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 �ACI-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 collective�7E
lThonneur
Internet met la m�7Emoire universelle l'honneur!
La socidt6 Viscolicap sort Myposterity.com, premier site
entirement d�7Edi�7E �7Ela conservation de Ia m�7Emoire des
internautes. En effet, le site Myposterity.com permet�7Eses
visiteurs de crier tr�7Es 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
d�7Ecennies afin que les proches de 1'abonn�7Eou
m�7Eme tous les intemautes puissent les consulter. Autre garantie
de conservation, l'abonn�7E re�7Eoit un CD-Rom
contenant 1 /'ensemble de ses travaux. Un exemplaire de ce m�7Eme
CD-Rom est 6galement envoy�7Ela Bibliothque Nationale de France
afin d'y �7Etre conservd �7Ejamais en tant que
document du patrimoine national.
En rdunissant les espaces personnels de
milliersd'internautes, le site Myposterity.com compte
devenir en quelques ann�7Ees une vdritable encyclop�7Edie en
ligne permettant�7Ela fois la consultation et la conservation
d'une m�7Emoire universelle pour le plus grand
plaisir de tons les internautes.
Capucine Badin
Responsable du d�7Eveloppement
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.com�7EE-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/�7Ewit
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/�7Ejer29950
[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 fianc� 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:
� 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. � 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.
� 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.'
� 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/
�7Eben
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 3suggesting� 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 security� giving the company the
ability to shield massive amounts of code from developers in order
to favor Microsoft products.
4. It allows Microsoft 3sole discretion� 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 3icons� 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/�7Eben
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
3bullies� 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: 11/21/0111:53am
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: 11/21/0112:13pm
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: 11/21/0112:03pm
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: 11/21/0112:02pm
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/�7Elundgren
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/
�7Emjwise/ 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 patch�. 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/�7Erxg/
[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 St�phane
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."
St�phane 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/�7Eblj/ 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/�7Eblj/ 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:
� 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.
� 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.
� 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.
� 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
75� ...), 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:�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: � 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: � 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:
� 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: �
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: � 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: � 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: � 135] and it spent an additional $30
million per year marketing it [2: � 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: � 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: �
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: �
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: � 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: � 55]
"Without significant exception, all OEMs pre-install
Windows on the vast majority of the PCs that they sell," [2:
� 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: � 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: � 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: �
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: � 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: � 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: � 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: � 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: � 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: � � 214-215] Microsoft engaged in similar
tactics with Internet Access Providers to prevent Netscape from
success in that channel [2: � � 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: � 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: � 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: � 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: � 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:
� 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: � 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: � 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: � 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: � 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:
� 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: � 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: �
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: � 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: � 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: � 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: � 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: � 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: � 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: �� 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: � 52,
� � 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: � � 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: � 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:
�Reorganize 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.
�Shorten 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.
�Force 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.
�Force 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.
�Force 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.
�Prevent 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:
�"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.
�The 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.
�The 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.
�The 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.
�The 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.
�Lastly (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
4'10�MDSU�"�MDNM�, 5'0�MDSU�"�MDNM�, 5'6�MDSU�"�MDNM�, and
6'0�MDSU�"�MDNM� 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 � �
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:
�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/
�7Efessler/
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 gift�; 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.''