making it incompatible with its latest browsers_all in favor 
of its own new substitute technology.
    3. MP3. Again XP avoids what is by far the most common music 
format in existence_clearly again to man-handle the consumer 
into its own competing music format. Does it matter what everyone in 
the public domain has chosen as its' format of choice? Not to Gates.
    Let me be clear. Some might say you cannot be passionate or 
hateful and objective at the same time. I say to be objectively 
truthful about Microsoft is to passionately hate Microsoft.
    Craig Wall
    1396 S. York St
    Denver, CO 80210
    303-722-1635



MTC-00001964

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 7:00pm
Subject: Not just Americans suffering.
    Hi,
    I'd just like to say I think the settlement is a joke. Does it 
stop Microsoft from adding applications to Windows that I don't 
want? No. Does it stop Microsoft from constantly increasing the 
price of Windows, forcing me to pay for the applications I don't 
want? No. The cost of PC's has been dropping rapidly for years... 
everything excpet the Operating System.. that has been going up. 
Also MS claims the Government has been killing their ability to 
innovate. Rubbish! MS buys other companies ideas then bundles them 
into Windows and thus forces you to buy them. I prefered Netscape 
Navigator, but as my new PC came with MS Internet Explorer taking up 
60 megs of my hard drive (and I could not remove it!) I ended up 
using that.
    Also, look at the likes of Windows XP... "now users get a 
stable OS" excuse me? Should have I now been able to expect 
that right from the start? No one else would get away with selling 
such unreliable products. Lets also not forget the Microsoft that 
told computer makers they had to pay royalties on EVERY PC they 
shipped, regardless of which Operating System was actually on it. 
What could they do? say no to Microsoft? hardly. And as they had to 
pay for it anyway, they may as well ship Windows... even if thelikes 
of OS2 was superior (now effectively dead).
    Please do not let Microsoft get away with what they have done. 
Please let there be a possibilty of one day being an alternative to 
Windows. Please give me back the right to choose!
    Thanks,
    Tony.
    PS. You might want to check that some of the Pro Microsoft 
letters have not come from dead people... MS has been caught pulling 
that trick before.



MTC-00001965

From: Russ Talbot
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 7:36pm
Subject: letting microsoft off easy...
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I am a avid computer user. I use computers and software daily to 
make my living as a video and computer graphics person. I implore 
you to not let Micro$oft off so easily. The recent deal to let 
Micro$oft donate software to schools will be like letting the wolf 
off by letting him eat only the young chickens. Microsoft would love 
to create a stronghold on Americas education centers (traditionally 
a stronghold of rival Apple Computer) and what better way to do that 
than let them raise a generation of American kids on 1 billion 
dollars of "donated" software. Micro$oft has stolen 
intellectual property from other companies, bundled it in their 
software and used their dominant position to crush the very 
companies that it stole from. In doing so, it has also stifled 
competition and reduced the choices of the Global consumer to near 
nil.
    Please don't let them continue to do this.
    Russ Talbot
    Talbot Media
    Huntington Beach, CA



MTC-00001966

From: Jonas Haraldson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 7:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I cannot believe what I am reading in the news. Instead of 
effectively curtailing Microsofts ability to use its dominance to 
disadvantage competitors, you make them donate software (which costs 
hardly anything to produce) to schools. In essence, this enables 
them to gain marketshare in this market as well, and seriously hurt 
one of their few remaining competitors_Apple.
    This is as sad as it is counter productive.
    Best regards,
    Jonas Haraldson
    Stockholm, Sweden



MTC-00001967

From: Truong, Martin
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/21/01 7:19pm
Subject: Settlement
    The proposed settlement has all the appearance of a slap on the 
wrist for a major offender by a business-friendly administration. 
How can the option to settle be offered to a company that flaunts 
the findings of fact and audaciously releases a product (Windows XP) 
that continues the anticompetitive practices which got it in trouble 
in the first place? I urge the Justice Dept. to pursue justice in 
this case and seek a penalty that will curtail Microsoft's illegal 
activities.
    Martin Truong
    Lafayette, CO



MTC-00001968

From: P T Withington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 9:01pm
Subject: Microsoft is getting away with it
    Don't let Microsoft destroy our computer industry! They need to 
be reigned in. The current settlement is insufficient. They will 
simply continue to use their monopoly position to stifle innovation 
and increase their profits.
    Please reconsider this settlement.
    P. T. Withington



MTC-00001969

From: bettkett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 8:49pm
Subject: microsoft settlements
    I feel the Dept. Of Justice has sold out the American public in 
its case against Microsoft. I fell that Microsoft is the 
"Mafia" of the internet.I have the feeling that 
political contributions and lobbying have negated the rightful 
lawsuits pending by Attorney Generals of the injured states that 
have instituted the lawsuits. i feel the individual users of the 
internet plus the providers or the software and hardware will have 
been done great harm by the ineffective actione by the Dept. Of 
Justice.
    H.D.KETTERER
    419 PEARSON CIRCLE
    NEWPORT,N.C. 28570
    e-mail [email protected]



MTC-00001970

From: Brian Murphy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 8:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    DO NOT SETTLE for that $1 Billion Microsoft WINS in your face! 
fight on and make them pay for their actions!
    Do what is right!

[[Page 24012]]

    Thank you.
    Brian Murphy



MTC-00001971

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 7:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Disappointment
    Hello
    Exceedingly disappointed in the Microsoft settlement. The 
restrictions are far too weak and there are no punishments for past 
crimes. I have no doubt that Microsoft will soon dominate the 
Instant Messenger and Media Player markets_not because their 
products are superior, but because they are bundled with the 
operating system.
    In a few years the courts will have to deal with those issues. 
Its inevitable.
    Allen Fitzgerald



MTC-00001972

From: Andrew Bayly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 9:39pm
Subject: Competitive Suggestion
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I write concerning the Microsoft settlement.
    First, I should state that I am not a U.S. citizen. This may 
determine whether or not you may consider my thoughts.
    I am Australian. I began my university studies in computer 
science in 1979, and have since gained an MBA with a focus in 
strategy implementation. For many years I have used software from 
many manufacturers. I have a preference for the Macintosh platform, 
and have therefore experienced many of the problems that have led to 
the hearings concerning Microsoft's conduct.
    I believe that there is a simple settlement available in the 
Microsoft case that could be a generic solution applicable to all 
software developers.
    Simply, all file formats should be public property. All software 
should be obliged to save and open defined file formats, that could 
be updated by an industry committee (preferably made up of users, 
not manufacturers) every two years or so.
    This would eliminate the ability of a dominant market player to 
extend dominance from one market or product to another. In the case 
of Microsoft, all of its file types (doc, xls, ppt, and particularly 
its internet protocols) would become public property. Alternatively, 
Microsoft would be required to abandon its own formats and embrace 
publicly-owned and administered formats. This represents a simple 
extension of the "rtf" notion that is already embraced 
by the industry, and particularly, by its users.
    There are many simple analogies for this notion. Here is one: We 
would not tolerate a road system that could only be driven on one 
brand of tires. If a dominant road-layer (manufacturer) defined the 
type of tires that could operate on its roads, excluded other 
manufacturers from the ability to create tires that could work on 
its roads, and manufactured its own, it would be guilty of anti-
competitive behaviour of the highest order.
    If file-types were publicly owned (just as road surfaces are 
universally understood), then all software developers would be on a 
level playing field. Not incidentally, Microsoft could continue to 
thrive with a massive market share if it continued to innovate 
better than its competitors.
    I have posted this suggestion on computer-related bulletin 
boards and received warm feedback, and confirmation that this 
represents a realistic solution, from many technical minds, many of 
whom are U.S. citizens.
    If this solution were to be pursued, then Microsoft would not 
need to be split up, which would be a sad end for an extremely 
successful innovator.
    I thank you for your consideration.
    Yours faithfully,
    Andrew Bayly.



MTC-00001973

From: Jim Van Dinter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 9:19pm
Subject: Justice Department failure to protect comsumers!
    The failure of the Justice Department to in any way limit 
Microsoft with this agreement is an insult to that consumer 
community. And now we hear that your are going to let Microsoft buy 
out the ed market as part of the settlement. "Michael 
Theochares, an educational multimedia specialist at a Massachusetts 
public school, decried the settlement as 
"anticompetitive" and "targeted at a competitor 
with dominant market share" in elementary and secondary 
schools." (www.zdnet.com) This is what Microsoft did to 
Netscape and is attempting to do to AOL and Intuit.
    And the Justice Department is a partner to the Microsoft 
monopoly. Notice the word "is." We consumers believe 
that you are, not appear to be, but are bought and paid for by Bill 
and his friends. The Justice Department by its actions in this case 
has notified America that it can be bought.
    A judge and the appeals court have both ruled that Microsoft is 
a monopoly and has abused its position. Now, as part of the 
settlement, you plan to assist Microsoft in its next conquests. 
There are no penalties in this agreement. Now Microsoft proposes as 
a part of the agreement to "donate hardware and Microsoft 
software to schools. This is the same as giving away Microsoft 
Explorer to defeat Netscape and stifle Sun and the Java programing 
language.
    This agreement shows consumers that the Justice Department can 
be bought and that it is not to be trusted.
    James A. Van Dinter
    Boise, ID



MTC-00001975

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 10:08pm
Subject: Rush's pearls of wisdom
    (Note: This e-mail was sent from a web page, the from address 
cannot be verified.)
    Even Rush gets it! Why don't you? And why is the government 
STILL this arrogant, unrepentant monopolist's biggest customer? Can 
you say CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
    The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
    Subject: Rush's pearls of wisdom
    Date: 11/20/2001 10:42:31 PM
    Number: 79411
    Author: DarrelPr
    URL: http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=16148539
    From today's Rush Limbaugh program ... "As 
part of the settlement with the government, Microsoft has to spend 
$1 billion over five years outfitting poor schools with their 
computers and software. They're also going to cut the prices on 
their software for all schools. Now, don't you find this ironic?
    The reason Microsoft was in court in the first place was it was 
giving its product away. It supposedly had an unfair monopoly, it 
was everywhere, and forcing everybody out, and now in the 
settlement, the government is forcing Microsoft to be everywhere and 
give it away. In other words, the federal government is making 
Microsoft do exactly what they took them to court and sued them 
for."
    Whether or not you agree with his self assessment of 
"talent on loan from God", he does have a point.
    cheers,
    darrelpr



MTC-00001977

From: David Platzker
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/21/01 9:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorneys General;
    I'm a little confused by the terms of the settlement offer[s] 
being tendered by to, and additionally those being tendered by, 
Microsoft to settle the litigation regarding monopoly powers. Of 
particular grave concern is Microsoft's offer to "donate one 
billion dollars of software and hardware" as a less than 
honorable means to settle the class actions suits outside the 
Federal anti-trust suit.
    Does it not strike anybody that this will only EXTEND 
Microsoft's monopoly? Surely Microsoft is not going to be donating 
Apple equipment, nor any other software/hardware combination that is 
outside their existing monopoly. It is clear that this would only 
continue to hurt American consumers by further eroding any competing 
platform by simply removing a marketplace. This is no different from 
Microsoft blanketing consumers with free add-in software that 
destroyed potential marketplaces for internet browsers and word 
processing software.
    Please do not let Microsoft off without first protecting 
consumers, and manufacturers, from this monopoly.
    Regards,
    David Platzker
    Director
    Printed Matter, Inc.
    535 West 22nd Street
    New York, NY 10011
    212 925 0325 tel
    212 925 0464 fax
    [email protected]
    Printed Matter, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Our 
mission is to foster the appreciation, dissemination, and 
understanding of publications made by artists. Printed Matter is 
supported in part by

[[Page 24013]]

grants from the National Endowment for the Arts, the New York State 
Council on the Arts, the New York City Department of Cultural 
Affairs, The Roy and Niuta Titus Foundation, The Schoenstadt Family 
Foundation and private foundations and individuals worldwide.
    Printed Matter, Inc. is not affiliated with, nor a division of, 
the Dia Center for the Arts.



MTC-00001978

From: Robert Dollins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 10:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    As a computer user, teacher, software author, and industry 
watcher since 1978, it is painful to watch deals being made which 
fail to adequately punish Microsoft for the arrogant disdain with 
whicih it has treated its customers, business rivals AND partners 
since it made questionable acquisition of Seattle Blue's hack of 
Digital Research's CPM operating system . Microsoft has continually 
released products of questionable quality, supported them poorly and 
at disturbing costs to the consumers it purported to serve.
    All of the older computer users remember early days when 
Microsoft would rellease a really faulty product, then renig on 
promises to update and provide corrections. The only way to obtain 
corrections was to update the product, at great expense to the 
consumer.
    Most of us also remember the many innovative small companies 
which introduced new and excellent ways of performing tasks, onlly 
to attract the attention of Microsoft who, if unable to purchase the 
companies or ideas outright, created competing technologies that 
were not better, just designed to use Microsoft's immense power to 
destroy the competing companies and their ideas and leave Microsoft 
in control of the market. Finally, it's painful to watch the Court 
to capitulate to the arrogance and whims of a monster company who, 
in the Court's own ruling, DID stifle competition and deliberatly 
destroy other companies. Anyone, attorney, judge, computer user, 
customer, competitior, etc., who believes that the proposed 
settlement will prevent Microsoft from being up to their old tricks 
or showing any remorse should probably have their vision and hearing 
checked. They haven't been watching Microsoft closely enough and 
listening to what its customers ahve been saying for years.



MTC-00001979

From: Stephen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
    This letter is in reference to the antitrust suit against 
Microsoft. It appears to be that Microsoft will only get a slap on 
the wrist for their actions against the IT industry and our economy. 
It has been proven in court that the corporation hurts competition, 
hinders innovation, over charges for their products, as well as 
markets flawed and insecure software. How will the Department of 
Justice of the United States of America represent the people if 
Microsoft will not be broken up into smaller companies? Since the 
break-up option has been removed, Microsoft has shown its 
aggressive, monopolistic character. It would be in the best interest 
of the economy and for the reputation of the Department of Justice 
that Microsoft is severely punished for it's crimes. Otherwise, the 
people of this great nation will lose confidence in our judicial 
system. Please remember that this is the same company that used 
fraudulent video tapes under oath in court. This corporation lacks 
any code of ethics. I wish that no preference be given to them, as I 
expect no preference be given to me shall I make the mistake of 
committing of any crimes.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen Thomas
    PC Technician



MTC-00001980

From: Cookie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 11:51pm
Subject: Microsoft penalties?
    I am very disappointed with your settlement. Fortunately nine 
states' AG's agree with me. I have sent the following to the states' 
AG's dissatisfied with the terms of the USDOJ settlement agreement.
    "It seems to me that Microsoft has indulged in not only 
anti-trust violations but racketeering as well. Is this a possible 
avenue of approaching their abuses"
    Thanks
    Brian Cook
    310 South 16th street
    Quincy Illinois 62301
    Cookie ?
    800 652 5621 [email protected]
    ICQ: 29826792 AIM: u8acookie
    This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain 
confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No 
confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any 
mistransmission.
    If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete 
it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of 
it and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, 
disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you 
are not the intended recipient. Cookie and each of his subsidiaries 
each reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through 
his networks.
    Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual 
sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is 
authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity.
    Unless otherwise stated, any pricing information given in this 
message is indicative only, is subject to change and does not 
constitute an offer to deal at any price quoted.
    Any reference to the terms of executed transactions should be 
treated as preliminary only and subject to our formal written 
confirmation.
    CC:[email protected] 
@inetgw,attorney.gener...



MTC-00001981

From: lloyd olson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 11:28pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    If the settlement is Ok by Microsoft, it is Ok by us, but I do 
think it is a lot of money [products] for them to have to pay, when 
the whole case should have been thrown out of court. Anyway it 
should be a good deduction on their income tax.
    Sincerely,
    Lloyd and Eileen Olson



MTC-00001982

From: Mike
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected] 
@inetgw,...
Date: 11/21/01 11:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Deal
    Dear Sirs;
    I am righting to tell you that I do not believe that this deal 
that is being offered to Microsoft concerning their monopolistic 
practices is punishment to them at all. They will be allowed to 
supply school systems with refurbished computer hardware that will 
be dependant upon their operating system, guaranteeing them a future 
customer as the schools will then be locked into their system. Is 
any consideration going into what systems the schools are currently 
using? If the school is currently using old Mac systems will they 
also be including training and support for the staff and students 
moving to a completely different ,and more complex system. This is 
also a market place that they have been anxious to get a good foot 
hold in that is currently their only true competition main market 
share. Sounds like this deal simply gives Microsoft the oppertunity 
to do to Apple what it already has done to Netscape. If this was 
truly punishment they would be made to supply the schools with new 
systems based by one of their competions like Sun or Apple.
    Sincerely ,
    Michael Quiroz
    1800 Casa Linda St
    92363



MTC-00001983

From: Matt Wills
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 6:07am
Subject: Microsoft
    Microsoft's plan to pay off a supposed $1.1 billion settlement 
by "providing" its own software is an absolute joke. Not 
only does it not cost Microsoft the full dollar amount (bad enough 
on its own)but, in the process of "giving" school 
districts "free" software and Intel computers,
    1. hooks them into the Windows-Intel upgrade cycle for the 
foreseeable future,
    2. shut outs competition (from Apple or anyone else), and
    3. leaves everyone it touches thinking inside the Windows-Intel 
box.
    ("Does that software you want work with our FREE Windows/
Intel systems? No? Well, then we'd better stay away from it, 
then!"). What kind of settlement "penalizes" the 
wrongdoer by leaving it in a stronger position than before? See the 
first line of this message.
    Matt

[[Page 24014]]



MTC-00001984

From: Jean Labrique
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 9:17am
Subject: microsoft
    Why such "coercitive" action against free 
enterprise? Microsoft was the software company that allowed millions 
of users to get reasonable access to computers! Do you always have 
to kill entrepreneurs?



MTC-00001985

From: Angel Lamuno
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 8:45am
Subject: American citizens powerless
    It is all too sad to see that American citizens are every bit as 
powerless as we Mexican citizens are. Microsoft have been found 
guilty of abusing its monopoly and there has been no punitive 
measure at all!
    They are even striking a deal that will make them virtually 
invulnerable to any sort of control by the DOJ in the future.
    I do not think that people in the DOJ have no understanding 
whatsoever of what they are doing, I would rather be apt to think 
that there is as much corruption in the USA as in any third world 
country.
    You are definitely contributing in a significant way to the 
destruction and not to the building of a great country by putting 
Microsoft above the law and the best interest of the people.
    Yours truly,
    Angel Lamuno



MTC-00001986

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 8:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is a follow-up to my previous e-mail regarding the 
currently proposed Microsoft Settlement agreement. In particular I 
wish to address the $1.5 billion donation of software and hardware. 
I would strongly urge that this be changed to MS handing over to the 
SLD 1.5 in CASH to be used in the next funding year for the federal 
e-rate program. This would provide a total of $4 billion instead of 
the $2.5 billion that are allocated each year. There are many 
advantages to this. First there is already a plan in place to 
distribute these funds based on school lunch programs. There are 
strict requirements for filing and most importantly the schools get 
to choose the technology that meets their needs and are not forced 
to use a MS solution that, once again, propagates their monopolistic 
position and does in fact hurt other companies in the field of 
academic software and hardware.
    Joe Barisa



MTC-00001987

From: DAVID SCOTT
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 10:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has not only enforced an illegal monopoly resulting in 
the stunted growth of the software industry and tens of billions of 
dollars in damages to the consumers and software writers, but it has 
now also currupted the Judiciary and the Justice Dept. It is very 
sad to see the difference a large contribution to the republican 
party makes in the outcome of this trial. Disgraceful.
    dave



MTC-00001988

From: Don Adams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 10:00am
Subject: MS
    I can't believe Microsoft is getting off so easy. After reading 
an superior article in Wired magazine I believe MS should be 
severely punished or it will continue it's anticompetive behaviors.
    Don Adams



MTC-00001989

From: Daniel Ouellette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 9:54am
Subject: Microsoft
    Please fight a strenuous but persistent battle against 
Microsoft. More so than ever before this battle will determine 
whether America can remain truly free and appropriately competitive 
in the changing face of globalization.
    I support this fight whenever and whereever I can.
    Thank you,
    Daniel Ouellette
    New York, NY



MTC-00001990

From: deceiver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 9:52am
Subject: Microsoft
    As an educator of 24 years I would like to say that the $1 
billion deal for Microsoft is totally unacceptable. It would only 
strengthen their noose around the neck of the american computer 
using public, make them look good, and provide nothing but 
propaganda to the youth they claim to be serving. It would also 
cause the government to facilitate exactly the issues it is trying 
to solve. The infusion of Microsoft's technology into the schools 
would further foil the inroads other computer platforms have 
miraculously made in spite of Microsofts shady practices.
    I say this while writing in Microsoft's buggy Outlook Express 
mail program because I have little choice.



MTC-00001991

From: David K. Wolfe
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/22/01 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am very disappointed with the US Justice System settlement of 
the Microsoft case. It indicates to me and the rest of the world 
that big business like Microsoft can get away with anti-trust 
violations and racketeering with just a slap on the wrist. Microsoft 
has a massive monopoly of the computer industry gained by illegal 
practices. They have threatned computer vendors to accept their 
demands or be forced out of business. Is this the new definition of 
"free enterprise"?
    David K. Wolfe
    30 Royal Crest Drive, Apt 8
    Marlborough MA 01752



MTC-00001992

From: Moreno
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 11:24am
Subject: Microsoft's tentative settlement
    Name: Guillermo Moreno
    Address: 13065 Thoroughbred Way
    Whittier, Ca 90601
    Profession: Algebra 1 Teacher
    I'm writing to let you know of my disappointment in Microsoft's 
tentative settlement. From what I have read, how could the 
government agree to a settlement the allows and gives Microsoft an 
additional 14,000 new corporate clients. By giving cash, software 
and hardware (none of which hurt them except the cash), we give 
Microsoft clients to sell their future products to and over 500,000 
future customer for free (the students). We can see how Microsoft 
works with their .Net plan and Windows XP (Microsoft all the time 
and only Microsoft services), get them hooked, then reel them in.
    When Dell donates computers to schools and Universities, it's 
better than buying advertising time on television because each and 
every students gets continuous advertisement. In addition to this, 
Dell guarantees continuing revenues of services and products, not to 
mention tax breaks. School think is cheaper, but it isn't because 
they spent millions of dollars replacing a system they already use, 
millions more training, and millions more on maintenance. But since 
schools are very political, they do it and make some excuse-mostly 
their cost saving of buying new equipment. All false.
    This will apply to Microsoft as well, they will have continuing 
crops of new clients each and every year. And as for the Education 
market that Apple currently holds (now as low as 30%), it will 
shrink even more. How does this change Microsoft's monopoly status? 
It doesn't. I want to thank you for standing up to the governments 
tentative agreement and refusal to settle with Microsoft. To really 
make any settlement work we need to adjust the playing field not 
give Microsoft a large playing field. Here are my suggestions.
    1. Have Microsoft donate 1.5 billion dollars to some of the 
poorest schools to purchase computers from Microsoft's competitors. 
That means that schools should not be purchasing and/or replacing 
existing non Windows machines. They should be purchasing non Windows 
machines and creating infrastructure for non Windows networks. This 
could be Linux, Unix, Mac, or what ever, but there should be choice 
away from Microsoft solutions.
    2. Using Microsoft's dominance of 98% and the industry's NGP a 
formula should be formulated to allow annual tax levies against 
them. These taxes can then be divided into three parts.
    One, schools should be given continued support to continue non 
Windows solutions. In other words, schools should be getting moneys 
every year to continue to purchase non Microsoft software and 
products. This will allow schools to seek out products from 
Microsoft's competitors and allow for competition.
    Second, moneys should be given to Microsoft's competitors 
directly to advertise

[[Page 24015]]

and allow people to see choice. Linux, for example, has grown in 
spite of Microsoft because people want choice, but most won't see it 
at all. Most people will only see Windows because Microsoft can 
easily purchase and buy advertisement time. So how are company that 
produce other operating system expected to survive? BeOS just died, 
Mac is loosing ground, how much longer can the others survive? Some 
will argue about setting a standard OS. Why, so that killer computer 
virus kills all the computers at once? We need to have choice, but 
if these small OS don't get larger, application companies won't make 
new products.
    Since Microsoft got so big by eating up small companies, it 
makes sense to give them a chance for people to see them and not let 
Microsoft bury them with Billions of dollars in advertisements.
    Third, give some of the money to companies that make Windows 
products that compete directly with other Microsoft products. Again 
for advertisement, such as Corel. It's not that Microsoft makes the 
best products, it's that people just don't know that other products 
exist, unless they're in the business. The fact that other companies 
exist at all itself says a lot about how people really don't want 
Microsoft products. But with all the advertisement and money spent 
my Microsoft to dominate, the general public doesn't really know and 
they continue to feed the big monster making it bigger and bigger. 
Microsoft and others will then claim it's what the people want, no I 
don't. Most new Windows based computers already come with 
Microsoft's Office, that's really going to make easy for people to 
buy competing products isn't it? The percentages and moneys is 
something the could be worked out, we don't want to destroy 
Microsoft only hurt them and increase the amount of choice out 
there. As Microsoft's dominance percentage decreases, their penalty 
should be decrease and eventually eliminated.
    As we can see in Microsoft's new Windows XP, XBox, and WebTV, 
they've made so much money on eliminating choice that they can began 
to expand their dominance into other fields. They will survive.
    Now by giving them 14,000 new clients, 500,000 future customers 
year, and free advertising and calling that a punishment, it's just 
not right. Please continue to fight for the general public and for 
freedom of choice.
    Thank you.



MTC-00001993

From: Ric
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 10:50am
Subject: Re: Microsoft's Class action settlement, and Antitrust 
settlement
    Good day !
    Microsoft just can't ever seem to 'lose' anything that 
it's tried for. In it's 'CLASS ACTION' suit settlement, 
Microsoft has promised to 'GIVE' the poorest schools in 
the USA Free computers and software. How is this a punishment??? It 
is estimated that the settlement will 'cost' Microsoft 
$1.1 Billion, and will benefit MILLIONS of students in the US. 
Firstly, the 'software' part of it will NOT cost 
Microsoft that much, as Microsoft's cost for software is 
"NOT" the RETAIL cost. Secondly, this is nothing more 
than Public Relations stunt, and Advertising for the company and 
it's products. What difference does it make that Microsoft spends $1 
Billion in it's ad campaigns for Windows XP (as Microsoft itself 
claims), or if it GIVES away it's products to millions of people. 
The net result of this is a continued propagation of it's products 
domination and exposure.
    The Best possible response to this (and I have abosolutely NO 
invested interest in this company...) is Red Hat's offer to give all 
those schools FREE software. I HIGHLY suggest that some 
consideration be given to the idea that Microsoft use the 1.1 
Billion to buy nothing but Hardware and allow ANY other software 
vendor to participate, if they are offering FREE software and tools.
    The very idea that Microsoft would 'give' as a function of 
it's financial penalties it's very own software does NOTHING less 
than help perpetuate the very monopoly that it currently holds. I'd 
like to point out that the very fact that Microsoft AGREED to 
'ANY' kind of settlement, would substantiate the fact 
that the proposed remedy/settlement could not possibly be a 
significantly serious punishment. Microsft is NOT stupid, and their 
army of lawyers will only agree to anything that will BENEFIT the 
company... At consumers and competitors expense.
    In legal circles, as history would dictate, Microsoft has NEVER, 
ever agreed to any kind of remedy in its long history of offenses 
that would even remotely hinder the way it conducts business. And 
this new settlement continues this trend.
    If anything, what has been learned in this entire antitrust case 
is, that if you are an entity that in itself has more financial 
muscle and endurance than even the government and the 19 states 
combined, you will eventually reach a point where your opponents 
will run out of money and 'steam'... As did the DOJ ! And the 
net result will be instead of a serious punishment being dealt, you 
will get a mere 'scolding'. And will be able to continue your 
practices with MINIMAL intervention. Although this idea (by the DOJ) 
was quickly disregarded, I think some creedence should be given to 
the REMEDIAL idea that Microsoft should BE FORCED to release a 
version of Windows XP WITHOUT all the "UNWANTED" bundled 
software.
    It is NOT FAIR to 'force' people to pay for features they 
will never use. The idea of an oversight committee overseeing 
Microsoft's internal activities, is doomed to absolute failure. 
Please do not take these concerns lightly, as the impact of the 
proposed settlements will greatly impact the technology industry as 
a whole, and consumers.
    Thank you for hearing/reading my concerns!
    ...Ric...



MTC-00001994

From: Sergei Ludanov
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 10:39am
Subject: What a shame!
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I was very disappointed to hear about a shame in wich DOJ put 
itself by accepting settlement with Microsoft.
    Microsoft predatory politics and practice greatly damaged the 
development and innovation in computing. If not for Microsoft we 
would have better and faster computers, friendlier operating systems 
and better software. By settlement US Department of Justice 
practically encourages Microsoft to continue its anti competitive 
practice and harm against consumers. Unfortunately instead of 
protecting consumers, DOJ decided to protect monopoly. Fortunately 
we can hope that 9 courageous states that disagreed with DOJ will 
continue efforts to bring Microsoft to Justice. I am proud that a 
live in one of these states.
    Sincerely,
    Sergei Ludanov
    9116 Greco Court
    Sacramento CA 95829



MTC-00001995

From: cvsrj
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 12:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    This settlement does nothing to redress the losses to the 
individual end user and small hardware/software companies.
    Individual customers, including myself, have spent hundreds of 
frustrating hours trying to get Microsoft Windows software to work 
then buying the next version of the software because something that 
was available was simply left out of the previous software 
apparently so it could be in a later upgrade_ (ICS in win98se 
is one example). The upgrades for windows continue to be 
$100-200 or so each. At the same time hardware has dropped at 
least 10X in price while there has been a 10x increase in hardware 
functionality. Each upgrade of windows also consumes a lot more 
space and processor time for only slightly increased functionality. 
Most of the improvements were originally the intellectual property 
of other companies that was bought or just appropriated by 
Microsoft. Since windows remains a monopoly the market cannot 
control the price. The government must therefore control the price 
for windows and it must drop equally with hardware 
costs_individual consumers should be offered the same price as 
hardware companies. Service should also improve dramatically. I have 
bought upgrades for windows (95, 98 (x2), 98se (x4), ME (x3)) for 
each of several computers_however over the last few years when 
I call Microsoft service because the software has problems the clear 
implication is that I first need to prove I have a separate copy of 
windows including upgrades for each computer_which I 
do_then I get a solution that does not work.
    Developers of Microsoft office, Microsoft Games, and other 
software also have far more direct access to information concerning 
the windows operating system than other companies in the United 
States. I agree that the code is should be a trade secret but all 
United States companies and individuals that develop software need 
to have free access to at least how the source code works for the

[[Page 24016]]

only operating system available to run their software. Perhaps DOJ 
should also keep copies of all source code in trust at a site other 
than Microsoft. DOJ employees will essentially be Microsoft 
employees if they do everything at the Microsoft campus.
    The final comment I have is the corporate culture of our country 
is changing so short-term gains for stockholders that buy and sell 
rapidly (Including executives that use stock options and sell them 
the same day) is more important than preparing for the future. 
Microsoft does seem to invest in some basic research_that is 
good. But it is clear that they prefer to buy the ideas of others. 
The settlement should encourage basic research at the college/post 
graduate level and not just bring everyone up to the same mediocre 
level, as will be done by just giving Microsoft software to poorly 
performing primary and secondary schools.
    Very Respectfully
    Chris Stacy



MTC-00001996

From: mark evans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 11:36am
Subject: you're letting Microsoft off the hook
    Why are you letting these criminals off so lightly?
    I am an independent web developer and a multi platform user who 
greatly fears that Microsoft will continue to abuse it's position in 
the market to block competition and force usage of it's products. I 
also believe based on their previous behaviors that MS will 
eventually use it's position to invade my privacy and/or charge me a 
Microsoft tax to use the internet simply because they control such a 
tremendous portion of the market that I have no choice. Their 
recently announced "generosity" in offering to 
indoctrinate our children into their ongoing de facto monopoly as a 
settlement is proof enough to me that they will continue their anti-
competitive behaviors. If the DOJ allows this, they are doing 
further injustice to the future of competition for our industry and 
for the future of US business in general. Stop them now before they 
are more powerful than the government itself.
    I couldn't put it more better than the columnist below so I will 
just point you directly at his comments.
    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011108.html
    neo-meme.com: info architecture * web project management on-line 
presence development for business
    2963 W. Nelson #3 * Chicago, IL 60618 * 773/478-9131



MTC-00001997

From: David K. Wolfe
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/22/01 11:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very disappointed with the US Justice System settlement of 
the Microsoft case. It indicates to me and the rest of the world 
that big business like Microsoft can get away with anti-trust 
violations and racketeering with just a slap on the wrist. Microsoft 
has a massive monopoly of the computer industry gained by illegal 
practices. They have threatned computer vendors to accept their 
demands or be forced out of business. Is this the new definition of 
"free enterprise"?
    David K. Wolfe
    30 Royal Crest Drive, Apt 8
    Marlborough MA 01752



MTC-00001998

From: Bruce M. Binder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Office of the Attorney General:
    I was very disappointed in the Federal government's settlement 
in the Microsoft anti-trust case and I hope California will continue 
to pursue a more severe remedy. I have a suggestion for a part of a 
remedy. Microsoft should be fined a large amount of money, and that 
money should be used to help fund software companies in California. 
Microsoft should be required to help put software companies *in* 
business instead of out of business.
    The money should be used to set up a fund and an independent 
non-profit organization to administer it. The money would be used by 
startup software companies or by existing companies developing new 
software. It could be dispersed as grants, loans, investments, or 
however the organization sees fit. Some restrictions would have to 
be in place, such as limiting the funds to companies developing 
software for Microsoft platforms. Additionally, Microsoft could be 
required to distribute, on its operating system media, any software 
developed under this program that a software company wanted 
distributed. This plan has benefits to software companies, 
Microsoft, and the State of California. Software companies would 
have this additional source of funding available in a market where 
venture capital is not as available as it once was. It would 
encourage the type of innovation and variety in the software market 
that led to Microsoft's success in the first place. By making this 
money available, California would encourage companies to set up 
software companies in the state, mitigating some of the recent 
layoffs.
    I believe there are other restrictions that should be required 
as part of the remedy, and the above suggestion is not meant to 
replace them. Some of the restrictions have been addressed in the 
Federal settlement, and other, stronger restrictions are needed. 
However, I do not think an extremely strong punitive action in the 
form of a massive fine is uncalled for, especially if the money can 
be put to a constructive use.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Bruce M. Binder
    San Diego, California



MTC-00001999

From: Jibu Abraham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 1:21pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Hi,
    I had the privilege to read the settlement documents for the 
case against Microsoft. To me, it seems quite a joke that our 
Department of Justice "settled" in this manner. It leads 
me to purport that Microsoft has the DoJ in its pockets. I do not 
see any substantial penalty for Microsoft in this 
"deal". In fact, I see the DoJ helping Microsoft to 
continue its unfair practices, given the very vague language used in 
the settlement, and few clearly defined "penalties" for 
Microsoft. The "penalties" that are clearly defined, are 
in my opinion, more supportive to Microsoft's business than a true 
penalty for its past business practices. The DoJ should reconsider 
its standing on this case, and not allow itself to be bought by 
Microsoft.
    Thanks,
    Jibu Abraham



MTC-00002000

From: Robert McNeal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 1:17pm
Subject: Regulate the computer industry!
    I can't believe what I'm seeing! First, the Supreme Court lets 
Microsoft off on conditions containing loopholes big enough to fly a 
B-52 through, and now the States are letting Microsoft walk with the 
condition of a $1 billion educational 'donation' 
settlement. This settlement contains refurbished PCs and Microsoft 
software that will surely take great strides in driving Apple 
Computers out of the education market, furthering Microsoft's 
monopoly. Could these settlements have actually made matter's worse 
for what's left of the computer industry?
    As a unix user, It makes me sick to see 30 years worth of 
standardization efforts crumble as an unchecked monopoly forces its 
closed systems into the server market. Where unix and linux have 
innovated, Microsoft only sees the opportunity to build a closed 
system upon the work of others and drive the pioneering developers 
out of business. I'm really too enraged to put into words.
    Why is the FCC not maintaining standards for internet protocols? 
What if nobody regulated the transmitter power for TV and radio 
stations? Whoever could afford the most powerful transmitter could 
overpower the transmissions of any competing networks. Every time a 
competitor upgrades a transmitter to reach its market, the market 
leader could upgrade its transmitter to dangerous levels of 
radiation so that only their broadcasts could be picked up on the 
airwaves. Eventually, in these unregulated airwaves, even the 
military would have to bow to the broadcast leader if they needed to 
do a radio transmission. Now we have XP, every system sold will have 
all ports exposed to viruses by default. In these trying times, 
people are jailed for harboring or supporting terrorists. Now 
Microsoft is intentionally making the most viral operating system on 
the planet even more virus friendly. Why? Perhaps to place the blame 
on TCP-IP and use the misplaced blame as an opportunity to introduce 
yet another Microsoft only 'standard.'
    See: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/
    First Java, then the 'embed' html tag, Microsoft has 
blatantly chosen to abandon existing standards in order to expand 
market dominance. The United States have chosen not to regulate any 
sort of standards in order

[[Page 24017]]

 to expand Microsoft's market dominance. Granted, some people like 
to be treated like sheep and have a corporation decide how they 
should exist in the emerging digital age, but these mindless zombies 
should not dictate the future of the rest of the world.
    So the US has sold out to Corporate America once again. The 
digital age will be a slave nation of 'subscribers' to 
Microsoft's corrupt agenda of exclusion. We shall no longer be the 
technological leaders of the world. Perhaps Europe will have more 
common sense when they try Microsoft. I can only hope that they can 
regulate the crimes Microsoft commits abroad, support competition by 
funding Open Source development, or at least put their money where 
their mouth is by not using Microsoft products and directly 
supporting corrupt business practices.
    I've never been so ashamed to be an American.
    Robert McNeal
    Henninger Media Services
    2601-A Wilson Blvd.
    Arlington, VA 22201
    703.908.4243 office
    703.283.7096 cell
    703.243.4023 fax
    http://www.henninger.com
    CC:[email protected] 
@inetgw,attorney.gener...



MTC-00002001

From: Kevin Hall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 12:49pm
Subject: a joke
    This settlement is a joke. Once again Microsoft wins again. Is 
there anybody who will stand up to this company, beside Janet Reno?



MTC-00002002

From: Robert McNeal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 2:23pm
Subject: Micro$oft is corrupt... Are you?
    Q: Why do cars run on polluting gasoline rather than clean 
burning alchohol?
    A: Because of a Big Business deal between Ford and Rockefeller 
to sell off gasoline, the by-product of coal refining, rather than 
use corn based alcohol that would support the poor a American 
farmers.
    Q: Why do cars still run on gasoline after the environmental and 
international damages are so appearant?
    A: Perhaps because of lobbying generations of corrupt government 
officials?
    Q: Why do ALL major consumer PCs come with a 'Microsoft 
Tax?' Why can't I buy a PC to use with whatever operating I 
choose?
    A: Because of threats from Microsoft to be PC manufacturers to 
be left out of their 'standards.'
    Q: Why is Microsoft still operating unchecked by the government 
after nearly ruining the computer indusry?
    A: Please reply to this message with a good one. $1 billion for 
education? What is the point of training our children to work in the 
computer industry at the cost of killing the industry?
    Robert McNeal
    Henninger Media Services
    2601-A Wilson Blvd.
    Arlington, VA 22201
    703.908.4243 office
    703.283.7096 cell
    703.243.4023 fax
    http://www.henninger.com
    CC:[email protected] 
@inetgw,attorney.gener...



MTC-00002003

From: Andrew B. Lundgren
To: Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 11/22/01 2:12pm
Subject: Redhat proposal change to the microsoft settlement.
    The portion of the MS settlement allowing them to donate their 
software to schools will do more for benefiting MS than helping the 
people involved. They will simply be able to inculcate the poor 
youth with MS software.
    Before accepting the MS software/hardware and training proposal, 
please consider the Redhat proposal. Let MS donate the same amount 
of money, but just use it on hardware and training. Instead of using 
just Redhat linux also include Suse, Caldera, Turbo, Debian, if they 
are willing. If a person understands Linux usage and administration, 
then Windows is a cake walk. The training on Unix will give them a 
much better understanding of computers and give them a better 
understanding of technology. MS software is designed to isolate the 
user for the computer, opensource software generally is not.
    Please do not allow MS to further their monopoly as part of the 
settlement. Allow them to help out others, but not to their specific 
betterment.
    Thank you.
    Andrew Lundgren
    [email protected]
    http://www.itwest.net/ï¿½7Elundgren



MTC-00002004

From: Adrian Verwolf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 1:52pm
Subject: Proposed settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    The leeway engineered into this settlement agreement is 
transparent and disturbing. Aside from its general inadequacy in 
addressing the bases of the expensive and hard-fought case that the 
DOJ successfully presented against Microsoft, the definitional 
vagueness will allow even greater abuses than in the past. Microsoft 
will be unhindered in synthesizing and applying its own definitions 
to inherently fuzzy and rapidly evolving technologies.
    As a single glaring example of the malleability of the terms of 
this settlement, refer to section III, J, 2 (b); therein Microsoft 
is essentially given license to restrict its own cooperation in 
sharing information on the basis that such information is not for a 
legitimate business purpose.
    Microsoft could clearly argue that certain open-source 
development groups had no such purpose in spite of the fact that 
such development efforts are clearly in the best interest of the 
American people.
    To clarify: the open source Samba service, reverse-engineered to 
interoperate with MS client PCs and servers, outperforms Windows 
2000 Server file services in a number of scenarios. Samba is clearly 
a useful product, available for little or no cost, the development 
of which may have had no "legitimate business purpose" 
under the terms of this settlement.
    Thousands of organizations rely on Samba to host proprietary 
Microsoft file services, despite the fact that Microsoft developed 
the protocol and offered no assistance to Samba developers. The long 
and short is this: Microsoft would prefer that Samba didn't exist, 
and is given license under this settlement to make such competing 
technologies unavailable by leveraging the power of a huge base of 
installed computers and MS software against such encroachment.
    The solution to this specific issue is to require Microsoft to 
reveal all proprietary communication protocols to all interested 
organizations. The exceptions listed in the settlement (security, 
native server comm, encryption, etc.) are constructed solely for the 
benefit of Microsoft.
    The open source community, for example, has developed stable, 
highly secure protocols whose sources are available for perusal by 
virtually anyone.
    In fact, full disclosure is in the public interest because it 
inherently promotes system interoperability, robustness, and 
security.
    The above example is not in any way meant to be comprehensive; 
rather, it intends to be illustrative of the flawed construction of 
the proposed settlement in a single context, and how it might be 
effectively remedied.
    As a resident of Seattle and an advanced user of Microsoft 
consumer and commercial products, I want the company to succeed for 
a variety of fairly obvious reasons. However, this shouldn't be 
attained by the application of anticompetitive business practices 
that the DOJ has already proven to exist.
    Excellent alternative technologies should be encouraged by any 
settlement; this proposal fails utterly to allow such advances to 
develop in a competitive, fair environment.
    I use Apple products extensively in addition to Wintel systems, 
and am rapidly expanding my use of UNIX-based and open source 
software. In the real world, there is a need for each platform; this 
settlement undermines the potential for best aspects of each to 
emerge in ways that benefit people, businesses, and organizations.
    Sincerely,
    Adrian Verwolf



MTC-00002005

From: Larry Tan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 5:55pm
Subject: USA Today Article Feedback: Microsoft criticized for 
private suit settlement
    Greetings,
    As an IT professional, I'm appalled at the Microsoft settlement. 
You've basically given Microsoft an opportunity to saturate schools 
with massive pro-Microsoft product marketing. This type of marketing 
is what they've done all along; This is no punishment! Their 
products are founded

[[Page 24018]]

upon proprietary operability with other Microsoft products, at the 
expense of operability with competitors products. Don't get me 
wrong, I use both Microsoft operating systems and software products, 
but the two are too tightly coupled. The public would have been 
better served had the Operating Systems group been split from the 
Software group. That would truly have fostered many potentially 
lucrative and beneficial partnerships within the industry.
    Larry Tan
    Salem, Oregon USA



MTC-00002006

From: Neal McBurnett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 4:34pm
Subject: Microsoft continues to hurt consumers by illegally 
extending monopolies
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is completely inadequate. 
Microsoft continues to hurt consumers by illegally extending 
monopolies, and your proposed settlement will do little to change 
that.
    This happens in the word processing market in which they now use 
bundling arrangements to help MS Word and Office displace the 
competition. Having the documentation of a huge percentage of the 
world in a proprietary format is bad for our security and for 
innovation.
    Microsoft is now aggressively trying to take over the Internet 
services market with its Passport and .NET initiatives. In 
particular, the Passport system puts Microsoft in control of a vast 
amount of valuable and confidential consumer information. But 
Microsoft has demonstrated not only the likelihood that it will use 
that position to the detriment of fair competition, but also that it 
is incapable of protecting the privacy of that information.
    III.J: J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall... Require 
Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties: (a) 
portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of 
Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise 
the security of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital 
rights management, encryption or authentication systems, including 
without limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement 
criteria Exempting security-related portions of APIs from the API 
disclosure requirements is not only disastrous for fair competition 
but also bad for our security. Time and time again it has been 
demonstrated that "security through obscurity" is bad 
practice, since the inevitable design flaws and bugs get broadly 
embedded in the marketplace before the flaws and exploits are 
discovered and developed, leaving more at risk.
    The way this is written, in fact, encourages Microsoft to use 
protocols which are weak and thus would be protected from 
disclosure, since disclosure would compromise their security and 
trigger this provision.
    Please reevaluate your position, listen to the state attorneys-
general, and ensure that Microsoft cannot continue to abuse its 
monopolies. A split-up looks like the best approach_into three 
companies to pursue the OS, the applications, and Internet services.
    Thank you,
    Neal McBurnett
    



MTC-00002007

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 4:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I was amazed when I heard what Microsoft was proposing as its 
"punishment" for exerting monoplolistic practices. The 
offer is insulting to the US Department of Justice, the country's 
legal system, and ultimately the American people. That they would 
advertise offering $1.1 billion in software (software that is 
readily reproduceable for less that $1 per computer) is absurd. That 
they would seek to exert their monopoly on future generations by 
exposing them to "their" way of computer usage and their 
way alone, borders once again on the criminal. I would hope that 
those far wiser and more learned than me can see through such overt 
deception. If not, we have probelms far graver than one arrogant 
software company.
    One additional comment. As a long time professional in the 
software industry, Microsoft's agreement to make available part of 
its source code to some of its distributors also leaves me troubled. 
The original Windows operating system, though a huge franchise, is 
being replaced by new code. This means that Microsoft has given to 
the world something that they see has little value to their's or any 
other organization. Microsoft is the dominant player in the software 
industry and as such has provided an electronic lingua franca to the 
world. I would hate to see their demise. I would also hate to see 
their monopolistic practices continue to squelch the inventiveness 
of those ideas that Microsoft eventually steals and markets as its 
own



MTC-00002008

From: Dan Ryder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 3:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing to express my concern about the recent proposed 
settlement ("Proposed Final Judgment") of the antitrust 
case against Microsoft. I believe that time pressure, and perhaps 
economic concerns related to the events of Sept. 11, have resulted 
in the antitrust division of your department making a hasty deal 
that will ultimately harm consumers. I am seriously concerned that 
we are all witnessing a repeat of the inadequate consent decree of 
July 1994.
    I applaud the state attorneys general who refused to sign this 
settlement because it delivers no more than a slap on the wrist to a 
company that has repeatedly engaged in egregious illegal anti-
competitive practices, as found by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, 
and upheld by the court of appeal. The proposed settlement states 
that the code that constitutes Windows "shall be determined by 
Microsoft in its sole discretion." In conjunction with the 
provision that Microsoft need not reveal communication protocols for 
non-trademarked middleware that is not distributed separately from 
Windows, this gives the company a large loophole through which it 
may continue its practice of abusing its (illegally maintained) 
monopoly by "extending, enhancing, and exterminating" 
competing software, to the detriment of consumers. There are other 
large loopholes as well; for instance, Microsoft need not reveal 
communications protocols to open-source developers or anyone else 
the company deems not to have a "viable business". 
Windows XP, with its bundled technologies like Passport, will simply 
give the company more power to extend its monopoly into other areas. 
Frankly, I am stunned and amazed that it seems you intend to allow 
this.
    Further, the enforcement measures according to the proposed 
settlement are inadequate because the three member Technical 
Committee is not held sufficiently accountable, and there is no easy 
way to impose penalties for clear infractions, other than launching 
a further lawsuit. Not only that, but the proposed settlement does 
not "deny the defendant the fruits of its statutory 
violation," which is what a remedies decree ought to do 
according to the Supreme Court. Again, your department seems to have 
failed in its duty.
    I do not believe that entry of the revised proposed Final 
Judgment will serve the public interest, and I urge you to withdraw 
your consent.
    Yours truly,
    Dan Ryder
    ([email protected])
    Department of Philosophy
    University of North Carolina
    Chapel Hill NC 27599-3125
    
    CC:[email protected] 
@inetgw,attorney.gener...



MTC-00002009

From: Wayne Hammett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 7:29pm
Subject: Comments on proposed Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement has several flaws and 
loopholes that should be rectified before being accepted by the 
court.
    (1.) The terms +ACI-reasonable convenience+ACI-, +ACI-reasonable 
opportunity+ACI-, +ACI-reasonable notice+ACI- are much too vague and 
should either should be replaced with a specific time period, or 
reasonable should be defined in the definitions section of the 
document as a time period not to exceed 30 days.
    (2.) The technical committee should select and appoint by the 
court from a list of qualified persons nominated by Microsoft, the 
Justice Department, and the general public (including Microsoft 
Competitors).
    Each of the three groups above should nominate at least five 
candidates. The court shall have the option to select any five 
candidates from those put forth by the general public, or name 
individuals to bring the nominees of the general public up to five. 
The court shall have the government investigate the background and 
qualification of all nominees and report their findings to the 
court. The court shall appoint one technical committee member from 
each of

[[Page 24019]]

the three groups of nominees, to form the three person technical 
committee.
    If a member of the technical committee resigns or is unable to 
serve for any reason, the court at its discretion may choose a 
replacement from that member's sponsoring group, or may request five 
new nominees be named to choose from.
    Upon expiration of the term of service, the same procedure shall 
be followed to appoint a new technical committee. A committee member 
may not succeed himself.
    (3.) Technical committee members should be officers of the 
court. They should be permitted to testify, and their work product, 
finding, and recommendations should be admissible in any court 
action relative compliance with the Final Judgement.
    (4.) Five years of oversight is too short_I recommend a 
minimum of 10 years. Microsoft has engaged in egregious anti-
competitive behavior for at least 20 years, violating previous court 
orders for part of those years. Rather than fostering innovation, 
they have suppressed it, killing off good software by bundling 
second rate imitations into to windows +ACI-for free+ACI-. Actually, 
with the cost of Microsoft Software getting higher with each new 
version of Windows while the cost of other Manufacturer's software 
has stabilized or fallen, the cost to the public has been 
substantial. Why let them off with a slap on the wrist?
    (5.) The provision that allows Microsoft to discriminate against 
companies that haven't sold a million copies in the U.S. and 
survived a year is absurd, and should be deleted. The definition of 
covered OEM's is likewise too restrictive, and should substantially 
broadened.
    (6.) API's should be disclosed at the time of the First beta 
release, or at the time 50,000 copies have been distributed outside 
of the Microsoft organization. Changes in API's after disclosure 
should be published to all internal and external parties at the same 
time. Developers using Microsoft API's should not be required to 
provide their code to Microsoft.
    (7.) Microsoft should not be able to terminate any licensing 
agreements with hardware or software manufactures without court 
approval.
    (8.) Developers should be able to place their icons on the 
desktop, regardless of whether Microsoft has a competing product.
    (9.) Users should be able to configure their system to use 
alternates to Microsoft Middleware without having to confirm their 
choice for each use or session. They should be able to specify their 
preference on a control panel or similar mechanism, and change it at 
will. For instance, I want to use Sun's Java Virtual Machine, rather 
than Microsoft's, preferably by deinstalling Microsoft's and 
installing Sun's.
    (10.) Developers of non-Microsoft middleware should not be 
required to support Microsoft's Active-X controls if they can 
accomplish the same results within their own code without 
interfacing to other operating system services. Active-X controls 
are a security risk, and should not be crammed down anybody's 
throat.
    In general, I consider the Justice Department agreement a 
sellout, but what can you expect when Microsoft donated over +ACQ-1 
million to republican candidates in the last election.



MTC-00002010

From: Faisal Islam
To: Microsoft.atr
Date: 11/22/01 7:04pm
Subject: Please stop Microsoft from Raping us again
    Greetings !
    I speak for myself and the "little people" who are 
being raped by Microsoft year after year. The US Department of 
Justice is the only entity that has the power to stop this behemoth 
criminal in its tracks and we the people look up to it to do so. 
Please don't let us down, we cannot take it anymore. We understand 
the need of the DOJ to settle the case against the "dope 
dealer" of the IT industry, but please do not allow it to snub 
your (and also our) noses and walk unscathed. As the law of this 
supreme land requires all criminals to pay for their past crimes and 
reform, please make this rapist do the same.
    Thank you,
    Sincerely,
    Faisal Islam
    2116 Rose Hill Road
    Carrollton TX 75007
    972-701-1920



MTC-00002011

From: frazhaa whinvaar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 7:50pm
Subject: Antitrust Microsoft settlement
    This is to express my opinion about the suits against To 
continue your efforts against this company's ways of getting over 
their competition. But sadly, it seems like Microsoft is now getting 
away too easily from all these lawsuits. I even think that this 
settlement in which Microsoft has to give away computers and 
software is not going to give more market shares to anyone but 
Microsoft. Sure, they pretend that the schools will have the choice 
to take the money and spend it to buy from other companies, but what 
are we expecting to happen? They will surely try to push their own 
products on the line and then, they'll have an even bigger monopoly. 
(what will happen with alkl those students who will probably only 
work with Microsoft's products, they will likely continue to use 
only these...)
    And what about this new Windows XP. It's getting worse to use 
other products when you realise that they try to force you to use 
their own Windows Media Player, their own MSN Messenger, their own 
Internet Explorer, etc... over other products more difficult to 
install because of supposedly "security issues".
    I think Christian Loweth is right when he says that "It 
seems to me that Microsoft has indulged in not only anti-trust 
violations but racketeering as well." and I think this case is 
not solved. So, if nothing is done, it may be possible that other 
groups or countries will not continue their efforts against 
Microsoft in this antimonopoly and antitrust case because it wasn't 
solved properly.
    Thanks for the time you take to read this.
    Franois Laramie
    Longueuil, Quebec, Canada



MTC-00002012

From: jt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 7:36pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement is a joke_Punish Them!
    Yet I can't be alone in thinking that punishing a company by 
giving it a huge competitive advantage in a brand new market, at 
minimum expense to itself, is one of the queerest examples of 
justice outside of the Grimm Brothers. Forget Harry Potter, this is 
the real fantasy for our times.



MTC-00002013

From: Christian Loweth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The recent proposal by Microsoft to settle the private lawsuits 
is outrageous. This is a cynical attempt to increase market share in 
the education market. If anyone accepts this ludicrous offer, shame 
on them. And as for the Federal Government, shame on you for failing 
to restrain this rapacious corporation.
    Christian Loweth
    12308 Moon Lake Circle
    New Port Richey FL 34654
    (727) 379-0164



MTC-00002014

From: Vincent Roca
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 10:59pm
Subject: Dropped the ball...
    WOW...has the DOJ really dropped the ball on this one. Your 
solutions to the Microsoft case are minimal and don't really solve 
the problem. Have you noticed when a Mac user goes to MSNBC.com, 
they can't run video because they don't have Windows??? There are 
MANY other situations that are similar. Windows is literally FORCED 
on the public. And they are hardly getting a slap on the hand. 
PLEASE rethink your "solutions".
    Vincent Roca
    6009 Buffalo Ave, #7
    Van Nuys CA 91401



MTC-00002015

From: Jim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 11:04pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Good Job
    [email protected]



MTC-00002016

From: Harry Bardal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 9:10pm
Subject: Microsoft vs Department of Justice: Feedback
    to whom it may concern
    As a Canadian citizen I understand my comments on actions of the 
American Justice Department are somewhat misplaced. I have however 
watched the DoJ vs Microsoft lawsuit unfold with interest and some 
trepidation. I have felt on many occasions that the progress of the 
technology sector has been both helped and hampered by Microsoft. 
The real issue in the case however is the degree to which the 
consumer has been affected. I can claim that, in my opinion,

[[Page 24020]]

Microsoft has limited my options as a consumer. Microsoft road 
blocks have cropped up many times over the course of the 12 years I 
have used computers professionally and as a hobby. It has been a 
source of frustration that good 3rd party software has, time and 
again, been compromised by Microsoft practices.
    My own government seems less aware of the consequences of a 
monopoly in the arena of Operating Systems and Web Browsers. My own 
experience with these items has led me to believe that they are more 
important in a national or global sense than just another consumer 
appliance. I applaud the actions undertaken by the Justice 
Department and hope that Microsoft's apparent anti competitive 
practices are given great weight and that a remedy is chosen that 
prevents Microsoft from continuing to do business in the same 
manner.
    Sincerely
    Harry Bardal



MTC-00002017

From: 54321 parr
To: Microsoft.atr
Date: 11/22/01 11:24pm
Subject: Microsofts proposed settlement is wrong for the US
    Hello,
    I feel very strongly that the proposed settlement by Microsoft 
is wrong. It is not punishment for monopolistic practices to extend 
their monopoly to schools. It does not prevent further Microsoft 
monopolistic tatics. It hurts the few potential competitors that are 
left. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT IS WRONG.
    I urge you to correct this misguided action, while there is 
still a chance for competition before all of the competitors are 
wiped out. We the people of the United States deserve better than 
the Microsoft monopoly.
    DO YOUR DUTY, THROW THE PROPOSAL OUT, DONT BE PUPPETS OF 
MICROSOFT. BREAK UP MICROSOFT.
    Thank you
    Parr Crone



MTC-00002018

From: Walter S. Rue
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 11:59pm
Subject: DOJ-Microsoft Objection
    To whom it may concern:
    I object to the DOJ-Microsoft settlement. To me, Microsoft's 
coercive suppression of competitors is actual racketeering, and the 
DOJ settlement therefore is a capitulation. Please continue to 
pursue justice.
    A case can be made, I believe, that the Microsoft monopoly 
contributed measurably to the current recession. The largest engine 
driving the dot-com "irrationally exuberant" expansion 
was the euphoric assumption that Microsoft had excelled on its 
merits and was unstoppable, while the truth was its unstoppable and 
ruthless suffocation of competitor "air supply". 
Microsoft's racketeering "capitalism" is not healthy, it 
is tyranny. The healthy rivalry of true competition results in 
slower growth inherently, but growth that is more stable and longer-
term and that leads to better products. Denial of choice devolves to 
the inability to choose better. Not only must Microsoft itself bear 
a comparable brunt of this recession, cessation of these practices 
will contribute measurably to its reversal.
    Walter S. Rue
    95 Maple Street, Apt. 12
    Malden, Massachusetts 02148
    1-781-397-2468



MTC-00002019

From: Teuila (038) Bertie Hall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/21/01 11:53pm
Subject: MS settlement? NOT.
    Your Honor,
    The penalties imposed on Microsoft are not fair to everyone. MS 
will have an increased market share and other operating systems, ie 
Apple Macintosh, Linux, etc will be pushed out since MS will provide 
FREE software, increasing its installed base. I am not happy with 
this decision.
    Sincerely,
    Bertie Hall
    Galveston, TX



MTC-00002020

From: fiduciary
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 12:41am
Subject: critics, starving trial lawyers and AD's CA and MA to 
achieve political high profile
    Enough already, give some credit to what MS has contributed to 
our economy and stop wasting tax payers money on filling the coffers 
of greedy trial lawyers and political hacks. Especially the most 
liberal states of the union, ie CA where I live and MA, the Eastern 
branch of socialism.
    Robert Johnston,
    San Diego.



MTC-00002021

From: Doug
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 12:01am
Subject: Settlement Furthers a Monopoly
    This settlement, from what I can gather from news sources, 
serves to further entrench Microsoft in ourq lives. Any company 
would love to have similar access to teachers and students. It is 
tantamount to a marketing campaign for them. How shameful that the 
government trying to prevent a monopoly is helping to bring even 
more people into it's grasp. This cannot be allowed to happen. Any 
settlement must be painful to Microsoft, financially, and must 
include limits on the development, bundling, distribution and 
marketing of their software. Please don't let this settlement take 
place. Best wishes. doug



MTC-00002022

From: Neal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 1:20am
Subject: microsoft
    I do not support such light punishment of Microsoft. A slap on 
the wrist will serve no purpose at all_ it will probably just 
inflate MS' ego even more. After all, they screwed tons of people 
(including their consumers) and are getting away with it.
    I work in the video game industry. You may be aware that this is 
an industry that Microsoft has recently entered with their new 
console system, the X-Box. Quite frankly, I feel that they will 
conquer the video game market with their new system. But it will not 
be because of the quality of their products, or because of brilliant 
business practices. It will be because they have twenty thousand 
times more money than anyone else, and because they will ruthlessly 
screw everyone else in the business. Is this a good, American way of 
doing things? Is this letting the best man win? No, its lying, 
cheating, and stealing to get your way. The trials provided 
substantial evidence of Microsoft's dirty business tactics. By 
allowing Microsoft to get away with a slap on the wrist, you are 
showing the world that we essentially approve of playing dirty to 
get ahead. Not only this, but you set the nation and the world up to 
be ruled by Microsoft for the rest of our lives. Bill Gates has said 
before that his dream is to own every electronic device in the 
world_ he wants everything digital to have his name on it. Are 
we going to give him this power? I don't want to be forced into a 
position where I have only one platform to develop games for_ 
Microsoft's. I don't want to only have one choice of software to use 
to develop my games_ Microsoft's. I don't want my bloody 
toaster to have a microchip in it that is running a version of 
Microsoft Windows. Please stop this from happening, or at least do 
what you can. In America, being a bastard should not be admirable 
behavior.
    Thank you,
    Gregory Scott
    11711 Highgrove Dr.
    Houston, TX 77077



MTC-00002023

From: Charlie Dailey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 1:18am
Subject: Microsoft antitrust case
    Stay out of private enterprise!!! You beurocrats are too lazy to 
come up with a better mouse trap and are jealous of someone who can. 
Your place is to spend hard worker's money on free ride programs and 
retire on a government pension.
    That takes the intelligence and motivation of a bivalve. Gates 
and his brain trust can think circles around you fools. When you 
mess with tech. stocks.....you're messing with the market and our 
future.



MTC-00002024

From: Matt Lyon
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/22/01 1:15am
Subject: everybody's favorite monopoly Dear California State 
Attorney General
    (cc: the U.S. DOJ),
    I applaud your determination to hold the Microsoft Corporation 
accountable for its illegal practices. Their monopolistic behavior 
is exactly the type which anti-trust laws were designed to deal 
with. It is unfortunate the proposed federal settlement on the anti-
trust case is more of a benefit to Microsoft than a punishment. I 
believe this case will be very important to the future of computing, 
and by extension, the quality of life in the future. Already, the 
impact of the computer industry has altered our way of life in ways 
unforeseeable even ten years ago_and I

[[Page 24021]]

believe it has just gotten started! To let Microsoft's illegal 
actions continue, to let them further dominate the computer 
industry, would be a preventable tragedy.
    Sincerely,
    Matt Lyon
    651 Ashbury Street
    San Francisco, CA 94117
    "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a 
little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    ?Benjamin Franklin
    CC:Microsoft ATR



MTC-00002025

From: Eric MacKnight
To: microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,attorney.gener...
Date: 11/22/01 12:42am
Subject: Microsoft
To: Attorneys General who are resisting the DOJ settlement with 
Microsoft
    Thank you, thank you, thank you for objecting to the absurdly 
ineffectual settlement of the Microsoft case that is being proposed 
by the Department of Justice.
    The proposed settlement would do not deter Microsoft from 
continuing to exercise its monopoly and stamp out its competitors. 
Mr. Gates will not voluntarily give up his monopoly; it must be 
taken away from him, and only governments can do that.
    Stand fast, for the sake of millions of consumers.
    Sincerely,
    Eric T. MacKnight
    981 Forest Hills Drive
    North Vancouver, BC
    Canada V7R 1N4
    (604) 984-6036
    
    CC:Microsoft ATR



MTC-00002026

From: Geoffrey McCabe
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/22/01 2:37am
Subject: Please take care of this
    Dear Madam or Sir:
    Since you are still hearing on this case, this article says it 
better than I could:
    OPINION:
    Microsoft on Truth Serum_the Antitrust Settlement Examined
    Contributed by Tom Nadeau
    osOpinion.com
    November 20, 2001
    The proposed Microsoft agreement looks good and feels good, but 
listen to how the definitions in the agreement would play out in 
real life, and then the agreement doesn't sound very good for 
competing software companies or consumers.
    The recent antitrust settlement between the U.S. Department of 
Justice and software monopolist Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) has enough 
loopholes to sew a circus tent.
    The settlement actually grants Microsoft extra legal powers 
beyond what it had before the trial. Don't think so? Well, here is a 
simulated conversation that may convince you. This is what I believe 
a Microsoft official would say to a neutral examiner asking 
questions about the settlement agreement, if the software giant were 
under the influence of a truth-enhancing substance.
    Microsoft on truth serum. Listen in.
    Set You Free
    Examiner: "Let us start with the definitions, shall 
we?"
    Microsoft: "Of course. Words mean things, whatever we want 
them to mean."
    Examiner: "A. Application Programming Interfaces 
(APIs)"
    Microsoft: "APIs running on one operating system (.NET) 
and calling a different operating system (on your PC, remotely via 
the Web) are exempt from regulation."
    Examiner: "B. Communications Protocol"
    Microsoft: "Since the settlement exempts code to remotely 
administer Windows2000 Server and its successors, all our 
communication software will be embedded with pieces of this code. We 
will not have any Communications Protocols that can be regulated 
according to this definition."
    Legal Loopholes
    Examiner: "D. Covered OEMs"
    Microsoft: "The 20 highest licensees? Does that mean 
licenses paid for, licenses delivered to customers, licenses 
committed to, or licenses actually registered by the end 
user?"
    Examiner: "H. IHV (Independent Hardware Vendor)"
    Microsoft: "The settlement says they're only 
'independent' if they depend on us for Windows. Unless we 
already 'own' them, we don't have to give them 
anything."
    Examiner: "I. ISV (Independent Software Vendor)"
    Microsoft: "The settlement says they're only an 
'independent' if they depend on us. But if they only sell 
software for non-Microsoft operating systems, we don't have to give 
them anything. They will never be able to make their non-Windows 
products interact with our Windows-only products."
    Hidden Message
    Examiner: "J. Microsoft Middleware"
    Microsoft: "The settlement says it's only Middleware if it 
has a X.x version number. But we don't use version numbers any more. 
We use year numbers. So our Middleware is not regulated by this 
settlement."
    Examiner: "K. Microsoft Middleware Product'
    Microsoft: "The settlement calls it a 'middleware 
product' if it is embedded in the operating system.... But 
it's just 'middleware' if it is distributed separately. 
If it is distributed by a shell company controlled by Microsoft 
through stock ownership, then it's not 'middleware' 
because it is not distributed by Microsoft or a wholly owned 
subsidiary."
    A.P.I. Arrogance
    Examiner: "L. Microsoft Platform Software"
    Microsoft: "We'll ship the APIs as a standalone product 
through a third-party company, or sitting on a Web server somewhere. 
But we don't have to divulge any details of the APIs because they 
won't have a version number.
    So they're not 'middleware'_and therefore are 
not covered by 'middleware' clauses. Since they are not 
part of Windows, they are also not a 'middleware 
product.' "
    Examiner: "M. Non-Microsoft Middleware"
    Microsoft: "Sure, like we wouldn't give away free copies 
of comparable 'Microsoft middleware' to put them out of 
business. Except that it's not 'Microsoft middleware' if 
it has no version number, so it would not be regulated by this 
settlement."
    Examiner: "P. Operating System"
    Microsoft: "If we ship the APIs separately_on the 
Web_then it says that Windows is not even an operating system! 
It's totally unregulated!"
    More Monopoly
    Examiner: "Q. Personal Computer"
    Microsoft: "Right, only PCs are covered. They let us 
extend our monopoly into game boxes, TV, servers, handhelds, phones, 
PDAs, whatever."
    Examiner: "R. Timely Manner"
    Microsoft: "We have to deliver product info as soon as we 
ship to 150,000 beta testers per version. However, we no longer beta 
test with more than 148,000 testers per version."
    Examiner: "U. Windows Operating System Product"
    Microsoft: "Ha! Doesn't even cover DOS-based stuff. We can 
keep spreading that stuff around any way we want. Oh, and that last 
sentence... We can put anything we want to in Windows_any code 
owned by anybody! Yes, Just give me that last sentence!"
    Best For Last?
    About that last sentence.
    The slickest part of all is to put the definitions at the end of 
the document, where they legally overrule all that comes before, and 
to place the loosest definition of all at the very end of the 
document, slyly positioned to trump any preceding malarkey.
    That last sentence ostensibly was inserted to protect Microsoft 
from having to ship code that it did not choose_so that 
Microsoft would not have to ship a rival company's code, such as 
Java or Netscape, for example.
    But Microsoft can choose to claim that a competitor's product 
*is* a Windows Operating System Product, because the last sentence 
says that the court grants Microsoft the "sole 
discretion" over "the software code"_not 
just "the Microsoft software code"_that Microsoft 
chooses.
    Above the Law
    While other companies may have their claim to software ownership 
reviewed by the courts, this "settlement" exempts 
Microsoft from such review_ immunizing Microsoft from 
copyright lawsuits.
    This is a license to hoist the Jolly Roger and sail the seven 
seas, pirating any rival code that Microsoft chooses.
    Peace,
    Geoffrey McCabe
    36 East 7th Street
    NYC 10003



MTC-00002028

From: Jon Schalliol
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 1:57am
Subject: MS Settlement Unacceptable
    Please do not accept the Microsoft Settlement, harsher penalties 
are in order. I am a resident of California (address below). The 
Settlement offered is unacceptable and I believe it actually helps 
Microsoft in the education market, because I am confident that a 
majority of the computers that would be used would be for Microsoft 
software.

[[Page 24022]]

Perhaps Macintosh computers could be purchased for the schools 
instead. Old computers are no good anyway. My wife teaches first 
grade in San Jose, they need new (not old) computers. Her district 
only uses Macs additionally.
    Jonathan R. Schalliol
    250 W. El Camino Real
    Apartment #1412
    Sunnyvale, CA 94087



MTC-00002029

From: Ash Wadhwani
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 3:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement



MTC-00002030

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 3:05am
Subject: Microsoft_proposal
    Dear Sirs,
    1) It is my belief that free software, even if donated for 
charitable causes is not a remedy: (http://news.cnet.com/news/
0-1006-200-7936780.html_proposed 
settlement).
    I am working for a large organization myself. If you would 
donate software, we wouldn't need to budget for it. This means when 
after a few years the license expires or upgrades are needed; we 
would face enormous challenges to create a budget. Because we would 
have to create this budget from scratch, we would never be able to 
justify the expense for alternate solutions, because upgrading the 
free software will cost less. This creates a de-facto lock-in.
    2) What people really need:
    My organization owns about 120 servers running NT 4.0; has 3000 
users. We are currently preparing for the Win2000 rollout at great 
expense of manpower, licenses and hardware upgrades (server 
replacements). We still have 2 servers running Win NT 3.51 which is 
no longer supported. The migration to Win2000 (later XP) will takes 
us 3-5 years until the last NT4.0 PC is removed from our 
premises. As you may know with the release of WinXP Microsoft will 
stop releasing fixes (including security ?) for Win NT 4.0 because 
"we only support one version back, which is Win2000" 
[sic].
    3) What everybody would benefit from:
    To have regular updates for Windows NT and Office98 
available_ this includes fixes_for at least 10 years 
from now. This would force Microsoft to make their stuff work. If 
the quality of their aproducts is as good as they always claim, this 
should be a minor issue.
    You may know that even with a "Premier Support 
Contract" ($30.000 a year) you are still not entitled to 
receive NT4 fixes. I have two minor issues discovered early 2001 
which Microsoft support refused to fix.
    Currently Microsoft refuses provide updates for new technologies 
(FireWire for WinNT for example). On the other hand, third parties 
don't have enough information.
    4) Suggestion:
    Microsoft must provide support for Win NT4 and Office98 until 
2011. Of course, they could charge for this support around $50 per 
incident seems reasonable. Unlike current support, every confirmed 
bug must be fixed if the customer pays for the incident. Fixes for 
known bugs are available for $10; discount for 10 fixes 20%, 50 
fixes 30%, 100 for more fixes 50% (MS releases about 300 NT4 fixes 
per year). Service-Packs for NT4 and office $25. They must provide 
anybody with a source-code license for NT4 for $1000 (under NDA of 
course).
    Conclusion:
    Good for MS_they are forced to provide support. Good for 
business and consumers; they are not forced to upgrade or buy new 
hardware. It is ensured that the current software remains functional 
and secure. regards,
    Thomas Berger
    PS: If you really want to penalize Microsoft, include Windows 98 
as well.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00002031

From: Jean Labrique
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 2:49am
Subject: microsoft
    Why such "coercive" action against free enterprise? 
Microsoft was the software company that allowed millions of users to 
get reasonable access to computers! Do you always have to kill 
entrepreneurs?
    Jean Labrique
    [email protected]



MTC-00002032

From: D.E. de Roos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/22/01 5:11am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it read and it may concern,
    I am shocked regarding the Microsoft settlement last week. 
Instead of punishing Microsoft for their monopoly strategy you are 
giving them a green light to basically kick Apple Computer out of 
the education market by donating money in Microsoft products to this 
industry. In that order, you give Microsoft the way to continue 
business as usual. So, you are supporting Microsoft's by making them 
an offer like this, insteed to punish them.
    It is not the way to give Microsoft the change putting more of 
their product into the education market. If you want Microsoft to 
donate a lot of dollars, so let them do that to a neutral 
institution like food for 3rd world countries or something in that 
order.
    What impression do you give Microsoft (and others like them) 
here? By putting more Microsoft products in (needy) schools or 
education centre, you are giving companies like Apple Computer no 
chance what so ever to sell their product in the education industry, 
hence they start to monopolize that industry as well.
    A concerned Dutch citizen.
    With kind regards,
    Dick de Roos
    Kerkuil 20
    9781 RE Bedum
    Holland
    e-mail: [email protected]
    Groeten,
    Dick de Roos, HVK / AMD
    Visserstraat 47, 9712 CT, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
    e-mail: [email protected]
    tel. (050)-3634820
    CC:[email protected] 
@inetgw,attorney.gener...



MTC-00002033

From: Tim Holmes
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/22/01 3:51am
Subject: MS settlement is a travesty of justice
TO: US Department of Justice-Microsoft anti-trust comments: 
[email protected]
    I've just read the news on the proposed one billion dollar 
settlement. As I understand the deal, this seems to me to be very 
much in favor of Microsoft. In addition to few to no changes to 
their behavior, a portion of the punishment is, in fact, a real 
benefit to them. The resolution including the dissemination of their 
software and compatible hardware, training to use their products, 
and loads of their often bundled software, seems to fly in the face 
of the very point of the trial. They have been declared a monopoly 
for illegal tactics that were specifically meant to increase their 
market share, for bundling products for free to get market share, 
and for illegally blocking other's products to gain market share, 
and now, a good portion of the settlement specifically increases 
their market share of both the OS and their bundled products.
    I believe this settlement should be declined. Microsoft has once 
again gained the upper hand and will only benefit. The settlement 
should be made in order to change their behavior, this does nothing 
to address their behavior and will not change it in the future, 
allowing them to continue to bilk the public.
    Tim Holmes
    CC to: California: [email protected]
    Connecticut: [email protected]
    Florida: [email protected]
    Iowa: [email protected]
    Kansas: [email protected]
    Massachusetts: [email protected]
    Minnesota: [email protected]
    Utah: [email protected]
    West Virginia: [email protected]



MTC-00002034

From: Roderick Klein
To: Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj. gov,microsoftcomments(a)doj....
Date: 11/22/01 3:47am
Subject: Microsoft not a monopoly ?
    Dear Sir/Madame,
    I found your email adresses via the internet. I may be somebody 
from the Netherlands but the outcome of this trial between Microsoft 
and the different states will also effect my computer use in a 
positive way. Microsoft is plain and cold monopoly. They have a 
market share of more then 90% and they move further in other 
directions. like the handheld device market, server markets... 
Slowly with there standards they are breaking up a free world, the 
internet! Some webpages can only be succesfully viewed with the 
browser internet explorer. Some goverments run a large part of there 
offices with Windows. With this comes higher cost etc.

[[Page 24023]]

    Its simple to say the consumers, goverments and companies have 
missed out on some great innovations because of Microsofts position 
on the software market;. Microsoft crushed small companies with bad 
practices. These small companies is where mostly the innovation 
comes from. Microsoft for instance violated also some patents like 
Stacker (disk compression software that ran under DOS).
    Outside of the courtroom Microsoft paid Stacker an unknown 
amount of Money. Microsoft stole some code from Stacker and used in 
there Double Space under MS DOS. The other example is video for 
Windows. Some of the code Microsoft used came from Quicktime from 
Apple. My point is that I hope the present deal between Microsoft 
and the US goverment does not go ahead.
    Regards
    Roderick Klein



MTC-00002035

From: David Flory
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 2:14am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I find it absolutely ludicrous that the United States Department 
of Justice feels that it is an appropriate punishment for illegal 
monopoly practices to give MS a chance to increase their OS monopoly 
by letting them give mediocre computers and software to schools that 
can't afford to refuse the gift. This verges on malfeasance by the 
DOJ and makes me really wonder if the DOJ people involved are 
honest. I'm ashamed to see a convicted organization rewarded instead 
of being punished as any other company would be.
    Fairwinds and happy bytes,
    Dave Flory, San Jose, CA. [email protected] Go Sea 
Kayaking!! (C)2001
    Speak softly and study Aikido, then you won't need a big stick.



MTC-00002036

From: Kevin Gamiel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 12:16am
Subject: Perfect solution
    I fully support the amended solution proposed by Red Hat, Inc.: 
http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/
press_usschools.html If that solution is not accepted by the 
DOJ, the DOJ will have some serious questions to answer. Allowing 
Microsoft to give away a limited number of copies of it's software 
to schools simply hooks more users on it's software you found to be 
monopolistic. This amended agreement truly helps our children by 
providing many more computers and free, superior software for life! 
It also punishes Microsoft a bit more for their crimes by *not* 
continuing their monopoly via their "punishment".
    Respectfully,
    Kevin
    _Kevin Gamiel Email: [email protected]
    Island Edge Research, Inc. http://www.islandedge.com
    Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina



MTC-00002038

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected] 
@inetgw,Ralph@essen...
Date: 11/23/01 5:06am
Subject: "Microsoft Hegemony" The Face Of God
    CC' [email protected]@inetgw,letters 
@sjmercury.com@i...
    Re: The Case Against Microsoft
    James, during the Georgetown speech, repeatedly defended the 
settlement and addressed many of the criticisms, which he blamed 
largely on rivals.
    He blames criticism? This does not compute. Is criticism a 
crime? The criticism is legitimate. Where is the accountability? 
Where are the principles?
    "We've never had competitors be quite so 
aggressive,"
    James said. "Some of them had hoped for a broad-scale 
emasculation of the company."
    "Thank you, assistant A.G. James, for defending Microsoft. 
People need to put face on almighty Dallah, you know, ka ching ka 
ching. This is role I play in big scheme of thing_for to rally 
DJIA... Rivals are devils not for benefit to Wall Street..."



MTC-00002039

From: ruben
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 4:10am
Subject: Microsoft
    I am just saddened by the slap on the wrist given to Microsoft. 
If there ever was a monopoly in this world it would be Microsoft. I 
feel that no other person has a chance to come up with a new better 
idea for fear that Mr. Gates would come and squash them and steal 
there ideas. I would hate to see every computer in the world have 
Microsoft on it. I mean all the computers are really just Microsoft 
tools to sell its product. Think about it? All the consumer computer 
makers all have to use Microsoft's operating system. The only 
company that doesn't is Apple. I have used both and I have to say 
Apple makes a better product but that isn't good enough because of 
the monopoly. Pretty soon it is just going to be all Microsoft. We 
should really understand that the most powerful man in the world is 
not the president of the United States. It is the holder of 
information. We are all depended on computers and who controls them? 
Microsoft and Bill Gate's. With the power to influence the hearts 
and minds of the world or To cut us out. I know this may seem 
dramatic but just a thought. I believe in capitalism but not 
monopoly's. Thank you for reading this.
    _Ruben John Pulido
    President/CEO
    Seratonin
    Digital Media
    Santa Monica, California
    http://www.seratonindigitalmedia.com
    E-mail: [email protected]
    310.392.6263



MTC-00002040

From: David Bennett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 2:33am
Subject: What A Joke
    Dear Sirs,
    This proposed settlement is truly one sided and it is most 
definitely not the consumers side. Microsoft deserves more than a 
slap on the wrist for business practices it continues to use. 
Please, please don't just knuckle under to the lobbying of the 
Microsoft camp. It is so important that these practices stop, if any 
true advancement in the computer industry is to emerge. This company 
puts a strangle hold on the industry and it must be stopped.
    Respectfully,
    David B. Bennett



MTC-00002041

From: Warren E. Gimple
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 7:20am
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
    11/23/01
    Dear Folks:
    Let's get this case behind us, and move on to more important 
legal issues !!
    Warren E. Gimple
    2600 Barracks Rd. C-13
    Charlottesville Va. 22901-2198
    email: [email protected]
    ph: 434-295-1890



MTC-00002042

From: genegard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 7:53am
Subject: Release before being ready!
    I am a computer user since 1982 and a Retired USAF Navigator who 
is good with hi-teck innovations; however, new releases of MS 
Products is loaded with errors that cause the experienced user and 
those new to computers very much pain. First they hype their 
products and then you have to continually download fixes and 
updates. They especially like to design their software to be not 
compatible with other software and hardware. I have learned to use 
Netscape Communicator for email and browsing because it is easy to 
use and does not crash and require continuous upgrades and fixes. In 
my view they have done irrepairable harm to consumers and other 
competitors. To them $5 billion over five years is less than a slap 
on the wrists and they are continuing their unfair and ruthless 
tactics.
    Now I feel a little better, but will I ever forget their causing 
so much frustration? NO
    Harry E Bungard
    9 Chestnut Hill Rd
    Chelmsford, MA 01824



MTC-00002043

From: Darcy Baston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 7:14am
Subject: think intention
    Just as capturing Osama Bin Laden will not stop humanity from 
committing acts of terrorism, policing Microsoft will not stop their 
anticompetitive nature. It's a question of intention. What you 
intend, you create no matter what protection some silly settlement 
puts in place. The consumer must be protected from Microsoft's self 
serving intentions.
    This settlement, which is based on money, further promotes money 
as a source of power and control over people. This has got to stop. 
Money is getting more and more like a disease and child-like reward 
system than it ever was. I don't blame Microsoft for being

[[Page 24024]]

what they are, a perfect creation from a world that worships money. 
But I do blame them for trying to push their views on us, you and 
me. I don't want their unevolved "money is might", 
"ours is better", "you're less", "we 
can buy you out", "buy our stuff or suffer" and 
"we think you're stealing so work harder to earn our 
dominion" intentions.
    Instead of putting some people in place to watch their accounts, 
sit in their meetings and audit their bottom lines, introduce an 
ethical review board that will have to be convinced before any 
future decision Microsoft is put into place within its company. 
Microsoft does need a baby sitter but not for its money, for its 
intentions.
    Or even better, let the public decide. Have an annual vote of 
your populations, let the billions that we are have our say in what 
Microsoft can and can't do like an election. Just as this E-mail 
opportunity was created, that's a good step to learning the 
multitude of different truths us consumers experience daily.
    best wishes,
    Darcy Baston
    Sudbury, ON
    Canada



MTC-00002044

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 6:53am
Subject: Bad Microsoft Settlement
    Hello
    The Microsoft settlement is a very short-sighted answer. With 
such weak restrictions Microsoft will continue to bundle their 
products and will soon dominate the instant messenger and media 
player markets because of it.
    I am also very concerned that there is absolutely no punishment 
for them. I can't believe that on such a high profile case the 
American Judicial system wants to send the message that white collar 
crime is never punished! Its just offensive!
    The next time I go out and break the law can I also get this 
type of treatment?
    Regards
    Michael Fitzgerald



MTC-00002046

From: Reinier Erens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 8:02am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am shocked by the recent news regarding the Microsoft 
settlement. Instead of punishing Microsoft for their monopoly 
strategy you are giving them a green light to basically kick Apple 
Computer out of the education market by donating an astronomical 
amount of money in Microsoft products to this industry, thus giving 
Microsoft a go ahead to continue to do business as usual. 
I’'m sorry but this goes beyond my comprehension. You 
are playing Microsoft’'s cards by making them an offer 
like this. To my humble opinion they should be punished not by 
putting more of their product into the market, especially such a 
sensitive market like education, but by giving them a punishment 
that’'s appropriate. If you want Microsoft to donate 
zillions of dollars, let them do that to a neutral institution like 
food for 3rd world countries or something in that order. What 
impression do you give Microsoft (and others like them) here? If you 
monopolize the market by unfair means of business we will reward you 
by allowing you to do more business and even kill some competition 
on the way?! By putting more Microsoft products out there you are 
giving companies like Apple Computer absolutely no chance what so 
ever to sell their product in the education industry, hence they 
start to monopolize that industry as well.
    Reinier Erens
    A concerned Dutch citizen.
    www.erens.net
    Descargue GRATUITAMENTE MSN Explorer en http://explorer.msn.es/
intl.asp
    CC:[email protected] 
@inetgw,attorney.gener...



MTC-00002047

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 7:56am
Subject: A REWARD
    This settlement seems to be a reward for Microsoft instead of a 
judgment. How the courts can come up with this is unbelievable.



MTC-00002048

From: Robert Poland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 8:12am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    What kind of settlement is that, punishment by forcing them to 
do more of what the original crime was?
    Bob Poland_Sumter, SC
    [email protected]
    Check out my garage sale http://www.ibrb.org/



MTC-00002049

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 8:19am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am shocked by the recent news regarding the Microsoft 
settlement. Instead of punishing Microsoft for their monopoly 
strategy you are giving them a green light to basically kick Apple 
Computer out of the education market by donating an astronomical 
amount of money in Microsoft products to this industry, thus giving 
Microsoft a go ahead to continue to do business as usual. I?m sorry 
but this goes beyond my comprehension. You are playing Microsoft's 
cards by making them an offer like this.
    To my humble opinion they should be punished not by putting more 
of their product into the market, especially such a sensitive market 
like education, but by giving them a punishment that's appropriate. 
If you want Microsoft to donate zillions of dollars, let them do 
that to a neutral institution like food for 3rd world countries or 
something in that order.
    What impression do you give Microsoft (and others like them) 
here? If you monopolize the market by unfair means of business we 
will reward you by allowing you to do more business and even kill 
some competition on the way?! By putting more Microsoft products out 
there you are giving companies like Apple Computer absolutely no 
chance what so ever to sell their product in the education industry, 
hence they start to monopolize that industry as well.
    Another concerned Dutch citizen.
    With kind regards,
    Johan Kool
    Merwedekade 225 bis a
    3522 JM Utrecht
    the Netherlands
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected] 
@inetgw,attorney.gener...



MTC-00002050

From: Jeff I. Greenberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 8:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Boldly, this settlement is still not restoring any level of 
fairness to the marketplace. The question becomes, how dominant is 
Microsoft in the marketplace now, and does the ruling allow 
competition.
    I am not all knowledgable. I am merely relating my experience as 
a computer professional. I teach technology to professionals on a 
daily basis.
    1) How dominant?
    Microsoft owns, has minimal competition, makes it difficult for 
anyone to break into the following areas:
    Browsers. They have killed their prime competition, and refused 
to adhere to agreed upon standards, thereby forcing the community to 
adhere to theirs. This is included free with their operating system. 
It is reported that 90% of people over the age of 40 will not 
download a new browser; their only introduction to a new browser is 
when they buy a new computer.
    I still don't understand why they can't unbundle their browser, 
unless it's to dominate the market. They don't maintain parity on 
the Macintosh platform. And why should they. Apple is their 
competition.
    Messengers. Suddenly, they need to add instant messenging to 
their operating system. Did they need to? No. Was the marketplace 
working without it? Sure. And again, it's bundled with their 
operating system. Operating systems. Linux is viable ... but 
Microsoft considers them to be threat ... so they are a target under 
the gorilla's gaze. Meanwhile, for someone to be considered a 
computer professional, Microsoft has invented a number of 
certifications which provides them even more revenue. Software. Go 
take a look at how many pieces of software MS makes. Now, how many 
of which are they the dominant player in the marketplace. I'll name 
a couple
    * Microsoft Word
    * Microsoft Excel
    * Microsoft Powerpoint
    * Microsoft Outlook
    * Microsoft Works
    * Great plains accounting
    * Halo which was going to be cross platform until microsoft 
bought bungie
    * Netmeeting
    * Visual Basic
    * Visual C++
    In fact, I can only think of two products where microsoft 
doesn't own the

[[Page 24025]]

 marketplace. Microsoft Money, because quicken was there first, and 
Microsoft Publisher, because Adobe & Quark have sold 
professional packages. Frankly, I'm astounded at the way the current 
government turns a blind eye to the way Microsoft operates, has 
operated, and is permitting the settlement to occur.
    With each passing day, microsoft becomes further the squatter 
with XP and the .NET protocol and makes it even more difficult for 
another company (such as red hat, such as apple computers) to even 
dream of competing.
    Settlement.
    Microsoft offered to give schools in poor districts computers 
with software. Would you let your kids just go out and drink coke in 
school? But that's exactly what's happening. By capturing the youth 
market early, microsoft is further entrenching themselves as a 
monopoly. Today's children are tomorrow's workers. But you say, they 
have to know the systems that are out there. They're out there 
because it's a monopoly. And Microsoft's offer, will only make it 
moreso.
    Microsoft ought to pay for computers with the competition to be 
out there. Such as Apple, such as Red hat linux to be available.
    My last thoughts.
    How pervasive is microsoft? Simple. Go out to a large computer 
store. Try and buy a computer fully stocked with a word processor 
and spreadsheet without one piece of microsoft software on it.
    Try it.
    Now see if they don't truly have a monopoly.
    Jeff I. Greenberg.



MTC-00002051

From: Anthony E. Bodo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 8:28am
Subject: MS world monopoly
    Dear Sir/Madam: Greetings!
    I believe that the people at the top of Microsoft, who are 
controlling and manipulating the world donimation, should be severly 
punished and not just a pat on their hands! I have invested a lot in 
my (Amiga) computer and am unable to use most of the software/
hardware unless I import them from overseas. This MicroSoft world 
monopoly went a bit too far! I hope you excercise your authority and 
punish them with the fullest extent of the law. In my opinion a few 
years in jail would be appropriate for the top ten of Microsoft!..I 
thank you & remain_yours sincerely Anthony E. Bodo
    Anthony E. Bodo
    4623 East 25th Avenue,
    Lake Station, In., 46405
    fone/fax: (219) 962-7026
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00002052

From: Terry Nigrelli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 8:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear U.S. Department of Justice,
    This settlement is not punishment for Microsoft, it is a huge 
reward. Once they get their software into these schools the schools 
will have to pay hefty yearly subscription fees. It is also going to 
prevent the competition from securing accounts in these schools for 
years to come. Please consider requiring Microsoft to donate money 
rather than hardware and software to public schools.
    Terry Nigrelli



MTC-00002053

From: Jody Bevan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 9:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My understanding of the settlement is that Microsoft will be 
providing hardware with their operating system, and some of their 
applications on all the computers. These systems will be given to 
schools that would otherwise not afford these systems. On the 
surface it looks great. BUT! This is exactly what Microsoft has done 
all along. Give away product with the knowledge that you get people 
hooked on their product and they will be back for more. Not only 
will the schools be hooked but the students, teachers, parents etc.
    This is far from a fair to others in the computer industry. This 
is not punishment but rather a reward. Why not make Microsoft give 
the schools the money. Then lets the schools choose between vendors 
other than Microsoft for the hardware and operating system, and 
applications. If not that, just make them pay the fine at the very 
least!
    Jody Bevan



MTC-00002054

From: Larry D. Burton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 9:17am
Subject: About that settlement...
    I really like the proposal that Red Hat made for an alternative 
settlement. Not only would this be of much greater benefit to the 
schools in question, but it would truely server to level the playing 
field between Microsoft and the rest of the competition that may 
have been shut out by Microsoft's monopolistic practices.
    Regards,
    Larry Burton
    [email protected]
    http://www.dallasbay.net



MTC-00002055

From: Jim Robertson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 9:09am
Subject: Proposed microsoft settlement
    I've been told that the Department of Justice is seeking public 
comment on its proposed settlement with Microsoft. Enclosed is a 
copy of a letter I sent to the California Department of Justice, 
asking it to persevere in its pressure for a more meaningful 
punishment of the company's predatory business practices.
    I'm a long time Macintosh user with a long memory of the often-
strained relationship between Microsoft and Apple. Last year, I was 
encouraged that the Federal Government finally had the wisdom and 
courage to curtail Microsoft's predatory business practices. 
Unfortunately, the proposed settlement does NOTHING to accomplish 
this, and the contempt with which Microsoft regards those who would 
attempt to limit its monopoly is evidenced by Microsoft's marketing 
of Windows XP. It should not be necessary to detail these new 
transgressions, but the fact that settlement talks proceed in the 
face of this conduct makes it clear that those who ought to have 
control don't care, don't understand, have been bought off, or are 
overwhelmed by the company's propaganda. To wit: 1. XP will refuse 
to run if a user makes more than some unknown number of 
modifications to the hardware in his/her system, and cannot be 
resurrected without a call to Microsoft. Imagine a person working on 
deadline with his laptop hundreds of miles away from his home office 
and his installation CDs, who decides he needs more RAM to finish a 
project. He installs the RAM and his computer becomes non-
functional. 2. XP disables the multimedia applications that have 
become default standards in favor of its own file formats. Some of 
these are products of other companies (QuickTime, Flash, Real 
Audio), and some are non-proprietary standards (mp3).
    Even more ludicrous is the proposed settlement of other private 
lawsuits which seems to COMPEL microsoft to strengthen its grip on 
one market it does not yet control, education. Is Br'er Rabbit 
working successfully for Microsoft?
    I know that the California Department of Justice is seeking more 
meaningful penalties. I applaud that position and beg you to hold 
fast to it.
    James S. Robertson, M.D., F.A.C.P.
    Nephrology Associates
    1265 North Dutton Avenue
    Park Center #3
    Santa Rosa, CA 95401
    Voice: (707) 526-2027
    FAX: (707) 526-2096
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00002056

From: John Winson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 8:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It makes no sense to have any portion of this settlement include 
a grant of software, product or technical support from Microsoft to 
schools or other not-for-profit organizations. This only serves to 
solidify Microsoft's domination of the computer industry by giving 
these organizations the very products and services they will be 
bound to use.
    If a judgment of $500 million_$1 billion is imposed as a 
part of the judgment, Microsoft should send money to be used on 
computers and computer technology, letting the organizations 
involved choose what computer equipment, operating systems and its 
accompanying technical support requirements they wish. Under such a 
scheme, Microsoft might still get significant return, but it would 
not mandate the use of funds for the benefit the company losing the 
judgment.
    It was the "donation" of browser software as a 
predatory, anti-trust activity that spawned this legal action. 
Please do not allow the remedy to copy the crime.
    John Winson

[[Page 24026]]

    9 Knowlton St
    Beverly, MA 01915



MTC-00002057

From: Geoff Braun
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 9:46am
Subject: The case against Microsoft
    The outcome of the DoJ's case against Microsoft is so Microsoft-
friendly, it suggests that Microsoft can_and 
does_dictate US law. Very sad.
    _ Geoff Braun
    Trustee, Placentia Library District
    Placentia, CA



MTC-00002058

From: Matthew Roe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 9:30am
Subject: Microsoft Input
    I believe that Microsoft is a monolopy, in every sense of the 
word. If they are allowed to have this 'settlement', 
they will only take over the one market they haven't dominated; 
education.
    They should be taken to court in my opinion.
    Thank you.
    Matthew Roe
    Hemlock, NY
    [email protected]



MTC-00002059

From: Adam Rice
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 9:26am
Subject: short version: I don't like the proposed settlement
    Longer version:
    The proposed settlement does not go far enough in dealing with a 
company that has been found to be a monopoly. It does not defend the 
interests of consumers, the (rest of the) software industry, or the 
computer hardware industry with sufficient vigor. It almost appears 
that the Department of Justice negotiated this settlement as if from 
a position of weakness, when in fact it is in a position of 
strength. Some of the verbiage emanating from the government 
suggests that the Windows operating system should be considered akin 
to a public utility. If that is the case (I do not agree myself), 
then Microsoft should be treated like a public utility, with rate 
boards, universal-access guarantees, and the full weight of 
bureaucracy that surrounds an electricity or water utility to look 
after the public's interest. A three-member review panel_with 
1.5 members appointed by Microsoft_does not qualify. That is 
more like the fox guarding the henhouse.
    I suspect that Microsoft would, reasonably, find such a 
bureacracy very intrusive, and reject the idea. The only alternative 
is for it to stop being a monopoly. While I did not agree with the 
specific approach that Judge Jackson took to breaking up Microsoft, 
I felt the general idea was a good one.
    The above comments address the proposed settlement overall. I 
also have a comment on a specific aspect. As formulated, the 
proposed settlement essentially allows Microsoft to define anything 
as part of the operating system. This is exactly what got Microsoft 
into this suit in the first place. I would urge a very restrictive 
definition of "operating system" as a collection of 
functions (APIs) provided to software applications, with no features 
that are directly accessible to the user. That, plus some sort of 
basic file-management application. This definition should be easy to 
understand, easy to enforce, and most importantly, honest.
    Microsoft has shown a stubborn insistence on treating anything 
it wants as "part of the operating system." A line must 
be drawn, and it must define a narrow space clearly and inflexibly. 
As it stands now, the Windows operating system (and all others) come 
bundled with many small utilities for convenience, plus e-mail and 
web-browsing applications, etc. The control of Internet access 
applications is very important. Microsoft must be barred from 
obtaining greater market share for its Internet applications simply 
by virtue of controlling the operating system rather than offering a 
superior product. Breaking the company up would be the most 
efficient and effective way of achieving that goal. The other 
options start looking like rate boards micro-managing a utility, but 
even that would be preferable to a monopoly unchecked. Which the 
proposed settlement enshrines.
    Thanks for your attention,
    Adam Rice [email protected]
    Austin TX USA http://www.crossroads.net/



MTC-00002060

From: Gail Knowles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 9:21am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Justice Department,
    I do realize that government and big business skip merrily down 
the road at most consumers expense, but don't you realize that 
making MS give schools THEIR proprietary hardware instead of money 
is in fact GIVING THEM MORE BUSINESS DOWN THE ROAD? The schools 
affected (or donated to, as you put it) will then be forced to buy 
all the upgrades and software updates for the MS systems, as opposed 
to spending the money where it could be needed or choosing their own 
computer systems, Mac, linux. . You know, Microsoft's competition, 
which has been illegally conspired against by Microsoft, which is 
why they are in court!! Ahem!
    Just a thought. . .
    Gail M. Knowles (taxpayer, voter, mom)
    [email protected]
    Gail M. Knowles
    Foolproof Design
    141 Raleigh Way
    Portsmouth, NH
    03801-3442
    603-430-9429
    Fax: 877-847-3418
    Got anthrax?



MTC-00002061

From: Christopher Tiedje
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 10:30am
Subject: How Could You?
    How blind are the people who accepted this deal to allow 
Microsoft to blitz their way into the education software market by 
"donating" up to a billion dollars worth of equipment 
and software to struggling schools. This is punishment? It might 
cost them some cash, but it guarantees them a whole new market and 
new customers. For about the same cost as a major advertising 
campaign, they get gauranteed exposure to a whole new market which 
was unavailable to them previously. Now these schools will have to 
pay for the software updates, network administration, and software 
trainers which were never expenses prior to this 
"settlement". It also helps Microsoft perpetuate their 
monopoly by spreading into the ever-growing education market which 
they have been struggling to do for over 10 years. Congratulations, 
you just made Bill Gates even richer.
    Chris Tiedje
    Star Tribune
    [email protected]
    612.673.7702



MTC-00002062

From: Trevor Milevskiy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 10:24am
Subject: Antitrust deal
    I have read through the internet that one of the agreements was 
to make microsoft give equipment and software to poorer schools. 
While this may seem a good idea on the surface, it is actually a way 
to increase microsoft's dominance in the computer industry by 
locking these poorer schools into the microsoft systems so that they 
will have to purchase upgrades etc from this company. Wouldn't it be 
a far better idea to give the schools the money so that they can 
decide how they will spend it. Some may need to use this money for 
other technological equipment like TV's Videos and Overhead 
Projectors to name a few.
    Thankyou



MTC-00002063

From: S
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/23/01 10:17am
Subject: Proposed U.S. D.o.J. settlement re: Microsoft anti trust 
case
    This message is to add my voice to what must be a chorus of 
protest against the proposed settlement between the U.S. Government 
and Microsoft in the antitrust case in which Microsoft has been held 
guilty. The outline of the proposed settlement, as it has become 
public is both irresponsible and inappropriate. This company has 
been held guilty of major and continuing breaches of both Federal an 
state law. The U.S. Department of Justice has proposed remedies 
which fail to punish the company for past behavior, fail to provide 
an effective remedy to prevent future abuses of the same kind, and 
fail to provide an effective mechanism to detect and prevent new 
abuses.
    One justification for this "softball" settlement has 
been the economic effects on a major industry that is already in 
recession. While Microsoft and other companies which ride 
financially on Microsoft coattails are major financial components of 
the economy, there is little sense in allowing the

[[Page 24027]]

continuation and expansion of the activities that 1) led to the 
guilty judgment in the first place, and 2) will result in continued 
restraint of trade, narrowing of competition, and use of illegal 
tactics to leverage monopoly power in operating systems and 
development related tools to gain dominant positions in new and 
emerging lines of business. The settlement would put any competitive 
challenges by other companies in the same chilling position that 
they now are in and will hinder recovery the economy on which we all 
depend. In short, appropriate restraints against Microsoft would 
**restore* a competitive marketplace and drive faster recovery in 
the information technologies industries that are now in recession. 
It is my opinion that the "Microsoft as economic 
flywheel" argument for settling this case too easily for 
Microsoft will damage rather than help economic recovery. Overall, 
the recent activities of Microsoft have confirmed that the direction 
and goals of Microsoft activities and intentions remain unchanged 
and are even more widespread, aggressive and damaging to consumers 
and to the marketplace. These recent actions include:
    1) The recent intentional denial of access to the MSN network to 
anyone using software other than that supplied by Microsoft 
(Internet Explorer). This action is parallel to and a direct 
extension of the attempt and near success of Microsoft to put 
Netscape out of business. A move that damaged both the competitive 
arena in network browsers and has caused demonstrable damage to 
consumers by denying access to the MSN service by using their 
operating system monopoly to, first ,make use of Internet Explorer 
(IE) nearly mandatory for the average consumer, and then making the 
use of IE a prerequisite to use of the MSN service. This aggressive 
and anti competitive move was only deterred by the sensitive 
position that Microsoft was in at the time of this experiment vis a 
vis settlement with the D.O.J. It is not hard to imagine this tactic 
and similar ones becoming common Microsoft practice after the 
proposed settlement with the D.O.J. takes effect. Microsoft also 
continues to coerce the consumer to use only IE by corrupting pre- 
existing network coding standards, thus making Web pages developed 
with Microsoft tools and to Microsoft's own standards incompatible 
with other browser software. Such incompatibilities and usurpation 
of standards makes viewing and interacting with Web sites developed 
with Microsoft tools hard to view and hard to interact with when 
using browser software other than Microsoft's.
    2) The release of the Windows XP operating system that continues 
to bundle software of types and in ways that establish and maintain 
a growing stream of revenue to Microsoft at the expense of many 
competitors and the consuming public. The settlement does nothing to 
address this new abuse and does little to prevent future activities 
of this kind. The ineffectual proposed D.O.J. settlement negates the 
effect of the judgment against Microsoft in the anti-trust case and 
leaves Microsoft free to continue to damage to both the IT industry 
and U.S. economy
    3) Microsoft's announced ",net" strategy is another 
facet of the overall anti competitive and anti consumer strategy 
Microsoft is implementing. The result of the ".net" 
strategy will be unprecedented control over and restriction of 
Internet use and Internet based commerce to the benefit of Microsoft 
and it's business partners, exclusion of competition, consumer 
choice, and allowing Microsoft to have virtually unconstrained 
control over the prices and terms of licenses and services that are 
available to the public.
    For the above reasons I urge the states to continue to seek more 
effective penalties and more restrictive controls over Microsoft's 
activities until both competition in the IT industry and consumer 
abuses have been addressed effectively.
    Steven H. Barry
    Arlington, VA



MTC-00002064

From: Noel McRae
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 9:48am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am concerned about the short term settlement. Will Microsoft 
in 5 years be allowed to run rough shod over smaller and espec. 
startup companies as they had in the past?
    Will the settlement be a means of extending their monopoly and 
even hurt others? For example, if they contribute 1 billion dollars 
to schools using Intel products, that will seriously undermine the 
Macintosh's roll in schools. Why not make it so the schools can get 
equipment of their choice_either Intel or Apple?



MTC-00002065

From: cynthia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 10:52am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think that instead of giving Microsoft software to poor 
schools, Microsoft should have to give MONEY. That way Microsoft 
doesn't profit from software people like me wouldn't pay for anyway 
AND the schools are REALLY helped. Are we trying to give them more 
of a monopoly? Shouldn't we be punishing them for monopolistic 
practices?
    cynthia nichols
    30+ year teacher in public schools.



MTC-00002066

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 10:39am
Subject: a mistake
    To Whom it May Concern,
    How can the infusion of Microsoft based hardware, along with 
Microsoft software be considered a punishment. Talk about stifling 
competition . . .this judgment kills competition. Granted, the offer 
to help disadvantaged schools procure tech resources is well and 
good, but how can planting Microsoft based technologies in 12K+ more 
locations do anything but expand its already huge base. It is a well 
know fact, that many companies have been focusing on the education 
market because of its rich potential for growth. Well, with one fell 
swing of your gavel, you have turned over an ever larger section of 
the education market over to Microsoft. Wouldn't it have been more 
logical to have told Microsoft to foot the bill for whatever tech 
resources these disadvantaged schools wanted, rather than hand them 
market share on a platter? Such a recourse would have made the 
company have to compete for the privilege of doing business with our 
schools! Hasn't the issue been all along to level the playing field 
. . . I guess not! Microsoft has pulled out another victory here, 
and to add insult to injury, our government has made them appear to 
be the "great benevolent ones."
    Stephen Besedick



MTC-00002067

From: Neil McKelvie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 10:35am
    I think that any settlement should NOT include any provision for 
Microsoft to provide computers for schools. He may not be a 
recognized legal authority, but the song by Tom Lehrer, "The 
Old Dope Peddler", can be cited: "He gives the kids free 
samples Because he knows full well That today's young innocent faces 
Are tomorrow's clientele."
    Quite apart from legal remedies as such, there could be a 
blanket policy from the top levels of the US government, that all 
branches institute a policy of diversification in computers and 
computer operating systems. At present, that means getting Macs, in 
addition to computers using the Microsoft operating system, but such 
a directive could well lead to other possibilities being introduced. 
Likewise, State governments could follow suit.
    (Prof) Neil McKelvie
    City University of New York



MTC-00002068

From: Ann Safir
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Proposed Settlement
    I urge the justice department to reject the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. Microsoft clearly violated anti-trust laws and this 
settlement does not go far enough to punish the company for its 
illegal practices. Accepting the settlement will only encourage 
Microsoft's predatory ways and effectively kill any meaningful 
competition. This settlement is not in ANYONE'S best interest except 
Microsoft's!
    Ann Safir
    355 Highland Street
    Weston, MA 02493



MTC-00002069

From: William Gardner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft judgment
    Gentlepersons:
    If you collectively let the 'Osama ben Ladens" of the 
world PC industry off with just a minor slap on the wrist, you will 
have grossly disserved the United States and the world. Gates and 
his minions are some of the worst robber barons that have ever 
lived. Do not be fooled by their surface-only contriteness. They are 
just the wolf dressed up in Grandma's clothing, just waiting to 
ravage all PC consumers at their first opportunity. You must 
sanction them severely and also you must subject them to

[[Page 24028]]

an ongoing investigation of their daily activities and trends. To do 
less would be to commit treason on the consumers of the world.
    William H. Gardner
    US citizen, patriot, voter and veteran



MTC-00002070

From: Al Coir
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 11:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Microsoft is up to their old tricks. Buying millions of dollars 
worth of PC computers with their software installed for the schools. 
Promoting their software with children. Free advertising in the 
guise of a settlement. Really is that a penalty for them? They may 
even make the computers appear to be a gift. Why not force them to 
give the funds to the schools to be used as they desire,
    Allard (Al) Coir_P.O. Box 23966_Phoenix, AZ 
85063-3966
    (623)846-7402_Celular (623) 341-4068_E-
Mail 
    Bytesmiths 
    19280 Rydman Court, West Linn, OR 97068, 503.635.3229
    CC:Mac EvangeList Classic



MTC-00002095

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected] 
@inetgw,Ralph@essen...
Date: 11/23/01 2:31 pm
Subject: Microsoft Hegemony: The Secret Result
CC: [email protected] 
@inetgw,[email protected]@i...
Re: Pressing the case against Microsoft
    After careful review, the proposed settlements fall far short of 
restoring competition and innovation to the computer software 
industry so important to California and our nation.
    The settlement doesn't require careful review because it is 
impossible that Microsoft would agree to something that's truly 
effective. The settlement is a failure in the most abstract because 
it does not remove Microsoft's control of the OS API. By 
scrutinizing the settlement you legitimize the insanity that 
behavioral remedies is an acceptable substitute for ending the 
hegemony. Anyone serious about modifying corporate behavior for 
public benefit knows that the micromanagement approach will 
accomplish little else than damage the argument for 
regulation_exactly the secret result that many want from this 
case. The simple fact is that the government must guide

[[Page 24032]]

industry or it runs off the track. It's happening in PC software 
& hardware, it's happening in energy, it's happening in 
military, it's happening in ag/food, it happened in banking, it's 
happening in pharma, it's happening in biotech, duh, it's happening 
everywhere.
    PC software_MS junk technology, hijacking of 
interoperability
    PC hardware_Intel stifling paradigm shifts, e.g. RISC
    Energy_paradigm shift to renewables hijacked by oil 
interests
    Military_Air Force pilot pride hijacking paradigm shift to 
drones
    Ag/Food_refined food creates diseases of affluence
    Banking_savings & loan debacle of 1980s
    Pharma_bandaid fixes instead of preventative medicine
    Biotech_frankenfoods



MTC-00002096

From: Robert O'Brien
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 2:09pm
Subject: RE: Microsoft reparations
     The reparations in the antitrust case with Microsoft should not 
offer the company another opportunity to further it's stronghold in 
the marketplace. Specifically, the recent news of Microsoft 
proposing to give technology to education would, I think, be 
analogous to it's original practice of wedging out competitors with 
it's browser software.
     Giving to education is a noble gesture and perhaps a good one 
but only if that giving is not attached to it's products but rather 
monetary, letting the school's themselves decide how to best spend 
it on technology, even specifically computer technology. This would 
provide the desired effect of reparation without the undesirable 
effect of increasing market base unfairly, again.
     Thanks for your attention in this matter.
     Robert O'Brien, Consultant
     1813 Ryan Drive
     Bismarck, ND 58501
     (701) 223-4093
     [email protected]



MTC-00002097

From: Patrice Drolet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 2:07pm
Subject: Give computers to shcools, yes, give MACINTOSH computers!!!
    Hi,
    I am a user Mac, Windows and Linux computers. I think that an 
appropriate way to deal with the MS issue is to agree that they give 
schools computers from other manufacturers, like Apple (Mac OS X) or 
even Linux (do not know if the schools would use them?). This would 
not increase MS's monopoly!
    Regards,
    Patrice Drolet, md
    Logiciels INFO-DATA inc.
    e-mail:[email protected]



MTC-00002098

From: Michael J Wise
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 2:05pm
Subject: Punishment -> Marketting Opportunity for M$?
    The proposed settlement has turned what should have been a 
punishment into a marketting opportunity. A Billion dollars worth of 
Software, which it will cost them maybe a *MILLION* dollars to 
actually *MAKE*, and you are taking their stuff and GIVING it to the 
next generation, like a hit of crack.
    The marketting guyz in Redmond must be absolutely rolling in the 
isles. I am disgusted.
    Aloha mai Nai'a.
    "Please have your Internet License http://kapu.net/
ï¿½7Emjwise/ and Usenet Registration handy..."



MTC-00002099

From: Lynne LaMaster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want to express my concern about this MS settlement. It will 
harm companies like Apple, who have a strong presence in schools. 
How in the world do you expect Apple to compete with free? You would 
be better off requiring that they put $1 Billion into a trust 
account where the schools can purchase any kind of software/system 
they desire. Or, require them to give Office: OS X to any school 
that wants it. I see no reason why you should harm Apple in this 
settlement. This is absolutely ridiculous.
    Lynne



MTC-00002100

From: Harden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 2:48pm
Subject: I Strongly Disagree with Microsoft School Proposal, Extends 
Monopoly
    Hi !
    Do not accept this marketing ploy. The cost to MS will be 
trivial. No Punishment at all for what they have done. Prior to and 
during WW II, Adolph Hitler tried to control people by burning 
books, controlling information. To a great degree he succeeded for a 
time in fooling the German people and the world. Then the world 
figured him out and he lost big time but the cost to the societies 
of the world was very great and reasonable Germans were very 
embarassed by their foolishness. Most recently, the Taliban has 
tried to control the lives of the folks of Afganistan by controlling 
information and everything else they could do with their lives. They 
are losing but the cost is very high. Bill Gates and Microsoft have 
been successfully placing a ring in the noses of everyone they can 
to do everything the Microsoft way. They are trying to control 
information and the way we receive and view it. VERY DANGEROUS !!
    If Microsoft succeeds much further, we will all someday 
understand the foolishness of our ways. BUT AT WHAT PRICE ??!!



MTC-00002101

From: Lane Roathe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 2:40pm
Subject: Settlement Feedback
    While I realize that the importance of the Microsoft case 
degraded significantly after Sept. 11, the Justice 
Department's settlement is a grave disservice to the American 
people. The fact that Windows XP continues the practices found to be 
illegal in a court of law, and that Microsoft is now set to dominate 
the home console gaming market should have been enough evidence that 
Microsoft needs tough love. I'm all for smaller government, but that 
does not mean allowing one company to have a stranglehold on the 
future of an entire generation!
    Sincerely,
    lane
    Lane Roathe, President Ideas From the Deep
     



MTC-00002102

From: Jan Chesne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 3:59pm
Subject: A reward, not a punishment
    The proposed settlement is shocking. This is more like a reward 
for Microsoft. It will only help them oust their minor & 
struggling competitor, Apple Computer, from the schools. Apple is 
generally well-liked in education. If you want to punish MS, why not 
have them purchase Apple computers for the schools? In neither case 
will it have any effect on MS changing its ways. I can't imagine why 
you would want a settlement that furthers Microsoft's 95% monopoly.



MTC-00002103

From: fred ford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 3:47pm
Subject: I THINK YOU SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE ALL PARTS OF THE MICROSOFT 
DEAL AS SOON AS POSIBLE AND LET THE TEC
    I THINK YOU SHOULD TRY TO SETTLE ALL PARTS OF THE MICROSOFT DEAL 
AS SOON AS POSIBLE AND LET THE TECH WORLD GET BACK TO WHAT IT DOES 
BEST.
    FRED
    C. FORD [email protected]



MTC-00002104

From: Wm. Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 3:38pm
Subject: I hate Microsoft
    Anything the govt does to them isn't enough. I think Microsoft 
is a bully, so I use Netscape and am upset that University of 
Phoenix forces me to use Explorer, to use their site/limited student 
access, also they require MS Word etc.
    Wm. Williams



MTC-00002105

From: semperfigungho
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 3:16pm
Subject: Agreement
    Agree with Microsoft's settlement bid and move on. This has gone 
on too long and everyone benefits with new bid.



MTC-00002106

From: John Koenig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 5:35pm
Subject: Micosoft settlement
    Microsoft has been found guilty of being a monopoly because 
Microsoft has used its

[[Page 24033]]

power to crush competition, restrict access of new products 
technologies and, keep consumers from accessing choices that would 
have otherwise been available in a normal market. Microsoft keeps 
prices artificially high and delivers software that is defective 
and/or of poor quality. The security holes in Microsoft products 
pose a great threat to the computing public (and, as all business 
and commerce is affected, even to those who do not own or use 
computers themselves are harmed).
    What is the government actually doing to protect me (and other 
taxpayers) from this abusive monopoly? With billions of dollars at 
stake, if Microsoft is allowed to get away with a mere slap on the 
wrist, it will go back to business as usual. I'll be watching and, 
I'll remember how (and if) the government lives up to its 
responsibility when I'm in the voting booth in November 2002 . I 
welcome a response.
    Sincerely,
    John P. Koenig
    24 Chichester Avenue
    Center Moriches, NY 11934-2402
    631-878-8424
    [email protected]



MTC-00002108

From: Robert Greenleaf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am deeply disappointed that the current administration is 
caving in on Microsoft. Fair competition is essential for capitalism 
to work and Microsoft has done everything in its power to stifle 
competition. Because of their monopoly they get by with releasing 
mediocre products. Further, their activities are hurting the growth 
of innovative technology and your weak-kneed position will hurt the 
economy in the long run. Please take a longer range point of view 
and stimulate competition by forcing Microsoft to cease their 
efforts to take over the internet and virtually all computer 
software.
    Robert Greenleaf



MTC-00002109

From: Raul Ramirez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 4:32pm
Subject: Bed fellows
    Is the Bush administration fair with the people of these United 
States ? We deserve to know if the settlement is just.
    [email protected]



MTC-00002110

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 6:53pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    When someone cheats in an athletic competition, the culprit is 
disqualified and other contestants are given their proper rewards. 
However, in the contest of the software business, the culprit is now 
being rewarded by increasing the power base by giving away more 
software!
    This is like having Gillette give away razors to men. Gillette 
loves that, because, they will be happy to sell razorblades to those 
same men in a few weeks.
    So Microsoft wins by increasing the user base, and competition 
looses. Maybe forever.
    The guys on the prosecution who went along with this absurd 
settlement should be investigated for conflicts of interest! This is 
not even a slap on the wrist. It's a congratulatory pat on the back 
for Microsoft.
    Jim Hinds



MTC-00002111

From: Joel Markwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 6:07pm
Subject: DOJ and Microsoft: A Failure to Meet Your Responsibilities 
to Your Real Bosses
    I am incredibly disappointed in the abdication by the Justice 
Department in the Microsoft Antitrust Case. Microsoft is one of the 
most aggressive anti-competitive companies in our history and has 
been proven to be so over-and-over. The list is long and much of 
their wrongdoing was not even presented at court. Their actions 
towards lesser companies have stifled creativity, crushed smaller, 
more flexible and ultimately more consumer-friendly companies by 
simply threatening to enter their market and have for years they 
have produced a product that is inferior in almost every way to 
every one of their competitors and they can only do so because of 
their size.
    No financial backer would ever dare subsidize the creation of a 
new word-processor to challenge Word or spreadsheet to challenge 
Excel, yet smaller companies do so every day with intelligence and 
creativity only to be run out of business by Microsoft. Developers 
fear MS to the extent that I have seen them refuse to criticize MS 
on camera for fear of being hurt by MS, yet off camera they clearly 
hate the company and the product. Because of their iron grip on the 
computer space, MS has almost no incentive to make their products 
more secure and often fail to release security patches in a timely 
manner and often release products they know to be buggy because 
there simply is no broad-based alternative out there for the 
consumer and server market in their space.
    Bill Gates and now Ballmer have both shown their disdain for the 
American public and the US Justice Department publicly by their 
words and behavior and yet the Justice Department has completely 
abrogated their responsibilities to the American consumer, I assume, 
at the "suggestion" of the Bush administration.
    The biggest loss to the American consumer has been the 
Republican Congresses consistent failure to agree to even reasonable 
campaign finance reform and so long as large monopoly corporations 
like Microsoft continue to own America's politicians, we working 
American will continue to unrepresented in the halls of justice and 
the halls on Congress.
    Forcing Microsoft to act as a more responsible and competitive 
American company, even to the extent of breaking it up will not hurt 
the US economy. The effect of forcing MS to toe the line or even to 
break it up would be a breath of fresh air to a computer industry 
strangling in Microsoft's grip. How much stronger would the US 
economy be if MS were not sitting astride it? The Justice Department 
doesn't worry Bill Gates, because he might as well own you as he 
does everything else, given the present circumstances.
    Sincerely,
    Joel Markwell
    736 Ponce de Leon Terrace
    Atlanta, GA 30306
    [email protected]



MTC-00002112

From: Bill King
To: Microsoft ATR,antitrust 
@attorneygeneral.gov@inetgw
Date: 11/23/01 6:03pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I'm writing this brief note to express my displeasure with the 
recent US Dept. of Justice's Microsoft settlement. I firmly believe 
that Microsoft should have received harsher penalties for their 
outrageous conduct. However, I'm somewhat relieved in that some of 
the state attorney generals (who I've cc'ed on this e-mail) are also 
not satisfied with the terms of the settlement. I hope they continue 
to pursue a more appropriate and fair judgement.
    While I realize that the drawn-out nature of this lawsuit may 
have made a settlement attractive, I am disappointed in the lack of 
any real punishment. The message the current settlement sends is 
that while a company can engage in unfair practices, any punishment 
will not reflect or in the slightst way compensate for the damage 
they cause.
    I realize that Microsoft now plays a significant part of the 
day-to-day economy/stock market of the US and the world to a certain 
extent. A judgement against them will have a trickle down impact. I 
feel, though, that any financial impact that a Microsoft punishment 
might cause would be well worth it considering their predatory and 
overreaching practices. Their behavior has caused irreparable harm 
to the computer industry, among others, and I believe they must be 
stopped or at least punished for what they have wrought. Thank you 
for allowing me to voice my opinion.
    Bill King
    207 N. Narberth Ave.
    Narberth, PA 19072



MTC-00002113

From: Dan Snyder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 7:19pm
Subject: Why the MS settlement isn't enough
    Dear US Justice Department,
    I do not believe the remedies reported in the news are going to 
have the slightest impact on Microsoft's predatory marketing 
practices and illegal abuse of monopoly power.
    Here are three quick examples from the past six months of how 
Microsoft continues to use their monopoly power in one market to 
destroy competition in another market.
    1. Microsoft used it's operating systems monopoly to eliminate 
any serious competition in the web browser market. Microsoft is now 
using their web browser dominance to gain further control over 
Internet content by dropping support for industry-standard third-
party browser plug-ins. Microsoft is doing this to force

[[Page 24034]]

competition out of other Internet areas like streaming media. This 
move forces companies using the competing products to re-design 
their web sites. This is very expensive for companies and many of 
companies decide that since they are being forced to 
"redesign" they should use the Microsoft product to try 
and avoid a problem like this in the future.
    2. Microsoft has removed the Java runtime environment from it's 
Windows XP operating system. Java applications can run on any 
operating system, which is a big threat to Microsoft's Operating 
Systems dominance. By doing this, Microsoft is making it harder for 
the average PC user to use Java based applications. Due to this 
added inconvenience of not having Java installed, thousands of 
customers will no longer use competing applications written in Java.
    3. In Windows XP, Microsoft has dropped support for saving files 
in the industry standard MP3 format in favor of their own 
proprietary format. Again, Microsoft is trying to use their 
operating system to gain control of another market, the digital 
music market.
    Please reconsider this "hand slap" settlement. Only 
breaking up the company will open up competition and benefit 
consumers, since Microsoft could then no longer leverage monopoly 
power in one market to gain monopoly power in another market.
    Thanks for your time,
    Dan Snyder, Apple Product Professional
    MacDataTech, Apple Solution Experts
    Phoenix, AZ
    Phone: 480-539-9622, http://www.macdatatech.com
    Macintosh Support, Networking, Programming, Training & More!



MTC-00002114

From: Arkady Kofman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 7: 16pm
Subject: MISCROSOFT "SETTLEMENT" IS A JOKE!!!
[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It has 
been converted to attachment.]
CC Senator Schumer
    Dear Department of Justice,
    Below please find a copy of my email("LOSE WIN" 
TRICK) to my NY Senator*** I hope that DOJ does consider how 
numerous American's, like myself, feel about this issue. The 
Microsoft MUST NOT BE ALLOWED to practice its "Kill The 
Competitor, then Appologize-Settle, if need be" policy. This 
School Donation "Settlement" is Highly UNSETTLING to 
anyone who can look past its nose. It also is wrong, and un-
American!!! When Microsoft expands into almost every other area, 
like cable TV, Internet, Digital Music, using their ILLEGALLY 
acquired wealth against their competitors, that scares me. For 
Microsoft to wrap themselves into American Flag, and say: how can 
you go after us(MSFT) when our country is at war, when economy is 
down? THAT'S UGLY HOGWASH!!!! If Microsoft "gets away with 
it", when and where will it stop? Microsoft MUST be made to 
PAY for it's crimes! The PUNISHMENT should be made to compensate us 
the consumers, the fallen competitors who they killed off. As to 
schools, let them DONATE $$ only, so that schools are free to buy 
Apple Computers, if they choose to do so, or and any other software.
    The current "SETTLEMENT" is nothing bad a huge 
Microsoft banner which is shoved down the throats of those hungry 
schools. After the time period expires, the graduates of those 
schools are railroaded into becoming Microsoft customers for life!!! 
Boy, is DOJ so dumb not see this Microsoft trap? Or worse, is DOJ 
scared of Microsoft, or worse yet, is someone in DOJ getting a 
"$$ thank you" from Microsoft? Boy, I hope not!!! I 
wander how many people who have been working on this 
"SETTLEMENT" own Microsoft stock! Thus far, this 
"MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT" looks like a mockery of common 
sense!
    Just cause Microsoft has some good lawyers, that doesn't mean 
that no crime has been committed. And if they were found to be a 
monopoly, then they must be punished, and not rewarded!!!
    Even if you took half or three quarters of Bill Gate's and his 
MS Execs personal wealth and distributed it among Microsoft's 
victims, those execs will STILL be either Multi-Billioners or Multi-
Millioners.
    Thanks for your time.
    Arkady Kofman
    Dear Senator Schumer,
    With all the focus on Osama, terrorism and such, it looks like 
Big "Brother" Bill(Gates) and his Microsoft are about to 
get away with it, and slip right through again, behind our backs!!! 
If it's just the $$ that they want to give away, it's one thing, but 
free software to schools_ THAT'S A JOKE!!! And if the 
Department of Justice let's them, then DOJ is an even bigger joke. 
Let's hope that there are still folks in Washington who Think 
Different ? and are awake enough to stop Microsoft's "Lie 
Train" before it again steam rolls over US Constitution and 
the very Justice and Common Sense that it is supposed to 
represent!!!
    I have also contacted Senator Clinton via http://
clinton.senate.gov/email_form.html and am encouraging all my 
friends to contact their representative and speak out ASAP!!!
    PLEASE DON'T LET MICROSOFT PULL THIS LATEST "LOSE 
WIN" TRICK ON ALL OF US, US, THE WORLD!!!
    Arkady Kofman
    25-40 30th Rd., #C6
    Astoria, NY 11102-2628
    (718) 204-2477 12-9 PM
    web page: http://home.nyc.rr.com/arkady/
    Deal may put Microsoft at head of the class By: Joe Wilcox and 
Michael Kanellos 11/21/01 7:45 AM Source: News.com
    A proposed settlement agreement in a series of antitrust suits 
may not only give Microsoft a fairly inexpensive legal 
resolution_it may also help the company and its PC allies 
further erode Apple Computer's position in education.
    Under a settlement proposal in a series of private antitrust 
lawsuits announced Tuesday, Microsoft agreed to donate approximately 
$500 million to help bring technology to some of the nation's most 
disadvantaged schools. The deal will also allow these schools to 
obtain a virtually unlimited supply of Microsoft software for the 
next five years.
    Those terms could hurt Apple and other software providers, 
according to analysts and educators. Historically, education has 
been one of Apple's primary markets. And although the company has 
slipped to No. 2 in kindergarten through grade 12_behind 
Dell_it still has a larger installed base than anyone else.
    Free software, though, is hard to pass up. Apple, as well as 
Linux companies and other educational software developers, could 
find themselves out in the cold in school districts flush with new 
Microsoft products.
    Michael Theochares, an educational multimedia specialist at a 
Massachusetts public school, decried the settlement as 
"anticompetitive" and "targeted at a competitor 
with dominant market share" in elementary and secondary 
schools.
    "What's even more infuriating is that Microsoft is turning 
this into an altruistic proposition," he said. "You 
can't get better advertising than this. This is a settlement?" 
Microsoft could wind up "undercutting everyone in the 
education market," Gerard Klauer Mattison analyst David Bailey 
said. The best-case scenario for Apple would be that Microsoft 
increases the overall level of PCs in schools without directly 
harming a company like Apple, he said.
    Linux specialist Red Hat Software tried to counter Microsoft's 
move soon after the settlement was announced. The company said it 
would provide its software to every U.S. school district and 
encouraged Microsoft to convert the software component of the deal 
to increased hardware donations, which costs the company little.
    "While we applaud Microsoft for raising the idea of 
helping poorer schools as part of the penalty phase of their 
conviction for monopolistic practices, we do not think that the 
remedy should be a mechanism by which Microsoft can further extend 
its monopoly," Red Hat CEO Matthew Szulik said in a statement.
    An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment on the issue.
    The potential pain for Apple comes in the unique settlement 
terms. Under the deal, Microsoft will grant approximately $500 
million to help underprivileged schools create self-sustaining 
technology programs. Of that, $90 million will go to teacher 
training, while $160 million will go to technical support. Microsoft 
will also match contributions from other donors. Additionally, 
Microsoft would give the schools software and would give nonprofit 
organizations approximately 1 million licenses for the Windows 
operating system, which the nonprofits in turn would use to provide 
refurbished PCs to the schools.
    The donations would go to public elementary and secondary 
schools, at which 70 percent of students are eligible for federal 
meal assistance, or approximately 14 percent of the nation's 
schools, according to Microsoft. Approximately 12,500 schools, 
representing 7 million students and 400,000 teachers, would be 
eligible to participate in the program.
    "A slap in the face" Nancy Hudnall, an accountant 
from Rolla, Mo., faulted the terms of the proposed deal.
    "Settlement of this case as proposed is a slap in the face 
of all consumers, as well as

[[Page 24035]]

free trade," she said. "By allowing Microsoft to remedy 
their anti-competitive actions by infiltrating our schools, the 
consumer and Microsoft are in a 'lose-win' 
situation."
    Hudnall emphasized that she is a user of Microsoft products and 
has no grudges against the company. "However, I do feel that 
our legal system is not acting in the public's best interest," 
she said. "The need of schools should be addressed in another 
manner, not as a means to alleviate our judicial system's inability 
to deal with Microsoft's unethical business dealings."
    With these donations, Apple equipment becomes far less 
attractive to cash-strapped districts. Even if the grant funds are 
used to buy Apple equipment, a district would have to pass up 
opportunities for free software.
    In recent years, Apple has seen its share of the market decline 
because of price competition. Dell is now No. 1 in the education 
market, with 37 percent of new elementary and high school sales in 
the second quarter, according to IDC. Apple came in second, with 23 
percent. Familiarizing students with Microsoft technology could also 
make loyal customers out of today's students. Developing 
familiarity, in fact, was the basis for Apple's push into education 
back in the 1980s. The theory was that students would stick with the 
technology they understood best. While there may be some truth to 
this, it hasn't completely panned out in the numbers. Apple's share 
of the PC market is below 5 percent, far below its share in 
education. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer denied the proposed 
settlement was an attempt to boost the company's share of the 
education market.
    "The benefits we provide can be used for PCs or 
Macintoshes," he said. "It can be used for PC software 
or Macintosh software. Certainly, the money can be used for non-
Microsoft software, so I don't view it as some big thing about 
market share." IDC analyst Roger Kay pointed out that 
Microsoft also produces applications for Apple computers.
    Although the settlement terms will likely help Microsoft's 
position in education, more tangible benefits come from the 
relatively light terms. The company is effectively making a $500 
million charitable donation and giving away its own software to 
settle a case where the liability could have stretched into far 
higher figures.
    The case in some ways is being settled for pennies on the 
dollar, according to Bob Lande, an antitrust professor with 
University of Baltimore School of Law. The company will also likely 
get positive public relations messages out with the deal, said 
Gartner Dataquest analyst Michael Silver. "This gets Microsoft 
out of all these lawsuits in one fell swoop," Silver said. 
"It's a penalty, but it makes Microsoft look good and gives 
schools PCs, and in so doing would give Microsoft an even larger 
installed base than they already have."



MTC-00002115

From: Doug Walker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 7:05pm
Subject: Unhappy with federal settlement
    I am very unhappy with the Federal government's settlement of 
the Microsoft anti-trust case. Microsoft broke the law! The 
punishment is far too mild. Furthermore something needs to be do to 
prevent Microsoft from continuing these violations. It appears our 
government has failed to do its job.
    I am very happy nine state's Attorney Generals did not join the 
Federal government's settlement.
    Doug Walker
    2743 Blackburn Drive
    Davis, CA 95616



MTC-00002116

From: Ian Orchard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 6:56pm
Subject: Microsoft: "Get out of jail free"
    As a non-US citizen materially affected by the monopolistic 
behaviour of Microsoft, I had hoped that the democratic processes of 
American would have prevailed and that the combined forces of the 
ordinary people could call to account the robber barons of Big 
Business. I am deeply disappointed.
    Not only has the Department of Justice capitulated, the 
settlement actively reinforces Microsoft's monopoly in Education, 
leaving the Department wide open to accusations of political 
interference or even corruption. A 'settlement' 
favouring the guilty as unbelievably blatant as this could only have 
been achieved if officials in the department had been bribed.
    I'm sorry, but this affair has destroyed my faith in America as 
the bastion of freedom and democracy.
    Ian Orchard
    67a Windermere Rd
    Christchurch 8005
    New Zealand



MTC-00002117

From: Ian Mander
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 7:57pm
Subject: Refurbished Macs
    The settlement appears to be either badly worded or have little 
thought for alternative computing platforms.
    From pages 23-24 of the settlement:
    5. Refurbished Computers. Microsoft will establish a Microsoft 
Authorized Refurbisher program. Under this program non-profit 
refurbishers who meet reasonable criteria established by Microsoft 
for business standards and practices will be encouraged to refurbish 
Macintosh computers and personal computers for use in this program. 
Microsoft will provide such refurbishers with licenses and/or 
software for Microsoft operating systems (Windows 98 SE or more 
recent as machine specifications permit) installed on refurbished 
personal computers. Why are Macintosh computers even mentioned? 
Microsoft does not need to provide software for them under this 
clause (not even Office for Mac) because Macs do not run a Microsoft 
operating system (unless they are running Virtual PC or similar to 
emulate a PC). Also, Macintosh computers ARE personal computers. 
However, they are not Wintel-based PCs.
    Microsoft will administer the program and bear the costs of 
administration. As part of this program Microsoft will guarantee 
that a total of at least 200,000 computers, consisting of Macintosh 
computers or Pentium-class personal computers or better, will be 
available to Eligible Schools for each year of the Settlement Period 
at ordinary fees charged by such Refurbishers. Can we take this to 
mean that Microsoft is expected to pay for refurbishers to refurbish 
Macs, without any Microsoft software? Since there is no proportion 
specified of the 200,000 computers per year that should be Macs, why 
should Microsoft think they should pay for any? After all, as 
written it is Microsoft that decides which non-profit refurbishers 
meet Microsoft's criteria for business practices. So again, why are 
Macintosh computers even mentioned? It seems a token effort that 
falls well short of what is needed to properly address Microsoft's 
strong monopoly position in many areas.
    Each such computer will include a color monitor, Ethernet card, 
speakers, keyboard and pointing device, necessary cables, 56K modem 
and CD ROM drive. Macs do not generally need an Ethernet 
card_it is built in. Macs also often do not need external 
speakers.
    The minimum specifications adopted each year will include but 
not be limited to processor speed, RAM and storage capacity, and 
will not be below a level sufficient to run at reasonable 
performance levels, for school use, Windows 98 SE and the 
application programs to be donated pursuant to Paragraph IV.6 
herein. Of course, this paragraph excludes ALL Macs from being 
included in the scheme unless they are running Virtual PC or 
similar.
    Yours faithfully,
    Ian Mander, BSc.



MTC-00002118

From: Noah Fields
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 7:39pm
Subject: Unhappy with Microsoft Settlement...
    I am writing to tell you that I am very dissatisfied with the 
current Microsoft antitrust settlement. I strongly agree with the 
Settlement Enhancement proposed by RedHat inc. ( see: http://
www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/press_usschools.html ) 
Allowing Microsoft to install their software in schools would turn 
the US public school system into one of the largest customer bases 
for the company. This seems to be antithetical to an anti trust 
settlement, and turns punishment into an award.
    Please read the alternative settlement proposed by RedHat inc. 
It suggests that Microsoft donate computer equipment to public 
schools, and RedHat provides software and unlimited support, also 
for free. This is a win win scenario, because it doubles the benefit 
to the schools, and prevents Microsoft from widening their 
influence.
    Thanks for your time,
    Noah Fields
    227a Summer St. Apt #3
    Somerville, MA 02143



MTC-00002119

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,Kevin E.

[[Page 24036]]

Cahill,Dima,Steve McCready
Date: 11/23/01 7:26pm
Subject: Doubts about settlement
    Dear DoJ:
    Microsoft is the most profitable monopoly in the history of man, 
and one of the more ruthless. It has used its domination of the PC 
software industry to cripple the open-software movement and has even 
tried to pass laws that would make that movement illegal. The DoJ 
settlement should include a strict and comprehensive prohibition of 
efforts to stifle the open-software movement.
    It is hard to imagine how any government committee would be able 
to supervise Microsoft's compliance with any agreement. Microsoft's 
recent offer to give $1 billion in computer products to poor school 
districts is absurd. The real cost to Microsoft of a software 
product valued at $300 is about $1. So in exchange for some $3 
million of CDs and packaging, Microsoft will settle lawsuits, 
receive millions of dollars of publicity, and create millions of new 
customers. The proposal of Red Hat http://www.redhat.com/about/
presscenter/2001/press_usschools.html to provide its Linux 
software for free if Microsoft would donate $1 billion of computer 
hardware should be taken seriously by all parties to the settlement. 
It would be a much better deal for the schools. It is very odd that 
while the DoJ was suing Microsoft, other US government agencies, 
such as DoE and NSF, were using Microsoft documents and forms rather 
than ascii text documents which can be read by people using any 
operating system. DoE and NSF have been forcing professors applying 
for research grants either to use Microsoft's operating system or to 
jump through hoops using programs that imitate Microsoft Word on a 
Linux system.
    Yours truly,
    Kevin Cahill
    Kevin Cahill Phone: 505 277 5318
    Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Mexico, 
Albuquerque, NM 87131-1156
    Fax: 505 277 1520, Web page: kevin.phys.unm.edu/kevin/, E-mail: 
[email protected]



MTC-00002120

From: ARNOLD MCCREARY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 8:29pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    If i understood it right Microsoft has done it again. The 
planitifs should have been rewarded with money to spend as they 
choose, insted of a gift of computer serves that will make millions 
for them as before.



MTC-00002121

From: Eric Berger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 8:27pm
Subject: My View
    Please reconsider your decision regarding Microsoft's penalty 
for monopolistic practices. Please consider mandating that Microsoft 
be broken into operating system, application software and hardware 
companies. I have observed first-hand the effect of Microsoft's 
practices of driving its competitors into insolvency through dirty 
tricks, especially compiler and office software companies. This 
lever has only been available because Microsoft controls the OS and 
has office and compiler software for sale. Without their control of 
the OS, and the problems that they caused for users of competing 
software products, thier competitors (e.g., Borland, Wordperfect, 
Novell, 3Com, etc.) would still be in the market providing the 
innovations that Microsoft copied just before the companies were 
driven off the map of out of the market.
    Thanks for the opportunity to comment



MTC-00002122

From: jss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 7:58pm
Subject: Don't let Microsoft get away with it
    I'd like to express my strong reservations about the antitrust 
agreement with Microsoft. If you let them get away with this they 
will continue their monopolistic practices. There needs to be very 
strong penalties and even more rigorous oversight of this company.
    Thank you,
    Joel Shoner
    Brookline, MA



MTC-00002123

From: Christian Miller
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/23/01 8:32pm
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement
    Dear US Justice Department,
    I do not believe the remedies reported in the news are going to 
have the slightest impact on Microsoft's predatory marketing 
practices, and subsequent illegal abuse of monopoly power.
    Take, for one small example, the case that started it all: 
internet browsers. Since the time the case started, Microsoft 
bundled their browser for free, and essentially drove all other 
browsers out of the market. They claim they have a right to do this, 
and that they are only serving consumer needs.
    But their most recent versions_including ALL browsers 
shipped with the new Windows XP_have made a significant 
change: they no longer support industry-standard third-party browser 
plug-ins for presenting specialized content, such as movies, sound, 
animation, and virtual reality. This means that third-party content 
providers, such as Real Audio, Macromedia Flash, Adobe PDF, and 
Apple QuickTime_just to name a few of the larger 
players_no longer function under Microsoft's browsers using 
the standard installation procedure. Instead, they must provide 
special installations that go through an additional layer of 
software_Active X_that Microsoft's own content 
provisioning software does not go through. This means that ordinary 
consumers will have to struggle needlessly to install third-party 
content provisioning software, but perhaps more importantly, if they 
do actually get through that struggle, the third-party plug-ins will 
run more slowly and with less capability than will Microsoft's own 
content provisioning software.
    This also means that some 90% of new computers sold cannot 
properly access my web site, which has Apple QuickTime content, 
whereas 90% of pre-Windows XP computers could.
    With this move, done right under your collective noses while you 
negotiated a cushy "hand slap" settlement, Microsoft not 
only successfully extended their operating system monopoly into the 
internet browser market, but now they have extended their browser 
monopoly into the content provider marketplace! They have broken the 
law once, and while being penalized, have broken it again.
    Take heed of my prediction: now that Microsoft controls content 
provisioning, content will come next. Within three years, the 
average consumer with an "out of the box" computer will 
be unable to view any content that Microsoft has not provided.
    With all due respect, the Ashcroft Justice Department is asleep 
at the wheel on this one. Quit meddling with "states' 
rights" Oregon and California, and concentrate on 
appropriately punishing large, multi-national companies who are 
already convicted of breaking laws.
    The Lamb that was Slain is the Lion now who Reigns.



MTC-00002124

From: George
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 10:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Punishment_how to make fair
    What you're posing hardly seems like punishment for breaking the 
law. If you really want to punish Microsoft , make the 1 billion be 
in either Apple computers with AppleWorks software, or Dell PCs 
running Linux with other than Microsoft products! Now that would 
make sense.



MTC-00002125

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 9:54pm
Subject: The mircosoft case
    Look's like Microsoft can't loose in this. The billion dollar 
donation only helps ensure their dominance in the market. Surprise, 
surprise, surprise.....
    Andy Current
    419 Sunset
    Oglesby, IL 61348
    H815-883-9183 ??i Fax 707-220-1347
    [email protected]



MTC-00002126

From: Chris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 8:57pm
Subject: Settlement
    I have read the text of the settlement agreement regarding 
Microsoft. If this settlement is approved it doesn't appear that 
Microsoft will be penalized for its behavior. I imagine Mr. Gates 
must be giddy about the terms of this settlement as it clearly 
extends his company's tentacles in areas that couldn't afford his 
products before this.
    Please negotiate a settlement that has no Microsoft logo on any 
element of it. Recipients should be able to make decisions on the 
use their share of the settlement from all platforms/products 
available from all vendors?
    Chris Bradley

[[Page 24037]]

    N1032 M35
    Menominee MI 49858



MTC-00002127

From: pete rhinehardt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 8:47pm
Subject: antitrust settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I hope you will take the time to really consider the 
implications of settling the Microsoft antitrust case. By your own 
findings, Microsoft has used its market power to squelch most 
competition, giving Microsoft a stranglehold over software and 
operating systems with its 90% market control. 90%! There is nothing 
wrong with making a dollar; but Microsoft has so cornered the PC 
market, it is like being hooked on a drug. Since there are few 
options available, people are forced to keep buying their products. 
We've become dependent upon Microsoft. Not only that, but like an 
illicit drug, we are destroying ourselves with a bad product.
    In light of recent develops in another case, Microsoft, in an 
effort to settle another suit, Microsoft has offered to supply poor 
districts with new equipment and MORE Microsoft products. This will 
shift the balance of installed OS in the midwest very much in 
Microsoft's favor. More districts become dependent upon inferior 
products and innovation is dealt yet another blow.
    Surely, it must be obvious that these settlements are not about 
Microsoft realizing their aggressive dominance tactics result in 
innovation being crushed. It's about money, and making a profit. 
Microsoft is thumbing its nose at the government and business world. 
Its grip gives Microsoft the impression of being above the law. The 
world will not benefit from these tactics. Our economy won't. And we 
may lose the edge as a world technology leader. Please consider 
employing stricter sanctions against Microsoft and reigning in this 
juggernaut.
    Peter K. Rhinehardt
    16 Westlawn Rd
    Portland, ME 04103



MTC-00002128

From: Funky Soul Rebels
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 10:10pm
Subject: Microsoft: The world's richest bully
    To whom it may concern:
    It is becoming rapidly apparent that our world is on the brink 
of many turning points. From terrorist threats to political fiascos, 
we are experiencing the most turbulent time in our nation's history. 
If there is any security that we Americans have, it's in knowing 
that there are competent men and women of integrity running the 
government and judicial system. Of course, that ideal rarely graces 
our reality when there are riches involved.
    Needless to say, I was not at all surprised by the latest 
developments in the Microsoft litigation. It is obvious that the 
company's massive buying power has come into play as they 
shamelessly continue to utilize the surreptitious maneuvers that 
earned them the status of a full-blown monopoly in the first place. 
The company has proven time and time again that it doesn't give a 
fig about fair play and will use anything in its vast arsenal of 
unethical tactics to wipe out the very competition they stole their 
ideas from! So now they get a slap on the wrist and are told to back 
out of the educational market, an insignificant fraction of their 
mainstream revenue sources and ... that's it? Is this American 
Justice? Will Big Money have the final say in everything?
    If answer is yes, then what does our future hold as a nation? 
Take a good look at the repetitive history of all empires and you 
will see that they all fell due to the greed and corruption of their 
leaders. We live in a time when the line between corporation and 
government is blurred. Microsoft has found ways to influence the 
highest levels of power and authority in the name of the almighty 
dollar. I am not a capitalism basher by any means. People should be 
free to get as rich as they want. I just don't want to see blatant 
injustice funded by deep pockets. With more resources than any 
terrorist network or mafia clan, Microsoft is the world's richest 
bully and must be taught that the court's decision does not have a 
price tag. I implore you to make our voices heard in Washington so 
that we can believe in this country again. If justice does not 
prevail, it is only the beginning of our great nation's inevitable 
collapse.
    My words may sound melodramatic to some, but I firmly stand 
behind the conviction that we have shed our blood in vain if we 
struggle to defend something that is rotting from the inside out.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Heath Davis
    252 South 4th Street
    Brooklyn, NY 11211



MTC-00002129

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 10:07pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice:
    The recent announced penalty "against" was 
essentially the undoing of Apple's education market niche. No doubt, 
MS is delighted to have the opportunity to "invest" into 
a market that they have yet to dominate. What are you people 
thinking? They lose but they still win. Can't you recognize the wolf 
in sheep's attire, poorly as it is, guarding the hen house?
    Ed Orlosky



MTC-00002130

From: Howard Johnston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 10:54pm
Subject: "I am very disappointed with the Feds settlement. 
Microsoft"
    "I am very disappointed with the Feds settlement. 
Microsoft"
    "It seems to me that Microsoft has indulged in not only 
anti-trust violations but racketeering as well."
    Howard Johnston



MTC-00002131

From: Bernie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 10:24pm
Subject: Irresponsible Settlement
    Not only do I hope that the DOJ-Microsoft settlement gets put 
aside via the Tunney Act, and that the remaining state and EU suits 
come up with something resembling a real remedy to the Microsoft 
problem, but I hope also that circumstances surrounding how such a 
jaw-droppingly stupid, pro-Microsoft and overall irresponsible 
settlement could come about.



MTC-00002133

From: Terrence
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 11:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 11/22/01 
Subject: Comments on Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I strongly oppose the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust case. Microsoft has been proven before the law to have 
abused its monopoly powers and needs to be punished for that and 
effective rules must be put in place to restore competition in the 
marketplace. The recently publicized settlement does neither. Healty 
competition, innovation, and consumer choice are ESSENTIAL to the 
high-tech economy. The way I interpret the settlement it is full of 
holes and will not stop Microsoft from steamrolling the competition 
with unfair business practices and does nothing to prevent Microsoft 
from gauging consumers for years to come.
    In particular:
    _Microsoft must be prohibited from engaging in excluse and 
semi-exclusive agreements with any parties for any time period.
    _Microsoft must not be allowed to provide financial or 
other incentives to other parties for favoring Microsofts products 
over a competitors product.
    _Microsoft must not be allowed to bundle or cross-license 
its products in any way.
    _Microsoft must make public the programming interfaces to 
all of its major products to allow competitors to implement 
meaningful interoperability with Microsoft's products. Also, 
Microsoft must notify all interested parties well in advance before 
it decides to change any such interfaces and must make these changes 
available.
    _Microsoft must be prohibited from breaking public 
technology standards by adding proprietary and incompatible features 
to such standards and then bundling this proprietary technology into 
hundreds of millions of Windows platforms, thus creating a de-facto 
standard that overrides the existing public standard.
    No exemptions or loopholes can be allowed for the above rules if 
meaningful relief is to be achieved.
    I urge the court to understand the impact Microsoft's past 
behavior has had on the high-tech marketplace. If Microsoft's 
ruthless business practices continue unchecked the American economy 
will pay an enormous penalty in the long run.
    Microsoft should compete as much as it wants, but it must stop 
doing so in an unfair manner. The proposed settlement does not 
guarantee this in any way.

[[Page 24038]]

    Sincerely,
    Terrence Barr
    20875 Valley Green Dr #27
    Cupertino, CA 95014



MTC-00002134

From: Barbara Passman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/23/01 11:22pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I am very troubled that Microsoft, which , indeed has committed 
AntiTrust violations, as confirmed in the court hearings earlier 
this year, is now going unpunished.
    The Federal Settlement is so wimpy as to be an apologia to the 
company . The very recent pricing settlement Microsoft made and its 
"conciliatory" plan to aid schools is a brash ploy to 
increase its monopoly on education!
    While Microsoft has been innovative in many of its products, the 
company's modus operandi is, for the most part, stifling of the 
computer industry.
    Our legal system must have the courage to do what is right, what 
has been determined in a court of law to be right. Our justice 
system should function independent of which political party holds 
sway at any given time. Do we really want to confirm the stereotype 
that a Republican US Attorney General will always cave in to 
"Big Business"?
    The recent Microsoft 'settlements' indicate, alas, 
that this is so.
    Sincerely
    Barbara N. Passman
    Vice President, The Rest of Us, Chicago's Macintosh User Group
    Chicago, Illinois



MTC-00002135

From: Vladimir James
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/24/01 4:03am
Subject: Justice and Microsoft
    US Justice Department,
    It's a pity that DOJ has chosen expedience over justice. The 
only lesson Microsoft has learned from the whole exercise is that it 
can flout DOJ decisions and, if fact, any implied monitoring that 
citizens expect from the DOJ. Because of the precedent set, the 
situation now is worse than it was before the DOJ became involved.
    Shame.
    Vladimir James
    An American abroad



MTC-00002136

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/24/01 1:48am
Subject: Deal may put Microsoft at head of the class
    This NEWS.COM (http://www.news.com/) story has been sent to you 
from [email protected]
    Message from sender:
    I want to protest this proposed settlement of the anti-trust 
suit. This is giving Microsoft the best deal possible. A much better 
solution and one I propose you try to get, is instead of products, 
Microsoft give money to allow the schools to purchase what ever 
equipment and software they prefer.
    Please don't let the monopoly continue. I work for a department 
of the US government and the entire computer/information tech group 
is a blatant front for Microsoft products. Please stop this monopoly 
from continueing.
    Deal may put Microsoft at head of the class
    November 21, 2001, 7:45 a.m. PT
    http://news.cnet.com/news/
0-1006-200-7936780.html?tag=st.ne.1006.saslnk.sasem
l
    A proposed settlement agreement to donate some $500 million in 
technology to schools could give the software maker a chance to 
erode Apple's position in education.



MTC-00002137

From: John Highberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/24/01 1:35am
Subject: USDOJ vs. Microsoft Anti-Trust SETTLEMENT...
    Hello USDOJ,
    I disagree with the latest settlement between the USDOJ and 
Microsoft. I believe the penalties agreed upon are not strong enough 
to prevent Microsoft from exercising its monopolistic (racketeering) 
power. The earlier remedy established by Judge T.P. Jackson to 
break-up Microsoft into two entities_Application and Operating 
Systems companies_should be reinstated. Also, the latest 
settlement offer by Microsoft to have it "donate" 
("bribe") Computers / Software to American Public 
Schools only furthers their monopoly hold on America.
    Thank you,
    John D. Highberg
    Ferndale, MI



MTC-00002138

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments @doj.ca.gov@inetgw
Date: 11/24/01 1:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Microsoft's antitrust violations mean they have done a wrong 
action. The solution is to make sure it never happens again. I find 
it puzzling how justice is being served by having Microsoft implant 
itself in our schools. This further leads to their dominance does it 
not?
    Schools will soon be dependent on Microsoft for everything and 
then when 1 billion dollars runs out I'm sure they will be so 
heavily dependent on MS that they will have no other choice thanto 
buy MS products. Microsoft will gain more than it could possibly 
lose.
    MS has turned into a monopolistic compoany and must be stopped, 
not encouraged. The California Attorney General is right in not 
taking the purposed MS settlement, he should not be forced to 
either.
    Sincerely
    Jeffrey Tanaka
    4922 Maytime Ln.
    Culver City, CA 90230



MTC-00002139

From: Douglas (038) Nell Stetner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/24/01 7:30am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The roumers of a settlement where Microsoft donates to schools 
will only entrench them deeper into the schools. Go with Red Hat's 
proposal of letting MS donate the hardware, but with Linux as the 
OS. Or better yet, make them put Apples computers into the schools.
    Douglas Stetner
    Doug & Nell Stetner
    [email protected]



MTC-00002140

From: Ruediger Cordes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/24/01 5:40am
Subject: My opinion
    Hello misters and madams!
    Microsoft ist selling its products to a price they like. 
Conditions for companies have a little rabatt. All handling of this 
is difficult and time taking. They fight a battle against all other 
software companies. And they used their market position to kill for 
example Netscape by delivering IE for free. When they sell their 
other products for high prices why is IE (Internet Explorer) for 
free?
    And that is only one example. They are a strategic fighting 
company. Incidentically they are writing software. Do what you want 
with MS, I will never buy anything from this company cause their 
products Windows and Office are too time consuming for me to use. I 
like MacOS and am using this platform since 1987. I was supporter 
for Windows NT too for 3 years.
    That was enough for me.
    Ruediger Cordes
    http://opelgt.org
    CC:Jessica Rautenberg,Christin-Susan Back



MTC-00002141

From: Dr. Mark Waldman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/24/01 9:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I have read the Competitive Impact Statement
    
    Can you point me to a more concise Competitive Impact Statement 
and also, one that compares the Penfield Remedy (Microsoft breakup) 
with the current remedy (WatchDog policing) and how the two remedies 
will affect future competition? The current Impact Statement has no 
such comparative analysis.
    The Jackson Remedy called for breaking up Microsoft into two 
companies: An "operating system company" and a 
"software application company". In contrast, the current 
remedy leaves Microsoft intact and sets up a WatchDog Monitoring 
System. Why was the Jackson Remedy rejected? Which remedy will work 
better in ensuring free competition and stopping Microsoft from 
engaging in predatory activities? Do you have such an analysis? Can 
you send it to me, please, or post it on www.usdoj.gov?
    At the moment, after an admittedly cursory analysis, it appears 
to me that the Penfield Remedy relies, ultimately, on market forces 
to stop Microsoft from engaging in monopolistic activities; the 
current remedy, on the other hand, relies on a WatchDog Committee. 
Market forces are almost always more powerful than WatchDog 
Committees.

[[Page 24039]]

 Market forces are made up of millions of consumers; WatchDog 
Committees are made up of only a few people and, in general, fail in 
enforcing anti-trust remedies like those being proposed. An example 
of this failure is the 1998 antitrust settlement against Microsoft 
which Microsoft simply ignored. Your comments, please.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Waldman
    Message from Dr. Mark Waldman
    [email protected]
    POB 1331, Holon 58112, ISRAEL
    Tel: +972-3-505-4479
    Fax: +972-3-504-6590
    Cell: +972-55-503905



MTC-00002142

From: Paul Thomson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/24/01 7:57am
Subject: Microsoft settlement offer
    Madam/Sir,
    I am most concerned about the potential settlement being offered 
by Microsoft to flood educational establishments with their 
products.
    I request that you reject this offer and continue with the plan 
to divide the company into two constituent parts.
    Best,
    Paul Thomson
    synesthesia. music for film & tv
    roundhouse recording studios
    91 saffron hill ec1n 8pt
    studio phone/fax_020 7242 4362



MTC-00002144

From: Alan Larson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/24/01 10:14am
Subject: Microsoft "Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I cannot believe the lack of vision and understanding evident in 
the Microsoft settlement of the monopoly case.
    To "force" them to provide a billion dollars of 
their own products into school systems only further extends their 
marketing reach. This did not hurt or punish them at all.
    Had the justices had some courage and wisdom, they would have 
forced Microsoft to provide that same billion dollars worth of 
computer products from some other provider of quality education 
products like Apple.
    Doing that would have had a true financial punishment with no 
future payback opportunity.
    If this was the best you could do with such an identifiably 
strong case against a corporate behemoth, then I fear for the future 
of independent business in America.
    Alan W. Larson
    3119 N. Peach Tree Lane
    Appleton, WI 54911



MTC-00002145

From: paul galanti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/24/01 9:46am
Subject: appalled
    I am appalled at the sell out to MicroSoft_and I teach 
antitrust law so I know what I'm talking about. This is the biggest 
con job since Brer Rabbit got Brer Fox to throw him in the briar 
patch.
    Of course I don't k now howmuch money flowed from Redmond to 
Austin during the 2000 election debacle.
    Paul J. Galanti
    Professor of Law
    Indiana University School of Law_Indianapolis
    Lawrence W. Inlow Hall
    530 W. New York Street
    Indianapolis, IN 46202-3225
    [email protected].
    Phone: (317) 274-4995
    Fax: (317) 278-3326
    Home: (317) 257-6826



MTC-00002146

From: Paul M. Webber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/24/01 12:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    Dear US Justice Department,
    I do not believe the proposed remedy for the Microsoft antitrust 
conviction is going to have the slightest impact on Microsoft's 
predatory marketing practices, and subsequent illegal abuse of 
monopoly power. Consider the case that started it all, internet 
browsers. Since the time the case started, Microsoft bundled its 
browser for free, and threatened computer makers who offered other 
browser software to consumers. This drove other browsers out of the 
market. Microsoft claimed it had a right to do this, under the guise 
of "innovation" and "serving consumer 
needs." This abuse served as one of the bases for the 
antitrust conviction against Microsoft.
    Now consider what is happening with "Windows XP." 
This operating system does not support industry-standard third-party 
browser plug-ins for presenting specialized content, using any 
internet browser. This means that third-party content providers, 
such as Real Audio, Macromedia Flash, Adobe PDF, and Apple 
QuickTime, no longer function with any browser under Windows XP 
using the standard installation procedure. Instead, third party 
content providers must provide special installations that go through 
an additional layer of software known as Active X.
    This means that ordinary consumers will have to struggle to 
install third-party content provisioning software. If they do 
actually overcome that barrier, the third-party plug-ins will run 
more slowly and with less capability than will Microsoft's own 
content provisioning software. With this move, Microsoft not only 
successfully extends its operating system monopoly into the internet 
browser market, it also extends its browser monopoly into the 
content provider marketplace. The current settlement proposal does 
not address this abuse. This is happening even as a remedy for the 
antitrust conviction is being discussed. I believe that there are 
intelligent people working in the U.S. Justice Department. How can 
you let this happen?
    Here is what will happen if you ignore this issue: Microsoft 
will control internet browser content. Within three years, the 
average consumer with an "out of the box" computer will 
be unable to view any content that Microsoft has not provided. 
Microsoft not only want to serve consumer needs, it wants to control 
consumer needs. The proposed remedy is insufficient to prevent this 
from happening.
    Yours truly,
    Paul M. Webber, M.D.
    3725 Hickory Hill Drive
    Colorado Springs, CO 80906



MTC-00002148

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/24/01 2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Commentary
    It is my opinion that Microsoft has gotten away with another big 
one and I horrified at my government's legal team in giving-in to 
them. Microsoft blatantly broke the law with its monopolistic 
practices, in my opinion, and used unfair strong-arm tactics to 
force hardware makers to bundle their operating system. This is 
outrageous. What's more outrageous is the my government is letting 
Microsoft get away with it by a dainty slap on the hand. What does 
this do? It teaches our kids that it's ok to be a bully. Microsoft 
continues to push the legal boundary envelope and continues to get 
away with it.
    Thank you.
    Kathy Aanestad
    19328 Junipero Serra Drive
    Sonoma, CA 95476



MTC-00002149

From: planetelf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/24/01 1:57pm
Subject: And this is punishment for a monopoly?...
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    Making Microsoft place computers in under-privilidged schools is 
a nice idea, but how will it break up their monopoly? It will only 
encourage it. Did the people at Microsoft suggest this solution?.. 
(Maybe having them buy Macs would be a better solution.) An even 
better solution would be to split the company and make them operate 
under some very strict federal guidelines.
    Thanks for the time,
    Edward Tonner



MTC-00002150

From: John Cruet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/24/01 1:08pm
Subject: I want my tax dollars back
    To the collectives who prosecuted Microsoft:
    You wasted our time and tax dollars in this fruitless pursuit of 
a private corporation.
    What gives you the right to penalize a corporation for being 
successful?
    I pay heavy taxes each year for this nonsense?
    You failed to mount a convincing case against Microsoft, failing 
to provide solid and convincing evidence of abuses of Microsoft 
against corporations. You have shown beyond a reasonable doubt what 
a sham the antitrust laws are. Having done that you (as a 
collective) managed to strongarm Microsoft into a settlement 
proposal that forces "altruism" on the part of this 
corporation whose major purpose is to sell products and services to 
the consumer market. Well, this effort makes you look like a bunch 
of hypocrites.

[[Page 24040]]

    Why?
    Because, by accepting this settlement, you are actually helping 
Microsoft expand its market into the educational sector, practically 
carte blanche. Also, does the government not run the vast majority 
of its computers off of Microsoft in its various agencies? where was 
your desire to maintain a competitive market then, when Microsoft-
based systems won the "bid process?" You as a legal 
collective have wasted valuable time and tax dollars pursuing this 
case. Judge Penfield Jackson's rulings were unjust and immoral, and 
should be overturned by anyone who still has a real sense of 
justice. Shame on you, as a legal team and a collective!
    You have failed in your mission, which was immoral, corrupt, and 
unjust from its inception to its baneful, sickening conclusion.
    JC/AIA



MTC-00002151

From: Hector Pereira
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/24/01 12:47pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    With this email I want to support the suggestion of Linux vendor 
Red Hat about the remedy for Microsoft's monopolistic practices that 
they have been convicted of: at least exclude Microsoft's software 
from the price tag of the punishment.
    The originally proposed settlement, wherein Microsoft would 
supply computers and its own software to schools otherwise too poor 
to afford them, is a clever ploy to wiggle out from under paying a 
painful price for its actions. To Microsoft it costs virtually 
nothing to make copies of its own software.
    To include the market value of the software, therefore, 
increases the stated price of the deal to a seemingly reasonable 
level, while the real cost, excluding the software, is very minimal. 
A similar problem always occurs with large class action suits, where 
the members of the class typically receive rebates on the Company's 
products, coupons for free upgrades, and similar freebees. In these 
cases the lawyers' fees are based on the stated value of the deal, 
so the only ones who receive real money are the lawyers. The 
customers get nothing, basically, a bunch of worthless coupons.
    The present case is different, since the lawyers on both sides 
are paid for by their own parties. Still, the principle is the same: 
any remedy should give real value to the aggrieved party. In 
Microsoft's case this is the general public, including someone like 
myself: specifically, I can not find a simple laptop computer 
without being forced to pay for Microsoft software, while I want one 
that has linux pre-installed.
    I applaud RedHad in its willingness to supply free software as 
part of the Microsoft deal.
    Sincerely,
    Nino R. Pereira



MTC-00002152

From: John Hails
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/24/01 4:31pm
Subject: National Security issues of a Monopoly
    Microsoft's monopolistic practises are not only bad for 
businesses, they are a serious threat to the National and 
International Security interests of many soverign nations. 
Homogenous computer and internet services are more readily attacked 
and brought down by viruses and worms. Microsoft products have been 
notoriously easy to breech by hackers. It is short sighted thinking 
to put all of ones eggs in one basket and to entrust the safety of 
that basket to a single corporate entity who's only major concern is 
control and profit but that is what we are doing. With each new 
release of Microsoft's operating system that control is inexorably 
expanded to increasingly encompass all our information sytems, our 
database mangement, personal information, banking records, taxation, 
defense, entertainment, internet communication, retail sales, health 
records, government etc. etc. These issues are far too important to 
be entrusted to one company that if left unchecked will certainly 
control almost every aspect of our future lives.
    I urge you to consider forcing Microsoft to release its code 
into the public domain, breaking the company up into two or three 
seperate entities and encouraginf public sector services to be 
mandated to adopt alternative software solutions designed to 
encourage diversity and interoperability. Tim Berners Lee invented 
the World Wide Web in the early 70's to make it possible to share 
information across language and technology barriers. The idea was to 
design a system that permitted diversity not a monoculture of 
clones. Microsoft could make their systems operable with competing 
or rival solutions but they won't because there is no reason for 
them to do so. In fact there is every reason for them not to. 
Nothing I have seen so far indicates that they will change their 
ways. With the release of Windows XP, Microsoft is about to ratchet 
up its ability to dominate the sytem one more notch
    Thankyou
    John Hails
    Calgary, Canada



MTC-00002153

From: jhahoward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/24/01 2:26pm
Subject: Proposed settlement continues illegal actions
    The proposed settlement by Microsoft of the anti-trust class 
action suits is unacceptable. It would only server to perpetrate, 
and in fact extend, Microsoft's illegal monopoly. As a long time 
computer professional (since 1965), with many years in the school 
and university market, I find Microsoft's continued arrogance and 
disregard for the consumer, business, and destruction of the 
computing market competition to be totally reprehensible. I watched 
IBM struggle with the same issue in the 70's and 80's only to be 
overcome by Microsoft. Microsoft has used much more aggressive 
tactics and blind ambition to prevent competition that IBM or Bell 
telephone or Carnegie ever did. Allowing Microsoft to give away used 
Intel/PC equipment and software that would cost them almost nothing 
to provide other than media reproduction costs, would hobble schools 
with training and future upgrade costs in a blatant attempt to 
penetrate one of their weaker markets. Microsoft can give away as 
much hardware and software as it wants, but the remedy for its 
illegal monopoly actions cannot be resolved this way. I do not claim 
to know the best solution to the issue, but this is not it. Perhaps 
using the $1.1B to provide broadband or high speed infrastructure 
access to more schools would be a better computing solution, and 
then allowing the schools to set their own technology platform 
choices.
    Thank You,
    James H. Howard
    519 S. Visalia
    Mesa, AZ 85202
    480-898-9529



MTC-00002154

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/24/01 2:17pm
Subject: MS and our economy
    USDOJ:
    I do not believe that the remedies proposed in the news are 
going to have a significant impact on Microsoft's predatory 
marketing practices, and their continued abuse of monopoly power.
    Take, for example, the internet browser issue. Before the 
beginning of the anti-trust case against them, Microsoft began 
bundling their browser at no cost with their Windows operating 
system, essentially driving all other browsers out of the market. 
They have always claimed that they have a right to do this and that 
they are only serving consumer needs.
    Unfortunately for consumers, in their most recent 
version_now included with all browsers shipped with the new 
Windows XP_Microsoft has made a significant change: they no 
longer support industry-standard, third-party browser plug-ins. 
These plug-ins allow the presentation of specialized content, such 
as movies, sound, animation, and virtual reality.
    This means that third-party content providers, such as Real 
Audio, Macromedia Flash, Adobe PDF, and Apple QuickTime, to name a 
few, no longer function under Microsoft's browsers using the 
standard installation procedure. Instead, they must provide special 
installations that go through an additional layer of 
software_Active X_that Microsoft's own content-
provisioning software can avoid.
    This means that ordinary consumers will have to struggle 
needlessly to install third-party content-provisioning software, but 
more importantly, the third-party plug-ins will run more slowly and 
with less capability than the Microsoft "default" 
install (which, of course, uses MS's own XP-bundled software).
    This also means that some 90% of new computers sold cannot 
properly access some web sites (say, sites containing Apple's 
QuickTime or RealNetwork's RealAudio media content), whereas 90% of 
Windows XP computers could. (Again, all these issues are cropping up 
only because MS is purposely deleting, bypassing, or internally 
changing tried-and-true internet standards in

[[Page 24041]]

order to "push" their own software exclusively.)
    Now that Microsoft is beginning to exert control over content-
provisioning, content itself may be targeted next. Seriously think 
about it, within a short span of years, it is very possible that the 
average consumer with an "out-of-the-box" computer may 
be unable to view any content not provided, or sanctioned, by 
Microsoft. (Remember Standard Oil?)
    With this illicit behavior, Microsoft not only successfully 
extended their operating system monopoly into the internet browser 
market (already an abuse of monopoly power), but also have extended 
this monopoly control into the content provider market! Basically, 
they have broken the law once, and while being penalized, have 
broken it again. This is wrong; the penalties and decrees currently 
being proposed are inadequate and will not stop this illicit 
behavior. Destroying companies by sheer force and size (causing 
people to lose jobs as a result), taking away choice from consumers, 
and eliminating competition are NOT the way American companies 
should be allowed to do business...the penalties and restrictions 
imposed on Microsoft (short of an AT&T-style break-up) need to 
be, must be, harsher.
    Gabriel Ramos



MTC-00002155

From: Bob Teese
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/24/01 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I strongly encourage you to revise the proposed Microsoft 
settlement.
    I believe it would end up letting Microsoft become more of an 
abusive monopolist, not less.
    When I read the text of the settlement I spotted many loopholes, 
although I am not a lawyer. Even if Microsoft is eventually forced 
to divulge some code or change their behavior as a result of the 
settlement, they would be able to drag the process out long enough 
to crush the competition. They have already shown the ability to do 
that.
    Windows XP contains an activation mechanism that will reduce 
piracy. That ought to lead to a reduction in price, but in fact XP 
will cost more. Only an unreformed monopolist could do that. What 
bothers me the most is that the settlement is backward-looking. It 
would not prevent them from using their Windows monopoly to make 
.Net a monopoly by building it into Windows as they are already 
doing.
    Thank you for your public service.
    R. B. Teese
    Robert B. Teese ([email protected])
    Muskingum College Physics Department



MTC-00002156

From: mahria day
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/24/01 5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft needs to be stopped!
    Stiffer penalties for Microsoft!
    I am writing because I am very disappointed with the Feds 
settlement of the antitrust violations that Microsoft continues to 
violate. Microsoft has gotten off too lightly, and I plead with you 
to enforce stricter parameters and enforce them against this 
monopoly! I support the Attorney General's path is seeking more 
prosecution for Microsoft's violations.
    Mariah Day
    475 East Cotati Ave #A
    Cotati CA 94931



MTC-00002157

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/24/01 5:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To tell the truth when I first heard of this settlement I 
thought it was a joke. Abite one billion dollars is a lot of money, 
but is it really punishment? Why force Mircosoft further into one of 
the few markets it doesn't total control yet? Why not give the 
schools the money to spend on computer as they see fit? I could call 
this settlement many things, justice is not one of them.
    Chris Gerz
    615 N. Laloma Ave.
    Litchfield Park, AZ 85340



MTC-00002158

From: CasadyD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/24/01 4:35pm
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust_my comments
    As a computer technician (and former educator) at a small, 
private college, I have followed with interest, the proceedings in 
the Microsoft anti-trust settlement case.
    For what it's worth, below is a summary of the "Microsoft 
Effect" as I see it at our college.
    * The Windows 9x, NT and 2000 server and desktop operating 
system products were purchased because they promised a greater 
"ease of use" and lower "training time" than 
other products (Mac OS, Linux, Unix, VMS). It has NOT lived up to 
this promise. The products are "buggy" and take HOURS of 
wasted time applying security patches, updates, service packs, hot-
fixes, etc.
    As a user of Unix, Linux and MacOS as well as Windows, I can 
assure you that it is not "easier" than any of the 
competing products in any respect.
    * The Microsoft products including Office 95/97/2000 and 
Internet Explorer and Media Player have effectively prevented the 
"practical" use of any other similar products. (Corel 
Wordperfect suite, Netscape and QuickTime media player for example) 
The competing products can usually be installed, but the time and 
effort it takes in "man-hours" to support them on the 
Windows "integrated" operating systems, makes it 
unpractical. Virtually all of the Microsoft product installers, 
updaters, service packs and "bug" fixes, reset all 
settings to "optimize the system for use and 
"integration" with the Microsoft products." i.e. 
it changes our custom settings back to the Microsoft defaults. It is 
nearly impossible for our small staff to keep up with the continual 
"resetting" of preferences to make the competing 
products work again.
    * Microsoft "internet" products relating to the 
Explorer browser, IIS server AND the DEVELOPMENT and back-end 
products (like SQL) for these programs make any website created with 
them functional only by a system using Windows operating system and 
the Internet Explorer browser. Use of Java, connections to SQL 
databases, etc. becomes a technical nightmare if they must 
"integrate" with the Microsoft products. For example, I 
can edit our website ONLY from a system running Windows OS with 
Internet Explorer 4 or greater. I cannot edit it from any system 
using the Netscape browser (or any other browser like Opera, iCab or 
OmniWeb), or from MacOS, even running the latest Microsoft Internet 
Explorer software for MacOS.
    * We originally purchased Microsoft products because they 
offered "Professional technical support" unlike the 
myriad of "open source" products like Linux. However we 
have found that each call to Microsoft support, at the rate of $500 
per call, is greeted with the same response..."we have never 
seen that problem before." To date we have 4 of our last six 
support calls "closed" by Microsoft as 
"solved" (from their standpoint), even though the 
problem with their product is NOT resolved on our end. e.g. they 
essentially said "It *should* work, but still doesn't... oh 
well, good luck, and call again (for $500) if you have any more 
problems."
    * We are now essentially "trapped" and forced to 
continue using their faulty products. We have so much time and money 
invested in them that there is really no way that we can financially 
drop Microsoft and switch to other products. Due to the problems 
with integrating the Microsoft products with other platforms, it is 
also practically impossible for us to "wean" away from 
the use of Microsoft.
    All-in-all we feel cheated, trapped and caught in an endless 
cycle of "service packs", forced upgrades, and the 
inability to use any products other than Microsoft... we are like 
the professional equivalent of an "abused child".
    Sincerely,
    Duane Casady
    Network Administrator
    Westminster College
    Fulton, MO 65251
    (573) 592-5266
    [email protected]



MTC-00002159

From: Matt Shomphe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/24/01 6:38pm
Subject: Anti-Trust Case
    As a consumer with some computer experience, I'd like to say 
that I disagree with the Department of Justice's decision to settle 
its anti-trust case with Microsoft. I will not refer to arguments 
that have been made by those more knowledgeable than I; I will 
simply address what I know.
    If I want to do anything with a computer, it must be running a 
Windows varient. To me, this is the essence of a monopoly. In the 
current environment, only MS-compatible software is viable. I use 
Windows, and I use a lot of MS products. However, I do so out of 
necessity rather than preference.
    I suggest you discuss this case with consumer rights' advocates, 
like Ralph Nader, and with knowledgable consumers, like those in the 
slashdot.org community.

[[Page 24042]]

    Thank you for your time.
    Matt Shomphe



MTC-00002160

From: Zach Arnold, JMaD
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/24/01 6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust case
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am writing to express my disapproval for the latest Microsoft 
antitrust settlement. It is true that this "solution" 
would help disadvantaged schoolchildren by furnishing them with 
computers and software, but I fear that Microsoft's goal, and in 
fact what could very well happen, is that such actions would further 
establish Microsoft's share in the education market, undermining 
competitors such as Apple who are struggling to fight the Microsoft 
behemoth already. Microsoft's proposed settlement is inappropriate 
to the current situation. I urge you to reject it for the good of 
the computer industry, including Microsoft's competitors.
    Very sincerely,
    Zach Arnold
    322 Maple Avenue
    Swarthmore, PA
    19081
    [email protected]



MTC-00002161

From: Matzke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/24/01 9:44pm
Subject: Anti-Trust
    The current settlement is not punishment, it is a future 
buisiness opportunity. Why are we letting Microsoft control the 
future market by letting them buy advertising space on the desktops 
of our school children? If there should be a punishing settlement, 
have Microsoft give money to open operating systems like Linux or 
Unix for future development. THAT would be punishment.
    Matzke Household.



MTC-00002162

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/24/01 8:10pm
Subject: Please stop this expansion of their monopoly position
    The proposed settlement whereby microsoft "donates" 
software and hardware to schools will only increase their monopoly 
position in the marketplace. Microsoft products are priced higher 
than other comparable or better software and yet they are able to 
charge these higher prices because of their overwhelming dominance 
of the market. Their donation of software to the schools will only 
increase this dominace.
    James HL Ewan
    1221 Sylvia Ct
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    93401



MTC-00002163

From: a brody
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/24/01 7:17pm
Subject: I understand your offices are for a Microsoft settlement
    Dear sirs,
    I am doing this joint e-mail because it applies to all your 
offices. It appears according to news stories, that you have joined 
in agreement with Microsoft to let them get by on their penalty for 
being a monopoly, by letting them face no stiffer penalty than a 1 
billion dollar funding program to low income schools. This penalty 
is a GIFT! It is the schools where the hearts and minds of all our 
future computer users are being met. And the fact it is low income 
schools it doubly sends the message that Microsoft is the sole 
provider of computer services to school systems and their kids. 
Guess what, most school systems don't use Microsoft. Support costs 
for schools are much cheaper because most use the Apple Macintosh 
platform in its stead. If you force Microsoft technology on schools, 
these school systems will be forced to recoup support costs 100 
times higher than they presently have for computers. If you don't 
believe what I am saying, visit http://homepage.mac.com/
mac_vs_pc/Intro.html
    And Microsoft is only going to be obliged to cover the first 1 
billion dollars. After that, it is up to the poor school systems 
that previously didn't have to pay these high support costs to come 
up with the moneys. This means teachers will be laid off. This means 
music programs will be cut. This means after school activities will 
be cut. This means the school systems will go further down the hill 
than they were already. And why? Because now each of the school 
systems will be forced to upgrade each time a new technology comes. 
If they don't upgrade and their computer breaks down, they'll be 
forced to buy new computers if they want to keep any computer 
systems in their place. Where before with Macintosh systems, they 
could have a 9 year old Macintosh, and it still act as a functional 
tutorial machine for using computers. Allowing Microsoft to pay off 
their penalties as a limited settlement to schools, is equivalent to 
letting Microsoft expand their market by giving away its systems to 
people who formerly were happy with their competitor's systems. What 
waste!
    I strongly urge you to reconsider, and find a stiffer penalty 
for Microsoft, so they don't get off the hook so easily for being a 
monopoly. Such stiffer penalties would include forcing Microsoft to 
end its Windows XP and Office XP activation system, which requires 
people to pay an upgrade cost for the operating system every 6 
hardware charges. This licensing scheme means people will be forced 
to be online to continue to be able to use their Windows XP system 
and provide personal information each time they want to reactivate 
their machines after a hardware change. And for people upgrading 
from their old operating system with more than one computer they 
have to purchase an individual license for each computer they own. 
Apple Macintosh doesn't force you to do this. Microsoft is making 
the cost of computing go up astronomically by its activation scheme. 
Microsoft should no longer have an integrated web browser of their 
own on the desktop of the operating system. That feature should be 
disabled permanently. People being able to launch Explorer straight 
from the desktop by manually entering the website address from their 
desktop and operating system windows means Explorer is everywhere. 
Microsoft now limits support for MP3 music formats where before they 
were free. Apple doesn't do that. Microsoft should not disable 
technologies of third party vendors. It is acting like a monopoly. 
I'm not the only one sad by this turn of events, and hope you 
reconsider. Here are other people's opinions of your actions: http:/
/www.macdirectory.com/4U/comments.fm$FIND?title=4001515&max=40
    Please reconsider.
    Sincerely,
    anonymous
    http://www.index-site.com/



MTC-00002164

From: Arthur Young
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/24/01 9:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    To the US Attorney General's Office,
    I don't think the current settlement in the Microsoft antitrust 
case is fair. The current settlement will not prevent Microsoft from 
continuing its predatory practices, its anti-competitive behavior, 
or its harsh treatment of consumers. I wish the Attorney General 
would reconsider especially since the courts found that Microsoft 
had acted in an anticompetitive manner and that finding was upheld 
under appeal.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Arthur Young



MTC-00002165

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/24/01 10:49pm
Subject: Settlement Proposal
    Microsoft has announced a settlement proposal to try to resolve 
a series of antitrust lawsuits initiated by state Attorneys General:
    >Under a settlement proposal in a series of private antitrust 
>lawsuits announced Tuesday, Microsoft agreed to donate 
approximately >$500 million to help bring technology to some of 
the nation's most >disadvantaged schools. The deal will also 
allow these schools to >obtain a virtually unlimited supply of 
Microsoft software for the >next five years. [www.ZDNet.com]
    This proposed settlement is an absurd and insulting solution 
which does absolutely nothing to mitigate Microsoft's 
anticompetitive behavior, and in fact does exactly the opposite by 
further dissemination of its products at the expense of other 
software vendors. Apple Computer in particular stands to lose its 
critical education market if faced with a flood of free Microsoft 
products in schools.
    With a market share of more than 90%, Microsoft has a profound 
advantage over companies such as Netscape, Real Networks, and Apple, 
who are fighting a perpetual uphill battle to maintain a presence in 
the market. Any application software that Microsoft chooses to 
package with its Windows operating system is guaranteed to push all 
other competitors out of the market. Netscape's browser software 
used to be the most widely used internet software. Once

[[Page 24043]]

 Microsoft started bundling Explorer with Windows, Netscape's market 
share dropped to almost nothing. Real Networks faces a similar fate 
with their RealAudio products, which is steadily being pushed out of 
the market by Windows Media software bundled with every Intel PC. 
Action must be taken to restore a balanced and competitive software 
market, in which the success of a software application is based on 
its quality, performance, and utility, not the fact that it's 
bundled for free with an operating system that runs on the majority 
of the world's personal computers. I ask you to seek an outright and 
immediate rejection of Microsoft's ludicrous settlement offer, and 
continue to pursue the breakup of Microsoft into two separate 
companies for operating systems (Windows) and applications (Word, 
Excel, Explorer, etc.). This solution will help maintain a healthy 
and innovative American software industry for years to come.
    Steve Salani
    Los Angeles



MTC-00002166

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/24/01 10:10pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust settlement
    I am really disappointed with the settlement with microsoft is 
so light and will only benefit microsoft in the long run. In 
particular the one billion dollar settlement to give software and 
hardware to disadvantaged schools only sustains microsoft's 
monopoly. The settlement is clearly political. You should know that 
microsoft is not innovative but copies mac operating code and tried 
to copy quicktime code several years ago. Yet the US Attorney's 
office did nothing. Think about it. Chappy Liu



MTC-00002167

From: Edward C. Willliams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/24/01 9:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlements
    For over one and a half decades I have watched Microsoft grow 
their power and dominance in the computer industry. They have not 
grown because they had the best products, but because they were 
masters at marketing, and once they got large enough to buy out or 
intimidate almost any competition they have had an extremely 
deleterious impact on the market.
    They had a monopoly of the operating platform for PCs, as proven 
in the antitrust case, and then with their muscle moved into other 
fields quickly eliminating the competition that once dominated the 
given field. Two examples are Netscape in the browser field, and 
Novell in the network area. When the government slapped their hands 
in their attempt to buy Intuit so they could extend their domination 
into the financial field they just set about the same process and 
have also made considerable headway there. Now they are trying to 
beat out Palm with their more limited Windows interface and are 
going head to head with Nintendo and Sony in the games area. It is 
quite apparent that their goal is to dominate the whole computer 
realm.
    If they always made the best product and refined it to eliminate 
most of the problems and everyone flocked to their products for that 
reason I would object less, but they don't. People use many of their 
products because they come free on their computer, or because they 
come as a package with a program that they really want, like Excel, 
and since they have it they might as well use it rather than buy a 
competing product. I must admit that Bill has gotten so smooth in 
his marketing that he can claim that he "knows what the 
customer wants" and they will buy it. When ever there is a new 
version out he is so convincing that "everyone wants it" 
that they have to have it too or they will get lost in the dust.
    A couple of years ago I had a coworker with a Masters degree 
tell me that they went with a Windows machine because that was what 
"everyone had". Furthermore since they bought MS Windows 
they decided to get a Microsoft mouse and keyboard too. The fact 
that they did not choose it because it met a need, or was the most 
effective way to get their work done, etc. but because everyone had 
one shows the power of MS's advertizing campaign.
    I am not pleased with the settlement direction that has been 
taken once Microsoft had been proven to be a monopoly that had 
misused and abused its position of power. I am not sure that they 
need to be broken up into two or more companies, although I don't 
see that as a bad thing, but from what I have read the alternative 
that you have taken does nothing concrete to insure they will not 
continue to do business as usual. In fact even the potential 
settlement of the other major suit, involving the state of 
California and others against Microsoft, will be an enhancement of 
their market by forcing the schools into using their software and 
the hardware that runs it. Instead they should be given the money 
and be allowed to purchase the hardware and software they want to 
use.
    Please reconsider the consequences and insure that something 
significant comes out of this landmark case. Something that will 
help the consumer like me by opening up the competitiveness of the 
computer industry.



MTC-00002168

From: Shafqat Manzur
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 12:25am
Subject: Comment on agreement between DOJ and Microsoft Corp.
    Sir/Madam,
    Following is an opinion on the recent settlement reached between 
DOJ and Microsoft Corporation in the landmark anti-trust case. I am 
not in any way affiliated with the state or federal government or 
Microsoft Corp. and am providing this brief as a consumer.
    With all due respect to the involved employees at the DOJ, I 
strongly disagree with their notion that this agreement will benefit 
consumers and foster competition in the information technology 
arena. I don't know if there was any political pressure to promptly 
conclude the case but it is too obvious that the DOJ staff went out 
of their way to reach a settlement with Microsoft. The previous 
administration demanded tough concessions from Microsoft and 
rightfully so. The current administration gradually softened it's 
stance on the case and finally agreed to terms which fall far 
shorter to even what Microsoft had agreed to during previous 
settlement talks.
    The terms of this settlement definitely do not go far enough to 
ensure benefit to consumers. There is no indication of any 
punishment to Microsoft for violating it's monopoly power not only 
in the operating systems but also the office application suite 
market. They have repeatedly flaunted consumers and the state and 
federal governments over the years and yet they are simply about to 
walk away with no punitive damages. This is clear proof that their 
strategy of an enormous investment in hiring popular law firms to 
hold the government at bay while they bring in billions in profits 
over the years from their illegal business model has been a success. 
There is no question that they have won. With regards to the remedy 
for future wrongdoing, I guarantee you that competitors will not 
stand a chance to compete with Microsoft in the future any more then 
they have in the past. There has never been a competitive market and 
there is no reason to predict that there will be one. Microsoft has 
in the past crushed it's competitors and will absolutely do the same 
again. You have left the Microsoft culture intact and since they 
don't agree that they have broken any rules, they will not change 
the 'Microsoft way'.
    I thank you for your time,
    Shafqat Manzur



MTC-00002169

From: John Berg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 12:11am
Subject: Antitrust Settlement
    I am amazed that Microsoft Corporation is being allowed to 
flagrantly violate the antitrust laws because the judge deciding the 
case has been somewhat indiscreet. In the long run, I think that 
Microsoft is more of a danger to our society than some hairy bastard 
living in a cave in Afghanistan. I am pretty sure that our military 
is capable of killing Bin Laden, but it's starting to look like the 
DOJ is unwilling to do anything about Bill Gates. 100 million 
Americans have been harmed by Microsoft's arrogant lawlessness. I 
think the break-up of the company was the most effective solution 
possible. Not only would it give competitors a fairer chance, but I 
think that we would also get better software out of the baby 
Microsofts. If the Bush DOJ continues on its present path, I can 
guarantee that I will never vote for George W. Bush again.
    Signed,
    John L. Berg
    Thermal Engineer
    6207 Westwick Drive
    Houston, TX, 77072-1039



MTC-00002170

From: Dennis Hussey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 2:29am
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust case proposed settlement
    Your honor,
    I personally feel that Microsoft is getting off way too easy for 
their predatorial

[[Page 24044]]

monopoly behavior and it is affecting competition as well as the 
general consumers and businesses. I am in the computer networking 
field for the last 10+ years and here are some of the major issues I 
have with Microsoft and how they have affected the industry and 
consumers/businesses:
    1) Microsoft Office has become the defacto standard and has hurt 
Lotus and Corel/WordPerfect strongly. I have customers that try to 
maintain WordPerfect word processing with Lotus 123 spreadsheet due 
to ease of use, stronger security (my customers are all financial 
institutions) and less susceptability to virus infections. They are 
being forced into MS Office because government agencies (FHA, FDIC, 
etc.) are sending out documents in MS Office format that are not 
compatible with WordPerfect and Microsoft continues to change the 
format of their documents so that the competition cannot read/write 
the documents. They have to throw the money they spent on WP and 
Lotus licenses and pay more to get MS Office.
    2) In a similar manner, there are applications now that require 
Windows NT servers to run and most of my customers have Novell 
networks. Novell as a company has been changed from the dominent 
player in networks to struggling to survive. My customers are forced 
to buy NT server to do business.
    3) Security problems_Microsoft Office, MS Outlook, 
Internet Explorer and Windows have major security holes that have 
cost businesses and consumers untold millions of dollars patching, 
purchasing virus software and fixing data, yet Microsoft doesn't 
seem to care that they have these problems. Businesses have to put 
up with this as there is no competition. If there was open source, 
these problems could be resolved quicker and more secure. If there 
was viable competition (Microsoft has squashed all of them on this 
platform), they would be forced to test more and ensure security to 
remain competitive.
    4) Microsoft has ruined to possibility of open standards. Sun 
Microsystem's Java was created to produce an open standard to create 
software that would run on virtually any platform. Microsoft saw 
this as a threat to their Windows monopoly and, in a deceiving 
manner, supported Java and proceded to change it to make a version 
that would run under Windows/Internet Explorer better. Being the 
most popular platform (Windows/IE), programmers were writing 
websites with this making the sites incompatible or running inferior 
on other platforms. Sun has sued on this for breech of contract.
    5) Internet Explorer is built-in and it is difficult to use 
another web browser. Netscape was leading in the browser competition 
and Microsoft decided to incorporate Internet Explorer in Windows 
95, killing Netscape's ability to make a profit on their product and 
leaving consumers without much choice. This goes the same for email 
programs, with Outlook Express being built-in as well.
    6) Microsoft produces new versions of Windows and quickly stops 
support of existing versions quicker than most software companies 
forcing businesses to upgrade. This causes problems with major 
software applications and ensuring compatibility with legacy 
applications. Our institution uses a bank management system that 
runs under Windows NT workstation and Windows 2000. There is Windows 
XP out now and soon we will be no longer able to purchase Windows 
2000 and have to invest alot of time and money to ensure that it 
will work with Windows XP. Microsoft has discontinued selling 
Windows 98 and will stop supporting it at the end of this year, just 
3 years after it came out. There are applications that still require 
DOS compatibility (Midanet comes to mind which is from Fannie Mae as 
I remember). Windows XP doesn't support DOS any longer, yet a 
Windows version of Midanet is still not available.
    7) Microsoft has deliberately held back certain technical 
information about their Windows with features it had to competition 
so that their own applications such as Office can perform better 
than competitive products. This is deliberate deception and unfair 
practices.
    I can go on with more examples, but this is some main points I 
wished to make. These points show that Microsoft's monopoly hasn't 
helped the consumer and businesses but hurt them and cost them alot 
of money. It has also shown that competition is being hindered and 
predatorial practices have been clearly proven. This constitutes a 
monopoly which is supposed to be illegal. We need to come down 
harder than the proposed measures to bring back healthy competition 
and consumer choice. I supported the original breakup, I support 
forcing Microsoft to release their source code for Windows, etc.
    Please do not cave in to Microsoft and give them a light 
sentence that can allow them to continue doing what they have been 
doing and further their monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    Dennis J. Hussey
    30 Marshall Street
    Chalmsford, MA 01824
    (978) 275-2812
    Network engineer
    Connecticut Online Computer Center
    135 Darling Drive
    Avon, CT 06001



MTC-00002171

From: Jon Roberts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:44pm
Subject: Open Letter on Microsoft Settlements
    I am an information technology professional with 8 years of 
extensive experience in software engineering, systems 
administration, data design, coding, and testing. I have a broad 
background, but my core competencies are in web systems. While 
serving as a commissioned officer in the US Air Force, I installed, 
administered, and developed with my first web server in 1994, at the 
advent of the world wide web. In my career, I have worked with a 
variety of operating systems, including flavors of Unix and versions 
of Microsoft Windows. I've also used an array of open standards, 
including html, css, http, ldap, cgi, xml, and java. Very recently, 
I moved an entire internet and intranet infrastructure for a large 
academic medical center from a Unix (Sun Solaris) hosted environment 
to one using Microsoft based servers. Currently, I work 
independently as a developer and consultant. As such, I feel I have 
relevant insight into Microsoft's technology and business practices. 
I favor a best of breed approach to system development, so I also 
believe I represent an objective point of view. I regularly use 
Microsoft software at work and home, and continue to do so where I 
deem appropriate; I am writing this message in Microsoft Outlook, 
for instance. I also use other operating systems and recommend their 
use in circumstances where I judge there is a better alternative.
    Throughout my career, my ability to provide value to my 
employers or customers has been adversely affected by Microsoft's 
technology and business practices on a regular basis. The software 
they deliver, particularly new software, is typically far less 
efficient, stable, or secure than alternative approaches. Their 
products are usually designed with dependencies that require you to 
use other Microsoft products and sabotage the concurrent use of non-
Microsoft approaches. Many of their offerings do not uninstall 
properly, and leave a permanent presence on the hosting system. 
Because they write the operating system too, some of their 
applications make use of capabilities that are not available to non-
Microsoft developers. Their licensing practices are mercenary and 
anti-competitive, using vehicles like sole-source relationships to 
build inordinate market share. Once Microsoft gains control of a 
market, they begin raising prices at a rate faster than the industry 
in general. Most importantly, Microsoft has repeatedly undermined 
and perverted open standards to serve their own ends, including 
every one I listed above.
    I know that business is competitive by nature, but I agree with 
the Justice Department's repeated findings that Microsoft's business 
practices crossed the line and were illegal. Further, I believe that 
Microsoft created a situation for itself that is bad for the 
industry and the economy at large over the long term. While I will 
concede that many dot-coms burned capital on irresponsible business 
models and implementations, I attest that Microsoft has some amount 
of personal responsibility for the bursting of the bubble economy 
and the current economic woes of the information technology industry 
and the country. The cost of developing on the web should not be as 
high as it is now, but who knew in the early days of e-commerce the 
momentum of progress in open standards could be stymied so 
effectively by one player. Microsoft is in direct conflict with the 
cooperative culture that brought us the internet, and their long 
term strategies will exacerbate this problem: where Microsoft 
succeeds, all others will bleed. History will not be kind if we will 
have to address the same issues again because of an ineffectual 
remedy.
    If the terms of the anti-trust settlement can be realized, then 
it may make some difference. However, I don't have faith that 
Microsoft will adhere to the spirit of the settlement, I have even 
less confidence in the Justice Department's ability to enforce the

[[Page 24045]]

terms of the settlement expediently (especially given how long this 
initial anti-trust process has dragged on), and I believe the 
problem is larger than middleware. In particular, I don't believe 
anything short of making Windows open source would prevent Microsoft 
from taking advantage of the ambiguous nature of a "middleware 
interface" to continue to constrain consumers and developers. 
Don't forget that in addition to the operating system and 
productivity application markets, Microsoft has a big stake in 
development tools; a hook into middleware functionality doesn't mean 
much to me if I have to use another Microsoft product to implement 
it. And I've read some of Microsoft's published information on its 
software in the few instances where it doesn't directly involve one 
of their development tools, and it still didn't enable me to 
communicate cleanly with the Windows operating system or their 
middleware (even when it's supposed to). At best, they're support 
staff has pleaded incompetence. I'll buy it, too; they have no 
history of successfully supporting cooperative development outside 
of Microsoft tools. Microsoft's entire oeuvre has a tendency to be 
black box. To achieve its aims, this settlement would have to 
completely reverse Microsoft's closed corporate and development 
culture. I'm skeptical that this settlement will lead to anything 
more than continued legal squabbling.
    On a separate note, the recent class action settlement is too 
plainly a vehicle for Microsoft to broaden it's market share while 
simultaneously getting good press. I view it less as ineffectual and 
more as a disgrace to our legal system.
    This message is a general statement of perspective, and is not 
intended to be a basis for reversing any decisions. If you want more 
insight, specific examples, or verification of my credentials feel 
free to contact me.
    Jon
    Jon Roberts
    [email protected]
    CC:Bill Mullen,[email protected]@inetgw,Brian 
Be...



MTC-00002172

From: Daniel Muniz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 3:09am
Subject: Microsoft
    I am disgusted by the decision to let these convicted criminals 
get off. What a shameful, embarrassing joke of a settlement! Not 
only letting them off but actually allowing them to expand their 
monopoly in the education market.
    With the Supreme court decision to decide the presidential 
election, the curtain was lifted to reveal a very ugly side of our 
government. Even within that context, this decision is shocking. It 
is now unmistakably clear who is in the driver's seat of our 
government these days_and it is not the people.
    Let us hope the Europeans have not been similarly corrupted. 
Perhaps they will have the guts, and honor to deal with them 
properly.
    Daniel Muniz



MTC-00002173

From: Jak Crow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 5:49am
Subject: Settlement
    Read and understand what dope you guys are smoking
    http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/14861.html



MTC-00002174

From: steven st catherine
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected] 
@inetgw,s...
Date: 11/25/01 4:20am
Subject: Microsoft and or New Informations
    Dear Sirs!
    I am at a loss for words, as we will never know how these 
computers are constructed in full to operate, but with one eye open 
for the worst you see bits of the truth. Anybody with internet 
access can most probably tell you that on occasion you get access to 
the internet without the necessary procedure being completed. This 
is due in part to the fact that with the server provider blueyonder 
and internet explorer the initial home webpage can be displayed 
without the necessary internet access dialing procedure. Even if it 
seems to have come from the temp internet file it should not come up 
without internet access availability, and todays news or the 
available activities. As we know from the temp internet file you can 
enter the internet with only netscape, as it is windows, however 
dialing access procedure also apply. For the home webpage to be 
displayed without the initial dialing procedure then states that 
every computer with internet access is most probably accessible to 
Microsoft and bill gates. What are we to do? Even though I know 
Nokia, Siemens, Yahoo, and other possible interested parties have 
seemingly stolen from me it is small in comparison to the loss of 
material as you write it. Also to see a computer still running after 
you've switched it off is highly none competative.



MTC-00002176

From: Ron Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 10:07am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust settlement
    The settlement is a complete sell-out. It does not even address 
the findings of fact in the case. You have not even done your jobs. 
The findings alone must be addressed; they are not.
    It would appear that Microsoft's money has bought them what they 
want, the right to continue to be a monopoly.
    Regards,
    Ron Williams



MTC-00002177

From: William Pence
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 9:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Well,
    We are just short of just dropping the case, and you guys just 
gave away the farm. The proposed settlement, is less than a wrist 
slap. It appears that you simply do not want to continue the work, 
and the anti-competitive practices that have served MS so well, will 
serve them well in the future. I find it hard to understand your 
strategy when the courts FOUND that MS was illegally using their 
monopoly power, then the United States Dept. of Justice has 
basically told MS "well try to stop doing this" I do not 
support a breakup, but there certainly MUST be some real teeth in 
the MS controls that MUST be in place. Exactly how many times has MS 
danced around the law with creative interpretations?
    Now, we have MS disabling third party media delivery such as 
Apple Quicktime and Real Networks realplayer. Clearly, MS is done 
with the browser wars and moving to the content wars.
    I for one, support diversity such as Mac OS and linux based 
machines. To have content delivery controlled by MS is not 
acceptable.
    Thanks, and Please reach a real settlement.
    William Pence



MTC-00002178

From: Just AnalHQ
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 9:16am
Subject: Do NOT settle with MS
    It is NOT in the best interests of AGAIN believing that MS will 
want to abide by any of the terms, which BTW are not strick enough 
of this proposed settlement. On top of it, letting MS give 
'billion' dollars of software, which is mostly defective 
and part of the problem to begin with really, to schools to get the 
kids 'hooked' on MS products. That is rediculious, as it 
is like giving a crack seller a punishment for a CRIME (that is what 
MS has committed, clearly) of selling crack, the OPEN DOOR to the 
kids and sell them all the crack they want or think they should be 
allowed because they don't know any better. MS should be forced to 
admit publically they are criminals, that they have forced mediocre 
and defective products to customers and charged them a premium for 
it. If MS was in the auto industry, they would have recalled EVERY 
single product that they ever produced. MS is bad, very bad for 
America, and the DOJ should NOT be afraid to tie this thing up more 
and EFFECTIVELY spend more money on burying Bill and his scammers in 
legal headaches for YEARS. In the end, like ATT they will likely 
rule again, but for 10-20 years from now at least consumers 
would have the ability to choose. Right now they do not, and letting 
them into the school system will effectively kill any chances of 
Apple or others to compete. You are out of your fucking minds!Just a 
concerned, pissed off tax paying consumer.Get your acts together, 
and do the RIGHT thing, not the chicken things.



MTC-00002179

From: Margaret Rosser Durso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 8:47am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    DOJ, I believe you should exert every effort to settle this 
case. In my opinion it was an outrage.
    Here is a wonderful company that has given the consumer the very 
finest in

[[Page 24046]]

software and enhanced the productivity of many companies. Because 
they were tough on the competition, these same competitors enlist 
the help of the government to help destroy this competition!!! In 
the word of Scott MacNealy.......da. Lets do the economy and the 
consumer a big favor and settle this case in favor of 
Microsoft....NOW. Thank you.



MTC-00002180

From: PRovero
To: Microsoft ATR,Senator Chris Dodd,Senator Joseph Li...
Date: 11/25/01 11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    P. J. Rovero
    42 Damon Heights Road
    Niantic, CT 06357
    [email protected]
    25 November 2001
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D St. NW, Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Re: Proposed United States vs. Microsoft Settlement
    Ms. Hesse,
    I have been a computer user for more than thiry years, and have 
developed software for both Microsoft and non-Microsoft operating 
systems.
    After reading the proposed settlement, I am very concerned that 
certain definitions, limitations, and exceptions will make the 
agreement ineffective in remedying the abuse of monopy power by 
Microsoft.
    Two very broad goals should be pursued to curb this abuse of 
monopoly power:
    1. Developers must be able to develop applications and 
middleware for the Windows Operating System Products that can 
compete with Microsoft Applications and Middleware products.
    2. Developers must be able to develop applications and 
middleware for non-Windows operating systems that can interoperate, 
as either clients or servers, in networks with computers running 
Windows Operating System Products.
    To achieve these goals, more open access to information, and 
more restrictions on the behavior of Microsoft applications and 
operating systems are required. I suggest the agreement be modified 
with the following provisions.
    (1) Microsoft shall publish the following information for the 
Windows Operating System Products and all middleware applications:
    (i) application programming interfaces (APIs)
    (ii) communications protocols
    (iii) application file formats
    (iv) documentation on (i), (ii), and (iii).
    (2) The information should be freely distributable through non-
Microsoft sources, including non-Microsoft web servers. No 
registration for Microsoft services shall be required for access to 
the information.
    (3) Draft or proposed changes to APIs, communications protocols, 
applications file formats and documentations must be shared with the 
public as soon as ALPHA test dates are identified in software 
project development plans. Software developers understand that 
drafts are works in progress, but software development lead times 
are such that waiting until final BETA does not give competitors an 
even playing field.
    (4) No U.S. government procurement, whether by federal agency, 
or by grant to states, cities, local governments, or non-
governmental agencies, shall mandate or specify the purchase of 
Microsoft Operating System Products or Middleware. Procurements may 
only specify the required functionality, and compatibility with the 
published (in (1) and (2) above) APIs, communications protocols, 
applications and application file formats.
    (5) The Technical Committee must ensure that all Microsoft 
applications and middleware (including Microsoft Office) use only 
the published APIs, protocols, and formats. The corrective actions 
include forcing Microsoft to:
    (a) Removing unpublished APIs, protocols, and file formats as 
timely mandatory corrective service packs, or
    (b) Immediate publication of such APIs, protocols, and file 
formats, with monetary fines when such changes were not issued as 
draft changes in accordance with (2).
    (6) Microsoft Operating System and Middleware products have 
often, without warning or option, overwritten non-Microsoft boot 
loaders and system preferences, or installed themselves as 
"preferred" applications in place of non-Microsoft 
applications. Under the settlement, Microsoft products must respect 
non-Microsoft boot loaders, applications, and settings, and must 
allow installation according to user preferences and priorities.
    In conclusion, the proposed agreement does not do enough to 
address Microsoft's abuse of monopoly power. Please seriously 
consider my suggested modifications to correct the agreement.
    P.J. Rovero
    [email protected]
    cc: Senator Christopher Dodd
    Senator Joseph Lieberman
    Representative Rob Simmons
    CT Attorney General Richard Blumenthal



MTC-00002181

From: John Shackelford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 11:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    In my opinion Microsoft has employed predatory practices that 
have hurt the software, computer and internet industries. They have 
killed off many competitors, like Netscape and others. I have heard 
that part of the settlement includes forcing Microsoft to purchase 
and install copies of their OS for schools. This is stupid. What the 
deal shoule be is this:
    Microsoft should purchase and install Macintosh computers in 
schools. Why would you further extend and cement their monopoly? My 
alternative is a real penalty.
    John
    John H. Shackelford III
    President
    Tritera Incorporated
    P.O. Box 83338
    San Diego, CA 92138-3338
    FAX: 619-222-1442
    VOICE: 800-819-8819
    EMAIL: mailto:[email protected]
    WEB: http://www.tritera.com
    Services for the Development of High-Performance Systems and 
Software.



MTC-00002182

From: Jack Stenner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 10:29am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement
    Sirs,
    As a citizen who values the ideals of innovation and competition 
in our society, I am appalled at the apparent outcome of the 
Microsoft Anti-Trust case. I am an artist/architect who is presently 
acquiring a master's degree in computer visualization. At every 
turn, I witness the wasted efforts of creative programmers as 
Microsoft either co-opts previously open standards and integrates/
perverts them into their own proprietary system, or establishes 
competing standards to thwart the development of software it views 
as "dangerous" to it's hegemony. The academic 
institutions of this country are one of the few remaining 
environments where alternative operating systems, and an open view 
of the possibilities of computing persist. I believe the worst 
possible outcome of this litigation would be if Microsoft were 
allowed to "pay" damages by further installing their 
operating system and software on the nation's educational computers. 
This action will only serve to solidify their business model, and 
will damage the opportunities for competition at the very 
foundation. Please stand up to Microsoft!
    Thank you,
    Jack Stenner
    4004 Oaklawn St.
    Bryan, Texas 77801



MTC-00002183

From: Joe Stampleman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft (non)settlement
    Sir or Madam,
    I would like to express the opinion that the proposed 
"settlement" of the Microsoft case does not sufficiently 
punish Microsoft for its past misdeeds and that it will cause my 
likelihood to suffer. I am a software engineer, and I am concerned 
in two ways:
    1. I know many colleagues at other companies that have been 
forced out of business by Microsoft, and the light slap on the wrist 
that's been given to them does not discourage them from such 
behavior in the future.
    2. From what I've observed, Microsoft's behavior has stifled 
true innovation in the industry, and for as long as they are 
permitted to behave as they feel they are entitled to this will 
continue. Anyone who dares to innovate knows that they will be 
suffocated by Microsoft. Now they know that the U.S. Department of 
Justice condones this behavior.
    Please do the right thing and punish Microsoft.
    _joe

[[Page 24047]]

    Joe Stampleman
    1071 Sunset Drive
    San Carlos, CA 94070
    (650) 596-3758



MTC-00002185

From: David van Deinse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 12:10pm
Subject: antitrust settlement
    Dear sirs,
    I am not a citizen of your country but I like to give my opinion 
about the settlement with microsoft.
    From the moment Microsoft copied the look of the macintosh, both 
companies were in a legal battle. Unfortunaly time was on the side 
of microsoft. So Apple had to settle with microsoft or go 
brankcrupt. Microsoft could stretch the process for age's. I think 
this is a flaw in the american system of justice.
    Now an other justiceflaw is a problem for Apple. One market were 
Apple had a fair part of the bussiness ( education) will now get 
unfair trade differences. The free software that microsoft must give 
to education is only making it harder for schools to choose. I am 
not saying that one system is beter than the other, only that the 
choice for schools is not free anymore. For a country that is known 
for freedom this is not good. Sorry for my bad spelling,
    Greeting,
    David van Deinse,
    The Netherlands



MTC-00002186

From: Mary Jo DeMorrow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Anit-Trust Deal
    This is unbelievable! Why do you think that giving Microsoft 
even more opportunity to undermine their competitors is a good 
thing? You are giving Microsoft a blanket license to increase their 
presence in our nation's schools for years to come while at the same 
time shutting out their competitors. This is a sweet deal for 
Microsoft and a kick in the butt for Apple.
    Why not give the schools the money earmarked for technology and 
let them decide how to best spend it?
    Please reconsider this action!
    Sincerely,
    Mary Jo DeMorrow



MTC-00002187

From: Stan Ford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Injustice
    Dear Attorney General
    I am counting on courageous law enforcers like the hold-out 
states attorney generals to rectify the slap-on-the-wrist punishment 
that the DOJ has allowed Microsoft to fashion for themselves. Gates 
and Balmer must be positively giddy about the light penalties handed 
down. We are already seeing signs that predatory competetive 
practices and arrogance continue rule the day at MS. Please continue 
your efforts to reign in these barons of greed.
    Thank you,
    Stan Ford
    4635 Wild Indigo #497
    Houston, TX 77027-7070
    713?552?9434



MTC-00002188

From: Dean Rasmussen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 1:56pm
Subject: MS Penalty = MS Profit
    I can't believe what the DOJ is calling a penalty. You are 
rewarding an criminal monopoly by allowing them to hurt competition 
in this MS marketing scheme. Everyone knows MS has a low software 
presence in the school market and what a better way to take over 
this market too by being "punished" into donating free 
software. Boy, I bet that hurts. Added market share and lots of 
great PR. I can't believe you don't see the truth in this deal. It 
will hurt everyone, except MS.
    Please PUNISH their crimes, not help them.
    Dean Rasmussen



MTC-00002189

From: Bill Pickering
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/25/01 1:41pm
Subject: Unacceptable MS antitrust settlement
    AMERICA MUST FACE THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE AND RESPOND CORRECTLY
    The proposed terms of antitrust settlement with Microsoft to 
distribute free operating software to education markets is totally 
unacceptable and should NOT be passed by individual states. The 
proposed action is really not a penalty_it is a benefit to 
Microsoft.
    1. Anyone with an abacus can figure out it doesn't cost 
$1billion to press, distribute CDs to schools. This is only a slap 
on the wrist, and certainly no where close to true community 
service! It's ineffective action against a known monopoly.
    2. Sending free Microsoft Windows CDs to schools is only forcing 
education markets to accept the Windows operating system_a 
contrived ploy to further perpetuate the very Microsoft monopoly the 
justice department is trying so diligently to eliminate! Schools who 
use other computing platforms receive no benefit from this proposed 
action. The proposed settlement is pure nonsense, designed to 
benefit no one except Microsoft.
    Please do not accept this ridiculous settlement proposal. It 
would be devastating to our economy in the long run, and it 
demoralizes America's trust in our justice system.
    Hundreds of thousands of parents, teachers and students across 
our nation have already reviewed and rejected this proposal. These 
folks are now asking and watching to see if individual states are 
also wise enough to see the deception behind this proposal and 
refuse it's acceptance.



MTC-00002190

From: Soila Ochun
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 4:32pm
    The Federal Trade Commission and the 9 states are being deceived 
by Microsoft. By allowing Microsoft the choice into favoring its 
products and giving Microsoft the marketing advantage it loves. The 
small penalties of the verdict should not be used to favor 
Microsoft, but penalize it. They are allowing it to mandate how it 
will spend the money from the settlement. Allowing Microsoft the 
preference of schools they provide funds to as well as equipement 
will be devistating. I feel that the money should be granted on the 
following requirements: Schools should get a Sun with Solaris or a 
Macintosh with OSX or an AMD with Linux that will show real 
competition. Software and hardware to accommodate those types of 
computers.
    If the government allows microsoft to invest the settlement 
their way it will only capitalize on the existing monopoly that 
Microsoft has not yet cannibalize it with choice. None of the 
software or hardware that uses its Microsofts OS should be donated. 
It should be the competitions products, that is the ultimate reason 
for the investigation. We need to show Microsoft that it will have 
competition. The education market is an important market that 
reaches Americans. It provides knowledge to our children. It also 
shows parents the extra guidance in purchasing computers for their 
children. These choices out their can first be learned through 
education. This will truly mean that microsoft is sorry for abusing 
their power. This will also provide knowledge to Americans and 
awareness of alternatives. They should also not use this to 
accelerate their current reputation nor marketing power with a 
future Microsoft Cares*_promotions and or advertisements. If 
this is not implemented i can imagine the worst. No Netscape, ICAB 
only Internet Explorer. No AOL, Earthlink, only MSN. No Corel Word 
Perfect, Lotus Smart Suits only Microsoft Office. No imovie or idvd 
but the Microsoft clones that Microsoft makes. This will only help 
Intel, Microsoft, Dell, and any of those that support the WINTEL 
environments. I can also see Microsoft using this money to pushing 
the Macintosh out of the school districts. Please dont make the same 
mistake twice in allowing them into getting away with the punishment 
they deserve.
    *I thought of that slogan first.
    Mark Velazquez
    2921 Briggs Avenue
    Bronx New York 10458 #6A
    (718)-561-4738
    [email protected]_email



MTC-00002191

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected] 
@inetgw,Ralph@essen...
Date: 11/25/01 4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Hegemony' Philanthropy With Noose Attached CC: 
[email protected]@inetgw,letters 
@sjmercury.com@1...
    Re: Judge to Weigh Private Microsoft Antitrust Deal
    U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz will have to decide 
whether the settlement proposed by the company is a creative 
solution that will put computers in the hands of poor school 
children or a legal ruse that will further the company's dominant 
position in the computer business.

[[Page 24048]]

    Much more than the private Microsoft antitrust deal, Motz will 
be deciding whether the US legal system will be hijacked and used by 
corporations to quell dissent to their economic/technical despotism 
via philanthropy. We The People do not need Microsoft's philanthropy 
with a noose attached. Microsoft is destroying our institutions by 
destroying our value of the principles that underly them.
    Central to the dispute is a U.S. antitrust doctrine that holds 
that only a "direct purchaser" can collect damages in 
private antitrust suits.
    "You see how loophole works for large corporation? Kind of 
looks like economic/technical despot holds special place in heart of 
public servant, no? Ha ha ha ha..."



MTC-00002192

From: Richard W. Boman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 2:15pm
Subject: Microsoft can cripple this country
    I would like you to know some simple facts about microsoft.
    1) They are a monopoly
    2) Their shark tactics against american soil companies have 
caused, bankruptcy, a loss in jobs, and poorly written software to 
become the accepted norm in this country.
    3) Their software scheme has single-handedly allowed more virus 
and hacker vulnerabilities than any other Operating System or Server 
Software used in this country, which in turn would allow terrorists 
easier ways to exploit the US.
    4) Think of the small companies that Microsoft has pirated and 
ravished, (by offering FREE poorly written copies of similar 
software long enough for these companies to go bankrupt) and then 
charged outrageous prices when no competition is available.
    5) The American public is not necessarily educated enough to 
understand all that microsoft has done over the years. I am 
concerned about America, and this company is not concerned in the 
least about homeland security. The dollar is paramount in their 
eyes. Sometimes capitolism can destroy, particularly when a monopoly 
exists. Think about it.
    Sincerely, Richard Boman



MTC-00002193

From: Robert Godfrey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 5:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft's settlement offer flagrantly fuels Microsoft's 
monopolistic position at the expense of other computer and software 
platforms and manufacturers.
    A more appropirate settlement would be for Microsoft to pay an 
appropriate amount to the stockholders of the companies that have 
been put out of business and/or damaged by Microsoft's illegal 
activities.
    Robert Godfrey
    PO Box 314, Moose Island
    Eastport, ME 04631
    [email protected]



MTC-00002194

From: Ron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 5:02pm
Subject: Disappointed in settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    I am very disappointed with Microsoft/DOJ settlement. I don't 
believe it will keep the MS monopoly from continuing to hinder 
innovation in the computer hardware or computer software industries 
... as the Consent Decree signed by MS in 1994 didn't hinder their 
practices.
    Also, I can't believe the settlement that was agreed to 
concerning the "overpriced" lawsuits against MS. It's a 
win-win situation for MS ... get rid of inventory during slow times 
& aggravate the current imbalance in the market place. Come on, 
MS has cash, have them rebate money to the schools (and others 
impacted by their actions) and let the schools (and others) decide 
which brand of technology they want to use.
    Get real! You should have worked to get rid of the monopolistic 
consequences that have happened over the last decade. Our choices 
are nearly gone as far as PC technology is concerned. Breaking up MS 
was a much better idea, and that wouldn't have gone far enough.
    How would you like to have a choice of only:
    one brand of car,
    one brand of cell phone,
    one brand of shoes,
    one brand of restaurant,
    one brand of wine,
    one brand of shaver,
    one brand of candy ... .
    We need product diversity in all sectors!!
    Sincerely,
    Ronald J. Korniski
    792 Maysville Circle
    Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
    That's all folks!



MTC-00002195

From: Ted Abel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 4:50pm
Subject: U.S. Dept. of Justice vs. Microsoft
    Dear Attorney General of the U.S. Dept. of Justice,
    I was very disappointed and dismayed by recent information 
coming out in the news media regarding the U.S. Dept. of Justice vs. 
Microsoft case. What is this so-called 3harsh penaltyo when a 
company can give away its software (Microsoft Windows) and PC 
computers/peripherals w/Windows to underprivileged schools? This 
just adds to the monopoly and bundling Microsoft was accused of in 
the first place! Am I missing something here? Or am I reading this 
information incorrectly? Shouldn't the penalty be tied to financing 
the purchases ONLY and not to giving away their own company's 
software or hardware/software bundling? Why not Unix, Linux, Sun, 
Apple, etc.?
    Also, if the ruling stands that they were doing something 
illegal, show the like-minded companies that you have the best 
interests of the American people in mind and not the monied 
interests. Do your job for the people not just business! I am 
ashamed of my present U.S. Government Administration, and this 
present U.S. Department of Justice in particular, for wasting 
precious time and public money from the past Administration and 
squandering the past ruling with acquiesence in this matter of the 
future of technology, rather than concluding a ?just1 penalty. What 
a waste and defeat for the public trust and software companies 
everywhere!
    Advancing a monopolistic technology that is mediocre at best 
(just adequately gets the job done) rather than striving for real 
competition with the best quality technology (superior performance) 
is like a slap in the face to the software/hardware companies that 
truly feature innovative and advanced feature sets. If we all 
strived for the mediocre or common denominator in the technology 
arena, or for that matter in any endeavor, where would we be today? 
Would our military be as successful in Afghanistan? Would MIT, 
Stanford, Yale or Harvard pump out B or C students. We certainly 
would not be the technology innovators we are known for today!
    I hope and pray that Microsoft has a ?just1 penalty to pay and 
not a slap on the wrist for practicing unethical, monopolistic and 
predatory business practices. No company should be able to profit 
from such behavior. Surely, my Government should be that 3first line 
of defenseo to see that these kinds of companies do not gobble up 
the competition!
    Sincerely,
    Ted Abel
    8865 Lynnett St., N.E.
    Alliance, OH 44601-9770



MTC-00002196

From: Walter Steensby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 8:09pm
Subject: Reasons not to penalise Microsoft
    Greetings,
    I am a private citizen. I believe that I have been driven into 
unemployment by the tactics and behaviour of Microsoft and its 
acolytes. However, I offer below six reasons why Microsoft should 
not suffer further distrubance from the courts.
    1. Microsoft is a huge company, seemingly as close to a monopoly 
as is possible without actually having become the sole supplier in 
the marketplace of personal computer operating systems and 
enterprise-level IT support software systems. The marketplace has 
made rational, reasoned, impartial and unbiased assessment of the 
available options, and accordingly Microsoft is the beneficiary.
    2. The installation worldwide of Microsoft operating systems and 
other of their software is hugely beneficial to various US 
government agencies, the NSA for example, making it possible for 
these agencies to conduct remote surveillance operations on 
government and corporate activities anywhere. (I would refer you to 
"The Puzzle Palace" by James Bamford.) This capability 
is very important to the security of the USA, especially after last 
September's outrage. Indeed, if organisations and other governments 
can be persuaded to use non-Microsoft operating systems, this 
situation might contribute to compromising the security of the US.
    3. The considerable revenue streams from Microsoft's sales 
outside the US continue to help the rather desperate balance of

[[Page 24049]]

payments situation, all the more so as the recession deepens.
    4. Microsoft is now at the head of an "empire of 
technology" enabling and facilitating the operations of, and 
thereby guiding, the bulk of the world's governmental, commercial 
and industrial functions. Individuals, organisations and governments 
which in IT terms are unable to control their own destinies have 
been and will continue to be well-served by Microsoft.
    5. The court's recent decision re Microsoft is simply a 
reflection of the political realities of the day and of the attitude 
of Republican administrations to business in general. Why disturb an 
organisation which clearly is functioning efficiently?
    6. The current administration and its advisors are evidently 
aware of the true nature of the situation and of its ramifications. 
Their decisions should stand.
    Yours sincerely
    Walter Steensby
    PO Box 305
    Hawker ACT 2614
    Australia



MTC-00002197

From: Greg Granger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 7:07pm
Subject: confused and disappointed
    I've been a software developer for over twenty years and I 
currently work with MS technologies. In fact in the early to mid 
1980's I was a big MS fan. However, their conduct over the pass 
fifteen years has been utterly contemptible and without morals.
    I'm as confused as I am disappointed by the token settlement 
with MS. What exactly was the point of this case?
    The government found MS a monopoly then made an agreement that 
basically rubber stamps all of MS illegal behavior. After reading 
the agreement it's clear that there was no penalty for it's frequent 
and obvious pass anti-competitive actions. However, worst than this 
it's clear that there is absolutely no requirement for MS to change 
anything that it's currently doing. Rather than run down why the 
different parts are either useless or meaningless, I challenge the 
DOJ to document one MEANINGFUL change that has or will occur at MS 
that either helps the consumer or addresses MS's criminal behavior. 
... If you think you have one, send it to me and I'll explain your 
error. In fact parts of this (like the 10/20 biggest vendors non-
sense) actually help MS. Further since MS had already destroyed any 
meaningful competition by the mid-1990's, what difference does it 
make that vendors NOW have the chance to ship systems without a MS 
product????? This agreement makes no sense. At best it's gross 
incompetence, at worst corruption. I'm still utterly floored by 
Judge Jackson's conduct. While he was the only person to hand down 
an even remotely sane verdict, was he really so clueless to believe 
that his conduct would not disqualify his ruling .... I think not. 
Even if MS had been split it would have been 5-10 years before 
any real gains to the American consumer would have been felt.
    When time allows I will be sending a paper and electronic letter 
to my representative and sentators requesting that the DOJ be 
investigated in relation to this matter.



MTC-00002198

From: Eric C. Forat
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 6:32pm
Subject: Self Interest
    Gentlemen,
    If you really wish to serve the interests of the country at 
large, do not let Microsoft monopolize our IT. Besides putting out 
inferior products easily attacked, their total contempt for the 
larger goal of the common good versus their own narrow greed does 
not recommend them as the basket in which we should keep all of our 
eggs...
    Thanking you for your time, sincerely yours
    Eric C. Forat



MTC-00002199

From: Gordon Weast
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 9:26pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft agreement
    Sirs:
    After reading much that has been written about the pending 
agreement, I feel compelled to write.
    At first look, forcing Microsoft to make $1B available to some 
educational institutions looks like a punishment. Unfortunately, 
this just locks out other products from those same markets. While I 
saw reference to a Microsoft statement that those institutions could 
spend money on other products, they clearly won't provide customer 
support for such a choice.
    Students who learn computers using a single provider's products 
will likely think that that is the only option. How does this 
promote competition?
    An additional clause in the agreement that requires some 
specified fraction of the funds to be used to teach alternative 
products both on Windows and on other operating systems would do far 
more to help level the playing field. At least 50% of the funds 
should be used to promote the competition. This would go far to make 
up for the anti-competitive tricks they have used to get where they 
are. I don't want to see Microsoft destroyed, but it is important 
for the industry that open competition be encouraged.
    The discussions I have read indicate that while Microsoft would 
be required to make the programming interfaces available, they would 
not be freely available to all developers. Allowing Microsoft to 
make the information available only under supervision at a Microsoft 
site would lock out smaller developers who have little or no budget 
for travel. These are the very developers who will most likely take 
chances on new technology. Many of these developers are likely 
working as single people with no budget for travel to a Microsoft 
site.
    Please don't let the agreement stand as it currently exists.
    This agreement is not good for the software industry.
    Gordon Weast



MTC-00002200

From: Dave C. Hill
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/25/01 9:08pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement is a travesty of Justice
    Talk about playing into the hands of the monopolist ! The 
particulars seem to do nothing to Microsoft but provide another 
avenue for them to market they're products ! You should be ashamed 
of yourself for striking this deal. Makes it look like you might be 
on the "Take" !!
    David C. Hill
    Arvada, Colorado
    "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, 
that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, 
support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the 
success of liberty." ....John Fitzgerald Kennedy_1/20/61
    Dave Hill  :-)



MTC-00002201

From: Wes Rand
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 9:03pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear US Justice Department,
    I do not believe the remedies as reported will have the 
slightest effect on Microsoft's predatory marketing practices and 
illegal abuse of monopoly power.
    And developments since the verdict in the case are disturbing. 
Especially with regard to the internet: Microsoft has bundled their 
browser for free with their operating system and drove all other 
browser manufacturers out of the market. They claim they have a 
right to do this, and that they are only serving consumer needs.
    But their most recent versions_including ALL browsers 
shipped with the new Windows XP_have made a significant 
change: they no longer support industry-standard third-party browser 
plug-ins for presenting specialized content, such as movies, sound, 
animation, and virtual reality.
    This means that third-party content providers, such as Real 
Audio, Macromedia Flash, Adobe PDF, and Apple QuickTime_just 
to name a few of the larger players_no longer function under 
Microsoft's browsers using the standard installation procedure. 
Instead, they must provide special installations that go through an 
additional layer of software_Active X_ that Microsoft's 
own content provisioning software does not go through. This means 
that ordinary consumers will have to struggle needlessly to install 
third-party content provisioning software, but perhaps more 
importantly, if they do actually get through that struggle, the 
third-party plug-ins will run more slowly and with less capability 
than will Microsoft's own content provisioning software.
    This also means that some 90% of new computers sold cannot 
properly access many web sites which use non-Microsoft software such 
as Apple QuickTime content, whereas 90% of pre-Windows XP computers 
could. With this current settlement, really just a cushy "hand 
slap" settlement, Microsoft not only successfully extended 
their operating system monopoly into the internet browser market, 
but now they have extended their monopoly into the content provider 
marketplace! They have broken the law once,

[[Page 24050]]

and while being penalized, have broken it again. And they are moving 
to extend it with their .NET intiative using their operating system 
monopoly and their new browser monopoly.
    Soon consumers will be unable to access content that Microsoft 
has not provided or approved of. This is hardly protecting or 
maintaining free market capitalism and undermines a key industry. 
Please revisit this settlement and work for real punishments. Thank 
you for your attention.
    Wes Rand
    The great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter a 
chance to do something stupid._Art Spander



MTC-00002202

From: Richard Lowenthal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 8:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is the opinion of this very senior citizen that Microsoft, 
with all of it's "good stuff" still cost me lots of 
money and aggravation: Their version of various applications are put 
out on the market in poor form and beginners like me have to work 
with applications full of glitches and THEN PAY FOR AN UPGRADE THAT 
SHOULD BE FREE. They are an identifiable monopolist, i.e., Netscape, 
Java, etc. They should have extreme restrictions and be monitored 
for an extended period of time, 10 years!
    I believe they should be allowed to compete! However, they DO 
NOT COMPETE. RATHER, THEY OVERWHELM AND USE UNLAWFUL METHODS TO 
COMPETE.
    DON'T BREAK THEM UP. OPEN THEIR CODE AND MONITOR THEM FOR 10 
YEARS.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Lowenthal
    Frankfort, MI



MTC-00002203

From: Kevin Ledgister
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 9:53pm
Subject: Public Comment
From: Kevin Ledgister 1610 Pearson St. Wausau, WI 54401 
[email protected]
    To the US Dept. of Justice
    Public Comments on Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement
    As a consumer I wish to express my view that the proposed 
settlement does not appear to go far enough to protect consumers 
from Microsoft's illegal monopoly practices.
    First, since the Appeals Court unanimously declared that 
Microsoft had acted illegally, there does not seem to be any 
punitive remedy that addresses the gains that Microsoft made by 
acting illegally.
    One of those gains has been Microsoft's ability to dictate 
proprietary web browser standards and technologies because of its 
illegally gained monopoly. As a consumer, I am harmed because I 
choose a competing product that adheres to the standards established 
by recognized bodies that govern the Internet, but I still cannot 
appropriately view many websites or use their services because many 
websites are programmed to be accessed with Microsoft's Internet 
Explorer instead of Netscape, which used to be the case. Microsoft 
should be forced to adhere to standards established by a recognized 
Internet body so that competing browsers are able to freely view 
websites and obtain services without having to switch browsers 
because of the proprietary hooks that Microsoft was able to 
establish based on it's illegally gained monopoly.
    Microsoft should not be allowed to continue to control the 
browser market because it was derived from illegal gains. Microsoft 
should be allowed to continue to "innovate" but not 
without incorporating established standards so that consumers have 
equal access to Internet content.
    As a consumer, I have also been harmed by having to purchase 
Microsoft Windows and having to pay that price, which includes 
paying for additional software that is not necessary for the 
operating system to run and allow for the installation of other 
applications.
    Because Microsoft is such a monopoly, any additional software 
that ships along with Windows, without additional charge, has the 
potential to create an additional monopoly. Unfortunately, it is 
usually too late once that monopoly is created to go back and undo 
the damage.
    For that reason, and without stifling Microsoft's ability to 
innovate, Microsoft should be forced to charge for additional 
software that it ships along with the Windows operating system. 
There is a cost to develop these applications, and a formula can be 
derived. The exception would be for applications that competitors 
allow to be downloaded for free because of their distribution 
method, Microsoft would also be able to offer these services for a 
free download.
    That way, consumers can pay less than current prices for the 
basic operating system and option up for any additional applications 
that they wish to purchase, e.g. I would rather pay $99 for Windows 
XP and not for Microsoft's image editing and music compression 
software, which I can freely get elsewhere. Consumers who want to 
buy the whole bundled package should have that option too, if they 
want to pay extra for it.
    Microsoft should also be forbidden from paying manufacturers to 
carry these additional software applications (such as Windows Media 
Player) without there being a corresponding revenue model for that 
software (such as selling a server version or development tools) to 
offset the cost. Otherwise, as a consumer, I will never be able to 
truly benefit from the free market forces, but will continue to 
subsidize Microsoft's ability to run competitors into the ground and 
support their continued efforts to dominate endless markets.
    It would seem appropriate that any remedy should not only 
include penalties where consumers where harmed, but also be forward 
looking.
    Thank you for you consideration.
    Regards,
    Kevin Ledgister
    Kevin Ledgister
    [email protected]



MTC-00002204

From: Dalex
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 9:47pm
Subject: alternate proposal
    To the US Department of Justice:
    When I read about Microsoft's settlement offer, I thought of the 
old restaurant joke: "The food here is bad_and the 
portions are so small!" When it comes to software, you can't 
make up for qualitative flaws with volume. I have seen Red Hat's 
proposal (http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/011120/202744_1.html), but 
for all the reasons it makes sense, it would make even more sense to 
have Microsoft spend that billion dollars on Apple hardware.
    Wouldn't it be much more appropriate to have Microsoft buy 
computers that can't run their operating system? If Microsoft would 
buy the hardware, I'm sure Apple could be persuaded to donate 
software and support, though Apple computers already come bundled 
with the operating system and many easy-to-use applications at no 
extra cost. Microsoft could donate copies of Office, the Mac version 
of which is very well liked.
    My proposal would be much better for students than either 
Microsoft's or Red Hat's. For example, Apple's iBook laptops, along 
with their Airport technology, are a very inexpensive way to get a 
whole school connected wirelessly to the Internet; there is no 
equivalent in the Wintel world. Also, Linux is terrific, but it's 
never been anywhere near the #1 platform in the education 
market, as Apple is. I doubt Red Hat would expand their offer to 
include porting hundreds of educational apps from the Mac platform 
to Linux_or retraining hundreds of teachers and administrators 
who are already happy with Apple computers.
    I believe what I am suggesting is (a) fair to all parties, (b) 
more appropriate than what Microsoft is offering, and (c) much more 
beneficial to the cause of educating American students. I hope you 
will agree.
    Respectfully yours, _Andrew G. Lee
    Sincerely,
    Dave Walker



MTC-00002205

From: Charlie Michelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 9:27pm
Subject: Microsoft "Settlement"_School Donations
    Please do NOT agree to the proposed Microsoft settlement. If 
Microsoft has been overcharging, they should simply pay money to 
schools (or whoever) for the amount of the award. If there is to be 
any hardware donated, it should be Apple hardware. That is the only 
true competitor to Windows at the personal (non-server) level.
    Remember the Irish potato famine. If too many eggs are in one 
basket, bad things (viruses) can happen. Strength is in 
diversity_ in people, and in computer operating systems. That 
is the American way.
    I am also extremely disappointed in the DOJ cave-in on the main 
monopoly suit. Please write if you wish to discuss further. There 
are many more reasons I can give for my position.
    Charlie



MTC-00002206

From: Rick Balian

[[Page 24051]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/26/01 1:45am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    Letting Microsoft donate PCs and their own software is an 
outrageous settlement. Please don't let Microsoft get away with 
that. Microsoft is a bully. Its punishment must be more than a wink 
and a "don't let it happen again, son" speech.
    At the very least, Microsoft must be made to donate software by 
other manufacturers and computers that don't run Microsoft's 
operating systems. Increasing a monopoly's market share is a strange 
way to punish a monopoly.
    Rick Balian



MTC-00002207

From: Malcolm McCallum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/26/01 12:24am
Subject: Microsoft decision
    Dear Sirs, I believe the decision in this case is so wrong it 
makes a mockery of Justice in the USA. You have given the Fox the 
key to the chicken run. It is just unbelievable.
    Malcolm McCallum
    Orthopaedic Surgeon



MTC-00002208

From: Phillip Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 11:21pm
Subject: MS private settlement
    This "private" antitrust settlement is LUDICROUS!!! 
MS Software costs Microsoft 
NOTHING_NOTHING_NOTHING_and schools would normally 
get it free anyway. So how come you are putting a FULL RETAIL dollar 
value on it to measure a "settlement" value? This is 
such a huge transparent FARCE, anyone can see though it. Wake UP!!!!



MTC-00002209

From: Bill Huggins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/25/01 9:55pm
Subject: Stupid lawsuit
    This lawsuit is so incredibly stupid! You guys seem to want to 
protect the brand new user, but from what I don't know.
    Microsoft has done a very limp job of protecting itself. Windows 
is not a monopoly; it is a standard. Let's hear it for standards.
    You want to pull Internet Explorer (IE) out by its roots. Why? 
Every modern OS comes with a browser. Perhaps Microsoft should be 
reamed for not having a splash screen for the new user that would 
appear every time the system boots that says, "Please go to 
www.opera.com and www.netscape.com. Download the browsers from these 
2 companies. Once you have installed them, you will find that you 
can run them side-by-side with Internet Explorer. You can make any 
of them your default browser. Bear in mind that the other browsers 
are free downloads, as is IE, but you need a browser to get to the 
other company's websites. We include Internet Explorer in each copy 
of Windows as a public service."
    You accuse Microsoft of including features that make it a 
monopoly. This sort of attack marks you as a non-user of computers. 
Microsoft has traditionally offered tools like Disk Defragmenter (a 
reduced feature version of Norton Utilities, etc.), notepad, a Media 
Player and now, with XP, a movie maker. If you were a user, you 
would know that these tools aren't very good. If you needed such a 
tool, you would seek one out and buy it.
    You have made a big stink about the first screen a new user 
sees. Big deal. You have again tried to protect the new user. You 
are only a new user for a couple of months. Any home user can change 
his desktop with background colors, textures and pictures. It's 
easy.
    I could go on for hours, but I'll spare you. The DOJ has done a 
great injustice to Microsoft and most of the millions of users of MS 
software. You have wasted millions of dollars and diverted energy 
that could have been used more creatively. You should be ashamed of 
yourselves.
    I hope your computer turns on you.
    Sincerely,
    William M Huggins
    9200 Red-Wood Rd NE, C-402
    Redmond, WA 98052
    425.861.9119
    PS... I work for an Internet Service Provider. I have no 
financial ties to the company. I own none of their stock.



MTC-00002210

From: Ruth Harris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/26/01 1:56am
Subject: Microsoft
    Don't let Microsoft off the hook. A friend of mine had his 
client's website hijacked by MS deneying them all access to their 
email. This was done without their permission or without warning. It 
was removed from the web server of the ISP with which they were 
contracted and moved to Microsoft's website. They were unable to 
retrieve it and Microsoft wouldn't even talk to them about it. These 
people are crooks.
    Ruth



MTC-00002211

From: [email protected]. mediaone.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/26/01 2:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I am currently an owner of an Information Systems and software 
development firm. Based my firm's experience in this field, I 
propose the following adjustments to the Microsoft settlement:
    1. PROPOSAL A
    a. OVERVIEW
    The US Government (and other governments) should embrace open 
standards for file formats for commodity applications such as Word 
Processing, Spreadsheets, Database, Graphics, and Mail.
    b. PROPOSED ACTIONS
    A national or international standards committee be formed to 
oversee commodity file formats, much like the W3C.
    Formats be developed for Word processing, Spreadsheets, 
Database, Graphics, and Mail.
    These formats should be based on open, published standards that 
can only be extended through the committee.
    The US government adopt these standards as required for 
governmental correspondence.
    Software producers must show their tools are compatible with 
these standards before government agencies employ them.
    Software producers should be encouraged to publish their 
compliance to these standards.
    c. REASONING
    Microsoft's monopoly on the business desktop is not derived from 
its innate value of its operating systems, but by its anti-
competative use of its monopoly to control proprietary formats used 
in commodity applications.
    Microsoft Word, Excel, Outlook, and others employ proprietary 
formats controlled, and changed at will, by the company. Any attempt 
to use other tools to access or edit this data are hamstrung 
Microsofts propensity to change these formats at its whim. This is 
the core of its anti-competative practices.
    Microsoft has shown a pattern of first embracing competing 
formats (such as WordPerfect, and Lotus 1-2-3) and, once 
market dominance has been ensured, have emphasized their own 
proprietary formats. This is a trend they have continued to this 
day. One only need to look at how their "extensions" of 
HTML standards are currently being used to block access from any 
other platform besides their own.
    In the past, we wrote on paper. There are hundreds of producers 
of pens and paper. Today, we often write in word processors and 
spreadsheets. Should only one company in the world control the 
access to the intellectual property we create?
    d. IMPLEMENTATION
    The technology and software already exists to move this proposal 
to a reality in a very short time period. The US Government could 
change to open file formats with little pain by employing Star 
Office while saving untold millions in licensing costs. It can 
require all html document meet the W3C guidelines for HTML. The 
government would provide the impetus from moving its data, and that 
of the people, out from under the control of a private interest, and 
into open formats where we the people can access our own data 
without being required to purchase a Microsoft product to do so.
    e. REFERENCES
    Open File Formats: http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/community/
story/O,3201,NAV65-1797 STO64689,00.html Star Office, which 
employs open, XML formats with excellent capabilities: http://
www.sun.com/staroffice/6.0beta/;$sessionidSROHKZK4E 1MJORAMTA 1FU3NQ
    The W3C group has provided standards which has allowed dozens of 
competing web browsers to be successfully developed: http://
www.w3.org Anyware Office, which employs XML-like file formats in a 
product which works extremely well Anyware Office: http://
www.vistasource.com/products/anyware/office/
    f. DISCLAIMER
    We own Microsoft Office Professional. We manage dozens of 
Microsoft OS's and Office products. We have tested (and are 
impressed)

[[Page 24052]]

with Star Office. We also use Anywhere Office in an office of 5 
individuals. We have no other connection with the companies or 
software presented above.
    2. PROPOSAL B
    a. OVERVIEW
    The proposed settlement for providing Microsoft access to our 
children's and educators' minds is counter-productive to the good of 
the people and the government.
    b. PROPOSED ACTIONS
    Require any software provided to US schools to be compliant with 
the requirements as set forth in Proposal A of this comment.
    Adjust the settlement so that Microsoft is responsible for 
providing hardware and funding only.
    Provide an independent body for determining the software and 
training employed by the schools.
    c. REASONING
    The proposed settlement to provide Microsoft software and 
training only further benefits the company, while displacing other 
firms such as Apple and RedHat. By taking the proposed value and 
applying it to hardware and funding only, the public is ensured to 
receive the value offered by Microsoft.
    d. IMPLEMENTATION
    I have no additional recommendations for implementation of this 
remedy at this time.
    e. REFERENCES
    The RedHat Counter Offer: http://www.redhat.com/about/
presscenter/2001/press usschools.html
    f. DISCLOSURE
    We own Microsoft Windows 2000 and Mandrake Linux. We use RedHat 
Linux as our OS for web service development.
    These are fair adjustments to the proposed settlement. They will 
provide innovative competition the like of which the industry has 
never seen.
    I am available for discussion of these remedies at any time.
    Respectfully Submitted
    26 November 2001
    Michael S. Mikowski
    Managing Director, Uniphied Thought LLC
    Dearborn, MI 48126
    Tel 313-441-2579
    Mobile 313-550-8406



MTC-00002212

From: Hilary Sochacki
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/26/01 8:17am
Subject: Microsoft bribes
    "Donations" of Microsoft products to schools? That's 
like letting bio-terrorists pay for their crimes by allowing them to 
distribute "vaccines". Microsoft's management has to be 
riotously laughing behind your back!
    D. Liszewski



MTC-00002213

From: Unger, Phil E SCC
To: '[email protected]'
Date: 11/26/01 5:56am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement Too Weak
    What happened? Why did the DOJ just give up and walk away? Have 
so many staff changed with the new Bush administration that we now 
have a computer illiterate staff at DOJ?
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is baby mush and fixes 
nothing. Go back and try again.
    Phillip E. Unger
    Shell Chemical LP
    One Shell Plaza, 910 Louisiana, Houston, TX 77002-4916
    Tel: +1 713 241 2098 Fax: 1602Email: [email protected]
    Internet: http://www.shell.com/chemicals



MTC-00002214

From: Mr Lynn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/26/01 8:26am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To the Department of Justice:
    While I am happy to see the government pursuit of Microsoft 
under the Sherman Anti-trust Act come to an end, the proposed 
'penalty' of allowing Microsoft to expand its 
educational market share by placing product in schools is 
preposterous.
    Apple's Macintosh operating system (OS) is the primary 
competitor to Microsoft's Windows outside of big business, but has 
only 5% of OS market share worldwide. Education is one of the few 
areas where Mac OS market share is substantial, though still by no 
means dominant. The proposed 'penalty' rewards Microsoft 
and penalizes Apple, thus further eroding competition to the Windows 
OS in education.
    I hope you will reconsider this ill-conceived 
'remedy' and focus on reining in Microsoft's anti-
competitive business practices, in order to encourage a more level 
playing field in the OS market.
    Yours sincerely,
    L. E. Joiner
    Primary Caring
    Walking Creek Productions
    PO Box 3589
    Saxonville, MA 01705-3589
    508/788-7770
    



MTC-00002215

From: David J. Liszewski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/26/01 8:21am
Subject: Regarding Microsoft's Proposed Settlement of Private Cases
    I am astounded to learn of Microsoft's proposal to donate 
computers and software to some of the poorest schools in the nation 
as settlement for the private anti-trust lawsuits it faces. The 
company claims that these gifts will service seven million children. 
This settlement is precisely the type of activity which needs to be 
curtailed by government action.
    Microsoft will create seven million new customers while reaping 
good will. Why should a criminal be allowed to benefit from their 
punishment? This settlement is akin to arming convicted violent 
criminals in lieu of jail time.
    If Microsoft is so insistent upon donating a tiny fraction of 
its $30 billion cash reserve, why can't it donate only cash, or 
Apple computers, or something else from which it will derive no 
benefit?
    Sincerely,
    David J. Liszewski
    Sharon, MA



MTC-00002216

From: DeeKay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/26/01 8:39am
Subject: Microsoft/DOJ "seattlement"..
    Dear Sir or Madam, even though I am not a US citizen I'd like to 
use this opportunity to express my strong concern about the so-
called "seattlement", a cave-in that is without a doubt 
previously unheard of.
    The seattlement has so many holes in it that its effective 
uselessness is obvious to any journalist, expert and trial-
interested person, yet the DoJ still thinks it's a great idea!
    I also do NOT see ANY remedies in the seattlement, Microsoft has 
broken the law in various ways, something that even the Court of 
Appeals agreed to when they took back the verdict that Judge Jackson 
had issued! Now I wonder: Where are the remedies for the crimes 
Microsoft has done? They did blackmail Compaq, IBM, Apple and 
others, and somehow my feeling for justice tells me that even though 
it's a settlement, Microsoft should be punished for what it has 
done!
    Or, as one journalist put it: Microsoft is free to enjoy the 
fruits of its law-violations to the full extent still, and will be 
even after the settlement! That is something that has not happened 
before, and it just seems so painfully wrong!
    Besides, the DoJ also seems to have a memory leak in other ways, 
cause I can't remember that Microsoft's faked Evidence-Videos or 
lying in court, as well as making fun of the court in totally 
ridiculous subpoenas (Bill Gates: "I don't remember what I 
meant when I said 'crush Netscape "' etc!) and by 
releasing a crippled version of Windows just to spite the court, 
even though it's been proven that the Internet Explorer can be 
removed from Windows98 without leaving a trace have ever had any 
consequences!
    Like said, I am not an american citizen, but for outsiders it 
seems like Microsoft can behave in utter disrespect to the court and 
still not face any consequences for that at all! This casts a rather 
bad light on US Judicative in my eyes! Or Does this only account for 
multi-billion dollar companies?
    Please, I ask you in the name of countless others: the world is 
looking at the DoJ to put the raging Godzilla that Microsoft has 
become into chains to help the economy worldwide by re-enabling 
competition again (there is basically none at all in the areas 
Microsoft has a monopoly in!), just like you did with IBM and 
Standard Oil before! Doesn't the American idea of a free market base 
itself largely on a living market with lots of competitors, that 
will result in lower prices and better products for the consumer?
    Well_how on earth can you be so sure that Windows/IE/MS 
Office is the "best" for consumers when there is 
basically no noteworthy competition (in respect to market share!) at 
all around? It might help considering the fact that Microsoft has 
had a monopoly in operating systems right from the start in 1981, 
and it has never ever faced *real* competition (meaning: it has 
never

[[Page 24053]]

had less than 80% market share, even when DR-DOS was around!) there. 
The other monopolies with IE and Office were only achieved through 
massive "leveraging" by integrating both deeply into 
Windows, a practice that will continue unthrottled in spite of the 
settlement, just look at what they already integrated into Windows 
XP even though the trial was still going on!
    With best regards,
    Daniel Kottmair



MTC-00002218

From: Derrick Goodwin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/26/01 8:50am
Subject: I can't believe it...
    If you wish to discourage a behavior you should punish it. This 
does not appear clear to the DOJ. Allowing Microsoft to 
"donate" computers to less fortunate schools punishes 
the schools more than Microsoft. They have always wanted to increase 
their market share in schools. Make Microsoft donate 
"money" to the schools and let the schools decide what 
they want to do with it.
    Derrick Goodwin



MTC-00002220

From: Kelly Baker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/26/01 10:02am
Subject: Microsoft hand slap
    I hated the "Clinton Years". But there was one thing 
that was being done during that time that was warranted. That was 
the Microsoft case. Microsoft has severely abused its monopoly power 
by forcing unreasonable licensing agreements (which, by the way, it 
is doing AGAIN right under your noses!), forcing non-compete 
agreements, and forcing standards changes that it had previously 
agreed to (example: Java). Your "remedy" for Microsoft 
is equivalent to charging a business man $1 for having his 
competitors' legs broken! I am a supporter of President Bush, but 
this boneheaded move by the Justice Department is inexcusable. The 
currently presiding judge wanted a fair agreement. The ONLY party 
this agreement seems "fair" for is Microsoft!
    Kelly Baker, M.S.
    Systems Engineer



MTC-00002221

From: Aaron Burton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/26/01 9:35am
Subject: Antitrust settlement
    I don't feel like the proposed settlement is strong enough. I 
don't see what is going to stop Microsoft from including more 
software in the operating system, which will hurt competition. What 
they are doing with XP is many times worse than what they did with 
Internet Explorer. As long as they are allowed to do that, fair 
competition does not exist.
    Thank you,
    Aaron Burton
    Topeka, Kansas



MTC-00002222

From: ANTHONY J DURAN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/26/01 9:29am
Subject: Prosecute...
    ...lawbreakers to the fullest.
    It's that simple.
    Microsoft has, will, and plans to in the future continue 
crossing the legal limits of acceptable behavior and activity with 
respect to laws controlling business and commerce.
    Please add my names to the list of those who feel the USDOJ 
settlement is completely unsatisfactory and inadequate in relation 
to the crimes committed by Microsoft.
    Feel free to contact me about these matters and or confirm/
authenticate this e-mail.
    Yours truly,
    Anthony J. Duran
    214 e dayton
    fresno,ca 93704
    P.S. Have you no_shame?



MTC-00002223

From: Stephen Perry
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/26/01 11:37am
Subject: Microsoft Judgement
    I am very disappointed to learn that the Justice Department is 
providing Microsoft with a leg-up on its way to becoming a more 
deeply entrenched monopoly.
    To consider Microsoft giving computers to schools a 
"punishment" is foolish. It merely provides the 
following:
    1 Pushes out competition for school sales, among the most 
notable victims, Apple.
    2 Rewards Microsoft by providing them with an assured customer 
base as a result of indoctrinating students into the operating 
system and programs of one company.
    3 Encourages students to think that Microsoft is endorsed by the 
schools systems, as well as state and federal governments.
    4 Demonstrates that the government supports, rather than 
condemns monopolistic practices.
    A better solution would be to have Microsoft provide FUNDING to 
school systems, earmarked for purchase of technology and educational 
materials, without any encouragement towards, discouragement from, 
or reference to specific brands.
    Make it clear that Microsoft is not giving this funding out of 
the goodness of its corporate heart, but rather as a punishment for 
illegal and immoral business practices. This must be a lesson in 
civics, not an example of how to work around the system to get what 
you want.
    Steve Perry
    Llewellyn Worldwide, Ltd.
    v-651-312-8591
    f-651-291-1908



MTC-00002224

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/26/01 11:15am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think it is disgusting that Microsoft may be allowed to expand 
it's market monopoly by donating it's own software to schools. This 
only expands the monopoly that the company wants to have of the 
software market. We will be training our children to use the very 
product that we are claiming wants to dominate the market. Would we 
allow drug dealers to donate their product to schools as a penalty? 
Another problem is that when Microsoft donates $5 worth of product 
they will claim $500 of tax deduction for losses. What a scam!
    I can see Bill Gates proposing this plan, but I can't believe 
that anyone would accept it! He should be laughed out of town.
    David Tyler



MTC-00002225

From: David Pakman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/26/01 11:12am
Subject: Comments on proposed Final Judgment
    Renata Hesse
    Trial Attorney
    Suite 1200
    Antitrust Division
    Department of Justice
    601 D Street, N.W.
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Sirs:
    It is with great sadness and despair that I write you to comment 
on your proposed settlement with the Microsoft Corporation. I write 
you as a concerned citizen, former technology executive, and 
consumer.
    First, I fear that my comments and others you may receive from 
concerned citizens are simply part of the process and can have no 
bearing on your decision to move forward with any settlement or not. 
Will my comments really have an impact on your thinking? From all 
that I have read about the settlement process, you and 9 states AG's 
have already decided to move forward with the proposed settlement. 
Sad, indeed.
    Next, I fear that you will not even be watching the computer 
industry by the time the true effects (or lack thereof) of this 
settlement are seen...you will be off on the next industry, the next 
project, unaware that your actions in the next few months will 
determine the fate of true competition in the IT industry_the 
engine of our economy for the foreseeable future. Under Joel Klein, 
the US DoJ successfully humbled Microsoft, the most fierce and 
ruthless monopoly in the history of capitalism. The arrogance and 
blindness of Microsoft's own actions were turned against them and 
put on public display for all the world to see. Finally, others were 
able to see what those of us in the tech industry already knew: 
Microsoft's dominance and likely illegal predatory tactics were 
driving innovation out of many new markets, artificially raising 
prices, and depriving the consumer of ordinary fair market benefits. 
Would anyone care?
    Yes, it seemed. The US DoJ really cared. They were undeterred in 
their pursuit of justice and remedy. They would not settle for easy 
work-arounds...instead they wanted to see the problem solved. They 
knew from MS's history that MS have become experts at saying one 
thing and doing another. Evidence at trial even suggested that MS's 
had skillfully maneuvered around the 1995 Consent Decree and had all 
the power to do it again. A simple decree with new rules for MS to 
follow would never solve the problems of cultured predatory tactics.
    But then something changed. Somehow your thinking turned 180 
degrees. Now, suddenly, the DoJ was leading the charge towards a new 
consent decree through settlement. I read the proposed Final

[[Page 24054]]

Judgment and CIS with wide eyes. Could there really be something 
here? Could this decree actually change MS's behavior? What was in 
it that would be different this time? The truth is, nothing. There 
is nothing new here. MS will simply work around any new 
"rules" which are put in place and will become experts 
at delaying any of your future investigations into them. The 3-
person "compliance" panel will do nothing to change 20 
years of behavior instilled in every employee by its management. MS 
learns from its past. It has won with its tactics of the past and 
they will be employed again.
    Most importantly, this settlement will not give the capital 
markets any confidence that in markets where MS competes, true 
competition will emerge. Said simply, just as it has been for the 
last 15 years, both public and private investors will not fund 
companies in markets where MS has announced their intention to 
compete...because MS advantages fueled by their OS monopoly are too 
great. Without investment, their will be no innovation. In short, 
you really had the chance to make a difference and change things in 
the computer industry. And as that is certainly the most important 
industry to the relevance of the future economy, it was an important 
task for you. But for some reason, you seem bent on failing by 
somehow going against the evidence of this very case: that MS has a 
history of perfectly out-maneuvering the government on decrees of 
this nature. They are a company who NEVER played by the rules. How 
then will some new rules solve the problem?
    I can't help but wonder what caused your turn-around in 
strategy? Truly was it pressure from a very business-friendly 
Administration? Was it truthfully a feeling that SOME remedy had to 
happen soon (after 7 years of pursuing this case, there was a sudden 
need to see it end)?
    We, the public, will never really know. But we will know the 
effects of your actions, one way or another. If you are right, we 
will feel the benefit of renewed competition in the most important 
world markets. If you are wrong, however, the consequences are too 
great to enumerate. And if you are wrong, will you be around to 
correct your mistakes? Will their ever be an opportunity like the 
one in front of you now to fundamentally alter and restore 
competition in these markets?
    I hope, for the sake of some 300 million US consumers, that you 
have not yet made up your mind.
    (For a more detailed analysis of the impacts of the proposed 
settlement, I like this article the best: http://www.pff.org/pr/
pr110201settlement.htm)
    Good luck,
    David Pakman
    [email protected]



MTC-00002226

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/26/01 1:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust proposed settlement November 26, 2001
    To whom it may concern:
    I am a private individual who has recently purchased the third 
of a series of personal home computers since 1986. I have used them 
for a combination of personal and business work. I have relied on 
them extensively over this time period. I am a sales and marketing 
professional and while I am computer literate, I am not a techie.
    Each of these three computers came with the Windows operating 
systems, the first being Windows 3.1, second Windows 95 and 
currently Windows XP. Basically the only option I had was between 
Apple and Microsoft and Apple did not have the business software and 
widespread acceptance of the Windows platform. Never have these 
programs worked smoothly, and easily. Inexplicable crashes are 
common across all three versions_Windows 95 being the most 
reliable of the three.
    I have used both Wordperfect and Microsoft Office products 
across this same time period as well. While I was working for BFI, 
the company was basically forced to choose a software program that 
could be used to communicate across all the hundreds of operating 
districts. Microsoft Word was chosen since it was the program that 
would NOT (despite published and apparent software choices to the 
contrary) accept or convert Wordperfect documents into any readable 
form. Wordperfect on the other hand, had no problem converting the 
Word files into readable form and was a superior product in every 
way. The bundling of Excel was the final straw which was also an 
inferior product but easier to use than Lotus for non computer 
people which still relied on the crappy Microsoft DOS too 
extensively.
    I have owned Windows XP for about a week at this point and it is 
a horrible, buggy, nasty program to use. I do not require exotic 
uses. The very first time I tried to open a Microsoft Word document 
(older version) with the new version, the whole Word program froze 
and I became locked into an endless circle of "Did I want to 
Notify Microsoft of the problem or not". Neither choice 
worked.
    I called my Dell representative and the Microsoft simulation 
software was not the same as that supplied by Microsoft to Dell as 
what I was seeing. I called Microsoft. They refused to help me since 
I did not purchase the program "retail" but instead it 
was preinstalled on the computer. For $35.00, I could possibly be 
helped. I have been forced to call that number before and the only 
thing the representatives were successful at was taking my money.
    This is total market domination and bullying of the individual. 
Every "upgrade" is never consumer ready. Every 
"upgrade" crashes and burns even its own earlier 
versions. The late '80s version of Wordperfect was superior to 
Microsoft 2000 but I am stuck using the Microsoft behemoth if I want 
others to be able to read my work.
    I agree that the consumer rarely wins in class action suits. I 
do not want $10.00 off my next purchase of ever more cumbersome and 
useless software. Technical support at no cost to all registered 
purchasers of their products for three to five years after purchase 
would represent a genuine help. Their products also need to be 
transparent to me, the consumer, in that I should be able to use 
Wordperfect or any other basic word processing software and it 
should be readable in any Microsoft product as well as vice versa. 
If part of the settlement is to provide software and equipment to 
poor schools, it should all be a competitor's product_either 
Apple or Windows plus Corel software. They should not be given a 
boost by the government in penetrating their last remaining niche.
    Another gross mistake in their software that directly negatively 
effects the government and government contractors every day is in 
their Excel software. The spreadsheets have no way of turning off 
the estimating factor so even if you preset columns to money and 
multiply by whole numbers and set the estimating to 2 decimal 
places, the software will still come up with rounding errors so that 
all columns must be checked by hand and are often sent back and 
forth several times when a simple three dollar calculator can do 
such a function with no problem. Feel free to pay the $35.00 for 
technical support who will tell you this cannot be corrected. This 
multiplied across all the government offices wastes thousands of 
hours annually in productivity. If you have any questions, please 
feel free to contact me at (703)-237-1964.
    Very truly yours,
    Linda Lee



MTC-00002227

From: Lynn H. Poulson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/26/01 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    With all respect, it seems strange to me that the way you deal 
with a monopoly is to have them "give" computers to 
school that runs their software so that the schools are forced to 
become Microsoft users and are then forced to continue to purchase 
the monopoly software in the future. Wow! That makes sense!
    Lynn H. Poulson M.Ed.
    Home and Family Studies
    Snow College
    P. O. Box 1004
    Ephraim UT 84627
    435-283-7485
    Fax: 435-284-7492
    Lynn. [email protected]



MTC-00002228

From: Chip Scheide
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/26/01 12:24pm
Subject: DOJ settlement with MS_DO NOT ACCEPT IT
    To whom it may concern,
    Follows is a summary of my position in regards to the proposed 
DOJ/MS settlement:
    I do not believe the remedies reported in the news are going to 
have the slightest impact on Microsoft's predatory marketing 
practices, and subsequent illegal abuse of monopoly power.
    Why? because the DOJ and MS came to a similar agreements in the 
previous anti-trust case, and here we are again. MS has shown that 
it can not be trusted (period). It has broken the original agreement 
between the DOJ and itself. MS intentionally tried to present 
"forged" evidence at trial, and continues to advance 
it's predatory practices into new and as yet uncharted areas.

[[Page 24055]]

    For two small examples:
    One, the case that started it all: internet browsers. Since the 
time the case started, Microsoft bundled their browser for free, and 
essentially drove all other browsers out of the market. They claim 
they have a right to do this, and that they are only serving 
consumer needs.
    But their most recent versions_including ALL browsers 
shipped with the new Windows XP_have made a significant 
change: they no longer support industry-standard third-party browser 
plug-ins for presenting specialized content, such as movies, sound, 
animation, and virtual reality. This means that third-party content 
providers, such as Real Audio, Macromedia Flash, Adobe PDF, and 
Apple QuickTime_just to name a few of the larger 
players_no longer function under Microsoft's browsers using 
the standard installation procedure. Instead, they must provide 
special installations that go through an additional layer of 
software_Active X_that Microsoft's own content 
provisioning software does not go through. This means that ordinary 
consumers will have to struggle needlessly to install third-party 
content provisioning software, but perhaps more importantly, if they 
do actually get through that struggle, the third-party plug-ins will 
run more slowly and with less capability than will Microsoft's own 
content provisioning software.
    This also means that some 90% of new computers sold cannot 
properly access any site containing content created in any of the 
above applications. Limiting consumer choice, both in sites that 
function with their browser, and software used to create content.
    Two, Windows Media Player and audio (MP3s): In the newest 
operating system (Windows XP), Microsoft has used the Active X 
software layer to EXPLICITLY cripple third party MP3 players/
recorders. They do this by limiting the quality of MP3 recording and 
playback. The only software, on Windows XP, that will record the 
best possible sound, or play back the best possible music is Windows 
Media Player.
    Windows Media Player is installed as part of the Windows XP 
operating system installation. So here we are again, Microsoft is 
"bundling" software with it's operating system, 
squeezing third party software vendors out of the market.
    How can a Third party software vendor compete? Better 
software?_sure_but the vendor needs to pay the bills and 
how do they do that, when the product needs to be given away to 
match the price of its competition. Better 
Software?_sure_but how does a vendor create that when 
the operating system on which the software is to run INTENTIONALLY 
disables access to functionality?
    Again the consumer is put at a severe disadvantage_the 
only choice of software is Microsoft. Additionally_it has 
recently been found that Windows Media Player_like most other 
Microsoft software products_has a severe security problem. 
There is a security hole in Windows Media Player, which can allow 
arbitrary, malicious code to be executed_in other words a 
virus.
    So... now consumers are forced to choose_best possible 
sound and risk a software virus destroying their software, or 
security and poor quality sound.
    All of the above and much more, has been done right under your 
collective noses while the DOJ negotiated a cushy "hand 
slap" settlement, Microsoft not only successfully extended 
their operating system monopoly into the internet browser market, 
but now they have extended their browser monopoly into the content 
provider marketplace! They have broken the law once, and while being 
penalized, have broken it again.
    Take heed of my prediction: now that Microsoft controls content 
provisioning, content will come next. Within three years, the 
average consumer with an "out of the box" computer will 
be unable to view any content that Microsoft has not provided.
    With all due respect, the Ashcroft Justice Department is asleep 
at the wheel on this one. Quit meddling with "states' 
rights" Oregon and California, and concentrate on 
appropriately punishing large, multi-national companies who are 
already convicted of breaking laws.
    Chip Scheide
    Systems Coordinator
    Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh
    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. 
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
    _William Pitt, 1783



MTC-00002229

From: Karl Brockmeyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/26/01 11:59am
Subject: Oops...Did you mean to do that?
    To whom it may concern,
    I do not kid myself that I know everything about this case, the 
government or Microsoft. But... I believe opening the road up wider 
to another market for Microsoft doesn't seem like its going to help 
end the monopoly that they have on the government, business and 
consumer worlds.
    Did you mean to do that? Or did you get manipulated into this 
settlement? Don't get me wrong I believe in helping schools. But I 
also believe that monopolies are wrong regardless on how much money 
the have and what politicians they support.
    I expected more from my government.
    Thank you for a least letting me state my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Karl Brockmeyer



MTC-00002230

From: Kennedy, Richard T
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/26/01 2:36pm
Subject: Antitrust Settlement Between the Department of Justice and 
Micros oft
    I am strongly opposed to the provision of the proposed 
settlement whereby Microsoft would "donate" hardware and 
software to schools. At first this appears to be a noble gesture. 
However, it is nothing more than a thinly disguised effort to 
monopolize yet another market, the educational one. It would be far 
preferable and fairer to other computer system manufacturers to have 
Microsoft donate money to schools and allow them to select the 
technology to be used.



MTC-00002231

From: Larry Winslow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/26/01 2:27pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement thoughts
    I haven't read the complete settlement although I did give it 
careful attention. It seems to be missing 2 items.
    1. What is going to be the punishment for Microsoft? It appears 
that they are getting off scott-free for their past monopolistic 
conduct.
    2. Shouldn't there be some compensation for those companies and/
or public who were damaged by Microsoft's conduct? I wonder how many 
companies have gone under or have been severely damaged. How much 
extra has the public had to pay for products? I read a Microsoft 
statement in the Caldera filings where Microsoft declared it could 
price things lower and still be priced competitively.
    Thanks
    Larry Winslow
    4500 Whitman Ave N
    Seattle, WA 98103



MTC-00002233

From: cmprice
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/26/01 5:09pm
    Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    [Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It 
has been converted to attachment.]
    CC: [email protected]@inetgw
From: Patrick J. Ricevuto 5129 147th PL. SE Everett, Washington 
98208 425-337-7398
    November 26, 2001
    To whom it may concern,
    First, thank you for taking the time to review my comments 
concerning the U.S vs. Microsoft Antitrust Case's Final Judgment. 
Included in the following are my questions, critiques, and comments 
on specific parts of the Final Judgment. I will start with section 
VI. Definitions, then will address the remaining sections; III. 
Prohibited Conduct through V. Termination. section VI. Definitions: 
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.
    My comment: ?server operating system product? has not been 
defined anywhere in this document.
    My solution: Specifically define ?server operating system 
product? as:
    Server Operating Systems: Microsoft(R) Small Business Server 
2000, Microsoft(R) Systems Management Server 2.0, Microsoft(R) 
Windows 2000(R) Advanced Server, Microsoft(R) Windows NT(R) Server 
4.0, Microsoft(R) Windows NT(R) Server, Enterprise Edition, 
Microsoft(R) windows(R) 2000 Server, and any future releases not 
named specifically, but created within the penalty period.
    section VI. Definitions: U: "Windows Operating System 
Product" means the

[[Page 24056]]

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.
    My comment: "Windows Operating System Product" 
definition should include ALL of Microsoft's Operating Systems: My 
solution: Define "Windows Operating System Product" as 
follows:
    Server Operating Systems: Microsoft(R) Small Business Server 
2000, Microsoft(R) Systems Management Server 2.0, Microsoft(R) 
Windows 2000(R) Advanced Server, Microsoft(R) Windows NT(R) Server 
4.0, Microsoft(R) Windows NT(R) Server, Enterprise Edition, 
Microsoft(R) Windows(R) 2000 Server,
    Operating Systems: Microsoft(R) Windows Services for UNIX, 
Microsoft(R) Windows XP Home Edition, Microsoft(R) Windows XP 
Professional, Microsoft(R) Interix 2.2, Microsoft(R) Small Business 
Server 2000, Microsoft(R) Windows Millennium Edition, Microsoft(R) 
Windows NT(R) Embedded 4.0, Microsoft(R) Windows NT(R) Workstation 
4.0, Microsoft(R) Windows(R) 2000 Professional, Microsoft(R) 
Windows(R) 95 Version Upgrade, Microsoft(R) Windows(R) 98 Second 
Edition, Microsoft(R) Windows(R) CE, Microsoft(R) Windows(R) Smart 
Card Toolkit, and any future releases not named specifically, but 
created within the penalty period. Concern#1: By starting with 
Windows 2000 Professional you have left out about 90% of all the 
Operating Systems currently in use by the public and that Microsoft 
is maintaining with continuing Service Packs.
    Concern#2: You have not mentioned any of the Server 
Operating Systems in the definition. The Consumer Operating System's 
code is just a subset of the Server Operating System code.
    Question#1: So all of them are exempt?
    III. Prohibited Conduct. B.2: the schedule may specify 
reasonable volume discounts based upon the actual volume of licenses 
of any Windows Operating System Product or any group of such 
products; and
    Question#1: Who defines reasonable? Microsoft?
    Concern#1: What if Microsoft determines that a reasonable 
volume discount is greater for company X than it is for company Y, 
to punish company Y for something Microsoft didn?t like them doing?
    My Solution: Specifically define a standard table of percentage 
discounts for numbers of actual volume of licenses, e.g. for 
10,000_20,000 licenses the volume discount would be 2% (some 
average industry number).
    III. Prohibited Conduct. B.3.b: such discounts are based on 
objective, verifiable criteria that shall be applied and enforced on 
a uniform basis for all Covered OEMs; and
    Question#1: What is the ?objective, verifiable criteria??
    Concern#1: That ?objective, verifiable criteria? is not 
specifically spelled out in this document.
    My Solution: Specifically define ?objective, verifiable 
criteria? in this document.
    Question#2: Who defines the ?objective, verifiable 
criteria?? Microsoft?
    Concern#1: That ?objective, verifiable criteria? is defined 
by Microsoft.
    My Solution: The Plaintiffs (the States, Industry Leaders, and 
Consumer Groups, none of which would be aligned with or pro-
Microsoft) should specifically define ?objective, verifiable 
criteria? in this document.
    III. Prohibited Conduct. C.1:
    Installing, and displaying icons, shortcuts, or menu entries 
for, any Non-Microsoft Middleware or any product or service 
(including but not limited to IAP products or services) that 
distributes, uses, promotes, or supports any Non-Microsoft 
Middleware, on the desktop or Start menu, or icons, shortcuts, or 
menu entries for applications are generally displayed, 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, 
provided that the restrictions are non-discriminatory with respect 
to non-Microsoft and Microsoft products.
    Question#1: Who defines ?types of functionality?? Microsoft?
    Concern#1: That ?types of functionality? is not specifically 
spelled out in this document.
    My Solution: The Plaintiffs (the States, Industry Leaders, and 
Consumer Groups, none of which would be aligned with or pro-
Microsoft) should specifically define ?types of functionality? in 
this document.
    III. Prohibited Conduct. D:
    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. In the case of a new major 
version of Microsoft Middleware, 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.
    Question#1: Who defines? Timely Manner?? Microsoft?
    Concern#1: That ?Timely Manner? is not specifically spelled 
out in this document.
    My Solution: Specifically define ?Timely Manner? in this 
document to be the same as a new major version of Microsoft 
Middleware: ?shall occur no later than the last major beta test 
release of that Microsoft Operating System Product?.
    Question#1: What is the definition of Beta test?
    Concern#1: That ?Beta test? is not specifically spelled out 
in this document.
    My Solution: Specifically define ?Beta test? in this document to 
be the same as the Industry understands it (the last stage of 
testing before the product is released for consumer purchase).
    III. Prohibited Conduct. F.2:
    Microsoft shall not enter into any agreement relating to a 
Windows Operating System Product that conditions the grant of any 
Consideration on an ISV's refraining from developing, using, 
distributing, or promoting any software that competes with Microsoft 
Platform Software or any software that runs on any software that 
competes with Microsoft Platform Software, except that Microsoft may 
enter into agreements that place limitations on an ISV's 
development, use, distribution or promotion of any such software if 
those limitations are reasonably necessary to and of reasonable 
scope and duration in relation to a bona fide contractual obligation 
of the ISV to use, distribute or promote any Microsoft software or 
to develop software for, or in conjunction with, Microsoft.
    Question#1: Who defines the ?reasonably necessary to and of 
reasonable scope and duration?? Microsoft?
    Concern#1: That ?reasonably necessary to and of reasonable 
scope and duration? is defined by Microsoft.
    My Solution: The Plaintiffs (the States, Industry Leaders, and 
Consumer Groups, none of which would be aligned with or pro-
Microsoft) should specifically define ?reasonably necessary to and 
of reasonable scope and duration? in this document.
    III. Prohibited Conduct. G.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, or
    Comment#1: Microsoft has already been proven to act in BAD 
faith, that's why this document was created. They should not be 
allowed to make that judgment themselves.
    III. Prohibited Conduct. G:
    Nothing in this section shall prohibit Microsoft from entering 
into (a) any bona fide joint venture or (b) any joint development or 
joint services arrangement with any ISV, IHV, IAP, ICP, or OEM for a 
new product, technology or service, or any material value-add to an 
existing product, technology or service, in which both Microsoft and 
the ISV, IHV, IAP, ICP, or OEM contribute significant developer or 
other resources, that prohibits such entity from competing with the 
object of the joint venture or other arrangement for a reasonable 
period of time.
    Question#1: What in this document is going to prevent 
Microsoft from entering into a bona fide joint venture, etc. and 
using that

[[Page 24057]]

?ownership? as a way of forcing the OEM, etc. to do what Microsoft 
wants?
    My Solution: The Plaintiffs (the States, Industry Leaders, and 
Consumer Groups, none of which would be aligned with or pro-
Microsoft) should be allowed to scrutinize all of Microsofts joint 
venture, etc. proposals, before they are entered into, and all 
through their existence.
    III. Prohibited Conduct. H.1:
    Allow end users (via a mechanism readily accessible from the 
desktop or Start menu such as an Add/Remove icon) and OEMs (via 
standard preinstallation kits) to enable or remove access to each 
Microsoft Middleware Product or Non-Microsoft Middleware Product by 
(a) displaying or removing icons, shortcuts, or menu entries on the 
desktop or Start menu, or anywhere else in a Windows Operating 
System Product where a list of icons, shortcuts, or menu entries for 
applications are generally displayed, except that Microsoft may 
restrict the display of icons, shortcuts, or 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; and (b) enabling or disabling automatic 
invocations pursuant to Section III.C.3 of this Final Judgment that 
are used to launch Non-Microsoft Middleware Products or Microsoft 
Middleware Products. The mechanism shall offer the end user a 
separate and unbiased choice with respect to enabling or removing 
access (as described in this subsection III.H.1) and altering 
default invocations (as described in the following subsection 
III.H.2) with regard to each such Microsoft Middleware Product or 
Non-Microsoft Middleware Product and may offer the end-user a 
separate and unbiased choice of enabling or removing access and 
altering default configurations as to all Microsoft Middleware 
Products as a group or all Non-Microsoft Middleware Products as a 
group.
    Question#1: Who defines ?types of functionality?? Microsoft?
    Concern#1: That ?types of functionality? is not specifically 
spelled out in this document.
    My Solution: The Plaintiffs (the States, Industry Leaders, and 
Consumer Groups, none of which would be aligned with or pro-
Microsoft) should specifically define ?types of functionality? in 
this document.
    III. Prohibited Conduct. H.2 (the second 2):
    that designated Non-Microsoft Middleware Product fails to 
implement a reasonable technical requirement (e.g., a requirement to 
be able to host a particular ActiveX control) that is necessary for 
valid technical reasons to supply the end user with functionality 
consistent with a Windows Operating System Product, provided that 
the technical reasons are described in a reasonably prompt manner to 
any ISV that requests them.
    Question#1: Who defines ?reasonable technical requirement?? 
Microsoft?
    Concern#1: That ?reasonable technical requirement? is not 
specifically spelled out in this document.
    My Solution: The Plaintiffs (the States, Industry Leaders, and 
Consumer Groups, none of which would be aligned with or pro-
Microsoft) should specifically define ?reasonable technical 
requirement? in this document.
    Comment#1: This is exactly how Microsoft gains control of 
the market for a piece of software. They require the developer to 
use Microsoft's proprietary code for a specific function to work.
    III. Prohibited Conduct. J and J.1:
    No provision of this Final Judgment shall: Require Microsoft to 
document, disclose or license to third parties: (a) portions of APIs 
or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols 
the disclosure of which would compromise the security of a 
particular installation or group of installations of anti-piracy, 
anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, 
encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation, 
keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or (b) any API, 
interface or other information related to any Microsoft product if 
lawfully directed not to do so by a governmental agency of competent 
jurisdiction.
    Question#1: Who determines if it would ?compromise the 
security of a particular installation...?? Microsoft?
    Concern#1: That Microsoft can add ?security code? to any 
piece of code in any product, which would in effect, make this whole 
document null and void.
    My Solution: The Plaintiffs (the States, Industry Leaders, and 
Consumer Groups, none of which would be aligned with or pro-
Microsoft) should specifically define ?compromise the security of a 
particular installation...? in this document.
    IV. Compliance and Enforcement Procedures. A.2.a & b:
    Access during normal office hours to inspect any and all source 
code, books, ledgers, accounts, correspondence, memoranda and other 
documents and records in the possession, custody, or control of 
Microsoft, which may have counsel present, regarding any matters 
contained in this Final Judgment. Subject to the reasonable 
convenience of Microsoft and without restraint or interference from 
it, to interview, informally or on the record, officers, employees, 
or agents of Microsoft, who may have counsel present, regarding any 
matters contained in this Final Judgment.
    Question#1: Can counsel advise Microsoft not to make its 
code available to the Plaintiffs? Or is counsel in a passive role?
    IV. Compliance and Enforcement Procedures. A.4:
    The Plaintiffs shall have the authority to seek such orders as 
are necessary from the Court to enforce this Final Judgment, 
provided, however, that the Plaintiffs shall afford Microsoft a 
reasonable opportunity to cure alleged violations of Sections III.C, 
III.D, III.E and III.H, provided further that any action by 
Microsoft to cure any such violation shall not be a defense to 
enforcement with respect to any knowing, willful or systematic 
violations.
    Question#1: Why is Microsoft given ?reasonable opportunity 
to cure alleged violations??
    My Solution#1: Microsoft should NOT be allowed to ?cure 
alleged violations?. They should be punished immediately. That is 
why this document was written.
    Question#2: Why are only Sections III.C, III.D, III.E and 
III.H mentioned?
    My Solution#1: Any violation of any section in this document 
should be punishable immediately. That is why this document was 
written.
    IV. Compliance and Enforcement Procedures. B.2.a & b & 
c:
    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.
    Question#1: Why shouldn?t the TC members have a conflict of 
interest?
    My Solution#1: All the TC members should be either neutral 
or biased AGAINST Microsoft to ensure the toughest possible 
scrutiny. They don't necessarily have to act on every violation they 
find, but they should find ALL of them.
    IV. Compliance and Enforcement Procedures. 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. The selection 
and approval process shall proceed as follows.
    Question#1: Why should Microsoft have any representation on 
the TC?
    My Solution#1: All the TC members should be either neutral 
or biased AGAINST Microsoft to ensure the toughest possible 
scrutiny. Microsoft should not have in any way, the means to delay, 
prevent, etc. any ability to scrutinize, find, disclose, etc. any 
violations. That's what this document is all about.
    Comment#1: The way it is set up now, you would get the 
following TC members: 1 possibly biased against Microsoft (the 
Plaintiffs choice. Note: if this includes the U.S. Justice 
Department then this is probably biased for Microsoft). 1 completely 
biased for Microsoft (the Microsoft choice). 1 probably biased for 
Microsoft (since the world in 90% Microsoft OS's) So that's 2 pro 
Microsoft TC members who are supposed to be watching for Microsoft 
violations.
    IV. Compliance and Enforcement Procedures. B.5:
    If the United States determines that a member of the TC has 
failed to act diligently and consistently with the purposes of this 
Final Judgment, or if a member of the TC resigns, or for any other 
reason ceases to serve in his or her capacity as a member of the TC, 
the person or persons that originally selected the TC member shall 
select a

[[Page 24058]]

replacement member in the same manner as provided for in Section 
IV.B.3.
    Question#1: Why should the U.S. determine that a member of 
the TC failed to act...?
    My Solution#1: It should be the Plaitiffs, excluding the 
U.S. Justice Department, that determines that a member of the TC 
failed to act...
    IV. Compliance and Enforcement Procedures. C.1:
    Microsoft shall designate, within 30 days of entry of this Final 
Judgment, an internal Compliance Officer who shall be an employee of 
Microsoft with responsibility for administering Microsoft's 
antitrust compliance program and helping to ensure compliance with 
this Final Judgment.
    Question#1: Why should Microsoft designate an internal 
Compliance Officer who shall be an employee of Microsoft...?
    My Solution#1: It should be the Plaintiffs, excluding the 
U.S. Justice Department, that designate an internal Compliance 
Officer, who is NOT an employee of Microsoft...
    IV. Compliance and Enforcement Procedures. C.3.g:
    Receiving complaints from third parties, the TC and the 
Plaintiffs concerning Microsoft's compliance with this Final 
Judgment and following the appropriate procedures set forth in 
Section IV.D below; and
    Question#1: How does this prevent the Microsoft employee 
(Compliance Officer) from filtering the complaints?
    My Solution#1: It should be the Plaintiffs, excluding the 
U.S. Justice Department, that designate an internal Compliance 
Officer, who is NOT an employee of Microsoft...
    V. Termination. A:
    Unless this Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment will 
expire on the fifth anniversary of the date it is entered by the 
Court.
    Question#1: Why, and How, was 5 years chosen?
    Comment#1: This is NOT long enough. Microsoft has been 
violating antitrust laws for years.
    My Solution: At a minimum, they should be punished for the same 
amount of years that they have been violating the antitrust laws, so 
their competitors can make up the lost ground.
    V. Termination. B:
    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 Judgment of up to two years, together with 
such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
    Question#1: Why, and How, was just a one-time extension of 
this Final Judgment of up to two years chosen?
    My Solution: Both should be changed as follows: 'one-time 
extension' should be at least a three time extension, and 
'two years' should at least be 5 years. Other Questions:
    Question#1: What are the current penalties for all of the 
years of violating the antitrust laws? Nothing?
    My Solution: They should be penalized 80% of their cash holdings 
as of today. The monies should be made available as Hi Tech Venture 
Capital. This will accomplish a couple of things:
    1) Will punish Microsoft, but not destroy them, by taking away 
their ability to control the markets with their huge cash reserves.
    2) Will deplete their reserve monies that were gotten illegally.
    3) Will provide money to create new markets, via Venture 
capital, that will compete with Microsoft.
    Question#2: Where, in this document, are the penalties for 
future violations of the antitrust laws? Go back to Court for 
another 4 years?
    My Solution: Define in this document a monetary fine for each 
type of violation in addition to going to court for more punishment.
    Other Comments:
    This is about justice, not economics!
    The attempt to make this an economic argument is disingenuous.
    Punishing Microsoft will NOT hurt the economy. It will help the 
economy.
    There will be hundreds of new companies, with new products, that 
will not be afraid that Microsoft will either steal, intimidate them 
out of, or buy their ideas. That's what we lost all of those years 
that Microsoft was allowed to violate antitrust laws. The market 
place will continue to prosper, as long as the entrepreneurs are not 
afraid of losing their original ideas.
    Sincerely,
    Pat Ricevuto email: [email protected] 11-26-01.



MTC-00002234

From: Edward Rapka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/26/01 2:40pm
Subject: Comment on AntiTrust settlement [Text body exceeds maximum 
size of message body (8192 bytes). It has been converted to 
attachment.]
    Gentlemen:
    It's my understanding that you are accepting comments regarding 
the Microsoft Antitrust Settlement. Please allow me to express my 
thoughts on the matter. I have been both a personal and professional 
user of a variety of computer systems for over twenty years now, and 
have tried to remain informed on the various issues in both a 
technical and an economic sense. I now find that there may be a 
political element involved here, as well. It has been a cause of 
growing concern for me over the past few years that the almost 
overwhelming coopting of especially the desktop market by Microsoft 
is has been so uncritically accepted as a fact of life. I'm 
concerned because such dominance of such a vitally important area by 
a single corporate entity cannot possibly be considered beneficial, 
and could easily lead to abuses. I'm reminded of the situtation 
regarding Standard Oil that originally led to the institution of the 
antitrust statutes: a single organization that could impose its 
corporate will into the marketplace. A comparable situation would be 
a single manufacturer of automobiles being able to dominate the 
transportation field. Even where other modes of transport still 
existed such as busses and trains (compare the niche operating 
systems in the computer world such as gnu/linux and OS/2), such an 
all-powerful entity could in short order specify that only a single 
brand of gasoline could be used in its engines, and that its cars 
could only be driven on approved highways. Such restrictive control 
on the major means of transportation would effectively place an iron 
lock control on virtually every avenue of commerce involving the 
moving of people and goods. One corporation would exert more 
effective power than the Congress of the U.S. and the President 
combined!
    This is hardly an exaggerated example. Just such a situation is 
being foreshadowed by the dominance of the Microsoft-owned Windows 
OS in many areas, such as internet commerce, communications and the 
replacement of broadcast entertainment channels with restricted 
computer-centric avenues. Just as we need a competitive environment 
among automobile manufacturers, we need a competitive situation in 
the i-commerce world we are fast moving into. Otherwise a single 
entity will become the gateway through which all commerce passes. 
Not only will they be able to impose whatever fees they wish, but 
they would also be able to subtly (or not so subtly) restrict access 
by any persons or companies deemed, perhaps, unsuitable. How can an 
unrestricted Redmond monolith impose its will in this brave new 
world? Well, consider just for a single example Microsoft's recent 
election to abandon support of third-party plug-ins in their 
Internet Explorer browser, which has an overwhelming dominance in 
the market. In a single sweeping move, they have effectively 
excluded dozens of what were to this moment industry-standard 
technologies for the presentation of content such as sound, movies, 
animation and 3-D. These are technologies developed by non-Microsoft 
companies, which are in many ways far superior to the mechanisms 
Redmond is offering, including such media as Apple Quicktime movies, 
Real Audio and Video, Macromedia Flash, and even Adobe Portable 
Document Format. All these technologies will no longer function the 
moment IE is upgraded with the latest servicepack from Microsoft, 
which simply breaks them (and for no good reason other than it's a 
handy way to gently move people toward MS's own versions). Suppose 
in future years Microsoft elects to stop supporting standard 
networking protocols in favor of its own propriety versions, which 
it might easily advertise as "more secure." The existing 
infrastructure of the computer world would be upset in an instant 
and a huge percentage of existing systems would instantly become 
obsoleted and unuseable. By unilaterally dismissing a well-
established technology as "no longer suitable" for use 
with its operating systems, Microsoft would cause millions of 
consumers to be immediately disenfranchised until they were prepared 
(both intellectually and financially) to accommodate the edict of 
the month. The impact on the already faltering economy of the 
country would be devastating (not to mention the devastation caused 
by the sudden spike in solid waste disposal of obsolete equipment!). 
By allowing Microsoft to continue its monopoly position

[[Page 24059]]

unchecked, the DoJ is making such a scenario an unavoidable economic 
disaster.
    In addition, in now re-coding existing and proven technologies 
so they will continue to work in their upgraded versions, a 
proprietary protocol known as "Active-X" must be used. 
This protocol is dangerously unsecure in that it can easily conceal 
viruses and other dangerous code that will allow a variety of 
unpleasant or even destructive things to be secretly encoded into 
innocent-looking movies, sound files and animations by vandals, 
crackers and even terrorists bent on destroying computer systems. In 
the IT field, it is a well-established fact that Microsoft software 
is excessively vulnerable to this kind of secret tampering (both due 
to its inherent weaknesses and to the fact that it is so prevalent 
in the marketplace). It also means that these third-party plug-ins 
will now have to work through yet another layer of code, which will 
slow them down and make them appear to be less efficient than their 
Microsoft counterparts, even in those cases where they are 
inherently faster and superior (again, Quicktime is a perfect 
example, being a faster and superior mechanism for displaying motion 
pictures on a computer screen than MS's own Real Media Player).
    This will also mean that both new and existing computers that 
get upgraded will no longer be able to access many existing internet 
websites that rely on these tried-and-true technologies, such as 
JavaScript, the Java language, Quicktime and a host of other 
languages and protocols which have been adopted over the past ten 
years. This will instantly exclude a large percentage of the 
commercial marketplace and the average citizen from participation in 
the burgeoning i-commerce area, without extensive (and expensive) 
retooling of their websites and i-commerce engines. Microsoft is 
effectively using its market domination to impose special controls 
and requirements on any entities that wish to use the internet, 
requirements that can very easily be withheld, withdrawn, or 
excessively charged for in the very near future.
    Imagine a commercial marketplace wherein no vendor could market 
his wares without the sanction of the Redmond giant, who could 
easily decide that a particular product or service was, for whatever 
reason, not in the best interests of the economy, the country, or 
perhaps Microsoft's own monopoly position. It would be akin to 
saying that only approved people could use American currency for 
their commercial transactions; all others would need to use the 
barter system.
    With no consideration of such consequences in the recently 
approved settlement, you are allowing Microsoft not only to 
successfully extend their operating system monopoly into internet 
commerce, but also into the realm of the content provider. Not only 
have they effectively gotten away with breaking the law, in not 
being called on their moves the Justice Department is setting up the 
game for them to easily break it again.
    Quite simply, it is not an unreasonable projection that within a 
few years, the average consumer (the kind of person without the 
smarts to understand how an operating system works and tinker with 
it) will simply be unable to view any content that Microsoft has not 
either provided or at least sanctioned with their corporate 
blessing!
    Is this the kind of situation we wish to set up? We are 
currently raising enormous security consciousness so we will not 
once again be blindsided by foreign nationals intent on bringing 
down our American economic system. Do we really wish to lay the 
groundwork for this great system to be subverted from within our own 
shores by a corporate giant with a single goal in mind: to wrest 
total control over all economic transactions being made using any 
form of computer, whether on a desktop, in a corporate environment, 
or using internet connectivity? In my opinion, we should not. The 
correct remedies should be to impose reasonable limitations on 
Microsoft's ability to impose mandates on operating systems, 
internet communication protocols, and interactivity involving 
commerce, entertainment and personal productivity softwares. If it 
is considered not feasible to break up the giant in the same way 
Standard Oil and AT&T were, there should at least be legally 
enforceable mandates that Microsoft open up a portion of its 
operating system coding to third-party developers, legally 
enforceable mandates that they accomodate what is known as 
"open source" development wherein many people contribute 
to the improvement of software products for the benefit of all 
users, and legally enforceable mandates that future upgrades of the 
Windows operating system continue to accomodate universal standard 
protocols such as TCP/IP, JavaScript, HTML and XHTML, and others 
currently being considered by internet oversight organizations and 
future-looking innovators.
    The idea that Microsoft and Microsoft alone should be the sole 
purveyor of "innovation" is, in the vernacular, 
bullshit. True innovation has given us the internet as we know it. 
The kind of innovation that Redmond proposes will just as surely 
take it away from us and impose the kind of strictures and 
limitations that lead to stagnation and attrition, while denying the 
citizens of America (and the rest of the world) the enormous 
potential benefits of the computer/internet revolution.
    As a concerned citizen who has thought long and hard about this 
matter, I strongly urge the Department of Justice to impose as 
stringent a set of controls and restrictions upon the Microsoft 
Corporation as allowed by the law, for the benefit of my fellow 
citizens of this great country, its own economic security and the 
continued prosperity of both the United States and the planet Earth.
    Edward A. Rapka 14110 Valerio St. Van Nuys, California



MTC-00002235

From: Jon Callas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/26/01 7:16pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft School Donation Plan
    I am shocked an appalled that this would happen. One of the few 
places where there is still some semblance of competition for 
computers is in schools, where it is common to see non-Microsoft 
systems. Having Microsoft give schools computers and software for 
free helps them, it does not punish them.
    It helps them two ways: (1) It puts more Microsoft systems in 
place, thus furthering their monopoly. (2) The marginal cost of 
software is close to zero. Once you have created the software, the 
cost of a copy is close to zero. Thus they get to appear to be 
"fined" when in fact they are giving something that 
costs nothing to produce.



MTC-00002238

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/26/01 8:02pm
Subject: AntiTrust settlement
    Dear sirs,
    As a professional in the high-tech arena for a decade, I am very 
disappointed with your recent decision to cave in on the Microsoft 
anti-trust suit. You have proven that they have improperly used 
their monopoly to inhibit competition, and that they are not above 
lying and introducing false evidence into a court of law. 
Furthermore, they have a history of reneging on previously 
negotiated settlements_and there are no real teeth in this 
agreement to force them to obey the law. I strongly dissapprove of 
this settlement and would rather see fundamental changes at 
Microsoft that would allow free competition.
    Sincerely,
    Drew McCormick
    Product Marketing Consultant



MTC-00002239

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/26/01 7:35pm
Subject: I object to the proposed terms
    To Whom it concerns,
    Thank you for providing the opportunity for consumers to email 
opinions regarding the Department of Justice's proposed settlement 
with Microsoft. While I think the most of the proposed settlement is 
rather anti-climatic, I am extremely disturbed by one particular 
aspect of the proposed terms: WASHINGTON_Microsoft said on 
Tuesday it had reached a deal to settle a raft of private antitrust 
cases against the company, which sources said would cost the 
software firm more than a billion dollars.
    The agreement with class action attorneys would require the 
company, which agreed to settle its separate 3-year-old case with 
the Justice Department earlier this month, to provide free software 
and computers to more than 14,000 of the poorest U.S. schools over 
five years, sources close to the case said.
    This is, quite simply, shocking! How is Microsoft's monopoly 
position weakened if they are "forced" to distribute 
more product, thus enlarging a monopoly position?! I suppose 
Microsoft will also be permitted to write this off as a 
"donation" from their taxes? This is hardly a punishment 
for an unbelievably cash-rich company that has been labeled by our 
courts to be a monopoly!
    The correct penalty is for Microsoft to purchase a billion 
dollars in software,

[[Page 24060]]

operating systems and hardware FROM THEIR COMPETITORS to place in 
these poorest schools! The competitors are the ones who have been 
hurt by the illegal practices of Microsoft and therefore deserve to 
receive some benefit! This trial was about Microsoft's illegal 
competitive practices against the Netscape browser, not to mention 
the many examples of Microsoft's unfair practices that were 
demonstrated during the trial. Netscape was nearly destroyed by 
Microsoft, having lost at least 60% of their browser share over the 
past 3 years. For this reason, the Department of Justic must not 
allow Microsoft to place the Internet Explorer browser in schools. 
And since Microsoft has "commingled" the Internet 
Explorer browser code into the coding of the many flavors of Windows 
operating systems (XP, ME, 98, etc.) it is clearly inappropriate to 
permit any Windows operating system to be "donated."
    Please, don't let Microsoft walk away once again from their 
blatant unlawful behavior with another slap on the wrist. I just 
know they are sitting in their ivory towers laughing right now.
    Sincerely yours,
    Mary L. Paul Steward



MTC-00002240

From: Christopher Gebhardt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/26/01 9:55pm
Subject: Comments on the Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    As a student of computer engineering who has followed the 
progress of the Microsoft anti-trust case from the beginning, I 
would like to voice my disappointment with a couple aspects of the 
proposed settlement. Although I believe that Microsoft's unethical 
business tactics should be punished monetarily and with regulations 
on OEM pricing and licensing, these are not solutions to the root of 
Microsoft's monopolist power. The real issue is a more technical 
one.
    Microsoft's ability to twist the arm of the market into buying 
its software comes primarily from its proprietary file 
formats_most prominently, those used by Microsoft Office. The 
MS Office file formats, such as for word processing (.doc) or 
spreadsheets (.xls), are merely a "map" for storing the 
data generated by their respective programs. Proprietary file 
formats do not give Microsoft products any technological advantage 
in the software market. Instead, they are merely a means to keep 
competing software from being able to properly load and modify 
documents created by Microsoft Office.
    As a result of proprietary file formats used in Microsoft 
programs, customers who already use MS Office (or who must 
communicate documents with people who do) are unable to switch to 
competing products. Most of this competing software is just as 
capable, if not superior, to Microsoft's own, but is unusable to 
many people simply because it cannot properly import data from 
Microsoft's programs. Because Microsoft has kept it's file format 
"roadmaps" secret, competitors and free software 
projects are unable to provide the compatibility necessary to win 
customers.
    I believe that the solution to this issue is very clear and 
should be added to the anti-trust settlement. I propose that 
Microsoft be forced to publish, on its public web site, the full 
specifications and details of all current, previous, and future file 
formats used by Microsoft Office software. This remedy need not 
include any Microsoft source code, rather only plain-English 
technical documentation. Such information would allow competitors to 
extend their software to be fully compatible with Microsoft Office 
file formats_although this information should also be made 
freely available to the public so that charitable free software 
projects may benefit from MS Office compatibility. Please 
thoughtfully consider what I have proposed and feel free to respond 
via e-mail with any questions or comments.
    Thank you. And may God bless America!
    Christopher Gebhardt
    [email protected]



MTC-00002241

From: Ed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/26/01 8:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement
    I have read of the implications of the settlement of the Anti-
Trust case against Microsoft. I understand this email address 
requests comments on the outcome of that case.
    I have been working with computers in education for about 23 
years. I've taught with systems from dialup mainframes with time 
sharing to today's Pentium systems. I understand that the market 
votes with their purchases of software and operating systems. 
However, I am very concerned about any action that would actually 
encourage additional marketshare for any one company.
    If one of the terms of the settlement is to let the company 
"donate" computers and software to schools, I fail to 
see how this "makes up" for any alleged wrongdoing. It 
appears to actually enhance the problem that the lawsuit seemed to 
address. Schools with donated Microsoft software may be less likely 
to use alternate operating systems or applications, and this simply 
adds to the "repeat business" that will add to the 
market share and create an even larger base of Microsoft customers. 
There are already many problems that arise due to Microsoft 
dominance, and any remedy should encourage a broader base of 
platforms and software options, rather than narrowing the options 
available to users. A better solution would be a donation of 
equivalent funds to schools, and let the schools "vote" 
for what is right for their school. Reduced funding for schools 
choosing products other than those from Microsoft forces the schools 
into a one-way decision process.
    I have found that by using systems outside the 
"mainstream," we have avoided many of the problems that 
other users experience. Several of the issues we have avoided are 
the viruses so prevalent in the Windows world, the security issues 
often mentioned with servers and networking devices, and overall 
quality issues. I am concerned about a world where the Passport 
system becomes "required" defacto to do business on the 
Internet and where one day we become so dependent on one company to 
provide all the software we need. If the "mainstream" 
becomes the "only stream," we may have fewer choices, 
quality may be lowered, and consumer options become limited.
    Ed Palmer
    4210 McGregor
    Dripping Springs, TX 78620



MTC-00002243

From: Glenn Gardiner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 1:24am
Subject: Microsoft Sellout
    To Whom It May Concern:
    The so called settlement is an embarrassment. Nobody has been 
able to control Microsoft during it's entire existence. What makes 
you think I believe a couple of "overseers" sitting in 
an office will have any effect upon Microsofts behavior and actions. 
The now spin less Justice Department did nothing to delay restrict 
or stop the release of Mocrosoft Office XP. This settlement is 
basically what was decreed in an earlier acton brought against 
Microsoft and Microsoft ignored it. This is a completely usless 
settlement. How stupid are the people running the Justice Department 
under President Bush? I have read that the governments position that 
breaking up Microsoft would do grevious harm to the economy. Why 
doesn't the government care what Microsoft has has done to dozens, 
possible hundreds of other companies. Apparenty, it is not enough to 
be declared a monopoly. Apparently, the lesson to be learned is that 
you must make yourself so big that it no longer matters how many 
companies you destroy on your way to the top. Nice lesson for all 
those "Young Republicans"
    Respectfully.
    Glenn Gardiner



MTC-00002244

From: Richard T. Kennedy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/26/01 11:42pm
Subject: Antitrust Settlement Between the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft
    I am strongly opposed to the provision of the proposed 
settlement whereby Microsoft would "donate" hardware and 
software to schools. At first this appears to be a noble gesture. 
However, it is nothing more than a thinly disguised effort to 
monopolize yet another market, the educational one. It would be far 
preferable and fairer to other computer system manufacturers to have 
Microsoft donate money to schools and allow them to select the 
technology to be used.
    Richard Kennedy
    18825 6th Avenue Southwest
    Normandy Park, WA 98166-3978



MTC-00002245

From: kbiz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/26/01 10:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
    US Dept. of Justice-Microsoft Anti-trust comments:
    I consider myself an average American. My father, my brother and 
I all received Honorable Discharges from full enlistments in either 
the US Marine Corps or the US Navy. And, having almost 40 years of 
technical and management experience in Computers and 
Telecommunications

[[Page 24061]]

 technologies with several of our largest corporations, I feel an 
urgency to speak in the face of threatening censorship and secret 
political employee profiling.
    America is sick and despondent with the loss of it's freedom and 
impending doom to her dream. At a time when ad agencies dictate to 
the US Congress and representative government have generally sold 
the American Dream down the river, it is indeed a stretch to ask for 
your compliance to uphold the law, placing your family and career at 
risk. But, Microsoft and company have brought tyranny to the 
American consciousness in ways that Bin Laden and our would be 
destroyers only dream about_the end of freedom_the end 
of the American Dream is in sight. Read the Global 
media_Microsoft is E V I L.
    Microsoft's family of crime should not only be splintered beyond 
recognition, but these criminal perpetrators should receive the just 
rewards of any terrorist hoodlums. They have accomplished through 
conspiracy and larceny what no outside terrorist can or will do to 
America, by destroying the freedom and spirit of the American 
workplace from within. Microsoft has left a trail of tears and 
broken laws, dismembered hearts and withered creativity; an 
infection, a collection of rotten, tainted, stolen 
technologies_the ghost in the machine beckons and cries out 
for justice.
    Now, we all work for the crime family regardless of our beliefs. 
The Quality principles of America's National Treasure, Dr. W. 
Edwards Deming, which brought us unrivaled teamwork and prosperity 
have been co-opted, distorted and twisted to serve a demonic 
ideology. A continuous stream of disasters is ample evidence of 
Quality draining from the American infrastructure.
    Without real choice, we are just slaves. Without choice, there 
is only propaganda. Without this basic choice, American 
consciousness will be divided in digital warfare for the century to 
come, unless of course, she succumbs to grim tyranny altogether.
    Please, in this 11th hour of our freedom, try to preserve the 
dream that so many in our families have fought and died for. Thank 
you for your time and consideration,
    Kenneth Brauchler
    2295 Redwood Ave.
    Lafayette, Co. 80026



MTC-00002246

From: r(u)hodg Hodgson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 3:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have just red Microsoft's offer and I personally feel that it 
is a very good offer. I will be greatly disapointed if it is turned 
down. These are just my thoughts. Thank you for your time and 
indulgence.
    Yours respectfuly, Robert K. Hodgson;



MTC-00002247

From: Florian Dejako
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/27/01 2:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This case should not be settled under these conditions for 
reasons already stated enough on various web sites, news articles, 
and countless other emails you received from many other people.
    Florian Dejako



MTC-00002248

From: Robert Bogar
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/27/01 2:18am
Subject:
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a voting resident of the county of El Dorado in the State 
of California, United States of America. I am a working computing 
professional. I've just read the news on the proposed one billion 
dollar settlement. I am against this settlement with Microsoft.
    As I understand the deal, this seems to me to be very much in 
favor of Microsoft. In addition to few to no changes to their 
behavior, a portion of the punishment is, in fact, a real benefit to 
them. The resolution including the dissemination of their software 
and compatible hardware, training to use their products, and loads 
of their often bundled software, seems to fly in the face of the 
very point of the trial.
    They have been declared a monopoly for illegal tactics that were 
specifically meant to increase their market share, for bundling 
products for free to get market share, and for illegally blocking 
other's products to gain market share, and now, a good portion of 
the settlement specifically increases their market share of both the 
OS and their bundled products.
    I believe this settlement should be declined. Microsoft has once 
again gained the upper hand and will only benefit. The settlement 
should be made in order to change their behavior, this does nothing 
to address their behavior and will not change it in the future, 
allowing them to continue to bilk the public.
    Robert Bogar
    CC to:
    California: [email protected]
    Connecticut: [email protected]
    Florida: [email protected]
    Iowa: [email protected]
    Kansas: [email protected]
    Massachusetts: [email protected]
    Minnesota: [email protected]
    Utah: [email protected]
    West Virginia: [email protected]
    CC:[email protected] 
@inetgw,attorney.gener...



MTC-00002249

From: George Verkler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 8:24am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I will start this out by saying that I am an Apple user/
supporter. So to this end I am biased as I feel they make the better 
OS/Equipment. However, when it comes down to the merits of this 
settlement I feel you are encourageing Microsoft to continue their 
already legally detemined illegal monopolistic practices. In the 
long term what will happen is;
    Schools so chosen will require upgrades to both equipment and 
software. They will of course go straight to Microsoft as that is 
what they have already and will be less expensive than purchasing 
all new equipment and software.
    Students will have the Microsoft logo in front of them all the 
time, at a time in their life where they are the most suceptible to 
influences. When they have an opportunity to purchase their own 
system they will probably, not necessecarilly, go with a Windows OS 
machine.
    This settlement pushes the monopoly further. They will gain 
market share now and make money from it in the future. Not trying to 
toot Apples horn on this, but this forces Apple OUT of the market in 
these areas that you are planning on having Microsoft pay thier 
penalty to. As I said, this encourages a more and bigger monopoly.
    I feel that if you penalize them, it should be a penalty and not 
a money making proposition. Make them purchase competeing systems. 
Hands down Apple is overall better. More cost effective to own, 
easier to maintain, easier to network, more creative tools. But if 
you think that isn't fair, at least let the school systems decide 
what they want to put in their schools. And make sure there is no 
pressure applied either way. Let the schools research to determine 
what would be in their best interest. Here is a page to help in that 
thought.
    (http://homepage.mac.com/mac_vs_pc/Intro.html)
    My whole premis is that if you are judged guilty of a crime you 
should be punished. I don't think this settlement punishes. It 
instead pushes the monopoly that you fought to prove, further into 
our lives.
    Thank you
    George Verkler



MTC-00002250

From: Chris O'Rourke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 7:17am
Subject: settlement?
    This settlement can only benefit Microsoft and likely to further 
entrench its monopoly.
    Microsoft stands to increase its presence in schools, and 
decrease Apple's share in the market.The end result will only serve 
to increase Microsoft's share and influence in the education market. 
Unless of course they allow schools to choose the software that they 
use. Even more American workers_not to mention those in 
Australia_will receive greater exposure to Microsoft products 
which will benefit Microsoft for many years to come.
    In my opinion this settlement will likely have no impact on 
Microsoft's anti-competitive practices.
    And it does nothing to bridge the digital divide outside the US.
    Chris O'Rourke
    Bathurst NSW Australia.



MTC-00002251

From: Joseph Holmes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 8:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Comments
    I write to oppose the settlement with Microsoft. The deal favors 
Microsoft so strongly that I find I'm actually shocked. The

[[Page 24062]]

 arrangement will clearly not only fail to correct Microsoft's 
illegal activity, it will actually serve to benefit Microsoft. 
Microsoft was found to be practicing illegal, monopolistic behavior 
for tactics that served to increase their market share, for bundling 
free products to gain market share, and for illegally blocking 
other's products to gain market share.
    And yet, the proposed settlement will have the ironic result of 
increasing Microsoft's market share of both the OS and bundled 
products. As just one obvious example, Microsoft has long struggled 
to gain a serious foothold in the education market, one of the few 
markets it does not yet overwhelmingly control. Incredibly, the 
proposed settlement would result in an increase in Microsoft's share 
of that market.
    The settlement should be rejected.
    Joseph Holmes
    CC:[email protected] 
@inetgw,attorney.gener...



MTC-00002252

From: Dave Koziol
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/27/01 8:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm writing to complain that a significant piece of the proposed 
Microsoft settlement does nothing but further the Microsoft 
Monolopy. As I understand it, one piece of the settlement is that 
microsoft will donate a bunch of software to schools. Schools have 
long been one of the strongest domains of Microsofts only commercial 
competitor Apple Computer. This donation would only serve to 
increase Microsoft's Monopoly, and further jeapordize consumers 
feadom of choice.
    I believe this settlement should be declined. Microsoft has once 
again gained the upper hand and will only benefit. The settlement 
should be made in order to change their behavior, this does nothing 
to address their behavior and will not change it in the future, 
allowing them to continue to bilk the public.
    Dave Koziol [email protected]
    Arbor Moon Software



MTC-00002253

From: Bob LeVitus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 8:28am
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust comments
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I've just read the news on the proposed one billion dollar 
settlement with Microsoft.
    As I understand the deal, this seems to me to be very much in 
favor of Microsoft. In addition to few to no changes to their 
behavior, a portion of the punishment is, in fact, a real benefit to 
them. The resolution including the dissemination of their software 
and compatible hardware, training to use their products, and loads 
of their often bundled software, seems to fly in the face of the 
very point of the trial. They have been declared a monopoly for 
illegal tactics that were specifically meant to increase their 
market share, for bundling products for free to get market share, 
and for illegally blocking other's products to gain market share, 
and now, a good portion of the settlement specifically increases 
their market share of both the OS and their bundled products.
    I believe this settlement should be declined. It does nothing to 
address their behavior and will not change it in the future, 
allowing them to continue to bilk the public.
    Please don't let them get away with it.
    Regards,
    Bob
    Bob LeVitus * Writer and raconteur
    [email protected] * http://www.boblevitus.com
    CC:
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected] 
@inetgw,attorney.gener...



MTC-00002254

From: Bion Schulken
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/27/01 10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This responds to USDOJ's request for public comments regarding 
the antitrust settlement with Microsoft Corporation.
    As a user of Microsoft products as both a consumer and 
information technology manager for a unit of a Fortune 500 company, 
I believe the remedies cited in the Proposed Final Judgement are 
insufficient to either correct the damage caused by Microsoft's past 
practices or to sufficiently preclude Microsoft from engaging in 
similar consumer-damaging anti-competitive behavior in the future. 
My comments below address specific sections of the Proposed Final 
Judgement.
    In general, the relief provided by the judgement is neither 
prompt, certain nor effective. The relief is not sufficient to 
prevent recurrence, and the focus on middleware and the OEM 
distribution channel is too narrow to provide effective relief or 
deterrents against repeated anti-competitive activities.
    Re: "Ensuring that computer manufacturers have contractual 
and economic freedom ...by broadly prohibiting retaliation against a 
computer manufacturer that supports or distributes alternative 
middleware or operating systems." and "requiring that 
Microsoft provide uniform licensing terms to the 20 largest 
...computer manufacturers."
    This provision does absolutely nothing to protect developers 
from direct retaliation. Worse, it does nothing to protect consumers 
(private or business/corporate) who purchase software products and 
upgrades either directly from Microsoft or through third party 
vendors. The cost and implementation time involved in changing 
software platforms dictates that most Microsoft users will continue 
to upgrade to newer versions of Microsoft products, and the 
judgement does nothing to protect such consumers from anti-
competitive pricing and licensing tactics.
    The focus on the OEM distribution channel is far too narrow to 
significantly inhibit anti-competitive behavior in the broad market. 
It leaves open other opportunities for anti-competitive behavior 
which will directly impact consumers and end users availability of 
choice and cost of ownership for several years beyond the initial 
purchase of computer hardware.
    Re: "Ensuring that computer manufacturers have the freedom 
to offer, and consumers the freedom to use, non-Microsoft 
middleware, by requiring Microsoft to provide the ability for 
computer manufacturers and consumers to customize, without 
interference or reversal, their personal computers as to the 
middleware they install, use and feature ..."
    This provision does not address ease of use of customization as 
a barrier to such activity. Microsoft can continue to create 
barriers to consumer choice through continuing to create arcane 
interfaces which are, at best, confusing to ordinary consumers and 
difficult for technical staff to work around. This provision will 
all but ensure that ordinary, non-technical consumers will continue 
to be directed toward Microsoft products and services and away from 
competitive products and services which offer better value and ease 
of use.
    Re: "Ensuring that Microsoft cannot thwart the purposes of 
the remedies ..." This provision does nothing to penalize 
Microsoft for demonstrated anti-competitive behavior and does not 
preclude the company's continuing such behavior. The language in the 
provision only requires them to offer licenses, but nothing in the 
agreement requires them to provide reasonable licensing requirements 
which do not create competitive barriers.
    Re: "Depriving Microsoft of the means with which to 
retaliate against, or induce the hindering of the development of, 
competing products by prohibiting Microsoft from entering into 
agreements that require parties to exclusively, or in a fixed 
percentage, promote Microsoft middleware or operating system 
products.
    Like earlier provisions, this provision focuses too narrowly on 
the OEM distribution channel and does nothing to prevent Microsoft 
from creating barriers through unreasonable licensing agreements 
with end users and/or developers.
    Re: "The requirements and prohibitions in the Proposed 
Final Judgment are supported by strong enforcement provisions, 
including the power to seek criminal and civil contempt sanctions 
and other relief in the event of a violation, and the imposition of 
three full-time, on-site, independent enforcement monitors..."
    Regarding the claim of "strong enforcement 
provisions", DOJ has just sought sanctions and other relief 
for violations which has reached an ineffective end with this 
judgement. This provision just allows you to repeat this ineffective 
proceeding.
    Further, three persons to monitor the technology development and 
commercial practices of a company this size is totally inadequate to 
provide meaningful oversight. At best it will result in a checkoff 
by the monitors that Microsoft, on its honor, has not violated any 
law or provisions of this agreement. Microsoft has demonstrated 
through past behavior that the company will

[[Page 24063]]

engage in anti-competitive practices which harm consumers, and the 
imposition of monitors is not a sufficient deterrent to prevent the 
repetition of such practices.
    The judgement further fails by providing no meaningful penalty 
against the company nor relief to consumers for Microsoft's past 
practices.
    Regards,
    Bion Schulken
    [email protected]
    252.355.6684



MTC-00002255

From: Eric Roccasecca
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/27/01 10:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    TO: US Department of Justice-Microsoft anti-trust comments: 
[email protected]
    I've just read the news on the proposed one billion dollar 
settlement. As I understand the deal, this seems to me to be very 
much in favor of Microsoft. In addition to few to no changes to 
their behavior, a portion of the punishment is, in fact, a real 
benefit to them. The resolution including the dissemination of their 
software and compatible hardware, training to use their products, 
and loads of their often bundled software, seems to fly in the face 
of the very point of the trial. They have been declared a monopoly 
for illegal tactics that were specifically meant to increase their 
market share, for bundling products for free to get market share, 
and for illegally blocking other's products to gain market share, 
and now, a good portion of the settlement specifically increases 
their market share of both the OS and their bundled products.
    I believe this settlement should be declined. Microsoft has once 
again gained the upper hand and will only benefit. The settlement 
should be made in order to change their behavior, this does nothing 
to address their behavior and will not change it in the future, 
allowing them to continue to bilk the public.
    Eric Roccasecca



MTC-00002256

From: Stephen McCrocklin
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov,ag (a)oag.state.fl.us,att...
Date: 11/27/01 9:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I've just read the news on the proposed one billion dollar 
settlement.
    As I understand it, this seems to me to be very much in favor of 
Microsoft. In addition to few to no changes to their behavior, a 
portion of the punishment is, in fact, a real benefit to them. The 
resolution including the dissemination of their software and 
compatible hardware, training to use their products, and loads of 
their often bundled software, seems to fly in the face of the very 
point of the trial.
    They have been declared a monopoly for illegal tactics that were 
specifically meant to increase their market share, for bundling 
products for free to get market share, and for illegally blocking 
other's products to gain market share, and now, a good portion of 
the settlement specifically increases their market share of both the 
OS and their bundled products.
    I believe this settlement should be declined. Microsoft has once 
again gained the upper hand and will only benefit. The settlement 
should be made in order to change their behavior, this does nothing 
to address their behavior and will not change it in the future, 
allowing them to continue to bilk the public.
    Stephen McCrocklin, Director
    The Langsford Center
    1810 Sils Ave
    Lou, Ky 40205
    (502) 473-7000 voice
    (502) 459-8522 fax



MTC-00002257

From: Brian Armstrong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sirs,
    I think that the antitrust settlement misses the point that 
Microsoft is a monopoly, has exercised its monopoly power and has 
harmed the consumer.
    It is this last point which is missed. Not in the sense of 
exacting damages from past harms. The proposed settlement invites 
harms in the future.
    Brian Armstrong
    CEO, MetriCam, Inc.



MTC-00002258

From: Cam Causey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 11:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello.
    I'd like to add my voice to those expressing misgivings about 
the proposed settlement of private lawsuits, in which Microsoft 
would work off it's penalty by giving large amounts of its 
technology to poor schools. I have to agree with those who point out 
that this would merely serve to add to Microsoft's competitive 
advantage, in one of the few markets where there is real competition 
to the Windows juggernaut.
    In fact, given Microsoft's immense resources in ruthless 
marketing practices, it will take a severe penalty, indeed, to have 
any real and lasting effect. The breakup of the large corporation 
into separate operating system and applications entities is one of 
the few solutions I see that might actually improve competition 
without stiffling innovation. And for the record, it is my opinion 
that Microsoft has never innovated a single technology, choosing 
instead to take new ideas developed by others, implement them 
poorly, and then weave them inextricably into their operating system 
to force them upon the public. It is in this way that Microsoft can 
successfully thumb its nose at any attempts to implement standards 
in the software industry, especially the internet/web sector.
    I urge you to re-think this settlement and consider something 
that will actually promote competition, not defeat it. Thank you.
    Cameron Causey
    Database Coordinator
    Marin Conservation Corps
    http://www.marincc.org
    415-454-4554 x 14



MTC-00002259

From: Tom Ward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 11:02am
Subject: Microsoft setlement
    I believe the "one billion school funding" 
settlement negotiated by Microsoft and the other class-action 
attorneys is a ploy designed to entrench the Windows monopoly while 
allowing the company to pay back only a tiny fraction of what it 
actually owes consumers.
    I find the proposed conduct remedy to be inappropriate and 
wholly inadequate for a company which has demonstrated nothing but 
contempt for previous conduct remedies.
    A settlement that required the proposed school funds to be spent 
on non Microsoft/Wintell products would act as punishment, and give 
the company an incentive to change their criminal behavior.
    Thank you,
    Tom
    Tom Ward [email protected]
    President 1072 St. Paul St. Denver, Colorado
    iWaveStudio www.iWaveStudio.com



MTC-00002260

From: David Godshall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a home computer user, computer professional, and computer 
enthusiast, and with no financial interest in any of the companies 
associated with the case, and with only a personal desire to see a 
proper competitive atmosphere within the computer industry as a 
whole and a fair deal for the general public, I wish to affirm the 
antitrust proceedings undertaken in the case of USA v. Microsoft 
Corporation, Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK), wherein Microsoft 
was found to be a monopoly and having violated portions of the 
Sherman antitrust law. I have read the November 2001 settlement 
proposed by the US Department of Justice and nine of the plaintiff 
states and do not believe the proposed settlement is in the public 
interest. I am no lawyer, but in spite of that I can see and will 
highlight a number of the more serious problems I perceive with the 
current settlement.
    1. Within the settlement document (Section III, A-B) is 
the terminology "Covered OEM", which the Definitions 
section reveals to be the 20 largest Original Equipment 
Manufacturers. Are not the smaller companies as least as deserving 
of protection from predatory practices and pricing discrimination as 
the larger companies, if not more so?
    2. Section III, A, 2, prohibits Microsoft from retaliating 
against an OEM that ships a Personal Computer with a Windows 
Operating System in addition to competing operating systems, but 
says nothing about an OEM shipping a computer with a single non-
Windows operating system. As such, OEMs which sell some computers 
with Windows and some computers with a single competing operating 
system are open targets for

[[Page 24064]]

 retaliation. Microsoft should have no say in what operating system 
or systems an OEM includes with any of their computers except in 
that they get proper payment for each copy of their own operating 
system actually sold.
    3. Section III, C, 1, while initially seeming to disallow such 
activity, in reality specifically allows Microsoft to dictate in 
certain circumstances what icons an OEM may or may not place on the 
desktop or start menu. I contend that the OEM must have the right in 
all circumstances to include or exclude whatever icons (or for that 
matter, whatever programs) their customers request, thus allowing 
healthy competition and differentiation between OEMs, with the 
general public benefiting by being able to select the OEM that bests 
accommodates their needs and desires.
    4. The Technical Committee, as described in Section IV, B, is 
supposed to be comprised of three technical persons not affiliated 
with Microsoft. Allowing Microsoft to select one of those people, 
and furthermore allowing them to influence the selection of the 
third person, seems to me to be giving Microsoft too much influence 
over the selection of this committee and too much possibility of 
bias in favor of Microsoft. Furthermore, the stipulation in Section 
IV, D, 4, d. that nothing the TC does is admissible in court makes 
enforcement of the entire settlement appear very problematic.
    5. Microsoft has full discretion in deciding what constitutes a 
"Windows Operating System Product" (Section VI, U) and 
what code goes into it. This is totally unacceptable as it leaves 
Microsoft free to simply define that a non-operating system 
component is part of the "Windows Operating System 
Product" and such code is completely unaffected by this 
settlement, regardless of how many competing or future non-Microsoft 
products such an action destroys. The moment Microsoft learns or 
believes a company is in development on a new product, they would 
have the complete freedom to write code, regardless of quality, 
functionality, or user interest, define it as part of the 
"Windows Operating System Product", and thereby destroy 
the competition before it has a change to even begin. I believe an 
independent entity needs to define what is essential in an 
"Operating System Product" and everything else must be 
made user/OEM optional and completely removable. In addition to the 
specific shortcomings listed above, I believe it to be entirely too 
lax on Microsoft. Microsoft was found in a court of law and on 
appeal to be a monopoly, and furthermore to have abused their 
monopoly position. This settlement contains no punitive measures for 
those past offenses, but worse yet it contains little to effectively 
curb current future predatory behavior. What is intended to contain 
such behavior is full of "except for" terminology that 
dilutes the effects of the statements, and when Microsoft is found 
to have violated sections of the settlement, it appears difficult to 
enforce such violations. Microsoft has a history of violating court 
orders and a more effective way to prevent that must be found.
    Finally, it does not appear to me that the settlement 
effectively addresses Microsoft's growing practices of tying 
products into their operating system in such a way that the user no 
longer has an option to keep or remove such product, and in fact 
appears to specifically legalize it (Section VI, U). The most 
visible example, and one that figured prominently in the 
proceedings, was integrating Internet Explorer into Windows 98 such 
that the user can not remove it short of using third-party software 
(for example, 98lite) or difficult manual changes. Internet Explorer 
used to be a separate Middleware product in Windows 95, and 
Microsoft was ordered in court to stop requiring OEMs to bundle it. 
Rather than respecting the intent and spirit of the court order, 
however, they attempted legal trickery by integrating it into the 
operating system such that it was no longer be considered bundling. 
By doing so, in addition to continuing to use their monopoly 
position to gain a monopoly in a different area (which they have by 
now largely succeeded in doing), they have stripped users of their 
choice of installing or removing Microsoft's web browser. With 
Windows XP Microsoft has continued and expanded this practice, 
making a lot of other formerly optional components into non-
removable parts of the operating system, thus further reducing the 
general public's choices, and the OEM's ability to give the general 
public those choices, and effectively destroying the ability for 
competitors to compete on an even playing field. The end user, and 
the OEMs on their behalf, must be allowed and given the tools to do 
more than simply disable or hide all Microsoft Middleware Products, 
they must also be allowed and given the tools to completely remove 
(uninstall) them, allowing them to free up the disk space and other 
resources that the Microsoft Middleware Products might otherwise be 
consuming.
    While this settlement is a good start, after all the work that 
has gone into this lawsuit the computer industry and the general 
public deserve better protection from Microsoft's predatory actions 
than this settlement provides, and I ask that the court to either 
reject the settlement in its current form and require that the 
parties come up with a settlement that better fits the offenses and 
which can be genuinely expected to prevent them from reoccurring, or 
rework the current settlement to remove existing loopholes and give 
the user and OEMs complete control over the choice to install or not 
install all Microsoft products that are not essential to operating 
system functions.
    Thank you.
    David Godshall, Network Manager
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00002261

From: Nathaniel Irons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 11:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is a abdication of the government's 
obligation to prosecute a convicted monopolist. The provisions for 
noncompliance are nonexistent. The "compensation" paid 
to schools amounts to a market share giveaway in one of the few 
markets where Microsoft is not already completely dominant. The only 
teeth in this settlement are in the loopholes.
    I have never been as proud of my government as when David Boies 
was demonstrating on a daily basis how capricious and harmful 
Microsoft is to the US technology industry. His successors in the 
Justice Department should be ashamed of themselves.
    _nat



MTC-00002263

From: T Gregory Knox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 11:59am
Subject: Penalty' Greater Marketshare
    To stop a problem, you must begin at the source of the problem 
and allowing Microsoft (MS) the ability to send in PC's running 
THEIR software isn't exactly going to punish MS in the way that they 
were to be tried. The purpose of the court cases...too much 
marketshare and a monopolistic company. The possible 
"punishment"...give more people THEIR software. Not only 
to people that already use PC's and Microsoft's software, but to 
children. Children that when they grow older, are familiar with the 
MS operating systems and continue to use them. Hardly affecting MS's 
monopoly or their funds. To give a verdict, you must look at the 
consquences... Punish MS by having MS give schools their software 
isn't holding them back in anyway from gaining more marketshare and 
making billions of more dollars. Yes, more money as well because in 
the proposed verdict, MS will be able to charge the schools a 
licensing fee for the software that they gave them. MS wins all 
around.
    What needs to be carried out is a verdict that will drop MS's 
exposure and allow other operating systems and software companies to 
emerge. The market is so saturated with PC's and MS's software that 
many people do not even know of alternatives like Mac OS X or even 
Linux. By constricting MS's exposure, this will allow these other 
companies to step forward and present themselves in a respectable 
manner. Money obviously is no object to MS. So that will not solve 
the problem. Marketshare certainly isn't an issue with MS, either. 
They have 95% of the market and loosing a few percentage points 
certainly will not hurt their income, but will help these other 
companies trying to make a name for themselves. If I was one of MS's 
lawyers, I would be extremely happy right now. (As well as very 
wealthy.) Microsoft is looking at this verdict not as a punishment, 
but as an investment.
    Thank you for reading my comments.
    T Gregory Knox



MTC-00002264

From: Ivan Drucker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 11:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I am hardly the activist type, and this might actually be the 
first time I have written to a government office.
    I am concerned about the proposed remedy for Microsoft's anti-
competitive behavior. While I am entirely in favor of bringing 
technology to the needy, it seems to me that this solution is to 
Microsoft's competitive

[[Page 24065]]

 advantage, which seemingly defeats the purpose of the action at 
all. Microsoft has entrenched themselves very heavily into nearly 
all personal computing markets. Once an organization is on the 
Microsoft platform (or any platform), there is a very strong 
gravitational pull to staying with that platform for many years, as 
it requires significant investment in both products and training to 
change. This creates a cycle of dependency on upgrades, upon which 
much of Microsoft's business model is based. Education is one of the 
very few personal computing markets left where Microsoft has a real 
competitor in operating systems, Apple Computer. It seems reasonable 
to assume that, were this plan to go through, that the beneficiaries 
would not be purchasing computers from Apple for many years. 
Furthermore, there would likely be a ripple effect, as there would 
be a certain tidal force in so many schools adopting a single 
platform from such a powerful player. What this means is that long 
after the contributions are made, schools (and not only the 
recipients) will be paying for Microsoft products and support, at 
the expense of their competitor.
    In sum, this plan could hand to Microsoft one of the few markets 
they have been unable to dominate yet, yielding no real consequences 
for the anti-competitive behavior which they have been found guilty 
of. I am all in favor of bring better technology to schools! But 
that is a separate issue from the appropriate remedy for Microsoft's 
behavior. I am hardly a legal or business expert and I submit these 
comments with humility. I am sure you have received many similar 
comments already, but I feel obliged to speak my peace regarding 
this matter. Thank you for your kind attention.
    Respectfully,
    Ivan Drucker
    43 E 10th St Apt 4E
    New York, NY 10003
    CC:microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,attorney.gener...



MTC-00002265

From: Joanne Kalogeras
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 12:40pm
Subject: MS settlement
    Justices,
    Why on earth do you want to add to Microsoft's monopoly by 
allowing them to seed their inferior software in schools, which is 
not even traditionally an MS market? Macs are much easier to use, 
and Apple has held that market for years. You're doing 
_nothing_ but furthering their marketshare by letting 
them "give" their software to schools, thus locking up a 
new market for years to come.
    This is not at all an equitable settlement. It does nothing to 
Microsoft financially, except open up a new market for them. Do you 
want to punish MS for their monopolistic practices, or help them to 
achieve their own goals?
    Sincerely,
    Joanne Kalogeras



MTC-00002266

From: Peter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    TO: US Department of Justice-Microsoft anti-trust comments:
    [email protected]
    I've just read the news on the proposed one billion dollar 
settlement. As I understand the deal, this seems to me to be very 
much in favor of Microsoft. In addition to few to no changes to 
their behavior, a portion of the punishment is, in fact, a real 
benefit to them. The resolution including the dissemination of their 
software and compatible hardware, training to use their products, 
and loads of their often bundled software, seems to fly in the face 
of the very point of the trial. They have been declared a monopoly 
for illegal tactics that were specifically meant to increase their 
market share, for bundling products for free to get market share, 
and for illegally blocking other's products to gain market share, 
and now, a good portion of the settlement specifically increases 
their market share of both the OS and their bundled products.
    I believe this settlement should be declined. Microsoft has once 
again gained the upper hand and will only benefit. The settlement 
should be made in order to change their behavior, this does nothing 
to address their behavior and will not change it in the future, 
allowing them to continue to bilk the public.
    In addition, it gives Microsoft an "in" to a market 
that is currently one of the last strongholds of their only 
operating system competitor: Apple. How can this be fair to either 
company?
    Please reconsider.
    Thank you,
    Peter Linde
    The Linde Group, Inc.
    Berkeley, California
    [email protected]
    The Linde Group, Inc.
    2612 8th St., Suite B
    Berkeley, CA 94710
    510-705-8910 x33



MTC-00002267

From: Julie Noll
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    This whole issue is getting out of hand. It has become apparent 
that this is not about justice, simply Microsoft's competitors 
trying to destroy them. If this were about justice then this case 
would have been settled.
    If Sun Microsystems, Oracle and Netscape would simply build 
better products, improve their internal business structure and stop 
spending so much energy on whining about Microsoft they too could be 
successful.
    As an American, I am sick of this whole thing. It has wasted 
time, money and energy. The U.S. Government has allowed this whole 
case to escalate by allowing the competitors to go beyond the 
request of an investigation. It has allowed this to be handled as a 
revenge case rather than a case about fairness or protecting 
consumers.



MTC-00002268

From: Williamy Shipley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 1:08pm
Subject: The Microsoft settlement
    It stinks. It isn't punishment at all, it's a chance for 
Microsoft to establish a monopoly in the last area (education) in 
which it doesn't have a clear one yet.
    This is just like the last slap in the hand that Microsoft got 
for pushing everyone around and holding the industry back, and will 
be just as effective_not at all. Microsoft will ignore the new 
rules it's under because they will know, having had it happen twice, 
that they can break the law as much as they want, and all they have 
to do is go to court every ten years and get slapped with a tiny 
settlement. Stand up and fight them. They have held back my industry 
long enough. They are the driving force behind making software worse 
for everyone. We are all affected, we're depending on you to stop 
it.
    Yours,
    _Wil Shipley
    President, The Omni Group



MTC-00002269

From: L Palmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 12:41pm
Subject: Oppose Microsoft private suit settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I would like to express my opposition to Microsoft's proposal to 
settle lawsuits for abusing monopoly power, by providing computers, 
software and other resources to poor schools.
    This is a breathtakingly self-serving proposal on Microsoft's 
part. It will further Microsoft's competetive advantage in 
schools_one arena where its main competitor in the consumer 
market, Apple, has considerable business. Many teachers prefer Apple 
products, for their ease of use, longer life-span, and much lower 
long-term support costs; and I understand that they have expressed 
grave doubts about this proposal.
    It seems peculiar, to say the least, to allow a company to 
settle complaints of monopoly power, by giving it a golden 
opportunity to extend its monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    Linda Palmer



MTC-00002270

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/27/01 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    US Department of Justice-Microsoft antitrust comments: I believe 
this settlement should be declined. Microsoft has once again gained 
the upper hand and will only benefit. The settlement should be made 
in order to change their behavior, this does nothing to address 
their behavior and will not change it in the future, allowing them 
to continue to bilk the public.
    How could providing their software and training to schools (or 
anyone) free of charge not increase their market share? Wouldn't 
that be adding to the issue at hand? I think its obvious that 
Microsoft should be not rewarded with an increase in consumer

[[Page 24066]]

usage. Perhaps disseminating their software bundles and a truly 
steep fine (cash only!) would be sufficient. Donate the cash fine to 
the schools_NOT as a donation from Microsoft but as an 
increase in the annual school budgets or a blind influx of books and 
supplies. Surely you can see that, while donating to schools is a 
noble endeavor, doing it with a specific company's product who is 
already the dominant force (the reason for this judgment makes that 
case) is only helping Microsoft, not punishing them.
    Robin Wagganer
    Creative Marketing Strategies
    P: 408.287.7283
    F: 703.935.7183



MTC-00002271

From: Duane Murphy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In reading recent news events, I am quite disturbed by the 
proposed Microsoft Settlement. I was under the impression that the 
judicial system was put in place to punish wrong doers. It appears 
that Microsoft is being further rewarded for their monopolistic 
practices. By "forcing" Microsoft to give money, 
computers, and software to schools, Microsoft's monopoly will only 
be further empowered. This punishment is nothing of the sort; 
Microsoft regularly donates much more than this punishment even 
implies. Its called Market Share. If you capture the education, 
market you capture the future market. Please reconsider supporting 
this settlement. It will do nothing but make Microsoft that much 
more powerful. Please go back to the discussions and determine a 
proper punishment for a company that continues to abuse the people 
of America as well as the Free World!
    ..Duane Murphy
    1024 Topaz Court
    Vacaville, CA
    95687-7870
    CC:California Department of Justice,Connecticut Attor...



MTC-00002272

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 1:56pm
Subject: Reponse to Microsoft private suit settlement
    The settlement will further allow Microsoft unfairly make 
inroads into education. The school should get the funing and have 
the 100% freedom for purchasing HW and SW to meet their needs. In 
addtion, the 5 year time limit Microsft SW license is certainly a 
bad deal compared to Red Hat's proposal with no time limit.
    Koklioong
    http://tacpa.org



MTC-00002273

From: Hopper (a) Megalink
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 1:48pm
Subject: You guys are making janet Reno look better all the time
    You guys are making janet Reno look better all the time



MTC-00002274

From: Les Vogel
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/27/01 2:15pm
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust settlement
    Microsoft is a monopoly.
    The question is, under what rules should Microsoft be allowed to 
continue operations, and what is a just punishment for past abuses. 
1. The various proposals that I've seen do not address one of the 
techniques that Microsoft has used to gain dominance in the 
marketplace. Often when a company that Microsoft views as a threat 
announces a product or technology, Microsoft will within a week 
announce a competing technology or product. Unfortunately, many of 
those "announcements" are just the start of Microsoft's 
development, and consumers will not see anything for years if at 
all. This has the effect of drying up both sales and capitol for the 
competing company.
    Microsoft needs to be prevented from pre-announcing any 
technology, product, or service more than 90 days before it's actual 
availability to consumers.
    2. Microsoft's offer to provide schools with equipment and 
software will just help Microsoft gain control of one of the few 
markets where it doesn't dominate. There are two basic problems with 
Microsoft's providing software. 1. It improves adds to Microsoft's 
monopoly. 2. Microsoft's incremental cost of goods for software is 
under $1. (The cost of reproducing a CD). A much better settlement 
would be for Microsoft to provide the schools with cash, and allow 
the schools to spend it where they see fit. This would actually 
affect the their bottom line.
    These modest proposals will not go far enough to punish 
Microsoft for it's abuses. The only real solution is to break 
Microsoft up into many parts: 1. The Windows OS Company, 2. Media 
Company (MSNBC/MSN),
    3. The Office Company (Desktop Applications), 4. The Back-Office 
Company (Back-Office/SQL Server), 5. The PDA Company, 6. The Game 
Company (x-box/Flight Simulator, et. al.). There should be NO cross 
ownership or licensing for at least 7 years.
    Thank you,
    Les Vogel
    [email protected]
    300 Beale St. #605
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    415-543-1011



MTC-00002275

From: Dumser, Louis
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/27/01 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Very bad idea ladies and gentleman!
    Giving Microsoft this type of access to schools will only 
increase the scope of their monopoly. Is not like school funding is 
so lush that the targeted schools will be able to walk away from 
these deals! Make Microsoft give the CASH equivalent of the 
settlement to the school and let them decide. ... you know the old 
market economy thing.
    Thanks.
    Louis Dumser



MTC-00002277

From: John Wallace
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 2:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Having Microsoft put $1B of its competitors products into the 
schools would be a real punishment. The current deal is a fraud. 
Rather than creating a deal that levels the field and furthers the 
interests of consumers, Microsoft is making a marketing investment 
into markets where they are currently losing. Historically, 
Microsoft has had a competitive disadvantage over other platforms 
(Apple, Linux, etc.) into the schools. By taking the proposed tack, 
Microsoft can gain further competitive advantage and simultaneously 
gain legal protection for their growing power. It is incompressible 
that we are "punishing" a monopoly by granting them a 
monopolistic position in the schools.
    As Brier Rabbit would say: "Oh no, Justice Department! 
Please don't throw me in that briar patch!"
    Let's not be gullible. Let's take the opportunity to really 
benefit the schools, consumers, and American business. Microsoft 
should pay $1B in CASH and allow the schools to use those funds to 
buy the products of their choice.
    If I can be of assistance, please contact me.
    Sincerely,
    John L. Wallace
    President and CEO
    Power On Software, Inc._An Inc 500 Company
    Phone: 614-413-4000 x3010
    Fax: 614-413-4100
    Email: [email protected]
    Web: http://www.poweronsoftware.com



MTC-00002278

From: Tim Cowan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 2:28pm
Subject: MicroSoft
    The only TRUE way to have choice for consumers is to break 
Microsoft into two parts one the operating system (windows) the 
other all applications (i.e. non operating system programs).
    Microsoft became number #1 by using if not illegal at least 
not ethical business practices
    1. Micosoft DOS vs Dr. DOS
    2. Microsoft EXCEL vs Lotus 123
    3. Microsoft Internet Explorer vs Netscape Explorer
    If AT&T can be broken apart, so can Microsoft !!!
    Let's have a victory of the little consumer and break Microsoft 
into two parts



MTC-00002279

From: William Perez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 2:17pm
Subject: justice for Microsoft
    US Dept of Justice:
    I am writing to ask you to reconsider the proposed Microsoft 
antitrust settlements. This is a travesty of justice which does not 
address their previous behavior which is

[[Page 24067]]

what resulted in their market dominance. Nor does it justify the 
horrendous damage they have already done to the computer industry. 
When a criminal repeatedly breaks the law, the guilty party should 
be punished. Isn't that how our justice system supposedly works? A 
gentle slap on the wrist and ensuring they "never do it 
again" is not enough.
    The "Be" operating system which ran on PCs and 
Macintosh computers is now dead. Palm, Inc. who acquired the company 
have no intention of trying to compete with Microsoft's unfair 
advantage again. It's too late to save Netscape which AOL/TimeWarner 
acquired after they could not compete with Microsoft's Internet 
Explorer web browser. IBM has documented that they lost millions 
because Microsoft would not give them an equal and timely license 
for Windows 95 due to IBM's "Lotus" products which tried 
to compete with Microsoft Office. Real Networks and Apple's 
QuickTime have also suffered unfairly due to Microsoft's advantage 
of tight product integration, which you can be sure they will 
continue to tighten and make more difficult for competitors in the 
future. Where is the justice for all this?
    Microsoft is the world's largest software company and the 
company's founders are some of the richest people on this planet. 
95% of all computers run their proprietary Windows operating system. 
Their Internet Explorer web browser remains the number one choice 
for PCs and even Macintosh computers. Microsoft Office is a $500 
product that also dominates its competition on both Windows and 
Macintosh platforms. It's clear to me that they are an illegal 
monopoly which has repeatedly violated the law and yet the proposed 
settlement is riddled with loopholes, leaving Microsoft in a 
position of power where they will continue to harm the industry and 
consumers. The class action settlement proposed (to provide schools 
with free copies of Microsoft software and PCs) will only further 
entrench Microsoft's monopoly. Childen will grow up accustomed to 
using Microsoft's tools and will prefer to buy their solutions in 
the future, which only benefits Microsoft in the long run! You 
should make Microsoft provide *competing* software and systems not 
their own. It's no big loss for them to duplicate copies of software 
they've already written.
    I ask that Microsoft be properly punished, not helped, for their 
past crimes before more companies with great talent and merit end up 
bankrupt. They should feel remorseful of their illegal actions in 
the past and looking at their latest offerings, namely Windows XP 
and XBox, I don't see that as being the case. Other technical 
companies that have been investigated for being a monopoly 
(AT&T, IBM) have not gotten off so easy. It's not fair or just 
in my opinion so I hope you reconsider a much harsher sentence.
    William Perez
    New York, NY



MTC-00002280

From: Julia Tortolani
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    TO: US Department of Justice-Microsoft anti-trust comments:
    [email protected]
    I've just read the news on the proposed one billion dollar 
settlement. As I understand the deal, this seems to me to be very 
much in favor of Microsoft. In addition to few to no changes to 
their behavior, a portion of the punishment is, in fact, a real 
benefit to them. The resolution including the dissemination of their 
software and compatible hardware, training to use their products, 
and loads of their often bundled software, seems to fly in the face 
of the very point of the trial. They have been declared a monopoly 
for illegal tactics that were specifically meant to increase their 
market share, for bundling products for free to get market share, 
and for illegally blocking other's products to gain market share, 
and now, a good portion of the settlement specifically increases 
their market share of both the OS and their bundled products.
    I believe this settlement should be declined. Microsoft has once 
again gained the upper hand and will only benefit. The settlement 
should be made in order to change their behavior, this does nothing 
to address their behavior and will not change it in the future, 
allowing them to continue to bilk the public.
    Julia Tortolani
    CC to:
    California: [email protected]
    Connecticut: [email protected]
    Florida: [email protected]
    Iowa: [email protected]
    Kansas: [email protected]
    Massachusetts: [email protected]
    Minnesota: [email protected]
    Utah: [email protected]
    West Virginia: [email protected]
    CC:[email protected] @inetgw,uag 
@att.state.ut.us.


MTC-00002281

From: Jim Kimmel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 3:28pm
Subject: astonishing
    I just wanted to communicate my shock, disbelief, and outrage at 
the resolution of the Microsoft antitrust case. It was clearly 
proved that Microsoft used monopolistic practices to put competitors 
out of business.
    Let me remind you that the Judge ruled AGAINST Microsoft. Your 
proposed settlement will give them a stranglehold on the education 
market and FURTHER entrench Microsoft as a monopoly! This isn't 
justice or a settlement, it's a JOKE! Microsoft will be laughing all 
the way to the bank!
    Jim Kimmel
    [email protected]
    502-493-1050 ext 236



MTC-00002282

From: Angie Malone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 3:00pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Hello. I have read the following article on USA Today's website: 
http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2001/11/27/microsoft-
educators.htm
    I have to say it does sound like you are rewarding Microsoft by 
letting them donate used computers.
    This helps them in the following ways:
    People get exposed to their software and Windows machines. So 
they may be more apt to buy one if they are able to purchase 
equipment. Microsoft does not have to spend money to throw the 
computers away. They will probably be allowed to take an income tax 
charitable deduction for the computers. This is not a punishment for 
creating a monopoly. It is an incentive to continue the monopoly.
    Angie Malone
    Computing Manager
    email: [email protected]
    Cornell University Press, Sage House, 512 East State Street
    Ithaca, New York 14850
    http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu
    607-277-2338 ext 238 (phone)
    607-277-2374 (fax)



MTC-00002283

From: Beckwith, Richard
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/27/01 2:59pm
Subject: Comment on case
    Before getting into my comment, I must mention that I work for 
Intel. In my opinion my employment has no bearing at all on my 
support (or lack of support) for Microsoft's proposed settlement, I 
am certain that most people would believe it significant. I should 
also mention that the lab in which I work at Intel was started by 
one of the main government witnesses in the federal case against 
Microsoft. Again, I do not believe that this has any bearing on my 
judgment. As you will see, I support some aspects of the plan and do 
not support others.
    For background, I am a developmental psychologist working at 
Intel. I have a PhD in developmental and educational psychology from 
Teachers College at Columbia University. I came to Intel from an 
academic position where I was doing research on technology in 
education (at Northwestern University's Institute for the Learning 
Sciences). I have been doing research on technology and education 
off and on for over twenty years. Therefore, I have some expertise 
to comment on Microsoft's settlement offer. I would like to suggest 
that Microsoft's proposed settlement approaches fairness. I do not 
believe that donations to schools should be turned down because they 
would give Microsoft an advantage over Apple. One of the reasons 
that I came to Intel is because platforms running Microsoft software 
are the most cost effective means to deliver computational power. I 
wanted to be able to influence how services might be offered to 
young students. The cost differential is quite significant here. We 
know that most schools have decided to go with the "commodity 
platform" running Microsoft software.
    I think that the cost differential is what has driven these 
school districts to make this decision and there is little reason to 
think that low income schools could reasonably be expected to go 
with Apple equipment. However, I also know that Microsoft has a 
tendency to overvalue its cost in donating

[[Page 24068]]

software to schools. Before a particular plan is accepted, I would 
recommend that Microsoft's real costs in the donation be taken into 
consideration. The real costs are not insignificant since support 
would be included. Lost sales are a real concern but we need to 
consider that Microsoft would have sold this software in an OEM 
bundle and may have gotten less than $20 per system. Do not let them 
treat this as a sale of boxed software.
    Finally, I would think that Microsoft would tend to donate 
systems with WindowsXP. I personally have no plans to run XP on my 
current Intel provided computer since it is a 600 mHz Pentium II. My 
computer is really not good enough to run XP well. I'm better off 
with an older OS. My Pentium II is still useful to me though and I 
won't be getting a new one for a while. I wonder what the 
refurbished machines that Microsoft will donate will be. If these 
computers are older, low power computers; they may have a difficult 
time running some software. This is important because speed is still 
related to ease-of-use. You can use the power of the PC to make the 
task easier. This is only true if the PC is powerful enough. I hate 
to think that kids with the most need would get computers that are 
not quite up to the task of helping them out. You know that the 
schools won't be upgrading any time too soon. It would be best to 
make sure that they don't have to.
    Richard Beckwith, PhD
    People and Practices Research
    Corporate Technology Group, Intel



MTC-00002284

From: Kevin Hall
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/27/01 2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft v US
    Dear State Attorney General:
    Please consider a more stringent prosecution of MicroSoft 
corporation, that is, in my opinion, stifling the computing 
industries of which I am a professional. As MicroSoft continues to 
get its way, we're already twenty years behind. I am a computer 
systems administrator with a BS degree in computer science and seen 
over the last ten years the same findings of fact determined against 
the company by the DOJ. There is very little punishment of these 
crimes to speak of; in fact it's almost a reward to the monopolist 
and sets a most disturbing precedent. After Realplayer, Java, MP3, 
and PC Anywhere go the way of Netscape and Apple, where shall they 
turn for justice? What happens to our privacy when we cannot escape 
spam, telemarketers, and door-to-door salespeople who buy data 
collected from MicroSoft Windows XP activations. Or worse yet, 
cannot access information on the Internet at all because each site 
requires .dll compatibility or is choked by viruses. If MicroSoft 
continues to monopolize, we'll all be paying taxes to them, obeying 
its rule of law, and suffering intellectual dysfunction at their 
hands!
    Sincerely,
    Kevin D. Hall
    PS I voted for, and support our president but disagree with the 
effort that dismissed the case against MicroSoft. Please continue 
your pursuit of justice!



MTC-00002285

From: Doug Brandner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement objection
    I do most strongly object to the idea of Microsoft 
"atoning" for past transgressions by donating a few 
billion dollars of hardware and software to schools, and thereby, 
essentially undoing Apple's small education market niche.
    What kind of punishment is that? The Apple company is already 
suffering by Microsoft copying Apple's system years ago with the 
"Windows" design that was invented and developed by 
Apple. But no matter about that old issue, why would you consider 
undermining a competitive product such as the Apple companies 
computing system? That would be no punishment at all, but turn out 
in their favor by driving Apple computers out of the schools.
    Apple is trying to recover by making the much more simple and 
stable Mac computers available for young students, some of which may 
later choose to buy an Apple Mac rather than the predominant giant 
PC's all with Microsoft's monopoly of the various Windows operating 
systems. If you really wanted Microsoft to "atone" or 
punish them, have them buy Apple computers for the schools, or say 
half PC and half Apple. I suppose you cannot order them to do that, 
but you can have them pay the equivalent cost in cash to the schools 
and let the schools decide which computer (hardware or software) 
they wish to buy, without any duress or strings attached.
    Thank you for listening,
    Doug Brandner
    10925 SE 304
    Auburn, WA 98092



MTC-00002286

From: Sam Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 3:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of Microsoft's proposed settlement in which they 
donate computers and software to the nation's poorest schools.



MTC-00002287

From: Milner Grimsled
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 3:03pm
Subject: Micorsoft's proposed settlement_a vote against
    Dear Department of Justice
    This is to register my protest against the Microsoft's plan to 
settle its antitrust suit obligations. To allow Microsoft to extend 
its monopoly power under the guise of this proposed settlement is 
unconscionable. I do not have any quarrel with a plan to help poor 
schools. But I think Microsoft should contribute money to a fund 
that such schools can use as they see fit to fund their technology 
needs.
    This would open up the world of choice to include even Apple 
Computer's superior (in my opinion) products.
    Note I use Macintosh computers at home and Windows computers at 
work, so I have some knowledge of each platform. I think Judge 
Jackson's original ruling should have been left intact_ that 
Microsoft should have been broken up into two companies. But given 
that this hasn't happened, I would see it as a complete travesty if 
Microsoft's settlement proposal were accepted by the Department of 
Justice.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Milner A. Grimsled
    11 Grant St.
    Potsdam NY 13676
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00002288

From: Corey R. Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I believe this settlement should be declined. The settlement 
won't do anything to level the playing field. Placing Microsoft 
products into schools not only helps Microsoft in a market where it 
has been traditionally weak but it hurts Microsoft's competitors in 
the software and hardware markets.
    Please decline this preposterous settlement.
    Corey R. Johnson



MTC-00002289

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 3:19pm
Subject: the settlement is wrong
    I would like to express my opinion that the microsoft settlement 
is wrong. Microsoft's monopoly is so extensive that I cannot buy a 
computer, just the hardware, in any local store without also buying 
Windows. They will not sell me a box unless I buy Windows even if I 
want to use Linux or BE. For example, when my hard drive crashed 
last year I decided to upgrade the hardware and load my copy of 
Windows 95 on it. A paid for, legal copy, completely within the 
terms of the contract and MS license. I could not do it. Dell, HP, 
Compaq, Erols, Microcenter-no one would sell me the hardware without 
a new copy of Windows.
    What's more, they will not sell me a box with just Windows on 
it. I have to buy MS Works or some type of office application even 
though I do not want it and will never use it. This situation is 
just wrong, and it should not be accepted unless we are willing to 
accept the total domination of the desktop PC forever by MS.
    Thank you,
    John Fox
    703-308-2595
    703-241-7866



MTC-00002290

From: Gerald Kielpinski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 3:27pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I, Gerald Kielpinski, citizen of the USA, wholeheartedly object 
to the proposed settlement against microsoft, believing it to be far 
too soft, and in some cases just plain ludicrous.
    This case's magnitude can be likened to allowing one company to 
control the

[[Page 24069]]

 automobile industry. Imagine the cars we would be driving if that 
were the case. The only reason Microsoft recently unveiled an 
operating system that doesn't crash is due to the miniscule 
competition that probably won't last long with settlements such as 
this...
    Gerald / Grand Chief
    MANTIS DESIGN
    www.mantisdesign.com
    [email protected]
    1.800.567.3778



MTC-00002291

From: Rand H. Childs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 3:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    From what I've seen, it appears to be a very weak response to an 
anti-trust case where the company was convicted of monopolistic 
practices. In addition it would appear that the governments are 
helping Microsoft become even more prevalent in the marketplace, 
whereby Microsoft will donate millions of dollars of software to 
schools, etc. What could be more monopolistic than putting in place 
a plan to increase Microsoft's dominance. This is what Microsoft 
wanted all along and they appeared to lie and delay until they 
basically got exactly what they (Microsoft) wanted. I do not see 
that this settlement in any way decreases Microsoft's monopolistic 
practices or helps the consumer in any way.
    As to the point of donations of software, instead Microsoft 
should donate money and let the recipient decide how to best spend 
the money.
    Sincerely yours,
    Rand H. Childs
    Vice President Research & Development
    Sirsi Corporation
    101 Washington Street SE
    Huntsville, AL 35801
    Phone: 256-704-7000
    Fax: 256-704-7007



MTC-00002292

From: Van Voris, James
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/27/01 3:46pm
Subject: Don't let Microsoft off easy.
    They were wrong and can certainly afford d to Don't let 
Microsoft off easy. They were wrong and can certainly afford d to 
pay. Make them pay cash to the schools and let schools decide what 
computers, software, new buildings, or whatever they might need to 
buy.
    Reid VanVoris
    Producer
    Miami-Dade Community College
    School of Entertainment Technologies
    Department of Film & TV
    11380 NW 27th Avenue, Room 1377
    Miami, Florida 33167
    PH: 305.237.1696
    FAX: 305.237.1367
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00002293

From: Gilbert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 3:40pm
Subject: Comments
    US Dept. Of Justice,
    I am confused about Microsoft's plan to settle its consumer 
class-action lawsuits by donating refurbished computers, hardware 
and other resources to the nation's poorest schools.
    What message would this communicate to other companies? Not only 
will they get away with a variety of unethical and/or illegal 
business practices but they get the reward of unfairly making 
inroads into education ? one of the few markets left where they 
don't have monopoly power!
    Please don't allow this to happen.
    Jay Gilbert



MTC-00002294

From: Hammerle, Paul
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/27/01 3:29pm
Subject: microsoft
    perfect:
    Start early to make the kids slaves of microsoft.
    paul hammerle



MTC-00002295

From: Lee d
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 3:28pm
Subject: I am thankful the the DOJ has decided to settle the case 
against
    I am thankful the the DOJ has decided to settle the case against 
Microsoft. I've already seen some rebounding in my stock portfolio 
and in my job opportunities. It would be great if you could get the 
moron from Conn to join you, to bad he only sees the dollar signs he 
thinks he can get.
    Lee Philips
    Computer Consultant



MTC-00002296

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 4:00pm
Subject: (no subject)
    The agreement is fine. It was a shame that the Clinton 
administration started this in the first place. I believe it did 
more harm to the country and the market then what they thought it 
would do. Obviously, for many groups, the only way they will feel 
vindicated is if Microsoft goes under. What they don't realize is 
with all the computers going into the worst schools will in fact be 
beneficial to everyone. Kids will have the opportunity to at least 
learn the basics and will go on from there. Be responsible and so on 
and so on.... It's a start in the right direction.



MTC-00002297

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the proposed Microsoft settlement, and the proposal 
that Microsoft donate millions of dollars to help bring technology 
to schools. Giving Microsoft the opportunity to gain marketshare in 
education is not a good way to punish them for monopolistic 
practices.
    One of Microsoft's business strategies has been the willingness 
to take short term losses in order to put others out of business and 
gain marketshare (eg. Netscape was damaged by Microsoft giving away 
the Explorer browser). This has given them the opportunity to make 
larger profits, and has given them more power to dictate what 
products will be allowed to compete in the marketplace.
    It is too late to repair the damage done to other companies by 
Microsoft. And Microsoft has shown itself to be untrustworthy in 
following previous restrictions imposed by DOJ.
    I have a potential solution:
    I would be in favor of Microsoft giving billions to education IF 
ALL PRODUCTS IN THE SETTLEMENT ARE FROM MICROSOFT COMPETITORS. This 
would be a perfect solution. Educational institutions would benefit 
by gaining needed access to cutting edge technology. Microsoft 
competitors would also benefit, which is in keeping with a sense of 
justice for actions where Microsoft hurt competitors by their 
illegal practices. Consumers would benefit, as more choices are good 
in a captalistic society. As an example Microsoft could purchase 
millions of Apple Macintosh computers for schools, thus helping the 
schools without enhancing Microsoft's position.
    The proposed settlement does nothing significant in the sense of 
punishment or retrubution, and will only enhance Microsoft's 
monopoly power in the long run_to the detriment of the 
consumer.
    As a user of personal computers since their inception, I am 
stunned and severely disappointed by the outcome of the case and the 
proposed remedy.
    The governments case was very strong, and weakly settled.
    Sincerely
    Jeff Drake
    1659 Wolverine Lane
    Fairbanks, Alaska 99709



MTC-00002298

From: Jim Straus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 3:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I've read the news on the proposed one billion dollar 
settlement. As I understand the deal, this seems to me to be very 
much in favor of Microsoft. In addition to few to no changes to 
their behavior, a portion of the punishment is, in fact, a real 
benefit to them. The resolution including the dissemination of their 
software and compatible hardware, training to use their products, 
and loads of their often bundled software, seems to fly in the face 
of the very point of the trial.
    They have been declared a monopoly for illegal tactics that were 
specifically meant to increase their market share, for bundling 
products for free to get market share, and for illegally blocking 
other's products to gain market share, and now, a good portion of 
the settlement specifically increases their market share of both the 
OS and their bundled products.
    I believe this settlement should be declined. Microsoft has once 
again gained the upper hand and will only benefit. The settlement 
should be made in order to change their behavior, this does nothing 
to address their behavior and will not change it in the

[[Page 24070]]

future, allowing them to continue to bilk the public.
    A similar proposal from Red Hat (http://www.redhat.com/about/
presscenter/2001/press_usschools.html) seems to satisfy what 
should be the goal of the proposal, if a settlement that benefits 
education is still desired.
    Jim Straus
    CC to:
    California: [email protected]
    Connecticut: [email protected]
    Florida: [email protected]
    Iowa: [email protected]
    Kansas: [email protected]
    Massachusetts: [email protected]
    Minnesota: [email protected]
    Utah: [email protected]
    West Virginia: [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]. 
gov@inetgw,attorney.gener...



MTC-00002299

From: Cal Simone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Requiring that Microsoft provide copies of Microsoft Windows, 
Microsoft application, Windows computers, and cash to schools only 
serve to further propagate their monopoly. This will not really 
punish Microsoft.
    Rather than requiring something that will end up supporting 
Microsoft's agenda, instead Microsoft should be required to purchase 
copies of the Mac OS, non-Microsoft applications for the Macintosh, 
Apple Macintosh computers and give them to the schools.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Cal Simone, luminary
    Washington, DC



MTC-00002300

From: Stuart Cheshire
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 4:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I know you are busy, so I will make this brief.
    The proposed so-called "punishment" for Microsoft is 
nothing but a billion-dollar marketing campaign to Microsoft's 
advantage. Microsoft executives must be rolling on the floor 
laughing. Putting millions of dollars-worth of Windows computers 
into our schools does only two things:
    1. It aids Microsoft, by helping it to further cement its 
strangle-hold on the computer industry.
    2. It hurts Apple, Microsoft's long-time competitor, by 
undermining Apple's position in the education market, one of the few 
markets where Apple still leads.
    If you want to really punish Microsoft in a way that will stop 
the executives laughing, force Microsoft to buy a billion dollars-
worth of Apple iMacs to put in our public schools. Stuart Cheshire
    
    CC:microsoftcomments@doj. 
ca.gov@inetgw,attorney.gener...



MTC-00002301

From: MORGAN,GINNY (HP-Corvallis,ex1)
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/27/01 4:08pm
    Allowing Microsoft access to beginning users of electronic 
products is a direct link to future sales. I have worked for a high 
technology company marketing organization in the past and that 
strategy was discussed as part of a marketing plan. I don't think 
that Microsoft is unaware of the market potential of a strategy that 
I heard about 10 years ago.
    G. Morgan



MTC-00002302

From: Ray Lowe
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/27/01 4:05pm
Subject: treat Microsoft like they did something fundamentally wrong 
(and continue to do it..
    XP and .NET, used PCs as billboards and ... microsoft markey cap 
is largely based on underhand, manipulative, business 
practices....Microsoft should suffer a MONETARY fine that represents 
a large portion of it's profits during the past 10 or so years...the 
profits were not made fairly. If they get off with anything less 
than this, the world will laugh even louder at our so-called 
'democracy' and justice for all sloganeering...it's pitiful to the 
point of being pathetic. Monetary power doesn't equal moral 
authority.



MTC-00002303

From: ksvm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 7:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    RE: To be entered into the record of U.S. v Microsoft
    Dear Honorable Persons:
    I am writing to ask you to reject the Final Judgment that has 
been proposed as the punishment for the charges which Microsoft 
Corporation has been found guilty. I do not believe that this 
proposal represents any safeguard or insurance of future protection 
for the consumer from Microsoft's monopolistic and predatory 
practices which were outlined in the Findings of Fact.
    In particular, I am appalled with the proposal for a three 
member review board which is made up of a Department of Justice 
representataive that is pro Microsoft; a Microsoft employee; and a 
third member picked by the other two. There is no one in this 
equation that is unbiased. The proposed solution also lacks a means 
for enforcement if Microsoft violates the agreement. It only returns 
us to a court battle and completely avoids the issue of Microsoft's 
abuse of it's monopoly power. Equally important, this remedy lacks 
opportunity for any public review. How is it that a corporation who 
is accused of harming the public can be reviewed by a board that 
appears to be heavily pro Microsoft and, is allowed to conduct 
business to protect the public in private. The fact that the three 
member board is paid by Microsoft only makes this more ludicrous.
    As a consumer I have been personally harmed by Microsoft's 
monopoly in the software industry in the following ways: Microsoft 
has changed or tweaked standards to make them work better or 
exclusively with Microsoft products. If I want to share information 
with a client or colleague that does not conform to their standards 
I am either hampered or prevented from doing so. My productivity is 
compromised because Microsoft does not feel they have to comply with 
the standards that have been determined by their industry. Computer 
companies that provided alternative products and software 
applications are no longer on the market. Microsoft has either 
absorbed them or bought them to prevent competition with their 
products. For the consumer, this means less choice, fewer 
applications and fewer 'innovative' new products that are able to be 
brought onto the market. Microsoft includes messages into it's 
software to dissuade the user from using a non Microsoft solution 
such as Netscape Navigator and Apple Computer's QuickTIme. These 
messages provided by Microsoft are nothing short of fear tactics for 
the purpose of intimidating the user and leading the user to a 
Microsoft's product.
    Microsoft's behavior is criminal and deserves a strong remedy. I 
have heard arguments that the government should not be wasting it's 
time and money punishing a corporation during a weak economy. This 
is not a matter where a weak economy should be made the scapegoat 
for Microsoft. A weak judgment by the court in this matter will send 
a very clear message to Microsoft , to other corporations and to the 
American people. That message being that illegal, unethical behavior 
by a corporation will be condoned by our government. Please prove 
that our justice system is just by rejecting the proposed remedy 
which does little to address the seriousness of their abusive 
behaviror and to prevent or discourage future antitrust violations 
by Microsoft Corporation.
    Respectfully,
    Karen Mirande
    PO Box 441
    Dufur OR 97021



MTC-00002304

From: James Beckcom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 7:08pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    The last thing we need in public schools, where I have spent the 
last 21 years teaching, is more donated computer equipment. 
Somewhere in this school district we must have a warehouse full of 
useless donated computer equipment. I do not believe the Microsoft 
settlement would be any different. Actually what we need is money to 
purchase NEW machines and equipment to enhance our fragile, very 
slow network. Right now I use a 350 mgz machine with a 6 GB hard 
drive. Do not let Microsoft off the hook. They have engaged in 
monopolistic practices, which have been technically outlawed since 
the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act!
    Sincerely,
    James Kevin Beckcom



MTC-00002305

From: GPSass
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 24071]]

Date: 11/27/01 6:35pm
Subject: Fw: Settlement
__- Original Message __
From: GPSass
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 9:42 AM
Subject: Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I am just a lonely consumer who has been using a computer for 
about 15 years. I have done my best not to buy Microsoft products, 
which is practically impossible, because I do not believe that there 
should be such a monopoly as Bill Gates is building. In every 
interview I have seen and books I have read on Bill Gates, he comes 
across as this very caring person_certainly he is trying to 
show that through his foundation contributions. But, I certainly 
understand his feeling now "that this is fair and let's just 
get it behind us." Let's slap this man on the wrist again and 
tell him to go forth and sin no more. Do you really believe that he 
and Steve B. are concerned about the consumer and not just 
themselves. I think this is an ego game for Gates, certainly it is 
not that he needs the money, but the power is more important. It is 
scary to see what he will be able to do by controlling access to e-
mail, the network, music and games.
    We are having problems in Pennsylvania now because we allowed a 
monopoly on electricity believing that there would be a watch dog 
and the utilities would play fair. Please consider what you are 
expecting from Microsoft and issue the strongest ruling that does 
not expect that "they will be play nice."
    Nothing in the past indicates that they will play nice without 
severe sanctions and without the be forced not to put other people 
out of business with their control. I look forward to reading a 
ruling that will do this. Thank you for reading this e-mail.
    Sincerely,
    Penny and Glenn Sass



MTC-00002306

From: JJeffery
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 6:33pm
Subject: The DOJ has sold out
    It is my understanding that the role of the DOJ is to uphold and 
enforce the law. The proposed settlement for the Microsoft AntiTrust 
case shows that the DOJ is not willing uphold or enforce the law. 
Microsoft has for years unlawfully used its monopoly to dominate 
each market it enters and to crush competitors unfairly. It has 
repeatedly done this. But perhaps the most unfortunate fact that has 
come to light in all of this is that the DOJ is unwilling to uphold 
and enforce the law where Microsoft is concerned. It seems that the 
DOJ is to timid to do more than slap the wrists of a company that 
consistently abuses its monopoly power.
    When someone or some company violates the law, there are 
supposed to be punishments and penalties applied that are supposed 
to ensure that the behavior is not repeated. There is nothing it the 
proposed agreement that would even make Microsoft pause or even 
think twice in its course to dominate any market it enters. There is 
no real fiscal penalty_everything Microsoft has spent on this 
trial and everything proposed in the settlement are no more than a 
minor business expenses which Microsoft views as a cost of doing 
business. There is nothing that would help restore competition to a 
more even keel. There is nothing to prevent a repetition of events 
or a similar sequence of events from happening in any market. There 
is nothing that would help undo the damage and harm that has been 
caused or prevent such from happening again.
    I would hope that someone in the DOJ would wake up and realize 
that this proposed settlement is no more that a light slap on the 
wrist with a license to repeat illegal behavior_just like the 
'95 settlement. The worst thing that can happen for our country and 
for the computer industry as a whole is for a repeat of the '95 
settlement to occur. Yet, that is what has been proposed. Please 
find it in your hearts the courage that it takes to uphold and 
enforce the law. Make the name of the DOJ mean that it will obtain 
justice when the law is violated.
    Sincerely,
    _Johan Jeffery



MTC-00002307

From: donny
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 7:21pm
Subject: microsoft settelment
    I believe the Microsoft settlement will only bring more people 
to use their software and further to keep the competition from 
gaining ground. By putting Window's based computers in the schools 
the students will not be exposed to other forms of computers such as 
Macintosh. The Macintosh platform is much easier to use and less 
susceptible to the many virus attacks (I believe there are only 42 
viruses that can attack a Mac platform and hundreds that can attack 
the Windows platform). I think a better settlement would be to have 
Microsoft pay damages rather than give away even more of their 
products.
    Thank you
    don bauman



MTC-00002308

From: roger(a)metadyne.com
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected] 
@inetgw,...
Date: 11/27/01 7:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sent to:
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
TO: US Department of Justice-Microsoft anti-trust comments:
    [email protected]
    I've read the news on the proposed one billion dollar 
settlement. This seems to me to be in Microsoft's favor. In addition 
to few to no changes of their behavior, a portion of the punishment 
is a real benefit to them. The resolution including the 
dissemination of their software and compatible hardware, training to 
use their products, and loads of their often bundled software, seems 
to fly in the face of the very point of the trial.
    Microsoft has been declared a monopoly for illegal tactics that 
were specifically meant to increase their market share, for bundling 
products for free to get market share, and for illegally blocking 
other's products to gain market share, and now, a good portion of 
the settlement specifically increases their market share of both the 
OS and their bundled products.
    I believe this settlement should be declined. Microsoft has once 
again gained the upper hand and will continue to benefit from such a 
settlement. The settlement should require a change in their 
behavior, the settlement does nothing to address their behavior and 
will not change it in the future.
    Roger Bauchspies
    CC to:
    California: [email protected]
    Connecticut: [email protected]
    Florida: [email protected]
    Iowa: [email protected]
    Kansas: [email protected]
    Massachusetts: [email protected]
    Minnesota: [email protected]
    Utah: [email protected]
    West Virginia: [email protected]
    Roger Bauchspies
    [email protected] 650-594-1322
    CC:RFC-822=California:microsoftcomments @doj.ca.gov 
@in...



MTC-00002309

From: Thomas C. Willett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 7:48pm
Subject: opposed to settlement
    I am opposed to the settlement terms for the Microsoft Antitrust 
case. It does nothing to punish Microsoft for past misdeeds and does 
nothing to prevent a continuation of the behaviour which prompted 
the suit in the first place. The fine print in the settlement 
negates all of the alleged remedies. At a minimum a settlement 
should require Microsoft to publish the specifications for the file 
formats of all of their products. They have used constantly changing 
file formats to force users to upgrade and to prevent competitors 
from being able to provide viable alternatives.
    _Thomas C. Willett
    [email protected]



MTC-00002310

From: Ben Grimsbo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 8:26pm
Subject: Too light of a settlement, not enough punishment
    I think you guys went a little too easy on MS. They punishment 
should've been much harsher. I think the reason it wasn't is because 
MS bribed you guys. Thus far that's the only rumor that has any 
strong ground. I hope it's wrong though, I don't like the thought 
that my government can be bought during such an important case. You 
should've at least ordered them to completely

[[Page 24072]]

revamp their Operating system based on their own ideas, not that of 
other companies. And you should've forced them to stop production of 
their internet explorer web browser application, which caused 
Netscape to go out of business. Once again, I really think you guys 
were too lenient.
    "Humans are animals too. It is just a question of which 
one is the real predator."
    Ben Grimsbo



MTC-00002311

From: don jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 8:07pm
Subject: Proposed Settlement
    I find it ironic that Microsoft is proposing to settle their 
anti-trust case by giving away software to schools_a market 
they currently do not completely dominate. And guess what, the lure 
of "free" software will make competing products 
untenable (because of cost) to schools, thus further solidifying 
Microsoft's monopoly by expanding it into yet another market! Only 
the government could think this a good settlement. While I am by no 
means a fan of anti-trust law and think that for the most part it 
does not achieve its intended ends, I must say that I find many of 
Microsoft's business practices to be highly unethical and was 
pleased to see the DOJ pursuing Microsoft over some of these issues. 
Especially after they so flagrantly violated the intent of the 
original consent degree they signed. Do you really think they will 
abide by the terms of the current settlement that is being arranged? 
If so, I have some waterfront property you might be interested in...



MTC-00002312

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 7:57pm
Subject: Keith Leffler's comments
    Dear attorneys,
    Its the first time i have ever emailed the attorney general's 
office but to do it twice is quite unbelievable for me but I 
sincerely hope the attorney generals office doesn't make the mistake 
of settling for this one billion dollar thing with microsoft's 
support for disadvantaged schools with computer hardware and 
microsoft software. I can't understand the logic behind this. Mr. 
Keith Leffler's comments that "The world is moving toward PCs, 
away from Apple. It has nothing to do with us," demonstrates 
how ignorant he is about what is really at stake or what is his real 
reason is for recommending this? I suggest you ask him to declare 
how much microsoft stock he or his family or friends have hiding or 
how much money he is making from a undisclosed microsoft 
retainership. I had my reservations about the politics but I am more 
suspicious than ever this is a political thing and I appreciate the 
need to focus on terrorists but this is really going to far and over 
the long run detrimental to united states technology and economic 
intrastructure. go for the quick fix in a complicated case?? i think 
you guys are smarter than that. Think about it. Microsoft is cannot 
be the only choice in our future. Please consider my views.
    Chappy Liu.



MTC-00002313

From: Scott Bartz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 10:18pm
Subject: Antitrust comments
    After following the case from the beginning I feel that 
Microsoft is getting off easy for predatory monopoly behavior. Even 
if they let computer makers change the opening screen and give 
access to some of the source code. The core issue remains the 
leveraging of the operating system into other markets such as 
browsers, streaming video, and office applications. For which 
Microsoft has obtained virtual monopoly by becoming the defacto 
standard. In many cases if you try to run some other sort of 
application other than Microsoft such as Netscape Navigator it 
either runs extemely slow or not at all depending upon the operating 
system on the machine. Thus you ending up running Microsoft software 
by default which ends up limiting consumer choice in the long run. 
In addition giving Microsoft the ability to determine what is put on 
the Windows opening screen gives them an advantage when it comes to 
determining which companies they want to deal with when it comes to 
vendor relationships. The other issue is that many other products 
that compete with Microsoft are unable because they are not 
compatible with the operating system which is essentially locks them 
out of the market for their products. Essentially Microsoft has 
convined software developers to write products designed to their 
defacto standard which keeps many other products from reaching the 
marketplace. I appreciate being able to comment on such a vital 
issue.
    Sincerly,
    Scott Bartz



MTC-00002314

From: Freiheit
To: Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 11/27/01 10:16pm
Subject: The so-called settlement with Microsoft
    Dear US Department of Justice,
    We, the people of the United States of America, have been 
legally refused the right to not run Microsoft software. As an 
American I am apalled by the so-called settlement of the Microsoft 
anti-trust case. Two levels of the US court system (US District 
Court and the US Appeals Court) ruled that Microsoft holds an 
illegal monopoly with its Windows operating system. How could anyone 
reasonably allow Microsoft to then walk away without even a slap on 
the wrist? The proposed settlement is weaker than the 1995 Consent 
Decree that started this anti-trust trial. It makes absolutely no 
attempt to repair the damage done by Microsoft's monopolistic, 
bullish practices to keep competing operating systems (such as IBM's 
OS/2, BeOS, and Linux) from succeeding. In both written and verbal 
testimony during the trial, witness after witness legaly testified 
that Microsoft had abused its monopoly position and that PC makers 
(OEMs) were strong-armed into refusing to support any non-Microsoft 
operating system. Take for example the price fixing done by 
Microsoft against IBM_in sworn testimony it was declared that 
if IBM installed even a single copy of its own OS/2 operating system 
on any PC they sold, they would be forced to pay as much as five 
times the going rate per license of Windows 95.
    How then can this settlement NOT address the Windows monopoly in 
any way, shape, or form? What becomes of those millions of PC users 
who have made the conscious choice to not run Windows on our 
computers? This settlement takes absolutely no action to ensure that 
competing operating systems will have a fair chance to survive. 
Those of us who educated ourselves and chose the appropriate 
operating system for our needs have been bullied and ridiculed in 
the past, and this settlement will only allow companies to legally 
continue to refuse our needs and desires. We will be further coerced 
into running Windows when we have made the choice to not run 
Windows. We will continue to receive zero support from hardware 
manufacturers whose products we use. We will continue to be refused 
the opportunity to purchase OS/2 or Linux on an off-the-shelf PC 
system. This is not due to consumer choice, as again two levels of 
the US court system declared that Windows was an illegal monopoly.
    And now Micrsoft is being allowed to resolve several class 
action lawsuits by_get this_force feeding Microsoft 
software to America's schools. How is this ever going to allow non-
Microsoft developers such as Corel, Lotus, IBM, Be, RedHat, etc, to 
make a profit? By legally declaring that America's schools must 
accept Microsoft's "donation" of Microsoft software, the 
US court system is going to destroy the concept of competition. I 
can think of no reason why a child, force fed nothing but Microsoft 
software from kindergarten through high school, would choose to use 
any non-Microsoft software later in life. These are the business 
decision makers of tomorrow_how is breeding them to recognize 
only Microsoft going to allow them to make the choice to use a 
superior product? I and many others strongly urge the US Department 
of Justice to rethink its strategy and to adhere to the court 
system's legal declaration that Windows is an illegal monopoly.
    We, the people of the United States of America, have been 
legally refused the right to not run Microsoft software. Should you 
feel the need to confirm my existence (unlike Microsoft I do not 
send letters from non-existent cities) you may contact me at the 
address or phone number below.
    Thank you.
    Don Eitner
    706 N. Euclid Ave. #1
    Upland, CA 91786
    (909) 985-4927
    Don "Freiheit" Eitner
    * Developer of The 13th Floor website (http://
freiheit.syntheticdimension.net)
    *Using OS/2 because I want to, not because I "have 
to".



MTC-00002315

From: Dave C. Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 10:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Proposed Settlement a CROCK !
    Talk about playing into the hands of the monopolist !

[[Page 24073]]

    The particulars seem to do nothing to Microsoft but provide 
another avenue for them to market they're products !
    You should be ashamed of yourself for striking this deal.
    Makes it look like you might be on the "Take" !!
    David C. Hill
    Arvada, Colorado "Let every nation know, whether it wishes 
us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet 
any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the 
survival and the success of liberty."
     ....John Fitzgerald Kennedy_1/20/61
    Dave Hill :-)



MTC-00002316

From: FAITHBASE. ORG CENTER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 10:04pm
Subject: Tunney Act Public comment CC: Stephen A. Schiro,43rd 
President George W. Bush
    Dear Sir:
    FaithBase. Org Center (FBOC) the "information-
clearinghouse" for Faith-Based Community Programs nationwide. 
FBOC has tried repeatedly to obtain information for input into this 
case without seccuss.
    FBOC can and will support Microsoft settlement for the 12,500 
Inner City At-Risk Youths Schools, with the inclusion of FaithBase. 
Org Center as the Ombudsman for the Faith-Based Community. This case 
must not become another "cash cow" for States without 
any efforts, or plans in "bridging this technology gap between 
the have and have not's of this world." FBOC further pray, 
that this settlement will not follow the "Phillip Morris 
enrichment of the States, to the detriment of the real smokers, and 
those who now, suffer form the second handed smoke."
    How can The FaithBase. Org Center help?
    UNTIL OUR LORD COMES, Remember to pray for the peace of 
Jer(usa)lem, & The United States of America.
    Reverend Charles Linder Floyd
    Signature Typed
    FaithBase. Org Center
    9484 Yucca Terrace Drive
    Phelan, CA 92371-5508
    Phone/fax 760 948-2093
    email: [email protected]
    [email protected]



MTC-00002317

From: Tom Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR,senator_hatch@ 
hatch.senate.gov@inetg...
Date: 11/27/01 10:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Questions
    Will Microsoft be permitted to deduct the $1 Billion in 
Antitrust settlement from its Federal IRS and State Business Tax 
liability ??? I hope not !
    Why is Microsoft being permitted to flood the poorest schools 
with refurbished PCs and Microsoft software as addressed in the URL 
below ??? http://maccentral.macworld. com/news/0111/
27.settlement.php
    Regards,
    Tom Johnson
    RAVEN CONSULTANTS



MTC-00002318

From: Mike Ireland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 10:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Having reviewed the decisions and documents on the DOJ web site 
and reading other sources extensively, I believe that the settlement 
which the DOJ has ascribed to is patented permission for Microsoft 
to continue its predatory practices. This is further affirmed by the 
proposal which Microsoft has made in settling the private suits. 
This proposal flies in the face of the finding of facts that 
Microsoft is a monopoly. Their proposal to "fund" up to 
$1 billion to bring computers to schools using their own proprietary 
software and their vested interest in machines that only run their 
software based on Windows smacks of arrogance and further attests to 
the monopolistic nature of their company. This actions shows that 
they show no inclination to make changes.
    Coupled with their introduction of Windows XP, which demands 
that users pay additional fees for the use of their product, this 
settlement locks consumers further into Microsoft's chokehold on the 
industry. That the Department of Justice would even consider going 
along with this settlement after the result of the appeal to the 
Federal Court of Appeals which stated unequivocably that Microsoft 
is a monopoly makes me wonder if the decision of the settlement is 
one based on law or politics or worse_convenience.
    I believe strongly that the DOJ should reconsider its stand and 
withdraw from the proposed settlement, at the least to fend off any 
duplicity or potential conflicts of interest. As a consumer, I want 
choice. Just because 90-95% of the world uses a product is no 
reason to delay the possibility that there is something better that 
is yet to be invented. Microsoft's monopoly prevents this from 
happening. The settlement is grossly flawed. The only fair remedy 
would be to break the company into at least two separate entities in 
order to foster competition and prevent further predatory behavior 
by Microsoft.
    J. Michael Ireland



MTC-00002319

From: Clark Warner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 10:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    TO: US Department of Justice-Microsoft anti-trust comments: 
[email protected] Before I begin, let me state up front 
that I am a former employer of Apple Computer, Inc.
    The termination of my employment was voluntary and I still think 
highly of the company and its products. I say this to concede that 
there may be a possibility of bias despite my efforts to be 
objective. I feel it is important that I disclose that fact.
    That having been said, I must strongly urge the government to 
reject the proposed settlement. In my view the original remedy was 
appropriate and I was saddened when it became clear that it would 
not come to pass. As long as Microsoft maintains a dominant position 
in operating systems, productivity applications and web 
applications, competition will be reduced or eliminated in each 
area.
    Putting that aside, I find some very specific flaws in the 
existing settlement as I currently understand it. As the son of a 
retired public school teacher I am thrilled at the notion of 
additional computing equipment for our public schools, especially 
those in poor districts. I agree, however, with the growing 
sentiment that Microsoft's plan is inappropriate. The punishment 
here seems to be to allow Microsoft to gain market share in one of 
the few markets where they are not currently dominant. Microsoft has 
demonstrated a willingness to give away products in order to 
eliminate competition. Indeed, this is exactly what they did to 
Netscape. Allowing them to use the strategy they have illegally 
employed as a remedy for that behavior is, quite frankly, a 
preposterous idea. It is akin to granting permission to an embezzler 
to embezzle from a subsequent firm in order to repay the initial 
victim. If aiding our public schools is the goal, then Microsoft 
should be forced to provide funding exclusively for the purchase of 
competing products. There are precious few such products in any 
market space but perhaps several billion dollars earmarked 
specifically for non-microsoft products would help make linux, or 
Mac OS more viable.
    I sincerely hope that the government will reject this offer 
insist upon a remedy that will not benefit Microsoft.
    Regards,
    Clark H. Warner
    Software Engineering Manager
    Allston, MA



MTC-00002320

From: Arthur Ulrich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 7:26am
Subject: antitrust violatation
    I think that microsoft is violated the antitrust laws already. 
and if you dont break up the microsoft soon, then they will keep 
going in monopoly power to force drives other business go out of 
business. that is not good for us, but apple is good OS and 
perfectly risc cpu is very fast and efficient than intel. intel used 
cisc, I believe that cisc is slow. but I want you to break up 
microsoft for all of us. if broken then we are free to choose.... 
thank you. and P.S. I don't want apple go out of business. but 
windows XP is already in violatation of antitrust.... they are 
already violated too many. (microsoft). that why microsoft should be 
punished.
    and bill gates needs go jailed or pay a fine a tons of billions 
of dollars. thanks.



MTC-00002321

From: Randy Carver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 6:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the current terms of settlement in the Microsoft 
case. The current terms of settlement are self serving for 
Microsoft. Giving a billion dollars of software to schools, will do 
nothing to remedy the anti-competitive practices of Microsoft, in 
fact it has been a common marketing practice of a Microsoft 
competitor, Apple Computer, to provide bundled Apple products to 
Schools in order to attract customers later in their buying career.

[[Page 24074]]

    As a Software engineer, I have seen several cases of gross 
injustices brought about by Microsoft on Competitors. They 
continually use unpublished API's to the MS OS from their 
application software, and this has been proved by the industry time, 
and time again.
    They have used their OS systems to blatantly block out 
competitor such as DR-DOS back in the early 1990's. Again, 
this was investigated by the software development community and 
found to be in the Windows 3.1 code. (See Dr. Dobbs for more 
information and details).
    I realize that these items are not part of the case that the DOJ 
brought against MS, but it shows a continuing blatant disregard for 
antitrust practices.
    Overall I am disgusted with the non-job that the Department of 
Justice has done. We have gone from an antitrust settlement to 
BARELY a slap on the wrist.
    DO NOT AGREE TO THIS SETTLEMENT! IT IS NOT IN MY BEST INTEREST!
    Sincerely,
    Randall Paul Carver
    Senior Software Engineer
    4590 Allison Street
    Wheat Ridge, CO 80033



MTC-00002322

From: [email protected]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/27/01 11:04pm
Subject: Tarjetas de Navidad TEMAS DE VIDA CRISTIANA
    OfrecemosTarjetas de Navidad con motivos claramente cristianos.
    * Hemos procurado editarlas a muy bajo costo para que la 
difusion del mensaje del Nacimiento de Jesus llegue a muchas 
personas.
    * Los precios de dichas tarjetas van de forma escalonada: desde 
S/. 1.80 la unidad hasta S/. 1.20 cuando se compran 100 a mas 
tarjetas. Estos precios incluyen el IGV.
    Nos proponemos devolver a esta fiesta tan nuestra su verdadero 
significado. Le recomendamos visite nuestra pagina http://
www.aplenosol.com/tarjetas/ .en ella encontrara todos los modelos y 
la forma de adquirirlos y hacer su pedido en linea.
    Si quieres salir de esta lista solo tienes que marcarlo en el 
sgte. link
    To remove yourself or change your subscription, please visit 
http://valmansi.com/multimail/mail.php



MTC-00002323

From: Mark Buell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 9:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam;
    Over the last several years, I have repeatedly been disappointed 
with Microsoft's callus disregard for any long-term responsibility 
to their end-users. They remind me of the Detroit automakers in the 
60's, arrogantly denying that they were using planned obsolecence as 
a marketing strategy_not to mention quality (lack of).
    I was absolutely shocked when Judge Jackson reached his 
decisions_but pleasantly! This latest legal decision is a 
travesty, and the compromise being offered is a victory_for 
Microsoft. Please do not give up until we have a decent decision! 
Please do not quit on us now!
    Regards;
    Mark Buell



MTC-00002324

From: Scarpetta, Jim (035)115
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/28/01 9:01am
Subject: Microsoft Case
    Microsoft has stabalized the computer industry and I for one 
believe they are getting picked on. It's a relief to see this case 
fianlly being settled. In this world economy America needs strong 
companies like Microsoft.
    Jim Scarpetta
    Network Administrator
    City of Joliet Illinois



MTC-00002325

From: Roger Eaton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 8:45am
Subject: Settlement
    The settlement with Microsoft is long overdo....this is a bogus 
suit to begin with...an absolute waste of money & resources of 
the government....
    Roger Eaton
    Purchasing Agent
    Datex Corporation
    Tel (813) 891-6464 Ext 237
    Fax (813) 891-6846



MTC-00002326

From: Robert Hancock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 10:26am
Subject: Is the current settlement stupid or just naive? my vote: IT 
IS NOT ENOUGH
    I'm very curious why the government seems so confident that 
simply ordering Microsoft not to violate its anti-trust rules will 
be effective. Even with the "teeth" of financial 
penalties, Microsoft has already demonstrated a history of flaunting 
its violations in the face of the court. They have so much profit 
that even stiff financial penalties create little corporate 
motivation for compliance.
    Microsoft can break the court's anti-trust orders intentionally, 
knowing they will simply pay the financial cost, take their case to 
court to remove the ongoing penalties while they're appealing the 
issue and shift their historically consistent anti-competitive 
practices to a different mode that isn't the current focus of the 
courts.
    Who loses when Microsoft practices this tactic? Competitors AND 
consumers. The tech sector moves so rapidly that businesses can go 
bankrupt in the time it takes to settle a Microsoft issue in court 
(Netscape comes to mind). This leads to LOSS of innovation through 
the demise of innovating companies. Microsoft is not threatened by 
competitors which don't innovate. It is the innovative competitors 
which represent a corporate threat to them. It is very often the 
small startup companies that are TRULY innovating_unlike 
Microsoft which often simply mimics others' innovations. When small 
companies enter competition with existing monoliths like Microsoft, 
they can only thrive if they offer a significantly better 
alternative. The tech sector universally acknowledges that market 
share often outweighs innovation in influencing the direction of 
technology. This makes federal protection of small innovators all 
the more important for our nation to truly thrive in the tech 
oriented global economy. These small startups are one of the most 
valuable American innovative forces. And THESE companies are the 
ones who go out of business because of Microsoft's predatory 
practices, or simply resign from competing with Microsoft because 
they don't have the financial resources to fight a court battle with 
Microsoft (whose financial resources for such endeavors are almost 
inexhaustible). This means Microsoft ends up winning the tech 
competition even if they receive a court judgment against them and 
pay a heavy fine. Have "we" learned ANYTHING from the 
history of previous federal injunctions against Microsoft which we 
were repeatedly broken? What did we learn about Microsoft from their 
"compliance" with judicial orders to remove Internet 
Explorer from the Windows operating system? They basically 
"fingered" the court when they intentionally crippled 
the operating system as a side effect of their 
"compliance". While judge Jackson's decision to talk to 
the media may have been considered an indiscretion for legal 
purposes which worked to Microsoft's advantage, that in no way 
lessons the significance of the contempt for the court that 
Microsoft displayed so many times during the hearings with judge 
Jackson. This reveals an endemic cultural attitude which can't be 
resolved by the imposition of court orders and fines. They only way 
to break that attitude is by breaking up the company.

FINAL POINT: BREAK MICROSOFT UP!

    In my opinion, the only remedy which does justice to the federal 
court's conclusion identifying Microsoft as a monopoly is to break 
up the company. I believe this is the only way to truly prevent 
Microsoft from abusing its monolithic power and influence. The more 
Microsoft diversifies into different markets, the greater its 
ability to dominate a new market through the misuse of its 
monopolizing control in a different market segment. Unless something 
happens to change the current settlement, it appears we're all going 
to get to sit back and watch this happen.



MTC-00002327

From: C.R. Murphey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 9:59am
Subject: To Whom It May Concern:
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I think it is about time the government went about making our 
country secure and get out of private business. If people don't like 
Microsoft let them buy something else.



MTC-00002328

From: hj
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Suit solution
    LETS PUT THE KIDS FIRST



MTC-00002329

From: Robert Hancock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 10:32am

[[Page 24075]]

Subject: my vote:
    BREAK UP MICROSOFT!!! enough said.



MTC-00002330

From: zero
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected] 
@inetgw,...
Date: 11/28/01 11:08am
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Sirs
    I find myself compelled to write to you with a mixture of 
frustration, anger and disappointment. I am shocked to witness our 
judicial system and government failing to do justice on behalf of 
the people and companies they represent. If there ever was a 
monopolistic and criminal company, it would have to be Microsoft.
    Not only is our government failing to punish Microsoft, the 
government is helping it expand its monopoly into areas such as 
education which they do not control at the expense of other 
companies. It is my hope to see this latest proposed settlement be 
rejected in favor of a severe and just one. Microsoft is a Monopoly 
and is using its vast resources to squeeze other companies out of 
business and penetrate new markets with unfair and criminal business 
practices.
    Microsoft's latest business and private licensing fees reflect 
its arrogance and dominance in the market place. Do the right thing 
and punish Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    Piero Favretti



MTC-00002331

From: Matos, Rob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 11:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing this letter in order to voice my opinion regarding 
the settlement deal which the US Department of Justice has accepted 
in the anti-trust case vs. Microsoft.
    I am appalled that the DOJ and several of the states in the 
original suit are even considering this settlement. The terms as 
suggested in the current proposal are not only unacceptably weak as 
a remedy, but are actually favorable to Microsoft.
    For example, the part of the settlement deal where Microsoft is 
offering to provide money, computer hardware, Microsoft Software and 
Support to public schools, may seem like a good idea but it is 
obvious to anyone that the schools would then be much more likely to 
be "locked-in" to Microsoft technology and PC compatible 
hardware. In addition, students of those schools would be 
indoctrinated in the use of Microsoft software and PC compatible 
hardware, and would be more likely to purchase those brands in the 
future. This would also provide Microsoft and its hardware partners 
an easy way to write off unsold stock. Not much of a penalty in my 
opinion... Microsoft defends all this by saying that the schools 
would be free to spend the money as they want and can decide to go 
with other software and hardware providers. However, even Microsoft 
acknowledges that schools which choose that route would not benefit 
from all the resources they are offering. How many schools systems 
do you think will opt for just the money, when they can get the 
whole ball of wax if they go with Microsoft software? If Microsoft's 
intent was to benefit schools while paying a "fine" why 
didn't they just offer to put money in a fund that could be used by 
the schools in any way they want?
    While this offer may be tempting considering the desperate 
financial situation that many of our schools are in, we cannot allow 
as remedy an action which will help the company further strengthen 
their monopoly power. I am heartened to see that several of the 
states including Massachusetts are not joining the DOJ in accepting 
this appalling settlement. I would urge the DOJ to re-examine its 
decision. We cannot let political expedience and our sagging economy 
temper our punishment of a company which has been found to be anti-
competitive, has done everything to find loopholes in previous 
remedy decisions and is attempting to use this settlement as a 
vehicle to continue its practices and open new revenue streams in 
the process.
    Robert F. Matos
    4 Burke Street
    Groveland, MA 01834
    [email protected]



MTC-00002332

From: Robert Hancock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 10:50am
Subject: current settlement is WEAK! Break up Microsoft!
    Attempting to address Microsoft's anti-competitive business 
practices and monopolistic existence with the current proposed 
settlement is like trying to keep a freight train which is moving 90 
miles an hour from hitting a car on the tracks 100 feet away by 
issuing the train a speeding ticket. Good luck!
    The only way to "stop the train" is by breaking it 
up. My opinion: reject the current settlement and revert to the 
previous recommendation of the federal attorneys to break up 
Microsoft into separate entities.
    Think about it! Will breaking up Microsoft REALLY hamper its 
ability to innovate as they claim? What flaming nonsense! One only 
has to look at the past two decades of technological innovation to 
see that small companies can innovate as well or better than big 
companies. Microsoft's "innovations" will in NO way be 
hampered by separating them into small companies. They only thing it 
will do is allow competition an incremental move towards a better 
ability to compete with Microsoft. Even such a move would only be 
incremental because of Microsoft's vastly superior financial 
resources for marketing and extended court battles and its current 
ability to conduct anti-competitive business practices.
    It is the small innovators that need Federal protection, not the 
monoliths like Microsoft. Get with it.



MTC-00002333

From: Berve, Thomas
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/28/01 11:22am
Subject: settlement
    As a computer coordinator for a large school district I can't 
understand this decision. It will help Microsoft reach into schools 
and further allow them to control our software and hardware choices. 
Microsoft has no real interest in education except has a market for 
their goods. We are a cross-platform district and we receive zero 
help from Microsoft except in the area of sales. Currently they are 
doing everything they can to force us to upgrade to Windows XP at a 
cost we can not afford. Upgrade costs for XP have almost doubled 
from Windows NT.
    This settlement would do nothing to hurt or punish Microsoft 
except cost them a few dollars. If a teacher catches a student 
cheating on a test, they don't get to retake the test after cleaning 
the room with no effect on their grade. This decision would hurt the 
only company that truly has an educational interest in schools, 
Apple Computer. Apple, while not perfect, still believes in helping 
teachers teach, not selling equipment. They have a legion of 
employees that do nothing but provide expertise in technology based 
instruction. No other computer vendor is as committed to education.
    I am not an enemy of Microsoft, I use their software daily. I'm 
writing this message in Outlook. However, just because they have 
tremendous economic strength doesn't excuse their actions. I love my 
students, but when they do something wrong, I hold them accountable. 
This decision does nothing to hold Microsoft accountable.
    Tom Berve
    Social Studies Department Leader
    Computer Support
    Papillion-LaVista H.S.



MTC-00002334

From: Baiss Eric Magnusson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 11:17am
Subject: Comment on the Microsoft settlement
    Ms Renata Hesse,
    I would like to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement. As 
an independent software developer who has been unemployed for most 
of the last 14 months, I very much feel the economic recession. 
Although the "dot-com" bust is undoubtedly a reason for 
the current lack of jobs, it is the predatory monopolistic practices 
of Microsoft Corporation which I feel is the main reason for the 
situation so many of us independent software developers find 
ourselves in.
    The FUD, (fear, uncertainty and doubt) fostered by Microsoft's 
actions with regards to the Java programming language has severely 
limited the expansion of Internet software capabilities and the 
attendant programmer employment. Also, the way Microsoft has 
positioned its ".NET" strategy, as an alternative to the 
current Internet experience, rather then positioning it as an 
embrace and extend, has stagnated the development of Internet based 
computer applications. As an individual who chooses to develop and 
deploy Internet solutions on non-Microsoft software platforms, this 
has locked me out of business opportunities.
    The three pillars of justice: restraint, rehabilitation and 
retribution are not adequately addressed by this proposal. While a 
measure of rehabilitation needs time for accountability, the 
settlement provides no

[[Page 24076]]

relief from the monopolistic force of Microsoft's Internet browser, 
why is it that this is permitted? Microsoft must be forced to market 
their browser independent from their operating system. Also there is 
no retribution available to the thousands of companies and the over 
hundred thousand engineers who have been affected by Microsofts 
actions. The Microsoft education proposal is a mockery of accounting 
and a piece of candy for Microsoft's thrust into education. I spent 
five years on the Riverview School District technology committee 
which is in King County, Washington; and a third of that time was 
spent trying to prevent the takeover of the computer resources by 
those who mistakenly believe that a single computer supplier is 
beneficial to the educational system.
    I have encountered the lies, sabotage and intimidation of 
Microsoft for fifteen years now and I'm angry about the situation. I 
have enclosed a link to my resume, from which you can see I have 
been involved in software development which includes important work 
I did for the Apollo Space Program.
    
    Baiss Eric Magnusson verbard; [email protected]
    Cascade Web Design/Software Design and Consulting,
    
    32307 NE 193rd St. Specializing in WebObjects & Java
    Duvall, WA. 98019-9745 425-788-2394



MTC-00002335

From: Lance Goddard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 11:08am
Subject: Microsoft "Penalty" Proposal
    I am simply dumbfounded that a proposed settlement with 
Microsoft has them donating their products to educational 
institutions. This is probably the only area in their business model 
in which they don't have a monopoly. Amazing!
    Also, I have the impression that the penalties were to be based 
on exorbitant retail pricing instead of actual cost. I suppose they 
could then use such penalties as a deduction on their corporate tax 
bill. Is this truly meant to be a penalty for a company which 
obviously engages in monopolistic activities? Please use some of my 
tax dollars to hire someone who has an understanding of this 
business.
    Sincerely,
    Lance Goddard



MTC-00002336

From: Brant Darilek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 11:49am
Subject: Ridiculous
    As a computer user I feel that this offer is plain stupid. 
Microsoft is on trail for being a monopoly not to give them more 
business. I truly hope that this offer is not accepted.
    Brant Darilek
    San Antonio, Texas



MTC-00002337

From: tmw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 11:27am
Subject: MS
    Please don't give the education market to Microsoft as 
punishment for improper behavior.
    Please work harder to control the monopoply abuse of microsoft. 
Our future depends on it.
    Tom Witte



MTC-00002338

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 11:31am
Subject: break up microsoft
    Please break up Microsoft into an Office group and an 
"other" group.
    Thanks,
    Josh Geller



MTC-00002339

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 12:10pm
Subject: Microsoft case
Forwarded by David L Leazenby/US/DNY on 11-28-2001 12:09 
PM
To: [email protected]
cc:
Subject: Microsoft case
    Your Honors,
    I am a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer and a Macintosh 
Systems Specialist. I work for R. R. Donnelley & Sons in Warsaw, 
Indiana as a Systems Analyst. I feel strongly that this settlement 
does nothing but further increase Microsoft's monopoly. The proposed 
one Billion dollar "gift" to poorer schools is a very, 
very bad option. It only benefits Microsoft. Older, re-furbished 
computers can't run today's Windows software. Re-furbished Apple 
Computers would be a better choice. The U.S. Government should be 
required to buy at least 50% or more of the computers they use from 
Apple. The Mac makes a far superior workstation and can be 
integrated with any network. Schools use Macs for one reason....they 
are a better. I taught my kids to use a Mac when they were 2 years 
old and they have been using them ever since. Even though I am an 
MCSE I will tell you that the Macintosh is a far superior platform. 
It takes less time to set up, is more efficient to use and is 
considered the premier choice for home or small business use. Sure, 
there are more Windows machines than Macs. There are more insects 
than people, but that doesn't make them a higher life form. Besides, 
if it were not for Apple, there would be no innovation, and no 
Windows operating system at all (It is a crude copy of the Mac 
operating system).
    David L. Leazenby, Macintosh Systems Specialist, MCP, 
MCP+Internet, MCSE,
    2404 Hummel Drive
    Mishawaka, IN 46544
    (219) 256-1371 (Home)
    (219) 267-9524 (Work)



MTC-00002340

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 12:10pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I have read that MS is willing to provide poor schools with $1 B 
worth of hard- and software. If $1 B is the most MS can be asked to 
"contribute" (the damages are greater, in my opinion), I 
suggest they make their contribution in real dollars, not in 
rehabilitated machines and software. Neither the machines nor the 
software are worth the value MS will assign to them. In fact, the 
marginal cost to MS of supplying their software to schools that 
would not have purchased said software is virtually zero.
    Cheers, Bob Bednarz



MTC-00002341

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 12:09pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    Your Honors,
    I am a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer and a Macintosh 
Systems Specialist. I work for R. R. Donnelley & Sons in Warsaw, 
Indiana as a Systems Analyst. I feel strongly that this settlement 
does nothing but further increase Microsoft's monopoly. The proposed 
one Billion dollar "gift" to poorer schools is a very, 
very bad option. It only benefits Microsoft. Older, re-furbished 
computers can't run today's Windows software. Re-furbished Apple 
Computers would be a better choice. The U.S. Government should be 
required to buy at least 50% or more of the computers they use from 
Apple. The Mac makes a far superior workstation and can be 
integrated with any network. Schools use Macs for one reason....they 
are a better. I taught my kids to use a Mac when they were 2 years 
old and they have been using them ever since. Even though I am an 
MCSE I will tell you that the Macintosh is a far superior platform. 
It takes less time to set up, is more efficient to use and is 
considered the premier choice for home or small business use. Sure, 
there are more Windows machines than Macs. There are more insects 
than people, but that doesn't make them a higher life form. Besides, 
if it were not for Apple, there would be no innovation, and no 
Windows operating system at all (It is a crude copy of the Mac 
operating system).
    David L. Leazenby, Macintosh Systems Specialist, MCP, 
MCP+Internet, MCSE
    2404 Hummel Drive
    Mishawaka, IN 46544
    (219) 256-1371 (Home)
    (219) 267-9524 (Work)



MTC-00002342

From: Mark Sandrock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 12:43pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft settlement
    Hello.
    I was stunned to read of the proposed settlement that would 
allow Microsoft off the hook so cheaply. In my opinion the cost to 
Microsoft to settle should be much higher, and just as importantly, 
they should not benefit in any way from the settlement. The cost to 
Microsoft of donating their software is minimal--it costs them 
a few dollars to manufacture CD copies of their software, which they 
then value at many hundreds of dollars.
    If they are going to help the schools, let it be a purely 
MONETARY fine, which the schools may then spend entirely as they see

[[Page 24077]]

fit--whether for computer equipment, or for other purposes. As 
a long time industry observer, I feel that Microsoft has illegally 
parlayed their Windows monopoly into a near monopoly on office 
software, and this has cost the consumer many billions of dollars. 
Note that Microsoft Office sells for $400 to $500, whereas 
comparable products, such as Apple's AppleWorks office suite, sell 
for less than $100. Why? Because they can, because they've 
systematically eliminated any real competition on the Windows 
platform over decades. Please read the history of Microsoft, and 
realize that a leopard doesn't change its spots. They'll never 
change, but they need to pay for what they've done to the computer 
industry.
    Thank you.
    Mark Sandrock
    Manager of System Administration



MTC-00002343

From: Dennis Dobbs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 12:38pm
Subject: Settlement
    The proposed settlement will have very negative consequences for 
Apple Computer.
    If Microsoft wants to be charitable, then why don't they give a 
billion dollars cash to poor schools to spend on whatever they want. 
Why do poor schools need computers so bad? Computers are probably 
the least of their problems. Microsoft's proposal wont hurt them at 
all. They could give out a billion extra copies of Windows XP and 
the only thing it will cost them is the price to burn the CD's. It 
is in fact a good deal for Microsoft because it will give them more 
market share in the education market. As Steve Jobs says, this is 
one of the last markets that Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly in. 
You see, Bill Gates is being a monopolist right before your very 
eyes in the courtroom. Don't let this happen!
    Dennis Dobbs
    Student
    Colorado School of Mines



MTC-00002344

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 12:30pm
Subject: microsoft settelment
    By accepting this settlement offer from Microsoft you are 
perpetuating the very thing you fought against, and won, in court. 
Allowing Microsoft to pay off their guilty verdict with their own 
software etc you only allow them to increase an already staggering 
monopoly by infiltrating the one arena they have not been able to 
compete_education. Should Microsoft be allowed to compete? 
Yes. Should that that competition be unfair? No. You people have the 
legal right to impose a settlement that sends a message to Redmond 
infroming them that unfair business practices will not be tolarated.
    The consumer is hurt by this proposed settlement.
    Jack Goodjohn



MTC-00002345

From: Garry Hanson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 12:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft's proposed plan to donate computers and software to 
schools as part of their lawsuit settlement is a joke! Justice would 
not be served by allowing Microsoft's "punishment" to be 
a free pass to extend their monopolistic practices into the 
education market. The only unbiased solution would be to have 
Microsoft give money to the schools and let the schools determine 
where they spend it.
    Garry Hanson
    Grand Rapids, Michigan



MTC-00002346

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 12:46pm
Subject: self imposed penalty in Microsoft monopoly case
    It seems to me that allowing a company that has been convicted 
of being a monopoly a chance to further expand into the only realm 
they do not control is inconsistent with any form of punishment. By 
allowing Microsoft to give computers using their software to schools 
you train a young group of computer users to be used to using the 
applications provided to them by Microsoft. Since they know and are 
familiar with these applications they will continue to use them in 
the future. This settlement actually makes good advertising sense 
for Microsoft. If they can corner the education market in this way 
they can finally truly control the entire computer industry, or at 
least an even larger segment of it. A billion dollars in computers 
to schools sounds good but is not inconsistent with a normal 
advertising budget at Microsoft. It is a budget very similar to the 
launch budget for Windows XP and just makes good business sense for 
them. If they are to supply a billion dollars in computers to 
schools as part of the remedy for monopolistic practices these 
computers should not have the windows operating system on them. If 
they do it only amounts to advertising for Microsoft. If it is your 
goal in prosecuting Microsoft to reward them for being a monopoly by 
all means allow them to set this as their "punishment." 
However, if you truly wish to allow a true spirit of competition and 
free enterprise to grow in the computer industry you must set a 
remedy which curtails and does not increase their ability to 
monopolise this market.
    Andrew Becker
    Vicar, Redeemer Lutheran Church



MTC-00002347

From: Eric Jorgensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 12:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am a professional in the information technology 
field_and have been for over 13 years. It was with some 
interest that I saw the Justice Department file suit with Microsoft 
the first time related to browser bundling (1994-1995). 
However, I believe that the terms of that agreement have been 
violated, and are cause for concern that any agreement that does not 
provide for tough regulation of Microsoft will be similarly 
violated.
    Perhaps the most striking aspect of this case to me is 
Microsoft's complete denial of doing anything wrong. They contend 
this, even to this day. How can a company that doesn't believe it 
has done anything wrong be trusted to "do the right 
thing" in future dealings? Microsoft has proven itself to be 
untrustworthy, and the current settlement is merely a slap on the 
wrist and will have no long-standing effect against the monopoly 
that is Microsoft. I do not necessarily believe that Microsoft 
should be split. However, I do believe the following items should be 
addressed in any settlement (and are not addressed in the current 
settlement).
_bundling: Microsoft has pursued a tactic where software is 
bundled in with the operating system. First browsers, now media 
players. This needs to stop, as vendors such as Netscape, and now 
Real Networks, find themselves at a competitive disadvantage when 
every new PC has competing software already installed by default.
_java: Microsoft's current operating system, Windows XP, is 
further limiting consumer choice by not supporting java. This is a 
direct slap in the face to the Department of Justice, and the 
American consumers as a whole. They call this 
"innovation", but it is removing functionality already 
present in previous versions of the operating system.
_.NET: Microsoft is at a dangerous crossroads, where they 
intend to move their monopoly from the desktop to the Internet. For 
example, I was a user of the Visio diagramming tool. It was used to 
generate databases in Oracle. However, Microsoft bought the company, 
and now Visio is part of the MS Office Suite.
    Functionality that used to be in the program is now in the 
Visual Basic Studio .NET program_and only works with Microsoft 
products. This is a dangerous precedent, and without strong 
supervision these sort of tactics will continue.
    I urge everyone at the Justice Department to look closely at the 
current settlement and ask themselves several questions. Is this 
settlement the best for consumers, rather than just a simple 
resolution in difficult times? Will this settlement actually cause 
Microsoft to change its ways? Will this settlement be used by MS as 
a "vindication" of their practices, since they have 
admitted no wrongdoing? So in conclusion, I cannot caution strongly 
enough against the settlement as it stands in current form. It is 
not effective and will not prevent the kinds of abuses that have 
happened in the past, and even continue to this day.
    Sincerely,
    Eric R. Jorgensen
    Parker, Colorado



MTC-00002348

From: Jeffrey Hunter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 12:57pm
Subject: Proposed Settlement Benefits Microsoft and Punishes 
Everyone Else
    Please reconsider the proposed settlement that you have made 
with Microsoft, especially the part where Microsoft will donate $1 
billion worth of Microsoft Software and Computers to under 
privileged schools. This settlement punishes no one and will

[[Page 24078]]

actually benefit Microsoft who stands to gain increased market share 
in the educational market. Once Microsoft has this increased market 
share they will use their position against the educational markets 
to bully them just like they have the business sector. If you want 
to punish Microsoft you should make them give the $1 billion dollars 
divided equally to the 12,500 schools and let them spend it on 
whatever computer hardware and software matches their technology 
road maps.
    Thanks for your time,
    Jeff Hunter
    9009 Corran Ferry Dr
    Austin TX 78749



MTC-00002349

From: Jeffrey Lovell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 12:53pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft Settlement Plans
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I believe the suggested remedies reported in the news are not 
going to have the slightest impact on Microsoft's predatory 
marketing practices and subsequent illegal abuse of monopoly power.
    I don't need to recite more examples to you. I'm sure you've 
seen them all by now. You have seen what has been done by Microsoft 
to date as well as their indignant attitude during the whole 
process. You are a judge, and it is time for you to do that now. All 
I ask is that you don't allow the settlement process to make 
precedent that will allow Microsoft to continue its rough-shod run 
over the rest of the technology industry and its customers.
    Jeffrey M. Lovell
    [email protected]



MTC-00002350

From: Forsythe, Michael
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/28/01 1:32pm
Subject: Don't Allow This
    This settlement is tantamount to giving Microsoft even MORE 
monopoly power in education. Microsoft has broken the law. How does 
strengthening their monopoly punish them? Somebody isn't thinking. 
Or else they've been bought off. Microsoft is using their ill gotten 
riches to bribe the courts under the veil of charity.
    Standish Mellon Asset Management
    Creative Services Manager
    1 Financial Center
    Boston, MA 02111-2662
    617.457.7204_Phone
    617.368.8381_Fax



MTC-00002351

From: BRIAN MCGOWEN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Please give Microsoft the punishment it deserves and quit 
letting this giant ignore laws. It is a true monopoly and we as 
americans should have more than one choice when it comes to computer 
operating systems. Wouldn't you just hate it if there were only 
Fords with two models to choose from and no options offered that 
would fit on a Ford. We have hundreds of cars and models to choose 
from with an astronomical choice of options to put on these cars.
    Please stop Microsoft so we can have a choice, they do not have 
anyone who has any imagination. They stifle the competition so they 
end up broke then they buy there ideas at a bankrupt price. Then use 
their ideas as if it were they who had the vision and skill to 
design such programs and the have the gall to put their Microsoft 
name on it. Our country is in a sad state morally and economically 
when we always let the one with the most money win!!!!!!!!!! They 
copied Apple's graphical interface back in the late 80's and got 
away with it and now they want a open door policy to the education 
market because they have been a bad!!!
    May anyone who condons monopolistic behavior and encourages its 
survival_rot in hell! Yes I'm mad_that our government 
has let Microsoft waste our tax paying money on it monopolistic 
practices and is still wasting our money trying to satisfy this 
giants wishes when we should be spanking it ass for being a bad 
example to the rest the business world. The government is supposed 
protect the people from such practices in a free enterprise 
society_may you only have a FORD to drive and have only WHITE 
BREAD for your choice of food.
    The U.S. DOJ is the only one that can protect us from 
Microsoft_so just Do It!!!!!!!!!!!
    That is why we the people elected you to your current 
position_WE THE PEOPLE_not Microsoft the Monopoly! We 
the people pay your wages and we the people need your support!!!!!
    Or can't you spank the hand that funds your political 
goals??????????????



MTC-00002352

From: Herb Linamen
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/28/01 1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement a disgrace!
    I wholeheartedly support the notion that the proposed Microsoft 
settlement is just another attempt by Microsoft to further encroach 
on the alternative operating systems available to the public.... 
most notably that of Apple's current position in education. If you 
want to punish Microsoft for their attempts at domination, make them 
anty up cash payments.... not just approving their dumping 
refurbished windows systems on the educational systems which just 
makes those same school systems even more dependent on Microsoft.. 
YOUR PROPOSAL DOES NOTHING MORE THAN AID THEIR ATTEMPT TO DOMINATE 
THROUGH A MONOPOLY!
    Herb Linamen
    365 E. Haines Blvd
    Lake Alfred, FL 33850
    [email protected]



MTC-00002353

From: Trent Harris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 1:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I have been watching the Microsoft anti-trust trial and 
proceedings with interest since they started. I have been shocked by 
the blatant lies, twisted truths, and generally poor behavior of 
Microsoft and its executives. From the beginning they have acted as 
if they were being unfairly targeted, and that any protestation of 
innocence should be accepted as the truth. When they were found to 
be a monopoly it seemed that there was hope that we wouldn't have to 
live in a world with Microsoft intruding into everything. 
Unfortunately, the recent settlement talks appear, from the outside, 
to promote just that. Far from being punished, it seems that 
Microsoft is being promoted. The worst example is the proposal to 
give computers and Microsoft software to financially troubled 
schools. This seems akin to letting a crack dealer stay out of 
prison by having him give free drugs to underprivileged children. In 
the case of Microsoft, they get to look like a good guy, and anyone 
who speaks out against the proposal looks like an idiot. Who can 
object to giving schools new computers? Short term gains from 
treating Microsoft gently are being traded for long term losses. If 
the US truly wants business to innovate and compete, Microsoft 
should be punished, fined, broken up, and be forced to endure 
government oversight and regulation. Let them, and future 
monopolists, know that their business practices are unacceptable, 
and not in the best interests of the US consumer.
    It is my hope that before any final action is taken towards 
Microsoft that the consequences of those actions will carefully 
considered for how they affect the US consumer and not how they 
affect the balance sheet of Microsoft.
    Thank you for the opportunity to email feedback regarding this 
case.
    Sincerely,
    Trent Harris
    [email protected]
    Pacific Star Computer Services
    http://www.pacific-star.com
    714/964-9888 Voice
    562/598-7042 Voice
    562/430-1128 Fax
    1077 E. Pacific Coast Highway #178
    Seal Beach, CA 90740



MTC-00002354

From: Voudouris, Christopher (OTS-EDH)
To: 'microsoftcomments(a)doj.ca.gov', 
'attorney.general...
Date: 11/28/01 2:02pm
Subject: Failure of the Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement
    Dear Attorneys General,
    The DOJ settlement with Microsoft is an ineffective half-measure 
that will only damage the principles and the practice of free 
competition. While acknowledging that Microsoft has acted to stifle 
competition, it does not do enough to prevent this from happening in 
the future, let alone address compensation for past actions. I urge 
each of the state Attorneys General to continue fighting for a 
settlement that adequately prevents monopolistic actions that 
threaten the U.S. economy. I also urge the DOJ to reject the 
settlement proposal work for one that assures free competition in 
the marketplace.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 24079]]

    Chris Voudouris
    3148 O St.
    Sacramento, CA 95816 CC:'Microsoft. 
atr(a)usdoj.gov', 'consumer(a)mail.wvnet...



MTC-00002355

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 1:39pm
Subject: YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS
    Hi,
    I teach computer topics part time, in addition to full time work 
doing System Administration and part-time computer consulting. I've 
worked with all kinds of computers and networks for the past fifteen 
years. You've got to be kidding if you're even considering that 
insulting Microsoft offer to pump lots of "refurbished" 
equipment into our poorest schools. I've worked with lots of 
"refurbished" equipment which has been 
"donated" to schools, and it always costs more in terms 
of System Administration time than it did in the capital expense. 
How about this. Have Microsoft fund the salaries of one or two good 
SysAdmins for each of the schools first. For the next ten years. 
Then you can talk about what kind of equipment to set 'em up with.
    Respectfully,
    Patrick McGraw
    Network Analyst
    Cejka & Company
    800.678.7858
    fax 314 863 1705
    mailto:[email protected]
    http://www.cejka.com



MTC-00002356

From: Michael and Rebecka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 2:49pm
Subject: Do what is right, thats all we ask.
    Please don't let Microsoft trick the courts, don't let them make 
a fool of the United States government!
    I believe that the judgment will be fair, and should be very 
harsh against Microsoft for there criminal practices. Whatever 
verdict is dealt, it should be swift and very painful for Microsoft. 
Splitting up the company is a sound idea for what should happen. For 
a company that promotes very bad ethics and business practices, we 
should make an example of them for future businesses to see...what 
not to do! It is not right that they force everything upon a 
computer user and make it harder for others to live in a computer 
monopoly. I once used a Windows PC, until someone introduced me to 
Apple, I will never look back and hope never to. However, if 
Microsoft continues to dominate and push better more intelligent 
products aside, some day if there is no grassroots movement (which 
this is) than we will have no other choice but to use windows, we 
are so on the edge of that now. Is that what you want? Most people 
know no different than windows, but they should! If you have not 
used a Macintosh yet, I seriously recommend finding an apple store 
and spend several hours using a mac and OS X. Don't be blinded by 
the excuses that Microsoft uses, don't be taken for a fool! Do what 
is right, that's all we ask.
    Thank you
    Michael Neuman
    P.S. If Microsoft does want do donate, let them donate all 
competitors products, (ie. All new Macs and Apple software to go 
along with it.) Everything is easier on a Mac, everyone, not just 
children should be using Apple hardware and software; seriously look 
at the differences_ it's amazing what you will discover. 
"The mind is like a parashoot, it only works when it's 
open!"



MTC-00002357

From: BRIAN MCGOWEN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 2:23pm
Subject: Beware of Geeks Bearing Gifts
    Apple isn't the only one who's worried about Microsoft's 
proposal to settle various private lawsuits filed against the 
company following the US Department of Justice's antitrust 
allegations. BusinessWeek columnist Charles Haddad has offered his 
two cents' worth in his latest Byte of the Apple column entitled 
Beware of Geeks Bearing Gifts. Comparing Microsoft founder and 
chairman Bill Gates to John D. Rockefeller, Haddad said that Gates 
has the ability "to turn a government antitrust assault to his 
advantage," and this bodes ill for Apple.
    Last week Microsoft offered a settlement proposal that would 
provide 14,000 of the nation's poorest schools with software, 
training, tech support services and refurbished computer hardware 
from Microsoft Corp. The proposal has earned the ire of various 
sources, including Apple, which earlier this week filed a brief in 
US District Court suggesting that the proposal was full of holes 
that Microsoft could take advantage of to dominate the educational 
market_a market in which Apple currently enjoys relative 
dominance.
    "It's a spectacular offer," admits Haddad. 
"Gates is not just giving away computers. Ninety million 
dollars would go to train teachers how to use the computers, and 
another $160 million to provide ongoing technical support. Microsoft 
would also donate one million refurbished PCs." Haddad noted 
that the settlement proposal doesn't address the core issue, 
however: "that Microsoft used its stranglehold on computers to 
defeat competitors large and small."
    Haddad accepted that Microsoft said it's willing to make the 
offer platform-agnostic_schools are free to support whatever 
operating systems and hardware systems they choose, according to the 
settlement. Haddad suggested that many school administrators 
"have a herd mentality," and will probably be only too 
willing to flock towards Windows-based systems like so many of their 
colleagues.
    Haddad said that Apple has to get itself into those very same 
schools that Microsoft wants to assist with its proposal. If Apple 
can "demonstrate the ease of using and maintaining Macs, and 
set up systems that run everything from attendance to 
grading," Haddad said that the company may have a good chance 
of winning a good portion of that market. More details are available 
from BusinessWeek Online.



MTC-00002358

From: c chuck lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 3:09pm
Subject: MS settlement settles nothing
    Dear Sir:
    I don't really have an opinion one way or the other until I 
loaded the XP system on my computer. Because of a problem on my PC, 
I have to remove the Internet Explorer_Now MS won't even allow 
that anymore_all they have done is remove the 
pointer_and nothing is removed! Do you know what I had to do?? 
I had to remove XP and restore Windows 98 and then remove the 
Internet Explorer. Don't tell me this is innovation. Your department 
simply doesn't really understand the technical issues that's really 
critical. Very very bad work for what I paid with my tax dollars.
    _C. Chuck Lee



MTC-00002359

From: Paul Ossenbruggen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 2:55pm
Subject: Proposed settlement
    DOJ,
    I think this proposed settlement does nothing but further the 
Microsoft Monopoly, is not a severe punishment, and seriously hurts 
competitors such as Apple. Do not accept it, this is the actions of 
a monopoly trying to further its dominance while trying to seem like 
a nice guy.
    Talk about a sweat deal! Do not be fooled. It will make the US 
government look foolish and will be a waste of everyone's taxpayer 
money, after having spent all this time an money proving that they 
are the monopolists they are. It is like letting a murder choose to 
be punished by hitting him with a soft pillow and then giving him 
the pillow to sleep on.
    _Paul



MTC-00002360

From: Peter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Offer
    To whom it may concern,
    I would like to add my weight to the side that is encouraging 
you NOT to accept the settlement offer from Microsoft that would 
provide hundreds of millions in software, training, support and 
hardware to schools in the country.
    It seems so obvious that the settlement to saturate the eligible 
schools with Microsoft products is not punitive but a trophy for the 
company's anti competitive practices. Regardless of Microsoft's 
rebuttal that the settlement allows for any type of software/
computer (e.g., Apple, Linux, and etc.), it is unrealistic to assume 
that the process will play out that way. You can assume that any 
settlement proposed by the accused will be in the best interests of 
the accused. It is disconcerting to watch Microsoft weave its way 
above the law. Bill Gates said about proposed DOJ settlement that it 
was reasonable and fair. How many criminals have you heard say that 
their punishment was reasonable and fair.
    The problem with the settlement is that it replaces potential 
sales with Microsoft products or with products that support 
Microsoft. It reduces market size in a time of

[[Page 24080]]

shrinking markets and it is a major strike against a corner of 
competition for Microsoft. The education market is not dominated by 
Microsoft but this settlement will substantially help Microsoft 
achieve dominance. Is this not counter to the intent of justice?
    Punitive action against Microsoft will not have a negative 
effect on the economy. On the contrary it will help the economy by 
showing that Microsoft is accountable for its actions. It will also 
demonstrate that the justice system is not broken.
    Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns.
    Peter Czarny



MTC-00002361

From: Brent J. B. Petit
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 3:29pm
Subject: Thoughts on the proposed settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am very troubled by the news of Microsoft's proposed 1 billion 
dollar settlement. If I understand the issue correctly, and I 
believe I do. I fail to see how giving Microsoft the opportunity to 
force their products into one of the few markets they do not hold 
monopoly power in benefits anyone. From what I see this is going to 
end up as a boon for Microsoft and a setback for those schools poor 
enough to qualify for this program. My first question has to do with 
numbers. How much of the 1 billion dollars can be used for Microsoft 
software? Then, how does Microsoft price this software? If we're 
taking retail price then there is something seriously wrong. Next 
how does this take into account Microsoft's monopolistic licensing 
fees. Please, please, please make sure you understand the full 
impact of Microsoft's licensing. Pushing poor school districts into 
the Microsoft licensing web will do more harm than good over the 
next few years.
    Next, are you telling me that you are going to subject these 
poor schools to Microsoft support. Ouch!
    I would like to see Microsoft invest in poor schools. But, they 
cannot have any part in the decision making process. There must be a 
unbiased voice consulting these schools on the best technology 
solution. If in the end the schools choose to go with Microsoft, 
great. At least we know that this was a sound decision, not the 
effect of slimy salesmanship. After all, Microsoft can offer crazy 
benefits to the schools who use MS software since it costs MS very 
little.
    Additionally, I am concerned with the length that you will go to 
ensure that the most damaging practices in the MS playbooks are 
stopped. Most of the coverage I saw was regarding bundling of 
Internet Explorer with Windows. Although this is a big issue, I 
don't see it as the most important. For years Microsoft has been 
hiding the high performance portions of their APIs until they could 
release new software to utilize it. One argument many pro-Microsoft 
voices have made is the competitors should just make better 
software. First off, it's not that simple when viewed along side 
Microsoft's bundling practices. On top of that Microsoft can ensure 
in many ways that their software outperforms the competitors.
    I would like to see some sort of software review process not 
just for Microsoft but all software companies in order to protect 
the rights of consumers and competitors. After all, are many 
companies that are including 'Spyware' and other 
information stealing code in their programs. This could be a benefit 
on many fronts.
    Thank you for your time,
    Brent J. Petit
    Taxpayer



MTC-00002362

From: joanpeterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is in everyone's best interest to completely settle this law 
suit. Microsoft was unfairly singled out by the Clinton 
Administration. We are behind you, Microsoft!



MTC-00002363

From: David Norfleet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 3:22pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I just wanted to express my opinion on the possible Microsoft 
settlement of furnishing schools with PC's as payment for their 
antitrust violations. I do not think that this will solve any part 
of the problem, and will in fact aid Microsoft in securing more of a 
monopoly in the education market.
    Thank you for your time,
    _David Norfleet
    www.sealrockmusic.com



MTC-00002364

From: Nel Chiropractic
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 11/28/01 3:11pm
Subject: Settlement/Education?
    As a Mac and PC user (who enjoys the Microsoft office products 
and also would not like see them break up the company), I am also 
baffled that a settlement imposed against Microsoft for breaking the 
law should allow, even encourage, them to unfairly make inroads into 
education or into any other field.
    If any settlement is to be made in this direction, in all 
fairness, it should be that Microsoft pays for the other companies 
to provide their hardware and software. In the case of the schools 
it should be Apple and for other settlements it should be other 
software manufacturers. Just my two cents on a subject that I know 
has many facets to be dealt with. Good luck.
    Regards,
    Ricco Nel, DC
    Nel Chiropractic
    2020 Jefferson Street
    Napa, California 94559
    Ph: 707-255-0266
    email: mailto:[email protected]
    web: http://www.napachiro.com



MTC-00002365

From: Murray, Banister
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/28/01 3:42pm
Subject: $chools
    Greetings,
    I think it's great that Microsoft wants to help out financially 
ailing schools. However, I think that Microsoft's proposal is not a 
punishment by any means. The cost to Microsoft would be minimal 
while the "retail" tax write off would be considerable. 
Not to mention the potential future market domination enabled by 
"teaching" children using Microsoft Software. I suggest 
to amend their proposal and have the contributions be made in the 
form of cold hard cash with no strings attached. The school systems 
could use the money to buy any sort of necessity from any company 
that is in the best interest of the school. If Microsoft is sincere 
about their intentions of proposing self punishment that contributes 
positively to society, there shouldn't be a problem with my 
suggestion.
    Banister Murray



MTC-00002366

From: David Doukas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 3:39pm
Subject: Remedy
    To the Department of Justice.
    I share the concern that Microsoft's "remedy" may be 
an unfair intrusion into the education market.
    Apple was correct in launching its lawsuit to block it.
    However, there IS a fair remedy:
    Have Microsoft install "renovated Macs"_ i.e. 
refurbished iMacs, Airports, and iBooks in classrooms.
    Yes, they can even put Microsoft Word and Internet Explorer on 
these computers (as long as the latter is not the "browser of 
choice").
    This will be a "Solomon-esque" conclusion for this 
part of the Microsoft case, if Judge Motz accepts it.
    Please feel free to circulate as necessary.
    DD
    David J. Doukas, M.D.
    Associate Professor of Bioethics, and Family Practice/Community 
Medicine
    University of Pennsylvania



MTC-00002367

From: Peter Lightburn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 3:33pm
Subject: Stop the madness.
    An important facet of free market enterprise is for consumers to 
enjoy choice in a level playing field. In the computing landscape, 
Microsoft has taken advantage of its high market share and corroded 
that facet.Please I urge you guys at the D.O.J to reconsider the 
Microsoft proprosal and seek measures that are truly punitive and 
not a band aid solution that will hurt competitors like Apple who 
provide the only viable choice to Microsoft.
    Thank You
    Peter L (average computer user)



MTC-00002368

From: Dan Reese
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 3:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I would like to state my opposition to the currently proposed 
settlement.

[[Page 24081]]

    First, Microsoft is not being forced to repair the damage done 
by their illegal actions. Reparations for illegal actions should be 
a part of the settlement. Not only did competitors, such as 
Netscape, receive irreparable harm, but consumers, such as myself, 
have had to pay higher prices for the Windows OS and also computer 
hardware where an option to purchase the hardware without Windows 
was not available. Second, the oversight committee doesn't seem to 
have the needed authority to impose penalties on Microsoft for not 
complying with the settlement. A large dollar amount per day for 
non-compliance (or something similar) should be imposable by any 
oversight committee. Microsoft has shown in court on many occasions 
that they cannot be trusted.
    Lastly, why is the government settling for less of a resolution 
than was proposed over a year ago? Since that time, not only has 
Microsoft been declared a monopoly, they have also been convicted of 
violating anti-trust law 8 times. Why are consumers getting less 
from this settlement than could have been had a year ago?
    We learned from the AT&T break-up that diversity will 
increase innovation and decrease prices. This settlement only 
solidifies Microsoft's monopoly position. The consequences will be a 
continuted DECREASE in innovation and INCREASE in price.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Dan Reese
    Clearstone Corporation
    Lindon, Utah



MTC-00002369

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Dept. of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-001
Subject: Microsoft Settlement_Consumer's Objection to Proposed 
Judgment
    As a consumer, I write to object to the proposed judgment 
because the judgment does not address in a positive manner the most 
important violation by Microsoft of the antitrust law. The proposed 
judgment, instead, expressly condones Microsoft's continued 
violation of the law.
    The appellate court specifically held that "Microsoft's... 
commingling of browser and operating system code constitute(s) 
exclusionary conduct, in violation of Section 2." [U.S. v. 
Microsoft Corp., June 28, 2001, No. 00-5212, p. 40, first 
paragraph of part II.B.2.b.] Contrary to this explicit holding, the 
proposed judgment specifically provides that "(t)he software 
code that comprises a Windows Operating System Product shall be 
determined by Microsoft in its sole discretion." [Revised 
Proposed Final Judgment, part VI.U]. Thus the proposed judgment 
expressly authorizes Microsoft to continue those acts that the 
appellate court specifically held violated Section 2 of the anti-
trust law.
    Microsoft continues to expand the strength and breadth of it's 
monopoly over the PC operating system by absorbing into the 
software, which Microsoft calls its " Windows Operating 
System", functions performed by its competitor's applications 
and utilities. Because Microsoft sells its "operating 
system" as a single product, each time that Microsoft adds to 
its "operating system" a function that previously was 
performed by the competitor's product, consumer demand for the 
competitor's product ceases and the competitor is destroyed. Again 
and again, Microsoft has used this weapon to leverage its monopoly 
power in the Window's operating system to wipe out it's competitors 
and its competitor's software products while, at the same time, 
increasing the strength and breadth of its monopoly. The vehemence 
with which Microsoft objects to any limitation on its use of this 
weapon evidences Microsoft's recognition of the critical importance 
of this weapon to Microsoft's continuation and expansion of its 
monopoly.
    Because Microsoft has monopoly power in its "Windows 
Operating System" I, as a consumer, am forced to purchase the 
Windows Operating System in order to operate my computer. Each time 
that Microsoft expands the breadth of its "operating 
system" by absorbing into it functions previously performed by 
other software, I lose the freedom to purchase such functionality 
from other sources, and whether or not I need such additional 
functionality, my computer is burdened by the additional software in 
Microsoft's "operating system" that performs these 
functions.
    If the judgment does not prevent Microsoft from commingling its 
"Windows operating system" with software that is added 
to absorb functions previously provided by Microsoft's competitors, 
Microsoft will use this weapon to expand the breadth of its 
monopoly, to destroy its competitors, and to harm the consumers, all 
in the manner explicitly held by the appellate court to violate the 
law. If you do not revise the judgment to forbid Microsoft's 
absorption into the "Windows Operating System" of 
functions performed by competitors' software, the legal action 
against Microsoft will have failed.
    Microsoft claims that it wants the freedom to 
"innovate", i.e. to introduce something new for the 
first time. Microsoft does not innovate, it instead imitates. 
Microsoft does not create new products and functionality but, 
instead, copies the functionality of its competitor's products into 
its "Windows Operation System". Because Microsoft has 
monopoly power, its "imitation" of competitors' products 
harms us all and violates the law. If Microsoft wants the freedom to 
"imitate", let it imitate with software that is separate 
from the "operating system".
    I can think of no benign explanation as to why the most 
important provision in the proposed judgment was tucked away at the 
very end of a long list of Definitions. The clause that would 
"give away the farm" to Microsoft should, instead, be 
displayed in bold letters at the beginning of the proposed judgment 
under the caption: "GRANT TO MICROSOFT OF LICENSE TO CONTINUE 
TO VIOLATE THE LAW".
    Sincerely,
    G. Joseph Buck
    433 Via Anita
    Redondo Beach, CA 90277
    "[email protected]"



MTC-00002370

From: William Deighan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 4:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Justice Department:
    I believe that Microsoft got off very lightly_they are a 
monoply! Already they placing themselves in the driver seat by 
putting computers in hundreds of schools. This is an example of how 
they work the system.



MTC-00002371

From: Brian Warren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 3:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Case
    To Whom It May Concern,
    Personally, I don't consider the latest settlement to be a very 
wise solution, as it seems to pave the way for Microsoft to have a 
larger market share. Education is one realm where Microsoft hasn't 
monopolized yet, and now they want to put Windows into more people's 
hands.
    Though the educators have their own options of what computer to 
buy, Microsoft has said that the software would be free. It doesn't 
look like educators would have much of a choice.
    Please consider enforcing a tighter and more adequate 
punishment. Microsoft doesn't want to admit guilt, but maybe this is 
time for them to do so?
    Thank you,
    Brian Warren
    cadence international web
    www.cadence.org



MTC-00002372

From: Creedon, Ted
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/6/01 3:32pm
Subject: MSFT settlement
    Request you require Microsoft to place all source code in the 
public domain. or Donate $10 billion to the Open Source Foundation 
or other non-profits dedicated to Open Source or Provide class 
definitions for all interfaces to Microsoft Software 6 months in 
advance of release and limit Microsoft to using only published 
interrfaces for their own software
    Ted Creedon, P.E.
    been coding since 1962...



MTC-00002373

From: W. J. Kossler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 3:22pm
Subject: View of Settlement
    Sirs:
    Several comments:
    1. Microsoft is a monopoly. This monopoly, while having its 
positive side (providing a standard for hardware manufacturers, for 
example) has been clearly used by Microsoft to its own advantage. 
Word processor document formats which change and which others can 
only reverse

[[Page 24082]]

engineer to has, for example, placed most other word processors 
other than Word at an unfair disadvantage. This is also true for 
Powerpoint and the MS spreadsheet. Microsoft should, so long as it 
has the lion's share of the market , be forced to make public its 
document coding.
    2. The setting up of Web sites with code which only works for MS 
IE should be watched very closely. Wachovia banking on line has such 
a site. One cannot print directly ones statement using Netscape, 
Mozilla, or Konqueror as alternatives. The role as standards make 
can be very positive, but MS does it badly.
    3. Part of this settlement should be the setting up and 
maintaining sets of standards for Web sites, programs etc. with MS 
involvement, but not by any means control.
    I am primarily a Red Hat Linux user, though I also use MS 
products when they are better.
    Sincerely yours,
    W. J. Kossler
    Physics Dept.
    College of William and Mary
    Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795
    757 221 3519
    fax 3540
    home 229 8060



MTC-00002374

From: Christopher Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 4:16pm
Subject: a fitting settlement
    Okay Microsoft made a BIG announcement that they would provide 1 
billion dollars in software and money to poor schools. Lets make 
Microsoft spend money on Macintosh computers for these schools and 
then they can install all the copies of Microsoft Office for the 
Mac-as well as Internet Explorer web browser that they want. Let's 
see if they still feel so generous-or not!



MTC-00002375

From: Greg Dalen
To: Microsoft ATR, microsoftcomments@ doj. 
ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/28/01 4:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    [Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It 
has been converted to attachment.]
    Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    TO: US Department of Justice-Microsoft anti-trust comments: 
[email protected] I've just read the news on the 
proposed one billion dollar settlement. As I understand the deal, 
this seems to me to be very much in favor of Microsoft. In addition 
to few to no changes to their behavior, a portion of the punishment 
is, in fact, a real benefit to them. The resolution including the 
dissemination of their software and compatible hardware, training to 
use their products, and loads of their often bundled software, seems 
to fly in the face of the very point of the trial.
    They have been found guilty of using illegal means to maintain 
their monopoly. As I understand it, one of the intents of the Anti-
Trust laws is to prevent illegal monopolists from abusing their 
position in the future. How would the proposed settlement do that 
when a good portion of the settlement specifically increases their 
market share of both the OS and their bundled products? The proposed 
settlement uses a blatant play on setementality in an effort to 
escape unscathed (and in fact strengthened by) their conviction as 
illegal monopolists.
    In the past there has been strong resistance to punish illegal 
monopolists for fear of the effects on the economy. I am not aware 
of a single case where the strongest possible punnishments have been 
imposed, that have not resulted in benefit to consumers, competitors 
and the economy at large.
    I believe this settlement should be declined. Microsoft and not 
the Schools or justice will be the only beneficiary. The settlement 
should be made in order to change their behavior, this does nothing 
to address their behavior and will not change it in the future, 
allowing them to continue to further maintain their illegal 
monopoly.
    Greg Dalen
    CC to:
    California: [email protected]
    Connecticut: [email protected]
    Florida: [email protected]
    Iowa: [email protected]
    Kansas: [email protected]
    Massachusetts: [email protected]
    Minnesota: [email protected]
    Utah: [email protected]
    West Virginia: [email protected]
    ZDNet Article on the settlement
    Judge to rule over Microsoft's motives
    Monday 26th, November 2001
    Reuters
    A hearing begins Tuesday to determine if Microsoft playing Santa 
for needy kids with its billion-dollar settlement offer_or the 
Grinch looking to dominate the education market Is Microsoft a do-
gooder, or up to no good? That's the question a federal judge in 
Baltimore will consider on Tuesday at a hearing on the company's 
billion-dollar antitrust settlement of private, class-action 
lawsuits.
    US District Judge J. Frederick Motz will have to decide whether 
the settlement proposed by the company is a creative solution that 
will put computers in the hands of poor school children or a legal 
ruse that will further the company's dominant position in the 
computer business. Microsoft says the private settlement is a civic-
minded way to resolve more than 100 lawsuits filed around the 
country on behalf of customers allegedly overcharged by the company.
    Under the settlement, Microsoft would make amends by spending 
more than $1bn to put software and computers into some of the 
poorest US schools. It would assist more than 12,500 schools serving 
nearly 7 million children under the settlement of the private suits. 
"It is a settlement that avoids long and costly litigation for 
the company and at the same time.., really makes a difference in the 
lives of millions of school children in some of the most 
economically disadvantaged schools in the country," Microsoft 
Chief Executive Steve Ballmer told reporters last week.

Different path

    But at Tuesday's hearing, some class-action attorneys from 
California are expected to paint quite a different picture for Motz.
    The dissenting attorneys, who have filed a case on behalf of 
California consumers, will ask Motz to strike down the settlement or 
allow their lawsuits to proceed separately in California. They 
portray the settlement negotiated by Microsoft and the other class-
action attorneys as a ploy designed to entrench the Windows monopoly 
while allowing the company to pay back only a tiny fraction of what 
it actually owes consumers. Central to the dispute is a US antitrust 
doctrine that holds that only a "direct purchaser" can 
collect damages in private antitrust suits.
    The direct purchaser restriction applies nationwide, except in 
the more than a dozen states like California that have passed laws 
repealing it, said Gene Crew, an antitrust attorney heading one of 
the cases against Microsoft on behalf of California consumers. In 
February, Motz ruled that in states that had not passed the so-
called "repealer" statutes, antitrust litigants could 
not recover damages from the company. That's because most consumers 
do not get Microsoft's Windows software directly from the company, 
but pre loaded onto a machine they buy from a computer manufacturer.
    The cases in California and a handful of other repealer states, 
meanwhile, have been moving forward. The California case is 
scheduled to go to trial next August.
    California attorneys dissenting from the settlement are accusing 
Microsoft of singling out the attorneys in nonrepealer 
states_those with the weakest cases_and secretly 
negotiating a sweetheart deal for the company.
    The dissenters fear such a settlement could neutralize cases 
like theirs in repealer states, which they say still hold the 
potential for larger damage awards against Microsoft. "It was 
a clever tactic.., whereby they hijack the California case and use 
it to lend value to meritless cases elsewhere," Crew said. 
However, the settling attorneys will tell Motz the settlement is a 
better deal for consumers than trying to divvy up money among 
individuals. Michael Hausfeld, one of the lawyers who negotiated the 
settlement, said consumers would have gotten as little at $10 apiece 
if Microsoft had agreed to reimburse them directly.
    "This was a very carefully thought-out plan," 
Hausfeld said. "There's a lot of complaining out there, and 
there's no relationship between the complaining and reality." 
Hausfeld said Crew had vastly over-estimated the amount of money 
that can be recovered from Microsoft. And he scoffed at the idea 
that Microsoft had singled out the weakest plaintiffs for settlement 
talks.
    "Nobody pays over $1bn to the weak link," Hausfeld 
said. The five-year program would settle class-action claims that 
Microsoft abused its monopoly over personal computer operating 
systems and overcharged millions of people for software. Microsoft 
said it would take a $550m charge before taxes against earnings in 
the current fiscal quarter if the pact is approved by the court. 
Earlier this month, the software giant agreed to settle its 
separate, three-year case with the Justice Department and many of 
the state attorneys general who had sued the company.

[[Page 24083]]

The smell test

    At Tuesday's hearing, dissenters from the private antitrust 
settlement will run through a list of legal objections to the deal, 
Crew said. Crew said the private antitrust settlement is worth only 
a fraction of the amount Microsoft might end up owing to consumers. 
He estimates that in California alone, overcharges may total $3bn to 
$9bn.
    "Right there it flunks the smell test," Crew said. 
"It makes the settlement look silly." Crew argued that 
the settlement deal is actually a "marketing device" 
that "allows them to further entrench their monopoly" by 
spreading free Microsoft software into primary and secondary 
schools.
    "I think charity is great," Crew said. "But 
they should do it as a matter of charity, not a matter of settling a 
lawsuit."
    Ballmer has denied the settlement is aimed at boosting the 
company's market share in American schools. He said money from the 
settlement can be used to buy software from Microsoft competitors.
    Think it's all over? The antitrust case against Microsoft can 
still go back the to Court of Appeals, and then there's the European 
Commission's investigation...



MTC-00002376

From: Tony Palumbo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 5:37pm
Subject: Proposed Settlement
    To whom it may concern
    I wish to state my opposition to the propose Microsoft 
settlement. While I applaud the benefits of helping poor school 
districts, I'm completely opposed to a solution that will further 
enhance Microsoft's dominance and encourage further monopolistic 
behavior.
    Wasn't this entire case about Microsoft using unethical tactics 
dominate the market? Hasn't it been proved that these tactics 
damaged many businesses as Microsoft forced their own products down 
the throats of users there by eliminating competition? Wasn't the 
purpose of this entire trial about promoting CHOICE?
    It appears that one again, Microsoft has determined the choice 
for all of us As a Macintosh user, I can't tell you how many times I 
visit web sites only to be told that features on the site are not 
available to me and only to Windows users. Did anyone address this 
issue?
    How can there be parity when the playing field slopes in MS's 
direction?
    Lets face it, this proposal is full of holes that Microsoft will 
take advantage of to dominate the educational market. If it allowed 
to stand as dictated by MS, there will be no alternative operating 
systems within 5 years.
    Please consider this before siding with Mr Gates and Company
    Sincerely
    Anthony J Palumbo
    80 Ridge Road
    Hackettstown, NJ 07840



MTC-00002377

From: Christopher Kupec
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 5:16pm
Subject: Proposed settlement
    Dear Sirs and Madams,
    The more I hear about the settlement that Microsoft is 
proposing, the less I care for it.
    Microsoft is to be punished for their unfair practices. They 
should not be allowed to expand their market share, i.e., monopoly, 
in the educational sector.
    I want my voice to heard, so I am asking you all to not accept 
the proposed settlement. It does the consumer and the student a 
disfavor.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher Kupec



MTC-00002378

From: Mason, Richard
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/28/01 4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Comment
    It is my understanding that as part of the settlement of price 
gouging in their class action lawsuit, Microsoft has offered to 
donate computer hardware, software and support to school districts. 
If it is their intention to donate systems that run Windows 
operating systems, it sounds to me like they have found a novel way 
to grow their monopoly and further strengthen their share at the 
expense of the U.S. Judicial system and the American people. I wish 
to voice my strong opposition to any such agreement. The court has 
already found, in another related case, that Windows is an illegal 
monopoly and now Microsoft may be presented with the opportunity to 
further indoctrinate our children into dependence upon Windows 
products and services_in the name of justice. In my opinion 
this is akin to letting Colombian drug cartels settle guilty 
verdicts by providing free cocaine to U.S. junkies. Microsoft should 
not be allowed to profit from a guilty verdict.
    May I suggest that any settlement that involves such a donation 
should stipulate that all of the hardware, software and support be 
entirely comprised of non-Microsoft products and/or services. To put 
it more plainly, if Microsoft wants to settle by donating computers, 
they need to donate only Apple Macintosh, Linux or other high 
quality non-Windows systems and all of the support should be 
provided by firms unaffiliated with Microsoft.
    Richard Mason
    WAN Manager
    VISN16 Network Operations Center
    South Central Veterans Healthcare Network
    Richard Mason
    WAN Manager
    VISN16 Network Operations Center
    South Central Veterans Healthcare Network



MTC-00002379

From: Eric Slosser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 6:38pm
Subject: objection to Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I'm a software professional with over 20 years experience in the 
desktop market.
    I'm writing to object to the proposed settlement in which MS 
would be allowed to distribute their software to schools as a 
penalty for their monopolistic practices. This is a cheap "do 
it for the kids" tactic that will only benefit Microsoft. The 
fact that Microsoft likes the settlement should be reason enough to 
understand that it's not in the public's best interest.
    Sincerely,
    Eric Slosser
    [email protected] 617 244-9694
    CC:microsoftcomments@doj. 
ca.gov@inetgw,attorney.gener...



MTC-00002380

From: Jonas Roel
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments@doj. 
ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/28/01 6:07pm
Subject: Reject the Microsoft settlement...
    Please reject the Microsoft Settlement. The Microsoft 
corporation is a monopoly and is in violation of the law. In fact, 
its monpolistic activity will hinder America's capacity to develop 
better technologies in the future.
    Sincerely,
    Jonas Roel
    Tampa, FL



MTC-00002381

From: Dan Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 6:06pm
Subject: MS Settlement grossly unfair to Apple
    Steve Jobs is right!
    The education market is one place where Apple has a good 
presence, and Bill Gates "donating" $1-2 Billion 
of rejuvenated PC's and Windows XP to schools is really cutting 
Apples' support. If Gates offer is so good why doesn't he donate 50% 
of it in rejuvenated Macintosh's , or at least the percentage of 
Apple Mac's in the school system, rather than all PC's_which 
toots his own horn at Apples' expense.
    I certainly believe that this DOJ allowance is not ethical and 
needs to be redone right by MS giving MONEY alone and none of 
Microsoft products.
    I really believe that the DOJ caved into MS! or there is a mole 
in the DOJ which likes MS!
    That stinks!
    Regards,
    Dan Brown
    806 Hampshire Dr.
    Grand Prairie, TX 75050



MTC-00002383

From: Bob Nies
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 7:05pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement offer
    Needless to say this is a giant canard. Microsoft is a convicted 
monopolist. Microsoft has done more to inhibit competition in the 
last 10 years of any company in the world. The deal is a sweetheart 
gift to the attorneys (they get the cash), Microsoft gets to buy the 
rotting pile of unsold PC's that are stacking up at Compaq, HP and 
Dell, on the cheap, thus bailing out its main distributors. Oh yes, 
they will buy of few Macs (all obsolete with the new OS X now out) 
and give away software that costs little more than the cost of the 
CD's they are burned on. Wake up, that deal won't fly and is 
detrimental to the competition that

[[Page 24084]]

 has suffered the most from Microsoft's dirty play. Without Apple 
innovation where would the computer industy get its ideas to produce 
itself out of the current slump. By everyone's score (even Bill 
Gates), innovation is the future of the computer industry and 
competition is the driving force to making it happen. Any settlement 
that harms Apple is grounds for another lawsuit.
    Microsoft has the cash (32+ billion). Come up with a 25% on the 
dollar cash settlement of the properly calculated damages, and let 
these poor schools spend the money, i.e. pay cash for whatever 
computer and software that they deem best for their students. This 
is the proper way to help all players in the industry (man would 
there ever be some fantastic deals given to move inventory) and 
clear the decks for the next generation of hardware and software. 
Let the marketplace determine what's best for the students!
    Bob Nies
    Sarasota, FL
    941-925-8897



MTC-00002384

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments@doj. 
ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 11/28/01 8:46pm
Subject: Thank you for your continued pursuit of Microsoft
    Greetings.
    My name is Tyler Lagrange of Sarasota, FL. I will try not to 
ramble on for too long and I beg of you to read all I have to say as 
it pertains to what I believe to be the most significant antitrust 
lawsuit I will see in my lifetime.
    Thank you very much for not accepting the lenient settlement 
that has been proposed in the Microsoft case. I have been following 
the case from the beginning and have read many articles that have 
followed your progress. My favorite was an article in Wired magazine 
about a year ago that really went in to a lot of detail that even I 
did not know. At that point I really felt the case was going in the 
right direction, but that feeling has understandably changed in the 
recent weeks. I don't feel you need me to point out reasons why 
Microsoft has committed illegal monopolistic activities, however, I 
want to point out the ones that really hurt me as both a consumer 
and an internet software developer. I am a 26 year old programmer 
with a 4 year Computer Science degree and I've been a computer user 
since my first grade year at Hunt Elementary in South Florida (20 
years ago).
    As a consumer, my choices are severely limited by what Microsoft 
has done. I was really upset by what Microsoft did with the web 
browser wars as I preferred Netscape (along with 80% of the internet 
users back then). I can not really understand how they could get 
away with simply copying somebody else's ideas and designs, and to 
then force it down everybody's throats. They claim that it is best 
for me as a consumer and they offer it up to me for free as if that 
is generous. They only gave it to me for free because there was 
competition. What I would really want for free is Microsoft Office. 
Why isn't that a part of the OS? Microsoft Office is the de facto 
standard for sending formatted papers and office/business documents 
to and from people. A majority of the people out there have it and 
use it for daily use_probably even more than Internet 
Explorer. The reason that Microsoft will never offer that to us free 
is not just because it costs them more to develop (that is untrue as 
they have already recouped their costs), but because they face no 
serious competition in that realm. If you ask 100 consumers if they 
would rather have Office or IE bundled with their OS, you know what 
they would say. Microsoft is not doing what the consumers want, but 
is illegally protecting their desktop monopoly and extending it in 
to any other area that they can get in to. I do not want Internet 
Explorer. I do not want Windows Media Player. I do not want the 
other stuff they seem to think I do.
    As an internet software developer I have also had many problems 
with what Microsoft has done. My biggest problem is really 
undocumented and unknown by most people who do not develop internet 
software. By having such a huge user base, they have made it 
virtually impossible (undesirable really) to write software that 
does not support Internet Explorer. They may claim that their 
browser supports more "standards" but in fact they 
support whatever they feel they want to. One of the most severe 
things they have done is to have a more lenient parser (the system 
that reads the HTML and displays it) that will not enforce strict 
HTML. This allows coders to be lazy and to not adhere to the HTML 
standards. Once they get used to that (and for the most part they 
just debug their sites in IE and don't look at any other browsers), 
they will most likely NOT adhere to standards and as a result the 
web sites will only act appropriately in Internet Explorer (I have 
worked in 3 startups and they all have focused solely on Internet 
Explorer as the default platform). As consumers see these things 
acting correctly only in IE, they feel that IE is the only one that 
works. Now it may look like they are being nice and 
"guessing" what us web programmers mean to do, but by 
not enforcing the standards, we will never be able to progress 
beyond the inadequate capabilities we have today. I don't know for 
sure, but I bet at least 80% of the web sites out there would break 
if standards were enforced. I honestly feel that this is 
deliberately done to prevent other web browsers from gaining a 
significant share of the marketplace again (unless they are 
programmed to display improper HTML to maintain compatibility). This 
also prevents serious progress because they have to maintain this 
broken compatibility to display those 80% that were not written well 
in the first place. Web developers must write software to work well 
in IE or they will have problems with their customers. This just 
extends their monopoly.
    Beyond that, it is hard for me to feel that with an idea I can 
be successful in the free marketplace. That is a horrible lesson the 
courts are trying to teach me. Even with the best ideas in my head, 
as soon as Microsoft has me in their sites, they could embrace it, 
extend it, build it in to their next OS, and push me aside. I will 
never be able to charge money for my software, as Microsoft can 
always afford to give it away free and to throw more R&D money 
at it to "make it better" than me. So in order to beat 
them, I will probably need some capital behind me. But investors, 
after seeing what Microsoft is allowed to get away with, will be 
less likely to dump money in to my company with the risk that 
Microsoft will overtake us and we will lose all that we have. They 
have too much power and too much freedom and will continue to pursue 
these initiatives even harder if they are allowed to get out of it 
this time.
    I am disgusted by the bundling that they were allowed to get 
away with with XP even after it was determined that Internet 
Explorer pushed and entire company essentially out of the market. 
They will now push remote administration systems, media players, 
digital camera software vendors, cd burning software vendors, and 
many others out of business. This does not help the economy. This is 
also not about progressing in to a "modern operating 
system". This is about extending a monopoly. It may seem 
extreme to a lot of people to break up a company, but it has been 
done successfully before, and it may need to be done again. I feel 
that Microsoft makes some good applications, and has some good 
operating systems. However, if their operating systems division was 
separate from their applications divisions, it would prevent this 
overlapping we see of OS services and Application services. It would 
also allow for more choices and more opportunities for other vendors 
to produce top quality software that WILL benefit consumers, and 
WILL boost the economy, and WILL save the future of computing.
    I feel so powerless when I sit at home and read about all the 
bad things Microsoft has done. I watch the arrogance they display 
when they claim that they know more than you or I do about how the 
future of computing should be regulated. I beg you to not fall like 
the others have before you. I urge you to do your best to represent 
me in this monumental case. I thank you for all that you have done, 
and will continue to do.
    If you made it this far thank you very much, Tyler LaGrange 4902 
Ithaca Ln Sarasota, FL 34243 
CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00002385

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 7:36pm
Subject: Marketing Strategy: Donate Software
    I believe that the actual present cost and the present value of 
future sales due to donated software should be considered in the 
final settlement. It's entirely possible in the long run, that this 
settlement costs Microsoft nothing. I certainly hope that the 
Financial Accounting Standards Board, FASB, weighs in on this issue. 
I think that an all-cash settlement would more equitable.
    Jack W Hakala, Bellevue, WA



MTC-00002386

From: Scott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 8:46pm
Subject: Damages, remedy.
    I would like to see a provision that limits the extent to which 
retail licence fees can

[[Page 24085]]

exceed posted OEM licence fees. Also, an admission of guilt on the 
part of Microsoft would go a long way in validating any settlement 
in the public's eyes, and provide a firm basis for action enforcing 
the agreement, should Microsoft stray from it.
    That aside:
    The public has been damaged by Microsoft's abuse of it's market 
share, and those damages far exceed four dollars per US citizen. 
Much more careful consideration must be made on the part of the 
state to assess the extent of the damages created by Microsoft's 
monopolistic practices, and seek a judgement more pursuant to that 
amount.
    Futhermore, no anti-trust settlement should extend the power of 
the defendant. Microsoft derives power from its mind share, the 
percentage of the population that is familiar with its products. 
Microsoft already has programs to give away software to students for 
the sake of extending their mind share. Any settlement should seek 
to undermine the defendant's monopolistic power, not reinforce it by 
some of the very means by which the defendant acquired said power. 
For this reason, a settlement along the lines of Red Hat Software's 
proposal is much more fitting. (Linked to below.) A remedy needs to 
be reached that introduces and strengthens competition rather than 
effectively baring it from public schools!
    Microsoft would undoubtedly claim that their software is more 
fitting to the needs of inner city schools than Red Hat's. I 
disagree. Linux has progressed to the point where, for basic desktop 
needs, tools have been developed that suffice for internet and 
office applications. Furthermore, these tools are priced such that 
these tools are more affordable: they're free, so poor students 
having the same software at home as at school is more realistic. 
Also, for non-basic desktop needs such as software development, most 
Linux distributions, including Red Hat come with full featured 
compilers and text editors for multiple languages whereas 
Microsoft's equivalent products are very costly. So Microsoft paid 
hardware running Red Hat software would allow for more schools to 
benefit, while simultaneously increase the benefit those schools 
could derive from each of the systems.
    For all of these reasons, it is my opinion that the most ideal 
solution possible based on the currently proposed one would include:
    1_Free, community owned software on machines going to the 
benefit of the community and are paid for by Microsoft.
    2_Many more machines paid for by Microsoft than are 
provided for by the current proposal.
    Finally, even if my above advice goes unheeded, the settlement 
should seek to reclaim for the public good compensation for the 
damage incurred, not temporary rights for the public to utilize the 
fruits of the transgression. If the state seeks rights to 
Microsoft's software, it should be in a form that does not become 
obsolete.
    For reference, Red Hat's press release including their proposal 
is linked to below: http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/
press_usschools.html
    Sincerely, Scott O'Neil
    Student, Programmer, Inventor



MTC-00002387

From: Mccabe, Matt X
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/28/01 10:27pm
Subject: Please Do Not Settle
    Please do not settle this case with Microsoft.
    They've been thoroughly exploiting their illegal monopoly for a 
decade now and have all the booty to show for it_BILLIONS of 
ill-gotten dollars in the bank.
    All the works are in place for them to continue fully exploiting 
their monoply.
    Given the judgement against them and the outcome of the consent 
decree from 1995, how can WE THE PEOPLE give up in the punishment 
phase of the trial? Microsoft Corp. has broken one of the biggest 
laws a corporation can break. Please press for one of the largest 
punishments in order to fit the crime.
    Thanks!



MTC-00002388

From: Lawrence Pasciutti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 9:17pm
Subject: proposed settlement for microsoft class action
    Speaking as an Apple Macintosh owner and investor , let me say 
that the proposed settlement in both the class action suits in which 
Microsoft proposes to settle their case by not so subtly dangling a 
fat meatball in front of a starved school system and the federal 
antitrust suit, both appear to result in rewarding the perpetrator 
instead of punishing them and will result in continuing illegal, 
monopolistic behavior. I personally object to both and hope the 
respective judges will show truly judicious judgment. LR
    Pasciutti



MTC-00002389

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 9:20pm
Subject: Concerned User
    Concerned Apple user here, just letting you know that 
Microsoft's recent settlement proposal is absolutely ridiculous. 
They wish to give refurbished systems to schools in need, and that's 
fine and dandy. The fact is, their software will be running on those 
computers, and the end result will be an even more monopolistic 
Microsoft. It's easy to see through this attempt at nullifying their 
own punishment, and I hope you'll see this as well. P.S. A more 
understandable punishment would be forcing Microsoft to buy 
computers for schools in need that would support something other 
than their own Windows (Apple Macintosh is the obvious choice).
    Josh Hattersley



MTC-00002390

From: Kevin Hubbard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 2:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm disappointed. Yes I live in Washington State, yes many of my 
friends and fellow co-workers work for Microsoft. For their sake, 
Washington State sake, and USA economy sake, I should be happy that 
Bill and Co only got a mild rist slapping, but I'm not.
    Microsoft's business practices are monopolostic, which is surely 
wrong from a good vs. evil perspective as they put little companies 
out of business.
    What really makes me angry about Microsoft and this ruling is 
that their monopolistic business practices stifles innovation in the 
technical arena which I am dependent on for a living. Microsoft is 
on the verge of taking over access to the web after shutting 
Netscape nearly out of business. Internet Explorer has been forced 
onto 90% of the PCs in the land. Now the web-site norm is to support 
InternetExplorer as a requirement. We're starting to see many web-
sites no longer work properly with the underdogs (Netscape, Mozilla, 
etc.). Just like MS-Word before it, nobody loses their job making 
their web-site talk to InternetExplorer and not Konqueror or Mozilla 
or some other browser. InternetExplorer is not available for open-
source OS's such as Linux. Its not even available for Sun Solaris. 
Thats a problem. Why is Microsoft giving away InternetExplorer for 
MS-Windows users but not providing InternetExplorer for alternate 
OS's, either in compiled binary or source code? Simple. This 
emerging strangle-hold on web-browsing is positioning alternate OS's 
out of business. Thats bad.
    Regards,
    Kevin Hubbard
    Senior Electronic Design Engineer.
    Issaquah, Washington.



MTC-00002391

From: Alan Wardroper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 1:47am
Subject: MS case
    Very disappointed in the clear message ehre to big 
business_do what you like, as long as you're rich and 
powerful. MS has been demonstrated to have broken the law, has been 
called to task for it, then rewarded by the courts with a blank 
slate for furthering their monopoly with a token gesture to donate 
PCs and SW to schools. The cost in SW to the company is not the 
reported $1Billion, but actual cost is $0. Not only that, they get 
to elbow their way into education, knowing that ina year or so the 
schools will have to upgrade.
    Not good. Please reconsider.
    If someone breaks the law, they should be held accountable.



MTC-00002392

From: Vladimir Mikle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 11:56pm
Subject: Microsoft
    So, the justice department is going to penalize Microsoft by 
making them give donations and free computers to needy schools?
    Lets penalize Microsoft by having them spread their influence 
even more throughout the world. Lets show the young students of 
America how "wonderful" Microsoft is by giving them free 
software and computers. Then when those students become wage-
earners, they'll "penalize" Microsoft some more, by 
buying more of their software, since Microsoft software is most 
likely the only operating system (Windows), business

[[Page 24086]]

 package (Office), and web browser and email software (Internet 
Explorer & Outlook Express) that those students will become 
familiar with.
    Isn't this what putting Microsoft on trial was supposed to 
avoid? Yes, there are many schools that need financial assistance, 
and it would be great if you could kill 2 birds with one stone, but 
if you REALLY want to penalize Micro$oft, force them to subsidize 
those schools with Apple computers ONLY, or even PC's loaded with 
the Linux operating system. Both of these alternatives would provide 
students with a more problem-free computing experience.
    Oh, and if you still want to "penalize" Microsoft, 
those students could get Apple computers bought by Microsoft loaded 
with a program called Virtual PC, that allows Apple Macintosh 
computers to run Windows software. Funny how Windows-based PC's 
can't run Macintosh software, isn't it?
    Vladimir "MacFanatic" Mikle
    [email protected]



MTC-00002393

From: Alan Eshelman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/28/01 11:34pm
Subject: Microsoft and DOJ
    When is the wedding? Come on, grow some balls and treat 
Microsoft like the unapologetic contemptuous bunch of greedy law 
breakers they are. Jesus Christ, is every part of the US Government 
happily sucking at Micro$oft's teat or what? How in God's name could 
Microsoft be allowed to pick their own damn 
"punishment"? I'd laugh if the reality of the whole 
thing weren't killing the software company I work for, thanks for 
looking out for the filthy fucking rich at the expense of all 
others.
    Alan Eshelman



MTC-00002394

From: Brent
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 4:08am
Subject: 20 Year Mac User_Objection
    Hello,
    I wanted to voice my opinion:
    As a 20 year Mac user and a Apple investor I want you to know 
that I object that the settlement. Apple only has approximately 49% 
of school computer platforms and only 4% of total operating systems. 
If you were to allow Microsoft to "donate" as much as 
you are stating you will foster a new generation of computer users 
who will only use or become familiar with Microsoft's OS thus the 
monoply continues. Please scale back your donation or ensure that 
Apple Computer is better represented in this settlement.
    I would also like to add the following quote: "There are 
two principal issues: the proposed penalty for Microsoft's 
violations is entirely prospective and the predictability of the 
penalty to effect a sufficient diminishment of Microsoft's 
anticompetitive behavior is completely inadequate, including being 
overly complex and to vague, especially in light of published 
comments by Microsoft CEO Steve Balmer after Microsoft's conviction 
that he does not even know what a monopoly is."
    owiRegards
    Brent Hohlweg



MTC-00002395

From: ROGER HAGER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 4:48am
Subject: Just go by the laws on the books!
    Just go by the laws on the books!



MTC-00002396

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 5:54am
Subject: Insane!
    This settlement proposal is insane! I am amazed that this offer 
was even considered. Why would the DOJ reward Microsoft with more 
marketshare when they are on trial for unfairly using their monopoly 
to obtain the share they have now? Microsoft should be punished 
because they broke the law! This proposal wouldn't be punishment for 
them.



MTC-00002397

From: R S Chan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 7:45am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The only way to protect us the consumer from Microsoft's 
monopoly is to break up the company into 3 separate enitity, 
Operating System, Internet business and other software. That is the 
only way that we the consumer will have a fair deal. Right now we 
have to buy an upgrade every year on the Operating System from 
Microsoft. The upgrade is mostly just patches to correct glitches 
that they discover during the year. So, in reality, we are being 
forced to pay for Microsoft's mistakes make in their software over 
and over again. As it is now we the consumer just have no chance to 
try other operating system.
    R S Chan
    Edmonds, VA



MTC-00002398

From: Stephen Goertzen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 7:27am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
    The settlement with Microsoft is a travesty of justice. We have 
laws in the United States against most monopolies for a reason. Some 
of them have to do with freedom of choice. When Microsoft tells 
manufacturers that you can't put anything else on your computers if 
you want to have Windows on them, that removes freedom of choice 
from the manufacturers, and we have another word for that, 
extortion. Secondly, Microsoft openly states that Windows is an 
operating system. By definition, an operating system translates 
commands from programs for the computer, handling all the interfaces 
with the computer internals. If this is so, then Microsoft must 
publish all the methods to allow third parties to access these 
translations, otherwise it is not an operating system, but a 
vertical monopoly on a computer. Additionally, the idea of adding 
programs to an operating system is absurd, because this violates the 
definition of an operating system, once again using monopolistic 
advantage to restrict choice.
    I'm sure you've read the Halloween memos by Microsoft concerning 
Linux.
    This is the mentality of Microsoft. Destroy a competitor by not 
allowing them to be placed on computers. eg. If Compaq wants Windows 
on their computers, then they can't have Linux on other computers 
they sell. Microsoft has apologized for the problems they have 
caused (to a limited extent). Seems to me if a bank robber 
apologized for robbing a bank, we would want more than an apology 
and a promise not to rob banks in the future (take a look at XP, 
which will not allow certain third party software to be loaded!)
    Please do the right thing, and pursue the Microsoft case as it 
should. Microsoft does put out a decent product, though it does have 
its flaws, but it must play by the rules in place, the same rules 
that everyone else must follow.
    Stephen Goertzen



MTC-00002399

From: Warren E. Gimple
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 7:16am
Subject: Let's move on !!
11/29/01
    Dear Sirs:
    A tentative agreement has been reached in the Microsoft Case. 
After all these years and expenses. We should now accept the agreed 
upon settlement and move on. There are so many more important things 
that need to be done in our country, and you guys should spend time 
on more important issues. Stop beating a dead horse to death again.
    Get some IMPORTANT legislation passed and do the work that you 
were elected for. Stop wasting time on these types of issues!!!!!
    Warren E. Gimple
    2600 Barracks Rd. C-13
    Charlottesville Va. 22901-2198
    email: [email protected]
    ph: 434-295-1890



MTC-00002400

From: Donald E. Knox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 8:48am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case
    I think the government should take a look at the AOL, Apple, and 
Netscape practices before they make a final ruling in the anti-trust 
case against Microsoft.
    AOL, Netscape and Time Warner have teamed up to dry the 
government into their corner. Microsoft may have integrated the IE 
browser in to the operating system, but why is that bad? People 
still have the choice of browser, they can use the Netscape browser 
if they wish. I recently bought a new computer and it had Netscape 
installed. Over the years I have purchased many computers for my 
company and most of the laptop systems came with Netscape installed.
    Microsoft has "On Lines Services" in the "Add 
Remove Programs" for anyone to install an On Line service of 
their choice, yes AOL is there_so is Prodigy, CompuServe 
(AOL), and a few others that not quite as popular.
    Microsoft has as much right to define their operating system as 
does Apple. Microsoft has been in the business of making computing 
more fun and easier. I think to a great extent that has been 
accomplished, just look at the number of people that have

[[Page 24087]]

computers today. Apple computers had a big edge in the 80's but 
software companies didn't right business functional programs for the 
Apple computer systems.
    The primary reason Microsoft was able to gain so much popularity 
was Novell's purchase and dismantling of Word Perfect and Group 
Wise. Had Novell been able to maintain the market share, 80%+, then 
Microsoft would not have been able to move into the application as 
strong as it did. Novell stripped the messaging software and Unix 
knowledge from the Word Perfect company before it sold the rest to 
Corel. In my view Microsoft has done more for the software industry 
than most any other company I can think of. The products are not 
always "best of bread" but they sure do a pretty decent 
job of making work easier.
    Don Knox, MCSE
    [email protected]
    813-359-5253



MTC-00002401

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 8:43am
Subject: Settlement
    As an IT professional, I would recommend that Judge Colleen 
Kollar-Kotelly NOT accept the settlement between Microsoft and the 
DOJ for the following reasons:
    As the courts ruled, Microsoft IS a monopoly. The agreement does 
nothing to stop this. The DOJ won the case, but then gave up.
    There is no financial penalty.
    The way Microsoft's lawyers are able to twist things around, 
anything in the agreement would not hold up due to interpretation 
and would end up back in court for years to come.
    Microsoft can still bundle what ever they want into the 
operating system even though it has nothing to do with the basic 
operation of the computer.
    Thank you,
    Arlen Levin



MTC-00002402

From: Rick Rodman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 8:40am
Subject: Your settlement is horrible.
    After all the things Microsoft has done_lied to the court, 
fabricated evidence, violated their original consent 
decree_THIS is the kind of settlement you come up with?
    Microsoft has put thousands of people out of work, increased 
prices to consumers, cost the federal government billions of 
dollars, and held back the improvement of technology. The DOJ has 
proved its case (see the findings of fact).
    Something must be done to remedy the situation for the American 
consumer and the Federal Government.
    Your proposed settlement does nothing for either of these 
aggrieved parties.
    It's completely wrong, and an embarrassment. Come up with 
something better.
    Otherwise the American people will have to do something on their 
own_and you won't like it.



MTC-00002403

From: Bruce Bardes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 8:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello Folks_
    You have a tough problem.
    Microsoft's business practices are clearly monopolistic and 
predatory. I think that Judge Jackson used those words. Let me throw 
in arrogant and contemptuous of the public. The products they foist 
off on the public are shoddy. Clearly, those folks deserve some kind 
of punishment. But what?
    I'm not sure what breaking up Microsoft will accomplish, but 
what other choice is there? Maybe requiring open code for their 
products? I say "Do it!" All of it.
    Bruce Bardes
    Cincinnati



MTC-00002404

From: Jason Boyd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 9:41am
Subject: RedHat, Microsoft, and Open Source in our schools
    I am sure you've received a fair amount of mail on this subject, 
so I'll cut to my brief opinion:
    RedHat's proposal, if enacted, would be very good for our 
schools, very good for the Open Source movement and subsequently 
good for all industries which rely on computing. It would be bad for 
Microsoft. Very bad. And Microsoft knows this very well.
    If this is *not* already the view of the Department of Justice, 
than my opinion is that the DoJ should fully explore the 
implications of RedHat's proposal and seriously listen to the Open 
Source and broader computing communities. If the DoJ already sees 
the positive outcome of supporting some variant of RedHat's 
proposal, then you should do so. Punish Microsoft in a *real* way 
that doesn't actually *help* them monopolize computing further, and 
doesn't push a bloated commercial monopoly into the infrastructure 
of our public education system.
    Respectfully,
    Jason Boyd
    Software Developer
    Boston University
    Boston, Massachusetts



MTC-00002405

From: Ira J. Minor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 8:56am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The most significant settlement idea has never been mentioned. 
It would be to require PC manufacturers to offer PC's with NO pre-
installed software. PC buyers would then buy their software of 
choice on CD's.
    This would give all software developers a level playing field. 
In short, STOP PC MANUFACTURERS FROM BUNDLING SOFTWARE WITH THEIR 
HARDWARE!
    Ira Minor, [email protected]



MTC-00002406

From: Clay Leeds
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 11:09am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement Inadequate
    To whom it may concern:
    I am shocked at the Department of Justice's plan to settle the 
Microsoft Anti-Trust case. It appears to be more of a reward to 
Microsoft, than a punishment. In particular, the proposed penalty 
for Microsoft's violations is entirely prospective and the 
predictability of the penalty to effect a sufficient diminishment of 
Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior is completely inadequate, 
including being overly complex and to vague, especially in light of 
published comments by Microsoft CEO Steve Balmer after Microsoft's 
conviction that he does not even know what a monopoly is. I formally 
request that you reject the proposal, in favor of a real, tangible 
punishment, complete with punitive and civil damages.
    Clay Leeds
    Web Developer/Programmer
    [email protected]



MTC-00002407

From: JOHN D GILBERT
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 11:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    From a public user's perspective it doesn't appear that 
Microsoft has been given any significant penalty.
    They still released their new operating system XP on schedule 
with many new features that link all of us users more tightly to 
their solutions. I know they say that their approach has produced a 
better product for all of us, but without more competition, they 
will continue to tie us tighter to their desired approach.
    In the long run that will not produce better solutions. We need 
a more significant penalty that would promote more open competition 
in the OS, Browser and E-mail area. There is really only one 
solution, the Microsoft solution, available on new systems. That is 
the case even after the so called slap on the hand.
    I use their solutions for most of my work, but mostly because 
they came with the new system I recently purchased from Dell. The 
hardware world is very competitive, but these three areas are sewed 
up by Microsoft.
    John Gilbert
    2313 Stonehenge Dr.
    Edmond, OK 73034-6477



MTC-00002408

From: Chris Katscher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 10:19am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft settlement: Flies in the face of the 
monopoly trial!
    It is amazing to me that a settlement for the class-action 
lawsuit, proposed by Microsoft, refereed to here:
    Microsoft near settling private suits http://www.msnbc.com/news/
660382.asp?cp1=1 and here:
    Microsoft Confirms $1B Settlement http://www.wired.com/news/
antitrust/0,1551,48543,00.html is even being considered by the 
justice department. This is like if Standard Oil proposed to give 
away its gasoline and used cars to people who didn't

[[Page 24088]]

have cars yet. Or if Bell telephone proposed to give away free 
telephone service and used phones to people who didn't have phones 
yet. Does this not fly in the face of the ongoing DOJ vs. Microsoft 
case and the various acts on monopoly law: The Sherman Act, 15 
U.S.C. 1 (1973), and the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 13 (1973)? 
Competitors are naturally outraged by this proposal, here:
    Apple Rips Microsoft Settlement http://www.wired.com/news/
antitrust/0,1551,48660,00.html and have proposed alternate 
settlements here: Red Hat Proposes to Enhance Microsoft Settlement 
Offer By Providing Open Source Software to All U.S. School Districts 
http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/
press_usschools.html I urge U.S. District Judge J. Frederick 
Motz to reject this proposed Microsoft crafted settlement, and urge 
both parties to come up with a settlement that doesn't let Microsoft 
dictate where the settlement money will go.
    Thank you for your time.
    Chris Katscher



MTC-00002409

From: John Laurenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 10:11am
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement Proposal
    Gentlemen,
    By now you have heard from thousands of unhappy avid Mac users. 
Mac is the only real competing operating system to MicroSoft. I'm 
afraid old Bill Gates has out maneuvered you again on this one. It 
is just like " bare rabbit pleading with bare fox not to be 
thrown into the briar patchï¿½. You are doing far more damage 
than good with a settlement proposal that simply gives Bill Gates a 
way of further monopolizing the market and squeezing out any 
competition.
    John G. Laurenson, Jr.
    3223 Harbor Drive
    St. Augustine, Florida 32084



MTC-00002410

From: Les
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 12:00pm
Subject: Comment on proposed settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I find it incredulous that the Justice Department is proposing 
to facilitate Microsoft in extending their Windows-based monopoly. 
I'm referring to Microsoft's offer to donate one billion dollars' 
worth of PC's and Microsoft software to public schools.
    As for the software component of the donation, Microsoft's cost 
would be a miniscule fraction of the announced dollar amount. This 
is because once the fixed cost of developing the software is paid, 
the incremental cost of burning an additional CD-rom is merely 
pennies. The Microsofties in Redmond must be rolling on the floor in 
laughter at being able to get away with this "smoke and 
mirrors" agreement.
    If the Justice Department is truly interested in punishing 
Microsoft for its monopolistic behavior and discouraging the company 
from such behavior in the future, it should require them to purchase 
one billion dollars' worth of Apple computers and non-Microsoft 
software for public schools. Anything less is a sham and goes 
squarely against the Department's intent when the suit was initially 
brought against Microsoft.
    I respectfully request that this aspect of the proposed 
settlement be withdrawn by the Justice Department. If the Department 
cares at all about fashioning a just solution to the problem that it 
initially sought to correct, it will replace this remedy with one 
that addresses the issue of Microsoft's monopolistic behavior rather 
being an accomplice in perpetuating it.
    Yours truly,
    Les Fuchs
    3035 River North Pkwy.
    Atlanta, GA 30328



MTC-00002411

From: Kelly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 12:00pm
Subject: Proposed MS settlement
    Just a quick note to express how I feel about the proposed 
settlement in the "consumer" Microsoft case. I read 
where one PC pundant described the proposal as a big Rorschach test. 
Everybody sees what they want to see in it. I think that it's 
actually a big IQ test, and Microsoft is hoping we really are THAT 
STUPID.
    The proposed settlement is too small and misdirected away from 
the class of people that actually were injured by Microsoft's 
illegal misuse of it's monopoly position. As much as I think we need 
to increase education funding for technology, schools were never 
significantly injured by Microsoft's pricing shenanigans since they 
largely resisted Microsoft's incursion. Why allow a 
"punishment" that doesn't address the actual injured 
class without the company that broke the law having to even admit 
guilt. And further, this settlement would hurt the companies that 
obeyed the law and played by the rules by allowing MS to extent it's 
monopoly into an area it surely wouldn't gain on it's merits.
    So please take this into account when you render your judgment.
    Thank you,
    Kelly R Graffis



MTC-00002412

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 11:52am
Subject: redhat's proposed solution is excellent 
    It is completely inappropriate at this juncture to 
"remedy" MicroSoft's monopoly by subjecting mass 
populations of children to their software, thereby completely 
counteracting any supposed "remedy". This farcical 
"remedy" is akin to tobacco companies offering free low-
tar cigarettes to juveniles as an "apology" to lung 
cancer victims. RedHat's ( http://www.redhat.com ) proposed solution 
of exchanging MicroSoft software for significantly less expensive 
open-source software and leveraging the cost savings to provide 
substantially higher quantities of computers to less privileged 
school districts is a noble one. I will be severely disappointed by 
the leadership of our U.S. Justice System if this course of action 
is not pursued.
    thank you for your time,
    _gabriel
    CC: guardianlion @ yahoo.com@ inetgw, dunningj 
@ athenet.net...



MTC-00002413

From: Bob Eliason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 11:42am
Subject: Settlement Comments
    The settlement is weak and ineffective. Microsoft still does not 
admit to wrong-doing and realizes that they will not be punished, 
only distracted.
    This settlement will allow them to punish equipment manufactures 
at whim, give away software such as their browser putting other 
browser companies out of business, and dominate core technologies 
such as JAVA or ignore them out of existence.
    We, as consumers, are losing and will find no remedy in this 
settlement.
    Break up the company.
    Bob Eliason
    [email protected]
    2685 Milton Hills Drive
    Charlottesville, VA 22902



MTC-00002414

From: john stephen naulty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 12:39pm
Subject: Re: Macs Only! News, Commentary, Reviews & 
Troubleshooting
    I strongly object to the proposed settlement of the microsoft 
monopoly case-microsoft's offer to supply computers (undoubtedly 
using microsoft OS and software exclusively) and Microsoft software 
to needy schools merely serves to reward and advance their 
monopolistic tactics_surely you are aware that 
'giving' away software that is already developed 
essentially costs microsoft nothing except the cost of the cd media 
... and serves only to further entrench microsoft 
hardware and software in an arena (perhaps the only arena) in which 
microsoft does not control and supply all the software already.
    J. Stephen Naulty MD
    Director, Yale Center for Pain Management
    Department of Anesthesiology
    Yale University School of Medicine
    333 Cedar Street
    New Haven CT 06510



MTC-00002415

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I cannot fathom how this idea can be entertained. The thought of 
"punishing" Microsoft for terrorizing the computer 
industry with monopolistic tactics by "forcing" them 
into aquiring new market share is absurd. Please reject this blatant 
attempt by Microsoft to turn their "punishment" into 
profits.
    Russell Weitz



MTC-00002416

From: Tony Palumbo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 12:53pm
Subject: Proposed Settlement

[[Page 24089]]

    To whom it may concern
    I refer you to this article about the Microsofts proposed 
private settlement.
    Whatever you think about Microsoft, you have to give them 
credit. I mean, who else could turn a billion-dollar "gift to 
education" into an anti-competitive business practice?
    That's what Apple says Microsoft is doing_using its 
"generosity" to horn in on Apple's education 
business_and they're right.
    Look at it from a distance, and the deal looks pretty good. A 
raft of people are suing Microsoft on various antitrust grounds. The 
cases have all been glommed together, and a single settlement 
proposal is before a federal judge in Baltimore. The judge has to 
decide whether it's a good deal.
    THE PLAINTIFFS' LAWYERS have done a good job of finding a 
settlement that seems to work for everyone. In an unusual move, they 
have even agreed to allow the judge to decide what their fees should 
be. They've managed to do something the Justice Department wasn't 
able to in its proposed settlement: essentially, fine Microsoft a 
billion dollars (which is real money, even to Microsoft) for its 
past transgressions.
    And they have tried to do it in a socially redeeming way, by 
having the money go to poor schools.
    Now I am sure the people on both sides of the table who crafted 
the agreement_and see it as a big win for education_must 
be feeling right now that no good deed goes unpunished. But their 
good deed must be modified. APPLE HAS FOUGHT in the education-market 
trenches for many years. The company has had its ups and downs, but 
recently has seen some improvement. It would be terribly unfair for 
a court to order Microsoft to drop a cool billion into the education 
space. Even if it isn't money that would have been spent anyway, it 
would greatly enhance Microsoft's presence in education. Children 
who might otherwise see a Mac might now see a Windows machine.
    Teachers, who've forgotten that this is a legal settlement and 
not a gift from the goodness of Redmond's heart, might recommend 
Windows machines to parents. In fact, after about a year, everyone 
would forget Microsoft wasn't doing this entirely voluntarily, and 
the company would reap a PR bonanza. That is way too close to 
allowing Microsoft to profit from its crimes for my taste, 
especially when it also has the effect of challenging Apple in one 
of the Macintosh's few major market segments. If Microsoft wants to 
do this on their own, we can't (and shouldn't) stop them, but it's 
just too much to consider the further nuking of Microsoft 
competitors as a socially redeeming activity.
    I HATE TO SAY THIS_as I am also sensitive to the good an 
extra billion (over five years) could do for bringing technology 
into schools_but the money simply can't be spent that way. If 
we want to be fair to Apple while still having Microsoft pay 
penance, the money needs to go to some other public or charitable 
purpose.
    In fact, education is about the only place it shouldn't go. Let 
Microsoft donate the hardware and software needed to support the 
fight against terrorism here at home. Most police departments and 
emergency service agencies need the technology almost as much as 
schools_actually more so, in some cases_and that, at 
least, wouldn't be money taken out of Apple's pockets. Rather, 
Microsoft would be giving money to agencies that have probably 
already standardized on Windows, but just can't afford to buy very 
often.
    I got an e-mail from a reader who has an alternative solution: 
let the money be used by education, but only to purchase Apple or 
Linux software and systems. That strikes me as perverse, but in some 
ways fitting. More reasonably, the money might be required to be 
spent in a manner that reflects current market share_so Apple 
gets the share it presumably would have gotten if Microsoft hadn't 
been the source of the cash. Like I said, you've got to give 
Microsoft credit_they certainly play all the angles. It's just 
a part of the company's corporate soul_sometimes for better 
and, sometimes, for worse.



MTC-00002417

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 12:52pm
Subject: government should boycott MicroSoft
    If the US Government is truly dedicated to a remedy in this 
anti-trust settlement against MicroSoft, it should begin by no 
longer being a MicroSoft customer. The government should not be 
supporting perpetrators of criminal activity, particularly a repeat 
offender. The current proposed settlement, which follows the 
philosophy that "what's good for MS is good for the 
U.S.", is nothing short of empty words. In addition, VAST 
amounts of tax-payer dollars could be saved if all government at all 
levels were to invest in open-source/systems software and hardware 
for all its technology needs. The substantial savings realized 
through increased data security, and decreased licensing costs could 
easily be passed back to the "Senatus Americanus 
Populusque". There are, and always have been, clear 
alternatives to MicroSoft technology, most of which is based on the 
POSIX standard; a standard which is ALREADY a requisite for U.S. 
government software technology acquisitions. Thank you for your 
time,
    _gabriel
    CC: dunningj@ athenet.net @inetgw, jacquiecrema 
@ hotmail.c...



MTC-00002418

From: Rick Rutherford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 12:41pm
Subject: I am against the proposed Microsoft settlement
    I would like to submit my formal opposition to the proposed 
settlement in the matter of the United States vs Microsoft.
    In fairness I must submit that I am an Apple Computer customer 
and have been using Apple products since 1980. I must also point out 
that I am a Microsoft customer as well, having purchased each 
version of Office for the Mac that has been available since 1996.
    After reading the proposed settlement I was left with a fear 
that if adopted it could be a decisive turning point against Apple 
Computer in its struggle to compete with Microsoft.
    Over the past weekend I wondered if Apple would let this 
proposed settlement be offered without objection. How fair is a 
settlement that proposes Microsoft's punishment for illegal 
monopolistic practices be the furthering of those practices by 
squashing a competitor in a market where MS clearly comes in second?
    Luckily, Apple CEO Steve Jobs took the initial action I hoped he 
would and received a notable amount of coverage over his objections 
to the Microsoft proposal. Mr. Jobs hit the proverbial nail right on 
the head when he said Microsoft was going after the only market it 
does not have a stranglehold on_education.
    The irony of this proposal is that Microsoft is undertaking the 
same actions that got the company in hot water in the first place. 
Give away free MS products to create an unfair leverage against any 
and all competition. It should not be overlooked that this all has 
huge political overtones. Microsoft chairman Bill Gates donates to 
President Bush's campaign...Dell Computer CEO Michael Dell is Bush's 
technology advisor...and the Justice Department virtually cripples 
the rulings against Microsoft's anti-trust activities leaving the 
states participating in these proceedings twisting in the wind. All 
of this less than a year after Bush's election. I do not have a 
problem with a MS settlement going to help eliminate the digital 
divide in American schools. They can even put Microsoft Office on 
the computers they give to schools...as long as it's Office X on 
Macs. Anything less will potentially deliver a fatal blow to Apple's 
education market, and maybe the company as a whole.
    I find it a bit ironic that Microsoft floats this proposed 
settlement the same week the company releases Office X for the Mac. 
It's like "Hey, we're not trying to put Apple out of business. 
Look, we just released a fantastic version of Office for all of our 
Apple friends."
    In the final analysis, this proposal cannot be implemented as it 
is currently written. As American citizens (Mac and Wintel users 
alike) we should not allow OUR government to aide and abate a 
company in putting its competition out of business. That is not 
capitalistic, it is fascist at it's most basic level.
    Rick Rutherford
    Round Rock, Texas



MTC-00002419

From: Bill Hogoboom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Breaking up "Ma Bell" was supposed to make 
telephones cheap and reduce telephoning charges. It sure has not 
done that! Don't make the same mistake with Microsoft. The 
competition would just like to have an easier job of making profits. 
As it is they have to scramble to compete and the public benefits 
from it.



MTC-00002420

From: David Dixon

[[Page 24090]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 1:11pm
Subject: Settle the Microsoft case.
    Settle the Microsoft case.
    David G. Dixon
    24861 Adams Ave
    Murrieta, Ca 92562
    [email protected]



MTC-00002421

From: Greg Byerly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft's Slimy Offer
    Hello.
    I've been following the anti-trust cases against Microsoft for 2 
years now as a private, yet concerned, citizen. Microsoft's recent 
offer to settle the private anti-trust cases by giving computers and 
software to hundreds of schools is a sham! This self-serving offer 
slaps at the entire US justice system_buying their way clear 
of illegal acts. Education is the one area where Microsoft does not 
hold a monopoly. It's so ridiculous to settle an anti-trust case by 
helping Microsoft expand their monopoly power.
    Microsoft broke the law...
    They stuffed inferior products down our throats ...
    They destroyed companies with better products ...
    They have been found guilty ...
    They should receive a punishment befitting a company their size.
    Even 1 billion dollars is nothing to a company that makes 
triple-digit billion-dollar profits.
    They should be punished so that they feel the sting, not so they 
can just write off the penalty to their insurance and forget about 
it. In the name of justice, please urge the states not to settle for 
anything short of a punishment for Microsoft that will curtain the 
company's monopolistic powers and restore innovation and competition 
back to the market.
    Sincerely,
    Greg Byerly.
    These statements are my own opinions and does not reflect any 
position or policy of CUPA-HR.



MTC-00002422

From: David Leuckel Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 1:23pm
Subject: When will it (Microsoft) Stop?
    This partial agreement/settlement between the DoJ and M$ will 
not stand! As a former M$ employee, (before Windows 1.0 was even 
released), I consider myself somewhat of a well-informed, and versed 
user of micro-computer operating systems and software applications. 
Having been a user of multiple OSs for almost 20 years_Apple 
Lisa thru Macintosh OS 10.1, OS/2, DOS 1.0 thru and including 
Windows 2000_I have seen, participated in, and experienced as 
much of the "high-tech evolution" as Mr. Gates himself, 
but have NOT been a puppet in his unethical "play" of a 
corporate dynasty.
    True, he and his cast of players have done a lot for the local 
and national economy, not to mention technology itself, its just 
unfortunate we ALL have, in some way or another, been 
"brainwashed" to believe that M$ solutions are the best. 
The truth of the matter is, if M$ cannot compete with a specific 
technology in the marketplace, they either infringe on intellectual 
copyrights, change the standard, or simply buy the creator, 
eventually to either implement into their own bug-ridden code or 
phase it out completely!
    In spite of numerous court decisions in M$ favor in the past 10 
years, I have been able to sleep at night knowing that I have made 
the right choice for my family's, and my business's computing needs, 
which is probably a lot more than what Mr. Gate's can say when he 
looks through his Windows at night staring out at the dark, cold, 
and deep waters of Lake Washington.
    If there were no judges of men, who would be the judge but the 
man himself?
    Mr. Gates, being the co-founder of one of the most successful 
monopolies in this nation's history, needs to ponder this question 
with the utmost of wisdom, integrity, and diligence, but most 
important of all, honesty!
    David C. Leuckel Jr.
    Seattle, WA



MTC-00002423

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 1:22pm
Subject: The answer to this problem is NOT by letting Microsoft gain 
more market
    The answer to this problem is NOT by letting Microsoft gain more 
market share by GIVING (read_NOT competing) its software away 
to poor schools. Please, please, PLEASE don't let them keep doing 
what they've been doing what they're good at_devouring 
innovation and creativity and using their monopoly to squash 
competition. They aren't playing fairly according to the Sherman 
Antitrust Act, and they should be more severely punished. But most 
of all, letting them give away their software will only further 
cement their monopoly position.
    Please do the right thing.
    _Kevin Kelly
    A VERY Concerned Citizen



MTC-00002424

From: Roger Scott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 1:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The DOJ settlement with Microsoft is only giving Microsoft an 
opportunity to gain yet another monopoly_this time in the 
world of education. This is an outrage.
    Roger Scott



MTC-00002425

From: David Cramer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 2:07pm
Subject: Cancel rewards for unethical behaviour
    There is no excuse for the disastrous counterproductive 
character of the proposed settlement with Microsoft. As an adjudged 
monopolist, the last thing Microsoft should be handed as a penalty 
is a larger noncompetive advantage than they had before the 
judgement.
    Regards,
    David



MTC-00002426

From: Timothy Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft additional comment
    In the last 2 days, I have attempted to access commercial 
internet sites and have encountered browser "fatal 
errors" because the site is expecting me to be using Internet 
Explorer, so it will work with their Microsoft servers. I don't 
choose to use IE, I prefer Netscape 4.7. Can you actually ignore 
this reality, and find it acceptable for the consumer? It's not, and 
it is a clear and ever-present example of how Microsoft has abused 
its power in the marketplace. THE CURRENT SETTLEMENT IS 
UNACCEPTABLE, AND DOES NOT SEND THE CORRECT, OR A STRONG ENOUGH 
MESSAGE TO THIS COMPANY. SUPPLY A STRONGER REMEDY.



MTC-00002427

From: Timothy Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 1:43pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    This proposed settlement is like letting the fox into the hen 
house. The true value of the educational assistance is, for the 
majority of it, a no-cost solution to Microsoft that will lay the 
groundwork for future revenue generation and perpetuation of 
monopolistic practices. It's been proven that Microsoft has abused 
it's legal obligation, and has damaged fair competition beyond 
repair for the consumer, and for many companies that are now non-
existent. The remedy needs to structured so that this does not 
happen in the future. It appears that if this settlement is 
excepted, consumers and competitors will only suffer further abuse. 
MICROSOFT NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND IN A SIGNIFICANT WAY THAT IT'S 
PRACTICES ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE OR TOLERATED. All indications are that 
their current new products continue on the SAME COURSE of 
monopolistic practice. Are we willing to wait for new challenges to 
their practices that will take years to conclude? ACTION NEEDS TO 
TAKE PLACE NOW.



MTC-00002428

From: Manuel, David_PD
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/29/01 2:53pm
Subject: I want to express that I think it's a bad idea to allow 
Microsoft to
    I want to express that I think it's a bad idea to allow 
Microsoft to distribute free software to educational institutions to 
partially fulfill their anti-trust settlement terms. Simply put, 
education is one arena where Microsoft does *not* hold a monopoly, 
and allowing them to place software there runs directly contrary to 
the spirit of restitution. Such placement gives them a *greater* 
market share, and would exacerbate the conditions that prompted the 
anti-trust suit in the first place.
    Thanks for the opportunity for input.
    David Manuel, EIT, AICP
    Senior Planner
    713-837-7807
    City of Houston
    Long-Range Planning Division

[[Page 24091]]

    Planning & Development Department
    Personal E-mail does not necessarily reflect official views of 
the City of Houston, its representatives, agencies, or officials.



MTC-00002429

From: Maureen Colquitt
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/29/01 2:34pm
Subject: How much was paid to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly?
    I would just like to know how much money was paid by Microsoft 
to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to settle this case in this manner? 
It appears that if you have enough money justice can be bought. Just 
a concern citizen wondering why money can buy anything.



MTC-00002430

From: Comeaux, Carol B
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/29/01 2:22pm
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement Is Fair
    I just read an article in USA Today Online saying the Senate is 
going to hold hearings reconsidering the Microsoft case. This does 
not serve the public interest. I am amazed at how we cannot seem to 
get this issue put behind us and move on.
    Microsoft is a terrific US company that has benefited the 
consumer by the development and marketing of its products_and 
I'm sure it's benefited our economy by being a successful US-based 
global company. Just as Microsoft is a powerful company, so are its 
competitors, and it seems as if they have been quite successful in 
keeping this anti-trust issue alive, not for the good of the 
consumer, but to further the interests of their own thriving, multi-
billion dollar enterprises. Consumers should not be deprived of the 
benefits that Microsoft can bring by hobbling it to protect enclaves 
for its competitors.
    Thank you,
    Carol
    Carol B. Comeaux
    +1 847-501-4443
    +1 847-508-4140 (mobile)
    [email protected]
    310 Woodland
    Winnetka, IL 60093
    Visit gdbpathfinder: http://gdb.bpweb.bp.com



MTC-00002431

From: Collison, David
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/29/01 2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Proposed Settlement
*Secret*
    To Whom It May Concern ...
    I vehemently oppose the proposed settlement between the US 
Department of Justice and Microsoft. The proposed settlement does 
little to rectify the antitrust issues brought before the court, 
and, in fact, rewards Microsoft for causing serious damage to its' 
competitors and to those using computers.
    Microsoft has shown that it will disregard any type of 
constraint placed on it by the court, there is no mechanism in place 
to oversee and enforce a change in behavior by Microsoft (the three 
man council proposed in the settlement has no power to change 
Microsoft's business practices), the limitations do not address the 
antitrust behavior exhibited by Microsoft in the past. The 
Department of Justice at one time, it was reported, was ready to ask 
for the break up of Microsoft, this settlement is a dream escape for 
Microsoft_the DOJ should be ashamed to even make this proposal 
to the courts.
    If this settlement is accepted, there will be serious damage 
done to the American public. If the DOJ was willing to bring this 
suit before the court, it should have been prepared to go the 
distance. IBM exhibited far less antitrust activity when brought 
before the court, yet paid far more serious penalties. Microsoft 
should pay dearly for what they have done, as an illegal monopoly 
tying products together, manipulating hidden interfaces to disable 
competitors products, taken advantage of hidden interfaces to make 
their own products run better. There needs to be a far different 
settlement, or this case needs to run the distance and Microsoft 
needs to have serious constraints placed on them or be broken in to 
multiple businesses.
    David L. Collison
    6911 Winthrop RD NE
    Cedar Rapids, IA 52402
    319.790.3516



MTC-00002432

From: Walker, Greg
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/29/01 3:08pm
Subject: anti competition
    As a Sr. Software Engineer at the Bell+Howell PSC division and 
user of both Microsoft, Linux and apple operating systems I would 
like to voice my displeasure with the proposed Microsoft vs. The 
States anti-trust settlement framework.
    The reasons that I think this settlement does harm to the 
consumer is because the education area is one of the last bastions 
of free choice when it comes to the type of computer and operating 
system that a student can choose, and it is not out of coincidence 
that this is one of the markets that Apple computer still 
effectively competes with Microsoft. This settlement will in effect 
force Apple Computer out of the Education market and give Microsoft 
more of a monopoly in education. If you look at the full Microsoft 
product line how many of the products are for the Windows operating 
system only compared to the programs that will run on a Apple 
operating system. Also of the products that support both platforms 
compare the feature set of each. In both of these cases you will see 
that the software that works with the Windows operating system has a 
better feature set.
    In closing I would just like to says that this settlement is 
counter productive to the Nation, Educational Institutions and 
Consumers.
    Greg Walker
    Sr. Network Software Engineer
    Bell+Howell Publishing Services "A ProQuest Company"
    20 years in the computer field.



MTC-00002433

From: Steven White
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 3:47pm
Subject: A public comment
    This is a comment from just an ordinary person (althougth I do 
program computers for a living) urging the STRONGEST POSSIBLE 
measures to bring Microsoft under contol. I base my opinion mainly 
on two documents. I read the findings of fact from the trial and 
found them so clearly written they were almost a pleasure to read. I 
wrote to the Minnesota attorney general supporting stronger measures 
and got back from him another very clear document explaining why the 
proposed settlement is not stong enough.
    I can't believe you all haven't seen these, so I would waste 
your time explaining them. I did also look at the settlement 
documents, and found them not nearly as clear. I saw, or had pointed 
out to me, several inconsistencies or loopholes that would allow 
Microsoft to continue its documented practice of essentially 
bullying other companies in ways that prevent competing products 
from being sold or even offered for sale. Once again, I am sure that 
others more qualified than I have pointed them out to you and I 
shouldn't waste your time with my less eloquent attempts. 
Explanations are all over the trade press and even in the mainstream 
newspapers.
    I am worried that a company that behaves in ways that I consider 
immoral and courts consider illegal is being let off without any 
punishment and, because of a less than ironclad settlement, being 
given too many ways to avoid changing its behavior. This is a 
company that drove Netscape out of independent existence by illegal 
tactics. This is a company that drove DR-DOS and BE-OS out of 
existence (of course they didn't actually "do" it, but 
for all practical purposes, they did). This is a company run by 
people who are willing to, essentially, lie in court, as they did 
with the doctored video tape episode that the press had such fun 
with. These are the guys who, when ordered to make a version of 
Windows 95 without Internet Explorer integrated, made a version of 
Windows 95 that didn't work_"compliance with middle 
finger extended" as one newspaper write put it. This is 
company run by Bill "How much can we pay you to hurt 
Netscape" Gates and Steve "To heck with Janet 
Reno" Ballmer. (I'm not making that up, it was in the 
newspapers).
    The government wants, I assume, companies and individuals to be 
able to write software and have a reasonable chance to sell it. 
Microsoft wants, in my opinion and the opinions of others, no 
software to be sold unless it comes from Microsoft. They have taken 
advantage of every way available to them to get what they want, and 
I am sure they will continue to do that. You must make sure your 
settlement proposal is not one of them.
    Thank you.
    Steven White
    5125 Logan Ave S
    Minneapolis MN 55419
    The opinions expressed here are my own and not those of my 
employer, whose computer I used to type them.
    Steven White
    City of Bloomington
    2215 W Old Shakopee Rd
    Bloomington MN 55431-3096

[[Page 24092]]

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



MTC-00002434

From: Sol Mumey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 3:31pm
Subject: brer rabbit and the briar patch
    Allowing Microsoft to settle its anti-trust suit by supplying 
Windows computers to schools is letting the company off the hook. 
Granted it is a substantial settlement, but it will expand 
Microsoft's market and increase their monopoly power, as they 
effectively are boosted in one of the markets which they do not 
entirely dominate. This seems hardly an appropriate punishment for 
abuse of current monopoly power. If the settlement guaranteed that 
the money would be used for non-Microsoft products, the settlement 
might seem like a real punishment. As it is, many might mistakenly 
credit Microsoft with good will.
    Sol Mumey
    [email protected] -OR- [email protected]



MTC-00002435

From: Trachsel, Steven William (Steve)
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/6/01 3:30pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Anti-trust settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I would like to take this time to express my views on the 
proposed settlement. I do not believe that the settlement as 
proposed, in any way will improve the marketplace for software. The 
settlement does not impact Microsoft's current monopoly, nor offer 
any type of remediation to the millions of consumers who have 
suffered as the result of their illegal acts. The only result of the 
settlement is that the government will sanction Microsoft's further 
tightening their grip on the marketplace by allowing them to control 
the desktops used in schools.
    I urge you to totally reject the settlement. It is not in the 
best interest of consumers, it does not help the businesses hurt by 
Microsoft's illegal actions in the marketplace, and it does not in 
any way punish Microsoft for having violated the law.
    Thanks,
    Steve Trachsel
    7302 Timbercreek Court
    Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068
    [email protected]



MTC-00002436

From: Robert Zeff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Get this settled! This battle is like a religious war, there's 
nothing (fair) that could placate the anti-Microsoft camp. If there 
is a monopoly, what is the Mac? How about Sun? Why aren't these a 
choice? Microsoft has always charged less than Apple. How has 
Microsoft hurt the consumer? This is bull.
    Robert Zeff
    Nikola Engineering, Inc.
    [email protected]
    http://nikola.com



MTC-00002437

From: B.L. Doern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 4:32pm
Subject: Drop it already!
    I think America should turn it's attention to rooting out 
terrorism at home and abroad. Microsoft is an innovative company 
with innovative products and its success is vital to the health of 
our economy. Enough already with the lawsuit!
    BettyLou Doern
    Modesto, California



MTC-00002438

From: pkelly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 4:24pm
Subject: MS/DOJ Settlement
    Who got paid off? There has been a major betrayal of the 
interests of the American Public, a complete about face in the 
conduct of the person or persons entrusted with caring for the 
interests of the American public.
    It will come out, it will take time, possibly a long time, but 
it will come out .. Who benefits from it? Only those who 
took the payoff and Microsoft.
    This and today's DMCA rulings demonstrate that 
"justice" is just a word anymore, no wonder the public 
has little confidence in the justice system.
    We the people long for justice. Not lip service.



MTC-00002439

From: Rod Roark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 4:08pm
Subject: Opinion from Davis, CA
    I am astounded and disappointed that the DOJ is trying to 
forfeit the ball game when it's already been won. Microsoft has 
already been found guilty of breaking the law in very serious and 
malicious ways. They have also demonstrated disrespect for the law 
and for a multitude of other moral principles that may get in the 
way of the company's profitability.
    For crying out loud, do your duty. Break up Microsoft.
    Respectfully,
    Rod Roark
    Davis, CA



MTC-00002440

From: Rebecca Helmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 5:08pm
Subject: Microsoft
    The people who think Microsoft did nothing wrong are simply 
average, uninformed people who did not read any of the text of the 
DOJ's case against Microsoft. They form their opinions without 
information; indeed, it is ridiculous to count the views of the 
uninformed as an opinion at all. That said, you should know that 
there are very many of us, some involved in the open source software 
community and some not, who know specifically many of Microsoft's 
unethical tactics and simply illegal business practices. It is your 
responsibility to rectify some of these injustices; indeed even the 
American legal system, where money is everything, could not avoid a 
judgment against Microsoft_and now you think that we won't 
notice that you waffle on the sentence. The proposed 
"solution" does not even guarantee that We the People 
will be protected from similar actions in the future, let alone 
force Microsoft to account for previous heavy-handed tactics in 
maintaining their monopoly. In fact it benefits Microsoft in several 
ways and is not a punishment but a government-sponsored product 
promotion.
    One letter, indeed many letters, makes no difference to those 
who will make the decisions; only money matters I know. But let it 
be said that there are some of us with an extremely profound 
understanding of the workings of the computers that run our world, 
and that these machines run your world too. We, the Intellectual 
People, may not have the sheer numbers of the Ignorant Masses but 
one of us is worth a thousand of them, and we are the ones who will 
be watching you.
    Neil McBlain
    Canada



MTC-00002441

From: Y. West
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 4:50pm
Subject: Cure Microsoft 's case
    Break Microsoft into two separate companies, is the only cure 
for the case.
    Alfred Johnson
    2392 Barlow Ave.
    San Jose, Ca 95122



MTC-00002442

From: Richard Gillmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 5:44pm
Subject: Proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case
    The proposed settlement is reasonable and I support it. It 
addresses the issues raised by the suit and provides an appropriate 
remedy. It's time to settle this and move on.
    Richard Gillmann
    4150_187th Ave SE
    Issaquah, WA 98027 (USA)
    (425)641-5136
    http://www.nwlink.com/ï¿½7Erxg/
    [email protected] -or-
    [email protected]



MTC-00002443

From: Christopher A. Grasso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 5:32pm
Subject: Antitrust case settlement inappropriately weak
    I would like to express my disappointment with weakness of the 
impending settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case. Microsoft has 
repeated engaged in anti-competitive practices, as the judicial 
findings against the company confirm. Use of secret application 
program interface (API) calls give Microsoft applications an 
advantage in the Windows environment over competitors, and allow 
Microsoft to continue to abuse its monopoly status in order to wipe 
out free choice in the marketplace. The only way to force these APIs 
to be open is to split operating system developments and 
applications development into two separate companies.

[[Page 24093]]

    Furthermore, the penalties to be imposed do not remedy the 
situation, and in fact amount to free advertising for Microsoft with 
the next generation of computer users: students. Microsoft will make 
duplicates of its already-existing software to distribute at a 
fraction of the cost of retail products, yet these distributions 
will count against the company as having much higher value.
    Even if the company were forced to pay the settlement in cash, 
the amount is only about 4% of its cash reserves. This punishment 
cannot in any way be considered a remedy, or punitive. I urge the 
DOJ to reconsider the leniency it is showing a proven monopolist. 
The settlement the DOJ is pursuing will not remedy the monopoly 
practices of Microsoft, nor will it result in greater protections 
for consumers.
    _Dr. Christopher A. Grasso
    The statements herein express personal opinions that should in 
no way be construed to represent the positions of the Jet Propulsion 
Laboratory or Stellar Solutions.
    Dr. Christopher A. Grasso, PhD
    JPL/Stellar Solutions
    [email protected]
    (303) 641-5926



MTC-00002444

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 5:32pm
Subject: My humble Opinion
    In the drive to protect consumers and reduce the appearance of a 
monopoly on the part of Microsoft, has anyone considered the price 
of their products? If you look at all other operating systems vs. 
Microsoft's offerings, Microsoft is in a ball park all of their own. 
I feel a fair settlement would include pricing of the products that 
is more reflective of the market. After all, how many billions do 
Microsoft and Bill Gates have to earn before they decide they've 
won?
    John Manning MCP
    Information Systems Director
    West Linn Paper Company
    4800 Mill Street
    West Linn, Oregon 97068
    503-557-6500



MTC-00002445

From: John Oswald
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/29/01 5:26pm
Subject: MS case
    I read that MS is offering 1 billion in aid to schools in 
software and refurbished hardware. All this will do is lead to 
further need for expenditures on new MS products and more hardware 
for these schools thus paying MS back for it's so-called settlement. 
If they really want to settle it, they should put the whole billion 
into new and refurbished hardware and allow open source software 
makers provide the software for free! Since 99% of the work done on 
any computer is web surfing, email, and simple word processing and 
spreadsheet work it seems reasonable that since software that can 
provide these services in an exemplary fashion is available free and 
will run on used computers which cost as little as $75, the billion 
dollars from MS could go a lot further, help a lot more and be more 
of a real `settlement' than something that simply generates more 
revenues for MS. This benefits the schools in that they can get more 
computers and get more use of the older ones they already have, the 
students can take all of the software home and use it on computers 
there as it is freely distributable, and finally, the poorer 
families may be better able to afford and old Pentium computer for 
$75 than a new $1500 machine thus allowing more students to be able 
to do work at home and not just those with parents who can afford a 
machine that's compatible with the ones in the schools running on 
MS. This is an all around winner for the schools, the students, and 
MS still gets its settlement.
    Just my 2 cents. Thanks.
    John Oswald
    Leggette, Brashears & Graham
    1210 W. County Rd. E Suite 700
    St. Paul, MN 55112
    651-490-1405 ext. 211
    [email protected]



MTC-00002446

From: Wilfredo Ruiz Oliveras
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 6:41pm
Subject: Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I think that the conditions set forth in the Microsoft case will 
foster the monopoly power of the Company. As of today, Microsoft is 
requiring that if a person purchases the new version of their 
Windows XP that person must connect to internet and allow the 
Company to "spy" into his computer. If the settlement 
only imposes to "donate" to the schools that do not own 
computers this will eventually increase its share of the market and 
its monopoly power.
    The settlement must punish not reward misconduct in the market.
    Wilfredo Ruiz-Olivears, Ph.D
    Professor of Economics
    University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez
    Mayaguez, Puerto Rico 00681



MTC-00002447

From: Stephen Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I don't understand all the legal ramifications of the settlement 
that has been reached with Microsoft but I do have some 
understanding of the ramifications of Microsoft's way of producing 
software. I am a network administrator, computer support technician, 
and computer user. Through my interaction with computers and those 
that use them, I see first hand the daily hindrances faced with 
using Microsoft products. Because of their market share dominance, I 
am forced to really look hard if I am NOT to use their products, so 
the majority of my work is with Microsoft products. From what I see, 
in their grasp for market share they produce incomplete and inferior 
products. In my experience with Unix operating systems, their 
stability and reliability over the Microsoft OSes is many times 
greater. It seems if Windows was forced to stand on it's own as an 
operating system then Microsoft would have to put more focus into it 
and make it a quality product. I feel breaking up Microsoft is the 
appropriate answer or least something much more severe than what is 
being done.
    Stephen Johnson
    Network Manager
    
    Integrity Online Brazos Valley
    1716 Briarcrest Dr., Suite 210
    Bryan, TX 77802
    979-260-7873
    979-260-1411 Tech. Support Hotline
    979-260-3107 (Fax)



MTC-00002448

From: Robert Hicks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 7:27pm
Subject: Settlement
    What a farse! I cannot believe you are just going to slap M$ on 
the wrist and say "bad M$...don't do it again."
    My trust in the gov't just went down a notch.
    Robert Hicks
    Linden, VA



MTC-00002449

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 7:25pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I don't think the deal presented by microsoft should include any 
of their software as it will only extend the monopoly. I like the 
idea of microsoft increasing their share of hardware and having 
Redhat supply truly free software to our schools.



MTC-00002450

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 7:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find it totally disgusting that Microsoft has once again used 
our Judicial System to their benefit. It never ceases to amaze me 
that they (Microsoft) have numerous lawsuits pending constantly, and 
continue to run their business as if nothing has happened! Even 
after they're found guilty, they continue doing what they were 
charged for.
    Now they are being PENALIZED?? by giving schools refurbished 
computers with THEIR software on them, and therefore taking the 
upper hand in their competitors market! If this is your idea of 
justice, I'm sure Bill Gates will also be your next recommendation 
for the Presidential ballot.
    Microsoft should be forced to donate their whole $5 billion to 
the school systems to purchase new Apple computers and software. Now 
THAT would be punishment!! The (so-called) settlement they're facing 
now is without a doubt, a total win_win situation for 
Microsft, and all of their stock holders. Which brings another 
question to my mind. How many of the people from the DOJ that were 
involved with this (so-called) settlement have investments in 
Microsoft?
    Ed Glow,
    Byron, NY



MTC-00002451

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 6:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement

[[Page 24094]]

    Dear Sirs:
    In my opinion, the settlement with Microsoft is totally 
inadequate. In my opinion, if Microsoft's contention is that their 
software has gone through such great development, it seems that they 
should be willing to either make past releases available for free or 
for a minimal cost through a download either in SOURCE or compiled 
form. The current settlement is of such little cost to them, I am 
sure they are having a party. The cost of the PC's they are 
suggesting giving to the schools run for arount $25.00 in lot buys 
from corporations such as Boeing. Thank you for your time.
    Troy L. Wampler
    mailto: [email protected]
    PP-ASEL



MTC-00002452

From: Rich Webster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 8:37pm
Subject: Microsoft is a threat, and is unreformable
    To whom it may concern ...
    I have found news of the Microsoft trial results to be shocking 
and horrifying to a degree only surpassed by Sept. 11th. Why? 
Because Microsoft has, and continues to aggressively use their 
dominance to manipulate prices, licensing, and market opportunities 
through aggressive marketing, mergers and acquisitions, and bulk 
licensing changes.
    Yet, the DOJ and the Bush administration have clearly sold out 
the interests of the industry to the highest bidder, which most in 
the industry recognize as further proof of Microsoft's overwhelming 
power. Judge Jackson was not abusing the prudence in jurisprudence, 
he was simply stating facts when his harsh words for Microsofts 
behaviour drew such attention.
    The best solution is simply to put all versions of Win 95, 98, 
and 2000, ME and XP into open source. This will maximize competition 
and innovation and improve the products themselves. Microsoft will 
still have at least a two year lead in developing for the platform, 
yet will no longer be able to hide malicious and intentional 
"bugs" and "features" and security will be 
enhanced. Microsoft is the Taliban of the software industry. Taking 
them out of the position of power they hold is the only solution.



MTC-00002453

From: Scott Warren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 7:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an IT professional, I am infuriated at the proposed antitrust 
settlement with Microsoft. Myself and the majority of my colleaques 
had hoped, in the end, that Microsoft would be forced to become an 
ethical competitor which would provide a real choice for consumers 
at a fair price. The only way to do that would be to split Microsoft 
into at least 2 companies; operating systems and applications. As it 
stands now with this "Briar Rabbit" approach, Microsoft 
will be given the blessing of the court to gain a monopoly in one of 
the few markets it doesn't already have. If this settlement is 
approved, Microsoft will be the winner. As far as the rest of us, 
we'll be worse off than we were before the antitrust action was 
initiated!
    Scott Warren
    Broken Arrow, OK.



MTC-00002454

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 7:57pm
Subject: Settlement Atrocity
    Dear Justice Department:
    I voted for Bush and favor most of his policies and 
appointments; however, with respect to the Microsoft lawsuit, I am 
ashamed of our Justice Department which is making a complete joke of 
our antitrust laws. Even some misguided business experts laud the 
agreement so everyone can "get on" with their business, 
but the proposed government and this private settlement make a 
travesty of our laws and economic principles. The settlement doesn't 
punish the monopoly power at all, and only tries to reign in some of 
its behavior. We need true punishment and a solution that will 
recreate the competition in operating systems, and now all other 
significant applications bundled into Windows. The settlements so 
far do nothing to stimulate the competition, innovation, and 
investment that Microsoft's monopoly has stymied over the last 
decade. This is bad for consumers, investors and our economy. Let's 
get our act together.
    Sincerely,
    Mark R. Belanger



MTC-00002455

From: oxzLiebesLuderzxo@ hotmail.com@ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 8:55pm
Subject: Schau genau hin!
    Wer hier nicht klickt_kanns nicht sehn!
    http://free.adult-freespace.de/camluder



MTC-00002456

From: Tim Morgan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 9:47pm
Subject: Open Source vs Microsoft
    I would like to endorse The Red Hat's alternative proposal (vis 
a vis Microsoft's) to help poor schools as many more school children 
would benefit. It also espouses the "open source" nature 
of education in that all curriculum subjects are open to 
envistigation and scrutiny. This is how the human race has advanced 
in scientific knowledge and understanding.
    Tim Morgan
    Auckland
    New Zealand.



MTC-00002457

From: Thomas Gilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 9:37pm
Subject: Decline the Microsost deal
    I urge you to decline Microsoft's offer to place free software 
in the schools. It is outrageous for them to suggest that the remedy 
for their monopolistic practices should be to extend their monopoly.
    Thank you.
    Tom Gilson
    Thomas A. Gilson
    Communications/Special Projects Director
    Military Ministry
    Campus Crusade for Christ
    (757) 247-7502, ext. 220
    http://www.milmin.com/



MTC-00002458

From: eppert, brian
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/29/01 9:00pm
Subject: Severe dissatisfication
    I am sorely dissapointed in the manner in which the case against 
Microsoft has been settled. The abuse of market influence, namely 
the monopolistic nature and behavior of Microsoft has hindered the 
progress and health of the Computing Industry. Their predatory 
behavior can be seen in numerous attempts to squash competition 
using unfair and manipulative practices. Steps must be taken not 
only to absolutely prevent this behavior in the future, but to 
correct the damage that has been done and punish the past violations 
of anti-trust laws.
    The proposed settlement does none of these things and would 
allow Microsoft to hold an entire sector of the economy hostage. I 
hope that the settlement is revised to a point that it has some 
value.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Eppert



MTC-00002459

From: Joshua Colwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 3:32pm
Subject: microsoft is a monopoly
    Microsoft has been found to be a monopoly and that ruling has 
stood up under appeal. Any settlement must insure that it does not 
continue monopolistic practices and must include fair compensation 
for past practices to get competing software solutions, such as open 
source operating systems (e.g. linux) on a level playing field.
    Sincerely,
    Joshua Colwell
    1517 Taft Ct.
    Louisville CO 80027



MTC-00002460

From: Richard Hamilton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 10:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
    Dear Department of Justice:
    Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion on the 
Microsoft Antitrust case. It is my opinion that the deal does not 
punish Microsoft. How does this discourage Microsoft from changing 
its monopolistic practices? Don't drug dealers give away their 
product to hook new users? Microsoft should be punished, not given 
the opportunity to promote its product and continue its monopolistic 
practices.
    This deal does nothing for the people that have purchased their 
products. What about the people who have had Microsoft products 
forced on them? Microsoft's license agreements with computer 
manufacturers have forced people to buy Microsoft products 
regardless if they have wanted them or not.
    Call any major computer manufacture and ask them if they will 
sell you a computer

[[Page 24095]]

without a Mcrosoft operating system. They will tell you 
"no." When I go to the store and buy a box of pasta, no 
one forces me to buy a particular brand of sauce. Why should I be 
forced to buy a computer with Microsoft products on them if I don't 
want them?
    Microsoft talks about innovation. How can there be innovation 
without competition? The goal of this settlement should be to give 
Microsoft competition. Level the playing field by stopping 
Microsoft's monopolistic practices. Let competition be the breeder 
of innovation, not Microsoft.
    CC:Richard Hamilton



MTC-00002461

From: Dominic Dupuis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 9:51pm
Subject: DOJ vs Microsoft
    Bonjour,
    All I have to say is that I don't understand how you can leave 
Microsoft give away (I mean, distribute) is software to schools as 
part of the penalty phase. This situation will only help them to 
extend her monopoly. I applaud Microsoft for raising the idea of 
helping poorer schools but I don't think that the remedy should be a 
mechanism by which Microsoft can further extend is actual monopoly.
    By providing schools with a software choice, Microsoft may 
provide many more computers to these schools. This could also help 
them to show that they truly serious about helping American schools.
    You should take a look at the Red Hat proposal, this could be a 
better solution than the Microsoft settlement offer.
    Thanks
    Dominic Dupuis B.Sc. CNE
    [email protected]
    http://ddupuis.webhop.org



MTC-00002462

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 9:48pm
Subject: Settlement
    I don't know too many details of the settlement but I do know 
that allowing them to pay it off by donating software to schools is 
not punishment. It will further damage Apple's presence in the 
schools, as well as other competitors. If you want to really punish 
them, make them buy Apple hardware and software for the schools. The 
whole issue has been their use of market power to crush the 
competition. What better punishment than to help the competition? At 
least make them give cash so the schools can buy what they want.
    Scott Fortman



MTC-00002463

From: tom keyes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 10:34pm
Subject: proposed microsoft settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    The proposed settlement is absurd, it does nothing but reward 
the monopolist by giving them a superb vehicle to strengthen their 
monopoly! I can't believe anyone who is not working for microsoft 
would think this is reasonable. Education is one of the few 
remaining competitive markets, and a massive influx of microsoft 
products will do nothing but establish the monopoly there also. 
Please try to find a solution that is a punishment instead of a 
reward for the Standard Oil of our time.
    Sincerely
    Thomas Keyes
    Professor of Chemistry
    Boston University



MTC-00002464

From: Howard Johnston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 10:30pm
Subject: United States v. Microsoft Settlement
    "I am very disappointed with the Feds settlement. 
Microsoft" "Allowing Microsoft to to donate computers to 
schools instead of paying money further upsets the balance of 
commerce (the actual spending of money) and passively creates an 
advantage to Microsoft" "It seems to me that Microsoft 
has indulged in not only anti-trust violations but racketeering as 
well."
    "Microsoft should not be reward (which this slap on the 
wrist does) for it's competitive practices, it's crafted monopoly is 
a bitter fruit that I as a computer user am forced to consume"
    "The proposed penalty for Microsoft's violations is 
entirely prospective"
    "The predictability of the penalty to effect a sufficient 
diminishment of Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior is completely 
inadequate, including being overly complex and to vague, especially 
in light of published comments by Microsoft CEO Steve Balmer" 
after Microsoft's conviction that he does not even know what a 
monopoly is."
    Howard Johnston
    3470 19th St. SF CA
    415-964-1967



MTC-00002465

From: Mike Dowe and Diane Hanley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 10:21pm
Subject: Settlement
    Please don't hand Microsoft the education market as a 
"punishment". A better punishment would be to order them 
to buy new Macintosh computers for these schools.
    Mike Dowe



MTC-00002466

From: Lorraine Lilker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 11:29pm
Subject: MS_Education Proposed Settlement
    Please do not accept the settlement whereby Microsoft would 
compensate for it anti-competitive behavior by donating a large 
amount of computer hardware and software to poor schools.
    The reason is that this would have the unfortunate side-effect 
of increasing Microsoft's monopoly!
    The education field is a strong venue for Apple Computer and 
Linux? It's one of the view venues where Microsoft has any 
significant competition. Most of that competition could easily be 
wiped out by this huge, unfair inroad Microsoft would make into 
education.
    If you want Microsoft to donate to poor schools, please have 
them donate something other than computer hardware & software, 
such as books for libraries and funds for repairs and renovations. 
If you do want them to contribute computer hardware & software 
to the schools, please stipulate that the products be non-Microsoft 
and/or non-Windows compatible. Alternatively, if you do prefer that 
Microsoft donate from their own products, then please have the 
donations go to other types of non-profit organizations where MS 
products are already predominant but not to educational 
institutions.
    Thank you.



MTC-00002467

From: Jan Hoyme
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 11:11pm
Subject: Proposed settlement
    Microsoft's proposed settlement of "donating" 
software and hardware to schools is simply another way of pushing 
its monopolistic practices. The educational setting is one in which 
a company other than Microsoft has had dominance. By making this 
"donation", Microsoft will increase its presence 
manifold, and will serve to make it the only platform available. If 
Microsoft offers these products free, what school district would 
want to pay precious dollars for other (Apple) products? At least 
for the immediate future. After a few short years, schools would be 
locked into Microsoft products. Is this not monopolistic behavior? I 
encourage you *not* to accept Microsoft's proposed settlement. It is 
merely a means for them to gain a foothold in territory where they 
do not hold dominance.
    Jan Hoyme



MTC-00002468

From: David or Barbara Ellis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/29/01 11:05pm
Subject: DOJ settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case
    The slap-on-the-wrist settlement makes three things clear:
    (1) Microsoft has a better legal department than does DOJ,
    (2) Egregious exploitation of an operating system monopoly can 
be conducted with impunity, and
    (3) Microsoft need make no significant change in its anti-trust 
behavior. It is a travesty that DOJ has voted so strongly against 
the consumer at a time when the Federal Government wants the 
consumer to rescue the economy. We consumers will continue to be 
saddled with a second-rate bloated unreliable overpriced operating 
system and, since there is also an office-products monopoly, a 
second-rate office suite.
    _David



MTC-00002469

From: Thomas Deliduka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 1:47am
Subject: Alternative ...
    How about making Microsoft Pay the 1 billion in Cash, and then 
let the schools decide whether they want to buy Mac or PC? Rather 
than this blatent attempt to take over a market.

[[Page 24096]]

    Thomas Deliduka
    IT Manager
    New Eve Media
    The Solution To Your Internet Angst
    http://www.neweve.com/



MTC-00002470

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 12:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Maam:
    Please settle this case with Microsoft. Microsoft has done a lot 
for this country and will continue to do much more in developing new 
products if this case is settled. Microsoft has only been trying to 
protect their intellectual property which they are defintely 
entitled to.
    Thank you,
    Ed LeCam



MTC-00002471

From: Caddell, Jeffrey L. LTC
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 12:38am
Subject: Education buy-off Settlement
    As an observer of the process, I find the idea of allowing 
Microsoft to gain significant inroads in the education market as its 
penalty in a settlement to be contrary to the best interests of the 
consumer, the children of our school systems, and the nation. It is 
a bad idea, it should not happen, and your agency should do the 
right thing and stop it.
    LTC Jeffrey L. Caddell
    Chief Counsel, U.S. Army Contracting Command Korea
    Unit #15289, APO AP 96205-0062
    DSN 315-724-3373; commercial 
011-822-7914-3373; fax -6605
    e-mail [email protected]
    CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED



MTC-00002472

From: Herbert A. McLane
To: Microsoft case US Dept. of Justice,Earl Blumenauer 
...
Date: 11/30/01 12:10am
Subject: Microsofts settlement
    Gentlemen,
    The settlement that the Administration has agreed to in the 
Microsoft Anti-Trust case is totally unbelievable. First, consumers 
are not choosing Microsoft, they are being forced to use it. I work 
for a U.S. Federal agency and we do not have a choice, we must use 
Microsoft products! WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PURCHASE OR USE NON-
MICROSOFT PRODUCTS. That is the case with many other federal 
agencies and private companies, because Microsoft has stolen the 
market, brainwashed many Information Technology people and used 
pressure tactics the resemble those used by organized crime.
    Secondly, this settlement is just absurd. In current terms used 
since Sept. 11, this settlement is like giving the terrorists a 
FLEET OF AIRLINERS and letting them use them!!!!!
    Please do what every you can to stop this settlement from 
happening. A good alternative would be for Microsoft to just give 
the schools money, with the only strings attached that it would be 
used to buy computers, network facilities and software. But Truly 
let the schools choose for themselves
    Herb McLane, a new resident of California, but a Oregon voting 
resident for the last ten years in Central Oregon.
    Herb McLane
    530.926-6456



MTC-00002473

From: Jason Brockdorf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 2:49am
Subject: DOJ/Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    I think this settlement is a gross attempt by microsoft to 
further monopolize the software market. Teaching their software in 
schools (software which will account for most of the revenue of the 
settlement) will only teach those children to rely on Microsoft 
products. This is exactly what Microsoft wants so that they may 
maintain their stronghold on the "wintel" software 
market. If they really wanted to make a contribution to the 
education of America's children, Microsoft would make available 
multiple platforms (Windows, UNIX/Linux, Mac OS/OSX) on which to 
develop different types of software. Training should also be 
provided free of charge or at cost via world wide web (we do live in 
the digital age after all, don't we)? The best solution would be to 
have Microsoft include only hardware as part of the cost of 
settlement as the software that they would be giving is essentially 
costless for them. Money saved by using free/public domain software 
could be use to buy hardware in greater numbers as opposed to the 
current settlement. With all that hardware in schools, there is a 
plethora of free operating system and application software that 
could be used to help alot more children gain proficiency with 
computers. Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Jason T. Brockdorf
    Austin, TX



MTC-00002474

From: Erick Nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 2:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am concerned about the possible settlement with Microsoft. I 
work in the Education sector and fear that with such a settlement 
most school districts will be forced to use or move to the Windows 
Platform. If the settlement goes through as it is then Microsoft 
will have won. They will get their products into a sector where they 
do not have a Monopoly and they will become more dominant. Plus it 
will be great publicity for them to give to the needy.
    In any settlement Microsoft needs to have some sort of true 
punishment (no help in making them more of a Monopoly). Perhaps the 
settlement should be mainly a payment of Money to the poor school 
districts. Better yet, have them give money and new computer that 
are from the competitors such as Apple Computer (iMacs, iBooks) or 
Linux based computers. Now that will be a punishment.
    Regards,
    Erick Nelson



MTC-00002475

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 2:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge the US government and the various states to adopt the 
settlement agreement that Microsoft and the Department of Justice 
have reached. I believe Microsoft has bent over backwards to 
honestly settle the federal government's poorly brought case against 
it. It is time for all parties to recognize that this was a 
travesty, settle the case and get on with important business.
    I truly believe that the people of this country would have been 
much better served had the governments (federal nd state) taken on a 
real monopoly, the electric power generators, rather than a company 
that was the consumer's friend. And in all I have read, the 
government's position was that it was protecting consumers. The 
government wasn't protecting consumers. It was (is) protecting a few 
marginal companies that may not be able to compete even if the 
playing field is now tipped in their favor.
    I think you guys ought to prioritize your cases on the basis of 
consumer harm rather han how jealous you are over one man's riches. 
I don't know whether the government realizes it or not, but the 
attack on Bill Gates caused the economy of this country to go into 
the dumper. How's that going to look in the history books. You ought 
to be ashamed of yourselves. I might also ask what you are doing 
about these US companies who sell products to related companies 
located outside of this country for unreasonably low prices and buy 
from the same companies at exorbitantly high prices. Their income is 
down and their expenses are up. What is the loss of billions in tax 
revenue doing to the consumers in this country?
    Thanks!
    Frank Ketchel
    2828 Marmor Court
    Sacramento, CA 95826
    (916) 686-8152_Work
    (916) 383-6826_Home



MTC-00002476

From: Nicole Barrows
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 4:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    The concept of MS suppling schools with software is inherently 
flawed for several reasons:
    1: It costs them essentially nothing and hence is not a 
punishment. 5000 hackers could supply schools with MS operating 
systems for free if they wanted to break the law, which (as the DOJ 
has proven) MS does on a daily basis
    2: It reduces the competition by essentially 
"brainwashing" students and parents alike. Children who 
use MS products at school are more likely to have MS products at 
home. Parents who buy their children computers will be more likely 
to buy MS products not because the products are good (from a 
programming aspect, they are not), but because of an "If it's 
good enough for the schools, it's good enough at home " 
mentality.

[[Page 24097]]

    3: Using differing operating systems is much like speaking 
differing languages. The earlier children are exposed to different 
languages (or operating systems) the more fluent they become. My 
oldest child is eight years old and is confortable using 
MS-DOS, TRS-DOS, Amiga Workbench, HP-UNIX, various 
flavors Linux and the all of the MS Windows operating systems and 
graphic user interfaces.
    4: An unnamed software company has offered to supply operating 
systems for free if MS spends it's money on hardware instead of 
software. This will expose more students to differing operating 
systems, allow more computers to be placed in schools and the 
operating system they wish to supply is more powerful the ANY 
operating system MS currently has on the market. It is very similar 
to the OS I use at work for digital powerplant and substation 
control. I use their OS to train future powerplant operators.
    5: When is the last time you have heard of a UNIX, Linux or 
Workbench OS computer having virus problems? Giving MS software to 
schools is just providing the schools with more ways to acquire 
unwanted virii.
    6: MS networking is a real nightmare. Networking with UNIX and 
Linux is much easier and is completely compatible with both MS and 
MacIntosh networks. In short, just because something is free doesn't 
mean it is good. A punishment without sacrifice is not punishment. 
Providing competition cannot be achived by providing more market 
share to the offender.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher B. Barrows
    P.O. Box 133
    Glencoe OK 74032
    (580) 669-2962
    (405) 880-7069



MTC-00002477

From: Nicholas Deroshia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 3:35am
Subject: DOJ/Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    To word it simply, from what I have been reading in the 
newspapers is that Microsoft was able to basically walk away with a 
slap on the wrist. As for the class action suits, I agree with Red 
Hat: http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/
press_usschools.html
    Nicholas Deroshia
    1391 Mann Rd
    Cheboygan, MI. 49721
    [email protected]
    231-625-8574



MTC-00002478

From: Kevin Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 2:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Charles James
    Justice Department
    Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Chief James,
    I would like my opinion reviewed and included in the settlement 
notes. I am writing as an Independent computer consultant and a 
consumer. As a 15 year veteran computer user I feel that Microsoft 
has done much harm by frustrating and flounder the development of 
many opposing or superior technologies. This has been evidenced in 
so many ways only, some of which have been brought out in this 
trial. YES they used their influence to control developers and 
vendors in many ways, and they continue to do so today. These are 
the real losses for the consumer. Many of the competing technologies 
have had better systems then Microsoft. We will never know what 
could have been, if some of these other competing technologies had 
made it to market. The fact that the Department of Justice has 
little control over big businesses buying small businesses with 
competing technologies is the real problem. How many new 
technologies that could change the world sit on the shelves of large 
corporations? Is this right? Should big business be allowed to 
protect their current interests, at the expense of the public loss 
of these new technologies? If so, then how do you settle an unknown 
and unmeasurable loss to the world?
    The settlement offered by Microsoft is a JOKE! This is just 
chump change to Microsoft. They are going to provide software that 
costs them pennies to make, and take credit for a billion dollar tax 
write off. Tell me, how is this JUSTICE? They should be required to 
help other competing technologies. This could be done by forcing 
Microsoft to contributing at least 10% of their total revenue to 
date into a fund that would be used to further new computer 
technologies. This solution would have two affects. It should deter 
other big business from this type of behavior in the future, and it 
may produce some even better technologies. Limitations put on the 
use of the money should include that Microsoft not be allowed to 
participate, in any principal way, with any of the businesses 
receiving funds. Microsoft or its key partners should not ever be 
allowed to purchase any of the businesses receiving proceeds from 
the fund. This is the only way that someone may be able to challenge 
the control of Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin Jones
    Chandler, AZ



MTC-00002479

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 11:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am commenting as a programmer who is sometimes forced to work 
with and interoperate with Microsoft products. Microsoft has been 
ruled a monopolist, and ruled guilty of abusing their monopoly 
power. The purpose of the settlement, as I understand it, is to 
prevent them from continuing to abuse their monopoly power. This 
settlement does not accomplish that goal. Instead, if accepted, this 
settlement will join the litany of agreements meant to restrict 
Microsoft which they trivially bypassed on their ways to becoming a 
bigger, more powerful, and more abusive monopoly. Certainly it does 
not limit Microsoft's ability to abuse monopoly power to achieve the 
goals it has reached for before.
    Allow me to present some of the obvious bypass mechanisms which 
Microsoft has. This list is not exhaustive, it merely gives an idea 
of how readily Microsoft can continue its abusive behaviour. There 
are provisions intended to allow OEMs to ship machines that dual-
boot with other operating systems. Those provisions do not restrict 
the ability of Microsoft to have its operating systems, upon boot, 
identify, reformat, and reclaim partions of unknown types. This 
feature is not dissimilar from "self-healing" features 
already in Windows. It would also eliminate dual-boots more 
effectively than current OEM restrictions do. If this agreement 
intends to make dual-boots possible, then it fails.
    There are provisions intended to allow OEMs to customize various 
aspects of the appearance of the operating system. Yet there is no 
restriction that would keep Microsoft from saying that it will not 
sell OEM Windows licenses at all. Instead Microsoft can allow the 
OEM to ship the machine with a self-installer, and then upon initial 
boot the user and Microsoft would enter into a shrinkwrap agreement. 
This would be an obvious tactic for Microsoft to use. Once they have 
done so they can negotiate prices for the self-installers exactly as 
they previously did OEM licenses. And they further retain complete 
control of what users can see on a purchased computer. If this 
agreement intends to either limit Microsoft's ability to abuse OEMs 
or control what users see, then it fails.
    Section G has an explicit disclaimer for any agreements where 
Microsoft licenses intellectual property from a third party. But 
Microsoft does that with virtually every major software component, 
either through cross-licensing of patents or through specific 
licensing agreements. It will therefore be hard to find any 
agreements which section G applies to that don't fall under the 
exemption. Section G therefore fails of any intended regulatory 
effects.
    It does not take a prophet to forsee that Microsoft will attempt 
to interpret the exemptions in section J far more generously than 
the government or competitors would wish. Even if such 
interpretations are outrageous, if Microsoft can make the court case 
drag on for a period of years, they can make much of the agreement 
effectively useless. Microsoft could, for instance, build 
authentication into virtually everything they build as part of .NET, 
and then apply section J as a blanket exemption. Blanket loopholes, 
properly exploited, will allow Microsoft to make virtually any part 
of the settlement fail.
    I could list many more ways in which Microsoft can circumvent 
any intended restrictions. But I think the point is clear. If this 
settlement goes into effect, Microsoft will have no trouble 
bypassing it while continuing to abuse its monopoly. Given past 
behaviour, there is no question that they will. I would find this 
toothless settlement to be a sad resolution to this episode in the 
ongoing saga of Microsoft's abusive monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    Ben Tilly



MTC-00002480

From: Spurr, Greg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 11:12am

[[Page 24098]]

Subject: Antitrust Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    First of all, thank you for providing an avenue for us to 
provide feeback. Before I get into the final settlement, I'd just 
like to mention that I feel the entire case was mishandled from the 
beginning. By allowing the focus to be on such trivial matters as 
which browser is on the desktop, you made the ramifications of this 
case much harder for the (general) public to grasp. There are much 
bigger issues showing MS' misuse of their monopoly power, which were 
made available to the courts, but appear to have never been followed 
through with.
    The reason for this (I assume) would probably be similar to the 
reason I feel the resolution was unsatisfactory_you were in a 
hurry. The entire thing had the feel of "let's hurry up and 
get this over with" and the settlement merely amplifies this. 
Reviewing the terms, I feel that the entire thing ended up being a 
waste of time_Microsoft is already back to business as usual, 
and has received no real incentive to clean up their tactics.
    Only two groups of people have seen any negative result from 
this action:
    1) the DOJ, who has shown themselves to be ineffective at best, 
incompetent at worst; and 2) the consumer, who (apparently) is going 
to continue to be held hostage to the whims of a certain office in 
Redmond.
    You should be ashamed...
    _Greg Spurr



MTC-00002481

From: Howard, Robert
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/30/01 10:55am
Subject: Settlement
    How can the goverment allow a company to get caught with their 
hand in the cookie jar and get to eat the whole bag of cookies?
    Robert Howard
    5511 Bent Bough
    Houston, Tx. 77088
    713-202-3599



MTC-00002482

From: jczaja
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 10:41am
Subject: please remove Microsoft's education "Donation" 
from settlement terms. Thank you !
    Please, don't give Microsoft an even Greater monopoly...by 
letting them make their "donation" of software to 
education. It would hurt Apple Computer; who's contributed so much 
to our nations educational process year after year after year. If it 
weren't for people for the "two Steve's" (Wozniak and 
Jobs); there probably wouldn't even BE personal computers in homes, 
workplaces, and yes, Judges Chambers. Please don't give Microsoft 
any Unfair Advantage in the education sector.
    Thank You,
    _John Czaja



MTC-00002483

From: cowhead
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 11:29am
Subject: settlement
    Dear Justice:
    Please let us not be foolish. It is clear that the Microsoft 
plan of "donating" free 'old' computers and 
new MICROSOFT software to schools is nothing but a scam of the 
sleeziest kind. The whole point of the suit was monopoly, and this 
will simply further entrench such a monopoly. Microsoft co. is 
apparently betting that the public, and Justice, really are as dumb 
as we have appeared to be in recent years. However, this is just too 
obvious to let pass. Once the schools have Windoze, they will be 
locked in to Windoze. A donation now is a sale later. I repeat: this 
is a scam of the sleaziest kind. Only a company with ethics as low 
and/or non-existant as Microsoft could attempt such an act. I urge 
you to reject this proposal. If Microsoft donates something, let it 
be cold, hard cash equal in amount to the educational market cost of 
the software + 'old' computers which they are currently 
attempting to unload in this plan. However, I would rather just see 
them fined heavily, and the money put into a fund for poor schools, 
which the schools could then use as they see fit (such as hiring 
more real, live teachers!!)
    Mark Mitchell
    1801 Central Dr.
    Beaumont, Texas 77706



MTC-00002484

From: Jim Wilcoxson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 11:34am
Subject: Settlement of MS antitrust suit
    This settlement of shoving even MORE Microsoft products down the 
throats of future consumers (school children) is a joke. It will 
only further Microsoft's monopoly_legally, and with the 
government's blessing. To make a REAL difference, force Microsoft to 
publish the source to Windows, Internet Explorer, and Office, on an 
ongoing basis, and publish their internal technical notes and 
communications about these products. I consider all 3 of these 
products to be the result of monopoly tactics, incrementally forced 
on consumers. Remember the days when Office was bundled with every 
single PC? Hmm... wonder why they don't do that now? Oh 
yeah_they've killed all the competition, so now it's party 
time! To ensure that they are providing the REAL source, have a 3rd 
party run Microsoft's build procedures and ensure that the 
executable the 3rd party generates is identical to the Microsoft 
executables it proposes to release. This will ensure that developers 
at least have equal access to the foundations of personal computing 
that Microsoft enjoys. Windows and IE I would consider essential. 
Office, maybe not_I'm not as involved in that market.
    It's utterly sickening to me that the government has thrown up 
its hands and said "Hey, Microsoft is going to make this 
difficult for us, so let's just slap them on the wrist and move 
on." They are a disgusting company that wants monopoly control 
of any market related to technology that has huge profit potential, 
and its the consumers that suffer because they have the means to 
enter related markets incrementally, kill any existing or potential 
competition, and then do as they please.
    Jim
    Jim Wilcoxson, Owner
    Ruby Lane Antiques, Collectibles & Fine Art
    1.313.274.0788
    http://www.rubylane.com



MTC-00002485

From: Chris Synan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 12:00pm
Subject: Settlement Comments
    I am a computer professional. I am very concerned about the 
Microsoft monopoly. I feel that the settlement is not a deterrent. 
It will NOT change a thing at Microsoft. They will continue to 
squash competition. It is already past the point where any company 
could possibly compete with Microsoft. It is so far beyond that 
point that the only possible competitor is a NON-company.
    If Linux were a company, it would have been killed by microsoft 
a long time ago. Apple has such a niche market as to be negligible. 
The Unix variants are on the way out, except for Linux and possibley 
BSD. Be aware of microsoft's .NET strategy. The battle for the 
desktop is over. They are well entrenched and fighting hard for the 
battle for the server. They have incredible penetration in the 
handheld market. With ".NET" they will own the internet, 
and everyone's experience on the internet.
    DO NOT BELIEVE Microsoft if they say Linux is a competitor. It 
is not... It is not even a corporate entity! Nobody can possibly 
compete against Microsoft. It's been that way for a long time. Only 
you can change that.
    Thanks,
    Chris Synan
    Dataworlds, Inc.



MTC-00002486

From: Jon Babcock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 11:47am
Subject: One clean solution: Open MS file formats
    If Microsoft were required to open and keep open the proprietary 
file formats of their most-used office productivity software (MWWord 
.doc, PowerPoint .pp, etc.) it would be *much* easier for other 
products, both free and commercial, to be made to interoperate with 
these nearly ubiquitous Microsoft products. I think this one 
requirement, for open file format specifications, would do more than 
another other single thing to loosen Microsoft's monopoly on office 
productivity applications. It would be inexpensive to monitor 
because many software devlopment companies would be constantly on 
the lookout for discrepencies between the open, published file 
format specifications and the ones actually used in Microsoft's 
latest office productivity applications.
    Thanks for listening.
    Jon
    _Jon Babcock 
    406 827 3000
    Box 1510
    Thompson Falls, MT 59873



MTC-00002487

From: Gary Fenrich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 11:38am

[[Page 24099]]

Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Attorney General,
    It would be a great injustice to allow Microsoft to settle its 
monopoly suit by giving millions of $'s of software to the schools. 
This would create a marketing opportunity for Microsoft. In the long 
run Apple would lose its market share in education. This underhanded 
so called honorable jester by Gates is only to increase his sales. 
This punishment for Microsoft is no punishment only another profit 
strategy. Please do not support this settlement.
    Thanks_Gary Fenrich(small businessman)
    1069 Elizabeth Ct.
    Yuba City, California 95993



MTC-00002488

From: David Clark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 12:27pm
Subject: DOJ/Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I believe the antitrust settlement negotiated between the DOJ 
and Microsoft Corp. is useless. There are too many ways for 
Microsoft to interpret the agreement to their advantage and continue 
business as usual. Microsoft will still able to unfairly dominate 
their competitors. Microsoft is still able to force users to accept 
software and licensing terms whose main design and purpose is to 
maintain monopolistic control.
    For all the work that has been done in the past three years I 
expected better results. DOJ has rolled over and Microsoft has won 
after being found to be a Monopolist.



MTC-00002489

From: Steve Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement in Favor of Microsoft
    Sirs:
    It is my professional opinion as a computer programmer (over 25 
years) that this settlement handed Microsoft everything they wanted. 
Why would I say this? Let us look at the ramifications to small 
business (less than 50 employees) and the typical home user of 
computer software:
    1) Tax Software that will not install unless IE is installed.
    2) Accounting Software that will not install or run correctly 
unless IE is installed
    3) Payroll Software that will not install or run correctly 
unless IE is installed
    4) 98% of the desk tops using Intel platforms are Microsoft 
controlled.
    5) VB can't run on anything except Windows platforms
    6) ISPs that will not support their customers unless they are 
running a Windows environment
    7) ISPs and others who put out software that will not install 
unless IE is installed (this goes beyond the business software 
listed in points 1-3 above). How is it that IE is needed to do 
payroll and/or accounting? Just what does IE have to do with getting 
W2s, 1099s, 940, 941, and other federal returns printed? How is it 
that IE has to be on a system for downloads to work? FTP has been 
around for quite some time, so why did PeachTree, Intuit, H&R 
Block, and others decide that their software had to be connected to 
IE to get updates for their software?
    Why is it ISPs demand a Windows environment or they can't 
support you (blatant example is AOL/Time Warner's Road Runner)? What 
is so special about IE that they can't seem to deal with Netscape, 
Opera, or any other browser? Why do they [ISP and Software Makers] 
have trouble if you don't use Outlook or Outlook Express?
    Now take these things and look at what you have. If small 
business is forced to use Microsoft environments, how do we get them 
to look at a cheaper and faster operating system, such as Linux? 
What about IBM's OS/2? Why did it die (and it is a much more stable 
O/S than ANYTHING Microsoft has put out AND it supported the Windows 
APIs!)?
    What you've done is made sure that everyone will find the 
Microsoft environment to be the cheapest to go to. You've done this 
via case law that makes the Windows API the standard!
    Total Cost of Ownership is not what people look at in too many 
cases. They look at what is the "easiest" to deal with. 
When all the game makers make games for Microsoft, what will drive 
the Microsoft purchases in corporate America? It is the familiarity 
people have with Microsoft. Meanwhile, better systems will fall by 
the wayside because small business users will not pay the up front 
costs to train their people_not realizing their back end costs 
are going up!
    Again by case law, you have made Microsoft's new licensing plan 
the standard. That new standard is a subscription plan for their 
office products and operating systems starting with 
"XP". What will be the cost of this? Well, if you don't 
subscribe, then you can't buy upgrades at an "upgrade" 
price, but at the full price (per Microsoft). Meanwhile, various 
independent groups have shown the overall costs for small business 
to be a LARGE price increase.
    Meanwhile, Microsoft has a reputation for buggy code. Why is it 
that the vast majority of malicious code is geared to Microsoft 
applications? Is it any wonder Microsoft supports UCITA? Via case 
law you are pushing poor code/software by ensuring that Microsoft is 
the standard (e.g. Windows API). How many more 
"innovations" will Microsoft wrap into their operating 
system that will shut down ISVs (Independent Software Vendors)? And 
how many of those innovations will have serious security problems? 
Again, by case law you've make this the de facto standard.
    And so, who would deign to bring another case against Microsoft 
for predatory practices, anti-trust or outright fraud? Think about 
this new "NET" ("#") environment being 
pushed by Microsoft and what effect "myWallet" (or 
whatever Microsoft is going to call these things) is going to have. 
Once Microsoft gets out there with XP, and people are losing money 
(stolen myWallet contents and the like), what attorney is going to 
file a suit against Microsoft (keep in mind UCITA as well).
    The settlement agreement you have entered into with Microsoft 
was very well described the other day as "the DOJ having 
snatched defeat from the jaws of victory." I submit to you 
that this settlement is the worse possible thing you could have 
done.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Thompson



MTC-00002490

From: Robert Hielke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 12:15pm
Subject: Anti-trust
    Seems Microsoft was able to con you guys into thinking this was 
a punishment when it is win-win for Microsoft. Win now by getting 
me/taxes to pay for training and win in 5 yrs when there are fewer 
other choices in the market and taxes pay again. The assumption 
that: 'All children will need to learn Microsoft anyway' 
is incorrect. That they should be a monopoly because they already 
are, seems like gvmt is giving up to Microsoft, and letting 
Microsoft break another law to gain more market share. Microsoft 
broke the law, does that matter?



MTC-00002491

From: Klein, Patrick
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/30/01 12:13pm
Subject: No! on the Microsoft settlement proposal
    Hello,
    I'm writing to voice my strong opposition to Microsoft's 
proposal to donate computers to 14,000 schools. This clearly hurts 
those companies who still compete with Microsoft in the educational 
market. This proposal makes no sense.
    Thanks.
    Patrick A. Klein
    Sandia National Laboratories
    Mail Stop 9161
    P.O. Box 0969
    Livermore, CA 94551
    Science-based Materials Modeling, Organization 8726
    phone: (925) 294-4618
    fax: (925) 294-3231
    e-mail: [email protected]
    toll free: 1-800-4-SANDIA x4-4618



MTC-00002492

From: Bill Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft and DOJ
    Microsoft has done more than any company in the last half of the 
20th century to help and advance the global community. They have 
provided a wonderful product and emerged as an American Icon for 
efficiency, aggressiveness and the American dream institution. Put 
simply, Bill Gates worked hard and made it big. So big in fact that 
the US government felt it must STOP them because competition could 
not.
    Your DOJ actions have been a major part of the problem with our 
country and economy in the past 5 years. Things take time to slow 
down in the US economy. So it has taken that time for you to help 
ruin it with your actions against this successful giant company. 
This is just another example of Govt intrusion into private industry 
that is unjustified.
    They make the best products and consumers buy them. Their 
competition cannot make competitive products because

[[Page 24100]]

they are not as creative. So they do the only thing they can...they 
get the DOJ to compete for THEM.
    I am disappointed and saddened in how our Government and how the 
DOJ action is typical of the way our society has drifted from people 
who want to pursue freedom and individuality and democracy to how 
your actions instill the "socialistic" ideals into our 
government. The govt is big and bureaucratic, full of power points 
and small "empires" within the big one_a fat non 
productive Government system! As a voter and non Microsoft employee 
I demand you STOP these stupid actions tying up time and talents in 
NON PRODUCTIVE areas. Go after crime, not great institutions and 
companies like Microsoft!
    Bill Martin
    2850 Country Club Blvd
    Orange Park, Fl 32073



MTC-00002493

From: George Streeter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I have never seen our government do such a poor job of bringing 
a company to justice. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Microsoft 
is a monopoly and their business practices ensure that they will 
continue to be on. You should fix this by going with the original 
break up plan with heavy fines to pay back the companies they have 
injured.
    George Streeter
    Systems Engineer, CNE, MCSE, SCO ACE
    Computer Resource Training Inc.
    131 East Columbia Ave #001
    Battle Creek, Mi 49017
    (616) 963-3785
    (616) 963-7009 fax
    [email protected]
    www.crtincbc.com



MTC-00002495

From: Gina M Wheeler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    I find it hard to believe that as a punishment, Microsoft is 
going to be permitted to put their products into schools so that our 
children can be brainwashed into believing that the Microsoft 
platform is the only one to use on a computer. That is supposed to 
be a punishment for being a monopoly? What other possible reason 
could the company have for suggesting such a plan?
    My understanding is that Bill Gates purchased $250 million worth 
of stock in Apple computer a few years ago. He did give up his 
voting rights for 5 years so the article stated. Has anyone 
considered the ramifications of this purchase when he is able to 
vote? What if Microsoft decides to port their operating system to 
the Apple systems and no longer support the Intel platform? This 
would force millions of users to buy new hardware as there are not 
many competitors that have survived Microsoft's strong-arm tactics. 
Is this where things are going? Would it be in the best interest of 
my organization to start purchasing Apple computers now? Can you 
image what this would do to Intel? What about Dell, Compaq, IBM and 
other competitors?
    I currently am an IT person and I run approximately 10 Windows 
servers. On one of these servers, I installed a DEMO version of a 
program called ZoneAlarm by Zone Labs. This is a small firewall 
program. During configuration, I find that my server is sending 
information to Microsoft. Why would they want information about my 
server? What are they doing with this information? Why is this not 
documented? Why is it legal for a company to write software that 
will send information back to the manufacturer without the 
permission of the owner of the product? What gives Microsoft the 
right to have my server talk to their server without my permission? 
I felt truly violated upon learning this. I don't want my 
configuration information or any other information from my servers 
to be bantered around at Microsoft. This is equal to the telephone 
company listening in on my phone calls and making notes. This cannot 
possibly be legal.
    Whoever owns the information, is the one with the power. 
Continuing to let Microsoft go unchecked is a very bad thing and 
will surely come to be a severe problem for the United States. 
Microsoft is on a power trip where business ethics are non-existent.
    I hope that you are willing to stand up to such a power and make 
the company follow the ethical business practices that the rest of 
the United States is forced to follow. I would hope to see the 
government take this company and give them a good shake while it is 
still possible to do so. Computers are a very powerful tool in the 
world today.
    Having a company with little or no business ethics (not to 
mention moral ethics) controlling this industry is just a disaster 
waiting to happen.
    Thank you for reading.



MTC-00002496

From: Bruce Kennedy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 2:00pm
Subject: Anti trust nonesense
    STOP THE INSANITY!
    Can anyone outside of the disgruntled few competitors who 
somehow got the DOJ under Clinton to initiate this mess tell me why 
this is continuing? This was never about "consumers". I 
use Microsoft stuff, you do to. It keeps getting better every 
iteration at basically the same. This case has been a colossal waste 
of Tax payer dollars, put a huge drag on most 401 K's etc. etc.
    In the name of consumers everywhere who are much more affected 
by this case's affect on their personal wealth than anything 
else....PLEASE SETTLE!



MTC-00002497

From: Shanan Peters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 1:17pm
Subject: Unacceptable settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I find the proposed settlement by Microsoft (gratuitous 
promotion of low-cost software in public schools) to be most 
unsatisfactory. I trust that the authorities in charge of this 
settlement can see through the transparent scheme by Microsoft to 
pay virtually nothing to gain a foothold in a market in which they 
currently do not enjoy a monopoly_all as a punishment for 
their monopoly status in many fields!! Please, carefully consider 
the motives of Microsoft without being "softened" by the 
desire to see some good come to public schools. Instead, demand a 
more equitable cash settlement that puts money into the hands of 
schools. Explicitly demand that Microsoft keep their bullish hands 
out of making decisions about where the money be spent.
    _Shanan Peters
    Shanan E. Peters
    The University of Chicago
    Dept. Geophysical Sciences
    5734 S. Ellis Ave.
    Chicago, IL 60637



MTC-00002498

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 1:17pm
Subject: Operating System Monopoly
    It appears that the DOJ "settlement" does nothing to 
eliminate the stranglehold that Microsoft has on the operating 
system market. The government should write a spec for th OS that it 
will purchase and make it available to all competing software 
developers. The system should also be open source. Microsoft should 
be prevented from forcing Windows and Windows products on the 
public. Try to buy soft or hardware for IBM's OS/2 Warp or a 
computer with that OS installed.
    The list of transgressions is extensive and it appears the DOJ 
has given in.
    Ellwood L. Peele



MTC-00002499

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR, antitrust@ fic.gov@ inetgw, 
Ralph@ essen...
Date: 11/30/01 2:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Hegemony: "Giant Pile Of Shaving 
Razors" CC: letters @l atimes.com@inetgw, 
letters@ sjmercury.com@ i... Re: Judge to Rule in Dec. 
on Microsoft
    if consumers pursued their claim against Microsoft and 
eventually won the case, they would stand to recover as little as $6 
each That would be a most valuable $6. Accumulated, those pittances 
could fund the development of a crash-proof operating system. So 
stop comparing the $6 reward to the $100 monopoly tax that US 
intellectual property laws allow the worst con artist in history.
    "You talk about giant pile of shaving razors, nothing 
more..."



MTC-00002500

From: Thos Lydon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 2:44pm
Subject: Appropriate Penalties
    Sir,
    The proposed settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust case is 
absurd and we applaud your decision to pursue harsher penalties.
    Microsoft has been adjudicated and found guilty. The company 
should not be able to dictate or determine the consequences applied. 
The consequences should be that which best serves the public 
interest and that only can be achieved by reducing the leverage 
Microsoft has over smaller

[[Page 24101]]

companies; leverage that Microsoft has been applying to the market 
place for years.
    Any action that results in the generation of revenues or entries 
into areas of the market that currently are not dominated by 
Microsoft or increases dependency on its products would only reward 
Microsoft for the practices which resulted in their being found 
guilty for violating anti trust laws.
    The only justified punishment is to break up the company, 
accompanied with substantial fines. The failure of the US Justice 
Department to pursue this reduces the confidence that citizens can 
get justice. Now we know the true meaning of criminal justice.
    Thos and Ginny Lydon



MTC-00002501

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 2:13pm
Subject: MicroSoft Triumphs
    Guys_
    As a former litigator I am appalled at the way you division gave 
away your hard won court victories for that flimsy, hole ridden, 
useless settlement document by which Microsoft rolled all over the 
United States.
    You completely wasted my tax dollars by capitulating in the 
midst of victory over one of the most vicious monopolies since the 
Standard Oil Trust. You are handing the internet over to Microsoft, 
destroying innovation (MS is incapable of inventing they just 
immitate and then extinguish the originators) and leaving all 
consumers to the tender mercies of a monopolists.
    You should be ashamed_and all so that George Bush can have 
some contributions from Redmond. I'm disgusted.
    _Cliff Allen



MTC-00002502

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 3:30pm
Subject: settlement
    This is bad solution. It allows Micr. to do have the same effect 
as before. What is needed is for the consumer to have the chance to 
get $100-$200 back that was usually paid to Micr. if he agrees not 
to use their software. This should be a mandatory part of all 
liscenses Micr. signs with OEMs. This has never been the case and 
the proposed settlement doesn't help. As long as a Windows/Office 
tax is bundled in, nobody else has a chance. Just look at Hewlett 
Packard_they will sell you a linux box for $100 more than Win 
2000. They should have an option where you you pay $100 LESS for no 
Windows 2000 and then they could just get something like Linux for 
free. from Red Hat/Linux Central/ or a friend. Until the consumer 
has a chance to save the $100 there is no point.
    Jim Lamm Ph.d. Computer science



MTC-00002503

From: Kerry Robertson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 3:07pm
Subject: MS SETTLEMENT UNJUST/ILLEGAL
    Dear Atty Gen,
    I believe that to punish a company guilty of racketeering by 
offering them a chance to broaden their territory 
"marketshare" is utterly absurd. I am NOT happy with the 
terms of this settlement, particularly with the arrangements for MS 
to provide software to schools. Apple is currently the dominant 
marketforce in educational computing, and this settlement will not 
only hurt them, but all other OS/educational software vendors.
    RedHat Linux has proposed an offer to provide Operating Systems, 
Updates, and Technical support FOREVER to these schools. Making the 
money MS spent on actual HARDWARE go alot further and to many more 
poor schools. To give MS our schools on a silver platter because of 
theirr TERRIBLE business practices is a TRAVESTY! I have been a MS 
user for 10 years, and never have I felt so ripped off as when I 
needed tech support for my Windows Operating Systems and it was very 
inadequet or simply not there! Stop letting them rip off the 
American consumer by Overcharging for a half ass coding job. Stop 
their imperialistic way of Forcing competitors like Netscape out of 
the running.
    I hate to say this to a respected member of any states highest 
Law Enforcement Agency, but if you cannot see that this settlement 
is WRONG, legally, ethically, and morally, then I say to you sir or 
madame, "YOU ARE EITHER AN IDIOT, OR IN MS's BACK 
POCKET" Fix this before our schools are FORCED into 
participating in something so un-american, that our Founding Fathers 
would restart revolution all over again to stop it!
    Kerry Robertson
    Seabeck, WA
    360-830-4916



MTC-00002504

From: donald j mcmeen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 2:59pm
Subject: The Great Microsoft Debacle
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    My input is simple. Here we have a company that single-handedly 
created many, if not most of the tools necessary to implement an 
incredible capability accessible from nearly any place on earth. 
They, starting with Bill Gates and Paul Allen, combined their 
unusual skills with great initiative to bring this capability into 
being.
    The results have so many superlatives associated with their 
efficacy that it would be pointless to start trying to delineate and 
enumerate them. And I, the ordinary consumer, am able to utilize 
them for my own interests at a tiny cost. Information availability 
and communications capability beyond anyone's wildest dreams of a 
few decades ago are the legacy of Microsoft's initiative, industry 
and invention.
    Everyone who is in a position to affect Microsoft's progress 
needs to wake up and smell this enormous field of roses, this gift 
beyond imagination.
    Naturally, there are those who, seeing the results that 
Microsoft has obtained, along with the commensurate rewards which 
came along with it, are eager to share in.....the rewards. That they 
didn't have the same qualities that Microsoft manifested would be 
overcome by resorting to ...why...litigation!
    Of course! It's the American way, or at least, becoming the 
American way. Replace honest effort and industry with a lawsuit!
    The Justice Department needs to be a bit more pragmatic about 
their pursuits. The American economy started slumping over when the 
Justice Department decided to show Microsoft who had the most power. 
The stock market joined in the malaise, particularly the technology 
sector, with many solid companies that will determine much of our 
future economic health and indeed, quality of life, losing a very 
large percentage of their value. The temporal relationship between 
Justice's actions and this change in the value of our economy seems 
unlikely to be coincidental.
    If Justice has a problem with the concept of pragmatism versus 
idealism, it needs to come to grips with the genesis of idealism. 
Idealism is the best guess as to principles that yield the greatest 
success, in some sense, at the time they are formulated. Those 
guesses shouldn't be taken as immutable or beyond review.
    It's time for Justice to take a long look at what they're doing 
in this business arena, while also coming to grips with the 
likelihood that a full understanding of the inner workings of the 
target industry business model may be beyond their reach. Like the 
stock market.
    Donald J. McMeen
    Ordinary consumer and user of Microsoft products.



MTC-00002505

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 4:03pm
Subject: commen
    I think that instead of giving Microsoft software to poor 
schools, Microsoft should have to give MONEY. That way Microsoft 
doesn't profit from software people like me wouldn't pay for anyway 
AND the schools are REALLY helped. Are we trying to give them more 
of a monopoly? Shouldn't we be punishing them for monopolistic 
practices?
    bill bonte
    30+ year teacher in public schools.



MTC-00002506

From: Bill Lundell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 3:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Give-Away Re: proposed Microsoft Settlement:
    As a U.S. citizen, voter, and user of both Microsoft and Linux 
operating systems, I feel that the DOJ proposed settlement only 
furthers Microsoft's monopolistic practices. While the idea of 
helping school districts with computers is a fine principle, the 
proposed settlement mostly allows Microsoft to get credit for giving 
out their own software at virtually no cost to them. This is 
obviously a market where the consumer (poorer school districts) 
would not have been able to purchase at Microsoft's outrageous 
prices anyway. Microsoft should at least be credited only for costs 
of hardware, not the inflated price of their software as if it was 
sold. And it should have no license expiration. What good is a 
'gift' that has to be returned or paid for later?

[[Page 24102]]

    Further, since this is about monopolistic practices, it is my 
opinion that other operating systems and office applications should 
be part of the deal. Red Hat or another Linux distribution, Star 
Office or another office application, should be provided. And any 
cost should be incurred by Microsoft. (The aforementioned products 
are available free of charge. Only the cost of distribution and 
manuals would be required.) Other parts of the settlement are even 
more difficult. Example: "Microsoft will be required to 
disclose server protocols and interfaces." Good luck enforcing 
that! Have you tried to just keep up with the changes required to 
keep your own computer current from the "Windows 
Updates". They'll just keep changing the protocols and 
interfaces so no competitors have a chance. Or they'll find a way to 
sell a service to keep current, thereby furthering their monopoly 
and getting paid for it in the process!
    You've made a step in the right direction. Please make it a 
meaningful step.
    Sincerely,
    William G. Lundell
    601 12th Ave. NW
    Issaquah, WA 98027
    CC:Bill Lundell



MTC-00002507

From: John and Sandy Strickland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 4:40pm
Subject: Microft "Settlement"
    I think the DOJ totally wimped out on the Microsoft antitrust 
thing. The only remaining question is "Will Bill Gates break 
up the Justice Department?", since he is obviously more 
powerful than the government!



MTC-00002508

From: Nancy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 4:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The present proposal for Microsoft's settlement is the 
equivalent of allowing all driver's education autos to be fitted 
with defective Firestone tires, to the exclusion of other brands, 
and then expecting the schools system to pay for the fixes that will 
be necessary.it isn't a penalty_it's a golden opportunity for 
an abusive company.
    I am a long-time computer user [since 1984] and feel it 
necessary to protest the present proposal for Microsoft to donate 
software/computers to schools_ This merely extends MS's 
monopoly into the future , with even broader control than that which 
prompted the lawsuits in the first place.
    Microsoft is infamous for producing "rough-cut" 
software- things that do not function properly_and then 
charging for upgrades,support and patches to fix whatever the 
problem is_They are also infamous for providing things that 
CAN'T be upgraded_and then charging exorbitant amounts for 
updated changes_e.g. Windows Millenium_was touted as the 
next generation_It turns out that this system cannot be 
upgraded to Windows 2000 or any other subsequent upgrade_it is 
an evolutionary deadend, composed of bits and pieces of previous 
operating systems, including outdated programs, drivers, and code.
    Window XP promises to be just as problematic_or more so. 
It was sold as the latestand best_as it turns out, there are 
no drivers available for a wide variety of programs that ran under 
Windows95/98_the customers who paid upwards of $500 for this 
O/S will just have to wait_this is fraud. The Microsoft 
strategy is to let the consumer find all the bugs for free, and then 
pay Microsoft to have them fixed_to introduce this kind of 
confusion into a school system is ridiculous, not to mention the 
hidden costs of sorting out the problems when they have proliferated 
across a school intranet.
    And then there's security_Consumers should not end up 
having to pay, either through hidden school costs, or bloated retail 
prices, for an inferio9r product just because it dominates the 
marketplace_that is precisely why Microsoft should not be 
allowed any possibility of further domination in the 
future_it's time for alternatives, Linux being one of them.
    Nancy Brown
    Yaquina Bay Online
    [email protected]



MTC-00002509

From: Syversen, Jason
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 11/30/01 5:10pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it concerns,
    I'm writing in opposition to the "penalty" that 
Microsoft is supposed to pay by installing their operating system on 
thousands of schools across the country. I'm opposed to any 
"solution" which encourages the spread of Microsoft's 
monopoly any further then it already has. Look at Microsoft's 
primary competitor's responses (Apple, Redhat, etc.) to get a feel 
for what a bad idea this is. Redhat's recommendation that their OS 
be installed on hardware paid for by Microsoft is a much better 
alternative, as it would be stunting Microsoft's monopoly position 
(ie, an actual penalty!) while providing poor schools with much 
needed educational tools. It's also instructive to observe two key 
points. First, the cost to Microsoft is not $1 billion in cash, but 
rather software equalling $1 billion in retail value. Equating this 
to a $1 billion penalty is ludicrous, as the real cost to Microsoft 
is much, much less. Second, the party's that originally brought the 
lawsuit get virtually nothing from this settlement, other then 
perhaps a (misguided) feeling of justice.
    Please resist any recommendations by Microsoft that allow them 
to further their monopoly position. My favorite quote summarizing 
this foolishness was made by Albert A. Foer, president of the 
American Antitrust Institute, who told Motz in a letter that the 
proposed settlement could be considered anticompetitive, and likened 
Microsoft's position to that of "Brer Rabbit seeking the brier 
patch."
    _Jason Syversen



MTC-00002510

From: Mike Finney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 4:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The only thing missing from this "settlement" is 
that Mr. Ashcroft isn't apologizing to Bill Gates. I am appalled at 
the naked attempts by Mr. Ashcroft to subvert the process of justice 
and I hope he is ashamed of himself for being bought so cheaply by 
Bill Gates and his flacks. What are you going to do with your 30 
pieces of silver, Mr. Ashcroft? This settlement should be laughed 
out of court and Microsoft needs to be hung on the wall for their 
antitrust violations.
    Michael Finney
    703 Fayette Dr.
    Euless TX 76039
    817-540-4700



MTC-00002511

From: Richard Tauro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 4:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In addition to the various proposals for structural changes in 
Microsoft's business practices (published Windows price sheets, 
etc.), please consider the following.
    Microsoft should have to divest itself of its programming tools 
group. It should not be allowed to write, sell, or distribute 
programming languages and tools for, say, four years. Such a penalty 
would help check future Microsoft hegemony without the risk of 
permanently crippling the company. The new tools programming company 
would be free to develop Microsoft's programming tools as it sees 
fit_hopefully to make them as robust and interoperable and 
platform-neutral as possible.
    Such a sanction would be relatively easy to implement; nor would 
it be excessively disruptive of Microsoft's ongoing business (while 
I think Judge Jackson was on the right track splitting the company 
into separate applications and OS companies, I fear that would have 
created chaos to Microsoft and, indeed, the to software industry as 
a whole (not to mention all the uncertainties and delays related to 
determining what exactly is application code and what's operating 
system code)).
    Respectfully,
    Richard Tauro
    153 george St.
    Niles, OH 44446
    t: 330.544.1927
    f: 330.544.1937
    e: [email protected]



MTC-00002512

From: Jonathan Ryshpan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 7:18pm
Subject: Proposed MS Antitrust Settlement
    If I understand correctly, the wrong that MS has been found to 
have committed (by the Circuit Court) is that MS abused its monopoly 
position by giving away its browser, to the harm of Netscape. This 
"remedy" will require MS to give away its operating 
system, and possibly other software to various schools, to the harm 
of Apple. It makes little sense to require MS to carry out precisely 
the kind of behavior which has been found to be an abuse of its 
monopoly. If the schools were allowed to take value equivalent to 
the software that MS offers in cash, at the choice of the schools, I 
might be persuaded to support the settlement.

[[Page 24103]]

    With all respect:
    Jonathan Ryshpan 
    Those who have put out the eyes of the people reproach them for 
their blindness._Milton



MTC-00002513

From: Rick Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 7:05pm
Subject: Settlement
    Sounds to me like Microsoft is being rewarded for breaking all 
the rules. "Allowing" them to "donate" 
millions of dollars worth of computers to poor schools is ludicrous. 
1) They will of course inflate the value to lessen their loss; 2) 
They will quickly gain 1000's of seats in a market where they 
actually have competition and don't own the market share; 3) Each 
one of these "donated" computers will require the 
schools to purchase additional software and hardware from Microsoft; 
4) Each of these poor schools will have to find money to hire 
support staff to kep up with the constant maintenance and upgrades 
required. I could of course go on and on. But I doubt that what I 
think will mean a thing to you or if this will even be read.
    Rick Davis



MTC-00002514

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 5:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The irony of the DOJ/Microsoft settlement astounds me. 
Microsoft's punishment is actually a public relations maneuver 
intended to garner public support as well as a marketing maneuver 
intended to gain greater mindshare in future generations. I think 
Redhat's proposal makes sense. Let Microsoft spend its money on 
hardware alone while Redhat provides free software. Microsoft can 
still gain public support, but it does not use its defeat in court 
to gain market share.



MTC-00002515

From: Wayne S. Mery
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 5:38pm
Subject: MS antitrust
    To whom it may concern,
    After considerable taxpayer expense, Microsoft is found to have 
violated anti-trust laws to the detriment of the consumer, and to 
the detriment of the law abiding companies with which Microsoft 
competes. In any settlement one would think there would be :
    * restitution to the damaged party
    * fines which are cumensurate with a society and governement 
that punishes a law breaker and seeks preventative, punative fines 
to show other companies that breaking the law will cost you not just 
pennies on the dollar (as in the case of this judgement relative to 
Microsoft's profits)
    * action or oversight to prevent recurrence, within a company 
culture and leadership that allowed gross illegal actions to take 
place_indeed, they sought agressively the means and tools 
which were foresable to be breaking the law.
    To give computers and software to schools is a noble, but too 
easy and inequitable settlement.
    This settlement, agreed to by both the US Government is a joke, 
and apparently convienient for both.
    What happened to the consumer??
    Wayne Mery
    4017 Monroe St
    Danielsville, PA 18038
    Note: These are my personal views, and do *not* represent the 
views of my employer, Lehigh University



MTC-00002516

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 9:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs,
    As someone who has used Microsoft products extensively and as 
someone who has had to deal with the problems thereof, I would like 
to comment on the Microsoft Settlement. It does not seem, to me, 
that the proposed settlement does more than simply give Microsoft a 
slap on the wrist. I say this because the insurance which Microsoft 
carries on its operations costs more than the amount it is being 
asked to pay in this settlement. Bill Gates alone makes more per 
year than what Microsoft is being asked to pay. This, therefore, is 
no burden to Microsoft. A "burden" is something which 
places you at a disadvantage, makes it hard for you to operate, or 
otherwise inhibits your ability to function normally. This 
settlement does none of these. It is merely a minor hinderance 
easily overcome.
    I feel that, due to what happened on September 11th, the 
importance of this case has been lost to the Department of Justice. 
Instead of remembering what Microsoft has done, the Department of 
Justice simply now wants to "get this over and done 
with." This may not be true_but that is the impression 
which is being handed out to the people of America. That it is ok 
for the biggest corporation in America to destroy, manipulate, or 
circumvent the laws which lesser people and companies must adhere to 
simply because they have enough money to buy their way out of the 
problem. To slick the palms of some officials, or to promote offers 
behind closed doors which, on the surface, appear to be genuine but 
upon closer inspection simply increase their holdings. A true 
settlement would have included provisions to ensure that none of the 
systems thus purchased could have a Microsoft Operating System 
installed. Such as requiring them to be Apple Computers_thus 
reducing Microsoft's ability to extend their holdings. This would 
have allowed both LinuxPPC (Linux for the PowerPC) or MacOSX to be 
installed. Or require that no Microsoft software be installed on any 
of these systems period. This would have allowed Corel's Office 
package, Sun's StarOffice, KDE's KOffice, or any of the other so 
called "Office Packages" to be used instead of 
Microsoft's. These are minor burdens. To enlarge these minor burdens 
into major ones extremely stiff penalties such as time served in 
prison, heavy monetary penalties, and the like would have to be 
incorporated into the terms. Which would make the entire affair 
unpalatable to Microsoft. Thus, these would have to remain minor 
burdens.
    A major burden (in and of itself) to Microsoft would have been 
to make Microsoft give up something like ten percent of their annual 
income for the next ten years and that this income go to such things 
as the Free Software Foundation(FSF) or the National Science 
Foundation(NSF) (who helps to back the FSF) or for the intended 
purpose proposed above. THIS would be a burden. Especially if they 
were forced to pay the taxes on this money before it is distributed. 
Further, the proposed ten percent deduction on their income would 
not destroy the company_all it would do is to slow them down. 
Which is what should happen. Let me reiterate that: It is not our 
intention to destroy the company_but we most certainly do wish 
to slow them down so other companies have the chance to compete. 
Therefore, if Microsoft itself were forced to aid its competitors 
through the use of a ten percent tax, this would not only be a major 
burden_but everyone in the United States would benefit from 
this settlement. This is because Microsoft, according to Standard 
& Poor's last recording (if I remember correctly), earned over 
$300 Billion dollars last year. $30 Billion dollars is a few more 
dollars than amount presently in the proposed settlement.
    Finally, I would like to turn your attention to the committee 
which is to be set up to oversee Microsoft. I believe that the 
people who should make up the committee should be picked, randomly, 
each year, from those companies who have borne the brunt of 
Microsoft's attacks. Who better to ensure that Microsoft conforms to 
the letter of the law than the very people to whom they have done so 
much? My proposal on this matter is that each of the plaintiffs in 
the lawsuit must present a list of names of all employees who work 
at the various companies. (No job titles or any other information 
should be used.) These names are fed into a computer program which 
randomly orders the names. Starting at the top of this list, these 
people are contacted and asked if they wish to work on the oversight 
committee. If they do, then some of the money from the settlement is 
used to pay their salaries for that year.
    Each year this is repeated with no company able to send the same 
person more than once. From this second group of people the final 
people are picked to act as the oversight committee. Again a list is 
devised and a random selection is used. I suggest five people 
instead of three and I believe that the committee should be set up 
in a manner similar to a small claims court in that there is a 
litigant and a defendant. The problem is laid out for the 
"judges" who then decide_with the help of an 
AntiTrust Division person_whether or not there has been a 
violation of the AntiTrust Settlement. If they find that there has 
been a violation, then the matter is turned over to the AntiTrust 
Division for further investigation. If not, then the reasons for not 
turning it over must be made clear to both parties as well as the 
AntiTrust Divison. In all cases, a written report of the entire 
proceedings, with each

[[Page 24104]]

"judge"'s reasons, must be made available to the 
AntiTrust Divison. In addition, all cases should be posted on the 
Internet for public viewing along with each "judge"'s 
opinions and the AntiTrust Divison's decisions.
    You, who are reading this, might feel the above to be 
absurd_it isn't. First, it ensures that no matter 
what_Microsoft can not determine ahead of time nor control who 
is going to be on the committee from year to year. Second, it gives 
the AntiTrust Divison a say in what happens. Thus, there will not be 
a "kangaroo court" outlook and anyone who acts otherwise 
should be removed from the panel and replaced with one of the 
alternates. Third, many different viewpoints will be presented as 
the years follow. Thus, someone who is not highly affected or who 
might be pro-Microsoft may still be on the panel as well as someone 
who might be greatly against Microsoft. Thus the reason for five 
"judges" instead of three. To give a greater breath to 
the proceedings. Nor should the "judges" be of a certain 
age, ethnic background, nor education. (Although a college education 
might ensure a greater depth to the person's outlook and someone of 
an elder age would give a person [hopefully] more of a scope to 
life. Still, discriminating against someone simply because of their 
age or number of years in school or college should not be 
tolerated.) They should simply be empolyees of companies who are 
affected by the manner in which Microsoft has operated. Last, it 
alleviates the AntiTrust Divison of the burden of listening to 
endless streams of companies complaining about Microsoft's 
operations. Or at least partially. And it places the burden upon the 
very people who have complained in the past to monitor the future. 
(Although Microsoft would be the one who is paying for these people 
to sit in judgement on what Microsoft itself is doing.) Thus, 
everyone_except Microsoft_would win.
    Thank you for your time in reading this.
    Yours,
    Mark Manning



MTC-00002517

From: Art Arellano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 8:20pm
Subject: Please do not accept Microsofts settlement of giving 
computer gear to public schools
    Why further increase their monopoly power. It will be all over 
for Apple computer if this happens. This is so one sided. Give the 
money to the schools and let them decide what computer systems they 
want!! No more Microsoft bullying!!



MTC-00002518

From: jon radwan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 8:02pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Hello,
    Microsoft is clearly a monopoly. Due to the scale of their 
crime, please give them the maximum penalty.
    Thanks,
    Jon Radwan



MTC-00002519

From: Kayen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 11:20pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    Looks like MS is getting off scott free + monopoly in schools.
    Disgusting.



MTC-00002520

From: W.W.WEBB
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 10:44pm
Subject: micorsoft's antitrust reward settlement
    1) microsoft is a monopoly, if you couldn't prove that ...
    2) the judge who got thrown off the case was right about his 
categorization of microsoft and bill gates
    3) If you let microsoft "contibute" to 
underpriviledge schools, take the billion and let the schools decide 
for themselves what they want to buy with it. don't let microsoft 
copy there own software and give it away.
    4) What i've learned from this case is break the law and get 
richer before and after cause the government can't or won't do 
anything to stop a billion dollar company.
    Finally, how much money was wasted on this case to simply let 
microsoft get away with it and even get to strengthen their monopoly 
on top of it.



MTC-00002521

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 9:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    No one is paying attention to the costs and benefits to the home 
consumer. The home consumer WINS if Microsoft is left as is. Yes, 
the average consumer does not want to make choices around which 
operating system to purchase, then having to figure out which 
software applications are compatible. The average consumer also does 
not want to worry about interfaces between those pieces and parts 
that are not compatible, because when something goes wrong, there 
will be no one to take ownership of the problem. Additionally, once 
the consumer has purchased all of the pieces and parts, chances are 
that he/she will need to install all of them, instead of the PC 
coming reading to use. In the business world (I am a business 
software consultant), we call the best of all the pieces and parts 
"best of breed". "One stop shop" is when 
everything comes from the same vendor (or partners that have 
produced products using the vendor's tools, thus making it seem like 
they are from the one vendor). Most companies shy away from 
"best of breed", because they don't want to deal with 
various vendors, interfaces and consultants during installation, and 
even more so once they are in production. In a "best of 
breed" situation, there is a lot of passing the buck. This 
costs time and money for the customer.
    To the average consumer, "one stop shop" is less 
expensive and more efficient. Generally, we don't have the time or 
knowledge, which results in us being passed around from person to 
person (on the phone, after being put on hold) when we have a 
problem. Maybe I can dig through it, but my husband and my father 
certainly cannot. They are not in the tech industry at all! I buy my 
home personal computer with everything installed_operating 
system and applications. When something goes wrong, I make ONE phone 
call. I don't have to make several calls (like I must do with the 
phone company, because data, voice, equipment, etc., is all handled 
by individual parties, and after an hour, you still don't have the 
problem solved).
    I think Microsoft is an innovative company, and I think the tech 
companies who have sued are exhibiting nothing more than sour 
grapes. Let's face it, they lost the game. There are other business 
that effectively partnered with MS. In our culture, business is 
survival of the fittest, isn't it? Sales have always been aggressive 
in the places I've worked. If companies choose not to do business 
due to aggressive sales tactics, so be it. That is their choice. 
Those who can handle it, will and those who can't won't (in this 
case, they are suing which I guess is the American way, as jaded as 
it sounds).
    Breaking up Microsoft will damage the home user's experience 
with the personal computer. It will increase the cost in dollars and 
time, and be inefficient.
    Andrea Joseph-Nickels
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00002522

From: Joe Balbona
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/30/01 9:20pm
Subject: Settlement
    It is truly a pity that the DoJ invested so much time and money 
and got a guilty verdict against Microsoft and now proposes not to 
have them suffer any consequences as a result. Truly crime does pay.
    You are all fools at the DoJ if you believe that they will 
follow this settlement any more than they followed previous ones.
    Let me make this simple for you, ( all the top attorneys must 
have left with David Boies)
    1. Microsoft is a monopoly, they do not innovate.
    2. The landscape is littered with companies that were innovative 
and had products that they were able to sell at a profit when 
Microsoft incorporates what their product does into windows. The 
innovative company goes bankrupt.
    3. The only way to prevent this is by severing the operating 
systems from the other applications. Judge Jackson had it right.
    Joe Balbona



MTC-00002523

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR, antitrust@ fic.gov@ inetgw, 
Ralph@ essen ...
Date: 11/30/01 11:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Hegemony: "Infidels Stand For 
Nothing"
CC: [email protected]@inetgw, 
[email protected]@i...
Re: Senator Wants Answers on Microsoft Settlement
    Among other things, Hatch's letter asks James how the settlement 
will, "terminate the monopoly Microsoft was found by the 
appellate court to have unlawfully maintained" and "deny 
to Microsoft the fruits of its (antitrust) violations."

[[Page 24105]]

    Congratulations to Sen. Hatch for upholding principles regarding 
Microsoft. The Bush administration also seems to ignore that 
consumers might benefit from a software industry on a level playing 
field.
    "Sen. Hatch stand for nothing... like other infidels, he 
defy the will of almighty Dallah..."



MTC-00002524

From: Rod Roadifer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/1/01 12:26am
Subject: Microsoft
    With all due respects, it is clear that the justice department 
needs to let Microsoft continue with making fine software. It would 
be a very different world today if the DOJ had spent as much time 
and effort against Osama Bin Laden as they did against Microsoft. 
Who is the real bad guy here.
    Rethink your priorities
    Regards,
    Rod Roadifer
    [email protected]



MTC-00002525

From: Clarence Tennis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/1/01 12:30am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Have Microsoft pay for Apple computers to be installed in the 
school systems.
    Clarence F. Tennis III
    Fort Wayne, IN



MTC-00002526

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/1/01 12:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Att: Renata Hesse,
Trial attorney, Antitrust Division,
U.S. Department of Justice
    Dear Renata,
    I am very pleased to be allowed to comment on the settlement of 
the Microsoft Antitrust lawsuit. We have followed this case quite 
closely and are not too happy with Judge Jackson's biased statements 
and some of his rulings. We cannot see where this company has harmed 
the consumer in any way with it's business behavior. The real issue 
is that they have been more aggressive in their marketing techniques 
than some of their competitors, but that is not against any law 
we're aware of. The most interesting thing about this whole case has 
been that the only parties that have been against MSFT have been 
their competitors such as Oracle, Sun Microsystems, AOL and a few 
others. Common sense tells you that this would be a great way to 
help your own company if you could get the government to tie up your 
main competition for a few years in a legal battle. We believe that 
is exactly why this has been done. The companies mentioned above 
have also been very helpful in raising campaign funds for the 
previous administration and those politicians who have supported the 
legal battle.
    Again, we can see no evidence that this company has harmed the 
consumer in any way. For sure they didn't when they gave away their 
web browser for free. Of course Netscape would complain because they 
were charging $80 for their browser while MSFT started giving their 
browser away (free) but that certainly didn't harm the consumer in 
any way! Netscape didn't like it but then we consumers didn't like 
paying $80 for something that we could get for nothing either. We 
weren't harmed at all.
    We would also like to convey to you that as MSFT goes so goes 
the economy, here in Washington State and over the whole nation. 
They have done nothing to harm the consumer only doing what their 
competitors don't like.
    Sincerely Yours,
    Mr. and Mrs. Chris E. Messmer
    14517 Sunnyside N.
    Shoreline, WA 98133



MTC-00002527

From: Andrew Liptock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/1/01 12:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I've received harsher penalties for staying out late on a 
Saturday night.
    _regards.



MTC-00002528

From: bj chippindale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/1/01 12:59am
Subject: Proposed Settlement = slap on the wrist
    Dear People
    No other software company/OS vendor on earth controls both 
applications AND the OS they run on as Microsoft does. Their 
dominant applications ("Word" etc) allow them to ignore 
problems in the OS. The temptation to sabotage competing 
applications through manipulation of the internals of the OS is 
irresistable. That was the fate of Wordperfect, a better Word 
Processor. Checking the most recent reviews, it is STILL better. It 
is also almost completely bankrupted.
    Microsoft has been found guilty, and quite correctly. Their 
greed and their incompetence have led us to things like 
"nimda" and "code red" which have cost the 
REST of the industry billions of dollars. If they split into an OS 
company and an applications company, the OS company would quickly 
face competition from "Word" running on Linux that would 
cause it to take security and reliability seriously. Word has to run 
on Linux for that to happen. Can you order that without breaking up 
the company? It is that or breaking the monopoly that MS Office has 
on the desktop.
    No... but you DO propose to "force" them to provide 
software free to the schools of the nation and they will be laughing 
all the way to the bank. They have been trying to wrest the schools 
away from Apple for a decade and you will REWARD them for their 
criminal behavior by handing them an even larger mind and market 
share. Since profanity is not appropriate to this letter I cannot 
tell you what I really think of this. Force them to distribute 
Wordperfect Office Suite instead of hustling "Word" in 
the schoolyards... but they won't go for anything that actually 
"punishes" them.
    You are the watchdog. If YOU roll over and play dead we are 
defenseless. It is my opinion that this "settlement" 
does nothing to punish Microsoft for the crimes of which it has been 
found guilty and far less than nothing with respect to the crimes it 
has actually committed. I am furious with this supposed punishment. 
It is bizarre, it is a travesty of justice and if it stands it will 
be remembered as a black day for the US computer industry.
    THREE monitors for their code base? Pardon me while I laugh... 
and cry. I am a software professional with long experience in the 
industry. I often am forced, unwillingly, to use the bug ridden 
trash that Microsoft provides. That tells ME that they are a 
monopoly. I *have to* use their products when someone elses product 
is a better more reliable choice. I know the difference. I know 
their history. I know their products. BREAKUP is the very best 
solution, best for the country and best for Microsoft.
    Having to really compete with other platforms instead of riding 
their application's dominance and exclusivity would really tighten 
up their security and reliability. I would LIKE to be able to 
recommend a Microsoft product once in a while... but unless they are 
broken up it will not happen in my lifetime.
    respectfully
    BJ Chippindale
    Senior Software Engineer
    9970 Cabanas Ave.
    Tujunga, CA 91042
    818-353-5479



MTC-00002529

From: Scott Wiemers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/1/01 2:59am
Subject: Please revise the microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir or Madame:
    I am writing to ask that you revise the settlement with 
Microsoft. Microsoft has done many, many things to illegally squelch 
competetion and continues to gouge our pockets. The latest Operating 
system release, Windows XP, has even broken the tradition of not 
changing core systems. These changes have resulted in 
"existing software" written by other companies to break 
when systems are upgraded to Windows XP, or simply fail to install 
and work on a new system.
    The Red Hat Corporation has suggested an alternative that I, as 
a Computer and Information Technology professional, feel benefits 
everyone. Please view this plan at http://www.redhat.com/about/
presscenter/2001/press_usschools.html Red Hat is offering to 
give away services that it usually charges for (support and printed 
documentation for its operating system package) in place of 
Microsoft software products. Microsoft is in the business of 
software, so giving away 200,000 copies isn't going to do anything 
to them. Please, help our schools by increasng the number of 
computers from 200,000 to 1 Million and make Microsoft PAY for it's 
crimes completely by forcing them to spend the money to purchase 
hardware.
    Thank you very much!
    Scott Wiemers, MA, MS
    Senior Software Developer
    Scott Wiemers
    9455 W 104TH CT

[[Page 24106]]

    Westminster, CO 80021-3886
    cell: 303.881.5506
    Email: [email protected]
    http://www.lightlink.com/wiemers/



MTC-00002530

From: Mulholland, Jerry E
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/6/01 3:34pm
Subject: Comments on the Microsoft Settlement
    I am very sadden that the DOJ is permitting Microsoft to go 
unpunished after being found guilty of monopolistic practices. 
Having the most dominant and richest software company in the world 
provide free software to the end user is not a punishment it is a 
joke! This only permits Microsoft to expend its user base at very 
little cost. The time to act agents Microsoft is now. It is the 
responsible of the DOJ to ensure the punishment fits the crime. 
Microsoft must not be permitted to impose its will on the user by 
killing off the competition. This is not how a level playing field 
is created. As a side note, this is not he first time Microsoft has 
been found guilty of monopolistic practices. How many more times 
will it take for the DOJ to act. Action speaks louder then words.
    Thank You



MTC-00002531

From: Don Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 3:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Joke
    DOJ, As a software developer interested in the real progress of 
technology I'm disappointed in recent developments concerning 
Microsoft and so-called 'Department of Justice', since 
the Bush regime came to power. Computing is such an important issue 
for the whole of society that it should be encouraged to progress, 
or at least allowed to progress freely. It should be realized that 
talking about innovation in sound bites is not the same as being 
actually technically innovative! For the Department of Justice to 
live up to it's name (i.e., Justice) and at least be worthy of some 
respect, perhaps companies convicted of monopolies should be held 
accountable for their behavior.
    Allowing Microsoft to place many Intell computers, running 
Microsoft OSs, in the schools as some sort of punishment is so 
unfortunate. Is the Bush DOJ part of Microsofts Marketing 
department?



MTC-00002532

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/1/01 6:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is just great! First you give microsoft a free ride in 
their antitrust suit. Now you are going to allow them to make 
inroads in the educational front and create a new monopoly in the 
schools. Come on get a life. This is just as bad as the government 
giving away the U.S. treasury to faceless, unaccountable 
corporations to ship out of the country and call it helping the 
economy. They need to give it in some way to people that will spend 
it. Make Microsoft give the equivalent in cash and let the school 
systems buy what they need.
    Garland dooley
    Hope hull AL.



MTC-00002533

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/1/01 3:01am
Subject: Alternate Solution
    To whom it may concern,
    I appreciate the notion to put computers in our poor schools. 
However, I recently read an alternative proposal from Red Hat. 
http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/f_headline.cgi?bw.112001/
213242744@ticker=RHAT When I first heard of the proposal, I 
instantly began to wonder if this proposal from Microsoft was 
actually an investment into their own future rather than necessarily 
a punishment or act of shear graciousness. Indeed, I am very much in 
favor of being able to put even more computers in the schools at no 
more of a cost to Microsoft and at the same time, allowing students 
to benefit from the wealth of quality software from the Open Source 
community. This software, as well as the operating system, will not 
carry burdensome licensing fees. The lack of such fees will enable 
these schools to continue offering the latest software and 
programming techniques to students.
    I favor Red Hat's proposal, and sincerely hope that it is 
considered.
    Thank you very much for your time.
    Very Respectfully,
    John H. McArn



MTC-00002534

From: Jim Thale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/1/01 9:22am
Subject: Microsoft non-settlement
    I am furious with the lack of an appropriate resolution to the 
suit. I feel that Microsoft has indeed far exceeded it's rights. 
They are clearly a monopoly and a cruel, aggressive and brutal one 
at that. Microsoft should not be allowed to exist as a single 
entity. The corporate culture is so predatory that they are still 
left with all of the cards in their hand. If they are allowed to 
continue to go on getting their way there will be no chance for new 
companies to spring-up and compete. Innovation has already been 
crushed by a company that doesn't know how to innovate to save its 
(already lost) soul. Business IS competition, but the praying field 
should be level, not the face of a cliff!
    D.O.J. has sold out! I am deeply disheartened by the settlement 
as well as the disingenuous Microsoft "donations". You 
can do so much better for the American people.
    Sincerely,
    Jim Thale
    [email protected]



MTC-00002535

From: Jeffrey S. Howard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/1/01 8:15am
Subject: I support the Red Hat variation of the MS antitrust 
settlement
    Despite estimated damage awards of 10 to 15 dollars per harmed 
consumer, these specific economic damages cannot reconcile the 
larger social harm Microsoft caused through stymieing innovation. 
Competition and the chance to earn economic profit spawns 
innovation. However, Microsoft's market power allows it to enjoy 
monopoly rents and use those rents to protects its monopoly: all at 
the expense of society!
    The best remedy to this case would have been to break the 
company into two non-competing firms_one firm to make 
operating systems and bowsers and the other to make applications. In 
this way the applications barrier to entry and thus the network 
effect would not be such an onerous obstacle for a competing OS to 
overcome. The new "applications specific" firm would 
have an incentive to port Office to Linux, Unix or other new OS's. 
The DOJ is taking the easy way out of this case. When 
"society" is injured the proper remedy ought to be to 
eliminate the source of the injury and not to exacerbate it! How 
could society benefit from having Microsoft increase it's market 
power?
    Red Hat's proposal upholds this philosophy. If adopted it would 
instantly provide a sufficiently large installed platform base for 
software venders to have an economic incentive to either port 
existing application or develop new ones in a non-Windows 
environment. Increasing the number of venders coding in alternative 
platforms will lead to more reliable and efficient software 
notwithstanding Microsoft's arguments.



MTC-00002536

From: Melanie (038) Michael Grube
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/1/01 12:31pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    In my opinion, the settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case in 
no way either penalizes MS or prevents it from the most egregious 
practices that caused the suit to be filed initially. It is no more 
than a minor inconvenience that does not redress the sharp practices 
in which Microsoft engages.
    I have been in the computer industry as a developer and user for 
nearly 20 years (since the Apple //) and have some insight into the 
ways in which Microsoft inhibits true innovation in the computer 
industry.
    Michael J. Grube
    [email protected]



MTC-00002537

From: Gernot Schreiner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/1/01 11:47am
Subject: More hardware from MS open source software from Linux
    Don't let MS increase monopoly. Support free market. Thanks 
Redhat for this generous offer



MTC-00002538

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/1/01 4:14pm
Subject: Your proposed settlement is horrible.
    Your proposed settlement gives Microsoft the priviledge of being 
above the law. You should realize that you are suing Microsoft not 
Microsoft suing the federal government! Microsoft must at the very 
least be broken up

[[Page 24107]]

into three different companies for their to be any chance of keeping 
a choice in the computer industry. Already I am practically forced 
by Microsofts monopoly to use their internet service, their cable TV 
service, their operating system, their applications, and their web 
browser.



MTC-00002540

From: Mike McMahon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/1/01 3:06pm
Subject: settlement terms
    You mean to say that after several years, MILLIONS of $$$ (paid 
by taxpayers like me), and TWO favorable verdicts, suddenly NOW you 
decide on a "consent decree"??? if you really believe 
the MS has gained and maintains an illegal monopoly (and 2 federal 
courts agreed with you) then WHAT ABOUT PENALTY? Is it really good 
enough to say "go and sin no more"? NO it is not!
    Recall the 1996 Microsoft consent decree was designed to prevent 
similar illegal behavior: why should you expect the current decree 
to have a more profound effect? And what about the fact MS, through 
illegal means, now holds a profitable monopoly? Your terms do 
NOTHING to remedy this situation, and nothing to even the scales of 
competition. how about requiring OPEN FILE formats for Office apps? 
Thanks for WASTING my money on a TOOTHLESS settlement. I will return 
the favor in the voting booth, then you can all just get jobs for 
Bill Gates directly.
    Mike McMahon
    [email protected]



MTC-00002541

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/1/01 2:55pm
Subject: Sysadmins Speak.
    Microsoft continues to be a highly destructive force in the IT 
business. There is a subtle form of monopolistic leverage they use 
that is rarely discussed.
    Because management never sees any OS but the one on their 
desktop, they are confused when told that certain services and or 
servers could perhaps better be run on another OS. They and most of 
the rest of the non technical world is simply unaware that there is 
an alternative. They continue to build incompatibilities into their 
own products to force user to 'upgrade'. It is next to 
impossible to buy a Laptop without Windows.
    They are now trying to make discussion of security issues and 
bugs in their products a criminal act.
    They need to be stopped before they ruin the the internet, which 
they are well on their way to turning into they own DMCA protected 
Microsoft Disney Land.
    Dag Hammarskjold Richards
    Senior Network Engineer
    Knowledge Universe



MTC-00002542

From: John Ziriax
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/1/01 5:46pm
Subject: Controlling Microsoft
    Microsoft (MS) is a monopoly. What's more is, it is a predatory 
monopoly. To me that means that rather than inovate, it copies small 
companies' successes and gradually forces those companies out of 
business by the strength of their monopolistic position. MS has done 
this so many times that this behavior must be regulated. It cannot 
be allow to use its dominate operating system position to promote 
its other products and punish its rivals as it has in the past and 
continues to do today.
    Capitalism can only work if everyone is given a 
'chance'. MS is in a position to deny other even well-
funded companies a 'chance'. This stifels inovation and 
eliminates any competition which would preasure MS to improve its 
products.
    It is worth noting that one of the biggest threats acknowledged 
by MS is Open Source software. This is largely because there is not 
viable business competitor left.
    Part of the reason for this is the MS's aggressive behavior and 
but also the nature of the software business. In software, as in 
previous monopolistic enterprises, standards are critical. Once a 
given operating system, word processor or spreadsheet is the de 
facto standard, the owner of that standard can use that position as 
a weapon against all competitors. MS has done this repeatedly. 
That's why the most useful standards, like the ones that power the 
Internet are not owned by anyone company.
    Even in the case of established standards, however; MS has at 
first adopted, then added proprietary extensions to existing 
standards, then having polluted the environment, MS drops the now 
useless standard in favor of its own proprietary standard. This MS 
tactic is so well know that it has been named "Embrace, 
Extend, Extinguish."
    Another tactic, is called "Fear Uncertainty and 
Dread" or simply FUD. FUD is when Microsoft announces that use 
of a competitors products with be incompatible with future MS 
products. This announcement alone is enough chill the market.
    I believe that MS is so powerful at this point that only severe 
government action has any hope of leveling the playing field. I 
don't think creating multiple MS's split along lines of business 
would be and advantage. Three companies from Windows NT/2000 and 
Windows 98 and Windows XP would create real competition. And so on.
    Another possible solution is for the government to force the 
development of public standards for certain file formats, such as 
word processing and spreadsheets. This would rob MS of much of its 
monopolist power. One thing the government can do is to modify its 
own purchasing practices. That is. Don't standardize on Microsoft to 
the exclusion of all else. The government is such a large customer 
that if the government were to adopt a variety of office suites and 
operating sytems and insist that they work together. Then they 
would. However, if it encourages monopolistic practices by buying 
and supporting only one company's products, a Microsoft monopoly is 
almost certain to continue.
    Finally, whatever regulations are implemented care must be taken 
not to discourage one of the most innovative sources of software in 
existance today. Open Source. This is truely a free speech issue 
which MS would love to destroy.
    Thank you for giving me this opportunity to comment.
    John
    _John Ziriax
    115 Verdant Drive
    San Antonio, Texas 78209



MTC-00002543

From: Frank Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/1/01 5:20pm
Subject: Who is standing up for the USERS?
    The Anti-Trust case against MicroSoft appears to be a case of 
the unable to compete, crying for punitive sanctions. Who is out 
there supporting the views of us users. I am retired and use 
Microsoft products in managing my financial affairs, as well as 
communicating with friends and relatives.
    I am happy to have a series of integrated products, if I have a 
problem I know where to go to get it fixed.
    The alternative is to play finger pointing with a series of 
companies that all deny responsibility. If these companies can't 
compete, maybe they should get into other businesses where they can 
compete.



MTC-00002544

From: jgcc(a)pacbell.net
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/1/01 4:59pm
Subject: Proposed settlement with Microsoft hurts business and 
comsumers
    Perhaps it is too late to register another objection to the 
settlement proposed by the Justice Department, but I believe it is 
the obligation of every IT professional to object to the settlement.
    The original findings of Judge Jackson and the remedy were 
correct. Only a breakup of such a monolithic monopoly could restore 
competion to the marketplace.
    Please register my strong objections to the recent settlement.
    Sincerely yours,
    Jeffrey G. Collins
    CC:Jeff Collins(pacbell)



MTC-00002545

From: Ron Boehm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/1/01 4:24pm
Subject: settlement
    Allowing Microsoft to enhance there position in the education 
market with this settlement seems inappropriate.



MTC-00002546

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/1/01 7:49pm
Subject: proposed settlement
    Renata Hesse, J.D.
    Trial Attorney
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Thank you for this opportunity to express my concerns. This 
proposed settlement is I think more than fair. Microsoft's 
competitors are merely seeking help from the Justice Department and 
from their respective state governments to gain ground on 
Microsoft...something they could not do on

[[Page 24108]]

their own in the free market environment. It should come as no 
surprise that the states holding out for further litigation are home 
to some of Microsoft's biggest competitors.
    The original premise of the legal action against Microsoft is 
that the American consumer has actually been HARMED by Microsoft's 
actions. Have we really been harmed? It is estimated that 75% of 
Americans now have access to the internet, and many of us now 
consider the computer to be an integral part of our lives. Prior to 
the emergence of Windows, where was the U.S. computer market? Where 
was the mass appeal of the computer that we enjoy now? Is the U.S. 
now leading the Western nations in terms of computer and software 
advances? I watched in the mid 1980s how a roommate of mine 
struggled to learn the IBM operating system..that came with about 11 
volumes of material he needed to read to learn how to use it. I, who 
at one point in early 1990s never envisioned owning a computer, now 
have three...including one for my five and three year old daughters. 
So, I ask once again, has the U.S. consumer been harmed by 
Microsoft, or has Microsoft led the way in making the U.S. so 
technologically capable as it is today.
    One final point.........I think that the rest of the world is 
shocked and amused at how our country would use its taxpayer 
resources to try to hamper and almost tear down one of the world's 
most successful companies, which happens to be American. Would the 
French do this against Microsoft, if Microsoft were a French 
company? Would China do this against Microsoft, if Microsoft were a 
Chinese company? I think not. In addition, during such tumultuous 
times, when our country is concerned with so many foreign and 
domestic threats to our security and to our way of life, the battle 
against Microsoft by the remaining states seems to be misguided and 
totally inappropriate,............if not downright unAmerican.
    Let's do the right thing and get this issue behind us, and look 
to taking care of this country.
    Allen Wong
    Charlotte, NC



MTC-00002547

From: Chris Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/1/01 7:00pm
Subject: re: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    Some of the best software alternatives to Microsoft's products 
are open source software projects. There is nothing in this 
settlement which addresses Microsoft's FUD (Fear Uncertainty and 
Doubt) campaign against its competition, including OSS. This 
campaign of mis-information is of course much better funded by the 
Microsoft monopoly than its competition and should not be permitted.
    Furthermore Microsoft has lobbied and campaigned heavily (and 
very likely bought a few polititions) for changes to licensing and 
commerce such as those proposed in the UCITA which would strip 
consumer rights and effectively place non-commercially developed 
software such as OSS at a competitive disadvantage. If the whole 
idea of anti-trust legislation is to protect consumer rights and 
prevent unfair anti-competitive practices, then clearly your 
settlement does not do enough to block these Microsoft practices 
which fail both tests.
    Lastly the settlement does nothing to recover damages from years 
of Microsoft illegal practices nor prosecute the Microsoft 
executives who felt they were above the law. If this settlement 
stands it will prove to a new generation that it's illegal to steal 
food to feed your family but it's ok to steal millions from people 
and government. That the rich don't have to worry about the law. 
Don't make that statement. Assess damages and require compensation 
from Microsoft that is to consumer advantage, not Microsoft's. And 
prosecute the individuals responsible for the willful and blatant 
violations of law of which the company has already been found 
guilty.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher Johnson
    Somerville, Maine



MTC-00002548

From: Broder's Skunkware
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov (060)microsoft.atr(a)usd...
Date: 12/1/01 6:12pm
Subject: Absurd Penalty Settlement_GET A CLUE, DOJ!!!
    The proposed penalty in the MS Anti-Trust suit is ABSURD! What 
are you people thinking?
    If MS is to give away software as part of a settlement, NONE of 
it should be MS software, which it manufactures for free. If MS is 
going to give away computers and software, they should be forced to 
BUY COMPETING systems running Solaris, LINUX, and OSX.
    Your proposed settlement is only giving MS ADDITIONAL 
opportunities to monopolize.
    Make MS buy and give away COMPETITORS' software, NOT their 
own!!!!
    James Broder
    Broder's Skunkware Scoring & Timing Software
    Maui, Hawaii, USA
    www.skunkware.tv



MTC-00002549

From: Scott A. Stephens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/1/01 9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I've been reading threw articles and part of the settlement and 
this does not serve the public interest. This settlement leave large 
legal loop holes and does not represent the public interest. All the 
money they have made illegally. They get to keep. They need to loose 
a large chunk of that money. No discussion, no argument. Their 
standards for interacting with Word.......etc will be opened for 
free to their competitors. With all new standards that they will 
come up with in the future. Microsoft will not try to raise 
copyright issues when third parties use this info.
    The bundling issue. Microsoft is not allowed to bundle software 
any more. .NET has to be part of the settlement. Microsoft can not 
force any one to use. Even on their own web sites. I can go on and 
on. Their are so many problems with this deal.
    I suggest that the people they have hurt and the Open Source 
community be allowed to look at the settlement and make sure that it 
is fair and that the loop holes and closed. Also to guarantee that 
everyone can work together with the deal.



MTC-00002550

From: Igor Zavialov
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/1/01 8:32pm
Subject: DOJ/Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    Please be advised that I have READ and SUPPORT the Red Hat 
Proposal to Enhance Microsoft Settlement Offer which is available at 
http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/
press_.usschools.html I believe the Red Hat proposal will 
improve the quality and accessibility of computing education in the 
nation's schools and will help to prevent the extension of 
Microsoft's monopoly.
    Regards,
    Igor Zavailov



MTC-00002551

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/1/01 7:54pm
Subject: Bad Proposed Settlement
    Greetings,
    It seems that there is no substance at all to the proposed 
settlement. Has MicroSoft purchased the DOJ? Specific issues:
    1. There seems to be nothing to curb or discourage the found 
anticompetitive practices exhibited by MicroSoft.
    2. There is nothing that dilutes the monopoly power, oversees 
it, or otherwise mitigates or regulates it.
    3. The settlement only deepens the Microsoft monopoly_by 
providing $1 Billion in products, services, etc... to schools, they 
are INCREASING their market penetration, especially into shcools 
which have traditionally had a reasonable representation of vendors 
and platforms.
    It seems it would be better to say "tsk, tsk... no 
remedial action necessary" than to proceed with the proposed 
action. In light of the findings of the case, this is a mockery of 
the concept of justice, and has made the entire process seem some 
sort of sham. This is simple capitulation on behalf of the entire 
justice system. AT&T was forced to break up, and it was a good 
thing in the long run. Breaking up Microsoft_applications and 
operating systems would be a logical division line. This would 
increase competition in several ways_and force clearer 
communication of the APIs associated with Windows and the core 
MicroSoft applications.
    I am severely disappointed and have lost a tremendous amount of 
respect for the Department of Justice.
    Sincerely,
    Rob Ferber
    [email protected]



MTC-00002552

From: Sean Coyle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/1/01 11:59pm
Subject: Microsoft should go Open Source!

[[Page 24109]]



MTC-00002553

From: richard beard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/1/01 11:35pm
Subject: THE SETTLEMENT
    Hi Government
    I think you guy were a bit too easy on Microsoft. I slap on the 
wrist is what many of us in the industry figured would occur, and it 
has. The only conclusion I can figure for this, is USA economics due 
to the bombing on 9-11.
    Microsoft is not the type of company who will discontinue it's 
monopoly. They will just be smarter from now on about it. The 
monolpoly still exists. Some of the issues have been resolved, but 
not the big ones.
    Good luck next time, when dealing with Microsoft on similar 
issues in the future.
    Tak Care, Richard Beard



MTC-00002554

From: Michael Van Scyoc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/1/01 9:13pm
Subject: VERY UNJUST settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing to express my extreme displeasure with the 
settlement proposed by Microsoft in their Anti-Trust lawsuit. I make 
my living servicing Microsoft products, however, that's only because 
they are the only real competitor in the marketplace. I would be 
only too happy to spend my time servicing Sun or Linux boxes, but 
there just isn't a big market for those skills. The proposal to let 
Microsoft give "free" computers and software to 
thousands of underpriveleged school districts nation-wide would be 
like catching the wolf who killed one of your sheep and then forcing 
him to eat the rest of the flock or like the drug dealer who gives 
your kid his first "hit" free. If this settlement is 
allowed, Microsoft will have scored the biggest victory in legal 
history in having been found guilty of Anti-trust law violations 
only to be allowed to increase that monopoly 10 fold as the supposed 
penalty. If Microsoft wants to help underfunded school districts as 
part of their penance, Great. Let them donate money, NOT SOFTWARE. 
If they want to donate hardware, fine that works too.
    If this settlement is supposed to be a penalty, then why not as 
the CEO of RedHat, Inc. suggests, let them pay for the hardware and 
allow RedHat, Inc to provide all the FREE LINUX software and 
support. If we want to level the playing field, that's your true 
answer.
    Thanks.
    Sincerely,
    Michael L. Van Scyoc
    Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer
    Operations Technician, AT&T



MTC-00002555

From: John Borchardt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/1/01 9:07pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    In my opinion, the proposed "punishment" of 
Microsoft for their monopolistic business practices is a joke.
    A joke.
    It does not punish Microsoft at all. $1 Billion dollars means 
little to a company as large as Microsoft. Furthermore, the proposed 
"punishment" in fact extends Microsofts monopolistic 
tendrils even further into our economy and society. The current 
settlement is not a punishment at all. It in fact benefits 
Microsoft.
    I suggest you take a look at the punitive action proposed by Red 
Hat, Inc. Their proposal states that Microsoft will provide only 
computer hardware, and no software, to the nation's most 
disadvantaged students. Red Hat will provide all the software, from 
the operating system to the productivity suites, and unlimited 
technical support for these systems. In turn, Microsoft will use the 
funds they would have "spent" on licenses for Windows 
and Office to purchase even more computers for these schools. Red 
Hat predicts that as many as five times as many computers may be 
delivered to schools under this settlement as compared to the 
current settlement. Put simply, Red Hat's plan punishes Microsoft, 
benefits more the nation's poorest schools, and fosters a long-term 
solution to Microsoft's monopolistic business practices: 
competition. I thank you for your time.
    _John Borchardt
    [email protected]



MTC-00002556

From: Bruce Brandligt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/2/01 2:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After reviewing the proposed settlement I find some glaring 
omissions that need to be addressed.
    First of all, I propose that the settlement should be amended to 
included that Microsoft should be prevented from distributing any of 
its software for free or at well below development and distribution 
costs when other software companies have competing products in 
existence or in development that are part of the competing 
companies' revenue stream. This would prevent Microsoft from 
unfairly eliminating competition as was the case with Microsoft's 
free release of Internet Explorer and the negative impact this 
created for Netscape Incorporated. This would also prevent the 
donation of software to schools and other institutions which results 
in an unfair advantage over other competing companies such as Apple 
Computer and Sun Microsystems. Companies that rely on revenue on the 
sale of their goods that are in direct competition with Microsoft 
can not compete against "free." Microsoft should not be 
allow to make these donations that eliminate their competition and 
further expand Microsoft's market share beyond their current 
monopoly.
    Secondly, from what I understand of the current proposed 
settlement, Microsoft is basically told "not to do it 
again" and a oversight committee will be established to 
prevent future infractions. However, no damages have been awarded to 
the countless businesses and persons who were victimized by 
Microsoft's actions. I understand that persons who feel they have 
been victimized are entitled to sue and possibly recover three times 
damages. But what of those that have been financially ruined and 
have little means to file suit against such a large corporation? 
What of the companies that were so damaged that they are no longer 
in existence? Employees, former employees, and users of products 
developed by companies such as Apple Computer, Sun Microsystems, 
Word Perfect, Novell, Netscape, Silicon Graphics Incorporated, and 
Bungie Software, should be immediately compensated. Additionally, 
rebates should be provided to all registered users of Microsoft 
products that were forced to purchase MS products due to the 
elimination of the developer of the competing product (ie. Word 
Perfect users who were forced into switching to MS Word to maintain 
compatibility with both the OS and the proprietary MS Word files.)
    I hope that my proposed amendments to the proposed settlement 
are given due consideration so that justice may be served.
    Sincerely,
    Bruce V. Brandligt
    12723 Edgefield St.
    Cerritos, CA 90703



MTC-00002557

From: Fred
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/2/01 1:29am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Action
To: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
    Dept of Justice
    I would like to make several comments relative to the Microsoft 
case, as well as other large class action cases. I think the 
Microsoft action should be put to bed, if Microsoft commited 
antitrust actions, I'm glad they did. I am very happy with their 
products and the fact that they are integrated so a "low 
tech" user like myself has a chance. I don't want to go to 27 
different software companies to get the best, up to date products. I 
want it bundled all in one neat package. I don't feel that I have 
been overcharged, in fact the competition in the marketplace is 
fierce. Please compare the price of a wordprocessing software 
package 20 years ago to the price today_not to mention the 
features in todays' product.
    I also feel that the states' attorneys general are a pack of 
blood sucking thieves, trying to suck as much $ as possible from 
Microsoft or any other deep pocketed company. Compare the action 
against the tobacco companies. They handed a bunch of money to the 
states and then turned around and raised the price of their product 
$.50 a pack to cover the cost of the award. Most of the states took 
the money and ran. They didn't use it to help smokers like myself 
quit, but used it to balance the states budget.
    I support Microsoft and hope that you and the states can come to 
a speedy agreement that stops wasting taxpayers $ and lets Microsoft 
continue to improve their products. Thanks for taking the time to 
listen to an overworked, overtaxed citizen.
    Sincerely,
    Fred D. Venables



MTC-00002559

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/2/01 5:11am

[[Page 24110]]

Subject: Must have competition and free markets in computer software
    Dear Sirs: I feel it is very important to have an open, free 
market with full competition in the computer software marketplace, 
including computer operating systems. This is essential to foster 
the fullest developement of of the greatest variety and quality 
computer resources at the lowest prices to the largest market of 
customers. Open source software plays an important role, which I 
myself benefit from enormously. In most industries, the US 
government would consider the domination of over 90% of the market 
by one company to be an illegal monopoly, and this should also be 
the case for hardware, software and operating systems.
    Furthermore, computer file formats that become the commonplace 
standard for that type of file should not themselves be copyrighted, 
such as .doc and .exc, in the sense that any person or organization 
must have the right to write software that can read and write such 
files. Neither should the appearance of the graphical interface of a 
program interface be copywrited, where such an interface has become 
a standard for that (or many) types of programs. Further, persons 
and organizations should be free to obtain and develope open-source 
software and freeware without requiring any kind of license, if the 
program's authors themselves do not so require one. Finally, 
companies should be encouranged to sell multiple copies of the 
license for software, all sharing one set of installation disks and 
manuals, at a significant discount, to discourage illegal copying.
    Sincerely, Clifford Felder 




MTC-00002560

From: ROBERT REMINGTON
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 12/2/01 4:10am
Subject: Macadamia Nuts
    Today's subject of this email refers to the academic & 
business rivals of Microsoft Corporation who will take the lead in 
the nine state holdout of the US v. Microsoft settlement. The nine 
attorney generals and their legal teams have challenges with the 
extrapolation of (for those who just don't 'get it').
    In other related news, local electricians turn off the 
"W" on the Wells Fargo Bank_Irvine sign 
overlooking the 1-405 freeway near MacArthur Avenue and John 
Wayne Airport as a communication that Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle 
Company, is a major player at the Bank. The 'Ells Fargo Bank' 
beams this 'coded' message almost every other day to all who 
enter the 24 Fitness Sporting Club as well as the thousands of 
commuters and travelers near the Lakeshore Tower corporate campus 
across freeway 1-405 in Irvine. Apple Computer & Sun 
Microsystems will continue to distract Microsoft's lead negotiators, 
forming the alliance with Oracle Corporation to lobby the remaining 
nine states from a 2001 Holiday settlement, instead focusing on 
March 2002 for the next phase of the US v Microsoft trial.
    Today's LA Times hints at ID fraud in the NY based 'Attack 
on America. This fraud has been one of the main reasons that my 
settlement has yet to occur. Local family as well as conspiring US 
& state government officials have stalled any just settlements 
through illegal payoffs, overseas money transfers, as well as 
international subversion. Most of the illegal efforts have been from 
''egitimate' foreign and US sources, that 'apologize' 
when errors occur, yet do nothing for damages caused or delays in my 
business future. Recent business stalling at the Garden Grove, CA, 
Crystal Cathedral by local Orange County businesspeople, including 
billionaire Donald Bren of the Irvine Company have involved Major 
League Baseball contraction talks and purchase proposals of the 
Anaheim Angels and NHL Mighty Ducks Hockey Team at the Arrowhead 
Pond. This week's MLB discussions have tabled the baseball 
contraction talks for a year, placing the sale of the Angels, 
Marlins, Twins & Expos on hold while the players conspire for 
future business. Face it folks, not even new stadiums from the past 
ten years is going to keep baseball from expanding inside or outside 
of the United States! Baseball is too slow for most people, and the 
US Anti-Trust exemption may end as baseball acknowledges over $500 
million dollars in losses, and only 5 teams profitable! The United 
States is a free market society, and the public wants NFL football, 
NBA basketball, as well as extreme outdoor and indoor sports now! 
Even two professional wrestling organizations had to merge in order 
to remain competitive in the world of television sports.
    More to follow ...



MTC-00002561

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/2/01 9:01am
Subject: Please STOP MICROSOFT.
    To Whom It May Concern,
    One of the first things i learnt in the IT industry is that 
"competition breeds excellence". There is no excellence 
in Microsoft, they have taken other companies development, made 
there own implementation of it and made sure that it only works 
correctly on their platforms. Punishment for Microsoft should be 
that the firm is broken up into 4 divisions, Server (Windows Server, 
Advanced Server etc) , Desktop (windows NT Workstation , 
Professional ), Office Suites ( Microsoft Money Office 2000 etc ) 
and Back Office Products ( Exchange, SQL, ISA server, etc ).
    ABSOLUTLEY NO INTERACTION Between these companies can be 
allowed.
    Please end the Monopoly
    Yours sincerely



MTC-00002562

From: Bourzeix Stï¿½phane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/2/01 8:57am
Subject: Stop MS, it's enough !! Red Hat Proposes to Enhance 
Microsoft Settlement Offer By Providing Open Source Software to All 
U.S. School Districts 
    Open Source leader proposes to provide software to every school 
district in the United States if Microsoft provides computing 
hardware for the 14,000 poorest school districts Research Triangle 
Park, N.C._(Business Wire)_Nov. 20, 2001_Red Hat, 
Inc. (Nasdaq:RHAT_news) today proposed an alternative to the 
settlement announced today of the class-action lawsuit against 
Microsoft. Red Hat offered to provide open-source software to every 
school district in the United States free of charge, encouraging 
Microsoft to redirect the money it would have spent on software into 
purchasing more hardware for the 14,000 poorest school districts. 
Under the Red Hat proposal, by removing Microsoft's higher-priced 
software from the settlement equation, Microsoft could provide the 
school districts with many more computers_greatly extending 
the benefits Microsoft seeks to provide school districts with their 
proposed settlement. Microsoft had proposed that, in settlement of 
class-action claims of price-gouging, the company donate computer 
hardware, software and support to 14,000 poor school districts 
throughout the United States. Under the proposed settlement, a 
substantial part of the value provided to schools would be in the 
form of Microsoft software.
    The Red Hat's alternative proposal includes the following:
    *Microsoft redirects the value of their proposed software 
donation to the purchase of additional hardware for the school 
districts. This would increase the number of computers available 
under the original proposal from 200,000 to more than one million, 
and would increase the number of systems per school from 
approximately 14 to at least 70.
    * Red Hat, Inc. will provide free of charge the open-source Red 
Hat Linux operating system, office applications and associated 
capabilities to any school system in the United States.
    * Red Hat will provide online support for the software through 
the Red Hat Network.
    * Unlike the Microsoft proposal, which has a five-year time 
limit at which point schools would have to pay Microsoft to renew 
their licenses and upgrade the software, the Red Hat proposal has no 
time limit. Red Hat will provide software upgrades through the Red 
Hat Network online distribution channel.
    A Win-Win Approach
    The Red Hat proposal achieves two important goals: improving the 
quality and accessibility of computing education in the nation's 
less-privileged schools, and preventing the extension of Microsoft's 
monopoly to the most-vulnerable users.
    "While we applaud Microsoft for raising the idea of 
helping poorer schools as part of the penalty phase of their 
conviction for monopolistic practices, we do not think that the 
remedy should be a mechanism by which Microsoft can further extend 
its monopoly," said Matthew Szulik, CEO of Red Hat. 
"Through this proposal all of the states and all of the 
schools can win, and Microsoft will achieve even greater success for 
its stated goal of helping schools. By providing schools with a 
software choice, Red Hat will enable Microsoft to provide many more 
computers to these schools. At the same time, the schools can accept 
this offer secure in the knowledge that they have not rewarded a

[[Page 24111]]

 monopolist by extending the monopoly. It's now up to Microsoft to 
demonstrate that they are truly serious about helping our 
schools."
    Stï¿½phane Bourzeix
    email : [email protected]
    web : http://www.bourzeix.com
    icq : 27593108



MTC-00002563

From: Mark Thoennes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/2/01 8:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly disagree with the settlement that lets Microsoft 
remain a monoply is pc computing.
    Microsoft is on my computer because other options are very 
limited.



MTC-00002564

From: Onno Vinkhuyzen
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments@doj. 
ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 12/2/01 12:31pm
Subject: MacroSof Hegemony
    Dear sirs,
    Though not an American citizen, I'd like to complain about your 
dealing with the monopoly of the Microsoft company. I hate the way 
Mr. Gates organizes my computer and my work and insists on knowing 
better what I want. His arrogance beats everything. But far worse is 
the fact that there are no real alternatives. His monopoly is a very 
bad thing for the development of computer software and everything 
connected to it. Please take action.
    Kind regards,
    Onno Vinkhuyzen, The Netherlands



MTC-00002565

From: Stella Donovan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/2/01 12:06pm
Subject: Red Hat Proposal
    As a past college professor and a current professional in the 
software industry, I urge the Department of Justice to consider 
seriously and look favorably on the proposal by Red Hat, Inc. to 
modify the Microsoft Antitrust settlement regarding computer 
equipment to be donated to public schools by Microsoft. The Red Hat 
proposal provides a much larger net benefit to the schools than the 
original settlement proposal, at no additional direct cost to 
Microsoft.
    Sincerely yours,
    Jeffrey A. Bell, Ph.D.



MTC-00002566

From: John Dowd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/2/01 10:23am
Subject: What consumer harm???
    This entire trial has been a farce_THE CONSUMER (ME) HAS 
NOT BEEN HARMED, I used to own a Mac but when Windows 98 surpassed 
the Mac OS in '98 I switched to Windows. There were many more third 
party applications that were compatible with Windows.
    There is plenty of competition: Mac, 3 varieties of Linux, Sun 
O/S, Unix, and others. I like the bundled utilities. They provide a 
bench mark for competitors to shoot at. Would you buy a GM car 
without their radio or seats or carpeting or air conditioning etc.? 
This whole trial has been a mockery_the only one's that stand 
to gain anything by this 3 ring circus are MSFT's competitors. Once 
again:
    THE CONSUMER (ME) HAS NOT BEEN HARMED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    John F Dowd
    PO Box 71
    Kittery Point, ME 03905



MTC-0002567

From: Robert Emerson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/2/01 1:17pm
Subject: Anti-trust law suit
    I am a firm believer and user of Microsoft products but when 
they are found guilty by the courts of anti-trust laws then they 
must be punished like every other company. Be it a break up of the 
Company into several or hit hard with fines.



MTC-00002568

From: Jerry Moreno
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/2/01 1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Proposal
    I was reading a recent article in USA Today about Microsoft's 
proposed settlement by supplying poor schools with refurbished 
computers and software/tech support. As an educator in a poor 
school, I don't believe that this is a just settlement. It will take 
away our power choice as a school on what technology we can 
purchase. We are long users of Apple computers and this would 
inhibit our ability to choose. This is not an answer to Microsoft's 
wrongdoing. This will only strengthen their monaopoly in the arena 
of education thus leaving us with fewer choices of technology. I 
would like to see a proposal with Microsoft that has nothing to do 
with them in the schools as an act of capitalism.
    Thank you,
    Jerry Moreno



MTC-00002569

From: Rich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/2/01 3:04pm
Subject: Settlement comment
    I am an Apple Computer fan. I love the innovation and class that 
they have brought to the marketplace. The Education market is one of 
their last strongholds, and IF Microsoft is allowed to dump PC's 
into the ED market as their 'punishment' you will have succeeded in 
unfairly damaging Apple's position in those markets. My guess is 
that if Bill Gates could get away with it, he would LIKE to seed 
markets such as education, just the way he captured marketshare with 
his early OS releases of Windows... 50.00 per copy. Now he's up to 
200.00 for an upgrade.
    Richard Hayhurst
    630-845-2525



MTC-00002570

From: Bonnie Cox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/2/01 2:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Do not *** I Repeat do not allow Microsoft to get 
off with such an inexpensive, inexpensive, non-punative settlement 
after becmoing a bigger monopolistic business in the U.S. than any 
oil company ever thought about being!!!
    I am a programmer/analyst and I feel that Bill Gates Billions 
really belongs to every computer owner in the world! Through the use 
of glorified blackmail to manufacturers, he made is billions; and 
we, the consumer, have had to live with Microsoft's operating system 
ever since. We were not given the options for an operating system as 
we are now with web browsers; and this should have always been an 
option in a free enterprise environment that the United States 
claims to be! Because the personal computer market was a new thing, 
and IBM was under scrutiny for anti-trust violations, when Microsoft 
was demanding their DOS operating system be the only one on 
computers, is no excuse for the consumer to have to be stuck with an 
inferior product permanently. Microsoft was never playing on a level 
playing field once DOS was established as a unregulated 
monoply_and I thought all things were suppose to be fair for 
all who wanted to compete in our capitalistic economy. IBM was under 
Federal Oversight at this time, as the government tried to keep them 
from being so monopolistic; yet Microsoft was never taken seriously 
enough to have the same strict regulations apply to them!
    I feel it is the government's responsibility to make Microsoft 
PAY BIG TIME for their greed and misuse of consumer confidence. If 
you can restrict IBM, why didn't the government restrict Microsoft?? 
Microsoft has lost in court, and lost all the appeals that have been 
set before the courts. If they are not SEVERELY punished and this 
SEVERE punishment made known to the public, we can only assume it is 
due to the change in administration since the guilty verdict was 
rendered. If this is true, and the Republican big-buiness backers 
are the reason Bill Gates and Company get off the hook, what signal 
is this sending to the American consumer and the world. The consumer 
means nothing... it's all about money??
    The only way I would agree to the government allowing this 
settlement to stand _1.1 billion dollars_is if there is 
an added penalty. Since the aforementioned settlement is really just 
chump change to Microsoft_ given the wholesale cost of the 
software is much, much less than this to them; and the PC program is 
PC's that there were getting rid of anyway_where is the 
punishment here??! How convenient is this? Where is the prevention 
of abuse of monopolistic power that I thought was law in this 
country?? In reality, there is absolutely none being applied here!!.
    So I propose and added penalty and give you two options:
    1. Bill Gates and Microsoft have to totally fund the War on 
Terrorism Worldwide!!
    This punishment for their crime of making the money illegally 
worldwide, would be used for the civic good of all. Or 2. If you 
don't think number one is feasible, then at least make the penalty 
something that costs them about $25-30 billion is REAL loss- 
CASH; wholesale marked up to retail prices in Microsoft products is 
not acceptable!!
    Thank you for your time,
    Bonnie Cox

[[Page 24112]]



MTC-00002571

From: djbullock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/2/01 3:30pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    I doubt there are any additional points I could hope to make or 
add to the list of reasons why this settlement should not be 
accepted... I only wish to ensure that my extreme opposition to 
acceptance of this agreement is noted somewhere because I feel I 
must do something instead of doing nothing to try to stop it... Our 
government and the judicial branch should look beyond the quick 
solutions proposed in this settlement to the Microsoft anti-trust 
problems and should continue to work further to seek out resolutions 
which will ensure the protection of fair market competition for all 
now and in the future...
    It is my opinion that an acceptance of this proposed settlement 
with Microsoft only postpones an enevitable reoccurance of the 
problem and does not appropriately addressed nor resolve the issues 
on which this lawsuit was originally initiated...
    Respectfully,
    Debi J. Bullock
    djbullock
    29 Fair Street_Unit A
    Norwalk, CT 06851
    (203) 849-9879
    [email protected]



MTC-00002572

From: Mark Alexander
To: Microsoft ATR, microsoftcomments@ doj.ca. gov@ 
inetgw, ...
Date: 12/2/01 3:19pm
Subject: My comments about the Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    OVERVIEW:
    This email is in regards to the Revised Proposed Final Judgement 
(Settlement) for the case of US v Microsoft (98-1232) and NY 
et al v Microsoft. (98-1233) It is a list of specific defects 
in the proposal as well as other areas that need to be addressed for 
a comprehensive solution. The computer industry, especially the 
software industry, used to be a very vibrant exciting space with a 
large number of competing technologies and solutions. Microsoft has 
become a dominant player in this space by multiple methods. The fact 
that Microsoft is persistent and keeps on trying even after a 
product is not well received is a strength of Microsoft that others 
should emulate. The fact the Microsoft believes that to compete it 
needs to "cut off the air supply" of potential 
competitors is a method that should be eliminated.
    PERSONAL INFORMATION:
    My name is Mark Alexander. I am a US citizen residing at 46 
Lynwood Rd in Scarsdale, NY. My email address is 
[email protected]. I have been working in the computer field 
for over 20 years. I currently work as a Senior Information 
Technology Architect for General Electric Card Services, the private 
label credit card business of GE Capital in Stamford, CT. The 
opinions expressed in this email our my own personal opinions and 
not those of GE. I currently own stock in a variety of technology 
companies including Microsoft.
    OVERALL:
    1) The proposed settlement does not appear to be the complete 
agreement between the parties. From comments made by some of the 
State Attorney Generals about this settlement, it appears that an 
agreement not documented in the current proposed settlement has been 
made. The comments are that Microsoft will reimburse the states for 
their legal fees incurred during the course of this proceeding. 
Since the agreement seems very one sided to the advantage of 
Microsoft, a large number of individuals believe that some 
additional secret agreement has been reached. The best way to 
resolve this is to add wording to the settlement that states it is 
the complete agreement between the parties and add the sentence 
about the reimbursement of legal fees.
    2) Microsoft has been found guilty of being a Monopoly by the 
District Court that was upheld by the Appeals Court, yet to date, 
Microsoft has refused to admit to its guilt. The settlement should 
include an admission of guilt on the part of Microsoft.
    3) The settlement does not include any penalty for past and 
current activities that were and are still in violation of the law.
    4) The primary beneficiary of the settlement, other than 
Microsoft, is the OEM rather than the consumer.
    5) Microsoft has always been very innovative in how to work 
around or by a very technical reading of prior legal decisions and 
this settlement should be very carefully vetted to eliminate 
loopholes and areas that are open for an interpretation by Microsoft 
that is not the intent of the settlement by the DOJ and States.
    SECTION BY SECTION COMMENTS:
    III-A-2: Should allow an OEM to ship a PC without 
any Microsoft Operating System. Microsoft has in the past had 
licenses that charged an OEM for each PC sold, regardless of OS 
installed.
    III-B-3 a: Should allow for 21st and lower largest 
OEM.
    III-C-3: GUI of similar size and shape will limit 
3rd party products ability to innovate and add value for users with 
their product.
    III-D: Limiting API disclosure to just Middleware does not 
provide a fair, even playing field. Microsoft also needs to disclose 
APIs for the base Windows Operating System product. The settlement 
should state the any API of the Microsoft Windows Operating System 
used either by a Microsoft Middleware or Microsoft Application 
should be publicly released.
    III-D: Timing of release of Middleware API documentation 
should occur prior to last major beta release, it should occur at 
initial beta release and then be updated as needed during beta 
cycle. The APIs need to be released to public no later than they are 
released to other internal groups within Microsoft. Releasing it at 
the last beta release gives Microsoft a huge competitive advantage 
to incorporate those APIs into other areas or products for release 
simultaneously with the Middleware solution. Also, since Microsoft 
controls the release schedule for the beta releases and the final 
product, it can release the last beta just moments before the final 
release. See Overall 5 above, Microsoft will always work for its own 
advantage and to the detriment of other parties.
    III-D: API disclosure for new Windows Operating System 
product "Timely Manner" should be defined as per above.
    III-E-ii: Need to add Used to interoperate natively 
or in conjunction with a Microsoft Middleware product to a Windows 
Operating System or Microsoft Server Operating System. It is 
important to include any PC to PC protocols as well as PC to server 
protocols, used both natively by the OS and added by any Microsoft 
Middleware solution.
    III-H-3: Need a section 4 that Microsoft does not 
alter an End User change as well.
    III-H-1 (After Notwithstanding): Need to add if 3rd 
party Middleware is installed and fails to perform operation, then 
and only then can Microsoft Middleware be used. The Microsoft 
Middleware should allow connections to an end user or OEM specified 
server, which may be the Microsoft server or that of some 3rd party.
    III-H-2 (After Notwithstanding): The end user should 
be the party to determine whether to change the Middleware in use or 
just to get an error message. It is inappropriate for Microsoft to 
make technical decisions about requirements for 3rd party products 
because it is too easy for them to abuse the power.
    III-H (Microsoft's Obligations): See III-D above.
    III-I-5: No license of Intellectual Property from 
Microsoft should require a license of 3rd Party Intellectual 
Property to Microsoft.
    III-J-1-a: Security software of anti-piracy, 
anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, 
encryption and authorizations is a very active and competitive 
market. This section is worded in such way as to allow Microsoft to 
keep all information regarding these activity private. The intent 
implied in the Competitive Impact Statement is to limit access to 
the internals of Microsoft implementation. That should be limited, 
but APIs and Communication Protocols for these areas should not be 
different than other parts of Windows product or Middleware 
information requirements.
    III-J-1 b: This paragraph sounds like a big brother 
type deal between government and Microsoft to suppress information 
from public. Should be eliminated.
    III-J-2-c: Microsoft should not determine 
viability of a business. If needed, it should be determined by a 3rd 
party based on either court or government provided guidelines. Also 
needs to allow for individuals and organizations, not just 
businesses.
    IV-B-3: Microsoft should not select any member of 
the TC. Microsoft should solely be allowed to object to the 
selection of a TC member as outlined in IV-2.
    IV-B-10: New paragraph of Either the TC members or 
the Plaintiffs or the Court will release every six months to the 
public a summary of all violations, recommended actions and actual 
actions performed by Microsoft to remedy said violations. This 
public disclosure will not include any proprietary information of 
Microsoft or of any complainant, including name of complainant, 
without prior written permission of the party to disclose that 
information.
    IV-D-4-d: The TC or work of the TC may be 
admitted in a legal preceding with the

[[Page 24113]]

consent of at least one of the Plaintiffs or the Court.
    IV-D-4: Missing section on Penalties for violations 
that are not resolved using Voluntary Resolution are to be addressed 
by the Court. Without any penalty or even a method to address 
penalty for violations leaves the Plaintiffs with no recourse other 
than a whole new lawsuit with attendant time and expense. It is 
critical that any violation of this agreement be immediately able to 
have penalty hearings in court.
    V-B: The only penalty specified in this entire agreement 
for violations of this agreement is to extend the agreement for 2 
more years. Since there is no penalty for any violation as currently 
outlined in the settlement, extending this settlement merely allows 
Microsoft a longer period of time to continue its violations without 
penalty, basically ignoring this settlement and its intentions.
    IV-A: API definition should include programmatic interface 
to Windows Operating System Product and not just Middleware.
    IV-B: Communication Protocol is not for a predefined 
tasks, but rather for any type of data exchange between two or more 
computers or computing devices.
    IV-D: Coverage for OEM should not be limited to just the 
largest volume 20, but should include all the smaller OEM who by 
nature of their size have less of a bargaining position with 
Microsoft to begin with and as a group represent a large portion of 
licenses sold.
    IV-J-2:Trademark requirement should be eliminated. 
Microsoft will simply stop Trademarking the name of its Middleware 
products to give it the ability to have them not covered by this 
settlement.
    IV-J: Using version numbering is an easy way for Microsoft 
to work around this settlement. A better definition may be an 
upgrade is a release that provides new or improved functionality. It 
should be covered under this settlement. An update is solely a 
release to fix bugs and other defects.
    IV-K-2-b-iii: see IV-J-2 
above.
    IV-N-ii: There should be no limit on the number of 
copies required for a 3rd party product to be protected by this 
settlement. Setting a threshold of one million copies will allow 
Microsoft to squash any new 3rd party product prior to it reaching a 
critical mass of end user support and prevent it from ever reaching 
the one million to be covered under this settlement. If there is a 
need for a number, I would suggest a value of twenty-five thousand. 
It is large enough to indicate the beginnings of interest and still 
is small enough that the product would be below Microsoft's RADAR 
screen to notice it and work to eliminate it.
    IV-Q: An Intel processor is not a requirement for a system 
to be a Personal Computer. A Personal Computer with an Intel or 
compatible processor would be an Intel Compatible Personal Computer. 
IV-Q: Servers, set top box, handheld, game consoles, 
telephones, pagers and PDAs also need to be protected from Microsoft 
using its monopoly on Desktop Computers to allow it an un-fair 
advantage in these other markets.
    IV-R: see III-D above.
    ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS NOT INCLUDED IN PROPOSED SETTLEMENT:
    1) Windows Operating System Product: Complete APIs for 3rd Party 
products to interact with the Windows Operating System Product also 
need to be disclosed. No Microsoft Application or Middleware or 
Server product should have access to an API that is not also 
available and documented to the ISV community as well.
    2) Microsoft Applications: Microsoft has often used its 
dominance in the Application market as a threat as well. It should 
therefore be required to make its Application File Formats available 
for licensing under Reasonable and Non-discriminatory terms.
    3) Microsoft Server Products: It should be required to make its 
Communication Protocol Formats available for licensing under 
Reasonable and Non-discriminatory terms.
    4) Microsoft Network Services: It should be required to make its 
Communication Protocol Formats available for licensing under 
Reasonable and Non-discriminatory terms. I believe these changes 
would allow Microsoft to still be a vibrant part of the economy, the 
software industry and business community as a whole, while allowing 
for other companies to compete with Microsoft on a more level 
playing field. The field cannot be made completely level due to the 
financial and marketing strength of Microsoft. I believe that if 
Microsoft competed solely on the Merits of it products rather than 
using them as a tool to destroy other products, they would still be 
an ongoing success.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Alexander
    Mark Alexander
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00002573

From: Earl Small
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/2/01 4:22pm
Subject: Settlement
    I dont't see how the proposed settlement with MS is in the best 
interest of consumers. First how can a company that was found guilty 
by the court has so much to say in what their punishment should or 
will be. I think the DOJ is very weak when it comes to punishing 
those with lots of money. I think the court should have said 
"you broke the law, this is your punishment". That is 
the way it work for everyone else. We can no longer trust the DOJ to 
bring those to justice who have been proven they broke the law.
    From every effort so far by the DOJ to rein in MS has fail and 
this joke of a settlement will fail also because it does nothing. As 
a poor Black man in America I am shocked that they are letting MS of 
so easy, if it had be me I would already serving time in jail.
    So much for justice
    Earl C. Small
    2411 park Place Dr
    Gretna LA 70056



MTC-00002574

From: The Navarro's
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/2/01 5:02pm
Subject: Microsoft AntiTrust Settlement
    Microsoft has offered to provide significant donations of 
products to schools as part of a settlement.
    I don't like that offer since Microsoft is essentially just 
building future business by "educating" users in their 
product. MacIntosh receives a good portion of business for the 
school market and will likely be harmed in that type of settlement. 
If MacIntosh isn't around, then MS has the whole market. I ask for a 
tough settlement that addresses the preditator practices that 
Microsoft has engaged to dominate the market.
    Randy Navarro
    Yorktown, VA



MTC-00002575

From: Douglas Mitts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/2/01 4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlment
    Dear Department of Justice,
    Hi! I was wanting to comment on my feeling of disappointment 
with regard to the Microsoft Antitrust case. I use Microsoft 
products (I pay and pay and pay), but also enjoy the Apple Macintosh 
platform (actually I prefer it). Due to Microsoft's anticompetitive 
tactics over the years, many software companies that were viable are 
no longer viable and have either been bought out or taken into 
receivership.
    I do not think that Justice Department should drop this case by 
settlement. I am not out to get Microsoft, but I will say they are 
more than a monopoly on a national level. They are a global monopoly 
and they work to maintain that monopoly. Justice Penfield Jackson, 
despite the lack of control he displayed, was right. The settlement 
does nothing to restrict Microsoft's practices. It will take the EU, 
rather than the U.S. due to the companies global reach.
    I've seen too many very good software packages go the way of 
losing to Microsoft's software, not because Microsoft has had better 
software, but because they competed in an unfair way circumventing 
real market forces. I am a consumer. I like competition. It helps 
innovation and price for me. Today I get no additional benefit from 
the Microsoft products I have to use (simply because there are no 
others that are cross-platform due to Microsoft's practices) but to 
upgrade I still pay astronomical prices, even though the additional 
benefit is non-existent.
    Back to the Global Monopoly idea. I am a U.S. citizen living in 
Poland as a part of my work. Here, even thought Apple Computer 
offered to underwrite the localization of Microsoft Office for the 
Mac (i.e., make it a Polish program), Microsoft refused to localize 
it, even though all the costs of localization would be paid by 
Apple. Microsoft only stood to profit (it also tells you Microsoft's 
motivation for investing in Apple in 1997 was more to avoid the 
appearance of a monopoly than altruism on their part).
    I cannot use a competitor's product with regard to Word 
Processing, Spreadsheet and presentation software, because there is 
no competition any more due to Microsoft's practices (i.e., 
Microsoft owns those markets). Each of their products needs to 
become a separate company. Now, the DOJ wants to settle, but is it 
because Microsoft actually has the deeper pockets in this case? Is 
is because they donate to politicians? Or is it because

[[Page 24114]]

they in fact are not an intrusive, aggressive monopoly (I thought 
the findings of fact said so)? As a consumer, it is clear to me that 
Microsoft is a monopoly that warrents needing government 
intervention and remidies prescribed to curtail their 
anticompetitive practices.
    Now, I am not a lawyer, but I am saying I don't want to see 
Apple go the way of the rest due to Microsoft's practices. Apple and 
its OS is the only viable alternative.
    Thanks for listening. You know this stuff already. I need to 
speak up.
    Sincerely,
    Doug Mitts



MTC-00002576

From: Mark Hotchkiss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/2/01 5:44pm
Subject: Reject Proposed Settlement with Microsoft
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    December 2, 2001
    Pursuant to the Tunney Act, members of the public have an 
opportunity to comment on the proposed settlement between the U.S. 
Department of Justice and Microsoft. Please find the documents 
attached which contain comments from:
    Mark R. Hotchkiss_Software Engineer 7291 Brockway Drive 
Boulder, Colorado 80303 "Dealing with Microsoft's Policy of 
Deception."
    I. The Record
    From the record of The United States Court of Appeals for the DC 
Circuit decided June 28, 2001; No. 00-5212.
    From section: II. Monopolization; B. Anticompetitive Conduct; 5. 
Java; c. Deception of Java Developers: pp. 56; paragraph 2:
    "Finally, other Microsoft documents confirm that Microsoft 
intended to deceive Java developers, and predicted that the effect 
of its actions would be to generate Windows-dependent Java 
applications that their developers believed would be cross-platform; 
these documents also indicate that Microsoft's ultimate objective 
was to thwart Java's threat to Microsoft's monopoly in the market 
for operating systems."
    From paragraph 3:
    "Unsurprisingly, Microsoft offers no procompetitive 
explanation for its campaign to deceive developers. Accordingly, we 
conclude this conduct is exclusionary, in violation of Section 2 of 
the Sherman Act."
    II. Challenge to Developers
    Software developers have the wonderful opportunity to create 
incredibly powerful tools for people utilizing nothing but their 
brains, a piece of hardware, and a well documented platform language 
or API to guide them. Indeed, many admire Bill Gates and give him 
credit for doing just that. But tragically, the policies of 
deception that his company has been convicted of, have already 
eroded much of the fertile ground on which he and his company built 
their foundation. If the Court accepts the settlement that the 
Department of Justice has proposed, that ground will be washed away 
for any developer hoping to gain significant access to users without 
that developer having to pay or depend on Microsoft in some way. To 
PC software developers the market has not been free for a long time. 
Given Microsoft's scorched earth criminal past, Internet software is 
the next technology to get locked up from creative people.
    III. They Own All of the Stages
    Technical merit, quality, and price should be some of the 
primary measures by which software products succeed in a 
marketplace, if it is a relatively free one. Ever since Microsoft 
has gained a monopoly position in the operating system market; the 
"stage" on which a developers must perform, Microsoft 
has elevated the measure of whether it will increase their own 
market share over all other measures. Intel owns a good portion of 
the "theaters", but will host most any production. By 
contrast, Microsoft owns virtually all of the stages and claims 
imminent domain to them from competing productions whenever they 
decide to produce their own show, as long as they can increase 
market share to that new audience.
    But of course, questionable priorities and being a monopoly is 
not against the law. But when Microsoft decides to enter a new 
market, rather than using the methods any other player on the stage 
would have at their disposal to use to win an audience, they can 
control the lights, props, background, special effects, even 
funding, and can turn any developer's production into an 
unintentional farce, all without the members of the audience knowing 
it.
    Borland, Quarterdeck, and Netscape are but a few companies who 
have had the chance to bring the issue of Microsoft's habitual 
secret sabotaging of their applications before the court. But this 
method of dealing with competition is usually saved as a last resort 
and is done very subtly. Microsoft has very distinct and regular 
script on how it deals with competition.
    IV. Embrace and Smother
    At the heart of the case before the court was Microsoft's 
deceptive technique launched against Netscape. From the court 
record, Microsoft's own Paul Maritz, called it "embrace, 
extend, extinguish" or "embrace and smother" 
corroborated by several Intel executives. Microsoft makes its 
competitors think they like the show, read the script and promise to 
produce it, and kill it before it opens to make room for a 
production they have been rehearsing in the wings. Sometimes, before 
the competitor ever got their first check.
    v. Embrace and Pollute
    Sun's Java "resurfaced" the stage with a set of 
tools that could even be extended to the Internet and beyond. 
Developers could cultivate their productions for free in different 
theaters and produce "road shows" on all kinds of 
stages. But because Microsoft was no longer in direct control of 
what was seen on the stage and could not continue to charge fees 
that suited them, they resorted to sabotage as reflected in the 
court record. They tried punching holes under Sun's performing 
platform by polluting it with a "Windows only" advantage 
and have been convicted for it. Because this approach did not 
achieve their intent, they deployed their third anti-competitive 
method.
    VI. Replicate and Extend
    Today, the anti-competitive method of choice is a variation of 
"embrace, extend, and extinguish". It is what was used 
against Apple when Windows was first introduced. Microsoft is in the 
process of virtually replicating Java in their new language C# 
(C Sharp). A glance at any sample code can convince almost anyone 
that the "new, innovative" language is a complete knock-
off of Java. But Microsoft maintains that it has nothing to do with 
Sun's creation.
    The fundamental difference is, it won't play on anything but 
Microsoft's stages. As an expected action, Microsoft will no longer 
make any effort to accommodate a Java stage in their latest monopoly 
production of Windows XP. Developers who prefer Sun's version of how 
the stage is equipped will have ask the audience to help them set it 
up by having to download components that were previously supplied by 
the stage manager. This is something Microsoft claims will 
"increase choice for consumers". How can these actions 
be perceived as competitive?
    VII. Bundling When It's Convenient
    Microsoft has used the deceptive reasoning that bundling 
application products with the operating system is simply a matter of 
convenience. But in effect, they mean their convenience, not the 
consumer's. They only bundle products when they don't already own 
the market for that application software.
    Until recently, word processing and spreadsheet applications 
were easily the first reasons to buy a computer. As a matter of 
consumer convenience, why doesn't Microsoft bundle MS Office the way 
it did Internet Explorer? These applications are still the main 
reasons people buy computers? The answer is easy. They virtually own 
the office applications market now and can charge very high prices 
and keep their customers locked in by their proprietary document 
formats. They wouldn't kill their cash cow in the name of giving the 
customer what they really want and have touted as their reason for 
bundling.
    They don't own the market for video software yet, but with 
absolutely no hindrance from the court, they have bundled Windows 
Media Player with Window XP and will eliminate RealPlayer in no time 
at all. Little of their success will be decided on technical merit, 
quality, or price. If this is not evidence of leveraging a monopoly 
market to gain another, what is? The proposed settlement does 
nothing to stop such blatant violations of the Sherman Act.
    VIII. Control of Hardware Vendors
    As a matter of research, contact one of the major PC 
distributors such as IBM, Dell, or Gateway, and attempt to purchase 
one of their high volume, low cost package PCs, but ask that you 
don't want Windows XP pre-installed for whatever reason. XP's 
default configuration of exposed IP sockets is a legitimate security 
concern that users should be able to reject it, but any reason 
should be valid. Then explain you that want a discount (any amount) 
for the absence of any Microsoft products. You will find that they

[[Page 24115]]

will not accommodate you. Linux users have to indirectly pay 
Microsoft to get reasonable prices on the same hardware. How can 
this be termed a competitive environment and how does the settlement 
before the court remedy this situation?
    IX. Relative Exposure of the APIs
    The way the settlement is worded, Microsoft will be able to 
greatly limit the access developers have to make their products 
successful. Microsoft will still be able to protect their arsenal of 
secret weapons used on their platform. Exposure is a relative term 
and the settlement reveals far too little for it to be effective in 
improving competition. Hiding their malicious intent in millions of 
lines of code to a few inspectors to see will be a cinch. They can 
always build another "substage" under the one the 
inspectors see to achieve this.
    X. Giving Up
    Nothing hurts a non-Microsoft developer more that hearing 
friends and family conclude that Microsoft software and services 
must be the best based solely on the fact that they have taken over 
so many markets. Terms like "sour grapes" and 
"quit your whining" cut deeply into a developer's 
incentive to create products that may not run on Windows only. As 
they should, PC users attempt to equate technical merit, quality, 
and price with proportional success. This is of course, not the case 
with Microsoft as stage manager. Users can't see what sort of 
treachery and deception takes place in a developer's attempt to get 
on the stage, let alone, get the lights to come up on their show. 
Explaining the stagecraft is rarely possible and is generally 
futile. Developers interested in a level playing field have been 
hoping that the court would understand the ropes and backstage 
operations that keep them off of the stages. So far, that 
expectation has been dashed. Microsoft deceives and cheats in every 
way possible gain market share. A developer is faced with a simple 
choice at this point: Microsoft's way, or the highway. Help entrench 
their monopoly and reduce choice in virtually every sector of 
computing, or get out of the business. If the DOJ settlement is 
accepted, it will only be a matter of time before a significant 
portion of the development community decides to take the latter 
option. The settlement contains no remedy and in fact, legitimizes 
Microsoft's criminal anti-competitive behavior.
    XI. Effective Remedies
    Even though a remedy of separation of the operating system and 
application software business units has been cast out as a 
possibility, it would have been the most effective and expeditious 
way to remove the incentive for Microsoft to leverage it's monopoly 
and reduce customer and developer choices.
    Short of that, Microsoft should be forced to sell its language 
business, and the proceeds of that sale should be distributed to 
registered users of Microsoft products. Their proprietary formats, 
and API's should be opened to those registered users. Perhaps then 
some semblance of a level playing field might be restored.
    Microsoft's Bill Gates should also be required to publicly state 
that his company repeatedly broke the law using deception as a 
policy. As it stands, the majority of the public still believes as 
he does, that they've "done nothing wrong" and that the 
court has no place in the matter. This is tragic.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Hotchkiss



MTC-00002577

From: root
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/2/01 5:28pm
Subject: M$ settlement
    I feel the settlement as proposed does a great injustice to the 
American consumer. It is nearly impossible for the average person to 
go out and buy a pc without Windows on it. I don't use windows, I 
must buy it if I want a pc though. I say go hard on these boys, I 
want restitution for every MS os I was forced to buy. That would be 
3.1, 95, 98, and ME all of which were removed from the systems that 
came with them forcefully pre-installed. I never wanted windows, I 
had to buy it to get newer, up-to-date pc's.
    Maybe opening the source of their kernel would be more fitting. 
Or a complete separation of the os and apps dept's while removing 
the apps already "integrated" into the os, ie Internet 
Explorer, Media Player, ..... There are many options, the proposed 
settlement is not even a slap on the wrist. ]Do the right thing here 
and punish the monopolist Microsoft in a way that leaves no 
uncertain terms, monopolist behavior will not be tolerated. They've 
misled the court during hearings and showed no respect to it's 
authority in the past, and been convicted of being a monopoly, treat 
them accordingly. It's called throwing the book at them.
    Respectfully,
    Richard Gore



MTC-00002578

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/2/01 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Any settlement with Microsoft MUST afford individuals OEMs the 
right not only to feature competitors products but more importantly 
earn discounts for any and all applications, utilities, middlewear 
or features removed or not featured by the OEM.
    The amount of the discount must be reviewable by the federal 
court to make certain fair and open competition returns to the 
windows platform. The court must make a determination of both the 
wholesale and retail price for these products to include networking 
subsystems, browsers, compilers, development systems, disc utilities 
and windows managers as well as any and all "user 
applications". User applications are those programs that 
actually provide a service or function for the individual user 
including but not limited to browsers, media players, file viewers, 
data base systems, spreadsheets or any other application that exists 
in the marketplace for Microsoft systems or any other operating 
system. Any and all "trademarked" products must be 
subject to such removal and discount handling by OEMs.
    Furthermore, the illegally gained monopoly in browsers resulting 
directly from illegal acts must be reversed. Prior to the illegal 
acts non-Microsoft browsers had approximately 80% of the market. 
Until those market conditions return no settlement terms should 
cease and the full restrictions upon Microsoft must remain in place.
    Lewis A. Mettler, Esq. (Attorney and Software Developer)
    [email protected]
    http://www.lamlaw.com/(detailed review of the Microsoft 
antitrust trial)



MTC-00002579

From: Marshall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/2/01 8:50pm
Subject: Anti-American
    I think the whole issue is just plain old Communist Anti-
American crap. I love Microsoft, love Windows and what Microsoft did 
with it, and think Bill Gates is my hero!



MTC-00002580

From: user1658
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/2/01 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam
    I am writing you in reference to the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft. After reviewing the terms as published in the various 
news media I have great concern that this is nothing more that a 
minor inconvenience for Microsoft and does not address the core 
issues at hand. With the release of Windows XP and the public 
statements concerning the .Net future of Microsoft it is easily 
apparent that Microsoft wishes to Hijack the Internet and e commerce 
to it's own advantage. The mandated usage of Passport to install 
Windows XP, it requirement in Hotmail accounts and Microsoft 
Messaging service only extends the reach as neither service needs 
Passport and XP doesn't either. The IE 6.0 departure from JAVA and 
other Internet standards only shows how far they will go to press 
Microsoft as the holder of all things with PC and Internet. 
Microsoft's continues to advance itself at the cost of others.
    If it cannot gain market by providing a better product then it 
makes sure that its products cannot be used with others recent 
example the ending of support for navigator plug in's in IE6 which 
is included with XP. This rendered useless anyones Apple Quicktime. 
No warning just can't use it. If you want to see in print how far 
they will go to control everything read the EULA that is in MS 
FrontPage 2002. Pre censorship. All to ensure that if you don't say 
nice things about MS you can be sued. Is this a company that is 
remorseful and willing to change it's ways from destroy, devour and 
intimidate. I think not. If the Judicial systems accepts this 
agreement in its current state it is only a endorsement for 
Microsoft to continue unabated as it can still devour, destroy and 
intimidate unchecked by just "making it a feature" and 
it is ok. I endorse stronger and specific remedy that is 
enforceable. Just like any convicted person they have been found 
guilty and as such should not be able have say in the over site of 
their behavior. It is the duty of government to do those things that 
individuals cannot do and one of those is to

[[Page 24116]]

protect the public from predatory behavior wether it is a person, a 
group or in this case a company.
    Sincerely,
    Herbert L Green



MTC-00002581

From: Ralph
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/2/01 6:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Some questions about comment submission:
    1_What is the deadline in order to make the comments 
published in the Federal Register?
    2_What is the preferred form: plain text or Microsoft Word 
document?
    3_Can comments be made anonymously? I fear retaliation 
from Microsoft. If not anonymous, can I use a lawyer as a front for 
me?
    Thank you for answering these 3 questions.
    Ralph



MTC-00002582

From: Ron Nath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/2/01 11:34pm
Subject: MS antitrust settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I would like to offer my opinion on the current proposed 
settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft. Let me summarize by saying 
the decision is a travesty to the justice system we all believed 
operated in this country. Now I will expound on the reasons.
    First, it will be clear to any free thinker that any company 
that controls the foundation of an industry will have an innate 
advantage over its competitors in creating products that are built 
on that foundation. This applies to any industry. In particular 
though, this has now become most notable in the software industry. 
Given this situation, the simplest solution would be to sunder this 
tie as judge Thomas Penfield Jackson has suggested. I would go so 
far as to say, MS should have been broken up into five companies: 
consumer OS, business OS, consumer apps, business apps, and internet 
services and hardware. Each company would then have to learn to 
support other platforms and thus "biodiversity" would 
have a chance. Second, by allowing MS to remain whole, it will use 
its position of dominance, to extend itself into other adjoining 
areas such as publishing, gaming (witness the Xbox), and even 
consulting services. It is not hard to imagine a day when not just 
the entire computer industry, but any industry built around thoughts 
and ideas would be controlled by this company. And we would have our 
weak willed government to thank for this. In fact, our very own 
government would be controlled by this company, even more so than it 
is now.
    Third, and lastly, keeping MS intact was a bad idea because it 
will send a message to all companies who are trying to dominate a 
market that if you keep fighting the government long enough, they 
will back down because there really is no teeth behind their bark 
and they are just a bunch of wimps. This is not the DOJ that I want 
in my country. We should be lobbying our representatives in the 
legislative branch and executive branches to remove the current crop 
of spineless, ill-informed judiciaries.
    A simple solution to legal wrangling would involve not 
necessarily breaking up MS (although that is still a good thing) but 
rather to cut right to the heart of the company- make its code open 
source. Not that anyone should be able to copy it or even modify it, 
but people should have the right to see what they are paying for. In 
fact, the government should go so far as to demand that any software 
sold to it should come with the source code- period. This way, the 
government will never be held hostage to closed, proprietary code.
    In summary then, I think the current settlement is more of our 
government settling than a real middle of the ground deal or 
settlement. Microsoft came out the winner hands down, and the DOJ 
skulked away with its tail between its legs, humiliated and beaten 
soundly by a much more vigorous and financially powerful opponent. 
The DOJ should go for the gold: split the company into five and 
demand that all software sold to it come with the source code.
    Thank you for your time in reading my opinions.
    Dr. Nath



MTC-00002583

From: Roberto Arias E.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/2/01 10:34pm
Subject: About the Antitrust Settlement
    Boy, I just think you want to make microsoft bigger, and more 
powerfull, and Bill Gates richer. I mean, it doesn't cost him a cent 
to give all that software to schools (they will have to pay someday 
for support or updates).



MTC-00002584

From: Richard Colclasure
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/2/01 11:13pm
Subject: anti-trust settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen:
     The settlement is a virtual mirror of Mr. Chamberlain's selling 
out the British in 1930's. The browser fiasco was the thing many 
people saw of the trial but that is not the point at all. We are now 
going to pay the Troll (Mr. Gates) a fee far more consuming than we 
ever did with pirates off the Barbary coast. Too bad Mr. Bush 
doesn't fight this troll with the vigor he has shown us. Every day 
brings a new crime from the innards of Redmond. Talk to the big 
Windows users of corporate America and ask them what the toll fee 
is? They have been paying it and know what it costs.
    Thanks for listening to us,
    Dick Colclasure
    [email protected]



MTC-00002585

From: Michel G. Rainville
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/2/01 8:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Solution_Slit So That Application 
Programming Interfaces MUST Be Published
    Dear sir,
     I am a Canadian, but the unavoidable presence of Microsoft has 
affected me as well. I do database development for a major Canadian 
university.
     When Windows 95 came out, it broke dBase, Lotus, and 
WordPerfect and it was six months at least before they could even be 
run on Windows. On the other hand, Word, Excel, and Microsoft Visual 
C++ was already aware of the impending changes and were not 
affected.
     Today, Oracle installations MUST replace several Windows 
programs as a routine part of the installation process and downloads 
of Internet Explorer have broken Oracle installations, by changing 
the dynamic runtime library for Visual C++, I suppose.
     When I purchased my computer for home, I had no choice but to 
buy Windows, even though I run OS/2 on it. I tried to obtain a Linux 
system from Dell, but they would sell nothing but Windows, even if 
it meant losing a 5,000.00+ sale.
     In my opinion, the computer industry will be seriously hurt by 
the continued unfair practices of Microsoft. The protection of 
software vendors, in particular, requires that Microsoft be split 
into no less than FOUR parts: Development Tools (C,C++, Visual 
Studio, any tools used to build Windows ) Operating Systems (Windows 
95, 98, NT, 2000, XP, etc., strictly mapping the harware to an API 
with Development Tools ) Applications Software (Office, Word, Excel, 
Access, Visual Basic etc.) Web Services (Internet Explorer, MSN, 
C#). In this way, other vendors, even if they use MS tools or 
systems, will have the same public access to APIs at the same time 
as those parts of the former Microsoft that used to obtain early and 
secret access, months and years in advance of competitors. You might 
also consider requiring hardware vendors to OFFER at least ONE non-
Microsoft operating systems on their computers as a general rule to 
foster competition. Linux and many others are free, after all.
    Good luck with your decision,
    Sincerely,
    Michel G. Rainville
    77-5225 Sherbrooke St. West
    Montreal, QC
    Canada H4A 1T7



MTC-00002586

From: stout762
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/2/01 11:38pm
Subject: Microsoft
    DOJ;
     I beleive that the continued existance of Microsoft as an 
intact entity poses an extreme danger to all other software 
companies. Microsoft has a long history of using any method 
available to kill competition and stifle innovation in the computer 
industry. Quite simple they cannot be trusted to uphold any 
agreement they enter into.
     To mitigate the continued danger of Micro$oft, I propose that 
the corporation be divided into two seperate entities. One that will 
continue to produce Operating Systems (OS) and One that will develop 
end user applications (office, Internet Explorer, etc). Absolutely 
no communications, other than normal discourse between two rival 
companies, should be permitted between the two halves of the 
company.

[[Page 24117]]

     To mitigate the advantages already achieved by the company, 
Microsoft need to be forced to disclose all proprietary information 
regarding the various protocols and file formats used by the 
companie's software. If microsoft continues to try and 
"pollute" public domain standards (HTML, TCP/IP, ETC) 
they should be quicly and severly punished and forced to recind the 
changes. The end user needs to have the option to un-install or 
decline the installation of any "bundled" software 
(Internet Explorer, Media Player, etc.) without crippling the 
operation of the OS or any other software component.
     As the final step, all of the current Microsoft senior 
executives should be forced to sell off their microsoft holdings and 
seek employment elsewhere. It seems patently unfair to me that they 
should be rewarded with the continued leadership of a comapny that 
has engaged in criminal behavior for 20+ years.
    R/ J. Justin Stout
    Sent via the WebMail system at webmail.pioneernet.net



MTC-00002587

From: Eric
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 2:38am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I am writing regarding the proposed Microsoft antitrust 
settlement, which proposes a payment of cash, hardware and software 
to schools serving impoverished areas. I feel this settlement is 
flawed in several respects:
    First, if Microsoft is guilty of violating anti-trust laws, then 
the magnitude of this fine appears modest, considering the market 
losses of other corporations and individuals who may have benefited 
from a more open competitive environment.
    Second, the nature of the penalty is boldly ironic (some might 
say nearly contemptuous). Microsoft currently has a very small share 
of the educational marketplace. That Microsoft would be able to 
promote its own system and educational software to a sizeable 
portion of the educational market, and to do so in the favorable 
position of offfering "free" equipment, seems to be of 
considerable benefit to Microsoft and thereby diminishes the impact 
of the penalty significantly. Why should Microsoft receive 
government-provided exposure in the only computer market it hasn't 
yet penetrated and dominated?
    Third, the nature of the penalty is too similar to Microsoft's 
core business. Why have the company give equipment and software 
which it has ready access to, when cash would be a much more 
flexible and more readily useable resource for the schools? Why 
limit the payment to only cover acquisition of computers? Why not 
allow the schools to choose how the money will be spent_after 
all, the educators in the locality will likely know what resources 
are most needed and what will have the highest impact.
    I think that the penalty for Microsoft needs to be reworked and 
crafted in a fashion that achieves a reasonable penalty_one 
that doesn't implicitly reward Microsoft for its behavior. Thank you 
for condisering my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Eric Werner
    3804 Royal Fox Drive
    Saint Charles, IL 60174
    630.443.0075



MTC-00002588

From: Joshua Chamas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 12:32am
Subject: Settlement is a bad idea
    Hi,
    I saw this email address to whom I could write my opinion of the 
Microsoft settlement.
    I am an entrepreneur & software developer of 4 years, and 
have used & own microsoft windows products: server NT, desktop 
Windows 95; and used competing unix products like Solaris & 
Linux. As a web developer, I believe the way in which Microsoft 
crushed Netscape through its OEM bundling practice really hurt the 
progress of computing as a whole, and I feel that the settlement 
idea that tries to value the overcharging of Microsoft products is 
not getting at the crux of the problem ... that Microsoft had used 
it monopoly powers to crush competing technologies, and significant 
penalties need to be levied with the possibility of restructuring to 
make sure it never happens again.
    Microsoft has a desktop monopoly and does everything it can to 
make sure that it remains in this position. As a web developer, I 
cannot tell you the pains it has caused application development that 
Microsoft ended up beating out Netscape as the browser of choice. 
See, what Microsoft does it once its gets a significant foothold in 
a technology, it warps that technology until developers have to do 
it the Microsoft way ... on this one project in particular where the 
devlopment costs exceeded $200,000 in a year, I would estimate that 
20% of the time we were resolving web browser incompatibilities. Had 
Microsoft not become the majority browser, they would have had to 
remain more compatible with Netscape & there would have been 
little burden on web application developers.
    And I was only talking about HTML rendering issues, we were not 
even using Java, which Microsoft also screwed up. Do you begin to 
see my point? Any estimate of the damage that Microsoft has caused 
consumers & business through its monopolistic practices cannot 
hardly be estimated by anyone. Will the $40,000 that my consulting 
client got charged just to make their web application cross-browser 
compatible be factored into the Microsoft damages? I doubt it. The 
effect that Microsoft has on the industry is to raise the barriers 
to competition by breaking competing standards that exist that could 
use other technologies that Microsoft cannot license. In this way, 
web & software development costs increase as standards ( like 
HTML & Java ) get fractured. Please do something punitive & 
significant to Microsoft to make sure this does not happen again. I 
would recommend that large penalties be assessed, rules against 
bundling be set up and enforced, and a possible restructuring that 
would keep Microsoft the operating system business separate from 
other Microsoft businesses. To prevent bundling, I would suggest 
Microsoft be forced to offer especially to OEMs the opportunity to 
select which parts of the OS they want to install like Media Player, 
Disk Defragmenter, Web Browser, etc. For every piece that an OEM 
excludes from a distribution, there should be a real & 
significant price reduction in the OEM version of the software, to 
allow other companies to compete for that software business.
    For example, to not bundle IE, perhaps an OEM like Dell would 
save $10, and be able to pass those savings on the to consumer. Dell 
would be able to install AOL or Netscape for the consumer ( or other 
browser like Opera ), at possible price savings ... if Netscape had 
been able to continue to sell their browser to OEMs, it may be that 
Netscape would still be the dominant player in the browser market 
with superior technology ... who knows the difference this would 
have made to the development of the internet as a whole? Thank you 
for taking the time to hear my arguments. I hope that this letter 
actually got to someone?!
    Regards,
    Josh
    Joshua Chamas
    NodeWorks Founder
    Chamas Enterprises Inc.
    Huntington Beach, CA USA
    http://www.nodeworks.com
    1-714-625-4051



MTC-00002589

From: Jones Robert Contr TTMS Keesler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 8:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
     I strongly believe the current settlement does nothing to 
curtail Microsoft's practices they went to court for. I do not 
believe the current settlement has done anything to dissuade 
Microsoft from engaging in these practices. I do believe that the 
current settlement provides further encouragement for Microsoft to 
continue practices that stifle businesses and erode competition by 
using their monopoly unfairly.
    Robert E. Jones, BSCS, BSP
    81 CS/SCK, Keesler AFB



MTC-00002590

From: Forrest Gott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 7:13am
Subject: Displeased
    I am very displeased with the recent move to settle the US vs 
Microsft case. Just for the record, I have yet to talk face-to-face 
with a single person that feels that this settlment is in any way a 
good idea.
    _Forrest Gott
    Grand Forks, ND



MTC-00002591

From: Schreck, Paul CONT (NASKW 191)
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/3/01 8:40am
Subject: Micro$oft antitrust case
    To whom it may concern,
    I am dumbfounded!

[[Page 24118]]

    Having followed the Microsoft Antitrust case closely, from its 
inception, I find it unconscionable that Microsoft could be let off 
with nothing more than a 'slap on the wrist'. I've never 
seen such a lopsided case. I liken this case to having a suspect, 
caught on camera murdering two people, while witnesses stand 
watching, and the police arriving as the suspect stands over the 
dead bodies, with the gun still in his hand. You (DOJ) have the 
proverbial 'Smoking Gun', and yet you let MS walk away.
    I know there are more important things going on in the world 
right now, but does that nullify all common knowledge? As a veteran 
of the US Navy, I know full well what is happening in the world, but 
if we cannot maintain unconditional justice in our own country, how 
can we expect to in another? Would a convicted murderer in our 
country be given probation, because Ramon Eduardo Arellano-Felix 
(FBI's 10 most wanted) is still roaming free? You call yourself the 
Department of Justice, but I find this proposed remedy neither just, 
nor appropriate.
    Regards,
    Paul J. Schreck
    Paul J. Schreck
    Lead Computer Technician
    Naval Air Station, Key West
    CC: 'microsoftcomments (a)doj.ca. gov ', 
'attorney general...



MTC-00002592

From: Lee Briggs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 9:23am
Subject: settlement_
    as a resident of Wisconsin, and a student about to enter 
education as a career, i want to state that i am against the 
proposed settlement that Microsoft donate computers, the initial 
cost of these second hand machines is next to nothing when compared 
to the cost of maintaining them, Microsoft is trying to put it's 
foot into one of the only markets that it does not own. if anything, 
make them give vouchers equal to the cost of said computers and let 
these schools decide what they want to do with the money, rather 
than pay it right back in the form of upgrades and the ridiculous 
loop of having to buy to stay ahead that Microsoft has created.



MTC-00002593

From: Denny Wyss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 8:57am
Subject: This Settlement is a complete sellout
    The proposed settlement between Microsoft & the DOJ will be 
completely ineffective. It does not address or correct the 
fundemental issues of the case. It simply is a slap on the wrist. 
The proposed "restrictions" on future behavior are a 
joke. They are full of loop holes. Several of which, depending on 
how they are read, could prove to be severe blows to competing open 
source software and in fact strengthen the monopoly that MS holds. 
Further, these checks on future behavior have already proven 
themselves inneffective since Windows XP with all of its bundled 
software is already on the market allowing MS to gouge more money 
with their rediculous licensing scheme and further entrench 
themselves as a monopoly. To accept this settlement that appears to 
have been written by Bill Gates himself as a penalty for its illegal 
acts is very indicative to me that our Justice department is too 
involved in politics to really pursue justice, sadly misinformed of 
the true impact of what MS has done and frankly oblivious to the 
longer term implications of what they are doing. If this decision/
settlement is indicitive of the work the doj does, God help us all 
when it comes to handling even more serious matters such as 
terrorism.
    Denny Wyss



MTC-00002595

From: Leisner, Greg
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/3/01 9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Greg Leisner and my profession is software engineer. 
My education includes a Masters of Science in Computer Science with 
an emphasis in Security and Cryptography. I work for a manufacturing 
company in Wisconsin. I would like to comment about the Proposed 
Settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust Trial in DC District Court.
    I oppose the Proposed Settlement on the grounds that it doesn't 
prevent Microsoft from leveraging it's monopoly power into new 
markets. In fact, the Proposed Settlement actually shields Microsoft 
from legal remedy for future anti-competitive actions in violation 
of the antitrust laws. Specifically, I call attention to REVISED 
PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT section J number 1:
    "J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
    1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third 
parties: (a) portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers 
of Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise 
the security of a particular installation or group of installations 
of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights 
management, encryption or authentication systems, including without 
limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or 
(b) any API, interface or other information related to any Microsoft 
product if lawfully directed not to do so by a governmental agency 
of competent jurisdiction."
    Since the digital world is now highly interconnected, the above 
exemption allows Microsoft to spread a function between two 
processes on the same host or different hosts and connect those 
processes with a "Communications Protocol" that employs 
some form of encryption or authentication. Because it is good design 
to authenticate all connections and communications, Microsoft will 
be able, within the terms of the Proposed Settlement, to leverage 
it's OS monopoly for Intel systems into ANY other market it chooses 
to. This will be possible by simply authenticating all 
communications between processes.
    For example, Microsoft could have some or all network 
communications pass through an Authentication Layer in the Windows 
OS. This is actually good security design. (The communications could 
optionally also pass through an Encryption Layer.) Under the 
Proposed Settlement, no other OS vendor could support the server 
side of the communications. Thus if Microsoft desired to increase 
it's Web Server market share, it could require all http 
communications to be authenticated. This could be enforced without 
override, or with popup windows to the user warning them that the 
attempted website access is 'not secure' and asking if they wish to 
continue. Obviously, this would have a chilling effect on 
competition. And the Proposed Settlement allows it to happen.
    Another example on the same host this time could be application 
launching from the browser. Internet Explorer (itself benefiting 
from anticompetitive actions to gain overwhelming market share) 
could require authentication before launching an application to 
handle a particular data stream. Thus all audio and video data 
streams could require an authenticated application. If Microsoft 
choose not to license such authentication to, say, Real Networks, 
then Windows Media would effectively become the only way to play 
music and video on a Windows OS.
    When I compare the Interim Remedy from the previous trial court 
to the current Proposed Settlement, I am shocked at the lack of 
thought and due care taken in crafting their respective terms. There 
are many other issues I find fatally flawed, but, being just a 
private citizen with limited time to devote to this issue, I am 
constrained from elaborating on them. I ask that my limiting my 
comments to section J.1 not be construed to be supportive of any 
other clause in the Proposed Settlement.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment,
    Greg Leisner
    6131 W Leon Terrace
    Milwaukee, WI
    414-371-5805



MTC-00002596

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 10:00am
Subject: It's Just Packaging!! For Crying Out Loud!!!!!
    Who would have the radio taken out of his car? How about the air 
conditioning? How about any of the new enticing accessories that 
come with a new car that is intended to make that car more 
attractive to a prospective buyer? Have you ever noticed that each 
of the auto manufacturers has installed his own brand of accessory? 
Is that causing the customer that buys a Ford to have to purchase 
Ford auto parts (if he doesn't, his warranty is in jeopardy)? The 
answer is "yes", but in that case, it's all right? What 
Microsoft did is no more than that! Business competitors that have a 
great deal of trouble competing with Microsoft have finally found an 
easy way to stay in the game......run to big brother!
    Microsoft has done no more than any other leading corporation 
would do to maintain its business position. It's called competition, 
guys! It really strikes me as strange that a company that has NOT 
been declared a "monoply" can do exactly what Microsoft 
did and that's OK, because it makes them more 
"competive" but, if a declared monoply

[[Page 24119]]

does it to maintain their market position (to maintain their 
competitive level), it is unlawful. When did this country become so 
sophisticated that it desires to punish successful businesses? And 
where is the harm to the consumer? I personally have at least three 
browsers loaded on my computer and I use whichever I need at any 
given time. The fact that another browser resides within my 
operating system means nothing.... it's superfluous! Somebody made a 
really big deal out of nothing..... the business rivals maybe? 
Congressmen wanting to represent business interests in THEIR 
constituents' areas?
    The current "tech wreck" is holding the economy here 
and around the globe hostage. If Microsoft is brought down for such 
a minor thing as "commingling its code", i.e., adding 
accessory components to its operating system, what will be the 
effect on that industry sector and the rest of the economy? It seems 
that there are those in government (e.g., Schumer) that would find 
this acceptable in order to further their own agenda.
    If you care about product innovation, competition, fairness, and 
the economy, you will do whatever you can to counter the incessant 
roiling over this issue.
    I think you do care and I look forward to seeing your supportive 
position for Microsoft and the technology industry unveiled in the 
very near future. If Microsoft goes down, our economy will take 
YEARS longer to turn around. That event will destroy the current and 
future budget outlays. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. It should 
be an American citizen issue.
    Best regards,
    Joe Stevens
    115 Feather Moon Dr
    Santa Teresa, NM 88008
    [email protected]



MTC-00002597

From: Groombridge, Kenton A CW2 DISCOM
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 9:58am
Subject: Comments on MS/DOJ settlement
    Hi,
    Just want to give my comments on the Microsoft/DOJ settlement. 
It really sounds to me that Microsoft came out the winner with this 
one. Where else could a designated monopoly actually get more of a 
monopoly by supplying more software as a punishment.
    Take a look at Red Hat's offering to provide its Linux operating 
system at no cost and let Microsoft provide the hardware. This is a 
much better solution.
    The anti-trust/monopoly case wouldn't be necessary if the 
Government would just adopt plans/policies to purchase proprietary 
software solutions. Initiate a plan/policy to only purchase software 
that has open standards. This way other companies can compete and we 
all get better products at better costs. Microsoft ensures that its 
products only work with other Microsoft products so it can maintain 
its dominance. Why do you think that every time a new Microsoft 
Office suite comes out that it doesn't work with the previous 
versions? It forces others to buy the upgrades so they can read the 
new formats. An example: We are currently using Office 97. My boss 
loads Office 2000 and starts creating documents. He sends them to me 
to edit/read/etc, but I can't open them because they were created 
with the "new" format. He doesn't want to delete and 
reload Office 97. He is going to make everybody else load Office 
2000. On top of that, Microsoft doesn't share the format of Office 
2000 documents so the only software that will work with Office 2000 
documents is Office 2000.
    By using open standards, everybody can compete. Isn't this the 
American way? It isn't so much of what Microsoft does, but the 
Government shouldn't be buying in on it. The Government must use 
open standards. This will set the example and Microsoft will adjust 
to this. Punishment and policies will not change them.
    CW2 Kenton Groombridge
    CSSAMO, 3ID
    (912) 767-1318, DSN 870-1318
    Failure is not an option; it's bundled with your software.



MTC-00002598

From: Reesa Morris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 9:58am
Subject: Microsfot
    Please do not waiver from the end result of protecting and 
helping the true victims. Owners of MS operating systems and 
software. We are still in the dark and are still unable to use our 
systems and competitor software. We are the victims, we've spent the 
money and we have spent the countless hours seeking help and 
information.
    Any allowance of Microsoft to utilize this 
"settlement" to product a new market "niche" 
in the education systems does not seem fair and does not attack the 
real problem. As an owner of a HP computer with a MS Windows ME 
operating systems, I can tell you that neither are supported by 
their manufacturers and that MS has "autop-dated" many 
things without offering support, and has resulted in loss of support 
from HP.
    Thank You
    Reesa Morris
    125 Chillingham Ct
    Kernersville NC 27284



MTC-00002599

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 10:57am
Subject: DOJ/Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    Let Microsoft fund the school computing effort, but let the 
schools decide which software to use, from the fund provided as a 
result of the settlement. Do not permit Microsoft to become the fox 
in the educational chicken coop.
    Doug Pulfer



MTC-00002600

From: Mike Klaus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 10:56am
Subject: DOJ/Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    Forward to: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney, 325 7th Street, NW, 
Suite 500, Washington, DC 20530, (202-616-0944)
    For more than two hundred years, free and open competiton has 
been a hallmark of the American experience. Our judicial system 
protects society from unfair business practices and ensures a fair 
and level playing field for all competitors in the market place.
    Microsoft Corporation has engaged in documented monopolistic 
practices which unfairly limit free and open competition in the 
market place. Alternative solutions, such as Red Hat Corporations 
offer to provide their Linux products free of charge to school 
systems should be reviewed and considered by the Department of 
Justice prior to enforcement of the antitrust settlement consent 
decree.
    America is a free and open society. In my opinion, American 
business should reflect the values of its citizens.
    Mike Klaus
    Master Chief, United States Navy_Retired
    [email protected]



MTC-00002601

From: Robert Walion
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 10:47am
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
    ........Please do not follow through with this senseless 
settlement agreement. If anything, make Microsoft spend $2 billion 
on giving Apple/Macintosh products to education. The current 
'solution' is (to say the least) ill advised and simply 
tightens Microsoft's grip on one of the few remaining pieces of the 
software market that they do not control.
    Boy, that's some 'punishment'......
    Thanks for your consideration!
    Bob Walion



MTC-00002602

From: Farr, Aaron
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/3/01 10:14am
Subject: DOJ/Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    The proposed DOJ/Microsoft Antitrust Settlement does little but 
further the Microsoft monopoly the lawsuit is intended on 
prosecuting. My initial reaction was that this was more of a public 
relations victory and marketing ploy by Microsoft than a serious 
attempt to address the wrongs this company has done. As a 
professional computer programmer, the proposed ruling deeply 
disturbs me. The class-action lawsuits were filed in behalf of the 
people, yet it seems like the people are getting little from this 
settlement. I emplore that those considering this settlement 
sincerely look to other alternatives, particularly that solution 
proposed by open source company Red Hat Inc. (http://www.redhat.com/
about/presscenter/2001/press_usschools.html).
    Let us not do further damage to the computer industry and to the 
consumers than has already been done due to the illegal practices of 
Microsoft.
    J Aaron Farr
    Pittsburgh, PA



MTC-00002603

From: Beverly Neale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 12:02pm
Subject: Injustice
    Dear Department of Justice
    I write to complain about the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft. The enormity of the anti-competitive practices of 
Microsoft is

[[Page 24120]]

quite astonishing. Hundreds of vendors have been deliberately put 
out of business, and their superior products (wordperfect and 
harvard graphics are but two examples) have been replaced by 
inferior "standards" such as word and powerpoint that 
Microsoft has been able to force on the business and home computing 
commuities merely by virtue of providing the operating system. Even 
worse, their operating systems are inferior to competitors' such as 
linux, as they are less stable and it is much more difficult to 
write software for them. In addition, it is not possible to debug 
programs properly because the Microsoft operating system code is not 
available, so when something doesn't work as expected, it isn't 
possible to find out why. In essence, Microsoft has committed crimes 
similar to the September 11 World Trade Center events in their 
unprovoked attack on fair competition within the computing community 
and destruction of their competitors.
    For these reasons, I think the operating system source code 
should be forced to be freely available. In addition, software 
products such as MS office should be developed for other 
platforms_Linux, Apple (which it already is) etc. If dividing 
Microsoft is the only way to achieve this end, as previous legal 
authorities have demonstrated, then it should be done.
    Finally, allowing Microsoft to 'infect' classrooms 
with its own products is far from a penalty_it is the opposite 
of one. They should be made to provide much larger numbers of 
computers and these should be installed with Red Hat linux or Apple 
OSX operating systems instead of MS windows.
    Sincerely
    Dr. Michael C. Neale, Dept. of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth 
University
    Phone: 804-828-3369 Virginia Institute for 
Psychiatric & Behavioral Genetics
    Fax: 804-828-8801 800 East Leigh St. Suite 
1-115, Richmond VA 23219-1534



MTC-00002604

From: k1e0x(a)earthlink.net
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 11:44am
Subject: DOJ Settlement not effective
    I dont think Microsoft takes this seriously.. just last week 
they had baned, Netscape and Opera (and other) Browsers out of MSN 
and Hotmail. I think there needs to be greater restrictions.
    James
    Redmond WA.



MTC-00002605

From: Harry Yingst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 11:18am
Subject: My opinion about the antitrust settlement with Microsoft
    Having worked in the computer industry for over ten years I feel 
that the proposed solution from Microsoft is not in the best 
interest of the proposed beneficiaries (our schools).
    I personally see it as furthering its monopolistic grip on the 
software market and in turn ultimately taking more from the schools 
in renewal fees etc. than they (Microsoft) are giving.
    As I understand it the Microsoft's proposed solution has a five-
year time limit at which point schools would have to pay Microsoft 
to renew their licenses and upgrade the software. This will cost 
these poorer districts a great expense at a time when many of these 
computers will be in dire need of replacement, further draining the 
limited resources of the schools. I feel that the alternative 
proposal as set forth by Red Hat, Inc. is a far better proposal due 
to the fact that our school system will initially be provided with 
far more hardware (provided by Microsoft) and software (provided by 
Red Hat) then under the Microsoft proposal.
    Additionally the Red Hat proposal has no time limit. Red Hat 
will provide software upgrades through the Red Hat Network online 
distribution channel. This in turn will allow greater access to 
computer resources then would be present under the Microsoft 
proposal (about five times as many computer systems).
    I salute Red Hat in there generosity to provide not only the 
software but to also provide online support for these computers, 
that's free support for the software more than one million computers 
that will be provided by Microsoft. The true winners here will be 
our students!
    Thank you,
    Sincerely,
    Harry L. Yingst III



MTC-00002607

From: Stanley Tickton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 12:26pm
Subject: Reply to settlement
    Microsoft is still much too powerful. More curbs need to be put 
on the company operating systems and use by all manufacturers.



MTC-00002608

From: Steve Bumgardner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 12:19pm
Subject: Comment
    Hewlett Packard said I could use Windows or throw it away, but I 
was never going to get my money back. They were right. Weren't they? 
This is terrible. Worse than nothing at all. I can not imagine what 
sort of people could give the keys to the next generation to 
Micro$oft while calling it punishment.
    You should all seek work elsewhere. Janitorial services perhaps.
    Steve Bumgardner



MTC-00002609

From: Fred Kreitzberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    This is personal opinion. I am not representing the view of the 
company I work for.
    I was disappointed in the terms of the settlement.
    As a Data Security Professional I believe the bundling of 
software in the operating system is a critical issue. Complexity is 
the enemy of security. Microsoft's business model of putting more 
functions into the OS drastically increases complexity. The fact 
that companies using their software can not strip out this 
functionality to create a more secure and business oriented system 
is a major problem. As an IS Professional I see Microsoft's actions 
as an effective tool to stop the next set of bright young people 
from creating the next Microsoft. It is what they did not Netscape. 
Business should fail because the business model does not work, not 
because they threaten someone else's monopoly.



MTC-00002610

From: Daniel O Winkless
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 12:03pm
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I am really disappointed. I had been hoping that Microsoft would 
be broken into three or more independent companies. I would have 
settled for a two-way split. But a slap on the wrist and a warning 
not to do it again is simply not sufficient.
    I use Microsoft products daily. I am daily angered by the poor 
quality of the products I am using. As you can tell from my email 
address, I work for the US Geological Survey. The Survey and the 
Department of Interior have made significant investments in PC based 
programs. Our computer staffing has increased as we have made larger 
investments in PCs. This, while total staff has decreased. It is the 
wrong direction and it is caused by bad software. Fortunately, we 
have been able to keep our mission critical applications in the Unix 
environment. Our Unix support staff has decreased to where we have 
only one Unix support person. Again, not a good situation should he 
get sick or find another job.
    If Microsoft's Office product were implemented on a stable 
platform, like Solaris or Linux, it would truly be awesome. If the 
Microsoft Operating systems had to compete fairly with other OSs, it 
would either improve rapidly or die rapidly, just as a free, open, 
and competitive market would dictate.
    As it is, Microsoft will promise to be good and will continue 
its monopolistic practices because it can. The next suit will be 
harder to bring and Microsoft will be harder to break up. If you 
won't break up the company, at least recognize that it is a monopoly 
and regulate it as such, the way AT&T used to be a regulated 
monopoly.
    Dan Winkless
    505-830-7938



MTC-00002611

From: Steve Goldsby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 12:48pm
Subject: Settlement
    This settlement is a joke.



MTC-00002612

From: Gordon Krum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Greetings,
    As a programmer who specializes in educational projects I can 
tell you from personal experience that the way Microsoft conducts 
business has held back the usefulness of computers to education at 
all

[[Page 24121]]

levels. Schools just can't cope with the additional expenses 
generated by Microsoft's attempts to own the world. The losers here 
are our kids and therefore our society. Allowing Microsoft to buy 
their way out by giving schools hardware and software will only 
increase the problem by further limiting competition. Instead, and 
at least, make them give the thing the value most COLD HARD CASH and 
let the schools decide how to spend it without restrictions of any 
kind. Some excuse Microsoft by saying that they are just good 
technology manipulators.
    So were the robber barons of almost a century ago. Through new 
technology they then and Microsoft now manipulated, circumvented, 
squashed and laid waste the honest well intentioned efforts of many 
people all in the name of filling their own wallets. If what the 
robber barons did was criminal then what Microsoft is doing is 
criminal.
    Having lived and worked in the silicon valley I know that there 
are thousands of Gates want to be's. How this settlement goes down 
sends a message to the entire industry about what behaviors will or 
will not be tolerated.
    Please make it a RESOUNDING message!
    Gordon Krum, programmer
    [email protected]
    4151 Olive Hill Rd.
    Fallbrook, Ca 92028



MTC-00002613

From: Fahl, Matthew
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/3/01 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with and support the Microsoft settlement. I believe the 
case was without merit and politically motivated from the outset, 
and barring a complete dismissal, this settlement is the best way to 
close the matter and allow Microsoft to get back to their business 
which has so greatly benefited all of us.
    Matthew Fahl
    1446 Norbert Rd NE
    Palm Bay, FL 32907-2326



MTC-00002614

From: Greg Rose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the original proposal to break up Microsoft was 
probably the correct course of action. Any proposal that involves 
Microsoft giving free software to people, especially educational 
institutions, merely strengthens their monopoly power. If they are 
to be made to pay, they should have to pay cash money that can be 
used to procure other products.
    sincerely,
    Greg Rose.
    Greg Rose INTERNET: [email protected]
    Qualcomm Australia VOICE: 61-2-9817 4188 FAX: 
61-2-9817 5199
    Level 3, 230 Victoria Road, http://people.qualcomm.com/
ggr/
    Gladesville NSW 2111 232B EC8F 44C6 C853 D68F E107 E6BF CD2F 
1081 A37C
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00002615

From: Nick Haddock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 1:21pm
Subject: The judgement against Microsoft
    As an IT professional, I feel you have let Microsoft off 
incredibly lightly. As the evidence has shown, they use bully boy 
tactics to stifle young companies and technologies, thus dominating 
every market they are involved in. This is a monoploy position, 
however the lawyers dress it up, which is extremely unheathly in a 
capitalist market.
    When you think that the only software currently able to compete 
with Microsoft on the desktop is free, Linux, and the Apple 
Macintosh, both of which have small percentages.
    My recommedations would be: You should, split microsoft into 
seperate companies that will stimulate competition.
    Stop Microsoft having the ability to decide that everyone who 
buys a standard PC must have there software, if they want it or not. 
Force them to pay the people they destroyed (Netscape etc) 
compensation Force them to donate money (not free 
software_thus perpetuating the monopoly) to your countries 
education system.
    All I can hope as a European citizen is that our European 
government deals with this predatory monopolist in a far harsher 
manner than you have. I can only conclude that certain other 
previous monopolists (Oil, Telecoms, IBM) must be very annoyed at 
the way this company is being dealt with. It does raise the 
question, does the public know all there is to know, or are there 
some new Swiss bank accounts being filled as I type. If there are 
not, it's what it looks like to me from the other side of the pond. 
I hope this email in some small way adds to the debate.
    Yours
    Nick Haddock
    Mr Nick Aurelius-Haddock Bsc.,MCSE,MCNE,CCNA,CCNP
    Principal Consultant
    Holevy Consultants Limited
    4 Park Place
    Newbridge
    Gwent
    NP11 4RN
    Mobile Phone: 0044 7889 189440
    UK BT Line: 0044 1495 244386
    UK Fax : 0044 1495 245087
    French Line: 0033 549 675415
    email: 



MTC-00002616

From: Robert gatliff
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments@ 
doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 12/3/01 1:02pm
Subject: Proposed Settlement
    Dear sirs and mam's,
    I am the President of Applecore of Memphis, Inc. An Apple User 
Group. I am very distressed by the proposed settlement offered by 
Microsoft, This is not a solution to the anti-trust suit it will 
further their monopoly, this is not what you set out to do in your 
original suits. Instead of taking them down a few notches for 
breaking the law, this proposed settlement will continue and 
increase there hold on the computer using public. The offer to give 
schools used computers and their software is not a solution, if 
schools wanted cheap, and substandard computers and software they 
would have bought them long ago. This is my opinion and I hope you 
consider this when making your decisions.
    Robert M. Gatliff
    President
    Applecore of Memphis, Inc.
    9384 Huron Dr.
    Olive Branch, MS. 38654
    662-893-1114
    Cell# 901-486-1428



MTC-00002617

From: blaine chanay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 3:15pm
Subject: the MS proposal:
    the MS proposal:
    putting more MS software in the schools does not address the 
original issues of contention_it only increases the monopoly. 
I don't like the proposal. MS should be penalized, not given another 
foothold in another arena_this time against Apple. Take the 
money MS would have spent and divy it up to these poorer districts 
for computers and software of their choice. let Apple, MS, and the 
Linux world each have a share of the pie.



MTC-00002618

From: James Emerson Willis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 3:04pm
Subject: Settlement Fails to Address Bundling
    Unless I missed something, the reason microsoft is able to 
dominate so many markets is because they bundle their products into 
the OS (Netscape died because Microsoft bundlded IE).
    Since most people in DOJ are probably not tech-heads, let me 
give an analogy about Televisions and Toasters. Let's say there's 
only one company that makes televisions (let's call them company A). 
However, there are many companies that makes good toasters 
(companies B and C). One day, company A decides they would like to 
be the king of toasters as well. So, since everyone needs a TV, they 
will throw in a "free" company A toaster with every TV 
they sell. (The important thing to note, is that the toaster is not 
really free, but included with the cost of the TV).
    Although company A's toaster isn't great, people don't see the 
need to go out and buy any others. Eventually, companies B and C go 
bankrupt. With the compatability measures you talk of, it will make 
applications on the operating system no different from company to 
company. But if the consumer is forced to buy your product because 
of bundling, it's a rather moot point for anyone else trying to 
compete.
    Windows XP bundles additional products with the operating system 
people used to buy seperately (i.e. firewall software). Although 
microsoft's products are initially inferior, they eventually win out 
since users are forced to pay for its development even if they don't 
use it.
    Thank you for your time.

[[Page 24122]]

    _James Willis



MTC-00002619

From: Boemmels Larry (Platt)
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/3/01 2:43pm
Subject: Computer Acquisition
    I believe that the settlement that Microsoft has agreed to will 
help our young people and not big business. Usually settlements of 
this type will benefit large business or the government. I am happy 
to see that this settlement will benefit education and will 
contribute to preparing our young people for society by giving them 
the tools to improve their knowledge through the use of computers. 
As an educator I am please with the decission and I am interested in 
knowing how our school system could benefit. We could use twenty-
five (classroom size) pentium computers. Please provide any 
information you can. Thank you.
    Larry Boemmels



MTC-00002620

From: Robert Carrarie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 3:19pm
Subject: SETTLEMENT
    BAD SETTLEMENT
    MICROSOFT SHOULD BE TWO COMPANIES



MTC-00002621

From: Denis Letelier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 5:06pm
    Do not allow Microsoft to take over the education market by 
giving away PCs.
    Denis Letelier
    Against Spam? http://www.cauce.org/



MTC-00002622

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft
    To whom it may concern:
    We are concerned about the proposed settlement with Microsoft. 
We feel that they will eventually become such a monopoly that we 
will have NO choices when we buy software.
    Please stop this company from limiting our choices by taking a 
strong position against them.
    Sincerely,
    Gerald & Judith Arnold
    418 Aiken Road
    Shelbyville, KY 40065



MTC-00002623

From: Steve Gulyas
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoft [email protected]. 
gov@inetgw,...
Date: 12/3/01 3:48pm
Subject: Disagreement with Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I, Stephen W. Gulyas, a resident of Michigan at 1094 Greenhills 
Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, oppose the proposed settlement between 
Microsoft and the various states:
    I am fully dissatisfied with the proposed agreement between 
Microsoft and the state governments regarding its monopoly charge. 
The proposed penalties do nothing to weaken Microsoft's current 
powerful position and do little to discourage them from changing 
practices in the future. I find some public gestures, such as 
donating computer to schools, simply nauseating.
    The penalties to be imposed do not provide for a fair, 
competitive environment for the computer industry going forward. 
Ample time must be given to have new companies time to blossom. 
Stringent agreements preventing software and hardware ties must be 
implemented. Microsoft's ability to work with and contract to third 
parties, in attempts to circumvent any proposed penalties, must be 
disrupted. I fully support the original decision to break up 
Microsoft into AT LEAST two companies. Finally, Microsoft must be 
harshly reprimanded for past wrongs. They have shown no remorse 
throughout this process, and have continually rebuffed the system. 
Only monetary penalties in the tens of billions of dollars range 
will get their attention.
    The computer market has been stifled of creativity for nearly a 
decade. Please severly increase the tenure and amount of penalties 
against Microsoft to ensure a fair marketplace in the future.
    _Steve
    * Steve Gulyas *
    * E-mail:[email protected]*
    * URL: http://www.orie.cornell.edu/gulyas *



MTC-00002624

From: Jim A. Kuypers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 4:56pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear sir or Madam,
    I feel Mocrosoft has abused its position in the computer 
industry. This has led to the mass marketing of mediocre software at 
prices specifically designed to beat out better products.
    All of us have lost over this. I hope you will force Microsoft 
to make amends. No wrist slapping will help here; the cost to 
Microsoft must be just below what will cause them to implode.
    thank you,
    Jim Kuypers



MTC-00002625

From: Warren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 5:41pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Anti-trust case
    You asked for comments to help Judge Colleen Kolar-Kotelly to 
decide the case in the best interest of the consumer. I am a 
consumer who thinks that Microsoft got a bad rap from the beginning 
along with most everyone else in our area. I have been very 
satisfied with Microsoft products. The Companies and States who 
think the settlement is inadequate are just looking for something 
for nothing. Bill Gates just knew how to build a better mouse trap 
and stay ahead of his competition. Sure, maybe Gates has been a 
little too aggresive in the past, but his company hasn't hurt any 
consumer that I know of. This whole business from the beginning has 
been a case of "sour grapes".
    Warren Schweppe (retired)
    Edmonds, Washington



MTC-00002626

From: James Worster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 5:26pm
Subject: Breakup
    Justice Department,
    Microsoft continues to build and maintain it's monopoly in the 
computer industry and should be broken-up. The proposed settlement 
with schools is a clear indication they have not changed. They will 
continue as they have in the past. A monopoly does more harm than 
good and the proposed settlement proposed by Justice is inadequate 
and ineffective.
    I owe a PC as well as other computers and I use computers at 
work daily, so I'm not saying this to hurt Microsoft. I think they 
are a good company and a bigger monopoly will hurt them more in the 
long run. This can't go on forever. I think it's better to break 
them up now, as it will cause less problems than at some point in 
the future.
    Please reconsider the Justice Departments' decision to let 
Microsoft off the hook. The only effective remedy is to break up the 
Microsoft monopoly, NOW!
    Sincerely,
    James Worster
    3405 W. 16th Street #25
    Greeley, CO 80634
    [email protected]



MTC-00002627

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 12/3/01 5:20pm
Subject: MS Antitrust Suit
    I appreciate that the DoJ is seeking new comments on the 
Microsoft antitrust situation. My insight and comments as a customer 
and proponent for holding Microsoft accountable are as follows:
    Why does Microsoft build players, plug-ins, and applications 
that work on HP Unix, but not on Linux?
    Netscape and Real Networks build applications that run on Unix, 
Linux, Windows, and NT, and they are significantly less well 
"heeled" than Microsoft ... Why does Microsoft not 
support file systems of other operating systems, such as Linux 
(ext2) or MacOS? Linux supports Microsoft file systems, and the open 
source movement has much less resources, funding, and corporate 
backing than Microsoft...
    Why is Linux the last Unix-based operating system Microsoft 
targets for the few applications it decides to port to other OSes, 
when Linux is the most widely used of all Unix-based OSes? Netscape, 
Apple, and Real Networks offer releases on all these operating 
systems almost simultaneously...
    Why do major vendors, such as Compaq, build their hardware to 
work specifically with a certain version of Windows, thus requiring 
a new PC purchase to obtain the benefits of a new Windows version? I 
can install all versions of Red Hat Linux on my Compaq laptop, but 
the BIOS explicitly prevents my modem from working with Windows 2000 
(even though the PC is listed on the 2000 hardware compatibility 
list)...

[[Page 24123]]

    Why do Windows operating systems not recognize partitions 
dedicated to other (competing) operating systems? Install Windows on 
a PC with Linux on it and you will generally lose your boot sector 
pointer to the Linux partition, while Linux during installation will 
notice Windows operating systems on partitions and seamlessly allow 
you to boot from and use those other operating systems...
    Why is it that Microsoft has so easily been successful in 
preventing hardware vendors from openly supporting other operating 
systems? Up until a few years ago, you could not buy a Compaq or HP 
server or desktop with Linux installed on it, due to the exclusive 
license agreements they secured, and to this date most companies 
have a robust Linux offering even though it's generally well hidden 
within their site (in the /linux directory, etc., with little or no 
associated advertising or direct links to it from their main 
page)...
    Why is it that when you buy hard drives and other peripherals, 
they explicitly say on the package that Windows 98 (or other 
Microsoft OS) is REQUIRED, or that it was "designed for" 
Windows? A hard drive is a hard drive, and I have had no problems 
installing any version of Red Hat Linux on any of these hardware 
devices, with or without Windows installed...
    Why is it that the direct experience of countless IT shops (and 
off the record Oracle comments and opinions) is that Oracle on a 
Linux server, other hardware being equal, outperforms Oracle on NT/
2000 by orders of magnitude, and yet there have been no industry 
efforts (especially by Oracle, who may be getting their arm twisted) 
to prove it using any of the many metrics they have for doing so? 
Instead, they continue to compare Oracle on HP or Sun to Oracle on 
NT/2000...
    Why is it that Microsoft was successful in getting DoD to modify 
(water down) their DII-COE standards to allow NT to be certified, 
but there has been little or no effort to provide the same level of 
certification to Linux so they can get the all important "seal 
of approval" to compete against Microsoft in one of the most 
lucrative sectors of IT spending (the US government)? The Air Force 
has done studies proving that DII-COE compliance would be 
straightforward for Linux, but nobody is leading the charge to make 
it happen, so Microsoft maintains their stranglehold on the 
market...
    Why is it that Microsoft is once again allowed to "embrace 
and extend (choke to death)" evolving standards, such as the 
Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) being pursued by the 
DoD? The SCORM standard is inherently non-OS and non-browser 
dependent, but along comes a well-heeled Microsoft-led consortium to 
develop a competing standard "CLEO" that, surprisingly 
enough, ONLY WORKS WITH MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER!!!...
    The stranglehold Microsoft has on the market has resulted in 
some of the worst dichotomies of our times. The DoD loses hundreds 
of millions, possibly billions of dollars per year, due to down time 
and cleanup of Internet Explorer and Outlook related viruses that 
proliferate due to the widely known poor security models of 
Microsoft products designed to be "user friendly" rather 
than secure. However, DoD continues to use both widely, rather than 
the much more secure and relatively trouble-free Netscape products. 
They have this stranglehold because the DoJ has been incapable, and 
recently unwilling (since the election and rise to power of our 
business-friendly Republican government), to hold Microsoft 
accountable.
    Everyone in the marketplace knows Microsoft dearly deserves to 
have their ears slapped back some, and that in the long run the 
market will be much better off for it, despite any near-term 
impacts. Based on his direct quotes in the trades, and the fact that 
he brought forth a class action lawsuit, the Compaq CEO was clearly 
livid about the way his company was being manipulated in the early 
90's by Microsoft, but his memory became extremely fuzzy on the 
issue during the trial_amazing how that can happen after you 
realize a few years later that being "in bed" with 
Microsoft is not exactly a bad thing for your company, its stock 
price, your stock options, etc. However, the lucrative nature of 
these relationships, and the ensuing unwillingness of those bringing 
suit to hold their course, should not prevent DoJ from attempting to 
do the right thing and hold Microsoft accountable for breaking the 
antitrust laws, where it can be proven they clearly are doing so.
    Thanks,
    Duane Hellums
    IT guru, writer, and independent consultant
    MSIS, Hawaii Pacific University
    Author, "Red Hat Linux Installation and Configuration
    Handbook, "Frong Page Unleashed," and several
    Microsoft competitive white papers
    IT/IS Program Manager, Programmer, Network/System
    Administrator, Computer Security Manager



MTC-00002628

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 6:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Microsoft settlement is a political payoff to 
someone. This settlement is weaker than the one imposed on Microsoft 
for Windows 95. I personnally am embarassed to admit that I voted 
for the Republican party when they care so little for those of us 
without any substantial wealth.



MTC-00002629

From: Lu Timdale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 6:19pm
Subject: Disagree with MS Settlement
    How is it possible that a monopolist be able to set its own 
remedy; especially one which has a ton of loopholes. It is obvious 
that the senators who signed the settlement were paid off by 
Microsoft. Either that or they are incompetent or did not do a good 
enough job.
    Thank You.
    Lu Timdale



MTC-00002630

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 6:18pm
    I have not been able to get the full text of the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I am responding to the following quote from 
www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/press_usschools.html 
Microsoft had proposed that, in settlement of class-action claims of 
price-gouging, the company donate computer hardware, software and 
support to 14,000 poor school districts throughout the United 
States. Under the proposed settlement, a substantial part of the 
value provided to schools would be in the form of Microsoft 
software.
    I agree with Red Hat Software's conclusion that allowing 
Microsoft to reduce restrictions by donating software is poor public 
policy. I would argue that one, such donations cost Microsoft far 
less than their stated value, and two, they encourage the very 
behavior the consent decree is intended to prevent.
    Please consider banning Microsoft from including the values of 
their own products in the valuation of any donation made under the 
consent decree. This will encourage them to donate much-needed 
hardware without providing them with greater market share.
    POINT ONE: Software production costs, far more than production 
costs for any other good, are almost entirely spent in development. 
As Microsoft itself has pointed out during complaints against 
software piracy, it costs perhaps five or ten cents to produce a 
copy of an existing disk. Furthermore, in most cases the actual 
disks are not included with new computers; the programs simply are 
copied to the new computer's disk. It is not inconceivable that in 
this case the production cost may, in fact, be well below a penny 
per computer.
    If you will concede that a poor school is unlikely to purchase a 
new computer and is more likely to simply make do with donations, 
then software donations should not be viewed as lost sales.
    Therefore, it can be concluded that software donations cost 
Microsoft almost nothing, and therefore do not, in themselves, 
punish Microsoft.
    POINT TWO: Academia is one of very few areas where Microsoft is 
not the leading software provider. By donating large amounts of 
their software, Microsoft extends their market share, at no cost, 
while gaining a great deal of positive publicity. I am most 
concerned with the the market extension, since it will provide them 
with yet another foothold with which to maintain their monopoly.



MTC-00002631

From: Jeff Boody
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 7:43pm
Subject: DOJ/Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    DOJ,
    I believe that this settlement is a step in the right direction, 
however Microsoft is already several steps ahead. One example is 
Microsoft's MSN network. I currently use Qwest.net as my internet 
provider but recently received a letter from Qwest which announced 
that they had "formed an alliance with Microsoft Network 
(MSN)." The letter informed that I MUST transition my account

[[Page 24124]]

to avoid service interruption. In addition, the letter states that 
"MSN Internet Access is available to users of the Windows (R) 
98 or later operating systems."
    This action seems to have been taken without regard to users of 
non-Microsoft operating systems (except for Mac OS 8.6 or later 
ONLY). As a Linux user, I especially despise this action. Qwest has 
made no attempt to inform customers how to obtain an internet 
provider other than MSN. Hopefully one of their customer 
represenatives will be helpful in resolving this problem.
    I know that this is just one example, but I don't think that the 
current settlement will be very successful in resolving problems 
such as this.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Boody
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00002632

From: Michael Wang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 7:27pm
Subject: MS's proposed remedy will fatten the beast further more?
    Of course they will provide THEIR goods and THEIR services to 
stomp out the competition even more.
    The penalty they pay must not benefit themselves.
    "The goals of the government were to obtain relief that 
stops Microsoft from engaging in unlawful conduct, prevent any 
recurrence of that conduct in the future, and restore competition in 
the software market. . .."
    _DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE I liked the idea of having them 
provide solutions where it compensate the competitors and consumers 
the damages and harms they have caused.
    Red Hat Inc had brought up a very good point, that if Microsoft 
spends one million on hardware alone and let all other vendors 
provide the softwares, this would seem to be more benefitial for the 
under-priviledged populations and allow more competitions in the 
market.
    "This would increase the number of computers available 
under the original proposal from 200,000 to more than one million, 
and would increase the number of systems per school from 
approximately 14 to at least 70."
    http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/
press_usschools.html
    Allow the willing vendors to place their softwares on those 
sytems and not that of Microsoft again, lest we worsen this problem 
for the future.
    sincerely,
    System Administrator and QA Engineer
    Michael Wang



MTC-00002633

From: Stephen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 7:08pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement inadequate
    I implore you to fight the settlement offer tendered by 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. Microsoft has again and 
again shown willingness to use its significant market power to shut 
other developers and platforms out of the software and hardware 
market. As a loyal Apple user form many years, I have tried to 
resist the Windows monopoly only to find with increasing frequency, 
that the service or software are no longer available to non-Windows 
users.
    For example, Intuit stops producing Quickbooks for the Macintosh 
because of the market size. Microsoft never published the Access 
Database software for the Mac. Why, because if the Mac does not have 
a Office bundled database, it will be viewed as an inferior platform 
and business will go with the Windows version of Office. Why has the 
Mac been able to read Windows formatted disk for over 10 years but a 
Windows computer cannot read a Macintosh formatted disk? It is not a 
hardware problem but a software problem. You can buy third party 
software to do this, but Microsoft has chosen not to include this 
software in Windows. The only reason again can be to cripple a 
competing computing platform.
    Now I am finding websites on the internet that are using 
Microsoft only technologies that exclude non-Windows platforms. The 
web designers have a choice but Microsoft ties the features to their 
software. Example is Passport and Windows Media Player. Media Player 
is always a version or two behind in the Mac version, so the new 
features will not work. Passport is a nominous concept that has 
already locked non-Windows users out of sites that use it. I'm not 
talking about small hobby sites, I have even seen this on large 
catalog sites. Microsoft is already using its muscle to change 
internet standards consortium's set standards its way.
    Through experience, Microsoft will continue its ways unless 
stopped. The settlement is extremely inappropriate as it continues 
with tying products. Microsoft will give $1 billion in software, 
training and hardware (which will actually cost a small fraction of 
this after taxes and mfg. cost), so that schools will be required to 
use Microsoft product to teach new computer users because that is 
the only way they can afford to get computers in poor schools. They 
have billions in the bank and can make a billion in 6 months. The 
actual cost of the settlement can be made in a few months of normal 
business and they then are free to care on their marry old ways.
    Behavior must be changed. Please do all that you legally can to 
stop Microsoft's continued monopoly behavior. Monetary punishment 
will not work, you must take markets away from them like the 
AT&T breakup removed local telephone service from AT&T 
markets. That way, competition will have time to develop and survive 
and the market evolve.
    Thank you for your consideration and time.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen Henry
    PO Box 9660
    Santa Rosa, CA 95405
    [email protected]



MTC-00002634

From: David Tarsi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 8:13pm
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust suit
    What Microsoft is proposing is absolutely insane. They already 
have a Monopoly, what are we trying to do encourage more of that 
monopoly? Right, encourage our young people to use the monopoly and 
train them in it. It is like letting the cat watch over the 
hamsters.
    I can't believe that this is even being considered. What has 
happened to this country anyway? Why the hell are we letting 
corporations run our lives for crying out loud? Sure let microsoft 
give the schools computers, but if nothing else WITHOUT SYSTEMS ON 
THEM. Those computers should be loaded with Linux, or Unix so the 
students can learn what they will have to anyway. The Open Source 
Way is the epitome of the American way. It encourages competition 
and allows freedom. The Linux and Unix systems on the market today 
are far and above better than anything microsoft will ever come out 
with. By the time the grade school students of today get out in the 
real world they will be behind horribly if they do not know Linux or 
Unix.
    Open your eyes, fools. Get somebody in there who knows computers 
and common sense.
    Dave T.



MTC-00002635

From: Venkat Sonnathi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 8:09pm
Subject: Please impose harder restrictions. This settlement does not 
prevent.
    Please impose harder restrictions. This settlement does not 
prevent Microsoft from continuing its monopoly.
    Thanks,
    _Venkat.



MTC-00002636

From: Chris Vaughan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 8:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Proposed Settlement
    The proposed settlement by Microsoft is not a good idea. I live 
in a town that would not be considered wealthy by any standard. I 
worked in the computer lab and I know first hand that with the 
grants that are available from our state and from others that our 
school district is not hurting for computers. My understanding is 
that the Technology Director is considering a move away from Windows 
to running an as yet unknown version of Linux for all of the desktop 
computers to save from having all of the licensing problems that go 
along with Microsoft.
    Chris Vaughan
    Wolfe City, Texas



MTC-00002637

From: David McCrum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 7:44pm
Subject: DOJ antitrust suite....
    You guys have no teeth and have lost a great deal of respect. I 
respect Bill Gates to a degree and some of what he has built. But if 
you cannot see a monopoly when it is right in front of you, you need 
to change your line of work.
    As to the schools getting mired into Microsoft. They cannot 
afford the upgrades

[[Page 24125]]

down the road. Let them have the money and do with it as they will. 
Personally I would have preferred to see two or three competing OS's 
that consumers paid for. Unfortunately, Microsoft has created a 
market where the only contender is created and distributed for free, 
and that is Linux. As to the few Linux companies, they are different 
business models based on a free OS that they package and support 
only. Apple can barely be considered a rival to MS.
    I could say more, but all you have to do is go out and talk to 
the technicians and businesses.
    David R. McCrum



MTC-00002638

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 8:24pm
Subject: Do not give in!
    Please do not give into Microsoft's settlement. It will give 
them a continued advantage they did not earn. To give computer and 
software will unfairly establish them in an educational market.



MTC-00002639

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 8:47pm
Subject: Microsoft "Settlement"
    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    It is my understanding that you have solicited public comment on 
the proposed settlement offer, particularly with respect to the plan 
to provide computers and software to schools.
    I would simply say that I strongly object to this offer. It does 
not punish Microsoft in any way_it simply serves to promote 
their monopoly. I recognize that a monopoly is not illegal, but the 
means by which Microsoft has achieved their market share has been 
clearly anti-competitive. I have the utmost respect for true 
innovators and inventors, and Microsoft has been neither. 
Unfortunately, our patent laws have not been adequate to let the 
true innovators profit from their inventions, and now it appears 
that our laws will not protect the "little guys" who 
have been coerced to sell or have been driven out of business by the 
anti-competitive business practices. Our country and it's 
competitive position in the world will ultimately suffer in the long 
term if this short term "fix" is allowed to stand. The 
fact that lots of investors and institutions in this country have 
investments in Microsoft stock is not a reason to prop up the 
company with this settlement. Please reject the 
settlement_Microsoft must answer for their past actions and be 
prohibited from similar actions in the future.
    Thanks for the opportunity to voice my opinion.
    James A. Lilla, M.D.
    5031 Jardin Lane
    Carmichael, CA. 95608



MTC-00002640

From: Robert Rockers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 9:42pm
Subject: RedHats support of the Antitrust settlement
    I have been very upset about the actions of the DOJ concerning 
the MS case. The proposed settlement will do NOTHING to affect the 
MS monopoly in the software OS industry. The only good thing I have 
heard come out of the proposal is a suggestion by RedHat Linux 
software. By letting another company, ANY COMPANY supply the 
software for the school, MS will be forced to pay actually money 
(instead of the 10 cents it costs to copy a cd of XP) and at the 
same time will not increase their already legally shown monopoly.
    Robert Rockers
    Norman OK



MTC-00002641

From: Jesse Keville
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 9:12pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    I heard that MS was planning to pay off part of their settlement 
by sending Microsoft software and instruction (instructors?) to 
schools. What a way for MS to turn a penalty into a fantastic 
advertising ploy! Don't let this happen!
    J. F. Keville



MTC-00002642

From: Donald Patridge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 10:06pm
Subject: Microsoft is NOT PUNISHED!!
    Please say no to the settlement for Microsoft. What punishment 
is it? It will only help them get a better foot hold on the market. 
The give away to the schools is the real disaster. It helps force 
the competition out of the school market when schools get free stuff 
from Microsoft. Thanks.
    Mr. Donald Patridge
    Industrial Technology Dept. Head
    F. L. Smart School
    Davenport, IA 52802
    563-323-1837
    Fax 563-323-3093
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00002643

From: Sol Schumer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 10:22pm
Subject: Red Hat's Counter Offer to MS Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement offer by Microsoft is no 
punishment at all, since it would propagate their monopoly further, 
enhancing Microsoft's dominance. Red Hat's  offer is great. I hope the government takes them 
up on it.
    Sol Schumer
    4033 36th Street #4
    San Diego, CA 92104-2380
    RED HAT COUNTERS MICROSOFT'S EDUCATION OFFER
    Microsoft has proposed settling over 100 private antitrust 
lawsuits by pledging to donate more than $1 billion in hardware, 
software, services, and training to the poorest schools in the 
United States, but Red Hat has put forward a counter-proposal. It 
will offer its open-source Red Hat Linux operating system to all 
U.S. school districts free of charge, and has suggested that 
Microsoft concentrate solely on purchasing new hardware. In this 
way, more computers could be made available to schools and 
Microsoft's monopoly would not be extended further into the 
education sector, says Red Hat CEO Matt Szulik. He estimates that 
over one million computers could be allocated to schools under the 
new proposal, compared to 200,000 under the old one. In addition, 
Szulik says that Red Hat will provide free software upgrades and 
license renewals in perpetuity, whereas Microsoft would only provide 
such services for five years. (eWeek Online, 20 November 2001)



MTC-00002644

From: Sammy Dadds
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 10:17pm
Subject: Microsoft class action suit and DOJ settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Class-action suit.
    It seems in the class-action suit that Microsoft is really 
getting rewarded if it is allowed to put any of its software or 
related products into any of the school systems. Sure, the schools 
would benefit but students that use Microsoft's OS and products at 
school will certainly lean towards the same when not at school. This 
would give Microsoft a built in up and coming client base and 
further extend its monopoly.
    A true punishment for Microsoft and even greater benefit for the 
schools would certainly be to have Microsoft provide all monies for 
hardware and competitors software. Apple, Mandrake, RedHat and many 
other software companies would surely provide a wealth of free or 
low cost software for the cause. DOJ settlement.
    Since Microsoft will not be split into two companies why is 
there no provision to keep all operating system (OS) code separate 
from the application code. This is the major problem. As Microsoft 
prepares new features for the OS the applications are immediately 
prepared to take advantage of the features. Competitors (me) are not 
able to even start building applications until Microsoft releases an 
approved Application Programming Interface (API) (which does not 
include everything Microsoft is using) for the new features. This 
keeps competitors completely in the dark. Could Microsoft 
applications be made to wait before being able to develop for the 
new features? Maybe the panel of experts could look for this. The 
latest example is Microsoft Office XP being released months before 
Windows XP OS was released. Microsoft is a monopoly and has won this 
battle. I think the DOJ did the best they could under today's 
circumstances. I, however, am feverishly working with other OS's and 
developer tools to help equal the balance of power. Same thing when 
I vote, I like equal amounts of Democrats and Republicans.
    Sincerely,
    Samuel F. Dadds III



MTC-00002645

From: Michael Sacco
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 11:36pm
Subject: College Student
    Hi. I would just like to let you know that I use RedHat Linux on 
my computer, and use the office programs for my work at school. I

[[Page 24126]]

feel that linux would be great in the classrooms. First off, the 
Star Office suite offers productivity programs of the same quality 
as Microsoft. Also, they are fully compatible, by exporting file 
formats into Microsoft Format. Second, linux is a great learning 
tool of the computer, seeing as how it's source code is available 
for perusal by everybody. What better way to understand how an 
operating system is built than to look at the programming code? With 
Microsoft, you can't see the code, so the operating system is a 
mystery. I do not understand how that can teach kids. Third, linux 
has become a standard desktop for millions of people worldwide. The 
strides in ease of use have been phenomenal. A look at www.kde.org 
will show you the effort made to make the operating system easy to 
use. Fourth, almost all software for linux is free! Almost all 
software for windows is not! By placing Windows OS on the computers, 
the schools will have no choice but to put a significant amount of 
money into them at a later date. Linux distributions offer their 
latest versions free for all. No limitations implemented. Fifth, 
since Linux source code is available to all, it is frequently being 
fixed and updated. With Windows, only employees get to browse the 
source code, so mistakes and improvements take much longer to fix. 
Using Windows on these computers simply allows Microsoft to continue 
its monopoly. However, using Linux gives these children the same 
working knowledge and use as Windows does, only the benefits will 
outlast the licenses of the Windows ball and chain. Thank you for 
your time.
    Sincerely,
    Michael A. Sacco



MTC-00002646

From: Hipp, Michael (N-RCM)
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/3/01 11:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Comment_GET THE MONEY BACK!!!
    Microsoft stole money. Billions!
    When someone steals money, you put them in jail and take back 
the money. Microsoft illegally profited by exploiting its monopoly 
position. They stole money! Maybe you can't put Microsoft in jail, 
but you should at least try to recoup the stolen money and reimburse 
the victims. Reimburse the consumers who were forced to buy 
Microsoft's inferior products and were overcharged in the process. 
Reimburse the shareholders of Microsoft's competitors who were 
drummed out of business or otherwise devastated by Microsofts 
illegal tactics_Software Publishing Corp., for example. Your 
proposed "settlement" might, at the very best, compel 
Microsoft to steal a little less for a while. More likely, they will 
continue to pillage at a record pace knowing that maybe, just maybe 
after another six years and hundred billion dollars you might, once 
again, politely ask them to stop. But then, they'll still get to 
keep the money.
    I'm sure other would be antitrust bandits are quaking in their 
boots.
    M. Hipp
    Fremont, California



MTC-00002647

From: Ed Marks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 10:58pm
Subject: Insufficient remedy for Microsoft monopolistic practices
    Dear sir/maam,
    I want to express to you my dissafaction with the Microsoft 
settlement. I feel strongly that Microsoft should be broken up as 
was originally proposed.
    Regards,
    Eddy Marks
    Home Phone: (619) 280-9742
    Email: [email protected]
    Address: 4704 East Mountain View Drive San Diego, CA. 92116



MTC-00002648

From: Mike Bair
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 10:26pm
Subject: Microsoft's "settlement"
    I am very, very disturbed that Microsoft's proposal to donate a 
huge number of computers to schools is being considered seriously as 
part of a monopoly settlement case. The only large market in 
computing that Microsoft does not completely dominate is the 
education market.
    To allow the company greater inroads into this market as a 
"punishment" for abusive corporate methodology is an 
insult to the American people. It is a slap in the face of anyone 
who dares believe that Big Business does not pull the strings of the 
federal government (as if that government were just one more company 
to bully, threaten, and coerce). Microsoft's tactics here are as 
aggressive and obvious as their business practices.
    As a taxpayer, I hope that the word 'monopoly' still 
has some meaning. Give Microsoft what it wants here, and you 
undermine the very concept of monopoly protection for your citizens.
    As a veteran who served his country with distinction, I demand 
that my government act with honor. Please do not embarrass us all in 
the eyes of the world...
    Very sincerely,
    Michael A. Bair



MTC-00002649

From: Scott Ashton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/3/01 11:43pm
Subject: Anti-Trust Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I do not believe that the settlement proposed by the Department 
of Justice provides a reasonable penalty for Microsoft. In fact it 
would appear that the Department of Justice is actually helping 
Microsoft to secure business within the education sector.
    First and foremost, the software portion that Microsoft will be 
"giving away" isn't exactly a gift. In most cases, 
Microsoft will in fact be securing additional market share. By 
providing Microsoft operating systems and Intel based hardware to 
run their OS on, Microsoft will in essence have a captive audience.
    Additionally, Microsoft will only provide technical support for 
three years, at which time they stand to generate even more revenue 
by selling support services.
    Microsoft being ordered to "give-away" its software 
is like the tobacco companies being ordered to install cigarette 
machines in schools.
    Throughout the DOJ probe in fact Microsoft continued its 
monopolistic practices. In fact several months ago I was speaking to 
a sales representative at Gateway (a personal computer manufacturer 
that my company deals with on a regular basis) I was considering 
ordering our computers without an operating system, so that I could 
install an open-source operating system called Linux. I was told by 
the sales representative that they could ship the computers without 
the operating system, but we would still have to pay for the 
Microsoft operating system because they had a contract with 
Microsoft. The business that I work for is a non-profit hospital 
center in an urban environment. We recently replaced approximately 
six hundred computers. If we could have installed an open source 
operating system (at no cost) versus two hundred dollars per 
computer for Windows 2000, we would have saved one hundred and 
twenty thousand dollars.
    Microsoft has damaged many businesses via its unscrupulous 
practices. I would propose that Microsoft have to provide non-
Microsoft based systems (there are many viable alternatives) in 
order to fulfill the DOJ sanction.
    Over the years companies like Apple (very popular among 
schools), Sun Microsystems, Netscape, and many others (quite a few 
no longer in business as a result) have been damaged by Microsoft. 
All of these companies offer hardware and or software that could be 
used as part of this settlement.
    And what recourse for organizations such as mine that have been 
strong-armed by Microsoft? Certainly we can't afford to litigate 
against such a giant. Its sad, one hundred and twenty thousand 
dollars could have bought vital medical equipment, or underwrote 
desperately needed charity care. For the sake of my organization as 
well as so many others that have been harmed by Microsoft's illegal 
business practices I hope that the DOJ will make the right decision.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    _Scott Ashton
    [email protected]
    71 Cheverny Court
    Hamilton, New Jersey 08619



MTC-00002650

From: guzu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 12:45am
Subject: microsoft blackmale
    we want microsoft stop blackmaling people all around the world. 
we will kill it if we can we will help it if we must. it is not a 
company based on good products, it's a company based on cheating and 
liing clients. they pay hackers to crack it's products so that 
anyone can use it. then, theycome to the important companies and 
give them two choices: sign a contract to microsoft or go to jail. 
maybe you can stop them (honestly i don't think you can)
    cornel panceac
    romania



MTC-00002651

From: Rod Ford
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 24127]]

Date: 12/4/01 12:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the recent settlement agreement with Microsoft and the 
DOJ is one that does not punish Microsoft for it's illegal actions, 
but rather rewards them. This settlement allows Microsoft to place 
its products into the local school systems where it currently does 
not exercise a monopoly. But this settlement will now give them a 
monopoly where once Apple and Open Source software could compete for 
desktop space.
    I am further appalled at the language of the settlement that 
finds no wrong-doing by Microsoft. This language seems to ignore the 
monopoly and strong-arm tactics evident in this case. In my opinion 
the DOJ should come down much stronger against Microsoft, forcing 
the company to publish the source code for its operating systems, as 
well as:
    * adhere to standards established by the W3C organization in the 
development of browser technology.
    * integrate all browsers within the operating system
    * provide consumers with some type of refund for exaggerated 
software costs
    * provide businesses with a similar refund
    * submit to review of all contracts with 3rd party developers, 
hardware manufacturers, etc.
    The DOJ should also take a serious look at the proposal by Red 
Hat at http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/
press_usschools.html. This proposal allows Microsoft to be 
punished financially while providing more equipment for schools. It 
also allows no one company to begin a monopoly in the school system, 
where people begin their computer experiences and become consumers 
of the future.
    Rod Ford
    Florence, Ky
    859-371-7417



MTC-00002652

From: Budhy R. Budhyarto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 1:53am
Subject: Settlement
    The settlement reached by the Justice Department with Microsoft 
is useless. It will not prevent Microsoft from continuing with its 
practice of bundling. The only remedy should be the splitting of 
Microsoft along the fields of Operating System and Application 
Software.



MTC-00002653

From: Rick Jenkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft monopoly
    I'm not sure if you wish to take into account the opinions of a 
foreigner, but you can always junk this if not.
    Microsoft has a long history of stealing the bulk of its 
software. Even the first version of MS/DOS was merely QDOS (Quick 
and Dirty Operating System), a microkernel developed for embedded 
applications, with disk drivers added by Bill Gates. Hence the 
emphasis placed on the disk drivers in the name MS/DOS (MicroSoft 
Disk Operating System). As far as I am aware, the only company to 
win a lawsuit against Microsoft was Stacker, and they were promptly 
taken over, lock stock and barrel, by ... Microsoft. Few 
can afford to oppose a company with Microsoft's budget. Such theft 
hampers, or in most cases prevents, the development of competing 
software companies.
    If mere theft and suppression of competition were the only 
issues, one might say that Microsoft was little worse than many 
other large corporations. A deeper issue is that the continuing 
monoculture of operating systems is a threat to the health of the 
software industry in general, and to all industries which rely on 
computers. Viruses targeted at Microsoft systems can do immense 
damage to the entire infrastructure of your nation, by damaging 
business records and hindering communication.
    There exist no viruses which effectively attack Linux, because 
security was considered from the outset of the design, and because 
problems are rapidly tackled as soon as they are found; often, an 
effective patch is freely available on the internet within hours of 
the discovery of a problem. This demonstrates that an operating 
system, even a popular one, need not display the extreme 
vulnerability of Microsoft's systems.
    Unless Microsoft can be spurred to improve its systems, 
particularly in respect of security, the U.S. will remain 
vulnerable. By encouraging their monopoly position, the D.O.J. is 
effectively encouraging them to continue to produce poor, insecure, 
and excessively vulnerable systems. It is likely that the U.S. 
national interest would be well served if real competition existed 
in operating system design, so that viruses targeting particular 
systems were less effective. At present, there appears some danger 
that Microsoft could collapse altogether under the weight of its own 
incompetence and complacency, leaving a vacuum which could be filled 
only by Linux. This would lead to another monoculture, admittedly of 
a much better quality system, but not necessarily much less 
dangerous.
    I would urge you to reduce the power of Microsoft to dominate 
the operating system market, in order that Microsoft may survive.
    Rick Jenkins 
    Hartman Technica http://www.hartmantech.com
    Phone +1 (403) 230-1987 voice & fax
    221 35 Avenue. N.E., Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2E 2K5



MTC-00002654

From: Tom Vilot
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 3:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I appreciate the Justice Department's attempts at coming to a 
speedy conclusion to the Microsoft anti-trust dispute.
    However, I do not believe the proposed settlement is a 
sufficient remedy. In fact, in many ways I feel the 
"settlement" amounts to capitulation on the part of the 
Justice Department. The fundamental problem with Microsoft's 
*illegally created* monopoly and its continuing existence is the 
amount to which it is limiting competition in the computer industry. 
Companies like Apple, RedHat and Be have had an incredibly high 
barrier to entry simply in virtue of Microsoft's 
"ownership" of the entire desktop market. While I 
applaud Microsoft's success in building a very successful business, 
I do not appreciate their strong-arm tactics which have made it near 
impossible for competitors to fight on an equal playing field. I 
want as much choice in free enterprise as our country can create and 
encourage.
    Microsoft's contracts which preclude any modification of the 
boot loader, for example, inherently makes it impossible for any 
other operating system vendor to compete side-by-side with 
Microsoft.
    Furthermore, the proposal in this settlement whereby Microsoft 
will "donate" hardware and software to the country's 
poorest schools is, at best, a tap on the wrist and at worst it 
actually *extends* Microsoft's monopolistic practice into yet 
another marketplace where Microsoft does not yet have dominance. 
Please reconsider your settlement. You are not doing us consumers 
and software developers any favors by failing to reprimand Microsoft 
for its illegal practices.
    Thank you.



MTC-00002655

From: McMunn, Jerry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 8:27am
Subject: Opinion Regarding Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I am expressing this opinion as an individual and not speaking 
on behalf of my employer or anyone else.
    I am of the opinion that you have not done enough to stop & 
reverse the monopolistic behavior of Microsoft. The recent changes 
in licensing along with the invasive nature of the Passport feature 
of Windows XP are examples. Also, notice the high prices of Windows 
XP and Office XP. These are exorbitant and would not exist if there 
was competition.
    This company has proved that it cannot be trusted and it appears 
to me that your settlement shows that the DOJ is willing to look the 
other way and grant Microsoft a de facto license to continue along 
the path it wants. This is a bad deal for the public and holds us 
hostage.
    Thanks for providing me the opportunity to express my opinion.
    Regards,
    Jerry A. McMunn, R.Ph.
    Vice President, Technical Services
    Phone: xxx-xxx-3148
    Fax: xxx-xxx-4736
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00002656

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]. 
edu@inetgw,uag@a...
Date: 12/4/01 9:00am
Subject: Please rein in Microsoft
    Sirs:
    Strong sanctions against microsoft are appropriate.
    Controlling Microsoft is not just about their domination in the 
market place. Yes, they have good products, but compared to what? 
Compared to alternatives that have never

[[Page 24128]]

seen the light of day. But moreover, it is a matter of speech: 
Microsoft is media, and behemoth corporations are not a good thing 
for this country.
    Yes, there can be other behemoths that might compete with them, 
but that is NOT the way to run a train. AOL-TimeWarner, Rupert 
Murdoch, Microsoft and someplace in there is the United States 
government, which is the representative of the people, growing 
relatively smaller and weaker and subject to influence of 
corporations that can run their states ragged. California knows the 
railroads, West Virginia knows the coal industry, and even the 
United States has known Standard Oil.
    This is serious business. The only remedy for Microsoft is now 
structural: without an effective means of defining and enforcing 
consent decrees, that is all that is left.
    Absent structural changes, we will see very unpleasant effects 
of Microsofts dominance in the next 10 years that may remind us all 
of the one basket approach, in Ireland, when that basket held one 
kind of potato. Here, an overwhelming percentage of the population 
will have the same software, throught which most of their 
information will flow but whose workings are unknown to us.
    Gerald Berke
    Woodstock NY
    Computer Selections



MTC-00002657

From: Charles Yaker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 8:43am
Subject: Antitrust
    A judge has ruled that Microsoft violated the antitrust laws a 
view which has been painfully obvious for some time.
    The current agreement however allows them to continue their 
predatory practices. This is wrong and will in the end inhibit 
inventors, developers and investors from working in any area that 
might be in competition with Microsoft. It doesn't make sense to 
invest in any application that Microsoft can integrate into its 
operating system.
    When the World Wide Web first entered the scene Microsoft was 
caught napping they didn't believe that the Internet would be so 
popular. Yet by virtue of their control of the Desktop they quickly 
supplanted Netscape. Their New product XP with Windows Media Player 
and Active X is supplanting Real Radio Player and Sun's Java. 
Nothing has changed. Microsoft has continually disregarded consent 
decrees. What makes this one any different?
    Without a strong deterrent or break up, which the current plan 
does not provide, Microsoft will continue with it's predatory ways, 
Innovation and investment will be depressed and the public will be 
short changed not to mention the risk however small that new 
revolutionary technology could be developed outside of the United 
States and supplant our leadership.



MTC-00002658

From: Paul Ashford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 9:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dir Sir or Madam,
    While the proposed settlement does do a lot to try and make a 
level playing field within the computer industry, I do not believe 
it goes far enough. Microsoft has shown us in the past, that it is a 
company that cannot be trusted. In the eyes of many people, 
Microsoft has done no wrong. The reason people believe this, is that 
they don't really have any direct involvement with the company, 
outside of the fact that they probably use there operating system 
and other products.
    People don't realize that they could have a better computer 
"experience" if other companies could have competed with 
Microsoft. Case in point, being the BeOS, made by Be, Inc. This 
company is now going out of business. They had a truly great 
operating system, that was small, but powerful, and could do almost 
anything the Microsoft OS's could do. Some may say it was poor 
marketing on Be's behalf, that caused them failure. But, due to 
contracts Microsoft held with OEMs, they could not get their OS 
installed on manufacturer's machines. Making Microsoft open up the 
contracts a little to allow multiple OS's on a newly distributed 
machine, does not help out companies have been hurt in the past. 
Especially now, that the only OS really around that can be used on 
an Intel machine, is Linux, and most people would not want to use 
that. Forcing of the API and related documents to be published by 
Microsoft will not help in any way. The current documentation that 
they release is dreadful, and I cannot expect that it would get any 
better. Forcing Microsoft to remove icons and and menu entries to 
their products does not mean those products are uninstalled. 
Microsoft has tied the Internet Explorer browser so tightly into 
their operating systems, that uninstalling them would mean a lot of 
work, but this would not be impossible. They may say that it is, but 
I tell you it is not. Nothing is impossible.
    This should be a punishment, not a slap on the wrist. Microsoft 
has hurt a lot of people and businesses. Yes, they have helped in 
making computers more common place, but they did this while 
fattening their own pockets, and not allowing others to join in the 
rewards.
    So, as you can see, I am against this settlement, and hope that 
it will be rejected. Microsoft should not be allowed to get 
"off" as easily as you are proposing.
    Thank you,
    Paul Ashford



MTC-00002659

From: koby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 9:04am
Subject: what to do with microsoft
    Microsoft has proven to be an anti competitive company. its 
actions benefit only microsoft.
    I believe that:
    1. linux should be brought to all of the schools in the U.S
    2. microsoft should transfer a few bilion dollars to companys 
like Netscape (companys that they caused damage to by using the ms 
os monopoly)
    3. there should be greater government support of open source 
companys (not only moral support...)
    4. make companys that sell computers sell them with other 
operating systems.
    5. restrict production of microsoft software.
    6. give microsoft heavy fines.
    7. take out the i/e from the os



MTC-00002660

From: Bill Benoit
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 10:00am
Subject: Comments on Microsoft and Settlement
    (1) Is it true that companies had to pay Microsoft royalties for 
Windows even if they didn't put Windows on their machines? If so, 
Microsoft must be punished, and punished enough that the damage will 
get its attention.
    (2) The idea that Microsoft is not able (= competent) to 
separate its Internet browser from Windows is, well, laughable. 
Their defense should be consider offensive to anyone with even 
marginal intelligence.
    Again, they must be chastised in a way they cannot ignore.
    William L. Benoit
    Professor of Communication
    University of Missouri



MTC-00002661

From: Henry Ammons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 10:55am
Subject: Settlement
    Good day.
    I would like to add my voice among those who disagree with the 
proposed settlement of Microsoft's antitrust suit. Education is the 
last (and fading) stronghold for Apple computer, and to have 
Microsoft place its products for free in schools would be the death 
of Apple. The only way this would work is to have Microsoft PURCHASE 
NEW APPLE EQUIPMENT with the fine $'s and place it in 
schools_this being an actual punishment.
    Think, please.
    Henry Ammons



MTC-00002662

From: Fenton Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 10:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello. As a user of an Apple computer for many years, I have 
watched in dismay as we have been squeezed into a smaller and 
smaller corner. I don't think that people outside the field realize 
the tremendous pressure that Microsoft has put on everyone else.
    The basic fact is that computers are interconnected. More and 
more interaction and complexity is the wave of the future. If one 
company has monopoly control of the standards, and control means any 
power to create incompatibility for others, then we will be looking 
at a 100% monopoly in the not too distant future.
    It is only in education at the moment that Microsoft does not 
have a crushing monopoly. Allowing them to give their software to 
schools is not a punishment for them. It costs them almost nothing 
to give software to schools, especially to schools

[[Page 24129]]

which could not afford it otherwise, and they have money to burn in 
any case. It is control they are after. Only the government has the 
power to stop them at this point.
    That in itself says something about their stranglehold on the 
industry. Please do not encourage them to expand their monopoly. 
That is not what this country is about.
    Fenton Jones
    http://fentonjones.com
    FM 101 tutorial series w/example files
    Free files!
    (619) 692-1529
    San Diego, CA



MTC-00002663

From: John McGibney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 10:40am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I can't believe that the Dept of Justice is proposing a 
settlement where in you are extending Microsoft's Monopoly power! 
you are about to let them get a foothold into another area of 
commerce, namely the schools. This is the only area of the computer 
industry where Microsoft isn't in the majority. Don't you realize 
that even as their attorneys were negotiating with the DOJ that 
Microsoft was still bullying computer manufacturers over Windows XP. 
When will you learn that Microsoft doesn't play fair. Time and time 
again the expressed interest in one company and silently developed a 
competitive product after accessing their secrets and then dropping 
their offer to merge.
    This proposed settlement is only another advance for Microsoft. 
A real settlement would be for them to donate millions or billions 
directly to the affected school districts and let the districts 
decide how to spend the money. Also give monies to the affected 
corporations named in the lawsuits so they can truly compete with 
"the Evil Empire" Microsoft.
    thanks for reading this
    John McGibney
    165 Pearl St.
    Ronkonkoma
    N.Y., 11779



MTC-00002664

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 10:35am
Subject: MidroSoft Settlement
    MicroSoft has proposed giving over a billion dollars worth of 
computer software and hardware to secondary schools. As one of the 
thousands of unemployed mainframe programmers, I suggest that 
instead of the school donation, MicroSoft set up retraining and 
reemployment programs for all these mainframers out of work. They 
would be doing a service to the very people who pioneered the IT 
industry and who actually allowed the IT industry to grow in its 
early days.
    Sincerely,
    Donald S. Ziehm



MTC-00002665

From: Bruce Jacob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 11:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attached please find a manuscript in PDF format that relates 
comments on the Microsoft settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Bruce Jacob
    Prof. Bruce [email protected]_http://
www.ece.umd.edu/ï¿½7Eblj/ Electrical & Computer Engineering, 
University of Maryland at College Park
    It's Not About the Browser
    Microsoft's Monopoly Derives from Microsoft's Ability to Control 
the Windows Interface
    (Copyright ?? 2001, last mod: December 3, 2001 1:34 PM)
    Prof. Bruce L, Jacob Prof. Bruce R. Jacob
    Electrical & Computer Engineering Dept. College of Law
    University of Maryland Stetson University
    College Park, MD 20742 Gulfport, FL 33704
    http://www.ece.umd.edu/ï¿½7Eblj/ http://www.law.stetson.edu/
faculty/jacob/
    [email protected] [email protected]
    301-405-0432 727-562-7866
    One-Liner
    A father/son lawyer/computer-engineer learn presents disturbing 
facts in the Microsoft case that the average person has never heard 
about, criticisms of the remedies proposed to date, and a novel 
analysis of the case that points directly to the only remedy that 
would prevent Microsoft from repealing its illegal behavior in the 
future.
    Abstract
    In this article we present an analysis of one of the main 
threads of the Microsoft "Browser War" and a proposed 
remedy that we believe is the most effective way to prevent 
Microsoft from repeating its illegal behavior in the future. 
Microsoft saw a combined threat to its operating system enterprise 
from the fusion of the World-Wide Web, Netscape's popular web 
browser, and Sun's cross-platform Java technology. Microsoft was so 
concerned about protecting its operating system monopoly that it put 
economic pressure on various corporations to harm Microsoft's 
competitors, and it subverted standards of compatibility to 
undermine the attempts of numerous organizations to increase the 
ability of computers to interoperate with each other. Reorganizing 
the company into two parts, akin to the "Baby Bell" 
break-up, will not prevent future repeats of Microsoft's more subtle 
maneuvers. Neither will the settlement agreement of November 2nd, 
2001. Instead, we propose an open-standards measure to put 
Microsoft's most widely used computer interfaces into the public 
domain and their specification under the control of an independent 
body representing the public. This measure is based on the power of 
the United Stated District Court to enforce the antitrust laws of 
the United States.
    Introduction
    As the Microsoft antitrust case nears a close, it is becoming 
clear that one of the most significant aspects of the case is being 
overlooked. At issue is Microsoft's abuse of computer interfaces to 
harm others, a theme that is not mentioned directly in any of the 
court records and that is not fully addressed by any proposed remedy 
to date. All remedies proposed so far_from Judge Thomas 
Penfield Jackson's remedies to those proposed in the latest 
settlement agreements between Microsoft and the United States 
Department of Justice_fall short of a complete solution to the 
problem. Neither breaking the company in two nor Jackson's interim 
provisions nor the watered-down remedies in the proposed settlement 
of November 2nd, 2001 would prevent Microsoft from behaving in a 
manner that is effectively identical to its past improper behavior. 
Moreover, the company's latest operating system release. Windows XP. 
violates the very same laws, and in the same manner, that the 
company was charged with breaking in the first place. We present an 
analysis of the facts in the case that ties together a string of 
seemingly unrelated actions. The main issue of the case is not 
whether Netscape's browser and Microsoft's browser should have equal 
access to the preloaded PC desktop, nor is it whether Microsoft 
should be allowed to embed browser technology into its operating 
system. The facts in the case are much more interesting, and far 
more insidious. Microsoft took on Netscape not because it felt its 
browser enterprise threatened (at the time, Microsoft had no browser 
enterprise whatsoever); Microsoft took on Netscape because 
Netscape's browser had the potential to make Microsoft's operating 
system enterprise irrelevant. Court records [1,2,3] show that 
Microsoft anticipated a combined threat against its operating system 
enterprise from the fusion of Netscape's popular web browser, Sun's 
cross-platform Java technology, and the open-standards communication 
protocols of the World-Wide Web. Microsoft diverted this threat by 
intentionally undermining the attempts of numerous organizations to 
make computers more compatible with each other. Where other 
companies and groups proposed and implemented open standards, 
Microsoft implemented its own proprietary and incompatible 
standards, and through its monopoly status was able to divert 
attention from and effectively neutralize several key software 
interfaces proposed by others. In this particular instance, had 
Microsoft tailed, and had the Java/Netscape vision achieved its 
potential (as seemed very likely at the time), computer users would 
have had the option to run whatever software they wanted, using 
whatever operating system and hardware platform they cared to use, 
rather than be tied to the Windows/PC platform.
    It is crucial to understand that Microsoft maintained its 
monopoly status not only by bullying other companies (which is 
obviously illegal once a company is found to be a monopoly) but also 
by manipulating computer interfaces_both its own and those of 
others. It is this latter behavior that has been overlooked and 
which is not fully addressed by any remedies proposed to date; we 
will show that this manipulation of computer interfaces was just as 
effective a method for extending Microsoft's monopoly as bullying. 
Our conclusion is that the only way we can prevent future misconduct 
on the part of Microsoft is to require the company to not only 
disclose to the public its internal interfaces but also relinquish 
its rights to those interfaces and, furthermore, to adhere to 
existing open standards.

[[Page 24130]]

    Note that this remedy goes one step further than Judge Jackson's 
interim provision that Microsoft fully disclose the details of its 
Windows operating system's interface 1. Microsoft has demonstrated 
in the past that it will target selected competitors and implement 
changes to the Windows interface that render the software of those 
targeted companies suddenly incompatible with the newest version of 
Windows. The ultimate effect of this behavior is obviously to reduce 
the market penetration of the targeted competitor's software. This 
behavior, we believe, violates the Sherman Act and must be stopped. 
Simply divulging the details of the Windows interface will not curb 
Microsoft's behavior, as we will discuss in more detail later. The 
only way to stop Microsoft's illegal behavior is to take away the 
company's right to manipulate the Windows interface at will; this is 
an interface that is so widely used that it has become the de facto 
standard for writing software in today's world-wide computer 
network, and any change to this interface affects potentially 
millions of people. Because Microsoft has a clear history of 
manipulating this interface to intentionally harm competitors, the 
company's behavior must be stopped.
    1. Throughout this article we will be dealing with computer 
interfaces; when we use the term "interface" we mean 
"internal" computer interfaces, which should not be 
confused with the "user" interface. The user interface 
is the arrangement of words and diagrams that is drawn by the 
computer on a computer screen and with which a person interacts; the 
article is not about this type of interface. We will define in more 
detail what we mean by the term "internal" interface as 
this article progresses.
    Sidebar: A Brief History of the Microsoft Case
    In 1998 the Justice Department of the United States filed an 
antitrust action against the Microsoft Corporation, alleging that 
Microsoft was an illegal monopoly and was engaging in activities 
that violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. A number of states also 
filed federal antitrust actions against Microsoft. Those actions 
were joined with the suit by the Justice Department. and United 
States District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, of the United States 
District Court in the District of Columbia, was assigned to the 
case. Efforts were made to bring the government and Microsoft to a 
settlement, but those efforts failed. A trial was held. and Judge 
Jackson issued Findings of Fact on November 5, 1999 and Conclusions 
of Law on April 3, 2000, determining that Microsoft did violate the 
Sherman Act. Microsoft requested a hearing on the issue of the 
remedies that should be imposed, but Judge Jackson, disgusted with 
the behavior of Microsoft's defense during the trial, said a hearing 
was not necessary_because many of Microsoft's witnesses had 
perjured themselves or presented falsified evidence [24], and 
Jackson felt it was clear that the same would be true for any of 
Microsoft's future witnesses. Jackson issued his Final Judgment on 
June 7, 2000, and that judgment contained a bombshell_Jackson 
issued a structural remedy that split Microsoft into two 
corporations: an operating systems business and an applications 
business, in addition to other remedies.
    Microsoft appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia. On June 28, 2001, that Court issued its 
opinion in the case. The Court upheld that portion of Judge 
Jackson's decision finding Microsoft guilty of violating the 
antitrust laws of the United States, but the Court modified the 
remainder of Judge Jackson's decisions. The Court stated that 
Jackson had erred in not providing Microsoft a hearing on the issue 
of remedies. Also, Jackson had made remarks to the press during the 
case which showed a bias against Microsoft on his part. The case was 
remanded to the District Court, and a new judge was to be assigned 
to the case to re-determine the remedies to be imposed against 
Microsoft.
    Microsoft sought review of the decision of the Court of Appeals 
upholding the finding that Microsoft was an illegal monopoly, in 
violation of the Sherman Act. The Supreme Court, in October, 2001, 
rejected Microsoft's request.
    The case is now before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the 
District Court. She appointed a mediator in October 2001 to help the 
parties try to settle the case. Within a month, the Justice 
Department and nine of the states entered into a proposed settlement 
agreement with Microsoft while nine others of the plaintiff states 
refused to sign the agreement. Judge Kollar-Kotelly will have to 
decide whether to approve the settlement and will also have to 
resolve the pending suits by the nine states that have not joined in 
the agreement. A date of March 4, 2002 has been set as the beginning 
date lot the hearing to determine what remedies should be imposed 
against Microsoft.
    A Primer on the Computer's Internal Interfaces
    Definitions and Clarifications
    A computer interface is a language. It is a set of rules by 
which computer components, both hardware and software, interact. It 
is a contract between specific components that specifies the syntax 
and semantics of any and all interactions that involve those 
components. Interfaces are found at all points of contact between 
computer components, including application-to-application, 
application-to-operating-system, software-to-hardware, and hardware-
to-hardware:
    ï¿½ Application-level interfaces dictate the level of 
compatibility and interaction between different software 
applications. Example: for a Netscape plug-in to work correctly, it 
must use the correct application-level interface to interact with 
the browser.
    ï¿½ The interface between computer programs and the 
operating system, often called the application programming interface 
(API), determines what services a program may request of the 
operating system. Example: for a computer program to work correctly 
on the Windows operating system, it must use the Windows API, the 
interface into the Windows operating system.
    ï¿½ Interfaces between software and hardware, called 
instruction sets, determine what operations a program can perform in 
hardware. Example: for software to run correctly on an Intel-based 
computer, it must use the x86 instruction set, the interface that 
the hardware understands.
    ï¿½ Hardware interfaces that connect 
devices_including chip-to-chip interconnects such as 
PC-100 SDRAM. DDR SDRAM, Rambus Channel, and the Intel P6 bus, 
as well as peripheral bus or networking protocols, such as SCSI, 
PCI, USB, and Ethernet_specify how hardware components 
interact and, in the case of peripheral and networking protocols, 
also specify how software is to use the hardware to communicate. 
Example: for a computer to successfully talk to a USB device, such 
as a mouse or printer or disk drive, the operating system and the 
device must understand the USB interface, and the computer must have 
a USB connector.
    USB USB Keyboard/Mouse
    SCSI SCSI Hard Drive
    Browser Extension (e.g. Java Applet) Ideal Jave API Browser 
(e.g. Netscape Navigator) Windows API Operating System (e.g. 
Windows)
    IP Internet
    AGP Graphics Accelerator
    x86 Instruction-Set Architecture (ISA)
    Microprocessor (e.g. Intel Pentium III)
    Intel P6 Memory Bus
    Main Memory, usually DRAM (e.g. PC-100 SDRAM)
    Figure 1: The various interfaces found in a typical personal 
computer. Computer components are shown in light grey; the 
interlaces through which they interact are shown in darker grey. 
Components that are not separated via an interlace cannot 
communicate directly with one another. For example, the keyboard 
cannot write directly to the Internet_typed messages must go 
through the operating system. The interface between the browser and 
browser extension is labeled "ideal" because it does not 
exist exactly as drawn. Microsoft ensures that all software running 
on a PC must depend at least partly on the Windows API: Microsoft 
allows no piece of software to even partially supplant the Windows 
API, otherwise the importance of Windows might diminish.
    Figure 1 illustrates examples of these interlaces as found in a 
typical personal computer. The figure shows a browser running on an 
operating system and a Java apple! running within the context of the 
browser. The Java API between the browser and the browser extension 
is an application-level interface that allows a software program to 
use the services of another software program. The Windows API is the 
interface through which software programs request services from the 
operating system that they cannot perform by themselves. For 
example, the browser does not have direct access to the Internet and 
must ask the operating system to send network packets out on its 
behalf; typical programs do not have direct access to the keyboard 
and mouse and must ask the operating system for user input; and only 
the operating system can read and write the hard drive. The 
instruction-set architecture is the interface between hardware and 
software and consists of very simple requests such as add the 
following numbers, or multiply the following numbers, or store this 
value to memory, etc. As the figure shows, all software has direct 
access to the

[[Page 24131]]

microprocessor through this interface; for example, while the 
browser is running it interacts directly with the hardware until it 
makes a request that only the operating system can service (such as 
sending a network packet or retrieving user keystrokes from the 
keyboard or writing a file to the disk). Lastly, hardware-to-
hardware interfaces such as the Intel P6 memory bus allow hardware 
components to interact directly, and peripheral busses such as USB 
(Universal Serial Bus) and networking protocols such as IP (the 
Internet Protocol) allow the operating system to talk to hardware 
devices connected to the computer and other computers across the 
Internet, respectively. One thing to note is that the operating 
system plays a critical role within the system, as it represents the 
crossroads of all activity: very little happens in a computer that 
is not under the direct control of the operating system.
    Note that the Java applet is shown executing entirely within the 
context of the browser; in particular, the figure shows the Java 
applet executing without having to use the operating system 
directly. This is an ideal organization: in reality, due to the 
particulars of Microsoft's Java support, a Java applet is at least 
partly dependent on the Windows operating system. Nonetheless, this 
serves as a good example of what interfaces do and how they do it. 
Interfaces are designed to separate components from each other and 
thus simplify the business of developing complex computer 
applications. If the operating system supports a particular 
interface or device, then applications can use that interface or 
device without much additional effort. For example, if programmers 
want to use a certain graphics coprocessor, and the operating system 
supports that device, then the programmers can develop software that 
uses the graphics coprocessor without having to incorporate its 
interface into their software because that interface is already 
incorporated in the operating system. The flip side of this is that 
if the operating system does not support that particular device, the 
programmers are usually prevented by the operating system from 
interacting with the device at all_as the diagram shows, 
software programs are separated from hardware devices by the 
operating system.
    As we have said. a computer interface (as opposed to a graphical 
user interface) is a language, and as with any other type of 
language, if either the syntax or semantics are disobeyed, even 
minutely_which can often happen by writing imperfect software 
code or building imperfect hardware_then communication between 
components fails. Similarly if two people are speaking the English 
language, but one occasionally uses the wrong tense for verbs or 
forgets to use articles or occasionally speaks in another language 
with which the second speaker is unfamiliar, then the second speaker 
will have enormous difficulty with the conversation.
    The problem of violating computer interfaces is more serious 
than speaking human languages improperly, and this is why we have 
described computer interfaces as contracts as well as languages. 
Because computers and computer components tend to be generally 
intolerant of errors, it is the case that even simple violations of 
an interface, such as swapping the order of two control statements 
(analogous to switching the order of subject and verb in a 
sentence). typically have devastating effects, such as a computer 
program running erratically or not at all, or perhaps the entire 
computer reaching a state that requires a reboot. To avoid such 
miscommunications, designers are very careful to be both precise and 
thorough when they write up the specification of an interface; such 
specifications are very complex and contain, among other things, all 
of the valid command codes of the interface, any expected responses, 
and semantics attached to each valid command code. To re-define the 
interface is to make changes to its specification. An open interface 
(often called an open standard) is one in which all of the details 
of the interface are made publicly known, often through 
documentation freely available on a widely publicized website. A 
public interface or public standard is one whose specification is 
open and controlled by an independent public organization (more on 
this later). A de facto standard interface is one that is widely 
used; de facto standards may be public, and they are usually open. 
but this is not always the case. The Windows API is an example of a 
de facto standard that is neither public nor open.
    An interface is an abstract entity and must not be confused with 
the software codes or hardware mechanisms that implement it. 
Software codes and hardware mechanisms are concrete entities; they 
can be created, destroyed, held in the palm of your hand. Interfaces 
are like the terms of a contract_though you can define them on 
a piece of paper, burning that paper does not make the terms of the 
contract (or the details of the interface) disappear. Most 
importantly, because an interface is not the same thing as an 
implementation of that interface, one does not have to divulge the 
details of an implementation to divulge the details of an interface, 
and disclosing the details of an interface in no way compromises the 
security of any implementation of that interface. In the case of 
Microsoft's Windows operating system, the company can easily divulge 
the full details of the operating system's interface without having 
to make public the details of its implementation_i.e. the 
software code of Windows that implements the interface, and it would 
be impossible for even a computer expert to infer any details of 
Microsoft's software code just by looking at the interface 
specification.
    A good analogy is the steering interface of a car. The car has a 
steering column that, if used properly, turns the wheels of the car 
and thereby changes the direction of cat's movement. The steering 
column's interface is relatively simple and can be described with 
the following specification.
    STEERING INTERFACE: If the steering column is twisted clockwise, 
the car will turn to the right; if the column is twisted counter-
clockwise, the car will turn to the left. How far the column is 
twisted determines how sharply the car turns. The car will continue 
to turn from a straight course until the steering column is returned 
to its original rest position in the center. Though this may not 
sound much like a language or contract, it is: This interface 
specifies exactly what actions a driver may perform and exactly what 
the car will do in response to those actions.
    This interface has numerous potential implementations. An 
obvious one is a wheel attached to the steering column; a driver 
grips the edge of the wheel to get better leverage on the column. 
Another implementation is a set of handle bars, such as one would 
find on a motorcycle. Another implementation is a rudder sticking 
out at right angles to the steering column. An ad hoc implementation 
similar to the rudder is a pipe wrench gripping the steering column 
directly. One could create a "power steering" 
implementation by attaching an electric drill to the steering 
column, such that pulling the drill's trigger twists the steering 
column, and the direction of the twist is determined by a setting on 
the drill. The alternatives are endless.
    The important point to note is that each of these 
implementations is a concrete object and involves some degree of 
creativity and invention to construct. The interface specification 
applies to all the implementations and is embodied by them, but it 
is not a concrete thing. One can divulge the details of the 
interface without mentioning or implying any particular 
implementation of that interface (as is the case with the 
specification given above); and it would be impossible for even an 
expert engineer to infer any details of any particular steering 
implementation just by reading the interface specification (as is 
also the case with the specification given above).
    In this analogy, the interface specification given above would 
correspond to the Windows API, and any one of the interface 
implementations (e.g. the rudder example) would correspond to the 
software code that implements the Windows operating system. One 
writes code to build a program that supports or uses a computer 
interface, just as one would build a steering wheel or set of handle 
bars to use the steering-column interface. Just as the paragraph 
above detailing the steering interface gives no hints as to how one 
would build a particular steering wheel, knowing the full details of 
the Windows API gives no hints as to how the Windows operating 
system is built.
    The analogy extends even further. If the interface's 
specification were to change, then potentially all the 
implementations would be affected, meaning that they may or may not 
implement the new interface. For example, if the car's manufacturer 
redefined the interface to heat or cool the steering column (heating 
up the metal turns the car right; cooling it down turns the car 
left; magnitude of-temperature change determines sharpness of turn; 
car moves in straight line if temperature of steering column is 
75ï¿½ ...), then all of the steering implementations above would 
suddenly no longer work with new cars using the new interface. 
Though the example might seem a bit whimsical, it uncovers one of 
the fundamental dangers of widely-used interfaces, as detailed in 
the next section.
    The Impact That Interfaces Have on the High-Tech Industry
    Because of computer interfaces and the highly structured ways in 
which computers

[[Page 24132]]

interact, there exist today modes of corporate behavior that were 
not possible a decade ago. It is now possible for a powerful 
corporation to exploit the way computers are made to injure others 
who build computers and computer-related products. Because the 
economy is heavily intertwined with the high tech industry, such 
actions today can adversely affect a large number of corporations, 
whereas such actions might have been little more than annoyances ten 
years ago. This mode of corporate behavior is something akin to 
twisting the rules (i.e. the specifications of widely-used computer 
interfaces so as to harm those who have no choice but to follow 
those rules. As we have indicated, internal interfaces are the 
languages, or sets of rules, that specify how computing components 
interact. If either side disobeys the rules (e.g. attempts to use a 
control signal that does not exist or is not recognized by the other 
component), then it is as if one side is speaking gibberish, and 
communications between components fails. Therefore it is of utmost 
importance that both sides adhere very strictly to the interface's 
specification. When an interface changes_for example, when it 
is time to "upgrade" the interface to include features 
that cannot be provided through any other means_then all 
products previously compatible with that interface must be 
redesigned to comply with the new specification, else they become 
out-of-date and quickly lose market share. Redesigning a product for 
a new interface specification is a substantial undertaking: Such 
redesign can require enormous amounts of money, time. and 
engineering effort, and oftentimes a company will simply give up on 
a product line rather than update it to comply with the latest 
interface specification, simply because of the cost involved.
    As the members of the Court of Appeals mention in their opinion, 
"Once a product or standard achieves wide acceptance, it 
becomes more or less entrenched." [1: p. 12] It is therefore 
extremely important to prevent that entrenched standard's misuse. We 
believe this is fundamental if we are to prevent monopolistic abuses 
in the high-tech industry, because through the manipulation of 
computer interfaces a monopoly can do much more damage than it could 
by simply offering competing products. These interfaces have wider 
impact because not only are end-products and therefore end-consumers 
dependent on them, but those hardware and software vendors that 
build compatible end-products are dependent on them as well. 
Modifying an interface makes potentially all products based on that 
interface instantly obsolete_because, as soon as the 
modification is made, those products affected by the changes no 
longer conform to the current interface, and an interface is 
ultimately more influential in its scope than any particular product 
that embodies it ... provided the new interface catches on. Because 
a monopoly is capable of successfully creating and promoting new 
interfaces at will, a monopoly controlling a widely used interface 
can, by manipulating that interface, dominate its direct 
competitors, its indirect competitors, and even those corporations 
that provide complementary products and do not compete with it in 
any way.
    Given this depiction of the importance of interfaces and the 
economic impact of their re-definition, it is easy to understand 
that if a company is allowed to control an important interface, it 
can very easily change the shape of the computing world. Just such a 
situation is quite possible because many interfaces are proprietary, 
and therefore the developer of an interface can change its 
specification at will. Often, the owner of a proprietary interface 
can effectively prevent any other company from building or marketing 
products that use the interface: While interfaces are not 
patentable, many companies obtain wide-reaching patents for their 
implementations of those interfaces that make it difficult for any 
other company to build its own implementation of the same interface 
without infringing on the first company's patents. This is an 
unfortunate situation: An analogy would be the 
"developer" of the English language preventing others 
from speaking the language, or forcing them to pay royalties to do 
so.
    In most instances, the owners of interfaces do not rapidly 
change the interface specifications, nor do they charge outrageous 
licensing fees or single out individual corporations and prevent 
them from using the interface. If a company were to do any of the 
above, other companies would most likely realize that dealing with 
this particular interface is more trouble than it is worth, and they 
would go find another interface or develop their own. However. if 
the interface in question is the de facto standard, if it is used by 
all other companies in the same industry, if support for this 
interface is expected by the end-user, and if there exists no 
practical alternative, then a company would be in serious jeopardy 
if it were to run afoul of the owner of that interface. This is 
exactly the situation in which many companies have found themselves. 
The interface in question is that of the Windows operating system, 
owned by Microsoft. Windows is the de facto standard of Intel-
compatible operating systems:
    Every year for the last decade, Microsoft's share of the market 
for Intel-compatible PC operating systems has stood above ninety 
percent. For the last couple of years the figure has been at least 
ninety-five percent, and analysts project that the share will climb 
even higher over the next few years. [2:ï¿½35]
    Any software company that wants a significant market share must 
write its software for Windows. Any hardware company that wants a 
significant market share must design its hardware to be 
interoperable with Windows. Perhaps the most important point of all 
is that the software companies know this, the hardware companies 
know this, and the officers of Microsoft obviously knew it as well.
    The situation is particularly trenchant as it applies to 
alternative technologies_i.e., possible competitors to 
Windows. Because such an enormous portion of the world's computer 
users are dependent on Windows, any technology with the potential to 
compete with Windows must also be compatible with Windows, otherwise 
no significant number of computer users would ever use it (or even 
know it exists). Through its ability to change the Windows API, 
Microsoft has the power to determine what software is compatible 
with Windows and what software is incompatible. Because of this, 
Microsoft can target any potential competitor and make its product 
incompatible with Windows for a long enough period of time to make 
consumer interest in that product wane; at that point, the product 
poses no more threat to Microsoft's monopoly. This article will 
describe Microsoft's use of that power to eliminate the potential 
threats of Netscape and Java.
    The Facts of the Microsoft Case and Their Implications
    Microsoft has a history of manipulating interfaces so as to harm 
other companies and maintain its monopoly status. Microsoft changed 
the Windows API substantially and rapidly so that other companies 
failed to keep up with the changes and so lost market share 
(example: IBM OS/2): Microsoft created small-scale changes to its 
Windows API so as to disable the software of targeted companies 
(examples: Netscape, Apple, RealNetworks, America On-Line): 
Microsoft divulged the details of its interfaces selectively so that 
the software products of targeted companies would become 
incompatible with Windows and remain so until Microsoft chose to 
divulge the details to the targeted companies (example: Netscape 
Navigator): and Microsoft watered down open or public interfaces by 
offering incompatible proprietary alternatives and using its 
monopoly status to lure (and in some cases force) developers away 
from the standard interfaces (examples: Java, HTML). The rest of 
this section gives the details of these examples. The effect of its 
manipulation of interfaces has been to destroy any newly developed, 
innovative software application that has the potential to compete 
with Microsoft's software. Because Microsoft is a monopoly, such 
tactics are illegal. And therefore Microsoft's practice of 
manipulating interfaces must be stopped.
    The Netscape/Java Threat
    In this article we discuss only one of the series of actions 
taken by Microsoft to protect its software monopoly. The opinion of 
the Court of Appeals and the Findings of Fact of the District Court 
contain many more examples, but this one is particularly 
enlightening because it illustrates Microsoft's extensive 
monopolistic activities concerning computer interfaces. The saga 
begins with a description of how technological advances tend to 
occur in the high-tech industry: The software industry in general is 
characterized by dynamic, vigorous competition. In many cases, one 
of the early entrants into a new software category quickly captures 
a lion's share of the sales, while other products in the category 
are either driven out altogether or relegated to niche positions. 
What eventually displaces the leader is often not competition from 
another product within the same software category, but rather a 
technological advance that renders the boundaries defining the 
category obsolete. These events, in which categories are redefined 
and leaders are superseded in the process, are spoken of as 
"inflection points." [2: ï¿½ 59]
    In common parlance, these "inflection points" are 
"paradigm shifts" during which an entrenched company can 
be blind-sided by a new technology that renders the

[[Page 24133]]

company's particular segment of the industry unimportant. When this 
occurs, the company's dominance of that now-unimportant segment 
becomes irrelevant: Despite their position, the company becomes 
marginalized along with their segment of the industry. Given that 
only ten years ago, less than one household in one hundred 
recognized the word "Internet," yet today the Internet 
is given credit for the economic revival of the 1990's, it becomes 
clear that the rise of the Internet represents one of these paradigm 
shifts.
    The exponential growth of the Internet represents an inflection 
point born of complementary technological advances in the computer 
and telecommunications industries. The rise of the Internet in turn 
has fueled the growth of server-based computing, middleware, and 
open-source software development. Working together, these nascent 
paradigms could oust the PC operating system from its position as 
the primary platform lot applications development and the main 
interface between users and their computers. [2: ï¿½ 60]
    Internet-based computing was seen by Microsoft as a potential 
threat to the Windows operating system because the Internet 
represents the ultimate in computer compatibility: Any computer that 
speaks the language of the Internet_its interface, the 
Internet Protocol (IP, see Figure 1)_can speak to any other 
computer that speaks the same language. regardless of the computer's 
hardware class or instruction set or operating system controlling 
it. Such ease of interoperability posed a threat to Microsoft 
because if computers became more interoperable, especially if 
Internet-based computing allowed users easier access to run programs 
that interested them by making them available on any machine in the 
world that was Internet-compatible, this would make one's choice of 
underlying operating system unimportant. Any operating system would 
suffice, and competition among vendors of these systems would take 
place on a level playing field.
    The primary question is how? How could a computer user take 
advantage of the Internet to run applications without regard to the 
particular operating system on his or her computer? The answer lies 
in the operating system's interlaces: Offering similar interfaces 
via some channel other than the operating system would eliminate the 
importance of using any particular operating system.
    The channel that became available was the combination of 
Netscape and Java. By 1994, Netscape was becoming synonymous with 
the Internet, the company's browser was used by nearly all those who 
explored the World-Wide Web, and the browser ran on nearly every 
type of computer_not just those using the Windows operating 
system. Due to intense interest in all things Internet-related, many 
consumers were buying their first PC just to see what all the fuss 
was about. For many consumers, Netscape's browser was their portal 
to the networked world; it provided browsing, access to newsgroups, 
and email_and many consumers used their PCs to do little more 
than that. These consumers were in effect insulated from the 
underlying operating system; because their primary interaction with 
the computer was through Netscape's browser, they could have been 
using any other operating system and would have been oblivious to 
that fact.
    At the same time, Sun Microsystems was promoting a new 
development environment called Java that promised a "write 
once, run anywhere" level of compatibility. In other words, a 
computer programmer could write a program using Java and fully 
expect it to run on any computer anywhere, whether it was a Windows 
computer, an Apple computer, a Unix computer, or any other breed on 
which Java ran. In general, only those applications written for 
Windows run on Windows computers, only those applications written 
for Apple computers run on Apple computers, etc. Because Netscape 
ran on Windows, it was immediately available to that 90% of the 
consumer PCs that used Windows, and this widespread availability was 
one of the main factors that helped it succeed. For Sun's Java 
environment to succeed, it would need to run on Windows too, but, 
because Java was an obvious threat to Windows in that its goal was 
to make the choice of underlying operating system immaterial, it was 
unlikely that Microsoft would ship Java technology with the Windows 
operating system; moreover. Microsoft executives recognized early on 
the possibility that Java could erode Microsoft's position [2: 
ï¿½ 75-76].
    In May 1995, Netscape promised to integrate Java into its 
browser. This provided Java direct access to every machine on which 
Netscape's browser ran. and because of the popularity of the 
Internet, the Web, and Netscape's browser, this represented a large 
number of machines that would potentially run Java applications. For 
developers of computer programs, this meant that programs written in 
Java would run on nearly every desktop, laptop, and server computer 
in the world, and this would constitute an even larger market than 
the market for Windows desktops alone. In addition. Java 
incorporated abilities that supported computing over the Internet, 
including the ability to easily download new programs and run them 
locally, which would enable low-cost, effortless software 
distribution over the network (one small example of this is the 
running of Java "applets" that appear on many websites). 
The increased market for software and the low-cost distribution 
channel for that software made this environment an exciting 
potential for program developers.
    If the Netscape/Java environment ever reached its full 
potential, program developers would be able to reach larger markets 
than before, yet with less cost overhead than before. Doing so would 
also free consumers to choose whatever operating system they wished, 
provided it supported Netscape's browser, which, as mentioned, 
already ran on nearly every operating system then in existence. This 
scenario would be exactly the kind of "inflection point" 
that would diminish the importance of Windows and displace Microsoft 
from its position as software market leader. Bill Gates saw this 
potential as soon as Netscape and Java merged:
    In late May 1995, Bill Gates. the chairman and CEO of Microsoft, 
sent a memorandum entitled "The Internet Tidal Wave" to 
Microsoft's executives describing Netscape as a "new 
competitor 'born' on the Internet." He warned his 
colleagues within Microsoft that Netscape was "pursuing a 
multi-platform strategy where they move the key API into the client 
to commoditize the underlying operating system." [2: ï¿½ 
72]
    Netscape's "multi-platform strategy" was simply the 
fact that the browser ran on nearly every operating system existing 
at the time, not just Windows. This evidently worried Gates because 
it might make alternative operating systems attractive to consumers. 
The "key API" was the operating systems API being 
offered by Java, which could displace the Windows API, and 
"the client" into which it was being moved was Netscape 
Navigator itself. Doing so would enable computer users to run 
Windows or Windows-like applications from within Navigator, possibly 
over the Internet. Because Navigator ran on nearly every operating 
system in existence at the time, this would "ommoditize" 
or make immaterial the underlying operating system: Any operating 
system would be a viable substitute for any other, provided only 
that it ran Navigator. Obviously, if one could run Windows or 
Windows-like applications on any operating system one cared to use, 
this would weaken the appeal of Windows. Users would perhaps start 
to shop around for operating systems using criteria such as ease of 
use, or compatibility with other systems, or system reliability 
(e.g. relatively infrequent crashes). A competitor with a product 
easier to use than Windows, or more reliable than Windows, could 
have taken away much of Microsoft's business and caused a reduction 
in the sales of Windows.
    Microsoft's Actions to Remove the Threat
    In response, Microsoft took a number of complementary steps to 
eliminate the threat posed by the merger of Netscape's browser and 
Sun's Java technology. All but the first of these steps later would 
be found to have been illegal, when the courts declared Microsoft a 
monopoly. It is therefore important that any remedies decree should 
address these steps. Microsoft first attempted to dissuade Netscape 
from allowing its browser to execute other applications, Java or 
otherwise [2: ï¿½ 79-87]. When this failed, Microsoft ran 
a campaign to erode Netscape's dominance in the browser market, 
subvert the ability of Java to run on all platforms equally, and 
weaken the compatibility levels that made the World-Wide Web so 
popular:
    1. Microsoft created an alternative browser to Netscape's, 
called Internet Explorer.
    2. Microsoft brought pressure to bear on OEM (Original Equipment 
Manufacturer, e.g. Dell, Gateway. etc.) and IAP (Internet Access 
Providers, e.g. America On-Line, Compuserve, etc.) channels, to 
ensure that they used Microsoft's browser and not Netscape's.
    3. Microsoft changed its Windows API to make existing software 
incompatible; in particular, the API for its Windows95 release was 
structured so that Internet applications, e.g. Netscape's browser, 
would no longer work unless they used the new interface.

[[Page 24134]]

    4. Microsoft selectively disseminated the details of its Windows 
API changes; in particular, Microsoft withheld key information about 
the Windows95 Internet-related interface from Netscape, which 
delayed the release of Netscape's Windows95-compatible browser until 
after the release of Microsoft's Windows95-compatible browser.
    5. Microsoft subverted the Java interface standard, by creating 
a Java implementation for Windows that did not comply with the Java 
standard and thus undermined the portability of Java applications to 
and from the Windows operating system.
    6. Microsoft attempted to subvert the HTML interface standard, 
by adding its own incompatible extensions to HTML (Hyper-Text Markup 
Language, the format of documents posted on the World-Wide Web) and 
building its own extensive web portal using this non-compliant HTML, 
thus ensuring that the web site would fail to work correctly for 
anyone using any browser other than Internet Explorer.
    The following sections discuss each of these actions in more 
detail. Microsoft created an alternative browser to Netscape's. 
Microsoft only began to develop a web browser after it became clear 
that Netscape would not abandon its efforts at making a cross-
platform program that was powerful enough to run applications 
directly (i.e. via the incorporation of Java technology). Microsoft 
knew that software developers would only write applications, or 
programs, for Netscape/Java if they believed that the Netscape/Java 
combination would emerge as a new widespread standard for Internet-
based computing. Therefore, Microsoft sought to prevent the 
Netscape/Java combination from succeeding in the marketplace. 
Microsoft's initial goal in building Internet Explorer was simply to 
divert attention away from the Netscape/Java platform: If users 
believed Internet Explorer to be equal to or better than Netscape's 
browser, then Netscape would never reach the level of a widespread 
standard [2: ï¿½ 133].
    To reach this goal. Microsoft knew that it had to capture at 
least half of the browser market. "From 1995 onward. Microsoft 
spent more than $100 million each year developing Internet 
Explorer," [2: ï¿½ 135] and it spent an additional $30 
million per year marketing it [2: ï¿½ 140]. Moreover. Microsoft 
never charged a single cent for its product: It offered the browser 
without license fee, either from users or Internet Access Providers 
(such as AOL), and, beyond offering the browser for free, 
"Microsoft actually paid AOL a bounty for every subscriber 
that it converted to access software that included Internet Explorer 
instead of Navigator." [2: ï¿½ 139] Had Microsoft stopped 
at simply creating an alternative browser, it is likely that the 
company would have avoided legal trouble. The problems started when 
Microsoft used other avenues besides direct competition to win the 
browser war:
    Decision-makers at Microsoft worried that simply developing its 
own attractive browser product, pricing it at zero, and promoting it 
vigorously would not divert enough browser usage from Navigator to 
neutralize it as a platform. They believed that a comparable browser 
product offered at no charge would still not be compelling enough to 
consumers to detract substantially from Navigator's existing share 
of browser usage. This belief was due, at least in part, to the fact 
that Navigator already enjoyed a very large installed base and had 
become nearly synonymous with the Web in the punic's consciousness. 
If Microsoft was going to raise Internet Explorer's share of browser 
usage and lower Navigator's share, executives at Microsoft believed 
they needed to constrict Netscape's access to the distribution 
channels that led most efficiently to browser usage. [2: ï¿½ 
143]
    Microsoft brought pressure to bear on OEM and IAP channels. 
Because consumers rarely customize their PC desktops to the point of 
replacing software that comes with the computer by some other 
software that performs the same function, having one's software pre-
installed by an OEM onto a computer is one of the most direct and 
cost-effective means to get consumers to use one's software. The 
other primary channel, at least for Internet-related software, is 
for Internet Access Providers to bundle that software with their 
product. In the case of a browser, the browser would be the primary 
access tool to the IAP's content. The District Court agreed that 
"no other distribution channel for browsing software even 
approaches the efficiency of OEM pre-installation and IAP bundling. 
The primary reason is that the other channels require users to 
expend effort before they can start browsing." [2: ï¿½ 
145] Therefore. the OEM and IAP channels were identified by 
Microsoft as the most important conduits to close down for Netscape 
if Microsoft were to ensure the failure of Netscape's browser.
    Microsoft achieved this feat [(closing down the OEM channel)] by 
using a complementary set of tactics. First, it forced OEMs to take 
Internet Explorer with Windows and forbade them to remove or obscure 
it_restrictions which both ensured the prominent presence of 
Internet Explorer on users' PC systems and increased the costs 
attendant to pre-installing and promoting Navigator. Second, 
Microsoft imposed additional technical restrictions to increase the 
cost of promoting Navigator even more. Third. Microsoft offered OEMs 
valuable consideration in exchange for commitments to promote 
Internet Explorer exclusively. Finally, Microsoft threatened to 
penalize individual OEMs that insisted on pre-installing and 
promoting Navigator. Although Microsoft's campaign to capture the 
OEM channel succeeded, it required a massive and multifarious 
investment by Microsoft; it also stifled innovation by OEMs that 
might have made Windows PC systems easier to use and more attractive 
to consumers. That Microsoft was willing to pay this price 
demonstrates that its decision-makers believed that maximizing 
Internet Explorer's usage share at Navigator's expense was worth 
almost any cost. [2: ï¿½ 241]
    Microsoft knows that because of the popularity of the Windows 
operating system, the company has substantial control over what the 
OEMs pre-load and what they do not pre-load. "Microsoft knows 
that OEMs have no choice but to load Windows, both because it has a 
good understanding of the market in which it operates and because 
OEMs have told Microsoft as much." [2: ï¿½ 55]
    "Without significant exception, all OEMs pre-install 
Windows on the vast majority of the PCs that they sell," [2: 
ï¿½ 54] and Microsoft helps to ensure this "by advising 
OEMs that the), will be, charged a higher price for Windows unless 
they drastically limit the number of PCs that they sell without an 
operating system pre-installed." [2: ï¿½ 58] In general, 
Microsoft "charges different OEMs different prices for 
Windows. depending on the degree to which the individual OEMs comply 
with Microsoft's wishes." [2: ï¿½ 64]
    Microsoft used this power to force OEMs to pre-load only 
Microsoft's browser, Internet Explorer, despite the fact that many 
OEMs and their customers preferred Netscape's browser, Navigator. 
Microsoft's first tactic, by making select changes to the Windows 
AP1, was to make it technically impossible to remove Internet 
Explorer from the operating system. Further, Microsoft built the 
operating system in such ways as to override the user's choice of 
"default browser" in many circumstances and to open up 
security holes for users who chose to use Navigator [2: ï¿½ 
155-198]. Some examples:
    [I]n late 1995 or early 1996, Microsoft set out to bind Internet 
Explorer more tightly to Windows 95 as a technical matter. The 
intent was to make it more difficult for anyone, including systems 
administrators and users, to remove Internet Explorer from Windows 
95 and to simultaneously complicate the experience of using 
Navigator with Windows 95. As [Microsoft official] Brad Chase wrote 
to his superiors near the end of 1995, "We will bind the shell 
to the Internet Explorer, so that running any other browser is a 
jolting experience." [2: ï¿½ 160]
    Microsoft's engineers ... [made] Windows 98 override the user's 
choice of default browser in certain circumstances. As shipped to 
users, Windows 98 has Internet Explorer configured as the default 
browser. While Windows 98 does provide the user with the ability to 
choose a different default browser, it does not treat this choice as 
the "default browser" within the ordinary meaning of the 
term. Specifically, when a user chooses a browser other than 
Internet Explorer as the default, Windows 98 nevertheless requires 
the user to employ Internet Explorer in numerous situations that, 
from the user's perspective, are entirely unexpected. As a 
consequence, users who choose a browser other than Internet Explorer 
as their default face considerable uncertainty and confusion in the 
ordinary course of using Windows 98. [2: ï¿½ 171]
    Microsoft's refusal to respect the user's choice of default 
browser fulfilled Brad Chase's 1995 promise to make the use of any 
browser other than Internet Explorer on Windows "a jolting 
experience." By increasing the likelihood that using Navigator 
on Windows 98 would have unpleasant consequences for users. 
Microsoft further diminished the inclination of OEMs to pre-install 
Navigator onto Windows. The decision to override the user's 
selection of non- Microsoft software as the default browser also 
directly disinclined Windows

[[Page 24135]]

98 consumers to use Navigator as their default browser, and it 
harmed those Windows 98 consumers who nevertheless used Navigator. 
In particular. Microsoft exposed those using Navigator on Windows 98 
to security and privacy risks that are specific to Internet Explorer 
and to ActiveX controls. [2: ï¿½ 172] Having multiple browsers 
on the machine would likely confuse users, and thus, Microsoft 
concluded, many OEMs interested in providing pleasant computing 
experiences to their users would opt to pre-install only Internet 
Explorer. However, Microsoft executives felt this step was not 
strong enough.
    Decision-makers at Microsoft believed that as Internet Explorer 
caught up with Navigator in quality, OEMs would ultimately conclude 
that the costs of pre-installing and promoting Navigator, and 
removing easy access to Internet Explorer. outweighed the benefits. 
Still, those decision-makers did not believe that Microsoft could 
afford to wait for the several large OEMs that represented virtually 
all Windows PCs shipped to come to this desired conclusion on their 
own. Therefore, in order to bring the behavior of OEMs into line 
with its strategic goals quickly, Microsoft threatened to terminate 
the Windows license of any OEM that removed Microsoft's chosen icons 
and program entries from the Windows desktop or the 
"Start" menu. It threatened similar punishment for OEMs 
who added programs that promoted third-party software to the Windows 
"boot" sequence. These inhibitions soured Microsoft's 
relations with OEMs and stymied innovation that might have made 
Windows PC systems more satisfying to users. Microsoft would not 
have paid this price had it not been convinced that its actions were 
necessary to ostracize Navigator from the vital OEM distribution 
channel. [2: ï¿½ 203]
    OEMs customized the Windows desktops primarily "to make 
the experience of setting up and learning to use a new PC system 
easier and less confusing for users, especially novices. By doing 
so, the OEMs believed, they would increase the value of their 
systems and minimize both product returns and costly support calls. 
Since just three calls from a consumer can erase the entire profit 
that an OEM earned selling a PC system to that consumer, OEMs have 
an acute interest in making their systems self-explanatory and 
simple to use." [2: ï¿½ 210] Because most computer users 
were familiar with Navigator, and because, at the time, Navigator 
was perceived by nearly all in the industry as superior to 
Microsoft's Internet Explorer, many of these OEMs included Navigator 
on their computers. To block this development, Microsoft imposed 
restrictions on OEMs through its licenses that forbade OEMs from 
customizing anything, despite the fact that doing so would 
ultimately provide for a far less satisfying computing experience on 
the part of the end user.
    The several OEMs that in the aggregate represented over ninety 
percent of Intel- compatible PC sales believed that the new 
restrictions would make their PC systems more difficult and more 
confusing to use. and thus less acceptable to consumers. They also 
anticipated that the restrictions would increase product returns and 
support costs and generally lower the value of their machines. Those 
OEMs that had already spent millions of dollars developing and 
implementing tutorial and registration programs and/or 
automatically-loading graphical interfaces in the Windows boot 
sequence lamented that their investment would, as a result of 
Microsoft's policy, be largely wasted. Gateway, Hewlett-Packard, and 
IBM communicated their opposition forcefully and urged Microsoft to 
lift the restrictions. Emblematic of the reaction among large OEMs 
was a letter that the manager of research and development at 
Hewlett- Packard sent to Microsoft in March 1997. He wrote:
    Microsoft's mandated removal of all OEM boot-sequence and auto-
start programs for OEM licensed systems has resulted in significant 
and costly problems for the HP-Pavilion line of retail PC's. Our 
data (as of 3/10/97) shows a 10% increase in W[indows]95 calls as a 
% of our total customer support calls .... Our registration rate has 
also dropped from the mid-80/(range to the low 60% range.
    There is also subjective data from several channel partners that 
our system return rate has increased from the lowest of any OEM 
(even lower than Apple) to a level comparable to the other Microsoft 
OEM PC vendors. This is a major concern in that we are taking a step 
backward in meeting customer satisfaction needs.
    These three pieces of data confirm that we have been damaged by 
the edicts that [...] Microsoft issued last fall....
    From the consumer perspective, we are hurting our industry and 
our customers. PC's can be frightening and quirky pieces of 
technology into which they invest a large sum of their money. It is 
vitally important that the PC suppliers dramatically improve the 
Consumer buying experience, out of box experience as well as the 
longer term product usability and reliability. The channel feedback 
as well as our own data shows that we are going in the wrong 
direction. This causes consummer dissatisfaction in complex 
telephone support process, needless in-home repair visits and 
ultimately in product returns. Many times the cause is user 
misunderstanding of a product that presents too much complexity to 
the common user....
    Our Customers hold HP accountable for their dissatisfaction with 
our products. We bear [...] the cost of returns of our products. We 
are responsible for the cost of technical support of our customers, 
including the 33% of calls we get related to the lack of quality or 
confusion generated by your product. And finally we are responsible 
for our success or failure in the retail PC market. We must have 
more ability to decide how our system is presented to our end users. 
If we had a choice of another supplier, based on your actions in 
this area, I assure you [that you] would not be our supplier of 
choice.
    I strongly urge you to have your executives review these 
decisions and to change this unacceptable policy.
    Despite the high costs that Microsoft's demands imposed on them, 
the OEMs obeyed the restrictions because they perceived no 
alternative to licensing Windows for pre-installation on their PCs. 
[2: ï¿½ ï¿½ 214-215] Microsoft engaged in similar 
tactics with Internet Access Providers to prevent Netscape from 
success in that channel [2: ï¿½ ï¿½ 242-310]: The 
company licensed Internet Explorer and related development kits to 
hundreds of IAPs for no charge (though those companies were all 
willing to pay large sums for the software), then entered into 
exclusivity contracts with the largest IAPs in exchange for valuable 
promotion within Windows, and even offered to pay back IAPs for any 
contractual obligations they had with Netscape.
    The District Court summarized Microsoft's actions relating to 
the OEM and IAP channels: Neither the desire to bolster demand for 
Windows, nor the prospect of ancillary revenues, explains the 
lengths to which Microsoft has gone. For one thing, loading 
Navigator makes Windows just as Internet-ready as including Internet 
Explorer does. Therefore, Microsoft's costly efforts to limit the 
use of Navigator on Windows could not have stemmed from a desire to 
bolster consumer demand for Windows. Furthermore, there is no 
conceivable way that Microsoft's costly efforts to induce Apple to 
pre-install Internet Explorer on Apple's own PC systems could have 
increased consumer demand for Windows. [2: ï¿½ 141]
    In other words, the only conceivable reason for Microsoft's 
actions was to maintain and extend its monopoly.
    Microsoft's flagrant bullying of OEMs and IAPs succeeded in 
closing off distribution channels for Netscape's browser and 
therefore Sun's Java technology as well. However, Microsoft was not 
content with this_Microsoft further destroyed any chance of 
either Netscape's or Java's survival, with or without the OEM and 
IAP distribution channels. Microsoft did this by ensuring the 
incompatibility of both software packages with Windows and Windows-
based software. Because Windows is the de facto standard operating 
system for the world's desktop computers, this tactic would ensure 
that only an insignificant portion of the world's computer users 
would use these two software packages. Therefore, the Windows 
monopoly would never be challenged by these alternative 
technologies.
    Microsoft changed its Windows API to make existing software 
incompatible. Microsoft continually modifies the Windows API. and 
each of these modifications makes software written for Windows 
immediately out-of-date because that software no longer conforms to 
the latest specification of the Windows API. This applies to not 
only applications but hardware and compatible operating systems as 
well. "IBM discovered this to its dismay in the mid-1990s when 
it failed, despite a massive investment, to clone a sufficiently 
large part of the 32-bit Windows APIs. In short, attempting to clone 
the 32-bit Windows APIs is such an expensive, uncertain undertaking 
that it fails to present a practical option for a would-be 
competitor to Windows." [2: ï¿½ 52]
    The Windows API keeps changing, and software vendors are forced 
to keep up with the changes because Microsoft ensures that the 
latest version of the operating system is always being shipped. 
Microsoft takes pains

[[Page 24136]]

to ensure that the versions of its operating system that OEMs pre-
install on new PC systems are the most current. It does this, in 
part, by increasing the price to OEMs of older versions of Windows 
when the newer versions are released. [2: ï¿½ 57]
    Therefore, computer users have no choice but to move onward to 
the latest version of the operating system, whether it is an 
improvement over the old version or not. Software vendors have no 
choice but to update their software to comply with the new operating 
system interface, if they expect to sell any software to those 
computer users who have recently purchased their computers and 
therefore have the latest version of Windows. It is through this 
rapid update mechanism that Microsoft keeps consumers and software 
vendors chained to the latest version of Windows: moreover, through 
this mechanism Microsoft can harm any software vendor it chooses.
    Netscape's browser ran on the pre-Windows95 versions of Windows, 
but for the Windows95 release of the opt, rating system, Microsoft 
changed the API so that Netscape's browser would no longer work. 
This required a re-write of Netscape's browser if Netscape wanted 
their browser to run on the (then highly anticipated) Windows95 
release. The following paragraphs illustrate the power that 
Microsoft wields over other companies through its ability to modify 
the Windows API:
    Microsoft knew that Netscape needed certain critical technical 
information and assistance in order to complete its Windows 95 
version of Navigator in time for the retail release of Windows 95. 
Indeed, Netscape executives had made a point of requesting this 
information, especially the so-called Remote Network Access 
("RNA") API, at the June 21 meeting. As was discussed 
above, the Microsoft representatives at the meeting had responded 
that the haste with which Netscape received the desired technical 
information would depend on whether Netscape entered the so-called 
"special relationship" with Microsoft. Specifically. 
Microsoft representative J. Allard had told [Netscape CEO James] 
Barksdale that the way in which the two companies concluded the 
meeting would determine whether Netscape received the RNA API 
immediately or in three months. [2: ï¿½ 90]
    Although Netscape declined the special relationship with 
Microsoft, its executives continued, over the weeks following the 
June 21 meeting, to plead for the RNA API. Despite Netscape's 
persistence, Microsoft did not release the AP1 to Netscape until 
late October, i.e., as Allard had warned, more than three months 
later. The delay in turn forced Netscape to postpone the release of 
its Windows 95 browser until substantially after the release of 
Windows 95 (and Internet Explorer) in August 1995. As a result, 
Netscape was excluded from most of the holiday selling season. [2: 
ï¿½ 91]
    As we have said, because the Windows interface is such a 
predominant feature in the high-tech industry any modification to 
the interface affects potentially every piece of hardware or 
software that is compatible with Windows. By changing the Windows 
API, Netscape's software was rendered incompatible with the newest 
version of Windows and therefore essentially useless. Microsoft 
selectively disseminated the details of its Windows API changes. 
Simply modifying an API is only harmful to the extent that other 
companies need to expend possibly large resources to play catch-up 
and to update their products to be compatible with the new 
specification of the API. As the quotes from the previous section 
show, the power to modify APIs becomes devastating when those APIs 
are not public information_i.e. when information regarding 
those APIs may be handed out selectively. Because Microsoft withheld 
crucial information from Netscape. Microsoft was able to finish 
their browser ahead of Netscape, and Netscape was not able to 
release their Windows95compatible browser until months after 
Windows95 was released. Microsoft behaved in similar ways in most of 
its other dealings with Netscape.
    Microsoft similarly withheld a scripting tool that Netscape 
needed to make its browser compatible with certain dial-up ISPs. 
Microsoft had licensed the tool freely to ISPs [Internet Service 
Providers] that wanted it, and in fact had cooperated with Netscape 
in drafting a license agreement that, by mid-July 1996, needed only 
to be signed by an authorized Microsoft executive to go into effect. 
There the process halted, however. In mid-August, a Microsoft 
representative informed Netscape that senior executives at Microsoft 
had decided to link the grant of the license to the resolution of 
all open issues between the companies. Netscape never received a 
license to the scripting tool, and as a result, was unable to do 
business with certain ISPs for a time. [2: ï¿½ 92] It is well 
known that Microsoft implements numerous "undocumented" 
features in its operating system, usually to the benefit of its own 
software. "Microsoft has special knowledge of its own 
products, and it alone chooses which functionalities in its products 
are to be documented and which are to be left undocumented." 
[2: ï¿½ 179] Furthermore, Microsoft frequently enters into 
agreements with some software developers in which those developers 
are granted "preferred" status and are therefore given 
access to more (but not necessarily all) information about the 
undocumented features of the operating system [2: ï¿½ 84].
    Because software running on a PC cannot use any hardware feature 
without the consent of the operating system, restricting access to 
the operating system cuts off the ability of software to do anything 
useful. Microsoft's dealings with Netscape are simply one example 
that demonstrate the enormous power that Microsoft wields and the 
extent to which the company has used that power to stifle individual 
corporations and to reward others. Microsoft subverted the Java 
interface standard. As mentioned, Java is a technology that enables 
computer programmers to write programs that will run on any 
operating system, and any hardware, anywhere. The fundamental 
concept behind Java is the idea that such interoperability is far 
more valuable than the ability to execute programs quickly, because 
the performance of computer hardware is improving at an astounding 
rate, and this will more than make up for any lack of performance 
seen in Java. Therefore. developers who write Java code are 
typically those who are willing to give up a small amount of 
performance in return for a larger market in which to sell their 
software.
    However. this is not what Microsoft wants_Microsoft is 
best served if all software that is compatible with Windows is 
completely dependent on Windows:
    For Microsoft, a key to maintaining and reinforcing [the 
difficulty of potential competitors to create an alternative to 
Windows] has been preserving the difficulty of porting applications 
from Windows to other platforms [e.g. operating systems], and vice 
versa. In 1996, senior executives at Microsoft became aware that the 
number of developers writing network-centric applications in the 
Java programming language had become significant, and that Java was 
likely to increase in popularity among developers. Microsoft 
therefore became interested in maximizing the difficulty with which 
applications written in Java could be ported from Windows to other 
platforms, and vice versa. [2: ï¿½ 386]
    Microsoft set out not to restrict Sun's ability to sell Java 
technology, but to extinguish the entire Java phenomenon. Microsoft 
recognized that the best way to do this would be to ensure that a 
significant portion of developers wrote Java code that would not, in 
fact, run on any operating system, any hardware, 
anywhere_Microsoft ensured that Java written to be compatible 
with Windows ran correctly only on Windows, and not on any other 
operating system. The District Court investigated and analyzed 
Microsoft's campaign against Java: Specifically, the District Court 
found that Microsoft took four steps to exclude Java from developing 
as a viable cross-platform threat: (a) designing a JVM incompatible 
with the one developed by Sun: (b) entering into contracts, the so-
called "First Wave Agreements," requiring major ISVs to 
promote Microsoft's JVM exclusively; (c) deceiving Java developers 
about the Windows-specific nature of the tools it distributed to 
them; and (d) coercing Intel to stop aiding Sun in improving the 
Java technologies. [1: p. 52]
    "JVM" stands for Java Virtual Machine and is the 
primary component that is required to be present on a computer if 
that computer is to run Java programs. By creating a JVM that was 
incompatible with Sun's and ensuring that a substantial fraction of 
developers used it and not Sun's, Microsoft went far beyond denying 
Sun a market in which to sell its own JVM_Microsoft ensured 
that Java itself would fail.
    On March 12, 1996, Sun signed an agreement granting Microsoft 
the right to distribute and make certain modifications to Sun's Java 
technologies. Microsoft used this license to create its own Java 
development tools and its own Windows-compatible Java runtime 
environment. Because the motivation behind the Sun-sponsored effort 
ran counter to Microsoft's interest in preserving the difficulty of 
porting, Microsoft independently developed methods for enabling 
"calls" to "native" Windows code that made 
porting more difficult than the

[[Page 24137]]

method that Sun was striving to make standard. Microsoft implemented 
these different methods in its developer tools and in its JVM. 
Microsoft also discouraged its business allies from aiding Sun's 
effort. For example, Gates told Intel's CEO in June 1996 that he did 
not want the Intel Architecture Labs cooperating with Sun to develop 
methods for calling upon multimedia interfaces in Windows. [2: 
ï¿½ 388] Sun had already developed a JVM for the Windows 
operating system when Microsoft began work on its version. The JVM 
developed by Microsoft allows Java applications to run faster on 
Windows than does Sun's JVM. Findings of Fact p 389, but a Java 
application designed to work with Microsoft's JVM does not work with 
Sun's JVM and vice versa. Id. p 390. The District Court found that 
Microsoft "made a large investment of engineering resources to 
develop a high-performance Windows JVM," id. p 396. and. 
"[b]y bundling its ... JVM with every copy of [IE] ... 
Microsoft endowed its Java runtime environment with the unique 
attribute of guaranteed, enduring ubiquity across the enormous 
Windows installed base." id. p 397. As explained above, 
however, a monopolist does not violate the antitrust laws simply by 
developing a product that is incompatible with those of its rivals 
.... In order to violate the antitrust laws, the incompatible 
product must have an anticompetitive effect that outweighs any 
procompetitive justification for the design. [1: pp. 51-52]
    The Court of Appeals found that simply creating this non-
standard JVM was not in violation of antitrust laws. However, the 
Court also stated that "to violate the antitrust laws, the 
incompatible product must have an anticompetitive effect that 
outweighs any procompetitive justification for the design." It 
is our position that this is exactly the case here. The fundamental 
point of Java is to promote cross-platform compatibility. Any 
computer engineer knows that one can sacrifice generality for better 
performance; such trade-offs are trivial to make. and it is little 
wonder that Microsoft was able to create a high-performance JVM by 
sacrificing compatibility. However. doing so outweighs the 
procompetitive justification for the design, because, as we have 
said, the fundamental purpose of Java is not to achieve the highest 
possible performance but to provide generality_i.e. 
compatibility with all operating systems and all hardware platforms. 
Had Java developers known what Microsoft was doing, it is quite 
possible that they would have opted for Sun's JVM implementation 
over Microsoft's. In addition. Intel had built a high-performance 
JVM that did comply with the Java standard, and it is likely that 
the Java developers would have chosen this over either Microsoft's 
implementation or Sun's implementation. However, Microsoft prevented 
either from happening.
    First, Microsoft entered into agreements with numerous 
independent software vendors (ISVs) in which it forbade the ISVs 
from using any Java technology offered by Sun.
    Recognizing ISVs as a channel through which Java runtime 
environments that complied with Sun's standards could find their way 
onto Windows PC systems, Microsoft induced ISVs to distribute 
Microsoft's version instead of a Sun-compliant one. First. Microsoft 
made its JVM available to ISVs separately from Internet Explorer so 
that those uninterested in bundling browsing software could 
nevertheless bundle Microsoft's JVM. Microsoft's David Cole revealed 
the motivation for this step in a message he wrote to Jim Allchin in 
July 1997: "[W]e've agreed that we must allow ISVs to 
redistribute the Java VM standalone, without IE. ISVs that do this 
are bound into Windows because that's the only place the VM works, 
and it keeps them away from Sun's APIs." [2: ï¿½ 400]
    Microsoft took the further step of offering valuable things to 
ISVs that agreed to use Microsoft's Java implementation. 
Specifically, in the First Wave agreements that it signed with 
dozens of ISVs in 1997 and 1998. Microsoft conditioned early Windows 
98 and Windows NT betas, other technical information, and the right 
to use certain Microsoft seals of approval on the agreement of those 
ISVs to use Microsoft's version of the Windows JVM as the 
"default." Microsoft and the ISVs all read this 
requirement to obligate the ISVs to ensure that their Java 
applications were compatible with Microsoft's version of the Windows 
JVM. The only effective way to ensure compatibility with Microsoft's 
JVM was to use Microsoft's Java developer tools, which in turn meant 
using Microsoft's methods for making native calls and (unless the 
developers were especially wary and sophisticated) Microsoft's other 
Java extensions. Thus, a very large percentage of the Java 
applications that the First Wave ISVs wrote would run only on 
Microsoft's version of the Windows JVM. [...] The record contains no 
evidence that the relevant provision in the First Wave agreements 
had any purpose other than to maximize the difficulty of porting 
Java applications between Windows and other platforms. [2: ï¿½ 
401]
    Nonetheless, developers, especially those "wary and 
sophisticated," might have chosen to use JVMs written by a 
party other than Microsoft. However, Microsoft assuaged potential 
fears of developers by essentially committing fraud: The company 
deceived developers as to the portability of code written for its 
JVM.
    Microsoft's "Java implementation" included, in 
addition to a JVM, a set of software development tools it created to 
assist ISVs in designing Java applications. The District Court found 
that, not only were these tools incompatible with Sun's cross-
platform aspirations for Java_no violation, to be 
sure_but Microsoft deceived Java developers regarding the 
Windows-specific nature of the tools. Microsoft's tools included 
"certain 'keywords' and 'compiler 
directives' that could only be executed properly by 
Microsoft's version of the Java runtime environment for 
Windows." Id. p 394; see also Direct Testimony of James 
Gosling p 58, reprinted in 21 J.A. at 13959 (Microsoft added 
"programming instructions ... that alter the behavior of the 
code."). As a result, even Java "developers who were 
opting for portability over performance ... unwittingly [wrote] Java 
applications that [ran] only on Windows." Conclusions of Law, 
at 43. That is, developers who relied upon Microsoft's public 
commitment to cooperate with Sun and who used Microsoft's tools to 
develop what Microsoft led them to believe were cross-platform 
applications ended up producing applications that would run only on 
the Windows operating system.
    When specifically accused by a PC Week reporter of fragmenting 
Java standards so as to prevent cross-platform uses, Microsoft 
denied the accusation and indicated it was only "adding rich 
platform support" to what remained a cross-platform 
implementation. An e-mail message internal to Microsoft, written 
shortly after the conversation with the reporter, shows otherwise: 
[O]k, I just did a followup call.... [The reporter] liked that i 
kept pointing customers to w3c standards [(commonly observed 
internet protocols)].... [but] he accused us of being schizo with 
this vs. our java approach, i said he misunderstood [_] that 
[with Java] we are merely trying to add rich platform support to an 
interop layer.... this plays well.... at this point its [sic] not 
good to create MORE noise around our win32 java classes, instead we 
should just quietly grow j++ [(Microsoft's development tools)] share 
and assume that people will take more advantage of our classes 
without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps.
    GX 1332, reprinted in 22 J.A. at 14922-23.
    Finally, other Microsoft documents confirm that Microsoft 
intended to deceive Java developers, and predicted that the effect 
of its actions would be to generate Windows-dependent Java 
applications that their developers believed would be cross-platform; 
these documents also indicate that Microsoft's ultimate objective 
was to thwart Java's threat to Microsoft's monopoly in the market 
for operating systems. One Microsoft document, for example, states 
as a strategic goal: "Kill cross-platform Java by growling] 
the polluted Java market." GX 259, reprinted in 22 J.A. at 
14514; see also id. ("Cross-platform capability is by far the 
number one reason for choosing/using Java.") (emphasis in 
original). [1: pp. 55-56]
    It is interesting to note, in the last excerpt, that even 
Microsoft officials recognized that Java's strength lay in its 
cross-platform interoperability.
    Lastly, Microsoft killed Intel's high-performance JVM, which was 
fully compliant with the Java standard anti could therefore easily 
have overtaken Microsoft's JVM.
    The District Court held that Microsoft also acted unlawfully 
with respect to Java by using its "monopoly power to prevent 
firms such as Intel from aiding in the creation of cross-platform 
interfaces." Conclusions of Law, at 43. In 1995 Intel was in 
the process of developing a high-performance, Windows-compatible 
JVM. Microsoft wanted Intel to abandon that effort because a fast, 
cross-platform JVM would threaten Microsoft's monopoly in the 
operating system market. At an August 1995 meeting, Microsoft's 
Gates told Intel that its "cooperation with Sun and Netscape 
to develop a Java runtime environment ... was one of the issues

[[Page 24138]]

threatening to undermine cooperation between Intel and 
Microsoft." Findings of Fact p 396. Three months later, 
"Microsoft's Paul Maritz told a senior Intel executive that 
Intel's [adaptation of its multimedia software to comply with] Sun's 
Java standards was as inimical to Microsoft as Microsoft's support 
for non-Intel microprocessors would be to Intel." Id. p 405.
    Intel nonetheless continued to undertake initiatives related to 
Java. By 1996 "Intel had developed a JVM designed to run well 
... while complying with Sun's cross-platform standards." Id. 
p 396. In April of that year, Microsoft again urged Intel not to 
help Sun by distributing Intel's fast, Sun-compliant JVM. Id. And 
Microsoft threatened Intel that if it did not stop aiding Sun on the 
multimedia front, then Microsoft would refuse to distribute Intel 
technologies bundled with Windows. Id. p 404.
    Intel finally capitulated in 1997. [1: pp. 56-57]
    The downfall of Java is important because, at the time, Java 
represented a potential competitor to the Windows hegemony. 
Currently, most software developers write code for the Windows 
platform because it represents the largest possible market for their 
software. As we have mentioned before, code written for one 
operating system does not run on another without considerable effort 
in re-writing that code so that, instead of using the first 
operating system's interface, it uses the second's interface. This 
rewriting of a software program is called "porting" the 
code and represents a substantial undertaking. Java offered 
developers a way to increase the size of the market for their 
software, by allowing developers to write software that would run 
not only on Windows but on every operating system and hardware 
platform imaginable. As the Court's records show, in the mid-1990's 
developers recognized this benefit and were moving in large numbers 
to use Java [2: ï¿½ 386]. However, the high-tech industry is 
very fickle, a byproduct of its highly dynamic nature, and if a 
technology fails to catch on the first time around, it has a 
difficult road ahead of it. By taking away the main benefit of 
Java_its promise of universal compatibility_Microsoft 
allowed developers to become cool to the idea. and Ibis essentially 
killed it.
    Had the Java vision been realized, it would have offered 
competition in the PC operating systems market. Microsoft waged its 
campaign against Java for exactly this reason: Had the Java vision 
come true, it would have weakened the stronghold of Windows, because 
a user's choice of underlying operating system would have become 
less important. This would have increased the likelihood for 
computer users to consider alternative or "fringe" 
operating systems such as Unix, Linux, BeOS, Mac OS, etc. 
Microsoft's successful subversion of Java took much of the momentum 
out of the Java movement and in so doing ensured that neither Java 
nor Java-enabled operating systems would present any significant 
competition with Windows in the PC operating systems market.
    Microsoft attempted to subvert the HTML interface standard. 
Microsoft attempted a similar destruction or undermining of the HTML 
standard (the language of the world-wide web), by creating its own 
incompatible "extensions" to the language and forcing as 
many developers as possible to use those extensions. As early as 
1995, Microsoft had developed HTML control words that were 
incompatible with all browsers but its own Internet Explorer. For 
computer users viewing the web through any browser but Microsoft's, 
web pages using these control words would either display incorrectly 
or fail to display at all. Evidently, Microsoft hoped that, if it 
could make Internet browsing a confusing and irritating experience 
for enough people (those not using Internet Explorer on Windows), 
the popularity of the Internet would wane, and the "inflection 
point" that the Internet represented would not have the 
potential to injure Microsoft. Microsoft entered into numerous 
agreements to spread its non-standard HTML. For example, in 1997, 
the company set up agreements with website developers (also called 
Internet Content Providers, or ICPs):
    [T]he agreements required the ICPs, in designing their Web 
sites, to employ certain Microsoft technologies such as Dynamic HTML 
and ActiveX. Some of the agreements actually required the ICPs to 
create "differentiated content" that was either 
available only to Internet Explorer users or would be more 
attractive when viewed with Internet Explorer than with any 
"Other Browser." For example, the agreement with Intuit 
provided: "Some differentiated content may be available only 
to IE users, some may simply be 'best when used with 
IE,' with acceptable degradation when used with other 
browsers." [2: ï¿½ 322]
    In addition, Microsoft began forcing even OEMs, such as Compaq, 
to put non-standard HTML features into their websites.
    When Compaq eventually [capitulated to Microsoft's wishes], it 
did so because its senior executives had decided that the firm 
needed to do what[ever] was necessary to restore its special 
relationship with Microsoft. [...] Compaq agreed to offer Internet 
Explorer as the preferred browser product for its Internet products 
and to use two or more of Microsoft's hypertext markup language 
("HTML") extensions in the home page for each of those 
products. [2: ï¿½ 233] Microsoft targeted software developers as 
well:
    Microsoft also targeted individual ISVs [Independent Software 
Vendors] directly, extracting from them commitments to make their 
Web-centric applications reliant on technology specific to Internet 
Explorer. [2: ï¿½ 337]
    In dozens of "First Wave" agreements signed between 
the fall of 1997 and the spring of 1998, Microsoft has promised to 
give preferential support [...] to important ISVs that agree to 
certain conditions. One of these conditions is that the ISVs use 
Internet Explorer as the default browsing software for any software 
they develop with a hypertext-based user interface. Another 
condition is that the ISVs use Microsoft's "HTML Help," 
which is accessible only with Internet Explorer to implement their 
applications' help systems. [2: ï¿½ 339]
    By exchanging its vital support for the agreement of leading 
ISVs to make Internet Explorer the default browsing software on 
which their products rely, Microsoft has ensured that many of the 
most popular Web-centric applications will rely on browsing 
technologies found only in Windows. [2: ï¿½ 340]
    Despite Microsoft's efforts, consumer interest in the Internet 
did not wane, and irritation at the inability to view certain web 
pages did not drive users to forgo browsing the web. It is likely 
that Microsoft's failure in this particular campaign was due to the 
fact that Microsoft attempted to subvert the standard only once it 
was already in wide use-i.e. once it had already succeeded. In 
comparison, Java was killed in its infancy, before it had reached a 
critical mass of support. It is important to note that these are not 
isolated incidents chosen simply to disparage Microsoft. The record 
shows that Microsoft saw similar threats from other quarters and 
responded to them in much the same manner as the maneuvers described 
above. The following are three examples of how Microsoft responded 
to quash the development of either direct competitors to Windows or 
"middleware" for Windows, as well as a brief look at 
Microsoft's latest anticompetitive action. Middleware is a type of 
software program that serves to hide the particulars of the 
underlying operating system, Java being one example of a middleware 
system. The very nature of middleware makes it a threat to 
Microsoft's operating system enterprise because it has the potential 
to make Windows obsolete:
    A middleware product written for Windows could take over some or 
all of Windows's valuable platform functions_that is, 
developers might begin to reply upon APIs exposed by the middleware 
for basic routines rather than relying upon the API set included in 
Windows. If middleware were written for multiple operating systems, 
its impact could be even greater. The more developers could rely 
upon APIs exposed by such middleware, the less expensive porting to 
different operating systems would be. Ultimately, if developers 
could write applications relying exclusively on APIs exposed by 
middleware, their applications would run on any operating system on 
which the middleware was also present. [1: p. 18] In the early 
1990's, Intel created multimedia features in their hardware that 
would enable computers to play movies and high-resolution computer 
games, but Microsoft refused to make these hardware features 
available through its operating system. Typically, as shown in 
Figure l, hardware devices and other sophisticated hardware features 
are available to software only through the operating system, and if 
the operating system fails to support the hardware, no software 
running on that system can access that hardware. Intel began 
developing software called Native Signal Processing that would allow 
programmers to use the new multimedia features without having to go 
through Windows, so as to encourage software developers to write 
multimedia programs. In response, Microsoft threatened to terminate 
compatibility with Intel's chips if Intel persisted in offering 
programmers a way to run software on its hardware without having to 
use Windows. Intel was ultimately forced

[[Page 24139]]

by Microsoft into giving up its software experiments. Five years 
after the fact, Microsoft finally integrated into Windows most, but 
not all, of the multimedia capabilities that Intel had developed. 
The Court's explanation for Microsoft's behavior was a "fear 
at Microsoft that the NSP software would render ISVs, device 
manufacturers, and (ultimately) consumers less dependent on Windows. 
Without this fear. Microsoft would not have subjected Intel to the 
level of pressure that it brought to bear in the summer of 
1995." [2: ï¿½ï¿½ 94-103]
    IBM expended enormous effort to reverse-engineer the Windows API 
and thereby build their own, fully interchangeable, version of the 
Windows operating system. IBM's operating system was called 0S/2 
Warp, and, because IBM faithfully reproduced a substantial portion 
of the Windows API, OS/2 Warp was able to run Windows applications 
directly. The operating system was billed with the advertising 
slogan, "A Better Windows Than Windows," which by all 
accounts was true: The operating system was faster than Windows, it 
was more reliable than Windows (it did not crash nearly as easily), 
and it ran most Windows applications flawlessly.
    Because it was faster and more stable than Microsoft's operating 
system, it had the potential to weaken the appeal of Windows. In 
response, Microsoft swiftly changed the Windows APIs, leaving OS/2 
Warp offering an obsolete version of the operating system interface. 
IBM could not keep pace with the interface changes and ultimately 
gave up on OS/2 Warp as a PC operating system. [2: ï¿½ 52, 
ï¿½ ï¿½ 115-132]
    Apple created its Quick Time standard to be a multimedia 
authoring tool and audio/video publishing format that would run on 
any computer, whether Macintosh-based or Windows-based. Microsoft 
saw this as a threat because QuickTime enabled software developers 
to write multimedia programs that would run on Windows but that did 
not depend directly on Windows. Microsoft developed its own 
multimedia standard (DirectX) and threatened to develop multimedia 
content-development software that was incompatible with Apple's and 
to expend every resource available to ensure that it won out over 
QuickTime, unless Apple ensured that QuickTime would not run equally 
well on all platforms. Microsoft's proposal was for Apple to make 
their Windows-based QuickTime software entirely dependent on 
Windows. "[Apple's CEO Steve] Jobs reserved comment during the 
meeting with the Microsoft representatives, but he explicitly 
rejected Microsoft's proposal a few weeks later. Had Apple accepted 
Microsoft's proposal. Microsoft would have succeeded in limiting 
substantially the cross-platform development of multimedia 
content." [2: ï¿½ ï¿½ 106-109]
    Windows XP is Microsoft's latest version of the Windows 
operating system, released in November 2001 in the midst of the 
trial's conclusion. The operating system flouts the very same laws 
that Microsoft was charged with violating in the first place. The 
operating system disables the software of 
competitors_including Apple's QuickTime media player, AOL Time 
Warner's America On-Line version 6.0, and RealJukebox from 
RealNetworks [23]_and supplants them with Microsoft's 
proprietary alternatives. Note that these are the very companies 
with which Microsoft had similar run-ins previously [1,2]. Not only 
is the browser tied to the operating system, but so is nearly every 
aspect of the computer user's experience, from Internet content to 
popular multimedia formats. The writing on the wall is very clear: 
No software vendor is safe_Microsoft can destroy any 
competitor's software it chooses and replace it with its own.
    Solutions to the Problem
    According to the Supreme Court, there are four primary goals for 
an antitrust remedy. "The Supreme Court has explained that a 
remedies decree in an antitrust case should 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." ' [1: pp. 
99-100] We propose a multi-part remedy that addresses each of 
these goals.
    Most Importantly: Prevent Future Monopolization
    We treat the last goal first because we believe it to be the 
most important. The first three goals_to restore competition, 
to terminate the illegal monopoly, and to deny the illegal monopoly 
the fruits of its misconduct_are addressed in the next 
section. As the Supreme Court indicates, an antitrust remedy is not 
sufficient if it merely returns us to the status quo [9.10]. An 
appropriate remedy must also seek to prevent future monopolization. 
We believe that the best way to prevent future misconduct from 
Microsoft is to look at those of its actions that are problematic 
and devise a remedy that prevents similar maneuvers in the future. 
The list, again, of Microsoft's actions:
    1. Microsoft created an alternative browser to Netscape's. 
Action #1 alone is an example of behavior that is perfectly 
legal and should remain so: A monopoly clearly should not be 
prevented from competing in a market just because of its status as a 
monopoly. The rest of the actions, however, are objectionable:
    2. Microsoft brought pressure to bear on OEM and IAP channels.
    3. Microsoft changed its Windows API to make existing software 
incompatible.
    4. Microsoft selectively disseminated the details of its Windows 
API changes.
    5. Microsoft subverted the Java interface standard.
    6. Microsoft attempted to subvert the HTML interface standard. 
It is this second group of tactical maneuvers, numbers 2 through 6, 
that we will explore for direction, and doing so leads us to further 
remedial steps to prevent future misconduct. Action #2, 
pressuring OEMs to pre-load only Internet Explorer, and action 
#4, selectively disseminating information on its changes to the 
Windows API, are both obvious violations of the Sherman Act. For 
instance, as detailed earlier, Microsoft's manipulation of the 
Windows API harmed both IBM and Netscape, and therefore action 
#2 is part of the illegality. The other actions represent very 
serious and very effective abuses of power, and Microsoft violated 
the Sherman Act when the company used its abilities to harm other 
companies through these actions. For instance, Microsoft's 
undermining of the Java standard harmed Sun, and therefore action 
#5 is part of the illegality. Clearly, it is imperative to 
prevent all of the listed behaviors if we are to prevent future 
monopolistic abuses by Microsoft.
    Microsoft undertook these anticompetitive actions because it 
believed its Windows API_its operating systems 
interface_to be threatened by other technologies that could 
potentially supplant it. As we have said, like contracts, interfaces 
are extremely powerful things. Compared to a tangible product, an 
internal interface differs in its impact on economic systems because 
not only are end-consumers dependent on it, but other hardware and 
software vendors that build products compatible with the interface 
are dependent on it as well. Furthermore, the effect of modifying an 
interface on which competing companies depend is markedly different 
from the effect of simply developing a competing product: Whereas a 
new end-product simply offers consumers an alternative to the 
competitor's product that will have to stand the test of the 
marketplace, modifying an interface can make the competing company's 
products instantly obsolete_because as soon as the 
modification is made the other company's product no longer conforms 
to the interface, and an interface is ultimately more influential in 
its scope than any particular product that embodies it. Therefore it 
is clear that a monopoly controlling a widely used interface is 
perfectly capable of controlling its direct competitors, its 
indirect competitors, and even those corporations that provide 
complementary products and do not compete with it in any way.
    The obvious conclusion is that monopolies should not be allowed 
to control widely used interfaces. We propose two remedies that 
would prevent future misconduct: A. Microsoft's widely used 
interfaces (in particular the Windows API) should be turned over to 
the public_i.e. Microsoft should give up its right to modify 
at will those of its interfaces that have become de facto standards. 
The authors would prefer to see the interfaces handed over to the 
IEEE (the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers), as the 
IEEE is an independent, non-profit body already involved in the 
specification of many public computer interface standards, both 
hardware and software. However. the choice of a governing body is a 
matter of opinion.
    B. Microsoft should adhere to existing de facto standard 
interfaces: The company should not develop or fund the development 
of any interface that provides substantially similar function as an 
existing standard but that is incompatible with that standard.
    Note that remedial step A differs from Judge Jackson's interim 
provision in which Microsoft was compelled to provide all 
information about the Windows API to all developers in a timely 
manner and equally to all [13]. His Final Judgment stated that, 
until full implementation of the divestiture plan which he imposed, 
among other things the following was to be required of Microsoft:

[[Page 24140]]

    b. Disclosure of APIs, Communications Interfaces and Technical 
Information. Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs in a 
Timely Manner, in whatever media Microsoft disseminates such 
information to its own personnel, all APIs, Technical Information 
and Communications Interfaces that Microsoft employs to 
enable_
    i. Microsoft applications to interoperate with Microsoft 
Platform Software installed on the same Personal Computer, or
    ii. a Microsoft Middleware Product to interoperate with Windows 
Operating System software (or Middleware distributed with such 
Operating System) installed on the same Personal Computer,
    or
    iii. any Microsoft software installed on one computer (including 
but not limited to server Operating Systems and operating systems 
for handheld devices) to interoperate with a Windows Operating 
System (or Middleware distributed with such Operating System) 
installed on a Personal Computer.
    To facilitate compliance, and monitoring of compliance, with the 
foregoing, Microsoft shall create a secure facility where qualified 
representatives of OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs shall be permitted to study, 
interrogate and interact with relevant and necessary portions of the 
source code and any related documentation of Microsoft Platform 
Software for the sole purpose of enabling their products to 
interoperate effectively with Microsoft Platform Software ... [13] 
Judge Jackson's judgment essentially makes the previously 
"undocumented" features of Windows openly available to 
all 2, and the judgment prevents Microsoft from withholding key 
information as it did to delay Netscape's offering of a Windows95-
compatible browser. Our proposed remedy A would push Judge Jackson's 
judgment a step further-our proposed remedy would take the Windows 
API from Microsoft's control and hand it over to an independent body 
as a public interface. Note that this does not mean that Microsoft 
would have to divulge any source code to the public; only the 
Windows API would become public.
    2. The "undocumented" features of Windows are those 
features that exist in the operating system but that are unavailable 
to all but a select group by virtue of the fact that the features 
are not specified in any publicly available document.
    Public interfaces, often called public standards, are those that 
are not proprietary, are controlled by an independent body (such as 
ANSI, the American National Standards Institute; IEEE, the Institute 
of Electrical and Electronics
    Engineers; IETF, the Internet Engineering Task Force; etc.), and 
are typically designed to make computers of different types 
compatible with each other. Generally, all who wish to participate 
in the specification of a public standard are allowed to contribute 
to the effort: Because of the public nature of such discussions, no 
one is prevented from playing a part. Conversely, no individual or 
corporation is allowed to make unilateral decisions about the 
standard. A perfect example of a public interface is the World-Wide 
Web: It uses the Internet Protocol_a public standard_to 
transmit documents written in HTML_also a public 
standard_from web servers to web browsers, using yet another 
public standard called HTTP (hypertext transmission protocol) that 
runs on top of the Internet Protocol. Any computer anywhere that 
supports these standards can browse the web, whether it is Windows-
based or PalmOS-based or Macintosh-based or Unix-based or BeOS-based 
or Linux-based, and the fact that the standards are public increases 
the chance that any particular operating system will support them. 
The fact that the web uses nothing but public standards is one of 
the characteristics that attracted developers to the web in the 
first place: Any programmer can build a web server or web browser 
and know that it will work with the web; moreover, because the 
standards are public, the programmer need not pay any royalties to 
anyone; lastly, because the standards cannot be changed by any one 
person or company acting alone, the programmer can be assured that 
his work will not suddenly become obsolete due to unannounced 
changes to the various interfaces.
    A monopoly should certainly be allowed to help define these 
public computing interfaces_who better to help realize the 
future of computing than a company with years of experience in the 
computer industry? However, a company should not be allowed to use 
its monopoly status to do an end-run around an existing public 
standard and undermine the efforts of others to make computers more 
compatible with each other, more useful, and easier to use. These 
two proposed remedial steps together would prohibit Microsoft from 
doing just this: Together, they would ensure that Microsoft will not 
be able to create, either directly or indirectly (i.e. by persuading 
smaller companies to do its bidding), new products that undermine 
public standards. Moreover, Microsoft's own primary interface, the 
Windows API, would become a public standard, which would prevent 
Microsoft from modifying that interface at will, as the company has 
done in the past to ensure that Netscape's browser would fail to 
work with Windows95 and to ensure that IBM would not be able to keep 
up with its reverse-engineering effort that made OS/2 possible.
    Unfetter the Market from Ant/competitive Conduct, Terminate the 
Illegal Monopoly, and Deny Microsoft the Fruits of its Misconduct
    As mentioned in the previous section, the court, in fashioning 
remedies, should go beyond merely restoring the status quo. The 
court should impose a remedy that will cure the effects of the 
illegal conduct and, at the same time, prevent the continuation of 
the misconduct and prevent the violator from reaping benefits in the 
future from their conduct [9, 10]. Because the "relevant 
market" for a monopoly is defined as including all products 
that are "reasonably interchangeable by consumers for the same 
purposes" [1: p. 15], a monopoly exists by definition if there 
are no such products available. No product currently exists that is 
reasonably interchangeable with the Windows operating system, and 
Microsoft's present monopoly will not be terminated until one does 
exist. The solution is rather clear: Microsoft eliminated the threat 
of potential competitors to its Windows operating system by 
exclusionary tactics, and therefore it should bear the 
responsibility of funding the production of such a competitor. Or 
perhaps more than one. Doing so would introduce competition into the 
market, would end Microsoft's monopoly, and would deny Microsoft the 
fruits of its anticompetitive behavior.
    We propose the following additional remedial steps, in addition 
to those already discussed:
    C. All non-compliant Java technology developed by Microsoft (its 
Java Virtual Machine and its development environment) should be 
destroyed, and Microsoft should be prevented from distributing it in 
the future, either directly or indirectly.
    D. Microsoft should pay Intel to finish the development of its 
high-performance Java Virtual Machine, and Microsoft should also pay 
at least the initial costs of marketing the product.
    E. The non-compliant Java Virtual Machine in Microsoft's browser 
should be removed and replaced with Intel's compliant and high-
performance JVM.
    F. Microsoft should pay Sun Microsystems to finish development 
of Java technologies and market the product. In particular, the 
marketing of Java technologies should be handled in much the same 
way as Microsoft's "evangelizing" of the Windows 
platform (Microsoft spends hundreds of millions of dollars per year 
inducing independent software developers to write applications for 
Windows [2: ï¿½ 43]). Microsoft should pay Sun a large one-time 
sum, perhaps equal to a year's worth of Windows evangelizing, to be 
used by Sun to seed development of Java applications by independent 
software vendors.
    G. Microsoft should pay IBM to update OS/2 to be compliant with 
the latest version of the Windows API (e.g. Windows XP), so as to 
provide an alternative operating system to Windows. Because 
Microsoft's ability to manipulate the Windows API at will is what 
drove OS/2 out of the PC market last time, such manipulation should 
be regulated in the future for OS/2 to remain a reasonably 
interchangeable alternative. Thus. remedial steps A and B are 
necessary.
    H. Microsoft should make its browser and MSN portal compatible 
with the World-Wide Web Consortium's HTML, HTTP, and XML interface 
standards. In particular, the MSN portal should not shut out access 
by browsers other than Internet Explorer, as it presently does [25]. 
These remedies would create two alternatives to the Windows 
operating system. The first alternative is based on Java middleware, 
which could be disseminated by itself or bundled with a browser. As 
the appellate court stated in its opinion, this is one of the ways 
in which to make the PC operating-systems market competitive:
    If a consumer could have access to the applications he 
desired_regardless of the operating system he 
uses_simply by installing a particular browser on his 
computer, then he would no longer feel compelled to select Windows 
in order to have access to those applications; he could select an 
operating system other than

[[Page 24141]]

Windows based solely upon its quality and price. In other words, the 
market for operating systems would be competitive. [1: p. 29]
    Remedies C-F provide for the Java alternative. This would 
create a layer of middleware that is truly cross-platform. If it is 
marketed well, the average end-consumer might become familiar with 
it, thereby making it a viable alternative to Windows. If Microsoft 
were to be prevented from undermining the Java standard, software 
developers could write applications and know that their software 
would run on any operating system equally well, from Windows to Mac 
OS to Unix to Linux to BeOS, etc. This would create larger markets 
for the developers' software (as opposed to writing software that 
runs on only one operating system) and could also raise consumer 
interest level in alternative operating systems_provided that 
enough developers begin to write compelling Java applications, such 
as a reasonably interchangeable alternative to Microsoft's Office 
suite. Fundamental to the scheme is a truly cross-platform, high-
performance environment, which is what Intel was attempting to help 
Sun deliver. Therefore, it is crucial that Intel's high-performance 
JVM take the place of Microsoft's incompatible JVM, and all of 
Microsoft's non-compliant Java technology be kept off the market and 
thus out of circulation and unavailable for public consumption.
    Because the future widespread availability of Java applications 
that rival their Windows counterparts in features and sophistication 
is merely speculative, even with seed funding from Microsoft, it is 
best to provide a second alternative as well: a full-blown operating 
system having the same features as Windows and able to run Windows 
applications. Remedy G provides for the OS/2 alternative: a truly 
interchangeable alternative to Windows. This was the promise of OS/2 
before Microsoft changed the Windows API more rapidly than IBM could 
reverse-engineer it. With Microsoft funding its development, IBM 
should be able to bring OS/2 up to the WindowsXP API in a very short 
time (in software development, emulating an existing product is much 
simpler than creating something new from scratch).
    Remedy H simply ensures that Microsoft would be required to 
maintain open standards, rather than undermining them.
    To avoid simply returning to the status quo, Microsoft must be 
prevented from performing future acts that mirror its previous acts. 
If Java compatibility is ensured by the eradication of the non-
compliant technology, Microsoft should be prevented from building 
future incompatible Java technology, else history will be repeated. 
If there is a revival of OS/2, Microsoft should not be allowed to 
manipulate the Windows API so as to make the new version of OS/2 
instantly obsolete, as it did in the mid-1990's to eliminate the 
threat of OS/2 Warp. Remedial steps A and B together prevent future 
monopolistic abuses of this type.
    Discussion
    Making the Windows API a public standard owned by an independent 
organization separate from Microsoft and preventing Microsoft from 
manipulating the interface as it sees fit are both essential if the 
remedial steps in the previous section are to work for any length of 
time. If Microsoft has free reign to modify the Windows API, it 
could very quickly make Intel's JVM non-compatible with Windows, 
and, if OS/2 were to become again an alternative to the Windows 
operating system, Microsoft could quickly make OS/2 obsolete again 
simply by changing the Windows API. If Microsoft retains control of 
the Windows API, it can target any company's software and make it 
instantly obsolete by appropriately modifying the API. By the time 
the company re-writes its software to reflect the changes, Microsoft 
could modify the Windows API even further, and thereby ensure that 
the targeted company would never have a software product that is 
compatible with the latest version of Windows.
    For example, Microsoft's Passport system is a software package 
bundled with WindowsXP that handles the financial side of e-commerce 
transactions, and it provides Microsoft with a small fee charged to 
the user for every e-commerce transaction Passport handles. If e-
commerce is to become as pervasive as predicted, Passport represents 
future revenues that dwarf the revenues Microsoft currently receives 
from Windows and Office combined: Because Windows-based PCs 
represent 80-90% of the world's desktop computers, one can 
expect that 80-90% of the world's e-commerce transactions will 
be handled through Passport. If a competitor to Passport arises, 
Microsoft can simply change the Windows API in a matter of minutes, 
release the new version of the operating system to OEMs, and in so 
doing make the new e-commerce software incompatible with 
Windows_which will temporarily bar that competitor from the 
Windows desktop. It will take time for the new company to build and 
release a new version of their software that is compatible with the 
newer version of Windows, and during this time Microsoft will be 
able to make further modifications to the Windows API that will 
render the competitor's revision out-of-date. By allowing Microsoft 
to own the Windows API, we give Microsoft the ability to arm any 
targeted company indefinitely. Microsoft has already demonstrated 
that it is willing to use this power: Remember that Netscape's 
browser ran perfectly well under Windows 3.1, but Microsoft's 
changes to the API made Netscape's browser incompatible with 
Windows95. Remember also that Microsoft's latest version of Windows, 
WindowsXP, makes numerous software packages by its competitors 
incompatible. There is every reason to believe that Microsoft will 
continue to use this ability in the future to harm potential 
competitors in any promising market, and it is therefore critical to 
any remedies decree that this ability, to modify the Windows API 
without the permission of its constituents (i.e. independent 
software and hardware vendors as well as the public consumer), be 
stripped from Microsoft.
    An argument against this remedial step is that it could stifle 
competition by preventing Microsoft from creating new features at 
will_by curbing Microsoft's ability to "innovate." 
In rare cases, new features do require changes to interfaces, but 
the vast majority of new features tend to work quite well with the 
old interfaces. For instance, assuming the company is not prohibited 
from doing so, Microsoft could easily integrate its browser into the 
Windows operating system without having to change the operating 
system interface at all. The Unix file I/O interface is an extremely 
potent example of an interface that has not changed in the decades 
since its inception yet is still allowing innovation to this day. 
The interface was defined to allow software to open, read, write, 
and close files stored on disks. Numerous features have been added 
to the Unix operating system using the same interface, 
and_just to name a few examples_software programs can 
now send messages on the Internet, interact with other programs, use 
input devices such as mice and drawing tablets, and even talk to 
smart cards using the same, unchanged, interface as reading and 
writing files on disks. Clearly, innovation is not at all stifled by 
restricting changes to interfaces, while this entire article 
illustrates numerous potent examples of stifling innovation by 
allowing such changes. Changing the nature of Microsoft's 
competition with other companies would not hinder its ability to 
innovate; it would simply force Microsoft to pay more attention to 
inter-operability, ease-of-use, performance, and reliability, as 
these would be the characteristics on which their products would be 
judged in the marketplace.
    Note that the proposed remedies would still guarantee Microsoft 
the opportunity to participate in the specification of any given 
public interface, including Windows, by virtue of the fact that the 
interface would be public. Microsoft certainly would be allowed to 
build products that comply with a given public interface_as 
would all companies, by virtue of the public character of that 
interface. The only thing Microsoft would be prevented from doing is 
undermining the public interface by watering it down (making 
slightly incompatible products) and/or drawing attention away to a 
proprietary alternative (as it did when it encouraged Java 
developers to use its own non-standard version of the Java runtime 
environment).
    In addition, this proposal would increase competition in the 
marketplace by allowing other companies to offer compatible 
products. By making Microsoft's Windows API a public standard owned 
by an independent entity other than Microsoft, any company would be 
allowed to create alternative products that offer the same 
functionality. Moreover, by virtue of the interface being controlled 
by an independent body, Microsoft would not be allowed to change the 
interface more rapidly than other companies could develop new 
products; changes to the interface would occur at a pace decided by 
the independent body and contributing members of the public. How 
could this suggested remedy_that those of Microsoft's computer 
interfaces that have become de facto standards be made public and 
that Microsoft be prevented in the future from changing them at 
will_be enforced against Microsoft? The answer is that the

[[Page 24142]]

District Judge Kollan-Kotelly, as part of her decision imposing 
remedies against Microsoft, could retain jurisdiction over the case 
rather than closing it completely when she issues her decision. If 
Microsoft should violate any of the terms of her judgment in the 
case, the Justice Department could call this fact to the attention 
of court and ask for a contempt order against Microsoft or other 
relief, thereby compelling Microsoft to continue to abide by the 
judgment of the District Court.
    Could this proposal put Microsoft out of business or make the 
company a minor player in the computer industry? We do not think so. 
Microsoft has three major strengths on its side that no other firm 
in the world has: (1) the ability to shift markets as it pleases, 
(2) an astounding number of talented software developers who know 
how to build system-level software, and (3) the deepest pockets in 
the computer industry. In addition, Microsoft spends a large amount 
of its revenue on research, which endows the company with excellent 
perspective on the future of computing; though this last point gives 
the company an edge over many of its competitors, it by no way gives 
Microsoft an exclusive edge. Our proposal would only take away one 
of Microsoft's strengths: the ability to shift markets as it 
pleases. The company would still have financial resources and human 
resources that outweigh any competitor, and its commitment to 
research should keep the company abreast of any new technologies. 
Moreover, there is a perfectly good precedent to turn to: Intel 
makes the computer chips on which Windows runs, and the company has 
several competitors that manufacture compatible chips. Though Intel 
has had to face fierce competition, it has responded with rapidly 
increasing processor performance and thus has continued to own a 
lion's share of the PC-chip market. One could argue that the 
performance increases of the last decade would have been far less 
dramatic than they have been, had Intel faced no competition. If our 
proposed remedy is implemented and competition is returned to the PC 
operating systems market, it is likely that Microsoft, like Intel, 
will have a "brand name" advantage in that it will 
create the gold standard by which all reasonably interchangeable 
products will be judged. After all, any Windows-compatible operating 
system would be judged on its ability to emulate Windows, while the 
reverse would not be true.
    Could a small company abuse this proposed remedy? Could it build 
a product, declare its product's interface to be the de facto 
standard, and thereby prevent any form of competition from 
Microsoft? Not really: One cannot mandate that one's product be a 
standard; it must be demonstrated to be the most popular interface 
among alternatives for a given function. Even if the interface were 
the de facto standard, Microsoft would still be allowed to offer 
compatible products that comply with the interface. Non-monopolies 
would be allowed to build and market products with alternative 
interfaces, and this would certainly happen if the original 
interface was a poor design and became the standard simply by being 
the first to market. If any alternative interface superseded the 
original public one, then that alternative would become the de facto 
standard, and Microsoft would be allowed to build compatible 
products for it. Could Microsoft ever be put in the position wherein 
the de facto standard for some function is proprietary, the 
interface is protected in some way by intellectual property rights, 
and the owner of that interface chooses not to license its 
technology to Microsoft? This is conceivable_but the authors 
are aware of only two companies that frequently and selectively deny 
access to computer interfaces that are proprietary and de facto 
standards; both of those companies are monopolies; and one of the 
companies is Microsoft itself (the other is Intel).
    Our proposed remedy prevents a monopoly from subverting public 
interfaces. It does not prevent a monopolistic company from 
competing in the marketplace; in fact, it encourages competition on 
the basis of good product design. The proposed solution would simply 
prevent a type of competition that currently allows large 
corporations to make small ones irrelevant instead of having to 
compete head-to-head with them.
    Non-Solutions to the Problem
    Given this list, then, it is easy to evaluate potential 
solutions to the problem, producing a number of potential fixes that 
would not actually solve anything:
    ï¿½Reorganize the company into an operating systems company 
(responsible for Windows) and an applications company (responsible 
for all other Microsoft software, e.g. Office, Visual Basic, 
Passport, etc.). It is likely that this will not happen anyway, due 
to the current direction of the case. This remedy was ordered by 
Judge Jackson of the District Court probably because it would tend 
to slow down the rate at which the Windows API changes_this 
would be the case because Microsoft's applications company would not 
be able to exploit those changes any more quickly than other 
companies. Therefore, the proposal would likely eliminate abuses 
stemming from action #3. However, the remedy would not prevent 
abuses stemming from Microsoft's actions #5 or 
#6_subverting the Java interface standard and attempting 
to subvert the HTML standard.
    ï¿½Shorten the length of time a technology patent is in 
effect. This is not satisfactory because Microsoft's behavior 
#3_changing the Windows API to make existing software 
incompatible_would still be legal. In addition, any patent-
holder, including Microsoft, could periodically change its product 
with the intent to acquire a new and different patent on the 
product's implementation, effectively extending the lifetime of a 
patent indefinitely. This remedy would also not prevent actions 
#5 or #6.
    ï¿½Force Microsoft to divulge all (hidden) interfaces. This 
addresses behavior #4_Microsoft's decision to selectively 
disseminate its Windows API changes_and is covered by Judge 
Jackson's interim provisions. However, a company such as Microsoft 
can adhere to the letter of the law and still disobey its spirit by 
changing its interface more rapidly than other companies can keep 
up, and Judge Jackson's Judgment would not prevent this from 
continuing to occur. With a large programming staff, Microsoft can 
breed new interfaces faster than other companies_especially 
smaller companies with modest-sized staffs of programmers_an 
write software for the old ones. This would keep a targeted company 
in the perpetual state of being prevented from releasing software 
for the latest version of Windows. This remedy would also not 
prevent actions #5 or #6.
    ï¿½Force Microsoft to pay a simple fine (e.g. to government 
agencies). Clearly, this would merely be a slap on the wrist to the 
world's most powerful software company.
    ï¿½Force OEMs to include alternative browsers and/or office 
software on the computers they ship. This would still allow 
Microsoft to produce hidden features in its operating system 
directed at its own browser and/or office applications, giving them 
an advantage over the applications of other companies. It would 
prevent none of the abuses we have described.
    ï¿½Prevent Microsoft from embedding its browser technology 
into its operating system. Like the other non-solutions, this would 
not solve the problem. It would ensure that competition exists to a 
degree in the browser market, but this competition would only exist 
insofar as Microsoft is prohibited from the maneuvers #3, 
#5, and #6. Moreover, it would do nothing to foster 
competition in the operating system market.
    Sidebar: Why Version 7.0 of Internet Explorer Won't Work, But 
Version 7.0.1 Will The settlement agreement of November 2nd, 2001 
and the revised agreement of November 6th contain a number of 
proposed remedies that are also obvious non-solutions to the 
problem. There are so many ways that Microsoft can adhere to the 
letter of the agreement but still perform acts of monopoly-
continuation identical or nearly identical to those of the Browser 
War that their descriptions would fill an entire article by 
themselves. Here are, very briefly, a few of those loopholes.
    The strongest remedy in the settlement agreement is an attempt 
to force Microsoft to divulge fully and equally to all the Windows 
API so that (a) there remain no "undocumented" features 
of the operating system and (b) no party is excluded from learning 
the particulars of the API so as to hinder product development or 
product release. The wording of the requirement is as follows: 
"Microsoft shall disclose ... for the sole purpose of 
interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product, ... the APIs 
and related Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware to 
interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product." This 
simple remedy has been watered down by so many mechanisms that it is 
all but useless:
    ï¿½"For the sole purpose of interoperating with a 
Windows Operating System Product" means that Microsoft does 
not have to divulge the APIs to anyone who intends to write their 
software for other platforms.
    ï¿½The only portion of the Windows API that Microsoft must 
divulge is that portion used by "Microsoft Middleware." 
Microsoft Middleware has been defined in the document to mean 
software that is distributed separately from Windows. Therefore 
those APIs used by any software

[[Page 24143]]

 shipped with the operating system need not be divulged. Very little 
of Microsoft's software is shipped independently of the operating 
system.
    ï¿½The only portion of the Windows API that Microsoft must 
divulge is that portion used by "Microsoft Middleware." 
Microsoft Middleware has been defined in the document to mean 
software that is "Trademarked." Trademarked has been 
defined to exclude all software that has the name 
"Microsoft" or "Windows" in it. Therefore, 
Microsoft must divulge APIs only for Microsoft software that does 
not include the name "Microsoft" or 
"Windows," so those APIs used by Microsoft Internet 
Explorer need not be divulged.
    ï¿½The only portion of the Windows API that Microsoft must 
divulge is that portion used by "Microsoft Middleware." 
Microsoft Middleware has been defined in the document to mean 
software that provides the same function as a "Microsoft 
Middleware Product." Microsoft Middleware Product has been 
defined to include only the following software products, most of 
which are shipped with the operating system: Internet Explorer, 
Microsoft's Java Virtual Machine, Windows Media Player, Windows 
Messenger, and Outlook Express. The list specifically does not 
include Microsoft Office; therefore, that portion of the Windows API 
used by Microsoft Office need not be divulged, unless it is used by 
the other products as well. Moreover. Microsoft can craft its 
"Middleware" software so as to use an arbitrarily small 
portion of the operating system's interface, in particular avoiding 
that portion used by Office, so that no software vendor could 
attempt to write a software product that competes with Office.
    ï¿½The only portion of the Windows API that Microsoft must 
divulge is that portion used by "Microsoft Middleware." 
Microsoft Middleware has been defined in the document to include 
code that controls Microsoft Middleware_in other words, 
Middleware is defined in terms of itself. Therefore, a good lawyer 
could argue that Middleware is a meaningless term, and, by 
implication, Microsoft would therefore be required to divulge none 
of the Windows API whatsoever.
    ï¿½Lastly (this is the personal favorite of the authors), 
"Microsoft Middleware" has been defined in the document 
to mean all the above, subject to the following: "Software 
code ... shall not be deemed Microsoft Middleware unless identified 
as a new major version." This means that, even if Microsoft is 
thwarted from exploiting all of the other above loopholes, the 
company need only divulge that portion of the Windows API that is 
used by version 1.0, version 2.0, version 3.0, etc. of its 
Middleware. Therefore Microsoft can ship a crippled version of 
Internet Explorer 7.0 that uses none of the Windows API, along with 
similarly crippled versions of all its other Middleware products, 
and then ship an immediate bug fix in version 7.0.1 that uses the 
entire API. Microsoft would not have to divulge any of the Windows 
API at all.
    Again, the agreement is riddled with holes such as 
this_these holes are all found in one paragraph alone, so one 
can imagine how useless and unenforceable the entire agreement is. 
Perhaps the most telling feature of the agreement is one of the 
document's last lines in which "Windows Operating System 
Product" is defined thusly: "The software code that 
comprises a Windows Operating System Product shall be determined by 
Microsoft in its sole discretion." In other words, if 
Microsoft wants to put a ham sandwich into Windows, it has free 
license to do so.
    Legal Precedents
    The federal government has the power, and has used it in the 
past, to regulate an industry in such a way as to require common 
standards of interoperability, rather than allowing individual 
corporations to create their own incompatible standards. Allowing 
the creation of incompatible standards allows one company in an 
industry to eliminate the availability of reasonably interchangeable 
services, thereby precluding direct competition. There are many 
examples, but, for illustration purposes, one is the setting of 
standard rail specifications.
    Rail Track Width
    The Constitution of the United States grants to the federal 
government the power to regulate interstate commerce. Congress 
therefore has authority to legislate in this area, and, among other 
things, Congress may regulate competition that takes place in 
interstate commerce. Congress has enunciated the "rail 
transportation policy" of the United States to include, among 
others, the following goals:
    (1) to allow, to the maximum extent possible, competition and 
the demand for services to establish reasonable rates for 
transportation by rail. ...
    (5) to foster sound economic conditions and to ensure effective 
competition and coordination between rail carriers and other modes 
[of transportation]. ...
    (12) to prohibit predatory pricing and practices, ... [6, 
section 10101] The construction of a second or duplicate rail line 
may be prevented when it is not necessary and when it would depend 
for its revenue on taking traffic away from the preexisting line 
[4]. Competition in such a case would not be beneficial to the 
health of the national rail system. Allowing the duplicate line 
would create a different sort of competition as would be the case if 
the different carriers were forced to provide service over the same 
rails.
    Congress may act on its own in regulating commerce, or it may 
delegate to a federal agency the power to regulate a particular 
industry. The railroad industry, for example, was placed under the 
jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission when that agency 
was created in 1887. In 1995, Congress abolished the ICC as such but 
established a new agency, the Surface Transportation Board, and 
transferred to that new agency much of the authority over the 
railroad industry that previously had been exercised by the ICC.
    The Supreme Court of the United States held [5] that, under the 
Interstate Commerce Act, a railroad carrier owed to shippers of 
freight in its possession destined for points beyond the limit of 
its line, a duty to deliver that freight to a connecting line for 
further transportation to reach its destination. Also, the 
connecting line has a corresponding duty to receive and to carry 
that freight to the next carrier or to its ultimate destination if 
that destination was along that rail line. The Court indicated that, 
under that Act, the federal government could require the interchange 
of traffic between respective railroad lines and could require that 
those lines establish connections where such interchange may take 
place.
    A rail carrier is required to provide facilities for the 
interchange of traffic and freight. The Supreme Court has declared 
that the ICC (and now the STB) has the authority to require the 
interchange of traffic, including not only trackage, but terminal 
facilities as well [7]. Congress also has required facilities for 
the interchange of traffic:
    A rail carrier providing transportation subject to the 
jurisdiction of the Board ... shall provide reasonable proper and 
equal facilities that are within its power to provide for the 
interchange of traffic between, and for the receiving, forwarding 
and delivery of passengers and property to and from, its respective 
line and a connecting line of another rail carrier ... [6]
    Title 49, section 11102(a) of the United States Code provides 
that the Surface Transportation Board "may require terminal 
facilities, including main-line tracks for a reasonable distance 
outside of a terminal ... to be used by another rail carrier if the 
Board finds that use to be practicable and in the public interest 
without substantially impairing the ability of the rail carrier 
owning the facilities ... to handle its own business ..." 
Section 11102(c) provides that the Board "May require rail 
carriers to enter into reciprocal switching agreements ... where 
necessary to provide competitive rail service."
    Title 49, section 11103 reads as follows: On application of the 
owner of a lateral branch line of a railroad, or of a shipper 
tendering interstate traffic for transportation, a rail carrier 
subject to the jurisdiction of the Board shall construct, maintain, 
and operate, on reasonable conditions, a switch connector to connect 
that branch line or private side track with its railroad ... when 
the connection
    (1) is reasonably practicable;
    (2) can be made safely; and
    (3) will furnish sufficient business to justify its construction 
and maintenance.
    Before 1862, railroads in this country ran on tracks of 
different widths, or gauges. We quote from a letter received from an 
official of the Federal Railroad Administration: At the beginning of 
the U.S. Civil War there were 7 different gauges in use in the U.S. 
and Canada. Standard gauge accounted for 53% of the total, with 
4'10ï¿½MDSUï¿½"ï¿½MDNMï¿½, 5'0ï¿½MDSUï¿½"ï¿½MDNMï¿½, 5'6ï¿½MDSUï¿½"ï¿½MDNMï¿½, and 
6'0ï¿½MDSUï¿½"ï¿½MDNMï¿½ accounting for significant mileage. The Civil War 
brought to everyone's attention the problems associated with 
transferring people and freight from one rail system to another. The 
Northeast rail systems of the U.S. had used standard gauge from the 
beginning, because they had imported Stephenson Locomotives from 
England. [27]
    In 1862 Congress enacted legislation to make possible the 
construction of the first transcontinental railroad, "for 
Postal, Military and Other Purposes." One of those

[[Page 24144]]

"other purposes," obviously, was to facilitate 
interstate commerce. In section 12 of this statute, adopted on July 
1, 1862, Congress provided as follows:
    ... The track upon the entire line of railroad and branches 
shall be of uniform width, to be determined by the President of the 
United States, so that, when completed, cars can be run from the 
Missouri River to the Pacific Coast; ... [14]
    Congress was not satisfied with President Lincoln's decision 
with regard to the gauge of tracks for the transcontinental railroad 
[15], and on March 3, 1863, enacted another statue, which stated: Be 
it enacted ... that the gauge of the Pacific railroad and its 
branches throughout their whole extent, from the Pacific Coast to 
the Missouri River, shall be, and hereby is, established at four 
feet eight and one-half inches. [16]
    This Act thus established four feet eight and one-half inches as 
the North American Standard Gauge [27].
    The Surface Transportation Board has adopted many pages of 
detailed regulations on the subject of tracks. Many of these are for 
the purpose of setting a standard or uniform width between rails for 
railroads in interstate commerce and therefore under the Board's 
jurisdiction. These requirements specify that the rails must be no 
less than 4 feet 8 inches apart and no more than 4 feet 10 and one 
quarter inches. This makes it possible for any rail car to fit any 
tracks. See, e.g., 49 Code of Federal Regulation ï¿½ ï¿½ 
213.51 and 213.323. The stated purpose of these particular 
regulations is safety, but since the government has power, under the 
Interstate Commerce Clause, to prevent monopolistic practices, and 
to ensure fair competition, such regulations also could have been 
enacted for those reasons as well.
    Let us now describe two examples to aid in making our point.
    Ex. 1: Suppose, hypothetically, that there is a very well-known 
railroad company that owns a large fraction of the world's rail 
lines but that does not own the rail line connecting Boston and New 
York. By the fact that this company owns so many rails, it has the 
"brand-name" advantage of being known to nearly all 
railway passengers and shippers.
    Suppose this company recognizes that running its cars on the New 
York-Boston route would increase its profits substantially, but the 
company does not want to pay the owner of the line for the right to 
use its tracks. Suppose that the large company has bought a right of 
way between New York and Boston and is beginning to construct tracks 
on the right of way. The company will depend for its revenue on 
taking traffic away from the preexisting line, and there is little 
doubt that the large company will be successful in doing so, because 
it is a well-known rail carrier, and, given the choice between a 
rail carrier that one is familiar with and a carrier that one has 
never heard of, any given passenger or shipper is likely to choose 
the familiar name. As mentioned before, the federal government has 
the power to stop the construction of the duplicate line [4].
    Ex. 2: Suppose, hypothetically, that there has been no rail line 
for many years directly connecting Boston and New York, and rail 
traffic must pass through other cities and travel in a roundabout 
way for several hundred miles more than the direct route, to carry 
freight or passengers from one of these two cities to the other. 
Many years ago there was a direct line connecting the two cities, 
but it has been abandoned for many years.
    Suppose that the large company from the previous example has 
just bought the old right of way and is beginning to construct 
tracks on the right of way. However, instead of building rails that 
are the standard gauge of 4 feet, 8 and one-half inches apart, this 
company is placing its rails six feet apart. The company may claim 
that their reason for doing this is efficiency or better service, 
but the direct and obvious effect is to make it impossible for 
railroad cars of other companies, which are built for standard-width 
tracks, to run on the newly constructed line. Other carriers will 
have to unload freight and passengers and reload them on cars built 
for the non-standard tracks (owned by the large company), and this 
will make it possible for that company to earn more revenue and 
greater profits.
    Can there be any question as to the government's authority to 
block the company from building wide-gauge tracks? Clearly, the 
government has power to require that the rails be standard width. 
The government has authority to prevent the construction of non-
standard-gauge tracks, also to prevent monopolistic practices or 
anticompetitive practices, which the construction of such a line 
would represent. After all, railroads in interstate commerce are 
subject to the Sherman act, which prohibits conduct that 
extinguishes competition. [11, 12]
    The adverse effect of monopolistic practices over several 
hundred miles of railroad track is infinitesimal compared to the 
effect that a monopolistic practice by Microsoft has on our economic 
system. The repercussions throughout the economy are much greater 
when Microsoft performs anticompetitive acts, but these hypothetical 
examples can be useful in explaining Microsoft's actions and their 
impact on competitors.
    The Microsoft interface-abuse analogy is the combination of 
these two examples: It is as if (1) a railroad company were to build 
a duplicate set of tracks that (2) are also incompatible with 
preexisting tracks. If Microsoft were to offer compatible, 
alternative software, that software would compete head-to-head with 
other alternatives. However, by building and promoting alternative 
software that uses incompatible interfaces, Microsoft offers an 
alternative that depends for its revenues on taking business away 
from other companies' products, by preventing software by those 
other companies from competing head-to-head with Microsoft's 
software. This is the case because, by virtue of the fact that 
Microsoft's software is incompatible with that other software, a 
customer must choose one or the other and cannot (easily) have both. 
For example, developers writing software for Microsoft's 
implementation of Java cannot then run that software on the Sun JVM. 
Developers creating websites using Microsoft's incompatible HTML 
control statements are forced into the situation where their website 
works correctly only for Microsoft's web browser.
    As we have shown in the railroad example, the government is 
justified in forcing companies to adhere to standards of 
compatibility if doing so furthers fair competition. The government 
is similarly justified in forcing Microsoft to adhere to standards 
of compatibility_doing so would not only further competition, 
but it would also prevent Microsoft from repeating many of its 
recent anticompetitive actions.
    Intellectual Property Considerations
    Copyrights and patents constitute property in the holder of the 
copyright or patent, and such property normally should not be taken 
away by the government except for good reason and should not be 
taken without providing compensation to the owner for the loss of 
that property. There is some authority to the effect that even if 
the owner of intellectual property has violated antitrust laws, the 
courts cannot take the intellectual property away from that owner 
[17]. May Microsoft and other companies in the computer industry 
claim the protection of our copyright or patent laws for their 
interfaces, even when those companies have violated the antitrust 
laws of the country? Computer programs may be copyrighted, and 
innovations in the workings of computers can be patented. Some user 
interfaces apparently can be copyrighted if at least some literary 
creativity has been used in the development of that user interface 
[18, 19, 20]. What about the "internal" interfaces that 
have been the focus of this article? Are these copyrightable, 
patentable? Judge Jackson, in his Final Judgment, had no difficulty 
in imposing his interim remedies against Microsoft, in requiring 
Microsoft to disclose its internal interfaces (the Windows API) to 
the public [13]. Copyright and patent law posed no barrier to 
requiring Microsoft to give up control of its interfaces, as far as 
he was concerned.
    Even if internal interfaces are copyrightable, they cannot be 
used in such a way as to violate the nation's antitrust laws. In a 
case involving the Morton Salt Company [21], a competitor company 
was using a patent as a means of restraining competition, in 
violation of the antitrust laws. That company sought injunctive 
relief against Morton Salt, to restrain the latter from allegedly 
violating the patent. The court ruled in favor of Morton, reasoning 
that a patent should not be enforced where the patentee has used its 
monopoly power and the patent as a means of illegally restraining 
competition. Microsoft has used its Windows API, its most widely 
used computer interface, in ways that have violated the antitrust 
laws, and therefore the company should not be allowed to claim the 
protection of our patent or copyright laws to prevent the interface 
from being made public property.
    The author of an article in the Stanford Law Review, written in 
1993, before the advent of the current Microsoft case, said in that 
article that although the user interface may be copyrighted, since 
it may involve some literary or artistic creativity, an internal 
interface must not be copyrighted or patented. In that article, the 
author foresaw the problem that has arisen in the Microsoft

[[Page 24145]]

case. He predicted that antitrust problems would occur if such 
interfaces receive copyright or patent law protection:
    [N]ew hardware manufacturers may find themselves compelled to 
use a computer's internal interface in order to make their machines 
compatible with software already independently developed for the 
competitor's computer. Without compatibility with preexisting 
software, the costs and possible limited availability of software 
will make consumers hesitant to buy the new hardware, even if it is 
superior. Thus, a copyright over an internal interface may yield a 
monopoly over computer hardware .... As one commentator suggests, 
copyright protection for elements necessary to achieve compatibility 
would encourage large, established firms to create incompatible 
products in an effort to set new standards, which they could then 
monopolize. Yet the public may embrace these new standards not 
because they are objectively preferable to either the previous 
standard or alternatives possessed by smaller firms, but because of 
the large firms' "penetration pricing" strategy or 
powerful brand name recognition.
    [T]he law must be cautious about protecting elements necessary 
to achieve compatibility because even though such protection may, in 
some cases, serve innovation, it risks granting far-reaching, 
unjustified monopolies. Any intellectual property regime that covers 
interface elements necessary for compatibility must be able to weigh 
these factors in order to protect only those elements that are truly 
innovative enough to warrant protection .... Given the potential 
monopoly effects and the ambiguous innovation effects, not 
protecting elements necessary for compatibility, while imperfect, is 
preferable to overbroad, long-lived protection. Specifically, 
copyright should leave the following elements of software 
unprotected: (1) elements dictated by efficiency; (2) internal 
interface elements required to achieve compatibility; and (3) 
elements of user interfaces that have already become de facto 
interface standards. [22]
    The author of the Stanford Law Review article foresaw clearly 
that internal interfaces must not be copyrightable or patentable, 
else serious abuses of the antitrust laws, such as those perpetrated 
by Microsoft, are likely. An internal interface that has become the 
standard for the industry should be considered public properly. 
Otherwise, problems such as those caused by Microsoft in the current 
case before the District Court are inevitable.
    Our Position
    To summarize, we propose two remedial steps that would prevent 
future misconduct on Microsoft's part. In remedial step A we propose 
that those of Microsoft's most widely-used interfaces, especially 
the Windows API 3 , should he made public and should be made 
universally available, without the threat of Microsoft's 
manipulating those interfaces to injure competition in the future. 
Furthermore, remedial step B proposes that Microsoft be prevented 
from undermining public interfaces so as to prevent future acts 
similar to fragmenting the Java interface.
    3. A similar argument would suggest that the Office file formats 
be included in this list as well. To restore competition to the 
marketplace, we propose the largely monetary remedial steps C-H. 
These are aimed at redressing Microsoft's illegal, anticompetitive 
behavior towards Sun, Netscape, Intel, and others. Clearly the 
United States District Court has authority within current antitrust 
laws to impose those remedies against Microsoft.
    Whether the District Court has the power to impose steps A and B 
as part of the package of remedies against Microsoft under current 
antitrust laws is not entirely clear. The United States Court of 
Appeals, in its June 28, 2001 opinion, did not mention this as a 
possibility, and these steps were not included as a remedy by Judge 
Jackson in his decision. It can be argued that declaring the Windows 
interface public is beyond the power of the courts under present 
antitrust laws, and that such a remedy can only be imposed though 
future legislation by Congress or through administrative regulation 
or adjudication under future statutory authority from Congress. On 
the other hand, it can be argued that the District Court does have 
the authority to declare the interface public as part of the array 
of judicial remedies against Microsoft in the case now before it. 
Antitrust law, after all, consists of federal statutes and the case 
law interpreting those statutes, particularly the body of case law 
generated by the Supreme Court of the United States over many years 
of antitrust litigation. These cases provide the District Court with 
a wide range of possible remedies and with a great deal of 
flexibility to address the problem at hand. The Supreme Court has 
said that in imposing remedies for antitrust violations the trial 
court is not limited to merely restoring the status quo. That court 
should compel the violator to take actions that will cure the ill 
effects of the violation or violations and also should take steps 
that will prevent the violations from continuing into the future and 
should deny the violators any future benefits from their wrongdoing 
[9, 10].
    Arguably, the United States District Court has authority under 
present law to make the interface public as part of the remedies to 
be imposed against Microsoft in the present case. But, if not, 
Congress should enact legislation giving a federal administrative 
agency the authority to adopt regulations giving it the power to 
hold hearings regarding interfaces and the power to declare 
interfaces public when they become so widely used that commerce 
would be adversely affected if they are not declared public 
properly.
    Conclusion
    Computers fail to work when their internal interfaces, the rules 
by which computers and computer components operate and interact with 
one another, are disobeyed. These interfaces are essentially sets of 
rules, and we have shown that simply changing these rules can have 
significant economic impact. It is our contention that when one is 
in the position of writing the rules_any rules that affect a 
significant number of people_then one is obligated not to 
manipulate those rules to further one's own selfish interests.
    The computer industry is similarly bound to the rules by which 
computers interoperate, and therefore any company with the ability 
to manipulate rules that affect a significant number of corporations 
has the ability to bend the behavior of those corporations to its 
will. Microsoft's ownership of the Windows API represents such an 
ability, because a substantial fraction of the world's hardware and 
software is dependent upon the specification of the Windows 
interface, the Windows API, and, when that API changes, all affected 
must update their hardware and/or software to remain compatible with 
Windows. Microsoft has demonstrated in the past that it is willing 
to use this ability to harm individual companies, and there is no 
indication that it will refrain from this behavior in the future. 
Therefore, to prevent future anticompetitive behavior from 
Microsoft, the ability to change the Windows API without limit to 
scope or timetable must be taken from the company. This is best done 
by making the Windows API a public standard and handing it to an 
independent standards institute (such as the IEEE, ANSI, etc.) to 
control, and to not allow Microsoft to change the API in its own 
products except under guidelines established by that institute. 
Microsoft could be prevented from suddenly changing the interface 
for its products so as to stamp out competition.
    The effect of Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior is that the 
company retains its position as industry leader not by offering the 
most innovative, reliable, user-friendly products available, but by 
ensuring that any competing software product that shows the 
potential to be more innovative, reliable, or user-friendly than 
Microsoft's products is killed in its infancy.
    Ultimately, it can be argued that Microsoft is cheating every 
computer-user in the world out of a better computing experience by 
holding back innovation in the computer industry and thereby keeping 
consumers' expectations of its own products artificially low. Judge 
Jackson ended the Findings of Fact expressing exactly this 
sentiment, and the excerpt summarizes Microsoft's behavior towards 
its constituents very plainly:
    Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft's actions have 
conveyed to every enterprise with the potential to innovate in the 
computer industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq. 
Intel, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its 
prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that 
insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition 
against one of Microsoft's core products. Microsoft's past success 
in hurling such companies and stifling innovation deters investment 
in technologies and businesses that exhibit the potential to 
threaten Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations 
that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason 
that they do not coincide with Microsoft's self-interest. [2: 
ï¿½412]
    We have shown that Congress has the power to enforce industry-
wide standards of interoperability and that Congress has used this 
power in the past. We have also shown that the regulating of its 
corporate behavior with regards to computing standards is the only 
way to prevent Microsoft from performing nearly identical acts of

[[Page 24146]]

anticompetitive behavior in the future as it did during the mid 
1990's. Were Microsoft's Windows API to be named an open standard 
and the company to become regulated with respect to open standards, 
Microsoft would not be allowed to stifle and destroy other software 
vendors using its demonstrated ability to shift markets by 
manipulating the Windows API and undermining popular interfaces; the 
company would instead, for the first time in a long time, be forced 
to compete entirely on the strengths of its product.
    Microsoft has engaged in violations of the antitrust laws of our 
country and continues to violate those laws. Judge Thomas Penfield 
Jackson's Findings were accurate_they showed just how 
relentless Microsoft's actions have been, and his decision showed 
that strong remedial steps are necessary to ensure compliance with 
the Sherman Act. The Court of Appeals agreed with his decision in it 
important aspects_that Microsoft was a monopoly and had 
violated the Sherman Act, and that preventive steps needed to be 
taken by the District Court, although by a different District Judge.
    But Bill Gates kept denying and denying that Microsoft had done 
nothing wrong. He and other Microsoft officials kept denying the 
truth for a long enough period of time for another political party, 
the Republican Party, a party generally more favorable to big 
business than the Democratic Party, to come into power in January, 
2001. President Bush appointed a new Attorney General to head the 
Justice Department and had the opportunity to appoint a new set of 
Assistant Attorneys General. So, one of the most powerful 
corporations in this country, a business founded and headed by a man 
who happens to be the wealthiest person in the world, with 
tremendous power and influence, and with the capacity to contribute 
substantially to political parties and the candidates he favors, 
violated the law but repeatedly denied any wrongdoing over a long 
enough period of time to enable another political party to come into 
power, with a new set of lawyers in the Justice Department, lawyers 
with an obviously different viewpoint when it comes to enforcing the 
antitrust laws.
    Then the economy, in 2001, went into a serious downturn, and on 
September 11, 2001, our country was attacked by terrorists. In 
October, 2001, the newly staffed Justice Department entered into a 
proposed settlement with Microsoft that does not address the 
problems created by Microsoft's activities of the past several years 
and which will not prevent it from continuing to engage in the same 
kinds of illegal conduct in the future.
    Hopefully the proposed settlement will not be signed by the 
states that, as of this writing, have refused to join with the 
federal government in attempting to settle the case. Also, hopefully 
Judge Kollar-Kotelly will refuse to approve and accept the proposed 
settlement and instead will impose meaningful and effective remedies 
against Microsoft. We hope that the suggestions in this paper, which 
would make the Windows API public property, owned and controlled by 
the public_will be included in any set of remedies imposed in 
the case.
    The facts of the Microsoft case show unfortunate behavior on the 
part of Microsoft and its officers, and if they are not stopped from 
continuing to engage in that conduct, our system for regulating 
antitrust violations will have broken down. The facts of the case, 
as outlined in the Findings of Judge Jackson, require that 
significant, effective remedies be imposed. If this is not done, the 
system will have miscarried because Gates and Microsoft refused to 
admit to wrongdoing, even though it is clear that violations took 
place; because a different political party, with a different 
approach to antitrust law won the November, 2000 election and was 
able to replace the Attorney General with another; because the 
economy faltered, thereby placing pressure on the Bush 
administration to ease up in pursuing antitrust violations; and 
because the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks required the full 
attention of the Justice Department and left little time for 
battling Microsoft. Thus, instead of reaching a decision based on 
the facts as developed by Judge Jackson, the District Court will 
have made a decision based on extraneous factors that have nothing 
to do with the merits of the case. Our system of justice will have 
failed.
    References
    1. United States v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 00-5212. 
U.S. Court of Appeals For the District of Columbia Circuit. June 28, 
2001.
    2. Findings of Fact, United States of America v. Microsoft 
Corporation, C.A. 98-1232. United States District Court for 
the District of Columbia, E. Barrett Prettyman United States 
Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave NW, Washington DC, 20001. November 
1999.
    3. U.S. v. Microsoft Corp. 87 Federal Supplement, 2d Series 30. 
United States District Court for the District of Columbia, E. 
Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave NW, 
Washington DC, 20001. April 2000.
    4. Detroit & M. R. Co. v Boyne City, G. & A. R. Co., 286 
F. 540 (D.C. Mich., 1923).
    5. N.Y.C.R. Co. v Talisman, 288 U.S. 239, 77 L. td 721, 53. S Ct 
308 (1933).
    6. Title 49, United States Code Service.
    7. I.C.C. v U.S., 280 U.S. 52, 74 L. Ed 163, 50 S. Ct 53 (1929).
    8. Hocking Valley R. Co. v N.Y. Coal Co., 217 F. 227 (6th Cir., 
1914).
    9. U.S. v United Shoe Machine Corp, 391 U.S. 244, 20 L. Ed 2d 
562, 88 S. Ct. 1496 (1968)
    10. U.S. v U.S. Gypsum Co., 340 U.S. 76, 95 L Ed 2d 89, 71 S. 
Ct. 160 (1950).
    11. U.S. v Delaware L. & W. R. Co., 238 U.S. 516; 59 L. Ed 
1438, 40 S. Ct. 873 0;
    12. U.S. v Reading Co., 253 U.S. 26, 64 L. Ed 760, 40 S. Ct. 425 
().
    13. U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., 97 Federal Supplement, 2d Series 
59. 67 (D.DC 2000)
    14. 37th Congress, Sess. II, Ch. 120, 12 Stats at Large 489, 495 
at section 12 (July 1, 1862).
    15. Railroad Gauge: The Evolution of Railroad Standard Gauge. 
http://www.railway.org/railroadgauge.htm.
    16. 37th Congress, Sess. III, Ch. 112, 12 Stats at Large 807 
(March 3, 1863).
    17. Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States, 323 U.S. 386, 89 L Ed 
322, 65. S. Ct 373 (1945), clarified, 324 U.S. 570, 89 L Ed 1198, 65 
S. Ct 815 (1945).
    18. Engineering Dynamics, Inc. v. Structural Software, Inc., 26 
F. 3d 1335 (5th Cir. 1994).
    19. Lotus Development Corp. v. Paperback Software Intern., 740 
F. Supp. 37 (D. Mass. 1990).
    20. Digital Communications Associates v. Softklone Distributing, 
659 F. Supp. 449 (N. D. Ga. 1987).
    21. Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co., 314 U.S. 488, 86 L. 
Ed 363, 62 S. Ct. 402 (1942).
    22. Timothy S. Teter, "Merger and the Machines: An 
Analysis of the Pro-Compatibility Trend in Computer Software 
Copyright Cases," Stanford Law Review, vol 45, no. 1061, pp. 
1061-1098, April 1993.
    23. Walter S. Mossberg. "Windows XP Has Stable System; 
Keeps Users in Microsoft Corral," The Wall Street Journal (On-
Line), September 20, 2001.
    24. John Heilemann, Pride Before the Fall. Harper Collins 
Publishers, New York NY, 2001.
    25. By Rob Pegoraro, "U.S. Settlement Leaves Microsoft 
More Entrenched." Washington Post. Friday, November 9, 2001; 
Page E01.
    26. Stipulation and Revised Proposed Final Judgment, United 
States of America v. Microsoft Corporation, C. A. 98-1232. 
(11/06/2001)
    27. Letter to one of the authors, dated October 24, 2001, from 
Mark E. Yachmetz, Associate Administrator for Railroad Development 
of the Federal Railroad Administration, which is part of the United 
States Department of Transportation.
    The Authors
    Bruce L. Jacob is an Assistant Professor of Electrical and 
Computer Engineering at the University of Maryland, College Park. He 
received his Ars Baccalaureate, cure laude, in Mathematics from 
Harvard University in 1988, and his M.S. and Ph.D. in Computer 
Science and Engineering from the University of Michigan in 1995 and 
1997, respectively. In addition to his academic credentials, he has 
extensive experience in industry_he designed real-time 
embedded applications and real-time embedded architectures in the 
area of telecommunications for two successful startup companies: 
Boston Technology (now part of Comverse Systems) and Priority Call 
Management (now part of the Sema Group). At Priority Call Management 
he was employee number 2, the system architect, and the chief 
engineer. He built the first working prototype of the company's 
product, and he built and installed the first actual product as 
well. His systems architecture helped the company grow from start-up 
to a $200 million leader in its segment of the telecommunications 
industry. In academic research, Jacob was responsible for the cache 
and memory-management design of the DARPA-funded PUMA processor, 
which demonstrated the viability of software-managed caches for use 
in general-purpose systems. His work in advanced DRAM architectures 
is the first comparative evaluation of today's memory technologies, 
and he recently received the prestigious CAREER Award from the 
National Science Foundation for this research. He has authored 
papers on

[[Page 24147]]

computer architecture and memory systems, low-power embedded 
systems, distributed computing, and astronomy.
    Bruce R. Jacob began his career in 1960 as an Assistant Attorney 
General for the State of Florida. There he represented the 
respondent in the United States Supreme Court in the landmark case 
of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). Upon leaving that 
office, he engaged in the private practice of law in Barrow and 
Lakeland, Florida, in the firm of Holland, Bevis & Smith, now 
Holland & Knight. Following the completion of his LL.M. degree 
at Northwestern University, Professor Jacob joined the faculty of 
Emory University School of Law, where he established the Legal 
Assistance for Inmates Program at the Atlanta Penitentiary. He was 
appointed by the Supreme Court as counsel for petitioner in Kaufman 
v. United States, 394 U.S. 217 (1969). He received his S.J.D. at the 
Harvard Law School. While at Harvard, he served as a Research 
Associate in the Center for Criminal Justice, assisted in the 
establishment of the Harvard Prison Legal Assistance Project, and 
supervised the work of law students in the defense of criminal cases 
and in the representation of indigents in civil matters in the 
Community Legal Assistance Office, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Jacob 
subsequently served as Professor and Director of Clinical Programs 
at The Ohio State University College of Law, as Dean and Professor 
of the Mercer University School of Law and as Vice President of 
Stetson University and Dean of Stetson College of Law from 1981 
through 1994. Presently he is Dean Emeritus and Professor of Law at 
Stetson. He is an author and co-author of articles on Criminal Law 
and Procedure, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, and the 
Administrative Law of Corrections. While on sabbatical leave during 
1994-95, he took courses in the LL.M. program in Taxation at 
the University of Florida College of Law, and received that LL.M. in 
1995. He has taught courses in criminal law as well as in tax law, 
administrative law, and state constitutional law. Copyright ?? 2001, 
Bruce L. Jacob and Bruce R. Jacob



MTC-00002666

From: rick strzelecki
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 11:27am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft settlement
    Renata Hesse, trial attorney, Antitrust Divisioon
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Thank you for giving consumers an opportunity to respond to this 
proposed settlement. As a teacher, I had access to a computer lab 
from the early 1980's until my retirement in 1995. During that time 
we progressed from Commodore 64's to MAC's and the more 
sophisticated PC's. Whenever given a choice, I always opted for 
Microsoft software because the subject selection was excellent, it 
was user friendly and the price was reasonable. The very small 
budget we were given to work with made it imperative to put a price 
on value. I was impressed through the years that while both content 
and user friendliness continued to advance, the prices remained 
reasonable. The limit on my budget, needless to say, had not 
advanced. After retirement I continue to watch my grandchildren from 
tots on up develop, improve and enrich skills with software that is 
affordable; and I am delighted with the capabilities of my PC.
    Therefore, based on my very positive experiences as a consumer, 
I would like to see this settlement stand. I think it is time to put 
an end to all of the time, energy and money that has been expended 
on this case. Surely future time, energy and money can be put to 
better use by all parties concerned.
    Thank you again for considering my response.
    Sincerely,
    Adelaide Bodoia
    2317 Dublin Dr. NW
    Olympia WA 98502



MTC-00002667

From: Gordon Tillman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 11:02am
Subject: Microsoft's Proposal
    Howdy Folks,
    Just want to offer my two-cent's worth... I feel very strongly 
that Microsoft's proposal is a blatant attempt by the company to 
extend its monopoly even further.
    They should be heavily penalized for their crimes. The Justice 
Department should take the money and use it to help defray the 
expenses that our federal government has incurred in helping to 
bring up the level of technology in the schools.
    Regards,
    Gordon Tillman
    Senior Software Development Specialist
    AGS/Lindy Software



MTC-00002668

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 11:58am
Subject: Help Benefit Students
    I believe Redhat's idea of offering their O/S and software 
freely that Microsoft may donate more hardware is an excellent idea. 
Allowing Microsoft to provide students with all and only their 
software, hardware, etc. will only increase Microsoft's monopoly in 
the long run. Students will be forced and will become accustomed to 
Microsoft products. Don't allow Microsoft to secure their future 
through what should be a punishment. Thank you for your time.
    http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/
press_usschools.html



MTC-00002669

From: Peter G. Robertson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 11:53am
Subject: Microsoft vs DOJ settlement
    I am a shareholder in several companies that have been injured 
by the monopolistic practices of Microsoft. As a result, I, too, 
have been injured by Microsoft. As an injured party, I am opposed to 
the DOJ settlement because the settlement in no way punishes 
Microsoft for its past practices for which it has already been found 
guilty. How can a party be found guilty and not be punished for its 
criminal activities?
    The proposed Settlement undermines our whole governance by Rule 
of Law. As for the settlement preventing future transgressions, I 
call your attention to code written into Microsoft's Office X for 
Macintosh which limits the life of the product to one year unless 
the user pays Microsoft an annual fee even though the user paid full 
price initially for the product. The only reason Microsoft has not 
activated the code is because it didn't want to jeopardize the DOJ 
settlement. It will do so once the settlement is finalized. That 
certainly smacks of a "Predatory Practice" to me 
especially since businesses that use the Macintosh platform have to 
be able to interface with others that use the Wintel platform that 
is dominated by Microsoft software. Please re-establish the Rule of 
Law by making Microsoft at least pay retribution to the Companies it 
injured or drove out of business. The DOJ has not even considered 
the injury caused to shareholders. You need to factor that into your 
Settlement decision as well.
    Thank you for allowing the injured public a chance to comment on 
such an important matter.
    Respectfully yours,
    Peter G. Robertson



MTC-00002670

From: WJ Cornelieus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 11:45am
Subject: More anti-competitive, pro-Microsoft propaganda from 
Intuit.
    Hello DOJ.
    The snip below is from this web page which appeared 12/4/01:
    http://www.macintouch.com
    Intuit is the maker of Quickbooks and Quicken financial 
management software. See what Intuit supervisors are telling the 
employees about a Microsoft competitor.
    MacInTouch reader Paul Taylor wrote about a recent experience 
with Intuit sales:
    "I just received an unsolicited phone call from Intuit to 
sell me TurboTax. The agent [...] finished her sales pitch, and I 
agreed to purchase TurboTax. I have used MacInTax (now known as 
TurboTax for Macintosh) for many years now and believe it to be a 
good product.
     "When I informed [her] that I used a Macintosh, not a 
Windows machine, she informed me that the price would be $10 more 
that she had been quoting. She had said the Windows version was 
$39.95, and the Mac version would be $49.95. When I asked why the 
Mac version was $10 more, she said she had been told by her 
supervisors that the "Macintosh was an outdated 
computer," and that "it ?????? was more expensive to 
produce [TurboTax] for [the Mac]. There are more Windows 
computers."
    Thank you for listening.
    M. Clark



MTC-00002671

From: [email protected],gov@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,antitrust @ftc.gov@inetgw, 
Ralph@essen...
Date: 12/4/01 12:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Hegemony: "Electricity? Who needs 
it?"
CC: [email protected]@inetgw,letters@ 
sjmercury.com@i...
Re: Microsoft Advises Workers on Deal
    Microsoft Corp. this week outlined for employees the 
requirements of the

[[Page 24148]]

company's proposed settlement with the Justice Department and urged 
them not to discuss the plan via e-mail.
    Microsoft, the Software Arm of America, Inc., declines the 
efficiencies of internet email in it's development of the world's 
communications infrastructure, to prevent our holding it accountable 
in the future for it's tightening stranglehold over us. Fanatically 
asinine, Uncle Sam... show us your @$$ once again, it's so 
pretty.
    Previously, the software giant was seriously hurt in different 
courts by electronic correspondence that was exhumed as part of the 
litigation process.
    Why not disconnect the phones too? And build a moat around the 
fortress? "Electricity? Who needs it?"



MTC-00002672

From: Hoffman, Timothy S
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 12:00pm
Subject: DOJ/Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    The settlement that has been reached between the DOJ and 
Microsoft will do nothing more than strengthen Microsoft's monopoly 
of the PC/OS industry. I am ever amazed by the inability of our 
Government to control Corporation's such as Microsoft. Any half-
educated person should be able to deduce that if Microsoft is 
allowed to replace software in our school's, which is still a large 
part Mac (non-Microsoft), with their software this will doing 
nothing more than eliminate the competition completely. This will be 
done by seducing our students into becoming familiar with their 
products and when released into the 'real-world' they will have no 
experience with any other technologies other than 'MS Windows'. 
Though this is not a forum for technical opinions and/or debate, 
most knowledgeable IT "guru's" agree that Microsoft 
continually produces inferior products. On the surface appearing 
more user friendly and available while beneath the scenes 
threatening our very Security. If the DOJ had been thinking they 
might of come up with something like Red Hat's offering which I have 
included below. Consider what will happen in 5 years when Microsoft 
is allowed to charge these schools for renewing their licenses.
    Timothy S. Hoffman
    Distributed Computing Consultant
    Core Services/Central Support
    ALLTEL Information Services
    501.220.6893
    RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N.C.-(BUSINESS WIRE)-Nov. 20, 2001-Red 
Hat, Inc.
    (Nasdaq:RHAT_news) today proposed an alternative to the 
settlement announced today of the class-action lawsuit against 
Microsoft. Red Hat offered to provide open-source software to every 
school district in the United States free of charge, encouraging 
Microsoft to redirect the money it would have spent on software into 
purchasing more hardware for the 14,000 poorest school districts. 
Under the Red Hat proposal, by removing Microsoft's higher-priced 
software from the settlement equation, Microsoft could provide the 
school districts with many more computers_greatly extending 
the benefits Microsoft seeks to provide school districts with their 
proposed settlement.
    Microsoft had proposed that, in settlement of class-action 
claims of price-gouging, the company donate computer hardware, 
software and support to 14,000 poor school districts throughout the 
United States.
    Under the proposed settlement, a substantial part of the value 
provided to schools would be in the form of Microsoft software. The 
Red Hat's alternative proposal includes the following:
    *Microsoft redirects the value of their proposed software 
donation to the purchase of additional hardware for the school 
districts. This would increase the number of computers available 
under the original proposal from 200,000 to more than one million, 
and would increase the number of systems per school from 
approximately 14 to at least 70.
    *Red Hat, Inc. will provide free of charge the open-source Red 
Hat Linux operating system, office applications and associated 
capabilities to any school system in the United States.
    *Red Hat will provide online support for the software through 
the Red Hat Network.
    *Unlike the Microsoft proposal, which has a five-year time limit 
at which point schools would have to pay Microsoft to renew their 
licenses and upgrade the software, the Red Hat proposal has no time 
limit. Red Hat will provide software upgrades through the Red Hat 
Network online distribution channel.
    A Win-Win Approach
    The Red Hat proposal achieves two important goals: improving the 
quality and accessibility of computing education in the nation's 
less-privileged schools, and preventing the extension of Microsoft's 
monopoly to the most-vulnerable users.
    "While we applaud Microsoft for raising the idea of 
helping poorer schools as part of the penalty phase of their 
conviction for monopolistic practices, we do not think that the 
remedy should be a mechanism by which Microsoft can further extend 
its monopoly," said Matthew Szulik, CEO of Red Hat. 
"Through this proposal all of the states and all of the 
schools can win, and Microsoft will achieve even greater success for 
its stated goal of helping schools. By providing schools with a 
software choice, Red Hat will enable Microsoft to provide many more 
computers to these schools. At the same time, the schools can accept 
this offer secure in the knowledge that they have not rewarded a 
monopolist by extending the monopoly. It's now up to Microsoft to 
demonstrate that they are truly serious about helping our 
schools."



MTC-00002673

From: Marv Watkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 2:10pm
Subject: Opposed to proposed Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I wish to express my opposition to the proposed anti-trust 
settlement with Microsoft. Microsoft has, through illegal means, 
driven many good software companies out of business. This often 
repeated behavior has directly reduced the choices available in the 
software marketplace.
    Microsoft's illegal behavior has directly increased the cost of 
that software which we can buy. oreover, Microsoft's monopoly has 
indirectly increased the cost of maintaining that software by 
forcing shoddy, low quality software on the public as its only 
choice. The proposed settlement will, in my opinion, do nothing to 
change or curtail Microsoft's illegal predatory business practices. 
Therefore, I do not believe that the proposed settlement is in my 
best interest nor that of the general public.
    I respectfully request that you set aside the proposed 
settlement and that the Federal Government pursue a more substantial 
punishment against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Marvin Watkins
    16960 Cypress Way
    Los Gatos, CA 95030
    [email protected]



MTC-00002674

From: david faibish
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]. 
gov@inetgw,...
Date: 12/4/01 1:17pm
Subject: DOJ/ms penalty_edu/pc vs mac free choice
    Since anti-competitive behavior is a core is issue in the doj/ms 
case, may I please suggest that any penalty imposed on MS which 
results in ms underwriting the cost of pc and 
software_especially in the education marketplace_be 
constructed such that the either the recipients are given an equal 
and unencumbered choice of a mac vs a wintel box, or indeed that a 
portion (fixed, or indeed perhaps all) go to macs. since ms makes 
lots of money from its mac business unit, t should in principal be 
indifferent as to which platform it spends its money on. therefore, 
in the interests of preserving competition in the education market 
(which is very key for apple), the settlements should not have the 
perverse effect of actually_further_limiting 
competition in the edu marketplace.
    Thus the settlement should provide an opens system that lets edu 
users (predominately institutional buyers) chose for themselves, or 
in fact mandate the whole thing be mac_in order to 
actually_increase_ competition (or at least diversity) 
in the edu marketplace.
    regards:dlf



MTC-00002675

From: Matthew Stokes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 2:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement Comments
    For years now computer buyers and sellers have had to deal with 
Microsoft, Buyers were saddled with Windows whenever they purchased 
a new system regardless to whether or not they really wanted the 
operatinging system. Further more the product itself was generally 
shipped with known flaws which Microsoft took it's own time to 
finally get around to fixing often times requiring upgrades to newer 
versions of their code which the consumer then had to pay for. It is 
time that the monopolistic practices of this behemoth be stopped. I 
applaude the court system for finding Microsoft in violation of the 
law.

[[Page 24149]]

Unfortunately though, it seems that the penalty does not fit the 
crime. Allowing Microsoft to be kept in tact and furthermore to 
force feed schools with more of it's operating system and software 
does little to curtail what it is already doing. It amounts to a 
slap on the wrist and the government looking the other way while 
Microsoft goes merilly on it's way continuing to violate the law. 
Other than breaking up Microsoft, the only other solution that may 
help is the recent response from RedHat to provide the OS and 
support for the systems that Microsoft would purchase for the 
schools. This would impose a monetary penalty on Microsoft having to 
foot the bill for the computers while stopping it's continued in 
roads into the schools.
    Do something about this problem and don't just look the other 
way. We need this practice to stop and a true penalty to be imposed 
not just a wink of the eye after a mild scolding...



MTC-00002676

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 3:38pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    Windows XP now prohibits users from changing hardware at random. 
(if you test software and hardware products, you now have to go 
through the bureaucratic nightmare of having to ask Microsoft for a 
new license Key after changing hardware a couple of times.)
    You wanna tell me how a software manufacturer has the legal 
right to tell you, (simply because you modified your hardware) you 
can no longer use what you already paid for? (unless you invest more 
time and money dealing with their licensing department)
    CONGRATULATIONS: DOJ, THE MONOPOLY LIVES ON, BUT ITS OK BECAUSE 
ALL OF YOUR MASTERS ARE GETTING SUBSTANTIAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS. 
(I love this country!)



MTC-00002677

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 3:45pm
Subject: Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    Microsoft was a monopoly is still a monopoly and based on the 
settlement, will continue to be a monopoly. Microsoft does not 
follow most standards but leaves things out or adds a twist to make 
itself and other systems partially incompatible.
    Through software changes and bundling they have driven out most 
of the competition.
    Computer systems have been my career for over 25 years. I 
believe the operating system should be separated from the 
applications. As long as the operating system and applications come 
from the same company, Microsoft will be a monopoly.
    Thank you
    Dennis Kaminski
    Manager Technical Support
    Siemens Dematic, Rapistan Division
    (616) 913-6431



MTC-00002678

From: Dylan R. Tullberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 2:35pm
Subject: Remarkable
    Just like the FTC to support monopolies. Microsoft and Verizon 
should both be FTC subsidiaries. And the DOJ their lawyers.
    Dylan Tullberg



MTC-00002679

From: Bill Parish
To: [email protected]@inetgw, 
[email protected]@i...
Date: 12/4/01 2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Scheme Collapses Enron and Excite at Home bcc: 
leading business journalists, regulators, pension managers and 
academics
    Hello Steve.
    This week I posted a series of "raw notes" regarding 
activities at Microsoft in the billparish.com report.
    The report, a work in progress, is now available on my website 
at www.billparish.com. This report is an excellent way for readers 
to get a genuine inside look at some of your not yet disclosed 
business strategies. The report also includes seven specific 
recommendations to help energize the technology sector and the 
economy in general.
    I continue to be optimistic that you and Bill will want to get 
together and share a few ideas regarding how you might adopt a more 
win/win oriented approach and help stabilize the pension system. 
Please do not think that, given the strong tone of this report, I am 
unwilling to talk. This will be the first in a series of 10-13 
reports.
    One area examined in the report is your brilliant use of Paul 
Allen's enterprises to pry your way into new markets. It is 
astonishing that the DOJ did not consider any of this activity given 
that Allen is Microsoft's 2nd largest shareholder. One such Allen 
entity, Charter Communications, is the nations 4th largest cable 
company and already positioned to convert most software and support 
to MSN based relationships.
    Similarly, Qwest has already converted all its high speed DSL in 
14 Western States and renamed it MSN Broadband. Imagine that while 
at the same time you are using Cox, Comcast, Rogers Cable in Canada 
and other foreign cable entities to destabilize and either directly 
or indirectly take over AT&T broadband, the nations largest 
cable system. How could a judge possibly approve the DOJ settlement 
with such activity occurring?
    Due to the significance of the cable system, Parish & 
Company now formally supports a government bail out of AT&T 
broadband with the objetive of maintaining competition in this most 
important industry.
    This would be an excellent point for a leading journalist to 
make. It is almost silly to be talking about a bailout of Enron, a 
company that should clearly be allowed to fail.
    Other topics include discussions involving Microsoft's circles 
of influence and how your pyramid scheme is collapsing major 
companies in a variety of industries, in addition to being the root 
cause of the current economic slowdown. It can't be long before even 
Alan Greenspan starts seeing the staggering cost to productivity 
created by all the Windows based viruses such as "I love 
you", etc. And this product liability issue is but one small 
issue regarding your overal scheme.
    One common sense strategy here regarding viruses would be for 
the states to organize and initiate massive product liability 
actions designed to recover support costs and force you to re 
engineer your products to prevent such viruses. You must be 
genuinely surprised that few of your competitors have realized that 
this is indeed your real vulnerability, not anti-trust actions. 
Please do let me know if take exception to anything in the report 
Steve. Best regards.
    Sincerely,
    Bill
    Bill Parish
    Parish & Company
    10260 SW Greenburg Rd., Suite 400
    Portland, Oregon 97223
    Tel: 503-643-6999
    Website: www.billparish.com
    Email: [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@ 
inetgw,[email protected]@in...



MTC-00002680

From: Garry Dufresne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 2:39pm
Subject: regarding Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern;
    I want to express my extreme displeasure with the settlement 
proposed between the Federal Government and Microsoft. This 
settlement is far from adequate to address the damage done by 
Microsoft's monopoly with in the computer industry. I believe far 
more severe sanctions should be imposed to assure that Microsoft 
does not continue it's overly aggressive and illegal actions which 
stifle real competition and enterprise within the computer industry.
    GARRY DUFRESNE
    Seattle, WA



MTC-00002681

From: Blaize Clement
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Just one example of how Microsoft has an unfair advantage is 
that as a freelance writer, I am not able to submit work to many 
publications or internet sites because I use a Mac. I should not be 
forced to use a Windows-based program to sell my work when I prefer 
the more efficient Apple system. Please don't let Microsoft control 
my personal choice and that of a lot of other writers.
    Thank you,
    Blaize Clement



MTC-00002682

From: James J. Stewart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 2:54pm
Subject: Comment_Against the proposed settlement
    We consumers have overpaid for Windows and Office, due to lack 
of sufficient, price-restraining competition. That's why Microsoft 
has $36B in short-term reserves, per today's WSJ.

[[Page 24150]]

    Please toughen the settlement to truly undo this abusive 
monopoly. One way would be to declare Microsoft source code in the 
public domain.
    Best regards
    James J. Stewart
    mailto:[email protected]
    http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ProfStewart
    permanent tel: +49 711 677 1261
    mobile tel: +49 171 141 6360
    permanent fax: +49 711 677 1262
    -Sie k?nnen jederzeit Deutsch sprechen
    -Usted puede hablar espa?ol en cualquier momento



MTC-00002686

From: Stephen Woolverton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft AntiTrust Settlement
    Sirs:
    The proposed Microsoft donations to schools is a free path for 
Microsoft to oust Apple from it's position in our schools.
    Stephen
    Stephen Woolverton
    Marathon Computer, Inc.
    1619D Elm Hill Pike
    Nashville, TN 37210
    615/367-6467
    615/367-6468 fax
    www.marathoncomputer.com



MTC-00002687

From: rage
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft case...
    They are obviously a monopoly. Break them up..



MTC-00002688

From: Robert Remington
To: Microsoft ATR, [email protected]@inetgw, 
rremington@w...
Date: 12/4/01 3:23pm
    Subject' 11/28/2001 Intentional Food Poisoning
    My family has once again prepared food that has been poisoned 
with an agent that solidifies waste products in the area between the 
small and large intestine, making elimination almost impossible.
    The agent was prepared in a home made pastry on Wednesday, 
November 28, 2001. I ate the pastry after I had returned from the 
studio audience tapings of the Tonight Show and Late Friday at NBC 
Studios in Burbank. Once again, video surveillance of my home as 
well as next day newspaper feedback from the Orange County 
Register's Horoscope section as well as a few of the comics confirm 
the attack and subsequent discomfort. The PAC of Disney and Disney 
affiliated people along with their business partner, Mc Donald's 
Restaurants of suburban Chicago continue to harass me, targeting me 
because of the influential essays on their continued subversion, 
obstruction of justice, illegal use of funds, and assaults.
    A large land transaction in Orange County with the Irvine 
Company as well as Major League Baseball's contraction negotiations 
in Chicago are part of the scenario. It plays like this: ML Baseball 
has announced that 2 teams will be eliminated from the League in a 
year or so due to unprofitable business. The most likely of the 
teams are the Minnesota Twins, Florida Marlins, Montreal Expos, as 
well as the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. The MLB contraction game also 
involves millionaire owners who will shuffle properties. It has been 
suggested by many in the media that the Marlin's owner will sell the 
team and purchase the Anaheim Angels from Disney Corporation and the 
Expos will be purchased by all of MLB, and then eliminated in a year 
or so. The new Marlins owner would then move the Florida Marlins to 
the Washington DC area where MLB has been missing since the 
Washington Senators left town years ago.
    The other team that would fold would then be the Minnesota 
Twins, although after the Tuesday Chicago meeting of baseball's 
owners, the Minnesota Legislature drafted legislation to keep the 
Twins in Minnesota, thwarting the MLB owners' efforts at 
contraction. So, where does it stand now, and why are people so mad 
to attempt assaults and subversion???? Millions of dollars in 
concessions from the Disney Corporation as they try to put a public 
relations spin on Uncle Walt's 100th birthday celebration last 
weekend (designed to coordinate with the gift of private land to the 
public by the Irvine Company last week) without resolution on the 
necessary sale of the losing NHL Mighty Ducks Hockey Team and 
Anaheim Angels. Since the Microsoft Anti-Trust Trial has been placed 
on indefinite permafrost, the other large 'Power Kite' 
was the transfer of money and ownership between MLB owners and 
Disney as Disney tries to assimilate the 5.2 billion dollar purchase 
of the FOX / Haim Saban Power Rangers_FOX Family Channel deal.
    So, MLB places the team transfers on hold for a year, while 
Minnesota enacts legislation to keep the Twins in Minnesota. MLB 
owners have to buy out the Expo's owner and run the Expos. Disney's 
hopeful sale of the NHL Mighty Ducks and MLB Anaheim Angels is stuck 
in neutral for a year ... good! All of their stalling on my 
settlement for over ten years is now begining to receive a message 
about fair business practices. The OC Register and LA Times 
mentioned how so many people are extremely upset because the MLB 
baseball swaps did not go down as planned.
    The 12/4/2001 Randolph Itch 2 A.M. cartoon in the OC Register 
sums up the intestinal poisoning ... and the Leo Horoscope details 
one of the remedies I used, large Sunsweet Prunes with pits as 
opposed to the family's Sunsweet Pitted Prunes kept in the 
refrigerator. The comment went to my sister, a Leo, saying that her 
pitfall was not knowing I purchased a new version. The Get Fuzzy 
cartoon also mentions a muffin today ... the actual pastry was a 
home made coffee cake. My three visits to NBC_Burbank and 
follow-up on employment applications at KNBC-TV and the NBC Network 
were no more than a continued search for legitimate employment at a 
company I have visited since 1977, 0therh especially archrival A0L / 
Time-Warner, with a major studio down the street from
    NBC, and Disney, with their corporate HQ only blocks from NBC in 
the opposite direction from Warner Studios, see my visit as a 
challenge to their 'supreme' right to decide 
'other's' careers. Most of these characters have fancy 
titles at large corporations, however most of them have little legal 
experience, backed by the large corporate staffs that may be 
ignorant of their actions. These challengers are no more than smoke 
and mirrors, in fact they have acted in totally illegal manners 
without prosecution from the Justice Department or local 
authorities. Bringing it all together, and closer to home ... the 
business relationships my brother-in-law, A1 Rex and my sister 
Bonnie have with A1's corporate employment at McDonald's regional 
offices in Irvine as well as my family's sentimental attachment and 
brainwashing with Disney 'magic' have caused my 
immediate family to continue to subvert my efforts to obtain a 
satisfying career, stalling the replacement of money that was stolen 
from me, and invested in real estate and stocks without my consent.
    The fact that I am fighting for my rights, and that previous 
investigations by the US Department of Justice and the Orange County 
Sheriffs Department have proven my allegations to be correct, is the 
reason for this message. Please instruct these people to cease all 
of the food poisonings, and return all of my stolen money to me with 
interest, or in the event that your polite messages are again 
refused, freeze their bank accounts as terrorists for many years 
without prosecution, and rightfully return my money to me as well as 
interest and penalties for uncovering federal and state corruption, 
as provided by law.
    Thank you, Robert Remington



MTC-00002689

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 6:38pm
Subject: slap on the wrist
    Gentlemen,
    I think the DOJ-MS settlement is a sham. Judge Jackson was 
correct in concluding that MS was unrepentant, and in denial that 
they ever did anything wrong. How can they be expected to police 
themselves? Youve given them any number of vague escape clauses, 
such that they can thread the entire company thru the loop-holes 
provided.



MTC-00002690

From: Ed Noonan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 6:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello
    Though I'm from Michigan, a state that settled with Microsoft, I 
am outraged that this state and the Federal government did so. I am 
a retired attorney, former consumer affairs specialist, computer 
science educator and a computer expert, who feels strongly that 
consumers are the losers in the proposed settlement. By this 
settlement, Microsoft gets away with flagrant antitrust violations 
thereby undermining confidence in the very nature of our government. 
If Microsoft isn't a monopoly worthy of breakup, there is no 
substance to the entire Sherman Act. Thousands of industrious 
computer software developers have been harmed by Microsoft's 
predatory and wholly illegal practices.

[[Page 24151]]

Instead of being offered quality software products, Microsoft's 
tactics have restricted consumer choices to the detriment of all 
consumers. Microsoft must be brought to justice. The company must be 
dismantled. Please do all you can to kill the proposed settlement.
    Ed Noonan
    3988 Beeman Rd
    Williamston MI 48895
    (517) 655-2761
    Torchbearer, 2002 Olympics.
    CC:miag@ag. state.mi.us@inetgw,uag@ 
att.state.ut.us@ine...



MTC-00002691

From: matt shipley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 6:05pm
Subject: Microsoft woes...
    I think they should be broken up. I see NO reason for every 
piece of software I own to be written by the same monopolistic 
company. I don't understand the reason the government is unable to 
do such a thing. Please, for the sake of ALL of us, break them down 
into smaller, more effective companies that will allow greater 
competition.
    -matt shipley



MTC-00002692

From: Jean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 6:04pm
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust trial settlements and penalties
    To whom it may concern,
    I am very dissatisfied with the state of settlements and 
penalties applied to Microsoft for the crime Bill Gates and his 
company perpetrated against the the software and computer 
industries. By eradicating his competitors in the most unfair 
fashion, Mr. Gates robbed us, the computer users from the benefit of 
better and more creative software and destroyed the income of other 
creative software developers in the name of greed.
    I feel that the proposed settlements and penalties are very 
inadequate. They are too weak and do not fit the crime. They do not 
assure deterrence and prevention of any future recurrence of such 
unfair practices. They also do not address the damage done to 
everyone, users and developers. We must send a message that 
"Greed does not pay", Microsoft/Bill Gates should pay 
back in a way that serves every community around the states ... Mr. 
Gates is one of the richest man on the planet because of it, and we 
can't let him get away with it. He must pay the appropriate penalty 
and make amend in a meaningful way.
    Thank you for your continued fight for justice.
    Mr. Jean "de Galzain"
    P.O. Box 2404
    Oceanside, CA 92051
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00002693

From: John Hunt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 8:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing this to offer my support for the settlement as it 
is now written. While I have been against this case from the 
beginning (both on merit and for economic issues) and feel STRONGLY 
that the DOJ in its unconsidered actions has precipitated the 
economic downturn that we must all now live through.
    I hope the careers of those responsible for pursuing this case 
are damaged as much as my business has been by the current economic 
climate (you can credit 5 unemployed people from my company alone to 
this).
    It is time to end this case and get back to rebuilding our 
digital economy. Next time I hope the government is more considerate 
of collateral damage when they start a case such as this one.
    Sincerely,
    John Hunt
    Hunt Interactive, Inc.
    13218 NE 20th St.
    Bellevue, WA 98005
    425-746-7880



MTC-00002694

From: Maurice Leverault
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 8:51pm
Subject: Sellout to MSN is poison!
    Inovators and creative small startups are only fodder for the 
rapacious robber barons, Bill Gates and Ballmer. Sellout by the DOJ 
is defined as good. My opinion matters little when our Attorney 
General with the blessings of our Pres. & VP of our USA, allow 
this monster to grow tennacles, rob and rape. These are powerful 
wealthy men wielding influence and power employing their ill-gotten 
goods to litigate! In an effort to control confidential data and 
communication via eNet is poison. This is dangerous territory! Will 
we stand by and watch this happen right under our nose? With 
impunity, they squeeze and blackmail until they win. Our monopoly 
laws are a farce only proven in this MSN case!! If we allow this to 
continue, we deserve it. What a big business disappoinment with our 
present administration. mal



MTC-00002695

From: Allen Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 8:45pm
Subject: DOJ vs microsoft
    I believe the settlement is a fair one



MTC-00002696

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 8:12pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is my opinion that the Microsoft settlement is just. I feel 
that Microsoft has earned their market share, and has not acted as a 
monopoly, because it is not a monopoly. The consumer chooses the 
software they want to use.



MTC-00002697

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 10:31pm
Subject: Doj-Microsoft settlement
    I would like to say that I don't agree with the current 
settlement that is proposed by Microsoft. I don't understand how a 
corporation convicted of monopolistic business practices is allowed 
to settle by paying a minimum amount.
    Also, why should they be allowed to buy their way into another 
source of future revenue? Isn't that what this was all about in the 
beginning. Allowing Microsoft to settle with a slap on the hand is 
not sufficient. It just goes to show others that the one with the 
big wallet has their way over the rest of us. I don't believe that 
allowing them off the hook is going to bring back the tech sector.
    The only thing that will come back is Microsoft's guaranteed 
income and not the rest of ours. This is just an excuse to allow 
them to implement technology that they want on their terms. 
(monopoly).
    Thanks for taking the time to read this.
    Richard H. Quaas



MTC-00002698

From: Rick Alexander
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 9:36pm
Subject: Comments on proposed settlement
    The proposed settlement of the Microsoft suit is inadequate and 
unfair. It gives Microsoft an easy path into the only market it 
still does not monopolize...education. Also, the settlement is 
inadequate for the crime and the size of the company.
    Sincerely,
    Rick Alexander
    P.O. Box 1325
    Blue Hill, ME 04614



MTC-00002699

From: LAZ0002
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 9:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Your recent settlement agreement with Microsoft falls way short 
of what anyone I know would call fair.
    How can it be fair when they continue to "bundle" 
extra software and call it an "operating system"?
    A case in point would be their latest release, Windows XP. It 
contains CD "burning" software that allows you to make 
music or data CD's. A company call Roxio also makes this type of 
software, called EasyCD Creator 5. Since you have to have an 
operating system to run a program like EasyCD Creator 5 and the 
Windows O.S. already has such software in it, why would anyone pay 
for the samething twice?
    The only thing that would be fair would be to force Microsoft to 
unbundle all of it's software and prohibit it from forcing, in any 
way, computer manufactures or customers to buy something that they 
don't want to get something that they do.
    That way, a customer would be able to pick and choose the 
software that best fits there needs without having to purchase 
unwanted software. And since this would force Microsoft to display 
their individual software products side by side with their 
competitors, competition would be greatly improved.

[[Page 24152]]

    In this way a customer would be better served by making the 
choice entirely theirs.
    Thank you for your time.
    C. Lazarich
    Kent, WA.



MTC-00002700

From: tom poe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 10:41pm
Subject: Settlement Comment
    Hello:
    Schools need computers. Microsoft stands in a position to 
provide some $1 Billion in computers for schools. This settlement 
provides nothing but a cheap [beautifully packaged], exclusive 
marketing campaign to a "captured" underage audience. 
This settlement is a sham and disgrace to all parties involved. You 
have Open Source software with unlimited technical support, free 
updates, local, state, and national Users' groups ready and willing 
to assist, software that out-performs Microsoft on every level for 
"no cost", yet you continue to press for 
"justice" through some perverse reward system designed 
to benefit Microsoft in a way that lottery players can only dream 
about?
    Tom Poe
    2044 Plumas
    Reno, NV 89509



MTC-00002701

From: John Craven
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 10:33pm
Subject: Suggestion
    To whom it may concern:
    The proposed settlement does not prevent Microsoft from 
continuing it's monopoly. It's nothing more than a slap on the 
wrist. Companies may be given the ability to load other operating 
system on the boxes they sell, but now that Microsoft is in control 
of 90%+ of the market, there is no incentive for those sellers to 
expend much effort to in doing so. It would only cause them more 
support headaches and costs.
    I imagine there are a significant number of users that would 
love to rid themselves of Microsoft, but cannot since they feel 
compelled to be compatible with their co-workers around the country/
world that use Microsoft's office suite, even if those other workers 
themselves are wanting the same thing. Kind of like lemmings rushing 
to the sea :). Simply put: many people of the country/world are 
being forced to buy an operating system, when all they really want 
is to be compatible with a word processor!!!!
    So, how about forcing Microsoft to disclosing it's file format's 
for Word, Powerpoint and Excel. These have become de facto standards 
(read: monopolized) because of their operating system monopoly. By 
doing this other developers can create office suites that are 
cheaper, faster and with a different feature set than Microsoft has 
deemed obligatory. Their file format's could be the start of a new 
ANSI standard that could then be cussed and discussed by all 
interested parties. For the good of all, not just Microsoft.
    Respectfully yours,
    John R. Craven
    [email protected]



MTC-00002702

From: Andrew Parfomak
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/4/01 10:32pm
Subject: Microsoft... why bigger isn't better (!!)
    I'd like to point out that Microsoft has, in the eyes of this 
long-time computer user, had a strong history of (a) crushing 
promising software companies from developing truly better products, 
or (b) buying out promising companies, and often redirecting the 
promise of these companies into ways which primarily benefit 
Microsoft's long term goals, and not necessarily improve the 
software 'landscape' and the types of products available to 
consumers.
    I've long since been a fan of a once-strong contender, Borland 
Inc. which historically produced better products and had them 
available months or years prior to Microsoft's own offerings. The 
most comprehensive spreadsheet program first available on a Windows 
platform was QuattroPro, ... and not Excel which 
appeared somewhat later. More significantly, Borland's relational 
database software program, Paradox (for Windows) by far is still the 
most powerful, easiest to use, most attractive to configure and most 
elegant to program product in the single-user or small network 
market. Microsoft's product, Access, to this day doesn't boast half 
the functionality, or elegant interface designability which 
Borland's product, (now several years old) can provide. Borland's 
story is a classic example of Microsoft's strategy. Other software 
companies have, like Borland, also long since fallen under 
Microsoft's chariot wheels and have been excluded from the race to 
develop better products.
    Microsoft, in my view, should at least be required to open up 
its sourcecode, as well as open up its proprietary file formats in 
which it stores data (such as documents in WORD, or spreadsheets in 
EXCEL) to the programming community, and without any hampering of 
the use of these file formats. By virtue of their hidden code, and 
hidden file formats, as well as Microsoft's continued resistance to 
have it widely available for review and understanding by independent 
programmers, have they thwarted real and independent advance by 
third party programmers which would have borne fruition in the form 
of better, faster and more creative software products available to 
the public. This has not happened, as their market dominance which 
is in no small part protected by their hidden sourcecode and 
proprietary file formats (i.e., Word, Excel, etc.) which have 
unfairly denied other software developers from producing truly 
useful and truly compatible products. Instead, we are stuck with a 
Microsoft dominated view of personal and organizational computing 
... whether we agree with Microsoft's views or
    Microsoft's implementation ... or not.
    Thank you for your attention to my opinion.
    Andrew N. Parfomak
    [email protected]



MTC-00002703

From: Doug Tarlow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 11:46pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I think that this case should be settled and actions that are 
too drastic may hurt business. Microsoft is a building block of the 
electronics community. Hurting them hurts everyone else. Settle.
    Thanks
    Doug Tarlow



MTC-00002704

From: Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/4/01 11:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Another example of "hip-pocket 
'justice' " on the part of our government which 
benefits big business at the expense of the consumer.
    Two thumbs down to the Masters of Greed and their co-
conspiritors at the USDOJ.



MTC-00002706

From: Rob Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 10:42pm
Subject: Settlement
    Dear sir or madam,
    I think the microsoft settlements seem to be nothing more than a 
slap on the wrist, if even that. I cannot believe that this latest 
settlement is giving them a way to extend their monopoly further, 
into schools. This is absolutely absurd. Furthermore, it allows them 
to claim they are giving hundreds of millions of dollars away, when 
in reality software has almost zero marginal cost so it costs them 
next to nothing to give away software. I am really tired of the 
aggressive tactics that microsoft uses. I am sick of them leveraging 
their products to extend their monopoly further. It is unfair, and 
it stifles competition. I am not a competitor of microsoft, just a 
user who is sick of having products I don't want rammed down my 
throat, only because I need to run Windows to survive and be 
compatible with everyone else. I thought the DOJ was going to do 
something about this, and I am disgusted about how they now have 
dropped the ball on the case that they first had appeared to have 
won.
    Thank you,
    Rob Brown
    21 Caire Terrace
    San Francisco CA 94107



MTC-00002707

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 12:09am
Subject: RedHat/Microsoft proposal
    I just read the alternative proposal offered by RedHat for 
providing computer systems and software to schools.
    As a professional in the computer industry, I have seen the 
impact of Microsoft's monopolistic practices in ways that were not 
even addressed in the recent litigation. I have seen a generation of 
people entering the field of information technology that are poorly 
equipped to keep that industry moving ahead. They have been poorly 
equipped by a lack of exposure to development platforms, operating 
systems, and applications that do not originate from Microsoft 
Corporation. Microsoft has not only held back the industry

[[Page 24153]]

through monopolistic business practices with their products, but has 
created a generation of people who are indifferent to alternatives.
    The technology industry needs to be freed of the restraints that 
have been placed on it directly or indirectly by Microsoft. RedHat's 
proposal for providing the open source Linux operating system to 
school children can offer exposure to technology that may open new 
doors to a different future. By providing access to a platform of 
open technology and standards, tomorrow's workers and leaders in the 
technology business may be able to think beyond the boundaries that 
have been erected by Microsoft.
    I hope you will seriously consider the alternative that has been 
offered by RedHat, as well as any others that fall along those 
lines._
    Doug Carman
    [email protected]



MTC-00002708

From: M S F
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 12:02am
Subject: Let us decide
    I have been using computers since 1963, when I started on an IBM 
7090 using FORTRAN.
    Thru all these generations of computing power, even including 
IBM, when they were broken up by the DOJ, I have never seen anyone 
quite as arrogant as Microsoft. They do NOT speak for consumers when 
they build their products. The ONLY innovation they are responsible 
for is innovation in restrictive contracts.
    Instead, Microsoft has won out by purchasing technology 
(including, I remind you, the original version of MS-DOS 
itself) or by stealing it (Xerox PARC, Apple, Intuit, Netscape, ...) 
and encapsulating it into a take-it-or-else bundle. They have NEVER 
listened to the desires of the end consumers. I never wanted 
Internet Explorer forced onto my desktop! Where did they get that? I 
never wanted Windows Media Whatsit_I use RealNetworks. Why 
can't I choose? Why do I have to take one size fits all from EVERY 
computer manufacturer out there. Give me the option of a basic OS on 
which I can place the applications I like_that is what 
competition is for!
    They have killed many fine products over the years when they 
have been unable to buy them out_Novell DOS, WordPerfect, and 
Netscape come to mind as superior products effectively pushed out of 
the market. They have prevented innovation by requiring outside 
developers to work with their bloated software and requiring 
manufacturers to install exactly what is shipped, with no changes, 
no matter how bad it is. Indeed, Windows 98 is widely recognized as 
the bug fix for Windows 95, but you have to pay for it. It is always 
amazing to me when I see Linux loading essentially the same apps as 
Windows but in \1/4\ of the time and twice as robustly. If anything, 
the FTC (or whoever) should have issued a recall notice and consumer 
alert on anything as badly broken as their early releases. But 
remember, we are FORCED to take them_no choice. It would be a 
real miscarriage of justice to allow them to continue under the 
remedies proposed by the US Attorney General. Can you say 
rewards_where does the proposal have Microsoft compensate us 
for our lack of freedom of choice?
    Bill Gates has to be even more iron-willed than I 
thought_otherwise he would be unable to avoid laughing out 
loud in public about this settlement.
    Good grief guys_open your eyes and look at what they are 
doing to us_is this ACCEPTABLE?
    Mike



MTC-00002709

From: Frank Bulk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 12:01am
Subject: Comments on Microsoft Antitrust suit
    It's my personal (not the college's) belief that Microsoft needs 
to have several restrictions placed on itself:
    1. Fair/open contracts with OEM's that don't limit OEM's right 
to put additional software/icons on the PC's.
    2. Microsoft ought to open up ALL it's Window API's up to all 
developers so that Microsoft's developers (of other product) don't 
have a heads up over others. Microsoft has enough of a lead and 
market share with other products that this would help level the 
playing field.
    Regards,
    Frank Bulk
    [email protected]



MTC-00002710

From: Jeff Nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 12:38am
Subject: Microsoft antitrust settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I am dissatisfied with the proposed Microsoft antitrust 
settlement, particularly with the lack of any clause requiring 
Microsoft to reveal its proprietary file formats. This affects me 
directly because I mainly use non-Microsoft, competitive products 
such as Star Office to do my office tasks. When colleagues send me a 
file in a Microsoft Office format during the next several years, I 
want to know that I will be able to open it in my software of 
choice. Because Microsoft also controls the market for office 
software, they could at present change their file formats and keep 
them secret to prevent competitors' products from interoperating. 
While the proposed settlement has language requiring Microsoft to 
reveal its middleware APIs, which is good, there should also be a 
clause requiring Microsoft to reveal its application file formats.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Nelson
    915 W 2nd
    Weiser, ID 83672
    [email protected], [email protected]



MTC-00002711

From: John Nakai
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments @doj.ca.gov@ 
inetgw,...
Date: 12/5/01 2:05am
Subject: Opinions on Microsoft Federal Antitrust Settlement
    Dear sir or madam,
    I would like to voice my opinion about the Microsoft antitrust 
settlment in the federal government's case.
    Microsoft's lawyers have found another shrewd way to devastate 
the competition of their product line in the nation's schools and 
weaseling out of this antitrust case at the same time.
    In the part of this settlement where Microsoft agrees to donate 
a billion dollars worth of computers to the nations schools, if 
Microsoft is allowed to make this donation using computers running 
Microsoft operating systems, or running Microsoft software, then it 
succeeds in the following.
    1. Microsoft displaces other vendor's hardware and software out 
of the schools. A prime target here is Apple Computer, who maintains 
a large market share of computers in schools because of their 
superior ease of use and graphics capabilities. Microsoft will also 
displace other operating systems such as MacOS, Solaris, and Linux, 
and other application software such as Netscape, Corel, Applixware, 
Appleworks, Apache, etc. from the schools. As good as the other 
products are, they can't compete with free hardware and software. It 
may well put some of these competitors out of business by flooding 
the schools with free Microsoft products or computers dependent on 
Microsoft software to operate.
    2. Microsoft will force schools to have to buy software from 
Microsoft for future upgrades.
    3. Microsoft will make children come home to their parents 
saying they need Microsoft software and computers running Microsoft 
operating systems and software to do their homework.
    4. They will make themselves look like the good guys to schools, 
administrators, and children who will think Microsoft is coming 
bearing gifts, rather than buying themselves out of a criminal 
prosecution. A true public relations victory for the wolf in sheep's 
clothing.
    5. Microsoft does not have to make reparations to the victims of 
its criminal antitrust crimes and does not get broken up. Instead, 
Microsoft gets to further steal market share and customer base from 
it's competitor victims with money that should rightfully be paid to 
it's victims or the government as a fine. Had AT&T come to such 
an agreement in their antitrust case they would not have been broken 
up. Instead AT&T would have been able to stay a monopoly and 
would have agreed to providing free long distance to the customers 
of all its long distance competitors for just long enough to drive 
its competitors out of business. This settlement is a windfall 
reward for Microsoft for criminal behavior, not a punishment.
    As a current user of Windows, Macintosh, Unix, and Linux, plus 
many others in the past, I can say with expert confidence that 
Windows is an acceptable operating system, it still lacks the system 
stability, virus resistance, and user empowerment of creativity 
offered by other operating systems. This settlement could wield a 
death blow to Apple and possibly others by robbing their customer 
base and keeping the abusive Microsoft monopoly intact, leaving the 
computer world under Microsoft's thumb.

[[Page 24154]]

    Microsoft truly needs to be broken in two to separate companies 
to separate their operating system business from its application 
software business. The current structure permits Microsoft to 
sabotage competing application software with ?incompatibility? 
changes to it's operating system each revision of its operating 
system, and to provide other operating systems with slow, buggy, or 
otherwise dysfunctional versions of its application software. Its 
further expansion into internet services with msn.com, and its plans 
to deny msn.com web service to browsers other than its Internet 
Explorer are further examples of Microsoft's plans to cut out 
competing vendor's products through the use of its monopoly powers.
    My opinion is:
    1. Microsoft should still be broken up.
    2. Microsoft should not be allowed to flood schools with free 
computers and software unless the computers are up-to-date 
Macintosh, Linux, Solaris, Unix, or other non-Windows computers. Any 
freely provided software should be that of current competitor 
software (AOL, Netscape, Kodak, FileMaker, Apple, Red Hat, Yellow 
Dog, ApplixWare, gnu, Sun, etc.) Only then will this settlement make 
any kind of reparation to Microsoft's victims and aid in 
discouraging and diminishing Microsoft's monopolistic abuse.
    3. Microsoft should not be able to provide free internet service 
to schools as a part of any revised settlement, as msn provides good 
service and up-to-date software only for Windows based computers.
    4. If Intel or other PC clone based computers are provided to 
schools for free as a part of this settlement Microsoft should be 
required to bar these computers from being activated with Windows XP 
for a period of at least 5 years. This is technically doable, as 
activation requires users to call Microsoft and provide the 
computer's unique machine ID for activation.
    5. An alternative would be to require Microsoft to first pay 
victim competitors (if they are still in business) directly for 
damages, and use the remaining funds as described in 2 to 4 above. I 
hope that you will be able to get to get the courts to reconsider 
separating Microsoft's operating system, application software, and 
internet operations into three separate companies to promote fair 
competition for the benefit of all of us, and to drop plans of this 
incredible competition devastating free giveaway of computers to 
schools unless they conform to restrictions like I mentioned in 2 to 
5 above.
    Thank you for your time in reading this,
    John Nakai



MTC-00002712

From: David Haworth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 1:52am
Subject: Proposed settlement in U.S. versus Microsoft case
To: U.S. Department of Justice
Re: Proposed settlement in the United States v. Microsoft case
    There are so many things wrong with this 
"settlement" that I don't know where to begin.
    First of all, there's no punishment. Microsoft has been found 
guilty, but gets away with the crime completely. The suggestion the 
someone made that Microsoft should contribute computers to aid the 
poorest schools seems to have some merit, but that 
"contribution" should under no circumstances include 
"donation" of Microsoft products. The counter-proposal 
from Red Hat would seem to be a nice option. Secondly, the proposed 
behavioural remedies contain far too many loopholes through which 
Microsoft no doubt already has plans to wriggle. A glaring example 
is that there is nothing to prevent Microsoft from 
"retaliating" against vendors who sell computers without 
an operating system, or with only a non-Microsoft OS installed.
    So back to the drawing board please. While I don't favor the 
breakup that was proposed by Judge Jackson, I feel that an 
acceptable settlement should include a punishment to fit the crime, 
and a form of behavioural remedy that will ensure that Microsoft 
cannot offend again.
    Sincerely,
    David Haworth
    David Haworth
    Baiersdorf, Germany
    [email protected]
    CC:dmca_discuss@ 
lists.microshaft.org@inetgw



MTC-00002713

From: Bob Perdriau
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 3:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement_Not
    I read your settlement document.
    The company (Microsoft) was found to be a criminal. There is no 
doubt about that. Last I looked, criminals in this country are 
punished. Sent to jail, fined and stuff like that.
    Your settlement is bullshit. It does not matter that you think 
the government saves time and effort. The role of the government is 
to prosecute anyone that breaks the law.
    That includes Microsoft.
    Potential savings of time and effort and a "decent" 
outcome don't matter. Microsoft broke the damn law! They have to be 
punished. Do it and do it now!
    Else, you make a mockery of justice in this country. There are 
too many other instances where the US is mocking justice these days. 
BTW, the idiots that wrote the crap you published in the Federal 
Register don't know anything about real computing. The authors are 
idiots that merely know how to use Microsoft Word to type a really 
uninformed letter.
    You can contact me at:
    Bob Perdriau
    354 Benvenue Avenue
    Los Altos, CA 94024
    (650) 941-1043
    [email protected]
    If you give a shit.



MTC-00002714

From: Mark_Morton@ Mikronvinyl.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 8:12am
Subject: 4 words_YOU SOLD US OUT!!
    Justice? heheh.. right.. Its burns my ASS that we can't get 
those dollars back to feed kids. Even though it wouldn't be American 
children, it would be some other pour nation of the week, like 
Afghanistan right now ... and justice for all.
    Mark Morton



MTC-00002715

From: Opnotic
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 4:50am
Subject: Thanks anyway DOJ.
    Not only has control of our country fallen into the hands of 
Corporate Interest, but it seems that we (as citizens) are powerless 
to do anything about it. This case only shows that the real people 
running this country are the corporations themselves. Thanks anyway 
DOJ. Your solution to the problem in this particular case is not a 
solution at all. Guess we'll all realize that when we are willing to 
take another real look at the problems with 
Microsoft._Predicted to happen within 5 years. I guess all I 
can say is I wish us luck next time because doubtless we will be 
here again.



MTC-00002716

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 3:28am
Subject: Antitrust Settlement cut with Microsoft
    Simply placing well defined restrictions on Microsoft has never 
and will never keep this company from using it's monopolist power to 
squash competition. I know it, the Public knows it, the Industry 
knows it, and YOU know it.
    Microsoft always finds a fuzzy path around any restrictions put 
on it by the government. At this moment in time it already basically 
owns the desktop computer software market and soon will control most 
of the way information is passed around on the Internet. Windows XP 
is a perfect example of Microsoft thumbing it's nose at the 
government and it's market competitors, yet the DOJ ignores or 
chooses not to understand how it will further Microsoft's monopoly 
hold on the tech sector. I personally believe that the DOJ has sold 
out to 'big business'. The DOJ's 'deal' with Microsoft 
is a disgrace.
    Regards,
    Tony Thedford
    Dallas, TX. USA
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00002717

From: Alan Martello
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 8:33am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am outraged that the same company that has monopolized 
operating systems and desktop application development for the past 
10 years is being granted, courtesy my tax dollar and the U.S. 
Government, a new monopoly in our school systems.
    Clearly, most of the people negotiating the deal have never sat 
*FOR DAYS STRAIGHT* (4 days this past week) in front of a Microsoft 
operating system trying to perform a relatively simple task which 
simply can't be done due to poor planning on Microsoft's part. 
"But in our free market economy" (I hear the critics 
charge), "this would change

[[Page 24155]]

as market forces would propel them to make changes."
    *NOT WHEN YOU HOLD A MONOPOLY*
    And just in case their stranglehold on desktop operating systems 
is not strong enough, let's allow them to put $1 Billion dollars of 
their product in our schools. ... oh, and by the way ... let's see 
... if the OS + Microsoft desktop apps (Word, Excel, etc.) costs 
(conservatively) $500 retail BUT the CD and distribution material 
costs them (in quantity) around $0.25 (seems reasonable since I can 
get 1,000 CD's manufactured for less than $1 each), that means their 
$1 Billion settlement is worth 1/2000th of that or $500,000 in real 
cash (not "lost sales", REAL CASH!). Let's see ... 
perhaps Bill G., Steve B. and Paul A. can set aside a hand in their 
weekly poker game to cover the settlement. $500,000 is a pretty 
small sum to buy a government sanctioned monopoly in our schools. Do 
the people negotiating the DOJ settlement honestly thing this is a 
good idea?
    At a minimum, the $1 Billion settlement to benefit schools 
should be for HARDWARE ONLY which each school district or state 
should get directly. In that way, Microsoft can't use it's $1 
Billion hardware purchase to put the screws to local vendors or make 
a sweetheart deal with one of the big multi-national hardware 
companies that Microsoft routinely is discovered in bed with making 
backroom marketing and distribution deals. In closing, let me add 
that my company has made its livelihood using Microsoft products for 
almost ten years. While they do bring some useful offerings to the 
marketplace, their unembarassed attitude as they strongarm the 
industry has resulted in my working LONGER HOURS for LESS MONEY 
because of INFERIOR MICROSOFT PRODUCTS. Any significant competition 
is simply silenced by driving them out of business. Is there any 
other definition of a monopoly?
    I feel outraged and frustrated that it is going to take the EU 
to show the DOJ what backbone is about when it comes to negotiating 
with the world's largest software monopoly.
    Alan Martello, Ph.D.
    President
    Martello Associates Inc.
    5575 Pocusset Street
    Pittsburgh, PA 15217
    [email protected]



MTC-00002718

From: Douglas Baggett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to state for the record my opposition as a citizen 
and as a computer professional against the government settlement 
with Microsoft. In my opinion and experience with the IT industry, 
this settlement will neither
    A. Redress the damage done by Microsoft using its monopoly power 
in desktop operating systems for Intel based microprocessors. 
Venture Capitalists are extremely hesitant to fund start-up 
companies that wish to compete in Intel desktop operating systems. 
Microsoft's past actions have resulted in the almost complete 
elimination of any commercially viable alternative to Microsoft in 
desktop operating systems for Intel microprocessors. LINUX is not a 
commercial operating system, its license does not allow for 
companies who distribute it to charge for it, they are as the law 
applies, only selling support services for LINUX, the development of 
LINUX cannot be funded with by sales, therefore does not apply, the 
Macintosh is not an Intel based operating system and also does not 
apply.
    B. Restrict Microsoft from using its monopoly power to stifle 
competition within or near their Desktop Operating system. The 
current settlement does not address the future, almost all of the 
restrictions placed on Microsoft have legal loopholes allowing 
Microsoft to ad-hear to the letter of the law, but not the spirit. 
The current settlement also mainly restricts actions that Microsoft 
has eliminated from it's business practices years ago.
    thank you
    Douglas Baggett
    UNIX/Network Administrator
    Andrulis Corporation
    National Science Foundation
    Directorate for Computers & information Science & 
Engineering
    [email protected]
    M-F 8-4 EST
    703-292-4551



MTC-00002719

From: Randy Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 10:20am
Subject: "eliminate Microsoft's illegal practices, prevent 
recurrence of the same or similar practices and restore the 
competitive thr...
    I am sure that the Justice Department means well, but this 
settlement is nothing more than a slap on the wrist. I work for a 
company that competes against Microsoft and I see every day the 
tricks and the problems they cause. This settlement is not going to 
stop or fix anything. The operating system should be free. Microsoft 
will still make millions by selling applications that work on the 
operating system.
    This settlement has the look and feel of someone getting paid 
off to make this problem go away. It is hard to believe in a system 
that allows major corporations to do what ever they want, even 
though they have been found to being a monopoly. November 2nd was a 
black day for the history of information services.
    Randy Anderson
    Technology Manager of Central Illinois
    Novell, The leading provider of Net Services Software
    http://WWW.NOVELL.COM



MTC-00002720

From: Rick Bowersox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 9:26am
Subject: settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am in favor of quick resolution of this matter. I do not 
believe that Microsoft has acted as a monopoly. They simply have the 
best product and their innovation deserves our praise rather than 
government harassment. Please do what you have to do and then go 
find some real criminals.
    Sincerely,
    B. Richard Bowersox



MTC-00002721

From: ADAZA.COM
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 12:21pm
Subject: Monopolies harm industry first, then the consumer.
    Dear Dept of Justice,
    Microsoft is a successful company. It has achieved its 
monopolies through successful marketing strategies. Whether it has 
used illegal means to achieve and maintain its monopolies is NOT of 
primary importance to the industry, the consumer, or the economy. 
What IS of primary importance to the industry, consumer, and 
economy, is that Microsoft has monopolies in a number of areas and 
is using those monopolies to extend into other areas. The technique 
of using a monopoly in one area to create a monopoly in another area 
has been understood for centuries. That monopolies eventually harm 
the industry, the consumer, and the economy has also been understood 
for centuries. For these reasons, every capitalistic country has 
developed antitrust law to protect the country from private 
monopolies.
    The industries in which Microsoft enjoys monopolies have 
withered just as monopoly-dominated industries in the past have. 
Evidence:
    1) Industry-wide development in personal computer operating 
systems has all but ceased. Apart from cosmetically, MS Windows is 
hardly different from what it was five years ago.
    2) Industry-wide development in internet browsers has all but 
ceased. Apart from cosmetically, MS Internet Explorer is hardly 
different from what it was five years ago.
    3) Industry-wide development in office productivity software has 
all but ceased. Apart from cosmetically, MS Office is hardly 
different from what is was five years ago. (And yet, Microsoft still 
charges $500 for it. They do because they can.) Yes, a lot of 
healthy, competitive, software development is occurring, even at 
Microsoft, but not in the areas Microsoft monopolizes. Some argue: 
"But stable standards are good for an industry. A lot of 
businesses do well developing products which depend on Microsoft's 
"standards"." IF it is determined that a standard 
operating system or office software is good for the industry, (which 
I personally do not believe but realise that there are certain 
short-term advantages) THEN those standards should not be privately 
owned and manipulated for the benefit of the standard's owner, in 
the way that Microsoft does. Many non-MS-owned standards do exist.
    They are under-utilized, in general, because Microsoft benefits 
more from creating its own versions of these standards and 
discriminantly selling their use. If Microsoft has acted illegally, 
it should be punished in order to demonstrate to the world that 
Microsoft is not above the law of the United States. However, 
separately from "punishment," Microsofts monopolies need

[[Page 24156]]

to be broken in order to restore productive competitive growth to 
these industries and to ensure that more industries aren't similarly 
strangled.
    The Microsoft monopoly situaton is exactly the type of situation 
that US antitrust law was designed for. It should be used.
    Sincerely
    Drew Cover
    ADAZA.COM_Visual Communication Technology ADAZA.COM uses 
cutting edge technology to allow you to communicate more effectively 
with your all customers and all your employees, around the clock! 
(712)465-5004 (or (712)465-9001 to leave message.)



MTC-00002722

From: Charles Eakins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 11:02am
Subject: Anti Trust Case
    To whom it may concern,
    I won't point in my career I worked at Microsoft, for many years 
in fact, never getting full time employee benefits however because I 
was a contractor, Microsoft has recently settled a class action 
lawsuit regarding this. My comments come from my experiences working 
inside the company. Simply put, this settlement does not go far 
enough. Microsoft continues its monopolistic practices while putting 
forth a settlement, this does not go far enough to prevent them from 
further impacting consumers. The only way to stop Microsoft's 
monopolistic behavior is to break them up, period, for you to do 
anything else is a complete disregard for the consumer, which the 
anti-trust laws are supposed to protect.
    Thanks
    Charles Eakins



MTC-00002724

From: Richard Harriss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 1:42pm
Subject: Ad campaign for Microsoft
    I laughed when I first saw the accommodation Microsoft proposed 
to atone for their monopolistic behavior. I had to read the 
newspaper article and listen to news reports before I realized that 
people were taking it seriously. This is what Apple and others do to 
INCREASE market share! This is the most ridiculous 
"penalty" I can imagine for the types of offenses 
Microsoft has perpetrated. I would be very upset if this goes 
through.
    Richard Harriss
    10597 Oakbend Dr.
    San Diego, CA 92131
    858-586-1410



MTC-00002725

From: Shawn Patrick Millerick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 12:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    December 5, 2001, Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney, Antitrust 
Division, Department of Justice, 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200, 
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    I understand that public comment is now being accepted in the 
case of U.S. v Microsoft. I write to express my support for the 
settlement.
    I believe strongly that government should only intervene in the 
affairs of the marketplace on a very limited basis. This was not the 
case with regard to Microsoft. The absolute last thing the high tech 
industry needs is the federal government attempting to micromanage 
it.
    Microsoft has made significant gains and should be rewarded, 
rather than punished, for their innovation and creativity.
    Too much of the taxpayer's time and money has already been spent 
on this case. This settlement should be approved as quickly as 
possible.
    Sincerely,
    Shawn P. Millerick
    553 Route 3A
    Bow, NH 03304
    888-238-6212
    603-227-0442
    603-225-2442
    fax-(603) 230-9620



MTC-00002726

From: Jayne Marcucci
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attorney Renata Hesse, Antitrust Division, Department of 
Justice, 601 D Street NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20530, VIA 
EMAIL
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    I write to submit public comment in support of the settlement 
proposed in the case of U.S. v Microsoft.
    Consumers across the nation have benefited greatly from 
Microsoft's innovation. In fact, they have often forced the market 
to offer products and services at a lower price with better quality. 
Considering that anti-trust violations are designed to protect 
consumers from harm, I believe that the government's efforts are off 
base in this case.
    I have also personally benefited from Microsoft's excellence in 
technology. As a small business person, I am able to run my 
operations in an extremely efficient and cost effective way by using 
the company's software.
    Please approve this settlement so that Microsoft can continue to 
make a positive difference in the lives of businesses and consumers.
    Thank you for your dedication and public service.
    Sincerely,
    Jayne Marcucci
    President
    Marcucci Consulting
    P.O. Box 16297
    Hooksett, New Hampshire 03106



MTC-00002727

From: Craig Wolf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 2:34pm
Subject: Settlement
    I am in full agreement with Red Hat on the $1 billion in 
computers and software to education. Microsoft will inflate the cost 
of purchasing and distributing the systems as well as inflating the 
cost of the software to spend substantially less than proposed. They 
should be charged with purchasing the hardware and having Linux 
& Staroffice installed on those systems. This will allow for 
more children to be helped and will not let them more securely put 
the strangle hold on the kids and the school systems.
    I have been working with computers for over 20 years and I am 
more disgusted and disappointed with each release of Microsoft's 
products. I look forward to the maturing of Linux to truly give some 
competition to Microsoft so that they start designing their products 
better versus buying out there competitors or bullying the 
competitors out of business.
    I also work in the school system as a technology person and 
dislike being "forced" to purchase upgrades. It is 
wrong!
    This is just my opinion but it is shared by many of my coworkers 
as well as people I know in and around the industry.
    Thanx for your time.
    Craig Wolf
    Desktop/Network Specialist
    Linux/Web Server Support
    Support Services Center
    Millard Public Schools
    402-894-6283



MTC-00002728

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 2:32pm
Subject: About the settlement
    It may be too late for comments, but I'd like to suggest that if 
Microsoft is really to be punished, and if giving computers to 
schools is an option, then they should pay to give Apple or Unix 
computers to schools. Now there's an anti-competitive effort! Thanks 
for listening.
    Jeannine Englehart, Professor (emeritus)



MTC-00002729

From: Stephen Benoit
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 1:48pm
Subject: Changes In Microsoft Policies Over The Past 30-Days Render 
Settlement Harmless
    TO: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division, U.S. 
Department of Justice, 601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 
20530
    RE: Microsoft Settlement, getting the big picture.
    While I have major concerns regarding (and do not support the 
signing of) the settlement agreement with Microsoft, I wish to point 
out several new issues that relate not only to the settlement, but 
to new activities on the part of Microsoft that leave the settlement 
quite short in resolving today's and tomorrows Information 
Technologies relating to Microsoft.
    1) Microsoft has changed part of its business model by modifying 
how SOME Microsoft applications (not middleware, but applications) 
work with one another. A perfect example is that in EVERY previous 
version of Microsoft Word since the creation of Outlook Express (OE) 
was able to integrate seamlessly with the shared OE/Windows address 
book. Now however, this integration has been removed from all new 
applications

[[Page 24157]]

(post Office 2000). Thus, if you upgrade now, you are FORCED to also 
upgrade your Email & Address Management from the free Outlook 
Express to the full blown Microsoft Outlook 2002 product. This fact 
alone translates to the following:
    a) Consumers upgrading to the latest versions of Microsoft 
Application software are promised enhanced functionality, but 
instead receive REDUCED functionality and interoperability with 
freeware applications (which are still being support, updated, and 
released by Microsoft).
    b) Consumers are not told of the reduced functionality. In fact, 
Microsoft has hidden this issue even from OEMs and dealers.
    c) Consumers upgrading Word or any other application that 
previously had integration with OE or the Microsoft Middleware 
"Windows Address Book" will no longer have this 
interoperable functionality and the wording of the EULA and OEM 
agreements moves all liability issues from reduced functionality to 
dealers or the entity deploying the upgrade, leaving Microsoft 
"held harmless" from liability and forcing consumers 
from a "Free" solution to a "Purchased Licensed 
Required" scenario. This represents an unfixable liability to 
dealers and also potential creates non-rectifiable liabilities for 
anyone deploying any updates of Microsoft Application software.
    d) This integrated functionality has existed since the creation 
of Outlook Express, yet Microsoft is now reluctantly stating that 
the removal of these features "Is not a bug, but rather an 
interoperability feature removed by Microsoft at their own 
discretion.
    e) This move represents a monopolistic campaign and marketing 
strategy in that:
    i. Outlook Express was created to compete as freeware against 
Netscape Messenger. Now that this threat to Microsoft has been 
removed, it is no longer necessary to "Give a product away 
(OE) when Microsoft can force consumers to purchase it 
(Outlook)"
    ii. There is no liability to Microsoft from enacting this 
change.
    iii. This move has the potential of creating over a billion 
dollars in new Outlook 2002 revenues for Microsoft this year, as 
consumers have no viable alternative for performing these basic 
tasks.
    iv. Microsoft has also removed this functionality from 
"Suite" products including Microsoft Works, again, 
forcing consumers to purchase a second product when the suite 
previously delivered this functionality.
    v. This represents the perfect example of how the Operating 
Systems (which includes the "Address Book" application) 
development is being controlled and influenced by the Applications 
division. Removing functionality is the first step (in what will be 
many) of forcing consumers to purchase multiple products to deliver 
the same functionality that was previously available for free.
    2) Microsoft's latest Operating System includes many new 
freeware applications that will follow this same model which is:
    a) Release a freeware product (which may have cost hundreds of 
millions of dollars to create) to eliminate non-freeware competitor 
application software.
    b) Consume market share through delivering these applications 
via Operating System releases. (As is the case with Media Player, 
Outlook Express, Internet Explorer, Messenger, etc.)
    c) Create Application smart tags which utilize security 
protocols thus preventing competitors from delivering this same 
functionality due to Microsoft's settlement agreement which would 
allow them to keep this information proprietary as 
"Application Software Functionality" and NOT middleware 
or API functionality.
    d) Wherever possible, once the market has been saturated, remove 
application integration features so that they only work with 
software that must be purchased (as they have just done with Word/
OE)
    In this regard, Microsoft eliminates "Middleware" 
and instead leverages "Application Integration" features 
which are exempt from the settlement agreement.
    The bottom line is that they are making a shambles out of the 
entire case by moving OEM relationships and Middleware issues to the 
forefront. Behind closed doors, Microsoft is instead redefining 
middleware by more tightly integrating applications and proprietary 
cross-application functionality. At this point, the concern should 
not be how these changes affect OTHER software manufacturers, (which 
is serious enough on its own) but rather how the settlement affects 
how Microsoft will integrate application functionality with 
previously delivered Operating System to Applications features. This 
now evident threat extends to all Microsoft applications including 
those delivered in its newest Operating Systems including:
    a) Outlook Express
    b) Internet Explorer
    c) Media Player
    d) Messenger
    e) Remote Assistance
    f) Disk Defragmenter Internet Connection Sharing
    h) Internet Connection Firewall
    i) Windows Address Book (Delivered with Windows XP, but now not 
functional with other Windows Based Application Software beyond 
Outlook Express)
    j) Remote Desktop
    k) Internet Information Service (IIS)
    The fact remains that each listing above is application software 
by definition, yet Microsoft has somehow been able to disguise them 
as part of the Operating System. As time progresses, Microsoft will 
now continue to further evolve fee based application software to 
replace these "Free" applications while in each new 
release and update they have and will continue to slowly remove 
integrated functionality in favor of forcing the consumer to 
purchase a retail equivalent by completing the steps outlined in 
Sections 2a though 2d. This is no longer a theory of motive operandi 
but rather one that had been successfully practiced by Microsoft in 
the past 30 days.
    What this means, is that eventually you will see full-retail 
application versions of EACH AND EVERY application mentioned above 
and that ONLY by purchasing these products will you obtain the same 
functionality that you had previously. In other words, upgrading 
means losing functionality of your previously licensed applications
    I additionally have several other examples of newly discovered 
reduced functionality that not only concern me as a dealer, but also 
as a Computer Manufacturer. Unfortunately, I have had no success in 
resolving these issues with Microsoft as they are now stating 
officially that these problems are not bugs (which would be the 
assumption when you lose a feature that you previously had) but 
rather "Changes in the company policies regarding integration 
with freeware". As the settlement agreement NEVER mentions how 
Microsoft will deal with Microsoft integrations of Microsoft 
Applications, they are therefore left with a big fat loophole in the 
settlement agreement which gives them license to create freeware to 
eliminate application software competition, then saturate the market 
via Operating System deployments and then remove the functionality 
of this freeware once market dominance has been achieved. A 
conscious M-O-N-O-P-O-L-Y!
    My primary concern at this point is the liability of my company 
when performing updates. It is conceivable that I will be liable to 
purchase Outlook 2002 for every customer that had Only Microsoft 
Word or any office suite that does not include Outlook 2002 on the 
grounds that if I remove functionality by implementing the update, I 
can be held directly liable to the consumer. Thus, this move places 
my company at high risk of law suits from both Consumers here in New 
Hampshire as well as our clients in other states throughout the 
United States. Furthermore, the official line from Microsoft is that 
there is no remedy of liability from reduced functionality between 
consumers and Microsoft, but rather we alone (those deploying 
updates) are liable for any impacts to consumers. In other words, 
Sue your dealer, not Microsoft. As Microsoft actively promoted this 
functionality through intense marketing campaigns (including 
information that you can still view on their website), this is 
furthermore a blatant example of "Bait and Switch". In 
summary, this model gives Microsoft the ability to develop any 
application software they want (at any cost to the company), give it 
away until the competition for that product is eliminated and then 
change the configuration of how that application is used to force 
the consumer to then purchase the product.
    Should you have any questions, comments or wish to discuss these 
dramatic new changes in Microsoft development practices and 
marketing strategies, please contact me at your earliest 
convenience.
    Stephen Benoit, Owner
    Stable Technologies
    'The way IT should be!'
    39 South Main Street_R Concord, New Hampshire 03301 (603) 
224-0342
    [email protected]
    Founding Member: National Association of System Builders and 
Integrators



MTC-00002730

From: Tod Herman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 4:15pm

[[Page 24158]]

Subject: settlement
    Of the settlement intricacies I couldn't speak. But if most of 
what I read in the rags is correct, I believe Microsoft is very 
happily celebrating in their hallways about the new inroads they 
will be making in the schools, where Apple has had a stronghold. I 
hope the settlement will be revisited and their 
"donations" to the schools will be required to take 
monetary form instead of software from them. Thanks.
    Tod Herman
    Network Administrator
    Cherrydale Farms, Inc.
    [email protected]
    610-366-1606 x2166



MTC-00002731

From: Bruce Hartzell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 3:57pm
Subject: Just Say No to the Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs/Madam,
    I have reviewed the proposed settlement and feel that it is not 
in the public's interest. Microsoft will be able to continue with 
its monopolistic ways. Please go back and craft an agreement fair to 
the public and business world.



MTC-00002732

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR, [email protected]@ inetgw, 
Ralph@essen...
Date: 12/5/01 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Hegemony' Limits On Corporate Power
    CC: [email protected]@inetgw, 
[email protected]@i...
    Re: Microsoft Warns of AOL's Power if It Wins Cable Bid 
Microsoft Corp.'s chief executive expressed concern yesterday over 
AOL Time Warner Inc.'s bid for AT&T Corp.'s cable network, 
warning the media and entertainment giant could use the purchase to 
strengthen its grip on online services.
    Ballmer is beating a dead horse because we are seeing that all 
ecstatically obese corporations are beyond the threshold where 
efficiencies of scale are lost in the cesspool of power abuse. That 
AOL is more talented than Microsoft at camouflaging it's cesspool 
does not spare AOL from the mega-trend that will eventually humble 
both of them_the ultimate erection of limits on corporate 
power.
    We The People
    Take Back Our Flag
    From The United Corporations Of America



MTC-00002733

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 4:07pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    ?also, it apears to me that the govt is rewarding microsoft for 
"bully tactics" having worked with some govt agencies 
before, I also noticed that they are almost totally microsoft 
themselves, so how is it possible to judge on someone that you rely 
on so heavily?
    I also wish to bring to light the practice that some 
universities use. they get free Microsoft server software if all 
other types are kept from the competition..how is THIS being fair. 
In my opinion Microsoft corporation has such an almost 
insurmaountable advantage that I am not sure if the U.S. Govt is not 
afraid of them..
    thank you
    thomas lapointe



MTC-00002734

From: Brian K. Culver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 4:47pm
Subject: Antitrust Settlement...
    Dir Sirs,
    As a hard-working American taxpayer that fully supports your 
efforts to combat terrorism, I must say that I am dismayed by the 
"slap on the wrist" action seemingly being handed down 
to Microsoft for, in my opinion, one of the most grievous monopoly 
abuses in United States history. I feel that if Microsoft is allowed 
to maintain its dominate market position and extend its market 
domination into even more of the new markets that are just now 
blossoming in this information age, the results will be 
catastrophic. If Microsoft is indeed allowed to keep its monopoly 
control over the desktop PC market, and stifle its competition, then 
Microsoft is no longer in competition in the IT market, and hence, 
its source code for the Windows operating system should be made 
public domain. If Linux platforms like RedHat and SUSE can make a 
profit while releasing their source, microsoft should be able to as 
well. In any event, OEM distributors of the various Windows 
platforms should have as much freedom as possible in being able to 
modify/change the operating system to better tailor the operating 
systems to their PCs.
    I have faith that you really will take the consumer into account 
instead of paying lip service to US (the US people). If Microsoft 
gets a slap on the wrist then it will become self-evident that this 
is no longer the land of the free and the home of the brave, but the 
land of the greed and the home of the slave. I pray to the Lord you 
at the DOJ do what is right for the people, instead of being a whore 
for the corporate special interests.
    Brian K. Culver
    Software/Engineering
    HAL-TEC Corporation
    E-mail: [email protected]
    405 N. Reo Street, Suite 250
    Tampa, Florida 33609
    813.286.8333 Phone
    813.835.9059 Fax
    www.hal-tec.com



MTC-00002735

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear sir/madam,
    I think that the proposed settlement of the Microsoft antitrust 
case is not enough to allow for free competition on this market. I 
think Microsoft should really allow free access to its API and 
similar code during the whole development process.
    Best,
    Neven Dilkov



MTC-00002736

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case
    Quite frankly the "deal" that was cut simply will 
not take care of the problem. What's thousands, millions, or 
billions of dollars in software when they're the publishers of said 
software? The answer is the cost of the media, training, and the 
hardware. Does the government actually believe that Microsoft will 
provide the training and the hardware? The media is easy, simply 
copy some CDs, throw them in boxes and ship. Hardware, a little more 
difficult, but still an obtainable goal. The training? Forget it. 
Not one school will have any trainers knocking on their door. Any 
money given to the schools for training will be spent in other much 
needed areas I'm sure.
    Did the government think that Microsoft would find a hardware 
manufacturer that wouldn't give them an excellent break of the cost 
of the hardware? I don't know of a manufacturer that wouldn't be 
willing to provide that equipment for pennies and their first born. 
My niece's school district uses Gateway computers. If you ask her 
what kind of computer she wants for home, her answer (surprise, 
surprise) is Gateway. What a wonderful marketing opportunity for the 
hardware manufacturer. If I made computers I would love to be the 
recipient of that contract.
    Likewise for Microsoft, who stands to lose nothing and gain 
everything from this "deal." By "donating" 
the software to the schools they're ensuring that the next 
generation of computer users will (again surprise, surprise) choose 
Microsoft products when asked. They're insuring their product line 
into the next generation.
    At the beginning of my IT career I was a Microsoft supporter. As 
time has passed, however I've become more and more reluctant to 
choose Microsoft products. If you choose one product, you're forced 
into using at least three others that are required to make the first 
product function correctly. With their recent release of Windows XP 
and their Passport service it is clearly evident that they have no 
intention of changing their predatory ways. Back in the 80's 
everyone had a chance, little guys and big companies alike. With 
today's tech landscape only the big companies can make it. The 
largest of the big companies is easy to identify_Microsoft.
    The only solution is for a break up_un-palpable as it may 
be for the economy and for the growing number of Microsoft only IT 
shops around the world.
    Matthew Rubschlager
    [email protected]



MTC-00002737

From: Dan Plastina
To: 'Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/5/01 4:54pm
    Microsoft Settlement_Please sign off on it.
    We've wasted enough time and tax payer earned monies on 
Microsoft. They are a good company, doing good things for users 
around the world. Software has never been so cheap (Look at Sun's 
and Oracle's prices for

[[Page 24159]]

product--no wonder they are complaining). It's become quite 
transparent that this is about competitors who can't win fair and 
square.
    It is not time to end this dispute.
    Regards,
    Dan Plastina



MTC-00002738

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 6:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed 
settlement, for several reasons, primarily:
    1. No punishment has been imposed on Microsoft for its behavior 
in the past, nor any damages assessed for the harm to the public 
good effected by those actions. The settlement appears to be instead 
directed at controlling future Microsoft behavior, and appears to 
ignore the past.
    2. The settlement does not appear to provide for penalties in 
the case that Microsoft is found to continue its illegal behavior.
    3. The settlement expires, and there is apparently no provision 
for any restrictions on Microsoft's behavior beyond the next five 
years. These are critical defects, as Microsoft has demonstrated by 
its actions in the past. Microsoft has no motivation to restrict its 
behavior if the government never imposes any penalties, as was 
clearly demonstrated by the 1995 consent decree and Microsoft's 
subsequent actions. If we as a government only ever say to 
transgressors "You have broken the law, don't do it 
again," without imposing penalties, why would we expect anyone 
to follow the law?
    I have also read that Microsoft is offering to give away 
equipment to schools as part of its "penalty". This 
action will only increase Microsoft's monopoly in the PC desktop 
operating system market. I suggest that if this to be a true remedy, 
that Microsoft be required to give equipment to schools that do 
*not* run Microsoft Windows, such as Apple or Sun computers.
    Thank you for your consideration of this point of view.
    Steve
    Steve Pucci
    H: 15359 Blackberry Hill Rd Los Gatos CA 95030
    [email protected] +1 408 399 4854



MTC-00002739

From: James B. Czebotar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 5:48pm
Subject: Micro$oft $ettlement
    Greetings.
    My name is James Czebotar. I work for Washington State 
University as a Computer Support Analyst. I have worked in the field 
of computers my entire adult life. I feel it is my duty as a citizen 
to express my opinions and experiences regarding Microsoft and its 
operation as in illegal monopoly as already ruled.
    I have witnessed Microsoft's monopolistic tentacles first hand. 
When I started working on WSU's campus, Netscape was the most common 
browser. Other then the obvious practice of bundling Internet 
Explorer with Windows 9x/NT, other more subtle methods of forcing IE 
upon my department sprang up.
    Among them: Requiring IE to install other MS related products. 
For example, if you want to install Microsoft's IntelliMouse 
software 4.01, mouse drivers for MS's Mouse, you must install IE 
first. Why is IE necessary for mouse drivers?
    Other departments are adopting proprietary IE only systems. 
Professors are creating IE only web sites, requiring IE to be used 
by their students. Some of those Profs and Departments benefit from 
MS grants. A cozy arrangement.
    WSU's Administration Departments are developing and using 
systems which require IE/Outlook to function. For example, they send 
out budget information to our department in an MS Outlook Encrypted 
format, as well as forcing us to use IE to use their online web 
based functions. I have held out for years, giving IE only to the 
select few who can demonstrate a need for it. IE and Outlook are 
notorious for their security flaws, the main reason I try to keep my 
department away from them. However I couldn't fight the tied 
forever, and this year I have little choice but to implement IE on 
all 500+ of our computers. A fellow employee put it quite well as I 
was updating his machine: "Now that I have IE, why do I need 
Netscape?" Most of our employees have IE at home, being that 
their computers came with it. They have been conditioned like 
Pavlov's Dog.
    I can only speculate as to the financial arrangements between 
WSU and MS. In a proper competitive setting, WSU should be buying 
software and adopting standards based on common capitalistic 
parameters, such as prices, quality, support, etc. In reality, it 
appears as if MS has its tentacles around WSU, giving out ca$h and 
$oftware in order to secure a foothold of MS products on campus.
    I am disappointed that the new administration has backed off and 
wants to settle with Microsoft. However I am not surprised. Anyone 
who monitors politics is fully aware of the reality of the dominance 
of special interests and their control over the system. My voice in 
this matter is so small it is almost silent, but I feel I must speak 
out nonetheless. For if I don't, I have no one to blame but myself 
when we must all follow them whims of MicrsoftAOLTimeWarnerGeneral 
ElectricSonyExxonWalMart GMFordATTVerizon Thank you for your time, 
and your consideration of my comments.
    James Czebotar Computer Support Analyst WSU Library Systems
    [email protected] www.systems.wsu.edu Holland Library Rm 1G
    509.335.3450 www.wsu.edu:8080/zeb Pullman, WA 99164-5610
    "He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose 
mind is filled with falsehoods and errors." [Thomas Jefferson]



MTC-00002740

From: Laurel James
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 5:42pm
Subject: settlement
    This was never a case about harming the consumers! As a happy 
Microsoft consumer, their prices have always been fair and the 
products exceptional. This was nothing more than a government play 
to get money for nothing!



MTC-00002741

From: Charles Landau
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 5:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We would like to express our strong support for the current 
settlement of the antitrust case against Microsoft. We believe that 
the country and its economy benefits from having Microsoft as a 
strong, innovative competitor in the free market.
    In addition consumers have traditionally experienced lower 
prices for software when Microsoft competes in a market. For 
evidence of this, one need look no further than the fact that web 
browsers are now free to consumers based solely on Microsoft's 
presence in that arena.
    Regards,
    Charles and Laura Landau
    Kirkland, WA



MTC-00002742

From: Bill Arnett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed "penalty" of allowing Microsoft to 
distribute their software to schools is ludicrous. From their point 
of view it is turning a penalty into a marketing operation, 
something they would be happy to do in any case. From the point of 
view of everyone else it is like letting a drug dealer pay his debt 
to society by giving away free drugs to kids.
    Bill Arnett
    [email protected]
    Redwood City, CA USA
    http://nineplanets.org/
    37 27 38 N 122 16 11 W



MTC-00002743

From: Jim Furlong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please just settle the Microsoft monopoly issue and let's get on 
with life. I don't think microsoft is guilty of unfair practices and 
think that all the state suits are just revenge minded for their 
individual constituants and late blooming businesses in their 
states. There wouldn't even be a personal computer industry if we 
had waited for IBM to develop machines and language.
    James C. Furlong An engineer for 40 years!



MTC-00002744

From: David Herndon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 6:12pm
Subject: Apparently the DOJ is owned by Microsoft also
    This is a reaction piece so I will limit myself.
    Apparently the DOJ is owned by Microsoft also. Lucky for the DOJ 
that we have a fresh

[[Page 24160]]

new war for us to watch on CNN and public opinion is far removed 
form the issue.
    Ask anyone else in the software industry that tries to make a 
living (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness....remember?) 
writing and selling software in a fair and competitive way, ask 
weather this is a good deal?...you will here, "no its 
not."
    The settlement is lacking is many ways, but creates a lot of 
nice loopholes that creative lawyers can exploit. Look, its obvious 
the DOJ is protecting Microsoft with this compromise. Protecting the 
very company they were trying to punish, nice one.
    The solutions that any software company, and vender, would have 
Microsoft undertake I guess would take down the economy? Cause a 
unfavorable market? Cause Microsoft to issue licensing audits on 
every public office desk in America? BS. Look what's happened, the 
market is falling apart anyway, many (once) competitive companies 
are struggling. The DOJ is to late, so they will not even try to 
make a difference. Its like showing up to a car wreck and not even 
trying to help because you think the driver will die anyway (that's 
unlawful).
    Principle. The Constitution, must be redefined in a way that 
benefits people not a select group of persons, all the time. I 
understand that there are laws on the books that are supposed to 
stop monopolies from forming and then punish companies that 
contribute;....but to bring a monopoly, Microsoft, to trial, get 
scared, and then protect them? Sorry, thats the image out here.
    Image is everything right? Well the DOJ is looking real good 
now. Welcome to the dark side of the force (Star Wars reference). I 
guess you all got new XP laptops and neat stuff...good for you. 
Thank you for doing your jobs. I guess in America I'm free to do 
what I'm told, and I should just be thankful for that, right? Right.
    People are stronger than any government that rules them. The 
industry will do what the DOJ failed to do. And, again, the DOJ 
image becomes more tarnished, less visable, darker and darker until 
it ends with a big blue screen of death. You could reboot, but that 
may piss-off Microsoft. Better call support first and ask them if 
its ok.



MTC-00002745

From: Matthew Cannon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 8:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    How is this justice to the consumer and the market. Sure you say 
you are making Microsoft give away around $1 billion in software and 
hardware. The software costs pennies to produce, their biggest 
outlay would be the cost of the hardware. Plus, in giving it to 
schools, they just increased their marketshare and psychological 
hold on the world as the #1 operating system.
    You would, by fiat, push all other competitors out of the 
education system for at least one year. And as close to the breaking 
point as some companies run, this would probably break many of them, 
leaving even less competition for Microsoft.
    Why not have them donate the money to the schools directly, by 
getting a list from the Education department or somewhere. Then let 
the schools decide on how best to spend it. Your case was for the 
cause of consumers to have choice, let the schools have the same 
choice you were fighting for us to have.



MTC-00002746

From: Scott Steven G TSgt 36CS/SCBBH
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/5/01 8:07pm
Subject: Anti-trust?
    You sold out.
    Steven G. Scott, TSgt, USAF
    Helpdesk/Message Center
    DSN 315-366-7118



MTC-00002747

From: Jack Carroll
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 7:45pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust case: the open source community's 
interests
    I just heard about your request for public input. I hope this 
isn't too late. Here's a copy of what I sent to the Kansas AG. I 
sent similar messages to all the state AGs I could find e-mail 
addresses for, of those pursuing the case.
    .......... Forwarded message ..........
    Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 16:22:23 -0500 (EST)
    From: Jack Carroll 
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: Microsoft antitrust case: the open source community's 
interests
    Dear Attorney General Stovall:
    I understand that you, along with several other state AGs, plan 
to continue litigating the Microsoft antitrust case rather than 
agree to the U.S. DOJ's proposed settlement. Good for you!
    Much of the existing record in this case has dealt with the 
effects of Microsoft's behavior on competing commercial software 
vendors. That needs no further discussion here. I'd like to draw 
your attention to some important remedies that would benefit open 
source software users and developers, and by extension, computer 
users in general. My interest derives from being a long-time GNU/
Linux user and advocate, and a stockholder in Red Hat, Inc. Because 
the open source software community isn't a business or even an 
organization, I can't claim to "represent" anyone other 
than myself in any legal sense. In a statistical sense, I believe 
I'm a fairly typical member of the loose-knit open source community.
    There appears to be a widespread consensus that a monopoly in 
operating systems is harmful to the public interest in many ways; I 
doubt that I need to present arguments to convince you of that. I 
suggest to you that Microsoft's OS monopoly has already been broken, 
and that its dominance of business desktop applications is rapidly 
coming under serious challenge. Knowledgable businesses and 
consumers have several practical alternatives today. It's important 
to the public interest that this become more widely known, and that 
these choices remain readily available. Microsoft is doing 
everything possible to regain a de facto monopoly in desktop 
operating systems and essential applications. Several specific 
remedies should be imposed to prevent Microsoft from depriving users 
of a choice.
    PROPOSED REMEDIES
    1. Microsoft should be prohibited from using contract terms or 
any other tactics to collect license fees from computer vendors for 
any machine on which Microsoft software is not installed. The 
practice of collecting a fee for every machine a vendor ships is the 
infamous "Microsoft Tax". Its practical effect is to 
economically exclude large computer vendors who offer Microsoft 
preloads from also serving markets that don't use Microsoft 
products.
    2. Microsoft should be prohibited from using licensing terms or 
technical measures to prevent or discourage computer vendors from 
installing other operating systems alongside Microsoft software, on 
the same computer. We call those "dual-boot" systems; 
only users who do their own OS installations have them now.
    3. It's crucially important that Microsoft be required to 
document and publish the standards for the file formats its 
applications use. It's not enough to document and publish only the 
application programming interfaces (APIs); those benefit only 
programmers who develop applications which run on Microsoft 
operating systems. Nor is it sufficient to break up Microsoft into 
an applications company and an OS company; Microsoft applications 
ported to other operating systems still wouldn't exchange files with 
independently written applications. File format documentation is 
necessary to create a level playing field, for as long as Microsoft 
applications continue to have a dominant market share.
    4. For the same reason, Microsoft should be required to publish 
and strictly adhere to formal standards for its network protocols; 
applications and servers running on non-Microsoft operating systems 
need these to interact with machines running Microsoft systems.
    DISCUSSION
    Microsoft has gone to great lengths to convince the world that a 
monopoly in desktop operating systems is either natural, or 
irresistible, or a necessary standard. In fact, none of those 
propositions is true.
    It's much more natural that the operating system, the common 
infrastruction which serves application software, be open to any 
interested party to improve and extend. During the last 10 years, 
open source software has advanced at a rate that no commercial 
vendor could possibly have the resources to match, even if they 
wanted to serve the best interests of the users_which 
Microsoft clearly doesn't. Today, most new advances are tried out 
first on open source systems, because they're accessible for 
experiment; as a result, they're rapidly taking the technical lead 
over even the best of the commercial Unix variants.
    The user base of open source operating systems and servers is 
expanding rapidly. They're already running large segments of the 
Internet's infrastructure, they're moving into embedded systems on a 
large scale, and they've begun to penetrate the business desktop, 
especially in the Third World. To a software professional, a 
"standard" is a thick document that prescribes the 
behavior of some interface or protocol in precise and excruciating 
detail. The purpose of a

[[Page 24161]]

standard is to achieve absolute certainty that any two independent 
designs that are in compliance with the same standard will work 
together without problems. By policy, Microsoft is the implacable 
enemy of all standards, because standards are a powerful weapon 
against monopolism. Microsoft conceals, obfuscates, and complicates 
the interfaces to its own programs. They violate pre-existing 
standards to cause incompatibilities, then try to convince users 
that their nonstandard implementation is the "standard". 
Open source systems, on the other hand, typically make every effort 
to comply with published standards, and the resulting source code is 
open for anyone to audit and correct.
    Abolition of the Microsoft tax presupposes another widely 
discussed remedy; requiring Microsoft to treat all customers the 
same, according to published price lists and terms. Without that 
constraint, the company could manipulate pricing to place selected 
computer vendors at a disadvantage if they offer machines with non-
Microsoft preloads, with dual-boot preloads, or without software.
    I think this is a critical moment. Decisions made now may have 
powerful effects; very different futures are possible, depending on 
what happens next. Microsoft's dominant position is becoming rather 
precarious. Its long-term survival is in doubt. A number of 
pressures are combining to degrade its revenue potential while its 
costs remain high. Unlike many a company with a dark future, 
Microsoft's massive financial reserves give it the time and means to 
try many things simultaneously in an effort to regain a secure 
stream of large-scale revenue. In this effort, the company is 
becoming more aggressive and manipulative toward its users and 
competitors than ever before. Some of its legislative initiatives 
may have destructive effects on the society as a whole.
    Microsoft's most basic problem is market saturation. In the 
developed world, nearly everybody who needs a computer has one. Most 
of them run Microsoft OS and application software, so there's no 
place for the market share to grow. The total market itself is 
shrinking; while the software on many of these machines is hardly 
satisfactory, it works just well enough so that the pain of 
continuing to use it doesn't justify the effort and expense of 
immediate upgrades_and anyway, the customers have gotten wise 
to Microsoft's game, and understand quite well that the next upgrade 
isn't going to fix their problems without introducing new ones. So 
the forced-upgrade cycle is no longer a reliable cash cow. I've seen 
assertions that if employee stock options are accounted for, the 
company is losing money.
    The twin phenomena of open-source and free software are hitting 
Microsoft's revenues from another direction. Microsoft can't match 
either the quality or the cost-of-ownership of these products of 
user-directed cooperative development. Microsoft was able to buy or 
destroy most of its commercial competitors, but this new source of 
software can't be owned and doesn't need revenue. Several 
industrial-strength operating systems (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Linux) are 
solid and hard at work, with thousands of volunteers extending their 
capabilities and fixing bugs as fast as they're discovered. Multiple 
application suites (Star Office, K Office, Abi Word) are rapidly 
approaching maturity, and are already being put into everyday 
service in markets that can't afford the cost of Microsoft user 
licenses. In this environment, Microsoft no longer has the luxury of 
holding back bug fixes and new capabilities to use as leverage for 
the continuing upgrade cycle. A rapidly maturing mix of open-source 
and free software is moving into the server and embedded-systems 
markets that Microsoft was never able to penetrate on any large 
scale, cutting off Microsoft's planned directions of expansion. 
Microsoft is now contained on the desktop and some business servers, 
and the prerequisites to erode its market share there are falling 
into place.
    The antitrust suit has hurt Microsoft mainly by distracting its 
management's attention while these other changes were taking place. 
It's too late for litigation to help the business competitors that 
Microsoft stifled, other than by monetary damages to their creditors 
and stockholders. However, the settlement could make an important 
difference to the public interest, by blocking both overt and subtle 
maneuvers to re-impose its vanished monopoly.
    The company's strategy appears to center on getting users to 
accept one more upgrade cycle, by finally offering software of 
reasonable quality, and poisoning it with traps that ensure revenue 
into the indefinite future. Measures such as time-limited licensing, 
back doors that allow remote disabling, shipping systems without 
installation media, bugging the software against transfer to a newer 
computer, and patented file formats that forbid reverse engineering 
are examples of techniques to dominate and exploit the end user. 
Once a user makes the mistake of putting his data into a Microsoft 
file format, he has to pay ransom to Microsoft forever to retain 
access to that data.
    To fight off the defection of end users and computer 
manufacturers in the meantime, Microsoft can use restrictive 
licensing terms, secret agreements, propaganda, legislation to 
interfere with free participation in software and hardware design, 
and possibly support for unrelated litigation to drain the working 
capital of companies involved with open-source software. In the 
legislative arena it may find allies in the record and movie 
industries, themselves famous for shady and aggressive dealings. 
Senator Fritz Hollings recently introduced legislation that would 
have the practical effect of making computer programming and 
engineering by private citizens illegal; this seems to have been 
stopped for the moment.
    If Microsoft isn't allowed to block major computer manufacturers 
from offering open source preloads, there's a good chance the 
defection from proprietary software will become unstoppable in the 
next year or two. Personally, I look forward to a world without 
Microsoft. I think it's possible.
    REFERENCES
    On the history and nature of open source software: "The 
Cathedral and the Bazaar" by Eric S. Raymond, http://
www.tuxedo.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar On the licensing of 
free and open source software: the General Public License 
("GPL") by Richard M. Stallman, http://www.fsf.org/
licenses/licenses..html#TOCGPL On the place of business within 
the open source community, "Under the Radar" by Robert 
Young and Wendy Rohm, http://www.redhat.com/radar.html
    Sincerely,
    John A. Carroll



MTC-00002748

From: Josh Bersin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 9:11pm
Subject: What Happened to the Microsoft Anti-Trust Case?
    As a taxpaying American citizen and a member of the high tech 
workforce, and a software executive, I have to voice my outrage at 
the DOJ's treatment of the Microsoft case.
    Microsoft has been convicted of tied product sales. They have 
been convicted of illegally blocking competitors from unbundling 
products, and of preventing legitimate software competitors from 
building products on Windows that compete with Microsoft products. 
They even lied at the trial. I was an executive at Sybase during our 
contact negotiations, and we actually developed the original code 
for SQL Server which Microsoft now sells as part of Windows 2000/XP. 
Microsoft badgered us, bullied us, and used terrorist tactics which 
eventually forced our CEO to license source code to them.
    They have done this to all vendors of word processing software, 
of presentation software, of email software, browsers, and now, with 
Windows XP, they will eliminate remaining software providers of 
streaming media software, MP3 players, and other windows 
accessories. There is no business model which can compete with 
"give it away with the operating system." Clearly they 
are a monopoly and continue to use that monopoly to kill off other 
markets peripheral to their core market (operating software).
    I worked at IBM in the 1980s when IBM was broken up from tieing 
its services with its hardware and software. It made IBM a better 
company and it made the mainframe industry a cleaner, more 
profitable industry for everyone. It allowed many companies to grow 
and flourish (I would venture to say that Oracle would not exist if 
IBM had been allowed to give away DB2 for free).
    What is the harm to consumers of this monopoly? Plenty.
    First, innovation on PC software has nearly halted. There are no 
more software companies left building desktop productivity 
applications (except maybe Adobe and Macromedia). There are no more 
options for email software, word-processing, presentations, etc. 
Lotus is gone, WordPerfect is gone, they're all gone. We have no 
choice. Second, prices for software are going through the roof. With 
Windows XP Microsoft has now taken the gloves off. Clearly they now 
believe that the competition for desktop software is gone, so they 
can price however they want. A copy of Office for Windows XP now 
costs nearly $500-600 list price. This is nearly the cost of 
an entire mid-range PC.

[[Page 24162]]

The Office XP Division at Microsoft is generating billions of 
dollars of revenue with margins well over 80%.
    Consumers and businesses are getting gouged, and there is no 
alternative. Third, there is no possibility of high quality support 
for these products. I have to agree with Jeremy (his article just 
appeared in the Wall Street Journal online). I have had numerous 
problems with just PowerPoint XP. Microsoft has no fixes for these 
problems, nor is there an incentive for them to fix them. What other 
presentation software can I use? There are no vendors left. Fourth, 
innovation has halted. The newest versions of Outlook, Word, 
Powerpoint, and Excel have added no significant exciting new 
functionality. They have added complexity and primarily more and 
more links to Microsoft web properties_forcing consumers to go 
to Microsoft.com for updates, releases, plugins, etc.
    I am not a lawyer, but I am a business person. I know what 
happens when you think you can get away with being a monopoly. You 
deliberately tie in products, you deliberately lose money on new 
products to make it up on monopoly products. You deliberately 
mislead competitors. You deliberately steal ideas from small 
underfunded competitors. None of this has stopped at 
Microsoft_they continue unchecked. And when I heard that they 
were given the OPPORTUNITY to donate $1B of equipment to schools, I 
knew "they got away with it AGAIN." Now the US 
Government is giving the Microsoft Monopoly the ability to start 
their monopoly games at the age of 6.
    What is going on at the DOJ? Are you afraid of hurting the 
economy? I promise you that if Microsoft was split into two 
independent companies_the Microsoft Windows Company, and the 
Microsoft Applications Company_both would flourish and 
prosper. Innovation would start again. New companies would form. New 
software would be developed. The PC, which is becoming one of the 
most important appliances of our lives, would be given a new life.
    As it is, look at the software industry today. There are only a 
handful of companies making money any more, and the rest are gone. 
Our international competitiveness in software will over time be 
overcome by countries that prevent Microsoft from exerting 
influence. I believe the writing is on the wall_India, Russia, 
and the far east will become bigger software providers over time 
than the US .... with the exception of Microsoft.
    What recourse do I have as a consumer, a member of this 
industry, and as a tax paying citizen, to tell the DOJ to work 
harder. Fight these guys. They are NOT acting in the public 
interest. They are NOT acting in the consumers' interest. They are 
NOT acting in the interest of the industry. They see a world where 
Microsoft logos appear on every appliance, every desktop, every cell 
phone, and every web site. Their vision is clear and it is all built 
upon the Windows monopoly money machine. I would be happy to travel 
to Washington to testify or give additional insights to the team ... 
but it appears that the DOJ has already given up!
    Josh Bersin
    [email protected]
    (510) 882-8088 (cell)
    Oakland, California
    Josh Bersin
    (510) 654-8482 home
    (510) 882-8088 cell
    [email protected]
    CC:jeremy.wagstaff@ feer.com@inetgw,josh@ 
bersin.com@in...



MTC-00002749

From: Victor Churchill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 8:56pm
Subject: Microsoft vs USA
    To the U.S. Antitrust Devision,
    Take a real good look around you, what do you see ???
    Monopoly after Monopoly, Hardly any competition.
    A BIG RECESSION
    This settlement is NOT in the best intrest of the people. YOU 
can change it to be much better than what it is. IF you don't, we 
will continue to see lay-off after lay-off. We will continue to see 
Microsoft stifle competition. We will continue to have very few 
choices. Microsoft is TOO BIG to ignore.
    It continues to get it's fingers and roots into everything. 
Can't you see that ??? If you can't you must be blind. It is so 
obvious, even my 3yr old can tell. So, Make the right 
choice.....Give the people a better solution. And do something right 
for America. You do love this country....don't you ????
    _Vic



MTC-00002750

From: Erik Fjerstad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 8:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am a computer literate individual who has utilized computers 
and software for 30 years, from the era of punch-card to laptops, to 
pc-phones. I continue to be amazed at all the excellent products 
that arise and then get bullied into sale or oblivion by Microsoft. 
Microsoft has always been a follower, a stifler, a "not-
invented-here" enveloper (not developer) of products. I 
utilize and like many microsoft products, but many others as well, 
and consistently find the "bent" within microsoft 
products to exclude competition, either subtly or overtly.
    I am incredulous at the appeasement made by the DOJ on the 
lawsuit. Please re-consider.... the situation is moving in the 
direction of loss of choice and continued worsening of product. It 
is akin to having one's choice of cars limited to what Chevrolet has 
to offer, or to years ago with ATT, where they were the only phone 
service and equipment provider in town. To develop competition, to 
foster world-wide growth, and to enable opportunities for the 
industry world-wide, choice is needed. This requires openness in 
standards and arms-length relationships between applications and 
operating systems. A clear example is the VHS tape, we can have 
"standardization" that supports growth without having to 
buy the player only from Sony (Beta). How many more blatant examples 
are needed (attempts to use its own standards for media files, 
corruption and avoidance of JAVA, etc.) to prove it explicitly wants 
only its own solutions forced on the public, and that with its 
current mass and momentum, can effectively make it happen?
    Erik Fjerstad
    2043 Edgeview Drive
    Hudson, Ohio 44236



MTC-00002751

From: Leonard (038) Agnes Tillerson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 8:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a citizen and taxpayer, I an totally in favor of bringing an 
end to the pointless erosion of intellectual property rights! The 
litigation against Microsoft not only sent our economy into a 
tailspin process but has also cost a fortune to taxpayers. Enough is 
enough!The case against Microsoft should have been thrown out in the 
courts years ago.And, no, I am not a stockholder. I am an avowed 
Constitutional American who also upholds our Bill of Rights to the 
nth degree.
    Thank you for taking my opinion into consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Agnes Tillerson
    244 Opsrey Circle
    St. Marys, Ga, 31558



MTC-00002752

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 10:22pm
Subject: Microsoft in court
    Dear Attorney General,
    I am writing about the anti-trust case against Microsoft. I am 
writing to say I think they should be held responsible for their 
many documented illegal and/or unethical actions in a much more 
effective way than current information indicates is the case.
    It is clear to those who know the field, that while professing 
to be technology leaders, Microsoft has stifled the development of 
software technology by their practices. Their actions against IBM's 
OS/2 operating system is one prime example.
    That they should get away with what they have done with nothing 
more than the currently reported slap on the wrist is nothing less 
than a travesty that you would do well to act against. I strongly 
suggest further pressing the matter against them with vigor.
    Sincerely,
    Jim LaLone
    9835 Standifer Gap Rd
    Ooltewah, TN 37363
    [email protected]
    Jim L
    You can know. 1 John 5:13



MTC-00002753

From: Juan Lanus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 10:08pm
Subject: taking our lives in small chunks
    Hi
    MS, from it's dominant position, has damaged me, you, and we 
all. All those "hung computer" problems, and many other 
related problems, should not exist. Windows should work "as 
advertised", which means flawlessly. All other operating 
systems do so.

[[Page 24163]]

    The Windows failures and hangs infringe a small damage everyday 
to all of us. See an example: if somebody takes other's guy life he 
is sent to jail. MS's low quality operating systems are taking, 
globally, much more than one life. Thay are taking a few minutes 
from everybody's life to make a gross total equivalent to an 
important genocide. Something comparable with the september 11 
casualties, per month (I'm not doing the arithmetic, but it might 
well be even more).
    As a monopolic supplier, MS doen't feel pressed to fix the 
problems. If DOJ doesn't, who might help us now?
    Juan Lanus
    TECNOSOL
    Argentina (and the rest of the world)



MTC-00002754

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 9:35pm
Subject: Antitrust Settlement
    I find it amazing how much Microsoft is being allowed to get 
away with. It has become obvious that their money can get them 
anything they want. The settlement is a cover that does nothing but 
push Microsoft's software even further down the throats of the 
people of this country. It was found as fact that Micrsoft has 
formed an illegal monopoly reguardless of how the Judge acted. Yet 
Microsoft has found a way to wriggle their way out of it.
    Let's stop helping the large companies and do what is right for 
the people of this country and and just do the right thing. DO NOT 
allow Microsoft to once again get away with their illegal business 
practices.
    Thank you
    Chris Hammond



MTC-00002755

From: Stephen Ingram
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 11:43pm
Subject: Hi, this is from a link on the RedHat site (www.redhat.com)
    Hi there,
    According to the RedHat site, the Justice Department is 
collecting opinions via email about the antitrust settlement. I 
guess my first disclaimer is that I am a Linux user and pretty much 
use that OS exclusively.
    My belief is that Microsoft are guilty of suppressing 
competition, but, whilst this does not excuse them, any multi-
national company would do that in a heart-beat, if they felt they 
could get away with it. That said, I believe the settlement is a win 
for Microsoft. If I were Bill Gates, with $36 billion in cash, XP 
and Xbox just released, I'd find it pretty difficult to think things 
went badly in the settlement and for Microsoft.
    Microsoft offer their $1.x Billion for schools and even that has 
them using the situation for a multi-million dollar write-off. The 
worst aspect of the settlement is that if this is as bad as it gets 
for Microsoft then what do the Justice Department do next? Its over 
for you guys, but you guys were right! Microsoft walk away and just 
get smarter next time. Hey, they caught up with the Internet 
(finally) and now have *easy* global reach. They achieved what they 
needed to do and if it cost them a couple of billion dollars, well, 
that was just an R&D project for them.
    What is the current expected return on $36 billion? $3 billion 
≥ $4 billion dollars a *year*? They won and don't believe Bill 
Gates doesn't think it too. He's laughing all the way to the bank. 
This is the only time you'll get an offer like this out of Microsoft 
and they are low-balling so much, its embarrassing.
    How much does the US government itself, across all its 
organizations pump into Microsoft each year? Not only did Microsoft 
win, we are *paying* them for that privilege too!
    If all our government organizations switched to Open Source, 
you'd have more tax dollars to help the poor schools that Microsoft 
are claiming to want to do.
    Not just one time, but forever!
    Now *that's* what I'd call Justice!
    Thanks for your time,
    Regards
    Stephen Ingram



MTC-00002756

From: Barbara Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 11:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    This is bogus. Microsoft is a very creative company and they 
will find a way around the minor penalties you are proposing. I 
fully support the states that are not agreeing with your settlement.
    Barbara Lewis
    Systems Engineer
    Novell, the leading provider of net services software
    http://www.novell.com
    703-713-3604



MTC-00002757

From: Albert Pisani
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 10:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The deal with Microsoft giving the option of giving out its 
"blue prints" and having two versions of Windows (with 
and without applications) is ridiculous. The only reason that the 
people want the "blue prints" is so that they can make a 
product based off windows (a cheap rip off I like to call it). Think 
if you had to release the "blue Prints" of Windows. The 
source code will get in the hands of a Anti-Microsoft 
"terrorist", and they will develop ways of hacking the 
code, to make it easier to run illegal software on the system. You 
don't see these people asking all the gaming companies to release 
thier game's source code. Why? because, if they did, there will be 
so much more copying of games then there is already. Microsoft may 
be a little over priced, but I will surely pay for it. I don't NEED 
windows, I just like how it operates



MTC-00002758

From: Rob Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 10:42pm
Subject: Settlement
    Dear sir or madam,
    I think the microsoft settlements seem to be nothing more than a 
slap on the wrist, if even that. I cannot believe that this latest 
settlement is giving them a way to extend their monopoly further, 
into schools. This is absolutely absurd. Furthermore, it allows them 
to claim they are giving hundreds of millions of dollars away, when 
in reality software has almost zero marginal cost so it costs them 
next to nothing to give away software. I am really tired of the 
aggressive tactics that microsoft uses. I am sick of them leveraging 
their products to extend their monopoly further. It is unfair, and 
it stifles competition. I am not a competitor of microsoft, just a 
user who is sick of having products I don't want rammed down my 
throat, only because I need to run Windows to survive and be 
compatible with everyone else. I thought the DOJ was going to do 
something about this, and I am disgusted about how they now have 
dropped the ball on the case that they first had appeared to have 
won.
    Thank you,
    Rob Brown
    21 Caire Terrace
    San Francisco CA 94107



MTC-00002759

From: Reynolds
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 3:02am
Subject: Microsoft
    Hello,
    Please move forward with your case against Microsoft. How is it 
that after a settlement is reached with Microsoft over their 
acknowledged monopoly_that they can turn around and propose a 
measure that would allow them to donate millions of dollars worth of 
microsoft software to schools? This is ludicrous! An in-depth 
investigation should be put forward to discuss all of their illegal 
activities not just browser issues.
    Consumers should have more than one operating system to choose 
from, yet if Microsoft continues to rule without any regulation we 
will not have a choice and that is a bleak future for all consumers. 
Best,
    Mark Reynolds
    San Francisco



MTC-00002760

From: Robert Rahardja
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/6/01 4:25am
Subject: The US government is affecting the world
    I do agree with Jeremy Wagstaff ([email protected]
    )'s article in 
today's online Wall Street
    Journal (Tech Section).
    December 6, 2001
    Loose Wire
    Actually Bill, No, I Can't
    By JEREMY WAGSTAFF
    THE FAR EASTERN ECONOMIC REVIEW
    As a new Entrepreneur in South East Asia (situated in both 
Singapore and Indonesia), my choices of OS is severely limited as I 
continue to choose machines for my business. It is very 
disappointing that the US gov had such a lenient and, in my opinion, 
useless outcome of the Microsoft antitrust case.
    As Jeremy says, I am 'flabbergasted'. My choices of 
OS is really not mine. It is Microsoft's.

[[Page 24164]]

    The US government's choice affects the world. I know it affects 
small start-ups like mine. There is no choice for OS's in the 
marketplace because other OS's like Linux and Solaris hardly 
supports applications like Quicken, Office, etc. Applications which 
are vital to our business.
    As a pro-American business person, I am thoroughly disappointed.
    Regards,
    Robert Rahardja
    CTO, Director
    KTA International



MTC-00002761

From: Neal Zipper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 6:56am
Subject: Microsoft
    I would like to express my feeling on the Microsoft case. As a 
computer professional for 25 years it apparent that Microsoft has a 
monopoly in the computer industry. As I see it the only real 
solution to the problem is to require Microsoft to publish the API 
(Application Program Interface) to windows and office that would 
allow other Operating system / program vendors (Sun, Linux, Apple, 
Corel etc) to support software written for Windows. Thais would 
allow other operating systems vendors to compete. It is also 
important that the Microsoft be forced to use the same API's as 
documented by themselves. If Microsoft feels the need to add an API. 
they could as long as the publish the standard at the time they 
write it. This would eliminate Microsoft's complaint that the DOJ is 
stifling innovation.
    Neal Zipper KR4IZ, CNE
    HTTP://ZWEBPROS.COM



MTC-00002762

From: Hunts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 7:07am
Subject: Too much power
    Microsoft has too much power. I asked my MAC son, "Hey, 
howcum we never have virus problems at home like we do at 
work?" "Because we have MAC's, dad. All the viruses are 
in Microsoft world." Have big legal arguments all day long. At 
the end of the day, Microsoft has too much power. It hurts us 
consumers. It's not good for the world, and it's not good for 
America.
    Bill Hunt



MTC-00002763

From: robert_h_mittelman@hotmail. 
com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,or@usdoj. 
gov@inetgw,RFC-822=www.usdo...
Date: 12/6/01 8:34am
Subject: WSJ.com_Actually Bill, No, I Can't
    I've had this problem myself and tend to agree with the 
conclusion of the writer.
    If you are having trouble with any of the links in this message, 
or if the URL's are not appearing as links, please follow the 
instructions at the bottom of this email.
    Title: WSJ.com_Actually Bill, No, I Can't



MTC-00002764

From: mnmmillman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 9:32am
Subject: I think it would benefit consumers to have two competing 
companies offering Windows.
    I think it would benefit consumers to have two competing 
companies offering Windows.



MTC-00002765

From: myarizonarcman@hotmail. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 9:37am
Subject: Settlement
    Please settle with Microsoft immediately and quit this petty 
bickering over entrepreneurship of a private company. I have never 
seen such a product at such a low price for the common man for sale 
anywhere in the country. The all inclusive operating system is just 
what us retired old folks need. Adding many little program software 
"add-on" packages is very inconvenient, wont always work 
as an integrated system and cost much more. If the digital 
revolution is to continue in the world and the US is to remain the 
software leader please settle now and get on with more important 
business in this country. I have personally lost over 500 thousand 
in the stock market and I blame this debacle amongst other 
Clintonian charades for it. Please settle now! Janet Reno is out of 
office!
    Richard L. Joslin
    18416 S.E. 280th St.
    Kent, Washington
    USA



MTC-00002766

From: Boyd Stromsdorfer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 9:38am
Subject: Y'all need to back off Microsoft.
    They alone are responsible for 600 Billion of the GNP alone. You 
are wasting time and money!



MTC-00002767

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 9:39am
Subject: Stop!!
    I think it is ridiculous for the government (and the 9 remaining 
states + DC) to keep suing Microsoft over windows 2000. Doesn't 
the government have better things to spend taxpayers money on?? It 
is a great operating system and easy to work with. Bill Gates has 
gone a long way in developing the computer industry. The government 
has got to stop destroying American business which was a dangerous 
trend that socialists Bill and Hillary Clinton had gotten started 
with the tobacco industry.
    I have no idea if anyone will be reading this but I think I have 
a valid point.
    Phil Stephens
    Noblesville, IN



MTC-00002768

From: Thomas Holmes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 9:47am
Subject: Letter to AG Ashcroft re MS.doc
    December 6, 2001
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Re: Settlement of DOJ vs. Microsoft
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I was extremely pleased to hear that the Department of Justice 
has decided to settle its antitrust dispute against the Microsoft 
Corporation, which is why I have taken this opportunity to write to 
you during this comment period to express my opinion on this issue.
    Millions of dollars and countless hours have been wasted on both 
sides of this dispute. Microsoft has completely changed for the 
better the way most companies manage their business on a day to day 
basis. Why did our Government set out to kill the goose that lays 
the golden eggs? This settlement will be good for the American 
economy.
    I am pleased that we may be able to finally put this lawsuit 
behind us. I am pleased that you have had the foresight to settle 
this case on the federal level. We do not need congressional action 
on this matter. Hopefully the states that are still considering 
litigation will see the wisdom in settling.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Holmes



MTC-00002769

From: Richard Kokoski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 10:02am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Case
    Guys, just get it over with already!!!!! This cloud that hangs 
is hanging over the entire IT industry and is only exasturbating 
economic recovery. I am a huge Microsoft fan. But while I don't 
agree with alot of things that Microsoft does and they can be anti-
competitive, like forcing vendors to pay for an OS license even if 
they don't put it on a machine, some of the things I see proposed 
are just ludicrous. It also shows a COMPLETE ineptitude by non-
technical people who are just hurting consumers not helping. I could 
do a MUCH better job with the remedies.
    Now the states want Microsoft to make Linux versions of office 
to "force competition". Why not ask Sun to make a 
Windows version of office. You know why they won't.... BECAUSE NO 
ONE WANTS IT. There is NO market!!! Bottom line.... get it over with 
NOW. Let this country move on. Technology in the U.S. is our 
STRONGEST asset that will let us lead the world, don't destroy it by 
stupid petty stuff!!
    Just 22c.
    _Richard



MTC-00002770

From: Rons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 10:38am
Subject: Microsoft settlements
    I think that the proposed Microsoft settlements are inadequate 
and more appropriate penalties should be imposed that match the 
magnitude of the crime.



MTC-00002771

From: MIKE MCCONNELL
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 10:38am
Subject: State atorney general demands
    This is either an ego trip for the attorney generals or a cave 
to the business interests of the competitors.

[[Page 24165]]

    This does nothing to aid consumers.
    The market determines what products to use. Microsoft gives 
consumers what they want and that is why it has been so successful. 
Microsoft products never start out at the top but each revision gets 
better until their product is the one consumers want. They 
constantly improve their products where other company's stagnate 
such as Lotus 123 and Wordperfect which used to dominate their 
niches. Let the marketplace decide.
    I am tired of Windows crashes and when someone produces a better 
system with applications I will drop windows. However my son says XP 
is very stable, so maybe I won't have to switch. Microsoft is 
evolving to a better system itself.



MTC-00002772

From: Aaron Urbain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 10:58am
Subject: The DOJ had previously found Microsoft to be a monopolist, 
but the
    The DOJ had previously found Microsoft to be a monopolist, but 
the settlement included no punishment for past actions and left 
doubt as to its protections against future monopolistic practices.
    The DOJ is a toothless lion?



MTC-00002773

From: Coffin, Greg
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/6/01 11:08am
Subject: Windows
    I use Windows and am very computer savvy but I do believe there 
should be more competition allowed concerning Microsoft Windows. 
Below is an article I read today regarding tougher sanction imposed 
by states. It's clear to me Microsoft, being the dominant force it 
is, is leveraging itself in every market it can. I firmly believe 
that these new sanctions would be good for the computing industry.
    *Offer PC makers a version of its dominant Windows XP operating 
system without its instant-messaging service, media player and 
browser. Critics say Microsoft's inclusion of the features boxes out 
rival offerings. Justice's settlement requires Microsoft to let PC 
makers remove access to the features, not the computer code itself. 
That, critics fear, could encourage programmers to develop 
applications tailored to those features rather than those of rivals 
because they would be in every copy of Windows. In addition, 
Microsoft offers discounts to PC makers whose machines boot up 
quickly. That could discourage PC makers from including non-
Microsoft features that could slow boot times if Microsoft features 
aren't removed.
    *Disclose Windows' code more thoroughly than is required by the 
settlement. Such disclosure would let rival products work well with 
Windows.
    *Include Sun Microsystems' Java programming language in Windows 
XP. If applications such as games and word processing are written in 
Java, this provision theoretically could reduce Windows' dominance.
    *Encourage Microsoft to customize its popular Office suite of 
applications to other operating systems, such as Linux. Officials 
believe this could help those systems challenge Windows.
    *Notify a special master before it obtains new technologies 
through acquisitions. Some state officials say Microsoft should be 
limited in its ability to use "ill-gotten gains" from 
its Windows monopoly to plow into new markets.
    The states' filing is also expected to eliminate what officials 
consider loopholes in the settlement. For instance, it will likely 
include tighter restrictions to prevent Microsoft from retaliating 
against PC makers that ship non-Microsoft products. And the draft 
proposal asks for the appointment of a special master who could 
present evidence of violations to a judge. The settlement, by 
contrast, calls for an oversight committee that reports to Justice 
but cannot use its findings as evidence.
    The proposal also specifies a less limited time horizon for the 
sanctions than the settlement's 5-year term, say people familiar 
with the matter. In June, an appeals court upheld a judge's ruling 
that Microsoft illegally protected its Windows monopoly but tossed 
out an order to break up Microsoft and ordered Kollar-Kotelly to 
devise new penalties. Some state prosecutors say the appeals court 
ruling called for much stricter sanctions than those included in the 
settlement. For example, the court criticized Microsoft for 
"commingling" the code of its browser in Windows to 
fortify its monopoly. And it said Microsoft sabotaged Java by 
deceiving developers into using a Windows-specific version of the 
software.
    Sincerely,
    Gregory P Coffin
    Fort Worth, TX



MTC-00002774

From: Andreas Meyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 11:22am
Subject: Microsoft and school donations
    To Whom it may concern:
    As someone who is professionally tied to using and administering 
many computer systems, I find that my concern over the Microsoft 
monopoly agreement is growing rapidly.
    My main concern is that new technology and software is currently 
easily stifled by Microsoft. This affects me and much of my 
industry, since it means that high-quality, secure software is 
harder to obtain. Unfortunately, Microsoft understands that most of 
the market will reward them more for low-quality, low security 
software. While there are companies that try to do better, they find 
that Microsoft is also doing all it can to prevent new companies 
from offering competing companies.
    I don't suppose that the punishment of Microsoft will do much 
one way or the other to deter them. However, the idea that as 
punishment, they should offer software to schools is highly counter-
productive. Why any punishment is linked to schools at all is pretty 
unclear to me. However, if they are to be fined by paying for school 
software, then it should not be Microsoft software. This is saying 
that as a punishment for abusing monopoly power, they must go out 
and extend their monopoly. That is more than a bit perverse.
    If the penalty must be linked to school programs, then Microsoft 
should pay one or more of their competitors to implement to school 
computer program.
    Perhaps one could evenly distribute the money between Redhat, 
Sun Microsystems, and Apple to implement the school donation 
program.
    Sincerely,
    Andreas Meyer
    4 Salter Point Cove
    Portsmouth, NH 03801
    [email protected]



MTC-00002775

From: Aaron T. Picton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 11:30am
Subject: Settlement
    Hi,
    I was just wanting to let you know that the proposed settlement 
by Microsoft will do nothing to actually alleviate the problems that 
they are causing in the computer industry. In fact, in all 
likelihood, the proposed settlement would increase the monopolistic 
power that Microsoft wields. I work for a government agency and 
wouldn't be impacted in the competitive sense one bit (Microsoft 
isn't too likely to put me out of business), but I am tired of 
Microsoft using their monopolistic power to barrel into other 
markets besides the OS market and eliminate the choices that I have 
as a consumer.
    Thanks for your time,
    Aaron Picton
    Shasta County
    (530) 245-6235



MTC-00002777

From: Damian Dittmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 11:36am
Subject: So this is punishment?
    Dear Sirs,
    I cannot believe with the debut of Windows XP, that Microsoft 
has been punished at all. Just the opposite has occured. Microsoft 
has succeeded in building a program that is even more filled with 
direct referrals to Microsoft products. I thought they were not 
supposed to be able to do that anymore.
    It is a sad statement for Justice that Microsoft can go on 
unhindered it its goal of total domination of programs used for 
PC's. A sad day indeed.
    Damian Dittmer



MTC-00002778

From: David Bennion
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 11:38am
Subject: Microsoft needs to be broken up
    It is clear that Microsoft wields too much power in the market 
place. They need to be broken up. This settlement idea of giving 
software to kids in schools will not change the fact that Microsoft 
is a monopoly. In fact, it will only enhance it by getting the 
children trained only on Microsoft products from the time they are 
in school. Microsoft has engaged in many agressive, anti-competitive 
business practices, and a change needs to be

[[Page 24166]]

made. There are many good ideas out there on actions that could be 
taken against them.
    David Bennion.



MTC-00002779

From: Stephen Bradley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 11:39am
Subject: Anti-Trust Case
    Gentlepersons,
    While I am not an attorney I do have an opinion on the anti-
trust lawsuit settlement.
    This sounds like a normal government debacle. The DOJ has gone 
after them and gone after them and then settles for nothing.
    It is obvious to anyone that uses a computer that Microsoft 
produces lousy software.
    I have operating systems that run on Intel platforms in which 
uptime is measured in months and years. Not in minutes.
    Why does this matter? We always have a choice don't we? No. We 
don't have a choice. Because of Microsoft's predatory practices and 
the way they work hard at stifling any competition we no longer have 
a choice. If a product comes out that works better than theirs they 
can just bundle their buggy code into the OS and say it's new 
feature. It's free so people don't want to spend more to get 
something that really works and they put up with it. The competition 
then goes out of business due to lack of support. Remember Netscape?
    You allow them to keep doing this to competitors and you get 
what we have now.
    Are there alternatives? Yes. But because Microsoft has a fit 
everytime someone wants to develop software that runs on their OS 
and a competing OS they throw roadblocks up and start withholding 
little things that are needed for development.
    steve



MTC-00002780

From: Drew Mackenzie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 11:41am
Subject: Opinion: Consumer vs. Taxpayer
    Consumer
    I understand the allegations at hand in part focus on benefit/
hurt to the consumer. In this category, as a consumer, I have been 
hurt by Microsoft's market monopoly. As a software purchasing 
decision-maker, this is my thought process:
I have a problem, which requires either software [x] or [y].
Either will accomplish the job.
[x] will allow me to use the results from [y].
[y] will not allow me to use the results from [x], based on [x]'s 
corruption from an original agreed industry standard.
some people are already using [x].
I need to use all software results, so anyone can be my business 
partner.
I must buy [x].
    I.E., I am bullied into buying [x]_Microsoft 
products_because of their corruption of industry standards.
    Taxpayer
If Microsoft can't continue to sell lots of software, the company 
will be reduced in value.
If Microsoft is reduced in value, the markets will be hurt, 
negatively impact the domestic economy, reduce corporate profits, 
and reduce the corporate contribution to the federal tax base.
I'll end up paying more taxes.
    In the end
    The only way I won't get hurt is if Microsoft actually changes 
it's products. If their products are designed in such a way that the 
products themselves do not use their market saturation to leverage 
future purchases, then they are no longer using their monopoly to 
prevent advances in the software industry.
    Microsoft could continue to produce, but would be forced to meet 
the same standards as other companies.
    They would have their products compete on an even footing with 
other software producers. Feel free to contact me if you like
    Drew Mackenzie
    [email protected]



MTC-00002781

From: Darren Lenick
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/6/01 11:41am
Subject: Settlement is pro-Microsoft
    I think the last thing we need to do is assist in the growth of 
the monopolistic company by allowing them to donate their software 
to our poor schools. This would only enhance their position and 
strengthen their hold on the computer industry.
    I am a user of Microsoft products, not by choice, but by 
requirement. As a network professional with more than 15 years 
experience, my preference would be to use a more open and less 
expensive architecture. I use both Linux and Windows in my daily 
life, however, I can't share documents with my clients and employees 
if I use my Linux system and software. This is solely because of the 
closed architecture of Microsoft products in that competitors can't 
create applications that will easily read files created in Word and 
Excel. As a reseller, I am appalled at the pricing structure of 
Microsoft products as well. The standard rules of mass production 
don't seem to apply to Microsoft. They sell the products by the 
millions and yet the pricing is outrageous. I don't believe 
developmental costs are as high as they claim, as the products that 
are released are far from stable. I encourage my clients to wait 
until the first service pack is release prior to installing the 
"latest and greatest".
    Until other companies can be allowed to compete fairly in the 
market place, I think Microsoft will continue to grow. Any monopoly 
is bad for our economy and our citizens. Take the telephone and 
utility companies as examples. There is no quality of service from 
any of them here in Southern California. I have clients with 
problems that are told they need to wait 8 days for a resolution, as 
that's how long it takes to update the database!
    They must be using Microsoft products.
    Sincerely,
    Darren F. Lenick
    Division Head, Technology Group
    EPI Enterprises Inc.



MTC-00002782

From: Bryan MacLeod
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/6/01 11:46am
Subject: settlement concerns
    First, let me state that I earn my living based primarily on my 
Microsoft specific skills. As a Microsoft Certified System Engineer, 
my trade is primarily with their products.
    With that being said, I fear that Microsoft is getting away with 
their Monopolistic practices with only a pretend slap on the wrist. 
In my career, I have seen many great programs, or potentially great 
programs disappear, or become useless because of direct conflict 
with Microsoft's whims. Allowing them to settle out of court without 
addressing their ability to further enforce their monopoly is wrong. 
We are all adults here, and I think we all honestly know that 
Microsoft will do what it thinks is necessary to protect their hold 
on the industry. In true humanistic fashion, if they think it is 
right for them, they will fail to acknowledge the wrongs it may 
impose on others.
    Please carefully reconsider your objectives with this 
settlement. As an MCSE, I definitely don't want to jeopardize my 
future, but justice is not being served in this case.
    thank you,
    Bryan MacLeod
    5180 Crane Dr.
    Brighton, CO 80601



MTC-00002783

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 11:57am
Subject: Antitrust settlement does nothing to correct the problem
    It would appear that the DOJ has caved to political pressure or 
political payoffs (not sure which). The so-called 
"settlement" not only lets Microsoft "off the 
hook", but also provides an opportunity to infest our schools 
with inferior products. Our poor children will suffer even more than 
we have, trying to make computers work. Our kids will soon become 
afraid of computers, and students in every school where Microsoft 
products have been insinuated into the classroom will believe 
themselves to be stupid because they can't make poorly engineered 
software work. We're sacrificing our children's future so that one 
man can be filthy rich?
    I don't think either the DOJ or the courts understand that the 
real issue is software quality and usability! Microsoft products are 
inferior, and Microsoft has used it's illegal business practices to 
prop up the sales of what are and always be inferior products. They 
don't know how to make them work correctly, so they threaten PC 
manufacturing companies to force the use of those inferior products. 
The Windows operating system lacks even the most basic features of 
what an operating system is supposed to be. It's not surprising 
since Gates never took a single OS class in college. I was required 
to take three separate Operating Systems courses before I was 
allowed to attain my Masters degree in Computer Engineering, and yet 
I still do not consider myself to be a systems programmer. Windows 
fails every test of an OS, and Microsoft Office fails even the most 
minimal Software Engineering principles.
    To the lawyers at DOJ I pose this question: If a minimal high 
school graduate came into

[[Page 24167]]

your courtroom, without training, without the ability to find and 
quote legal references and precedents, and without even the 
slightest knowledge of "how things are done" in the 
legal profession, how would you react? In addition, the Judge in the 
case is being threatened with financial ruin, and is forced to tell 
you fully trained members of the bar to keep you collective mouths 
shut and to allow this untrained person to do anything they please 
in the courtroom, no matter how outlandish, to make a mockery of the 
legal system... do you begin to understand the problem? I take the 
damage done by Microsoft to the Software Engineering profession very 
seriously. And the damage done to the American software industry has 
set up back almost 20 years. We may never catch up with Europe since 
they continue to innovate in an environment where business practices 
are not used as a substitute for good engineering.
    Microsoft has, without impunity, inflicted inferior computer 
science on an an unsuspecting public. Why has it been so difficult 
to clearly state the most obvious point in this case? Microsoft 
software is bad, it's bad for users, it's bad for programmers, it's 
especially bad for new computer students, and it's bad for this 
country's future! I hear people blame hardware, blame users, blame 
the internet, blame everyone else, for the problems in the the usage 
of modern PCs, but any honest software developer will tell you the 
problem lies in the OS. We are losing ground to programmers around 
the world because our legal and political system is forcing us to 
use an inferior operating system. And this is being done because, 
obviously, the DOJ and courts are either afraid of Gates or have 
been paid off.
    I'm sure there's no way to prove it, and the DOJ certainly won't 
try, but it's pretty obvious to all of us in America that you have 
been paid off. Meanwhile, good quality programmers in the USA are 
losing jobs and lives to people in Europe, India, even the far east 
because they are allowed to use a decent OS for their software 
development. what a crock,
    cherie
    C.L. Skillern
    Geoscience Branch Work Phone: (918) 661-1866
    Phillips Petroleum Company Work FAX : (918) 661-5250
    630C Plaza Office Building Work email: [email protected]
    Bartlesville, OK 74004 Home email: [email protected]



MTC-00002784

From: A. W. Dunstan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 11:56am
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
    I'm told you're gathering citizen's opinions regarding the 
recent DOJ/Microsoft settlement.
    A question_what was the purpose of this whole exercise? 
After years of legal action and hundreds of thousands of dollars of 
expense, what has been accomplished? The DOJ has made Microsoft 
promise to play nice. Just like it promised to play nice last 
time_which it did, for a day or two. Then it was right back to 
business as usual.
    So now MS is going to "donate" hardware & 
software to poor schools? How nice of them! They get to hook another 
generation on their software and make it look like they're being 
gracious. Please tell me they don't get a tax write-off for it!!
    In short you've run up my tax bill, have nothing to show for it 
and Microsoft gets off not only unscathed but looking like a good, 
penitent corporate member of society. Gee, 
thanks.
    Al Dunstan, Software Engineer



MTC-00002785

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 11:59am
Subject: Proposed Settlement
    I would like to encourage you to not accept Microsoft's proposal 
to settle the antitrust case. By allowing Microsoft to provide 
hardware and software to so many schools, their market penetration 
willl only get deeper and that can not be good for the consumers in 
the long run. I strongly urge you to consider the Red Hat, Inc. 
alternative proposal which allows Microsoft to provide hardware and 
Red Hat to provide open source software. This approach would 
significantly increase the number of computers donated to the 
countries school systems.
    Thank you
    Brian Ginter
    Clifford, VA



MTC-00002786

From: Jose Suarez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 11:59am
Subject: The Microsoft deal
    To whom it may concern:
    This is the deal Microsoft wants: Will give up to 1 billion 
dollars in free software to schools. The one billion dollars is 
calculating the street price of the software witch is much higher 
than it cost them to produce.Then most schools will train the 
students on windows based software witch will encourage them to buy 
it for home use too. It sounds to me as the best possible deal for 
Microsoft since it will start to expose kids to their products at a 
young age, gaining on the competition by light years.
    Can't you see the picture here?. That is a very bad deal for 
competition, but the best for Microsoft. How many congressmen, 
senators, judges, and other government officials own Microsoft 
shares?. What will happen to does shares if Microsoft is penalized?
    Do I need to say more?



MTC-00002787

From: Bob Loy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 12:00pm
Subject: What a Loss, Stupidity
    I can't believe you gave the victory to MS?????? A proven 
monopoly with approximately 95% of the world's desktops running 
Windows!
    You had the case won and should have put serious restrictions on 
Microsoft without ALL of the loopholes that are in the current 
agreement.
    My California congress people will certainly hear from me 
regarding your extremely poor decision!
    Success, Achievement and Fulfillment
    Bob Loy



MTC-00002788

From: Fredricks, Bill
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/6/01 12:03pm
Subject: you're letting us down
    I'm sorry to say that it appears that the DOJ is letting us 
down. We need you to act on the principles embodied in our laws and 
not let the letters of the law be twisted to mean something else. 
The DOJ has a ruling that Microsoft is guilty of monopolistic 
practices. Act on that. Perhaps you are listening to much to the 
noisy minority. Rest assured that the majority of our citizens will 
stand behind a soundly principled resolution and see through all 
resolutions that are based on shaky reasoning.
    It is true that the public is probably uninformed of the issues 
and rulings with the reasoning behind each. Few really have the time 
to delve into all of the facts. But your department does and has. 
We, the people, have delegated that task to you. Please don't 
compromise that faith that has been entrusted to you.
    I have heard it said that part of the settlement is for 
Microsoft to provide computers to needy and poor school systems. 
This idea has some good elements but also a dark side. I'm sure that 
Microsoft, aside from a little whining, readily accepted this 
proposal. They could see, as you should, that there is a tremendous 
eventual benefit for them. If in fact they have to be punished, to 
be punished in such a way that will reap future, perhaps staggering, 
benefits is very acceptable, eh? It's a little like punishing your 
child by forcing them to contribute to their savings account. They 
don't like that their working funds are cut but they also know that 
one day they will be able to cash in on what has been saved. A true 
punishment for the child, especially if they took that money from 
someone else, would be to have them pay back twice what they took.
    So what will it be then, a savings account or a punishment?
    Bill Fredricks
    [email protected]
    703.797.7858
    703.592.7128 (cell)
    703.922.1988 (home)



MTC-00002789

From: Geoff Sternecker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 12:03pm
Subject: Microsoft's monopoly moving into schools.
    The decision to have Microsoft donate its software to schools is 
not a wise choice. It is the only place that they have not dominated 
the market. Have Microsoft donate the cash to the schools and let 
them decide which OS's to run and it will eliminate the cost/value 
debate of Microsoft's software. This would roughly equate to a 
tobacco company opting to give out free smokes to kids rather than 
paying to find a cure for cancer.

[[Page 24168]]

    Geoff S.



MTC-00002790

From: ernesto.valenzuela@ analog.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 12:02pm
Subject: It is really sad
    It's sad to see that the DOJ will just do what ever Micro$oft 
tell them to do. I have learn that there is no chance the government 
will ever protect there people, only large corporations can have the 
protection of the government.
    Ernesto.
    Ernesto Valenzuela
    CAD/UNIX Systems Administrator
    Analog Devices
    9820 Willow Creek Rd.
    Suite 100
    San Diego CA, 92131
    (858) 635-2265
    (858) 566-2234 fax
    [email protected]
    Sys-Admin = Jedi Knight
    Do not mess with Jedi's
    For we own the root passwd.



MTC-00002791

From: Bob Loy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 12:05pm
Subject: Forgot
    I forgot to add. How can you justify allowing MS anywhere near 
the education market (schools)? Allowing a monopoly into the Apple 
computer's only real sales market, what kind of politics are you 
playing?
    I can't believe you gave the victory to MS??????
    A proven monopoly with approximately 95% of the world's desktops 
running Windows!
    You had the case won and should have put serious restrictions on 
Microsoft without ALL of the loopholes that are in the current 
agreement.
    My California congress people will certainly hear from me 
regarding your extremely poor decision!
    Success, Achievement and Fulfillment
    Bob Loy



MTC-00002792

From: Fred Gibbons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 12:06pm
Subject: Letter to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly RE: Microsoft
    Letter to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
    From: Fred Gibbons http://www.venture-concept.com/cv/resume.htm
    Founding CEO
    Software Publishing Corporation
    Your Honor
    Simply stated, today the PC user has in no significant choice of 
operating system or productivity software such as word processor, 
presentation graphics, or spreadsheet. This lack of choice harms the 
consumer by inhibiting innovation. The findings of the courts show 
the Microsoft market share in these products approaches 90%.
    This natural monopoly position occurs because customers and 
software developers benefit from a standard operating system. By 
having one version of the operating system, originally PC DOS then 
Windows, the independent software community can develop it's 
programs only once instead of rewriting it for a panoply of slightly 
different operating systems unique to each personal computer. 
R&D money can be spent on new products not wasted on conversion. 
Because of the OS standard the computer "clone" industry 
emerged where the consumer could freely choose between dozens of 
personal computers knowing that all the new great application 
software is available and runs correctly.
    Microsoft used it's financial strength coupled with aggressive 
engineering and marketing tactics, disclosed in the anti-trust 
hearings, to pursue it's strategy of dominance and control. Much 
attention is devoted to the "browser" monopoly but like 
Rosa Parks and the civil rights movement, it is a rallying point for 
a much larger protest. Consumers no longer have choice in these 
critical software products. In 1990 WordPerfect in word processing, 
Borland in spreadsheets, and Software Publishing in presentation 
graphics won the InfoWorld shoot-out for best of breed products in 
their category beating Microsoft in ease of use, speed and 
functionality. Today these products are heard only in whispers.
    Competition can only return if there is equal and open access to 
Microsoft's operating system and applications. This requires 
Microsoft to unbundle and publish the specifications for the core 
modules of its operating system and applications such that other 
companies can compete with plug compatible products. There is 
precedent for this in the AT&T and IBM decisions where third 
party phones could connect to AT&T and third party disc drives 
could connect to IBM mainframes.
    The argument against this is that Microsoft will loose control 
of the standard and all the above mentioned benefits of 
standardization will be lost to the consumer. Isn't it more likely 
that the invisible hand of the free market will be smart enough to 
protect what's good about a standard and innovate where it is not.
    My best,.FG
    Fred Gibbons
    email: [email protected]
    web site http://www.venture-concept.com
    Directions: http://www.venture-concept. com/background/
address.htm



MTC-00002793

From: Donald Lawn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 12:08pm
Subject: Penalize Microsoft
    Justice Department,
    I am saddened that the Justice Department has fallen to 
political pressure and dropped it's case against Microsoft, 
requiring the affected states to maintain the suit to stop this 
monopoly from crushing innovation. For the Justice Department to 
cave into political demands from monied interests for an 
abandonement of this very strong case simply shows that when money 
talks, the Justice Department listens.
    Too bad I'm not wealthy enough to but a verdict in my favor.
    Donald Lawn
    206-285-5623



MTC-00002794

From: Gerry Maddock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 12:08pm
Subject: ANTITRUST
    Pie Charts Hello, I would just like to share my opinion on this 
subject. Right now, most public schools teach on Apple computers (I 
feel these computers are worthless since most companies don't even 
use this garbage computer. The only thing Apple does right is look 
"pretty").
    In order to fairly show students all OS's (Operating Systems). 
Some of you "political" types feel only Microsoft is 
what most corporations run. This is NOT TRUE. Most companies back 
end systems are Unix or linux based. In my company, Unix and Linux 
are the Main backend servers, with end users using windows. The 
education system is truly lacking in teaching computers. Having just 
one type of OS in schools is not a good idea. You should teach 
students every OS because each OS is better than the other in 
certain circumstances. I think you should give Red Hat a chance, and 
let the students and actual IT community decide what's best rather 
than some political person who doesn't have anyone's best interest 
except his own as he collects payoffs from whatever company pays the 
most for his/her vote.
    Gerry Maddock
    Systems Network Analyst
    Future Metals, Inc.
    5400 NW 35th Ave
    FT. Lauderdale, Fl 33309
    (954) 739-5350 Fax: (954)730-9543
    http://www.futuremetals.com



MTC-00002796

From: Gene Worth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 12:12pm
Subject: Continue the Suit
    The terms of this settlement with Microsoft are ludicrous. The 
terms negotiated with Microsoft only further its monopolistic 
behaviors. They must be rolling in the streets in Redmond. I cannot 
believe that the DOJ is willing to roll over and play dead with one 
of the largest anti-competitive corporations in the world!
    I am a computer consultant in the field of healthcare. Microsoft 
is a bully in every sense of the word. Microsoft stifles innovation 
and competition at every juncture in software development. If a 
developer releases work that receives a following, Microsoft back-
engineers the code and releases it as part of the operating system.
    Give me a break! You must not settle.
    gene
    Eugene R. Worth, MD, MEd
    Medical Information Technologies, Inc.
    400 E. High Point Lane
    Columbia, MO 65203
    Voice:(573) 449-6861 Fax:[573] 449-6764



MTC-00002797

From: Bob Stocker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 12:05pm
Subject: Antitrust settlement
    Dear sirs:

[[Page 24169]]

    I think the judgment was a mere slap on the wrist and certainly 
does nothing to break that monopolistic grip. They admit their guilt 
and then walk out with nothing but a stern warning.
    Then to top it off the second ruling is now having Microsoft 
provide hundreds of schools with "complimentary" 
software, much to the aggrivation of Apple Computer. What more 
perfect way to get into the last stronghold where Microsoft does not 
have the predominant presence. Its no wonder Redhat and linux 
software companies are up at arms. Microsofts on-going battle 
against such attrocities of "free license open server" 
software just won a major victory.
    Lets break up Microsofts grip_there is other, better 
choices of operating systems than Microsoft, 'reboot me again 
please', Windows.



MTC-00002798

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 12:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The real sin of Microsoft is the corruption of contract law. 
Their tie-in provisions damaged me extensively. I was unable to buy 
an IBM Computer with OS/2 loaded instead of Windows. That is a 
corruption of contract law and I am disappointed that you are 
letting them off so easy. It's not really about intellectual 
property' and certainly not about "innovation." 
Microsoft is a stealer of property not an "innovator."
    Windows is a jerry-built mediocre product and we have been stuck 
with it due to the Microsoft corruption of contract law.
    Robert Kluherz
    PO Box 33195
    Shoreline, WA 98133



MTC-00002799

From: Baffoni, Michael
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 12:24pm
Subject: My views on the DOJ settlement proposal
    I'm disappointed with the settlement reached by the Attorney 
General with Microsoft Corp. to resolve the charges of unfair 
business practices. The point of taking a legal action is to first 
and foremost ensure that any of the criminal activities found to 
have occured do not occur in the future: The settlement does very 
little to ensure that this happens, and the enforcement is minimal 
and the loopholes to get around the restrictions are big enough to 
drive a truck through. Secondly, a legal action should ensure that 
those harmed by the criminal activity are in some (even small) way 
compensated for those criminal actions: Although the settlement 
certainly helps those who need it, it does nothing to help those 
harmed by the unfair business practices of Microsoft Corp, and the 
"help" that is offered serves more as a marketing 
expense than a penalty. Not only that, any software offered by 
Microsoft will show as an inflated amount: when the dollars are 
totalled to find out how much MS paid out, they will be reporting 
the list price of their software: However, the actual cost to MS's 
bottom line is merely the production costs of the 
software_they aren't losing sales due to the software giveaway 
since these are machines the schools wouldn't have had with out the 
donations, and therefore wouldn't have purchased the MS software 
without it. Actually they could be making money because it will be a 
billion dollars (or rather some portion thereof) that they didn't 
need to add to their marketing budget, and gives them greater market 
penetration in an area they haven't traditionally overwhelmed.
    Thank you for your time.
    Mike Baffoni
    Michael Baffoni
    IT Manager, AeroVironment Inc.
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00002800

From: Deehr, Jim
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/6/01 12:28pm
Subject: opinion of the settlements
    Without going into details, I see almost nothing to deter 
Microsoft from its marketing practices which led to the monopoly. 
They have been successful at preserving almost all of what they 
wanted to allow them to continue in their ways.
    I believe the settlement to be very inadequate.



MTC-00002801

From: Sidereal Designs, Inc.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 12:31pm
Subject: Comment on proposed anti-trust settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    As a professional web developer, I am not satisfied that the 
proposed settlement will in any way reduce the threat that 
Microsoft's practices continue to pose to my industry or to my own 
livelihood. Microsoft's continued de facto ownership of the desktop 
permits them to use technical decisions to adversely and unfairly 
impact the industry to their own benefit.
    To take an example, Microsoft's failure to include Java in the 
XP/IE6 package eliminates with one stroke the millions of web sites 
which have developed Java-based applications, and exerts enormous 
presuure on web site developers to abandon Java in favor of 
Microsoft alternatives. Since the Microsoft alternatives are viewed 
by most web developers as inferior to Java it forces them to accept 
non-preferred alternatives to the enrichment of Microsoft. The fact 
that an average user could spend twenty minutes downloading the Java 
engine in order to view Java-based web sites is a ridiculous 
defense.
    Under the presently proposed settlement, this type of behavior 
is unchecked and can, given Microsoft's past performance, be 
interpreted an indicator of the direction in which they will force 
events in the future.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Ernest Kent
    CTO, Sidereal Designs, Inc.
    Sidereal Designs, Inc. "Putting your business on the 
web"
    http://sidereal-designs.com 301-916-5702 
[email protected]



MTC-00002802

From: Greg Clarkson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti Trust??
    I'm really disappointed about the out come of the DOJ anti trust 
suit against Microsoft. Its clear that Microsoft has used there 
business practices to stop competing companies. It is also clear 
about there intention on controlling the market and gouging the 
consumer, if you look at there new licensing structure for Microsoft 
XP. I don't mind paying for a product once but, the way Microsoft is 
licensing XP means I will probable end up paying for it several 
times on the same computer system. Right now there is no charge for 
re-licenseing XP but what about next year? What's going to happen 
after XP gets established? I can see the possibility where Microsoft 
will start recharging. If there where any other product on the 
market to compete with Microsoft OS I would be using it. The 
Microsoft products are buggy and in my opinion not worth the 
licensing fees they want and definitely not worth having to pay for 
the product more then once. The reason Microsoft can get away with 
this is because they have stifled the competition. The only 
alternative for me at this time is Lynx a product of the GNU free 
software foundation and I'm giving it serious consideration.
    And then there is the problem of privacy, everytime I connect 
the the network for work or play Microsoft down loads a 
"profile on me". It happens so quickly that nobody is 
aware of this activaty. So what is this for? Licenseing? Marketing? 
Is this profile being sold to other companies? I realize that by 
connecting to a web site that I am in some since giving the owner 
permition to map my activaty but Microsoft has taken this to a point 
of intrussion. All because they can.
    Thanks
    Greg Clarkson



MTC-00002803

From: Jim Irving
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement: Dereliction of Duty
    DoJ "punted" AGAIN on the Microsoft issue. From what 
I read DoJ does not understand how the IT industry has fostered a 
different, more insidious brand of monopolist in Seattle. If you 
want a perspective from "in the trenches", where we IT 
folks must factor Microsoft into every single purchase and 
implementation decision, just ask me.
    Jim Irving, Mgr of IT
    Hornblower Yachts, Inc.
    [email protected]
    www.hornblower.com



MTC-00002804

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 12:40pm
Subject: tunney act
    The proposed settlement does not respond to the cause of the 
litigation. Bundling or tying computer products together by 
definition uses the market position of one product [windows] to 
assist brand new product [explorer, word, office]. Prior to 
Mocrosoft's tying products to the operating

[[Page 24170]]

system, the public had options and alternative products. Word 
Perfect was an excellent product with good market share before 
Microsoft eliminated competition by bundling Word to Windows. The 
same is true for numerous products that Microsoft has used its 
market dominance to eliminate from competition.
    The proposed settlement does not resolve the issue which caused 
the case in the first place. Microsoft should be broken into at 
least3 companies: operating system, applications and internet. The 
mere fact that Microsoft has added so many products to the operating 
system should have given the Justice Department pause to 
ask_To whose benefit? Not the public if good products with 
good market share are driven from the marketplace. Microsoft is the 
only beneficiary.
    Ken Moskowitz
    [email protected]
    613 w. cheltenham ave.
    elkins park, pa 19027



MTC-00002805

From: Bob Cloninger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Microsoft has successfully shifted focus from the right of 
others to innovate and profit from those innovations to their 
(assumed) right to conduct business any way they please. Any 
settlement that allows Microsoft to continue without structural 
remedy is doomed_they spent the 1990s avoiding terms of their 
consent decrees, so how can they be trusted now? Please remember 
this case was brought because Microsoft achieved their monopolistic 
position by smothering competition with classic, 19th century, 
monopolistic, business methods. There is nothing innovative about 
these abusive business practices, and they threaten our technical 
progress as a nation.
    Microsoft only came into being because DOJ filed a similar 
antitrust action against IBM. Because of that suit, IBM made 
structural changes and business decisions that finally negated the 
suit, and allowed the PC revolution to occur. What disruptive 
technology, like the PC, will fail to take root because DOJ backs 
away from this equally significant opportunity to be a change agent?
    This is not about punishing Microsoft_It is about giving 
new ideas the opportunity to create their own wealth and power.
    Bob Cloninger
    [email protected]
    [email protected]



MTC-00002806

From: Jose Deleon
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/6/01 12:42pm
Subject: DOJ Settlement with Microsoft
    Dear Sirs,
    I feel the DOJ settlement proposal with Microsoft is a travesty 
of justice. Forcing Microsoft to domain software and hardware to 
Schools will only encourage additional monopolistic behaviour and 
actually rewards MS by promoting their products in the Schools.
    Microsoft was found guilty Anti-Trust, MS should pay fines and 
broken up, not rewarded and encouraged to continue its illegal 
behaviour.
    Sincerely,
    Jose de Leon
    Note: My opinions may not represent the views of my employer.



MTC-00002807

From: Clifford Crestodina
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 12:43pm
Subject: Sanctions
    I am a Director of Software Development and fully understand the 
implications of Microsoft's behavior.
    To fully comprehend how we have mostly become Microsoft robots 
one needs to try operating WITHOUT Microsoft products. How can this 
test be done?
    1. Remove Internet Explorer and install a competitive product 
for access to the Internet.
    2. Remove Microsoft Outlook (any version) and install a 
competitive product for access to e-mail.
    3. Remove Microsoft Java Virtual Machine and install Java from 
Sun to run web programs.
    4. Remove Microsoft Office (any version) and install a 
competitive product for office automation.
    5. Remove Microsoft Media Player and install a competitive 
product for multimedia content. After removing all of this software 
just try and make the computer perform the ordinary functions you 
expect. It isn't possible. Without using Microsoft products it's 
difficult to even gain access to competitive products! The above are 
just the consumer products. Microsoft has an even bigger impact on 
the underlying technology. They are buying technology companies to 
deepen our dependence upon them.
    Trust me, Microsoft is laughing uncontrollably about the 
settlement.
    SOLUTION: REQUIRE THAT MICROSOFT PUT DUAL-BOOT OPTIONS ON ALL 
SYSTEMS SO THAT CONSUMERS HAVE ACCESS TO ONE OF THE OPEN SOURCE 
OPERATING SYSTEMS. THIS WILL TRULY PROTECT THE AMERICAN CONSUMER AND 
OUR COMPETITIVE POSITION IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE.
    Let them do anything else but require DUAL-BOOT so the consumer 
can choose at the Desktop. This is the one single settlement they 
will NEVER accept.
    Clifford Crestodina



MTC-00002808

From: Arakelian, Kenneth (USPC.PCT.Hopewell)
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/6/01 12:44pm
Subject: the proposed MS settlement does not adress the problem.
    To Whom It May Concern,
    Microsoft has hurt the software industry with their monopoly and 
must be made to pay reparations. It is obvious to anyone in the IT 
industry that the availability of alternatives has been a good thing 
for everyone. Microsoft now has an incentive to improve their 
software. Please allow the competition to flourish by imposing 
stiffer penalties on Microsoft and ensuring that they cannot do harm 
in the future.
    thanks,
    Ken Arakelian
    home: 908.696.8656
    cell: 908.872.6677
    work: 609.274.4354



MTC-00002809

From: Brandon Hutchinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 12:50pm
Subject: Settlement proposal
    Of course, the proposed settlement by Microsoft is a flagrant 
effort to further exert their monopoly in an environment in which 
they have not been able to completely dominate: the education 
system.
    Personally, I would welcome ways in which to make Open Source 
Software (such as the Linux operating system) part of the 
settlement.
    Kind regards,
    Brandon Hutchinson
    System Administrator
    Accenture



MTC-00002810

From: Dana S. Beane (038) Company, P.C.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:50pm
Subject: DOJ/Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    Re: DOJ/Microsoft Antitrust Settlement_Comment
    The MS monopoly has stifled the more stable open source sector. 
As a result, it is almost impossible for any business to run without 
MS desktop products. Your settlement does nothing to end that 
monopoly. Your settlement should require MS to provide the open 
source community with open source tools including fonts, printer 
drivers, network interfaces and hardware support drivers to permit 
third party software developer an EASILY port their software 
applications to open source, both now and into the future. Thus far, 
MS has made that task almost impossible.
    Very Truly Yours,
    Scott Beane



MTC-00002811

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 12:52pm
Subject: SEVERE PENALTIES against microsoft MUST BE commensurate 
with all their endless violations, abuses, and illegal activity
    Dear DOJ,
    The proposed settlement between DOJ and Microsoft (M) is a 
complete sham. The federal appeals court UNANIMOUSLY (EMPHASIS 
ADDED) FOUND THAT M IS AN ILLEGAL MONOPOLIST WHO CONTINUOUSLY ABUSES 
THEIR MARKET POWER. DOJ cannot be swayed by politics, fear, or 
anything else...JUSTICE must be served, and this means imposing on 
Microsoft the SEVERE PENALTIES THEY OBSERVE. From the US District 
Court's findings of fact, up through the federal appeals court's 
UNANIMOUS VERDICT that Microsoft consistently and repeatedly, 
repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, 
repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, 
repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly BREAKS

[[Page 24171]]

THE LAW AND ABUSES IN EVERY POSSIBLE WAY THEIR MARKET POWER, only 
the MOST SEVERE SANCTIONS (i.e. DISGORGEMENT PENALTY OF 100 BILLION 
US DOLLARS AGAINST MICROSOFT, AT THE VERY ABSOLUTE MINIMUM, MIGHT BE 
SUFFICIENT TO REMEDY THE YEARS UPON YEARS OF PAST ABUSES BROUGHT ON 
BY THEIR ILLEGAL MONOPOLY ACTIVITIES) or PERMANENT INJUNCTION 
AGAINST BUNDLING OF ANY SOFTWARE PRODUCTS. AS SO MANY STATES HAVE 
OUTRIGHT REJECTED THE COMPLETE-SHAM DOJ PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AS JUST 
THAT_A COMPLETE SHAM_A SERIOUS, AND EXTREMELY SEVERE SET 
OF PENALTIES MUST BE HARSHLY IMPOSED AGAINST MICROSOFT, I.E. THE 
LEGALLY DETERMINED MONOPOLISTIC COMPANY.
    WHO ELSE CAN BRING JUSTICE AND RESTORE LONG-OVERDUE COMPETITION 
EXCEPT DOJ????? AS A US CITIZEN, I'M UTTERLY APPALLED AT THE SHAM 
SETTLEMENT PROPOSED BY DOJ IN THIS MATTER. A REAL, MAXIMALLY SEVERE 
PUNISHMENT SCHEME MUST BE IMPOSED ON MICROSOFT, AND WITHOUT ANY 
FURTHER MEANINGLESS DELAY AND WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY!!! IF I CAN BE 
PERSONALLY INVOLVED, I WOULD TAKE ANY OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY ON 
BEHALF OF WHY ONLY THE MOST STRICT AND EXTREMELY HARSH PENALTIES 
MUST BE IMPOSED ON MICROSOFT. PLEASE EMAIL ME IF I CAN OFFER SUCH 
TESTIMONY OR MY OWN INPUT ON THIS MATTER.
    Signed,
    Dr. John Weatherspoon
    (Scientist and Intellectual Property Law Student)
    EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY CONCERNED CITIZEN ON THIS MATTER



MTC-00002812

From: Jonathan R Parker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft proposed settlement
    The settlement proposed by Microsoft to donate software to poor 
schools is a very poor settlement indeed, and for a company of that 
size it is a very very small price to pay for their monopolistic 
practices. For the DOJ to agree to this would be a travesty. Jon 
Parker



MTC-00002813

From: Ken Bushnell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 12:57pm
Subject: MS monopoly dissenter
    With the release of Mircrosoft's XP there are now 2 Internets: 
Microsoft's and the one that used to be a wonderfully free platform 
for all_even in third world countries. Now we need a license 
with Microsoft to communicate with 70% of the browsers.
    Ken Bushnell (programmer) [email protected]



MTC-00002814

From: Carl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 12:58pm
Subject: Law and Order vs. Laws and Orders
    Dear Madam or Sir,
    While your remedy in the Microsoft antitrust case may appear 
expeditious I believe it is exactly the opposite.
    What will happen to our precious nation when Microsoft has more 
power than the US Government, if it isn't that way already? Clearly 
they already control much of the information economy, and DOJ has 
just patted them on the back and encouraged them to take the rest, 
which they are blatantly announcing that they will do (look closely 
at the .NET and PASSPORT strategies). When they have all the 
information and control its usage what will the govenment be able to 
do about it?
    Does DOJ really expect competition to survive if Microsoft 
continues to openly flaut the law? How vulnerable will all of us be 
when national security depends upon our networks being operational? 
Already our government has been rendered dependent on e-mail and fax 
because USPS has been slowed to a crawl by the anthrax packages. 
What happens if the e-mail goes? I am aware that AG Ashcroft's 
personal beliefs probably do not include Darwinian theory, but the 
disease model is appropriate here. If a species has the same genes, 
and a germ comes along that destroys those genes, the species will 
die. The death of the chestnut trees in this country is a perfect 
example. They went from towering over the forest to dying off in a 
few years. When someone concocts a truly evil virus, Microsoft 
servers and software could do the same thing, leaving us what?
    The situation with Microsoft IIS vulnerability is much like that 
of the airlines on Sept 10, 2001. No one has really tried.., yet. 
Several sites have been compromised, millions have lost their 
personal and business information due to viruses, but no enormous 
and widespread catastrophic action has occurred so far. When it 
does, DOJ will be remembered for letting Microsoft off the leash.
    And there are still more questions, like why Microsoft's price-
fixing and racketeering activities (with Dell, Compaq, H-P, 
Gateway, etc.) have gone unpunished and unabated. Ever tried to buy 
a computer without Windows from one of those vendors? You can't, 
because they have a contract between them which shuts out all other 
choices. What's more, that contract is part of the evidence in the 
DOJ's antitrust suit. Why has nothing been done about it?
    So in essence what the DOJ has done is squander a chance to 
improve our nation's security, punish some odious racketeers who 
really and openly want to take control of our country, and send a 
message that bilking our citizens will not be allowed in any form. 
Instead the message is, as it has always been, "If you're 
gonna steal, steal big".
    Sincerely,
    Carl Krall
    222 Indian Steps Road
    Airville, PA 17302



MTC-00002815

From: Ken Butler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 12:53pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Anti-trust case
    As a computer professional, and concerned consumer, I believe 
that inaction, and a lack of remedies will only allow Microsoft to 
continue to build its monopoly, and perpetrate further injustices on 
the American People.
    I hope there are others who are also sharing their displeasure 
with the latest settlement in this case.
    Thank You,
    Ken Butler



MTC-00002816

From: Taylor, Sam
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/6/01 1:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    What a cop-out you guys pulled when you settled with Microsoft! 
Unless the individual states do your job for you, us consumers will 
be stuck with the same old monopoly that we've had to put up with 
for years! There's a REASON why we have anti-trust laws. Maybe you 
should review them!
    Sam Taylor



MTC-00002817

From: Luke Weseman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    One point which I'm sure you've heard before.
    What kind of punishment or future deterrent is allowing 
Microsoft to give away software to schools. The incremental cost of 
the software to Microsoft is near $0 and still allows them to claim 
huge amounts in tax right offs. Make them give the schools something 
of tangible value such as hardware, or integration services. Make 
them sponsor teachers, career programs, sabbaticals, whatever. This 
is a judgment that injures the proxy plaintiff more than the 
defendant.
    This is not even a slap on the wrist, it is a pat on the back.
    Luke Weseman
    Database Consultant
    Insurity
    811 South Central Expressway
    Richardson, TX 75080
    972-671-2500 x22



MTC-00002818

From: David Markowitz
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/6/01 1:00pm
Subject: Proposed microsoft settlement
    The proposed settlement is a crock of shit, and it stinks! 
Microsoft is an example of all that's bad in big business, and the 
Republican party is showing its true colors by letting them off with 
a slap on the wrist. They should be made to pay real penalties, both 
to the government and to the companies they've damaged or destroyed.
    They should also be forced to discontinue their illegal 
practices and tactics.



MTC-00002819

From: walt harris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust

[[Page 24172]]

    I'm not going to pretend to know the best way to handle the 
Microshaft Issue as I've been known to call it recently, but 
allowing MS to_give_software to school systems is 
outrageous. I commend that act of giving schools that need it the 
resources to acquire such equipment/software, but I can not agree 
with giving them "Microsoft" stuff. Make them donate the 
value of the software according to their prices and allow the school 
system to spend the money on computer equipment/software as they see 
fit.
    You blast Microsoft because they are a monopoly.
    Don't continue to encourage their actions!



MTC-00002820

From: Emmett O'Grady
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Ruling
    Allowing Microsoft to donate software as part of the ruling will 
only make the situation worse. I urge you not to let the monopoly 
continue!
    Thanks,
    Emmett O'Grady
    [email protected]



MTC-00002822

From: Christian Kuster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Hi
    I will never understand it...
    You protect the worst technology from the States...
    Do you get paid for that ??????
    Over here in Europe, somthing like that would never be 
possible....
    Anyway, I hope your mind changes or I will lose the latest faith 
in computer techology from the States.
    Sincerely,
    IT Consultant
    Christian Kuster



MTC-00002823

From: Larry Hansford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I firmly believe that the agreed to settlement with Microsoft is 
not in the best interest of the consumer, especially the business 
organizations. As a Systems Integrator, I have witnessed first hand 
the tactics by Microsoft to force expensive upgrades in order to 
continue "business as usual", and I believe the 
settlement will allow Microsoft to not continue those practices but 
increase the tactics' impact.
    I believe that the settlement should be revised to force 
Microsoft to unbundle their products so that consumers have a choice 
in what they install or de-install.
    Also, the settlement allowing Microsoft to put more of its 
product in public schools does nothing more than allow Microsoft to 
further ingrain themselves in consumer homes and businesses. This 
builds more of a monopoly than Microsoft already has. At the very 
least, the settlement should be for Microsoft to give the equivalent 
money to public schools and allow the school administration to buy 
systems that better suite their needs_including Apple 
Macintosh and/or Linux systems.
    Larry
    Larry C. Hansford ([email protected])
    Creative Data Solutions, Inc.
    P. O. Box 96
    New Carlisle, OH 45344-0096
    Ph. 937/846-0808
    Fax 208/293-3148
    www.creativedatasolns.com



MTC-00002824

From: Greg Clarkson
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 12/6/01 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft anti trust ??
    I'm really disapointed about the outcome of the DOJ antitrust 
suite against Microsoft. It is clear that they have used their 
business practices to stifle the competition. This anti trust suite 
has done little to change Microsoft's business practices.
    If you look at the licensing for XP now Microsoft is using their 
position in the market to gouge the consumer. I don't mind paying 
for a product once but now it appears I could end up paying several 
times. For now re-licensing of XP is free but what about next year? 
What is going to happen once XP is established? I can forsee a point 
where Microsoft will place a charge on the re-licensing of XP. My 
concern here is that if the product were worth the added expense or 
if the product had changed sufficiently to require re-licensing but 
the way this setup I can be charged a license fee for no added 
value. Simply because Microsoft has control of the market and 
requires me to pay to continue using their product. If there where 
any alternative OS available I would be using it.
    The Microsoft products are buggy and have caused me an enormous 
amout of problems because of their poor design.
    And then there is the problem of privacy. Each time I connect 
the network whether for work or play Microsoft downloads a profile 
and my activity. It happens so quickly that most people don't see it 
but it happens. What is Microsoft doing with this profile? Is it for 
Licensing or Marketing or just to monitor my activity? Are they 
selling this information?
    Thank you
    Greg Clarkson



MTC-00002825

From: Ken Kramer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Discipline
    Microsoft has abused its monopoly by forcing consumers to play 
only by their rules in a game where they set the rules. Mr. Gates 
knows that and continues to flaunt the consumer and prove to the 
Government that he is the boss. The only discipline Gates will 
understand is a personal fine of a billion dollars. This will make 
him sit up and listen.This merely represents a pittance of the 
monopolistic overpricing he has charged consumers.



MTC-00002826

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:17pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I have heard that the microsoft settlement includes making 
microsoft donate software and hardware to schools. This is a very 
very bad idea, since all it will do is get students using microsoft 
software early, thereby furthering the monopoly they have! It might 
also put apple out of business. Make microsoft give the $$ or the 
hardware, and open up the software to free sources like Linux. DO 
NOT "MAKE" MICROSOFT GIVE THEIR SOFTWARE TO SCHOOLS! 
that would be like "punishing" a drug pusher by making 
them give herion samples to kids. i am dead serious. sincerely.
    Jeff Fessler, Assoc. Prof.734-763-1434
    4240 EECS Bldg., 1301 Beal Ave.FAX: 734-763-8041
    University of [email protected]
    Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122http://www.eecs.umich.edu/
ï¿½7Efessler/
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00002827

From: Jeff Bell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:28pm
Subject: Antitrust Settlement
    Hello,
    A news letter from Red Hat suggested I send my opinions to you 
concerning the antitrust settlement with Microsoft.
    I approve with the settlement in it's current form, and I would 
be strongly against any further action against the Microsoft 
corporation.
    In the news letter, Red Hat suggests it would be better to have 
MS donate only hardware to the underprivileged schools rather than 
the hardware, software, and services required by the settlement. I 
believe this would be a mistake. The software Red Hat is offering is 
already free, and it doesn't include accurate documentation or 
reliable support. I've been a computer professional for 18 years, 
and I use software from MS as well as from Red Hat on a daily basis. 
In my opinion, the software Red Hat would provide the schools is 
unsuitable for the majority of new computer users which includes 
teachers as well as students. Imposing this additional level of 
difficulty on already overworked teachers will very likely cause 
them to avoid using the systems as much as possible. Additionally, a 
number of would be teachers from the technical world might change 
their minds if they believed the software they would be required to 
use would be unsuitable for the task.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Bell
    Senior Software Engineer
    Bihrle Applied Research, Inc.
    18 Research Drive
    Hampton, VA 23666
    (757) 766-2416



MTC-00002828

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust suit
    Microsoft is clearly guilty of a wide range of anti-competetive 
practices. Allowing them free access to a new untapped market (low-
income schools) and to return to business as

[[Page 24173]]

usual doesn't seem very much like justice to me. To have them donate 
(as the Red Hat Linux executives suggest) computer hardware (which 
they don't make, so it actually costs them money) to the schools 
seems like a more reasonable punishment. What are we going to do to 
guide their behavior in the future?
    Carl Baker
    Richland, WA 509-375-2724



MTC-00002829

From: Michael Adam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:39pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft antitrust violations
    Re: Microsoft antitrust violations
    Dear Sir,
    I am writing in regard to the settlement agreement you have 
reached with Microsoft. I do not feel it is fair to me as a customer 
since they have damaged their competitors and made it both more 
expensive and harder to buy software from other sources as well as 
hurting the development of competing products that would most likely 
be better.
    I would suggest that there be a penalty for their previous 
actions as well as some form of monitoring their future actions.
    I understand that Red Hat Linux offered to give schools free 
software if Microsoft would give hardware of the value suggested 
instead of there own software. Giving there own software would be of 
no cost to them and would help perpetuate their monopoly by putting 
more of their own product out in the field.
    Thanks for taking the time to read this. If you have any 
questions, please call me at the number listed below.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Adam
    President
    Cycle & Marine Supercenter
    870-536-6500



MTC-00002830

From: Gary Baribault
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:27pm
Subject: Comment about the settlement
    I'm not an American, so I don't know if my opinion matters here, 
but let me just state that your settlement seems very weak. There 
was a similar settlement in 1995 if memory serves me correctly and 
it doesn't seem to have stopped Microsoft from starting over again. 
Though I don't think that splitting the company in two is the 
solution, at least hurting them financially and then using the fine 
to somehow increase eff3ective competition sounds like a better idea 
than the slap on the wrist you are offering now.
    Gary Baribault
    [email protected]



MTC-00002831

From: Jose Ramirez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:27pm
Subject: microsoft.
    Microsoft is a monopolist
    fax: 240-208-6413
    http://www.e-medsoft.com



MTC-00002832

From: Andre Steenkamp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:27pm
Subject: microsoft
    The settlement is ridiculous_damages and compensation 
should be paid to every person who bought any of the Microsoft 
products, and the company should be broken up in to separate 
operating systems branches and each application should be in 
separate companies.
    The browsers should be in a separate company, fax and office 
application in another etc.
    If we look at what dishonest marketing has done in terms of 
getting market share and the resulting hidden costs of running 
Microsoft products its just plain ridiculous.
    thanx
    Andre Steenkamp
    VP Systems Engineering
    w)310.664.9333
    f)310.664.1183



MTC-00002833

From: tim dion
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:03pm
Subject: Please protect us from Microsoft
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I am shocked and dismayed with the terms offered in the 
Microsoft settlement. I realize that you feel that this case has 
gone on for too long, and may hurt the economy. But don't the loses 
of Novell, Netscape, and Sun effect the economy?
    As the Department of Justice for the United States of America 
don't you want to protect the consumers? When you get out of bed in 
the morning, doesn't it motivate you to get to work so you can 
protect the rights of the down trodden? You protect us against the 
crimals in the world, this is your sworn duty, job, and calling.
    Microsoft has harmed me, because I can not buy a computer with 
the operating system of my choice installed. I am a fan and user of 
the Linux Operating System. Some 30 percent of servicers on the 
internet run Linux. Yet, there are no major computer sellers who 
will install and ship a consumer based computer with Linux 
installed. Microsoft's OEM contracts forbid companies from shipping 
any consumer operating system without Windows installed. If I want a 
new computer, I have to pay for the cost of the Windows operating 
system, than I have to install Linux myself. The terms of the 
settlement only mention dual booted systems; however, I have no need 
for Windows. For a dual boot system, I would still be required to 
pay for a Windows license.
    Now, the courts have declared Microsoft to be a criminal 
monopolist. At the very least, I would expect them to be punished 
for their crimes. We, the people, need your protection from 
Microsoft.



MTC-00002834

From: mark collister
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:45pm
Subject: microsoft settlement_crock!!
    looks like there is no justice in the world anymore! make them 
open up (release source code) their document file format. that will 
level the playing field on the corporate desktop market. i've pretty 
much approved of everything the bush administration has done so far 
except this. if i make enough money can i break the law with little 
or no consequences? waste of time and money if this is all the doj 
can do. just my 2 cents from the voting public. mark collister 
([email protected])



MTC-00002835

From: Robert Shelton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:45pm
Subject: USA vs Microsoft Inc Settlement
    The Settlement terms seem me to very fair to all parties.
    Speaking as a Microsoft customer and Technology business partner 
of Microsoft, my experience (since 1966) is the Microsoft has always 
been fair and even handed in ever transaction.
    Robert C Shelton VM & FAX (650) 503-3097 X0004
    1259 El Camino Real
    Menlo Park CA 94025-4227
    email: 
    Web Site: http://www.geocities.com/robert_shelton
    Resume: http://www.geocities.com/robert_shelton/
resume.html
    Profile: http://profiles.yahoo.com/robert_shelton



MTC-00002836

From: Raphael Borg Ellul Vincenti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:04pm
Subject: The MS Settlement hasn't reached a conclusion for us 
customers.
    To whom it may concern,
    The settlement regarding the MS Settlement with the Department 
of Justice shows how people can be PROVEN guilty and yet escape 
scotch free. MS were found guilty and yet the settlment does not 
make them stop their monopolistic schemes because the settlement has 
so many holes that even I, that I am not a lawyer can think of so 
many different ways of still retaining their monopoly abusivley 
(something they have been FOUND guilty) and still remain withing the 
agreement. This settlement has actually damaged any future legal 
actions we can possibly take against Microsoft if they keep on 
insisting on using proprietry standards.
    With Thanks,
    Raphael Borg Ellul Vincenti



MTC-00002837

From: Deepak Nautiyal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 11/16/01 10:03pm
Subject: Unfair Settlement
    The reported settlement between DOJ and Microsoft is totally 
unfair. The sanctions as announced are inadequate and vague. 
Microsoft is notorious for using unfair business practices, and it 
will be a cake walk for it to bypass many of the sanctions.
    Deepak



MTC-00002838

From: Jason Simpson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:50pm

[[Page 24174]]

Subject: Microsoft punishment... HA!
    The idea of making Microsoft "donate" hardware and 
software to schools for punishment is rediculous. That would 
strenthen their monopoly more than anything. Not a good idea to 
punish Microsoft by destroying Apple... Make them donate CASH to 
schools to purchase whatever equipment they choose...
    "Daddy, I'm sorry you caught me stealing your 
wallet". "Son, for your punishment, I'm going to give 
you a million dollars. Will that teach you a lesson?"
    Duh...



MTC-00002839

From: Bob Wyatt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:51pm
Subject: microsoft monopoly
    Dear sir or madam,
    I am writing to you in the hope that through your decisions the 
software industry may become more open and, in turn, serve the 
public better. I am an educator, currently working on a PhD. in 
Applied Linguistics. I'm am a long time computer user and 
programmer. Over the last few years, I have been deeply involved in 
distance education over the WWW. I use, on a daily basis, three 
different operating systems: Linux, MacOS9 and WindowsME. In my 
opinion, the early advantages that Microsoft Windows offered have 
been far outweighed in recent years by their attempts to dominate 
the operating system market with truly inferior software. Estimates 
for the cost of time lost in dealing with Windows system crashes run 
literally into the billions. The lack of competition is in part due 
to the difficulty of writing software for someone's proprietary OS. 
The close linkage between MS applications and Windows straps the 
public with operating systems which always promise to be better, 
next time, but never are. We,re supposed wait while they get it 
right, so that we can keep using MSWord.
    If competition truly serves the public good, then we need to 
ask: "Why is it that MS has no serious competition?" Is 
it possible that there are no worthy adversaries, no one as good as 
they? Or is it possible that very rich and powerful businessmen are 
doing a disservice to the nation by maintaining their power not 
through better products, but through marketing manoeuvers and a 
tight grip on an early advantage that no one saw as unfair or 
dangerous at the time.
    I respectfully petition you to level the playing field by ending 
or limiting the close relationship between Windows and MS software 
in the hope that it may stimulate what was once a vibrant and 
creative area, software application development. In closing, let me 
recall the words, "What's good for GM is good for 
America." Since that pronouncement was made, much has changed 
for consumers who now enjoy safer, more comfortable and more 
economical cars. Microsoft tells us it knows what we need and want. 
I say, give us a choice and we'll decide for ourselves.
    Sincerely,
    Prof. Robert D. Wyatt
    Dept. of Applied Linguistics
    The Pontifical Catholic University of Sao Paulo
    Sao Paulo, Brazil



MTC-00002840

From: Marc Infield
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Penalty
    Hello,
    I don't usually send this type letter, but here goes. In my 
understanding of the ruling (which is probably not great). Microsoft 
essentially eliminated a competitor by using it's size and power in 
the market. The software I use on a daily basis is directly effected 
by their actions, because there is no longer any real competition 
for their internet browser I am forced to use it. The problem is 
they kill competition from the inside via hardball business 
practices, leaving the public no choices but to use their products.
    Allowing them to "give away" software to under 
privileged kids, puts an awful nice spin on some pretty nasty 
business practices. Unfortunately it seems like DOJ is providing MS 
corp. with a great channel into a segment of the market that they 
have not been entirely able to take away from another competitor, 
Apple computer, a company that I am fearful MS would just assume be 
out business.
    Shouldn't the penalty have something to do with the crime? 
Doesn't the idea that Microsoft has anything to with 
"distributing "free" software to children" 
sound a bit funny? It does nothing to prevent them from doing the 
same thing they that are accused of again, and it could be argued 
that it actually offers them an inroad to attack Apple in their 
strongest market with a flood of free hardware and software.
    I am not for shutting down MS, they are a good company, but they 
are to big to be allowed to continue with the "buy them or 
ruin them" method of business.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely
    Marc Julian Infield
    Graphic Designer
    Small Business Owner
    Marc Infield 
    Geronimo Design fax: 707-667-2782
    601 Minnesota St. Ste. 118
    San Francisco, CA 94107
    415-285-5403



MTC-00002841

From: David Rogala
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Remedy
    To Whom it May Concern:
    This lawsuit speaks clearly to the open source and free software 
communities, as to how fair our government will deal with them. The 
Linux movement is a worldwide phenomenon, as Linux represents the 
absolute cutting edge of high technology. Please don't let this 
Microsoft deal go through, as it only strengthens Microsoft's anti-
open source and anti-free software movement. If Microsoft's proposed 
agreement goes through, the USA will lose its position as world 
leaders in the software arena, stuck with offerings handed down by 
Microsoft, while the rest of the world advances with the cutting 
edge Linux technology.
    The attached file, RHPR.doc, shows that Red Hat Inc., from North 
Carolina, is willing to substitue the Linux operating system and 
Linux-based Office Suite software to every school in America, and 
provide support longer than the time period offered by Microsoft. 
Red Hat is the world's leader in the Linux market.
    The attached file, Insmod.doc, is an article I wrote for members 
of the Court Reporting community, to which I belong. It shows how a 
court reporting firm can obtain a PC and network operating system, 
Internet connectivity and office suite software absolutely free of 
charge.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Dave Rogala



MTC-00002842

From: John Mier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:53pm
Subject: The Microsoft case (US citizen comments)
    I know Microsoft is very powerful. I know technology can very a 
very difficult and fast changing business to understand. But know 
this... By allowing Microsoft to "give away 1B to 
schools" is a huge victory for Microsoft. The one area it 
lacks total dominance.
    I don't care whom oversees this implementation, the bottom line 
is Microsoft products will be installed and used first.
    Microsoft knows what's its doing here. I hope you do too. I hope 
Microsoft doesn't have the Justice dept. in their pockets.
    John Mier
    Washington, DC
    [email protected]



MTC-00002843

From: Inglix the Mad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    __BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE__
    Hash: SHA1
    Dear Sir,
    I watched, with great interest, the developments in the case of 
US vs. Microsoft. I was not pleased to find out that, in the end, 
Microsoft will get yet another chance. Microsoft has proven time and 
again that the letter of the law matters little to it. They will 
continue their ways, unless you have a sharp set of teeth in this 
proposal, which I found lacking. I do not begrudge Microsoft the 
ability to generate money for itself and shareholders. I do, 
however, take exception at them manipulating and blackmailing users 
and manufacturers.
    Jesse J. Derks



MTC-00002844

From: Harrison Eddins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 1:57pm
Subject: Concern for our future. ...
    While deeply appreciative of the role Microsoft has played in my 
enjoyment of my computer, I think Microsoft knows that the free 
society is the best society. What is meant by democracy in the 
matter of business is that an atmosphere of competition, free of 
monopoly, be operative to produce the finest products at the lowest 
cost to the American people. Equally important is the fact that 
competion stimulates the development of a vast output of products 
which can help this

[[Page 24175]]

nation to stay ahead of the the stiff competition coming from many 
countries. If we allow one company to rule the roost, finally the 
rest of the world will catch up and surpass us. Let's keep Microsoft 
on its toes for we need everyone deeply involved in this pursuit of 
the best products for home and world consumption. Microsoft will 
become a better contributor to our society if it is not given unfair 
advantages. Why can the courts not have the vision to promote the 
best for our country? We have many great minds involved in the 
pursuit of excellence in the cyberworld. Let everyone working toward 
its betterment have a fair chance. We the American people, the 
economy of the United State of America and all the people of the 
world will be the beneficiaries if Microsoft is prevented from 
dominating the market and dumping its often flawed and imperfect 
products on us because the courts have decreed that it has the right 
to do so and others do not have the right to compete. Harrison 
Eddins, 726 St. Roch Ave., New Orleans, LA 70117



MTC-00002845

From: Nancy Bobs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/10 7:49pm
Subject: Microsoft found Gulity, but rewarded
From:
    J. Robert Suckling
    2904 Whitefield Rd
    Churchville Md. 21028
    phone: 410 436 2622
    email: [email protected]
    Dear US DOJ Rep.
    I was just reading about how Microsoft Won the anti-trust 
computer operating system monopoly case.
    It is true that the federal appeals court in June upheld the 
lower court ruling that the company used illegal tactics to maintain 
its Windows personal computer operating system monopoly. (quoted 
from Reuters news clip see URL below). But the result was they won, 
since the penalty was to do a thing that helps them build there 
illegal computer operating system monopoly.
    Any one knows if you teach the children to use products from 
only one vender, that this is a big win for that vendor. We need to 
find an alternative to this. One example comes from a Reuters news 
clip http://www.reuters.com/news _article. 
jhtml?type=businessnews &StoryID=391566
    Red Hat Inc. RHAT.O, the maker of the Linux http://
www.redhat.com operating system that competes against Microsoft, 
proposed on its own offering every school district in the country 
its own open source software free of charge, while encouraging 
Microsoft to spend its money on buying more hardware for the 
schools.
    If Microsoft was required to field computers running non-
Microsoft software this would teach your future that computers are 
not Microsoft. That there are other, even better computer operating 
system, then the mocrosoft product.
    So in this case the money should be spend on hardware, not 
simply turned into something that costs Microsoft, next to nothing. 
Since the software is already written, and making a few copys will 
cost the software giant peneys, on thousands and thousands of 
copies.
    Please see have it seen to that this illegal monopoly does not 
get away with self promotion, something they willing spend much more 
then this and do, as a punishment for being found guilty, in a most 
important court case.
    Open source software is the future. But Open source software is 
a gift. to the public, and private donators can not afford the PR 
budget that the monopoly can afford.
    Thank you



MTC-00002846

From: Michael Stowe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:02pm
Subject: Proposed "Settlement" With Microsoft
    Ludicrous! The very fact that the settlement allows Microsoft to 
displace two major competitors in the educational market as a RESULT 
of the settlement leads me to believe that the public interests have 
been set clearly aside.
    Microsoft should be penalized. The proposed settlement is a 
REWARD for Microsoft's illegal behavior.
    Michael Stowe



MTC-00002847

From: Mark Dalton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:03pm
Subject: Disappointment about the 'settlement'
    I understand the country is going through a lot of struggles. 
However, to not punish a monopolistic company for cheating 
consumers, businesses, goverment is irresponsible and showing the 
lack of justice and shows our current goverment will allow large 
business or monopolies to use power and money to change our 
govermental decisions. (Versus we the people).
    Not only were they not punished, but they were given a potential 
to get out of this with a even larger monopoly, but getting into the 
school systems. I understand the schools have a "choice" 
influenced by what they can get from Microsoft. The $1 billion is 
only a small part of what they have previously taken from people.
    They still have monopolistic licenses in place that don't allow 
dual boot machines to be sold by various manufactures. They have 
large issues with the obvious lack of security in their software. 
All you need to do is think 'e-mail virus' and that is 
the same as saying a Microsoft Bug.. since it is a VERY old concept 
that was explained is bad programming, back before Microsoft even 
understood the internet.
    Now they are supporting more issues that don't allow Open 
Standards or even what most used to call standards. (Standards used 
to be the protocol that was available to all, everyone had input on, 
and there was basically one standard. Versus the current model with 
Microsoft and the card manufacturers). It has held up technology, 
versus expanded it.
    They are supporting a effort that could reduce further 
competition by making it imposible to report bugs, security flaws, 
etc. so that we can get things fixed in a timely manner. And even 
worse is the discussions of laws that would make it very difficult 
to continue with innovative projects like GNU and the OpenSource 
world in general. No Microsoft did a nice job on their MSOffice 
(minus the internet explorer).
    And now with XP and MS.NET, I have further concerns. I hope 
something can be done in the future about past, present and future 
monopoly actions by Microsoft and other companies that use unethical 
tactics to get to a control position, then use their control and 
money to control goverment as well as, media.
    MS owns NBC. I believe they (or VPs/CEO) bought large parts of 
Apple so they would not go under just before the law suit went to 
the courts.
    Mark Dalton
    18552 Everglade Drive NE
    Wyoming, MN 55902



MTC-00002848

From: DEBO Jurgen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:04pm
Subject: Tip for better solution for the discussion
    Dear Justice Office,
    I am programmer for 20 years, and CEO of an IT company. My 
english is very bad, but it is the thought I wish to tell. For the 
moment there is a high focus on terrorism. But what huge terrorism 
doesn't we have on internet, or by software that is violating our 
privacy and our common data. We can not denyn, in future, we will be 
forced to switch over to open source software. When companies are 
doing E-Business, no company wants that statistics are made based on 
his activities, done by a software developer. When software is not 
open, you can not watch in the black box what is hidden behind. On 
the other side, companies needs to live from software. But it is 
widly known that microsoft software has a lack of security, a lack 
of privacy and that microsoft is sneeping inside computers. A good 
option would be that all elements communicating with the outside, 
like browsers, components, firewalls, e-mail clients etc should be 
open source by federal law. Just like the known history of PGP 
(Pretty good privacy) (It was and is still open source.) This should 
be a barrier arround the black box.
    Black boxes are fine for home use, but when they make outside 
communications, this is dangerous. So if there is still a kernal 
part running on themselves, without making communications, that's 
maybe ok for the moment, but communicating particles needs to be 
open source, that's our right of privacy, and protecting of our own 
data. Every communicating particle should be explained clearly to 
public what it is sending out, with a technical sheet, to verify if 
this is correct for (intrusion detection software, like the open 
source project www.snort.org) Secondly, every communication should 
have an identification header of the number of the CPU so it can be 
traced down by Law Organisations.
    Every sold CPU should be registered in a huge internet security 
company. That ID

[[Page 24176]]

should be integrated into the IP protocol, encrypted and coded with 
a high protection, and only viewable by those offices. This would 
identify malifious people, who doing all non-legal practices, like 
terrorism, abuse of children, drugs, hacking of computers, etc etc.
    Without those steps E-Commerce will NEVER be possible on a 
professional, worldlevel schedule. There are too much violations due 
to people who make profits of the gray zone of unknown, to be on 
internet and the gray zone of hidden gateways in our software.
    If my idea's are worthfull, please consider to invest in our 
directory engine as return for this information.
    Sincerely,
    Jurgen Debo
    CEO
    Belgian Directory
    The Guide www.guide.be



MTC-00002849

From: Rick Hansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:15pm
Subject: Comments on the proposed settlement of the Microsoft suite
To: U.S. Department of Justice
Subject:Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    A recent newsletter from Red Hat Linux asked Linux resellers to 
send comments regarding the proposed DOJ/Microsoft settlement to 
this address ([email protected]).
    I am the President of a small firm that is authorized to sell 
Linux and Unix. We are also a Microsoft Certified Partner. I am in 
favor of settling this matter as quickly and inexpensively as 
possible. Speaking as both a consumer and Information Technology 
professional, Microsoft continues to provide better and simpler 
solutions than other vendors.
    Rather than restrict competition, I now can obtain more non-
Microsoft solutions for operating systems and business applications 
than at any time in the past ten years.
    I believe that anyone who charges Microsoft with having unfair 
business practices is unfamiliar with the world of business. In my 
opinion, Microsoft's business practices are no more onerous those of 
other large firms. This includes firms in the IT market such as Sun 
and Oracle, and firms outside the IT market such as Ford.
    Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to express my 
personal opinion. Please feel free to contact me directly if you 
would like to discuss this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Rick Hansen
    President
    Arctic Systems Inc.
    (301) 384-8400x101
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00002850

From: Russell Kohn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:05pm
Subject: Don't Settle
    I am writing today in opposition to settlement with Microsoft 
Corporation and the terms as I understand them.
    My name is Russell Kohn. I am a resident of the city of Agoura 
Hills, California in the county of Los Angeles. I own a small 
computer consulting firm that is located in the city of Santa 
Monica, California, in the country of Los Angeles. I started the 
business in 1986 and we have employed between 4 and 8 people through 
the past years.
    In our office we have a mix of hardware and software. We use 
Microsoft software, Apple software, software from Red Hat and other 
suppliers. We used to resell hardware and software in addition to 
provide our consulting services. Now we are primarily a provider of 
custom software development services to small & medium 
businesses as well as the publisher of a small database utility for 
FileMaker Pro developers. Our consulting clients include both small 
businesses and household names including the William Morris Agency, 
UCLA, and Blue Cross. Our products are used by many consultants at 
many facilities including some DOD, DOE groups and at many major 
Universities.
    Over the years I have personally and repeatedly experienced 
incompatibilities with Microsoft software that would not have been 
tolerated from any other supplier nor maintained structurally within 
the channel without their monopolistic strength. This has lead to 
financial costs and inefficiencies that we don't experience in other 
areas of our practice.
    Any settlement that accomplishes further erosion of competitive 
forces (eg. the Education deal into market currently owned by Apple) 
or that does not institute real limits on Microsoft monopoly 
position would be a waste of time and a setback for the American 
people (as well as the rest of the world).
    Now is the time for government to play its regulatory role in 
this field.
    Sincerely,
    Russell Kohn
    Russell Kohn
    Chaparral Software & Consulting Services, Inc.
    429 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 230, Santa Monica, CA 90401
    (310) 260-1700 / [email protected]
    (310) 260-1701 fax / www.chapsoft.com



MTC-00002851

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:14pm
Subject: My opinion about the Microsoft anti-trust case
    To DOJ,
    I was disappointed by the settlement. I feel that Microsoft 
continues its anti-competitive practices and must be prevented from 
doing so.
    I honestly feel that breaking up the company was going to help 
bring more competition.
    Also, I believe it is the only thing Microsoft fears. I would 
not feel so harshly about the company if they had more stable 
products.
    Without competition, how do we get better software? They set the 
bar way too low.
    Herb
    Herb Rubin Pathfinders Software
    [email protected] http://www.pfinders.com
    phone: 650-692-9220 fax: 650-692-9250



MTC-00002852

From: J N Katzman-TCM
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern;
    The settlement in the Microsoft case is nothing more than a win 
for Microsoft. This gives Microsoft an even larger presence, and 
more free advertising and publicity than they could ever dream up by 
themselves. As a developer of software, I would be more than happy 
to develop something for the schools so that I might be able to have 
the opportunity to setup a longterm support contract to guarantee 
income for the rest of my life. Microsoft will have this kind of 
opportunity on a much larger scale.
    Giving the schools Microsoft products now, will only further 
entrench Microsoft's hold on the market. After all, these students 
will most likely only purchase Microsoft products since this is what 
they will be familiar with. This will carry on into the workplace, 
where these students will become the next generation of purchasers 
and descision makers
    Do not allow Microsoft to donate software as a 
"punishment". Convert the value to dollars and allow the 
schools to decide on the technology they need or want.
    Sincerly,
    Joel N Katzman
    TCM Integrated Systems, Inc
    Freeport NY



MTC-00002853

From: Harman, Tony
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/6/01 2:14pm
Subject: Get it over with_move on
    Enough money has been wasted over this and there really isn't a 
viable option to the suite of products Microsoft offers. I remember 
paying the extraordinary prices for competing software before 
Microsoft brought out a suite of products that were superior and 
much more cost effective. Go after the dot bomb companies instead 
and the bankers and executives who swindled money out of investors 
to buy them nice offices, fancy cars, high pay, and deliver no 
shareholder value! tony
    Tony Harman, President VR1 Entertainment
    5775 Flatiron Pkwy Suite 100, Boulder, CO 80301 phone 
720-564-1000 fax
    720-564-1090



MTC-00002854

From: rcaveney@ marketanswers.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:16pm
Subject: Make them pay_in cash
    I am surely not alone in insisting Microsoft pay in $cash, 
versus using this settlement as part of a marketing ploy. As it is, 
the settlement is way to lenient. This is an illegal monopoly!

[[Page 24177]]

    Also, I truly hope that Microsoft will have to be as open about 
their API's to others, as they are to their own developers.
    Robert Caveney/VP
    Market Answers
    1-408-275-7101 Direct
    1-408-275-7100 Main Number
    1-408-999-0931 FAX



MTC-00002855

From: LeRoy Hogan
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/6/01 2:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Monopolizing in Public Schools
    I am disgusted that you are letting Microsoft spread its 
monopoly further into the poorest of schools. Why don't you just 
fine them a dollar amount and give that to the poorest of schools 
instead of forcing Microsoft products down their throats.
    Roy Hogan



MTC-00002856

From: Paul DuBois
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:48pm
Subject: The anti-trust settlement *rewards* Microsoft
    The proposed anti-trust settlement under which Microsoft would 
donate software and hardware to school districts is a dream come 
true for Microsoft. Far from actually punishing Microsoft for its 
predatory and anti-competitive behavior, this proposal would do the 
opposite by helping it establish a foothold in one of the few areas 
where it is not the dominant player. In other words, the settlement 
*encourages* Microsoft to continue its past behavior.
    Whoever conceived this proposal clearly did not think it through 
very much.
    A better solution would be to tell Microsoft to donate *cash* to 
the schools, to let them spend on computing equipment as they wish.
    Paul DuBois
    [email protected]
    2805 Shefford Dr.
    Madison, WI 53719-1417



MTC-00002857

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:50pm
Subject: I don't Understand??
    You went through all this trouble, time, and expense to get 
"Microsoft" in and out of court and you accomplished 
nothing even though you've won. Got to Love our Legal System and the 
money mongering people associated with it.
    Could you please explain to me why all this money was wasted and 
what the "Nation" gained out it? This and the OJ case 
are the biggest jokes of this Nations Judicial System so far in my 
opinion. I think you'll have a hard time beating this one, but I'm 
sure you'll try.
    Steven Souchek
    Solaris Administrator
    Harvard-Smithsonian
    Center for Astrophysics
    60 Garden Street
    Cambridge, MA 02138
    http://missinco.hopto.org
    Tel: 617-384-7568
    Fax: 617-496-7500



MTC-00002858

From: Russ Underwood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:51pm
Subject: Please end the monopoly (s)
    The evidence is overwhelming, your own D o J found Microsoft 
guilty of monopolistic practices. Punishment should not be a 
toothless slap on the wrist. Windows must be unbundled with the web 
browser and media player for starters. I believe a break-up would be 
the greatest leap forward in software innovation possible, but I 
understand the political ramifications of this move.
    Innovation in the software arena has been stifled for many 
years. Few companies dare to enter into Microsoft's turf.
    Separately, Microsoft's proposed settlement of all of the 
private lawsuits (they must "donate" old PC's & 
software to schools) will basically give them a monopoly in that 
market as well. Microsoft has quietly spent billions on lobbying and 
campaign contributions.
    This is our only hope, prove that our government cannot be 
bought.
    Russ Underwood
    Communications
    Lockheed Martin Space Systems
    408-742-0933 voice
    1-888-916-2013 pg
    [email protected]



MTC-00002859

From: Scott Silva
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:54pm
Subject: Microsoft and the Public School system
    Letting Microsoft get out of its legal troubles with the 
donation of software to schools will leave a long lasting dependence 
to Microsoft software. It is similar to a drug pusher giving it away 
free until you can't live without it.
    I think public schools should go to some type of Open Source 
software. The hardware costs are the same, but the software costs do 
not skyrocket. Public schools need to spend less money on 
operations, not more money. Put the money into more teachers and 
books, and less money into Microsofts pockets.
    Scott Silva P.C Coordinator
    San Gabriel Valley Water Company
    626.448.6183 x296 Fax 626.582.1571
    [email protected]



MTC-00002860

From: Russell Schoech
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Class Action law suit
    I have been following along with this trial since its onset. I 
believe that these punishments applied to Microsoft in no way 
discourage monopolistic practices and indeed, encourage Microsoft to 
continue with these practices in a more aggressive manner. Why? 
Because a punishment of donating the company's overpriced software 
to schools is the most absurd form of punishment I could ever 
imagine. Indeed the creators of the Sherman Antitrust Act would be 
sick their stomachs about this proposed "solution". Not 
only is the punishment ridiculous and in no way encourages 
competition (being the entire point of this act), it would appear to 
the American public that this is in fact the complete opposite. By 
distributing their software packages for free allows for Microsoft 
to gain a further stronghold in the market by forcing children at 
these underprivileged schools to use their products. Upon maturing 
to an age where they will be obliged to purchase software packages, 
which packages do you suppose that they will choose.ones that they 
already know and have been forced to learn upon and indeed are 
already comfortable with or some other package?
    The American public knows that Microsoft has gotten away with 
the murder of unfortunate corporations, why doesn't the DOJ? Maybe a 
new trial to prove it again should be enforced. The people who seem 
to have been paid off could then line their pockets a little more. 
By the time that the DOJ finishes, there will only be fragments of 
once profitable corporations. Maybe they could combine their 
collective efforts into a unified company called Anti-Soft!
    Russell Schoech
    Instructional Technology Specialist
    Southwestern College
    888.684.5335 ext. 121



MTC-00002861

From: Dwight Sledge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft wins again
    Great move folks! Punish an anit-trust offender by allowing them 
to expand their stranglehold on the pc market by filling up the 
poorer school districts with their software products. Yes, the very 
same products they used to force vendors to use their products.
    How about making them spend their ill gotten gains to provide 
hardware that they do not make, or, make them provide the school 
districts with the amount of cash required to provide this hardware 
and software? The school districts would then be free to choose how 
to spend that money, the only stipulation being they must use the 
money for computers and software.
    Regards,
    Dwight Sledge



MTC-00002862

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,Red Hat
Date: 12/6/01 2:59pm
Subject: the micro$oft pension plan from red hat newsletter.
    "Not long after the DOJ settlement, Microsoft announced it 
had agreed to another settlement regarding a separate class-action 
suit brought against the company by numerous parties that alleged 
overpricing of Microsoft products.
    The settlement forces Microsoft to donate software, hardware, 
and services to America's poorest schools. Red Hat responded to the 
proposed settlement, pointing out that the settlement could simply 
introduce Microsoft to a market where they could further extend 
their monopoly. In its counter-proposal, Red Hat offered to provide 
free software to every school in America if Microsoft provided the 
value of its donation in hardware costs rather than its own 
software. "

[[Page 24178]]

    the first thing i thought of when i heard that micro$oft was 
giving hardware and software to poor schools was_let's make 
micro$oft a larger monopoly cause we at the DOJ have nothing better 
to do than take micro$oft to court every few years my school has 
over 500 computers and, even with an educational discount, upgrading 
the OS from micro$oft every few years on all those machines is very 
expensive, so you, the DOJ, are going to let micro$oft in all these 
poor schools that in a few years are going to need billions to pay 
for their OS upgrades, that we the taxpayers are going to subsidize, 
brilliant everytime micro$oft gives something away it only benefits 
micro$oft, no matter how much they say that "we're only giving 
the consumer what they want," well i don't want to pay into 
the micro$oft pension plan with my taxes unless the DOJ gets 
micro$oft to give the OS away for perpetuity, we the taxpayers will 
suffer, because, then, micro$oft could hold the educational system 
hostage to any upgrade micro$oft deems necessary at an enormous 
financial burden to the taxpayers when a school system decides upon 
an OS for the computers, they are making a choice, but when the 
taxpayers are forced to incur the debt of the poorest communities in 
the country for the largest monopoly in the country, we have lost 
our freedom of choice could our government be this stupid, it looks 
like it who said? "the bigger the lie, the more people will 
believe it"



MTC-00002863

From: Willes, Jeremy T, CCARE
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/6/01 3:00pm
Subject: Please don't give microsoft any more foothold in becoming a 
monop oly
    To Whom it May Concern:
    Microsoft proposal to provide schools with equipment and 
software seems to be a generous offer from one side.. But the other 
side shows most of the donation costs in software from their 
company.. This would truly give them a further foothold in becoming 
a monopoly.. By having Red Hat donate the software so Microsoft can 
quadruple the amount of computers given to schools is the best route 
for everyone.. The further we can promote other operating systems 
the better for everyone.. Competition provides better products and 
better prices..
    Thanks,
    Systems Admin
    Jeremy T. Willes
    AT&T, Sacramento
    (916) 431-0581



MTC-00002864

From: Harry Forster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft
    As an individual my rights to development were eliminated 
eliminated in the past by the behavior of Microsoft. I have moved to 
open systems and now I am able to develop the applications that I 
need. You may read into this that Microsoft has not been 
monopolistic and does not deserve corrective action. This is not 
true because my major problem will come when I try to implement my 
resultant applications. With Microsoft in complete domination of 
users I will not have access to them.
    Your actions so far have indicated to me that you (as a 
Washington establishment) want to provide for the dominant 
monopolist and ignore the rights of the individual developer. If it 
is your objective to cut off the intellect of individuals then you 
will have to live the resultant loss of creativity and productivity 
that comes from your actions.
    My work has been in the development of computer applications for 
education, in particular children with special needs. It will be 
your inability to provide me equal rights and equal access that will 
have brought about the future problems.
    CC:Red Hat



MTC-00002865

From: John Hare
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 3:00pm
Subject: Comments about Microsoft Settlement
    I'm disappointed with the settlement that allows Microsoft to 
extend their monopoly into schools now. If they are going to pay 
restitution, it should be in cash not product. Just my $0.02 cents 
worth.
    John Hare
    Luhala Group, LLC
    [email protected]



MTC-00002866

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am disturbed that the people that are supposed to be looking 
out for the welfare of the general population are allowing a 
monopolist to essentially escape prosecution without any significant 
penalty.
    I am VERY disturbed that Microsoft may be allowed to actually 
FURTHER their monopoly in the nation's schools under the guise of 
settling a class action suit.
    As far as we know, Bill Gates never had an original thought in 
his life, and has become extremely wealthy by A) making profitable 
use of other people's work B) being in the right place at the right 
time C) actually having SOME business sense and, mainly D) using 
unfair and unlawful business tactics to create and maintain a 
monopoly. Bill Gates SHOULD emerge from this action broke and in 
prison, not still holding title as the wealthiest man in the world.
    Further, although it has never been proven, I suspect that 
Microsoft DELIBERATELY leaves flaws in their operating systems to 
make sure everyone will want to upgrade (at considerable expense) 
when they release the NEXT flawed (but proclaimed to be MORE stable) 
version.
    If Microsoft is going to be allowed to settle any suit by 
providing something to schools, let's make it ALL the schools, and 
let Red Hat provide software for ALL the schools as they have 
offered to do at no charge, to keep the Microsoft monopoly from 
becoming even larger.
    Mitch Loftus
    Bolingbrook, IL



MTC-00002867

From: Paul Michael Reilly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 3:03pm
Subject: Opinion
    For what it's worth:
    My opinion is that Microsoft should be broken up into two or 
more companies. Both to correct predatory behaviors and to stimulate 
competition in the marketplace, something Microsoft uniquely stymies 
on a regular basis. From my perspective Microsoft has clearly harmed 
consumers by eliminating opportunities for new markets and companies 
to flourish.
    While I have this opinion, at the same time I am fearful that 
Microsoft has bought the Justice Department, lock, stock and barrel 
with the election of George Bush to the presidency. I send this 
opinion in the hope that my opinion does matter and Microsoft does 
get more than a slap on the wrist for inflicting major damage to our 
society in general and the technology business sector in particular.
    Sincerely,
    Paul M. Reilly



MTC-00002868

From: laurentm@ bechtel.Colorado.EDU@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 3:02pm
Subject: Settlement
    I wish to express my disappointment with the settlement you and 
other states have reached with Microsoft reagarding the antitrust 
suits filed against this company. Far from punishing Microsoft in 
any way, or preventing further monopolistic practices, this 
settlement seems to actually reward Microsoft. Please reconsider 
this settlement and insure that substantial, verifiable and strict 
restrictions are put on Microsoft and their dealings with computer 
vendors and competitive software companies. A lot is at stake here; 
please revisit this issue.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Sally Laurent-Muehleisen



MTC-00002869

From: McIntosh, Rick C.
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/6/01 3:03pm
Subject: Well, my option is simple. You had Microsoft cold, breaking 
anti-trust laws
    Well, my option is simple. You had Microsoft cold, breaking 
anti-trust laws as they pleased. No punishment. Not one dime in 
restitution to those they hurt. That is you victory? I think not. 
You guys suck. Go get a real job if you can't do yours. You did 
nothing. You slapped Microsoft in the face and showed Microsoft they 
can get away with anything they want. THANKS FOR NOTHING!!!!
    Rick



MTC-00002870

From: Crow, Richard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    Hello,
    I disagree with the settlement as I understand it. If Microsoft 
is allowed to give

[[Page 24179]]

Microsoft products to schools as restitution it will only further 
Microsoft's hold on the OS market. It reminds me of IBM 40 years 
ago. They made a real effort to get IBM mainframes into computer 
science programs at major universities.
    I think that it is more appropriate that Microsoft be fined. 
Then use the monies to purchase hardware and software. Make the 
software a mix of Windows, Macs and Linux.
    Thank you,
    Richard Crow
    Graham, WA



MTC-00002871

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft DOJ Lawsuit Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am the president of a small software company. I have worked in 
the software business for over 20 years and have watched with 
increasing concern the domination of the industry by Microsoft.
    Speaking as an entrepreneur, the dominance of Microsoft is 
preventing much new technology from being developed. Many promising 
avenues of research and product development have been terminated due 
to direct and indirect influence of Microsoft.
    The activities of Microsoft found to be illegal by the court are 
continuing, even accelerating. The settlement does nothing to 
address the behavior of Microsoft that caused the DOJ to sue in the 
first place. The settlement actually contributes to increasing 
Microsoft's dominance by requiring Microsoft to invest in increasing 
its market share by providing its products to schools.
    I cannot object more strenuously to the terms of the DOJ 
agreement. The industry needs more diversity rather than less. This 
deal will accelerate Microsoft's dominance. This will be bad for the 
US software business and cannot be in the country's or consumers' 
best interests.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Price
    President
    Peak Process, Inc.
    [email protected]



MTC-00002872

From: Larry Cullen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 3:06pm
Subject: The Microsoft monoply will continue.
    Dear Sirs,
    Any settlement with Microsoft should insure that hardware 
distributors must provide alternative operating system installation 
on PC hardware sold. It has been my experience that systems sold via 
Gateway, Dell, and other large distributors often include Windows OS 
whether you like it or not. Some hardware, such as Win modems and 
Win printers, won't work with anything but Microsoft Windows. I 
happen to use Linux at home and for users of this and other 
operating systems it's very obvious what a negative impact Windows 
has made regarding the availability of specialized hardware. 
Manufacturers have created devices that will only work with Windows 
or the drivers for these products only support Windows. Instead of 
engineering hardware to use generic and open architecture forms of 
connectivity, many companies form an alliance with Microsoft and 
produce products that have proprietary interfaces that only work 
with MS Windows. For OS/2, Linux, MAC OS-X and other operating 
system users, well, they're left out in the cold.
    We live in a capitalist society and the object of a company is 
to make a profit to sustain itself. Microsoft has crossed the line 
and gone several steps further by operating outside the law to 
compete unfairly. Microsoft should be punished for their past 
practices and somehow restrained from further illegal actions which 
would give them an unfair advantage against their competitors.
    I hope that DOJ won't cave in and let Microsoft off lightly with 
some symbolic slap on the wrist.
    Thank you.



MTC-00002873

From: Daniel Lerner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 3:06pm
Subject: proposed settlement further monopolizes microsoft
    The proposed settlement to allow microsoft to settle anti-trust 
proceedings by giving away its product to new market areas further 
INCREASES the microsoft monopoly!!! In my opinion it is a terrible 
settlement.
    The proposed settlement effectivly funnels microsoft product 
into a new market at the publics cost. They designed a tremendous 
marketing ploy to have the public foot the bill for further use of 
microsoft product because the public has no choice but to use more 
microsoft product under this settlement.
    Following are some settlement terms which make more sense:
    1) Microsoft must fully document and publish at no cost the API 
and all other interfaces to their products. This includes all file 
formats, XML structures, etc. They do not need to publish their 
software, only the means to interface other software and hardware to 
it.
    2) Provision 1 must be ongoing perpetually for new products and 
revisions of existing products.
    3) Damages to the market should be funded by cash or hardware 
provided for public use. The hardware should be standard, industry 
compatible product, which can run free software operating systems 
such as LINUX. Free office products are available from Sun's Star 
Office freeware.
    4) Damages should be further compensated by providing costs for 
public training classes in general computer use, communications, and 
operation of free software products. These classes should be 
supplied by free software companies, NOT Microsoft.
    5) Damages should pay for shipping, installation, and high speed 
internet connections for equipment.
    6) All computer purchases should have microsoft product 
unbundled from the hardware. Purchasers must have the right to 
purchase computer hardware without software, or with other alternate 
software products installed at clearly stated prices.
    The microsoft marketing and business strategy is very damaging 
to the computing industry due to coercive market practices and 
forced bundling of product.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel Lerner CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00002874

From: Gregg Givens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 3:09pm
Subject: User response to the Microsoft Antitrust settlement my in 
the long run. We'll end up stronger for it. Ask the europeans, 
japanese, and chinese why they are favoring Linux over MS 
windows._
    Gregg Givens_Systems Analyst
    Hollins University Computer Services
    [email protected] cases of using a strongly 
positioned Application helping Microsoft to compete unfairly in the 
Operating System arena. I would be willing to bet money that if we 
split up MS into two companies, there would be a Linux version of MS 
Office Suite within 6 months or less. It would be in the INTERESTS 
of the MS Applications division to do so. IT is NOT in the interests 
of the OS division_hence the problem. My contention is that 
splitting the MS corporation will actually be GOOD FOR THE AMERICAN 
ECONOMY, contrary to Microsoft's scare tactics. Microsoft seems to 
make oblique remarks implying that what is good for Microsoft is 
good for the American economy, and that impeding Microsoft's advance 
would damage the economy. In fact the exact opposite is true.
    Even though more efficient Operating systems such as Linux 
require less powerful hardware and might be less encouraging of the 
INTELs, AMDs, and other hardware vendors, the savings for EVERY 
OTHER COMPANY in America not having to buy new computers every 2 
years might help the other 90% of the American companies to make a 
profit. How much American Corporate profit goes into the land fill 
every year when they have to scrap their old computers. With more 
fair competition, maybe more Applications program designers will be 
encouraged to write more applications_even ones that compete 
directly with Microsoft's Application division. More competition in 
Applications and Operating systems might even make superior and MORE 
RELIABLE AND SECURE computer software, at a reasonable price. (I for 
one would look forward to days when the servers quit crashing 
periodically due to undocumented bugs in microsoft's OS. we have 
Linux and digital unix servers that have not had to be rebooted for 
most of a YEAR. We must boot our microsoft servers several times a 
month. I never even leave my MS windows 2000 desktop machine up for 
more than a day. I rarely if ever reboot my Linux desktop machine. 
Why do I keep Microsoft machines you ask ? Because our corporate 
execs DEMAND that we use Microsoft on the desktop. Not enough NON-MS 
OS applications available that the users are trained to use.)
    You may not realize that there are many people who are dismayed 
by the incredibly

[[Page 24180]]

weak response of the current administration to blatantly 
monopolistic practices by the Microsoft Corporation. Given the more 
vigorous legal efforts of the previous presidential administration, 
I don't feel it is completely out of line to question whether 
monitary influence during the presidential campaign could have 
something to do with the recent decision to abandon a bargaining 
position of strength against the Microsoft corporation in favor of a 
settlement that is actually weaker than that being presented by 
Microsoft ITSELF prior to the judicial finding of monopoly. At the 
very least, the current regime in the Department of Justice has some 
explaining to do against the APPEARANCE of impropriety.
    Excluding that issue, we have the result in the marketplace 
itself. In the past, Microsoft has demonstrated a history of making 
every effort to avoid any previous remedies that the court has 
attempted. Either they have ignored the remedy completely or they 
have complied in the most minimal and unsatisfactory way to adhere 
to the letter of the law and avoid the spirit. Since the initial 
attempts to curb their behavior, Microsoft has only succeeded in 
gaining more unfair leverage and destroying more of their 
competitors. Don't be fooled that this was only the activity of the 
market. I have already outlined many ways that MS uses its Desktop 
OS monopoly to boost market share of its applications. Now that its 
Office Suite of Applications is stronger (due to the unfair leverage 
of its OS), it can use the Applications to help the OS maintain its 
position of dominance in the desktop.
    If the USDOJ expects that further litigation will not be 
fruitful in curbing MS's monopolistic practices that HURT the 
consumer AND THE ECONOMY, then perhaps other government agencies can 
attempt another avenue for the remedy. I have heard that the Federal 
Trade Commission may have jurisdiction and enforcement powers that 
could be brought into play. Does the BUSH2 administration have the 
guts and desire to seek real enforcement of powerful remedies for 
the monopoly finding of the courts ? Are they too timid and fooled 
by Microsoft's scare tactics to attempt such a thing ? At this time, 
NOTHING could hurt the economy worse than it is already. You might 
drive a few stocks like Microsoft and Intel down for a short while 
if a strong remedy is attempted, but the long term benefits of 
increased competition and more efficient use of hardware resources 
(caused by better written Operating Systems such as Linux) could 
only help the US econo
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00002875

From: Ramsay Jr, William M
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/6/01 3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    You must be joking or have very serious campaign contributions 
lined up if you think that the Microsoft settlement is fair and 
just. I have been a software engineer for 25 years and have used MS 
development products from the beginning. All the bad things people 
say about them is true.
    They do not innovate_they stifle. Many times I have tried 
to do things that MS software does only to be told by their support 
that it can't be done. Their newest offering, XP, is not just more 
of the same_it is worse. They want to 'own' the software world 
and with your help they probably will.
    William Ramsay
    Polaroid Corp



MTC-00002876

From: Jeff Hass
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 3:10pm
Subject: Is this for real?
    How can you let a company like Microsoft get away with what is a 
nothing penalty? This is a company, I assure you, that plays very 
serious anti-competitive games.
    This is a decision, like many this liberal organization has made 
that will hurt every single American. This is not good... and no one 
has won. It's a cave-in.
    Nothing more, nothing less.
    Jeffrey Hass
    One day, one day!



MTC-00002877

From: Tom Garlick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:57pm
Subject: Concerned citizen against monopolies and unfair business 
practices
    To Whom It May Concern,
    Since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit found that Microsoft is a monopoly and acted illegally to 
maintain that status, a settlement based on the distribution of more 
Microsoft software seems truly ironic.
    The assumption that Microsoft software in particular benefits 
schools "to prepare students for the business world" is 
not necessarily on target. One goal of technology education at the 
K-12 level aims at teaching software concepts, rather than 
vocationally training students on particular programs. That is, the 
same lessons can be learned from any "office suite" or 
via any "web browser" or on any "operating 
system" to adequately prepare students.
    A true "public benefit" the settlement could provide 
would be to give the choice to schools, not Microsoft. For example, 
Microsoft could provide generic resources (e.g. cash, equipment, 
etc.) that leave the schools free to choose their own software 
technology.
    Thank you.
    Tom Garlick
    A concerned citizen against monopolies and unfair business 
practices.
    San Francisco, CA 94112
    415-584-5533
    [email protected]



MTC-00002878

From: Michael Sprague
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement seems more like a reward
    I am amazed at the approach DOJ seems to be taking in the MS 
case. The software is crappy, and yet is now possibly being given 
out to our nation's young people, in the form of self serving 
donations from MS to fiscally challenged schools.
    This can only serve to advance the product further, into markets 
that the company might not otherwise ever see.
    Giving computers to schools is a noble cause. Making them use 
the same software published by MS is ironical.
    Isn't the forced bundling the issue that started this whole mess 
in the first place?
    To me, a better solution would be:
    1. Make MS give hardware only, and take advantage of the offer 
from Red Hat or any other reputable OS vendor so inclined to donate 
Linux or another OS to run the computers. or, better yet-
    2. Make Microsoft pay cash money in the billions to 
disadvantaged schools and let the schools decide where to spend the 
money. To me, letting MS off the hook, and in a sense actually 
rewarding them for their reprehensible past actions (remember the 
decision? GUILTY of monopolistic practices) is not going to make 
anyone outside the MS family proud to be an American. I expect it 
would bring shame to many inside MS as well, knowing that they have 
twisted the justice system to their own ends.
    Make me proud.
    Michael Sprague



MTC-00002879

From: Liebrecht@gateway@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 4:13pm
Subject: Please
    To the DOJ.
    On behalf of Accudry Moisture Measurement: accudry.org 
accudry.net
    Please do not allow monopolies as entrepeneurs such as myself 
are disabled by allowing one company to control 90% of the world 
market. One big bee can make a lot of honey......if it so wishes and 
when it wishes, but what we rather want is a hive of honey-makers 
for stability. Each bee presents a different flavor but in the end 
it is shared. Please enforce competition and make the playing field 
fair. Entrepeneurs cannot continue the American dream under a 
monopoly. If Microsoft is allowed to succeed with their current 
strategy, then many will follow the example.
    Liebrecht Venter
    Accudry



MTC-00002880

From: Mark D. Hendricks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 3:21pm
Subject: Microsoft in schools
    Letting microsoft give software and hardware to schools is a 
very bad idea for many reasons.
    1. It builds another generation of americans that think 
microsoft is synonymous with computing.
    (Using Word and Excel is NOT computing_using gcc is!)
    2. It allows microsoft to extend their monopoly to those 
vulnerable.
    3. It allows microsoft a huge advantage to promote their 
products.
    4. Microsoft already has a huge stranglehold on business and 
colleges
    5, Homogeneous systems are vulnerable. (viruses, worms etc.) If 
anything, microsoft

[[Page 24181]]

products should be banned from all educational facilities, so that 
young peoples' minds are not fingerprinted with microsoft's concept 
of what computing is... that way they could learn to develop their 
own ideas and systems which would eventually lead to some 
competition for microsoft_not to mention some quality 
software.
    Maybe the best thing to do is to make Microsoft buy a piano for 
every school in the country_they don't become obsolete and 
music has been proven to have an impact on learning, where computing 
has not... The decision to not break up Microsoft is terrible, 
Microsoft has effectually killed off all desktop competition and is 
a monopoly that appears to have brain-washed the Judicial System of 
this country. Letting Microsoft continue operations without 
punishment eventually will doom this nation's software industry, 
because having no choice kills development.
    In fact Microsoft hasn't had an idea of there own in 15 
years_and has continued to steal ideas, but who will it steal 
from when all of the competition is out of business?
    Mark _
    Mark D. Hendricks, WebDevSysAdmin
    UNL IANR CIT DEAL LAB, 003 ACB UNL E. Campus, Lincoln, NE 
68583-0918
    Voice: 402.472.4280 Fax:402.472.0025 PGP key: http://
deal.unl.edu/keys/
    Email: [email protected] UN-email: 
[email protected]



MTC-00002881

From: Jon Scally
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/6/01 3:16pm
Subject: Anti-trust settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I was more than a little shocked that the Department of Justice 
would settle the anti-trust suit, in which it was clearly shown that 
Microsoft had used monopolistic business practices taken to the 
extreme, with something that is significantly less than a slap on 
the wrist. Microsoft has in the past, and continues today to use 
illegal monopolistic business practices. The punishment should fit 
the crime! Microsoft should be required to divest itself of all 
operations not directly related to it's operating system. This was 
one of the original, and in my opinion the best, possible 
consequences for their so blatantly breaking the laws of our 
country. I would like to go on record as strongly opposing the 
current settlement as it does not address in any way the behavior 
Microsoft exhibited (and again, continues to exhibit).
    Thank You,
    Jonathan Scally



MTC-00002882

From: Larry Clements
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 3:19pm
Subject: Sanctions
    The latest release of MS's new O/S should indicte to you they 
are not going to pay too much attention to any lawsuit brought by 
your or by the AGs of the states. They are going to increase their 
monopolistic practices.
    They feel they are too big to be bothered by rules and 
regulations.
    Larry Clements
    Ojai, CA



MTC-00002883

From: B. Spyra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 3:22pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    my name is Bart Spyra & I am briefly writing to you to state 
that I oppose the proposed settlement where MS would donate its own 
operating system along with hardware to schools in America. The 
reason behind my opposition is that I believe that this is just 
another means by which MS will be able to gain market share. This 
case was about anti-trust and MS was found guilty. Now it seems that 
instead of recieving a punishment they are recieving an award for 
their crimes. Now MS can legally put its competitors out of business 
as a "punishment" for illegally doing so. It just makes 
no sense whatsoever.
    On the other hand I do support the idea of helping schools and 
giving those that are less fortunate a better chance in life. Thus, 
in my opinion I believe that MS should give the schools hardware of 
equalent value as the software that they were originally going to 
offer. Red Hat has already offered to provide their open source 
Linux operating system free of charge to any and/or all schools in 
America if MS was to provide the hardware. This will support not 
only the schools and children, but will provide a fair punishment to 
a company that has been found guilty of seven counts of anti-trust.
    Thanks in advance for your time & God bless.
    Bart Spyra
    *ps remember that Red Hat is an American company as well. 
Therefore, by supporting them you are also supporting America, 
American technology and innovation.



MTC-00002884

From: Rubin Bennett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 3:10pm
Subject: Proposed Settlement of Microsoft Antitrust case
    I would like to share my thoughts regarding both the DOJ Final 
Judgement, and RedHat, Inc's response to Microsoft's proposed 
penalty phase.
    First, I applaud the DOJ for your handling of this case. I agree 
with RedHat's point that the "penalty" phase of the 
judgement must not be used to further Microsoft's monopoly presence 
in any market, be it schools or otherwise. At the same time, I 
applaud Microsoft for their ostensibly giving spirit. I think it 
would be a fine thing if Microsoft wanted to donate PC's to schools. 
I believe, however, that the PC's should not come with a 
"Microsoft only" clause.
    Asking Microsoft to put in additional monies in lieu of the 
price tag of the software, however, is not realistic and the folks 
at RedHat know it. Software licenses are essentially a "zero 
cost" item_that is, once the operating system is built, 
the owner of the copyright can make an unlimited number of licenses, 
and the only additional cost to them is the paper that the license 
is printed on. Therefore, asking Microsoft to convert "zero 
cost" licenses into PC's on a dollar per dollar basis is quite 
unrealistic.
    Taking the argument one step further, while I firmly believe 
that Microsoft must not be allowed to extend their monopoly by 
donating their product to schools, they must also not be required to 
further their competition (isn't fairness in business practices the 
cornerstone of this case?).
    So I propose the following:
    Enter a monetary figure as part of the judgement against 
Microsoft. Let Microsoft donate the computers, minus an operating 
system. The value of each system will be debited against the total 
judgement amount. If they wish, they may include as part of the 
settlement a budgeted amount for each system that may be spent on an 
operating system and installation. If the OS comes in under budget, 
then the total value of the donation will be adjusted appropriately. 
The total must not go over the allotted budget. This amount will 
also be debited against the total value of the judgement.
    If RedHat wishes to install their OS at no cost, (another fine 
gesture) so be it- the cost of the system to Microsoft (and the 
amount debited against the total judgement amount) will reflect only 
the cost of the hardware.
    Obviously, Microsoft may not "mark up" any portion 
of the system (hardware or software). A penalty is not supposed to 
be a source of profit.
    Thank you for taking the time to read this message.
    Rubin Bennett
    Rubin Bennett
    President,
    Complete Connection, Inc.
    (802) 223-4448
    [email protected]
    http://www.completeconnection.com



MTC-00002885

From: Bill Kasje
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 3:49pm
Subject: Where's the beef?
    Despite the best intentions of the DOJ to punish Microsoft I 
don't see this settlement having much impact. I am a member of the 
hightech community with no axe to grind with Microsoft, having never 
competed directly with them. I have used their products for years 
and will continue to use them. But based on the verdict in the case 
I would have expected something more enforcable and dramatic. I'm 
not suggesting the breakup of the company, but perhaps requiring 
Microsoft to make Windows opensource. Unless something like that 
happens, Microsoft will be able to avoid competition because of its 
control of the OS. I don't believe the spirit of the settlement, as 
it is currently written, has a chance of being implemented.
    Best regards,
    Bill Kasje
    Mirapoint, Inc.
    [email protected]
    (408) 720-3733



MTC-00002886

From: Matt aka joker
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 24182]]

Date: 12/6/01 3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    Oh great. Let's find Microsoft guilty of being a monolistic 
corporation and then punish them by granting inroads to the one area 
that they didn't have their stranglehold on...Schools.
    Apple holds the current top spot for school computer supplies. 
Yeah, I bet Microsoft is just crying in a corner about the 
punishment they have to endure. Come on people, extending 
Microsoft's reach is hardly a way to cut them back
    Matt Snyder
    "My car seems to run better when it has gas in it."



MTC-00002887

From: Matt aka joker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    Oh great. Let's find Microsoft guilty of being a monolistic 
corporation and then punish them by granting inroads to the one area 
that they didn't have their stranglehold on...Schools.
    Apple holds the current top spot for school computer supplies. 
Yeah, I bet Microsoft is just crying in a corner about the 
punishment they have to endure. Come on people, extending 
Microsoft's reach is hardly a way to cut them back
    Matt Snyder
    El Paso, TX
    "My car seems to run better when it has gas in it."



MTC-00002888

From: Nancy Bobs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/10 7:49pm
Subject: Microsoft found Gulity, but rewarded
    From:
    J. Robert Suckling
    2904 Whitefield Rd
    Churchville Md. 21028
    phone: 410 436 2622
    email: [email protected]
    Dear US DOJ Rep.
    I was just reading about how Microsoft Won the anti-trust 
computer operating system monopoly case.
    It is true that the federal appeals court in June upheld the 
lower court ruling that the company used illegal tactics to maintain 
its Windows personal computer operating system monopoly. (quoted 
from Reuters news clip see URL below).
    But the result was they won, since the penalty was to do a thing 
that helps them build there illegal computer operating system 
monopoly.
    Any one knows if you teach the children to use products from 
only one vender, that this is a big win for that vendor. We need to 
find an alternative to this.
    one example comes from a Reuters news clip http://www. reuters. 
com/ news_article. jhtml?type = businessnews& 
StoryID=391566
    Red Hat Inc. RHAT.O, the maker of the Linux http://
www.redhat.com operating system that competes against Microsoft, 
proposed on its own offering every school district in the country 
its own open source software free of charge, while encouraging 
Microsoft to spend its money on buying more hardware for the 
schools.
    If Microsoft was required to field computers running non-
Microsoft software this would teach your future that computers are 
not Microsoft. That there are other, even better computer operating 
system, then the mocrosoft product.
    So in this case the money should be spend on hardware, not 
simply turned into something that costs Microsoft, next to nothing. 
Since the software is already written, and making a few copys will 
cost the software giant peneys, on thousands and thousands of copys.
    Please see have it seen to that this illegal monopoly does not 
get away with self promotion, something they willing spend much more 
then this and do, as a punishment for being found guilty, in a most 
important court case. Open source software is the future. But Open 
source software is a gift to the public, and private donators can 
not afford the PR budget that the monopoly can afford.
    Thank you



MTC-00002889

From: Dan Wessol
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    If Microsoft has been found in violation of the anti trust 
provisions of the US statutes then the "rule of law" 
must be applied (fairly) as it has in previous case history. 
Additionally it would seem reasonable that GSA procurement of ADP 
should require interoperability of all software applications. This 
would greatly benefit both the industry and the consumer and would 
discourage future violations of the anti trust laws in this domain.
    Dan Wessol
    INEEL-Montana State University EMAIL => 
[email protected]
    357 EPS Bldg / CS Dept VOICE => (406) 994-3707
    Bozeman, MT 59717 FAX => (406) 994-4376



MTC-00002890

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 3:54pm
Subject: I think that the settlement proposed by the Department of 
Justice is essentially
    I think that the settlement proposed by the Department of 
Justice is essentially a complete capitulation to Microsoft. They 
have used their monopoly power to standardize inferior, bug-ridden 
software in market after market. Only by breaking up the company can 
this behavior be eliminated.
    Samuel Neff



MTC-00002891

From: Sherwood Botsford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 3:57pm
Subject: Proposed discipline for Microsoft.
    I have several possible actions that DOJ could take against 
Microsoft:
    Alternative 1: MS be required to license their software free of 
charge to any group that can demonstrate that:
    A. It is a recognized charity under the laws of that country.
    or
    B. It is a reconnized not for profit educational establishment 
under the laws of that country.
    This agreement would be binding on MS forever. Such licensing 
would not enable the recipient to technical support other than 
access to MS's web site. It would not include media and manuals, but 
would not prevent the user from duplicating media and manuals on 
their own. Microsoft could charge a reasonable charge for media and 
manuals.
    Alternative 2: Microsoft be forbidden to sell an OEM version of 
it's operating systems for a period of 10 years. That is, a computer 
seller would not be able to preinstall any Microsoft OS. Only the 
final owner could break the shrinkwrap. (Much like the tags on 
mattresses and sleeping bags.)
    This would have the effect of increasing the chance for 
competative operating systems to get a foothold.
    Alternative 3: Microsoft be split into two companies, one 
selling operating systems one selling software packages. The two 
companies would not be allowed to any directors in common. Any 
present shareholder owning more than \1/10\ of 1% of the outstanding 
shares would have 1 year to divest themselves of one of the two 
companies. (This insures that they are separate companies.) For a 
period of 5 years, no consulting company could do work for both 
companies.
    One of the resulting companies would be required to move outside 
the Seattle Metro area within 3 years.
    Alternative 4: Any person who can demonstrate that they have 
purchased any version of a MS operating system at any point in the 
past either by showing:
    A. Original installation disk or CD
    B. Original license agreement with serial number.
    C. Itemized sales receipt.
    Be entitled to an upgrade anytime within the next 5 years to 
whatever OS they choose from MS's line at the time. This would be 
subject to a small media and shipping fee: Maximum $20



MTC-00002892

From: BISHOP-BROWN, PAT (HP-Corvallis,ex1)
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/6/01 3:59pm
Subject: The Microsoft settlement.
    This is an excerpt from a recent Red Hat newsletter:
    "The settlement forces Microsoft to donate software, 
hardware, and services to America's poorest schools. Red Hat 
responded to the proposed settlement, pointing out that the 
settlement could simply introduce Microsoft to a market where they 
could further extend their monopoly. In its counter-proposal, Red 
Hat offered to provide free software to every school in America if 
Microsoft provided the value of its donation in hardware costs 
rather than its own software." As an independent developer, I

[[Page 24183]]

wondered the same question, How does allowing Microsoft to inject 
their products into the public school system penalize them?
    Apple has used the academic field as their introduction point 
for decades, to their profitable benefit.
    Making Microsoft distribute the alternatives systems and 
software would be a penalty.
    Pat Bishop-Brown



MTC-00002893

From: Paul Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 4:00pm
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement?
    Dear Sir
    From what I can make out, this is not a settlement, it is a 
whitewash. Microsoft has acted in a monopolistic manner and it has 
not been punished nor has it been prohibited from acting in a like 
manner again. It has even, cynically, offered US schools product 
with which to indoctrinate the consumers of the future.
    The original judgement which split the company into an operating 
systems part and an applications part would have offered the world 
real options. Yes my life a an IT Manager has been greatly 
simplified by the Microsoft monopoly in the same way as my 
predecessors was made easy by the dominance of IBM. However, I 
operate an mix of Windows and Unix machines. If the applications 
part of Microsoft was broken from the operating systems part, the 
applications would then be developed on all platforms, creating 
competition and flexibility for the users.
    If this so called settlement is seen to be upheld, what hope 
does the common man have against the largest companies that can even 
buy their own justice?
    Kind regards
    Paul Williams
    IT Manager
    Leamington Spa
    England



MTC-00002894

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 4:01pm
Subject: Microsoft "remedy" inadequate
    I was VP of R&D at a computer security company and were 
strongly considering producing a version of one of our UNIX-based 
product for Microsoft windows because of strong interest from 
existing customers. We decided against it, with Microsoft's history 
of predatory practices being the crucial factor in determining that 
the development effort was too risky.
    Each of our senior executives had experience at previous 
employers with Microsoft's predatory behavior towards partners, 
potential partners, and independent software developers. From what I 
can tell, the proposed settlement does nothing to change Microsoft's 
anticompetitive behavior_the few "remedies" appear 
to be easy for Microsoft to evade.
    Public Policy issue: Because of Microsoft's practices, there is 
a much narrower range of computer security tools for Windows 
platforms than for UNIX variants. This results in Windows platforms 
being more vulnerable to attacks (as has been amply demonstrated 
recently) which leads to substantial economic losses.
    Douglas B. Moran
    790 Matadero Ave
    Palo Alto, CA 94306-2734



MTC-00002895

From: Jerry Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Suit Settelment
    Dear Sirs,
    I think that Microsoft should be slimmed down to JUST their 
operating system and all Applications should be in seperate 
companys.
    In this way all Applications that would use their Windows 
operating system would be equal on a level playing field.
    This is just my two bits,
    Jerry Smith_been in computers since 1962.



MTC-00002896

From: Billy Stephens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 4:06pm
Subject: Mistake
    As far as I'm concerned, this settlement is the DOJ trying to 
sweep Microsoft's illegal tactics and the fact that they have broken 
the law under a rug. Allowing Microsoft to spend some money and 
extend their monopoly even further doesn't give them any incentive 
to stop their illegal tactics.



MTC-00002897

From: Opnotic
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 4:50am
Subject: Thanks anyway DOJ.
    Not only has control of our country fallen into the hands of 
Corporate Interest, but it seems that we (as citizens) are powerless 
to do anything about it. This case only shows that the real people 
running this country are the corporations themselves. Thanks anyway 
DOJ. Your solution to the problem in this particular case is not a 
solution at all. Guess we'll all realize that when we are willing to 
take another real look at the problems with 
Microsoft._Predicted to happen within 5 years. I guess all I 
can say is I wish us luck next time because doubtless we will be 
here again.



MTC-00002898

From: Bob Perdriau
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 3:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement_Not
    I read your settlement document.
    The company (Microsoft) was found to be a criminal. There is no 
doubt about that. Last I looked, criminals in this country are 
punished. Sent to jail, fined and stuff like that.
    Your settlement is bullshit. It does not matter that you think 
the government saves time and effort. The role of the government is 
to prosecute anyone that breaks the law.
    That includes Microsoft.
    Potential savings of time and effort and a "decent " 
outcome don't matter. Microsoft broke the damn law! They have to be 
punished. Do it and do it now! Else, you make a mockery of justice 
in this country. There are too many other instances where the US is 
mocking justice these days.
    BTW, the idiots that wrote the crap you published in the Federal 
Register don't know anything about real computing. The authors are 
idiots that merely know how to use Microsoft Word to type a really 
uninformed letter.
    You can contact me at:
    Bob Perdriau
    354 Benvenue Avenue
    Los Altos, CA 94024
    (650) 941-1043
    [email protected]
    If you give a shit.



MTC-00002899

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 3:28am
Subject: Antitrust Settlement cut with Microsoft
    Simply placing well defined restrictions on Microsoft has never 
and will never keep this company from using it's monopolist power to 
squash competetion. I know it, the Public knows it, the Industry 
knows it, and YOU know it.
    Microsoft always finds a fuzzy path around any restrictions put 
on it by the government. At this moment in time it already basically 
owns the desktop computer software market and soon will control most 
of the way information is passed around on the Internet. Windows XP 
is a perfect example of Microsoft thumbing it's nose at the 
government and it's market competitors, yet the DOJ ignores or 
chooses not to understand how it will further Microsoft's monopoly 
hold on the tech sector.
    I personally believe that the DOJ has sold out to 'big 
business'. The DOJ's 'deal' with Microsoft is a 
disgrace.
    Regards,
    Tony Thedford
    Dallas, TX. USA
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00002900

From: Mark_ Morton@ Mikronvinyl.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 8:12am
Subject: 4 words_YOU SOLD US OUT!!
    Justice? heheh ... right ... Its burns 
my ASS that we cant get those dollars back to feed kids. Even though 
it wouldnt be american children, it would be some other pour nation 
of the week, like Afghanistan right now ... and justice 
for all.
    Mark Morton



MTC-00002901

From: Alan Martello
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/5/01 8:33am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am outraged that the same company that has monopolized 
operating systems and desktop application development for the past 
10 years is being granted, courtesy my tax dollar and the U.S. 
Government, a new monopoly in our school systems.

[[Page 24184]]

    Clearly, most of the people negotiating the deal have never sat 
*FOR DAYS STRAIGHT* (4 days this past week) in front of a Microsoft 
operating system trying to perform a relatively simple task which 
simply can't be done due to poor planning on Microsoft's part. 
"But in our free market economy" (I hear the critics 
charge), "this would change as market forces would propel them 
to make changes."
    *NOT WHEN YOU HOLD A MONOPOLY*
    And just in case their stranglehold on desktop operating systems 
is not strong enough, let's allow them to put $1 Billion dollars of 
their product in our schools.
    ... oh, and by the way ... let's see 
... if the OS + Microsoft desktop apps (Word, Excel, 
etc.) costs (conservatively) $500 retail BUT the CD and distribution 
material costs them (in quantity) around $0.25 (seems reasonable 
since I can get 1,000 CD's manufactured for less than $1 each), that 
means their $1 Billion settlement is worth \1/2000\th of that or 
$500,000 in real cash (not "lost sales", REAL CASH!).
    Let's see ... perhaps Bill G., Steve B. and Paul A. 
can set aside a hand in their weekly poker game to cover the 
settlement. $500,000 is a pretty small sum to buy a government 
sanctioned monopoly in our schools.
    Do the people negotiating the DOJ settlement honestly thing this 
is a good idea?
    At a minimum, the $1 Billion settlement to benefit schools 
should be for HARDWARE ONLY which each school district or state 
should get directly. In that way, Microsoft can't use it's $1 
Billion hardware purchase to put the screws to local vendors or make 
a sweetheart deal with one of the big multi-national hardware 
companies that Microsoft routinely is discovered in bed with making 
backroom marketing and distribution deals.
    In closing, let me add that my company has made its livelihood 
using Microsoft products for almost ten years. While they do bring 
some useful offerings to the marketplace, their unembarassed 
attitude as they strongarm the industry has resulted in my working 
LONGER HOURS for LESS MONEY because of INFERIOR MICROSOFT PRODUCTS. 
Any significant competition is simply silenced by driving them out 
of business. Is there any other defintiion of a monopoly?
    I feel outraged and frustrated that it is going to take the EU 
to show the DOJ what backbone is about when it comes to negotiating 
with the world's largest software monopoly.
    Alan Martello, Ph.D.
    President
    Martello Associates Inc.
    5575 Pocusset Street
    Pittsburgh, PA 15217
    [email protected]



MTC-00002902

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 4:12pm
Subject: Settlement
    Gents,
    I am squarely against any settlement in which Microsoft benefits 
from its predatory practices. Microsoft continues to be a predator 
and such a proposed settlement rewards, rather than punishes 
Microsoft for past deeds. A punitive arrangement would have 
Microsoft buy Macs for the poorer schools on OS X. Even better, 
Linux on standard PC platforms. Linux is already free_make 
Microsoft buy and maintain the hardware. That's punitive. Rewarding 
Microsoft by extending their monopoly into poorer sectors of 
education is dumb. If I refuse to pay income taxes will the DOJ 
punish me by making me tax exempt? Where do I sign up?!
    Cheers!
    Tom Farrand



MTC-00002903

From: Keith Bellows
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 4:10pm
Subject: DOJ/Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    By forcing Microsoft to give away it's software free to anyone 
does nothing more than perpetrate the monopoly that Microsoft now 
cherishes. This does nothing more than play into Microsoft's hands.
    Please I implore you to think this through before rendering a 
decision of this magnitude. Most people do not care how a computer 
works only that they can use it. Microsoft's O/S product offerings 
are substandard and very buggy. Yes the latest releases are better 
but let me point to the simple worms and virus that are continually 
being released which take advantage of Microsoft Windows 
vulnerabilities. These issues have been with the software for years, 
Microsoft claims to develop patches for them but NEVER does fix the 
real problem.
    By forcing schools to use Microsoft offerings because they are 
free would be a huge disservice to those schools and in my opinion 
puts the Gov't in the back pocket of Microsoft. There are tangible 
alternatives to Microsoft for Operating Systems (O/Ss) as well as 
applications that are low cost or no cost. It has been my experience 
that as often as not that the free or low cost software works as 
well if not better than the Microsoft alternative. Allow these 
schools the opportunity to use what they want for an O/S.
    What the schools really need is the Hardware and not some 5 year 
old junk computers that can barely run under today's requirements. 
If you feel that Microsoft needs to give away something then force 
them to buy Hardware for these schools!
    I live in Washington and am in the technology industry, any kind 
of judgement that is worth rendering could affect our economy. I say 
do it, the law is the law and Microsoft broke it. If the products 
the company offers are as good as they say they are they will be 
continue, in a true and free market, to be a leading technology 
provider. Let them prove themselves against real competition.
    Sincerely Yours,
    Keith Bellows
    Keith Bellows
    Sr. Technician
    Technical Support Engineering
    http://www.itron.com
    Itron Inc.
    2818 North Sullivan
    Spokane, WA 99216
    509.891.3621
    "Knowledge to Shape your Future"



MTC-00002904

From: Allen Akin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    [Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It 
has been converted to attachment.]
    784 Palo Alto Avenue
    Palo Alto, CA 94301
    December 6, 2001
    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    In the interest of saving time, I'll begin with an executive 
summary. If those conclusions are all you need, you can skip the 
discussion.

SUMMARY

    The proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case is 
unacceptable, for at least the following reasons:
    1. The prohibitions in section III are appropriate and well-
intentioned, but suffer from loopholes that allow Microsoft to 
achieve the effect of the prohibited conduct through other means.
    2. Additional constraints are needed to cover other areas which 
Microsoft uses to protect and extend its monopoly.
    3. The Technical Committee as envisioned in the proposal is too 
weak to carry out its duties effectively.
    4. The duration of the settlement is too short.
    5. There is no penalty for Microsoft's illegal conduct. Without 
such a penalty, there is no reason to expect Microsoft (or other 
offenders) will avoid similar illegal conduct in the future.
    6. A truly effective settlement requires much more stringent 
action now, in order to discourage more Microsoft conduct that is 
damaging to consumers as Microsoft expands into Internet commerce, 
entertainment, news, and reference information, as well as acting as 
a repository for vast amounts of personal data.

DISCUSSION

    Concerning the provisions of Section III:
    III.A is ineffective, because the volume discounts specifically 
allowed in III.B can be structured so as to make competing platform 
software economically infeasible. Microsoft has used similar tactics 
(e.g. per-CPU licensing) against competition in the past.
    III.C will be ineffective as long as Windows continues to be 
structured so as to promote Microsoft products and services 
automatically and continually, no matter what changes an OEM may 
have applied to startup screens and menus. This technique is 
ubiquitous in Windows XP. (Try it; you'll find that the constraints 
in III.C.3 are already obsolete.)
    III.D. To the extent that MSDN is a for-fee subscriber-only 
service, it is not acceptable as a distribution mechanism for the 
documentation described in this section, because the fee schedule 
and processing of subscription requests are subject to abuse. 
Microsoft has exploited precisely this technique in the past. 
Guaranteed open

[[Page 24185]]

distribution, without fee, via a website, using data formats that 
are defined by non-proprietary specifications, would be a better 
approach. Also, it's not clear that the definition of "Timely 
Manner" is truly timely; a better one might be based on the 
completeness of the APIs involved, rather than the beta test of an 
entire operating system product (which will not necessarily be in 
synchronization with the development of many of the APIs) .
    III.E. The definition of "Communication Protocol" is 
appallingly weak in a technical sense, leaving provision III.E 
essentially meaningless. The key requirement that you should be 
targeting here is that Microsoft must provide sufficient 
documentation for a third party to develop compatible non-Microsoft 
software for any software component participating in a transaction. 
A traditional network communication protocol may be a part of this 
process, but it can also be be made totally irrelevant, thus 
circumventing III.E.
    III.F. Due to the loopholes afforded by III.F.2, it is not clear 
that there are any cases in which III.F.1 could be enforced. Also, 
III.F.1 specifically does not include critical Microsoft products 
such as Office, which are also used as instruments of retaliation.
    III.H. The provisions of III.H.2 are excellent, however the 
loophole provided subsequently (in the second instance of III.H.2) 
renders them meaningless. Microsoft can designate irrelevant, but 
proprietary, functionality as a technical requirement, thus shutting 
out competing middleware. As an example, only a few weeks ago it 
blocked competing browsers from accessing msn.com on grounds that 
were later revealed to be specious.
    III.I. This provision seems carefully designed to sabotage so-
called Open Source software projects, which require the freedom to 
implement standards without royalties or sublicensing restrictions. 
If this provision is adopted as proposed, it could eliminate much of 
Microsoft's potential competition at a single stroke. As mentioned 
above for III.E, the key requirement here is that third parties 
(including Open Source developers) be able to develop compatible 
components for use in a Microsoft-based framework.
    III.J. By invoking this provision, Microsoft can easily undo the 
effects of III.D, III.E, III.H, and
    III.I. The conditions under which Microsoft can do this may seem 
well-defined legally, but they are unsound in a software-engineering 
sense, and thus render much of Section III moot. This is a large 
topic which I would love to discuss at more length, but time does 
not permit that here.
    Concerning issues not mentioned in Section III:
    There is essentially no relief with respect to Microsoft Office, 
a critical tool Microsoft uses to maintain and extend its monopoly 
power. At the very least, the data file formats and data exchange 
protocols used by Office must be available under terms similar to 
those of the Windows Platform APIs. Otherwise, initiatives such as 
.NET (which involves tight integration with Office) will simply 
obsolete the provisions relating to the Windows Platform.
    Similar comments apply to .NET itself.
    Concerning the Technical Committee described in Section IV.B:
    IV.B.2. TC members are required to be "experts in software 
design and programming," but cannot be employed by Microsoft 
or "any competitor" to Microsoft, and cannot 
subsequently be employed by Microsoft or a competitor. Given the 
scope of Microsoft's presence in the industry, you may find it 
difficult to find any software expert who is not employed by 
Microsoft or a competitor. Even academic institutions could be 
construed as competitors if they are involved with Open Source 
software development, as is often the case.
    IV.B.3. Microsoft selects one TC member, who then has one of two 
votes in selecting a third. If there was ever a case of the fox 
guarding the henhouse, this is it. I can imagine few more effective 
ways to render the TC toothless.
    IV.B.9, IV.B.10. The lack of transparency in TC operations is 
disturbing. There is no way for outside entities (including parties 
who may have been wronged by Microsoft anticompetitive conduct in 
the future) to determine whether the TC is acting in good faith or 
even is well-informed.
    Concerning the duration of the settlement:
    Reviewing the past history of anticompetitive behavior by 
Microsoft, it is clear that five years is far too short a term.
    Concerning penalties:
    It is ASTOUNDING that the proposal does not include a meaningful 
penalty for Microsoft's past behavior. The inadequacy of the 
proposal must be obvious from this alone. Through illegal actions, 
Microsoft has destroyed dozens of other companies that were true 
sources of innovation in the industry, artificially maintained (and 
in some cases even raised) high costs to consumers, and extended its 
monopoly power in PC operating systems to acquire other markets. To 
allow this behavior without consequence is clearly negligent.
    Concerning the context of this case:
    Today Microsoft enjoys nearly total dominance of the personal 
computer software market.
    Whether or not it achieved this dominance in a legal manner, it 
has been convicted of maintaining its monopoly illegally. It has 
certainly shown by its attempts to manipulate legal and political 
systems that it has no compunction about applying its ruthless 
competitive techniques in other venues.
    Consider that Microsoft already has presences in other 
significant areas of American life: news distribution (MSNBC), 
entertainment (XBox), history and reference documents (Encarta). 
There have already been concerns about Microsoft abusing its power 
in some of these areas (particularly rewriting history in Encarta).
    Consider that Microsoft is moving (through .NET) to establish a 
central control of business transactions throughout the Internet, 
and (through Passport) to a central control of personal credit and 
marketing data.
    In most of these cases it is leveraging (in the non-legal sense) 
its monopoly to obtain critical advantages against competitors.
    Consumers have already incurred significant damage from 
Microsoft's behavior. If we do not act now to establish an effective 
firewall against future illegal and unethical activity, I have no 
doubt that Microsoft will extend its influence to ever larger 
markets, while reducing the ability of consumers and of governments 
to limit its abuses.

CLOSING

    In sum, I believe the proposed settlement would not be effective 
in constraining Microsoft's behavior, and probably would encourage 
future violations of law, as Microsoft would be aware that such 
violations carry few consequences. Perhaps we will find ourselves in 
court once again, after Microsoft has used its monopoly illegally to 
destroy yet more innovative companies; sabotage additional open, 
public standards; and establish more chokeholds on consumer access 
to digital information and services. Perhaps we will not, because 
next time Microsoft will have learned to manipulate the government 
as effectively as it now manipulates the computer industry.
    Sincerely,
    Allen Akin
    Cc: California Senator Dianne Feinstein California Attorney-
General Bill Lockyer



MTC-00002905

From: Lana Weed
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoft [email protected]. 
gov@inetgw,...
Date: 12/6/01 2:24am
Subject: Microsoft punished for violating the law_must be 
tough
    To all of the Attorney Generals,
    Please do not let Microsoft off with such light punishment. They 
knew what they were doing and are showing the world, with enough 
money and guts you can bluff your way out of anything. They are 
still grinding up business after business in the same egotistical 
way they did in the past. They crush competition by getting into 
that market and with so much money in the war chest are monopolizing 
even more. They are now doing browsers, service providers, software, 
television, what is next? Maybe here in Seattle I will soon be 
working for MS Boeing!!!!
    They did the crime, its time they did the punishment. Its your 
job to set it up according to the law, so they and others won't 
again. If you are too soft it gives them and everyone who will copy 
cat a green light to try it again.
    Sincerely,
    Lana Weed
    10308 42nd Ave NE
    Seattle, Wa 98125



MTC-00002906

From: Jeff Silverman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:04am
Subject: Comments on the settlement with Microsoft
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I am told you are interested in public comment on how the DoJ is 
handling the Microsoft case. So, in a caring and respectful way, I 
want to tell how I feel about it. You caved.
    You beat them in the court of popular opinion, and you beat them 
in Federal Court, and you beat them at the Supreme court.

[[Page 24186]]

They lied under oath, and they still lost. Why did you stop? Where 
is the gusto, the passion for justice, the mantle of protecting the 
people from a big, bad, greedy corporation?
    Was it the Bush administration watching out for its corporate 
constituents? I hope not, because a lot of Microsoft's victims are 
also companies. They have spend much much more on software that 
doesn't work, and people to support the software that doesn't work. 
I can't tell you how many hours I've wasted in the past year trying 
to get technical support from my friends at Redmond. Those hours 
come out of the bottom line. Was it a bribe, such as a Microsoft's 
offer to cover the states legal fees if they would drop the case? 
Was it the events of September 11th? Was it a lack of computer 
expertise? God, I hope not: there are thousands of computer experts 
all over the world that hate Microsoft with a passion and would leap 
at the opportunity to help you.
    I could easily bore you with all sorts of reasons how and why 
Microsoft software is awful and unoriginal: I'm a computer expert. 
Are you interested? Start at my web site, http://
www.commercialventvac.com/jeffs/OS_comparison.html
    Sincerely yours,
    Jeff Silverman
    Jeff Silverman, PC guy, Linux wannabe, Java wannabe, Software 
engineer, husband, father etc.
    See my website: http://www.commercialventvac.com/jeffs
    [email protected]



MTC-00002907

From: Lana Weed
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoft [email protected] 
@inetgw,...
Date: 12/6/01 1:54am
Subject: Microsoft punished for violating the law_must be 
tough
    To all of the Attorney Generals,
    Please do not let Microsoft off with such light punishment. They 
knew what they were doing and are showing the world, with enough 
money and guts you can bluff your way out of anything. They are 
still grinding up business after business in the same egotistical 
way they did in the past. They crush competition by getting into 
that market and with so much money in the war chest are monopolizing 
even more. They are now doing browsers, service providers, software, 
television, what is next? Maybe here in Seattle I will soon be 
working for MS Boeing!!!!
    They did the crime, its time they did the punishment. Its your 
job to set it up according to the law, so they and others won't 
again. If you are too soft it gives them and everyone who will copy 
cat a green light to try it again.
    Sincerely,
    Lana Weed
    10308 42nd Ave NE
    Seattle, Wa 98125



MTC-00002908

From: Maurice Bauhahn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 4:16pm
Subject: Extremely disappointed with impunity granted Microsoft
    The recent rulings concerning Microsoft did not seem to indicate 
justice is going to be done. This company does not operate by the 
normal rules of competition. It does whatever it likes ... and we 
computer users are (increasingly) the poorer for it. Its increasing 
license charges reflect its monopolistic status. Many innovative 
competitors have been forced from the scene by its monopolistic 
status.
    As far as I am concerned ... you have not done your job!
    Sincerely,
    Maurice Bauhahn (US citizen)
    2 Meadow Way
    Dorney Reach
    MAIDENHEAD SL6 0DS
    United Kingdom
    Home Tel: +44(0)1628 626068
    Work Tel: +44(0)1932 878 404
    Web: http://www.bauhahnm.clara.net
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00002909

From: Bob Hyland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 4:16pm
Subject: My Views
    I work in the Information Sciences field and generally believe 
that Microsoft is a solid company that they follows ethical business 
practices. However, in a few instances, I believe they have stepped 
over the line.
    In general, I believe that if a company provides a better 
mousetrap (in this case, an operating system that actually delivers 
integrated services) then they should succeed and prosper. Some 
people would argue that Microsoft produces mostly marketing, and 
that the "mousetrap" itself is inferior. I think this 
argument misses the point.
    However, Microsoft has been heavy handed in a few instances. 
They are known for signing deals with companies, gaining access to 
proprietary information and then developing their own product with 
that insight gained. Examples include: OS/2 _> Windows 3.0 
and Sybase _> MS-SQL. These helped establish 
Microsoft's monopoly. Before this time period, Microsoft was a bit 
player.
    Now that Microsoft does have a strong hold on the market, I 
believe it is important to ensure that Microsoft do not use their 
position to crush the competition. For instance, if Microsoft began 
including, free of charge, Microsoft Money with their operating 
system, how many people would purchase Quicken?
    Intuit represents a $1.3 billion company with over 6000 
employees that Microsoft could snuff-out relatively easily.
    Finally, if Microsoft does step across the line and harm another 
company, I believe that they need to have a strong message sent to 
them that this behavior will not be tolerated. This is why I believe 
that any forward-looking agreement must include automatic provisions 
for future transgressions, and that these provisions need to be 
scary. Sample scary provision: forfeit 50% of gross revenues for 
each quarter during which the company engages in . A $3 Billion-plus "Sword of Damocles" will 
get the attention of their board and their stockholders (of which I 
am one).
    The bottom line: I believe companies need a great deal of 
freedom in order to generate revenue and value, and thus stimulate 
the economy. And, if they can compete successfully and become huge, 
that is great!
    However, we do need to keep a close eye on these giants such 
that they do not adversely affect competing companies and the 
customers they serve.
    Bob Hyland, PMP
    14 Berry Oaks Lane
    Glendale, MO 63122
    [email protected]



MTC-00002910

From: Alva Anderson W5VCJ
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    [Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It 
has been converted to attachment.]
    CC: aanderso.cw@verizon. net@inetgw,Roger Anderson
    To whom it may concern:
    There has been a lot of talk in the past few years about 
"monopolistic" practices by Microsoft, and I'd like to 
address these from a slightly different viewpoint than what you may 
normally hear expressed. First, let me state that I am in no way 
associated with Microsoft, nor any of the defendants or 
complainants, nor do I own stock in any of the companies that I am 
aware of participating in the suit. As a final disclaimer, I am not 
a lawyer, nor have I been privy to any special information about the 
case. However, I am a software engineer that has programmed under a 
variety of operating systems including Windows, various UNIX, and 
many others over a span of some thirty years.
    We have heard it said that Microsoft has a monopoly in the 
operating systems software market, and that the simple fact of 
promoting its own operating systems amounts to ,'monopolistic and 
anti-competitive practices". This argument is seriously 
flawed, and flies in the face of historical fact.
    The various operating systems known collectively as 'UNIX' began 
in the mid-sixties. It has evolved over time to become one of the 
finest operating systems ever produced. Because if its proprietary 
nature, and Federal actions that prevented AT&T from marketing 
it openly, several "versions" based loosely on the 
original code were developed by a number of entities. Until the 
early 1990s, both the hardware requirements (memory & disk 
space) and software licensing (price) requirements had kept it out 
of the "mainstream" desktop market. A claim could also 
be made that the technical expertise required to install, administer 
and maintain it were prohibitive for most potential users. So, in 
the early 1990s, a consortium was formed to standardize the system 
API, and simplify the installation and maintenance of UNIX. However, 
due to a number of factors (called competition) on the part of Sun, 
Novell, the X Consortium, and others, the effort never resulted in a 
serious market penetration in the personal desktop market.
    In early 1984, Apple computer introduced the Macintosh and Lisa 
computers. This

[[Page 24187]]

computer system was a quantum leap forward for personal computer 
users, and, as the court is well aware, heralded a new ease in 
operating systems for home PC users. However, this also was 
proprietary operating system, and even the hardware interface was 
closely guarded (legally) by Apple Computer. It is interesting to 
note that when the Macintosh made its debut in January, 1984, most 
of the applications that ran on it had been development by Microsoft 
under a contractual arrangement.
    I believe Microsoft could see the handwriting on the wall, and 
immediately set about developing its own system that could compete 
with the GUI interface of the Apple Macintosh. When I first saw this 
machine in May or June of 1984, I immediately bought one of the Macs 
and enrolled as an Apple Certified Developer. Like Microsoft, I 
realized that this GUI interface was the "wave of the 
future".
    Then, in about 1991, a Norwegian student, Linus Torvalds, began 
developing a "free" UNIX clone as a consequence of his 
graduate thesis on Intel 80386 memory management. This operating 
system, now known as Linux, was not based on any of the original 
UNIX code, and was brought under the umbrella of the Free Software 
Foundation's "Copyleft" licensing scheme. What is the 
point of all this? The point is that the various versions of the 
Windows operating system have succeeded not due to any monopolistic 
practices by Microsoft, but by what I believe is gross incompetence, 
greed, mismanagement by Microsoft's competitors, and, perhaps most 
importantly, by the choice of the consumer!
    In the industry, it is generally agreed that Microsoft Window 
was not a viable commercial product, nor for business nor on the 
desktop, until the introduction of Windows 3.0 in mid- to late-1991. 
What happened to all the competitors' products during that time? Why 
did they not make any progress on the desktop? Sun had been in the 
UNIX market for at least all of the 1980s, and 'X' (the 
UNIX GUI interface now licensed by the X Consortium) had been around 
for years. Apple had practically mismanaged itself out of existence, 
tied up tens of millions of dollars in lawsuits against Microsoft 
and others, and tried to "live on its laurels". And this 
does not even cover the other companies like Commodore that, in some 
cases, had superior operating systems, viz. the Amiga. So what 
happened?
    Competition happened, and the consumer spoke. Microsoft won 
convincingly, in an open market. Is Windows a "superior" 
operating system? Not in my opinion. It is one of several operating 
systems I use at home, but my heart is in UNIX. Let's look at what 
is available.
    The cost of licensing UNIX software is prohibitive for home 
users. While Sun had a period of time where they "gave 
away" Solaris 7 for the x86 environment, the cost of their 
compilers are $3000 and up. And where are all the applications? The 
cost of Adobe Framemaker is at least $1000 per seat, and most of the 
other application software is likewise prohibitively expensive. Most 
of this software is targeted to the business market, by choice of 
the manufacturer. In other words, they have chosen to keep their 
prices high, or disregard the home market.
    The promise of Linux (and Free-BSD and others) may never be 
realized in the home market, though it has made_and continues 
to make_real progress in the server market. Companies like 
RedHat have created "distributions" that make the 
installation of these UNIX clones available to the desktop user. 
This operating system software was "free" (to RedHat and 
others), meaning they do not have to pay any licensing fees. Since I 
like UNIX, I really like this system, but it does not have the 
dearth of applications that make an operating system popular, and it 
is just barely usable by most non-technically savvy users. While 
Adobe experimented with a beta version of Framemaker for the Linux 
market, it decided not to market it. Why? It is my belief that 
management either could not find a way to get customers to pay 
roughly $1000 per seat, nor could they find a way to reduce the cost 
of a product without conflicting with the per seat cost to their 
business customers. In other words, their price would have to come 
down to an affordable price. Nor have they apparently felt it 
desirable to port their other desktop applications to the Linux 
platform. In addition, there is competition between the GUIs used 
for the desktop in Linux: Motif, XFree86, GNOME, or KDE. With this 
kind of confusion, who could blame the consumer_or Microsoft?!
    The are, of course, thousands of applications for the current 
version of the Macintosh. But, where Microsoft tries to maintain a 
backward compatibility with application vendors (not always 
possible), the Apple Mac history has been one of changing 
architectures, higher prices, "evangelism" to lure and 
keep consumers, and non-compatibility even with their own products. 
So, what is the complaint against Microsoft? Is it that they gave 
consumers what they demanded, and that they gave it to them for a 
price that they willing to pay while others were not? Are we to damn 
Microsoft for building an empire that the others had a chance to 
build, even with a head start of a decade or more, but did not or 
could not build? In my humble opinion, what we are seeing is the 
result of pure greed and envy on the part of Microsoft's 
competitors, and a desire to force consumers to pay more by 
throttling Microsoft.
    There are many things that Microsoft has done that I do not like 
nor agree with. But I am NOT forced to buy their operating system. I 
can get Sun Solaris, OSI, BSD, Linux, Mac OS-X, ad infinitum, 
but I cannot get them for the same price as Windows XP, nor any of 
the other Microsoft operating systems. More importantly, I cannot 
get the applications that I want on most of the other platforms. Is 
this what Microsoft is to be "punished" for?
    If the court_i.e, you_decide that any company is to 
be punished for its virtues, you enable the incompetent, the second-
handers and the moochers to lay claim to all that they could not or 
would produce. This is a slap in the face of morality, and one which 
Nature will not allow the United States to get away with. The court 
can choose which values it wants to protect, but it cannot escape 
the consequences of that decision. If it chooses to reward and 
protect individual effort, a free market, and the right to act on 
one's own decisions, then it acts to protect "traditional 
American values".
    If, and only if, Microsoft has threatened its vendors or 
competitors, which would make the contracts null and void under [at 
least] ICC 201(g), should the court take action against Microsoft. 
On the other hand, if the court finds that Microsoft has not done 
this, it should send the complainants packing "with 
prejudice"
    Thank you for the courts' consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Alva Anderson, Jr.
    219 Martin Drive
    Wylie, TX 75098-4847



MTC-00002911

From: Foerster, Scott
To: 'microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/6/01 4:17pm
Subject: my opinion
    Microsoft needs to separate products into these categories: 
applications
    GUI Manager (like) GNOME GUI (X11) operating system
    Microsoft should not be allowed to come out with new application 
unless it runs on the top three GUI and GUI managers.
    Microsoft should not be allowed to release any more operating 
system version upgrades (products that are seperately named, 
advertised and licensed) until they produce GUI/GUI manager that 
runs on the top three operating systems value added resellers (those 
that sell hardware and software combinations) should be allowed to 
control desktop advertising. Operating system vendors and/or GUI 
vendors should not allowed to be able to control context 
(advertising icons)
    Scott Foerster
    Senior Network Engineer
    Advantage Sales & Marketing
    410.715.6672
    Columbia Maryland



MTC-00002912

From: Lee Pauser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 4:27pm
Subject: [Fwd: MS vs DOJ]
    To whom it may concern,
    Below is my comments regarding the proposed Microsoft Antitrust 
settlement:
    1. The settlement (like the previous settlement) does not punish 
Microsoft for its past transgressions. It is has monopoly powers, 
and abuses them.
    2. Giving software to schools is a low cost item to Microsoft 
because it doesn't cost much to burn another CD. It also helps 
entrench their products, and hinders competitor's products.
    3. Years ago I bought a Dell computer. I wanted to buy it 
without Windows because I ran IBM's OS/2, but was told that I would 
have to pay more if I didn't get it with Windows. (Does this make 
sense???) So I bought it with Windows for a lesser price, and then 
formatted the hard disk, and installed OS/2. Effectively I had to 
buy Windows, but I didn't want it. This settlement in no way 
punishes Microsoft for

[[Page 24188]]

their consumer unfriendly licensing agreements, nor reimburses me 
for my having to buy Windows.
    4. When I bought Window/ME, it included Internet Explorer, and 
other applets which I don't want. I use Netscape, and always have. I 
am being forced to have IE when I don't want it. The other applets 
that Microsoft includes are shallow in function, and I purchase more 
robust products when I need them. However, I pay an increased cost 
for things that I don't want.
    5. Microsoft has a practice of initially providing new applets 
for free_e.g. IE and their multimedia player. (It cost 
Microsoft $10million to develop IE, and they gave it away for 
'free'_Over charging for other products made up the $10 
million.). This practice either hinders or drives the competition 
out of business-e.g. Netscape, Apple Quicktime, RealPlayer. Later 
the applet gets included in their OS-Windows/W2k/XP. We need to keep 
the OS and applets separate products, and let me buy what I want/
need. (If I buy a car, I can get an after market CD player if I want 
to_I don't have to buy the manufacturer's CD player.)
    6. This settlement is a farce, and is a political 
solution_not a solution mandated by the antitrust laws.
    7. The judge overseeing the settlement is inexperienced and 
unqualified for an antitrust case of this proportions.
    8. Microsoft claims to be innovative_they are very 
innovative at developing ideas of others, and masking unfair their 
trade practices.
    9. What is good for Microsoft is not good for the nation.
    10. I urge the remaining 9 states, and the EU to aggressively 
pursue a settlement worthy of Microsoft's flagrant behavior.
    Thank you for hearing me out. I have little faith left in the 
court system, and that my comments will sway any decision.
    Leon Pauser



MTC-00002913

From: Scott Bicknell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Class-Action Settlements
    Please explain how letting Microsft distribute thousands of 
copies of its software to our nation's schools, which amounts to 
nothing more than a way for Microsoft to extend its monopoly, 
punishes them for monopolistic behavior.
    In the interests of full disclosure, you should make public 
exactly what software you use to run your computers.
    Scott Bicknell
    815 Creek Dr.
    San Jose, CA 95125
    (408) 266-9692
    Linux never goes down on me.  . .
    . . . even when promised dinner and a movie.



MTC-00002914

From: Derek Meek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 4:30pm
Subject: Settlement Will be ineffective
    Bill Gates is a smart man, I'll give him that. Smart enough to 
produce the even more proprietary Windows XP while in court for 
anti-trust.
    Also, you may want to investigate companies like Qwest possibly 
getting kick-backs from Microsoft for only supporting their 
products_for example the Intel PRO/DSL 2100 Modem which is 
licensed to Qwest and no linux drivers_and when you call qwest 
or intel about that they give you the run around. Why allow the 
monopolist to continue to strangle the american public with their 
far inferior operating system by doing things like this_and 
also attempting to proprietorize internet protocols, etc. Linux and 
other operating systems are more robust, more servicable, 
customizeable, interoperable, etc.
    What you have done his slap Mr. Gates on the hands and have done 
NOTHING to him_you have not weakened his monopolistic 
position, or changed his behavior, he continues to behave in a 
mopolistic manner, and will continue to do so until he no longer has 
the market share that he doesn't deserve. The only way to remedy the 
problem is compulsatory support for Linux operating system for all 
hardware manufacturers and major software firms_including 
microsoft with their Office and other software suites.
    Derek "Kazan" Meek
    "God is dead."_Nietzsche
    http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/babylon/
    Founder Alliance Productions
    Programmer: AP FreeSpace 2 Kit, AP Red Faction Kit
    http://alliance.sourceforge.net
    UT: ZEB Clan Web Coordinator



MTC-00002915

From: Derek Meek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 4:32pm
Subject: Oh of further comment
    By allowing microsoft to spend $1 billion dollars to put 
computers running their OS in the schools of america you are HELPING 
them be a monopoly by putting the poorest schools in the country in 
monopoly lock! You shuold consider Red Hat Software's proposal that 
Microsoft purchase the hardware and Red Hat provides the operating 
system and support.
    The general population lives with Microsoft Windows because they 
do not know that there is something better out there, linux.
    Derek "Kazan" Meek
    "God is dead."_Nietzsche



MTC-00002916

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 2:57pm
Subject: software donation
    To the Department of Justice:
    Please rethink the proposed settlement. Microsoft will further 
extend its grip on the U.S. computer market by indroducing its 
software into poor schools. This will provide further incentives for 
third party developers to develop only for the Microsoft platform, a 
key factor in Microsoft's stranglehold on the computer market.
    Sayre Swarztrauber
    CEO
    Quadlogic Controls Corp
    New York, New York 10010
    (Manufacturer_user of Linux servers and Windows desktops)



MTC-00002917

From: Richard Kelsch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/6/01 4:41pm
Subject: Microsoft government payoff
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft's anti-trust violations 
amounts to a joke. I understand some may think it may be good for a 
lagging economy, but those with those misguided thoughts have 
forgotten why those anti-trust laws were made. They were made to 
protect commerce and competition. It is common knowledge, not just 
judicial precedent, that their business model is to stomp on all 
competition by numerous illegal or barely legal marketing practices 
that only a financial behemoth could afford to do long enough to put 
the competition out of business. (they see a good product, copy that 
idea and make it part of their operating system on the next OS 
release). They have not innovated or invented any technologies they 
currently claim as their own. All have been duplicated in operation 
and function as their competition was marketing as a separate 
software product, or the competing company has been absorbed into 
the Microsoft software devouring machine.
    Microsoft giving free systems and products to schools 
essentially gives a whole new generation of computer uses 
indoctrination to Microsoft products and not a healthy environment 
of alternatives. What you have essentially done was assist Microsoft 
in their next underhanded move. How many other competing companies 
can afford to give free products to schools and such without a major 
hit to their ability to make a profit? This same technique is what 
made Microsoft the over powered beast it is today.
    A world without a big Microsoft behemoth that squashes all 
competition and extorts huge licensing fees from it's already locked 
in customers and instead many competing companies with competing 
products makes for business and a healthy economy. This country was 
founded to allow the little guy the ability to live the American 
dream, not to give a far too powerful corporation the ability to 
literally control the market (with strong arming and bullying) they 
are supposed to compete in.
    I don't see how you think saying "bad boy" and it's 
business as usual, is going to help our economy? Punish companies 
like Microsoft that abuse our capitalistic system by quashing 
competition. Restore competition and you'll restore the economy to a 
healthy state.
    My final words are this analogy: "What if the computer 
world were likened to the automobile world? What if there was only 
one major car manufacturer in the world setting and making all of 
the standards for the industry? Let's assume you demanded high 
licensing fees to just be able to drive that car each year? The only 
competition was various "kit car" groups making 
specialized and higher quality cars, but unable to compete with the 
big monopoly which stomps on those that try to compete with

[[Page 24189]]

 them. Some of these small groups may make money making special 
addons to increase performance on the monopoly's vehicles. A CEO at 
the monopoly likes these addons, they reverse engineer the addon or 
extort the rights to the addon from the small company (by 
threatening to release one anyway to compete with them or sell to 
them now to save them time) and offer the addon as a standard 
inclusion in their next model car and then claim the car wouldn't 
work without it."_That's Microsoft if they were a car 
company.


Thank you for your time,

Richard Kelsch

Supporter of Capitalism



MTC-00002918

From: Lou Guerriero

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 4:44pm

Subject: I believe the DOJ settlement with Microsoft is a farce.

I believe the DOJ settlement with Microsoft is a farce. Microsoft should be 
broken up, and the browser should be seperated from the Operating system. 
It can be done manually, and I HAVE done it many times on every version of 
their OS.

Microsoft's claims to the contrary are complete fabrications, and 
indications of their utter disregard for the truth.

Microsoft eats up or destroys any competition. They DO make standards, 
which is good. But they smother innovation. All they ever do is add bloat 
to their programs, and provide little new in the way of stability for their 
premier product, Windows.

Microsoft's settlement will do nothing. Change that. Seperate their 
business lines.

Regards,

Lou Guerriero



MTC-00002919

From: Paul Kagan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 4:45pm

Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case Settlement

To whom it may concern (if anyone),

I am dismayed at the terms of the Federal Government settlement with 
Microsoft. Microsoft has shown itself to be possibly the most voracious 
monopolist since the start of the industrial era, yet the settlement seems 
to contain neither punishment nor cure. Bill Gates has often claimed that 
his company has provided the engine for driving down the price of 
increasingly powerful computers. This is plainly not true. While Intel, 
Motorola, AMD, and other American innovators have brought us faster and 
more powerful machines at lower prices, smaller sizes and lower power 
consumption, the Microsoft component, Windows, has become larger, slower 
and dramatically more expensive per unit.

Microsoft has trumpeted their innovations, but has in reality offered 
mostly bundling of market tested ideas and features, developed by true 
innovators whom Microsoft then engulfed, pirated, or destroyed. Microsoft 
copied the graphical interface (Apple and PARC), the browser (NCSA and 
Netscape), the spreadsheet (Visicalc and Lotus Dev.), the high level 
database language (dBase II), the current disk file system, disk 
compression (Stak) and the PC based e-mail client. Where have they 
innovated? Universal Serial Bus (USB) was available in hardware before it 
was available in windows, and for the unlucky who had the first version of 
Windows 95, Microsoft never made an upgrade available; Windows 95 
``rev B'' and ``C'' were not available as upgrades, 
only as OEM new install versions. Therefore the only option was to buy a 
new OS or a new computer to get this feature, even if your system already 
had it!

How has this helped American technology?

Microsoft still blares about the ``new Technology'' in Windows 
NT, and about the tried and proven NT core in Windows XP. This technology 
is largely based on the venerable Digital Equipment Corp. OS, VMS, 1980's 
vintage software. They compete with more inventive ``early 
adopters'' in Internet portals (MSN vs. AOL), music distribution ( 
Media Player vs. Real Networks), gaming (X Box vs. Playstation and Nintendo 
consoles), Internet finance (MS Money vs. Intuit Quicken, et. al.) Web 
Servers (MS IIS vs. Apache), and hand held organizers (Windows CE vs. Palm 
OS). In all cases, the Microsoft desktop hegemony is used to hobble other 
players. The sum total result is that America pays more to get less, and 
Microsoft enriches its investors at the expense of consumers and the US 
government.

Now the US Department of Justice is willing to help Microsoft to force its 
software on schools in the guise of a punishment? I believe those tears MS 
is crying are crocodile tears. The DOJ is actually helping to shoehorn MS 
software into a market that has largely chosen to not use it, a market that 
is well served by Microsoft's only commercial competitor, Apple. I question 
the DOJ's understanding of this technology market and I challenge the 
validity of using taxpayer money to comfort an operation that has engaged 
in such egregious, illegal, and anti-American behaviors.

Sincerely,

Paul A Kagan



MTC-00002920

From: Erik Luther

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

Date: 12/6/01 4:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

This settlement is the worst possible outcome for consumers. I must admit I 
don't know all the particulars of the settlement but on its face, it sounds 
like you have performed Microsoft a service. My understanding is that 
Microsoft was found guilty of violating anti-trust laws. The punishment is 
for them to spread the Microsoft operating system and software into new 
markets, i.e., low income school systems. MS will not change its practices 
and stands to gain tremendous rewards on this deal. I hear the 'free' 
software is a limited time offer. Five years to be exact. This is not even 
a slap on the wrist! This is a manicure!

Every poor soul who starts using MS software will be enslaved to endless 
and useless upgrades. (Useless is a bit harsh; however, I find that most of 
the upgrades provide little in the way of features and alot in the way of 
bugs.) You have no choice but to accept these upgrades if you want to 
communicate with others using MS products. Backwards compatibility is a 
joke to MS. Even different versions of Office 97 can have difficulty 
reading files. MS seems to change file formats endlessly, making older 
systems obsolete. I have personal experience with this in cases of Word, 
Powerpoint and Access.

Erik Luther



MTC-00002921

From: Malcolm Dean

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 4:46pm

Subject: The Redmond Monopoly

No one doubts that the future will bring more computers, of every kind, 
everywhere, including Government.

If the Government cannot come to grips with Microsoft's monopoly, what hope 
is there for Government to control its own creeping automation? A prime 
goal of government is to secure future opportunity. If such a deceitful 
monopoly is tolerated, what opportunities will be denied? Microsoft Fraud 
Analysis:

http://www.billparish.com/msftfraudfacts.html

Microsoft Nightmares:

http://www.aaxnet.com/topics/nightmare.html#money

Malcolm Dean

Writer, Editor, IT Strategist

1015 Gayley Av #1229, Los Angeles CA 90024-3424

[email protected]

213-401-2197 fax

Recent publications:

Contributing Editor, DesktopLinux.com

The O'Reilly Network (www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/228);

CertMag; Certification Corner

Former News Editor, Maximum Linux, XML Journal



MTC-00002922

From: Marilyn Traber

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

Date: 12/6/01 4:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust Proposals

As an unfortunate user of Windows, I have an interest in this whole mess. I 
can remember a time when I could buy Windows without Outlook, it came as a 
separate disc. I had no trouble with Windows interfering with my Netscape, 
and I had fewer system problems overall.

I would love to see a program in place where those of us who do not want 
Outlook or any of the other linked subprograms [briefcase, wallet and the 
like] could essentially 'turn in' our version of Windows and in return get 
a plain, unadorned version of the current windows [I happen to have had 
3.11, 95, 98 and now Me.]

I also have to seriously complain about the new Xp version of windows. I 
have an associate who just bought a brand new computer to replace a damaged 
computer. She brought it home, and discovered several very disturbing 
things about it.

Firstly, there is no DOS environment on the machine, so all of her older 
DOS environment programs will not function. It

[[Page 24190]]

has to be plugged into a phone line to even turn it on for the first time 
and it automatically dials up Microsoft before she could do anything. If 
she adds a program, or takes one off, it automatically dials up microsoft 
and reports in. She couldn't upgrade her Works with a non-XP version of 
Office, nor could she load the older version of Office--she had to go 
out and buy a newer version of Works Suite to just get Word on her machine.

To me, this is even MORE of a monopolistic behavior--before you at 
least could use you older programs in DOS rather than have to go out and 
buy new programs to have what was in the older machine. ME, I just want 
plain unadorned Windows, like when I had 3.11! Marilyn Traber



MTC-00002923

From: Patrick Rachels

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 4:59pm

Subject: My Opinion

As a citizen and a customer of Microsoft I do feel that Microsoft is 
pushing it's way into everyone's life and in some cases leaving no 
possibilities to change to any other O.S. for some people out there.

There are applications that are only available to Microsoft OS's when they 
should be available to all OSG's.

Microsoft also doesn't offer the stability that other Operating Systems do. 
You'd think that with such a large corperation they'd put in the time and 
the money to make their Operating System stable, efficient and reliable.

The same reason that people buy cars and trucks. But with vehicles you buy 
one brand of car and that brand of car can carry people just like all the 
other cars. You buy a truck and that truck can carry equipment and supplies 
just like the other trucks. Microsoft Monopolizes by only making things 
available to their OS and then they don't set up their OS to Utilize the 
computer fully.

Also making Red Hat Linux available to the schools would show our new 
generation of students that there is more avialiable to the world then just 
Microsoft. That there are more possibilities and that computer can be 
utilized to their full capacities. That not everything is expensive.

Red Hat Linux will also give those in computer programming classes a chance 
to learn more and explore many possibilities since Linux is the choosen OS 
for hackers because the OS can be suited to the user and is computer 
programmer friendly.

Patrick Rachels

Former Microsoft User

Soon to be Linux User



MTC-00002924

From: Marshall Schaefer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 4:59pm

Subject: Micro$oft

I cannot purchase a new personal computer from any of the major computer 
assemblers (Dell, HP, Compac, Etc.) with Linux operating System preloaded. 
If I load a Linux operating after purchase I will void my warranty. My 
personal opinion is: Micro$oft (M$) will cease providing their OS to the 
OEMs if they dare provide an Linux OS (i.e. Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, etc.) 
for a PC, other than their own. THERE IN LAYS THE MONOPOLY!!!

In reference to any punishment handed out to Micro$oft, it should be 
severe. MS wants to corner the market on anything pertaining to software. 
If they get off easy they (M$) will continue their monopolistic ways.

Respectfully

Marshall Schaefer

[email protected]

Using Linux and loving it!!!



MTC-00002927

From: Leslie Selits

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:01pm

Subject: It takes money to make money--and they have it 
. . . 

I believe there are two (one?) nagging questions . . . 

1. Is Microsoft big enough to be able to 'crush' any competition they 
choose to? (and)

2. Will they?

Look at their past and 'guess' at their future plans . . .  
. . .  and #1--seems they are nearly big enough to 
buy what ever they want . . . 

Of course, a 'move' to Canada (or another off-shore location...) should be 
pretty cheap . . .  surprised they aren't already packing 
. . .  but then maybe Bill likes to 'win' on his own turf???

Geo



MTC-00002928

From: John Fabiani

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:04pm

Subject: I'm not happy

Hi,

I'm a user of microsoft since 1984. I believe you are doing the wrong thing 
in settling with Microsoft. And your deal to allow microsoft to donate 
computers and software to schools will hurt more than help the industry 
(Apple). Please do what can be done by govt to stop microsoft from 
destroying the industry.

John Fabiani

18 Tadlock Place

Woodland, CA 95776



MTC-00002929

From: Ralph

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:13pm

Subject: poor judgement

When I reasd the some what skimpt details of the present D O J settlement, 
MY first thought was how much did microsoft donate to political parties to 
buy this out and out miscarriage of justice.

The LAW WAS OBVIOUSLY ignored by microsoft and full punishment should be 
meeted out.

Any thought of the present day financial out look to avoid punishing a 
obvious law breaker. is simply not aceptable, These actions in the past are 
the reason for such problems today . The many small companies that were put 
out of business by microsoft probably amounts to more job loss that any 
shut down of microsoft, but I do not advocate putting microsoft out of 
business, how ever it should be broken up just as was done with the phone 
companies and the implementing of thes large mergers this country is 
tending to lean to is just more of the same in the works because this 
settlement simply tells companies ``do what you want we aint going to 
look''

I think ``GOVT. BY BUSINESS for BUSINESS against the people has gone 
on long enough''

Ralph Hudson



MTC-00002930

From: Timothy Payne

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:11pm

Subject: Microsoft

I must say I was not pleased to see you fold your tent and go home near the 
end of a long court case. So will this be a habit of yours? O.J. Simpson, 
Bill Gates, Mega Drug Co. . . Just out spend the government and 
they will just give up.

What is the J in DOJ? Just-don't make us work hard?

BTW. . . I am a conservitive and read the Wall Street Journal 
every day.

[email protected]



MTC-00002931

From: Al Andres

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:10pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It has been 
converted to attachment.]

Dear Asst. Attorney General:

Please see the attached string of e-mails to get support from Microsoft for 
removal the backup and restore functionality in WIN2K and WINXP that was 
available in WIN95, WIN98, WIN98SE, and WINME. This type of response to 
customers, and stating that ``This behavior is by design.'' This 
design plan therefore restricts uses of older Microsoft solutions from 
continuing to be able to continue to do business who upgrade from one 
Windows operating system to another. I object to this type of business 
conduct, and believe it to be inappropriate, if not illegal. See this 
Microsoft website's answer to this issue: Article ID: Q205588 from http://
www.microsoft.com/windows2000/support/search/default.asp Thank you for your 
consideration of this information.

Allan A. Andres

120 Wilmont Circle

East Fallowfield, PA 19320-4274

610 466-9651 RES

610 466-7968 FAX

email: [email protected]

----- Original Message -----

From: ``A1 Andres'' [[email protected]]

To: ``Microsoft Standard Email Support'' 
[[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 9:04 AM

Subject: Re: Re: Windows Update Support Request

As you know, I own a registered copy of both WIN98SE, and WIN2K. One would 
expect backward compatability on a backup program from either of these two 
operating systems. I believe all of those who migrate to XP will also share 
this same frustration, as there is no indication that I know of that tells

[[Page 24191]]

you that if you have used MSBackup to make a copy of your data in the QIC 
format, that once you upgrade to WIN2K you won't be able to restore any of 
those files.

If I can't get an answer to this problem, I plan to call the Department of 
Justice, Anti-trust Division, and see what they have to say about this 
situation. I may also see about filing a class action lawsuit on behalf of 
so many of us that are in the same situation, both WIN2K and WINXP 
customers who previously owned WIN95, WIN98, or WINME, and whoever did a 
backup with those versions.

A response is expected to the question that has been asked now for 2 months 
without any reasonable response other than to contact the OEM vendor from 
whom I bought this computer. It is not their problem, it is a MICROSOFT 
problem that needs resolution.

See below on audit trail of this issue:

Hello Allan,

Thank you for contacting Microsoft.

I apologize for the inconvenience this has caused Allan. Since you have 
indicated you have been unable to access your case online, I have pasted 
the entire case history below for you review:

Allan Andres

Phone: 6104669651

Fax: 610 466-7968

Email: [email protected]

Community: PROVAP

Respond to me by: EMail

System

261616 kbytes RAM

I586II--1330 MHz MHz

WINNT 5.0.2195

Problem

Having problem with Office Prem 2000 for Win 2000.

C Important--Severity C

PID: 50637-757-0689417-02704

Before buying a NEW system with WIN2K, I did a full backup using MSBackup 
on my old system (WIN98SE). The file was saved as a QIC file. Now under 
WIN2K I can't open this to restore data, mail files under Outlook Explore, 
and document files, as QIC is not supported in MSBackup under WIN2K 
Professional. How do I restore files from my WIN98SE MSBackup QIC files 
created under WIN2K Backup?

Good Afternoon Allan,

Thank you for using Microsoft Web Support.

The Support Professional assigned to your case has determined that your 
issue pertains to Microsoft Windows 2000, and that you would be best 
assisted by a Support Professional who specializes in that area.

Please assist us in processing your request by providing the Product 
Identification Number for your Windows 2000. To locate this number:

1. Click Start, point to Settings and then click Control Panel.

2. Double-click the System icon to open System Properties.

3. Click the General tab to find the 20-digit number under the 
``Registered to'' line.

Once we have this number, we will be able to provide you with the support 
options available for your copy of Windows 2000.

To add this information, please create a supplement to your case.

Thank you,

Charity

Microsoft Online Customer Representative

* * * RESEARCH LOG esrintf 09/27/01 02:17:15 PM

51873 OEM 0003461 35834

The files are Word, Excel, Powerpoint, etc files that I need to extract 
from the QIC files. If you try to tell me to go to the OEM provider of the 
system, I disagree with that assumption. This is a WIN2K issue no matter 
where the WIN2K software comes from. This is a SYSTEMS problem in my 
opinion, and I expect an answer on this, or a vendor to contact that can 
solve this matter.

* * * Log # 3

* * * Log # 4

* * * EMAIL OUT 01-Oct-2001 01:57:29 Pacific Daylight Time

K2519415 10/1 cu says. . .

I have updated this incident with the data requested. Please provide an 
answer.

Thank you.

* * * Log # 5

* * * PHONE LOG 01-Oct-2001 01:57:41 Pacific Daylight Time 
Hello A1,

Thank you for contacting Microsoft.

For your convenience, we have forwarded this e-mail to your Support 
Professional.

In the future, you may submit updates to your SRZ cases directly.

1. Go to http://support.microsoft.com/support/webresponse--nc.asp and 
select the type of support you used to submit this issue.

2. Highlight your case in the list. At the bottom of the page, click Create 
Supplement.

3. If you are unable to access your case from this link, please send e-mail 
to [email protected], and we will add your supplement and/or send 
you a copy of your Support Professional's last log entry.

If you have any additional questions, please let us know by replying to 
this message.

Thank you,

Ronald

Microsoft Online Customer Representative

* * * RESEARCH LOG esrintf 10/01/01 02:59:22 AM

So what is the solution. The latest response is just another ``no 
response''.

* * * Log # 6

* * * Log # 7

* * * PHONE LOG 23-0ct-2001 09:15:50 Central 
Daylight Time Good Morning Allan,

Thank you for using Microsoft Web Support.

We appreciate the additional information you have provided and apologize 
for the delay in response.

We appreciate that you have taken the time to let us know your feelings 
about the ``OEM'' support options. We consider customer feedback 
an opportunity to improve our business. We have forwarded your comments to 
the appropriate department.

However, the fact still remains that this is not a retail version of 
Windows and is an ``OEM'' version.

Since the letters ``OEM'' appear in the Product ID number, your 
copy of Windows 2000 was purchased under an Original Equipment Manufacturer 
(OEM) license agreement. Under this agreement, the manufacturer of your 
computer holds the rights to your ``out of package'' warranty, 
which includes offering industry standard support for all hardware and 
software included in the purchase. OEM software typically comes 
preinstalled on the computer.

Microsoft does offer support in a secondary capacity. I have included those 
support options below for your convenience, as well as a list of 
manufacturer's phone numbers and links to support sites.

Manufacturer's phone numbers and sites:

http://support.microsoft.com/ directory/worldwide/ en-us/
oemdirectory.asp]

Web-based technical support from Microsoft is available at http://
wwwomicrosoft.com/support/

If you are unable to resolve your issue using our online self-help 
services, in order to receive assisted support, you will need to create a 
new case.

You may submit your technical support issue by going to http://
support.microsoft.com/support/webresponse.asp and clicking ``Submit a 
Question Using Pay Per Incident (PPI) Support''

If you would prefer to work with one of our Support Professionals by 
telephone, they are available to assist you at 800-936-5700.

If you have any further questions concerning your issue, please create 
supplement to your case.

Thank you,

Charity

Microsoft Online Customer Representative

* * * CASE CLOSE 23-Oct-2001 09:16:11 Central 
Daylight

* * * CASE REOPEN 27-Oct-2001 10:31:11 Central 
Daylight

* * * Log # 8

* * * PHONE LOG 27-Oct-2001 10:34:35 Central 
Daylight Time

Reply-To: ``A1 Andres'' [[email protected]]

From: ``A1 Andres'' [[email protected]]

To: [wradmin@microsoft. com],[wrhelp 
@microsoft.com]

Subject: Re: SRZ010924000209

Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:35:32-0400

I am still trying to get a response to this matter. Would you please let me 
know how to solve this problem.

Thank you.

Kana2599275

* * * Log # 9

* * * PHONE LOG 27-0ct-2001 10:49:56 Central 
Daylight Time a_cwhite Action Type:Incoming call

Good Morning Allen,

Thank you for again contacting Microsoft.

According to the information you have provided, your Microsoft products 
were included with your system.

If this is correct, your copy of Microsoft software was purchased under an 
Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) license agreement. Under this 
agreement you are using a version of software that was designed to be sold 
with a new PC and has been licensed to your hardware manufacturer. When the 
OEM elected to include this product on their machines they also agreed to 
provide the primary product support for the Microsoft software. When an OEM 
decides to preinstall software (Microsoft and

[[Page 24192]]

most other software brands) on a computer, the OEM makes a licensing 
agreement for the right to distribute software on their computers. Once the 
OEM purchases the licensing rights to the software, the majority of the 
rights of the software are put under the control of the OEM.

This is noted in the End User License Agreement found within your software. 
Since we are not always able to notify every user directly when changes 
occur, we publish major changes on our Online Support Web sites. Please 
visit: http://support.microsoft.com/directory/
OfficeXP_Q_A--USAFinal.asp for more information about 
Microsoft's new support policies.

Available from the Microsoft support web site are several self-help 
options, including our Knowledgebase, Troubleshooting Wizards and Peer-to-
Peer Newsgroups. Our Knowledgebase contains over 90,000 articles written by 
our engineers, for end users. Your fellow users may have a few suggestions 
if you post your issue to our Peer-to-Peer Newsgroups.

Our engineers are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for most products 
through our Pay Per Incident Service. To submit an incident to our 
engineers via the web, please visit: http://support.microsoft.com/support/
webresponse.asp

Once there select `Pay Per Incident Support' If you would 
prefer to speak to one of our engineers over the phone, they are available 
to assist you at 800-936-5700.

I apologize for any inconvenience you have experienced while trying to 
resolve your Outlook Express problem. Microsoft will be more than happy to 
help you resolve your technical issue, within the boundaries of our support 
guidelines.

In our previous emails, we have provided you with information on how to 
submit a Pay-Per-Incident support request via phone or Web Response. We 
have also included information on how to contact your OEM vendor, as well 
as information on our self-help informational services. I would invite you 
to utilize any of these options.

By utilizing any of the options submitted to you for obtaining support on 
this issue, you may assure a more positive experience in the future. I I 
wish you the best of luck in resolving your issue. However, as the primary 
point of contact for support is the OEM vendor, and not through Microsoft, 
we have offered options under the parameters of support as it currently 
stands on your case number SRZ010924000209. I will be happy to forward your 
comments and suggestions to the appropriate group.

If you have any other questions about your case, please let us know.

Thank you,

C. Loretta White

Microsoft Online Customer Support

Thank you.

* * * CASE CLOSE 27-0ct-2001 10:50:55 Central 
Daylight Time

If you have any additional questions, please let us know by replying to' 
this message. Please include your original message in your reply so that 
all the necessary information is readily available to us.

Thank you,

Paul

Microsoft Online Customer Representative

From: [email protected]

Received: 11/5/01 8:22 AM

To: Web Response Help

Subject: Fw: SRZ010924000209

Original Message Follows:

WHY CAN'T I GET A RESPONSE TO THIS ISSUE?

Original Message

From: ``A1 Andres'' [[email protected]]

To: [[email protected]]; 
[[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 11:35 AM

Subject: Re: SRZ010924000209

I am still trying to get a response to this matter. Would you please let me 
know how to solve this problem.

Thank you.

Original Message

From: [[email protected]]

To: [[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 5:00 AM

Subject: SRZ010924000209

Incident: SRZ010924000209

There has been activity on the incident that you submitted. Please go to 
Online Assisted Support (https://webresponse.one .microsoft.com/wrscripts/
wr.asp?SR=SRZ010924000209 to check on the activity at your earliest 
convenience.

THIS MAILBOX IS NOT MONITORED--For further assistance, email 
[email protected]

Original Message

From: ``Microsoft Standard Email Support'' 
[[email protected]]

To: ``al Andres'' [[email protected]]

Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 1:53 PM

Subject: Re: Re: Windows Update Support Request

Hello Allan,

Thank you for using Microsoft Web Support.

Allan, I understand that you would like to know if you can extract the 
MSBACKUP program from your WIN98SE CD to your WIN2K machine to restore QIC 
files created prior to upgrading to WIN2K.

I would like to inform you that the warranty support for Windows Update 
site is limited to site navigation and downloads only. Since your issue 
doesn't involve any of this, the best option would be to work with your 
computer manufacturer directly. You may also consider using Microsoft's no-
charge information services or submitting a Pay-Per-Incident support 
request to work with a Microsoft Support Professional. Allan, please note 
that the support is tied to the operating system and since you are an OEM 
customer, your first point of contact would be your OEM.

I apologize for any inconveniences this issue may be causing you and 
understand that it is frustrating.

If you have any additional questions, please let us know by replying to 
this message.

Thank you,

Vivek

Microsoft Online Customer Representative

Original Message Follows:

It's a pretty simple question, and it's a MICROSOFT issue, as you have 
created the loss of backward compatibility.

Can you answer the question: Can I extract the MSBACKUP program from my 
WIN98SE CD to my WIN2K machine to restore QIC files created prior to 
upgrading to WIN2K.

----- Original Message -----

From: ``Microsoft Standard Email Support'' 
[[email protected]]

To: ``Al Andres'' [[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 4:19 PM

Subject: Re: Windows Update Support Request

Hello Allan,

Thank you for using Microsoft Web Support.

I apologize for the inconvenience caused. Please allow me to kindly offer 
my fullest attention towards your concerns.

I understand you would like assistance with Windows 2000. For assistance 
with this, the best option would be to work with your computer manufacturer 
directly. You may also consider using Microsoft's no-charge information 
services or submitting a Pay-Per-Incident support request to work with a 
Microsoft Support Professional. Allan, please note that the support is tied 
to the operating system and since you are an OEM customer, your first point 
of contact would be your OEM.

The letters ``OEM'' appear in the Product ID number, which 
indicates your copy of Windows 2000 was purchased under an Original 
Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) license agreement. Under this agreement, the 
manufacturer of the computer holds the rights to your ``out of 
package'' warranty, which includes offering industry standard support 
for all hardware and software included in the purchase. OEM software 
typically comes preinstalled on the computer. Allan, Microsoft also has 
support options available to you. I have included those support options 
below for your convenience as well as a list of manufacturer's phone 
numbers and links to support sites.

To locate the listing of manufacturer phone numbers and Web sites, go to

http://support.microsoft.com/directory/worldwide/en-us/oemdirectory.asp

Web-based technical support from Microsoft is available at http://
www.microsoft.com/support/

If you are unable to resolve your issue using our online self-help 
services, you may submit your technical support issue through Online 
Assisted Support. For more information, go to

http://support.microsoft.com/directory/question.asp

Allan, If you would prefer to work with one of our Support Professionals by 
telephone, they are available to assist you at 800-936-5700.

Pay-Per-Incident support for consumer products is available at a rate of 
$35 per incident.

Thank you,

Sowmya

Microsoft Online Customer Representative

Original Message Follows:

Contact Information

First name: Allan

[[Page 24193]]

Last name: Andres

Email Name: [email protected]

Phone: 610-466-9651

Fax:

Time zone: Eastern

Submit Date/Time: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 at 09:45 AM Pacific Time

System Configuration

Internet Browser: Internet Explorer 6.0

Operating System: Windows 2000 Professional

Computer Make: MicroFlex

Computer Model:

CPU Speed:

Memory (Mb of RAM):

Detailed Information

Issue Type: Other

Component Name:

URL:

Error Type: Other

Question Title: Restoring a QIC file on WIN2K

Detailed Problem Description :

I need to know if I can extract the MSBACKUP program from my WIN98SE CD to 
my WIN2K machine to restore QIC files created prior to upgrading to WIN2K.

Other Information

Internet Service Provider: Comcast

Method of Connection: Local Area Network (LAN)

Windows PID: 51873-OEM-0003461-35834



MTC-00002932

From: Phil Blake

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:15pm

Subject: Amazed

I find it amazing that you have elected to show the world that the kind of 
illegal, and immoral business practices Microsoft have proved so expert at, 
is A OK.

I do understand though, that Microsoft are heavy sponsors of your 
department and therefore you will not find harshly against them. Another 
fine example of how easy it is to purchase liberty and expand the 
definition of freedom for the rich by the US courts. Why an I surprised.

Looking forward to the movie deal--which will no doubt allow micro$oft 
to profit further from the illegal actions you condone.



MTC-00002933

From: Dennis cONDER

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:15pm

Subject: Fw: Attorney General John Ashcroft Letter

----- Original Message -----

From: ``Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Network'' 
[[email protected]]

To: [[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 10:55 AM

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. 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.

For more information, please visit this website:

www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/



MTC-00002934

From: David Smead

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:13pm

Subject: Bad settlement!

The government made too many concessions that will just legitimize the 
monopoly they hold on software.

Sincerely,

David Smead

http://www.amplepower.com.



MTC-00002935

From: Don Ledford

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:06pm

Subject: Settlement

I'm very disappointed with the settlement.

I been through several hi-tech startups and now own a small Software 
company located in Bellevue, WA. I've watched Microsoft grow from it's 
inception. Microsoft is a client and I have many friends who work for the 
company, but MS is clearly an abusive monopoly. It has generated huge 
profits at the expense of consumers--simply compare the cost/
performance of desktop hardware versus software in 1982 and today. And 
remember software does not have any significant manufacturing costs. The 
price of most MS software is not controlled by competitive pressure and MS 
execs would be doing a poor job of managing the company if they did not 
seek to maximize profits. MS's management will continue to use all of the 
company's resources to protect its profits and market position.

MS uses its monopoly position on the desktop and huge financial reserves to 
smother any innovation which might threaten its monopoly. Today all MS has 
to do to kill a new idea or fledgling company is simply mention a vague 
interest in that market. Venture capital will dry up immediately. VCs will 
not try to compete with Microsoft's monopoly and finances.

So--I was stunned with the decision. Excuses such as: ``MS has a 
big impact on the US economy''

``If MS were split up we'd just have 2 big monopolies'' are 
simply wrong.

I'd like to know who's responsible for this decision.

Don Ledford

don/[email protected]



MTC-00002936

From: John B. Gibson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

TO: DOJ

FROM: JOHN GIBSON

To whom it may concern,

I believe that the settlement should only require price gouging and fair 
competition be available to all parties. I also think that Microsoft earned 
their success and should not be denied their own success. Our country is in 
a recession and hampering the success of Microsoft was the beginning. 
Microsoft is a technology. Technology is a media for others and a form to 
communicate one's idea's and share interests. Since it's foundation that 
has been true, I believe that there should be a board to overlook the 
practices of Microsoft periodically and those people that do so should be 
of high integrity.

I trust our department of justice to make the decisions that will be in the 
best interest of this country and look forward to your decision.

Sincerely,

John Brian Gibson

429 Emerald Street.

Camden, NJ 08104



MTC-00002937

From: Rowan Blaqflame

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:22pm

Subject: disappointed

I'm a developer. I see the practices of this giant monopoly crush the 
little guy. I've seen new technologies come along just to have Macrosquash 
crush them and have the technology disappear. I was excited when the AT 
case started.

I'm extremely disappointed with the fact that a judge ruled them a monopoly 
and then our gov did nothing. In fact, all I've seen happen are some stock 
changes, which have since recovered better than before. Can you do nothing 
right? Can't you even follow up on your own decisions?

Even now they continue the practices they have followed since the 
beginning. Innovation is still stifled for half implemented crap.

I truly believe that MS must have paid off those in charge, how else could 
this obvious travesty of justice occur.

Scott Woods



MTC-00002938

From: Terry Hulseberg

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Comments:

Please don't allow Microsoft to payoff it debt to society by allowing it to 
donate $830 million dollars worth of software. This is hardly a penalty to 
Microsoft as all it really costs them is media and shipping, maybe $1 
million. (The claimed value is a market value for sales which Microsoft 
isn't likely to get.)

[[Page 24194]]

Additionally, this giftï¿½; would be anti-competitive to Apple and 
other suppliers to the school system as it would shut them out of a billion 
dollars of business with the schools.

Thanks.

Terry Hulseberg

HULSEBERG CONSULTING

+1.720.294.9665 eFAX



MTC-00002939

From: Stephen Mandas

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:22pm

Subject: FW: Under the Brim Red Hat December 2001

[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It has been 
converted to attachment.]

Red Hat. Under the Brim. December 2001.

Dear Sirs:

The United States of America, in fact the world at large, will greatly 
benefit from the existence of more than ONE single home computer operating 
system. Microsoft created the home computer market and we are all thankful 
for their accomplishment, but now with Microsoft avidly competing in all 
three separate computer software areas, Operating System, Operating 
Software (such as Word), and Internet Browsing Software, the only real 
choice let to us is which hardware system you will put your Microsoft 
Computer [sic] on.

Linux is an operating platform that provides that much needed competition. 
What is even more important is that Linux has additional benefits, such as:

(1) Linux development reflects Americans' do-it-yourself attitudes. Linux 
is open to be developed by anyone and the source code is shipped with the 
final product. Microsoft hides it source code. Using Linux is like buying a 
car directly from Henry Ford and Henry himself is willing to show you how 
it tinker with it. Using Microsoft OS is like paying for a car that you do 
not own, that you cannot open the hood to look at let alone touch the 
engine, and that only Microsoft Gas is guarantee work well in it.

(2) Linux is safer. Unix machines and now their close cousins Linux 
machines have always been security minded from the first days when they 
were used to build our national defenses and the atom bomb. Also look at 
the recent plague of computer viruses, which have at times crippled parts 
of our industry. Those viruses only attack Microsoft products. In fact 
Microsoft states in its publications that is uses UNIX machines to produce 
distribution software CD's to prevent the accidental introduction of 
Viruses.

(3) Linux is neighborly. Linux will run application software made for 
Microsoft windows operating systems. Microsoft will not run programs made 
for Linux machines.

(4) Linux is yours to own and does not come with strings attached. Once you 
own Linux software it is your property and you can do whatever you want 
with it. This includes making copies and giving them away to all your 
friends. It also includes putting a nice label on the Linux copy and 
selling it for as much as you can. Microsoft products never sell you their 
software. They allow you to use it for a time period. With the advent of 
Microsoft XP, that time period now has a limit and strict use criteria.

Bill Gates, the entrepreneur, saw the value in the DOS software, kept the 
rights to it in opposition to the corporate giant IBM, and developed it 
into the bedrock of home and business computing that Microsoft OS is today. 
Now the tables have turned and Bill Gates, the corporate giant, stands in 
the way of today's software entrepreneurs. If the early Bill Gates had 
corporate giant Microsoft standing in his way, the home computer and 
today's information based lifestyle may never have happened. The question 
to ask is, ``What beneficial changes can the people who see the value 
in Netscape, Linux, Star Office, and all the other open license software 
products bring to us if Microsoft's monopoly is broken?''

Please review the Offer that Red Hat Linux has made to you with a favorable 
eye. Accepting their offer could begin to level the computer OS playing 
field and teach diversity in are poorest schools.

Stephen Mandas

----- Original Message -----

From: Red Hat [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 1:44 PM

To: [email protected]

Subject: Under the Brim Red Hat December 2001

December 2001

@ redhat.com @ Contact Sales @ Store @ Products 
and Services @ Support @ Training in this issue

a.. Red Hat responds to Microsoft antitrust, class-action settlements

RED HAT RESPONDS TO MICROSOFT ANTITRUST, CLASS-ACTION SETTLEMENTS

November was a busy month for Microsoft and the US judicial system. It 
began when the Department of Justice announced it had reached a settlement 
of the antitrust suit against the company. The DOJ had previously found 
Microsoft to be a monopolist, but the settlement included no punishment for 
past actions and left doubt as to its protections against future 
monopolistic practices.

The DOJ is collecting your letters about the settlement via email. We 
encourage you to share your opinions, send your letters to: 
[email protected] Not long after the DOJ settlement, Microsoft 
announced it had agreed to another settlement regarding a separate class-
action suit brought against the company by numerous parties that alleged 
overpricing of Microsoft products.

The settlement forces Microsoft to donate software, hardware, and services 
to America's poorest schools. Red Hat responded to the proposed settlement, 
pointing out that the settlement could simply introduce Microsoft to a 
market where they could further extend their monopoly. In its counter-
proposal, Red Hat offered to provide free software to every school in 
America if Microsoft provided the value of its donation in hardware costs 
rather than its own software.

@ Read About the Class-Action Settlement

@ Read Red Hat's Response

At a hearing on November 27, Red Hat executives testified on behalf of our 
settlement counter-proposal. Currently the judge presiding over the case is 
undecided on whether to proceed with the settlement as proposed.

Want to get involved?

Start at the Open Source Now website:

@ OSN

Join the Legislative Alerts list. We'll send you information on the latest 
public policy issues that affect open source as they happen.

@ Legislative Alert Sign Up

Join the Open Source Now mailing list. This your opportunity to speak 
directly with members of the open source community, educators, and Red Hat 
employees about open source advocacy.

@ OSN List Sign Up

Back to Top

UNDER THE BRIM CONTEST 26: SUBLIMINAL MESSAGES III

For last month's contest, we asked you to pull the hidden message out of 
the following statement given by Bill Gates after the Microsoft settlement.

``The settlement is fair and reasonable and, most important, is in the 
best interests of consumers and the economy.''

Here's what you came up with:

Honorable mention #1 goes to John in Ada, Oklahoma for . . .

``Naa Naa Boo Boo''

Honorable mention #2 goes to Jon from Texas, who found . . .

``Nail the consumers''

And the winner of Contest 26, hailing from Atlanta, GA . . . 
Jason, who found what Bill was really trying to say . . .

``Let me resume''

Thanks for playing. Interesting side note: This contest breaks a string of 
two straight wins by the South African contingent of the UTB audience. 
Although one now lives in London, it turns out our last two winners grew up 
going to school together in Port Elizabeth, South Africa. Small world. 
. . .

UNDER THE BRIM CONTEST 27: THE INK BLOT TEST!

We're two.

In this month's Under the Brim Contest, we shift our attention from the 
subliminal thoughts of Bill Gates to the thoughts of, well . . . 
you. To participate, all you need to do is read the following subject, then 
click on the URL below and tell us in 50 words or less what you see.

Subject: A world without Microsoft.

@ Click Here to See Image

The winner receives the latest edition of Red Hat Linux Professional.

To enter, send your interpretation to: [email protected]

If you don't mind, include your physical location (country/state/city/
whatever) when you send your entry. As always, if you don't want to see 
your name or location in the newsletter, say so. Obscene entries will be 
ineligible and will be sent to Santa with a recommendation for him to put 
an X beside your name in the ``Naughty'' column.

The above email is intended for people who have opted to receive Under the 
Brim from Red Hat. If you think that you have received this email in error, 
please accept our apologies. Simply click on the link in the section below 
and we'll make sure that you do not receive this kind of email from Red Hat 
again.

[[Page 24195]]

Copyright, 2001, Red Hat, Inc. All rights reserved. We mean it.

This message was sent by Red Hat using Responsys Interact (TM).

Click here to unsubscribe from future email.

Click here to view our permission marketing policy.



MTC-00002940

From: Bill Wahl

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:22pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

It would be best for everyone if this case were settled as negotiated 
without giving special dispensation to the nine states who refuse to agree. 
Each of those nine states represent special interests in the form of 
Microsoft competitors and it appears to me their rejection of the 
settlement is purely politically motivated. Please put this legal morass 
away so technology may continue to achieve positive growth.

Respectfully,

William Wahl

700 SE Shoreland Dr,

Bellevue, WA 98004

[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]



MTC-00002941

From: Steve Scherf

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:21pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement?

I find the DOJ-proposed Microsoft settlement to be laughable. Now that 
Microsoft has been found a monopoly, appropriate punishment and safeguards 
against future monopolistic behavior must be put in place. The DOJ has not 
done enough, and the steps being taken by the DOJ amount to less than a 
slap on the wrist. Do your job!

Steve Scherf

[email protected]



MTC-00002942

From: Gerry Conway

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:20pm

Subject: Proposed settlement

Bad idea. Very bad. Disappointing.

Gerry Conway

[email protected]



MTC-00002943

From: Mike Millson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:26pm

Subject: DISPLEASED with Microsoft Settlement

As a Web Systems Developer, I am very familiar with the technologies and 
issues at hand. I would like to weigh in and express my extreme displeasure 
and dismay over the proposed Microsoft settlement.

The settlement offers no real remedy to curb Microsoft's monopolistic 
behavior, and, quite frankly, would be a total waste of the tax dollars 
spent to prosecute the case. I am very disappointed with this proposed 
settlement and hope that the Justice Department takes notice of the 9 
states that refuse to support it. These states are doing the only 
reasonable thing given Microsoft's history and the mountain of evidence 
against them.

Please do not let the current state of the tech economy influence decisions 
on basic fairness and justice. In fact, Microsoft's activities over the 
last 10 years have substantially stunted the growth of this industry. 
Without any real competition, the software that has been produced has been 
riddled with security holes and productivity sapping bugs. The voices of 
many truly innovative companies have been squashed, their ideas never born 
to market. The result is a blase fare of sustaining, yet hardly remarkable 
products.

Now is the time to breath new life into the technology sector and send a 
message about fair play and business ethics. Please shelve the current 
settlement proposal and draft one that imposes stricter penalties and 
restrictions on Microsoft.

Thank you,

Mike Millson

AableTech Solutions, Inc.

770.414.8834

770.414.8206 fax

http://www.atsga.com

CC:Mike Millson



MTC-00002944

From: Carol(u)n(u)Steve

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:25pm

Subject: Microsoft judgement

Hi,

How is it that a Russian guy breaks the law and he goes to prison, but MS 
break the law and get a free introduction to the education market? This 
stinks.

Steve Jarvis



MTC-00002945

From: Kathy Wood

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:35pm

Subject: MicroSoft

12-6-01

I for one, feel that the justice dept. has sold out the american people in 
dealing with Micro Soft. Despite what the judge did or did not do, Micro 
Soft is guilty as sin in being a true anti competative company. They should 
be made to split the company, or provide an operating system that is not 
contaminated with everything else they have added to control the market. 
They have run a lot of small company's out of business. I would like to be 
able to purchase an operating system without all the MICROSOFT only add 
on's, and not have it crash because I want to use some one else's soft ware 
for applications.

[email protected]



MTC-00002946

From: Bradley Clark

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:34pm

Subject: Antitrust?

You know,

If the USDOJ. is unsure of exactly what their job is, or is supposed to be, 
I'll remind you on this one case. The court system to include the supreme 
court had found that Microsoft was a monopolist. It took years, and 
probably millions of dollars to figure this out. Everyone knew it but they 
were allowed to drag this on for that long. This is the second time they 
have been accused of this crime.

I as a citizen of this country would like to know what the USDOJ is going 
to do about it, what is the punishment going to be, and what steps are 
going to be put in place so this does not happen again.

I am not an Open Source Zealot, a Democrat or any thing else. What I am 
however, is a citizen of this country who has spent most of my life 
defending it, and for that I paid a heavy price. What I see is something 
going on that is not legal and needs to be investigated. It gives me a bad 
taste in my mouth and a sick feeling in my stomach that my government can 
so flagrantly violate and disregard its own laws.

What on earth is this country coming to.

Sincerely,

Brad Clark



MTC-00002947

From: John Hightower

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:33pm

Subject: microsoft settlement should be upheld as is

The proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case should be upheld. 
In fact, since the case never was about consumers, but about bailing out 
Microsoft's competitors at the expense of consumers, the settlement is far 
too restrictive on Microsoft. But this is a case of the lesser of many 
evils, so it should be upheld in order to end this fiasco and allow the 
Justice Department to put taxpayers' time and money to better use.

As far as offering a subset of Windows without browser, instant messaging 
and media player, other Operating Systems have built-in web browsers and 
Windows should also. Browsers were free before Netscape started charging as 
much as complete Operating Systems for their buggy, crash-prone product, 
and Microsoft did us end-users a favor by offering a better product as part 
of the Operating System, like other OS's have done.

Media Player has been a part of Windows since Windows 3.1, and Microsoft 
should be allowed to make their products better and more of what the end-
users want without being bludgeoned by competitors who can't compete 
successfully in the marketplace without government interference.

The same principle should apply to Instant Messaging, especially since AOL, 
ICQ and Netscape Messanger are nothing but advertising delivery systems. 
MSN Messenger works far better, more reliably, and is a logical inclusion 
for Windows. All are free, so if AOL wants to extend it's monopoly by 
excluding competition, it should not be allowed to do so.

MSN Messenger is pro-consumer, and should be allowed to stand as is. If 
Microsoft's competition wants to flourish, then let them put in the 
billions of dollars and years of Research and Development that Microsoft 
has. Let them listen to their end-users as much as Microsoft does, instead 
of putting their time and money into political donations and subsequent 
government interventions on their behalf.

Microsoft took a multi-standard competeting OS industry and made it

[[Page 24196]]

 possible for us end-users to benefit from standards that let Windows 
programs work together instead of crashing constantly, and lowered the 
price of applications in the process. I still remember when Word Processors 
alone cost $300. Now they cost less than $100, and have more features as 
well. And are reliable across Windows.

Windows comes from Microsoft's Research and Development, and should be 
theirs to do with as they want. It's their Intellectual Property, and their 
competitors shouldn't be allowed to steal the results of their time, effort 
and billions of dollars. Their competitors didn't put in the time and 
money, and they shouldn't benefit from a company which did. And as far as 
Java, why should Microsoft be forced to put Sun's Java, or anyone's Java, 
in their Operating System? Who cares whether Java is in an Operating System 
or not? Not this end-user, not this consumer. If I want that buggy, crash-
prone thing, I can download it. Again, this is NOT a consumer benefit, it's 
simply saving competitor's crummy products, trying to force their stuff on 
consumers who've showed over and over that they don't want them.

As for business discounts for Microsoft customers, other businesses do 
that, so Microsoft should be able to also. Nobody should be forced to buy 
Netscape, AOL, Sun, Oracle, or other Microsoft-competitor's products if 
they don't want them on their computer. Sometimes taking all this crap off 
computers' hard drives breaks other programs, and cripples the Operating 
System itself. QuickTime and RealPlayer have both done this when I've 
uninstalled them in the past, for instance.

The States' remedies only try to make competitors the beneficiaries of 
Microsoft's Research and Development, plus Marketing, efforts, so their 
proposed ``remedies'' should not be given credence. Those are 
definitely anti-end-user, anti-consumer ``remedies'' that should 
not be given any weight whatsoever.

John Hightower

Little Rock, Arkansas end-user



MTC-00002948

From: David Walend

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:36pm

Subject: Please make sure the settlement assures competition for all

Just three quick words on the microsoft settlement:

I'm a bit disappointed that, after six years of struggle, the Justice 
Department is caving. The proposed settlement doesn't do much for 
competition. I don't see the connection between donating money to poor 
schools and preventing monopoly behavior. (At best, it's in the same league 
as an admitted arsonist donating money to save the dolphins. Letting 
microsoft donate software would be like letting the arsonist burn down the 
fleet while claiming to save the dolphins.)

One big problem is that microsoft writes contracts with computer makers 
that prevent the computer makers from selling any OS except one of the five 
microsoft makes. The agreement seems to say that they won't be able to do 
that with any of the big manufacturers. (Maybe . . . This 
agreement has so many loopholes scattered through it.) But microsoft can 
still force smaller manufacturers to be exclusively microsoft shops. That 
stifles innovation in smaller hardware companies. Another problem is that 
microsoft's OS is growing by copying functions from existing software by 
other companies, which breaks the anti-trust rules about extending an 
existing monopoly, and stifles innovation in other software companies.

Last, I think the shorter the text of the settlement the better. Fifteen 
pages, or even five, instead of 150. Keep it simple and well-organized so 
that anyone can read it and see that the law is enforced.

Thanks for hearing me out,

Dave



MTC-00002949

From: MARCOS COLOME

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:36pm

Subject: I think that the settlement made against Microsoft will not affect 
their monopolist

I think that the settlement made against Microsoft will not affect their 
monopolist policy, they will continue doing what they have been doing for 
years: trying to control the software market, Microsoft is a hungry 
company, they do anything in order to make profits. Others companies should 
be allowed to produce more operating systems, they have been producing 
lousy operating systems and over charging the consumers for years, which is 
a legal robbery and it is also a crime, the settlement is only a small 
touch for Microsoft. The intention of investing money in the schools is 
another strategy of Microsoft continuing advertising their products and 
their partners, schools, students and others institution will be exposed to 
their products which is free advertising, Microsoft is not a philanthropic 
institution, it is a hawk that want to have everybody under their wings. 
The public should get more aware of this and stop worshipping their 
products that are not the best in the market. Linux is a better operating 
system and it does not cost so much as Microsoft, Red Hat 7.2 is much 
superior than Windows Xp and it is free in the internet and a boxed set 
cost $60.00. They should receive a bigger punshiment, not only monetary 
punishments, they should be denounced publicly of their unfair practice and 
placed a price control on their products if consumers want to continue 
using them. I have used all microsoft operating systems from 3.1 to Windows 
XP, and they all crash . If Linux find a solution to use software modems 
more people will buy Linux, because not every consumer is willing to pay 
for DSL and many area do not offer DSL due to the telephone company 
restrictions and lackness of remote stations, At the present time consumers 
are leasing Windows XP for $200.00 and $300.00. More computers should come 
with Linux pre-installed.



MTC-00002950

From: M

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:41pm

Subject: Micro$loth is a threat to the free market, why are you letting 
them off the hook & encouraging them further?

Micro$loth is a threat to the free market, why are you not only letting 
them off the hook but even encouraging them to further expand their 
control? The decision (which thankfully isn't final)--in which 
Microsoft will donate $1 billion worth of money, software, refurbished PCs, 
and training to poor schools--is potentially a big blow to Apple. It 
gives Microsoft an inroad in the education market, where Apple maintains a 
50% market share.

As Apple CEO Steve Jobs said regarding the decision, ``We're baffled 
that a settlement imposed against Microsoft for breaking the law should 
allow, even encourage, them to unfairly make inroads into 
education--one of the few markets left where they don't have monopoly 
power.''

Gee, that's a stupid idea. They consistently abuse their monopolistic 
control to drive competitors from the marketplace over the last decade and 
their penance is to do it some more.

They seldom do anything to advance the technology or the marketplace. 
Windows started out as little more than an overgrown office suite and 
that's still how they treat it. Not as a platform for users, like the Mac 
for examle, but purely as a tool to promote their products and services at 
everyone else's expense. Why isn't Microsoft required to compete on the 
basis of_value_with a_level playing 
field_like every one else?

And what's this about giving away refurbished computers? Are those old 
junkers Microsoft was going to toss into the recycling bin anyway? 
. . .

No, if this is going to happen, Microsoft ought to be compelled to give the 
best of the best to these schools: top-of-the-line equipment that will last 
four or five years, not junk that's already obsolete. I'm also not sure 
where the justice guys came up with the $1 billion figure. What's that? 
That's not even one quarter's profits for Microsoft--remember they've 
gotten as big as they have and made as much money as they have based on 
illegal monopolistic practices. Even dumber, the company has five years to 
pay out the billion!

What a sham!

Cary Reid McKeown

quoted material from a piece by Marc Zeedar posted at http://
www.macopinion.com/columns/tangible/01/12/06/index.html



MTC-00002951

From: Candido Caceres

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:42pm

Subject: Antitrust Settlement

Hello sr,

I Just like to tell you that I disagree that Microsoft donate software to 
poor schools . . . this will improve the position of Microsoft in 
the software world, I mind that is better that Microsoft donate hardware 
and other companies that work with free software (like RedHat) put the 
software in the hardware donated by Microsoft . . . this will be 
a just juice.

Thanks for your time.

Candido Caceres.

[[Page 24197]]



MTC-00002952

From: MARCOS COLOME

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:44pm

Subject: I do not agree with the settlement that the court want to approve 
against Microsoft. I think that mo

I do not agree with the settlement that the court want to approve against 
Microsoft. I think that more open software should be allowed in the 
schools, it is cheaper and better quality, in my childrens schools they are 
using Windows and old fashion computers, Red hat, Suse and Mandrake are 
better operating systems, much superior than Microsoft I have tested all of 
them in my computers. Linux is a very stable operating system and can be 
used for any type of workstation, for office applications, for scientific 
applications, for servers applications and people learn more about 
computers and science when Linux is being used, Linux is a scientific 
operating system. I would prefer see my children using Linux at their 
schools than Microsoft OS, they should provide the hardware and open OS 
should installed on these computers. One Red Hat boxed set is enough for a 
whole school. Microsoft is just trying to advertise their products and look 
philantropic

Marcos Colomen



MTC-00002953

From: Keith Lyon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:46pm

Subject: Thumbs down on MS settlement

I think this solution is more reward than punishment. MS has overstepped 
the bounds of fair competition, and should be sanctioned. A cash fine, or 
doing nothing at all, would be better than this proposed settlement.

Keith Lyon



MTC-00002954

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:55pm

Subject: Perspective on Microsoft Settlement

I am a 33-year veteran of the computer industry, with a home microcomputer 
already running and doing business work in 1977. I've followed the industry 
closely, and have enjoyed the very exciting technical and business 
environment that has characterized the last several decades.

Microsoft's clear monopoly promises to restrict this excitement by making 
it very difficult for other organizations to compete in three areas: 
Operating Systems

Office Applications (Their incorporation of Word, Access, Excel, Visio; 
Great Plains accounting soware, and of course the Internet Explorer)

The integration of Application and Operating System, with particular focus 
on Internet Explorer.

It is the third area that causes the monopoly to be most restricting, and 
this condition could be remedied. My own personal view is as follows:

A. Microsoft has a clear monopoly; a benevolent one but with a big stick.

B. Microsoft is a marvelous organization, their products are great, and 
their contribution to the whole information technology field has been 
tremendous.

C. They have exercised their monopolistic position to improperly restrict 
competition.

D. There is a basis for some compensatory damages to be paid.

E. The settlement, consisting of providing software to schools, is 
definitely not a heavy penalty for Microsoft to pay.

F. The company should be broken into two organizations, with Windows in one 
and all applications (INCLUDING Internet Explorer) allocated to the other.

G. While there is a basis for compensatory damages, it does not need to be 
too punative (as any of their competitors would probably have done the same 
thing if as successful in the market!). However, one suggestion is that 
they commit to, within one year, having all office applications available 
on Linux (Not as open source--they could and should still make money 
on these excellent programs). That would hurt, but it would also make 
sense. This could take the form of splitting the organization into to units 
as mentioned above; the parent being preserved as the Windows unit, and 
this unit charged some amount of money to fund the migration of 
applications to Linux. Now, THAT would be exciting. Please do not hesitate 
to contact me if there are questions or if I could amplify on any of the 
points above.

Sam Smith

Grosse Pointe, Michigan



MTC-00002955

From: Asa Jay Laughton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:54pm

Subject: Why the MS settlement is unequitable.

[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It has been 
converted to attachment.]

The following opinions are drawn from personal experience and reflect my 
opinions only. Microsoft, the software and hardware computer company, based 
in Redmond Washington, simply put, has become too big for it's britches. 
This is manifested in several areas:

Non-competitive business practices

Instigating fear, uncertainty and doubt

Disregarding previous Court orders to cease and desist

Continued use of illegal business practices.

The freedom to innovate is non-existant

The DOJ must not continue to turn a blind eye to Microsoft. Through all the 
lobbying that MS does on it's own behalf, trying to instill comfort, they 
are only holding a knife to the throats of millions of computer users.

Anti-competitive business practices.

MS has defeated many independent software businesses by creating vaporware 
(software that is advertised via press releases, but never actually in 
production or development). When MS claims they are going to build a 
product, most companies see MS putting millions of dollars into it. The 
smaller business can't spend that kind of money, so they give up, usually 
do to the fact investors become disillusioned, knowing that MS's product is 
coming out soon. But then it never does. I have no instances to cite in 
this case, I'm sure others do. I have been told however, that another MS 
tactic in this regard is to ``swallow'' up the smaller company, 
usually abandoning further development of the software.

In more recent times, regarding the release of Windows 95, MS continued to 
hold out critical programming information from independent software vendors 
(ISV's) until after the release of the new OS. This accomplished a major 
coup for MS, in that they were able to program all their ``tie-
in'' applications such as Office 95, to the final API because they 
already knew what it was. Other ISV's were continually given newer API's as 
the OS development went along, most of which were ``not quite 
right'' By the time the OS was released, all MS tie-in applications 
were also ready, whereas most ISV applications were sorely lacking behind 
in development because they never received copies of the final API's in 
time to finish code work. This itself enabled MS to leap ahead of many 
ISV's almost sending them out of business. This is a clear situation where 
the applications side of Microsoft needs to be removed from the Operating 
system side.

The WordPerfect case.

10 years ago, most literate office computer users were secretaries. The 
people typically did a lot of typing. Ask them 10 year ago what the premier 
software package was for word processing, and you would have been told 
``WordPerfect''. That is not the answer today. However, the 
different answer of today is not because of better features or ease of use, 
it because of product ``dumping''. 10 years ago, most new 
computers that came with a Pre-installed version of an MS operating system, 
also came with a ``free'' copy of MS Office. One of the 
components of MS Office was MS Word, a word processor. Most corporate or 
company accountants and managers did not see a need to purchase 
``another'' word processor when one came readily supplied, no 
matter what the end-user wanted. After a couple of years of saturating the 
market in this manner, MS was able to ``claim'' they had a larger 
share of installed word processors than WordPerfect. Even if the installed 
Word was not used, because an end-user had installed WordPerfect, MS was 
still able to make the claim because they used ``installed'' 
numbers, ie. each computer sold had Office pre-installed. WordPerfect 
corporation soon thereafter sold to another company, who then sold it to a 
third company who then sold it to Corel. The interim two companies, Novell 
and Borland, both tried to package an Office suite to compete with MS, 
however, MS continued to have their suite pre-installed for far less money. 
Later, when Corel announced they were releasing a new Office Suite with 
WordPerfect as the cornerstore, and made an announcement of price, MS 
retorted that Corel could not do that, that it was cutting their own 
throat, and that Corel would go out of business in a year. Corel took that 
seriously and never really released the suite at the cut-rate price. Why 
did MS make that claim? Because they already knew, because that is exactly 
what they had done with MS Office, they had lost money 
``dumping'' it on the market until the market became saturated. 
Why is it that I could buy MS Office one year for less than $100, but to

[[Page 24198]]

``upgrade'' the very next year would cost me almost $500. MS 
found their saturation point, where consumers were engrained in the new 
status quo and then started charging them for the priviledge of having 
buggy software.

Instigating Fear, uncertainty and doubt.

In summary, Caldera was in the process of litigation with MS regarding the 
practice of MS to detect installed operating systems and warning consumers 
that the MS products would not work correctly. Caldera had at one time, 
reams of testimony and documentation verifying this practice. The fact was, 
the MS software worked ``better'' on the competing operating 
system, but MS didn't want that. MS wanted the consumer to 
``only'' run their operating system, even if it meant their own 
applications would crash. By installing detection routines, MS was able to 
know what operating system their program was installed on. Once known, if 
the OS was a competitors, and most specifically DR-DOS, MS would pop-
up a window explaining to the consumer the operating system was 
``not'' MS and cautioning the user the software would not work 
correctly unless it was running on an MS OS. This was a blatant lie and 
caused frustration among consumers who had to put up with this 
``nag'' screen until they either uninstalled the software, or 
switched the operating system.

Disregarding previous court orders to cease and desist.

In the early days of the Operating system wars, MS had contracted with many 
hardware vendors to have MS OS installed on the vendors hardware. That is 
innocent enough, that practice is used across a great many products. 
However, MS, in their contract, required the vendor to pay MS for each 
``processor'' that was shipped. The agreement being that every 
processor has to have an operating system, and whether or not it shipped 
with a MS operating system, MS was going to be paid for every processor 
shipped.

This was found to be an illegal business practice by Courts of law in the 
United States, and MS was admonished from that practice. However, it was 
too little too late from the DOJ. Vendors had come into the practice of 
``only'' shipping computer with an MS product. Up until just a 
couple of years ago, it was almost impossible to purchase a computer 
``without'' an MS operating system. Vendors ``refused'' 
to sell consumers, computers that did not have an MS OS installed. And this 
was certainly years after the DOJ required MS to cease and desist the 
practice of charging vendors ``per processor'' for licensing MS 
OS's. Most recently, when I contacted a computer hardware vendor, I asked 
why I couldn't buy a computer without an MS OS, and I was told that it was 
a contractual agreement with MS.

MS has just come down from the whole anti-trust debacle with Netscape and 
they don't care. MS is still illegally tying products together and are 
doing so in an even bigger and more anti-competitive way that ever before. 
And they are waving it in the face of the DOJ, feeling secure they are 
doing no wrong and that the DOJ will not lift a finger. Well, it really 
pisses us off.

Windows XP, the latest OS from MS ties more product together than ever 
before, putting out of competition, some of the more premier companies of 
our time. And the DOJ just turns a blind eye. Who suffers? The consumers, 
why . . . because

The freedom to innovate is non-existent

MS claims they are one of the premier innovators of computer software. To 
those of us in the industry we balk at that. Apple computer has been way 
ahead of MS in many ways, but MS uses anti-competitive business practices 
to saturate the marketplace. Linux has developed more innovation in a 
fraction of the time it has taken MS.

The fact is, when you become a monopoly, there is no reason to innovate. 
People will buy the product because it is the only one around, whether it 
works, or not.

I once had a software programming friend who had an MS employee friend 
visit him one day. A conversation ensued about the MS memory model, the way 
MS handles memory for the OS and applications while the computer is 
running. The employee was complaining how MS had ignored improving the 
memory model for over 10 years, stagnating the innovation needed to improve 
the model to protect applications from crashing. This was necessary and 
prudent innovation that was being purposely ignored by MS. Other companies 
had to come in and provide certain services to try and ``patch'' 
the problem-plagued model. Companies like Stacker, and Norton. Eventually, 
MS simply ``stole'' some of that outsider innovation and 
implemented it in their own OS.

MS-DOS 6.0 was the product. In a tug-of-war court battle,

Symantec claimed that MS had used Symantec proprietary code in some 
utilities distributed with the OS. MS was found at fault and fined 
something like $22M. Likewise, Symantec was fined about $t2M because they 
had to ``reverse engineer'' the OS from MS (which is a breach of 
the EULA). This situation only underscored the fact that MS was no actually 
``innovating'' new software, they in fact were only interested in 
stealing patches.

So where does that leave the user? At this point, MS has left us with a 
broken product. I say broken, because 1) they don't supply enough 
information to outside software vendors for them to effectively program new 
products against the MS OS, causing them to crash in many cases, both the 
application and the OS, 2) MS fails to effectively ``fix'' it's 
own OS, relying on continued patches that the customer must 
``buy'' in the form of an upgrade. This does not include some 
patches available for download, however, the point I make is that each 
successive release appears to include more ``whistles and bells'' 
than actual OS fixes.

For example, I am writing this on an MS OS system. I have had to reboot 
this machine a few times today. Mostly, it will run well for a maximum of 
about a week before it really starts crashing things and I have to reboot 
it. Against that, I have three other systems I maintain that use non-MS OS 
products. Each of them has been running for several months without a 
reboot, and they typically do a lot more processing than a Windows machine.

My points are all over the map and there just is not enough room to 
effectively communicate how displeased I am with MS. I once really believed 
in MS as a decent Software company, but I can no longer in good conscience 
believe that. They have stifled innovation, they have driven other 
companies out of business, never released promised software, or been very 
late with it, have limited my personal freedoms to choose, through anti-
competitive business practices with other vendors, and have generally just 
been a royal pain in the ass.

It's time to stop this madness. Break `em up!! I'm so tired of 
losing time to problem MS products, when their answer to every technical 
question I have had in the last 10 years has been to ``re-install the 
OS''. I'm sorry, but that's just a mark of a bad company, like telling 
me I have to replace my electric company's transformer every time the power 
goes out. It's just ridiculous. There has been more than enough litigation, 
information, testimony, etc. (I followed the whole court battle, this one 
and others) and I am simply tired of the Federal Government caving in to 
MS. Break them up! Make MS pull all the ``tied'' applications 
out. Make them offer them separately, not bundled, or at the very least, 
make them go back to small ``applets'' (programs that gave a 
``taste'' of something, but you'd have to buy the full-fledged 
program to get all the features) To be honest, I'm not looking forward to 
MS as Big Brother, which is exactly the direction they are taking with 
Windows XP. The DOJ has a responsibility to stop that, the DOJ has the 
responsibility to protect my privacy and freedoms as an individual.

Free giveaways are not the answer, slaps on the wrist are not the answer. 
It's time to dig up reprimands from the Big Blue era. Let's see what the 
DOJ did with IBM and start applying some of THAT to MS. Get on the ball.

Sincerely,

Asa Jay Laughton



MTC-00002956

From: Steven W. Mitchell

To: Microsoft ATR, microsoftcomments @doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...

Date: 12/6/01 5:55pm

Steven W. Mitchell

10286 Greystone Rd

Manassas, VA 20111

Dear Sir or Madame;

I believe that the remedies in the proposed settlements of the various 
anti-trust lawsuits are totally inadequate because they do little to reform 
and nothing to punish Microsoft with respect to its monopolistic behavior. 
It is well established that Microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems 
for desktop computers, and that it has used that monopoly to destroy 
competitors both in the operating system market and in adjoining markets, 
and thereby extend it's domination. The proposed settlements allow 
Microsoft to retain it's monopoly, and to continue to drive competitors in 
other markets out of business by integrating additional application 
functionality into its operating systems.

It has been proposed to remedy this abusive behavior by splitting Microsoft 
into an OS and an applications company. Even if this were done, it would 
not address their abuse of their operating system monopoly. If

[[Page 24199]]

the government wishes to actually address the problem, the Microsoft should 
be split into two operating system companies encompassing the 
'professional' products based on Windows NT in one company, and a 'home' 
computer operating system company based on the Windows 95/98/Me product 
line in the other. This would create competition in the operating system 
marketplace, and make actual innovation in that marketplace more likely to 
the vast benefit of the public. In addition, the 'professional' and 'home' 
application products should be split out into two more companies, creating 
a more level playing field across the marketplace.

As to the argument put forth by some observers that breaking up the 
Microsoft empire would somehow damage the US economy, I think the split-up 
of the telephone monopoly of AT&T offers convincing evidence to the 
contrary. In spite of the claims of the apologists for Microsoft, it is 
well established that competition is good for the economy. Microsoft is 
hardly the font of creativity: on the contrary, previous lawsuits (such as 
Stak Electronics vs. Microsoft) have established that Microsoft often 
steals the technologies that it claims to have innovated. If Microsoft had 
to compete on a level playing field against the smaller companies which 
traditionally have represented the source of most of the technological 
innovation in this country, then more technological innovation would likely 
reach the marketplace to the benefit of both the consumers and the economy 
as a whole.

For these reasons I urge you to refuse the proposed settlements, and 
aggressively pursue the breakup of Microsoft monopoly for the future 
benefit of the consumers and the economy as a whole. In addition, Microsoft 
should be forced to pay fines in retribution for their past behavior. Part 
of those fines should be used to reimburse the various governments for the 
expenses of litigating these cases, and part should be paid directly to the 
immediate injured parties (Digital Research, IBM, Apple, Netscape, etc).

--Steven W. Mitchell

[[email protected]]

[[email protected]]

#include--``Unix and C are the ultimate computer 
viruses.''

std--disclaim.h

Richard P. Gabriel



MTC-00002957

From: Paws

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 6:02pm

Subject: Microshafted

To the DOJ and Monoposoft,

Over the past 20 years, I have enjoyed employment as a computer operator, 
programmer, instructor and lately, end user myself. During the 80s and 
early 90s, I enjoyed Microsoft products as I did many others. For the last 
6+ years, I have sought only to support any product that was not Microsoft, 
and have found it a virtual impossibility to function as a professional 
without using Microsoft's overpriced, unwanted, and increasingly obtrusive 
products. This sad fact is entirely the result of illegal practices on the 
part of Microsoft causing the demise of many worthy contenders, and 
limiting the choices of tired consumers. The freedom to choose our own 
product purchases is gone.

The recent and overdue finding by the DOJ that ``Microsoft is a 
monopoly'' might have provided very small concillation if the 
punishment were grave enough and restitution to all the victims were 
enforced. Imagine my dismay to find that no punishment for past actions, no 
restitution to the victims of their crimes, and no protections against 
future monopolistic practices are provided for in the DOJ settlement. What 
a joke!

We are all so proud to be American tax payers. Thanks for your protection.

See ya,

Ron Tapp

[email protected]

Microshafted Consumer



MTC-00002958

From: Matthew McGee

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 6:03pm

Subject: Microsoft Action

I cannot believe that we as a government could lie down as Microsoft rips 
through our economy. I watch as Microsoft removes all of their competitors 
from the market. Not by having a better product but by breaking other 
programs compatibility with windows and bundling their own ripped copy of 
the same software with their name on it, By threats and by giving a product 
away for free until after their competitors are out of business. It was 
interesting to note that after moving a machine from an older version of 
windows to the new version other chat programs no longer work, save for 
Microsoft's messenger service. Your current idea of forcing Microsoft to do 
give away computers to poor schools is the most ridiculous idea I have ever 
heard!

You obviously are going to be Microsoft's PR reps huh?

Hey, Microsoft it is ok to forcibly put all of your competitors out of 
business ... All you have to do is give a few computers away and we the 
government will turn a blind eye to any illegal actions you take, break the 
law see if we care.

If this bull goes through, it will be a sad day for America! On that day I 
will be ashamed to be reffered to as American, for we are only telling the 
world that with a few dollars you don't have to obey the laws of our 
country. Break up the darn company! Show the world that we will stand up 
and protect our market, our laws, our principles and our country!

M. McGee



MTC-00002959

From: JP

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 6:07pm

Subject: Microsoft donation is a joke

My name is Jean-Philippe,

I think if the US accepts the settlement offered by Microsoft the 
government is just saying that there is no more justice in this world.

There only given their software away, it costs them nothing, perhaps only 
the CD they put the software onto. They don't loose any part of the market 
since those school probably wouldn't have the money to by the OS and 
software anyways. And what about in 5 years, those schools won't have more 
money purchase their software. So they are not helping the system at all.

It is just a joke.

J-P



MTC-00002960

From: cj

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 6:10pm

Subject: MIcrosoft

Microsoft has hurt us all and held computers back 20 years:

1. No more tying agreements, one price for all customers, all welcome.

2. Uniform free nondiscriminatory developer support, e.g. mirrorable 
website only.

3. Unedited, unabridged W3x and W9x source code open sourced.

4. $30,000,000,000 fine.

5. All disk and network structures 100% documented.



MTC-00002962

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 6:26pm

Subject: Microsoft

In apparently letting Microsoft set the terms of the settlement, I think 
you've failed your responsibility to protect the American people from the 
proven predatory and illegal marketing activities of Microsoft. Shame on 
you.



MTC-00002963

From: Jim A. Cornette

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 6:23pm

Subject: Views on proposal--Schools

I have just read the basics for the proposed settlement for the DOJ 
settlement with Microsoft.

I think that the provision ought to be setup, so that Microsoft only 
provides the hardware. Instead of providing software to the poorest school 
districts.

This would extend the amount of computer related equipment, that could be 
obtained, by the schools.

Also, I have been using open source software and have found it to be a 
worthy development. I have found that it provides the tools needed to allow 
schools to develop positive educational goals. Without burdening the school 
system with extra costs for proprietory software.

I have used a few of the open source distributions. I find them great 
products. But I use the Redhat distribution presently.

Since Redhat software has commited itself to providing free software and 
also support. Through their Internet accessable network. I think that the 
students will be greatly aided by the co-operative effort put out by both 
providers.

Thank you,

Jim

Brontosaurus Principle:

Organizations can grow faster than their brains can manage them in relation 
to their environment and to their own physiology:

[[Page 24200]]

when this occurs, they are an endangered species.

--Thomas K. Connellan



MTC-00002964

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 6:30pm

Subject: settlement

Apparantly in america you get just as much justice as you can afford.



MTC-00002965

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 6:33pm

Subject: DOJ MS Settlement

It seems to me that the DOJ settlement is unlikely to curtail MS's 
monopolistic behavior. I have watched over the years as MS has adopted 
ideas from outside entrepeneurs, poured massive development effort into 
making their adopted software better than the original, included it in the 
OS bundle, and thus put the originator out of business. This has happened 
time after time.

The problem is not that MS's adopted programs are poor products, but rather 
that repeated crushing of innovators has resulted in a dearth of really new 
ideas. MS often says they just want to ``innovate''--what 
they really want is to dominate by whatever means they can find, including 
what I would term ``plagerism''.

I think that even breaking up the company into an OS and an application 
company would fail to solve the problem unless very strong oversight is 
added to the mix.

In any event I don't believe for a minute that a more drastic remedy would 
adversely affect the software development business in this country or the 
general economy. To the contrary both would flourish give a chance for true 
competition to replace monopoly.

Ernest A Bryant



MTC-00002966

From: Matt

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:32pm

Subject: Microsoft Agreement Not Good

The decision doesn't solve anything. It makes the problem worse. Microsoft 
will donate everything, but I'm sure at some point Microsoft is going to 
try to get thier piece of the pie. If the schools are poor to begin with 
why let Microsoft take advantage of them? If Microsoft is a monopoly why 
let them extend the reach. I think Red Hat hit the nail on the head. So 
much more could be done with the money. Let open source software be 
introduced. Promote competition. That is all you hear about, Microsoft is 
destroying competition and the you see a ruling like this. This is the 
opportunity that open source software has been waiting for. Don't take it 
away.



MTC-00002967

From: Bill Wimsatt

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 6:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I whole heartedly disagree with the settlement with Microsoft. I have been 
working in the computer industry since 1983 and have found that Microsoft 
is an immoveable rock and an untrustworthy partner.

(1) The settlement should not allow MS to provide their software to 
schools. This will further entrench them into the market; furthermore, it 
is the one market where they are weakest. So, this solution will give them 
an astonishing new capability in this segment. Furthermore, they will be 
able to extol upgrades, and service contracts that will line their pockets 
once again. The money should be donated to schools or the solution should 
be Apple, Linux, or Solaris based.

(2) I was involved in the Air Force Desktop IV contract case in which the 
contract award was challenged on the basis that it was an unfair award. 
Microsoft and Intel were the big winners in that contract and it was not 
possible to win without their solutions. Not because they had the best 
technology, but because they were pervasive in the Air Force and no other 
solution could topple their strangle hold. During this contract, we had to 
negotiate with Microsoft for their suite. They would not allow us to put 
just one part of their suite with our bid. We had to take it all or 
nothing, even though there were better solutions for calendaring, and 
presentations. But since we had to use MS Word, and Excel to be even 
considered during the bid process, we also had to take an inferior 
PowerPoint and outlook products.

(3) As a developer now, I am continually up against the Microsoft 
compatibility issue. MS Windows compatibility is required in every effort 
because MS is pervasive in the industry. I cannot bring a competitive 
offering to the market because it will not be seriously reviewed unless it 
is running on Windows or has Internet Explorer as the Browser.

I find it disheartening the DOJ was not able to remove MS's monopoly in the 
market. MS is stifiling the industry and causing impenetrable economic 
barriers to entry.

Regards,

Bill Wimsatt

VP, Engineering

CorAccess Systems

2525 15th St. Suite 1B

Denver, Co 80211

303 477 7757 (o)

720 480 2985 (c)

http://www.coraccess.com



MTC-00002968

From: Eliot Gable

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 6:51pm

Subject: Anti-trust settlement

I think you should go with Red Hat's proposal to have Microsoft only supply 
the hardware to the schools and let Red Hat or some other OS developer 
supply the operating systems and other software.

Otherwise, Microsoft will just expand its monopoly.

My $0.02,

Eliot.



MTC-00002969

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 6:13pm

Subject: opinion

I think this settlement looks like another opportunity for Microsoft to 
``enforce'' windows on the market. Students will get used to 
Windows and that's free promotion for Microsoft.



MTC-00002970

From: David Vennik

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:56am

Subject: Microsoft anti-trust settlement

BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE

Hash: SHA1

I am a resident of australia, however the monopolistic practices of 
microsoft reach us here too, and I want to comment.

I agree with Red Hat's proposal that microsoft's donations be purely in 
hardware, partly on the basis that they shouldn't be allowed to to spread 
their monopolistic software (I agree that their browser is probably the 
best in the industry, but then they've got more money to pay more people), 
and besides that the value of the donation would be fluffed out by the 
addition of software, their operating system is overpriced, as is their 
office software, and I feel that it would benefit school children more to 
be introduced to unix, as, though most computers are running windows out 
there, the internet constitutes the largest mass of computing power, and it 
is primarily running unix, and about 50% of it is linux, and though at this 
time there is more work in using windows systems, Linux is a young 
operating system in comparison, and its use in embedded and special purpose 
systems means that it will eventually become more common. By the time 
6-12 year old children are looking for work, unix will be the basis 
of most computer systems (as it already is within the higher-level 
government organisations in america, due to it's greater maturity in 
networking which means it is more secure).

Making Microsoft only provide hardware will mean that a greater number of 
children will have access to computers, as about 15% of the average 
computer system cost is microsoft software, that means they will have to 
provide 15% more hardware than they otherwise would have. Also giving Red 
Hat the opportunity to provide its software will be a big step towards 
balancing the lop-sided current situation with respect to just exactly how 
dominant windows is, especially in the future. Besides this, the average 
poor family, should it be able to provide the children with a home 
computer, would be wise to choose a free operating system, as, to use 
australian dollars, it would mean they could buy an aud$600 computer, and 
spend au$20 on the cd's for the operating system. Otherwise they would be 
forced to have to cover the cost of a microsoft operating system, most 
likely win95, which is buggy as hell, but it's also the cheapest at about 
au$125. And then there's ms office. Sun's Star office would be the sensible 
alternative, and where I am at least you can get red-hat linux, star office 
and even mandrake linux as well for au$20.

Anyway, I hope that you choose to take up red hat's offer, perhaps though 
get other companies to contribute operating systems too, like mandrake, 
caldera, sun etc. as the singular donation from red hat would be favouring 
them too much.

David Vennik

[[Page 24201]]

(+61) [0]401 592 641



MTC-00002971

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 7:03pm

Subject: Microsoft judgement

While I fully understand the need to get the DOJ vs. MS issue out of the 
way, the current settlement proposition is actually a considerable bonus to 
Microsoft's monopoly position...in terms of computer users, what could be 
better for Microsoft than a whole new generation of people raised 
exclusively with Microsoft products for the 12 (or more, depending on 
locale) years of school?

Please, rather than settling this in this way, give the money directly to 
the schools for use in computer departments as the educators (who in the 
end must learn, support, and teach whatever products are chosen) to 
implement as they decide what will work best for students.

Thank you,

Greg Webster



MTC-00002972

From: Ken Shackelford

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 7:04pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I am writing to convey my dismay at the results of the anti-trust lawsuit 
against Microsoft. After all the time invested and all the money spent, MS 
gets away with what is essentially a slap on the wrist and the ability to 
go back to it's ``business as usual'' tactics of being a 
monopoly. I don't get it. AT&T was broken up for what seems to me to be 
the same, if not less, reasons. What is it about Microsoft that the United 
States government fears? Does the DOJ have too many workstations and 
servers with Microsoft Windows on them and it fears that if MS is punished, 
somehow their (DOJ) software will crash? Again, I am really dismayed at the 
results of this dog and pony show. It is no wonder that most of the 
American public holds public officials in such low esteem. I am sure that 
there are some in the DOJ that are all smiles and their wallets are nice 
and fat . . .

Ken Shackelford

Marietta, Georgia



MTC-00002973

From: Simon Fuller

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 7:09pm

Subject: Microsoft

I was disappointed to read about the conclusion of the microsoft case. As 
an IT Specialist for 16 years I have seen the demise of peoples choices for 
operating systems and applications. When I started out the operating 
systems were less sophisticated , but at least you could choose based on 
its features rather than be forced to stay with one brand. In the past 
years I have seen Microsoft deliberately kill dos compatibles like dr-dos 
and in last few years OS/2, I wonder if they will attempt a similar 
strategy against linux? If they do, this surely cannot go unpunished?

I hope that if Microsoft continue reducing choice (like removing any java 
compatibility) that this case is reviewed.

Simon Fuller



MTC-00002974

From: Dennison

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 7:15pm

Subject: MicroSoft Antitrust Settlement

To Whom It May Concern: Although I support the right of each business to 
conduct themselves as they see fit within the law, the actions of Microsoft 
clearly violate US antitrust laws and the proposed settlement does nothing 
to disuade them from their current behavior. Rather than imposing a 
government sanction expansion of their monopoly, as guaranteed by the 
current proposed settlement, Microsoft should be broken up into at least 
two pieces: an Operating Systems and Applications companies.

In no way, shape, or form should Microsoft be permitted to invade the 
educational system and expand their monopoly.

Jeff Dennison



MTC-00002975

From: Stallins, Curtis

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

Date: 12/6/01 7:13pm

Subject: Microsoft case

Good day,

I have followed with interest the MS/DOJ case these past few years. I want 
to say only that I am saddened and disheartened at the direction the case 
has taken. When company email is found that says they wanted to Cut Off the 
Air Supply of Netscape, for starters, and they are found to have bullied PC 
manufacturers and had a very large say in what software gets bundled on new 
PCs, then something is terribly wrong. The list goes on, and nothing 
substantial is being levied against the company.

Let me say this: A company that manufactures and sells the operating system 
to the great majority of the world's PCs has no business being allowed to 
evolve their OS so that it includes a browser, music-playing software, etc, 
so that it destroys or greatly inhibits the progress of other companies 
that market browsers, music-playing software, etc. These are NOT operating 
system-specific tools. They are add-ons, and Microsoft knowingly and 
deliberately used their dominance in one market to crush competitors in 
others.

They deserve far more punishment than I have read they are receiving. Break 
up the company and make them compete fairly, so that other companies have a 
fighting chance.

Thank you for your time,

Curtis Stallins

BroadVision University

Senior Technical Instructor

W: 650.542.7323

All glory is fleeting.....



MTC-00002976

From: Doug Clifton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 7:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlements

To Whom it May Concern,

I am writing to you to voice my concerns over the recent microsoft 
settlement and to state that in my professional opinion (as a computer 
programmer which has (for the past 20 yrs) and continues to use much 
microsoft technology) the actions that microsoft has continued to exercise 
in the marketplace are very wrong and counter-active to good fair market 
development. Given the current situation, if I owned a small company 
offering a product/service in which microsoft decided to compete, I would 
immediately try to sell (probably to microsoft) the company while it had 
any value to speak of. Microsoft has continued it's cycle of waiting for 
new technologies to arise and then to produce a no cost/low cost product 
similiar (but competing) to the original. Since microsoft can provide the 
item at no cost (due to bundling and revenue received by the sale of the 
Operating System itself), why would I want to compete with it on a sales/
reveue playing field. They can produce good quality products that often 
drive the others competitors almost out of business while continuing to 
expand their software base. People are simply not going to purchase a 
competing product when they can get good to excellent similar products for 
free with the Operating System. Even for those products where the Operating 
System is not directly including it, the price of the product is dropped to 
run the other company's product into non-sales situations, and then the 
price is considerably raised when they no longer have enough market share 
to be a competitive threat. There are numerous examples of this even today. 
I therefore ask that the company be stopped from it's corporation death 
squeezing plans and that they be made to live up to a fair market strategy 
where a technology which they want suddenly can not compete with them.

Thank you for your time

Doug Clifton

2309 Woodglen Dr.

Richardson, Tx 75082-4511

email: [email protected]



MTC-00002977

From: Bruce Bales

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 7:17pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

After acknowledging that Microsoft has engaged in unlawful and monopolistic 
practices for years, the Department of Justice has come up with the perfect 
punishment for these practices: adomonish Microsoft to not do it anymore.

This is less than a slap on the back. It is a pat on the shoulder and a 
wink. All the signs of a complete sellout to the biggest monopoly in 
American history. The American people (and indeed, the people of the world) 
deserve better.

Microsoft software has become dominant not because it is the best (it's not 
even close), but because its ruthless practices have successfully (and 
illegally) eliminated almost all competition. The situation will not change 
as long as the the makers of the operating system provide applications for 
that operating system.

Sincerely,

Bruce Bales

2012 N. Lakeside Dr.

Andover, KS 67002

[[Page 24202]]



MTC-00002978

From: Mark Byram

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 7:19pm

Subject: why hurt Apple?

Making MS give away PCs and Software will only further crush it's 
competition by training a new generation of customers to depend on MS 
tools. This would injure Apple's only remaining stronghold: Education (both 
Apple hardware and Softare which is not PC compatible).

It would be better to force MS to pay a cash settlement and have the 
govement use the money to fund various educational programs! This way MS is 
not influencing and increasing its already out of control Monopoly.

Thanks,

mark



MTC-00002979

From: Joe Doherty

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 7:24pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I am against allowing Microsoft to ``donate'' computers with its 
Windows operating systems to poor schools as part of the anti-trust 
settlement.

There are three operating systems that are appropriate for use in schools: 
Windows, Apple and Linux. Of the three Windows is the least adaptable to 
educational use and the most likely to fail on a regular basis. Apple has a 
long history of providing support for education, and Linux is a free 
operating system that will run flawlessly on recycled computers (as well as 
new ones). Both Apple OS-X and Linux are open-source operating 
systems, which means that students with a technical bent can write software 
for them. Windows is not open-source, which is probably just as well 
because it is a mess.

If Microsoft is allowed to ``donate'' $500 to $850 million 
dollars worth of software (at an actual cost of, what, $1 million in 
duplication expenses?) as part of its $1 billion settlement, it will 
represent a near-complete capitulation of this Justice Department. 
Microsoft should spend the entire $1 billion on computer hardware, leaving 
it to the schools to decide which operating system they prefer.

Joe Doherty

Los Angeles, CA

mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00002980

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 6:18pm

Subject: Microsoft anti-trust

Microsoft has had a policy of consitently taking software technology as 
their own while making it difficult for others systems to operate. Many 
good companies with good prodcuts have been destroyed by their tactics.

Joe Dieckert



MTC-00002981

From: Jack Daniels

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 7:26pm

Subject: Microsoft trial

In my opinion Microsoft is a monopolist, because in the beginning it was 
the ``command line'' and there were many Disk Operating Systems 
(DOS) which made our computer go as far as MS-DOS. I remember when I 
DR-DOS, IBM-DOS and others were very good, rich, fast. 
MS-DOS was not bad, but it was not the best. When Windows came out, 
the use of the PC became more and more easy, and this adventure finished 
with the issue of Windows 95: the Graphic interface but also an Operating 
System. Somebody learnt to use a PC with Windows 95 installed, but other 
refused to learn Windows, because there were nothing to learn, except the 
use of the ``mouse''.

Now the Graphical interface seems to be the standard method to use a 
computer at home, but the use of Servers needs an operating system more 
transparent, which allows an administrator to set up the whole system, to 
repair damages. An OS more stable and safe like LInux and other Unix 
systems.

Now Linux has a GUI even nicer than Window's, the X system, and has been 
ready to be used by millions of users (who are not ``wizards'') 
for several years.

But never happened.

Daniele Bortoluzzi

Martano LE

ITALIA



MTC-00002982

From: Ryan Peetz

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 7:32pm

Subject: free software to every school in America

Dear DOJ USA,

I am an American citizen currently living in Canada. I am outraged at this 
proposed settlement. All this is going to do is introduce Microsoft to a 
new market, one that will allow them to further extend their monopoly. Red 
Hat Linux has offered to provide free software to every school in America 
if Microsoft provides the value of its donation in hardware costs rather 
than its own software. This is the perfect solution and will not allow 
Microsoft to victimize us with their unstable, expensive, software that 
cant be customized. Well I hope you are aware of the advantages of using 
Linux in our nations schools. I am counting on you to make the right 
decision.

Ryan Peetz



MTC-00002983

From: Stephen Hawkins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 7:38pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

To whom it may concern,

I am stunned at the light slap on the wrist that you are giving Microsoft. 
They have a monopoly? Clear and simple. I went to ComUSA two days ago in 
Modesto California. I asked if I could buy a computer without Windows XP. 
The answer was NO, YOU CANNOT.

I do not like many things about all of the Windows operating systems and 
you leave me no choice. They include stuff that I do not want that I cannot 
get rid of. Their applications disable any of mine that do the same thing 
only better. Yet I cannot buy a computer that does not come with their OS 
forcing me to pay for something I do not want.

I am asking you one, maybe two simple questions.

1. Do you really think that this is good for the consumer?

2. What are you smoking?

Steve

Stephen Hawkins WV6U

[email protected]

[email protected]

73 49 111 0100 1001



MTC-00002984

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 7:40pm

Subject: Microsoft should be strongly reprimanded!

Please take issue with Microsoft for monopolizing their O.S., Web browser, 
PCs, etc.. It would be a good thing if they felt some of the pain that they 
have inflicted on millions of user's and consumers for many years.

In my opinion, they should be required to give their source code to any who 
desire to see it. We could then take it and fix it like only the Open 
Source community can.

Jay D. McGowan mail stop: L-54 email:[email protected]

Work Phone:(925)423-9860 Fax:(925)422-9560

``How you handle pressure determines how you handle life''

Lawrence Livermore National Lab

7000 East Avenue, Livermore, CA 94550



MTC-00002985

From: Andrew J S Hamilton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 7:42pm

Subject: Say no to the Microsoft Monopoly

`Penalizing' Microsoft by requiring them to donate Microsoft 
software to schools is like requiring the tobacco companies to donate free 
cigarettes to kids in schools. This is worse than no penalty at all.

Don't do it!

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Hamilton

Professor, U. Colorado, Boulder

Fellow, JILA

CC:Andrew. Hamilton@ colorado.edu@inetgw



MTC-00002986

From: Eric Juve

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 7:46pm

Subject: Microsoft the monopolist

To whom it may concern,

I find it hard to believe that anyone even remotely affected by Microsoft 
could believe they are not a monopoly. I have several concerns that need to 
be addressed.

1. The security of the U.S. internet. Many times recently, major losses 
have been incurred due to the lack of security in the Microsoft software 
used to interface to the internet. This lack of security is well known to 
the industry.

2. Microsoft is attempting to hijack all aspects of the public access to 
the internet through the use of its ``Passport'' gateway.

[[Page 24203]]

3. Microsoft is putting all Windows users on a permanent upgrade escalator 
using its new software registration polices. This same policy restricts 
users who often upgrade or otherwise change the hardware platform they run 
under.

4. Microsofts recent attempt to block alternative browsers access to MSN 
sites. This is a blatant example of the control they will impose if they 
succeed in their ambitions. This recent example occurred AFTER the ruling 
about their monopolistic tendencies.

5. Microsoft is now going after cable internet carriers. I can only imagine 
what will happen to me as a Linux/Opera internet user as they put up more 
barriers to the non-windows community.

6. Microsoft is also going after the Gaming community with their x-box 
technology, we will have to wait and see what kind of mischief they are 
intending in that arena.

Yours Truly

Eric K. Juve, Chief Engineer

Nautamatic Marine Systems, Inc.

3248 SE Ferry Slip Road

South Beach, OR 97366

541-867-6751

541-867-6754 fax

[email protected]



MTC-00002987

From: matt bourke

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 7:51pm

Subject: Hi

The microsoft monopoly is spreading soon with there MS.NET they will own 
the internet and all smaller ISP's like my ISP will be sewing Microsoft the 
first day they bring in MSN internet access in my country of Australia and 
so will probably even the biggest isp's here as well .

kind Regards Matthew Bourke



MTC-00002988

From: Danny Crawford

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 7:58pm

Subject: If your rich

I guess if you have enough money in this country you can get away with 
murder. I just can't believe that you guys let that republican Bush push 
your department around. After the OJ case, I had my doubts about the 
judicial system in this country and now I have no faith at all in this 
judicial system. Microsoft will continue to keep the little guy down. I 
wonder who is doing the pitching, Bush or Gates.

Danny Crawford



MTC-00002989

From: Charlie Houp

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 7:53pm

Subject: Microsoft--DOJ settlement

To whom it may concern:

I as a consumer, do not agree with the DOJ's antitrust settlement with 
Microsoft. I believe the DOJ has sold the American consumer out in this 
settlement and has failed miserably to protect entrepreneurial and small 
business interests.

After having found Microsoft to be a monopolist, you have rewarded them 
with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. I find this very disheartening 
and unfair. You have convinced me that there is no such thing as justice, 
nor fairness in our federal judicial system. When you have size and clout 
like Microsoft, you can manipulate the outcome.

Charles Houp



MTC-00002990

From: Todd Benson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 7:55pm

Subject: Microsoft is a monopoly

Microsoft is a monopoly in the pc computer business, which makes up a huge 
share of the computer business. Their products are good, but the computer 
business could have been better without Microsoft being the monopoly that 
it is. Monopolies always hurt innovation and competition no matter how good 
they look. I believe that you have gone the easy route by settling with 
them. They control 90% of the PC operating business, which gives them great 
leverage and power for resources. Either you play with Microsoft the 
Microsoft way or they crush you. Please break them up so that we can enjoy 
greater innovation. They are bad for innovation. It's just the way it is. 
Punish them like you punished AT&T.

Look at how much innovation and lower prices that happened when they were 
broke up.

Best regards,

Todd Benson



MTC-00002991

From: Michel Matte

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 7:59pm

Subject: DOJ/Microsoft Antitrust

As an independent developer I find it a pity that Microsoft should continue 
to prey on the industry with its abusive practices. The monopoly should 
have been broken up like Standard Oil. I agree that the government should 
play a role to prevent monopolies from taking hostages of smaller 
businesses and consumers. The government should encourage open source 
software such as the products distributed by Red Hat.

Michel Matte

Canada



MTC-00002992

From: Steven Smith

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 8:02pm

Subject: settlement

We desperately need competition in the OS and applications market. As 
Microsoft pulls more and more functionality into the OS we are left with 
fewer and fewer choices. I don't think the settlement provides the right 
incentive for Microsoft to end its monopolistic ways.

Regards

Steven M Smith, 4302 Chestnut, Temple, Tx



MTC-00002993

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 8:10pm

Subject: Microsoft ????

I highly recommend that you go out and do some computer shopping. Try to 
find an off the shelf IBM compatible PC system that will correctly function 
without Windows. The number of PC peripherals that require the Windows 
Operating System is appalling. Many printers, scanners, modems and other 
devices will not function on any other operating system i.e. Linux. It is 
likely that if you acquire an off the shelf PC system, you will have to 
replace several devices to run Linux.

Take a look at http://www.vcnet.com/bms it shows a different yet incomplete 
history of Microsoft tactics!

Walter M. Reinemer



MTC-00002994

From: Bob Becksted

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 8:13pm

Subject: Settlement

Thank you for hearing our concerns. In particular I'm concerned about high 
quality, innovative alternatives to what Microsoft offers as Windows 
components. Microsoft has closely followed the aftermarket to Windows, and 
brazenly included features in Windows which effectively kill competition. 
Microsoft includes, at no extra charge, non-operating system components 
such as Media Player, Internet Explorer Internet browser, a CD burner, 
email with Outlook Express, a personal firewall, and other more subtle 
utilities--all which were preceded by products from small independent 
vendors who may now be unable to compete. Allowing these products to be 
included as free features stifles creativity and competition. This results 
in less for everyone.

These features have been slowly added over several releases of Windows and, 
for the most part, have reduced competition. Where their was some effective 
competition, such as Netscape, the resulting Microsoft products have been 
of a higher quality. However, the longer effect has always been damaging. 
Netscape did not fare well and never turned a profit, finally selling to 
AOL. I hope some more thought is given to the actions that should be taken 
to prevent the kind of oppression Microsoft has created.

Yours Truly,

Bob Becksted



MTC-00002995

From: Terry Bohach

To: Microsoft ATR, microsoftcomments@ doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...

Date: 12/6/01 8:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am writing to voice my concern over the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft. I feel that as a consumer, I do not enjoy the amount of choice I 
should in the computer software industry. There is no credible alternative 
to many of the product categories that Microsoft dominates. It is clear 
that they have continuously ``strangled'' new technologies that 
they saw as a threat to their dominance (Web Browsers, Word Processors, 
Java, Media players, etc).

Please consider taking a stronger position against this company that was 
found GUILTY in court for being an anti-competitive monopolist. Also, that 
the current settlement would only increase Mircosofts market share while 
hurting other companies.

Terry Bohach

[[Page 24204]]

Computer Professional and Educator



MTC-00002996

From: Michael Beck

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 8:14pm

Subject: Your proposed settlement is a travesty! At the end of all these 
years,

Your proposed settlement is a travesty! At the end of all these years, you 
seem to have accomplished absolutely *nothing*, after winning on virtually 
every significant point in court. Microsoft is a bloodthirsty monopolist 
which will *never* be stopped by your ridiculously laughable 
``remedies.'' I write this from a Hotmail account, on a Windows-
based computer. I can't get away from this crappy MS software if I tried! 
And what will happen in the future, as MS continues to leverage its 
dominant position to extend its reaches? I mean, come on: what the hell is 
.NET other than a thinly-veiled attempt to force us all into MS-controlled 
``standards?'' Do you really want all *your* personal information 
in a Redmond depository?

I'd like to think that this monumental cave-in wasn't precipitated by the 
Bush appointees to your department, but of course that's not true. How many 
MS lobbyists have you people seen over the last year? Do you feel ashamed? 
Do you have any regrets? Do you even still believe in a representative 
democracy anymore? Nauseatingly transparent and deeply pathetic.

Thank GOD I live in California, where our justice system isn't quite as 
anxious to kowtow to Bill Gates' money and power. Even as you stab us all 
in the back, some brave souls carry on.

Good luck--the purity of humankind will be somewhat redeemed when you 
find it increasingly difficult to live with what you've done. The moment of 
realization is intense; your betrayal will haunt you for the rest of your 
life.

Michael



MTC-00002997

From: Mark and Suzette

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 8:41pm

Subject: Settlement Joke

The Microsoft settlement is a joke and an insult to the American consumer. 
Ordering Microsoft to donate software and hardware to the poorest schools 
will push traditional educational product providers (like Apple) and 
completely out of them out of the market. The idea of giving a punishment 
is to make someone want to stop what they are doing. You're not punishing 
Microsoft, your helping them tighten their grips on the market. I'm a 
Computer Scientist. I fear for the computer industry. Every year Microsoft 
takes over larger segments of the industry. Most of their product are 
poorly written, large, slow and buggy, but as the consumer, we have no 
choices. We have to buy what's available, and in most cases that means 
Microsoft.

I think the DOJ drop the ball on this law suite. No company should have the 
power Microsoft has. I think Microsoft's punishment should be a 5 Billion 
dollar fine, all of their Operating System's code should be made available 
as open source, and Microsoft needs to be split up. Mark LaForest



MTC-00002998

From: Jan W Nelms

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 8:25pm

Subject: Microsoft Deal

My wife and I personally know Attorney General John Ashcroft and we believe 
that the nine states that oppose this landmark deal should drop their 
objection to the stipulations of the Microsoft deal. To continue to drag 
this situation out over a long period of time is not the right thing to do 
because it is our opinion that this should all be settled now without any 
further litigation or delay. My e-mail address is [email protected]



MTC-00002999

From: Dr Oog

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 8:27pm

Subject: microsoft is not a monopoly

There should be no settlement. MSFT is NOT a monopoly. did we all forget 
what a monopoly is? they do not have exclusive control over the computer 
market, the OS market or the software market. people have chioces, and as 
long as they have choices this doesnt constitiute as a monopoly. hmm whata 
a monopoly? how about QWEST? nowadays a phone is a necessity and not a 
luxury, yet we dont have a choice who our local carrier is. why is that? as 
long as their is competition, how does a monopoly exist?

Microsoft competes with Apple and the many other Flavors of UNIX. as long 
as competition exists, how can a monoply?



MTC-00003000

From: Raymond Clark

To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov

Date: 12/6/01 8:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Sirs,

I do not support your settlement with Microsoft. There is no provision for 
correcting the companies anti-competitive business practices. Please fix 
this problem and do not let Microsoft get away with the crime they have 
been convicted of committing.

Thank You

Raymond J Clark

10650 Utrillo Lane

Northglenn, CO 80234

Raymond Clark

[email protected]



MTC-00003001

From: Don Butto

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 8:31pm

Subject: Allow microsoft to advertise to my kids as a punishment? YOU MUST 
BE JOKING

The new settlement that ``forces'' Microsoft to donate software, 
hardware, and services to America's poorest schools is a JOKE. It's great 
for the schools but even ``BETTER'' for Microsoft. Currently in 
my area the schools have a lot of Apple computers. If these Apple computers 
where replaced by Microsoft's ``Generosity'', then the 
settlement, that was meant to punish Microsoft for monopolizing their 
industry, would simply further their cause.

Who says ``you can win for losing''. Sounds like Microsoft 
certainly will.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to voice my opinion,

A Microsoft User



MTC-00003002

From: Joseph Venezia

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 8:32pm

Subject: Microsoft Action

There is no question that Microsoft used its desktop monopoly and a free 
web browser to destroy their browser opponents. This was down because 
people enjoyed using the browser interface in lieu of the GUI that is part 
of Windows, and Microsoft knew that if anyone ever put a different 
operating system under another popular browser interface, they would lose 
their desktop monopoly. The only way to rectify this malicious monopolistic 
act that has and still is wreaking havoc with other browser and operating 
system purveyors is for Microsoft to release all code for version 5.5 
Microsoft Internet Explorer Browser including that for any underlying DLL/
OCX's to the public domain. This action would rectify their action with 
regards to other browsers and operating systems, and any claim of financial 
harm would be groundless because after all, they claim to offer this 
product free.

This does not address their latest actions with regard to other products 
such as media players, but the release of the above mentioned code, and the 
operating systems that would soon use it, would deal with that problem in 
due time. The only other area needing addressing is to require Microsoft to 
publish all the Windows Operating System API so others can develop programs 
for the operating system. Even if you did not do this, it would not be a 
problem because the release of the browser code would lead to alternative 
desktop operating systems making in roads. To date Windows has offered no 
free Internet Browser for Linux. Its the only thing holding back Linux 
desktops. They make IE(older versions) for HP and SUN Unix because they 
know no one uses them for the personal desktop. Microsoft knows that any 
solution that neglects releasing the browser code to the public domain is a 
win for Microsoft.

Sincerely,

Joseph A. Venezia

[email protected]

941-694-9454



MTC-00003003

From: Lambert David

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

Date: 12/6/01 8:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I understand you're collecting opinions on the settlement, so I thought I'd 
add my $0.02. Microsoft is a large corporation--so large, I believe, 
that for it to be severely damaged would probably adversely impact the 
economy of the country. This would, obviously, be bad for everybody.

The problem is that our system (which is the best there is) has flaws, and 
one of them is that Microsoft was allowed to grow to the

[[Page 24205]]

size it presently has. That any one company could, by its failure, drag 
down the whole economy is a failure on the part of the system in its 
entirety--and of the DoJ and judicial system in particular. You have a 
responsibility to prevent such things, a responsibility implicit in the 
antitrust laws (if not explicit), IMHO. Even ignoring the dangers inherent 
with such an anomalously large corporation, the behavior of Microsoft has 
been reprehensible in many ways. The court's original ruling (against 
Microsoft) was heralded as a major victory by most of the technical 
community, not because of a dislike of Microsoft products or even its 
pricing (though there are grumbles there, to be sure) but rather because so 
many fine companies and initiatives have been quashed by the heavy-handed 
policies of Microsoft.

I write this opinion using Microsoft Outlook, which in turn uses Microsoft 
Word as its editor. These are two of the finest products of their kind that 
have ever been, and represent only a small portion of the fine work that 
has been done by Microsoft. This does not change the fact that unless 
Microsoft's behavior is changed, and changed radically, the industry as a 
whole and consumers in general will be impacted in a deeply adverse way. 
The economy will remain at risk--and the consensus opinion among my 
peers is that Windows(tm) XP may be the block on which Microsoft finally 
stumbles. If this product does not destroy the company, it may still damage 
it to the point that the economy is severely hurt. Now may not be the time 
for fines of sufficient size to correct the company's behavior--I 
don't know--but the anti-competitive behavior must be stopped before 
the rest of the industry is ruined.

Finally, I must add that as an Engineer, I keep up with opinion, feeling, 
and trends in my industry. I hear from conservatives, liberals, and 
neutrals; from technophiles and technophobes; from Microsoft fanatics and 
Microsoft-bashers; from management, labor, and (in short) just about 
everyone. Nobody with whom I've spoken, or who offers an opinion on the 
subject, thinks the Microsoft settlement is just. None of my technical 
acquaintances (even those most enamored of Microsoft) believe that the 
company's policies are conducive to competition or growth within the 
industry. I know that such opinions must exist (perhaps among economists?), 
but I believe they must be taken as shortsighted.

Thanks for your time,

David Lambert, Jr.



MTC-00003004

From: Brian W. Masinick

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 8:40pm

Subject: Punitive damages for conviction

The message I get out of the Microsoft case is that if you are big enough 
and you are important to the economy, you can do almost anything, and even 
if caught, you will not have any costly consequences. In the case against 
Microsoft, I understand that Microsoft was found guilty on several counts 
of Antitrust violations, including modifying operating system software to 
prevent competition of layered products, manipulation and coercion, and 
other questionable and illegal practices--in effect, using their size 
and power to knock the competition out of other markets.

Though there are supposedly penalties, I question if they will have any 
effect at all. As compensation for these crimes, I think that Microsoft 
should be required to open their source code, at least to the specific 
companies that they offended, particularly those who have virtually gone 
out of business. Perhaps that would fairly level the ``playing 
field''. Since Microsoft Office is so dominant, maybe requiring 
Microsoft to completely open up all document formats would be fair and 
reasonable punishment. That would certainly enable other companies to 
fairly compete.

Brian W. Masinick

mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00003005

From: Bigelow, Scott M NWP

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

Date: 12/6/01 8:41pm

Subject: Short statement about proposed settlement

Hello,

I have been following the Microsoft Antitrust case since its beginning, 
when I was still using and recommending Microsoft products when I had a 
choice. It wasn't until I read about the many ways Microsoft was abusing 
its power that I decided that something needed to change, and that change 
could start with me, and it has, but very few Americans understand the 
concept of an operating system, so they have choosen to let Microsoft 
choose for them. I understand that the proposed settlement to fund schools 
with technology (including software) does not require all Microsoft 
software be provided on these systems, but certainly many would, extending 
Microsoft's monopoly. There are a great number of alternatives for 
software, including Red Hat, which has made a generous offer to the 
proposed settlement. Aside from this, however, Microsoft is turning the 
focus away from their business practices, which continue to this very day 
as seen in Windows XP, to the poorer schools of our nation. Money will not 
be a problem for Microsoft for a long time, and therefor not an adequate 
solution. I hope the DOJ does not let Microsoft choose form them, or turn 
their attention away from that which matters. Thank you for your time,

--Scott Bigelow



MTC-00003006

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 8:45pm

Subject: Red Hat

Dear DOJ:

http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/pressusschools.html

I fully support Red Hat's proposal as listed at this site. I want Red Hat 
to provide software for the schools and Microsoft to provide hardware for 
the schools. I like the fact that the number of schools who are receiving 
aid increase to 1 Million. As a public school student, we had restricted 
access to restrictive machines. I feel that Linux would encourage students 
to solve their own problems thereby stimulating education as a whole. 
Microsoft's software may stimulate learning but would not encourage 
independent thinking or problem solving. I speak as a Computer Science 
student who has used both Microsoft and Linux systems. I strongly support 
Red Hat's proposal. Thank you for listening to my opinion.

Sincerely,

Dhvanika P. Gandhi



MTC-00003007

From: William J Kenny III

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 8:47pm

Subject: Microsoft ``Punishment'' need to be adjusted, rather 
changed all together.

I am sorry, but as a red blooded american, I can NOT say I understand the 
DoJ's position on this settlement. It seems as this solution is a contract, 
rather than a punishment for Microsoft monopolizing the computer industry. 
Are we truly to believe that an agreement where public schools are given 
funding, and a portion of that funding will go to increase Microsoft's 
monopoly is a good solution? If we really want a settlement which will stop 
Microsoft from continuing their illegal practices, we have to do something 
drastic. My suggestion would be to release the file formats and document 
handlers for Microsoft Office, and have microsoft document how commands are 
executed (as in POSIX standards for Unices).

I appreciate your taking our comments as this situation develops further.

ET3 William J Kenny III, USCG, Navigation Center West, Petaluma, CA 94952, 
(707) 765-7426



MTC-00003008

From: Michael Finney

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 8:49pm

Subject: Monopolies

Monopolies should be broken up and prevented from happening where possible. 
There is a statement that Microsoft was found guilty of being a monopoly 
and was not punished nor broken up. What's to prevent further monopolistic 
behaviors?

Michael Finney

Sun Certified Programmer for the Java 2 Platform

Sun Certified Developer for the Java 2 Platform

Co-founder of PPJDG--http://www.ppjdg.org

Co-founder of cosAgile--Colorado Springs XP Users Group-- http://
www.yahoogroups.com/group/cosAgile



MTC-00003009

From: John

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

Date: 12/6/01 8:52pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I am dissapointed in the DOJ settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust vs US 
& States. The settlement provides for a penalty much less than the face 
value of 1 Billion for several reasons.

1) 1 Billion is MS Software and old office computers to a class of citizens 
not currently using Microsoft products, resulting in no loss of customers.

[[Page 24206]]

2) Except as subtracted out of profit(which won't be realised with low-
income families), the 1 Billion represents pennies on the dollar, it's pure 
hypothetical profit.

3) It does nothing to address the issue of monopolistic practices by 
MicroSoft(tm). Government oversight of monopolies can result in something 
resembling free markets. I borrowed this from Laura DeAndrea Tyson's book, 
``Who's Bashing Whom?''.

4) A 550Million dollar writedown, this year to pay down a 5 year commitment 
to maybe a 10th of the 1Billion Settlement. That's like a get-out-of-jail 
card, allowing them to look very profitable Pro-forma, since a writedowns 
excuse large hunks of liability. Buy MS stock on the news of this 
settlement, I heard. It's a marketing expense disguised as a ``off the 
books'' writedown.

This all looks looks like accounting trickery.

I'd be happy with anything that might help open interfaces, and encourage a 
thriving software market with diverse sources of interoperable software. 
That is the core of many government aquisition programs, and a result of 
much thought. Everywhere this happens, whether it's between hardware, 
software or in networks, it's an additional technical hurdle for this 
industry. Lowers productivity, and some say, stifles innovation.

We have to keep an eye on all the players, Sun, Apple, IBM. They have done 
well so far.



MTC-00003010

From: Jim Ehrlich

To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov

Date: 12/6/01 8:51pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

DOJ is failing in it's responsibility to the American Public by letting 
Microsoft off without significant punishment for their crimes. I am opposed 
to the settlement. I favor real punishment for Microsoft to limit the 
damage they do to computer users. Judge Jackson had it right.

Jim Ehrlich, D.V.M.

Jim Ehrlich, D.V.M.

Dairy Veterinarians Group

832 Coot Hill Rd.

Argyle, NY 12809

[email protected]



MTC-00003011

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 8:51pm

Subject: msn.com now blocking netscape browsers

Ive heard reports that MS is now blocking browsers from accessing their 
websites. I dont have specifics on which sites or which browsers, but its 
disturbing. for what its worth, they have the technical ability to block 
browsers on ANY item in the string below, or all of them together. 
``Mozilla/4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.9-13 i686)'' In 
other words, they could block Mozilla, or Mozilla/4.7, or Linux, etc, ad-
nauseum. and they can get away with it, cuz most people dont know better, 
any more than they know that theres arsenic in their water. I think its 
your job to insist upon a modicum of fairness, and letting them continue 
business as usual is inadequate.



MTC-00003012

From: Phil Percival (CSI)

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 8:44pm

Subject: Oppinion on decision against Microsoft

When does a capitalist become a monopolist? When the competition fails to 
take advantage of the same oportunites. Why should the successor be 
punished for the continued failings of others. And there's the argument, 
are the continued failings of the other competitors a result of a concious 
effort by Microsoft to stifle or is it a result of something else ... 
Microsoft have cornered the market by taking advantage of early 
opportunity, and continuing with a superior marketing strategy. While they 
may not have the best technical product they do have a more readily 
available, supportable and presentable product.

Back when the Unix gurus of the world were hiding in main-frame basements 
churning out enhancements to an already superior operating system, 
Microsoft was exploiting a virgin personal computer market. If only Red-hat 
and the other UNIX vendors had been around 20 years ago. If only the 
conceited, self-absorbed Unix developers of the late eighties/early 
nineties had been a little more business minded and less ignorant ... Then 
of course Apple came along with their high priced, rigid operating system 
and hardware attitudes offering incentives to universities and schools but 
missing the point when it came to the ``average user'' 
market--and still missing the point to this day, surviving only on 
marketing brilliance in the US.

We owe Microsoft for pushing hardware and software technology forward. That 
a lot of the momentum of the computer software and hardware technology 
surge has happened because of them is unquestionable. But that technology 
is not necessarily owned by Microsoft and thanks in some part to them is 
available freely to the world--hardly a monopoly. Now is the perfect 
time for Unix vendors to capitalise on their superior OS technology but 
first they have to loose their non-constuctive ``anti-microsoft-Unix-
is-GOD'' attitudes and produce better software for the lamen. They 
seem to be heading in that direction but with a total lack of 
standardisation I fear that direction is somewhat non-linear.

I can only hope that it wont take a further twenty years for a 
``Windows'' based Unix OS to be competative--Red-Hats buggy 
``MS Windows-like'' desktop is almost there--if they could 
only improve Unix's hardware support and plug-play strategies ... As for 
Apple .... I'm afraid they just don't seem to get it, you can only 
``create'' a market for so long; maybe if they combined their 
existing OS technology with the more versatile Unix technology and 
concentrated on software rather than hardware they could move with the 
market rather than tangential to it.

Regards

Phillip Percival

BEng. Electronics/Software



MTC-00003013

From: Mark Eagar

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 8:52pm

Subject: microsoft anti-trust settlement

I am writing to express my dissatisfaction with the current remedies 
imposed upon Microsoft for their flagrant unethical and monopolistic 
business practices over the last 10 years. I have seen product after 
product eliminated systematically by Microsoft thru un-fair business 
practices. Products such as word perfect, quatro pro, lotus 123, netscape, 
harvard graphics, dbase iv all provided significantly better functionality 
at a substantially lower cost than the microsoft equivalent product at the 
time they were eliminated from the consumer market. Since that time, 
microsoft has increased prices very significantly in all areas where they 
have eliminated their competition. I think a remedy for these practices 
should cause them some financial pain, benefit those they have injured, and 
make future software development more palatable. Current computer hardware 
is approaching the price of the computer operating system, a thing unheard 
of in any other industry. Linux, Beos, and os-2 all provided significantly 
lower cost alternatives before they were systematically eliminated by 
microsoft's unfair business practices of pre-installing their operating 
systems on oem machines. I think the remedy of providing computer hardware 
to poor schools and making source code available to competors would be a 
significant start to rectify these problems.

sincerely

Mark Eagar



MTC-00003014

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 8:56pm

Subject: Microsoft

Get real! This company broke the law! They must be prosecuted and held 
accountable. The only way to assure both consumer protection and further 
violations of copyright and antitrust violations is to break the company up 
so that they will be governable.

Ed Lynn

763-566-3019



MTC-00003015

From: Jones MV (Michael)--CSC

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

Date: 12/6/01 8:55pm

Subject: Class-Action Suit

I have followed this case very closely, and There is a lot to be argued on 
either side of the coin. Being a person who works in Information Systems as 
a Systems Administrator, I will simply share my views and opinions, as I am 
a user of Both operating systems in my line of work, and I like both of 
them.

Microsoft: For what they have done for the PC industry, my hat is off to 
them. The monopolistic power they are today, for the majority of the 
companies lifespan, was earned. Microsoft, for years, released superior 
products than its competitors for the PC market. The ease of use and 
availablility is what made Microsoft the company they are today, however 
when you lead the cow to pasture, you are usually preparing to do one 
thing, to cut it up once it gets big enough.

[[Page 24207]]

Microsoft has flexed its financial muscles much too often in the past 3 to 
4 years. I feel the web browser wars were the first signs of it, by 
flooding netscape out of the market by giving people a free alternative, 
yet Internet Explorer is still property of Microsoft Inc. It is not open-
source. This makes a substancial difference in a technical sense. Its like 
giving a man a fish, rather than teaching him to fish. Once that fish is 
gone, you have to go back to the same man who gave it to you, and hope he 
is feeling generous. Nothing is gained by anyone except Microsoft, and many 
things have changed in the industry since this occurance. Microsoft now has 
limited control over what can and can't be viewed on the on the web by PC 
owners In order to see certain public web based content, you must now be a 
Windows user, but moreso than that, a IE user. They offer a free browser, 
but just for Windows users. They have tools like Active-X, but Just for IE. 
Have you tried getting to MSN.com with a broswer other than IE? you can't 
anymore.

With Windows XP, Microsoft is outlining its OS to be even more slanted 
towards monopolistic practices by checking against hardware to validate its 
really you that is using the OS. A person should not have to validate a 
hardware upgrade to their OS manufacturer to be able to continue to use 
their product, which they purchased a liscense to use, when their hardware 
becomes outdated. Microsoft has done a lot, but now they are doing too 
much, because there are more and more alternatives out there that are 
exceptional, and as more and more come around, Microsoft is flexing their 
muscles more and more to make things as incompatible as possible for the 
competition, while Microsofts competitors do exactly the opposite.

Redhat: Redhat Linux is an Open Source operating system that Intrigues me. 
It has, in many ways, filled the gaps that Microsoft OS's couldn't fill, 
during one of the most diffucult times in our industry to do so. What 
Redhat lacks is exposure. What Microsoft hopes to prevent by its practices 
is Redhats exposure. This is wrong. I feel the proposal by Redhat to put 
their operating systems on the computers in order for Microsoft to be able 
to support more schools is the best thing that could happen for both 
companies in this situation. In time, it will establish competition in the 
PC OS market once again. This needs to happen, because as Linux becomes 
more refined, and more streamlined for less technical end users, it will 
indeed be a prosperous operating system at the desktop level in 4-5 
years to come. Linux, is based on UNIX, which has existed much longer than 
windows and is important to know in this industry. Learning Linux will give 
people the ability to diversify their knowledge of computer operating 
systems on several levels. What better place to do this than at school? 
There are many breeds of UNIX out there, and they are all similar in 
nature. Learning Redhat Linux, opens the doors for SUSE, Mandrake, Corel, 
BSD, Slackware, and many others. This school proposal needs to go down to 
insure a stable, compatible market for the future.

I consider this point in time, in both hardware and software markets, the 
crossroads of PC's future. On one road, we have Open Source, and on the 
other we have liscensed based. Without breaking Microsoft up, they will 
program Linux out of the desktop market, because of the percentage they 
hold. They are bigger in that market, they are wealthier, they have more 
history in the desktop model than Linux, so Microsoft had something Redhat 
will not have if nothing happens to stop them, time. Bigger does not mean 
better, Older does not mean wiser. Reguardless of personal opinion, Redhat 
has the right to compete, without being driven out by a much larger company 
with a much bigger checkbook. I've seen many, many efforts by open source 
companies to work within Microsofts OS, and almost none by Microsoft in 
comparison. When I see Microsoft Office for Linux, I know then that we will 
be on an equal playing field, for once, in the PC industry. I am all for 
standardization, and it is needed in our industry (Standard Document 
Formats, More Hardware standards, etc), but the tools in which we 
standardize with need not apply (MS Office, Staroffice, Windows, Linux) If 
I'm blueprinting a house, weither I use a Paper-Mate pen or a BIC pen does 
not matter. When I'm blueprinting a house in a CAD program, weither I'm 
using Windows or Linux shouldn't matter either.

Thank you for your time,

Michael Jones

On site Technician for CSC

On site Technician at the Bay-Valley Complex

A division of Equilon Enterprises LLC Ph: 661.326.4355 Helpdesk: 
1.877.786.5821

mailto:[email protected] mailto:[email protected]

Life's a journey, not a destination.

--Steven Tyler



MTC-00003016

From: Alan Meyer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 9:04pm

Subject: Settlement of the microsoft monopoly case

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am writing to request that stronger measures be used to curb Microsoft's 
monopoly power in the software market. I am a professional computer 
programmer with no knowledge of law or economics, but with many years of 
experience in working with Microsoft produced and other software products, 
and in working with organizations that have chosen to buy Microsoft 
products. It is often the case that organizations I have worked for have 
chosen Microsoft products, not because they thought they were the best, but 
for fear that significant competitors would be destroyed by Microsoft and 
that purchasing those competing products would leave them out on a limb in 
future years.

It also often happens that an organization chooses a Microsoft product 
because the cost is cheaper than a competitive product. But the low cost 
may only continue until Microsoft dominates the market. For example, the 
cost of all word processors and spreadsheets--probably the two most 
common business applications, has declined for all vendors except 
Microsoft--which now totally dominates this business and still sells 
its Microsoft ``Office'' package at a high price. SQLServer, 
Microsoft's database, used to be dramatically cheaper than the Oracle 
database from Oracle Corporation. It is still somewhat cheaper. However as 
Microsoft's market share has grown, the cost of SQLServer has significantly 
increased, while the cost of Oracle has decreased.

Both of these outcomes--selling inferior software to buyers who are 
afraid that competing products' vendors will be driven out of business, and 
defying the general trend towards lower prices in the software 
industry--result from Microsoft's monopoly position. I haven't seen 
anything in the projected settlement which addresses these issues.

Thank you.

Alan Meyer

AM Systems, Inc.

Randallstown, MD USA

[email protected]



MTC-00003017

From: Rollin Strohman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 9:07pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

It is hard to conceive of a proposed settlement for an antitrust case where 
the defendant is aided in developing a monopoly in another area. Surely 
there must be a way to help education without supplying a business 
advantage for Microsoft. Giving cash for technology to school districts 
would seem to be a better answer.

Rollin Strohman

BioResource and Agricultural Engineering Department Cal Poly

Phone 805 756-1184 Fax 805 756 2626 San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 
Internet [email protected]



MTC-00003018

From: Tim Gravlin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 9:07pm

Subject: Monopolistic

Hey, Why are we paying you guys?

Good work punishing Microsoft for taking advantage of the American people, 
that's great! I am sooo glad to see that Democracy is for the people and 
not here to protect the interests of the biggest companies with the deepest 
pockets.

Sincerely,

tim

www.timgravlin.com



MTC-00003019

From: Jacks

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 9:13pm

Subject: Microsoft monopoly

If Microsoft really wants to provide quality software for our schools they 
will provide some OTHER operating system besides Microsoft windows. Their 
attempt to fan out their operating system to the schools is nothing short 
of a HUGE bribe to the country to further extend their monopoly.

Someone in the justice system has got to see that Microsoft is not worthy 
to provide software to our school systems.

Jack laster

[[Page 24208]]



MTC-00003020

From: Joseph Bottero

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 9:12pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

The DOJ's settlement with Microsoft is a scandal. It is a sweetheart deal 
if ever I saw one. It fails to punish Microsoft for illegal behavior in the 
past, and puts no barriers in place to illegal behavior in the future. The 
DOJ needs to withdraw this action and resubmit an appropriate sanction to 
the court.

Joseph Bottero

[email protected]



MTC-00003021

From: Maurice McCabe

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 9:17pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

While I do not support any settlement by the DOJ with a company which to 
any common sense observer is a monopoly, I vigourously object to allowing 
Microsoft to spread it's hegemony by allowing them to establish the 
incumbent operating system in educational institutions. There are other 
alternatives such as LINUX.

The DOJ is responsilble for maintaining the public trust, and as such, 
should be held responsible for mistakes and errors in judgement. Please let 
me know how the DOJ is being held accountable for it's actions in this 
particular case.

I look forward to your response.

Maurice McCabe

Maurice McCabe, Orbsoft, Inc., 1028 N. Lake Ave, Suite #108, Pasadena, 
CA 91104

[email protected], Tel: 626 798 2800, Fax: 626 798 9602, http://
www.orbsoft.com



MTC-00003022

From: David J. Looney

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 9:26pm

Subject: Inadequacy of Proposed Settlement with Microsoft

To Whomever It May Concern:

I can find no other word than ``betrayed'' to describe my 
feelings concerning the U.S. Government's accomodation of Microsoft's 
monopolistic practices. If this settlement is approved, it is clear that no 
software innovation will be safe from assimlation, that consumers will 
never be given any chance of preloading other operating systems on PC 
architecture computers by major vendors, nor have any respite from paying 
for Microsoft operating system software when purchasing laptops, even if 
they do not intend to use the software at all.

Here is a company that has used pricing practices for over a decade to make 
it economic suicide for any hardware vendor to offer alternative operating 
systems (as much as 400% pricing differential in many markets), sneering at 
the settlement reached in the previous DOJ action (concerning per cpu 
licensing), continuing to effectively enforce severe penalties through 
pricing against any company that would offer the consumer a choice.

Here is a company that has routinely precluded development for alternative 
platforms (e.g. OS/2 in the past) as a condition of particiation in 
programs for development support, and which currently seeks to prohibit the 
use of any open source tools in conjunction with Microsoft development 
tools. Microsoft deliberately introduced seemingly pointless changes to 
revisions (erroneously termed ``upgrades'') of the Windows 3.x 
series to ``break'' compatibility with OS/2 and to prevent or 
make difficult the use of DR DOS. While Caldera successfully sued, all of 
us consumers were still stuck with the inconvenience and left without 
compensation.

Here is a company which stated in leaked memos that the way to increased 
control was to subvert standards (the ``Halloween'' memo), 
introducing proprietary changes or alternatives, in an effort to control 
communication over the internet, force adoption of Microsoft server 
software, over more dependable and ``free'' software, and 
generally turn the internet from a public freeway into a corporate toll 
road. Here is a company that represented fabricated video in court to a 
U.S. judge as the truth. Here is a company that has also chosen to 
``borrow'', rather than innovate. The basic graphical user 
interface was clearly inspired by the Apple Macintosh, in turn derived from 
Xerox. The basic taskbar and menu interface added to Windows/95/98/Me/Xp 
was essentially a duplicate of the Lotus Smartbar system. When Microsoft 
wanted disk compression, they stole it from Stac, and didn't even consider 
doing that until it was first introduced by DR DOS. When Microsoft wanted a 
browser, they stole if from Spyglass (not paying agreed upon fees), and 
stole the name from an ISP which they drove out of business over the 
trademark of ``Internet Explorer''. Here is a company that looses 
again and again in court (most recently to a new England software 
development company over restrictions on software tools) and finds it 
cheaper to pay than play right. It was laughable to see Microsoft touting 
implementation of voice controls and an ``Internet Desktop'', 
years after a truly internet integrated and voice enabled desktop was 
introduced in OS/2 Warp. The only innovation introduced by Microsoft has 
been an incredibly fertile breeding ground for computer viruses and worms, 
preying upon Microsofts' operating systems fundmental lack of security and 
ill-considered capabilities built into email clients, browsers, and 
servers.

Here is a company that, when their browser didn't stack up against 
Netscape's, made it mandantory, ``integrated'' with the operating 
system. When they realized that video real estate on the installed OS 
screen was valuable, they loaded that icons generally useless and annoying 
to the consumers, and sought to control even the bootup screen. While 
initially making some concessions to hardware manufactures, just how 
quickly do you think Microsoft will backpedal once they secure the proposed 
love-pat-on-the-wrist settlement? They've already begun. How long before 
``SmartTags'' reappear, changing the content of the web pages 
viewed tailored to the tastes of Microsoft, or those who pay Microsoft to 
change it, while tracking your every movement on the web, and cross-
referencing your internet excursions with your credit card, password, and 
other information in their Passport database, the use of which is built 
into WindowsXP.

Their offer to donate software to disadvantaged schools reeks to the 
heavens of self-service. It is the largess of the cat as it plays with the 
mouse. The schools are the last place where Microsoft still faces 
significant competition (Apple). How convenient to be donating completely 
Microsoft systems. What a ``penalty'' for them to endure. Why not 
make Microsoft purchase Apple computers for every school in the US (running 
MacOS/X), and/or hardware capable of running the Linux operating system, 
which RedHat Software has agreed to donate free to every school in the 
country. That would make some sense, and at least show our children that 
they do have a choice. Do that, and make Microsoft agree to an absolutely 
open pricing structure, with only some capped volume discounts (i.e. top 
level over ]1000 copies $$$/copy), no special deals or contracts, 
everyone can buy the same volume for the same price, under penalty of 
breakup of the company. Ban Microsoft from including restrictive agreements 
with software developers--let them offer any incentives to develop for 
Microsoft operating systems they want, but don't allow them to offer 
disincentives or prohibit developers from targeting other platforms.

Then we would see just how far the quality of Microsoft's software would 
carry it. I am not a computer professional, and I have no financial 
interest in any of Microsofts' competitors. I'm just a computer user, who 
doesn't like Microsoft's software ``solutions'' or their 
behavior.

David J. Looney, M.D.



MTC-00003023

From: Zachary Johnson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 9:28pm

Subject: Don't Settle With Microsoft

To Whom It May Concern:

I would like to take this brief opportunity to voice my objection to the 
proposed settlement with Microsoft. As someone who grew up with computers, 
I've watched quite a bit of technology come and go, not all of it 
deserving. Names which once carried great excitement, now consigned to 
history, abound: Stacker, Netscape Navigator, Word Perfect, Amipro, Lotus 
1-2-3, OS/2, Telemate and so many more; each of these products 
fell victim to classic Sherman-style monopolistic predation: using the 
Windows Operating System monopoly to effectively ``squeeze'' out 
competitors. Microsoft quashed Stacker, then the leader of disk compression 
software, when it included DoubleSpace into MS-DOS and later Windows 95 and 
up. Microsoft quashed Netscape Navigator when it included Explorer into 
Windows 95, NT and up. Microsoft quashed Word Perfect my giving Office 
developers access to critical Windows computer code (Application 
Programming Interfaces) not available to other companies. Microsoft quashed 
Ami-Pro the same way.

[[Page 24209]]

Microsoft quashed Lotus 1-2-3 the same way. Microsoft quashed 
OS/2 by predatory licensing practices that punished PC vendors for 
including non-Microsoft operating systems and by refusing to make other 
applications, like Office, compatible with OS/2 despite demand. Microsoft 
quashed Telemate out of existence, and many other serial communications 
programs, by including Hyperterminal with Windows 95 and up.

The vicissitudes of the software industry over the last ten years has 
brought improvement, but at a great price: innovation. Consider disk 
compression alone. During the great Stacker versus DriveSpace competition, 
compression technology went from non-existent to 2x compression in just a 
few years. That was 1993. Drive compression technology has not improved 
significantly ever since. The same can be said for dozens of other market 
niches.

Keep in mind the story of OS/2. I remember how excited hundreds of 
independent software vendors, and tens of thousands of consumers, were when 
Microsoft was before Judge Stanley Sporkin in it's previous anti-trust 
trial. Many people were excited when Judge Sporkin refused to sign the 
settlement between the Justice Dept and Microsoft. I also remember how 
dejected we all became when the Appeal Court intervened. OS/2, a truly 
innovative Operating System which featured cutting edge technology long 
before it was incorporated into Windows, soon withered under the dark 
eclipse of Microsoft's licensing practices.

Bear this in mind:

Most likely you are using a Windows-based PC to read this message. Much of 
the software included on this machine represents a once-thriving segment of 
the software industry that no longer exists because Microsoft tied one of 
it's products, or a product of a company in which Microsoft has an equity 
stake in, to its Operating System monopoly.

Please, for us tired and weary computer users, reject the agreement lest we 
be back here again in another five years.

Sincerely although tired,

Zachary Johnson

Computer Professional, Enthusiast, and Legal History Wonk.



MTC-00003024

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:27pm

Subject: Microsoft comment

This is not about Microsoft being bad because they are Microsoft. This is 
to point out that the Department of Justice is passing up an opportunity to 
make America a better place by re-introducing competition back into the PC 
software industry.

If you look at the history of the software industry you will see that 
whatever market Microsoft has decided to enter, competition dies. Look at 
spreadsheet software: at one time Lotus (now IBM) ruled the market but had 
plenty of competitors. Microsoft entered the spreadsheet market and 
practically took over the market in just a few years. They did the same 
thing with word processing software. Wordperfect (now Corel) was the market 
leader with a healthy quantity of competitors. Microsoft entered the market 
and most competitors went out of business. The same happened with disk 
defragmenting software. Many competitors until Microsoft entered the 
market.

The loss of competition in the office productivity software happened 
concurrently. What event caused all of this? Bundling of Microsoft 
applications on new PC's. At first they were not the best but they were 
``free'' and good enough. Why buy the best or even something 
else? Now everyone sticks with Microsoft applications for 
``compatibility''. Everyone who buys a pre-made PC, as opposed to 
assembling out of parts, pays a Microsoft ``tax''. Windows and 
some kind of Microsoft productivity application are pre-loaded by the 
manufacturer. There are a few exceptions but none that amount to more than 
a few percent of the market. Competition is lost. Please take a look at the 
number of software companies today as opposed to ten years ago. Also look 
at the average size of the top five companies in each category. Now look at 
the same information for today. I think you will see a disturbing trend.



MTC-00003025

From: e-racoon webdesign

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 9:29pm

Subject: letter to the department of justice

Dear Department of Justice,

In respond to some e-mails I received in the case of Microdoft I would like 
to point out that I do not agree with the attitude of Microsoft. My opinion 
is the following:

First of all, I am not a happy costumer of Microsoft. They bring out 
software that does not work properly, a way of resolving that problem is to 
download patches or buy upgrades. Since Apple can bring out a quite good OS 
and Linux works good for free, Why can't Microsoft do the same. They are 
giving a false illusion of safety by pretending that their software is 
secure.

second: I really dont like all those stories about Microsoft that I hear. I 
might be paranoia but I have the feeling that my privacy is at stake if I 
continue to buy or install software of Microsoft. All those required fields 
to fill in with questions that actually dont need to be filled in for a 
working software. With XP I have to online to register my computer. I dont 
have the need that micosoft knows what I have for computer at home.

Third: The prices... absurd from microsoft to charge that much money for a 
software that has blue screens of death as standard feature, linux is a far 
more advanced OS for free. Im sure that the programmers of microsoft has an 
equal knowledge of programming that those of the linux community. Why the 
difference in price (?). receive free software that rocks or pay lots of 
bucks for a software that needs contineous patching and update and still 
not work good. Easy choice.

Conclusion: Dismantle Microsoft in smaller companies. This should be a 
solution. That way they will less have the opportunity to monopolise the IT 
sector.

The computer industry needs concurrence to evolve, monopolizing it would 
result in a low development rate and always the same software. My trust is 
in the maerican department of justice. make the right descissions and the 
world will be gratefull to you.

Sincere regards

Jim

web-developer

Netherlands

CC:Red Hat



MTC-00003026

From: Scott Jacobs

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 9:30pm

Subject: Concerned about settlement

As a software developer and consultant, I am concerned about the new 
direction the US DOJ has taken with respect to the case against Microsoft 
Corp. I think the evidence is clear that Microsoft strongarmed OEM's using 
anti-competitive and exclusive contract terms, using their dominant market 
position to back OEM's into a corner with no alternative but to sign on the 
dotted line.

This kind of arrogant disregard for fair competition needs to be addressed 
in such a way that Microsoft is taught a lesson. I can't see how that is 
being accomplished with the current settlement terms.

Regards--

Scott R. Jacobs

[email protected]



MTC-00003027

From: Brian (038) Christine

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 9:33pm

Subject: Antitrust settlement

I am from a small country which is dominated by Microsoft software. They 
are, in my belief, stamping out any form of competition in our primary 
areas of Government and Education. I am appalled by the DoJ settlement 
because I cannot see any form of punitive action, nor any remedy to prevent 
the continuation of abuse by this software monopoly. The danger of allowing 
Microsoft to continue its blatant behaviour is to see the U.S. become 
isolated technologically from the rest of world, Europe, and Asia in 
particular. The perception here is that Microsoft is above the law, 
untouchable, contemptuous of justice, and encouraged by the current U.S. 
Administration.

I support the states that oppose the settlement. It is a pity that they 
have to try and do what the DoJ should have done.

Yours sincerely

Brian Moyse

Christchurch New Zealand



MTC-00003028

From: Chris Embree

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 9:30pm

Subject: My opinion

Dear Sirs:

I have been a computer professional since 1985. I have worked with DOS, OS/
2, Apple Computers, Windows, Linux, AIX and Solaris and a few others. In 
the mid-80's IBM was considered the Evil Empire. Sun would have us believe 
that they are here to save us;

[[Page 24210]]

Linux zealots would have us all work for free; and Steve Jobs and co. would 
have sitting around in our bare feet making ``really cool'' 
graphics with our Macs. I don't believe that any of these groups have the 
consumers best interest at heart. As bad as they are, Microsoft continuing 
to operate as described in the settlement agreements is 10 times worse. 
Microsoft has a continued history of stealing add-on software, breaking it, 
then jamming it into their core operating systems. Microsoft designs and 
develops incredible insecure software then makes plans to have all its 
customers connected to the internet all the time. They simply must be 
stopped. If microsoft is allowed to continue, it will surely damage 
America. Their software is responsible for the overwhelming majority of 
systems outages and lost productivity in operations centers where Windows 
is in use.

The Commodore Amiga OS was better in 1985 than WinXP is today. Microsoft 
has not done us any favors. Stop them now.

Chris Embree [[email protected]]



MTC-00003029

From: James T. Garland

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 9:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust Settlement

I develop computer software. I never had any intentions of competing with 
Microsoft. Back in the days of DOS, I was able to get the information that 
I needed to write software for most any purpose. But, when Windows 3.1 came 
out, Microsoft made it virtually impossible for me to get access to the 
information that I needed to write Windows applications. Consequently, my 
days of developing software came to an end with the introduction of Windows 
95 and the death of DOS.

I believe that Microsoft is a monopoly and that they have been a predator. 
Their operating systems market is unchallengeable. The have destroyed 
numerous application software developers over the years to enhance their 
bottom-line. Why is it that you want to let them off with a slap on the 
wrist?

James T. Garland

Network Consultant and Software Developer

GarTek, 210 Thirteenth Street, Knoxville, TN 37916-1527, E-Mail: 
[email protected]



MTC-00003030

From: c.deveaux

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 9:45pm

Subject: PUNISH Microsoft, Don't be tricked into rewarding them!

In having Microsoft donate free software to schools, you are playing right 
into their hands. This is no punishment at all, all this will accomplish 
will be to further entrench their software's dominance in the marketplace. 
Only this time it will be among people who probably never had computer 
skills before; they had nothing with which to learn. If this goes through, 
they will be trained to go into the workplace with Microsoft-only computer 
skill; in other words, only capable of working in some flavour of Windows.

One of the reasons Windows is dominant is because most software is written 
for it; following a vicious circle:

--third party vendors sell more because Windows is much more popular. 
(It is absolute crap for the money we pay, BUT SINCE EVERYTHING IS WRITTEN 
FOR IT WE HAVE NO CHOICE!)

--because everything is written for windows, Microsoft maintain its 
stranglehold continuously.

No one can buy another OS that has even a tenth of what is available for 
Windows. Contrary to what Mr. Gates et al spew out, Microsoft is not about 
choice or innovation, it is about gouging the consumer and maintaining 
their monopoly and to hell with what consumers want. They just couldn't 
give a crap. Linux, for example, is free and doesn't crash even 1/100th as 
often as the most popular Windows. Microsoft has a billion-dollar budget 
and they can't even debug their own product. Why? PLANNED OBSOLESCENSE. 
After all, if the old version has loads of bugs (and with Microsoft it 
always does) they can sell a new version with bug fixes and not even have 
to.. *GASP*... ACTULLY EARN THE MONEY THEY ARE GETTING BY GIVING THE 
CUSTOMER WHAT THEY WANT!!

Yes, for the record I HATE Microsoft and absolutely everything they stand 
for. When I think of all the money I had to spend on their crappy system it 
makes my blood boil. No-one wants to take a chance on lesser-known OS's so 
I HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO USE MS WINDOWS (to my continual chagrin)

Force them to break up. Force the to reveal their source code. Do something 
to break the death grip the have on the PC industry. I personally want them 
GONE. But I'd settle for having a choice.

Regards,

Chris Deveaux



MTC-00003031

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 9:44pm

Subject: RE: Microsoft's Position in the OS / PC Market

To Whom it May Concern,

As a PC owner, I am less than thrilled with Microsoft's ability to force me 
to accept their Windows-XP operating system on my new PC, and with it, 
their police-state-tactics imbedded in the Operating System. Not only do I 
feel it a violation of my personal privacy (to allow them to run software 
on my machine that essentially permits them access to anything and 
everything I have installed), but I am very annoyed at the performance 
degradation of all this policing software. I am a law abiding citizen, who 
does not steal software products, so why should they have the right to 
force me to accept an agreement to run the only choice any home PC user 
really has--Windows (in whatever version they choose to provide), and 
at the same time add all their strong-arm-tactics built into their 
Operating System! I am truly sorry I did not buy my new PC before they 
switched over to this new Windows-XP. What does XP stand for? ``eXtra 
Paranoid (Bill Gates)''?

Please view the Microsoft Corporation as the 10,000 pound Gorilla it really 
is. Someone needs to protect the customers from their position as the 
``only game in town--so take it or leave it'' attitude. 
Please force them to back off! To open up their operating system so that 
customers such as myself can turn off the nonsense that eats up resources 
(Disk Space, CPU usage, Memory). I suggest you go to your local PC store 
(Gateway, CompUSA, whatever), and try to buy a PC without Windows-XP. You 
can't find one--trust me. Then, when you get it home, read the 
agreement that Microsoft requires you accept, if you want your new PC to 
work at all after 30 days! Perhaps this will show you what they truly are 
about.

I wish I had a choice. Thank you for your time,

Sincerely,

Janet Sinclair

CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00003032

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 9:46pm

Subject: Dear Department of Justice:

Dear Department of Justice:

The present settlement arrangement shows off Microsoft's extensive 
manipulative ability afforded to them by their monopolistic wealth. It is 
difficult to believe that this arrangement was not influenced by Microsoft 
money. The stench of corruption surround this entire settlement agreement, 
and it definately erodes faith in the ability of our justice system to make 
impartial decisions. The ugly, corrupting influence of money appears to 
have replaced your soundness for decision-making. POINT BLANK- Microsoft is 
guilty of Monopolistic practices that have hurt/ruined competing 
businesses, not by shrewd innovativeness, but by deceptive deployment of 
computer piracy practices. The general public is naive concerning these 
matters, but anyone with any substantial history/experience in the computer 
industry is aware of that trend, and the hands off policy adhered to by the 
justice department. The U.S. Justice system is emulating and reinforcing 
the backward business payoff methods used in corrupt systems, such as 
Mexico. ANYTHING for a buck, appears to be the new official slogan of the 
U.S. Justice department, because it is painfully obvious that there is no 
priority on what is right, moral, or what is the longterm good for the 
public.



MTC-00003033

From: Justin Bush

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 9:48pm

Subject: Monopoly

Maybe I am not completely clear on the monopoly issue here, but it seems to 
me that there is no such issue at hand. You should know that I do not 
solely use Microsoft products. I use many companies products on Microsoft 
Windows, but I also use many companies products on Red Hat and Mandrake 
Linux. So, I have used and still do use other operating systems other than 
Windows. Microsoft does put out incredible products. And, Windows is, in my 
opinion, the best operating system available. To say that they have a 
monopoly because they sell

[[Page 24211]]

more of their operating system than competitors is ridiculous. They sell 
more, because the majority of people want it. It is very user-friendly, and 
that is what most people want. I mean, why not...would you rather get a can 
of pop that tastes great and just requires that you pull a tab up to open 
it, or would you take the can of pop that isn't so great tasting and 
requires that you use a can opener to get it open? It's common sense. And, 
as far as requiring that Microsoft Windows come standard with other 
companies products installed is outrageous too. I can't state which one 
sells more, but let's say for instance that Pepsi sells more per year than 
Coke does. Does this mean that Pepsi has a monopoly and should be required 
to provide one can of Coke for every case it sells?

It's not like you don't have a choice either. Even if your computer 
purchase comes with Windows installed...you still have a choice. You are 
not required by law to use that operating system just because it was 
installed. If you don't like it, then remove it and install the operating 
system that you desire. If Linux ever get's close enough to compare to the 
user-friendliness that Windows has, then they will get more business. But 
until then, open source or not, Microsoft deserves what it gets...Money!

Justin Bush



MTC-00003034

From: Michael I Schwartz

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 9:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Antitrust summary

When I first read Thomas Penfield Jackson's summary on the Microsoft case, 
I was astonished. Here was a judge who had cut through the maddeningly 
lengthy arguments, avoided what could have been impossibly tangling 
technical discussions, and convincingly, summarily, and clearly described 
the kind of illegal and despicable behavior that Microsoft has engaged in 
for years.

Here, I thought, may be the beginning of the end of the strangling hold 
that one company has put on innovation by slowly encroaching on area after 
area of competition and innovation, using popularity of one product to 
drive the business out of another area, for over 10 years. My only concern 
about the proposed settlement was counting the appropriate number of 
entities that Microsoft should be split into. Instead, the Government not 
only lost its will to promote innovation and prevent financial gouging of 
the American public, but has turned a blind eye while Microsoft continues 
to prevent innovation and increases the cost of entry into its market to 
ever higher and unachievable levels.

I am sad that the proposed remedies do not prevent this behavior by 
Microsoft, but rather continue to encourage their particular kind of piracy 
and hostage taking.

In hopes that you will promote fair competition in future court cases,

[email protected] http://www.du.edu/mschwart

``Be very quiet ... for it goes without saying'' The Phantom 
Tollbooth



MTC-00003035

From: Jeff Waters

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 9:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Case & Settlement

Greetings,

I had high hopes that the DOJ would stand up for the American citizen 
during this trial, I was wrong. The DOJ joined others in bowing down to 
Microsoft and to punish them by forcing their 2nd rate software into 
schools is no punishment at all!, in fact it's a favor. Has the U.S. 
Government somehow been bought off by MS ?? I do not have the answer to 
this, only the evidence that there has been no justice at all.

Please stand up and make Microsoft actually pay for their horrible business 
practices and dishonorable methodology. Also do not get me wrong, I am for 
capitolism, making money and the American dream. However when they operate 
their business in the manner Microsoft did and still does, someone needed 
to step in and put a stop to it.

Regards,

Jeff Waters

Columbus, OH



MTC-00003036

From: Chris Russo

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 11:41pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

As a fairly consistent Republican voter, I must say that I'm deeply 
disappointed in the slap on the wrist settlement deal being offered to 
Microsoft. Free, unrestricted markets are the way to go 99.9% of the time, 
but when a monopoly such as Microsoft comes along that abuses its advantage 
to such a degree, I feel that consumers are truly hurt in the long run.

The DOJ should press its advantage as much as possible and retract the 
settlement offer being considered. If the entire settlement isn't 
completely rethought, at very least, consider proposals to add some teeth 
to it--like the one submitted by Apple Computer, Inc.

You have a real chance to benefit consumers and free the tech industry from 
such an onerous burden.

Regards,

Chris Russo

Houston, TX



MTC-00003037

From: Tom Davis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 9:57pm

Subject: Views on Microsoft and Monopolistic Practices

Dear Sir or Madam,

In this email I wish to present my view of Microsoft as it relates to 
monopolistic practices, the world of computing, and our society. First off, 
let me say that my opinion of Microsoft is that held with the highest 
regards. I salute the company for many things, including the advancement of 
the Internet, helping less knowledgeable people be able to participate in 
computing, and helping businesses to put their best foot forward with 
products like Office and the Windows OS. Next, let me say that much of my 
success thus far can be attributed to my understanding of Microsoft 
technologies, like ASP. Currently, I am a Senior Web Developer for Northrup 
Gruman IT contracting to the United States Air Force. In addition, I run a 
full service Managed Web Development and Hosting company from my home in 
Yukon, Oklahoma.

I would like to present what I think is a realistic view of Microsoft and 
how it impacts our society. First, let's take a look at security. I believe 
that Microsoft's Flagship Server (IIS) is one of the best static and 
dynamic content web servers on the market. The problem is that proper 
testing has not been performed on the product. It is obvious with the 
amount of patches that need to be applied on an all to frequent basis. From 
a small business standpoint, I no longer host any of my clients on IIS. 
Bottom line, I don't trust it's stability. Over the last year, I have been 
loyal to Redhat Linux and have reaped the rewards. First, Linux introduces 
you to REAL computing. For a very low cost you are provided with Enterprise 
level software that is as reliable as the Energizer Bunny. So if you ask me 
what the best enterprise solution is for our military, school system, and 
government agencies at all levels, my answer is Linux. You get a better 
product for a fraction of the cost, which enables you to spend money on 
things that count like giving pay raises to our nation's teachers, instead 
of paying another licensing fee.

Forgive me for being a huge sports fan and using an example that relates to 
sports, but Microsoft reminds me of the star athlete that keeps asking for 
more money. For fear of what will happen without him/her, the organization 
keeps paying out more money. Soon, the organization is headed for failure 
due to lack of funds for new talent. Ever heard of the Dallas Cowboys? 
While it is true that they won three superbowls in fours years over the 
last decade, it is also true that now that are fighting to stay afloat. I 
ask you, why is that? The high price they paid for some of their athletes, 
namely Deon Sanders.

The point is this, Microsoft is Deon Sanders. You might wonder, if 
Microsoft is Deon Sanders, who is Linux? The answer is Roy Williams of the 
OU Sooners. If you are not familiar with who he is, you should watch this 
kid play sometime. He is incredible.

Thanks for your time,

Tom Davis

Owner/Hostmaster Impressions Web Design, Okc. http://www.impwd.com



MTC-00003038

From: NCC74656@ subDimension.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 9:53pm

Subject: Microsoft vs. ``the rest of us''

IMHO, requiring Microsoft to donate their own software to schools only 
further extends their monopolistic control over the personal computer 
market. The money would be better spent on hardware, as there are a number 
of open source alternatives to Windows available for free. This would place 
computers in a larger number of schools.

Microsoft should also be required to change their business practices, as 
was

[[Page 24212]]

required of AT&T years ago. Otherwise, they're no better than a traffic 
offender that continues to get speeding tickets but never loses their 
license.



MTC-00003039

From: Hawkeye King

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 9:54pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement.

In regards to Microsofts's donations of computer equipment to schools, I 
think it would be a great idea to supply open source Linux software rather 
than proprietary MS software. For one thing, future upgrades of Microsoft 
software will be expensive, whereas open source software upgrades are 
better than free. Furthermore, open sourced software is effectively in the 
public domain. Thus, no one group or person will profit from this move. 
Finally, kids will learn more from a Linux box than they will from a 
Windows box. On a windows machine you learn how to use windows. On a Linux 
machine you can see the whole computer in front of you. In biology class, 
we dissected frogs in order to learn about anatomy. This is the kind of 
thing kids could do with a Linux computer.

My two bits,

Hawkeye King

Network Engineer



MTC-00003040

From: Todd Watson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 9:59pm

Subject: Opinion regarding DOJ-Microsoft settlement

Hello,

As I read the proposal to allow Microsoft to donate software, hardware and 
services to America's poorest schools as a means for settling this suit, I 
felt compelled to register my opinion of this proposal. Ladies and 
Gentlemen, it seems to me, that while this appears to be a noble gesture, 
let us not forget that this is the same organization that has already been 
ruled to be a monopoly and/or engage in monopolistic practices. With due 
respect, since this ruling I've not seen any issuance of any order that 
seeks to regulate their practices, as we have seen with other monopolies 
and oligopolies in our society.

As you consider their proposal, I'd encourage you to NOT allow Microsoft to 
provide software or services, especially their own, as a part of this 
settlement. This has nothing to do with an anti-Microsoft position, but 
rather the application of common sense. We, as a people, generally craft 
our punitive measures in such a way that the guilty cannot continue to harm 
the injured party. For example, we often take the right to drive away from 
someone convicted of a crime that involves a motor vehicle. We take away a 
criminal's right to be a part of society until he has paid his debt to that 
society. Microsoft should not have a remedy that allows them to further 
weave its products into the fabric of our society.

Please understand that the issue is far greater than the offer of goods and 
services. The issue has to do with an indoctrination of school children 
with computer software technology that sources from a single point. Our 
children should be given the opportunity to use products from various 
vendors. This more accurately reflects the type of an environment in which 
they will work after they enter the work force.

The proposal, and presumed acceptance of such a remedy, in my opinion, is a 
thinly-covered ploy to enable Microsoft to extend its reach. This does not 
even speak to the point that a remedy of donated software would have no 
real dollar value, since every copy of the donated product is essentially 
provided to schools at no cost to Microsoft. I realize the products have 
retail value, but the REAL cost to Microsoft is near zero. I'll bet they 
will write the costs of this software off in their taxes, and this should 
not be allowed, either. Please make your remedy have some barbs. The 
American people expect and deserve no less.

I'd suggest an alternative plan. Let Microsoft provide the goods and 
services, but let them be products they have to buy (with REAL money), such 
as Sun Solaris workstations, IBM AIX servers, Silicon Graphics 
workstations, Linux workstations or servers, Oracle databases, Apple OS-X, 
and other competitors' products.

Thank you for taking time to listen to the American people as you consider 
your decision.

W. Todd Watson



MTC-00003043

From: Dean Pulsifer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 9:58pm

Subject: Anti-trust settlement

I think that what ever is being set as a punishment needs to actually be a 
punishment and not an easy way for Microsoft to enter a market it is still 
trying to gain market share in. The punishment of providing free software 
for schools is really a punishment for Apple and Linux vendors, not for 
Microsoft.

Microsoft has driven a lot of useful improvements in software development, 
but they have done so at the expense of a lot of other companies.

Dean Pulsifer

([email protected])



MTC-00003044

From: Gary Lowther

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:03pm

Subject: Microsoft monopoly

To Whom It May Concern,

Your proposed settlement with Microsoft does not do nearly enough to 
correct the current market imbalance. I have little doubt that Mr. Gates 
and company had quite a celebration after the ``settlement'' was 
reached. Why did you bother? You should not have started what you didn't 
intend to finish. Oh. That's right. You didn't start it, the previous 
administration did. And this litigation was one of the very few things that 
I could whole-heartedly support from the mostly miserable Clinton 
administration. The damage you have caused with this settlement will not be 
really felt for several more years. Eventually, Microsoft will have to be 
stopped by the government, and due to your inaction at this time, the 
eventual ``clean-up'' will be all the more costly and painful for 
everyone (worldwide).

Thanks for nothing.

Sincerely,

Gary Lowther



MTC-00003045

From: Tom Stephenson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:04pm

Subject: Justice For Whom

This Microsoft antitrust scam has gone on long enough.

The only parties hurt by Microsoft has been their incompetent competitors. 
They want the government to, in some way, hobble Microsoft since they can't 
compete in a COMPETITIVE marketplace. I don't think Time/AOL, Sun, Oracle 
and the rest care about the consumer one bit. The rogue states continuing 
the campaign either want some sort of recognition or are trying to protect 
Microsoft competitors located in their state. It is unbelievable that 
anyone could consider the consumer harmed by almost any of Microsoft's 
products or services? A free browser; standardization; an easy to use 
operating system; an excellent office product, etc. etc. etc. If Microsoft 
doesn't offer products/services customers want, they will buy it from 
someone else. Let the market decide not a group of zealous attorney's.

Thanks,

Tom Stephenson

Surprise, Arizona

(It's also curious to note that the NASDAQ meltdown began shortly after the 
Clinton Whitehouse began this whole effort.)



MTC-00003046

From: David DILGER

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:04pm

Subject: Gateway Information

To Whom it may concern,

Up until recently I had worked for computer maker Gateway in Sioux Falls 
South Dakota. It had been talked about for years that for every machine 
shipped had to have a fee paid to Microsoft this is rather it shipped with 
a Microsoft Os/Application or even a competitor such as Novell.

Also I do know first hand that Gateway needed to provide employees to 
remove Microsoft labels from the returned Gateway machines this costs 
Gateway as well as other machine manufacturers thousands of dollars each 
per year.

The functionality of the software is also limited and I am sure this must 
be an agreement between the manufacturers and Microsoft, but the limitation 
involves Microsoft Software.

If you have any additional questions I would call the Gateway Sioux Falls 
facility and ask to speak to the following people:

David Reznicek

John Landon

Kevin Erickson

Chuck Limoges

If there is anything else I can help you with please feel free to ask.

Thanks for your time.

David Dilger



MTC-00003047

From: Nicola Vitale

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:04pm

[[Page 24213]]

Subject: Microsoft anti trust case

I am science teacher in new york city. I belive that microsoft donating its 
software to schools only works to increase the microsoft monopoly. I think 
that public schools should do nothing to support private, for profit 
intrests. It is unfair to other companies and to the students themselves.



MTC-00003048

From: Sunshine Smith

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:04pm

Subject: Anti-trust settlement

Unbelievable, that is my response to this so-called settlement, just 
another example of, throw enough money to the government and they will come 
around to your way of thinking. I would like to know where is the 
punishment for past wrong-doing by Microsoft, they have over 20 billion 
dollars in their coffers, how could you possibly punish them with a fine. 
As for Microsoft giving software to schools, boy there is a self-serving 
action. Unfortunately, ``might doesn't make right in this case, money 
does''.

Thank you for your time,

Don Kidd

P.S. DOJ if you are going to get in bed with Microsoft, at least turn out 
the lights, your embarrassing yourselves.



MTC-00003049

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:10pm

Subject: AtATgram: Lobbying For Smackdown (12/6/01)

Joe Pavlo [[email protected]] is sending you a scene 
from_As_the_Apple_Turns!_

Scene 3435 follows:

Lobbying For Smackdown (12/6/01) Remember how Microsoft recently offered to 
settle a couple hundred private antitrust suits potentially worth some 
$12.5 billion by donating $1.6 billion in refurbished computers, software, 
and services to the nation's ``poorest schools''? Yes, it was a 
baldfaced attempt to turn what should be a penalty for abusing monopoly 
power into a cheap and easy grab for yet more market share. As such, that 
settlement proposal is the latest and most obvious piece of evidence that 
Microsoft thinks the rest of the world is suffering from massive head 
wounds. Then again, who can blame them for thinking so? After all, 90% of 
the world is using Windows; we're hard-pressed to come up with a better 
explanation for that statistic than widespread cranial trauma. But we 
digress. You probably also recall that Steve Jobs was among those who found 
Microsoft's proposal just slightly..._incongruous_with the 
whole ``antitrust punishment'' angle.

Being the quintessential diplomat (at least, when he wants to be), the man 
generally keeps his yap shut about Redmond antitrust issues, but when 
suddenly faced with the possibility of a billion-dollar tidal wave of 
Windows, Office, and Outlook crashing through our schools and wiping out 
one of Apple's last market strongholds, Steve issued a cautious statement 
of protest last week, stating that he was ``baffled'' as to how 
handing Microsoft a new market on a silver platter constituted any sort of 
penalty for breaking the law.

Now, see, we thought that was the end of it as far as Apple was 
concerned--and certainly Steve's short statement attracted a whole 
mess of media attention, so we figured that Apple had made its point and 
moved on. Evidently we were wrong, though, because faithful viewer GUMBY 
informs us that Apple plans to file a supplemental brief tomorrow morning 
in hopes of persuading the judge to reject the proposal. According to 
Reuters, one of El Steve-O's big points will be that $830 million of that 
$1.6 billion settlement consists of free Microsoft software--which, in 
reality, doesn't cost anywhere--near--that much to reproduce.

In his own divine words, ``We think people should know that the actual 
costs to Microsoft for this donated software will likely be under $1 
million.'' Mmmm, you just--gotta--love that 100,000% markup!

So instead of letting Microsoft get off cheap by donating software valued 
at full retail price (yet costing only pennies to reproduce), Steve 
proposes the same idea we rattled off last week: make Redmond cough up the 
cash and let the--schools--decide what they want to buy with it. 
By our count, shelling out $1.6 billion in cash to settle hundreds of cases 
worth up to $12.5 billion is still a great deal--especially for a 
company with pockets as deep as Microsoft's. Heck, if it were up to us, 
we'd tack another billion or two on there just to smack Microsoft around 
for proposing such a weasel-headed settlement in the first place. We'll see 
soon enough if the judge bites.

To see this scene as it was meant to be seen, complete with links to 
articles and formatted as originally broadcast, visit: [http://
www.appleturns.com/scene/?id=3435]

To see the complete, unadulterated episode in which this scene was 
originally broadcast, visit: [http://www.appleturns.com/episode/
?date=12/6/2001]

As the Apple Turns: [http://www.appleturns.com/] This Scene: 
[http://www.appleturns.com/scene/?id=3435] This Episode: [http://
www.appleturns.com/episode/?date=12/6/2001]

Copyright (c) 1997-2001 J. Miller; please don't forward without this 
attribution and the URLs above. Other reproduction requires J. Miller's 
explicit consent; please contact him at the site. Thanks.



MTC-00003050

From: Scoobsjk

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:07pm

Subject: RE: Microsoft

Hi,

I think it a sham to let Microsoft donate software to poor schools or any 
schools for that matter. Microsoft has their software in almost every 
school in North America now. This proposal gives Microsoft an open door to 
get students to use ``THEIR'' software, so naturally when 
students buy their first computer they will assume that Microsoft is 
``THE'' operating system and software to use without knowing they 
have a choice or go out into the work force obvious to the fact that the 
company that might hire them doesn't use Microsoft products and that job 
opportunity might just fly out the door. Where is the justice in that.

I have used Microsoft's Windows 3.1, 9x and 2000 and I don't like the idea 
of having to install their Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, etc., when I 
don't want it installed, because I don't use it. I also feel that their 
products are highly over priced and highly over rated. An operating system 
that crashes as frequently as the Microsoft family of operating systems do, 
is not a great system. I have changed to a Linux OS and haven't had any 
crash problems what so ever. There are a number of operating systems out 
there, we have to show people there are alternatives, what you are doing is 
giving Microsoft the ``BRASS RING''.

I think you should rethink this problem.

Cheers,

Scoob



MTC-00003051

From: Franz Hamann

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:12pm

Subject: antitrust

Dear sirs,

My name is Franz Hamann, I am a PhD candidate in economics at North 
Carolina. It has called my attention the fact that a company charged and 
found guilty of exercising monopoly power to destroy competition is not 
being punished for the past damage. As I economist, I know, more than 
anybody else, that a monopoly imposes high costs to a society. You, at the 
DOJ, using resources from us (the taxpayers) have failed to the commitment 
of restoring one of the most valuable assets of America: economic 
competition. Shame on you!

Franz Hamann

Franz Hamann

Economics Department, P.O. Box 8110, North Carolina State University, 
Raleigh, NC 27606-8110, http://www4.ncsu~.edu/~~~~~~~~~fahamann 
mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00003052

From: Chuck Talk

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:17pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement unjust

Dear Sirs,

I wish to state for the record that the Microsoft settlement is unjust, and 
only furthers their monopolistic practices. The proposed settlement to 
``donate'' software and hardware to schools is only designed to 
undermine Apple even further in their traditional school system markets. 
There is no dealing fairly in Microsoft's business.

I cannot believe that this nation, which has always played fairly would 
allow this monopoly to continue to crush the innovations of other 
companies, and continue the unjust licensing practices they have had in 
place for so long. The future of true value and stability lies elsewhere. 
The future of computing does not begin Redmond Washington making the few 
wealthy at the expense of the public.

I pray that the Department of Justice negotiate a settlement to curb the 
Microsoft businesses which, when seeing someone else's success, ultimately 
enter that market and destroy it for all others. Would we allow Standard 
Oil to set the price of Gasoline? No, we did not. Would we allow AT&T 
to stay

[[Page 24214]]

a monopoly? No, we did not. What possible benefit can be gained from 
allowing this one company (which has had a habit of releasing substandard 
imitations of others' innovations) to continue to dominate the market 
through monopolistic practices? I say no benefit other than the personal 
gains of the officials at Microsoft.

If Microsoft is allowed to do what it wants, Real Networks, Kodak, 
Syamantec, McAfee, and many other companies will eventually be forced to 
cede their markets to Microsoft through the Windows Media Player (ins't 
this just another re-hash of the Video for Windows debacle?), the Personal 
Firewall in XP, the digital photo suites, everything that others 
built--they copy and destroy. They are are alos exerting tremendous 
pressure on OEM's to keep them from delivering Linux-based PC's to 
consumers. They want to destroy the open-source movement with lies. Scott 
McNealy has it right--they do not even flirt with the truth anymore.

I pray that you take punitive action and stop them before we have a 
Government by and for the Microsoft.

Sincerely,

Charles Talk

[email protected]

Nature abhors a vacuum, and so does my dog.



MTC-00003053

From: Joe Hoffman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:17pm

Subject: My comments on the proposed settlement

As someone who has worked in the software development industry for over 20 
years, I feel I have a strong opinion about the Microsoft settlement issue.

My biggest concern is living in a world that continues to allow Microsoft 
Corporation to continue to monopolize the software industry and crush 
competition. This is wrong both from a legal perspective and a moral 
perspective. Microsoft has demonstrated a desire and willingness to crush 
any other company and they have the capacity to do just that. This needs to 
be kept in mind and addressed in any agreed settlement. For example, 
allowing Microsoft to donate their products to disadvantaged schools is a 
farse.

All this will do is further extend their monopoly. Redhat's proposed ideas 
need serious consideration, however I'm not sure how this compensates 
companies who have been crushed and ruined by Microsofts anti-competitive 
practices. Please keep this issues in mind when considering the Microsoft 
settlement.

Thanks for listening.

Joe Hoffman

Denver, CO



MTC-00003055

From: jamestheriault@ excite.com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:18pm

Subject: A suggestion

A simple suggestion; Keep Microsoft propaganda and their brain damaged 
products out of public shools. Schools are about learning. If children must 
learn about computers, let them assemble them from old parts and install a 
free, open operating system. This way, they will learn about computers, not 
about using Microsoft products.

Jim Theriault



MTC-00003056

From: Lee Larson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

I write this letter to state that I oppose the negotiated Microsoft 
settlement. Here are my reasons.

(1) Microsoft is guilty of monopolistic practices, yet the settlement 
encourages the extension of that monopoly into schools--one of the few 
areas where they still have non-trivial competition.

(2) The settlement is not punitive. The cost of providing software is 
negligable to Microsoft and, in the end, they will probably profit by 
eventually charging the schools upgrade fees for their ``free'' 
software.

This is a variation on the scheme they used to corner the spreadsheet, word 
processing and browser markets.

(3) The settlement does nothing to correct the wrong created by Microsoft's 
criminal actions, and does little to keep them from doing the same things 
in the future.

Lee Larson

Lee Larson, Mathematics Department, University of Louisville, http: //
www.louisville.edu/~lmlars01 (502) 852-6826, CC:attorney. 
general@po. state.ct.us@ inetgw,ag@ oag.stat...



MTC-00003057

From: Alan Meyer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 9:12pm

Subject: Software for schools

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am writing to ask you to prevent Microsoft from giving away software to 
our nations' schools.

Giving away computer products to schools is a long standing technique for 
increasing market share. The children learn to use the products in school, 
then come home and ask their parents to buy the same products for use at 
home. The product they used in school is the only one they know and are 
comfortable with. If Microsoft wishes to give cash to schools, or to donate 
computers (which they don't sell themselves) to schools, that will not 
strengthen their monopoly position in software. However if they give away 
Microsoft software to schools (which doesn't really cost them anything) it 
will strengthen their position and is very akin to ``dumping'', 
and other techniques that harm competition. Also, it is my understanding 
that Microsoft will only license the software to the schools for a limited 
time. I have read that, in the Microsoft proposal, after five years the 
schools must start paying fees.

It seems to me that this proposal by Microsoft shows that Microsoft still 
doesn't understand that building a monopoly is illegal, harmful to the 
people of our country, and morally wrong. I ask you not to permit this 
proposal of Microsoft's to go forward.

Thank you.

Alan Meyer

AM Systems, Inc., Randallstown, MD USA, [email protected]



MTC-00003058

From: MIke Combs

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:28pm

Subject: Settlement

I am an avid Linux user, but I am also a systems administrator for 2 
Microsoft Windows Local Areea Networks in the employ of the U.S. Navy. It 
is my firm belief that if the United States Department of Justice allows 
the settlement to include disbursement of Microsoft Windows software, then 
not only is the Department impotent, it would at that time be propogating 
the acts of a convicted monopolist and abetting in the expansion of such 
monopolies.

Look at the facts...Microsoft would be ``giving'' away free 
versions of its software to needy schools to teach the next generations how 
to use computers. This is brilliant for Microsoft in that it is an 
investment in several ways.

First, it is an investment in that in 5 years, the software would have to 
be upgraded in order to retain proper taining for the young people of today 
and tomorrow, but also to retain compatibility. As it stands now, 
Microsoft, in the near future will no longer provide support for Windows 
NT4. This will force all businesses that use it, Including the Department 
Of Defense which uses Microsoft products almost exclusively, to upgrade. 
Therefore they areinvesting in a tremendous rush on per seat liscensing to 
occur 5 years from now...

Secondly, they would be training the next generations to use computers, but 
not providing them with any other education other than Microsoft Products. 
And it is obvious to anyone that cherishes reason. Those who are taught to 
use Microsoft Products as youth will buy those same products as adults 
because that is all they know how to use, because the free computers and 
software is all they can afford. (It is acknowledged that the computers and 
software will go to the less fortunate schools that cannot afford computers 
to teach their children.

If this is allowed to happen, I fear for free trade everywhere. I hope, as 
a servant of a great Nation that our leaders, and the enforcers of laws of 
the greatest Nation on earth will recognize the marketing genius of such a 
move and stop it before it is too late and they themselves are rendered 
imptent by a long range corporate marketing scheme.

Brgds,

Michael Combs ET2(SW) USN



MTC-00003059

From: Paul Dormeyer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:29pm

Subject: Microsoft Monopoly

It is a joke to think that Microsoft is not a monopoly. If Toyota had the 
same share of the vehicle market that Microsoft has in the software market, 
you would be finding ways to stop Japan from sending vehicles to America.

[[Page 24215]]

Get real and don't let Microsoft off with a slap on the wrist.

Paul Dormeyer



MTC-00003060

From: Easling

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:30pm

Subject: Microsoft AntiTrust Decision

I believe what you are doing to Microsoft is a miscarage of justice.

You weren't so lenient on AT&T nor on Standard Oil. WHY? Break them up 
into seperate companies. One as an OS company. One as a Software Company 
(office, etc.). One as a hardware company (MS-Mouse, Keyboard, XBox, etc). 
Your decision to ``punish'' them by making them pay with software 
is a JOKE. If anything, make them pay money. Then install Linux on school 
systems. This will help keep them from being even more monpolistic. Why 
punish them by putting them in the very market they want to get to in the 
first place? Isn't it kind of like sending your kid to his/her room where 
they've got a radio, TV, PC, etc? What kind of punishment is that?

ME



MTC-00003061

From: Carl, Steve

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

Date: 12/6/01 10:33pm

Subject: Appalling

Everything I have read about this settlement says that MS has been found 
guilty of being an illegal monopoly, and will now be rewarded for it. 
Unbelievable. They aren't going to have to even open up their API. Utterly 
useless. Why even bother?

Steve Carl

Manager, R&D Support

BMC Software



MTC-00003062

From: Van T. Wright

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:33pm

Subject: Cost

I am a computer technician with knowledge of Microsoft products. I have 
used the products up until a year ago. I could not afford to go out and 
purchase new software every time Microsoft roll out a new operating system. 
I am not using RedHat software and I find it practical. Microsoft should 
pay some fees that cause many users to upgrade additional software because 
the old software is not compatible with the new operating system. By not 
supporting old operating system, which works well for the majority of 
users, forces a upgrade of live with the consequences.



MTC-00003063

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:37pm

Subject: hardware only

To whom in may concern,

Please only allow Microsoft to contribute to the school system with 
hardware only, and no software what so ever. Allowing schools to have a 
choice in what operating system they wish to install on the hardware. I do 
not want my children to know that Microsoft is the only choice for 
operating systems and software. Having a diverse collection of hardware and 
software will insure our future with industry standards and not defacto 
standards or proprietary standards. As a monopoly, we need to reduce 
Microsoft's presence, not increase it.

Thank you,

Maverick Merritt



MTC-00003064

From: Stephen Nay

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:37pm

Subject: Comments on Microsoft settlement

I am very disappointed in the proposed settlement between the DOJ and 
Microsoft. Where is any penalty for Microsoft being found guilty of illegal 
practices in its monopoly position? The remedies in the settlement don't 
give me any hope that Microsoft will do anything markedly different in the 
future.

My biggest concern is that the problem of ``bundling'' other 
software with the Windows operating system was not addressed directly. With 
each new version of windows, Microsoft adds new ``features'' 
which really have nothing to do with an operating system, but step into the 
market space of other companies. Because Microsoft includes their features 
``free'' with the operating system, the other companies have 
little room to try to sell their products and make a profit. I thought that 
was the original complaint and that it was that very practice that found 
Microsoft to be illegally using its monopoly position. But I don't see 
anything close to an adequate answer to this problem in the settlement. How 
many more companies must fall by the wayside because Microsoft includes 
their competitive feature for free in the operating system. Features in 
Windows XP are a direct attack on Real Media and also on Symantec's 
pcAnywhere.

Those products may not die--they may just wither and limp along like 
Netscape has since Microsoft started bundling Internet Explorer in with 
Windows. Since when is a browser part of an operating system?? It's 
not--it's a separate application. I have no confidence that the DOJ is 
representing the best interests of American enterprise and consumers in 
this settlement. On the contrary, it appears to be a complete sell out. I'm 
a republican, but Bill Clinton's administration was much more effective in 
this case than the current leaders of the Justice Department. Microsoft is 
squelching competition, and now they have the government's approval to 
continue doing so. Sad.

I'm incredibly disappointed. I wish I lived in one of the states that is 
not going along with the settlement so that I could encourage my own 
attorney general to keep up the fight. Sell out, plain and simple. You 
can't even put a good face on it because it's so obvious. Microsoft had 
agreed to greater concessions a year ago, and our current DOJ can't even 
get back to that spot. Sad.

Stephen Nay



MTC-00003065

From: Robert Discher

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:38pm

Subject: MICROSOFT ANTITRUST SETTLEMENT

Dear Sirs,

I am very disappointed in the settlement of the antitrust suit against 
Microsoft. There is no question that they have a monopoly. The sorry 
software that they churn out, including their operating systems which do 
not work, is perfect proof that their monopoly is not good for the computer 
industry or consumers.

Their latest offering, Windows XP, is an example of their boldness due to 
the unwillingness to hold them responsible. The information gathered and 
sent to Microsoft is nothing short of criminal, not to mention the fact 
that they are putting everything into place to require a regularly paid 
ransom to continue to use their software. Quite frankly, the bugginess of 
all of their software, including their operating systems, shows that it is 
all way overpriced as is.

Continuing to allow Microsoft free reign is not good for the computer 
industry, it is only good for one company, Microsoft, and primarily good 
for one person, Bill Gates. This is not good for the economy or businesses. 
It is long past time to hold Microsoft accountable. It should be broken up 
into an operating system company and a software company, and all contracts 
which remove buyer options for the operating system installed on a new 
computer should be declared null and void.

Thank You,

Bob Discher



MTC-00003066

From: Jonathan Bernhardt

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:40pm

Subject: The splitting of MS

Dear DOJ,

I am thrilled that you did not split Microsoft into two. However, this is 
where my approval ends. Allowing MS to get away with linking their browser 
to the Operating System is a travesty, bordering on criminal. Other 
companies have been punished for attempting this sort of thing in other 
industries--why does MS get a bye? Most importantly, you have now told 
them that they can push the envelope between legal/illegal, even farther, 
further squelching innovation, and improvement in rest of the industry.

It saddens me and angers me that our government is encouraging unethical 
activities at such a grand scale. Luckily, you have not completely 
eliminated our great capitalistic system in the US--which will soon 
take care of MS [one way or the other] without your intervention. In 
summary, you have proven to be yet another government organization that 
spends massive amounts of our money, yet provides no benefit. Any 
legislation, or political candidate that calls for the DOJ demise will get 
my vote.

I apologize if this sounds emotional. However, I am getting very tired of 
the suppression of innovation that you clearly support. And splitting MS? 
What were you thinking? If I have it wrong, or am missing something, I 
would very much like to be corrected. My expectation, however, will be that 
you will not respond, or will respond

[[Page 24216]]

with something that defends your organization instead of telling me how you 
are going to start protecting honest, ethical businesses.

Regards,

Jonathan



MTC-00003067

From: Steve Holden

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:40pm

Subject: Why the Microsoft Settlement Should Be Stronger

Introduction

I am an independent consultant and trainer with over thirty years in the 
computer industry. I would argue that the currently proposed settlement of 
the states' and the DoJ's anti-trust action against Microsoft does not 
address the inequities which the company's monopolistic behavior has 
created. Further, it is likely to allow the defendant to extend such 
behavior into new markets by providing it with the opportunity to dominate 
the software market in underprivileged and underfunded US schools. Further 
it will not enable competition in key market areas which Microsoft's 
illegal actions have so far successfully defended against non-commercial 
competition of a completely legal nature.

Complaint (Competition)

The current proposal for settling the Department's anti-trust suit against 
Microsoft, as well as private settlements proposed by Microsoft in separate 
class action suits for overpricing, would have Microsoft donate software to 
the country's poorest schools.

This cannot be considered a punitive action: the marginal cost to Microsoft 
of an extra copy of any Windows operating system is as close to zero as 
makes no difference: development costs have already been amortised many 
hundreds of time over. Further, since such donated software effectively 
locks the recipients into Microsoft products for their future purchases, it 
actually increases the marketplace in which Microsoft is free to act in a 
monopolistic and anti-competitive way. If the Department sincerely wishes 
to see Microsoft pay for its illegal behavior then it should insist on 
remedies which have a measurable effect on the company's net worth. 
Microsoft should be made to donate the products of other computer industry 
companies to the schools. Since software to compete with Microsoft products 
is available at no cost from diverse sources, it would seem more sensible 
that Microsoft be compelled to donate computer equipment, which could then 
be provisioned with software chosen by the intended users. The users could 
choose to provision software at no additional cost using readily-available 
open source components such as GNU/Linux. Alternatively they might choose 
to pay for Microsoft software, should they consider it worth the additional 
cost.

This would also have the advantage that it would create a worthwhile target 
market for further open source products, against which Microsoft would have 
to develop new (and hopefully legitimate) forms of competition.

Complaint (Interoperability)

The proposed settlement required Microsoft to provide information to 
competitiors to allow them to interoperate with Microsoft products in far 
too limited a way. I am particularly concerned that the settlement, as 
currently proposed, would allow Microsoft to defend the actions they ahve 
in the past taken to limit the interoperability of the SAMBA software 
(www.samba.org), which offers a way for open source operating systems to 
provide file sharing and printing capabilities to computers which run 
Microsoft desktop operating sytems, avoiding lock-in to Windows 2000 or 
Windows NT for infrastructure support.

A summary of supporting opinion can be seen at http://linuxtoday.com/
news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-11-06-005-20-
OP-MS The major problem appears to be that Microsoft would be allowed 
to determine the interpretation of certain key clauses in the settlement 
agreement, which would allow them to create loopholes through which they 
could continue to deny vital interoperability data to legitimate developers 
of competing (though perhaps non-commercial) products.

Summary

Ultimately the only way to change Microsoft's behavior, which despite all 
their protestations *has* been ruled anti-competitive, is to take action 
which hurts the company (and be extension the stockholders who have 
profited by its success) in the pocket-book. To do any less it to teach the 
lesson that anti-trust laws can be ignored with impunity by any 800-pound 
gorilla that wishes to start making political contributions once it finds 
itself to be the object of legal action by the DoJ.

Sincerely

Steve Holden

http://www.holdenweb.com/

CC:president@whitehouse. 
gov@inetgw,[email protected]....



MTC-00003068

From: Magillanix

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:42pm

Subject: Microsoft is a rip-off

I care about my security while I am on the internet. It costs just too much 
to buy a windows operating system, and when I buy it I have to deal with 
viruses and no protection, the only way I can fix those problems is to buy 
third-party software. It costs even more, like the virus scanners, 
protection programs etc. I dont know why should anyone put up with those 
issues. I got linux free and very well secured and all the software free. I 
demand microsoft to be like linux, so that everyone will be happy.



MTC-00003069

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:46pm

Subject: Shame

Dear Sir

It is terrible to think that even the last bulwark against Microsoft is 
crumbling. The unfortunate future generations have to pay for your follies. 
Now, nobody could save this world other than God. How could DoJ type of 
bodies ignore Microsoft's evil practices and help it to become a monopoly. 
Is it just vested interested? Then why should you exist?

It is like America was ignoring global terrorism for quite some time and in 
some cases even using it to further its interests. Finally it had to pay 
the price with its own innocent citizens' lives. It is going to happen with 
MS also. One day they will become a terror and nobody will be in a position 
to challenge them.

Regards



MTC-00003070

From: Charles Landau

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:48pm

Subject: opposed to proposed Microsoft settlement

My name is Charles Landau. I have been a software engineer since 1968. In 
my career I have written major parts of numerous operating systems. I have 
authored several technical papers on operating systems that were published 
in peer-reviewed journals, and I am the sole inventor of three software-
related patents.

I must add my voice to the chorus of outcry over the incredibly lenient 
settlement that the Department of Justice proposes for the Microsoft 
antitrust trial.

I'm sure others have detailed the problems with this proposal. This 
settlement does not include any punishment for past illegal actions. It 
would be ineffective in protecting against future monopolistic practices. 
And it has no effective enforcement provisions. To approve this settlement 
would be a travesty of justice, and a clear signal to Microsoft and others 
that antitrust law is meaningless.



MTC-00003071

From: Leonard Werner

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:48pm

Subject: Settlement

I beleive that the DOJ should have left its hands off of Microsoft. It may 
be a monopoly but there is nothing else. There have been othere operating 
systems in the past, while they had some better features than Microsoft, 
they did not always work. Linux today is a better operating system than 
Microsoft but it has some growing to do. Computer persons no Microsoft is 
not the answer but there is nothing else.

Thank you.

Leonard



MTC-00003072

From: Al Weimer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:53pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe that more restrictions need to be placed on Microsoft for their 
anti-competitive practices. Little companies like Real Networks will 
automatically go under when Microsoft is allowed to continue to bundle its 
Media Player with its XP Operating System. Microsoft can sit back and do 
nothing but wait for their Media Player to wallop the Real Player even 
though Real Networks will spend considerable money advertising and 
developing, etc. I have heard that one

[[Page 24217]]

potential option being considered is to force Microsoft to supply a bundle 
free XP. This makes sense and will allow competition from companies like 
Real Networks that don't even have $0.5 billion market capitalization 
compared to Microsoft's $350 Billion.

Its time to put a stop to the walloping Microsoft did to the likes of 
Netscape, Lotus, and WordPerfect.

Sincerely,

Alan Weimer 6967 Springhill Drive Niwot, CO 80503



MTC-00003073

From: astirust

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:58pm

Subject: DOJ & MicroSoft Settlement

12/06/2001

Dear Sirs:

The proposed Microsoft settlement is unacceptable. It does nothing to 
protect consumers from the continuing monopolistic behavior by Microsoft. 
It does nothing to remedy the damages that Microsoft has already done to 
competitors, which in turn has and is hurting consumers.

At the very least finical penalties in the area of 20 Billion Dollars 
should be levied against Microsoft. This would send a clear message to 
Microsoft, that they broke the law and that continuing to do so will be 
even more expensive. Also a finical penalty of this size would disrupt 
Microsoft enough to allow other companies to have a fighting chance against 
Microsoft and regain their footing in the industry that Microsoft illegal 
took from them.

In closing, I do not see how this settlement has done anything what so ever 
to punish Microsoft. In fact it appears to send the opposite message. 
``Go ahead break the law, the worst that will happen is; you will 
spend Millions of dollars on legal fees. However while the case drags 
through the courts you will be making Billions of dollars and furthering 
your monopoly.''

Thank you for your time:

Jeff Shaffer



MTC-00003074

From: lynn wilkins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 11:03pm

Subject: Proposed Microsoft settlement

You must punish Microsoft for monopolistic practices. If Microsoft gets 
away with such practices then what about other companies, say Standard Oil! 
Some point to Microsoft and praise what the company has done for computing 
in America. I, and many others, point to Microsoft and ask what has the 
company done for computing in America? The answer is nothing that company 
has not copied, plagiarized, or stolen. The bad behavior must stop now. You 
must stop it here.

l a wilkins

bellevue WA



MTC-00003075

From: [email protected]. gov@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 11:03pm

Subject: Reject the Settlement

Gentlemen:

In my opinion, the proposed Microsoft settlment should be completely and 
utterly rejected. Microsoft has been found guilty in federal court of being 
a monopoly, and of using its monopoly power to damage its competitors. The 
proposed settlement:

 Does little or nothing to penalize Microsoft for past actions

 Does little or nothing to prevent future excesses by Microsoft

 Does nothing to address the damage done to Microsoft's 
competitors

I believe that the proposed settlement constitutes a miscarriage of justice 
and turns a government victory into a decided defeat. The Justice 
Department has a responsibility not to cave in to the demands of a large 
corporation, regardless of its wealth or influence. I believe it is in the 
best interests of all concerned if Microsoft is decisively and visibly 
punished for the illegal actions of which it is clearly guilty.

I hope you will give serious consideration to these points.

Sam Daniel, 1748 Silvertree Drive, San Jose, CA 95131 (phone) 
408-456-6461



MTC-00003076

From: [email protected]. net@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 12:12am

Subject: I am against the settlement

Dear Sirs,

I am strongly opposed to the settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft. 
Microsoft should not be allowed to donate its own software to 
underprivileged schools. Microsoft's cost for assembling a CD-ROM 
with a few pages of advertising in a box is minimal.

They will give away a few hundred dollars worth of published software for 
each school, then claim that this represents thousands of dollars of 
donations.

Pennies on the dollar, I say.

You are screwing the public with this settlement.

Shame on you!

Bill Honeycutt

[email protected] [email protected]

510-593-1195



MTC-00003077

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 11:11pm

Subject: Opposition to settling with Microsoft

I have followed this case closely since its inception. Already WindowsXP 
does exactly with MS was accused of doing in this case. It incorporates 
more software ``into'' the OS, at the expense of other 
independant software vendors. MS is unrepentant, and will not change on its 
own. And the proposed settlement, does almost nothing to prevent MS from 
continuing to abuse its monopoly position, it only makes life a little 
easier for computer manufacturers whom microsoft will no longer be able to 
bully quite so easily.

The ONLY settlement that I think would have any hope of providing a remedy, 
and prevent future similar behavior is a break up of MS. MS should be split 
into two companies:

1. An OS company

2. An applications software company

If this were the result, then there would be incentives on the OS company 
to produce a platform that is easier to port software to, by making it more 
POSIX compliant. And the Applications company would have incentives to make 
the Apps available on other OSes, because it would increase market share. 
In both cases, the consumer (who has been determined by the court to have 
been harmed), competition, and industry as a whole would benefit.

It seems to me that the settlement proposed is a major cave-in by the DOJ, 
that at the very least smacks of the influence of MS compaign contributions 
to the Bush presidential compaign. I think the DOJ should be ashamed of its 
cowering before MS. It is very disturbing that a hard won verdict is being 
tossed away by the DOJ.

Lincoln A. Baxter

149 Silver Springs Rd

Phoenixville, PA 19460-1919



MTC-00003078

From: Steven Christensen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 11:15pm

Subject: Comments on Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlements

Hello,

I am writing regarding the proposed settlement terms for the Microsoft 
Anti-Trust suit.

I am in 100% support of Red Hat's counterproposal that Microsoft's donation 
to the schools be in hardware, and Red-Hat provide free software plus 
support, for the following reasons:

1) It increases the number of students who can benefit from the donation, 
by about 5-fold as I understand it. The more students who can be helped by 
this donation the better for them and for the future of our country.

2) For a company accused of monopolistic actions, to provide them an avenue 
to secure hundreds of thousands of more mandatory ``customers'' 
seems very counter-productive. Microsoft's 5-year time limit on the use of 
the software is ridiculous.

3) I support the idea of competition in the area of computer software; if 
students are exposed to an alternative set of software (like Red-Hat) they 
will be better able to make informed choices in selecting software when 
they get into the ``real world''. If all they were taught is 
Microsoft, how will they know any better?

4) This is not really a dis-incentive to Microsoft to stop future 
monopolistic activities--the software they wish to contribute really 
doesn't cost them anything, and they lock in more users.

Best of luck in making this important decision; I don't envy your 
positions.

Regards,

Steven V. Christensen, 100 Maple Court, Fayetteville, GA 30214, Phone: 
(770) 719-4471



MTC-00003079

From: Nate Berry

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 10:35pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 24218]]

I wanted to take a second out of my busy day to let you know that I am 
absolutely flabbergasted that Microsoft is getting out of this horrendously 
expensive affair with a slap on the wrist. And to allow them to gain 
further foothold in our schools and call that compensation. What kind of 
settlement is that? As a grad student, I can say that students would 
benefit far more with access to an open source OS in their schools. By 
being able to read, tweak, change and basically fiddle with the operating 
system, they will build a far greater understanding of the underlying 
processes that make a computer work. If this software were Linux or BSD, 
this software is free and without license fees.

In light of the fact that Microsoft has ALREADY been proven to have engaged 
in unfair business practices, a more fair settlement might be to have 
Microsoft supply the hardware for underprivelged schools and let an open 
source vendor supply the software.

Yes Microsoft is dominant now in the industry, lets not reward them for the 
unfair manner in which they gained that position.

Nate Berry

http://www.fireresearch.com



MTC-00003080

From: mr theoden

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 11:28pm

Absolute total joke--how much money did Microsoft pay you guys behind 
the scenes huh? Sorry I don't give a shit what excuses you make, we all 
know what happened, MS bought you guys. Hell I bet MS even 
``owns'' President Bush. I think the people of USA should sue the 
DOJ for waste of funds--how much did it cost all up to prosecute 
Microsoft. You could have just made a deal outright in the first place.



MTC-00003082

From: Malcolm H. Goosey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 11:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Microsoft should have been penalized for its business practices, and 
current events show that it has not changed its tactics!! Please do not 
compund this error by allowing MS to invade our public schools with their 
offer of $1B of donated software etc (which will reallly cost them only the 
cost of producing CD's, but which will be charged at retail, probably a 400 
to 1 ratio). Most schools presently use Mac's for learning 
``keyboarding''. Once MS suceeds in having the kids use only MS 
products, they will never know that there are other alternatives, and MS 
domination of the software industy will be complete! This offer is nothing 
more than a ``trojan horse''!!



MTC-00003083

From: Glenn Bowlsby

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 11:30pm

Subject: MS

I do believe Microsoft has created a product like no other and keeps 
improving. Is MS a monopoly? Yes, but is is because of us the customer. 
Customers does have a choice of what computer they, and what OS they have 
installed. MS had become a standard to the industry making it difficult for 
Open Source OS like Linux to really get notice. Also there is not alot of 
software or drivers for Linux. I know because it took me 5 days to found 
them for my hardware. Windows has every driver I need. So for Linux and 
other open source to become popular they need MORE drivers and MORE 
software. Neither of these MS should be blamed for but rather the companies 
who make the product. Such as a software company like westwood. They make 
games for windows because They probably would not make any money making 
that software for Linux. Is this MS fault NO. A driver for my sound card 
which is available on windows but not Linux. Is this MS fault NO. Therefore 
MS should not be sued the other companies should get more applications and 
games by big companies like westwood and correll, and have a more complete 
drivers list. From the cendors. MS should not be blamed for the actions of 
vendors and customers.



MTC-00003084

From: Randy Morrow

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 11:31pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This settlement is outrageous! The department of justice is NOT enforcing 
any restrictions and the DOJ is helping Microsoft to extend it monopoly 
into our public education system. This entire case had a basis at the 
beginning of providing a choice to the consumer. So, why now does the 
government not only ignore that original goal, but helps to force our 
education professionals into the corner the average home user has been in 
for years. This is not an agreement that would in any way, shape, or form, 
promote a consumer's freedom of choice. If anything this agreement would 
show that a known monopoly can buy it's way out of court.

Over the past few months I have heard of a few suggested resolutions to 
correct this very unjust agreement. There is only one that I would say 
makes any sense. Instead of Microsoft donating $1billion dollars in 
software, force Microsoft to donate $1 billion in cash to be used by the 
schools and our very competent education professionals to purchase the 
technology that they choose to be the best for them. This would not only 
promote freedom of choice for our schools, it would also prevent the 
onslaught of upgrade costs that Microsoft would surely impose in the years 
to follow.

Thank you,

Randy Morrow



MTC-00003085

From: Scott Fallon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 5:46pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir/Madam: I strongly applaud the proposed settlement with Microsoft. 
It is fair to all involved and most importantly maps to the findings and 
conclusions that came out of the Appeals Court. What Microsoft competitors 
and others fail to accept in their criticism of this proposed settlement is 
that Judge Jackson's findings and conclusions are NOT the ones of record at 
this point. The Appeals Court substantially reduced and/or eliminated much 
of what Judge Jackson produced. The critics of this settlement continue to 
behave as though the Appeals Court ruling never happened. They continue to 
refer solely to Judge Jackson's ruling. You have done an admirable job of 
crafting a remedy consistent with the Appeals Court ruling and ignoring 
those who lack respect for rule of law and for their own personal reasons 
cling to the misconception that Judge Jackson's now discredited ruling is 
still relevant.

Scott Fallon

[email protected]



MTC-00003086

From: Ed Tidwell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 11:32pm

Subject: Concerned that justice was not given

I've been a software developer for 15 years and at one point I was the 
biggest MS fan on the planet. I have as a professional witnessed time and 
time again MS destroying technology companies ONLY because they had more 
money or dumped on the market to kill the small guy. In 10 years we will be 
buying robots from Japan or operating systems from Europe. MS it NOT a 
leader but a follower that hunts down and destroys the competition. How any 
company can buy another companies software for around 100 million and then 
put there name on it and dump it on the market as free BOGGLES my mind. 
Internet Explorer (was Spry Mosaic) was NOT what MS wanted the consumer to 
do. MS tried to FORCE EVERYONE to use MSN which was in direct competition 
with Compuserve. When MS made the WRONG decision on the marketplace they 
SHOULD NOT have been able to FIX IT by FORCING THEIR Netscape CLONE ON THE 
OPERATING SYSTEM. When MS was smaller they ALWAYS changed DOS to break 
Lotus 123. Guess which spread-sheet you can buy today?

When MS purchased OneTree which became their SourceSafe (version control 
software). They sent out within WEEKS to EVERY CUSTOMER that ALL support 
for any OTHER operating system was being dropped EXCEPT windows. THIS WAS 
THE NUMBER ONE TOOL FOR OS/2 AND THEY PURCHASED IT AND KILLED THE TOOL ON 
OS/2!!!

I have a shrink wrapped copy of Word for OS/2 in my cube. When MS LOST 
TOTAL CONTROL OF THAT operating system to IBM they STOPPED SHIPPING 
SOFTWARE FOR IT AND IT WAS KILLED!!! Think I can get support for that 
product to work with the last OS/2 version IBM shipped? IBM purchased Lotus 
Notes so they could have a software company to ship applications for OS/2.

IF YOU REALLY WANT TO FIX THIS PROBLEM ... Break MS into two separate 
corporations. THEIR IS NO OTHER WAY. When you buy their software 
development tools their was a note in the licesense that you COULD NOT USE 
THE TOOL TO BUILD PRODUCTS TO COMPETE AGAINST MS OFFICE. If you looked at 
MS Office the software DLL's they use compared to WHAT

[[Page 24219]]

THE GIVE for software developers are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AND NOT DOCUMENT 
HOW TO USE THEM. FORCE THE GROUPS TO BE PROFIT CENTERS.

MS has for a long time hired developers that worked for the competition and 
given them 1 million dollar signing bonuses JUST TO PREVENT other companies 
from having access to great talent. Look into the author of C# who was 
the lead developer at Borland and did JBuilder. MS hired him away. WHY 
WOULD A COMPANY FOCUSED ON RESEARCH HAVE TO PULL A STUNT LIKE THAT? Because 
they DO NOT FOCUS ON PLAYING FAIR. WIN AT ALL COSTS. If MS has to ship 
applications that RAN ON EVERY AVAILABLE OPERATING SYSTEM OUT THERE THEN MS 
would HAVE TO COMPETE! MS owns the OS and the applications. If you can read 
an write Word files they change the format. If you can load Windows 
application like OS/2 did they change the API. MS changed a DLL and FORCED 
IT ONTO THE OEM PC makers to PREVENT ``OS/2 for Windows'' from 
working. No feature offered BUT ONLY SABATOGE.

MS has no guilt nor do they have remorse. The consumer WILL NEVER GET A 
CHANGE TO CHOOSE. Not while MS spends a 100 million to market an operating 
system and ANOTHER 100 million JUST to make them look good and the 
government bad.

You SOLD ME OUT! The battle is not over with MS. Now they will just be 
harder to catch. They WILL NOT CHANGE what they do but only do it in a 
smarter way to skirt the law. The original ruling that MS should be broken 
up was valid. What you need to investigate is ALL of the games MS played to 
make the judge look bad as well as buy the press. Don't you think it is odd 
that a COMPANY put people on PAY ROLL to write LETTERS to politicians that 
the COMPANY IS BEING DONE WRONG??? If that action does not show you HOW FAR 
MS will go to WIN then I don't think you guys justify my tax money. MS is 
smarter than you and basically owns the market place. How did having MS 
DUMP software on the schools FIX THEIR MONOPOLY??? So would asking a drug 
pusher to give away the cocaine he has in storage freely out to everyone 
SOLVE THE DRUG PROBLEM? YOUR PUTTING SMALL SOFTWARE COMPANIES OUT OF 
BUSINESS THAT HAVE SOFTWARE IN THE EDUCATIONAL CHANNELS!!! Why wouldn't you 
make MS put money in a trust for startup company funding for companies to 
COMPETE AGAINST MS???? WHY NOT GIVE FUNDING TO NETSCAPE LIKE YOU DID THE 
AIRLINES AFTER 9-11???

What about MS having to give money to operating system companies that were 
WRONGFULLY DAMAGED BY ILLEGAL ACTIONS??? Sorry guys but the settlement is a 
joke for anyone who understands technology and knows how MS deals with 
people. Thankfully the findings of fact that MS IS a monopoly were NOT over 
turned. I guess if I want to work on leading edge software I'm going to 
have to move to Europe. They seem to be the only ones doing anything cool. 
Some of the latest games I've bought have come from their. My favorite tool 
TogetherJ is coded in St. Petersburg, Russia. Linux was done by a college 
kid in FINLAND and it RUNS BETTER than MS Windows. To bad the consumers 
couldn't fix this by having a CHOICE but noting like a good monopoly to fix 
the economy. Going to be sad when are OS software is done by Sony or 
Nintendo because they are the ONLY SOFTWARE COMPANIES left after MS 
destroys everyone else. No wait MS is going after them to! Hmmmm. Maybe MS 
can just own the planet and we don't have to worry about better software. 
It will just stink everywhere world wide. [smile]

Sincerely,

Ed Tidwell

Senior Software Developer

Tekelec Inc.

Raleigh, NC



MTC-00003087

From: Prakash Purushotham

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/6/01 11:50pm

Subject: Microsoft's donation proposal

I believe this donation would result in greater benefits for Microsoft in 
the long run. This would help Microsoft build a new generation of 
``slaves of Microsoft products''.



MTC-00003088

From: Rafael Perez

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 12:05am

Subject: Microsoft.

With regard to punitive damages associated with the Microsoft case. If it 
is ment to be punative then it is a punisment. In a punishment, the only 
value that one should get is a lesson learned. By allowing Microsoft to 
donate a billoin dollars to the poorest schools as part of a retrobution, 
in software ans services, no less, there should be no potential upside for 
Microsoft. This does not appear to be the case. It appears that although 
Microsoft will be expending some capital, they will be deriving benefit 
from this. It will only propagate and increase their already monopolistic 
stronghold in the industry.

It's like punishing a drug dealer by forcing him to go out and give away 
millions of dollars in drugs, and then letting the drug dealer develop a 
new network for retailing his product. Sure, your making him pay up front, 
but now he's got a whole new market to sell to later on when the free bee 
runs out. Does not sound very punative to me. What do you think ?

Make them write a 1 billoin dollar check to the poorest schools, and then 
mandate that those schools use the funds for anything they choose, with the 
stipuation that they not spend money on any Microsoft products.

I wonder how Microsoft would feel about that. They have bullied their way 
around the entire computer industry. Make no bones about it, they are 
ruthless. Business is a competion, I realize that, but if it gets so out of 
hand that it hurts the public, then the Goverment should protect the 
people.

Dont let them push you around.



MTC-00003089

From: Russ Welti

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 12:04am

Subject: Microsoft gets off TOO EASY

This settlement, if it proceeds, is an insult to the American taxpayer, who 
has funded the protracted legal proceedings against Microsoft, trusting the 
Department of Justice to take effective action against a proven monopolist. 
To give software to schools is no punishment at all! Let them pay with what 
really matters: money. Software has no ``hard'' value, and costs 
very little for Microsoft to give away, as has already been shown when they 
``gave away'' Internet Explorer bundled with Windows. And giving 
to schools, which is one of the only markets they havent completely 
penetrated, is the perfect way for them to EXTEND their monopoly!

Please do not settle for anything less than a just cash settlement, and 
upwards of 1 billion dollars would be still nothing to a company whose cash 
reserves are in the tens of billions. Giving it to the schools is fine, but 
as cash, not vaporware.

Russ Welti

Software Engineer (for 17 years), Seattle, WA

P.S. Not all Seattleites are in Microsoft's corner!



MTC-00003090

From: Chris Pearce

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 12:10am

Subject: Proof that IE6 is anti-competitive

Hi,

Just dropping you a line asking you to not sell out to Microsoft. They are 
using their monopoly to force out their competition. The latest example: 
Internet Explorer 6. It won't communicate to my email software, even though 
IE5.5 would! Whenever I click on a mailto hyperlink it used to fire up 
Eudora mail and I could then use my favourite email client to write my 
email. Now with IE6 it won't let me. Whenever I click on a mailto link it 
brings up a horrible box asking me to select a Microsoft Exchange/Outlook 
express profile, so that I have to use Outlook!

They're doing this to try to stop people from using other email clients! 
That's being extremely unfair to companies like Qualcomm and Pegasus Mail! 
Please don't sell out to Microsoft. They need to be split in two, into a 
operating systems, and an applications software companies, otherwise they 
will have no incentive to be fair (when they make their operating system) 
to pure application software companies.

If they are not split now, they will just get worse and worse, until you 
suddenly wake up one day and find all your (and our!!) computers are 
running the same defunct systems that are amazingly expensive, and very 
unreliable! Please don't sell the people of the world out! We are relying 
on you!

Thank you,

Chris Pearce.



MTC-00003091

From: Ken Zagzebski

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 12:16am

Subject: microsoft settlement

How about requiring Microsoft to provide free user support for windows. 
Also, require them to send out Windows upgrade disks rather than simply 
posting (burying) ``patches'' on their website.

[[Page 24220]]

Ken Z



MTC-00003092

From: pug@ smtp1.realconnect. com@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 1:15am

Subject: Regarding the settlement with Microsoft....

It is a joke. It is unenforcable. Who's going to police it, Microsoft? The 
settlement has done nothing but barely tap the brakes on a full-speed 
locomotive. I am wholly disappointed. The USDOJ could've quite easily won 
the entire case had they centered strictly on the unlawful and unethical 
business practices used by Microsoft.

Joseph Ogulin

Sterling, VA

``Those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither.''

B. Franklin

Joe Ogulin [email protected]

This message is made of 100% recycled electrons. Disclaimer: I'm 
responsible for the content of this message. Nobody else is.



MTC-00003093

From: Tinnakorn Kumsaen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 12:22am

Subject: Microsoft make the world different.

That different is that, the rich become richer, the poor become poorer. The 
different causes the driving force, driving people mad. I think this is a 
major reason of what happened on Sep 11. You, as a big brother on earth, 
should be nutralizing the world. Terrorist are similar to African bee. A 
bees hit you they died and you hurt. I think that the smart guy is a bee 
keeper. Don't you think so? Any way, I hope that American solider can find 
all the escaped bees.

God bless America

Tom



MTC-00003094

From: Kenneth A. Krupa

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 12:23am

Subject: settlement = MS free to dominate

The release of features in Windows XP is yet another attempt by MS to use 
their OS to dominate the next big market segment (not simply gain some 
leverage). This should send a clear signal (for the umpteenth time) that 
they simply cannot be trusted to uphold the SPRIRIT of any agreement that 
tries to make them play fair. Now I use their OSes quite a bit but I 
wouldn't mind some freedom of choice with respect to how to use them. And 
it is not even the multimedia bundling that scares me most. Forcing users 
to use the Passport feature for services that previously did not require it 
is chilling. They're basically beginning to dictate how people do things on 
the Internet. They will in short order have a user base of several million 
users for a brand new service that just happens to be the next big Internet 
offering. Not bad for a new feature. With some luck, the project liberty 
consortium may blunt the move somewhat but come on, isn't this story 
getting tiring? I don't even think the folks at MS can help themselves. 
They're simply addicted to power and control and are in bad need of rehab.



MTC-00003095

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR, microsoftcomments@ doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...

Date: 12/7/01 12:40am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Attorneys General and Dept. of Justice,

I am writing to express my displeasure with Microsoft's settlement 
proposal. Clearly they intend to use this as another opportunity to expand 
their empire and squeeze rivals, namely Apple, out of the education market. 
Furthermore, I am sure the 1 billion dollar value they are quoting is 
retail value. That means their cost must be less than one-tenth of that. 
Wow, I bet they are terrified of having to pay that.

I thought the intent of this is to punish them. If so, then they should be 
required to give cash to let the schools choose whatever they want. Since 
they are accused of squeezing out competitors, it would be even more 
appropriate to require that the money be spent on competitor's products. 
Please do something about this.

I happen to like and use some Microsoft products, but I prefer to use a Mac 
rather than a Windows PC. I never thought breaking them up was a good idea 
but this settlement is pathetic. Don't let them drive Apple (others) out of 
business.

Scott Fortman

13204 NE 129th Place

Kirkland, WA 98034



MTC-00003096

From: Andrig T. Miller

To: Microsoft ATR Date 12/7/01 12:41 am

Subject: Anti-trust Settlement

I am a technology professional who has been involved in software for over 
16 years. I am currently the Vice President of Technical Architecture for a 
large distribution company (basically the CTO). My comments in this 
response to the anti-trust settlement proposal currently before the 
District Court are my own, and in no way affliated with my company. I only 
talked about my position, so that you could see that I have some 
credibility in my comments. Having said that, the following is where I see 
issues with the proposed settlement. In section III. Prohibited Conduct, it 
states that Microsoft is prohibited from retaliating against an OEM for 
shipping a personal computer that either includes a non-Microsoft operating 
system or can boot more than one operating system. There seems to be a 
glaring omission here. Under these terms Microsoft could retaliate if an 
OEM ships a personal computer with only a non-Microsoft operating system. 
To give a simple example, if I were IBM, and I started shipping personal 
computers with Linux pre-installed as the only operating system for 
customers who didn't want a dual boot system, Microsoft could retaliate. 
The odds of this behaviour would go up substantially, if a large OEM like 
IBM started selling significant numbers of systems with only a non-
Microsoft operating system.

In section III.C.2, it states that Microsoft cannot restrict by agreement 
any OEM from distributing or promoting non-Microsoft middleware by 
installing or displaying on the desktop of any size or shape so long as 
such shortcuts do not impair the functionality of the user interface. Who 
makes the judgement about impairing the functionality of the user 
interface? What constitutes an impaired user interface? If Microsoft just 
doesn't like the way it looks, can they have the OEM remove it? This raises 
more questions than it answers. It seems to me, that if an OEM really 
impairs the user interface, then their customers will be unhappy, and have 
them fix it, or get their PC's from somewhere else. I know that Microsoft 
position on this, is that it reflects on them. The truth of the matter is, 
the OEM handles the technical support for pre-installed copies of Windows, 
not Microsoft. How many people do you know blame Microsoft when there 
computer doesn't work? They simply say my computer doesn't work, and if 
they bought the system from an OEM with Windows pre-installed, they call 
the OEM. This section should have no exception, and the free market should 
be left to decide whether an OEM has impaired the user interface or not.

In section III.C.3, it states another user interface exemption for OEMs. 
This time is says that middleware that automatically launches on boot, can 
be replaced as long as it displays on the desktop no user interface or the 
user interface is of similar size and shape to Microsofts user interface. 
This prevents competitors from creating unique user interface paradigms, 
that may infact be better than Microsofts. In fact, it limits them into 
copying Microsofts products, and gives no ability to innovate with the user 
interface. I don't see how this can foster competition. If both products 
look and act the same to the user, then you have just removed one of the 
competitive advantages a competing product may have.

In section III.D, it states that Microsoft has to disclose to ISVs, IHVs, 
IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs the API's and related documentation that are used by 
Microsoft middleware. This goes to the heart of the issue alot of people 
have, which is that Microsoft hides API's that it uses for competitive 
advantage. This is a very good provision, but it has one very big omission. 
Today, open source projects create software that needs to interoperate with 
Windows (e.g. Samba) operating systems. These projects would not be covered 
by the list above. For this provision to have true meat behind it, 
Microsoft should be made to disclose the API's publicly to everyone. This 
will create significantly more competition in the marketplace, because it 
would allow open source projects to be more easily developed. This section 
is also incongruent with section III.E, which doesn't limit the disclosure 
of communication protocols between the Windows client and server. The two 
sections should allow for disclosure to any and all third parties.

Section III.F.2 seems to be completely meaningless. The exception 
completely nullifies the behavioural prohibition. Everything from the word 
except on, should just be removed. Microsoft should in no way be allowed to 
limit what an ISV can develop or promote that competes with Microsofts own 
products. This section should be one of the cornerstones of an agreement, 
and should have no exceptions.

Section III.G.1 also seems meaningless. Again, the exception competely 
nullifies the

[[Page 24221]]

behavioural prohibition. If you are going to eliminate the use of contracts 
that give consideration to certain entities based on solely supporting 
Microsofts products, at the expense of competitors products, then the 
agreement should do that without exception. The current exception takes all 
of the teeth out of this section.

Section III.H.1 & 2 has all the same problems of section III.C.3 which 
I stated above. Additionally, Microsoft has the option to have the end user 
confirm this chose of replacing the Microsoft product with the non-
Microsoft product. Of course, this could confuse the user, and make them 
wary of making such a change. While I understand that a user could do this 
by accident, based on the provisions of this section, the user can make the 
Microsoft product the default selection just as easily. Besides that issue, 
I think that additional teeth should be put into this section in the 
following way. Microsoft should be prohibited from putting hooks into the 
operating system that prompts the user to switch back to the Microsoft 
product everytime the user uses the non-Microsoft product. They could 
easily do this under the provisions of this settlement, and make it very 
difficult for the user to use the competing product.

Section III.H.3 makes direct reference to my suggestion of what Microsoft 
will do to change the configuration to suit their needs and stiffle 
competition. The settlement only prohibits them from changing the 
configuration that the OEM supplied their customer for 14 days. After that 
time, they can pepper the user with dialogs that constantly ask them to 
switch the applications from competitors to theirs! This entire section 
should be changed to prohibit this behaviour completely. I don't see how 
this agreement can foster competition with this type of exemption. It also 
retains much of the power Microsoft has over OEMs. If the OEMs 
configuration can just be changed by Microsoft after a couple of weeks, it 
takes much of the value that the OEM can sell to Microsofts competitors 
away from the OEM. If I was a Microsoft competitor, and I wanted to sign an 
agreement for an OEM to ship my product versus Microsoft, and Microsoft can 
two weeks later bother the user to the point that they switch to the 
Microsoft product anyway, then I wouldn't be willing to pay the OEM very 
much. OEMs already struggle with margins, because Microsoft and Intel make 
all of the profit, and the product is a commodity. The only real way for 
OEMs to differentiate their products is through customization and third-
party software bundles. Again, we should let the free market decide, 
without pestering prompts to switch to Microsoft products (and visa versa).

After section III.H, there are two bullets called 1 & 2, which don't 
seem to be a part of section H, but give Microsoft addtional exceptions. 
Bullet 2 says, a Microsoft middleware product may be invoked by the 
operating system when a non-Microsoft product fails to implement a 
reasonable technical requirement. What is a reasonable technical 
requirement? The example in the document is hosting an Active-X control. 
What if the replacement product can implement all of the functionality that 
a user needs without hosting an Active-X control? Who determines what is 
reasonable? These type of exceptions could make the agreement unworkable, 
especially if it can be argued in court. I see alot of additional wrangling 
in court to resolve disputes over things like this, and this additional 
time could be used by Microsoft to continue business as usual while the 
lawyers fight it out.

Section III.J gives Microsoft another way to wiggle out of disclosing API 
information. I think it is necessary to state that they cannot disclose the 
internal working of something that is against the law to disclose. As far 
as I know, no such cases exist. Actual authentication keys, tokens, etc. 
would not be apart of a working API, but the format of those would be. The 
way this is worded, Microsoft could prevent the disclosure of API's and 
communication protocols, and no one would be able to dispute them because 
they could argue that disclosure would be required to prove their case. Of 
course, you could argue that the technical committee could work to see if 
Microsoft is pulling the wool over everyone's eyes. The flaw in this, is 
that Microsoft could still fight it and win, and no third party could jump 
in to help the case without first getting disclosed on the API's and 
communications protocols. I see this as a catch-22 for enforcement.

Overall, this agreement doesn't go far enough in curbing Microsofts 
business practices. I think that a better solution is staring us all right 
in the face. The solution that I think would be better has three simple 
principles, of which two are captured in this proposed settlement. First, 
make Microsoft disclose all API's to everyone, without exception. Second, 
do not allow Microsoft to control other companies use of Windows, whether 
it be configuration of the desktop, or inclusion or exclusion of non-
Microsoft and Microsoft products respectively. And third, allow Microsoft 
to bundle anything they want into Windows, and its successors, as long as 
it complies with a recognized open standard. The IETF (Internet Engineering 
Task Force) model of standardization should apply here. In their model, 
something does not become a standard until at least two interoperating 
implementations of the standard are widely deployed. This would make it 
very simple to monitor compliance, and would allow third parties, including 
open source projects, to compete head on with Microsoft in every product 
category.

Thanks for taking the time to read this, and I hope that the settlement can 
be improved to foster competition in the marketplace for operating systems.

Andrig T. Miller



MTC-00003097

From: Blomberg David

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

Date: 12/7/01 12:51am

Subject: Bad idea

Currently in Japan but this is a bad idea I would like to se a real 
settlement rather than a license for Microsoft continue it practices. Words 
like ``allow our distributor more freedom'' Microsoft is supposed 
to allow the distributors FREEDOM lets face it when the software is sold it 
becomes the property of the buyer to use as they see fit not for Microsoft 
tells them they can and cant do. It goes for the distributor as well. It is 
just one more show that they are not serious about this 
``settlement''. Be for the cunsumer it is your legal duty to see 
that this case gets a real deal rather than giving the gold to Microsoft.

Resident of CT currently in Japan, David Blomberg

System Engineer Nihon Libertec Co. LTD 1-34-14 Hatagaya 
Shibuya-ku Tokyo Ph: (03) 3481-8321 Fax: (03) 3481-8371



MTC-00003098

From: Kenneth D. Reiszner

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 12:58am

Subject: Microsoft settlement

It was embarrassing enough for the nation to give Microsoft a free ride on 
the antitrust action but to allow Microsoft to prevail in the class action 
suit is abominable. Nevertheless, this is an opportunity for the justice 
department to do something right for a change. Red Hat has offered to 
provide free software to every school in America if Microsoft provided the 
value of its donation in hardware costs rather than its own software. It is 
time for you people to go twist some Microsoft arms.

Open source software will eventually take over the operating system and 
desktop software markets with or without any action on your part or other 
parts of the government. This simple proposal by Red Hat would allow our 
children to become familiar with the software of the future. Ironically, 
the difference between open source and Microsoft software is getting 
narrower with time so even if Microsoft software is still the norm on the 
desktop when these kids graduate, they will be able to cross over without 
effort. The difference will come when they buy a computer of their own and 
don't have to purchase the original software and upgrade after upgrade.

Do something right for a change, take Red Hat up on their offer.

Kenneth D. Reiszner, Ph.D.

President, REAL, Inc., P.O. Box 709, Lecompte, LA 71346 Ph. No. & FAX: 
318-443-0426



MTC-00003099

From: Harry W Hale III

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 1:07am

Subject: Microsoft

This is a very bad settlement they have now twice been punished for 
breaking the law by simply having to promise not to break it again. What 
kind of people are you.



MTC-00003100

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 1:10am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The prosecution in this case barely scratched the surface of Microsoft's 
adverse impacts on every industry where it operates, and on the global 
economy. In technology markets, network effects overwhelm all other forces. 
As long as Microsoft remains intact, it controls every market it enters. 
Had justice been served in this case, Microsoft would have been split into 
at least three separate companies which are not allowed to

[[Page 24222]]

communicate with each other in private. As it stands, they will continue to 
stifle innovation in computing and networking

Cameron Spitzer

San Jose



MTC-00003101

From: Francesco Tombolini

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 1:18am

Subject: Microsoft Antitrust

I agree with Redhat words...

``While we applaud Microsoft for raising the idea of helping poorer 
schools as part of the penalty phase of their conviction for monopolistic 
practices, we do not think that the remedy should be a mechanism by which 
Microsoft can further extend its monopoly.'' Put linux in the schools 
on microsoft's hardware...

Francesco Tombolini



MTC-00003102

From: Jason Adams

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 1:18am

Subject: To Whom It May Concern,

To Whom It May Concern,

It would seem as though all Bill Gates is interested in is making money, 
and choking out all the little guys that present any kind of a threat to 
his software empire. I think that a appropriate fine for Bill would not 
only be donation of hardware installed with any kind of a Linux flavor, but 
also to have Bill himself donate his time to go around to some of these 
underpriviledged school and teach the students how to use the software. 
There couldn't be a worse punishment than to have him teach the basics to 
an os that is his adversary. I wish that people in this world wouldn't be 
so greedy and try to collect the wealth of the whole world in a lifetime, I 
mean he can't take it with him anyway so why can't he just be satisfied and 
lay off the small guys? Whatever you decision is in this suit I hope that 
you really stick it to Bill where it will hurt him somewhere, after all he 
has been doing it to others for so long he really has it coming.

in the blessed name of Jesus,

jason



MTC-00003104

From: Pat Walters

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 1:48am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe this settlement takes unfair advantage of a great corporation for 
being an aggressive American competitor in the software market. The very 
nature of antitrust law is to destroy companies that have harmed consumers, 
not to make monopolies illegal. This we know already, as there are plenty 
of legal monopolies that have run our local telephone and electricity.

Every model of a monopoly ever devised by economic theory holds two effects 
possible: higher cost and less product. This lawsuit was brought against 
Microsoft over its bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows, and then 
that Microsoft had set up retaliatory pricing if an Original Equipment 
manufacturer (OEM) were to sell software that competes with Microsoft on 
its own operating system. This court case has proven that there was nothing 
wrong with innovating the operating system to offer more features to 
customers, but did address the pricing against OEMs that want to offer 
competitive software to Microsoft. You cannot accuse Microsoft of being a 
monopoly in consumer level computers without talking about the complete 
monopoly enjoyed by Apple Computer company. The interesting thing here is 
this: Apple was argued out of this case because their monopoly operating 
system on their monopoly hardware cost on average $1,000 MORE than a 
comparable IBM compatible PC running Windows! How is Microsoft a monopoly 
again?

Microsoft has simply been very successful at recruiting wonderful talent 
from all over the globe, and driving that talent very hard to deliver 
products that make our competition look pale in comparison. It is not 
Microsoft's fault that companies who compete with them cannot achieve the 
critical mass of great software by litigating against Microsoft, instead of 
recruiting great talent and then spending the R&D money necessary to 
better perfect their product. Why should Microsoft have its hands and legs 
tied behind its back simply because every one of its competitors wants the 
money that Microsoft has earned? Let me ask that again: WHY should 
Microsoft not be allowed to freely compete with all of the freedoms that 
Netscape, AOL Time Warner, Sun Microsystems, Oracle, and Apple do every 
single day of the year, simply because THESE companies want the money from 
the market share that Microsoft continues to go out and earn?

Microsoft has agreed to this settlement, but this settlement should be the 
end of it. The states that chose not to settle with Microsoft simply want 
to punish Microsoft further than they already have been with this FRIVILOUS 
lawsuit, and they should NOT be rewarded for this. In some cases, like 
California, they simply have Microsoft competitors living in their state 
and want to put up the ``good fight,'' for their constituents. 
The economy of the United States is greatly fueled by the technology 
sector, and it is time to let Microsoft go on to do what it does best: make 
great software that runs on any device, anywhere, connected to the 
Internet. Microsoft has undeniably been part of the economic boom we saw in 
the 1990's, and this case has been part of the reason we are now suffering 
part of a recession. Let's end this here with this settlement, and accept 
the terms of it with as much compassion as possible toward the greatest 
company in the world.

Sincerely,

Pat Walters



MTC-00003105

From: Jim Lawson

To: microsoftcomments @doj.ca.gov @inetgw

Date: 12/7/01 2:17am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please consider the proposal made by Red Hat as a way for the Microsoft 
settlement. The current settlement appears to ensure that Microsoft has a 
monopoly on operating systems and allows them to further propagate their 
products RED HAT COUNTERS MICROSOFT'S EDUCATION OFFER

Microsoft has proposed settling over 100 private antitrust lawsuits by 
pledging to donate more than $1 billion in hardware, software, services, 
and training to the poorest schools in the United States, but Red Hat has 
put forward a counter-proposal. It will offer its open-source Red Hat Linux 
operating system to all U.S. school districts free of charge, and has 
suggested that Microsoft concentrate solely on purchasing new hardware. In 
this way, more computers could be made available to schools and Microsoft's 
monopoly would not be extended further into the education sector, says Red 
Hat CEO Matt Szulik. He estimates that over one million computers could be 
allocated to schools under the new proposal, compared to 200,000 under the 
old one. In addition, Szulik says that Red Hat will provide free software 
upgrades and license renewals in perpetuity, whereas Microsoft would only 
provide such services for five years. (eWeek Online, 20 November 2001)

Jim Lawson



MTC-00003106

From: Brian Arundell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 2:28am

Subject: bad bad microsoft

Because of the influence and market share that Microsoft holds(mainly due 
to public ignorance) for me to use a alternative operating system, namely 
Linux-Mandrake, and Red-hat Linux I am forced to physically replace my 
hardware, the main reason being that my modem wont work with linux because 
of this windows influence....... I'm disapointed, and I will never spend 
money on Microsoft products and I promote the piracy of their software



MTC-00003107

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR,Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 2:55am

Subject: Settlement? --

Your Honor

I am a personal computer user for 11 years now. I have worked as a 
programmer, systems manger and instructor. I have watched an industry go 
from wide open .i.e. one in which any good idea would sell 
--well--, into one in which it is impossible to sell ANYTHING.

The internet was a great place to explore in the days of Mosaic and Spry-
in-a-box. Now with only Internet Explorer as a real contender, I dread 
firing up the old browser. There are sites that have special non-IE pages. 
E-mail was fine, then Outlook became the de facto standard and I spent two 
days trying to disinfect --1-- Windows based, Intel compatible PC 
from an e-mail worm. Never happened to me using Eudora. BUT THE BOSS SAYS 
USE OUTLOOK.

Old joke: If Microsoft made refrigerators, they would claim they make ice, 
keep food fresher, & chill drinks to just the right temperature. If 
Apple made refrigerators, they would say theirs does everything Microsoft 
refrigerators do, but 5 years earlier.

Microsoft is notorious for taking others ideas and tweaking them to its own 
end then claiming it was their idea. Sort of like the Communist regime in 
the Soviet Union...

[[Page 24223]]

The lay press has noted that everyone is afraid to mention what they are 
developing for fear that if Microsoft gets wind of it, Microsoft will buy 
more people to work it out faster, and take all the credit. How often has 
Microsoft waited for Apple to start a new round of firings only to hire 
leading edge programmers and rework the technology to their own designs?

Microsoft can afford to buy any other software house or competitor. here 
are two reasons they do not. 1) Keeping the `competition' around makes it 
look as though they are not a monopoly. 2) And this was confirmed to me by 
someone well connected, In order for Bill Gates to know what his next great 
idea is going to be.

But our question is Are they a monopoly. In that they control over 85 per 
cent of the GUI systems sold, they most certainly are. In that they have 
bought out more products just to kill them--non-Microsoft BASIC and 
dBase come to mind--yes they are. In that they have back doors into 
their programs which only their programmers can exploit, remember Caldera 
vs Microsoft?, they definitely are.

Is this a true settlement? No. A fair one would break Microsoft Corporation 
up into three competitive units, Software Systems (Windows et al), software 
(Office and Visio et al), services (MSN, MSNBC et al), and certification 
(digital signatures for software ``designed for Windows.''

The CEO where I work has noted that No One can make money in a market where 
the competition i giving it away for free. Maybe that is the true test of 
whether or not Microsoft is a monopoly. Did not Rockefeller and Standard 
Oil cut prices to almost free gasoline to shut down competition and ensure 
their ``Market Share Growth''?

Humbly,

Dan Pollack



MTC-00003108

From: Kitchen Pages, computer software

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:01pm

Subject: Microsoft

Hi there...

I am not liking what you are doing to the software industry. Microsoft 
continues to distribute its products with a FAKE system for preventing 
software coping. While Microsoft has done wonders for personal computers in 
general I still have a very big question.

I have attended a MCSE course where I was basically instructed to not help 
business. Please read the Microsoft Press course books 
(1999-2000).... At the MCSE course my Microsoft certified trainer 
gave me a copy of the `Trendcender' software with a Visual Basic crack so 
one could use this software for free. To make matters worst, I was going to 
purchase a copy of XP from a shop here in Australia but currently I will 
not do so. It is cheaper to get copies that are illegal than the real 
product. Currently in Oz there are 2 or more copies of the new XP system 
being distributed. I have reported this to Microsoft who has not to my 
knowledge taken any action...

I surfed into Yahoo chat the other night to listen to music (like napstar) 
and found that FireFox and Michael have copies, and they have `never paid a 
cent for any product'. To someone who has more than $10,000 in software, 
like myself, this really is not good.

Editions of software I have been able to find people giving away are:

Microsoft XP Edition--Corporate

Microsoft XP Office with FrontPage--Enterprise Edition.

Microsoft XP Business Edition

Microsoft XP Plus

This is just the tip of the ice burg. I wonder if Linux can fight back 
considering Microsoft personal have made it very clear that they do not 
like free software. So I guess they are now distributing there software for 
free, illegally, to wipeout others who have invested in softwares. I am 
going to send most of the software I have been able to collect to Mr. Gates 
along with my exam tickets for the MCSE course I was doing. I want servers 
to run my business and I do not want Administrators to run my servers... 
This is not productive and does not allow myself to direct funds to areas 
where funding should be directed. Also I would like to know about the 
Microsoft Product Life Time Cycle--seems a good way for one to totally 
disregard the earth. I can only hope if I ever have the same choice that I 
would not do what is being done.

If you tack onto this the anti-trust case, well is there any point in 
supporting software makers? This type of terror should be outlawed and is 
not condoned by myself or others. The question is what are you doing to 
help? (not a lot from where I stand) Thankyou for your time

Sincere regards,

Jason Robinson

[email protected]

[email protected]



MTC-00003109

From: Billie Ehresman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 3:10am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir/Ma'am,

After reading the proposed settlement I feel that this would NOT be in the 
best interest of the American public for the following reasons:

1. The proposed settlement does not prevent Microsoft from bundling web 
browsers and other application software into its operating system. Illegal 
bundling and tying practices that were addressed in the Court's 2000 ruling 
are not in the proposed settlement.

2. The proposed settlement allows Microsoft to benefit from its past anti-
competitive behavior. Microsoft has monopolized the web browser market as a 
result of its anti-competitive actions, but the proposed settlement does 
not require the company to provide software competitors with the 
information that they need to ensure product compatibility.

3. The proposed settlement relies too heavily on financially-strapped 
equipment manufacturers to promote more competition.

4. The proposed settlement does not cover the new generation of web-based, 
Internet, and multimedia applications. Since the settlement applies only to 
products that were in use from 1995-98, it won't stop Microsoft from 
repeating anti-competitive practices with current and future products.

5. The proposed settlement doesn't cover Microsoft Office, although Office 
has more than 95% of the market for business productivity software. Non-
Microsoft Middleware is not interoperable.

6. The proposed settlement lets Microsoft decide which products are part of 
the Windows operating system and which are applications.

7. The proposed settlement gives Microsoft control over many enforcement 
decisions, essentially putting the fox in charge of guarding the hen house!

8. The proposed settlement would not require Microsoft to comply with 
computer industry standards, or prevent the company from undermining or 
altering standards, even when the intent is to deliberately deceive 
competitors.

9. The proposed settlement would allow Microsoft to disable competitive 
software products, effectively sabotaging any competition. Microsoft has 
used bullying tactics countless times to ensure their dominant market share 
& I feel that they should be treated accordingly to ensure that these 
practices don't continue unabated. They ignore or are slow to respond to 
MAJOR security flaws in their products which has disrupted the entire 
internet at times. If they built cars that couldn't be secured & 
allowed anyone to just get in wreak havoc on the highways, would they not 
be held accountable?

Yours truely,

Daniel Ehresman



MTC-00003110

From: Jason A.Van Cleve

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 4:06am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whomever it may concern,

I am not at all pleased with the outcome of the DOJ case against Microsoft. 
As a software developer of several years, I have worked with Microsoft 
products extensively, and I have born witness to many of the unfair and 
dishonest practices by which the company has been able to step on other 
software vendors in this race, and over and over again, developers and 
consumers alike have been hurt by it. Microsoft seems more intent on 
stifling innovation in other software companies than on innovating anything 
themselves.

I've felt for some time that the best thing for vendors, consumers and our 
economy is for Microsoft to be broken up into an OS vendor and an 
application vendor. I also think it is important that, contrary to the 
proposal you had previously put forth, Internet Explorer be kept in the 
``application'' division. Microsoft clearly wants to own the 
Internet itself, control it and exploit it. This would be very bad for all 
but them, and I believe we must prevent it. Among my concerns here is that 
if Microsoft's browser is allowed the marketing advantages it has enjoyed 
so far, eventually no one could justify using a different browser, 
especially if I.E. were completely integrated into Windows. If few enough 
people used any

[[Page 24224]]

 alternate Web browsers, Web developers (like me) would eventually be 
forced to build sites specifically for I.E. In fact, this already 
happening. Ultimately this would lead to a deficit in any real 
innovation--something of which Microsoft has proven itself to be 
largely incapable. The Internet has an amazing potential, but unless it is 
practical for companies to create innovative software to compete with that 
of Microsoft on the ubiquitous Windows platform, the technology will not be 
driven as it can and should be.

Microsoft now enjoys something like a permanent home-field advantage. 
Because most people run Windows, Microsoft is more likely to push their 
software onto our desktops whether it be good or no. The OS is indeed a 
separate layer of software from the applications it runs, and so, again, if 
the market is to have a level playing field, Microsoft should be split up. 
But aside from all that, I have seen some of the ways in which Miscrosoft 
has succeeded by devious means both in software and in sales, and the fact 
that this new settlement does nothing practical to penalize them or 
restrain them from further foul play, is unacceptable. I am for change, and 
I am for innovation. This settlement will bring neither.

Thank you,

Jason Van Cleve



MTC-00003111

From: (q)M(00FC)ller, Martin (2)(q)

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

Date: 12/7/01 3:23am

Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement

Dear Sir or Madam,

I want, to write down my opinion about the antitrust settlement it cut with 
Microsoft. The ``punishment'' for Microsoft is just a laughter. 
Why do you want to destroy a monopolist by enabling him to conquer more 
market shares. Thats like punishing a kleptomania with stealing.

Red Hat's proposal that, in short words, Microsoft should provide the 
hardware and Red Hat deliveres the software and support for free. Is the 
best punishment I can think of. That would be a hard slap in the face of 
Microsoft, and that's only just and reasonable. I think my opinion is 
shared by many others, too. It's because it looks like Microsoft get's 
along with their strategie, again. They seem to stand far above the 
american law. It's fact, that the methods they use to push their company in 
front , are not all legal. So why do you take drastic measures an find a 
real punishment for Microsoft.

I hope I could help you by finding a solution.

Yours,

Martin Miller

``Microsoft is like the great white shark--a killing machine 
without soul or conscience that only knows its own hunger and 
appetites.'' (Mitchell Kertzman)



MTC-00003112

From: Calvin Smith

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 3:25am

Subject: Microsoft antitrust settlement

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to express to you my profound disappointment with the proposed 
settlement to the long and expensive legal battle over Microsoft's abuses 
of antitrust and anti-competition laws. That Microsoft would be allowed to 
extend their monopoly into the education sector, one of the few areas in 
which they don't already have a devastating monopoly, is absolutely 
astounding. I don't understand how anybody (but Microsoft) could think that 
this is an appropriate remedy. I believe, instead, that a better solution 
would be to implement Red Hat's proposed solution of allowing Microsoft to 
donate hardware and allowing Red Hat (or any non-Microsoft company) to 
supply the Linux operating system and open source software to run on those 
machines. The Microsoft alternative would have the effect of leaving 
schools stranded after 5 years when Microsoft stops supplying software, for 
schools would be unable to afford Microsoft's exorbitant license fees in 
order to keep the computers functioning and up to date.

The Linux solution encourages competition in the education sector, provides 
for more hardware and software for schools than the Microsoft plan. I 
strongly encourage you to consider this matter carefully, as I and many of 
my fellow software professionals are extremely unhappy at the proposed 
solution, which looks more like a reward to Microsoft for its past harms to 
the consumer and to its competitors than an actual punishment or 
settlement.

Sincerely,

Calvin Smith



MTC-00003113

From: Luc Caullychurn

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 3:27am

Subject: Monopole Fed up with your behaviour ! LuC



MTC-00003114

From: Bruno Ethvignot

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 3:55am

Subject: MICROSOFT ANTITRUST, CLASS-ACTION SETTLEMENTS

Hi,

At what percentage point does a monopoly exist. Is it 100%, 90%, 80%? IE 
now has over 90% of the browser market. The Microsoft monopoly is self-
evident. The settlement forces Microsoft to donate software, hardware, and 
services to America's poorest schools.

The settlement could simply introduce Microsoft to a market where they 
could further extend their monopoly.

Bruno Ethvignot



MTC-00003115

From: ilidio martins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 3:53am

Subject: MIcrosoft ... No to monopoly!!

Only i got say ... Microsoft ... No to monopoly Because you know better 
then me... All consequences of Monopoly. It doesn't have to be graduated.



MTC-00003116

From: Flash

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 4:07am

Subject: Microsoft Settlements

To: Honorable J. Ashcroft, US Attorney General

Dear Mr. Ashcroft,

Both as a citizen of this country, and as a knowlegeable scientist who has 
watched the genuinely criminal behavior of Microsoft that has resulted in 
not only a worldwide monopoly by this company, but a setting of standards 
for the world's software that could euphemistically be described as a joke, 
I am deeply distressed by the settlement conditions set by the office of 
the US attorney general in its anti-trust suit against Microsoft.

Indeed, this settlement looks in structure not very different from those 
entered into by the erstwhile Commissioner of Insurance of the State of 
California, Mr. Quackenbush. It merely creates another opportunity for this 
marauding company to weark yet further havoc. It makes no sense whatsoever. 
That Microsoft's famous OS WINXX, through several versions over many years, 
continues to crash spontaneously is only one the bad jokes among almost all 
users.

Windows is a perfect example of Microsoft's continuing and longstanding 
practice of theft. Windows is based on the free X-windows system invented 
and developed at M.I.T. Microsoft has literally stolen what was given 
freely, made a few simple alterations, and the proprietized it and its 
source code. For anyone to assert that technically Microsoft is or stays 
within the law in this practice is vacuous legalism; it certainly is not 
justice to allow this to continue. Microsoft has used this pattern of theft 
with practically every piece of software it sells. The support for their 
product is another joke: if you can get it at all, it is all true, and 
totally useless. This pattern of theft can be seen explicitly regarding 
Java/Java script, where it was pilfered fron Sun. It can even be seen in 
MS-DOS which was stolen from, and is an unholy watered down version 
of UNIX, developed at the then Bell Laboratories. The office of the US 
attorney general seems unconcerned about the damage that this monopoly does 
every day. Its power to extort hardware maufacturers and hardware dealers 
to bundle its simply awful and slipshod programs is legendary, and true. It 
engages in extortion every day.

In addition to an anti-trust suit, I seriously suggest that a suit under 
the federal RICO statutes 18 USC 1961, is perfectly appropriate. Anti-trust 
is the least of what it does. In the real hope that the office of the US 
attorney general actually does what it should be doing, instead of making 
some grandstanding show that comes to nothing or worse, I remain,

Sincerely Yours,

William C. Hammel, Ph.D.

A-11 Moose Branch, Sweetwater Apartments #8A

Robbinsville, NC 28771

(828) 479-1547 (voice-TAD-FAX)



MTC-00003117

From: Dave Attwood

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

Date: 12/7/01 4:10am

Subject: Settlement Terms

Sirs

[[Page 24225]]

Although not a US citizen, the findings against Microsoft show a complete 
disregard for the freedoms which I believe your country stands 
for--specifically, the use of power brought about by being a monopoly 
against the individual and smaller commercial organisations. Furthermore, 
contrary to the claims of Microsoft, it is not at all an innovator, and 
tends to stifle innovation by imposition of closed interfaces, protocols 
and APIs. To allow it to proceed unchecked is of serious consequence to the 
computer industry and to personal freedom, and I would urge you to 
reconsider the imposition of severe penalties.

David Attwood

Principal Engineer

Ultra Secure Business Solutions

3 Albert Edward House

The Pavilions

Portway

PRESTON PR2 2YB

UK

*+44( 0)1772 325 200 ddi +44 (0)1772 325 295

*+44 (0)1772 325 291

* mailto:[email protected]

* http://www.ultrasbs.com



MTC-00003118

From: sorin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 5:11am

Subject: Microsoft is a monopol

Hello,

My name is Sorin and I want to sent to you my Opinion about the Microsoft 
practicies. After you buy a Microsoft product you just can't geta out from 
their company. It is a monopol.The company just fights agains others 
without any thought about the freedom ao choice. It has to be break-down.



MTC-00003119

From: Jose F. Larrea

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 4:23am

Subject: My Opinion

I disagree with the Settlement. MicroSoft is a monopolistic company, and 
your software is not only poor and with bad cality and without any 
originality :(. That is, of course, one of his ``monopolistic 
practices'': they get one ``de facto standard of the 
industry'', and they create your own standard (and this 
``standard'' is not compatible with ``the original 
standard''). And they say to the costumers: I have made very goods 
improvements to our product (Improvements? What improvement? The 
improvement of Sun, Netscape, the University of Michigan, BSD Sofware....? 
And an ``propietary version'' of this standard, close to 
integration with third party products of other Sofware leaders?... It's not 
any real improvement...only another ``monopolistic practice'' :( 
)

Some examples: ``Microsoft Java Machine'' (MicroSoft, the first 
time says: the Java techonology ``from'' Microsot, the real 
thing: ``from'' Sun MicroSystems, MicroSoft, the second time 
says: 100% compatible....the real thing: incompatible, dont exit the 
compatibily test :(....), Active Directory (LDAP Techonology, from the 
University of Michigan.....well know LDAP products prior to Active 
Directory: Netscape Directory Server, also products from Novell...), 
``MicroSoft'' Kerberos services (available on Unix Systems 
[Solaris, Linux,...] for years...), MicroSoft IE (and the JavaScript 
Netscape standard.... MicroSoft change many ``object 
properties'', and, with that: One javascript code written with the 
Netscape javascript standard dont work with IE :(...and also, the 
``MicroSoft propietary code'' dont work whit Netscape 
Communicators...only for your ``monopolistic implementations'' :( 
)

Sorry for my bad english, and thanks in advance.

Jose, from Madrid (Spain).



MTC-00003120

From: Arash Bannazadeh

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 4:31am

Subject: OpenSource

Hi,

Opensource the windows Operating Systems (NT, 2000, XP). I think that way 
it will destroy the Microsoft monopoly over it competitors. At the same 
time it will not violate the concept of intellectual property.

Arash



MTC-00003121

From: John B. Weaver

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 4:42am

Subject: Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

I have been following the antitrust case against Microsoft with interest 
because I use computers so extensively in my occupation. I am disturbed by 
the settlement that seems to allow Microsoft to continue driving the 
industry for its own profit. There is no provision forcing Microsoft to 
allow other companies to compete with any single Microsoft component. As 
long as they are allowed to bundle everything in one package, the 
Netscape's of the world can not compete. I feel it was a mistake that users 
like me and the economy as a whole will be paying for for many years to 
come. I have been a Republican all my life and wonder where this 
administration's dedication to ``free trade'' went; or is it only 
Microsoft that is allowed to be free?

Sincerely,

John B. Weaver



MTC-00003122

From: Dave

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 5:02am

Subject: Another opinion

To whom it may concern,

From the stand point of both an IT professional and a computer user who has 
been using computers since 1984, Microsoft is a monopoly. The facts in the 
case were, originally, very clearly defined and laid out, and pointed to 
this fact. Although I am no lawyer, it seems that the only reason that the 
original ruling was not upheld is simply for political reasons. The fact 
that, one week before the judgement is affected, there is an injuction (or 
some such legal term that interrupted the origianl process), seems to be a 
clear case of political intervention. Since the intervention was on behalf 
of Mr. Bush, it speaks to me of big bussiness protecting big bussiness. If 
Microsoft is not divided, they will simply continue doing what they have 
always done: absorb or destroy the competition through partnering and 
``compettitive'' practices.

Most people in this industry know Microsoft for the Monopolistic giant that 
they are. In fact, those of us with longer memories than 15 minutes 
remember well the suits against Microsoft from many of their previous 
partners for anti-trust related issues such as copyright infringement, 
patent infringement, and unfair practices to name only a few. If you 
reverse the original ruling, you are only giving american bussinesses the 
right to buy their way out of anti-trust suits. Most people are too 
ignorant of the histoiry to know the full extent of Microsoft's malicious 
practices, but those of us in the industry know that for Microsoft to win, 
they have to blind the public, and the courts. Simply put, if american 
justice means Microsoft continues unimpeded, american justice is only worth 
the money and ties it generates.

Sincerely,

David Bristol

A+, MCP, CCNA, CCDA, RHCE



MTC-00003123

From: lark

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 5:07am

Subject: For what it's worth

G'day,

Give open source software a go. It can only improve the way we live and 
work with technology. Why have a huge company like Microsoft dictate how we 
are going to use technology. We want the best from technology for us all 
not what is commercially best for a companies shareholders. Things happen 
when not hidden behind the corporate veil.

Andrew Komaki-Wood

Australia



MTC-00003124

From: Sven Holwell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 5:13am

Subject: MICROSOFT ANTITRUST, CLASS-ACTION SETTLEMENTS

I do not agree with your proposed settlements, they appear to be a sell 
out. If you (US) have laws against monopolies you should enforce them or 
have the laws dropped. Allowing (forcing) Microsoft to donate S/W, H/W and 
services to your poorest schools as a punishement is laughable (allowing 
them a greater monopoly). They should be forced to donate money and allow 
the schools to decide how best to use it. I am not anti Microsoft as I am 
an independant software developer who relies heavily upon their products, I 
just believe in fair competition.

Sven Holwell

England



MTC-00003125

From: Jeroen ten Berge

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 5:19am

Subject: Opinion

Hi Sir/Madam,

[[Page 24226]]

I would like to say that Microsoft's terror in the software industry made a 
lot of companies lose their businesses, therefore I support the 
introduction of RedHat linux in schools since that operating system can 
learn kids the very basics of computers, microsoft on the other hand will 
make the kids depend on their easy-to-use software.

This ofcourse enlarges Microsoft's dominancy. Also the pricing of 
Microsoft's products is way to high considering their enormous profits, 
they could easily reduce prices by 75% and still make humongous profits 
since their sales will even enlarge by lowering the prices. Please note 
that this is not just America against Microsoft, but the world against 
Microsoft's monopoly. I hope you'll also take my notes in to account, if 
not, at least I've tried.

Best regards,

Jeroen ten Berge

Dutch resident.



MTC-00003126

From: J. Heine

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:20am

Subject: New Computers only with MS ?

Hello,

@first: sorry for my grammar ( learned english by unix 
documentations and manuals ;-) It's nearly 1 Jear ago i've shut down the 
most expensive Operating System forever. Now I see a problem for every 
customer and firm who will get (a) computer/s without Microsoft Windoze. In 
germany it's forbidden to sell a computer wihtout a operating system. (in 
US too?) Most computer sellers can't support free operating- systems and 
free software (missing skills). And that's the reason why you must get 
MS-OS too even if you don't want it. So the laws that ever System 
must sell with a OS is realy bad for free systems and helps MS to be a 
monopolist and that's the reason why the hole world has windows and cracker 
attacks and virus problemes ... So you have to build a law that everybody 
can get a operating system by his choice after selling a system without a 
operating system.

Also try to stop OEM Software boundles with new computers. They also makes 
MS to a monopolist. I know, the US GOV will find a way for real justice.

sincerely,

Juergen Heine

System- and Application Developer

/unix /linux /bsd /security

www.linunet.com--We do IT better!



MTC-00003127

From: neal blomjous

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 5:51am

Subject: settlement

Isn't it a bit easy let them pay. It si not really solving the issue. They 
keep their dominant possition and they continue to abuse their power. I am 
not happy.



MTC-00003128

From: credding

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 5:51am

Subject: Break up Microsoft

It is hard for me to believe that the government let MS off the hook. Here 
is a company that has had no competition. Developers pay MS to write 
software for a company that is seeking to eliminate its own clients e.g. 
Quicken. Compare the world of Intel/AMD with that of MS where there is no 
competition (except in a restricted way, Linux).



MTC-00003129

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:12am

Subject: Antitrust--DONT MAKE A SETTLEMENT WITH MICROSOFT--DONT 
TRUST THEM !!!

LS, America always says to be the land of the Free, yet it kneels for the 
almighty Microsoft. Give your children the opportunity too choose what OS 
they like the most. Let them see what free Software can mean to them and to 
the rest of the world. The Software the donated PC should run should be 
every os except Microsoft Windows. I support RedHats view on this, but it 
is not about what OS there is on the donated systems. But it is all bout 
the possibility to choose. With Microsoft you don`t get this 
opportunity they tell you what to choose. With Spyware,Virusses,Worms etc 
.... the people are held hostage whitout them suspecting a thing. 
They`re privacy is compromised every day by people who appear as a 
saviours but who have only personal gain in mind.

I cannot imagine that the US Judges can ignore these arguments and 
willingly expose they`r children to this new threat.

Regards

H.Roeffen

Technical Systems Analist



MTC-00003130

From: Ted Potter

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 5:36am

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Greetings:

As a consumer I went to my local compUSA store today in order to purchase a 
new personal computer. My old computer is no longer working. I was advised 
by the store that they were no longer allowed to provide computers running 
the windows 98 operating system. All new computers must have the new XP 
operating system. This was also true at three other large retail stores I 
went to. The problem is my main software program will not operate on the 
new windows XP operating system.

Now while I know nothing about the law, I must say as a consumer I feel 
forced to purchase the new product. Certainly the store indicated that 
there hands were tied.

Ted Potter

consumer



MTC-00003131

From: Kody Brown

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:17am

Subject: i oppose the proposed settlement

I think the DOJ blew it. You didn't even go into the Operating 
Systems arena, where you could have nailed Microsoft to the wall. I think 
that microsoft should not be allowed to restrict an OEM's option to sell 
machines with other pre-installed Operating Systems. That has hurt the 
general public more than any browser issue could. The Netscape browser has 
not advanced since version 3. If they had focused on it, instead of 
complaining about Microsoft, they would still be a valid alternative. 
Microsoft has done more for the industry than any other software company. 
But they need to be rained in. How that is done, I'm not sure. Opening 
their ``trade-secret'' licenses. I'm sure IBM and Gateway would 
be willing to work with the DOJ on opening that up, provided Microsoft did 
not retaliate as they did to IBM years ago when they refused to stop 
selling OS/2.

Kody

[email protected]



MTC-00003132

From: Mcintosh, Duncan

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

Date: 12/7/01 6:24am

Subject: No windows no gates no monopoly.

Hello,

I agree with Red Hat that letting Microsoft provide schools with software 
and material will only widen that market and knock out all competition. 
This is only meeting the sought after solution imposed by the software 
giant. Anything that touches the digital ages must be kept from there reach 
so that they do not twist and turn the outcome of the verdit to there 
benifit.

Kind Regards

Duncan McIntosh



MTC-00003133

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:39am

Subject: COMMON ADDRESS LINKAGE EDITORS

WHY NOT HAVE A COMMON ADDRESS LINKAGE FOR ALL PRODUCTS NATIONALLY. THEN ANY 
PRODUCT COULD WORK ON ANY OPERATING SYSTEMS. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME.



MTC-00003134

From: Larry Stanley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:44am

Subject: Microsoft ``Settlement''

Red Hat is right. Microsoft has us right where they want us. With the XP 
operating system, they are closer to totally controlling the desktop of any 
consumer who buys their product. This is the first time they have been able 
to keep a direct communication link--through the Internet--with 
their Passport requirement. We can't even change a modem without permission 
from them!!

Here is what will happen. Microsoft will place their systems in all of the 
schools they can. All the computers will run XP. It will cost the school 
systems tons of money (people time) dealing with supporting the computers. 
Microsoft will eliminate all the Apple MacIntosh systems from the last 
bastion of that company. Apple will disappear. Microsoft will be king of 
the school systems computer labs, etc. On the other hand, the alternative 
is to allow open source into the picture to keep Microsoft 
``honest''.

Red Hat, for example, and other Linux OS providing companies, can provide 
the CD's--that will be their only cost--to allow the

[[Page 24227]]

school systems to have as many computers running as they want without 
worrying about licensing issues. The OS will run on less powerful 
computers--thus saving money to the schools. Let's get some 
competition in there. That is the only thing Microsoft understands.

Larry Stanley

3282 Winterberry Circle NE

Marietta, GA 30062

[email protected]



MTC-00003135

From: Jason Bechtel

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 7:21am

Subject: Injustice for all

Dear my US Department of Justice, I am a US Citizen (SSN: 
187-64-0446) currently studying abroad and I find the current 
proposed settlement between my government and Microsoft Corporation to be a 
shameful shirking of responsibility. I believe Microsoft has been 
demonstrated to be (and has demonstrated itself to be) a monopolistic 
organization, which abuses its position to unfairly dominate other markets 
and to stifle competition and innovation. Their actions harm consumers 
(users) of computer software by limiting their choices and forcing them to 
pay unreasonably high prices. To allow Microsoft to reinforce its current 
monopoly position by flooding schools with more Microsoft products, 
simultaneously avoiding the goal of retribution for its user base, is 
blatantly avoiding the responsibilities of my Department of Justice. This 
settlement is cowardly and shows that Microsoft is not only dominating the 
software market, but also the political arena in my country. I expect my 
goverment to stand up for me against aggressive corporations like 
Microsoft. I expect that Microsoft should be made to set right what it 
unjustly forced on the citizens not only of my country, but on the entire 
world. This settlement does not satisfy these expectations in the least. It 
is a joke and everyone knows it. It only reinforces the impression that 
many people have been trying hard to avoid for a long time: industry is 
stronger than government in the United States of America.

Shame on you.

Jason Bechtel



MTC-00003136

From: Michel van der Kleij

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 7:22am

Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement

Dear Sir, Madam,

I've been trying to keep up with the Microsoft Courcase proceedings as much 
as possible. The latest news immediately made me feel I ought to share my 
opinions with you. I feel it that Microsoft is being given the opportunity 
to make free advertisement for its products by having to ``help'' 
schools across the US. Think about it: the products themselves cost next to 
nothing to produce (price of a CD), millions of kids will learn how to use 
(inferior) software provided by a ``benavolent'' company and what 
are a few thousand PCs to a rich company like Microsoft. So, this is NOT 
punishment, I call that a firm endorsement!

Instead, I think Microsoft should be made to cough up for the hardware, BUT 
Open Source software should be provided along with it! The reason for this 
is not only that this is more of a ``punishment'' for a proven 
monopolist, but rather that kids learn how to use technically superior 
software from which MUCH more knowledge can be gained, thereby really 
helping the kids on their way!

Take it from a 20-year long IT professional with lots of experience in the 
Microsoft realm: Open Source software is much better quality, much better 
value and much more innovative than what Microsoft is pushing us so hard to 
use.

Kind regards,

Michel J.L. van der Kleij.



MTC-00003137

From: John Burik

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 7:22am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to join with the nine States Attorneys General whose rejection 
of the proposed the settlement can be summed in the following sentence: 
Nothing in the text of this agreement forces Microsoft to change its 
business practices and technical implementations in the least. 
Additionally, the settlement in effect gives Microsoft further monopolistic 
advantage in an area, Education, where a competitor, namely Apple 
Computers, has enjoyed a much-deserved edge. Now that we've calmed from the 
September 11th sentiment of giving carte blanche to the Bush 
Administration, it's time for judicial restraint and prudence to return and 
reject Microsoft's proposed settlement which benefits no one but Mr. Gates 
and company.

Respectfully,

John Burik

John Burik, M.Ed., PC/CR, EMDR L2

[[email protected]] (513) 221-4673

--Center for Children and Families

--Cincinnati Trauma Connection

Cincinnati, Ohio (USA)



MTC-00003138

From: Larry Weldon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 7:33am

Subject: Microsoft

I think it is a shame that you settled with Microsoft. We have an ordinance 
in the village which prohibits owners from allowing their dogs to bark 
habitually. But definitive penalties were not included in the law so it is 
tough when an habitually barking dog crops up to persuade the owner to 
stop. Microsoft will not stop its' monopolistic practices until you, the 
guardians of American justice, get off your blessed assurance, and enforce 
the law. Please start now.

Larry Weldon

www.weldoncomputers.com



MTC-00003139

From: Paul VanDeusen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 7:36am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement i

Dear Sirs,

I wanted to express my opinion about the Microsoft Class-Action 
Settlements. In summary, this result must have the Microsoft lawyers and 
executives grinning from ear to ear. Microsoft is asked to donate a billion 
dollars worth of software, which it can copy onto CD's free of charge. Then 
it distributes this to schools where it is indoctrinating more users of MS 
software to further extend its monopoly. This outcome is absurd and renders 
the entire exercise as worse than useless. Its even stranger that many 
government agencies force their employees to use Microsoft products, e.g. 
the USDA. I don't think government agencies should be helping to extend 
illegal monopolies.

Sincerely,

Paul Van Deusen.

NCASI

600 Suffolk Street, Fifth Floor

Lowell, MA 01854

978-323-4614



MTC-00003140

From: Paolo Lanzoni

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:50am

Subject: Settlement

Dear all, this settlement it's a joke , it MUST be a joke !! Microsoft it's 
the largest Monopolist in the word and in this way it will grow larger and 
bolder !!

Paolo Lanzoni

Italy



MTC-00003141

From: Tim Holy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 7:47am

Subject: Settlement

Hello,

There are some very wide-open holes in the Microsoft settlement. For 
example, the ``remote administration'' exception from documenting 
their protocols could effectively block future development of tools (like 
today's Samba) which allow Windows and Unix machines to communicate with 
each other. These holes need to be patched up. Microsoft should also have 
to document its file formats---there is very little intellectual 
property revealed by file formats that is not revealed more clearly by 
other means, and such documentation would greatly increase consumer choice.

Tim Holy

Assistant Professor of Neurobiology

Washington University School of Medicine

Campus Box 8108, 660 S. Euclid Avenue

St. Louis, MO 63110-1093

tel: 314-362-0086

fax: 314-362-3446

email: [email protected]



MTC-00003142

From: Scott Murdick

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

Date: 12/7/01 7:54am

Subject: Microsoft Propaganda should be stopped

Microsoft should be made to stop its false marketing. Making public 
statements to inflict doubt about other companies, in an attempt to create 
false confidence in their bloated, over priced products is shameful. Two 
examples of this are listed below.

Microsoft on Novell--Late this summer Microsoft kicked of an Anti-
Novell campaign, and set propaganda to thousands of

[[Page 24228]]

companies which stated and I quote. ``As a result of the recent 
Cambridge Technology Partners merger, Novell is shifting it focus from 
software development to consultancy services. You're left with a server 
platform without the full support of it manufacturer. Which means 
increasing costs as it rapidly becomes obsolete, forcing you to implement 
time-consuming retrofits''

Microsoft on Nintendo/Sony--A few weeks ago Microsoft made a public 
statement in regards to its game console ``Xbox'' ``Xbox 
console has sold more units in its first two weeks than any other competing 
product.''

Both of these examples are complete lies, and a direct attempt to eliminate 
competition through lies and deceit. Novell's server operating system, and 
Nintendo's and Sony's game machines are the finest products available. 
Microsoft is simply trying to steal revenue away from these companies 
through lies, and false marketing. They should be fined heavily, and me 
made to pay damages to these fine companies for the damage it has done.

Please respond if you would like anymore input.

Scott



MTC-00003143

From: mike

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 7:57am

Subject: Slice of the pie

Why should Microsoft have all the advantage of being on virtually every 
computer with ibm archetecture , and then be able to dictate to every 
software maker how it's going to be ? Please make them (m$oft) accountable.



MTC-00003144

From: Joel Duggan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:02am

Subject: Re: MS settlement

To whom it may concern,

You call this punishment for illegally maintaining their monoply?!?!? This 
settlement is a joke! This won't be of any help to consumers. Actually, if 
this settlement goes through, this could do more damage to the consumer 
then if you left MS alone in the first place. The settlement, as written is 
a clear victory for Microsoft! It basically tells them that all the things 
they did to be declared guilty, they can continue doing because even if 
another case gets started, they can just buy their way out of it, again. It 
makes the legal sytem look woefully inadequate. When the breakup was 
ordered, then the appeal sent it back for a new remedy hearing, I thought, 
``Well the Justice department did better then anyone expected, and 
actually increased competition.'' The only way Linux was able to get 
the foothold they have, and get the big backers (IBM, SUN, etc.) was 
because this case was ongoing, and MS had to watch their behavior. If it 
weren't for the antitrust case Microsoft would have just threatened 
computer makers and manufacturers by refusing to sell Windows to them. So I 
felt like the job was done. With the foothold Linux gained there would be 
real competition in the OS field, and we would finally see some REAL 
innovation and price cuts. Then this settlement comes out, and basically 
tells MS, ``Go ahead do whatever, we'll just look the other 
way.'' Unbelievable!!

Please reconsider the effects this settlement will have. Just say NO!

Joel Duggan



MTC-00003145

From: up(u)link

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:04am

Subject: Settlement terms

Good Morning,

I am writing in regards to the Microsoft settlement. From my understanding 
of the settlement, Microsoft is to donate software to the poorest schools. 
While I can see how getting technology into the schools can be of benefit, 
requiring that MS get into the schools allows them to extend their 
monopoly. Apple, who only has a single-digit market share in the private 
sector, has a strong presence in the educational market. By forcing MS into 
the schools, it helps them extend their dominant presence. The same applies 
to Linux. This is a free operating system that can run well on older 
hardware, unlike the hardware-taxing Windows 200 or XP. The settlement 
rewards Microsoft by increasing their presence. Is that supposed to be a 
punishment?

Craig Lewis



MTC-00003146

From: Bruce Hyatt

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:20am

Subject: Anti-Trust suit

To Whom it concerns,

I don't know what the appropriate solution is but something needs to be 
done to rein in Microsoft's predatory behavior. Splitting up the company 
is, perhaps, going too far but it's clear that the company will go to any 
extreme to bury all competition if they think there's any chance they can 
get away with it.

If I'm not mistaken, it's been established that they program bugs into 
their operating system that make competitors programs perform poorly or not 
at all. I believe I've experienced this with their newest operating system 
(Windows 2000) and their media player. I'm also frustrated that I can't 
replace Windows Notepad with another, better text editor. It worked 
perfectly well in Windows 95! They're dictating to me (unnecessarily) what 
my preferences are going to be!! The Information Technology equivalent of 
the Nazis!!! And all this has been going on while the DOJ pursues their 
case.

Please don't paper over this problem with some ineffectual solution just to 
close the case. We deserve better.

Sincerely,

Bruce Hyatt



MTC-00003147

From: Al Andres

To: Microsoft ATR

Date:   12/7/01 8:23am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It has been 
converted to attachment.]

Dear Ass't Attorney General:

You can include this with my previous message as evidence of the heavy 
handed way Microsoft is dealing with not only their customers, but the lack 
of they way they provide any options to their OEM vendors, and to their 
customers.

Sincerely,

Allan A. Andres

120 Wilmont Circle

East Fallowfield, PA 19320-4274

610 466-9651 Residence

610 466-7968 FAX

email: [email protected]

Original Message

From: ``A1 Andres'' [[email protected]]

To: ``Microsoft Standard Email Support'' 
[[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 8:19 AM

Subject: Re: Re: Re: Windows Update Support Request

Good Morning Microsoft On Line Professional #?;

Thank you for your response to all of my previous emails.

I am still dissatisfied with your responses, so I will continue to ask for 
a simple answer to a simple question, and make an introductory statement 
based upon your last response. I don't believe you offered the OEM vendor a 
choice of whether to have NTBACKUP or MSBACKUP in their WIN2K OEM version, 
now did you? The OEM vendor was not advised that they even had a choice of 
which backup program to order. Nor was I given a choice to utilize either 
NTBACKUP or MSBACKUP upon installation. I want to know if I can extract 
MSBACKUP from my WIN98SE disk, and load it on my WIN2K system without 
destroying something on my system to restore the files I can't get to. Is 
this too much to ask?

Thank you,

Al Andres

Frustrated and Dissatisfied Customer

Original Message

From: ``Microsoft Standard Email Support'' 
[[email protected]]

To: ``Al Andres'' [[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 7:17 AM

Subject: Re: Re: Re: Windows Update Support Request

Good Morning Allan,

I cannot imagine that the US Judges can ignore these arguments and 
willingly expose they`r children to this new threat.

Regards

H.Roeffen

Technical Systems Analist



MTC-00003130

From: Ted Potter

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 5:36am

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Greetings:

As a consumer I went to my local compUSA store today in order to purchase a 
new personal computer. My old computer is no longer working. I was advised 
by the store that they were no longer allowed to provide computers running 
the windows 98 operating system. All new computers must have the new XP 
operating system. This was also true at three other large retail stores I 
went to. The problem is my main software program will not operate on the 
new windows XP operating system.

Now while I know nothing about the law, I must say as a consumer I feel 
forced to purchase the new product. Certainly the store indicated that 
there hands were tied.

Ted Potter

consumer



MTC-00003131

From: Kody Brown

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:17am

Subject: i oppose the proposed settlement

I think the DOJ blew it. You didn't even go into the Operating 
Systems arena, where you could have nailed Microsoft to the wall. I think 
that microsoft should not be allowed to restrict an OEM's option to sell 
machines with other pre-installed Operating Systems. That has hurt the 
general public more than any browser issue could. The Netscape browser has 
not advanced since version 3. If they had focused on it, instead of 
complaining about Microsoft, they would still be a valid alternative. 
Microsoft has done more for the industry than any other software company. 
But they need to be rained in. How that is done, I'm not sure. Opening 
their ``trade-secret'' licenses. I'm sure IBM and Gateway would 
be willing to work with the DOJ on opening that up, provided Microsoft did 
not retaliate as they did to IBM years ago when they refused to stop 
selling OS/2.

Kody

[email protected]



MTC-00003132

From: Mcintosh, Duncan

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

Date: 12/7/01 6:24am

Subject: No windows no gates no monopoly.

Hello,

I agree with Red Hat that letting Microsoft provide schools with software 
and material will only widen that market and knock out all competition. 
This is only meeting the sought after solution imposed by the software 
giant. Anything that touches the digital ages must be kept from there reach 
so that they do not twist and turn the outcome of the verdit to there 
benifit.

Kind Regards

Duncan McIntosh



MTC-00003133

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:39am

Subject: COMMON ADDRESS LINKAGE EDITORS

WHY NOT HAVE A COMMON ADDRESS LINKAGE FOR ALL PRODUCTS NATIONALLY. THEN ANY 
PRODUCT COULD WORK ON ANY OPERATING SYSTEMS. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME.



MTC-00003134

From: Larry Stanley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:44am

Subject: Microsoft ``Settlement''

Red Hat is right. Microsoft has us right where they want us. With the XP 
operating system, they are closer to totally controlling the desktop of any 
consumer who buys their product. This is the first time they have been able 
to keep a direct communication link--through the Internet--with 
their Passport requirement. We can't even change a modem without permission 
from them!!

Here is what will happen. Microsoft will place their systems in all of the 
schools they can. All the computers will run XP. It will cost the school 
systems tons of money (people time) dealing with supporting the computers. 
Microsoft will eliminate all the Apple MacIntosh systems from the last 
bastion of that company. Apple will disappear. Microsoft will be king of 
the school systems computer labs, etc. On the other hand, the alternative 
is to allow open source into the picture to keep Microsoft 
``honest''.

Red Hat, for example, and other Linux OS providing companies, can provide 
the CD's--that will be their only cost--to allow the

[[Page 24227]]

school systems to have as many computers running as they want without 
worrying about licensing issues. The OS will run on less powerful 
computers--thus saving money to the schools. Let's get some 
competition in there. That is the only thing Microsoft understands.

Larry Stanley

3282 Winterberry Circle NE

Marietta, GA 30062

[email protected]



MTC-00003135

From: Jason Bechtel

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 7:21am

Subject: Injustice for all

Dear my US Department of Justice, I am a US Citizen (SSN: 
187-64-0446) currently studying abroad and I find the current 
proposed settlement between my government and Microsoft Corporation to be a 
shameful shirking of responsibility. I believe Microsoft has been 
demonstrated to be (and has demonstrated itself to be) a monopolistic 
organization, which abuses its position to unfairly dominate other markets 
and to stifle competition and innovation. Their actions harm consumers 
(users) of computer software by limiting their choices and forcing them to 
pay unreasonably high prices. To allow Microsoft to reinforce its current 
monopoly position by flooding schools with more Microsoft products, 
simultaneously avoiding the goal of retribution for its user base, is 
blatantly avoiding the responsibilities of my Department of Justice. This 
settlement is cowardly and shows that Microsoft is not only dominating the 
software market, but also the political arena in my country. I expect my 
goverment to stand up for me against aggressive corporations like 
Microsoft. I expect that Microsoft should be made to set right what it 
unjustly forced on the citizens not only of my country, but on the entire 
world. This settlement does not satisfy these expectations in the least. It 
is a joke and everyone knows it. It only reinforces the impression that 
many people have been trying hard to avoid for a long time: industry is 
stronger than government in the United States of America.

Shame on you.

Jason Bechtel



MTC-00003136

From: Michel van der Kleij

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 7:22am

Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement

Dear Sir, Madam,

I've been trying to keep up with the Microsoft Courcase proceedings as much 
as possible. The latest news immediately made me feel I ought to share my 
opinions with you. I feel it that Microsoft is being given the opportunity 
to make free advertisement for its products by having to ``help'' 
schools across the US. Think about it: the products themselves cost next to 
nothing to produce (price of a CD), millions of kids will learn how to use 
(inferior) software provided by a ``benavolent'' company and what 
are a few thousand PCs to a rich company like Microsoft. So, this is NOT 
punishment, I call that a firm endorsement!

Instead, I think Microsoft should be made to cough up for the hardware, BUT 
Open Source software should be provided along with it! The reason for this 
is not only that this is more of a ``punishment'' for a proven 
monopolist, but rather that kids learn how to use technically superior 
software from which MUCH more knowledge can be gained, thereby really 
helping the kids on their way!

Take it from a 20-year long IT professional with lots of experience in the 
Microsoft realm: Open Source software is much better quality, much better 
value and much more innovative than what Microsoft is pushing us so hard to 
use.

Kind regards,

Michel J.L. van der Kleij.



MTC-00003137

From: John Burik

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 7:22am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to join with the nine States Attorneys General whose rejection 
of the proposed the settlement can be summed in the following sentence: 
Nothing in the text of this agreement forces Microsoft to change its 
business practices and technical implementations in the least. 
Additionally, the settlement in effect gives Microsoft further monopolistic 
advantage in an area, Education, where a competitor, namely Apple 
Computers, has enjoyed a much-deserved edge. Now that we've calmed from the 
September 11th sentiment of giving carte blanche to the Bush 
Administration, it's time for judicial restraint and prudence to return and 
reject Microsoft's proposed settlement which benefits no one but Mr. Gates 
and company.

Respectfully,

John Burik

John Burik, M.Ed., PC/CR, EMDR L2

[[email protected]] (513) 221-4673

--Center for Children and Families

--Cincinnati Trauma Connection

Cincinnati, Ohio (USA)



MTC-00003138

From: Larry Weldon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 7:33am

Subject: Microsoft

I think it is a shame that you settled with Microsoft. We have an ordinance 
in the village which prohibits owners from allowing their dogs to bark 
habitually. But definitive penalties were not included in the law so it is 
tough when an habitually barking dog crops up to persuade the owner to 
stop. Microsoft will not stop its' monopolistic practices until you, the 
guardians of American justice, get off your blessed assurance, and enforce 
the law. Please start now.

Larry Weldon

www.weldoncomputers.com



MTC-00003139

From: Paul VanDeusen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 7:36am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement i

Dear Sirs,

I wanted to express my opinion about the Microsoft Class-Action 
Settlements. In summary, this result must have the Microsoft lawyers and 
executives grinning from ear to ear. Microsoft is asked to donate a billion 
dollars worth of software, which it can copy onto CD's free of charge. Then 
it distributes this to schools where it is indoctrinating more users of MS 
software to further extend its monopoly. This outcome is absurd and renders 
the entire exercise as worse than useless. Its even stranger that many 
government agencies force their employees to use Microsoft products, e.g. 
the USDA. I don't think government agencies should be helping to extend 
illegal monopolies.

Sincerely,

Paul Van Deusen.

NCASI

600 Suffolk Street, Fifth Floor

Lowell, MA 01854

978-323-4614



MTC-00003140

From: Paolo Lanzoni

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:50am

Subject: Settlement

Dear all, this settlement it's a joke , it MUST be a joke !! Microsoft it's 
the largest Monopolist in the word and in this way it will grow larger and 
bolder !!

Paolo Lanzoni

Italy



MTC-00003141

From: Tim Holy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 7:47am

Subject: Settlement

Hello,

There are some very wide-open holes in the Microsoft settlement. For 
example, the ``remote administration'' exception from documenting 
their protocols could effectively block future development of tools (like 
today's Samba) which allow Windows and Unix machines to communicate with 
each other. These holes need to be patched up. Microsoft should also have 
to document its file formats---there is very little intellectual 
property revealed by file formats that is not revealed more clearly by 
other means, and such documentation would greatly increase consumer choice.

Tim Holy

Assistant Professor of Neurobiology

Washington University School of Medicine

Campus Box 8108, 660 S. Euclid Avenue

St. Louis, MO 63110-1093

tel: 314-362-0086

fax: 314-362-3446

email: [email protected]



MTC-00003142

From: Scott Murdick

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

Date: 12/7/01 7:54am

Subject: Microsoft Propaganda should be stopped

Microsoft should be made to stop its false marketing. Making public 
statements to inflict doubt about other companies, in an attempt to create 
false confidence in their bloated, over priced products is shameful. Two 
examples of this are listed below.

Microsoft on Novell--Late this summer Microsoft kicked of an Anti-
Novell campaign, and set propaganda to thousands of

[[Page 24228]]

companies which stated and I quote. ``As a result of the recent 
Cambridge Technology Partners merger, Novell is shifting it focus from 
software development to consultancy services. You're left with a server 
platform without the full support of it manufacturer. Which means 
increasing costs as it rapidly becomes obsolete, forcing you to implement 
time-consuming retrofits''

Microsoft on Nintendo/Sony--A few weeks ago Microsoft made a public 
statement in regards to its game console ``Xbox'' ``Xbox 
console has sold more units in its first two weeks than any other competing 
product.''

Both of these examples are complete lies, and a direct attempt to eliminate 
competition through lies and deceit. Novell's server operating system, and 
Nintendo's and Sony's game machines are the finest products available. 
Microsoft is simply trying to steal revenue away from these companies 
through lies, and false marketing. They should be fined heavily, and me 
made to pay damages to these fine companies for the damage it has done.

Please respond if you would like anymore input.

Scott



MTC-00003143

From: mike

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 7:57am

Subject: Slice of the pie

Why should Microsoft have all the advantage of being on virtually every 
computer with ibm archetecture , and then be able to dictate to every 
software maker how it's going to be ? Please make them (m$oft) accountable.



MTC-00003144

From: Joel Duggan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:02am

Subject: Re: MS settlement

To whom it may concern,

You call this punishment for illegally maintaining their monoply?!?!? This 
settlement is a joke! This won't be of any help to consumers. Actually, if 
this settlement goes through, this could do more damage to the consumer 
then if you left MS alone in the first place. The settlement, as written is 
a clear victory for Microsoft! It basically tells them that all the things 
they did to be declared guilty, they can continue doing because even if 
another case gets started, they can just buy their way out of it, again. It 
makes the legal sytem look woefully inadequate. When the breakup was 
ordered, then the appeal sent it back for a new remedy hearing, I thought, 
``Well the Justice department did better then anyone expected, and 
actually increased competition.'' The only way Linux was able to get 
the foothold they have, and get the big backers (IBM, SUN, etc.) was 
because this case was ongoing, and MS had to watch their behavior. If it 
weren't for the antitrust case Microsoft would have just threatened 
computer makers and manufacturers by refusing to sell Windows to them. So I 
felt like the job was done. With the foothold Linux gained there would be 
real competition in the OS field, and we would finally see some REAL 
innovation and price cuts. Then this settlement comes out, and basically 
tells MS, ``Go ahead do whatever, we'll just look the other 
way.'' Unbelievable!!

Please reconsider the effects this settlement will have. Just say NO!

Joel Duggan



MTC-00003145

From: up(u)link

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:04am

Subject: Settlement terms

Good Morning,

I am writing in regards to the Microsoft settlement. From my understanding 
of the settlement, Microsoft is to donate software to the poorest schools. 
While I can see how getting technology into the schools can be of benefit, 
requiring that MS get into the schools allows them to extend their 
monopoly. Apple, who only has a single-digit market share in the private 
sector, has a strong presence in the educational market. By forcing MS into 
the schools, it helps them extend their dominant presence. The same applies 
to Linux. This is a free operating system that can run well on older 
hardware, unlike the hardware-taxing Windows 200 or XP. The settlement 
rewards Microsoft by increasing their presence. Is that supposed to be a 
punishment?

Craig Lewis



MTC-00003146

From: Bruce Hyatt

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:20am

Subject: Anti-Trust suit

To Whom it concerns,

I don't know what the appropriate solution is but something needs to be 
done to rein in Microsoft's predatory behavior. Splitting up the company 
is, perhaps, going too far but it's clear that the company will go to any 
extreme to bury all competition if they think there's any chance they can 
get away with it.

If I'm not mistaken, it's been established that they program bugs into 
their operating system that make competitors programs perform poorly or not 
at all. I believe I've experienced this with their newest operating system 
(Windows 2000) and their media player. I'm also frustrated that I can't 
replace Windows Notepad with another, better text editor. It worked 
perfectly well in Windows 95! They're dictating to me (unnecessarily) what 
my preferences are going to be!! The Information Technology equivalent of 
the Nazis!!! And all this has been going on while the DOJ pursues their 
case.

Please don't paper over this problem with some ineffectual solution just to 
close the case. We deserve better.

Sincerely,

Bruce Hyatt



MTC-00003147

From: Al Andres

To: Microsoft ATR

Date:   12/7/01 8:23am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It has been 
converted to attachment.]

Dear Ass't Attorney General:

You can include this with my previous message as evidence of the heavy 
handed way Microsoft is dealing with not only their customers, but the lack 
of they way they provide any options to their OEM vendors, and to their 
customers.

Sincerely,

Allan A. Andres

120 Wilmont Circle

East Fallowfield, PA 19320-4274

610 466-9651 Residence

610 466-7968 FAX

email: [email protected]

Original Message

From: ``A1 Andres'' [[email protected]]

To: ``Microsoft Standard Email Support'' 
[[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 8:19 AM

Subject: Re: Re: Re: Windows Update Support Request

Good Morning Microsoft On Line Professional #?;

Thank you for your response to all of my previous emails.

I am still dissatisfied with your responses, so I will continue to ask for 
a simple answer to a simple question, and make an introductory statement 
based upon your last response. I don't believe you offered the OEM vendor a 
choice of whether to have NTBACKUP or MSBACKUP in their WIN2K OEM version, 
now did you? The OEM vendor was not advised that they even had a choice of 
which backup program to order. Nor was I given a choice to utilize either 
NTBACKUP or MSBACKUP upon installation. I want to know if I can extract 
MSBACKUP from my WIN98SE disk, and load it on my WIN2K system without 
destroying something on my system to restore the files I can't get to. Is 
this too much to ask?

Thank you,

Al Andres

Frustrated and Dissatisfied Customer

Original Message

From: ``Microsoft Standard Email Support'' 
[[email protected]]

To: ``Al Andres'' [[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 7:17 AM

Subject: Re: Re: Re: Windows Update Support Request

Good Morning Allan,

Thank you for using Microsoft Web Support.

I am sorry to hear that you are dissatisfied with the responses you have 
received to date on this issue. I know these issues can be frustrating, but 
I would like to assist you in any way I am able. I apologize for any 
inconvenience you have experienced while submitting this issue. The email 
address you have written to is monitored by Customer Representatives, not 
Support Professionals. While we are able to assist with the Microsoft Web 
Site questions, handle support entitlement issues and direct your support 
requests, we are unable to provide product-specific support.

At this time, Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) versions of Microsoft 
Software do not qualify for Standard No-Charge Support Professional 
assisted support. The reason for this is that when the manufacturer of your 
system purchased the OEM copy of Windows 2000 installed on

[[Page 24229]]

your system, they also purchased the right to custom configure the 
installation to suit their hardware, as well as support this particular 
installation of Windows 2000. In this case, your manufacturer is your 
primary support provider for that particular installation of Windows 2000. 
After researching this issue, I have found a Microsoft Knowledge Base 
article that may assist you in resolving this issue. The article number is 
Q155979. If you would like to view this article, please follow the 
directions listed below:

1. Please connect you browser to the following web site: http://
search.support.microsoft.com/kb/c.asp

2. Please make sure ``All Microsoft Products'' is selected in the 
number 1 option on the web page

3. Please click the radial button next to ``Specific article ID 
number''

4. Please type the article number, ``Q155979'' without the 
quotation marks and click ``Go''

5. This will bring up a hyperlink to the article and give a short 
description. Please select the name to view the article.

If you have any additional questions, please let us know by replying to 
this message.

Thank you,

Alan

Microsoft Online Customer Representative

Original Message Follows:

As you know, I own a registered copy of both WIN98SE, and WIN2K. One would 
expect backward compatability on a backup program from either of these two 
operating systems. I believe all of those who migrate to XP will also share 
this same frustration, as there is no indication that I know of that tells 
you that if you have used MSBackup to make a copy of your data in the QIC 
format, that once you upgrade to WIN2K you won't be able to restore any of 
those files.

If I can't get an answer to this problem, I plan to call the Department of 
Justice, Anti-trust Division, and see what they have to say about this 
situation. I may also see about filing a class action lawsuit on behalf of 
so many of us that are in the same situation, both WIN2K and WINXP 
customers who previously owned WIN95, WIN98, or WINME, and whoever did a 
backup with those versions.

A response is expected to the question that has been asked now for 2 months 
without any reasonable response other than to contact the OEM vendor from 
whom I bought this computer. It is not their problem, it is a MICROSOFT 
problem that needs resolution.

See below on audit trail of this issue:

Hello Allan,

Thank you for contacting Microsoft.

I apologize for the inconvenience this has caused Allan. Since you have 
indicated you have been unable to access your case online, I have pasted 
the entire case history below for you review:

Allan Andres

Phone: 6104669651

Fax: 610 466-7968

Email: [email protected]

Community: PROVAP

Respond to me by: EMail

System

261616 kbytes RAM

I586II-1330 MHz MHz

WINNT 5.0.2195

Problem

Having problem with Office Prem 2000 for Win 2000.

C Important--Severity C

PID: 50637-757-0689417-02704

Before buying a NEW system with WIN2K, I did a full backup using MSBackup 
on my old system (WIN98SE). The file was saved as a QIC file. Now under 
WIN2K I can't open this to restore data, mail files under Outlook Explore, 
and document files, as QIC is not supported in MSBackup under WIN2K 
Professional. How do I restore files from my WIN98SE MSBackup QIC files 
created under WIN2K Backup?

Good Afternoon Allan,

Thank you for using Microsoft Web Support. The Support Professional 
assigned to your case has determined that your issue pertains to Microsoft 
Windows 2000, and that you would be best assisted by a Support Professional 
who specializes in that area.

Please assist us in processing your request by providing the Product 
Identification Number for your Windows 2000. To locate this number:

1. Click Start, point to Settings and then click Control Panel.

2. Double-click the System icon to open System Properties.

3. Click the General tab to find the 20-digit number under the 
``Registered to'' line. Once we have this number, we will be able 
to provide you with the support options available for your copy of Windows 
2000.

To add this information, please create a supplement to your case.

Thank you,

Charity

Microsoft Online Customer Representative

*** RESEARCH LOG esrintf 09/27/01 02:17:15 PM 51873 OEM 0003461 35834 The 
files are Word, Excel, Powerpoint, etc files that I need to extract from 
the QIC files. If you try to tell me to go to the OEM provider of the 
system, I disagree with that assumption. This is a WIN2K issue no matter 
where the WIN2K software comes from. This is a SYSTEMS problem in my 
opinion, and I expect an answer on this, or a vendor to contact that can 
solve this matter.

*** Log # 3

*** Log # 4

*** EMAIL OUT 01-Oct-2001 01:57:29 Pacific Daylight Time 
K2519415 10/1 cu says... I have updated this incident with the data 
requested. Please provide an answer.

Thank you.

*** Log # 5

*** PHONE LOG 01-Oct-2001 01:57:41 Pacific Daylight Time Hello 
A1l Thank you for contacting Microsoft. For your convenience, we have 
forwarded this e-mail to your Support Professional. In the future, you may 
submit updates to your SRZ cases directly.

1. Go to http://support.microsoft.com/support/webresponse_nc.asp and 
select the type of support you used to submit this issue.

2. Highlight your case in the list. At the bottom of the page, click Create 
Supplement.

3. If you are unable to access your case from this link, please send e-mail 
to [email protected], and we will add your supplement and/or send 
you a copy of your Support Professional's last log entry.

If you have any additional questions, please let us know by replying to 
this message.

Thank you,

Ronald

Microsoft Online Customer Representative

*** RESEARCH LOG esrintf 10/01/01 02:59:22 AM So what is the solution. The 
latest response is just another ``no response''.

*** Log # 6

*** Log # 7

*** PHONE LOG 23-Oct-2001 09:15:50 Central Daylight Time* Good 
Morning Allan,

Thank you for using Microsoft Web Support.

We appreciate the additional information you have provided and apologize * 
for the delay in response.

We appreciate that you have taken the time to let us know your feelings 
about the ``OEM'' support options. We consider customer feedback 
an opportunity to improve our business. We have forwarded your comments to 
the appropriate department. However, the fact still remains that this is 
not a retail version of Windows and is an ``OEM'' version.

Since the letters ``OEM'' appear in the Product ID number, your 
copy of Windows 2000 was purchased under an Original Equipment Manufacturer 
(OEM) license agreement. Under this agreement, the manufacturer of your 
computer holds the rights to your ``out of package'' warranty, 
which includes offering industry standard support for all hardware and* 
software included in the purchase. OEM software typically comes 
preinstalled on the computer. Microsoft does offer support in a secondary 
capacity. I have included* those support options below for your 
convenience, as well as a list of manufacturer's phone numbers and links to 
support sites.

Manufacturer's phone numbers and sites: http://support.microsoft.com/
directory/worldwide/en-us/oemdirectory.asp Web-based technical support from 
Microsoft is available at http://www.microsoft.com/support/ If you are 
unable to resolve your issue using our online self-help services, in order 
to receive assisted support, you will need to create a new case. You may 
submit your technical support issue by going to http://
support.microsoft.com/support/webresponse.asp and clicking ``Submit a 
Question Using Pay Per Incident (PPI) Support'' If you would prefer to 
work with one of our Support Professionals by telephone, they are available 
to assist you at 800-936-5700. If you have any further 
questions concerning your issue, please create a supplement to your case.

Thank you,

Charity

Microsoft Online Customer Representative

*** CASE CLOSE 23-Oct-2001 09:16:11 Central Daylight

*** CASE REOPEN 27-Oct-2001 10:31:11 Central Daylight

*** Log # 8

*** PHONE LOG 27-0ct-2001 10:34:35 Central Daylight Time

Reply-To: ``A1 Andres'' [[email protected]]

[[Page 24230]]

From: ``A1 Andres'' [[email protected]]

To: [wradmin@ microsoft.com],[wrhelp@ 
microsoft.com]

Subject: Re: SRZ010924000209

Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:35:32-0400

I am still trying to get a response to this matter. Would you please let me 
know how to solve this problem.

Thank you.

*** Log # 9

*** PHONE LOG 27-Oct-2001 10:49:56 Central Daylight Time 
a--cwhite Action Type:Incoming call Good Morning Allen, Thank you for 
again contacting Microsoft. According to the information you have provided, 
your Microsoft products were included with your system.

If this is correct, your copy of Microsoft software was purchased under an 
Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) license agreement. Under this 
agreement you are using a version of software that was designed to be sold 
with a new PC and has been licensed to your hardware manufacturer.

When the OEM elected to include this product on their machines they also 
agreed to provide the primary product support for the Microsoft software. 
When an OEM decides to preinstall software (Microsoft and most other 
software brands) on a computer, the OEM makes a licensing agreement for the 
right to distribute software on their computers. Once the OEM purchases the 
licensing rights to the software, the majority of the rights of the 
software are put under the control of the OEM.

This is noted in the End User License Agreement found within your software. 
Since we are not always able to notify every user directly when changes 
occur, we publish major changes on our Online Support Web sites. Please 
visit: http://support.microsoft.com/directory/
OfficeXP_Q&A_USAFinal.asp for more information about 
Microsoft's new support policies. Available from the Microsoft support web 
site are several self-help options, including our Knowledgebase, 
Troubleshooting Wizards and Peer-to-Peer Newsgroups. Our Knowledgebase 
contains over 90,000 articles written by our engineers, for end users. Your 
fellow users may have a few suggestions if you post your issue to our Peer-
to-Peer Newsgroups.

Our engineers are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for most products 
through our Pay Per Incident Service. To submit an incident to our 
engineers via the web, please visit: http://support.microsoft.com/support/
webresponse.asp Once there select `Pay Per Incident Support' If 
you would prefer to speak to one of our engineers over the phone, they are 
available to assist you at 800-936-5700. I apologize for any 
inconvenience you have experienced while trying to resolve your Outlook 
Express problem. Microsoft will be more than happy to help you resolve your 
technical issue, within the boundaries of our support guidelines.

In our previous emails, we have provided you with information on how to 
submit a Pay-Per-Incident support request via phone or Web Response. We 
have also included information on how to contact your OEM vendor, as well 
as information on our self-help informational services. I would invite you 
to utilize any of these options. By utilizing any of the options submitted 
to you for obtaining support on this issue, you may assure a more positive 
experience in the future.

I wish you the best of luck in resolving your issue. However, as the 
primary point of contact for support is the OEM vendor, and not through 
Microsoft, we have offered options under the parameters of support as it 
currently stands on your case number SRZ010924000209. I will be happy to 
forward your comments and suggestions to the appropriate group. If you have 
any other questions about your case, please let us know.

Thank you,

C. Loretta White

Microsoft Online Customer Support

Thank you.

*** CASE CLOSE 27-Oct-2001 10:50:55 Central Daylight Time

If you have any additional questions, please let us know by replying to 
this message. Please include your original message in your reply so that 
all the necessary information is readily available to us.

Thank you,

Paul

Microsoft Online Customer Representative

From: [email protected]

Received: 11/5/01 8:22 AM

To: Web Response Help

Subject: Fw; SRZ010924000209

Original Message Follows:

WHY CAN'T I GET A RESPONSE TO THIS ISSUE?

Original Message

From: ``A1 Andres'' [[email protected]]

To: [[email protected]]; 
[[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 11:35 AM

Subject: Re: SRZ010924000209

I am still trying to get a response to this matter. Would you please let me 
know how to solve this problem.

Thank you.

Original Message

From: [[email protected]]

To: [[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 5:00 AM

Subject: SRZ010924000209

Incident: SRZ010924000209

There has been activity on the incident that you submitted. Please go to 
Online Assisted Support (https://webresponse.one.microsoft.com/wrscripts/
wr.asp?SR=SRZ0109240002 09 to check on the activity at your earliest 
convenience. THIS MAILBOX IS NOT MONITORED--For further assistance, 
email [email protected]

From: ``Microsoft Standard Email Support'' 
[[email protected]]

To: ``A1 Andres'' [[email protected]]

Sent: Sunday, December O2, 2001 1:53 PM

Subject: Re: Re: Windows Update Support Request

Hello Allan,

Thank you for using Microsoft Web Support.

Allan, I understand that you would like to know if you can extract the 
MSBACKUP program from your WIN98SE CD to your WIN2K machine to restore QIC 
files created prior to upgrading to WIN2K.

I would like to inform you that the warranty support for Windows Update 
site is limited to site navigation and downloads only. Since your issue 
doesn't involve any of this, the best option would be to work with your 
computer manufacturer directly. You may also consider using Microsoft's no-
charge information services or submitting a Pay-Per-Incident support 
request to work with a Microsoft Support Professional. Allan, please note 
that the support is tied to the operating system and since you are an OEM 
customer, your first point of contact would be your OEM.

I apologize for any inconveniences this issue may be causing you and 
understand that it is frustrating. If you have any additional questions, 
please let us know by replying to this message.

Thank you,

Vivek

Microsoft Online Customer Representative

Original Message Follows:

It's a pretty simple question, and it's a MICROSOFT issue, as you have 
created the loss of backward compatibility. Can you answer the question: 
Can I extract the MSBACKUP program from my WIN98SE CD to my WIN2K machine 
to restore QIC files created prior to upgrading to WIN2K.

Original Message

From: ``Microsoft Standard Email Support'' 
[[email protected]]

To: ``A1 Andres'' [[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 4:19 PM

Subject: Re: Windows Update Support Request

Hello Allan,

Thank you for using Microsoft Web Support. I apologize for the 
inconvenience caused. Please allow me to kindly offer my fullest attention 
towards your concerns. I understand you would like assistance with Windows 
2000. For assistance with this, the best option would be to work with your 
computer* manufacturer directly. You may also consider using Microsoft's 
no-charge information services or submitting a Pay-Per-Incident support 
request to* work with a Microsoft Support Professional. Allan, please note 
that the support is tied to the operating system and since you are an OEM* 
customer, your first point of contact would be your OEM.

The letters ``OEM'' appear in the Product ID number, which 
indicates your copy of Windows 2000 was purchased under an Original 
Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) license agreement. Under this agreement, the 
manufacturer of the computer holds the rights to your ``out of 
package'' warranty, which includes offering industry standard support 
for all hardware and software included in the purchase. OEM software 
typically comes preinstalled on the computer. Allan, Microsoft also has 
support options available to you. I have included those support options 
below for your convenience as well as a list of manufacturer's phone 
numbers and links to support sites.

To locate the listing of manufacturer phone numbers and Web sites, go to 
http://

[[Page 24231]]

support.microsoft.com/directory/worldwide/en-us/oemdirectory.asp Web-based 
technical support from Microsoft is available at* http://www.microsoft.com/
support/ If you are unable to resolve your issue using our online self-help 
services, you may submit your technical support issue through Online 
Assisted Support. For more information, go to http://support.microsoft.com/
directory/question.asp Allan, If you would prefer to work with one of our 
Support Professionals by telephone, they are available to assist you at 
800-936-5700. Pay-Per-Incident support for consumer products is 
available at a rate of $35 per incident.

Thank you,

Sowmya

Microsoft Online Customer Representative

Original Message Follows:

Contact Information

First name: Allan

Last name: Andres

Email Name: [email protected]

Phone: 610-466-9651

Fax:

Time zone: Eastern

Submit Date/Time: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 at 09:45 AM Pacific Time

System Configuration

Internet Browser: Internet Explorer 6.0

Operating System: Windows 2000 Professional

Computer Make: MicroFlex

Computer Model:

CPU Speed:

Memory (Mb of RAM):

Detailed Information

Issue Type: Other

Component Name:

URL:

Error Type: Other

Question Title: Restoring a QIC file on WIN2K

Detailed Problem Description:

I need to know if I can extract the MSBACKUP program from my WIN98SE CD to 
my WIN2K machine to restore QIC files created prior to upgrading to WIN2K.

Other Information

Internet Service Provider: Comcast

Method of Connection: Local Area Network (LAN)

Windows PID: 51873-OEM-0003461-35834



MTC-00003148

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:29am

Subject: Slapping Microsoft on the wrist

Like many others, I'm naturally disappointed at the actions taken by the 
Justice Dept. over Microsoft's monopolistic behavior. The thing that really 
angers me is that they flaunted strictures you placed on them several years 
ago. The appearance now is that Microsoft is untouchable. They can fight 
the feds and win. It would be much better for the economy if you could at 
least preserve the appearance that American businesses have to play by the 
rules.

Richard Goerwitz

[email protected]

tel: 401 438 8978



MTC-00003149

From: Sten Westgard

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:30am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To the US DOJ:

I was very unhappy to hear that Microsoft isn't going to be sufficiently 
punished for its monopolist and anticompetitive behavior. The remedies 
being discussed only reward Microsoft for acting illegally. There must be a 
way of insuring that Microsoft can't illegally leverage its desktop 
monopoly into dominance of other markets. Essentially, this settlement is 
letting Microsoft say, ``oh, we'll be better in the future'' 
without any way of insuring that will happen. Microsoft should not be 
allowed to bundle new applications into the operating system, or if it 
does, it should make its relevant source code open to the public. 
Otherwise, it's the old railroad gauge problem. Microsoft forces everyone 
to run on their tracks, and the markets lose creative innovation.

Microsoft's pursuit of the Java-killer is just another example of this 
behavior. Java is used by tens of thousands of programmers, but because 
Microsoft can't control that language, it's trying to kill it by inventing 
far less useful languages like C# or J++. Please, I beg you to 
actually_punish_Microsoft for the billions of dollars it 
stole from its competitors. The USA is about freedom, the freedom to make 
the best application and take it to market. Microsoft is all about 
preventing anyone else from selling an application.

Sincerely,

Sten Westgard

Publications Coordinator/Webmaster

Westgard QC, Inc.



MTC-00003150

From: Larry Johnson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:41am

Subject: (no subject)

Once again the DOJ has verified that they only attack little people. The 
litigators on both sides refused to admit to having a clue as to what 
computers and software is about. Money and power rules in the good ol' USA

Larry Johnson

Garland, Texas

No.I.don't.wear.a Ribbon.on.my.lapel.USA



MTC-00003151

From: Wayne Rosa

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:32am

Subject: Anti trust letter

To whom it may concern,

As part of the settlement I would like to see

(1.) RedHats proposal upheld -] give linux to schools open source will 
aid students far greater than closed source...

(2.) Make Microsoft adhear strictly to protocol standards deliverd by 
others thus enhancing inter platform capabilities ie:- if they use java 
then it must comply 100% with the Java standards (they CANNOT! add any 
Microsoft specifics to any standard that is not thier own) and any 
standards or protocols they produce MUST! be usable by all operating 
systems NO IF BUTS OR MAYBE'S. All inter computer related communication 
applications must use standards avaliable to all operating systems (No 
exceptions).

(3.) All programs they introduce MUST be backwards compatable with previous 
versions.

Or they MUST provide free of charge onsite (imediate) file conversions by 
microsoft staff of all and any company's files thus not forcing any company 
to upgrade if they choose not to. I feel this is the only way we can allow 
businesses to truly interact with each other.

Regards Wayne Rosa

0409 642 042

+61 7 38056534

wrosa@your_service.net.au



MTC-00003152

From: Mike Greenfield

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:25am

Subject: Options to MicroSoft Operating Systems

Friends, ...since Feb1986 I've been in business pretty much by/for myself, 
operating just 1 computer, and trying to do the same customer tracking job 
the whole time. The 1986 computer worked fine, but over and over again the 
MicroSoft operating system has been changed, and my software vendor has 
chased the new operating system. This made my old system obsolete, ...and 
pretty soon non-functioning. So, I've been forced to buy new computers, new 
operating systems and new application software, ....for ZERO net gain in 
speed and productivity. There have been no options for a small businessman 
like me. MicroSoft's repeated ZERO-improvement ``upgrades'' have 
been simple extortion by a monopoly player (MicroSoft). Kindly do something 
to return competitiveness to this market, and grand relief to ``little 
guys'' like me. It would be much appreciated.

Mike Greenfield,

2437 Magna Vista Dr,

Jackson, WI 53037.



MTC-00003153

From: Nick Eiteljorg

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:45am

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Sirs:

If the record regarding Microsoft's prior concent decree as is I believe it 
is--one of deception and bad faith on the part of Microsoft, why would 
any agreement rely in any way on Microsoft's promises? The court must make 
an honest effort to prevent Microsoft from continuing to expand its 
franchise by doing what it has done in the past-- undermining the 
ability of competitors to gain protitability, frustrating attempts to 
establish industy-wide standards that might damage Microsoft's monopoly 
position, and enagaging in improper sales practices. As I understand the 
current proposal, it does not accomplish these basic ends. It should never 
have been accepted.

Harrison Eiteljorg, II



MTC-00003154

From: Kevin Bisneau

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:59am

Subject: Microsoft anti-trust + redhat

[[Page 24232]]

I feel as if Redhat is doing the right thing in further reducing the 
monopoly of microsoft and allow microsoft to provide the hardware that 
these low-budget schools really need. Without the internet support, many 
schools today are lacking outside knowledge and a strong resource to work 
upon.. The internet is growing largerly, and so are computers.. Have 
microsoft provide the software that they need and redhat will be true on 
their promise, as they have never let any of us down!

Kevin Bisneau



MTC-00003155

From: (FFFF) (FFFF) (FFFF) (FFFF) (FFFF) (FFFF)

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:52am

Subject: About M$

Hi,

As to the monopolist, Microsoft, I think this company has the ability to 
block the process of the new technology. The so-called .Net is a killer for 
JVM, a very good multi-platform language. And M$ should not force everyone 
to use its very expensive software without free choice. In the controry, 
Linux is very good.

Thank you

Dragon Yang



MTC-00003156

From: Curtis Grote

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:03am

Subject: Reward for monopoly

The proposed settlement only rewards Microsoft for their monopolistic 
tactics. It will further their monopoly by forcing students to learn their 
software. The cost to them is negligible; they only need pay for the 
hardware (CD's and books). The only proposal that makes the punishment fit 
the crime is to take Red Hat's offer to provide software and force 
Microsoft to pay for the hardware for every school in America. This teaches 
students alternative operating systems and desktop software. This will 
create competition in exactly the areas where Microsoft removed competition 
by their monopolistic tactics. It will surely lead to more innovation as a 
result.

Curtis Grote



MTC-00003157

From: Randy Higginbotham

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:04am

Subject: Monopolisoft

Dear DOJ:

In response to notification from the Redhat Linux forums request, i've 
included below my own experience of M$ monopolistic practices. First, the 
standard disclaimer: These opinions are mine and do not reflect the opinion 
of the company for which employs me. I work for a small company (30+ in 
all, 6 in this area). Recently a major decision was made within our group 
regarding technology that was completely driven out of fear of being left 
behind because M$ has specified the technology we are to use. M$ completely 
controls certain segments of the marketplace and in this particular segment 
(That will be coming in the future) they want to take control of that too. 
They are inline for doing so. So rather than being ourselves creative we 
are forced to implement what M$ tells us we have to regardless of our own 
opinions. It's either get on board or get tillered under.

M$ and windoze is a dumbing down of American. No more limp wristing them.

Randy Higginbotham

Senior Software Engineer

Melbourne Florida



MTC-00003158

From: Dong Kim

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:03am

Subject: Justice for All

I have been using Microsoft's operating system and their other various 
software since the mid 90's.

Finally, you guys realized that they were a monopolizing business and an 
evil one to if you might say.



MTC-00003159

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:06am

Subject: microsoft IS A monopolist!! microsoft IS A monopolist!!

The settlement forces Microsoft to donate software, hardware, and services 
to America's poorest schools. Red Hat responded to the proposed settlement, 
pointing out that the settlement could simply introduce Microsoft to a 
market where they could further extend their monopoly. In its counter-
proposal, Red Hat offered to provide free software to every school in 
America if Microsoft provided the value of its donation in hardware costs 
rather than its own software. en this only makes it bigger!!



MTC-00003160

From: Mark Segall

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:08am

Subject: Antitrust Settlement

To whom it may concern,

I wanted to let my opinion be known on the Microsoft case. Let me first say 
that Microsoft has been great for the economy and earned the right to be in 
such control of the OS market. When they tried to sell their ideas to IBM 
in the late 80's of home computing, IBM laughed in their face. SUN and 
Apple also had large egos and refused to allow other hardware makers to use 
their OS's until it was too late.

The problem is what they did with that power. My first example is Internet 
Explorer. I'm like the next Joe and love the fact that Internet browsers 
are now free. However, the way it came about was downright dirty. They 
included it for free with their OS that everyone was using. Netscape was 
forced to make their browser free as well. Netscape lost their main source 
of income and would eventually die out in the R&D battle. Second, Word 
Perfect used to be the word processing software of choice. Microsoft had 
told the large computer manufacturing companies that if they bundled any 
Office software other than Microsoft with their machines they could not 
bundle Windows. Of course, the manufacturers could not do anything but 
comply. This eventually caused Corel's product to fall by the wayside.

Now with the settlement, Microsoft is starting again. Packaged with Windows 
is MSN Messenger. They have been trying to take over this market for a long 
time starting with a failed acquisition of ICQ. So again, they will use 
their OS to throw it at people. Let's face it; the majority of the 
population is not computer savvy. Microsoft is very aware of this and uses 
their lack of knowledge to the companies advantage.

I do think something should be done about the monopoly. A breakup would be 
extreme and affect the economy. However, a little slap on the wrist and 
fines are not enough. Microsoft is a multi-billion dollar company and can 
afford any fines that are imposed on them. I am sick of buying software 
because it is what Microsoft has forced upon everyone and start buying it 
again because it is the better software. For example, Corel's last version 
of Word Perfect included dictating software. The majority of the population 
will not know anything about it until Microsoft bundles it with their 
software.

Thank you,

Mark Segall



MTC-00003161

From: Douglas Fraser

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:09am

Subject: My biggest problem with Microsoft OS

Hello,

Just a short note to state my biggest concern with Microsoft products. 
Their license excludes a vendor form shipping a PC with Windows and any 
other non Windows OS installed at the same time. As a consumer who is 
ordering a PC from a vendor, I should be allowed to install any mix of 
operating systems that I wish to pay for. The machine belongs to me, not 
Microsoft. The Windows OS may be owned by Microsoft, but not the physical 
hardware. So that is my biggest concern. I should be able to order a PC 
with any mix of OS installed, and the current Microsoft OEM license 
prevents that. That license is anti competitive and helps to maintain their 
monopoly position.

Sincerely,

Douglas Fraser



MTC-00003162

From: Tad Siminitz

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:11am

Subject: Microsoft and the Department of Justice

I am a North Carolina citizen and employee of one the largest U.S. high 
technology companies, IBM. I am writing this letter not on behalf of IBM, 
but to voice my personal opinion and complete disagreement with the 
decision by the U.S. Department of Justice to lighten any punitive damages 
on Microsoft regarding the anti trust case. Most people who make a living 
in the technical computer profession would be of the same opinion that 
Microsoft has, for several years, repeatedly practiced business in a unfair 
manner. What Microsoft has done to Netscape, not to mention some of IBM's 
products, certainly exceeds the boundaries of fair play, by anyone's 
definition. To go virtually

[[Page 24233]]

unpunished and only suffer the imposition of some lightweight rules 
regarding future conduct is like getting lashed with a wet spaghetti 
noodle. Consumers are not the only ones to suffer at the hands of these 
predatory business practices, that seem to be standard operating procedure 
at Microsoft. Sure IBM, SUN, and other corporations are large and diverse 
enough to endure illegal tactics on a product by product basis. However, 
many smaller companies typically just have to fold up shop and go home when 
confronted with these `dirty pool' techniques.

What current economic or other situation may have influenced a quicker and 
less severe penalty is thwarting the natural advancement of technology, 
despite Microsoft's continual claims they would be `inhibited from 
innovating'. These DOJ decisions are not in the best interests for 
technical professionals and entrepreneurs, nor for consumers of software 
products. In the areas of software development the United States continues 
to be the dominating and most advanced presence world wide. Many of us are 
fearful this advantage will be lost eventually should we continue to turn 
our eyes from these all out assaults on free trade.

Thank you for your consideration in doing what is right and fair on this 
matter,

Tad Siminitz

Zurich, Switzerland

Internet [email protected]



MTC-00003163

From: John T. Passannante

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:11am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think you should not accept the settlement. Microsoft is too large and 
has used its power to corner the market and stifle competition. While the 
settlement does restrict some of their activities now, it does little to 
level the playing field and open the market up to competition. Plus, it 
does nothing to address the high handed way it deals with customers and its 
failure to provide bug fixes automatically to registered users. I think the 
settlement should be rethought and the possbiliity of breaking Microsoft up 
into smaller pieces revisited.

John T. Passannante



MTC-00003164

From: Bly, Richard

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

Date: 12/7/01 9:16am

Subject: ruling

A company blatantly violates the monopoly laws of this country (and others 
as well), is declared a monopoly, found guilty, but is allowed to continue 
unchecked, without punishment. looks like (to me and many others) they have 
the best lawyers (and judges) that money can buy.

Richard [email protected]

BIS--Baylor Health Care Sytem

2001 Bryan Street, Suite 2400

Dallas, TX 75201

214-820-0974 Office

214-797-4968 Cell

214-820-4241 Fax



MTC-00003165

From: Allan Macdonald

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:32am

Subject: Judgement

To whom it may concern,

As a Canadian Citizen, the impact of my opinion upon any judgement made in 
a US court is likely minimal. Nevertheless, I would like to contribute my 
opinion. The recent release of Microsoft Windows XP is a good example of 
why we should be careful of how they package their products. Microsoft's 
practice of producing applications for its operating system which compete 
with other application software vendors gives Microsoft a distinct 
advantage.

Microsoft considers the workings of its software, including its Operating 
System, Windows, ``Intellectual Property''; however, the 
interface between the Operating System and Application software is supposed 
to be defined clearly. Yet, we do not know whether or not Microsoft 
provides an alternative interface, knowledge and understanding of which 
rests entirely within the Microsoft organization, which may be included 
under that umbrella of ``Intellectual Property''. Microsoft 
internal developers may utilize this ``secret'' interface rather 
than the published one when developing application programs that compete 
with third party developers.

As a result, this gives Microsoft a potential significant advantage over 
its competitors who are forced to use the published interface 
specifications to design their software; an interface which may be 
significantly inferior to the interface used by internal developers. My 
suggestion is to order Microsoft to publish its operating system source 
code, free of charge, and keep the publication up to date. Verification can 
be made by compiling the source code and comparing the binaries. Copyright 
can be enforced to protect Microsoft's intellectual property however the 
material must be released for inspection by competing vendors. This would 
remove any special advantage Microsoft has over its competitors in the 
application software market. Applications would then be judged by the 
consumer on a level playing field. This would substantially increase the 
availability and variety of reliable and well-designed application software 
for the Windows platform, to the great benefit of the consumer. 
Furthermore, designers of poorly designed software would no longer have the 
excuse of stating that ``we can't help it, its Microsoft's 
fault'' when the software fails.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this critical decision which 
will have a world-wide impact.

Regards,

Allan W. Macdonald

223 Windmill Rd. Apt. 320

Dartmouth, NS

B3A 4M6

Tel: (902) 449-2554 (Home)

(902) 423-7727 ext. 224 (Work)

Fax: (902) 422-8108 (Work)

email: [email protected]



MTC-00003166

From: David Schrey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:32am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a professional in the computer industry for the last 15 years I have 
been directly affected by Microsoft's monpolistic practices and have 
therefore watched these proceedings with great interest. As I understand it 
Microsoft was found guilty of unfair trade practices which it used to 
increase it's market share at the expense of it's competition. As I 
understand the settlement Microsoft will be forced by the courts to utilize 
unfair trade practices (software dumping) to increase it's market share at 
the expense of it's competition. I do NOT see this as a punishment or as a 
way to eliminate their current monopoly. Please consider other alternatives 
such as requiring Microsoft to purchase hardware and software from other 
vendors (IBM, RedHat, Apple, Sun, BeOS--I don't care who) and 
distribute those products to the schools. I am not even going to try to 
address the issues of the small size of the settlement.

David Schrey



MTC-00003167

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:33am

Subject: MicroSoft Settlement Offer

I have read about the Microsoft settlement to provide hardware and software 
to the nation's poorest schools. I must say that while this offer has a 
certain appeal, it really does little to get at the heart of the matter, 
the monopolistic nature of Microsoft. In fact, I do believe that accepting 
the offer as it was given would only further entreach the operating system 
and would in fact further reduce competition in the marketplace. As a 
person who has been involved in education my entire life and who is 
currently in a high tech university environment, it has been clear to me 
that providing software to schools at any level has marketing as its main 
purpose. Allowing a large chunk of the settlement to be encompassed by 
Microsoft software would be little different than allowing a large part to 
include simple advertising.

I must say that the base notion has some favorable aspects. The settlement 
should only include the hardware donations, not the software. This 
accounting would increase the number of computers contributed from 200,000 
to 1,000,000 (14 to 70 systems per school). I also believe that some 
linkage should be made relative to the Red Hat company's offer to provide 
free software (with no time limit) to these same schools. Providing an 
alternative to the Microsoft system to a significant portion of our young 
people should help increase market competition and as such, the future 
innovation of America's software. The computer hardware should, in other 
words, not include devices that were designed in such a manner to exclude 
non-Microsoft products.

Thank-you for your time,

Chris Winne, PhD

267 Eddy Street

Missoula, MT 59801-4335

406-721-6022



MTC-00003168

From: Michael Polley

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:35am

[[Page 24234]]

Subject: The settlement

I can't believe that the judicial system in this country would be so 
spineless in it's treatment of Microsoft. As an end user of competing 
products, I have watched Microsoft systematically force those products and 
companies out of business. Most of those products, in my opinion, are 
superior to what Microsoft offers but when faced with the might of 
Microsoft are not able to compete.

It has been proven that when Microsoft wants a market they will give there 
software away to collapse the competition. They can afford to give software 
away because the use income from other products to subsidize. It has been 
proven that Microsoft will withhold information about the coding of there 
OS from competing venders that will allow Microsoft products to work 
better.

It has been proven that Microsoft will lie to the courts of this country. 
(ex. The demonstration that Internet Explorer could not be removed from 
Windows because it was interwoven into the OS. and disproved in court by 
and independent consultant)

It has been proven that Microsoft has no respect for the our judicial 
system. The ruling in California ? against Microsoft in the Java suit with 
Sun Microsystems. In Bill Gates affidavit, he indicated that the ruling did 
not change the way Microsoft operated at all. In this case, one of 
Microsoft's tactics was in full swing. Take an open standard software meant 
to be used by all. Corrupt it so that it will only work with Microsoft 
products. Then take it over because you have 90% of the desktop computers 
out there.

Microsoft has been found guilty of being a monopolist. And the courts only 
seem interested in giving the appearance of punitive action. Offering to 
provide schools with its product only furthers the stronghold that they 
already have. And caused further injury to the stability of companies like 
Apple and others that have a reasonable market share in the education 
community.

Lets look to the future:

Windows XP is forcing the end user to open there networks to Microsoft for 
licensing. During this time Microsoft can retrieve any information it wants 
from the end users computer. It can learn anything from passwords to what 
other products are installed. Windows XP has features that record credit 
card numbers during online purchases. These numbers are stored on Microsoft 
servers. These numbers could be used without the consent of the end user. 
Microsoft is fully aware of the big brother stance they have taken. Take 
look at the advertising campaign that they are currently using. The people 
in the commercial are flying around and the pitch is that Windows XP will 
give the user freedom and that it is liberating. The compensating hard sell 
is no doubt intended to disarm the public. While not an expert on the law 
governing monopolies it seams that the threshold for other companies being 
considered as monopolies is much lower than has been applied to Microsoft. 
Don't you get it. You have a problem here.



MTC-00003169

From: Michael Horrocks

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

Date: 12/7/01 9:37am

Subject: Microsoft

I thought we lived in America where you were free to run a business. Don't 
punish a company because they developed a software package that EVERYONE 
wants and is good enough to drive the competition out of business. Instead 
of punishing Microsoft, the government should be encouraging other 
companies to develop software that will rival Microsoft.

Free enterprise means just what it says. If you end up being the only 
company out there selling what the people want and need, so be it. If you 
are so up in arms about this, then do something about it like develop 
software that will rival Microsoft or just keep your mouth shut.

If this keeps up, we will be punishing the new inventory of 
``IT'' stating that because no one else out there has a product 
like it, they are monopolistic.

I was pretty sure when I woke up this morning that I was still living in 
America.

MICHAEL HORROCKS, CNE5, CNA, CCA

Director of MIS Operations

Amscot Corporation

TEL: 813-932-4339 x209

CELL: 813-601-3369



MTC-00003170

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:41am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement--Use Linux instead.

I read that you are collecting opinions about the antitrust settlement it 
with Microsoft. My opinion is that they should not be allowed to put their 
software in the poorest school districts as a punishment. That action would 
only allow them to lock in many, many more people to their proprietary 
system. It's ludicrous, but it is the sort of thinking that has made 
Microsoft such a great success.

Once these poor students are trained on Microsofts Operating System, they 
will not switch to anything else--its just too hard. Then they will be 
locked in to buying constant upgrades (both software and hardware) forever. 
Do the right thing! Get Linux into the school system!!!!! Students can 
learn one operating system that they will be able to use for the rest of 
their lives. The OS itself is free, all of the applications (including a 
complete office suite and professional drawing programs) are also free, and 
Linux will run (and run very well) on old, low cost hardware. Lets start 
thinking about what is best for the students and the taxpayer and do what 
is right instead of what is easy. obtw: There are Linux user groups all 
around the country that I believe would be delighted to help teach the 
teachers at no cost.

Regards,

Dana Sparling

Adelphia Business Systems

Unix System Administrator

(814)260-1507



MTC-00003171

From: Daniel L. Blackmon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:44am

Subject: Anti-trust Suit against Microsoft

I want to convey my feelings of the anti-trust litigation against 
Microsoft. Microsoft is a business and the object of a business is to make 
a profit. There are many companies that made huge profits because of 
Microsoft and their innovations, including these companies shouting 
``unfair business practices''.

Everyone has the opportunity to develop their own software and compete 
against Microsoft. If these companies that are crying foul banned together, 
made an effort to create an operating system and applications software that 
was more or just as effective as Microsoft, they could control a great 
market share. But it seems the easy and cheaper road is to have government 
intervention (companies do not have to pay for this law suit,it is the 
American people) that stifles competition, thereby diverting monies that 
could be used for greater innovations in the Microsoft company to improve 
the standards of work, education, and life in America.

Microsoft's proposal to place software and hardware in the schools is a 
great idea, but a better idea was given by the Red Hat Linux corporation. 
Microsoft provides the same amount in cost of hardware to the schools that 
was stated they would provide in their software and hardware, while Red Hat 
provides their software and applications with unlimited support. This would 
show that Microsoft is serious about helping underprivileged schools and it 
shows good faith to the American people. At the same time, another 
operating system and applications are taught to future doctors, lawyers, 
teachers, professors, etc. This promotes learning of a new style and also 
adds another company to the software realm that has taken over our way of 
life in the last 25 years.

Thank you Sir and Ma'am for letting me voice my concerns and proposing 
another solution.

Sincerely,

Daniel L. Blackmon

1488 El Prado Avenue

Lemon Grove, CA 91945

United States

(H)619.462.7188

(C)619.750.8133



MTC-00003172

From: Ken Ian

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:48am

Subject: MICROSOFT ANTITRUST

This is cave in to fiscal power and promotion of ruthless, monopolistic 
``business'' practices

Rgds,

IGW



MTC-00003173

From: Robert Myers

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:51am

Subject: The Microsoft Settlement

Sir or Madam:

Not being an anti-trust lawyer, I have no understanding of the legal 
intricacies of the Microsoft case. Being something of a power user, I can 
see what Microsoft has been up to and I can tell you that the proposed

[[Page 24235]]

settlement will do nothing to address it. The software that keeps Linux (or 
any other alternative operating system) on its knees is Microsoft Office, 
which has become the lingua franca of business, which uses proprietary file 
formats, and which has tentacles deep into the operating system. The 
penalties proposed by Judge Jackson and now being explored by the EEC would 
address these issues. Years of taxpayer money will have been spent on 
litigation will have accomplished nothing. As usual, the only ones to 
benefit will be the lawyers. Microsoft? It will take the costs of this 
litigation out of the pockets of its captive customers.

Robert B. Myers

217 Forest St

Winchester, MA 01890-1037



MTC-00003174

From: Andrig T. Miller

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:49am

Subject: Anti-trust Settlement (Updated with some things I forgot)

[Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It has been 
converted to attachment.]

I am a technology professional who has been involved in software for over 
16 years. I am currently the Vice President of Technical Architecture for a 
large distribution company (basically the CTO). My comments in this 
response to the anti-trust settlement proposal currently before the 
District Court are my own, and in no way affliated with my company. I only 
talked about my position, so that you could see that I have some 
credibility in my comments. Having said that, the following is where I see 
issues with the proposed settlement.

In section III. Prohibited Conduct, it states that Microsoft is prohibited 
from retaliating against an OEM for shipping a personal computer that 
either includes a non-Microsoft operating system or can boot more than one 
operating system. There seems to be a glaring omission here. Under these 
terms Microsoft could retaliate if an OEM ships a personal computer with 
only a non-Microsoft operating system. To give a simple example, if I were 
IBM, and I started shipping personal computers with Linux pre-installed as 
the only operating system for customers who didn't want a dual boot system, 
Microsoft could retaliate. The odds of this behaviour would go up 
substantially, if a large OEM like IBM started selling significant numbers 
of systems with only a non-Microsoft operating system.

In section III.C.2, it states that Microsoft cannot restrict by agreement 
any OEM from distributing or promoting non-Microsoft middleware by 
installing or displaying on the desktop of any size or shape so long as 
such shortcuts do not impair the functionality of the user interface. Who 
makes the judgement about impairing the functionality of the user 
interface? What constitutes an impaired user interface? If Microsoft just 
doesn't like the way it looks, can they have the OEM remove it? This raises 
more questions than it answers. It seems to me, that if an OEM really 
impairs the user interface, then their customers will be unhappy, and have 
them fix it, or get their PC's from somewhere else. I know that Microsoft 
position on this, is that it reflects on them. The truth of the matter is, 
the OEM handles the technical support for pre-installed copies of Windows, 
not Microsoft. How many people do you know blame Microsoft when there 
computer doesn't work? They simply say my computer doesn't work, and if 
they bought the system from an OEM with Windows pre-installed, they call 
the OEM. This section should have no exception, and the free market should 
be left to decide whether an OEM has impaired the user interface or not.

In section III.C.3, it states another user interface exemption for OEMs. 
This time is says that middleware that automatically launches on boot, can 
be replaced as long as it displays on the desktop no user interface or the 
user interface is of similar size and shape to Microsofts user interface. 
This prevents competitors from creating unique user interface paradigms, 
that may infact be better than Microsofts. In fact, it limits them into 
copying Microsofts products, and gives no ability to innovate with the user 
interface. I don't see how this can foster competition. If both products 
look and act the same to the user, then you have just removed one of the 
competitive advantages a competing product may have.

In section III.D, it states that Microsoft has to disclose to ISVs, IHVs, 
IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs the API's and related documentation that are used by 
Microsoft middleware. This goes to the heart of the issue alot of people 
have, which is that Microsoft hides API's that it uses for competitive 
advantage. This is a very good provision, but it has one very big omission. 
Today, open source projects create software that needs to interoperate with 
Windows (e.g. Samba) operating systems. These projects would not be covered 
by the list above. For this provision to have true meat behind it, 
Microsoft should be made to disclose the API's publicly to everyone. This 
will create significantly more competition in the marketplace, because it 
would allow open source projects to be more easily developed. This section 
is also incongruent with section III.E, which doesn't limit the disclosure 
of communication protocols between the Windows client and server. The two 
sections should allow for disclosure to any and all third parties.

Section III.F.2 seems to be completely meaningless. The exception 
completely nullifies the behavioural prohibition. Everything from the word 
except on, should just be removed. Microsoft should in no way be allowed to 
limit what an ISV can develop or promote that competes with Microsofts own 
products. This section should be one of the cornerstones of an agreement, 
and should have no exceptions.

Section III.G.1 also seems meaningless. Again, the exception competely 
nullifies the behavioural prohibition. If you are going to eliminate the 
use of contracts that give consideration to certain entities based on 
solely supporting Microsofts products, at the expense of competitors 
products, then the agreement should do that without exception. The current 
exception takes all of the teeth out of this section.

Section III.H.1 & 2 has all the same problems of section III.C.3 which 
I stated above. Additionally, Microsoft has the option to have the end user 
confirm this chose of replacing the Microsoft product with the non-
Microsoft product. Of course, this could confuse the user, and make them 
wary of making such a change. While I understand that a user could do this 
by accident, based on the provisions of this section, the user can make the 
Microsoft product the default selection just as easily. Besides that issue, 
I think that additional teeth should be put into this section in the 
following way. Microsoft should be prohibited from putting hooks into the 
operating system that prompts the user to switch back to the Microsoft 
product everytime the user uses the non-Microsoft product. They could 
easily do this under the provisions of this settlement, and make it very 
difficult for the user to use the competing product. Section III.H.3 makes 
direct reference to my suggestion of what Microsoft will do to change the 
configuration to suit their needs and stiffle competition. The settlement 
only prohibits them from changing the configuration that the OEM supplied 
their customer for 14 days. After that time, they can pepper the user with 
dialogs that constantly ask them to switch the applications from 
competitors to theirs! This entire section should be changed to prohibit 
this behaviour completely. I don't see how this agreement can foster 
competition with this type of exemption. It also retains much of the power 
Microsoft has over OEMs. If the OEMs configuration can just be changed by 
Microsoft after a couple of weeks, it takes much of the value that the OEM 
can sell to Microsofts competitors away from the OEM. If I was a Microsoft 
competitor, and I wanted to sign an agreement for an OEM to ship my product 
versus Microsoft, and Microsoft can two weeks later bother the user to the 
point that they switch to the Microsoft product anyway, then I wouldn't be 
willing to pay the OEM very much. OEMs already struggle with margins, 
because Microsoft and Intel make all of the profit, and the product is a 
commodity. The only real way for OEMs to differentiate their products is 
through customization and third-party software bundles. Again, we should 
let the free market decide, without pestering prompts to switch to 
Microsoft products (and visa versa).

After section III.H, there are two bullets called 1 & 2, which don't 
seem to be a part of section H, but give Microsoft addtional exceptions. 
Bullet 2 says, a Microsoft middleware product may be invoked by the 
operating system when a non-Microsoft product fails to implement a 
reasonable technical requirement. What is a reasonable technical 
requirement? The example in the document is hosting an Active-X control. 
What if the replacement product can implement all of the functionality that 
a user needs without hosting an Active-X control? Who determines what is 
reasonable? These type of exceptions could make the agreement unworkable, 
especially if it can be argued in court. I see alot of additional wrangling 
in court to resolve disputes over things like this, and this additional 
time could be used by Microsoft to continue business as usual while the 
lawyers fight it out.

Section III.J gives Microsoft another way to wiggle out of disclosing API 
information. I

[[Page 24236]]

think it is necessary to state that they cannot disclose the internal 
working of something that is against the law to disclose. As far as I know, 
no such cases exist. Actual authentication keys, tokens, etc. would not be 
apart of a working API, but the format of those would be. The way this is 
worded, Microsoft could prevent the disclosure of API's and communication 
protocols, and no one would be able to dispute them because they could 
argue that disclosure would be required to prove their case. Of course, you 
could argue that the technical committee could work to see if Microsoft is 
pulling the wool over everyone's eyes. The flaw in this, is that Microsoft 
could still fight it and win, and no third party could jump in to help the 
case without first getting disclosed on the API's and communications 
protocols. I see this as a catch-22 for enforcement. After reviewing this 
entire proposed settlement, there is also one thing missing from the 
license and agreement restrictions. One of the main things that came out in 
the trial testimony is that Microsoft makes anyone who uses their 
development tools restrict the use of the software created with the tools 
to Microsoft operating systems. This affectively makes it impossible for a 
developer to take source code and port it to a competing operating system. 
If you want to restore competition for operating systems it has to be easy 
to port an application from Windows to competiting operating systems. If 
the developer cannot use their own source code to do this, then it will be 
next to impossible to get developers to make the investment needed to get 
applications on competitive operating systems. This is also a case of the 
tail wagging the dog. Microsoft is controlling another companies 
intellectual property. This is something that Microsoft has made sure 
doesn't happen to them in this very proposal!

Overall, this agreement doesn't go far enough in curbing Microsofts 
business practices. I think that a better solution is staring us all right 
in the face. The solution that I think would be better has three simple 
principles, of which two are captured in this proposed settlement. First, 
make Microsoft disclose all API's to everyone, without exception. Second, 
do not allow Microsoft to control other companies use of Windows or their 
own source code, whether it be configuration of the desktop, inclusion or 
exclusion of non-Microsoft and Microsoft products, or porting their own 
software to non-Microsoft operating systems. And third, allow Microsoft to 
bundle anything they want into Windows, and its successors, as long as it 
complies with a recognized open standard. The IETF (Internet Engineering 
Task Force) model of standardization should apply here. In their model, 
something does not become a standard until at least two interoperating 
implementations of the standard are widely deployed. This would make it 
very simple to monitor compliance, and would allow third parties, including 
open source projects, to compete head on with Microsoft in every product 
category.

Thanks for taking the time to read this, and I hope that the settlement can 
be improved to foster competition in the marketplace for operating systems.

Andrig T. Miller



MTC-00003175

From: Carlo Moneti

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:54am

Subject: some settlement issues

Sir:

``This settlement will promote innovation, give consumers more 
choices, and provide the computer industry as a whole with more certainty 
in the marketplace,'' -Charles A. James, Assistant Attorney General 
for the Antitrust Division. A shiver runs down my spine when I hear an 
assistant Attorney General spew Microsoft propaganda phraseology verbatim, 
in defense of a settlement against the very same company. But lets 
concentrate substantive and discussible issues:

What can I say about the settlement agreement. I read the agreement and 
found it very disappointing; it is so bad that one is led to believe that 
the Justice Department has simply capitulated to Microsoft. Of particular 
interest is the requirement to publish API (application programming 
interface) specifications to guarantee the ability of other software 
manufacturers to make their products inter-operate with those of Microsoft. 
Microsoft already publishes its APIs. However, software developers argue 
that they are published with too much delay--giving Microsoft an extra 
head start--and are not complete--hiding performance enhancing 
functions from the competition. APIs should be updated continuously for any 
major or minor release of any major or minor component. Otherwise, the 
whole exercise is a joke. There are two huge loopholes just to the API 
issue. The first is that Microsoft is not bound to publishing APIs to 
products containing intellectual property of other companies. However, with 
the huge amount of cross-licensing of intellectual property in the software 
industry, any Microsoft product can be made to fit into that category. The 
second is that Microsoft is not bound to publishing APIs that may divulge 
information about encryption algorithms and other security details. 
However, encryption algorithms are not secret; to be secure, they must not 
be. Both of these caveats are baseless from any of scientific, engineering, 
or business point of view. The agreement does nothing more than specify 
once again to Microsoft to conduct its business fairly and without 
prejudice. Well, gee wiz, folks. Don't hold your breath. And whatever 
happened to a consideration for a penalty for Microsoft's criminal 
convictions? How about taking back most of the $30 billion stockpile 
Microsoft is sitting on? It's existence is the most obvious measure of 
monopoly power; no company can amass such wealth in an open and competitive 
market. Come on DOJ, do your job!

Finally, a parting shot of reality to those who believe that Microsoft is 
an entity worthy of their praise: Microsoft is simply a business enterprise 
out to make a profit for its shareholders; it is not an innovator; it is 
not a research company; it did not invent the computer; it did not invent 
DOS; it did not invent the graphical user interface; it did not invent the 
mouse; it did not invent programming languages; it did not invent word 
processors or electronic spreadsheets; it did not invent databases or 
accounting programs; it did not invent the Internet or the web browser or 
the web server. It has, through huge profits from its monopoly power, 
bought companies with innovative products, making those its own; it has 
lobbied Congress to strengthen copyright law and patent law to its benefit; 
it has made gargantuan profits year after year, measurable by its $30 
billion stockpile of cash reserves. One might admire Microsoft's success 
from a strictly business savvy perspective. But, the business savvy of 
Microsoft or Bill Gates is not the same as, and should not be confused 
with, someone's meritorious work in the public interest that would justly 
deserve praise, appreciation, esteem, or admiration, by the general public.

Sincerely,

Carlo Moneti

Syracuse, NY



MTC-00003176

From: Matthew C. Grimes

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 10:01am

Subject: settlement

Please take the response from Red Hat Linux seriously. Linux is not a 
college student's project, nor is it only for servers and high end research 
computing. Linux provides a low cost, highly secure, thoroughly modern 
computing solution for educational, institutional, governmental, 
commercial, and personal use. Very few computer viruses are known to affect 
a properly configured Linux computer.

I believe the settlement should address the key issue with Microsoft's 
business practices, which are oriented towards one thing, market 
domination, to the exclusion of all other vendors. Microsoft's offer does 
not adversely effect the company financially, and is merely a PR stunt. In 
addition, it secures Microsoft a foothold in the minds of children. It 
would be far better to require MS to provide all donations in hardware and 
let Red Hat or other Linux providers provide the operating system and 
software. This decreases, rather than increases MS's actual and 
intellectual market share. It also is better deal for schools because they 
could get more computers, and have them be cheaper and easier to maintain. 
It would be better for children because of the vast array of software such 
as office and productivity, C++, Java, html and other development software, 
servers, graphical design, CAD, CAS, GIS, financial management and other 
software that could be used in the schools for absolutely no cost.

Microsoft's offer is nothing more than Bre'r Rabbit asking to be thrown 
into a briar patch. Please do the right thing for America's children, and 
the world's computer industry.

Thank you for your time

Matt Grimes



MTC-00003177

From: Daryl Bjerke

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 10:04am

Subject: My opinion of the Microsoft settlement.

I would like to voice my opinion of the settlement that I heard. I heard 
that Microsoft

[[Page 24237]]

would have to donate software, hardware and services to schools. At first I 
thought this was a good thing since I am in the education setting. Then I 
got to thinking that my first reaction is wrong. First, by forcing them to 
donate software, something that costs pennies on the dollar, it doesn't 
hurt them at all. Second, it is just pumping more Microsoft into the 
education division and further helping out the Monopoly. Now let me state 
that my school is a mixed environment. I have about 70% Microsoft Windows 
computers, 30% Apple and I personally like Microsoft computers better, but 
I still feel that forcing them into the education market only benefits 
them. In my opinion, it would be far worse for Microsoft at this case to 
simple have the DOJ drop the entire case. I would like to see Microsoft 
donate the money, ACTUAL MONEY, to the schools to be used for technology 
however they see. It could be Microsoft hardware or software, but it could 
also be Apple products, Linux products, etc. That would be a fair solution 
for all, except for Microsoft, because it would actually be a punishment 
instead of allowing them to make a circus of the DOJ and reaping the 
benefits of a gift horse.

Thank you for your time.

Daryl Bjerke

[email protected]

Computer and Network Specialist

Bemidji High School

Bemidji, MN USA

(218) 444-1600 ext 3314

``Out the token ring, through the router, down the fiber, off a 
switch, past the firewall, down the T1 . . . nothing but 
Net.''



MTC-00003178

From: Jon Gans

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 10:10am

Subject: Settlement is akin to giving drug dealers access to schools.

Dear DOJ,

Microsoft is almost addictive as heroin. By giving Bill Gates free access 
to schools you almost guarantee the continuance of his monopoly. Redhat 
Linux's proposed amendment is a viable alternative. Let Microsoft foot the 
bill for hardware, but put freely available Redhat Linux (or any other 
linux) on the computers. I run exclusively linux for my studies and never 
run into problems. Most windows like software is available for linux, and 
it comes free with programming (such as C++), graphics and Internet 
software that Microsoft charges thousands for. Why not give our children 
everything possible? This will make the settlement a settlement and not a 
endorsement.

I work in academia, and if anyone runs windows in my field they get laughed 
at..we don't want to subject our children to ridicule! Granted, Bill Gates 
had back room deals with the Bush administration to quash this suit even 
before the election was stolen, but now you must serve the people of the 
United States, not Bill Gates' bottom line.

Thanks for listening,

Jonathan Gans

Physics Ph.D Student

Yale University and Brookhaven National Lab

Jonathan Gans

Yale University

Physics Department

Office (305 WNSL): (203) 432-5835

PO BOX 208120

New Haven, CT 06520-8120

http://www.jongans.com



MTC-00003179

From: Leonard Heyman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 10:11am

Subject: Settlement

Dear DOJ:

Crimes should be punished. The punishment should fit the crime. Microsoft 
has been found guilty of committing a very serious crime. The settlement 
agreement contradicts this very simple concept upon which our criminal 
justice system is based. Microsoft continues to thumb its nose at the 
Sherman Act, and rightly so, for it clearly has nothing to fear from the 
DOJ.

The message sent by the proposed settlement agreement is, no man may be 
above the law, but corporations are. There is a reason the Sherman Act 
exists, and it is very important to the stability and continued growth of 
our economy. Throughout history, it has always been controversial as it 
always goes against many vested interests in power. However, each time it 
is employed, it has opened up a whole new industry to competition and has 
resulted in better products at reduced prices for consumers.

Monopolies are not illegal. Leveraging monopolistic power is. It is obvious 
to anyone who pays attention to the high tech sector that Microsoft 
willfully violated the Sherman Act, has done so on a regular basis, and 
continues, even today, to do so. If Microsoft isn't stopped, we will be 
asking ourselves in 10 years where was the DOJ when we needed them to stop 
the rampaging giant that Microsoft is from squashing innovative and 
important contributions in the high tech sector? Microsoft is currently 
leveraging its operating system to dominate everything from Internet 
shopping and site development to palm top PDAs, to console game systems and 
desktop applications. Make no mistake: Microsoft is not an innovator in 
these areas. They don't have to innovate. All they have to do is tie their 
ventures to their desktop software which is given freely to unsuspecting 
computer users or twist the arms of computer manufacturers and software 
developers dependent on Microsoft for the software Microsoft controls.

In a case cut and dry as this one (Microsoft already having been found 
guilty at great tax-payer expense) it should be more surprising to the 
American people that political pressure has trumped common sense so 
completely. The sad truth is that the American people know their government 
has ceased to represent their interests and no longer looks out for them. 
The great silence you hear is not contentment, but dispare. Continue down 
this path, and you will be contributing to the ultimate result: a popular 
revolt against a government dominated by corporate interests.

--Leonard Heyman

Simsbury, CT



MTC-00003180

From: Smart Computing

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 10:13am

Subject: a conultant/user's point of view

Thank you for taking the time to listen to us. As a consultant, I am out 
there every day and I see what works and what doesn't. I deal with small 
and mid-size buzinesses. These people are good spenders and need to work. 
They are not interested in theories.

Microsoft is everywhere. They have done good things, bringing relatively 
easy use of computers out there but they also have done terrible things. 
Many of my clients still use Word Perfect and other non-Microsoft products. 
At the end of the day, Microsoft products, such as Office crashes more 
Windows computers than other products. The main problem my clients have is 
that Microsoft software is not stable and very expensive. Many are looking 
into Linux as a more robust solution and cheaper to acquire.

Microsoft has killed competition. What real choices do people have on the 
desktop? Windows, Mac/Apple (limited in everyday business use) and Linux 
with a steep learning curve. Now we are being locked in with having to pay 
for frequent upgrades which should be updates because Microsoft won't 
support Windows 95 and soon 98. BEOS was a great alternative but couldn't 
stand a chance in the market because people are so locked down by 
Microsoft.

This country is all about opportunities and competition which should give 
choices. However, when a company gets too big a market share (IBM, Bell), 
they will buy out the competition, embrace or steal their inventions and 
bundle them into their platform. This is where the line crosses over to 
unproductive competition.

The competition should rise to the opportunity but it is hard. This society 
believes in marketing more than it's consultants.

With all do respect, I do not understand what the DOJ is doing, nor what 
competency it has in the IT world. Windows is a poor platform whose owners 
are more interested in shipping it out quickly, make a quick buck and 
fiddle with security issues later. I do not see a clear plan as to where 
and what the investigation is aiming at. I do not see who is in charge.

Is the real question, does Microsoft bundle software together to squash 
competition? Well yes! Where is Netscape now in regards to Internet 
Explorer? What about Windows Media Player? Word versus Word Perfect? Does 
Microsoft have the right to do so? Well, heck yes. It's their product. But 
who protects the end users who makes money to pay taxes and make the whole 
system go round? We hope it is you. I feel this is the fine line where 
Microsoft has to be liable. They have been accused and proved of unfair 
competitive practices more than once in the past. Why are they getting off 
easier now than before? I fear noone trusts the DOJ to take the proper 
measures.

Please go to the specialized press, www,nwcomputing.com, www.infoworld.com, 
arstechnica.com, anadtech.com and see the user serveys which a clearly 
against not slowing down Microsoft and give more choices out there.

[[Page 24238]]

The damage is done but only you can prevent worst in the future. No one 
wants to see Microsoft go down. We are the people and we want choices. 
That's what we work for. We are the people and we are the voice that elect 
our leaders to take actions and protect us.

I feel Microsoft should be restrained and forced to give us a choice. The 
choices could be Windows without Internet Explorer, Windows Media player, 
Outlook Express, OEM who can decide according to the market what to bundle 
in. Maybe even a bare bone more secure operating system which people would 
pay more. You will find a surge in buying computers as the prices fall and 
people are anxious to pick up where America left off on September 11th if 
there is a choice, if people feel you are protecting their rights to 
choices and if they do not feel locked down by big companies.

Thank you,

Nick Zart



MTC-00003181

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 10:24am

Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement

Sirs;

I am the I. T. Manager for Techspray L.P. located in Amarillo Texas. I have 
been involved in the Computer industry for over 15 years as a programmer, 
project leader, and manager. During this time I have kept myself up to date 
on the events in the industry. I tell you this so that you will have some 
idea of who I am.

About the Microsoft Antitrust Settlement: I fear that you have done our 
industry, our country, and indeed the world a grave disservice by giving 
Microsoft what amounts to a free ticket to continue the dirty, underhanded, 
bully-boy tactics that has made them famous over the years. They have shown 
in the past that they will only give insubstantial lip service to honoring 
their agreement. Do you believe you have the resources or the necessary 
expertise to actually make them abide by the rules set out? You can bet 
that they don't think so.

In effect, by accepting this settlement, you have thrown away everything 
that we spent millions of dollars achieving. Nothing will change. Microsoft 
will continue to bully the industry, squelching any hope of true innovation 
or improvement in the state of our software. Their software will continue 
to be buggy and full of security holes because they know they can use any 
unethical or even illegal means to crush any competition that comes along 
and now they have the seeming full blessing of the DOJ behind them.

I am saddened by the lack of backbone, the appearance of complicity, the 
DOJ has shown by accepting this settlement. It is a sad day for my 
industry.

Sincerely

Duane Crowley



MTC-00003182

From: Boutwell, George

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 10:27am

Subject: You got to be kidding!!!

DOJ,

You have got to be kidding. This settlement isn't a settlement for a case 
where a company was found monopolistic. Where's the punishment for 
monopolistic practices? Where's my assurance, as a consumer, that DOJ is 
breath down Microsoft's neck in the future to prevent it from being more 
monopolistic? This settlement helps Microsoft more than it hurts Microsoft 
and does nothing to curb Monopolistic behavior. If this settlement stands I 
will be extremely disenchanted with our judicial system.

As side from that, I continue to pray for our leaders including those in 
the DOJ asking for their wisdom in dealing with these and the plethora of 
other matters that you deal with.

God Bless,

George P. Boutwell

Programmer,

Valley Hope Association



MTC-00003183

From: Bill Petersen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 10:28am

Subject: Sock it to microsoft

Come on guys. Microsoft, while moving computer technology ahead, has also 
severly limited competion. In fact, products that are much better than what 
Microsoft can provide are dropped by vendors because of MS's bullying.

They deserve to pay some steep fines, not to mention cover all of the 
expenses of this case!

And they should be made to split the OS from the software divisions. Now, 
lets take another look at things.

If Ford had built and sold products that function as poorly as Microsofts 
do.

And caused the users of their equipment (cars/trucks/etc) as much expense 
as MS has, don't you think there would be some pretty large law suits! Oh, 
there has been. One recent one involved the Firestone tires was it. Now in 
this case, people died, which is sad. And in MS's case, probably few, if 
any have died, but companies have lost MILLIONS and probably BILLIONS of 
dollars because of MS's poor, irresponsible QA.

GET REAL AND GIVE THEM THE PUNISHMENT THEY DESERVE, not just a slap on the 
rist!



MTC-00003184

From: Charles Marcus

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 10:33am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hi,

I am writing to express my concern that this settlement is in fact a 
sellout.

Microsoft certainly is entitled to develop its own software the way it 
wants to, but thats not the problem, and thats not what they were convicted 
of. They were convicted of monopolistic practices. The very worst practices 
they engaged in consisted of bullying PC manufacturers and distributors by 
forcing them to sign agreements that prevented them from selling PCs 
without the MS operating system. This in effect FORCES people to buy their 
product, whether they want it or not, just to be able to buy a PC. This is 
the one area that absolutely needs to be addressed in any remedy, or else 
there will in effect be no remedy.

Microsoft *must* be forever precluded from preventing PC manufacturers and 
distributors from selling PCs without the MS operating system. I also 
strongly support penalties, in the form of reimbursing anyone who ever 
bought a PC and had to pay for the MS OS that did not want it. The only way 
to make a monopolist stop doing what they are doing is to provide 
punishment and a remedy if they violate the law. Please, please don't let 
that entire trial be for nothing.

Best regards,

Charles Marcus

I.T. Director

Media Brokers International

770-516-9234 x224

770-516-8918 fax



MTC-00003185

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 10:43am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sirs:

I have been a US computer professional for 30 years, with significant 
experience in the use of Microssoft operating systems and software, Apple 
systems and software, Sun systems and software, and Compaq OpenVMS systems 
and software. Over this long time, I have had plenty of opportunity to 
witness the transformation of Microsoft from a small technology company 
with a great business plan into an agressively monopolistic superpower. 
While Microsoft management has demonstrated substantial arrogance and lack 
of self discipline during this transition to the ``dark side'', I 
don't really blame Microsoft so much as I blame our government for failing 
to take seriously its responsibilities for controlling (and where 
necessary, punishing) Microsoft's monopolistic practices.

World consumers are demonstrating increasing unwillingness to place their 
future in the hands of a few people in Redmond, Washington. Alternative 
operating systems exist, and we are already beginning to see other National 
Governments begin to advocate new approaches to computing, based on open 
and transparent operating systems such as Linux. This is not being done 
because of a desire of these governments to become involved in computer 
software development, but because of serious concerns over their own 
economic and political security, in the face of the power and the 
monopolistic business practices of Microsoft. Vigorous action by the US 
Department of Justice is needed now to create a level playing field in the 
computer operating system and software development field. Probably the best 
solution would be a mandated break-up of Micrososft into 3 separate 
companies, one focusing on the development of a future (more open and 
transparent) version of the Windows operating system, one focused on 
business software (such as word processors and spreadsheets), and one 
focused on networking software (such as internet browsers and e-mail 
tools). Until such a separation is achieved, there will never be a real 
business motivation for Microsoft to become a willing player in the 
development of open standards for communication

[[Page 24239]]

between different software tools (such as Java).

I feel that failure to take forceful action in the remedy phase of the 
current lawsuit could lead ultimately to a complete collapse of the US 
software industry and this could threaten the US lead in the whole broad 
area of technology.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

Douglas W. Muir

PO Box 452

Kittery, ME 03904



MTC-00003186

From: Richard Finney

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 10:46am

Subject: You are not hard enough on Microsoft

The judge decided that Microsoft is a monopoly, yet the DOJ wants to 
surrendur to Microsoft and reward them. This is wrong. Microsoft should be 
broken up and placed on severe restrictions. Their business practices are 
anti-competitive. Their rhetoric is a pack of untruths. They are not 
``innovative''. They are, in fact, keeping innovation out. Please 
withdraw from the current surrendur and keep prosecuting hard.

The ``settlement/surrendur'' you negotiated with Microsoft is 
pathetic. There are no real restrictions on Microsoft. Microsoft can still 
use their monopoly profits to prevent competitors from the marketplace. 
Computer manufacturers who don't cooperate with Microsoft will be punished 
and bankrupt by Microsoft. The ``viewing of Internet Explorer'' 
code is a joke. Nobody wants to read IE code, especially if you have to 
become an approved ``Microsoft partner'' (i.e. agree only to 
program for Bill Gates) and have to travel to a Microsoft run safe 
facility.

You left open too many loopholes. Way to many. Did Microsoft lawyers write 
the agreement? You must close all loopholes so that independents can freely 
negotiate with computer manufacturers for placing products on the PC withou 
facing retaliation my Monopoly Microsoft.

Go back and fight Microsoft!

--Richard Finney



MTC-00003187

From: Call, Brandon

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

Date: 12/7/01 10:53am

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Don't be foolish. Why reward Microsoft with extending their monopoly into 
the education sector? Are you smoking dope, or what? P U N I S H T H E 
M for breaking the law. It's not called the Dept. of JUSTICE for nothing, 
you know.

Brandon.

OLE_Obj.



MTC-00003188

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 11:04am

Subject: proposed settlement

When I heard of the proposed Microsoft settlement in which Microsoft would 
be forced to ``donate'' software and hardware to schools, I was 
enraged. First, the news media is already using the word 
``donate'', which implies that they would be giving the software 
and hardware away as an act of goodwill. The public needs to know that 
Microsoft did something wrong, something that goes against what America 
stands for. I don't understand how a settlement in a antitrust case could 
involve further market penetration. The settlement serves Microsoft and 
further hurts the US citizens.

William Gray

Instructional Assistant

Electrical Engineering and Computer Science

The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

phone (734) 260-5824

toll free (866) 264-5092

fax (734) 629-0371



MTC-00003189

From: Danny O'Brien

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 10:08am

Subject: The Microsoft settlement is a bad deal

Dear DOJ,

The settlement with Microsoft is a bad deal that benefits Microsoft and no 
one else.

In one stroke, they get:

1. a huge tax deduction

2. massive placement of their marginal technology into schools, which 
allows them to perpetuate their systems and data-gathering agendas

3. to strike a major blow against competition in the education sector. This 
deal boosts Microsoft and cheats American citizens of what Microsoft owes 
us.

Also, why is this monopoly not being broken up? Does the DOJ1s lack of 
trust-busting effort have anything to do with the close alliance Gates has 
formed with President Bush? What about all that money that Gates gave to 
the Bush campaign?

This deal does not shed a positive light on a situation that already 
appears to be corrupt.

Regards,

Danny O'Brien

Director, I.T.

Stein Rogan + Partners

440 Park Ave. South

New York, NY 10016

[email protected]

(212) 213-1112 x6862



MTC-00003190

From: Thomas Hoffman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 11:04am

Subject: I can't believe you are going to let them get away with it

Department of Justice,

I applaud the fact that Microsoft was found to be an illegal monopoly. 
They've been using their market position to drive smaller competitors out 
of business for years. Despite the avalanche of negative evidence clearly 
demonstrating their predatory business practices, it appears they are now 
going to ``get away with it''. Recently the settlement has turned 
toward the soft side and no longer represents the type of action that fits 
the situation. That is a slap in the face to not only the Justice 
Department and Judicial system at large, but to the American people who 
take pride in diversity and freedom of choice. I've used Microsoft's 
products in the past and truthfully, I've been very unhappy with them. What 
concerns me is that I had no choice but to continue spending money on and 
using their poor quality products despite the fact I was desperate to use 
something.... anything else. If you're in the business world, you have to 
use Microsoft's file formats and because of their proprietary nature, no 
one else has a chance to compete. Reverse engineering is only getting the 
development community so far. So what choice do you have to continue to 
pour money into Microsoft's coffers. As far as the settlement, it doesn't 
approach what the development community was hoping for. In fact, it's a 
weak slap on the wrist that should embarrass the Justice Department. If you 
are going to tell Microsoft to make their desktop completely customizable 
by third parties, by God stick to your guns. Don't agree to let them put 
even a single icon on the desktop if intermediate parties choose to exclude 
them. Make them release their proprietary monopolistic Microsoft Office 
file formats so parties interested in producing competing desktop 
productivity applications can at least have a chance at compatibility with 
the vast majority of the market. Take steps to assure that Microsoft cannot 
leverage their enormous market share to continually put competitors out of 
business with unfair pricing, embrace and extend, and other monopolistic 
business practices. The development and business community is watching 
developments very closely. The Department of Justice cannot afford to drop 
the ball on a case that affects the lives, choices and freedoms of so many 
American people and people in the world at large. Don't let us down.

Regards,

Thomas Hoffman

American begging for choice



MTC-00003191

From: Tim Born

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 11:02am

Subject: Red Hat's counter proposal

I read the news of Red Hat's counter proposal to the Microsoft settlement, 
in which they offered RedHat Linux for the schools in place of Microsoft 
windows. I'm very much in favor of this proposal. My daughters are 
elementry and junior high age, and when we installed Red Hat Linux and 
Sun's (free) StarOffice on the PC at home, they had NO difficulty using it. 
It looks close enough to what they see on other machines, it runs all the 
software they need for internet, chat (one of their favorites), word 
processing, etc. If there are any fears of ease of use or interoperability, 
I think they can easily be addressed by a simple experiement: try it. 
Having tried it, our household has made the switch and is quite happy, both 
for the functionality and also for the substantial amount of money I no 
longer have to pay for Windows & MS Office. And the stability is 
SIGNIFICANTLY better. Seriously. If the local schools were to adopt Linux, 
I would be happy to help introduce them to it.

Take Microsoft's offer and leverage to get the maximum amount of hardware 
you can, to generate the maximum good. Let RedHat deliver the OS & use 
Sun's StarOffice.

[[Page 24240]]

--tim

Tim Born

1855 Chandler Avenue

St. Charles, Illinois 60174

+1 630/979-3118

CC:Born Tim



MTC-00003192

From: Wiley, Michael

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

Date: 12/7/01 11:08am

Subject: Microsoft

I never believed that splitting Microsoft up was the answer but I sure 
didn't expect them to get away with a hand slap. They havent changed their 
preditory practices one bit. Make it hurt a bit! Like make them liable for 
all of the bugs and security breaches in their products.

Michael S. Wiley

Manager, Information Technology

Wabtec Transportation Technologies, [http://openrail.com/] Inc

4735 Walnut, Suite A

Boulder, CO 80301

303-447-2889 Ext 225



MTC-00003193

From: Philip

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 12:05pm

Subject: Microsoft still trying to dictate.

I work for a computer manufacturing company, and I can tell you without a 
doubt, that Microsoft is still trying to eliminate the rest of the software 
companies by any means possible. There are so many issues with trying to 
use any other software that it is not even funny. I just spent three days 
trying to get a Windows compatable driver to work and Microsoft tried to 
deter me at every turn.

Follow this. I load the software for a database. The database itself is not 
Microsoft. The front end or access point is Microsoft. By using a different 
backend, I have a more reliable and faster system. The software for the 
backend is just plain better than anything Microsoft puts out. And it costs 
some $50,000 less, still not free, than what Microsoft charges. The problem 
is that Microsoft deliberately codes in a refusal with its' frontend, not 
to accept a connection with the other software. Unless the other software 
company goes to Microsoft and gets its' approval for the driver involved. 
Every other software maker in the world, simply tells you that it has not 
tested the driver and cannot confirm it will work with their software.

An operating system is most useful because of its' compatability with all 
the other software we use in computers. It is the hub and the other 
software provides the spokes to connect with other computers, the internet, 
printers, etc.... Microsoft continually takes an ax to everyone else's 
spokes. They are still using every hidden means possible to do this. The 
last example was an update I was trying to download from Microsoft to fix a 
known flaw with their system. One of there famous security holes. When I 
tried to download it I got an error message indicating I had done something 
wrong. I checked my work and found no errors. I went back to the download 
point and checked it out throughly. Microsoft had put together a loop that 
took you directly to the error page. There was no download. The download 
page told you that if this fix fails you need to buy an upgrade. In other 
words there is a flaw and we are going to use it to sell you a fix, rather 
than providing one. And they were using a false error to do it. Sounds like 
they really are trying to do better huh!

So how much are they paying the justice department to fix their problem? If 
justice signs off on this I hope every one in the department is forced to 
wear a shirt that says ``Paid for by Bill Gates''

Philip Browning



MTC-00003194

From: Troy Elam

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

Date: 12/7/01 11:30am

Subject: microsoft settlement

I, for one, am not satisfied with the proposed settlement. It is too weak. 
It has absolutely no backbone. Consumers (and the entire world) would 
benefit from having competing operating systems. This will never happen as 
long as every company in the industry knows they will either be swallowed 
or crushed by Microsoft's might hand. Give the industry a climate where 
ingenuity and great products can come into existence.



MTC-00003195

From: Gregg Givens

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 11:16am

Subject: Sorry, my last message was corrupted. MSG re' Microsoft AntiTrust 
Settlement

I previously sent a message that was truncated. Here is my message in its 
entirety. I am attaching it as a Rich Text Document viewable in most all 
Word Processors. I appreciate your consideration of my comments.

--- Gregg Givens

[email protected]

Computer Services--Hollins University

CC: [email protected]@inetgw

To Whom it may concern:

Following are my opinions about the recent decision to weaken the remedy 
imposed on Microsoft after a FINDING OF FACT that they violated the 
Corparate Anti-Trust laws. I contend that nothing short of a breakup of 
Microsoft between their Operating Systems (OS) and Applications Software 
divisions into two separate companies will remedy their anit-competitive 
practices. I am one of the many technically trained people that would like 
more choice in the marketplace in Computer software and don't have any 
faith left that your remedy will provide it. Thesis: Microsoft should be 
split into two companies. The OS division should have to compete on its OWN 
merits. Likewise, the MS Applications Division's programs need to compete 
without unfair advantage. Support:

Having a company OWN 90% of the Desktop OS market and still being allowed 
to compete in the Applications programs business is like having a Car 
company OWN 90% of the roads in the country and being able to suddenly 
modify the size and shape of these roads to suit their new car designs, 
without giving other car makers adequate specifications in a timely manner 
and being able to hide hazards in the roads that only the Microsoft cars 
can avoid. This is a crude analogy, but is similar to the situation 
Applications and OS designers face when competing with Microsoft in the 
Desktop computer arena.

I know you are lawyers and know very little about the history of computers, 
but let me try to remind you of things your own experts should be telling 
you. Operating Systems were invented so that every Applications software 
programmer would not have to 'reinvent the wheel' on every new program 
he(she) wrote. The OS was supposed to take care of the primitive tasks like 
disk file activity, printing, networking, screen updating, so that the 
Applications designer could concentrate on just his 'high -level' tasks and 
write a good program. OS's were supposed to have reliable, well-documented 
calls so that all applications could use them to perform the low-level 
tasks they needed.

When you have a company that writes the OS AND Applications, you have a 
simple case of conflict of interest. If an unscrupulous OS company wants 
its own applications programs to fair better in the marketplace than a 
competitor, then he might add a few secret calls so that his applications 
can do things more efficiently than his competitors. He might give out 
information on changes to the external interface of the OS at a late date 
so that his Applications people could get out a new working version before 
the competition. In that case, the old applications of the competitor WOULD 
NOT EVEN WORK with the new version of the OS. The customer would have to 
buy a new 'compatible' version of the competitor's software, which of 
course would not be ready yet. Gee, maybe the customer would buy the OS 
vendor's software to avoid the hassle! He could also change the interface 
to the OS periodically without backward compatibility so that the customer 
would always have to keep upgrading his Applications, just to keep them 
working AT ALL, much less to fix the myriad bugs that he leaves in through 
carelessness and hurry. Does any of this sound FAMILIAR ????

Now of course these sneaky practices can't really work well until a company 
has a HUGE share of the OS marketplace. I think if you research the history 
of Microsoft, you will see that they weren't that bad in the old days when 
DOS was still fighting head to head against Apple and Unix. (In fact MS 
used to produce its own version of Unix called XENIX. After Windows came 
out, i guess they decided that it was too good of a competitor to Windows, 
so they dropped it to push Windows.)

Unfortunately, after they began to aquire more and more of the market share 
of desktop PC OS's, their arrogance grew as well as their bullying and 
unfair practices. If a split-up remedy had been in place just 5 years ago, 
you can pretty much bet that Word Perfect would now be the dominant Office 
Application Suite, rather than MS Office. Ask your older, more experienced 
secretaries what they used to prefer 5-7 years ago, MS Word or Word 
Perfect? Likewise, Netscape had probably 80-90% of the Internet 
Browser

[[Page 24241]]

market before Microsoft began to shove Internet Explorer in your face every 
time you start Windows. (Even if you install Netscape, Windows asks you if 
you REALLY want it to be your default browser EVERY TIME you start it. If 
you answer wrong, you get Internet Explorer as your default browser.) Now 
Internet Explorer has all but taken over. This alone was brazen use of the 
OS to promote a competing product.

How much market share did Novell have for many years because of a fast, 
efficient, well-designed product. They used to be in possession of at least 
60-70% of the PC server market. Somewhere down the line, MS windows 
made it so painful to get all of the Novell Networking to operate properly 
with Windows, that companies began to switch. That is despite the fact that 
MS Windows Server is only now implementing POORLY, many features that 
existed in Novell 2 VERSIONS BACK ! Novell can deliver a significantly 
better performance on LESS powerful hardware than Microsoft. Does that 
sound like the marketplace picking the best product, or unfair collusion 
between OS division and Applications Division ? (Don't assume that Novell 
was poorly managed either. They successfully bested a number of less 
organized competitors in the shakedown of the eighties. Their training and 
certification program and support was a model for the industry.)

In another way Microsoft now uses the advantages it has gained in 
Applications to help its Operating System maintain its monopoly. Now that 
windows has helped MS Office Suite to destroy WordPerfect's and Lotus's 
dominance, MS can control what platforms now get MS Word and Office Suite. 
Since they are now so popular, MS only produces a version of MS Office that 
is always 1 feature set behind the Microsoft OS version for Apple. That 
pretty much guarantees that Apple remains alive (barely), but that it never 
becomes a true competitor to MS OS. MS doesn't offer Office suite for any 
other competing OS version. Gee, i wonder why ? Could it be that Bill Gates 
doesn't want a dominant OS player in the server market (Linux) to penetrate 
the Desktop arena? Could he be afraid? I would be willing to bet money that 
if we split up MS into two companies, there would be a Linux version of MS 
Office Suite within 6 months or less. It would be in the INTERESTS of the 
MS Applications division to do so. IT is NOT in the interests of the OS 
division--hence the problem.

There is one last way that Microsoft misuses its power to try to gain 
unfair advantage in NEW areas. It will subly alter existing standards of 
communication, web design, programming languages with 'extensions'. It will 
offer these 'extensions' in its versions of development software, going 
against Industry standards developed to insure interoperability. As its 
products take hold, other vendors must keep changing their own products 
(always one step behind). An example of this is Microsoft Web page creation 
software. It has 'extensions' to HTML that, if used, will make Web pages 
only appear good and sometimes even FUNCTIONAL on Internet Explorer. The 
same page viewed by netscape will appear corrupted or may produce errors. 
Have you ever seen Web pages that say 'This page best viewed using Internet 
Explorer v.xxx'??? A similar attempt to hijack JAVA programming language 
resulted in a law suit from SUN for breach of contract.

Did you know that the current version of Microsoft media Player IMBEDDED in 
the new Windows XP OS will only play mp3 formated media files in a less 
quality mode in order to make the new Microsoft Media format appear 
superior? Of course some versions (you know the ones with the 'extensions') 
of the MS media format are a CLOSED standard only playable on MS Media 
Player. To top this off, if you try to make another Media Player your 
preferred Media player in Windows XP (so that your MP3's sound good), it 
will interfere with the functioning of other Microsoft Applications bundled 
with the OS!!! THIS PRACTICE IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW! Windows XP was rushed 
into production to beat the DOJ Law suit. Possession is nine tenths of the 
law as they say.

Personally, all this makes me sick. I would hope the USDOJ would be 
humiliated by the arrogance of Microsoft. Apparently MS does not take USDOJ 
very seriously. My contention is that splitting the MS corporation will 
actually be GOOD FOR THE AMERICAN ECONOMY, contrary to Microsoft's scare 
tactics. Microsoft seems to make oblique remarks implying that what is good 
for Microsoft is good for the American economy, and that impeding 
Microsoft's advance would damage the economy. In fact the exact opposite is 
true.

Even though more efficient Operating systems such as Linux require less 
powerful hardware and might be less encouraging of the INTELs, AMDs, and 
other hardware vendors, the savings for EVERY OTHER COMPANY in America not 
having to buy new computers every 2 years might help the other 90% of the 
American companies to make a profit. How much American Corporate profit 
goes into the land fill every year when they have to scrap their old 
computers. With more fair competition, maybe more Applications program 
designers will be encouraged to write more applications--even ones 
that compete directly with Microsoft's Application division. More 
competition in Applications and Operating systems might even make superior 
and MORE RELIABLE AND SECURE computer software, at a reasonable price. (I 
for one would look forward to days when the servers quit crashing 
periodically due to undocumented bugs in microsoft's OS. we have Linux and 
digital unix servers that have not had to be rebooted for most of a YEAR. 
We must boot our microsoft servers several times a month. I never even 
leave my MS windows 2000 desktop machine up for more than a day. I rarely 
if ever reboot my Linux desktop machine. Why do I keep Microsoft machines 
you ask ? Because our corporate execs DEMAND that we use Microsoft on the 
desktop. Not enough NON-MS OS applications available that the users are 
trained to use.)

You may not realize that there are many people who are dismayed by the 
incredibly weak response of the current administration to blatantly 
monopolistic practices by the Microsoft Corporation. Given the more 
vigorous legal efforts of the previous presidential administration, I don't 
feel it is completely out of line to question whether monitary influence 
during the presidential campaign could have something to do with the recent 
decision to abandon a bargaining position of strength against the Microsoft 
corporation, in favor of a settlement that is actually weaker than what was 
presented by Microsoft ITSELF prior to the judicial finding of monopoly. At 
the very least, the current regime in the department of Justice has some 
explaining to do against the APPEARANCE of impropriety.

Excluding that issue, we have the result in the marketplace itself. In the 
past, Microsoft has demonstrated a history of making every effort to avoid 
any previous remedies that the court has attempted. Either they have 
ignored the remedy completely or they have complied in the most minimal and 
unsatisfactory way to adhere to the letter of the law and avoid the spirit. 
Since the initial attempts to curb their behavior, Microsoft has only 
succeeded in gaining more unfair leverage and destroying more of their 
competitors. Don't be fooled that this was only the activity of the market. 
I have already outlined many ways that MS uses its Desktop OS monopoly to 
boost market share of its applications. Now that its Office Suite of 
Applications is stronger (due to the unfair leverage of its OS), it can use 
the Applications to help the OS maintain its position of dominance in the 
desktop.

If the USDOJ expects that further litigation will not be fruitful in 
curbing MS's monopolistic practices that HURT the consumer AND THE ECONOMY, 
then perhaps other government agencies can attempt another avenue for the 
remedy. i have heard that the Federal Trade Commission may have 
jurisdiction and enforcement powers that could be brought into play. Does 
the BUSH2 administration have the guts and desire to seek real enforcement 
of powerful remedies for the monopoly finding of the courts ? Are they too 
timid and fooled by Microsoft's scare tactics to attempt such a thing ? At 
this time, NOTHING could hurt the economy worse than it is already. You 
might drive a few stocks like Microsoft and Intel down for a short while if 
a strong remedy is attempted, but the long term benefits of increased 
competition and more efficient use of hardware resources (caused by better 
written Operating Systems such as Linux) could only help the US economy in 
the long run. We'll end up stronger for it. Ask the europeans, japanese, 
and chinese why they are favoring Linux over MS windows. (They don't like 
being locked into a expensive, proprietary OS that hides all of its code so 
that they have no idea what it is doing, and an OS that has a voracious 
appetite for Hardware upgrades at every new version.

Gregg Given--Systems Analyst

Hollins University Computer Services

[email protected]



MTC-00003196

From: dean tidwell

To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 24242]]

Date: 12/7/01 11:17am

Subject: doj settlement

I would like to see a settlement where Microsoft has compete like the rest 
of us. meaning OEM's can put whatever OS they want on the machines.they 
build.

dean tidwell



MTC-00003197

From: Daniel WELLS

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 11:14am

Subject: Microsoft settlement

The settlement that you have developed means that Microsoft wins. The 
consumer and especially small business (those with not enough clout to get 
concessions from Microsoft) loses. We urged the state of Utah not to accept 
the agreement and express our strong disapproval of the agreement you have 
reached with Microsoft. Many IT departments are finding themselves having 
to use Microsoft products, not from choice, but because there is no 
competition. As architects, we need to be able to communicate the 
information we create with others (we would prefer that this communication 
and collaboration be done through industry standards rather than dictated 
by the creator of the desktop operating system). This makes Autodesk 
products (AutoCAD in its many flavors) almost the defacto products to use. 
Autodesk only develops for the Microsoft operating systems. They do this 
because Microsoft has a monopoly and has the vast majority of the desktops. 
It makes no economic sense for them (Autodesk) to do otherwise unless there 
is competition restored for the desktop operating system market. It is also 
feared that should the current settlement stand, that Microsoft will 
leverage their desktop operating dominance to further promote their server 
products and in the future make it very hard if not impossible to use a 
competing network operating system. Given the Microsoft track record on 
security (as evidenced by Code Red and Nimda) I would hate to be placed in 
that position. Microsoft is good at marketing and they are shrewd at 
business.

They do not, however lead in innovation and stability of their products.

Daniel Wells AIA

Director of Information Systems

MHTN Architects, Inc.

801-595-6700

[email protected]



MTC-00003198

From: Zdenek JIzba

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 11:22am

Subject: Education

I understand that Red Hat proposed to install free Linux on all PCs that 
Microsoft will donate to schools. I think this is a great idea because it 
would free Microsoft to donate more hardware (rather than software) and as 
a consequence increase the number of donated PCs.



MTC-00003200

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 11:27am

Subject: Anti-trust damages

Hi,

The following opinions are mine and do not reflect the opinions of Computer 
Sciences Corporation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or any 
of the computer forensics groups I am a member of. To let you know what 
biases I might have, I have a Bachelor of Sciences Degree in Applied 
Computer Science and have 18 years of professional experience in 
programming mostly on UNIX systems. I do not own any Microsoft stock 
directly, but many of the mutual funds I have invested in hold Microsoft 
stock. I do own stock in Hewlett Packard (100 shares) and SGI (300 shares). 
Both companies have operating systems that in some markets competes with 
Microsoft, but both companies also sell systems with Microsoft Windows.

One of the major problems I have in trying to develop computer forensic 
analysis software for Microsoft products is the lack of documentation. 
Microsoft does not document file formats or low level system function 
calls. Reverse engineering can solve these problems, but that is time 
consuming and is nonproductive. Reverse engineering may also violate the 
Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

As part of the damages I would like to see that Microsoft be ordered to 
publish six months prior to release of any product the complete and 
accurate documentation of all function calls and file formats. For existing 
products and products about to be released the same documentation be 
published within six months of the order. If Microsoft is unable to comply, 
then it will be ordered to electronically publish all of its source code 
and documentation to released products at a price equal to or less than the 
price of the product. Microsoft will of course retain copyright to the 
source code and should be remunerated for any commercial use of their 
source code.

My goal is to reduce the time it takes to develop computer forensic tools 
and to eliminate the need to reverse engineer undocumented file formats or 
function calls.

B Cing U

Buck

Loren ``Buck'' Buchanan ([email protected]) 
-bs#include 
[generic.disclaimer]

7700 Hubble Drive phone 301-794-2560 
-bs#include [computer.security]

Lanham, MD 20706 -bs#include 
[electronic.music]

Email attachments, just say NO! -bs#include 
[genealogy.roots]



MTC-00003201

From: David Griffin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 11:30am

Subject: Application monopoly

MS has an OS monopoly, we all know that.

But this is actually supported by its application monopoly. I'd have moved 
to Red Hat linux and Star Office years ago but I have no guarantee I will 
be able to read the files of all the customers I deal with. So the monopoly 
of MS Office is preventing me changing OS And noone else can guarantee to 
read MS Word files as they could change the format overnight.

Now, this is all fair and lets face it, it's a commercial world, but we are 
talking about an over powerful monopoly here. What chance does another WP 
supplier (let alone an OS supplier) have ?

Could one remedy of the settlement be to force them to publish sufficient 
file format info (or provide sufficient back conversion tools) that other 
WP's can reasonably guarantee to exchange data ? I would like to see



MTC-00003202

From: Long, Steven (a) Atlanta Peachtree

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

Date: 12/7/01 11:27am

Subject: Red Hat's offer for DOJ/MS settlement

I have read the settlement offer from Red Hat in reference to 
Microsoft--Dept. of Justice. I read the Microsoft has been found 
guilty of being a monopoly and now they want to extend their monopoly into 
a place they where they have the opportunity to expand their monopoly. I 
would like to see Red Hat's proposal accepted and implemented. It would 
give more benefit to the students receiving the computers and training. It 
would also satisfy the guilty verdict by adding training in an operating 
system other than Microsoft's Windows.

We would be introducing the next generation into a world with real choices.

Steve Long CNE 3,4,5 MCSE MCP+I

Senior Network Administrator

Technical Support Services--Eastern

Phone (404) 923-1501

Fax (404) 923-1558

[email protected]



MTC-00003203

From: Michael McKinney

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 11:36am

Subject: Microsoft settlement.

You blew it! Microsoft is the computer users worst enemy. It took years for 
the DOJ to do anything about their clearly monopolistic practices. Their 
executives should be in prison and the company should have been broken up. 
If you are going to accept their idea of restitution at least consider the 
``Redat alternative''.

Michael McKinney



MTC-00003204

From: andrebakker

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 11:39am

Subject: MICROSOFT is a monopoly!!!

My opinion is that microsoft is a monopoly and that they problably bribed 
their way out of the class action case



MTC-00003205

From: Krieger, William

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 11:42am

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I cannot believe that the DOJ wants to settle this case. You have proven 
beyond a shadow of a doubt that Microsoft is engaging in a monopoly to the 
detriment of the public and all they get is a tap (not even a slap) on the 
wrist. Why should the U.S. Government allow Microsoft to engage in a 
predatory and monopolistic manner and get away with it. This is a travesty 
of justice and someone should get some spine in Washington.

[[Page 24243]]

Bill Krieger

1660 Von Braun

Elk Grove, IL 60007



MTC-00003206

From: Walker

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 11:44am

Subject: Microsoft

I was sad to see how poorly the Microsoft case was handled. They have more 
control over everything than IBM or PacBell did in the past which truly 
were handled properly with splitting the company. As more cases unravel 
including the Microsoft vs US Schools which resulted in the 1 billion 
dollar settlement all they got for monopoly was a slap on the hand and poor 
restraints. We are forced to use Microsoft, and we can't get away from it. 
They gauge us with their prices. Even the new XP version worse than all 
others including passport system which definitely steps upon general 
liberties. Did you know you can not get support without filling out 
passport information first?

Please fix Microsoft deal it is bad for our country--it will be a sad 
event when Europe handles case with more power and pressure it will 
certainly make us look like a passive judicial system. What was it, lack of 
understanding of the business and computers that caused the lenient 
judgment? Judgment lacking substance, results

Thank you,

Adam Walker



MTC-00003207

From: Jay Scherrer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 11:54am

Subject: Settlement with Microsoft

Dear Sir's,

I don't understand why your Representatives let Microsoft off so easy. 
First of all; Microsoft has been found guilty of monopolistic marketing 
practices, in which it would force PC makers to only package Microsoft's 
operating system with every PC sold. Even today if you ask Dell computer to 
ship a PC Notebook computer it will be with Windows operating system. I 
have even asked Dell if they could leave the Microsoft windows off the new 
machine if I order it. I also asked if they could mark the extra charge for 
windows down. You know that this has happend a lot in the past. Now the 
decision is to allow Microsoft to be shipped coexisting with other 
operating systems. Why am I still forced to buy Microsoft products? Your 
decision has no provision with making refunds to people who don't even use 
the windows operating system, now or for being forced in the past.

Secondly; Your other decision was to make Microsoft open up their API code 
to other software manufacturers. This is nothing new. In the past 
Developers and companies who provided development tools were able to see 
the new features of windows api's, but only after Microsoft had ample time 
for marketing their own products.

In conclusion; Given a product atmosphere where there has been a major 
break through, such as the computer industry. And a situation where a 
company has been able to dictate who sells their product and blacklist 
those who offer other alternatives as Microsoft has done. I have one 
question. Why don't you stand up and protect America's right to freedom of 
choice? And why don't you punish those who try to take that freedom away?

Jay Scherrer

6250 3rd Ave. NW

Seattle, Washington 98107



MTC-00003208

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 11:39am

Subject: MICROSOFT ANTITRUST, CLASS-ACTION SETTLEMENTS

The settlement forces Microsoft to donate software, hardware, and services 
to America's poorest schools. Red Hat has responded to the proposed 
settlement, pointing out that the settlement could simply introduce 
Microsoft to a market where they could further extend their monopoly. In 
its counter-proposal, Red Hat offered to provide free software to every 
school in America if Microsoft provided the value of its donation in 
hardware costs rather than its own software



MTC-00003209

From: wsando

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 11:52am

Subject: Settlement

To whom it may concern,

I am writing with my concerns over the settlement for the Microsoft case. 
Why should we as American people allow this company this settlement? The 
school systems would only get rights to the Microsoft software for five 
years? then what? Microsoft has a built in profit? While also getting to 
write off that expense as a charitable contribution, this is outrageous. If 
Microsoft is to donate the computer hardware, you should not allow them to 
``lend'' their software for five years as part of this deal. I 
have read the press release from Redhat software and I think it makes more 
sense. Lets give the school systems and children the better end of this 
deal and not Microsoft.

Thank you,

Bill Sandusky



MTC-00003210

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 11:58am

I am appauled by the settlement between the Microsoft and the government 
(us public). It just proved more that the U.S government is not run by 
politicians (let alone people) but by big corporations.

I was even more appauled by the gaull of Microsoft to offer to donate 
($%#$$) their software. How stupid do they think the public is? It is 
like cigarette companys offering to donate cigaretts to children as a 
settlement. This is monopolistic behaviour through the back door.

I sincerely hope that the government gets gutts to seriously look at the 
damage that Microsoft will do in the long run if they are allowed to get 
away and the message it will send to other large corporations and do the 
right thing. The only solution is to break up Microsoft and hugh fine that 
would go to the poor schools.

sml:-)

Shabbir M. Latif

1776 Cheney Dr.

San Jose, CA 95128



MTC-00003211

From: M and M Coutermarsh

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 11:59am

Subject: letter of support

39 Evarts Road

Post Office Box Number 37

North Hartland, Vermont 05052

December 6, 2001

Attorney General John Ashcroft

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Ashcroft:

This letter is to ask you to give your continued support to the proposed 
compromise between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. I understand 
there is a sixty-day period in which public comment is allowed, and I feel 
it is my duty to support the settlement. There is no need for any further 
federal action, either by the Department of Justice or the Senate. 
Microsoft has agreed to any number of requests by Justice, which makes 
their software codes and books more accessible to competing firms, along 
with accommodating computer manufacturers with new rights to Windows 
features. Microsoft has provided so much to this country in jobs and 
opening the way for technological innovation. It should not be a punching 
bag for its success. I support the present agreement. Please continue to be 
a vocal supporter of it also.

Sincerely,

Mark Coutermarsh

Email: [email protected]



MTC-00003212

From: Dickman, Matt

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 12:03pm

Subject: opinion

I don't think you should punish Microsoft for being faster and smarter than 
everyone else. They have a superior product out, the problem is that nobody 
else has anything comparable on their level. People who use computers are 
not brand loyal, you should know this by now, if anything they want to be 
the first to have the latest thing. Microsoft always has the latest thing. 
Because of their hard work we are much farther along than we would have 
otherwise been. You should not punish the smart companies for making money 
and being successful, you should punish the dumb companies who sit on their 
ass and make the government make them more competitive.

Matt Dickman



MTC-00003213

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 12:05pm

Subject: Opinion on Microsoft settlement

Without having access to all the legal proceedings that have taken place 
between DOJ and Microsoft, I feel that Microsoft has been let off the hook. 
I am not anti-Microsoft

[[Page 24244]]

necessarily-- the company has created a great many well-paying jobs 
and the Gates Foundation is doing good things. But it will go down in 
history as a text book monopoly who defeated the DOJ at their own game.

Stuart Mathews

Beaverton, Oregon



MTC-00003214

From: A Gresham

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 12:10pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement offer, Negative

I do NOT agree with the proposed Antitrust settlement offer by Microsoft to 
place hardware, software, services, and training in schools. This amounts 
to government sanction for a private business, by placing their software, 
with great limitations in support and mandatory future update costs ( 
payable to Microsoft) on the backs of our schools systems. Their offer 
should be limited to hardware only. The offer by REDHAT to provide FREE 
software, upgrades, and license renewals should be strongly considered. Our 
schools could better benefit by the receipt of more than a million 
computers, and the issues that were fundamental to the original lawsuit 
will be avoided without further conflict.

Arthur Gresham [[email protected]]

249 East Vermont Ave

Escondido CA 92025



MTC-00003215

From: Jay Shoup

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 12:12pm

Subject: Microshaft wins agin

I am a little disappointed (actually allot) about the recent 
``settlement'' your department reached with Microsoft. Why don't 
you just send them a bonus check rather then wasting the publics resources. 
Seriously, if you are going to file an anti-trust suite against them at 
least extract some justice in the process. Microsoft's actions towards both 
the ``software development related'' industry and the end-user 
has been criminal. First their practices rape the industry then rape the 
end users, now to make it even worse they rape the justice system. Let's 
not get confused, i use Microsoft products, extensively. Why..? Becasue i 
have no other choice and that is the very problem. You know it and i know 
it; Microsoft is a theif! I guess i expected Microsoft to scheam their way 
out of this one. I just did'nt expect you to be so stuipid as to let them.

P.S.

You need to change your name from ``Department of Justice'' to 
``Department of Suckers''...

Jay Shoup



MTC-00003216

From: Rahul Deshmukh

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 12:09pm

Subject: The settlement is a sham

I have to say that I do not agree one-bit to the settlement that has been 
offered to Microsoft. The last straw is agreeing to the offer made by 
Microsoft to offer free software to America's poorest schools. Noble cause 
indeed... but at what cost. It seems to me that Microsoft is in fact being 
helped maintain their monopoly by this settlement. Let me ananylze this. 
There are some other companies which may be offering free software to these 
schools already. But now cool it guys... these schools have to use MS 
software because its a part of the settlement. There is no justice in this 
world. My only suggestion is stop the suffering. Wake up guys, the only 
thing MS is innovative about is on how to twist the judiciary to their own 
benefit. Their software is not innovative. MS has, in fact, been making 
very lousy software because there do not have enough competition. Its time 
to let other competes with MS so that they are forced to develop better and 
more reliable software.

Rahul.



MTC-00003217

From: James Kalmadge

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 12:26pm

Subject: The Monopolistic practises of MS

Sirs & Madams,

The notion of making MS provide free Software to schools is tantamount to 
giving them cheap advertising to the most impressionable people and 
disguising it as a ``punishment''. The practises of MS in the 
past have indicated that its philosophy is to 'infiltrate' a system and 
then make it reliable on continuing MS support and so-called 
``upgrades''. The more deeply one understands the way MS software 
works, the more one realizes the insidiousness of their practises. I could 
site many such things, but I'll limit it just to the ``register'' 
which MS uses to control the execution of software. A large, unscrutable, 
and arcane convention which makes it possible only for MS `gurus' to 
understand what is going on in the computer and which adds nothing but ham-
fisted control to the process of executing a file.

These things coupled with the practise of making software obsolete and 
incompatible with the new version (e. g. Office 98) assures MS of 
continuing dependence of its customers on software it might otherwise not 
need.

My Two Cents Worth, Anyway,

James Kalmadge



MTC-00003218

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 12:32pm

Subject: Microsoft Decision

It is appallling that Microsoft has received no real penallty after these 
years of litigation. They have continued monopolistic practices, and the 
condition of the settlement will increase them by allowing them to 
penetrate schools.

Their software is of poor quality, their business practices are beyond 
dubious, and surprisingly, their customer service, website, and support 
systems are not at all state of the art. (If you want to see good ones, try 
IBM, Lotus, Red Hat, Oracle.) As a computer professional, I dislike dealing 
with most of their products, and it upsets me when corporations as well as 
individuals are sucked into dealing with Microsoft. The reason we need 
government to intervene on behalf of the consumer is that consumers in 
general do not have the power to deal with large monopolistic 
organizations, nor the background to seek alternatives. But aside from 
technical and professional considerations, these people are KNOWN to have 
broken US laws. So why are they not being punished? I see no incentive for 
them to improve their behavior.

Those of us involved in technology are doing what we can to encourage 
competition (this message is being written on a Red Hat Linux machine, for 
which I paid cash). But the overwhelming presence of Microsoft and its 
pressure on the consumer tend to make it impossible for other firms to 
develop and market software, either for the Windows operating system 
(because Microsoft hides the interface) or for other systems (because of 
the small size of the remaining market). In the long run this will cause 
grave harm to the software industry and will remove the motivation of our 
brightest people to innovate.

Sandra Greer

381 7th Street

Brooklyn, NY 11215-3312



MTC-00003219

From: XXHANSON

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 12:32pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing you as the owner of a small business and a user of Microsoft 
products. It remains a mystery to me why the competitors of Microsoft 
continue insisting that they are acting on behalf of the Microsoft users in 
seeking a more rigorous settlement of the Antitrust Settlement. As one of 
those users, I would like you to consider my viewpoint as well: No company 
has provided a better benefit to small business users than Microsoft has 
with its Office suite of products. I remember the early days when programs 
did not interact together and the difficulty in putting together a 
professional document for a business proposal. Today, thanks to Office, 
that process is simple. The increase in productivity for my company has 
been nothing short of incredible. Now we can spend our time doing work 
instead of trying to get the computer programs to work. I do a lot of 
consulting work with a variety of companies, including Boeing. With Office, 
I know my documents are all compatible with their systems. We can work 
together, revise texts, e-mail back and forth and quickly come up with 
products that meet the needs of all concerned. Whether the materials 
consist of word processing, slide presentations, or spreadsheets--they 
work. My colleagues who are also small business owners agree with this 
contention. Microsoft products have provided us with the tools we need to 
be successful. I find it frustrating that the competitors of Microsoft have 
put so much time and money into trying to damage a company that has done so 
much to help consumers at a very reasonable price. It is even more 
frustrating to know that their power in the marketplace and the money they 
have behind their vendetta appears to have given them greater access to the 
justice department than the users who, indeed, make

[[Page 24245]]

up that marketplace. Like many consumers, I don't want them speaking for 
me. It would be better for all of us if they would concentrate on their own 
businesses and making the marketplace more productive vs. trying to use the 
judicial system to destroy another company. I believe that the settlement 
as it now stands addresses the concerns of all involved in a fair way. I 
also believe that it is time to move on and put the resources--time 
and money--of our government into more pressing concerns. Now more 
than ever, it is important to recognize the value of global markets and the 
companies that do business in those markets. Looking at this case through 
blinders constructed by the domestic competitors benefits no one--not 
even them. We need the reasoned judgement of our judicial system to stand 
behind this settlement. Thank you for taking time to consider this e-mail. 
Please approve the settlement as it is and take the steps that will allow 
pursuing innovation and economic growth. These are difficult times and we 
need our government to help us move on.

Sincerely,

Judith Hanson

Judith A. Hanson, MBA

President

Hanson & Associates



MTC-00003220

From: Neeley, Jason M

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

Date: 12/7/01 12:37pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I'm tired of seeing multi-billion dollar companies break the law. As the 
U.S Department of Justice, you are among the few organizations that can 
afford to take on a company of this size. I have seen company after company 
break the law and continue to do so because they now that the benefits of 
doing so out weight the cost. As long as a company can make more in 
revenues from illegal actions than they will lose do to a settlement and 
litigation, companies will continue to exercise poor decisions that break 
the law and eventually harm the consumer, environment of the nature of a 
free market economy (such as Microsoft's case). In my mind that makes the 
DOJ directly responsible for protecting my rights as a consumer in a free 
market economy to be able to purchase a superior product at a fair MARKET 
VALUE. It is your job to make sure that a company that chooses to break the 
law to build up its bottom line will pay more for doing so than they would 
make from the illegal actions. In short it is your responsibility to ensure 
that companies WILL PAY MORE for breaking the law than they will gain from 
their actions, the cost MUST out weigh the benefits.

Jason Neeley

Computer Programmer



MTC-00003221

From: BRODERICK,BRANDON (HP-Loveland,ex1)

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

Date: 12/7/01 12:38pm

Subject: Microsofts web of software

Hello:

Currently Microsoft has a position that gives it almost an unfair advantage 
over all of the other competitors. But I beleive in free enterprise, so I 
think the optimal solution is to separate the operating system from the 
software company. Currenty, way too many software products are embedded in 
the software and this is unfair to other companies. Microsoft needs sell or 
download there products such as IExplorer just like I would have to 
download Netscape. If they provide IExplorer then they should be required 
to offer two other browsier software packages. They also have the operating 
system intertwined with their software. This creates problems when one 
program like Outlook has a problem is can effect Word, Excel, IExplorer and 
the operating system. They will place things like the IExplorer browser 
favorite list or the Outlook address book in amoungst the Winows operating 
system folders which is not fair and is not good from the standpoint of 
backing up data or troubleshooting problems. Because of this, factor I try 
to use 3rd party address books, email packages and browsers. But Microsoft 
doesn't make it easy to use other products and that is the root of the 
problem.

I am not saying stop them, but instead force them to level the playing 
field. They should have to install their software just like anyone else. 
The software should have to be able to stand alone without weaving into the 
operating system. They should make their products, like Excel and Word 
capable of installing in other operating systems such as Novell Netware or 
Linux.

Thank you for your time,

Brandon Broderick



MTC-00003222

From: rpape@freenet. 
edmonton.ab.ca@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 12:38pm

Subject: Microsoft ruling

Dear Sir/Madam

I would like to respond to the ruling against Microsoft. This year has been 
a tough one for the technology industry. I have been involved with 
purchasing products including Microsoft. Their new licensing agreement 
seems to co-incide with them getting off of the hook. Their new pricing 
structure is going to seriously hurt our company due the increased costs. 
The company that I work for is U.S. based, and since we as many other 
technology companies have lost money and laid off staff over this fiscal 
year, the increased cost of Microsoft products makes our bottom line look 
just that much worse. I strongly believe that the lack of punishment gives 
them a free reign to continue their anit-trust behaviour that is harmfull 
to the technology industry in general.

Rodger Pape



MTC-00003223

From: Mike Myhre

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 12:39pm

Subject: Microsoft Monopoly Settlements

I would like to comment on the Microsoft Monopoly law suits currently in 
the settlement phase. It is my option that:

(1) Microsoft has used un-ethical buisiness practices in the past years to 
gain and keep a monopoly on certain areas of the software industry. These 
practices include the original Windows that competed against the windowing 
software that IBM paid microsoft to write in the first place, the planned 
incompatibility of windows with DR DOS, the Netscape Browser conflict, to 
the current Windows and Microsoft Office monopolies that they have today. 
This is not good business and if not bennificial to the software developer 
workforce or the end user, only for Microsoft.

(2) Any time you have an alternative to a microsoft product, it is always a 
better product, with better customer and developer support. Microsoft has 
charged many users for customer support where this support actually helped 
to improve their product.

(3) Microsoft has repeatedly broken the anti-trust rules and should be 
punished for their disreguard for the law; not just told ``don't do it 
again'' like they have been told in the past. They knew they were 
breaking the rules and didn't care. They need to be held responsible for 
their actions.

(4) Microsoft has repeatedly walked away from standards meetings where 
software developers can agree on how programs will interact. These 
standards are important to provide the user with a choice of which software 
module they want to buy. Without these common standards, microsoft is able 
to hold and build their majority market share as well as extend it to new 
products.

(5) The end users and the nations economy benefit from choices. Choices are 
what make better products and better products make more productive end 
users. Any settlement must include: punishment for past actions (not access 
to new markets like schools, but stiff monetary penalties) Open Source Code 
and Strict Standards to allow any other company to interface at the same 
level as microsoft is able to (equal access). Microsoft should be broken 
into several comapnies so they can't continue to extend their existing 
monopolies into other areas. It is your job to protect the end users and 
other companies. Don't let Microsoft bully the Justice system like they 
have the rest of the country. It has been a long road to get to this point. 
Don't let the chance slip by and do nothing (or worse, give them a stronger 
possition). Take a strong possition and give the country a future!

Thanks for you time.

Mike Myhre



MTC-00003224

From: Nathan Potter

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 12:39pm

Subject: Inadequate Penalties

To Whom It May Concern,

It is a pretty sad state of affairs when the government appears to be 
incapable of enforcing its own laws. Microsoft has been found guilty of 
monopolistic activities. They have received no substantive penalty, and 
from all that I can ascertain from following the media your organization 
has no intention of calling for or enforcing such penalites. Why?

The settlement in which Microsoft has agreed to donate software, 
(refurbished) hardware, and services to the nation's poorest schools is 
disgrace to our justice

[[Page 24246]]

system: What should be a penalty for Microsoft is really just an 
opportunity for them to increase their already dominant and heavly 
entrenched market position. By ``donating'' their software to 
schools they establish a long term dependance on their products which they 
may (and most likely will) choose to charge for in the future. This 
``donation'' will result in the training of thousands of new and 
impressionable users to use their products. In addition, the value of this 
``donation'' will be calculated at the MSRP for these software 
products, while the actual cost to Microsoft will only be for the 
replication and media.

How can anyone make a cogent argument that this arrangement represents a 
penalty?

Lastly, Microsoft's current development path, the .NET initiative is a 
blatent effort to eliminate what little competition they have left. It 
presents significant invasion of privacy and intellectual property issues, 
and as far as I can see is not possible to opt out of. To my knowledge no 
legal challenge to .NET has been forthcomming. As usual Microsoft continues 
to do whatever they wish, moving so quickly that by the time the legal 
justice system can take issue with their behaviour they have moved on to a 
new arena of endeavour. Why does the D.O.J. not take a more active and 
aggresive role in dealing with the arrogant and combative behaviours of 
Microsoft? I can only speculate, but I must say that it is a sad state of 
affairs when a major corporation is allowed to run roughshod over the laws 
of our country.

I respectfully request that your organization deal with Microsoft in a much 
more aggressive manner. So far what I see is a corporation found quilty of 
violating the sherman anti-trust act, and that subsequently has refused to 
submit to punishment.

I thought it was the job of the D.O.J. to see that the laws were enforced 
in this type of case. Do I misunderstand the role of the D.O.J. in this? If 
not then why isn't it (law enforcement w.r.t. Microsoft) happening?

Sincerely,

Nathan Potter

1022 SW 11th

Corvallis, OR 97333

541.753.3406

CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00003225

From: dan damon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 12:41pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

The proposed settlement that Microsoft should give software to schools in 
order to settle it's debt is a gross miscarriage of justice. Please 
consider the following points:

1. Not a Penalty for Microsoft: Apple gave free software and hardware to 
schools a decade or more ago, and even today, schools represent one of 
their largest markets. Apple did this as a marketing move, without any 
incentive from the courts, so it must have had some value to Apple. 
Assigning this same marketing plan to Microsoft both undermines Apple, and 
rewards Microsoft.

2. Security: Microsoft has one of the worst track records on in the 
industry on security. The recent Code Red worm, for example, exploited a 
weakness in the microsoft application server. Dozens of other viruses have 
been written that exploit weaknesses in Microsoft Office applications. Many 
foreign governments are moving to Linux to avoid these weaknesses. Why 
force this unsecure software on schools?

3. Closed environment: Microsoft is generally a closed software 
environment. For higher grades such as high school and college, open 
systems such as Linux or FreeBSD are much better for teaching the details 
of what computers do. Also, Microsoft does not support Java--one of 
today's primary programming languages. Java is supported on the Microsoft 
platform currently at Sun's expense.

Thanks

Daniel Damon

Software engineer

CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00003226

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 12:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Case

This is my opinion and not necessarily that of my employer or anyone else. 
I don't think Microsoft has been properly dealt with and I think that it 
was too late before the proceeding even started. It's quite obvious that 
they dominate the desktop computing environment. Go to 98+% of computer 
resellers and you only have Microsoft options for your OS. They did so by 
cheating other vendors in any way they could. Just look at the way they 
cheated IBM with the OS/2 project. You can find all sorts of things that 
they've done to cheat people. And every time they hide behind their no-
warranty policies, their attorneys, and their desire to destroy their 
competition.

They have hurt the consumer because they choose not to introduce new 
innovations. I had a decent speech-recognition package on my PC back before 
Windows was out. They have squelched folks with this and other innovations 
for years to the degree that decent speech-recognition for a reasonable 
price still doesn't really exist. Essentially, all they've done for several 
releases of their products is provide the same functionality with a 
different look. Not only that, but they drop support on the older versions, 
forcing you to upgrade to newer versions for support and forcing you to 
replace hardware that shouldn't need replacing. They have essentially made 
everyone's expensive computers a 3 year disposable asset. I think surprises 
most consumers and they don't realize they've been had until it's too late. 
Only a major monopoly can force people to buy newer products.

They've also reigned in an era where software vendors demand licenses for 
each individual person using a system. I don't have to buy seat licenses 
for my car. Why should I have to buy seat licenses for my network? They've 
twisted the purpose of copyright laws to the point that people don't even 
consider that they shouldn't have to pay for some of these licenses. I 
think the government has a lot of work to do to make certain that copyright 
laws are not abused by companies like Microsoft. I would like to point out 
that much of the software industry is like this. They bring litigation 
unfairly to their customers. They sell their products with poor 
descriptions of what the licensing requirements even are. Many customers 
don't properly understand their complicated licensing methods. I believe 
it's part of their strategy. Once the systems are in place and folks use 
them every day, Microsoft can pry money out of the company's hand after the 
fact. They use the court system to generate a profit. Shouldn't they be 
considered a `vexant claimant'. They should be required to 
verify that folks understand their licensing in some way other than a silly 
prompt that comes up during the install of their OS. In addition, if that 
is where they choose to put the agreement, you should be able to return the 
product after the box is opened. You can't look at any of their licensing 
agreements for which you would disagree without opening the box.

In addition, they've reigned in an era of no responsibility to the 
consumer. If 1000 people bought lawn-mowers that broke every 4 hours, the 
people would file a class-action suite and win. For some reason, Microsoft 
is allowed to provide no warranty whatsoever. Folks at home just can't get 
things fixed. They pawn it off on the resellers to support their product. 
That ridiculous for the amount of money they get for the product. For $250, 
I should get silver-platter service when I call them. How many times is 
someone going to have to pay almost $250 for Windows 2000 after they've 
already bought a $1200 PC and watch it crash once a day? The only reason 
that they can treat their customers this way is because they are a 
monopoly.

They've brought about an era where the copyright laws are interpreted to 
not include the consumer in the considerations. They think that the whole 
world should have to pay tribute to them for their OS. You can't use a 
damned PC without an OS. They think that every vendor and every consumer 
should just have to accept their rule over the market at the prices they 
want. People with greater innovations don't expect that of the world, why 
should Microsoft get to pervert the copyright laws to do so? Finally, they 
leave all of their customers with huge security issues without provided 
free and reasonable support. There are typically thousands of security bugs 
in any release of their OS. They rarely want to admit their faults, so 
customers are left open to attacks until they admit the faults and fix 
them. This costs their customers a lot of money to fix, patch and such. For 
the money you pay, they should do a much better job than they do. Why is it 
that they can't be held responsible for a breach of security on their 
product when the product is used properly. If a safe manufacturer sells a 
safe and it's properly installed and all you have to do is turn the dial 
any which way to open it, the safe manufacturer should be liable if 
someone's goods are stolen as a result. Why is Microsoft free of this 
obligation to their customers? It's not like the product is cheap.

I think Microsoft needs to be forced to be responsible to their customers. 
They should be required to provide warranty on their products that actually 
guarantee the working of the product. They have done more than try

[[Page 24247]]

to compete over the years. They've been ought right dishonest and unfair. I 
think that anyone working on this case can see that if they just open their 
eyes. If the government is not more harsh with Microsoft, I feel that they 
will not have fulfilled their responsibility in upholding the spirit of the 
AntiTrust laws.

I apologize for some of my rambling, but I've been in the industry my 
entire career and I can't stand the fact that a blind eye has been turned 
to this for so long. We put folks in office to make sure that these sorts 
of things get addressed properly. Why do we always have to wait until too 
late to deal with everything? Please go do something about this.



MTC-00003227

From: 's me

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 12:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Case

I beleive that any decision and penalty given to Microsoft which just 
allows further distribution and dependance on it's own products is counter 
productive and wrong. Granting institutions free copies of Windows 
operating systems just further increases the monopoly supposedly addressed 
by the case.

Brad Hayes

3809 V Street

Omaha, NE 68107



MTC-00003228

From: Robert MacGrogan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 12:54pm

Subject: Comments on Proposed Settlement

To Whom it May Concern:

I would like to comment on the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust case.

The proposed settlement in its current form is toothless and in many ways 
actually rewards Microsoft for their misconduct. The trial judge and the 
appeals court both found that Microsoft engaged in illegal monopolistic 
practices. In other words, Microsoft committed criminal acts. They broke 
the law. For this they must be punished.

It is important to keep in mind in discussing any settlements with 
Microsoft that this is a company that has consistently thumbed it's nose at 
the US justice system. They have violated previous court orders and 
agreements. And every time they violate such agreements, they use evasive 
legalistic tactics to avoid accountability.

It is high time to make Microsoft accountable.

The ideal punishment of a monopoly is to break it up. Perhaps this idea is 
not politically feasible today. Baring this approach, Microsoft should be 
forced to pay in an amount that will actually affect their bottom line. The 
proposal that Microsoft pay for their crimes by giving ``free'' 
Microsoft software to schools is absolutely ridiculous. The school system 
is one of the few places where Microsoft's monopoly does not extend. Are we 
going to punish them by allowing them to extend their monopoly using shrewd 
marketing tactics? The software will only be ``free'' for five 
years under the current proposal. After this, schools must pay.

There is a better way.

The Department of Justice should implement the proposal made by Red Hat to 
provide free software to all the schools in the country. Forever. Microsoft 
can then use the money that would have gone to providing ``free'' 
software to provide more hardware. This is a truly winning proposal. Our 
schools will win by getting much more than they would have under the 
original settlement. The public will win through increased diversity and 
competition in the world of PC software.

Microsoft will not win under Red Hat's proposal, though. They will actually 
have to pay much more because the free software the would be giving to 
schools would actually cost them nothing. And they will not be able to 
extend their monopoly into yet another sector. But since Microsoft is the 
criminal in this proceeding, it is fitting that they be punished.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

Robert MacGrogan

406 Milledge Ave., SE

Atlanta, GA 30312

404-524-4593



MTC-00003229

From: Gerald Recktenwald

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 12:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am strongly opposed to the current version of the ``Proposed Final 
Judgement'' in the Microsoft case. In particular, the definitions in 
Section III(J)(2) and Section III(D) that allow Microsoft to exclude not-
for-profit organizations for access to their source code.

MICROSOFT MUST BE FORCED TO PUBLISH ITS SOURCE CODE FOR ANY PRODUCT THAT 
INTERACTS WITH THE INTERNET. Specifically, any product that uses IP 
services must be available for inspection by anyone.

Microsoft is plenty clever (and devious) enough to find ways to keep some 
of its code secret. That's fine with me, but they should not be allowed to 
subvert the open protocols that run the internet.

Gerald Recktenwald

(503) 725-4296 voice (503) 725-8255 FAX

[email protected]

http://www.me.pdx.edu/~gerry

PSU Mechancial Engineering, PO Box 751, Portland, OR 97207-0751



MTC-00003230

From: harold thomas

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 1:04pm

Subject: MicroSoft View

Concerning the Microsoft Suit:

My View for the DOJ:

--If it ``aint broken don't fix it''. Leave Microsoft and 
other companies alone. You destroy any vestige of American entrepreneurial 
spirit. The US is about to become a second class industrial nation in the 
World and you will make us a fourth class with your decisions.

--Stay out of making decision on high-technology. You are clueless.

--FOCUS on criminals, drug dealers and murderers. You have botched so 
much of these events up from Wako to Ruby Ridge you need to get these 
situations fixed correctly. Stay with the fundamentals. That's one register 
voter's view who pays the bill for your past misdirection with Microsoft.

Regards,

Harold Thomas

Glen Carbon, Illinois



MTC-00003231

From: don roh

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:13am

Subject: ridiculous

Its sad that the government is so easily fooled by this business giant. 
Giving Microsoft to underprivledged kids is a gift, not a penalty. Apple 
has been doing it for years as a marketing strategy. How about giving free 
open source software which actually teaches kids about computers and 
forcing Microsoft to pay actual monies to the people they have put out of 
business. Or at least pay monies, not software, to the education system. In 
five years Microsoft will be bankrupting the schools IT department when its 
free licesing expires!!

Don Roh

systems engineer

Rohs Inc.



MTC-00003232

From: M Ewing

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 1:06pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To the Department of Justice:

I would like to point out the great importance of the eventual Microsoft 
Settlement to higher education, as well as to the general public interest. 
As I understand the current focus, the settlement mainly addresses the 
rights of Microsoft's competitors. It is possible that the choices 
available to higher education and the public will actually 
be--reduced--under the current Settlement, because critical 
information will be withheld from developers of Open Source software. Open 
Source as an alternative to Microsoft products is particularly important in 
higher education.

Many of Microsoft's major ``competitors'' are in the Open 
Software arena, which provides such products as the Apache web server, 
SAMBA file sharing, and the Linux operating system. The volunteer groups 
that provide this software are critically dependent on access to the 
Microsoft APIs and other information that may be provided under this 
Settlement.

In order to serve the public interest and to redress Microsoft's violations 
of law, I believe the Settlement should require Microsoft not only to 
disclose APIs and related information to ``qualified'' competitor 
firms, but to disclose them to the public at large. This is the only way 
that the needs of the open software community can be fairly addressed.

Thank you for your consideration.

Martin Ewing

Director of Information Technology

Faculty of Engineering, Yale University

203-432-4321  203-432-9042 (fax)

[[Page 24248]]

http://www.eng.yale.edu/it/

CC:MSE



MTC-00003233

From: Burk Braun

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 1:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Justice department,

I am writing to comment on the pending Microsoft antitrust settlement. 
Please see http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html for some 
related, though more articulate, thoughts. I am not sure what the 
``Justice'' department has been thinking, but several aspects of 
the proposed deal fail completely to penalize Microsoft for the predatory 
behavior they have exhibited in squelching innovation in the computer 
industry. And for the small part of which they have now, been convicted in 
court.

(1) 1 Billion dollar program for schools. You realize, of course, that 1 
billion dollars is literally a drop in the 36 Billion dollar bucket that is 
Microsoft's cash reserves. They will use their remaining money to crush 
other companies in the same or other industries. For instance, witness the 
X-box program. They lose money on every box sold, and doubtless on every 
game as well. Does anyone raise an eyebrow? Apparently not, except that 
this is a classic case of abuse of a monopoly gained in an entirely 
different industry. I believe at least half of their cash reserves should 
be sent directly to the government without any further strings attached.

(2) 1 Billion dollar program for schools. The way the program is structured 
now, Microsoft will contribute software and hardware to schools, further 
crushing competitors who already sell computer systems to schools and 
wedding schools to the Microsoft suite of programs and operating systems. 
This would be disastrous for Apple, among others. Again, the suggested 
remedy should be in terms of money alone, not products on which they 
already have a monopoly or wish to gain one.

(3) Shielding of for-profit companies only. From what I read (see web site 
above), the settlement subjects Microsoft to certain controls over its 
software businesses, but only in regard to protecting its for-profit 
competitors. Microsoft has many not-for-profit competitors which should be 
likewise protected for the greater good of the industry and the general 
welfare. The web is mostly open-source at this point and it would benefit 
everyone to keep it that way. Additionally, many competitors no longer 
exist, such as Netscape as an independent company they were crushed by 
Microsoft through its ability to take money from its monopoly in other 
software to offer a competing product entirely for free. This strangled the 
innovation that was just gaining ground at Netscape and elsewhere to 
essentially make the web into the computer's operating system. It was this 
innovation that Microsoft feared, rightly or wrongly, and moved to destroy.

Burk Braun

37 Hillcrest Drive, San Rafael, CA 94901



MTC-00003234

From: Tower, Peter

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 1:05pm

Subject: citizen views

I would like to be able to express my viewpoint about the proposed 
settlement of the MS anti-trust action. How do I so so, please?



MTC-00003235

From: hab

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 1:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir,

The proposed settlement with Microsoft seems criminal to me. Competition is 
a foundation of our econmic system. Nothing in your proposal encourages 
competition to the almost Total Microsoft Monopoly. It still remains almost 
impossible to obtain Preloaded software other than Micorsoft from Major 
Vendors. Most hardware Manufactures only provide drivers for Microsoft 
systems and will not even provide the required technical information to 
allow independent development of the drivers. While this is not a direct 
Microsoft action, it is the result of the Microsoft anti-competative 
actions due to their Monopoly. Please provide us with some real relief from 
this Monopoly. Not just publicity. Yes, Microsoft has some value but 
competition has even a greater long term value. We need to encourage 
inovation not stifle it with an anticompetive Monopoly.

Hubert Bahr

[email protected]

probably an ex-rpublican over this issue.



MTC-00003236

From: Dave Blinder

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 1:18pm

Subject: Microsoft extending its reach

I believe that Microsoft's offer to present or donate their software to 
runs counter to the desired goal of the DOJ and the suit's intent.

In a scholastic environment, children are taught to use computers and 
software to enhance their learning experience and possibly better enable 
them to find employment as adults. This is a noble jesture by Microsoft but 
is unfortunaly too self fulfilling and contrived. These children will help 
extend the Microsoft reach by placing them as many other into a computer 
user jail where they will become ?Microsoft Centric? and only consider the 
very computer hardware they work on as an extension of the software it 
runs, Microsoft.

Giving schools Microsoft product will only result in the furthering of 
their monopoly. Instead, I suggest they donate the hardware to the schools 
allowing the schools to load what ever they wish to teach on the systems. 
Yes, they should donate some software too but there should be a fair mix 
where kids can have classes that focus on open source and enterprise 
applications for more advanced students.

Thank you for listening,

Dave Blinder

Light Speed Internet Associates

Dana Point, CA 92629



MTC-00003237

From: Trent A. Naumann

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 1:26pm

Subject: Microsoft Windows Is In Control

My opinion:

There is no operating system option for personal computers other than 
Windows. Until they are forced to unbundle all of the applications they 
include with Windows AND make their applications available on other 
operating systems will the users have a choice. Currently, if I use other 
office(spreadsheet, word processor, database etc) applications such as 
Lotus, Star Office etc, then my information exchange with people/colonies 
is handicapped if they use Microsoft products. Every new release of 
Microsoft products changes just enough to make the other competing product 
incompatible. It doesn't have to be that way but it sure works for 
Microsoft. Please help us to protect this very important 
resource....Please.

Trent A. Naumann



MTC-00003238

From: Derek Hover

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 1:20pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

The settlement is a pathetic joke. How can we have any confidence in your 
department????



MTC-00003239

From: Jason Osgood

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

Date: 12/7/01 1:31pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Madams/Sirs:

As you know, Microsoft was found guilty of violating antitrust laws. 
They've also demonstrated their lawlessness by flaunting the previous 
consent decree.

As an injured party, I insist that Microsoft be punished in some way 
commiserate with their crime. Some ideas:

--Radical ``cashectomy''.

--Reimburse registered customers.

--Divestment (e.g. MSN, Expedia, all hardware, Xbox, etc.)

--Apply new accounting rules for employee stock options.

Thank you for your time.

Cheers, Jason Osgood

Seattle WA



MTC-00003240

From: Lynn Yuan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 1:33pm

Subject: Did the govt. flake out on us?

To whom it may concern,

This latest deal with Microsoft is a joke, kind of like the impeachment 
process of President Clinton. As any business person would know having 
Microsoft provide it's own product and USED computers is no real punishment 
at all.

The cost to Microsoft giving away its software is about 10 cents per disk 
or less. In addition Microsoft is getting free advertising--money it 
would need to spend anyway.

Corporations upgrade their equipment all the time, used computers are worth 
very little. Microsoft should provide new computers as a punishment. 
Personally I would rather get $10 from Microsoft rather

[[Page 24249]]

than see a great advertising campaign for Bill Gates (Microsoft) as a 
punishment.

As a citizen I am sad to see our government so flaky or should I say betray 
the people of United States.

Lynn Yuan



MTC-00003241

From: Saul and Sharai

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 1:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom It May Concern,

I would like to register my distaste for the Microsoft settlement.

I admit that I am no fan of Microsoft but it seems that even those who are 
completely unbiased should be shocked by what the settlement will (and will 
not) accomplish. Microsoft was found guilty. No one can dispute that fact. 
Instead of being punished, though, they are being rewarded by being forced 
to install their software into schools, thus ensuring that future 
generations will grow up knowing (and buying) only their products.

Another issue surrounding the settlement I find distasteful is the 
reference by the judge to the September 11 attack. The implication was that 
a light sentence was rushed through in order to help get the country's 
economy back on track. The message, then, is that it's okay to break the 
law if your company is big enough to have a noticeable effect on the US 
economy.

I have been in the software industry for over fifteen years and I have seen 
the negative effect that Microsoft's monopolistic practices have had on 
companies that have tried to compete (and many that haven't even been 
competitors).

I would not be surprised if the Microsoft executives and lawyers are 
laughing at what they could get away with. They may be ruthless and 
monopolistic, but they are not stupid. They will take this settlement as a 
sign that the Department of Justice is unwilling to stand in their way 
because their illegal practices provide jobs and taxes. Is this the 
position of the government and the Department of Justice?

Sincerely,

Saul Perkes

[email protected]

P.O. Box 6971

Bellevue, WA 98008

CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00003242

From: Paul C. Daugherty

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 1:43pm

Subject: Settlement is Inadequate

DOJ:

The proposed settlement with Microsoft does nothing to break up the illegal 
monopoly, does not punish Microsoft for its illegal actions, and does 
little to prevent further use of illegal monopoly power.

1. To prevent further use of monopoly power, Microsoft should be forced to 
reveal the code and APIs to software application developers during initial 
testing, not during final testing as proposed. By allowing MS to keep the 
Windows code secret until the 11th hour, the Justice Department is giving 
Microsoft's own application developers a jump start on the competition.

2. To both punish MS and prevent further user of monopoly power, MS should 
be broken into 3 separate companies: 1- an OS company, 2- an application 
company, 3- an internet/entertainment company. The boards of all three 
companies should have no common members for at least 10 years. For at least 
10 years, the three companies should be disallowed from entering into any 
exclusive business relationship not available to competitors.

3. All future version of Windows should be stripped down to the OS 
component only. No bundling of any applications should allowed. By allowing 
continued bundling, the justice department is letting Microsoft shut out 
smaller competitors.

4. The MS End User License Agreement on server products should be revised 
to eliminate Client Application Licenses for connections to the server. MS 
uses these CALs to reap revenue when a competitor's product connects to a 
MS server.

Paul C. Daugherty



MTC-00003243

From: Akavar Dylutra

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 1:40pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Please register my vehement dislike of the currently proposed settlement of 
the Microsoft case. As a professional in a very large IT department and a 
home PC user, I have used Microsoft products for years. Microsoft has a 
monopoly. They do not use that monopoly for anything else other than the 
intended benefit of Microsoft. Their continuous and blatant disregard for 
the needs of the customer are only put in abeyance when the customer is so 
upset with Microsoft that it threatens their ability to pick the customer's 
pocket again.

Several of these behaviours are their disregard of the need for security 
built into their products until the public relations became so bad that 
customers were actively seeking non-Microsoft solutions, and the constant 
upgrade treadmill that they cause by releasing minimally improved products 
(unless we count the bundled web browser, imaging, and other software aimed 
at running their competition out of the business) and the suspension of 
support for anything but the most recent products.

My solution: make Microsoft a regulated public utility with a guaranteed 
profit (like the old AT&T). This will allow them to make reasonable ROI 
as opposed to the obscene ROI to which they have become accustomed. Also, 
this will allow for a public oversight that would hopefully protect the 
customer from regular pocket pickings.

Akavar Dylutra

CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00003244

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 1:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

Dear Ms. Hesse:

Please amend the Final Judgment to include in the definition of 
``businesses that Microsoft must play nice with'' language which 
includes entities which develop and maintain Open Source software. Examples 
of these which are not protected under the present terms are Linux and BSD 
organizations, the Samba organization and the Apache organization. Although 
these are examples of large market share products there are many smaller 
and less well known products and organizations whose products rely in part 
on their interoperability with Operating Systems.

Thank you for your consideration. --

Greg Brennan

Shipwright Consulting Corp.

www.shipwright.net [email protected] (540)948-6955

Member:Usenix System Administrators Guild

(http://www.usenix.org/sage)



MTC-00003245

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 1:47pm

Subject: Microsoft case

Renata Hesse, trial attorney,

Antitrust Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice

I picked this up off the internet. Supposedly you are asking for public 
input. In my opinion this thing should be over and done with. I think it is 
a travesty and has added to the problems with the market in general. 
Reminds me of the breakup of AT&T. All it did was hurt people. Now all 
those baby bells are scrambling to consolidate.

Leave MSFT alone. The market environment has changed andthe competition is 
there. MHO.

Jerry Lewis



MTC-00003246

From: Jade Rubick

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 1:55pm

Subject: Antitrust agreement?

I'm writing in response to the so-called settlement of the antitrust suit 
with Microsoft.

I frankly cannot believe that the Department of Justice is even considering 
Microsoft's offer of educational ``grants''. I think Microsoft's 
offer is self-serving and only extends their hegemony further. I'm 
generally in agreement with Apple or Red Hat's solutions: either have 
Microsoft provide the money, no strings attached, or have them purchase the 
hardware and let Red Hat provide the operating system for education. This 
reminds me the burgular who falls through the skylight and sues for 
damages. With Microsoft's offer, they come out better than ever, despite 
the fact that the suit was ruled *against* them.

Jade Rubick

Director of Technology

Integrated Bakery Resources

[email protected]



MTC-00003247

From: pheonix1t

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 1:53pm

I do not feel that Microsoft is getting any punishment at all! how much 
money has microsoft given to the present white house administration?? the 
change of tone from this

[[Page 24250]]

white house admin. concerning the punishment of microsoft is substantial. 
They aren't getting punishment at all!

The deal with providing schools with MS products is a scam, that only helps 
MS to grow their monopoly. I only wonder how much did Microsoft 
``contribute'' to the Bush administration to get such a light 
punishment........



MTC-00003248

From: Tony F.

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 2:03pm

Subject: Microsofts Antitrust

To Whom it may concern: I am a strong proponent of capitalism, however, 
monopolizing the market and prohibiting growth and further development is 
not what this country is about. Sadly, in this case, it was the consumer 
that allowed this to happen. Still, the Department of Justice has an 
opportunity to right this wrong.

Please do not let Microsoft's greed, backed by large amounts of money, sway 
the Department of Justice.

Thanks,

Tony Farrell

1063 Plantation Blvd.

Conyers, GA 30094

770 760-7595



MTC-00003249

From: Phill

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 2:04pm

Subject: Monpolies

I would like to voice my unease at the possibility of Microsoft being 
allowed to continue with attempts to remove my choice in operating systems 
and associated software. Most businesses which have customer care as a 
business principle regard competition as healthy and of benefit to the 
market. Microsoft appear to attempt to stifle competition so that customers 
have no choice. The concept that introducing MS products to schools for 
free is stunning in its arrogance, disregard for competition and the 
assumption that free equipment and products is a valid means to gain 
advertising and future customers under the pretence of social support. 
Software users, like bank customers, rarely change service supplier and, 
when they do, it's usually with great trauma. Feeding children with MS 
products is a guarantee that the competition will be effectively excluded.

Phillip Birch, UK



MTC-00003250

From: Kyes, Kerry G

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

Date: 12/7/01 2:05pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

I am quite unhappy about the Microsoft settlement. This is an aggressive 
and openly monopolistic company that has destroyed much of the competitive 
environment within the micro software industry. The settlement does little 
to nothing to prevent their continued action in that respect in the future, 
and in fact, their current product releases put them right back into the 
same old mode of monopolistic operation. If the government settles with 
Microsoft without forcing a separation of the company into system and 
applications areas, there will have been nothing gained whatsoever. This 
business area could have been broadly based and successful. It still might 
regain that status, but it is currently an industry in trouble. Please 
provide us with the relief we had been expecting from all this ongoing 
legal action. I ask you as a career programmer since the 1960's who has 
seen Microsoft put 2 of my business endeavors in the trash with their 
monopolistic actions over the years. Little people like me have no one to 
protect our interests if you do not take action to save this industry from 
corporations like Microsoft.



MTC-00003251

From: Bryan Foli

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 3:11pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

This settlement is a joke. It helps Microsoft. How much Microsoft stock do 
you own? Microsoft should be broken up. Simple. They have broken the law, 
and continue to thumb their noses at the DOJ.

Bryan Foli

Monticello High School



MTC-00003252

From: Richard Sawey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 2:17pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The remedies in the Proposed Final Judgment of the Microsoft case may have 
the unfortunate effect of harming the growing open source development 
movement.

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, ...''

There are many open source projects such as SAMBA that use Microsoft calls. 
The unmodified settlement would appear to give Microsoft the right to 
effectively kill these products.

Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It deals with 
disclosure of information regarding the APIs for incorporating non-
Microsoft ``middleware.'' Again I find the definitions specify 
commercial concerns only. Many open source projects require integration 
with Microsoft's products, this agreement as written will hamper these 
projects which in turn will reduce the availability of viable alternatives 
to Microsoft's expensive products. Since Microsoft have been actually found 
guilty it would be unfortunate if the Judgment ended up crippling one of 
Microsoft's competitors and inadvertently gave Microsoft a key competitive 
advantage. Under this deal, isn't the government shut out too? NASA, the 
national laboratories, the military, the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology--apparently even the Department of Justice 
itself--have no rights! Surely this is not what you intended.

Kind Regards

Richard Sawey



MTC-00003253

From: Peter Skye

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 2:22pm

Subject: comment against the proposed Microsoft settlement

To:

Renata Hesse

Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

Dear Ms. Hesse,

I wish to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement. Justice is, in 
part, a ``finalizing'' of a situation based on its facts and 
merits so that all parties may move on. By ``finalizing'' the 
Microsoft antitrust case in a way that essentially does not penalize 
Microsoft for its gross illegal actions, you do not allow the non-Microsoft 
parties to move on. Instead, this settlement allows Microsoft to keep its 
ill-gotten gains, which include in part market share, consumer capital, and 
a technological position based not on their own creative development but 
the constraint of the creative developments of others. Moreover, this 
settlement creates an untenable situation where Microsoft may now continue 
its ill-gotten market position and require every computer user in every 
U.S. state to send tribute in the form of royalties to Microsoft for years 
to come.

This settlement does nothing to improve competition; instead, it promotes 
the Microsoft monopoly. A number of my friends and business acquaintances 
invested considerable money and portions of their careers in non-Windows 
computer software believing that there would truly be competition. And 
their vision made sense; in America we look around and see healthy 
competition wherever our eyes fall--different car manufacturers and 
gasoline brands, different cans of soup and boxes of cereal at the grocer, 
different universities at which to study, different cellular telephone 
companies, the list goes on and on. Yet this proposed Microsoft settlement 
negates what we have in America, negates the choice brought by healthy 
competition, negates the underlying democratic concept of freedom.

I am against the proposed Microsoft settlement. It is unhealthy for 
America, it is unhealthy for technology, and it is an unhealthy position to 
be taken by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Sincerely,

Peter Skye



MTC-00003254

From: Stan Toporek

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 2:22pm

Subject: Injustice In Microsoft case

To Whom it may conern,

``The DOJ had previously found Microsoft to be a monopolist, but the 
settlement included no punishment for past actions and left doubt as to its 
protections against future monopolistic practices.'' AT&T was 
broke up, Standard Oil was broke up, and it has been US government policy 
to break up companys that hold monopolies. Microsoft has been termed a 
monoploy and should be broken up. Microsoft also feels that they are above 
the

[[Page 24251]]

law and can buy their way out of breaking the laws of the United States of 
American. No company should be able to violate the laws of the US and get 
away withit just because they can keep having lawyers come up with excusess 
that do not even address the wrong doing of the company.

Justice needs to be served and the un-American monoploy of Microsoft needs 
to end. We have no choice as consumers on what operating systems we can run 
and what web browers we can use. Microsoft always manages to fix its 
software so other company's software stops working. This needs to end.

Thank you for your time,

Stan Toporek

5815 Windham Dr

Raleigh, NC 27609

[email protected]



MTC-00003255

From: Ted Ferragut

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 2:25pm

Subject: Microsoft

I sometimes feel I have no alternatives. I just bought a laptop for my 
office and was so linked to Microsoft Operating Systems and software. My 
laptop vendor told me they had NO choice in selling me anything but 
Microsoft products packaged the way Microsoft said they would be packaged. 
As soon as I buy the laptop, I then have to spend another $250 dollars on 
software to run on their new system, software that could have either been 
included in the original buy at a much lower cost. I have HAD to buy 
Microsoft products, buy their technical services (if you call it that), and 
really do not feel that I have any choices whatsoever. Take what they give 
in all aspects.

You know in politics, I get choice between parties. In computers, no such 
thing.

I really wish you had put the consumer ahead of you ideologies about 
government intervention. Your grandkids will have to tear down this 
monopoly.

Ted Ferragut, PE

TDC Partners

417 S. St. Asaph St.

Alexandria, VA 22314

703-836-1671--Phone

703-995-4699--Fax

202-744-4175--Cell

866-475-3126--Toll Free

[email protected]



MTC-00003256

From: Michael Wang

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 2:23pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The remedies in the Proposed Final Judgment 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--computer vendors like Compaq, 
for example. The Department of Justice is used to working in this kind of 
economic world, and has done a fair job of crafting 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 single threat on the operating system front comes 
from Linux--a non-commercial product--and it faces a growing 
threat 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 practically rules the Net, along with Sendmail, and Perl, both of 
which also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit organizations have no 
rights at all under the proposed settlement. It is as though they don't 
even exist. Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against 
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not describe 
nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols affecting 
authentication and authorization to companies that don't meet Microsoft's 
criteria as a business: ``...(c) meets reasonable, objective standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of 
its business, ...''

So much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use Microsoft calls. 
The settlement gives Microsoft the right to effectively kill these 
products. Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It deals 
with disclosure of information regarding the APIs for incorporating non-
Microsoft ``middleware.'' In this section, Microsoft discloses to 
Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs), 
Internet Access Providers (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. But wait, there's more! Under this deal, the 
government is shut out, too. NASA, the national laboratories, the military, 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology--even the 
Department of Justice itself--have no rights. It is a good thing 
Afghanistan is such a low-tech adversary and that B-52s don't run Windows.

I know, I know. The government buys commercial software and uses 
contractors who make profits. Open Source software is sold for profit by 
outfits like Red Hat. It is easy to argue that I am being a bit shrill 
here. But I know the way Microsoft thinks. They probably saw this one 
coming months ago and have been falling all over themselves hoping to get 
it through. If this language gets through, MICROSOFT WILL FIND A WAY TO 
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT.



MTC-00003257

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 2:27pm

Subject: MicroJunk decision

You should have split the Windoze OS into a separate company so that all 
Applications developers have a chance to receive the APIs at the same time 
they're given to the rest of Microsoft.

Twas plain as the nose on your face, tsk tsk.

Jim Steichen



MTC-00003258

From: Chris Best

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

Date: 12/7/01 2:29pm

Subject: Antitrust Settlement

I must say, with all due respect, that the settlement in its current form 
is a joke. In it are no penalties for Microsoft's previous behavior, and no 
real method for preventing any future illegal actions.

The settlement is full of loopholes easily exploitable by Microsoft's legal 
department. An excellent example is the provision that allows Microsoft to 
offer versions of Windows with their integrated software at a discounted 
rate. The settlement is supposed to ban them from charging extra for copies 
of Windows lacking the integrated components (an excellent idea), but by 
allowing them to discount versions of Windows carrying the extra 
components, they can effectively accomplish the same goal of denying 
competitors entry into the market. They can simply market Windows with 
integration at a significantly lower cost!

After reading over the language of the proposed settlement, I am made to 
wonder wether this is truly a settlement that was reached between the DOJ 
and Microsoft, or if Microsoft simply wrote a settlement and the DOJ agreed 
to it.

The break-up order should be upheld. That is the only way to allow fair 
competition in the software industry.

Chris Best

PC Specialist

Lafayette Consolidated Government

Information Services

(W) (337) 291-7027

(H) (337) 837-9594

(W) [email protected]



MTC-00003259

From: Richard Levitt

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 2:31pm

One of the fundamental aims of competition law is to assist free 
competition by preventing the abuse of monopoly power.

Is there any doubt that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power? Has there ever 
been a clearer example of a business that has not only abused its monopoly 
power but done so with such complete and sustained contempt for the law and 
those charged with enforcing it? Is there any doubt that free competition 
and all who would benefit from it have suffered harm as a result? It is 
astonishing what Microsoft has been allowed to get away with by the US 
competition authorities and the US courts. I hope that the European 
competition authorities are able to deal with Microsoft more effectively.

R



MTC-00003260

From: thing

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 10:52am

Subject: microsoft case

Dear Sirs,

I am greatly disappointed in the poor deal you have negoitiated with 
Microsoft.

MS has proved repeatedly that it will not honour the principle of any 
agreements it is

[[Page 24252]]

forced to make but get round them using technicalites and gray areas while 
meeting the exact wording is specific enough to tie its business down. This 
means we are likely to see little change in MS's monopoly and its 
strangulation of the IT industry based on your deal with in the US.

The EU might just put something in place that has a positive effect, I live 
in hope.

regards,

Steven Jones



MTC-00003261

From: Chris Cambron

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 2:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to voice my opposition to the current proposed settlement with 
Microsoft. The current settlement with Microsft is far too soft on a 
company that, through it's monopoly and unethical practices, has put a 
damper on innovation in the industry.

While there are many parts of the agreement that trouble me, the most 
troubling are the donations to schools and the efforts on Microsft's behalf 
to undermine legitimate open source companies and products.

By allowing Microsft to donate software and equipment to 
schools--which costs them next to nothing-- the government is 
just extending Microsoft's monopoly to an area that Microsoft does not 
currently control.

I am also concerned about Sections III(J)(2) and III(D) which seem to take 
legitimate vendors who operate under a different business model out of the 
game as far as requiring Microsoft's to release documentation, APIs, etc. 
is concerned.

Overall, this settlement does little to punish Microsoft and will be as 
ineffective as the previous consent decree in curbing Microsft's illegal 
and damaging behavior.

Thank You

Chris Cambron

Digital Design

Ph ...... 281.335.7622

Cell......713.553.3467

Web .....http://www.insync.net/cambron



MTC-00003262

From: William Lewis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 2:44pm

Subject: Anti-trust settlement

To whom this my concern, I believe the proposed anti-trust settlement with 
Microsoft is a farce. It will create a stronger monopoly by seeding the 
poorest communities with Microsoft products and thus advertising the 
Microsoft way of doing business. It is nothing more than a bribe. 
Microsoft's poorly concealed Software Business Alliance demonstrates 
Microsoft's intent by massive media efforts to intimidate businesses into 
using microsoft products. Their presumption is that every business uses 
Microsoft products. So they have the right to threaten everyone with a 
software audit. Maybe they should read our constitution. So rather than 
give in to the software terrorists, consider:

1) Exclude Microsoft from new areas of conquest that would extend their 
monopoly. For instance the manufacture of hardware such as game boxes and 
settop boxes.

2) Exclude Microsoft from areas that could become competitors to the PC. 
For example games for game boxes, game boxes, television/cable services, 
and set-top boxes.

3) Force Micrososft to divest MSN.

Otherwise let them keep their 90% market share.

Best regards,

Bill Lewis



MTC-00003263

From: Jim Moresi

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

Date: 12/7/01 3:07pm

Subject: Settlement Proposal

This settlement only serves to extend Microsoft's market dominance into 
education, which has historically been Apple Computer's major area of 
market penetration. The suggested remedy would both weaken a competitor, 
and serve to prop up Microsoft in the long run.

The proposal suggested by Red Hat is a good one, as it would promote the 
use of Open Source software among young people, and would extend the base 
of Linux knowledge in schools and among educators. The major advantages to 
this approach is that Linux makes good use of both new and older hardware, 
and there are no renewal licenses coming due down the road. There are now 
excellent word processors, spreadsheets, graphical presentation and 
database applications available for the Linux operating system. Plus, many 
excellent computer languages and development environments to train budding 
computer scientists.

So, restrict Microsoft to supplying the hardware. Open up the schools to 
Open Source software, beginning with the Linux operating system. .

Jim Moresi

Project Manager

Thinque Systems

4130 Cahuenga Ave., Suite 128

Universal City, CA 91602

Phone (818) 755-5173

Fax (818) 752-1355



MTC-00003264

From: Roy Mitchell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 2:57pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

...``The DOJ is collecting your letters about the settlement via 
email. We encourage you to share your opinions. send your letters to: 
[email protected]''....

Greetings,

I think that this ruling only helps to set precedence for noncompetitive 
and unethical conduct among a group of corporations that already have 
little or no accountability for their actions. Unfortunately, Lincoln 
warned us about corporations before his assassination and our founding 
fathers built a mechanism for disenfranchising corporations when they did 
not act ethically and fairly in the marketplace. This action only goes to 
show that Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson and others were right, now 
soulless corporations run America with no regard for the best interests of 
America as a driving ambition. Have Americans now accepted the unethical 
cut-throat philosophies of big business as acceptable behavior? I guess 
this proves the point rather poignantly. God help us all.

Respectfully,

Roy A. Mitchell

615 Winter St. NE

Salem, OR 97301

503-566-8354



MTC-00003265

From: Amos Satterlee

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 3:38pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Greetings:

I am opposed to the current draft of the settlement with Microsoft because 
it in no way addresses the predatory monopolistic practices of the company. 
In fact, the settlement, by not punishing Microsoft, gives a seal of 
approval for these practices.

That being said, specific provisions of the settlement need to be revised. 
In summary:

1. Those organizations that MUST be allowed access to resources MUST 
include bona fide development organizations, such as those organizations 
that are developing Apache, Samba, etc.

2. The 3-person panel empowered to monitor Microsoft MUST have the final 
determination of what entities are allowed access.

In a little more detail:

1. Microsoft is correct when it states that the standards of anti-trust 
review are different for the computer industry than for industrial 
industries. Most of the true innovations in computers have come from 
outside of the commercial sphere. To limit the judgement to the commercial 
sphere ignores a major sector over which Microsoft uses its monopolistic 
powers and ignores a significant sphere of competition to Microsoft. The 
obvious current competitor base is the open-source linux community. 
However, the limiting of compliance to only commercial also closes the door 
to future initiatives, which would could be crippling to our economic 
progress. The intent is not to make Microsoft respond to every Tom, Dick, 
and Harry. The intent is to empower those innovative organizations that 
have a legitimate and compelling need to the details of the Microsoft code.

2. Microsoft has been rightly judged to have used predatory practices. As 
the settlement is currently written, Microsoft is the final arbiter of the 
standards for certifying the authenticity and viability of a competitor's 
business. This only keeps the door open for further abuse by Microsoft 
because there is no third-party oversight. If there is no oversight, then 
there is no remedy. Cooloquially, the fox still guards the chicken house. 
The 3-person panel must have the power to make final determination of these 
issues, and the panel must be presumed to be acting properly. That means 
that if Microsoft disagrees with a determination, then (a) Microsoft must 
bear the burden of proof and (b) must comply pending a ruling to the 
contrary.

Amos Satterlee



MTC-00003266

From: Mark Leinwander

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 3:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 24253]]

What does donating PCs to schools have to do with monopolistic practices by 
Microsoft? Is this a token slap on the hand and then let them go there 
monopolistic ways? I'm a staunch support of the Republican party but feel 
betrayed by Ashcroft/Bush in letting Microsoft off the hook here. Having 
the OS bundled with all of the apps from the same company is bad for the 
consumer, no matter who the company is. The only solution is to separate 
the OS from the Apps side of the business. Then, some real competition can 
occur which will be better for the consumer and small businessman.

Mark Leinwander, [email protected]

Mark Leinwander

341 Prewett Drive

Folsom, CA 95630

(916) 983-0433



MTC-00003267

From: LouisRomero

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 3:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I think that it is an atrocity that Microsoft has been given such Carte 
Blanche with the business world. I have a perfect example of how the 
govenment should handle the Microsoft monopoly which still exists and will 
continue until the government steps in and kills this evil pig. Look back 
into history and you will see that in the 50's and 60's Paramount Pictures 
and a few other large movie makers owned over 90% of all local movie 
theaters; this meant that ``all'' producers had to go through the 
big picture companies before they could make a film that would be given a 
chance to succeed.

Microsoft is doing the same thing. Any commercial software that succeeds 
must do so with the blessing of Microsoft. Why? Because Microsoft, even 
moreso that the studios of the 50's and 60's own's most platforms. Just as 
the local movie theater was to the big movie makers, so is the Operating 
system to the software writers. Microsoft does not want to work with the 
software industry, they want to ``be'' the software industry.

Please stop this type of corporate behavior that Microsoft has been able to 
get away with for at least 3 decades now.



MTC-00003268

From: Forrest DeYoung

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 3:18pm

Subject: Settlement should not put more monopolist software in publicly 
subsidized schools

I think the primary punishment would be that the computer consumer should 
receive rebates for years of overpriced and underperforming Microsoft 
related software. Perhaps a $200 per consumer rebate, if one can produce a 
receipt for any prior microsoft operating system and $50 per windows 
related application.

If a socialistic approach is involved, I agree with Redhat's proposal (as 
only PARTIAL PUNISHMENT to Microsoft for years of corrupt, anti-
competitive, anti-innovation monopolist business practices:

--Microsoft redirects the value of their proposed software donation to 
the purchase of additional hardware for the school districts. This would 
increase the number of computers available under the original proposal from 
200,000 to more than one million, and would increase the number of systems 
per school from approximately 14 to at least 70.

--Red Hat, Inc. will provide free of charge the open-source Red Hat 
Linux operating system, office applications and associated capabilities to 
any school system in the United States.

--Red Hat will provide online support for the software through the Red 
Hat Network.

--Unlike the Microsoft proposal, which has a five-year time limit at 
which point schools would have to pay Microsoft to renew their licenses and 
upgrade the software, the Red Hat proposal has no time limit. Red Hat will 
provide software upgrades through the Red Hat Network online distribution 
channel.

--MY ADDENDUM to Redhat's suggestion: No Microsoft logos or 
advertizing of any kind should be permitted--i.e. Microsoft should be 
prevented from taking credit for helping others--this is supposed to 
be PUNISHMENT!

Forrest DeYoung



MTC-00003269

From: Scott Gaber

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

Date: 12/7/01 3:26pm

I don't see how Microsoft has done anything wrong. If other people want 
different software then why don't they invent there own. Do something 
constructive by going after real criminals.

Thank you,

Scott Gaber



MTC-00003270

From: Sue Montgomery

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 3:32pm

Subject: give me a break please

I want my OS richer, not poorer. Tell these clown ``attorneys'' 
that if they would talk to end users, such as myself, who have no time, no 
time whatsoever, and neither do we have the training or the likelihood for 
training, to ``create'' an enriched OS/apps package from the bare 
bones they want to stick us with...

An analogy for me is, they don't want any included options on cars so a 
person purchasing a car has to go to a bunch of aftermarket providers to 
get the additional products they desire. Of course, each aftermarket 
provider with have some problem with other items added and insist on either 
redoing the whole thing at addition huge charges or not doing it at all. 
Who's stuck here? The consumer, as usual--I don't care if Sun 
Microsystems is a bunch of whiny pretenders miffed because they aren't Bill 
Gates.

Clearly the ``attorneys'' have no clue what the product does. I 
use MS s/w to make a living and I like it richer, fuller, more compatible 
and I cannot do that myself. Tell them to get over it, really get over it, 
find a new industry to mutilate, and leave the s/w users alone. Stronger 
letter to follow...

Sue Montgomery

Seattle (and that has nothing to do with the fact that MS is here--I 
own piddly little of their stock and don't know any of the fat cats)



MTC-00003271

From: Terry McCoy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 3:39pm

Subject: Mircosoft antitrust settlement

I am writing to voice my concern that the propose settlement of the 
antitrust against Mircosoft is grossly unfair. This company signed a 
previous agreement with the DOJ in the early 90's under the Clinton 
administration to refrain from continued monopolistic business practices. I 
believe that there is very if any proof that they were ever in compliance 
with. Hence I do not see how this settlement will stop them in the future 
given the facetthat this settlement amounts to a slight TAP ON THE WRIST at 
best.



MTC-00003272

From: Powers, John

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

Date: 12/7/01 3:43pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the proposed DOJ settlement with Microsoft represents a brazen 
and shameless betrayal of the public interest.

Particularly onerous and revealing is the proposal that part of Microsoft's 
`punishment' will be to `donate' software to public 
schools who could not afford to otherwise purchase it. This is like telling 
Microsoft it's punishment for illegal behavior which netted it a market 
monopoly and countless billions of dollars is to print and distribute play 
money. It will also serve to continue its monopoly by locking yet another 
user base into its product monopoly at a tender age. A more suitable 
punishment would be to require Microsoft to purchase a competitor's 
products and install them in these schools.

DOJ attorneys are either gutless idiots, or have been bought and paid for 
by Microsoft's political donations. This so-called settlement is a 
transparent sham, and yet another indication of the extent to which our 
core political institutions have been infected by the insidious rot of 
political bribery masquerading under the guise of 'political 
contributions'.

I am disgusted and ashamed of this legal farce which amounts to nothing 
more than a license to continue business as usual by one of the most 
viscious and amoral corporations on earth.

John S. Powers



MTC-00003273

From: Keith Nolen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 3:45pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

To whom it may concern,

As a consumer and a computer professional, I am very unhappy with the 
proposed settlements of the Microsoft anti-trust case. Both settlements are 
insufficient punishment for Microsoft's behavior. I know that, as both a 
consumer and a computer professional, I have been harmed by Microsoft's 
behavior. I can give two examples.

[[Page 24254]]

My main line of work is currently with Lotus products. Due to Microsoft 
leveraging its operating system monopoly to distribute its inferior 
Internet-related products, I have fewer career opportunities than I might 
otherwise.

As a consumer, I am practically forced to use Microsoft's e-mail clients. I 
believe that Microsoft should be fined very heavily, on the order of $1 
million or more, for their behavior.

Keith Nolen

Knowledge Productions

[email protected]



MTC-00003274

From: Eric Hake

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 3:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Greetings!

I, a fellow businessman in the computer market, have been following the 
Microsoft case for quite some time. I was disappointed by the settlement 
proposal which I too feel would allow Microsoft to dominate in yet another 
market, which has allowed free choice up to this point. Although I agree 
that a monetary settlement should be levied against them, I would rather 
see the schools be given the choice to purchase the systems they choose, 
rather than having Microsoft software, and remanufactured computers given 
instead.

It is only with the imposition of monetary fines, and the free will of the 
schools to decide where to spend it, that justice will truly be served in 
this matter.

Please do not allow Microsoft to flood the educational system with 
Microsoft products! Open it up to other manufacturers such as Apple 
Computer, Inc., and Red Hat software, etc.

Thank you for your consideration,

Eric W. Hake

CEO

Interactive Marketing Solutions, Inc.

3309 NW Walnut Blvd.

Corvallis, OR 97330

(541) 752-7866



MTC-00003275

From: Dave Kennel

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 3:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Anti Trust settlement--NO!

Dear Sirs,

Let me state, in the strongest possible terms, the proposed 
``settlement'' with Microsoft is more surrender than punishment. 
It does virtually nothing to punish their past abuse of monopoly power nor 
does it prevent future abuse. In fact it seems to legitimize Microsoft's 
behavior! The fact is that Microsoft was easily convicted of abuse of 
monopoly power even though not all of the evidence that could have been 
used was presented. Microsoft has, and will continue to, run roughshod over 
consumers of all sizes from the corporate entity to the home PC user. 
Despite Microsoft's marketing they do not provide superior value or 
superior technology. In many respects Microsoft's products are overpriced 
and very shoddy.

Microsoft currently has 90% of the PC OS market and 85% of the web browser 
market. The past year has seen unprecedented virus outbreaks that exploited 
flaws in Microsoft products. These virus outbreaks cost US businesses 
millions of dollars every year. What will the economic impact be of a major 
virus outbreak when Microsoft runs on 85% or more of enterprise servers as 
well?

Microsoft must be forced to sell Windows licenses to any OEM who asks at 
the same price. They must be forced to remove Internet Explorer from the 
OS. OEMs must have the ability to install the programs and icons that they 
wish on the windows desktop. Microsoft must be forced to spin off the MS 
Office group into an independent business venture. Microsoft must be forced 
to obey software and hardware standards. Instead of the anti competitive 
mantra of ``embrace and extend'' Microsoft must be put into a 
position where their mantra becomes ``better, faster, cheaper.''

The DOJ has the conviction, please make sure that it is accompanied by real 
reforms.

David Kennel

Database/Network Administrator

Wilcox Press Inc.



MTC-00003276

From: Ted Hopp

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 3:49pm

Subject: Objection to Microsoft settlement

To the Department of Justice:

The proposed DOJ settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust case is troubling. 
We are a small company developing Internet-based, cross-platform, 
educational software products, primarily using the Java language. 
Microsoft's hostile attitude toward Java has created severe technical 
difficulties for us in the past, and, frankly, we do not see the proposed 
settlement as providing any relief to our company in this regard. From a 
business perspective, we are faced with the choice of either restricting 
our products to Microsoft-specific platforms or incurring substantially 
higher development costs and barriers to our products in the marketplace.

We find it sadly ironic that, while we are reading in the news about how 
the DOJ/Microsoft settlement will help restore competitiveness by forcing 
Microsoft to disclose interfaces and publish protocols, our company is 
being hurt financially by recent actions Microsoft has taken regarding 
access to such information. Microsoft recently announced a nearly 50% 
increase in the cost of subscriptions to Microsoft Developer Network, our 
primary source of the technical information we need to maintain our cross-
platform product capability. A Professional Subscription (the minimum level 
we need) now costs about $1,000 per year. For a very small company such as 
ours, this is a significant financial burden.

Microsoft also is substantially scaling back their availability of free, 
on-line information through the MSDN Library. It is distressing to hear 
that one of the three members of the proposed technical review committee 
that will monitor Microsoft behavior will be appointed by Microsoft. Giving 
Microsoft such a powerful lobbying voice in evaluating its own behavior is 
hardly in the public interest.

The related proposal to have Microsoft donate Microsoft products to school 
systems will further harm small educational software companies such as 
ours. The reason is simple: schools will end up using what they are given, 
instead of purchasing, in the marketplace, the products that best serve 
their needs.

In the marketplace, our small company can develop a competitive strategy. 
In the ``giveaway'' world that is being proposed, we will clearly 
suffer. If Microsoft were to provide free access to technical information 
for developers and unencumbered dollars to schools, so that developers and 
schools could each make the best decisions for their own needs, then this 
would be reasonable. The goal is to restore a true marketplace, not to 
replace one set of unfair practices with another.

For these reasons, I urge you to re-evaluate the settlement terms for the 
Microsoft anti-trust case.

Ted Hopp

President

ZigZag, Inc.

[email protected]



MTC-00003277

From: Craig W. Wright

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 4:53pm

Subject: Punishment for Microsoft.

Hi,

The punishment for Microsoft's monopolistic behavior should be to require a 
Linux port of their Office Suite. (i.e. make Microsoft Office run under 
Linux).

Thank you,

Craig



MTC-00003278

From: Steve Schwartz

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

Date: 12/7/01 3:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the Federal Government & some of the States were far too 
lenient in the Microsoft settlement. Here is a company that thumbs its' 
nose at a previous agreement with the government (if observed, the current 
case would not have come to pass) and the government let them off the hook 
again. I am in favor of a stripped down Windows--one that allows easy 
removal of Internet Explorer and MS Mail/Outlook and one that does not 
impose rigorous registration requirements--when you purchase a 
liscense the product is yours to use as you want in any legal way--it 
should not allow MS to monitor your useage unless you specifically want it 
to.

Thank you,

Steven R. Schwartz

email: [email protected]

CC:`steven.r.schwartz(a)att.net'



MTC-00003279

From: mel fisher

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 3:56pm

Subject: Settlement Opinion DOJ:

Hi! I am a contractor who use Microsoft products but at the same time feel 
that Microsoft continually makes its own rules due to its market share and 
dominance.

They force vendors to include their products (windows and Internet 
Explorer) or

[[Page 24255]]

loose the risk of being able to sell their other products.

They force other vendors out of business by buying up market share or 
funding some vendors competition. And lastly if this is not enought they 
dont cooperate most of the time on open standards or if they do they put 
just enought proprietary features into their version of a standard that it 
does not work with others.

The bottom line: A little cooperation from Microsoft would go along way to 
make the industry and technology work better.

Thanks!

Mel Fisher



MTC-00003280

From: Christophero Markus

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 3:57pm

Simply put, I use Microsoft and Linux and NEED there to not only be a 
choice out there for me--but I need to know that the choices are top 
quality worksmanship.

If there is no choice, I am more likely than not going to end up with low-
end quality work and have to live with it.

Microsoft was made as a ``lowest-common denomiator'' product. 
Bill quickly realized this mistake and took his OS to new levels--for 
Corporate ownership only! This proves where his intents were--not with 
providing high-quality products for home users.

Chris R.

506-444-5901 (w)

MSN Community:

http://communities.msn.ca/ChrisKellyKleaRichardson

(you have to have an MSN (hotmail) account/passport and be invited!)



MTC-00003281

From: Vince White

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 4:07pm

Subject: Comments on Microsoft Case

Dear Sirs,

I am stunned and disgusted by reports that the Justice Department would 
allow Microsoft to ``donate'' 1 Billion dollars worth of software 
to poor schools as a remedy for their anti-trust conviction. What idiot 
came up with that proposal? I am sure that Apple Computer, like myself, is 
not happy with this arrangement. How in the world does flooding the only 
market not completely dominated by Microsoft with free Microsoft products 
help anybody but Microsoft?

In addition, will these donations be calculated using retail values or cost 
values? If the calculation is done using retail values of Microsoft 
software, in effect Microsoft will suffer a penalty of only a few million 
dollars. I, for one, am supporting all Attorney's General that oppose the 
settlement. It stinks to high heaven. I guess it is just another example of 
political influence buying.

Regards,

Vince White



MTC-00003282

From: Joel Emery

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 4:03pm

Subject: Suggestions for the Microsoft Settlement

Dear Department of Justice:

I just read in the news about RedHat's proposal to have Microsoft give 
hardware instead of software to school districts. This sounds like a really 
good idea. Anyone in technology knows that hardware is much more valuable 
than the software that runs on it. It would also enable the schools to 
choose better hardware, and more of it. Also, students should be learning 
how to use free software. New businesses, and some long-established 
businesses are taking stock of the savings that can be realized by not 
purchasing costly software.

Thanks.

Joel Emery, ARCHIBUS, Inc.



MTC-00003283

From: Steven Behrens

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

Date: 12/7/01 4:08pm

Subject: disgusted

I would like to put just a few comments together for the Justice Dept. I 
believe that in the past and certainly in the future, there will be 
dominating companies that strive for the best for everyone. Certainly, that 
will bring about anti-trust actions to stay ahead in the future. Microsoft 
has become a dominant player in computers and are trying to become a player 
in video games. If they become the dominant maker of video games in a year 
are you going to break up that division on MS and tell it to become a 
separate company? The Gov't wants people to become better than why pay for 
farmers to leave crops empty? Why support failing industry's like Tobacco? 
Let the control be a democracy and let The Free Market dominant and let the 
USA become a better and stronger country for it!

Thanks,

Steve Behrens

MeritCare Interface Support

phone--234-3351

pager--877-296-3741



MTC-00003284

From: John Jacobs

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 4:16pm

Subject: My opinion on the Microsoft Settlement...

I have been a computer programmer for about 6 years. I have formed an 
opinion on Microsoft: In my opinion, that Microsoft unfairly monopolizes 
the market for home-based operating systems is OBVIOUS. But in case it 
isn't, here's why I believe it: Machines are sold with Microsoft OS's 
already installed, including Outlook and Internet Explorer; installation/
upgrade of Internet Explorer arrogantly defaults your home (start) page to 
the microsoft web site;

Microsoft's email client, outlook, is also installed with Internet 
Explorer;

Internet Explorer uses the same system DLLs as the File Explorer (this 
means that if you try to uninstall Internet Explorer, you may have to 
reinstall your entire operating system, so entrenched is Internet Explorer 
in the Windows OS's);

Microsoft is just patching up formerly bad operating systems and getting 
them to market yearly (windows 2000 was based on NT, 98 was based on 95, 
which was loosely based on Windows 3.11);

Microsoft has consistently stolen ideas from other, more innovative 
companies, notably Apple, Netscape, and AOL (even though it may be legal, 
this establishes Microsoft's bad character). It continues to do this to 
this very day, stealing Java as J++, and confusing the whole world with 
what Java, Javascript, and J++ are, just in case you might go in wanting 
Java and leave, confused, with J++.

That's the hardest evidence for why I dislike Microsoft and would like to 
see it broken up. The rest of the reasons I dislike Microsoft are just 
feelings that I have, and I don't have any hard evidence to back these up:

I get the feeling when using Microsoft products that Microsoft knows 
'better' than you. There is an arrogant and insulting tincture to 
applications like Word.

As far as developer applications, I never get the feeling that I'm using a 
quality product on an efficient operating system. I wonder if allowing for 
competition within the operating system market might make products better. 
And I don't mean a little better, I mean a LOT better.

I'd like to see it broken up, true, but I don't believe in litigation. All 
solutions are in education. If people are made aware of Microsoft's blatant 
attempt to monopolize the industry; if people are exposed to quality in 
other operating systems, etc., they will choose non-Microsoft products out 
of natural choice. Companies such as Apple, Sun, and Netscape, etc. need to 
be forming partnerships that give them a better competitive edge against 
Microsoft.



MTC-00003286

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 4:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Concerns

To whom it may concern:

I am concerned about this Microsoft monopoly issue. I happen to not like 
the way that Microsoft does business either and I think they are spoiling 
computer technology for everyone. Being a self employed mechanical drafting 
engineer/consultant, who uses computers to do CAD/CAM type of work, I find 
Microsoft Windows Operating System highly overrated as far as reliability 
is concerned. I just made a switch from AutoCAD to Bentley MicroStation 95 
and VariCAD Professional Computer Assisted Drafting software for the Linux 
Operating System. The reason for doing this is Autodesk, Inc., who makes 
AutoCAD, is too blinded by Microsoft's billion dollar empire hype to even 
think about any other Operating System besides Microsoft. Although 
Autodesk, Inc. has already developed AutoCAD Release 12 and 13 for the UNIX 
platforms, which is nearly identical to the Linux Operating System, they 
resist spending the money to port it to the Linux Operating System. I am 
unwilling to spend money on purchasing either Microsoft Windows NT, 2000 or 
XP Operating System(s) to use AutoCAD because it is just unreliable.

What is good about a computer operating system if it crashes 95% of the 
time. I cannot work like this and there is no good reason for it, other 
than sloppy programming by

[[Page 24256]]

Microsoft. As you may already know, Linux (pronounced with a short i, as in 
LIN-nucks) is a clone of the I/NIX Operating System, which runs on the 
Intel 80386, 80486 and Pentium series based computers as well as Sun and 
several other RISC based computers. Linux supports a wide range of 
software, from internet web servers to super graphics xwindows 
applications, such as satellite tracking to simple fun games. Linux is 
fully equip with several software development compilers, such as the GNU C/
C++, Fortran, Perl, lisp, assembler and a lot more compiler programming 
languages. Linux includes TCP/IP network protocol support and lots more. 
It's a versatile, bona fide achievement of the UNIX Operating System, which 
has been freely distributed for many years now by the terms of the GNU, 
General Public License.

The Linux Operating System can turn a 386, 486 or Pentium series based PC 
into high-performance true 32-bit multitasking, multithreading, multiuser, 
reliable workstation. It will give the user the full power of UNIX at their 
finger tips. Businesses have been installing Linux on entire networks of 
machines as an alternative to the Windows NT, 2000 or XP operating 
system(s) to manage financial and hospital records, a distributed user 
computering environment, telecommunications, internet web servers and much 
more. Universities worldwide are using Linux for teaching courses on 
operation systems programming and design, not to mention computer 
enthusiasts everywhere are using Linux at home, for programming, 
productivity and entertainment.

Linux recently has gone on the commercial software market to compete with 
Microsoft Operating System products. Commercial software developers, such 
as Netscape Communications, Applix, Corel WordPerfect, Bentley Systems, 
VariCAD and many others are starting to support Linux. However, Linux still 
needs more recognition to have more commercial software developers and 
vendors support it.

The Linux Operating System is quite possibly the most important achievement 
of innovative software since the PC was invented. Currently Linux has a lot 
more to offer than Microsoft Windows 95, 98, NT, 2000, XP or even 
industrial UNIX has. Linux now supports multimedia and real-time video over 
the internet.

However, I find it extremely idiotic that such poorly structured, unstable, 
over rated Operating System, such as Microsoft Windows 95, 98, NT, 2000, 
and now XP is so well approved by the industry as stable to use for 
important tasks. Yet these Operating Systems are being accepted as an 
industrial standard Operating System for just about nearly all computers in 
the world. These Operating Systems have more crashes than Stirling Moss 
when he was sober. :) I cannot believe that businesses, who rely on 
computers to perform complex tasks, such as CAD/CAM, controlling nuclear 
reactors, medical research, human life support, etc., are heavily putting 
extreme trust in such unreliable computer Operatin9 Systems. Yet, I have 
noticed that people who do not know any better, make vast claim that 
``Microsoft Windows NT, 2000 and now XP completes with UNIX/Linux and 
will soon replace them.'' I find this claim off the wall and I wonder 
about people who support it. OK maybe UNIX/Linux X Windows environment does 
not pop on your computer monitor with a background of a 9reen landscape, 
blue sky and white puffy clouds with all cute icons on it to click on at 
will. No big deal. It can be done with Linux too if the user wants it. 
However, that is not what a well designed, well structured, organized and 
reliable Operating System is all about. An Operating System is like the 
foundation of a multi-story building. If the foundation is not designed and 
built right, then it will not support the buildin9 for long and it will 
just come crashing down. It seems like Microsoft does not know about sound 
structure at all, not to mention network security. Instead, their attitude 
is they just want to have something to entice customers to keep spending 
money on Windows, whether it works or not. So what if there is broken glass 
because the foundation and all the rest of the building structure is not 
sound. Microsoft will make the customer pay for telling them how to sweep 
it up and buy a new revision of Windows again and again. This is exactly 
how Microsoft makes it's profits, not because Windows is a fantastic 
Operating System. The bugs in the structure makes Microsoft that much 
richer because they have to sell new versions to customers who do not know 
any better and this beat goes on. This is what puts Microsoft at the top 
and most people joined the ride unknowing what was going on.

Linux on the other hand is a good example of innovative people teaming up 
on the internet and showing the world what really can be accomplished with 
computers with a well designed, well structured, organized, and reliable 
Operating System. Linux out performs anything that Microsoft has ever 
marketed or is marketing right now. It makes the most of 386, 486 and 
Pentium line based PCs with a minimum of 32 to 64 Megabytes of RAM, 2 
Gigabytes of hard disk space, and just about any type of graphics card 
available for the PC. It does a lot less swapping to the hard disk than any 
of the Microsoft Windows Operating Systems. Linux handles memory much more 
efficiently, allowing programs to run faster, without crashing and 
corrupting data. As I mentioned before, the Linux Operating System provides 
a true 32-bit multitasking, multithreading, multiuser Operating System 
environment that is stable, crash resistant and built to run continuously 
to serve it's users. The Linux Operating System includes just about 
everything to set up a super network server less the hardware. As a 
workstation Operating System environment, it's excellent! I have worked on 
a $53,000 HP-UX based 700 Series solid modeler workstation, which was not 
as fast as my Pentium 100 MHz box running RedHat Linux 7.1 with 2.4 kernel. 
So anyone who is using Linux, has a super Operating System worth at least 
$8,000. I praise software companies, such as Bentley Systems, Netscape 
Communications, Applix, Corel WordPerfect, Quarterdeck and others for being 
open minded and willing to take a chance on supporting the Linux Operating 
System.

I hope to see more software companies interested in the Linux Operating 
System and porting and developing new applications for it. This is the only 
way we are going to gain some ground from Microsoft and make the Linux 
Operating System even more popular.

However, it is not normal for software to have so many problems as 
Microsoft Windows for so many versions. One would think that a wealthy 
software company, such as Microsoft, would develop better software with 
time, which does not crash so much. However, Microsoft has not shown that 
in all their versions of Windows since they came out with Microsoft Windows 
Version 1.00. The truth is that Linux or UNIX is not 100% perfect, but what 
is? There is really no such thing as perfect bug free software. However, at 
least Linux runs reliable without crashing in a blink of an eye and offers 
better performance for little expense. The point is, why do computer users 
spend $79--$87 for either Microsoft Windows 95 or 98 and 
$259-$599 for either Microsoft Windows NT, 2000 or XP and have all 
problems installing them and once they are installed, they continuously 
crash? If I spend $270 on an Operating System, I expect it to work with few 
problems. Also, why should; I pay through the nose to get technical support 
to find out; oh, I'll need to buy a supplemental version or this is a 
feature that I'll have to live with, which is really a bug. If Microsoft 
was committed to writing better software products, I would have more 
respect for Microsoft. Unfortunately, their only interest is making fast 
Mega bucks and conning the computer world that their software is the only 
brand customers should buy. We all should have the freedom of using a 
specific software package and Operating System without being restricted to 
market greed. I had my fill of throwing away my hard earned money on 
Microsoft junk. There is little gained, just to be frustrated when it 
crashes while I'm working on a complex drawing and having hours of my hard 
work go poof into no-where. This is where I would like to reboot Bill Gates 
for every dollar he has snookered out of people who helped to make his bank 
account swell. I do not envy him and when he goes on TV to be interviewed 
and says; ``Oh, we take great interest in our customer's needs.'' 
If Microsoft was the only choice, I might have to stop using computers, I 
get so annoyed with his double talk. I know for sure that he does not give 
a damn about improving his products. He is making more money with the bugs 
in his products than the actual products. Go do the math. If each of his 
customers is paying $2.00 a minute for technical support, which fully 
explains why he has billions. It's a grand con game.

Sincerely,

David A. Smith

Electronic Aides Design, Co.

email: [email protected]

From: David Smith [[email protected]]

To: [email protected], [email protected]

Subject: AutoCode Mechanical (c)1994 for AutoCAD 12 DOS.

Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 19:54:09 0400

Gentlemen:

I have a demonstration of AUTO-CODE for AutoCAD 12 for DOS and I 
would like to

[[Page 24257]]

register it to enable it as a complete version. I use AutoCAD Release 12 
for DOS solely, even though I have AutoCAD Release 13.

Please allow me to tell me a little about myself. I am an engineer and I 
have a very small business, called Electronic Aides Design, that I own and 
run in my two car garage. I primarily design special equipment for 
physically handicapped people. I happen to be physically handicapped 
myself. I am the president and main design engineer of this small company 
but I make very little of a cash profit. I guess you could call this a full 
time hobby than a business. Anyway, I am in the middle of retrofitting a 
small 2 horse power 2.5 axis manually operated bench top milling machine to 
a full functional CNC milling machine. I would like to use your 
AUTO-CODE software, if I may, with my existing AutoCAD Release 12 for 
DOS software with this CNC milling machine, which uses industry standard G 
code language. I would like to know if I can still purchase the 
Authorization code string for this version of AUTO-CODE? This is my 
own legal registered AutoCAD Release 12 for DOS that I want to use 
AUTO-CODE with and I intent to respect your copyright agreement by 
not giving this software away to anyone with the Authorization code string. 
However, the $995 [US Dollars] for the first module is a little steep for 
my small budget, and I was wondering if I could ask you if you would be so 
kind to reduce the price by at least 50% since it's out dated software by 
today's standards. I would agree with you that I am not expecting you to in 
title me upgrade benefits to the current version, except for bug fixes to 
the DOS AutoCAD version of AUTO-CODE software. This would mean a lot 
to me if you would agree to this request.

Thank you very much for your help.

Sincerely,

David A. Smith

Electronic Aides Design Co.

72 Delmore Ave.

Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922-1200

Phone/Fax: (908) 464-2097

Email: [email protected]

From: ``David R. Gibson'' [[email protected]]

To: [email protected]

Subject: NC for DOS

Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 12:12:56-0400

David Smith,

I am glad that you had an opportunity to look at our software and liked it. 
Unfortunately we do not support R12 or R13 anymore or have any means to 
create an authorization code for them. Our AUTO-CODE will only run on 
R14 and R2000 and soon the R2002 of AutoCAD. The cost has also gone up to 
$2750.00 in the last year to help offset the costs associated with the 
development of new technology in our software.

Good luck with retrofitting your mill and if we can be of service in the 
future keep us in mind.

David Gibson

From: Bill Kramer [[email protected]]

To: [email protected]

CC: [email protected], [email protected]

Subject: Re: NC for DOS

Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 09:23:16-0400

Greetings,

Although we understand your situation, please understand that we are also a 
small company. To provide support for all versions of AutoCAD would greatly 
increase our support costs significantly. As such, many years ago, we made 
the choice to only support the current version of AutoCAD plus the 
previous. This has enabled us to provide software for this industry as a 
reasonable cost, with quality support. If we provide an authorization code 
to you, we are obligated to support you (whether you need the support or 
not) by our own ethical guidelines. That would require building an AutoCAD 
Release 12 machine with MS-DOS. As you may also know, the selection 
of operating system is based on Autodesk and not us. As Autodesk went 
through growth phases in various operating environments we ``tagged 
along''. That means that at one time we supported Macintosh, Unix, 
Sun, HP, MS-DOS, and now Windows. Release 12 ran on many of those 
platforms and we cleared those machines out several years ago, as many were 
loaners from the companies involved. All that remains here presently are 32 
bit Windows based machines to support the current platforms of AutoCAD. I 
do hope you understand our situation. In order for you to stay with 
MS-DOS, I suggest you look at BOBCAM as I think they still support 
that platform. You may be able to find some software on the web at e-Bay or 
in a web discussion group. It is still out there, it will just require some 
searching.

Sorry that we can be of no help to you at present, best wishes in your 
efforts.

Bill Kramer

AUTO-CODE

[email protected] wrote:

Dear Mr. David Gibson,

Thank you for your reply. However, the fact that you don't support your DOS 
version of AUTO-CODE does not help me at all. I loath Microsoft 
Windows like mad. I personally think it is a lot of nonsense to go through 
to work with AutoCAD. I find AutoCAD for DOS much easier for me to use than 
the MS Windows version.

As I mentioned in my previous email message, I have a demonstration of 
AUTO-CODE V 2.1 10.28.94 for AutoCAD 12 for DOS and I would like to 
register it to enable it as a complete version. I use AutoCAD Release 12 
for DOS solely, even though I have AutoCAD Release 13.

Please allow me to tell me a little about myself. I am an engineer and I 
have a very small business, called Electronic Aides Design, that I own and 
run in my two car garage. I primarily design special equipment for 
physically handicapped people. I happen to be physically handicapped 
myself. I am the president and main design engineer of this small company 
but I make very little of a cash profit. I guess you could call this a full 
time hobby than a business.

Anyway, I would like to use your AUTO-CODE DOS based software, if I 
may, with my existing AutoCAD Release 12 for DOS software with this CNC 
milling machine. I would like to purchase the Authorization code string for 
this version of AUTO-CODE. The check code = 
503A-6700-7C86-ACM0. You must have a copy of the software 
that generates the Authorization code in your company somewhere. If you 
don't have a computer to run this software on, then may I purchase a 
licensed copy for my personal use only? This is my own legal registered 
AutoCAD Release 12 for DOS that I want to use AUTO-CODE with and I 
intent to respect your copyright agreement by not giving this software away 
to anyone with the Authorization code string. I do not want the new Windows 
version even if I could afford to pay you $2750.00. I can't use the Windows 
version and ] I don't need a sales pitch to tell me how much better off 
I'll be with the ] Windows version. I know what I need and I have it 
already. If you want $1000 for a copy of the Authorization Code Software, I 
would consider it.

Again, this would mean a lot to me if you would agree to this request.

Thank you very much for your help.

Sincerely,

David A. Smith

Electronic Aides Design Co.

72 Delmore Ave.

Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922-1200

Phone/Fax: (908) 464-2097

Email: [email protected] http://
www.autocode.com--AutoCAD CAM and utilities http://www.cadcruise.com 
--AutoCAD Education at Sea http://www.eclipse-
chasers.com--Eclipses of the Sun and Moon



MTC-00003287

From: John (038) Donna

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 4:16pm

Subject: JUST A THOUGHT

THANK YOU FOR THIS RESPONSE. HAVING OWNED A COMPUTOR STORE, I FEEL I CAN 
ADD QUALIFIED OBJECTIVE STATEMENTS.

1. SCHOOLS ARE HAVING TO SPEND ALOT OF MONEY REPLACING HARDWARE AS WELL AS 
SOFTWARE BECAUSE OF A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO ``OUTDATE'' ! ! IT 
DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ALL NEW VERSIONS OF SOFTWARE SHOULD BE TRULY BACKWARDS 
COMPATIBLE AND ALSO TECH SUPPORT SHOULD BE CONTINUED FOR THAT SOFT WARE FOR 
ATLEAST 5 YEARS REGARDLESS.

2. OPERATING SYSTEMS SHOULD BE (& CAN BE) LIMITED TO COMING OUT ONLY 
EVERY 5 YEARS ALSO SO A STUDENT GETTIN OUT OF SCHOOL WILL ONLY BE ABOUT ONE 
VERSION BEHIND WHEN HE GOES OUT IN INDUSTRY.

3: PROGRAM SIZES SHOULD BE CAPPED SO THAT WE DON'T FILL UP THE LANDFILLS AS 
FAST WITH OLD PARTS.

4. Hard ware suppliers should be REQUIRED to take back old boards to help 
keep the acids, resins, and metals out of the landfills.

5. last YES, THE WHOLE IDEA OF AN OPERATING SYSTEM IS TO ALLOW OTHERS 
ACCESS TO THAT CODE WHICH WILL ENCOURAGE MORE COMPANIES TO GROW AND 
DEVELOPE NEW SOFTWARE. THIS HAS TO BE A RESTRAINT OF TRADE AND NO DOUBT A 
MONOPOLY WHEN ALL ``PACKAGED TOGETHER'' AND ONLY IF YOU PLAY BALL 
DOES YOUR DRIVERS GET INCLUDED.

6. YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE IT YET BUT WITH THE SAME MAN OWNING THE

[[Page 24258]]

MAIN TWO OPERATING SYSTEMS. NO ONE EVEN CARES. THE WAY YOU HAVE ALLOWED 
APPLE TO WORK. EITHER WAY YOU GO BILL GATES OR HIS FRIENDS WIN ! ! ! TO 
ALLOW FREE INTERPRISE TO GROW IN THE COMPUTOR INDUSTRY LIKE IT DID YEARS 
AGO--MICROSOFT MUST BE DIVIDED.

RESPECTFULLY

JOHN LARSON

FT. GIBSON, OKLA. 74434

I KNOW IT'S A TOUGH DECISION BUT IT TRULY IS A PLAY ME NOW OR REALLY PAY ME 
LATER.

J.L.



MTC-00003288

From: Michael Hartman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 4:20pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to express my dislike of the proposed settlement. There are 2 
specific points that I believe undermine the punishment of Microsoft for 
violating the anti-trust laws. Forcing) Microsoft to give its operating 
system software to schools for free would further enhance its stronghold on 
the Operating System and office tools markets. Microsoft would be 
guaranteed to get hundreds and even thousands of new users trained on their 
software. Microsoft was found guilty of using all its power to stomp out 
any competition that threatened it. This form of punishment seems to be 
helping Microsoft further its dominance in the market. This punishment is 
just as bad as the crime that was committed. It will be guaranteeing 
Microsoft gets the market share instead of allowing for a fair playing 
field for any competition.

I am also concerned by the text in Section III(D) as well as Section 
III(J)(2). One of the biggest and most viable competition to Microsoft's 
market share has come from the Open Source community. The Open Source 
community is, by definition, a not-for-profit entity. Section III(D) forces 
Microsoft to release ``the APIs and related Documentation that are 
used by Microsoft Middleware to inter-operate with a Windows Operating 
System Product'' to `` ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs''. 
It is not forced to release any of this information to any ``not-
commercial'' organizations. This basically gives Microsoft legal 
grounds to snuff out any and all open source competition. Microsoft has 
been found guilty of using illegal means to stomp out any competition. Is 
there any doubt that they will use these new legal means to do so also? How 
are these sections making the playing field fair for competitors?

Michael Hartman

928 Waverly Hills Ct

Lawrenceville, GA 30044



MTC-00003289

From: Brian Covey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 4:26pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

So, we have an illegal monopoly that gained undue influence over the 
marketplace by tying products together and essentially giving their browser 
away for free.

And to punish them, we're going to ask them to... Give a billion dollars' 
worth of their products away to schools, for free?

What is wrong here?

First of all, profit margins on software are insanely high. That billion 
dollars worth of software is not going to cost them a billion dollars. I 
bet you it doesn't even cost them a hundred million. Development is a sunk 
cost, so they're just paying for manufacturing and shipping. Second of all, 
this is just going to tie schools more tightly to Microsoft, making it even 
harder for competitors to stay in the marketplace. Make them give away a 
billion dollars to schools, and let the schools make the spending 
decisions, not just hand out a billion in free marketing materials.

Sincerely,

Brian Covey



MTC-00003290

From: WFB

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 4:21pm

Subject: Microsoft Case

Please, Please stop the Microsoft monopoly. This is my third computer in 
which I have been using Netscape as my browser. My local server, and my 
system's manufacturer, Gateway, have now informed me that they will not 
longer offer support or service under my service contract, if I continue to 
use Netscape.

Please, Please, stop this monopolistic take over by Microsoft. Their 
influence and their money makes everyone vulnerable in their path.

William F. Buckley

[email protected]

(251) 948-5936



MTC-00003291

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 4:28pm

Subject: Pro-Microsoft Settlement

As a consumer I have found that Microsoft's products have benefitted me. I 
also use lots of other products without any trouble. I endorse the 
settlement plan.

Joe Valentine

Consultant

Nonprofit Management

Tel. 415-454-8182

Fax 415-256-8108

[email protected]



MTC-00003292

From: Ron Morris

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 4:34pm

Subject: Red Hat proposal

I think that the Red Hat proposal is the best solution to the situation and 
that Microsoft should accept it. If Microsoft doesn't accept the offer 
voluntarily, they should be ordered to by the DOJ as a condition of the 
final decision.



MTC-00003293

From: Bill Kopacz

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

Date: 12/7/01 4:38pm

Subject: Microsoft case

Let the free market work. Let the public decide if they want the product, 
not the businesses. If the business disagrees, then the need to form a 
coalition and provide a product that meets the competition and the 
4-P's of marketing. Listed below are the four P's of marketing

*Product

*Price

*Place

*Promotion

Keep the states and government out.



MTC-00003294

From: Tom Lingenfelter

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 4:42pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Forcing Microsoft to give a billion dollars worth (retail price) of 
software to poor schools is like forcing a tobacco company to place 
cigarettes in every soldiers daily rations.



MTC-00003295

From: Pamela Drago

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

Date: 12/7/01 4:44pm

Subject: Hello,

Hello,

Just an interesting bit I noticed in a prior USA Today article regarding 
Microsoft's request for the EU to accept the conditions of the US antitrust 
settlement: ``Microsoft warned (the EU) against what it called a 
``sweeping remedy'' that it said would enable its largest 
rivals--such as IBM and Sun Microsystems Inc.--to develop nearly 
identical ``clone'' software at relatively little expense.'' 
Excuse my naivete, but wouldn't it be in the best interest of consumers to 
HAVE CHOICES of similar software at competing prices?

Looking at the history of Microsoft, a good number of their software 
products and systems were based on ideas developed by other companies (eg. 
Apple, IBM) and then produced by Microsoft for a lower cost to consumers 
due to their financial abilities to mass-produce. The opportunity for the 
tables to turn is now here, and Microsoft is decrying the very process that 
allowed it to become the powerhouse it is today. Competition is necessary 
for a strong economy and for consumer satisfaction. If Microsoft products 
are truly the ``best'' for the customer (rather than just the 
only ubiquitous choice out there), then they will maintain their stronghold 
in the industry. However, if consumers find that products from competitors 
offer greater programming options and overall product stability, then so be 
it. Either way, it should be up to the consumer to decide-not the company 
who has the most to lose.

On final note, Microsoft tends to speak on behalf of the consumer quite a 
bit, stating that we (the consumer) would be ``hurt'' by the 
potential consequences of this case. That's like my state senator saying 
that the residents of Washington state would suffer greatly if she took a 
pay cut.

Thanks for listening.

Sincerely,

Pamela Drago

Seattle, WA



MTC-00003296

From: Maniace Vincent--vmania

[[Page 24259]]

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

Date: 12/7/01 4:45pm

Subject: Settlement issues

I work for a technology company that uses UNIX and MS operating systems. 
They (MicroSoft) were found guilty of having a monopoly and are basicall 
getting away with it. Microsoft will only benefit by opening up there 
operating systems allowing other partners to develop applications for their 
operating system. It just means their business will adjust accordingly.



MTC-00003297

From: Marian Honsinger

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 5:03pm

Subject: Microsoft case

Yes! Please see that MS makes simpler programs. It hardly seems fair for 
the richest man in the world to make money on such crappy software. Having 
worked with programmers since the 80's, I suspect that MS creators are 
trying to outdo each other with new bells and whistles that ordinary people 
don't need. I don't need the whole Office suite, but I have to buy it to 
get the ones I use. The bells and whistles can't be tested adequately 
before customers use them.

I am experiencing more and more cases where MS software writes over what 
I'm doing. When I installed a second Email address for my winter/summer 
homes, an Outlook Express glitch caused both addresses to overwrite each 
other. This was verified by my provider's customer service. I even have to 
re-install Windows 98. MS also interrupted my new home page to ask if I 
want X service installed. It also creates more icons with ``special 
offers'' on my desktop if I install something new. My ``Picture 
It!'' software has a bug that has no solution on the MS web site.



MTC-00003298

From: Heath Jared

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 4:47pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

After reviewing the settlement between the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft, I am disappointed that a company found to be in violation of 
abusing its monopoly is actually only slapped on the hand (at best) by the 
deal. There is no substantial penalty for Microsoft that it cannot weather, 
and that in itself makes the settlement a laughingstock in the industry 
(you guys need to read some of the tech journals since this was released). 
I haven't heard anyone in my software company who thinks Microsoft will 
suffer any penalty from the deal, and most feel the company should face 
grave penalties. You really can't be serious, an over-sight committee which 
can't do anything in the legal system? Can you really believe Microsoft 
will adhere to this committee when it has no (zero, nada) power?

Actually, I have heard it described as a ``get-out-of-jail-free 
card''. I would interpret something such as that as a reward, not a 
penalty. People will say it is good for the economy. How can this be? 
Microsoft has already eliminated sectors of its software competition, and 
is well on its way to eliminating the rest of its competition. Once no one 
stands in their way, who is to stop them from cranking up the cost of their 
services? Microsoft will certainly not fear the government when it choses 
to exploit everyone: You, the DOJ are in Bill's back pocket already.

Today, we have a big problem in parenting--threats not backed up with 
action, oftentimes ending up in reward. This leads to children who do not 
respect authority because their parents never punished them for there mis-
doings. I am reminded of a recent visit to a local Toy's 'R Us here in 
Dallas. A child was wailing at the top of his lungs because his mother 
would not buy him a specific toy. His mother threatened him several times 
with spankings, even grounding, but the child never let up. Finally, rather 
than deal with the child the way she should have, she gave in and bought 
the child the toy. Rather than punishing him for what he had done wrong, he 
actually received a reward for mis-behaving!! My mother would have torn me 
up, right there in the store.

Now, your weak settlement has setup another controversial settlement at the 
civil level which is yet again not a penalty for Microsoft, but a free-
ticket out of trouble and into more Monopoly. I have played the game 
``Monopoly'' many, many times. No one has ever agreed to give me 
``Boardwalk'' in place of ``St. James Place'', but here 
we have settlement after settlement where Microsoft is getting an un-
believable deal. Had you dealt out a settlement that was reasonable, this 
would never have happened, and a certain Judicial Committee hearing would 
not be happening either.

It appears this practice has been adopted by you, the Justice Department in 
relation to Microsoft. No enforcement of threats. Rewards for those who 
deserve punishment. Please, let me know when you decide to start rewarding 
people for breaking laws that apply to me, like the speed limit...I'm 
willing to negotiate my reward just like Microsoft did....out of court PS-
Take a close look at what the strong-willed states presented today...I 
suspect after Congress and the Court system gets done with Microsoft, the 
final outcome will be very similar to this new more realistic punishment 
for a mis-behaving child (Microsoft).

Sincerely,

Jared Heath



MTC-00003299

From: Lamaan Whyte

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 7:49am

Subject: Microsoft

Hi,

Can I stick my two cents in regarding the Microsoft cases? I'm a business 
consultant advising people with home-based Internet businesses. My clients 
are all over the world--mainly in the USA, but also from many other 
countries. For these people, the ideal operating system is either Windows 
95 or Windows 98--both of which have been abandoned by Microsoft, and 
both of which need to be returned onto the market.

At issue is this: home-based Internet businesses are the fastest growing 
sector of the business world in terms of numbers, rising from almost zero 
ten years ago to very many millions today. Nobody knows exactly how many 
there are, but my estimate is around 20-50 million now, and maybe 
200-500 million within a few years.

To really flourish, this business sector needs single, simple operating 
system that accepts java (including javascript). Win9x is ideal. It has the 
most software, including all the relevant tools; it is well understood by 
the technical people who provide support; and it contains all the features 
needed, and none of the unwanted features that Microsoft seems to love so 
much. Recently, Microsoft withdrew the Win9x product range, with the result 
that already a market has emerged in both old (legitimate) copies of the 
range, and new (pirate) copies. I regard it most unsatisfactory that I am 
compelled to inform newcomers to the field that, if they wish to succeed in 
their new venture, they must seek first out a Win9x copy, pirate if 
necessary, because Microsoft will not sell it to them. I ask you to seek 
that a condition be placed upon Microsoft that they resume supply and 
support of either (preferably both) Win95 and Win98. I am told for 
networking reasons that Win NT should be included in this list, but this 
exceeds my expertise.

With best wishes,

Lamaan Whyte

Darwin Australia



MTC-00003300

From: Carl Friedberg

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 4:50pm

Subject: Proposed settlement to the Microsoft Antitrust case

Honorable Judge:

I am not a direct party to this action, but I would like to express my 
dismay that Microsoft has not been punished for violating the anti-trust 
statutes.

While I am not a lawyer, I am a user of computer products and services. 
Microsoft has attained dominance in this industry by using methods which 
have been legally judged to be anticompetitive. What punishment have they 
received for their actions? What is being done to keep them from doing this 
again, and again? Nothing has been addressed, for instance, regarding the 
latest onslaught from Microsoft, ``dot net'' and Windows XP. Both 
of these products continue these same practices, and nothing in the 
proposed settlement will curtail Microsoft's anti-competitive practices. 
Microsoft, in a separate action, has worked out a settlement of a large 
number of class action suits against it. The proposed settlement of those 
cases rewards Microsoft by placing their monopolistic software in many 
schools which might not be able to afford it otherwise, giving Microsoft 
yet another non-competitive foothold in a new market. In that case, I 
understand that RedHat Software has offered to provide free software for 
every school in the US, with Microsoft's $1,000,000,000 ``fine'' 
being used strictly to purchase hardware. That's more in line with a 
punishment, than a reward, in my opinion.

Please, consider alternative solutions which will punish Microsoft for 
violating the

[[Page 24260]]

law, and keep them on the path of lawful action.

Sincerely yours,

Carl Friedberg

President & CEO

Comet & Company

[email protected]

New York, NY



MTC-00003301

From: Rick Werkmeister

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 4:51pm

Subject: Microsoft

No one has forced everyone to rely on Microsoft products. For the competors 
of Microsoft...quit trying to get the source code(s) and come up with an 
operating system/software packages of their own.

Rick Werkmeister

358 S. 6th Street

Rockport, IN 47635



MTC-00003302

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 4:55pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Microsoft is guilty.

Please repeat that as a mantra while you look over the proposed settlement.

Guilty people should not be rewarded for their crime.

1. Microsoft ran companies out of business so they could take over the 
market. We can't ``punish'' them by sending their software into 
the schools. We must correct the market. We create the market with our laws 
about patents and trademarks. Microsoft took advantage of that so we should 
take away their right to those patents and trademarks.

2. Because of the actions of Microsoft, they have very few business 
competitors. They would make you an offer you can't refuse. You either sold 
out to them or they put your product into the next version of the operating 
system and put you out of business. Now their only real competitor is the 
freeware stuff such as Apache, Perl, and Linux. These non-business entities 
are cut out of the proposed settlement that says Microsoft only has to 
share its APIs with ``legitimate'' businesses. Change it to M$ 
must share the APIs with everyone and you just might protect the freedom 
required for a good market. Punish the guilty. Don't reward them.

Mike Moxcey

Computer Specialist

Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

[email protected]



MTC-00003303

From: Jeff Falkenstein

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 4:59pm

Subject: Microsoft Case

Enough is enough. Please do not waste any more of the Taxpayers money on 
this issue. The government FOR THE PEOPLE should spend more time and money 
ON THE PEOPLE instead of going after Microsoft.

While states continue to pursue this, I feel that it is not Microsoft's 
fault that Dell, E Machines, Compaq, and other manufactures put Windows on 
their computers. The consumers should be given the right to purchase their 
computer with LINUX, DOS, Windows, or whatever Operating System they 
choose. The computer manufacturers, however, want to SELL computers so they 
put the easiest operating system on them. which happens to be Windows.

We have people with health benefits being cut, people without homes living 
on the streets, no jobs, let's spend the money on helping those less 
fortunate. Again, this is a government FOR THE PEOPLE. Please help them 
out.

Thank you,

Jeff Falkenstein

Fort Myers, FL



MTC-00003304

From: Mullaney, Ed Q

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

Date: 12/7/01 5:02pm

Subject: MS

Hey Back off...this is free enterprise. What is the idea here hold MS down 
long enough for a foreign product to be developed that can compete. Your 
time could be better spent looking into the problems with Bud Selig and MLB 
(Major League Baseball)



MTC-00003305

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 5:02pm

Subject: Criminals at Micro$oft

Hi,

Please do not let the adjudicated criminals at Micro$oft get away with 
their unlawful business practices any longer. Punish them severely and do 
not go through with the proposed settlement that merely allows them to 
expand into the education market under the disguise of 
``altruism''. Anyone with more than two neurons to rub together 
can see what a scam that would be.

Frank Szot

System Administrator

Nova Southeastern University

954-262-4934

[email protected]



MTC-00003306

From: Randy Spark

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 5:03pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

I am against any settlement that Microsoft may receive that includes only 
organized business for profit. Include all businesses, like not for profit 
or non profit agencies that may have a competing product, but are software 
that is open source. Excluding open source from the remedies that Microsoft 
is charged with would be tantamount to giving them a stranglehold on the 
entire Internet.

I am further against any remedies that allow Microsoft to gain an unfair 
advantage in our public schools. Apple has long been a supporter of K-12 
education and handing Microsoft an advantage into this educational arena 
would be a mistake. Apple and Linux should be given as much consideration, 
if not more, in the educational support in the remedies phase. Have 
Microsoft place the money into an educational trust fund that allows the 
schools to choose what hardware and software they would like to use. In 
addition, Microsoft should have no say in how this trust is administered.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Randy Allan Spark

800 Maple Avenue

Washington PA 15301

724-229-7490



MTC-00003307

From: Nicky Morrow

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 5:08pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir/Ma'am,

I am very very disappointed with the Microsoft settlement. Historically 
speaking a good arguement can be made that Microsoft has been and continues 
to be the most damaging monopoly in the history of the United States. 
Microsoft has proven that it will not operate within the law and no 
organization on earth should know this better than your organization as 
Microsoft didn't even miss a step after signing previous agreements with 
your organization.

The job of the US Department of Justice is to enforce the Anti-trust laws. 
These laws were enacted for very very good reason. When these laws are not 
enforced something is taken away from all of us...the possibility to start 
and be successful in a business. Whoever made the decision to settle for an 
agreement that will have no effect whatsoever on Microsoft is stealing 
something from you and I and I don't like it at all.

Lastly, I want to know where the decision to give up came from. Was this 
decision from the President?

Regards,

Nick Morrow

US Embassy

[email protected]

Buenos Aires, Argentina



MTC-00003308

From: Art Nickel

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 5:20pm

Subject: my thoughts

microsoft has used every trick it can to ensure that other developer's 
software either does not run or runs poorly on their less than stellar 
operating systems along with refusing to make the new software incompatible 
with older versions of the same programs, such as Word, Excel, and such. 
this marketing focus has:

injured other developers

injured the public using their systems

restricted the availability of good software solutions

produced bad operating systems due to the focus on excluding other 
developers' programs.

This can only be remedied by the separation of the operating system 
manufacturing from the software development OR by making any operating 
system that runs more than 30% of the personal computers OPEN ARCHITECTURE.

Thank you

Arthur T. Nickel



MTC-00003309

From: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 24261]]

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 5:20pm

Subject: What Settlement? and why?

After all the time, energy and money wasted by DOJ, they tell us they were 
going to settle. Sounds fishy to me! Why doesn't Justice just admit they 
are gutless idiots. That's what they look like. I hope at least some of the 
Governors involved in this suit have the guts to finish this job that was 
started. Justice doesn't. If any body thinks that MSFT isn't a powerful 
monopoly, ask them what runs on their desk top.



MTC-00003310

From: Michael Samman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 5:22pm

Subject: Leave Microsoft Alone

Enough is enough. In light of current national activities as well as a 
sinking economy perhaps it would be best to finalize this witch hunt and 
let Microsoft continue doing what they do best, provide the best 
technologies and help improve the economy.

Michael Samman



MTC-00003311

From: BOB DORIS

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 5:26pm

Subject: Microsoft

Microsoft must be stopped as it creates a never ending round of purchasing 
and upgrading that is tough on the average consumer.



MTC-00003312

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 5:29pm

Subject: microsoft antitrust

Hi,

In the past several years, Microsoft products have completely failed to 
evolve to growing security threats and are being swallowed by malicious 
(knowledgeable) people. On one side of the country, IIS(Internet 
Information Server) Servers are down from code blue or some other DoS 
exposure, and on the other side of the country confused people are getting 
hundreds of emails from someone who was using outlook and doesn't open 
attachments, but since they aren't going to microsoft.com everyday for 
their updates, they don't even have to open the attachments. Basicly, the 
only way to make a Microsoft consumer product secure is not to use it, and 
I believe this is in part because Microsoft has the consumer software 
market so dominated that they feel no need to provide quality product. 
Though this is not technically a monopoly, the consumers and the economy do 
not stand to benefit from it (as may have been implied). In fact, it is my 
belief that the only people that will benefit from this downgrade of 
product quality are the associates of Microsoft. I make my living providing 
tech support for Linux servers and I have to say that I thank god everyday 
that I am not providing support for Microsoft servers (I would have a lot 
of explaining to do).

Regards,

Greg--Support

# # # # #

[/ /]

[(R) (R)]

[ u ]

[--]

if you think that my signature looks stupid, it's because you're using 
variable width font (probably Arial if you're on Windows).



MTC-00003313

From: Chris Anderson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 5:46pm

Subject: Who got bought?

So the punisment for microsoft is to give out copies of software to 
organizations (poor schools) that would normally never have bought those 
products and provide hardware to run those products.

The punishment is larger market share in the most fromative market? (k-12 
schools)

Obviously someone was bribed, and bribed well.

Chris Anderson



MTC-00003314

From: Dave Alger

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01-5:42pm

Subject: Dates for submitting comments regarding the Microsoft

The web page containg the 'Information on the United States v. Microsoft 
Settlement' (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm) does not contain 
the start and end dates for the period of public comment. Please add them.

S,

Dave Alger

Phoenix, AZ



MTC-00003315

From: Dennis Gies

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 5:44pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

To Whom it May Concern,

I would like to express my opinion that the settlement reached with 
Microsoft regarding its anti-trust violations is completely unsatisfactory. 
In particular, I find that the provisions excluding non-profit software 
vendors from having the same rights as for-profit companies are completely 
irresponsible, and in fact will strengthen Microsoft's position in the 
marketplace rather than place a check on the company's monopolistic 
expansion. In the past few years (perhaps even decade), Microsoft has 
efficiently eliminated one competitor after another using tactics which 
have now been deemed illegal. However, the settlement proposal gives no 
rights at all to those organizations which are now the primary competitors 
of Microsoft, specifically the Apache Foundation, the GNU project, and the 
organizations which develop Sendmail and Perl. Moreover, the settlement 
gives no rights to those individuals who consist of the primary competition 
to Microsoft in the O/S space, the developers of the Linux kernel and 
desktop applications such as KDE and GNOME.

For the Microsoft settlement to be even remotely acceptable, these groups 
must be given the same rights as for-profit competitors of Microsoft.

Thank you,

Dennis Gies

[email protected]



MTC-00003316

From: Albert J. Polisseni

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01-5:52pm

Subject: my opionion

I believe this farce has gone on long enough. The states do not have the 
right to tell a company how to run their company. The only winners are the 
attorneys etc. The losers are people who use microsoft products. the states 
want to weaken the company, most articles & polls that I have seen that 
the majority of computer people say that the government and the states was 
wrong to sue MS MS has developed many improvments to PC operations, thru 
their R & D departments, why should they share that info to other 
competitors, let them spend their own money for new products. Is MS 
perfect, probaly not. Over all it has been a good company, they created 
thousands of jobs, and made a lot money for people. Weak companies don't 
survive. I think you get the picture.

AJP



MTC-00003317

From: Joseph Schlecht

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 5:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to submit a comment about the proposed settlement between the 
Federal Government and Microsoft. In accordance with the Tuney Act, I 
request that the following comments, and any responses received, be 
published in the Federal Register and filed with the court.

1. I do not believe that this settlement goes far enough to penalize 
Microsoft for the crimes it has committed. Microsoft is an illegal 
monopoly, this is a ruling by the courts of our great country.

2. As a member of the free software community, I would like to make it 
known that the verbage contained in the proposed settlement, like Section 
III(J)(2), could possibly eliminate many free software projects. The 
verbage used is to Microsoft's advantage, they will manipulate their 
ability to arbitrarily certify the authenticity and viability of a business 
to crush us (the free software community) like they have illegally crushed 
other competitors.

These are two of the largest problems I have with the proposed settlement. 
Let their be no doubt, if this settlement is approved, consumers will not 
benefit in the long-run, they will be subjected to an even more intense 
monopoly.

Sincerely,

Joseph Schlecht

Student, North Dakota State University



MTC-00003318

From: Randy Gaul

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01-5:57pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Sirs: I personally was deeply discouraged from pursuing programming as a 
career because of the overbearing presence and influence of Microsoft. I 
personally dislike the minimal nature of the settlement now

[[Page 24262]]

proposed and want to take this opportunity to voice my objections.

Thank You

R. A. Gaul



MTC-00003319

From: John Stanforth

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 5:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

In case no one was paying attention, Robert Cringley has done a great job 
of doing your work for you, lining out the many reasons why your proposed 
settlement with Microsoft is a very very poor solution which only 
strengthens Microsoft against the Open Source world which finally has a 
shot of competing.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html

If you do still go forward with your hare-brained scheme, I'd at least like 
to cast my ballot for Steve Satchell to be on the Microsoft Oversight 
Committee... He's a respected industry leader who might lend some modicum 
of credibility to the sham you've created supporting Microsoft. God help 
the states rejecting your settlement. They are apparently now our last hope 
for justice in America. For now, I pray for a future when government 
officials actually understand the technology they try to preside over.

Sincerely,

John Stanforth

Chief Executive Officer

Enabled Paradigm, Inc.

[email protected]



MTC-00003320

From: Jacek Pliszka

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:05pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hi!

I am a postdoctoral researcher at University of California.

I would like to express my view on the settlement.

It is a very good idea to force Microsoft to develop a fully-featured 
version of their monopolistic software (defined by example by more than 75% 
of the market and more than 1 million users worldwide) for 2 or 3 most 
popular non-MS OSes. This would mean: Linux,MacOS and probably BeOS or BSD. 
For me this is fully analogical to telecom market: client should have full 
right to use any (any of the major) long distance providers (Operating 
Systems) even if in his just one company has monopol for local phone 
service (Office suite or Internet Explorer monopol).

The second thing concerns API. In order to allow non-profit organisations 
to compete with Microsoft products--they should be granted the full 
access to MS OS API necessary for their goals. Non-profit organizations 
have important impact on our economy: WWW was developed this way as well as 
Apache (running more than 50% of internet servers).

Such rapid growth, allowing other companies to profit on different kinds of 
business is unthinkable if WWW protocols and API was kept secret as 
Microsoft does with its OS interface.

Best Regards,

Jacek Pliszka



MTC-00003321

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Monopoly is Dangerous

Please break up the Microsoft monopoly. It is unhealthy for the economic 
security of our country. Too little competition.

It is unhealthy for the defense of our economy to have so much of our 
infrastructure dependent upon one vendor.

In short, monopolies can cause our great capitalistic, democratic 
experiment to fail.

Jay Rietmulder

President/CEO

Paragon Billing, Inc.



MTC-00003322

From: Bob and/or Jan Thune

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:07pm

Subject: Microsoft--States continuation of case.

How can anyone of sound mind penalize a company that provides unbelievable 
functionality, quality, and low cost (sometimes even free!). And it is 
American entreprenourship at it's best.

This is big government (and political power/influence) at it's worst. Sure 
some people want to bring Microsoft down. ... the ones that want to bring 
themselves up into the same position.

As an average PC user ... I say ... this is just wrong !!!!!

Bob Thune (Lecanto, Florida)



MTC-00003323

From: Sanity in Anarchy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:13pm

Subject: Microsoft is a T-Rex: King Tyrant Lizard

I'll give you the short story first: Microsoft is a tyrant in the world of 
computers. Their strategy seems to be ``Be sort-of friendly towards 
customers, and flatten the competition.'' Their software has almost no 
compatibility with other formats, whereas other software quite often has to 
be compatible with Microsoft.

In my experience, Windows is slow, unreliable, and extremely hard to 
program for compared to Red Hat Linux, but people are forced into writing 
software for Windows because that's what everybody uses. And people are 
forced into buying Windows because that's what everybody writes software 
for.

Let's take another example (and there are more than I'll take the time to 
write here). There are two word processors that come with Red Hat Linux 
7.2. AbiWord can read Microsoft Word files and half a dozen other formats. 
KWord can read and create AbiWord files, Microsoft Word, and half a dozen 
other formats as well. I can't check any of the other formats because I'm 
writing this from an office full of Windows computers, but not one Linux 
computer. (And why? Because they have to.)

But what can Microsoft Word read? Only what it has to. It can read its own 
Microsoft Word format and other formats common to Microsoft Office, Rich 
Text Format, normal Text and Unicode Text formats, and HTML files if that 
functionality is installed.

This isn't even mentioning outright illegal practices like bundling 
Internet Explorer and making it impossible to remove (at least, for the 
average user). Or stealing such things as the idea for a spreadsheet 
program. Oh, and by the way--where did Windows come from in the first 
place? It was stolen from Macintosh. Much of the source code in use today 
was stolen from Macintosh, but I can't verify that because Microsoft 
doesn't give away their code.

Yet another reason to use Linux.



MTC-00003324

From: William Smith

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:15pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

The department of justice has essentially provided Microsoft with the 
opportunity to dump its operating system on the educational system to gain 
market share. Is this not what the decision against standard oil labled as 
preditory behavior? Standard oil lowered its prices at local service 
stations to prices below cost in order to drive local competition out of 
the market. Then with no other competitors, Standard oil was free to set 
the monopoly price. The same thing is being proposed as a 
``remedy'' for this situation. Who the hell thought this one up? 
Mr. Gates?

William J. Smith (Joey)

Research Associate

Domestic Programs

Georgia State University

[email protected]

O. 404-651-1908

F. 404-651-0416



MTC-00003325

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: [email protected]

Date: 12/7/01 6:15pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am outraged that the DOJ and 9 states would agree to the Microsoft 
proposed remedy. This is supposed to be a punishment, not a reward. They 
have caused companies to go out of business or to be absorb by other 
companies. In the past when they had competitors that had superior products 
they tied an inferior product to the OS and gave you a choice of free or 
the competition. This has to stop.



MTC-00003326

From: William Smith

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:19pm

Subject: A better way

Instead of letting Microsoft ``give'' its os to schools, have 
them buy a competitors os and donate it. Better yet, have them just donate 
the money (or even half of what they claim this donation to be worth) and 
let the schools spend it on things they really need, like good teachers.

William J. Smith (Joey)

Research Associate

Domestic Programs

Georgia State University

[email protected]

O. 404-651-1908

F. 404-651-0416

[[Page 24263]]



MTC-00003328

From: Josie Robinson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:22pm

Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement

My vote is against the settlement as it stands today. I am a professional 
in the IT industry since computers began on the market and I can assure you 
that by ``forcing'' Microsoft to ``give'' away their 
software to schools who may be needy is like letting the wolf into the 
sheep's pen! This will give them a foot hold in the school industry and 
they will emerge that much stronger in the future. Not only that, the 
donations can be written off, can they not? So they do not get punished 
financially either!

I am a system administrator who works on both Microsoft, Unix and some 
Apple products and can assure you that I know what I am speaking about. 
Apple has a good foot in the door to the schools nowadays and rightly so as 
their product is much easier to use than Microsoft products and superior. 
Why would you want to remove the only remaining foothold that Apple has on 
the market? This could well push them out of business. Wouldn't it be 
better to make Microsoft install it's products on other operating systems 
and other Intel based machines so that they could sample their own 
medicine? If you have ever tried to configure a product that was not 
``blessed'' by Microsoft you would understand why this would be 
just deserts! I have watched them chase Netscape out of business, almost, 
even though Netscape had the better product. How you ask? By giving away 
Internet Explorer. By then they had enough money that it did not matter if 
they got any money from their web browser product. Meanwhile, Netscape has 
to sell their product to stay afloat in business. Didn't Netscape have to 
merge with AOL?

No, I say stop the cycle now. Some one has to put a stop to Microsoft's 
bullying ways. You, the DOJ, did a good turn by prosecuting them as a 
monopoly. Now do the right thing by giving them a true punishment. Please 
do not give them another opportunity to make yet, more money and tighten 
their strong hold in the market by pure might.

Thanks for listening.

Josie Robinson

Raleigh, NC



MTC-00003329

From: Stuart Sheffer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:22pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am writing to tell you that I am strongly opposed to the current 
settlement that's being proposed in the Microsoft case. Microsoft has been 
demonstrated to be a monopoly by the courts, but the present settlement 
does not appear to do anything to reign in their behavior, which has been 
bad for consumers.

Microsoft appears to be trying with Windows XP to get away with the same 
sort of monopolistic behavior it used against Netscape only this time it's 
being directed against the entire computer world.

Stuart



MTC-00003330

From: Ed Crawford

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:25pm

Subject: What are those states thinking ??

Attn: US Justice Department

Dear Sirs

What are those States thinking? A thin version of Windows. Right. This is 
really going a long way in helping the average American business person. If 
Sun and Netscape want to compete, tell them to get their act in gear. 
Produce a good product, get it on the market and the American public will 
take care of the rest.

Let's not punish a respectable company that has had to write a lot of the 
rules in unchartered territory, and has been ethical about it. MS hasn't 
squeezed the American public for a thing. They have given us a lot and made 
it reasonably priced.

What a bunch of cry babies. Please tell these states to get with the 
bandwagon. End this ridicules law suit and let's get on with rebuilding the 
American way. Please have an Excellent Day.

Best Regards

Ed Crawford

34 Hillside Drive

Gilford, NH 03249

CC:Paul



MTC-00003331

From: DANA CORDES

To: (060)microsoft.atr

Date: 12/7/01 6:25pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the Microsoft's proposed settlement is a total sham. They were 
found guilty of being a monopolist, and should be punished. Allowing them 
to give $500M worth of software, and almost zero cost to themselves, to 
schools is just allowing them to further expand their monopoly into one of 
the few areas where there is some ``Alternative OS'' influence. 
Also, everything possible must be done to protect the public interest by 
promoting open source software and the developers, like myself, who 
contribute to and use software developed in that manner.

In order to give competing companies and products a fighting chance, 
Microsoft should be forced to publish a full list of all windows APIs and 
transfer protocols so that other companies can, at the very least, build 
software that can integrate with Microsoft operating systems.

The way MS does business hurts all computer users. Diversity is good.

Sincerely,

Dana Cordes

4207 Helen St.

Simi Valley, CA 93063

805-583-5062



MTC-00003332

From: Eric Wood

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:24pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Having read articles about the proposed settlement, it is my firm opinion 
that Microsoft is trying to not only get away with a massive crime with 
hardly any cost to itself, but to further extend its monopolistic power in 
the software market!

The idea of this company giving outdated hardware and free copies of 
software that cost pennies to produce in order to avoid paying a larger sum 
from its nearly infinite store of cash is absurd. The best remedy is to 
force them to, at the very least, include options to remove MSN Messenger, 
MSN Explorer and Internet Explorer from the Windows XP operating system. 
Splitting the company up would be even better, as it keeps them from simply 
replacing every third party software option from their platform, since the 
platform would no longer belong to those making the afore mentioned 
software programs.

The second main problem I have with the proposed settlement is the included 
attack upon open-source software. Microsoft has made a habit of inventing 
replacements for open standards, and making sure no competitor can use 
those replacements. In the case of open-source software, I quote from an 
article by Robert X. Cringely, published online at: http://www.pbs.org/
cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html And I quote,

``The biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet Information Server is 
Apache, which comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-profit. Apache 
practically rules the Net, along with Sendmail, and Perl, both of which 
also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit organizations have no rights 
at all under the proposed settlement. It is as though they don't even 
exist.

``Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against not-
for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not describe nor 
license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols affecting 
authentication and authorization to companies that don't meet Microsoft's 
criteria as a business: `...(c) meets reasonable, objective standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of 
its business, ...' ``So much for SAMBA and other Open Source 
projects that use Microsoft calls. The settlement gives Microsoft the right 
to effectively kill these products.''

This directly affects the software I use on a daily basis. Without 
something like SAMBA, I would have no access to a network with Windows 
computers. The settlement even attacks the government of this nation. I 
quote from the same source: ``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. 
``But wait, there's more! Under this deal, the government is shut out, 
too. NASA, the national laboratories, the military, the National Institute 
of Standards and Technology--even the Department of Justice 
itself--have no rights. It is a good thing Afghanistan is such a low-
tech adversary and that B-52s don't run Windows. ``I know, I 
know. The

[[Page 24264]]

government buys commercial software and uses contractors who make profits. 
Open Source software is sold for profit by outfits like Red Hat. It is easy 
to argue that I am being a bit shrill here. But I know the way Microsoft 
thinks. They probably saw this one coming months ago and have been falling 
all over themselves hoping to get it through. If this language gets 
through, MICROSOFT WILL FIND A WAY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT.''

This outrageous behavior from one of the largest corporations on the planet 
must be shut down. Please do what you can to correct the wrongs with have 
been committed. You (the DOJ) were on the right path when you pushed for 
this company to be broken up. WHY DID YOU BACK OFF? Do not let money or 
whatever the cause may be stop you from administering justice. May God be 
with you as you consider what I have told you.

Sincerely,

Eric Wood



MTC-00003333

From: Tom

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Renata B. Hesse

Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Ms. Hesse:

I am writing to express my concerns that the settlement proposed between 
the Department of Justice and Microsoft will create serious security 
concerns for users, businesses, and government entities. This settlement 
fails to address the main problem that was brought up in the suit, anti-
competitive activities by Microsoft. A slap on the wrist for such a huge 
company will do little to increase competition in the software industry. 
There are significant problems caused by the monopoly Microsoft enjoys over 
web browsers, desktop operating systems, and office suites, including lost 
productivity, reduced innovation, and frustrated computer users.

However, the issue of security has not been given enough attention. 
Microsoft's anti-competitive tactics have put them in a position where they 
have had little incentive to improve the virus vulnerability in products 
such as Microsoft Outlook and Word. Lost time and down networks have 
resulted from the problems Outlook's design, most famously with the Melissa 
virus, but continuing with the Goner virus outbreak. When faced with the 
threat of cyberterrorism, these security problems can no longer be 
neglected in anti-trust policy. Only by restoring competition to the areas 
of the software industry where Microsoft has illegally generated monopolies 
can the nation obtain software that is less vulnerable to hostile agents at 
home or abroad. Microsoft has repeatedly demonstrated that without 
competition, they will not take adequate steps to make their products more 
secure.

Sincerely,

Thomas Klem



MTC-00003334

From: Ives Frank Vazquez

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:27pm

Subject: Microsoft

I have 5 computers in my household I have tried Redhat Linux, Caldera Linux 
and Corel Linux spent over $150.00. I could not get any of them to run any 
of these versions of Linux. I can run all versions of windows up to windows 
xp. Consumers are not idiots bring out a good product and we will buy it. 
Microsoft is number one because they have a good Product. [By the way none 
of these Linux operating systems gave me my money back!] I use Opera 
browser instead of MS Explorer because I think it is better product All 
these companies should stop crying and bring a better product and we will 
buy it. No law will dictate that to me Market forces will! Price and 
quality will always win. So stop trying to compensate for mediocrity and 
let the market decide.

Ives Frank Vazquez



MTC-00003335

From: John Garth

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:27pm

Subject: New Microsoft software

Dear Sirs,

I have been made aware that the most recent version of Windows as well as 
the program Microsoft Money2002 requires the use of ``Passport'' 
wherein Microsoft improperly demands a lot of personal data from users of 
this software in order to use the software.

I consider that the mandatory use of ``Passport'' is a serious 
invasion of privacy and one more example of how a MONOPOLY like Microsoft 
thinks it can get away with this sort of behavior. Who knows what they will 
do with the personal data they ask for? Why should they be allowed to 
demand it?

My friends at the Justice Department: You are our main protection against 
such exploitation by a computer company that has been able to destroy 
competition, make unreasonable demands on OEM suppliers, and has become a 
powerful, almost unbeatable monopoly. You need to take a much stronger 
position than you do. Break up the company! With Windows they have had a 
huge advantage as far as making the software that utilizes it. The Internet 
Explorer is a classic example. Please take a strong stand! Consumers all 
over the world will thank you!

At the very least, be aware of the dangers of ``Passport''.

Thank you!

John C. Garth

7305 New Dawn Court NE

Albuquerque, NM 87122

(505) 821-0421

E-mail: [email protected]

CC:Garth John



MTC-00003336

From: steve(u)r

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:28pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

``Nine state attorneys general argued Friday that Microsoft must offer 
a stripped down version of its Windows operating system and make its 
leading Office software compatible with competing operating systems. In a 
40-page document, the states propose several new penalties in an attempt to 
punish Microsoft for breaking antitrust law. The federal government and 
several other states have already settled with Microsoft under more lenient 
terms. The states that haven't settled also argue for tougher enforcement 
provisions, including a court-appointed ``special master'' to 
oversee Microsoft's compliance..''

I fully support the states in the above! Microsoft has demonstrated an 
arrogance that is beyond belief, and proven in the past that it will not 
abide by even watered down terms like those the Justice Department appears 
ready to accept. Microsoft is not an innovator! Their biggest products, 
such as Microsoft Office, are simply rip off's of ideas that other 
companies pioneered! You have done the American public a grave injustice by 
letting this arrogance giant off the hook!

Stephen K Rohrer

Dallas, Texas



MTC-00003338

From: Joe Ragole

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

Date: 12/7/01 6:29pm

Subject: my view

Microsoft's intention to pay back the people of the USA by donating its 
products to schools is an obvious marketing tactic. By donating to schools, 
they make themselves look like a friend of the common man. However, by 
propagating their products throughout schools, Microsoft's true intention 
is to expand their monopoly further by introducing impressionable young 
children to their products. To be completely straightforward, this is the 
same tactic of which tobacco companies are accused. If Microsoft is allowed 
to settle its case by donating its products to schools, the US DoJ will be 
doing a great disservice to the inhabitants of this country by sanctioning 
a further extension of Microsoft's monopoly.

--joe

Joe Ragole, University of Colorado student of biology and German 
``Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this 
consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the 
triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; 'tis dearness 
only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper 
price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an 
article as Freedom should not be highly rated.'' Thomas Paine, 23 
December 1776



MTC-00003339

From: Avery Chipka

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

Date: 12/7/01 6:28pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am of the personal thought that the currently settlement with Microsoft 
is one that will not solve the current problems Microsoft has caused but 
only make issues worse. Under the current settlement Microsoft is still 
free to exclude open source development projects from having access to 
windows source code and the tools needed

[[Page 24265]]

to make a compatible piece of software for the windows operating system. 
Microsoft is still being allowed to encode there browser into there 
operating system in a way that it can not be removed. The current windows 
Os (XP) is unable to function with out the usage of internet explorer. The 
recent release of windows XP home edition has yet again proven Microsoft 
unwillingness to share there operating system with other Os development 
teams. This time Microsoft has even gone so far as not supporting 
connectivity to there older operating system forcing users of the older Os 
to upgrade to there ``newest and greatest Os''. Microsoft has 
also continues to exile Macintosh users from the usage of all of there 
software other the office and even some parts of that can not be used in a 
Mac OS, Unix and Linux environments. Thus forcing many users over to the 
windows operating system that they do not want to be using. Look around a 
office building to those computers users who are running windows; when 
asked why many users will respond well I have to use windows there no way 
to use something else these days. Microsoft is now basically being given a 
free pass and a way to take over even more of the computer world with the 
current settlement.

Avery Z Chipka

Apple ServicesWhalley Computer Associates

[email protected] Whalley Way

413-569-4359Southwick MA 01077

http://apple.wca.comhttp://www.wca.com

The Information and thoughts expressed in this email are that of a single 
person and in no way reflect the thoughts of Whalley Computer Associates as 
a whole.



MTC-00003340

From: Christopher Dick

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hello!

As a user of various operating systems and applications over the years, I 
recognize the position of Microsoft as the ``defacto'' standard 
for software in today's world. However, this does not justify their 
monopoly position.

Probably the single greatest way to allow Microsoft to continue in an 
economically viable way that also gives others an opportunity to develop, 
would be to force Microsoft to open its MS Office and other file formats. 
This would allow other developers, including ``open source'' and 
``freeware'' developers, to make software that is 100% compatible 
with the ``defacto'' standard for documents, thusly allowing 
endusers choice in their operating systems, as Microsoft Office is the 
single greatest driving force behind Microsoft's monopoly.

Please consider this move as a viable portion of the settlement with 
Microsoft. Allowing Microsoft to simply ``buy'' their way ou of 
it in the manner proposed simply extends Microsoft's monopoly into an area 
of personal computing that has traditionally been dominated by Apple.

Thank you for allowing the public to voice concern in this matter, and I 
hope that level heads will prevail.

Christopher Dick

156 Superior Blvd.

Wyandotte, MI 48192



MTC-00003341

From: Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

I'm writing to express my dismay at the weak and ineffectual set of 
proposed remedies that the DOJ and Microsoft have agreed to. Microsoft has 
been found guilty of abusing its position as a monopoly in the software 
industry, and the proposed remedies do little to actually punish Microsoft 
for this behavior. In fact, by abiding by this agreement, Microsoft is 
given free reign to act punatively towards Free and Open Source software 
projects that compete with Microsoft's own offerings.

I would ask the Department of Justice to reconsider this set of 
stipulations, and include provisions that will:

1. Protect Free and Open Source software projects by requiring that 
Microsoft provide complete, timely and accurate documentation of its APIs 
and file formats to any interested party.

2. Require Microsoft to cease anti-competitive bundling practices with its 
media player, MSN software and MSN Messenger.

3. Require Microsoft to produce a version of Office for Linux and other 
UNIX systems.

4. Force Microsoft to divest MSN. It's not in the best interest of the 
public to allow Microsoft to build MSN by shoving it down the customer's 
throat. Each new version of Windows locks customers into Microsoft's MSN 
and Passport system.

5. Force Microsoft to give open access to APIs for its .Net initiative.

The proposed stipulations contain too many loopholes. While breaking the 
company up into several companies was not a suitable solution, neither is 
letting the company off with a light slap on the wrist. Microsoft is 
getting off entirely too lightly for the damage that they've done and 
continue to do to the software industry. Allowing Microsoft to continue its 
business practices and a monopolistic position in the market is doing great 
damage to the consumer and other businesses in the computing industry.

Sincerely,

Joe Brockmeier

Joe `Zonker' Brockmeier -=- [email protected]

http://www.DissociatedPress.net/

``Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in 
awhile, you could miss it.''--Ferris Bueller



MTC-00003342

From: Rob Szalapski

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:36pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The settlement with Microsoft has a major defect that will have devestating 
effects on the software industry. Much of the developement effort in areas 
like Linux, Apache and Samba provide software for free. Microsoft will be 
able to kill these efforts by the wording in the settlement. While these 
efforts are oftentimes funded by major collaborations of typical business 
entities, the not-for-profit entities that control them do not. Protect 
these advancements or ruin an industry!!!

Rob Szalapski

phone: (716) 742-8430

Avanti Systems Division

fax: (716) 924-4729

117 Victor Heights Pkwy

Victor, NY 14564-8938

email: [email protected]

[email protected]



MTC-00003343

From: David Sloyer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:40pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir/Mme:

I am very disappointed that the DOJ appears to be wimping out in its 
treatment of Microsoft, to the detriment of us all. The settlement proposed 
by the DOJ fails to address many important issues, and promises to extend 
Microsoft's ability to abuse their power as a monopoly to destroy current 
and potential competitors, forcibly extract revenue from users, and 
weakening US-based software companies generally vis a vis foreign software 
developers.

I urge you to reconsider, and to listen carefully to the position of those 
states which disagree with the settlement proposed by the DOJ.

Thank you,

David W. Sloyer

10573 Sunset Ridge Dr

San Diego, CA 92131



MTC-00003344

From: Nelson, Christina L.

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

Date: 12/7/01 6:43pm

Subject: Demands on Microsoft

Microsoft should not be under any compunction to make Office compatable 
with someone else's OS any more than Canon has to make their camera lenses 
compatable with another manufacturer's camera bodies. If you want a 
Microsoft Product...maybe the MS OS is the best way to go.



MTC-00003345

From: Joe Tarsha

To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments @doj.ca.gov@ inetgw,...

Date: 12/7/01 6:41pm

Subject: The proposed Microsoft settlements are inadequate

With great disappointment, I was dismayed to hear the terms of the 
announced settlements that the various states have proposed. How did we go 
from a proposed Microsoft breakup to a wrist slap within the course of a 
year? The appeals court unanimously affirmed that Microsoft was indeed a 
monopoly, which is a lot farther than this court went circa 1998 when 
similar charges were brought re Windows 95. At that time, Microsoft 
received a wrist slap with a consent decree and no damages. Again, they are 
back in court, having aggregiously ignored the previous settlement terms.

What changed? The only thing that has happened of note is the year 2000 
election.

[[Page 24266]]

It is clear that this case is being influenced by partisan politics. The 
result is that the computer industry has been brought to its knees, while 
Microsoft continues to grow via its illegal business practices.

The most glaring aspect of the proposed settlements is the utter lack of 
reparations to damaged parties. I am not just talking about consumers, but 
competitors, employers (and their stockholders and customers, too), some of 
whom testified and others provided supporting background evidence and 
consultation to the legal team at their own expense. The cases of Be, Inc., 
and Red Hat are two visible examples. As competing OS manufacturers, they 
suffered the most by Microsoft's multi-boot restrictions, wherein licenses 
were illegally tied to the exclusion of all other O.S.es. Be even made a 
public offer to waive the license fees to any OEM that would offer BeOS as 
an option, with no takers. Red Hat was only able to strike its first OEM 
deal only after testimony was taken and published that showed these illegal 
licensing deals. Today, Red Hat is struggling, but is endorsed by 
partnerships with big name players IBM & Dell, and Be has recently sold 
off most of its assets at a deep loss to Palm, laying off the bulk of its 
staff, and will soon liquidate. Both had many employees, stockholders, and 
customers in California. Be customers will soon, if they have not already, 
reluctantly purchase Microsoft products because there is simply no other 
alternative left!

The provision that the settlement is applicable only to companies of 
significant size (one+ million in sales) is also a slap in the face to 
competition--that means that new startups have no chance coming out of 
the blocks! Be and Red Hat would probably not have been beneficiaries of 
these terms. This is not a ``level playing field''.

And a time limitation of only five years means that Microsoft will go back 
to business as usual after that. This lawsuit alone is three years old. If 
a term limit is somehow necessary, it should be for fifty years or longer, 
to make worthwhile the long effort plaintiffs have put into this case. If 
the suggested term is put in place, we might as well file another lawsuit 
right after the settlement is signed in order to see a continued 
``level playing field'' since obtaining justice has taken so 
long.

As a taxpayer and damaged party several times over, I am disgusted at the 
proposed settlement. After years of effort, millions of dollars spent, and 
all of the *proven* facts in the case established before you, that 
plaintiffs would settle for pennies on the dollar and a token wrist slap 
(yet again) is a waste of taxpayer funds. The parties directly and 
indirectly involved should not have conceded leadership of the suit to 
Justice if they were to be abandoned so close to the finish as they have 
been.

Justice has now shown itself to be susceptiple to party politics with this 
drastic change in settlement terms. In my opinion, the time is ripe for 
States to take control of the suit if Justice does not resume its previous 
tack. Otherwise, it is very likely the effort will quickly fracture, and 
individual companies, states/localities, and citizens will have to file 
suits independently, further incurring cost, time, and effort in the 
justice system, and watering down any resulting settlement. I urge you to 
reject the proposed settlements and continue the suit vigorously to its 
logical conclusion.

The opinions expressed above are entirely my own, and not necessarily Be, 
Inc.'s. For further details, please contact the CEO, Jean-Louis Gassee, as 
he could provide significant further information, at [email protected].

Joe Tarsha

Be, Inc.

(a soon to be unemployed) I.S. Manager

Home address: 3940 Branson Drive, San Mateo, CA 94403-3609



MTC-00003346

From: Marian

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:41pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am sending this email as a comment on the proposed settlement between the 
US Department of Justice and Microsoft Corporation. The settlement, as it 
has been published, does not protect the rights of consumers, nor does it 
impose a remedy that will allow competition in the software markets in 
which Microsoft has already demonstrated its illegal business practices. As 
has been amply demonstrated by the consent decree signed by Microsoft to 
settle a previous anti-trust suit, mere words on paper do not reign in 
their practices. More strenous oversight is needed, or any settlement will 
be shown to be as worthless as the last. The largest competitor to 
Microsoft Internet Information Server is Apache, from the Apache 
Foundation. A not-for-profit organization. It, along with Sendmail and 
Perl, also from not-for-profit groups, are very widely used in Internet 
applications. My concern is that according to the language of the proposed 
settlement, these organizations have no rights at all.

Specifically the language in section III(J)(2) 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 language gives Microsoft the right 
to deny the very existence, and continue any and all of their anti-
competitive practices against Open Source projects, or even any company 
they do not deem viable.

I also question the advisability of allowing Microsoft to define the 
criteria of ``reasonable, objective standards'' as they are the 
party guilty of violating our nation's laws in the first place. Should not 
these definitions be imposed by an external body that does not have 
Microsoft's interests formost in their minds?

Section III(D), which deals with disclosure of information regarding the 
APIs for incorporating non-Microsoft ``middleware'' contains 
language which is equally disturbing. 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 these definitions, Open 
Source is again shut out, as are government entities and any other not-for-
profit group.

I can not accept with any degree of credibility that Microsoft will not 
exploit any perceived flaw in the actual language of any remedy which is 
imposed on it. Additionally, the currently proposed remedy will only stay 
in effect for a period of 5 years. How are we to believe that Microsoft 
will not simply revert to their current illegal business practices after 
the 5 years have passed?

The remedy as proposed, is flawed in both its language and scope. I urge 
the court to seek a more appropriate and stringent solution and hope that 
it will act in the best interests of the American people, rather than 
ignore Microsoft's previous flagrant violation of an insufficient remedy.

Thank you.

Marian Waldman

2248 Stokes St.

San Jose, CA 95128

[email protected]

CC:marian@ vex.org@inetgw,mwaldman@ 
brocade.com@inetgw



MTC-00003347

From: Moses Ling

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:43pm

I strongly disagree with the settlement because it DOES NOT do anything to 
prevent MS to practice what there had been doing in the pass. I think a lot 
of you have missed the point on what the real issue is. The real issue is 
not how MS deal with the OEM venders and others, the real issue is how MS 
uses the advantage they have on the OS and apply it on their applications 
by hiding key element on the API and a lot of close standard. Because of 
that MS have an upper hand on other software houses, that make them hard to 
compete fairly. One by one they had taken out Wordperfect, Netscape, 
Realplayer, Borland and many more to come. With Windows XP a lot more 
companies will be taken out, first on my mind will be Winzip, next will be 
CD burner software companies and who knows who is next. With their new 
Passport service, there are coming after you. (U.S. Gov.) Think. They will 
have access to personal information on the Passport account worldwide. If 
you know how to think you can see the danger. Stop them before its too 
late. Thats all I have to say.



MTC-00003348

From: Chris Torgerson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:52pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir or Madam,

I believe any settlement with Microsoft should include both a financial 
penalty and a source code release to the public. As someone who's career 
has been hurt by MS's anti-competitive tactics, I believe both of these 
punishments are necessary and fair.

Chris Torgerson

[[Page 24267]]

Chris Torgerson

Technical Manager

New Media Merchants

phone: (858) 882-8500 ext. 2320

fax: (858) 882-8501

email: [email protected]

www: http://www.nm2.com



MTC-00003349

From: Uncle Dave

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 1:16pm

Subject: MS slimy income tactics in small reseller suits

Gentlemen:

I am the victim of one of THOUSANDS of lawsuits that Microsoft has waged 
over the past few years. I own a wholesale computer hardware company, 
primarily building servers and workstations custom order for small volume 
resellers.

In April of this year MS bought 3 software packages from me through an 
undercover reseller. They took FOUR months to tell me it was counterfeit 
(yet have never shown me why). The software met ALL the tests I could use 
for genuineness.

They then sent me a ``cease and desist'' letter through one of 
their many law firms. I emailed a response that I would comply and begin to 
buy through one of the suppliers they authorize that was listed on their 
cease letter. Exactly ONE day after my email they bought another s/w 
package, even while I was taking down the information on my website and 
getting set up with their authorized distributors. A few weeks later they 
slapped me with a complaint/lawsuit in Federal court!!

I have spent over 7k with my attorney to answer/deny the suit. I have 
researched other lawsuits and find that HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS are quite 
similar. WHY? would MS do this? They aren't interested in stopping the true 
piracy out there--THEY WANT THE INCOME FROM THESE SUITS, BOTH FOR 
THEMSELVES AND FOR THEIR ATTORNEYS! IT IS THEIR DIRTY LITTLE SECRET.

I have spoken to several victims of this perversion of the legal process. 
NO ONE CAN AFFORD TO LITIGATE THESE SUITS, and virtually ALL ARE SMALL 
BUSINESS PEOPLE WHO ARE FORCED TO SETTLE for HUGE AMOUNTS. I plan on going 
to court without an attorney and asking for a jury trial. MS is so big, so 
arrogant, they simply are biting many hands in the channel that have fed 
them for years.

In all the years I have done business as Horizon Micro Distributors, WE 
HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED INSTALLATION OR REGISTRATION PROBLEMS WITH 
WINDOWS98, OFFICE 2000 OR OFFICE 97, which are the specific programs they 
claim are bogus.

Any advice you might give us, or any reflection upon the arrogance of 
Microsoft that would affect the settlement in the big case, should consider 
their CURRENT ACTIVITY AND ATTITUDE TOWARD SMALL AND LEGITIMATE BUSINESSES.

We cannot have a bully of this size forcing small businesses out of 
operation.

Thanks

Dave Fears

Owner

Horizon Micro Distributors

503-469-0147



MTC-00003350

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:53pm

Subject: (no subject)

No monopoly is good for US consumers. Less competition for Microsoft equals 
less performance at a higher price for consumers.

If the present ``big business'' tag team of Bush, Cheney, and 
Ashcroft are able to discretely fulfill their obligations to Bill Gates and 
his campaign contributions, the beneficial change for consumers and 
fairness to competing companies will likely be minimal...



MTC-00003351

From: Paul Pomerleau

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:57pm

Subject: Remedy in Microsoft case

The proposed remedy for Microsoft is a bad one. It does not gives rights to 
not for profits, or private free-software developers. I also suggest that 
any settlement should act to restrict Miscrosoft's ability to simply out-
spend other companies on legal fees. They should not be allowed to spend a 
dime more than their opponent on any court case. The above is important, 
since Microsoft uses it's cash reserves as a weapon. Towards that end, I 
would also suggest that Microsoft be compelled to keep very little cash 
reserves, distributing all but 10 million of it to stock-
holders--always dividending, never saving, since that saving is a war-
chest, allowing it to bully it's competitors and its apparent friends 
alike.

Paul Pomerleau

Globalcom, Inc.

[email protected]



MTC-00003352

From: Dave Johnston

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:57pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

David A. Johnston

989 North Pine Street

Ukiah, CA 95482

December 7, 2001

Renata B. Hesse

Antitrust Division

US Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Renata:

I am writing to inform you of my opinion regarding the proposed Final 
Judgement in the Microsoft Antitrust case. My background is in the 
Information Technology Industry and in education. In my current position, I 
am involved in a statewide project providing assistance to schools as the 
implement technology in the classroom. I have a clear understanding of the 
needs of rural, small and low-performing schools being from an area of 
California where the three are very common.

It would appear from my reading of the proposed final judgement that 
Microsoft is not being fairly discouraged from future anticompetitive 
business practices. The end result is more of a slap on the wrist, rather 
than an action to promote serious reflection on the part of corporate 
management and a change in their business practices. Specifically, the 
portion of the judgement that allows them to get rid of obsolete Pentium II 
computers to low-performing schools who are already lacking in modern 
technology will to little to close the digital divide. Given that Microsoft 
is planning on ``giving away'' about $843,000,000 of the 
$1,000,000,000 fine in their own software is particularly incredible. It 
does two things. First, it reduces their actual cost to something much 
lower than the $843,000,000. The list price that they are using to develop 
the estimate is much higher than even the price they current sell to 
schools. For example, our education price for Microsoft Office 98 was in 
the $35/copy range, rather than the $299 or higher retail price. By 
allowing them to give away their own product, you are greatly reducing 
their costs.

Second, you are only perpetuating their monopoly by putting more Microsoft 
product in place. Regardless of whether the schools receive the initial 
product for their surplus computers for free, at some point they'll want to 
upgrade or add additional features, etc., which is going to encourage them 
to purchase more Microsoft products.

I strongly urge you to reconsider this judgement and the minimal impact it 
will have on Microsoft or the digital divide. I strongly support the offer 
from RedHat software for Microsoft to purchase new computers for these 
schools and RedHat Software will provide the operating system and 
applications software for free for the life of the computers. Or, as Steve 
Jobs has suggested, force Microsoft to give cash to a foundation, who can 
then determine the best way to distribute the funds.

I appreciate the opportunity to make my views know.

Sincerely,

David A. Johnston

Dave Johnston, WD6AOENetwork/Telecom Consultant

[email protected]

Ukiah, CA



MTC-00003353

From: Johann Amin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 3:38am

Subject: Microsoft must go DOWN!

Its a plain as the nose on your face that Microsoft has the muscle to bully 
its way into anything and anywhere; including the US justice system. 
Seriously, if the DOJ doesn't put its foot down and make SURE that 
Microsoft is CUT DOWN TO SIZE, it'll make lot of us think that Justice is 
on-the-take.



MTC-00003354

From: Brian Fahrlander

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 7:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I've watched as Microsoft overthrew the CP/M operating system back around 
the late 70's. Early on, it was good thing--more power, more options, 
more flexibility and every day a new thing for consumers.

[[Page 24268]]

But in 1995, Bill Gates was able to tell thousands of hardware people, 
``Give me details, or get shut out'' and while that was an 
important unifying power, that power went to his head.

Show me a difference, for example, between the different versions of 
Microsoft Word as it went from 95, 97, 2000, and beyond. Other than fixing 
a minor bug here or there, it's almost identical throughout the lineage, 
yet buying a new copy (so you could still communicate with your friends and 
co-workers who'd already upgraded) each new version was still nearly $200.

...but thank God they finally killed ``Clippy'' in Excel, which 
is the same way. Excel is another example of buy-because-he-says-so. And 
when they released Access, they released a flawed, bloated, overcomplicated 
mechanism that would ``eat itself'' when enough data had been 
saved.

It's sad. Really, very sad. I've been a supporter for almost 20 years now. 
But one day after rebooting 20+ times to fix another hardware/software 
glitch [knowing full well that both were MADE to work together, FCOL], I 
took up my friend's urging and tried Linux. It was crap, but it was honest 
crap. Very ``old Unix'' styled, but that was changing. Not just 
once a quarter, but every day.

That's been almost 5-6 years ago now. Not one day in that time have I 
booted Windows software on my desktop. I've been living without Microsoft 
for that long....IT'S A WONDER I'M STILL ALIVE.:)

But think about it--when MS screws up, who can you sue? When there's a 
bug, what's the resolution? Wait on the 900 number for a minimum of 2 hours 
and hope they don't say ``re-install'', like they often do.

Linux is different: There are search engines--just look up your 
problem by entering keywords. Any problem you have, others have had weeks 
ago. New versions are available seemingly all the time. And the maintenance 
of it is SO much easier. No viruses, no BS problems that can't be resolved.

It's not nice, but it IS fair to compare Gates/Microsoft with Hitler: In 
the beginning he provided unparalleled growth of a third-world country with 
an inferiority complex and in only 10 years became a world power. But 
without anyone knowing, several million people were brutally hurt by this 
power, and it had to be stopped.

LISTEN TO CRINGELY: he's one of the few guys that really understands the 
problem and writes a column. And if he likes this Steve Satchell guy then 
he's probably a good, fair, honest, stand-up guy.

As the code is written now, Microsoft isn't penalized by your action, it's 
strengthened. It can just ``secrefy'' the code and prohibit 
anyone from developing with it in the future. Microsoft's become a rude, 
mean, two-faced machine for hypnotizing people and raking out their 
pockets. (Why else would viruses still exist in Windows after 18 years and 
they don't exist in Linux!)

 PLEASE, PLEASE reconsider your actions. My life, and millions more will be 
effected by blind paperwork. (See my signature!)

Brian Fahrlander

Evansville, IN

ICQ 5119262

Linux Zealot, Conservative, and Technomad

http://www.kamakiriad.com/aboutme.html

LinPhone:

briancommat;aquila.kamakiriad.com



MTC-00003355

From: Freund, John B

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 7:12pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I rarely write such letters but the proposed Microsoft settlement enrages 
me. For starters the donation of equipment to schools is a cynical ploy to 
increase market share.

I write this as someone deeply committed to overcoming the digital divide. 
But I do not want to do this at the risk of further enhancing the 
monopolistic practices of Microsoft. To me it is a modern version of B'rer 
Rabbit saying ``Please don't throw me into the briar patch.'' I 
leave to legal authorities to judge my impression that that settlement does 
nothing to curtail its monopolistic practices in any meaningful way.

Peace,

John Freund, C.M.

718 990 7938

Please visit

www.famvin.org

www.healhunger.org



MTC-00003356

From: Jerry Orn

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 7:09pm

Subject: Pick on something else

Leave Microsoft alone. Free enterprise is alive and well.

Jerry Orn

North Canton, OH



MTC-00003357

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 7:16pm

Subject: Microsoft Windows XP

I am against Microsoft requiring online activation of it's Windows XP 
product, and the ``hardware profile'' that this product creates 
when Windows XP is installed on a computer. The end user is paying a good 
price for this product, and it's use should not be restricted to just one 
computer in the household. Recent advances in hardware such as cheaper hard 
drives of large capacity, new graphics cards, faster processors, and 
processor upgrades will result in the computer user buying and installing 
these products, and Windows XP should not require an activation process 
that requires the user to ``call microsoft'' and explain why the 
upgrades are being made. Also, Windows XP, once purchased by the consumer, 
should be installable on any computer that the consumer has that will 
handle the memory and processor speed and hard drive space necessary for 
this operating system to function properly. The restriction that the 
product can only be used on one machine, and that any Hard Disk with XP 
installed on it can only be used on that one machine, is unfair.

Michael L. Dawley

[email protected]



MTC-00003358

From: Brian Wang

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 7:17pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe the present settlement is too lax and lenient. It would not stop 
Microsoft from abusing its monopoly powers. I don't necessarily agree with 
the original remedy of breaking up the company, but I believe the present 
settlement amounts to nothing but a slap on the wrist. I think the 
settlement proposed by the nine dissident states would be far more 
effective. By forcing Microsoft to make Office available for other 
platforms, it would promote competition in the OS space, since most of 
corporate America has standardized on Office.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Brian Yen-Shan Wang



MTC-00003359

From: Jason Brown

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 7:18pm

Subject: Microsoft Anti Trust Case

Having read through the original settlement offer and now the States 
Alternative Settlement, I would like to strongly encourage the adoption of 
the adoption of the States suggestions.

I particuliar, Microsofts real monopoly is in their office suite that 
almost all businesses have standardized on. Having the office suite and 
their standardized document formats ported to other operating systems 
dramatically increases the options for businesses and individuals.

Thank You.

Jason Brown

1009 W State St

Geneva, IL 60134



MTC-00003360

From: Simon Lewis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 7:19pm

Subject: Comment on Proposed Settlement

Simon R. Lewis

16002 Meadowcrest Road

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403-4716

December 7,2001

Phone: 818-906-7679

I'm a US citizen and live in California. I'm against the proposed DoJ 
settlement with Microsoft for the following reasons. As someone who bought 
and uses the OS/2 operating system, I suffered as a consumer when Microsoft 
violated antitrust law to drive it from the market. As I look to replace my 
computer, I am suffering again because my choices are being restricted by 
Microsoft's continuing conduct. A once thriving industry with competition 
and choice is being undermined.

My suggestion is to consider the Red Hat approach where Microsoft's free 
computers delivered to schools will all carry the Linux operating system.

By forcing Microsoft to disseminate a multi-platform open system to 
schools, the remedy (apart from providing schools with genuinely open, new 
software that stimulates choice and competition) will actually punish 
Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct.

[[Page 24269]]

Such a settlement would help to reintroduce competition, as opposed to the 
current proposed settlement, which actually rewards Microsoft for its 
violative conduct.

The proposed settlement actually extends Microsoft's monopoly to a new 
generation of users, and enables Microsoft to dump unsold inventory. It 
will be a sad day for antitrust enforcement to see the violator rewarded in 
this way, not least because the European Community enforcement process (led 
by the US trained Mr. Monti) appears to understand what our own Justice 
Department does not.

Thank you,

Simon R. Lewis



MTC-00003361

From: Ray Gwinn

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 7:21pm

Subject: MICROSOFT ANTITRUST

The Microsoft monopoly goes into areas that I think you guys have never 
dreamed of. One way the monopoly has shown up in force recently is device 
drivers.

For example, look at a Dell Insprion 8100 (I purchased one recently). If I 
desire to use an operating system other than Winodws, like Linux or OS/2, 
drivers are not available. In the past, drivers would become available for 
other operating systems because some programmer would develope the drivers 
and release them.

NOW, the information necessary to develop the drivers is NOT being 
released. Why would a manufacturer like Dell, Nvidia, and Lucent withold 
information that would lead to additional sales of their products? The 
answer is they would lose the blessing of Microsoft (and lose sales) if 
their products could be used by non-Miscrsoft operating systems.

The best example of this is the so called Windows Modem, the largest number 
of which is manufactured by Lucent. There is no techinical or cost reason 
why such a device as the Windows Modem should exist. Ordinary modems (which 
work on any operating systems) work better and were previously costing less 
than Windows Modems. Any computer you purchase now will probably have a 
Lucent Win Modem installed. Windows Modem drivers are only available for 
Microsoft operating systems. I personally tried to obtain information from 
Lucent that is necessary for driver development, and they refuse to discuss 
it. Why? Releasing the information would only result in increased sales. 
Thus, if I purchase a new computer, I must use a Microsoft operating 
system, or the modem will not work. Note that if I want to access internet, 
the modem must be used.

There is nothing about a Windows Modem that makes it unique to Windows. It 
is just another hardware device.

I can go on and on, but if you are interested, you can contact me.

Raymond L. Gwinn Voice 304-252-2848 Fax 
304-255-7902

26 Tanager Place

Beckley, WV 25801



MTC-00003362

From: Sean, Sharon and Kyle Harbour

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 7:29pm

My opinion on the Microsoft settlement proposal vs RedHat counter proposal

I am definitely concerned that the proposal as endorsed by Microsoft would 
be a mistake. I support getting more alternative computer education in the 
public school system as a way of broadening students opportunities, and 
therefore I am for Redhat's counterproposal, or any proposal which imposes 
a strict monetary demand on Microsoft without offering them any direct 
method of recouping their losses, such as furthering their monopoly on 
desktop computer systems in this country.

Sincerely,

Sean Harbour

Portland, Oregon



MTC-00003363

From: Jefe Calhoun

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 7:30pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I just wanted to express my concern over the suggested settlement in this 
case. The proposed settlement is a farce. It will cost Microsoft very 
little, and (ironically) actually extend their monopoly by hooking school 
age users. If Microsoft were truly interested in helping educate children 
they would donate the money as a lump sum to the schools with no strings 
attached for the schools to use as they see fit. Schools need better 
facilities, better pay for teachers, books and many other things more than 
they need used computers running Microsoft programs. Please, please, please 
do not be duped by Microsoft--their settlement is no punishment at 
all. Microsoft is a danger not only to business, but also in many respects 
to society. Their goal is to completely control technology and content at 
every possible level in the pursuit of extracting profit--there is no 
altruistic motive in any Microsoft action. Without going into great detail 
the result would be that ultimately we will no longer have democracy but 
technocracy, with all power focused in the monopolistic hands of Microsoft. 
A real settlement would see Microsoft broken up, permanently and 
irrevocably. That is in the best interest of all citizens of the United 
States and the world. I realize this may seem a radical opinion, but truly 
the ramifications of allowing Microsoft to continue in its current course 
of operation are frightening. I hope you can at least consider what the 
future could hold if no action is taken in this regard--at the very 
least please do more in depth research so that you can truly understand the 
consequences.

It does not seem that those involved in passing the judgement have done so 
to an adequate degree.

I again wish to stress my extreme alarm and distress that the given 
settlement is being seriously considered. I beg you to reject it.

Sincerely,

Jeff Singer



MTC-00003364

From: Andrew Brown

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 7:32pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement, I think that Steve Satchell should be on the 
three person panel.

Steve Satchell should be on the three person panel. A person with knowledge 
of the field and who has no stock in Micro$oft is the right type of person 
for the job.

Another thing is that DNA computer programming languages will completely 
exclude outside development. Micro$oft must share the genetic computer 
algorithms that it develops for the creation of independent applets and 
executable functions. Bill Gates has funded research into self replicating 
and self improving computer programs. Programs that quite literally write 
themselves. The programs are analogous to DNA because of its ability to 
mutate and reproduce endless quantities of complex code. This data must be 
shared! Otherwise, we'll be doing the trial again every decade with 
Micro$oft out lasting the Federal Government.

This is what Mr. Gates hopes will happen: You will allow further 
development at colleges without government supervision of what Micro$oft's 
Millionaires fund privately. These campus researchers will spin off their 
own companies to be bought up by Micro$oft as soon as the programs reach a 
BETA state.

Andrew Alan Brown

(503) 771-1479

emailto: [email protected]



MTC-00003365

From: phyllis michaels

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 7:40pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Dear Sirs

Please include steve satchell on the three member committee to supervise 
microsoft operations under the proposed settlement of the antitrust case. 
Steve has considerable knowlege of software and operating systems and has 
been deeply involved with the computer industry for years. He would be an 
excellent addition to the team to monitor microsoft. thank you for your 
attention. sincerly Phyllis micheals



MTC-00003366

From: Mike Mills

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 7:41pm

Subject: My Opinion

Why don't you leave them alone. Bill Gates has earned everything he has but 
because somebody else didn't think of it the competition wants it taken 
away. I think your decisions suck.

M. Mills



MTC-00003367

From: RJRains

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 7:52pm

Subject: Absolutely Ludicrous

It would be a travesty of justice if the ludicrous demands of those several 
states is actually considered seriously, and even worse if someone was to 
make it happen. The special stripped down software, compatibility with 
other operating systems, and compliance masters are all ridiculous. 
Microsoft is the standard. Period. The operating systems need to make their 
OS's compatible, and who in their right mind would buy stripped down 
software. This

[[Page 24270]]

would only hurt a valid American success story, and actually hurt 
competition. Microsoft is a company, not a government agency. If the 
whiners at Netscape, sub-par OS manufacturer, and others want to 
realistically compete, then they should do so, but not cripple a great 
product. Maybe we should take one engine and half the seats out of each 
airplane to allow for competition to come in. Again, ludicrous. Throw out 
the state suits and lets move on with life.

RJ Rains



MTC-00003368

From: Brad Hartin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 7:54pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To allow Microsoft to settle in this manner is essientially giving them 
exactly what they want. For a very low price tag, they are able to 
indoctrinate an entire generation of Americans into the Microsoft monopoly. 
This would be equivalent to settling with tobacco companies by telling them 
they were required to give children free cigarettes as long as they were in 
school.

The offer from Redhat Linux Inc. would be the ideal solution, but even it 
could use some modifications. I'd recommend that Microsoft pay, up front, 
$1.5 billion in fines. The money would be divided across as many schools as 
possible while maintaining the viability of it's use. Redhat would provide 
the software as they have already offered. This would lead to a far greater 
number of students benefiting from the settlement, and giving them a chance 
to avoid becoming entrapped within the tentacles of Microsoft.

Bradley David Hartin

San Antonio, Texas



MTC-00003369

From: Ski Collins

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:03pm

Subject: microsoft

I'm a state worker. I feel that Microsoft should pay a large fine. If they 
just give software and hardware to schools, they just increase thair market 
share! Other products are as good and better but, when you have the 
marketing of MS, they are like the NY Yankees, the rich get richer.

L. Collins jr

Jefferson City, MO



MTC-00003370

From: Jeffrey Means

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:09pm

Subject: Ideas for solving the Microsoft antitrust issues

Dear Sirs:

Solving the antitrust issues with the plan Red Hat has submitted would most 
definitely help a lot of poor or otherwise unfortunate school systems gain 
the computers they need along with giving those schools a different 
teaching platform that is not helping Microsoft to become even more 
monopolistic. This would allow those schools in question to receive 1 
computers and 2 software that does not teach our young school age students 
only Microsoft operating systems. Red Hat proposes the following:

--

Red Hat Proposes to Enhance Microsoft Settlement Offer By Providing Open 
Source Software to All U.S. School Districts Open Source leader proposes to 
provide software to every school district in the United States if Microsoft 
provides computing hardware for the 14,000 poorest school districts 
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N.C.???(BUSINESS WIRE)???Nov. 20, 2001???Red Hat, 
Inc.

(Nasdaq:RHAT--news) today proposed an alternative to the settlement 
announced today of the class-action lawsuit against Microsoft. Red Hat 
offered to provide open-source software to every school district in the 
United States free of charge, encouraging Microsoft to redirect the money 
it would have spent on software into purchasing more hardware for the 
14,000 poorest school districts. Under the Red Hat proposal, by removing 
Microsoft's higher-priced software from the settlement equation, Microsoft 
could provide the school districts with many more computers--greatly 
extending the benefits Microsoft seeks to provide school districts with 
their proposed settlement. Microsoft had proposed that, in settlement of 
class-action claims of price-gouging, the company donate computer hardware, 
software and support to 14,000 poor school districts throughout the United 
States. Under the proposed settlement, a substantial part of the value 
provided to schools would be in the form of Microsoft software.

The Red Hat's alternative proposal includes the following:

Microsoft redirects the value of their proposed software donation to the 
purchase of additional hardware for the school districts. This would 
increase the number of computers available under the original proposal from 
200,000 to more than one million, and would increase the number of systems 
per school from approximately 14 to at least 70.

Red Hat, Inc. will provide free of charge the open-source Red Hat Linux 
operating system, office applications and associated capabilities to any 
school system in the United States. Red Hat will provide online support for 
the software through the Red Hat Network. Unlike the Microsoft proposal, 
which has a five-year time limit at which point schools would have to pay 
Microsoft to renew their licenses and upgrade the software, the Red Hat 
proposal has no time limit. Red Hat will provide software upgrades through 
the Red Hat Network online distribution channel. A Win-Win Approach The Red 
Hat proposal achieves two important goals: improving the quality and 
accessibility of computing education in the nation's less-privileged 
schools, and preventing the extension of Microsoft's monopoly to the most-
vulnerable users.

``While we applaud Microsoft for raising the idea of helping poorer 
schools as part of the penalty phase of their conviction for monopolistic 
practices, we do not think that the remedy should be a mechanism by which 
Microsoft can further extend its monopoly,'' said Matthew Szulik, CEO 
of Red Hat.

``Through this proposal all of the states and all of the schools can 
win, and Microsoft will achieve even greater success for its stated goal of 
helping schools. By providing schools with a software choice, Red Hat will 
enable Microsoft to provide many more computers to these schools. At the 
same time, the schools can accept this offer secure in the knowledge that 
they have not rewarded a monopolist by extending the monopoly. It's now up 
to Microsoft to demonstrate that they are truly serious about helping our 
schools.'' General information about Red Hat's support for education 
is available at www.redhat.com/opensourcenow/.

About Red Hat, Inc.

Red Hat is the leader in developing, deploying and managing solutions built 
on the benefits of an open source platform. The open source platform 
includes the Red Hat Linux operating system for mainframes, servers, 
workstations and embedded devices, GNUPro tools for developers, database, 
e-Commerce, secure web server, high availability server and run-time 
solutions like eCos and RedBoot. For this platform, Red Hat provides end to 
end professional services including Professional Consulting, Engineering 
services, Enterprise Support services, and Global Learning services. Red 
Hat Network is the premier Internet based service that simplifies and 
integrates the deployment and management of these offers. More information 
about Red Hat is available at www.redhat.com. Red Hat is headquartered in 
Research Triangle Park, N.C. and has offices worldwide. For investor 
inquiries, contact Gabriel Szulik at Red Hat, 919-547-0012, 
x439.

LINUX is a trademark of Linus Torvalds. RED HAT is a registered trademark 
of Red Hat, Inc. All other names and trademarks are the property of their 
respective owners.

end of insert: www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/
press_usschools.html

Jeffrey D. Means

CIO for PicoTech

Fort Collins, Colorado



MTC-00003371

From: Mike Schiraldi

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:13pm

Subject: Open file formats!

Forget about Office for Linux. Just make MS publish their file formats so 
someone else can write a good office suite that reads and writes Office 
documents.



MTC-00003372

From: David Gressett

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:14pm

Subject: Microsoft

Microsoft should be left alone--a free market in software does exist. 
Alternatives for Microsoft software exist for server operating systems, 
desktop operating systems, and application software. The Justice Department 
cannot replace a free market and should not try. At best, it can only 
enforce the rules of commercial honesty.



MTC-00003373

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:20pm

Subject: settlement

I think the settlement terms between DOJ and Microsft are totally against 
the best

[[Page 24271]]

interests of consumers , the economy and the state of technology in general



MTC-00003374

From: UCLAlumnus Hi

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:25pm

Subject: Travesty

As a consumer and a resident of Silicon Valley, I am applaed at the DOJ's 
decision regarding the Microsoft case.

It is obvious that the DOJ does not operate in the interests of our country 
and its people but for the lobbyists and person turning the screws in the 
White House.

Shame on you all.



MTC-00003375

From: Stephen

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:27pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Having read the proposed Microsoft Settlement, I would like to offer the 
following comments.

As a consumer, I am disappointed with numerous areas of this settlement. In 
particular, that this settlement fails to levy any penalty on Microsoft for 
their past wrong doings. Furthermore, it fails to address Microsoft's 
failure to comply with agreements reached in a previous settlement with the 
government. Microsoft is not above the law, nor do they write laws. They 
have broken the law and they should be punished accordingly! Another area I 
feel needs to be addressed is the subject of interoperability. Having 
retired from the U.S. Marine Corps after 20 years of service, one thing 
that constantly annoyed everyone was the seemingly deliberate way in which 
Microsoft repeatedly changed it's file formats to force software upgrade 
purchases because of incompatibility among units. Example. If my squadron 
in North Carolina was using Word 4 and the Naval Air Systems Command in 
Washington, DC was using Word 5, we couldn't open any documents they sent 
us because our version of Word was older than theirs. This problem was 
further exacerbated by Microsoft designing their products file formats to 
be incompatible with not only older versions of their own products, but 
products from other competitors such as Word Perfect This deliberate 
planned obsolescence of designing incompatibility with competitors software 
and older versions of their own software needs to be addressed. Everyone 
who uses a Microsoft product or a competitors product is routinely punished 
by Microsoft for failing to upgrade to their newest release or purchase 
their products over a competitors. This needs to stop! I propose the 
Department of Justice bring interoperability to the table in it's 
settlement with Microsoft by requiring Microsoft to ``always'' 
disclose to competitors both current file formats as well as all planned 
changes to the file formats of all Microsoft products. This one step would 
return choice to the consumer in the products they choose to buy while 
maintaining interoperability among products and platforms. I cannot stress 
how important this one issue is for the computing industry as a whole. 
Software developers would be able to compete with Microsoft on the merits 
of their product, unlike today where most fail in the marketplace because 
few consumers are willing to purchase a product that can't open a 
proprietary Microsoft document. Companies who do try to compete with 
Microsoft often don't last long or worse yet. Most never attempt to compete 
with Microsoft in the first place.

By dropping the barriers to competition, consumers win as well. Consumers 
could choose the word processor, spreadsheet, database, video player, etc., 
of their choosing based on features they like, not because of compatibility 
alone.

In closing, I would like to leave you with this thought. Not everyone who 
uses a computer is a power user. As such, not everyone needs to own 
Microsoft Office, Word, Excel, or Access. I'm sure the majority of 
consumers would be perfectly happy with the features available in a $79.00 
word processor if given the choice. Unfortunately they have little choice 
at the moment. So they spend over $400.00 to purchase Microsoft Office for 
the sake of opening a proprietary Word document someone has sent them or to 
ensure others can open a proprietary document they've sent . Planned 
obsolescence, forced upgrades and proprietary file formats are out. 
Consumer choice is in. Give consumers that choice! We not only deserve it. 
We demand it!

Respectfully submitted,

Stephen M. Szewczyk

MSgt USMC(Ret)



MTC-00003376

From: Billy B

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:28pm

Subject: Micro Soft

Someone (Supreme Court or Congress) should step in and stop the states from 
tearing down Microsoft.

How can it be to the country's advantage to teardown something that will 
end up costing many, many jobs that which works so well for the general 
population? It is easy to say the company is too large and Bill gates is 
too rich but the company and Gates got there by being the best and 
producing the best a consumer could get for his or her money. As the old 
saying goes it ain't broke so don't fix it. The average person on the 
street doesn't care how large Microsoft is or how much money Bill Gates 
makes that he can't spend anyway as long as Microsoft products work for 
them and Microsoft products do work. Changing Microsoft is like changing Mc 
Donald's, Kentucky Fried Chicken or Wall Marts and the American people just 
don't like change for the sake of change. A case in point that was learned 
very vividly by Coca Cola a few years ago. The States and especially the 
States Attorneys General just smell fame and fortune and political gain for 
themselves (I/we took on Microsoft) because the average Joe and Jane will 
realize nothing for the effort and most assuredly the States Attorneys 
General could care less about that. Makes one wonder just how much kickback 
the now less than successful companies are putting up should Microsoft be 
broken up for the Attorneys General? If the Department of Justice is 
finished and the States had a chance to settle and didn't they just should 
be SOL!

Bill Montgomery

22628 Highway T

Waynesville Mo.

65583



MTC-00003377

From: Dr. Larry Keller

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:29pm

Subject: Settlement

To Whom It May Concern:

As a Professor of Public Administration, a citizen of the United States and 
a consumer of computers, I find the settlement with Microsoft (MS) 
troublesome. The company is nearly a classic example of a predatory company 
whose main mission is domination. They prefer to set 
``standards'' of their own choosing rather than abide by 
standards that are set by appropriate bodies. Their products are often 
inferior to others, and in some cases, such as Apple computer, they even 
own part of the company.

They not only dominate OS, they control the office market. In fact, they 
also own part of Corel, a distant second in that market. I can't imagine 
being a company competing on applications with those who work with the 
Company that controls the OS. That by definition is not fair competition; 
in fact, the numbers of sales of applications office products clearly 
demonstrate it is not competition at all.

They bundle their software so that consumers cannot easily use more 
powerful third party products without considerable knowledge. Defaults 
often trigger warnings and similar statements that a casual user of 
computers, by far the dominant user, would interpret as making it 
impossible to use any product but MS for a particular purpose. They greatly 
impedes progress in software. In addition, the company also sells hardware. 
With the immense cash flow MS enjoys they can pick and choose what hardware 
they will make next. As with software, I have no doubts that MS would use 
that ability to punish whoever opposed them.

Finally, they sell OEM versions of their products at differential prices. 
The prices clearly tell companies that MS will not tolerate certain 
behaviors, especially those that favor competitors.

This is not a picture of a company that should be rewarded. It is a clear 
call for breaking MS into at least two (2) if not three (3) separate 
companies. A fitting remedy would be three (3) companies: one for the OS; 
one for applications; and one for hardware.

Any lesser remedy will not only be a miscarriage of justice but a 
disservice to national security and consumers of an industry who progress 
is stymied by the domination of an inferior OS.

Talk to you later.

Dr. Larry Keller

Public Administration Program

Levin College of Urban Affairs

Cleveland State University

[email protected]



MTC-00003378

From: Cliff and Doris Kilfoil

[[Page 24272]]

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:30pm

Subject: Get off MS Back!

SPEND MORE TIME FIGHTING TERRORISTS&TERRORISM. GET OFF MICROSOFTS BACK. 
FORGET THESE 9 OTHER STATES THE LEGAL FEES JUST ARE NOT WORTH MAKING 
LAWYERS RICHER WHILE THE REST OF US DO WITHOUT. FOR ONCE, CAN'T COMMON 
SENSE BE USED. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SHOULD KNOW BETTER. I HAVE NOTHING TO 
GAIN BUT AM UPSET WITH ALL THIS PETTINESS. ESPECIALLY WITH ALL THE OTHER 
MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES IN THIS COUNTRY.

THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO READ THIS. CLIFF KILFOIL

2 APPLETREE DRIVE BRUNSWICK, MAINE 04011



MTC-00003379

From: kendall

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am a software developer for a living and have worked on Microsoft/Sun/
Linux/other platforms.

I could enumerate a lengthy list of evidence concerning how Microsoft's 
market position has hurt innovation and therefore harmed consumers. I'm 
sure others have covered those points and that's not really the focus, now 
is it? Microsoft is guilty of the crimes charged. Period. Guilty.

Ok, so now what? The settlement proposed in no way penalizes the company 
for past deeds. It puts only minor restrictions on future actions and has 
loopholes that have been pointed out in several articles. As a citizen, a 
computer user, a professional and a voter, I believe a much more severe 
penalty must be imposed. Funds illegally earned must be taken away and 
given to the organizations struggling to change the software landscape. 
Specifically, academic institutions and non-profit organizations which 
contribute to Free Software projects! Just sit back and imagine a world 
where innovations that take place every day in government funded 
Universities actually get investment capital and see the light of day as 
Free Software. Free Software has the best potential for preserving 
intellectual investments and preventing future harm of the kind Microsoft 
is so famous for.

I'm not saying all software must be Free. But government has the power, the 
right and the responsibility to protect the citizens from Microsoft by 
taking the illegal profits and funding the best source of competition that 
exists today. Microsoft can buy almost any company that threatens to 
compete with it, but can not buy a Free Software product with all the money 
in the world. I hope I've made my point without too much redundancy. I 
simply can not state strongly enough how meaningless I find the language in 
the proposed settlement.

Sincerely,

Kendall Bailey



MTC-00003380

From: Bazzani, Nicholas J

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:34pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I believe it is an outright tragedy that Microsoft has been let off the 
hook like this. It is quite obvious from the viewpoint of someone who works 
in the IT industry that the settlement will do nothing to correct 
Microsoft's behavior. I would point to the release of Windows XP, which 
came bundled with the new Windows Media Player. The fact is that they are 
the ``800 Pound Gorilla'' in more areas than the PC-OS 
arena, although that is by far their most visible market. I would say that 
their practices in the Enterprise arena are their most blatant violations. 
In the arena of Server OS' (e.g. NT 4.0 and Windows 2000), Exchange, SQL, 
IIS, etc . . ., they consistently natively integrate and, in 
effect, bundle their platforms together by making ``add-on'' 
capabilities for one product dependent upon licensing and installation of 
other Microsoft products. For example: Microsoft SMS will only work with a 
Microsoft SQL back-end--Microsoft Exchange can only be web-enabled by 
installing Microsoft IIS--With Exchange 2000, Instant Messaging is 
bundled with the e-mail client and server software. The list could go on 
for days, but it all boils down to the same thing: Microsoft always talks 
about ``innovation'' which is just a shallow attempt to cover up 
their consistent and, I would say illegal, business practice of using their 
weight in one market (be it PC-OS, Server OS, Messaging, Web Servers, 
etc . . .) to break into existing markets (such as Instant 
Messaging, Media Players, Web Browsers, Internet Service Providing, etc 
. . .) by bundling and making their software dependent upon their 
other software offerings. For example, try uninstalling Internet Explorer 
from Windows 2000--the OS will not allow it. Microsoft is also 
notorious in the E-Mail arena for creating proprietary formats that are 
unreadable by non-Microsoft systems (Microsoft Rich Text and especially the 
Microsoft Transport Neutral Encapsulation format of Outlook/Exchange are 
unreadable and Microsoft does not restrict these formats from being sent 
over the Internet--which cannot be dealt with on the recipient end) As 
one writer for Wired magazine put it, after the Nimda outbreak it is 
apparent that [Microsoft could be considered a threat to National 
Security]. They have consistently put ``buggy'' and insecure 
software into the market, and this fact has been demonstrated time and time 
again by 14 year olds who can download ``Virus Development Kits'' 
off of the Internet and quickly create and send a new virus into the wild. 
This, in and of itself, is not such a threat although it does allow a truly 
malicious and technically astute virus writer to crater or compromise a 
large numbers of systems with relative ease--as demonstrated by Nimda.

As an IT Professional and an Economics graduate--I had hoped for 
something more from our Department of Justice. I firmly believe that the 
settlement will have no impact on Microsoft's anti-competitive business 
practices moving forward.

Nick Bazzani

Lotus Domino Operations

DSS-Plano SMC

972.796.5321

*This statement in no way reflects my company's stance on this subject. It 
is simply an expression of my personal opinion.*



MTC-00003381

From: Ralph Campbell

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:34pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I am very much concerned about the current settlement proposals in the 
Microsoft antitrust case. I believe they do not place enough restrictions 
on Microsoft to discourage future transgressions. I am including a letter I 
sent earlier to Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren about the Microsoft antitrust 
case which gives technical details as to why I believe this.

In particular:

(1) Making Microsoft give large amounts of their software to schools only 
increases their market share and helps teach more people to use and depend 
on their products. This is a benefit to Microsoft, not a punishment.

(2) Making Microsoft sell their operating system for less money. This does 
nothing to limit the practices Microsoft used to put Netscape out of 
business as outlined in the antitrust case. It also does nothing about 
their current practices as outlined in the attached letter.

I urge you to investigate this and persue a tougher settlement. Thank You.

Ralph Campbell

691 Willow Glen Way

San Jose, CA 95125



MTC-00003382

From: ebow

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:50pm

Subject: Seems like yall are doing microsoft a favor.....

The settlement forces Microsoft to donate software, hardware, and services 
to America's poorest schools.

The settlement will simply introduce Microsoft to a market where they could 
further extend their monopoly.

I believe that Microsoft should give the schools money and only money. I 
also think that Microsoft is getting off easy.

Sincerely,

ebow



MTC-00003383

From: Harvey DeGering

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:40pm

Subject: settlement WIN 95, WIN 98, WIN 98 upgrade, WIN98 2nd Edition, 
etc,etc.:

Each contains things I'll never use ... yet I must pay for them, (and for 
fixing the errors!)

Give me a BASIC system and let ME add what I want.

Harvey & Winnie DeGering

Sutherlin, OR

[email protected]



MTC-00003384

From: Martin

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:46pm

Subject: microsoft antitrust and the idea of fines for microsoft.

[[Page 24273]]

Well just to put things in alignment towards fining Microsoft for their 
unfair practices. You fine Microsoft and they pass the cost on down to 
their customers. That means I pay for the fines you levy on Microsoft. And 
so does everyone that owns a PC.

The Fact is this:

When I started my hobby with computers I priced the other O.S. developers. 
There was Digital Research D.O.S. and Microsoft D.O.S. along with the UNIX 
environment. To tell you the truth DR. DOS was so buggy and cumbersome that 
it wouldn't do at all. The UNIX based O.S. world was in the stratosphere 
with their prices. $500.00 to over $1000.00 for a single system. Not to 
mention the cost of the ``supported'' hardware! Microsoft O.S. 
ran on anything and it coat me $100.00.

Even to this day Microsoft O.S. is still cheaper than any UNIX O.S. I would 
dare SUN or HP or Novel to make their O.S. as inexpensive as the Microsoft 
O.S.

As for the UNIX-like open source O.S. like Linux, FreeBSD. What could be 
better than free! Well, to say the truth, free isn't always the best. I 
have to admit that Linux looks and acts a lot like UNIX. FreeBSD is more 
UNIX like than Linux and very stable. To be truthful, I use Linux O.S. in 
my home network for servers and I have yet to experience serious problems. 
The Big Drawback is that the UNIX-like operating systems are not for the 
Newbie! They are to say the least, frustrating and not at all user 
friendly. The Open Source Community has had it in for Microsoft for a long 
time. May be they have a legitimate gripe against Microsoft, but I don't 
see it as far as the Newbie is concerned. Microsoft makes an O.S. that is 
less expensive than UNIX, much easier to use than UNIX and UNIX-like 
operating systems and ANYONE can use it with little effort.

Now if the open source community could do what Macintosh is doing, I could 
say that they would have a competing O.S. for the masses. (Macintosh O.S. 
version X is the FreeBSD kernel with the Mac GUI.) Wow!

So much for my opinion;

Martin Klestinez

[email protected]

From sunny Mesa, Arizona



MTC-00003385

From: Lester Hightower

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern:

I would like to express my concern that the DOJ's recent settlement with 
Microsoft is ludicrous. Microsoft is a clear monopoly with unprecedented 
power over the largest growth sector of the US economy. That monopoly must 
be broken, but the settlement that has been proposed does quite the 
contrary--in many ways it actually helps to extend that monopoly! The 
settlement provides Microsoft explicit protective barriers against the one 
segment of the computer industry that has demonstrated some hope of ability 
to compete with it, the Free Software/Open Source/Linux community. Rather 
than re-hashing a well written piece on that topic I will ask that you read 
this short article by Robert X. Cringely:

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html

Additionally, the part of the settlement requiring Microsoft to donate 
computers to schools--that is just as insane. The US school systems 
are one very small segment of the US computer industry, but one segment 
where Apple's Macintosh computers have continued to compete successfully 
with Microsoft due to Apple's superior simplicity, reliability, and the 
fact that grade schools are not in the ``must have Microsoft 
Office'' jail that 99% of all US businesses are. Having Microsoft give 
computers to grade schools will serce to harm Apple's position in that 
market, it is in perfect harmony with Microsoft's efforts to destroy 
Apple's position in that market, and it is giving Microsoft a huge tax 
break to boot! The government needs to force Microsoft to open source all 
of its operating system products, which are no different that cable TV or 
telephone switch standards (OSes are an infrastructure standard), force 
Microsoft to publicly disclose the file formats for each and every product 
that is sells, before they are allowed to go to market, force Microsoft to 
change its software licensing agreements so that they are transferable 
(create a market for used Microsoft software), and force Microsoft to 
publicly disclose any additions or modifications that its products make to 
current and future communications standards (like HTTP, FTP, SMB, etc.) so 
that other can make products that inter-operate or compete. Remedies such 
as those will actually accomplish something positive.

Sincerely,

Lester H. Hightower

TheAIMSGroup.com

Chief Technology Officer

The Advanced Integrated Management Solutions Group



MTC-00003386

From: Rory Ivers

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:54pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

I wish to voice my extreme displeasure with the poor standard that too many 
government representatives consider to be an acceptable settlement of the 
Microsoft case.

This proposed settlement is on par with the United States taking over 
Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean island countries by any available means. 
Then, facing world condemnation for our ruthlessness, we set Cuba free. Far 
too little, too late, with nothing to stop us from taking Cuba and the rest 
of the Western Hemisphere the next time we want to grab territory. 
Certainly this is a ridiculous scenario, but in the computer world, this is 
exactly what our government is considering. To even consider allowing 
Microsoft to manipulate such a settlement, you are sending a message to 
them that the government really doesn't care about the behavior that caused 
this issue. Just tell them, 3Donit do it again or we1ll have to do 
something mean like ground you for a week. Not terribly effective at 
preventing a recurrence.

Do what you should, not what is politically expedient! Resolve the damages, 
then demonstrate with punitive measures exactly why businesses should NEVER 
engage in such practices. It worked with ATT decades ago, and it would work 
with Microsoft. ATT's breakup did not just level the communications playing 
field. It created an atmosphere that encouraged competition, invention and 
expansion of the industry far beyond what would likely have happened had 
other gutless politicians and lawyers behaved to the lower standard this 
current administration is considering. (BTW, I am a Republican and do use 
Microsoft products.)

Rory Ivers

Ivers Photo & Imaging

7460 Cabrillo Avenue

La Jolla, CA 92037-5201

(858) 551-5151 office

(858) 551-5152 fax

http://www.iversimaging.com



MTC-00003387

From: Roger

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Greetings,

I'm Canadian but I believe that MS's lawsuit is a global issue. Would it be 
so hard for you to leave them alone? Don't you think that it's the 
consumers right to vote with their pockets? I like Microsoft the way it is. 
It's been always good for the consumers. They're the ones who popularised 
the PC as we know it.

have a good day,

Roger



MTC-00003388

From: rjswing

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:12pm

Subject: Break Up Microsoft

The illegal monopolist, Microsoft, threatens the future of technological 
innovation and the free market in software by leveraging its monopoly in 
operating system and office software.

Besides national defense, the number two priority of the federal government 
is to protect our economic system from monopolists. Thus far, the Justice 
Dept has utterly failed in that charge. Please enforce antitrust laws 
vigorously!

Thank you for your reconsideration of this important policy matter.

Rex Swing

Lebanon, IN



MTC-00003389

From: Michael J. Mallory

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:14pm

Subject: sellout

Thanks for selling consumers out.



MTC-00003390

From: rjswing

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:18pm

Subject: Break Up Microsoft

Dear Justice Dept:

Your charge is important and underestimated by most Americans. After 
national defense, antitrust enforcement is the number two charge in our 
free market system.

[[Page 24274]]

The incentive in our free market system is to become a monopolist. 
Microsoft long ago achieved that status and more than their deserved 
economic reward for their success. They need to be broken up. To date, the 
Justice Dept. has utterly failed to protect our economy from this 
significant monoplist. Please consult knowledgable economists on this 
matter and rectify your grievous error in antitrust enforcement.

Thank you for recognizing your errors and correcting them.

Rex Swing

Lebanon, IN



MTC-00003391

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:19pm

Subject: some quotes on Microsoft settlement

``We're baffled that a settlement imposed against Microsoft for 
breaking the law should allow, even encourage, them to unfairly make 
inroads into education--one of the few markets left where they don't 
have monopoly power.''

-Steve Jobs, in a statement, reacts to the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit 
proposal. New York Times. December 3, 2001. ``It strengthens 
Microsoft's position in education against their only competitor, and at the 
same time it gets them off the hook. It even makes them look 
generous.''

-IDC analyst reacts to the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit proposal. New York 
Times. December 3, 2001. ``The centrepiece of Microsoft's proposed 
$US1 billion civil antitrust settlement is their donation of Microsoft 
software, which they value at $US830 million, to our schools. We think 
people should know that the actual costs to Microsoft for this donated 
software will likely be $US1 million.''

-Steve Jobs, as quoted by news.com.au. December 6, 2001. ``We think a 
far better settlement is 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.''

-Steve Jobs offers an alternate settlement. Reuters. December 6, 2001. 
``If Microsoft is not going to be broken up, the correct solution 
would be for Microsoft to take the $1 billion, and set up a fund to seed 
competitors.''

-ROM offers its solution. December 4, 2001. ``The more I think about 
it, the more insidious it seems.''

-Charles Haddad doesn't think much of Microsoft's proposed settlement. 
December 5, 2001.

Joe [email protected]

``I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly 
by''

--Douglas Adams



MTC-00003392

From: Dave Jones

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:21pm

Subject: [email protected]

The proposed settlement with Microsoft is so vague--so riddled with 
undefined terms and loopholes--as to be an affront and insult to the 
taxpayers whose millions were spent prosecuting the company.

I have been a professional software developer for over 25 years, yet I 
cannot tell what the document bans and what it permits. Given any wiggle 
room at all, Microsoft will do continue to do business as usual, arrogantly 
thumbing its nose at the court and the Justice Department.

I strongly oppose the proposed settlement.

Best regards,

Dave Jones



MTC-00003393

From: Art Gonzalez

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:23pm

Subject: I was told to send???

Hi! I'm writing this e-mail because I was told to do so by a company that I 
subscribe to receive newsletters.

On this newsletter they write about the Microsoft settlement and how it 
affects this company and this is what they wrote, without mentioning the 
name of the company. (responding to the proposed settlement, pointing out 
that the settlement could simply introduce Microsoft to a market where they 
could further extend their monopoly). Well I'm not a software savvy nor a 
business major and I do not have anything against this company or Microsoft 
or for that matter any other dot com company but this to me sounds like a 
case of jealousy, why can this company and all the other companies on this 
settlement get together and offer the same or maybe even better software 
than the one offered by Microsoft

Sincerely: anonymous



MTC-00003394

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 8:28pm

Subject: vote of confidence for Dec 07/2001 state proposal

The proposal filed Dec 7,2001 by the nine U.S. state attorneys seems to 
have many positive elements, in my opinion.

The previous proposed agreement has many loopholes, and a limited time span 
(5 years). With the legal resources available to Microsoft, they will be 
able to stonewall and fight this weak agreement on almost every point, so 
that the actual impact on their day to day conduct will be essentially 
negligible.

Please enforce a stronger remedy. The Dec 7 filing seems to have many of 
the required elements.

Charles Pilkington

25 Glenn Drive

Halifax, N.S.

B3M 2B8

[email protected]

http://www.cpsoft.com

902-450-5761 (W)

902-443-9392 (H)



MTC-00003395

From: Robert E. Blair

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:35pm

Subject: MS settlement

I would like to encourage the DOJ to adopt the proposal by Redhat to 
contribute software and as terms of the monopoly settlement to force 
Microsoft to provide hardware to schools. It would be absurd, as part of a 
monopoly settlement, to distribute Microsoft software to schools.

This simply extends the influence over the market that they were convicted 
for in the first place. Justice would best be served if Microsoft were 
forced to distribute an alternative to their software instead and provide 
hardware as penance for their monopolistic practices.

Yours truly,

Robert Blair

1S235 Lloyd Ave.

Lombard, IL 60148



MTC-00003398

From: Bruce McFarling

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:48pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am a U.S. citizen, working in Australia as a lecturer in Economics. With 
respect to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust case, I 
would like to point out one glaring loophole.

In the settlement, commercial companies are provided with direct protection 
against some anti-competitive behaviour by Microsoft. However, in many 
instances, only Open Source Software operating by attracting volunteer 
labour on a global basis can maintain the developer resources to provide 
effective alternatives to Microsoft's products. Therefore, in many cases 
commercial companies rely on, and contribute to, Open Source Software 
development efforts as a part of their competitive strategy.

There is no protection in the language of the settlements against action 
against Open Source Software, or indeed any not-for-profit activities 
(including government activities), and therefore no protection for those 
companies whose most effective competitive response to Microsoft's 
aggressive use and abuse of market power is to participate in such 
activities.

It is therefore important that the restrictive language with respect to 
activities of viable commercial entities be expanded to include those not 
for profit organizations that make their work available to commercial 
entities, whether based on Open Source access, access to participants in 
joint activities, or otherwise.

Dr. Bruce R. McFarling, PhD

Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Shortland, NSW

[email protected]



MTC-00003399

From: B Davis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:50pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir,

The proposed settlement is inadequate. At a minumim Microsoft needs to 
allow other OS versions to be shipped with new PC's, which is now 
prohibited by Microsoft OEM agreements. PC's for schools may make everyone 
feel good, but it does nothing to redress the damages caused by Microsoft's 
business practices.

Regards,

Jimmie M. Davis, Jr.

[[Page 24275]]



MTC-00003400

From: Dave Jones

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:56pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I wish to oppose the Microsoft settlement in the strongest possible terms. 
Please recall what Microsoft did in response to previous, much clearer 
instructions. In the words of the DOJ itself, Microsoft offered ``a 
version of Windows 95 that will not work.'' That contemptuous behavior 
on the part of Microsoft should not be forgotten. The proposed settlement 
is full of ambiguities and loopholes that will allow Microsoft ample 
opportunity to mock the courts, the Justice Department, and the American 
taxpayer. They will seize every opportunity.

David B. Jones



MTC-00003401

From: The Galli's

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:57pm

Subject: A Sad Day

Why don't you concentrate on more protection for us poor consumers from 
terrorism as opposed to from Microsoft. If I was Gate's I would move the 
company to Mexico. Give us a BREAK!!



MTC-00003402

From: James Saville

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 9:59pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

This case has gone on too long. I am a consumer and have not been harmed in 
any way by Microsoft's actions or products. In fact, I think they are one 
of the only companies in the industry that is trying to make the computer a 
usable and productive device. I will keep buying their products--if 
that turns them into a monopolist, then the market has spoken. So 
what--if someone writes a better mousetrap, I will try it, but for now 
no such product or company exists. I am tired of hearing about a case 
brought by incompetent competitors--they are just not intelligent 
enough to compete against Microsoft--that is hardly their fault.

James Saville

[email protected]



MTC-00003403

From: Jim Dossey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 10:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to voice my concerns about the recent DOJ settlement with 
Microsoft. After reading over the settlement, I see several problems.

1. In most cases you allow Microsoft to define the groups that it must work 
with. You've got to be kidding!

2. You appoint a 3 member board to oversee this agreement, and then allow 
Microsoft to elect 2 of those positions. You've got to be kidding!

3. You have totally ignored one of the largest segments of the computer 
software industry, namely, Open Source Software. This is perhaps the only 
real, current, threat to Microsoft's monopoly. The agreement is written so 
that the only entities that Microsoft must present it's API's and other 
secrets to, are those that can do them no harm. You've got to be kidding!

I have several other concerns, but I believe that these are enough to 
render this agreement virtually useless.

Thank you,

Jim Dossey



MTC-00003404

From: Richard Burden

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 10:07pm

Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Case

I am one person who believes the Department of Justice has done nothing to 
prevent Microsoft from extending their Monolopy. In short, you have done 
nothing to correct past wrongs. You need to punish them financially. Force 
them to sell a stripped down version of their Operating System. How do you 
purpose to force Microsoft to reveal to their competitors how their 
operating systems works, so that all software developers have an equal 
footing. You should force them to post the source code of the Application 
Programmers Interface on the internet. At least make a true attempt to curb 
Microsoft's abuses and maybe open the way for competitors to compete fairly 
with Microsoft. I feel strongly that every one would have been better off 
if you had forced Microsoft to split into at least two companys. One to 
produce software, and one to produce only the operating system. That in 
it's self would make it a necessity for the operating system company to 
reveal the internals of how to make applications work with their operating 
system. The prosperity of the operating system would be dependent on 
applications working well.

You have done Microsoft a favor. What about the users who must put up with 
a buggy operating system and companys that would like to compete on an 
equal footing with Microsoft. A monolopy in the Technology field is not 
good for individual users, companies, or our country as a whole. You need 
to re-think what you have done, because the monster still lives. The 
monster has a right to live, but not to consume all that it sees or 
desires. Slow it down while you can.



MTC-00003405

From: Hollis Blanchard

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 10:23pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

After reading Robert Cringely's article on the proposed settlement (http://
www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html), it concerns me greatly 
that non-commercial organizations are being overlooked. Microsoft's 
greatest enemy is open standards, which allow customers to choose freely 
between vendors and products without being trapped into an existing 
solution. These open standards are almost universally supported and 
developed by non-profit and volunteer organizations such as the Apache and 
Samba Foundations. Please keep open standards very much in mind when 
developing this settlement.

Hollis



MTC-00003406

From: Mike Hill

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 6:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I feel that many of the proposed ``settlements'' flat out make 
Microsoft's position better. They have been found guilty of anti-
competitive behaviour, and now you are allowing them to compose the terms 
of the punishemnt. What is that about?

Specifically, allowing them to give computers and software to schools only 
servers to further entrench their presence. Fine if they want to do this on 
their own, but not as part of a punishment.

Allowing them to determine who they get to provide API information to is 
just ridiculous. Many of Microsoft's own internal documents point to linux 
as ``the long term threat'' to windows. Under terms of the 
settlement, Microsoft only has to provide this information to businesses 
that live up to Microsoft's standard of a business. Why should Microsoft be 
allowed to determine who is a good business? Not only does this affect not-
for-profit companies like SAMBA and Apache, but could also be manipulated 
to be anyone that Microsoft sees as a competitive threat. Remember, they 
are guilty of anti-competitive behaviour. Anti-business. Time and again 
they have manipulated the wording of contracts to their benefit. Apple made 
the mistake of signing a contract which Microsoft drew up saying they 
wouldn't imitate the Apple OS in the then current version of Windows. So 
Apple got screwed on later versions.

You have to be living in a cave if you are not aware that free software and 
the open source movement is the biggest alternative to Windows on the home 
PC market. How many other operating systems can run on your computer at 
home, especially now that BeOS has been discontinued? Any settlement that 
allows Microsoft to keep open source companies from receiving the same 
information that any other developer can access is absolutely flawed. It 
is, in fact, a settlement--not a punishment. They are guilty, 
remember. If their OS is as top-flight as they claim, then they should have 
nothing to worry about from little companies whose yearly revenue don't 
match MS's advertising budget.

Finally, steps must be taken to ensure that Microsoft is no longer able to 
exert such incredible control over OEM's. Microsoft exerts absolute 
authority on what software and/or modifications these computer 
manufacturers can make to the Window's desktop. They also prevent them from 
selling multi-OS machines, meaning machines that can boot into more than 
one operating system.

Remember, Bill Gates is a lawyer's son. Microsoft has reached its position 
not by developing great software, but by outwitting companies with their 
contractual law. Typically these companies fail to grasp the nature of the 
computer software industry. Don't fall into the same trap.

Mike Hill



MTC-00003408

From: Bill and Eve Shay

[[Page 24276]]

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 10:39pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To whom it may concern,

Are you assisting Microsoft in the elimination of Apple (one of the 
strongest platforms in school systems)? Who thought this up? Microsoft 
marketing? It's brilliant. Microsoft gets away with no real penalty and 
eliminates another pocket of competition by overrunning the school systems. 
By the way.

Linux is also strong in the schools. Did the government want to damage 
Microsoft's competitors? Isn't Microsoft supposed to be punished for their 
behavior? How does this help the consumer? The US government needs to 
rethink this strategy before more damage is done.

Please consider your actions carefully or at least consider RedHat's 
counter proposal.

 William Shay

Sr. Software Engineer



MTC-00003409

From: Larry McVoy

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 10:37pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

As a long time computer user I am appalled the direction the justice 
department is taking. I strongly oppose your settlement and I strongly 
oppose the idea that Microsoft ``giving'' software to schools is 
a penalty. That's a mistake, it's just a way to make them make more money. 
Microsoft is about one thing: making money. I've got nothing against that, 
I do that too. I just don't lie, cheat, steal, and crush people and 
companies in order to do so. I don't think that you should let them do that 
and that is the message you are sending.

Think about it. Do you have kids? What would a kid think about all this? 
They have a way of cutting through and getting to the point. A kid would 
see this as ``the guy with the money can do the wrong thing and get 
away with it''. What's that say about our country? You should be 
ashamed of this. What is happening is pathetic. It's an embarrassment to 
this country, to what we stand for, to our heritage. How are you going to 
feel if the EU slams Microsoft and our own government just folded their 
tent and caved in to some rich nerd?

Come on, have some backbone, there are lots of people like myself out here 
who feel this way and we have long memories. Do the right thing. It's what 
this country is about.

Larry McVoy

CEO

BitMover, Inc.

CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00003410

From: rhixon

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 10:43pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

Dear Sirs,

I am appalled at the proposed settlement with Microsoft. Microsoft is the 
worst example of a rapacious monopoly that I've ever seen. Because of 
Microsoft, the rate of development in the PC software industry has been 
stifled. I am completely in favor of the original breakup plan for the 
company; the new proposed settlement will have little or no effect on 
Microsoft's predatory business practices (see Windows XP, and Windows 2000 
Service Pack 2 for example). Because of Microsoft's monopoly, I have had to 
pay for MS operating systems on my last five PC's--of which only one 
still has the MS operating system, and only two of which were ever even 
turned on using the MS operating system.

I am very disappointed in the Justice Department and the current 
administration.

Regards,

Ray Hixon

CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00003411

From: peter

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 10:45pm

Subject: Microsoft settlement

CC: [email protected]

I agree completely with Robert Cringly.. see below

He's Not in It for the Profit

Steve Satchell for Microsoft Anti-Trust Compliance Committee!

By Robert X. Cringely

Two calls came in on the same subject in the same day this week, but from 
very different perspectives. The first call was from a lawyer working for 
the California Attorney General. He was looking for somebody like me to 
testify in the remedy phase of the Microsoft anti-trust case. California, 
as you know, is one of nine states that have chosen not to go along with 
the proposed anti-trust settlement between Microsoft and the U.S. 
Department of Justice. The nine states think Microsoft is getting off too 
easily. The second call came from Steve Satchell, an old friend from my 
Info World days, who had noticed deep in the text of the proposed 
Microsoft/DoJ settlement that as part of the deal, there will be a three-
member committee stationed at Microsoft to make sure the deal is enforced. 
Satch wants one of those jobs.

I think he should get the position. With a background in computer hardware 
and software that dates back to one of the very first nodes on the Arpanet 
30 years ago, Steve Satchell knows the technology. He has worked for 
several big computer companies, and even designed and built his own 
operating systems. And from his hundreds of published computer product 
reviews, he knows the commercial side of the industry. He is glib and 
confident, too, which might come in handy while attempting to keep 
Microsoft honest. Sometimes there is a distinct advantage to being the 
first to apply for a job, so I think Satch should be a shoo-in for one of 
those compliance gigs. And the boy looks mighty fine in a uniform.

The job will be a challenge, that's for sure. The committee has the 
responsibility of settling small disputes and gathering the information 
needed to prosecute big ones. They are supposed to have access to ALL 
Microsoft source code, and their powers are sweeping. If it goes through, I 
only hope the court picks three tough but fair folks like Satch.

Meanwhile, there is still plenty to complain about in the text of the 
proposed settlement, itself. Those who followed the case closely will 
remember that one of Microsoft's chief claims during the trial was that 
times and the nature of business have changed, and that anti-trust 
enforcement ought to be different today than it was when the laws were 
first passed in the early part of the last century. This is a fast-moving 
industry based on intellectual, rather than industrial, capital, goes the 
argument. Sure, Microsoft is on top today (and every day since it got 
bigger than Lotus around 1986) but, hey, that could change in a Redmond 
minute. This argument evidently didn't resonate with the court, though, 
since Microsoft was found guilty. Keep repeating to yourself: 
``Microsoft is guilty.''

Well, Microsoft now appears to be exacting its revenge, leaning this time 
on the same letter of the old law to not only get a better deal, but 
literally to disenfranchise many of the people and organizations who feel 
they have been damaged by Microsoft's actions. If this deal goes through as 
it is written, Microsoft will emerge from the case not just unscathed, but 
stronger than before. Here is what I mean. 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--computer vendors like Compaq, for 
example. The Department of Justice is used to working in this kind of 
economic world, and has done a fair job of crafting 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 single threat on the 
operating system front comes from Linux--a non-commercial 
product--and it faces a growing threat 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 practically rules the Net, along with 
Sendmail, and Perl, both of which also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-
profit organizations have no rights at all under the proposed settlement. 
It is as though they don't even exist.

Section Ill(J)(2) contains some very strong language against not-for-
profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not describe nor 
license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols affecting 
authentication and authorization to companies that don't meet Microsoft's 
criteria as a business: ``...(c) meets reasonable, objective standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of 
its business .... ``

So much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use Microsoft calls. 
The settlement gives Microsoft the right to effectively kill these 
products.

Section Ill(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),

[[Page 24277]]

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.

But wait, there's more! Under this deal, the government is shut out, too. 
NASA, the national laboratories, the military, the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology--even the Department of Justice 
itself--have no rights. It is a good thing Afghanistan is such a low-
tech adversary and that B-52s don't run Windows.

I know, I know. The government buys commercial software and uses 
contractors who make profits. Open Source software is sold for profit by 
outfits like Red Hat. It is easy to argue that I am being a bit shrill 
here. But I know the way Microsoft thinks. They probably saw this one 
coming months ago and have been falling all over themselves hoping to get 
it through. If this language gets through, MICROSOFT WILL FIND A WAY TO 
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT. Is the Department of Justice really that stupid? Yes 
and no. They showed through the case little understanding of how the 
software business really functions. But they are also complying with the 
law which, as Microsoft argued, may not be quite in sync with the market 
realities of today. In the days of Roosevelt and Taft, when these laws were 
first being enforced, the idea that truly free products could become a 
major force in any industry--well, it just would have seemed insane.

This is far from over, though. The nine states are still in the fight and 
you can be, too, by exercising your right under the Tunney Act to comment 
on the proposed settlement. The Tunney Act procedures require the United 
States to:

1. File a proposed Final Judgment and a Competitive Impact Statement (CIS) 
with the court.

2. Publish the proposed Final Judgment and CIS in the Federal Register.

3. Publish notice of the proposed Final Judgment in selected newspapers.

4. Accept comments from the public for a period of 60 days after the 
proposed Final Judgment is published in the Federal Register.

5. Publish the comments received, along with responses to them, in the 
Federal Register.

6. File the comments received and responses to them with the court.

To make your views known (and to put in a good word for Steve Satchell), 
there are several options:

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

Mail: Renata B. Hesse

Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530-0001



MTC-00003412

From: Jerry Cupples

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 10:49pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I object to the proposed settlement being offered Microsoft Corporation 
after the finding they are guilty of monopolistic activities. Microsoft is 
simply being given a slap on the hand, and told ``bad, don't do 
that''. This is absurd. They have crushed most competition, bought the 
others, and acted to co-opt any other new and possibly viable commercial 
enterprises in the software business. They have forced Encyclopedia 
Britannica to give away their intellectual property by offering a software 
based product at a price so low that it makes the printed book obsolete, 
yet charge $500 for a copy of a spreadsheet and word processor which is 
simply a re-hash of the older version with a few more bells and whistles 
they produce for a few dollars.

They have such dominance of the market that they now garner 90% of all 
profits made publishing computer software.

Microsoft acts aggressively to bring new products to market positioned to 
dominate targeted competitors. For instance, a niche company like DeLorme, 
who offers mapping software. Microsoft essentially gives away a map 
program, literally free with coupons or rebates, until the competitor must 
reduce their price to the point of loss.

Microsoft has developed an effective way of actually paying hardware 
manufacturers to ship its products installed on machines, and they have 
prevented any competition from using similar means of distribution, 
punishing equipment manufacturers who do not fall in line. Their legal 
armies have been given all the weapons and money to delay the battle, and 
to open fronts on every court in the land. At last, they lost.

Microsoft is GUILTY.

Microsoft must be punished in a real fashion. They should be broken apart. 
The pieces should be fined heavily and constrained in a true fashion, and 
if they are not, their management will simply pause and continue in the 
same line of operation. Steve Balmer and Bill Gates are completely arrogant 
in defending their corporate actions, and although this college dropout is 
now the richest man on the planet, he contends it is simply good business. 
This was only good business in the same way that Standard Oil was good 
business, or that the railroads and coal industry were good businesses. 
Gates is the J.P. Morgan of his generation, only less benevolent, more 
overtly aggressive in breaking his competitors.

If the US courts fail to take action to dissolve this software beast, a 
historic lapse in the U.S. Government's duty to protect consumers and 
citizens will have been enacted and fortified with legal precedent. 
Microsoft has about $36 billion in cash to pay lawyers, lobbyists, and to 
bribe or influence any commercial interests who can legally accept the 
forms of bribery and coercion they have perfected.

I urge you to do something to protect the interests of the public in this 
matter.

Regards,

Jerry Cupples

Plano, TX USA



MTC-00003413

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 10:55pm

Subject: (no subject)

Dear sirs--

I have been repeatedy shocked by the concessions made to Microsoft in the 
proposed settlement of the current antitrust case. Microsoft's software 
involves little or no real innovation compared to the rest of the industry, 
yet costs 2-3x as much as comparable software products. Although I am 
forced to use the Microsoft operating system and office products because 
they are mandated by my employer (a large multinational oil company with 
100,000 emplyees worldwide), I believe MS Windows to be technically 
inferior to IBM's OS/2, Linux, UC Berkeley's BSD, Apple's OS-X, and Sun 
Microsystem's Solaris OS. Nevertheless, these other companies almost have 
to give away their software for free in order to compete with microsoft's 
monopoly.

The DOJ should show to the court that the need for compatibility, 
interoperability, and interchange of computer and communications software 
is so important that even a 70% market share is a tremendous advantage. 
And, as you know, Microsoft has used this advantage repeatedly to put 
potential competitors out of business and to extend its monopoly into new 
markets.

Do not underestimate the American public. We appreciate that a strong 
monopoly strengthens our dominance of foreign as well as domestic markets. 
Still, we know that we would benefit more in the long run from stronger 
controls on, or dilution of, the Microsoft monopoly than we will lose from 
increased international competition.

Please review the incredible, and obviously illegal, provisions of Windows 
XP for further regulatory actions under antitrust law.

We, the public, appreciate your work on this in the public interest.

Thank you!

--Thomas Dewitz, Ph.D., R.P.E (Texas)



MTC-00003414

From: Toby Burton

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 10:59pm

Subject: Settlement is obsurd!

To whom it may concern,

I cannot believe what I have read regarding the contents of the Microsoft 
Anti-trust settlement. This is a blatant attempt to allow Microsoft into 
the Educational market. I cannot believe that it is even being considered. 
Preferably, the Justice Department should push for a break up. Since that 
probably won't happen, I am in favor of Red Hat's counter proposal (make 
Microsoft pay for hardware and install Red Hat Linux). Better yet, have 
Microsoft pay to put in additional Macintosh software and hardware in the 
nations poorest schools. Remember this penalty is not going to stop the 
Microsoft. Just look at the ``features'' bundled into XP. It 
reads like a target list of software companies to put out of business.

Toby Burton

9012 Wagtail Drive

Austin, Tx 78748

[[Page 24278]]



MTC-00003415

From: Matt Fotter

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 10:56pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I would like to express my extreme displeasure with the settlement 
agreement reached between the Department of Justice and Microsoft 
corporation.

Language in the settlement, specifically Section III(J)(2), effectively 
allow Microsoft to exclude any not-for-profit organizations from the 
remedies allowed commercial organizations. Since large parts of the 
Internet are powered by software and applications created by not-for-profit 
organizations, Microsoft will be able to exclude it's biggest competitors 
(eg The Apache Foundation/www.apache.org produces the most widely used 
webserver on the Internet). This settlement does more to stiffle 
competition and empower Microsoft than it does to curb the behaviors which 
led to them being found guilty.

Matthew Sturgis Fotter, registered and active voter--



MTC-00003416

From: William Stevens

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 11:02pm

Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust Settlement

Dear DOJ,

I've watched the case, with all its turns and events over the past months. 
Microsoft is indeed a huge monopoly with no one's best interest at heart 
beyond their own pocket books. As a technology professional with years of 
experience, some pre-dating microsoft, I can only say the the microsoft 
experience has been unsettling. Microsoft not only destroys small upcoming 
companies with good ideas, it destroys good ideas. Microsoft constantly re-
invents perfectly good wheels, making new wheels with a proprietary 
microsoft flavor. Left unchecked, they would destroy or subvert anything 
good in the software and OS world. Their bungled netowrking protocols and 
complicated OS and application interafaces, together with their over 
abundance of features bloat software and leave numerous security holes and 
exploitation opportunities that suck countless hours from offices around 
the country.

Microsoft needs to be broken up, forced apart into smaller, less monolithic 
sections that can't use their size to brutishly squelch good ideas that 
don't fit into their view of how to do things. Microsoft should especially 
be kept away from the Internet and anything to do with networking 
standards. Do not fall for the argument that microsoft did a great thing 
bringing computers to the people. This ``gift'' was a sales pitch 
of the grandest proportion, and the gift is far more expensive than most 
people realize, until they have invested far more than they planned. 
Counting only the time lost to crashes and blue screens, americans and 
american corporations have lost millions upon millions of hours and 
dollars.

I urge you to seek the harshest of settlements for this case, microsoft is 
no friend of the people, and no friend to the computing industry.

Kindest regards,

William Stevens



MTC-00003417

From: Evan Chaney

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 11:11pm

Subject: Settlement

I'd just like to let you know that I view the proposed Microsoft settlement 
as highly insufficient and anything BUT an actual settlement that disables 
their monopoly over the computer industry. All this proposed settlement 
does is extend their monopoly. As such I am appalled that the United States 
Dept. of Justice has agreed to accept it. Such an action clearly shows that 
either no intelligence was used in coming to that decision or they were 
influenced in some way by Microsoft's desires to end this case citing an 
impact on the economy.

That is not a valid reason.

Evan Chaney

U.S. Citizen



MTC-00003418

From: Lynda Dimmel

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 11:15pm

Subject: microsoft

I think the entire antitrust case, and all of its subsequent ramifications, 
is nothing more than sour grapes on the part of those who cannot keep up. 
As a programmer working as a contractor, I see and use many 
products--products whose manufacturers are behind this case. Quite 
frankly, those products have a lot to worry about. Most are archaic 
languages or bastardized derivatives of legitimate languages. The reason 
why Microsoft products are leaders in both home and business is 
simple--they are better. More functional, easier to use and to learn, 
more powerful and have capabilities that have barely been tapped. Most of 
the third party software that would like to see compatibility resolved are 
really facsimiles of software.

As a point of reference my current project is a nightmare of Microsoft-like 
forms and frames appearing like, but struggling to achieve, the 
functionality of the real thing. Operating on source code filled with 
@ and other symbols that calls itself a `scripting' code 
and claims compatibility with everything from HTML to Excel--well, the 
programming will work, but it isn't pretty. It is cumbersome and, after 
working with a `real' language, is almost funny. It is one of 
IBM's responses to the need for a middle-ware product linking it's 
mainframe database with PC applications. Perhaps the problem is with the 
mainframe and it's producer should be striving to make the mainframe 
compatible vs. forcing a substandard `link'.

If Microsoft holds a monopoly perhaps it is in ambition, talent and 
innovation. Please don't make them into an IBM clone--secretive, 
paranoid and totally devoid of everything that is technology today. See 
this for what it is--retaliation for being one-upped 20 years ago; 
retaliation for lacking the foresight to see anything except for what was 
directly in front of them; and the proliferation of middle-ware software 
houses continuing to produce substandard knock-offs of software that will 
only create a lack of continuity and a deep mire of sludge as all are 
forced to become `compatible', to speak the same language. When 
looking for developer information on a Microsoft product, one can locate 
hundreds of sources--from the Microsoft site to sites that publish 
tutorials and development information to easily obtainable resource 
materials. When looking for developer information on an IBM Partner product 
where does one go????? If there's something out there that doesn't involve 
bringing the IBM support consultant on site--let me know because as 
far as I can see it doesn't exist. There's a wealth of websites all 
spouting a lot of Marketing chatter, but no real information. You even have 
difficulty finding resource manuals on their stuff! Now that's 
monopolizing--forcing their customers to use an 
`authorized' IBM consultant `officially' trained to 
do one thing. Truly the death of inventiveness! Just another cube farm 
dweller in a white shirt and a black tie.

My personal analogy is that this case is like half of a football team 
complaining because one of the team members is working too hard and making 
them look bad. Rather than see the bar get raised, they want it lowered. 
Universal compatibility is not going to be better, it is going to limit the 
capabilities of technology, create confusion and vulnerability, and it is 
going to be more difficult for the average user to make use of their 
applications. Maybe IBM will get what it always wanted in the end, 
computers will be for big business and geeks! I should just say 
``Thanks for nothing!''



MTC-00003419

From: Stephen McKay

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 11:06pm

Subject: MS / DOJ Settlement

The settlement terms relating to the provision of aid for US schools 
clearly provides mere temporary relief. After 5 years, how will these 
school maintain their systems? The longterm financial burden upon these 
schools seems untenable, and the opportunity for Microsoft to further 
extend it's monopoly on desktop operating systems is quite clear. This is 
not a punishment but a marketing excercise Microsoft might well have 
ventured regardless.

The RedHat alternat proposal should be given consideration here. Children 
will benefit more from learning a Unix-style operating system as the GUI 
skills of using X-Windows will translate to any GUI desktop envirnment 
(including MS Windows) and the opportunity for them to learn in depth about 
the Internet and TCPIP in general are greatly enhanced. Further, the Unix 
legacy of the Linux OS provides considerable historical value allowing 
students to better understand the origins of the Internet and the forces 
which drive it.

All in all, the RedHat proposal addresses some serious shortcomings in the 
agreement while providing much better longterm value monetarily and 
educationally to the schools of America.

Regards

Steve McKay, MCSE CNA

Network Administrator / Adult Educator

[[Page 24279]]



MTC-00003420

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 11:15pm

Subject: Microsoft debacle

Greetings,

I am disgusted and embarrassed by the manner in which the Bush 
administration's Justice department has handled the Microsoft case. As both 
the owner of small corporation (mailorder/retail; 29 years in business) and 
as the one-person IT department for same, I am extremely familiar with the 
Microsoft manipulations.

I find it completely mind boggling that Microsoft continues even TODAY to 
do business in such a manner that no other company on the planet would be 
permitted to do.

It seems obvious to me that few or none of the people in a decision making 
capacity (for this case) have a clear grasp of the insides of the technical 
issues and business practices involved. HAVE YOU --READ-- THE 
LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR XP?? HAVE YOU --READ-- THE AGREEMENT FOR 
MSN or HOTMAIL?

Because Microsoft's products are so prevalent they are in a position to do 
extreme damage to the IT infrastructure of this country--and the 
world--if they are allowed to act in such unfair and manipulative 
ways.

You may think that all the Microsoft ``bashers'' are cranks and 
kooks (and some surely are), however, if you personally had purchase, 
administer, and use (at a high level, not just for word processing or 
something), you would quickly come to realize that the situation is getting 
worse day by day.--

Jay Smith

e-mail: [email protected] mailto:[email protected]

website: http://www.JaySmith.com

Jay Smith & Associates

P.O. Box 650

Snow Camp, NC 27349 USA

Phone: Int+US+336-376-9991

Toll-Free Phone in US & Canada:

1-800-447-8267

Fax: Int+US+336-376-6750



MTC-00003421

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 11:19pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am very disappointed with the DOJ's treatment of Microsoft. I am a 
software professional, and frequently use both Microsoft and non-Microsoft 
products. In the trial the DOJ, and particularly David Boies, did an 
exceptional job of demonstrating that Microsoft has acted as a predatory 
monopoly. Unfortunately, the punishment that the DOJ under the new 
administration has negotiated with Microsoft is far milder than the crime 
dictates. Microsoft was, and continues to be, a predatory monopoly, with 
business practices that endanger other companies that seek to compete with 
it. Microsoft has engaged in a public relations campaign that talks about 
their freedom to innovate, but how about the freedom of Netscape or Sun? 
How about the freedom of Linux developers to create Samba, a program that 
allows inexpensive Linux machines to act as file servers for Windows 
computers? How about the freedom of companies that depend upon high quality 
software to have an alternative to Microsofts overpriced and undertested 
software?

Our nation's economic strength over the next 20 years will depend to a 
large extend on our ability to develop computer hardware and software. 
Microsoft has already hurt the ability of many companies to compete on a 
level playing field. These are companies that might have created the next 
revolution, a revolution that may have created taxable income for those 
companies, and employed Americans who would then earn and spend and pay 
taxes. This doesn't just hurt those companies, it hurts America itself.

The only proper punishment for Microsoft is to split the company into OS 
and an applications divisions, but the DOJ has perhaps already announced 
that it will not try and split Microsoft. Please, seriously consider the 
idea of forcing Microsoft to sell and support a version of Microsoft Office 
on Linux, which is probably the last appropriate punishment remaining to 
the DOJ.

Respectfully yours,

Rick Muller



MTC-00003422

From: Morgan Schweers

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 11:22pm

Subject: I support the states newly proposed alternate remedy!

Greetings,

As a software developer, I have encountered first-hand the abuses of power 
from Microsoft. I have seen their products fail to work with competitors. I 
have seen them arbitrarily change specifications in order to break the hard 
work of other companies. I have seen projects rejected, solely on the basis 
that, ``It's in a market segment that Microsoft is interested in, and 
we can't afford to have their attention turn on us.'' I have 
experienced, and suffered through the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that 
they spread about in order to maintain their commercial position.

I would like to express my support, and strong hope that the alternate 
remedy plan provided by California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Utah and West Virginia, along with the District 
of Columbia will be considered as the primary plan.

I feel that it penalizes Microsoft appropriately, and places requirements 
on them that actually have useful and valuable benefits to the consumers.

Competition improves the consumer landscape. I believe, and many of my 
coworkers and fellow developers believe, that the alternate remedy plan 
better provides for competition in the primary field that Microsoft has 
been abusing its monopoly: the desktop operating system.

The entire software development world, and the majority of people who are 
technically aware of how Microsoft has abused its power, were aghast at the 
first proposal which came out of this case. It amounts to absolutely 
nothing more than a slap on the wrist, and in fact most technologists 
believe it gives them MORE access to monopolistic practices in the future.

I strongly, and deeply urge that the recent alternate remedy be adopted as 
the actual remedy plan. It is better for the consumers, and provides 
punishments that fit the monopolistic behavior.

Thank you for your time,

Morgan Schweers

Software Engineer



MTC-00003423

From: Alex

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 11:42pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

To: Renata B. Hesse

Antitrust Division

U.S. Department of Justice

601 D Street NW

Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20530-0001

From: Alexander R. McCreary

2022 N.E. Wasco St.

Portland OR 97232

Madam,

I have read parts of and have heard a great deal about the proposed 
settlement between Microsoft Corporation and the Department of Justice. 
Being an end user of Microsoft operating systems and also of other 
operating systems, including Linux, I must say that I do not believe this 
settlement, in its present form, goes far enough in limiting Microsoft's 
ability to control the future of software and operating system development.

The first point I would like to discuss is Section III(J)(2).

Microsoft should not be allowed to decide to whom it will describe or 
license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols affecting 
authentication and authorization. If this is allowed to happen, you can be 
assured that Microsoft will effectively cut off all access to information 
needed by software developers of companies that it deems to be ``Not 
for Profit'' or ``Open Source Projects''. No one entity 
should be cut off from this information just because they do not meet 
Microsoft's ``criteria as a business''. Allowing this wording to 
remain intact in the final settlement will be more damaging than having no 
settlement at all.

The second point I would like to discuss is Section III(D).

This section is even more disturbing when one looks at the footnotes for 
the legal definition of to whom it will disclose information regarding 
API's.

API's (application programming interface) provide programmers with coding 
information that allows them to create ``middleware'' (software 
that works on top of the operating system) that will work seamlessly with 
Microsoft products.

Only those companies and individuals who are writing software for profit 
(commercial) will be allowed access to the needed API's.

Most ``Open Source'' and ``Not for Profit'' software 
writers need this code for the applications to operate in Microsoft 
operating systems. There is no legal reason that these companies or 
personages be denied access to this information other than to allow

[[Page 24280]]

Microsoft to further control the development of software by whom Microsoft 
wishes.

The Department of Justice would do well to remind themselves that the 
software market is not a typical industry. Many of the programs that allow 
the Internet to operate are in fact ``Open Source'' and in direct 
competition with products from Microsoft. Many ``Third Party'' 
programs that are ``Freeware'' but not ``Open Source'' 
are also in direct competition with products from Microsoft. All products, 
whether ``Open Source'' or ``Freeware'' or 
``Commercial'', should have the same protections from Microsoft. 
All products, whether ``Open Source'' or ``Freeware'' 
or ``Commercial'', should have the same rights to information 
concerning API's from Microsoft.

I would like to close by reminding the Department of Justice that Microsoft 
was found guilty of being a monopoly. In that regard, the actions proposed 
in this settlement are more damaging than if no action was taken to curtail 
the illegal activities in which Microsoft has been found to have committed 
in the past, and which, if this settlement is allowed to stand as written, 
they will continue to commit.

Thank you for your time.

Alexander R. McCreary



MTC-00003424

From: laspencer

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 11:49pm

Subject: microsoft settlement

Microsoft should be split into three companies.

1. An operating system company

2. An application software company.

3. A games oriented software company.

The three companies should be kept separate and should be forbidden to 
exchange information that is unavailable to the public.

Lee Spencer



MTC-00003425

From: Gary L. Withrow

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/7/01 11:58pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

First off, let me say that I wouldn't want your job for anything! I've 
worked for government for most of my adult life and I know a lot of bright 
people who work for government and none of them would want the job of 
trying to defend this settlement as justice.

Microsoft lied in open court when they (Jim Alchin) testified that the 
video he was presenting to the court was proof that uninstalling Internet 
Explorer... (you know the rest or can read it in the court transcripts)

If I did anything like that in federal court I would be facing perjury 
charges as fast as the ink could dry, this settlement doesn't even fine 
Microsoft for court costs. People, there is no way that this settlement 
looks like you did your job. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of 
victory. Review Microsoft's compliance with the original consent decree, 
how do you figure this private commission who can't even talk about their 
deliberations are going to get it done?

I could go on and on without taking an unreasonable position on why this 
settlement is not in the public interest. By now you have hopefully heard 
from enough people, enough reasons why this should not be approved. 
Microsoft deliberately and repeatedly has shown nothing but contempt for 
the judicial system that has convicted them of monopoly and upheld that 
conviction by a unanimous vote on appeal.

Do the right thing here, punish them for what they have been convicted of 
and make it sufficient to deter them from similar conduct in the future.

Thank you,

Gary



MTC-00003426

From: Manh Lee

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 3:00pm

Subject: Anitrust response to MS

Hi,

I am agreed with Redhat proposal, ie MS is to supply hardware only to 
school and let Redhat supply free software to all schools in America

Thanks



MTC-00003427

From: Ray Niccolls

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 12:20am

Subject: Sell outs

How much did they pay you?



MTC-00003428

From: Jay Shuman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 12:21am

Just stop messing with Microsoft and put an end to the state objections to 
the settlement. Microsoft is a hero not a villain. The justice dept. should 
have better things to do with my money than chase phantoms!

JS



MTC-00003429

From: Jeff Davis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 12:21am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

In my opinion, changes need to be made to the anti-trust settlement with 
Microsoft.

The following quotes from the I, Cringely Column of Dec 6, 2001 exhibit and 
state a lot of my concerns. The full article can be read at http://
www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html Here are the relevant 
quotes that peaked my interest and concern.

``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--computer vendors 
like Compaq, for example. The Department of Justice is used to working in 
this kind of economic world, and has done a fair job of crafting 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 single threat 
on the operating system front comes from Linux--a non-commercial 
product--and it faces a growing threat 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 practically rules the Net, along with 
Sendmail, and Perl, both of which also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-
profit organizations have no rights at all under the proposed settlement. 
It is as though they don't even exist. Section III(J)(2) contains some very 
strong language against not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says 
that it need not describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications 
Protocols affecting authentication and authorization to companies that 
don't meet Microsoft's criteria as a business: ``...(c) meets 
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the 
authenticity and viability of its business, ...''

So much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use Microsoft calls. 
The settlement gives Microsoft the right to effectively kill these 
products. Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It deals 
with disclosure of information regarding the APIs for incorporating non-
Microsoft ``middleware.'' In this section, Microsoft discloses to 
Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs), 
Internet Access Providers (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. But wait, there's more! Under this deal, the 
government is shut out, too. NASA, the national laboratories, the military, 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology--even the 
Department of Justice itself--have no rights. It is a good thing 
Afghanistan is such a low-tech adversary and that B-52s don't run 
Windows.

I know, I know. The government buys commercial software and uses 
contractors who make profits. Open Source software is sold for profit by 
outfits like Red Hat. It is easy to argue that I am being a bit shrill 
here. But I know the way Microsoft thinks. They probably saw this one 
coming months ago and have been falling all over themselves hoping to get 
it through. If this language gets through, MICROSOFT WILL FIND A WAY TO 
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT. ''

The settlement with Microsoft must protect fair competition. This must 
include open source and non-profit corporation projects. Please take steps 
necessary to do this. I agree whole-heartedly with this article and hope 
changes can be made in the deal. Please protect these very important 
projects that benefit so many.

thanks

Jeff Davis



MTC-00003430

From: Richard Driver

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 12:26am

Subject: Anti-Trust Settlement

I wish to add my voice to those who have serious reservations with regard 
to the Microsoft (MS) anti-trust settlement. In

[[Page 24281]]

particular the proposal for MS to donate software to educational 
institutions is an extremely badly thought out proposal. Apple Computers 
has had a strong foothold in this market and you would be undermining their 
ability to compete against the might of MS with this move. It will also 
destroy any hopes that the Linux community have of establishing themselves 
in this and other markets. Far better that MS be made to purchase the 
hardware to support other OS platforms. I also applaud the proposals being 
put forward to make MS license MS Office to other companies.

The settlement is a sell-out by the justice department and I am only glad 
that some of the states have not been willing to go along with it.

Sincerely Yours

Richard D. Driver, Ph.D. (Professional Scientist)

19 Peters Street

Cambridge, MA 02139

Tel: 617-492-6332



MTC-00003431

From: BLS

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 12:39am

Subject: Microsoft...?

Has anyone installed A Microsoft product.. ANY of them.. Windows will 
completely take over your system and give you NO options as to what it 
installs or how to configure it. Will change your desktop appearance and 
many many other traps and info gathering shit that you have no idea how 
they use it or who they share it with... I think Windows should be an 
operating system ONLY.. and sell or market it's layered products 
separately, but they should be allowed to market anything they want.. just 
don't package it to where I have no choice as to what gets installed on my 
system...



MTC-00003432

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 12:35am

Subject: I like what the 9 states have proposed...

Sirs:

The nine states that are continuing their suit against Microsoft have come 
up with brilliant solutions to a complex problem. Instead of the slap on 
the wrist that you guys are planning to give them after your political 
party received big chunks of cash from Gates. The nine states also appear 
to have people working for them that know the difference between RAM and 
ROM. Don't you have equally competent people advising you as to what is a 
proper solution or have they been bought off as well?

If your current solution becomes the final solution, then expect hackers 
and geeks to run rampant over the net and through your own servers and 
files since the Rule of Law will have been ignored by the highest officials 
in a ``bought and paid for'' justice department. (and because the 
only choice you will have will be Microsoft products which have huge 
security holes that any high school kid could penetrate) Wake up people!!! 
This isn't some minor computer game squabble. This will mold the future of 
the computer industry in the U.S. for decades to come.

If you blow this, fully expect a call for an investigation of the officials 
in your department who let this happen and what they had to gain by selling 
out their fellow Americans. Also expect that the computer industry will 
find a way to brand each of you individually and publically on the World 
Wide Web for the traitors you will be. End the terrorism in the computer 
field by clamping down on the 5000 lb. gorilla that is holding the world as 
hostages to the vision of only one man. Bill Gates. He is the computer 
world's version of a Bin Lauden and your response is to let him promise to 
behave in the future. Tell that to the thousands of people who lost their 
jobs because Microsoft ran them out of business. Tell that to their 
families who watched brilliant ideas get smacked down by Gates and his 
heavy fisted approach to the ``free enterprise system''.

Stand up and show the world the value we Americans place on a free market 
and a level playing field for all. The American dream of giving EVERYONE a 
chance to succeed is in peril and you must act to restrain monopolists and 
their terrorist values.

Arthur Frame

Canton, Ohio



MTC-00003433

From: Anthony Neville

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 12:46am

Subject: DOJ/Microsoft Settlement.

You cloak your actions against Microsoft under the guise of 
``protecting consumer choice.'' Your corruption is surpassed only 
by the vampiric business interests you represent. You snakes!

Microsoft has every right to sell its operating system to whomever wants 
it. Microsoft has every right to bundle its own applications and utilities 
with its own operating system. They don't belong to you, Apple Corp, 
RedHat, IBM, nor Sun Microsystems. They are Microsoft's products, and we 
consumers will decide how successful Microsoft is in the marketplace, not 
the power-tripping rights violating swine in the Department of (in-
)justice, and not those mooching companies on whose behalf the DOJ is 
punishing a marketplace winner.

Sincerely,

Anthony Neville.



MTC-00003434

From: sh

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 12:46am

I have been in the software programming business for many years and I can 
say that you people are harming and slowing down technology and ideas. Ask 
any of those lawyers what a ``cut-down'' version of Microsoft 
Windows will do for them and ask them why and they will all stutter 
probably. You people are a joke on this issue. Focus on finding thieves and 
people that kill another, instead of operating systems the government and 
lawyers know nothing about.



MTC-00003435

From: Frank Nickerson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 12:52am

Subject: re: Microsoft

Contrary to popular opinion I believe Microsoft has some wonderful 
products. I also think they have some great lawyers working for them. I say 
this because they broke the law and the law doesn't hurt them for doing so. 
Breaking the law is worthwhile for Microsoft because the proposed 
settlement makes their breaking the law worthwhile for them. In my opinion 
that has been the strategy of Microsoft: breaking the law is a cost of 
doing business. However, the law is supposed to be the law. Maybe Microsoft 
shouldn't be broken up but they need to pay for breaking the law. There 
needs to be an incentive not to break the law similar to the death penalty; 
three strikes and you are out. If they do the crime they must pay for the 
crime. It needs to hurt. It needs to punish.

Microsoft is unrepentant for its actions. Unrepentant citizens get more 
jail time. Unrepentant criminals don't get parole. Microsoft should be 
treated no differently than a citizen. They should not be an exception to 
our rule of law. Their corporate license is a privilege given by the 
government and the people of the US. They need to understand they report to 
their shareholders AND they report to the American voting citizens via the 
law. The Justice Department can do better than the current settlement.

Please give the American people our justice. Make Microsoft realize that 
the law is not just another cost of doing business.

Sincerely,

Frank Nickerson



MTC-00003436

From: Mike Hicks

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 1:07am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hello,

In accordance with the Tunney Act, I'd like to make some comments regarding 
the tentative agreement to Microsoft's Federal antitrust case that the U.S. 
Department of Justice, nine States, and Microsoft agreed to in November.

I'm CC'ing the Attorney General of Minnesota as well as some local media 
outlets, so they can all know what kind of comments people are making 
regarding this case. For their convenience, I provide the following URL so 
they can read the agreement for themselves: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/
f9400/9495.htm

I am currently a student attending the University of Minnesota in 
Minneapolis, MN. I'm focusing on Computer Science, for which I've done a 
fair amount of programming in Linux and Solaris, Sun Microsystem's variant 
of Unix. I also work on campus, supporting Linux and Solaris systems at the 
Carlson School of Management.

Most of my comments are based around part III., the ``Prohibited 
Conduct'' portion of the document. In short, I feel that this is a 
poor agreement that is quite favorable to Microsoft. The Department of 
Justice and the nine States should withdraw their consent to the agreement 
or alter the agreement. Failing that, I believe that the Court should 
reject the agreement and find other remedies.

[[Page 24282]]

First off, I was surprised in a number of cases to see what appears to me 
to be gaping loopholes that would seem to make the agreement almost 
entirely ineffectual. I may be misunderstanding the precedence of different 
portions of legal documents, but the statements are unsettling to say the 
least.

On the second page, in part III.A., the settlement states ``Nothing in 
this provision shall prohibit Microsoft from enforcing any provision of any 
license with any OEM...'' I'm unsure what ``this provision'' 
means in that statement, but whatever portion of the settlement it covers, 
it seems to void. It appears that Microsoft could draw up any license 
agreement they want with any Original Equipment Manufacturer, and have it 
go into full effect.

The next paragraph starts off, ``Nothing in this provision shall 
prohibit Microsoft from providing Consideration to any OEM with respect to 
any Microsoft product or service...'' This is coming from a portion of 
the document (III.A.) that starts off, ``Microsoft shall not retaliate 
against any OEM...'' It would seem to be that 
``Consideration'' would be the opposite of retaliation (and, in 
fact, the definition of ``Consideration'' at the end of the 
document seems to reflect this). Microsoft would be, in theory, restricted 
from retaliating against any OEM. However, they could provide Consideration 
to any other OEMs. It seems to be basically the same effect, in my view. 
Again, in III.F.3., similar wording comes up. ``Nothing in this 
section shall prohibit Microsoft from enforcing any provision of any 
agreement with any [Independent Software Vendor] or [Independent Hardware 
Vendor]...'' It appears that Microsoft has voided another chunk of the 
document.

It continues. In III.G., the top of page 5 starts with, ``Nothing in 
this section shall prohibit Microsoft from entering into any...joint 
venture or...services arrangement...'' Forgive me for saying so, but 
this document seems to be turning into Swiss cheese!

I'm just a layman when it comes to legalese, so I may be misinterpreting. 
Still, this is only the beginning of what I have to say.

In III.A.2., Microsoft is restricted from retaliating against 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.'' That seems pretty nice, 
but it leaves out the options of selling computers either with no Operating 
System at all, or with a single non-Microsoft Operating System.

In III.C.2., OEMs are allowed to distribute or promote ``Non-Microsoft 
Middleware by installing and displaying shortcuts...so long as any such 
shortcuts do not impair the functionality of the user interface.'' I 
think it would be appropriate to try to determine what ``impair'' 
means, or set up a structure for determining what that means.

Related to the above, III.C.3. mentions that OEMs could set up certain 
pieces of software to launch automatically, even if similar Microsoft 
products exist. However, this is under the condition that the software 
either has ``no user interface or a user interface of similar size and 
shape to the user interface displayed by the corresponding Microsoft 
Middleware Product.'' How is ``similar'' defined here? 
Wouldn't having a similar interface potentially lead Microsoft to attack 
makers of such software, possibly on the grounds that they had infringed on 
a Microsoft trademark, copyright, or patent?

Another similar portion is in III.H. The section numbering seems screwed up 
here, so I'll call it paragraph four on page 6. Microsoft is allowed to let 
Windows start up a Microsoft Middleware Product when the ``Non-
Microsoft Middleware Product fails to implement a reasonable technical 
requirement''. Microsoft recently used similar logic to prevent a 
number of high-quality web browsers from accessing web pages on their MSN 
network. Microsoft may have had some legitimate reasons for doing so, but 
there were some documented cases where Microsoft restricted browsers that 
fully met Microsoft's technology requirements. Letting Microsoft define 
what this means would be a really bad idea, in my opinion.

There are some portions of the settlement relating to releasing 
documentation for communication protocols and programming interfaces for 
Microsoft Operating Systems and their related products. III.D. requires 
Microsoft to release documentation within 12 months for Windows XP. New 
documentation will appear for each ``new major version'' of the 
Windows Operating System. I would note that the traditional method for 
specifying a new major version is to increment the number to the left when 
the version looks like ``X.Y''. For instace, going from 1.0 to 
2.0 or 3.9 to 4.0 would constitute a new ``major version''. There 
is no need for Microsoft to do this when they release new Operating 
Systems. Microsoft Windows 2000 was also known as Windows NT 5.0. At a 
somewhat low level, Windows XP is also known as Windows NT 5.1. If this 
practice continues, Microsoft could theoretically keep going up to version 
5.999 if they wanted to, and not release any new documentation.

Additionally, I'm concerned about the restrictions Microsoft might place on 
the use of documentation for their programming interfaces and communication 
protocols. It appears that Microsoft may only release information through 
their Microsoft Developer Network (MSDN). What if Microsoft requires people 
to pay to be part of MSDN? This could prevent developers of Open Source 
software from building interoperable products. Additionally, licensing 
terms could be put together that would prevent people from using the 
documentation in a non-commercial product.

III.J.2. indicates to me that Microsoft does not want to release any 
information to non-commercial developers. It states that Microsoft can 
request in a license that the licensee ``has a reasonable business 
need for the API...'' and that the licensee ``agrees to submit, 
at its own expense, any computer program using such APIs...to third-party 
verification, approved by Microsoft...'' Certainly, an open source 
developer would be unhappy to shell out large amounts of money to verify to 
Microsoft that their software works. Additionally, even many businesses may 
balk at this idea. I'd wonder what sort of expense would be imposed upon 
licensees. In the same area of the settlement, III.J.1. and III.J.2. state 
that Microsoft does not have to release documentation for security-related 
portions of programming interfaces and communication protocols. This would 
restrict non-Microsoft software from being fully compatible with Microsoft 
software, potentially causing the software to not function at all. I have 
never seen any documentation for Microsoft's APIs or communition protocols, 
but I have heard from many people that such documentation is often poorly 
written or just outright wrong. If Microsoft intends to continue such poor 
documentation practices, any concessions they make in this settlement will 
likely have only a small effect on people who wish to make software 
products that are compatible with what Microsoft distributes.

I find it strange that one of the last lines of the settlement, in VI.U., 
is this: ``The software code that comprises a Windows Operating System 
Product shall be determined by Microsoft in its sole discretion.'' I 
recall that one of the big questions in this case revolved around what 
portions of software code could be considered to be part of the operating 
system. This seems like a strange statement to make, and I would worry that 
it could cause another protracted court case like this to come up in a few 
years.

I'm done dissecting the settlement, so now for some more general comments. 
It would seem to me that the point of this settlement is to prevent 
Microsoft from repeating past aggression against various vendors in the 
computer industry. One of the mightiest tools that Microsoft has in its 
toolchest is the Dollar. It is widely understood that Microsoft has vast 
reservoirs of cash, and they know how to use it to quickly acquire, in part 
or in full, other companies that have competing or potentially useful 
technology.

In my view, Microsoft does not practice innovation, they practice 
``buynnovation''. So many companies have been assimilated into 
the company that I doubt anyone has an accurate count. I feel it would be a 
good idea to reduce Microsoft's ability to acquire new technology in this 
manner. One possibility would be to impose a monetary penalty on Microsoft. 
I would certainly hope that flushing the company's bank accounts would 
change the way it does business. I'm sure there are other ways to slow 
Microsoft's acquisition of technology.

Microsoft is starting to work its way into many areas that are connected to 
the software Microsoft makes, but are not software ventures themselves. The 
Xbox gaming console is one of many examples. It seems that Microsoft would 
like consumers to live their entire lives in a Microsoft-dominated world, 
using a Microsoft-approved Internet Service Provider and viewing Microsoft-
generated content. This concerns me greatly, and I would love to see 
something that forced Microsoft to be just a software company again.

Almost at the expense of anything else, Microsoft seems to hold its 
intellectual property most closely. It recently came out that Microsoft is 
attempting to stall the European Union investigations into its

[[Page 24283]]

activities by saying that much of the requested information is covered 
under intellectual property rights. Within its new NET strategy, Microsoft 
has patented a lot of stuff. These patents could come back to haunt the 
parties in this case, and there are many references to intellectual 
property in the settlement. If Microsoft desires so greatly to hide behind 
the shield of patents, I feel they must have an ace up their sleeves. I 
feel the Court should nullify some of the rights Microsoft has by voiding 
patents held by the company, at least in certain areas.

I've finally come to the end. I thank the Department of Justice for 
accepting my comments, and hope the parties involved in this case can come 
up with a better agreement that addresses the concerns I have.

Sincerely,

Michael Hicks



MTC-00003437

From: Matthew Hunter

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 2:07am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The proposed settlement of the antitrust case against Microsoft is a dismal 
failure to provide any significant penalty, much less remedy.

First, the present case is predicated in part upon the failure of Microsoft 
to follow a previous consent decree. Pretending their behavior will 
materially improve with a second such decree is at best demonstrating a 
disregard for past events, and at worst collusion.

The presence of a trio of powerless enforcement watchdogs, paid and 
accommodated by Microsoft, living in the Microsoft culture, is akin to 
setting a young fox to guard the henhouse; sooner or later, the fox grows 
up.

Second, allowing Microsoft to settle matters with ``charitable'' 
donations of (some) hardware and (much) software demonstrates a clear 
ignorance of the problems Microsoft presents the industry, as well as a 
failure to understand simple economics.

Microsoft's power is derived from ubiquity; they gain market power with 
each additional user on their software, in a powerful network effect. With 
schools, in addition, they gain the opportunity to influence an 
impressionable young mind into using their software over another product, 
creating a lifelong customer. When tobacco companies use these tactics, 
they are vilified. When Microsoft uses these tactics, it is called charity?

Even setting aside the clear benefits gained from indoctrinating 
schoolchildren, this ``charitable donation'' offers no remedy 
whatsoever to competitors or consumers. They regain no market share, 
acquire no financial restitution, and gain no benefit from the resources 
and goodwill they have expended in helping to bring this issue before the 
court. Indeed, those who have testified against Microsoft are now placed in 
an exposed position, known to Microsoft as an enemy while they 
simultaneously depend on knowledge from Microsoft to develop and sell their 
products on the Microsoft platform.

Finally, any fixed-value donation where the donator sets the value of each 
item donated is inherently worthless--should Microsoft choose to set 
the price of their software at 1 million dollars per unit, for the purposes 
of this donation, there would be no recourse. That is, of course, an 
extreme example, but the cost to Microsoft of providing an additional 
``license'' is negligible. Their donation consists of nothing 
tangible and costs them nothing to offer. It is entirely a sham.

Third, reading the fine print of the agreement as recently published, it is 
notable that interoperability requirements placed upon Microsoft refer 
exclusively to commercial enterprises. This is a significant loophole when 
the ``only'' competitive threat to Microsoft on the desktop 
consists of the Linux operating system and associated open-source software. 
Shall Microsoft be required to provide interoperability information to 
``commercial competitors'' while freezing out Linux (which needs 
to read Microsoft filesystems), StarOffice and other open-source office 
packages (which need access to the Office file formats), Apache (which 
needs to interoperate with Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser), Samba 
(which provides network file-sharing compatibility for UNIX systems), and 
other open-source projects?

It is worth noting here that any commercial product whose only competition 
is free has demonstrated that competition is unprofitable, and hence, 
impossible to sustain.

Fourth, the antitrust case against Microsoft neglected to examine the 
entire issue. This is not a case where a single monopoly exists, but rather 
a network of interconnected monopolies and potential monopolies. I have 
outlined them below:

1) The operating system monopoly. Microsoft has an unchallenged monopoly on 
desktop operating systems for the Intel platform. It is impossible to get a 
single desktop computer from a major vendor of Intel-compatible computers 
with either a) No operating system or b) any non-Microsoft operating 
system. The naive will present the Macintosh or Linux as counterexamples. I 
respectfully request that the Macintosh advocates return when the market 
agrees with them (we can measure this by allowing them to return when they 
need to use their toes to count the Macintosh market share percentage). 
Linux, of course, is a free product and not a commercial venture. As such, 
its presence as the only ``competition'' merely reinforces the 
point that commercial competition with Microsoft's monopoly is impossible.

2) The office software monopoly. Many companies depend on the Microsoft 
office software suite to run their business. This software is bug-ridden, 
plagued by security holes, continually increases in cost, and does not 
reliably interoperate with any other package, including prior versions of 
itself. Despite this, the software has become a widespread standard, and 
enjoys the same powerful network effects as Microsoft's operating system.

In the year 1990, there existed a number of viable Competitors offering 
alternative software packages. By the year 1995, many of these alternatives 
had ceased to exist. By the year 2001, NONE of those alternatives has 
remained profitable, and only one remains in business. Their marketshare 
remains in the single digits, their product has not been substantially 
updated in years, and they were saved from bankruptcy by an investment from 
Microsoft. They exist at the sufferance of Microsoft--a token 
competitor.

Is this what happens to superior products in a free market? No. Microsoft 
can use the ``taxes'' paid by OEMs on their shipping operating 
system to fund development of their office applications, and offer them as 
bundles to OEMs at low prices. Exclusivity agreements prevent the OEMs from 
offering alternatives without paying higher prices overall, and being 
undercut by their own competitors. Those who prefer not to offer the 
Microsoft software at all face higher prices for operating system 
licensing. Users buying a new computer end up paying for a Microsoft 
operating system (whether they want it or not) and a Microsoft office 
application suite (whether they want it or not) because it is cheaper for 
OEMs to play Microsoft's game than try to survive without the ability to 
bundle Microsoft's software at the market rate.

It is notable that no major OEM provided testimony against Microsoft during 
the trial; they know that Microsoft knows who its friends are.

3) The browser monopoly. When the internet threatened to shake Microsoft's 
hold on the market, Microsoft responded by attacking its competition for 
browser market share (Netscape) fiercely. This was the ONLY major issue the 
two antitrust actions have attempted to deal with. Both attempts have 
failed to produce any noticable change in the pattern of Microsoft's 
behavior.

4) The potential media monopoly. Microsoft presents a credible threat of 
leveraging their operating system monopoly to gain a monopoly on software 
for the display of streaming media (internet video and audio). This is a 
clear violation of antitrust law. No court has attempted to address this 
issue.

In conclusion: There is only one remedy which offers any hope of redressing 
the harm done to the free market by Microsoft's abuse of their monopoly. 
Microsoft must be split into the following entities, all of which must be 
forbidden to collaborate with each other:

1) At least 3 companies offering the Windows operating system. These 
companies must be compelled to offer the Windows operating system with full 
source code and without any application bundles (Office, Internet Explorer, 
etc) to all customers at no additional cost. The cost of the operating 
system must be publically posted, special discounts to individual vendors 
forbidden, and any references to other software products forbidden. These 
remedies are nothing more than current antitrust law requires of a 
monopoly.

2) At least 3 DIFFERENT companies offering the Office application suite, 
under the same conditions.

3) At least 3 DIFFERENT browser companies offering Internet Explorer, under 
the same conditions.

The proposed settlement, in its present form and in any conceivable 
revision, addresses none of the problems and provides

[[Page 24284]]

no solutions. It is a gross miscarriage of justice and must not be allowed 
to stand.

Matthew Hunter

([email protected])



MTC-00003438

From: Nathan Z

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 1:31am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The settlement people are proposing, where Microsoft would have to license 
Office to other vendors for multiple platforms and the other remedies 
included in that is the right choice. Please take it into serious 
consideration as it is best for the United States of America and all of the 
people.

I stand behind this remedy to the whole case.



MTC-00003439

From: Dariusz Zelichowski

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 1:33am

Subject: Re: Microsoft settlement proposal.

To Whom It May Concern:

I am appalled to hear the news of the proposed settlement with Microsoft 
for their crimes against fair competitive practices and intellectual 
property violations. In particular the proposed distribution of Microsoft's 
software to educational institutions seems like another catch by Microsoft 
to trick even more entities into using their inferior and insecure product.

I do agree that much help is needed by less fortunate educational 
institutions, but letting Microsoft extend its market will be comparable 
only to ``the first one is for free'' policy of drug dealers. 
There are other and superior alternatives to MS products, Mac and Linux 
products, to name just two of them. In my opinion Microsoft should indeed 
pay the proposed $1 billion dollars in penalties, but the sum should not 
include any barter of their software.

I cannot help but notice that this evil corporation has a strong grip on 
our legislators and, what is so sad, on our government. I am carefully 
watching the proceedings of this case and my future voting decisions, as 
well as those of many of my associates, will largely depend on the 
resolution of People vs. Microsoft.

Please note that by ``people'' I don't mean just the formula but 
real citizens--those citizens who do realize the extent of damage 
induced on the industry by the Redmont monster.

Respectfully,

Darius Zelichowski, Buffalo, NY



MTC-00003440

From: Peter Moresi

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

Date: 12/8/01 2:15am

Subject: DOJ will look foolish

Microsoft is dominating the computer market with windows and will dominate 
the Internet with the .Net strategy if more effective action is not taken. 
Microsoft has always beaten the competition with business tactics that 
would not be acceptable in any market.

If the current plans are taken, the DOJ will turn their opportunity to 
restore competition to the marketplace into a big win for Microsoft.

I work in the computer industry as a software developer and the general 
consensus in this industry is that Microsoft and their powerhouse teams of 
lawyers have turned an anti-trust case into a big Microsoft victory. 
Furthermore, the plans for Microsoft to give away PC's loaded with 
Microsoft Windows to the country's poorest schools should not be allowed to 
take place. This would only deepen the penetration that Microsoft has in 
the educational market. OpenSource alternatives should be considered and I 
believe should be the first choice to helping build a viable alternative to 
windows loaded PC's. With a combination of Linux (redhat.com), Sun 
Microsystems's StarOffice (OpenOffice.org), gnome foundation software 
(gnome.org), the Apache group (apache.org), and many other OpenSource 
alternatives (opensource.org), a platform without any proprietary Microsoft 
code could be an effective alternative for students. This would open a door 
to a powerful Unix-like operating system that has been proven to be very 
stable and robust in the worlds of scientific and data processing 
computing. Any settlement that would require Microsoft to pay damages to 
avoid litigation should strictly prohibit the use of Microsoft Windows as 
the operating system loaded on those PC's.

There is no mention of Microsoft's strategy to control the Internet with 
the .Net initiative. This quote from the Microsoft Developers Network 
(MSDN) is a blatant example of how Microsoft views Standard Organizations. 
``Microsoft believes very strongly in Internet standards and the 
standards process, and is committed to implementing appropriate standards 
when driven by customer demand. However, standards compliance is part of a 
larger effort that includes many constituencies. By innovating, and driving 
customer requirements into Internet Explorer and then into the standards 
groups, we'll make the Internet a richer platform for all users.''

They believe in the standards process, as long as they are making them up. 
If this plan is executed then Microsoft will not only continue to control 
the desktop market, but will push their way into the server market and 
dominate the Internet.

If the DOJ does not take more appropriate action, then the world of 
computing will become a one-man show.

Peter Moresi

Thinque Systems



MTC-00003441

From: JDonner

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 2:02am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hi. I'd like to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement. I object to 
everything in the settlement that says that Microsoft need not disclose its 
API or communications protocols to anything other than a for-profit 
business. ( Sections III(J)2, III(D), footnotes. ) Much of the most 
successful software using MS's protocols is open source; e.g. Samba. Many, 
many people including for-profit companies rely on Samba (a piece of 
compatibility middleware) to let Windows talk with Unix. If the current 
language passes, MS would be able to choke off technical information from 
the Samba group and groups like it, hurting one of the biggest current sets 
of beneficiaries of interoperability with Windows. Open Source software is 
MS's biggest competitor, which is likely why they fought for those 
constraints. The DOJ should not make a bad settlement that would allow MS 
to hide information from Open Source teams, which are some of the biggest 
current successes wrt interoperability with Windows.

Sincerely,

Jeff



MTC-00003442

From: cen40381

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 2:03am

Subject: microsoft anti-trust case

Hello,

As a citizen of this great country, I agree with providing the poorest and 
rural school districts a way of improving the children's lives in 
education. Intellectual property in the private sector and charging a fee 
for using the product, i.e., software is beneficial for the individual, or 
company who developed it. The hardware, i.e., circuitry is a one time 
purchase, but the software costs much more in upgrades and no production 
other than typing command codes for an output, then not allowing anyone to 
improve without charging a fee, in the public sector of education is 
charging the people who instruct America's future, and restricting their 
abilities by charging a fee for intellectual property, is outrageous; an 
outcry from the very people, our future leaders, to be hindered by a sum 
determined not by the public sector, but the commercial sector, appalls the 
very foundation this country is based upon.

I myself, as a voting citizen agree in part with the hardware portion of 
the settlement, but denying other commercial, or public entities, who have 
the same entitlements to provide intellectual property to be included, at 
Microsoft's cost an opportunity to install, and provide the same or greater 
level of improvement to our poorest, deprived children who hold the future 
of us, the retiring public a future also.

The proposal, the open source entity, has a great opportunity to not only 
improve our children's future but also the life long learing of our 
citizens who are consumers of the intellectual properties and pay for the 
right to use, but not improve the software that benefits our lives.

Please include the proposal Red Hat Software has offered in your amended 
judgment in the settlement, because it's a benefit to the same people whose 
lives it improves, our poorest citizens and our future leaders

Sincerely,

Clyde Coffey



MTC-00003443

From: Brian Adam Pike

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 2:07am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 24285]]

To whom it may concern:

I have some concerns about the proposed antitrust settlement with 
Microsoft, which I'd like to voice.

First, as I understand it, Microsoft will give its software to schools 
along with donations of computers. One thing that is important to remember 
about the software industry is that after the first copy of the software 
has been sold, it essentially costs $0 to make the second copy. As a 
result, it will cost Microsoft extremely little to give its software to 
schools (except for the cost of media and possibly technical support).

Another important thing to remember is that since Microsoft does not 
publish their APIs or the file formats for the Office suite, it will be 
very difficult for the schools to move away from Microsoft products; the 
documents they may have created using the donated equipment will not be 
readable with other software products. As a result, the schools will be 
`locked in' to Microsoft software, and will be forced to 
upgrade in the next product cycle. For example, Windows 95 has just become 
officially unsupported by Microsoft, so Microsoft is not making its 
software products compatible with Windows 95. Any licenses for Windows 95 
that schools may have are now worthless.

If the APIs and file formats were published, then various other companies 
or open-source projects could guarantee full compatibility with documents 
created with the Microsoft Office Suite. This would provide an avenue for 
consumers to move away from Microsoft products, hurting Microsoft's 
monopoly. Currently, such competing projects attempt to reverse-engineer 
the APIs and file formats, with very limited success. For example, NTFS 
(the Windows-NT File System) support on Linux is extremely flaky, and has 
been threatened with legal action from Microsoft. If the documentation for 
NTFS was available, Linux would very quickly have full, seamless support 
for NTFS filesystems. With this support in place, it will provide an avenue 
for consumers to move away from the Windows NT product line to other 
operating systems (such as Linux) without destroying all of their important 
data.

It is important that these data be published without any restrictions. The 
current settlement gives Microsoft the ability to decide who is allowed to 
view APIs, Documentation, and Communications Protocols. What would stop 
Microsoft from preventing some groups from accessing this information?

I believe the settlement should include one or more of the following 
requirements:

--Put their API and file format documentation in the public domain, 
without any non-disclosure agreements or other restrictions on usage.

--Fund the development of competing products, such as various open 
source products (OpenOffice, AbiWord, Gnumeric, the KOffice suite, SaMBa).

--Provide a donation of hardware and competing software to schools. If 
children only know how to use Microsoft products, it ensures the future 
success of Microsoft's monopoly. However, if we teach them how to use other 
products, it will hurt Microsoft's monopoly. Red Hat Software has publicly 
supported this option, and offered to provide the software and support for 
free.

--Force Microsoft to stop using its software dominance to encourage 
use of its other products (i.e., using the Windows XP installation to 
advertise Microsoft's MSN network, Microsoft's Passport authentication 
service, etc.). This is like selling milk with flour built-in, as an 
integral part of the milk product, in order to bake bread. It simply makes 
no sense, especially if there is only one brand of milk on the shelves.

Thank you for your time and attention on this topic.

Sincerely,

Brian Pike

Student, NC State University



MTC-00003444

From: Gregory Peterson

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 2:33am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom it May Concern,

Microsoft has proven to be very adept at locating loop holes in the law, 
and strectching the business ethics that govern business in the US. While 
commerce isn't necessarily governed by ethics as much as by law, an 
arguement could be made that there are certain behaviors that deem a reward 
and other behaviors that require condemnation. Microsoft has been a 
powerful, positive influence on the US and global economy. Bill Gates has 
made many personal contributions to charities. But by all indications, 
Microsoft has no intentention, and has never had any intention, of 
competing in an open market.

Now that they have effectively eliminated any commercial entities that may 
have produced a competing operating system, who is left to lead the charge? 
Competition serves not only the financial concerns of the market, but it 
also serves to push technology forward in many different, unpredictable and 
ultimately beneficial ways. Any settlement that leaves Microsoft intact, or 
that allows their input, will only serve Microsofts interests.

Simply reveiwing the Grand jury disposition of Bill Gates will reveal the 
combative and elusive nature his company has inherited from his leadership. 
Make no mistake, Microsoft is no more interest in a fair settlement today 
than they were three years ago. They will subvert the meaning of any 
settlement and challenge the courts to years long battles. Microsoft must 
be stilled now.

Greg Peterson



MTC-00003445

From: Sherman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 2:45am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Hello,

Having been following the recent events concerning the Microsoft 
Settlement, I feel it necessary to point you towards a website that I feel 
has made a valid point.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html

Robert X. Cringely (of PBS.org) has posted an excellent perspective on the 
flaws of the Proposed Final Judgement, and visiting his site would be 
better a course of action than attempting to explain his points to you 
myself.

Thank you,

Jason Krautle

[email protected]

613-820-4027



MTC-00003446

From: Paul Rupe

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 3:03am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Upon reading the proposed settlement in the US vs. Microsoft anti-trust 
case at [http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm], I am 
struck by how little it actually accomplishes. The terms of this lopsided 
``compromise'' truly leave me in doubt of who actually won the 
trial. While some Microsoft proponents will no doubt claim that any desire 
to see a stronger remedy demonstrates an envy toward a successful company, 
I only wish to see a fair marketplace where interoperable products can 
compete on their own merits.

Below are specific weaknesses in the current settlement proposal and some 
suggestions for additional remedies:

Section III.J.1: ``No provision of this Final Judgment shall: 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...''

I see two problems with this: First, Microsoft can manipulate the design of 
their software so every major component is somehow inextricably tied to 
some security measure. They already attempted to finagle their way through 
the trial by claiming that their Internet Explorer web browser was an 
integral part of the Windows operating system and that separating them was 
technically infeasible. I have no doubt that Microsoft will try to do the 
same ``integration'' with DRM or other components protected by 
this clause in order to close off as much information as possible to would-
be competitors. For example, nothing stops Microsoft from adding some 
trivial encryption scheme to Word documents and then claiming that it is an 
anti-piracy measure that must be kept secret. No one can license rights to 
this new ``encryption'' under this clause, and anyone who 
attempts to reverse-engineer and discover it on their own risks prosecution 
under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Second, the restriction is completely unnecessary--and in fact, 
antithetical--to the goal of providing consumers with secure, high-
quality software. Instead, it promotes ``security by obscurity''. 
History has shown again and again that the most secure protocols are those 
that are openly available for analysis and critique by unbiased experts in 
the field. The well-documented Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) system has been 
around for years without a major security flaw, while

[[Page 24286]]

closed, proprietary systems like Microsoft's own access control mechanism 
in Windows Media Player are cracked \1\ with almost laughable ease. 
Frankly, if merely disclosing the algorithm behind a particular security 
measure is enough to compromise it, then it is not very secure to begin 
with. Given the very real costs of data loss and identity theft in today's 
world, we cannot afford to use anything less than the most robust and well-
researched security measures available.

\1\ ``MS digital rights management scheme cracked.'' 
[http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/22354.html]

Section III.J.2: ``(c) meets reasonable, objective standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of 
its business''

This clause conveniently allows Microsoft to exclude all open source 
development from the benefits of Section III, thus shutting out a major 
competitor.\2\ Microsoft has publicly stated that they consider the free 
software movement a ``cancer'',\3\ so we can safely assume that 
the chances of (for example) Linux meeting any such standards they set are 
zero. The goal of this anti-trust remedy is to restore fair competition to 
the marketplace. It is a mockery if Microsoft is allowed to pick and choose 
its competitors.

\2\ ``MS promotes Linux from threat to `the' 
threat--Memo.'' [http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/
22770.html]

\3\ ``Ballmer: `Linux is a cancer.'' [http://
www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/19396.html]

The only fair thing to do is make all communications protocols, file 
formats, and APIs publicly available free of all licenses and restrictions. 
I am very disappointed that Section III.J gets bogged down with terms like 
``intellectual property.'' As a software engineer, I can say that 
there is rarely anything insightful or innovative about file formats or 
communications protocols themselves. Usually they are simply arbitrary 
arrangements of fields in a data structure, the result of convenience to a 
particular implementation rather than clever research or design. Protecting 
them as if they were groundbreaking inventions serves only as an artificial 
barrier to interoperability and certainly does nothing to ``promote 
the progress of science and useful arts'' as the Constitution states.

The idea that one company can gain exclusive rights to something as basic 
as a method of arranging data is absurd. It would be like Ford saying no 
other automaker could put the gas pedal on the right and brake on the left. 
Ford's actual mechanical implementation of gas and brake pedals may very 
well be protected, but the left-right arrangement itself should not be. 
Microsoft's hypocrisy in this regard is particularly astounding. There 
would not even be a World Wide Web for them to dominate were it not for 
open standards like TCP/IP and HTTP; yet they want to keep their own 
communication protocols secret for the sake of ``innovation.'' 
True innovation comes from competition and competition requires 
interoperability.

Since Microsoft has deliberately used proprietary data formats and APIs as 
weapons against the competition, they should have the ability to freely 
create such things taken away from them. Forcing them to publicly disclose 
all such interfaces in advance and without any licensing restrictions would 
not punish Microsoft unduly nor put them at a disadvantage. It would only 
level the playing field again and allow other companies to build fully 
compatible products that can compete on merit alone.

Also missing from this settlement is any remedy for Microsoft's past 
behavior. The current trial has been going on for years, all the while 
Microsoft has brazenly used the same monopolistic tactics to tighten their 
grip on the marketplace. As almost a slap in the face to this trial, the 
recently released Windows XP has more bundled features and more blatant 
promotion of Microsoft-affiliated services than ever before. Any remedy 
that does not address that is an insult to the anti-trust laws and to the 
American people. As a start, I humbly suggest a large monetary donation to 
the Free Software Foundation.\4\

\4\ ``Free Software Foundation.'' [http://www.fsf.org/
]

Since Microsoft is a repeat offender, the punishment here should have a 
strong deterrent value. Logically, if the cost to Microsoft of yet another 
anti-trust trial five years from now is less than the benefit of continuing 
their anti-competitive practices, then they have absolutely no reason to 
change. If this happens, then the Department of Justice has wasted its time 
and staggering amounts of taxpayer money for nothing.

I am pleased that Section III.A finally acknowledges once and for all that 
the exclusionary contracts between Microsoft and OEMs are unlawful due to 
Microsoft's monopoly status. But by similar reasoning, should the End-User 
License Agreements (EULAs) between Microsoft and consumers also be 
examined? In particular, consider the ``as-is'' clause that 
absolves Microsoft of any liability for the damage resulting from defects 
in their software. Among other things, this prevents consumers from seeking 
compensation for the billions of dollars in damage done by malicious 
software such as Code Red, Nimda, and countless e-mail viruses that can 
exist only because of gaping security holes \5\ in Microsoft's 
software. Ruling Microsoft a monopoly means that consumers were forced to 
accept this ``as-is'' clause under duress, so like the OEM 
contracts, perhaps it should be voided as well.

\5\ ``Nimda Worm Shows You Can't Always Patch Fast 
Enough.'' [http://www3.gartner.com/
DisplayDocument?doc--cd=101034]

Another remedy is inspired by the actions against tobacco companies. When 
they were deemed harmful to consumers, all tobacco products were required 
to carry a strongly-worded health warning. Similarly, since Microsoft has 
been found guilty of hindering free market competition at the expense of 
consumers, require all of their products to bear a short, factual statement 
to that effect. Provide consumers with all the facts without any positive 
``spin'' by Microsoft so they can make an informed decision. If 
this sounds harsh, consider that individuals convicted of serious crimes 
lose some of their rights and gain a permanent mark on their record. 
Microsoft should be no different.

The settlement currently proposed would change very little. It leaves 
Microsoft with too many loopholes to effectively continue doing business as 
usual and fails to address the damage already done and continuing to be 
done even now. I would rather see the trial continue for another year or 
two and produce an effective remedy than accept a watered-down, short-term 
compromise that will lead only to another round of violations and court 
trials in a few years. I hope the Department will truly consider these 
points and take the time to devise a more substantial remedy, one that 
seeks less to accomodate a guilty party and more to reestablish meaningful 
competition in the PC software industry.

Paul Rupe

[email protected]



MTC-00003447

From: Exile In Paradise

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 3:08am

Subject: So monopolies are legal.

It is my inexpert opinion that Microsoft is clearly a monopoly. I believe 
Microsoft should not be allowed to continue their bullying dominance over 
computing, not just in the United States, but worldwide.

Microsoft's product line continues to expand into markets not related to 
their ``core'' business.

Xbox game consoles?

Microsoft Network?

Microsoft is a monopoly as far as the average IT person is concerned, 
regardless of what their massive legal team would have the media tell 
everyone to believe.

No matter where you go or what business you are in, as an IT person you are 
forced to endure their shoddy products. Everyone ``demands'' 
them, regardless of how much damage they do to the files or information 
they process.

The only way such massive influence could exist is through the undeniable 
fact that Microsoft, by hook or by crook, has become a computing monopoly.

No one company should have such complete control over such a fundamental 
cornerstone of modern business or society.

If the DoJ does not slow down the M$ Juggernaut, and institute some real 
controls over what M$ is or is not allowed to offer as products, then the 
effort has come to nothing.

Please, do not go easy on M$.

Their influence is too pervasive in every aspect of computing to be allowed 
to continue unchecked.

Take appropriate action now.

What saddens me is that most of the DoJ documentation and email is probably 
prepared on and handled by M$ products, which makes me think the whole 
effort of writing was a waste in itself.

``What do you need Windows for? If you want a workstation, call Sun. 
If you want a PlayStation, call Sony.''--Exile In Paradise



MTC-00003448

From: Bob Niederman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 3:14am

[[Page 24287]]

Subject: Microsoft settlement

(This is similar to an email I previous sent, but with 2 new points (see 10 
and 11) and some more enhancements on previous points.)

I believe that any settlement that would have a chance of restoring 
competition to the computer industry would require at least the following:

1) All terms must be enforced by a non-Microsoft party with full access to 
all Microsoft resources, including source code, email, memos, letters, 
working papers, etc. There is no such thing as a confidential document for 
Microsoft anymore. Microsoft cannot be trusted to voluntarily comply with 
any agreement.

2) All communication protocols used by all Microsoft products must be fully 
documented. Such documents must be made available to any and all parties 
for any reason, free of any charges or limitations in use. Microsoft is not 
allowed to change their protocols until 90 days after documentation of such 
changes are made available to any parties requesting them, free of charge 
or limitations in use.

3) The previous term must also apply to all Microsoft APIs (Application 
Programming Interfaces).

4) Microsoft may not keep agreements secret. In particular, the terms of 
the current OEM agreements, currently protected as ``trade 
secrets'' must be disclosed.

5) Microsoft may not use agreements with Computer OEMs to restrict in any 
way the addition of other software to the computers. In particular, OEMs 
are not to be prohibited from selling ``dual-boot'' systems, 
where the system can be booted into Windows or into some other operating 
system, such as Linux or a form of BSD or BeOS.

6) Microsoft may not use their licensing terms to stop users or developers 
from using Open Source software or Free Software.

7) Microsoft may not meddle in the the legislative processes of Federal, 
State or local governments or bodies that make recommendations to them, 
with their work on UCITA being a prime model of behaviour that is 
prohibited to them as a monopoly.

8) Microsoft services (such as MSN or hotmail) may not require the use of 
microsoft softwware by users wishing to use the service. (Which Microsoft 
did on MSN, restricting non-MS browsers.)

9) Microsoft services, such as MSN, must not be forced upon users through 
exclusive contracts with ISPs or LECs (such as currently with Qwest).

10) Microsoft products sold on OEM systems must be priced separately. The 
same systems must be available to the consumer without the Microsoft 
products and the price must be discounted by the cost of the microsoft 
product. ``Per CPU'' licensing is prohibited. The OEMs are 
charged proportionally to the copies of Microsoft products they sell. 
Microsoft cannot charge based on sales of OEM machines that do not have the 
Microsoft products included.

11) Microsoft is not allowed to use the price of software in calculating 
the value of any settlement, payment, or in publicity regarding same. (as 
in the ridiculously inflated value of their proposed aid to schools in 
exchange for gwetting private suits dismissed).



MTC-00003450

From: Scott Menor

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 3:57am

Subject: Re: U.S. v. Microsoft: Settlement Information

To Renata B. Hesse (or whom it may concern):

I strongly agree with Steve Jobs' statements against the earlier proposed 
Microsoft settlement. In particular, requiring Microsoft to donate their 
products to schools isn't punitive as the cost to Microsoft would be 
negligible. Worse, such a donation would increase the prevalence of 
Microsoft products in schools and so make it more likely that exposed 
students would continue using Microsoft products at home and later, so 
strengthening Microsoft's monopoly.

Unfortunately, the revised settlement isn't a significant improvement. 
While it is true that I have not had a chance to thoroughly examine the 
newly proposed settlement, on first reading, it seems to lack any 
significant fines or penalties (particularly when considering the economic 
size of Microsoft but even for a much smaller corporation). Minimally, I 
think the settlement should include a substantial fine (on the order of 
several billion dollars per year) over the course of 5 years (or longer).

Further, significant safeguards should be implemented to prevent Microsoft 
from using their OS monopoly power to take over other markets and force 
competitors' products off of the market. In particular, care should be 
taken toward .Net and Passport.

Sincerely,

Scott Menor

Junior Researcher--System / Network Administrator

Autonomous Systems Laboratory

University of Hawai'i at Manoa



MTC-00003451

From: Michael K. Harrison

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 3:58am

Subject: Harsher penalties are needed!

To whom it may concern,

I just wanted to express my concern that the proposed settlement does not 
do enough to eliminate the monopolistic practices of Microsoft or promote 
more competition. Knowing that your time is valuable I will try to keep 
this short and brief. I recently started to experiment with Linux in an 
effort to make sure I was not held hostage to paying yearly subscription 
fees to use my computer. I fear that Microsoft in the near future will 
resort to annual licenses even to the operating system so that it can 
maintain consistent revenue. Well in my experiment I tried to access one of 
my favorite sites www.cnbc.com. I love and use the personalized stock 
ticker on that site nearly everyday. It was only then that I realized that 
I was unable to run that feature using Netscape. I would have to use 
Internet Explorer. I then realized that I can't get Internet Explorer for 
any other operating system besides Windows. Finally I noticed that CNBC and 
ESPN (another one of my favorite sites) had recently become affiliated with 
MSN.

It is because of this experience that I don't feel the proposed settlement 
is adequate. Even if you force them to allow vendors to place other 
competing products like Netscape on the Windows OS, I would probably still 
need to use Internet Explorer to get the full benefits of the websites 
affiliated with MSN. If I need to use Internet Explorer to get the full 
benefit of my favorite site, why would I install a competing browser? To 
view sites that aren't affiliated with MSN? I may be wrong but it seems to 
me the possibility of Microsoft influencing the content of websites to 
dictate which browser and operating system I use exists. I contend that it 
is an abuse of monopolistic power and is currently in practice. Your 
proposal does nothing to eliminate this practice.

I suggest that in addition to your proposed settlement, Microsoft has to 
open up the web sites it controls, owns or influences to most competing 
products. Only then will competitors become viable options. Internet 
Explorer will then truly be competing on it's merits versus being the only 
option available. Unless this step it taken, I'm afraid Microsoft's 
monopoly will only grow larger and stronger while competition and 
innovation become non-existent.

Sincerely,

Michael Harrison



MTC-00003452

From: Anthony Boyd

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 4:02am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The new settlement proposal from the 9 states is much better than the DOJ 
offering. If third-party-companies can license the Office codebase and 
release Office for alternative platforms, that helps to remedy one of the 
chief reasons for bringing the suit in the first place: Microsoft is 
locking people into a single platform. I would like to encourage the courts 
to favor the new settlement offer.

I do not feel that any settlement should force Microsoft to give away its 
software to schools as an act of atonement. This of course would simply 
kill off what little educational market Apple has left. It would serve to 
cripple a Microsoft competitor, not help.

Anthony Boyd

627 West Homestead Road

Sunnyvale, CA 94087



MTC-00003453

From: Dan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 4:05am

Subject: Microsoft Case

Hi. I'm Daniel Kasak, a 25yo Australian. I work for NUS 
Consulting--http://www.nusconsulting.com--as a programmer & 
database administrator. I have been following the Microsoft case closely, 
and am very alarmed with the following points (I'll be concise):

a) Microsoft are not receiving any real penalties for profit /already made/ 
at the expense of other companies they have ruined. As Microsoft has 
already been found guilty, there should be a reasonable attempt

[[Page 24288]]

made to judge the damage done in dollar terms to other businesses, and 
Microsoft should be forced to reimburse these companies. I realise this 
would be difficult and inaccurate, but at least a token effort must be 
made.

b) The terms of the current settlement exclude Open Source software from 
the terms of the deal--eg Open Source projects cannot get access 
information required to make their products work with Windows. Such Open 
Source projects include:

* Linux--Operating system described by Microsoft officials as being 
Microsoft's ``biggest threat''. http://www.linux.org

* Apache--Web serving software with more than 50% of the overall 
market. Microsoft IIS's biggest rival. http://www.apache.org

* Sendmail--Email serving software with the most markets share. 
Microsoft Exchange's biggest rival. http://www.sendmail.org

* Samba--File & print sharing software allowing non-Microsoft 
operating systems to integrate into a Windows-based network. http://
www.samba.org

* StarOffice--Sun's open-source desktop productivity suite. Microsoft 
Office's biggest rival. http://www.sun.com/staroffice & http://
www.openoffice.org

* Netscape / Mozilla--Web browser & Email suite. Microsoft 
Internet Explorer's biggest rival. I believe this is also one of the main 
reasons why they are in court now. http://www.netscape.com & http://
www.mozilla.org

The list above is by no means exhaustive, but paints an interesting picture 
of Microsoft's business threats, and gives insights into why Microsoft has 
chosen to exclude ``non-business'' entities from the disclosure 
terms of the settlement. This is a MAJOR flaw in the settlement, and MUST 
be remedied.

In my opinion the original decision to split Microsoft into 2 companies 
would have addressed at least part b) of my complaint. I am saddened that 
this path was not taken. I urge you to reconsider letting Microsoft off so 
lightly. If they are not stopped soon, they will become so powerful and 
entrenched into our high-tech society that no court of law, governement, or 
any other organisation will be able to affect them. Or has this already 
happened? I will wait for your verdict before I pass final judgement.

Thankyou for your time.

Daniel Kasak



MTC-00003454

From: [email protected]@inetgw

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 4:23am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Having Microsoft donate software to schools is hardly a punishment, in fact 
it is quite the opposite. By having their software in schools, for free, 
they're making sure that children learn to specifically use their software 
every where. If Microsoft software is all that people know how to use then 
doesn't that ensure them even more market share? Of course it does. It's a 
mockery of justice and an insult to the populace for our officials to try 
and pull a ``fast one'' on us like that.

Kenneth Krutsinger



MTC-00003455

From: Paul Powenski

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 4:40am

Subject: Microsoft

ANY way you cut it Microsoft used their funds to leverage time, time enough 
to ruin companies competing with them and time to reduce the choices 
available to consumers.

Is that the environment we want in America?

They claim they need to right to innovate. But, only if Microsoft does all 
the innovating.

Why don't you ask Intel how they were constantly intimidated by Microsoft 
about imaging and graphics initiatives.

IT IS DOCUMENTED in InfoWorld, PC Week and others. What about companies 
like Lattice, Sybase, and Stac who attempted partnerships which was 
constructed to restrict their innovation to Microsoft's terms.

What viable and equal choices do we have today--NONE.

NOW Windows XP is more stable than Windows 2000? Why don't you get a copy 
of the launch of windows 2000 and see those claims. I guess Microsoft feels 
we are a bunch of idiots and have complete contempt for the general public. 
What about their performance in front of the panel during their anit-trust 
trial. Does that not say enough?

All they do is shift the problems from one area to another under the belief 
that all is OK.

Just gloss up and pretty up the desktop and everyone will ignore the 
problems ?

Their software is certainly not worth what they ask for it.

Office Packages--when there was competition an office package was 
@250.00. As soon as the main players went belly up now the price is 
mid $400.00 and up. For what. Why can't I CHOOSE how many features I want 
and pay appropriately. Since Microsoft claims to be the software giant of 
the world is this too tuff for them to handle. Or their arrogance just 
allows them to just charge us what ever they want whenever they want.

Something significant should be done FOR Microsoft STIFLING INNOVATION.

The whole thing stinks stinks for all of US.



MTC-00003456

From: John G Casey

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 5:20am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom this May Concern:

I wish to voice my option on the Microsoft settlement as a University 
student, a user of Microsoft products, and as a citizen of our great 
nation. I am strongly opposed to the penalties on Microsoft, there 
penalties are weak and need to be changed. I agree with the 9 states who 
are now, seeking there own settlement, but now unfortunately my home state 
New York has settled.

Microsoft is a monopoly, the operation system market, which yes, is not as 
important as it is now...is still the heart of the soul of the computer. 
Microsoft is restricting knowledge and innovation, we are now still working 
on the same system which for me is the same as Windows 95, now XP comes and 
has more bells and whistles, yet no innovation.

Open Source, Linux...innovation is key.

I use both OS and I love Linux, personally, but that is not the issue. The 
issue of Microsoft giving away computers to schools, only degrades the 
presence of Apple in education. Further strengthening an already powerful 
company.

Where is the protection for not-for-profit companies?

How many times have I gone onto a web site and saw ``.../cgi-
bin/...'', cgi-bin= perl scripting, simple as that. what is perl, well 
it was created by not-for-profit companies.

Does a writer compose a book, only to let a person put it on there shelf 
and make them self's look smart by it?

Does a engineer design a skyscraper, with out an independent body of their 
PEERS to review there work?

Does a company create a product, which requires other products (which is 
only available by the company), to do ANYTHING useful, then forces other 
companies out of business...just because they have a good idea? The 
computer net we know today, the net of yesterday (ARPANET) and the net of 
tomorrow has been build on innovation by people of great skill in 
universities trying in their own way to change the world. The men and woman 
who created everything we take for grated today are long forgotten is 
history and a wealthy businessman who took innovation off the backs of 
others, now intends to stop the innovation which made is vision a reality.

I ask you again, as an American,

Please reconsider your penalty,

John Gerald Casey



MTC-00003457

From: Viveka

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 8:26pm

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Public comment follows:

Any remedy which includes Microsoft giving software away, or committing to 
write more software for other platforms (such as MacOS or Linux), will 
merely extend the MS monopoly, and so will be counterproductive. MS 
currently holds *two* linked and self-reinforcing monopolies--over the 
OS, and over Office software.

Extending the MS Office monopoly will not help anyone.

As a consumer, I use Office only because I HAVE to. People constantly send 
me files in MS Office formats, and I need to be able to view and modify 
them in order to do business. I detest the MS Office interface design, and 
abhor the lack of stability and security in this software. Despite this, I 
have paid MS repeatedly over the years for their horrible software,

I would vastly prefer to be able to view and modify Office documents using 
other software of my choice, such as AppleWorks. However, I cannot, as 
Microsoft deliberately hide and obfuscate their file formats. This 
situation does not occur in other areas where MS does not hold a monopoly. 
I use the software of my choice to view and modify image files, web pages, 
maps with detailed geographic metadata--because other software vendors 
hold to the agreed IEEE standards.

The best way to provide competition, thereby benefiting consumers, is to 
take away

[[Page 24289]]

Microsoft's means of preventing *other* companies from making software that 
is compatible with Microsoft's.

To do this, simply require Microsoft to document its file formats, in a 
timely and public manner. Straightforward mechanisms for doing this exist, 
under the auspices of international standards bodies such as the ISO and 
IEEE.

Other remedies based on the same principle (of reducing Microsoft's ability 
to raise barriers to entry) also make sense--such as completely 
removing their control over the desktop (currently held through restrictive 
license agreements).

The focus of any remedies should be to promote competition in the Office 
and OS markets, empowering consumers to make real choices, and forcing MS 
to compete on the quality of their software.

Regards,

Viveka Weiley,

embittered consumer who never wants to have to buy inferior MS software 
again.



MTC-00003458

From: Eric Smith

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 5:56am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Please allow the states to come up with their own methods of dealing with 
Microsoft's abuse of their monopoly. I would like to see a punishment that 
actually discourages their behavior, while allowing third party software 
and hardware companies a chance. The government's recommendation just 
exasperates the problem, it certainly doesn't do anything to solve it.

Sincerely,

Eric Smith



MTC-00003459

From: os2express(a)icon.co.za

To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov

Date: 12/8/01 6:42am

Subject: Bowing down to Microsoft?? Why!

Dear DOJ representative.

It is clear that inflicting Microsoft operating systems on unsuspecting 
poor school kids will not make the monopolistic practices of Microsoft any 
weaker. If you really want to weaken or punish them and to cut down on 
their future abuses of power, either split the company or make them give 
away millions of dollars of hardware preloaded with Linux and the fantastic 
Star Office, NOT with yet more force fed preloaded Microsoft products which 
just tie in their monopoly further.

Let me know what you think of my proposal.

Thanks

Murray Zipp

Steve: [email protected]

Heather: [email protected]

http://www.os2.co.za/software

OS/2 Express--

By appointment only:

21 Burma Close, Julius Wernher Street

Bruma, Johannesburg, 2198

SOUTH AFRICA

tel +27-11-616-6485 or call Heather on cell: 
082-493-1967

fax +27-11-616-5107



MTC-00003460

From: Kelly

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 6:45am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

The proposed settlement, in a nutshell, stinks.

What about protections for the `not-for-profit' organizations? Such 
as any Linux distribution. Moreover

Apache web server software. In other words, software organizations which do 
not meet Microsofts definition of a ``business,'' (see Section 
III (D) and Section III (J)(2)) of the proposed settlement. They are left 
utterly out in the cold. As you well know Linux, as stated by Microsoft 
personnel is Microsoft's biggest ``threat.''

Recommendation: Microsoft be vertically split into three separate 
commercial companies. Then, the newly created companies would have to 
compete against each other. Naturally those newly formed companies would be 
unable to buy each other out or collaborate with each other, etc.

Kid Kelly

``The consequence of apathy is ... tyranny.''
